Loading...
03/04/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 4 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Mayor Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson; Roger Evans, Building Services and Licensing Director; Diana Karrenberg, Community Affairs Manager; Ray McCandless, Northwest Quadrant/Subdivisions Planner; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Nancy Tessman, Library Director; Alison Weyher, Community and Economic Development Director; Cheri Coffey, Northwest/Long Range Planner; Janet Wolf, Mayor' s Director of Youth Programs; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Linda Hamilton, Investigator Civilian Review Board; Marge Harvey, Council Constituent Liaison; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Janice Jardine, Council Planning & Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Staff Assistant; Doug Wheelwright, Land Use and Transportation/Subdivisions Planner; D.J. Baxter, Mayor's Senior Advisor; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer; Michael Sears, Council Budget and Policy Analyst; Sylvia Jones, Council Constituent Liaison; Neil Ashdown, Deputy Director, Governor' s Office of Planning and Budget; David Nimkin, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Louis Zunguze, Planning Director; Lynn Pace, Assistant City Attorney; Doug Dansie, Downtown/Special Projects Planner; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:36 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. Cindy Gust-Jenson said Item A-3, the interview with Claudia Hope O'Grady has been rescheduled for another evening. She said Item A-7, presentation from Neil Ashdown, Deputy Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, was scheduled for 6:00 p.m. for 30 minutes. She said Item A-9, creating a light manufacturing overlay district between 5200 and 5500 West between 1730 and 2100 South, and Item A-10, rezoning property at 321-331 South 500 East; 550-558 East 300 South; and 326-348 South 600 East were being expedited and were on the agenda to set hearing dates. Ms. Gust-Jenson said Council would receive a draft of a letter to Senator Evans. She said the Administration wanted the Council to review the letter with them. She said included with the extra announcements was paperwork from the Administration on Budget Amendment No. 12. See File M 03-5 for announcements. #2. INTERVIEW BRENT WARD PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. Mr. Ward said he practiced law publicly and privately for approximately 30 years. He said he was the Assistant United States Attorney from 1976 to 1978. He said he was a United States attorney from 1981 to 1989. He said he had experience as a defense attorney in criminal matters. He said he had served on a number of committees and boards. He said he had also been Senior Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 4 , 2003 and General Counsel of the Huntsman Corporation. He said he was currently an officer of a technology company in Midvale, Utah. #3. INTERVIEW CLAUDIA HOPE O'GRADY PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT TO THE POLICE CIVILIAN REVIEW BOARD. The interview was rescheduled. #4. INTERVIEW LEE MARTINEZ PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD. Mr. Martinez said recently he left the University of Utah College of Business where he had been the Management Director of the Global Business Program. He said prior to that he worked for the State of Utah doing international business development with focus on Latin America. #5. INTERVIEW RICHARD KAUFUSI PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS REAPPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH CITY GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD. Mr. Kaufusi said he had served on the board for three terms. He said he had taught high school and had coached. He said he was currently employed by the community college as a Career Advisor. #6. RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING ISSUES AT THE 2003 LEGISLATIVE SESSION. Steven Allred briefed the Council. He said House Bill 122, Planning Commission restructuring, would require the Council to define substantial pieces of property when being conveyed. He said the bill was on its way to the Governor. He said Senate Bill 56, Governmental Immunity Waivers related to 900 South was buried after five or six hearings. Mr. Allred said the bill increasing beer tax had been modified. He said Streamlined Sales Tax (SST) had started its Senate trail with a "trust me" from the sponsor that the entire bill would be changed. He said Bills 219 and 225, Governmental Immunity on Proprietary Functions, the complete rewrite of proprietary functions had been put on the shelf in favor of a bill which set caps on proprietary functions. He said it was a consensus bill by government and trial lawyers with an understanding the bill would sunset in December of 2004. He said a non-legislative task force would work during that period to clean up and rewrite governmental immunity. He said that could include some catastrophic loss coverage. Mr. Allred said a proposed bill that would have required the City to open their shooting ranges to the public was dead. He said House Bill 271, light rail, was in Senate Rules and he had been assured the bill would be out tomorrow. Mayor Anderson said he had a letter to Senator Evans regarding an Airport light rail line. He said he had been advised the Council wanted the letter to read that the Mayor supported light rail and not to include the Council in that support. Councilmember Buhler said he was concerned because the Council had never discussed airport light rail. He said Mayor Anderson had taken the appropriate lead on Airport light rail. Councilmember Lambert said he was prepared to state he advocated light rail, but he was not prepared to commit to an additional z cent local options sales tax increase. D.J. Baxter said all the letter would state was that Senator Evans would work to grant legislative authority for cities and counties to make a decision on light rail by holding elections. Mayor Anderson said the City needed authorization for additional 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 4 , 2003 funding for future light rail. Mayor Anderson suggested the wording of "we look forward to working with you to secure legislative authorization for voters to determine if an additional '4 cent local option sales tax should be imposed for transit investments." All Council Members were in favor of the language. He asked the Council on the first line if they wanted the words "the Mayor is" or "we are". The majority of the Council was comfortable with the words "we are". Mayor Anderson suggested in Paragraph 6, one sentence would read "generally in favor of liberalizing the criteria". #7. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM NEIL ASHDOWN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET. View Attachment Mr. Ashdown briefed the Council with a slide presentation. He said the presentation focused on concepts and compiled over the past year by the Governor's Council of Economic Advisors. He said the committee was compiled to give advice to the Governor on policy issues and to the state of the economy. Councilmember Christensen asked Mr. Ashdown if he saw much growth in sales tax. Mr. Ashdown said they expected some growth. He said as job creation started to occur, people would go back to work and start spending more money. He said interest rates would stay low for a long time. #8. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE ENACTING A NEW SECTION OF SALT LAKE CITY CODE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT BUSINESS LICENSES BE APPROVED OR DENIED WITHIN 30 DAYS. View Attachment Edwin Rutan and Gary Mumford briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen said the proposed ordinance made the City compliant with State law. Mr. Rutan said the ordinance initially stemmed from a series of First Amendment cases which required the City to have a specified provision for a time in which a license was reviewed. All Council Members were in favor of moving the issue forward. #9. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO CREATE A LIGHT MANUFACTURING OVERLAY DISTRICT BETWEEN 5200 AND 5500 WEST BETWEEN 1730 AND 2100 SOUTH PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-03. (NAC) View Attachment Ray McCandless, Doug Wheelwright, Louis Zunguze, Janice Jardine and Alison Weyher briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Christensen asked why height was limited in an M-1 zone. Mr. Wheelwright said prior to the 1995 zoning rewrite the height limit was 80 feet. He said there were areas where M-1 was in proximity to residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Christensen asked if the proposed overlay would be applicable to other areas. Mr. Wheelwright said once the ordinance was adopted it could be applied to other locations through a map amendment process. Councilmember Christensen asked if there had been other requests for taller buildings. Mr. Wheelwright said typically construction was a 30 to 35 foot high concrete tilt up. Ms. Weyher said in the 1990's during the zoning ordinance rewrite the City looked at keeping taller buildings in the downtown area. She said some equipment buildings needed to be taller than the existing height requirement. She said the Newspaper Agency Corporation' s printing presses were 65 feet tall. Councilmember Christensen asked about a conditional use process. Mr. Wheelwright said a conditional use process would have taken more time because once zoning was created, 03 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 4 , 2003 the petitioner would have had to go through the conditional use approval process with the Planning Commission. Cindy Gust-Jenson asked Councilmember Christensen if he wanted a process to expedite future applicants. Councilmember Christensen said he did not want to hold up the project. He said tilt ups were limited in height. He said if someone could build vertically instead of horizontally it made land use sense to establish a height variance. Mr. Zunguze said they would review the current ordinance. He said it was important to understand why current standards were in place. He said then they could look at what the ramifications of those standards were to current and emerging trends. All Council Members were in favor of moving this issue forward. #10. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-331 South 500 EAST FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED- USE, PROPERTY LOCATED AT 550-558 EAST 300 SOUTH FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE, AND PROPERTY LOCATED AT 326-348 SOUTH 600 EAST FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED -USE. (OVERLAND DEVELOPMENT, KENT HOLMAN) View Attachment Doug Dansie, Janice Jardine, Cheri Coffey, and Louis Zunguze briefed the Council from the attached handout. Ms. Jardine said the project had a total of 430 units. She said zoning would be changed to Residential Mixed-Use (R-MU) and the developer had planned some retail commercial development. Mr. Dansie said Phase I faced 500 East and plans were to have retail on the first level only. He said there was potential on 300 South for retail in Phase II and there would be no commercial in Phase III. Councilmember Saxton said she was in favor of mixed use in the area but was concerned about Phase II. She said current zoning allowed for office and residential. Mr. Dansie said developers had talked about mixed use on 500 East and 300 South. He said Phase II was currently zoned Residential Office (RO) . He said an 80 foot tall office building could be built. He said in the R-MU zone, buildings could be 75 feet tall and ground levels could be used as retail. Mr. Dansie said the only Residential Multi-Family (RMF-35) parcel was the 600 East frontage. He said developers wanted one zoning district because of cross easements on parking and reduced rear yards. He said the master plan for East Downtown set a maximum height on 600 East with no commercial expansion and a 15-foot front yard setback. He said the R-MU zoning district did not have those requirements. Mr. Dansie said Phase III would rezone the 600 East frontage to R-MU with a no retail condition. Councilmember Saxton said residents did not want commercial encroachment on 300 South. She said zoning for residential use would be appropriate. Ms. Coffey said the developer had not proposed mixed use on 300 South. She said that could be a condition on the approval of the zoning. Councilmember Saxton asked why there was no proposal for mixed use on 600 East. Mr. Dansie said the master plan did not allow for commercial expansion on 600 East. Councilmember Saxton said she was excited about mixed use. She said it seemed commercial use would work on 500 and 600 East. She said to encroach onto 300 South would go against what the community had worked on for years. Councilmember Christensen asked if the tentative restrictions would be removable through a similar zoning process. Mr. Dansie said there was nothing to stop the petitioner from requesting that the restrictions be repealed. Councilmember Lambert asked what percentage of units were affordable housing. Mr. Dansie said in Phase I there were 208 units and 65% or 132 units received Federal tax credits. He said Phase II would be market-rate apartments and Phase III would be 03 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 4 , 2003 condominiums. Councilmember Lambert said the units were 750 to 1000 square feet with one and two bedrooms. He asked if that included all phases. Mr. Dansie said that was approved as part of Phase I. He said Phase III would respond to the market. Councilmember Lambert asked if a requirement was in place so that when Phase I was completed, the developer would be required to complete Phases II and III. Mr. Dansie said it was always possible a developer could go bankrupt or walk away. Ms. Coffey said the Planning Commission made sure all parking requirements and amenities were tied to Phase I in case Phase II and III did not happen. Councilmember Saxton said she was in favor of holding a public hearing to reconsider the master plan. She said it was disturbing that mixed use could encroach on 300 South. She said the design should interface with 400 South. She said if the City wanted mixed use then the master plan needed to be changed. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the hearing date was set early to accommodate the developer. She said the developer had a closing on the last day of the month. She said the Newspaper Agency Corporation's rezoning had been expedited as well. She said Council might want to make a policy decision on whether they wanted future petitions expedited. Councilmember Buhler said it was a good procedure because the process was lengthy. He said it did not close the Council's options because they could deny or delay the request once a public hearing was held. Lynn Pace said it was his understanding the master plan did not allow for commercial development along 600 East. He said one option was to be in conflict with the master plan and allow commercial on 600 East in conflict with the master plan. He said the master plan could be amended at a future date. He said another option was to adopt Ordinances 1 and 2 and hold Ordinance 3. Councilmember Christensen asked if Councilmember Saxton wanted to request language which gave the option of putting a restriction on 300 South. Councilmember Saxton said she did. She said she also wanted to talk to the developer. She said it could make a difference to the developer if they could not put commercial on 300 South. She said the developer needed to know about the possibility of commercial on 600 East. All Council Members were in favor of moving this issue forward. #11. RECEIVE A REPORT FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING CRITERIA FOR THE $700,000 NEIGHBORHOOD OLYMPIC LEGACY PROJECT. View Attachment Michael Sears briefed the Council from the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert said the resolution needed to indicate there would be public and community council input. He said when a project was selected, the appropriate City department needed to administer the fund rather than the Council. Mr. Sears said the Attorney's Office would incorporate both issues into a resolution and criteria would be attached as criteria to the project. He said currently funding for the projects was in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) . He said capital projects would be administered through Engineering and Public Services. Councilmember Buhler asked if it was necessary to list those items in the criteria because they would be listed in the resolution. Mr. Sears said the resolution would say "whereas it was the intent of the City Council that this would follow this type of a process, etc." Councilmember Buhler said he wanted to see some wording such as "public input including but not limited to community councils" and "an indication of support would be part of what was presented back to the Council." 03 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, MARCH 4 , 2003 Councilmember Turner said long-term aspects needed to be addressed. He said the legacies needed to be around in 100 years. He said a decision would be divisive because community councils would not agree. Councilmember Buhler said he did not want to be so specific that the projects needed to be approved by every community council. He said community councils needed to be involved in public input. He said then the Council could make a value judgment that had general support. Mr. Sears asked if the Council wanted a decision making process in the resolution. Councilmember Christensen said the Council could approve them by resolution. Ms. Gust- Jenson said Council could adopt the legacies by formal motion. Councilmember Christensen said the resolution could be placed on the Consent Agenda on March 11, 2003. Mr. Sears said he would have the resolution for the Council packets on Friday. Councilmember Saxton asked if there was anything in the subcommittee guidelines which precluded two or more districts from combining their money. Councilmember Christensen said it was not limited to each community council. #12. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE, TO DISCUSS TWO MATTERS OF PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANNOTATED 52-4-4 AND 52-4-5 (1) (a) (iii) . See File M 03-2 for confidential tape and sworn statement. The meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m. bj 03 - 6 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 28,2003 SUBJECT: Thirty-Day Time Limit for Processing Business License Applications AFFEC 1'ED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEFT. City Attorney's Office AND CONTACT PERSON: Greg Hawkins KEY ELEMENTS: The Mayor brought to the attention of the City Attorney's Office a court decision relating to business licensing where it was ruled that a city business license process was invalid because the licensing official had unlimited discretion on the amount of time to decide whether or not to grant or deny a license. The City Attorney's Office found additional court decisions relating to reasonable time constraints for processing business licenses. Some courts have ruled that a reasonable time constraint must be contained in an ordinance and not just in an internal policy or written procedure. Salt Lake City's licensing ordinance relating to sexually oriented • business contains a 30-day time period for the City to grant or deny a license application. However, the general business license ordinance doesn't include a time restraint. Salt Lake City's internal policy provides that processing business license applications must be completed within 30 days. The City Attorney's Office is proposing an ordinance amendment to formalize the time restraint in order to avoid the possibility of a challenge based on this technicality. MATTERS AT ISSUE: The courts have not mandated that a licensing process be done within 30 days but have held that a reasonable time restraint must be contained in a published ordinance. Based on the City's experience and current policy, the Administration is confident that business license applications can be processed within 30 days. The proposed ordinance provides that a conditional license may be issued if the review process is not completed within the 30 days limit. The proposed ordinance amendment formalizes the City's current 30-day policy for processing a business license. The amendment also makes the general business licensing ordinance consistent with the sexually oriented business licensing ordinance,which already contains the 30-day processing constraint. cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Ed Rutan,Greg Hawkins,Alison Weyher,Roger Evans,Edna Drake,DJ Baxter • rf SAW h rPtIL) it Nomim " 'AO®•••••• �'+' ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON MAYOR •t3fF-lWKNS LAW DEPARTMENT SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY EDWIN P. RUTAN, II CITY ATTORNEY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL To: Rocky Fluhart Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Greg R. Hawkins Assistant City Attorney DATE: February 6, 2003 SUBJECT: Setting a 30-Day Time Limit for the City to Process a Business License Application and Providing for a Conditional License Should the Process Take Longer than 30 Days. Recommendation: The City Attorney's Office recommends that the City's Business Licensing Ordinance be amended to specify the time constraints for handling a business • license application. When applicants challenge the denial of a license, they try to show that the licensing agency has violated basic rights of a person. One attack is premised upon the grounds that the licensing official has unlimited discretion on whether or not to grant or deny a license. If the ordinance is silent on an issue the courts think is material, some courts have invalidated the governing body's process and ordered a license granted. We believe the City can and should avoid such a result by adopting the proposed amendment. Funding: No additional funding is required. Background/Analysis/Alternatives: Currently the City has a policy of processing all business license applications within 30 days. For Sexually Oriented Businesses (SOBs) the City has an ordinance that requires the process to be completed within 30 days, or a conditional license will issue pending completion of the process, Section 5.61.150, SALT LAKE CITY CODE. The proposed ordinance formalizes the time period policy for all business licenses, makes the process consistent with the Sexually Oriented Business process, and provides a legislative mandate for licensing officials to take license action within 30 days. In the case of FW/PBS, Inc., v. City of Dallas, 493 US 215 (1990), the United States Supreme Court struck down a Dallas ordinance that did not have legislative mandates informing appointed officials as to how long they could take to review a license application. The majority of the court felt that an absence of such a mandate would • allow an official to delay interminably the issuance of a license for activities the official did not like. Although the FW/PBS, Inc., case was limited to licenses that may involve 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 505, SALT LAKE CITY, UT B41 11 TELEPHONE: 801-535-778B FAX: B01-535-7640 T.!%accrcco PnPea Rocky Fluhart February 6, 2003 • Page 2 First Amendment activities such as movie theaters, the logic also holds for all business license applications. The Tenth Circuit, the federal appeals court which covers Utah, recently ruled that the whole process of government review of licenses that may involve First Amendment activities must be contained within an ordinance which has reasonable time constraints on the license review, Z.J. Gifts D-4, LLC, v. City of Littleton, 311 F 3d 1220 (CA 10 2002). The business license process involves zoning and building approval as well as other agency review which may be required. Again, although this case involved possible First Amendment matters, the logic would apply to any type of business. While neither court mandated that a licensing process be done within 30 days, experience has taught the City that most, if not all, business license applications can be handled within 30 days. During the Olympics when the zoning, building, and life/fire safety aspects were pre-approved, we were able to handle the license applications within a manner of hours. There are very few, if any, business license applications that are not processed within 30 days. This ordinance provides that a conditional license may be issued if the process will take longer than 30 days, contingent upon the applicant qualifying for the license. This is in conformity with current court decisions. Legislative Document: The document submitted is an amendment to the City's current business licensing ordinance. Contact Person: Greg Hawkins, City Attorney's Office, 535-7788. Submitted by: GREG R. ,HAWKINS Assistant City Attorney • • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Enacting New Section 5.02.115 of the Salt Lake City Code) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING NEW SECTION 5.02.115 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE TO PROVIDE THAT BUSINESS LICENSES BE APPROVED OR DENIED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SUBMISSION TO THE CITY. IF THE PROCESS REQUIRES MORE THAN 30 DAYS, A CONDITIONAL LICENSE, CONDITIONED UPON COMPLETION OF THE REVIEW VERIFYING THE APPLICANT MEETS ALL LICENSE REQUIREMENTS, WILL BE ISSUED. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: SECTION 1. A new Section 5.02.115 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby enacted to . read as follows: 5.02.115 Time Limitations. A. License Issuance Limitations. Unless otherwise specified by a specific ordinance, the City has 30 days in which to complete its review and approve or deny a license. If a review can not be completed within 30 days, a conditional license shall be issued to the applicant subject to completion of the review, verifying the applicant meets all license requirements. B. Appeal Time Limit. The licensee may appeal the denial of a license by the License Supervisor by filing with the License Supervisor a written notice of appeal. The notice must be filed within 10 days of receipt of notice of denial of the license. • f SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first • publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City. Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: ❑Approved ❑Vetoed • MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003 Published: • G.\Ordinance 03V.icense Time Limitations(Draft).doc 7 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 28, 2003 SUBJECT: Petition 400-03-03—Ordinance to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance and establish a Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District for properties located at 5300 to 5500 West and 1730 to 2100 South AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICT'S: If the ordinance is adopted,the Plan will affect Council District 2 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine, Planning Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Ray McCandless, Principal Planner KEY ELEMENTS: A. An ordinance has been prepared to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance and establish a Light l" Manufacturing Height Overlay District for properties located at 5300 to 5500 West and 1730 to 2100 South. The properties are currently zoned Light Manufacturing M-1. This action would accommodate relocation of the Newspaper Agency Corporation's printing and delivery facilities to II/ the vacant Gateway computer building located at 5420 West 2100 South. An addition on the west side of the building is proposed to accommodate a new printing press that is necessary in order to print both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News for morning delivery. The size of the new press requires that the addition be higher than the currently allowed 65-foot height. (Please see the attached maps for reference.) B. The Administration is scheduled to brief the City Council on the proposal at the Council's meeting on March 4th. A public hearing has been scheduled for March 11t. The Council previously approved this reduced timeframe in order to accommodate the Newspaper Agency Corporation's timeline for construction and relocation. The timeframe still meets legal requirements. C. The proposed Zoning Ordinance text change would amend the Overlay District Chapter(21A.34)to include a Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District M-1H. 1. The purpose is to provide a location for specialized industrial buildings with a need to exceed the maximum allowable building height in the Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district. 2. The overlay district would allow a maximum building height of 85 feet. D. The proposed Zoning Map amendment would establish a Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District for properties located at 5300 to 5500 West and 1730 to 2100 South in addition to the current Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district classification. The current Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning classification allows a maximum building height of 65-feet. Prior to the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project, the maximum building height for the Light Manufacturing zoning district was 80-feet. E. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report provide a detailed discussion of the • proposed text and map amendments. Major points are summarized below. (Please refer to the Planning staff report for additional details.) Page 1 1. The proposed building height of 85-feet is consistent with height allowed in adjacent zoning districts(through the conditional use process)and with the overall character of existing development in the area. The proposed overlay district will not adversely affect adjacent • properties. 2. Creating an overlay district would help satisfy the City's desire to retain current and historically significant businesses as an economic development strategy. 3. The proposed height overlay district could be applied in the future to other areas zoned for light manufacturing uses. New proposals would require a zoning map amendment including a public process through the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning staff report notes that the Planning Division will continue to evaluate appropriate locations for taller buildings in other M-1 zoned areas. 4. The intersection of 2100 South and 5600 West is considered part of the southwest"gateway" to the City. Allowing taller buildings would provide greater visibility from 2100 South. 5. The appropriate City departments and divisions have reviewed the proposed text and map amendments. Site development,utility service requirements and building and fire code compliance will be evaluated through the development review and building permit processes. 6. The properties are located in the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay District. (21A.34.040)The Airport Influence Zone B subsection regulates the height of buildings and structures. The Airport Authority has indicated that increasing the maximum building height to 85-feet in this location is not a concern to airport operations. 7. The City has implemented other overlay districts for specific needs in this area such as the Landfill and Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay Districts. F. The purpose of the Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district is to provide an environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties and desire a clean attractive industrial setting. (21A.28.020A) G. The intent of the Overlay District Chapter in the Zoning Ordinance is to provide supplemental • regulations or standards relating to specific geographic features or land uses in addition to"base"or underlying zoning district regulations within a designated area. Whenever there is a conflict between the regulations of a base zoning district and those of an overlay district,the overlay district regulations shall control. (21A.34.010A) Overlay Districts currently established in the Zoning Ordinance include: 1. H Historic Preservation 2. T Transitional 3. AFPP Airport Flight Path Protection 4. LC Lowland Conservancy 5. ARP Aquifer Recharge Protection 6. LO Landfill 7. CHPA Capitol Hill Protective Area 8. SSSC South State Street Corridor 9. Localized Alternative Signage H. On February 12,2003,the Planning Commission adopted motions to forward to the City Council a positive recommendation to approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance text and map amendments. Issues discussed at the Planning Commission meeting included criteria used by staff to determine the size of the overlay district,the lack of an adopted master plan for the area and the schedule for a proposed master plan process. (Please refer to the Planning Commission minutes for details.) I. The public process included review by the West Salt Lake Community Council Executive Committee and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the proposed overlay district. • Page 2 MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: • A. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the proposed master plan process schedule for this area. The Planning staff report notes"Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area,the proposed overlay district is consistent with other existing land uses in the area." This issue was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Reference was made to a separate handout indicating that the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan may or may not be adopted between 2003 and 2005. In addition,the Zoning Ordinance identifies five review standards that the Council should consider when considering proposed amendments. One of those standards requires consideration of whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals, objectives, and polices of the adopted general plan of the City. B. Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration if it might be appropriate to provide additional criteria to be evaluated in order to establish a Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District. The criteria would be used in addition to existing requirements for zoning amendments or conditional uses established in the Zoning Ordinance. (Please note-future application of the Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District would require a zoning map amendment process through the Planning Commission and City Council.) Several overlay districts currently listed in the Zoning Ordinance have additional criteria, standards or requirements. For example: • Landfill Overlay District: o Requires all land uses to be approved through the conditional use process. o Additional conditions that may be imposed by the Planning Commission include restrictions on types of uses, construction, location, landscaping, screening,parking, hours and days of operation storage of materials or other conditions to prevent or minimize any adverse impacts. So Establishes a distance restriction from residential or institutions zones. o Identifies specific minimum lot size,yard, landscape and buffer requirements. • Localize Alternative Sign Overlay District: o Requires the applicant to submit proposed regulations for the overlay district to the Zoning Administrator. o Proposed regulations may be applied to a particular center, campus or district as an alternative to the sign regulations that would otherwise be applicable. • Aquifer Recharge Protection Overlay District: o Restricts 17 types of land uses that may contribute to groundwater pollution such as agricultural uses, automobile repair and service,golf courses, pesticide use and storage,hazardous materials storage, storm water detention facilities and retention basins, etc. o Requires a compliance permit from the City/County Health Department and written approval from the City Public Utilities Department. MASTER PLAN& POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The City's Strategic Plan and the Futures Commission Report contain statements that support creating attractive conditions for business expansion including retention and attraction of large and small businesses, but not at the expense of minimizing environmental stewardship or neighborhood vitality. The documents express concepts such as maintaining a prominent sustainable city, ensuring the City is designed to the highest aesthetic standards and is pedestrian friendly, convenient, and inviting. Page 3 B. The Council's adopted growth policy states: It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Council that growth in Salt Lake City will be deemed the most desirable if it meets the following criteria: 1. Is aesthetically pleasing; 411) 2. Contributes to a livable community environment; 3. Yields no negative net fiscal impact unless an overriding public purpose is served;and 4. Forestalls negative impacts associated with inactivity. C. The proposed overlay district will be applied to properties within the Northwest Quadrant planning area. The planning area encompasses land north of 2100 South to the northern City boundary and west of 4000 West to the western City boundary. The master plan for the Northwest Quadrant was initiated in the mid-1980's,but has not been reviewed or formally adopted by the City Council. The Planning staff report notes"Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area,the proposed overlay district is consistent with other existing land uses in the area." In the past,the Administration has noted that during the 1995 Zoning Rewrite project,the manufacturing zones were developed and applied to this area based upon previous zoning classifications and existing land uses. CHRONOLOGY: ➢ BACKGROUND The Administration's transmittal provides a detailed chronology of events relating to the proposed zoning text and map amendments. Please refer to the Administration's chronology for full details. Key meeting dates are listed below. ➢ KEY DATES • January 28, 2003 West Salt Lake Community Council Executive Committee letter • February 12, 2003 Planning Commission Public Hearing • cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,DJ Baxter,Ed Rutan,Alison Weyher,David Dobbins,Dave Oka,Louis Zunguze,Valda Tarbet,Roger Evans,Lynn Pace,Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Harvey Boyd,Enzo Calfa,Ray McCandless,Russell Weeks,Michael Sears,Marge Harvey,Annette Daley File Location: Community and Economic Development Department,Planning Division,Zoning Ordinance text and map amendments • Page 4 {r '`.ak# "fit s '-+s ; ry !if a �f� t i _">` L.+i°Stneexr '"F.+n+��+.,�.w.tic'�-} �.w'.r R/ � +�.. :., 'f + : t om s i 1 '� L J e '""r 1. wst ,,§ t y, q i ,rC._,rs:t.�j�:h-:a J r i r 14 H 1 ` �.g.. � . r .y' r i i + f '� Y,d ?p b w gr4 A { i. Yr I `r . tff #iyw7. 1 �F :SSA-i S;;if,3'� z r '* f f '' t4 l ,:..$.,.'s,4.V.c:':,-r.,,ie r x r`� '144. s` hT ">'� "`�r �. .r, ��'{�Via.x ��='s"� > x I d +b l•.( Yr. V -'J x 44 _, .,, .! sue` ,iia ,[r-�'_' 1 ;1 • _,ll, ` ' D ` II 4 I ,/ a/ 4 4 i A A A ' IIMI, Min , UM..: ... on • --.. .. — . -,.• 1.... — — — , ' \:? J i --0-- — — - J , 2 ,.,.._ — . ,, A __,. . . . . --, '''' I I : ••!, - -p 'i----.q i---4-!.. 4--- -4 , „ ,-, . - --,., I i , - - i- .-i- -1i 4 4-4 • • i-: 1 1 ? I a, --- . , 1.1--•------ ' I 1:?--- : ? 2a : U - _,j ri•-•-f 1---1 --b-- — •— . , , I - -- --- -- -,- --,--- 0 E:N.-•iminie -mum„ ct7) c ) -_-,,-, : • / I n : ..,.._ II 0 IAN .‘: 1 • .....-- . . (. )1 -.•-15•Milirr .--- , •• ! • x i F• _q€ 1 _..••-r i I: I 1 . . I I."'" C• - -6 1 0§ '• ( 5' k. ....I ''• -- s) 4 _ , . ----- -.- .._._ 1-.., ..._, -•—• l, I '--:1 3-- fa- 4-4 ''-- .. 1--1, o I'•4 ' I. -5--5 ,,, i r''' QP ••••' ; ,:• ',•••r-J---- --' x-,•••• ',VT— .0.___,_,,3,...-:.,1-_ .4. ., .0, _____ ,,,• Li I: I 'Y,.. .---i. I' ' u .--_(__ _ Id -si.— , D 7. -1 t -4 I';' .-k '.-. ..••pil... I 6 ::: - -- r..)--T55— -t'.--: — • _, €.1( •4.,_ . . •1 : .,,,...;€ •••16 ®‘'ni;Pir illinilli- 1---J -,,,---1 _ . • '' C-1 . . ; a E - ---,- t_Q911911 —'"--- —i, —cr— Y.T , , r, " q — — I -----z---"'-`--- ---1,- ---'r---i—:-1 . ! .-_, • . — -2, -,--. ,_____Ie -',.7_. i I ; ! i ,.- ip . . . . i c li O -, -I,:.-- :II ±.:al ! - -- ; !I; I--Y. - - -e 1 I - 's , 1 I O --•*Th . = ' . t.' , 4k. )71.1.---. [M,.. -. .. iMa ,, . 'D L• "1" Mgt'IISI, merwromme& g. , 3.141w 1 •„,., • • 2, , /10,' i _= 1- •,..,,..--i ,-',!:i ', •§ • • .-.C.4 • .E-....., _ — - 1 _ ---t. 3:,, D 4, \ t _,I it.-1, - . • • r tt \ 1 11 ! :in• t 4- 1 .I. •,-- . r _ 4. , • x 3 t'75 iv_i .,4 __' 1 4 14: — — , • .1.F.3.5 ,..' ' i F 5.' a e • 1 i 4' • • 4 - C - - - - 6: ... .... .. I - - a -- — : ' -It '„FisszemPor. '..mt.'ilii . . . 5 Il RAIIII5 T • ‘...11- 3 i • .., - 1 ., /7„."0.7,z,hp , i / •.,,. .w..&/... . /A.."1: ,.., \ — ;. 3 zi__, . • .. . .• • ' ft 5 . . ist... i - i -- ' ' ' '-e .. , •. .. ' ... . , -\--A, i -...... .' ,,, .• ' § I-'-- --- . I 7 g,-.: \ox • .'' ",,;.' IA.: \'''" _.-•- ,4-V ....- : A ,i•- i .. 1 . '.. " / .•::° i -4- \ . .- „.:-.,, • X z F - -\-5, , -- ---- ..- .--- ---- .--. ‘'.`: !!'-' 5.,j ; -n.- - 'ii Y .-- - „-s Er_ li ?1,„ -----ir .,„ tg " • _ .._,.. -A.,.....-0--- o•k\,,is u; 40 I ..,, 1 ------ /1° - 0 55 -, , ,., _ -.-........ - •_- -- --- -... ... ,00 , _,_ 5 ,, ...- • f _ -,,__----_ ..._-- ,--- ----- --------,,,_-,-- W'`x,,,:: '1• '' •O - • i —_ .."'' 'ICIII.LVIIWAIII, et ^0 v i, 1 .....: .ti..! •••/•'•--•dY:z 9 \ Ns\ \ \ • FEB 2 4 2003 ALISON WEYHER S r A' J°° I G®RP ©T)e II ON ' 151 - es. ..mgaem ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Rocky Fluhart,Chiefm A istratrve Officer, DATE: February 20, 2003 FROM: FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition#400-03-03: A request by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Prescott Muir)to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating a zoning overlay district(text amendment)that increases the maximum allowable building height from 65 to 85 feet in the M-1 zoning district and applying the zoning overlay district(map amendment)to property located between 5200 West and 5500 West,between 1730 South and 2100 South. STAFF CONTACT: Ray McCandless,Principal Planner 535-7282 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: The Newspaper Agency Corporation(NAC)will be publishing both the Deseret News and Tribune newspapers for morning distribution.To accommodate the • new delivery schedule,they are purchasing a new printing press and are looking at locating it in the vacant Gateway computer building located at 5420 West 2100 South. The printing press, which is 65 feet high,requires that a new addition be built on the west side of the existing building. The new addition needs to be between 80 and 85 feet high to allow for the height of the press and workspace above it. On January 22, 2002, Prescott Muir of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated Petition 400-03-03 requesting that the Planning staff look at options to accommodate taller buildings in the M-1 zoning district. In 1995,as part of the City's Zoning Rewrite Project,the maximum allowable building height for the Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district was set at 65 feet. Prior to 1995,the M-1 zoning district allowed 80 feet of building height. Since 1995,it has become apparent that there needs to be a location for specialized industrial buildings that exceed the 65 foot building height. The Planning Division will continue to evaluate appropriate locations for taller buildings in other M-1 zoned areas.This petition will initiate this direction. Staff is recommending that an overlay district be created which simply allows taller buildings within a defined area. The proposed overlay district is located between 5200 West and 5500 West,between 1730 South and 2100 South. The advantage of creating an overlay district vs. increasing the height limit in the M-1 zone is to provide better control over where the taller industrial buildings are located. The overlay district is near two major arterial streets,the adjoining CG zoning on the east side of 5600 West allows buildings to be 90 feet high as a conditional use, and the overlay district can be expanded if needed in the future. • 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535-6005 n ��� RECYCLED PAPER In order create an overlay district,the Zoning Ordinance must be amended (Zoning Ordinance text amendment) and the overlay district must be applied to the property (zoning map amendment). On February 12,2003,the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and recommended approval of the Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment as outlined in the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission determined that the proposed Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are appropriate based on the findings of fact as stated in the Planning Commission meeting minutes of February 12, 2003 (attached). Public Process: Attached is a letter from the West Salt Lake Community Council Executive Committee dated January 28,2003 supporting the proposed map amendment and zoning text change. Notices were sent to all property owners of record affected by the proposed overlay district, and to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the overlay district as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Chairperson for the West Salt Lake Community Council was notified of the Planning Commission public hearing and the property was posted with signs. Section 21A.10 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the legislative body hold advertised public hearings prior to amendments to the zoning ordinance or zoning map. A draft notice has been provided in this transmittal packet. Relevant Ordinances: Zoning Text Amendment: S.L.C. Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A.10, General • Application and Public Hearing Procedures and Section 21A.34 Overlay Districts. Zoning Amendment: S.L.C. Zoning Ordinance, Section 21A 10, General Application and Public Hearing Procedures and Section 21 A.50.50. Standards for General Amendments. • TABLE OF CONTENTS • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Ordinance and Property Description 1) Zoning Text Amendment 2) Zoning Map Amendment 3. Planning Commission Agenda 4. Staff Report for Planning Commission and Related Exhibits 5. Planning Commission Minutes (Draft) 6. Notice of City Council Public Hearing A. Newspaper Publication Draft • B. Notice of City Council Hearing C. Mailing List and Labels 7. Planning Commission Public Hearing Notices 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • January 22,2003 Petition 400-03-03 Initiated by the Planning Commission • January 27,2003 Petition Assigned • January 28,2003 West Salt Lake Community Council Meeting • January 28,2003 Planning Commission Notices Mailed • January 30,2003 City Departmental Comments Requested • February 7,2003 Planning Commission Staff Report Completed and Mailed to Planning Commissioners • February 10,2003 Ordinance Requested From Attorney's Office • February 12,2003 Planning Commission I fearing • February 13,2003 City Council Transmittal Preparation • Februar\ 13,2003 Transmittal Packet Completed (Ordinances and Minutes will be Forwarded Separately) • February 13,2003 Transmittal Packet Forwarded for Deputy Planning Director Review • February 18,2002 Transmittal Packet Forwarded for Planning Director Review • • 2. ORDINANCE AND PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 0 (Creating a Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District) AN ORDINANCE CREATING A LIGHT MANUFACTURING HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-03. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains provisions concerning light manufacturing zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the current height limitation in the light manufacturing zoning districts is 65 feet; and WHEREAS, after public hearings held before the Planning Commission and before the City Council,the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following amendment to the City's light manufacturing zoning districts is in the best interest of the 41111 City; NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Zoning Amendment. Section 21A.34.100 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.34.100 M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District: A. Purpose: The purpose of the M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District is to provide a location for specialized industrial buildings with a need to exceed the maximum allowable building height in the Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district. 1. Overlay District Boundary Description. Between 1730 South and 2100 South and 5200 West and 5500 West Streets, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PRATEZK INDUSTRIAL PARK PLAT I,PART OF THE SOUTHWEST O QUARTER OF SECTION 13, T1S, R2W, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE S 89°52'14"W 231.07 FEET TO A POINT OF • CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS N 00°07'46"W); THENCE WESTERLY 513.29 FEET ALONG A 5692.07 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE N 84°22'13"W 438.08 FEET; THENCE N 78°52'46" W 65.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS N 11°07'14" E); THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 835.44 FEET ALONG A 607.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE N 00°01'16" W 1570.24 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS N 89°58'44"E); THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 41.58 FEET ALONG A 26.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE N 89°52'07" E 804.02 FEET; THENCE N 89°52'14" E 105.00 FEET; THENCE N 89°52'21"E 810.98 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS S 00°07'39"E); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 41.67 FEET ALONG A 26.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE S 00°01'22" E 2206.47 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS S 89°58'38"W); THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 62.76 FEET ALONG A 40.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 2. Maximum Building Height: The maximum allowable building height in the M-1H Overlay district shall be 85 feet. SECTION 2. Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map shall be and hereby is amended consistent with the zoning amendment discussed above. 1110 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER S 2 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) z -Ze3.—n3 Bill No. of 2003. �. Published: • • G:\Ordinance 03\Creating a Light Mfg Height Overlay Dist-Clean-Feb 19,2003.doc 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 0 (Creating a Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District) AN ORDINANCE CREATING A LIGHT MANUFACTURING HEIGHT OVERLAY DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-03-03. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Zoning Code contains provisions concerning light manufacturing zoning districts; and WHEREAS, the current height limitation in the light manufacturing zoning districts is 65 feet; and WHEREAS, after public hearings held before the Planning Commission and before the City Council, the Salt Lake City Council has determined that the following amendment to the City's light manufacturing zoning districts is in the best interest of the IICity; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Zoning Amendment. Section 21A.34.100 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: 21A.34.100 M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District: A. Purpose: The purpose of the M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District is to provide a location for specialized industrial buildings with a need to exceed the maximum allowable building height in the Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district. 1. Overlay District Boundary Description. Between 1730 South and 2100 South and 5200 West and 5500 West Streets, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PRATEZK INDUSTRIAL PARK PLAT 1, PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 4110 QUAR 1`ER OF SECTION 13, T1 S, R2W, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN;THENCE S 89°52'14"W 231.07 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS N 00°07'46"W); THENCE WESTERLY 513.29 FEET ALONG A 5692.07 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE N 84°22'13" W 438.08 FEET; THENCE N 78°52'46" W 65.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS N • 11°07'14"E); THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 835.44 FEET ALONG A 607.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE N 00°01'16"W 1570.24 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS N 89°58'44"E); THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 41.58 FEET ALONG A 26.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE N 89°52'07"E 804.02 FEET; THENCE N 89°52'14"E 105.00 FEET; THENCE N 89°52'21"E 810.98 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS S 00°07'39"E); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 41.67 FEET ALONG A 26.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE S 00°01'22" E 2206.47 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE, (RADIUS BEARS S 89°58'38" W); THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 62.76 FEET ALONG A 40.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 2. Maximum Building Height: The maximum allowable building height in the M-1H Overlay district shall be 85 feet. SECTION 2. Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map shall be and hereby is amended consistent with the zoning amendment discussed above. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of ,2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER S 2 Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. ROSS C. ANDERSON MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: • • • G:\Ordinance 03\Creating a Light Mfg Height Overlay Dist-Feb 19,2003.doc 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED M-1H ZONING DISTRICT 1111 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PRATEZK INDUSTRIAL PARK PLAT 1,PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13,TIS,R2W, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN;THENCE S 89°52'14"W 231.07 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE,(RADIUS BEARS N 00°07'46"W);THENCE WESTERLY 513.29 FEET ALONG A 5692.07 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO TILE RIGHT;THENCE N 84°22'I3"W 438.08 FEET;THENCE N 78°52'46"W 65.00 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE,(RADIUS BEARS N I1°07'14"E);THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 835.44 FEET ALONG A 607.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE N 00°01'16"W 1570.24 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE,(RADIUS BEARS N 89°58'44"E);THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 41.58 FEET ALONG A 26.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE N 89°52'07"E 804.02 FEET;THENCE N 89°52'14"E 105.00 FEET;THENCE N 89°52'21"E 810.98 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE,(RADIUS BEARS S 00°07'39"E); THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 41.67 FEET ALONG A 26.50 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE S 00°01'22"E 2206.47 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE,(RADIUS BEARS S 89°58'38"W);THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 62.76 FEET ALONG A 40.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Atct o � S i 0 4. STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND RELATED EXHIBITS SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION • STAFF REPORT Petition 400-03-03 February 12, 2003 REQUEST Petition #400-03-03, by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Prescott Muir) to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating a zoning overlay district (text amendment) that increases the maximum allowable building height from 65 to 85 feet in the M-1 zoning district and applying the zoning overlay district (map amendment) to property located between 5200 West and 5500 West, between 1730 South and 2100 South. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL REVIEW si Attached is a letter from the West Salt Lake o . . . . C mmumty Council Executive Committee datf:d January 28, 2003 supporting the proposed map amendment and zoning text change. ,.' T a f4 1 a-rn"5,4 -. .v- v; 4: 's -:!: Tam. --r ''}` '-A z {� . _ . �'.,,g Vf; ems . �s .d c° ra„ , _ a iz �` t _,T, : _ :-:,: „„,;:,,,,,"- '.ma's .--' .- ; ` " ^sue xs - i - £ 7- 1--, y tei Al_ a,, r� '� f - " , as 'p f=Ift z<. z s; ,--.1 .--,7.it_„.„,: ::-Nr1,_4,7,"' ,-- ,,,„1.,„-,',,:f,Y A- -z.-,..:-.7_,,,.=-.'.=-- ,--,--, f,k-c‘ ATV--..'i',,--‘---:ski_ ;4_,_- •-.,.,.. ...„4:,-*•-_„ ..1__ _1_ _,:::„,,,,,,,St - li 4 "s ,a�-1 f l - _ro i i�[ i- 4 £"44,z V-ir �`� f.:-:,,KX-r-,, ,t,'-z„,. .,',5-74:-. .,, ,--7JT„i„.__,---,-;_.'', ' --,.`1A- 4..;2'12.!.'W ,Ci•Vr"..- -7,Z4 •t.W.t.,--";'-----',--- -',',',: 1-',",:::,_:,."•- i'a ..tom }e"� 1 1-ra: k i, : j- V .l.r1' :,,•:r1!.,‘i,-r,i--,,,„" wig `� • .._, - .s:3 _ r! �- "-mas : 51: „a Y�. . . , _ '�" �F3 '14 �'v` f 4 a''y _•w'�%" F ems:-=13� �„�` -ems. �-:"' F .f"i 4.: 110 Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 1 BACKGROUND • Property Owner Names: Owners: 14-13-302-001 Industrial Developments 14-13-326-003 I&G Direct Real Estate 14-13-326-004 Teacher's Insurance 14-13-351-001 Gateway 14-13-376-003 Industrial Developers Applicant: Salt Lake City Planning Commission (Prescott Muir) Purpose of proposal or proposed site changes: Allowance for an increase in building height in the Light Manufacturing(M-1) zoning district. Affected Parcel Number(s): 14-13-302-001 14-13-326-003 14-13-326-004 14-13-351-001 14-13-376-003 Previous Case Files: Not applicable Existing Land Use on40 subject property: Industrial /Vacant Industrial Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts on subject property: Light Manufacturing "M-1" Airport Influence Zone B Existing Master Plan Land Use Designation: N/A -The Master Plan has not been adopted for this area to date. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES On January 22, 2002, Mr. Prescott Muir of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission initiated- Petition 400-03-03 requesting that the Planning Staff look at options to accommodate taller buildings in the M-1 zoning district. The zoning in this area is generally Light Manufacturing "M-1" with the exception of a strip of General Commercial "CG" zoning that extends from Interstate 80, south to 2100 Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 2 South along the east side of 5600 West Street. The "CG" zoning also extends west of 5600 West, between 700 South and the railroad main line tracks. In 1995 as part of the City's Zoning Rewrite Project, the maximum allowable building height for the Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district was set at 65 feet. Prior to 1995, the M-1 zoning district allowed 80 feet of building height. Since 1995, it has become apparent there needs to be a location for specialized industrial buildings with a need to exceed that building height. The Planning Division will continue to evaluate appropriate locations for taller buildings in other M-1 zoned areas. This petition will initiate this direction. The Newspaper Agency Corporation (NAC) will be publishing both the Deseret News and Tribune newspapers for morning distribution. To accommodate the new delivery schedule, they are purchasing a new printing press and are looking at locating it in the vacant Gateway computer building located at 5420 West 2100 South. The printing press which is 65 feet high requires that a new addition be built on the west side of the existing building. The new addition needs to be between 80 and 85 feet high to allow for the height of the press and work space above it. Given the urgency of this development, Staff is recommending that an overlay district be created which simply allows taller buildings within a defined area. The area being recommended is located between 5200 West and 5500 West, between 1730 South and 2100 South as shown on the aerial photograph above. In order to do this, the Zoning Ordinance must be amended creating the overlay district (Zoning Ordinance text amendment) and the overlay district must be applied to the property (zoning map amendment). The Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the Ordinance amendment will be forwarded to the City Council for final decision. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT In considering amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendment, the Planning Commission will need to address the following standards: 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: In the 1980's, a draft of the Northwest Quadrant master plan was prepared but was never adopted. It identified the land use for the area between the Bangerter Highway (4000 West) and 5600 West as a "light industrial and commercial region". The proposed overlay district will not alter the existing land use for the area. Findings: Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area, the proposed overlay district is consistent with other existing land uses in the area. Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 3 B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. • Discussion: Along the east side of 5600 West,just east of this area is a General Commercial "CG" corridor that extends north and south between Interstate 80 and 2100 South. The intent of this zoning corridor was to create a commercial appearance along the 5600 West street frontage that would provide a buffer along this principal arterial street from the heavier industrial uses further to the east. In 1995, the City's Zoning Rewrite Project formalized the strip of commercial zoning along 5600 West Street. The "CG" zoning district allows buildings to be constructed to 90 feet as a conditional use. The proposed building height of 85 feet in the proposed overlay district is consistent with the height conditionally allowed by the adjoining zoning district and with the overall character of existing development in the area. Findings: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: This property is located at the intersection of Highway 201 and 5600 West Street which are both major arterial streets. This intersection is the Southwest "gateway" to Salt Lake City and as such, it would make sense to allow IP taller buildings for greater visibility from the highway. In the future, taller buildings could extend eastward along Highway 201. Creating an overlay district would also help to satisfy the City's desire to retain current and historically significant Salt Lake City businesses as an economic development strategy. As the adjoining uses are or will likely be industrial in the future, the proposed overlay district will not adversely affect adjacent properties. Findings: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: The City has implemented other overlay districts for specific needs in the area. There is a landfill overlay district and a transitional area for landfill related uses northwest of this property. The property is located in the Airport Influence Zone B which regulates the height of buildings and structures. At this location, according to the Airport Authority, increasing the maximum allowable building height to 85 feet is not a concern to Airport operations. Petitions 400-03-03 0 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 4 Findings: The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the airport overlay district. E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: Any new buildings or building additions in the overlay district will be reviewed by applicable City departments. The proposed overlay district will not change that requirement. The overlay district will be located in an existing industrial park with existing utility infrastructure. Comments from the relevant City departments are as follows: Transportation: The Transportation division sees no impact to the transportation system and has no objections. 5500 West and 2100 South Streets are collector roadways and will accommodate any traffic increase from the proposed development. Public Utilities: Salt Lake City Public Utilities has no objection to building addition or the height of the building. However, they do have interest in the quantity of water, and the quality and • characteristics of the sewage, generated from this change of use. These issues can be addressed when plans are submitted for review. Airport: The following comments apply to this specific development site. 1. The site is just west (outside)of the part 77 approach surfaces to Runway 16R 34L. 2. The site is in Salt Lake City's Airport Influence Overlay Zone B that requires an avigation easement to be filed. 3. The FAA does not require a notice of proposed construction to be submitted for structures under a slope of 1 to 100 feet from the runway end_ The proposed development site is approximately 19,000 feet from the south end of Runway 16R 34L. The proposed 80 foot building is well under this slope and the FAA's Notice of Proposed Construction, form 7460-1,is not required in this case. Fire: The Fire Department would approve this proposal with the following conditions. Buildings with the highest floor of human occupancy over 75 feet are by definition, High Rise Buildings. This requires additional fire protection, access and water supply requirements. Any developer, proposing such a facility would need to meet with the Fire Department on a preliminary basis to determine how Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 5 such requirements would be met. It would be beneficial for developers to meet with the Fire Department for any other large scale projects, such as the project the Newspaper Agency is considering. 4110 Engineering: The Gateway Computer building is located within the Pratezk Plat 3 Subdivision. On the subdivision plat the following note is listed under "Notice to Purchasers": "A Declaration of Protective Covenants and Developmental Guidelines has been recorded against this property. The covenants and guidelines govern the development of the property and provide for the maintenance of common areas an Association which is funded by the property owners. A stipulation of these Protective Covenants prohibits parking on public roadways." The Newspaper Agency should review, understand and agree to the Protective Covenants and Developmental Guidelines prior to purchasing the property. It is my understanding that certain responsibilities pertaining to providing power to street lights and maintenance of street lights along the frontage of the property are defined in the covenants. Engineering has no objection to the proposed zoning overlay district. Police Department: The Police Department does not have any concerns with this request. Finding: Public facilities are adequate for the proposed overlay district. 411/ Given the discussion and findings above, Staff recommends revising Section 21A.34 Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 21A.34.100 M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District: A. Purpose: The purpose of the M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District is to provide a location for specialized industrial buildings with a need to exceed the maximum allowable building height in the Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district. 1. Overlay District Boundary Description . Between 1730 South and 2100 South and 5200 West and 5500 West Streets. (Legal Description to Follow) 2. Maximum Building Height: The maximum allowable building height in the M-1H Overlay district shall be 85 feet. Recommendation: Based on the findings contained in this Report, Staff Recommends the following: Petitions 400-03-03 • By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 6 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Amending Section 21A.34 Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 21A.34.100 M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District as discussed in this Report. 2. Zoning Map Amendment: Implementation of the M-1H Overlay District on property located between 5300 West and 5500 West and between 1730 South and 2100 South Streets. Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 7 • • Exhibit 1 Community Council Letter • Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 8 January 28, 2003 Alison Weyher Planning Commission 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Ms. Weyher, It has come to our attention that The Newspaper Agency intends to use a facility at approximately 4800 West and 2100 South to print the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News. We understand that they want to print both newspapers for morning delivery. In order to do this,we understand that they must increase the height of the building twenty feet beyond the limits set for an M2 zone(85 feet rather than 65 feet)to accommodate the presses. We encourage you to allow this exception. While we cannot speak for the community as a whole, as the Executive Committee of the West Salt Lake Community Council, we feel it is in the best interest of our area to support the new facility, including the increased height of the building. Historically, businesses in that part of our community council area have been approved by our community council. We feel confident that the people will welcome the Newspaper Agency as well. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. 11111 Sincerely, West Salt Lake Community Council Executive Committee Erin Willson, Chair Janette Gonzales, 1st Vice Chair Jesse Draper, 2"d Vice Chair Terry Ingersoll, Secretary/Treasurer Exhibit 2 Aerial Photograph! Zone Map • Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 9 , --_,----'....-....--F-=! :,.4 rt, • 12-',14',-.,:.*--_rf,a,;,. 4,5,"etry, ,':::::::;,',::;;': ..t.‘,-;'../,',:.:,-1 ,..:4.1.,,,--..,., "''._,-,,,,,' :„ , 1 t „ e; ,:'`:';:w!-.,,•'.:-'7,''.,,7'1'.7.'*v'--''':,-.'''-'•-.::...,'i'..',,v.''7'2,'.',,.:-.'L,,-r',''''.-'::,:-.4''4:,:!'.'-i''.--:;!-:„!-s':,L4,1:.'Z--:,;-.-I1'-vP''.0..-:--',-,;: .,a1k'4::-,.z.-.5r,15--i.:, # - t N * 4aH F -i'f 2 : ev .ft i1,,, ttF.se ,'t . ' (� .A, z,. ' z�., 44 , z " ," :t' re'3 ,r K g s + ,.4 ,.. sty. .e i i t 4-,,, .-4,%.-,:frwt,-... .•..-..•17.-1 .-•-,1-.,',:i•-"".'----:-'",'''.:7'7-.!7: -.• &-.r..-:‘v,,,,,,,,-;'::',;';:;-.-•,--.' '!'..?t.r, ji j...e.'''':'''',, ', ':-.'i'' z i r� ' r f h 1 s tii �;I Niit E .4 d` Y lc .st' 1 4,u itF :; N i I `.- Yt 4h'U 4k r'.. s t .1i } ♦ L F'} r t k IiIi}s_ y� S sea ! X3 L c ;ems :0 - t s} x .may,+ s F.,„ x t An:. z- Vi c, 1 ,� „� 47 i!r: . s X3 aka :i' r' d' €' . n' - '. �w ',$ti u• `ter -. ,. }} L__ a, i _ At _1__ T_i__J_ i .- 1 i i ii I 1 ; 1 i 1 r--i- i.1 N 7 ,i - 'Ii 1 IFI Li I j _ . L___ 1 i_7_-- - - — --- - - - 1 ki rig 11 CG - -- -_-_,-,--- ----' i I \\_____ i 1 \_ , „,,,-_,--, „X-- __L-3----------:------ t ii 1 '1-4 tittAtai-Ratitvii, .- It 1 !___ _ _ t......,14....1,,,..- - [",.., M 11111 1,":-OPT-;-, ILJ_-_ 11:--- ; -- -1 1 r----- 1F=.-1-1-- I II I i . I I I II I I II , PROPOSED M-1H OVERLAY DISTRICT I. 1 ii PI pj F _ . 1 c,-.------ .....,.. • • 0 Exhibit 3 Site plan 0 Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 10 -"N--- 4110 -- -- II - I___. I0 .-- • • OM aM x a� OM , a�A ', 1 .it '.. • . II ...., i:!.. tl 4 r P 1111111111111111=11111N :8 ■�■�■®1� 1111■ B e - „ ■ ■®■®■ ® �■ II■ u I I. :M��L�1ii'leiiir•,i a • ' ws �ubLu�I uu� bu u'`�� 1 simall _ a� ! , I E ?plc, .. i i 1: .__....... 4 a - - f i f,a.1 ei:-:' . — / i, : I • -j-, I 1 $ i-- --: T: 4e-‘4:Fl- ., 2 : 1 : i A D a ` m �, r 1 � i s 3� A _ I' / 1 I I� �( �pI. ! - VI 1 t P. • L: — p. a �:1`+1e IN 4_ _ � fti " i;i �.� 1 ,. xb b 3 3 if, si #as °n — x — — I j x i _ i w 7 $$ 9 I I V , 4 II aS & & i M . d y 0 I. - oe.< �i_ �i� _JI', -_LLL♦ _ Illeee-_ 1 1 - ° ale 1i �• Il l (----- (--'—/IC-1_ir --, I�x Il.ii •.t. i,jailllillaie ;0..IMMIIMM.4.1=1.11111.11M.24,51 el ° °Will" *: i Ili hi eui ■®. Erni. . N ji40iii �' -, _M ___ Y ill .---,wil 1 , ._ 1 I il-- : : : ti , -: 'lir -g: ill' 1 4 -.—" : ' — : ' : ";:ill. ,;/' ' . •3. AL s I �%�,ice�%� !� ����r���%�'AA Ar %�� f�� �$/ //� ---- li n� �° iiMiiiiiiIiiiW in g 8.: !, �.: u111111.1111111101MEMEMEINIIII 1. 3 IF' 7.. :/ T ' a/ ;i --,.--- .--.. 1 *.not , _____ "�? 8 0 -- i „ ' °An_ a \ v QR� • \ \ \. \ • • • Exhibit 3 Departmental Comment Letters • Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 11 McCandless, Ray From: McCandless,Allen Sent: Tuesday,January 28, 2003 2:03 PM To: McCandless, Ray .Cc: Domino, Steve Subject: Ninigfet Industrial Park-Airport Approach surfaces. I?ra4 e zk Categories: Program/Policy Ray, You asked if there are any height issues regarding a proposed 80 foot high building to be located in the Ninigret Industrial Park at 5420 West 2100 South in Salt Lake City. I reviewed the Airport Layout Plan's approach surfaces for the Salt Lake City International Airport. The following comments apply to this specific development site. 1. The site is just west (outside) of the part 77 approach surfaces to Runway 16R 34L. 2. The site is in Salt Lake City's Airport Influence Overlay Zone B that requires an avigation easement to be filed. 