Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013 Economic Profile of Gallatin And Park Counties, Prospera Business Network
2013 Economic Prof ile of Gallatin and Park Counties, Montana ros ei BUSINESS NETWORK ©2013 PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK Gallatin & Park Counties, Montana LINWLN GLACIER TOOLE G Hill DANIFIS SHERIDAN FLATHEAD PONDERA BLAINE PHiWPS VALLEY ROOSEVELT SANDERS LAKE TETON CHOUTEAU RICHtm MtCONE �y LEWIS C FERGUS rETRO ASCADE GARFIELD DAWSON MISSODU a" Jg�p LEUM PRAIRIE PO'WELL � ���' GRANMUSSEL- ITE MEAGHER WHEAT. c SHELL FALLON RAV ALLI JEFfER- WAT IAND ROSEBUD CUSTER SON YELLOWSTON �. SWEET GALLATIN GRASS w PARK TER BIG HORN POWDER CARTER MADISO�� BEAVERHEAD CARBON J PROSPER.A BL"SINESS NE"f)X'ORK ?(i 1 Charlotte Street • Suite I • Bozeman, NFY 39?18 Phone 406.35'.31 I3 • fax 4II6.557.956-) _) «1��t.Prr,;heraIiu;inr:>:�c t��•url:.nr } Table of Contents List()f,1,<ll)lcs............................................................ List()t C 1am......................................................................................................................................................111 List of 1'lgures.............. Intl-l>L ucti()n........................................................................................................................................................l Ihe I:C()11()111\ ....................................................................................................•................................................ (:c)st of Doing Business ................................................ c;n.t ()fLiving............... PopulationT1•cncl............................................................................................................................. ...1? Iigram)n........................................................................... ...l() ............................................................................. Dcnlc)grahhics ....................................................... W*Orkfo)rce............•...... I:nipl. yment bx `ccnn•....................................................................................................................................?h Salary &Watie Derail............................................................................. ........................ ;. ................................... Iartier Private I:mhlOy cr...............................................................................................................................3 l �tirl'll'Llltill'e............................ 1 :llllilny...............................................................................................................................................................)4 C.c)nstructl()il......................................................................................................................................................10 I'.lie ltil................................................................................................................................................................41) I-Icalth Care I11 her I.ducati0n.......................................................................................................................................... �I anti f:lCtlll'lilti..........•................................................................................................................................ ......-h RealI:statc ........................................................................................................................................................49 Tcchnoh)g�. .......................................................................................................................................................52 Tourism&. Recreation................................................................................................................ .54 .................... oil lit .1.1 . V ;\\ List of Tables J able l: Micrnpc)litan Fco no inlc Strength Rankings.................................................................................. Table ?: Nicrrtopo litan l:cuno mic Strength Ranking.................................................................................... Table 3: Real GDP by State: New F.stinlates for 21112 and Revised F tinlate,� for 009- 01 1.............6 Table 4: Regional Compari.()li of the Cost of Doing Busiticss......................... Table 5: ?"' ()uartcr 2013 Cost Of Living Indcs Coniparisol1................................ Table G: State,(a)unto and (:ir\ Pc)Pulatic)ns: 2006-'l►12..........................................................................I� 'fable Six l-astcst (iru-%\-ins; Montana (mintics: 2()()II-2III2............................ ...1 'I able `+: Mc)nrula CuunrV POp Lila tum Growth: 2010-M2...................................................................... I � lable (): Montana (:ire Pc)pulati<m Rankings: 2(1()--2()12......................................................................... 14 lable 111: (:()mP()ncnts of Resident Population (:hangc: )uI\ 2M 1-IuhV 2012...................................... 16 l able 1 I: Gallatin and Park Counr\ Net Migratum Detail.............. lable 12: \tic Dol-io -raphics........................................................................................................................]') Fablel 3: 1 A1111cm.......................................................................................................................................... I)J Table14: Income I.c\-cl.................................................................................................................................?I Fable 15: I.c\-el of I'ducari ial Artatnlncilt (Percent of Population _'S Year,, & ()t-crj......................�2 hale 16: 11()itsitlg ( )ccupancc......................................................................................................................_" 1 able 1 I lou•chold. and I amilies D\namics.........................................................................................23 Fable 18: State I. ilcillplt)yincnt Rate Comparison: Jul\ 2013..................................................................24 Fable 19: Count\ L'neinpImment Rare Comparison: Juhv 2012............................. I able 0: I.alaur 1:orce statistics: Gallatin and hark Counties 2()()5-2O12..............................................?a Table ?1: 01? 1:niployment and I�.arning;s be hector ................` �, ............................................................._ Table 2: Avcrage Annual Wage and `alai\- Disburscnlcnts................ 29 'Cable 23: Median Annual l•:arnings by 1•:ducational Attainment............................................................?9 "Cable 4: Average Weekly Wage by Count\ and Percent Change: 21110-2012......................................3() Table 25: Montana Counties Rankcd b\ 012 Annual \rcrag;c \\'age....................................................i11 -fable 26: I.artiest Private Sector Frriployers................... Table ?^: 2012 Crop Statistics for Gallatin (.ulltlt\....................................... l? Table 8: 2013 l.i\-cst))ck Statistics for Gallatin (:Ounn ................ „ Table 9: 2012 Crop Statistics for Part: Count\ ' Table 30: 2011 1.i\-cstnck Statistics for Park (:ount\..................................................................................3 3 Cable 31: 2013 Montana Agricultural Commodities Info)rmariotl...........................................................33 'fable 32: Bozeman Bank Deposit Nlarkct Share.......................................................................................35 ©P:: i.;,l h\Bt "\I V ,�. Iti -110,1 ; v ill Poo o . ; 1 Table 33: LIVIngston Bank Deposit Mar•ct Share......................................................................................» l able 34: Construction .\ctil-ir\-: Nevv Uwelling t*nits 2004-111'_..........................................................3^ 'Fable 35: (:it\- of Bozeman Residelltlal Building Permits Issued: 2003-201 1 ........................................3- Table 36: (:itv of Bozeman .\nnesations: 004- 012 , ! Table i-: (:ire of Bozeman Subd1\-Ision Reviews by TN 2003-01 1...................................................iti T able 3<18: City of Bozeman Zoning Reviev.-s b� Typc: 004-2012..........................................................39 Table .19: L•tility Rates....................................................................................................................................41) Table 41►: NorthWestern I:ncr,,\' Iliglilitilits........................... 'fable 41: Fstiniatcd Priular\ Care ()Rice Visit Shortages,'Surhluscs.....................................................43 fable 42: Bozeman Deaconess I Ioshital by the Nunibers.......................................................................44 Fable 43: 2012 Bozeman Deaconess Iloshital (.011111111t11t\ Benefit Statistics.......................................44 Fable 44: \ISL• Enrollment be Geographic Region: fall Semester 012...............................................45 'I able 45: Manufacturing Enlhlo\meat 111 Montana: 010-20 l?..............................................................4- I fable 46: Montana Brewcr\- Sun-c\- Data Summary: 2010-01 1 .............................................................48 l able -t-: Single Farnil\ Residence Trcnds: Gallatin and Park Counties 2010- 01?............................49 -fable -h: Residential Distressed Sales (Short Sales): Gallatin and Park(:ounrics 2010-2012.............51 Table 49: Rcsidcntisll Distressed Sales {Foreclosures): Gallatin and Park (:aunties 2010-201?.........51 Table W.* Notiresulcnt Ira\'cicr I•:cont>mic Impacts and I'xpenclltures: 010- 01_'............................JG 'fable 51: 012 Montana Nonresident Travcicr Quarterly Travcl Comparlsoll.................................................... . 'fable 52: Montana's Top W \ttractions for Vacationers: 2011..............................................................5^ Table 53: Ycllow stone National Park Visitor..............................................................................................5R Fable 54: Bozeman Yclloxx-stonc International Airport Volutlie.............................................................5ti Table 55: Ski Area Visitation I.1tiUres...........................................................................................................59 I ©h lil .I\I \! I'.�� It\ ?Ujil.i ��\i�VII j�IU��I'I !1 List of Charts (:hart 1: ?Ill? SBI•: (:(,uncil Business Tas Indc\.......................................................................................... (:hart?: (:(msumer Price Itidet: All Itcros \\*c,;tern Regi(,n ....................................................................l l (:hart 3: 1listcnical \veragc (,(msumcr Price Index..................................................................................I l (:hart 4: Projected (:c>unM POPulatic,rls: (;allatitn and Park (:()unties 20110-206II..................................IS (:hart 5: Nct \Iigrati(m in \Ic,ntana: 2010-2012........................................ .......16 .......................................... (:hart Annual t-nempI()Nmrrit Rates: ?(II►--012................... .)" Chart 8: 2I112) \N-eratic .\nnual I riipl(»mctit b\ Sector: Gallatin and Park (:()tutties..........................6 Chart 9: Average \\'cekl,, Wagcs In Industrv: (;aIIatln and Park Cmintics 2111..................................?ti Chart 10: Area Bank 1)cP()sits: 0011-2012..................................................................................................34 Chart 1 l: NUmbcr uf(;(,nstructic>n I-irms: (;allatin and Park C( unties................................................36 (:hart 12: Average Annual l:mPl()\nient - Gallatin and Park (:<,unries..................................................36 (:tart 13: Residential Buildirl;; Permit .\cmltx 21u07-2012.......................................................................38 (:hart 14: .\nnelatimi to the (.1tv 4 Bc)xenian: 1990-?1►1?................................... i( (:hart 15: \()rth\\"estern Energy \cw (:( nnects: N"I1) June 2013 vs. 1"I1) 11.111e 2(111 :2W2'...........41 (:hart 16: \I(,ntana I:nel;fin (:urlsumPri(m I:stitnatcs: 2011......................................................................41 Chart 1—: \Icmtaria Brewing Industry I:niPlm-nu•nt Impacts by Sect(,r..................................................18 (:hart 18: NUmbcr c,f Single Family I-Imlics Sc,ld: (;allarin and Park COL111tics 2005_2012.................51► (:hart 19: NU111bcr ()f Singlc I anilly Bmics Bozeman, llcl:;rade and Livingston 005-2I11.31 (,hart ?I►: \I()ntana Bi()scicnce I'Anpl(ny the tit (;r(,xx-tli Rate: 2001- 011................................................32 Chart?l: 012 Visitor I•:xpcnditures in Mmlrana............ (:hart??: 2011 \'acati(nur PuPulaticm b\ Statc%Prcn-itice Residence.....................................................5^ . List of Figures Fil;ure l: ?1►13 I:ntcrPrising gates ReP()rt: Rankings for Mmitana..........................................................4 Figure ?: Percent P(,Pulaticm Change for \Ic,rltaria (:(,unties: 2000 and 30111 Census I)ata...............14 Figure 3: \I()ntana Net \4"'pitiml bl' (:c UMV: (uh 2I11 1-July ?I►I?.........................................................F I:igurc 4: Net M' ration I mvs fc,r(;allatin Omnre 2006-311111 .\(:S Data.......................... lti Figure 5: Net Migration Hmvs for Park (,Ount\' 30II6-2010 .\(.S Data.................................................Is Figure 6: Parallel Growth 4 Montana ()Ptics Industry and MSS' ()Pries I adult\................................5) 1",rurc Non-Stop blight 1)estinatimis lrcnn Bozeman: lanuanv 2000 vcr,us 11.1tic 2012.................59 Introduction The Etvnonrir Profile of'Gallatin and Park. Coiinties is researched, updated and published annually by Prospera Business Network. This comprehensive description of the regional economy emphasizes economic, population and demographic trends; area cost of living and employment dynamics; and major industn- sector data. In instances where city, county and regional data is unavailable, statewide data has been provided. It should be noted that there can be a significant time lag in the collection and publication of some of the data sources referenced in this report. Some data relating to the economic changes in late 2012 and 2013 to date has yet to be released. A companion publication, Prospera's 2013 Biisinesl•Relocation and Resomze Guide, includes Gallatin and Park County resources and information for businesses and their employees. It can be found on the Prospera website at ww-,v.ProsperallusinessNettivork.org on the Research and Publications page. About Prospera Business Network Prospera Business Network is a private, nonprofit, member-supported economic development organization in southwestern Montana. Prospera Business Network is dedicated to supporting business expansion, retention and relocation by providing access to business consulting, financing, professional development and economic research. Originally established in 1985 as the Gallatin Development Corporation by a group of forward- thinking members of the business community devoted to the creation of a thriving local economy, Prospera plays a leading role in economic development and serves a region that is one of the fastest growing economic areas in the northern Rocky Mountains. Over the years, the organization has evolved with the business community it was created to serve. Early on, the Gallatin Development Corporation focused on actively recruiting employers to the area. As the economy improved, the organization's focus shifted to supporting local entrepreneurs and companies with their growth and expansion initiatives,with the goal of creating high-paying jobs and diversifying the economy. In October 2006, the organization started doing business as Prospera Business Network to better reflect the organization's expanded regional focus. Today, Prospera Business Network is one of the most comprehensive and collaborative economic development organizations in the area, with the mission to advance, challenge and inspire the business communities in southwestern Montana and in the process contribute to the overall growth and diversification of Montana's economy. Prospera Business Network provides a wealth of resources and tools to business leaders and visionary ' entrepreneurs and prides itself on the range and quality of its programs. For additional information,visit: wxvx%�.ProsperaBusinessNettvork.org or call (406) 587-3113. I ©P1w,vi k\lit .I\t ,•\; ;\\ r rK n13 E,rr\im!r Pk, I II I Overview Located in southwestern Montana, the Gallatin and Park County region is one of the fastest growing economic areas in the northern Rocky Mountains. It has a varied economic base, an educated workforce, thriving technology and manufacturing industries, a major research university, plentiful cultural and outdoor recreation amenities and a scenic natural landscape at the doorstep of Yellowstone National Park. About Gallatin County Gallatin County,with its county seat in Bozeman, covers a land area of 2,603 square miles ranging in elevation from 4,000 to 10,706 feet and had a population density of 34.4 people per square mile as of the 2010 Census. Located in the Gallatin Valle`-, Gallatin County is the most populated and fastest growing counts- in southwest Montana. :-According to the most recent population estimates from the U.S. Census bureau, since the year 2000 Gallatin County has the largest population increase in the state (36.5 percent) and in 2011 overtook Flathead County to claim the third largest county population in Montana, behind Yellowstone and :Missoula Counties. Gallatin County is named for its prominent physical feature, the Gallatin River,which was named by Meriwether Lewis in 1805 in honor of .filbert Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury at the time. The county was established in 1864. With its Rocky Mountain setting, it encompasses the Yellowstone National Park western entrance and is known for world-class downhill skiing, blue ribbon trout streams and a multitude of other outdoor activities. Nearly half of the land in the county is under public ownership by the Gallatin National Forest, State of Montana, Bureau of Land :Management, or the National Park Service. Gallatin County is large and diverse, with rich agricultural lands, a vibrant university and a varied economy of technology and manufacturing businesses. About Park County Park County is located in central southwest Montana. With its county seat in Livingston, it covers a land area of 2,802 square miles ranging in elevation from 4,000 to 12,000 feet and had a population density of 5.6 people per square mile as of the 2010 Census. Park County is nestled between four mountain ranges and spans the beautiful Paradise and Shields Valleys. The 2010 U.S. Census reports Park County is the 12`h most populated county-in Montana. Park Counts- was established in 1887 and named for its proximity to Yellowstone National Park. Because of its immediate access to Yellowstone through the northern entrance and the Yellowstone River flowing through it, Park County's economy is concentrated in tourism, recreation-related services, farming, mining, logging and the arts. Park County has a rich ranching and railroad heritage and is known internationally for fly-fishing and