a component of the york county …ycpc.org/long_range_docs/comp_plan/growth_trends.pdf · growth...

A COMPONENT OF THEYORK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

September 2008

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

YORK COUNTY

GROWTH TRENDS

York County Planning Commission28 E. Market Street, York, PA 17401

www.ycpc.org

October, 1995Updated - December, 2008

Table of Contents

Page

Highlights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Chapter I - Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter II - Background.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Regional Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Natural Features.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Chapter III - Population Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9York County's Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Regional Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Migration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12York County’s Population – The Sum of its Parts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Age Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Comparisons - 1990 to 2000: Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Race. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Ancestry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Hispanic or Latino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Comparisons - 1990 to 2000: Race, Ancestry, and Hispanic Origin.. . . . . . . . . 17Households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Municipalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182007 Population Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Population Gains and Losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

fastest growing municipalities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Population Distribution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Population Density. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter IV - Housing Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Census 2000 and Housing - York County Data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Housing Units and Tenure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Selected Census 2000 Housing Characteristics by Municipality. . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table of Contents

Page

Housing Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Regional Housing Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Median Gross Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Units in Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Year Structure Built. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32Year Householder Moved into Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Percent Occupied Housing Units Where Householder Moved into the Unit, 1999-

March 2000.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Housing in York County: Where is it? What does it cost?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

York County Residential Subdivision and Land Development Activity, 1990-2007.35Home Sale Statistics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36Home Sales by School District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Taxes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Chapter V - Economic Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45The US Census and the Economy - York County Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Median Household Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Per Capita Income.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Selected Economic Characteristics by Municipality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Housing Expenses as a Percentage of Household Income.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Employment Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Occupation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Commuting Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Travel Time to Work.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Journey to Work Flow.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Means of Transportation to Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Other Economic Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Average Weekly Wage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Major Employers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58County Business Patterns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Employment by Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Manufacturing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Service Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Retail Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Agriculture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table of Contents

Page

Chapter VI - Other Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Education.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Public School Enrollments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63York County Public School District Analysis.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Non-Public and Private Schools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Home Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Other Educational Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Educational Attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65Educational Attainment by Municipality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Registered Vehicles and Population Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Vehicles Available. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter VII - Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

1

Highlights...

York County is approximately 911 square miles or 583,040 acres.

York County is a County of the Third Class as prescribed by the Pennsylvania State

Legislature.

The US Census Bureau's 2007 population estimate for the County is 421,049. The

population for 2000 was 381,751.

In 2007, the population density of the County is 462 persons per square mile.

Twelve (12) municipalities in York County have populations over 10,000 persons (2007

estimates).

From 1990-2007, the fastest growing borough was Goldsboro Borough with a population

increase of 108.6%

The fastest growing township, 1990-2007, was Manchester Township. The Township

experienced a 123.1% increase over that period.

Per the US Census, three percent (3%) of the total population of York County is Hispanic

or Latino.

York City is the most populous municipality in the County. West York Borough is the

most densely populated municipality in the County, according to the US Census Bureau.

Per Census 2000, almost 1/4 of the existing housing units in York County were built

before 1940. 76% of York County's housing units are owner-occupied.

2

According to the Realtors Association of York and Adams Counties, the average selling

price for a home in York County in 2006 was $196,380.

The median household income for York County (2005 American Community Survey) was

$48,911.

Single female-headed households with children under the age of 5 represented the highest

percentage of families with income below poverty (2005 American Community Survey).

Per the Center for Workforce Development, in 2007, York County's unemployment rate

was 4%. The average weekly wage for a York County employee was $645.

There are a total of 8,623 business establishments in York County (2005).

There are 16 school districts in York County; 61,880 students were enrolled in public

school in 2004-2005 (PA Department of Education).

In 2005, Hanover Public School District had the lowest enrollment (910) and the York

City School District, the highest (6,378).

Per the PA Department of Education, for school year 2004-2005, there were 1,573 home

education students in York County. This is the second highest number of home education

students in the State, behind Lancaster County.

There were 270,994 registered passenger vehicles in York County in 2005 (PennDOT).

Introduction 3

Chapter IIntroduction

This report provides information and statistics that summarize existing conditions and past andprojected trends in York County. Chapter 2 begins the report, with general background informationregarding the County's location, natural features, history, and government. Subsequent chapterspresent trend information relative to population, housing, income and other interesting subjects.

Chapter 3 closely examines York County's population trends. Historical population is analyzed andcurrent population estimates from the US Census Bureau are presented. Migration, as related topopulation change, is also discussed. The chapter continues with a detailed look at the totalpopulation by characteristics, including age, gender, race and Hispanic or Latino origin, andprovides some comparisons between the 1990 Census and Census 2000. Additionally, the chapterpresents household-level information, including average household size and household composition.Finally, the 2007 population estimates from the US Census Bureau are also presented andpopulation gains and losses are calculated. The population distribution and population density ofthe County and its municipalities are also discussed.

Chapter 4 presents data regarding housing trends in York County. The primary source of the datais the US Census Bureau (Census 2000 and the American Community Survey). Informationrelevant to housing units and tenure, persons per household, housing value and median gross rent,units in structure and year structure built is present as is the year the householder moved into theunit. In addition to the general housing characteristics listed above, Chapter 4 also considershousing availability and cost by examining residential subdivision and land development activity,proposed dwelling units and home sale statistics. Tax rates are also considered in the discussionof housing cost.

Chapter 5 looks at York County's economy. Compiling data from the US Census Bureau and thePA Department of Labor and Industry, the chapter provides data at the household level, as well asat the County level. Using Census 2000 data and the 2005 American Community Survey, dataregarding household income, poverty, household expenses, employment, commuting patterns andtravel time to work is presented. Other economic indicators discussed are average weekly wage,major employers, County business patterns, and employment by sector (manufacturing, service,retail trade and agriculture).

Other trends are presented in Chapter 6. This chapter provides data related to education, includingschool enrollments and educational attainment. Statistics related to vehicle availability andregistrations and land use categories finish out the chapter.

Growth Trends

Introduction4

The Growth Trends Component of the York County Comprehensive Plan is tightly connected to theoverarching goals of the York County Comprehensive Plan. The goals of the CountyComprehensive Plan are as follows:

• to protect and preserve important natural resources• to direct growth and development to appropriate locations• to facilitate coordinated planning at all levels of government

Information and trends included in this report offer concrete data related to the number of peopleand houses and jobs, to be sure. But this information is then further synthesized into all areas ofland use planning, including the establishment of growth and rural areas; the preservation of naturalresource areas, open space and farmland; and the efficient provision and extension of publicservices and facilities. Growth Trends data also informs other components of the County'sComprehensive Plan, including the Long Range Transportation Plan, 2009-2035, Housing andGrowth Management.

The York County Comprehensive Plan has been successful as a vehicle for presenting a plan andvision for the future of York County and updates to the Growth Trends component keeps the datathat is used in so many ways current and valid.

Background 5

Chapter IIBackground

Introduction

The Growth Trends component of the York County Comprehensive Plan begins with somebackground information. The County’s location, natural features, government and history arebriefly outlined in this chapter.

Regional Setting

York County is situated in south-central Pennsylvania. The County is bordered by Adams andCumberland Counties to the west and north respectively and the Susquehanna River and LancasterCounty to the east. Northeast of the River lies Dauphin County and the southern border is theMason-Dixon line which forms the border with Maryland and its northernmost counties of Carroll,Baltimore and Harford. York County is approximately 911 square miles or 583,040 acres and iscomprised of 72 municipalities; 35 townships, 36 boroughs and one (1) city.

Natural Features

York County's mid-latitudinal locale has a humidcontinental climate that allows for all four (4)seasons.The County is rich in its natural features, not the leastof which is the quality of the soil which permits anagricultural industry to flourish, with an averagegrowing season of 162 days. Over half the County iscomprised of prime agricultural soils.

Almost 35% of the total land area is forested. YorkCounty is also home to many other natural areas,including parks and caves. For more information,please refer to the Natural Areas Inventory,Environmental Resources Inventory and the YorkCounty Open Space and Greenways Plancomponents of the York County ComprehensivePlan.

The section of the Susquehanna River that bordersYork County extends 54 miles and includes four (4)lakes formed from impounding dams. The DEPGazetteer of Streams identifies over 100 streams inYork County.

Location: south-central Pennsylvania

Date of Incorporation: 1749

Form of Government: Elected Board of

Commissioners

County Seat: City of York

Size: 911 square miles/583,040 acres

2007 Population estimate: 421,049

Municipalities: 35 townships, 36

boroughs, 1 city

Top Employers*:

York Hospital

Harley Davidson Motor Company

County of York

Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Giant Food Stores LLC

Kinsley Construction

BAE Systems

Utz Quality Foods, Inc.

Hanover General Hospital

RH Sheppard, Inc.

Natural Setting: Lower Susquehanna and

Upper Chesapeake basins

Climate: Average annual temperature

52.8 o

Average precipitation is ˜ 40 in./yr.

*2nd quarter, 2006

Source: PA Department of Labor and Industry, Center for

W orkforce Information and Analysis

Facts about York County

Growth Trends

6 Background

History

York County was incorporated in 1749 after it was officially separated from Lancaster County. TheCounty's history, however, precedes its official incorporation. Prior to European settlement, NativeAmericans inhabited the lands that would become York County. The most predominant tribe wasthe Susquehannocks. The first prominent Europeansettlers were the Quakers, led by William Penn. Namedafter Yorkshire, England, York City was first surveyedin 1741. Eight (8) years later, York County was officiallycreated out of Lancaster County, becomingPennsylvania's fifth County.

York County played a role in the Revolutionary War.The Continental Congress convened in York Countyfrom September 1777 to June 1778 with the mostsignificant business being the drafting of the Articles ofConfederation. The first Civil War battle in Pennsylvaniawas fought in Hanover, York County, in 1863. Theagricultural economy of the County continued, but theadvent of railroads and canals allowed industry toflourish. Highway improvements spurred residentialsuburbanization and fostered economic development.

Government

Local government in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is comprised of 5,792 individual units(cities, counties, boroughs, townships, authorities, etc.) This section briefly outlines localgovernment in York County.

York County is a Third Class Pennsylvania County, based upon a population of 381,751 (2000 USCensus). This falls within the range of between 210,000-499,999 residents or the classification ofThird Class County as prescribed in the Pennsylvania State Legislature. The York County Boardof Commissioners serves as the elected administrators and governing body of York County. Five(5) members of the PA State Senate and seven (7) representatives of the PA House ofRepresentatives are elected to provide York County’s representation.

The County of York contains only one (1) city, the City of York, which serves as the County seat.The City of York is just one of the 72 municipalities that comprise York County, each with its ownlocal municipal government.

• York City uses the mayor-council form of governance with a ‘strong mayor’ wherein theelected mayor is chief executive of the City, enforcing council ordinances, supervising Citydepartments and submitting annual budgets to the City Council.

Manufacturing Companiesestablished in York County

1864 - PH Glatfelter Paper1874 - York Manufacturing Co.

(now York International)1899 - Dentsply1900 - Stauffer Biscuit Company1901 - Maple Press1903 - Hanover Wire Cloth1909 - Snyders of Hanover1915 - Pfaltzgraff1920's - Yorktowne Cabinetry1924 - Hanover Foods1932 - York Barbell1936 - Utz Potato Chips

Growth Trends

Background 7

• Boroughs employ the mayor-council form of governance with a 'weak mayor.' The electedcouncil is the dominant governing body that works with the mayor and other electedofficers. Borough councils have broad and comprehensive powers, covering nearly the entirerange of urban municipal functions. There are 36 boroughs in York County.

• Townships fall into two (2) classes: 1st class and 2nd class, with the determination made bypopulation density. There are three (3) first-class townships in York County - Penn, SpringGarden and York Townships. All have population densities greater than 300 persons persquare mile. Townships are typically governed by a council-manager form of governmentwith an elected body of three (3) or five (5) supervisors who serve six (6) year terms. Thereare 35 townships in York County.

Additional forms of local government include the County's 16 school districts and other authoritiesthat serve a particular public purpose. Please refer to the 2008 York County Directory of PublicOfficials (prepared by the York County Planning Commission) for a full listing of municipalofficials and public authorities that serve York County. The full Directory is available atwww.ycpc.org.

The appendix of this report (Fast Facts) also provides some general information about eachmunicipality.

http://www.ycpc.org.

Population Trends 9

Chapter IIIPopulation Trends

Introduction

Demographic analyses are important in order to provide a basis for predicting future growth needsand estimating residential and non-residential land use requirements. An understanding of historicand existing population conditions provides the background for future population projections.Sound population projections then render predictions of the future need for housing, communityfacilities, infrastructure, and other types of services and development, the details of which will bethe subject of subsequent chapters.

This chapter puts York County and its population growth into the context of the region byconsidering population trends in adjoining counties and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as awhole. The analysis continues with a more focused look at population; i.e., the growth and changesof the population of the County's municipalities. Population change is reported as percent changeand numeric change and that can present different pictures.

This chapter continues by examining York County's population in detail; looking at total populationof York County, as well as various aspects within the total population. Total population growth,as well as trends, regarding gender, age groups, racial and ethnic identification, and householdcomposition will be examined. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the County's populationdistribution, municipal population change and population density.

A key source of information for this report is the United States Census Bureau. The data comes fromeither the decennial Census (1990 and 2000) or the American Community Survey (2005). Fromthis point forward, the United States Census Bureau will be referred to simply as “the Census.”

York County's Population

As reported by the Census 2000, the population of York County was 381,751. This is an increaseof 42,177 from the decennial census of 1990 and is demonstrative of the increases in populationYork County has experienced over the last 100 years (see Figure 1).

While the total population of York County has increased at varying rates from decade to decade,the average growth per decade is 12.7%. The greatest spike in total population was the 18.1%increase between 1920 and 1930, while the decade prior indicated the smallest increase, just 3.8%between 1910-1920.

Per the Census, the estimated 2007 population of York County is 421,049. This represents anincrease of 10.3% from the Census 2000 figure (381,751).

Growth Trends

Population Trends10

Regional Population

It is beneficial to put York County's population growth into the context of the region. Comparativedata from the Census allows some analysis of the recent population trends in the communities thatsurround York County. For ease of review, the following table (Table 1: Population PercentChange, 1990-2007, York County and Surrounding Counties) is provided.

Source: US Census Bureau

*2006 estimate for York County

Average growth per decade = 12.7%

Growth Trends

Population Trends 11

Table 1: Population Percent Change, 1990-2007

York County and Surrounding Counties

1990 2007 Population

Change

York County, PA 339,574 421,049 24%

Adams County, PA 78,274 100,779 29%

Cumberland County, PA 195,257 228,019 17%

Dauphin County, PA 237,813 255,710 8%

Lancaster County, PA 422,822 498,465 18%

Baltimore County, MD 692,134 788,994 14%

Carroll County, MD 123,372 169,220 37%

Harford County, MD 182,132 239,993 32%


In the region, the county that has experienced the greatest percent increase in population between1990 and 2007 is Carroll County, Maryland, with a population increase of 37%. Among thePennsylvania counties included in this analysis, York County’s growth (24%) was second to AdamsCounty (29%)in total population percent change for the same period.

