San Bernardino County
2011
C O M M U N I T Y
I N D I C AT O R S
R E P O R T
This report was produced by The Community Foundation
for the benefit of San Bernardino County.
The Community Foundation Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties is a public, nonprofit COF-accredited community foundation dedicated to “enhancing the quality of life in the communities we serve”. This is accomplished through building permanent endowments, making prudent grants, acting as a catalyst to address important regional issues and strengthening the nonprofit sector. In 2010, The Community Foundation raised $5.4 million in charitable contributions and currently manages and invests over 300 funds that exceed $60 million in assets. The Community Foundation has realized a total investment performance return of 40% of all of its pooled endowment assets over the past two years.
In May 2011, The Community Foundation formed a strategic alliance with the Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP) and its chief economist, John Husing, Ph.D., devoted to developing economic prosperity and quality of life improvements for the 4.2 million residents of the two county region.
Tel: 951-684-4194 | Fax: 951-684-1911 www.thecommunityfoundation.net A publication of The Community Foundation.
The mission of the government of the County of San Bernardino is to satisfy its customers by providing service that promotes the health, safety, well being, and quality of life of its residents according to the County Charter, general laws, and the will of the
people it serves. GREGORY C. DEVEREAUX
Chief Executive Officer
COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
Board of Supervisors County Government Center 385 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA 92415-0110
(909) 387-4811
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Brad Mitzelfelt, Vice Chair ...First District Janice Rutherford...Second District Neil Derry ...Third District Gary C. Ovitt ...Fourth District Josie Gonzales, Chair...Fifth District
Laura H. Welch Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Welcome to the 2011 edition of the San Bernardino County Community Indicators
Report. As chairpersons for this important countywide effort, it is our pleasure to present this
research and analysis that tracks key indicators of our county’s economic, social, and
environmental wellbeing.
We believe this report will provide our county with an honest and accurate
self-assessment – one in which we recognize both critical issues and opportunities for our region’s
future prosperity and quality of life.
San Bernardino County has enjoyed years of steady economic growth. More recently,
however, our county has faced disproportionate challenges precipitated by the national and
global economic recession. The dramatic shift that has occurred over the last few years has
rippled through the county impacting residents and businesses. Measuring key health, social,
education, and economic indicators, and evaluating the impacts of these changes, can provide
a valuable mechanism and process to target and address crucial issues. This process also
provides public, private, and nonprofit leaders with essential data and research to support our
region’s ability to attract and leverage much greater external funds and resources to address
our county’s needs.
The Community Indicators Report reflects a growing, on-going commitment by our
county, and the two-county region, to raise awareness and build stronger collaborative
problem-solving initiatives that solve systemic challenges. Modeled after community indicator
reports published around the country, this report provides a timely framework for
understanding the county as a system and the relationships among key findings.
The San Bernardino Board of Supervisors and The Community Foundation appreciate
your interest and involvement in our county. This report is only the beginning of the strategic
planning discussion and process – a process that we believe will ultimately improve the quality
of life for all residents in the County of San Bernardino.
Sincerely,
Josie Gonzales, Chair
Daniel Foster, President/CEO
Board of Supervisors
The Community Foundation
County of San Bernardino
Serving Riverside & San Bernardino Counties
SA
F
O
TY
N
U
O
C
O
N
I
D
R
A
N
R
E
B
N
SA
BOARDOFSUPERRVISORS E V E D . C Y GOR E GR e v it u c e x E f e i Ch O X U A E R r e c ffi OSA
SA
s r o s i v r e p u S f o d r a Bo r e t nn Ce t nn e m n r e v o G y t n u Co nue ve A d a he ow r r A h t or N 385 5 1 4 2 9 A C , o n i d r a n r e B n San -0110 7 8 3 ) 9 0 (9 -4811O
BOARDOF t l e ffe l e z t i M d a Br , Vice Cha d r fo er h t u R ce i Jan ... y r r De l i Ne ... t t i Ov . C y r Gar ... r ai h C es, zal n o G e si Jo ... r u La Bo e h t f o k r e Cl S R O S I V ERR P U S ir a ...FirstDistrict ...Second District ...ThirdDistrict ...FourthDistrict ...FiiffftthDistrict h c l e W . H a r s r o s i v r e p u S f o d r a Boco
l
e
W
We
ch
As
.
rt
o
p
e
R
d
n
a
rch
a
se
re
a
t
n
e
m
n
ro
i
v
n
e
e
b
e
W
We
t
n
e
ssm
sse
a
–
e
sp
ro
p
re
u
t
u
f
Be
n
Sa
n
o
it
i
d
e
1
1
0
2
e
h
t
o
t
e
m
co
o
p
m
i
s
i
h
t
r
o
f
s
n
rso
e
rp
i
a
ch
ke
cks
ra
t
t
a
h
t
s
si
y
l
a
n
a
d
.
g
n
i
e
b
ll
e
w
l
a
ro
p
ll
i
w
rt
o
p
re
s
i
h
t
e
v
e
il
e
–
o
n
e
i
n
w
h
i
ch
w
e
re
co
g
.
e
fi
l
f
o
y
ti
l
a
u
q
d
n
a
y
t
ri
e
e
s
a
h
t
n
o
C
o
n
i
rd
a
rn
Be
C
o
n
i
rd
a
rn
Be
n
Sa
e
h
t
f
o
rt
o
ffff
e
e
d
i
w
y
t
n
u
co
t
n
a
rt
o
n
u
co
r
u
o
f
o
rs
o
t
ca
i
d
n
i
y
r
u
o
e
d
i
v
ro
co
u
n
t
y
w
ti
h
a
n
s
e
ssu
i
l
ca
it
cri
h
t
o
b
ze
i
n
g
e
d
e
o
j
n
e
a
rs
o
f
st
e
a
d
d
n
I
y
ti
n
u
m
m
o
C
y
t
n
u
o
C
i
ca
re
p
o
t
re
su
a
e
l
p
r
u
o
s
i
ti
,
rt
a
,l
a
ci
so
c,
i
m
o
n
co
e
s
’
y
t
n
se
e
t
ra
ccu
a
d
n
a
st
e
n
o
h
n
o
r
o
f
s
e
it
i
n
u
rt
o
p
p
o
d
n
a
s
h
t
ro
g
c
i
m
o
n
co
e
M
o
re
rs
o
t
ca
s
i
h
t
t
n
se
d
n
fl
se
-s
’
n
o
i
g
re
r
u
lt
n
ce
re
re
Be
n
Sa
r
u
o
r,
e
v
e
w
o
h
o
n
co
e
l
a
b
o
l
g
g
u
ro
h
t
d
e
l
p
p
ri
n
a
,
n
o
it
ca
u
d
e
e
m
e
l
b
a
u
l
a
v
a
b
u
p
s
e
d
i
v
ro
p
ti
li
b
a
s
’
n
o
i
g
re
s
’
y
t
n
u
co
r
u
o
e
s
a
h
y
t
n
u
o
C
o
n
i
rd
a
rn
Be
ro
sp
i
d
d
ce
a
f
s
a
h
y
t
n
u
co
r
m
ra
d
e
h
T
.
n
o
ssi
ce
re
c
i
m
g
n
i
ct
a
p
m
i
y
t
n
u
co
e
h
t
h
g
rs,
o
t
ca
i
d
n
i
c
i
m
o
n
co
e
d
n
ss
ce
ro
p
d
n
a
sm
i
n
a
ch
e
f
ro
p
n
o
n
d
n
a
,
e
t
a
v
ri
p
c,
il
g
ra
e
v
e
l
d
n
a
ct
ra
tt
a
o
t
y
t
s.