hunting. - - -- ----- --- - ThP Fconomy As reported by the associated Press, "Business Montana's Economic Recovery Outpaces forecasters maintained their rosy view of the U.S. the Nation economy in 2014, predicting 3 percent growth by According to Commissioner Pam Bucy of the the second quarter of nest year, low inflation and Montana Department of Labor & Industry, improving employment."' The aP update also "Montana had an excellent year for reports: the U.S. economy has not grown by more economic growth in 2012, with above than 3 percent over one year, on average, since average job growth and private sector wage 2005; there are expectations that the Federal growth that was the second fastest growth Reserve will taper their monthly mortgage bond among states. Montana's personal income and Treasury bills in 2014; unemployment will fall growth, GDP growth, and unemployment to 7 percent with an addition of 199,000 non-farm levels are better than the nation." jobs per month in 2014 on average and the dollar is also anticipated to hold steady Montana Department of Labor&Industry,at $1.30 per euro State of Montana Labor Day Report 2013 in 2014, after being at $1.31 per euro in 2013 Research&Analysis Bureau predictions.' However, economists recently www.imi.mt.gov surveyed have lowered their expectations for the second half of 2013 as compared to predictions made in May of 2013: these updated forecasts call for real gross domestic product to grow at an annualized rate of 2.3 percent rather than 2.5 percent in the third quarter of 2013 and 2.6 percent rather than 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter.' areas of subdued optimism included consumer spending, industrial production and private investment in nonresidential structures, equipment and software.' On a statewide level, according to Patrick M. Barkev, Director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana, many things fell into place in 2012 for Montana's economic recover-. This included considerable activity in the energy industry in the eastern part of the state, a shift back toward growth in some hard-hit cities in the western portion of Montana, fairly high grain and cattle prices and a long-awaited rebound in statewide housing markets. The outlook for Montana for 2013 is for the growth trends seen in 2012 to continue; with challenges such as lagging international growth and weakness in national and state-level consumer spending counterbalanced by significant improvement in the residential construction sector.' As for Gallatin County Barkey states, "Steady growth in Montana State University, especially in its research activities, good prospects for high-tech manufacturing and services, and an improved outlook for real estate and construction have combined to make [the BBER's] forecast for overall growth in Gallatin County higher than any other major urban area in the state."' Meanwhile, Park County's economy is expected to be stimulated by over $15 million of positive impact from the construction of a new hospital facility in Livingston, anticipated to be completed in early 2015.; Park : County has also seen an increase in septic permit applications,indicating housing market recovery:' Overall, Gallatin and Park Counties seem to be steadily improving from the recession with their fairly diverse economies comprised of industries including manufacturing, construction, government, healthcare, technology, retail, service, agriculture and tourism. I associated Press."Economists keep rosy view for 3 pct growth in 2014." Botieman Daily Chrome%.September 9,2013. w%vw.bozemandailychronicle.com. ' '-Barkey,Patrick."Outlook 2013."Bureau of Business and Economic Research,Ur iversin-of:Montana. www.bber.umt.edu. i I-Iausen,Lodi."LiNringston I IealthCare to build new hospital." Botieman Dai&Cbroidele. October 26,2012. xo1v-,v.bozemandaih chronicle.com. ' Orh.u,Quincy.`Bozeman Economy is Back: Gallatin County Leads in Economic Growth." The Afontanv Pioneer. September 9,2013.w%iAv.mtpwneer.com. i ©!':,n.P1K� R� �i�i •.\, I�\t:�in 'ut.it ,: v:�t{i P,t ,ic . Nlontana ranks highly by mane measures according to the C.T.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation's 2013 Enterpti.iing States report. The metrics below formed Montana's 19" overall rank (Figure 1). Figure 1 : 2013 Enterprising States Report: Rankings for Montana Performance Rank ExportsI Entrepreneurship Rank Long-term Job Growth 6 f Export Intensity 43 STEM Job Growth 9 Short-term Job Growth 31 Export Intensity Growth 3 STEM Job Concentration 27 Gross State Product Growth 17 Growth in Share of National Exports 20 High-tech Share of All Businesses 35 Economic Output per Job 50 Export Growth 4 Business Birth Rate 17 Productivity Growth 34 Academic R&D Intensity 7 Per Capita Income Growth 7 Growth in Self-employed 41 Adjusted Median Family Income 35 PipelineBusiness Climate Rank Talent Small Business Lending 11 Higher-ed Degree Output 35 Broadband Speed Availability 49 Legal Environment 40 Higher-ed Efficiency 30 Broadband Provider Availability 49 State and Local Tax Burden 13 College Affordability 12 Road Quality dio Business Tax Climate 8 Educational Attainment 21 Bridge Quality U.S.Business Policy Index 32 H.S.Advanced Placement Scores 33 Cost of Living 30 Job Placement Efficiency 38 Sonn•e: "Enteipiismg Stites:Getting Donn to Small Basmess."U.S.Chef"V el,of C.o,,w1yen e hoitatialmi.wimp.L'S' l""Iber.cowl 2013 Economic Strength Rankings' POLICONI creates economic strength rankings for both ?Metropolitan and Nlicropolitan Statistical Areas. according to POLICONi, "Economic strength is the long term tendency for an area to consistently grow in both size and quality." POLICONI Corporation is an independent economic research firm specializing in analyzing local and state economies. From its research, it determines if an economy is growing or declining and what is causing this to happen and publishes annual economic strength rankings. The rankings are created to study the characteristics of strong and weak economies and are based on three groups of data: Group l data reflects growth in the size and quality of the economy using wage and income measures such as per capita earnings and number of jobs; Group 2 data reflects the economv's behavior by monitoring earnings and job Figures for small businesses and construction and retail industries, which are "extremely reactive to the `flow of money' coming into an area"; Group 3 data are negative measures, with growth in welfare and Medicaid assistance reflecting poorly on the economy. Simply- identifying the areas that have the fastest or slowest growth rates is insufficient when trying to determine the character of the local economy: a critical consideration is the stability and consistency- of that growth over a period of time. The highest ranked areas (indicated by lower ranking numbers) have had rapid, consistent growth in both size and quality for an extended period of time. The lowest ranked areas (indicated by higher ranking numbers) have been in volatile decline for an extended period of time. 'Fnith,Wilham 11 "Economic Strength Rankings 2013: 'Metropolitan Statistical areas&\Micropolitui Statistical_lreas." POLICO M Corporation. policom.com. The Office of NIanagement and Budget (ONfB), defines NIicropolitan Statistical areas as those with an urbanized area (city) with a population of at least 10,000 but fewer than 50,000. The OMB has identified 576 micropolitan areas in the United States. There are five micropolitan areas in NIontana. Three out of the five areas in itiiontana have been in the top 100 since 2008 (Table 1). Bozeman is the only micropolitan community in Gallatin and Park Counties. From 2006-2012, Bozeman's economic strength rating remained very consistent and was always in the top 10, however Bozeman's rating changed to 19"' place in 2013. according to William H. Fruth of Policom, a 10 position change in the rankings is not statistically significant since, "an area can shift by 20 places because of just one or t%vo issues somewhere along the 20 year period of data."' The shift in Bozeman's rating is largely due to weak average wages and the shifting time frame of evaluation that now includes fewer well-performing past years and more influence of the loss of jobs experienced between 2008 and 2010,especially in the construction industrv.' Table 1 : Micropolitan Economic Strength Rankings (Out of 576) 7utte-S eman 10 8 8 6 7 7 9 19 ilver Bow 191 123 67 51 27 17 25 17 Havre 478 440 421 391 306 284 264 240 Helena 7 23 13 9 6 2 2 2 Kalispell 103 63 1 51 26 35 45 87 142 + Swine: "Eonomir Stirglb &mkiggr 2013: 1letropolilan Statishad .-Areas E llinapolitan Stalidnvl Areas.- POL.IC011 Corporation. rvvrvpo/ioin ioi. According to the OIB, Metropolitan Statistical areas have at least one urbanized area with a population of 50,000 minimum, plus surrounding counties which, "Have a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting." The ONIB has identified 366 metropolitan areas in the United States. Currently, Montana has three metropolitan areas: Great Falls, Missoula and Billings, with rankings shown below in Table 2. Table 2: Metropolitan Economic Stren th Rankings (Out of 366) r MCI :• Billings 186 173 159 105 83 51 62 79 Great Falls 308 270 239 216 202 173 123 120 Missoula 106 130 118 96 74 91 119 172 Sonne: 'Egonamic Stmngth Bookings 2013: 1leimpolitan Statistical Areas E .1ltempolitan Slafistial Amu.- POLICO.11 Carp naton. + Jvww.poliom.rom. I + Fruth,Wilham H.L-mail correspondence,September 2013. ©PPu.P R% lip Div"V I a ,uh ul?I Gross Domestic Product According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analvsis, North Dakota was the top growing state in the nation in 2012 with an estimated rate of growth of over 13 percent; 3.26 percent of that growth was attributed to mining. Montana's GDP was ranked 22" overall in 2012 as a result of the state's 2.11 percent change in GDP between 2011 and 2012 (Table 3). Western states including California, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming all experienced GDP growth in the past year ranging from 0.2 percent to nearly 4.0 percent (Table 3). Table 3: Real GDP by State: New Estimates for 2012 and Revised Estimates for 2009-201 1 Eft�Aillions of Chained 2005 Dollars* • ®.a in e l► .A • 40 Location 2010 2011 2012 2009- 2010- 2011- Rank" 2010 2011 2012 United States 12,897,088 13,108,318 13,430,576 2.42 1 .64 2.46 ---- Rocky Mountain Region (excluding North 451,144 457,990 467,618 1 .4 1 .4 2.10 ---- and South Dakota California 1,672,473 1,692,301 1,751,002 0.32 1 .19 3.47 6 Colorado 230,976 234,929 239,884 1 2.21 1 .71 2.11 21 Idaho 50,734 50,759 50,976 1.57 0.05 0.43 46 Montana 31,918 32,683 33,374 2.07 2.4 2.11 22 Oregon 174,165 180,326 187,440 5.74 3.54 3.95 3 Utah 105,199 108,106 111,808 4.2 2.0 3.42 7 Washington 307,685 313,783 325,165 2.27 2.76 3.42 4 Wyoming 32,004 31,231 31,302 -1 .34 -2.42 0.23 49 Source. 'Real GDP by Slate."dew Estimates for 2012 and Rerised Estimates for•2009-_'011. L.S. Bnrean of E�onomic.-�aajAYis. wrmv.bea,gar. Note, the penent bauge figurer were signiyiarntly iaflnelned by the revised eshmlrtes for 2009-2011. *Chained weighted dollars are dented by lult/hplynlg the chain-weigbted indexes by the assent-dollar values of a rpea fc referenre_year. Chaln-weighted indexes were in/roamed in 1996 to improve the amnraty of estimates of thegronth in realgms domestic pm6a(GDP)and prices. There indexes use np-to- date weights rather than fixed weights in order to piwide a more aieunrte piastre of 1be economy,to better,nphnr iberges in spendtlrg patterns and in prices, and to eliminate the Liar present in fixed-neighted indexes. **Raukiug is by penerrt hrmge,from highest to lowest,and imindes 50 States Alas the Dlslrat of CAhllnbla. Cost of Doing Business The United States is ranked 4" out of 185 countries for ease of doing business by the International Finance Corporation, behind Singapore (1') Hong Kong S AR, China (2'1� and New Zealand (Y). The ranking considers 10 topics, with high rankings indicating that the regulators- environment is considered to be "conducive to the starting and operation of a local firm."- On a state level, Montana's ranking varies from study- to study. As seen in Figure 1 on page four, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's latest Enterptisiq States Report places Montana at 15" for overall Business Climate. This ranking is based on favorable business tat climate, state and local tax burden and small business lending rankings counterbalanced by less favorable U.S. Business Polio• Index, cost of living, and legal environment rankings. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), a national nonpartisan, nonprofit small business advocacy group, regularly releases annual rankings of public policy climates for small business and entrepreneurship for each state. Their 2012 Business Tax Index evaluates 18 different tax measures and assigns a score and ranking to each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A lower number represents a more favorable tax environment for small businesses and entrepreneurs. South Dakota ranked 1"with a score of 11.813. Montana ranked 30" with a score of 39?80.4 The scores for select states are displayed in Chart 1. Chart 1 : 2012 SBE Council Business Tax Index (Rankings in parentheses) � � 9 P ) 52.219 48.524 44.802 R 39.280 34.455 27.260 f I � 17.890 17.360 i Sollne. `Buslttess Ta.-v LNIPN 201 a:Best to [V'r;rt State Tax Spsten7s fol'EntrepretienrsbJp uud Small Bilsi/resr."Siwall Bashiess owd Eiareprewurslxp Colwal,www.sbemwi Borg. Clearly, there are numerous factors impacting the costs of an operation. Table 4 on page eight represents a selection of indicators that help in understanding the cost comparison of Montana to other western states. Montana's national rank is given in parentheses cohere appropriate. -"Doing Business 2013 Economy Rankings."International Finance Corporation.w1Lxv.donigbusiness.org/rankings. "Beating,Raymond J."Business Tax Index 2012:Best to\X`orst State Tax Systems for Entrepreneurship and Small Business."Small Business&Entrepreneurship Council.wwlv.sbecounal.org. Table 4: Regional Comparison of the Cost of Doing Business i TAX RATES (PERCENTAGES) 9 Personal Income 10.30 4,63 T80 6.90 (37'h) 9.90 5.00 0.00 0.00 State& Local Soles, Gross Receipts& 3.01 2.89 2.86 1.03 (2`) 0.59 3.39 5.49 5.40 Excise Capital Gains 10.30 4.63 T80 6.90 (39') 9.90 5.00 0.00 0.00 Corporate Income 8.84 4.63 7.60 6.75 (24'h) 7.60 5.00 0.00 0.00 State & Local Property 3.53 3.07 2.60 3.84 (361h) 3.28 2.68 2.91 5.19 Unemployment 0.79 1.25 6.02 4.49 (43`d) 4.02 6.77 4.56 5.41 Gas 0.486 0.220 0.250 0.278 30" Tied 0.310 0.245 0.375 0.140 Wireless 0.108 0.105 0.022 0.061 0.018 0.123 0.182 0.080 4 Tied State Salest0 7.5 2.9 6.0 None None 1 5.95 6.5 40 STATE TAX REVENUE" Total Collected 112,372 10,251 3,374 2,459 8,700 5,810 17,625 2,551 (S million) %of Personal Income 6.8% 4.5% 6.5% 6.8% 6.0% 6.2% 5.9% 9.4% Rank 17'h 47"' 24`h 16'h 32"d 291h 35'h 4'h (By%of Pers. Income LABOR Mean Annual Wage` $52,350 S48,110 $38,440 $38,030 $45,250 S41 ,840 $51,150 $43,180 Worker's Compensation: $1 .71 $0.86 S 1 .55 $2.54 Employer Costs/$100 (50,h) $1.10 50.84 $1.46 $1.74 a roll13 COST OF LIVING MEASURES Median Housing $421,600 $236,700 $171,300 $179,900 $252,600 $221,300 $283,200 $181,900 Value Margin of Error " +/- $782 +/- $620 +/- $914 +/- $1,518 +/-$1,187 +/- $756 +/- $812 +/-$1,767 +/- Residential Electric15 Cents/kW hour $17.50 $12.42 $10.19 $1 1.06 $10.16 $10.83 $8.82 $10.77 Average Monthly Bill $83.70 $80.12 $82.50 1 $84.97 $94.51 $70.61 $88.41 $82.28 Commerical Electric" Cents/kW hour $16.94 $10.49 $T98 $9.81 $8.43 $9.20 $7.62 $8.82 Average Monthly Bill $734.21 $449.84 $314.63 $366.10 S447.99 $528.11 $518.40 $467.44 Sormes.1 anons.Seefootnotes. '`Business Tax Index 2012."Small Business&Entrepreneurship Council.www.sbecouncil.org. Federation of Tax.Administrators,compiled from various sources.wZvw.taxadmin.org. Federation of Tax.Administrators,from U.S.Census Bureau&Bureau of Economic.Analysis.-,v w.taxadmin.org. 12`Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics Survey." U.S.Department of Labor,ORS Estimates annual data for all occupations (all private industries).May 2012.www.bls.gov/oes. li"1X'orker's Compensation:Benefits,Coverage,and Costs,201 1."National Academv of Social Insurance,.August 2013. w1tilv.nasi.org. la"200?-2011 .American Community Survey."Median A"slue(Dollars),Owner-occupied housing units.U.S.Census Bureau.www.census.gov/acs. 15 Form EI.A-826,Monthly Electric Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions Report,and Tables 5a&5b,U.S, Energy Information.Administration,Cents/Kilowatt hour as of\Iav 2012,.Average Monthly Bill 2011 -Annual Data. www.eia.gov. Cost of Living :area cost of living can be measured by two distinct indexes, the Cost of Living Index, which measures relative prices each quarter"'and the Consumer Price Index,which measures inflation." Cost of Living IndeX16 The Cost of Living Index is a comparison study of over 300 urban areas around the nation. Three times each year, participating organizations collect data within their respective cities on consumer goods, services, housing, transportation, utilities and healthcare. The index is compiled and published by the Council for Community and Economic Research (C2ER), a national organization of community and economic development research professionals. Prospera Business Network collects prices for over 60 items in Bozeman and submits its findings to C2ER to be analyzed and compared to other communities. The study is intended to provide a measure of living cost differences among urban areas for a mid- management standard of living. The Cost of Living Index is based on five categories including groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, healthcare and miscellaneous goods and services. The national average composite index is set at 100 each collection period; therefore the index conveys relative price levels at a specific point in time and the index score can be seen as a percentage of the average for all places. The Index does not measure inflation, or price change over time because each quarterly report is a separate comparison of prices at a single point in time and because both the number and the mix of participants changes from one quarter to the next. Therefore index data from different quarters cannot be compared. How to Use the Cost of Living Index Assume that City A has a composite index of 98.3 and City B has a composite index of 128.5. If you live in City A and are contemplating a job offer in City B, how much of an increase in your after-taxes income is needed to maintain your present lifestyle? 100*[(City B - City A)/City A] _ 100*[(128.5-98.3)/98.3] = 100'(.3072) _ 30.72%, or about a 31% increase Conversely, if you are considering a move from City B to City A, how much of a cut in after-taxes income can you sustain without reducing your present lifestyle? 