A recent research brief from the PA State Data Center reports that Pike County is the fastestgrowing county, by percent increase, in the Commonwealth, followed by Carbon, York and ChesterCounties. For the period 2006-2007, York County was the second fastest growing county inPennsylvania, just behind Chester County, in numeric increase. The PA State Data Center alsoreports that, based on estimates, York County was the eighth (8th) most populous county in theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is also informative to look at York County's population growthrelative to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Table 2, Percent Population Growth - County andState, provides historical data regardingpopulation percent change over the last 50 years.York County and the State of Pennsylvania bothhad their highest rates of growth between 1950and 1960 with 17.6% and 7.8% increases,respectively.

Between 1970 and 1990, the State ofPennsylvania had less than 1% growth whileYork County had significant growth.

Table 2: Percent Population Growth -

County and State

York County Pennsylvania

1950-1960 17.6% 7.8%

1960-1970 14.4% 4.2%

1970-1980 14.8% 0.6%

1980-1990 8.5% 0.1%

1990-2000 12.4% 3.4%

2000-2007 10.3% 1.2%


Growth Trends

Population Trends12

Where did they come from?Where did they go?

Interestingly, the answers to both ofthose questions have similar responses...

York County Inflow, 1995-2000 – TOP 5

Cumberland County, PA 4,430

Baltimore County, MD 3,985

Adams County, PA 3,882

Lancaster County, PA 2,868

Dauphin County, PA 2,716

York County Outflow, 1995-2000 – TOP 5

Adams County, PA 4,323

Cumberland County, PA 3,937

Lancaster County, PA 2,345

Dauphin County, PA 1,764

Baltimore County, MD 1,126


Migration

Population change is affected by many factors, notthe least of which is migration. It is useful to beginwith some common migration terms, provided bythe Census.

• Migration is defined for this report as movesthat crossed a county boundary.

• In-migration is a migration into an area duringa given period. A migration inflow is anin-migration to a particular area, in this caseYork County.

• Out-migration is a migration out of an areaduring a given period. A migration outflow isout-migration from a particular area, againYork County.

• Gross migration is the sum of in-migrationand out-migration, or inflow plus outflow, foran area for a particular period. Gross migrationis the total amount of movement in and out ofan area.

• Net Migration or net flow is the differencebetween in-migration and out-migration, orinflow and outflow, for a particular time. Apositive net indicates more migrants entered anarea than left. A negative net reveals that moreleft the area than entered it.

Both inflow and outflow migration is tracked at five (5) year intervals by the Census. The dataused for this report is from 1995 and 2000 (which is the most recent available from the US CensusBureau). Using this data, York County’s gross and net migrations are calculated.

This shows that 92,695 persons moved either into or out of York County. The positive net migrationfigure indicates that more people moved into York County than left it, during that same period.

Looking at total population estimates for 1995 and 2000, the Census Bureau reports that YorkCounty’s population increased by 17,081 between the 1995 estimate and the 2000 Census. Duringthat time period, net migration accounted for about 53% of the County’s growth.

Migration flows of York County

To determine the gross migration 1995-2000:

gross migration = (inflow) + (outflow)

York County’s gross migration = 92,695

To determine the net migration 1995-2000:

net migration = (inflow) - (outflow)

York County’s net migration = 9,107

Growth Trends



York County’s Population – The Sum of its Parts

It has been established that York County has experienced historical population growth ofapproximately 13% per decade and that the net migration shows that more people have moved intothe County than have left it. This section focuses on some of the many facets of the County'spopulation that together form the populous of York County, including gender, age distribution, race,ancestry, Hispanic/Latino, and households.

� GenderAccording to the 2000 US Census, York County's population was almost evenly split with 49.2%male and 50.8% female. This differs little from the 1990 figures (48.9% male and 51.1% female).

� Age DistributionThere are many ways in which the total population can be analyzed in terms of age. To begin, theage distribution of the total population is presented (see Figure 2: Age Distribution - York County,2000).

Growth Trends

Population Trends14

As shown on Figure 2 (Age Distribution in York County, 2000), the age range with the highestnumber is the 35-44 year range. Per the 2000 United States Census, that age group accounted for17% of the total population. That is followed by the ranges closest to it (25-34 and 45-54),concluding that almost 45% of York County's population is 25-54 years of age.

Examining the age distribution of the population of York County has utility on several levels,examples of which are listed below:

• Consideration of the population age 18years and older can point to the potentialworkforce of the County.

• Examination of the numbers of childrenunder the age of five (5), as well as thosebetween the ages of five (5) years and 18years, can be helpful to the planningefforts of school districts.

• Review of trends indicates that the"greying" of York County maynecessitate a closer look at services thatcould better serve the growing agingpopulation in the County.

• The evaluation of the local housingmarket can help to determine if it is ableto accommodate the needs of residentsof all ages.

Comparisons - 1990 to 2000: AgeIt is also interesting to compare data from the 1990 and 2000 United States Census. As shown inFigure 3: Age of the Population, 1990 and 2000, relatively little change occurred across age groupsas a percentage of total population; each category demonstrates a change of only +1%.

• The "school-age" population (5-17 years) increased the most from 1990-2000, by 1.3%, whilethe number of children not yet in school (under age 5) decreased by 0.9%.

• The largest segment of each "pie"(ages 18-59) is what might be considered the "workforce," orthe demographic most likely working. In both 1990 and 2000, this group represented over halfof the total population.

• The total number of persons age 85 years and older increased slightly (0.3%) between 1990 and2000.

The median age is 37.8 years. This is below the

State’s median age of 38.0 years and above the

national median age of 35.3 years.

In 2006, the oldest of the “baby boomers” turned 60

years old.

Population over the age of 65:

York County. . . . . . . . 13.5%

Pennsylvania.. . . . . . . 15.6%

United States.. . . . . . . 12.4%

The percentage of York County’s total population

over the age of 75 years increased from 5.4% in

1990 to 6.4% in 2000. During that same period, the

percentage of the total population under the age of

5 decreased from 7% in1990 to 6.1% in the 2000

Census.


Age Facts . . . York County

Growth Trends


� RaceAnother interesting facet of the total population to examine is racial distribution. As defined by theCensus, race is a "self-identification data item in which respondents indicate the race or races withwhich they most closely identify." The Census includes the following categories in its datacollection regarding race: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native,Asian (Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Other Asian), NativeHawaiian and other Pacific Islander (Native Hawaiian, Guamanian or Charmorro, Samoan, OtherPacific Islander) and Some Other Race. Respondents are also asked to identify themselves as "one(1) race" or as "two (2) or more races."

In the 2000 Census, 98.9% of the York County respondents self-identified as being of one (1) raceand only 1.1% as being of two (2) or more races. Figure 4 (York County Racial Distribution, 2000),shows the racial distribution of the County's population, as recorded in 2000. As noted, only datafor the respondents that identified as "one race" are shown. Only 1.1% of the respondents in the2000 Census identified as “two or more races.”


Growth Trends

Population Trends16

Discussions of population diversity, however, are not limited to race. The Census also collectscomprehensive data regarding ancestral and Hispanic origins.

� AncestryAs discussed in the introduction, subsequent to the NativeAmerican settlement, European settlers made their homein York County. The earliest immigrants were primarilyEnglish, German, Irish and Scotch.

The decennial Census contains data elements related toancestry. As defined, ancestry "refers to a person'sself-identification of heritage, ethnic origin, descent orclose identification to an ethnic group." Per the 2000Census, 99.2% of York County respondents indicatedeither single or multiple ancestries. Data shows that of the71 total specified ancestries categorized by the Census,York County responses were tallied in 64 ancestries,including "other groups."


Per the 2000 US Census*, in York

County, the ancestral groups with

10,000+ respondents are:

German. . . . . . . . . . . . 147,248Irish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,958US or American. . . . . . . 36,408Other Groups.. . . . . . . . 34,902English.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,031Italian.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,666Polish.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,095

*Total population w ith ancestry specified is

378,747.

Ancestry


Growth Trends


� Hispanic or LatinoThere was a change to the United States Census in 2000 regarding the revision of the questions onrace and Hispanic/Latino origin. Race and Hispanic/Latino origin are now considered to be two (2)separate and distinct concepts, meaning that Hispanics can be of any race. As defined by theCensus, Hispanic is "person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American or otherSpanish culture or origin, regardless of race."

Table 3: Hispanic/Latino, York County, 2000

number percent

Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 11,296 3%

Mexican 1,678 0.4%

Puerto Rican 6,874 1.8%

Cuban 240 0.1%

Other Hispanic or Latino 2,504 0.7%

Not Hispanic or Latino 370,455 97%

TOTAL 381,751 100% Source: US Census Bureau

As shown in Table 3, the decennial census for 2000 reports about three percent (3%) of the County'spopulation as Hispanic or Latino. Comparison to 1990 is not possible, due to the change to the USCensus noted above.

Comparisons - 1990 to 2000: Race, Ancestry, and Hispanic OriginDue to changes in the way that Census 2000 was conducted, straight comparisons between 1990and 2000 are not possible in the areas of race, ancestry and Hispanic origin.

• The 1990 Census categories for race were “White;” “Black;” “American Indian, Eskimo orAleut;” “Asian or Pacific Islander;” and “Some Other Race.” Of the total population of339,574 persons in 1990, 95.2% were White; 3.3% Black; 0.12% American Indian, Eskimo orAleut and 0.6% Asian or Pacific Islander (in the 2000 Census, Asian and Native Hawaiian orPacific Islander are two (2) separate categories under Race).- Of the race categories that can be compared easily between 1990 and 2000, those

identifying themselves as “White” decreased from 1990-2000 (95.2% to 93.8%) whilethose identifying themselves as “Black” increased (3.2% to 3.7%) over the same period.

• The 1990 Census also differed from Census 2000 in the area of Ancestry. Respondents to the1990 Census were asked to indicate their first, second and third ancestries, while in 2000 theywere asked for one ancestry. Consequently, there is significant variation in the ability tocompare 1990 data with Census 2000 data related to ancestry.

• Hispanic Origin status, too, was collected differently in 1990. It was included in the “Ancestry”question set. Census 2000, as explained previously, introduced a different way to collectinformation related to a respondent’s Hispanic or Latino status.

Growth Trends

Population Trends18

� HouseholdsPer the Census, a household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual placeof residence. In 2000, there were 148,219 households in York County. Household data can be usedin many practical ways. Household composition is helpful when planning for schools, seniorcenters, and child care providers. Average household size is important when completing build-outanalyses.

Highlights of the2000 household data include:

• 71.2% of the total households were family households (householder's own children werepresent, married couple, female head of household).

• The average household size was 2.52 persons. • 34.9% of the households included individuals under the age of 18 years.• 23.6% of the households included individuals age 65 years and over.

Interesting facets of the household discussion include the numbers of female-headed households andsingle person households. In 2000, there were 13,410 female-headed households in York County,accounting for 9% of the total households. This represents an increase from 1990 when 8.3% or10,755 of the households reported were female-headed.

It is also interesting to elaborate on the changes in average household size. In 2000, the averagehousehold size was 2.52 persons. This is a decrease from 1990 (2.60 persons). Looking back further,in 1980 it was 2.76 persons per household. The 1970 Census reported an average household sizeover three (3) persons with 3.06 persons. This was a decrease from 3.32 persons in 1960 and 3.37persons in 1950.

The total number of single person households increased slightly more between 1990 and 2000. In2000, 23.3% of the total households (34,572) were single person, while in 1990, there were 27,477(21.3%) single person households.

Municipalities

The section continues the discussion of York County's population using "the sum of its parts" themeby looking at population changes within the County's 72 municipalities. Discussions of populationestimates, densities and distribution are included. Complete information is found in the appendix.

2007 Population EstimatesPer the 2000 United States Census, the total population of York County was 381,751. The 2007County estimate from the Census indicates that York County's total population now exceeds400,000, with a total estimated population of 421,049.

Growth Trends


The most current municipal-level estimatesare from July 2007. Table 4 shows themunicipalities with the highest populations,according to the Census's most recentestimates (2007). The table lists theCounty's municipalities with a totalpopulation greater than 10,000 residents.

Additional analysis of the 2007 estimatedata allows for a more detailed look ataspects of the population changes at themunicipal level. In particular, this reportexamines most significant changes inpopulation around the County including thefastest growing municipalities, thosemunicipalities that are losing population,and municipal population densities.

Population Gains and LossesThe basis of this discussion is the percentchange from the 1990 Census to the 2007population estimates. Per these calculations,the municipality that tops the list, with a123% change in population from 1990 to2007 is Manchester Township. Located justnorth of York City, the estimated population(2007) of Manchester Township is 16,772. This is a significant increase over the 1990 populationof 7,517 residents. Conversely, the municipality that experienced the greatest decrease in populationis Jacobus Borough. Jacobus' population decreased almost 13% from 1990 to 2007 (1,370 residentsto 1,194 residents).

Following Manchester Township and rounding out the list of the top ten (10) fastest growingmunicipalities, in terms of population percent increase from 1990 to 2007, are:

Boroughs Townships

Goldsboro Borough (108.6%) Manchester Township (123.1%)

Hallam Borough (104.8%) East Manchester Township (89.5%)

Cross Roads Borough (71.4%) Hopewell Township (82.8%)

Stewartstown Borough (53.1%) Windsor Township (71.7%)

Franklintown Borough (48.8%) Carroll Township (71.5%)

Table 4: Municipalities with > 10,000 Residents,

2007

Municipality Population

York City 40,226

York Township 26,890

Springettsbury Township 24,732

Dover Township 20,766

West Manchester Township 18,234

Manchester Township 16,772

Fairview Township 16,589

Windsor Township 16,178

Penn Township 15,810

Newberry Township 15,427

Hanover Borough 14,945

Spring Garden Township 12,046

Growth Trends

Population Trends20

Municipalities that have lost population (at least 5%) over the same period, 1990-2007, include thefollowing: Delta Borough (-5.3%) Wrightsville Borough (-6.5%); Winterstown Borough (-7.6%),Wellsville Borough (-9.5%) and Jacobus Borough (-12.8%).

Recent population change in the County is visually depicted on Map 1: Percent Population Changeby Municipality, 2000-2007. As shown on the map, the darker the color, the higher the percentageof population change. The southernmost municipalities, with the exception of Delta Borough, haveall had population increased between 2000 and 2007. Codorus Township had the lowest percentchange of those townships bordering Maryland (<5%) and West Manheim the highest, with apercentage increase of greater than 20%. The northern tier of townships had population increasesbetween 10% and 20% with the exception of Franklin Township whose increase was in the 5% to10% range.