3. The FAA does not require a notice of proposed construction to be submitted for structures under a slope of 1 to 100 feet from the runway end. The proposed development site is approximately 19,000 feet from the south end of Runway 16R 34L. The proposed 80 foot building is well under this slope and the FAA's Notice of Proposed Construction, form 7460-1, is not required in this case. Call me if you have additional questions. -Allen McCandless I 1 ( USPeitrnTt17 ok.] McCandless, Ray From: Walsh, Barry Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:28 PM • To: McCandless, Ray Cc: Stewart, Brad; Larson, Bradley; Weiler, Scott Subject: RE: NAC Categories: Program/Policy January 30,2003 Re: Newspaper Agency conversion of the Gateway Computer building located at 5420 West 2100 South. Hi Ray If I understand this revision the only change would be for the height restriction from 65 feet to 85 feet. I see no real impact to the transportation system with that issue, and would have no objections. I would want response addressing the Avigation issue and any needed modification. As for the conversion of the existing facility for a building addition I see no objections to the concept in that 5500 West and 2100 South are collector roadways and should accommodate the minor traffic increase presented. Final Approval is subject to plan review in compliance with city permit standards. If you have any questions or need further response please feel free to call me at 535-6630. Sincerely, Barry Walsh Original Message From: McCandless, Ray Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:32 PM To: Walsh, Barry; Stewart, Brad; Larson, Bradley; Weiler, Scott Subject: NAC The Newspaper Agency is considering purchasing the Gateway Computer building located at 5420 West 2100 South. They are considering doing an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate a new printing press which will be 80 to 85 feet high. The property is zoned M-1 which currently does not allow buildings over 65 feet. We are considering creating a new zoning overlay district that would allow buildings to be constructed to 85 feet in the M-1 zone(zoning ordinance text amendment)and applying the overlay district (zoning map amendment)on the property between 1730 South and 2100 South, between 5200 West and 5500 West. See the attached aerial photo. The building plans will be submitted for review at a later date. What I am after is a response from your department indicating whether utilities are adequate to serve the area. • If you do not have any concerns, I would appreciate an e-mail so that we can satisfy ordinance 2/4/2003 Page 1 of 2 Es&) eLceiLl Ray From: Weiler, Scott • Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:26 PM To: McCandless, Ray Cc: Harrison, Joel; Haight, Gordon; Walsh, Barry; Stewart, Brad Subject: RE: NAC Categories: Program/Policy Ray, The Gateway Computer building is located within the Pratezk Plat 3 Subdivision. On the subdivision plat the following note is listed under"Notice to Purchasers": "A Declaration of Protective Covenants and Developmental Guidelines has been recorded against this property. The covenants and guidelines govern the development of the property and provide for the maintenance of common areas an Association which is funded by the property owners. A stipulation of these Protective Covenants prohibits parking on public roadways." The Newspaper Agency should review, understand and agree to the Protective Covenants and Developmental Guidelines prior to purchasing the property. It is my understanding that certain responsibilities pertaining to providing power to street lights and maintenance of street lights along the frontage of the property are defined in the covenants. Engineering has no objection to the proposed zoning overlay district. • Scott Original Message From: McCandless, Ray Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:32 PM To: Walsh, Barry; Stewart, Brad; Larson, Bradley; Weiler, Scott Subject: NAC The Newspaper Agency is considering purchasing the Gateway Computer building located at 5420 West 2100 South.They are considering doing an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate a new printing press which will be 80 to 85 feet high. The property is zoned M-1 which currently does not allow buildings over 65 feet. We are considering creating a new zoning overlay district that would allow buildings to be constructed to 85 feet in the M-1 zone(zoning ordinance text amendment)and applying the overlay district (zoning map amendment)on the property between 1730 South and 2100 South, between 5200 West and 5500 West. See the attached aerial photo. The building plans will be submitted for review at a later date. What I am after is a response from your department indicating whether utilities are adequate to serve the area. 110 If you do not have any concerns, I would appreciate an e-mail so that we can satisfy ordinance requirements. I need a response by Tuesday February 4, 2003 if at all possible so that I can include them in our staff report which goes out next week. 2/4/2003 lv.i GJJQE,G Ere,t.(c_ Uttl t.CT-1GS , McCandless, Ray From: Stewart, Brad Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 2:32 PM To: McCandless, Ray;Walsh, Barry; Larson, Bradley;Weiler, Scott • Cc: Garcia, Peggy; Cowles,Vicki Subject: RE: NAC Categories: Program/Policy Ray, {- Salt Lake Public Utilities has no objection to building addition or the height of the building. However, we do have interest in the quantity of water, and the quality and characteristics of the sewage, generated from this change of use. These issues can be addressed when plans are submitted for review. Thank you, Brad Original Message From: McCandless, Ray Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:32 PM To: Walsh, Barry; Stewart, Brad; Larson, Bradley; Weiler, Scott Subject: NAC The Newspaper Agency is considering purchasing the Gateway Computer building located at 5420 • West 2100 South. They are considering doing an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate a new printing press which will be 80 to 85 feet high.The property is zoned M-1 which currently does not allow buildings over 65 feet. We are considering creating a new zoning overlay district that would allow buildings to be constructed to 85 feet in the M-1 zone(zoning ordinance text amendment)and applying the overlay district (zoning map amendment)on the property between 1730 South and 2100 South, between 5200 West and 5500 West. See the attached aerial photo. The building plans will be submitted for review at a later date. What I am after is a response from your department indicating whether utilities are adequate to serve the area. If you do not have any concerns, I would appreciate an e-mail so that we can satisfy ordinance requirements. I need a response by Tuesday February 4,2003 if at all possible so that I can include them in our staff report which goes out next week. Sorry about the short notice. This issue has an extremely short timeline. Thanks 40 2/4/2003 T rage i of 1 SIRE 1.�EpAtT14t'W{" McCandless, Ray From: Larson, Bradley • Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:55 AM To: McCandless, Ray Subject: RE: NAC Ray, The Fire Department would approve this proposal with the following conditions. Buildings with the highest floor of human occupancy over 75 feet are by definition, High Rise Buildings. This requires additional fire protection, access and water supply requirements. Any developer, proposing such a facility would need to meet with the Fire Department on a preliminary basis to determine how such requirements would be met. It would be beneficial for developers to meet with the Fire Department for any other large scale projects, such as the project the Newspaper Agency is considering. V Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions or need further assistance. Thank You, Brad Larson Deputy Fire Marshal Original Message From: McCandless, Ray Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 13:32 To: Walsh, Barry; Stewart, Brad; Larson, Bradley; Weiler, Scott • Subject: NAC The Newspaper Agency is considering purchasing the Gateway Computer building located at 5420 West 2100 South. They are considering doing an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate a new printing press which will be 80 to 85 feet high. The property is zoned M-1 which currently does not allow buildings over 65 feet. We are considering creating a new zoning overlay district that would allow buildings to be constructed to 85 feet in the M-1 zone(zoning ordinance text amendment) and applying the overlay district (zoning map amendment)on the property between 1730 South and 2100 South, between 5200 West and 5500 West. See the attached aerial photo. The building plans will be submitted for review at a later date. What I am after is a response from your department indicating whether utilities are adequate to serve the area. If you do not have any concerns, I would appreciate an e-mail so that we can satisfy ordinance requirements. I need a response by Tuesday February 4, 2003 if at all possible so that I can include them in our staff report which goes out next week. Sorry about the short notice. This issue has an extremely short timeline. IPThanks 2/5/2003 Potc15cpr. McCandless, Ray From: Orgill,Alicia Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:03 PM To: McCandless, Ray 1111 Cc: Smith,Zane; Tuttle, Michael; Hamideh, Mike Subject: RE: 5420 W 2100 S Zoning Amendment Categories: Program/Policy Ray: Due to the short turn around time for my response on this project I will be without the benefit of input on this subject from the Pioneer Investigative Unit,.whose investigations of crime on the Westside. Most recently know they have been investigating numerous calls on cargo and truck thefts in this industrial area. I believe one of reasons for some of this crime, is due to the isolation created by the daytime work hours addopted by many of these businesses, thus having legitimate traffic twenty four hours a day which I believe The Newspaper Agency could generate would be of benefit in providing more surveillance in that part of town which L we speculate could translate in lowering some of the crime related to industrial business parks. I look forward in in reviewing the building plans when they are submitted at a later date. If you have further question on the response please let me know. Original Message From: McCandless, Ray Sent:Tuesday, February 04, 2003 9:28 AM To: Orgill, Alicia Subject: • Alicia The Newspaper Agency is considering purchasing the Gateway Computer building located at 5420 West 2100 South.They are considering doing an addition to the west side of the building to accommodate a new printing press which will be 80 to 85 feet high. The property is zoned M-1 which currently does not allow buildings over 65 feet. We are considering creating a new zoning overlay district that would allow buildings to be constructed to 85 feet in the M-1 zone(zoning ordinance text amendment)and applying the overlay district (zoning map amendment)on the property between 1730 South and 2100 South, between 5200 West and 5500 West. See the attached aerial photo. The building plans will be submitted for review at a later date. What I am after is a response from your department indicating whether utilities are adequate to serve the area. If you do not have any concerns, I would appreciate an e-mail so that we can satisfy ordinance requirements. I need a response today or tomorrow if at all possible so that I can include them in our staff report. Sorry about the short notice. This issue has an extremely short timeline. Thanks • 2/6/2003 • Exhibit 4 Other • Petitions 400-03-03 By Salt Lake City Planning Division February 12,2003 12 Proposed Ordinance Language 21A.34.100 M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District: A. Purpose: The purpose of the M-1H Light Manufacturing Height Overlay District is to provide a location for specialized industrial buildings with a need to exceed the maximum allowable building height in the Light Manufacturing M-1 zoning district. 1. Overlay District Boundary Description . Between 1730 South and 2100 South and 5200 West and 5500 West Streets. (Legal Description to Follow) 2. Maximum Building Height: The maximum allowable building height in the M-IH Overlay district shall be 85 feet. • • 5. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (DRAFT) Petition No.400-03-03,by the Salt Lake City Planning Commission(Prescott Muir)to • amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance by creating a zoning overlay district(text amendment)that increases the maximum allowable building height from 65 to 85 feet in the M-1 zoning district and applying the zoning overlay district(map amendment)to property located between 5200 West and 5500 West,between 1730 South and 2100 South. Mr.Muir stated that he was approached by the City Council on the importance of this issue and took the initiative to start this petition. He was subsequently contacted by one of the parties, which now makes it necessary for him to recuse himself from this matter. Mr. Muir left the room. Planner Ray McCandless presented the staff report and stated that in January 2003 the Planning Commission initiated a petition to look at accommodating taller buildings in the M-1 Zoning District. The M-1 Zoning District currently allows buildings to be constructed to a maximum height of 65 feet,but the need to increase that height became apparent in order to accommodate industrial buildings with special height needs. Mr. McCandless explained that the Newspaper Agency Corporation will publish both the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune for morning distribution and plans to purchase a new printing press to accommodate the new • distribution schedule. The Newspaper Agency Corporation will need a building that is between 80 and 85 feet high as the press is 65 feet high,and they need additional space above that for work crew access. The Newspaper Agency Corporation is hoping to occupy the vacant Gateway Computers building and would like to put an addition on the west side of the building to house the new press. Mr.McCandless noted that the building is located near the intersection of 2100 South and 5600 West,both of which are major arterial streets. The area is considered the southwest gateway to the City and has high visibility. The City needs a place where tall buildings can be accommodated,and Mr.McCandless indicated on the zoning map that this area would be a good location for taller buildings. In response to a question regarding the airport,Mr.McCandless explained that the height increase would not be an issue for the Airport. He explained that,rather than increasing overall height in the M-1 District to 85 feet,the Staff felt it would be best to create an overlay district for application to a specific area. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to create the zoning overlay district and amend the zoning map to apply the district to the proposed location. Chair Jonas asked how the Staff determined the size of the overlay district. Mr.McCandless • replied that it follows existing street patterns,and there was no reason to go beyond that. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting 1 February 12,2003 Wheelwright explained that one selection criterion was to make the overlay district larger than just one specific property. It could have included the entire subdivision,but they felt that was premature. If the Planning Commission agrees to create the district,it would be created in the • menu of zones and be applied on an as-needed basis in the future. Ms.Seelig referred to a separate handout included in the packet indicating that the northwest quadrant master plan may or may not be adopted between 2003 and 2005 and asked if that was still the estimate. She was disturbed about making decisions without a master plan,but she stated that would not affect her decision on this matter because the petition makes sense with the surrounding uses. Chair Jonas opened the public hearing. 11 js There was no comment. Chair Jonas closed the public hearing. Motion for Petition 400-03-03 Arta Funk moved to approve Petition 400-03-03 to amend the Salt Lake Zoning Ordinance by • creating the overlay district as outlined in the staff report with the findings of fact contained in the staff report and the recommendations listed on page 7,1)the zoning ordinance text amendment,and 2)the map amendment. Peggy McDonough seconded the motion. Findings of Fact A. Although a land use master plan has not been adopted for this area,the proposed overlay district is consistent with other existing land uses in the area. B. The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. C. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. D. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the airport overlay district. E. Public facilities are adequate for the proposed overlay district. Recommendations 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Amending Section 21A.34 Overlay Districts of the Zoning Ordinance by adding Section 21A.34.100 M-1H Light Manufacturing Height • Planning Commission Meeting 2 February 12,2003 Overlay District as discussed in this report. • 2. Zoning Map Amendment: Implementation of the M-1 H Overlay District on property located between 5300 West and 5500 West and between 1730 South and 2100 South Streets. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Diamond, Ms. Funk, Ms. McDonough, Ms. Noda, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Mr. Muir was recused and not present. Chair Jonas, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. • • Planning Commission Meeting 3 February 12,2003 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: February 28,2003 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-01-37—Ken Holman,Overland Development Corp. Request to rezone properties located between 300/400 South and 500/600 East from Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 and Residential Office to Residential Mixed Use AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinances are adopted,the Plan will affect Council District 4 STAFF REPORT BY: Janice Jardine,Planning Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community and Economic Development—Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Doug Dansie,Principal Planner KEY ELEMENTS: • A. This is a request to rezone several properties in the block between 300 and 400 South and 500 and 600 East. This action would facilitate development of approximately 430-residential units in three separate buildings (market rate/tax credit rental apartments and condominiums for purchase). The Administration notes that the final number of units will be approximately 430,but the number will vary based upon the final size of the individual condominium units. B. Current zoning is a mix of Residential Office,Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 and Residential Mixed Use. The site is within the Central City Historic District. Zoning on the properties also includes Historic Preservation and Groundwater Source Protection Overlay classifications. If the rezoning is approved,all properties would be zoned Residential Mixed Use. The Overlay districts zoning would remain the same. (Please see the attached maps for reference.) C. The Administration's transmittal notes that the project will be developed on three separate parcels in three phases for financial and marketing reasons and to allow parking to be consolidated. Three ordinances have been prepared with successive deadlines(from 1-3 years)to rezone the properties as each development phase receives approval. Specific ordinance timeframes and conditions are summarized below. (Please see the individual ordinances for details.) 1. Phase I-Rezoning property located at 321-331 South 500 East(to Residential Mixed Use, approximately 208 units) a. Current zoning: Residential Office and Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 b. Conditions: • Zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued. • The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian amenities. • • Final landscaping plan subject to Planning Director approval. • Final building design subject to Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Director approval. Page 1 c. Ordinance Effective Date: The ordinance will become effective upon the first publication and recording with the Salt Lake County Recorder subject to certification(to the City Recorder)by the Planning Director that conditions have been met. • d. Time Restrictions: Conditions must be met within 1 year or the ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may extend the time period for satisfying the conditions. 2. Phase II-Rezoning property located at 550-558 East 300 South (to Residential Mixed Use, Administration may be able to provide information on number of units anticipated.) a. Current zoning: Residential Office and Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 b. Conditions: • Zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued. • The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 Fast shall be unproved with landscaping and pedestrian amenities. • Final landscaping plan subject to Planning Director approval. • Proposed development must be processed as a planned development subject to Planning Commission approval. • Final building design subject to Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Director approval. c. Ordinance Effective Date: The ordinance will become effective upon the first publication and recording with the Salt Lake County Recorder subject to certification(to the City Recorder)by the Planning Director that conditions have been met. d. Time Restrictions: Conditions must be met within 2 years or the ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may extend the time period for satisfying the conditions. 3. Phase III-Rezoning property located at 326-348 South 600 East (to Residential Mixed Use, Administration may be able to provide information on number of units anticipated.) a. Current zoning—Residential Multi-Family RMF-35 • b. Conditions: • Zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued. • Proposed development along 600 East subject to the following stipulations: o New commercial uses along the 600 East frontage are prohibited. o A 15-foot landscaped front yard setback shall be provided along 600 East unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design. o Building height along 600 East is limited to 50-feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design. • The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian amenities. • Final landscaping plan subject to Planning Director approval. • Proposed development must be processed as a planned development subject to Planning Commission approval. • Final building design subject to Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Director approval. c. Ordinance Effective Date: The ordinance will become effective upon the first publication and recording with the Salt Lake County Recorder subject to certification(to the City Recorder)by the Planning Director that conditions have been met. d. Time Restrictions: Conditions must be met within 3 years or the ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may extend the time period for satisfying the conditions. D. On November 21,2002,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties subject to the conditions identified by the Planning Commission. Issues discussed included: • Page 2 1. Height-45 feet specified in the master plan versus 50 feet allowed by the building code,requiring lower height in the Historic District. • 2. Parking-use of cross-over easements for phases 2 and 3 and allowing encroachment into the rear yard setback for phase 1. 3. Useable open space -ensuring adequate space and amenities for each development phase. 4. Coordination between the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission regarding approval of the project—Planning Commission has decision authority for planned developments, subdivision and condominiums;Historic Landmark Commission has decision authority for design elements such as building materials,architectural features, size and height. 5. Target tenant market—age range is early 20's to mid 30's,units proposed include a 50/50 split of 1-2 bedrooms with a range of 748 to 1,000 sq. ft.,a high number of children is not anticipated, 1 parking stall per unit will be provided with an option to pay for additional parking spaces. E. The Administration's transmittal and Planning staff report provide a discussion of the proposed rezoning. Major points are summarized below. (Please refer to the Administration's paperwork for additional details.) 1. The Residential Mixed Use zoning would accommodate the proposed densities throughout the block while allowing lower scale buildings along 600 East. Rezoning the properties will allow a higher density residential development that will support the light rail transit line along 400 South. 2. The proposed zoning will accommodate parking on separate parcels. Off-site parking is generally not allowed across zoning district boundaries. 3. Ensuring compliance with the master plan height policies requires limiting the maximum height and prohibiting new commercial development along 600 East. Restrictions on both height and commercial activity along 600 East should be required to be consistent with the master plan as part of the rezone approval. 4. The Planning Commission has decision authority regarding planned development approval. Since the properties are within a Historic Preservation Overlay District,the regulations in the overlay zone take • precedence when there is a conflict between the base zoning and the overlay zone. 5. Subdivision amendment and condominium approval will be required. 6. The Planning Commission approved a similar rezoning and planned development in 1997-1998. There are also several Historic Landmark Commission cases relating to the 97/98 proposal. 7. The primary issues involved are: a. Compatibility of the proposed higher density mixed use development with the historic district context b. Demolition of the Juel Apartments located at 340 South 600 East. c. Interface with new light rail access. F. The project has been reviewed by the City Development Review Team. Public facilities and services are already available. The development proposal will have to meet City standards and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. G. The public process included review by the Central City Community Council and written notification of the Planning Commission hearing to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the proposed rezoning. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: > POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Council Members may wish to request additional information from the Administration regarding the following items in order to have a full understanding of the issues relating to the rezoning and proposed residential development. • A. The Administration's transmittal notes"The concept of an apartment complex was discussed by the Central City Community Council on February 7,and June 19,2001. A vote was taken regarding the demolition of Page 3 • homes on the block(February 7,2001). The results varied according to specific structure,but were generally mixed. No position was taken regarding the overall project(June 19,2001). The petitioner took the zoning request to the Central City Community Council on November 6,2002." Council Members may • wish to ask the Administration to provide an overview of the issues and comments raised at the Community Council meetings, how they were addressed and whether it is the Administration's perception that community issues have been resolved. B. The Administration notes that the proposed apartment/condominium project is being developed in three phases. The first phase is the largest,mixing market rate and tax credit rental units. The second phase is proposed to be market rental units. The third phase is proposed to be condominium units. At the Planning Commission meeting,the developer indicated that the proposed target tenant market age range is early 20's to mid 30's,units proposed include a 50/50 split of 1-2 bedrooms with a range of 748 to 1,000 sq.ft.,a high number of children is not anticipated, 1 parking stall per unit will be provided with an option to pay for additional parking spaces.Based on Council Members recent discussions relating to Downtown revitalization, school closures and the mix of affordable and market rate housing, Council Members may wish to discuss with the Administration the proposed mix of rental/market rate/condominium units. C. In a related matter,the Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions have reviewed applications for demolition,rezoning and redevelopment on this block since 1997. 1. In April 1998,the City Council approved a similar rezoning request for a proposed high-density residential development(approximately 300 units). Due to economic reasons,the project became financially unfeasible and the Historic Landmark,Planning Commission and City Council approvals expired. Major issues that received significant public comment and discussions focused on by the City Council related to the demolition of several historic structures and the mix of affordable and market rate units. 2. Portions of this new proposal have been processed by the Administration. A planned development conditional use has been approved for Phase I,and the Historic Landmark Commission has approved • the demolition of historic structures. 3. Two land use appeals were filed relating to one of the requested demolitions(Juel Apartments located at 340 South 500 East). One appeal was remanded to the Landmark Commission. The second appeal,the Landmark Commission decision not to allow demolition was overturned by the Land Use Appeals Board. 4. The above information is not included in the Administration's chronology or in the paperwork provided on this issue. a. If the Council has questions on any of this history, the Planning Division will be prepared to address them at the briefing. b. Council staff needs feedback from the Council on whether historical/contextual/interrelated conditions and information of this nature is helpful to the Council and should be requested in the future. D. The Administration's transmittal notes"The East Downtown Master Plan identifies the property along 600 East for medium density residential development at a 45-foot height limit with no new commercial development. It is the recommendation to limit the height along 600 East to 50 feet(four stories for building code). The Planning Commission noted that if the applicant desires a 50-foot height for phase three,he will have to also request an amendment to the master plan at that time. Restriction on both height and commercial activity along 600 East should be required to be consistent with the master plan as part of the rezone approval." 1. The ordinance that has been prepared to rezone the property fronting on 600 East contains the following condition. "The height of the buildings along 600 East is limited to 50 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design." 2. At the Planning Commission meeting,based on advice from Planning staff,the Commission adopted a • motion to amend the East Downtown Master Plan as it relates to height in this area. Page 4 3. The City Attorneys office(at the request of Council staff)is reviewing this issue to determine whether or not a revised ordinance will be necessary or if an ordinance for a master plan amendment is • necessary. 4. Are the Council comfortable adopting ordinances that assume future action by the applicant, the Planning Commission and the Council? E. As previously noted,the Administration has indicated that the proposed development will be developed in three phases. Three ordinances have been provided with extended deadlines for compliance with specific conditions prior to the actual rezoning of the properties. 1. The conditions include a requirement for future approvals by the Historic Landmark and Planning Commissions. 2. In the past,rezoning petitions that have come before the Council(that include a proposed development) have generally also received final approvals from the City advisory boards or commissions. 3. Also,rezoning ordinances recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council have linked the actual rezoning to the issuance of an approved building permit and required certification by the Planning Director to the City Recorder that all conditions have been met. 4. Are the Council comfortable adopting ordinances that assume future action by the applicant, the Planning Commission and the Council? MASTER PLAN&POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The East Downtown Neighborhood Plan purpose statement includes the following key points: 1. Stop the erosion of the residential character of the neighborhood; 2. Preserve and enhance the neighborhood's unique character and viability; 3. Suggest several actions to develop East Downtown as a high density residential neighborhood and create a vibrant,strong,integrated mixed use urban neighborhood. 4111 B. The properties are located within the Brownstone Apartment Mixed Use and Bryant Residential sub-areas of the East Downtown Neighborhood Plan. Key characteristics identified for the sub-areas include: 1. Brownstone-Apartment Mixed Use: a. The area should remain the high density apartment residential service district and primary urban neighborhood for the Central Business District. b. Commercial activity should focus on providing services to the area and not compete with the Central Business District. c. A special emphasis should be placed on safety and street level pedestrian activities compatible with the existing large landscaped,open space character of the area. d. Development design should focus on: • a high density residential character with ground level commercial activity at a human scale; • reinforce the unique grid pattern of this area; • enhance the architectural character of the area; • emphasize a variety of textures,colors,and shapes compatible with existing environments; • high-rise building walls should be set back or terraced down to street level. 2. Bryant Residential area: a. The area should remain medium density,high quality residential. b. Street parks and reduced widths would reintroduce residential character and discourage additional traffic impacts. c. The area should be exclusively residential in character without any commercial office uses and only existing neighborhood commercial support services. • d. Development design should focus on: • Enhancement on the predominant residential character of the area. Page 5 300 South Street I I 1 1 1 I - 1y P ase 1 ayi • a) — g 1 Ill I 1`m 1 u) 1 I 1 1 ... Service Access o = E >,u,.�oa,a,—'''''''''_''"""" .— ' 1.- rPhase • J2 6L hit ) [d _ 4_ > »oo. i W i '-'1'4414.11.5.1.4.1 -, �k ' i°Phase-1 ,, r) 4. y�pf!,..- - ) y�1, ..0,i .Plaza Phase III A Ill it �.. •, .,.. •..kU F_a.:?' �`. i f iiiiir N • 15 ii ry.a.• 1?nase r • 0 d * 9. ,3i 141 Lt _ :�.. a - -- - 1, I .44 „ IO14 � r � '3 FOAM Service Access 6 �' �"'� I .i1' s. P_hase_III OVERLAND L— _ � I, I , I I ,, ,, ,, 1 • I fik-_ _Service_Access Emigration Court Multi-Family ---1 1-- Housing and Retail Salt Lake City,Utah 1 Schematic Design I 9 _ Submittal MHTN ARCHITECTS,INC. 420 East South Temple Suite 100 Salt Lakc City,Utah 84111 I 1 Telephone(801)595-6900 I Telefax(801)595-6717 www.mhm.com • 400 South Street Site Plan 10.15.02 FEB 1 3 2003 . ALISON WEYHER SALT " Aq ,I'ill FOR I® 1;ir . --. �� ffi �w�� 4•.a.�s , ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON • DIRECTOR COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMIT AL { ( ' TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: February 6, 2003 FROM: Alison Weyher RE: Petition 400-01-37: A request by Overland Development for a map amendment to change the zoning of the property generally located at 326-348 South 600 East, 550-558 East 300 South and 321-331 South 500 East from RMF-35 and RO to R-MU. STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner 535-6182 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and a public hearing regarding the proposed rezoning. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: There are no budget impacts associated with the proposed amendments. • DISCUSSION: The developer plans on building a multi-family housing development on the site. The proposed densities are accommodated on the majority of the block, however, the RMF-35 (which fronts onto 600 East)has a lower density requirement than the remaining property. The petitioner wishes to spread the density across the entire site. The project will be located on three parcels (for financing reasons) and developed in three phases. Therefore three ordinances are attached. Also some parking is on separate parcels. Off-site parking is generally not allowed across zoning district boundaries. This petition would create consistent zoning(R- MU) for the entire proposed project. Analysis: The proposed apartment/condominium project has also gone through a planned development process. It is being developed in three phases for financing reasons and also because the three buildings have differing niche markets. The first phase is the largest,mixing market rate rental units with tax credit rental units. The second phase is proposed to be market rental units. The third phase is proposed to be condominium units. Final subdivision layout of the condominiums will occur when the third phase is constructed. The final number of units will be approximately 430, but the number will vary based upon the final size of the individual condominium units. The proposed 75-foot height for phase one and two is already allowed by existing zoning. Phase three is located in the RMF-35 zoning district,which only allows 35 feet in height. The proposed RMU zoning district would allow up to 75 feet in height,however the Planning IIICommission has attached a requirement to the rezone ordinance requiring that the height be only 457 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE:801-535-6230 FAX:801-535-5005 nee.eEo rAPew 50 feet along the 600 East frontage. Fifty feet is consistent with a four-story building (by comparison, the Juel apartments are 3.5 stories.)All of the development is subject to Historic • Landmark Commission approval. The Historic Landmark Commission may also modify mass and design criteria to be compatible with the historic district. The RMU zoning district allows non-residential development on the lower three levels. This is not a master plan issue for phase one and two. The Planning Commission has inserted a prohibition of nonresidential development along the 600 East frontage as part of the rezone ordinance. The entire site is being rezoned to R-MU to accommodate the desired density, to allow for cross- property line parking and to place the entire project in one zoning district (rather than three zoning districts.) Master Plan: The East Downtown Master Plan recommends the site be zoned R-6 (which was high density residential zoning prior to the 1995 zoning rewrite). The 1995 zoning rewrite effectively updated the master plan to allow mixed-use, office and residential development on the property, except the portion fronting onto 600 East. The plan designates the majority of the site as part of the"Bryant Residential neighborhood", which has an emphasis on medium density high quality residential development. The remainder of the site is part of the "Brownstone-Apartment mixed use area", which is high density residential and an "urban neighborhood." The East Downtown Master Plan identifies the property along 600 East for medium density • residential development at a 45-foot height limit with no new commercial development. It is the recommendation to limit the height along 600 East to 50 feet (four stories for building code). The Planning Commission noted that if the applicant desires a 50-foot height for phase three, he will have to also request an amendment to the master plan at that time. The East Downtown Master Plan, through the update of the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project, identifies higher densities along 500 East and 300 South. Amending the zoning from R-0 to RMU is consistent with the Master Plan The RMU zoning district will allow an increase in density and will eliminate the off-site parking issue. Ensuring compliance with the master plan height policies, and historic preservation policies relating to the 600 East frontage, requires limiting the maximum height and prohibiting new commercial development along 600 East if the zoning is changed from RMF-35 to RMU. Restrictions on both height and commercial activity along 600 East should be required to be consistent with the master plan as part of the rezone approval. Rezoning the properties to RMU will allow a higher density residential development that will support the Light Rail Transit Line along 400 South,which helps implement the goals of the Transportation Master Plan. Public Process: The concept of an apartment complex was discussed by the Central City Community Council on February 7, 2001 and on June 19, 2001. A vote was taken regarding the demolition of homes on the block(February 7). The results varied according to specific structure,but was generally • mixed. No position was taken regarding the overall project(June 19). The petitioner took the • zoning request to the Central City Community Council on November 6, 2002. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 21, 2002. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties from RO and RMF-35 to RMU with the following conditions; 1) The project be considered in three phases and the zoning for each phase not take effect until a building permit is issued for that phase. 2) Development along 600 East be approved only with the following stipulations: • Prohibit new commercial uses along the 600 East frontage; • Provide a 15-foot-I andscaped front yard-sotbac-k-along-600-Bast unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design; • Limit the height on buildings along 600 East to 50 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design. 3) The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities and that the authority to grant approval of the final landscaping plan be granted to the Planning Director. 4) Phase II and Phase III be required to be processed as planned developments with approval by the Planning Commission. 5) ApprovaI of the final design of the buildings is delegated to the Planning Director to be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission approval. Relevant Ordinances: Title 21A.50 of Salt Lake City Code: Amendments to the zoning ordinance and zoning map. • CONTENTS Chronology Proposed Ordinance City Council Public Hearing Notice Mailing list Planning Commission Hearing Original Notice and Postmark Staff report Agenda Minutes Affected Sidwell Numbers Original Petition 41111 1111 Chronology February 7, 2001 The concept of an apartment complex was discussed by the Central City Community Council. June 19, 2001 The concept of an apartment complex was again discussed by the Central City Community Council. July 3, 2001 Overland development initiated a petition to rezone the property, the petition was held pending resolution of the demolition of historic buildings. 2001-November 2002 The Historic Landmark Commission reviewed numerous demolitions on the block, including the Juel Apartments. November 6, 2002 The petitioner took the zoning request to the Central City Community Council. November 21, 2002 The Planning Commission heard the issue and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. December 2002 An ordinance was requested from the Attorney's Office. • January 2002 An ordinance was received from the Attorney. Y • Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 �I (Rezoning property located at 321-331 South 500 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 321-331 SOUTH 500 EAST, FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (RO)AND RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY (RMF-35) TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (R-MU), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is • appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 321-331 South 500 East,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Residential Office (RO) and Residential Multi-Family(RMF-35)to Residential Mixed Use(R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code,relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. b. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. c. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within one year from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null and • void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON 2 ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER 7 / 8 -03 „ _ __ . „ • (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G\Ordinance 03\Rezoning properties at 321-331 So 500E doc • 3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE • No. of 2003 (Rezoning property located at 550-558 East 300 South) AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 550-558 EAST 300 SOUTH, FROM RESIDENTIAL OFFICE (RO)TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (R-MU), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. • NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 550-558 East 300 South,which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Residential Office (RO) to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. • b. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan • must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. c. The development of this property must be processed as a planned development with approval obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Commission. d. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within 411 two years from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null and void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON 411 2 ATTEST: • CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. Published: G.\Ordinance 03\Rezoning property at 550-558 E 300 S doc • SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 411 No. of 2003 (Rezoning property located at 326-348 South 600 East) AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 326-348 SOUTH • 600 EAST FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RMF-35) TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE (R-MU), PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-01-37. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and any local master plan as part of their deliberations. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed change of zoning for the property identified herein is appropriate for the development of the community in that area. NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: SECTION 1. Rezoning. The property located at 326-348 South 600 East, which is more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from Multi-Family Residential (RMF-35) to Residential Mixed Use (R-MU). SECTION 2. Amendment of zoning map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be, and hereby is amended consistent with the rezoning identified above. SECTION 3. Conditions. The rezoning approved herein is conditioned upon the following: a. The zoning for this property shall not take effect until a building permit has been issued by the City for that property. • b. The proposed development along 600 East is approved only with the following stipulations: III 1. New commercial uses along the 600 East frontage are prohibited; 2. A 15 foot landscaped front yard setback shall be provided along 600 East, unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design; and 3. The height of the buildings along 600 East is limited to 50 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design. c. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East shall be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities. The final landscaping plan must be approved by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. d. The development on this property must be processed as a planned development with approval obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning ill Commission. e. Approval of the final design of the buildings must be obtained from the Salt Lake City Planning Director and the Historic Landmark Commission. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions identified above have been met, as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director. SECTION 5. Time. If the conditions identified above have not been met within three years from the date that this ordinance is signed, this ordinance shall become null 41) void. The City Council may, for good cause shown, extend the time period for satisfying 4111 the conditions identified above. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER • Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: A ;O ED.`fKTO70: e CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER" �{ quo. ri �;.' � (SEAL) Bill No. of 2003. • Published: G.VOrdinance 03\Rezoning property at 326-348 S 600 E doe 3 r I PHASE 1 BOUNDARY '"`r-- BEGINNING AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 4,BLOCK 38,PLAT`B", SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY, SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE EAST LINE OF 500 EAST STREET;THENCE N89°57'40"E 361.114 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4,AND LOT 7 OF SAID 7 r _ _: I BLOCK 38;THENCE SOUTH 24.585 FEET;THENCE EAST 153.750 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 181.083 FEET;THENCE WEST 153.750 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 17.736 FEET TO A POINT ON THE -- SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 7;THENCE S89°57'40"W 361.028 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE s" AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 4, SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE EAST LINE OF 500 EAST STREET;THENCE NO°01'19"W 1 223.404 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 2.491 ACRES. revised 11/12/02 cb PHASE 2 BOUNDARY c6 J5 r f r • r1 BEGINNING AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF LOT 6,BLOCK 38,PLAT`B", SALT LAKE • CITY SURVEY, SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF 300 SOUTH STREET; THENCE N89°57'38"E 181.496 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE;THENCE SO°01'22"E 190.346 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF PHASE 1;THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PHASE 1 THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES: WEST 151.056 FEET; THENCE NORTH 24.585 FEET;THENCE S89°57'40"W 30.450 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 6;THENCE NO°01'22"W 165.657 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 0.776 ACRES. PHASE 3 BOUNDARY • ran .•5 JR,_ " BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF LOT 6,BLOCK 38,PLAT`B", SALT LAKE CITY • SURVEY,SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE WEST LINE OF 600 EAST STREET;THENCE - - SO°01'25"E 290.061 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO A SET REBAR AND CAP/1 158397; THENCE S89°57'38"W 330.667 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID BLOCK 38;THENCE NO°01'22"W 66.664 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3,SAID POINT ALSO LYING ON THE SOUTH LINE OF PHASE 1;THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID PHASE 1 THE FOLLOWING FIVE COURSES:N89°57'40"E 30.361 FEET;THENCE NORTH 17.736 FEET;THENCE EAST 153.750 FEET;THENCE NORTH 181.083 FEET;THENCE WEST 2.694 FEET TO THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF PHASE 2;THENCE NO°01'22"W 24.682 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PHASE 2 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED LOT 6;THENCE N89°57'38"E 149.167 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 1.321 ACRES. tile- 11:•S630I i-18 E nmicration Courr.r=csign•icgals P HASE 1-2-3 I3OCVNDARY.doc 0 Affected Sidwell Numbers 16-06-427-036 16-06-427-013 16-06-426-008 16-06-283-001 16-06-283-006 II • • Staff report w SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Zoning map amendment for the property located at 326-348 South 600 East and 550-558 East 300 South from RO and RMF-35 to RMU 400-01-37 November 21, 2002 REQUEST 400-01-37 is a request by Overland Development,represented by Ken Holman for a map amendment to change the zoning of the property generally located at 326-348 South 600 East from RMF-35 to RMU and the property generally located at 550-558 East 300 South from RO to RMU to facilitate the construction of a multi-unit residential mixed- use development. COMMUNITY/NEIGHBOROOD COUNCIL(S) REVIEW: • The Central City Community Council has discussed the concept of an apartment complex on this property several times. On February 7, 2001 they discussed the appropriateness of demolishing housing for the development and on June 19, 2001 they discussed the new development proposal. No position was taken regarding the overall project. On November 6, 2002, the applicant presented the project to the Community Council again. The Community Council did not take a vote on the project but was generally in favor of the zoning and conceptual project design. i i I L I I i i 1' ) 1 1 i 300 S { 2nd Phase RO ! ►__- I-A M U tT : I I I ; 1st Phase i ;E 3rd Phase yes ,.