100*[(City A— City B)/City b] = 100'[(98.3 — 128.5)/128.51 = 100*(-.2350) _ -23.5%, or about a 24% reduction Source:Qtuwerly Reports,C2ER Cost of jtwe g Line-v.inpimc2er.ot�g. «'"Cost of Luting Index Report."C2ER,The Council for Commutunv and Economic Research.w1ww.coh.org. U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics. ,ti1Lw.bls.go-%•/cpi. Cost of Living in Bozeman Bozeman's cost of living was only 0.2 percent above the national average for the second quarter of 2013, while Kalispell, with a composite index score of 96.5, was below average. As seen Table 5, in the second quarter of 2013, Bozeman groceries were 1.3 percent below the national average and goods and services came in at 2.4 percent below average. Bozeman residents continue to enjoy a bargain when it comes to utilities and transportation, which were both 6.7 percent below average. Health care was 2.1 percent above average for the quarter and housing came in almost 10 percent higher than national averages. One can see that Kalispell was more expensive than Bozeman in terms of transportation,healthcare, and goods and services. To put Bozeman and Kalispell's index scores in perspective, the other cities included in the table below include the cities with the most expensive and least expensive composite scores for the quarter-:Manhattan, New York and Idaho Falls, Idaho respectively. The table also includes the most comparable cities to Bozeman in the Western region that participate in the index. Note: San Francisco was included to provide insight into how Bozeman compares to the Bay area since none of the participating cities in California were comparable to Bozeman. Table 5: 2"d Quarter 2013 Cost of Living Index Comparison •. IX•0a wo San Francisco, CA 159.5 126.2 285.6 92.4 1 116 116.6 113.6 Grand Junction, CO 97.1 98.2 98.1 81.5 105.2 103.6 96.7 Idaho Falls, ID 86.1 85.8 67.9 93.3 101.9 98.0 91 .4 Least Expensive Q2 2013 Bozeman, MT 100.2 98.7 109.5 93.3 93.3 102.1 97.6 Kalispell, MT 96.5 95.0 91 .7 92.5 98.3 110.3 99.9 Manhattan, NY 218.8 132.8 437.1 132.1 125.4 106.1 151 .5 Most Expensive Q2 2013 Klamath Falls, OR 97.7 90.8 92.9 96.8 120.8 107.6 94.6 Cedar City, UT 87.2 89.3 72.3 82.5 96.7 90.2 96.3 Olympia, WA 101 .6 93.4 99.3 87.9 114.8 119.6 103.8 Laramie, WY 99.5 96.8 106.9 1 92.3 1 89.8 105.7 99.5 Soave: "CostofLitill Index, 16146.No.2.DrrtvforSeroudQnrrrter2Ol3."C2ERPnblid)edl-L/gttct2Ol3.wivw.,2er.oig. Note: The Cost of Living Index categories are weighted to compile the Composite Score, and the weights assigned vary slightly each quarter, based on data extracted by C2ER from the 2011 U.S. Consumer Expenditure Surrey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For 2013 Q2 the weighting was: groceries: 13.56 percent, housing: 27.02 percent, utilities: 10.30 percent, transportation: 12.35 percent,health care: 4.60 percent,and goods and services: 32.17 percent. Consumer Price Indexl' The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market range of goods and services. The CPI differs from the Cost of Diving Index in that it is intended to measure inflation and is derived from detailed expenditure information provided by families and individuals on items they actually purchased, whereas the Cost of Living Index measures relative prices at particular points in time and is based on current prices available at that time to consumers. Also, CPI figures encompass regions and only provide detailed information on some major metropolitan areas. 011;i •1,1 ti\j;I I\I "\I 1\\ '1(h 'Ill.1 1 The chart below includes the monthly CPI for urban areas in the western region of the U.S. The Western Region includes Montana, Wvoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Alaska and Hawaii. The average index baseline was set at 100 between 1982 and 1984 and subsequent CPI numbers indicate price changes since that period. Chart 2: Consumer Price Index: All Items Western Region (Non-seasonally adjusted) �n 01 N 238.50 — p 236.50 234 50 CifN N 232.50 N 230.50 228.50 - 226.50 22450 222.50 220.50 218.54 -- N N N N N N M M Cri M M M M 7 r D -D O m p ¢ 0 Z o U- a a i Swim:U.S_Department of 1_4;bor:Bairoa of Labor Statistics.lmmv.blgorf Bpi. As seen in Chart 3, the annual CPI figures for the Western Region have consistently been slightly higher than the average CPI for all U.S. cities, though in recent years the gap has narrowed. Chart 3: Historical Average Consumer Price Index (Non-seasonally adjusted) 250 225 200 175 150 —,--- --, 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 anomWestern Region U.S. City Average Soarce.• C.S. Depanwent of Labor. Bmrau o%Labor Statisha. ivwv.bls.,9orlcpi. Note:Prosperas 2012 Erouotme Profile ronkuned an error related to 11 Pstel'/1 Re ion data and niAwted a.!harp Spike to to a GPI o,f_'81 i/r_'009.Ibis was ronreted to ml7ect the acural C'PI of 218 for_'009. ©Px „ri '?�fit ,i\1 \ raixh ?iliL<<'\'�%u' Pxul1ti Population Trends Steady population growth in the region is consistent with a national trend, in which a high quality-of life is driving growth in rural communities.'" While proportionally- C.S. urban areas grew more quickly than rural areas between 1970 and 2010, the number of people choosing rural lifestyles increased as well, from 53.5 million to 59.5 million during that 10 year period." University of ;Minnesota Rural Sociologist Ben Winchester describes the shift from urban to rural areas, especially for the 30-35-year-old cohort as the `Brain Gain", in which quality of life lures young professionals to smaller towns and "the rural narrative is being rewritten".1" Many 30-40-year-olds are willing and able to work remotely- or create their own jobs in order to live somewhere with a slower pace, lower housing costs and a sense of safety-; as a result there are many- metropolitan areas experiencing declining population figures for this age group while rural areas are seeing growth for this age group."' Between 2000 and 2010, half of the counties in Montana saw an increase in residents ages 30 to 34: while some of the largest grains were in Gallatin and Yellowstone Counties, where larger cities are located, there were also significant gains in more rural counties." .According to 2012 C.S. Census Bureau population estimates, Gallatin County had a population of 92,614, and its county seat, Bozeman, had 38,695 residents. Park Countv's population was 15,567 and its county seat, Livingston, had 7,053 residents (Table 6). Table 6: State, County and City Populations: 2006-2012 Montana 945,428 956,624 j 967,440 974,989 989,415 998,199 1,005,141 Gallatin County 84,370 87,243 89,824 90,343 89,513 91,377 92,614 j Belgrade 7,631 1 8,036 8,185 8,192 7,389 7,549 I 7,556 Big Sky 1,221 i11 2000(U.S.Cenuu Bnreall) 2,308 I'o 2011&2012 data anrulable Bozeman 36,668 37,643 39,004 39,282 37,280 38,025 38,695 Manhattan 1,555 1,539 1,622 1,677 1,520 1,553 1,549 Three Forks 1,923 1,915 1,928 1,970 1,869 1,909 1,892 W.Yellowstone 1 ,281 1 1,433 1,511 1,502 1,271 1,298 1,308 Park County 15,845 16,072 16,189 15,941 15,636 15,469 15,567 Clyde Park 342 346 347 342 288 286 291 Cooke City 140 hi 2000(L`.S.Ceu3ac Bwer111) 75 No 2011E 2012 data arailable Gardiner 851 in 2000(L".S.Gensuc Bureau) 875 No 2011&2012 data andlable Livingston 7,131 7,253 1 7,409 1 7,380 7,044 6,969 1 7,053 Wilsall 23-1112000(U.S.CowlsBareau) 178 No 2011E_012 data arailable Somre: 'Atuuial Est iivater of Rwdm/ Population Change: April 1. 2010 to July 1. ;012." U.S. Celsius Bturan Population Di,irion. uw1va e11S11S.901'1 popest i"Black,Jo Dee."Going Rural:Quality of He and slower pace dnvuig younger people to small communtties." Great Falls Tribune. June 1,2013.t�ivu:.greatftllstribtuie.eom. ©('(--I.il<NRt •1vI "vI ionic: Gallatin County- remains the fastest growing county- in the state, with its population increasing 36.5 percent between 2000 and 2012 ('fable 7). Over the same period, Park County lost population by 0.8 percent, going from a population of 15,694, as of the 2000 Census, to a population of 15,561, according to 2012 population estimates. Table 7: Six Fastest Growing Montana Counties: 2000-2012 - . Gallatin 67,831 92,614 36.5 1 Broadwater 4,385 5,756 31 .3 2 Flathead 74,471 91,633 23.0 3 Yellowstone 129,352 151,882 17,4 4 Lewis & Clark 55,716 64,876 16.4 5 Missoula 95,802 110,977 15.8 6 Sonire.- Updated 2000 Comm ngrnes E `Anunal EsImwiter oJRerideut Popalaiou Cbange::-tprrl 1, 2010 to Jz,# 1,201?."U.S. Censors Bureau Populahm Dnrriou.mrivaeuals,gorlpopest. Looking at short-term population growth as measured by the Jul- 2010 and July- 2012 population estimates, Gallatin County's ranks 7`h in the state, with a growth rate of 3.5 percent; meanwhile, Park County- ranks 441",with a decline of 0.4 percent (Table 8). The top ten counties included in the table below are dominated by those in the eastern portion of the state. This impressive growth is due largely to the agricultural sector and especially the energy sector-which weathered the recession fairly well and created desirable employment opportunities.''' Table 8: Montana County Population Growth: 2010-2012 Richland 9,746 10,810 7=5. % 1 Sheridan 3,384 3,580 2 Roosevelt 10,425 10,927 4.8% 3 Fallon 2,890 3,024 4.6% 4 Garfield 1,206 1,261 4.6% 5 Wibaux 1,017 1,057 3.9% 6 Gallatin 89,513 92,614 3.5% 7 Petroluem 494 511 3.4% 8 Dawson 8,966 9,249 3.2% 9 Blaine 6,491 6,683 3.0% 10 Park 15,636 15,567 -0.4% 44 Saline: Updated 2000 Cenws F gives E Awilal EJIU%7ales aI Resident Population Cbage:.1pril 1, 2010 to Jnlj, 1, 201a L.S. Census Bruean Popnlution Dirivai,ru2vrrr reusns;gor/popes!. While the overall state population grew at a rate of 9.7 percent from 2000 to 2010, 28 !Montana counties experienced declining populations over the same period (Figure 2). Population increases occurred in 27 counties,and only Custer County experienced no change. Most notably, only-Gallatin (32.0 percent), Broadwater (28.0 percent), and Flathead (22.1 percent) counties experienced growth rates greater than 14.5 percent. "I Wagner,Barbara."Montana Employment Projections 2010 through 2020."Montana Research and analysis Bureau, Montana Department of Labor and Industry. .% -%v.otirfactsvourfiittire.mt.gov. Figure 2: Percent Population Change for Montana Counties: 2000 and 2010 Census Data Census 2010: MONTANA Population Percent Change By County Census 2000 to Census 2010 Lincoln Glacier Toole 4&2% -ITAM 4.5% 1.1% Hill 11% Llbertl 3.5% Blame 7A% Valley Phillips A,0% Roosevelt Pondera 7.6% -1.814 -4.2% Sanders Lake Teton Chouteau Richland 11.6Y. 8.4% 3.8% -2.6°4 0.8% inera Cascade 8.7% Fergus Garfield l�avrson Levis 1.2% -2.6% -5.7% r'` -1.0*4 Missoula and = - Petroleu Clark 0.2% 14.1!S _ Prairie 13.8% -1.7% baux Granite Powell Meagher Wheatland Musselshell Rosebud 8.8% -2.1% -2.1% -4 0% 0.9% 1.6% Fallon Ravalh eer Jefferson Custer 1.9% 11 5% Lodg 13.5% 0.0% 1.36 der Bluest Yellov stone B Grass 14.4% 1.2% 11.3% Ilwa Big Powder Madison Park Horn River Beaverhead 12.3% -0.4% Carbon 1.5% -6.2% Percent Change 5.5% -17-6 to-11.0 -10.9to-01 0.0 to 5.5 Map M Montana Percent Change:9.7% I cams:6 Econaac hror h-C-ter 7 Mariana Department nr Corrine e 5.6 to 14.4 301 s Pere Me,Helene MT 50801 4MO41-2740 emN cacill t.pw - 14.5 to 32.0 http)kw mtgov Souse.u S Cams Bore-.Cenws 2010.PL 94-171.2011 may 2911-poputeponChenyeeyCourry2010 rna0 Sotlne: "Anlntttl EStttnates o'Lsidetlt Poptllatton C.htge. -U.S. Onslls Bttnwn Popitletttott Dirision. iiiin ,,e1lstlJ.got'/popest. C.omptled by•1lottttma Department o/Conmfette Censln-and Eronotttir IuJolvxjotr Center, bap://ienaN1.,gor. As seen in "fable 9, Bozeman remains the fourth Iargest city in Montana behind Billings, Missoula, and Great Falls. Table 9: Montana City Population Rankings: 2007-2012 Billings 101 ,778 103,994 105,845 104,170 105,636 106,954 1 Missoula 67,141 68,202 68,876 66,788 67,290 68,394 2 Great Falls 58,779 59,251 59,366 58,505 58,950 58,893 3 Bozeman 37,643 39,004 39,282 37,280 38,025 38,695 4 Butte 31,919 32,119 32,268 33,525 33,704 33,730 5 Helena 28,713 29,351 29,939 28,190 28,592 29,134 6 Kalispell 20,292 21,182 21,640 19,927 20,008 20,487 7 Soiree: "Antm al Eititnates of Resident Populatioe.-April 1,2010 to fldy 1.2012,"U.S. Cen.vu Bmeaa Popnlattott Dinston.rvlrro.l'eteau;gor/popes. According to projections released in April of 2013 by the Xlontana Department of Commerce Census and Economic Information Center, Gallatin County's population is expected to steadily- increase through 2060. The total growth for the 2000 to 2060 period is projected at nearly 113 percent, with a predicted 2060 population of over 145,000 residents (Chart 4). Park Countt's population is expected to fluctuate over the course of the coming decades, with slight declines from 2030 to 2050 and then moderate growth from 2050 to 2060. These latest projections have been revised downwards from previous projections through 2030, which predicted a population of 136,970 for Gallatin County-in 2030 and a population of 20,110 for Park County in 2030. Chart 4: Projected County Populations: Gallatin and Park Counties 2000-2060 160,000 145,389 140,000 133,016 116,627 122,432 120,000 105 568 t 100,000 9,616 0 80,000 68,375 0 60,000 --- - --. -. _. ----- --- --- - Q_ 40,000 15,710 15,587 15,760 15,939 15,836 15,933 16,260 20,000 r I 0 I 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 mont Gallatin County :Park County Swim. eRE-111 Reg/enal Eronemii .Models, ,oimprled by the .11outana Departwill of Commene Census and Etonamic Lformation Center. wiv eeic:mtgoi� I Note that the population figures included in the chart above are a product of the eREINII online economic model database and are annual estimates as of July 1 for each vear, thus the historic figures do not correspond to actual historic population figures as included in the preceding population section tables. t t ©PRuI'I H1lii I'.I �, I'd •I;h 211H I hRul 11 Migration :according to Census Bureau population estimates, ;Montana experienced net migration into the state between July of 2011 and July of 2012 with a total net migration rate of 4,373, or 4.4 percent (Table 10). Table 10: Components of Resident Population Change: July 201 ] -July 2012 - 11191111111111111111IMmestic - Migration Migration Migration Montana 3,092 11,855 8,763 627 3,746 4,373 Cascade 444 1,176 732 222 -718 -496 Flathead 307 1,063 756 33 175 208 Gallatin 601 1,102 501 75 582 657 Lewis & Clark 193 762 569 49 397 446 Missoula 409 1 ,166 757 56 405 461 Park -9 140 149 5 85 90 Yellowstone 613 1,927 1,314 1 37 1 1,316 1 1,353 Some: '2012 Pop latiou Estimates: Estimate) o_f Resident Population Ownge.July 1. 2011]sly 1, 2012."Census Bnienn Pop/rlution Division. ionp.census\goP7popest. The chart below includes net migration rates for selected counties; Gallatin County experienced a much smaller net migration in 2012 than in 2011,while Park County gained 90 residents after losing 118 in the preceding period. According to Census Bureau Population Division estimates, statewide net migration was 463 between 2009 and 2010, 3,611 between 2010 and 2011, and 4,373 between 2011 and 2012. Chart 5: Net Migration in Montana: 2010-2012 1,500 - — 1,250 1 ,000 750 _' 500 I �12010 250 l -j 2011 IL A _j2012 0 - -250 -5 00 off° Coy Q�° �j° �\`& �\\a� m Sonrie: '2012 Popalat/on Estimates: Estvuates o_j Resident Population Chaa/ge: July 1, 2011 julp /, 2012."Ceus/tJ Bureaus Population Dintsion. 1UIU1U.t'PI/J!/J.g0!'/popP.cr. ©� it 1(\ 1" \1 I'\1 \I'( j)H-'I ill Figure 3: Montana Net Migration by County: July 201 1 -July 2012 Montana County Population Change Rate of Net Migration - July 2011 to July 2012 Estimates* Can^_Is Lincoln Hill 5.6 3.2 Flathead -0.7 1, '`'berty $.5 Blame Vaiey 2,3 Ponders 7.5 3'9 3.5 -4.9 Lake Teton Sanders -5.6 3.6 . McCane 3.0 Cascade -7.0 Fergus Lewes $.1 t and Judith -0.3 Missoula Clark Basin 4.2 6.9 •2.0 Pra:ne awed Meagher -3.5 Granite 4.7 Broad- 9.9 Gol .9.6 Rosebud -8.0 water Valley Musselshell Custer Raial.I eer Jefferson -9.5 $A Lad xe -1.0 SA 9.0 6.0 3.8 B- Sweet Yetlowst0 2.3 Gaitatin Grass StIllaate 7.1 6.1 3.3 9.0 Powder Park Rner Population Change ,d Madison 5.8 Carbon 6.8 Rate Per 1,000 People 7.3 4.6 Under-10.0 'Net Migration=net internal migration plus net international migration -10.0 to-1 1 Montana Net Migration Rate_4.4 -1 0 to 0.9 1.Oto 10.0 Over 10.0 Map by Census&Etnnptn¢Ink-abort Cwtw Sara U 5 Cwwtts&rw AmuM Resdwa PopJaam Estimates.Est-Will C-pone ,d Rezde Poq/abon Change Moribim DspaMleM of Canmaroe.301 S Park Ave and Rates dthe CanpanMs of Re*Oent PgKdM pl Change for Slates awl C..b.APdI 1.2D1010 July s.2012 Helena.MT S8620.405-841-2740.Mp tkiiia.ml goy Sourne: "201' Population Estimates: Estimates of Resident Population Change:Jp/y 1, 'Ole jnly 1. 0la"Ceirsurs Bureau Popplatio/r Dirrsion. 1L1YIY.telrltrJ.go1'/popest.Compiled L_y.Afeniana Depaltuaeni oJ-Commene Census and Economic Ira bmirition Center.wlvw.teie.rptgor. The figure above illustrates county-level net migration rates for the state of Montana. The highest rates of population growth are primarily- concentrated in the eastern portion of the state, where energy- development is driving the economy. Nlaps detailing a county--to-county- level migration flow for Gallatin and Park Counties are included on page 18 (Figures 4 & 5). The associated migration data is shown in the table below. Table 11 : Gallatin and Park Count Net Migration Details 2006-2010 ACS Data . . - - - Movers to over . - . . .. . Gallatin 86,553 5,829 4,243 3,747 2,697 564 County Park County 15,615 712 599 170 708 128 Sopne.•Censrs Flow f lapper-Beta.LU Census Bnreap Geography Dirsron.amvtutensus.1or. I 011.<- lie ,l"I "\I I%\(mK _'ultl r PIa'lT1: Figure 4: Net Migration Flows for Gallatin County 2006-2010 ACS Data ff� All Net Migration Flows for tr Gallatin County. Montana w QD n N� .r a . �� # may..—:..•a. Net gain a f �� Net toss No net movers Not avallatle Census M Soane.•Census Flows-11apper—Beta. C.J.Census Bnreuu Geography Dirisiou,mnnv.essus;gnr. Figure 5: Net Migration Flows for Park County 2006-2010 ACS Data Alt Net Migration Flolms for Park County. Montana 0 Net gain r" Net loss FI No net movers 0 Not available Census a sari Sonne:Census Flow.01,0per—Bern. C.S.Census Bntron Geog ipi))-Dlr'ision.mww.(eusus. r. ©Nit, ICI 1I I`\I;R' 20I+1.4 111.nlI i Demographics According to fire tear American Communitt- Survey estimates shown in the table below, the national median age is 37.0 years while Montana's median age is 39.8 years. Overall, the median age in Gallatin County-- and Bozeman in particular-is lower than the surrounding areas largely due to the presence of the University (Table 12). Table 12: A e Demo ra hits 2007-2011 ACS Data Location Median Age Under 5 Years 18 . Over 65 and Over Marg of Error . of ErrorMarginof ErrorMarginof Error United States 37.0 (+/-o.l yeas) 20,170,377 232,556,019 39,608,820 (+/-3,883) (+/-7,320) (+/-4,840) Montana 39.8 (+/-o.l years) 60,700 (+/-319) 759,645 143,556 (+/-308) (+/-271) Gallatin County 32.1 (+/-0.2 years) 5,667 (+/-57) 70,601 (+/-85) 8,192 ( Belgrade 30.3 (+/-3.0 years) 584 (+/-186) 5,332 (+/-232) 411 (+/-76) Big Sky _ 37 (+/-7.1 years) 143 (+/-75) 1,811 (+/-387) 374 (+/-167) Bozeman 27 (+/-.5 years) 1,929 (+/-207) 31,546 (+/-340) 2,819 (+/-235) Manhattan 37.9 (+/-6.8 years) 150 (+/-72) 996 (+/-135) 260 (+/-73) Three Forks 48.1 (+/-7years) _62 (+/-39) 1,224 (+/-144) 334 (+/-83) West Yellowstone 31 .4 (+/-5.7 years) 70 (+/-51) 1,041 (+/-265) 125 (+/-53) Park County 45.0 (+/-.4 years) 767 (+/-44) 12,583* 2,542 (+/-44) Clyde Park 47.8 (+/-6.9 years) 2 (+/-4) 313 (+/-117) 60 (+/-35) Cooke City 49.5 (+/-30.9 years) 0 (+/-78) 22 (+/-18) 9 (+/-13) Gardiner 48.8 (+/-2 years) 16 (+/-16) 724 (+/-1 19) 132 (+/-50) Livingston 41 .1 (+/-2.6 years) 469 (+/-9i) 5,518 (+/-127) 1 ,194 (+/-132) Wilsall 57.2 (+/-12.2 years) 7 (+/-12_) 109 (+/-50) 47 (+/-29) _ Sourre."200 -2011.4meriiwr Commuait}-Simg."U.S.Census Barran.wwiurrususgor.