d
e
e
n
e
y
d
e
y
o
j
n
e
a
rs
o
f
st
e
a
d
y
s
e
g
n
e
ll
a
ch
e
t
a
n
o
i
rt
o
p
ro
ccu
o
s
a
h
t
a
h
t
tf
i
sh
c
it
a
m
sse
e
n
si
u
b
d
n
a
s
t
n
e
d
si
re
g
p
m
i
e
h
t
g
n
it
a
u
l
a
v
e
d
n
a
rg
a
t
o
t
e
t
a
n
d
a
d
d
re
ss
cru
ti
w
rs
e
d
a
e
l
ti
f
h
e
sse
n
it
a
a
rn
e
t
x
e
r
e
t
a
re
g
ch
u
m
e
.
h
t
w
ro
g
c
i
m
o
n
co
e
M
o
re
it
a
n
e
h
t
y
b
d
e
t
a
ti
p
ci
re
p
y
w
e
f
st
a
l
e
h
t
r
e
v
o
d
rre
ccu
ri
su
a
e
M
s.
sse
n
g
ke
y
h
e
a
s,
e
g
n
a
ch
se
e
h
t
f
o
s
ct
a
p
s.
e
ssu
i
l
a
ci
cru
T
h
i
s
p
ro
ce
su
o
t
rch
a
se
re
d
n
a
a
t
a
d
l
t
s
rce
u
so
re
d
n
a
s
d
n
u
f
l
a
lt
n
ce
re
re
y,
d
n
a
l
a
n
o
s
a
h
rs
a
e
y
,l
a
ci
so
,
h
tl
a
e
d
i
v
ro
p
n
ca
so
l
a
ss
ce
r
u
o
rt
o
p
p
ss
re
d
d
a
o
C
e
h
T
t
d
n
a
,
y
t
n
u
co
m
e
l
b
ro
p
-
so
l
v
sh
il
b
u
p
s
rt
o
p
re
i
d
n
a
rst
e
d
n
u
n
Sa
e
h
T
st
re
e
t
n
i
r
u
o
y
planning discu
ll
f
fi
l
f
e
R
rs
o
t
ca
i
d
n
I
y
ti
n
u
m
m
o
w
t
e
h
o-
co
u
n
t
y
re
g
i
o
n
,
t
o
e
v
l
so
t
a
h
t
s
e
v
it
a
it
i
n
i
g
n
i
ry
t
n
u
co
e
h
t
d
n
u
ro
a
d
e
sh
e
st
sy
a
s
a
y
t
n
u
co
e
h
t
g
f
o
rd
a
Bo
o
n
i
rd
a
rn
Be
n
Sa
r
u
o
n
i
t
n
e
m
e
v
l
o
v
n
i
d
n
a
ss
ce
ro
p
d
n
a
n
o
ssi
cu
– a
t
C
h
t
i
t
d
si
,
g
n
i
w
ro
g
a
s
ct
e
lf
re
rt
o
p
e
d
n
a
ss
e
n
re
a
w
a
se
i
ra
o
M
s.
e
g
n
e
ll
a
ch
c
i
m
e
st
sy
a
s
e
d
i
v
ro
p
rt
o
p
re
s
i
h
t
,
ry
s
p
i
sh
n
o
it
a
l
re
e
h
t
d
n
a
m
C
e
h
T
d
n
a
rs
so
i
rv
e
p
Su
f
.
y
t
n
u
co
T
h
i
s
re
p
o
rt
i
s
o
v
e
il
e
b
e
w
t
a
h
t
ss
ce
ro
p
a
i
rd
Be
Sa
f
n
o
,
-
g
o
i
n
g
co
m
m
ti
m
e
n
t
ra
o
b
a
ll
co
r
e
g
n
ro
st
d
li
u
b
ti
n
u
m
m
co
r
e
tf
a
d
e
l
e
d
o
M
r
o
f
rk
o
w
e
m
ra
f
y
l
e
m
it
s.
g
n
i
d
n
if
y
ke
g
n
o
m
a
s
n
o
it
a
d
n
u
o
F
y
ti
n
u
m
m
o
C
e
h
t
f
o
g
n
i
n
n
i
g
e
b
e
h
t
y
l
n
e
v
ro
p
m
i
y
l
e
t
a
m
it
l
u
ll
i
w
e
v
r
u
o
y
b
e
v
it
ra
r
o
t
ca
i
d
n
i
y
t
e
t
a
ci
re
p
p
a
c
i
g
e
t
ra
st
y
ti
l
a
u
q
e
h
t
re
ll
a
r
o
f
e
fi
l
f
o
re
ce
n
Si
G
e
si
Jo
rd
a
Bo
o
y
t
n
u
o
C
e
h
t
n
i
s
t
n
e
d
si
,
y
l
ri
a
h
C
s,
e
l
za
n
o
rs
so
i
rv
e
p
Su
f
o
.
o
n
i
rd
a
rn
Be
n
Sa
f
st
o
F
l
e
i
n
a
D
m
The Com
/t
n
e
d
si
Pre
r,
e
st
C
EO
Foundation
unity
e v o g e h t f oof n o i s s i m e Th be l l e w , y tty e affe s h, t al hey
t
n
u
o
C
n a S f oof y tty n u o C e h t f oof t n e m n r s t i of e ffe iif l of y tty i qual and ng, i beo
n
i
rd
a
rn
Be
n
Sa
f
o
s t i y ffy ssf i t a s o t s i o n i di r a n r e B C he t o t ng di or c ac s nt de i s e r s . s e v r e s t i e opl pev
i
R
g
n
i
rv
Se
r e s g n i ddi i v o r p y b s r e m o t s u c s aw l al r ne ge , rr, e t har C y ounttyi
rd
a
rn
Be
n
Sa
&
e
d
rsi
e
t p a h t e c i v r t promotes the he t of l l i w he t and , s awo
n Counties
The San Bernardino Community Indicators report would not be possible without the
efforts of the San Bernardino Community Task Force and supporting organizations:
Arrowhead Regional Medical Center Bank of America
First 5 San Bernardino Hillwood
HMC Architects
San Bernardino Associated Governments San Bernardino County Administrative Office San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, Fourth and Fifth Districts
San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral Health San Bernardino County Department of Human Services San Bernardino County Department of Human Services, Aging and Adult Services
San Bernardino County Department of Human Services, Child Support Services
San Bernardino County Department of Human Services, Children and Family Services
San Bernardino County Department of Human Services, Preschool Services
San Bernardino County Department of Human Services, Veterans Affairs
San Bernardino County Department of Public Health San Bernardino County Department of Public Works San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, Flood Control District
San Bernardino County Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Management
San Bernardino County Economic Development Agency San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters
San Bernardino County Sheriff-Coroner Department San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority
Strategic Solutions The California Endowment The Community Foundation The James Irvine Foundation
Table of Contents
ONT/The Issue of Local Control
Business Climate Per Capita Income
Employment by Industry Clusters Housing Demand Housing Affordability Rental Affordability Mobility Transit Technology
Commercial and Industrial Real Estate
Academic Performance College Readiness Career Preparation Educational-Occupational Match Educational Attainment Prenatal Care
Leading Causes of Death for Children Under Five Physical Fitness of Children
Family Housing Security Family Income Security Veterans
Health Care Access Mental Health Substance Abuse Chronic Disease Health Status Family Safety Crime Rate Gang-Related Crime Air Quality
Solid Waste and Household Hazardous Waste Water Consumption and Stormwater Quality
Resident Satisfaction Voter Participation Community Amenities Cultural Engagement Nonprofits Introduction County Profile Special Feature
Economic and Business Climate
Education
Community Health and Wellness
Public Safety
Environment
Community Life
Acknowledgements and Sources 2 3 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 30 32 34 35 36 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 50 51 52 54 55 56 58 59 60 64 66 68
indicator Selection criteria
Good indicators are objective measurements that reflect
how a community is doing. They reveal whether key
community attributes are improving, worsening, or
remaining constant. The indicators selected for inclusion
in this report:
• Reflect broad countywide interests which impact a
significant percentage of the population,
• Illustrate fundamental factors that underlie long-term
regional health,
• Can be easily understood and accepted by the
commu-nity,
• Are statistically measurable and contain data that are
both reliable and available over the long-term,
• Measure outcomes, rather than inputs whenever
possi-ble, and
• Fall within the categories of the economy, education,
community health and wellness, public safety,
environ-ment, and community life.
