Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014 Economic Profile of Gallatin And Park Counties, Prospera Business Network
2014 Economic Profile of Gallatin and Pork Count ies, Montano ©20 14 Prospera Business Network Gallatin & Park Counties, Montana PROSPERA Bl 'SJNESS NE'J'\'X'ORK 2t1IS Charlottt· ~rrt·t'l • :-'uitc I • Bo1cman. ;\IT S'FIX Phone ~IIC,.Slf'.)ll) • h1x -J,iJC,.SlC'JS(J.) \\'\\'\\'. P n )~pcra Bu,;i nc~,; :\ crw' H·k.1 n·~ 11114 I It,,,,,, ( PH« •I II POWOER RIVER ) ._) u J J J J J .J ) ) .J ) Table of Contents l .i~r c>f 'l'ablcs ....................................................................................................................................................... i l.isr < >f (:harts ..................................................................................................................................................... iii I .isr <>f 1 ·igurcs .................................................................................................................................................... iii I nrn >d ucti< >11 ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 .l.hc 1 ·:c<H1<>111Y ..................................................................................................................................................... -+ ( :ost < >f I )r >ing Business .................................................................................................................................... <) <:<>~t <>f J j,·ing ................................................................................................................................................... 11 P<>pulatir>n .!.rends ........................................................................................................................................... 1-t \ligrati<>t1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 1:-\ !)cnH>graphics .................................................................................................................................................. 21 \\ ·< >rk f< >rcc ......................................................................................................................................................... 2(> I·:mpl<>y mcnr by ~cctc>r .................................................................................................................................... 2~ ~alary & \\'age l)crail ........................................................................................................................................ )(l I .argL·st J>riYatc 1-:mpl<>ycrs .............................................................................................................................. .'n \griculrun.: ......................................................................................................................................................... )-+ Banking ............................................................................................................................................................... )-: <:c>nstructi< >11 ...................................................................................................................................................... 1') 1-:ncrgy ................................................................................................................................................................ ..J..) Health (:arc ....................................................................................................................................................... -+5 I fighcr I·:ducati<>ll ............................................................................................................................................. -tH \lanufacturing .................................................................................................................................................. 5() Rcal l·:~ratc ...................................................................................................................................... , ................. 52 ·r·cchnolog~ ....................................................................................................................................................... 55 'l'ouri~n1 & R.ccrcati<H1 ..................................................................................................................................... 57 2•11 11.11J"''III I'H<ll ll l List ofT ables Tabk I: 20 1-f Fntcrpri~ing States Reporr -Ranking-; for \fontana .......................................................... (> Table .2: \l~ernpolitan l·:cononuc Strength Rankings (< )ut of 5Vi) ........................................................... - Tabk .): \ktmpolitan I·:conomic Strength Rankings (< )ut of)~!) ........................................................... ~ T able -f: Real ( ~DP b\· Region and State, 20II -.211l.L ................................................................................. H Table 5: Regional ( :umparison of the ( :nst of D< •ing Bu~im·ss ............................................................... [II Tabil' (,: 2".1 (~uarrer 201-1-( :ost of I .lYing lndc:--; ( :omparison .................................................................. l2 T able -: State, ( :ount\· and (:it\ Populations, 21 )()-:--.20 U .......................................................................... 1-1- Tahk X: Si:--; I· as te~t ( ; rowing \I o ntana ( :ounti<.:", .20111 l-.21 I I .1 .................................................................. IS Table <): \lo nrana ( :oliiH~ Population (; mwth. 20 I ( l-211 U ...................................................................... 15 l'abk Ill: \fo ntana <:tty Populationlbnkings . .21HIH-20I.) ....................................................................... [(> Table I I: ( :omponents of Residenr Population (:hang<.:, J uly 20 12-_luly 21 I 1.'> ...................................... I~ Table 12: c;allatin and Park Count~ \:ct \ligrati<>n Details, 2011(>-211 111 .\C:S Data .............................. I!) J'abk 1.): . \gL' Demographics. 200H-21 I 12 . \CS Data ................................................................................ 21 Tabk 1-f: l·:thnicit\ Demographics, 21 II l:-1-.20 1.2 . \CS Data ....................................................................... 21 'L1hk IS: lnc<>me I .eYcls, 21Hll-\-21ll.2 .\C:S Data ........................................................................................ 2) l'abk I(>: T .en I of I ·:ducational . \ttainment .21 )( 1:-\-.20 1.2 . \ ( :s I )at a ......................................................... .2-f Tabk 1-: I lousing ( kcupanc~ .21HIH-20 12 .\CS Data ............................................................................... 2-f Table l X: Household and h unih· D \ namics 2110:-1-2012 \CS Dara ........................................................ .25 'L1bk t<J: State l "ncmploymcnr Rate Comparison._luly 201-f (Seasonall~· adjusteu) ............................. 2(> T ablt: .211: ( :ounry l . nemployment Rate Comparis< H1, July .21 l 1-f (\:un-seasonally adjusted) ............... 2(> Table 21 : Count~ I.abor !·o re<.: Statistics, 21)(1(>-2013 (\:on-seasonally adjusted) .................................. 2-:- Tablt: 22: 20 1.) Lmplonnent and Larning~ by Sector ............................................................................... 2<) ·1 able 2.): .\,·eragc .\nnual \\'ages and Salaries ........................................................................................... _)[ Table 2-f: \lcdian .\nnual 1-:arnings by Educational .\ttainmcnt 2(HIH-20 12 .\CS Data ....................... ) I Table 25: . he rage \\'cckly \\'age by Counry and Percent Change. 21 l ll -20 1.) (.\II I ndustrics) ........... )2 Table 26: \ [onrana Counties Ranked b~· 20 1.) \ nnual . hcrage Pa\· (.\II I ndustrit.:s) ............................ )2 Table 21: I .argest P riYate Sector l ·:mploycr~ (21 I 1.) . \nnual D ata) ............................................................ 1.1 Table 2H: 20 12 . \griculrural Statistics for \lontana. Callarin County anJ Park Count~· ....................... 15 Table 2<J: 21 I 1.) Crop Statistics for ( ;al!arin C:ounn .................................................................................... )5 ·1 able .)0: 20 1.) Lin·stock Statistics for ( i:dlatin Count\· ............................................................................ % Table .1 I: 20 U Crop Statistics for Park County .......................................................................................... VJ Table .'>2: 21JL) I .i\'l·stock Statistics for Park Cmnm· ................................................................................. _)(> 1111 1 1 I"'' 1\111 Pl~f\11 1 1 Table .B: 201.1 \fontana .\griculrural ( :ommodirie:; lnformatJol1 ............................................................ 1(, Table .1-f: Bozeman Bank Depo:;It .\brh·r Share ....................................................................................... 1~ Table .15: 1 .1\·ing~ton Bank Dcpmit \Iarkcr Share ...................................................................................... 1~ Table )(,: Con~rrucric m . \cti,·iry -:-\ e,,. [),yelling l 'nit~. 2005-20 U ...................................................... .-+!I T abler: C:iry of Bozeman 1\e:;idenrial Building Pnmir:; ~~~ucd. 200S-20 U ........................................ .fO ·1 able 1~: Cit\ of Bozeman . \nnc:-;ation:-;, 21 H 15-.20 1.) (In . \cres) ............................................................. -+ 1 Table .VJ: Cit\ of Bozeman SubdiY1sion RcY iew:-; b~· T: pe, 211tl)-201.1 (:\umber of l.ots) .................. -+1 Table .fO: City of Bozeman /.oning RL·,·ic,,·s b,· T: pl'. .21 H15-20 U ......................................................... .-+2 .l.able .fl: L'tilirr Ratcs ................................................................................................................................... .-+.1 Table .f2: :..;orth\\'estern l·:nergy h nancial llighlight:-; .............................................................................. .f.f Table .f): Bozeman Deaconess f leal rh Scn·ices ]),· the :\umber:-; ........................................................... -+- T:1bk .f.f: Bon·man DcaccHll'SS Health Scn·ice:-; Communin· lkndit Stati:;rics, 20 U ......................... -+- .!'able .fS: I ,i,·ingstc Hl 1-lc:drh( :arc b:· t he '\:umbers ................................................................................... .-+-; Table .f(,: 1.iYing:-;ron I kalthCare Communir: Benefit Statistics, 2111.2 ................................................... -f':' Table .f ~: .\lSL · I :.nroll ment 1)\ ( ~eographic Region, !-all Semester 20 1.1 ............................................... -+~ Table .f~: .\lanufacturin)!; J·:mploymcnr in .\fontana, .21110 & 20 1.) ......................................................... 511 !'able .f<J: Single hunil:· Re:-;idcncL· Trends · c;allatin and Park Counties, 21111 -21l l.L ........................ S2 Table 50: C:ounry ResJLkntialDistres:;cd Sale:-; (Short Sale:-;), 211 11-201.) ............................................... 5-f Table S 1: CountY Residential Distressed Sale:-; (l·mcclosure:-;), 21111 -20 1.) ............................................ 5-f Table 52: Fconomic l mpacts of:\ omcsidcnr Tr:n·clers, 21111 -20 U ...................................................... 50 !'able 5.1: 201.) :---fontana 1\ionrcsidcnt Tr:n·dcr <~uarrcrl:· TraYcl Compari~on ................................... .SCJ Table S.f: ~fontana's Top 10 .\ttracrions for \'acationcrs, 20LL ........................................................... J,() ·r·able 55: Ydl<l\\·stc >nc :\arional Park \'isitors ............................................................................................ (> 1 TableS(,: Bozc:m an Ydlo\\·sronc: [nrernarional .\irport \'olum c: ............................................................. (> 1 .!.able 57: Ski .\rca \'i:-;itati<m l:igurcs ........................................................................................................... (,2 ©l'l<!bl'l I<\ Jlt 'l'o.l '''\I 1\\<ol{lo, II List of Charts Chart I: 21 l I ~ ~ B I: Cllunnl Bu~lllL'~s ·1 a-..: I nde\: (Ranktngs in parenrhescs) ............................................ <) (:hart 2: ( :r msumcr Pnce lnde\:-.\11 ltL'tns \\'estern Region (\:on-sea:-;onall~ adjusted ) .................... 1) (:han .): I lisrurical .\n:ragl' Consumer Price: lnde\: (\:on-~easonall~ adjusted) .................................... U (:hart -1-: J>wjectl'd ( :ounn· Populatio n:-> -( ;,dlatin and Park ( :ounries, 21 H ll l-211(,1 l ............................... 1- C hart 5: :\c.:t \ligrarion in .\lonrana. 211 11 -20l.L ....................................................................................... IX (:hart(,: . \nnual I n emplo\'ment Rate:->, 21 ll 1:-\-21 I 1.) (:\on-:->easonalh· adjusted) .................................... 2~ (:hart -: 21 l I.) :'\:umber of I :mplo yecs by ~L·ctor -(;alia tin and Park ( :ountico.; ..................................... 2K ( :ha r1 X: . \ \·erage . \ nnua1 Pa\ 1" I ndusrr~ -( ;al!atin and Park ( :ounties 2 0 l.L ..................................... )() <:harr <J: \rca Bank Deposits, 21H11 -21ll .L .................................................................................................. r C:harr Ill: \:umbe r o f<:on..;truction !·in n :->-(;:tll:ttin and Park Counries ............................................... YJ (:hart I I: \:umber of ( :ons tructir 111 I ·:mpl< ~~ c.:c.:s -(;alia tin and Park ( :r 'untics ...................................... YJ Chart 12: Cit' o f 1~ozeman RL·sidential Building Permit . \crn·ir~, 21105-21 l J.) ...................................... .+ 1 C:harr 1.1: \nne:\ation to thl' Cit:-ofBnzc.:man, J<J<))-201.) (ln .\cres) .................................................. .+2 <:harts 1-1-& 15: :'\:orth\\cstern I·:nc.:tw· :'\:ew <:onnects, l.TDJune 21112-2111~ .................................. .+-t ( :hart 1 (,: .\lr >ntana I ·:nerg' ( :onsumptitlll I ·:srimates. 211 !2 ..................................................................... .+~ C:hart 1-: \:um ber of ~inglc 1-:ttnily llomc.:s ~old -( ;a llatin and Park Count!L':->. 21 10(,-2111.) .............. 5.1 C:harr I K: :'\:umber of ~inglc hunih· llomc.:s Sold -B()zc.:man, Belgrade, 1 .i,·ing:->ton and ~urrounding .\reas, .2111)(,-211 1.1 .............................................................................................................................................. 5.) <:hart I<J: .\lontana Bioscic.:nce Fmploymc.:nt c ;rmnh Rate. 2001-2011 ................................................. 5(, (:hart 2! l: 20 1.1 \ ·isitor I ·:,pellllitures in \ lonrana ...................................................................................... 5~ (:hart 2 1: 2111.) \'acationer Statc/ProYincc.: Residencie~ ............................................................................ (J() List of Figures r:igurc I: Percc.:nr Population Chang..: for \ lontana C:ountic.:~. 21 ll I() and :2!1 l 0 Census D a ta ............... I(, hgurc 2: \! otHana :'\:et \ligratio n by ( :nunry. ,lui~· 20 12-.July .211 l.L ....................................................... l () l·ig ure .'\: \:e t .\ligration !:low~ for c;allatin C:ounry 21lllH-21ll2 .\CS Data ........................................... .20 Fig ure ~: ~et \ ligration 1-'lows for Park Counry 21 ll 1:-i-20 12 . \C:S Data ................................................. 20 h g ure 5: \lontana ( :ounty Poyc.:rty Rates. 2012 .......................................................................................... 22 1-'igurc.: (J : \:<Jn -Stop !·light Dc.:stination:-> from Bozc.:tnan. ,I anuary .21ll H l n:r..;us Summer 20 1-1-......... J>2 ©1• ·· "'' 11\ Ill '''' '\,! I'' •I{~ 1:1 Introduction The E·onomic Projile of Gallatin and Park CounlieJ 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 industry sector data. With 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 tllis report. Some data relating to the economic changes in late 2013 and 2014 to date has yet to be released. A companion publication, Prospera's 2014 Business Relomtion and Resoum Guide, includes Gallatin and Park County resources and information for businesses and their employees. It can be found on the Prospera website at www.ProsperaBusinessNetwork.org on the Research and Publications page. About Prospera Business Network Prospera Business Network is a member-supported nonprofit economic development organization in southwestern Montana whose purpose is to advance, challenge and inspire our regional business communities. 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 fo cus 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: www.ProsperaBusinessNetwork.org or call (406) 587-3113. ~IIIII I "'' \JII I'H!IIII 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, abundant cultural and outdoor recreation amenities and a scenic natural landscape at the doorstep of Yellowstone National Park. About Gallatin County Gallatin County, \vith its county seat in Bozeman, covers a land area of 2,603 square miles ranging in elevation from 4,000 to 10,700 feet and had a population density of 34.4 people per square mile as of the 2010 U.S. Census. Located in the Gallatin Valley, Gallatin County is the most populated and fastest growing county 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 (39.6 percent) and has the third largest county population in l\.'lontana 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 Albert Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury at the time. The county was established in 1864. With its Rocky l\.Iountain 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 l\Iontana, 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 U.S. Census. Park County is nestled between four m ountain ranges and spans the beautiful Paradise and Shields Valleys. According to the most recent population estimates from the U.S. Census bureau, Park County's population has declined by 0.1 percent since the year 2000 and is the 12th most po pulated county in Montana. Park County 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. Considering the national economy, as stated by an economist with the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), "Over the coming decade, growth is expected to be gradual but p ersistent, bringing the unemployment rate down and returning the macroeconomy to a more stable position." Overall, from 201 2-2022, the BLS projects: GDP to grow at a rate of 2.6 percent per year, reaching $1 7.6 trillion in 2022; the unemployment rate to gradually decrease to 5.4 percent, accompanied by a gain in household employment of 12.3 million jobs; productivity growth to remain strong at 2.0 percent per year; housing starts to average 1.6 million per year; and export growth to help narrow the trade deficit, with real net exports equal to -179.1 billion in 2022.1 In the short term, more optimistic for ecasts from Moody 1\nalytics call for G DP growth of three percent for 201 4 and four percent in 2015, contingent on international geopolitical stability, less risk-averse hiring and investing behavior by U.S. business es and a continued housing recovery.2 Yet while the nation overall may face subdued growth, western states could continue to defy the national average. For instance, according to Headwaters The Economy Predictions for a New Normal Annual U.S. GOP growth exceeding 3.0 percent, as experienced in the mid-to late 1990s and mid-2000s, is not expected over the coming decade by some estimates. Through 2022, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics expects slower GOP growth to become the "new normal." In addition to the recession's impact on potential growth , the economy faces hurdles such as the nation's demographic shift and declining labor force participation rate due to retiring baby-boomers, the need to keep the debt-to-GOP ratio under control weighing heavily on fiscal decisions and continued federal spending reductions. December 2013 Monthly Labor Review U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics www.bls.gov Economics, between 1970 and 2012 the Western economy outperformed the rest of the U.S. in key measures of growth including population, employment and real personal income. Job growth was led by growth in services industries, many of them high-wage, which diversified the region's economy. Also notable is that non-labor income has been a large and growing source of personal income, since 1970 non-labor income in the West grew from $216 billion to $1.1 trillion.' Non-labor income includes dividends, interest, rent, age related payments such as Social Security and Medicare, railroad retirement disability payments, public assistance medical care such as Medicaid, income maintenance benefits such as food stamps and unemployment, and military and veterans benefits.' This confidence abo ut Western states is reaffirmed by Patrick Barkey, D irector of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER), due to three significant factors: a housing recovery faster than the rest of the U.S ., a proximity to Asian markets and the "roaring oil development" on the eastern border. In 2013, the state economy performed as the BBER had forecasted: construction had a good year; health care saw widespread growth and public administration continued declining; and 16 of 19 private sector industry groupings registered positive real wage grow th in 2013, supported by the national and global economic recovery. Looking ahead, Barkey forecasts that a gradual economic acceleration and the trend of outperforming the nation will continue. This will be a net effect of multiple factors: the maturation of energy-related activities along Montana's eastern border; continued improvement in home building with the associated banking, services, and building 1 \Voodward, ~laggie. "The U.S. economy to 2022: settling into a new normal" BLS ~fonthly Labor ReVIew. December 2013. www.bls.gov. 2 Zandi, ~fark. "U.S. ~!aero Outlook: No Recovery \Vithout Housing." Dismal Sdentist, J\Ioody's .