Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015 Economic Profile, Prospera
2015 Economic Profile of Gallatin and Park Counties, Montana Pros pera BUSINESS NETWORK 02015 PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK Gallatin & Park Counties, Montana RATHE..AD SANDERS LAKE 1 ' MISSOULA GRANITE GLACIER TOOLE HILL PONDERA TETON CHOUTEAU LEWIS CASCADE BLAINS 1 PHILLIPS AND FERGUS �PETRO CLARK _ JUDITH LEUM JEFFER- SON BEAVERRHEAD L MADISDN BASIN I MEAGHER MUSSEL. - D YELLO TC SWEET TIN GRASS STILL - PARK NATER CARBON DANIELS �SHERIDAN I VALLEY ROOSEVELT RicHLAND V MCCONE DAWSON GAREIELD 1 PRAIRIE .�..� BALLON 9 ROSEBUD CUSTER I BIG HORN POWDERCARTER RIVER {� PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 Charlotte Street • Suite 1 • Bozeman, NIT 59718 Phone 406.587.3113 • Fax 406.587.9565 ww,,v.ProsperaBusinessNetwork. org ©PROSPERA fit S[NEss Ni,, -m ouK 2015 EICONONIIC PROFILE Listof Tables................................................................. Listof Charts................................................................. Table of Contents ...................................................................................1 ................................................................................. iii Listof Figures....................................................................................................................................................itt Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 TheEconomy.....................................................................................................................................................3 Costof Doing Business....................................................................................................................................8 Costof Living...................................................................................................................................................10 PopulationTrends...........................................................................................................................................13 Migration...........................................................................................................................................................17 Demographics..................................................................................................................................................20 Workforce.........................................................................................................................................................25 Employmentby Sector....................................................................................................................................28 Salary& Wage Detail.......................................................................................................................................30 LargestPrivate Employers..............................................................................................................................33 Agriculture........................................................................................................................................................34 Banking..............................................................................................................................................................37 Construction.....................................................................................................................................................39 Energy................................................................................................................................................................ 43 HealthCare.......................................................................................................................................................46 HigherEducation.............................................................................................................................................50 Manufacturing..................................................................................................................................................53 RealEstate........................................................................................................................................................55 Technology.......................................................................................................................................................58 Tourism& Recreation.....................................................................................................................................61 ©PROSPERA BUSINEss NETAC'ORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE. List of Tables Table 1: 2015 Enterprising States Report - Rankings for Montana.......................................................... 5 Table 2: Micropolitan Economic Strength Rankings (Out of 536)...........................................................6 Table 3: Metropolitan Economic Strength Rankings (Out of 381)......................................:....................7 Table 4: Real GDP by Region and State, 2012-2014...................................................................................7 Table 5: Regional Comparison of the Cost of Doing Business.................................................................9 Table 6: 3`d Quarter 2015 Cost of Living Index Comparison..................................................................11 Table 7: State, County and City Populations, 2008-2014..........................................................................13 Table 8: Six Fastest Growing Montana Counties, 2000-2014..................................................................13 Table 9: Montana County Population Growth, 2010-2014......................................................................14 Table 10: Montana City Population Rankings, 2009-2014.......................................................................15 Table 11: Components of Resident Population Change, July 2013 July 2014 ......................................17 Table 12: Gallatin and Park County Net Migration Details, 2009-2013 ACS Data..............................18 Table 13: Age Demographics, 2009-2013 ACS Data................................................................................20 Table 14: Ethnicity Demographics, 2009-2013 ACS Data.......................................................................20 Table 15: Income Levels, 2009-2013 ACS Data........................................................................................22 Table 16: Level of Educational Attainment 2009-2013 ACS Data.........................................................23 Table 17: Housing Occupancy 2009-2013 ACS Data...............................................................................23 Table 18: Household and Family Dynamics 2009-2013 ACS Data........................................................24 Table 19: State Unemployment Rate Comparison, May 2015 (Seasonally adjusted)............................25 Table 20: County Unemployment Rate Comparison, May 2015 (Non -seasonally adjusted) ..............26 Table 21: County Labor Force Statistics, 2007-2014 (Non -seasonally adjusted)..................................27 Table 22: 2014 Employment and Earnings by Sector...............................................................................29 Table 23: 2014 Average Annual Wages and Salaries.................................................................................31 Table 24: Median Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment 2009-2013 ACS Data ......................31 Table 25: Average Weekly Wage by County and Percent Change, 2012-2014 (All Industries) ..........32 Table 26: Montana Counties Ranked by 2014 Annual Average Pay (All Industries) ...........................32 Table 27: Largest Private Sector Employers (2014 Annual Data)...........................................................33 Table 28: 2012 Agricultural Statistics for Montana, Gallatin County and Park County ......................35 Table 29: 2014 Crop Statistics for Gallatin County...................................................................................35 Table 30: 2015 Livestock Statistics for Gallatin County...........................................................................36 Table 31: 2014 Crop Statistics for Park County.........................................................................................36 Table 32: 2015 Livestock Statistics for Park County.................................................................................36 OPROSPERA BUSINEISS NEIVORK 2015 ECONOA11C PROFILE i Table 33: 2014 Montana Agricultural Commodities Information...........................................................36 Table 34: Bozeman Bank Deposit Market Share.......................................................................................38 Table 35: Livingston Bank Deposit Market Share.....................................................................................38 Table 36: Construction Activity - New Dwelling Units, 2006 -2014 .......................................................40 Table 37: City of Bozeman Residential Building Permits Issued, 2006-2014 ........................................40 Table 38: City of Bozeman Annexations, 2006-2014 (In Acres).............................................................41 Table 39: City of Bozeman Subdivision Reviews by Type, 2006-2014 (Number of Lots) ..................41 Table 40: City of Bozeman Zoning Reviews by Type, 2006-2014..........................................................42 Table41: Utility Rates....................................................................................................................................43 Table 42: NorthWestern Energy Financial Highlights..............................................................................44 Table 43: Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital by the Numbers..........................................................48 Table 44: Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital Community Benefit Statistics, 2014 .........................49 Table 45: Livingston HealthCare by the Numbers....................................................................................49 Table 46: Livingston HealthCare Community Benefit Statistics, 2012 ...................................................49 Table 47: MSU Enrollment by Geographic Region, Fall Semester 2014 ...............................................50 Table 48: Manufacturing Employment in Montana, 2010 & 2014.........................................................53 Table 49: Single Family Residence Trends - Gallatin and Park Counties, 2012-2014 .......................... 55 Table 50: County Residential Distressed Sales (Short Sales), 2012-2014 ...............................................57 Table 51: County Residential Distressed Sales (Foreclosures), 2012-2014 ............................................57 Table 52: Economic Impacts of Nonresident Travelers, 2012 -2014 ......................................................63 Table 53: 2014 Montana Nonresident Traveler Quarterly Travel Comparison....................................63 Table 54: Montana's Top 10 Attractions for Vacationers, 2014..............................................................64 Table 55: Yellowstone National Park Visitors............................................................................................65 Table 56: Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Volume 2005-2014 .........................................65 Table 57: Ski Area Visitation Figures...........................................................................................................66 ©PROSPERA B SIM Sti W,j-\'oRK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 11 List of Charts Chart 1: 2015 Business Tax Index (Rankings in parentheses)...................................................................8 Chart 2: Consumer Price Index - All Items Western Region (Non -seasonally adjusted) ....................12 Chart 3: Historical Average Consumer Price Index (Non -seasonally adjusted)....................................12 Chart 4: Projected County Populations - Gallatin and Park Counties, 2000-2060 ...............................16 Chart 5: Net Migration in Montana, 2011-2014.........................................................................................17 Chart 6: Annual Unemployment Rates, 2009-2014 (Non -seasonally adjusted)....................................26 Chart 7: 2014 Number of Employees by Sector - Gallatin and Park Counties.....................................28 Chart 8: Average Annual Pay by Industry - Gallatin and Park Counties 2014 ......................................30 Chart 9: Area Bank Deposits, 2002-2014....................................................................................................37 Chart 10: Number of Construction Firms - Gallatin and Park Counties...............................................39 Chart 11: Number of Construction Employees - Gallatin and Park Counties......................................39 Chart 12: City of Bozeman Residential Building Permit Activity, 2006-2014 .......................................41 Chart 13: Annexation to the City of Bozeman, 1994-2014 (In Acres)...................................................42 Chart 14: NorthWestern Energy Electric New Connects, YTD October 2013-2015 .........................44 Chart 15: NorthWestern Energy Gas New Connects, YTD October 2013-2015 ................................45 Chart 16: Montana Energy Consumption Estimates, 2013......................................................................45 Chart 17: Number of Single Family Homes Sold - Gallatin and Park Counties, 2007-2014 ..............56 Chart 18: Number of Single Family Homes Sold - Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston and Surrounding Areas, 2007-2014..............................................................................................................................................56 Chart 19: Montana Bioscience Employment Growth Rate, 2001-2011 .................................................59 Chart 20: 2014 Visitor Expenditures in Montana......................................................................................62 Chart 21: Montana Vacationer State/Province Residencies 2014...........................................................64 List of Fiaures Figure 1: Percent Population Change for Montana Counties, 2000 and 2010 Census Data...............15 Figure 2: Montana Net Migration by County, July 2013 July 2014.........................................................18 Figure 3: Net Migration Flows for Gallatin County 2009-2013 ACS Data...........................................19 Figure 4: Net Migration Flows for Park County 2009-2013 ACS Data.................................................19 Figure 5: Montana County Poverty Rates, 2013..........................................................................................21 Figure 6: Non -Stop Flight Destinations from Bozeman, January 2000 versus Summer 2014 ...........66 ©PROSPERA BUSINEss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE ui Introduction The Economic Profile of Gallatin and Park Counties is researched, updated and published annually. 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 this report. A companion publication, Prospera's 2015 Business Relocation and Resource Guide, includes Gallatin and Park County resources and information for businesses and their employees. It can be found on the Prospera website at-,vww.ProsperaBusinessNetwork.oron 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. Originally established in 1985 as the Gallatin Development Corporation, Prospera is dedicated to supporting business expansion, retention and relocation by providing access to business consulting, financing, professional development and economic research. Prospera 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:\vw\v.ProsperaBusinessNet\vork.org or call (406) 587-3113. 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, with 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 (43.4 percent) and has the third largest county population in Montana behind Yellowstone and Missoula Counties. Gallatin County is named for its prominent physical feature, the Gallatin River, which was named by Meriwether Lewis in 1805 in honor of Albert Gallatin, the Secretary of the Treasury at the time. The county was established in 1864. With its Rocky Mountain setting, it encompasses the Yellowstone National Park western entrance and is known for world-class downhill skiing, blue ribbon trout streams and a multitude of other outdoor activities. Nearly half of the land in the county is under public ownership by the Gallatin National Forest, State of Montana, Bureau of Land Management, ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 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 mountain 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 increased by 1.2 percent since the year 2000 and is the 12`x' most populated 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. ©PROSPERA BUS[Nrass Ni:IVO ItK 2015 EcoNOMIC PRO TALE -' The Econom In the latest World Economic Outlook released by the International Monetary Fund, global growth for 2015 was U.S. Economy on Stable Ground, but projected at 3.3 percent. This figure was projected due to Performance Uneven a gradual pickup to 2.1 percent growth in advanced The economy has been recovering slowly yet unevenly since the depths economies, coupled with a slowdown to 4.2 percent of the recession in 2009. While the growth in emerging and developing economies.` Growth labor market has recovered in 2016 for advanced economies worldwide was projected significantly and employment has at 2.4 percent, with predictions for 4.7 growth in returned to pre -crisis levels, there is emerging and developing economics in 2016.' still widespread debate regarding the Domestically speaking, GDP growth in the U.S. is health of the U.S. economy. In expected to pick up from 2.5 percent in 2015 to 2.8 addition, even though the worst percent in 2016, with strong consumer spending, effects of the recession are now increased business investment and continued fading, the economy still faces a improvement in the housing market outweighing ongoing variety of significant challenges export and mining sector troubles .2 going forward. Deteriorating infrastructure, wage stagnation, Montana is outperforming the United States on many rising income inequality, elevated measures, according to Headwaters Economics.' Between pension and medical costs, as well 2001 and 2013 employment increased by 14 percent, total as large current account and real personal income grew by 35 percent and per capita I government budget deficits, are all income grew by 21 percent—almost three times as fast as issues on the radar. the nation's growth of 8 percent.3 Driving the growth are U.S. Economic Outlook an increase in higher quality jobs and a rapid increase in Focus Economics investment and retirement income.3 Job growth was led www.focus-economics.com by growth in service -related industries, many of them = high -wage, which diversified the region's economy.' The short-term outlook for the Montana economy from Patrick Barkey, Director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER), is one of more balanced growth around the state: this is due to dropping crude oil prices and other factors slowing oil -related activity in the eastern counties and healthier growth returning to the more populous western parts of the state. Looking ahead, Barkey forecasts overall slower statewide growth than forecast last year, with urban areas in Western Montana setting the pace and booming oil development "putting on the brakes"! Also notable is the changing distribution of growth across industries, as Barkey states, "Economic growth in the state is now much more widespread across the major industries, with health care, professional business services, and retail trade posting the biggest gains in inflation -corrected wages. A more durable trend has been the continued decline in government payrolls, which contracted for the fourth consecutive year." World Economic Outlook Update. International Monetary Fund. July 2015. www£org. f 2 Payne, David. "GDP Growth to Improve Despite Strong Dollar's Drag." Kiplinger. November 24, 2015. ( wwwAiplinger.com. 3 "Haymakers Report: Montana's Economy, Public Lands, and Competitive Advantage." Headwaters Economics. (_ February 2015. http://hcadNvaterseconornics.org. 4 Barkey, Patrick. "Montana Economic Outlook: More Balanced, But Slower Growth Ahead." Outlook 2015. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. -,v,,vw.bber.umt.edu. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE-11VORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 3 Montana's overall fiscal condition also earned the state tenth best ranking in the U.S. for fiscal year 2013 based on five "solvency indices". Montana ranked 6"' for cash solvency: related to a government's short-term liquidity and ability to pay its bills on time; 6`i' for budget solvency: or ability to meet current -year spending obligations without causing a deficit; 9`" for long -run solvency: including longer-term obligations such as pensions; 30``' 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; and 29``1 for trust fund solvency: which examines a state's debt and pension and health care liabilities relative to state personal income.' The Gallatin County economy was the best performing in Montana in 2014, with its $104.3 million increase in wages and salaries for the year accounting for almost 35 percent of statewide growtl. ` Gallatin County is projected to continue leading the state, with growth of 5 percent per year or greater from 2015 to 2018 driven by continued expansion in the high-tech sector (%vhich includes manufacturing and software), growth in nonresident travel and significant improvement in construction.