*Estourrte is rautro/%d mmgirr of error not rrpprn�rinte. - As illustrated by the estimates in Table 13, Gallatin and Park Counties are slightly- less diverse than the state overall by most measures. In all categories except for the American Indian population, Montana is considerably less diverse than the nation on the whole. Table 13: Ethnicity 2007-2011 ACS Data United States Margin of Error +/-Margin of Error Margin of Error Margin of Error White Non-Hispanic 74.1% (+/-0.1%) 89.7% (+/-0.1%) 96.6% (+/-0.4%) 94.9% (+/-0.3%) Black or African American 12.5% (+/-0.1%) .4% (+/-0.1%) 0% (+/-0.2%) 4% (+/-0.1%) Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 16.1% (+/-o.l%) 2.9% (+/-o.i%) 2.0% * 2.8%* American Indian &Alaskan 1 .6% (+/-o.l%) 7.8% (+/-o.1%) 2.3 % (+/-.5%) 1.8% (+/-.2%) Native Two or more races 2.5% (+/-o.l%) 2.3% (+/-o.i%) 2.80/o (+/-.4%) 1.6% Souris: '200'-?011;arrieriinu Cmunumity S'nneyc"L:S.Ceusns Bureau,wwtvrrmns.�or.*E.�timvte is contro/lerl mai�in of envr not rrppropriatc. i ©Ycu iiit Ri iv \i I-XX(w 'uI3L ` yin Pr Chart 6 details the poverty rates for Montana's counties as of 2011 according to estimates released in December 2012. Gallatin and Park Counties are two of the 21 counties in the state that fall below the "high poverty county" threshold, defined as a count- in which 14 percent or more people of all ages are in poverty. Chart 6: Montana County Poverty Rates: 2011 Poverty in Montana- 2011 County Poverty Rates Lincoln Glacier Toole Shendan Toole 10 2% 10 ass 22 2% 31 2% 18 ax LioartY Hdl E-a-.•, Flathead 1-4 189% _4 Fth rs Valley Roosevelt 12 3% Ponders 15 3"4 28 9'b 19 2% 16 2'I Sanders lake Teton Ctloufeau Ptchlana 181% 22 s% 152% 179% - 97% MtCone Mineral Lewis Cascade GarUd 161% Dawn on 177% Missoula Clark 153% :ergus Petroleum Judith Basin 13 1% 17% 108% 162% 183K Prame 13 4`,4 P-11 kl:sjj'ttt rn 1—lidIIJ MusselsheMusselshell15% 1s 7% Broad- 198% 19% Golden Musselshell Valley 17 6% Rosebud Custer 3 5•;6 Rant - water Treasure Dar Jefferson 12,9% 23 5% to ley, 15 disc Lodge SW 10 1% Sweet 12.54b 17 1% 71 - Gallatin Grass Stillwater 125% Park 118% 13% Carter t0.a% &g Hem Powder River Madison 12% 28 6*v 13.9".6 Beaverhead 12 2^s Carbon 17 2% 12-2% 90-1-201(2)(d)MCA'High-poverty county'means a county In this state in which 1495 or more of people of all ages are In poverty as determineo by the Poverty Rate U S Census Bureau estimates for the most current year available Less than 14% Montana's Average Poverty Rate 15.2% 14%or more US Average Poverty Rate 15.9% Uw Sauce U S Cerrsus Sweet 2011 Smee Aru Siam and Pmenv Esenses All ages m Poverty Re4ase4 Ueamber 2012 W Cemws 6 rxT 5962-0505 eeon N t-27.0l i DeosRrwd d Carrmu J01 S Park Ase Releru MTS%20-0505.408-841-2740 emM me s�ttgov Ids/eeK mlgw Sonrre:Ceusas&Eto7otwic Inforn7atioo Center Montana Department o%Collmye7te.bttp://rei4:7nL,9oe. The estimates in Table 14 on page 21 illustrate that Gallatin Countes median household and median family income are considerably higher than Montana's statewide figures. For Gallatin County as a whole, the rates of individuals below poverty level and families below poverty level remain slightly lower than national averages. West Yellowstone has the highest percentage of individuals and families who live below the poverty- level in Gallatin County and Bozeman has the second highest percentage in Gallatin County for those categories. Park County and its communities have lower median income estimates than the statewide median income figures (Table 14). However the personal per capita income in Park County is very close to the personal per capital income for Montana as a whole. Wilsall has continued to grapple with the highest poverty levels in Park County- for both individuals and families. 0111<�;,1'! I:� fi ,I�: \I .'s, {S 211111 r, tNl1 111t 11. Table 14: Income Levels 2007-2011 ACS Data : . : Capita Household Family Personal l Poverty Level . . . . . . . . . Margin of Error Margin . Error Error Error Error United States $52,762 $64,293 $27,915 14.3% (+/-0.1%) 10.5% (+/-$99) (+/-$191) (+/-$80) (+/-0.1%) Montana $45,324 $57,616 $24,640 14.6% (+/-0.4°/.) 9.7%(+/-0.4%) (+/-$418) (+/-$663) (+/-$231) Gallatin County $51,391 $66,875 $27,769 13.2%(+/-1.o%) 7.3% (+/.1.1%) (+/-$1,289) (+/-$2,328) (+/-$925) Belgrade $41,806 $46,061 $20,228 +/-10.6% 4.2% ° (+/-$5,939) (+/-$6,285) (+/-$1,522) ( ) 8.1 /o (+/-4.6/0) ! Big Sky 9.7% (+/-6.6%) 1 .7%(+/-2.4%) --- $57,179 $87,969 $30,466 - - - (+/_$7,807) (+/-$12,186) (+/-$4,198) Bozeman $44,412 $63,397 $25,699 19.8% (+/-1.9%) 10.1% - - - (+/_$2,405) (+/-$4,380) (+/-$1,737) I (+/-2.4%) Manhattan $51,827 $61,154 $24,308 9.6% (+/-8.3%) 14.8% (+/-5.9%) (+/-$7,608) (+/-$9,605) (+/-$5,573) Three Forks $38,839 $51,806 $23,677 11 .7% (+/-5.0% ° (+/_$10,027) (+/-$9,804) _(+/-$3,106) ) 8.8/° (+/-6.5%) West $39,141 $55,938 $21,613 28 7% (+/-13.3%) 18.8% Yellowstone (+/-$4,001) (+/-$20,068) (+/-$4,930) (+/-10.2%) Park County $41,232 $51,959 $24,466 2.3%) 7.6% (+/-2.7%) (+/-$2,067) (+/-$6,347) (+/-$1,713) Clyde Park $43,194 $55,833 $19,342 11.7% (+/-9.2%) 3.0% (+/-7.1%) (+/-$22,224) (+/-$26,247) (+/-$4,716) Cooke City $26,458 $38,125 $19,936 0% (+/-55.5%) 0.0% (+/-$5,590) (+/-$21,108) (+/-$3,964) _ (+/-92.0%) Gardiner $41875 $61 932 $28,346 1 (+/-$13,164) (+/-$12,424) (+/-$3,142) Livingston $36,797 $42,361 $21,358 0 0 g (+/-$3,111) (+/-$7,815) (+/-$2,591) 11.7/0 (+/-3.4°10) 9.3/0 {+/-4.6%) Wilsoll $23,542 $24,792 $13,321 ° 19.6% (+/-$16,414) (+/-$29,941) (+/-$4,392) 25.2/o (+/-23.0%) (+/-22.3%) Swnze: "200--2011 .Imernan Comimrnity Smrel." U.S. Census Bolvda. 1YIY1K[P/nS!ltg0l! Iuivme figiurs are in 2011 inlbion-adjusted dollars. ' emote that Per Capita Personal huarre meuwres the income o al! eo le.iurlitdin the uuenr/o'ed,For arera a nYu et em-ied by em/o ed residents, lease.nee p l pp s p ) g s i p.) p the Salary&11'i?ge section. As seen on page 22, Gallatin and Park County exceed national averages for educational attainment for high school graduates and above and bachelor's degree or above; this can largely be attributed to the strength of the area's school systems and the influence of Montana State University (Table 15). The rates for those earning a bachelor's degree or above are the same for the United States and Montana. Table 15: Level of Educational Attainment (Percent of Population 25 Years & Over) 2007-201 1 ACS Data Location MarginOW -mviiiiiiiiiiii&, . . Error United States 85.4% (+/-o.l%) 28.2% (+/-o.i%) Montana - - 91.4% (+/-0.20/.) _— -- - 28.2% (+/-o.4%) Gallatin County 96.0% (+/-0.6%) 45.0% (+/-1.4%) Belgrade 97.7% (+/-1.6%) 29.5% (+/-6.6%) -- Big Sky— -- 94.2%° (+/-8.5%) - - - 58.0% (+/-8.6%) - Bozeman 97.1% (+/-o.9%) 52.3% (+/-2.6%) Manhattan 89.8% (+/-4.6%) 34.6%(+/-7.8%) Three Forks 92.7% (+/-3.6%) 14.8% (+/-4.2%) West Yellowstone 98.7% (-+/-1.9%) 26.7% (+/-8.1%) Park County 90.8% (+/-2.3%) 29.3% Clyde Park 88.0% (+/-8.2%) 27.0% Cooke City 95.5% (+/-12.6%) 0.0% (+/-55.5%) Gardiner 97.4% (+/-2.0%) 43.0% (+/-7.4%) ^Livingston 87.0% (+/-4.6%) 26.7% (+/-4.3%) Wilsall 74.3% (+/-16.4%) 24.8% (+/-12.8%) Sonzre: "20U--2011.-�nezr�zzn Caninrnzitp.Snzxel."[..'.S.CeiunsBrnrmr.zvrvm.�enr«,I,>;or. f- —� -fable 16 shows that 22,683, or 62 percent, of the houses in Gallatin Counts- are owner-occupied while the remaining 13,845, or 38 percent, are rented. Park County-'s owner-occupied houses account for more than 72 percent of units, with 4,872 being owner-occupied. Gallatin Count- residents' housing costs are fairly consistent compared to the nation's averages for renters and both mortgaged and non-mortgaged owners, but are considerably- above the statewide averages. Park- County is slightly-less costly in comparison. Overall, Montana's housing costs for owning or renting a home are lower than the national average. Table 16: Housing Occu anc 2007-2011 ACS Data Montana Gall M Ty County • • a States Margin . . Error . . Margin . Error Error L—Fj nits 75,896,759 277,913 22,683 4,872 Owner-Occupied Housing U (+/-366,212) (+/-2,511) (+/-556) (+/-324) Renter-Occupied Housing Units 38,864,600 125,582 13,845 1,863 (+/-118,608) (+/-1,986) (+/-639) (+/-220) Median Monthly Housing Costs $871 $649 $838 $659 for Renter-Occupied Housing (+/-$3) (+/-$7) (+/-$30) (+/-$48) Units Median Monthly Housing Costs $1,560 $1,264 $1,563 $1,270 for Mortgaged Owners (+/-$2) (+/-$12) (+/-$44) (+/-$65) Median Monthly Housing Costs $444 (+/-$1) $375 (+/-$4) $452) $377 (+/-$35) for Non-Mortgaged Owners (+/-$15 Sonne: "200--2011 A veriian Conunrzsil),Snmep."U.S.Census Bzzreazr.imov.,en usgor. ©hiii •I '\M -AI \I I\\-•K.. P':••I 1'1 According to 2010 census data, the nation's average household size is 2.58 people and the average family size is 3.14 people while Montana's average household size is 2.35 people, with an average famih- size of 2.91 people ("I'able 17). Both Gallatin and Park Counties have slightly smaller households and families than national averages but are in line with state averages. Park Country has a higher percentage of people living alone than both the national and state rates. Table 17: Households and Families Dynamics WUqRVMT� Al i&w§Er� 77 United States 2.58 3.14 48.4% 1 8% 26.7% Montana 2.35 2.91 49.2% 13.6% 29.7% Gallatin 2.36 2.90 47.8% 10.4% 27.3% County Belgrade 2.49 3.07 48.4% 14.9% 26.8% Big Sky 2.14 2.70 44.0% 5.3% 31 .9% Bozeman 2.17 2.80 33.1% 10.6% 33.5% Manhattan 2.40 3.02 54.3% 10.8% 29.6% Three Forks 2.37 2.90 51 .2% 15.2% 28.4% West 2.06 2.86 34.7% 9.6% 42.1% Yellowstone Park County 2.12 2.75 46.7% 10.4% 35.7% Clyde Park 2.12 2.79 47.8% 1 1 .0% 36.0% Cooke City 1 .67 2.53 37.8% 0% 53.3% Gardiner 1 .88 2.60 36.1% 7.4% 44.8% Livingston 2.07 2.81 39.2% 12.8% 40.4% Wilsall 1 1.98 2.55 53.3% 3.4% 33.3% Solna: "2010 Ceurua."U.S.Census Bureau.mov.(euuir.,gor% 0P : -I'I 'I\B I\1 V t`\ultra 21)1"1 (r)\rr\Ilt I'Itr t.Il Workforce Montana has one of the lower Montana Outperforms Nation in terms of unemployment rates in the nation. As of Unemployment July 2013, the seasonally adjusted In every recession since 1980 Montana's unemployment rate was at 5.3 percent unemployment has remained more stable than the which earned the state a national ranking U.S. as a whole, with smaller spikes than the national oft�I 1 , compared to the 2012 ranking of average. Montana's unemployment rate is expected to 14 (Table 18). North Dakota has held continue to decline to normal levels of 4-5 percent, the number one position for the past three years while South Dakota State of Montana Labor Day Report 2013 improved from ranking third in June of Montana Department of Labor&Industry, Research&Analysis ovi/m.mt. 2012 to second in July of 2013. Bureau www./mi.mt.gov Table 18: State Unemployment Rate Comparison: July 2013 (Seasonally adjusted) North Dakota 3.7 3.0 -0.1 1 Utah 5.9 4.6 -1 .3 5 Tied Wyoming 5.5 4.6 -0.9 5 Tied Montana 6.1 5.3 -0.8 11 Idaho 7.2 6.6 -0.6 19 Washington 8.3 6.9 -1 .4 21 Tied Colorado 8.1 7.1 -1 .0 25 Tied Oregon 8.8 1 8.0 1 -0.8 35 California 10.6 1 8.7 -1.9 45 Sonne•I...S.Bnreae of I-aborStalistns.wwtyblsgor. P:Jul}2013 dataispreliminan'. Gallatin County has seen significant improvement in its unemployment rate rear-to-year (Table 19). In June of 2012, Gallatin County ranked 28" out of the 56 counties. As of July 2013, the County moved to the 14`' lowest unemployment rate in the state. hark County's unemployment rate also improved in comparison to the rest of the state. Currently, it is ranked 31" compared to 33"�in June of 2012 and 45" in June of 2011. Fallon County- has had the lowest unemployment rate in the state of Montana for three years running. Table 19: County Unemployment Rate Com arison: July 2012 (Non-seasonally adjusted) Montana 5.8 4.8* -1 .0 n/a Fallon County 2.0 1 .5 -0.5 1 Gallatin County 4.7 3.5 -1.2 14 Yellowstone County 4.6 3.9 -0.7 24 Lewis & Clark County 4.8 4.0 -0.8 27 Madison County 5.1 4.2 -0.9 30 Park County 5.0 4.2 -0.8 31 Missoula County 5.8 4.6 -1 .2 33 Silver Bow County 5.7 4.7 -1 .0 37 Flathead County 7.7 6.1 -1 .6 45 Big Horn County 12.5 14.6 2.1 56 Solace:.Ilanfeina Department o/Labor c Indtatiy.Reseanh&.-ittalysis Bureaa.wevw.onrlaitslon dnre.mlgor&U.S.Bluralt o%LaborSlatistkr, u'rnw.blsgov.R ji[#2 U 13 ditto is preliminar}•.*Cotatty level tutemployvneut ditty i.e available oa a tton-seosoually adjusted basis ottl),.thet%re the ratr for Monlana in this table di(jeis from the seasonallv adjusted rate of 5.3 in Table 18. Annual Unemployment Rate Revised annual unemployment figures for 2007 to 2012 are shown in Chart 7. In the past sit rears, Gallatin County has exceeded Montana's unemployment rate only once-and just slightl}-in 2009. Between 2011 and 2012 statewide annual unemployment decreased from 6.6 percent to 6.0 percent, and Gallatin County's rate followed suit, declining from 5.9 percent to 5.3 percent. Park County's unemployment rate continues to trend higher than Montana's overall rate (Chart 7). While unemployment rates are considerably higher than in 2007 and 2008, it is important to note that the region and state continue to fare better than most of the United States. Chart 7: Annual Unemployment Rates: 2007-2012 (Non-seasonally adjusted) 10 _ - � 9 i I 8 - i 7 �- - - i6 - --- - 5 r-- u m 4 3 i 1 2 I 1 i 0 1 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 W United States ■Montana V Gallatin County hd Park County Solme.•U.S.Barean of LaborStatislias.1myu:G1rgor.Nol seasonal!)•adjasted. 1 As seen in Table 20, revised labor force statistics for 2005 to 2012 show that Gallatin and Park Counties have seen an increase in Labor force and employment figures and decreased unemployment numbers since the spike in unemployment between 2009 and 2010. Gallatin County has recovered 1 to pre-recessionary levels in terms of labor force and those employed, however Park Counties labor force and number of employed residents have yet to return to levels seen in 2005 through 2008. Table 20: Labor Force Statistics: Gallatin and Park Counties 2005-2012 (Non-seasonally adjusted) •r Gallatin County Labor Force 46,233 49,123 50,482 50,990 48,226 48,136 49,265 50,329 Employed 45,011 48,013 49,214 49,081 45,274 44,991 46,377 47,643 Unemployed 1,222 1,110 1,268 1,909 2,952 3,145 2,888 2,686 Park County Labor Force 8,916 9,213 9,087 9,040 8,473 8,332 8,425 8,637 Employed 8,600 8,930 8,778 8,616 7,877 7,710 7,821 8,088 Unemployed 316 283 309 424 596 622 604 549 Somre:C.'.S.Braran oj'L aborStatistitr.rymrv.Gb:gor. ©Pat �I'I It% 131 .I\1"\t 21i13 1,t 1\ \11t 1'Itt tl it I Employment by Sector Gallatin County- has a slightly more diverse employment base than Park County. The trade, transportation, & utilities sector is the biggest employment sector in Gallatin County as of 2012, followed by leisure & hospitality and education & health services. Park County's largest employment sector is leisure & hospitality, followed by trade, transportation & utilities and education & health services (Chart 8). Note that as seen in Table 21 on page 27, the service providing and goods producing sectors included ui the chart below are supersector groups, which are aggregate categories that are comprised of the other non-governmental sectors listed. The goods producing sector encompasses natural resources & mining, construction, and manufacturing. All other non-governmental sectors, such as leisure & hospitality and professional & business services, fall within the service providing supersector (Table 21). Chart 8: 2012 Average Annual Employment by Sector: Gallatin and Park Countiesp Local Government , 6 2,883 Slate Government 37 l 4,146 I I Federal Government 1 5 1! j Service Providing - _3,875 Goods Producing -- 809 - - - -- - ! 30,578 6,502 Unclassified7 Other Services bil 378 ,1 679 Leisure &Hospitality —J 1,363_ _ — � 7,019 Education & Health Services 722 _ 5 l 49 I Professional &Business Services ■-276 __ ! - 4,757 Financial Activities 1-21 2,063 Information 87 4W 583 Trade, Transportation &Utilities $38 ------- � 9,328 Manufacturing 388 -' 2,33 T- Construction li257 _j 31413 Natural Resources&Mining 611' 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 W Park County id Gallafin County Soarre. 'Qaarterly Owns of Emplapiueut&If'zges."Burnul o f I arbor Statistics.mrpoRs gor. (P.2012 i ffenwatiar it pmllminag). The area's economy is progressively varied and continues to show growth. The number of establishments in the financial activities sector in Gallatin County increased by 11.4 percent (from 520 to 579) between 2011 and 2012, even though average annual employment actually decreased by 3.1 percent (from 2,128 to 2,063). Also, education & health services employment increased by 6.7 percent (from 4,828 to 5,149) in Gallatin County during the same period—confirming projections for substantial healthcare industry-growth in the state." Nfost notably, the average annual employment in the manufacturing sector in Park County increased by 49.8 percent (from 259 to 388) between 2011 and 2012, while natural resources & mining employment increased by almost 11 percent (from 148 to 164). While the region is home to a broad range of industries, Gallatin County's dominant sectors include professional & business services and education & health services as measured by number of establishments (fable 21). Park County's leading industries in terms of number of establishments include leisure & hospitality and trade, transportation & utilities (Table 21). Table 21 : 2012 Employment and Earnings by Sector' Average Average Average Average Number of Annual Weekly Number of Annual Weekly Sector Establish- Establish- ments Employ- Wage ments Employ- Wage ment ($) ment ($) Goods Producing 1 ,152 6,502 775 181 809 673 Natural Resources & 92 751 730 45 164 580 Mining Construction 864 3,413 814 104 257 661 Manufacturing 197 2,337 732 32 388 721 i Service Providing 4,077 30,578 692 644 3,875 525 Trade, Transportation & 922 9,328 584 142 838 530 Utilities Information 87 583 879 18 87 805 Financial Activities 579 2,063 899 62 211 690 Professional & 1 ,158 4,757 1,365 130 276 918 Business Services Education & Health 458 5,149 729 59 722 670 Services Leisure & Hospitality 537 7,019 322 164 1,363 335 Other Services 395 1,679 502 70 378 484 Unclassified 1 0 - - 3 - Federal Government 32 646 1 ,176 14 73 971 State Government 15 4,146 791 8 38 1 ,143 Local Government 54 2,883 736 18 602 639 Soma: `Q.nvrterb,Census oJEimploymeut E Ir;igr,c."Bnreali oJLabor Statistics.watuG/r.goi:(P.2012 iufwrnntimr it pm/iirunury). ="(,onnell,V illiam."l Icalthcare in Montana's Econontt•."Montana I)epartnicnr of Labor and Industry,Research and Anah•sis Bureau.Septctnber 2012.www.uurfactst•ourfuture.mt.�,ov. 01110 ,1,] u\151 'I\: —`1 1%. ,W, Salary & Wage Detail The data below specifies weekly wage amounts Excellent Year for Wage Growth reported by industry businesses over the course of In 2012 Montana's private sector wage 2012 (Chart 9). i�s explained on page 26, the growth of 4.2 percent was the second- service providing and goods producing sectors fastest among the states. Public sector included in the chart below are supersector groups workers saw 1.9 percent overall wage that encompass the other non-governmental growth. Real wage growth, when wage sectors listed. The goods producing sector includes growth outpaces inflation, reached 1.5 natural resources & mining, construction and percent in 2012 and averaged 1 .1 manufacturing, while all other non-governmental percent between 2008 and 2012 for all sectors fall under the service providing supersector. sectors, however state workers faced As compared to 2011, average weekly wages negative growth in this period. increased in nearly every sector in both counties. State of Montana Labor Day Report 2013 Significant year-to-year changes occurred in the Montana Department of Labor&Industry, natural resources & mining industry: with wages in Research &Analysis Bureau Park County increasing by 7 percent (from S542) www.imi.mt.gov and those in Gallatin County increasing by almost 5 percent (from S696). The information industry- also saw substantial gains of over 6 percent (from $827) in Gallatin County and 7 percent (from $750) in Park County, while leisure & hospitality wages in Park County increased by just over 8 percent (from $310). One sizable increase in professional & business services wages in Gallatin County (from $1,039) was reportedly almost entirely due to the sale of RightNow Technologies to Oracle in 2012.