\nalyti.cs. ~fay 13, 2014. \VWw.economy.com/insight. 1 "The Changing Economy of the \Vest." Headwaters Economics. Fall 2013. http:/ /headwaterseconomics.org. 211111 < <1'\11\11< t'l<lll ol I supplies impacts; softness in government growth; and stabilization of global growth, particularly in Asia.4 Montana's overall fiscal condition also earned the state ninth best ranking in the U.S. for fiscal year 2012 based on four "solvency indices". i\·1ontana ranked 5 th for cash solvency: related to a government's short-term liquidity and ability to pay its bills on time; 8 th for budget solvency: or ability to meet current-year spending obligations without causing a deficit; 7th for long-run solvency: including longer-term obligations such as pensions; and 24th for service-level solvency: a measure of the ability to provide and pay for the level and quality of services required to meet a community's general health and welfare needs.5 Gallatin County continues to be the state's fastest growing area as measured by annual growth in real wages; driving growth in the Bozeman area is an earlier housing recovery and strength in university State's Economic Growth No Longer Upside-down According to Patrick Barkey, Director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, over the past few years, the Bakken oil boom, healthy agricultural markets and the Great Recession produced "an upside-down pattern of growth" where Montana's rural eastern counties led the state and western counties suffered the steepest declines. However, while "Not much has happened to significantly slow the vigorous oil-related growth in the east ... declines in the west are over. The drivers of faster western growth are beginning to reappear, and Montana's metro areas west of the divide are again making a contribution to statewide growth." Outlook 20 14 Bureau of Business and Economic Research www.bber.umt.edu and tourism-related spending.4 In terms of overall growth since the 2009 recession, Gallatin County is tied with Flathead County and trails only Yellowstone County.r' As put by Paul E. Polzin, Director E meritus of the BBER, "(Gallatin County's] recent growth has been due to stability in the traditional basic industries such as Montana State University, nonresident travel, and high-tech manufacturing combined with robust expansion in Bozeman's role as a regional trade and service center."6 With population predictions of roughly 112,000 in Gallatin County and 50,000 in Bozeman by 2025, many suggest that Bozeman has reached a critical mass, and therefore call for a focus on ensuring quality, high-paying jobs, a trained workforce and adequate basic services to acconunodate such momentum.7 Forecasts call for 3.7 to 4.3 percent growth in earnings in Gallatin Coun ty between 2014 and 2017.r' Meanwhile, Park County's economy is expected to be stimulated by a number of construction projects. First, the construction of a new hospital facility expected to open in late 2015 in Livingston is forecast to contribute an estimated $15.3 million of positive impact to retail business, real estate, acconunodations and food service.x The $43.5 million project represents one of the largest projects ever undertaken in Park County.') Also, a $24.5 million project around the Gardiner Gateway is slated for the next three years, designed to improve infrastructure, safety and the visitor experience in Gardiner.111 A new Livingston Food Pantry facility is also underway; which will stimulate the local 4 Barkey, Patrick. "~fontana Economic Outlook: The West is Back." Outlook 2014. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. www.bber.tunt.edu. ; :unett, Sarah. "State Fiscal Condition: Ranking the SO States." Working Paper .1\:o. 14-02, l\Iercatus Center, George :-.Iason University. January 2014. \v-ww.mcrcatus.org. '' Polzin, Paul E. "Gallatin County: D ata :-.ruddies by Right ow Technologies Sale." Outlook 2014. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of :-.fontana. W\\rw.bber.tunt.edu. 'Bacaj,Jason. "\v'hat lies ahead?" Bozeman Dai(y C!Jronide. Febmary 9, 2014. www.bozcmandailychronicle.com. ~Hausen, Jodi. "Livingston HealthCare to build new hospital." Bozeman Dai(y Chronide. October 26, 2012. www. bozemandailychronicle.com. ~Storey, Natalie.":\. Beaming Success: Last steel beam put in place on new hospital." Lit1ingston Enterpn·se. June 26, 2014. www.livingstonenterprise.com. 10 Kearney, Liz. "Gardiner Gateway Project advances." Livingston Enterprise. ;\[arch 20, 2014. W\V\v.livingstonentcrprise.com. economy by offering culinary training, serving as a multipurpose commercial kitchen and community center with food processing and packaging equipment for processing locally grown produce and providing a commercial kitchen available for rent to entrepreneurs in the food · d II ill ustry. ~fontana ranks highly by many measures according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation's latest Enterpri.ring Stale.r report. The report no longer includes an overall rank for the states, so included in Table 1 below are ~:fontana's top rankings among the report's 33 metrics. T bl a e 2014 E t n erpnstng St t R a es epo rt R k' -an tngs f M t or on ana IMhmt; r~, •.•. ~ .... ll. Kauffman Entrepreneurship Index: 20 11-2013 1 Export Growth: G ross Manufactured Exports 2003-2013 3 Export Intensity Growth: Change in dollar value of manufactured exports per dollar of gross 5 state product, 2002-2012 Long-Term Job Growth: 2004-2014 6 Per Capita Income Growth: Personal Income, 2003-20 13 6 Business Tax Climate: Fiscal year 2014 7 Small Business Lending: Number of business loons per 1,000 small business employees, 2011 9 Road Quality: Percentage of road miles rated mediocre or poor, 2011 9 Bridge Quality: Share of bridges rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, 2012 10 Gross State Product Growth: 2002-2013, 2005 chained dollars 1 1 Productivity Growth: Gross state product output per job, 2002-2012 1 1 Academic R&D Intensity: Academic R&D as o sha re of gross stole product, 2012 12 College Affordability: Average undergraduate public four-year institution cost as o share of 12 disposable personal income, 2013 STEM Job G rowth: Growth in science, technology, engineering and mathematics jobs, 2003-13 2013 State and Local Tax Burden: Percentage of income paid by local residents in state and local 13 taxes, 2011 Short-term Job Growth: 2012-2014 17 Higher-Ed Degree Output: Total degrees (two years and higher) awarded at public institutions 17 per 10,000 residents, 2012 New Startup Rate: Total new startups divided by average of 201 1 and 2012 total establishments 20 Growth in Share of National Exports: Percentage poin t change in state share of total 22 national exports, 2003-2013 Higher-Ed Efficiency: Total expenditures per degree awarded, 2012 23 Educational Attainment: Associate and higher degree holders among 25-to 44-year-old 23 population, 2012 Labor Force Utilization: Loborforce participation rate, February 2014 23 .. " So11ne: "Enterpnswg Statu: Ru reatmg Eq11altry of0ppot111111(Y. U.S. Cbai!JVer ofCommem Fotmdatroll. JV/JIJV.UScbt11nbeuom. 11 Brown, Rose. "Livingston Food Pantry: Construction of the new facility starts ;\fonday." Livingston Enterprise. June 12, 2014. www.livi.ngstonenterprise.com. ©l'l<thi'IH\IIt 1'1 "'\;11\\t>l<t-. 2111~ I • 11'11\111 1'1~111 II I 2014 Economic Strength Rankings12 POLICOM creates economic strength rankings for both Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical 1\reas. According to POLICOI\f, "Economic strength is the long term tendency for an area to consistently grow in both size and quality." POLICOM 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 POLICOM rankings are created to study the characteristics of strong and weak economies and are based on three groups of data: Group 1 data reflects growth in the size and quality of the economy using \.vage and income measures such as per capita earnings and number of jobs; Group 2 data reflects the economy's behavior by monito ring earnings and job figures for small businesses and co nstruction and retail industries, which are "extremely reactive to the 'flow of money' coming into an area"; Group 3 data arc 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. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), defines Micropolitan 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 536 micropolitan areas in the United States, 40 fewer than in 2013. There are now four micropolitan areas in Montana (Table 2). Bozeman is the only micropolitan community in Gallatin and Park Counties. From 2006-2012, Bozeman's economic strength rating remained consistently in the top 10 and then Bozeman's rating changed to 19'h place in 2013. However, Bozeman improved back into 10'h position for 2014. According to William H . Fruth of POLICOM, a 10 position change in the rankings is not necessarily statistically significant since, "an area can shift by 20 places because of just one or two issues somewhere along the 20 year period o f data."11 The shifts in Bozeman's rating have largely been due to weak average wages and the shifting time frame of evaluation that in 2013 included fewer well-performing past years and more influence of the loss of jobs experienced between 2008 and 2010, especially in the construction industry.13 As the recovery continues, the influence of the recession years has been counterbalanced. Bozeman 8 8 6 7 7 9 19 10 Butte-Silver Bow 123 67 51 27 17 25 17 15 Helena 23 13 9 6 2 2 2 3 Kalispell 63 51 26 35 45 87 142 149 So11nt: "Eco11ontir Strmgth &mki11gs :!01-1: Metropolitall Statisliwl Artas e:.,. Micropolilall Statisti({J/ Areas." POUCOM Co1pomtio11. wJvJv.po!itotn.t'Oin *Hnvrr, i11duded i11 priorrtar 1rp011s, is 110 lo11ger m11sidertd a Micropolitall am1. 12 Fruth, \Vill.iam H. "Economic Strength Rankings 2014: Metropolitan Statistical ~\reas & i\Iicropolitan Statistical .\reas." POLICOi\1 Corporation. www.policom.com. 11 Fruth, \Villiam H. E-mail correspondence, September 2013. 'OJ JJ I I"' •\Ill J'i:t I ill 1 According to the OMB, Metropolitan Statistical Areas have at least one urbanized area \Vith 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 OMB has identified 381 metropolitan areas in the United States, 15 more than in 2013. Currently, Montana has three metropolitan areas: Great Falls, Missoula and Billings, with rankings shown in Table 3. Billings 173 159 105 83 51 62 79 96 Great Falls 270 239 216 202 173 123 120 109 Missoula 130 118 96 74 91 119 172 166 So!m"l!: "E<"OIIOIIJi<" Stre11gtb Rrmki11gs :!01+: Metropolilall Statislttal A reas & Afmvpolitau Statistkal Arvas." POUCOM Corpomtio11. JVJ/IJV.pol1mm.<VIll. Gross Domestic Product According to the V.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, real gross domestic product (GDP) increased in 49 states in 2013. The leading contributors to growth were nondurable-goods manufacturing; real estate and rental and leasing; and agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting. The Rocky Mountain region grew the fastest, led by Wyoming, where GDP increased by 7.6 percent. North Dakota was the top growing state in the nation overall, with an estimated rate of growth of 9.7 percent. r-..Iontana's GDP growth ranked 11'h overall in 2013 with a 2.98 percent change in GDP between 2012 and 2013 (Table 4). T bl 4 R I GOP b R a e ea )y eg1on an d St t 2011 2013 a e, - r~nllte'liJ:1C~iKttat•uuOi• !~~lr.11f'i'li.¥ .... __ ,~ ~~ .. -n-9® -101.,~ -• -• • • ..,1 • -................. ...... Location 2011 2012 2013 2010-2011-2012-Rank** 2011 2012 2013 United States 14,868,836 15,245,906 15,526,715 1.56 2.54 1.84 ---- Rocky Mountain Reg io n 506,400 519,824 541 ,022 (excluding North 1.80 2.65 4.08 ---- and South Dakota) California 1,957,114 2,009,936 2,050,693 1.70 2.70 2.03 20 Colorado 255,866 263,593 273,721 1.52 3.02 3.84 6 Idaho 54,781 54,792 57,029 0.14 0.02 4.08 5 Montana 37,778 38,692 39,846 3.29 2.42 2.98 11 Oregon 197,832 205,723 211,241 4.05 3.99 2.68 14 Utah 120,2 11 126,193 131,017 2.9 5 4 .98 3.82 7 Washington 358,869 371 ,156 381,017 0.69 3.42 2.66 15 Wyoming 37,802 36,755 39,538 1.10 -2.77 7.57 2 Sot/l"t"e: Real GDP 0 Stale: Adua11.-e stalutm for :!013 a11d rmsed slaltslt<"s for 2010-2011, U.S Bm-emt of EtofiOIIII<" A 11afyw. 11/JVJv.bea.got•. Note. the Rial GDP and perant change jigHm Jvere sig11ijimntfy illf/llnh·ed 1:; the revised estimates, as tompared to figurrs last rrJ!011ed. *Cbained JIJeighted dollars are delitoed 0 t1111ltipb·ing !be rhaitJ-JIJeigbted inde.-.:es 0' the mmnt-dol/ar ualuu of a spe<ific rejerma year. Cbain-llletgbted mdexu Jlltl-e introd11a!d in 1996 to 1111/JIVI'e the fltCIII"(}ry of estimates of tbe growtb in real gross dotnutit-prodlld (GDP) flnd pli.u. Tbm indexes 11se lip-to- dale JVeigbts rather tban fi:•:ed weigbts ill order to provide a more amlf"(}te pirtllrr of !be e.-onOII!J'• to be Iter cap111re changes in spending pallems and in plim, and to eliminate the bias pmmt in fixed-JIJeighted indexes. **Ron king is ~y pm-mt tbange. fiv171 bighesl to l01vest, and i11d11des 50 states plm the Disllid of Colu111bia. 2111 11 1 1 "ll\111 l'lttll I I Cost of Doing Business The United States is ranked 4'h out of 185 countries for ease of doing business by the International Finance Corporation, behind Singapore (1 ') Hong Kong SAR, China (2nJ) and New Zealand (3 'J). The ranking considers 10 topics, with high rankings indicating that the regulatory environment is considered to be "conducive to the starting and operation of a local fum."1~ On a state level, :t>fontana's ranking varies from study to study. As seen in Table 1 on page five, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's latest Entetprising State.r Report places Montana at Th for Business Tax Climate. This ranking is based on a Tax Foundation index of taxes affecting business.15 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 2014 Business Tax Index evaluates 21 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. Nevada ranked 1'' with a score of 9.677. Montana ranked 30'h with a score of 49 .145.1r' The scores for select states are displayed in Chart 1. Chart 1 : 2014 SBE Council Business Tax Index (Rankings in parentheses) 82.695 65.809 56.116 r--A 49.145 .-37.720 ,.--33.365 38.124 ~ ~ Source: "Busi11ess Tax Inde.-.: 20/.f-: Best to IVot:rl State Tax Sj•stems for Entreprenmrsbip and SttJa!l Business." Small Bmmess and Entrepmwmhip Coumil. April 201.f-. www.s/Jecomuilorg. Clearly, there are numerous factors impacting the costs of an operation. Table 5 on page ten 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 where appropriate. H "Doing Business Economy Rankings." International Finance Corporation. June 2013. \VWw.doingbusiness.org/ rankings. !5 "Enterprising States: Re-creating Equality of Opportunity." U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. www. USchamber.com. lr. Keating, Raymond J. "Business Tax Index 2014: Best to \Xrorst State Tax Systems for Entrepreneurship and Small Business." Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. :\pril2014. www.sbecouncil.org. !t'i I I o "'-"\Ill l'l<t >I II I T bl 5 R a e eg1ona IC ompanson o e OS 0 OlnQ f th C t f D . B us mess ~cdf~ ~ @'!) [I!) 1m @ill WE : e ~AX RATES (PERCENTAGES) 17 Personal Income 13.30 4.63 7.40 6.90 (38th) 9.90 5.00 0.00 ~tate & Local ~ales, Gross Receipts 3.189 2.891 2.655 0.911 (2nd) 0.686 3.286 5.399 ~Excise ~apital Gains 13.30 4.63 7.40 4.90 (21'1 9.90 5.00 0.00 Corporate Income 8.84 4.63 7.40 6.75 (271h) 7.60 5.00 0.00 ~tate & Local 3.191 3.688 2.590 3.669 (341h) 3.444 2.680 2.867 Property Unemployment 0.790 2.103 6.548 4.841 (43rd) 4.246 5.541 4.443 ~as 0.525 0.220 0.250 0.278 (28th) 0.311 0.245 0.375 ~ireless 0.110 0.108 0.023 0.061 (41h) 0.019 0.127 0.186 ~tate Sales18 7.5 2.9 6.0 None None 4.7 6.5 ~TATE TAX REVENUE: 201319 ~ otal Collected 133,184 11 ,246 3,579 2,645 9,161 6,329 18,667 $million) Yo of Personal Income 7.5% 4.7% 6.5% 6.8% 6.0% 6.3% 5.9% Rank 9'~ 45th 23'd 18th 30'h 26'h 34 'h By % of Pers. Income) ~BOR ~eon Annual Wage20 $53,030 $48,950 $38,840 $39,090 $45,780 $42,740 $52,090 ~orker's ~ompensation: $1.85 $0.95 $1 .63 $2.49(50'h) $1.16 $0.94 $1 .39 Employer Costs/ $1 00 lpayroll21 ~OST OF LMNG MEASURES ~edion Housing $383,900 $236,800 $167,100 $183,000 $246,100 $217,800 $272,900 ~alue +1-$672 +1-$785 +1-$845 +/-$1,303 +/-$909 +I -$853 +/-$739 + /-Margin of Error 22 Residential Electric23 Cents/kW hour $16.94 $13.12 $10.43 $10.67 $10.74 $1 1.21 $8.78 Average Monthly Bill $87.91 $80.94 $87.52 $84.88 $93.80 $78.70 $88.46 Commerical Electric23 Cents/kW hour $16.83 $11 .16 $8.05 $9.60 $8.71 $9.46 $7.63 Average Monthly Bill $74 1.56 $448.83 $334.19 $368.43 $460.34 $625.80 $525.31 S otm-es: ! / rmo11s. See footnotes. 17 "Business Tax Index 2014." Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. :\.pril 2014. www.sbecouncil.org. lK Federation of Tax _-\dministrators, compiled from various sources. January 2014. www.taxadmin.org. W/{1 0.00 4.235 0.00 0.00 4.579 5.609 0.240 0.078 4.0 2,186 7.5% 1 1'h $43,770 $1 .85 $184,400 +/-$1,708 $11.20 $85.35 $9.15 $491.87 1'1 Federation of Tax :\dministrators, from U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Economic _-\nalysis. www.taxadmi.n.org. 2u "Occupational Employment Statistics Survey." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, OES Estimates annual data for all occupations (all private industries). ~fay 2013. www.bls.gov/oes. 2L "\'1/orker's Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012." National .-\cademy of Social Insurance, August 2014. www.nast.org. 22 "2008-2012 .-\m erican Community Survey." ~Iedian Yalue (Dollars), Owner-occupied housing units. U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov I acs. n Forms EL\-861, ~Ionthly Electric Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions Report, and Tables Sa & Sb, U.S. Energy Information _-\dministration. Cents/Kilowatt hour is as of June 2014, :\verage i\Ionthly Bill is from 2012 _-\nnual Data. www.eia.gov. ~~Jl~ I' tl'••\11< I'!