South Central Alabama Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy

August 2012 Updated August 2013

CGI Group, Inc. in Troy Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama in Montgomery

Acknowledgements:

Funding for the CEDS is provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration and matching funds by the South Central Alabama Development Commission and its member governments.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

1. Introduction ...... 1 Jurisdiction and Purpose Compliance with CEDS Requirements Organization, Guidance and Public Involvement

2. Resources Analysis and Trends...... 9 Economic Background Population and Demographics Workforce Development (updated August 2013) Geography, Resources and Environment Infrastructure and Transportation The Region's Growth Centers

3. Economic Analysis and Goals...... 61 Investments in the Region Potential Markets Economic Issues CEDS Vision and Goals

4. Action Plan and Strategies ...... 73 Objectives and Strategies CEDS Projects and Programs Vital Regional Projects Priority Capital Projects

5. Appendices...... 99 A. Adoption Resolution B. Data Tables

Executive Summary

The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is the result of an ongoing economic development planning process. The CEDS is reviewed and updated, on an annual basis, and a major update or revision is prepared every five years. The CEDS is prepared, with the input of a CEDS Strategy Committee, representing public and private interests, in the seven county region and is adopted by the SCADC Board of Directors. Ongoing and increasing working relationships with cities and counties, other local and regional economic development organizations, chambers of commerce and federal and state agencies and citizens are critical to the continuing updating and implementation of the CEDS. It is especially important for the CEDS to be consistent with and coordinated with statewide plans and policies for economic development. To that end, the CEDS is being considered a central part of the regions Rural Action Commission, coordinated with Central Alabama Regional Planning Commission, Lee‐Russell Council of Governments and the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA). The CEDS report provides a background on the region’s assets and opportunities for economic development. Opportunities include economic growth, low unemployment, rising income and growth in the manufacturing industries, especially the region‐wide growth of automotive suppliers and the transportation/distribution associated with these industries. Proximity to state government and various military operations and higher education are also strengths, along with a favorable location, in the center of the state and near the coastal region. Key issues remain the need for increased workforce development Key Issues and education to meet higher demands of new industry, the need for improved transportation, including rural and public transportation, as well as other infrastructure improvements. Increased housing and retail support services are issues, as well, to accommodate the expected job growth. Growth management has also emerged as an issue, with increasing development expected in rural and growing communities in the region. Taking advantage of the City of Montgomery and other growth centers are recognized as important factors in the region’s economic development. There are pockets of poverty in the region, reflecting special needs in urban neighborhoods and rural communities. Other key issues that have emerged include opportunities and the importance of retail services, income and support of the tax base and the growing emphasis on transportation improvements to support the major increase in distribution as an important economic sector. The CEDS strategy is based on six broad goals, including: (1) Increased economic development and opportunity, (2) Improved transportation access and infrastructure, (3) Increased workforce development, (4) Planning for a balance of development, conservation and protection of the environment, (5) Improving quality of life, and (6) Organization, funding and leadership for economic development. An Action Plan is included in the CEDS, including, more specific objectives and strategies to achieve the broad goals. The Action Plan also includes methods for cooperation; obtaining, utilizing funding and resources; and provisions for consistency and cooperation with state policies and plans, specifically, plans for the region’s Rural Action Commission. Projects are included as part of the CEDS, including city and county sponsored projects, in all seven of the region’s counties. Vital Regional Projects and priorities are identified in the report, which are expected to reflect initiatives that have the greatest impact on the region’s economic development. Finally, the CEDS Action Plan includes provisions for evaluation and implementation, including, ever‐improving performance measures, considering, jobs, public and private investments and changes in the economic development environment. The South Central Alabama CEDS has been an effective strategy and process, as reflected in improving economic development indicators and in promoting projects that are, either completed or underway. Much remains to be accomplished, however, progress, associated with the CEDS process is significant.

1. Introduction

Following on Executive Orders from the governor, Alabama Legislative Act Number 1126 was adopted on September 13, 1969, authorizing the legal organization of groups of Alabama counties into regional planning and development districts. The South Central Alabama Development Commission (SCADC) is now one of twelve regional planning and development commissions in Alabama. The South Central Alabama Development Commission was incorporated as a non‐profit organization in June 1969, and was originally called the Central Alabama Economic Development District. The agency was also designated as an Economic Development District (EDD) by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA) in November 1970. The EDD office is located in Montgomery. In April 1971, the Governor designated the Central Alabama Economic Development District as the Regional Planning and Development Commission for State Planning and Development Region No. 5. In May 1971, it was also designated the Area Wide Clearinghouse for the same geographic region. At that time the name was changed to the South Central Alabama Development Commission.

Jurisdiction and Purpose The South Central Alabama Economic Development District (SCAEDD) includes seven counties: Bullock, Butler, Crenshaw, Lowndes, Macon, Montgomery, and Pike Counties. Only Montgomery County is not located in the regional jurisdiction of the South Central Alabama Development Commission. Montgomery County, along with Autauga and Elmore Counties comprise the Central Alabama Regional Planning and Development Commission. The seven counties in the South Central EDD are designated as redevelopment areas by EDA. Currently, there are 28 incorporated municipalities in the district. Montgomery serves as the major growth center, with Greenville and Troy as secondary growth centers. All member governments have the opportunity to participate in the CEDS process.

Planning for physical, economic and social development within the EDD region is more important than ever given today's economy and the continued needs of rural areas, especially those that are economically depressed, as well as in growing parts of the region that are experiencing unprecedented opportunities for development. The forming of multi‐county initiatives is critical for well‐planned development and redevelopment of the area economy. Development projects that cannot be accomplished on a single county basis become possible through the joint efforts of several counties and impact the entire region.

South Central Alabama Economic Development District

Municipalities in the South Central Alabama EDD

The purpose of the CEDS is to provide an overview of the region's Purpose of the CEDS economy and to outline development a strategy as well as associated projects that will increase the overall economy and quality of life in the region. The CEDS has been prepared as a continuing step toward successful economic improvement for the South Central Alabama region. Since planning is a continuing process, the proposed projects and goals are constantly updated to meet the needs of a constantly changing environment. The South Central Alabama CEDS is also coordinated with statewide plans for economic development and is consistent and with statewide plans and policies. The planning and development program in South Central Alabama results from public and private organizations and individuals in the seven county area joining together in a combined effort to facilitate economic development regionwide. This combined effort is guided by the South Central Alabama Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, or CEDS, which is developed and annually updated by the SCADC. The counties within the region have elected

to have the district CEDS document serve their planning needs and designation obligations. A copy of the resolution adopting the 2012 South Central Alabama CEDS is included in Appendix A.

Compliance with CEDS Requirements The CEDS planning process and resulting document must meet the federal requirements set forth in Title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations (13CFR) Sections 303.6 and 303.7. Together, these sections outline the CEDS planning process, public involvement and data and information to be included in the final document. Section 303.7 states that CEDS are designed to bring together the public and private sectors in the creation of an economic roadmap to diversify and strengthen regional economies. The CEDS should analyze the regional economy and serve as a guide for establishing regional goals and objectives, developing and implementing a regional plan of action, and identifying investment priorities and funding sources. Public and private sector partnerships are critical to the implementation of the integral elements of a CEDS. As a performance‐based plan, the CEDS will serve a critical role in a region's efforts to defend against economic dislocations due to global trade, competition and other events resulting in the loss of jobs and private investment. To this end, an approved CEDS must include specific technical requirements, a summary of which is listed below:  Background of economic development in the region, along with discussion of the economy, population, geography, workforce development, transportation, resources, and environment;  Analysis of economic and community development problems and opportunities;  Goals and objectives necessary to solve region's economic development problems;  Discussion of public and private sector participation in CEDS;  Suggested projects and projected number of jobs created;  Identification and prioritization of vital projects, programs and activities;  Identification of economic clusters;  Plan of action;  List of performance measures for evaluation; and  Methodology for integrating the region's CEDS with the State's economic development priorities.

Each of the technical requirements has been addressed in the 2012 South Central Alabama CEDS. A discussion and analysis of the region's economy, economic clusters, population and resources are found in Chapter 2. Goals and objectives are found in Chapter 3. Public involvement is discussed in this chapter in the Organization, Guidance and Public Involvement section. An Action Plan in Chapter 4 includes strategies, performance measures and a methodology for integrating the region's CEDS with the State's priorities.

Organization, Guidance and Public Involvement In addition to the technical requirements of the CEDS document, the planning process must include the appointment of a strategy committee representing the main economic interests of the region. A majority of the strategy committee members must be representatives of the private sector. Other members should include public officials, community leaders, representatives of workforce development boards, institutions of higher education, minority and labor groups and private individuals. A Board of Directors comprised of 29 representatives of member governments, minority, nonprofit, and business groups from the seven member counties provide leadership and governance for the SCADC. The membership is reflected in the accompanying chart. The directors, who serve without compensation, meet on a quarterly basis to establish policies and guide the implementation of all the district’s activities. They are representatives of the people of their area; they are knowledgeable of the conditions that exist in their counties; and they accept as their primary duty the establishment of policies and activities to benefit their counties and the district. An Executive Committee meets as required. The Board's Executive Committee includes the four officers, one board member from each county and the member‐at‐large. Board governance and representation is provided for by the Bylaws established for SCADC and in accordance with the state statute establishing the Regional Councils and Development Districts in Alabama. A CEDS Strategy Committee, consisting of 20 members, includes business, government and citizen representatives serve the district by reviewing and recommending the CEDS to the Board. The committee meets periodically and acts as a clearinghouse for projects that affect region. The SCADC staff coordinates the selection of the CEDS Committee with the Board by soliciting suggestions for membership

from government leaders and active citizens interested in economic development. During 2007, the SCADC reviewed and updated Board requirements to include the necessary private sector participation. The CEDS Strategy Committee has been revised to include greatly increased private sector representation. Working relationships for economic and community development Relationships and Participation are established between the EDD and the Economic Development Administration, Appalachian Regional Commission, Delta Regional Authority, United States Department of Agriculture and other federal/regional organizations. Relationships with the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs, Office of Workforce Development, Alabama Department of Senior Services, Alabama Development Office, Alabama Department of Transportation and Alabama Emergency Management are important relationships maintained through the district organization. Coordination with other regional, city and county economic development organizations, chambers of commerce, public and private utilities and businesses is critical to the region. The relationships with city and county governments are the core of the District’s partnership. SCADC works with the city and county governments in the region on priorities and needs of regional and local concern. The active involvement of these governments in the district are a key to the success of the region and the communities and counties that are part of SCADC. Beyond the formal structure of the Board and participating governments, the SCADC works with, or participates in numerous related regional or multi county programs, such as Envision 2020, Montgomery Area Chamber of Commerce (Imagine a Greater Montgomery) and programs supported by other chambers of commerce and organizations. The staff of the South Central Alabama Development Commission Staff and Work Program provides support as part of the EDD organization. Core staff includes an Executive Director, Director of Planning and Economic Development, along with other program management and support staff. The EDD maintains an annual and ongoing work program in support of updating, planning and implementation of the CEDS. The work program is essentially the work necessary to support the projects included in the CEDS and the current SCADC current projects list. The ongoing research, updating and implementation of the CEDS is an integral part of the SCADC agency work program.

SCADC Board of Directors There are 29 seats on the South Central Alabama Development Commission’s Board of Directors, with each member county represented by four directors, plus one district member‐at‐large. Four of the directors serve as officers of the Commission. County Name Affiliation Bullock John McGowan Mayor, City of Union Springs/Bus Bullock Ronald Smith County Commission Chairman Bullock Julian Cope Bullock County Development Authority Bullock James Robbins, Jr. Mayor, Town of Midway/Business

Butler J. MacDonald Russell District Judge Butler Dexter McLendon Mayor, City of Greenville/Business Butler Vacant Butler Steve Norman Probate Judge

Crenshaw James V. Purdue Probate Judge Crenshaw Ricky McElwain County Commission Chair/Business Crenshaw Darryl Elliot Council, Town of Brantley/Business Crenshaw Joe Rex Sport Mayor, City of Luverne/Business

Lowndes Ransom Williams Bankcorp South Lowndes Fletcher Fountain, Sr. Mayor, City of Ft. Deposit/Retired Lowndes Charlie King, Jr. County Commission Chair/Business

Macon Vacant Macon Louis Maxwell County Commission Chair Macon Frank Tew Mayor, Town of Notasulga/Business Macon Omar Neal Mayor, City of Tuskegee/Retired Macon Willie Mae Powell Mayor, Town of Shorter/Education

Montgomery Connie Harper Central Alabama OIC Montgomery Reed Ingram County Commission/Business Montgomery Todd Strange Mayor, City of Montgomery

Pike Jimmy Lunsford Mayor, City of Troy/Business Pike Jimmy Barron County Commission/ State Employee Pike Marsha Gaylard County Economic Dev. Board Pike Lawrence Bowden Council, City of Brundidge/Retired

SCADC CEDS Committee 2012

Workforce Development Jessica Horsley, Montgomery

Institutions of Higher Education Sandra Lucas, Troy University SBDC Dr. Judson Edward, Troy University CIBED

Minority & Labor Groups Connie Harper, President and CEO, Central AL OIC, Montgomery

Private Sector/ Individuals Ransom Williams, South Bank of Hayneville William Johnson, Butler County Bank, Greenville Andy Kimbrough, South Alabama Electric Cooperative, Troy Bob Howard, Alabama Power Rick Pate, Montgomery Jerry Ingram, Lowndesboro Robert Harris, Hayneville Helenor Bell, Hayneville Angela Stephens, S&S Quality Cabinets, Inc., Rutledge William Petry, Bank of Luverne

Community Leaders Lynn Beshear, Director, Envision 2020, Montgomery Sharon Redd, Director, Area Agency on Aging, Montgomery

Local Officials Jimmy C. Lunsford, Mayor, Troy Ronald Smith, Chairman, Bullock Co. Commission, Union Springs Jim Purdue, Judge of Probate, Luverne Fletcher Fountain, Sr., Mayor, Town of Fort Deposit

2. Resource Analysis and Trends

After World War II, rapid mechanization and changing agricultural practices resulted in severe unemployment, underemployment, low personal incomes, and out‐migration throughout the South Central Alabama region during the 1950s and 1960s. A major goal of SCADC has been to assist its member governments in developing programs to alleviate these problems. Success has been substantial. The location and expansion of numerous industries has created thousands of new industrial jobs from 1970 to the present. In addition, real personal incomes have increased and out‐migration has been reduced. Many in the seven‐county region have been responsible for economic development progress. Efforts of the SCADC are not the sole reason for the many public works, housing, industrial development, and other related projects being implemented during the past thirty plus years. Without the involvement of SCADC, however, in providing the necessary cohesive elements and making technical assistance available, perhaps a great many of these projects would not have been accomplished. The value of the EDD program lies in the capacity of the staff, working with the various municipalities, counties, and agencies throughout the area, to take advantage of opportunities that exist for public works and related projects, commercial development, and industrial development. The South Central Alabama EDD acts as a catalyst through which various governmental entities, chambers of commerce, industrial groups, citizen committees, and individuals unify into a cohesive development unit. Over the past thirty years, CEDS reports and updates have been focused on the following goals:  Reduce the rate of out‐migration.  Provide expanded industrial job opportunities for the unemployed and underemployed.  Reduce the number of people in the district living at or below the poverty level.  Raise the general level of income of all citizens of the region.

In addition to the initial goals established 30 plus years ago, a number of other goals have been promoted:  Promote the development of tourism through expansion of recreational facilities.  Promote industrial and heavy commercial development.  Improve housing conditions, especially for low and moderate‐ income families.  Construct and improve water and sewer systems as needed.  Provide solid waste disposal systems throughout the district.

Economic Background The history of lower incomes in the region, especially in the rural counties and distressed urban neighborhoods, is an outgrowth of basic problems and deficiencies in the regional economy. The out‐ migration of the most educated and productive workers and the lower education levels of the remainder of the population have resulted in apathy, low tax bases and declining community services for many years. In turn, these conditions have perpetuated the lack of local or regional economic opportunities. With the decline of agriculture as the economic base of the area, many people were left unemployed, uneducated and untrained for other types of em‐ ployment. Therefore, an economic vacuum developed with high unemployment, fewer job opportunities, and little incentive for new industry to locate in the more rural areas of the region because of inadequate community facilities and an untrained, uneducated labor force. Out‐migration occurred when people began seeking better jobs and opportunities in other growth areas. No single factor causes the substandard conditions existing in the region; rather there is a combination of contributing factors. The most obvious problems are low educational levels and incomes, lack of jobs and industry to substitute for the loss of agricultural employment, inadequate and substandard housing, lack of recreational facilities, and inadequate community services resulting from a low tax base. Net migration from the district changed from 14 percent out‐ Net Migration migration between 1960‐1970 to 2.0 percent in‐migration between 1970 and 1980. Between 1980 and 1990, net migration was again slightly positive (in‐migration) at 3.0 percent. The trend continued between 1990 and 2000, with a 5.2 percent increase. From 1980 to

2000, the only county in the district that continued to experience out‐ migration was Macon County. Economic instability in the 21st century was reflected erratic flows in the region's county migration patterns. Butler, Lowndes, Macon and Montgomery Counties continued to have higher out‐migration than in‐migration between 2000 and 2009. In fact, Lowndes County had a net migration of ‐26.7 percent from 2008 to 2009, followed by Macon County with a net migration of ‐17.4 percent and Butler County with a net migration of ‐ 10.0 percent in the same time period. None of the three counties had a positive inflow of population in the nine‐year time period. While Montgomery County did experience a net migration of 9.0 percent between 2005 and 2006, that was the only year in which the county had a positive inflow. Bullock County experienced both the highest outmigration and the highest in‐migration in the region in two different years, with a net migration of ‐29.2 percent between 2005 and 2006 followed by 17.5 percent between 2006 and 2007. Net migration in Crenshaw and Pike Counties between 2000 and 2009 was slightly more level than in the other counties with a lesser degree of fluctuation. Both counties experienced the highest out‐migration between 2001 and 2002, with Crenshaw County at ‐7.0 percent and Pike County at ‐13.2 percent. Similarly, the counties experienced their highest in‐migration during the same year between 2005 and 2006, at 14.0 percent in Crenshaw County and 9.3 percent in Pike County.

Annual Estimates of Net Migration by County, 2000 to 2009 Released March, 2010 County 00‐01 01‐02 02‐03 03‐04 04‐05 05‐06 06‐07 07‐08 08‐09 Bullock ‐21.3 ‐10.1 4.3 ‐23.8 ‐7.9 ‐29.2 17.5 ‐12.1 1.5 Butler ‐14.0 ‐17.1 ‐1.1 ‐1.2 ‐3.5 ‐4.3 ‐1.9 ‐4.1 ‐10.0 Crenshaw 0.9 ‐7.0 2.4 2.9 ‐2.9 14.0 2.4 ‐3.0 5.4 Lowndes ‐9.2 ‐2.8 ‐13.0 ‐23.8 ‐10.6 ‐15.6 ‐8.2 ‐10.6 ‐26.7 Macon ‐1.8 ‐13.0 ‐5.8 ‐15.3 ‐12.0 ‐7.6 ‐11.2 ‐2.0 ‐17.4 Montgomery ‐8.4 ‐4.7 ‐6.1 ‐6.0 ‐3.6 9.0 ‐5.1 ‐11.1 ‐7.4 Pike ‐6.8 ‐13.2 3.3 7.9 ‐2.9 9.3 3.6 1.4 ‐0.5 Sources: U.S. Census, https://geocommons.com/overlays/35162

Low educational levels and inadequate incomes compound each other, resulting in a perpetual cycle of poverty. In order to break the cycle, more jobs will have to be made available to provide useful work for former welfare recipients and an adequate tax base such that local communities will have the resources to provide adequate services and educational opportunities. This will lead to the creation of an adequate work force for the available jobs. The development of jobs and labor force, which must occur simultaneously in order to break the poverty cycle, requires careful planning, and during the initial stages, substantial financial assistance to local communities. Limited community improvements and slow economic development are directly related to the low tax base for the rural municipalities and counties in the region. Inadequate public infrastructure relates to low incomes and the basic problem of out‐ migration where residents leave the rural areas to take advantage of better living conditions in larger cities. Counter to these trends of the past 30 years, changes in demographics are occurring. It is apparent that incomes and wages are improving in parts of the region. Likewise unemployment has improved in parts of the region, but is still not consistently improved regionwide. The result is intense demands on the workforce, which is limited and unprepared from an education standpoint. Increased industry investments have resulted in many residents commuting to the Montgomery, Troy, or Greenville communities for employment rather than migrating to other areas not in the district, helping to reduce and minimize the effects of any out‐migration trend. Progress toward reducing the number of district residents living at or below the poverty level has been improved during the past several years, although progress has been slow. Low incomes are a prime reason for SCADC counties being classified as redevelopment areas. While median family income in the region has continued to in‐ Median Family Income crease since 1979 through 2010, it is still considerably less than that Comparisons of the State of Alabama. In 2010, the average median family income in the South Central Alabama EDD region was $42,471 which is only 80.3 percent of the State, at $52,863. Much of the increase in median family income in the region is due to economic gains in Montgomery County, which in 2010 exceeded the State's median family income by about $2,612. In 2000, however, the median family income of Montgomery County, at $44,669, exceeded that of the State by $3,012 indicating that even the income growth in Montgomery

County is slowing in comparison to that of the State. Without Montgomery County, the average median family income of the remaining six counties in 2010 is only $40,304, which is only 76.2 percent of the State of Alabama. Lowndes and Bullock Counties have consistently had the lowest median family income in the region during the last 30 year time period. Despite out‐migration and low income levels, economic progress Economic Progress has been realized in the South Central Alabama region. Factors in the economic gains include tourism efforts, industrial development, and housing and infrastructural improvements. Tourism promotion has been greatly enhanced through the development of new cultural and recreational areas, as well as local theaters and historic walking tours. The rehabilitation and promotion of historic sites have also had an impact on the region. The most recent historic improvement is the Tuskegee Airmen National Historical Site in Tuskegee. It is estimated that, upon completion, the site will attract more than 1 million visitors annually. Numerous industrial sites have been identified and developed across the region, and industrial parks are being expanded or seeking expansion. At least 500 major companies have located and/or expanded in the region over the last 15 years. Approximately 60 major industrial parks or sites are located throughout the region. Some have reached maximum occupancy; some of the parks/sites are expanding; and others have plenty of land available. The region saw several major industrial announcements and/or development over the past ten years. In 2002, Hyundai constructed a new $1 billion manufacturing plant and associated facilities at a 1,500‐acre site in the Hope Hull area just south of the City of Montgomery. The plant brought in roughly 8,000 direct and indirect jobs, with estimated annual earnings of $280 million. Since Hyundai’s construction, several automobile industry suppliers have constructed plants in the region and surrounding counties. At least eight tier one suppliers have located in the region. Including the Hyundai plant, official estimates are that approximately 3,500 new jobs and $1.5 billion in investment have been created, as spin‐off from the plant. In 2009, CGI Group, Inc. announced a company expansion with a new location in Troy. The software development and testing center, which opened in 2010, brought an additional 300 jobs to the region. According to the Alabama Development Office, new and expanding industrial development brought $294.7 million in investment and

1,646 jobs to the region in 2010; and $319.9 million in investment and 1,343 jobs in 2011. Industrial growth in 2011 included a $58 million expansion at Hysco America Company in Greenville with 40 new jobs; a $200,000 expansion of Chowel Weldparts in Luverne with 60 jobs; a new company $1 million investment by Extreme Elements Environmental Testing Laboratories with five jobs in Notasulga; a new company investment of $1.2 million by Fiblast LLC with 11 jobs in Tuskegee; two new companies in Montgomery bringing 70 jobs combined; expansion of 14 companies in Montgomery with a combined investments of more than $237 million with 623 jobs; a $16 million expansion by KW Plastics in Troy with 100 jobs; and finally, the location of a new industry, Golden Boy Foods, in Troy that is expected to have a $5.75 million investment with 130 jobs.

An 2007 expansion of Mobis Alabama in Montgomery brought a $55.6 million investment and 140 jobs.

The location of CGI Group, Inc. in Troy brought a $1 million investment and 300 jobs.

The quality of housing in the district has improved by extensive Improved Quality of Life rehabilitation of existing and construction of new housing units since 1970. New water and sewer service has also helped to decrease the percentage of dwellings classified as substandard. More than fifty million dollars have been spent on water and sewer construction or improvements within the district during the past 25‐35 years. With the exception of the municipalities of Benton, Franklin, Shorter, Pike Road, and Gordonsville, all cities and towns located in the district have their own municipal water systems, with the afore listed towns being served by county or neighboring municipal systems. Thus, virtually all homes in the regions are served by public water. Every municipality within the district is served by an approved solid waste disposal system and the county unincorporated areas have established state‐approved solid waste systems. Federal requirements governing landfills are drastically increasing costs and location restrictions on landfill operations. In 2003‐04, SCADC conducted an assessment of existing landfill operations, and has worked with several member governments in developing approaches to meeting the federal and state requirements. Several local governments are now utilizing regional landfills. Progress toward other goals during the past five years includes assistance to local communities in establishing industrial boards; securing loans and grants for industrial park development; technical planning and development assistance, identification of transportation needs, and rural transportation planning and technical assistance. The designation of SCADC as a comprehensive planning and development agency enabled the Commission to provide local assistance in comprehensive planning as well as physical development projects. The designation of SCADC as an Area Agency on Aging enabled the Commission to establish a network of multi‐ purpose senior centers and provide a vast array of services to the elderly, a fast growing segment of the district population in need of various kinds of assistance. Expansion of health facilities in the district has been a major contribution to the overall health and medical status of the region. Bullock County’s hospital was recently enlarged during the past decade and facilities and services at Troy’s and Greenville’s hospitals have been expanded. Rural health care remains a major consideration for continued economic development. The continuing expansion of the SCADC role in regional

development is reflected in the agency’s designation as part of the Delta Regional Authority, Appalachian Regional Commission and designation as a rural transportation planning organization and an increasing role in workforce development.

Population and Demographics Data included in the following section was primarily obtained from 2010 U.S. Census and 2006‐2010 American Community Survey data, with other sources utilized as noted to provide the most current data available. Recent Census population estimates, released in May 2012, indicate that the combined population of the seven counties in the South Central Alabama Economic Development District is 342,379 persons as of July 2011. While limited estimates are available, most of the data in this section is based on the 2010 Census. Detailed population and demographic tables are provided in the appendices. As of 2010, the South Central Alabama region has a population of Population, Density and 340,780 persons, of which the great majority, at 67.3 percent of the Trends total population, is located in Montgomery County. Pike County is next largest county, at 32,899 persons, followed by Macon County, at 21,452 persons, and Butler County, at 20,947 persons. The remaining three counties each have a population of just over 10,000 persons: Bullock County has 10,914 persons; Lowndes County has 11,299 persons; and Crenshaw County has 13,908 persons.