-" Chart 9: Average Weekly Wages by Industry: Gallatin and Park Counties 2012' Local Government $736 State Government i S791 mmiW �1,143 Federal Government $1,176 -10000 b971 Service Providing $ 25 $692 Goods Producing 1$775 $673 Other Services SS 2 $48;4 Leisure&Hospitality $322 S$35 j Education&Health Services $ 29 67�1 Professional&Business Services $1,365 $ 18 Financial Aciivifies Iffy- =S6 879 Information 05 Trade,Transportation&Utilities 0 4 Manufacturing $ 0 $732 — $721 Construction $81 4 $bbl Natural Resources&Mining �730 S580—L $0 S200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 S1,200 $1,400 $1,600 UGallatin County WPark County Swam-'01tmter/y Ceuurs oJ'Eizrp/oyment E lrigs."Brtrean of LalwrStatirtiu.wluixblsgor.A 201'iuforruation it pre iminary-. 21 "()utlook 2013."liureau of Business and Uconomic Research,University of Montana.w�vw•.bbcr-umt.edu. Montana's Labor Market _according to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates, Montana's average annual wage and salary- disbursement continues to trend lower than the national average: 535,814 versus $48,301 for 2011 as revised in September of 2012. By these BEA measures, Montana's average annual wage ranking is 50" overall in the nation, ahead of only South Dakota (Table 22). Table 22: Average Annual Wage and Salary Disbursements United States $14,000 - $23,423 - $35,054 - $48,301 - California $15,013 8 $26,236 7 $40,871 6 $56,097 6 Washington $15,086 7 $22,884 15 $37,546 8 $51,036 10 Colorado $14,229 14 $22,632 19 $37,061 9 $49,788 12 Wyoming _ $15,335 6 $20,058 36 $27,140 45 $44,033 24 Oregon $13,935 19 $21,026 28 $32,776 22 $43,464 26 Utah $13,090 29 $19,781 40 $29,318 33 $41,105 34 Idaho $12,174 42 $18,739 46 $27,559 42 $36,452 48 Montana $12,598 35 $17,475 48 $24,1 72 51 $35,814 50 South Dakota $10,751 49 $16,347 50 $24,398 49 $34,997 51 Swan,State i mtomvi, Prn/iles. L.S.Bnrran o(Eaonomir.-lnutyslb IYJYIKLPA,�01: Liss ipdated Septnwber 2S.201_2. item estivater jar 2011. Current Dollars as If September 2012.Vote..-Ill nntkings fit,-little 5'0 states•plies the Diana o%Coluzlbia. .According to the Montana Department of Labor and Industry's 2013 Labor Dqy Report, with 96 percent of the labor force possesing a high school diploma, 'Montana is 4"' best among states. While Montana enjoys a well-educated workforce on the whole, the American Communi"r Survey- 5-year estimates below indicate that Montana's median earnings by level of education trail behind national averages (Table 23). Table 23: Median Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment 2007-201 1 ACS Data United States Total $29,055 +/- $388 $35,337 +/- $81 Less than high school graduate $17,869 +/- $92 i $19,627 +/- $447 High school graduate (includes equivalency) $24,337 +/- $458 $27,640 +/- $46 Some college or associates' degree $27,442 +/- $376 $34,045 +/- $52 Bachelor's degree $36,1 14 +/. $598 $49,683 +/- $80 Graduate or professional degree $48,193 +/- $1,299 $65,369 +/ $103 Sonne.- '2007.2011. lJneriuut Colnnrtntily Snmey."U.S.Census Bnreay.Ivwrv.,rnsns;gor.2011 ilflntion at/jlateddellins. I itlues shotvn mitt 90 penent Jnurgin ofelrnr. In keeping with the wage growth observed statewide, the NIontana counties featured in the table below experienced at least some modest average weekly wage increases between 2011 and 2012. However as seen in Table 22 on page 29, Nlontana still lags behind the nation in terms of wages. Gallatin County's average weekly wage rates surged by 6.64 percent between 2011 and 2012, after increasing by roughly 3 percent each year in recent history. Park County wages declined slightly between 2009 and 2010 (from S541 to S540) and increased by just over 2 percent between 2010 and 2011 before improving by 3.63 percent between 2011 and 2012 (Table 24). Table 24: Average Weekly Wage by County and Percent Change: 2010-2012 (All Industries) Montana $665 $688 $713 3.70% Cascade County $654 $669 $675 0.90% Flathead County $634 $651 $672 3.23% Gallatin County $656 $678 $723 6.64% Lewis and Clark $734 $752 $778 3.46% County Madison County $558 $562 $577 2.67% Missoula County $652 $665 $681 2.41% Park County $540 $551 $571 3.63% Silver Bow $687 $709 $726 2.40% County Yellowstone County $730 $757 $785 3.70% Swim. 'Qltelder/y Census of Etnplayuient&ff'gges."Bntran of l abor Statisfia tmmu.15Agor.R-01 2 h?larination is pre/iaiivaij+ In 2012 there were several changes in Montana in terms of annual average wage and count-rankings (Table 25). Stillwater Count- returned to second ranking behind Fallon County, while Richland replaced Rosebud in the top three. Gallatin County returned to the 12'" position after falling to 13" last year while Park County-continued its downward trend, dropping from 40" to the 41"position. Table 25: Montana Counties Ranked by 2012 Annual Avera e Wage (All Industries) n/a Montana 430,331 $15,962,400 $37,093 1 Fallon 1 ,632 $91,032 $55,765 2 Stillwater 3,239 $174,977 $54,018 3 Richland 6,333 $312,828 $49,396 8 Yellowstone 77,743 $3,171,768 $40,798 9 Lewis & Clark 35,116 $1,421,279 $40,474 11 Silver Bow 15,591 $588,737 $37,761 12 Gallatin 44,754 $1 ,682,894 $37,603 15 Missoula 54,953 $1 ,945,1 18 $35,396 40 Madison 560 $17,488 $30,016 41 Park 5,397 $160,173 $29,676 Souae: "/hailed),Ceusns o/Eniploymeut E'IFgges."Bureau q1 LiborStatt.,tizs. wiviv.bltgoe.A 20/2 infotwalion is preluninanj. ©PH ;'IK\RI\i \I It\ ilth `uliLt \i•\ll P: ' , Largest Private Employers The following table lists the 20 largest private sector employers in Gallatin Counts-and the 10 largest private sector employers in Park County, according to the most current statistics from the Montana Department of Labor and Industrl's Research and.analysis Bureau. Table 26: Largest Private Sector Employers (2012 Annual Data) Gallatin County Bozeman Deaconess Hospital 1000+ Oracle 250-499 WalMart 250-499 Albertson's 100-249 Bridger Bowl 100-249 Community Food Co-Op 100-249 Costco 100-249 First Security Bank 100-249 First Student 100-249 Gibson Guitar 100-249 Kenyon Noble Lumber & Hardware 100-249 Martel Construction 100-249 McDonald's 100-249 Murdoch's Ranch & Home Supply 100-249 Ressler Motors 100-249 Rosauer's 100-249 Target 100-249 Town & Country Foods 100-249 Town Pump Convenience Stores 100-249 Zoot Enterprises 100-249 Park County Livingston HealthCare 250-499 Chico Hot Springs 100-249 PrintingForLess.com 100-249 Albertson's 50-99 Best Western Mammoth Hot Springs 50-99 Church Universal & Triumphant 50-99 Livingston Health & Rehabilitation Center 50-99 Montana's Rib & Chop House 50-99 R-Y Timber 50-99 Town & Country Foods 50-99 Sostr e.Montana Department of Ldbor&Industg,Research&Analysis Bureau. u'fmuonijv�trponrfntmr mtgorc I Agriculture Agriculture plays a historic and significant role in Gallatin County Hit Hard by Hailstorm the regional economy and quality. of life. At least 50,000 acres of grain, hay, Montana's total land area is 93.1 million acres potatoes and peas in the area were and 65.9 percent of the total land area (61.4 destroyed by an August 1, 2013 hailstorm, million acres) is dedicated to farmland or said Billy Denison, county executive director agriculture.` There are about 28,000 farms in for the Farm Service Agency, "It is a pretty Montana, averaging 2,05G acres in size." The major hit to our agricultural community. U.S. Department of Agriculture's 2007 Census And it was a good crop — on track to be of agriculture reported 776,868 acres within an above-average crop for this area. And Gallatin County as ranch or farmland and now, for a large area, it's just gone." The 762,753 acres in Park County. The Census of storm is estimated to have caused up to Agriculture is taken every five tears, with the $50 million in losses, leading to Gallatin nest census results to be available in late 2013• County being declared a disaster area. According to George Haynes, Professor and Jodi Housen, Bozeman Daily Chronicle Extension Center Specialist with the August 22,2013 Department of agricultural Economics and www.bozemandailychronicle.com Economics at Montana State L-niversity, "The Great Recession has largely bypassed Montana agriculture, as net farm income and equity have increased since 2009."2' AgriculturaI markets are still responding to the impacts of the 2012 drought in the Midwest, which drove up corn prices and in turn influenced Montana's grain and cattle markets; wheat and barley prices trended upward with the increase in corn prices, while higher feed costs dampened the effect of strong calf prices.'' Grain and cattle prices were expected to be strong for 2013;however one looming concern has been the undetermined status of the 2012 Farm Bill.'' Table 27: 2012 Crop Statistics for Gallatin Count . - Winter Wheat 17,600 17,100 40.9 699,000 22 Spring Wheat 27,000 27,000 57.7 1,558,000 16 All Barley 32,000 30,000 60.0 1,800,000 7 Hay Alfalfa No data 39,000 3.5 tons 138,000 5 available Other Hay No data 12,000 1.85 tons 22,000 19 available Potatoes* 3,900 3,800 337 Cwt 1,282,000 Cwt No rank given Swore: "2013 _llouknm :Iiuum/.Stati,rtirc. CoLy Estimates 2011-201.2." L'SD,4\atioiarl,•Igran/titral Statistical Semite, uaww."ass.nsdagor. *'011 Data,from"Qxrk Starts"Report L'SD:l;�atio�ta/.lgrrtvknral.St,�ti.rh�ulSeni�e.nmiv.tlrui�stntssnu.nrdirgae: 22 Montana agricultural Statistics Senice,U.S.Department of agriculture.www.nass.usda.gov. 2;1laynes,George."Montana agriculture in 2012: Impact of the Drought on Commodity Prices and Production." Outlook 2013. Bureau of Business and Econorruc Research,University of Montana.%yxyw.bber.umt.edu. Table 28: 2013 Livestock Statistics for Gallatin Count Cattle & Calves 53,000 21,500 4,100 20th (All Cattle) Sheep Inventory 2,600 291h Some: "'013.11outnur. lnuun/Strtirtirs,CaurtyE.rtunater_'011-'013."USDA-Natrona.-]grinllnro/StaksktnlSer7ire.wx?rxassxsdu.gov. Table 29: 2012 Crop Statistics for Park County rOO F Winter Wheat 4,200 3,400 22.1 43Spring Wheat 5,600 5,500 15.3 , 44 All Barley 6,000 5,000 48.0 240,000 31 Hay Alfalfa No data available 35,000 2.2 tons 77,000 tons 15 Soriae: "'013.11aitnrv.lxunalSkrtr.rtir:r,ComfyEalwate.r_'011-_'01_."USD-1\rtronol.1grim/1nru1�7alrstrrolSerrrre. www.noss.usda.qur. Table 30: 2013 Livestock Statistics for Park Count Cattle • ; Comm.. Rank in ta�e . . hhhL�'- - --] ___ _I)-- .. Cattle & Calves 43,000 24,000 200 00" (All Cattle) Sheep Inventory 1,700 33'd Swine: '2013MontemaAmrrmlSlatIsm-x, ComrtyEsiliTates'011-_'013."L'SD:-1_�vtruual. lgrnn/lira/Strlisti«r/Serrr<e.www.nass.nsda.gor� Table 31 : 2013 Montana A ricultural Commodities Information Value of ' .. -tion Value ' er Unit Production All Wheat 5,770,000 34.9/Bu 194,750,000 Bu $8.45/Bu $1,661,318,000 Barley 900,000 53.0/Bu 41 ,870,000 Bu $6.35/Bu $265,875,000 Corn (For grain) 105,000 1 10.0/Bu 6,600,000 Bu $7.30/Bu $48,180,000 Fall Potatoes 12,000 320/Cwt 3,744,000 Cwt $12.60/Cwt $47,174,000 Hay No data 1 .87/Ton 4,120,000 Tons $137.00/Ton $551,040,000 available Sugar Beets 1 46,600 28.2/Ton 1,292,000 Tons No data available Sotnre: "Montana : Ignalltand Fartr 2012, Montana Awilrol Crop Sn1w.",wr), 2011-2012." USD.i,'Veihoial ,agrrwtltiral Statistial Semite. rrtvw.uass.isda.g o r: i i ©111""I'l it\lit \t I`\' Banking According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 2012 Gallatin County bank deposits were at a record high. As of June 30, 2012, Gallatin County bank deposits totaled just over $1.91 billion. As seen in Chart 10, deposits in Gallatin County-have nearly tripled since 2000. Park County- deposits have generally.- increased since 2000, but experienced a slight decline between 2011 and 2012 (Chart 10). Deposits into Park County banks were more than $306 million dollars as of June 30, 2011; as of June 30, 2012 deposits dropped to just shy of S301 million—closer to 2009 levels. Chart 10: Area Bank Deposits: 2000-2012 $2,000,000 -- -- $1,800,000 — -- - - $1 ,600,000 - - — $1,400,000 — $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 - $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 11Total Gallatin County (S000) GTotal Park County ($000) Soiare:Federal Deposit lusrtraure Corporation(FDIC).wim.fdic.gor. There are 15 banking institutions with 27 total branches in the Bozeman market. Together, these Bozeman branches accounted for S1.53 billion, or 80 percent, of Gallatin County's S1.91 billion total deposits by fiscal year ending June 30, 2012. In order of volume, First Security-Bank, First Interstate Bank and Wells Fargo Bank received the most financial deposits, totalling 47.95 percent of the market. Jointly, these three banks account for 37 percent of the total branch locations within Bozeman (Table 32). Table 33 shows that the city- of Livingston has fire banking organizations. Deposits made in Livingston branches totaled more than $247 million, or 82 percent, of the $306 million dollars deposited in Park County. First Interstate Bank leads the way in total deposits with a 47.37 percent share, followed by American Bank (25.83 percent) and Sterling Savings Bank (11.50 percent). 11P( , „ ail Yit ii Table 32: Bozeman Bank Deposit Market Share _. Institution Name Inside of Market Outside of Market # of Deposits Market # of Deposits ($000) Offices $000 Share /o Offices First Security Bank 4 $328,133 21 .36% 5 $169,379 First Interstate Bank 4 $220,281 14.34% 73 $5,681,369 Wells Fargo Bank 2 $187,969 12.24% 6,310 $847,539,031 US Bank 2 $170,895 1 1 .13% 3,131 $220,492,497 Big Sky Western Bank 3 $167,792 10.92% 95 $4,848,728 (Glacier) Stockman Bank of 2 $120,464 7.84% 26 $1 ,498,966 Montana American Bank 2 $1 12,293 7.31% 4 $149,416 Bank of Bozeman 1 $58,841 3.83% 0 $0 Sterling Savings Bank 1 $45,862 2.99% 188 $6,718,717 American Federal Savings 1 $39,681 2.58% 5 $183,097 Bank Mountain West Bank 1 $32,933 2.14% 12 $503,723 Rocky Mountain Bank 1 $25,412 1 .65% 8 $330,633 First Montana Bank, Inc. 1 $10,147 0.66% 8 $226,662 Yellowstone Bank 1 $8,208 0.53% 7 $331 ,748 Manhattan Bank 1 $6,957 0.45% 3 $103,550 Total Number of 27 $1,535,868 100.00% 9,875 $1,088,777,516 Institutions in Market: 15 S'otnte:Federal Deposit Inunnnre Corporatton(FDIC).Jilne'01'.Ivww.frlh;gor. Table 33: Livingston Bank Deposit Market Share • .• • - lei . �A-� A+ filar o•._ •. 1d.^ _ -- Inside of Market Outside of Market Institution Name # of Deposits T Market # of Offices ($000) Share Offices Deposits ($000) First Interstate Bank 1 $1 1 7,014 47.37% 76 $5,784,636 American Bank 1 $63,808 1 25.83% 5 $197,901 Sterling Savings Bank 1 $28,413 11 .50% 188 $6,736,166 Wells Fargo Bank 1 $23,380 9.46% 6311 $847,703,620 Bank of the Rockies 1 $14,410 5.83% 5 $92,592 Total Number of Institutions in Market: 5 5 $247,025 100.00% 6,58$860,514,915 Soilae:Federal Deposit Insnrante Cotporatioit(FDIC:).Jime 012.wiviv.(dir:gor. — ©il: , .,\ I; ..11- \ �,, 201 i Ij,i1i \lii" Vital It I Construction After four fairly stagnant years in the region's constitution sector, the improving real estate market has prompted a flurry of construction activity in recent months. Steady growth combined with a smaller number of companies operating in the area has created somewhat of a boom, though nothing close to pre-recession levels.24 The charts below detail the number of construction firms and number employed in construction in the two counties over the past ten years. Chart 11 : Number of Construction Firms: Gallatin and Park Counties 1,200 — - -- 1,056 1 098 982 1,000 �$— 846 952 1 124 24 879 864 j 799 800 761 -- - —- 600 - --- - --- -- - - - I 400 ----- — --- 200 �r123 124 —.126 125 130 146 148 130 119 111 104 EMU 0 — 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Gallatin County Park County Sotrn�: uurte/y C eupe of Ernplolment cn![" .qes,"Bntent of LuLar S7uttttl�.tvatv.GJr.goe.'O1'iufbtmmios is ptrlimiugt7. Chart 12: Average Annual Employment - Gallatin and Park Counties 7,000 I 5,976 6,T 72 6,000 � 5,065 5,148 5,000 4,27 3,821 3,722 4,000 3,26 3,285 3,360 3,413 3,000 l 2,000 426 489 553 557 503 1,000 388 363 326 296 267 257 I 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 I Gallatin County =il�-^Park County Soun-e: nmtetly Census of Earplo�irfen!c [E"itgrr."Bnreuu of LtGot Stntt�tnt tvw�uGJ.,qov.'O1?tujaitinttiai a pmitutionry. 21 Bacai,Jason."I Iammer Time: Constniction,real estate uidustries ramp up for busy summer season." &Zeman Daily Chronicle Brain.,journal. March 26,2013,-%v-,v-%v.bozemandailcchrorucle.com. ©Pw n{>I I+\III •1\1 \I 1\%'tn _' l I i �,\i.Njo P't•-I 1 . As seen in Table 34, residential construction in Bozeman skyrocketed in 2012 as compared to 2011, with a rear-to-year increase of 123 percent. By mangy- indicators, 2013 has been an even busier year- to-date in the residential market in the Bozeman area. Construction in Livingston held a steady pace in 2012, and 2013 has been a very active year so far according to the City of Liv ingston's Building Department,with 14 new residential units built year to date as of late August (Table 34). Table 34: Construction Activi : New Dwelling Units 2004-2012 Locat on 114--. 2005 2006 2007 2_0.08 2009 2010 City of Bozeman Residential 887 955 670 764 242 182 208 199 444 Commercial 34 42 48 45 29 28 12 19 10 City of Livingston Residential n/a n/a 19 n/a 6 7 12 7 8 Commercial n/a n/a 1 n/a 0 0 0 4 4 Soune:City of Bo;enn>n Brri/dinq his pearoa Dinvan.City of Botieman Department of Commnnity Derelopment.wtvn,.lwtiemmanet C?ip o_f Lr rngrton Building Depuriinenl. Residential Building Permit Activity According to the City- of Bozeman's Department of Community Development's 2012 Draft Annual Report, there were 17,975 dwelling units in the City of Bozeman as of 2012. From 2001 to 2012, single-household units remained the most common housing unit type permitted at roughly 40 percent, followed by multi-housing units at approximately 27 percent (Chart 13, page 38). In 2012, 444 housing units were permitted by the city of Bozeman (Table 35). Roughly 56 percent were for single-household residences. There were notable increases in townhome, triplex and multi- unit permits, which accounted for approximately 8 percent, 2 percent, and 27 percent of total 2012 permits respectively. Since 2011, total permits of all types were up 123 percent. As compared to the peak of the housing boom in 2005, overall permits were down 53.5 percent. Table 35 shows the City of Bozeman had a slight decrease in the number of permits from 2010 to 2011 and then a dramatic increase in 2012 to levels last surpassed in 2007,with numbers similar to those seen around 2002. Table 35: City of Bozeman Residential Building Permits Issued: 2003-201 1 Single-house 260 265 257 214 93 71 144 160 255 Townhouse 70 63 63 71 35 12 20 4 34 Duplex 144 141 58 80 30 0 4 8 20 Triplex 45 105 45 33 9 3 0 0 6 Fourplex 120 11 92 44 32 32 4 4 8 Multi-unit 235 281 155 314 43 64 36 23 121 Manufactured 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 881 954 670 758 242 182 1 208 199 444 Soune: "2012 Draft Animal Report."City of Botieman Depadment of Commauity Deeelopmeut,wniv.botimw.net. Chart 13: Residential Building Permit Activity 2005-2012 300 --- --- - - -- t _ 1250 -- - - -- — -- - --- 200 I j 150 ---- --- - I i 100 ----- -- — ------ — 50 ` -- 0 - 2005 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 oSingle sTownhouse JDuplex luT6plex JFourplex -1Multi _]Manufactured .Some: "4O1'Dngfr.