« >I Ill 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~4 and the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation.25 Cost of Living lndex24 The Cost of Living Index is a comparison study of roughly 300 urban areas around the nation . It is intended to provide a measure of living cost differences among urban areas for the standard of living of professional and managerial households in the top income quintile. T he Cost of Living Index is based on five categories including groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, health care and miscellaneous goods and services. The index has been compiled and published quarterly since 1968 by the Council for Community and Economic Res earch (C2E R), a nonproftt professional organization comprising research staff of chambers of commerce, economic development organizations and agencies, and related organizations throughout the United States and Canada. Three times each year, Prospera Business Network collects prices for 60 items in Bozeman and submits its findings to C2ER to be analyzed and compared to other communities. 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. T herefore index data from different quarters cannot be compared. How to Use the Cost of Living Index Consider Bozeman's 2013 composite index score of 99.4 and Son Francisco's composite index score of 161 .6. If you live in Bozeman and ore contemplating a job offer in Son Francisco, how much of on increase in your after-taxes income is needed to maintain your present lifestyle? 1 OO* [Son Francisco -Bozeman] = Bozeman [ 161.6-99.4] 1 00* 99.4 = 1 00*(0.626)= a 62.6% increase Conversely, if you ore considering a move from Son Francisco to Bozeman, how much of a cut in after-taxes income con you sustain without reducing your present lifestyle? [ Bozeman-Son Francisco] 100* = Son Francisco [ 99.4 -161.6] 1 oo· 161 .6 = 1 00*(-0.385) =a 38.5% reduction Somre: Q11mter!;• R£po1ts, Cost of Uz•i11g l11dex. C2ER IVIVIv.r2er.org. 2~ "Cost of Living Index: Comparative Data for 288 Urban :\reas." C2ER. May 201 4. WW\v.coli.org. 25 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. www.bls.gov/cpi. Cost of Living in Bozeman Bozeman's cost of living was 0.6 percent below the national average for the second quarter of 2014, continuing a trend of being within one percent of the national average each quarter .. As seen in Table 6, in the second quarter of 2014, Bozeman groceries were 2.9 percent above the national average and goods and services came in at 3.9 percent below average. Bozeman residents continue to enjoy a bargain when it comes to utilities and transportation, which were 12.1 and 13.8 percent below average respectively. Health care was 5.1 percent above average for the quarter and housing came in 11.6 percent higher than national averages. In recent years, Kalispell had been the only o ther participating Montana city, but did not submit data for the second quarter cost of living index. To put Bozeman's index scores in perspective, the o ther 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 Harlingen, Texas respectively. The table also includes the most comparable cities to Bozeman in the Western region that participate in the index. N ote: 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. Similarly, P ortland was included as the only O regon city with data available for the second quarter of 2014. T bl 6 2"d Q rt 20 1 4 C t f L' . a e ua er OS 0 1v1ng n ex I d C ompanson • ""'=" """"' ftn ~ W!W:'l~ liilllilll.il l'II'I•. ·~-'ilJ!i, • -I..W!.•lUJO •1-'lll.:.:l \_~•l~WJU~, li\Lelll-'111~ ~ Ci!ml ... ..-~1:.11.'.110{~, San Francisco, CA 161.6 124.3 293.4 102.0 11 3.3 119.6 115.3 Grand Junction, CO 97 .6 91 .3 100.3 86.1 100.8 107.3 98.8 Twin Falls, 10 89.9 89.6 74.8 88.9 108.2 92.7 94.8 Bozeman, MT 99.4 102.9 111 .6 87.9 86.2 105.1 96.1 Minot, NO 109.9 105.3 13 1 .1 90.0 106.8 104.3 102.9 Manhattan, NY 21 7.0 143.0 432.6 141.1 124.4 11 2.3 150.9 Most Expensive Q2 2074 Portland, O R 123.8 113.8 158.9 91.9 11 3.3 115.5 114.9 Pierre, SO 102.4 110.0 11 5.1 90.1 90.6 95.4 98.4 Harlingen, TX 79.8 8 1.8 68.5 94.3 88.4 97.0 77.7 Least Expensive Q2 20 7 4 Cedar City, UT 89.9 98.6 79.1 86.6 94 .6 88.5 94.3 O lympia, WA 100.3 101.9 96.3 84.1 109.5 122.0 100.9 Laramie, WY 94 .0 96.6 95.2 99.4 91.6 98.8 90.6 .. , Soum: "Cost oJU vmg l11dex, l of. 47, No. 2, Data fo r Se,·ond Qumter 2014. "C:!ER Publrshed A ugust 2014. IJ/1/IIv.t-:!er.org. N ote: The Cost of U 1ting Index .-ategories are weighted based 011 the 2012 U.S. Conmmer Expmdittm S11n•ry jroJIJ the Bmrau of Labor S1t1tistia to aJJJpile the composite srore, and the weights assigned Vnl)• slight!J each q11arter. The 2014 Q2 111eight pen-en/ages wm: gromies: 13.48, boming: 26.05, utililits: 9.95, tnmspo1tntion: 12.63. beallb mre: 4.89, tmdgoods a11d sen'i(es: 33.01. Consumer Price lndex25 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. T he CPI differs from the Cost of Living Index in that it is intended to measure inflation and is derived from detailed expenditure information provided by families and individuals on item s 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 ftgures encompass regions and only provide detailed informatio n on some major metropolitan areas. The chart below includes the monthly CPI for urban areas in the western region of the U.S. The Western Region includes Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New J\.Iexico, Arizona, C tah, 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) 245 1.() N ~ "! '<t '<t ~ N N 240 Somrt: U.S. Depmtment q(Li/Jor, But-eall of Labor Statistia. tVJJJJv.bls.goll/tpi. 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 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ~U.S. City Average So11m: U.S. Depmtmtnt o(L1bor. Bm-etm of Labor Statistia. JVJJJJJJ.b!s._gol>/tpi. 1111 1 I I,,,, 1\l I P :•t lilt I Popu lotion 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.2c' While proportionally U.S. urban areas grew more quickly than rural areas between 1970 and 201 0, the number of people choosing rural lifestyles increased as well, from 53.5 million to 59.5 million during that 10 year period.26 University o f Minnesota Rural Sociologist Ben Winchester describes the shift from urban to rural areas, especially for the 30 to 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".2r' Many 30 to 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.26 Between 2000 and 2010, half of the counties in Montana saw an increase in residents ages 30 to 34: while some of the largest gains were in Gallatin and Yellowstone Counties, where larger cities are located, there were also significant gains in more rural counties.26 According to 2013 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, Gallatin County had a population of 94,720, and its county seat, Bozeman, had approximately 39,860 residents. Park County's population for 2013 was estimated at 15,682 and its county seat, Livingston, had 7,136 residents (fable 7). T bl 7 St t C a e a e, ounty an d C t P lty 1 r opu a 1ons, 2007 20 13 - l•eietenleJII ~ .f1mm mJ) fiOO) fMJiHI ~ ~ Montana 956,624 967,440 974,989 989,415 997,600 1,005,494 1,015,165 Gallatin County 87,243 89,824 90,343 89,513 91,336 92,665 94,720 Belgrade 8,036 8,185 8,192 7,389 7,499 7,566 7,620 Big Sky 1,:!:! 1 iu :!000 (U.S. Cmsus BmFau) 2,308 2011-2013 data not nl'ailab/e Bozeman 37,643 39,004 39,282 37,280 38,1 16 38,753 39,860 Manhattan 1,539 1,622 1,677 1,520 1,540 1,550 1,568 Three Forks 1,915 1,928 1,970 1,869 1,883 1,891 1,904 W.Yellowstone 1,433 1,511 1,502 1,271 1,296 1,308 1,321 Park County 16,072 16,189 15,941 15,636 15,508 15,592 15,682 Clyde Park 346 347 342 288 291 293 295 Cooke City 140 iu 2000 (U.S. Censu.r Burrau) 75 201 I -:!0 1 3 data uot fll'ailable Gardiner 85 I in 2000 (U.S. Cmsus Bureau) 875 2011-2013 data 110t available Livingston 7,253 7,409 7,380 7,044 7,015 7,073 7,136 Wilsall 237 iu2000 (U.S. Census B11rrau) 178 2011-2013 data 110! available . . . S otme: "Amwal Es11111t1les of R£Sidmt Pop11lah011 Cha11ge: Apnl 1, :!0 10 to Ju(y 1, 2013. " U.S. Cemus Burra11 PopulaltOII DnlfSIOII . JV/1111'. t"msus.goz•/ popes!. 2f, Black,Jo Dee. "Going Rural: Quality of life and slower pace driving younger people to small communities." Great Falls Tribune. June 1, 2013. www.greatfallstribune.com. ~1111 1 <"'"\II< I'H<II III Gallatin County remains the fastest growing county in the state, with its population increasing 39.6 percent between 2000 and 2013 (Table 8). Over the same period, Park County decreased in population by 0.1 percent, from a population of 15,694 to a population of 15,682. Table 8: Gallatin 67,831 94,720 39.6 Broadwater 4,385 5,692 29.8 2 Flathead 7 4,471 93,068 25.0 3 Yellowstone 129,352 154,162 19.2 4 Lewis & Clark 55,716 65,338 17.3 5 Missoula 95,802 11 1,807 16.7 6 S oum: Updated :!000 Cmsus Figmu «:-:... "Amuwl Estimates of &sidmt Population Change: April 1, 20 I 0 to Jub· I, :!0 13. " U.S. Cmms B11rea11 Population Dil'lsion. JVJVJv.cmms.gol'/ poput. Looking at short-term population growth as measured by the 2010 census and July 2013 population estimates, Gallatin County ranks Th in the state with a growth rate of 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, Park County ranks 44'h, with a growth rate of 0.3 percent (Table 9). The top ten counties included in the table below remain dominated by those in the eastern po rtion of the state. This impressive growth is due to the agricultural sector and especially the energy sector-which weathered the recession fairly well and created desirable employment opportunities.27 T bl 9 M t a e on ana ounry opu a to n row I -c t p I f G th 2010 2013 ~ -~-~Q~ Jbll711o !mil@ I!)_ ~ ~ l'W!..llll!i'/ -rlWIII•IIl•I;J ... Richland 9,746 11 ,214 13.1% 1 Wibaux 1,01 7 1,121 9.3% 2 Sheridan 3,384 3,668 7.7% 3 Garfield 1,206 1,290 6.5% 4 Roosevelt 10,425 11,125 6.3% 5 Fallon 2,890 3,079 6.1% 6 Gallatin 89,513 94,720 5.5% 7 Da wson 8,966 9,445 5.1% 8 Yellowstone 147,972 154,162 4.0% 9 Valley 7,369 7,630 3.4% 10 Park 15,636 15,682 0.3% 41 ... S omre: Ammal Estti!Jales of Rwdmt Pop11latto11 Cbm('!/-' Apnl 1, 2010 to ]11(y 1, 2013. U.S. Cms11s B11reo11 Pop11lat1o11 Dn'ISIOII, JJJJVIV.m/JIIs.gov/ popnt. 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 1, page 16). 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. 2i Wagner, Barbara. "~lantana Employment Projections 2010 through 2020." "-fontana Research and :\nalysis Bureau, :\fontana Department of Labor and Industry. www.ourfactsyourfurure.mt.gov. 'Oil I I I "I 1\111 i'Hill\1 I In contrast to the longer term population trends evident in Figure 1 below, Table 9 on page 15 and Figure 2 on page 19 show a dramatic shift in more recent trends, with population growth due to net migration in eastern and central counties outpacing population growth in the rest of the state. Figure 1: 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 4.~5'1. Percent Change --17.6 to -11.0 D -10.9 to ·0.1 Oo.oto5.5 o5.6 to 14.4 -14.5to32.0 Glacier SoLI'CI. U.S. Census Bur•IU, Cenwt 2010. P\.94-171. 2011 Montana Percent Change: 9.7% Mop~ J Census & Economic Information Ceflter MonLana Oeparcment otCommeJce 301 S Parte Ave, H•lena MT 59601 406-841-2740 email· c•N:@mt.gov http://ce~e.mtgov May 2011 • PopuletionChen 8 County2010 mxd S Ollft't: "Am111al Estimates of Resident Pop11lation Cba11ge." U.S. Cms11s B11ret111 Populatioll Dil,isioll. JVIVJV.fei/SI!s.got/ popes/. Compiled 0 1\follla11a Depm1tllent of Commem Cmms and Economit llljOrt!Jtllion Cmtn: http:/ I .-ek.ntl.got'. As seen in Table 10, Bozeman remains the fourth largest city in Montana behind Billings, Missoula, and Great Falls. Billings 103,994 105,845 104,1 70 105,546 106,079 109,059 1 Missoula 68,202 68,876 66,788 67,602 68,551 69,122 2 Great Falls 59,251 59,366 58,505 58,995 58,984 59,351 3 Bozeman 39,004 39,282 37,280 38,116 38,753 39,860 4 Butte 32,119 32,268 33,525 33,707 33,796 33,854 5 Helena 29,351 29,939 28,190 28,730 29,177 29,596 6 Kalispell 21 1182 2 1,640 19,927 20,257 20,506 20,972 7 S ourre: "Am111al Estimates of Residwt Populatio11: Apri/1, 2010 to ]liD' 1, 2013. "U.S. Cms11s Bmra11 Pop11lation Diuisio11. JVJVIVJmS!IS.gOL'/ popes/. @ I'H< '-l'l I{ Ill< '1'1 ''\.1 1\\lll 1-. 211 1 ~1 .. '"1\111 J'H()IIII According to projections released in April o f 2013 by the Montana 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 oYer 145,000 residents (Chart 4). Park County'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. Compared to previous population projections, which predicted a population of 136,970 for G allatin County in 2030 and a population of 20,110 for Park County in 2030, current po pulation projections call for 116,627 residents in Gallatin County and 15,939 residents in Park County by 2030. Chart 4 : Projected County Populations -Gallatin and Park Counties, 2000-2060 160,000 140,000 11 6,627 120,000 100,000 c 0 80,000 :g --:5 60,000 Q_ 0 CL 40,000 15,710 15,587 15,760 15,939 15,836 15,933 16,260 20,000 0 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 ~ollatm County ~Park County Somre: eREAfi Regional E.-onomic Mork/s, .-ompiled by /be Montana Departmmt of Col!lmera Cenms and E.-onolllit" lnjomtalion Cmler. IVJIJJV.t-eicml.got'. Note that the population figures included in the chart above are a product of the eRElVII online economic model database and are annual estimates as of July 1 for each year, thus the historic figures do not correspond to actual historic population figures as included in the preceding population section tables. ©PH'' 'lit'B!'I'I'"'~II\\It'! Migration According to Census Bureau population estimates, Montana experienced net migration into the state between July of 2012 and July of 2013 with a total net migration rate of 6,192 (I able 11). This is a 40 percent increase over the prior period net migration of 4,373. The six counties with the highest net migration are included in the table below in rank order, along with Park County which ranked 19th in the state. Yellowstone 54 Gallatin 594 114 Flathead 326 1 087 46 Richland 70 163 353 Lewis & Clark 162 716 554 41 217 258 Missoula 444 1 213 769 123 96 219 Park -3 14 149 9 7 84 Soum: of the Componmts qf&sirlmt Poplllotion Clxmge: Apli/1, 2010J1!fy 1, 2013. "U.S. Cemus BmPo/1 Pop11/atio11 DitisiOII. unvi/J.mwts.gov/ popes!. The chart below includes the six counties with the highest net migration between July of 2012 and July of 2013, as well as Park County. Gallatin County experienced a surge in net migration between July of 2012 and July of 2013 that was more than double the net migration seen in the prior period. Park County had similar net migration between July of 2012 and July of 2013 as in the prior period, after a negative net migration o f 118 in between July of 2010 and July of 201 1. Chart 5: Net Migration in Montana, 2011 -2013 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 -200 iii 2011 11 2012 w2013 Soflm: ''Estima!e.J qf the Component.> qfRRsidmt Populatioll C/Jange: Apli/1, 20 10Jujy 1, 20 I 3. "U.S. CeNsHs Bmmu Pop11ltt!io11 Ditision. J/JJIJIIJ.<-e!ISIIS.got/ pope.rt. ©l'l<th"l I<\ Bl 'I",, '.I 1\\111\1-. ~Ill~ 1.''"''' It l'l<t II I Figure 2: Montana Net Migration by County, July 2012-July 2013 Montana County Population Change Rate of Net Migration -July 2012 to July 2013 Estimates* Population Change Rate Per 1,000 People --41 .9 to-10.1 0 -10.0 lo-1.1 0 -1.0to0.9 o 1.0to10.0 -10.1 to 60.6 Montana Net Migration Rate: 6.1 Source· US Census 811eau Annual Papulation Estimates. E~mated Components ofRe;c,enc POQua&ti'on Change and Raes otthe Compc:nentsofRe9dent Poputadon Chan5Jebc SateS_.., Cwntiet. Apdl 1. 2010to .l.lly 1. 2013 Carter R""' ·1.7 2.3 Mlp by C~s & EconomiC lnformAtla'l Ctt~ter MonlaN Oeparttnent crl Commerce 301 S Partl. Ave H~Jena, MT !59620 4()6...641·2740. Mtp:llcdc rnt gOo' S oun-e: "Estimatu of tbe Componmts o(fuS!dmt Population Change: ,;.lp11l 1, 201 0-fufy 1. 2013. " U.S. Cmsm Burt'au Popu!tdion Di1ision. 1111VIV.<f!ISI/s~v/ popes!. Compiled~)' ,Uo/1/ana Departmmt of Co1JJ1nem Cmsus and Economh·l!ifonnntion Cmter. Jvww.ceic.nil.gov. The figure above illustrates county-level net migration rates for the state of Montana. The highest rates of population growth remain fa irly concentrated in the eastern portion of the state, where energy development is driving the economy. H owever, Gallatin County's net migration jumped to a rate of 15.3, up from 7.1 the prior year. Maps detailing a county-to-county level migration flow for Gallatin and Park Counties are included on page 20 (Figures 3 & 4). The associated migration data is shown in the table below. Table 12 : G all atin 89,192 5,971 4,434 4,1 61 1,995 453 Coun +I-202 Park County 15,523 563 699 253 533 139 +/-75 Soum: Census Flows Afapper. U.S. Cmms Bureau Geograpi?J' Divisio11. J/JJIIJIJ.t'f!Wts.gov. Figure 3: Net M igration Flows for Gallatin County 2008-2012 ACS Data · ... --·""' Total net migration flows for Gallatin county, Montana 2008-12 5-yeer Amecic:en Comm.mrty SLirVey Estimates So11m: Cmsw l'/ows 1\Iapper. U.S. Cmms Bmm11 Geograp~y Division. 111111/V.t"e/ISfiS.J,OV. Figure 4 : Net Migration Flows for Park County 2008-2012 ACS Data Total net migration flows for Pari< County, Montana vrutod St.llb' Census -- 2008-12 5-yeerArrE:rican Corrtrunity Survey Estimates Solln·e: Cmsm Flows Mappn: U.S. Cms11s B11m111 Geograpl!)' Divisio11. JVJJJIV.<"I!ItJI/s.gov. ~ill11 I "'""II I'H• >Ill I C) a 294to 588 I to 293 No net movers -1 to-105 -1 06 to -210 24 to 47 1 to 23 No net movers -1 to -107 -1 08 to -215 Demographics According to five year American Community Survey estimates shown in Table 13 below, the national median age is 37.2 years while Montana's median age is 39.9 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. United States 37.2 (+/-0.1 years) Montana 39.9 (+/-0.1 years) 20,137,884 (+/-3,715) 60,865 (+/-340) Gallatin County 32.4 (+/-0.3 years) 5,713 (+/-53) ------------~--~----~--~--~~----- Belgrade 30.0(+/-1.9years) 655(+/-196) Big Sky 33.8 (+/-4 .2 years) 140 (+/-79) Bozeman 26.8 (+/-0.8 years) 1,887 (+/-234) Manhattan 41.0 (+/-6.3 years) 121 {+/-58) --·-··-· . - Three Forks 47.6 (+/-6.5 years) 56 (+/-40) West Yellowstone 32.2 (+/-5.4 years) 126 (+/-63) 235,158,852 (+/-6,334) 767,735 (+/-291) 7l ,551 (+/-35) 5,327 (+/-243) 1,909 (+/-282) 31,817 (+/-338) 1,021 (+/-1 69) 1,31 4 (+/-171) 40,671,441 (+/-4, 162) 147,972 (+/-270) 8,605 (+/-54) 403 {+/-58) 257 (+/-137) 2,827 (+/-245) 253 {+/-83) 333 (+/-112) 1,067 (+/-226) 161 (+/-67) Park County Clyde Park Cooke City Gardiner Livingston Wilsall r 4s.9 (+/-o.s vea~743 ~~M6! 1 12,615-'-(+_/_-4_0);...._j..r_2_;_,if2 (+/-70l · 47.2 (+/-9.7 years) 7 (+/-8) 46.1 (+/-8.3years) 49.4 (+/-3.0 years) 40.8 (+/-2.2 years) 48.0 (+/-35.2 years) 0 (+/-10) 2 (+/-4) 482 (+/-95) 32 (+/-34) 308 (+/-124) 25 (+/-16) 788 (+/-152) 5,538 (+/-126) 93 (+/-30) 60 (+/-37) 4 (+/-5) 150 (+/-47) 1,185 (+/-184) 44 (+/-21) 1\s illustrated by the estimates in Table 14 below, Gallatin and Park Counties are slighdy 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 14: Ethnicit White Non-Hispanic 74.2% (+/-0.1%) 89.6% (+/-0.1%) 95.1% (+/-0.3%) 96.7% (+/-0.3%) Black or Afri can American 12.6% (+/-0.1%) 0.4% (+/-0.1%) 0.4% (+/-0.1%) 0.2% (+/-0.2%) i Hispanic or Latino (of any race) I 16.4% (+/-0.1%) 2.9% (+/-0.1%) 2 .8%. 2.2%• American Indian & Alaskan Native 0.8% (+/-0.1%) 6.3% (+/-0.1%) 1.0% (+/-0.2%) 0.5% (+/-0.5%) Two or more races 2.7% (+/-0.1%) 2.4% (+/-0.1 %) 1.9% (+/-0.3%) 2.4% (+/-0.7%) Sorm·e: "2008-20 12 Ameritall Cotn11111nit;• S11n•o·. "U.S. Cens11s B11rea11. IVJVJv.mrms.gOll. *Estimate is <'OIIftvlled, t11rrrgi11 of en'Ornot appt'Optiate. Poverty rates for Montana's coun ties as of 2012 increased compared to the prior year according to estimates released in December 2013. The statewide average rate was nearly 16 percent and slightly above the national average (Figure 5). Gallatin and Park Counties are two of the 18 counties in the state that fall below the threshold for being considered a "high poverty county", which is defined as a county in which 14 percent or more people of all ages are in poverty. In comparison, 201 1 county poverty rates had 18 counties below the threshold and a statewide average rate of 15.2 percent. Figure 5 : Montana County Poverty Rates, 2012 LTICOtl 20~ FllfiNd Poverty Rate Less than 14% -14%ormore 14 l'Mo llh 23W MlnoUa Gl8cifl 304'14> Poverty in Montana : 2012 County Poverty Rates Toole ltll ,..,.. Uler1y 20~ 1N l'oncltl1l lt ... Ttlon Olotlllal 178'Mo .wtts-n 15 ,,. Bllone 23~ F~ 14 , ... ~!lops 181,. ,....., 1i~ Glfle!d ,.,.. BgHcm 27.1"- Vlllly ,,,. Powder River ~~ 00.1-201 (2)(d). MCA 'High-poverty county' means a county tn ttls stale 1n which 14% or m01eof people of all ages are m poverty as delerm1ned by the US. Census Bureau esllmales for the most current year avmlable Montana's Average Poverty Rate 15.9% US Average Poverty Rate 15.6% Map by Ct:mus& Econo'I'KiriC)Ift\lljonCethr MotanaO.partntttdCCIITI'Tieft• Sc:uu-US C.RIUsaur.au 2012SmaiAr.ahccmeJndPowrtyEsi'nMes..Aiages npovtlty, R•~•-=sed~er2013. 