HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012 Economic Profile of Gallatin & Park Counties, Montana2012
Economic Profile
',0201 2 PROSPERA BUSINESS NETWORK
of Gallatin and Park Counties, Montana
Gallatin & Park Counties, Montana
UNCOL N
FLATHEAD
SANDERS
LUKE
MEAGHER WHEAT-
jZa-
MUSSEL-
MISSOULA
GRANITE
GLACIER TOOIE
B� HILL
PONDERA
TETON CHOUTEAU
LEWIS CASCADE
"NE r PHIWPS r VALLEY
—1 AND CLARK JUDITH FERGUS ILEUM
SON
BEAVERHEAD L MADISON
CARBON
GARFIEL.D
BIG HORN
PROSPERA Bi1SINESS NETWORK
2015 Charlotte Street • Suite 1 • Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone - 06.587.3113 • Fax 406.587.9565
«-« r%-,-.ProsperaBusinessNetwork.org
Pno,111,'.RA Bc ,,imrss W nmK 2011 Ecowmic Pi «u ii.i_
DANIELS SHEMDAN
ROOSEVELT
RICFILAND
McCONE
DAWSON
PRAIRIE
FALLON
CUSTER
POD � CARTER
11�
_J
J
BASIN
MEAGHER WHEAT-
jZa-
MUSSEL-
) LAND
SHELL
co a
YELLOWSTO
TIN
SWEET
GRASS
STILL -
PARK
WATER
B: � iings
CARBON
GARFIEL.D
BIG HORN
PROSPERA Bi1SINESS NETWORK
2015 Charlotte Street • Suite 1 • Bozeman, MT 59718
Phone - 06.587.3113 • Fax 406.587.9565
«-« r%-,-.ProsperaBusinessNetwork.org
Pno,111,'.RA Bc ,,imrss W nmK 2011 Ecowmic Pi «u ii.i_
DANIELS SHEMDAN
ROOSEVELT
RICFILAND
McCONE
DAWSON
PRAIRIE
FALLON
CUSTER
POD � CARTER
11�
_J
J
Table of Contents
Listof Tables ........................................................................................................................
............................... i
Listof Charts ..........................................................................................
............................... ............................iii
List of Figures ................
.... iii
Introduction.........................................................................................................................
............................... l
PopulationTrends ..............................................................
............................... .. 3
Demographics......................................................................................................................
..............................8
Migration..............................................................................................................................
.............................12
Costof Living .....................................................................................................................
.............................13
TheEconomy ......................................................................................................................
.............................17
Costof Doing Business .....................................................................................................
.............................20
Workforce..........................................................................
...............................
Employmentby Sector .......................................................................................................
.............................24
LargestPrivate Employers .................................................................................................
.............................2C
Salary& Wage Detail ...................................................................................
...............................
Agriculture...........................................................................................................................
.............................30
Construction......................................................................................................................
............................... 32
Technology..........................................................................................................................
.............................35
Manufacturing.....................................................................................................................
.............................39
RealEstate ...........................................................................................................................
.............................42
Banking.............................................................................................................
.............................45
Tourism and Recreation ...................................................................................................
............................... 47
Energy...................................................................................................................................
.............................55
Montana State University — Bozeman ...........................................................................
.............................57
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital ..........................................................................................
.............................60
List of Tables
'fable 1:
Population ............................................................................................................. ..............................3
'fable 2:
Six Fastest Growing Montana Counties ...........................................................
..............................4
"fable 3:
population Rankin
7
Table4:
.age Demographics ..............................................................................................
..............................5
Table5:
Fthnicit% ...............................................................................................................
..............................9
Table6:
Income I. et• els ......................................................................................................
..............................9
Table 7:
Level of Educational A ttainment ................................................................... ...............................
lo
Table 8:
Housing Occupancy- Data ................................................................................ ..............................1
I
Table 9:
Households and Families ................................................................................ ...............................
I l
Table 10:
Population Change ............. ...............................
2
Table 11:
Bozeman Cost of Living Index Scores .......................................................... .............................14
'fable 12:
Cost of Living Index Comparison: Bozeman & Italispell ...........................
Table 13:
Micropolitan Economic Strength Rankings (Out of 576) .......................... .............................18
Table 14:
Metropolitan Economic Strength Rankings (Out of 366) ......................... .............................18
Table15:
Real GDP by State ........................................................................................... .............................19
'fable 16:
Regional Comparison of the Cost of Doing Business ................................ .............................21
Table 17:
State Unemployment Rate Information ................................................ ...............................
22
'fable 18:
County Unemployment Rate Information ................... ...............................
Table19:
Labor Force ............................................................................................ ...............................
....23
'fable 20:
2011 Employment & Earnings by Sector ..................................................... .............................25
Table 21:
Largest Private Sector Employers .................................................................. .............................26
Table 22:
:Average :Annual Wages .................................................................................... .............................28
Table 23:
:Average Weekly Wages .................................................................................... .............................28
'fable 24:
Earnings by Educational Attainment ............................................................ .............................29
Table25:
County Wage Rankings ................................................................................... .............................29
Table 26:
2010 Crop Statistics for Gallatin County ...................................................... .............................30
Table 27:
2011 Livestock Statistics for Gallatin County .............................................. .............................30
'Fable 28:
2010 Crop Statistics for Park County ............................................................ .............................31
Table 29:
2011 Livestock Statistics for Park Count• .................................................... .............................31
"fable 30:
2010 Montana ,agricultural Commodities Information .............................. .............................31
'fable 31:
New Construction A ctivity ............................................................................. .............................32
Table 32:
City of Bozeman A nnexations ........................................................................ .............................32
Table 33:
City of Bozeman Subdivision Reviews .......................................................... .............................33
PROSPr
RA Bt ,ttirss Ni MORK 2012 Lco,,om i(; Pitot u.i•
i
Table34: Zoning Reviews ................................................................................................ .............................33
Table 35: Building Permits Issued ................................................................................... .............................34
fable 36: Ernployment and Labor Income in Montana ;Manufacturing Sectors .... .............................39
fable 37: Real Estate "Trends for Gallatin and Park Counties ................... 2
"fable 38: Residential Distressed Sales in Gallatin & Park Counties (Short Sales) ................................ 43
Table 39: Residential Distressed Sales in Gallatin & Park Counties ( Foreclosures) .............................43
Table 40: Bozeman Bank Deposit Market Share .......................................................... .............................4G
Table 41: Livingston Bank Deposit Market Share ........................................................ .............................4G
"fable 42: Montana Nonresident Traveler Quarterly Travel Comparison .................
Table 43: Montana Nonresident Traveler Economic Impacts and Expenditures (Totals) .................48
Table 44: Bozeman Yellowstone International :airport Volume ................................ .............................50
Table 45: Big Sky Resort and Bridget Bowl Visitors ........................ ....52
........... ............................... .........
Table 46: Montana's Top 10 _attractions for Vacationers ........................................... .............................53
Table 47: Yellou stone National Park Visitors ............................................................... .............................54
Table48: Utility Rates ....................................................................................................... .............................55
Table 49: MSt' 'Total Enrol lment .................................................................................... .............................58
Table 50: Bozeman Deaconess Hospital by the N umbers ......................................... ..............................0 1
`
Table 51: Community Benefit Statistics ...................
i PRO%nRA B1 �;I\HSs Nj.. FXX ORK 2012 EcoNomiC Pimi iu U
List of Charts
Chart 1: Actual and Projected County Populations ....................................................... ..............................7
Chart 2: Net Migration in ;Montana 2009- 20 11 .............................................................. .............................12
Chart3: Cost of Living for Bozeman ............................................................................. .............................14
Chart 4: Regional Cost of Living Comparison .............................................................. .............................15
Chart 5: Consumer Price Index - Western Region ...................................................... .............................16
Chart 6: Historical Average Consumer Price Index ..................................................... .............................16
Chart 7: 2011 Small Business Survival Index .................................................................. ............................ -1 ()
Chart 8: Unemployment Rates 2006 - 2011 ..................................................................... .............................23
Chart 9: :average :annual Employment .......................................................................... .............................24
Chart 10: :Average Weekly Wages by Industry .............................................................. .............................27
Chart 11: Residential Building Permit A ctivitV . ...............................
Chart 12: Manufacturing Labor Income ........................................................................ .............................40
Chart 13: Number of Houses Sold - Gallatin & Park Counties ................................. .............................43
Chart 14: Number of Houses Sold - Bozeman, Belgrade & Livingston ................... .............................44
Chart15: Bank Deposits ................................................................................................... .............................45
Chart 16: 2011 Visitor E.xpenditures .............................................................................. .............................49
Chart 17: Vacationer Population by State /Province Residence ................................. .............................53
Chart 18: Ratings of Overall Healthcare Services _Available in the Community' ...... .............................62
Chart 19: Self- Reported Health Status ............................................................................ .............................62
Chart 20: Leading Causes of Death ................................................................................ .............................63
Chart 21: Factors Contributing to Premature Deaths in the United States .............. .............................63
List of Fiaures
Figure 1: Population Change ..................
Figure 2: Net Population Migration - Gallatin Counn• ............................................... ............................... 5
Figure 3: Net Population Migration - Park C: ounn ....................................................... ..............................6
Figure 4: Non -Stop Destinations from Bozeman: January 2000 ..................................................... .......51
Figure 5: Non -Stop Destinations from Bozeman: June 2012 .................................... .............................51
PROIM IAiA 13l tiim s,. N1 11%ORK 2012 ECONOMIC PRO[ 11+
Introduction
I bee I' ommizic Profile of Giilliiti i and Park (.oiiiifies is researched, updated and published annually by
Prospera Business Network as a detailed description of the regional economy. It should be noted
that there can be a significant time lag in the collection and publication of some of the data sources
referenced in this report. Some data relating to the economic changes in late 2011 has yet to be
released.
The 2012 f t-onolnic Profile gl'Gallufin and Pack. C.oilnl es provides a comprehensive description of the
regional economy with an emphasis on population demographics, the cost of living, employment,
and major industries. In instances where county and regional data is unavailable, statewide data has
been provided.
A companion publication, The Prospera 2012 Business Reloecttion and Resemyre Gnide, identifies resources
for existing and relocating businesses for the Gallatin and Park County area. It can be found on the
Prospera website at w,,v1w .ProsperaBusinessNetwork.org.
About Prospera Business Network
Prospera Business Network is a private, nonprofit, member - supported economic development
organization in southwestern Montana. Originally established in 1985 as the Gallatin Development
Corporation by a group of forward- thinking members of the business community devoted to the
creation of a thriving local economy, Prospera plays a leading role in economic development and
selves a region that is one of the fastest growing economic areas in the northern Rocky Mountains.
Over the years, the organization has evolved with the business community it was created to serve.
In its earl• years, the Gallatin Development Corporation focused on actively recruiting employers to
the area. As the economy improved, the organization's focus shifted to supporting local
entrepreneurs and companies with their growth and expansion initiatives, with the goal of creating
high - paying jobs and diversifying the economy.
At the end of 2006, the organization started doing business as Prospera Business Network to better
reflect the organization's expanded regional focus beyond Gallatin County. Today, Prospera
Business Network is one of the most comprehensive and collaborative economic development
organizations in the area, with the mission to provide economic development programs and services
throughout southwestern Montana. Prospera provides a wealth of resources and tools to business
leaders and executives, and prides itself on the quality of its networking and mentoring programs.
Prospera's goal is to support the continued economic expansion of the area and the overall growth
and diversification of Montana's economy. Prospera is dedicated to encouraging and supporting
business expansion, retention, and relocation by providing access to business consulting, financing,
professional development, and economic research.
For additional information, visit: w-,wow .ProsperaBusinessNetwork.orl; or call (406) 587 -3113.
PRospu wk Bi sltiP,.s NP I1t ORS 2012 EwNowc PRUPII,I{
Overview
Located in southwestern 'Montana, the Gallatin and Park County region is one of the fastest growing
economic areas in the northern Rocky Mountains. It has a varied economic base, an educated
workforce, thriving technology and manufacturing industries, a major research university, plentiful
cultural and outdoor recreation amenities, and a scenic natural landscape at the doorstep of
Yellowstone National Park.
About Gallatin County
Gallatin County, with its count}• seat in Bozeman, covers a land area of 2,603 square miles and has a
population density of 35.1 people per square mile. 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 s• has
the largest population increase in the state (34.7" 'o) and in 2011 overtook Flathead County to claim
the third largest county population in the state, 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 :1lbert Gallatin, the Secretary of the `Treasury at the tune.
The county was established in 1864. With its Rockv Mountain setting, it encompasses the
Yellowstone National Park western entrance and is known for world -class downhill skiing at Big Sky
Resort, Moonlight Basin and Bridget Bowl, blue ribbon trout streams, and a multitude of other
outdoor activities. Nearly half of the land in the county is under public ownership by the Gallatin
National Forest, State of Montana, Bureau of Land Management, or the National Park Service.
Gallatin County- is large and diverse, with rich agricultural lands 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 has a population
density of 5.5 people per square mile. Park County- is nestled between four mountain ranges and
spans the beautiful Paradise and Shields `'alleys. The 2010 U.S. Census reports Park County is
Montana's 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.
ftowlx% B1 >imss Ni m mm 2012 Ec'oNo mic YRoi il.l
According to 2011 U.S. Census Bureau population
estimates, Gallatin County currentlN. has a population of
91,377, and its count• seat, Bozeman, has 38,025 residents
("fable 1). Park County's population is 15,469 and its
count seat, Livingston, currently has 6,969 residents.
The Census Bureau's intercensal and annual county
population estimates show the continuing trend of
population growth concentrated in northwestern and
southwestern Montana (Figure 1). While the overall state
population grew at a rate of 10.6 percent from 2000 to
2011, 30 Montana counties experienced declining
populations over the same period (fable 1). Population
increases occurred in 26 counties, with 13 counties growing
faster than the state's growth rate. Most notably, only
Gallatin (34.7 "o), Flathead (31.3°'x), and Broadwater
(22.5')..,o) counties experienced growth rates greater than 16
percent (I'able 2).
Table 1: Population
Population Trends
Area is Attractive to Parents
Bloomberg Businessweek ranked
Bozeman in the top 50 best places
to raise kids in 2012. School test
scores, median family income and
community amenities were used as
defining criteria.
These attractive aspects are just
some of the reasons behind why
Bozeman ranked #3 among
Forbes' fastest growing small towns
in America in 2010, and placed
again in the top 100 in 2011 .
"nnv. BloombergBusinessweek.com
vnnv. Forbes. com
Location
Montana
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
934,888 945,428 956,624 967,440 974,989 989,415
20111
998,199
Gallatin County
80,671 84,370 87,243 89,824 90,343 89,513
91,377
Belgrade
7,336 7,631 8,036 8,185 8,192 7,389
7,549
Big Sky
1.321 in 3000 (U.S. Ceasus Brurmr) 2,308
No 2011 data
ararlable
Bozeman
34,698
36,668
37,643
39,004
39,282 37,280
38,025
Manhattan
1,511
1,555
1,539
1,622
1,677 1,520
1,553
Three Forks
1,903
1,923
1,915
1,928
1,970 1,869
1,909
W.Yellowstone
1,260
1,281
1,433
1,511
1,502 1,271
1,298
Park County
15,750
15,845
16,072
16,189
15,941 I 15,636
15,469
Clyde Park
Cooke City
343
342
346
347
342 288
286
140 in 2000 (C rnerw
'.S. Comas B') 75
vrn
arn "0 20i11 11 data
Gardiner
851 in 2000 (17 S. Ceurus Brrreau) 875
No 2011 data
available
Livingston
7,062
7,131
7,253
1 7,409
7,380 7,044
6,969
Wilsall
23" in 3000 (I_' S. Ceusns Brrrean) 178
No 2011 data
vrvilvble
, nn-e: l_ s. Censrls Burma Population Uursron, Animal CstImates o11<errdent Popatalron Ukrge :: 7przl 1, 3U7U to fnlq 1, _'U77.
Gallatin County- is the fastest growing county in the state, with its population increasing 34.7 percent
since Census 2000 (fable 2). Over the same period, Park County lost population by 1.4 percent
(Figure 1). Gallatin County is currently the third largest county in Montana while Park Count• is
ranked 12th.
PRO; I R \ BI �itii s Ni rm uRS 2012 EcUNOMIC PROI [LP
Hopi -ever, if looking at short -term population growth between April 2010 and Jule 3011 Gallatin
County's ranks eighth in the state, with a growth rate of 2.1 percent. Meanwhile, Park C:ountN- ranks
49 °i for the April 2010 to July 2011 period, with a decline of 1.10 o. 'These rates pale in comparison
to population increases in eastern counties such as Musselshell County (3.3"o) and Garfield Counts
(4.9 "o) where the agricultural sector and especially the energy sector weathered the recession fairly
well and created desirable employment opportunities for new arrivals.'
Table 2: Six Fastest Growina Montana Counties
-) utezr. L—a. �-.esrnf D!fIralf I- OPma.,10H 1ltPlslon..—mmull r—sum res 0I Keorient I'oplemon CJJO/Ige.- Ap /7t 1, _'11 /0 toJ/!Iy 1, _011.
rlgure i : ropulatlon Mange
MONTANA - 2010 Census Results
Percent Change in Population by County: 2000 to 2010
un<pin ciaue, moe wu W
Lo—,
Slane Palley
NOOlNI
Fbndera Frhr�lps
ietOn ch-- R. I—d
lake
-Ao-� � �a.�atlo Flu, Garrkeb Oawwn _
is o!eum
owel ew I Rr>,re Wb..
Meagher J MussNM+e!I
Grange WnmUaM, _ Falcn
Roaelsua c—,
s!.er s, eel
�w
c:a :r
Fark ♦r. .. a.•. B:g HO:n
FOwtler R:. er
Beaverheatlfw' carbon
nl c'Iwnge
®•nhra is n - --
II Io 199
o. n99
IOO b•01
-1 -4w -101
i•ercsrtle 8. far slay. 9'•.
United Stales
Census
Jollrce., U.J. CensIts BitIrml Nopslatim i irwon. _ Amyl Eslitsatei of Reddest Poptlalios (Ywls ge
Wagner, Barbara. "Montana Employment Projections 2010 through 2020." Montana Research and .NrLtIvsis Bureau,
Montana Department of Labor and Industn .
PROSPrlt� B( sltii.,�sNI- :IVl Olt K 2012 ECONOMIC PROI 11.1 t
`. 111
1
'- - . .-
•.
Gallatin
67,832
91,377
34.7%
1
Broadwater
4,385
5,752
31.3%
2
Flathead
74,471
91,301
22.5%
3
Yellowstone
129,348
150,069
16.0%
4
Lewis & Clark
1 55,716
64,318
15.4%
5
Missoula
1 95,799
110,138
15.0%
6
-) utezr. L—a. �-.esrnf D!fIralf I- OPma.,10H 1ltPlslon..—mmull r—sum res 0I Keorient I'oplemon CJJO/Ige.- Ap /7t 1, _'11 /0 toJ/!Iy 1, _011.
rlgure i : ropulatlon Mange
MONTANA - 2010 Census Results
Percent Change in Population by County: 2000 to 2010
un<pin ciaue, moe wu W
Lo—,
Slane Palley
NOOlNI
Fbndera Frhr�lps
ietOn ch-- R. I—d
lake
-Ao-� � �a.�atlo Flu, Garrkeb Oawwn _
is o!eum
owel ew I Rr>,re Wb..
Meagher J MussNM+e!I
Grange WnmUaM, _ Falcn
Roaelsua c—,
s!.er s, eel
�w
c:a :r
Fark ♦r. .. a.•. B:g HO:n
FOwtler R:. er
Beaverheatlfw' carbon
nl c'Iwnge
®•nhra is n - --
II Io 199
o. n99
IOO b•01
-1 -4w -101
i•ercsrtle 8. far slay. 9'•.
United Stales
Census
Jollrce., U.J. CensIts BitIrml Nopslatim i irwon. _ Amyl Eslitsatei of Reddest Poptlalios (Ywls ge
Wagner, Barbara. "Montana Employment Projections 2010 through 2020." Montana Research and .NrLtIvsis Bureau,
Montana Department of Labor and Industn .