In summary, generally speaking, over one-half of York County's municipalities (45) experiencedpopulation increases of more than 10% from 1990-2007. During that same period, 23 municipalitieshad percent increases over 30%. None of the County's townships experienced a loss in populationin that period, however the City and several boroughs have experienced losses.

� Population DistributionYork County's total population increases over the yearsare evidenced by the local gains and losses in population,as shown on Map 1. As indicated in the previous section,12 municipalities have over 10,000 residents (based upon2007 population estimates) and of those, four (4) havepopulations over 20,000. Per the 1990 United StatesCensus, ten (10) York County municipalities hadpopulations greater than 10,000 persons.

Although there remains concentrated areas of growth inthe County, there is also a continuing trend of dispersalinto the County's rural townships. This is best shown onMap 2: Population Distribution by Municipality. Whilethe County’s center comprised of York City and thesurrounding townships have the greatest population (asshown by the darkest color on the map), the northerntownships of Newberry and Fairview plus thesouthwestern municipalities of Penn Township andHanover Borough also have populations greater than12,000. The lowest population range consists entirely ofboroughs, most of which are located in the rural areas ofthe County.

• Lower Windsor Township

experienced a 591% increase in

population between 1980-1990.

• The fastest growing township,

1990-2007, was Manchester

Township with a population

increase of 123.1%. Charting the

Township’s population change

over the years shows:

1970-1980 = 9.4% increase

1980-1990 = 1.6% decrease

• Goldsboro Borough, with a

recent population increase of

108.6% (1990-2007) actually

experienced population losses

from 1970-1980 and 1980-1990.

• York City is the only municipality

to lose population 1970-1980,

1980-1990, 1990-2000 and 2000-

2007.

Population Tidbits


MONAGHAN

FAIRVIEW

NEWBERRYCARROLL

FRANKLIN

WARRINGTONCONEWAGO

DOVER

PARADISE

MANHEIM

CODORUS

EAST

SPRINGETTSBURY

YORK

SPRINGFIELD

SHREWSBURY

HOPEWELL FAWN

PEACH BOTTOM

EAST HOPEWELL

WEST MANHEIM

PENN

HEIDELBERG

NORTH CODORUS

JACKSON

MANCHESTERWEST GARDEN

MANCHESTERWASHINGTON

MANCHESTER

SPRING

HELLAM

WINDSOR

LOWER WINDSOR

CHANCEFORD

LOWER CHANCEFORDHOPEWELLNORTH

DILLSBURG

FRANKLINTOWN

WELLSVILLE

DOVER

LEWISBERRY

GOLDSBORO

HAVENYORK

MANCHESTERMOUNTWOLF

HALLAM

WRIGHTSVILLE

YORKANA PROSPECTEASTYORKNORTH

YORKWEST YORK CITY

JEFFERSON

GROVE

NEW SALEM

LOGANVILLE

JACOBUS

VALLEYSSEVEN

SPRING

WINDSOR

RED LION

YOE

DALLASTOWN

CROSSROADS

ROCKGLEN

SHREWSBURY

RAILROAD

FREEDOMNEW

STEWARTSTOWN

DELTAGROVEFAWN

HANOVER

WINTERSTOWN

FELTON

Cumberla

nd

C

ounty

Carroll County, MD Baltimore County, MD

Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County

Harford County, MD

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

¯

The York County Planning Commission provides this Geographic Information System map and/or data (collectively the "Data") as a public

information service. The Data is not a legally recorded plan, survey, official tax map,or engineering schematic and should be used for only general information.

Reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the Data is correct; however the Commission does not guarantee its accuracy,

completeness, or timeliness. The Commission shall not be liable for anydamages that may arise from the use of the Data."

C:\GIS_Projects\Planner_projects\Anne\Pop_Projections\Pop_PerChange_00_07.mxd JS

Date: 09/16/08Source: US Census Bureau

Legend:

Percent Population Change Per Municipality (2000 to 2007)

County BoundarySusquehanna River

Greater than +20.00%

-3.00% - 0.00%+0.01% - +5.00%+5.01% - +10.00%+10.01% - +20.00%

Percent Population Change by Municipality (2000 to 2007)

MAP 1

MONAGHAN

FAIRVIEW

NEWBERRYCARROLL

FRANKLINWARRINGTON

CONEWAGO

DOVER

PARADISE

MANHEIM

CODORUS

EAST

SPRINGETTSBURY

YORK

SPRINGFIELD

SHREWSBURY

HOPEWELL FAWN

PEACH BOTTOM

EAST HOPEWELL

WEST MANHEIM

PENN

HEIDELBERG

NORTH CODORUS

JACKSON



MANCHESTER

SPRING

HELLAM

WINDSOR

LOWER WINDSOR

CHANCEFORD


DILLSBURG

FRANKLINTOWN

WELLSVILLE

DOVER

LEWISBERRY

GOLDSBORO

HAVENYORK

MANCHESTERMOUNTWOLF

HALLAM

WRIGHTSVILLE


YORKWEST YORK CITY

JEFFERSON

GROVE

NEW SALEM

LOGANVILLE

JACOBUS

VALLEYSSEVEN

SPRING

WINDSOR

RED LION

YOE

DALLASTOWN

CROSSROADS

ROCKGLEN

SHREWSBURY

RAILROAD

FREEDOMNEW

STEWARTSTOWN

DELTAGROVEFAWN

HANOVER

WINTERSTOWN

FELTON

Cumberla

nd

C

ounty


Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County

Harford County, MD

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

¯






JSC:\GIS_Projects\Planner_projects\Anne\Pop_Projections\Pop_Distribution.mxd

Legend:

Population Distribution Per Municipality(2007)

County BoundarySusquehanna River

0 - 1,5001,501 - 3,0003,001 - 6,0006,001 - 12,000Greater then 12,000

Population Distribution by Municipality (2007)

MAP 2

Growth Trends


As a percentage of the total York County population,York City's numbers have steadily declinedfrom 18.5% in 1970 to 12.4% in 1990 to about 9.5% of the total County population in 2007.

Population within the County's boroughs has also decreased from about 22% in 1970 to about 20%in 1990 to just over 18% in 2007. Conversely, population in the County's townships has increasedfrom approximately 59% in 1970 to approximately 69% in 1990 to about 72% in 2007.

� Population DensityClosely related to population distribution ispopulation density. Defined by the Census as "thetotal population or number of housing units withina geographic entity divided by the land area ofthat entity measured in square kilometers orsquare miles," an understanding of densityvariations throughout the County is important forplanning purposes. Population density is a factor toconsider when planning for the economicfeasibility of utilities and other public facilities andservices. Figure 5 presents the County’spopulation density from 1970-2007.

Considering York County as a whole, the County'spopulation density in 2000 was 422 persons persquare mile, ranking 13th in Pennsylvania for county population density. Looking at the 2007population density figures for adjacent counties in Pennsylvania, Lancaster County's was 507persons per square mile; Dauphin County was 458; Cumberland County is 414; and Adams Countywas 193 persons per square mile. Maryland Counties bordering to our south show BaltimoreCounty with a population density of 1,142; Harford County with 455 and Carroll County with 374persons per square mile.

Map 3 (Population Density by Municipality, 2007) highlights the variation in densities among themunicipalities in York County. As indicated on the legend, the darker the color, the denser thepopulation. That said, based on the 2007 estimates from the US Census Bureau, 29 municipalitiesin the County have population densities over 1,500 persons per square mile. The most denselypopulated municipality is West York Borough with 8,642 residents per square mile. LowerChanceford Township, the second largest municipality by area, has the lowest population densityin the County with only 70 persons per square mile. Most of the County’s boroughs and the Cityof York, not surprisingly, have higher densities that the townships. As shown, the most denselypopulated area of the County is the central core including the City and surrounding areas.

Map 4 (Population Density Change by Municipality, 2000-2007) illustrates the percentage densitychanges from 2000 to 2007 for all York County municipalities. Again, all the municipalities alongYork County’s southern border (with the exception of Delta Borough, whose population density has

Source: US Census Bureau *2007 US Census Estimate

MONAGHAN

FAIRVIEW

NEWBERRYCARROLL

FRANKLIN

WARRINGTONCONEWAGO

DOVER

PARADISE

MANHEIM

CODORUS

EAST

SPRINGETTSBURY

YORK

SPRINGFIELD

SHREWSBURY

HOPEWELL FAWN

PEACH BOTTOM

EAST HOPEWELL

WEST MANHEIM

PENN

HEIDELBERG

NORTH CODORUS

JACKSON



MANCHESTER

SPRING

HELLAM

WINDSOR

LOWER WINDSOR

CHANCEFORD


DILLSBURG

FRANKLINTOWN

WELLSVILLE

DOVER

LEWISBERRY

GOLDSBORO

HAVENYORK

MANCHESTERMOUNTWOLF

HALLAM

WRIGHTSVILLE


YORKWEST YORK CITY

JEFFERSON

GROVE

NEW SALEM

LOGANVILLE

JACOBUS

VALLEYSSEVEN

SPRING

WINDSOR

RED LION

YOE

DALLASTOWN

CROSSROADS

ROCKGLEN

SHREWSBURY

RAILROAD

FREEDOMNEW

STEWARTSTOWN

DELTAGROVEFAWN

HANOVER

WINTERSTOWN

FELTON

Cumberla

nd

C

ounty


Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County

Harford County, MD

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

¯





C:\GIS_Projects\Planner_projects\Anne\Pop_Projections\Pop_Density_07.mxd JS


Legend: County BoundarySusquehanna River

Population Density Per Municipality (Persons per Square Mile)

0 - 200201 - 500501 - 15001501 - 2500Greater than 2500

Population Density byMunicipality (2007)

MAP 3

Cumberlan

d

County


Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County

Harford County, MD

MONAGHAN

FAIRVIEW

NEWBERRYCARROLL

FRANKLINWARRINGTON

CONEWAGO

DOVER

PARADISE

MANHEIM

CODORUS

EAST

SPRINGETTSBURY

YORK

SPRINGFIELD

SHREWSBURY

HOPEWELL FAWN

PEACH BOTTOM

EAST HOPEWELL

WEST MANHEIM

PENN

HEIDELBERG

NORTH CODORUS

JACKSON



MANCHESTER

SPRING

HELLAM

WINDSOR

LOWER WINDSOR

CHANCEFORD


DILLSBURG

FRANKLINTOWN

WELLSVILLE

DOVER

LEWISBERRY

GOLDSBORO

HAVENYORK

MANCHESTERMOUNTWOLF

HALLAM

WRIGHTSVILLE

YORKANA PROSPECTEASTYORK

NORTH

YORKWEST YORK CITY

JEFFERSON

GROVE

NEW SALEM

LOGANVILLE

JACOBUS

VALLEYSSEVEN

SPRING

WINDSOR

RED LION

YOE

DALLASTOWN

CROSSROADS

ROCKGLEN

SHREWSBURY

RAILROAD

FREEDOMNEW

STEWARTSTOWN

DELTAGROVEFAWN

HANOVER

WINTERSTOWN

FELTON

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

¯The York County Planning Commission provides this Geographic

Information System map and/or data (collectively the "Data") as a public information service. The Data is not a legally recorded plan, survey, official tax map,

or engineering schematic and should be used for only general information.Reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the Data is correct;

however the Commission does not guarantee its accuracy,completeness, or timeliness. The Commission shall not be liable for any

damages that may arise from the use of the Data."


JSC:\GIS_Projects\Planner_projects\Anne\Pop_Projections\Pop_Density_00_07.mxd

Legend: County Boundary

Susquehanna RiverPercent Population Density Change Per Municipality (Persons per sq mi.)

-3.00% - 0.00%+0.01% - +5.00%+5.01% - +10.00%+10.01% - +20.00%Greater than +20.00%

MAP 4Percent Population Density

Change by Municipality (2000 to 2007)

Growth Trends

Population Trends26

decreased) had increased population resulting in increased population density. In addition to DeltaBorough, York City and several of the other boroughs had a negative change in population densitybetween 2000 and 2007.

Summary

This chapter examined the population trends of York County, looking at the County individually,as well as within the context of the region. As presented, York County's population percentincrease in the region is higher than adjacent counties in Pennsylvania and Maryland, with theexception of Adams County (PA) and Carroll and Harford Counties (MD). York County alsoconsistently exceeds the growth rate of the State of Pennsylvania as a whole.

Racial, ethnic and age characteristics were reviewed and trends in those areas have not significantlychanged from 1990 to 2000. It is interesting to note that the County's net migration exceeded 9,000persons, which will be a trend to track in the future.

The municipal population discussion included the issues of population distribution and populationdensity. Considering York County was the second fastest growing county in Pennsylvania in 2006-2007, the population gains and losses by its municipalities between 1990 and 2007 demonstratedsome trends of note. Subsequent chapters of this report will address housing, income and otherrelated and interesting trends.

Housing Trends 27

Chapter IVHousing Trends

Introduction

This chapter will address the housing trends experienced in York County over the past years,including the number of housing units, housing occupancy (both rates of occupancy and owner-versus renter-occupied), housing values andselling prices, as well as rental costs. Thechapter continues with a discussion of majorresidential subdivisions. The current tax ratesare also reviewed.

The previous chapter examined multipleaspects of population growth. Withoutquestion, York County's total population hasincreased and, undoubtedly, will continue torise. That said, the housing market mustcontinue to adapt to meet the ever changingneeds of the population.

A major source of data consulted in this reportis the US Census Bureau. Information fromboth the decennial Census (1990 and 2000) andthe American Community Survey (2005), bothconducted by the US Census Bureau, isincorporated.

The first section of this chapter containsinformation from the decennial Census. Thechapter continues with relevant housinginformation from other sources, includinghousing costs and value, subdivision activity,building permit data and tax rate information.

Census 2000 and Housing - YorkCounty Data

This section summarizes some of the housingcharacteristics of York County as reported inCensus 2000. The source of this data was theCensus "long form." Approximately one (1) insix (6) households received the long form in the2000 Census. Examination of Census dataprovides a good foundation for the discussionof housing issues in York County. Housing

In 2000, there were 156,720 housing units in York

County with a 5.4% vacancy rate.

Per Census 2000, the municipalities with greater

than 5,000 housing units were:

York City.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,534

York Township. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,258

Springettsbury Township. . . . . . . . 9,483

West Manchester Township. . . . . 7,417

Dover Township.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,217

Hanover Borough. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,982

Fairview Township. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,788

Newberry Township. . . . . . . . . . . . 5,706

Penn Township. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,643

Manchester Township. . . . . . . . . . 5,122

Windsor Township. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,084

76% of the housing units in York County were

owner occupied.

The average number of persons per household

was 2.53 persons.