301 S.Part.Avt, Ht~ UTS962D-0505.40&-M1-27t0 tmlitute@rrtgO¥ heq:rJJ'c .. cmlgov So11n:e: Cens11s & Ero11omir l11Jormalio11 Ce11ter, 1'follfalla Dfpartmml ofCommen-e. bttp:/ / uic.mt.gov. The estimates in Table 15 on page 23 illustrate that Gallatin County's median household and median family income are 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 lower than both the national and statewide averages. In Gallatin County, West Yellowstone has the highest percentage of individuals and families who live below the poverty level and Bozeman has the second highest percentage. Park County and its commun1t:J.es have lower median income levels than the statewide median income figures (Table 15). However the personal per capita income in Park County is very close to the personal per capital income for Montana as a whole. By the latest available estimates, Livingston has the highest poverty levels in Park County for both individuals and families. Note that the U.S. and statewide poverty figures included in Table 15 below are based on American Community Survey data between 2008 and 2012, whereas the average poverty rates shown in Figure 5 on page 22 are based on the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for 2012, the figures differ by roughly one percent. TablelS: United States ' ' Montana Gallatin County Belgrade Big Sky Bozeman Manhattan Three Forks West Yellowstone Park County Clyde Park Cooke City Gardiner Livingston Wilsall $45,147 (+/-$6,527) $40,781 Per Capito All People Below Families Below Person~l Poverty Level Poverty L~vel +/.-Margm of +I M . fE . +/-Margm of Error -argm 0 rror . Error 14.9% (+/-0.1%) 14.8% (+/-0.3%) 10.9% (+/-0.1 13.3% (+/-1.1 %) 6.9% (+/-1.1%) 11.2% (+/-4.9%) 9.2% (+/-6.7%) 12.3% (+/-5.9%) 1.8% (+/-2.6%) 19.9% (+/-2.3%) 9.3% (+/-2.0%) 5.5% (+/-4.2%) 2.3% (+/-2.7%) 10.1% (+/-5.2%} 6.5% (+/-5.4%} 21 .8% (+/-14.0%} 14.7% (+/-8.5%) 11.0% (+/-2.3%) 6.9% (+/-2.6%} 8.8% (+/-7.7%} 0.0% (+/-23.5%) ' 0.0% (+/-52.0%} 0.0% (+/-98.3%) 5.5% (+/-4.2%} 0.8% (+/-1.7%} 11 .7% (+/-3.8%) 8.4% (+/-4.8%) 6.4% (+/-10.8%) 0.0% (+/-43.3%) "2008-20 12 Amnifall Co/11/JIIIIIi(y Slln•~y." u.s. c~I/SIIS Bllreall. JVIVIV,UI/SJ/J.goJJ. Imwm jigllr~s are in dollars. Note that Per Capita Pmo11al l11come meas11m tbe ina1mt of all people, ind11di11g tbt 1111empl~yed. For tlt•emgt Jvages earned 0• empli!Jtd midmts, pleme see tbe Salary & Wt!J:e m tio11. As illustrated in Table 16 on page 24, Gallatin and Park Counties exceed national and statewide percentages 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. Note the rates for those earning a bachelor's degree or above are the same for the United States and Montana. ©1'1<•••1'111' Ill ,, "' 1\\llJ(h. Table 16: Level of Educational Attainment (Percent of Population 25 Years & Over) 2008-2012 ACS Data Location Higli School o r. Al5ove +/-Margin of Error United States Montana I Gallatin County I I Belgrade Big Sky Bozeman Manhattan Three Forks West Yellowstone I Park County Clyde Park Cooke City Gardiner Livingston Wilsall 85.7% {+/-0.1%) 91.9% (+/-0.2%) 96.1% (+/-0.4%) 96.7% (+/-2.0%) 96.5% (+/-4.5%) 97.3% (+/-0.6%) 90.8% (+/-5.1%) 92.9% (+/-3.1%) 98.2% (+/-2.7%) 92.1% (+/-2.1%) 90.9% (+/-8.2%) 96.0% (+/-1 6.9%) 96.3% (+/-2.8%) 87.8% (+/-4.2%) 79.6% (+/-16.7%) 'io11m: '':?008-20 12 Atnmam Co!!llntllli(y S11nry." U.S. Cmms BllrtCIII. JVJVJII.tet/SJts.goJ•. 28.5% (+/-0.1%) -----. 28.5% (+/-0.4%) 45.4% (+/-1.8%) 28.4% (+/-6 .4%) 54.3% (+/-8.0%) 53.3% (+/-2 .8%) 34.7% (+/-6.4%) 15.9% (+/-3.6%) ----· ··-·---· -- 21.8% (+/-6 .5%) 31.4% (+/-2.8%) 31.3% (+/-11.5%) 0.0% (+/-52.0%) 43.7% (+/-7 .7%) 29.3% (+/-4 .5%) --------- 46.2% (+/-20.5%) American Community Survey estimates show that approximately 61 percent of the housing units in Gallatin County are owner-occupied while the remaining 39 percent are rented (fable 17). Park County's owner-occupied units account for 73.6 percent of the total, with 26.4 reported as renter- occupied. Gallatin County 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 than Gallatin County, and similar to statewide estimates. According to these same Census Bureau estimates, 54 percent of units in Bozeman are renter-occupied with a median rent of $805. Meanwhile 32 percent of units in Livingston are renter- occupied and the median rent is S673 per month. Overall, Montana's housing costs for owning or renting a home are lower than the national average. Owner-Occupied Housing Units 75,484,661 277,816 22,446 4,810 (+/-348,907) (+/-2,000) {+/-573) (+/-261) Renter-Occupied Housing Units 39,742,141 127,692 14,2 13 1,729 (+/-115,303) (+/-1,616) (+/-638) (+/-215) Median Monthly Housing Costs for $889 $667 $831 $649 Renter-Occupied Housing Units (+/-$1) (+/-$7) (+/-$24) (+/-$38) Median Monthly Housing Costs $1,559 $1,286 $1,588 $1,303 for Mortgaged Owners (+/-$2) (+/-$9) (+/-$40) (+/-$60) Median Monthly Housing Costs $449 $378 $463 $392 for Non-Mortgaged Owners (+/-$2) (+/-$3) (+/-$16) (+/-$29) S omre: '':?008-20 12 Anmi(tlll Co/lltnlllli(J• S11m;)'. " U.S. Cens11s Burea11. JVIVIJJ.mwts.goL'. ©I'H"'"'I In Ill''''" '\,i 1\\llH" 21111 1 I "'"'"' Pltll: II I Accorcling to the latest estimates, the nation's average household size is 2.61 people and the average family size is 3.21 people while Montana's average household size is 2.37 people, with an average family size of 2.95 p eople (fable 18). Both Gallatin and Park Counties have slightly smaller households and families than national averages but are in line with state averages. Park County has a higher percentage of people living alone than both the national and state rates. T bl 18 H a e ouse o an am11y Jynam1cs h ld d F ·1 D 2008 2012 ACS D -at a n. I:.~ "Ill I!L:l .ft IL'• IIIIIWIII:I ~ nn n nn nn ~ (;...W.~t.· l!l:J n liiJe[I).."1W!IIIIri!STi" liiJ e[I).."1WIIIe I ~~ , ... 111111~ n.n n ~ ~ l·~et·m•lJI ~~-R~o{J lfi. e[l}.""l.WIIL• I I .....n rVL ..... ..n ..... •• • .. . . . . -~ ~ -...... ""'&" --• United States 2.61 (+/-0.1) 3.21 (+/-0.1) 49.0% 33 .5% 27 .5% (+/-0.1%) (+/-0.1 %) l+/-0.1%) Montana 2.37 (+/-0.1) 2.95 (+/-0.2) 50.5% 36.8% 29.9% (+/-0.4%) (+/-0.4%) (+/-0.4%) Gallatin County 2.34 (+/-0.3) 2.82 (+/-0.5) 49.2% 39.8% 26.7% (+/-1.5%) (+/-1.5%) (+/-1.7%) Belgrade 2.43 2.96 (+/-0.18) 48.4% 38.4% 30.2% (+/-0.14) (+/-7.6%) (+/-7.4%) (+/-6 .6%) Big Sky 2.04 2.57 (+/-0.23) 46 .6% 50.9% 30.0% (+/-0.19) (+/-8.4%) (+/-8.8%) (+/-8.1%) Bozeman 2.17 2.75 (+/-0.08) 33.9% 54.2% 33.3% (+/-0.06) (+/-2.4%) (+/-2.7%) (+/-2.5%) Manhattan 2.53 3.03 (+/-0.23) 63.6% 30.6% 24.6% (+/-0.22) (+/-8.3%) (+/-7.9%) (+/-7.3%) Three Forks 2.13 2.47 (+/-0.14) 52.5% 30.0% 23 .7% (+/-0.1 2) (+/-8 .4%) (+/-6.7%) (+/-6.8%) West 2.29 2.95 (+/-0.34) 44 .8% 39.3% 29.5% Yellowstone (+/-0.27) (+/-1 1.3%) (+/-10.0%) (+/-9.5%) Park County 2.36 (+/-0.1) 2.93 (+/-0.15) 54 .3% 35.7% 32.0% (+/-3.4%) (+/-3.0%) (+/-2.9%) Clyde Park 2.47 3.30 (+/-0.74) 51.3% 40.3% 38.3% (+/-0.56) (+/-18.2%) (+/-16.1%) (+/-15.0%) Cooke Ci ty 1.47 1 .86 (+/-0.86) 41.2% 58.8% 47.1% (+/-0.41) (+/-37.1%) ( +/-37.1 o/!l}_ _( + 1-37. 9%) Gardiner 1.98 2.77 (+/-0.40) 38.0% 47.3% 46.5% (+/-0.28) (+/-10.6%) (+/-1 0.3%) (+/-10.3%) Livi ngston 2.30 3.03 (+/-0.23) 46.0% 41 .7% 37.5% (+/-0.14) (+/-5.3%) _{+/-4.8%) (+/-4.4%) Wilsall 2.36 3.00 (+/-1.03) 67.9% 32.1% 32.1% (+/-0.93) (+/-24.8%) (+/-24.8%) (+/-24.8%) ' So1m·e: ''2008-2012 Ammcan Commt1111(} S11n•ry.' U.S. Cms11s Bureau. JV/IIUJ.ml!ur.gov. Montana maintained the 11th lowest unemployment rate in the nation as of July 2014 (fable 19). According to the Montana Department of Labor and Industry's 2014 Report, Montana has achieved this "healthy" and relatively low rate through strong employment growth, including above-average employm ent growth for the last three years. North Dakota has held the number one position for the past four years. North Dakota Utah Sout h Da kota 4.6 5.3 6.6 Colorado 7.1 6.9 8.0 8.7 Workforce Location of the most jobs in the state shifts The Southwest has overtaken the Northwest region as the area of the state with the most jobs. All regions of Montana are expected to continue job growth in the future, with growth rebalancing to the western, more populated portions of the state in the long-term. 2.8 3.6 3.7 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.3 5.6 6.9 7.4 State of Montano Lobor Doy Report 20 14 Montano Deportment of Labor & Industry, Research & Analysis Bureau www.lmi.mt.gov -0.2 -1.0 2 Tied -0.1 4 Tied -0.2 6 Tied -1.3 1 1 -1 .8 13 -1 .8 16 Tied -1.3 20 Tied -1 .1 40 -1 .3 44 S oun-e: U.S. Bumut of LAborS ltrlislics. www. bls.g011. P: Ju!J• 7014 data is preltnJillal)'- Gallatin County saw slight improvement in its unemployment rate year-to-year and as of July 2014, Gallatin County had the 15'" lowest unemploymen t rate in the state (fable 20). Park County's unemployment rate also improved, placing the county at 25'" position as of July 2014. Fallon County has had the lowest unemployment rate in the state for four years mnning, while Big H orn County remains at 56'h ranking despite seeing a decrease in unemployment of 4.1 percent. Note that county level unemployment data is available on a non-seasonally adjusted basis only, therefore the rate for "t\1ontana in Table 20 differs from the seasonally adjusted rates in T able 19. T bl 20 C a e t u ounty nemp'oym e n t R t C ae ompanson, J I 2014 ( u1y II d Non-seasono y a justed} ~ JldW~~ Jl!IW~M)i]t~f~ ~ Jbfl7~ "lmni3 'lWIII•IIL~8 Monta no 4.8 4.4* -0 .4 n/a Fallon County 1.5 2.0 0.5 1 Gallatin County 3.5 3 .1 -0.4 15 Madison County 4.2 3 .5 -0.7 2 1 Yellowstone County 3.9 3 .6 -0.3 23 Park County 4.2 3.7 -0.5 25 Lewis & Clark County 4.0 3.8 -0.2 27 Missoula County 4.6 4.2 -0.4 36 Silver Bow County 4.7 4.7 0 39 Flathead County 6.1 5.3 -1 .2 43 Big Horn County 14.6 10.5 -4.1 56 S oJtrce: 1Ho11fa11a Depattmmt of L:1bor 0' lllrii/JII)•, fusean·h 0' A 11a()'StS B11rea11. wtvJv.omfadS)•omjttture.mt.goL• & UJ. Burea11 of L:1bor Statutt.-s. wwJv.bls.goJ•. P:]IID' 201-1-data is pre!itnilllll)'. ~I) I I I t t > '-t 0\ II t I' H t II i I I Annual Unemployment Rate Revised annual unemployment figures for 2008 to 2013 are shown in Chart 6. In the past SL"< years, Gallatin County has exceeded Montana's unemployment rate only once-and just slightly-in 2009. Between 2012 and 2013 statewide annual unemployment decreased from 6.0 percent to 5.6 percent, and Gallatin County's rate followed suit, declining from 5.3 percent to 4.4 percent. Park County's unemployment rate continues to trend higher than f\1ontana's overall rate, but also declined between 2012 and 2013, from 6.3 percent to 5.9 percent. While unemployment rates are still higher than in 2008, the region and state continue to fare better than most of the United States. Chart 6: Annual Unemployment Rates, 2008-2013 (Non-seasonally adiusted) 12 10 8 Q) Ol .2 6 c Q) v ... Q) c... 4 2 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Iii United States llii Montana W Gallatin County Iii Park County Somw: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistia. JVJVJJJ.bls.got•. I\'ol seasonai!J adj11sted. As seen in Table 21, revised labor force statistics 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 in 2009 and 2010. Gallatin County now exceeds pre-recessionary levels in terms of labor force and those employed, however the number of unemployed residents also continues to be more than what was seen prior to 2009. Meanwhile, Park County's labor force and number of employed residents have yet to recover to pre-recessionary levels . b Table 21 : County La or Force Statistics, 200 20 6-13 (Non-seasonally adjusted) liei«eaneua l ~ f1mJJ Gallatin County Labor Force 49,123 50,482 Employed 48,013 49,214 Unemployed 1,1 1 0 1,268 Pa rk County l abor Force 9,213 9,087 Employed 8,930 8,778 I Unemployed 283 309 So11m: U.S. Bmrmr q[Labor StattS!lt:r. Ivww.bls.goL'. ©I'H<>-•'1 H' II• ''' ""' "'''""' 11!lml i ~ mi!J 1 ~u 50,990 48,272 48,178 49,299 49,081 45,324 45,043 46,419 1,909 2,948 3,135 2,880 9,040 8,481 8,340 8,427 8,616 7,886 7,719 7,828 424 595 621 599 ~~~ 50,405 52,640 47,718 50,315 2,687 2,325 8,726 8,768 8,175 8,251 551 517 Employment by Sector The principal employment sector in Gallatin County as of 2013 continues to be trade, transportation & utilities, 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 7). Note that the service providing and goods producing sectors included in the chart below are supersector groups, which are collective categories that are comprised of the other non-governmental sectors listed. The goods producing supersector includes 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. Chart 7: 2013 Number of Employees by Sector-Gallatin and Pork Counties Local Government State Government Federal Government Service Providing Goods Producing Unclassified Other Services Leisure & Hospitality Educafion & Health Services Professional & Business Services Financial Activities Information Trade, Transportation & Utilities Manufacturing Construction Natural Resources & M ining liiii 5881 2,9 14 34 65 .I 4,223 iiiiii 6171 3 891 &iiiiiiiil815 7 334 30, 3 5 ~ 398 1,775 ~1 G78 7,619 iiiiii 71 7 5 ~53 ii 274 5 154 • 217 2,108 83 ~ 570 li;iiiiJ 82 9,760 Iii 391 2,6~9 1 262 ~62 74 3,930 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 liiiil Gallatin County & Park County Source: "Q 11arter(y Cmsus if Emplv•mml & l~'agu. "B11rea11 f!!Llbor Stalislia. IVWJv.bls.gov/ mu. 2013 i11jormation is prelimi11ary. 578 Based on revised Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data for 2012 and preliminary 2013 figures, the area's economy continues to show growth in private sector employment. Construction employment was up 15.2 percent in Gallatin County (from 3,412 in 2012 to 3,930 in 2013) and up almost two percent in Park County (from 257 to 262). Manufacturing employment in Gallatin County was second in terms of year over year growth at 13.8 percent (from 2,337 to 2,659). Also notable in Gallatin County was 8.6 percent employment growth in leisure & hospitality (from 7,015 to 7 ,619) and 8.4 percent employment growth in professional and business services (from 4,757 to 5,154). Park County's largest employment growth was seen in other services, with 5.3 percent growth (from 378 to 398) and financial activities, with 2.8 percent growth (from 211 to 21 7). 211! I I I "'l •\Ill I' Hill II I Private sector employment growth was coupled with reductions in federal government employment in both counties: federal employment in Gallatin County was down 4.5 percent (from 646 to 617) and down nearly 11 percent in Park County (from 73 to 65). State and local government employment showed marginal growth in Gallatin County, with 1.9 percent growth (from 4,146 to 4,223) and 1.1 percent growth (from 2,883 to 2,914), respectively. Meanwhile state and local government employment both shrank in Park County, by 10.5 percent (from 38 to 34) and 2.3 percent (from 602 to 588), respectively. While the region is home to a broad range of industries, as measured by both number of establishments and average annual employment Gallatin County's dominant sectors include professional & business services and leisure & hospitality (Table 22). Park County's leading industries in terms of number of establishments and average annual employment include leisure & hospitality and trade, transportation & utilities (Table 22). T bl 22 2013 E a e mplo men an dE b s t arnmgs >y ec or 1:'1. ..m ....... 1.:1. .... ~r= 'l~•Jil• Ulll'l'llll•illlli'l l'l'llll•liJilt.'l Number of Average Number of Average Sector Establish-Number of Weekly Establish-Number of Weekly ments Employees Wage ments Employees Wage ($) ($) Goods Producing 1,201 7,334 793 183 81 5 672 Natural Reso urces & 94 745 769 47 162 581 Min in~ Construction 893 3,930 844 102 262 653 Manufacturing 214 2,659 725 34 391 722 Service Providing 4,247 32,343 653 654 3,891 534 T rode, Transportation 954 9,760 602 137 825 532 & Utilities Information 87 570 915 18 83 734 Financial Activities 540 2,108 955 61 217 723 Professional & 1,237 5,154 1,032 130 274 972 Business Services Education & Health 475 5,353 734 60 717 685 Services Leisu re & Hospitality 556 7,619 333 173 1,378 345 O ther Services 398 1,775 523 77 398 476 Unclassified 1 5 469 -3 - Private Sedor Totals 5,447 39,677 679 837 4,706 55 8 Federal Government 30 617 1,180 12 65 965 State Government 15 4,223 805 8 34 1,346 Local Government 55 2,9 14 759 18 588 664 Governmental Totals* 100 7,754 818 38 687 726 " S o11ne: ''Q11mterfy Census of Emplf!)'IHe/11 e::-IV ages. B11m111 of Labor S latutm. IIIJVw.bls.gol'/ mv. 20 I 3 nifonJJatiOII JS pi7/mmwo·. *Prospera B11sinm i\'e/1110rk s ra/mlation, total goz,emmwt data not provided f:y BLS. 2111 l I I ll'.• •\1 ,, 1':{. 'I ll The chart below details average annual wage amounts, which the Bureau of Labor Statistics computes by dividing total annual industry wages by annual average employment (Chart 8). As explained on page 28, the service providing and goods producing sectors included in the chart below are supersector groups that encompass the other non- governmental sectors listed. The goods producing sector includes natural resources & numng, construction and manufacturing, while all other non-governmental sectors fall under the serviCe providing supersector. Salary & Wage Detail Drivers of Wage Growth in Montana According to state economist Amy Hasenoehrl, "Over the past ten years, Montana ranks 5th in terms of annual wage growth, averaging over three percent wage growth per year ... The steady demand for labor, coupled with worker shortages in particular areas of the state, explains why Montana's wage growth has outpaced the national average. Most of the wage growth in Montana has been driven by wage growth in the private sector, specifically in the business services, mining and utilities, and financial activities industries." Understanding Wage Growth in Montano, June 20 14 Montano Deportment of Labor & Industry, Research & Analysis Bureau www.lmi.mt.gov Chart 8: Average Annual Pay by Industry -Gallatin and Park Counties 2013 Local Government State Government Federal Government Service Providing Goods Producing Other Services Leisure & Hospitality Education & Health Services Professional & Business Services Financial Activities Information T rode, Transportation & Utilities Manufacturing Construction Natural Resources & Mining $34 34 $39,474 $24, 50 27,187 $41,870 $35 634 $38,177 II Park County Iii Gallatin County $50,176 $50,553 $53, 3 $49,655 7,555 7 s 011n-e: "Quarterb' Cmms of E111pi'!)'IJUI/l & Wages." B11reau of LaborS tatistics. 111/VIJJ.b!s.gotJ/ mJJ. 2013 i11jormation is preli111inary. 211 I ~ I < • l '< 1\ II, PI (I >I II I Montana's Labor Market According to U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates, Montana's average annual wage and salary disbursement continues to trend lower than the national average: $37,033 versus $49,612 for 2012 as revised in I\:fay of 2013. By these BEA measures, !\fontana's average annual wage ranking is 48th overall in the nation (Table 23). As defined by the BEA, average wages and salaries is wages and salaries divided by the number of wage and salary jobs (total wage and salary employment). Wages and salaries consist of the monetary remuneration of employees, including the compensation of corporate officers; commissions, tips, and bonuses; and receipts in kind, or pay-in-kind, such as the meals furnished to the employees of restaurants. It reflects the amount of payments disbursed, but not necessarily earned during the year. United States $13,999 $23A23 $35,054 $49,612 California $15,013 8 $26,237 7 $40,869 6 $58,259 5 Washington $15,086 7 $22,885 15 $37,544 8 $52,945 1 1 Colorado $14,228 14 $22,632 19 $37,059 9 $51,21 1 12 Wyoming $15,335 6 $20,058 36 $27,138 45 $45,260 22 North Dakota $11,868 44 $17,362 49 $24A 16 49 $45,083 23 Oregon $13,935 19 $21,026 28 $32J74 22 $45,021 24 Utah $13,089 29 $19,782 40 $29,316 33 $42,220 34 J $1 ?)