Population By County, 2010 250,000 229,363

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000 32,899 20,947 21,452 10,914 13,906 11,299 ‐ Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montgomery Pike Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010

The majority of the region's total population, at 71.0 percent, is considered to be urban. This percentage, however, is influenced by the high population of the City of Montgomery as compared to the population of the remainder of the region. On an individual county basis, only Montgomery County has more 50 percent of the population living in an urban area. In fact, two counties, Crenshaw and Lowndes, have no urban population.

Urban vs. Rural Population, 2010 Urban % Urban Rural % Rural Bullock 5,307 48.6% 5,607 51.4% Butler 6,026 28.8% 14,921 71.2% Crenshaw 0 0.0% 13,906 100.0% Lowndes 0 0.0% 11,299 100.0% Macon 9,536 44.5% 11,916 55.5% Montgomery 205,300 89.5% 24,063 10.5% Pike 15,897 48.3% 17,002 51.7%

SCAEDD Region 242,066 71.0% 98,714 29.0% Alabama 2,821,804 59.0% 1,957,932 41.0% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010

As expected, Montgomery County has the highest population and housing density at 292.5 persons per square mile and 129.6 housing units per square mile. Density in Montgomery County is much higher than that of the State. Population and housing density of the South Central Alabama region overall is slightly less than that of the State, while density in all of the counties except Montgomery County is significantly lower than the State. Population density in the SCAEDD region is 71.1 persons per square mile as compared to 94.4 persons per square mile in Alabama. The most densely populated county, outside of Montgomery County, is Pike County, at 48.9 persons per square mile, followed by Macon County, at 35.2 persons per square mile. The remaining four counties each have a population density of less than 30 persons per square mile ‐‐ less than one‐third of that of the State of Alabama. There are 28 municipalities in the SCAEDD area which are home to 78.4 percent of the region's total population. The population of the City of Montgomery, at 229,363 persons, is larger than the total population of the remaining six counties combined, at 11,417 persons. Excluding Montgomery County, however, the majority of the region's population, at 61.1 percent, live in rural unincorporated areas.

County and Municipal Population and Percent Change, 2000 to 2010 2010 2000 % Change Population Population 2000 ‐ 2010 Alabama 4,779,736 4,447,100 7.5% Bullock County 10,914 11,714 ‐6.8% Midway 499 457 9.2% Union Springs 3,980 3,670 8.4% Butler County 20,947 21,399 ‐2.1% Georgiana 1,738 1,737 0.1% Greenville 8,135 7,228 12.5% McKenzie 522 642 ‐18.7% Crenshaw County 13,906 13,665 1.8% Brantley 809 920 ‐12.1% Dozier 329 391 ‐15.9% Glenwood 187 191 ‐2.1% Luverne 2,800 2,635 6.3% Petrey 58 63 ‐7.9% Rutledge 467 476 ‐1.9% Lowndes County 11,299 13,473 ‐16.1% Benton 49 47 4.3% Fort Deposit 1,344 1,270 5.8% Gordonville 326 318 2.5% Hayneville 932 1,177 ‐20.8% Lowndesboro 115 140 ‐17.9% Mosses 1,029 1,101 ‐6.5% White Hall 858 1,014 ‐15.4% Macon County 21,452 24,105 ‐11.0% Franklin 149 149 0.0% Notasulga 890 889 0.1% Shorter 474 355 33.5% Tuskegee 9,865 11,846 ‐16.7% Montgomery County 229,363 223,510 2.6% Montgomery 205,764 201,568 2.1% Pike Road 5,406 310 1,643.9% Pike County 32,899 29,605 11.1% Banks 179 224 ‐20.1% Brundidge 2,076 2,341 ‐11.3% Goshen 266 300 ‐11.3% Troy 18,033 13,935 29.4% SCAEDD Region 340,780 337,471 1.0% Incorporated Area 267,279 255,394 4.7% Unincorporated Area 73,501 82,077 ‐10.4% % Incorporated 78.4% 75.7% % Unincorporated 21.6% 24.3% Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000 and 2010 Census of Population. Special tabulation by the Missouri State Data Center.

In 1960, the population of the SCAEDD comprised 8.9 percent of the total population of Alabama. Although the region’s population has increased during the last 50 years, the growth rate has not been consistent with that of the state. As a result, the region’s proportional share of the state’s population has slowly declined. As of 2010, the SCAEDD population comprises only 7.1 percent of the state. Further, Alabama and the South Central Alabama EDD have both lagged behind national growth rates during the last 50 years. The SCAEDD experienced its most significant growth between 1970 and 1980 with a 12.2 percent increase in population. This population growth was the only decade in the last 50 years when the region, state and nation experienced similar growth rates. More recently, between 2000 and 2010, the nation and state had growth increases of 9.7 percent and 7.5 percent, respectively, while the SCAEDD population increased by 1.0 percent. Although the population increase in the region was greater between 1990 and 2000, at 5.2 percent, it was still considerably less than the increases realized by the nation, at 13.2 percent, and the state, at 10.1 percent. Individual county growth rates varied greatly in the last decade, with four counties suffering significant population losses. Lowndes County had a 16.1 percent population decrease, followed by Macon County with a population loss of 11.0 percent. Bullock and Butler Counties also experienced less severe population loss, at 6.8 percent in Bullock County and a 2.1 percent in Butler County.

SCAEDD Population Change Comparison, 1960 to 2010 United States Alabama SCAEDD Region 16% 13.4% 13.1% 14% 13.2% 12.2% 12% 9.7% 10% 11.4% 9.8% 10.1% 8% 7.5% 6% 5.4% 3.8% 4% 5.2% 2% 3.0% 1.0% 0% ‐2% ‐4% ‐4.4% ‐6% 1960‐70 1970‐80 1980‐90 1990‐00 2000‐2010 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1960‐2010 Censuses of Population. Special tabulation by the Alabama State Data Center, The University of Alabama.

Crenshaw and Montgomery Counties experienced minor growth in population, at 1.8 percent and 2.6 percent increases, respectively. Pike County was the only county in the region to have significant population growth, at 11.1 percent, during the same time period. Pike County's population increase can be largely attributed to growth in Troy, since the remaining municipalities in the county, Banks, Brundidge and Goshen, all suffered severe population losses, ranging from 11.3 to 20.1 percent. Regionwide, there was a 4.7 percent increase in population that lived in a municipality and a 10.4 percent decrease in persons living in the region's unincorporated areas.

County Population Change, 2000 to 2010 ‐20.0% ‐15.0% ‐10.0% ‐5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0%

Bullock, ‐6.8%

Butler, ‐2.1%

Crenshaw, 1.8%

Lowndes, ‐16.1%

Macon, ‐11.0%

Montgomery, 2.6%

Pike, 11.1%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 and 2010

Estimated Population Change, 2010 to 2035 25%

20% 19.1% 18.5%

15.1% 15% 14.4%

10% 8.7%

5% 2.4% 2.6% 0.7% 0% Pike

‐5% Butler Macon Bullock SCAEDD Alabama Lowndes Crenshaw ‐7.0% ‐10% Montgomery Source: U.S. Census and Center for Business and Economic Research, The University of Alabama, June 2011.

Projections available for the next 25 years indicate that the South Central Alabama EDD is expected to have a population increase of 14.4 percent bringing the population to 389,805 persons by 2035. In the same time period, the State of Alabama's population is expected to increase by 18.5 percent, or to 5,662,470 persons. The majority of the growth is expected to occur in Montgomery and Pike Counties, with increases of 19.1 percent and 15.1 percent, respectively. Bullock, Butler, Crenshaw and Lowndes Counties are also expected to increase in population to a lesser degree. Only Macon County is projected to continue the trend of population loss, with an estimated 7.0 percent decrease in population. The projected decrease will bring the Macon County population to 19,957 persons by 2035. In 2000, over 50.49 percent of the population of the SCAEDD was Demographic Characteristics black, and 47.28 percent was white. The last decade has seen a continued increase in the black population, along with increases in the Asian and Hispanic populations while the white population has decreased. In 2010, the racial composition of the area is 53.9 percent black, 40.2 percent white, 3.1 percent Hispanic and 1.7 percent Asian. Also, the SCAEDD continues to have a much higher percentage of black population than does the state with the 2010 black population being twice that of the state, at 26.2 percent.

Population by Race, 2010 White Black Asian Hispanic 90% 82.6% 80% 73.5% 72.1% 70.2%

70% 67.0%

60% 57.4% 54.7% 54.1% 53.9% 50% 43.4% 40.2% 38.4%

40% 36.6% 26.2%

30% 25.1% 23.4% 21.9%

20% 15.2%

10% 7.1% 3.6% 3.9% 3.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.0% 1.7% 1.4% 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8% 0.4% 0.2% 0% 0.1% Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montgomery Pike SCAEDD Alabama Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 2000 and 2010 Census of Population. Special tabulation by the Missouri State Data Center.

Four of the seven counties in the region have a majority black population: Bullock, Lowndes, Macon and Montgomery. While Butler and Pike Counties have a majority white population, the white percentage is still less than that of the state, at 67.0 percent. Only Crenshaw County has a higher percentage of white population, at 72.1 percent, than does the state. Counties that saw an increase in

black population between 2000 and 2010 include Butler County with a 4.2 percent increase, Montgomery County with a 15.6 percent increase, and Pike County with an 11.3 percent increase. Only Pike County had an increase in the white population. Montgomery and Pike Counties have the largest percentage of Asian population, at 2.1 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively; Bullock County has the largest percentage of Hispanic population, at 7.1 percent of the total. The median age for the district increased slightly between 1960 and 1970 from 24.5 years to 26.9 years. By 1980, the median age had risen to 28.6 and by 1990, it was 31.4. By 2000, the median age had continued to increase to 34.8; and by 2011, the median age of the SCAEDD was 37.3. This increase is mainly due to longer life spans and the aging of the population.

Median Age of Population, 2011 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Bullock 39.0

Butler 40.6

Crenshaw 40.7

Lowndes 39.9

Macon 34.9

Montgomery 34.3

Pike 31.7

SCAEDD 37.3

Alabama 39.6

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Estimates Division, Internet release May 17, 2012.

Counties with the highest median age for the total population are Crenshaw County, at 40.7, and Butler County, at 40.6. The median age of males and females differs to some degree, as Butler County has the highest median age for females, at 42.6, while the median age for males is 37.9. In Crenshaw County, which has the highest median age for males, at 39.5, the median age for females is 42.2. Region and statewide, the average median age for males is 35.5 and 38.1, respectively; and for females, the average median age is 38.9 in the region and 41.0 for the state.

Population by Gender, 2011 % Male % Female 40% 42% 44% 46% 48% 50% 52% 54% 56%

54.3% Bullock 45.7% 46.9% Butler 53.1% 48.3% Crenshaw 51.7% 46.8% Lowndes 53.2% 46.0% Macon 54.0% 47.5% Montgomery 52.5% 47.7% Pike 52.3% 47.6% SCAEDD 52.4% Alabama 48.5% 51.5% Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, Estimates Division, Internet release May 17, 2012.

The longevity of the female population in comparison to the male population accounts for of the disparities in gender composition in the region's counties. The female portion of the population in the region is 52.4 percent as compared to the state, at 51.5 percent. In the seven counties, the female population ranges from 51.7 percent in Crenshaw County to 54.0 percent in Macon County. The exception is Bullock County which is the only county that has a larger male population, at 54.3 percent, than female population, at 45.7 percent. Compared with the State of Alabama and the United States, Educational Attainment educational levels are low for the rural areas of the region, even and Resources though institutions of higher learning are fairly well distributed. As a whole, the region compares favorably to the state. In addition, education levels have continued to rise over the last few decades. In 1980, 59.2 percent of the region’s population had graduated from high school compared with 56.5 percent for the state and 66.5 percent nationally. While the region compared somewhat favorably with the state in this category, it was still significantly below the national average. Within the region, however, only 46.2 percent of those persons living in the rural counties had a high school education as compared to 66.8 percent from Montgomery County. In Crenshaw County, only 37.6 percent had completed high school. By 1990, educational levels had increased substantially throughout the region. An average of 58.0 percent of the population 25 and older had completed high school, compared to 66.9 percent

for the state and 75.2 percent in the nation. However, the percentage of high school graduates in Montgomery County in 1990 (75.3%) is vastly higher than the average in the rural counties (55.1%). The 1990 Census also indicates that an average of 13.0 percent of the region’s population had completed college. This compared favorably with the State of Alabama where only 15.7 percent had any formal education beyond the high school level and only 20.3 percent in the United States. However, an analysis of the region shows that an average of only 11.2 percent of the population in the rural counties had attained any education beyond the high school level compared to 24.2 percent for Montgomery County. However, Macon County had 18 percent of its population with a college degree or higher, reflecting Tuskegee University’s impact. Education levels continued to increase in the 1990s, but at a much slower pace. Per Census 2000 figures, an average of 67.3 percent of the region's population 25 and older had completed high school, compared to 75.3 percent state and 81.6 percent for the nation. Data from the same census also showed that an average of 14.6 percent of the region’s population had completed college, while 19.0 percent of the state and 25.1 percent of the national populations did so.

Educational Attainment, 2011 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

74.7% Bullock County 12.0% 74.8% Butler County 11.0% 73.7% Crenshaw County 10.1% 73.4% Lowndes County 12.7% 78.8% Macon County 20.9% 84.7% Montgomery County 30.5% 79.4% Pike County 23.7% 82.0% SCAEDD 25.9% 81.4% Alabama 21.7%

Percent high school graduate or higher Percent bachelor's degree or higher Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey

Education levels rose significantly between 2000 and 2010 according to the ACS Estimates for 2006‐2010, with 82.0 percent of the SCAEDD population age 25 and older being high school graduates,

as compared to 81.4 percent for the state. Also, an average of 25.9 percent of the region's population had earned a bachelor's degree or higher by 2010, which is again significantly higher than in 2000, and higher than the state with 21.7 percent having a college degree in 2010. Although Montgomery County still has the highest percentage of the population that are high school graduates, at 84.7 percent, the disparity between Montgomery County and the remaining six counties is not as great as it has been in previous decades. The gap is still present, however, among the percentage of college graduates in Montgomery County, at 30.5 percent, as compared to the more rural counties, where the percentage of college graduates ranges from 10.1 percent in Crenshaw County to 23.7 percent in Pike County.

One factor in the difference in education levels between Montgomery County and the remaining six counties in the region is the location and proximity to post‐secondary institutions, the faculty and staff who work at those institutions and the spin‐off employment of graduates of those institutions. Of the 16 post‐secondary institutions located in the South Central Alabama region, all but three are located in Montgomery. Outside of Montgomery County, there is Troy University in Pike County, Tuskegee University in Macon County, and Wallace Community College in Butler County. Although proximity and availability of this schools is good for residents throughout the region, it is evident that the most significant impact is on the county of location.

Post‐Secondary Institutions in the SCAEDD Region 1. Alabama State University, 9. South University (Montgomery Montgomery Campus), Montgomery 2. Auburn University Montgomery, 10. Tuskegee University, Tuskegee Montgomery 11. Trenholm State Technical 3. Troy University, Troy College, Montgomery 4. Troy State University 12. Wallace Community College Montgomery, Montgomery (Greenville Campus), Greenville 5. Faulkner University, 13. Capps College (Montgomery Montgomery Campus), Montgomery 6. Huntingdon College, 14. Prince Institute, Montgomery Montgomery 15. Air University, Maxwell Air Force 7. Montgomery Bible Institute and Base, Montgomery Theological Center, Montgomery 16. Alabama Industrial 8. Southern Christian University, Development Training Institute, Montgomery Montgomery

For the region, the average median family income, at $42,471, is Income approximately 80.3 percent of that of the state, at $52,863. Among Levels the seven counties of the region, the median family income ranged from $34,929 in Lowndes County to $55,475 in Montgomery County. Median family income in the rural counties was considerably less than that of Montgomery County or the state. Still, all of the counties of the region saw a significant increase in median family income between 2000 and 2010, with an average increase of 33.47 percent for the SCAEDD. Bullock County experienced the greatest increase of 57.6 percent, followed by Crenshaw County, at 50.3 percent, and Macon County, at 48.6 percent. Even with the increases in median family income in the last ten years, all of the region's counties, except Montgomery County, are far below the state's median family income.

Percent Change in Median Family Income, 2000 to 2010 2010 Median 2010 MFI as Family Income (MFI) Percent of State MFI Bullock $37,816 71.5% Butler $37,458 70.9% Crenshaw $47,685 90.2% Lowndes $34,929 66.1% Macon $42,363 80.1% Montgomery $55,475 104.9% Pike $41,570 78.6%

SCAEDD $42,471 80.3% Alabama $52,863 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey

Percent Change in Median Family Income, 2000 to 2010 Percent Change 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Alabama 26.9%

Bullock 57.6%

Butler 21.2%

Crenshaw 50.3%

Lowndes 20.7%

Macon 48.6%

Montgomery 24.2%

Pike 21.8%

SCAEDD 33.4%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey

There are several contributing factors to low income and slow growth in the rural counties. First, a major portion of the rural area’s economy is agriculture, which is in a state of decline. Second, poor education and inadequate facilities and infrastructure have hindered some areas from attracting new industry. Prior to recent years, there has not been sufficient new industrial growth to create competition for the available labor. As the recent and current industrial expansion continues, it could stimulate wage rates, and encourage residents to acquire needed skills and create higher incomes. The estimated total per capital personal incomes for all counties of the region increased substantially between 1980 and 2010. The per capita income for the same period also showed large percentage increases; however, these may be misleading because of factors such as inflation during this period. The 2010 average district per capita income was $30,208, while the state’s per capita income was $33,504. The rural counties in the region (without Montgomery County) have a 2010 average per capita income of $28,883 which is considerably less than that of the state. Still, the region has made tremendous improvements in keeping up with state income levels in the last ten years. Between 1970 and 2000, the region's average per capita income ranged from 78.5 percent to 82.0 percent of the state's. Between 2000 and 2010, the average per capita income of the region increased to 90.2 percent of the state's. A large part of this increase is attributable to Montgomery County, which has a per capita income of $38,160 and which is 113 percent of the state's. Bullock, Butler and Macon Counties' 2010 per capita income levels remain well below that of the state, ranging from 68.1 percent to 84.9 percent of the state's. Crenshaw, Lowndes and Pike Counties have a 2010 per capita income that is higher than the region's average.

Per Capita Personal Income, 1970 to 2010 Area 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 % of State Bullock County $2,134 $5,435 $10,248 $15,695 $22,817 68.1% Butler County $2,180 $6,379 $11,095 $18,851 $28,446 84.9% Crenshaw County $2,069 $5,567 $12,368 $21,544 $31,233 93.2% Lowndes County $2,081 $5,100 $10,734 $17,779 $31,212 93.2% Macon County $2,301 $5,350 $10,482 $15,724 $26,934 80.4% Montgomery County $3,463 $8,946 $18,347 $27,528 $38,160 113.9% Pike County $2,427 $6,236 $13,682 $21,067 $32,656 97.5% SCAEDD $2,379 $6,145 $12,422 $19,741 $30,208 90.2% Alabama $2,962 $7,825 $15,618 $24,067 $33,504 100.0% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Income Division ‐‐ April 2012

SCAEDD Per Capita Personal Income as Percentage of State, 1970 to 2010 92% 90% 90.2% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80.3% 82.0% 80% 79.5% 78% 78.5% 76% 74% 72% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Income Division ‐‐ April 2012

Despite increases in per capita personal income across the region, poverty levels are still higher than that of the state, at 18.9 percent. All but two of the counties in the region have close to or more than twice as many persons living below poverty than the national percentage of 15.3 percent. It is estimated that there are 77,295 persons living below poverty in the SCAEDD. Although Montgomery County has the highest number of people in poverty, at 46,972 persons, the percentage of the persons in poverty is highest in Macon, Bullock, Lowndes and Pike Counties.

Percent Population Below Poverty Level for All Persons, 2010 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Bullock County 31.1%

Butler County 28.1%

Crenshaw County 20.3%

Lowndes County 30.7%

Macon County 31.2%

Montgomery County 21.3%

Pike County 30.0%

Alabama 18.9%

United States 15.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Estimates Branch. Internet Release date: November 29, 2011

Workforce Development The South Central Alabama Economic Development District is located in three Workforce Development Council of Alabama (WDCA) regions. Butler, Crenshaw, Lowndes and Montgomery Counties are located in WDCA Region 7, with Autauga and Elmore Counties. Bullock and Macon Counties are located in WDCA Region 8, along with Chambers, Lee and Russell Counties. And Pike County is the only SCAEDD county located in WDCA Region 10, which includes Barbour, Coffee, Covington, Dale, Geneva, Henry and Houston Counties. In 2012, the SCAEDD had an annual average labor force of Labor Force 150,650 persons according to the Alabama Department of Labor. The 2012 labor force was a decrease of 2.6 percent, or 3,990 persons, from the 2000 labor force of 154,640 persons. During the 12‐year time frame, the region's labor force was notably unstable with decreases of 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2001 and 1.5 percent between 2001 and 2002. The number of persons in the labor force slowly increased each year between 2003 and 2007. Between 2007 and 2009, however, the labor force again dropped by 1.1 percent losing 1,627 workers. Between 2009 and 2010, the region's combined labor force increased slightly only to decrease again between 2010 and 2012. In the last two years, the SCAEDD labor force lost almost as many workers, at 3,518 persons, as it did in the entire last 12 years.

Annual Average Civilian Labor Force for the SCAEDD District, 2000 to 2012 156,000

155,000

154,000

153,000

152,000

151,000 Civilian Labor Force Civilian Labor 150,000

149,000

148,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Year Source for Employment and Unemployment Data: Alabama Department of Labor, Estimates prepared by the Alabama Department of Labor in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics based on 2012 benchmarks.

Only two counties, Crenshaw and Pike, did not suffer an overall decrease in the labor force between 2000 and 2012, but even they had a decrease in the labor force in the last two years. The labor force in Pike County increased by 13.3 percent between 2000 and 2010 but decreased by 3.6 percent between 2010 and 2012 for an overall gain in the labor force of 9.2 percent between 2000 and 2012. Likewise, the labor force in Crenshaw County increased by 6.2 percent between 2000 and 2010 but decreased by 1.3 percent between 2010 and 2012 for an overall gain in the labor force of 4.8 percent between 2000 and 2012. The remaining five counties did not fair nearly as well with Lowndes County having a loss of 19.2 percent of the labor force equating to 975 workers, followed by Bullock County with a loss of 11.5 percent of the labor force equating to 460 workers. Although Montgomery County had the lowest percentage of loss, at 3.0 percent, the county lost the most workers, at 3,231 persons. The labor force in Butler County decreased by 3.4 percent with a loss of 309 workers. Similarly, the labor force of Macon County decreased by 6.7 percent with a loss of 610 workers between 2000 and 2012.

After skyrocketing from 6.8 percent in 2008 to 12.0 percent in Unemployment 2009, the average annual unemployment rate for the SCAEDD region has steadily decreased and reached an average of 7.7 percent for the first seven months of 2013. While still higher than that of the state, at 6.9 percent, and equal to that of the nation, the 2013 regionwide unemployment rate is a significant improvement over previous years. During the first months of 2013, unemployment rates were lowest in April in each of the counties. Regionwide, the unemployment rate dropped from 8.6 percent in January to 6.7 percent in April. Since April, however, unemployment has crept back up to 7.6 percent in July for the region. The 2012 annual average unemployment rate for the SCAEDD was 10.0 percent. Among the seven counties of the region, 2012 unemployment rates varied considerably with Lowndes County having the highest unemployment rate of 14.1 percent, followed by Bullock County, at 13.4 percent, Butler County, at 10.9 percent, and Macon County, at 9.8 percent. Pike County had the lowest unemployment rate in 2012, at 7.0 percent, followed by Crenshaw County, at 7.2 percent, and Montgomery County, at 7.7 percent. Between 2000 and 2012, the annual average unemployment rate for the region increased by 77.9 percent, with Lowndes County

experiencing the most significant increase of 131.1 percent, followed by Montgomery County, at 108.1 percent, and Macon County, at 92.2 percent. As shown in the chart below, unemployment in all of the district's counties have followed the same trend, with the unemployment rate slowly increasing between 2000 and 2004 then declining between 2004 and 2007 prior to sharp increases between 2007 and 2009. Since 2009, unemployment rates have decreased which would generally indicate economic improvement in the area.

Average Annual Unemployment Rate, 2000 to 2012 20.0

18.0

16.0

14.0

12.0

10.0 Percent 8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montgomery Pike SCAEDD Average Source for Employment and Unemployment Data: Alabama Department of Labor, Estimates prepared by the Alabama Department of Labor in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics based on 2012 benchmarks.

2012 Annual Average Employment Statistics Civilian Labor Unemployment Area Employment Unemployment Force Rate Bullock County 3,533 3,060 473 13.4 Butler County 8,903 7,937 966 10.9 Crenshaw County 6,462 5,996 466 7.2 Lowndes County 4,114 3,534 580 14.1 Macon County 8,547 7,710 837 9.8 Montgomery County 103,607 95,607 8,000 7.7 Pike County 15,484 14,405 1,079 7 SCAEDD 150,650 138,249 12,401 10.0% Alabama 2,156,301 1,999,182 157,119 7.3% United States 154,975,000 142,459,000 12,506,000 8.1% Source for Employment and Unemployment Data: Alabama Department of Labor, Estimates prepared by the Alabama Department of Labor in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics based on 2012 benchmarks.

The unemployment rate, however, only tells part of the story. The other part is a decline in the labor force as workers have moved away or otherwise left the labor force as shown in the previous section on the labor force. Therefore, while unemployment rates have been on the decline in recent years, the actual number of persons that are unemployed is still much greater than at the beginning of the decade. In 2000, there were a total of 6,677 unemployed persons in the seven counties with a combined labor force of 154,640 persons equating to a regional unemployment rate of 5.6 percent. As of 2012, there are 12,401 unemployed persons with a combined labor force of 150,650 persons for a regional unemployment rate of 10.0 percent. As would be expected, Montgomery County has the highest number of unemployed persons, at 8,000 persons, followed by Pike County, at 1,079 persons, Butler County, at 966 persons, and Macon County, at 837 persons. The employment and unemployment rates have been volatile Job Loss over the last decade, as new jobs have dramatically increased but other industries have closed. The SCAEDD, as is the case in much of Alabama, is considered to have a shortage of workers, prepared to work in the amounts and kinds of industry locating in the region. The jobs gained in the early part of the decade with the location of Hyundai and its suppliers have been lost by other industries in the last part of the decade. Data available through the Bureau of Economic Analysis indicates that regionwide, the number of wage and salary jobs decreased 6.6 percent from 195,347 jobs in 2007 to 182,369 jobs in 2010 ‐‐ a combined loss of 12,978 jobs. The State of Alabama experienced a similar decrease of 6.8 percent. The impact on several of the region's counties was even greater. In fact, none of the counties gained wage and salary jobs between 2007 and 2010. Lowndes County lost 704 jobs in the three year time period, equating to an 18.3 percent loss. Macon County had a 9.1 percent decrease, with a loss of 620 jobs; Montgomery County lost 10,887 jobs and Butler County lost 422 jobs. Although not as severe as the other counties, Bullock, Crenshaw and Pike Counties also suffered cumulative job losses ranging from 1.14 percent to 2.5 percent. Although the region suffered major job loss between 2007 and Average Wage 2010, the average wage per job increased in every county of the region. The average county wage per job among the seven counties increased 10.4 percent to $33,428 in 2010. Although the state had less of an increase, the average wage per job, $39,626, is still

considerably higher than that of the region. The only county in the region that has an average wage higher than that of the state's wage is Montgomery County, at $41,365, which was a 9.0 percent increase.