Median Gross Rent = $531/month

Almost ¼ of the total housing units were

constructed prior to 1940.

York County had 148,219 total occupied housing

units.

The average selling price for a home in 2000 was

$180,856.

York County Millage Rate (2006) = 3.91

Per the Realtors’ Association of York and Adams

Counties (RAYAC), 733 homes were sold in the

Dallastown School District in 2005.

Housing Quick Facts

Growth Trends

Housing Trends28

data is used widely in the areas of housing and community development, specifically whenconsidering the age of structures, housing tenure and cost.

H Housing Units and TenureAs defined by the Census, a housing unit is "a house, an apartment, a mobile home or trailer, agroup of rooms, or a single room occupied as separate living quarters, or if vacant, intended foroccupancy as separate living quarters." Per the 2000 Census, there were 156,720 total housingunits in York County. Of that total, 148,219 were occupied, indicating a 5.42% vacancy rate.Comparison to the 1990 Census reveals that the total number of housing units increased byapproximately 16% from 1990 to 2000 (slightly higher than the National growth rate of 13%). The1990 data shows a County vacancy rate of 4.5%.

Housing tenure refers to the distinction between owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units.The Census defines an owner-occupied unit as one in which the owner or co-owner lives, even ifit is not fully paid for or mortgaged. Per Census 2000, of the total 148,219 occupied units in YorkCounty, 76% were owner-occupied. Of the total 128,666 occupied housing units recorded in the1990 Census, 74% were owner-occupied.

Table 5 (Selected Census 2000 Housing Characteristics by Municipality) presents statisticalinformation from the 2000 Census. It is interesting to look at some of the statistics individually. Ofthe total 156,720 housing units in York County, York City has the most with 18,534 units (12% ofthe total) and Yorkana Borough the fewest (100 units). West Manheim Township had the highestrate of owner occupancy in the County at 90.8% and York City had the lowest at 40.7%. Thenumber of persons per household ranges from 2.16 (Hanover Borough) to 2.96 persons (CrossroadsBorough), with the County average of 2.58 persons.

Table 5: Selected Census 2000 Housing Characteristics by Municipality

Municipality

2000

Population

Total

Households

Persons per

Household

Total Housing

Units

% Owner-

Occupied

Carroll Township 4,715 1,686 2.76 1,733 85.7%

Chanceford Township 5,973 2,155 2.77 2,257 84.9%

Codorus Township 3,646 1,344 2.71 1,398 82.9%

Conewago Township 5,278 2,005 2.59 2,113 80.9%

Cross Roads Borough 518 175 2.96 185 81.1%

Dallastown Borough 4,087 1,622 2.36 1,707 54.7%

Delta Borough 741 285 2.60 324 58.3%

Dillsburg Borough 2,063 902 2.29 936 60.5%

Dover Borough 1,815 770 2.34 790 56.9%

Dover Township 18,074 6,999 2.55 7,217 82.4%

Growth Trends


Municipality

2000

Population

Total

Households

Persons per

Household

Total Housing

Units

% Owner-

Occupied

Housing Trends 29

East Hopewell Township 2,209 769 2.87 800 86.6%

East Manchester Township 5,078 1,926 2.64 1,986 88.8%

East Prospect Borough 678 258 2.63 272 77.2%

Fairview Township 14,321 5,480 2.59 5,788 80.7%

Fawn Township 2,727 957 2.85 994 83.8%

Fawn Grove Borough 463 182 2.54 198 69.7%

Felton Borough 449 173 2.60 182 84.6%

Franklin Township 4,515 1,704 2.65 1,769 78.4%

Franklintown Borough 532 211 2.52 222 60.8%

Glen Rock Borough 1,809 708 2.56 753 60.8%

Goldsboro Borough 939 333 2.82 365 76.7%

Hallam Borough 1,532 667 2.30 713 66.8%

Hanover Borough 14,535 6,605 2.16 6,982 52.5%

Heidelberg Township 2,970 1,082 2.74 1,104 86.2%

Hellam Township 5,930 2,395 2.46 2,538 77.2%

Hopewell Township 5,062 1,766 2.85 1,842 89.4%

Jackson Township 6,095 2,281 2.67 2,364 87.1%

Jacobus Borough 1,203 481 2.49 500 82.4%

Jefferson Borough 631 253 2.49 261 80.5%

Lewisberry Borough 385 146 2.64 150 65.3%

Loganville Borough 908 361 2.52 377 71.9%

Lower Chanceford Township 2,899 1,028 2.82 1,169 70.2%

Lower Windsor Township 7,405 2,791 2.65 3,057 79.2%

Manchester Borough 2,350 1,009 2.33 1,058 60.4%

Manchester Township 12,700 4,951 2.54 5,122 83.5%

Manheim Township 3,119 1,084 2.88 1,119 88.7%

Growth Trends


Municipality

2000

Population

Total

Households

Persons per

Household

Total Housing

Units

% Owner-

Occupied

Housing Trends30

Monaghan Township 2,132 807 2.64 881 78.7%

Mount Wolf Borough 1,373 548 2.44 570 71.9%

Newberry Township 14,332 5,399 2.65 5,706 84.0%

New Freedom Borough 3,512 1,296 2.70 1,340 86.2%

New Salem Borough 648 258 2.51 266 87.2%

North Codorus Township 7,915 2,924 2.69 2,987 86.6%

North Hopewell Township 2,507 942 2.66 984 87.4%

North York Borough 1,689 725 2.31 778 56.7%

Paradise Township 3,600 1,313 2.71 1,359 86.1%

Peach Bottom Township 4,412 1,528 2.87 1,852 72.3%

Penn Township 14,592 5,421 2.63 5,643 79.3%

Railroad Borough 300 112 2.68 116 56.9%

Red Lion Borough 6,149 2,575 2.37 2,729 57.7%

Seven Valleys Borough 492 188 2.62 204 67.7%

Shrewsbury Borough 3,378 1,330 2.54 1,367 75.8%

Shrewsbury Township 5,947 2,157 2.71 2,206 86.7%

Springettsbury Township 23,883 9,230 2.36 9,483 72.3%

Springfield Township 3,889 1,444 2.69 1,506 81.9%

Spring Garden Township 11,974 4,180 2.43 4,343 84.5%

Spring Grove Borough 2,050 817 2.51 848 57.7%

Stewartstown Borough 1,752 678 2.58 718 69.1%

Warrington Township 4,435 1,702 2.59 1,766 81.8%

Washington Township 2,460 890 2.76 941 80.9%

Wellsville Borough 279 118 2.36 124 62.1%

West Manchester Township 17,035 7,130 2.31 7,417 74.5%

West Manheim Township 4,865 1,710 2.84 1,745 90.8%

Growth Trends


Municipality

2000

Population

Total

Households

Persons per

Household

Total Housing

Units

% Owner-

Occupied

Housing Trends 31

West York Borough 4,321 1,897 2.28 2,010 58.5%

Windsor Borough 1,331 484 2.74 525 64.4%

Windsor Township 12,807 4,906 2.6 5,084 87.4%

Winterstown Borough 546 207 2.64 215 76.7%

Wrightsville Borough 2,223 955 2.33 1,009 69.2%

Yoe Borough 1,022 437 2.34 456 46.9%

York City 40,862 16,137 2.48 18,534 40.7%

York Township 23,637 9,857 2.34 10,258 67.4%

Yorkana Borough 239 95 2.52 100 69.0%

YORK COUNTY- total 381,751 148,219 2.58 156,720 72.0%Source: US Census Bureau

H Housing ValueValue, as defined by the Census, "is the respondent's estimate of how much the property (house andlot, mobile home and lot or condominium unit) would sell for if it were for sale." The medianhousing value in York County in 2005 was $140,000 This is a 76% increase over the medianhousing value for York County reported in the 1990 Census ($79,400).

As shown in Table 6, in the context of the region,York County's median housing value is above themedian housing value reported for DauphinCounty and below the median housing values forAdams, Cumberland and Lancaster Counties inPennsylvania and below the median values of theadjacent counties in Maryland (Baltimore, Carrolland Harford Counties).

The median housing value in York County isabove the State of Pennsylvania's median value of$131,900 and below the National median of$167,500. It is important to note that themedian housing value is based upon the valuethe homeowner assesses, not the selling price.The issues of housing values and actual costs willbe discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

Table 6: Regional Housing Values, 2005

York County, PA $140,000

Adams County, PA $157,200

Cumberland County, PA $153,200

Dauphin County, PA $129,200

Lancaster County, PA $158,700

Baltimore County, MD $215,500

Carroll County, MD $313,400

Harford County, MD $243,700

State of Pennsylvania $131,900

State of Maryland $280,200

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey

Growth Trends

Housing Trends32

H Median Gross Rent Median gross rent is another factor to consider in the discussion of housing. Per the 2005 AmericanCommunity Survey estimates (Census), the median gross rent for York County was $628. Thisrepresents a 54% increase from the median gross rent in 1990 ($409). The median gross rent for theState of Pennsylvania was $647 and both are below the national median gross rent of $728. Lookingat the region surrounding York County, the median gross rent values vary from $602 per month inAdams County, PA , to $855 in Baltimore County, MD.

H Units in StructureAs defined by the Census, "a structure is a separate building that has open spaces on all sides oris separated from other structures by dividing walls that extend from ground to roof. Indetermining the number of units in a structure, all housing units, both occupied and vacant, arecounted." Figure 6 presents Units in Structure for York County. This data, from the 2005American Community Survey, is the most current county-level data available from the US CensusBureau.

In 2005, there were 168,875housing units in York County.While the chart shows thediversity of housing types withinYork County, it is apparent thatsingle detached units comprisethe majority at 63.2% of the totalhousing units. About 5% of thetotal housing units are mobilehomes. 16% of the total housingunits are multifamily units(structures with more than onehousing unit).

H Year Structure BuiltThe Census also collects information regarding the year a structure was built. Later in this chapter,building permit data for new construction is discussed in greater detail. The data shown in Figure7 is based upon the total number of housing units in York County in the 2005 AmericanCommunity Survey, Census (168,875). It is interesting to note that almost one quarter of the totalhousing units were constructed in 1939 or prior.


Growth Trends

Housing Trends 33

H Year Householder Moved into UnitAnother interesting statisticis the year a householdermoved into a housing unit.This data provides anindication of the occupancyturnover and movementactivity. Data is based uponthe total number of occupiedhousing units in YorkCounty. As reported in the2005 American CommunitySurvey, there were 159,432occupied housing units.

As shown in Figure 8, thetime period 2000 or later hadthe most householdersmoving in - 68,491. Thisrepresents 43% of the totaloccupied housing units inYork County in 2005.



Growth Trends

Housing Trends34

H Percent Occupied Housing Units Where Householder Moved into the Unit, 1999-March2000

It is interesting to take a closer look at more recent figures. The following map (Map 5), shows thePercent of Occupied Housing Units Where Householder Moved into Unit between 1999 and March2000. Examining data relevant to the year the householder moved in, this map exhibits dataavailable from the US Census Bureau regarding the distribution of occupancy throughout theCounty.

This thematic map presents the most current municipal level data collected by the Census. Thedarker the shade of green, the higher the number of householders moving into housing units. YorkCity, Yoe Borough and Franklintown Borough are depicted in the darkest green, indicating thehighest percentage of householders moving in between 1999 and March 2000.

Housing in York County: Where is it? What does it cost?

Housing costs are variable and few would argue the dynamic nature of the housing market in recentyears. This section will look at housing market and development trends, locations, as well as,housing values and issues surrounding housing affordability, including the local tax rate structure.

Map 5: Percent of Occupied Housing Units Where Householder Moved in 1999-March 2000


Growth Trends

Housing Trends 35

Where is it?

To answer this question, a variety of data is consulted. Subdivision and land development statisticson file at the York County Planning Commission are examined. Additionally, the REALTORS'®Association of York and Adams County (RAYAC)'s information regards home sale prices and localmarket activity.

York County Residential Subdivision and Land Development Activity, 1990-2007A good indicator of the extent of proposed residential development in York County is a review ofresidential subdivision and land development activity. One of the primary services of the YorkCounty Planning Commission (YCPC) is to perform a review of all municipal subdivision and landdevelopment plans. Although a final plan approval does not ensure that all lots will be developed,an examination of YCPC records provides a clear picture of the pace of proposed development andhow trends have emerged.

Figure 9 shows the total number of finalresidential land development and subdivisionplans reviewed by the YCPC from 1990-2007.As shown, the highest number of plansreviewed was in 1990 - 879 plans. In 2007, thefewest number of residential plans wasreviewed (281). In total, the YCPC reviewed13,777 residential plans over the periodpresented in this figure. This decline inresidential plan reviews in 2007 is indicative ofand reflects the situation in the local andnational housing market.

Not only is the number of plans reviewed aninteresting piece of data, so, too is the totalnumber of dwelling units proposed. Over thissame period, (1990-2007), 69,203 dwellingunits were proposed. The plans involved a total of 141,679 building acres.

Figure 10 (Proposed Dwelling Units and Building Acreage, 1990-2007) provides detail on the totalnumber of dwelling units proposed, as well as the total number of building acres involved. Lookingat this data, the average number of proposed dwelling units per year was 3,111.

As shown in this chart, the years with the highest or lowest numbers of proposed dwelling units donot always coincide with the highest or lowest number of building acres. For example, 2002indicates the highest total building acreage (9,433.4 acres) and 2,940 proposed dwelling units.

Data of this nature is interesting as it can point to the rate of land consumption as well as the densityof proposed development.

Source: Final plans submitted to YCPC by York County

municipalities

Growth Trends

Housing Trends36

Map 6, Residential Subdivisions and Land Developments by Proposed Dwelling Units (2007) alsoprovides useful information. The data presented indicates the number of subdivisions and landdevelopments (S/LD) by size or number of proposed dwelling units. As per the legend, the S/LDwith the lowest number of proposed dwelling units (up to 10) are indicated with the smallest tan dot.The largest S/LD, with greater than 100 proposed dwelling units, are indicated with the largest,dark brown dot. Superimposed on this map are the County's growth areas. As shown, most of thelarger residential S/LD are located within the Growth Areas. This is consistent with the County’sGrowth Management Plan to direct more intensive development to areas supported by utilities andinfrastructure.

What does it cost?

The issue of cost was addressed in theCensus section of this chapter, howeverthis section builds upon the topic byconsidering not only selling prices but taxstructure.

Home Sale StatisticsAccording to the REALTORS'®Association of York and Adams Counties(RAYAC), a total of 6,985 homes weresold in 2006 in York County. The averageselling price was $195,967. As depicted inFigure 11, the average selling price for ahome in York County has increased overrecent years - 74.8% from 1998 to


Source: REALTORS’ Association of York and Adams Counties®

(RAYAC)

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

((

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

!!

!!

!!