`' Montana State University remains the largest component of the county's total economic base and accounts for about 30 percent of die total economy.`' 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 accommodate such momentum. Meanwhile, Park County's economy has been stimulated by a number of large constriction projects. The new $43.5 trillion Livingston HealthCare hospital facility was completed in October 2015 and represents one of the largest projects ever undertaken in Park County."" The hospital, a Billings Clinic affiliate, was forecast to contribute an estimated $15.3 million of positive impact to retail business, real estate, accommodations and food service."' Also, an ongoing $24.5 trillion project around the Gardiner Gateway is improving infrastructure, safety and the visitor experience in Gardiner and includes the construction of a new welcome center." Finally, the new Livingston Food Resource Center facility opened in January 2015 offering culinary training, housing a multipurpose corntnercial kitchen and community center with equipment for processing locally grown produce and providing a commercial kitchen available for rent to entrepreneurs in the food industry." Norcross, Eileen. "State Fiscal Condition: Ranking the 50 States." Mercatus Research, Mercatus Center, at George Mason University. July 2015. w-ww.mercatus.org. c Polzin, Paul E. "Gallatin County: Montana's Economic Growth Leader." Outlook 2015. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. -,«v%v.bber.umt.edu. Bacaj, Jason. "What lies ahead?" Bo.� #Ian Daily Chronicle. February 9, 2014. www.bozemandailychronicle.com. 8 Benoit, Zach. "New $43.5M hospital set to open in Livingston." Billinge Gatiette. October 18, 2015. www.billingsg,azette.com. Storey, Natalie. "A Beaming Success: Last steel beam put in place on new hospital." L a}�ingrton EnieI- i.re. June 26, 2014. «,%vw.livings tonenterpris e. com. 1" Hansen, Jodi. "Livingston HealthCare to build new hospital." Bo�eIvan Dail1 Cbionicle. October 26, 2012. w\Nnv.bozemandaHychronicle.com. Kearney, Liz. "Gardiner Gateway Project advances." Liringrton Enteipi-ive. March 20, 2014. Nv-,v-,v.livings tonenterpris e. com. Niedermeier, Jordon. "Livingston Food Resource Center opens its doors to the public." Linin,grton Entelp ife. January 19, 2015. www.livingstonenterprise.com. ©PROSPERA IWSINGSs Ni-: nx�oiu: 2015 EcoNOMIC PROFILE To highlight the most innovative and effective policies across the nation, the 2015 edition of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation's Enterprising States. States Innovate study analyzed the 50 states through six lenses, ranking the top 10 in six categories: Economic Performance, Transportation & Trade, Innovation & Entrepreneurship, Business Climate, Talent Pipeline and High -Tech Performance.13 Rankings within the six categories were determined based on 35 metrics that measure overall economic performance, along with performance in five important policy areas for job growth and economic health.13 Montana earned a top 10 spot in two of the six categories, coming in 6"' for Innovation & Entrepreneurship and 10`x' for Business Climate. 13 Table 1 below lists the top metrics for Montana from the 2015 report. Table 1 : 2015 Enterorisina States Report - Rnnkinns fnr Mnntnnn �- Kauffman Entrepreneurship Index: 2015 Ranking 1 New Startup Rate: Business births as a share of all business establishments, third quarter 2014 4 Small Business Lending: Number of business loans per 1,000 small business employees, 2012 5 Business Tax Climate: Index of taxes affecting business, fiscal year 2015 6 Per Capita Income Growth: Personal Income, 2004-2014 7 High -Tech Job Growth: Growth in high-technology industry sectors, 2004-2014 7 Export Growth: Growth in gross Manufactured Exports 2004-2014 8 Road Quality: Percentage of road miles rated mediocre or poor, 2012 8 Productivity Growth: Growth in gross state product output per job, 2004-2014 9 Gross State Product Growth: 2004-2014, 2005 chained dollars 10 Bridge Quality: Share of bridges rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, 2013 10 State Fiscal Condition: 2013 financial heath in terms of cash solvency, budget solvency, long- run solvency, service -level solvency, and trust fund solvency 10 College Affordability: Average undergraduate public four-year institution cost as a share of disposable personal income, 2013-2014 10 Long -Term Job Growth: Percentage job growth 2005-2015 11 State R&D Investment: Investment in academic research and development as a share of gross state product, 2004-2013 1 1 Academic R&D Intensity: Academic R&D as a share of gross state product, 2013 13 STEM Job Growth: Growth in science, technology, engineering and mathematics jobs, 2004- 2014 15 Higher -Ed Degree Output: Total degrees (two years and higher) awarded at public institutions per 10,000 residents, 2013 19 Labor Force Utilization: Labor force participation rate, May 2015 21 Cost of Living: State Cost of Living Index 2013 23 Higher -Ed Efficiency: Total expenditures per degree awarded, 2012-2013 23 Educational Attainment: Associate and higher degree holders among 25- to 44 -year-old population, 2013 23 Joaren -L;IUe/pnsilt g males. mates itarorate. - u.J. c.ualiva-gf c,Ommerie Vomrrlatrou. lYlyly. t/,f4tla/Ale/�0tarl/Crltop.0/� eR%I I7Jin,,rtater. 13 "Enterprising States: States Innovate." U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation. ,vxvxv.uscharnberfoundation.org/enteri2risitigstates. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 5 2015 Economic Strength Rankings' POLICOM creates economic strength rankings for both Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. According to POLICOM, "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 wage and income measures such as per capita earnings and number of jobs; Group 2 data reflects the economy's behavior by monitoring earnings and job figures for small businesses and construction and retail industries, which are "extremely reactive to the `flow of money' coming into an area"; Group 3 data are negative measures, with growth in welfare and Medicaid assistance reflecting poorly on the economy. Simply identifying the areas that have the fastest or slowest growth rates is insufficient when trying to determine the character of the local economy: a critical consideration is the stability and consistency of that growth over a period of time. The highest ranked areas (indicated by lower ranking numbers) have had rapid, consistent growth in both size and quality for an extended period of time. The lowest ranked areas (indicated by higher ranking numbers) have been in volatile decline for an extended period of time. 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. 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. Then Bozeman's rating changed to 19`x' place in 2013, to 10"' position for 2014 and to 20t1i in 2015. 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 of data."'-' 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.'yAs the recovery continues, the influence of the recession years has been counterbalanced. Tnkla 7• Mirrnnnlitnn Fcnnomic Strennth Rnnkinns (C7ut of 536) I� on arrOl Micropolitan Areas* 1 2 2013 2014 2015 butte-bilver Sauna+: "t ranoutic Stiengtb Raltklugc 1170: Alelropobtall Jlalisttral , lras V' eliappolltall 3latrwral ;Inas. e.wpol moll. www.Polienm.roal *Ilamer, iu luded in piior peal• Irpor�,r, is iro lmer awsidecrcl a 1 Li / polit/ tura.. 14 Fruth, William H. "2015 Economic Strength Rankings: Metropolitan Statistical Areas & Micropolitan Statistical Areas." POLICOM Corporation, www.policom.com. 15 Fruth, William H. E-mail correspondence, September 2013. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NEWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 6 According to the OMB, Metropolitan Statistical Areas have at least one urbanized area with a population of 50,000 minimum, plus surrounding counties which, "Have a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting." The OMB has identified 381 _ metropolitan areas in the United States. Currently, Montana has three metropolitan areas: Great Falls, Missoula and Billings, with rankings shown in Table 3. Table 3: Metropolitan Economic Strenath Rankinas (nia nf .w ) Montana Fm'qj Area MMMetropolitan , 202011 ,®®® 2013 2014 2011- 2012 2012- 2013 2013- Rank** 2014 United States 15,148,854 15,431,987 15,773,516 2.1 1.9 2.2 ---- Rocky Mountain Region (excluding North and South Dakota) 509,898 521,763 542,102 1.0 2.3 3.9 ---- California 2,008,316 ')onrce: CCorlOnill• mmilgm Ivin.Eurgr Zu U: Uleirbpolltail matlrlital Arras C7 111117•opolitao 31allsltial Alms." 110LLC.U[M Colpol7atton. 1plym.401irolll. i olll. Gross Domestic Product ( According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, real gross domestic product (GDP) increased in 48 states and the District of Columbia in 2014. The leading contributors to growth were professional, scientific, and technical services; nondurable goods manufacturing; and real estate and ( rental and leasing. The Southwest region grew the fastest, led by mining in Oklahoma and Texas. North Dakota was the top growing state in the nation overall, with growth of 6.3 percent. Montana's f GDP growth ranked 23, with a 1.8 percent change in GDP between 2013 and 2014 (Table 4). Table 4: Real GDP by Reaion and State. 2012-2014 ,)ourie: New c,Ln tate: /Iavanae SWIStltr jos ZU74 and revised stattrliccJ0r ZU1l-ZUIZ, U. 3. Binran of Lconomic Analysis. imm.beet. gon. Note, the Beal GDP and percent change figures weae signify anti iufLiemr ! by the revised estimates, as colupmrd to /igmrs /cart re/ orfed *Chained weighted dollars are rlelired by nmltiplping the cbain-weighled indexes ly the ain-ent-dollar valves of a spec-#ic i- fIJ'ncejear Cbaill-Jveighled indexes ivele inlindirced is 199610 iliprnve the accnnn7, of estimates of lhegrowth in irdlg%Cs domestic prndilet (GDP) and prices. These indexes rise lip -lo - dale iveigbls m1ber thew fxed lvelghls in older to prnvlde a nlo& an -in -ale pictlnr Of the emiolio,, to better [•a#51wr Changes in spending palter ns and UI prices, and io elilnitlate the bimc present in lived-meighted indexes. **Bcw ding is /y pei rent change, fivm bigljert to loJvest, and inehnles SO stater plies the Dishid of Cblllnrbia. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NEWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE Millions of Chained 2009 Dollars* Location 2012 2013 2014 2011- 2012 2012- 2013 2013- Rank** 2014 United States 15,148,854 15,431,987 15,773,516 2.1 1.9 2.2 ---- Rocky Mountain Region (excluding North and South Dakota) 509,898 521,763 542,102 1.0 2.3 3.9 ---- California 2,008,316 2,055,239 2,113,280 2.5 2.3 2.8 9 Colorado 261,613 267,186 279,650 2.1 2.1 4.7 5 Idaho 54,665 56,086 57,591 -0.1 2.6 2.7 12 Montana 38,391 38,768 39,448 2.0 1.0 1.8 23 Oregon 198,759 196,761 203,788 -0.2 -1.0 3.6 6 Utah 119,918 124,310 128,178 0.7 3.7 3.1 7 Washington 370,374 379,014 390,489 2.7 2.3 3.0 8 Wyoming 36,566 35,731 37,566 -5.0 0.5 5.1 3 ,)ourie: New c,Ln tate: /Iavanae SWIStltr jos ZU74 and revised stattrliccJ0r ZU1l-ZUIZ, U. 3. Binran of Lconomic Analysis. imm.beet. gon. Note, the Beal GDP and percent change figures weae signify anti iufLiemr ! by the revised estimates, as colupmrd to /igmrs /cart re/ orfed *Chained weighted dollars are rlelired by nmltiplping the cbain-weighled indexes ly the ain-ent-dollar valves of a spec-#ic i- fIJ'ncejear Cbaill-Jveighled indexes ivele inlindirced is 199610 iliprnve the accnnn7, of estimates of lhegrowth in irdlg%Cs domestic prndilet (GDP) and prices. These indexes rise lip -lo - dale iveigbls m1ber thew fxed lvelghls in older to prnvlde a nlo& an -in -ale pictlnr Of the emiolio,, to better [•a#51wr Changes in spending palter ns and UI prices, and io elilnitlate the bimc present in lived-meighted indexes. **Bcw ding is /y pei rent change, fivm bigljert to loJvest, and inehnles SO stater plies the Dishid of Cblllnrbia. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NEWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE Cost of Doina Business As of June of 2014, the United States was ranked 7`I' out of 189 countries for ease of doing business by the International Finance Corporation, down three spots from the 2013 ranking. The U.S. was behind Singapore, New Zealand, Hong Kong SAR, China, Denmark, The Republic of Korea and Norway. 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 firm."" On a state level, Montana's ranking varies from study to study. As seen in Table 1 on page 5, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce places Montana at 6`I' best in the nation for Business Tax Climate. This ranking is based on a Tax Foundation index of taxes affecting business." The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), an advocacy, research, education and networking organization, releases annual rankings of public policy climates for small business and entrepreneurship for each state. " Their 2015 Business Tax Index pulls together 23 different tax measures, and combines those into one tax score that allows the 50 states to be compared and ranked.`s A lower number represents a more favorable tax environment for small businesses and entrepreneurs. South Dakota ranked 1" with a score of 11.747 and Montana ranked 31" with a score of 48.825.i8 The scores for select states are displayed in Chart 1. Chart 1 : 2015 Business Tax Index (Rankings in parentheses) 81.770 66.118 54.760 48.825 38.180 38.039 32.574 11.747 18.68315.660 a \°�ac� \far° �d °,�a °� Q�°'� Jar�0 0 Yo Souris: Keating, Ra),mond J. `Shall Basruess T a.v Lrde.%- 2013: Best to 117oist State Tax ,Syslenrr /or Et1hrprwe1a-VWp and Small Blubless. " Small Brrurresr and Euhrpanerusbip Connril Apr7/201 5. inviv.sbeearuitil.orn. Clearly, there are numerous factors impacting the costs of an operation. Table 5 on page 9 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. 16 "Doing Business Economy Rankings." International Finance Corporation. June 2014. www.doingbusiness.org/rankings. 17 Keating, Raymond J. "Small Business Tax Index 2015: Best to Worst State Tax Systems for Entrepreneurship and Small Business." Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council. April 2015. www.sbecouncil.org. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS WIAXIORF 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 9 Table 5: Reaional Comr)arison of the Cost of Doina Business 3 olfl res: 11 anolls. 3 ee loolnoter. 18 Keating, Raymond J. "Small Business Tax Index 2015: Best to Worst State Tax Systems for Entrepreneurship and Small Business." Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. April 2015. www.sbecouncil.org. 19 Federation of Tax Administrators, compiled from various sources. January 2015. www.taxadmin.or�. 20 Federation of Tax Administrators, from U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Economic Analysis. www.taxadmin.ore. 21 "Occupational Employment Statistics Survey." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, OES Estimates annual data for all occupations (all private industries). May 2013. www.bls.gov/Oes. 22 "Worker's Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2013." National Academy of Social Insurance, August 2015. www.nasi.or. 23 "2009-2013 American Community Survey." Median Value (Dollars), Owner -occupied housing units. U.S. Census Bureau. xvxvw.census.gov/acs. 24 Forms EIA -861, Monthly Electric Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions Report Table 5.63, and Tables 5a & 5b, U.S. Energy Information Administration. Cents/kWhour is as of September 2015, Average Monthly Bill is from 2014 Annual Data. -,vw\v.eia.gov. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 9 AX RATES (PERCENTAGES) 18 Personal Income 13.30 4.63 7.40 6.90 (38'h) 9.90 5.00 0.00 0.00 State & Local Sales, Gross Receipts 2.791 2.900 2.589 0.867(2 nd) 0.798 3.210 5.144 4.290 & Excise Capital Gains 13.30 4.63 7.40 4.90 (23`d) 9.90 5.00 0.00 0.00 Corporate Income 8.84 4.63 7.40 6.75 (27"') 7.60 5.00 0.00 0.00 State & Local Property 2.857 2.892 3.354 3.505 (37h) 3.299 2.614 2.843 4.363 Unemployment 0.78 2.10 6.36 4.73 (415{) 4.24 5.60 4.76 5.45 Gas 0.454 .220 0.250 0.278 (29"h) 0.311 0.245 0.375 0.240 Wireless 0.102 0.107 0.026 0.060(4th) 0.018 0.125 0.186 0.077 State Sales19 7.5 2.9 6.0 None None 6.0 6.5 4.0 TATE TAX REVENUE: 201420 Total Collected $ million 138,070 11,755 3,672 2,593 9,684 6,312 19,448 2,263 /o of Personal Income 7.4% 4.8% 6.3% 6.6% 6.2% 5.9% 5.8% 7.4% Rank (By % of.Pers. Income) 12th 45th 25th 18th 26th 31't 33" 13th LABOR Mean Annual Wage21 $53,890 $49,860 $39,770 $39,880 $46,850 $43,550 $52,540 $44,930 Worker's Compensation: $1.95 $1.03 $1.66 $2.24(501h) $1.18 $0.94 $1.37 $2.03 Employer Costs/ $100 of Covered Wages22 COST OF LIVING MEASURES Median Housing Value $366,400 $236,200 $162,100 $184,200 $238,000 $212,800 $262,1000 $185,900 +/- Margin of Error 23 +/-$613 +1-$709 +/-$908 +/-$1,620 +/-$791 +/-$885 +/-$870 +/-$2,013 Residential Electric 24 Cents/kW hour $17.21 $12.11 $10.08 $11.02 $10.67 $11.10 $8.88 $10.97 Average Monthly Bill $91.26 $83.73 $95.50 $86.93 $97.29 $79.49 $87.14 $90.60 Commerical ElectriC24 Cents/kW hour $15.95 $9.87 $7.91 $10.27 $8.81 $8.86 $8.07 $9.12 Average Monthly Bill $927.85 $469.38 $380.10 $381.99 $508.30 $666.50 $536.71 $508.92 3 olfl res: 11 anolls. 3 ee loolnoter. 18 Keating, Raymond J. "Small Business Tax Index 2015: Best to Worst State Tax Systems for Entrepreneurship and Small Business." Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. April 2015. www.sbecouncil.org. 19 Federation of Tax Administrators, compiled from various sources. January 2015. www.taxadmin.or�. 20 Federation of Tax Administrators, from U.S. Census Bureau & Bureau of Economic Analysis. www.taxadmin.ore. 21 "Occupational Employment Statistics Survey." Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, OES Estimates annual data for all occupations (all private industries). May 2013. www.bls.gov/Oes. 22 "Worker's Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2013." National Academy of Social Insurance, August 2015. www.nasi.or. 23 "2009-2013 American Community Survey." Median Value (Dollars), Owner -occupied housing units. U.S. Census Bureau. xvxvw.census.gov/acs. 24 Forms EIA -861, Monthly Electric Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions Report Table 5.63, and Tables 5a & 5b, U.S. Energy Information Administration. Cents/kWhour is as of September 2015, Average Monthly Bill is from 2014 Annual Data. -,vw\v.eia.gov. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 9 Cost of Livi n Area cost of living can be measured by two distinct indexes, the Cost of Living Index, which measures relative prices each quarter25 and the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation." Cost of Living Index25 The Cost of Livillg Index is a comparison study of over 250 urban areas around the nation. It measures regional differences in the cost of consumer goods and services, excluding taxes and non -consumer expenditures, for professional and managerial households in the top income quintile. The composite index score is based on based on six component categories — housing, utilities, grocery items, transportation, health care and miscellaneous goods & services. The index has been compiled and published quarterly since 1968 by the Council for Community and Economic Research (C2ER), a nonprofit professional organization comprising research staff of chambers of commerce, economic development organizations and agencies and related organizations throughout the United States and Canada. Small differences should not be interpreted as showing a measurable difference. Three times each year, Prospera collects prices for 60 items in Bozeman and submits its findings to C2ER to be 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. Therefore index data from different quarters cannot be compared. How to Use the Cost of Living Index Consider Bozeman's Q3 2015 composite index score of 102.9 and San Francisco's composite index score of 178.1. If you live in Bozeman and are contemplating a job offer in San Francisco, how much of an increase in your after - taxes income is needed to maintain your present lifestyle? 100* [San Francisco — Bozemanl Bozeman J 178.1-102.9 100* [ 102,9 , = 100*(0.73)= a 73% increase Conversely, if you are considering a move from San Francisco to Bozeman, how much of a cut in after -taxes income can you sustain without reducing your present lifestyle? Bozeman— San Francisco 100* = San Francisco 100* [ 102.9 — 178.1 178.1 ] = 100*( -0.42)= a 42% reduction Somve: QurnYei�, lkepon%c, Cos/ of Lining Iudex. C2LR uomv.o2ero1r. 25 "Cost of Living Index: Comparative Data for 265 Urban Areas." C2ER. October 2015. wwxv.coli.or�. 