Change in the Number of Wage and Salary Jobs, 2007 to 2010

-2.5% Bullock County

-5.6% Butler County

-2.1% Crenshaw County

-18.3% Lowndes County

-9.1% Macon County

-7.0% Montgomery County

-1.4% Pike County

-6.6% SCAEDD

-6.8% Alabama

-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% Percent Change Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Internet release date, Dec. 2011

In the SCAEDD, 81.7 percent of workers were employed in wage Employment by Industry and salary type jobs while 18.3 percent were proprietor employment as of 2010. Of the proprietor employment, 7.4 percent were farm proprietors and 92.6 were non‐farm proprietors. In comparison to the state, the SCAEDD had fewer proprietors than the state, at 21.5 percent, although the breakdown of farm (7.9 percent) and nonfarm (92.1 percent) proprietors at the state level was similar to that of the region. Counties that had higher than the regional average of proprietor employment included Bullock at 25.9 percent, Butler at 26.7 percent, Crenshaw at 35.1 percent, Lowndes at 36.5 percent, and Macon at 25.4 percent. All of the counties in the region, except Montgomery County, had a higher percentage of farm proprietors than the region as a whole or the state. The percentage of farm proprietors was highest in Crenshaw County, at 25.9 percent, and lowest in Macon County, at 15.5 percent, followed by Butler County, at 16.7 percent. Major employment sectors in 2010 are those industries that employ more than 10 percent of the total workers. In Alabama, major employment sectors included retail trade and state and local government. On a regional basis, only state and local government, at 16.9 percent, was the only industry that employed more than 10

percent of the workers. Retail trade was the next highest, at 9.0 percent, followed by manufacturing, at 8.6 percent, and healthcare and social assistance, at 8.4 percent. Other secondary employment sectors (those that employ between 5 percent and 9.9 percent) in the region included administrative and waste management services, at 7.5 percent, other services except public administration, at 6.9 percent, and accommodation and food services, at 5.9 percent. At the state level, there were six industries that employed between 5.0 percent and 9.9 percent of the total workers: manufacturing, at 9.8 percent; other services except public administration, at 7.3 percent; accommodation and food services, at 6.6 percent; administrative and waste management services, at 6.2 percent; construction at 5.9 percent; and, professional, scientific and technical services, at 5.5 percent. At the individual county level in 2010, state and local government was a major employment sector in all counties, employing between 11.1 percent in Butler County and 37.5 percent in Macon County. Farm employment was a major employment sector in three counties: Bullock, at 19.6 percent; Crenshaw, at 13.3 percent; and Lowndes, at 12.0 percent. Other major employment industries included manufacturing, health care and social assistance, retail trade, other services except public administration and transportation and warehousing. Secondary major industries at the county level included forestry and fishing, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, retail trade, finance and insurance, administrative and waste management services, health care and social assistance, accommodation and food services, and other services except public administration. More detailed information is available in Table 21 of Appendix A.

Geography, Resources and Environment The total land area of the district is 4,808 square miles, which is 9.5 percent of the area of the State of Alabama. By comparison with other areas, the district is over four times larger than Rhode Island, twice as large as Delaware, and almost nine times the size of the District of Columbia. Because of the land and the climate, the economy of the district is still partially based on agriculture and forest products in the rural counties. In recent years farming has become more diversified with the development of crops that have possibilities for plastics, dehydrated foods, livestock feed, commercial vegetables, and many others. Because of the timber resources of the district, several wood using plants have been constructed in the area. Since the wood using industry is primarily dependent upon available timber resources, planning and coordination for maximum use of timber resources is imperative. Landowners in the district started reforestation decades ago with the assistance of the United States Department of Agriculture and the State of Alabama Forestry Commission. A large portion of the forestland is owned by large wood using industries, and they are continually attempting to purchase large tracts to assure continuing supplies and conservation of forest resources. There are significant and important mineral deposits in the district that contribute to the region’s economy. The most abundant mineral resources in Crenshaw, Lowndes, Montgomery, and Macon are sand and gravel, found on the river terraces and in alluvial deposits along the streams. The most significant mineral resources in the southern tier of counties are brown iron ore and lignite, however, an eco‐ nomical mining process and markets are not being developed. Water resources in the district are one of its most important Water Resources assets. Ground water supply is estimated by the Alabama Geological Survey to be between 20 and 50 million gallons per for each county. Most ground water is of good quality and ranges from soft to hard. There are some isolated problems with iron, fluoride, and chloride and falling water tables. The major streams within the district offer a potential source of surface water supply for use in areas where ground water may prove to be inadequate. Falling water tables and drought conditions influenced several local governments to reevaluate their supplies for water systems. Presently, Tuskegee and Notasulga obtain their water from surface water sources. The City of Montgomery obtains its water from wells and the Tallapoosa River.

All other communities and industries rely upon water obtained from the several aquifers that underlie the district. The Jones Bluff Reservoir on the Alabama River bordering Lowndes and Montgomery Counties will provide the greatest industrial water supply. The Alabama River, which is located along the northern part of the district, is a major resource, which is vitally important to the future development of the area. The Alabama River is, also navigable as far north as Montgomery, and it has the potential for bringing significant industrial growth, expansion, and employment to the district.

Land Use There is one major urban center (Montgomery), and three other urban areas (Troy, Tuskegee, and Greenville) within the seven county region. Twenty‐four smaller, incorporated municipalities sparsely developed throughout the district. Most of the commercial and industrial development is located in or near these incorporated areas. However, a significant portion of the region’s population lives outside the incorporated areas in small, unincorporated, rural communities or on dispersed rural home sites.

Land Use in the SCAEDD, 2007 Forest, 69.3%

Urban, 4.3% Hayland, 2.0% Surface Water, 0.9% Mined Land, 0.4% Pasture, 10.4% Other, 7.9% Other Crops, 3.6% Principle Row Crops, 1.3% Source: Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee, 2007 Watershed Assessments

The great majority of the land within the boundaries of the South Central Alabama Economic Development District is forest land, at 69.3 percent of the total land. Forest land includes both cultivated forests for silviculture and undeveloped land with a forest canopy. Urban land uses comprise less than 5 percent of the region and are located with the midsize to larger municipalities. Agricultural land

uses, including crops and pasture make up 17.3 percent of the total area of the region. The primary agricultural land use is pasture land. Infrastructure and otherwise unclassified lands comprise 7.9 percent of the land area; and surface water and mined lands each make up less than one percent of the total land area of the region. A majority of the region is held in private ownership. Those areas which are publicly owned consist of small acreage used for public parks and other community facilities and two major tracts in federal ownership, the Tuskegee National Forest and the R.E. “Bob” Woodruff Lake (a.k.a. Jones Bluff Lake) Recreation Areas. The Tuskegee National Forest, located in northeast Macon County, is an 11,054‐acre site owned and operated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service. The Alabama River‐Jones Bluff area, owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is a staged multi‐facility development project encompassing an 80‐mile section of the Alabama River shoreline. State enabling legislation gives municipal governments broad powers to control land development within the corporate limits. The City of Montgomery is an exception to this in that it has special legislation giving the City zoning authority 1.5 miles outside their corporate limits. In addition, municipalities may regulate subdivision development within five miles of the incorporated area, control land use within airport hazard areas, and enforce construction standards within the police jurisdiction. In the South Central Alabama region, about most of the incorporated municipalities are enforcing zoning and subdivision regulations as well as standard building codes and some of these communities have housing codes. With a few exceptions, the counties in Alabama have only limited land use control authority. Macon County is one of the exceptions; it has received (via legislative act) countywide planning and zoning authority for the unincorporated areas of the county. State health regulations authorize county health departments to regulate water distribution systems and sewage collection and treatment systems for subdivisions and to control the installation of individual septic tanks and filter fields. This allows the county health departments to determine minimum lot sizes for development. However, limited personnel resources in the individual county health departments have reduced the effectiveness of local enforcement programs. In addition, enabling legislation exists to allow counties to control all development in flood hazard areas. To implement this authority,

counties may establish building permit systems. Within the SCAEDD, most of the counties have adopted and are in the process of initiating countywide permit systems. While counties do have the authority to regulate development in airport hazard areas, the rural counties within the region have not chosen to exercise this authority. Five counties and all the larger municipalities in the region have adopted land use plans and controls to guide their future growth and development. However, many of these plans are dated. Once updated, these plans, in conjunction with detailed information on specific sites, should be utilized in evaluating proposed industrial and commercial sites in the region. Data relating to the physical and location characteristics of potential development sites are available from a variety of sources. Physical characteristics such as soil suitability, slope, drainage, flooding hazard, and environmental sensitivity should be analyzed in addition to geographical considerations such as availability of transportation facilities and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Assistance in developing such information is available from SCADC, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Alabama Geological Survey, the USDA Forest Service and other state and federal agencies.

Hazard Natural hazard mitigation is the process of reducing or eliminating Mitigation the loss of life and property damage resulting from natural disaster events. Section 409 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93‐288, as amended), Title 44 CFR, as amended by Section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, provides the framework for state and local governments to evaluate and mitigate all natural hazards as a condition for receiving federal disaster assistance. A major requirement of the law is the development of a local hazard mitigation plan. Each of the counties in the South Central Alabama EDD has developed and adopted a hazard mitigation plan since 2004. The county plans include a mitigation strategy, which outlines a coordinated implementation of action steps with as little conflict and/or duplication of efforts as possible by the responsible agencies and jurisdictions. The hazard mitigation plans were developed under the direction of a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) which includes representatives from all participating municipalities in the county, along with other hazard mitigation stakeholders. In order to be eligible, each local government must participate in the development of the plan and the plan must be adopted by each jurisdiction. All

municipalities in the region have also adopted the respective county hazard mitigation plan. In Butler, Macon, Montgomery and Pike Counties, the hazard mitigation plans have been revised and updated since their original adoption. County emergency management contact information, jurisdictions participating in the hazard mitigation process, and the date of adoption and/or updates of the county hazard mitigation plans is available in Table 23 of Appendix B. As of 2010, there are 138,232 total housing units in the South Housing Central Alabama EDD region, which is a loss of 8,942 units since 2000. Total housing units in the district increased from 96,700 to 125,856 between 1970‐1980, however this figure increased to 129,782 by 1990, and to 147,174 in 2000. For the rural counties, there were 34,115 units in 1970, which had increased to 41,168 in 1980, 45,257 in 1990, and 51,737 in 2000. Housing units in Montgomery County increased from 62,585 in 1970 to 84,688 in 1980, and then slightly lower to 84,525 in 1990, but up to 95,437 in 2000. Reflecting population growth, housing units increased between 1970 and 1980 by 26 percent in Montgomery County, while increasing only 17 percent in the rural counties. Between 1980 and 1990 rural counties gained in housing stock by 10 percent. From 1990 to 2000, the housing stock in the district increased by 13.4 percent and by 14.3 percent in the rural counties. Of the total housing units in the region, 87.3 percent are occupied and 12.7 percent are vacant in 2010. Housing occupancy is fairly consistent throughout the region. Montgomery County has the highest housing occupancy, at 88.5 percent. Macon County has the highest housing vacancy, at 17.2 percent, followed by Bullock County, at 16.6 percent and Crenshaw County, at 16.1 percent.

Housing Unit Occupancy, 2010 Total Housing Occupied Vacant County % % Units Units Units Bullock 4,493 3,745 83.4% 748 16.6% Butler 9,964 8,491 85.2% 1,473 14.8% Crenshaw 6,735 5,652 83.9% 1,083 16.1% Lowndes 5,140 4,352 84.7% 788 15.3% Macon 10,259 8,499 82.8% 1,760 17.2% Montgomery 101,641 89,981 88.5% 11,660 11.5% Pike 15,267 13,210 86.5% 2,057 13.5% SCAEDD 138,232 120,720 87.3% 17,512 12.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census.2010 Census Summary File 1

Of the total occupied housing units in the region in 2010, 63.2 percent are owner‐occupied and 36.8 percent are renter‐occupied. Owner occupancy is highest in Lowndes County, at 78.4 percent, followed by Crenshaw County, at 73.3 percent, and Butler County, at 70.3 percent. Renter occupancy is highest in Pike County, at 40.2 percent, followed by Montgomery County, at 38.6 percent, and Macon County, at 36.5 percent. The higher rental occupancy of these three counties is reflective of a more urban population in the region's larger cities and student populations in Troy and Tuskegee. The average household size for owner‐occupied units regionwide is 2.5 persons per household, while the average household size for renter‐ occupied units is slightly lower at 2.4 persons per household. The average household size for owner‐occupied units is highest in Lowndes County at 2.6 persons per household and the average household size for renter‐occupied units is highest in Bullock County, at 2.7 persons per household. In 1990, 74.8 percent of the housing units in the region were connected to public sewer, compared to the 2000 level of 99.3 percent. The rural counties had 20,077 or 44.4 percent connected to public sewer in 1990, and 51,254 or 99.1 percent in 2000. This latter compares to the 2000 level in Montgomery County where 94,917 units or 99.5 percent of the total were connected to public sewer. Substantial progress has been made since 1970, to replace or upgrade large numbers of substandard housing units. Recent studies indicate, however, that substandard dwellings continue to exist, especially in the rural counties. Sound housing is essential if the region is to be a desirable place to work, live and develop industry. Housing improvements and new construction should be encouraged and supported to further reduce the proportion of substandard units in the region. Additional units that are affordable are strongly needed for low to moderate‐income families throughout the region.

Governmental Most government facilities such as city and town halls, county Services and court houses, administrative buildings for various federal and state Facilities offices, police and fire departments, sanitation services, etc., can be considered adequate in Montgomery County. These types of facilities are expected to be provided in growth centers like Troy and Greenville. However, in the rural counties where there is a limited tax base and other facilities are found to be inadequate, municipal and county facilities are also often inadequate and outdated. There is a need throughout the district for increased fire and police protection.

The adequacy of sanitation services varies from excellent service in the more urbanized areas to only adequate service in the smaller communities and rural areas. A concentrated program to upgrade existing facilities and build new, adequate facilities in the district is a major goal. Additional analysis is needed in the region to confirm the needs for health care, k‐12 education, day care and public safety. Additional study of health care, public safety and education is needed and should be incorporated into future updates of the CEDS.

Infrastructure and Transportation Infrastructure in the region includes water and sewer services and systems, energy delivery, and transportation and circulation or access. Public water supplies, sewage treatment facilities, and transportation systems within the district is of utmost importance. These three elements comprise the important aspects of quality of life in the area and determine the area’s potential for growth. There are an estimated 46 different water systems located Water Systems throughout the region, the majority of which are public suppliers serving counties, towns and cities. Of the total systems, 23 systems serve incorporated municipalities within the district. There are also three private water companies operating systems within the region. The remainder of these systems serve rural and county areas. The Montgomery Water Works system is the largest within the region. The only incorporated municipalities within the district, which do not have their own water systems are the Towns of Benton and Gordonsville in Lowndes County, Petrey in Crenshaw County, and Shorter in Macon County. Benton has easy access to good water a short distance below the surface and Shorter is served by the Macon County system. In addition to public water systems blanketing the district, systems have been interconnected and/or consolidated in many cases to improve reliability and efficiency of service. Over the past two decades, the Town of Fort Deposit has been interconnected with the Butler County Water system, two systems in Crenshaw County have interconnected and merged, three systems in Bullock County have interconnected and merged and several systems in Macon County have merged. However, additional interconnections are needed in many of the rural areas throughout the district. The significant factor in analyzing the area’s water systems is not

necessarily the plant capacity but the maximum usage per day. Several municipalities located throughout the district will become deficient during the early 2000s in water production/storage capacity if current consumption trends continue. It is imperative that water system development concentrate on improving production and storage capacities at a rate sufficient for growth and demand. This may involve tapping deep aquifers with very high capacity wells to serve several systems. Most of the water supplies throughout the district are obtained from deep wells. Thirty‐seven of the 45(+/‐) systems within the region obtain their water in this manner. The largest system in the region, Montgomery, obtains its water from both wells and the Tallapoosa River. The only other large water system in the district that is obtaining its water from a surface water supply is the Tuskegee Utilities Board. All of the systems receive some type of treatment. In most cases this consists only of adding chlorine. While having one‐third of the region’s population, the rural counties within the district have less than 25 percent of the available water treatment capacity. They have for the most part the smaller systems in the district and in many cases are fully utilizing their exist‐ ing plant capacities. Capacities should be increased to allow for new customers, especially industry. For many of the smaller municipalities to sustain any substantial amount of economic growth, their water systems will have to be upgraded during the next several years. Their capacity is limited, and any substantial new water user could create a situation of under capacity.

Sanitary Sewer As the largest concentration of urban development, the City of Montgomery sewer system capacity currently exceeds demand and should be adequate for many years. A number of recently annexed subdivisions are served adequately by public sewage systems. In analyzing the sewage treatment situation within the rural counties, consideration must be given to the following conditions: 1) the municipalities that have municipal collection systems and adequate treatment capacity; 2) those that have municipal collection systems but provide no or inadequate treatment; 3) those that have no public sewer system; and 4) those which serve only a portion of the municipality. As of 1998, eleven cities and towns within the district provide adequate (secondary) treatment for those served by the public sewer systems. Two small municipalities provide only primary treatment,

and both are deficient. Fourteen small municipalities have no public sewer service. In Macon County there are three public sanitary sewer systems, which serve Tuskegee, Notasulga and a portion of Shorter. The original sewer system serving Notasulga was constructed in 1915. The sewer system is generally limited to the mercantile section of town and a limited number of residences. The treatment is by septic tank, which has a 10,000‐gallon capacity and 3,000 feet of filter field. Because of soil characteristics in the area, the filter does not function properly and presents a potential public health hazard. A project has been underway to provide adequate sewer service to the entire town. The sanitary sewer system in Tuskegee serves a majority of the developed area of the city. The city is divided into eight minor drainage areas. Four of these flow generally northward to Uphapee Creek, and the other four flow mostly southward to Calebee Creek. Both of these creeks then flow westward to the Tallapoosa River. Combined, Tuskegee’s two treatment facilities serve approximately 15,500 persons a day. Both sewage treatment plants have the combined maximum capacity to treat 2.25 million gallons of wastewater a day. As of 1996, the system average daily capacity was 1.95 MGD. The city still has some capacity grow and may be bale to accommodate some industrial, commercial, and residential growth. The system recently received grant funds to rehabilitate faulty sewer outfall and residential lines. In Bullock County, the City of Union Springs has two sewage treatment plants and both provide secondary treatment. The oldest plant is a trickling filter type that has a capacity of 750,000 gallons per day and is currently treating between 250,000 and 275,000 gpd, mainly two‐thirds of the city’s domestic waste and some industrial waste. The other facility is a 1,800,000 gpd activated sludge plant. This facility was financed in part by a grant from the Economic Development Administration to treat waste from Wayne Poultry and to relieve the load on the other plant. At present, these two treatment plants are inadequate. Current plans involve upgrading the newer of the two plants to accommodate the growth of Wayne Farms Poultry. All treated wastewater is diverted to a new 273‐acre land application site just east of Union Springs’ trough sprinklers. The Cities of Troy and Brundidge in Pike County have municipal sewage systems. The City of Troy and the City of Brundidge recently

upgraded the treatment capacity of their systems so that considerable growth can be accommodated for several years. The City of Brundidge upgraded its treatment plant with assistance from the Economic Development Administration to accommodate several new industries, one of which has relocated, leaving the city with ample capacity. The Towns of Banks and Goshen do not have municipal sewer systems. In Crenshaw County, the City of Luverne provides secondary treatment using a 10‐acre lagoon. It has a maximum capacity of 450,000 gpd and as of 1996, is being over utilized at approximately 105 percent of capacity. The Town of Brantley built a new public sewer system in 1978 with a treatment capacity of 200,000 gpd and is currently well under capacity. The Towns of Rutledge and Dozier have implemented sewer system projects, both consisting of lagoons. Dozier has a maximum capacity of 59,000 gpd while Rutledge has a maximum capacity of 74,000 gpd. Both towns are currently well served. Petrey and Glenwood do not have municipal sewer systems. In Butler County, the City of Georgiana has a fairly new municipal sewer system that should provide ample capacity for many years to come. Also, the City of Georgiana is now totally served by sewer. The city’s system does experience difficulties during periods of heavy rain from inflow into the system. The City of Greenville provides lagoon treatment for its municipal sewer system. A grant from the Economic Development Administration and a loan from HUD supported construction of the lagoon treatment plant and other improvements to the water and sewer system. The plant began operation in 1990, and has a capacity of 2.0 MGD and should serve the projected population of the area for the next 10‐15 years. The Town of McKenzie has no public sewer systems. Of the six municipalities in Lowndes County, only Fort Deposit and Hayneville have adequate public sewer systems. Mosses has a system serving part of the town, and is in the process of expanding the system to adequately meet all of the town's needs. Septic tanks are widely used in the rural areas of the county but poor soil conditions create many problems with their use. In summary, all of the larger cities are providing secondary treatment to waste collected by public sewer systems. A continuous analysis capacity is needed, and when use exceeds 80 percent, capacities need to be increased to permit unrestricted growth. The communities without public sewer systems need to be studied and

advised when a system appears necessary for economic and community growth. The district is well served by six different electric utility Energy Delivery companies. The Alabama Power Company serves the Montgomery area, the primary growth center, other larger cities, a portion of Butler County, and portions of Bullock and Macon County. The remainder of the district is served by electric cooperatives (REA). Several of the municipalities located in the district also have electric systems where they buy power from the Alabama Power Company, the Alabama Municipal Electric Authority, or a local electric cooperative and distribute the electricity within the corporate limits. Although natural gas facilities are not available for every municipality in the district, most areas are served by or have access to natural gas. Natural gas transmission lines provide for parts of every county within the district. Montgomery and Macon counties have more natural gas facilities than the other counties because the Southern Natural Gas (Alabama Gas Company) transmission lines go through Autauga and Macon Counties and just north of Montgomery in south Elmore County. Of the 28 incorporated municipalities in the district, a natural gas pipeline serves 11. The Southeast Alabama Gas District serves the municipalities of Fort Deposit, Greenville, Rutledge, Luverne, Brantley, Goshen, Troy and Brundidge, while the Southern Natural Gas Company serves the cities of Montgomery, Tuskegee and Union Springs. The natural gas transmission lines are located throughout the district in a manner that natural gas facilities could be made available to nearby communities upon demand. The region has a good basic network of highways, both state and Transportation federal, including two interstate highways, six U.S. highways, 21 state highways, and numerous paved county roads. The illustration on the following page shows the major road network throughout the district. The presence of intercity trucking companies throughout the district is a significant asset. The availability of multi‐transportation systems to industry is a tremendous enticement to locate within a given area. The district, with good disbursements of highways, must work on those areas where they are deficient. Attention should be given to increasing trucking facilities where deficient, development of the inland waterways, upgrading existing airport facilities, and planning future roads and highways. Major highway improvements are needed as the region has become a major distribution center, requiring efficient truck access,

often contributing to increased conflicts with automobiles and congestion, in general is an increasing issue in and around Montgomery Troy and Greenville. The completion of the Montgomery Loop and extension of I 85 west are critical issues.

South Central Alabama Major Highway Network

Each county in the district has rail service except Crenshaw and Bullock Counties, although the amount of service has significantly decreased over the last decade. Only three railway companies now serve the district. Several of the larger municipalities located in the rural areas and many of the incorporated towns are not served by rail. This will have an adverse effect on their development and will continue to have an effect on their ability to attain a substantial amount of economic growth. However, the distribution of the rail lines throughout the district is such that several suitable industrial sites can be made available along existing rail lines.

Every county within the district has at least one airport. Most of the airports throughout the district are considered to be adequate with the exception of Lowndes County airport in Fort Deposit, which is in need of runway improvements. Three commercial carriers serve Dannelly Field in Montgomery, the only commercial airport within the district, on a regular basis. These airlines have regularly scheduled daily flights from Dannelly Field, connecting to major cities throughout the nation. Troy has the second largest civilian facility with no commercial service, but it does have dual runways and a limited use control tower. Moton Field in Tuskegee has recently been awarded funds to lengthen and improve its runway. The Alabama River is navigable from Mobile to Montgomery, and an inland waterway terminal has been constructed in Montgomery. The availability of barge transportation is a tremendous economic advantage to industries locating in the region.The Jones Bluff Lock and Dam is located on the Alabama River in Lowndes County, about 3 miles north of Benton and approximately 15 miles southeast of Selma. The dam backs up the Alabama River to a minimum depth of nine feet from the upper end of Millers Ferry reservoir to the junction of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers north of Montgomery and the Coosa River to the vicinity of Wetumpka, a distance of 80 miles. The powerhouse contains four generating units, which produce an average of 328,900,000‐kilowatt hours of electrical energy annually, which is sufficient to serve about 59,000 homes. The lake has an area of approximately 19 square miles, and its level normally fluctuates only about one foot, providing excellent opportunities for recreation.

The Region's Growth Centers Growth centers are geographically and economically related such that they may be expected to contribute significantly to the economy of the region. Montgomery, the primary growth center for the SCAEDD, is a city of 205,764 people as of 2010 and is located in the north central part of the region. The City of Montgomery has had steady population growth during the period from 1970 to 1980 with a 25.0 percent increase, and between 1980 and 1990, a 5.2 percent increase. From 1990 to 2000, the city experienced a 7.7 percent increase and from 2000 to 2010, Montgomery grew by another 2.1 percent. In addition, Montgomery County had a 14.8 percent increase between 1970 and 1980, a 6.1 percent increase between 1980 and 1990, 6.9 percent between 1990 and 2000, and a 2.6 percent increase during the last decade.