comparison regions
To place San Bernardino County’s performance in
context, many indicators compare the county to the state,
nation or other regions. We compare ourselves to four
neighboring counties to better understand our position
within the Southern California region including Riverside,
Orange, Los Angeles and San Diego counties. We also
compare ourselves to three “peer” regions: Las Vegas,
Nevada; Phoenix, Arizona; and Miami, Florida. These
peer regions were selected because they are considered
economic competitors or good barometers for comparison
due to the many characteristics we share with them.
As the largest county in the country, San Bernardino
County has a mix of urban, suburban and rural qualities.
The metropolitan areas we compare ourselves to may
con-sist of single county or a collection of counties or local
ju-risdictions, depending on the available data. Since the
manner in which data are collected and reported varies
among data sources, the boundaries of our peers vary as
well. In some cases, Metro Areas or Divisions, as defined
by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, were used.
In other instances, the county boundary or some other
boundary defined by the data source were used.
T
he 2011 San Bernardino County Community Indicators report provides a broad
perspective of life in San Bernardino County and the many factors that
contribute to sustaining a healthy economy, environment and populace. This
report is not intended to be a marketing piece that only touts the county’s positive
characteristics. It highlights trends where San Bernardino stands out as a leader among
peer regions and neighboring counties. At the same time, it points out trends where the
county is stagnating or even declining, flagging issues where improvement is needed.
The report does not shy away from an honest assessment of the county’s progress or lack thereof across
multiple disciplines, recognizing that this analysis offers opportunities for action leading to growth and
change. In short, the purpose of the San Bernardino County Community Indicators report is to inform
and inspire community members, policymakers, and business leaders working to make San Bernardino
County the best it can be.
Introduction
2 i n t r o d u c t i o n 2 0 1 1
Our Community is a System
Understanding that a community is a system of interconnected elements is increasingly important as the
is-sues we face become more complex. The more we work collaboratively and across boundaries – whether
his-torical, physical, political, or other – the more successful we will be in our efforts to sustain a high quality of
life.
San Bernardino County’s residents, employers, educators, nonprofit, and community organizations recently
engaged in a far-reaching effort called the Vision Project to create a unified vision for the county. This
six-month effort included input from experts in education, the economy, the environment, public safety, tourism
and community service. It included 18 community meetings held throughout the county and thousands of
residents participated through an online survey.
The end-result is a vision for the county that recognizes the community as a system with interconnecting
facets, and existing within a larger regional, statewide, national and global context. More information about
the Countywide Vision is available at www.sbcounty.gov.
The graphic below provides a glimpse into the connectivity of the various aspects of our community. Each of
the indicators in the report is listed. One indicator is followed by another, and by another, until all are shown.
They are linked by virtue of the impact one has on the other, or the interplay between them.
Business Climate
Commercial and Industrial Real Estate Mobility
Housing Affordability Per Capita Income
Family Income Security Family Housing Security
Academic Performance Technology
Nonprofits
Physical Fitness of Children Chronic Disease Air Quality Transit Community Amenities Housing Demand Crime Rate
Water Consumption and Stormwater Quality Cultural Engagement
Voter Participation Educational Attainment
Health Status Health Care Access Leading Causes of Death for
Children Under Five Prenatal Care Substance Abuse Mental Health Veterans Rental Affordability Family Safety Gang-Related Crime Career Preparation College Readiness Educational-Occupational Match
Employment by Industry Clusters Resident Satisfaction connecting the dots
Solid Waste and Household Hazardous Waste
3
4 c o u n t y p r o f i l e 2 0 1 1
County Profile
GEOGRAPHY AND LAND USE
San Bernardino County is the largest county in the state and the United States:
• The county covers over 20,000 square miles of land.
• There are 24 cities and towns in the county and multiple un-incorporated communities.
• 81% of the land is outside the governing control of the County Board of Supervisors or local jurisdictions; the majority of the non-jurisdiction land is owned and managed by federal agen-cies.2
The county is commonly divided into three distinct areas, in-cluding the Valley Region (sometimes divided into East and West Valley), Mountain Region, and Desert Region:
• The Valley Region contains the majority of the county’s in-corporated areas and is the most populous region.
• The Mountain Region is primarily comprised of public lands owned and managed by federal and state agencies.
• The Desert Region is the largest region (over 93% of the county’s land area) and includes parts of the Mojave Desert.2
Aside from open or undeveloped land, the largest land use in the county is for military purposes:
• Almost three-quarters (74.1%) of San Bernardino County is open or undeveloped land.
• 14.3% of the land is used for military purposes. • Residential housing comprises 8.9% of the land area. • Retail, commercial, and industrial uses make up 1.7% of the
county’s land use.
• Agriculture (0.4 %), transportation/utilities (0.4%), govern-ment (0.2%) and other uses (0.04%) make up the remainder.3
San Bernardino County is located in southeastern California, with Inyo and Tulare Counties to the north,
Kern and Los Angeles Counties to the west, and Orange and Riverside Counties to the south. The county is
bordered on the east by the states of Nevada and Arizona. The county’s diverse geography and extensive
nat-ural resources as well as its proximity to major economic and population centers provides unique
opportuni-ties for varied industry sectors to thrive, including commerce, education, tourism and recreation.
1The following
information profiles San Bernardino County’s geography, land use, population density, demographics,
hous-ing, and employment characteristics.
Adelanto Apple Valley Barstow Big Bear Lake Chino Chino Hills Colton Crestline Fontana Grand Terrace Hesperia Highland Joshua Tree Lake Arrowhead Loma Linda Lucerne Valley Montclair Needles Ontario Rancho Cuca-monga Redlands Rialto Running Springs San Bernardino Twentynine Palms Upland Victorville Wrightwood Yermo Yucaipa Yucca Valley cities and towns in San Bernardino county
Sources: San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department, 2007 General Plan (/www.sbcounty.gov/landus-eservices/general_plan/FINAL%20General%20Plan%20Text%20-%203-1-07_w_Images.pdf); California State Association of Counties (www.counties.org)
Source: San Bernardino County Economic Develop-ment Agency Government Owned Land in San Bernardino County
Goverment Owned Lands 75035_Comm_Foundation_Text:Layout 1 6/21/11 3:57 PM Page 4
5
2 0 1 1 c o u n t y p r o f i l e
POPULATION DENSITY
Given the vast land area, the county’s overall population density is low:
• San Bernardino’s population density is estimated at 101.5 per-sons per square mile, which is substantially lower than Califor-nia, and the four California peer counties compared (Riverside, San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties).4
• It is also lower than peer regions of Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Miami.
• Within San Bernardino County, the Valley Region is the most densely populated area, with 75% of the population residing in that region, but accounts for only 2.5% of the county’s land.2
• Based on these figures, the estimated population density of the Valley Region is approximately 3,045 persons per square mile, which is similar to neighboring Los Angeles and Orange Coun-ties.