+76 ~ r r [ $37,033 [ Montana $12,598 35 48 . $24,171 51 48 ---~~---_._ Idaho $12,17 4 42 $18,739 46 1 $27,557 42 $36,911 50 South Dakota $10,750 50 $16,348 51 r $24,396 50 $36,143 51 I o11m: State Ec"OJJO!fll<" Profiles. U.S. B11rea11 of Et"OI!OIIlic Ana/pis. IVII'Iv.bea.gov. LJS111pdated 1\Iay 30, 2014, rerised estimatnfor 19 58-2000. C11rrent 'Jol/ars as of Me!)' 20 I 3. Note: All nmkings in dude 50 stales pl11s tiJe Disl!id of Columbia. According to the l\1ontana Department of Labor and Industry's 2014 Labor Dqy Report, ]\-fontana is ranked the best in the nation for the percentage of the population with a high school diploma. While Montana enjoys a well-educated workforce on the whole, the American Community Survey 5-year estimates below indicate that Montana's median earnings by level of education continue to trail behind national averages (fable 24). T bl 24 M d. A a e e 1an nnua IE b Ed arnmgs 'Y uca 1ona I Att . a1nmen t 2008 2012 ACS D -ata h"~1•••n•••1• LI.Ji'fm'r.j ~~ --~~ """"' ~~.a. ........ .. • J1!5J !lr • • !lM.l1!U" ! Total $29,627 +/-$317 $35,522 +/-$82 Less than high school graduate $17,762 +/-$932 $19,642 +/-$48 High school graduate (includes equivalency) $24,585 +/-$445 $27,607 +/-$47 Some college or associates' degree $27,672 +/-$508 $33,857 +/-$63 ! Bachelor's degree $36,370 +/-$670 $50,096 +/-$60 Graduate or professional degree $50,313 +/-$989 $66,1 09 +I-$98 -" --S oum: "2008 -2012 Amen can C.omlliiOII(Y S11n•~y. U.S. C.mms Bt~~ta/1. WJvw.mum.goz'. For popHia!JO!I 2J )'ears t111d oz•et; 111 2012 mflat/OII ad;11sted dollars. r 'a lues shown witiJ 90 pmm/margin of error. 2•1lll l I , •• \11• PHil! II I All but two of the Montana counties featured in the table below experienced at least a one percent increase in average weekly wage between 2012 and 2013. Conversely, Gallatin County's average weekly wage rates declined by 2.9 percent between 2012 and 2013, which is in sharp contrast to the 6.64 percent wage growth between 2011 and 2012. This variability is largely due to the sizable increase in professional & business services wages in 2012 in Gallatin County arising from the sale of RightNow Technologies to Oracle.~8 In Park County, wages increased by 1.4 percent between 2012 and 2013, after improving by 3.63 percent between 2011 and 2012 (Table 25). Wa e b Count Montana $688 $713 $723 1.40% Flathead County $651 $672 $689 2.53% Gallatin County $678 $723 $702 -2.90% Lewis and Clark County $752 $778 $781 0.39% Madison County $562 $577 $594 2.95% Missoula County $665 $681 $689 1.17% Park County $551 $571 $579 1.40% Silver Bow County $709 $726 $736 1.38% Yellowstone County $757 $785 $805 2.55% S o11m: '.'QIIm1nb• Cmsm of Entp!O)wlfnl e:.-._ U"',(ges. "Bml!a/1 of L1bor Statistics. UJJI!IV.bls.gov/ mv. P: 2013 i11fo!7nation is pre!intii/{}~Y· The top five counties in Montana (out of 56) in terms of annual average pay as well as the top five counties in terms of total wages are included in Table 26, along with Park County. In terms of annual average pay, Gallatin County fell to 14th position in 2013 after ranking 121h in 2012 while Park County continued its downward trend, moving to 43ru position in 2013 from 41 '1 position in 2012. T bl 26 M t a e on ana c f R k db 20 13 A oun 1es an e )y nnua l A verage P (All I d ay n ustries ~ ~!V¥1 rn c,.mu•1•u l.:.liTiliTi'ill:.\'l'l;m •L;J \'!'II l[;t.1' . -. .; n :El iii~ ~ ~ M rilmF ... ~ ~ IIIIIIIIJL~T~ . WJllli • • • 'II '~ ~l:Jll l!l;J •• ri•"'IIIL:<IIII'!I Montana 436,884 $16,41 5,71 5 $37,5 75 n/a Stillwater 3,371 $201,242 $59,705 1 Fa llon 1,653 $89,702 $54,272 2 Richland 6,706 $348,863 $52,019 3 Sweet Grass 1,430 $67,265 $4 7,055 4 Musselshell 1,268 $58,491 $46,125 5 Lewis & Clark 35,482 $1,440,461 $40,597 8 Yellowstone 77,670 $3,250,471 $41,850 12 Gallatin 47,732 $1 ,730,873 $36,492 14 Missoula 55,675 $1,995,806 $35,847 16 Flathead 38,956 $1,396,392 $35,846 22 Park 5,393 $162,482 $30,127 43 . . J ourre: ''Q11arttrb• Cen1111 of EmpiO)·mmt ({7 lf>''!gu. "Bllrl!a/1 of Labor Sta/11!1c1. IIJIVJv.bl1.gov/ cew. P: 20 I 3 mfom!Oiton 11 prehtmnaa• . 2a Barkey, Patrick l\L "Gallatin County: Shifting to a Higher Gear." Outlook 2013. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University oL\fontana. www.bber.umtedu. Largest Private Employers The following table lists the 20 largest private sector employers in Gallatin County and the 10 largest private sector employers in Park County, according to the most current statistics from the Montana Department of Labor and Industry's Research and Analysis Bureau. T bl 27 L a e arges t p . nvate s ector E mp1oyers 1 (20 3 Annua Data ~11":1 ..... ·~ ~~IIJelrel•iW~;.!."1 • -u~· ;~•c• • • -_; Gallatin County Bozeman Deaconess Hospital 1000+ Oracle America 250-499 Walmart 250-499 Albertson's 100-249 Bridger Bowl 100-249 ' Community Food Co-Op 100-249 I - Costco 1 00-249 Federal Prem ium Ammunition 100-249 I First Security Bank 1 00-249 I I First Student 100-249 I GranT ree Inn 100-249 I -' Kenyon Noble Lumber & Hardware 100-249 I f r--Korman Marketing Group 100-249 I Martel Construction 100-249 I McDonald's 1 00-249 Murdoch's Ranch & Home Supply 1 00-249 Ressler Motors 100-249 Town & Country Foods 100-249 Town Pump Convenience Stores 1 00-249 Zoot Enterprises 100-249 Park County Livingston HealthCare 250-499 Chico Hot Springs 1 00-249 Church Universal & Triumphant 1 00-249 PrintingForless.com 1 00-249 Albertson's 50-99 Livingston Health & Rehabilitation Center 50-99 Montana's Rib & Chop House 50-99 R-Y Timber 50-99 The Murray Hotel 50-99 Town & Country Foods 50-99 ·-Joura: l'rfontana Departmmt of Labor e5" Ind!lstry·, RueardJ e5" Anafysts Bureau. www.offifad!J'ortp!lllre.lllt.gpl'. Agriculture plays a historic and significant role in the regional economy and quality of life. l\1ontana's total land area is 93.1 million acres and 64.2 percent of the total land area (59.8 million acres) is dedicated to farmland or agriculture.29 The state ranks 29'" in the U.S. for total value of agricultural products sold.2'1 According to George Haynes, Professor and Extension Center Specialist with the Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics at Montana State University, "Above average production, coupled with relatively strong crop and livestock prices, have increased profits and improved the farm and ranch balance sheet through 2013."'" Crop producers expected strong demand in 2014 despite increased competition in export markets, while Agriculture Montana's 2012 U.S. Agricultural Rankings Top rankings by item's acres/number: • 3'd: Wheat for grain, all • 7th: Sheep and lambs • 1 010: Cattle and calves • 22"d: Hogs and pigs Top rankings by item's total sales value: • 1 010: Sheep, goats, wools, mohair and milk • 11 '": Cattle and calves • 14'": Other crops and hay • 1 7'": Grains, oilseeds, dry beans and peas • 29'": Total agricultural products sold 20 12 Census of Agriculture. Montano Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Deportment of Agriculture. www.noss.usdo.gov cow-calf producers anticipated prices well above historical averages through 2015.,., Also, the 2014 Farm Bill improved the safety net for producers by introducing more "insurance-type" products to provide income stability.'1 As shown in Table 28 on page 35, behveen the 2007 and 2012 agricultural censuses, the number of farms in Montana declined by five percent, the amount of land in farms declined three percent and the average size of a farm increased by three percent, while the market value of products sold increased by 51 percent. The statewide average age of the principle operator was 58.9 years as of the 2012 Census of Agriculture.29 Of the land in farms in Montana, 65.8 percent was pastureland, 28.5 percent was cropland and 5.8 percent was devoted to other uses.29 While the number of farms in Gallatin County was up nine percent and the market value of products sold increased by 11 percent, the acres of land in farms was down 10 percent and the average size of a farm declined by 17 percent (Table 28). The average age of the principle operator in Gallatin County was 57.8 years.29 Of the land in farms in the county, 59.7 percent was pastureland, 32.0 percent was cropland and 8.3 percent was devoted to other uses.29 Among 3, 079 counties in the U.S., Gallatin County's top rankings were 181 " for acres in barley production and 30'" for number of horses and ponies. In Park County, the number of farms increased by five percent and the market value of products sold increased by 39 percent while the average farm size decreased by four percent (Table 28). The average age of the principle operator in Gallatin County was 57.8 years.29 Of the land in farms in the county, 69.5 percent was pastureland, 14.3 percent was woodland, 14.2 percent was cropland and 2.1 percent was devoted to other uses.29 Among 3, 079 counties in the U.S., Park Coun ty's top rankings were 11 71h for acres in barley production and 103'd for number of horses and ponies. 2? "2012 Census of .\griculture." ~fontana .\gricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of .\griculture. www.nass. usda.gov. '0 Haynes, George. "i\Iontana .-\griculturc in 2013: A Strong Financial Year." Oudook 2014. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of l\Iontana. W\V\v.bber.umt.edu. 11 Haynes, George. ~fontana Business Quarterly \' olume 52, N umber 1, Spring 2014. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of l\fontana. \V\V\v.bber.umt.edu. T bl 28 201 2 A . It I St r r f M t a e \gncu ura 0 IS ICS or on ana, a Oln G II r C t ounry an d p k c or t oumy I .... .r.::n. J ~ : ~ 11\;jl.;jllfl,...IIelai• - Montana Number of Forms 29,524 28,008 -5% Land in Forms (in acres) 61,388,462 59,758,91 7 -3% Average Form Size (in acres) 2,079 2,134 3% Market Value of Products Sold $2 .8 million $4.2 million 51% Average Sales per Form $94,942 $151,031 59% Gallatin County Number of Farms 1,071 1,163 9% Land in Farms (in acres) 776,868 702,713 -10% Average Fa rm Size (in acres) 725 604 -17% Market Va lue of Products Sold $95,148,000 $105,970,000 11 % Average Sales per Farm $88,840 $91,118 3% Park County Number of Farms 535 564 5% Land in Farms (in acres) 762,753 77,057 1% Average Form Size (in acres) 1,426 1,372 -4% Market Value of Products Sold $27,720,000 $38,487,000 39% Average Soles per Form $51,814 $68,240 32% .. ' ' Soum: ''201:! Census of Agn(lll/urr. Stale and Com!~)' Profiles. USDA-Nnttonal Agnmltuml Statu/leal Semce. JVWJV.I/aJS.I/sdn.got•. Overall crop and livestock statistics for Gallatin and Park counties as of 2013 are shown in T ables 29-33, continued on page 36. \Vhile no state ranking is given for Gallatin County for potatoes, the county harvested nearly 40 percent of the seed potatoes produced in the state in 2012.12 T bl 29 2013 C a e rop 0 IS ICS or OOin St r f f G II r C t ounry [IDer.ft.r.l " [ffi!.n.on. !am1311il r;-.llllltl• ~ (}{t. 11!1. .A .All • • Lll.tttl•ltl --. -e IL• -~ ... .. 'U\ ~ ... .. .... • - Winter Wheat 20,200 18,300 34.6 633,000 20 Spring Wheat 26,000 20,700 44.3 918,000 20 All Barley 33,000 23,000 60.0 1,380,000 8 Hoy Alfalfa No data available 37,000 3.55 tons 131 ,000 6 Other Hoy* No data available 12,000 1 .85 tons 22,000 19 Potatoes* 4,200 4,100 354 Cwt 1 ,452,000 Cwt No rank given " So11m: ''201-1 Monla11a A 1m11al Statts/us. Co1111()' Esltmales 2012-2013. USDA-No/tonal Agnmltuml StalLS/teal ServM. tvww.naJS.IIsda.got•. *20 12 data, 201 3 data ttol published. \\'\\\\ 11:\>:'.U"d ;t.g<l\. ©I''{''' 'I , \ Bt 'l'l'' "\. \\tl :-.. Table 30: Cattle & Calves 4,100 20th (All Cattle) Sheep Inventory Soum: ":!0 13 t\Iontana Am111al Statistics, Co1111(y Estmltltrs 2011-2013." USDA-National Agnmltuml Stotistiml Sm-i<'l!. JVJVIV.I/OJS.IISM.goll. Table 31 : 2013 Cro Statistics for Park Coun Wi nter Wheat 2,000 1,500 26.7 40,000 45 Spring Wheat 4,900 4,500 35.3 159,000 40 All Barley 6,000 3,800 44.5 169,000 32 Hay Alfalfa No doto ovoiloble 36,000 2.95 tons 1 07,000 tons 11 Other Hay No doto ovoiloble 10,000 1. 9 tons 19,000 32 So11m: "201-1 Mo11ta11a A111111aiStatistw, Cotmlj· Estimates 2012-2013." USDA-Natio11al Agtimltuml Statistiml Stf1!ite. tvlvw.nass.llsda.gou. Table 32: 201 3 Livestock Statistics for Park Count Cattle & Calves 24,000 200 30th (All Cattle} Sheep Inventory 1,700 So11rre: "20 13 ,\Io11tana A mmo! Statist/a, Comt(y Estilltales 2011-2013." USDA-j\rotio11a/ Agtimltura!Stolutica/ Smice. tvtvw.tmss.ltstlo.goz•. Barley 44,820,000 Bu $6.32/Bu $284,607,000 Corn (For groin) 75,000 115.0/Bu 8,625,000 Bu $4.50/Bu $38,813,000 Fall Potatoes 11,1 00 305/Cwt 3,386,000 Cwt $12.60/Cwt $42,664,000 Hay 2,800,000 1.95/Ton 5,460,000 Tons $138.00/T on $745,860,000 Sugar Beets 42,800 29.2/Ton 1,250,000 Tons No doto ovoiloble Sorme: "20 13 State Agtimlt11ra/ Omrie11': Monta11a. "USDA -Natio11al Ag,icll!tum!Statisliml Se!vi,·e. tvww.nass.llsda.gor. 2ol) l I 1 ""·\Ill I' IIIli Ill Banking According to the Federal D eposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 2 013 Gallatin County bank deposits were again at a record high. As of June 30, 2013, Gallatin County bank deposits totaled just over $1.98 billion. Park County deposits have generally increased since 2001, aside from a slight decline between 2011 and 2012 (C hart 9). Deposits into Park County banks were $300 million as of June 30, 2012; as of June 30, 2013 deposits increased to more than $305 million. Chart 9: Area Bank Deposits, 2001-2013 $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 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 liii Total Gallatin County ($000) Iii Total Park County ($000) Soum: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation {FDIC). WlvJvjdi,..gov. There arc 14 banking institutions with 26 total branches in the Bozeman market. Together, these Bozeman branches accounted for $1.58 billion, or 79.6 percent of Gallatin County's $1.98 billion total deposits by fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. In order of volume, First Security Bank, First Interstate Bank and Wells Fargo Bank received the most financial deposits, totalling 48.4 percent of the market. Jointly, these three banks account for 35 percent of the total branch locations within Bozeman (fable 34). Table 35 on page 38 shows that the city of Livingston has five banking organizations. Deposits made in Livingston branches totaled more than $248 million, or 81 percent of the $305 million dollars deposited in Park County. First Interstate Bank lead the way in total deposits with a 46.7 percent share, followed by American Bank (26.7 percent) and American Federal Bank (11.5 percent). T bl 34 B a e ozeman B kD an epos1 or e "t M k t Sh are ~Ji)-• eJ..:;'». .. tfliJI~ eT.~:;uu•••l ,IJt;j• eJ.."tnl~·· •••:•;Jr~1•1a~li!§f~ • lmJ'Jlmr§)~~ .. _, .n,.. .. "' ... .. ..... , le -• .nt -.. • R!LLII!!,' -• • ~dl:di&11 • -·~·· -. ·~ Institution Name Inside of Market Outside of Market #of Deposits Market #of Deposits ($000) Offices ($000} Share% Offices First Security Bonk 3 $338,279 21 .38% 5 $181 ,499 First Interstate Bonk 4 $231,257 14.61% 73 $5,699,265 Wells Forgo Bank 2 $196,523 12.42% 6,291 $923,965,477 US Bank 2 $1 84,7 41 11.68% 3,138 $235,154,922 Big Sky Western Bonk 3 $160,381 10.14% 98 $5,244,023 (Division of Glacier Bank) Stockman Bank of 2 $144,750 9.15% 28 $1 ,670,990 Montana American Bank 2 $105,049 6.64% 4 $152,277 American Federal Savings 2 $85,826 5.42% 1 1 $332,466 Bank Ba nk of Bozeman 1 $55,407 3.50% 0 $0 Mountain West Ba nk 1 $28,596 1.81% 12 $500,367 Rocky Mountain Bank 1 $24,646 1.56% 9 $343,061 First Montana Bank, Inc. 1 $10,548 0 .67% 8 $228,708 Yellowstone Bank 1 $7,752 0.49% 7 $351 ,745 Manhattan Bank 1 $8,588 0 .54% 3 $1 08,167 Total Number of 26 $1,582,343 100.00% 9,687 $1,1 73,932,967 Institutions in Market: 14 So11n-e: Federal Deposrl lnS11rtlll£"e Co,pora/ron {FDIC). }lfllt 7013. wwrvjdu:gov. Institution Name First Interstate Bank American Bank American Federal Savings Bank 1---- 1 #of Offices I I Deposits ($000) $11 5,765 $66,277 $28,41 9 Market Share 46.67% 26.72% 11.46% Outside of Market #of Offices 76 5 12 Deposits ($000) $5,814,757 $191,049 $389,873 -l-1 ------------------------------- Wells Fargo Bank r----.... ; Bank of the Rockies : T otaT~fu.,:;:,b~·; of 1 Institutions in Market: 5 1 -------------: 1 5 $24,103 9.72% 6,292 $924,137,897 ~--·· -·--------------· $13,483 5.44% 5 $89,11 5 t···----------------- 1 $248,047 100.00% 6,390 $930,622,691 Sortm: Federal Deposit Inmrante Copomtion (FDIC). Jrme 2013. rvwwjdit:gDl'. 2Ul-l I 1 <l'-.ll\111 ('](dill I Construction \V'ith continued improvement in the regional real estate market, construction activity has also maintained its momentum-especially in Gallatin County. Strong demand has prompted developers to move ahead with jobs ranging from infill projects to large subdivisions on a scale not seen since 2005.11 The charts below detail the number of construction flrms and number employed m construction in the two counties over the past ten years. Chart 10: Number of Construction firms -Gallatin and Park Counties 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ~allatin County .,.._Park County .So 11m: "Qtia!lerly Censm of E11;p!oynmt e--.. Wages. "B11rea11 of Labor J fatistks. IV Mil. b!s.gol'/ mv. :?0 13 i11formatio11 iJ' pre/imina']'· Chart 11 : Number of Construction Employees -Gallatin and Park Counties 7,000 6,172 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 -;-Gallatin County Park County .So 11m: '_'Qum1er(y Census of E!t;p!qymellt & If~' ages. "Bureaf/ of L1bor J fatistia. JVJllW.bLr.gov/ mv. :?0 13 infom1alio11 is pre!imi11atY· 11 Schattauer, Erin. "300-home subdivision passes commission approvaL" Bozema/1 Dai!y Chro11ide. July 9, 2014, www. bozemandail ychronicle. com. 2tJIJ It (l,tl\fH PH< !I I I As illustrated in Table 36 below, residential construction in Bozeman flourished in 2013, with a year- to-year increase of 112 percent over 2012. This nearly matches the impressive growth seen in 2012 of 123 percent growth over 2011. The healthy pace of construction looks to be continuing through 2014, with year-to-date total permit activity in Bozeman at 207 permits as of the end of June. Residential construction in Livingston also had quite an uptick in 2013, with an increase of 163 percent over 2012 figures. According to the City of Livingston's Building Department, 2014 has seen 15 new residential units and five commercial units year-to-date as of late July. I City of Bozeman Residential Commercial* I ; City of Livingston .. ·------·· .... ·~-·. Residential Commercial 955 670 42 48 n/a 19 n/a 764 45 n/a n/a 242 29 6 0 182 28 7 0 208 12 12 0 I 199 19 7 4 444 10 8 4 943 18 21 3 J fo11m: Ciry of Bo::;p11ol/ B11ilding Inspertion Divmon, Ci!J of Bo::;_eJJ/0/1 D,porlmml of CoJJ/JJJ/1/IIfJ Dn•elopJJt;nl. WJVIV.bozentnll.nel & Cit;· of Liz•i11gston '3mldmg Depnr!!Jtelll. *Not indlfding ltlltllll improz•emml commercial permits. Residential Building Permit Activity According to the City of Bozeman's Department of Community Development's 2013 Annual Report, there were approximately 18,918 dwelling units in the City of Bozeman as of 2013. From 2005 to 2013, single-household units remained the most common housing unit type permitted at roughly 40 percent, followed by multi-housing units at approximately 29 percent (fable 37). In 2013, 943 housing units were permitted by the city of Bozeman (Table 37). Of the total housing units, 42.6 percent were for single-household resid ences and 47.2 percent were for multi-unit housing developments. Since 2012, total permits o f all types were up 11 2 percent. Table 37 illustrates that the City of Bozeman had a slight decrease in the number of permits from 2010 to 201 1 and then significant year-over-year increases in 2012 and 2013. As compared to the peak of the housing boom in 2005 with 954 total permits, 201 3 is just 1.2 percent shy of the 2005 permit figures. However, the permits are much more concentrated in single-home and multi-unit permits for 2013 than the mix of permits seen between 2005 and 2007, as Chart 12 on page 41 makes clear. Single-house 265 257 214 93 71 144 160 255 401 Townhouse 63 63 71 35 12 20 4 34 60 Duplex 141 58 80 30 0 4 8 20 12 Triplex 105 45 33 9 3 0 0 6 0 Fourplex 1 1 92 44 32 32 4 4 8 24 Multi-unit 281 155 314 43 64 36 23 121 445 Manufactured 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 954 670 758 242 182 208 199 444 943 S o11rce: "20 13 Ci(y of Bo::;pt1n11 Dep111tJJJfl// of CoJJ/Itllflli!J• DeiJe!op!mlll. IVIVW.bo!:;pmm.mt. ©i1H<l..,l'l I( I Ill 'I 'I " '\.1 1\\(>1(1-. 