< 51 ul u, CS I ii in _� i I 400 S • i CS L_11 II i � Staff Report,Petition Number 400-01-37 1 November 21,2002 Salt Lake City Planning Division GENERAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW • Applicant: Overland Development Corporation Purpose of proposal and proposed amendment: A multi-family residential mixed use development. The RMU zoning amendment request would accommodate the proposed densities throughout the block while allowing lower scale buildings along 600 East. The zoning will also accommodate parking on separate parcels. Off-site parking is generally not allowed across zoning district boundaries. Previous Case Files: Petition 400-97-74 from Winthrop Court L.C. to rezone the property to RMF-75 and RMU, was approved by the Planning Commission on December 18, 1997. The associated Planned Development,petition 410-301, (focused on the 300 South and 600 East portion of the property) was approved on January 22, 1998 and extended on February 18, 1999. There are also several Historic Landmark Commission cases relating to the 1997-1998 proposal. On June 6, 2002, the Planning Commission approved 11111 Planned Development Petition 410-584 which focused on the 500 East portion of the property. The proposal approved with petition 410-584 has been revised and will be reheard concurrently with the rezoning request. Existing Zoning and Overlay Districts: RMF-35, RMU and R-O The site is also within the Central City Historic District of the H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone and the Secondary Recharge Area of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay Zone. Existing Master Plan Policies: East Downtown Master Plan identifies the site for high- density (R-6)residential development. The Central Community Zoning Map which updates the master plan land use map (Ordinance 26, 1995) identifies the area for high density mixed use, office and medium density residential development. The Transportation Master Plan identifies the need to encourage residential densities which support Light Rail Mass Transit. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-01-37 2 November 21,2002 Salt Lake City Planning Division • Affected areas and parcel numbers: This proposed development is generally located between 500 and 600 East and 300 to 400 South. The overall parcel has frontage on all streets except 400 South. Sidwell numbers 16-06-427-036 and 16-06-426-008 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Compatibility with Historic Resources The proposed development is one large apartment complex with some supportive, small- scale commercial development along 500 East and 300 South. The development might be accommodated with multiple zoning districts,however the cross easement for parking make multiple zones problematic (with some exceptions,parking for one zoning district may not be accommodated in another.) The primary issues involved in this rezoning petition are the compatibility of higher density mixed-use development allowed within the RMU zoning district within the historic district context and the interface with new light rail access. Juel Apartments The fate of the Juel Apartments, located at 340 South 600 East has not yet been determined. The applicant has applied to the Historic Landmark Commission, to find an Economic Hardship in order to demolish the building. On November 6, 2002, • the Commission found that there was no Economic Hardship and denied the demolition request. The applicant will appeal this decision to the Land Use Appeals Board. Whether the Juel is retained will affect the layout of Phase III of the development but the applicant has stated that if they are required to retain the structure, they will incorporate the building into Phase III of the project. Subdivision A subdivision amendment will also be required to move and/or eliminate property lines. The amendment will be needed to tie parking to the first phase building. Later phases have on site parking as well as parking on the Phase I parcel. In addition, condominium approval may be required for owner occupied units. CODE CRITERIA / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT Ill Staff Report,Petition Number 400-01-37 3 November 21,2002 Salt Lake City Planning Division 21A.50.050 Standards for general amendments. A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, • objectives, and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Discussion: East Downtown Master Plan The master plan identifies the majority of the site as high density residential (R- 6). The 1995 zoning rewrite project (Ordinance 25, 1995) effectively updated the master plan to allow mixed-use, office and residential development on the subject properties. The text of the East Downtown Master Plan splits the block into two subareas: the Bryant area (600 East frontage and the middle of the block) is identified as a medium density high quality residential area while the Brownstone Apartment mixed use area (300 South, 400 South and 500 East frontage) is identified as a high density residential "urban neighborhood." Height In the Bryant subarea, the frontage along 600 East was originally zoned RMF-35 because 600 East is the spine of the Central City Historic District and the majority of structures along the street are a lower scale. The Juel apartment building, which has been the center of numerous preservation discussions, is approximately 45 feet tall and has a density that is greater than what is presently allowed in the RMF-35 zoning district. The East Downtown Master Plan calls for medium density residential development with no new commercial development and a 45-foot height limit in the Bryant subarea. . • Although the RMU zoning classification allows a height of 125 feet as a conditional use, the East Downtown Master Plan limits the height on this block to 75 feet to protect view corridors, eliminating the potential to extend the building to 125 feet. However, the Master Plan further limits height in the Bryant area to 45 feet, compatible with the historic development pattern. Because of its proximity to the Light Rail Trax Station, staff believes it is appropriate to allow heights higher than 45 feet on the interior of the block, while limiting the height along 600 East to 45 feet. The Brownstone Apartment subarea was zoned RMU and RO in the zoning rewrite project which is consistent with the text of the East Downtown Master Plan. Rezoning the 300 South properties RMU from RO is consistent with the master plan policies for density and height for this area. Commercial Development The RMU zoning district would increase commercial potential for portions for the 600 East frontage because it is a mixed-use zone. Commercial zoning exists along 600 East on this block where the lots front on 400 South. This commercial zoning extends approximately 165 feet deep along the west side of 600 East and approximately 330 feet along the east side of 600 East. However, the East Downtown Master Plan recommends the Bryant Neighborhood be primarily residential except where existing neighborhood commercial support services exist. Therefore,prohibiting new commercial uses • along 600 East is consistent with the master plan. Staff Report,Petition Number 400-01-37 4 November 21,2002 Salt Lake City Planning Division • The property along 300 South is currently zoned RO which is a similar zone to the RMU zone in teens of density and height. Rezoning the property to RMU allows similar uses as the RO zoning district, with greater emphasis on residential development as well as eliminating issues related to cross easement access issues to parking on differently zoned parcels. Transportation Master Plan The Transportation Master Plan (1996) identifies the need for higher density development along the major transit corridors to benefit the transit system. The plan states that encouraging higher density housing and concentrating business and commercial uses at transit stations, allows greater opportunities for ridesharing which in turn helps implement one of the "Guiding Principles" of the plan in reducing the dependence on the automobile as our primary mode of transportation. Rezoning the properties to RMU will allow higher density residential development near the University Trax Light Rail line where residence can rely less on private automobiles and take advantage of the proximity of the rail line for meeting their transportation needs. Findings: The East Downtown Master Plan identifies the property along 600 East for medium density residential development at a 45-foot height limit with no new commercial development. The East Downtown Master Plan, through the update • of the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project, identifies higher densities along 500 East and 300 South. Amending the zoning from R-0 to RMU is consistent with the Master Plan The RMU zoning district will allow an increase in density and will eliminate the off-site parking issue. Ensuring compliance with the master plan height policies requires limiting the maximum height and prohibiting new commercial development along 600 East if the zoning is changed from RMF-35 to RMU. Restrictions on both height and commercial activity along 600 East should be required to be consistent with the master plan as part of the rezone approval. Rezoning the properties to RMU will allow a higher density residential development that will support the Light Rail Transit Line along 400 South which helps implement the goals of the Transportation Master Plan. B. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Discussion: Development in the immediate vicinity includes a mixture of office, commercial, apartments and residential development. In addition, the development is immediately adjacent to the 400 South Light rail corridor. The increase of density near the 600 East station is an asset to the light rail system. There has been discussion as to whether higher buildings are compatible within the Central City Historic District. The East Downtown Neighborhood has been • identified as the high-density neighborhood with taller buildings, within the City for over 100 years and current City policy continues the goal of making this Staff Report,Petition Number 400-01-37 5 November 21,2002 Salt Lake City Planning Division neighborhood a high density mixed use neighborhood. Although densities generally decrease the further east one gets from Downtown, apartments are still common on 300 South and 500 and 600 East. • Findings: The East Downtown neighborhood is the designated high-density neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Structures in the immediate vicinity include a mix of low scale commercial buildings, apartment buildings and low-density residential buildings. Most of the area in the surrounding blocks consists of medium and high density residential as well as commercial zoning. C. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Discussion: On the subject block,properties to the south are all zoned CC Commercial Corridor and consist of fast food,restaurant and office uses. A petition is presently before the City Council to rezone the CC zoned properties to Transit Corridor(TC) -75 zoning, which allows 75 to 125 foot high buildings when they have a residential component. Property to the northwest consists of a convenience store and other retail. Property to the northeast consists of residential, and commercial land uses. The site is within walking distance of a light rail station at 600 East and 400 South. The petitioners are proposing RMU zoning to allow small-scale retail, as part of the larger mixed-use project, to front on 500 East and 300 South Streets. They are not proposing commercial development along 600 East Street. • Findings: The density and proposed zoning are compatible with the adjacent properties. The proposed residential development is consistent with adjacent land uses. Small scale commercial development fronting on 500 East or 300 South will be consistent with adjacent land uses and will not adversely impact adjacent properties. Commercial land uses should not be allowed to front along 600 East. D. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Discussion: Historic Preservation Overlay Zone The site is within the Central City Historic District,therefore, the Historic Landmark Commission has final design approval authority of the buildings. Previous approval has indicated the need for lower height along 600 East to ensure compatibility with the character of the historic district. A 15-foot landscaped setback along 600 East is also an historic development pattern that should be preserved. The RMU zoning district would allow a building as high as 75 feet on this property (as dictated by the policies of the East Downtown Master Plan). III However,the Historic Landmark Commission has the authority to limit the height Staff Report,Petition Number 400-01-37 6 November 21,2002 Salt Lake City Planning Division to a scale that ensures compatibility with the historic resources in the district. Staff believes that in many instances, the higher density zoning, which is used to afford the desired density, gives the property owner the impression that the new building can be as high as 75 feet. This assumption creates a burden for the Historic Landmark Commission who must ensure compatibility and deal with the owner's impression that the Commission is taking away a development right. Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District The subject property is located within the Secondary Recharge Area of the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay District. Some commercial uses allowed in the RMU zoning district (such as beauty salons, dry cleaners, laundromats or veterinary clinics) are restricted uses within this overlay zone. All new commercial uses will be evaluated for their appropriateness in this overlay zone and may be allowed with restrictions or prohibited in an effort to ensure protection of the aquifer recharge area. Findings: The subject property is within the Central City Historic District, therefore, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission has final design authority including establishing the maximum height of new construction to ensure compatibility with the historic district. The proposed zoning is not necessarily incompatible with the historic district regulations. Due to the importance of 600 East in the Central City Historic District and the policies of the East Downtown • Master Plan, the buildings on 600 East should be limited to 45 feet in height and the front yard setback be a minimum of 15 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the proposed building of Phase III would be compatible with the historic district with a higher height and less setback. The project is a Planned Development and the Planning Commission has authority to review and approve the final design of the buildings in the development. However, since the property is within an H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone and the regulations governing the overlay zone take precedence when there is a conflict between the base zoning and the overlay zone, Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final design approval to the Planning Director with the directive that final approval be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission's approval. The subject properties are within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay Secondary Recharge Area. All uses must comply with the provisions of Section 21A.34.060, Groundwater Protection Overlay Zone. • Staff Report,Petition Number 400-01-37 7 November 21,2002 Salt Lake City Planning Division E. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational 1111 facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm water drainage systems, water supplies, and waste water and refuse collection. Discussion: The project has been reviewed by the Development Review Team (DRT). There is need to extend some storm sewer and upgrade one water line, but all other services are adequate. Findings: The subject properties are in a developed area of the City. Public facilities and services are already available. The development proposal will have to meet City standards and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties from RO and RMF-35 to RMU with the following conditions; I) The project be considered in three phases and the zoning for each phase not take effect until a building permit is issued for that phase. 2) Development along 600 East be approved only with the following stipulations: • Prohibit new commercial uses along the 600 East frontage; • Provide a 15-foot landscaped front yard setback along 600 East unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design; • Limit the height on buildings along 600 East to 45 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design. 3) The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities and that the authority to grant approval of the final landscaping plan be granted to the Planning Director. 4) Phase II and Phase III be required to be processed as planned developments with approval by the Planning Commission. 5) Approval of the final design of the buildings is delegated to the Planning Director to be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission approval. Doug Dansie Community Planner Attachments: Exhibit 1 —Other Division Recommendations • • Exhibit 1 Division Recommendations • DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM • REVIEW DOCUMENTATION PETITION NO. ADDRESS or?) ) `407) ,S '5�i 6D 1 r°--- PROJECT (f,., DESCRIPTION r�411�,1ir,c11 Ccn,J 4-`-I ""1,� REVIEW DATE /UJA) 2O 1f DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MEMBERS REVIEWING THIS PROJECT I` ZONING k 1 Jc4`Jw. t SG U ri,4',S ( 9 p{" ENGINEERING "re A 0 6 - 5fc.e W ,(.'laJ 1,v 3,7 TRANSPORTAION PUBLIC /� UTILITIES /V eci' V Gc)e v .t f G'14.)5 iv Iti i �?a /v p� sr�� t/ ', .�ley /,i'.. -6a E_ OTIIER (Fire,Police,Property Management) ISSUES IN ADDITION TO THOSE NOTE ON THE"DRT'CHECKLIST THAT MAY EFFECT THE DEVELOPMENT OF TIlIS PROPERTY t /!f1 G:5 � � - ✓U�eG Y ' ci • Agenda and Minutes • 0 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • In Room 126 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Thursday, November 21, 2002, 5:30p.m. Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Jeff Jonas, Tim Chambless, Robert "Bip" Daniels, Arla Funk, Prescott Muir, Jennifer Seelig. Kay (berger) Arnold entered the meeting at 6:55 p.m. to ensure a quorum after having been excused from the meeting. John Diamond, Peggy McDonough, and Laurie Noda were not present. Present from the Planning Staff were Acting Planning Director Brent Wilde; Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey; and Planners Joel Paterson, Jackie Gasparik, and Ray McCandless A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Jonas called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Tapes of the meeting will be retained in the Planning Office for a period of one year, after which they will be erased. 111 PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARING - Petition No. 400-01-37, from Overland Development, represented by Ken Holman, requesting to rezone the properties located at 326-348 South 600 East and 550-558 East 300 South, from RO and RMF-35 to R-MU, Residential Mixed use zoning district. The petitioner is also requesting approval of revised plans for, Petition 410-584, a Planned Development. The property is generally located on the block from 300 to 400 South and 500 to 600 East, in a Residential Mixed-Use R-MU zoning district. Due to a conflict of interest, Chair Jonas recused himself from this petition and turned the Chair over to Vice Chair Arla Funk. Mr. Jonas left the meeting. Planning Program Supervisor Cheri Coffey reviewed the petition as written in the staff report. She indicated the properties owned by the petitioner and noted that he would like to have all the properties zoned R-MU, which is a high-density residential zoning district that allows for a mixture of uses, mainly residential. The City Council looks at five criteria in the zoning • ordinance for which the Staff needs to make findings, and Ms. Coffey reviewed each of the Planning Commission Meeting 1 November 21,2002 criteria. The first criterion is master plan compliance. This property is in East Downtown, and the East Downtown master plan is specific about the height in the area. On this block the heightI/ limit is 75 feet. In addition, the property is in the Central City Historic District, and the Landmarks Commission can limit the height further. The Bryant area off the 600 East block is a medium density residential area which calls for a height of 45 feet maximum in keeping with the historic character. It does not allow for new commercial development, so even though the R- MU District would allow for mixed use along that frontage, the master plan does not support it. If the Planning Commission recommends rezoning this portion of the property to R-MU, the Staff requests that the height be limited to 45 feet and that no new commercial development occur on that corridor. Ms. Coffey noted that the Brownstone sub-area of the master plan is a more urban neighborhood, and both Phases I and II are compliant. She stated that the higher density zoning also supports the transportation master plan which encourages higher density to support light rail. Ms. Coffey stated that the second criterion is whether the rezone would be harmonious with the overall immediate area. The Staff has determined that the surrounding lots are consistent with the R-MU District. In terms of adversely affecting adjoining properties, most of the property on that block contains modern commercial development. The property along 400 South currently zoned CC is before the City Council to consider rezoning for a transit development, 75-foot-high • zoning district. Other uses on the block are one-story commercial development. Compatibility with overlay zones is the third criterion. Ms. Coffey explained why the Staff believed zoning to R-MU was compatible and why they recommended keeping the 15-foot setback and 45-foot height limit. She stated that, in zoning the Phase III area R-MU, they need to be sure the developer does not get the impression that the density allowed in the R-MU district will be allowed in that location, because it is in the Historic District. Even though this petition will come back to the Planning Commission through the planned development process, the Staff recommended that the overall building design review be designated to the Landmarks Commission so the developer does not have to go back and forth between Commissions. In this instance, the Landmarks Commission would have the ultimate say. .Ms. Coffey noted that the property is also in the Ground Water Source Protection Overlay Zone— Secondary Recharge District which protects the underlying aquifer, and some allowed uses are regulated to be sure they do not interfere with the aquifer. • Planning Commission Meeting 2 November 21,2002 Ms. Coffey commented on the adequacy of public facilities. She explained that this petition was • reviewed by major departments, and there were no issues. The applicant will be required to meet City standards. The Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties from RO and RMF-35 to R-MU with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Muir recalled a conversation with Roger Evans about adjusting height in the medium density zones from 45 feet to 50 feet and asked what happened after that conversation. Mr. Wilde explained that 45 feet reflects the master plan, and if that becomes 50 feet to reflect building code requirements, that would be reasonable. Mr. Muir felt they could design nicer units if they were allowed 50 feet. He asked if Staff was suggesting that the Landmarks Commission have design review authority and that the Planning Commission accept their decision. He asked if that meant the Planning Commission would waive its rights for review. Vice-Chair Funk replied that the Landmarks Commission would have the final say anyway, so the Staff is trying to streamline the process. Ms. Coffey explained that Phases II and III would come back to the Planning Commission for layout approval. The