POPULATION
San Bernardino County is the fifth largest county in California in terms of population:
• In January 2011, San Bernardino County’s population was es-timated at over two million (2,052,397).5
• Only Los Angeles County (9,858,989), San Diego County (3,118,876), Orange County (3,029,859), and Riverside County (2,217,778) have more residents.5
• San Bernardino County is the twelfth largest county in the nation, with more residents than 15 of the country’s states, including New Mexico, Idaho, West Virginia, and Nebraska.6
• Since 2000, San Bernardino County’s population has grown by approximately 19%.7
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AT A GLANCE
• San Bernardino County is the fifth largest countyin California in terms of population, at just over two million residents, and the largest county in the United States in terms of land area.
• San Bernardino’s population is young, with a me-dian age of 32 years and nearly 30% of residents under age 18.
• 49% of San Bernardino County residents are His-panic.
• In 2009, 21% of the people living in San Bernardino County were foreign born.
• The county has the third highest household size in California at 3.3 people per household. • There are more housing units in San Bernardino
County than households (families or individuals) resulting in a vacancy rate of nearly 12.5% in 2011.
• Similar to other regions, after several years of steady increase, the number of people employed in San Bernardino County peaked in 2006 and has since declined.
• Since 2005, Riverside-San Bernardino metro area businesses with fewer than 100 employees have witnessed faster growth than larger businesses. • Nearly three-quarters of San Bernardino County
land is open or undeveloped.
• Over 80% of the land in San Bernardino County is owned and controlled by the Federal government. • Military uses comprise over 14% of land use and
residential uses comprise nearly 9%.
San Bernardino County Land Uses
Open/Undeveloped Military Residential Retail/Commercial/Urban Mixed Agriculture Transportation/Utilities Institutions/Government Other
Source: Calculated from San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), GIS Data — Land Use, General Plan Land Use Data, 2008
14% 74% 9% 0.4% 2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.04% San Bernardino 102
Clark (Las Vegas) 241
Riverside 304
Maricopa (Phoenix) 437
San Diego 737
Miami-Dade (Miami) 1,285
Los Angeles 2,417
San Bernardino Valley Region 3,045
Orange (Santa Ana) 3,813
Note: Population density calculations for Maricopa County, Clark County, and Miami-Dade reflect 2009 county population estimates. San Bernardino Valley population density is estimated from data in the San Bernardino County 2007 General Plan. The remainder reflect 2010 population estimates.
Sources: Calculated using multiple sources including California Department of Finance 2010 Census Data; U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts; and San Bernardino County Land Use Department, 2007 General Plan
Population Density for San Bernardino County, San Bernardino Valley, and Other Selected Counties
Persons per Square Mile County (Major City)
6 c o u n t y p r o f i l e 2 0 1 1
The county’s population growth has occurred at a moderate but steady rate over the past 50 years: • Average annual population growth in the 1960s and 1970s was 3%.
• This annual growth rate jumped to 6% in the 1980s, and dropped back to 2% in the 1990s and 3% between 2000 and 2005. • Most recently (between 2010 and 2011), San Bernardino County’s population grew 0.9% – similar to the state (at 0.8%) and one
of the densest bordering counties, Orange County (0.7%).
• Population growth has been somewhat faster in Riverside County (1.7%), and slower in Los Angeles County (0.4%).5
San Bernardino County’s population is expected to reach about 3.6 million by 2050:
• Population growth is projected to continue at an average annual rate between one and two percent.8
• The Southern California Association of Governments forecasts that the Inland Empire, which is comprised of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, will grow by 1.7 million between 2000 and 2020, or more than all but three states (California, Texas, and Florida).9
San Bernardino County’s growth has come from a combi-nation of natural increase and migration:
• Since 1975 and up until 2007, the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area has had a positive net migration, with more people moving into the area than out. • While the rate of net migration was 6.4% from 1990 to
2000, this rate increased to 23% between 2000 and 2005.10
• Between 2009 and 2010, the county lost over 4,900 res-idents through domestic out-migration, but gained nearly 5,000 through international immigration, for a slight net gain due to migration.11
• The county also added an estimated 19,815 residents through natural increase during this same period, for a total estimated increase of 19,869.11
The largest ethnic group reported by San Bernardino County residents is Hispanic:
• Forty-nine percent (49%) of San Bernardino County residents are Hispanic, who may be of any race. • Among the remaining 51% non-Hispanic residents,
33% are White, 8% are Black or African American, 6% are Asian, less than 1% report being “some other race,” and 2% report two or more races.12
Riverside CA 2 109
Los Angeles CA 3 1,165
Maricopa (Phoenix) AZ 4 579
San Diego CA 5 455
Orange (Santa Ana) CA 7 533
Miami-Dade (Miami) FL 8 406
San Bernardino CA 12 403
Clark (Las Vegas) NV 47 1,010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Ranking by Population Growth
County Comparison, 2009-2010
County (Major City) State
Ranking by Numeric Population Growth
(2009-2010)
Ranking by Percent Change in Population
Growth (2009-2010)
Natural Increase Net Migration
400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 -100,000
Components of Population Change
San Bernardino County, 1970 to 2010
1970 -197 5 1975 -198 0 1980 -198 5 1985 -199 0 1990 -199 5 1995 -200 0 2000 -200 5 2005 -201 0
Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, County Population Estimates and Components of Change, July 1, 1970-1990, July 1, 1990-2000, and July 1, 2000-2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey
Native American Indians in San Bernardino County
Approximately 1% of the population in San Bernardino County is comprised of Native American Indians (20,396 individuals as of 2009), including Cherokee, Chippewa, Navajo, and Sioux. An additional 23,258 residents self-identify as Native American and some other race. Federally-recognized tribes within the county include: Chemehuevi Indian Tribe; San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; and Fort Mojave Indian Tribe.
7 2 0 1 1 c o u n t y p r o f i l e 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Population by Ethnicity
San Bernardino County, 2006-2010
P e rc e n t o f To ta l P o p u la ti o n 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic African American Asian/Pacific Islander Two or More Races All Other†
†Includes American Indian/Alaska
Native and any other single race.
Source: American Community Survey 2004 – 2009, Census Redistricting Data Summary File 2010
In 2009, 21% of the people living in San Bernardino County were foreign born:
• Forty-one percent (41%) of San Bernardino County residents over the age of five speak a language other than English at home. • Among these, 83% speak Spanish and 17%
speak some other language.13
• As of May 2011, there were 2,677 interpreters on staff at the County of San Bernardino, rep-resenting more than 12 languages. This is equivalent to approximately 14% of all county employees.14
San Bernardino County’s population is relatively young:
• In 2010, the county’s median age was 32 compared to 35 statewide.
• As of 2010, 29% of the population is under age 18, while nearly 9% are 65 years or older.15
• From 2005 to 2009, the number of residents increased across all age groups except 5 to 14 year olds, and 35 to 44 year olds.16
However, the percent of the population 65 years and older is anticipated to increase through 2050: • In 2010, the older adult population comprised 9% of the total population and in 2050 it is expected to comprise 19% of the total popu-lation.
• The total older adult population is expected to increase by 250% overall by, compared to a 68% increase among all ages.8
<5 5-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Population by Age
San Bernardino County, 2004 and 2009
A g e R a n g e 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 2009 2004 C h a n g e 2 0 1 0 -2 0 5 0
Projected Change in Older Adult Population Compared to All Ages, by Race/Ethnicity
San Bernardino County, 2010-2050 700% 600% 500% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% -100%
Source: State of California, Department of Finance, Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, by Age, Gender and Race/Ethnicity
All Races White Hispanic Asian African Other American
All Ages 65+
Note: As of pub-lication, Census 2010 data by de-tailed age brack-ets was not available.