21ll ~l• ""'II• l'n<lllll Chart 12: City of Bozeman Residential Building Permit Activity, 2005-2013 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 so 0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2012 2013 Iii Single li T ownhouse liil Duplex Iii Triplex B Fourplex 0 Multi W Manufactured So11m: "20 13 A nnual Repott. "Ci(y of Bo::;pnan Drpmtwmt of Co!l/1111/lll!J Dn•elopmm/. lVrvw.bo-:;_eman.mt. City of Bozeman Growth The City of Bozeman has expanded in geographic size over the years, as illustrated in Chart 13 on page 42. From 2008 to 2010, the City was approximately 19.25 square miles. Less than half o f an acre was annexed in 2011 (fable 38). However, this lull in growth ended in 201 2 with the annexation of 189 .OS acres. The additional annexation of 111 .02 acres in 2013 increased the size of the city to approximately 19.96 square miles. Chart 13 on page 42 shows the acres annexed annually since 1990. Ci of Bozeman Annexations, 2005-2013 (In Acres) Acres 444.50 716.80 468.26 103.50 0.00 0.00 0.3 7 189.05 111 .02 So 11m: ''20 13 A mmal llipott. "City of Bozeman Depatttmnt of Commmri()• Developmwt. lVIVlv.bo-:;_mmll.llet. Subdivision Activity T he D epartment of Community Development processed 43 subdivision applications and 20 subdivision exemption applications in 2013, a 153 percent increase over 2012. As illustrated in Table 39, in Bozeman there was a significant increase in both preliminary and final plat applications in 2013 compared to the 2008-2012 period. Zoning Activity In 2013 the Department of Conununity Development processed a similar amount of zoning applications compared to the volume processed in 2012 (Table 40). Zoning projects include site plans, conditional use permits, planned unit development concept plans and planned unit development preliminary plans. In 2013, the department also processed 12 zone map amendments, 4 master site plans, 34 final site plans, 3 master signage plans, 24 reuse/ further development applications, 2 zone code amendments, 4 variances, 1 appeal, 47 modifications to approved plans, 3 special temporary use permits, 1 sketch plans, 23 improvement agreements, 8 condominium conversions, 17 zoning verifications, 25 informal interviews and 547 business licenses. Site Plan 53 32 29 14 37 22 6 25 26 Conditional Use 14 23 6 5 14 13 9 19 17 Permits Planned Unit Oev. 6 3 2 0 0 Co nee Plan Planned Unit Dev. 7 6 2 0 0 0 0 Prelimina Plan Total 80 64 39 20 52 36 16 45 S oune: ''20 &port. "City of Bozeman Drpmtmmt of Con11mmi()· DeL•elopiJ/ml. II!Jvlv.bo::::_nJJtm.net. Chart 13: Annexation to the City of Bozeman, 1993-2013 (In Acres) 1200 '() a- co 1.() 1000 0. '-() q 0 800 '¢ CC! a-'() '"" I'-..-q I'- '¢ N ..-('") 0 '() I'-~ '() '<t '<t N '" :----'<t co '¢ co '<t '() '¢ '<t '¢ 600 f--lJ'"\ 1---I'-co 1.() 400 N 1.() q '() N '() 0 0. N '<t q N co 1.() co q '() 0 '<t ..--rr) .-.- ~·~ N 0 0 '-' 0 .-a-1.() 0. .-..-0 0 I'-..-..- 200 ('") ..-..-II M I q q ('") n ..-..-0 0 0 1:1 0 ('") '<t 1.() '() "' co a-0 N ('") '<t 1.() '() I'-co 0. 0 N ('") 0. a-a-0. a-"' a-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .-.- 0. a-a-a-0. "' a-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Soum: ''20 13Amlllal &pott. "Ci()• of Bozeman Departi)Jmt Co1mnuniry DevelopiJ/enl. JVJVJv.bo:;p11an.net. Montana enjoys favorable national rankings in terms of energy prices and emissions, but has high per capita energy consumption due to the energy intensive state economy. The state ranks well in terms of energy prices at 46'h in the VS for residential electricity prices, 3 7'h for residential natural gas prices and 42n..t for carbon dioxide emissions; however Montana ranks 13th for total energy consumed per capita. '4 \'\find power generation grew by a notable 32 percent in 2013 to supply si.-...: percent of the state's net electricity generation.1-l State energy consumption estimates by energy source are detailed in Chart 16 on page 44. l 1tility rates for Montana remained lower than national averages, with natural gas prices changing more En~rgy NorthWestern Recognized as one of Top 40 U.S. Energy Companies Fortnigh~y ranks U.S. energy companies using a model designed to compare shareholder value performance across a range of metrics, from profit margin to sustainable growth. Their 2013 report recognized NorthWestern Energy as number 38, up from number 47 in 2012. The Fortnightly 40 Best Energy Companies Public Utilities Fortnightly, September 2013 www.fortnightly.com dramatically than electricity or oil (fable 41 ). The largest shift in utility rates was in natural gas prices, with residential rates increasing by 21.9 percent (from S8.05 to $9.81 /thousand cu ft.) and city gate rates increasing by 21.5 percent (from $4.53 to $5.50/thousand cu ft.) between April 2013 and April2014. Residential and industrial electricity rates in Montana decreased by 1.7 percent (from 10.1 5 to 9.98 cents), and 2.4 percent (from 5.17 to 5.05 cents), respectively, while commercial electricity rates increased by 0.4 percent (from 9.51 to 9.54 cents) between April2013 and April2014. To bl U I R e4 ti ity ates ~ 00 lb llJ1ifn;t.l,t:!. ft '0' n eril[•liT•l • -1~1(ei(;J..-i(:..Vl;Ji • •l;J lrGJ..I!.L!.I .... Residential Electricity 9 .98 cents/kWh 12.31 cents/kWh April2014 Commercial Electricity 9 .54 cents/kWh 1 0.40 cents/kWh April 2014 Industrial Electricity 5 .05 cents/kWh 6.75 cents/kWh April2014 Petroleum Domestic Crude Oil $90.14/barrel $96.4 7 /barrel April 2014 Natural Gas-City Gate $5.50/thousand cu ft $5.54/thousand cu ft April 2014 Natural Gas -Residential $9.81 /thousand cu ft $11 .83/thousand cu ft April 2014 Coal $18.11 /short ton $39.95/short ton 2012 (Average Open Market Sales Price) Coal * $2.39/million Btu April2014 (Delivered to Electric Power Sector) . . . . Soum: "State Ene1:gy Infonna!Jo/1 Onmwv." E1m:gy lllfimna!toll A d!mmstmftOII. II!II!IP.eta.goz'. *Data IVJ/hheld to az'Oul dlsdom!'f of wdmdual <'OIItpaJ!)' data . :Volt: d(J' gate rrftn to the poi11l Jv/;ere 11atuml gas is tra11sjemd from a lmllsl!lissioll piptlille lo tbt /om/ gas utili()•. NorthWestern Energy provides regulated electric and natural gas transmission and distribution across Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Their electric service territory covers roughly 73 percent of Montana's land area. NorthWestern Energy serves 344,500 electric customers in 187 Montana communities with 6,900 miles of transmission lines, 17,500 miles of distribution lines and 262 megawatt of baseload power generation. With regards to natural gas, the utility provider serves 184,900 customers in 105 Montana communities with 2,000 miles of intrastate transmission pipelines, 5,000 miles of distribution pipelines and the capacity to store 17.75 Bcf of gas.15 1+ ".\fontana State Energy Profile." U.S. Energy Information :\dministration. www.eia.gov. I; "2014 Community \Vorks Report." & "2013 .·\nnual Report." ~orthwestern Energy. www.northwesternenergy.com. 'n l~ It l ,,,,11, P~\~111 1 In addition to pursuing the acqwsltlon of PPL Montana's hydroelectric facilities, NorthWestern Energy completed its largest natural gas production purchase to-date in northern Montanan in 2013. This pursuit of acquiring a diversified energy portfolio was also evident in the first full year of production for the 40-megawatt Spion Kop Wind Farm. Following a two-year phase-in period, 2013 also marked the first full year of production for the $380 million, multi-year Distribution System Infrastructure Project. '5 T bl 42 N rthW t a e 0 es ern E nergy . I H. hi. ht ( II lnOnCIO 191 19' s A states, D II h d o ars & Vo umes in T ousan s) ~ .WifJ I Wil@ ,-:on ~W'IIl•III•Lwt Net Income $98,406 $93,983 -4% Number of Customers 673,200 678,200 1% Number of Employees 1,430 1,493 4% Retail Volume Delivered Electric (megawatt hours) 1 0,1 12 10,247 1% Retail Volume Delivered Natural Gas (dekatherms) 26,417 30,31 1 15% Sotm-e: "20 13 Annual Report." Northwestem Energr IVIVIv.nortlnvestemmer:gy.<'ollf. As shown in Charts 15 and 16, Bozeman new connects have shown impressive growth in recent years. Charts 14 & 15: NorthWestern Energy New Connects, YTD June 2012-2 014 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 .lo11n-e: Belfaii!J', Hentl~er. No11hU7estern Emw. Coal tJc ural Ga s Motor( osoline exc . Ethonol Oistillat Fuel Oil Jet Fuel • 5.3 LPG ~ 8.5 Res dual Fuel 0.0 Other etroleum ~ 1\ uclear Elec ric Power 0.0 Hydroelec ric Power Bioma~ ~ 8.8 Other R newables l:i 12.4 -137.0 NI.T~ 1at.. ~low at .. -200.0 -150.0 -100.0 -50.0 0.0 !..., Electric lil 2012 li1 2013 ilooj 2014 r::::ll:r:::: I 175.2 58.2 ...'1 58.4 37.6 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 I 107.4 157.4 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 .loum: Stale E nergy Data ~·ystelll, Ene!J)' Infommtiou A dministration. www.eia.go1• . .!01-ll l I ),11\I{C Pl\llj I Gas lil 2012 11 2013 w2014 The health care industry represents about 10 percent of the state's economy as measured by GDP according to Gregg Davis, Director of Health Care Industry Research at the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana.'(• As reported previously, employment projections paint a promising picture for health care workers. A Montana Department of Labor and Industry's projections report states, "Because health care did not have job losses during the recession, health care occupations are the jobs with the greatest worker demand."'' Overall, health care's substantial labor challenges in Montana are driven by the need for new workers to fill open positions, an aging population and total population growth-with expectations for health care to add 2,100 jobs per year in Montana through 2021.>7 Montana's Uninsured38 With providing insurance for the uninsured as one of the major goals of the Affordable Care Act, researchers at the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana examined who is uninsured in Health Care Montana 5th in nation in 2013 Well-Being Index Moving up from 6th place in 2012, Montana remained in the top quintile for 2013 in the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index®, a measure of real- time changes in well-being throughout the world. The index examined Americans' perceptions on topics including physical and emotional health, healthy behaviors, work environment, social and community factors, financial security, and access to necessities such as food, shelter and health care to create a composite well- being rank for each state. State of American Well-Being: 2013 State Ran kings & Analysis Gallup-Healthways www. well-beingindex.com Montana and their reasons for not having health insurance. According to their survey findings, roughly 20 percent of the state's population, or 190,000 people, are without health insurance. Due to programs like l'viedicare and Healthy Montana Kids, the uninsured are "disproportionately concentrated in the working age groups" between 18 and 64 years of age. Roughly 76 percent responded that they were involuntarily uninsured, with the most commonly mentioned causes identified as a low-wage job, the expense of insurance and unemployment. Only 16 percent of those surveyed said that they were uninsured by choice. Slowdown in Health Care Spending38 Growth in total national health care spending has fallen to four percent since 2007, after averaging 7.6 percent between 2001 and 2007. While hospital spending has not decelerated, prescription drug spending has almost stopped, reflecting a transition for some major drugs to generic manufacturers. Administrative costs experienced a two year slowdown between 2007 and 2009, but have resumed their previous trajectory while physician office spending has seen an enduring slowdown. Overall, projecting health care costs is an increasingly complex task and prior slowdowns have resumed fast- paced growth later, so it cannot be assumed that the spending slowdown will continue. Montana Hcalthcarc Foundation Updatc·1? The Montana Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit established in 2013 due to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana's acquisition by Illinois-based Health Care Service Corporation, is estimated to average 11• ]\fontana Business Quarterly \r olume 50, Number 1, Spring 2012. University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research. "l.vww.bber.umt.edu. 17 Wagner, Barbara. ":\fontana Employment Projections 2011-2021." .\fontana Department of Labor and Industry, Research and :\nalysis Bureau. www.ourfactsyourfuture.mt.gov. ;x Barkey, Patrick i--,L and Paul E. Polzin. "Health Care: Changes in Health Care Landscape Not Limited to Obamacare." Outlook 2014. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University o f .\fontana. \VWw.bbcr.umt.edu. ~~ :\fontana Healthcare Foundation. www.montanahealthcarefoundation.org. roughly 57 million annually in grants in the future to improve the health status of ~fontanans. 1\ product of state law, the nonprofit is headquartered in Bozeman and dedicated to improving the health status of !vfontanans and to increasing the quality and accessibility of health care services for people across the state. It will work closely with the Department of Public Health and Human Service's Health Improvement Plan. Foundation Trustees are currently meeting with stakeholders to identify areas of greatest impact and opportunities to address system-level issues. Bozeman Deaconess Health Services40 Bozeman Deaconess Health Services (BDHS) offers comprehensive medical services designed to meet the diverse health care needs of community members throughout the greater Gallatin Valley, just as it has been doing for more than 100 years. As a non-profit o rganization, BDHS is responsible for the operations of Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, Bozeman Deaconess Health Group, Hillcrest Senior Living, Highland Park Medical Campus and Big Sky Medical Center, now under construction. Today Bozeman Deaconess Health Services is the largest private employer in Gallatin Valley with nearly 1,600 employees. Bozeman Deaconess Hospital is an 86-bed facility, Joint Commission accredited, licensed Level III trauma center. With more than 170 physicians and 45 providers on medical staff representing 36 specialties, the hospital has grown with the communities that surround it. Bozeman Deaconess Health Group is comprised o f 20 primary care and specialty clinics covering two dozen medical disciplines with more than 80 providers on staff. The primary care practices of Bozeman Deaconess Health Group were the first in Montana to receive National Committee for Quality Assurance Level III Medical Home Recognition. Hillcrest Senior Living Neighborhood is an adult retirement community featuring both independent living apartments and assisted living accommodations for more than more than 150 seniors and employs more than 80 full-time and part-time staff. BDHS is constructing the Big Sky Medical Center in Big Sky, Montana, set to open in fall 2015, to offer enhanced emergency and clinical medical services to the Big Sky and West Yellowstone communities. The 42,000-square-foot facility will include 24/7/365 Emergency Services with a heli- stop for air ambulance service. The facility will include an onsite diagnostic imaging center with general radiology, CT scanner, ultrasound, and mobile MRI, laboratory services, and an integrated pharmacy with extended retail pharmacy services. A primary care clinic and physical therapy services will also be onsite. The efforts of BDHS to provide top quality care in the safest manner possible have been recognized with many awards and accolades. In 2014, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital was named of the nation's 100 Top H ospitals by Truven Health Analytics, a leading provider of information and solutions to improve the cost and quality of health care. The hospital was one of only 20 selected in the Small Community Hospital category out of 871 nationwide. Bozeman Deaconess also was named one of the nation's 100 Great Community Hospitals by Becker's Hospital Review, based on the hospital's awards, quality of care and services provided to patients. And, Bozeman Deaconess was named a 2014 Healthstrong Hospital by iVantage Health Analytics®, a leading health care advisory and business analytic services company. Based o n ten equally rated "pillars of performance" at 4,299 acute care hospitals, BDH received a Hospital Strength Index™ rank of99.8. H ealthgrades, the leading provider of physician and hospital information for consumers presented BDHS with the Pulmonary Care Excellence Award for 2014, ranking the hospital in the top 5 percent fo r Overall Pulmonary Services, named BDHS a Five-Star recipient for Total Knee Replacement three years in a row (2012-2014) and a Five-Star recipient for treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Pneumonia and GI Bleed for 2014. ~~~ ~fartin, Constance. Director of i\farketing Communications, Bozeman Deaconess Health Services. www. bozemandeaconess .org. @ !'In I' I' I I( I 1~1 'I'-I " '-.I I 1\ 1 I)( 1.. ~Ill I 1.< c 1'-c •\lit I'Ht IIIII T bl 43 B a e ozeman D eo co ness H lth S eo erv1ces b th N lY e um b ers ~ f:leJ'.(;JIIllllll (i]:.J.Illlle111~~1 ~ ~:.J.I.'HIIl;J;"I ~ e111-"11le!-"1 25,485 emergency room visits 17,912 inpatient days 1,139 births 322,252 outpatient lab procedures 1, 923 inpatient surgical visits 132 coronary interventions 144 diagnostic cardiac catheterizations 3,77 5 outpatient surgical visits 2,590 inpatient EKG's 160,518 inpatient lab procedures 1,359 blood bank procedures 5,646 outpatient EKG's -' So11rce: 1\Imtm, Constance. Dtredor oj,\Iarketwg Comllllltl!l(!/IOIIJ, Bo:;pntm Deaco11ess Health Sn11tas. JVJIJJv.bo:;,emandetlt'OIIeJJ.oJ:g. Bozeman Deaconess Health Services is committed to providing health care as an essential community service. Any net income is reinvested into facilities, technology and health care services to ensure the facilities, equipment and treatment options are high-quality and up-to-date. Bozeman Deaconess provides medically necessary health care services for all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Financial assistance (or charity care) provided in 2013 was more than $10.3 million, while the estimated total benefits provided to the community was roughly S19.4 million (rable 44). T bl 44 B a e ozeman D eo co ness H lth S eo erv1ces c 't B ommun1ry ft St f f ene 1 0 IS ICS, 2013 £: ~II "IU~'iiT!m r: .. -·~ Financial ass istance (Charity Care) & unreimbursed costs (Medicaid) $10,357,650 Community health improvement services & benefit operations $481 ,810 Health professionals education $45,367 Subsidized health services $8,072,363 Cash & in-kind contributions to community groups $412,347 Total $19,369,537 ' So11n-e: ,\ltllt/11, Comtance. Dmdor oj,\Jarketmg LOIIJIIIIIIIWtltolls. Bo::;pl/(111 Deat"OIIf.IJ Het~!th Sm't<'es. IIJI/!W.hozemmtdta<'OIIess.oJ.'f,- Livingston HealthCare41 Since 1955, Livingston HealthCare has provided premier quality health care to the residents of Park County and surrounding communities. Livingston HealthCare keeps the community healthy with a broad scope of services, provided by well-trained and highly skilled professionals. Included in those services are a 25-bed critical access hospital, a multispecialty physician practice, rehabilitation services and home-based services. A nonprofit organization, Livingston HealthCare is governed by a board of directors populated by community volunteers. Table 45: Livin 5,005 emergency room visits 2,490 adult acute care patient days 89 births 441 total surgeries 7,677 total X-ray procedures 67,179 total lab tests Sollrce: Hamilton, AIJ!Y· Marketing and CoJmJJHni<'alions Coordinator, Uuingston HMithCart. Jvww.liz,ingstonbealtbmre.o!:g. T bl 46 L' . t a e IVlnQS On H lthC eo are c 't B ommunny f't St f f ene 1 0 IS ICS, 2012 r:r.:Jai;Jflt~ mar.rnn'tim Uncompensated care: patient financial assistance & cost of services written off as bad debt $2,335,338 Education, wellness & special events $69,383 Health professionals education $3,971 Other complimentary services (guest meals, taxi service etc.) $1,131 Financial & in-kind contributions $4,050 Total $2,413,873 ~ So11m: Ann11al Report. Fma/1 ear 2012, Ut•mgston HealtbCare. tvJvJV.I/IIIngstonbealtbmrr.otJ,. ·11 Hamilton, :\my. ?