PROSPrlt� B( sltii.,�sNI- :IVl Olt K 2012 ECONOMIC PROI 11.1 t
Gallatin County has grown by roughly 11 percent between 2005 and 2010.
Gallatin County, Montana
Population (2005): 80,671
Population (2010): 89,513
The pattern of population migration can be seen in Figure 2. In 2010 the inbound income per
capita was estimated to be 523,600 while the outbound income per capita was roughly 517,600. The
non - migrant income per capita came in at 526,000.'
Fgure z: iAeT ropuianon (vugraTlon — v0110nn ,-ou
Inbound migration
Outbound rmorabon
A;
4,;
1
Source: u'ttttt 1, oii iestroniJspeirvlrrporY/2011 /rni rrdiou.Gtin/.
s,a00
3,200
2005 2006 200 2005 2009 2010
'-Source: http: / /,.x1sxv.forbes.com /special- report /'2()11 /tiigrition.html
PIU11�1'1 RA Iii ,i`i ,s Nit ntuuK 2012 E(:ONoNnc Pfm[ 11.v
Conversely in Park Count-, there was a net decline for the same period of less than 1 percent.
Park Count-, Montana
Population (2005): 155,750
Population (2010): 15,636
The pattern of population migration for Park County can be seen in Figure 3. In 2010 the inbound
income per capita was estimated to be 522,800 while the outbound income per capita was roughly
$ 19,300. The non - migrant income per capita came in at 522,000.'
rIqure J: Net Noqulation Migration — Park Lou
Inbound migration 1,200
Outbound migration
- 600
!s 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
�anr•r: mrvitetniv�� .e.,nin /.�periahrpur! /:017 /ort�R�ttuu.bliir /.
Puo,;m it.\ Bi simas Ni 1A\ 0RK 2012 Eccwomic 1'itta u.r
Chart 1: Actual and Proiected Countv Populations
R�Ht tittii:as Ni Mtnts 2012 I'.cx>VUN
Soma. 2000 and 2010 .- htnolpopnlvlion; 2015- 2030 popidstioo pt- jediouSpwiesced Gy the .11outana DePmtinent of Colnure�re Censlu vnd Eiviiomn
fqj nwa ion Cooler.
According to the Montana Department of Commerce Census and Economic Information Center,
t over the next two decades, the projected percent change in Gallatin County population is roughly 53
percent, which would increase the population to nearly 137,000 residents (Chart 1). Park County, is
expected to grow at a more moderate 29 percent for the same period. Since 2004, Bozeman has
been the fourth largest city in Montana (Table 3).
Table 3: Pooulation Rankina
Billings
Actual and Projected
County
11
101,778
11:
103,994
119
105,845
Populations
136,970
126.590
Missoula
2000
2010
2015 2020 2025
2030
130,000
66,788
67,290
67,832
3
58,536
58,779
15,694 1
15,636 1
17,420 18,260 1
110,000
Bozeman
4
36,668
37,643
39,004
39,282
37,280
38,025
Butte
0 90,000
31,957
31,919
32,119
-*-Gallatin County
33,525
33,704
Helena
6
28,045
28,713
29,351
29,939
28,190
=imPark County
tZ 70,000
7
19,332
20,292
21,182
0
19,927
20,008
50,000
30,000
10,000
R�Ht tittii:as Ni Mtnts 2012 I'.cx>VUN
Soma. 2000 and 2010 .- htnolpopnlvlion; 2015- 2030 popidstioo pt- jediouSpwiesced Gy the .11outana DePmtinent of Colnure�re Censlu vnd Eiviiomn
fqj nwa ion Cooler.
According to the Montana Department of Commerce Census and Economic Information Center,
t over the next two decades, the projected percent change in Gallatin County population is roughly 53
percent, which would increase the population to nearly 137,000 residents (Chart 1). Park County, is
expected to grow at a more moderate 29 percent for the same period. Since 2004, Bozeman has
been the fourth largest city in Montana (Table 3).
Table 3: Pooulation Rankina
Billings
'•
1
106
100,141
11
101,778
11:
103,994
119
105,845
2010
104,170
136,970
126.590
Missoula
2
116,130
7
67,141
68,202
89,513
66,788
67,290
67,832
3
58,536
58,779
15,694 1
15,636 1
17,420 18,260 1
19,150 20,110
Bozeman
4
36,668
37,643
39,004
39,282
Soma. 2000 and 2010 .- htnolpopnlvlion; 2015- 2030 popidstioo pt- jediouSpwiesced Gy the .11outana DePmtinent of Colnure�re Censlu vnd Eiviiomn
fqj nwa ion Cooler.
According to the Montana Department of Commerce Census and Economic Information Center,
t over the next two decades, the projected percent change in Gallatin County population is roughly 53
percent, which would increase the population to nearly 137,000 residents (Chart 1). Park County, is
expected to grow at a more moderate 29 percent for the same period. Since 2004, Bozeman has
been the fourth largest city in Montana (Table 3).
Table 3: Pooulation Rankina
Billings
'•
1
106
100,141
11
101,778
11:
103,994
119
105,845
2010
104,170
1
105,636
Missoula
2
65,885
67,141
68,202
68,876
66,788
67,290
Great Falls
3
58,536
58,779
59,251
59,366
58,505
58,950
Bozeman
4
36,668
37,643
39,004
39,282
37,280
38,025
Butte
5
31,957
31,919
32,119
32,268
33,525
33,704
Helena
6
28,045
28,713
29,351
29,939
28,190
28,592
Kalispell
7
19,332
20,292
21,182
21,640
19,927
20,008
Sonar.- U.S. Ceosns Bmrnn Popalatiolr Di isioll, . Illlln[!l Estimates of Resident Popnlatioo Charge.- 1pol 1, 2010 to ji /4 1.2011.
tx: Ptttnn.t
The nation as a whole saw an increase in the median age
from 36.5 to 37.2 between 2010 and 2011: of note was
an increase in the 65 and over group by over 2.2 million,
accompanied be a decrease of 650 thousand in the
Under 5 Years group. (2011 state, county, and city
median age data was not available at the time of this
report.) In terms of statewide median age rankings by
county as of the 2010 census, Park County was 31''
while Gallatin Count- was 53 ". Prairie County ranked
first in the state, with a median age of 53.6 years.
Overall, the median age in Gallatin Count• — and
Bozeman in particular — is lower than the surrounding
areas (Table 4), largely due to the presence of the
university.
Demographics
Bozeman: Outdoor Enthusiast Mecca
Livability ranked Bozeman as one of
the top three winter towns in the nation
in both 2011 and 2012. Proximity of
outdoor recreation opportunities and
overall winter livability considering
factors like snow clearing were among
criteria selection. Additionally,
Bozeman took second place in the top
five greatest college towns for winter
enthusiasts according to U.S. News &
World Report in 201 1 .
www. livability. con)
www.USNews.com
i aoie 4: H e uemo
ra nics
Location
United States*
Median Age
37.2
Under 5 Years
20,201,362
18 and Over
234,564,071
65 and Ovel
40,267,984
Montana
39.8
62,423
765,852
146,742
Gallatin County
32.5
5,741
70,780
8,470
I Belgrade
30.8
751
5,354
421
Big Sky
35.0
128
1,951
175
Bozeman
Manhattan
Three Forks
West Yellowstone
27.2
41.2
40.8
39.4
2,054
100
126
74
820
17
3
31,433
1 128
1,406
1,005
3,012
231
296
107
2,589
43
13
97
Park County
45.4
12,550
Clyde Park
Cooke City
45.8
40.8
227
67
740
Gardiner
47.1
25
Livingston
41.1
458
5,564
1,143
Wilsall
55.2
6
156
43
Souse,' L.S. Census Bitirall, 2010 Census, * U.S. Census Blurun:.Sklte and Cmwt�� �iai�•k,Fu�•tr, fnne �n1 �.
As seen in Table 5, both Park and Gallatin Counties are less ethnically diverse than the state, most
notably because there are much fewer people of American Indian decent living in the two counties.
However, in the state and in the two counties there was a small increase in diversit• of roughly 0.1
percent for most non -white categories, with a simultaneous decrease in White Non - Hispanics of
approximately 2 percent between 2010 and 2011. Yet, the White Non - Hispanic population in
;Montana remains 15.1 percent above the White Non - Hispanic proportion for the United States as a
whole.
Puo( iI PN:\ Rc ,rvc-:cti Ni. 1AX OR < 2012 Eco\o iic Pimi n r
Table 5: Ethnicity
• . a
White Non - Hispanic
United States
72.4%
Montana
87.5%
Park County
94.8%
Gallatin County
92.9%
Black
12.6%
.5%
.2%
.5%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
16.3%
3.1%
2.3%
2.9%
American Indian & Alaskan Native
.9%
6.4%
1.0%
1.0%
Two or more races
2.9%
2.4%
1.6%
1.7%
Sorme: U.S. figmes• U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census; .Uowtawa E Comity Figurer: U.S. Cauns Bime w.State E Comai Quid --.Fa tc, fnwe 2012.
Table 6 demonstrates that Gallatin County's median household and median family income is
considerably higher than Montana's overall numbers, but fairly consistent with the rest of the
country. Median incomes in Gallatin Count- increased since last rear's report by approximately 2
percent. Gallatin County as a whole shows that both individuals below poverty level and families
below poverty level are slightly lower than the national average. Bozeman, as the largest community
in the county, also bears the highest percentage of individuals living below poverty level, while `Nest
Yellowstone has the highest percentage of families who live below the poverty level.
Park County and its cities, for the most part, have lower median incomes than the national average.
County wide the personal per capita income is slightly higher than Montana as a whole, and has
increased since the last reporting period by approximately 6 percent. Poverty levels for individuals
are slightly lower, with the family poverty level 2.4 percent less than last year. Wilsall experiences
the greatest impacts as a community with more individuals and families on average living below the
poverty level than the rest of the state or nation.
Table 6: Income Levels
Sonne: [ r..S. G'ensns Bmean, 2006-2010 Ameria w Cemwmrity Swa-ey; hn ome frgmec are iw 2010 dollars. A# ruimbers bare beew iw%lation adjtnted.
,Vote that Per Cap m, Personal Income measures 1he income o% all people, in ludiwg the wweiwp1ged. For arenge wages eanred br enviloyed rsidente, please see
Table 1
PROSPEe.tB1sitirs,,NrMORK 20121 :0)N N11CPROI11.1.
---M-Pe-dild"n
Median
Per Capita
All People Below
Families Below
Location
Household
Family
Personal
Poverty Level
Poverty Level
United States
$51,914
$62,982
$27,334
13.8%
10.1%
Montana
$43,872
$55,725
$23,836
14.5%
9.7%
Gallatin County
$50,136
$65,029
$27,423
13.5%
7.4%
Belgrade
$45,413
$51,943
$20,950
12.4%
7.8%
Big Sky
$49,850
$81,538
$30,146
5.4%
2.7%
Bozeman
$42,218
$59,683
$26,038
20.9%
10.8%
Manhattan
$52,350
$63,359
$23,877
9.4%
5.3%
Three Forks
$37,262
$49,444
$21,423
8.3%
4.8%
West Yellowstone
$40,813
$61,406
$25,574
18.4%
16.0%
Park County
$38,830
$50,252
$24,717
13.6%
7.7%
Clyde Park
$43,068
$55,000
$17,748
12.4%
4.7%
Cooke City
$65,278
$65,556
$38,664 0.0%
0.0%
Gardiner
$49,306
$64,306
_ .... .... .._._ ....... .
$28,273 2.6%
0.0%
Livingston
$33,937
$42,188
$22,610 12.7%
9.0%
Wilsall
$28,000
$35,000
$21,275 I 19.6%
16.1%
Sonne: [ r..S. G'ensns Bmean, 2006-2010 Ameria w Cemwmrity Swa-ey; hn ome frgmec are iw 2010 dollars. A# ruimbers bare beew iw%lation adjtnted.
,Vote that Per Cap m, Personal Income measures 1he income o% all people, in ludiwg the wweiwp1ged. For arenge wages eanred br enviloyed rsidente, please see
Table 1
PROSPEe.tB1sitirs,,NrMORK 20121 :0)N N11CPROI11.1.
Montana's residents have typically- attained a higher level
of both secondary and post - secondary- education than
the rest of the nation for high school or above levels and
attained identical levels for those earning a baccalaureate
or more (Table 7). Both the state and counties have seen
a slight increase since the last report for individuals
attaiiung the respective levels of education. Both
counties outpace national averages for education
attainment for high school graduates and above; the
averages are closely correlated not only to strong area
school systems, but also to Montana State University's
influence on the area.
Table 7: Level of Educational Attainment
Achieving Academic Excellence
Great Schools.net rated the majority of
Bozeman Public Schools with scores of
an 8 or higher out of 10, using criteria
including standardized test scores and
national scoring. Additionally,
Bozeman elementary school students
scored higher than Montana state
averages on the statewide CRT test,
and Bozeman students, K -12,
exceeded state averages in science.
m~. GreatSchools. net
United States 85.0% 27.9%
Montana 91.0% 27.9%
Gallatin County ; 96.0% 45.0%
Belgrade 98.2% 30.5%
Big Sky 100.0% 55.2%
Bozeman 97.2% 51.1%
Manhattan
87.3%
32.6%
Three Forks
92.8%
16.8%
West Yellowstone
96.2%
31.8%
Park County
-�- 89.4%
31.4%
Clyde Park
85.5%
26.0%
Cooke City
100.0%
30.4%
Gardiner
96.6%
43.1%
Livingston 88.2% 29.4%
Wilsall 77.4% 31.5%
Somre. US. Owns Bureau. _'0O( -°010 American C.owwllnit - Smrg.
'fable 8 shows that 60 percent of the houses in Gallatin County are owner- occupied while the
remaining 14,265 are rented. Park County-'s owner - occupied houses account for more than 67
percent. Gallatin County residents' housing costs are fairly consistent compared to the nation's
averages for renters, mortgaged and non - mortgaged owners, while Park County is slightly less in
comparison. Overall, lNlontana's housing costs for owning or renting a home are lower than the
national average.
Pitosi,i..it *, BI sINI-.Ns Ni: M ORK 2012 EcoNI) m: PRt)I4u
Table 8: Housina Occupancv Data
Owner- Occupied Housing Units
75,986,074
278,418
2,372
Renter- Occupied Housing Units
40,730,218
131,189
48.4%
Median Monthly Housing Costs for
$841
$629
2.35
Renter - Occupied Housing Units*
49.2%
13.6%
29.7%
Median Monthly Housing Costs for
$1,524
$1,220
47.8%
Mortgaged Owners*
27.3%
Belgrade
2.49
Median Monthly Housing Costs for
$431
$364
26.8%
Non - Mortgaged Owners*
2.14
2.70
44%
Samar: C.S. Ceusnr BIIIvei//. 2010 Ceiim_s. * L'..5. Cen Its Bmran. 200( -'010: IvePlf71 /1 Convnuult)! Snrr'a)•.
22,285
4,938
14,265
2,372
$807
$620
$1,506
$446
$1,230
$364
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Suii-ey, the nation's a- verage
household size is 2.58 people and the average family size is 3.14. Both Gallatin and Park Counties
are slightly lower than those averages. However, both counties show in Table 9 that the average
number of people living alone is slightly higher than the United States.
Table 9: Households and Families
Location
Household . nd Families
Average Average Married - couple Other
Household Family Size Families Families
Size
Householder
Living Alone
United States
2.58
3.14
48.4%
18%
26.7%
Montana
2.35
2.91
49.2%
13.6%
29.7%
Gallatin County
2.36
2.90
47.8%
10.4%
27.3%
Belgrade
2.49
3.07
48.4%
14.9%
26.8%
Big Sky
2.14
2.70
44%
5.3%
31.9%
Bozeman
2.17
2.80
33.1%
10.6%
33.5%
Manhattan
2.40
3.02
54.3%
10.8%
29.6%
Three Forks
2.37
2.90
51.2%
15.2%
28.4%
West
Yellowstone
2.06
2.86
34.7%
9.6%
42.1%
Park County
2.12
2.75
46.7%
10.4%
35.7%
Clyde Park
2.12
2.79
47.8%
11.0%
36.0%
Cooke City
1.67
2.53
37.8%
0%
53.3%
Gardiner
1.88
2.60
36.1%
7.4%
44.8%
Livingston
2.07
2.81
39.2%
12.8%
40.4%
Wilsall
1.98
2.55
53.3%
3.4%
33.3%
Sonrw: II..S. Cearur Bmrau. 2010 Census.
PttoSPt{It% Bt NI: MORK 2012 HCONOSUC Prturu r
Migration
.-according to the U.S. Census Bureau data, lNIontana experienced a considerable amount of net
migration into the state with a total net migration increase of 44 percent since reporting 2009 figures
last year. As seen in Chart 2, net migration figures for 2010 were remarkably lower than 2009 or
2011 in most areas. Gallatin County experienced a positive net migration this rear in comparison to
last year's figures, while Park County experienced a loss of residents, but less than those reported for
2009. Of the counties observed below between 2009 and 2011, Gallatin Count- experienced the
most net migration of the group for the first time in 2011, and did so by a considerable margin
(Chart 2).
Table 10: Population Chanqe
County
Natural
Increase
Births
Deaths
International
Domestic
Net Migration
(Births less deaths)-- i
_
Migration
Migration
Montana
3,282
11,911
8,629
387
3578
3,965
- Cascade
438
1,154
716
29
-133
-104
Flathead
351
1,085
734
14
j 74
88
Gallatin
585
1,083
498
84
1,081
1,165
Lewis & Clark
222
f
775 _
553
_ 21
468
489
204
264
Missoula 433 1,177
744 60
Park
1 -1
151
152
4
-122
-118
_Yellowstone
646
1,929 1
1283
54
920
—
974
So /ate: US Depmtraent of Commene. Comas Barean Pop/rlation Ditision. Compiled b
_
Alontana Dcpwrineia of Commene Census and Eeam / /r!c'
lafo ma ion Center
I.nari z: iN4et ivugration in Montana zuuy -LU I
Net Migration in Montana
4,000 - —
3,500 - --
3,000 _-
2,500 - -- -
2,000 - -
1,500 _ 2009
1,000 2010
500 2011
0
-500 a yo Qaj �o�e.
Jet\
Sonne. LS D�pa/timnt of Co/mnene. Census Bureau Population Dinrsioa. Compiled Gp .11ontana Depaitmeut of Commene Census and Erono/ni,
110imat /on Center.
PR01,111:R A 13c sis;t:ss Nr nxoi K 2012 E(.oN'(),,ilc; Pwi-iu 12
Cost of Living
Area cost of living can be measured by two distinct indexes, the Cost of Living Index' and the
Consumer Price Index. The cost of living in Gallatin County continues to be above the national
average by both measures and is slightly higher than other cities in the state.
Cost of Living Index
The Cost of Living Index is a comparison study of over 300 urban areas around the nation. Three
times each year, participating organizations collect data within their respective cities on consumer
goods, services, housing, transportation, utilities, and healthcare. Formerly known as ACCR. -k, the
index is compiled and published by the Council for Community and Economic Research (C2ER), a
national organization of community and economic development research professionals. The study
is intended to provide a measure of living cost differences among urban areas for a mid -
management standard of living. The Cost of Living Index is based on five assessments including
groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, healthcare and miscellaneous goods and services. The
national average composite index is set at 100; 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. Prospera Business Network
gathers and records cost of living data for the city of Bozeman.
Bozeman Cost of Living
Since Prospera began tracking local cost of living data in 2006, Bozeman's living costs have only
fallen below the national average twice. The most recent drop occurred in the thud quarter of 2011,
when housing and utility costs were running below the national averages. Aside from that quarter,
the cost of living has wavered between 0.4 and 4.3 percent above national averages (Chart 3). The
most recent quarter's Cost of hiring Index shows Bozeman's cost of living at nearly four percent
above the national average (Chart 2), trending upward as housing prices begin to rise again.