26 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. www.bls.g_ov/coi. ©PROSPERABUSINtiss NE"rNVORP 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 10 ( ( Cost of Living in Bozeman Bozeman's cost of living was 2.9 percent above the national average for the third quarter of 2015, continuing a trend of being close to the national average each quarter. As seen in Table 6, in the third quarter of 2015 the housing index score was 113.9, meaning that area housing was 13.9 percent ( above the national average as of October 2015. The average price of a 2,400 square foot new home ( on an 8,000 square foot lot that met the index collection specifications was $370,065. The average monthly rental rate for a 950 square foot apartment in Bozeman that met the index collection specifications was $1,000. Mortgage rates are also taken into consideration when computing the housing index score. In the other categories, Bozeman residents enjoy a bargain when it comes to ( utilities, which were 14.7 percent below average, while transportation costs and miscellaneous goods & services did not differ significantly from national averages. Groceries were 1.6 percent above average and health care was 4.1 percent above average for the quarter. f To put Bozeman's index scores in perspective, the other cities included in the table below include the cities with the most expensive and least expensive composite scores for the quarter. The table also includes the most comparable cities to Bozeman in the Western region that participate in the ( index. Note: San Francisco was included to provide insight into how Bozeman compares to the Bay ( area since none of the participating cities in California were comparable to Bozeman. Similarly, Portland was included as the only Oregon city with data available for the quarter. Table 6: 3' Quarter 2015 Cost of Livina Index Comparison San Francisco, CA ceries; 132.1 Housing 320.3 Transport... Util=,, ation 108.2 130.3 Ca re 118.4 Services 122.4 178.1 Pueblo, CO 88.9 96.7 73.4 91.2 95.5 95.0 95.1 Twin Falls, ID 88.7 87.3 77.5 93.0 94.6 101.7 93.8 Bozeman, MT 102.9 101.6 113.9 85.3 99.5 104.1 100.6 Manhattan, NY Most Expensive Q3 2015 236.1 126.5 497.6 129.2 128.3 113.7 147.3 Portland, OR 126.7 112.5 160.9 72.9 120.1 108.2 125.3 Pierre, SD 106.3 108.3 120.2 91.2 113.3 99.9 96.2 McAllen, TX Least Expensive Q3 2015 77.8 79.7 69.6 88.9 85.0 78.7 77.8 Cedar City, UT 89.4 89.8 79.2 88.8 104.5 84.9 93.1 Olympia, WA 100.3 105.4 98.5 89.1 121.5 118.0 92.7 Laramie, WY 93.5 95.4 87.5 100.9 97.0 1 100.9 93.3 �ourie: e.ocrojtlurnginaex, vor. 6,1V0.t,Untn)orIN/VUucn7er-LUIS.'"CLtK.1'1tolisbeduetober*2U1J.mmixizerorv. Note: The Cort o/7lniug Irrdes categories air meigbied fused on the 2013 U.S. Conslilver L%peuditure SaIr fivIv the Bm-eau of�Labor Statictia to i omjiile the composite scone. Consumer Price Index26 The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market range of goods and services. The CPI differs from the Cost of Living Index in that it is intended to measure inflation and is derived from detailed expenditure information provided by families and individuals on items they actually purchased, whereas the Cost of Living Index measures relative prices at particular points in time and is based on current prices available at that time to consumers. Also, CPI figures encompass regions and only provide detailed information on some major metropolitan areas. ©PROSPERA BL'S(NF.ss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 1 I 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 Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, California, Alaska and Hawaii. The average index baseline was set at 100 between 1982 and 1984 and subsequent CPI numbers indicate price changes since that period. Chart 2: Consumer Price Index - All Items Western Region (Non -seasonally adjusted) 250 - - M M N N M CV �j O 7 V R C'4 LO O� Cl? � N CN N N N 245 240 235 230 � L2 � Q > U �. �' C r- p) Q V)0 Z Q ° ii Q —', Q v, O Souize: U.S. Depaiynieirtofllrboi; Bmraitafl.aba•Staticticc, mmu%15icgov/(7�i. 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 Averaae Consumer Price Index (Non -seasonally adiusted) Soarre: U.S. Dep alventof Labor, Bnrecmof L lborStatictia. mviv./Vcgov/cY�i. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE-MORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 250 -- 225 — — 200 175 150 -- - --, -- , 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 anomWestern Region fnU.S. City Average Soarre: U.S. Dep alventof Labor, Bnrecmof L lborStatictia. mviv./Vcgov/cY�i. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE-MORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE Population Trends According to 2014 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates, Gallatin County had a population of 97,308, and its county seat, Bozeman, had approximately 41,660 residents. Park County's population for 2014 was estimated at 15,880 and its county seat, Livingston, had 7,245 residents (Table 7). Bozeman was identified as the sixth fastest growing micropolitan area in the nation from July 1, 2013, to July 1, 2014, based on Gallatin County's 2.8 percent population increase.27 Table 7: State, Countv and City Populations, 2008-2014 Sour e: 'Anlilrat Lstunatrs of i<esldent 1'oputatron cliage. 11pret 1, 2010 to fug, 1, 2014." I ..S. Census Bureau Popnleltiou Diviciou. 1Y7y7K i ell fll f,00lll-ho4es% Gallatin County remains the fastest growing county in the state (Table 8). Over the 2000-2014 period, Park County increased in population by 1.2 percent from a population of 15,694 to 15,880. Table 8: Six Fastest Growina Montana Counties. 2000-2014 Went ChangeRank 1 43.4% 1. 1,005,163 1,014,864 1,023,579 Montana 967,440 974,989 989,415 997,661 Gallatin County 89,824 90,343 89,513 91,333 92,604 94,694 97,308 Belgrade 8,185 8,192 7,389 7,571 7,631 7,685 7,798 BI Sky Big Y 1,221 ni2000 T.S. Cenru- Bmrau 2,308 201 -20/4 data not uvni/nGlr Bozeman 39,004 39,282 37,280 38,099 38,701 39,812 41,660 Manhattan 1,622 1,677 1,520 1,542 1,550 1,556 1,571 Three Forks 1,928 1,970 1,869 1,882 1,889 1,905 1,903 W.Yellowstone 1,511 1,502 1,271 1,297 1,308 1,321 1,322 Park County 16,189 15,941 15,636 15,502 15,580 15,660 15,880 Clyde Park 347 342 288 290 292 293 295 Cooke Cit Y 14oia2000 (U.S. Ceiisiic Brnrair 75 201 J-2014 darn not nvailaGle Gardiner 851 in 2000 .S. Ceuslir Bmran 875 20 / 1-2014 data Imt mailable Livingston 7,409 1 7,380 7,044 7,003 7,056 7,112 7,245 W i lsa l l 237 iu 2000 S. Gaups Bmrau 178 201 /-20/4 data sot nnni/aGle Sour e: 'Anlilrat Lstunatrs of i<esldent 1'oputatron cliage. 11pret 1, 2010 to fug, 1, 2014." I ..S. Census Bureau Popnleltiou Diviciou. 1Y7y7K i ell fll f,00lll-ho4es% Gallatin County remains the fastest growing county in the state (Table 8). Over the 2000-2014 period, Park County increased in population by 1.2 percent from a population of 15,694 to 15,880. Table 8: Six Fastest Growina Montana Counties. 2000-2014 Iaurre: t,pamea zuuu census ripmrc e5 -�-mural t�stmater o_l liesiderit Popntadou C&/Imge: 2070 to /n/y 1, 2014." U.S. Celislis Blurnu Poprdatiou Dnisiou. rvrviv.censlicgov/west. 27 Dietrich, Eric. "Gallatin County among fastest growing in nation." BoZettraa Daily Cbronicle. March 26, 2015. -,vwNv.b o zemandailychronicle. com. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETnN'ORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 13 Went ChangeRank 1 43.4% 1. Gallatin 67,837 94,308 Broadwater 4,380 5,667 29.4% 2 Flathead 74,507 94,924 27.4% 3 Yellowstone 129,347 155,634 20.3% 4 Richland 9,666 11,576 19.8% 5 Lewis & Clark 55,716 65,856 18.2% 6 Iaurre: t,pamea zuuu census ripmrc e5 -�-mural t�stmater o_l liesiderit Popntadou C&/Imge: 2070 to /n/y 1, 2014." U.S. Celislis Blurnu Poprdatiou Dnisiou. rvrviv.censlicgov/west. 27 Dietrich, Eric. "Gallatin County among fastest growing in nation." BoZettraa Daily Cbronicle. March 26, 2015. -,vwNv.b o zemandailychronicle. com. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETnN'ORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 13 Assessing short-term population growth as measured by the 2010 census and July 2014 population estimates, Gallatin County ranked 5"' in the state with a growth rate of 8.6 percent, up 3.1 percent from the 2013 estimate. Meanwhile, Park County ranked 23Cd with a growth rate of 1.9 percent (Table 9). The top ten counties included in the table below remain dominated by those in the eastern portion 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.211 TnhlP 9 - Mnntnnn C'niinty Pnnulntinn Growth. 2010-2014 Soarer: ,91ianal Eslilvalec o_f K&&Iel/l 11opldatim CLuwge: 11finl /, 2U/U to fns, /, 201. U.J. C.eiislls bIlreall Popalalloa Urnrcioir, jnyw. aylsuSaoP/In st. 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 15). 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. 28 Wagner, Barbara. "Montana Employment Projections 2010 through 2020." Montana Research and Analysis Bureau, Montana Department of Labor and Industry. Nvww.ourfactsyourfuture.mt.gov. OPROSPERA BUSINESS NI,'r\wORK 2015 ECONOTIIC PROFILE. 14 10105TY 1, 2014 11,576 Percent Change Rank 1 Richland --T�--9,746 18.9% Wibaux 1,006 1,121 11.4% 2 Garfield 1,186 1,309 10.4% 3 Sheridan 3,373 3,396 9.6% 4 Roosevelt 10,438 11,332 8.6% 5 (Tie) Gallatin 89,599 97,308 8.6% 5 (Tie) Fallon 2,891 3,108 7.5% 6 Dawson 8,930 9,518 6.6% 7 Yellowstone 148,398 155,634 4.9 8 Flathead 90,902 94,924 4.4% 9 (Tie) Granite 3,073 3,209 4.4% 9 (Tie) Valley 7,367 7,640 3.7% 10 Park 15,586 15,880 1.9% 23 Soarer: ,91ianal Eslilvalec o_f K&&Iel/l 11opldatim CLuwge: 11finl /, 2U/U to fns, /, 201. U.J. C.eiislls bIlreall Popalalloa Urnrcioir, jnyw. aylsuSaoP/In st. 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 15). 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. 28 Wagner, Barbara. "Montana Employment Projections 2010 through 2020." Montana Research and Analysis Bureau, Montana Department of Labor and Industry. Nvww.ourfactsyourfuture.mt.gov. OPROSPERA BUSINESS NI,'r\wORK 2015 ECONOTIIC PROFILE. 14 In contrast to the longer term population trends evident in Figure 1 below, Table 9 on page 14 and Figure 2 on page 18 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 Glacier Toole Hill 4.5% Flathea Libe -3.5% Blane Valle 8.4% -7'44 % Roosevelt 72.1. Phillips 4.0°/, Pondera -7.6'/ 1.8� -0x1. Sdrlderb Lake Teton Chouteau Richland 8.4% -5.8'/e -2'6%MCCone 11.6 -13.2 . nera Cascade 9.7% Fergus Garfield Dawson Levns 1.2% -2.6% -5,76 -1.0% Missoula and Judlh Petroleu 14.1% Clark Basin - 0.2% Prairie -0.81 13.8% -11 1.7% baux Po w_I I Grande Meagher Wheatland Musselshell Rosebud Fallon 2.1 % -2.1 % 0.9% -1.6 8.8 % -0.OY Ravalh Deer Jefferson Custer 1.9% 11.5% Lodge 13.5°!. V�1fey 16.E 0.0% -1.3% •LY: S`%+zzt Yellaystone fiver Grass 14AB01% 1.2/, 11.3% Stilhvate Big Povnler C -0 - Madison Park Horn River .1,17-, Beaverhead 12.3% -0A% Carbon 1.5% -6.2% Percent Change 0.5% 5.5% = -17.6 to -11.0 -10.9 to -0.1 r F-10.0 to 5.5 Map by- Montana RMontana Percent Change: 9.7% Census L Economic Info-ation Center g Mordana Department &Commerce 5.6 to 14.4 301 S- Park Ave, Helena MT 69601 406.811-2740 email: cdc�mt.gov 14.5 to 32.0 ht1plkeicm1.9ov Source: U.S. Cercus Bureau, Census 2010. PL 94-171, 2011 May 2011 - Popu1eionChangeayCounty20f0- Same: Alined F.rtiulates o/Resident Popnlntlou Cbnn"'e." U.S. Cwr.ur.r 13u7i°mc Poj7dntion Dirniou. Compiled GJ, d(o77tun(t Urpo7Yn�en! a% Gonion -rye Ceurn.r uud L3r-ononrir Infa7imtlnn Center Gt//r.//rrf�•.nil.�a. As seen in Table 10, Bozeman remains the fourth largest city in Montana behind Billings, Missoula, and Great Falls. Table 10: Montana City Population Rankinas, 2009-2014 Janne: ':97mua! LS111)l eS o/ Ne.f7de711 Poprda/1077:. '1pn/ 1, 2010 to irly 1, 2014. - U.J. Cen.VLr 13/111'(111 110polaho77 Division. rvwu,.ienmc.�or/pnpe.rt. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NET YORK 2015 ECONOnIIC PROFILE dam 2013 2014 2013 Rank Billings 105,845 104,170 105,534 107,027 108,913 108,869 1 Missoula 68,876 66,788 67,565 68,484 69,039 69,821 2 Great Falls 59,366 58,505 58,971 58,943 59,278 59,152 3 Bozeman 39,282 37,280 38,1099 38,701 39,812 41,660 4 Butte 32,268 33,525 33,687 33,791 33,813 33,980 5 Helena 29,939 28,190 28,725 29,144 29,560 29,943 6 Kalispell 21,640 1 19,927 1 20,257 20,486 20,943 21,518 7 Janne: ':97mua! LS111)l eS o/ Ne.f7de711 Poprda/1077:. '1pn/ 1, 2010 to irly 1, 2014. - U.J. Cen.VLr 13/111'(111 110polaho77 Division. rvwu,.ienmc.�or/pnpe.rt. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NET YORK 2015 ECONOnIIC PROFILE According to projections released in April of 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 over 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 Gallatin County in 2030 and a population of 20,110 for Park County in 2030, current population 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 Sox -re: eRE.AH Regional Eonamlie Alorlelr, compiled ly the Aladana Depaltiueni o_J Commove Census and Economic hybimalion Center. lP)PIP. [ einlvt. POP. Note that the population figures included in the chart above are a product of the eREMI 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. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 16 160,000 133,016 140,000 122,432 116,627 120,000 105,568 100,000 89,61 e Cc 80,000 68 375 0 6 60,000 0 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 GEON00allatin County aftnPark County Sox -re: eRE.AH Regional Eonamlie Alorlelr, compiled ly the Aladana Depaltiueni o_J Commove Census and Economic hybimalion Center. lP)PIP. [ einlvt. POP. Note that the population figures included in the chart above are a product of the eREMI 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. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 16 Migration According to Census Bureau population estimates, Montana experienced net migration into the state between July of 2013 and July of 2014 with a total net migration rate of 5,316 (Table 11). This is a 14.15 percent decrease from the prior period net migration of 6,192. Gallatin County had the highest net migration for the state. The six counties with the highest net migration are included in the table below in rank order, along with Park County which ranked 7"' in the state. Table 11 : ConlDonentS of Resident Ponulcition ChnnnP. July gni 3-i(ily 2n14 Jorrrir:"tshmnh+s njtlx�C.oiuponeirtiolKesrdedPopulationU)a1q.'APizt7,2010-Mrd)�1,10/�F."L�.J-.Ci�iavrs8nrcnnl'o�u/crlronllivrdon.rvrvruicvina:novS The chart below shows net migration trends since 2011 for the seven counties from the table above. Gallatin County continued to see strong net migration, while Park County experienced a strong surge in net migration between July of 2013 and July of 2014 as compared to prior periods. Chart 5: Net Migration in Montana, 2011-2014 2,300 :OB 1,300 :es 300 -200 u2011 ■2012 u 2013 *2014 Soilme `Bttimnter of tJ� Caiufxrrreutr a/T�esir/ent Pofinlntian Cbni _=1 j rr/ /, 2010 Jul ' /. 2014. "1 '.S. Ceu, is 8rnrcnr Popillntion Division. rvwncierreia:�or/t�D cit. ©PROSPERA BI;SINESS NE-MORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE Natural aturl Increase Births :LN 3,154 12,243 International Migration 766 . .. . 4,550 5,316 9,089 Montana Gallatin 613 1,152 539 119 1,784 1,903 Flathead 320 1,106 786 65 1,306 1,371 Yellowstone 672 2,044 1,372 51 903 954 Missoula 425 1,219 794 119 386 505 Lewis & Clark 180 750 570 47 292 339 Richland 1 74 67 93 1 303 304 Park 1 2 141 139 4 222 226 Jorrrir:"tshmnh+s njtlx�C.oiuponeirtiolKesrdedPopulationU)a1q.'APizt7,2010-Mrd)�1,10/�F."L�.J-.Ci�iavrs8nrcnnl'o�u/crlronllivrdon.rvrvruicvina:novS The chart below shows net migration trends since 2011 for the seven counties from the table above. Gallatin County continued to see strong net migration, while Park County experienced a strong surge in net migration between July of 2013 and July of 2014 as compared to prior periods. Chart 5: Net Migration in Montana, 2011-2014 2,300 :OB 1,300 :es 300 -200 u2011 ■2012 u 2013 *2014 Soilme `Bttimnter of tJ� Caiufxrrreutr a/T�esir/ent Pofinlntian Cbni _=1 j rr/ /, 2010 Jul ' /. 2014. "1 '.S. Ceu, is 8rnrcnr Popillntion Division. rvwncierreia:�or/t�D cit. ©PROSPERA BI;SINESS NE-MORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE I i 1 l-` 1 I n /1 I n 1 I /l n l A lyure L: muiiiUIlU I`4ui ivuyiullull L)y L cal lly, July LV I )-July w I -T Population Change Beaverhead 14.3 Carron 2.1 Rate Per 1,000 People 36 9.6 Under -10.1 -Net Migration = net internal migration plus net international migration -10.0 to -1.1 Montana Net Migration Rate: 5.2 -1.0 to 0.9 O 1.0 to 10.0 - over 10.0 Map br: Census d Emromic Infamaliori Center Sowce' U.S. Census Bw�u Annual PopAation r;** mtas. Eswnmed CompmeMs of ResderAPopubbon Charqe. Montana Department of Commerrn. 301 S. Park Asa and Rates of the Components of Revdenl Population Change for States and Ca Mies. APrA 1, 2010 to July 1. 2014 lk@na, MT 59620.41)(5-641-2740, htlp lkelc l g- Sowtre: `Erliniatec of llk, Coniponett/s of Rv.didettt Poplllotiou Cban,;e: _Iptil /, 2010 jitl /, 2014. " U.J. C,emi-Ils ISintmt flop/da/10/1 Urtrcian. ttitnt.rz°tt i r.lat/1�her1. Cowlpilkby 1{ le wa Dtprn/ywentof Conunetie Census and ErottoywirLtfrw7nation Cenlet: nntnt7.reh:/nl.crot. The figure above illustrates county -level net migration rates for the state of Montana. Gallatin County's net migration went to 19.8 percent, up from 15.3 percent the prior year, while Park County's net migration jumped up to 14.3 percent, from 5,4 percent the prior year. Maps detailing a county -to -county level migration flow for Gallatin and Park Counties are included on page 19 (Figures 3 & 4). The associated migration data is shown in the table below. Tnhla 19 - C,nllntin and Park (-C)unty Net Miaration Details. 2009-2013 ACS Data F�d overs Movers Movers to . Populatiorom a : Movers to from a a different Mover Location 1 year &ifferen a different different county, from over state county, abroad state same state same state Gallatin County = =M=1 a. • / 30111re: Cen.rws /'lotusdlappet: I I..). Ccnsas t9lne'an veo�tzrp[g Unvsmtt. ttmw. eitvt.+.toe. ©PROSPERA BUSINEss NE•TNN'ORK 2015 ECON011IIC PROFILE Montana County Population Change Rate of Net Migration - July 2013 to July 2014 Estimates* Daniels Shendan Lincoln Glacier Toole Mill 3.9 14.7 -11.3 Ftathead -14.8- -1.4 Liberty -11.1 Blalne Valley Rooaevatl -7.6 .2.3 Phillips 14.6 Ponders _ 1.4 -0.1 12.2 Choutee t Richland Laka Teton 8.7 - 26 7 Sanders 0.3 '4.3 McCane 1.3 Cascade -11.8 Dawson Fergus Garheld inera Lewis 4.9 9.7 " 2 Missoula Claris Basin -42.4 Prairie 4.5 5.2 -15.5 -31.0 -9.8 Powell Meagher -3•2 '31.8 Wheatland Cw'de Musselshell Rosebud Fallon Broad- -4.8 Custet 9.1 water -20.3 all0 su -9.0 Ravalll Jefferson 4 6 10.9 -17.3 5.0 Bow 6.8 Sweet Yellowstone - 5.6 Gallatin Grass Shitwate 6.2 19.8 0.8 -3.4 Carter Powder - Park Big Hom River 0.0 175 Population Change Beaverhead 14.3 Carron 2.1 Rate Per 1,000 People 36 9.6 Under -10.1 -Net Migration = net internal migration plus net international migration -10.0 to -1.1 Montana Net Migration Rate: 5.2 -1.0 to 0.9 O 1.0 to 10.0 - over 10.0 Map br: Census d Emromic Infamaliori Center Sowce' U.S. Census Bw�u Annual PopAation r;** mtas. Eswnmed CompmeMs of ResderAPopubbon Charqe. Montana Department of Commerrn. 301 S. Park Asa and Rates of the Components of Revdenl Population Change for States and Ca Mies. APrA 1, 2010 to July 1. 2014 lk@na, MT 59620.41)(5-641-2740, htlp lkelc l g- Sowtre: `Erliniatec of llk, Coniponett/s of Rv.didettt Poplllotiou Cban,;e: _Iptil /, 2010 jitl /, 2014. " U.J. C,emi-Ils ISintmt flop/da/10/1 Urtrcian. ttitnt.rz°tt i r.lat/1�her1. Cowlpilkby 1{ le wa Dtprn/ywentof Conunetie Census and ErottoywirLtfrw7nation Cenlet: nntnt7.reh:/nl.crot. The figure above illustrates county -level net migration rates for the state of Montana. Gallatin County's net migration went to 19.8 percent, up from 15.3 percent the prior year, while Park County's net migration jumped up to 14.3 percent, from 5,4 percent the prior year. Maps detailing a county -to -county level migration flow for Gallatin and Park Counties are included on page 19 (Figures 3 & 4). The associated migration data is shown in the table below. Tnhla 19 - C,nllntin and Park (-C)unty Net Miaration Details. 2009-2013 ACS Data F�d overs Movers Movers to . Populatiorom a : Movers to from a a different Mover Location 1 year &ifferen a different different county, from over state county, abroad state same state same state Gallatin County = =M=1 a. • / 30111re: Cen.rws /'lotusdlappet: I I..). Ccnsas t9lne'an veo�tzrp[g Unvsmtt. ttmw. eitvt.+.toe. ©PROSPERA BUSINEss NE•TNN'ORK 2015 ECON011IIC PROFILE Figure 3: Net Migration Flows for Gallatin County 2009-2013 ACS Data ,?A %% Total net migration flows for Gallatin County, Montana It United 2009.13 5-yearAmerican Community Survey Estimates 1O1 Soares°: Cerrsur Flatus ALcoper U.S. Census Boman Geogrrrp/?),DINIBIon. J imp.cegsl1S9oR Figure 4: Net Migration Flows for Park County 2009-2013 ACS Data Total net migration flows for Park County, Montana e� veus.a stater Census 2009-13 5-yearAmericen Community Survey Estimates Sola -re: Census Floms,4Lc�bper: U.S. Ceusas Bureau Geagizrply Dinrsron. rvmrv.eenars.nou ©PROSPERA BU'SINEss NE-nVORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 0 O overs i 151 hrf ami ti ai 239 to 478 1 to 238 a 6 No net movers i -1 to -68 g -69 to -136 N-fami • Soares°: Cerrsur Flatus ALcoper U.S. Census Boman Geogrrrp/?),DINIBIon. J imp.cegsl1S9oR Figure 4: Net Migration Flows for Park County 2009-2013 ACS Data Total net migration flows for Park County, Montana e� veus.a stater Census 2009-13 5-yearAmericen Community Survey Estimates Sola -re: Census Floms,4Lc�bper: U.S. Ceusas Bureau Geagizrply Dinrsron. rvmrv.eenars.nou ©PROSPERA BU'SINEss NE-nVORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 0 O overs i 151 hrf ami Demoaraahics According to five year American Community Survey estimates shown in Table 13 below, the national median age is 37.3 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 Montana State University. Tnhle 12: Ane Demoorabhics, 2009-2013 ACS Data United States MarginMedian e1q, of rrorMarginof 37.3 (+/-0.1 years) Under -5 Years ErrorMarginof 20,052,1 12 (+/-3,384) 18 and Over ErrorMarginof 237,659,1 16 (+/-6,357) 65 and Over Error 41,851,042 (+/-4,246) Montana 39.9 (+/-0.2 years) 61,040 (+/-329) 775,259 (+/-291) 152,961 (+/-315) Gallatin County 32.8 (+/-0.3 years) 5,749 (+/-63) 72,454 (+/-n/a) 9,084 (+/-68) Belgrade 28.6 (+/-1.3 years) 600 (+/-201) 5,115 (+/-239) 421 (+/-87) Big Sky 34.1 (+/-4.4 years) 166 (+/-95) 2,003 (+/-338) 305 (+/-147) Bozeman 27.3 (+/-0.6 years) 1,956 (+/-275) 32,565 (+/-358) 3,087 (+/-273) Manhattan 39.0 (+/-6.4 years) 130 (+/-64) 939 (+/-138) 192 (+/-51) Three Forks 47.5 (+/-10.3 years) 46 (+/-33) 1,359 (+/-161) 373 (+/-109) West Yellowstone 36.9 (+/-9.9 years) 117 (+/-78) 1,101 (+/-226) 141 (+/-52) Park County 46.0 (+/-0.5 years) 811 (+/-97) 12,537 (+/-42) 2,733 (+/-51) Clyde Park 49.2 (+/-17.8 years) 12(+/-10) 210(+/-65) 40(+/-22) Cooke City 52.6 (+/-4.8 years) 0(+/-10) 23 (+/-15) 3 (+/-4) Gardiner 44.3 (+1-7.7 years) 29(+/-31) 822 (+/-144) 110(+/-44) Livingston 40.1 (+/-2.8 years) 578 (+/-108) 5,499 (+/-158) 1,219 (+/-187) Wilsall 56.6 (+/-17.6 years) 21 (+/-20) 76 (+/-28) 28(+/-17) Solirce: `2009-20/3f11inerrrvrrCbnminni�,-U.J. Census Bureau. mmaensus.go�. As illustrated by the estimates in Table 14 below, Gallatin and Park Counties are slightly less diverse than the state overall by most measures. In all categories except for the American Indian population, Montana is considerably less diverse than the nation as a whole. Tnk6 1 A. F+hnirity nPmnnrnnhir-s 9nn9-9n1'� AC'S nntn ... White Non -Hispanic United StateS7 Marginof ErrorMarginof 74.0% (+/-0.1%) Montana ErrorMarginof 89.4% (+/-0.1%) Gallatin County ErrorMarginof 95.3% (+/-0.3%) ' Park County Error 96.4% (+/-0.4%) Black or African American 12.6% (+/-0.1%) 0.4% (+/-0.1%) 0.3% (+/-0.2%) 0.1% (+/-0.2%) Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 16.6% (+/-0.1%) 3.1 % (+/-0.1 %) 2.9% * 2.3%* American Indian & Alaskan Native 0.8% (+/-0.1%) 6.5% (+/-0.1%) 1.1% (+/-0.2%) 0.7% (+/-0.3%) Two or more races 2.8% (+/-0.1 %) 2.4% (+/-o.1%) 2.0% (+/-0.3%) 2.6% (+/-0.6%) Soun-e 2009-20/3 Amo -man Coiunuuu�, Au vg'. - U.J. Census Warau. mpmcensus.nol. rtS1111J ue If rouaoaea, wingin o/ amr not oppropiwe. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE-IAVORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE ��� Poverty rates for Montana's counties as of 2013 increased compared to the prior year according to estimates released in December 2014. The statewide average rate was 16.1 percent, 0.3% above the national average (Figure 5). Twenty counties in the state, including Park County, were below the "high poverty county" threshold, which is defined as a county in which 14 percent or more people of all ages are in poverty. Gallatin County came in right at the high -poverty county threshold level of 14 percent. In comparison to the prior period, 2012 county poverty rates had 18 counties below the threshold and a statewide average rate of 15.9 percent. rlgure 5: montana t,ounty Poverty Kates, "LU I j Poverty in Montana: 2013 County Poverty Rates Ung Glacier Tool a — 17sx -j 31x te: """', I�1 Blasts f ---L... 18.5% O Fig 7x ?, —I Ponders' II 2s% I 28� Plu \I_ 20.7% i� /8 t% Sanders J e 1 Ni Teton gro6teau 1 I 2Q3% I Lewis Mm � Cascade V e� L d Fe AP�e*trdewn Clark �- 15.7ss Mescals T Judith Basin taa14.9% I_17.4% � 20% 126%Powdl Meagher Wheatland /P-alli ;t 15.91 S wrote -A- 19.6% 19.7% ' Valley 17% G r Jetkrson 13 3 179-6% ta.ex 1-�,�trige l 10.5% �� Sweet L- Gala61 Grass t71wa 122% 14% Park 9.5% Poverty Rate Less than 14% 14% or more Sauna: U.S. Cereus &rmu, 2013 Smal Madison Bea rerFlead 122% Carbon 126% Garfield 17.3% Daniels Shedden IL 91% 1041% Valley T Raosevdt 13.3% 1 28,6% P7 7.7% 115.66r%te Dawson r� __-127% Falun Custer z8% 19.5% 126% 129% �- 8'g Nem Powder River 27.6% 124% 90-1-201(2)(d), MCA -Nigh-poverty county' means a county in this state in which 14% or more of people of all ages are in poverty as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau estimates for the most current year available. Montana's Average Poverty Rate 16.1% US Average Poverty Rate 15.8% ft by Census 8 Ecanrnie nlormakon Center, kkfntane DNpwhwl d Caro Al ages n Pwey, Released D"nber 2014. 301 S. Park A», Nektna. MT 5%200505, 406A41-2740 emai oeicgmLgw h1tplMu .Somzze Cenrrrr e/~' Leonoinrc 1t/o77»atiort Cerde7; Alolrtann DIy5caYorent of C'oowmerre. had 1,,eJr.,,u1gou. The estimates in Table 15 on page 22 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. Park County and its communities have lower median income levels than the statewide median income figures (Table 15). However, the rates of individuals below poverty level and families below poverty level were lower than Gallatin County as well as national and statewide averages. ©PROSPLRA BUSINESS NETV'ORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROPILF ° I Note that the U.S. and statewide poverty figures included in Table 15 below are based on American Community Survey data between 2009 and 2013, whereas the average poverty rates shown in Figure 5 on page 21 are based on the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates for 2013. Table 15: Income Levels, 2009-2013 ACS Data . . . Median..n - .. .. .Margin.Margin.Margin. Error $53,046 T Error $64,719 Per Capita Error $28,155 All People Below -Level Margin of Error 15.4%(+/-0.1%) Families Poverty Level Error+/- 11.3% United States (+/-$89) (+/-$182) (+/-$76) (+/-0.1%) Montana $46,230 $59,753 $25,373 15.2% (+/-0.4%) 10.1% (+/-$453) (+/-$619) (+/-$278) (+/-0.4%) Gallatin County $52,833 $69,556 $28,939 14.1% (+/-1.1%) 7.0% (+/-1.1%) (+/-$1,563) (+/-$2,409) (+/-$993) Belgrade $38,343 $44,286 $19,169 16.0% (+/-6.2%) 13.4% (+/-5,018) (+/-$13,324) (+/-$1,723) (+/-7.2%) Big Sky $66,052 $93,556 $32,850 11.1% (+/-6.3%) 1.5% (+/-2.2%) (+/-$9,938) (+/-$8,698) (+/-$4,128) Bozeman $44,615 $65,902 $26,335 21.2% (+/-1.9%) 8.2% (+/-1.9%) (+/-$2,917) (+/-$3,443) (+/-$1,499) Manhattan $54,091 $66,696 $25,571 2.6% (+/-2.0%) 0.8% (+/-1.2%) (+/-$7,547) (+/-$8,674) (+/-$2,443) Three Forks $45,885 $53,359 $23,911 11.9% (+/-5.4%) 8.6% (+/-4.9%) (+/-$6,268) (+/-$7,566) (+/-$2,626) West $41,332 $55,156 $26,699 0 0 15.7/0 (+/-9.4/0) 0 0 12.4/0 (+/-8.9/0) Yellowstone (+/-$3,990) (+/-$17,584) (+/-$6,142) Park County $42,426 $56,960 $24,611 11.0% (+/-8.2%) 6.7% (+/-2.1%) (+/-$2,566) (+/-$6,195) (+/-$1,614) Clyde Park $37,778 $46,250 $19,900 8.8% (+/-7.7%) 0.0% (+/-31.0%) (+/-$7,153) (+/-17,758) (+/-$4,253) Cooke City $51,250 $51,563 $30,587 0.0% (+/-51.5%) 0.0% (+/-82.3%) (+1-$16,107) (+/-$11,395) (+/-$5,723) Gardiner $47,336 $70,938 $27,855 10.9% (+/-8.7%) 5.6% (+/-7.5%) (+/-$16,133) (+/-$12,442) (+/-$3,790) Livingston $39,015 $48,834 $21,673 12.7% (+/-3.5%) 7.1 % (+/-3.6%) (+/-$3,105) (+/-$5,295) (+/-$1,800) Wilsall $38,750 $46,750 $17,272 7.2% (+/-12.6%) 0.0% (+/-45.8%) (+/-$14,020) (+/-$11,589) (+/-$5,451) Sourie: `200%-1013 .'Lne/inm Lo/nminutp Jlnrap." U.J. Census IS//IYOI(. lY1LIlL['P//S//,C OR 1/f['oUl(/lgifirs are in tvlz /nparlon-rm/nnrn nnnnls. Nole tial Per Capita Personal Llco/ne /nearrnvs the i/lcolue o_ f all people, nicbuGng lbe ane/nploperl For aewl-eNe nl ges em -wed 6 , enijiloyed /rrir(CHIS, please see Me Sabi), & tt qe sectio/!. As illustrated in Table 16 on page 23, 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. The rates for those earning a bachelor's degree or above are nearly the same for the United States and Montana. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NrmwoRK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE ) I Table 16: Level of Educational Attainment (Percent of Population 25 Years & Over) 2009-2013 ACS t)ntn United States MarginLocation High School or Above 86.0% (+/-o.1 %) Bachelor's Degree or Above .. 28.8% (+/-0.1 -/.) Montana 92.1% (+/-0.2%) 28.7% (+/-0.4%) Gallatin County 96.1% (+/-0.6%) 46.0% (+/-1.5%) Belgrade 95.8% (+/-2.1%) 24.5% (+/-6.4%) Big Sky 97.8% (+/-2.6%) 56.0% (+/-8.0%) Bozeman 97.2% (+/-0.8%) 53.6% (+/-2.2%) Manhattan 93.9% (+/-3.5%) 35.4% (+/-7.2%) Three Forks 90.4% (+/-3.4%) 15.0% (+/-5.1%) West Yellowstone 94.4% (+%-5.6%) 24.1% (+/-7.9%) Park County 93.2% (+/-2.3%) 33.6% (+/-3.3%) Clyde Park 95.4% (+/-4.0%) 19.5% (+/-8.9%) Cooke City 91.3% (+/-13.2%) 0.0% (+/-100.0%) Gardiner 96.6% (+/-2.9%) 45.4% (+/-8.6%) Livingston 89.4% (+/-4.5%) 30.9% (+/-5.4%) Wilsall 92.1% (+/-9.6%) 55.3% (+/-18.8%) ,3oivre: zuul-LuU f,jmell(can uolvIIAi,iii)' JIl1'NP)', ( .3. celisilf 1jinvaII. impmtelisl1. P011. American Community Survey estimates show that approximately 62 percent of the housing units in Gallatin County are owner -occupied while the remaining 38 percent are rented (Table 17). Park County's owner -occupied units account for 75.1 percent of the total, with 24.9 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 $802. Meanwhile 30 percent of units in Livingston are renter - occupied and the median rent is $641 per month. Table 17: Housina OCCUDancv 2009-2013 ACS Data .)ourve. -zuuy-tuv L!..). celi.Qir bli eau. mipmeensus.fol,. ©PROSPERA BusINEss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE - Wype"80,Owner • 75,075,700 • 276,939 22,857 • 4,841 Owner -Occupied Housing Units (+/-345,645) (+/-2,112) (+/-612) (+/-275) Renter -Occupied Housing Units 40,534,516 128,586 14,116 1,604 (+/-114,260) (+/-1,495) (+/-578) (+/-233) Median Monthly Housing Costs for $904 $682 $829 $663 Renter -Occupied Housing Units (+/-$1) (+/-$8) (+/-$24) (+/-$55) Median Monthly Housing Costs $1,540 $1,293 $1,564 $1,307 for Mortgaged Owners (+/-$1) 1 (+/-$12) (+/-$37) (+/-$100) Median Monthly Housing Costs $452 $381 $461 $409 for Non -Mortgaged Owners (+/-$1) (+/-$3) (+/-$14) (+/-$29) .)ourve. -zuuy-tuv L!..). celi.Qir bli eau. mipmeensus.fol,. ©PROSPERA BusINEss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE - According to the latest estimates, the nation's average household size is 2.63 people and the average family size is 3.22 people while Montana's average household size is 2.39 people, with an average family size of 2.97 people (Table 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. Table 18: Household and Family Dynamics 2009-2013 ACS Data Source: 2009-2013 ; lueriaw Comnnali6, " U.S. Cerrros Brnran. mivrv.ieusus.nor,. ©PROSPERA BUSINEss NEWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 24 Averag WAverage -. Aronfamily er -..coupleFamily Size Households Living Alone "'Loca ioml: 4,, Size MarginError ..MarginMargin. Margin. f Error Error IL United States Error 2.63 3.22 (+/-0.01) Error 48.7% 33.6% 27.5°/a (+/-0.01) (+/-0.1 %) (+/-0.1%) (+/-0.1%) Montana 2.39 2.97 (+/-0.02) 50.0% 36.9% 30.1% +/-0.01 +/-0.4% +/-0.4% +/-0.4% Gallatin County 2.36 2.86 (+/-0.04) 49.1% 40.1% 26.7% (+/-0.03) (+/-1.5%) (+/-1.5%) (+/-1.5%) Belgrade 2.51 3.07 (+/-0.17) 42.3% 39.6% 29.3% (+/-0.14) (+/-6.3%) (+1-7.1%) (+/-6.7% Big Sky 2.18 2.64 (+/-0.19) 51.7% 46.0% 29.7% (+/-0.19) (+/-8.7%) (+/-9.2%) (+/-8.1%) Bozeman 2.18 2.77 (+/-0.09) 34.1% 55.2% 34.8% (+/-0.06 +/-2.3%) (+/-2.6%) (+/-2.4% Manhattan 2.53 3.14 (+/-0.25) 63.8% 31.3% 27.5% (+/-0.24) (+/-8.8%) (+/-8.4%) (+/-8.5%) Three Forks 2.22 2.60 (+/-0.18) 47.7% 30.8% 25.4% (+/-0.16) (+/-7.9%) (+/-7.3%) (+/-6.8%) West 2.18 2.95 (+/-0.44) 42.6% 45.6% 35.8% Yellowstone (+/-0.28) (+/-8.2%) (+/-8.2%) (+/-7.9%) Park County 2.39 3.09 (+/-0.18) 50.8% 39.9% 35.4% (+/-0.10) (+/-4.2%) (+/-4.1%) (+/-3.9%) Clyde Park 2.15 3.33 (+/-0.74) 41.5% 50.8% 50.0% (+/-0.48) (+/-14.3%) (+/-13.4%) (+/-13.6%) Cooke City 1.64 1.78 (+/-0.78) 64.3% 35.7% 21.4% (+/-0.67) (+/-30.4%) (+/-30.4%) (+/-29.2%) Gardiner 2.29 3.17 (+/-0.52) 43.7% 42.6% 41.6% (+/-0.34) (+/-11.1%) (+/-10.0%) (+/-10.0% Livingston 2.43 3.28 (+/-0.32) 45.9% 42.1% 38.7% +/-0.18) (+/-7.2%) (+/-6.9%) (+/-7.0%) Wilsall 2.37 2.93 (+/-.80) 70.7% 29.3% 29.3% (+/-0.79) (+/-28.6%) (+/-28.6%) (+/-28.6%) Source: 2009-2013 ; lueriaw Comnnali6, " U.S. Cerrros Brnran. mivrv.ieusus.nor,. ©PROSPERA BUSINEss NEWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 24 Workforce According to the Montana Department of Labor & Montana first in the nation for _ Industry's Research & Analysis Bureau: "Montana's employee engagement workers and businesses are enjoying higher wages, strong According to Gallup Daily Tracking l output growth, and an ideal unemployment situation... interviews conducted January 2013 The strong job growth over the last five years has reduced through December 2014, 39% of Montana's unemployment to ideal levels... Economists Montana's workforce was identified consider unemployment rates between four and five as engaged -earning top ranking in ( percent as "normal" unemployment, which is the level of the nation. Engaged employees are 1 unemployment that provides a healthy balance of most described as "involved in and workers being able to find jobs at reasonable pay, and enthusiastic about their work and businesses being able to find workers with the right skills workplace. Day after day, they are �. and experience for the job."29 passionate about their jobs and feel 9 Tied a profound connection to their However, a worker shortage is looming on the horizon, company. They are more productive, with expected growth of only 4,100 workers per year for drive innovation and promote the next ten years and an expected 6,500 jobs that will organizational growth." The District need filled in each year for the ten year period. As stated of Columbia had the lowest level of by Chief Economist Barbara Wagner, "Montana's overall employee engagement, with 22% of economic growth will be slowed by worker shortages workers engaged. f unless Montana finds ways to increase the available labor Harter, Jim and Nelson, Bailey. by increasing participation rates to record highs, shifting Gallup, Inc. March 18, 2015. to more full-time jobs, and investing in productivity- w"Alw.gallup.com enhancing technologies.i29 - As see in Table 19 below, Nebraska had the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, while Montana maintained the 9di lowest unemployment rate, tied with Idaho, as of May 2015. Table 19: State Unemployment Rate Comparison, May 2015 (Seasonally adiusterl) Nebraska 3.4 2.6 -0.8 1 North Dakota 2.7 3.1 0.4 2 Utah 3.7 3.5 -0.2 3 South Dakota 3.4 3.8 0.4 5 Idaho 4.9 3.9 -1.0 9 Tied Montana 4.7 3.9 -0.8 9 Tied Wyoming 4.3 4.1 -0.2 11 Tied Colorado 5.2 4.3 -0.9 13 Tied Oregon 7.0 5.3 -1.7 25 Tied Washington 6.2 5.4 -0.8 27 Tied J"rr1',a'., U.J. Warall"JI--crUw'Jfelf/s/les. wwm.Ulcp"r. P: 111a)12075 dalnrrplrluuurng. Gallatin County's unemployment rate improved year-to-year and as of May 2015, Gallatin County had the 20"' lowest unemployment rate in the state (Table 20). However this was down from ranking 15`I' in Montana in May 2014. Park County's unemployment rate also improved since May 2014, but fell from ranking 25``' in the state in May 2014 to ranking 41" in the state as of May 2015. 29 Wagner, Barbara. "State of Montana Labor Day Report to the Governor: A Summary." Montana Economy at a Glance, August 2015. Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Research & Analysis Bureau. \vw\v. ourfac tsyourfuture.mt.gov. ( ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE Note that colony level unemployment data is available on a non -seasonally adjusted basis only, therefore the rate for Montana in Table 20 differs from the seasonally adjusted rates in Table 19. Tnhlp. 7n• inty IJnpmnl(-)vment Rate Comparison. May 2015 (Non -seasonally adiusted) Area Montana May 2014' -R -ate- 4.2 May 2016-1'cgz.r• 3.4 •- -0.8 • 1 `• w n/a Sheridan County 2.3 1.5 -0.8 1 Yellowstone County 3.3 2.6 -0.7 13 Tied Lewis & Clark County 3.3 2.7 -0.6 17 Tied Gallatin County 3.6 2.8 -0.8 20 Tied Missoula County 3.9 3.1 -0.8 27 Madison County 5.0 3.3 -1.7 29 Silver Bow County 4.5 3.4 -1.1 33 Tied Park County 5.0 3.9 -1.1 41 Tied Flathead County 5.8 4.7 -1.1 49 Glacier County 9.5 8.0 -1.5 56 Soon -e: Alontnncr D(pai- wwlo/l-abor&IndusIg, Research ei'llunb.ds b1tivau. And u.J. binvau ofl.crvorJtatrctles. wlvn).151c.gor,. P: Ala 20/ 5 rlyduisprzlimurnil. ✓ Annual Unemployment Rates Revised annual unemployment figures for 2009 to 2014 are shown in Chart 6. Between 2013 and 2014, national unemployment fell from 7.4 percent to 5.4 percent, statewide annual unemployment decreased from 5.6 percent to 4.6 percent, and Gallatin County's rate followed suit, declining from 4.4 percent to 3.3 percent. Park County's unemployment rate continues to trend higher than Montana's overall rate and increased slightly from 2013 to 2014, from 5.9 percent to 6.1 percent. For all areas except Park County, unemployment rates as of 2014 fell to levels not seen since 2008. (In 2008 unemployment rates were: 5.8 percent for the United States, 4.5 percent for Montana, 3.7 percent for Gallatin County and 4.7 percent for Park County.) In the recent past, Gallatin County has exceeded Montana's unemployment rate only once -and just slightly -in 2009. Chart 6: Annual Unempl 12 10 8 ment Rates, 2009-2014 (Non -seasonally ad 2 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 ■ United States bi Montana W Gallatin County V Park County Source U.S. B111rnn gfLabor Slalislhx. unrnv.Glceau. Nol seasonalj, cr§luled. ©PROSPERA B1.7SINEss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE -I' 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. Table 21: County Labor Force Statistics. 2007-2014 (Non-sensonnh ndinstp.d) 1,l ;r" 1 ,,A i1 Gallatin County Labor Force 50,482 50,990 48,272 48,178 49,299 50,405 52,640 57,583 Employed 49,214 49,081 45,324 45,043 46,419 47,718 50,315 55,533 Unemployed 1,268 1,909 2,948 3,135 2,880 2,687 2,325 2,050 Park County Labor Force 9,087 9,040 8,481 8,340 8,427 8,726 8,768 7,875 Employed 8,778 8,616 7,886 7,719 7,828 8,175 8,251 7,638 Unemployed 309 424 595 621 599 551 517 507 Jourie: L.J. Blurarl ojl-zbnrJJalaVtrrc inwIP.N..c.gou COPROSPERA BUSINESS NE-nVORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 27 Emalovment by Sector The principal employment sectors in Gallatin County as of 2014 continue to be trade, transportation & utilities and leisure & hospitality. Park County's largest employment sectors are leisure & hospitality and trade, transportation & utilities (Chart 7). Note that the service providing and goods producing sectors included in the chart below are supersector groups, or 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. hart 7: 2014 Number of Employees by Sector - Gallatin and Park (-ounties Local Government State Government Federal Government Service Providing Goods Producing Unclassified Other Services Leisure & Hospitality Education & Health Set -vices Professional & Business Set -vices Financial Activities Information Trade, Transportation & Utilities Manufacturing Construction Natural Resources & Mining 73 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 oGallatin County LJ Park County Source: "QualYeily Cen lis of Enploylvent & Ii ager. "Blu an of L.aboi• Slativih-s. ww)v.G/.cga,/,:ew. 20/4 inilb/watiou is pmliminrnY. Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 2013 data and preliminary 2014 figures, the area's economy continues to be strong in almost all areas of private sector employment. In Gallatin County, construction employment growth took the lead, and was up 9.4 percent (from 3,930 in 2013 to 4,299 in 2014). Leisure and hospitality employment in Gallatin County was second in terms of year -over -year growth at 7.6 percent (from 7,619 to 8,201). Also notable in Gallatin County was 7.2 percent employment growth in manufacturing (from 2,659 to 2,851) and 6.2 percent employment growth in professional and business services (from 5,154 to 5,473). However, there was an 18.1 percent decline in the information sector in Gallatin County (from 570 to 467). Park County's largest employment growth was also seen in the construction ©PROSPLRA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE �� industry, with 8.0 percent growth (from 262 to 283). The second largest growth was in the financial activities sector, which grew 6.9 percent (from 217 to 232). Three of the ten sectors grew between 2013 and 2014 in Park County, while five sectors experienced declines of less than four percent since 2013. Additionally there was a 5.6 decrease in the natural resources sector (from 162 to 153). Federal government employment in Gallatin County was down 3.1 percent (from 617 to 598) but up 7.7 percent in Park County (from 65 to 70). State government employment down by 0.6 percent in Gallatin County (from 4,223 to 4,248) but up by 2.9 percent in Park County (from 34 to 35). Meanwhile local government employment grew by 2.9 percent in Gallatin County (from 2,914 to 2,998) and down by 0.7 percent in Park County (from 588 to 584). As measured by both number of establishments and average annual employment Gallatin County's dominant sectors include professional & business services and trade, transportation & utilities (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). Table 22: 2014 Emolovment and Earninas by Sector Jo✓frre: 7l1tm7e1ly Cense" of t;rr,Pfayorerr! C- Wqc es.- tSnremr a/ LaPor 31affrtir:c __P/ 2014 2011 rrifaimrliorr is przliurinng. *Pr-a.�j�ern Bridrrer,r Netryor;�:r ecrlerrin>ian, totnlgouernnrenl dirla not jrr»nided Irj� BLS.: ©PROSPERA BUSINHSS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROPILE ='� Sector Number of Establish- ments Number of Employees Average WeeklyNumber Wage Number of Establish - ments of Employees Average Weekly Wage Goods Producing 1,248 7,920 $814 183 815 $672 Natural Resources & Mining 103 771 $803 47 162 $581 Construction 927 4,299 $859 102 262 $653 Manufacturing 218 2,851 $748 34 391 $722 Service Providing 4,377 33,573 $675 654 3,891 $534 Trade, Transportation & Utilities 969 10,031 $628 137 825 $532 Information 88 467 $904 18 83 $734 Financial Activities 560 2,183 $984 61 217 $723 Professional & Business Services 1,293 5,473 $1,056 130 274 $972 Education & Health Services 493 5,516 $756 60 717 $685 Leisure & Hospitality 570 8,021 $353 173 1,378 $345 Other Services 402 1,876 $543 77 398 $476 Unclassified 2 6 $742 - 3 - Private Sector Totals 5,625 41,493 $702 837 4,706 $558 Federal Government 31 598 $1,211 12 70 $876 State Government 16 4,248 $833 8 35 $1,340 Local Government 56 2,998 $776 19 584 $671 Governmental Totals* 103 7,834 $840 39 689 $726 Jo✓frre: 7l1tm7e1ly Cense" of t;rr,Pfayorerr! C- Wqc es.- tSnremr a/ LaPor 31affrtir:c __P/ 2014 2011 rrifaimrliorr is przliurinng. *Pr-a.