-Innual Report."C�WofBo Derelopment.www'.bo: waii.net. City of Bozeman Growth The City of Bozeman has expanded in geographic size over the rears. In 2008, after several rears of sustained growth, the City- was approximately- 12,318.5 acres (19.25 square miles). No annexation occurred in 2009 or 2010, and less than half of an acre was annexed in 2011 (Table 36). However, this lull in growth ended in 2012 with the annexation of 189.05 acres, increasing the size of the city to approximately 19.79 square miles. Chart 14 on the following page shows the acres annexed annually since 1990. Table 36: City of Bozeman Annexations: 2004-2012 (In Acres) Acres 484.47 444.50 716.80 468.26 1 103.50 0.00 0.00 0.37 189.05 .Sonn•e.• "9011 Dr,!#A nual Report."City of Bo.Ze„rmr Department of Coumllnity Derelopmeut.mmm.Gotienwuu.iret. Subdivision Activity Subdivision activity-is measured by the number of plat applications and subdivision applications the City receives for review. As shown in Table 37, in 2011 Bozeman received a significant increase in preliminary plat applications (514 percent) compared to 2010. Subdivision figures for 2012 have yet to be released. Table 37: City of Bozeman Subdivision Reviews by T pe: 2003-201 1 Preliminary Plat 413 661 1,637 688 1 ,434 38 6 14 86 Final Plat 564 581 495 1,211 861 61 10 136 3 Soun-e. "2011.-]Humid Repay."6?i of BoZemmt Depautmeut of Planning&Co ImInil7 DeeelopmeuG wivw.1wemau,ue1. ©1"o—w icy BI .Iv \: Iu�i,tl 'nl;I-, - \ iNl1, PI; , Zoning Activity In 2012 the Bozeman Department of Community Development processed 45 total zoning applications, which is a 181 percent increase from 2011. Zoning projects include site plans, conditional use permits, planned unit development concept plans and planned unit development preliminary- plans. In 2012, the department also processed 10 zone map amendments, 3 master site Plans, 27 Final Site Plans, 9 ,Master Sigmage PIans, 23 Reuse/Further Development applications, 3 zone code amendments, 2 variances, 1 appeal, 48 modifications to approved plans, 3 special temporary- use permits, 0 sketch plans, 10 improvement agreements, 11 condominium conversions and 32 informal interviews. Table 38: City of Bozeman Zoning Reviews by Type: 2004-2012 i 'alwftljllwilltj Site Plan 46 53 I 32 29 14 37 22 6 25 Conditional Use Permits 11 14 23 6 5 14 13 9 19 Planned Unit Dev. Concept Plan 6 6 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 Planned Unit Dev. 2 7 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 Preliminary Plan I Ii Total 1 65 1 80 64 39 20 52 36 16 I 45 t Somne.• "2012 Drv1?.-41tn1fu1 Report."04,of Botienrun Depurlumnt o%Coiwwlviitr Dereloprnent,a vrulwtielwan.nel. 1 Chart 14: Annexation to the City of Bozeman: 1990-2012 (In Ares) 1200 10 o% 00 10 1000 -o 0 � o o` 00 800 0 ^ �o -- d o \O �o 600 Ln o 10 I � 400 "> o ,o N o I IfLno� cv o0 I 00 200 N oCDM ri IO O CO O j O O O 0 ' O r CV M 't In `O 1\ M ON O r CV M t Ln o 1,, co a, O N Q` 01 O, 01 0, 01 U 0` U U O O O O O O O O O O 01 U Q P 01 0- Q U Q- U O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N CV Sonne:Cih ojBatiennut Depurbnenl ofl'lunueu8 E Cbrmmunutp Deeeloprnent.rvrvw.Gotieman.eret. Energy Montana enjoys favorable national rankings in terms of NorthWestem Named as One of energy prices and emissions, but has high per capita energy America's Most Trustworthy consumption due to the energy intensive state economy.'' Companies The state ranks 37"' in the US for residential electricity In April 2013, Northwestern prices, 43 for residential natural gas prices, 42 for carbon dioxide emissions, and 14`h for total energy consumed per Corporation was recognized by capita.'' State energy consumption estimates by energy Forbes for the third year in a row as source are detailed in Chart 16 on page 41. one of "America's Most Trustworthy Companies" that trade on NorthWestern Energy provides regulated electric and American exchanges. The award natural gas transmission and distribution across Montana, identified 100 companies — out of South Dakota, and Nebraska. Their electric service territory more than 8,000 —that consistently corers roughly 73 percent of Montana's land area.'`' demonstrated transparent and Northwestern Energy serves 342,000 electric customers in conservative accounting practices 187 :Montana communities with 6,900 miles of transmission and solid corporate governance lines, 17,500 miles of distribution lines and 262 MW of and management. baseload power generation. With regards to natural gas, the utility provider serves 183,300 customers in 105 Montana Northwestern Energy communities with 2,000 miles of intrastate transmission www.NorthWestemEnergy.com pipelines, 5,000 miles of distribution pipelines and the capacity to store 17.75 Bcf of gas.'" Northwestern Energy celebrated its centennial year of operation in 2012 and recently completed phase one of an upgrade to the Jackrabbit (Four Corners/Bozeman area) to Big Skv transmission line from 60 k`' to 161 kV. The utility provider also has plans to install a new 100kV transmission line and upgrade related substations in South Central Montana over the nest several years.'`' Table 39: Utility Rates Aft Residential Electricity 10.15 cents/kWh 711 .92 cents/kWh April 2013 Commercial Electricity 9.51 cents/kWh 96 cents/kWh April 2013 Industrial Electricity 5.17 cents/kWh 6.51 cents/kWh April 2013 Petroleum Domestic Crude Oil $86.12/barrel $94.77/barrel April 2013 Natural Gas —Wellhead 2012 data not available $2.66/thousand cu ft 2012 Natural Gas — City Gate $4.53/thousand cu ft $5.14/thousand cu ft April 2013 Natural Gas — Residential $8.05/thousand cu ft $10.44/thousand cu ft April 2013 Coal $16.02/short ton $41 .01/short ton 2011 (Average Open Market Sales Price Coal (Delivered to Electric Power Sector) $2.36/million Btu April 2013 So"rrer State Enggy hijbtmalion Orenierr."Energy Igfotn>atlon,-1 dinirtistration. rvrmu.ein,gor. *Data milbbeld to avoid din✓os"rr of i"diridtml roipa"y dakt. Utility rates for Montana increased a modest amount since the last report, generally moving slightly closer to national averages (Table 39). Residential electricity- rates in Montana increased by almost three percent (from 9.88 to 10.15 cents), while commercial and industrial electricity rates increased by less than one percent (from 9.06 to 9.51 cents and 4.74 to 5.17 cents respectively-). ''"Montana State Energy Profile." U.S.Energy Information Administration.xvwrw.eia.gov. 26"2013 Communnry Works Report"&"2012 Annual Report."Northwestem Energy. w-,v-w.northwesterrienergt•.com. The largest shift in utility rates was in commercial city gate natural gas prices, which increased by over 21 percent (from S3.74 to S4.53/thousand cu ft.). Residential natural gas prices actually decreased by nearly one percent during the same period (from$8.11 to S8.05/thousand cu ft.). Note: city-gate refers to the point where natural gas is transferred from a transmission pipeline to the local gas utility- Table 40: NorthWestern Energy Highlights All states, Dollars & Volumes in Thousands Net Income $98,406 $92,556 6.3% Number of Customers 673,200 668,300 0.7% Number of Employees 1,430 1,400 2.1% Retail Volume Delivered Electric (megawatt hours) 10,112 10,078 0.3% Retail Volume Delivered Natural Gas (dekatherms) 26,417 31,101 -15.1% Somme ':State Eue{�y Infarnation Orerriew."Energy Iutorirratlorr.Jdnriui,rlrrrtfon.wfvtvei<zgor. ' As shown in Charts 15 and 16, electric and gas new connects reflect a sharp uptick for 2013. Chart 15: NorthWestern Energy New Connects: YTD June 2013 vs. YTD June 201 1/2012 300 180 ---------- - --- 2 50 160 --- -- ----- 1 40 - 200 Electric 120 - Gas j 150 - J 100 - - -- - -- -- - - - --- 201 1 80 L1201 1 100 u 2012 60 -- ►r2012 50 -j2013 20 -- - -j2013 0 - 0 .h , Sonne.Bellalwy,heather:'Vorthif estern Error,). Chart 16: Montana Energy Consumption Estimates: 201 1 I Coal _ 165.71 I I Natural Gas 795 I Motor dosoline exc.Ethanol 157.6 Distillah Fuel Oil 61.3 Jet Fuel 5.2 LPG kd 10.3 Residual Fuel 0.0 Other Petroleum kmmmj 3 7.4 t dear Eleciric Power 0.0 j Hydroelec ric Power l 122¢4 Biomass 8.5 OtherRenewables W 12.7 161.9 -200.0 -150.0 -100.0 •50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 Soune.•State Energy-Data Syrtetu,EueiD Information,9dinhustration.nomeia;got: I ©IN,"I'I I<\B, 'I\I \I :\% '1k 1. 1I11i 1" ��I11 11\,�.I'I Health Care The health care industry represents about 10 percent of the Gallatin County Healthiest in State state's economy as measured by GDP according to Gregg For the fourth consecutive year, Davis, Director of Health Care Industry Research at the Gallatin County has been named the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the overall healthiest county in Montana, University of Montana.' Not surprisingly, employment while Park County came in at 9''' projections paint a promising picture for healthcare place according to a national study. workers. As a Montana Department of Labor and Researchers with the Population Industry's projections report states, "Because healthcare did Health Institute of the University of not have job losses during the recession, healthcare Wisconsin ranked Gallatin County occupations are the jobs with the greatest worker among the best in the state for demand."2" Overall, healthcare's substantial employment several health factors: the county has needs and high growth rate in Montana are driven by an the lowest mortality rate, with far aging healthcare workforce, technological advancements fewer premature deaths than the that require more workers for testing and analysis, an aging state average and also ranked population, and total population growth—these factors highest as measured by behaviors, result in an average of 1,000 new jobs in the state each clinical care, social and economic year. ' factors and the environment. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council's "Health Care Policy Cost Index 2012" ranked ;Montana 8`' Jodi Hansen, Bozeman Daily Chronicle March 20, 2013 in the nation with favorable policy measures aimed at www.BozemanDailyChronicle.com keeping health care costs reasonable.;° Nationally speaking, the average annual premium for employer-sponsored family health coverage increased 4 percent in 2012, a moderate increase by historical standards but still outpacing the 1.7 percent growth in workers'wages in 2012." Since 2002, premiums have increased 97 percent, three times as quickly as wages (33 percent) and inflation (28 percent)." Increases in health expenditures are likely to trend upwards over the coming decade as the economy returns to a more normal rate of growth.'' Changes in Health Care The Montana Insurance Commissioner recently launched a new state website aimed at answering questions about the national Patient Protection and affordable Care act: montanahealthanswers.com." also, in august of 2013, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana was officially acquired by Illinois-based Health Care Service Corporation, prompting the creation of a new nonprofit, the Montana Healthcare Foundation. A product of state law, the nonprofit is charged with managing and allocating $40 million, provided through the sale, in such a wav as to continue Blue Cross's mission of improving health care services for Montana residents. 2-"Montana Business Quarterly Volume 50,Number 1,Spring 2012."University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research.www.bber.umt.edu. -K Wagner,Barbara."Montana Employment Projections 2011-2021." Montana Department of Labor and Industn, Research and analysis Bureau.wr%lv.ourfactsyourftttiure.mt.gov. 29 Connell,William."Healthcare in Montana's Economy."NIontana Department of Labor and Industry,Research and Analysis Bureau.September 2012.%vw%y.ourfactsyourfuture.mt.gov. t"heating,Raymond J. "Health Care Policy Cost Index 2012:Ranking the States According to Policies affecting the Cost of Health Coverage."Small Business&Entrepreneurship Council.February 2012.w�-lv.sbecouncil.org. ul "Family Health Premiums Rise 4 Percent to average of$15,745 in 2013,rational Benchmark Employer Survey Finds."kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research&Educational Trust(fIRET).September 11,2012.w•ww1ff.org. i2"assessing the Effects of the Economy on the Recent Slowdown in Health Spending."The kaiser Family Foundation.apnl 22,2013.www.kfforg. ;j"Editorial-New website answers health care law questions."_lluroulian. august 11,2013.www.missoulian.com. ©1" I: .1\! _-\1 " th 'nt;t. u�. �11i Pitt a 11, Potential Outcomes of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act34 As expressed by Gregg Davis in the Bureau of Business and Economic Research's 2013 Economic Outlook publication, while it is unclear exactly how many Montanans will gain health insurance coverage as a result of the affordable Care act, it is clear that there will be an increase in demand for health services of all types. Of the approximately 172,000 uninsured Montanans, roughly 68,000 may become insured under the Medicaid expansion, while the remaining 104,000 would be directed to shop for a health insurance plan in Montana's Federally Facilitated Exchange. Overall, it is anticipated that demand for primary care will increase while hospital emergency department use should fall since those who are insured use primary- care at nearly three times the rate of the uninsured and hospital emergency departments at half the rate of the uninsured. a primary concern is how the existing primary- care workforce will manage to meet increased demand. 1NIany physicians now become specialists, and many in the current workforce of primary care practitioners are nearing retirement or are practicing part-time. If all 172,000 previously uninsured Montanans become insured through Medicaid or private insurance, an additional 261,000 primary care office visits are anticipated statewide. Of the statewide figure, Gallatin County would potentially experience demand for 18,631 additional office visits. Yet while Gallatin County-and the state on the whole appear able to accommodate the increase in demand for primary care office visits, some counties could experience significant shortfalls, as seen in Table 41. Table 41 : Estimated Primary Care Office Visit Shortages/Surpluses: Montana and Select Counties ate q • • • - • Montana 2,079,000 1,997,814 +81,186 Cascade 163,800 155,107 +8,693 Flathead 176,400 181,423 -5,023 Gallatin 226,800 172,895 +53,905 Lewis & Clark 147,000 12,055 +21,978 Missoula 201,600 220,684 -19,084 Ravalli 58,800 86,947 -28,147 Silver Bow 71,400 71,081 +319 Yellowstone 508,200 296,228 +21 1,972 .Solute: "2013 Economic Outlook The Best Aledidne—Note Cent Jla/rtaaans Take Cbarge of C7nntges in Health Care?"Bnremr of Business and E,ono/nii Resea d i, Cnirerri[I•of<llentana.n9Y1Y.bber layl ed/L Bozeman Deaconess Health Services" A fixture of the Gallatin ``'alley for over 100 years, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services has grown and transformed to become the region's leading healthcare institution. The non-profit Bozeman Deaconess Health Services has offered comprehensive services designed to meet the diverse healthcare needs of the communities in the greater Gallatin `Talley. Today Bozeman Deaconess Health Services is the Iargest private employer in Gallatin Valley with 1,500 employees. Fconontic()tltlook:I lie liest Melitcitu•-1 lov.(::ui Montanans lake Chaq,c of Ch:utgrs ut I[ralth(:arc Bure:ut of Basiness anti Economic Rescarch. l'ut\•ersin of Montana.\w\\.hllrr.unu.eliu. i Rchort to the(.omnnmim",-About U,;"1)•t-e,attll press release.,lio<entun Ihaconrss Ilralth Services. \\'\\'\C.l It lLCill:ItlllCacl)i1C��,t)1�. i ©t'u:,•:'I a Ih .\ f'x a 'nl;I.i nrl 1'r a p Bozeman Deaconess Health Services is responsible for the operations of Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, Bozeman Deaconess Health Group, Hillcrest Senior Living and Highland Park Medical Campus and is governed by a community board of trustees. Bozeman Deaconess Hospital is an 86- bed facility, Joint Commission accredited, licensed Level III trauma center serving southwest Montana. With more than 150 physicians and 40 providers on medical staff representing 36 specialties, the physicians on the medical staff offer some of the highest credentials, training, and expertise in their fields of practice. Bozeman Deaconess Health Group is comprised of 20 clinics offering more than 20 specialties with more than 50 providers on staff. Its primary care practices were the first in Montana to receive National Committee for Quality Assurance Level III :Medical Home Recognition. Hillcrest Senior Living Neighborhood, a member of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging,is an adult retirement community featuring independent living apartments and assisted living accommodations that houses over 150 seniors. Over the years, Bozeman Deaconess has received many awards and accolades. In 2013, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital was named an Outstanding Patient Experience Award Recipient by Healthgrades, the leading provider of physician and hospital information for consumers. The hospital is ranked among the top 15 percent in the nation for Patient Experience and is the only recipient of this award in Montana. For the fifth year, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital was also recognized as a top-ranked Community Value Provider by Cleverley + Associates, a leading healthcare financial consulting firm specializing in operational benchmarking and performance enhancement strategies. This Five-Star designation suggest hospitals operating with a high degree of community value are those that are quality- of care, low cost, low charge and use a strong financial position to reinvest back into the provision of care at the facility. Table 42: Bozeman Deaconess Health Services by the Numbers 23,940 emergency room visits 17,405 inpatient days 1,123 births 1,973 inpatient surgical visits 3,498 outpatient surgical visits 1,230 blood bank procedures 131 diagnostic cardiac 119 coronary interventions 2,490 inpatient EKG's catheterizations 135,048 inpatient lab 308,167 outpatient lab 5,257 outpatient EKG's procedures procedures Sottire: "2012 Report to Me Communily."Bo.Zeman Deaconess Hospital.miptil.hO:�e/jlC7/ll�eC1C01Teff,o1'�. Bozeman Deaconess Health Services is committed to providing healthcare as an essential community service. Any net income is reinvested into facilities, technology and healthcare services. Last year, they began providing Community Care Connect mobile outreach. This vehicle visits communities in the region and provides services such as health screenings, laboratory work, immunizations and breast exams to people who are uninsured and under-insured. The total benefit provided to the community was nearly$18 million in 2012 (Table 43). Table 43: 2012 Bozeman Deaconess Health Services Community Benefit Statistics MMMV Financial assistance (Charity Care) & unreimbursed costs (Medicaid) $9,648,458 Community health improvement services & benefit operations $488,414 Health professions