Source: American Community Sur-vey, 2004 and 2009
8 c o u n t y p r o f i l e 2 0 1 1
EMPLOYMENT
San Bernardino County enjoys a diverse economy, with economic output and employment distributed among multiple sectors: • As of 2009, the largest labor markets in San Bernardino County are Trade, Transportation and Utilities (25.4% of the total industry
employment) and Government (19.6%), followed by Educational and Health Services (12.4%), Professional and Business Serv-ices (12.1%), Leisure and Hospitality (9.1%), Manufacturing (8.2%), and Construction (4.5%).
• All other industries accounted for less than 10% of the total labor force.21
After several years of steady increase, the San Bernardino County labor force peaked in 2006 and began to decline: • The number of people employed increased from 680,100 in 1998 to 820,700 in 2006.
• By the first quarter of 2011, the civilian employed population had declined to 731,900 (March 2011).21
Industry estimates for the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area project that from 2008 to 2018, total non-farm employment will in-crease by 8%:
• The metro area’s fastest growing sectors are projected to be Education Services (+27%), Health Care and Social Assistance (+22%), Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services (+13%), Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (13%), and Leisure and Hospitality (+10%).
• Occupations with the fastest projected job growth include Personal and Home Care Aides (+45%), Medical Scientists except Epi-demiologists (+42%), Network Systems and Data Communications Analyst (+40%), Physicians Assistants (+38%), Home Health Aides (+36%), Fitness Trainers and Aerobics Instructors (+33%), Physical Therapists Aides (+31%) and Surgical Technicians (+31%).
• Non-farm sectors projected to decline include Management of Companies and Enterprises (-16%), Manufacturing (-9%), Min-ing and LoggMin-ing (-8%), Real Estate and Rental and LeasMin-ing (-8%) and Financial Activities (-3%).22
Since 2005, the fastest employment growth in the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area has been in businesses with fewer than 100 employees (+16%):
• The vast majority of businesses have fewer than 100 employees (98%).
• In the third quarter of 2009, 61% of employees worked for businesses with fewer than 100 employees, 26% worked for businesses with 100-499 employees, and the remaining 13% worked for large businesses with 500 employees or more.
• Firms with 500 employees or more have shown the biggest decline in number (-29%) and employees (-17%).23
HOUSING
Most homes in San Bernardino County are single-family, detached homes: • There were 700,776 housing units available to county residents in January 2011. • As of January 2011, San Bernardino had a housing vacancy rate of 12.5%.17
• There was a 16.3% increase in available housing units from 2000 to 2010.18
• A majority of the units are owner-occupied (63.8%) compared to renter-occupied (36.2%).13
• The greatest proportion of homes (24%) was built between 1980 and 1989.13
• Between 2001 and 2004, the Riverside-San Bernardino metro area had one of the largest increases in construction permits (109%).19
• However, mirroring decreases elsewhere in the state, construction permits have subsequently fallen in San Bernardino County, dropping from 18,017 in 2004 to 1,789 in 2010.19, 20
San Bernardino County has the third highest household size in California: • Kings County and Tulare County have a greater household size.
• As of 2010, the average household size was 3.3 persons, higher than California (2.9) and the U.S. (2.6). • The city of Fontana has the highest household size in the county (4.0).
• Nearly all of the county’s cities have average household sizes larger than the national average (21 out of 24).15
In 2009, there were 592,207 households in the county:
• Families comprise 77% of the households in San Bernardino County, including both married-couple families (55%) and other families (22%).
• Non-family households made up of one individual or more than one unrelated individuals comprise 23% of all households in San Bernardino County.13
9
2 0 1 1 c o u n t y p r o f i l e
UNEMPLOYMENT
Following unemployment trends nationwide, San Bernardino County’s unemployment rate rose dramatically in 2010:
• During the 10-year period from 2001 to 2011, the unemployment rate in San Bernardino County ranged from a low of 4.8% in 2006 to a high of 14.3% in 2010.
• The unemployment rate decreased to 13.2% in April 2011.
• In April 2011, San Bernardino County’s unemployment rate was ranked 29th out of 58 counties in California (1st is lowest unem-ployment rate).24
• Compared with the United States, San Bernardino County faced higher unemployment rates between 2001 and 2011.25, 26, 27
16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 5.1% 6.0% 6.3% 5.8% 5.2% 4.8% 5.6% 7.9% 13.0% 14.3% 13.2% Unemployment
Annual Average Rate, 2001-2011
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Apr-11
San Bernardino County California
United States
Sources: California Employment Develop-ment DepartDevelop-ment, EmployDevelop-ment by Industry Data; California Employment Development Department Historical Annual Average Labor Force for the United States; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Source: California Employment Development Department, Projections of Employment by Industry Occupation
Personal Care and Service 24% $10.06 $20,924 Office and Administrative Support 6,059 $15.12 $31,440
Healthcare Support 22% $12.49 $25,965 Sales and Related 5,518 $11.42 $23,757
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 21% $32.95 $68,532 Food Preparation and Serving Related 5,270 $9.33 $19,393 Computer and Mathematical 15% $31.99 $66,541 Transportation and Material Moving 3,506 $13.80 $28,698 Life, Physical, and Social Science 14% $28.72 $59,747 Education, Training, and Library 2,972 $25.39 $52,800
Top 5 Fastest Growing Occupations and Top 5 Occupations with the Most Job Openings
Riverside-San Bernardino, 2008-2018 Projection with 1st Quarter 2010 Wages
Occupations with Most Job Openings Mediam Annual Median Hourly Total Job Openings Median Annual Median Hourly Emplyment Change Fastest Growing Occupations
1 0 c o u n t y p r o f i l e 2 0 1 1
California Employment Development Department, San Bernardino County Profile (www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov) San Bernardino County Land Use Department, 2007 General Plan (www.sbcounty.gov)
San Bernardino Associated Governments GIS Data – Land Use (www.maps.sanbag.ca.gov)
Calculated from multiple sources: U.S. Census Bureau State and County QuickFacts (http://quickfacts.census.gov) and California Department of Finance, Census 2010 (www.dof.ca.gov/ research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/view.php)
California Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2010 and 2011 (www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php)
U.S. Census Bureau, Preliminary Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010 (CO-PEST2010-TOTALS) (www.census.gov/popest/counties/tables/CO-PEST2010-totals.csv)
California Department of Finance, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, March 2011
California Department of Finance, Population Projections for California and Its Counties 2000-2050, July 2007 (www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/p-1/) County of San Bernardino Economic Development Agency, Population Growth Accelerates (www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/OpportunityCA/build_business/gr_popGrowth.html).
See also the Integrated Growth Forecast of the Southern California Association of Governments (www.scag.ca.gov/forecast/index.htm).