!! !!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

MONAGHAN

FAIRVIEW

NEWBERRYCARROLL

FRANKLIN

WARRINGTONCONEWAGO

DOVER

PARADISE

MANHEIM

CODORUS

EAST

SPRINGETTSBURY

YORK

SPRINGFIELD

SHREWSBURY

HOPEWELL FAWN

PEACH BOTTOM

EAST HOPEWELL

WEST MANHEIM

PENN

HEIDELBERG

NORTH CODORUS

JACKSON



MANCHESTER

SPRING

HELLAM

WINDSOR

LOWER WINDSOR

CHANCEFORD


DILLSBURG

FRANKLINTOWN

WELLSVILLE

DOVER

LEWISBERRY

GOLDSBORO

HAVENYORK

MANCHESTERMOUNTWOLF

HALLAM

WRIGHTSVILLE


YORKWEST YORK CITY

JEFFERSON

GROVE

NEW SALEM

LOGANVILLE

JACOBUS

VALLEYSSEVEN

SPRING

WINDSOR

RED LION

YOE

DALLASTOWN

CROSSROADS

ROCKGLEN

SHREWSBURY

RAILROAD

FREEDOMNEW

STEWARTSTOWN

DELTAGROVEFAWN

HANOVER

WINTERSTOWN

FELTON

Cumberla

nd

C

ounty


Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County

Harford County, MD

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

¯






Date: 09/16/08

C:\GIS_Projects\Planner_projects\Anne\Pop_Projections\Subdivisions.mxd JS

Number of Proposed Dwelling Units1 - 1011 - 2021 - 4041 - 100Greater than 100

Growth Area

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Residential Subdivision & Land Development by

Proposed Dwelling Units (2007)

MAP 6

Growth Trends

38 Housing Trends

Source: REALTORS’ ® Association of York and Adams Counties (RAYAC)

Housing Value:Census vs. RAYAC

As explained, the two sources of housingvalue data used in this report vary. Aside-by-side comparison helps to illustratethe difference in median values and homesale price.

In 2005, the median home sale price forYork County was $159,500. The medianhousing value, per the US Census Bureau,was $140,000.

2006. The sharpest increase in average selling price occurredbetween 2004 and 2005, during which time the averageselling price increased 17.1%. This differs from the homevalue data from the Census, presented earlier in this chapter.The Census Bureau data is based on the respondent's estimateof what a unit is worth, while the RAYAC data presentsactual market value/selling price of a unit.

RAYAC also collects data on the total number of homes soldannually, as shown in Figure 12, for 1999-2006. As withaverage cost, the total number of homes sold is alsoincreasing. With the exception of an approximate 4%decrease in total sales 1999-2000, the total number of homeshas risen each year since 1999. The most significant jumpwas 2002-2003 when the total number of homes sold

increased ten percent (10%) in one (1) year. The total number sold increased almost 35% from 1999to 2006, with an average annual increase of roughly five percent (5%).

Considering the total homes sold per year for the period 1999 to 2006, the average number of homessold per year was 5,175 homes. The next section of this report looks at distribution of home sales.Data is presented by school district.

Growth Trends

Housing Trends 39

Home Sales by School DistrictIn addition to looking at County totals, the data from RAYAC is also considered by school district.There are sixteen (16) school districts in York County (refer to Map 7: York County SchoolDistricts).

Table 6: 2006 Home Sales by School District

School District # homessold

dollar value average saleprice

averagedays on the

market

Central York 638 $144,964,039 $227,216 42

Dallastown Area 647 $152,692,390 $236,001 71

Dover Area 458 $81,967,777 $178,969 49

Eastern 226 $40,713,427 $180,148 46

Hanover Public 196 $34,604,214 $176,552 51

Northeastern 380 $69,453,336 $182,772 58

Northern 93 $20,130,967 $216,462 54

Red Lion Area 491 $93,450,483 $190,327 49

Southeastern 21 $53,410,559 $241,677 60

Southern York 255 $68,888,988 $270,153 54

Southwestern 391 $81,800,582 $209,209 51

Spring Grove 318 $69,108,049 $217,321 54

West Shore 101 $19,144,637 $189,551 47

West York 390 $63,302,724 $162,315 42

York City 728 $51,790,743 $71,141 52

York Suburban 355 $68,253,365 $192,263 33Source: REALTORS’ Association of York and Adams Counties (RAYAC)®

Highlights from 2006 RAYAC data are as follows:

• For calendar year 2006, the school district in which the most homes were sold was YorkCity (728). The dollar volume for those total sales was $51,790,743 or an average sellingprice of $71,141.

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nmnmnmnm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm nm

nmnmnm

nm

nmnmnmnmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm nm

nm

nmnmnm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nmnmnm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm nm

nmnmnm

nm

nmnmnm

nm

nm

nm

nm

nmnmnm

nm

nm

nmnmnmnmnm

nm

nm

nmnm

nm

nmnm

nm

nm

nm

nmnmnm

nm

nm

nm

Cumber

land

C

ounty


Adams County

Dauphin County

LancasterCounty

Harford County, MD

MONAGHAN

FAIRVIEW

NEWBERRYCARROLL

FRANKLINWARRINGTON

CONEWAGO

DOVER

PARADISE

MANHEIM

CODORUS

EAST

SPRINGETTSBURY

YORK

SPRINGFIELD

SHREWSBURY

HOPEWELLFAWN

PEACH BOTTOM

EAST HOPEWELL

WEST MANHEIM

PENN

HEIDELBERG

NORTH CODORUS

JACKSON



MANCHESTER

SPRING

HELLAM

WINDSOR

LOWER WINDSOR

CHANCEFORD


DILLSBURG

FRANKLINTOWN

WELLSVILLE

DOVER

LEWISBERRY

GOLDSBORO

HAVENYORK

MANCHESTERMOUNTWOLF

HALLAM

WRIGHTSVILLE

YORKANA PROSPECTEASTYORK

NORTH

YORKWEST YORK CITY

JEFFERSON

GROVE

NEW SALEM

LOGANVILLE

JACOBUS

VALLEYSSEVEN

SPRING

WINDSOR

RED LION

YOE

DALLASTOWN

CROSSROADS

ROCKGLEN

SHREWSBURY

RAILROAD

FREEDOMNEW

STEWARTSTOWN

DELTAGROVEFAWN

HANOVER

WINTERSTOWN

FELTON

§̈¦83

£¤15 !(194

!(74

!(74

!(116

!(462

£¤30

§̈¦83

£¤30!(462

!(74

!(94

RED LION

DOVER

NORTHERN

SOUTH EASTERNSOUTHERN

SPRING GROVE

EASTERN

WEST SHORE

DALLASTOWN

NORTHEASTERN

SOUTH WESTERN

CENTRAL YORK

WEST YORK

YORK

YORKSUBURBAN

HANOVER

8

0

0 0

00

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

7

12 4

3

5

6

1

2

3

54

7

12

3 65

7

4

12

3

6

4

7

5

13

2

75 4

9

68

1 2

4

3

6

5 1

2

5

3

4

1

4

3

712

5

4

3

3

12

6

74

5

12

9

5

6

4

3

8

1235 4

6

125

43

1

3 2

6

4

215

3

4

2

3

5

6

10

0

0

6

2

65

5

1

4

0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles

Map created onSeptember 24, 2008

Dover Area School District1. Dover Area High School2. Dover Area Intermediate School3. Dover Elementary School4. Kralltown Elementary School5. Leib Elementary School6. North Salem Elementary School7. Weigelstown Elementary School

Eastern York School District1. Eastern York High School2. Eastern York Middle School3. Canadochly Elementary School4. Kreutz Creek Elementary School5. Wrightsville Elementary School

Hanover Public School District1. Hanover High School2. Hanover Middle School3. Clearview Elementary School4. Hanover Street Elementary School5. Washington Elementary School

Central York School District1. Central York High School2. Central York Middle School3. Hayshire Elementary School4. North Hills Elementary School5. Roundtown Elementary School6. Sinking Springs Elementary School7. Stony Brook Elementary School

Dallastown Area School District1. Dallastown Area High School2. Dallastown Area Middle School3. Dallastown Elementary School4. Leaders Heights Elementary School5. Loganville - Springfield Elementary School6. Ore Valley Elementary School7. York Township Elementary School

Southern School District1. Susquehannock High School2. Southern Middle School3. Friendship Elementary School4. Shrewsbury Elementary School5. Southern Elementary School

Spring Grove Area School District1. Spring Grove Area Senior High School2. Spring Grove Area Middle School3. Spring Grove Area Intermediate School4. New Salem Elementary School5. Paradise Elementary School6. Spring Grove Elementary School

West Shore School District(Red Land School District)1. Red Land High School2. Crossroads Middle School3. Fairveiw Elementary School4. Fishing Creek Elementary School5. Mt. Zion Elementary School6. Newberry Elementary School7. Red Mill Elementary School

West York Area School District1. West York Area High School2. West York Area Middle School3. Charles B. Wallace Elementary School4. Grace E. Loucks Elementary School5. Lincolnway Elementary School6. Norman A. Trimmer Elementary School

York City School District1. William Penn High School2. Edgar Fahs Smith Middle School3. Hannah Penn Middle School4. Alexander D. Goode Elementary School5. Arthur W. Ferguson Elementary School6. Jackson Elementary School7. Jacob L. Devers Elementary School8. McKinley Elementary School9. Phineas Davis Elementary School

York Suburban School District1. York Suburban Senior High School2. York Suburban Middle School3. East York Elementary School4. Indian Rock Elementary School5. Valley View Center

Other1. York County School of Technology

Northeastern School District1. Northeastern Senior High School2. Northeastern Middle School3. Spring Forge Intermediate School4. Conewago Elementary School5. Mt. Wolf Early Learning Center6. Orendorf Elementary School7. York Haven Elementary School8. Shallow Brook Elementary School

Northern School District1. Northern High School2. Northern Middle School3. Dillsburg Elementary School4. Northern Elementary School5. South Mountain Elementary Campus6. Wellsville Elementary Campus

Red Lion School District1. Red Lion Area Senior High School2. Red Lion Area Junior High School3. Chanceford Township Elementary School4. Clearview Elementary School5. Edgar C. Moore Elementary School6. Locust Grove Elementary School7. Mazie C. Gable Elementary School8. North Hopewell - Winterstown Elementary School9. Pleasant View Elementary School10. Windsor Manor Elementary School

South Eastern School District1. Kennard - Dale High School2. South Eastern Middle School - East3. South Eastern Middle School - West4. Delta - Peach Bottom Elementary School5. Fawn Area Elementary School6. Stewartstown Elementary School

South Western School District1. South Western High School2. Emory H. Markle Intermediate School3. Baresville Elementary School4. Manheim Elementary School5. Park Hills Elementary School6. West Manheim Elementary School

The York County Planning Commission provides this Geographic Information System map and/or data (collectively the "Data") as a public information service. The Data is not a legally recorded plan, survey, official tax map,or engineering schematic and should be used for only general information. Reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the Data is correct; however the Commission does not guarantee its accuracy, completeness, or timeliness. The Commission shall not be liable for any damages that may arise from the use of the Data."

Disclaimer

¯

Public Schools in York County, PennsylvaniaMap 7

O:\Long_Range\Growth_map\maps\Schools_growth_trends_map7.mxd

School TypeElementaryMiddle / IntermediateHigh

RoadsMunicipal Boundary

Other

n

n

n

n

Growth Trends

Housing Trends 41

• In 2006, the school district with homes having the highest average selling price wasSouthern at an average selling price of $270,153.

• While York City School District shows the highest total number of homes sold in 2006, theaverage selling price was the lowest of all districts.

• In 2006, the average days on the market varied with 33 days being the shortest (YorkSuburban School District) and Dallastown Area District being the longest (71 days). Thecountywide average days on the market was 51 days (please refer to Table 6).

In summary, there were a total of 5,888 homes sold countywide in 2006 totaling $1,113,676,280.The average selling price was $196,380.

TaxesAnother factor that contributes significantly to the cost of housing is taxes. Table 7 presents themillage rates for York County for 2008-2009 for reference. Please note that the County's millagerate is 4.0. For example, a home assessed at $100,000 with a municipal millage rate of 1.5, schoolmillage rate of 16.5 and County tax millage rate of 4.0 would pay $2,200 in combined taxes peryear. (The formula = total millage/1,000 x assessed value of property).

Table 7: 2008-2009 York County/Municipal Real Estate Data

Boroughs and City Townships

Municipality/School Districtmillage rates


munic. school munic. school

Cross Roads Borough/Southeastern SD 0.28 18.8309 Carroll Township/Northern York SD 1.12 13.87

Dallastown Borough/Dallastown Area SD 1.65 20.85 Chanceford Township/Red Lion Area SD 0.30 20.44

Delta Borough/Southeastern SD 1.90 18.8309 Codorus Township/Southern SD 0.42 15.75

Dillsburg Borough/Northern SD 2.37 13.87 Conewago Township/Northeastern SD 1.45 21.74

Dover Borough/Dover Area SD 1.69 18.87 Dover Township/Dover Area SD 1.0 18.87

East Prospect Borough/Eastern SD 1.0 18.34 East Hopewell Township/Southeastern SD 0.43 18.8309

Fawn Grove Borough/Southeastern SD 1.0 18.8309 East Manchester Township/Northeastern SD 1.04 21.74

Felton Borough/Red Lion Area SD 1.7 20.44 Fairview Township/West Shore SD 1.60 10.5

Franklintown Borough/Northern SD 1.88 13.87 Fawn Township/Southeastern SD 0.47 18.8309

Glen Rock Borough/Southern SD 2.6 15.75 Franklin Township/Northern York SD 0.20 13.87

Goldsboro Borough/West Shore SD 0.75 10.5 Heidelberg Township/Spring Grove SD 1.5 18.34

Hallam Borough/Eastern SD 3.3 18.34 Hellam Township/Eastern SD 1.8 18.34

Hanover Borough/Hanover Public SD 3.99 18.49 Hopewell Township/Southeastern SD 0.21 18.8309

Jacobus Borough/Dallastown Area SD 1.3 20.85 Jackson Township/Spring Grove SD 0.95 18.34

Jefferson Borough/Spring Grove SD 2.758 18.34 Lower Chanceford Township/Red Lion Area SD 0.70 20.44

Lewisberry Borough/West Shore SD 0.80 10.5 Lower Windsor Township/Eastern SD 1.00 18.34

Loganville Borough/Dallastown Area SD 2.0 20.85 Manchester Township/Central York SD 1.00 16.81

Manchester Borough/Northeastern SD 2.15 21.74 Manheim Township/Southwestern SD 1.10 15.02

Mount Wolf Borough/Northeastern SD 2.90 21.74 Monaghan Township/Northern SD 0.90 13.87