Montgomery is strategically located with an excellent highway Montgomery system and is only a one‐hour drive from virtually the entire region. Montgomery provides diversified services including major shopping centers, commercial air facilities, upscale restaurants, home furnishing establishments, and more diversified cultural, recreational and entertainment facilities. Montgomery has an 182,000 square foot civic center a major museum and Shakespearean theater. However, Montgomery is located in the extreme northern part of the region. Thus, Troy and Greenville, located to the south, serve as important secondary growth centers. Tuskegee is also considered a potential growth center within the district. Although progress within the growth centers has been significant, there remain inadequacies within these centers. For example, the target population by and large still resides in impoverished conditions in well defined areas within the growth centers. City and county officials in the growth centers are fully aware of the physical, social, and economic conditions that exist and are taking steps to alleviate these conditions. Montgomery is able to secure funds to help expand its economic base, and to alleviate many physical, social, and economic problems existing in the redevelopment areas of the district and help in creating job opportunities, which will reduce unemployment. With the reduction in unemployment in redevelopment areas, the overall standard of living in the growth centers and the region will improve. The Montgomery growth area will continue to provide additional jobs for the underemployed and the unemployed of the region. The growth area will stimulate industrialization of cities in the rural counties. In 1991, Montgomery had three new industries to locate in the area and 33 expanded industries, providing 385 additional jobs. In 2003, there were four new industries and nine expanding industries all providing 466 new jobs. New industries, such as Hyundai and its suppliers, and expansion of existing industries in Montgomery has stimulated and will simulate several satellite industries in the surrounding rural counties. Montgomery will continue to provide the necessary housing and commercial development in these areas where industries locate. In the past three decades, the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) has invested heavily in the capitol area of the central city by building or renovating several major office buildings that now contain mostly state agencies, and other downtown amenities. The State of

Alabama has also built additional government buildings in the capitol complex. A 400‐room Embassy Suites hotel has been built downtown and another major hotel is under construction to boost the city’s convention business downtown, along with a major expansion and renovation of the Civic Center. Troy University has expanded considerably downtown along with the new Federal Courthouse. There have also been numerous private but smaller construction projects in the central city in the last few years, including the redevelopment of several old warehouses located closer to the river into commercial or residential uses. A new baseball stadium has been built downtown and plans are being implemented to continue to revitalize the Downtown/Riverfront area of the city. The city has also embarked on an aggressive neighborhood revitalization program. Most of the suburban commercial and residential growth is contained in the aggressive growth corridor toward the east following along I‐85, State Highway 110/Vaughn Road, and US Highway 80/Atlanta Highway. Recent incorporation of Pike Road is a new dynamic in the Montgomery growth area, with growth accelerating along a southeast corridor. Montgomery is a major retail center. When completed, East Chase will supposedly become the largest outdoor shopping facility in the state. Several new shopping complexes and retail service centers have opened and are opening in the rapidly expanding Bell‐Vaughn‐ Taylor Roads vicinities. The city and the surrounding area have attracted many new manufacturing and distribution companies The most noted has been the new Hyundai plant located in southern. Some estimates cite that up to 8,000 new jobs will be created in the area because of the new car plant. Additional jobs are being created through numerous suppliers and plants in the area. Montgomery has a number of public housing complexes. Montgomery is an active participant in the HUD HOME program. There is still a need for adequate housing for low and moderate‐ income families. Even at the $44,669 median family income level, most low and moderate‐income families find it difficult to make required monthly mortgage payments. This trend continued into the 1980s and 1990s. A more active economy in the late 1980s and the late 1990s and low interest rates spurred middle and upper income housing development. It remains difficult for moderate‐income families to purchase homes, and rental vacancy rates remain low.

Urban land prices have continued to climb rapidly. Montgomery and surrounding areas must continuously re‐examine long‐range plans, and encourage development of adequate, basic, low and moderate‐ income housing. Transportation access is one of the major assets of Montgomery. Two interstate highways (I‐65 and I‐85) intersect at Montgomery bringing easy access to the immediate cities of Atlanta, Birmingham, and Mobile. Interstate 65 extends from Chicago to Mobile and the gulf coast and Interstate 85 extends from St. Petersburg, Virginia, to Montgomery. At present, the feasibility of extending I‐85 from Montgomery to Jackson, Mississippi is being studied. There are five U.S. highways that intersect at Montgomery, U.S. 31, 80, 82, 231, and 331. The City of Montgomery is leading the development of an outer loop to connect I‐65 south of the City with I‐85 east of the City. Waterway transportation is currently available from Mobile to Montgomery via the Alabama River and access to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and the Gulf of Mexico is available via the Alabama‐Tombigbee waterway. Waterway transportation has a significant impact on Montgomery and the surrounding area. Only one major railroad transportation company serves Montgomery. CSX Transportation (CSXT) provides service to Atlanta and Dothan and points east to Florida, Birmingham and points north, Selma and points west, Greenville and Mobile and points southwest. The Montgomery Regional Airport (MRA) (Dannelly Field) is located in southwest Montgomery with two lighted paved runways of 9,010 and 4,010 feet. Atlantic Southeast Airlines/Delta Connection, U.S. Airways Express, Northwest Airlink, and Continental Express currently offer approximately 18 daily flights connecting directly to and from Atlanta, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Houston, Memphis, and other southeastern cities. A U.S. Department of Commerce designated Foreign Trade Zone Number 222, Dannelly Field is home 29 aviation‐ related tenants, including major aviation units of the Army and Air National Guards. On average, MRA sees approximately 202 takeoffs and landings per day. Greyhound Lines operates a terminal in south Montgomery with service to all major cities. Capital Trailways of Alabama is also headquartered in Montgomery, and provides charter services as well as supplements local Greyhound routes. The City operates three intra‐city bus transportation systems. The City’s standard bus system operates 15 fixed routes and Demand & Response Transportation

(DART) program provides on‐demand shuttle/taxi‐like services at fixed rates. MAP, Montgomery Area Paratransit, offers bus transportation for individuals with physical disabilities. Montgomery’s central location in the Southeast have created fast and convenient service facilities for motor freight truck lines that operate terminals in the city. These motor lines provide overnight service to all points in the state and regular service to all points in the nation. Major surface water supplies in the immediate area include the Alabama, Coosa, and Tallapoosa Rivers The Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board (WWSSB) keeps pace with growth through a steady program of expansion. Sanitary Sewer is collected and treated by the WWSSB in three water pollution control plants providing complete primary and secondary treatment using primary filters, biological trickling filters, synthetic bio‐filters, or activated sludge and secondary filtration. The City’s Sanitation Department is served by one 345‐acre sanitary landfill is used for non‐hazardous solid waste disposal. The site has been in use for about 30 years and it is estimated that the facility will reach capacity between the years 2010 and 2015. Montgomery has one of the larger school systems in the state. Education is provided by public, parochial, private, and special schools. The public school system is operated by a combined city‐ county school system. There are eight major institutions of higher learning in the City of Montgomery: Alabama State University, Auburn University Montgomery, Trenholm State Technical College, Huntingdon College, Faulkner University, Troy University Montgomery, South University, Southern Christian University, and Air University. Montgomery has three general hospitals: Baptist Medical Center South, Baptist Medical Center East, and Jackson Hospital. There are several specialized facilities, including: the Montgomery Cancer Center, the Institute for Total Eye Care, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ West Campus of the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System, and the regional clinic at Maxwell Air Force Base. Several private nursing homes add to Montgomery’s medical facilities. The Montgomery County Health Department is a city‐county office that serves the entire county. Montgomery’s approach to industrial development has been successful. Approximately 640 firms within the Montgomery MSA

(pre‐2003) area are presently engaged in some form of manufacturing or assembly. Many industries recognize the area as the center of retail trade and wholesale distribution for Central Alabama and nationally, competing with southeastern distribution centers such as Atlanta and Memphis. The Montgomery Industrial Development Board manages the 615‐acre Montgomery Industrial Terminal within the city limits of Montgomery. Gunter Industrial Park is a 604‐acre tract acquired by the city from the U.S. Air Force, improved with EDA assistance and opened to industry in 1973. Rheem Manufacturing is a major tenant that has continued to expand, becoming one of the largest water heater manufacturing plants in the world. The Antioch Plains Industrial Park, developed by private interests, is located at U.S. Highway 80 and the eastern bypass near Interstate 85. Montgomery’s Interstate Industrial Park containing 708 acres is located southwest of the city on highway I‐65 and the CSX Railroad and two miles from Montgomery Regional Airport. Montgomery’s fire department enables the city to have a class 2 fire insurance rating. Presently, the department is composed of over 400 paid personnel. All businesses within the police jurisdiction are entitled to fire protection. Police personnel are kept alert to modern methods by in‐service training programs and attendance at such schools as Northwestern University, Southern Police Institute and the FBI Academy. H. Councill Trenholm State Technical College provides technical training in over 40 trades and skills. The schools operate year‐round, and new courses designed to meet the demands of industry can be established on request. Four year institutions offer continuing and community education programs in a variety of fields, and three private and one public training institutes offer secretarial, office, trade and other vocational training programs. Envision 2020 is an on‐going process for citizen based progress, addressing the present and future needs of the River Region. Elements of Envision 2020 are in the early stages of implementation. The River Region has been drawn to include Autauga, Elmore, Lowndes, Macon, and Montgomery Counties. The city’s planning commission enforces zoning ordinances within the city limits and has attempted to obtain the legal authority to enforce zoning within the police jurisdiction. Montgomery has a significant portion of its population at or

below the poverty level, resulting in needs beyond basic housing needs.The Montgomery Community Action Committee, Inc., has developed several programs to help eliminate poverty in the community. Some of these are adult literacy, family planning, emergency food and medical service, weatherization, energy assistance, health services, and Head Start.The Central Alabama Opportunities Industrialization Center (Central Alabama OIC) also has several programs that benefit the area’s residents. Central Alabama OIC also provides a job‐training program, and it has applied for “Community Development Entity” status from the U.S. Department of the Treasury in order to offer and conduct community revitalization programs. In addition to the Central Alabama OIC, there are numerous nonprofit organizations that provide a variety of services to the underprivileged and distressed. Among these are groups such as the Salvation Army, Lighthouse, the Sunshine Center, the Montgomery Area United Way, Habitat for Humanity, Rebuilding Together, Montgomery Area Foodbank, Group Homes for Children, and several others. All provide assistance such as homeless shelters, home construction, food, counseling to rape and domestic abuse victims, runaway and foster child. Neighborhood shopping facilities have been built in the target population areas, but additional ones are needed. Presently, the Washington Park, Madison Park, and Fairview Avenue areas are the most pressing need. Programs and initiatives, such as the 2001 EDA funded West Montgomery Development plan, are being implemented by groups such as the city’s planning department (through the Weed & Seed program), Central Alabama OIC, and SCADC to help alleviate the plight experienced by those in distress. Troy and Greenville as secondary growth centers are also important to the region important. It is approximately 60 miles from the most southern part of the district to the Montgomery. Such commuting distances to the primary growth area make it important to have secondary growth centers, Troy and Greenville to serve this function. Troy is located in the southeastern part of the district, and is now Troy the second largest city in the district. It has the potential to have a stimulating effect on the economy. From 1960 to 1970, the population of Troy grew from 10,234 to 11,482, while increasing to 12,945 by 1980, 13,051 in 1990, and 13,935 in 2000. Troy’s economic impact area is only a short drive from the center

city because of the good highway system serving Troy and the neighboring counties. Shopping facilities include the central business district and several community shopping centers. Retail establishments are present downtown and several buildings including City Hall have been restored. Troy’s retail trade area includes all of Pike County and parts of Crenshaw, Bullock, Coffee and Barbour counties. As the shopping facilities expand and improve, retail trade will increase especially for seasonal and occasional shopping trips. While many facilities and services in Troy need improvement, Troy still provides regional services for the surrounding counties and communities. At present, there is a need for additional standard houses for purchase by moderate to low‐income families in Troy. The primary highway running through Pike County is U.S. 231. This four‐lane road transverses the entire length of the County linking Troy and Brundidge to Montgomery, however, traffic congestion can be high. Traffic volume is good for local commerce to a certain level, but heavy congestion becomes a problem. The overall highway system in Pike County is adequate for a county of its size, however, there is little intra‐county and community transportation which can make it difficult to commute to work. Lack of interstate miles in the County has often been cited as a deficiency in terms of economic development. Two rail lines with daily switching service cross Pike County intersecting in Troy. Conecuh Valley Railroad (COEH) (formerly the Southern Alabama RR Co.), a Class III company owned by Gulf and Ohio Railroads, operates a 16‐mile shortline from Troy to Goshen. In 2002, EDA awarded funds to rehabilitate a substantial portion of this shortline that had become severely deteriorated. CSXT operates the major rail line that runs northwest to Montgomery and southeast through Brundidge and onto Dothan and Florida. An interchange between the CSXT and the COEH lines is located in Troy. Troy Municipal Airport is located about five miles northwest of the core of the city on U.S. 231. It has two paved runways; the longest is 5,022 feet and is lighted with IFR approaches (NDB, ILS, and VOR). A tower is in operation during the daytime hours and fuel, repair services, apron parking, and tie down facilities are available. A third runway has been closed and industrial sites developed at each end, providing ready access to the two active runways. The airport is utilized heavily by Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky, two of the area’s largest employers. The Troy airport is capable of handling small jet

and light twin‐engine aircraft and is quite adequate for the size city it serves. Its location is ideal on the north side of the city toward Montgomery and traffic on four‐lane U.S. 231 can easily access the airport. At this time, air transport facilities in Troy and the area appear to be adequate for industrial recruitment and growth. Numerous freight truck lines have terminals in Troy that provide direct over‐the‐road freight service. Additional freight services in Montgomery and Dothan provide scheduled and non‐scheduled pickup and delivery service in Pike County. Greyhound Lines has a bus terminal in Troy providing full parcel and passenger service on a regular daily schedule. The Troy Utilities Department provides water for the City of Troy. The water is coming from at least seven wells. Maximum daily demand placed upon the supply facilities approaches 5,400,000 gallons per day. City water is available in all parts of the city, but production and storage capacities are slowly becoming insufficient. Sanitary sewage from Troy is collected and treated at a 10‐acre system of activated sludge oxidation ditches at a treatment plant. In 2000, EDA funded the expansion of treatment plant in order to provide service to expanding industries. The resulting increased capacity will permit for additional commercial and industrial growth for the next five to seven years. Solid waste disposal is accommodated by a Subtitle D regional waste disposal landfill and recycling center in Brundidge. The City of Troy has a separate school system from the county. There are three major private schools in Troy: Pike Liberal Arts School (K‐12); New Life Christian Academy (P‐12); and the Covenant Christian School (P‐10). Serving both public school systems is the Troy‐Pike Regional Center for Technology offering instruction in numerous trades. The Troy city system has statistics that are good when compared to the state averages. The schools offer programs for exceptional children, foreign languages, computer training, and many extracurricular programs. Troy is also the home of the main campus of the Troy University System, a state supported, four‐year university accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The Troy campus has an enrollment of approximately 6,300 offering a variety of disciplines. It is responsible for giving Troy and the County many benefits normally associated with larger metropolitan areas. The school is a source of athletic and cultural entertainment and offers the

community access to various facilities. It also helps to stimulate economic development by providing higher education, job training, and expenditures in the area. The University’s influence on the community should begin to increase since the school recently moved to Division I athletic status in football. Troy is within approximately one hour’s commuting distance of Trenholm State Technical College in Montgomery, George C. Wallace Community College (WCC) in Dothan, Enterprise‐Ozark Community College in Enterprise, EOCC’s Aviation Campus in Ozark, and WCC and EOCC campuses at Ft. Rucker. Serving the public school system in Troy is the Troy‐Pike Regional Center for Technology offering instruction in various trades. The County is served by one short‐term general hospital. The hospital, accredited as a “General Acute Care Hospital”, is located in Troy on U.S. 231 and provides full surgical, x‐ray, physical therapy, obstetrics and emergency units. The hospital was recently expanded with a modern emergency room and intensive care unit facilities and it plans to expand its obstetrics and gynecology facilities soon. A recent addition to the county is an $18.5 million ambulatory child health care center. Troy has a public health clinic, staffed by at least one general physician, and one obstetrician in the family planning clinic. The full‐time staff includes nurses, sanitarians, home health service aides, and secretaries. Other services are an immunization program and an outpatient mental health clinic. The City of Troy developed a 278‐acre industrial park. A second 180‐acre park is also available. Rail service is available to the larger site and both are located within a mile of U.S. 231. Water, sewer, and electricity are available. Natural and L.P. gas are also available for industries, as well as fiber optic communications. Many industries prefer to locate in an established industrial park because of the associated infrastructure and protective covenants regarding future occupants of the site. Troy is the growth center of the County, has a larger airport and is closer to the Lockheed Martin missile plant. Troy’s availability of industrial space is a benefit for area development. The Troy fire department is composed of two fire stations and is manned by 24 full‐time and 15 volunteer firefighters. The current fire insurance rating is four, however, the department is in need of at least one new aerial apparatus. With several multistoried buildings throughout the city, especially at Troy University, the department

cannot sufficiently reach the upper floors of many buildings in case of emergency situations. Full‐time officers as well as additional administrative staff serve the Troy Police Department. The police jurisdiction extends five miles beyond the city limits and is patrolled 24‐hours a day. The Troy Police Department is considered a class A department and is used as a model for setting up police departments in other cities. The Troy Planning Commission governs the planning and zoning functions for the city. This active commission also works with the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs and the South Central Alabama Development Commission for planning technical assistance, as needed. Troy has participated in the HUD Community Development Block Grant program since its inception. With the completion of all planned Community Development projects, the majority of the slums and blight have been eliminated in the City of Troy. However, the city continues to address other community needs such as recreational facilities and opportunities, water and sewer system rehabilitation, and additional housing and enhanced senior services. In Troy, 2,977 persons were considered below the poverty level per the Census 2000. In regards to families, there are 551 families in poverty in Troy. Troy’s Community Development grants undoubtedly have improved the overall housing and infrastructure conditions in the city. Water and sewer extensions have been upgraded to almost all sections of the city, especially in predominantly black areas. Active citizens advisory groups aid in the location of problems and advise means to eliminate future problems. The City of Troy has significantly greater homeless needs than it is currently able to meet. This is true not only for the needs of those individuals who are truly homeless, but also for the City to actively assist in the realm of homeless prevention. Currently in the City’s public housing units, an average of four residences per month are turned over to the authorities for eviction proceedings. Greenville serves the region much the same way in the south‐ Greenville western portion of the district as Troy does in the southeast. With a 2000 population of 7,228, Greenville is a regional market for Butler County, much of Lowndes and Crenshaw Counties, and parts of other contiguous counties. Greenville’s central business district is accessible from any direction. Interstate 65, U.S. Highway 31, and three state highways

serve the city. The City experienced rapid growth in recent years. At and off the I‐65/State Highway 185 interchange, many new businesses have joined several “old” establishments; these include Cracker Barrel, Ruby Tuesdays, Bates House of Turkey, Shoney’s, Wal‐ Mart SuperCenter, CVS, Greenville Motor Company, Court Square Cafe, Moorers Clothing Store, Hunters Hideout, a the Cambrian Ridge Golf Course (part of the Robert Trent Jones trail), White Oaks Golf Course, and several fast food restaurants. Additionally, the condition of the city center is very good with recent restoration of the city hall and completion of a new City‐County public library, both results of a recent downtown revitalization program. Presently there is a need for additional housing for low and moderate‐income families. The average working person in Greenville cannot afford an adequate new home at prevailing costs despite low interest rates. The housing needs of low‐income groups are partially being met with 200 units of low rent public housing. An additional 150 rental units subsidized by HUD or FmHA, were built by private entities during the past several years. Interstate 65 extends through the western part of the city with two interchanges (State Highways 10 and 185). I‐65 provides a direct route from Mobile to Chicago.Greenville is served by CSX Transportation (CSXT), which operates direct service north to Mont‐ gomery, Birmingham, and other points north, and south to Georgiana, Mobile and New Orleans. Greenville’s municipal airport (Mac Crenshaw Memorial Airport) is located within the city limits with a 5,500 foot paved and lighted runway. Bus service is excellent in Greenville as Greyhound has several daily scheduled routes operating north and south from Mobile to Montgomery. There are several motor freight lines operating through Greenville daily. Overnight service is available from all of the larger cities in the South as well as from Mobile, Montgomery and Birmingham within the state. As of 2005, Greenville’s water supply is provided from five deep wells constructed in the Ripley Formation and operated by the Greenville Water & Sewer Board. This water does not require major treatment and is pumped directly into the distribution system with only the addition of chlorine for disinfection. Interconnection with the Butler County Water Authority system provides some backup supply and storage. However, additional storage capability is needed to adequately satisfy Greenville’s average daily demand and growth for

the future. Additional line work, fire hydrants, pump stations, and another well are also needed to facilitate growth. Water is currently supplied to most residents in the corporate limits. In 2005, Greenville and the Butler County Water Authority completed an impoundment study to determine the feasibility and ideal locations for a reservoir/recreational lake to provide additional water resources to meet future needs. The City of Greenville sewer system is adequate to serve a population of around 3,000 customers. Adequate service is available to all areas of the city, however any future development will may necessitate additional water sources and supply. Treatment is provided by extended aeration and nitrification to treat continuous discharge into Persimmon Creek. A newer plant, which began operations in 1990, is built on the site of one of the previously existing lagoons and is designed to treat two million gallons per day. Greenville has one of the best overall school systems in the state. Education is provided by the Butler County public school system and private schools. There are three public elementary schools, one middle school, and three high schools in the county. At least two private schools are also available. The Lurleen B. Wallace State Community College (based in Andalusia) operates a branch campus in Greenville. LBW‐Greenville offers three associate degree programs and one certificate program. The nearest four‐year institutions are located about an hour away in Montgomery. There is one hospital located in Greenville that has undergone a recent expansion. State‐of‐the‐art health care is provided at L.V. Stabler Memorial Hospital, whose services includes 24‐hour‐a‐day emergency care. In 2003, there were a total of 199 nursing home beds in the County. HHS is providing health and medical services, family planning, emergency food and medical aid to the economically depressed people in Greenville. In addition, the Alabama Department of Human Resources is providing aid for those in need including the blind, disabled, families with dependent children, children in foster homes, old age pensions, and medical aid for the indigent. Greenville has numerous industrial sites located within the corporate limits. Most of these are located near Interstate 65, U.S. Highway 31, and/or near a railroad. All sites are served with the three or more of the necessary utilities (i.e., water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications). Parks include the Greenville

Industrial Park; Greenville Industrial Park East. The Butler County Industrial Park is located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 31 and County Road 61. As of 1998, the Greenville Fire Department had six vehicles, 17 paid members and 14 volunteer firemen. The National Board of Fire Underwriters insurance rating is currently Class 5. Greenville has a mutual assistance agreement with nearby communities, whereby industrial conflagrations will be answered. Greenville’s police department includes an average of 30 officers and plus additional support personnel. The largest division of the department is patrol. Emergency dispatch for the police department is handled by the Butler County E‐911 system, located in Greenville. Greenville’s planning and zoning process is governed by an active city planning commission. The city does have a current zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations, and is currently updating its comprehensive plan. The commission also works in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs and the South Central Alabama Development Commission for technical assistance when needed. The economy of Greenville is historically based on the fertile soil of the surrounding area. During the past two decades emphasis has been placed on balancing the economic base between agriculture and industry. The Mayor’s Office, in cooperation with the Greenville Area Chamber of Commerce, the Butler County Industrial Development Board, and Butler County Commission for Economic Development has secured new industries for Greenville and surrounding areas. This is especially evident in the recruitment of Hwashin and Hysco – two Hyundai tier one suppliers.

3. Economic Analysis and Goals

The economic analysis of the SCAEDD Region results from a review of the area's background, demographics and population, infrastructure and transportation, governmental services and the region’s growth centers, coupled with a review of recent investments and improvements, and potential markets. The economic analysis is summarized with the identification of key issues the region is facing and the formulation of regional economic goals. Projections of key economic factors reflecting the district economy, both currently and in the future, are summarized in the accompanying tables. These and other planning factors and associated conditions are analyzed in greater detail in various previous documents, which have been published by SCADC and/or other public and private entities through EDA, ARC, HUD CDBG, and for particular grants and funding sources.

Investments in the Region The SCADC has experienced unprecedented investment of public and private resources. Much of this investment has been driven by the automotive manufacturing and supplier industry, however, there has been other industrial development and job growth. Retail business has increased in the growth centers, and there have been major increases in the distribution and trucking business. Forest and agricultural products have remained an important investment trend, as well. Investments by EDA have been especially prominent in the economic growth in the SCADC district. The number and amount of EDA investment has been a major factor in leveraging and capturing private investment. More information on such activity is included in the following tables on industrial sites and announced openings. As part of a recent progress report to EDA, the SCADC reported 31 governments participating in the ED district. The report also indicated that six economic development initiatives from the current CEDS were implemented, during the reporting period, leading to private investment and jobs. The number of jobs created or retained was 92 (documented) and 175 (estimated). The amount of private

investment was $2,150,000. The amount of public sector investment was $559,884. These numbers represent only a sample, to illustrate the increasing economic opportunities in the region. More detailed figures will be an ongoing part of the continuing CEDS process. Recent investments from major industry and support Industry Investments businesses and services have been documented, including, but not limited to, new and announced industries, as well as, developed industrial sites. These recent investments are illustrated in the accompanying tables. Some negative trends are reflected in recent closings and lay‐offs. Projected investments are expected to follow these recent investments. Industry segments or clusters are expected to follow these trends as well. In additional to industrial investments, local governments in the SCAEDD region work continuously to provide and leverage funds for the improvement of local infrastructure. The majority of these project are infrastructural in nature and one, either benefit an expansion of an existing industry aiding industry retention and an increase in jobs; two, benefit a new industry and the creation of new jobs; or three, improve the quality of life for residents in an area. Several local government investments are highlighted in the following sections In 2010, the City of Greenville received $200,000 from the Local Investment Community Development Block Grant program’s Economic Development fund to make critical drainage infrastructure improvements along U.S Highway 31 to serve an expanding Hwashin America Corporation. The infrastructure was crucial for the City to provide adequate drainage facilities to support the expanding industry. As a result of the drainage system improvements, Hwashin completed a 120,000 square‐foot facility in addition to its $100 million facility to house new equipment, of which 100,000 square‐ feet includes a manufacturing plant to serve Kia Motor Manufacturing and Hyundai Motor Manufacturing. The addition of the facility has enabled the company to produce parts for nearly 3,000 vehicles a day. The City of Greenville and Hwashin committed $40,000 and 50 jobs to the completion of this expansion, but overwhelmingly exceeded their own expectations with the creation of nearly 150 jobs of which 93% were provided to persons with low to moderate incomes as defined by HUD. Construction began in November 2011

and was complete by February 2012. During this time, construction of the new facility was also underway. The expansion to the City’s infrastructure along with the completion of the new facility made room for an additional 137 employees, bringing the total number of Hwashin employees to 555. The City of Greenville has worked diligently with Hwashin America Corporation over the years and is excited to see the company expand and flourish.

Greenville Drainage Improvements Benefit Industry Expansion

During Construction Ribbon Cutting for facility expansion

Also in 2010, the Town of Rutledge utilized funds available through the Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs to make water and drainage improvements. The project was completed in six months, including environmental clearance, project design, bidding, construction and closeout. Actual construction on the project was completed in just two months. Local construction crews, along with the guidance of a local engineer, worked diligently to complete the project ahead of schedule.