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program, Domestic Net Migration in the United States 2000-2004 (www.census.gov/popest/counties /CO-EST2004-04.html and www.census.gov/popest/eval-estimates/county/c8/county 2000c8.html)
California Department of Finance, Population Estimates and Components of Change by County, July 1, 2000-2010, December 2010
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, State Census Data Center, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, March 2011, Table 3A: Total Population by Race (1) and Hispanic or Latino: April 1, 2010 Incorporated Cities and Census Designated Places (CDP) by County in California
U.S. Census Bureau, 2009 American Community Survey San Bernardino County Administrative Office
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, State Census Data Center, Demographic Program Summary File, May 2011, Table 1: Population, Age, and Sex Characteristics, April 1, 2010
U.S. Census Bureau, 2004 and 2009 American Community Survey
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, E-5 State/County Pop and Housing Estimates, January 2011
California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, State Census Data Center, Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, March 2011, Table 2: Housing Units, Households, and Vacant Units: 2000 and 2010 Incorporated Cities by County in California
Public Policy Institute of California, The California Economy: Crisis in the Housing Market, March 2008 Housing and Urban Development Department (http://socds.huduser.org/permits/index.html)
California Employment Development Department, Employment by Industry Data for San Bernardino County (www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=166) California Employment Development Department, Projections of Employment by Industry and Occupation (www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=145) Employment Development Department, Size of Business Data, 2001-Present (www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=138)
California Employment Development Department, Monthly Labor Force Data for All Counties (www.calmis.ca.gov/file/1fmonth/1104rcou.pdf) California Employment Department, Historical Labor Force Information for the United States (www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov)
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt)
California Employment Department, U.S., California and Los Angeles County Current Labor Force Comparison (www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/calpr.pdf)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
endnoteS
75035_Comm_Foundation_Text:Layout 1 6/21/11 3:57 PM Page 101 2 S p e c i a l f e a t u r e 2 0 1 1
»
ONT |
The Issue of Local Control
»
T
N
O
A
u
s
s
e
A
FTER ASTROa
c
o
o
e
u
G N O start to thedecade, sero
o
C
a
e t a r e p o e u l B t e J . t r o p r i a e h t s e v r s ffllightsA
passengertrafffii h t f o t u o d n a n i i A l a n o i t a n r e t n I n i s y l t n a c i ffi i n g i s g n i n i l c e d r p t n e m e g a n a m f o s w e i v e r y t i l i c a ffa e h t f o l o r t n o c r e v o h t o m o r ffr d e r e h t a g a t a D O t a e m i t r e v o d n a s t r o p r i a A . d n e r t e v i t a g e n g n oi g n o p r i a n o r e p a p e t i h w wh a m o r ffr O f o y t i C e h t r o ffo d e r a p e r p s t h g gh i l f l a t o t s a l l e w s a , c o i r a t n O / A L e n e e b s a h , t r o p r i g n i pt m o r p 7 0 0 2 e c n e t a b e d a d n a s e c i t c a r . y b u h d e z i s -d i m r e h n a e t a c i d n i T N O * s t h g i l h g i h w e ffe A s n o i t a r e p o t r o p : o i r a t n O u o i a e h t o c r d a m i A n A rb u B d n a h c a e B g n o L , X A L f o t 1 e h t f o t u o h t 8 9 s k n a r T N O • o r g r e g n e s s a p f o s m r e t n i s t r o p r e g a l a c o l , p o r d k c a b t a h t t s n i a g A e t n o c — o i r a t n O f o y t i C e h t m e r o g i v n nv i e r e b o t s d e e n , e v i t i t e p m l u o h s d n a y m o n o c e l a c o l e h t e v i n A s o L e h t — A W WA A AW L y b d e g a n a y t i C e h t f o t n e m t r a p e d a , s t r o p r . s e l e g n O s e s o p o r p o i r a t n O f o y t i C e h T . k n a rb . S . U t s e g r a l 0 0 1 . 7 9 9 1 e c n i s h t w o g n o m a — s e i c n e t o n s i T N O d n e p l e h o t d e t a r e b r e g n o l o n d l d l r o W Wo s e l e g n s o L f o y e b T N O 8 2 d a h T N O , 9 0 0 2 y B • 2 n i d a h t i n a h t s r e g n e s s a p e g n e s s a p l a n o i g e r e h T • e p p o r d d a h T N O h g gh u o r h t e p 2 . 6 o t 0 9 9 1 n i c i ffi fff a r t f o u t r a p e d y l i a d e g a r e v A Av • a m o r ffr d e p p o r d d a h T N O e D f o s a y l i a d 9 . 5 3 o t 1 0 0 2 t r a p e d y b g n i k n a r s ’ T N O v o y l l a n o i t a n h t 8 2 o t h t 6 1 t s -n o n d e t a r e p o T N O • 0 0 0 2 i i M d r e w e ffe t n e c r e p 8 . 0 0 0 2 g n i l e v a r t e r a h s r e t n e c r e p 9 m o r ffr d e . 9 0 0 2 n i t n e c r e m o r ffr t s e w h t u o S y b s e r u n i y l i a d 4 . 8 5 f o h g i h a h t i w , 0 1 0 2 r e b m e c e m o r ffr g n pi p i l s s e r u t . d o i r e p e m a s e h t r e v a d a n a C o t s t h g i l ffl p o t h i l l f h t e r p o e d a m n i e h t e h t a G t O e w w o l l a o t l o r t n o c l a c o l o t d e n r u n i t c e t o r p e l i h w wh y t i l i c a ffa e h t e t a r e . y m o n o c e l a c o l e h t g n pi o l e v e i t i n u m m o c y b r a e n d n a y t i c e h T c o l n i s t n e m t s e v n nv i t n a c i ffi i n g i s e d a m A . t r o p r i a e h t f o y t i m i x o r p y s a e s s e n i s u B s n e z i t i C n o i l l i m -0 5 1 $ e n a r e t n e C n o i t n e v n o C o i r a t n O e ng i p p o h s s l l i M o i r a t n O d n a s n e d r a m a s l e t o h , s e s s e n i s u b y b r a e n r e h t ng i d u l c n i — s e i t i s r e v i n u l a c o l s a l l e r e t t e b o t t i d n a g n e v av h s e s e i t i l i c a ffa l a c : m e h t ng o m , a n e r A k n a B ia r o t c i Vi e h t d . s e x e l p m o c ng s a , m e h t ng o m ng i d n a p x e e h t ng r e v o ; 0 0 0 2 n i o c i x e M d n a n a d e d n a p x e e c i v r e s , s r a e y i l f l a n o i t a n r e t n I . a n i h C o t t fft e l o c i x e m o r e A . d e n i l c e d r e b m e v o N n i d e n r u t e r t u b c i h w , s y aay w r i A e u l B t e J • T N O t a e c i v r e s a i n r o ffo i l a C e e r h t g n i w o l l o ffo e h t s t h g gh i l f o g r a c d e d u l c n i d n e c n i s e v a h s t h gh i 0 1 0 2 h c r a M n i T N O . r a e y e m a s e h t f o r n r e h t u o S s t i d e h c n u a l h c r e g n o l o n , 0 0 0 2 n i T W g e r o P o w D * a n e i c S h t l a e H f o y t i s r e v i n Un n r e t s e W We e r a l C n i s r e t n e c n o i t a c u ed l a n o i d r a n r e B n a S e t a t S l a C d n a a n o m o p r i a ng i v i r h t a m o r ffr t i ffi e n e b d l u o r o p ri a l a c o l h g u o r h t d e t c e ll o c s a w a t a . e d i u G e n il ri A l a i c if f O e h t m o rro f d n , a n o m o P n i s e c n y l o P l a C , t n o m e o s l a — o n i d . t r o s e i c n e g a t 75035_Comm_Foundation_Text-r1_Layout 1 6/21/11 11:20 PM Page 121 3 2 0 1 1 S p e c i a l f e a t u r e