Landmarks Commission would only have final • say on building design. Prior to taking public comment on the rezoning request, Mr. Wilde suggested that the Planning Commission could have Ms. Coffey review the planned development staff report so the Commissioners' comments could address both staff reports. Ms. Coffey reiterated that this project is being proposed in three phases. The first phase was reviewed by the Planning Commission in June, and the applicant is returning because they want to move the parking to the rear of the building rather than under the building. The first phase will have approximately 208 units, and the total development will have approximately 430 units. The first phase meets all zoning requirements except the underground parking structure which will encroach into the rear yard setback. That encroachment will occur in all three phases, so Staff is asking that the Planning Commission modify that rear yard setback in the first phase. Ms. Coffey explained that the amenities for the structure in Phase I will be within Phase I, but for Phases II and III, the amenities will be on top of the parking structure. As part of the approval, for Phases II & Ill a condition should be included to require the amenities. The maximum height is 75 feet. Ms. Coffey noted that the Landmarks Commission approved the design of Phase I on November 6 and found that it was compatible with Historic District regulations. The • Planning Commission Meeting 3 November 21,2002 Transportation Division has reviewed this petition and finds that access is adequate. The project is required to have 104 off-street parking stalls for Phase I, and the applicant proposes0 constructing 304 underground parking stalls to meet the parking requirement for the entire development. Cross-over easements to the parking structure will be required for Phases II and III because they will be on separate parcels for financing reasons. As part of Phases II & Ill, a conditional use will be needed for off-street parking to access the parking in Phase I. The utilities must meet City requirements, and no buffering is required in this zoning district. Ms. Coffey stated that the Landmarks Commission approved demolition of most of the contributing buildings on the block through an economic hardship review. On November 5, the Landmarks Commission rejected the economic hardship panel's findings for the Juel Apartments on 600 East and denied the demolition. That decision is currently being appealed. If the applicant is unable to demolish the Juel Apartments, they will be incorporated into the Phase III development. There are no environmental features associated with this site. The Staff believes there will be no net cumulative adverse impact, and the proposal meets the planned development requirements. Ms. Funk asked when the mid-block way is scheduled for construction. Ms. Coffey stated that she understood it needed to be developed for fire access. Mr. Chambless asked about the exact problems with the Phase I parking proposal. Ken • Holman, representing the applicant, explained that two levels of underground parking were originally designed, but two issues came up. They were under the impression that they could design a building 90 feet tall because they were outside the corridor. As it turned out, they were restricted to 75 feet, and the only way to make that work was to remove a level of parking and drop the building. This process helped with engineering problems because structurally it was easier to deal with some of the issues. Mr. Holman stated that they were trying to look ahead to other phases of the project and could foresee a difficult time meeting parking requirements for the second phase. The parking was designed to accommodate Phases I and II, and they would likely design a more extensive parking structure under Phase III. He commented on mid-block access and stated that they do not need it to address fire issues at this time. Phase I was designed to get all the way around the building and out 300 South or 500 East. This will accommodate any fire protection. The mid-block access will be needed for Phases II and III, and the intent is to build it to 300 South and the end of the building. Mr. Holman expressed appreciation for the time the Planning Department has spent on this matter and stated that the Staff has helped make this a better project. He stated that he accepted all the findings and conditions recommended by Staff. III Planning Commission Meeting 4 November 21,2002 Mr. Muir commented on the parking structure and encouraged Mr. Holman to make a sidewalk • connection in Phase II from the interblock connection that runs east to west to encourage a viable pedestrian connection to 300 South. Mr. Daniels was delighted that a portion of the housing units were designated to be low-income or affordable units. He asked about the retail portion and asked if there would be any financial deference given to non-profit or community-based organizations. Mr. Holman explained that they felt it was important to open up the mixed-use element in the project by providing retail, and he had not anticipated the type of situation suggested by Mr. Daniels. Retail is part of their financial package, so it would not be space they could donate to the community. Mr. Daniels asked about the square footage of the units. Mr. Holman replied that they will be one- and two- bedroom units ranging in size from 748 square feet to 1,000 square feet. Vice-Chair Funk was concerned about open space and asked about the width of the proposed courtyard. Mr. Holman replied that the courtyard is 60 feet wide. Vice-Chair Funk opened the public hearing. There was no comment. • Vice-Chair Funk closed the public hearing. Ms. Funk felt the open space was limited based on the number of units. She understood there would be additional open space in Phases II and III, but if something should happen and they are not built, she wondered if they would be happy with the amount of open space in Phase I. Based on the amount of density, Mr. Muir asked if they should consider pocket parks rather than trying to achieve open space on individual parcels. Vice-Chair Funk did not think Salt Lake City had space for pocket parks in this neighborhood. Ms. Seelig referred to the green area in the middle of the Phase I plan and asked if that area was landscaping. Mr. Holman replied that it is landscaping, and landscaping is also proposed around the perimeter of the building. Ms. Coffey noted that the applicant is proposing to add recreational amenities within the building. Mr. Chambless asked if the project envisions children since a large number of the units are two bedrooms and some may be three bedrooms. Mr. Holman did not anticipate a high number of children, and he believed most would be infants or toddlers. The target market is in the age rangeof low 20's to mid-30's. Mr. Chambless asked if there would be sufficient space for • children to play. Mr. Holman felt it was hard to envision what the courtyard would look like, but Planning Commission Meeting 5 November 21,2002 he believed it will be one-third of the width of a football field and as long as a football field. Mr. Muir asked if they could design the courtyard to invite more use by adding benches. Mr. • Holman favored that idea and felt benches would be nice close to the building. Ms. Arnold asked the exact number of one- and two-bedroom units. Mr. Holman stated that he did not know, but he estimated that it would be approximately 50-50. Ms. Arnold stated that Mr. Holman does not know if there will be children, and that will be driven by the market and what they charge for rent. Mr. Holman stated that, based on fire, life, and safety issues, they would have the ability to regulate the number of children based on the number of bedrooms. Mr. Daniels suggested that Mr. Holman consider moving the seating area into the mid portion of the courtyard to invite people into the open space and away from tenants' windows. Mr. Muir felt benches would be appropriate by the street on 500 East near the commercial area. Mr. Muir questioned how they could resolve the open space concern. Ms. Seelig concurred that open space was an important consideration, but she believed the design shown with landscaping was appropriate. She was curious about the amount of parking near the TRAX line. Mr. Daniels pointed out that a certain amount of parking is necessary if regulated. • Ms. Arnold commented on the parking and used the Brigham Apartments as an example of projects that charge for parking stalls. Mr. Holman stated that each unit will have one free parking space and will be charged additional rent for additional spaces. Ms. Arnold noted that parking is expensive and precious, and rather than paying, people will park in the street, which creates other issues for neighboring areas. She asked if there was any assurance that this would not happen. Mr. Wilde stated that the City's practice has been to require parking, but they have not restricted the ability to charge for parking. This has been an issue that has been addressed several times over the years. However, since it is easy to absorb the cost of parking into the rent, the City has concluded that it is not practical to regulate a separate fee for parking. Motion for Petition No. 400-01-37 In the matter of Petition 400-01-37, from Overland Development, Prescott Muir moved to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the properties from RO and RMF-35 to R-MU based upon the findings of fact and with Conditions 1 through 5 with the modification to sub-item 3 on Item 2 that the height of buildings on 600 East be adjusted to 50 • Planning Commission Meeting 6 November 21,2002 feet unless the Historic Landmarks Commission approves an alternative height. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Findings of Fact A. The East Downtown Master Plan identifies the property along 600 East for medium density residential development at a 45-foot height limit with no new commercial development. The East Downtown Master Plan, through the update of the 1995 Zoning Rewrite Project, identifies higher densities along 500 East and 300 South. Amending the zoning from RO to R-MU is consistent with the Master Plan. The R-MU zoning district will allow an increase in density and will eliminate the off-site parking issue. Ensuring compliance with the master plan height policies requires limiting the maximum height and prohibiting new commercial development along 600 East if the zoning is changed from RMF-35 to R-MU. Restrictions on both height and commercial activity along 600 East should be required to be consistent with the master plan as part of the rezone approval. B. The East Downtown neighborhood is the designated high density neighborhood of Salt Lake City. Structures in the immediate vicinity include a mix of low-scale commercial buildings, apartment buildings, and low-density residential buildings. Most of the area in 411 the surrounding blocks consists of medium- and high-density residential as well as commercial zoning. C. The density and proposed zoning are compatible with the adjacent properties. The proposed residential development is consistent with adjacent land uses. Small scale commercial development fronting on 500 East or 300 South will be consistent with adjacent land uses and will not adversely impact adjacent properties. Commercial land uses should not be allowed to front along 600 East. D. The subject property is within the Central City Historic District; therefore, the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission has final design authority, including establishing the maximum height of new construction to ensure compatibility with the historic district. The proposed zoning is not necessarily incompatible with the historic district regulations. Due to the importance of 600 East in the Central City Historic District and the policies of the East Downtown Master Plan, the buildings on 600 East should be limited to 45 feet in height, and the front yard setback be a minimum of 15 feet unless the Historic Landmark Commission finds that the proposed building of Phase Ill would be compatible with the historic district with a higher height less setback. The project is a Planned Development, and the Planning Commission has authority to • review and approve the final design of the buildings in the development. However, since Planning Commission Meeting 7 November 21,2002 the property is within an H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone and the regulations governing the overlay zone take precedence when there is a conflict between the base • zoning and the overlay zone, Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final design approval to the Planning Director with the directive that final approval be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission's approval. The subject properties are within the Groundwater Source Protection Overlay Secondary Recharge Area. All uses must comply with the provisions of Section 21A.34.060, Groundwater Protection Overlay Zone. E. The subject properties are in a developed area of the City. Public facilities and services are already available. The development proposal will have to meet City standards and demonstrate that there are adequate services to meet the needs of the project. Conditions 1. The project be considered in three phases and the zoning for each phase not take effect until a building permit is issued for that phase. 2. Development along 600 East be approved only with the following stipulations: - Prohibit new commercial uses along the 600 East frontage; - Provide a 15 foot landscaped front yard setback along 600 East unless the Historic Landmark Commission approves an alternative design; - Limit the height on buildings along 600 East to 50 feet unless the Historic Landmark • Commission approves an alternative design. 1. The mid-block walkway between 500 and 600 East be improved with landscaping and pedestrian oriented amenities and that the authority to grant approval of the final landscaping plan be granted to the Planning Director. 2. Phase II and Phase III be required to be processed as planned developments with approval by the Planning Commission. 3. Approval of the final design of the buildings is delegated to the Planning Director to be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission approval. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Mr. Jonas, Mr. Diamond, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Arla Funk, as vice-chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Motion for Petition No. 410-584 In the matter of Petition No. 410-584, as requested by Ken Holman of Block 38 Associates, and based upon the findings of fact, Prescott Muir moved to recommend conceptual approval for the , Planning Commission Meeting 8 November 21,2002 three-phase residential mixed-use planned development generally located between block 300 to • 400 South and 500 to 600 East and final approval for the first phase building being located at approximately 325 South 500 East with the nine conditions proposed by Staff and the modification to Condition 4 that the height limit be changed from 45 feet to 50 feet on Phase II. Robert "Bip" Daniels seconded the motion. Mr. Daniels referred to Condition 7 and the reference to cross access. During the Staff presentation, Ms. Coffey called it a cross-over access and he asked which it should be. Ms. Coffey explained that it is a cross-over easement. Findings of Fact A. The site meets the required acreage for Planned Developments in the R-MU zoning district. B. Phase I meets all of the zoning requirements for the R-MU zoning district except the rear yard setback. Staff recommends the Planning Commission modify the rear yard setback requirements through the planned development process in accordance with Section 21A.54.150.C. Phase I of the proposed Planned Development is consistent with the East Downtown • and Transportation Master Plans in that it provides high-density residential development in the East Downtown neighborhood near the University Trax Line Station. Final design proposals for Phase II and III must be submitted to the Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission for approval. Those future approvals may impact the overall density of the development. The maximum height for buildings in Phase III should be limited to 45 feet with a 15-foot front yard setback or other dimensions compatible with the character of the historic district as determined by the Historic Landmark Commission. C. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has determined that access is adequate. D. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division has determined that internal circulation is adequate. The first phase will exceed the number of required off-street parking stalls. Crossover easements will be required to ensure access to the parking on the lot of Phase I for Phases II and III. A conditional use will be required for off-site parking as part of the approval process for Phases II and III. The final design of the access roads should include differentiated paving materials, landscaping, and pedestrian amenities. E. Public Utilities are adequate. The applicant will be required to meet all applicable utility codes prior to the issuance of a building permit. • F. Adjacent land uses do not require buffering from the proposed apartment complex. Planning Commission Meeting 9 November 21,2002 Buffering of the apartments from adjacent land uses is adequate. Retail space in the project should be prohibited along the 600 East frontage. 0 G. The architecture is different, but compatible with historic high-density housing in the neighborhood. The Historic Landmark Commission has approved the design of the first phase structure and will review future phases. The project is a Planned Development, and the Planning Commission has authority to review and approve the final design of the buildings in the development. However, since the property is within an H Historic Preservation Overlay Zone and the regulations governing the overlay zone take precedence when there is a conflict between the base zoning and the overlay zone, Staff recommends the Planning Commission delegate final design approval of the buildings for Phase II and Phase Ill to the Planning Director with the directive that final approval be consistent with the Historic Landmark Commission's approval. The final approved design for Phases II and Ill may be substantially different than what is shown on the attached schematic drawing. H. Landscaping may be adequate but may need further review upon final development of the site plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission delegate final approval of the landscaping plan to the Planning Director. Staff recommends the maintenance of a 15-foot landscape setback along 600 East as part of the future Phase Ill development or as otherwise required by the Historic Landmark Commission. Staff recommends the • final mid-block walkway design and improvements are subject to Planning Director approval. I. The Historic Landmark Commission found that an economic hardship would occur if the applicant were required to renovate most of the structures on the block, and therefore, the demolitions were allowed to occur. There are no sensitive environmental features associated with this site. J. Operating and delivery hours of the commercial land uses must comply with the Salt Lake County Health Department regulations and should not negatively impact adjacent residential land uses. K. The proposed planned development furthers the goals of the master plan and will implement master plan policies of the City. The final design of Phase II and Phase Ill will require approval from the Planning Commission as well as the Historic Landmark Commission. L. The development will be required to meet all applicable codes prior to the issuance of any building permit. Conditions • Planning Commission Meeting 10 November 21,2002 1. The Planning Commission modifies the rear yard setback requirements. • 2. The final landscape plan and mid-block walkway design be approved by the Planning Director. 3. The 600 East frontage maintain a 15-foot landscaped setback or an alternative as approved by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission to maintain the historic character of the street. 4. The buildings along 600 East maintain a 50-foot limit or an alternative as approved by the Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission to maintain the historic scale and character of the street. 5. New commercial uses are prohibited along the 600 East frontage. 6. Phase II and Ill be submitted to the Planning Commission for final approval. 7. The applicant grant an easement for Phase II and Phase Ill to ensure cross-over easements are allowed for parking and access to the amenities on the lot of Phase I. 8. The Planning Commission grant final building design approval to the Planning Director for Phases II and Ill with the directive that the design be consistent with the approval by the Historic Landmark Commission. 9. The Planning Commission allow the applicant two years to obtain final conditional use approval for Phases II and Ill. • Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Aria Funk, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. Mr. Wilde suggested that the Planning Commission make an additional motion to amend the master plan to reflect the 45-foot to 50-foot adjustment. If the City Attorney's office has concerns because that amendment was not noticed, it can be brought back. If the intent of the Planning Commission is to make an amendment to 50 feet, that can be done acknowledging that, if the City Attorney expects them to re-advertise and come back through the process, the burden would be upon the applicant to pursue that amendment. Otherwise, it would remain at 45 feet. Mr. Muir felt that was reasonable. Ms. Funk felt it would be better to modify the motion to say that the buildings along 600 East maintain not more than a 50-foot height limit. The master plan could then be amended depending upon the outcome. After further discussion, Mr. Muir proposed an additional motion to support the 50-foot height limit. • Motion Planning Commission Meeting 11 November 21,2002 Prescott Muir moved to amend the master plan to adopt 50 feet as a limit with the proviso that, if public notification is required, the applicant can proceed under a 45-foot limitation knowing that • it has been duly advertised. Tim Chambless seconded the motion. Ms. Arnold, Mr. Chambless, Mr. Daniels, Mr. Muir, and Ms. Seelig voted "Aye." Mr. Diamond, Mr. Jonas, Ms. McDonough, and Ms. Noda were not present. Arla Funk, as chair, did not vote. The motion carried. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission Meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. i • Planning Commission Meeting 12 November 21,2002 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEMO DATE: February 28,2003 SUBJECT: Neighborhood Olympic Legacy Project Criteria AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide • STAFF REPORT BY: Michael Sears,Budget&Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Council Office AND CONTACT PERSON: Michael Sears,Lehua Weaver The Council recently appropriated funds for Neighborhood Legacy Projects in each of the seven Council districts from one-time Olympic revenue. During the appropriation process the Council discussed the need for consistent criteria for the projects and formed a subcommittee to develop the criteria. The subcommittee has met and developed the criteria for the projects. The attached criteria sheet is the result of the subcommittee meeting and previous Council discussions. • The City Attorney will prepare a draft resolution for the Council to review and adopt. After the subcommittee report and discussion on the attached Neighborhood Legacy Project criteria, the Council may wish to schedule the adoption of the resolution and attached criteria. The Council may wish to establish guidelines for the amount or the percentage of the money that can be used toward planning/design and the amount toward materials and labor of the finished project. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Steve Fawcett,Gordon Hoskins,Ed Rutan,Larry Spendlove,Randy Hillier and Shannon Ashby File location: Budget\02-03 Budget\02-03 Budget Amendments\02-03 Budget Amendments • Neighborhood Legacy Projects - Criteria for projects - 1. End product would provide a long-term improvement to or creation of a community • asset. 2. Project would be limited to: a. Property that is publicly owned-either become or be City property. b. An area easily accessible to the community,e.g.located on a major/common thoroughfare. 3. Could include: a. Purchase of land or existing brick&mortar establishment. b. Enhancement to existing feature or fixture within community. c. Public art. d. Picnic park,children's park,open space,etc. e. Monument. 4. Identify any potential maintenance costs and propose funding source. 5. Provide illustration. 6. As an option,the projects can be combined with other grants(including CDBG money, but the end product cannot be the repair of a sidewalk).The projects need to meet the Neighborhood Legacy Projects'criteria,as well as any additional put forth by the application process for the other grant money. 