Town of Rutledge Water and Drainage Improvements

Construction crews install a new 6-inch Drainage and water improvement near water line on West Second Avenue. completion on North First Avenue.

In the summer of 2012, the Town of Lowndesboro (Lowndes County) completed construction of a 200,000 gallon water tank funded by a Community Development Block Grant award of $400,000. The completed project means that the Town's 52 households now have a reliable water storage system. The project benefitted 101 people, of which 51.48 percent is of low to moderate income. Projects like these improve citizens’ quality of life as well as strengthen the Blackbelt Region’s infrastructure.

Town of Lowndesboro Investment in Water Storage Tank

During Construction Completed Project Mayor Pate drinks from new tank.

Potential Markets To plan effectively for economic development, it is necessary to assess the current status of the district’s economy and its potential based on projections of future conditions. This involves consideration of available physical and natural resources, their current use, and the relationship of the district to the surrounding area as these continue to evolve. The existing situation is analyzed at some length below. Land and weather are major physical assets of the district. Soil Agriculture and Forest Products types range from red clay to the chalk soils of the Black Belt counties with the majority of the soils being gray to red sandy loams. Terrain ranges from flat to hilly with elevations ranging from 250 to almost 700 feet above sea level. The district enjoys a mild, semi-tropical climate. Average winter temperature is 46o F, with freezing weather usually of short duration. The warm season is long, lasting from April to October with average temperature of 78o F. Average annual

temperature is 65o F. Average annual rainfall is 55 to 60 inches. The growing season is approximately 284 days, which with sufficient rain and sunshine, is adequate to grow almost any crop. For many years, the agricultural economy of the district was centered on cotton production. While this is no longer true, cotton is still a major row crop. There were 33,225 acres of cotton harvested in 1975, with 48,330 in 1974 and 40,900 acres in 1973. There were 18,605 acres harvested in 1988, 15,045 in 1989, 16,220 in 1990, and 25,900 in 1999. With the 2002 Census of Agriculture, this figure dropped to 22,385 acres. Obviously with the decrease in number of harvested acres, it is apparent that the district has become less dependent on cotton for its major income. Additionally, the state has been experiencing a drought and drought‐like conditions that has lasted for at least four years. The drought can partially explain why the yield of cotton and other crops has declined recently. Other important crop products are corn, peanuts, wheat, hay, pecans, grass seed, sod, and soybeans. While corn and peanuts have traditionally been important money crops, soybean acreage increased from 1,249 acres in 1964, to 69,050 in 1973, 78,300 in 1974 and 107,100 acres in 1975, but lately has been declining to 26,600 in 1988, 23,900 in 1989, 17,500 in 1990, 2,600 in 1998, and only an estimated minimum of 897 in 2002 as the price of soybeans has dropped. Peanuts are another important row crop in the district, especially in the sandy soiled areas in the southeastern sections of the district. In 1988, 29,220 acres were harvested, 30,550 in 1989, 32,810 acres in 1990, 18,210 acres in 1998, and 10,065 in 2002.In regards to the other major crops, 80,911 acres of hay, 10,872 acres of corn, 1,962 acres of wheat, and 3,017 acres of pecans were harvested across the district in 2002. Interest in livestock production and marketing continues to increase with a cash receipt total of $261,320,000 for all livestock products in 2002. Poultry has become a particularly important sector in the district economy. Montgomery is the principal livestock marketing area for the district and South Alabama. Almost 80 percent of the district’s cattle go outside the district when they are marketed, with approximately 70 percent going outside the state. Over half of the weaning age calves go to the Midwest or western plains states where they are grown out and fed to slaughter weight.

Beef, pork, and especially poultry will continue to be major elements of the food production industry in the region. Meatpacking and poultry processing offer good potential for industrial expansion. The food industries are becoming more highly mechanized and automated. However, they rank among the leaders in expenditures for research and development of new products, processing and specialized equipment. The production and processing of timber is a major economic factor in the district with an estimated 60 percent of the district’s acreage devoted to commercial forest. Because of the timber resources of the district, several wood using plants were constructed in the 1970s‐1980s in the area. Since the wood using industry is primarily dependent upon available timber resources, planning and coordination for maximum future use of timber resources must be considered. Loblolly and short‐leaf pine are the major types of forest trees in the district. These types of timber grow much faster than longleaf pine or most hardwoods. Landowners in the district started reforestation programs about 40‐50 years ago with the help of the United States Department of Agriculture and the State of Alabama Forestry Commission. However, there is still much to be done to conserve the district’s forests. To take advantage of the potential pulpwood harvest in the district, numerous paper mills were located just outside the district in Autauga County and Dallas County. International Paper’s plywood mill located in Butler County expanded its facilities at least twice during the 1970s and 1980s. The agricultural sector in the district continues to be important economically, however, it contributes only marginally to upgrading the standard of living for residents in the district. During the past 30 or so years, growth in the industrial, trade, governmental, and service sectors has generated thousands of jobs. This undoubtedly is a reason for slowing out‐migration as labor‐intensive agriculture declined.

Manufacturing and Manufacturing activity has been limited in the past, but has Distribution expanded substantially through the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, and is expected to continue expanding. In 2002, there were a total of 296 manufacturing establishments in the district with an annual estimated payroll of $488,225,000. The majority of these plants were very small and each typically employed less than 250 people. Since 1975, large employers, such as General Electric, Allied Signal, Rheem, Lockheed Martin, and Hyundai have significantly increased the level

of manufacturing in the district. The addition of Hyundai and its suppliers will contribute to these figures even more. Expansion of manufacturing and regional distribution are the most promising growth potential of the district in terms of achieving a balanced economy based on agribusiness, industry, trade, and service. There is also a trend toward high technology, as evidenced by the location of a Lockheed Martin missile plant near Troy and the development of the TechnaCenter technology park in east Montgomery. While the region’s industrial growth continues to lag behind the state and nation, significant advances have been made, and with continued effort, SCADC expects the rate of industrial growth to accelerate substantially. The recession in the early 1990s had its impact, as regional growth slowed considerably between 1990‐1993. In addition to the recession of the early 1990s, the region experienced the effects of NAFTA through the loss of manufacturing firms, mainly from the textile industries. However, the region has and is recovering especially with the location and expansion of new industries such as Lockheed Martin and Hyundai. The Hyundai plant and its suppliers are also expected to have a tremendous economic impact for the region as well. The impact of the latest recession that began in 2001 has been minimal. The region has experienced growth in service‐connected facilities over the past thirty years. With the opening of the Auburn University Montgomery in 1971, higher education facilities and opportunities were greatly expanded. Other educational facilities throughout the region (including Montgomery), such as Alabama State University, Troy University’s main campus in Troy and its branch campus in Montgomery, and Tuskegee University, have and/or are being expanded, and they will be important to the future growth of the region. Government services at all levels will continue to increase and the private service sector will no doubt continue to grow. The retail trade sector has perhaps the greatest potential for Commerce growth in the region. As the population increases and as travel conditions continue to improve, consumers will demand an ever‐ increasing number of wholesale and retail facilities. A diversified trading center in each of the major municipalities will provide the retail facilities demanded by the residents of the areas. Based on population and geographic considerations, the wholesale and retail activity of the area is above the average. In 1997, there were 610

establishments with an annual payroll of $222,682,000. In 2002, there were 439 establishments with an annual payroll of $233,296,000. In 1997, retail establishments numbered 2,051 with sales of almost $3.7 billion. In 2002, there were 1,501 establishments with an annual payroll of $331,485,000. Wholesale and retail services provide the greatest amount of employment in the district. The banking industry provides employment for many of the district’s people and is a source of capital for the expansion of industries. Local banks are very interested in the economic growth of their particular area and are generally liberal in loan policies for expansion of existing industries but are quite conservative for new companies. In 2005, there were 13 FDIC‐insured commercial banks headquartered in the district with total assets of $20.5 billion. A revolving loan fund has been established for the district, but additional revolving loan funds for the district are urgently needed to provide gap financing for small to medium sized businesses. Government employment has increased substantially during the Government, Tourism and past 35 years. As federal, state, county, and city government play a Retiree Attraction larger role in the economic improvement of the citizenry, a larger work force is needed to provide public service. According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, 1970, the district had 31,814 full and part‐time government employees compared to 46,213 in 1990. However, in 2000, this figure dropped to at least 31,796. This decrease can be partially explained by the current trend in downsizing and the contracting out of public services to private firms. In addition to its city and county governments, Montgomery County is the location of the state capital with its many related departments, and two major and one intermediate military installations: Maxwell Air Force Base, Maxwell AFB‐Gunter Annex, and Dannelly Field Air National Guard Base. This accounts for the fact that 73.0 percent of government employees in 2000 were employed in Montgomery County. The region has many historical sites and recreational areas that are untapped or underdeveloped. Tourism, hunting, fishing, water sports, and areas of scenic beauty are considered sources of future economic development. Tourism is becoming big business and will continue to increase with proper promotion. With a history of government and military institutions and proximity to the coast, retiree attraction and relocation of persons looking for affordable alternatives is a potential new sector of the SCADC economy.

Economic Issues There are a number of issues existing throughout the SCAEDD that affect economic growth and prosperity. There are two issues, however, that are prevalent in every county. The first is economic well‐being of the region's minority population; and the second is the level of education of the region's population. The African‐American population makes up over half of the population and impacts significantly on its economy. Analysis of 1990 census data indicates that between 1980 and 1990, blacks continued to make significant social and economic gains but still lagged behind whites in these respects. In 1980, the black minority population of the region was 139,205 persons; 147,996 persons in 1990; 170,390 persons in 2000; and 183,585 persons in 2010. This group made up 44.7 percent of the total population in 1980, 46.1 percent in 1990, 50.5 percent in 2000, and 53.9 percent in 2010. Other minority groups made up about 0.6 percent of the district population in 1980, just under 1.0 percent in 1990, and 2.2 percent in 2000, and 4.8 percent in 2010 with most in Montgomery and Pike Counties. Median years of schooling among blacks in the region continues to rise slightly. In 2000, 27.1 percent in the over 25 age group had earned a high school degree or GED. Only 15.1 percent had earned a college degree or more ‐ a major increase since 1990. These statistics indicate a great need for minorities to continue their education and to participate in adult training programs. Improvements in educational attainment are necessary before large numbers of the minority population are able to compete for skilled jobs. Over time, minority income in the district has risen steadily for the most part. In 1999, the EDD mean median household income for blacks dropped slightly to $17,904. The mean black per capita income for the EDD was $10,258, with about 32.7 percent of blacks in the district below the poverty level. Members of the minority population 16 years of age and over who were counted in the civilian labor force were 67,670 in 2000. The unemployment rate for this group was 5.2 percent in 1970, 6.9 percent in 1974, 14.3 percent in 1990, and 12.1 percent in 2000. Unemployment by racial groups and minority groups, as compared to the remainder of the population, was historically higher. Except for the 1990‐2000 decade, this figure has risen considerably over the years as many of the more skilled minorities have migrated out of the

district. Underemployment is more difficult to detect and measure, but the conditions that are associated with low income are very evident throughout the district. Also, many of those unemployed are not counted in the figures because they have become discouraged and choose not to look for employment and are not counted in the civilian labor force. The region historically has been an agricultural area where farming provided most of the jobs and supported the economy of the area. Sharecropping and owner‐operated farms were prevalent, and the sharecropping system with cotton as the major crop demanded vast amounts of labor. The trend of sharecropping lost its efficiency in the region during the 1960s. At one time there was a short‐term economic advantage in not pursuing an education and starting to work early in life. Gradually this system created a cultural and economic downtrend. Parents passed along to their children a lack of desire to become achievers, resulting in a further deterioration of conditions in the area. With the decline of cotton, and agriculture in general, large numbers of uneducated people became unemployed or underemployed. With the mechanization of farms and the evolution of large farming units, unemployment became prevalent. These unemployed people are being trained for other types of work, and their low educational levels are being alleviated. Low educational levels and poor attitudes about the need for an education were at one time a major problem of the region. However, improved local education systems are needed if the economic and cultural conditions are to continue to improve. Public school systems in many jurisdictions of the region rank low in terms of pupil expenditures. Recent industrial development has placed a high demand on the educational requirements for the workforce. This issue is being addressed by the industries themselves as well as state workforce programs, county economic development agencies, community colleges and university programs.

Input from stakeholders, the SCADC Board and the CEDS Strategy Key Issues Committee during the course of strategic planning, beginning in 2000, and continuing throughout the CEDS planning process in 2010, provides an overview of the regions key issues as outlined in this

section. Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and external threats, for the region, as a whole, and for the seven counties, are listed below:  Unemployment and Jobs in Rural Areas  Need for Economic Development Diversity/Clusters/Retail Trade and Tourism  Education and Work force Development  Infrastructure and Healthcare  Transportation and Access  Land Use/Planning/Conservation and Environmental Protection  Housing  Recreation  Historic Preservation  Image  Organization and Financing Key issues remain the need for increased workforce development and education to meet higher demands of new industry, the need for improved transportation, including rural and public transportation, as well as other infrastructure improvements. Increased housing and retail support services are issues, as well, to accommodate the expected job growth. Growth management has also emerged as an issue, with increasing development expected in rural and growing communities in the region. Taking advantage of the City of Montgomery and other growth centers are recognized as important factors in the region’s economic development. There are pockets of poverty in the region, reflecting special needs in urban neighborhoods and rural communities. Other key issues that have emerged include opportunities and the importance of retail services, income and support of the tax base and the growing emphasis on transportation improvements to support the major increase in distribution as an important economic sector. In summary, the economy of the district is diversified and based on agriculture and forest products, manufacturing, distribution and transportation, trade, financial, and governmental sectors. It should be noted that, while there is a growing and robust economy developing, in the SCADC district, industrial growth, commercial and housing development in rural areas is less healthy, especially, where there is a need for infrastructure to support economic development.

CEDS Vision and Goals The previous chapters present an inventory of current conditions in the South Central Alabama Economic Development District. In order to address problems and capitalize on opportunities, the SCAEDD needs to establish a vision for the entire region and long‐ range goals and short‐range objectives to help achieve that vision. Performance measures help track the progress being made in implementing the action items listed under the objectives. Many of the action items are ongoing efforts, while some are still being conceptualized.

SCADC envisions a region with a viable, self sustaining economy Vision that is capable of supporting the highest possible quality of life for every current and future resident.

Goals I. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Increase economic growth with a focused effort on industrial and commercial recruiting, tourism development, existing industry retention, entrepreneurial development and an emphasis on increasing the skill levels of workforce that will result in higher incomes throughout the region.

II. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Develop additional and improve upon existing regional infrastructure, transportation resources and access that will facilitate economic growth and the provision of public services.

III. EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Improve the education systems to ensure that all graduates possess the knowledge and skills to effectively compete for higher paying jobs.

IV. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Promote and manage community and economic development in an orderly and efficient manner through sound physical development planning

V. QUALITY OF LIFE Improve existing quality of life factors in the region to meet the needs of all citizens

VI. ORGANIZATION, FUNDING AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT Obtain and utilize all financial organizational and leadership resources to benefit the whole region.

4. Action Plan and Strategies

The following summarizes the SCAEDD Action Plan to ensure implementation of the CEDS. Specific objectives and strategies are included in the following tables on objectives, strategies and projects. (See charts reflecting goals, objectives, strategies and projects.)

 Promoting Economic Development Action Plan Strategy  Providing Transportation Access and Infrastructure Development  Improving Education and Workforce Development  Planning and Environmental Protection  Continuously Improving Quality of Life Factors  Organizing, Obtaining and Utilizing, Funding and Leadership for Economic Development

Methods of Cooperation  SCADC will continue to participate in ongoing coordination and regional, statewide and federal initiatives, including EDA, Delta Regional Authority, Appalachian regional Commission, Rural Transportation Organization, workforce development and others. SCADC will specifically help facilitate the Rural Action Commission, working with ADECA and public/private stakeholders; CEDS Strategy Committee has been reorganized to increase private sector participation and, possibly, action teams to further implementation of regional priorities.

Obtaining and Utilizing Funding and Resources  SCADC will promote the continuous use of Public/Private Partnerships to leverage private investment‐maximize benefit of public resources

Consistency and Coordination with State Policies and Plans  SCADC will coordinate CEDS activities with Statewide Plans, Rural Action Commission, DELTA Authority, ARC and other statewide/regional initiatives and plans

 SCADC will explore State incentives and removal of barriers, eg., tiered incentives, for more diverse economic development projects.  SCADC will specifically participate in and support regional Workforce Development program  SCADC will continue to work with ALDOT to facilitate Rural Transportation program

Performance and Evaluation  CEDS Progress and Accomplishments  Previous progress reports reflect progress through those Projects that have been completed, or, those where significant progress has been made or is ongoing, are highlighted.  Recent and Projected Investments  A summary report on recent EDD investments, including dollars of investments and jobs, is available, as a separate report

Performance Measures SCADC includes Performance measure as part of CEDS process, with respect to specific project performance as well as individual investment and grant results, including  Jobs Gained and Retained  Number and Types of Investments  Amount of public and private Investment  Changes in Economic Development Environment and quality of Life SCADC will continuously improve performance and implementation, to include quantifiable measures, per EDA and other standards; regular review of progress towards objectives and projects; and, consideration of action or implementation teams to share responsibility for project implementation and leverage resources.

Objectives and Strategies The following tables reflect more specific objectives and strategies to accomplish the six broad goals identified as part of the SCADC CEDS. More specific objectives will be identified in the subsequent CEDS updates, to include five year and annual targets for implementation. The strategies provide the general outline of the CEDS Work Program. The program is more specifically described as the CEDS Projects and Programs that follow.

I. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal: Promote economic growth with a focused effort on industrial and commercial recruiting, tourism development, resident industry retention programs, entrepreneurial development, and special programs to increase the skill levels of the workforce that will result in higher incomes throughout the region.

Goal I Objectives a. Achieve full‐employment by promoting, increasing, and improving employment opportunities at all skill levels. b. Administer and provide effective and efficient support to all businesses. c. Identify innovative ways to collaborate and address emerging economic opportunities in a manner that will minimize obstacles and maximize gains. d. Enhance and expand cultural/heritage tourism in the region. e. Maintain adequate industrial space and infrastructure to accommodate existing industry expansion, new companies, and growth./increase entrepreneurial ventures and training f. Establish organizations dedicated to community and economic development issues, and invigorate those already in existence. g. Maximize opportunities for sustainable development along Interstates and major highways. h. Facilitate long‐term financing for smaller companies. i. Maintain adequate infrastructure to support industry, commerce, and lifestyle. j. Expand recreation in order to facilitate growth and increase quality of life. k. Promote a positive image and recognition of each county in terms of business climate and quality of life. l. Maximize job retention and expansion of existing businesses. m. Increase capabilities of the universities in the region to assist owners of new and current small businesses in their business development. n. Sustain and improve the agricultural and timber industries. o. Provide gap financing to new and expanding industries. p. Increase population and housing to support growing jobs in commercial and manufacturing industries q. Increased retail business in rural areas/smaller communities and growth centers

Goal I Strategies and Work Program Description Location Funding Source Non‐metro planning EDD Local/SCADC/EDA/ARC /HUD Clearinghouse Review EDD EDA/SCADC Zoning and Subdivision Regulations EDD Local/SCADC/HUD/ARC Coordinate economic development EDD EDA/SCADC/Local endeavors Cooperate and assist with local, regional, EDD EDA/SCADC/Local/HUD and statewide strategic planning efforts Grant and loan application preparation EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ assistance SCADC/HUD/DRA Project management and monitoring EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ assistance SCADC/HUD/DRA Assist in organization and functioning of EDD EDA/Local local industrial development boards/authorities and chambers Participate in rural development councils, EDD EDA/Local conservation and development projects, and similar undertakings Continue to implement the Revolving EDD EDA/Local/HUD Loan Fund; obtain and maintain funding necessary to adequately capitalize RLF Continue to serve as a regional affiliate EDD Local/SCADC for the Alabama State Data Center and the U.S. Census Bureau Continue implementation, maintenance, EDD Local/SCADC/EDA upgrades, and expansion of regional geographic information system (GIS); continue acquisition, development, and updating of GIS data; provide GIS services for the purposes of economic development Continue to foster relations and EDD Local leadership development among community, business, and education leaders Coordinate with economic development EDD Local/SCADC organizations to support and foster economic development in the region Promote Downtown and other growth center development, government

facilities and tourism Promote Envision 2020 & Imagine a EDD/ Local Greater Montgomery Montgomery MSA Promote retail development and business EDD Local/ARC incubators Facilitate the development of growing EDD EDA,/ARC/DRA/USDA clusters, including automotive, timber and agriculture products, higher education, others

II. TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Goal: To develop additional and improve upon existing regional infrastructure resources that will facilitate economic growth and the provision of public services.

Goal II Objectives a. Upgrade and bring all municipal and county utilities and facilities up to standards as mandated by the state and federal authorities. b. Develop a transportation system(urban and rural) that will allow pedestrian and vehicular traffic to move easily throughout each of the region’s municipalities and counties with easy access to all major points of interest that will, in turn, improve circulation and open land for development. c. Evaluate all facilities owned by the municipalities and the counties, especially where county or municipal departments are located for the purpose of consolidation, renovation or replacement. d. Provide safe and attractive places for residents to assemble, such as recreational facilities, museums, performing/cultural arts centers, and meeting places. e. Evaluate all services provided by the municipalities and the counties, and expand and improve where necessary. f. Establish an infrastructure improvement plan that will maximize benefits to the entire county’s economic and community development efforts, including high speed telecommunications g. Provide comprehensive public safety services throughout the region. h. Provide transportation for coordinated social services and day care facilities to support economic and community development.

Goal II Strategies and Work Program Description Location Funding Source Non‐metro planning EDD Local/SCADC/EDA/ ARC/HUD Clearinghouse Review EDD EDA/SCADC Unstructured regional technical EDD Local/SCADC/HUD/ assistance ARC/ADECA/DRA Coordinate infrastructure EDD EDA/SCADC/Local development/rehabilitation endeavors Grant and loan application preparation EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ assistance SCADC/HUD/DRA Project management and monitoring EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ assistance SCADC/HUD/DRA Participate in rural development councils, EDD EDA/Local conservation and development projects, and similar undertakings Continue implementation, maintenance, EDD Local/SCADC/EDA upgrades, and expansion of regional geographic information system (GIS); continue acquisition, development, and updating of GIS data; provide GIS services for the purposes of infrastructure maintenance and development Develop welfare‐to‐work and coordinated EDD ADSS/ALDOT/ social service transportation and day care ADECA/Others facilities Complete high speed EDD ADECA/ARC/Local telecommunications systems and technology center facilities Implement rural transportation planning EDD ALDOT/Local program

III. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION Goal: To improve the education systems to ensure that all graduates posses the knowledge and skills to effectively compete for and perform well in available jobs.

Goal III Objectives a. Maximize educational opportunities for all citizens who wish to better themselves through knowledge and learning. b. Enable every child to attain a well‐rounded, rigorous education

that includes critical thinking, adequate communication skills, the requirement for good citizenship, and basic knowledge of math and science. c. Develop partnerships among all sectors to support public education and the general welfare of the community. d. Improve school performance at all levels to surpass the state educational averages. Reduce the dropout rate among public secondary students, increase attendance rates among public school students, and reduce adult illiteracy rates by the year 2010. e. Provide quality educational opportunities for all citizens, regardless of age. f. Establish programs to instill occupational, technical, and vocational skills to adults within the community. g. Ensure adequately prepared and trained workforce to support existing and incoming industry, including higher skill jobs and technology training h. Provide alternative job opportunities for entrepreneurs i. Provide support to Central Alabama Opportunities Industrialization Center, Inc. in an effort to promote job training and job placement throughout the SCADC region.

Goal III Strategies and Work Program Description Location Funding Source Non‐metro planning EDD Local/SCADC/EDA/ARC /HUD Clearinghouse Review EDD EDA/SCADC Unstructured regional technical EDD Local/SCADC/HUD/ARC assistance /ADECA/DRA Coordinate or cooperate with regional EDD EDA/SCADC/Local education improvement endeavors Grant and loan application preparation EDD EDA/Local/ARC/SCADC assistance /HUD/DRA Project management and monitoring EDD EDA/Local/ARC/SCADC assistance /HUD/DRA Participate in regional and rural EDD EDA/Local/ARC workforce development councils and alternative public/private training programs, eg. business sector academies, etc. Cooperate with any efforts to conduct a EDD EDA/Local/ARC/SCADC

regional educational needs assessment to /HUD/DRA identify workforce development /Others deficiencies Continue implementation, maintenance, EDD Local/SCADC/EDA upgrades, and expansion of regional geographic information system (GIS); continue acquisition, development, and updating of GIS data; provide GIS services for the purposes of education and workforce development Implement special workforce support EDD DOl/Local/ADSS programs, to include day care, special transportation services, senior aides, etc.

IV. LAND USE, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION/ CONSERVATION Goal: To balance and manage community and economic development with conservation in an orderly and efficient manner.

Goal IV Objectives a. Provide the best possible distribution of land uses, by type and density, to meet the physical, social, cultural, and economic needs of the present and future population in a manner that would maintain and improve the quality of the natural and man‐made environment within the region. b. Promote and encourage a balanced and efficient use of land that is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plans and other policies of the region’s counties and municipalities. c. Seek realistic and responsible conservation of natural resources and environmental protection, consistent with economic development priorities.

Goal IV Strategies and Work Program Description Location Funding Source Non‐metro planning EDD Local/SCADC/EDA/ ARC/HUD Technical assistance and support to local EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ planning, zoning, districting, and SCADC/HUD annexation efforts Coordinate or cooperate with regional State/EDD EDA/SCADC/Local/ and statewide planning endeavors State/AARC/ARC/DRA/

USDA/DOT/HUD/etc. Grant and loan application preparation EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ assistance SCADC/HUD Project management and monitoring EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ assistance SCADC/HUD Continue implementation, maintenance, EDD Local/SCADC/EDA upgrades, and expansion of regional geographic information system (GIS); continue acquisition, development, and updating of GIS data; provide GIS services for the purposes of land use, planning, and zoning efforts Promote a framework for growth and EDD EDA, ADECA, DOT, development to include community, Local county and regional concepts for growth, development and revitalization. Increase the use of new and innovative EDD Local/ADECA planning and zoning codes, including training and continuing education for planning commissions and others Participate in regional Clean Water EDD ADEM/AEMA Partnerships for major river basins and implement hazard mitigation plans

V. QUALITY OF LIFE Goal: To improve upon existing quality of life in the region to meet the needs of all of its citizens.