education $186,524 Subsidized health services $7,277,287 Cash & in-kind contributions to community groups $321,947 Total $17,922,630 Sonrre: "2012 Report to the Comwtn tp."Botieman Deatoners HawpitaL ivrom.hotie/nandeamuesr.otg. f Higher Educotion NIontana State University (NISU) in Bozeman was founded in MSU One of America's 100 Best 1893 and is considered a medium-sized public university College Buys (typically defined as schools with between 5,000 and 15,000 The "100 Best College Buys" picks students)." As Montana's only land-grant university, NISU is colleges where freshmen have high dedicated to serving the people of Montana. MSU provides school grade point averages and education on four campuses (Bozeman, Billings, Havre and SAT or ACT scores above the Great Falls), operates ;Montana agricultural Experiment national average. The costs for Stations and county Extension offices, and also conducts tuition, fees, room and board for significant research and outreach. In addition to NISU's four out-of-state students must be either campuses, NISU Gallatin College in Bozeman offers short- below the national average — term workforce degrees, developmental coursework to build $35,691 — or no more than 10 skills for college, and dual enrollment courses for high school percent higher than that average. students. Providing flexible, affordable education is a top MSU was the only Montana college priority. Workforce degree programs include: aviation, on the list for 2013. bookkeeping, design drafting technology, interior design, medical assistant, residential building, and welding Gail Schontzler, Bozeman Daily Chroncile technology. Gallatin College also offers associate of arts and February 20,2013 Associate of Science degree programs.' www.BozemanDailyChronicle.com RISC has been an economic anchor to the region's economy for many years and is the region's largest employer across all sectors. As of fall 2012, NISU employed 3,054 permanent faculty and staff positions, along with 616 graduate students as teaching and/or research assistants. The majority of MSU students are from Montana (Table 44). According to NISU's 2010 Economic Impaa Keport, as a result of the presence of the NISU system ! statewide (excluding NISU Extension): • 13,511 Montana jobs are available statewide • More than $897 million in after tax personal income is generated i • Montana receives $2.60 in tax revenues for every S1 of tax support • The presence of MSU increases annual wages in Montana by S1,087 • MSU increases investment spending in Montana's economy by$349.3 million Table 44: MSU Enrollment b Geographic Region: Fall Semester 2012 L. •ri Montana 7,910 853 8,763 60% Other U.S. 4,376 857 5,233 36% Foreign 388 117 505 3% Unknown 98 61 159 1% Total 12,772 1,888 14,660 100% Sorme: `Qnirk Farts."Montana State Unirerrity O fie of Planning E Ana�JrJ.m1➢/L.IrrOntn»rT.Pd///Opu. Montana State Universih%-,v%-,%v.montana.edu. Montana State University,Gallatin College,xvww.montana.edu/gallatincollege. i ©P'ti• I'1 !;1 lei ,I\I.,�;� I'ti,i'h 'ul.i f �,\nvl 1'It �,�� MSU Facts &Stats • Student-Faculty Ratio: 17:1 • Fall 2012 Enrollment: 14,660 students (Full time: 11,167, or 76 percent) • Average Age-Undergraduate Student: 22 • Student Body Percentage that are Montana Residents: 60 percent • Degrees Offered: 60 Baccalaureate, 45 Master's, 20 Doctoral • Degrees Awarded 201 1-2012: o Total: 2,444 o Non-Degree Certificate: 8 o Certificate of Applied Science: 20 o Associate of Applied Science: 31 o Bachelor's Degrees: 1,794 o Master's Degrees: 538 o Doctoral Degrees: 53 • Research & Creative Project Funding Awarded in 2012: $1 12 Million • Estimated Undergraduate Tuition & Fees 2012-13: o Resident: $6,705, Non-resident: $20,062 • Tuition & Fee Revenue 201 1-12: $106,356,918 (69 percent of all revenue) • State Allocation Revenue 201 1-12: $46,814,816 (30 percent of all revenue) • Total Expenditures 2011-12: $154,933,594 sonn•e: "Q11111C Fats."lloutaua State Cnireraity U#tre a%Planniaq&.•litati'rir.mpip.nonta n.edal oprz As stated by NISL, it has the distinguished reputation of being, "rlesignuted as one of 108 re�'ecrre'/� universities ra�itla `eery liig/.� reseanh aetivly'by the C.arn�gie Foundation for the-.1drenvernent qj'Teachirrg. AISU g0rl szgn#icanl opporlatruties for research, st-holarship, and creative work. This highest tier das.i/ic'cttion — out of 4,600 institutions—distinguishes'AISU us the only institution ' the fine-.hate region of�Alontana, if°yoming, Idulio, and:1Nortb and Sortlb Dakota to achieve this level of reseanch prominence." A few of the recognitions and awards that Montana State University has achieved include the following: • MSU currently holds 84 patents for innovations and processes developed through faculty research, with 65 additional patents pending, and has 205 license and option agreements with private firms, 87 of which are with Montana companies. • MSU is among the top ten colleges and universities in the nation for number of Goldwater Scholarship recipients. As of 2013, 58 MSU students have received the Barry INI. Goldwater Scholarship, the nation's premier scholarship for undergraduates studying math, natural sciences, and engineering. A university- is allowed to nominate four students per year, so the fact that all four 2013 nominees were selected is a tremendous achievement. • MSU has produced ten Rhodes Scholars. The tenth Rhodes scholarship, arguably the most prestigious scholarship in the world,was given to an MSU student was in 2012. • MSU Earns Spot in 2013 Peace Corps Top College Ranlrings. Montana State University ranks 16th on Peace Corps' 2013 rankings for colleges and universities with enrollments between 5,000 and 15,000 undergraduates. There are currently 25 NISL undergraduate alumni serving as Peace Corps volunteers. Manufacturing According to Paul Polzin of the Bureau of Montana Manufacturing at a Glance Business and Economic Research at the University The manufacturing sector accounts for of Montana, U.S. manufacturing has slowly begun roughly 20 percent of Montana's economic to recover with increased demand for durable base. Since 2010, primary & fabricated goods such as vehicles and household furnishings metals and computers & electronics have and improved business and construction activity." seen the most rapid growth. The wood, In Montana, the wood products industry is still paper, & furniture sector saw significant job feeling the impacts from the Smurfit-Stone mill losses from 2006 to 2010 but remains the closure in Missoula County and lasting impacts of largest sector in the state and has resumed the recession on housing and construction.'" modest growth since 2010. Profits increased However other industries performed well enough for 42 percent of firms surveyed in 2012, to result in the state's manufacturing employment up from 37 percent in 2011 . From a list of levels growing at roughly the same rate as national eight issues, health insurance cost was rated averages since the second quarter of 2009."" as the most important concern by 81 Analyzing employment trends between 2001 and percent of manufacturers surveyed. 2011: U.S. manufacturing employment decreased Bureau of Business and Economic Research, by 27.2 percent while Montana experienced a The University of Montana decrease of only 16.4 percent. In the same time www.bber.umt.edu frame, Montana manufacturing earnings declined by only 11 percent—most likely due to the effects of increased productivity and structural change." As of 2011, there were 3,191 manufacturing establishments in Montana and 1,210 of these had employees."" Nearly 73 percent of the establishments had less than 10 employees and all but one establishment had less than 500 employees."Gallatin Countt's manufacturing companies employed 2,702 people in 2011 with reported earnings of S123 million (in 2011 dollars)."' Park County's manufacturing sector employed 341 people with earnings of$13 million in 2011.!'The two counties accounted for 15 percent of the state's total manufacturing employment."' Montana manufacturers' employment increased by 7 percent between 2010 and 2012 and exceeded 21,000 workers for the first time since the end of the recession (Table 45). The outlook is for continued improvements among several manufacturing sectors in 2013 with positive impacts from oil and gas development and jobs returning from overseas locations, or "re-shoring". ;" As in 2012, more than 90 percent of manufacturers surveyed by the BBER expect to keep their workforce at the same level or increase employment in 2013.3" Table 45: Manufacturing Employment in Montana: 2010-2012 -EmploymentSector 1 1 . . Wood, aper&furniture 4,223 4,255 Food & beverage 3,456 3,531 Primary and Fabricated Metals 2,059 2,730 Chemicals, petroleum & coal 2,085 2,180 Machinery 1,167 1,350 Nonmetallic minerals 938 960 Textiles, clothing & leather goods 774 845 Computers, electronics & appliances 640 785 All other manufacturing 4,371 4,620 Total 19,803 21,256 Sonn•e:Outlook.2013—:llnurfiallfiq Outlook.Butralt of Business mirdE onomieAeseanh. Unirersity of llouluun.wwtv.GLeruint.edn.*F.rtlmate. 3"Polzin,Paul."The State of.\Iontana Manufacturing"Bureau of Business and Economic Research,The University of Montana.wis,v.l)ber.umt.edu. ;''"Outlook 2013."Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana.«�ti-w.bber.umt.edu. Manufacturing Exports38 Domestic and international exports are important aspects of Montana's manufacturing industry. .according to Paul I'olzin, "About 50 percent of[Montana's] manufacturing earnings [are] produced in industries such as wood products, petroleum refining, and machinery where almost all of the products immediately leave the state."Canada consistently holds the number I ranking for Montana exports, while the remaining four of the top five destination countries are .Asian countries. Between 2002 and 2011, exports to China saw an almost 21-fold increase and Itorea saw a 14-fold increase. While this shift to exporting to Asia lessened the impact of European economic issues on Montana, the effects of slowing economic growth in Asia could challenge manufacturers in upcoming years. Notable Growth in a Thirst-Quenching Manufacturing Sector' It is no revelation that Montanans are thirsty for craft brews—;Montana is second in the nation for number of breweries per capita just slightly trailing Vermont: what is noteworthy is the growth that the industry has seen in a short period of time. Montana's 38 craft breweries (as of 2012) comprise one of the state's fastest-growing manufacturing sectors (Table 46). Table 46: Montana Brewery Survey Data Summary: 2010-201 1 Production 87,442 Barrels 102,925 Barrels 18% Beer Sales $21 .8 Million $26.1 Million 20% Employment 231 Jobs 320 Jobs 39% Compensation $5.2 Million $6.4 Million 23% Expenditures $15.6 Million $18.8 Million 21% (Excluding employee compensation) Solute: 'The Econo/nii 1mpen1 of Graft Brewing in Montana."Montana Brrsme.0 Quarterly. ff'7nter 2012.Burst of Business and Eoonomii Researth, The Unirersetp ol.11outana.rUwn4bber.111Nt edu. Chart 17 displays the estimated employment impacts of the brewing industry, with 434 total additional workers. While the majority of impacts are understandably seen in the manufacturing sector, economic modeling comparing the current Montana economy to a scenario in which `Montana never had a brewing industry revealed employment impacts across several sectors. Chart 17: Montana Brewing Industry Employment Impacts by Sector (Number of Workers) 38 10 - 14 u)Manufacturing i 24 Li State and Local Government -J Construction 29 u Retail Trade u Health Care u Other 319 I I Sorrree: 'Tbe Eonomh-Impact of Craft Brewing in Mortara."Montana Business Qnmlerlp, I17nter 012,Bui-ext 0l Business and Eivnorme Researd), The University of.11ontana,www.bbernmt.edu. {""The Economic Impact of Craft Brnvuig to Montana."Montana Business Quarterly,hinter 2012.Bureau of Business and Economic Research,l•he L'niversin•of Montana. .v-%-vv.bber.umt.edu. ©P':.:. ii\R •I\! ..\! I`. c.. �n�i� 1„♦u\In I�N :. ,li Real Estate Historically- low interest rates, a slowly- recovering Real Estate Remains a Solid Investment economy with strong local job growth and pent-up According to Robyn Erlenbush, bus er demand has resulted in a significantly broker/owner of ERA Landmark Real improved real estate market since our last report. Estate, "Sales of investment homes Forecasts that predicted a housing recovere in 2013 increased greatly in 2011 and 2012, and have held especially- true for the Bozeman area, as vacation home sales are showing recovery limited inventory drove up sales prices and reduced on a slow but steady basis...Through all days on market. While interest rates continue to rise the boom and bust cycles...real estate has and new home construction seeks to catch up to the and continues to be a solid investment market, existing inventory is in high demand. and wealth builder for those who view The trends for single family residences in 2012 homeownership as a long term venture." certainly reflect improving conditions as compared Bozeman Daily Chronicle Business Journal to the last two sears (Charts 18 & 19). Gallatin June 25, 2013 Counts- experienced an 18.5 percent increase in the www.bozemandailychronicle.com I number of homes sold in 2012, as compared to _-- 2011, with a 2.3 percent increase in the average sale price and an 11 dad- reduction in the days on market (Table 47). While Park County saw a 6.7 percent increase in the number of houses sold and a 44 day- reduction in. the days on market for its single family residences, the average sales price declined by over 12 percent. Total dollar volume decreased for Park Counts- on the whole; however, all other areas saw an increase in this Figure (Table 47). Table 47: Single Family Residence Trends: Gallatin and Park Counties 2010-2012 Gallatin County 2010 796 $262,760,063 $330,101 $244,000 117 2011 911 $298,881 ,810 $328,081 $237,500 112 2012 1079 $362,263,178 $335,739 $253,750 101 Bozeman and Surrounding Area 2010 530 $178,756,270 $337,276 $262,000 110 2011 600 $188,477,474 $314,129 $252,250 100 2012 738 $250,568,429 $339,523 $278,750 92 Belgrade and Surrounding Area 2010 163 $31,409,503 $192,696 $174,000 94 2011 182 $35,750,451 $196,431 $175,000 101 2012 191 $37,995,674 $198,930 $175,000 81 Park Coun 2010 138 $30,672,750 $222,266 $169,000 144 2011 150 $34,603,918 $230,692 $165,000 176 2012 160 $32,416,606 $202,603 $146,500 132 Livingston and Surrounding Area 2010 97 $15,623,400 $161,066 $149,900 121 2011 110 $18,544,518 $168,586 $142,750 132 2012 132 $20,657,606 $156,497 $135,000 114 Sornre:Sorrlhivesl Jlonlrnra.11nlliple Lisliq Seivee. Ga//aiur Asoiralion of Reallocr.wry c�n/lalnneallors.ont. ©" , 1; , A 01"F.(4'\'Mt( Pit,.., t Chart 18: Number of Single Family Homes Sold: Gallatin and Park Counties 2005-2012 1,400 — - ---- - 1,224 j 1,200 1 072 - - ---- - _-- 1,079 959 911 1,000 - - -- --- --- 800 744 796 — -- ss$ 600 �- -- --- - ---------- 400 265 - - -- ----- -- -- -62 -- 225 200 -. 162 _ _ 123 112 138 150 160 - 0 - --- I 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Gallafin County GNOPark County Same:Southwest Alootarm 1lrrltrple Ltstrgq Semee.Ga//atur,4froaatiou of Rea/tors.www;gu/latirrreo/torn.orn. Between 2005 and 2009, Bozeman experienced a 43 percent decline in single fami1v residences sold, while Belgrade experienced a 44 percent decline in sales and Livingston sales declined be over 56 percent. However, since 2009 all three cities have seen steady vearl`• increases. From 2011 to 2012 Bozeman sales were up by 23 percent; Belgrade experienced 5 percent growth; and Livingston saw an increase of over 20 percent (Chart 19). Chart 19: Number of Single Family Homes Sold: Bozeman, Belgrade and Livingston and Surrounding Areas 2005-2012 900 816 800 � - - 738 700659 600 600 556 502 462 500 400 280 283 264 300 J 200 158 157 163 182 191 - . 100 j-209 171 0 116 98 91 97 110 132 — 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Bozeman mUmBelgrade Livingston Sourre.Southwest Jfoutrrrur dlultiple Listiuq Seirjee.Gallatin Amdatiorr of Realtors.www.ga!lntlurealta r.roru. ©111 .....I ."\131 .1\1-�' _I'li 1.1 1'. Due to the lingering effects of the recession, a moderate portion of houses in the region have continued to be sold as short sales or have gone into foreclosure ("fable 48). Gallatin County experienced improvement in terms of the proportion of distressed sales as compared to 2011; short sales represented just over 8 percent of total sales, while foreclosures accounted for 14.55 percent of total homes sold in 2012 for Gallatin Count-. L nfortunatelv, Park Count- did not experience similar improvement in distressed sales with 4.62 percent of homes sold as short sales—a 1.3 percent increase over 2011—and foreclosures at 22.56 percent, which is just slightly better than ! 2011 (Tables 48& 49). Table 48: Residential Distressed Sales Short Sales): Gallatin and Park Counties 2010-2012 Gallatin County 2010 91 $20,760,750 $228,140 $180,000 1,189 7.65% 2011 146 $30,416,526 $208,332 $150,000 1,439 10.15% 2012 135 $26,531,695 $196,531 $l 55,000 1,684 8.02% Park County 2010 6 $1,423,000 $237,167 $1 75,000 161 3.73% 2011 6 $1,290,789 $215,131 $158,894 180 3.33% 2012 9 $1,179,500 $131,055 $120,000 195 4.62% Solna: Soatblyest.1lootdoa Afidtiple laswi.9 Some. Glllaliu Assoati ioll of Realtors. wrvri;gvllntioretl/tol ctaln. *Total n1wber Ol sales llltllldes all ! residential ro e es. Table 49: Residential Distressed Sales (Foreclosures): Gallatin and Park Counties 2010- 2012 Gallatin County 2010 218 $46,452,211 $213,083 $164,950 1,189 18.33% 2011 291 $54,618,762 $187,693 $l 50,000 1,439 20.22% 2012 245 $47,803,010 $195,114 $155,000 1,684 14.55% Park County 2010 30 $3,302,203 $110,073 $89,950 161 18.63% 2011 41 $3,796,100 $92,587 $80,000 180 22.78% 2012 44 $5,453,006 $123,931 $102,500 195 22.56% .Sonnre:Sontbmest Montana Maltiple Llszel>g Setwee. Gllatul Assotlatlon Ol Realtom. 177YlY.gallatluredltOl:v.ioln. *Total liumber Of sales lntllldes all ! resldeotidlpropertp types. T=�rkriolo9Y Bozeman is arguably the high-tech center for the state of Montana Earns High National Montana, from notable software development firms to Rankings for R&D Intensity and biotechnology companies and laser and optics innovators, the STEM Job Growth Gallatin `'alley draws numerous tech start-ups seeking a According to the U.S. Chamber Silicon Valley alternative.;` Bozeman has solid IT of Commerce, Montana is infrastructure that is consistently improved upon and there ranked seventh in the nation for are projects undelwav to increase broadband service in academic R&D intensity, and surrounding areas and across the state.' In addition to ninth in the nation for science, Montana State University's strong research presence, technology, engineering, and technology- development endeavors, and high caliber mathematics (STEM) job growth, graduate pool, Southwestern tlontana's high quality- of life— 2013 Enterprising States Report including the wealth of recreational opportunities—have US Chamber of Commerce created an attractive setting for visionary technology industry www.uschamber.com founders." BioTechnology' Montana bios ence companies ai-e beit19 reeogintied as world class both from a s ienttf c and a manggetitent perspective."—Rob Bagat�y, 1'13 Science, Takwki 1'Ih-dnes,llontana, Montana Bio,Science.