C2ER, The Council for Contnunit}- and Fconor is Research, Cost of Living Index Report. ttlr \v.coli.org/
PROIAlF A BI sim.ss N l \C ORK 2012 1• coNON11C PROH1,1h I ;
Chart 3: Cost of Living for- Bozeman
Bozeman Cost of Living
Quarterly Composite Scores
106
105
104
-a 103
C
102
101
0
t 100
0
V 99
98
Q1, Q2, Q3, Q1, Q2, Q3, Q1, Q2,
2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012
Sourre: ( 2ER Cost of I iris {g bidet. Qaaderly Reports. Please cote that the Coat o1 liriug Inds -• does mot measure imflaliou. or price ehauge overtime.
&)thee the Inde ,\• mieasiues lie relative east of brilig in RmZfm1am as ft roimpares to the olheratras stmdled in lllal pajAitlargllallen
This most recent quarter's increase is traced to the increase in housing costs, both in the sale prices
of homes and in rental prices (Table 11). 'Phis quarter they came in almost 6 percent higher than
national averages; when looking at the last three rears, housing costs were rarely less than 8 percent
above U.S. averages and sometimes swelled to 20 percent higher than national averages.
Table 1 1: Bozeman Cost of Livina Index Scores
Quarter
Year
Composite
Grocery
Housing
Utilities
Transportation
Health
Goods &
/
Services
1/2011
104.3
112.3
102.9
94.7
96.9
100.8
108.0
2/2011
101.2
112.7
9 4. 2
91.5
96.4
100.5
107.2
3/2011
99.6
109.4
92.1
92.2
97.5
99.8
105.2
2011
Average
101.7
111.1
96.5
92.8
97.0
100.8
106.9
1/2012 102.0 111.7 100.7 90.1 92.2 100.7 106.5
2/2012 103.8 111.2 106.1 I 93.4 94.5 100.4 105.6
2012 _ _. i -_
Average 102.9 111.5 103.4 1 91.8 93.35 100.6 106.1
_ -_.. - - - . - --
��ote. �Nnmeloms items air welmded in the fntns area aitgo ies. mae i )#w nation is orailahle at rvIurv.toli.org/ or h) toututYiug I'rospenl at SS 3113.
The CatLgaor7el ahore enr rverghted to tomplle the Comlposlle S(orr, and the we(ghts ass7gned rat )' s igl)Ily eat -1) (Illaaen For 21112 02 the weigh /nrg was:
Grorer)-13.3000, Ilousiq- 23.64'o, Clilities- 10.-1(0o. Transpor7ation- 10. 660o. Health Core- l.44'o. Goods & .Serri<rs-3'44o'o.
PROSPERA H1 sjNi ;ss Nr:1'%Xt)Rx 2012 EcoNowc ftoun.t I 1
In Montana, Bozeman and Kalispell are the only two cities that currently participate in the Cost of
Living Index program. I- however, as seen in Chart 4, Missoula did participate until 2011 and had
index scores similar to Bozeman's. As of Quarter 2 of 2012, Bozeman is the only participating
Montana city that is above the national composite score of 100, at 3.8 percent abo�-e, while Kalispell
is slightly below at 96.4 (Table 12). Both cities were noticeably above the national average in
groceries, which can be attributed in part to the rising costs of fuel. It is anticipated that grocer
costs will continue to rise in coming quarters as impacts from this rear's drought become apparent.
While the composite scores for Kalispell have been lower than Bozeman's, Kalispell's health care
costs continue to be higher than Bozeman's.
TnhIP 12 Cast of Livina Index Comoarison: Bozeman & Kalisoell
SomtP C21:1K Cost o/ Lleing I ndet•. Qnmteltp Kepods. Please note that the Cost o/ Limq hide. does not ineasuir igl1a on. or piyee dvqe over time.
J3dther the bidex oveaslirni the relatim coil of hriga in B&1elwan as it i ompairs to the Dther areas sttn/!ed in that pal t t-Illar gleader
Chart 4: Regional Cost of Living Comparison
Regional Cost of Living Comparison
Historical Composite Scores
110 - — -
105 - --
0
-0-Bozeman, MT
X 1
CU 100 _ Missoula, MT
C a"
b,Q - ,Kalispell, MT
95
-M-Grand Junction, CO
0
N --I-Idaho Falls, ID
c° 90 NO -49- Cheyenne, WY
85 --
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
S'omre: C2 E K Cost of Elting Lufe.v. ��uaiYerli' Reports. Please ante that the Cost of Liwug 1 udet times not urevsnre hif /atiar, &r piii e rbm {qe over tune.
Kalher the Inale,, meawars the relatire cost of firing in au enra els it a ompairs to the other areas studied in that padiadar granter:
PItoSYI•.R.% 131 ti1tiF:Sti Ni I1toRK 2012 hc/>tiokiic PRmu.4 I i
'. .. .
--
City Composite
Groceries Housing
Utilities Transportation Health
Goods &
Services
Bozeman
103.8
111.2
106.1
93.4
94.5
100.4
105.6
Kalispell
96.4
106.8
85.2
96.7
1 99.7
107.7
99.5
SomtP C21:1K Cost o/ Lleing I ndet•. Qnmteltp Kepods. Please note that the Cost o/ Limq hide. does not ineasuir igl1a on. or piyee dvqe over time.
J3dther the bidex oveaslirni the relatim coil of hriga in B&1elwan as it i ompairs to the Dther areas sttn/!ed in that pal t t-Illar gleader
Chart 4: Regional Cost of Living Comparison
Regional Cost of Living Comparison
Historical Composite Scores
110 - — -
105 - --
0
-0-Bozeman, MT
X 1
CU 100 _ Missoula, MT
C a"
b,Q - ,Kalispell, MT
95
-M-Grand Junction, CO
0
N --I-Idaho Falls, ID
c° 90 NO -49- Cheyenne, WY
85 --
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
S'omre: C2 E K Cost of Elting Lufe.v. ��uaiYerli' Reports. Please ante that the Cost of Liwug 1 udet times not urevsnre hif /atiar, &r piii e rbm {qe over tune.
Kalher the Inale,, meawars the relatire cost of firing in au enra els it a ompairs to the other areas studied in that padiadar granter:
PItoSYI•.R.% 131 ti1tiF:Sti Ni I1toRK 2012 hc/>tiokiic PRmu.4 I i
Consumer Price Index
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 hiring Index measures relative prices at particular points in time and is based on current prices
available at that time to consumers. also, the CPI encompasses regions, and only details
information on some major metro areas. 'llie charts below indicate the CPI for urban areas in the
western region of the U.S. This area includes Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New itiiexico, Arizona,
Ptah, 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 5: Consumer Price Index - Western Region
234.5
232.5
230.5
228.5
226.5
224.5
222.5
220.5
218.5
July 2011 - June 2012 Consumer Price Index
Western Region
Jul -11 Aug-11 Sep -11 Ort -11 P1av -I1 Dec -11 Jan -12 Feb -12 Mar -12 Apr -12 May- 12 1un -12
Sovn -e: C .S. Depwt!Jleitl of l advl;. Bni-ean of Libor Stalislus. 2012 data.
Chart b: Historical Average Consumer Price Index
Historical Average
300 Consumer Price Index
275 - --
250 Western
Region
225 - --H-U.S. City
Average
200
175
150
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Soali-e: C.S. Depmti»eid of Labor; Bmpaa of L.abor.Vtali Ms. 2012 data.
U.S. Departhnew of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. -,,-vAv.bls.go -,• /cpi/
PRosi,i;R.4 Bt sim..ss Nr• INN ORR 2012 1'.CUV(lmw PRO1 :11.l•.
Gallatin and Park Counties have a diverse economy
comprised of such industries as manufacturing,
construction, government, healthcare, technology,
retail, service, agriculture, and tourism. In the past
few }ears, their businesses have weathered a historic
recession, yet remained optimistic. A recent report
from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated,
"People come from all over the world to enjoy the
Treasure State's big skies, wide -open spaces, and
outdoor recreational opportunities." In 2010, the
U.S. Chamber's report ranked Montana at number
one for top entrepreneurship and innovation
performers and at number 10 in its list of top overall
growth performers.'
2012 Economic Strength Rankings
The Economy
Montana Defies the "New Normal"
Since the financial panic of 2008, "the new
normal" has become the phrase of choice to
depict the future of the American economy.
But not everyone, or every state, accepts the
notion of inevitable, slow growth and
gradual decline. From the onset of the
recession, some states have largely avoided '
the downturn. By the end of 2011, six states
— North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Utah,
Texas and Montana — showed more than 8
percent job growth over the past decade.
According to an Innovate Montana
economic development report, Montana has
the following report card:
According to POLICOi✓I, "Economic strength is
- 2'' best economic performance
the long term tendency for an area to
according to the 2010 ALEC - Laffer State
consistently grow in both size and quality."
Economic Competitiveness Index
POLICOTNI Corporation is an independent
- 2% below the national average
economic research firm which specializes in
unemployment rate at 6.1 %
analyzing local and state economies. From its
- 8 "� fastest growing economy in the US
research, it determines if an economy is growing or
over the last three years, with 65 percent
declining, what is causing this to happen, and
growth over the last 10 years (gross state
publishes annual economic strength rankings. The
product)
economic strength rankings are created to study the
characteristics of strong and weak economies (Table
v,nnv.USChomber.com
13). The highest ranked areas have had rapid,
"nvw.innovatemontana.com
consistent growth in both size and quality for an
extended period of time. The lowest ranked areas have been in volatile decline for an extended
period of time. POLICONI's reports are available online
at www.policom.com.
The Office of Management and Budget (ONIB), as a result of the 2000 census, created new
definitions for the Metropolitan Statistical Areas and established the Micropolitan Statistical Areas.
Once looked upon as quasi -rural areas, a Nficropolitan Statistical Area must have an urbanized area
(city) with a population of at least 10,000 but fewer than 50,000. The OMB has identified 576
micropolitan areas in the United States. The highest ranked areas (indicated by lower numbers) have
had rapid, consistent growth in both size and quality for an extended period of time. The lowest
ranked areas (indicated by higher numbers) have been in decline for an extended period of time.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, "Enterprising States: Creating lobs, Economic Development, and Prosperity- in
Challenging Times." http: / /w�.Av.tischamber.com/ sites /default /files /reports /Enterprising- States - 2012- ,,veb.pdf and
http: / /w,v-\v. uscli.iniber.com / sites / default / files/ reports/ Ftiterprising- States- final.pdf
PttosPr: x k lit sty r:ss tvr• t1N oe K 2012 Ficovt wrn: Pkurn.t: I -
There are fire micropolitan areas in Montana. Bozeman is the only tnicropolitan communih- in
Gallatin and Park Counties. As seen below, four out of the fire areas in Montana have been in the
top 100 since 2008. For the past eight rears, Bozeman's economic strength rating has remained
fairl- consistent and has alwa }-s been in the top 10. Simply identifying the areas that have the fastest
or siowest growth rates is insufficient when trying to determine the character of the local economy.
We are more concerned with the stability and consistency- of that growth over a period of time.
Bozeman's economy has shown remarkable resiliency as a result of the stable, consistent growth
patterns that POI.ICONI has tracked.
Table 13: Micronoliton Fconnmic Strength Rnnkinnc (Ciit of ri7f,1
N n o n =11 `- o
183
186
173
159 1
105
83
51
62
Bozeman
9
10
8
8
6
7
7
9
Butte - Silver Bow
286
191
123
67
51
27
17
25
Havre
541
478
440
421
391
306
284
264
Helena
14
7
23
13
9
6
2
2
Kalispell
134
103
63
51
26
35
45
87
:'according to the ONIB, Metropolitan Statistical Areas have at least one urbanized area with a
population of 50,000 minimum, plus surrounding counties which, "Hare a high de ree of social tend
economic hagratim with the core as measrard G;y eolvmuthi tied. " The OMB has identified 366 metropolitan
areas in the United States. Currently, ;Montana has three metropolitan areas: Great Falls, Missoula
and Billings, with rankings shown below in Table 14.
Table 14: Metropolitan Economic Strength Rankinas (Out of 366
Billings
183
186
173
159 1
105
83
51
62
Great Falls
289
308
270
239
216
202
173
123
Missoula
85
106
130
118
96
74
91
119
Shane.
Nosi,jtit.l Bt Ni- r%N oRR 2012 $coNomic PRm ii+ I.y
Gross Domestic Product
According to Raymond J. Keating, chief economist
for the Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Council, the real Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
for the United States should be growing at roughly
4.5 percent per year. However, during the second
quarter of this year we grew by less than 2 percent
as a nation.
In 2011 North Dakota was the top growing state in
the nation with an estimated rate of growth of 7.6
percent, largely due to energy- production.
ltiontana's GDP remained flat and is ranked 45"'
overall. The neighboring states of Colorado,
Idaho, Utah and South Dakota experienced GDP
growth in the past year ranging from 0.6 to 2.0
percent.
Only one state in our region suffered declining
numbers between 2010 and 2011: Wyoming came
in at -1.2 percent.
Table 15: Real GDP by State
State Ranks Highly by Many Measures.
The indicators below formed Montana's
overall rank in the U.S. Chamber's 2012
Enterprising States report:
2 " Export Intensity Growth
3 "' Export Growth
3" Road Quality
6" Academic R &D Intensity
6" Higher -ed Efficiency
7'" Per Capita Income Growth
8 "' Business Tax Climate
8" Long -term Job Growth
10'" STEM Job Growth
10 "' Bridge Quality
16 "1 College Affordability
16" Gross State Product Growth
18 "' Entrepreneurial Activity
20` Tax Environment for Mature Firms
21 Growth in Share of National Exports
22 Educational Attainment
23" Tax Environment for New Firms
24 "' Business Birth Rate
mvw. USchamberxom
' -. K91 51 a TO= . - ��•
Millions of Dollars Percent Change
Chain Weighted Quantity Index
Location 2009 2010 2011* 2008- 2009- 2010- Rank"
2009 2.010 2011*
United States 12,527,057 12,918,931 13,108,674 1 -3.8 3.1 1.5
Rocky Mountain
Region
(excluding
439,191
451,477
457,915
-0.4
1.4
1.4 - - --
North and
i
South Dakota)
Colorado
224,593 _
229,928
_234,308
-2.77
2.4
_ 1.9 f 15
�-
Idaho
49,299
51,154
31,985
51,463
-4.0
3.8
0.6 34
Montana
31,067
31,983
-2.8
2.9
0.0
45
North Dakota
29,209
31,833
34,262
2.0
8.9
7.6--1 _ 1
34,443
-0.6
0.2
South Dakota
34,097
34,175
0.8 32
Utah
101,849
106,166
108,329
-1.9
4.2
2.0 8
Wyoming .._... . ....
32, 088.....__..--
--31,919 _.........._...31,542
_
J. 2.29
-0.5
51.
I9i -2010.
Sox-re: L'.s. 13 11IYU /!
NP/1'
HffilwateJ fOi- 011 and
Reiice(I L.vrily rte.v for
EstUnate. " KJ!/. nig
is G)' pen -ew e%hnlge. kaol
b #gbest to Iowa. and
ntdndes SD stater pl//s the
Distua gl'Colmnbnt.
PROS11FRA lit aim ss (Vh M oltk 2012 ECONOMIC PROI n.r lv
Cost of Doing Business
The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council State Encourages Businesses
(SBl,' Council), a national nonpartisan, nonprofit "Business start rates and other measures
small business advocacy group, regularly releases of entrepreneurial activity have remained
annual rankings of public policy climates for small above national average in the state over
business and entrepreneurship for each state the past decade... Montana has
known as the "Small Business Survival Index." streamlined and shortened permitting and
The 2011 Index has been expanded to corer 44 regulatory process in order to ease
major government- imposed or government- related barriers to access for new and expanding
costs affecting small businesses and entrepreneurs. businesses. The state has organized its
The Index also analvzes an assortment of taxes business licensing operations around a
and measures that reflect various regulatory costs.' "One- Stop" mode/...easing the burden
on businesses.
.-According to SBE Council Chief Economist Enterprising States Report
Raymond S. Keating, `7f serial /,, abold revilcrlitiing w"nv.USchamber.com
economic grow1b. and along witli it income and job growth,
lbcn policies nllldl be fOt7 /,ItCd on r'erllOPrtl goienilvenled banie'ry to the tree egines of economy Jrowth, which are
entmpreneur,,hip, prilalte itmestment, and nlai*el competition... In essence _the Small Business Survival In dev is a
companitive measr/lr of economic• incenthvs relating to gol�ernment policies: the lomer the ",Small Business S11171ivcll
Inlet• "number, lbe greater the incentives to incest and take risks 111 Mat particular slate. " '
In terms of policy settings, the most entrepreneur - friendly states of our region (with rankings in
parentheses), according to the SBSI are: South Dakota (1), North Dakota (13), Wyoming (4),
Washington (11), and Colorado (9). In contrast, the least friendly- entrepreneur policy environments
are found in: Montana (30), Oregon (34), and California (46). The chart below shows TNIontma's
index score alongside those of other states in the region. ,A lower number represents the greatest
economic viability for small business and entrepreneurs. While overall a low- ranked state by the
SBE's measure, Montana's favorable rankings as reported by an Innovate NIontana economic
development report citing the Tax Foundation include: P best nationally in sales taxes for business
and 8t1i best for tax - friendly state climate, combined state and local tax burden, and property taxes.
Chart 7: 2011 Small Business Survival Index
2011 Small Business Survival Index
76.357
60.452 62.193 65.181
51.317 53.296 53.374 52,312
46.049
I 32.292
`ar° �` °e ra ON °tia Oi�$c� O��° -P r`�� °�` °�`�Q�
° GPI
.S'olmre:.Slzvall BlIsmesv will Iiia eprnellnkp Couuril.
6 "Small Business Survival Index 3011: Ranking the Policy EmKronment for Fntrepreneurship across the Nation." The
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, w\vNv.sbecomicil.org
P1101,P1 -.R•1 1Bl ti11hs> N1. lU m6 2012 ECoN0N11C PROI-11.1.
Clearly, no one single ranking or indicator can predict the costs or sustainability for every operation.
There are numerous factors impacting economic decision making, which also vary b}- industry-.
'fable 16 represents a selection of indicators that help in understanding the cost comparison of
Montana to other states. Montana's national rank is given in parentheses.
Table 16: Regional Comparison of the Cost of Doing Business
Tax Rates'
I
Personal Income
10.30
4.63
6.90 ( #36)
1 1.00
0.00
0.00
State & Local Sales,
Gross Receipts & Excise
3.01
2.89
1.03 ( #2)
.59
4.10
5.49
Capital Gains
10.30
4.63
6.90 ( #38)
11.00
0.00
0.00
Corporate Income
8.84
4.63
6.75 ( #24)
7.60
0.00
0.00
Property
3.53
3.07
3.84 ( #36)
3.28
2.89
2.91
Unemployment'
.86
1.15
4.41 ( #44)
3.98
2.47
4.59
Gas
.491
.220
.278 (Tied #31)
.310
.240
.375
State Sales
7.25
2.9
0.0 (Tied #1)
0.0
4.0
6.5
State Tax Rankings10
Total Collected
15t
24"
49th
27th
50th
13"
Labor"
Mean Annual Salary
$51,910
$47,510
$36,840
$44,290
$35,390
$50,280
Right To Work Law
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Worker's Compensation
$1.58
$.95
$2.73 ( #50)
$1.11
$1.28
$1.51
Cost of Living Measures
Cost of Living Index 2
131.13
101.37
100.03
106.77
99.35
103.59
Median Housing Value' 3
$458,500
$236,600
$173,300
$252,600
$122,200
$285,400
Residential Electric"
Cents /Kilowatt hour
Average Monthly Bill
15.17
$82.85
1 1 .18
$78.22
10.16
$77.37
9.96
$85.52
10.47
$93.40
8.54
$82.75
Commerical Electric'"
Cents /Kilowatt hour
Average Monthly Bill
12.79
$728.58
9.19
S426.11
9.18
$337.34
8.50
$421.92
8.11
$414.71
7.52
$409.87
Soum: I Mioiu. See omofec.