Goal V Objectives a. Increase the level of community involvement in all aspects of civic and community activity. b. Improve and preserve the physical appearance and the aesthetic character of the region. c. Acquire, develop, and maintain a wide variety of passive and active recreational facilities and opportunities in order to serve the various needs of citizens of all ages. d. Create and harbor an environment in which residents and visitors alike may feel safe, secure and welcome. e. Examine the local government organization to assure greater coordination and consolidation of governmental activities toward improving the quality of life and ensuring more efficient use of tax

dollars. f. Provide a seamless system of and access to affordable healthcare for all citizens. g. Provide region wide access to adequate, safe, sound, and affordable housing in a desirable living environment. h. Preserve and restore historic structures and sites. i. Enhance and develop area’s aging programs and services. j. Ensure adequate day care and early childhood education.

Goal V Strategies and Work Program Description Location Funding Source Non‐metro planning EDD Local/SCADC/EDA/ ARC/HUD Clearinghouse Review EDD EDA/SCADC Unstructured regional technical EDD Local/SCADC/HUD/ assistance ARC/ADECA/DRA Coordinate or cooperate with regional EDD EDA/SCADC/Local quality of life improvement endeavors(included Envision 2020 and Imagine a Greater Montgomery, other chambers of commerce initiatives) Grant and loan application preparation EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ assistance SCADC/HUD/DRA Project management and monitoring EDD EDA/Local/ARC/ assistance SCADC/HUD/DRA Participate in rural and regional councils EDD EDA/Local and similar undertakings that address quality of life issues, including healthcare, open space and recreation Administer the Older Americans Act, EDD ADSS/HHA/AAA/ Medicaid Waiver Prog., Senior Rx Local/Other Program, and the Senior Aides Program Provide housing technical assistance and EDD/Cities and Local/SCADC/HUD programs to increase the supply and Counties quality of market rate and affordable housing/include neighborhood conservation , preservation and revitalization; support the development of CDFI and related housing finance programs Continue implementation, maintenance, EDD Local/SCADC/EDA upgrades, and expansion of regional

geographic information system (GIS); continue acquisition, development, and updating of GIS data; provide GIS services for quality of life improvement projects

VI. ORGANIZATION, FUNDING, LEADERSHIP, COOPERATION Goal: Obtaining and utilizing all financial, organizational and leadership resources to benefit the entire region

Goal VI Objectives a. Increased cooperation/coordination among city, county state and federal entities, private sector and citizens b. Increased public and private funding for regional priorities c. Increased regional involvement and public/private leadership d. Consistency and cooperation with state plans and policies for economic and community development

Goal VI Strategies and Work Program Description Location Funding Source Facilitate Rural Action Commission including EDD/Others EDA/DRA/Local a regional alliance of agencies and the private sector with mutual interests Continue to strengthen public private EDD involvement in SCADC Formalize public/private funding strategy EDD/Others EDA/DRA/Local Continue to encourage increased EDD EDD/Local public/private leadership in SCADC and CEDS Strategy Committee Promote city and county leadership programs EDD/Others Local Cooperate with Envision 2020 and Imagine a EDD/Others Local Greater Montgomery and other visioning and multi jurisdictional programs Specifically participate in regional Workforce EDD ADSS/ALDOT/Other Development program, Rural Transportation Planning and United we Ride.

CEDS Projects and Programs The following list includes the various county and community CEDS projects and programs, identified through the planning process. The projects and programs, also, comprise a substantial part of the SCADC work program.

Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Synchronist program EDD SCADC/ SCADC, Local Implementation Mid Local Governments, of program term IDBs/EDAs Retention and Long attraction of new term businesses Expand and improve Bullock Local/DRA/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short industrial parks County/ HUD/EDA Governments improvements term Number of jobs Mid created term Number of jobs retained Widen U.S. Hwy. 331 Crenshaw Local/DOT SCADC, Local Number of Short County Governments highway miles and Mid widened term Commercial Development Crenshaw ADECA/ Local Improvements to Mid Projects County/ Local development commercial Term other organizations districts/downto counties wns/ and new commercial investments Commercial development Fort Deposit Local/EDA/ SCADC, Local Construction of Short Hayneville DRA/State/ Governments new development term HUD/USDA Rehabilitate Fort Deposit Local/HUD/ SCADC, Fort Completion of Short CBD/Downtown DRA Deposit projects term Rehabilitate Tuskegee Local/HUD/ SCADC, Tuskegee Completion of Short CBD/Downtown DRA projects term Implement Macon County Macon Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short, and Tuskegee Tourism County/ ARC/EDA/ Governments plan Mid and Development Plan Tuskegee DRA/ Implementation Long Others of plan term Develop and maintain a Macon Local/ARC/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short leadership development County HUD Governments project term program for public officials Number of Mid and community volunteers volunteers and term attendees Long term

Macon County Airport Macon FAA/Local Local/ALDOT Completion of Mid County Projects Term Long Term Develop Macon County Macon Local, EDA Local, SCADC Construction of Mid Industrial Park/ County improvements Term Emphasize I‐85 corridor and development development of sites

Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Improve industrial park Tuskegee Local/EDA/ SCADC, Local Improvement of Short ARC/DRA/ Governments park term HUD Number of jobs retained and created Complete development of Brundidge Local/EDA Local Improvements/ Mid Brundidge Industrial park development term investments/ jobs Continue retail and SCADC Local/State Local Development/ Short commercial development/ Region SBA/EDA/ Governments, retention of term redevelopment SCADC/ PCEDC, PCCC businesses Mid HUD term Promote Envision 2020 Montg. MSA Local Local Completion of Short and Imagine a Greater Organizations Strategic projects Term Montgomery Long Term Complete Downtown and Montg. Local Local Completion of Short Riverfront Development in Organizations, Projects term Montgomery City of Long Montgomery Term Envision and Montgomery Montg. MSA Local/ Local/MPO/ Completion of Short Area Chamber ALDOT ALDOT Projects Term Transportation projects Long subject to consistency with Term SCADC priorities Regional Business EDD EDA/Local Local Completion of Mid Incubator and Technology incubators/ Term centers businesses located

TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Improve county roads and State Multiple SCADC, Local Number of Short, storm drainage Planning Governments highway miles Mid and District 5 improved Long term Countywide Hazard State FEMA/HUD/ SCADC, Local Implementation Short, Mitigation Plans Planning Local/DHS Governments of plans Mid and District 5 Long term Develop a new industrial Bullock Local/HUD SCADC, Local Construction of Short park County /EDA/USDA Governments new park and term /DRA building Mid term Improve local airport; Bullock Local/FAA/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short renovate and extend County/ EDA/DRA Governments expansion term runways Union Mid Springs term

Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Upgrade and widen Bullock Local/DOT/ SCADC, Local Number of Short Alabama Highway 110 County/ Others Governments highway miles term from Montgomery to Montg. widened Mid Union Springs County term

Historic preservation and Union Local/AHC/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short restoration of library Springs/ Other Governments improvements term Bullock Mid County term Historic preservation and Union Local/AHC/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short restoration of former Springs/ Other Governments improvements term church Bullock Mid County term Develop additional water Butler Local/USDA SCADC, Local Number of Short, supply County/ EDA/DRA/ Governments customers Mid and Lowndes HUD served Long County term Rehabilitate water/sewer Greenville Local/EDA/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short systems HUD/DRA/ Governments rehabilitations term USDA Improve and enhance Lowndes Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Improvement of Short existing sewer systems County EDA/EPA/ Governments systems term ADEM/DRA Extend natural gas line to Lowndes Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Installation of Short Lowndes County Ind. Park County/ DRA/EDA Governments new lines term and Hayneville Hayneville Construct new public Hayneville Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Development of Short safety building DRA/FEMA Governments a new public term safety building Mid term Construct a fire substation Lowndes Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Development of Short at or near Lowndes Co. County/ DRA/FEMA Governments a new station term Ind. Park Hayneville Purchase new ladder fire Hayneville Local/DHS/ SCADC, Local Acquisition of Short truck and FEMA Governments new truck/ term communications communications equipment gear Install storm drainage Hayneville FEMA/Local SCADC, Local Installation of Mid system in Big Swamp Governments first phase of term Creek area drainage system and alleviation of recurrent flooding Improve and enhance Macon Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Improvement of Short existing water systems County EDA/EPA/ Governments systems term

Extend Water and sewer Macon ADEM/DRA/ to interstate I‐85 County ARC Upgrade and expand the Notasulga Local/USDA SCADC, Local Installation of Short sanitary sewer system HUD/ARC/ Governments system term DRA/Others Increase in capacity

Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Install and expand a Shorter Local/USDA SCADC, Local Installation of Short commercial sanitary HUD/ARC/ Governments system term sewer system DRA/Others Increase in capacity Install a water tower and Shorter Local/USDA SCADC, Local Installation of Short new fire hydrants /ARC/EDA/ Governments tower term DRA/Others Develop and construct a ARC/EDA/ new community /senior HUD/USDA/ Number of Mid center DRA/Others hydrants term installed Public Transportation Montg. FTA/Local Local Improvements to Long Project County service term

Expand and enhance Pike County Multiple Local/USDA/ Short sewer lines in northern ARC/EDA/ term parts of county HUD/DRA/ Others Corridor study, construct Pike Multiple County Complete Study Short limited access road along County/ term U.S. 231 from Dothan to Montg. Montgomery County Expand and enhance Troy Multiple SCADC, Local Completion of Short Municipal Airport/include Governments improvements term fixed based operator Extend access road to Troy Multiple SCADC, Local Extension of Short Troy Sportsplex Governments road term

Replace deteriorating Troy Multiple SCADC, Local Amount of lines Short sewer lines throughout Governments replaced, in feet term city Replace and/or improve Troy Multiple SCADC, Local Miles of roads Short deteriorated streets Governments replaced/ term improved Troy Public Library Troy City of Troy, City of Troy Complete Project Short other Term Downtown Historic Troy City of Troy City of Troy Establish District Short District Term Service Roads along 231 Troy ALDOT ALDOT Complete Mid sections of Term service roads Spec building in Industrial Troy Multiple Local Start Short Park construction Term

Completion of Montg. ALDOT/ Local/ALDOT Completion of Montgomery Outer Loop County Local Projects and I‐85 Extension

I‐85 improvements to the Montg./ east Macon County Rural Transportation EDD ALDOT/ SCADC Rural Short Planning Organization Local transportation Term projects Long identified Term

Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame United We Ride EDD ADSS/ SCADC Needs Short coordinated social service ALDOT assessment Term transportation complete Services Long established Term Envision and Montgomery Montg. Local/ Local/MPO/ Completion of Short Area Chamber MSA ALDOT ALDOT Projects Term Transportation projects Long subject to consistency Term with SCADC priorities Improvements to Montg. FAA/Local/ Local/ALDOT Completion of Mid Montgomery Regional ALDOT projects Term Airport Long Term

WORKFORCE DEVELOPOMENT Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Expand and enhance EDD Local/State/ SCADC, Local Number of Short area vocational EDA/ARC/ Governments students served term education centers DRA Improve public school EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Number of Short facilities DRA/ARC/ Governments schools improved term Educ./State Improve manpower EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Number of Short training programs EDA/DRA/ Governments persons trained term ARC/Educ./ State Improve existing and EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Number of Short develop additional EDA/DRA/ Governments programs created term welfare‐to‐work ARC/Educ./ programs and State facilities Continue ongoing EDD Multiple SCADC, Local Number of Short programs for teen Governments reduction in drop‐ term parents to reduce outs drop‐out rates Develop partnerships EDD Multiple SCADC, Local Creation of Short among vocational and Governments partnerships term technical schools in the region Support the creation EDD Multiple SCADC, Local Creation of Short of a regional Governments position term coordinator position to serve as a liaison between local industries and area schools Continue support for EDD Multiple SCADC, Local Literacy rate Short the Alabama Reading Governments term Initiative and related programs to reach 100% literacy

Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Develop and foster Lowndes Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Number of Short job training programs County EDA/DRA/ Governments trainees term ARC/State Restore old Shorter Shorter Local/ARC/ SCADC, Local Development and Short Elementary School HUD/EDA/ Governments restoration of term and develop an adult Others facilities training center and education facility at the site Community Based Job EDD DOL Local/ Funding/ Short training program Trenholm State Persons trained term Technical College Expansion of EDD DOL/local Local Centers Mid term vocational school established/ concept to create graduates public/private “business” academies and regional technology training centers Implement other EDD DOL/Local Workforce Projects Short Workforce Development complete/ term Development Council persons trained Long term projects as part of Workforce Development Council Central Alabama Montg. U.S. VA/DOL/ provide training, Centers Short Opportunities HUD/HHS job placement established/ Term Industrialization graduates Long Center, Inc. Term

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Capital Bullock Multiple SCADC, Local Completion of Short, Improvements/Public County Governments plan Mid and Facilities Plan Implementation Long of plan term Downtown Housing EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Implementation Short Plans ADECA/State/ Governments of plan term ARC/DRA/ Others Update regional EDD Local/EDA/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short water and sewer ADECA/State/ Governments updates term planning reports FEMA/Others Scenic Byways EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short planning and ADECA/State/ Governments plan term implementation ARC/DRA/ Implementation Others of scenic status Downtown EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short Revitalization/ ADECA/State/ Governments plans term Rehabilitation Plans ARC/DRA Others

Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Student Housing EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short Plans ADECA/State/ Governments plan and ARC/DRA/ Mid term Others Affordable Housing EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short Plans and city and ADECA/State/ Governments plan/completion term county housing ARC/DRA of pilot projects development and Others and number of rehab pilot programs housing units Senior Housing Plans EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short ADECA/State/ Governments plan term ARC/DRA Others Continue EDD Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short development and ARC/DRA/ Governments plans/updates Term maintenance of FEMA/Others Mid County Hazard Term Mitigation Plans I‐85 Extension Lowndes Local/EDA/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short Feasibility Study County/ DRA/ALDOT/ Governments study term Montg. Others County Storm Drainage Plan Hayneville Local/HUD/ SCADC, Local Completion of Short FEMA Governments plan Term Implementation Mid of plan Term Comprehensive Plan Gordonville ARC/DRA SCADC, Local Creation of plan Short and Land Use HUD/Local Government Implementation term Regulations of plan Comprehensive Plan Mosses ARC/DRA SCADC, Local Creation of plan Short and Land Use HUD/ Government Implementation term Regulations Local of plan Countywide Macon ARC/DRA SCADC, Local Creation of plan Short Comprehensive Plan County HUD/ADECA/ Governments Implementation Term & Zoning Ordinance Local of plan Shorter Shorter Local/HUD SCADC, Local Completion of Short Comprehensive Plan USDA/Others Governments update and study Term Update and Commercial Study Conduct market study Montg. Local Local Publication of Short detailing housing Governments, study term demand in I‐65 Realtors, Corridor GMHBA Comprehensive Plan Notasulga ARC/DRA SCADC, Local Creation of plan Short and Land Use HUD/Local Government Implementation term Regulations of plan Framework for EDD EDA/ SCADC/Local Completion of Short Growth and Other Plan Term Development Completion of Mid City And County Term Plans

QUALITY OF LIFE Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Low‐income area EDD HUD/Local SCADC, Local Completion of Short redevelopment Governments redevelopment term efforts Senior Housing in Macon HUD/Local Local Construction of Mid Term Tuskegee and Macon County units County Rehabilitate and/or EDD HUD/Local SCADC, Local Replacement of Short, replace substandard Governments residences Mid and residencies Long term Alleviate shortage of EDD HUD/Local SCADC, Local Number of homes Short, low‐ and moderate‐ Governments created Mid and income housing Long term Improve, develop, EDD DOI/DOT/ SCADC, Local Number of Short, and/or expand Local Governments programs created Mid and recreational Long facilities/parks, term libraries, and programs Construction of new Lowndes Local/ADECA/ SCADC, Local Construction of Short library County State/DRA/ Governments new term Others facility Montgomery Cultural Montg. Local Local Construction of Mid Term Center and Library facilities

Regional Tourism and EDD Local/ADECA Local Completion of Short retiree attraction study Term study CDFI and related EDD Local Local Establishment of Short housing finance CDFI and number Term programs of loans/amount of investment in housing

ORGANIZATION, FUNDING, LEADERSHIP AND COOPERATION Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame Continue to use CEDS EDD EDA/SCADC SCADC Revised Short Strategy Committee membership and Term and SCADC Board to more effective maximize and efficient public/private participation participation Facilitate Rural Action EDD EDA/ADECA SCADC Expanded Short Commission stakeholders Term

Participate in regional EDD DOL/ADECA SCADC Trained persons Short Workforce Term development programs Participate in Envision EDD Local SCADC Projects Short 2020, Imagine a completed Term Greater Montgomery Long

Funding Performance Time Projects/Programs Location Responsibility Source Measures Frame and other regional Term chamber and visioning programs Coordinate Rural EDD ALDOT/ADSS SCADC Projects Short Transportation completed Term Planning program Long with MPO planning/ Term United We Ride Participate in a study EDD Local/EDA/ SCADC Study completion Short on leveraging public ARC/ADECA Term and private funding and publish a directory of funding sources/included the possibility of tiered funding strategies Promote city and EDD Local Local Participants / Mid Term county leadership programs programs

Vital Regional Projects The CEDS Planning Process is maintained as an ongoing effort to implement a coordinated broad‐based, regional approach to economic development and to assist the cities and counties, the region and State of Alabama in determining the priorities in the combined region. All projects, that are included in the CEDS, are important. From time to time, certain projects are identified as having significant impact to the region, as a whole. The following are identified as Vital Regional Projects. These and other projects should be continuously reviewed and updated, as part of the CEDS planning process.

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 1. Development along I‐65 Corridor South STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Infrastructure, From Montgomery to ALDOT, ADO, ADECA, SCADC, Local 1) Widen I‐65 from existing six lanes to 1 Short term Economic Greenville ARC, DRA, EDA, Governments, ALDOT Interchange 158 Development USDA RD 2) Extend sanitary sewer south from 2 Short term Montgomery to serve industrial and growth areas (potentially to interchange 158) 3) Extend sanitary sewer to interchanges 3 Short term in I‐65 corridor from appropriate systems such as Ft. Deposit and Greenville. 4) Expand storage and water service 4 Mid term capacity on both sides of I‐65 corridor 5) Identify, acquire and develop industrial 5 Mid term park sites in South Montgomery, Lowndes and Butler Counties

2. I‐85 Extension From Montgomery to Selma STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Infrastructure/ From Montgomery to ALDOT SCADC 1) Completion of I‐85 extension from 1) Long term Economic Selma Montgomery to the west, in phases Development

3. Improvements and Development Along I‐85 Corridor (east) to Opelika/Auburn Area STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Infrastructure/ From Montgomery to ALDOT, ADECA, SCADC, LRCOG, 1) Complete industrial access road, water 1 Short term Economic Opelika USDA RD, ARC, DRA, Local Governments and sewer service at East Montgomery Development NPS Industrial Park 2) Improve road to Tuskegee Airmen 2 Short term National Historic Site Coordination with I‐85 3) Completion of Auburn Industrial Park 3 Short term Alliance West 4) Promote high tech industry and 4 Mid term agribusiness opportunities 5) Infrastructure development plan 5 Mid term 6) Identify, acquire and develop regional 6 Mid Term industrial park site in Macon 7) Additional landscaping at interchanges 7 Short term

4. Montgomery Outer Loop STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Infrastructure, Montgomery ALDOT/Local ALDOT, City of Complete sections of outer loop Long Term Economic Montgomery, SCADC Development

5. Regional Lake/Reservoir STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Infrastructure/ Butler, Crenshaw, ADO, ADECA, ARC, SCADC 1) Completion of a feasibility study 1 Short term Ec. Dev./ Lowndes, and Wilcox DRA, EDA 2) Completion of the reservoir/lake 2 Short term Quality of Life Counties 3) Number of new customers served 3 Short term

6. Improvements to U.S. 31, U.S. 231, U.S. 331, U.S. 80, and AL 110 STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Infrastructure/ Bullock, Crenshaw, ALDOT SCADC 1) Number of highway miles widened. Long term Economic Lowndes, 2) Number of highway miles resurfaced. Development Montgomery, and Pike 3) Traffic counts Counties

7. Regional Workforce Development Program STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Education Region‐wide Local colleges and Envision Task Forces, 1) Establishment of a program Mid term universities, Boards Local colleges and 2) Program enrollment of Education, Career universities, Boards of 3) Number of students Technical Centers Ed., Career Technical 4) Number of graduates hired c/o U.S. Dept. of Centers, U.S. Dept. of Labor, and AIDT Labor, and AIDT

8. Develop tourism industry to make region a destination STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Quality of Life/ Region‐wide Alabama Bureau of Envision Task Force, 1) Increased promotion of existing Long term Economic Tourism, and Travel, Chamber of Commerce, attractions Development ADECA, RSA, AHC CVB 2) Tuskegee Airmen Project

9. Expand the Regional Council’s Revolving Loan Fund/include retail business development STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Economic Region‐wide ADECA AARC 1) Number of small businesses served Short Term Development 2) Number of jobs created 3) Revenue from retail sales

10. Add or improve industrial parks in every county/recruit new industry STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Economic Region‐wide ADO, ADECA, ARC, LRCOG, SCADC 1) Construction of facilities Mid Term Development DRA, EDA 2) Number of industries, businesses, and USDA RD jobs created/recruited

11. Improve/Increase Sewer & Water Capacities and Services and include continued development of high speed telecommunications STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Infrastructure/ Region‐wide ADO, ADECA, ARC, SCADC, LRCOG, Local 1) Construction of facilities and lines Short Term Economic DRA, EDA Governments 2) Number of new customers Development/ USDA RD, Local 3) Miles of water lines and sewer mains Quality of Life Governments constructed

12. Retail Development Strategy and distribution industry STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Economic Region‐wide local SCADC/Others Completed strategy Short term development

13. Rural Transportation Planning(RPO), coordinated with MPO chamber and related transportation projects, consistent with CEDS STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Transportation/ Region‐wide ALDOT/Local SCADC, ALDOT Rural transportation improvement projects Short Term Infrastructure Long Term

14. United We Ride Coordinated Social Service program STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Transportation/ Region‐wide ADSS/ALDOT SCADC Increased service Short Term Infrastructure Long Term

15. Implement Rural Action Commission, to include SCADC, Envision 2020, Imagine a Greater Montgomery, other city and county visioning and leadership programs STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Organization, Region‐wide EDA/Local ADECA,SCADC/Local, Increased participation and coordination of Short Term Funding and CARPC, LRCOG projects leadership

16. Regional an d local existing industry programs; industry cluster plan STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Economic Region‐wide ADECA/Local Local/ADECA/ADO Assistance to existing industries and jobs Short Term Development retained

17. Regional Housing Plan and program to develop and rehab market rate and affordable housing; include neighborhood revitalization; include CDFI implementation STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Quality of Life Region‐wide HUD/Local/USDA SCADC/Local Number of housing units built or renovated Mid term

18. Downtown development in Montgomery and other communities and growth centers STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Planning Region‐wide/Growth Local Local Investment in downtown(s) and businesses Mid term Centers retained

19. Riverfront Development program STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Planning Montgomery Local Local Completion of projects and/private Short term investment Long term

20. Continue to improve Montgomery and other regional airports STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Transportation/I Montgomery/other FAA/Local Local Investments & increased service Mid term nfrastructure airports

21. Regional Framework for Growth and Development STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Planning Region‐wide EDA/Local SCADC Completion of Plan Short Term

22. Expand Regional Incubators, technology centers and public/private business training “academies” STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Economic Region‐wide ADO/Local Local Incubators/businesses Short term development Mid term

23. Major Mega Industrial site in 231 corridor, including distribution strategy STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Economic Western part of the ADO/ADECA/ SCADC/Local Recruited industry Long term Development region ALDOT//EDA

24. Public/Private funding study STRATEGY LOCATION FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES TIMING Organization/ Region‐wide Local funding/ leadership

Priority Capital Projects Among the projects identified, as part of the CEDS process, the following are specific capital investment projects, identified previously as priorities for the District.