New Freedom Borough/Southern SD 0.75 15.75 Newberry Township-District 1/West Shore SD 1.79 10.5

Table 7: 2008-2009 York County/Municipal Real Estate Data




munic. school munic. school

New Salem Borough/Spring Grove SD 0.85 18.34 Newberry Township-District 2/Northeastern SD 1.79 21.74

North York Borough/Central York SD 3.71 16.81 North Codorus Township/Spring Grove SD 1.00 18.34

Railroad Borough/Southern SD 0.69 15.75 North Hopewell Township/Red Lion Area SD 0.272 20.44

Red Lion Borough/Red Lion Area SD 3.70 20.44 Paradise Township/Spring Grove SD 1.90 18.34

Seven Valleys Borough/Spring Grove SD 0.60 18.34 Peach Bottom Township/Southeastern SD 0.47 18.8309

Shrewsbury Borough/Southern SD 1.42 15.75 Penn Township/Southwestern SD 1.99 15.02

Spring Grove Borough/Spring Grove SD 2.34 18.34 Shrewsbury Township/Southern SD 0.74 15.75

Stewartstown Borough/Southeastern SD 2.85 18.8309 Spring Garden Township/York Suburban SD 2.44 18.74

Wellsville Borough/Northern SD 0.42 13.87 Springettsbury Township- IND/York Suburban SD 0.87 18.74

West York Borough/West York SD 4.90 18.2653 Springettsbury Township-REG/Central York SD 0.87 16.81

Windsor Borough/Red Lion Area SD 1.261 20.44 Springfield Township/Dallastown Area SD 0.26 20.85

Winterstown Borough/Red Lion Area SD 0.85 20.44 Warrington Township/Northern SD 0.21 13.87

Wrightsville Borough/Eastern SD 2.29 18.34 Washington Township/Dover Area SD 0.45 18.87

Yoe Borough/Dallastown Area SD 2.955 20.85 West Manchester Township/West York SD 0.214 18.2653

York City/York City SD 14.67 29.54 West Manheim Township/Southwestern SD 2.10 15.02

York Haven Borough/Northeastern SD 3.00 21.74 Windsor Township/Red Lion Area SD 0.60 20.44

Yorkana Borough/Eastern SD 0.25 18.34 York Township/Dallastown Area SD 0.60 20.85

Source: York County Assessment Office, data revised 6/30/2008

Growth Trends

Housing Trends44

Summary

Housing is a multifaceted issue. This chapter included data from the Census, which provides alimited view of housing value. The Census does provide a snapshot of housing statistics, but to geta complete picture of housing trends, additional sources of information were consulted. Data fromlocal sources, including the York County Assessment office, the REALTORS' Association of Yorkand Adams Counties, and the York County Planning Commission, inform this chapter greatly.

Recalling some of the findings of this chapter, based on the information presented, it appears asthough the number of housing units and their selling prices are increasing. This is a trend thatmirrors the trends discussed in the population chapter. Data shows that housing is more affordablein York County as compared to neighboring counties. Additionally, statistics presented in thischapter show that the percent of owner-occupied units has been increasing, perhaps indicatinggreater stability in the housing market. 63% of the total housing units in York County were singlefamily detached and almost one quarter of the housing stock was built prior to 1940.

This chapter presents data and provides a good background of York County's residential/housingconditions as well as presents opportunities to track several trends in coming years.

Economic Trends 45

Chapter VEconomic Trends

Introduction

Another interesting trend to follow is the economy.Previous chapters of this report have providedinformation regarding demographic and housingtrends, providing a good background. This chapter willnow address income and other economic factors withdata from the Census, the PA Department of Labor andIndustry and the Census of Agriculture.

The US Census and the Economy - YorkCounty Data

This section summarizes some of the householdeconomic characteristics of York County as collectedby the US Census Bureau. Data is from Census 2000and the 2005 American Community Survey.

$ Median Household IncomeMedian Household Income, as defined by the Census, "divides the income distribution into twoequal groups, one having incomes above the median and the other having incomes below themedian." The median household income for York County, per 2005 American Community Survey,

was $48,911. This is an 8% increase overYork County's median household incomein 2000 ($45,268). The Commonwealth ofPennsylvania has shown an 11% increasein median household income over thesame period (2000= $40,106 and2005=$44,537).

Figure 13 looks at the median householdincome statistics for counties in the regionfrom the American Community Survey,2005 data. The solid yellow line indicatesthe median income for the Commonwealthof Pennsylvania for 2005 ($44,537). Thesolid orange line shows the same forMaryland in 2005 ($61,592).

Map 8 visually depicts the medianhousehold income by municipality for 2000, the most current municipal data that is available. Asshown, there is a concentration of highest incomes in the south central townships. The lowest arein York City and its contiguous boroughs plus other scattered boroughs around the County.

! The median household income for

York County in 2005 was $48,911.

! 2005 data shows that single,

female-headed households with

children represent the highest

percentage of families with income

below poverty.

! York Hospital is the largest

employer in York County.

! The average weekly wage for a

worker in York County is $645.

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community

Survey

Economic Quick Facts – 2005

Source: US Census Bureau - American Community Survey, 2005

MONAGHAN

FAIRVIEW

NEWBERRYCARROLL

FRANKLIN

WARRINGTONCONEWAGO

DOVER

PARADISE

MANHEIM

CODORUS

EAST

SPRINGETTSBURY

YORK

SPRINGFIELD

SHREWSBURY

HOPEWELL FAWN

PEACH BOTTOM

EAST HOPEWELL

WEST MANHEIM

PENN

HEIDELBERG

NORTH CODORUS

JACKSON



MANCHESTER

SPRING

HELLAM

WINDSOR

LOWER WINDSOR

CHANCEFORD


DILLSBURG

FRANKLINTOWN

WELLSVILLE

DOVER

LEWISBERRY

GOLDSBORO

HAVENYORK

MANCHESTERMOUNTWOLF

HALLAM

WRIGHTSVILLE


YORKWEST YORK CITY

JEFFERSON

GROVE

NEW SALEM

LOGANVILLE

JACOBUS

VALLEYSSEVEN

SPRING

WINDSOR

RED LION

YOE

DALLASTOWN

CROSSROADS

ROCKGLEN

SHREWSBURY

RAILROAD

FREEDOMNEW

STEWARTSTOWN

DELTAGROVEFAWN

HANOVER

WINTERSTOWN

FELTON

Cumberlan

d

County


Adams County

Dauphin County

Lancaster

County

Harford County, MD

0 1 2 3 4 5Miles

¯






Median Income Per Municipality (2000)


C:\GIS_Projects\Planner_projects\Anne\Pop_Projections\Median_Household.mxd JS

$26,000.00 - $40,000.00$40,000.01 - $46,000.00$46,000.01 - $52,000.00$52,000.01 - $58,000.00Greater than $58,000.00

Median Household Income byMunicipality (2000)

MAP 8

Growth Trends

Economic Trends 47

$ Per Capita IncomePer capita income is another statistic important to the discussion of household economic trends. Asdefined by the Census, "per capita income is the average obtained by dividing aggregate incomeby the total population of an area." As with median household income, estimates of per capitaincome were released for 2005 by the Census, American Community Survey. The per capita incomefor York County for 2005 was $23,521. Regionally, York County's per capita income is belowCumberland ($28,396), Dauphin ($25,130) and Lancaster ($24,254) Counties, as well as theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania ($24,591). It is above Adams County's per capita income of$22,135. Looking at the bordering counties in Maryland, Baltimore County ($29,805), CarrollCounty ($30,531), and Harford County ($29,584) all indicate per capita incomes higher than YorkCounty.

$ PovertyAnother interesting issue to discuss is poverty. Per the Census, "following the Office ofManagement and Budget Directive 14, the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholdsthat vary by family size and composition to determine who is poor. If the total income for a familyor unrelated individual falls below the relevant poverty threshold, the family or unrelatedindividual is classified as being below the poverty level." Data regarding the percentage of familiesand people whose income in the past 12 months is below poverty level is available from theAmerican Community Survey. 2005 County-level data is presented in Table 8.

Growth Trends

Economic Trends48

Table 8: Percentages with Income in the Past 12 Months Below the Poverty Level, 2005

All families 5.0%

With related children under 18 years of age 8.4%

With related children under 5 years only 10.9%

Married couple families 1.8%



Families with female householder, no male present 22.7%



All people 7.9%

Under 18 years of age 10.8%

Related children under 18 years of age 10.4%

Related children under 5 years of age 15.0%

Related children 5-17 years of age 8.8%

18 years of age and over 7.1%

18-64 years of age 7.2%

65 years of age and older 6.4%

People in families 5.5%

Unrelated individuals 15 years of age and older 19.2%

Source: US Census Bureau - American Community Survey, 2005

This 2005 County level data indicates that single female headed households with young children(under the age of 5) represent the highest percentage of families whose income is below povertylevel. The individuals' data also indicates that a higher percentage of children under five (5) yearsare below poverty.

Municipal level data exists for median household income, per capita income and percent ofhouseholds with income below poverty. The following table (Table 9) includes those selectedeconomic characteristics.

A general observation regarding the economic characteristics provided is that the statistics are notinfluenced by one another. A higher median income for a municipality does not mean a lowerpoverty level percentage. Per capita income is largely influenced by the population of amunicipality, however, a lower per capita income does not also equal a higher percentage of thepopulation below the poverty level.

Table 9: Selected Economic Characteristics by Municipality


Municipality

Percapita

income,1999

Household Income,1999

Municipality

Percapita

income,1999


medianincome

% withincomebelow

poverty

medianincome

% withincomebelow

poverty

Cross Roads Borough $20,063 $57,750 2.9% Carroll Township $23,481 $54,273 3.5%

Dallastown Borough $18,249 $37,500 8.7% Chanceford Township $22,425 $52,931 5.3%

Delta Borough $17,677 $39,732 9.2% Codorus Township $19,955 $48,514 4.4%

Dillsburg Borough $19,801 $37,530 6.3% Conewago Township $17,703 $42,688 4.5%

Dover Borough $19,108 $41,250 6.5% Dover Township $20,513 $46,845 4.2%

East Prospect Borough $16,787 $41,250 4.9% East Hopewell Township $21,540 $58,194 3.4%

Fawn Grove Borough $20,105 $48,750 1.1% East Manchester Township $20,559 $49,417 2.6%

Felton Borough $19,322 $42,353 5.7% Fairview Township $26,343 $57,150 3.9%

Franklintown Borough $18,882 $43,409 9.6% Fawn Township $20,271 $54,018 2.9%

Glen Rock Borough $19,076 $41,188 8.7% Franklin Township $24,322 $49,020 5.1%

Goldsboro Borough $19,164 $57,054 2.3% Heidelberg Township $23,506 $51,976 2.9%

Hallam Borough $22,868 $42,235 4.6% Hellam Township $22,345 $49,750 5.8%

Hanover Borough $20,516 $35,536 7.7% Hopewell Township $21,611 $60,692 4.1%

Jacobus Borough $23,224 $44,185 1.3% Jackson Township $19,464 $49,781 2.6%

Jefferson Borough $19,070 $43,542 1.7% Lower Chanceford Township $17,821 $43,081 7.6%

Lewisberry Borough $16,147 $49,844 3.9% Lower Windsor Township $18,602 $45,413 7.3%



Municipality

Percapita

income,1999


Municipality

Percapita

income,1999


medianincome

% withincomebelow

poverty

medianincome

% withincomebelow

poverty

Loganville Borough $18,101 $37,857 6.2% Manchester Township $25,576 $53,472 2.0%

Manchester Borough $18,700 $41,450 3.7% Manheim Township $22,652 $57,407 4.2%

Mount Wolf Borough $19,760 $42,135 4.7% Monaghan Township $25,317 $57,440 1.6%

New Freedom Borough $24,828 $66,458 2.7% Newberry Township $20,660 $48,043 4.7%

New Salem Borough $18,802 $51,944 3.9% North Codorus Township $19,912 $48,315 3.8%

North York Borough $16,938 $36,875 9.3% North Hopewell Township $20,993 $47,139 2.6%

Railroad Borough $16,709 $37,917 4.7% Paradise Township $19,389 $48,517 4.3%

Red Lion Borough $17,723 $35,828 10.4% Peach Bottom Township $17,005 $42,778 3.9%

Seven Valleys Borough $17,544 $43,542 4.5% Penn Township $19,833 $47,876 3.6%

Shrewsbury Borough $20,292 $49,983 4.8% Shrewsbury Township $24,841 $58,191 3.8%

Spring Grove Borough $20,124 $42,609 5.8% Spring Garden Township $28,784 $52,673 4.5%

Stewartstown Borough $22,095 $50,000 4.1% Springettsbury Township $24,608 $49,176 4.5%

Wellsville Borough $17,689 $43,750 8.9% Springfield Township $27,410 $59,250 4.4%

West York Borough $17,503 $34,604 5.9% Warrington Township $21,368 $47,425 2.6%

Windsor Borough $15,808 $37,000 7.8% Washington Township $20,550 $52,278 5.1%

Winterstown Borough $19,934 $45,625 4.6% West Manchester Township $22,982 $45,212 5.2%



Municipality

Percapita

income,1999


Municipality

Percapita

income,1999


medianincome

% withincomebelow

poverty

medianincome

% withincomebelow

poverty

Wrightsville Borough $18,711 $37,379 5.8% West Manheim Township $21,670 $57,437 1.5%

Yoe Borough $16,795 $34,211 11.7% Windsor Township $21,551 $49,706 3.4%

York City $13,439 $26,475 23.9% York Township $25,196 $48,449 5.0%

York Haven Borough $11,676 $35,000 14.9%

Yorkana Borough $16,599 $45,278 2.1% YORK COUNTY $21,086 $45,268 4.6%


Growth Trends

Economic Trends52

$ Housing Expenses as a Percentage of Household IncomeAnother indicator of economic trends is housing expenses as a percentage of household income. TheCensus considers these statistics separately for owner and renter occupied housing units. As withother data elements discussed in this section, County-level data is available for 2005 from theAmerican Community Survey, while the municipal level data is only available from the 2000United States Census. Both are presented for information.

Beginning with the selected monthly owner costs as a percentage of household income, Figure 14shows the data for York County. Selected monthly owner costs, as defined by the Census, "arecalculated from the sum payment for mortgages, real estate taxes, various insurances, utilities,fuels, mobile home costs, and condominium fees." When combined with income, the selectedmonthly costs as a percentage of household income becomes an item that is used to measurehousing affordability and excessive shelter costs. For example, many government agencies defineexcessive as costs that exceed 30 percent of household income. That said, Figure14 shows YorkCounty data for 2005, related to selected monthly owner costs.