- (Tax rates at top of market) "Small Business Sur-vival Index 2011" Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
«1tiv.sl)ecouncil.org/ resources /publications /sun-ivaliiidex2o l I/
"Workers' Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2010" 'rational _'academy of Social Insurance
%,-x-,-w.nasi.org/research/\vorkers-compensatioti
' Federation of Tax Administrators, compiled by h "TA from carious sources
2011 Survev of State Government Tax Collections, U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division
" U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, NIay 2011 annual data (average total of all private industries)
12 1011 annual average (based on areas that conducted the .ACCRA Cost of Living survey in each state) C2ER, The
Council for Community and Economic Research, Cost of Luting Index Report.
'i 3006 -3010 .American Conunuaity Survey, U.S. Census Bureau \v,.v,,v..cen,,-,us.gov/acs/-,c ,u-xv/
14 (Cents /Kilowatt hour as of \Iav 2013, Average Monthly Bill 2010 Annual Data) Form EIA -826, Monthly Electric
Sales and Revenue Report with State Distributions Report, U.S. Energy Information .'Ldministration.
Pit(1SP1:RA BI �s NF: I"V01M 2012 Ec()\o \Iw Pimi7L1. 21
Workforce
Montana experienced one of the lower unemployment rates in the nation at the end of June 2012; its
seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 6.3 percent and was 14''' nationally, compared to being
tied at 18r1i for the same period last rear. North Dakota has held its number one position for the
past two years as South Dakota has consistently come in at number three.
Table 17: State Unemployment Rate Information
State 2011 Rate 2011 Rank 2012 Rate 2012 Rank
North Dakota
3.3%
1
2.9%
1
South Dakota
4.7%
3 tied
4.3%
3
Wyoming
5.8%
7
5.4%
8
Utah
7.5%
15
6.0%
11
Montana
7.7%
18 tied
6.3%
14
Idaho
9.4%
1 34 tied
7.7%
29
Washington
9.3%
1 33 1
8.3%
37
Jonrie• L J. tsmevno/ Libor Jtatistics; % deuoterpretilvinan,.
Gallatin County has seen improvement in its unemployment rate from last rear. In 2011, Gallatin's
rank was number 38 out of 56 counties. As of June 2012, it ranked 28th which is a significant
improvement. Park County unemployment rate has also improved dramatically in comparison to
the rest of the state. Currently, it is ranked 33n1 compared to 45 "' last year. Fallon County has had
the lowest unemployment rate in the state of Montana for the past two years.
Table 18: County Unemployment Rate Information
Montana- Unemployment Rate
-. .. -.
Comparison
-
County
2011 Rate
2011 Rank
1 2012 Rate
2012 Rank
Fallon County
2.7%
1
2.2%
1
Yellowstone County
5.6%
19
4.9%
18
Lewis & Clark
Count
5.8%
20
5.2%
23
Gallatin County
6.3%
38
5.6%
28
Park County
7.0%
45
6.0%
33
Madison County
7.2%
42
6.1%
35
Missoula County
7.4%
39
6.1%
36
Flathead County
10.4%
1 54
8.5%
49
Sanders County
14.8%
1 55
12.6%
55
Soinrr Alonta a D�piu7111en1 of Libor & hulns1 , Resean -b & . wl). it Biuruu. ' denotes pre/iininag.
1°RO1411-RA Bt si Ni:ss Ni- n x tmK 2012 EcoNomic Noi n 1. 11
Annual Unemployment Rate
In the past six years, Gallatin County has exceeded -Montana's unemployment rate only once, in
2009 as park County's unemployment rate continues to trend higher than Montana's overall rate
(Chart 8). While considerably higher than four years ago, it is important to note that our region and
state continue to fare better than most of the C.'nited States. Both counties are seeing an increase in
their work force as well as seeing decreased unemployment numbers (Table 19).
Chart 8: Unemployment Rates 2006-2011
10 -
9 - -
8
a:
7
6
Y
= 5
v
V
4
a
3
2
1
0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Unemployment Rate
2006 -2011
YUnited States EMontana :.JGallatin County Wark County
Sonn•e. Montana Depinim d of I ahor & Iedi1s1n' mm! sea sonally ddjusled
Table 19: Labor Force
Gallatin County
Labor Force
Employed
Unemployed
48,645
47,204
1,441
50,753
49,450
1,303
53,930
52,857
1,073
50,323
49,199
1,124
51,175
49,301
1,874
47,312
43,784
3,528
47,348
44,046
3,302
49,513
46,478
3,035
Park County
Labor Force
8,754
8,942
9,310 9,112
9,044
8,072
8,140
8,535
Employed
8,383
8,605
9,031 8,827
8,625
7,421
7,492
7,899
Unemployed
371
337
279 285
419
651
648
636
Soaae:.11antvav Deem ?i»egt o% Lrd�nr 1��dlisbT, lQsewrh & .-lnvtysls B1nw11.
PROSP► e.A, Bt sim."ss Ni ru OR 2012 Ecowmic P1im n.t, ?;
Employment by Sector
Gallatin County has a slightly more diverse employment base than Park County and manufacturing
in the Gallatin Valley has been making modest improvements in the past year. Trade,
transportation, and utilities is the biggest employment sector in Gallatin County as of 2011, followed
by leisure & hospitality and education & health services. Park Count's largest employment sector is
leisure & hospitality, followed by trade, transportation & utilities and education & health services
(Chart 9). The service providing and goods producing sectors included in the chart below are
supersector groups that encompass the others sectors listed, aside from the government categories.
The goods producing sector includes natural resources &, mining, constriction, and manufacturing,
while all other sectors fall under the service providing supersector.
Chart 9: Average Annual Employment
2011 Average Annual Employment
(Total Number of Employees)
Local Government
State Government
Federal Government
Service Providing
Goods Producing
Unclassified
Other Services
Leisure & Hospilality
Education & Health Services
Professional & Business Services
Financial Activities
Information
Trade, Transportation & Utilities
Manufacturing
Construction
Natural Resources & Mining
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000
01'ark County vCiallahn County
I011ne. tsumrm of i crinu J!ol�r /« , 2i w7edy Cenrns of En1plormen/ C" IVINes (2011 h! om allon is prelinihauI-).
52
PROSPI.R.A Bt ;INI ss hl 1\tUR6 2012 E'coNo \IIC PHUT II.I _
The area's economy is progressively varied and continues to show strong growth despite last year's
decline in the number of establishments conducting business. While the region is home to a broad
range of industries, Gallatin County's dominant sectors include professional & business sen-ices and
constriction. Dark County's leading industries include leisure & hospitality and trade, transportation
& utilities.
Table 20: 2011 Employment & Earnings by Sector
201 T Ernpil'oyment and Earnings by
- •
Gallatin County
Park County
Average
Average
Average
Average
Number of
Number of
Annual
Weekly
Annual
Weekly
Sector
Establish-
Establish -
Employ-
Wage
Employ-
Wage
ments
ment
($)
ments
ment
($)
Goods Producing
1,167
6,435
761
180
674
667
Natural Resources &
94
766
696
38
148
542
Mining
Construction
883
3,361
791
113
267
644
Manufacturing
190
2,308
738
30
259
761
Service Providing
4,022
29,562
631
642
3,783
508
Trade,
Transportation &
917
9,080
568
139
788
511
Utilities
Information
90
593
827
21
89
750
Financial Activity
520
2,128
863
61
198
686
Professional &
1,133
4,618
1,039
124
270
871
Business Services
Education & Health
443
4,828
713
61
722
674
Services
Leisure & Hospitality
527
6,773
317
166
1,349
310
Other Services
392
1,542
504
71
364
1 484
Unclassified
1
1
300
1
3
371
Federal Government
33
658
1,161
14
75
935
State Government
15
4,113
781
9
37
1,1 1 7
Local Government
54
2,895
715
18
644
602
Sonne. Braman of laaborSlafisfia. CJnrirloir Census of Fmplgmient E 11 *�ioe(_011 uiformation is pmTminan). �
PROsPER.4 BI Ni: n1 oiiK 2012 EcoNowc Piux-n.r
K
K
E3
Largest Private Employers
he follox -ving table lists the 20 largest private sector employers in Gallatin Counts- and the 10 largest
private sector employers in Park Counts, according to the most current statistics from the ;Montana
Department of Labor & Industry, Research & Anah-sis Bureau.
Table 21 : Largest Private Sector Employers
Largest Private Sector Employers (Q2 2011) Number of Employees
Gallatin County
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital
1000+
Oracle (formerly Ri htNow Technologies)
500 -999
WalMart
250 -499
Albertson's
100 -249
Community Food Co-Op
100 -249 !
_ Costco
100 -249
_
First Security Bank
100 -249
Gibson Guitar
100 -249
Kenyon Noble Lumber & Hardware
100 -249
Lowes
100 -249
Martel Construction
100 -249
McDonald's
100 -249
Murdoch's Ranch & Home Supply
- _ _....
100 -_24.9
Reach Inc.
_
100 -249
Ressler Motor _
100 -249
Rosauer's
100-24* 9
Target _..___. _ _ _
_
100-2149.—.
Town & Country. Foods _
_
100 -249
_ Town Pump Convenience Stores
1.00 -249
- Zoos Enterprises
_ _ 100 -249
Park County
Livingston Healthcare
250 -499
Chico Hot Springs _____
100 -249
Printing ForLess. com _
100 -249
Albertson-'s.._....
—
Best Western Mammoth Hot Springs
50 -99
Church Universal & Triumphant
50 -99
Livingston Health & Rehabilitation Center
.... - -
50 -99
Mountain Sky Guest Ranch
50 -99
Town &Country Foods
_.
50 -99
Montana's Rib & Chop House
2049
Swim. Montana Department gjldbor & Indirstg, Reiean-h &.- n,r I pis Bill re all.
Pttosi,i Rt Bt s1 \r.ss Ni i,,%oRS 2012 ECONOMIC PROI 11,1' It,
Salary & Wage Detail
The data below indicates weekly wage amounts reported by industry businesses over the course of
3011. The service providing and goods producing sectors included in the chart below are
supersector groups that encompass the others sectors listed, aside from the government categories.
The goods producing sector includes natural resources & mining, construction, and manufacturing,
while all other sectors fall under the service providing supersector.
Dominating wage distribution in Gallatin County is the federal government, averaging $1,161 per
week. However, in private business, professional & businesses services average $1,039 weekly
followed by financial activity at $863 per week.
In Park County, state government employees are one of the smallest employment sectors, yet
command higher wages on average than those in Gallatin County, with an average of $1,117 per
week. In the private industry, professional & business services average $871 and manufacturing
wages were $761 weekly, both up slightly over last year's figures.
Chart 10: Average Weekly Wages by Industry
2411 Average Weekly Wages
Local Government
Slate Government
Federal Government
Service Providing
Goods Producing
Unclassified
Other Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Education & Health Services
Professional & Business Services
Financial Activities
Information
Trade, Transportation & Utilities
Manufacturing
Construction
Natural Resources & Mining
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400
60ark County oGallatin County
Some. Bairam glTaGol -Sta iitia, QuaiYe# Cowls o% F.mpioyuient & If "rites (2011 urfawrdtro r is pirAminauy).
PR0,11LR:1k BI -,IN]-.Ss NE M 014 2012 ECONOMIC PROI 11.1,
Montana's Labor Market
Montana's average wage per job continues to trend lower than the national average: 534,764 versus
$47,046 as revised in March 2012. Montana's average annual wage ranking is 49t1i overall in the
nation, ahead of onlc South Dakota among our neighboring states ("fable 22).
Table 22: Averaqe Annual Waaes
State 1980
United $14,000
States
Montana j $12,598
Rank ! 1990
- $23,423
34 $17,475
Rank 2000 Rank
$35,054
47 ! $24,172 50
2012* Rank
$47,046 -
$34,764 49
Idaho $12,174 41 $18,739 45 $27,559 41 $35,819 47
North $11,869 43 $17,361 48 $24,417 48 $37,717 43
Dakota
South $10,751 49 $16,347 50 $24,398 49 $34,012 50
Dakota
Wyoming $15,335 5 $20,058 35 $27,140 44 $42,768 24
Swim U.S. Bnmam of Erono mi, . La.l)uix, State Ecommmie Profile.. *Last mpdated .1lanh 28. 2012 nvtb revised estimates.
Note. All rankings indilde 50 state,, plan the Distiia o% CoGmiGia.
Gallatin County's average weekly wage rates have remained fairly steady from 2009 to 2011;
increasing 3.35 percent from last year as did most comparable counties in Montana (Table 23). Park
County has remained fairly consistent over the past few nears, increasing slightly from last year be
just over 2 percent.
Table 23: Averaae Weeklv Waaes
— 111er..uonuiea •�ep(uiuien[ of i lwar t.-- innnstlT. neSeann f:- in q)7!S Diva//.
Pxu;rt- a.� Bt ;1,,r;> Ni. im otis 2012 EICONONFIC PROI 11.1
Mo,--nian-als Average Weekly Wage by County and
Percentage of .-
County
2009 Weekly Wage 2010 Weekly Wage 2011 Weekly Wage
% Change
2010-2011
Cascade County
_
$630 $654
- —�
$669
2.29%
Flathead County
$619 $634
$639 $656
- -- -
$651
$678
2.68%
Gallatin County
3.35%
Lewis and Clark
Count
$727 $736
$751
2.04%
Madison County
$523 $558
$562
0.72%
Missoula County
$651 $652
$665
1.99%
Park County
$541 $540
$551
2.04%
Silver Bow County
$684 $687
$709
3.20%
Yellowstone
Count
$712 $730
$757
3.70%
— 111er..uonuiea •�ep(uiuien[ of i lwar t.-- innnstlT. neSeann f:- in q)7!S Diva//.
Pxu;rt- a.� Bt ;1,,r;> Ni. im otis 2012 EICONONFIC PROI 11.1
While Montana enjoys a well- educated workforce on the whole, its median earnings by level of
education trail behind the national average (fable 24). Overall, Montana's median earnings
increased by approximatehy 4 percent between 2010 and 2011.
Table 24: Earnin s by Educational Attainment
201 than
Level
A.
Montana
United States
Total
$28,125
$34,665
Less than high school graduate
$17,651
$19,492
High school graduate (includes equivalency)
$24,093
$27,281
Some college or associates' degree
$26,588
$33,593
Bachelor's degree
$35,133
$48,485
Graduate or professional degree
$47,088
$63,612
Sollrre.• C.S. Census B//reun. 2006.2010 .-Lnelialn in 010 dol%ins. Aff liawhers have been inflalkii a/ j/ated.
According to the Montana Department of Labor & Industrt• Research & Analysis Bureau, a majority
of the same counties held the top 10 positions for annual average wage as of 2011. In 2008,
Stillwater County, was ranked first, but dropped to second in 2009 and was back in first place in
2011. Gallatin County dropped to the 13 "' position compared to last year when it was in 12"'
position, while Park County dropped from the 39 "' position to 40'('.
Table 25: County Waae Rankings
Somre.- Monlana Deptialvew of l�/bor & hidus1g, Resealrb & .4nadlnis Bilml /•
PROSPE -RA BI gNu.ss N1. 1 xom 2012 h:C <I \UiII( ;PRoFtl.i: _
2011 Montano Coun#qs '. . ,. y Annual - q Wages
Ranking
County
Average
Employment
Total Wages
Total Annual
Average Wage
n/a
Statewide
422,738
$15,130,256,766
$35,791
1
Stillwater
3,105
$16,406,455
$54,237
7
Yellowstone
76,508
$3,013,118,565
$39,383
8
Lewis & Clark
34,640
$1,353,368,468
$39,070
10
Silver Bow
15,276
$563,388,362
$36,887
13
Gallatin
43,663
$1,539,058,086
$35,249
14
Cascade
34,994
$1,217,557,582
$34,793
15
Missoula
54,484
$1,884,046,700
$34,580
40
Park
5,213
$149,292,851
$28,639
Somre.- Monlana Deptialvew of l�/bor & hidus1g, Resealrb & .4nadlnis Bilml /•
PROSPE -RA BI gNu.ss N1. 1 xom 2012 h:C <I \UiII( ;PRoFtl.i: _
_agriculture plats a historic and significant role in
the regional economy and quality of life. The
U.S. I)epartment of .Agriculture's 2007 Census of
Agriculture reported 776,868 acres within
Gallatin County as ranch or farmland and
762,753 acres in Park County. As of 2007, there
were 1,071 farms in Gallatin County, generating
547,244,000 from livestock and products and
$47,904,000 from crops, making the county the
sixth highest contributor to the state's
agricultural economy. In Park County, the 535
firms located there provide $20,190,000 in
livestock and products receipts and 57,530,000 in
crops. The Census of .agriculture is taken ever,
five years and the nett census results will be
available in 2013.`
Table 26: 2010 Crop Statistics for Gallatin County
Aariculture
Montana to Receive Nearly $1.3 Million for
Innovative Agriculture Projects
U.S. Senator Max Baucus announced
Montana has landed some competitive
USDA Conservation Innovation Grants
(CIG). The CIG program is intended to
stimulate the development and adoption of
innovative conservation approaches and
technologies in conjunction with agricultural
production. Baucus stated, "One -in -five
Montana jobs are related to agriculture
industry, making these grants a critical tool
in supporting the heart of our economy."
www.baucus.senate.gov
Gallatin
Commodity
Planted Acres
Harvested
Yield (bushel)
Production (bushel)
Rank in State
Winter Wheat
17,200
16,400
64.3
1,054,000
17
Spring Wheat
34,500
32,900
65.5
2,155,000
16
Oats
700
500
97
48,500
12
All Barley
26,000
24,500
73.5
1,800,000
7
Hay Alfalfa
No data
41,000
3.55 tons
145,000 tons
6
Other Hay
available
11,000
2.15 tons
23,500 tons
28
Potatoes
3,800
3,800
1 344 Cwt
1,306,000 Cwt
No rank given
301trte. l.JU,- I- aW11ionW.- +giTUn[mWJUN Uilell3entie. _v t_ .uatt rum.- lnanatJ,ntirlt1itl H1111elui, C.olnty hAtmater.:010 -2011.
i anie z /: Zu i i uvestocK statistics for vanatin �-ounty
Commodity attle All Beef Cows Milk Cows Sheep & Lambs
- Head Head Head All (Head) Rank in State
Cattle & Calves 51,000 20,500 4,000 20 "' (All Cattle)
Sheep Inventory 2,700 28
Swim 2012 Mollt nti _ miltal Ctrtie iwl Rolath) (*—./" P i., t— 'VIt11_7011
15 Montana .Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Departinent of .Agriculture
-,N1i1v. pass .usda.gov /Statistics_by—State/ Montana /index.asp
PROSP R%Bt �im.s,; W moicK 2012 Ecl>tW)M11. PRVPr1.1.
Table 28: 2010 Crop Statistics for Park County
Some: 2012 .11oidnnv.- lltirnvl Stntisti,iiI Brd/etin, C.onnh• F_stbnntes 2010- 2011.
*Ind ales _'011 data used mben 2010 data jor Park. C.onnty was not a uilab /e.
Table 29: 201 1 Livestock Statistics for Park County
a
Commodity
Planted
Acres
Harvested
Yield bushel
Production (bushel)
}
ank in State
Winter Wheat
4,700
4,500
33.6
151,000
38
Spring Wheat
6,100
5,600
28.6
160,000
42
Oats
600
300
80
24,000
28
All Barley*
4,000
3,000
60.3
181,000
29
Hay Alfalfa
No data avail.
31,000
2.4 tons
75,000 tons
24
Other Hay
2010 -2011
Data
not
available
n/a
Some: 2012 .11oidnnv.- lltirnvl Stntisti,iiI Brd/etin, C.onnh• F_stbnntes 2010- 2011.
*Ind ales _'011 data used mben 2010 data jor Park. C.onnty was not a uilab /e.
Table 29: 201 1 Livestock Statistics for Park County
a
Commodity
Cattle All
Head
Beef Cows
Head
Milk Cows
Head
Sheep & Lambs
All Head
Rank in State
Cattle & Calves
41,000
23,000
200
Acre
30`1 (All Cattle)
Sheep Inventory
Production
All Wheat
5,440,000
1,800
33`°
Somre: [.'. SD. a. 1' utinnnl. lq�iiultnrulStnlistirs.Se�rxre. ° O1'. llontmm. lunnu/. S' luti. �7iiu /Bulletfa.Connt)- Eslbilates'010 -2011.