MAJOR PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY COST Water/Sewer Butler‐Lowndes Co. Reservoir Develop a regional water reservoir in the Greenville‐Fort $9,000,000 Deposit vicinity Roads Ala. Hwy. 110 Corridor Develop water and sewer lines and infrastructure for $3,000,000 Development other services along Ala. Hwy. 110. Widen Ala. Hwy. 110 to four lanes. TBD U.S. Hwys. 80, 231, & 331 Widen U.S. Highway 331 $3,000,000 Development U.S. Highway 80 Commercial and Industrial Development TBD General infrastructure improvements along each route $3,000,000 ea. U.S. Highway 231 Corridor Study I‐85 Extension Study the feasibility of extending I‐85 from Montgomery $2,500,000 to Selma and beyond I‐10 Extension Study the feasibility of extending I‐10 from Florida to TBD Montgomery Industrial Parks Bullock Co. Industrial Park Develop new infrastructure and improve existing utilities $2,000,000 Macon‐Tuskegee Industrial Develop a new industrial park in Macon County $3,000,000 Development Shorter Industrial Park Expand industrial park in the Shorter vicinity $2,500,000 Montgomery West Industrial Develop Mitchell Young Road as industrial access road TBD Site Extend water service from within site to industrial site to TBD (Note: This project for a tier be developed one supplier is being actively Extend sanitary sewer service to industrial site to be TBD pursued. Costs to be available developed in near future.) Miscellaneous Troy Airport Expand and enhance services and infrastructure TBD Revolving Loan Fund Recapitalize the regional council’s Revolving Loan Funds $1,000,000 TBD = (Cost) To Be Determined * = Projects are grouped

Appendices

Appendix A. Adoption Resolution

Appendix B. Data Tables

100

Appendix A: Adoption Resolution

101

102

Appendix B: Data Tables

List of Tables 1: County Population, 1960 to 2010 1A: Percent Change in Population, 1960 to 2010 and 2010 to 2011 2: Population and Housing Density, 2010 3: Urban Population vs. Rural Population, 2010 4: Population of SCAEDD Municipalities and Percent Change, 2000 and 2010 5: County Population Projections, 2015 to 2035 6: County and Municipality Population by Race, 2010 7: Median Age of Population, 2011 8: Population by Gender, 2011 9: Educational Attainment, 2010 10: Median Family Income, 1980 to 2010 11: Per Capita Personal Income, 1970 to 2010 12: Poverty Estimates, 2010 13: Workforce Development Regions of Alabama 14: Labor Force and Employment, January to July 2013 14a: Labor Force and Employment, 2012 15: Annual Average Civilian Labor Force 16: Annual Average Employment 17: Annual Average Unemployment 18: Annual Average Unemployment Rate 19: Wage and Salary Employment, 2007‐2010 20: Average Wage Per Job, 2007‐2010 (in dollars) 21: Type of Employment and Employment by Industry, 2010 22: Land Use in Acres, 2007 23: Emergency Management Hazard Mitigation and Contact Information 24: Total Housing Units and Housing Occupancy, 2010 25: Housing Occupancy by Tenure, 2010 26: Announced New and Expanded Industries 27: Industrial Sites Located in SCAEDD

103

Table 1: County Population, 1960 to 2010 Population County 2011 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Estimate Bullock 13,462 11,824 10,596 11,042 11,714 10,914 10,542 Butler 24,560 22,007 21,680 21,892 21,399 20,947 20,650 Crenshaw 14,909 13,188 14,110 13,635 13,665 13,906 13,911 Lowndes 15,417 12,897 13,253 12,658 13,473 11,299 11,147 Macon 26,717 24,841 26,829 24,928 24,105 21,452 21,182 Montgomery 169,210 167,790 197,038 209,085 223,510 229,363 232,032 Pike 25,987 25,038 28,050 27,595 29,605 32,899 32,915

SCAEDD 290,262 277,585 311,556 320,835 337,471 340,780 342,379 Region Alabama 3,266,740 3,444,354 3,894,025 4,040,587 4,447,100 4,779,736 4,802,740 United States 179,323 203,302 226,542 248,710 281,422 308,746 311,592 (thousands) SCAEDD as Percent of 8.9% 8.1% 8.0% 7.9% 7.6% 7.1% 7.1% State, 2010 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1960‐2010 Censuses of Population. Special tabulation by the Alabama State Data Center, The University of Alabama

Table 1A: Percent Change in Population, 1960 to 2010 and 2010 to 2011 Percent Change in Population County 1960 to 2010 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2011 Bullock ‐18.9% ‐6.8% ‐3.4% Butler ‐14.7% ‐2.1% ‐1.4% Crenshaw ‐6.7% 1.8% 0.0% Lowndes ‐26.7% ‐16.1% ‐1.3% Macon ‐19.7% ‐11.0% ‐1.3% Montgomery 35.5% 2.6% 1.2% Pike 26.6% 11.1% 0.0%

SCAEDD 17.4% 1.0% 0.5% Region Alabama 46.3% 7.5% 0.5%

United States 72.2% 9.7% 0.9% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1960‐2010 Censuses of Population. Special tabulations by the Alabama State Data Center, The University of Alabama and the South Central Alabama Development Commission

104

Table 2: Population and Housing Density, 2010 Land Area Water Area Population Housing Housing Population (sq. miles) (sq. miles) Density Units Density Bullock 623 2.34 10,914 17.5 4,493 7.2 Butler 777 1.05 20,947 27.0 9,964 12.8 Crenshaw 609 2.08 13,906 22.8 6,735 11.1 Lowndes 716 9.16 11,299 15.8 5,140 7.2 Macon 609 4.32 21,452 35.2 10,259 16.8 Montgomery 784 15.66 229,363 292.5 101,641 129.6 Pike 672 0.91 32,899 48.9 15,267 22.7

SCAEDD 4,790 36 340,780 71.1 153,499 32.0 Region

Alabama 50,645 1,775 94.4 42.9 4,779,736 2,171,853 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population

Table 3: Urban Population vs. Rural Population, 2010 Urban % Urban Rural % Rural Bullock 5,307 48.6% 5,607 51.4% Butler 6,026 28.8% 14,921 71.2% Crenshaw 0 0.0% 13,906 100.0% Lowndes 0 0.0% 11,299 100.0% Macon 9,536 44.5% 11,916 55.5% Montgomery 205,300 89.5% 24,063 10.5% Pike 15,897 48.3% 17,002 51.7%

SCAEDD Region 242,066 71.0% 98,714 29.0% Alabama 2,821,804 59.0% 1,957,932 41.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population

105

Table 4: Population of SCAEDD Municipalities and Percent Change, 2000 and 2010 2010 Population 2000 Population % Change Alabama 4,779,736 4,447,100 7.5% Bullock County 10,914 11,714 ‐6.8% Midway 499 457 9.2% Union Springs 3,980 3,670 8.4% Butler County 20,947 21,399 ‐2.1% Georgiana 1,738 1,737 0.1% Greenville 8,135 7,228 12.5% McKenzie 522 642 ‐18.7% Crenshaw County 13,906 13,665 1.8% Brantley 809 920 ‐12.1% Dozier 329 391 ‐15.9% Glenwood 187 191 ‐2.1% Luverne 2,800 2,635 6.3% Petrey 58 63 ‐7.9% Rutledge 467 476 ‐1.9% Lowndes County 11,299 13,473 ‐16.1% Benton 49 47 4.3% Fort Deposit 1,344 1,270 5.8% Gordonville 326 318 2.5% Hayneville 932 1,177 ‐20.8% Lowndesboro 115 140 ‐17.9% Mosses 1,029 1,101 ‐6.5% White Hall 858 1,014 ‐15.4% Macon County 21,452 24,105 ‐11.0% Franklin 149 149 0.0% Notasulga 890 889 0.1% Shorter 474 355 33.5% Tuskegee 9,865 11,846 ‐16.7% Montgomery County 229,363 223,510 2.6% Montgomery 205,764 201,568 2.1% Pike Road 5,406 310 1,643.9% Pike County 32,899 29,605 11.1% Banks 179 224 ‐20.1% Brundidge 2,076 2,341 ‐11.3% Goshen 266 300 ‐11.3% Troy 18,033 13,935 29.4%

SCAEDD Region 340,780 337,471 1.0% Incorporated Area 267,279 255,394 4.7% Unincorporated Area 73,501 82,077 ‐10.4% % Incorporated 78.4% 75.7% % Unincorporated 21.6% 24.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Census of Population

106

Table 5: County Population Projections, 2015 to 2035 Change 2010‐ Census Census Estimates County 2035 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Number % Bullock 11,714 10,914 11,101 11,240 11,308 11,289 11,171 257 2.4% Butler 21,399 20,947 20,915 20,974 21,037 21,084 21,089 142 0.7% Crenshaw 13,665 13,906 14,009 14,102 14,179 14,229 14,266 360 2.6% Lowndes 13,473 11,299 11,566 11,824 12,045 12,198 12,278 979 8.7% Macon 24,105 21,452 21,188 20,923 20,656 20,330 19,957 ‐1,495 ‐7.0% Montgomery 223,510 229,363 237,716 246,566 255,718 264,638 273,170 43,807 19.1% Pike 29,605 32,899 34,085 35,228 36,272 37,154 37,874 4,975 15.1%

SCAEDD 337,471 340,780 350,580 360,857 371,215 380,922 389,805 49,025 14.4% Alabama 4,447,100 4,779,736 4,977,868 5,169,760 5,351,348 5,515,749 5,662,470 882,734 18.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Center for Business and Economic Research, The University of Alabama, June 2011.

107

Table 6: County and Municipality Population by Race, 2010 Total White Black Asian Hispanic Bullock County 10,914 2,392 21.9% 7,666 70.2% 20 0.2% 777 7.1% Midway 499 53 10.6% 444 89.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.6% Union Springs 3,980 420 10.6% 2,859 71.8% 17 0.4% 676 17.0% Butler County 20,947 11,324 54.1% 9,095 43.4% 177 0.8% 191 0.9% Georgiana 1,738 576 33.1% 1,136 65.4% 2 0.1% 5 0.3% Greenville 8,135 3,349 41.2% 4,511 55.5% 147 1.8% 102 1.3% McKenzie 522 351 67.2% 158 30.3% 0 0.0% 2 0.4% Crenshaw County 13,906 10,020 72.1% 3,254 23.4% 189 1.4% 204 1.5% Brantley 809 450 55.6% 314 38.8% 4 0.5% 16 2.0% Dozier 329 196 59.6% 116 35.3% 1 0.3% 0 0.0% Glenwood 187 131 70.1% 56 29.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Luverne 2,800 1,735 62.0% 828 29.6% 154 5.5% 53 1.9% Petrey 58 53 91.4% 5 8.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Rutledge 467 341 73.0% 107 22.9% 5 1.1% 10 2.1% Lowndes County 11,299 2,841 25.1% 8,310 73.5% 14 0.1% 87 0.8% Benton 49 40 81.6% 9 18.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Fort Deposit 1,344 315 23.4% 1,015 75.5% 2 0.1% 6 0.4% Gordonville 326 17 5.2% 309 94.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Hayneville 932 140 15.0% 788 84.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% Lowndesboro 115 87 75.7% 24 20.9% 0 0.0% 1 0.9% Mosses 1,029 15 1.5% 1,007 97.9% 0 0.0% 19 1.8% White Hall 858 21 2.4% 820 95.6% 0 0.0% 8 0.9% Macon County 21,452 3,267 15.2% 17,729 82.6% 76 0.4% 232 1.1% Franklin 149 71 47.7% 74 49.7% 2 1.3% 0 0.0% Notasulga 890 586 65.8% 288 32.4% 1 0.1% 8 0.9% Shorter 474 88 18.6% 377 79.5% 3 0.6% 5 1.1% Tuskegee 9,865 173 1.8% 9,454 95.8% 50 0.5% 126 1.3% Montgomery 229,363 88,099 38.4% 125,477 54.7% 4,821 2.1% 8,314 3.6% County Montgomery 205,764 74,227 36.1% 116,524 56.6% 4,609 2.2% 7,998 3.9% Pike Road 5,406 3,672 67.9% 1,551 28.7% 76 1.4% 69 1.3% Pike County 32,899 18,887 57.4% 12,054 36.6% 654 2.0% 730 2.2% Banks 179 124 69.3% 44 24.6% 0 0.0% 2 1.1% Brundidge 2,076 671 32.3% 1,306 62.9% 12 0.6% 62 3.0% Goshen 266 204 76.7% 60 22.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Troy 18,033 9,794 54.3% 7,035 39.0% 606 3.4% 357 2.0% SCAEDD Region 340,780 136,830 40.2% 183,585 53.9% 5,951 1.7% 10,535 3.1% Incorp. Area 267,279 97,900 36.6% 151,219 56.6% 5,691 2.1% 9,529 3.6% Unincorp. Area 73,501 38,930 53.0% 32,366 44.0% 260 0.4% 1,006 1.4% Source: 2000 and 2010 Census of Population. Special tabulation by the Missouri State Data Center.

108

Table 7: Median Age of Population, 2011 Area Total Population Male Female Bullock 39.0 37.9 40.5 Butler 40.6 37.9 42.6 Crenshaw 40.7 39.5 42.2 Lowndes 39.9 37.4 41.4 Macon 34.9 33.1 36.7 Montgomery 34.3 32.5 36.0 Pike 31.7 30.2 33.1

SCAEDD 37.3 35.5 38.9 Alabama 39.6 38.1 41.0 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Estimates Division. Internet release May 17, 2012.

Table 8: Population by Gender, 2011 Area Total Population Male % Male Female % Female Bullock 10,542 5,721 54.3% 4,821 45.7% Butler 20,650 9,686 46.9% 10,964 53.1% Crenshaw 13,911 6,718 48.3% 7,193 51.7% Lowndes 11,147 5,216 46.8% 5,931 53.2% Macon 21,182 9,753 46.0% 11,429 54.0% Montgomery 232,032 110,300 47.5% 121,732 52.5% Pike 32,915 15,694 47.7% 17,221 52.3%

SCAEDD 342,379 163,088 47.6% 179,291 52.4% Alabama 4,802,740 2,329,491 48.5% 2,473,249 51.5% U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Estimates Division. Internet release May 17, 2012.

109

Table 9: Educational Attainment, 2010

years

grade

school degree

higher

grade, degree

degree

higher or 9th

(incl. or

Area

high bachelor's

12th college,

school than

over

diploma

Population and Less 9th no High graduate equiv.) Some degree Associate's Bachelor's Graduate professional Percent graduate Percent degree Est. 7,301 799 1,049 2,670 1,478 428 607 270 (X) (X) Bullock County % 100.0% 10.9% 14.4% 36.6% 20.2% 5.9% 8.3% 3.7% 74.7% 12.0% Est. 14,039 1,138 2,401 5,434 2,415 1,108 1,098 445 (X) (X) Butler County % 100.0% 8.1% 17.1% 38.7% 17.2% 7.9% 7.8% 3.2% 74.8% 11.0% Crenshaw Est. 9,548 1,018 1,496 3,648 1,914 504 592 376 (X) (X) County % 100.0% 10.7% 15.7% 38.2% 20.0% 5.3% 6.2% 3.9% 73.7% 10.1% Lowndes Est. 7,626 733 1,298 2,987 1,267 369 688 284 (X) (X) County % 100.0% 9.6% 17.0% 39.2% 16.6% 4.8% 9.0% 3.7% 73.4% 12.7% Est. 13,185 1,077 1,722 3,846 2,732 1,048 1,411 1,349 (X) (X) Macon County % 100.0% 8.2% 13.1% 29.2% 20.7% 7.9% 10.7% 10.2% 78.8% 20.9% Montgomery Est. 145,359 6,920 15,327 39,966 30,711 8,063 26,445 17,927 (X) (X) County % 100.0% 4.8% 10.5% 27.5% 21.1% 5.5% 18.2% 12.3% 84.7% 30.5% Est. 18,646 1,336 2,504 6,611 3,219 559 2,691 1,726 (X) (X) Pike County % 100.0% 7.2% 13.4% 35.5% 17.3% 3.0% 14.4% 9.3% 79.4% 23.7% Est. 215,704 13,021 25,797 65,162 43,736 12,079 33,532 22,377 (X) (X) SCAEDD % 100.0% 6.0% 12.0% 30.2% 20.3% 5.6% 15.5% 10.4% 82.0% 25.9% Est. 3,108,132 195,799 383,038 987,491 653,096 213,632 430,068 245,008 (X) (X) Alabama % 100.0% 6.3% 12.3% 31.8% 21.0% 6.9% 13.8% 7.9% 81.4% 21.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey

Table 10: Median Family Income, 1980 to 2010 Percent Percent Percent 2010 as Area 1980 1990 Change 2000 Change 2010 Change Percent 80‐90 90‐00 00‐10 of State Bullock $10,623 $17,796 67.5% $23,990 34.8% $37,816 57.6% 71.5% Butler $12,385 $21,499 73.6% $30,915 43.8% $37,458 21.2% 70.9% Crenshaw $11,021 $21,368 93.9% $31,724 48.5% $47,685 50.3% 90.2% Lowndes $9,766 $18,535 89.8% $28,935 56.1% $34,929 20.7% 66.1% Macon $11,454 $20,096 75.4% $28,511 41.9% $42,363 48.6% 80.1% Montgomery $17,990 $32,351 79.8% $44,669 38.1% $55,475 24.2% 104.9% Pike $12,766 $23,735 85.9% $34,132 43.8% $41,570 21.8% 78.6%

SCAEDD $12,287 $22,198 80.7% $31,839 43.4% $42,471 33.4% 80.3% Alabama $16,353 $28,688 75.4% $41,657 45.2% $52,863 26.9% 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006‐2010 American Community Survey

110

Table 11: Per Capita Personal Income, 1970 to 2010 Area 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 % of State Bullock County $2,134 $5,435 $10,248 $15,695 $22,817 68.1% Butler County $2,180 $6,379 $11,095 $18,851 $28,446 84.9% Crenshaw County $2,069 $5,567 $12,368 $21,544 $31,233 93.2% Lowndes County $2,081 $5,100 $10,734 $17,779 $31,212 93.2% Macon County $2,301 $5,350 $10,482 $15,724 $26,934 80.4% Montgomery County $3,463 $8,946 $18,347 $27,528 $38,160 113.9% Pike County $2,427 $6,236 $13,682 $21,067 $32,656 97.5%

SCAEDD $2,379 $6,145 $12,422 $19,741 $30,208 90.2% Alabama $2,962 $7,825 $15,618 $24,067 $33,504 100.0% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Income Division ‐‐ April 2012

Table 12: Poverty Estimates, 2010 Area Poverty Estimate Poverty Percent Bullock County 2,866 31.1% Butler County 5,791 28.1% Crenshaw County 2,783 20.3% Lowndes County 3,419 30.7% Macon County 6,160 31.2% Montgomery County 46,972 21.3% Pike County 9,304 30.0% Alabama 883,078 18.9% United States 46,215,956 15.3%

111

Table 13: Workforce Development Regions of Alabama

112

Table 14: Labor Force and Employment; January to July, 2013, Not Seasonally Adjusted 2013 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL YTD AVG BULLOCK Civilian Labor Force 3,519 3,473 3,440 3,358 3,397 3,466 3,500 3,450 Employment 3,029 3,012 3,036 3,009 3,030 3,074 3,071 3,037 Unemployment 490 461 404 349 367 392 429 413 Unemployment Rate 13.9% 13.3% 11.7% 10.4% 10.8% 11.3% 12.3% 12.0% BUTLER Civilian Labor Force 8,793 8,996 8,967 8,957 9,123 9,179 9,215 9,033 Employment 7,793 7,958 8,054 8,163 8,276 8,294 8,325 8,123 Unemployment 1,000 1,038 913 794 847 885 890 910 Unemployment Rate 11.4% 11.5% 10.2% 8.9% 9.3% 9.6% 9.7% 10.1% CRENSHAW Civilian Labor Force 6,433 6,448 6,422 6,412 6,466 6,511 6,552 6,463 Employment 5,939 5,928 5,986 6,037 6,062 6,081 6,117 6,021 Unemployment 494 520 436 375 404 430 435 442 Unemployment Rate 7.7% 8.1% 6.8% 5.8% 6.2% 6.6% 6.6% 6.8% LOWNDES Civilian Labor Force 4,066 4,114 4,128 4,089 4,030 4,053 4,111 4,085 Employment 3,480 3,523 3,572 3,637 3,601 3,588 3,601 3,572 Unemployment 586 591 556 452 429 465 510 513 Unemployment Rate 14.4% 14.4% 13.5% 11.1% 10.6% 11.5% 12.4% 12.6% MACON Civilian Labor Force 8,483 8,655 8,726 8,693 8,668 8,719 8,724 8,667 Employment 7,598 7,810 7,886 7,986 7,922 7,880 7,895 7,854 Unemployment 885 845 840 707 746 839 829 813 Unemployment Rate 10.4% 9.8% 9.6% 8.1% 8.6% 9.6% 9.5% 9.4% MONTGOMERY Civilian Labor Force 102,407 103,615 104,239 105,069 104,298 104,703 104,967 104,186 Employment 94,174 95,315 96,647 98,413 97,442 97,070 97,439 96,643 Unemployment 8,233 8,300 7,592 6,656 6,856 7,633 7,528 7,543 Unemployment Rate 8.0% 8.0% 7.3% 6.3% 6.6% 7.3% 7.2% 7.2% PIKE Civilian Labor Force 15,356 15,294 15,343 15,412 15,284 15,373 15,366 15,347 Employment 14,189 14,139 14,285 14,506 14,331 14,289 14,341 14,297 Unemployment 1,167 1,155 1,058 906 953 1,084 1,025 1,050 Unemployment Rate 7.6% 7.6% 6.9% 5.9% 6.2% 7.1% 6.7% 6.8% SOUTH CENTRAL ALABAMA EDD Civilian Labor Force 149,057 150,595 151,265 151,990 151,266 152,004 152,435 151,230 Employment 136,202 137,685 139,466 141,751 140,664 140,276 140,789 139,548 Unemployment 12,855 12,910 11,799 10,239 10,602 11,728 11,646 11,683 Unemployment Rate 8.6% 8.6% 7.8% 6.7% 7.0% 7.7% 7.6% 7.7% ALABAMA Civilian Labor Force 2,131,101 2,156,363 2,159,062 2,173,409 2,165,463 2,168,765 2,171,645 2,160,830 Employment 1,965,739 1,987,720 2,010,901 2,044,107 2,029,298 2,022,506 2,028,839 2,012,730 Unemployment 165,362 168,643 148,161 129,302 136,165 146,259 142,806 148,100 Unemployment Rate 7.8% 7.8% 6.9% 5.9% 6.3% 6.7% 6.6% 6.9% UNITED STATES (in 1,000s) Civilian Labor Force 154,794 154,727 154,512 154,739 155,734 157,089 157,196 155,542 Employment 141,614 142,228 142,698 143,724 144,432 144,841 145,113 143,521 Unemployment 13,181 12,500 11,815 11,014 11,302 12,248 12,083 12,020 Unemployment Rate 8.5% 8.1% 7.6% 7.1% 7.3% 7.8% 7.7% 7.7% Source: Alabama Department of Labor in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, based on 2012 benchmark.

113

Table 14a: Labor Force and Employment; 2012, Not Seasonally Adjusted 2012 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN BULLOCK Civilian Labor Force 3,538 3,511 3,512 3,406 3,554 3,612 Employment 3,085 3,060 3,107 3,027 3,142 3,102 Unemployment 453 451 405 379 412 510 Unemployment Rate 12.8% 12.8% 11.5% 11.1% 11.6% 14.1% BUTLER Civilian Labor Force 8,799 8,826 8,953 8,772 9,011 9,152 Employment 7,867 7,860 7,987 7,895 8,062 8,043 Unemployment 932 966 966 877 949 1,109 Unemployment Rate 10.6% 10.9% 10.8% 10.0% 10.5% 12.1% CRENSHAW Civilian Labor Force 6,415 6,391 6,440 6,372 6,553 6,577 Employment 5,918 5,894 5,993 5,960 6,102 6,064 Unemployment 497 497 447 412 451 513 Unemployment Rate 7.7% 7.8% 6.9% 6.5% 6.9% 7.8% LOWNDES Civilian Labor Force 4,127 4,135 4,130 4,096 4,140 4,198 Employment 3,482 3,487 3,503 3,521 3,542 3,539 Unemployment 645 648 627 575 598 659 Unemployment Rate 15.6% 15.7% 15.2% 14.0% 14.4% 15.7% MACON Civilian Labor Force 8,508 8,464 8,501 8,434 8,533 8,719 Employment 7,643 7,647 7,659 7,679 7,717 7,707 Unemployment 865 817 842 755 816 1,012 Unemployment Rate 10.2% 9.7% 9.9% 9.0% 9.6% 11.6% MONTGOMERY Civilian Labor Force 102,339 102,293 102,589 102,326 103,662 105,078 Employment 94,201 94,351 94,792 95,271 95,829 95,750 Unemployment 8,138 7,942 7,797 7,055 7,833 9,328 Unemployment Rate 8.0% 7.8% 7.6% 6.9% 7.6% 8.9% PIKE Civilian Labor Force 15,067 15,129 15,322 15,556 15,742 15,663 Employment 13,989 14,102 14,270 14,629 14,739 14,393 Unemployment 1,078 1,027 1,052 927 1,003 1,270 Unemployment Rate 7.2% 6.8% 6.9% 6.0% 6.4% 8.1% SOUTH CENTRAL ALABAMA EDD Civilian Labor Force 148,793 148,749 149,447 148,962 151,195 152,999 Employment 136,185 136,401 137,311 137,982 139,133 138,598 Unemployment 12,608 12,348 12,136 10,980 12,062 14,401 Unemployment Rate 8.5% 8.3% 8.1% 7.4% 8.0% 9.4% ALABAMA Civilian Labor Force 2,134,693 2,138,923 2,144,007 2,137,214 2,157,536 2,185,703 Employment 1,971,350 1,975,399 1,989,708 1,997,161 2,003,871 2,005,393 Unemployment 163,343 163,524 154,299 140,053 153,665 180,310 Unemployment Rate 7.7% 7.6% 7.2% 6.6% 7.1% 8.2% UNITED STATES Civilian Labor Force 153,485,000 154,114,000 154,316,000 153,905,000 154,998,000 156,385,000 Employment 139,944,000 140,684,000 141,412,000 141,995,000 142,727,000 143,202,000 Unemployment 13,541,000 13,430,000 12,904,000 11,910,000 12,271,000 13,184,000 Unemployment Rate 8.8% 8.7% 8.4% 7.7% 7.9% 8.4% Source: Alabama Department of Labor in cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, based on 2012 benchmark.

114

Table 14a Continued: Labor Force and Employment, 2012, Not Seasonally Adjusted 2012 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC YTD AVG BULLOCK COUNTY LABOR FORCE 3,666 3,627 3,509 3,525 3,477 3,456 3,533 EMPLOYMENT 3,103 3,045 3,005 3,016 3,013 3,012 3,060 UNEMPLOYMENT 563 582 504 509 464 444 473 UNEMPL. RATE 15.4% 16.0% 14.4% 14.4% 13.3% 12.8% 13.4% BUTLER COUNTY LABOR FORCE 9,139 9,021 8,869 8,825 8,735 8,723 8,903 EMPLOYMENT 8,009 7,939 7,913 7,906 7,895 7,863 7,937 UNEMPLOYMENT 1,130 1,082 956 919 840 860 966 UNEMPL. RATE 12.4% 12.0% 10.8% 10.4% 9.6% 9.9% 10.8% CRENSHAW COUNTY LABOR FORCE 6,629 6,518 6,414 6,470 6,400 6,361 6,462 EMPLOYMENT 6,095 6,027 5,961 6,008 5,981 5,949 5,996 UNEMPLOYMENT 534 491 453 462 419 412 466 UNEMPL. RATE 8.1% 7.5% 7.1% 7.1% 6.5% 6.5% 7.2% LOWNDES COUNTY LABOR FORCE 4,196 4,093 4,069 4,093 4,059 4,027 4,114 EMPLOYMENT 3,537 3,529 3,556 3,577 3,566 3,564 3,534 UNEMPLOYMENT 659 564 513 516 493 463 580 UNEMPL. RATE 15.7% 13.8% 12.6% 12.6% 12.1% 11.5% 14.1% MACON COUNTY LABOR FORCE 8,691 8,636 8,519 8,584 8,498 8,475 8,547 EMPLOYMENT 7,703 7,720 7,733 7,787 7,779 7,742 7,710 UNEMPLOYMENT 988 916 786 797 719 733 837 UNEMPL. RATE 11.4% 10.6% 9.2% 9.3% 8.5% 8.6% 9.8% MONTGOMERY COUNTY LABOR FORCE 104,790 104,286 104,070 104,673 103,622 103,555 103,607 EMPLOYMENT 95,708 95,475 96,229 96,775 96,474 96,427 95,607 UNEMPLOYMENT 9,082 8,811 7,841 7,898 7,148 7,128 8,000 UNEMPL. RATE 8.7% 8.4% 7.5% 7.5% 6.9% 6.9% 7.7% PIKE COUNTY LABOR FORCE 15,634 15,515 15,476 15,716 15,551 15,441 15,484 EMPLOYMENT 14,421 14,295 14,412 14,617 14,557 14,437 14,405 UNEMPLOYMENT 1,213 1,220 1,064 1,099 994 1,004 1,079 UNEMPL. RATE 7.8% 7.9% 6.9% 7.0% 6.4% 6.5% 7.0% SOUTH CENTRAL ALABAMA EDD LABOR FORCE 152,745 151,696 150,926 151,886 150,342 150,038 150,648 EMPLOYMENT 138,576 138,030 138,809 139,686 139,265 138,994 138,248 UNEMPLOYMENT 14,169 13,666 12,117 12,200 11,077 11,044 12,401 UNEMPL. RATE 9.3% 9.0% 8.0% 8.0% 7.4% 7.4% 8.2% UNADJUSTED ALABAMA LABOR FORCE 2,178,836 2,162,766 2,158,617 2,173,182 2,154,298 2,149,837 2,156,301 EMPLOYMENT 2,000,098 1,992,552 2,006,974 2,021,656 2,016,615 2,009,411 1,999,182 UNEMPLOYMENT 178,738 170,214 151,643 151,526 137,683 140,426 157,119 UNEMPL. RATE 8.2% 7.9% 7.0% 7.0% 6.4% 6.5% 7.3% UNADJUSTED UNITED STATES LABOR FORCE 156,526,000 155,255,000 155,075,000 155,779,000 154,953,000 154,904,000 154,975,000 EMPLOYMENT 143,126,000 142,558,000 143,333,000 144,039,000 143,549,000 143,060,000 142,469,000 UNEMPLOYMENT 13,400,000 12,696,000 11,742,000 11,741,000 11,404,000 11,844,000 12,506,000 UNEMPL. RATE 8.6% 8.2% 7.6% 7.5% 7.4% 7.6% 8.1% Source: Alabama Department of Industrial Relations, 2011 benchmark.