\Iarketing and Conununications Coordinator, Livingston HealthCare. \Wv'W.livingstonhealthcare.org. ©I'HI> ... I•II(\ Bt -.l'\.,1 ',, ,,, I 1\ )fili i • 1'(•\11( l''t\)111 l Higher Education42 Montana State University (MSU) in Bozeman was founded in 1893 and is considered a medium- sized public university (typically defined as schools with between 5,000 and 15,000 students). As Montana's first land-grant university, tvfSU is dedicated to serving the people of Montana. MSC provides education on four campuses (Bozeman, Billings, Havre and Great Falls), operates Montana Agricultural Experiment Stations and county Extension offices, and also conducts significant research and outreach. l'v1SU has been an economic anchor to the region's economy for many years and is the region's la rgest employer across all sectors. As of fall 2013, MSU employed 2,993 permanent faculty and staff positions, along with 543 graduate students as teaching and/ or research assistants. In addition to creating employment opportunities, the university conducts an average of $100 million in research annually, making it the largest research and development entity in the state. Research discoveries have led to more than 250 active technology licenses (as of June 2014) and much of the funding comes from out-of-state sources like the National Institutes of Health and the Departments of E nergy, Defense and Agriculture, which also contributes to the state's economy. According to l"vfSC's 2010 Economi.· Impad Report, as a result of the presence of the MSU system statewide (excluding MSU Extension): 13,511 Montana jobs arc available statewide; more than S897 million in after tax personal income is generated; Montana receives $2.60 in tax revenues for every $1 of tax support; the presence o f MSU increases annual wages in Montana by $1,087 and MSU increases investment spending in Montana's economy by $349 .3 million. Many companies benefit fr om university research and infrastructure. MSU has spun off a number of successful companies that help to drive Montana's economy. Examples include: Takeda Vaccines -Originally called LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals, the company spun out of MSU in 1999 by Dr. Rob Bargatzc upon completion of his doctorate in immunology and infectious diseases. The company is working to create a vaccine for Norovirus, a common illness with 23 million cases annually. LigoCyte was acquired in 2012 by Takeda for more than $60 million and currently has 45 employees with plans to add more. Bridger Photonics -A world leader in laser-based techno logies for precise and fine distance measurement, Bridger Photonics was created by two graduate students, Peter Roos and Randy Reibel, when they graduated with doctoral degrees in physics and electrical engineering. Bridger Photonics employs more than 20 people, collaborates with the university and hires primarily MSU photonics graduates. Montana 8,056 968 9,024 59% Other U.S. 4,732 902 5,634 37% Foreign 381 122 503 3% Unknown 95 38 133 1% Total 13,264 2,030 15,294 100% Source: "Student Demographit-s. "Mollldlla Stale U11iJ1ersiry O.!Jiu of Planning & Ana!ysis. wwJv.monlalltl.edll/ opa. j2 Cook, Lee and Julie Kipfer. ~fontana State University 0-Iarketing and Creative Services. www.montana.edu. 2tolll I ll,ll\111 1'11111 I MSU Facts & Stats • Student-Faculty Ratio: 19:1 • Fall 2013 Enrollment: 15,294 students (7 6 percent Full-time) • Average Age-Undergraduate Student: 22 • Degrees Offered: 60 Baccalaureate, 45 Moster's, 20 Doctoral • Degrees Awarded 2012-2013 : 2,562 0 Non-Degree Certificate: 9 0 Certificate: 47 0 Associate of Applied Science: 28 0 Bachelor's Degrees: 1,924 o Moster's Degrees: 505 o Doctoral Degrees: 49 • Research & Creative Project Funding Awarded in 2012: $93 Million • Estimated Undergraduate Tuition & Fees 2013-14: o Resident: $6,752, Non-resident: $20,716 • Tu ition & Fee Revenue 2012-13: $119,321 ,518 (69 percent of all revenue) • State Allocation Revenue 2012-13: $46,804,973 (27 percent of all revenue) • Total Expenditures 2012-13:$172,723,494 Somre: '.'Quitk Facls: 2013-201-1. "Montana Stale Uninrsi!J' Office of Plttlllltllg & Aua(y.ris. WWJIJ.f!I0/1/una.edll/ opa. As stated by MSU, it has the distinguished reputation of being, "designated as one of 108 researcb wtit;mities with 'very high rman·h aditn(y' by the Carnegie Foundation for the /ldt;ancement of Teaching. MSU ~tfi:rs signtficant opportunities for resean·h, scholarship, and a-eative work. This highest tier daJSijimtion -ottt of -1,600 institutions -distinguishes MSU as the onb' institution in the jo11r-state region rij'Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, and South Dak ota to achieve this level rij'resean·h prominence. " A few of the recognitions and awards that Montana State University has achieved include the following: • MSU was ranked no. 26 on Great Value College's 2014 list of "The 50 Most Technologically Advanced Universities" which included universities all over the world. • MSU is among the top fifteen colleges and universities in the nation for number of Goldwater Scholarship recipients. As of 2014, 61 MSU students have received the Barry M. Goldwater Scholarship, the nation's premier scholarship for undergraduates studying math, natural sciences, and engineering. • MSU has produced ten Rhodes Scholars. The tenth Rhodes scholarship, arguably the most prestigious scholarship in the world, was given to an MSU student in 2012. Gallatin College MSU MSU also has an affiliated two-year college that is part of the university, Gallatin College MSU. Gallatin College offers short-term workforce degrees, developmental coursework to build skills for college, and dual enrollment courses for high school students. Providing flexible, affordable education is a top priority. One-and two-year workforce degree programs include: aviation, bookkeeping, CNC machine technology, design drafting technology, health information coding, interior design, medical as sistant, and welding technology. Gallatin College also offers Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degree programs. ©t'l'thl'l 1t1 1St '1'-1 ,, '\.1 1\\<~t.,, According to the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) at the University of Montana, despite slow growth in the overall U.S. economy, increased domestic oil and gas production is anticipated to keep energy costs down and to boost U.S. manufacturing. The 170 Montana manufacturers who responded to an annual BBER survey expressed strong optimism overall. More than 47 percent of respondents expected improved conditions in 2014, compared to 40 percent in 2013. As in 2012 and 2013, more than 90 percent of manufacturers surveyed by the BBER expect to keep their workforce at the sam e level or increase employment in 2014. Less than 10 percent expect declines in production, prices and gross sales, while seven percent anticipate a decline in employment and 14 percent anticipate decreased pro fits.4' Bozeman area respondents had a much improved outlook in the 2014 survey as compared to 2013, with 90 percent anticipating growth and expansion and only five percent expecting a decrease in employment.41 As for Gallatin County, 2011 labor income for the manufacturing sector was third highest in the state and accounted for Manufacturing Industry Improvements Expected to Continue Manufacturing remains a critical component of Montana's economy, providing jobs with higher than average wages and producing significant added value to Montana's economy. For the last th ree years, manufacturing showed improvements in employment, worker earnings and outputs-with 201 1, 2012 and 2013 each outpacing the prior year. The outlook for 2014 is quite positive, with manufacturers expecting higher sales, increased production levels, increased employment and greater profits among most of the manufacturing sectors. Outlook 20 7 4 Bureau of Business and Economic Research www.bber.umt.edu approximately 15 percent of the county's economic base.4' The success of manufacturing in the area can be attributed in part to Montana State University's role in supporting the industry and also due to widespread community support and acceptance of manufacturing jobs.44 Gallatin County's 214 manufacturing companies employed 2,659 people in 2013.45 Park County's manufacturing sector employed 391 people at 34 establishments.45 Between 2010 and 2013, manufacturing employment figures in Montana increased by 12 percent (fable 48). T bl 48 M a e f anu acturing E . M t mp oyment 111 o n ona, 2010 & 2013 ,..T;:r•i• ~ tzil18E -~~tleTtT~T;l Wood, paper & furniture 4,216 4,158 -1 % Food & beveraqe 3,545 3,900 10% Primary and Fabricated Metals 2,063 3,180 54% Chemicals, petroleum & coal 2,085 1,880 -10% Machinery 1,168 1,400 20% Nonmetallic minerals 938 1,700 81 % Textiles, clothing & leather goods 784 831 6% Computers, electronics & appliances 641 749 17% All other manufactu ri nq 4,362 4,350 0% Total 19,802 22,148 12% So11rte: t\"Iory,nn, Todd A., Ste1•en If?: Hqyes nnd Colm B. Sormson. "Alontann's Mamifarfltnng lndusfl)•: lmprovetnents E.-..perted to Contm11e. "20/.J EaJI/omir Otlllook. Buret~ll of Business and E,wromir Reumrh, University of Alontmra. www.bber.tllJJt.edn. *EJtimate. 41 ;\Iorgatl, Todd .\., Steven \V Hayes and Colin B. Sorenson. "Montana's Manufacturing Industry: Improvements Expected to Continue." Outlook 2014. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of~lontana. W\V\V. b ber. umt.edu. H Morgan, Todd.\. ":-.lantana :-.Ianufacturing & Forest Products: 2014 Outlook." February 5, 2014. Outlook 2014 Presentation. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. 4; "Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages." Bureau of Labor Statistics. www.bls.gov/cew. 2013 informacion is preliminary. ©1'1.1 hi" I I<\ l$1 '1'-1 '' "\,1 I\\ liHJ... 211l ll.lll'-ll\ll( l'l<llllll Challenges to Manufacturing Growth in Montana: 2013 Survey Findings46 A series of focus groups and a quantitative survey of 415 small manufacturers in Montana were used to develop a proftle of the manufacturers, assess their plans for the future, evaluate current and future growth constraints and identify key service needs. A diverse cross-section of business types was captured in the survey, from metal fabricators and \vood products producers to food, tobacco or alcohol and textile and apparel producers. More than 70 percent had less than ftve employees, with 40 percent having no employees. Twenty-si.:'i: percent had been in business ten years or less, while 21 percent had been in business for over 30 years. Over 75 percent worked solely in their manufacturing establishment. In general, food manufacturers, larger firms and businesses owned by younger individuals were significantly more optimistic about the future than other respond ents. Manufacturers in the Montana Economy The manufacturing sector produces over $13 billion in output (soles) each year and reports $1 .5 billion in exports annually. Statewide, 3,146 companies directly employ 21 ,146 workers, including sole proprietors. These jobs provide an average annual wage of roughly $43,000, compared to the $35,000 overage for all Montana workers. Each manufacturing job results in an average of 2.6 related jobs. The State of Montano Manufacturing, 20 13 Bureau of Business and Economic Research www.bber.umt.edu Regarding anticipated growth, 25 percent expected to make major capital expenditures in 2013 and more than 35 percent felt it was a good time to expand their business. Fourteen percent stated that they had immediate job openings. Primary obstacles to growth were identifted as sales-related (demand for their product) and also supply-related issues including production and labor costs and government regulations and taxation. Critical cost concerns included: health insurance, workers compensation, energy, hiring (and training), qualified employees, foreign competition, raw materials and business equipment taxes . Over 35 percent of manufacturers felt that it was more difftcult in 2013 to access financing than in 2012, with 17 percent stating that it was less difficult. One key theme that emerged among those surveyed was concern about a lack of manufacturing infrastructure. This expanded view of infrastructure included input suppliers, maintenance organizations and support services. Resulting outcomes from infrastructure deficiencies included additional transportation costs for supplies purchased out-of-state, outsourcing some advanced processes out-of-state and lengthy production delays due to reliance on distant maintenance and repair firms. In order to support manufacturers in Montana, the survey found that the ancillary businesses that provide the necessary inputs, maintenance and other support need to be considered and encouraged. Five key training needs identified by small manufacturers, in rank order, were: marketing, efficiency, access to fmancial capital, sales and ftnding qualifted employees. In addition to a lack of skilled labor with both technical and soft skills and a quality-oriented mindset, pressure from the economic boom in the Bakken oil patch has been influencing both wages and retention for manufacturing firms. Several manufacturers felt that apprenticeship programs would be beneficial for addressing the lack of skilled labor. With a much clearer picture of the small manufacturers in Montana and their needs now established, the various challenges facing these businesses can ideally be addressed m ore directly and cohesively to facilitate economic development and job growth in this key sector. ~~.Holland, Steve and George Haynes. Challengu to Alam!f(Muring GroJVtiJ in Montana: 2013 i'vlontana Small i\1am!/adurers Survey. i\Iontana Manufacturing Extension Center. www.mtmanufacturingcenter.com. ,\fter a weak start to 2014, the nationwide real estate market rebounded and gained momentum in the spring and summer thanks to low mortgage rates, moderating price gains and a greater supply of homes on the market.47 A continued decrease in distressed sales (short sales and foreclosures), a surge in home construction starts and growth in applications for building permits were also promising indicators that housing would not persist as the economic weak spot on an otherwise strengthening 47 economy. In keeping with this nationwide improvement, Gallatin County experienced a 17.8 percent increase in the number of homes sold in 2013 as compared to 2012, with an 8.7 percent increase in the average sale price and an 11 day reduction in the days on market. Park County saw a 19.4 percent increase in the number of houses sold, a rebound in the average sales price by 36.2 percent and a 17 day Real Estate A Strong Year for Area Real Estate According to Robyn Erlenbush, broker/ owner of ERA Landmark Real Estate, "The forecast for the remainder of 2014 will hopefully keep pace at or near 2013. The second half of 2013 was o ne of the strongest markets we have seen since prior to the recession. The increase in new construction, out-of-state buyer demand, and continued job growth will lead the way and help us finish strong." Bozeman Daily Chronicle Business Journal July 29, 2014 www.bozemandailychronicle.com reduction in the days on market for its single family residences (fable 49). a e m~e amr1y esr T bl 49 s· I F ·1 R 'd ence ren s -a a rn an T d G II f d p k c or f oun res, 2011 2013 - ~ .... r. ='~"' 1hftdl~ •• P.t • nil _n • ~ -• -~--. ...,n l::IU !S -.. "'-'•n•Jut~ Gallatin County 2011 911 $298,881 ,810 $328,081 $237,500 112 2012 1079 $362,263,1 78 $335,739 $253,750 101 2013 1271 $463,579,851 $364,736 $279,500 90 Bozeman and Surrounding Area 2011 600 $188,477,4 7 4 $314,129 $252,250 100 2012 738 $250,568,429 $339,523 $278,750 92 2013 839 $310,851,171 $370,501 $300,000 82 Belgrade and SurroundinQ Area 201 1 182 $35,750,451 $196,431 $175,000 1 01 2012 191 $37,995,674 $198,930 $175,000 81 2013 242 $57,322,288 $236,868 $195,000 58 Park County 2011 150 $34,603,918 $230,692 $165,000 176 2012 160 $32,416,606 $202,603 $146,500 132 2013 191 $52,690,655 $275,867 $189,950 115 LivinQston and Surrounding Area 2011 110 $18,544,518 $168,586 $142,750 132 2012 132 $20,657,606 $156,497 $135,000 11 4 2013 139 $26,852,215 $193,181 $168,500 85 So11m: Southwnl J\fonlalla lii11111ple Listmg Semu. Gallat/1/ Assocta!Joll oJRraltors. IVWJv.ga//atmrtallors.cot/1. ~7 Rugaber, Christopher S. "US housing recovery appears to be back on track." :\ssociated Press. Bozeman Dai!y Chronide. _-\ugust 21, 2014. \Vww.bozemandailychronicle.com. ©f'l<l>,l'l I!\ Ill ·"I" '\,1 1\\l>Rh 211111.1 "'<l\111 f't(<>llll As illustrated in Charts 17 & 18, the trends for single family residences in 2013 reflect improving conditions for southwestern Montana since 2009. Chart 17 : Number of Single Family Homes Sold -Gallatin and Park Counties, 2006-2013 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012 201 3 ~allatin C ounty .... Park County S omre: S o11tlnvrst Montana Af11ltiple Usting S m'i<"e. Gallatin ~ssodation ~f Realtors. rvrvrv.gallatinrealtot:r.rom. Since 2009 Bozeman, Belgrade and Livingston have all seen yearly increases in the number of single family homes sold (Chart 18). As compared to 2012, annual sales figures for 2013 in Bozeman were up 13.7 percent; Belgrade's sales experienced 26.7 percent growth; and Livingston saw an increase in sales of 5.3 percent. Chart 18: Number of Single Family Homes Sold -Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston and Surrounding Areas, 2006-2013 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2006 2007 2008 Bozeman 2009 2010 2011 2012 Belgrade Livi ngston J 011m : S 011/hwest Montana AI11Itip/e Luling Service. Gtl!lalin Assodaliond Realtors. www.gallalinrealtorMo/n. ©1'1(1 '"''"ill,,,,""' '""'(" ~I Ill ! I .,11\lll Pl\1 \ I i 2013 While a portion of houses in the region have continued to be sold as short sales or have gone into foreclosure, both Gallatin and Park Counties have seen considerable reductions in these distressed sales (Tables SO & 51). In Gallatin County short sales represented 2.95 percent of total sales, while foreclosures accounted for only 7.38 percent of total homes sold in 2013. Park County short sales represented 2.1 7 percent of homes sold as short sales and foreclosures accounted for 13.04 percent. As compared to prior years, healthier real estate sales appear to be gaining ground in the region. Gallatin County 2011 146 $30,416,526 $208,332 $150,000 1,439 10.15% 2012 137 $26,968,695 $196,851 $155,000 1,698 8.07% 2013 58 $12,222,626 $210,734 $160,750 1,966 2.95% Park County 2011 6 $1,290,789 $215,131 $158,894 180 3.33% 2012 11 $1,831,500 $166,500 $135,000 204 5.39% 2013 5 $1,182,800 $236,560 $145,000 230 2.17% Source: Southwest Montano J\fultiple Iisting S ef7Jice. Galla/ill Asso,iotion of Realtors. IVI/JW.gollatinrealtors.rom. *Total number of sales indudes all midmtial property rJpes. G allatin County 2011 291 $54,618,762 $187,693 $150,000 1,439 20.22% 2012 247 $48,304,410 $195,564 $155,500 1,698 14 .55% 2013 145 $30,879,379 $212,961 $1 70,100 1,966 7.38% Park County 201 1 41 $3,796,100 $92,587 $80,000 180 22.78% 2012 43 $5,383,005 $125,186 $105,000 204 21.08% 2013 30 $5,453,600 $181,786 $138,400 230 13.04% Source: Southwest 1\fontotltl i\1ultiple Iisting Sef7Jice. Gallatin A ssot'iatJOII of Realtors. WIVIv.gallatinrraltors.f0/11. *Total 1111111ber of sales indudes all residential prope1J• types. The Bozeman area is arguably the high-tech center for the state of Montana: from notable software development firms to biotechnology companies and laser and optics innovators, the Gallatin Valley is home to a diverse and collaborative community of technology start-ups. In addition to Montana State University's strong research presence, technology development endeavors and high caliber graduate pool, southwestern Montana's high quality of life-including the wealth o f recreational opportunities-has created an attractive setting for visionary technology company foundcrs.4x To meet demand for high-tech workers in the state, a number of initiatives are underway to encourage Montana high school students to explore computer programming and to recruit students into university computer sc1ence programs and the two-year colleges' information h l 1 4'! so tee no ogy career c uster. · While IT infrastructure in the area is fairly solid, Montana nevertheless ranks 47th in the nation in broadband speed, Technology New Statewide High Tech Business Alliance Formed The Montana High Tech Business Alliance, a membership-based organization focused on creating more high-tech jobs in Montana, was formed in the spring of 2014. The Alliance was formed with a mission to accelerate the growth, global competitiveness and national visibility of Montana's high-tech industry. Initial projects include a web-based high-tech jobs portal, networking events and efforts to spotlight the successes of member firms. Press Release, April 25, 20 14 Montana High Tech Business Alliance www.mthightech.org with Bozeman ranking lOth in the state.51 A Bozeman-area broadband project is in its master planning phase and a completed plan is anticipated by early 2015.51 T he plan will evaluate what is currendy available and identify methods for reducing the cost of high-speed internet service, increasing access to affordable broadband and improving fiber-optic network infrastructure. 