Montana's total land area is 93.1 million acres and 65.9 percent of the total hind area is dedicated to
farmland or agriculture (60.5 million acres). There are about 29,300 farms in Montana, averaging
2,065 acres in size.''
:according to a 2011 report from the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service:"
• Montana places second in the nation behind Texas for total land in farms or ranches.
Xfontana also ranks second in the nation for average farm or ranch size.
• In terms of seeds that are used to make healthy cooking oils, 1NIontana was ranked second
for the production of Flaxseeds and third for Safflower and Canola production.
• In 2011, state livestock was valued at S1.26 billion and crops were valued at $1.78 billion.
• Montana was fourth in the nation for honey production and eighth in the nation for sheep
and wool production.
• The state's most valuable crop is wheat, followed b`- hav and barley. INIontana ranks third in
the nation for wheat production, fifth for hav, and second for barley.
• NIontana earns first ranking in L.S. lentil and pea production, producing 57.4% of the
nation's lentils and 47.2 "0 of the nation's dry peas.
Table 30: 2010 Montana A
ricultural Commodities Intormation
Acres
Yield per
Total
Value Per
Value of
Commodity
Planted
Acre
Production
Unit
Production
All Wheat
5,440,000
41.3 /Bu
215,360,000 Bu
$6.29/Bu
$1,354,614,000
Barley
760,000
62.0/Bu
38,440,000 Bu
$4.08 /Bu
$156,835,000
Corn
80,000
135.0/Bu
4,590,000 Bu
$5.40/Bu
$27,786,000
Potatoes
11,500
325 /Cwt
3,673,000 Cwt
$11.50 /Cwt
$42,240,000
Hay
2,850,000
2.14/Ton
6,105,000 Tons
$80.00 /Ton
$488,400,000
Sugar Beets
1 42,600 1
29.5/Ton
1 1,254,000 Tons 1
$53 40/T 1'
$53,453,000*
Sonne: 2011 .11nntnnu. l�umn /.S'tntistiiv /Bulletin, Gomcty Esthnutes 2009.2010.
* Indi aces 2009 data. used mbere 2010 data mas not uruilable.
16- Montatia .agricultural Facts 2011 Report" USDA - National Aocultural Statistics Service, -,v1v%v.t1ass.u%da.9ov
PROriPLRA B► I JNESS Ni IVORs 2012 Ecow.%uc Ptioru.c.
Construction
During the recession, construction experienced a rapid shift. Many companies moved operations to
more profitable regions, such as the oil and gas development region in eastern Montana and western
North Dakota, or they simply did not survive. Between 2010 and 2011, the number of construction
firms dropped in both Gallatin (-3° o) and Park ( -6° 0) Counties. In Gallatin County the average
annual employment actually increased roughly 2 percent compared to 2010, but in Park County
construction employment fell nearly 10 percent. The average weekly wage rate increased slightly for
employees throughout the region. Overall, this sector is expected to remain sluggish for the
remainder of 2012 and is not expected to rebound until 2013.
Table 31: New Construction Activi
City of Bozeman
Residential
613 887
955 670
764
242
182
208
199
Commercial
35 34
42 48
45
29
28
12
19
_City of Livingston
Residential
n/a n/a
n/a 19
n/a
6
7
12
F 7
Commercial
n/a n/a
n/a 1
n/a
0
0
0
4
Jonnr: vyl. of no1r1M111 nnnniq inspeatoa uInston, r a)- of no�-etuen uepaititieut of 11,11111mg C" 1.)ere%pinent, c:, City
o% Lilingston Biuldnio Depajyment.
City of Bozeman Growth
In addition to growing in population, the City of Bozeman has expanded in geographic sue over the
years. In order to accommodate for this growth, new land for residential, commercial, and industrial
development has been annexed into the City. In 2008, after several years of sustained growth, the
City was approximately 12,318.5 acres (19?5 square miles). No annexation occurred in 2009 or
2010 (Table 32), and less than half of an acre was annexed in 2011. "Thus, the City has not notably
increased in size over the past three years.
Tnhle 32- City of Rn7P.mnn Anntm.ynflnnC
.r vwr rc. �.uy of u ou —prircrnrru uy e:- t.awtlima • uermpmew -.:ui f.- Untuat nepon.
PRU,1,111+R.1 BY NI nx oRF 2012 EcoNo%11C PROI 11.1'
Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
1 2009
2010
2011
Acres
186.58
484.47
444.50
716.80
468.26
103.50
0.00
0.00
0.37
.r vwr rc. �.uy of u ou —prircrnrru uy e:- t.awtlima • uermpmew -.:ui f.- Untuat nepon.
PRU,1,111+R.1 BY NI nx oRF 2012 EcoNo%11C PROI 11.1'
Subdivision Activity
Subdivision activity is measured by the number of plat applications and subdivision applications the
City receives for review. According to Table 33 below, in 2011 Bozeman received a significant
increase in preliminary- plat applications (514 "o) compared to 2010.
Table 33: City of Bozeman Subdivision Reviews
or
Plat Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Preliminary Plat 413 661 1,637 1 688 1,434 38 6 l 14 86
Final Plat 564 581 495 1,211 861 61 10 136 3
Soarre: 0 - of Botienl n Oefwrtment of P/wming E Comlrll/mtJ' Dereloplimil '01/A Inulal Keporl .
Zoning Activity
As shown in Table 34, the Bozeman Department of Planning and Community Development
(DPCD) processed 16 zoning applications in 2011, which is a 56 percent drop from 2010. 'Zoning
projects include site plans, conditional use permits, planned unit development concept plans, and
planned unit development preliminary plans. In 3011, the DPCD also processed 3 Zone Map
:\mendments, 0 Master Site Plans, 20 Final Site Plans, 9 Master Signage Plans, 32 Reuse /Further
Development applications, 2 Zone Code :amendments, 3 Variances, 2 - Appeals, 49 Modifications to
Approved Plans, 3 Special "Temporary Use Permits, 0 Sketch Plans, 21 Improvement Agreements, 9
Condo Conversions and 31 Informal Interviews.
Table 34: Zonina Reviews
City
Type
of Bozeman, Zoning
2003 2004
Reviews
2005
by Type:
2006 2007
2003-2011
2008
2009 i 2010
2011
Site Plan
39
46
53
32
29
14
37 22
6
Conditional Use
16
11
14
23
6
5
14 13
9
Permits
Planned Unit Dev.
5
6
6
3
2
0
1 1
1
Concept Plan
Planned Unit Dev.
6
2
7
6
2
1
0 0
0
Preliminary Plan
Total
66
65
80
64
39
20
52 36
16
Soma: U11- of Botiemrm IJepmtwlent ql l'lauuu {g C _� Cxltll wU 4 Oelelapwenl :0I I Annunt Hepal .
Residential Building Permit Activity
:according to the City of Bozeman's Planning Department 2011 Annual Report, there are 17,531
dwelling units in the City- of Bozeman. From 2001 to 2011, single - household units are still the most
common housing unit type permitted at 38.68 percent, followed by multi- housing units at
approximately 26.77 percent (Chart 11).
PR( sm:N.1 BI til \I ss NI IAN(mK 2012 ECo\U >IIC I'm II.I. i;
In 2011, 199 housing; units were permitted by the city of Bozeman ('fable 35). Of that amount, 80.4
percent were for single households; 2.01 percent were for townhomes; 4.02 percent were for
duplexes; none were for triplexes; 2.01 percent were for four- plexes; 11.56 percent were for multi -
household units; and none were for manufactured homes.
Chart l 1: Residential Buildinq Permit Activity
.)oaitr: c ttl' o) tsotienwu Uepamment qt namuuq c- c.oirnniam- Uere%nuveni _'011 _- millal Report.
'fable 35 shows the City of Bozeman has had a slight decrease in the number of permits from 2010
to 2011. Since 2010, total permits of all types were down 5 percent. In general when looking at the
2008 to 2011 period Bozeman building permit numbers have been similar to levels seen in the earIv
to mid 1990s. Yet since the peak of the housing and commercial construction in 2005, overall
permits are down 80 percent.
Table 35: Buildinq Permits Issued
PKOSPi. K:� 13l <i `�.�ti M 11MRK 2012 ECUN-omi ' PKOrn.i
2003 2004
2005 _1 2006 2007 2008
1 2009
20107-2011
Single-house
215 260
265 257 214 93
71
144 160
Townhouse
52 70
63
63 71
35
12
20
4
Duplex
108 144
12 45
44 120
--
146 235
36 7
613 881
Depuirineut 11'Plvauiq E
141
105
11
281
0
954
Coiaiuunily DerelepmenI
58 80
45 33
92 44
155 314
0 0
670 758
3011: 10 uial Repot.
30
9
32
43
0
242
0
3
32
64
0
182
4
0
4 _
36 _
0
208
8
0
4
23
0
199
Triplex
Fourplex
- _
Multi -unit
Manufactured
Total
Sourer: City of Botieinaa
PKOSPi. K:� 13l <i `�.�ti M 11MRK 2012 ECUN-omi ' PKOrn.i
Technology
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Montana is ranked tenth in the nation for science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (Sl'ENI) job growth.' The state of Montana has worked
diligently to create and encourage an atmosphere that continually drives business growth and well-
being.
Montana continues to demonstrate a strong entrepreneurial drive with over 300 individuals per
100,000 starting a business each month in 2011, which places it in the top 20 most entrepreneurial
states according to Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity 1996 -2011, published in ;March
2012.
Bozeman and the surrounding area offer a wealth of resources to technology -based enterprises.
Some of these resources include the following:
MSU TeehLink .w.techlinkcenter.org) provides direct support for Montana companies to
access new technolo' , expertise, and research and development funding from the U.S. Department
of Defense and other federal agencies.
MilTeeh ( http : / /techlinkcenter.otgZnadtech) is a collaboration between TechLink and the Montana
Manufacturing Extension Center to accelerate the transition of innovative technology to U.S. troops
by assisting companies with design, reliability, and cost effectiveness.
The Montana Bioscience Alliance -w.montanabio.or,) serves as a hub for Montana's
biotechnology companies, entrepreneurs, laboratories, hospitals, clinics, and universities to
commercialize, grow, and sustain globally competitive Bioscience companies in Montana.
Montana Aerospace Development Association (Aa-v v.mt- ada.org) works to encourage and
promote economic development in aerospace technology industries throughout Montana's private
sector.
Montana Information Technology Alliance ( -,ti-ww.montanaita.com) works to promote and
expand the information technology community that exists within the state of INIontana.
TechRanch (wxyw.techranch.or__ is a nonprofit resource center that helps organize and host
educational programming and networking events that help Montana based entrepreneurs succeed.
The Technology Transfer Office at MSU («- vw.montana.edu /ww«-vr) provides a dynamic
interface between the university and the private sector. 11ISU expended just under $96 million in
research grants in fiscal year 2008. Products of this research may translate into new medical devises,
diagnostics for human and veterinarx• use, pharmaceuticals, new grain varieties, innovations in
current products, and numerous other products and processes.
Rural Community Innovations (http: / /rci- usia.org) is a Bozeman -based 501(c)(3) non - profit
corporation founded in 1996 to provide technical assistance to a wide variety of rural communities
and businesses.
PRU,111 R 1 BI ,1N1'.ti,� N1. 11C ORK 2012 ECONOMIC PRO] 11.1! ;5
Some of the leading technology companies in the area include:
Biotechnology Companies
Ateris Technologies (ww-w•.ateristech.com)Sensor platform technologies for pathogen and toxin
detection
Baeterin International Inc. (wwxv.bacterin.com) _anti- infective coatings for medical applications
and revolutionary bone graft material
BioScienee Laboratories (INa-vxv.biosciencelabs.comI .antimicrobial product testing
BioSurface Technologies Corporation (xv w.biofihm.biz) Innovative products that grow,
measure, and evaluate biofilms and biofilm processes to aid product development and process
control, and to increase understanding of fundamental biofilm processes
Bridger Biomed (406 -586 -7660) Biomed implants and healthcare products
Bridget Technologies, Inc. (wwlv.bridgertechnologries.corn) Identification of bacteria, viruses and
protein in solutions
Cineole Corp. LLC (406 -585 -1122) Pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing
Fluorescence Innovations, Inc. -.fluorescenceinnovadons.com) Biological systems'
fluorescence properties
LigoCyte Pharmaceuticals (Lyww.ligocyte_ com) Clinical -stage biologic drug development focused
on respiratory and gastrointestinal indications
Mierobion Corporation (wlvw.microbioncorp.com) :antimicrobial drugs and product development
addressing biofilm control in health and industry
MicroLab (www.microlabinfo.com) Computer -based data acquisition tools and software for
chemistry laboratories
Montana Molecular ( «:1vw.montanamolecular.com) Genetic encoded fluorescent protein for cell -
based assays and live cell imaging
NanoValent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (406 -586 -8420) Pharmaceuticals research and development
Nervonix (406- 585 -0674) I.ow -cost, portable alternative to NIRIs and CAT scans that allows for
non - invasive, two - dimensional images of peripheral nerves for pain diagnosis and management by
anesthesiologists, surgeons and other clinicians
NuTrek (www.neuralynx.com) Provider of electrophysiology data recording systems and solutions
for neuroscience research, as well as for practical human medical data recording
Phytologies (w ww.12hytologics.com) Plant based solutions: vegetation research, process, treatment
and product development, land rehabilitation consultation, saline - sodic lands reclamation, native
plant ecology, soil science
Rasiris, Inc. (406 -994 -7831) Photodynamic therapy for cancer treatment
SensoPath Technologies (,,"vw.sensopath.com) Bioactive surfaces for a variety of biosensor
applications, detector formats and diagnostic techniques
SGM Biotech: atclitired Gy ilferet Lal)s (x,,ww.mesalabs.com) High- quality process validation and
monitoring instruments as well as dialysis calibration and verification meters, standard solutions and
accessories
PROSPER 131 til ,, i tis Ni m oRk 2012 NCUNU..N11C PRO[ 111 ;f.
Zdye (w1v-%y.zdye.com) Unique, multicolor fluorescent dves with properties optimized for protein
detection ul proteomics
Laser /Optics Companies
AdvR advr- inc.com) Photonics technologies, specializing in the development of optical
devices and systems using engineered bulk and waveguide nonlinear optical materials
Bridger Photonics (www.bridgrernhotonics.com) LADAR and LID_iR metrology and imaging
products
FLIR (mLvw.flincom) Thermal infrared imaging cameras
HyPerspeetives ( «t�w.hyperspectiyes.net) Remote environmental measuring services specializing
in the use of cutting -edge sensor technologies for natural resource applications and national security
issues
ILX Lightwave (w,,vw.iIzlighttvave.com) Laser diode instrumentation and test systems
Lattice Materials (w�vw.latticematerials.com) Silicon and germanimn infrared optics
MPA Technologies (406 -585 -8192) Photonics technologies
New Wave Research dinision o% I PI- Is'lec I.epi.com) Laser technologies
QuanteI USA lbnverly Big Sky Laser Tecbnolq;ies (Ltjvw.quantel- laser.com) Solid -state lasers
Resonon, Inc. («ww.resonon.com) Hyperspectral imaging solutions for indust-n- and research.
S2 Corporation '.s2corporation.com) Ultra- wideband radio frequency sensing and signal
processing with technology known as spatial - spectral (S2) holography
Scientific Materials .. %scientificmaterials.com) High quality and next generation crystalline laser
materials, laser crystals and specialty parts for applications in Afedical, INfilitary, Industrial and
Scientific markets
Wavelength Electronics ' ww.teamwavelength.com) Ultra - stable, high precision quantum cascade
laser drivers, laser diode drivers and temperature controllers
IT Companies
Advanced Acoustic Concepts, LLC (AAC) (Mvw.aactech.com) Software engineering and systems
integration, solutions for signal processing, image processing and information and management
systems
Aeadeus (wwlv.acadeus.com} Integrated solutions for software, automation, and information
technolol,�y
eWranglers (LNavw.ewranglersbts.com) "Technology support and networking security
Integrated Engineering Systems —IES, Inc. (,vanvIesweb.gorn) High quality structural analysis
and design software for engineering and related professionals
LexisNexis (w\v�v. lei :isne- :is.com /en- us /home.pa4) Provider of content - enabled workflow
solutions designed specifically for professionals in the legal, risk management, corporate,
government, law enforcement, accounting, and academic markets
PROS1'F'tt.N Bt >1\ .ss N1•:11tORA 2012 I'( NomIC PRta n.F S-
Neuralynx (www.nu- trek.com) "Converting real life to digital" cutting edge mixed signal application
specific integrated circuits (.kSICs) design and innovative solid -state detectors development
Oracle (\,vAvw.oracle.com) Integrated business software and hardware systems
Zoot Enterprises (w-�vw.zoot,veb.com) : -kdvanced credit decisioning, loan origination, credit risk
management, and customer acquisition solutions
Miscellaneous Companies
Advanced Electronic Designs (m v-vv.advanced .pro) Electrical embedded systems development
Floating Island International (« w«. floatingislandinternational.com) Biomimetic, self- sustaining
floating treatment wetlands that are designed to remove excess nutrients and other contaminants
from lakes, streams and wastewater lagoons
GeneSearch, Inc. ( %v- yw.I;enesearchinc.co4
Golden Helix w.goldenhelis.com) Bioinformatics company that enables the world's leading
researchers to find or diagnose the genetic causes of disease, drug safety, and drug efficacy using
Golden Helix' genetic analysis software and analytic services
Morris Technology Innovative developer of sporting goods and
sports care solutions for athletes, athletic trainers, coaches and physical therapists
Mountain Works (Www.emountainworks.com) Consulting business specializing in web and mobile
application development, science writing, and facilitation
PrintingForLess.com (Lvwxv.printingforless.com) E- commerce source for printing and more
Thermohex "l'hermoelectric devices
Trakkers (Arww. trakkers. coin) Technology' Leaders for the Event Industry, providing effective lead
retrieval, tracking, and validating solutions to get the most out of events
PRO,PFRA Bt <i',i ,. Nx '%X 0RK 2012 Era NOMIC PROI-11a• ;.,
U.S. manufacturing employment has continued to
struggle during the recession and slow recover-.
11ie decline in the U.S. average was mostly due to
four sectors: transportation equipment (which
includes automobiles), furniture, rnachinerv, and
fabricated metal products.
Manufacturing
Montano Manufacturing at a Glance
The manufacturing sector includes more
than 3,000 entities ranging from large
industrial facilities such as oil refineries to a
broad array of lighter production activities,
including the assembly of sophisticated
T'he preliminary collective data suggest that the
high- technology equipment to small cottage
current recession has impacted Montana
In 201 1, 45 percent of
manufacturing more than its national counterparts
manufacturers
manufacturers [surveyed] reported increased
with four rears of declining employment, yet
and increased production. Profits
sales
manufacturing accounted for nearly- 1.1 billion in
increased for 37 percent of responding
earnings in 2011. According to the Bureau of
firms in 2011, up from 30 percent in 2010.
Business & Economic Research (BBER),
However, 33 percent of manufacturers
hutlii7alting• industry seelol:� lolrtinrre to be impnttlatrt
reported decreased profits in 2011 versus
elements of• Alontunas eaonwgy. Alonlana nwmnffiiaw -ers
2010, illustrating that 201 1 was still a
bcld.rales topping.S10 hillim ... diliiii 2011, carcuuntitig for
difficult year.
vr.vw.bber.umt.edu
rolro f Rlily 20 percent olontunla'f economic base. " Montana
Chemicals, petroleum & coal
_..
manufacturers' employment dropped by nearly 5 percent between 2010 and 2011 to approximately
20,000 workers in 2011, with those workers earning more than S 1 billion in labor income (Table 36).
'1'he outlook is for modest improvements among
several manufacturing sectors in 2012 with
improving export conditions and the high tech sector
showing promising growth opportunities.
;afore than 90 percent of manufacturers surveyed by the BBER expect to keep their work-force at the
same level or increase employment in 2012.'