115

Table 15: Annual Average Civilian Labor Force, 2000 to 2012 Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montgomery Pike SCAEDD 2000 3,993 9,212 6,167 5,089 9,157 106,838 14,184 154,640 2001 3,931 9,067 6,052 5,047 8,981 105,972 13,646 152,696 2002 3,864 9,134 5,831 5,021 8,765 104,011 13,716 150,342 2003 3,929 9,088 5,870 4,967 8,449 103,734 14,291 150,328 2004 3,812 8,951 5,748 4,891 8,513 103,627 14,929 150,471 2005 3,695 9,056 6,146 4,896 8,633 104,504 14,934 151,864 2006 3,687 9,240 6,614 4,802 8,844 105,982 15,210 154,379 2007 3,629 9,083 6,552 4,739 8,859 106,275 15,594 154,731 2008 3,585 8,953 6,418 4,783 9,018 105,360 15,707 153,824 2009 3,679 8,951 6,376 4,820 9,234 104,073 15,667 152,800 2010 3,746 9,119 6,549 4,321 9,114 105,254 16,065 154,168 2011 3,675 9,063 6,685 4,204 8,736 104,612 15,846 152,821 2012 3,533 8,903 6,462 4,114 8,547 103,607 15,484 150,650 % Change ‐6.2% ‐1.0% 6.2% ‐15.1% ‐0.5% ‐1.5% 13.3% ‐0.3% 00‐10 % Change ‐5.7% ‐2.4% ‐1.3% ‐4.8% ‐6.2% ‐1.6% ‐3.6% ‐2.3% '10‐12 % Change ‐11.5% ‐3.4% 4.8% ‐19.2% ‐6.7% ‐3.0% 9.2% ‐2.6% 00‐12 Source: Estimates prepared by the Alabama Department of Labor in Cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Table 16: Annual Average Employment, 2000 to 2012 Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montgomery Pike SCAEDD 2000 3,691 8,576 5,855 4,777 8,688 102,885 13,491 147,963 2001 3,574 8,445 5,721 4,715 8,506 101,598 12,985 145,544 2002 3,505 8,478 5,509 4,613 8,250 98,969 12,971 142,295 2003 3,535 8,373 5,508 4,550 7,912 98,257 13,536 141,671 2004 3,417 8,193 5,397 4,486 7,985 98,313 14,213 142,004 2005 3,394 8,556 5,889 4,559 8,199 100,440 14,417 145,454 2006 3,402 8,785 6,387 4,487 8,441 102,184 14,685 148,371 2007 3,332 8,601 6,309 4,431 8,446 102,530 15,054 148,703 2008 3,251 8,279 6,106 4,322 8,427 99,888 15,035 145,308 2009 3,165 7,638 5,784 3,981 8,226 94,347 14,341 137,482 2010 3,206 8,017 5,991 3,628 7,970 95,724 14,780 139,316 2011 3,145 8,043 6,123 3,516 7,665 95,140 14,635 138,267 2012 3,060 7,937 5,996 3,534 7,710 95,607 14,405 138,249 % Change ‐13.1% ‐6.5% 2.3% ‐24.1% ‐8.3% ‐7.0% 9.6% ‐5.8% 00‐10 % Change ‐4.6% ‐1.0% 0.1% ‐2.6% ‐3.3% ‐0.1% ‐2.5% ‐0.8% '10‐12 % Change ‐17.1% ‐7.5% 2.4% ‐26.0% ‐11.3% ‐7.1% 6.8% ‐6.6% 00‐12 Source: Estimates prepared by the Alabama Department of Labor in Cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

116

Table 17: Annual Average Unemployment, 2000 to 2012 Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montgomery Pike SCAEDD 2000 302 636 312 312 469 3,953 693 6,677 2001 357 622 331 332 475 4,374 661 7,152 2002 359 656 322 408 515 5,042 745 8,047 2003 394 715 362 417 537 5,477 755 8,657 2004 395 758 351 405 528 5,314 716 8,467 2005 301 500 257 337 434 4,064 517 6,410 2006 285 455 227 315 403 3,798 525 6,008 2007 297 482 243 308 413 3,745 540 6,028 2008 334 674 312 461 591 5,472 672 8,516 2009 514 1,313 592 839 1,008 9,726 1,326 15,318 2010 540 1,102 558 693 1,144 9,530 1,285 14,852 2011 530 1,020 562 688 1,071 9,472 1,211 14,554 2012 473 966 466 580 837 8,000 1,079 12,401 % Change 78.8% 73.3% 78.8% 122.1% 143.9% 141.1% 85.4% 122.4% '00 to '10 % Change ‐12.4% ‐12.3% ‐16.5% ‐16.3% ‐26.8% ‐16.1% ‐16.0% ‐16.5% '10 to '12 % Change 56.6% 51.9% 49.4% 85.9% 78.5% 102.4% 55.7% 85.7% '00 to '12 Source: Estimates prepared by the Alabama Department of Labor in Cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Table 18: Annual Average Unemployment Rate, 2000 to 2012 SCAEDD Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montgomery Pike Average 2000 7.6 6.9 5.1 6.1 5.1 3.7 4.9 5.6 2001 9.1 6.9 5.5 6.6 5.3 4.1 4.8 6.0 2002 9.3 7.2 5.5 8.1 5.9 4.8 5.4 6.6 2003 10.0 7.9 6.2 8.4 6.4 5.3 5.3 7.1 2004 10.4 8.5 6.1 8.3 6.2 5.1 4.8 7.1 2005 8.1 5.5 4.2 6.9 5.0 3.9 3.5 5.3 2006 7.7 4.9 3.4 6.6 4.6 3.6 3.5 4.9 2007 8.2 5.3 3.7 6.5 4.7 3.5 3.5 5.1 2008 9.3 7.5 4.9 9.6 6.6 5.2 4.3 6.8 2009 14.0 14.7 9.3 17.4 10.9 9.3 8.5 12.0 2010 14.4 12.1 8.5 16.0 12.6 9.1 8.0 11.5 2011 14.4 11.3 8.4 16.4 12.3 9.1 7.6 11.4 2012 13.4 10.9 7.2 14.1 9.8 7.7 7.0 10.0 % Change 89.5% 75.4% 66.7% 162.3% 147.1% 145.9% 63.3% 104.8% 00‐10 % Change ‐6.9% ‐9.9% ‐15.3% ‐11.9% ‐22.2% ‐15.4% ‐12.5% ‐13.1% '10‐12 % Change 76.3% 58.0% 41.2% 131.1% 92.2% 108.1% 42.9% 77.9% 00‐12 Source: Estimates prepared by the Alabama Department of Labor in Cooperation with the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

117

Table 19: Wage and Salary Employment, 2007‐2010 Number of Jobs Percent Change Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007‐2010 Alabama 2,101,829 2,082,617 1,978,040 1,959,713 ‐6.8% Bullock County 3,252 3,241 3,242 3,172 ‐2.5% Butler County 7,516 7,321 6,765 7,094 ‐5.6% Crenshaw County 4,065 4,113 3,895 3,980 ‐2.1% Lowndes County 3,659 3,487 3,253 2,988 ‐18.3% Macon County 6,847 7,016 7,071 6,227 ‐9.1% Montgomery County 154,560 152,864 146,057 143,673 ‐7.0% Pike County 15,448 15,683 15,101 15,235 ‐1.4% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Internet release date, Dec. 2011.

Table 20: Average Wage Per Job, 2007‐2010 (in dollars) Percent Change Area 2007 2008 2009 2010 2007‐2010 Alabama 36,846 38,085 38,698 39,626 7.5% Bullock County 27,777 27,974 27,485 28,586 2.9% Butler County 27,070 28,130 28,414 29,321 8.3% Crenshaw County 27,758 29,174 29,883 31,464 13.4% Lowndes County 33,958 34,569 33,502 36,302 6.9% Macon County 29,139 30,684 31,537 33,873 16.2% Montgomery County 37,955 39,583 40,617 41,365 9.0% Pike County 29,975 30,791 31,576 33,087 10.4% SCAEDD Average $30,519 $31,558 $31,859 $33,428 10.4% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Internet release date, Dec. 2011.

118

Table 21: Type of Employment and Employment by Industry, 2010 Description Alabama Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montg Pike SCAEDD Total employment 2,495,776 4,278 9,673 6,134 4,703 8,348 171,563 18,431 223,130 Employment By Typed Wage and salary employment 78.5% 74.1% 73.3% 64.9% 63.5% 74.6% 83.7% 82.7% 81.7% Proprietors employment 21.5% 25.9% 26.7% 35.1% 36.5% 25.4% 16.3% 17.3% 18.3% Farm proprietors employment 7.9% 20.8% 16.7% 25.9% 20.3% 15.5% 1.9% 19.1% 7.4% Nonfarm proprietors employment 2/ 92.1% 79.2% 83.3% 74.1% 79.7% 84.5% 98.1% 80.9% 92.6% Employment By Industry Farm employment 2.0% 19.6% 6.1% 13.3% 12.0% 7.6% 0.4% 4.3% 1.8% Nonfarm employment 98.0% 89.5% 94.8% 90.0% 90.7% 94.5% 99.6% 96.2% 98.3% Private nonfarm 81.4% 70.5% 83.8% 78.4% 75.5% 55.3% 77.2% 75.9% 76.5% Forestry, fishing, 0.6% 5.2% 3.2% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.6% 0.5% Mining 0.5% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Utilities 0.6% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% Construction 5.9% 0.0% 5.1% 7.2% 9.9% 5.5% 4.0% 4.7% 4.3% Manufacturing 9.8% 0.0% 12.8% 22.2% 30.0% 0.0% 7.4% 14.9% 8.6% Wholesale trade 3.2% 0.0% 3.4% 6.9% 3.3% 1.3% 2.9% 0.0% 2.7% Retail trade 10.9% 0.0% 13.8% 9.7% 8.1% 8.8% 8.8% 10.0% 9.0% Transp./warehousing 2.8% 3.9% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 2.7% 11.2% 3.3% Information 1.2% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 1.3% 1.0% 1.2% Finance/insurance 4.3% 4.3% 3.6% 4.9% 2.8% 2.1% 5.1% 3.6% 4.8% Real estate, rent/leasing 3.7% 4.8% 3.6% 2.4% 2.8% 1.9% 3.3% 3.4% 3.3% Prof., scientific, and technical services 5.5% 3.1% 0.0% 2.9% 2.5% 3.3% 5.4% 2.1% 4.8% Management 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5% Admin/waste mgmt 6.2% 4.5% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 8.6% 3.5% 7.5% Educational services 1.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 0.0% 2.4% 0.0% 2.0% Health care, social assistance 9.0% 18.7% 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% 0.0% 10.0% 0.0% 8.4% Arts, entertainment, recreation 1.3% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.7% 1.3% Accom, food services 6.6% 0.0% 9.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.0% 9.3% 5.9% Other, not public admininistration 7.3% 0.0% 8.7% 11.9% 0.0% 12.8% 6.7% 6.1% 6.9% Government 16.6% 19.0% 11.0% 11.5% 15.2% 39.3% 22.3% 20.3% 21.8% Federal, civilian 2.3% 1.7% 0.6% 1.1% 1.1% 15.5% 4.0% 0.6% 3.8% Military 1.3% 2.3% 1.2% 1.4% 1.5% 1.9% 2.4% 1.0% 2.2% State and local 12.9% 31.4% 11.1% 12.8% 17.1% 37.5% 15.9% 21.2% 16.9% State government 4.2% 12.2% 1.5% 1.3% 2.0% 22.8% 10.5% 13.7% 10.5% Local government 8.7% 19.1% 9.6% 11.6% 15.1% 14.7% 5.4% 7.5% 6.4% Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table CA25N

119

Table 22: Land Use in Acres, 2007 % of Land Use Bullock Butler Crenshaw Lowndes Macon Montg. Pike SCAEDD Total Principle Row 1,682 2,098 5,576 4,478 6,858 4,018 14,406 39,116 1.3% Crops Other Crops 9,881 8,055 11,003 16,210 29,504 35,924 596 111,173 3.6%

Pasture Land 9,183 36,742 14,860 93,484 2,448 133,179 29,946 319,842 10.4%

Hayland 1,562 4,067 5,361 19,652 808 22,556 8,764 62,770 2.0%

Forest 314,736 413,126 321,600 303,625 307,501 190,000 287,570 2,138,158 69.3%

Urban 0 15,540 2,068 5,550 1,700 101,098 6,656 132,612 4.3%

Waterbodies 2,922 2,445 2,976 12,175 1,127 1,494 3,518 26,657 0.9%

Mined Land 200 13 0 120 2,100 7,343 2,000 11,776 0.4%

Other Land 60,469 15,462 27,362 8,020 40,459 15,717 76,659 244,148 7.9%

Total Acres 400,635 497,548 390,806 463,314 392,505 511,329 430,115 3,086,252 100% Source: Alabama Soil and Water Conservation Committee, Watershed Assessment Program, 2007

120

Table 23: Emergency Management Hazard Mitigation and Contact Information County and Participating EMA Director Hazard Mitigation Jurisdictions and Contact Information Plan Adoption Dates Bullock County Johnny Adams, Director September 2008 City of Union Springs 110 Hardaway Ave. Town of Midway P O Box 472 Union Springs, AL 36089 334-738-3883 [email protected] www.bullockema.com Butler County Shirley Sandy, Director 2005 Town of Georgiana 201 South Conecuh St., Suite 104 2006 City of Greenville Greenville, AL 36037 November 2009 Town of McKenzie 334-382-7911 [email protected] Crenshaw County Jessica Seabrook, Director September 2008 Town of Brantley 118 East Third Street Town of Dozier P O Box 222 Town of Glenwood Luverne, AL 36049 City of Luverne 334-335-4538 Town of Petrey Town of Rutledge

Lowndes County Walter Hill, Manager September 2008 Town of Benton 105 Tuskeena St. E Town of Fort Deposit P O Box 235 Town of Hayneville Hayneville, AL 36040 Town of Lowndesboro 334-548-2569 Town of Mosses Town of White Hall

Macon County Judy Kinebrew, Director 2004 Town of Franklin 210 N. Elm St., Suite 006 November 2009 Town of Notasulga Tuskegee, AL 36083 Town of Shorter 334-724-2626 City of Tuskegee Montgomery County Steve Jones, Director 2005 City of Montgomery 911 Communications Parkway April 2010 Town of Pike Road Montgomery, AL 36104 334-241-2339 [email protected] Pike County Jeanna Barnes 2005 Town of Banks 216 South Oak St. November 2010 City of Brundidge Troy, AL 36081 Town of Goshen 334-566-8272 City of Troy [email protected]

121

Table 24: Total Housing Units and Housing Occupancy, 2010 Total Occupied Vacant County Housing % Occupied % Vacant Units Units Units Bullock County 4,493 3,745 83.4% 748 16.6% Butler County 9,964 8,491 85.2% 1,473 14.8% Crenshaw County 6,735 5,652 83.9% 1,083 16.1% Lowndes County 5,140 4,352 84.7% 788 15.3% Macon County 10,259 8,499 82.8% 1,760 17.2% Montgomery County 101,641 89,981 88.5% 11,660 11.5% Pike County 15,267 13,210 86.5% 2,057 13.5% SCAEDD 138,232 120,720 87.3% 17,512 12.7% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Summary File 1.

Table 25: Housing Occupancy by Tenure, 2010

‐ ‐ ‐ ‐

Units Units

Owner Renter

of of

in in County Units Units Units Units Occupied Occupied

Units

Size Size Occupied Occupied

Occupied

HH HH

Owner Renter

Total Housing Owner % Population Occupied Avg Occupied Renter % Population Occupied Avg Occupied Bullock 3745 2576 68.8% 6122 2.4 1169 31.2% 3102 2.7 Butler 8491 5967 70.3% 14641 2.5 2524 29.7% 5973 2.4 Crenshaw 5652 4141 73.3% 10192 2.5 1511 26.7% 3582 2.4 Lowndes 4352 3413 78.4% 8850 2.6 939 21.6% 2353 2.5 Macon 8499 5393 63.5% 12712 2.4 3106 36.5% 6968 2.2 Montgomery 89981 55279 61.4% 136094 2.5 34702 38.6% 84187 2.4 Pike 13210 7905 59.8% 18855 2.4 5305 40.2% 12081 2.3 SCAEDD 133930 84674 63.2% 207466 2.5 49256 36.8% 118246 2.4 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2010 Census Summary File 1.

122

Table 26: Announced New and Expanded Industries 1989‐1992, 1995‐2004, 1007‐2011 Announced Announced County Year New Expanded Cap. Invest+ Jobs+ Bullock 1989 0 1 $193,000 4 1990 0 1 200,000 6 1991 0 0 0 0 1992 0 1 0 4 1995 0 1 0 4 1996‐2000 0 0 0 0 2001 1 0 0 13 2002 0 2 0 31 2003 0 2 475,000 28 2004 1 3 1,135,500 298 2007 0 0 0 0 2008 0 1 1,500 3 2009 0 0 0 0 2010 1 0 20 2011 0 0 0 0 Butler 1989 1 2 1,440,000 205 1990 0 1 50,000 15 1991 1 0 0 15 1992 2 2 3,026,909 497 1995 0 3 8,134,000 6 1996 0 1 0 15 1997 1 1 1,105,500 106 1998 0 2 6,415,000 21 1999 2 6 39,170,000 486 2000 3 0 6,351,000 420 2001 2 2 250,000 97 2002 0 1 0 15 2003 3 2 100,450,000 525 2004 4 2 2,300,000 183 2007 0 4 42,327,180 47 2008 1 0 1,180,000 17 2009 1 0 10,000,000 265 2010 0 1 17,000,000 100 2011 0 1 58,000,000 40 Crenshaw 1989 1 2 1,468,000 161 1990 0 2 110,000 49 1991 1 4 370,000 155 1992 0 2 650,000 4 1995 0 1 100,000 0 1996 0 1 234,961 8

123

Announced Announced County Year New Expanded Cap. Invest+ Jobs+ 1997 0 2 350,000 9 1998 1 2 6,375,000 74 1999 2 1 11,500,000 250 2000 2 0 1,250,000 170 2001 0 0 0 0 2002 0 1 10,000,000 60 2003 1 1 110,100,000 408 2004 2 3 52,250,000 169 2007 0 1 0 50 2008 0 0 0 0 2009 0 1 500,000 25 2010 0 0 0 0 2011 0 1 200,000 60 Lowndes 1989 0 0 0 0 1990 0 2 600,000 115 1991 0 2 1,350,000 0 1992 0 0 0 0 1995 0 3 125,085,000 115 1996 1 1 4,000,000 50 1997 0 1 500,000 0 1998 0 1 1,150,000 0 1999 0 1 0 67 2000 0 1 185,000,000 15 2001 0 1 2,500,000 30 2002 0 1 10,000,000 0 2003‐2004 2 0 35,000,000 280 2007 0 1 3,800,000 20 2008 0 1 16,000,000 0 2009 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 2011 Macon 1989 2 0 380,000 167 1990 0 0 0 0 1991 1 0 1,200,000 450 1992‐2002 0 0 0 0 2003‐2004 1 0 28,000,000 200 2007 0 1 0 130 2008 0 0 0 0 2009 0 0 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 2011 2 0 2,200,000 16 Montgomery 1989 1 28 41,137,135 318

124

Announced Announced County Year New Expanded Cap. Invest+ Jobs+ 1990 4 35 14,236,280 484 1991 3 33 26,871,229 385 1992 2 4 37,527,000 671 1995 2 32 44,977,000 898 1996 4 21 83,513,000 430 1997 0 27 30,705,000 385 1998 1 20 27,815,000 726 1999 2 24 77,070,000 713 2000 2 19 39,665,000 521 2001 0 16 29,480,000 296 2002 2 17 1,061,255,000 2,780 2003 4 9 59,375,000 466 2004 2 19 400,348,269 656 2007 1 13 337,730,000 1,215 2008 3 10 36,620,000 454 2009 0 6 2,809,500 88 2010 4 6 277,600,000 1,506 2011 2 14 237,778,803 697 Pike 1989 0 6 5,442,215 198 1990 1 8 14,737,000 377 1991 0 4 425,000 40 1992 1 8 19,250,000 230 1995 1 6 23,040,000 317 1996 0 7 21,400,000 337 1997 0 7 1,915,000 113 1998 0 9 39,735,000 215 1999 0 8 19,740,000 268 2000 0 5 21,150,000 350 2001 1 3 7,515,000 107 2002 0 7 3,140,000 196 2003 0 5 67,165,000 167 2004 1 5 29,000,000 455 2007 0 4 21,512,500 390 2008 0 4 640,000 16 2009 1 2 1,299,000 314 2010 0 1 100,000 20 2011 1 2 21,750,000 530 Source: Annual Industry Reports, Alabama Development Office, Research and Communications Division.

125

Table 27: Industrial Sites Located in SCAEDD

Closest City Site Name or County Community Avail. Acreage Total Acreage Gas Natural Water Sewer Electricity Telecom. Hicks Industrial Park Union Springs Bullock 96 122 Y Y Y Y Y Jinks Property Union Springs Bullock 197 197 Y Y Y Y Y Moorer Property Union Springs Bullock 110 110 N N N N N Butler County Industrial Park Greenville Butler 140 158 Y Y Y Y Y Georgiana Industrial Park Georgiana Butler 11 40 N Y Y Y Y Greenville Industrial Park Greenville Butler 35 125 Y Y Y Y Y Greenville Industrial Park (East) Greenville Butler 60 117 Y Y Y Y Y Hendricks Site Greenville Butler Unk. 120 Y Y Y Y Y Wald Site Greenville Butler Unk. 44 N Y N Y Y Bailey Site #2 Brantley Crenshaw 41 41 N N N Y Y CCEIDA Site Luverne Crenshaw 12 12 N N N N Y Golson Site Luverne Crenshaw 50 50 Y Y N Y Y Luverne/Crenshaw Ind. Park Luverne Crenshaw 115 125 Y Y Y Y Y Fort Deposit Industrial Park (North) Fort Deposit Lowndes 104 153 Y Y Y N Y Schreiner Site Lowndesboro Lowndes 807 807 Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. St. Clair Site Lowndesboro Lowndes 1400 1400 N Y N Y Y Tyson Site Tyson Lowndes 143 168 Y Y Y Y Y Cloughs/McGhar Site Tuskegee Macon 126 126 Y Y Y Y Y Shorter Technology Park Shorter Macon 400 500 N Y N Y Y Tuskegee Ind. Park Tuskegee Macon 100 100 Y Y Y Y Unk. Airport Ind. & Commercial Park Montgomery Montgomery 910 1044 N Y Y Y Y Alabama State Docks Site Montgomery Montgomery Unk. 130 Y Y Y Y Y Alabama TechnaCenter Montgomery Montgomery Unk. 200 Y Y Y Y Y Alatex Road Site Montgomery Montgomery 257 257 N Y Y Y Y Anika & Associates, Inc. Montgomery Montgomery 85 85 Y Y Y Y Unk. Antioch Plains Ind. Park Montgomery Montgomery Unk. 79 Y Y Y Y Y Bailey Site #2 Montgomery Montgomery 41 41 Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Ballard Property Montgomery Montgomery 851 851 Y N N N Y Bellingrath Property Montgomery Montgomery 49 49 Y Y Y Y Y Bowman Property Montgomery Montgomery 443 443 Y Y Y Y Y Brewbaker Business Park Montgomery Montgomery 125 125 N N N N Y Catoma Industrial District Montgomery Montgomery 86 153 Y Y Y Y Y Dannelly Field Site Montgomery Montgomery 513 513 Y Y Y Y Y Eastern Blvd./Todd Rd. Site Montgomery Montgomery 215 215 Y Y Y Y N Gunter Ind. Park Montgomery Montgomery 0 604 Y Y Y Y Y H&R Industrial Point Montgomery Montgomery 22 900 Y Y Y Y Y Hall Property Montgomery Montgomery 454 454 N N Y Y Y I‐85 Property at Waugh Montgomery Montgomery 116 116 N N N Y Y Interstate Industrial Park Montgomery Montgomery 395 700 Y Y Y Y Y

126

Closest City Site Name or County Community Avail. Acreage Total Acreage Gas Natural Water Sewer Electricity Telecom. May Handey Smith Site Montgomery Montgomery 152 152 N Y N Y Y Montgomery Business Park Montgomery Montgomery Unk. 100 Y Y Y Y Y Montgomery East Ind. Park Montgomery Montgomery 345 345 Y Y Y Y Y Montgomery Co. Tech. Park Montgomery Montgomery Unk. 1800 Y Y Y Y Y Montgomery Industrial Terminal Montgomery Montgomery 67 664 Y Y Y Y Y Motisi Industrial Site Montgomery Montgomery 107 107 Y Y Y Y Y Riverside Industrial Park Montgomery Montgomery 1497 1497 N N N Y Y Russell Property Montgomery Montgomery 94 94 Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Ryan Road Site Montgomery Montgomery 45 45 N Y N Y Y Snowdoun Property Montgomery Montgomery 887 887 Y Y N Y Y Wayne Russell Property Montgomery Montgomery 212 212 Y Y Y Y Y Westport (Capital Park) Montgomery Montgomery 170 170 Y Y Y Y Y Westport (Gateway Centre East) Montgomery Montgomery 181 227 Y Y Y Y Y Westport (Gateway Centre West) Montgomery Montgomery 122 122 Y Y Y Y Y Westport (Summit Pointe) Montgomery Montgomery 328 328 Y Y Y Y Y Westport (Trade Center) Montgomery Montgomery 296 296 Y Y Y Y Y Brundidge Ind. Park #1 Brundidge Pike 26 30 Y Y Y Y Y Brundidge Ind. Park #2 Brundidge Pike 75 75 Y Y Y Y Y Spurlock Property Troy Pike 10 10 Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Unk. Troy Industrial Park Troy Pike 40 278 Y Y Y Y Y

127