�j�ern Bridrrer,r Netryor;�:r ecrlerrin>ian, totnlgouernnrenl dirla not jrr»nided Irj� BLS.: ©PROSPERA BUSINHSS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROPILE ='� 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 earlier, the service providing and goods producing sectors included in the chart below are supersector groups that encompass die other non- governmental sectors listed. The goods producing sector includes natural resources & mining, construction and manufacturing, while all other non-governmental sectors fall under the service providing supersector. Salary & Waae Detail Patterns in Montanan's Wage Growth According to state economist Amy Watson, "Montana's strong wage growth has stemmed from a relatively strong demand for labor, coupled with worker shortages in particular areas of the state... Montana has experienced wage growth above the national average for the last 10 years. Wage growth has occurred across all wage classes, suggesting the standard of living has improved for all Montanan's regardless of their income level. As a percentage, wages have been growing the fastest for people in the lowest wage class. Yet, despite rapid growth in the lowest wage class, the gap between the wages of the lowest and highest wage class has widened over time." Montana Economy of a Glance, January 2015 Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Research & Analysis Bureau w%ww. our foctsyourfufure. org Chart 8: Average Annual Pay by Industry - Gallatin and Park Counties 2014 Local Government State Government Federal Government Service Providing Goods Producing Other Services Leisure & Hospitality Education & Health Services Professional & Business Services Financial Activities Information Trade, Transportation & Utilities Manufacturing Construction Natural Resources & Mining %O 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ��00 ��OO X100 ■ Park County V Gallatin County Soan•e: '1011altie0l , Cen lls of Enipi(gpve"t e,, I I%Ne v. " Burran o1Labor Statistics. nimp. b1s. fopl aw. 2014 irllbl iatiou is prrioonmq,. OPROSPERA BUSINESS NEIACIORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 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: $39,024 versus $51,552 for 2014. By this measure, Montana's average annual wage ranking is 48``' 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 remuneration receivable by employees (including corporate officers) from employers for the provision of labor services. It includes commissions, tips, and bonuses; employee gains from exercising stock options; and pay-in-kind. Table 23: 2014 Averaae Annual Waaes and Salaries •- United States .�1 $13,999 ••/ .�nk - ••/ $23,423 ../ Rank - 111 $35,054 111 .a - / $51,552 2014 Rank* - California $15,013 8 $26,237 7 $40,869 6 $59,391 6 Washington $15,086 7 $22,885 15 $37,544 8 $55,427 9 Colorado $14,228 14 $22,632 19 $37,059 9 $53,401 12 North Dakota $11,868 44 $17,362 49 $24,416 49 $49,741 18 Wyoming $15,335 6 $20,058 36 $27,138 45 $47,361 23 Oregon $13,935 19 $21,026 28 $32,774 22 $47,233 24 Utah $13,089 29 $19,782 40 $29,316 33 $43,856 35 Montana $12,598 35 $17,476 48 $24,171 51 $39,024 48 Idaho $12,174 42 $18,739 46 $27,557 42 $38,893 49 South Dakota $10,750 50 $16,348 51 $24,396 50 $38,246 50 .[orale: Mare Liroaomn• ogplec U.3. warall o1 Pvmor»rrA& .r1c rnviv.bea.nou. Last apdaled 3eptew1wr 30, 2073, noised ertiltalec_for 1976-20/3. All dollar estitttates itt Cttt'I Cttt dollars. *J\Tole: Rall nrgs /uclnde 30 states pills the Dishiet of Collfwbia olid air Prosperzr''s whilaliat. Montana has the highest percentage of the population in the nation for those 25 years and older with a high school diploma.30 Montana ranks 20`x' for those with bachelor's degrees and 33' for those with a graduate degree .3" As seen below, despite the fairly well-educated workforce, Montana's median earnings continue to trail behind national averages (Table 24). Table 24: Median Annual Earninas by Educational Attainment 2no9-gnl .� Ac' nn+n J omce: zuui-zuv Ivilerrran C.oaunlrlrrtJ' .I - U.J. c.eaurr lSmrarr. mwiv.reuair.r�ou. 11opalattotr Z) jear:r olid oml-. 10 "State of Montana Labor Day Report to the Governor: 2015." Montana Economy at a Glance, August 31, 2015. Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Research & Analysis Bureau. xv\v%v.ourfactsyourfuture.mteov ©PROSPERA Bus[NESs NUMORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE $35,644 +/- $83 Total $30,061 +/- $257 Less than high school graduate $18,250 +/- $1,159 $19,652 +/- $44 High school graduate (includes equivalency) $24,666 +/- $438 $27,528 +/- $49 Some college or associates' degree $28,041 +/- $682 $33,702 +/- $50 Bachelor's degree $36,880 +/-$642 $50,254 +/-$58 Graduate or professional degree $51,277 +/- $967 $66,493 +/-$85 J omce: zuui-zuv Ivilerrran C.oaunlrlrrtJ' .I - U.J. c.eaurr lSmrarr. mwiv.reuair.r�ou. 11opalattotr Z) jear:r olid oml-. 10 "State of Montana Labor Day Report to the Governor: 2015." Montana Economy at a Glance, August 31, 2015. Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Research & Analysis Bureau. xv\v%v.ourfactsyourfuture.mteov ©PROSPERA Bus[NESs NUMORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE All but one of the Montana counties featured in the table below experienced at least a one percent increase in average weekly wage between 2014 and 2015. Gallatin County's average weekly wage increased by 3.13 percent between 2013 and 2014, after declining by 2.90 percent between 2012 and 2013. In Park County, wages decreased by 0.69 percent between 2013 and 2014, after improving by 1.40 percent between 2012 and 2012 (Table 25). Table 25: Average Weekly Wage by County and Percent Change, 2012-2014 (All Industries) Sox -re: Onmier Census o%T:ii,P1gymerd & I1 - es. "Buitenu o/'I,rborS'1u1Lv/r :c. mrvrv.b/.r. ov/cem. P. 2014 information it pielmrinag. 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 15`x' position in 2014 after ranking 14"' in 2013 while Park rose to 42`d position in 2014 from 43`d position in 2013. Table 26: Montana Counties Ranked by 2014 Annual Average Pay (All Industries) �F- -- ... $713 -- so- $723 - .. $748 3.46% Montana Flathead County $672 $689 $718 4.21% Gallatin County $723 $702 $724 3.13% Lewis and Clark County $778 $781 $797 2.05% Madison County $577 $594 $620 4.38% Missoula County $681 $689 $711 3.19% Park County $571 $579 $575 -0.69% Silver Bow County $726 $736 $747 1.49% Yellowstone County $785 $805 $833 3.48% Sox -re: Onmier Census o%T:ii,P1gymerd & I1 - es. "Buitenu o/'I,rborS'1u1Lv/r :c. mrvrv.b/.r. ov/cem. P. 2014 information it pielmrinag. 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 15`x' position in 2014 after ranking 14"' in 2013 while Park rose to 42`d position in 2014 from 43`d position in 2013. Table 26: Montana Counties Ranked by 2014 Annual Average Pay (All Industries) �F- urn u rn �Em P al Wages (In Thousands) $17,109,924 n ua-F Av rage Pa $38,874 Annual Average Pa RanVing n/a Montana 440,139 Stillwater 3,297 $194,602 $59,021 1 Richland 6,916 $397,739 $57,510 2 Fallon 1,672 $94,122 $56,310 3 Sweet Grass 1,445 $69,096 $47,826 4 Musselshell 1,279 $60,466 $47,264 5 Yellowstone 35,608 $3,402,037 $43,332 7 Lewis & Clark 2,665 $1,476,224 $41,457 9 Gallatin 49,337 $1,856,831 $37,636 15 Missoula 4,665 $2,083,576 $36,978 19 Cascade 2719 $1,290,456 $36,600 20 Park 15,413 $167,388 $30,922 42 Soravr: Ormr/edCensus of Eiuplowuen10,. IlJrrber."Broxau of I-abor S/a/i /hs. rvrvn/.bicgov/Ipu. P. 2014 iuforwaliou is preGuvirrag. ©PROSPERABUSINL'•SS NE'r\XIOR-K 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE -'- 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 available. Table 27: Laraest Private Sector Emalovers (2014 Annual f)ntn) nvate Sector p oyers NumberEmployees Gallatin County Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital 1000+ Oracle America 250-499 Walmart 250-499 Albertson's 100-249 Bridger Bowl 100-249 Community Food Co -Op 100-249 Costco 100-249 Federal Premium Ammunition 100-249 First Student 100-249 GranTree Inn 100-249 Kenyon Noble Lumber & Hardware 100-249 Korman Marketing Group 100-249 Martel Construction 100-249 McDonald's 100-249 Murdoch's Ranch & Home Supply 100-249 Ressler Motors 100-249 Rosauer's Super Markets 100-249 Simkins Hallin Lumber & Hardware 100-249 Town & Country Foods 100-249 Town Pump Convenience Stores 100-249 Zoot Enterprises 100-249 Park County Livingston HealthCare 250-499 Chico Hot Springs 100-249 Church Universal & Triumphant 100-249 Printing ForLess.com 100-249 Albertson's 50-99 Yellowstone Association 50-99 Montana's Rib & Chop House 50-99 R -Y Timber 50-99 The Murray Hotel 50-99 Town & Country Foods 50-99 .loalre: watron, nlontana lApaitmelif o/ LxWor C�- ltcdrtshy, Kerem-t) e` !lncowc Broxott. Based oil 2014 Buiralt of LaborStatirtics OCFJV auuttal aneaz ges. ©PROSPERA BUSINESSNE-MORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE riculture Agriculture plays a historic and significant role in Montana's U.S. Agricultural Rankings the regional economy and quality of life. Montana's total land area is 93.1 million acres Top rankings by item's acres/number: • and 64.2 percent of the total land area (59.8 ": Wheat for grain, all 8 • rh million acres) is dedicated to farmland or : Sheep and Iambs • 10": Cattle and calves agriculture.31 The state ranks 29"' in the IU.S. for f • 24"d: Hogs and pigs total value of agricultural products sold. According to George Haynes, Professor and Top rankings by item's total sales value: Extension Center Specialist with the • 10": Sheep, goats, wools, mohair and milk • Department of Agricultural Economics and 1 1'h ":: Cattle and calves 14 Other crop y Economics at Montana State University, "The ' : sand ha agricultural sector has had six years of very good • 17": Grains oilseeds, dry beans and peas news for the Montana economy. Lower crop • 2Y"': Total agricultural products sold prices and untimely rains have been offset by 2012 Census of Agriculture. Montana Agricultural high livestock prices and favorable pasture and Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. haying conditions for ranchers in 2014. Futures - wmv.nass.usda.gov prices for the fall of 2015 suggest that crop and livestock prices should be above long -run historical averages. And Montana producers remain optimistic about the demand for high protein wheat and high quality barley. Assuming no major demand or supply disruptions, Montana producer balance sheets should remain healthy in 2015."32 As shown in Table 28 on page 35, between 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 die 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 .31 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." 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.31 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.31 Among 3,079 counties in the U.S., Gallatin County's top rankings were 18`" for acres in barley production and 30"' for number of horses and ponies. In Park County, the number of farms increased by 5 percent and the market value of products sold increased by 39 percent while the average farm size decreased by 4 percent (Table 28). The average age of the principle operator in Gallatin County was 57.8 years .31 Of die 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 .31 Among 3,079 counties in the U.S., Park County's top rankings were 117'h for acres in barley production and 103`d for number of horses and ponies. 31 "2012 Census of Agriculture." Montana Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. wxv-,v.nass.usda.gov. 32 Haynes, George. "Montana Agriculture in 2014: A Changing Business Climate." Outlook 2015. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. www.bber.urnt.edu. eOPROSPERA BUSINESS NE'"WORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE. 34 Table 28: 2012 Aaricultural Statistics for Montana. Gallatin County and Park County Jaa�zz': LU/L C.enrar oJ`igi�rnit/nig. ""Jtate crud (.onu/p 1'roJder UJLJf! IVotto/ta/fi�trur/trozr/Jtntidria/Se/ri�e'. JYJYIK/IC7J_�'.//,fd4.Q0Y. Overall crop and livestock statistics for Gallatin and Park counties as of 2014 are shown in Tables 29-33. While no state ranking is given for potatoes, Gallatin County harvested just over 40 percent of the seed potatoes produced in the state in 2014.33 Table 29: 2014 Crop Statistics for Gallatin Countv 1RW.. -. Yield Production Montana Number of Farms 29,524 28,008 5% Land in Farms (in acres) 61,388,462 59,758,917 -3% Average Farm Size (in acres) 2,079 2,134 3% Market Value of Products Sold $2.8 million $4.2 million 51% Average Sales per Farm $94,942 $151,031 59% Gallatin County Number of Farms 1,071 1,163 9% Land in Farms (in acres) 7761868 702,713 -10% Average Farm Size (in acres) 725 604 -17% Market Value 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 Farm Size (in acres) 1,426 1,372 -4% Market Value of Products Sold $27,720,000 $38,487,000 39% Average Sales per Farm $51,814 $68,240 32% Jaa�zz': LU/L C.enrar oJ`igi�rnit/nig. ""Jtate crud (.onu/p 1'roJder UJLJf! IVotto/ta/fi�trur/trozr/Jtntidria/Se/ri�e'. JYJYIK/IC7J_�'.//,fd4.Q0Y. Overall crop and livestock statistics for Gallatin and Park counties as of 2014 are shown in Tables 29-33. While no state ranking is given for potatoes, Gallatin County harvested just over 40 percent of the seed potatoes produced in the state in 2014.33 Table 29: 2014 Crop Statistics for Gallatin Countv Jonree: 'YU14 dLautaua Aa/rrIN Jtatr.IMS. " UJUA Antro/ra! Ag/m//ttund Jtcrtlrtfrd! Jenw-e. wiYw.nassurdavoY. *LVote: Knukiligs cu -e Prorpent'.r eak/r%rtiou. **2012 data, 2013 and 201=1 data not pal/1ie%ed.. 33 "2014 Montana Annual Statistics" USDA National Agricultural Statistical Semice. wwwmass.usda.gov. QPROSPERA 13USINEss NE-MORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 35 1RW.. -. Yield Production Rank in Winter Wheat 22,000 20,100 41 bushels 825,000 19 Spring Wheat 24,300 23,500 63.2 bushels 1,485,000 16 All Barley 35,100 29,400 69.8 bushels 2,052,000 7 Hay Alfalfa No data available 42,000 3.55 tons 150,000 3 Other Hay** No data available 12,000 1.85 tons 22,000 n/a Potatoes 4,400 4,300 300 Cwt 1,289,000 Cwt No rank given Jonree: 'YU14 dLautaua Aa/rrIN Jtatr.IMS. " UJUA Antro/ra! Ag/m//ttund Jtcrtlrtfrd! Jenw-e. wiYw.nassurdavoY. *LVote: Knukiligs cu -e Prorpent'.r eak/r%rtiou. **2012 data, 2013 and 201=1 data not pal/1ie%ed.. 33 "2014 Montana Annual Statistics" USDA National Agricultural Statistical Semice. wwwmass.usda.gov. QPROSPERA 13USINEss NE-MORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 35 Tnhla ,�n• 7n1 ci I ivaetnc-I,- Stntidics fnr C�nllntin Cnunty attle A . Beef Cows _ Milk Cows Sheep &� - an in ommodity (Head) & Heifers & Heifers Lambs All State* (Head) (Head) (Head) • - : Calves11 11 11 • Inventory:11 Sheep- Acres Yield per • • Production ' Value of Sou%-'': `2015 Alonlanel Statistics, lnPenlog els O''elulag 1, ZU1-)." U3U_4 IVatro/!al Ag1'[7/ltrlral mall.r/lfal JerPrce. 11m,111,11yalliaa.poP. *Hole: Rankil{gs are 111-wpela's mlallalion. Tnhla '�1 • 7n14 Crnn Stntistic-, fnr Pnrl< County .. Plante m' I -. Yield (bushels) .. . ank 1n1tatq: Commod Acres Yield per • • Production ' Value of Harvested Acre Productio Winter Wheat 3,500 3,000 31.8 95,500 33 Spring Wheat 2,800 2,800 51.8 145,000 36 All Barley 5,600 4,500 69.8 314,000 24 Hay Alfalfa No data available 46,000 2.55 tons 117,000 8 Other Hay No data available 9,000 2.2 tons 20,000 23 Sola-ce. `2014 Alonlaua .=lnnncll Sla/i lien" U3 DA AtIlional /hgm/d/111'1/ 3talumal 3eiv e. nmmw.nczrs.1"aa._w lvote: caulking' an, 1'rospe/ve' aalndation. Table 32: 2015 Livestock Statistics for Park Cou Cattle & Calves 1 42,000 1 31,000 1 100 20 (All Cattle) Sheep Inventory I I I I 2,200 I 32 Source: '2015 1ldontaua Slalidntr, llwenloq, ea o% ./anaag 1, 2013." USD_=1 Nalioual Ag/nrdla-al Statistical Service. n,1v/u11aer.1uda.gm. *AToler Rmrkings mt+ P1v.pe1'1:r calallation. Table 33: 2014 Montana Agricultural Commodities Intormation Commod Acres Yield per • • Production Value Per Unit Value of Harvested Acre Productio All Wheat 5,650,000 37.1 Bu 209,470,000 Bu $6.23/Bu $1,282,991,000 Barley 770,000 58.0 Bu 44,660,000 Bu $5.33/Bu $241,164,000 Corn (For grain) 75,000 100 Bu 7,500,000 Bu $3.77/Bu $28,125,000 Hay 2,730,000 1.97 Ton 5,381,000 Tons $126.00/Ton $672,312,000 Lentils 119,000 1,480 Lbs 1,761,000 Cwt $22.80/Cwt $36,805,000 Peas (Dry) 504,000 1,800 Cwt 9,072,000 Cwt $1 1.00/Cwt $96,163,000 Potatoes 11,300 320 Cwt 3,616,000 Cwt $12.80/Cwt $46,285,000 Sugar Beets 44,400 32.3 Ton 1,434,000 Tons No data available Jomi'�:'2U1'tJ/u/e_9g1'inttm'aurerl�ielrrlPloutnncl.' UJL,�llvat�ocscu_�g1•r�nurnzu.'nntrtrim�elxrre. ulruw.uae.r.aran.r�on. ©PROSPERA BusINEss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 36 Bankin According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 2014 Gallatin County bank deposits were again at a record high. As of June 30, 2014, Gallatin County bank deposits totaled just over $2.12 billion, up from $1.98 billion in June of 2013. This equated to a market share of Montana deposits of 10.29 percent for Gallatin County. Park County deposits have generally increased since 2002, aside from a slight decline between 2011 and 2012 (Chart 9). Deposits into Park County banks were over $305 million as of June 30, 2013; as of June 30, 2014 deposits increased to more than $313 million, which was 1.52 percent market share for Montana. Chart 9: Area Bank DebOSitS. 2002-2014 .i uin�r. rrariui —P-1 lojuivatr —Ipuiunun (I wiviv./u/t g. There are 14 banking institutions with 26 total branches in the Bozeman market. Together, these Bozeman branches accounted for $1.68 billion, or 79.2 percent of Gallatin County's $2.12 billion total deposits by fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. In order of volume, First Security Bank received the most financial deposits, with 22.15 percent of the market, followed by Fust Interstate Bank (14.62 percent) and Wells Fargo Bank (13.12 percent). These three banks combined account for 35 percent of the total branch locations within Bozeman (Table 34). Table 35 on page 38 shows that the city of Livingston has five banking organizations. Deposits made in Livingston branches totaled more than $256 million, or 81.7 percent of the $313 million dollars deposited in Park County. First Interstate Bank lead the way in total deposits with a 44.80 percent share, followed by American Bank at 27.65 percent. ©PROSPERA BUSINI'.ss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 1-1 Table 34: Bozeman Bank De osit Market Share Bank Deposits in Bozeman - Deposit Market Share Report as of June 30, 2014 Offces andi .. i Sorted by Market Share for Bozeman Mark Institution Name Inside of Market Outside of Market # of Deposits Market # of Deposits $000 p ( ) Offices $000 Share % Offices First Security Bank 3 $372,434 22.15% 5 $195,596 First Interstate Bank 4 $245,742 14.62% 72 $5,933,644 Wells Fargo Bank 2 $220,526 13.12% 6,308 $1,033,399,474 US Bank 2 $215,914 12.84% 3,236 $263,445,433 Glacier Bank 3 $162,444 9.66% 106 $5,645,223 (Includes Big Sky Western Bank) Stockman Bank of 2 $130,059 7.74% 29 1,786,1 16 Montana 1 $16,919 6.60% 5 $88,780 American Bank 2 $106,510 6.34% 4 $151,582 American Federal Savings 2 $90,195 5.37% 11 $337,552 Bank Bank of Bozeman 1 $56,210 3.34% 0 $0 Rocky Mountain Bank 1 $26,923 1.60% 9 $357,933 Mountain West Bank 1 $25,895 1.54% 12 $495,339 First Montana Bank, Inc. 1 $9,593 0.57% 8 $223,808 Manhattan Bank 1 $9,397 0.56% 3 $120,776 Yellowstone Bank 1 $9,216 0.55% 7 $369,320 Total Number of 26 $1,681,058 100.00% 9,810 $1,312,461,786 Institutions in Market: 14 Sonne: FC&I-a/ DtpositGunnuae Coiporatian (FDIC). jnn(, 30, 2014. xw)m ilir:rra�. Table 35: Livinqston Bank Deposit Market Share ivingstonBank i • : MarketShare as ofJune1 , 2014Offices and Deposits of a// FDIC -Insured Institutions r-_— Inside of Market Outside of Market Institution Name # of Deposits Market # of Deposits ($000) Offices ($000) Share Offices First Interstate Bank 1 $114,789 44.80% 75 $6,064,597 American Bank 1 $70,855 27.65% 5 $187,237 American Federal Savings 1 $28,479 11.11% 12 $399,268 Bank Wells Fargo Bank 1 $25,184 9.83% 6,309 $1,033,594,816 Bank of the Rockies 1 $16,919 6.60% 5 $88,780 Total Number of 5 $256,226 100.00% 6,406 $1,040,334,698 Institutions in Market: 5 Sonne: I`Cderrd D(posil b1slawhm CoipoRrtiou (FDIC). SIM' 30, 20/ F. umnnm filic.rror. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NEIWORR 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE '" Construction Predictions for 2015-2018 call for a "significant revival" in construction in Gallatin County and attribute the favorable growth trends in the county in recent years in part to the "robust recovery" in all sectors of construction .34 The charts below detail the number of construction firms and number employed in construction in the two counties over the past ten years. Chart 10: Number of Construction Firms - Gallatin and Park Counties 1,200 1 10 A, 1,056 1,000 952 982997 896 879 864 800 5,06 48 600 4,27 4,299 400 722 3,930 3,2853,360 , 200 126 125 130 146 148 130 ilq ill 0 1,000 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 =*=C`allatin County ONiPark County Somze. `Oirmterly Census q EiupI meat 61 W-egs."Buipari of L.nborStntistic . impm.b1s.non/ren 20/ F iufommlion is per/imicrmg. Chart 1 1: Number of Construction Employees - Gallatin and Park Counties 7,000 5,9766,172 6,000 5,06 48 5,000 4,27 4,299 4,000 722 3,930 3,2853,360 , 3,000 2,000 1,000 IQO 553 557 503 426 326 296 267 257 262 283 0 - 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 (Gallatin County (Park County Sow-ce.`Oliaitei#(,enrnsg1Empto),ment&ll"11 ."BmrmiafLnhorSiatisic.;v)nv.b1:gor/env. 2014in/orr»atiouirperluninag. 34 Polzin, Paul. "Gallatin County: Montana's Economic Growth Leader." Outlook 2015. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. www.bber.umt.edu. OPROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE i9 As illustrated in Table 36 below, residential construction activity in Bozeman increased 112 percent between 2012 and 2013 but slowed down to 30 percent growth between 2013 and 2014. Residential construction in Livingston also slowed from 2013 to 2014, with a decrease of 14 percent from 2013 figures. According to the City of Livingston's Building Department, 2015 has seen 11 new residential units and no new commercial units year-to-date as of early July. TnhlP (_.nnstrrrctinn Activitv - New Dwellina Units. 