Nonmetallic minerals
Table 36: Ernolovment and Labor Income in Montana Manufacturina Sectors
Sonlre: Bnlralt of Econarrii l wl)•tii, U.S. Depailhwilt q1 CAlillvel're * Sollne. B/II -ewl oj BIUVfess and E:couolme Kesean , 1-- wirers ty ol-31ontu1117. 2011
E,taaltes.
I' "Manufacturing Outlook: Modest Improvement and Employment Growth in Some Sectors" Montana Business
Quarterly, Summer 2012. And "Montana s Manufacturing Industry: Modest Improvements Expected." 2012 Economic
Outlook. Bureau of Business and Economic Research. http: / /bber.timt.edu
P1i01;P1 :.RA Bt Ni.. RN ORK 2012 rco\UA11C PRUP11.1( w
Sector
Labor Income
2001
Millions$
Labor Income
2011 *
Millions$
Employment
2001
Employment
2011*
Wood, paper & furniture
359
187
7,907
3,969
Metals
103
77
2,526
2,191
Food & beverage
134
144
3,365
3,722
Chemicals, petroleum & coal
184
303
1,607
2,222
Machinery, computers & electronics
123
117
2,612
2,058
Nonmetallic minerals
50
1 40
1,090
885
Miscellaneous
170 j
171
5,283
4,892
Total
1,122
1 1,039
1 24,390
19,938
Sonlre: Bnlralt of Econarrii l wl)•tii, U.S. Depailhwilt q1 CAlillvel're * Sollne. B/II -ewl oj BIUVfess and E:couolme Kesean , 1-- wirers ty ol-31ontu1117. 2011
E,taaltes.
I' "Manufacturing Outlook: Modest Improvement and Employment Growth in Some Sectors" Montana Business
Quarterly, Summer 2012. And "Montana s Manufacturing Industry: Modest Improvements Expected." 2012 Economic
Outlook. Bureau of Business and Economic Research. http: / /bber.timt.edu
P1i01;P1 :.RA Bt Ni.. RN ORK 2012 rco\UA11C PRUP11.1( w
According to the BBLR, `Lookiq ai Me petst det•ade and imvi tl roll 21X)1 to 2011, total ill[Jllrlfirtlllr'ltl9
employment and eandqs are estimaled to be 18.3 pertrtrt and '-1 pertetrt, Irspettirrelp, lower than 2001 lerrelf in
Alonlana. f lowemer, a number of Bettors Dare showtrgrowtb orrer the deauk. "
The typical Montana manufacturing worker earned $13,000 in 2011, compared to an average of
$35,000 for all non farm workers. Earnings are highest in the chemicals, petroleum, and coal sector.
�I Jut I I/—. 1VIUI IUIUC.IUIII K.1 LUUVI 1111.V111C
Manufacturing Labor Income
Montana 2011
Percent of Total Income for All Manufacturing
11%
7%
L
4% �
18%
14%
29%
N Miscellaneous
E Wood, Paper & Furniture
• Chemicals, Petroleum &
Coal
• Food & Beverage
• Nonmetallic Minerals
• Metals
• Machinery, Computers &
Electronics
Source: Bnreoa of Bnsiuess and Etonomde Reserin-A Uniretsity oj.l foutmum nsiq data from, Bnrean of Elnno m, .4
J. Depmvm„ t of <.00nneire.
A number of resources within the two- county- region provide assistance to manufacturers:
Montana Manufacturing Center — MMEC («�v.mtmanufacturingcenter.com) provides
assistance to small and mid -size manufacturers in becoming more competitive and profitable.
NINIEC's home office is located in the College of Engineering at Montana State University in
Bozeman, with field offices at the NISU TechLink Center and in Missoula, Italispell, Billings, and
Helena.
Montana Manufacturers Information System — MMIS (w-,vw.mmis.umt.edu) is an interactive
database to help Montana manufacturers locate potential new customers and identify suppliers that
are Montana firms, allowing money- to stay in the state.
Montana World Trade Center mwtc.QQ� is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to
help businesses establish and strengthen their international commercial capabilities. The Center
develops untapped international trade opportunities and helps businesses capitalize on opportunities
to expand their market share around the world.
PRO1;1'HRA B( <1'`1 ss Nr M ORK 2012 U.cotio.\m: PRoi 11 +' 1„
Gallatin Countv boasts some 190 manufacturing companies, and with another 30 in Park County,
the two - county region is a key manufacturing center in the state. Some of the leading manufacturing
companies in the area include:
Action Lighting (www.actionli;htin) Lighting design
Autopilot '.autooilresign.cotn) Product design, development, and engineering
Big Sky Carvers .. bigskycaivers.com) Home decor accents
ATK /BLACKHAWK! Manufacturing Montana (www.blackhaNvk.com) Tactical gear
Cherry Tree Design (wlvw.cherrytreedesignoin) Fine wood furnishings
Cleanwaste (wtv %cleanwaste.com) Personal human waste management for when plumbing is not
available
A1phaGraphics colonvorldl2rinters.com) Printing
Croakies (w2vw.croakies.co1n Sports eyexvear retainers
Dobeck Performance (wtvw.techlusion.com) Vehicle electric fuel injection kits
Dynojet (w-ww.&noJet.com) ,lfteimarket performance products and diagnostic tools for
motorcycle & automotive industries
Gibson Guitar gibson.com) Acoustic and electric guitars
HeadRoom Corporation (w-ww.headphone.com) Headphone amplifiers and gear
Insty -Prints (w ww.instybozeman.com) Printing
Mystery Ranch mN-stereranch.cr.rn) Backpacks for mountaineering, military, or fire
professionals
Op /Tech USA Optechusa.com) Neoprene straps and accessories
Pierry Manufacturing Inc. ..pierry.com) Overland fire equipment systems, pump control
systems, and products serving the printing industry: spray powder systems, water based coating and
short wave drying systems
Plastic Design and Manufacturing (wlvw.makeitplastic.com) Turn -key manufacturing programs
and outdoor products for camping, FEhL1, and military markets
Simms Fishing Products (1v3Ww.simmsfishin),.com) High performance technical clothing and
outerwear
Tow Haul /Smith Equipment USA (w w-w.towhaul.com) Heavy equipment trailers
West Paw Design (www.westpawdesign�) Eco- friendly dog and cat toys and bedding
11R0,11P:RA 131 sj\i.,ss Ni: r %xoitK 2012 EwNomic PRUi.n.tL a I
Real Estate
While new home construction is still sluggish, the real estate sector has made up some ground. The
number of single family residences sold ui 2011 is definitely showing improvement, compared to the
last two years. Gallatin and Park Counties, along with the cities of Bozeman, Belgrade and
Livingston have all shown an increase in the number of homes sold in that particular area ('fable 37).
Total dollar volume increased in all areas of Gallatin and Park County. However, the average price
has dropped in the Bozeman market by almost 7 percent. The remaining market areas experienced
modest improvements of around 3 percent increases in average home prices.
In the Gallatin County market, homes are selling in slightly less time that previous years, while in
Park County the number of days on the market has increased.
Table 37: Real Estate Trends for Gallatin and Park Counties
Yea "-Number Total Doll rage Pric edian Price Days on
Sold Volume Market
Gallatin County
2009
688
$230,258,071
$334,677
$258,225
119
2010
796
$262,760,063
$330,101
$244,000
117
2011
911
$298,881,810
$328,081
$237,500
112
Bozeman and Surrounding Area
2009
462
$153,365,630
$331,960
$270,000
114
2010
530
$178,756,270
$337,276
$262,000
110
2011
600
$188,477,474
$314,129
$252,250
100
Belgrade and Surrounding Area
2009 157
$36,442,050
$232,115
1$192,500
106
2010
163
$31,409,503
$192,696
$174,000
94
2011
182
$35,750,451
$196,431
$175,000
101
Park Count
2009
112
$27,706,609
$247,380
$1 77,250
127
2010
138
$30,672,750
$222,266
$169,000
144
2011
150
$34,603,918
$230,692
$165,000
1 176
Livingston and Surrounding Area
2009
91
$16,352,243
$179,695
$164,500
113
2010
97
$15,623,400
$161,066
$149,900
121
2011
110 1
$18,544,518
$168,586
$142,750
132
d onn e: Gallatin .4.uodalron of Realtors — 3'outbmest .Llomtata 1lalliple Liatir {q Semii e.
Due to the downturn of the housing economy, many houses have continued to be sold as short sales
or have gone into foreclosures (fable 38). Both Gallatin and Park Counties suffered considerable in
terms of the number of homes sold under distressed circumstances. Short sales were at slightly- over
10 percent of total sales, while foreclosures accounted for 20 percent of total homes sold in 2011 for
Gallatin County-. Park County had less than 4 percent of homes sold as short sales, however almost
23 percent went into foreclosure (Tables 38 and 39).
PRosi,i,Ai.% 131 titNl ;ss Nj- ]-%X o[tK 2012 1-.coNoNnt: Plttn nJ 4
Table 38: Residential Distressed Sales in Gallatin & Park Counties (Short Sales)
Sonrre: (wallah Assoaatrar o/ Keallorr— JorllnuresI.Wonlano _Ullltirle listing Jerrlte.
Table 39: Residential Distressed Sales in Gallatin & Park Counties (Foreclosures)
Year
Number
Sold
Total Dollar
Volume
Number
Sold
j Total Dollar
Volume
! Average Price
Median Price
% of Total
Sales
Gallatin County
$46,452,211
$213,084
$164,950
18.33%
2011
2010
91
$20,760,750
$228,140
$180,000
7.65%
2011
146
$30,416,526
$208,332
$150,000
10.15%
Park County
41
$3,796,100
$92,587
$80,000
22.78%
2010
6
$1,423,000
$237,167
$175,000
3.73%
2011
6
$1,290,789
$215,131
$158,894
3.33%
Sonrre: (wallah Assoaatrar o/ Keallorr— JorllnuresI.Wonlano _Ullltirle listing Jerrlte.
Table 39: Residential Distressed Sales in Gallatin & Park Counties (Foreclosures)
Sonrre: Gallatin : .uoriatron of Realtors — Sordbvert .Montana 11Ldtiple L.Lrting Senvte.
Both Gallatin and Park Counties experienced modest growth in the number of single family
residences sold in 2011 compared to the pre -vious year. These are encouraging figures despite
forecasts that do not predict a housing recovery until 2013. Gallatin County had a 14.4 percent
growth in home sales while Park County had an 8.7 percent increase (Chart 13).
Chart 13: Number of Houses Sold - Gallatin & Park Counties
Year
Number
Sold
Total Dollar
Volume
Average Price
Median Price
% of Total
Sales
Gallatin County
2010
218
$46,452,211
$213,084
$164,950
18.33%
2011
289
$54,303,762
$187,902
$150,000
20.08%
Park County
2010
30
$3,302,203
$110,073
$89,950
18.63%
2011
41
$3,796,100
$92,587
$80,000
22.78%
Sonrre: Gallatin : .uoriatron of Realtors — Sordbvert .Montana 11Ldtiple L.Lrting Senvte.
Both Gallatin and Park Counties experienced modest growth in the number of single family
residences sold in 2011 compared to the pre -vious year. These are encouraging figures despite
forecasts that do not predict a housing recovery until 2013. Gallatin County had a 14.4 percent
growth in home sales while Park County had an 8.7 percent increase (Chart 13).
Chart 13: Number of Houses Sold - Gallatin & Park Counties
.Sonrre: Gallatin : l.unavtiar o(Rea/ tors — Sontlrve.,Y .Montana .ltrdtiple Lstirrq .rerrire.
Yuu.nr.it:\i;t <iNrs <Nt nruttt: 2012ECUtiu.m
ns:PFU.trn.r
Number of Houses Sold
Single Family Residences
1400
1224
1072
1200
959
911
1000
744
796
800
600
265
400
225 162 123 112
138
150
200
0
2005
2006 2007 2008 2009
2010
2011
—0—Gallatin County -se—Park County
.Sonrre: Gallatin : l.unavtiar o(Rea/ tors — Sontlrve.,Y .Montana .ltrdtiple Lstirrq .rerrire.
Yuu.nr.it:\i;t <iNrs <Nt nruttt: 2012ECUtiu.m
ns:PFU.trn.r
ns:PFU.trn.r
Since 2005, Bozeman experienced a 26 percent decline in single family residences sold, whale
Belgrade experienced a roughly 35 percent decline in sales, and Livingston dropped by
approximately 47 percent since 2005. However, in 2011, all three cities saw modest increases from
the precious year. Bozeman was up 13 percent; Belgrade experienced almost 12 percent growth;
and Livingston saw an increase of over 13 percent (Chart 1.1).
Chart 14: Number of Houses Sold — Bozeman, Belgrade & Livingston
Number of Houses Sold
Single Family Residences
900 816 - - - -
800 -
7
650
00
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
oimie:
699- --
530
163
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
O*mBozeman faBelgrade - APoLivingston
oIfil, Isrodaiai o%Realtors— Soittbtvest.11outanu.11n /tiple UsIbIg Senike.
PRoSt,r:R.N tat ;IN1:ss N1.nx oKK 2012 Ecovc »u1: PRoi n r,
M
1
1
Banking
According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), 2010 Gallatin Count}• bank
deposits were at a record high. As of June 30, 2011, Gallatin County bank deposits totaled just over
$1.82 billion. Since 2000, deposits have increased by nearly 190 percent.
Park County also experienced a record high for deposits into local banking institutions in 2010.
Deposits into those banks were more than $306 million dollars. As of June 30, 2011 deposits
totaled $305.8 million. Since June 2009, deposits have increased by roughly 66 percent.
Chart 15: Bank Deposits
Solnre: Feelend Depoed hisani re C=orporation (FDIC.).
There are 27 banking institutions in the Bozeman market. Together, they accounted for 80 percent,
or $1.47 billion dollars, of Gallatin County's total deposits by fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. In
order of volume, First Security. Bank, First Interstate Bank and Big Sky Western Bank received the
most financial deposits, totalling 46.81 percent of the market. Jointly, they encompass nearly 41
percent of the total banking offices within Bozeman (Table 40).
Table 41 shows that the city of Livingston has five banking organizations. Livingston deposits
totaled more than $252 million, or 83 percent of all deposits made in Park County. First Interstate
Bank leads the way in total deposits with a 48.75 percent share, followed by American Bank and
Sterling Savings Bank.
PROriPF:RA Bt sitii..ss Ni. IlN (rill 2012 EcoNo%iic PRoi imd 41
Bank Deposits 2000 - 2011
$2,000,000.00
$1,800,000.00
51,600,000.00
-
51,400,000.00
-
51,200,000.00
-
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$ 600,000.00
"Emi i
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
Kim n
$0.00
-
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
MToial Gallatin County ($000) ■ Total Park County ($000)
Solnre: Feelend Depoed hisani re C=orporation (FDIC.).
There are 27 banking institutions in the Bozeman market. Together, they accounted for 80 percent,
or $1.47 billion dollars, of Gallatin County's total deposits by fiscal year ending June 30, 2011. In
order of volume, First Security. Bank, First Interstate Bank and Big Sky Western Bank received the
most financial deposits, totalling 46.81 percent of the market. Jointly, they encompass nearly 41
percent of the total banking offices within Bozeman (Table 40).
Table 41 shows that the city of Livingston has five banking organizations. Livingston deposits
totaled more than $252 million, or 83 percent of all deposits made in Park County. First Interstate
Bank leads the way in total deposits with a 48.75 percent share, followed by American Bank and
Sterling Savings Bank.
PROriPF:RA Bt sitii..ss Ni. IlN (rill 2012 EcoNo%iic PRoi imd 41
Table 40: Bozeman Bank Denosit Mnrket ShnrP
�.;��z�L�'y�ya����i1
Institution Name
Inside of Market
Outside of Market
# of
Offices
Deposits
$000
Market
Share /o
# of
Offices
Deposits ($000)
First Security Bank
4
$318,870
21.73%
5
$154,831
First Interstate Bank
4
$209,689
14.29%
72
$5,585,302
Big Sky Western Bank
3
$158,366
10.79%
2
$49,793
Wells Faro Bank
2
$155,366
10.59%
6,380
$760,998,636
US Bank
2
$133,792
9.12%
3,136
$198,273,769
American Bank
2
$127,544
8.69%
4
$155,138
Stockman Bank of Montana
2
$125,699
8.57%
23
$1,348,568
Bank of Bozeman
1
$61,766
4.21%
0
$0
Sterling Savings Bank
1
$45,629
3.11%
175
$6,556,020
Mountain West Bank
1
$39,308
2.68%
12
$529,727
American Federal Savings
Bank
1
$39,286
2.68%
5
$170,576
Rocky Mountain Bank
1
$23,972
1.63%
8
$325,327
First Montana Bank, Inc.
1
$14,640
1.0%
8
$224,501
Manhattan Bank
1
$7,363
0.50%
3
$95,873
Yellowstone Bank
1
$5,898
0.40%
7
$327,649
Total Number of
Institutions in Market: 15
27
$1,467,188
100.00%
9,840
$974,795,710
.l unrt r. ! Herr o! iir�lo �!! tu,enl ulRr l.Ul1JUl i!!!n // �l'1 ill., f/ /11('_1 / /!.
Table 41: Livingston Bank Deposit Market Share
Livingston Bank Deposits By Market Share as of,
Offices and Deposits of all FDIC - Insured Institi
Sorted by Market Share for Livingston Marl
Inside .
Institution Name # Of Deposits Mark
• 111 • -
First Interstate Bank _
1
$124,087
48.7_5%
American Bank
1
$62,110
24.40% Y
- Sterling Savings Bank
1
$31,932
12.55%
Wells Fargo Bank
1
$20,745
8.15%
Bank of the Rockies
1
$13,279
5.22%
Total Number of
Institutions in Market: 5
5
$252,153
100.00%
Sot/n-e: Federrd 15e/mret Iu,vnmire Colpon/fion (NOIC.). jime 2011.
Pk0',P RA BI ,INI ,s Ni tit om, 2012 E(.oN;oN❑ <' Pius u.r
Outside of Market
# of
Offices
Deposits ($000)
75 _
$5,670,82_4
5 _
_$220,572
175
$6,569,717
6381_
$_7.61,133,2_57
5
$97,961
6,641 $773,692,331
Montana is known for its vast beauty and wealth of
outdoor activities. The landscapes that Gallatin and
Park Counties encompass are arguably some of the best
examples of Montana's natural attractions. With
mountain ranges lining the valleys, pristine rivers
running through them, and Yellowstone National Park
just a short drive away, the two counties offer a
tremendous variety of outdoor recreational
opportunities. Such amenities have established tourism
as a major component of the area's economy. The data
below illustrates the impact of tourism and recreation
on the regional economy.
Tourism and Recreation
Americans Prefer Nature
Over 75 percent of those polled in a
recent nationwide survey stated that
they would prefer to take a vacation to
national parks on public lands, like
Yellowstone National Park, rather than
spend time away with family in the
typical tourist hot spots such as
Disneyland or Disneyworld.
�"vw.Rodale.com
In their ill7' '1 omrism $ashielses 2011 Reriew; 2012 Outlook research report, the Institute for Tourism
and Recreation Research at the University of Montana surveyed 105 tourism - related business
owners in Yellowstone Country and had favorable findings for the area, which includes Gallatin and
Park Counties. More information can be found at wxv-w.itrr.umt.edu.
• 54`0 of Yellowstone Country respondents experienced an increase in visitation in 2011,
which tied the area with Custer and Missouri River Countries for highest reported increase.
• Respondents were generally hopeful about the outlook for 2012, with 56" o stating that the}
expected an increase in visitation and only l 1" o expecting a decrease.
• 'I1ie top two reasons for a positive outlook were the amount of returning guests and pursuit
of more /better marketing.
• W'hile 690 o of those surveyed will make no changes to their business, 30" o are planning to
expand or renovate.