For clarification, mortgage refers to all forms of debt where the property is pledged as security forrepayment of the debt, including deeds of trust, contracts to purchase, land contracts, juniormortgages, and home equity loans. It is worth noting that of the total owner occupied housing units

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005

Growth Trends

Economic Trends 53

with a mortgage, 29.5% of homeowners pay 30% or more of their income for housing costs. 8.9%have housing expenses that exceed 50% of the monthly household income. For those owneroccupied units without a mortgage, almost 32% have monthly housing costs less than 10%.

Figure 15 presents the same data relative to the renter occupied housing in the County. As shown,about occupants of about 40% of the total renter occupied housing units in York County pay over30% of their household income for housing costs. Even more alarming, occupants of almost 18%of the total pay over 50%.

$ Employment StatusAnother economic characteristic tracked by the Census is employment status. According to the 2005American Community Survey, York County had 220,824 persons over the age of 16 in the laborforce. This is approximately 70% of the total population age 16 years and over. Of the 207,379persons that comprise the labor force, approximately 5.9% are unemployed. Also included in thelabor force are those in the armed services, of which there were 462 in 2005.

$ OccupationOccupation, as defined by the Census, "describes the kind of work the person does on the job. Foremployed people, the data refer to the person's job during the reference week. For those whoworked two (2) or more jobs, the data refer to the job at which the person worked the greatestnumber of hours." Figure 16 shows the data related to occupation, as per the American CommunitySurvey, 2005.

Source: US Census Bureau- American Community Survey, 2005

207,379 persons comprise thecivilian labor employed

population over the age of 16

Growth Trends

Economic Trends54

As shown in Figure 16, the highest percentage of occupation type is management, professional andrelated occupations which accounts for approximately 28.1%. Second is sales and officeoccupations (27.5%). Those working in service occupations comprised approximately 14% of thetotal in 2005. This is an increase from 12.5% in Census 2000 and 11.2% in the 1990 Census.Farming, forestry and fishing occupations have decreased over the same period from approximately1.5% in 1990 to 0.04% in 2000 to 0.03% in 2005.

Commuting PatternsAnother aspect to consider in this chapter is the population's commute to work. The Censusprovides data regarding travel time to work, the inter-County journey to work flow and means oftransportation to work. By looking at this data, the County's commuting patterns can be discussedin greater detail. These will be trends that will continue to be interesting, especially in light of thechanging economy, e.g., rising fuel costs and changing real estate market.

Travel Time to WorkIn 2005, the average travel time to work for those living in York County was 23.9 minutes.Figure 17, Travel Time to Work, data shows comparative travel time to work data for 1990, 2000

Source: US Census Bureau- American Community Survey, 2005

Growth Trends

Economic Trends 55

and 2005. For all three (3) periods, the highest number of workers over the age of 16 travel between15-30 minutes; but note the significant decrease within that commute time category between 1990and 2000 (approximately 40% decrease). It is also interesting to note the increase between 1990 and2000 in traveling over 1.5 hours (an almost 400% increase). This may be related to anotherinteresting statistic. Please note that the number of commuters has fluctuated. In 1990, there were233,068 commuters; then in 2000, the total number of commuters decreased to 193,126. In 2005,there were 202,679 commuters.

Journey to Work FlowThe Census also collects data related to the journey to work. Map 9, 2000 Inter-County Journey toWork Flow, shows that there are 193,126 persons age 16 and over in the commuter work flow inYork County. 142,104 persons reside and work in York County and 51,022 County residents workoutside York County. The map shows interesting data regarding the journey to work flow toadjacent counties in Pennsylvania and in Maryland, looking at the data more broadly is even moretelling. Of the 51,022 York County residents who work outside the County, 66% work in othercounties in Pennsylvania while 32% commute to a county in Maryland. Just about two percent (2%)work in a state other than Maryland or Pennsylvania and a small number of York County residents(72 persons) reported working in another country. Comparatively, in 1990, there were 174,782 totalworkers age 16 and over in the commuter work flow; 135,259 workers lived and worked in YorkCounty. Seven percent (7%) or 12,438 workers lived in York County and worked in a MarylandCounty.

Source: US Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 and American Community Survey, 2005

Growth Trends

Economic Trends56

Means of Transportation to WorkThe US Census Bureau collects information on the mode of transportation taken to work. Of the193,126 workers (ages 16 years and older) that provided an answer to this question, 181,121reported car, truck or van as their transportation to work. This represents 93.8% of the totalrespondents. Of those who drove a car, truck or van, 89.9% drove alone. See Figure 18.

Growth Trends

Economic Trends58

Other Economic Indicators

In addition to the Census's decennial census and American Community Survey, county-leveleconomic data is available through the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.Specifically, current data on average weekly wage and unemployment rates are included in thisreport, as are the County's major employers. Comparative data from the 2005 County BusinessPatterns is included.

Average Weekly WageThe Center for Workforce Information and Analysis publishes wage summary data from thePennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. The most current data is from 2002 and indicatesthat the average weekly wage for a York County worker is $645. This is equivalent to $16.13 perhour or $33,540 per year assuming a 40-hour work week and year round employment.

Looking at York County in the context of the surrounding Pennsylvania counties and theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania, York County falls within the range of those surrounding counties.The Adams County average weekly wage is the lowest at $531 and Dauphin County is the highestat $709 per week average wage. York County and its surrounding counties all fall below the averageweekly wage for the State of Pennsylvania which is $716 per week.

Major EmployersBased on second quarter 2006 data from the Center for Workforce Information and Analysis, thetop ten (10) employers (in terms of number of employees) in York County and their industry sectorare shown in Table 10 below:

Table 10: Major Employers in York County

Employer Industry Sector

York Hospital Health Care and Social Assistance

United States Government Public Administration

Harley Davidson Motor Company Manufacturing

County of York Public Administration

W al-Mart Associates, Incorporated Retail Trade

Giant Food Stores, LLC Retail Trade

Kinsley Construction, Incorporated Construction

BAE Systems Manufacturing

Utz Quality Foods, Incorporated Manufacturing

Hanover General Hospital Health Care and Social Assistance

Source: Center for W orkforce Information and Analysis, 2 quarter, 2007nd

Growth Trends

Economic Trends 59

As the current data in Table 10 shows, York Hospital is the largest employer in the County,followed by the United States Government and Harley Davidson Motor Company. The County ofYork is fourth. This represents a unique combination of public, private and private non profitentities.

County Business PatternsThe PA State Data Center recently released the 2005 County Business Patterns data which providesdata by county on the number of establishments, number of employees, and payroll informationfrom businesses with paid employees. Data is obtained from Census Bureau reports andadministrative records from other Federal agencies. The County Business Patterns excludeagricultural workers, people who are self-employed and most government employees. Table 11shows York County within the context of its adjacent counties – Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin andLancaster Counties. The data is for the week ending March 12, 2005.

Table 11: 2005 County Business Patterns

York County, Surrounding PA Counties and Pennsylvania

County Number of

Employees

Annual Payroll Total

Establishments

Adams County 28,797 $777,305 1,954

Cumberland County 112,902 $4,087,723 5,720

Dauphin County 142,531 $5,255,310 6,912

Lancaster County 219,423 $7,193,980 11,970

York County 159,208 $5,451,299 8,623

Pennsylvania 5,082,630 $189,692,284 303,333

Source: Center for W orkforce Information and Analysis

As shown, in the region, York County has the second highest number of employees. The totalnumber of employees represents just over three percent (3%) of the total employees in Pennsylvania.

Employment by SectorA look at the County’s economy is informed by considering the trends among the various sectorsof the economy. Data to inform this report comes from the PA Department of Labor and Industry.The Current Employment Statistics (CES) is a count of the nonagricultural jobs by industry in aspecific geography. Data are available by labor market area through the Current EmploymentStatistics Survey. Data are published monthly and are useful in many applications, including theassessment of growth of industry. This chapter looks specifically at data related to manufacturing,service, and retail trade. Another sector of the economy important to York County is agriculture.That, too, will be discussed in general in this chapter. More specific data and analysis related toagriculture can be found in the Agricultural Protection Plan component of the York CountyComprehensive Plan.

Figure 19: Jobs by Sector presents CES data for manufacturing, service, and retail trade jobs for theYork-Hanover MSA. It is interesting to see the three (3) top nonfarm employment sectors in theCounty on one chart for comparison purposes. Description and highlights of each sector follow.

45,900

45,700

46,000

47,400

46,800

46,300

45,900

45,600

45,800

43,90041,400

39,500

38,800

38,300

37,600

37,300

99,100

100,800

102,300

104,400

106,100

107,900

109,600113,500

116,600

116,700

118,600 123,100

127,100

127,100

130,100132,700

19,700

19,600

20,100

20,400

20,500

20,700

20,900

21,700

22,400

22,400

22,500

22,600

22,600

22,400

22,300

22,500

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Figure 19: Jobs by Sector, 1992-2007

Manufacturing Service Providing

Retail Trade

Growth Trends

Economic Trends 61

ManufacturingYork County has experienced a decline in the total number of employees employed bymanufacturing professions. As shown in blue on Figure 19, the number of manufacturing employeesin York County has decreased 18.7% from 1992 to 2007. The highest point in the period was in1995 when 47,400 manufacturing jobs were reported. Historical data shows that in 1980, there were59,773 workers employed in manufacturing. The total has fluctuated since 1980, but the trend hascontinued in an overall downward direction.

Service SectorTrends related to the service sector have been dynamic over the past 15 years, as indicated in pinkon Figure 19. Looking at data for the York-Hanover MSA for service providing employees, anupward trend is quite apparent. While the service sector is a broad category with a wide range oftypes of service, the figures presented here represent the general category of “service providing” asdocumented by the PA Department of Labor and Industry. As shown, the number of serviceproviding jobs has steadily increased from 1992-2007, with a 34% increase over the 15 year period.

Retail TradeRetail trade is another segment in which York County employs many. As shown in orange onFigure 19, it is the one of the three (3) sectors has exhibited the least amount of dramatic changeover the past 15 years. In fact, the number of retail trade jobs has increased about 14% since 1992.In 2003 and 2004, the retail trade sector had the most employees (22,600) in the15 year trend shownon Figure 19. This coincides with the decline of manufacturing positions and increase in serviceproviding positions.

AgricultureAgriculture has always been a part of the York County economy. As mentioned previously, theAgricultural Protection Plan component of the York County Comprehensive Plan provides muchdetail on and analysis of agriculture in the County. For purposes of this report, general agriculturaltrends will be presented.

Agriculture is the leading industry in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. York County ranks fifthin the State with regard to market value of agricultural products sold. Per the 2002 Census ofAgriculture, land in farms in York County was estimated to comprise 285,336 acres or 49% of theCounty’s total land area. Farm is defined as “any place from which $1,000 or more of agriculturalproducts were produced or sold, or normally would have been sold during a census year.” The2002 Census of Agriculture lists 1,234 principal farm operators with farming as a primaryoccupation.

With 2,550 farms, York County ranked second in the State (Lancaster County is first). YorkCounty’s land in farms comprised almost 4% of the State’s total land in farms. The average sizeof a York County farm was 111 acres, slightly smaller than the State’s average of 133 acres. Thetotal hired farm labor payroll in the County, for 2002, was $12,443,000. In 2000, just over 78% ofYork County's farmland was harvested cropland. Table 12 presents this data.

In addition to providing an abundance of farm products, agriculture supports a wide range of foodprocessing and other support industries. Potato chips and other snack foods, baked goods, cannedand frozen vegetables, ice cream and other dairy products are among those processed in YorkCounty.

Growth Trends

Economic Trends62

Summary

As shown, there are many economic trends that are interesting to track over time. This chapterprovided County economic data, largely from the US Census Bureau and the 2005 AmericanCommunity Survey, as well as regional economic data.

Also from the US Census Bureau, several household level economic indicators were presented. Ofparticular note are the per capita income of York County. At $23,396, it is below the per capitaincome of several neighboring counties in Pennsylvania and Maryland, as well as that of the Stateof Pennsylvania. This is important to track as a general indicator of the economy as a whole.Housing expenses as a percentage of household income is also a very telling indicator of theeconomy. As analyzed, almost 30% of the County's homeowners and 40% of its renters pay over30% of their household income on housing expenses.

Examination of the commuting patterns and mode of transportation to work are interesting. In2000, almost 90% of workers drove to work alone. Travel time to work has fluctuated in recentyears with the majority of workers traveling between 15 and 30 minutes to work.

The Current Employment Statistics (CES) available through the PA Department of Labor andIndustry is a source of interesting information related to the employment sectors. There appears tobe a direct correlation between the decrease in manufacturing jobs and the concurrent increase inservice providing jobs. While agriculture in the County is changing, a summary of the total cashreceipts for 2005 indicates $158,128,000 for crops, animals and government payments. Continuedanalysis of trends in agriculture can be tracked by the Census of Agriculture and local numbers.

The next chapter presents a variety of other trends that are interesting to analyze and track,including school enrollments, educational attainment and data related to vehicles.

Table 12:

Summary of York County Cash Receipts, 2005

Crop Cash Receipts

Field Crops $35,605,000

Fruits $5,454,000

Horticulture and Mushrooms $12,989,000

Vegetables and Potatoes $8,170,000

Crops- Subtotal $62,218,000

Poultry and Livestock $61,349,000

Dairy $31,119,000

Animal- Subtotal $92,468,000

Government Payments $3,442,000

Total Cash Receipts $158,128,000

Source: Penn State Cooperative Extension-York County

63Other Trends

Chapter VIOther Trends

Introduction

So far, trend data on population, housing and the economy have been presented. This chapter willprovide some interesting information that does not fit specifically into any of those categories. Dataregarding school enrollments, educational achievement levels and changes in land use are included.

Education

A large amount of information exists regarding schools and school districts. There are 16 schooldistricts in York County. In terms of size, the largest school district, by area, is the Red Lion AreaSchool District (141.6 square miles). The smallest is Hanover Public School District at just aboutthree (3) square miles. The most populous school district in the County is the West Shore SchoolDistrict, however this School District actually extends outside of York County. As per the schooldistricts located entirely within York County, the most populous school district is the York CitySchool District with 40,970 residents.

The Community Facilities component of the York County Comprehensive Plan takes a very detailedlook at the educational services available in the County, the most pertinent of which will beincorporated into this report.

Public School EnrollmentsThere is a variety of ways in whichto examine school enrollment data.Distinctions are made betweenpublic and private enrollments.Units can include enrollments byschool district and the total Countyenrollments.

Figure 20 looks at the total numberof public school enrollments forYork County. As shown, publicschool enrollment remainedrelatively stable from 1985 to1990,with a less than one percent (1%)increase from 48,951 in school year1985-1986 to 49,281 in school year1989-1990.

During the succeeding five (5)-yearperiod, there was a significant increase in public school enrollment (25.7%). The most recent dataavailable is for the 2005-2006 school year and shows a decrease of just under three percent (3%).

Please refer to Map 7: York County School Districts for reference.