2006-2014 Sown,: Cih, of &olema/ 8ndilmg Inrpeetion Dimsion, C.iO, of Botieman DepaYmeul of Comm/an!), Deaelopmenl. I VIV.yn den/CTn.nel er C,101 V ingston Bi ileliag Depa wail. *Not nn/actin; !ennui impe nrement or "other" ioauuenial per/ui1s. Residential Building Permit Activity According to the City of Bozeman Department of Community Development's 2014 Annual Report, there were approximately 19,599 dwelling units in the City of Bozeman as of 2014. From 2004 to 2014, single -household Lmits remained the most common housing unit type permitted at roughly 38 percent, followed by multi -household units at approximately 32 percent. In 2014, 663 housing units were permitted by the city of Bozeman (Table 37). Of the total housing units, 35.90 percent were for single -household residences and 39.67 percent were for multi -unit housing developments. Since 2013, total permits of all types were down 29.69 percent. Table 37 illustrates that the City of Bozeman had a significant increase in the number of permits from 2012 to 2013 and then a noticeable decline in year -over -year permit numbers from 2013 to 2014. As compared to the peak of the housing boom in 2005 when 954 total permits were issued, 2014 is 30.50 percent shy of the 2005 peak volume. As Chart 12 on page 41 makes clear, the permits are much more concentrated in single -home and multi -unit permits in recent years as compared to the early 2000s. Table 37: City '- •- of Bozeman Kesidential 11• 11 Building Hermits Issued, 2UU6-2U 14 1 93160 255 401 238 11:77(7 Single -house 257 214 �1 1)12 20131 63 City of Bozeman Residential 670 764 242 182 208 199 444 943 663 Commercial* 48 45 29 28 12 19 10 18 37 City of Livingston Residential 19 n/a 6 7 12 7 8 21 18 Commercial 1 n/a 0 0 0 4 4 3 5 Sown,: Cih, of &olema/ 8ndilmg Inrpeetion Dimsion, C.iO, of Botieman DepaYmeul of Comm/an!), Deaelopmenl. I VIV.yn den/CTn.nel er C,101 V ingston Bi ileliag Depa wail. *Not nn/actin; !ennui impe nrement or "other" ioauuenial per/ui1s. Residential Building Permit Activity According to the City of Bozeman Department of Community Development's 2014 Annual Report, there were approximately 19,599 dwelling units in the City of Bozeman as of 2014. From 2004 to 2014, single -household Lmits remained the most common housing unit type permitted at roughly 38 percent, followed by multi -household units at approximately 32 percent. In 2014, 663 housing units were permitted by the city of Bozeman (Table 37). Of the total housing units, 35.90 percent were for single -household residences and 39.67 percent were for multi -unit housing developments. Since 2013, total permits of all types were down 29.69 percent. Table 37 illustrates that the City of Bozeman had a significant increase in the number of permits from 2012 to 2013 and then a noticeable decline in year -over -year permit numbers from 2013 to 2014. As compared to the peak of the housing boom in 2005 when 954 total permits were issued, 2014 is 30.50 percent shy of the 2005 peak volume. As Chart 12 on page 41 makes clear, the permits are much more concentrated in single -home and multi -unit permits in recent years as compared to the early 2000s. Table 37: City '- •- of Bozeman Kesidential 11• 11 Building Hermits Issued, 2UU6-2U 14 1 93160 255 401 238 11:77(7 Single -house 257 214 Townhouse 63 71 35 4 34 60 79 Duplex 58 80 30 0 4 8 20 12 40 Triplex 45 33 j 9 3 0 0 6 0 27 Fourplex 92 44 32 32 4 4 8 24 16 Multi -unit 155 314 43 64 36 23 121 445 263 Manufactured 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total 670 764 242 1 182 1 208 T 199 444 1 943 663 So/mr: "20 14 .—dial Repot. ' Ci1p q1 BoZeivai Depa9/uent of C.00uu/nu!), Ue mlopmem. num. lvzw.//e/. OPROSPERA BI. SINEss NE71X'ORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE Chart 12: City of Bozeman Residential Buildinq Permit Activity, 2006-2014 450 400 350 1MORM2 2013 2014 300 201 Preliminary Plat i 250 200 150 100 50 0 2006 2008 2010 2012 2013 2014 N Single W Townhouse V Duplex NTriplex V Fourplex N Multi W Manufactured Sorra e: '2014 Anneal Repoa. "Ger ofBo;-,eivfai DepaiYment of Covmlumtr Dere+lopmeat. ivwiuhoZmmii.uel. 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 (Table 38). However, this lull in growth ended in 2012 with the annexation of 189.05 acres. The additional annexation of 111.02 acres in 2013 and 19.7 acres in 2014 increased the size of the city to approximately 20 square miles. Chart 13 on page 42 shows the acres annexed annually since 1994. Table 38: ON of Bozeman Annexations, 2006-2014 (In Acres) ear . 1MORM2 2013 2014 201 Preliminary Plat i Dom e: 'Y(114 4rnrrrat I'eporI. - U. , of bo:�,etvav UepmYmevt of C.oivv lln tly VeretopivenL jymp.boZeman.net. Subdivision Activity The Department of Community Development processed 58 subdivision applications and 32 subdivision exemption applications in 2014, a 143 percent increase over 2013. As illustrated in Table 39, in Bozeman there was*a significant increase in preliminary plat applications in 2014 compared to the 2008-2012 period. Table 39: ON of Bozeman Subdivision Reviews by Tvr)e. 2006-2014 (N,imher M I mots) ofype . 201 Preliminary Plat i ,)omre. -tvr4 furrurm xeporl. - (-rq o/ rso:zemaa t)epartmeat o/ C.ovmnlnt), Uer.etopmerrt. mmm.l.7oZ may.aet. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NEWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE Zoning Activity In 2014 the Department of Community Development processed 56 zoning reviews, compared to 44 processed in 2013 (Table 40). Zoning projects include site plans, conditional use permits, planned unit development concept plans and planned unit development preliminary plans. In 2014, the department also processed 11 zone map amendments, 2 master site plans, 49 final site plans, 6 master signage plans, 18 reuse/further development applications, 6 zone code amendments, 2 variances, 1 appeal, 46 modifications to approved plans, 4 special temporary use permits, 26 improvement agreements, 8 condominium conversions, 11 zoning verifications, 29 informal reviews and 1 final planned unit development plan. Additionally the department reviewed 640 business license applications, a 21 percent increase over 2013. TnhlP 4n. City of Rn7P.mnn 7nninn Reviews by Tvne. 2006-2014 Solave. `2014, 41milal Repwd. "C /tp o/ Bn.Zeman Mpadlile l q1 C.00nnlw ly OeMopinent. mzvmllo-elvall.ue/. Chart 13: Annexation to the City of Bozeman, 1994-2014 In Acres) -- 111 800 600 400 200 0 Ln o � o0 o� ON m v Ln o r-,oo o- O N m � o� o` 01 01 o, C�- O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` C� 01 U01 a` O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Sonar: "20 14.11nnual Report. Gi , g1'Bm enmu Depairinenl Co✓tttuiudi , Denelopmeat. iunv d)oZemt .ret. OPROSPf:RA BuSiNFSS NETWORK 2015 EcoNonuc PROFILL: -I 22 6 25 2630 Site Plan 32 29 14 37 Conditional Use 23 6 5 14 13 9 19 17 21 Permits Planned Unit Dev. 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 Concept Plan Planned Unit Dev. 6 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Preliminary Plan Total 64 1 39 20 52 1 36 16 45 44 56 Solave. `2014, 41milal Repwd. "C /tp o/ Bn.Zeman Mpadlile l q1 C.00nnlw ly OeMopinent. mzvmllo-elvall.ue/. Chart 13: Annexation to the City of Bozeman, 1994-2014 In Acres) -- 111 800 600 400 200 0 Ln o � o0 o� ON m v Ln o r-,oo o- O N m � o� o` 01 01 o, C�- O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` C� 01 U01 a` O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Sonar: "20 14.11nnual Report. Gi , g1'Bm enmu Depairinenl Co✓tttuiudi , Denelopmeat. iunv d)oZemt .ret. OPROSPf:RA BuSiNFSS NETWORK 2015 EcoNonuc PROFILL: -I According to the latest U.S. Energy Information Administration report, "Montana holds one-fourth of estimated recoverable U.S. coal reserves in addition to substantial renewable resources. Montana's plains have some of the best utility -scale wind energy potential in the nation. , 3' 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 39c1i in the US for residential electricity prices, 45r1i for residential natural gas prices and 42"' for carbon dioxide emissions; however Montana ranks 15`1' for total energy consumed per capita.35 Wind power generation grew by 32 percent in 2013 and 12 percent in 2014 to supply 6.5 percent of the state's net electricity generation. 3' Ene NorthWestem Energy Earns A for Code of Conduct and Ethics The New York Stock Exchange's Corpedia gave NorthWestern Energy an A rating for its Code of Conduct and Ethics in 2014, putting NorthWestern in the top 2 percent of all energy and utility companies reviewed. 2015 Community Works Report Northwestern Energy www._,f/, "sternenergy.com Utility rates for Montana remained lower than national averages by all measures in 2015 (Table 41). The largest shift since the prior period was related to crude oil, with the price per barrel decreasing 61 percent between April 2014 and August 2015. The most significant price increase was with residential natural gas, which went up 20 percent (from 9.81 to 11.78/ thousand cu ft.), between April 2014 and August 2015. Table 41: Utility Rates ml mr: -Mate Eueigp rrgorrmmou (Jie+ivreiu' Emig, lryonvaiorr _<ldi1nn1.0ullon. mmixcra.4a: 'Dula miffibeld to mord disz/o air o_/ indhidiial reu»paq), de/k/. Note: GD gale n'io5 to lbe pohit mLeir nalmalgas is hzm_ fwlyd /iniu a hnncmiaiorr pipeline to 1he loadgcmc rrlilii ,. 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 353,600 electric customers in 187 Montana communities with 6,700 miles of transmission lines, 17,600 miles of distribution lines and 895 megawatt of baseload power generation. With regards to natural gas, the utility provider serves 35 "Montana State Profile and Energy Estimates." U.S.. Energy Information Administration. NvwNv.eia_gov. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE'nN'ORK 2015 ECONON11G PROFILE 41 1 1.31 cents/kWh 12.93 cents/kWh Residential Electricity August 2015 Commercial Electricity 9.98 cents/kWh 10.90 cents/kWh August 2015 Industrial Electricity 5.50 cents/kWh 7.32 cents/kWh August 2015 Domestic Crude Oil $34.89/barrel $39.98/barrel August 2015 Natural Gas — City Gate $3.36/thousand cu ft $4.53/thousand cu ft August 2015 Natural Gas — Residential $1 1.78/thousand cu ft $16.73/thousand cu ft August 2015 Coal (Average Open Market Sales Price $17.26/short ton $37.24/short ton 2013 Coal (Delivered to Electric Power Sector) $2.22/million Btu August 2015 ml mr: -Mate Eueigp rrgorrmmou (Jie+ivreiu' Emig, lryonvaiorr _<ldi1nn1.0ullon. mmixcra.4a: 'Dula miffibeld to mord disz/o air o_/ indhidiial reu»paq), de/k/. Note: GD gale n'io5 to lbe pohit mLeir nalmalgas is hzm_ fwlyd /iniu a hnncmiaiorr pipeline to 1he loadgcmc rrlilii ,. 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 353,600 electric customers in 187 Montana communities with 6,700 miles of transmission lines, 17,600 miles of distribution lines and 895 megawatt of baseload power generation. With regards to natural gas, the utility provider serves 35 "Montana State Profile and Energy Estimates." U.S.. Energy Information Administration. NvwNv.eia_gov. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE'nN'ORK 2015 ECONON11G PROFILE 41 189,000 customers in 105 Montana communities with 2,100 miles of intrastate transmission pipelines, 5,100 miles of distribution pipelines and 18 Bcf gas storage capacity."` NordiWestern Energy completed the acquisition of 11 hydroelectric facilities in 2014, increasing the portion of electricity generated by wind and water to over 50 percent and reducing the carbon intensity of their overall Montana electric portfolio by 41 percent. The utility provider also invested over $270 million in capital improvement projects in 2014, including an upgraded line serving Big Sky which will be completed in 2017.36 Table 42: NorthWestern Energy Financial Highlights (All states, In Thousands except for Customers & Frnn1nvPP.-) Metric' Gross Margin (a non -GAAP financial measure) $674,973 $722,272 Change 7% Net Income $93,983 $120,686 28% Number of Customers 678,200 692,600 2% Number of Employees 1,493 1,604 7% Retail Volume Delivered Electric (megawatt hours) 9,483 9,552 1 % Retail Volume Delivered Natural Gas (dekatherms) 30,311 31,302 3% 3omie: '2U14Annual IQPod.-Aodhiverlen V.neigp. nvvw.imi7Umerleiiieireig),.e . As shown in Charts 14 and 15, year-to-date electric and gas new connect volumes in Bozeman have substantially outpaced other Montana cities in recent years, yet another indicator of the area's fast - paced growth. Chart 14: NorthWestern Energy Electric New Connects, YTD October 2013-2015 1,200 i - -- - -— - 1,000 800 - 600 - I 400 200 Billings Bozeman Butte Solay. Bellang. Heulber. Noi/bI F-fflern Eneiup. F t i - Great Helena Missoula Falls a 2013 2014 2015 36 "2015 Community Works Report." Northwestern Energy. www.north-,vesternenergy.corn. ©PROSPERA BITSINEss NE'nVORF 2015 ECONOMIC. PROFILE IA Chart 15: NorthWestern Energy Gas New Connects, YTD October 20 700 - - - - - 600 - 500 — --- 400 - --- 02013 300 - ■ 2014 w2015 200 ____ _.____ _-- - LA 100 Billings Bozeman Butte Great Helena Missoula Falls Some: Bellamy, Ffealbor :oahff iSiery Enerop. State energy consumption estimates by energy source are detailed below. Chart 16: Montana Energy Consumption Estimates, 2013 -1 -150.0 -100.0 -50.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 Trillion Btu Sotiiie: Stale BnggData ,Ertelg1� iJoli»ntrou.ldIvinisimtiou.:u1w.tla.on. ©PROSPERA BUSINESs NEWORR 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 13-2015 150.0 200.0 The health care industry is widely considered a powerful economic catalyst for good reason. As reported by the World Health Organization, in 2013 total expenditures on healthcare in the United States were $9,146 per capita, or 17.1 percent of GDP. -17 According to Bryce Ward, director of healthcare industry research at the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of Montana, healthcare industry output represented 8.9 percent of Montana's economy in 2014 as a share of GDP. When including all healthcare -related spending such as pharmaceuticals, device manufacturing and new facility construction, the 2014 share of GDP related to healthcare was closer to 18 percent."' Health Care Montana 51h in nation in 2014 Well -Being Index Moving up from 6" place in 2012, Montana remained in the top quintile for 2013 and 2014 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, In 2014, healthcare was the largest -employing industry in j shelter and health care to create a Montana, with 67,000 employees. Employment 1 composite well-being rank for each projections through 2024 from the Montana Department state. of Labor and Industry predict continued consistent employment growth, at an annual rate of 1.8 percent, with State of American Well -Being: 2 percent projected for the Southwest Region." Adding 2014 State Rankings & Analysis approximately 1,300 jobs per year, this is the largest Gallup-Healthways �wwv.well-beinUinclex.com projected growth of any industry in the state.' Because providers are evaluated on both health outcomes and patient experience, non -healthcare jobs related to die industry such as personal care aides, receptionists, maids and housekeeping cleaners, cooks and childcare workers are also viewed as increasingly important due to their role in supporting a positive patient experience. }0 In 2015 two of the biggest changes with the potential to affect health care in Montana are Medicaid expansion and the King v. Burwell Supreme Court case related to whether individuals in states without a state -based exchange are eligible for health insurance subsidies. 41 Montana's Uninsured 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 Montana and their reasons for not having health insurance'` According to their survey findings, roughly 20 percent of the state's population, or 195,000 people, are without health insurance.42 Due to programs like Medicare and Healthy Montana Kids, the uninsured are "disproportionately concentrated in the working age groups" between 18 and 64 years 37 United State of America Statistics. World Health Organization. ww,v.-,vho.int/countries/usa/en 38 Ward, Bryce. Director of Healthcare. Industry Research, University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Email correspondence, September 1, 2015. 39 Watson, Amy. "The Health Care Labor Market in Montana." Montana Department of Labor and Industry, Research and Analysis Bureau. July 2015. www.ourfactsyourfuture.ore 40 Watson, Amy. "Employment Projections: State of Montana 2015-2024." Research and Analysis Bureau, Montana Department of Labor and Industry. May 2015. wwxv.ourfactsyourfuture.or 41 Ward, Bryce. "Health Care: A System in Transition." Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. -,vww.bber.utnt.edu. 42 Barkey, Patrick M. and Paul E. Polzin. "Health Care: Changes in Health Care Landscape Not Limited to Obamacare." Outlook 2014. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. www.bber.umt.edu. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015. ECONOMIC PROFILE 16 of age. 12 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. 12 Only 16 percent of those surveyed said that diey were uninsured by choice. `2 Uninsured rates in Montana have declined since the Affordable Care Act's main access provisions went into effect, though the two studies conducted dius far did not provide consistent estimates of the change." A Gallup estimate for Montanans over age 18 for the first six months of 2014 showed that the percentage of Montanans without insurance declined from 20.7 percent to 17.9 percent suggesting that 22,000 state residents gained access to insurance.' Meanwhile, an analysis by Enroll America and Civis Analytics looked at those aged 18-64 for the first nine months of 2014 and found that die percentage without insurance declined from almost 20 percent to 13 percent—suggesting that an approximate 40,000 state residents gained access to insurance.` Slowdown in Health Care Spending and Focus on Efficiency Continuesal U.S. health care spending grew by 3.6 percent in 2013, the smallest increase since 1960. This continued a five-year trend of low health care spending growth, with health insurance premiums also growing at a slow pace. While it will take some time to gauge the effectiveness of programs to increase efficiency, some promising results were achieved in 2014 related to greater price transparency and tying payment to quality by penalizing hospitals with high readmission or medical error rates. Montana Healthcare Foundation Update 43 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, plans to expend roughly five percent of the income from trust investments annually in grants to improve the health status of Montanans. A Foundation Board of Trustees spent a year reviewing data and research to identify the important health issues in Montana and consulting with stakeholders to establish a 2015 strategic plan. This led to establishing its current focus areas: behavioral health (mental illness and drug and alcohol use), American Indian health and partnerships for better health. Bozeman Deaconess Health Services" From its beginnings as a single hospital, Bozeman Health's service area now extends throughout southwestern Montana. Bozeman Health describes itself as, "comprised of two hospitals, several specialty treatment centers, a network of physician and urgent care clinics, outpatient treatment facilities, retirement and assisted living facilities." Bozeman Health oversees Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital; Bozeman Health Medical Group; a real estate development corporation; and die Bozeman Heald -i Big Sky Medical Center. The focus of Bozeman Health includes three basic purposes: 1) to continue to improve community health through education and prevention; 2) to improve convenience and access to health care in communities across our region; and 3) to promote quality, accountability and reliability across our entire integrated health system. Bozeman Health, governed by a community board of trustees, is responsible for the flagship Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital; Bozeman Health Medical Group; its real estate development corporation; and the newly -opened Bozeman Health Big Sky Medical Center. The integrated health system also includes Bozeman Health Hillcrest Senior Living with independent and assisted living facilities; a clinical research group, and two urgent care locations. Today Bozeman Health is die }' Montana Healthcare Foundation. Nv\vw.mthc£org. 11 Bozeman Health. www.bozemanhealti.oW. ©PROSPERS 131 S[Ni ss Ni- PnxoaR 2015 ECONo,Ntic PROFILE 17 largest private employer in Gallatin Valley with over 1,800 employees. Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital is an 86 -bed facility, Joint Commission accredited, licensed Level III trauma center. With 200 physicians and health providers on medical staff representing over 35 specialties, die hospital has grown with the communities that surround it. Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital is comprised of over 20 primary care and specialty clinics offering two dozen specialties. The primary care practices of Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital were die fust in Montana to receive National Committee for Quality Assurance Level III Medical Home Recognition. Bozeman Health Hillcrest Senior Living, a member of the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging is an adult retirement community featuring both independent living apartments at Aspen Pointe and assisted living accommodations in Birchwood. Originally built in the 1960s, the entire community was completely rebuilt in 2001, and expanded in 2010. The community houses more than 150 seniors and employs more than 80 full-time and part-time staff. The Bozeman Health Big Sky Medical Center opened in December 2015 to provide critical access care to the Big Sky and West Yellowstone communities. Built as a four -bed inpatient unit, the facility is designed to expand to eight beds without additional construction. The two-story, 35,000 -square - foot facility includes 24/7/365 Emergency Services with a rooftop heli -stop for air ambulance service, an onsite Diagnostic Imaging Center, a fully licensed operating room suite, Laboratory Services and an integrated pharmacy. The efforts of Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital to provide top quality care in the safest manner possible have been recognized with many awards. Among others, the hospital was recently recognized as a Five -Star ranked Community Value Provider by Cleverley + Associates, a leading healthcare financial consulting firm specializing in operational benchmarking and performance enhancement strategies. Also in 2015, it was recognized with an A Hospital Safety Score by The Leapfrog Group for the second time in a row and the fifth time overall. Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital was named to Becker's Hospital Review list of 100 great community hospitals for 2015, one of only two hospitals in Montana to receive this recognition. This is the second consecutive year Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital has been honored with this distinction. Additionally, Healthgrades, a leading online resource helping consumers compare physicians, hospitals and care, recognized the hospital as one of America's 100 Best Hospitals for pulmonary care based on its study of patient outcomes. Table 43: Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital by the Numbers IL 2014 Bozeman 27,684 emergency room visits Health Deaconess Hospital Statistics 17,596 inpatient days 1,206 births 344,261 outpatient lab procedures 1,819 inpatient surgical visits 140 coronary interventions 131 diagnostic cardiac catheterizations 4,108 outpatient surgical visits 2,825 inpatient EKG's 128,566 inpatient lab procedures 1,232 blood bank procedures 6,200 outpatient EKG's Solute: t4af Sheet )'ear Lndiug 2014, lfolenrail Hea//h Oet outus I lo.95&// mm11U)0Z iu Eu e,11t1).01 For more than a century, Bozeman Health has been committed to providing healthcare as an essential community service for area residents and visitors. As a non-profit hospital, any net income is reinvested into facilities, technology, and health care services to ensure that the facilities are up-to- date and their equipment and services are state-of-the-art. They provide medically necessary health care services for all patients, regardless of their financial ability to pay. The amount of charity care ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE11VORF 2015 ECONOnI1C PROFILE 18 provided in 2014, together with unreimbursed costs (Medicaid) totaled nearly $12 million while the estimated total benefits provided to the community was over $20 million (Table 44). Table 44: Bozeman Health Deaconess Hospital Community Benefit Statistics. 2014 --g-e--nefitType:- Financial assistance (Charity Care) & unreimbursed costs (Medicaid) $11,850,360 Community health improvement services & benefit operations $544,571 Health professionals education $25,618 Subsidized health services $6,880,320 Cash & in-kind contributions to community groups $766,571 Total $20,067,440 3 oiin-e: C.omnuuufp liene%rl, bo,�eruau Heal/U. mmm boar gOea/ib.or . Livingston HealthCare 41 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. Livingston HealthCare is a top-rated, 25 -bed critical access hospital with a Level IV Community Trauma Facility, a multi -specialty provider clinic, as well as rehabilitation and Home-based services. Livingston HealthCare is an affiliate of Billings Clinic. In October of 2015 Livingston HealthCare moved into their new state-of-the-art medical center, a 125,000 square foot facility that brings all Livingston HealthCare services under one roof. Also in 2015, the hospital was named as one of the nation's HEALTHSTRONG Top Hospitals by iVantage Health Analytics, which highlights top performing hospitals through the industry's most comprehensive Hospital Strength rating system. The rating system and the results recognize the top performing hospitals — measuring them across 62 different performance metrics, including quality, outcomes, patient perspective, affordability and efficiency. able 45: Livingston HealthCare by the Numbers 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 Joarre. / laurillorr.. l nip. Alarketrng ail( ( onnrrunria/ions Goorrlmalor, Liniogvlon HeallhGar. rvnnv.lrr,irrg. /once dtbrna.o✓ . Table 46: Livingston HealthCare Community Benefit Statistics, 2012 - Benefit Type care: patient financial assistance & cost of services written off as bad debt Benefit Value $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 jonrn-e: finmar iwpor7, rrsrat rear turt, ilmnbrton t�eauvc arr. rurv».urrngrtwilieaumrur.arg. 45 About Us and Living Well, Spring 2015 Newsletter. Livingston HealthCare. -,N N"v.hNingstonhealdzcare.org. ©PROSPERA BUSINEss NEWORK 2015 ECONODIIC PROI'ILE Hiaher Education 46 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, MSU is dedicated to serving the people of Montana. MSU 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. MSU has been an economic anchor to the region's economy for many years and is the region's largest employer across all sectors. As of fall 2014, MSU employed 3,092 permanent faculty and staff positions, along with 649 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 264 active technology licenses (as of June 2015) and much of the funding comes from out-of-state sources like the National Institutes of Health and the Departments of Energy, Defense and Agriculture, which also contributes to the state's economy. According to MSU's 2070 Economic Impact Keport, as a result of the presence of the MSU system statewide (excluding MSU Extension): 13,511 Montana jobs are available statewide; more than $897 million in after tax personal income is generated; Montana receives $2.60 in tax revenues for every $1 of tax support; the presence of 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 from 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 Bargatze upon completion of his doctorate in immunology and infectious diseases. The company is working to create a vaccine for Norovirus, a comtnon 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 technologies 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 lures primarily MSU photonics graduates. Tnble 47: MSU Enrollment by Geoarabhic Reaion, Fall Semester 2014 Montana 7,876 8,846 58% 970 Other U.S. 4,953 941 5,894 38% Foreign 542 139 681 4% Total 13,371 2,050 15,421 100% Sourir: `S'turlerit Uenio�ir"tl-loutanaJfnte L!uiuer:u/p U(/iw of Plalnjrng c:f'_4&nIys . immuiroutaua.ediNnpn. 46 Quick Facts: 2014-2015. Narrative courtesy of Cook, Lee and Julie Kipfer. Montana State University Marketing and Creative Services. w%vw.montana.edu. ©PROSPLRA BUSINESS Nl IAVORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE �� Sona -e: `Quick Pacts, 2014-2013. "Alorataiia State Univelsly (?(ice of Planning &,-Jll lysin :v:urumoittnttn.edrr/ober. As stated by MSU, it has the distinguished reputation of being, "designated as one of 108 research universities with `vel high research activitji' hjl the Carnegie Foundation for the Advarzcenrent of Teaching. MSU offers significant opportunities for research, scholarship, and creative ivork. This highest tier classification — out of 4,600 institutions —distinguishes MSU as the only institution in the four -state region of Montana, ll j o v.?h% Idaho, and South Dakota to achieve this level of research prozrrinence. " A few of the recognitions and awards that Montana State University has achieved include the following: • MSU earned the 144``' spot on The Business Journals' 2015 list which ranked 484 U.S. public colleges. It is the highest rank earned by an institution in Montana. • The Arthur H. Post Teaching and Research Farm at MSU was ranked number 28 out of 40 of the best college farms nationwide. The rankings are based on hands-on experience, student involvement, community outreach programs, workshops, classes, lectures, volunteer opportunities and degree plan options. • MSU is among the top colleges and universities in the nation for number of Goldwater Scholarship recipients. As of 2015, 64 1VISU 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 most recently given to an MSU student in 2012. ©PRosPERA 13ts(Nl.ss TVB'iNvoRK 2015 ECONOMIC PROPILL 31 Gallatin College MSU17 Gallatin College MSU is Southwest Montana's two-year college, offering associate degrees and one- year professional certificates. Gallatin College complements the four-year programs at Montana State University and ensures access to workforce development that promotes a vibrant local economy. Gallatin College collaborates extensively with area industries to develop new programs and provide responsive training options that meet local workforce needs. One- and two-year workforce programs help students improve their skills and advance their career opportunities, or prepare for a career change. Gallatin College offers short-term workforce programs, transfer and general education degrees to build skills for college and dual enrollment courses for high school students. Providing flexible, affordable education is a top priority. .S0/mv: "Feld .Sh(,C/. f4/1 11111-0di1['11011 10 Gallatin Collfge. "Gallelf ll Collqe, A10111e/lia Delft, Ullil v lxly. IyJDJY.�[!%%llbll.111011/Cll!(b P(�/1. a' About Us. Gallatin College, Montana State University. www.gall itin.montana.edu. ©PROSPFRA liuSINi ss Ni-" ry oiis 20B ECONOMIC PROFILE Despite slow growth in the overall U.S. economy since 2009, "U.S. manufacturing has been one of the few bright spots of the economy. Growth in durable goods production accounted for most of the comeback... since the start of the recovery Montana manufacturing employment has increased considerably faster than the national rate. This strong performance was in spite of permanent closures in the wood and paper products industries."" The 178 Montana manufacturers who responded 6 to an annual survey in December 2014 expressed strong optimism overall. More than 52 percent of ( firms indicated increased sales and 46 percent made ( major capital expenditures during 2014.' Nearly half of respondents expected improved conditions ( in 2014 (48 percent), Nvith 62 percent anticipating increased sales, 33 percent expecting increased employment, 52 percent expecting increased production and 55 percent anticipating increased profits." Manufacturing Continued Improvement and Optimism Manufacturing in Montana has experienced four years in a row of improvements, with 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 each outpacing the prior year in employment, worker earnings, and output. Manufacturing continued to be an important piece of Montana's overall economy, providing jobs with higher than average wages. During 2014, average earnings of manufacturing workers were 25 percent higher than the average across all sectors in the state. Overall, the state's manufacturing sector in 2014: • produced approximately $15 billion in product output, • directly employed 23,429 workers (including the self-employed) who earned more than $1.17 billion in earnings, • accounted for roughly 22 percent of Montana's economic base. Gallatin County's 218 manufacturing companies "Results fi-om the 2014-2015 Manufacturing Survey.' employed 2,851 people in 2014.'Bureau of Business and Economic Research," Park County's University of Montana manufacturing sector employed 386 people at 33 wmv.bber.umt.edu establishments.50 Between 2010 and 2014, manufacturing employment figures in Montana increased by 19 percent (Table 48). Table 48: Manufacturing Employment in Montana, 2010 & 2014 2010 2014* Percent Wood, paper & furniture m 4,216 4,460 Change 6% Food & beverage 938 1,550 65% Primary and Fabricated Metals 2,063 3,020 46% Chemicals, petroleum & coal 2,085 2,085 0% Machinery 1,168 1,220 4% Nonmetallic minerals 938 1,550 65% Textiles, clothing & leather goods 784 910 16% Computers, electronics & appliances 641 810 26% All other manufacturing 6,969 7,890 13% Total 19,802 23,495 19% Joni -e: AIogem, Iodd .-I., Aferen II'. Llq),crandC.olio B. Loreoron. 'MoiilewasAIann/adwwngIndur1q: Beller Corrdetionron J 'co. " 2015 Eronomii 0allook. Bnivau of Bosiness and &oaomir ReseanA Unienrrily of illoolaoa. imm blieivmit.edn. -1E;rtonate. 48 Polzin, Paul E. "The State of Montana Manufacturing: 2015 Edition." Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. Nvw-,v.bber.umt.edu 49 Sorenson, Colin B., Steven W. Hayes and Todd A. Morgan. "Results from the 2014-2015 Manufacturing Sun cy." Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. -%vww.bber.umt.edu. 50 "Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages." Bureau of Labor Statistics. ,%vw\v.bls.gov/ce-%v. 2014 information is preliminary. ©PROSPERA BUSINL-'ss NEMORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 53 Challenges to Manufacturing Growth in Montana: 2013 Survey Findings" A series of focus groups and a quantitative survey of 415 small manufacturers in Montana were used to develop a profile 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 wood products producers to food, tobacco or alcohol and textile and apparel producers. More than 70 percent had less than five employees, with 40 percent having no employees. Twenty-six 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 respondents. Regarding anticipated growth, 25 percent expected to axrl The State of Montana make major capital expenditures in 2013 and more than {e�cturin : 2015 Edition cJ 35 percent felt it was a good time to expand their ✓orrornic Research business. Fourteen percent stated that they had immediate .bbenumt.edu job openings. Primary obstacles to growth were identified 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 difficult to access financing in 2013 than in 2012. 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 financial capital, sales and finding qualified employees. In addition to a lack of skilled labor with both technical and soft skills and a quality -oriented rnindset, 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 more directly and cohesively to facilitate economic development and job growth in this key sector. Holland, Steve and George Haynes, Challenger to L1 bntfirctining Grorytb in Allontana: 20/3 Lllonlrnra SrmllllllangIiidmerr Srnvey. Montana Manufacturing Extension Center. -,"vce.mtmanufactuuingcenter.com. ©PROSPERA IWS[NE55 Nul'nC�oRK 2015 ECONOMIC PROW[-] _� I Despite constraints created by a persistent shortage of houses for sale, the nationwide real estate market continued to improve in 2015, due in part to labor market strength encouraging new household formation by young adults.52 November 2015 was the eighth straight month that housing starts remained above 1 million units, which was the longest stretch since 2007.'2 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 reduction in the days on market for its single family residences (Table 49). Real Estate Latest Trends Positive for Sellers According to a summary of national trends by Robyn Erlenbush, broker/ owner of ERA Landmark Real Estate, "Sellers are feeling a change in the market because the increase in sales prices means they may have more equity in their homes than they have in the previous few years. The amount of time homeowners have stayed in their homes has increased from six or seven years up to nine years ... And j locally, we continue to see low inventory rates across most of our markets with median prices steadily increasing by eight percent to ten percent. There continues to be strong demand for investment, retirement and second homes as well as primary residences." Bozeman Daily Chronicle Business Journal December 15, 2015 \wtinv. bozenxniclailychronicle.com Table 49: Sinale Family Residence Trends - Gallatin and Pnrk Cc)untlas. 2019-9014 Gallatin County 2012 1079 $362,263,178 $335,739 $253,750 101 2013 1271 $463,579,851 $364,736 $279,500 90 2014 1392 $609,153,302 $437,610 $297,250 88 Bozeman and Surrounding Area 2012 738 $250,568,429 $339,523 $278,750 92 2013 839 $310,851,171 $370,501 $300,000 82 2014 880 $632,741,593 $412,206 $325,350 80 Belgrade and Surrounding Area 2012 191 $37,995,674 $198,930 $175,000 81 2013 242 $57,322,288 $236,868 $195,000 58 2014 305 $77,087,321 $252,745 $223,000 54 Park County 2012 160 $32,416,606 $202,603 $146,500 132 2013 191 $52,690,655 $275,867 $189,950 115 2014 179 $42,487,238 $237,358 $191,000 130 Livingston and Surrounding Area 2012 132 $20,657,606 $156,497 $135,000 114 2013 139 $26,852,215 $193,181 $168,500 85 2014 145 $30,147,219 $207,911 $179,900 91 onr e:.� orrti�me. t r� rartnnn mnttrpte L.tstmq .) err« -e. oaliatm Assoa"tton o) Kealtore fuwu,.g"untnnrn/torr.rom. Reuters, CNBC. "US housing starts at 1.17M units in Nov vs 1.15M units expected." December 16, 2015. Nvwtv.cnbc.com. ©PROSPERA BUS[NESs NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE As illustrated in Charts 17 and 18, the trends for single family residences in 2014 reflect improving conditions for Gallatin and Park counties since 2007. Chart 17: Number of Sinale Familv Homes Sold - Gallatin and Park Counties, 2007-2014 1600 .. ..1 1392 1400 I 1200 900 959 911 162 1000 138 15U 16U 191 179 ,:1;;i 744 7 96 800 700 00 mn*r•Gallatin County (Park County 600 400 600 556 123 122 200 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Sorn-re: Gallal iAs.�odotiougl'R allorc. rvtvmgcr/Icrtimrn/torc.ion�. Since 2009 Bozeman, Belgrade and Livingston have all seen yearly increases in the number of single family homes sold (Chart 18). As compared to 2013, annual sales figures for 2014 in Bozeman were up 4.9 percent; Belgrade's sales experienced 26 percent growth; and Livingston saw an increase in sales of 4.3 percent. Chart 18: Number of Single Family Homes Sold - Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston and Surrounding Areas, 2007-2014 1000 .. ..1 I 900 162 138 15U 16U 191 179 Sorn-re: Gallal iAs.�odotiougl'R allorc. rvtvmgcr/Icrtimrn/torc.ion�. Since 2009 Bozeman, Belgrade and Livingston have all seen yearly increases in the number of single family homes sold (Chart 18). As compared to 2013, annual sales figures for 2014 in Bozeman were up 4.9 percent; Belgrade's sales experienced 26 percent growth; and Livingston saw an increase in sales of 4.3 percent. Chart 18: Number of Single Family Homes Sold - Bozeman, Belgrade, Livingston and Surrounding Areas, 2007-2014 1000 .. ..1 I 900 800 700 � � •11 600 556 �wBozeman 500 aWwBelgrade 400264 3 -IW -Livingston 300 242 1-58 157 163 182 191 200 100 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 I .. ..1 I 1 � � 1 So1nm: SoutGrved MontanaAIn/tip/e Ilsling Service. Ga/leekAssoiiation of Reullors. rvrum n/lothuen!/orccorn. ©PROSPGRA BU$ING55 NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 'h E r i S 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 overall (Tables 50 and 51). In Gallatin County, short sales represented 0.92 percent of total l� sales, while foreclosures accounted for only 3.63 percent of total homes sold in 2014. Park County short sales represented 0.47 percent of homes sold as short sales and foreclosures accounted for 13.15 percent. As compared to prior years, healthier real estate sales appear to be gaining ground in the region. Table 50: Countv Residential Distressed Sales (Short Sales). 2012-2014 jouric: Jonnnverl ,ttantcum uluitpe ltrtm,g Jenvie. uallatar zisiociatron of lteallor;i. mrvm al/atiiileallora:ioor. 'Dotal nalwPer o/ sales inc/tlde+ all rnrrrlenlial prrrper*�, /)Per. Table 51: County Residential Distressed Sales (Foreclosures). 2012-2014 LVI .. Nil-.. Gallatin County 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% 2014 20 $7,089,321 $354,466 $254,450 2,176 0.92% Park County 2012 11 $1,831,500 $166,500 $135,000 204 5.39% 2013 5 $1,182,800 $236,560 $145,000 230 2.17% 2014 1 $188,000 $188,000 $188,000 213 0.47% jouric: Jonnnverl ,ttantcum uluitpe ltrtm,g Jenvie. uallatar zisiociatron of lteallor;i. mrvm al/atiiileallora:ioor. 'Dotal nalwPer o/ sales inc/tlde+ all rnrrrlenlial prrrper*�, /)Per. Table 51: County Residential Distressed Sales (Foreclosures). 2012-2014 Jornie: Jorttnmev jwontrnra iwilluple Liswgg Jervi e. (,a/lattn Assoclatmn of lCecltor:r. mrvruga!/atnnra//ors.rorlr. *total nuarber q1 sales iic/uder a// rrridenlia/prapei�, Jper. G)PROSPERA BI;SINEss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 5 7 Nil-.. Gallatin County a n C ty 2012 247 $48,304,410 $195,564 $155,500 1,698 14.55% 2013 147 $31,190,279 $212,178 $170,100 1,969 7.47% 2014 79 $17,943,018 $227,126 $174,900 2,176 3.63% Park County 2012 43 $5,3831005 $125,186 $105,000 204 21.08% 2013 30 $5,453,600 $181,786 $138,400 230 13.04% 2014 28 $3,738,198 $133,950 $133,950 213 13.15% Jornie: Jorttnmev jwontrnra iwilluple Liswgg Jervi e. (,a/lattn Assoclatmn of lCecltor:r. mrvruga!/atnnra//ors.rorlr. *total nuarber q1 sales iic/uder a// rrridenlia/prapei�, Jper. G)PROSPERA BI;SINEss NETWORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 5 7 The Bozeman area is increasingly 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 of recreational opportunities—has created an attractive setting for visionary technology company founders. 53 However, meeting demand for high-tech workers in die state is a challenge despite various workforce and recruitment initiatives, including the first biannual high tech jobs summit hosted in Bozeman in 2015 and return home mailing campaigns to Montana college alumni.'+ A survey of Montana High Tech Business Alliance members found that hiring skilled workers was the leading impediment to growth, ranking above access to capital and sales and marketing -related challenges. 55 Technolo High Tech Business Growth The Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER) recently conducted a survey of 101 Montana High Tech Business Alliance members. Among its findings the BBER found that, "By almost any measure, growth projected in high- tech businesses vastly exceeds average statewide economic growth, and employment and revenues are expected to grow at rates that are 8- 10 times the BBER's projection of statewide growth [also] Montana high-tech businesses are varied, but on average tend to be smaller, younger and more growth -focused." A Profile of Montana's High Tech Industries February 2075 Bureau of Business and Economic Research, While IT infrastructure in the area is fairly solid Montana - University e Montana � wwtiv.bbei:umt.edu nevertheless ranks 51" among the United States and its territories for broadband speeds" Gallatin County ranked Yd among Montana counties for broadband speed, while Park County ranked 24th among Montana counties and Bozeman ranked 0' among Census -designated places in the state. 56 One promising development is that the Bozeman -area broadband project has progressed to the formation of a not- for-profit partnership that has raised $3.85 million in private financing from eight area banks for the project's first phase.