Economic Impact
Tnhle 42 Montana Nonresident Traveler Quarterlv Travel Comoarison
e
• • •
. .- • - N • . . .• I g
Q Q
•lllll
Annual Total
Information
JanQ Mar
(Apr Jun (Jul — Se (Oct Dec
Nonresident
1,234,000
2,697,000
4,891,000
1,725,000
10,547,000
Visitors
% of Total
12%
26%
46%
16%
100%
Nonresident
543,000
1,117,000
1,987,000
868,000
4,515,000
Travel Groups
% of Total
12%
25%
44%
19%
100%
Group Size
2.33
2.40
2.44
1.98
2.33
# per group)
Length of Stay
4.09
3.82
5.45
4.31
4.66
(nights)
Avg.
Expenditure
$133.24
$127.96
$129.84
$140.65
$131.88
per Da
% of Total
11%
20%
51%
19%
100%
.Soonr.• Instillde for Towi3m and Rearalion KesezynA Unirer itp ot3lontdna.
PROSPFRA 1131 si%Iss NC nx oRK 2012 EcoNO IIC PROI IJ &.
According to the Institute for "Tourism and Recreation Research, each of the totals recorded below
include the following: Direct Impacts result from nonresident traveler purchases of goods and
services; Indirect Impacts result from purchases made by travel- related businesses; and Induced
Impacts result from purchases by those employed in travel- related occupations. The totals in Table
43 are the combination of these three impacts.
Table 43: Montana Nonresident Traveler Economic Impacts and Expenditures (Totals)
Year
o m
Industry Out ut Employment Employee Compensation Proprietor tor Incom e
2009
$2,328,300,000
25,480
$569,000,000
$92,300,000
2010
$2,637,600,000
28,110
$661,600,000
$123,400,000
2011 *
$2,228,800,000
28,210
$606,300,000
$96,600,000
Year
Other Property Type
Income
State & Local
Taxes
Avg. Expenses per Day per
Group
Total Expenditures
2009
$323,300,000
$152,900,000
$116.09
$2,271,800,000
2010
$367,000,000
$180,500,000
$125.74
$2,480,857,000
2011 *
$286,800,000
$275,700,000
$131.88
$2,774,340,000
Sol me: hisltlide /or L olmsti, wid Kerreedw Kesemrb, I_ arer.44 ot.11odla ua. 1`20I I Data is PIFAI.Vi1101)..
According to the Montana Department of Commerce Office of Tourism, "T outs m is one Dt lei Iontana s
leaelil g ll1ldI sifies and ptilvc1q l"e?�enile diii�e s. " A few facts about Montana tourism from the Office of
Tourism and the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research at the University of Montana: tK
• 10.4 million visitors came to Montana in 2010.
• These visitors result in 11 new customers per Montana resident for Main Street Businesses.
• Visitors spent S2.4 billion in 2010 and $2.77 billion in 2011, infusing new money into
Montana's economy.
o For 2011, the S2.77 billion in local spending directly supported 52.23 billion of
economic activity and indirectly supported $1.11 billion of economic activity,
bringing the total contribution of nonresident spending to $3.33 billion.
• Visitor spending generated $229 million in state and local tax revenue.
• Every dollar spent on advertising yielded $157 in visitor spending in Montana.
• For ever- bed tax dollar invested in advertising, $4.53 was returned directly to the state's
general fund.
• Without tourism tax revenue, it is estimated that each Montana household (avg. 2.5 people)
would have to pay an additional $544 in local and state taxes.
l^ "Monts na's Tourism & Recreation Industr• Fast Facts," Updated lanuary 2012, Montana Department of Commerce
Office of Tourism, hhtp: / /traveltnontana.mt.gov /fact /I astFacts.lti�
"2011 Montana Nonresident Traveler F,xpcndintres and Fconomic Contribution" April 2012, Institute for Tourism and
Recreation Research, Universitti• of Montana. http : / /tiz.-%v.itrr.umt.edu /tionres/ 2011NonresSpendEconConttibution.pdf
Nosrt:it.% 131 ;INLss Nt- nx uRK 2012 ECoNo%tIC PRoFU.i t.,
Chart 16: 201 1 Visitor Lxpenditures
2011 Visitor Expenditures
N Retail Sales
■ Hotel, Etc.
o Groceries
HAuto Rental
o Outfitter /Guide
o Campground
• Licenses /Fees
■ Transportation
v Misc. Services
• Gambling
v Gasoline /Oil
v Restaurant /Bar
34
oot 1-1
1% 1 %1 %2 %.L70
Song -e: Isatihde jar 1 ourisis and Kea -ea ion Kereem-A C-uirerrily o(.1Lo✓ttuuu.
12%
.according to the Montana Department of Commerce Office of 'Tourism, tourism means jobs.
Tourism and recreational businesses support 34,210 Montana jobs. Visitor spending provides $912
million in worker salaries. On average, each dollar spent by a nonresident traveler in Montana,
generates 30 cents in wage and salary income for Montana. This is 13 °'o higher than the national
average. Businesses included in the tourism industry include the following:
• Hotels, motels, B &B's and dude ranches
• Restaurants and bars
• Outfitters and guides
• Ski areas and private travel attractions
• ;Museums and cultural facilities
• Private and public campgrounds
• Farmers and ranchers
• Gas stations and convenience stores
• Transportation companies
• Retail shops
• State and federal agencies
The state's travel promotion budget is 22 °'o lower than the national state average. In a 2010
Conversion Studv, it was found that once Montana advertised in larger markets, travel destination to
Montana rose 36 percent. Of those people that saw the advertisements, they were three times more
likely to travel to Montana, compared to those that had not seen the advertisement.
Funding for Montana tourism marketing results in increased visitor spending, which in turn
increases income, property and corporate tat collections."
P1 osm.1t.\ M ;r i �A Vl 1' \ \()ItK 2012 EcOVOnut: PROHLE P,
Air Travel
Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport (airport code: B'LN) is the second busiest airport in
Montana. According to the Airport Director, Brian Sprenger, "Over tl e part forth }.-eat :r ottr etiiport is tl)e
fitstest gro2vin air in ,lloatana." While the Billings Logan International Airport has more passenger
traffic per year including intra Montana passengers, the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport
now brings more people to Montana than any other airport. With the addition of three gates, and
new non -stop service to Newark /New York, passenger travel continues to improve significantly for
our region. In 2011 the airport had a record number of passenger boardings totaling 397,882 which
is an 8.9 percent increase over the previous rear. For YTD 2012 their passenger numbers are up
nearly G percent compared to the same period last rear. Corresponding to the increases in passenger
numbers is the number of locations serviced through Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport
which are compared between 2000 and 2010 (Figure 4 and 5).
Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport is the only airport that serves as a year -round entrance
for two Yellowstone National Park entrances. It also serves the recreation areas of Big Skv Resort,
Moonlight Basin and the Bridger Bowl Ski Area as well as the business centers of Bozeman,
Belgrade, and Livingston and higher education at INIontana State University.
In the summer of 2011, the Gallatin Airport :authority opened a $40 million dollar "state of the art"
terminal expansion that more than doubled the original terminal's size. Three gates were added, as
well as a third baggage carousel. A larger passenger and baggage screening area and food, beverage
and retail concessions completed the new expansion. This project has employed between 110 — 175
construction personnel. The two -year project was fully funded without any local taxpayer monies.
In Julv 2012, U.S. Customs and Border Protection opened their state of the art federal Inspection
Service User Fee Airport Office. This facility will enable private international flights to make direct
flights into Bozeman and open up economic development opportunities to develop a Foreign Trade
Zone designation.
Table 44: Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport Volume
Year
Deplaned Passengers
2002
278,473
2003
282,871
2004
310,558
2005
336,803
2006
315,912
2007
335,598
2008
351,281
2009
340,563
2010_
_ 365,210
2011
_ 398_,288
Sorore.• C;eittdti n Field .- lirport. 012
Posseli - & Tower 0penr ions Repoa.
PHO) >111 R \ BI ;i Ni ss Ni - INN URA 2012 LCONOMIC PR M I I.1,
Enplaned Passengers
274,499
281,052
- _ -- 308,985
_ 335,679
317,850
_ 335,276
351,214
342,71.4
362,828
397,822
Figure 4: Non -Stop Destinations from Bozeman: January 2000
^ivv
Seattle:Taconih
l Butte
`•BOzelnan +
blwneapoLsP.M. Pold
Salt Lake City
�T I
Janualy 2000
So//re. $/vw "i fireuger— Butiem�m l /Inrurtnrre luterirutio✓ral. Iira7.
Figure 5: Non -Stop Destinations from Bozeman: June 2012
Seattle /Tacoma
) i
1.
Portland
Bozeman Yellowstone
International Airport
Ivli ' eapolis St�anl
i
i
Oakland
-
Salt Lake City
1
Chi go
O'Hire
'1Vework /Nei
I
Sin Francis •
Denver:
( .
La§�V� gas
-
�. Los Angeles
i
Phoenix /Mesa
\
I-
\\
,Atlanta
SO / /RT: Biim Spirger— B&ZeA /dll Ylllon -slow Intervatio/ed.-lnliort. - - - " - -- -- _ - - - --
INo,;PPN:\ Bl s1NP:ss NI_.'I1:U2K 2012 EcoNo Nflc PKOt It.l
II
Ski Resorts
Skiing in Montana brings in people from all over the world. Big Sky Resort, nestled in the
Southwest Rocky Mountains, offers world -class skiing and riding with over 400 inches of snow on
average per year. At its highest point, bone Peak, skiers stand at 11,166 feet. Not only do families
come for the winter season when children under 10 ski free, but there is much to do and see during
the summer as well. Big Sky had over 340,000 skiers this past year — its biggest numbers to date.
Their record - breaking season was in spite of generally poor snow conditions, and during a time that
most other resorts' visitation numbers were down by 20 percent. "'
Bridger Bowl is a nonprofit ski area offering an exceptional ski experience. With outstanding effort
and assistance from local volunteers, businesses, staff and dedicated pass holders, Bridger Bowl is a
cornerstone for Bozeman's recreational community and a major contributor to southwest Montana's
vibrant winter tourism economy. In the 2011 -2012 ski season, Bridger Bowl was not able to open
all of its runs until mid January and therefore experienced a significant drop in visitation due to the
lack of snowfall.
Table 45: Biq Sky Resort and Bridger Bowl Visitors
2004 -05
290,000
158,000
2005 -06
323,000
183,812
2006 -07
308,000
135,555
2007 -08
310,000
196,569
2008 -09
285,000
188,621
2009 -10
297,000
199,061
2010-1.1.
340,000
210,966
2011 -12
340,00.-0+
148,074
Saun e: ewd Blittger Bowl
Chad ones, Public Relations Manager, Bic; Sky Resort.
PRo -,m. R i Bc il\L,,s ni1:11 oRK 2012 Ec;o,,*omic PRoi 11.1• ;,
Visitation Dynamics
Chart 17: Vacationer Population by State /Province Residence
2010 Vacationer Residency
Alberta
Arizona
British Columbia
California
Colorado
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Minnesota
Missouri
New York
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Texas
Utah
Washington
i
Wyoming I
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% S% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10%
Percentage of Visitors Surveyed
Snmre: °V,he \etw:'1)l0I aeal tntierC. YnuikYerrrl ias" jn/)_70//. hwitaleta •7nmiun::'ReorallonRe+eai-h.I wrosilro /.1lonlnto.
Vacationers cite many reasons for coming to Montana, but the majority- of them are drawn to the
state because of its beautiful mountain scenery and wide open spaces (Table 46). National parks like
Glacier and Yellowstone are important attractions as well, giving visitors unparalleled opportunity to
view diverse wildlife populations. Montana offers a great variety- of activities for travelers from a
wide range of places (Chart 17). Hiking in the mountains, blue ribbon trout fishing, family camping
trips, and remote hunting adventures are just a few of the many activities offered in this great state.
TnhlP 4A- Mnntnnn's Tan 10 Attractions for Vacationers
ILYA L*J a 0 a a ••
777
Rank
Attraction
% Vacationers Who Cited Item
as an Attraction
1
Mountains /Forests
62%
2
Yellowstone National Park
62%
3
Open space/Uncrowded areas
46%
4
Rivers
43%
S
Wildlife
42%
6
Glacier National Park
39%
7
Lakes
31%
8
Native American History and Culture
17%
9
Lewis and Clark History
17%
10
Fishing
17%
.Sotmrr: "Ah-he Aenw: 2010 1 uidtiouerC,G trurlrn.;hrs inl) _011. 12+1111tle /or 1 ontrcnt E' Keovation Ilearmrh, 1. ntrewl)? o/ .11ontana.
Puu <t t tz.1 Bt SiNr,,• Nt. t '\t oa)< 2012 EcoNo.,ow Pkrn 11 t
Although Yellowstone National Park is primarily located
in oming, approximately 65 percent of park visitors
enter the park via a Montana entrance during their trip. In
2003, more than three million visitors came to the park.
From 2004 to 2006, numbers were down; however, in the
nest few rears, visitor numbers steadily climbed, with a
slight decrease in 2008. `I•he park had a record number of
visitors in 2010 and saw its second highest visitation
numbers on record in 2011.
Table 47: Yellowstone Nntinnnl Pnrlc Vicitnrc
- Natio-n-all Park Visitors,
Year Number of Visitors
2003
3,019,376
2004
2,868,316
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
J onrre.• _ aVow1 11ar1z Jen n e.
State Adopts Geotourism Charter
Geotourism provides an authentic
travel experience while at the same
time sustaining and even enhancing
the geographical character of the
destination.
The aspects of a travel destination
which must be supported and
conserved for geotourism are:
• Local environment
• Heritage
• Aesthetics
• Culture
• Well -being of residents
Montana Tourism Advisory Council
w v.TrovelMontana.mt.gov
In 2007, the :Montana 'Tourism Advisory Council created and adopted the Montana 'Tourism and
Recreation Charter, establishing eight geo- tourism guiding principles, which are listed below.'" "llie
charter is based upon that of The National Geographic Center for Sustainable Destinations and is
intended to help maintain and sustain the uniqueness of ;Montana.
1. Maintain integrity of place and destination appeal.
2. Promote and highlight the businesses, services, and opportunities that are unique to
Montana.
3. Promote sustainable resource conservation, including conservation of energy, water, and
wildlife.
4. Participate in and help lead community stewardship partnerships to maintain Montana's
assets.
5. Identify and appeal to markets that value and seek to help sustain Montana's distinct
character.
6. Foster a diversity- of products and services that meet the demand of a demographic cross -
section of the "geotourist market."
7. Ensure visitor satisfaction and an enduring market demand through education of Montana
residents about the benefits of sustainable tourism.
8. Work with the Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, Travel Montana, and other
tourism organizations throughout the state to evaluate effective implementation of the
Tourism Charter.
"Montana Tourism and Recreation Charter", Montana Office of Tourism http: // tray -elmotitana.mt.&Yx)v /cliarter/
YKo,;111:K 1 Bl Ni. : IlX ORK 2012 EcoNomw Pitoi u.1 ,.1
Energy
NorthkVestern I'.nergy provides regulated electric and natural gas transmission and distribution
services to more than 668,300 customers across Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. The utility
provider employs 1,400 people and had a net income of 592,556,000 in 2011. Northwestern Rnergn
serves 339,400 electric customers in 187 Montana communities with 7,000 miles of transmission
lines, 17,300 miles of distribution lines, and 222 NAX' of baseload power generation. With regards to
natural gas, the utility provider serves 182,100 customers in 105 Montana communities with 2,000
miles of intrastate transmission pipelines, 5,000 miles of distribution pipelines, and the capacity to
store 17.75 Bcf of gas."' Montana ranks 40`x' in the US for residential electricity prices and 41" for
residential natural gas prices according to the Energy Information Administration. 11
Table 48: Utility Rates
Residential Electricity
9.88cents /kWh
1 1 .95 cents /kWh
Aril 2012
Commercial Electricity
9.06 cents /kWh
9.86 cents /kWh
Aril 2012
Industrial Electricity
4.74 cents /kWh
6.44 cents /kWh
Aril 2012
Petroleum Domestic Crude Oil
$83.88 /barrel
$103.67 /barrel
Aril 2012
Natural Gas — Wellhead
$3.64 /thousand cu ft
$4.48 /thousand cu ft
2010
Natural Gas — City Gate
$3.74 /thousand cu ft
$54.21 /thousand cu ft
Aril 2012
Natural Gas — Residential
$8.1 ]/thousand cu ft
$10.75 /thousand cu ft
Aril 2012
Coal (Average Open Market Sales Price)
$15.12 /short ton
$35.61 /short ton
2010
Coal (Delivered to Electric Power Sector)
$2.42 /million Btu
Aril 2012
Soartr: F.uer,)• Iuforirtation _- tImMistratiau..Slate F_uei.v. Irrjorrnatiou Oreniem *Dicta wtbbeld to oroid diselo.mre of aidir•idnal mnipaag data
Montana Quick Facts'
• The Bakken shale under Montana and North Dakota, one of the largest accumulations of
crude oil in the United States, is currently estimated to be capable of producing 3.7 billion
barrels of oil; the U.S. Geological Survey may raise that estimate as development continues.
• As of the end of 2010, Montana held over one - quarter of the estimated recoverable reserve
base of coal in the United States and was the sixth largest coal- producing State in 2011,
supplying 3.8 percent of U.S. coal and distributing it to 13 States.
• Montana's four refineries, with 29 percent of U.S. Petroleum administration for Defense
District 4 (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming) refining capacity in 2011, are
able to process heavy Canadian crude oil for regional markets.
• Wind electric power generation grew by 34 percent in 2011 and supplied 4.2 percent of
State's net electricity generation.
• Montana has created a Renewable Portfolio Standard for all electricity suppliers to be
capable of generating 15 percent of electricity from renewable energy resources by 2015.
21 2(111 _annual Report, Northwestern Luerg.
http: / /vti-,�&- v.northxvestemenerFn•.com /documents /in-%•estor /.knnualReport2ol l.pdf
-'' \tontaika State Energy Profile, U.S. F riergy Information .kdmiiustration. http: / /-,,-\vtc.eia.goe /state /state- energ,�-
profile s -anal sis.cfm ?sid = \fI•
PRo "i'rRA Bi �;im %s Ns'r ,,r ow, 2012 1 {I;UPiOMIC PRUru.r ;,
Resources and Consumption
`.Montana is fish in fossil. fi /el Irsoinvei and n iewable ene y polential. Its ,geologic• basins hold more than one- ///I/)
g1'1he Nation's estimated rreoremble coc1/ irsenles. Monlana' eave'l71 basins al o hold large deposits of oil and gar.
River.; flowing fiow Montana's Rocky Moniltains offir silbstantial hydroelect/ic• pourer relounrs•. Montana colllain,+
considerable hind energy' potential thiwo ghout the State.
,Ilontana'r population and toted energy demand air low. f loweier, the .Slate eeono.,yy is energy ZilteirJ7lv and per iapita
etle/gy tO1lSZrnlptl0tl IJ' lrlalll8'ly hlgh. The indusIt al sector, which includes the energy- Z /Zte1Z,fZt,e m1r11i1g ZlTdlrstiy',
dominates Slale enei;y coilsuiilptioil. "— Energy Information .Administration'`
During 2010, Montana's total energy use was 405 million Titus. This earned Montana a ranking of
14"' in the nation for per capita energy use. %YVithin the state, there were 3,841 alternative- fueled
vehicles in use and total ethanol consumption in 2010 was 863,000 barrels. Overall, the state
accounted for 2.20'-o of U.S. electric power industry emissions in 2010, with 20,369,529 metric tons
of carbon dioxide emissions, 23,033 metric tons of sulfur dioxide emissions, and 21,197 metric tons
of nitrogen oxide emissions.'`
Petroleum
Largely due to the fact that three of the nation's 100 largest oil fields reside within the Williston
basin which corers eastern :Montana and western North Dakota, Montana accounts for about two
percent of U.S. crude oil production. Currently, pipelines travel south to Wyoming and east to
markets in the Midwest. Refineries for regional markets are in place near Billings, primarily- using
crude oil from Alberta, Canada and Wyoming. An extension to the Keystone XI, Pipeline has also
been proposed that would pass through Montana on its way- from Canada to Texas and the Gulf
Coast.,,
Natural Gas
Approximately three fifths of households in ;Montana rely on natural gas for their primary heat
source. Montana produces a relatively minor amount of natural gas, consuming roughly- three fifths
of its production and exporting the rest to other states. A number of transmission pipelines travel
through Montana, transporting Canadian natural gas to markets in the Midwest.2`
Coal, Electricity, and Renewables
".11vntana tniieally accounls fnr rou ghly 4 pereew of total annual L'.S. coal prlldnetion. llie tiZ4orYty nf•Rlortlarrcr's
olitput is piodured fivii1 several hilge sillyaee Ivinef in the Powder River Basin, which straddles the border between
iliDiltclna and lk'yoiiling. ]rist over one fourth of Montana's coal proebl lion is bred fir State electricity generation;
Montana delir)ers the irinainder to tnrlrketr in molr than 15 States. Minnesota and Mich gan ell? the lalgesi
recipients of 'Alontana coal. "— Energy Information Administration'^
Roughly two -thuds of Montana's electricity generation is from coal -Fired power plants.