Source: PA Department of Education

* Enrollment does not include students enrolled at YorkCounty High School, charter schools, the York CountySchool of Technology or those who are full time, out-of-district special education students.

Growth Trends

Other Trends64

York County Public School District AnalysisTable 13 compares the total enrollment for each school district for school years 1994-1995 and2005-2006 and indicates the percent change in enrollment during the 11 year period.

Table 13: Total School District Enrollments and Percent Change,1994-95 and 2005-06

School District Total

Enrollment

1994-95

Total

Enrollment

2005-06

Percent

Change

Central York 3,610 5,100 41.3%

Dallastown Area 4,725 5,761 21.9%

Dover Area 3,475 3,573 2.8%

Eastern York 2,633 2,726 3.5%

Hanover Public 1,641 910 (44.5%)

Northeastern 2,659 3,577 34.5%

Northern York County 2,940 3,194 8.6%

Red Lion Area 4,454 5,760 29.3%

South Eastern 2,775 3,304 19.1%

South Western 3,775 4,045 7.2%

Southern York County 3,169 3,310 4.4%

Spring Grove Area 4,013 3,819 (4.8%)

West Shore 3,151 3,885 23.3%

West York Area 2,617 3,107 18.7%

York City 7,344 6,378 (13.2%)

York Suburban 2,170 2,675 23.3%

TOTAL All School Districts 55,151 61,880 12.2%Source: PA Department of Education, York County Planning Commission

As shown in Table 13, three (3) of the 16 school districts (Hanover Public, Spring Grove Area andYork City) experienced a decline in total enrollment from 1994-1995 to 2005-2006. The top three(3) school districts in terms of growth during the same period were Central York (41.3%),Northeastern (34.5%) and Red Lion Area (29.3%).

Growth Trends

Other Trends 65

Non-Public and Private SchoolsThe Pennsylvania Department of Education also maintains data on the enrollments of non-publicand private schools. These institutions, typically faith-based, provide educational alternatives to thecitizens of the County. They include nursery/kindergarten, elementary and secondary schools ofvarying philosophies and religious denominations.

For school year 2005-2006, the Department reported 52 private and non-public schools, including13 nursery schools (child care centers), serving 4,002 students in grades K-12. Of the total studentsserved, 2,454 were elementary students (grades K-6) and 1,548 were secondary students (grades7-12). The nursery schools served 158 of the elementary schools.

Home EducationWith the passage of Act 169 in 1988, the Pennsylvania School Code was amended to allow parentsor guardians to home school their children as an alternative to compulsory education. For academicyear 2004-2005, the Pennsylvania Department of Education reports a total of 1,573 home educationstudents. York County was second in the total number of home education students behind LancasterCounty with 2,558 home education students during that period.

Other Educational ProgramsAs noted previously, York County students are not limited to the public school system and the 16public school districts to pursue their education. A variety of other options exist. For school year2005-2006, 1,401 students were enrolled in the York County School of Technology; 706 in theLincoln Charter School; 124 in Crispus Attucks' Youthbuild Charter school and 136 in the YorkCounty High School.

Educational Attainment

Another interesting aspect to discuss iseducational attainment. Per theCensus, educational attainment refersto the highest level of educationcompleted in terms of highest level ofschooling completed. It is interestingto consider that data on the Countylevel, as shown in Figure 21. Asshown, the highest percentage of thepopulation age 25 years and over hada high school diploma. Just over 6%had an eighth grade education or lessand just under 6% had a postbachelor's degree in 2000.

Table 14 presents the educationalattainment by municipality. Source: US Census Bureau

Table 14: Educational Attainment by Municipality, 2000

Municipality Total Pop.25 yrs and

over

8th gradeor less

Some HS,no

diploma

HS graduate(includes

GED)

Somecollege, no

degree

Assoc.degree

Bachelor'sdegree

Post-bachelor's

degree

Carroll Township 3,211 90 307 1,114 552 347 519 282

Chanceford Township 3,974 323 588 1,885 491 213 305 169

Codorus Township 2,516 177 343 1,150 348 140 288 70

Conewago Township 3,562 252 629 1,829 384 118 258 92

Crossroads Borough 333 11 25 158 72 14 46 7

Dallastown Borough 2,726 336 299 1,206 448 168 170 99

Delta Borough 484 28 89 206 74 16 44 27

Dillsburg Borough 1,401 80 184 465 261 89 229 93

Dover Borough 1,173 49 132 627 171 60 98 36

Dover Township 12,505 770 1,697 6,097 1,642 712 1,067 520

East Hopewell Township 1,459 73 149 639 267 67 172 92

East Manchester Township 3,554 143 439 1,658 560 211 372 171

East Prospect Borough 506 30 91 234 53 47 46 5

Fairview Township 9,968 223 862 3,519 1,658 911 1,968 827

Fawn Township 1,778 68 204 831 375 101 115 84

Fawn Grove Borough 314 9 28 128 82 18 30 19

Felton Borough 320 39 46 163 32 9 24 7

Franklin Township 2,945 105 298 1,268 481 190 400 203

Franklintown Borough 384 14 34 131 95 28 68 14



over

8th gradeor less

Some HS,no

diploma


GED)

Somecollege, no

degree

Assoc.degree

Bachelor'sdegree

Post-bachelor's

degree

Glen Rock Borough 1,161 63 95 551 182 58 160 52

Goldsboro Borough 557 12 57 223 109 40 84 32

Hallam Borough 1,076 61 107 528 144 72 131 33

Hanover Borough 10,466 842 1,680 4,287 1,539 535 1,007 576

Heidelberg Township 2,080 185 262 1,003 239 128 162 101

Hellam Township 4,366 225 611 1,804 623 306 563 234

Hopewell Township 3,366 154 416 1,081 712 202 591 210

Jackson Township 4,135 266 610 2,128 526 218 245 142

Jacobus Borough 870 73 83 370 116 73 116 39

Jefferson Borough 419 44 62 194 47 25 35 12

Lewisberry Borough 223 11 16 113 30 15 27 11

Loganville Borough 667 83 95 295 81 40 42 31

Lower Chanceford Township 1,812 179 222 884 253 94 132 48

Lower Windsor Township 4,936 366 760 2,541 531 172 384 182

Manchester Borough 1,548 64 183 749 225 63 180 84

Manchester Township 8,920 348 902 3,189 1,324 642 1,794 721

Manheim Township 2,067 96 223 925 296 120 244 163

Monaghan Township 1,499 51 106 600 227 121 262 132

Mount Wolf Borough 962 62 119 496 121 44 88 32



over

8th gradeor less

Some HS,no

diploma


GED)

Somecollege, no

degree

Assoc.degree

Bachelor'sdegree

Post-bachelor's

degree

Newberry Township 9,579 487 1,081 4,203 1,634 678 1,126 370

New Freedom Borough 2,417 101 158 764 409 157 545 283

New Salem Borough 427 29 52 199 46 31 48 22

North Codorus Township 5,441 475 571 2,409 886 274 531 295

North Hopewell Township 1,792 96 240 822 305 71 184 74

North York Borough 1,108 61 174 526 162 77 87 21

Paradise Township 2,449 203 422 1,247 292 114 105 66

Peach Bottom Township 2,819 234 478 1,163 574 102 188 80

Penn Township 9,835 832 1,272 4,398 1,341 516 1,123 353

Railroad Borough 178 13 32 89 24 4 11 5

Red Lion Borough 4,012 363 551 1,692 639 177 438 152

Seven Valleys Borough 334 30 56 169 38 15 10 16

Shrewsbury Borough 2,290 160 197 673 485 155 401 219

Shrewsbury Township 4,146 237 412 1,550 800 265 558 324

Springettsbury Township 17,449 904 2,127 6,165 2,692 901 3,122 1,538

Springfield Township 2,622 106 200 1,122 384 131 437 242

Spring Garden Township 7,630 380 618 2,221 1,236 470 1,746 959

Spring Grove Borough 1,343 91 161 624 193 83 117 74

Stewartstown Borough 1,133 32 107 410 240 87 163 94



over

8th gradeor less

Some HS,no

diploma


GED)

Somecollege, no

degree

Assoc.degree

Bachelor'sdegree

Post-bachelor's

degree

Warrington Township 3,106 227 525 1,446 314 105 354 135

Washington Township 1,648 103 176 857 224 89 152 47

Wellsville Borough 184 7 24 103 15 9 19 7

West Manchester Township 12,604 722 1,557 5,399 1,844 610 1,661 811

West Manheim Township 3,286 190 310 1,375 538 221 354 298

West York Borough 2,902 175 436 1,438 436 166 218 33

Windsor Borough 781 85 114 385 102 53 30 12

Windsor Township 9,020 632 1,083 3,831 1,315 533 1,112 514

Winterstown Borough 373 33 56 175 31 31 26 21

Wrightsville Borough 1,470 108 298 716 181 44 103 20

Yoe Borough 622 44 92 300 75 32 56 23

York City 24,579 2,406 5,202 10,022 3,271 1,079 1,664 935

York Township 16,676 940 1,513 5,647 2,747 1,111 3,117 1,601

Yorkana Borough 133 5 15 74 13 9 11 6

York Haven Borough 409 18 97 206 61 8 12 7

YORK COUNTY TOTAL 259,040 16,534 33,460 107,689 38,918 14,835 32,295 15,309 Source: US Census Bureau

Growth Trends

Other Trends70

Vehicles

Another interesting aspect to consider is the number of registered vehicles in York County. Table15 shows the 2005 data by registered vehicle class. This data is from the Pennsylvania Departmentof Transportation and has been compiled by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania. The total numberof passenger vehicles represents over two-thirds (2/3) of the total registered vehicles for 2005.

Table 15: York County, Registered Vehicles by Class, 2005

TotalRegisteredPassengerVehicles

Passenger SpecialMobileEquimentand FarmEquipment

HouseCars

Motorcycles MotorizedPedacyclesand motordriven cycles

SchoolBuses,Buses,Taxis andLimos

Trailers andTrucks

Other(ambulances,hearses, etc.)

413,470 270,994 652 1,848 15,733 293 1,255 122,548 147

Registered Vehicles and Population EstimatesIncreasing population likely means more cars on the road. Comparing the number of registeredvehicles to the total number of registered passenger vehicles provides proof to that statement.

Interestingly, the ratio of passenger vehicles to population has declined over the six (6) year period(1.65 vehicles per person in 2000 to 1.50 vehicles per person in 2005.)

Source: US Census Bureau and PennDOT

Growth Trends

Other Trends 71

Vehicles AvailableThe Census also collects information regarding vehicles. The data field is "number of vehiclesavailable" and is defined as " the number of passenger cars, vans and pickup or panel trucks ofa one-ton capacity kept at home and available for use of the household members. Vehicles rentedor leased for one month or more, company vehicles and police and government vehicles areincluded if kept at home and used for non-business purposes. Dismantled or immobile vehicles areexcluded. Vehicles kept at home but used only for business purposes also are excluded." The datais collected at the household level and presented by tenure, meaning owner-occupied orrenter-occupied housing unit. Table 16 shows comparative data from 1990, 2000, and 2005.

Table 16: York County- Vehicles Available by Tenure

Housing UnitInformation

1990 2000 2005

Owner Occupied 95,670 112,816 159,432

No vehicle available 3,966 3,866 2,267

1 22,448 26,463 26,978

2 46,101 54,311 57,269

3 16,314 20,663 23,959

4 5,127 5,543 8,786

5 or more 1,714 1,970 3,027

Renter Occupied 32,996 35,403 37,144

No vehicle available 5,890 5,965 6,169

1 15,036 16,933 18,650

2 9,838 10,012 8,706

3 1,792 1,941 2,686

4 326 384 738

5 or more 114 168 195

Source: US Census Bureau, Census 2000 and the American Community Survey, 2005

As shown, the multi-year data provides a good bit of information. Looking at owner-occupiedhousing units, in all years, the highest percentage was those households with two (2) vehicles. Therenter occupied housing units had the highest percentage with one (1) vehicle.

Growth Trends

Other Trends72

Source: York County Assessment Office

Land Use

Another interesting trend to track is the number of acres in each land use category. As shown inFigure 23, there are seven (7) general land use categories: apartment, commercial, industrial, utility,exempt, farm and residential. This comparison from 1996 and 2005 shows the changes in thenumbers of acres in each land use category for that nine (9) year period.

Per Figure 23, each of the land use categories experienced some change between 1996 and 2005.It is no surprise that the total number of residential acres increased over the ten (10) year periodfrom 113,937 acres to 123,256 acres. The amount of acres in the farm category decreased by17,562 acres from 1996 to 2005. In terms of percent change over the ten (10) year period, thegreatest change occurred in the utility category with a decrease of 77.9% from 1996-2005. TheAssessment Office explains that in 2000, the law changed with utility assessments and manyparcels were removed from "utility" and recategorized as "commercial."

Com m erical

includes

m obile hom e

parks

Growth Trends

Other Trends 73

Summary

This chapter contextualized the population, housing and economic trend sections by providinginformation related to education and the availability of vehicles. It should come as no surprise asthe County's total population is increasing, so too are the numbers of students enrolled in publicschools, with the total number of enrollments in 2005-2006 at 61,880. Almost 81% of the totalpopulation 25 years and older has attained at least a high school diploma.

Another effect of population growth is the increasing number of passenger vehicles which hassteadily increased from 231,525 in 2000 to 270,994 in 2006. Data also shows that owner-occupiedhousing units are much more likely to have a vehicle available than renter-occupied housing units.

This chapter concluded with comparative assessment data related to land use categories. Whilecommerical and industrial land uses remained fairly constant from 1996 to 2005, the amount ofacres in farms decreased while residental acreage increased. Together with the aforementioned,tracking future trends will be informative and interesting.

Summary 75

Chapter VIISummary

York County Growth Trends is a compilation of a variety of statistics, including general population,housing, and economy. The data that informs this report comes from numerous sources.

As a component of the York County Comprehensive Plan, this Report provides valuable informationand serves as a companion piece to other elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including, but notlimited to, the Growth Management Plan, the Agricultural Land Protection Plan, the Long RangeTransportation Plan and the Housing/Consolidated Plan. Data included in this Report alsosupports the programs implemented by the York County Planning Commission staff includingHousing and Community Development programs, Municipal Consulting Program and CommunityConnections.

The information contained in this Report would be beneficial to municipalities who may beembarking on the planning process, such as the development or update of a municipal or multi-municipal comprehensive plan or sewage facilities (Act 537) plan. It is also intended for use bylocal public and private sector organizations seeking general data and trends for York County.

York County Growth Trends will be updated as the 2010 US Census data becomes available. It isour hope that this will become a data-seeker's first stop for comprehensive York County data.

a component of the york county …ycpc.org/long_range_docs/comp_plan/growth_trends.pdf · growth...

Documents