»
ONT FACTS
ROOM TO GROW
Alaska, American, Continental, Delta, Southwest, United and US Airways+LVWRU\ 'HYHORSPHQW
7UDQVLWLRQV 7UHQGV
»
TS
C
A
FFA
T
N
O
O
R
G
O
T
M
O
O
R
e d o t C r o p r i A : ONT n o i at c o L : 35 miles e ge An s n Lo w o t n w of do e and t r mpi and E he Inl n t i a hern C ut o er of S t en c s s e c Ac :Well-located w sp an r und t o l gr iona g e r en t e w t e g b n i ly , em st syW
OW
st a s e s e l he a i iforn l he n t i h ti d w ion at t or 0 1 he I-h and t t he nor ay on t w e e r F w e e r omona F SR-60 P ss e o acc s l h; a ut o he s t d sy e op l e v ll-de e a a w i v l r a c o l and l a i er t of ar t ke r a M : ONT’s serv ion of at ul op s a p lude nc i n San Bernar ion i ill 6 m ie t un o ide c s er v i and R hern t s of nor ion t or and p y and e t un o ge C an Or s C l An Lo he h and t ay on e l ib ss em st d sy s ay adw o l r a e e ar ic no i d n San Bernar , s ie ern st a'
\
U
R
W
V
L
+
L f o y t i C e h TW
Q
H
P
S
R
O
H
Y
H
s y a w l a t ’ n s a h s e l e g n A s o n e s s a p r i e h t m o r ffr s e n i l r i a $ r e h t o n a d e s i a r A W WA A AW L . s r e g h g gh u o r h t n o i l l i m 5 9 y t un o s C e l ge An s Lo e z Si :1,77000 acres y it c a p a C : Current fac ion annua ill 0 m 1 t or supp e c imat t s; ul ger en ss a p ugh exp o hr ion t ill m 1 of 3 t or sp an r e t fac and sur opmen l e v e de ur t c ru st a r nf i s) i s ly G ana A (SC e n li r i A r e g n e s s a P , o o, ic omex Aer Alaska,Amer o S a tl De l a t nen it on C s ie ti il t fac l ion annua y ti ac ap e c ion s an ugh exp ion at t t opmen s: , an ic Amer st e w h ut n O e h t d e t a r e p o g u o r h t d e g a n a m e s r e v o o s l a t a h t ) X A L ( t r o p r i A h c u m e l i h W i s s a m a h g u o r h t r p n o i t c u r t s n o c b s e t a d y l l a u t c a e n a s a w t r o p r i a e k i n o m a , d l e i F ny a p m o c g n i k c a p i T N O d T s i t i y a d o t t u b , t r o p r i a o i r a t n t n e m t r a p e d y t i c a , A W WA A AW L h g l a n o i t a n r e t n I s e l e g n A s o L s e . t r o p r i A s y uy Nu n a V Va e h t d n a 5 9 9 1 n i d e l u a h r e v o s a w T N O f o r a l l o d n o i l l i m -i t l u m e v i t r o p r i a l a n i g i r o e h t , t c e j o r e h t , n e h t k c a B . 3 2 9 1 o t k c a r e m i t a L d e l l a c t r i d f o e s n a p x e -e g n a r o e h t m o r ffr g n i v i r e d r . p i r t s r i a e h t o t t x e n d e t a u t i s ny h i i d l h f 5 h w s d n o b e u n e v e r t r o p r i a h t d e d n u ffu s a w n o i l l i m 7 2 $ m d A n o i t a i v A Av l a r e d e F . S . U n O f o y t i C e h t , A W WA A AW L f o t n e m t r a p e D a i n r o ffo i l a C d d a n a r o ffo d i a p ) s n a r t l a C ( m i e r u t c u r t s a r ffr n i l a c o l n i o d e t s i s n o c s t n e m e v o r p m i o n o i s n a p x e e h t d n a s d a o rQ
H
U
7
V
Q
R
L
W
L
V
Q
D
U
7
d l i b h i l l F g n i n i a m e r e h t e l i h e h t h g u o r h . n o i t a r t s i n i m e h t d n a o i r a t n n o i t a t r o p s n a r T Tr f n o i l l i m 0 6 1 $ l a n o i t i d e s o h T . s t n e m e v o r p m s s e c c a t r o p r i a w e n f o . 0 1 e t a t s r e t n I f oV
G
Q
f i f o S , a tl De ,l a t nen it on C ay w r Ai S d and U e ti Un e n li r i A o g r a C s: FedEx e v r e s s r e g n e s s a P 9) 0 0 5 (2 9 95 (2 6 , 6, 8 8 , 4 4, s n o t , o o, g r a C : 3900,,9 a p e y d l ai d , s ght Fli 1) 1 0 il 2 (Apr 1 7 s l a n mi r e TTe : 5700,,500 s n t s i e 5 gat h 3 ti t w e fe s and an l na i erm ic t st dome s l a v i r Ar l iona ernat t In , st e w h ut o s ay UPS , dEx d e : 9) 0 0 2 (2 3 s e ur t r a : e quar 0 s o w n t l na i erm TTerm s i T N O , y a d o T To a n e h t d n a e t a t s a e h t , 2 4 9 1 n I w t h t i w d e c a l p e r u d e r a e g n o i t a n l a C n r e h t u o S r g o t d e u n i t n o c e m n r e v o g r jo aajo m o N d n a s a l g gl u o D m o c s A . T N O t a t n i m u t n e m o m d l t f e h t n i s t r o p r i a t s e d l o e h t f o e n o . n o i t a e r e w s y a w n u r t r i d s ’ t r o p r i a e h t s a s y a w n u r e t e r c n o c o w . s a e s r e v o t r o ffo f e r a w s t i r o ffo p up y r t s u d n i s c i t u a n o r e a s ’ a i n r o ffo i l d n a , s 0 5 9 1 e h t h g gh u o r h t w o r , d e e h k c o L — s r o t c a r t n o c t n e s e i t i l i c a ffa d e h s i l b a t s e — p o r h t r o d e n i a g e c i v r e s r i a l a i c r e m m s a w t r o p r i a e h t , s 0 6 9 1 e h t i d f f i i d d e Following the build up p h t w o r g c i ffi i l o r p w a s T N O i ffi fff a r t r i a n e h w , 7 0 0 2 l i t n u y r e p s r e g n e s s a p n o i l l i m 7 l a s t r o p r i a r e h t o e l i h W e c n o c o t d e d d a t a h w wh , 7 0 0 2 r e v o c e r h t i w e c a p p e e k o t n i e r a h s r e g n e s s a p e l i h W r p S m l a P s a h c u s s t r o p r i a e h t g n i r u d , k n a rb u B d n a t n e c r e p 6 . 7 m o r ffr d e n i l c e d 0 1 0 2 n i , e r u t c u r t s a r ffr n i f o s 0 8 9 1 e h t m o r ffr h d n u o r a t a d e k a e p c i . r a e y r e t fft a s e n i l c e d w a s o s l e r u l i a ffa s ’ T N O s a w s n r e . s t r o p r i a r e h t o t a s e i r y r a d n o c e s t a d e s a e r c h c a e B g n o L , s g n i r s ’ o i r a t n O d o i r e p e m a s t n e c r e p 9 . 5 o t 0 0 0 2 n i t s l a v i r Ar l iona ernat t In e c a p r s a g n a H : 35 t e e fe quar s g n i k r a P : Lot 2,1,601 2 , 2 , 90; Lot 5 7 , 1 , Lot 4 s a day ur 4 ho s: 2 ur o H ek e a w s t n ai r st n o C : Essent ibi oh y pr ic l o t p en r ur C ch and go u o g (t n i n ai r t t and en af cr r d ai e er w o p o 7 a t . .m p 1 1 om r s f run-up .l na i erm TTerm 0 0 0 , 0 0, s; e ac sp 1 0 0 2 s 7 day , ayy, . lly none a i ts flight ibi t y je s) b ’’ ne i g t and en . .m o 7 a d e s u y l t n e u q e r ffr . X A L c e h t , 7 6 9 1 n I p -t n joi a d e r e t n e a e r a e h t d e d i c e d t s e l e g n A s o L f i . T N O f o i a e h t , y a d o T To m m o c f o d r a o b h t y b d e t n oi p p a L f o l i c n u o c y t i c m r e t n i w t e h T n i -d e g og ffog a r o ffo n o i s r e v i d a s a d e l e g n A s o L d n a o i r a t n O f o s e i t i c g n i v aav h t n e m e e r g a s r e w o p y l l a c i m o n o c e t i ffi e n e b d l u o w a n o i t a r e p o r o ffo y t i l bi i s n o p s e r k o o t s ’ A A’ W WA A AW L y b n e e s r e v o s i t r o p r e r a s r e b m e m e s o h w wh , s r e n o i s s i e h t y b d e v o r p p a d n a r o y a m e h . s e l e g n A s o L y p up c c o y l t n e r r u c t a h t s l a n i m s e n . 