51 BioTechnology Montana biosdence t·ompanies are hi1ing talented graduates from our states higher education .rystem and giving them the oppo1ttmiry to make stientfjit· breakthroughJ that improve quali!J oflije around the world. Governor Ster;e Bullotk, BioSdem-e Under the Big S~y 20 14 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. As of 2012, the industry employed nearly 2,559 people at 368 establishments in Montana, and average wages within the industry were nearly $20,000 higher than the average private sector wage in Montana.52.s:1 Between 2009 and 2013, 158 patents were issued in bioscience-related technologies.4H Bozeman has the largest concentration of bioscience companies in Montana, with 33 percent of the state's bioscience companies. 54 The industry's employment growth is shown in Chart 19 on page 56. 4H Friesenhahn, Ray. "Yision 2020: .\Regional Strategic and Economic Development Plan for the ;.,Iontana Optics & Photonics Industry Cluster." Montana Optia and Photonia Industry Cluster Regional Strategi·· Plan. 2013. 4~ Lutey, Tom. ":\Iontana slow to meet demand for high-tech industry jobs." Billings Gazette. December 21,2013. www.billingsgazette.com . ;u Jannota, Sepp. "Gianforte fWlds efforts to bring more computer science students to l\ISU." MSU Ne1vs Seroi,·e. October 3, 2013. www.montana.edu. '>1 Bacaj, Jason. "Bozeman picks vendor for broadband planning." Bozeman Dai(y Chronide. :-.Iay 20, 2014. W\V\v.bozemandailychronicle.com. ;z "State Profile-Montana." Battelle/ BIO State Biosdem'l! jobs, InveJtments and Innovation 2014. W\V\v.bio.org. '>l "BioScience Under the Big Sky 2014." ~Iontana BioScience .-\lliance. \V\VW.montanabio.org. ;~"BioScience Under the Big Sky 2013." :\Iontana BioScience :\lliance. \\7\V\v.montanabio.org. ©l'lt<l,l'f HI llt '1'-• "'-1 II\• >I<"-~Ill~ I"""'" I'>( IIIII Chart 19: Montana Bioscience Employment Growth Rate, 2001-201 1 Montana 0% 10% 300/o 400/o 50% Source: Eamotni<" Modeling Spmo/ists, Inti. (EAISJ) (1//d RTS. :!0 1:! in ''Montona BioSdmt"e Cluster Ret'isited. "BioSde1ue U11der the Btg SA:y 2013. ,Uo11fono BioSamre Al/uma. WIIIIIJ.IliOnlmurbio.ot.-g. Optics and Photonics Industry Another key technology industry driver in the region is the optics and photonics industry, used to inclusively reference companies working in imaging, signal processing, sensing and detection, signal modulation, optical materials and fiber optic communications.411 Bozeman is now home to twice the number of optics companies per capita as T ucson, Arizona, which is widely regarded as a major center of the optical industry. 55 Many of these companies were founded by Montana State University (NISU) graduates, often through MSU technology transfer.56 In the fall of 2014, MSU will begin offering a new master's degree and a minor in optics and photonics.55 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.48 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.48 A formal industry cluster, the Montana Photonics Industry Alliance, was formed in October 2013. It serves as a network of Montana optics and photonics companies, entrepreneurs, laboratories and universities focused on commercializing, growing and sustaining globally leading organizations that create high quality jobs and economic opportunity in Montana.57 ;; J annota, Sepp. "i\.ISU adds new master's degree, minor in laser and imaging optics." iHSU Nnvs Servi,·e. ~larch 7, 2014. WW\v.montana.edu. ;t, "Montana optics-related companies." Optical Technology Center, Montana State University. http:/ I www.optec.montana.edu/ companies.html. 57 :-.fontana Photonics Industry _\lliance. www.montanaphotonics.org. 211)4 l.1 "'11\lll l'H<IIIII Montana is known for its vast beauty and wealth of outdoor activities. The landscapes that Gallatin and Park Counties encompass are arguably some of the best examples of Montana's natural attractions. With mountain ranges lining the valleys, pristine rivers running through them and Yellowstone National Park just a short drive away, the two counties offer a tremendous variety of outdoor recreational opportunities. Such amenities have established tourism as a major component of the area's economy. According to Norma Nickerson, Director of the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the Tourism & Recreation A Record-Breaking Year for Montana Tourism The state of Montana hosted over 11 million visitors in 2013. These visitors added over $3.6 billion to Montana's economy, a 1 0 . 7 percent increase from 2012 and a number that shattered the 2007 visitor spending record. Governor Steve Bullock News Release, May 20 14 Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research Data University of Montano www.itrr.umt.edu University of Montana, "The natural environment draws many people to !\.fontana-to visit and to live. Protecting our unique landscape is important for the economic success of the state."5R Nearly half of nonresident v1s1tors who spent time in Montana in 2012 indicated vacation/recreation/pleasure as a reason for visiting, and 87 percent of these visitors were primarily attracted to the state's landscapes and outdoor recreation-these vacationers accounted for over half of nonresident spending in 2012.5x Economic Impact The economic impact of the travel and recreation industry is considerable. Highlights include: • 11 million visitors came to Montana in 2013 resulting in 11 new customers per Montana resident for main street businesses s•; • Visitors spent $3.62 billion in Montana in 2013611 o T his spending directly supported $2.85 billion o f economic activity and indirectly supported $1.62 billion of economic activity, including induced impacts, bringing the total contribution attributed to nonresident spending to $4.47 billion('1' • Of the 56 counties in Montana, Gallatin County had the highest amount of estimated spending in 2012-2013. The two-year spending average in Gallatin County was $666.8 million, with a combined estimated in1.pact of $748.9 million.c.1 • Visitor spending generated $236 million in state and local tax revenue in 20135'! • In-state travel spending by Montana residents was estimated at nearly $695 million in a 2011- 2012 study of pleasure trips more than 50 miles away from home, with an estimated combined contribution of $1.03 billion when including direct, indirect and induced impacts62 • Every dollar spent on advertising yielded $152 in visitor spending in Montana59 • Tourism and recreational businesses support 48,260 Montana jobs59 ;x 1ickerson, 1 orma. "Travel and Recreation: The Economics of "\Ve Like it Here!"" Outlook 2014. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of ::-.fontana. www.bber.umt.edu. >'! ";..Iontana's Tourism & Recreation Industry Fast Facts." June 2014. Montana Office of Tourism . http:/ /travelmontana.mt.gov. Gu Grau, Kara. "2013 i\Iontana Nonresident Traveler Expenditures and Economic Contribution." :.fay 201-l. Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, University of i\Iontana. www.itrr.umt.edu. 61 Grau, Kara. "Economic Contribution of Nonresident Travel Spending in ~lontana Regions and Counties." July 2014. Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, University of :\lontana. www.itrr.umt.edu. r.2 Grau, Kara and Norma Nickerson. "Resident Travel and In-State Yacation Characteristics." November 2012. Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, University of :\fontana. "vww.itrr.umt.edu. ©I'!<< hi'! HI Ill ,1,1 '''\.;! 111•>1:" 'III I I '"'11\110 1'1«11111 • Visitor spending provides $1.3 billion in worker salaries, one in every nine Montana workers is supported by out-of-state travel5~ • Statewide, the leisure & hospitality industry accounts for about 16.6 percent of private employment, as compared to a national average of 12.3 percentr.3 • 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 $549 in local and state taxes (based on total tax revenue/total households)5~ Chart 20 details the distribution of visitor expenditures in 2013, the distribution is nearly identical to the 2012 expenditures allocation. Chart 20: 2013 Visitor Expenditures in Montana 10% Iii Retail Sales Iii Hotel, Motel Iii Grocenes, Snacks liiil Auto Rental Iii Outf1tter,Guide liiil Rental Cab1n, Condo liil Campground, RV Park Iii Licenses, Entrance Fees w Transpo rtation Fares k:l Veh1 cle Repa1rs ~ M1sc. Serv1ces Farmer's Market k:!Gambl1ng liiiiGasolme Iii Restaurant, Bar S o11m: "20 13 Montana Nomtsirlent Traveler Expmdit11res and Eco11omi.-Co11trib11tion." Mqy 2014. l1Jstit111e for To11rism & &a1!alio11 &sean·h, UniNrsitJ• oj!l fonlana. JVJvw.illr.tlnll.edtt. Fig11res do 1101 s/111/ to 100% due to ro11nding. Key fmdings in the MT Tourism BusinesseJ 2013 Ret;iew; 2014 O~ttlook report from the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana include: • 60 percent of tourism business owners surveyed experienced an increase in visitation in 2013, many said their increase was 10 percent or higher • Tourism business owners surveyed were generally hopeful about the outlook for 2014, with 57 percent stating that they expected an increase in visitation, 39 percent expecting business to stay the same and only 4 percent expecting a decrease • Scenic driving remains the top activity by nonresident visitors and a study of residents found that 77 percent use paths far walking, jogging and biking and 72 percent use hiking trails • 90 percent of visitors arrive in the state via the roadways, with the largest portion (13 percent) entering from the west on I-90 • 95 percent of Montanans say outdoor recreation is important to their quality of life r.l Connell, \XTillie. "Casting a \X'ider Net: How travel and recreation in Montana benefit individuals, the economy, and the landscape." J\.1ain Street Afontana Summer 2013. ;\Iontana Department of Labor and Industry. www.dli.mt.gov. 2111~ f.< ll,ll\111 J'I(OI III 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 travel-related businesses; and induced impacts result from purchases by those employed in travel-related occupations. The totals in Table 52 are the combination of these three impacts. T bl 52 E a e . I t f N conom1c mpac so .d t T onres1 en rave ers, 2011 2013 - 1\1\. .... """-.......n. .... ~ ..n. ·~!! ...... n. ..... IC!ridJ 11 .n.. ILT.4fili1Cilii•l ~•IIILWI-'1£•r-:Iiil\~l • • -• ••••llr•••m .. Ulll!l!l!lf::11• • J•:i•IW:Ial•m•n~"ll Year Industry Output Employment Employee Compensation Proprietor Income 201 1 $3,334,300,000* 38,840* $896,200,000* $157,1 00,000* 2012 $4,232,800,000* 42,900* $1,056,800,000* $195,800,000* 2013 $4,472,900,000 48,260 $1,27 6,250,000 $229,160,000 Year Other Property Type State & local Avg. Expenses per Day Total Expenditures Income Taxes per Group 2011 $546,200,000* $275,700,000 $131 .88 $2,77 4,340,000 2012 $602,900,000* $305,600,000 $138.77 $3,268,700,000 2013 $668,570,000 $236,080,000 $161 .19 $3,624,480,000 Soun·e: ''2013 1\lonlm10 Nonrestdmt Trm1tler Expmdtiiii'U ami Economtc Contnbulton. "June 2014. Ins/tittle for Totmsm c..,. Recrealton Resetllrh. Unirersi(J• ofAionlontl. IV/11/V.iln:uml.edu. *Pm,ious!y fl!pottedfigures for 2011 and 2012 were indiiSit'f of direct impads on!J•, not t'0111bimd i111pad figures. Table 53 contains nonresident traveler statistics for 2013. Montana saw a 2.3 percent increase (from 10,769,000 to 11,020,000) in total nonresident visitor numbers between 2012 and 2013. Group size increased slightly for the year, from 2.23 in 2012 to 2.27 people per group in 2013, while length of stay decreased from 4.89 to 4.64 nights. Average daily expenditures increased by a considerable 16 percent over 2012 figures, from $138.76 to $161.19. There was very little change on the whole in terms of visitation distribution and expenditures across the quarters. Nonresident 1,318,000 2,890,000 5,117,000 1,694,000 11,020,000 Visitors %of Total 12% 26% 46% 15% 100% Nonresident 650,000 1,322,000 2,075,000 824,000 4,871,000 Travel Grou s %of Tota l 13% 27% 43% 17% 100% 2.04 2.19 2.49 2.05 2.27 4.24 3.99 5.23 4.54 4.64 $152.47 $142.39 $163.77 $180.72 $161.19 Ex enditures $420,470,000 $751 1150,000 $1,776,950,000 $675,910,000 $3,624,480,000 %of Total 12% 21 % 49% 19% 100% Sorm-e: ''20 13 Jo.Ionlana l'lonresident TmvelerQumter!J Trani Compmison. "MardJ 201+. Institnte for Tomism and Recreation Reseonb, Uni1•ersiry of !\fontana. IVJJJJJJ.iln:lllllt.edu. ©I'HII'I'II(\ Ill '"'""' l\\111(1-. 21111 !.1 "'""" J'Hilllll --l Visitation Dynamics Chart 21 : 2013 Vacationer State/Province Residencies Woshongton Idaho Alberto, Canada Wyomong North Dakolo Calolorn1a Colorado Monnesota Utah Oregon Bntosh Columboa, Canada Texas W1scons1n Anzona South Dakota Flonda 0.0% I I 2.0% I 1 I I I I I I I I 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% Percentage of V1s1tors Surveyed I 10.0% 12.0% Soura: CriSIOIII Repo1t, Nouresidwt TraNI Srtn'!Y Repo11 Data. Instit11fe for Tourism e:"' Retreation Resean'h, Unim1iry ~(Afon/aua. 1/JIVIIJ.t/IT.JIItlf.edu. Montana offers a great variety of activities for travelers who hail from a wide range of places as illustrated in Chart 21. Vacationers cite many reasons for coming to Montana, but most are drawn to the state because o f its beautiful mountain scenery and wide open spaces, with a fairly consistent top ten attractions cited by vacationers from year to year (Table 54). A new item on the top ten list in 2013 was "Family /Friends" as an attraction. Also, an impressive 84 percent of nonresident visitors surveyed in the first three quarters of 2013 plan to return to Montana within the next two years.58 T bl 54 M t a e on ana s I T op f v rae 1ons or l 0 Att f f aca toners, 2013 A -liR1~Lilir•1i l]lt;)f..i\'lAt®~ • 0.~11111.111111 • b [.'!m ®i]~iii'•Lttfllll Mountains/Forests 66% 1 Open space/Uncrowded areas 52% 2 Yellowstone National Park 50% 3 Rivers 45 % 4 Glacier National Park 37% 5 Wildlife 35% 6 Lakes 34% 7 Family/Friends 3 1% 8 Fishing 17% 9 Lewi s & Clark History 12% 10 Tied Natives American History & Culture 12% 10 Tied Soura: CIISIOIII 'Rq;oJt, Nonrestdmt Tmt,el Sum;y 'Rq;o1t Data. !Juttlutefor formsm r&"' Recreatron &search, Umvemry ifAloiJiaua. 111//IIV.tln:rmrt.ed!l .. ~I) I~ l.c <l'.ll\llc PH< II II I Table 55: Yellowstone National Park Visitors As illustrated in Table 54 on page 60, national .• \"Gm 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 OOtr.if~'\·.u:m•Jt-1 2,868,316 2,835,649 2,870,293 3,151,343 3,066,580 3,295,187 3,640,184 3,394,326 3,447,729 3,188,030 parks are important attractions that draw visitors to Montana. Although Yellowstone National Park is primarily located in Wyoming, three of the five entrances to the park are in small Montana towns and over half o f vehicles entering the park do so from Montana.('4 Visitor numbers have steadily climbed since 2006, aside from a slight decrease in 2008 (fable 55). The park had a record number of visitors in 2010 and saw its second highest visitation numbers on record in 2012. Figures in 2013 were down in small part due to the 16-day . Sourre: Pub!/( Use Statutw OJ!ia. }vo!Jorwl Pork Semt?. federal government shutdown in October, httpJ:/ I irma.nps._~ol'/ Stats. which closed national parks. However, visitation numbers were primarily influenced by the park changing its calculation method in 2013: following a survey at park entrances counting both vehicles and occupants per vehicle, the person-per-vehicle multiplier was adjusted for the first time in 20 years, from 2.91 down to 2.58 people-per-vehicle.1'5 Air Travel66 Bozeman Y cllowstone International Airport (airport code: BZN) has been the busiest airport in Montana since June of 2013. Annual passenger volumes are illustrated in Table 56. According to 1\irpo rt Director, Brian Sprenger, "Over the past forty years our airport is the fastest growing airport in Montana." Additional non-stop destinations to Portland, Los Angeles, Phoenix-Mesa, New York/Newark and Seattle account for much o f the growth. Passenger traffic increased by roughly 28 percent between 2010 and 2013 and the airport is now the sixth busiest passenger airport in the Pacific Northwest. Table 56: Bozeman Yellowstone International Ai 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 -----------·- 2013 442,120 442,540 884,660 . ···------------... So11m: "201-1 Possmger & Tower Operatio11S R£port. "Bo:;p!lon Ytl!oJvslom l11ltnwlional Ai1port. JVJVJP.bo:;pllonoiJpoJt .• w!l. The number of locations serviced through Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport is compared between 2000 and 2010 in Figure 6 on page 62. 1•~ ''"Yellowstone National Park." l\lontana Official State Travel Site. www.visitmt.com. 1>5 ~Ioore, Mike. "Yellowstone visitation down in July, vehicle traffic up." Bo:-;_eman Dai!J Chronide. September 3, 2013. www. bozemandail ychronicle. com. 1>1. Sprenger, Brian. Press Release. Jtme 17, 2013. Bozeman Yellowstone International :\irport, www.bo:temanairport.com. ©l't<c hl'l Ill Jll 'l'-1 "'-:1 I\\ (If<"- Figure 6: Non-Stop Flight Destinations from Bozeman, January 2000 versus Summer 2014 ·. Soune: SpaJ{gtr, Bna11. Bo::;p/1(111 ) 't!!OJvs/OIIt lntematio11al .Aitpott, tv tv tv. bo-:;pl/(/llrJirpot1.fOilt. Ski Resorts Southwestern Montana is home to two resorts that bring in skiers from around the world. Big Sky Resort offers world-class skiing and riding with over 400 inches of snow on average per year. In 2013 Big Sky Resort acquired the adjacent Spanish Peaks and Moonlight Basin, making it the nation's largest ski area at 5,800 acres.67 The combined resort has 4,350 vertical feet setYed by 23 chairlifts and 10 surface lifts.r,H Not only do families come for the winter season, but there is much to d o and see during the summer as well. Big Sky had another record-breaking season with over 473,000 skier visits during the 2013-2014 season (Table 57). Bridger Bowl, a nonprofit ski area, is a cornerstone for Bozeman's recreational community and a major contributor to southwestern Montana's vibrant winter tourism economy. According to Bridger Bowl's website, the resort now has one quad, five triples and two double chairs serving 2,600 fe et of vertical rise and 2,000 skiable acres, with 75 marked runs and a terrain park. Average annual snowfall at Bridger Bowl is 350 inches. Bridger Bowl also had a record 2013-2014 ski season with 217,516 skier visits.r.'J According to the Institute for Tourism & Recreation research, the 2012-13 ski season in Montana was up nearly 3 percent from the 2011-12 season and was the second highest number of skier visits recorded for Montana at 1.4 million visits.70 Nonresidents accounted for 35 percent of all skier visits.70 T bl 57 sk· A a e I rea v· ·t r lSI a 10n 1~u res ~? mm~~~~~ lim•r•T~rl~ ,. ... ~ 2006-07 308,000 135,555 2007-08 310,000 196,569 2008-09 285,000 188,62 1 2009-10 297,000 199,061 2010-11 340,000 210,966 2011-12 340,000+ 148,074 2012-13 374,000 186,000 2013-14 473,000 217,516 Source: A.farkelll<g Departments, B<g S k,y &sott and Bndger Bowl. r.7 Big Sky Resort Highlights for Winter 2014-2015. www.bigskyresort.com. r.s "Joint Statement-Issued on behalf of CrossHarbor Capital Partners LLC and Boyne Resorts." .\ugust 16, 2013. I\Ioonlight Basin. www.moonlightbasin.com/press-releases. m Wales, Doug. 1\.Iarketing Director, Bridger Bowl Resort. www.bridgerbowl.com. 711 Norma Nickerson. "2013 in Review and 2014 Outlook: Travel and Recreation in l\Iontana." January 2014. Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, University of ~Iontana. \VWw.itrr.umt.edu.