-' The partnership seeks to develop an open -access network, providing fiber infrastructure that can be used by private Internet service providers.57 The goal is to increase the speed, affordability and reliability of service available to Bozeman businesses by fostering a competitive open network, as an alternative to existing, proprietary infrastructure.S7 Construction on the network is expected to begin in die spring of 2017, with initial service available the following fall.S7 BioTechnology In 2014 the Montana BioScience Alliance celebrated its 10"' anniversary as die flagship organization actively working to grow the state's bioscience industry. As of 2014, the industry employed nearly 53 Friesenhahn, Ray. "Vision 2020: A Regional Strategic and Economic Development Plan for the Montana Optics & Photonics Industry Cluster." illontcrna O�itiaf and Pbotonics Indurt0i Cluster Regional Strategic Plan. 2013. 54 Kendall, Lewis. "Tech industry ready to boom." Botievian Daily Chronicle. September 22, 2015. -,vww.bozemandailychronicle. com. 55 "A Profile of Montana's High Tech Industries." February 2015. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana. www.bber.umt.edu. 56 National Broadband Map. Data as of June 30, 2014. wwMv.broadbandmap.gov. S7 Dietrich, Eric. "Bozeman banks rally behind broadband project." Botieman Adbi Climikle. October 2, 2015. ww-\v.bozemandaIlychronicle.com. OO PROSPERA BUSINESS NE'lAX'oRh 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 's 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. ss 5" Between 2009 and 2013, 158 patents were issued in bioscience -related technologies.' Bozeman has the largest concentration of bioscience companies in Montana, with 33 percent of the state's bioscience companies.GO Despite an announcement that Takeda plans to close its Bozeman vaccine facility, industry insiders believe that the biotech industry will continue to grow, helped by many of the same factors that have supported information technology and software companies' success in the Bozeman area."' For instance, roughly one third of Montana State University's research funding is dedicated to biomedical and technology research.` Additionally, Next Frontier Capital, a new Bozeman -based venture capital firm plans to focus on investing in technology firms, including those in the biotech industry.`i1 As stated by Governor Bullock, "The bioscience industry thrives in Big Sky Country because Montana is home to an incredible scientific asset base that makes us unique in the world. Over the past decade, National Institute of Health (NIH) funding has provided a solid foundation for research and development across our state. Between 2004 and 2009, NIH awarded $44.3 million to Montana bioscience companies, and in FY 2013 alone eight Montana businesses received NIH funding totaling $6.2 million for research and development of technologies with potential commercial applications."' The industry's employment growth is shown in Chart 19 below. Chart 19: Montana Bioscience Employment Growth Rate, 2001 -201 1 0% 10% 209/o 30% 40% 50% Som e: Economic A lodeliq Specialists, Intl. (EA W) and $TS, 2012 in `illontaaa BioSe elwe CbnJel• Rerxisited. " BioS['ieiii-e Uirder ibe Big S�;p 2013. AlontauaWoSdiwt-eAllialn'e. ivwnu.moo(xabio.oiv. 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 sa "State Profile -Montana." Battelle/BIO State Bioscience jobs, Investments and Innovation. June 23, 2014. -,vw-,v.bio.orsr. 11 "BioScience Under the Big Sky 2004-2014." Montana BioScience Alliance. www.montanabio.org. C° "BioScience Under the Big Sky 2013." Montana BioScience Alliance. www.montanabio.or>r. 61 Sanchez -Gonzalez, Adrian. "Bozeman biotech industry takes a breath at Takeda announcement, but continued growth likely." Bolenran Daijh Cbronicle. June 28, 2015. -,v\,xv.bozemanda4,chronicle.com. ©PROSPERA BLISINEss NEJAVORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 'i') modulation, optical materials and fiber optic communications.'' Over the past 16 years, the ntunber 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.' 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.53 Bozeman is now home to more than 30 optics companies, which employ over 500 people earning high -than -average wages.`' Many of these companies were founded by Montana State University (MSU) graduates, often through MSU technology transfer.`" 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.`` To meet the workforce demands for the burgeoning industry, MSU began offering a new master's degree and a minor in optics and photonics in die fall of 2014.`" In August 2015 MSU's Optical Technology Center (OpTeC), won a $2.5 million award from the Montana Research and Economic Development Initiative for research into compact optical sensors that could be used in everything from precision agriculture to advanced imaging for detecting skin cancer.`'`' This award was followed in October by a "talent development" economic development award for OpTeC's role in the development of a high-tech laser and optics business cluster in Montana.' The award focuses on the partnerships needed between a university and industry to meet workforce needs.`' Since the program was created in 1995, more than 200 graduate students and 300 undergraduate students have been educated through OpTeC.`' 6' Schontzler, Gail. "Optics research, industry blossom in Bozeman." Botienvnn Dar ly Chronicle. September 16, 2015. «nvw.bozemandailychronicle. com. ri "Montana optics -related companies." Optical Technology Center, Montana State University. http://Nv%vw.optec.mont,-tn-,t.edu/comp,,inies.htlnl. 61 Montana Photonics Industry Alliance. «,\N,\v.montanaphotonics.org. 65 MSU News Service. "MSU's Optical Technology Center wins economic development award." October 12, 2015. www.montana.edu. 66 MSU News Seip -ice. "Montana State University awarded research funding to spur state's economy." August 18, 2015. «,%vw.montana.edu. ©PROSPFRA lit'SINI?SS Nf,,.rw�otzK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 60 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 region offers a tremendous variety of outdoor recreational opportunities. Such amenities have established tourism as a major component of the area's economy. Tourism & Recreation National Parks Generate Big Impact National Parks hosted a record 292.8 million visitors in 2014. These visitors spent $15.7 billion in communities within 60 miles of national parks, generating a cumulative benefit of over $29.7 billion to. the U.S. economy. Locally, visitors spent $421 million in communities near Yellowstone Park, with a cumulative benefit of $543.7 million. According to the Institute for Tourism and Recreation French, Brett. "Report: National parks generate Research at the University of Montana (ITRR), the first millions for Montana, Wyoming" ever recorded decrease in visitation and nonresident Billings Gazette. April 23, 2015. traveler spending in Montana was in 2008, due to high ,,AvNv.bil/ingsgazette.com fuel prices in the summer and the first effects of the recession hitting the nation's economy.6' Since the 2008-2010 recession, Montana has experienced continual visitation and spending increases."' However, it wasn't until 2013 that nonresident spending and visitation surpassed 2007 expenditure and visitation numbers.' Consumer confidence, lower unemployment, and household debt reduction has contributed to this increase in desire and ability to travel." As stated in the latest ITRR biennial travel industry review, "As of 2012, Montana ranks 41st in the U.S. for tourist spending, but 6d -i in the nation in per capita tourist spending... The nonresident travel industry in Montana supports 8.7 percent of the state's total employment and 3.8 percent of total personal income in Montana.i6' Leading attractions for visitors were mountains and forests; Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks; and open space and uncrowded areas, while scenic driving, day hiking, and nature photography were cited as the most popular activities.' Economic Impact The economic impact of the travel and recreation industry in Montana is considerable. Highlights include: • Over 10.9 million visitors spent an estimated $3.90 billion in Montana in 201469 o This spending directly supported $3.15 billion of economic activity and indirectly supported $1.92 billion of economic activity, including induced impacts, bringing the total contribution attributed to nonresident spending to $5.07 billion o Spending in 2014 (adjusted for inflation) was up 5.9 percent from 2013 • Of the 56 counties in Montana, Flathead and Gallatin counties had the highest amount of estimated spending in 2013-2014. The two-year spending average was $668.14 million in 6' Grau, Dara, Jake Jorgenson and Norma Nickerson. "The Economic Review of the Travel Industry in Montana: 2014 Biennial Edition" December 2014. Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, University of Montana. -,v-,v-,v.itrr.utm.edu. 611 Gran, Kara. "2014 Nonresident Visitation, Expenditures, and Economic Impact Estimates: Estimates by full year, quarters, trip purposes, and international visitors." May 2015. Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, University of Montana. -,vww.itrr.umt.edu. ©PROSPERA BusINEss NETAC'ORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROFILE 61 Flathead County and $662.19 million in Gallatin County. The third ranked county in Montana had less than $400 million in nonresident spending` o The total contribution of nonresident spending to die Gallatin County economy was $874.9 million, supporting 6,740 jobs directly and 9,570 jobs total o Park County benefitted from $196.08 million in nonresident spending in 2014, generating a total impact of $169.94 million. Nonresident spending supported 1,970 jobs directly and 2,410 jobs total in Park County. • Visitor spending generated $217.63 million in state and local tax revenue in 2014, with each group averaging a 5.03 night stay and spending an average of $157.66 dav8 • Tourism and recreational businesses support 38,220 jobs directly, and in total support 53,280 jobs and $1.32 billion in worker salaries statewide 61 • 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 impacts70 Chart 20 details the distribution of visitor expenditures in 2014. Aside from retail sales decreasing from 19 percent to 15 percent of expenditures, the 2014 distribution is nearly identical to the 2013 expenditures allocation. Chart 20: 2014 Visitor Expenditures in Montana 32 0 Retail Sales ■ Hotel, Motel V Groceries, Snacks ■Auto Rental * Outfitter,Guide 10% U Rental Cabin, Condo o Campground, RV Park ■ Licenses, Entrance Fees 11Transportation Fares 9% 11Vehicle Repairs V Misc. Services 3% V Farmer's Market Gambling Lot Gasoline W Restaurant, Bar Solari,: Geun, Kim. '2011 Noilmideul 117sitation, F_:tpendiliars, mid Eeonomie Llwparl Estonales E•liniales G llll fear, qualverr, hip pluposer, mid iateniational wsilorc."Alty 201 S. hidilale /or Tmnxvn O" Reenw iou ltesearrh. Ulihwrri/ , o_/ it lotiRnra. evrv1v.iflr.uiul.edu. Figurer iur), not rnm to 100% dmr to mending. The combined traveler impact figures shown in Table 52 include the following: direct impacts result from nonresident traveler purchases of goods and services; indirect impacts result from purchases 6`) Grau, Kara. "2014 Economic Contribution of Nonresident Travel Spending in Montana Regions and Counties." July 2015. Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, University of Montana. -,vww.itrr.umt.edu. 70 Grau, I—Lra and Norma Nickerson. "Resident Travel and In -State Vacation Characteristics." November 2012. Institute for Tourism & Recreation Research, University of Montana. wtvxv.itrr.umt.edu. ©PROSPERA BL!SINrss NETWORK 2015 EGONOn11C PROrILL 61 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. Table 52: Economic Imbacts of Nonresident Travelers. 2n1 g-gn14 30111ie: UM/1, Acnn ZU14 \onrrslaeut i wtatron, L\penarttnrr. Hurt Cc'0rratutr ltnpad C.rtrtncrtec L .dunater Up /u// bear; gilader:r, trip pmporer, and interirotionul niritor;r." rldr0, 2015. IrutiUde forTotnrsm & Rerrration Reseairb. Uuirerr ), of Ahwlaurr. rvumihiumit.edu. Quarterly nonresident traveler statistics are show in Table 53 below. Montana saw a 1.2 percent decrease (from 11,020,000 to 10,887,000) in total nonresident visitor numbers between 2013 and 2014, but an increase in the number of travel groups.65 Group size also decreased slightly for the year, from 2.27 in 2013 to 2.19 people per group in 2014, while length of stay increased from 4.64 to 5.03 nights .61 While overall expenditures increased since 2013, 2014 average daily expenditures decreased from $161.19 to $151.66.`5 There was very little change on the whole in terms of visitation distribution and expenditures across the quarters as compared to the prior year. Table 53: 2014 Industry Output Employment Employee Compensation Proprietor Income Year 2012 $4,232,800,000 42,900 $1,056,800,000 $195,800,000 2013 $4,472,900,000 48,260 $1,276,250,000 $229,160,000 2014 $5,070,730,000 53,280 $1,316,760,000 $248,680,000 Year Other Property Type Income State & Local Taxes Avg. Expenses per Day per Group Total Expenditures 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 2014 $711,940,000 $217,630,000 $157.66 $3,900,440,000 30111ie: UM/1, Acnn ZU14 \onrrslaeut i wtatron, L\penarttnrr. Hurt Cc'0rratutr ltnpad C.rtrtncrtec L .dunater Up /u// bear; gilader:r, trip pmporer, and interirotionul niritor;r." rldr0, 2015. IrutiUde forTotnrsm & Rerrration Reseairb. Uuirerr ), of Ahwlaurr. rvumihiumit.edu. Quarterly nonresident traveler statistics are show in Table 53 below. Montana saw a 1.2 percent decrease (from 11,020,000 to 10,887,000) in total nonresident visitor numbers between 2013 and 2014, but an increase in the number of travel groups.65 Group size also decreased slightly for the year, from 2.27 in 2013 to 2.19 people per group in 2014, while length of stay increased from 4.64 to 5.03 nights .61 While overall expenditures increased since 2013, 2014 average daily expenditures decreased from $161.19 to $151.66.`5 There was very little change on the whole in terms of visitation distribution and expenditures across the quarters as compared to the prior year. Table 53: 2014 Montana Nonresident Traveler Quarterly Travel Comparison Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 jW11 Category • �. -. • Total Nonresident Visitors 1,210,000 2,989,000 5,012,000 1,676,000 10,887,000 % of Total 11% 27% 46% 15% 100% Nonresident Travel Groups 609,000 1,348,000 2,103,000 869,000 4,929,000 % of Total 12% 27% 43% 18% 100% Group Size # per group 2.01 2.23 2.33 1.93 2.19 Length of Stay nights 4.42 4.44 5.68 4.81 5.03 Avg. Expenditure $163.77 $152.93 $163.20 $142.25 $151.66 per Day Total Expenditures $420,970,000 $914,990,000 $1,949,740,000 $594,740,000 $3,900,440,000 % of Total 11% 23% 50% 15% 100% ,mice: urnu, icon. zur=t ivoarraaent i r. carton, r_.\petmttiorr, ana ccononur uttpart I -Is mAls: Lstunates O, /tic )ear rinm7er:r, trip binporer, aad intenralionalriritor:r." ALD, 2015.Institute forTollfism& krirationResean-A Unherri/),ofAlorttanet. miny.ifli:nmt.edir. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE-MORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROEILE 03 Visitation Dynamics Chart 21: Montana Vacationer State/Province Residencies 2014 Washington Idaho - Alberta, Canada Wyoming North Dakota — — -J — - California Mood Colorado - Minnesota Utah Oregon - British Columbia, Canada Texas 1 Wisconsin Arizona Michigan Florida 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% Percentage of Visitors Surveyed Sourer: C'nrlom Repori, I\anrerrdeid "I'iznel.Snrn9 1ktpm/ Data. Iartilide Ibj-7omrvu & &oveltiou Research, Unirer i�, a% Aloillalla. munv.it1i:Xuut.edtt. 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 of its beautiful mountain scenery and wide open spaces (Table 54). A new item on the top ten list in 2013 was "Family/Friends" as an attraction, though the number of people citing it as an attraction dropped 5 percent between 2013 and 2014. Table 54: Montana's Top 10 Attractions --Airact for Vacationers, 2U 14 Frr Vacationers Who Cited Item as an Attraction 66% Rank 1 Mountains/Forests Open space/Uncrowded areas 51% 2 Yellowstone National Park 48% 3 Rivers 46% 4 Glacier National Park 39% 5 Wildlife 35% 6 Lakes 34% 7 Family/Friends 26% 8 Fishing 16% 9 Lewis & Clark History 15% 10 Sohn : C 11slom KipoN, Nonresident 1 iaret3unig, Repod Ueda. lnstytytte far 1 oiny m e Kearanon ne eanv, viurerfyq o/ alommno, unrm.ynyvmn.eau. ©PROSPEIIA BUS[NCSs NE'nXIORS 2015 ECONOIIIIC PROFILE 61 Table 55: Yellowstone National Park Visitors As illustrated in Table 54 on page 64, national 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 of vehicles entering the park do so from Montana. `` Visitor numbers have climbed since 2006, aside from slight decreases in 2008, 2011 and 2013 (Table 55). The park had a record number of visitors in 2010 and saw its second highest visitation numbers on record in 2014. Figures in 2013 were down in small part due to the 16 -day Salve: Pu(11ii (l ve Statistics Q#ire, ATationa/Park Seniee. illtb.C/ /ir,,,a.npsgod S'1uts. federal government shutdown in October, 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."` Air Travel f Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport has been the busiest airport in Montana since June of ( 2013. i3 Annual passenger volumes were up 9.3 percent in 2014 compared to 2013, setting another record (Table 56). According to Airport Director Brian Sprenger, "It is quite an achievement for our ( airport to see a 44% increase in passenger enplanements over the past five years, surpass the half million enplanement mark and be ranked in the top 120 busiest commercial airline airports in the nation."'' Over 700 people are employed by the 28 entities with offices at the airport.' Table 56: Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Volume 200.5-2014 41 Deplaned Passenger 336,803 2005 2,835,649 2006 2,870,293 2007 3,151,343 2008 3,066,580 2009 3,295,187 2010 3,640,184 2011 3,394,326 2012 3,447,729 2013 3,188,030 2014 3,513,484 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 of vehicles entering the park do so from Montana. `` Visitor numbers have climbed since 2006, aside from slight decreases in 2008, 2011 and 2013 (Table 55). The park had a record number of visitors in 2010 and saw its second highest visitation numbers on record in 2014. Figures in 2013 were down in small part due to the 16 -day Salve: Pu(11ii (l ve Statistics Q#ire, ATationa/Park Seniee. illtb.C/ /ir,,,a.npsgod S'1uts. federal government shutdown in October, 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."` Air Travel f Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport has been the busiest airport in Montana since June of ( 2013. i3 Annual passenger volumes were up 9.3 percent in 2014 compared to 2013, setting another record (Table 56). According to Airport Director Brian Sprenger, "It is quite an achievement for our ( airport to see a 44% increase in passenger enplanements over the past five years, surpass the half million enplanement mark and be ranked in the top 120 busiest commercial airline airports in the nation."'' Over 700 people are employed by the 28 entities with offices at the airport.' Table 56: Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Volume 200.5-2014 41 Deplaned Passenger 336,803 Enplaned Passe2je7rso 335,679 Annual Total 2005 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 2014 483,132 483,832 966,964 fan c: -'Z(]/-) Passenger e' I Omer vPerzrteolis IQPorY. - Bo:,enrau n liorurtone lwenwlzorra/ ,?�1nporfi rvrviv. bozeruauoniiort, 'I "Yellowstone National Park." Montana Official State Travel Site. www.visitmt.com. 72 Moore, Mike. "Yellowstone visitation down in July, vehicle traffic up." Bo.Zetran Daibc Cbrnnicle. September 3, 2013. -,vww.bozemandailychronicle.com. Sprenger, Brian. Press Release. June 17, 2013. Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, www.bozemanairport.com. + Sprenger, Brian. Press Release. September 9, 2015. Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport, ,,,nvw.bozemanairport.com. ©PROSPERA BUSINESS NE'BVORK 2015 ECONOMIC PROPILE (15 The locations serviced by the airport between 2000 and 2014 are compared in Figure 6 below. Figure 6: Non -Stop Flight Destinations from Bozeman, January 2000 versus Summer 2014 Sawa: Spirner, Brian. Bo�Ztwian I ellom.rlone hilenialiwralAilpolt, mw)uhoZemmMai P_1-t.roi». Ski Resorts Southwestern Montana is home to two resorts that bring in skiers from around the world. Big Sky Resort is one of the nation's largest ski areas at 5,800 acres and averages over 400 inches of annual snowfall.75 The combined resort has 4,350 vertical feet served by 23 chairlifts and 11 surface lifts.'' Not only do families come for the winter season, but there is much to do and see during the summer as well. Big Sky had another high -traffic season with 440,000 skier visits during the 2014- 2015 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. Bridger Bowl has one quad lift, five triples and two double chairs serving 2,600 feet of vertical rise and 2,000 skiable acres, with 75 marked runs and a terrain park. 76 Average annual snowfall at Bridger Bowl is 350 inches. Bridger Bowl had a record 2013-2014 ski season with 217,516 skier visits and a slight decline in visits for the 2014-15 season with 204,501 skier visits (fable 56). According to the Institute for Tourism & Recreation research, 1.36 million skier visits were reported by the 14 Montana resorts during the 2014-15 ski season (Table 56). This was down by 10 percent compared to the 1.52 million skier visits during the 2013-14 ski season, however it should be noted that Teton Pass resort (which reported 5,750 visits in 2013-14) did not submit 2014-15 numbers. Tnhle 57: Ski Area Visitation Figures 2007-08 Sky IlWig Resort BMWBowll 309,170 196,569 All Montana Resorts 1,409,963 2008-09 285,342 188,621 1,326,437 2009-10 297,375 199,061 1,357,249 2010-11 340,000 210,966 1,480,602 2011-12 341,000 148,074 1,393,216 2012-13 341,000 185,645 1,433,198 2013-14 472,871 217,516 1,528,061 2014-15 440,000 204,501 1,368,836 3onire. Skier I (sits C Milani RLpod. lu.r6lalejor lonirrm C' Kearaliorr liereniiD, Uamerf l)I oj1Pmnlaua. IVINAMT.11o1zean. 75 "The Mountain: Mountain Stats & Info." Big Sky Resort. ww-,v.bigskvresort.com. 76 "Mountain Info and Statistics." Bridger Bowl. www.bridgerbowl.com. CQPROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK 2015 ECONONIIC PROFILE 66