0 1 0 2 n i f i h s e r e w t a h t o t d e d d A e h t , s r a e y l a r e v e s t s a l e h t n I o i r a t n O / A L f o t u o d n a y l l a c i t a m a r d d e n i l c e d s a h i v r e s r e g n o l o n ; T N O t fft e l A T TA A AT , s e k a L t a e r G , e u l B t e J t t r o ffo fff e n a n i d e l i a ffa h c i h w r y l n o e h t s i t s e w h t u o S f n I . t r o p r i a e h t t a r e i r r a c e g n e s s a p g n i n i a t s u s e b o t A d n a y r a u n a J n e e w t e B r e v O . s r e i r r a c y b s t fft n i s t h g i l ffl f o r e b m u n t r o p r i A l a n o i t a n r e t n o s l a e v a h s e n i l r i A . y e r a y t i l i c a ffa e h t g n i , t e J ssJ s e r p x E d n a A . b u h a s a T N O e s u o t t s o c -w o l g n i n i a m e m e e s s e c i v r e s s t i , t c a ffa . T N O t a c i ffi fff a r t r e h t r a e y s i h t l i r p A p run-up The twinterm p r i a o i r a t n O e h t o t e h T . 5 9 9 1 n i f l a h t u o b a h t i w t i l i c a ffa r e g n e s s a p y p up c c o y l t n e r r u c t a h t s l a n i d e t c u r t s n o c e r e w y t r e p o r p t r o p n o i l l i m 0 7 2 $ s a w t s o c t c e j o r p l a t y b d e d n u ffu t n u o m a t a h t f o y b d e t c e l l o c s e g r a h c s e i t , A d n a y r a u n a J n e e w t e B s r e g n e s s a p l l a f o y t i r jo a m t r o p r i a e h t h g u o r h t e m a c n o t g n i d r o c c a , t s e w h t u o S e h t , r a e y s i h t l i r p o h w , t n e c r e p 4 5 , n o d e l e v a r t . s t r o p e r s w e1 4 S p e c i a l f e a t u r e 2 0 1 1
»
3 DO P6SU L QJV /RQJ% HDFK -RKQ:D\QH % XU EDQN 2QW DU L R /$ ; &KDQJH -RKQ :D\QH 2QWDULR %XUEDQN /RQJ %HDFK 3DOP 6SULQJV 0 LOO LR Q V7KH6KLIW$ZD\IURP217
Since 2003, LAX’s market share has actually increased from 69.7 percent to 72.5 percent. During the same period, passenger share at ONT dropped from 6 percent to 5.5 percent. Over the 20-year period from 1990, LAX’s market share has dropped only 2.5 percent.
THE JACOBS STUDY
Jacobs Consultancy conducted a review of ONT management for LAWA in August 2010. Highlights from its review:
SITUATION ASSESSMENTS
• Passenger traffic was not expected to return to 2008 levels until 2040, at an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. • Reduced traffic resulted in substantial per passenger costs, resulting in less traffic. • Reduced per passenger costs would not likely net an immediate bump in traffic but would help long-term growth. • ONT experienced the most significant airline seating capacity reductions of selected West Coast hubs including Oakland, Reno, Burbank, San Jose, Santa Ana and Sacramento. ONT saw a year-over-year drop of 30 percent in the first quarter of 2009. • ONT has the highest cost per enplaned passenger of any airport in the LA basin. • ONT generates greater non-airline revenue through car rentals, parking and land and building rentals than the medium hub average. • ONT costs per square foot to operate terminals is approximately $80, higher than comparable airports. • Operating cost efficiencies depend largely on LAWA contracts with employees and service providers.
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
1) Contract negotiations to reduce costs and raise revenues, a reduction in the passenger facility charges, a plan to pay debt service with cash to reduce the per passenger charge. 2) Consider hiring a third party to operate terminal and parking; LAWA would continue to operate airfield. 3) A long-term concession pact with a third party for operation and management of entire airport.
Passengers at Southern California Regional Airports 2000-1010
Passenger Share of Southern California Airports LAX, Ontario, Burbank, John Wayne, Long Beach, Palm Springs
Ontario 6,756,086 6,702,400 6,516,858 6,547,877 6,937,337 7,213,528 7,049,904 7,207,150 6,232,761 4,866,367 4,808,241 Burbank 4,748,742 4,487,335 4,620,683 4,729,936 4,916,800 5,512,619 5,689,291 5,921,336 5,331,404 4,588,433 4,461,271 John Wayne 7,772,801 7,324,557 7,903,066 8,535,130 9,272,394 9,627,172 9,613,540 9,979,699 8,989,603 8,705,199 8,663,452 Long Beach 637,853 587,473 1,453,551 2,875,703 2,926,450 3,034,032 2,758,362 2,906,556 2,913,926 2,909,307 2,978,326 Palm Springs 1,281,000 1,175,000 1,110,118 1,247,743 1,367,804 1,419,087 1,529,005 1,609,428 1,542,928 1,465,751 1,495,167 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Palm Springs Long Beach John Wayne Burbank Ontario LAX Totals 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 75035_Comm_Foundation_Text-r1_Layout 1 6/21/11 11:20 PM Page 14
1 5
2 0 1 1 S p e c i a l f e a t u r e
»
217V(QSODQHG3DVVHQJHUV 6HDWV
The patterns triggered a study andanalysis of airport operations by Jacobs Consultancy for LAWA delivered in August 2010, and the City of Ontario’s own white paper report in September of the same year.
Both documents indicated fees and operational patterns at ONT were essentially driving airlines to use other facilities. Among key problems:
• Fees per passenger boarded on a flight, at $14.50, are the highest in the region. By comparison, Burbank is $2.10, Long Beach $5.34 and LAX $11. The national median is $6.76 per passenger. (The airport fees, generally referred to as CPE or cost per emplaned passenger, are the charges per departing traveler paid by airlines to cover airport operating expenses after subtracting any revenue generated by other sources such as parking, car rental fees and food services.)
• Labor costs at Los Angeles rates (as opposed to prevailing local wages) and contractual obligations contribute to making ONT less competitive
• Fee and labor costs were contributing to a trend by airlines to reduce flights, seating and hence travelers through the facility.
• On the positive side, ONT is one of the few facilities in the region with the capacity for significant expansion
• Non-airline revenue at ONT is relatively strong.
2SHUDWLRQDO&RVWV
Ontario’s analysis found that the level of staffing at the airport along with a 15 percent administrative charge contribute to the high operational costs and resultant fees.
While the facility has minimal debt and reasonable-to-moderate non-airline revenue per passenger — $12 in 2008 compared with $14 in Burbank and a median national average for hubs of $11 — those pluses are outweighed by employee counts and compensation levels.
Employee compensation at ONT for fiscal 2010 was budgeted at $30.9 million for 302 positions plus an administrative fee of 15 percent of the operational budget, which added another $8.7