Hydroelectric power accounts for most of the remainder. Montana is among the leading
hydroelectric power producers in the United States, and six of the state's 10 largest generating plants
run on hydroelectric power. The State has also initiated programs to expand and enhance
hydroelectric power capacity and boasts a number of wind farm projects in the central part of the
state. High - voltage transmission lines connect Montana to other western electric power grids, which
allows the state to export large amounts of electricity.' In 2011, Northwestern Energy announced
plans to construct a =10- megawatt wind farm in central Montana over a two -year period.''
PRO'SM,RA Bk iiNi "ss Ni: INXORK 20121:c;otioallc PROI iix ,,,
Montana State University Bozeman
Montana State University (IISL') in Bozeman has been an
economic anchor to the region's economy for many rears.
As Montana's only land -grant university, IISU is dedicated to
serving the people of Montana. Providing education on four
campuses (Bozeman, Billings, Havre and Great Falls), as well
as Montana Agricultural Experiment Stations and coun"-
Extension offices, and also conducting research and
outreach, IISU makes significant contributions to Montana's
economy.
According to XISU's 2010 Economic Impact Report, as a
result of the presence of the NISU system statewide
(excluding 1NISU Extension):
• 13,511 Montana jobs are available statewide.
MSU Remains One of Nation's Best
U.S. News & World Report once
again ranked MSU in the top tier of
the nation's best universities. MSU
tied for 189 "' due in part to its many
unique research facilities, the world
class Museum of the Rockies, and
the fact that 42 percent of MSU's
classes have less than 20 students.
w~v. USNews.com /education
• More than 5897 million in after tax personal income is generated.
• ;Montana receives $2.60 in tax revenues for even- $1 of tax support.
• The presence of NISU increases annual wages in Montana by S 1,087.
• IISL' increases investment spending in Montana's economy by S349.3 million.
As of fall 2011, ;\ISU employed 3,012 permanent faculty and staff positions, along with 567 graduate
students as teaching and /or research assistants. NISU is the region's largest employer.
The university had $148,588,904 in total expenditures in the 2010 -2011 academic year. Total
enrollment (full time and part time) was 14,153 in fall 2011. Estimated per capita student expenses
(tuition for resident full time undergraduate, plus room and board and personal expenses) were
518,548 in 2011. The estimated per capita expenses for non - resident students were 531,273. With
over 9,890 resident undergraduate students, NISU's economic impact on the area is immense.
During the 2010 -2011 academic rear, NISU reported revenues of over $148,557,700. Of this
amount, 33 percent came from state appropriations, 66 percent from tuition and fees and 1 percent
from miscellaneous resources. NISU currently holds 81 patents for innovations and processes
developed through faculty research with 81 additional patents pending and had 200 license and
option agreements with private firms, 98 of which are Montana companies.
As stated by �ISU, it has the distinguished reputation of being "de�zgnated as one of- 108 /ySearch
unirler:rities rvitlr `nery high reseclreh cretinily' Gy the Carnegie Fozraclution frrr the 'lcivairee>llerrl of "1'eaeliiug. MSC'
a(firs .4,911 leant opportunities for reseanA seholev-ship, and rreatim work. This bighe.,t tier clas.ifieation — out of
4,600 I/IJtltlltlo /I.f — distinguishes AL as the or11y institution In the five -State region of illonlana, If% yo)7 inn, Idaho,
and North and South Dakota to acldem this level ofresearrb prominence. "
In the fall of 2010, the Montana Board of Regents approved the first steps of expanding Montana
State University's Bobcat Stadium. According to IISU President Waded Cruzado, the renovation
for this project was estimated to cost $8 to $10 million. Through a financing arrangement, the
university matched $4 million that will be repaid from future athletic revenues. No state fiends,
student fees or tuition dollars were used to fund this project.
PRO OPERA 131 ;mss N1• r%%tmK 2012 ECONOMIC Peat LE �-
By mar end 2010, MSU announced that the S10 million fundraising goal had been reached. Over
700 private donors contributed to the project. The renovation was completed by the first home
WISE` Bobcat football game in September 2011, which hosted a record - breaking sellout crowd of
over 18,000 fans. The 37 -year -old stadium received a new scoreboard, locker rooms, public
restrooms, concession facilities and an upgraded "Pepsi Lone ", as well as additional seating on the
south end of the stadium. The project also added ADA access and required egress and site utilities.
Per Montana State University's website, there were 2,669 first year freshmen students registered in
the fall of 2011. The average age of a traditional student was 18.6 years and the average age of a
nontraditional student was 22 rears. Situ- percent (1,595 students) of entering freshmen were
Montana residents. The remaining 40 percent (1,031) were from other states or foreign countries
(Table 49).
Table 49: MSU Total Enrollment
Enrollment 1
Region of Origin Undergrad Graduate Total %
Montana
7,833
979
8,812
62%
Other U.S.
3,992
885
4,877
35%
Foreign
363
101
464
3%
Unknown
0
0
0
0%
Total
12,188
1,965
14,153
100%
., un,(r..,,oWMBI., crier /III -el :1if 1.
A few of the recognitions and awards that Montana State University has achieved include the
following:
• MSU was included in BusinessWeek.com's article about 10 schools making their
mark with innovative tech transfer programs. The article, "Small Schools' Big Tech
Dreams," is based on a report sponsored by the National Science Foundation highlighting a
number of smaller university programs that are developing new technologies through
academic research, licensing the inventions, and helping launch businesses that use them.
• MSU education students have outscored their peers on 14 of 15 national exams that
they are required to take before becoming teachers. The program is accredited by the
Montana Office of Public Instruction as well as the 'Teacher Education accreditation
Council. The average score for iiISU elementary- education students was 7 percent higher
than the average score of other students in the U.S.
• MSU School of Architecture's design -build program has been featured in some of the
largest and most prestigious publications devoted to architecture, including the Architectural
Record. The magazine cited three 1NISU projects: the Khumbu Climbing School, a
sustainable building in Phortse, Nepal where Sherpas learn safe climbing skills; the
renovation of an igherm (or grain storage building) in Zawiya Ahansal, Morocco; and the
Hyalite Pavilion, a structure on the Hvalite Reservoir in the Gallatin National Forest, south
of Bozeman. That project won a 2010 AIA Montana Honor award.
Yia sm. it:% Bi si m s.,, Nr [ -%xmK 2012 Fa:ovomnr. YROi 11.4
Table 50: Bozeman Deaconess Hospital by the Numbers
Doane: lio;eu w Deaioaess Il spital, 2011 Report to the Camvnaift.
As a nonprofit hospital, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital reinvests any net income into healthcare
services, technology, and facilities such that these advanced services are state of the art and always
current. As noted below, the amount of charity care assistance and unreimbursed costs was over S8
million, a 57 percent increase over last Sear. With its generous sponsorship to various businesses
and organizations in the valley, it provides the tools needed to stay healthy- and to maintain a good
quality- of life. Whether collaborating with a business or organization, playing a major sponsor to an
event, donating a service, product or prize, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital maintains a high level of
social responsibility. Overall in 2011, the total amount of community benefit was more than S16
million.
In keeping with the hospital's commitment to fiscal and social responsibility, in 2012 Bozeman
Deaconess launched a reprocessing initiative that diverts single -use surgical devices from landfills
and incinerators to a reprocessing plant in Minnesota. A hospital similar in size to Bozeman
Deaconess was able to divert 3,300 pounds of waste in a 12 month period with a similar initiative.
Materials are cleaned according to FDA standards, refurbished, tested for functionality, sterilized,
and returned to the hospital at half the cost of new devices. Plastic materials and precious metals
that cannot be reprocessed are recycled into a Heide variety of consumer products after sterilization. 24
Table 51: Community Benefit Statistics
_71 jjl I Commun4 P!i- qjp% Statistics
Financial assistance (Charity Care & unreimbursed costs Medicaid $8,016,457
22,954 emergency room visits 17,324 inpatient days 1,082 births
1,913 inpatient surgical visits
3,432 outpatient surgical visits
1,384 blood bank
rocedures
141 diagnostic cardiac
114 coronary interventions
2,516 inpatient EKG's
catheterizations
133,045 inpatient laboratory
291,773 outpatient laboratory
3,432 outpatient EKG's
procedures
I procedures
Doane: lio;eu w Deaioaess Il spital, 2011 Report to the Camvnaift.
As a nonprofit hospital, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital reinvests any net income into healthcare
services, technology, and facilities such that these advanced services are state of the art and always
current. As noted below, the amount of charity care assistance and unreimbursed costs was over S8
million, a 57 percent increase over last Sear. With its generous sponsorship to various businesses
and organizations in the valley, it provides the tools needed to stay healthy- and to maintain a good
quality- of life. Whether collaborating with a business or organization, playing a major sponsor to an
event, donating a service, product or prize, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital maintains a high level of
social responsibility. Overall in 2011, the total amount of community benefit was more than S16
million.
In keeping with the hospital's commitment to fiscal and social responsibility, in 2012 Bozeman
Deaconess launched a reprocessing initiative that diverts single -use surgical devices from landfills
and incinerators to a reprocessing plant in Minnesota. A hospital similar in size to Bozeman
Deaconess was able to divert 3,300 pounds of waste in a 12 month period with a similar initiative.
Materials are cleaned according to FDA standards, refurbished, tested for functionality, sterilized,
and returned to the hospital at half the cost of new devices. Plastic materials and precious metals
that cannot be reprocessed are recycled into a Heide variety of consumer products after sterilization. 24
Table 51: Community Benefit Statistics
_71 jjl I Commun4 P!i- qjp% Statistics
Financial assistance (Charity Care & unreimbursed costs Medicaid $8,016,457
Community health improvement services & benefit operations
$396,212
Health professions education
$161,873
Subsidized health services
$6,988,386
Cash & in -kind contributions to community groups
$532,346
.i'o,l„P: &Zeinmi Deaewea Hospital 2011 Repoli to the C:oirvuuafitp.
Community Health Report Findings
Professional Research Consultants, Inc. was commissioned by Bozeman Deaconess Hospital,
Communim Health Partners (CHP), and the Gallatin City - County Health Department to assess
conditions in Gallatin, Madison, & Park Counties. As stated in the 2011 Report, the PRC
Community Health .Assessment is:
, -1 Jyvenlatit, Plata - driven approach to dleterininiq Me health Jtatits, behaviors and needs of irs denis in Gallatin,
Madison e- Park Counties, Alonlana. ....4 eomlwlnily heallb as essnient proililles the infol'lnation so that
oommliniltes nlay idenq� issues Of'g ealetit concern and decide to iolnnlil tesourief to those areas, lhereby makiq the
,greatest possible impact on ionlln n1 ly health . +tatus.
24 `Bozeman Deaconess Launches Materials Reprocessing /Recycling Initiative." January 20, 2012, Bozeman Deaconess
I lospital http://«- ti-% v. bozemandeaconess .org /article.php ?id =436
Miosi,rwk Iii Ni,1AXORK 2012 Ec:oNonnr. PRmtt ii 61
This Community Health :Assessment is intended to support reaching three basic goals:
• 'I'o improve residents' health status, increase their life spans, and elevate their overall quahrY
of life.
• To reduce the health disparities among residents.
• T'o increase accessibility to preventive services for all community residents.,'
Chart 18: Ratings of Overall Healthcare Services Available in the Community
Ratings of Local Healthcare
Services
5.50%
1C
24.80%
3%
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Sounn _011 PRC: C:olliltllloilt- FIevbb Repol7. " Plvfessioual Resem % C.olJSUlttJnls. ble.
Chart] 9: Self- Reported Health Status
Self- Reported Health Status
(Total Area, 201 1)
8.4%
5.7% ■ Excellent
/ 28.8%
19.1%
Sonar: 2011 PR(.'(
38.0%
1Q.rezvrh Consnttantr.
-' "2011 1'RC Community 11ealth Report." Professional Research Consultants, Inc.
http://%,,iv�v.bozet-naiideaconess.org/reports
Pttosm.. : Bt w,t.ss Ni iv ORK 2012 Ect)1t »Uc. Pxurn.t
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
• MSU was selected as the sixth university -based Wind Application Center (WAC) by
the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab program. The
long -term goal of this nationwide program is to promote wind as a clean, viable, and
sustainable energy source for today and tomorrow.
• MSU is in the top 20 colleges and universities in the nation for number of Goldwater
Scholarship recipients. As of 2011, 53 INISU students have received the Barn- itl.
Goldwater Scholarship, the nation's premier scholarship for undergraduates studying math,
natural sciences, and engineering. MSU 's rank puts it just behind Yale and MIT and ahead of
other distinguished institutions including)ohns Hopkins, University of Washington, Purdue,
and University of Minnesota.
• MSU student received 2011 Pearson Prize National Fellowship. The student was one
of 20 across the country to receive the major award for leadership in community service.
• MSU flagship universities joined a partnership with the National Girls Collaborative
Project (NGCP) to promote science, math, technology and engineering education for girls
as part of the state's recent acceptance into the program. MSU becomes one of 24
collaborative projects serving 33 states and indirectly serving more than 5 million girls with
the acceptance of this partnership.
• MSU was awarded $102.7 million in research funding. By fiscal year ending June 30
2011, MSU showed their: growing strength in biomedical sciences, energy and the
environment. The university prides itself on providing hands -on research opportunities for
every undergraduate as part of its core curriculum and the EPSCoR program received an
award of $4 million a year for five years, to research environmental and ecological sciences.
• For their community involvement, students at MSU were recognized with the
Newman Civic Fellows Award and the Berkeley Prize Travel Fellowship. 'The student
group, Engineers without Borders at INISU, was recognized as one of only four programs
nationally to win the W.K. hellogg Outreach Scholarship Award for their efforts to bring
drinking water to villages in western Kenya.
• MSU Recognized by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 2011.
The Foundation awarded 'NIS(.' its community engagement classification, which brings
national recognition to NISU's commitment to teaching that encourages volunteer service in
communities and the spreading of knowledge that benefits the public.
• MSU Extension Agents Receive National Awards. Cascade County 1NISC. Extension
Agents were recognized by the National Association of Community- Development Extension
Professionals (NACDEP) for leadership in working with community members to develop,
implement and coordinate a new program to address poverty in Belt, Montana.
• MSU Earns Top Spot on 2011 Peace Corps Top College Rankings. Montana State
University ranks number 18 on Peace Corps' 2011 rankings for colleges and universities with
enrollments between 5,001 and 15,000 undergraduates. It is the first time the university has
been on the rankings since 2007. There are currently 25 ISIS U undergraduate alumni serving
as Peace Corps volunteers, a 25 percent increase from last year. Since 1961, 427 INISU
alumni have served as Peace Corps volunteers.
MSU has nine Rhodes Scholars. The ninth Rhodes scholarship given to an NISU student
was in 2010. The recipient was one of 32 winners of arguably the most prestigious
scholarship in the world.
Pimsm.R:� Bl 51'`1 ?,,S Nvn%m a 2012 Ecowmlc PRmn.[. ;�
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital
According to research conducted by the Raiser Family
Foundation /Health Research & Educational 'I•rust, the
average annual premium for employer- sponsored family
health coverage increased 9 percent in 2011 in comparison
to a 2.1 percent increase in workers' wages. The Small
Business & Entrepreneurship Council's "Health Care
Policy Cost Index 2012" ranks Alontana 8 "' in the nation
with favorable policy measures aimed at keeping health care
costs reasonable.
According to Gregg Davis, director of health care industry
research at the Bureau of Business and Economic Research
at the University of Montana, the health care industry
represents about 10 percent of the state's economy as
measured by GDP.''
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital defines itself as:
Bozeman Deaconess Awarded an
"A" for Patient Safety
The Leapfrog Group, an
independent national nonprofit,
recognized Bozeman Deaconess
Hospital as one of three hospitals in
Montana to receive an "A "rating.
This score is calculated from 26
measures of publicly available
hospital safety data and places
Bozeman Deaconess in the top 25%
of hospitals in the nation.
www. BozemonDeaconess. of
www. hospitalsofetyscore. oig
Phil CO uvission accredited, lieensed Ler�e11H trewma center, Ivaded in Gallatin Corillo. The 86- bedjiieiltly
.teives soulhwesl Alontana inchicliq Gallatin, Madison and Park Counties. Bo:Zeman Deaconess Haspited has
earned the repulalion o 1pior.4clirtg high duality of serrites tit reiy reasonable rates. Thephy.,itians on the medieal
stgff represenl Immerolis speciallies along with the lii,best ererlenticils, lrcrinir {g, and e.%perti+e in their fields n%
pratlice. "— Botiemetn Deaconess Hnspilal
Originally- constructed in 1896 under the name of Bozeman Sanitarium, the 20 bed hospital was
Bozeman's first. In I911, the Sanitarium was purchased with assistance from the community, and
Bozeman Deaconess Hospital was incorporated. Bozeman Deaconess Hospital has been an integral
part of the Gallatin Valley- for over a century and celebrated its 100 "' anniversary in 2011. It is the
largest private employer in Gallatin County with over 1,000 frill and part -time employees. In order
to meet the growing service demands of the local population, Bozeman Deaconess has consistently
expanded services and facilities.
In 1999, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital began an expansion of their existing emergence room to a 10
bed capacity unit. "1•his emergency room, with its additional space, became a state of the art facility
made to accommodate 15,000 patients per year. This same amount of space treated close to 23,0(1(1
people in 2010, exceeding capacity by 53 percent.
On September 12, 2010, Bozeman Deaconess Foundation announced a $9 million capital campaign
to assist funding the $15 million expansion of the Bozeman Deaconess Hospital emergency room.
'I'his fundraising effort, called 'I'he Cornerstone Campaign... Realizing the Vision was the largest
campaign to date for the hospital, and exceeded their goals as of September 2012. Phase one of the
emergency services department expansion was completed in July of this year, with the next phase
scheduled to be completed in early 2013.
-z Montana Business Quarterly Volume 50, Number 1, Spring 2012.
PH(riVP.RA Bt vtil'ss NP tmuccx 2012 Ec o%-omw PRUt•IL1. �„
Chart 20: Leading Causes of Death
36.8%
Leading Causes of Death
(Total Area, 2009)
5.1% 5.9% 7.0%
YO -i Heart Disease
Cancer
Unintentional Injuries
CLRD
Stroke
19.4%
Intentional Self -Harm
Other Conditions
1 ^i r r •1 n n .I .I 11 1 C.
�.IIUII LI I UC.IVIJ \_VIIIfIUUlllll w VGJIUIGJ I
Factors Contributing to Premature
Deaths in the United States
5%
15%
30%
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Genetics
40%
e' Social Circumstances
■ Medical Care
Physical Environment
1 I PRC Cammmitr Ilbalth Rebod. " Prote sional Researd) C amwllnnts, Ine.
As shown in the charts above, the majority of area residents have a favorable impression of local
healthcare services and also view themselves to be in good to excellent health. This is not surprising
considering the area's high quality of life rankings and the region's tendency to attract residents who
are active outdoor enthusiasts. Aside from the other conditions category, heart disease and cancer
are the leading causes of death in the area. Finally, in the United States as a whole lifestyle behaviors
are reported to be the largest determining factor for premature death, closely followed by genetics.
PRo SPi ?R.1 Bt tiitiifSS N1:1',tt 14K 2012 EcoNomic Petii n t•, (11