-Illianre Board Chair. In 2003,an economic development analysis found that Montana had an emerging bioscience cluster, leading to the creation of the Montana BioScience alliance to accelerate the industry's growth. Ten years later, the industry employs 2,437 people within 236 establishments in Montana and has seen significant growth, as seen in Chart 20. Average earnings per job within the industry were S65,317 in 2012, which is 70 percent higher than the average earnings per job within the Montana economy overall (S38,533). Bozeman has the largest concentration of bioscience companies in Montana, with 33 percent of the state's bioscience companies. Chart 20: Montana Bioscience Employment Growth Rate: 2001 -201 1 I i Montana us I I 00/6 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Sornre:Emnomn-_llodelirrq Spetiarsts,Intl (E.IISI)and RTS.2012 in "Montana B/o.S'aierhe Clruter Rerisited"2013 BxSdenie Under the B{q A)` BioScience Ditrttog.ilontaun BwSaen&Alliance.mvip.montanahio.org 'I DesMarais,Christina."A Different hind of Valley for Tech Start-Ups." Lu:,WggaZine.2011.http://x«%1v.inc.com. 42 Montana Broadband. http://broadband.mt.gov aj Friesenhahn,Ray. "Vision 2020:a Regional Strategic and Economic Development Plan for the Montana Optics& Photonics Industry Cluster."Montana Optic?and Photonics ludtrdry Cluster Rgionarl.S'trategii Plan.2013. 11 "2013 BioScience tinder the Big Ski--BioScience Directory." .Montana BioScience alliance.www.montanabio.org ©1'it .i.. lit .Jv1 ..v1 nr,•Rh Optics/Photonics Industry One key technology industry driver is the optics/photonics industry, used to inclusively reference companies working in imaging, signal processing, sensing and detection, signal modulation, optical materials, and fiber optic communications." On a per capita basis, Bozeman has one of the highest densities of optics companies found any-where in the United States and many of these companies were founded by Montana State University graduates, often through Montana State University technology- transfer:'' Over the past 16 years, the number of optics and photonics companies in Montana has grown at an average compounded rate of 7.5 percent, with almost all of that growth concentrated in the Bozeman area.+' One can see the parallel growth in the number of optics companies and the number of IISU optics faculty in Figure 6. This sector provides critical high- paying research and development and manufacturing employment opportunities for doctorate-level science and engineering graduates, while also attracting new talent to the area.; Area companies are currently exploring the development of a formal Montana Optics Cluster. Figure 6: Parallel Growth of Montana Optics Industry and MSU Optics Faculty 30 30 N r _T (D j E 20 20 O LL U U a a O O o o 10 E 10 E :3 Z Z i 0 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Year Sonn'e.Fiieserrbabxt.Rap. "I isiwr 2020.A Regional Stralegli mu!Eronomii Derelopment P4iu fw•the.11aitaua Opt4s E Pbotmi,s Indastry Cluster" llwtkura Optics and PGotoniis LtdwIty Cluster Regiaral Stralegte Plan.2013. Notable recent developments in the area's technology industry include:" • Expanding San Nlateo-based cloud computing software company Apttus announced plans to open a Bozeman office with approximately 50 new hires • Takeda Vaccines, Japan's largest pharmaceutical company, purchased LicoCyte, a 1 Bozeman-based private biopharmaceutical company-specializing in vaccine products • The Montana Programmers Association, started in 2008, held its Big Sky Development Conference in Bozeman and grew from 550 members in 2012 to more than 700 in 2013 • Sensopath Technologies of Bozeman received a $1.5 million contract from the National Cancer Institute for research into its treatment for recurring head and neck cancers a Bacterin International of Belgrade, a leader in developing bone graft material and antimicrobial coatings, received a$25 million investment to execute its growth strategy 1'"Montana optics-related companies."Optical Technology Center,Montana State University. http://Nv-xv-,v.optec.montana.edu/compaiiies.htn-d. 16 Bacaj,Jason."Silicon Valley company Apttus opening Bozeman office."Bof eman Dai6,Cbroniele. June 30,2013. x-,1v-,v.bozemandail clironicle.com. Tourism & RPrrpotirn. :Montana is known for its east beauty and wealth of Montana Makes a Favorable outdoor activities. The landscapes that Gallatin and Impression on Majority of Nonresidents Park Counties encompass are arguably some of the best An annual survey conducted by the examples of Montana's natural attractions. With Institute for Tourism and Recreation mountain ranges lining the valleys, pristine rivers Research at the University of Montana running through them and Yellowstone National Park found that 89 percent of unsolicited just a short drive away, the two counties offer a comments were positive reviews of the tremendous variety of outdoor recreational state and visitors' experiences. More opportunities. Such amenities have established tourism than 1,100 nonresidents wrote as a major component of dle area's economy. comments on the survey: many Statewide, the leisure & hospitality industry- accounts appreciated the beauty, open space, for about 16.6 percent of private employment, as and friendly residents, while most of the compared to a national average of 12.3 percent.'- ercent. negative comments submitted related to a lack of recycling opportunities. Nonresident expenditures grew by 15 percent between 2011 and 2012, adding S3.3 billion to the state's UM News,August 26, 2013 economy.'- Montana residents also contribute greatly to Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research this industry, spending an estimated $877 million on in- University of Montana state travel in 2011 while enjoying the state's vacation www.itrr.umt.edu and recreation opportunities." In their 11T Toraism Bti.+inesses 2012 Review;2013 Outlook research report, the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the tniversity of Montana surveyed 115 tourism-related business owners in the Yellowstone Country region, which includes Gallatin and Park Counties. The purpose of the study was to assess the change in visitation from 2011 to 2012 and to project visitation for 2013. hey findings include: • 63 percent of the respondents experienced an increase in visitation in 2012, this was lower than most of the other travel regions surveyed • Respondents were generally hopeful about the outlook for 2013, with 62 percent stating that they expected an increase in visitation and only 3 percent expecting a decrease • The top two reasons for a positive outlook were the amount of repeat customers and pursuit of more/better marketing • While 50 percent of those surveyed will make no changes to their business, 32 percent are planning to expand or renovate The state's travel promotion budget is 22 percent lower than the national state average."" In a 2010 Conversion Study,it was found that once Montana advertised in larger markets, travel destination to Montana rose 36 percent."" In ongoing Brand Awareness Studies, it has been found that after Montana advertises in a given market, there is a notable increase in awareness of Montana and those that saw advertising were significantly more likely to travel to Montana, compared to those who were unaware of the advertising."" Funding for Montana tourism marketing leads to increased visitor spending which then increases income, property and corporate tax collections." +-Connell,Willie."Casting a Wider Net:Hoy;-travel and recreation in Montana benefit individuals,the economy,and the landscape.".1faiu Street:Ifontauu Summer 2013. Montana Department of Labor and Indusm.wwwAli.mt.gov. ax"Montana's Tourism&Recreation Industry Fast Facts," Updated Mac 2013,Montana Department of Commerce Office of Tourism.http://travelmontana.mt.goy.And"2012 Montana'_�onresident Traveler Expenditures and Economic Contribution."and"The Economic Review of the Travel Industry in Montana:2012 Biennial Edition." Institute for Tourism&Recreation Research,University of Montana.%v%N-w.ttrr,umt.edu. ©t', + \.13 . \ o� '. i Economic Impact" _according to the Montana Department of Commerce Office of Tourism, "Tourism is one of Montana's leading industries and primary revenue drivers." A few facts about Montana tourism from the Office of Tourism and the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the (:niversity of Montana: • 10.8 million visitors came to Montana in 2012 • These visitors result in 11 new customers per Montana resident for Main Street Businesses • \Tisitors spent S2.77 billion in 2011 and 53.27 billion in 2012, infusing new money- into Montana's economy o For 2012, the $3.27 billion in local spending directly supported $2.64 billion of economic activity and indirectly supported $1.59 billion of economic activity, bringing the total contribution of nonresident spending to $4.23 billion • X'isitor spending generated$305 million in state and local tax revenue • Every dollar spent on advertising yielded$157 in visitor spending in Montana 0 Without tourism tax revenue, it is estimated that each Montana household (with an average size of 2.36 people) would have to pay- an additional $757 in local and state taxes (based on I total tax revenue/total households) Tourism and recreational businesses support 42,900 Montana jobs. Visitor spending provides S12 billion in worker salaries. On average, each dollar spent by a nonresident traveler in Montana, generates 38 cents in wage and salary- income for Montana. This is 57 percent higher than the national average of 24.1 cents." Chart 21 details the distribution of visitor expenditures in 2012. I Chart 21 : 2012 Visitor Expenditures in Montana o Retail Sales 18% -�- 18% 0 Hotel, Motel v Groceries, Snacks \ oAuto Rental W Outfitter,Guide U Rental Cabin, Condo 10% rJ Campground, RV Park L1 Licenses, Entrance Fees _I Transportation Fares 8% (Vehicle Repairs u Misc. Services 35% 2% v Farmer's Market 3% Gambling 1% 1% Ei Gasoline 1% % 19'0 1 0 1% 2% Restaurant, Bar Sointe: "2012 Aloutemet Voursident Traveler Expenditures and Emnomii ConbTbutrou.":1pir13013. Lsfihite for Tourism Ev Rea-eatiou Resean-15, C`uirerut)oflfoutanv. wwixitn:nmledii.Figures do ua[sum to 100°o due to mnudiu�. I ©(�,{ •'I ,;\(i' I`.. � I`. _'n(i( 11i\��\Ifs PI{ �I! The totals recorded below include the following: Direct Impacts result from nonresident traveler purchases of goods and services; Indirect Impacts result from purchases made by tra-,-el-related businesses; and Induced Impacts result from purchases by those employed in travel-related occupations. The totals in 'I'able 50 are the combination of these three i npacts. Table 50: Nonresident Traveler Economic Impacts and Expenditures: 2010-2012 Year Industry Output Employment Employee Compensation Proprietor Income 2010 $1,954,200,000 24,640 $519,000,000 $83,700,000 2011 $2,228,800,000 28,210 $606,300,000 $96,600,000 2012 $2,643,900,000 29,750 $690,300,000 $114,700,000 Year Other Property Type State &Local Avg. Expenses per Day per Total Expenditures Income Taxes Group 2010 $248,100,000 $229,100,000 $126.06 $2,446,649,000 2011 $286,800,000 $275,700,000 $131 .88 $2,774,340,000 2012 $311,500,000 $305,600,000 $138.77 $3,268,700,000 Sonne. '2012.Montana Nonrejulent Tntreler F_,.tpendilnre.r and l ionoour C_aub7Gntron.".-1pir1 2U13. Institute lo'Touavn C Reavatmn Rerear-rh, I 111rerrtt) oj.11onlana.]),mp.drumll.edn. Table 51 displays nonresident traveler statistics for 2012. Montana saw a 2.1 percent increase (from 10,547,000 to 10,769,000) in total nonresident visitor numbers between 2011 and 2012. Group size decreased slightly over the same period, from 233 to 2.23 people per group, while length of stab increased from 4.66 to 4.89 nights. Average daily- expenditures increased by 5.3 percent, from S 131.88 to S 138.76. "I'here was very little change on the whole in terms of Visitation distribution across the quarters. Table 51 : 2012 Montana Nonresident Traveler Quarterly Travel Comparison N 'FAnnual Total Nonresident 1,288,000 2,781,000 5,058,000 1,642,000 10,769,000 Visitors % of Total 12% 26% 47% 15% 100% Nonresident 656,000 1,284,000 2,104,000 786,000 4,830,000 Travel Groups % of Total 14% 27% 44% 16% 100% Group Size 1 .98 2.17 2.40 2.07 2.23 # pergroup) Length of Stay 3.91 4.75 5.39 4.58 4.89 (nights) Avg. Expenditure $145.28 $135.07 $134.78 $151 .08 $138.76 per Day Total $372,900,000 $823,650,000 $1,528,360,000 $543,800,000 $3,268,700,000 Expenditures % of Total 11% 25% 47% 17% 100% Some: "2012 Jlonlana.Nonresident Trareler Quarler/),True!Comptlasou. 1 pill_'n 13.litrtinde%or 1 onrism,and Rerirntiou Resear b, Untrerrit)o� Montana.immitrr.runt.edit. Visitation Dynamics Chart 22: 2011 Vacationer Population by State/Province Residence Washington California _— —J Alberta,Canada ---- -- — -- Minnesota -- -- I Idaho -- I North Dakota I ! Wyoming � I Utah - Colorado Texas Wisconsin Florida - I Arizona ' I Brifish Columbia,Canada Illinois I Oregon 0.0% 1.0'% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% Percentage of Visitors Surveyed Soiirre.'The Emnomir Rerien,o%!be Tnwel Lfdilsiq rn Montana.201'Biennial Editiou."Instittde/oi Tourism c"Rareatton Reseanh, L.'uirerrlty o/ Afowarur.ry�arv.itrr:mnt.erin. tilontana offers a great variety of activities for travelers who hail from a wide range of places as seen in Chart 22. Vacationers cite many reasons for coming to Montana, but most are drawn to the state because of its beautiful mountain scenery- and wide open spaces, with little change to the top ten attractions cited by vacationers from year to year (Table 52). One notable difference between 2010 and 2011 for the most cited attractions was that "Fishing" was edged out of the top ten by "Other Montana History& Culture". Table 52: Montana's Top 10 Attractions for Vacationers: 2011 1 Mountains/Forests 64% 2 Yellowstone National Park 58% 3 Open space/Uncrowded areas 52% 4 Rivers 41% 5 Glacier National Park 39% 6 Wildlife 39% 7 Lakes 27% 8 Lewis &Clark History 18% 9 Natives American History& Culture 16% 10 Other Montana History & Culture 16% Soune. 'The Eiouomir Reiiery of the Tin%elludnslby iu Jlowemer 2012 Bienidal Edlhon."Itrrtitute for Tonrirm c�Rea-ea iou Rerearth, L'uirets iy of I Alontana.mmy.it%r:rtdrt.edu. it\Bt -I\I —\i :\\I IRh Table 53: Yellowstone National Park Visitors As seen in Table 52 on page 57, National Parks such as Glacier and Yellowstone are important 2003 3,019,376 attractions that draw visitors to 1%Iontana. 2004 2,868,316 although Yellowstone National Park is 2005 2,835,649 primarily located in Wyoming, three of the fire 2006 2,870,293 entrances to the park are in small Montana towns and over half of vehicles entering the 2007 3,151,343 park do so from Montana.'' From 2004 to 2008 3,066,580 2006 visitation numbers were down; however, 2009 3,295,187 visitor numbers have steadily climbed since, 2010 1 3,640,184 aside from a slight decrease in 2008 ('fable 53). 2011 3,394,326 The park had a record number of visitors in 2012 3,447,729 2010 and saw its second highest visitation Soiare. Pubbe Use Stativher 0#ire.NOtiO/1111 Peerk.See-rr,e. numbers on record in 2012. !,tips:I/hiryer.upr:gor/.Ste,tr Air Travel'' Bozeman Yellowstone International airport (airport code: BZN) became the busiest airport in Montana as of June of 2013, with 879,221 passengers traveling through the terminal between June 2012 and May 2013. annual passenger volumes are shown in Table 54. according to the airport Director, Brian Sprenger, "Over the past forty years our airport is the fastest growing airport in :Montana." Passenger traffic has increased by nearl- 200,000, or 28 percent, in the past three rears, making the airport one of the top 120 airports in the nation in terms of passengers out of almost 500. additional non-stop destinations to Portland, Los Angeles, Phoenix-Mesa and New York/Newark account for much of this increase. Table 54: Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Volume Year Deplaned Passengers Enplaned Passengers Annual Total 2003 282,871 281,052 563,923 2004 310,558 308,985 619,543 2005 336,803 335,679 672,482 2006 315,912 317,850 633,762 2007 335,598 335,276 670,874 2008 351,281 351,214_ 702,495 2009 340,563 _ 342,714 683,277 2010 365,210 362,828 728,038 2011 _ _ 398,288 397,822 796,110 2012 _ 433,288 433,829 867,117 Sonne: '2013 Passenger E Tower Operatrour Report."Bo;,en(w ellowstow Iuteniatioual.-litport.w)muGotieinnue,Yirport ions. Bozeman Yellowstone International airport is the only airport that serves as a year-round point of access for two Yellowstone National Park entrances. It also serves the recreation areas of Big Sky Resort, Moonlight Basin and the Bridget Bowl Ski area as well as the business centers of Bozeman, Belgrade, and Livingston and higher education at Montana State University. The number of locations serviced through Bozeman Yellowstone International airport is compared between 2000 and 2010 in Figure 7 on page 59. ""Yellowstone National Park." Montana Official State Travel Site.%ti?\v-,v.visitmt.com. 51'Sprenger,Brian.Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Press Release. dune 1 ,2013.w w.bozemanairport.com. Figure 7: Non-Stop Flight Destinations from Bozeman: January 2000 versus June 2012 le- Somne: SpJeeger;Bnevi.Bo�,eiNau l ellomstoue lutermitimed.•Inport•rvrv�uGaLeinauuiJpor7.roJrf. — - — — - Ski Resorts Southwestern Montana is home to three resorts that bring in skiers from around the world, Bridget Bowl, Moonlight Basin, and Big Skv Resort. In :august of 2013, CrossHarbor Capital Partners LLC, in partnership with Boyne Resorts (the owner of Big Sky Resort) entered into an agreement to acquire Moonlight Basin, with plans to combine Moonlight and Big Sky ski operations with the previously acquired Spanish Peaks, a nearby private resort. The combined resort will have more than 5,700 acres of skiable terrain,with 4,350 vertical feet, 23 chairlifts,and 10 surface lifts.' Big Sky Resort offers world-class skiing and riding with over 400 inches of snow on average per year. Not only do families come for the winter season, but there is much to do and see during the summer as well. Big Sky had another record-breaking season with over 374,000 skier visits during the 2012-2013 season (Table 55). Bridget Bowl, a nonprofit ski area, is a cornerstone for Bozeman's recreational community and a major contributor to southwest Montana's vibrant winter tourism economy. In the 2012-2013 ski season, Bridget Bowl had a strong early season and was projecting a 200,000+ year; however, a lack of sufficient March snowfall led to a sharp drop in visitation numbers at the end of the season.'' According to Bridget Bowl's website, the resort is pleased to announce the installation of two new chairlifts that will triple the uphill capacity as compared to the single chairlift that was retired last season. Table 55: Ski Area Visitation Figures Sky -W Skier Visits Bridger Bowl Skier Visits E)19 sort 2004-05 290,000 158,000 2005-06 323,000 183,812 2006-07 308,000 135,555 2007-08 310,000 196,569 2008-09 285,000 188,621 2009-10 297,000 199,061 2010-1 1 340,000 210,966 2011-12 340,000+ 148,074 2012-13 1 374,000 186,000 Solu:e:.Uirkeling DepmYineWs,Big Sky Resort aJu!Bridget BoJvl. "Joint Statement—Issued on behalf of CrossHarbor Capital Partners LLC and Borne Resorts."August 16,2013. Moonhglit Basin.N-vZvw.moonhghtbasin.com/press-releases. ''-XVales,Doug. Marketing Director,Bridget Bowl Resort. ww%v.bridgerbowl.com '10 i I.t„\i+\Ii Nlo-1 k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,� 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1