7. Meet guidelines for the amount of the money that can be used towards the planning portion and the amount towards materials&labor of the finished project. 8. Distribution of money in each district will be determined by the Council not by the Community Councils.This is due to the uneven number of Community Councils within each district,and also to the fact that many Community Councils overlap into more than • one district. 9. A plaque indicating the source of the money would achieve acknowledgement of Olympic Legacy. 10. Projects would follow the procurement policies of the City,i.e.competitive bid. Neighborhood Legacy Projects - Approval of Funds 1. Projects that meet all criteria will be submitted to the City Council for review. 2. After Council review,projects will be placed for consideration of approval on a City Council agenda. • i Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 • Geographic Area: Salt Lake City city, Utah [For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error,and definitions, see text] Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent Total population 181,743 100.0 HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE Total population 181,743 100.0 SEX AND AGE Hispanic or Latino(of any race) 34,254 18.8 Male 92,045 50.6 Mexican 25,430 14.0 Female 89,698 49.4 Puerto Rican 483 0.3 Under 5 years 14,432 7.9 Cuban 201 0.1 5 to 9 years 11,507 6.3 Other Hispanic or Latino 8,140 4.5 10 to 14 years 10,488 5.8 Not Hispanic or Latino 147,489 81.2 15 to 19 years 12,835 7,1 White alone 128,377 70.6 20 to 24 years 21,381 11.8 RELATIONSHIP 25 to 34 years 35,731 19.7 Total population 181,743 100.0 35 to 44 years 25,021 13.8 In households 177,170 97.5 45 to 54 years 19,630 10.8 Householder 71,461 39.3 55 to 59 years 6,058 3.3 Spouse 29,360 16.2 60 to 64 years 4,739 2.6 Child 48,080 26.5 65 to 74 years 8,852 4.9 Own child under 18 years 37,923 20.9 75 to 84 years 7,914 4.4 Other relatives 11,947 6.6 85 years and over 3,155 1.7 Under 18 years 3,766 2.1 Median age(years) 30.0 (X) Nonrelatives 16,322 9.0 Unmarried partner 3,860 2.1 18 years and over 138,773 76.4 In group quarters 4,573 2.5 Male 69,792 38.4 Institutionalized population 1,134 0.6 Female 68,981 38.0 Noninstitutionalized population 3,439 1.9 21 years and over 128,813 70.9 62 years and over 22,612 12.4 HOUSEHOLD BY TYPE 65 years and over 19,921 11.0 Total households 71,461 100.0 Male 7,894 4.3 Family households(families) 39,830 55.7 Female 12,027 6.6 With own children under 18 years 19,317 27.0 Married-couple family 29,360 41.1 • RACE With own children under 18 years 13,861 19.4 One race 175,306 96.5 Female householder, no husband present 7,298 10.2 White 143,933 79.2 With own children under 18 years 4,173 5.8 Black or African American 3,433 1.9 Nonfamily households 31,631 44.3 American Indian and Alaska Native 2,442 1.3 Householder living alone 23,724 33.2 Asian 6,579 3.6 Householder 65 years and over 6,906 9.7 Asian Indian 654 0.4 Chinese 1,671 0.9 Households with individuals under 18 years 21,128 29.6 Filipino 327 0.2 Households with individuals 65 years and over .. 14,601 20.4 Japanese 959 0.5 Average household size 2.48 (X) Korean 559 0.3 Average family size 3.24 (X) Vietnamese 1,685 0.9 Other Asian 1 724 0.4 HOUSING OCCUPANCY Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 3,437 1.9 Total housing units 77,054 100.0 Native Hawaiian 124 0.1 Occupied housing units 71,461 92.7 Guamanian or Chamorro 14 - Vacant housing units 5,593 7.3 Samoan 523 0.3 For seasonal,recreational,or Other Pacific Islander 2 2,776 1.5 occasional use 638 0.8 Some other race 15,482 8.5 Two or more races 6,437 3.5 Homeowner vacancy rate(percent) 2.1 (X) Race alone or in combination with one Rental vacancy rate(percent) 6.8 (X) or more other races:3 HOUSING TENURE White 149,310 82.2 Occupied housing units 71,461 100.0 Black or African American 4,472 2.5 Owner-occupied housing units 36,592 51.2 American Indian and Alaska Native 3,523 1.9 Renter-occupied housing units 34,869 48.8 Asian 7,758 4.3 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 4,205 2.3 Average household size of owner-occupied units. 2.69 (X) Some other race 19,259 10.6 Average household size of renter-occupied units. 2.26 (X) -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X) Not applicable. Other Asian alone,or two or more Asian categories. 2 Other Pacific Islander alone,or two or more Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander categories. 3 In combination with one or more of the other races listed.The six numbers may add to more than the total population and the six percentages may add to more than 100 percent because individuals may report more than one race. • Source: U.S.Census Bureau,Census 2000. 1 U.S.Census Bureau , Table DP-2. Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000 Geographic area: Salt Lake City city, Utah [Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection,sampling error, nonsampling error,and definitions, see text] III Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent SCHOOL ENROLLMENT NATIVITY AND PLACE OF BIRTH Population 3 years and over Total population 181,456 100.0 enrolled in school 52,166 100.0 Native 148,204 81.7 Nursery school,preschool 2,906 5.6 Born in United States 146,368 80.7 Kindergarten 2,504 4.8 State of residence 89,166 49.1 Elementary school(grades 1-8) 17,574 33.7 Different state 57,202 31.5 High school(grades 9-12) 8,689 16.7 Born outside United States 1,836 1.0 College or graduate school 20,493 39.3 Foreign born 33,252 18.3 Entered 1990 to March 2000 22,601 12.5 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Naturalized citizen 7,711 4.2 Population 25 years and over 110,848 100.0 Not a citizen 25,541 14.1 Less than 9th grade 7,151 6.5 9th to 12th grade,no diploma 11,292 10.2 REGION OF BIRTH OF FOREIGN BORN High school graduate(includes equivalency) 21,804 19.7 Total(excluding born at sea) 33,252 100.0 Some college, no degree 25,116 22.7 Europe 5,599 16.8 Associate degree 6,799 6.1 Asia 5,422 16.3 Bachelor's degree 22,970 20.7 Africa 1,198 3.6 Graduate or professional degree 15,716 14.2 Oceania 1,806 5.4 Latin America 18,533 55.7 Percent high school graduate or higher 83.4 (X) Northern America 694 2.1 Percent bachelor's degree or higher 34.9 (X) LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME MARITAL STATUS Population 5 years and over 167,221 100.0 Population 15 years and over 145,159 100.0 English only 125,170 74.9 Never married 50,314 34.7 Language other than English 42,051 25.1 Now married,except separated 68,020 46.9 Speak English less than"very well" 22,055 13.2 Separated 2,803 1.9 Spanish 24,892 14.9 Widowed 8,313 5.7 Speak English less than"very well" 14,745 8.8 Female 6,678 4.6 Other Indo-European languages 8,156 4.9 Divorced 15,709 10.8 Speak English less than"very well" 2,884 1.7 Female 8,509 5.9 Asian and Pacific Island languages 6,786 4.1 • Speak English less than"very well" 3,597 2.2 GRANDPARENTS AS CAREGIVERS ANCESTRY(single or multiple) Grandparent living in household with Total population 181,456 100.0 one or more own grandchildren under 18 years 2,999 100.0 Total ancestries reported 199,694 110.1 Arab 800 0.4 Grandparent responsible for grandchildren 1,300 43.3 Czech' 599 0.3 VETERAN STATUS Danish 7,874 • 4.3 Civilian population 18 years and over 138,755 100.0 Dutch 3,421 1.9 Civilian veterans 13,191 9.5 English 37,879 20.9 French(except Basque)' 4,379 2.4 DISABILITY STATUS OF THE CIVILIAN French Canadian' 567 0.3 NONINSTITUTIONALIZED POPULATION German 19,672 10.8 Population 5 to 20 years 38,286 100.0 Greek 1,630 0.9 With a disability 3,759 9.8 Hungarian 355 0.2 Irish 12,246 6.7 Population 21 to 64 years 108,447 100.0 Italian 5,135 2.8 With a disability 20,819 19.2 Lithuanian 234 0.1 Percent employed 58.4 (X) Norwegian 4,770 2.6 No disability 87,628 80.8 Polish 1,774 1.0 Percent employed 78.8 (X) Portuguese 363 0.2 Population 65 years and over 19,398 100.0 Russian 1,041 0.6 With a disability 8,576 44.2 Scotch-Irish 2,312 1.3 Scottish 7,838 4.3 RESIDENCE IN 1995 Slovak 101 0.1 Population 5 years and over 167,221 100.0 Subsaharan African 1,263 0.7 Same house in 1995 72,015 43.1 Swedish 6,424 3.5 Different house in the U.S. in 1995 81,717 48.9 Swiss 2,105 1.2 Same county 49,219 29.4 Ukrainian 403 0.2 Different county 32,498 19.4 United States or American 7,825 4.3 Same state 10,093 6.0 Welsh 3,598 2.0 Different state 22,405 13.4 West Indian(excluding Hispanic groups) 81 - Elsewhere in 1995 13,489 8.1 Other ancestries 65,005 35.8 -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X)Not applicable. 'The data represent a combination of two ancestries shown separately in Summary File 3.Czech includes Czechoslovakian. French includes Alsa- • tian. French Canadian includes Acadian/Cajun. Irish includes Celtic. Source: U.S.Bureau of the Census,Census 2000. 2 U.S.Census Bureau s 1 Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000 S Geographic area: Salt Lake City city, Utah [Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection,sampling error, nonsampling error,and definitions, see text] Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent EMPLOYMENT STATUS INCOME IN 1999 Population 16 years and over 143,161 100.0 Households 71,492 100.0 In labor force 97,936 68.4 Less than$10,000 7,660 10.7 Civilian labor force 97,771 68.3 $10,000 to$14,999 5,193 7.3 Employed 92,074 64.3 $15,000 to$24,999 11,087 15.5 Unemployed 5,697 4.0 $25,000 to$34,999 9,920 13.9 Percent of civilian labor force 5.8 (X) $35,000 to$49,999 11,801 16.5 Armed Forces 165 0.1 $50,000 to$74,999 12,733 17.8 Not in labor force 45,225 31.6 $75,000 to$99,999 5,810 8.1 Females 16 years and over 71,151 100.0 $100,000 to$149,999 4,304 6.0 In labor force 43,867 61.7 $150,000 to$199,999 1,326 1.9 Civilian labor force 43,824 61.6 $200,000 or more 1,658 2.3 Employed 41,262 58.0 Median household income(dollars) 36,944 (X) Own children under 6 years 15,773 100.0 With earnings 58,491 81.8 All parents in family in labor force 8,739 55.4 Mean earnings(dollars)1 50,876 (X) With Social Security income 15,259 21.3 COMMUTING TO WORK Mean Social Security income(dollars)1 11,510 (X) Workers 16 years and over 90,187 100.0 With Supplemental Security Income 2,933 4.1 Car,truck, or van--drove alone 62,542 69.3 Mean Supplemental Security Income Car,truck, or van--carpooled 12,521 13.9 (dollars)1 5,937 (X) Public transportation(including taxicab) 5,665 6.3 With public assistance income 3,007 4.2 Walked 4,427 4.9 Mean public assistance income(dollars)1 2,696 (X) Other means 2,117 2.3 With retirement income 9,581 13.4 Worked at home 2,915 3.2 Mean retirement income(dollars)1 16,150 (X) Mean travel time to work(minutes)1 19.2 (X) Families 40,386 100.0 Employed civilian population Less than$10,000 2,356 5.8 16 years and over __92,074 _ 100.0 $10,000 to$14,999 1,890 4.7 OCCUPATION $15,000 to$24,999 5,243 13.0 IIIManagement, professional,and related $25,000 to$34,999 5,435 13.5 occupations 35,305 38.3 $35,000 to$49,999 7,298 18.1 Service occupations 14,190 15.4 $50,000 to$74,999 8,309 20.6 Sales and office occupations 24,349 26.4 $75,000 to$99,999 4,116 10.2 Farming,fishing,and forestry occupations 128 0.1 $100,000 to$149,999 3,265 8.1 Construction,extraction,and maintenance $150,000 to$199,999 1,075 2.7 occupations 7,026 7.6 $200,000 or more 1,399 3.5 Production,transportation,and material moving Median family income(dollars) 45,140 (X) occupations 11,076 12.0 Per capita income(dollars)1 20,752 (X) INDUSTRY Median earnings(dollars): Agriculture,forestry,fishing and hunting, Male full-time,year-round workers 31,511 (X) and mining 501 0.5 Female full-time,year-round workers 26,403 (X) Construction 5,586 6.1 Manufacturing 8,755 9.5 Number Percent Wholesale trade 2,810 3.1 below below Retail trade 9,033 9.8 poverty poverty Transportation and warehousing,and utilities 4,507 4.9 Subject level level Information 3,854 4.2 Finance,insurance, real estate,and rental and POVERTY STATUS IN 1999 leasing 6,513 7.1 Families 4,189 10.4 Professional, scientific,management,adminis- With related children under 18 years 3,318 15.5 trative,and waste management services 11,282 12.3 With related children under 5 years 1,951 17.9 Educational, health and social services 20,774 22.6 Arts, entertainment, recreation,accommodation Families with female householder,no and food services 10,288 11.2 husband present 1,520 21.7 Other services(except public administration) 4,280 4.6 With related children under 18 years 1,351 29.3 Public administration 3,891 4.2 With related children under 5 years 681 38.4 CLASS OF WORKER Individuals 27,305 15.3 Private wage and salary workers 71,604 77.8 18 years and over 19,351 14.2 Govemment workers 15,602 16.9 65 years and over 1,658 8.5 Self-employed workers in own not incorporated Related children under 18 years 7,765 18.7 business 4,671 5.1 Related children 5 to 17 years 5,102 18.4 Unpaid family workers 197 0.2 Unrelated individuals 15 years and over 11,608 24.4 . -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X)Not applicable. 'If the denominator of a mean value or per capita value is less than 30,then that value is calculated using a rounded aggregate in the numerator. See text. Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census,Census 2000. 3 U.S.Census Bureau a Table DP-4. Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 Geographic area: Salt Lake City city, Utah III[Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection,sampling error, nonsampling error,and definitions, see text] Subject Number Percent Subject Number Percent Total housing units 77,016 100.0 OCCUPANTS PER ROOM UNITS IN STRUCTURE Occupied housing units 71,402 100.0 1-unit,detached 37,974 49.3 1.00 or less 65,600 91.9 1-unit,attached 2,625 3.4 1.01 to 1.50 2,835 4.0 2 units 6,175 8.0 1.51 or more 2,967 4.2 3 or 4 units 6,128 8.0 5 to 9 units 4,245 5.5 Specified owner-occupied units 30,689 100.0 10 to 19 units 4,818 6.3 VALUE 20 or more units 14,340 18.6 Less than$50,000 239 0.8 Mobile home 676 0.9 $50,000 to$99,999 4,314 14.1 Boat, RV,van,etc 35 - $100,000 to$149,999 10,256 33.4 $150,000 to$199,999 7,259 23.7 YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT $200,000 to$299,999 4,557 14.8 1999 to March 2000 867 1.1 $300,000 to$499,999 2,920 9.5 1995 to 1998 2,989 3.9 $500,000 to$999,999 993 3.2 1990 to 1994 1,765 2.3 $1,000,000 or more 151 0.5 1980 to 1989 5,872 7.6 Median(dollars) 153,300 (X) 1970 to 1979 10,497 13.6 1960 to 1969 8,587 11.1 MORTGAGE STATUS AND SELECTED 1940 to 1959 22,013 28.6 MONTHLY OWNER COSTS 1939 or earlier 24,426 31.7 With a mortgage 21,756 70.9 Less than$300 97 0.3 ROOMS $300 to$499 821 2.7 1 room 2,979 3.9 $500 to$699 1,905 6.2 2 rooms 6,128 8.0 $700 to$999 5,740 18.7 3 rooms 12,056 15.7 $1,000 to$1,499 8,007 26.1 4 rooms 15,145 19.7 $1,500 to$1,999 2,863 9.3 5 rooms 11,605 15.1 $2,000 or more 2,323 7.6 6 rooms 8,468 11.0 Median(dollars) 1,116 (X) 7 rooms 7,071 9.2 Not mortgaged 8,933 29.1 8 rooms 5,800 7.5 Median(dollars) 269 (X) • 9 or more rooms 7,764 10.1 Median(rooms) 4.7 (X) SELECTED MONTHLY OWNER COSTS AS A PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD Occupied housing units 71,402 100.0 INCOME IN 1999 YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Less than 15.0 percent 10,990 35.8 1999 to March 2000 20,861 29.2 15.0 to 19.9 percent 4,921 16.0 1995 to 1998 21,675 30.4 20.0 to 24.9 percent 3,767 12.3 1990 to 1994 9,474 13.3 25.0 to 29.9 percent 3,293 10.7 1980 to 1989 7,463 10.5 30.0 to 34.9 percent 2,063 6.7 1970 to 1979 4,371 6.1 35.0 percent or more 5,465 17.8 1969 or earlier 7,558 10.6 Not computed 190 0.6 VEHICLES AVAILABLE Specified renter-occupied units 34,812 100.0 None 9,076 12.7 GROSS RENT 1 28,680 40.2 Less than$200 1,618 4.6 2 24,168 33.8 $200 to$299 1,283 3.7 3 or more 9,478 13.3 $300 to$499 9,312 26.7 $500 to$749 14,688 42.2 HOUSE HEATING FUEL $750 to$999 4,661 13.4 Utility gas 59,872 83.9 $1,000 to$1,499 1,800 5.2 Bottled,tank,or LP gas 661 0.9 $1,500 or more 440 1.3 Electricity 9,672 13.5 No cash rent 1,010 2.9 Fuel oil, kerosene,etc 127 0.2 Median(dollars) 564 (X) Coal or coke 22 - Wood 37 0.1 GROSS RENT AS A PERCENTAGE OF Solar energy 19 - HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1999 Other fuel 655 0.9 Less than 15.0 percent 5,661 16.3 No fuel used 337 0.5 15.0 to 19.9 percent 5,090 14.6 20.0 to 24.9 percent 4,504 12.9 SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS 25.0 to 29.9 percent 4,238 12.2 Lacking complete plumbing facilities 377 0.5 30.0 to 34.9 percent 2,803 8.1 Lacking complete kitchen facilities 438 0.6 35.0 percent or more 10,735 30.8 No telephone service 1,336 1.9 Not computed 1,781 5.1 -Represents zero or rounds to zero. (X)Not applicable. • Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census,Census 2000. 4 U.S.Census Bureau Industry Focus " aE ► Defense-The defense industry in Utah continued to expand 2001,with spending totaling$2.35 billion,rising 23%from the previous year. New operations beginning .at Hill Air Force Base should prove to be a strengthening influence on the remainder of Utah's defense industry. Tourism-Following two years of declines,non-resident tourism arrivals to Utah increased slightly in 2002,to 17.5 million. Hotel occupancies increased to nearly 62%in 2002,marking the first increase in eight years. The downturn in air travel continued during 2002,with 2%fewer passengers at the Salt Lake International Airport compared to 2001. Drought-induced difficulties at many state parks prompted a 5%decline in state park visitation during the year. As expected,ski resorts reported a 9%decline in skier days as the Olympics kept many skiers away. ► Exports-Utah's exports fell 9%during 2002,from$3.5 billion to$3.2 billion. Although Utah's exports more than doubled during the 1990s,most of the growth occurred before 1997. Since then,exports have remained in the range of$3.0 billion to$3.5 billion. The fact that the world economy is barely growing,but exports to East Asia are holding up,bodes well for future Utah export growth. ► High-Tech-The downturn in Utah's high technology sector that began in 2001 gained momentum in 2002. For the first six months of 2002,employment in Utah's technology sector declined by 9%,representing a net loss of nearly 5,000 jobs. Only two industries,medical equipment and supplies,and scientific research and development services,reported job gains. While High-Tech's downturn has had significant repercussions in the Utah economy over the past two years,analysts still expect this sector to be one of the leading drivers in future economic growth. Numerous publications have ranked Utah as a state that appears to be well-positioned to prosper in the"New Economy",where an educated wokforce,quality infrastructure,and attactive business climate have become increasingly more important. ► Energy and Minerals-Utah's 2002 crude oil production was less than half of its peak year production in 1985. However,Utah's natural gas capacity has risen steadily over the years,primarily due to an increase in its coal bed methane fields. At$1.8 billion during 2002,the value of mineral production dropped only slightly from 2001. The value of industrial minerals was up,while the value of base metals,coal,and precious metals all declined. ► Agriculture-Drought and lower prices reduced farm income during 2002. A sharp decline in cattle and milk prices,coupled with increasing input costs,especially feed,resulted in lower incomes.The high feed prices had a negative impact for ranchers,but increased income for farmers growing grain and hay. s< 3 � z° : <. gs 2 , - a�or ►n ►n ► Economy Slows Down-Utah's economy slowed down significantly in 2002 as the national Utah Economic Indicators:2001-2002 recession eventually caught up with the state. Income,jobs,population,exports,construction, and housing prices,all had slower growth,or outright declines in 2002. i 22 Popufafon I �'; '� 1.9 ❑Utah 2001 AlliSchool Age Population Boom-The state is expecting a substantial increase in the school age I 16 ®Utah 2002 population(ages 5-17)beginning in 2004 and extending to at least 2015. According to the 2002 Monagru Wral 0.6 baseline,the school age population is projected to increase to 524,458 by 2005 and to 601,034 Enpbynent ° 07 •Ut6h 2003 in 2010. Educating these children,while maintaining a reasonable tax incidence,will be a major 44 challenge for policy makers in the coming years. uneopbymaotRab j '/ w ,y -� 6.0 53 ► Defense Contracts are up-In recent years,defense contracting in Utah has increased 26 significantly. Contract awards increased 73.1%in 2000 and an additional 34.4%in 2001. TRW Average Pay 25 has been the state's top contract recipient with$296.5 million in 2000 and$566.7 million in 2001 inprime contract awards. The remainingtopnine contractors averaged$35.8 million in 2001. Wages 135 9 �� �,,.5 3.3 ► Outlook for 2003-The outlook calls for a return to moderate growth during 2003,accelerating 111111111111111111125 into 2004. Utah's job growth is currently below the nation's,and the unemployment rate is Retail Sales '38 above. During 2003,however,this dynamic should switch as Utah returns to higher job growth I than the U.S.and a lower unemployment rate. Service industries will remain the largest source Housing Prices 0.5 I43 of new jobs in the state in 2003. Manufacturing job growth will be flat,while the mining and I 20 construction industries will continue to contract in 2003. Overall,employment should grow 0.7%. -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 With record-high births,but near-zero migration,population growth should remain around 1.6% Percent Changes and Rates during 2003. Source:Council of Economic Advisors'Revenue Assumptions Committee " h-- ►f Utah Ranki '° : . in" icant '� , State Rank Value* Year State Rank Value* Year Demographic Economic Population Growth Rate 4th 29.6% 1990-2000 Rate of Job Growth N/A -1.0% 2002 Fertility Rate 1st 2.51 2000 Urban Status 9th 88.3%urban 2000 Life Expectancy 3rd 78.6 years 2000 Unemployment Rate N/A 6.0% 2002 Mediaigon Age 1st 26.7 years 2000 Median Household Income 12th $48,378 1999-2001 Household Size 1st 3.13 persons 2000 Average Annual Pay 35th $30,074 2001 I Indicators Per Capita Personal Income 46th $24,180 2001 t Crime 7th 234.1 per 100,000 people 2001 city Rate 10th 8.0% 1999 2001 *Rankings are based on the most current data available for all states,and Educational Attainment 4th 87.7%of persons 25+ 2000 may differ from more recent data available for Utah only. w/high school degree Note:.Rank is most favorable to least favorable. N/A=Not Available. Governor's Office of Planning and Budget January 2003 www.governor.utah.gov/dea ECONOMICmoar 5'(1S.Y. - = i EXCERPTS r State of Utah G OVERNOR Governor Michael O. Leavitt Demographics -, , ,, a 4 ► Population: The state's July 1,2002 population was estimated to be 2.34 million, Population Growth Rates: 2001-2002 increasing 1.9%from 2001. Although the state continues to experience net in- NE migration,natural increase accounts for the majority of the state's population �s 1 mi 3.1% ..eor�ter [j ben9ee efLeea,te,1.3% � F Imo; growth. tm �x . Ine,ease0113%t°30% [I °eemae ► Rate of Growth: Utah ranked fourth among states with a population growth rate State"""°° 19% of 29.6%from 1990 to 2000. Utah grew more than twice as fast as the U.S. ... „ °'°5',"°% during this ten year period. The U.S.rate of growth was 13.2%. �'a1, I` 6.0% ► Median Age:Utah continues to be the youngest in the nation,with a median age 'i 32% t, ;; of 27.1 in 2000,compared to 35.3 nationally. -_, ► Long Term Projections:The state's population is projected to be 2.79 million in -, .•_=tom 2010,surpass 3.37 million by 2020,and reach 3.77 million by 2030. >- _ 2002 Utah Population Estimate 2,338,761 . t7 ;. ,-vv. 2001-2002 Percent Change 1.9% � �„,„ 2002 Net Migration 7,411 0.� =- 2002 Natural Increase 35,379 tam f f" `. 2=° 2002 Fiscal Year Births 48,041 '' ... ,_-= ` ' 2002 Fiscal Year Deaths 12,662 0,„„„ °� .. M , .x ', p,4 ' 1 Employment and Wages x,---_Y , - ;; r ► Job Growth-The 2002 rate of job growth,-1.0%,is the lowest in 48 years. ► Industry Focus-The service sector continues to lead the state in job growth. Education and health services,leisure and hospitality,as well as many other service industries,all experienced positive job growth during 2001-2002,while many industries experienced a decline in job growth. ► Unemployment-Utah's 2002 unemployment rate of 6.0% is the highest in over a decade. On average,there were 67,660 Utahns unemployed in 2002. ► Average Wage-In 2002,Utah's average annual nonagricultural wage was$30,400. This reflects a 2.6%year-over wage growth and marks the smallest yearly increase since 1993's 2.4%increase. Percent Change in Utah Employment by Industry:2001-2002 Annual Averages Total -1.0% Total Nonagricultural Employment(2002p) 1,070,400 Mining y2e� 3.0% Decrease(2001-2002) -11,285 Percent Change(2001-2002) -1.0% Construction Unemployment Rate(2002) 6.0% Manufacturing -6.0% Trade,Trans.,utilities -2.5% Total Nonagricultural Wages(2002) $32.5 billion Percent Change(2001-2002) 1.5% Information -6.6% Financial Activity 1.9% Average Annual Wage(2002) $30,400 Prof.&Bus.Serv. -2.3% Percent Change(2001-2002) 2.6% Ed.&Health Serv. 3.5% Total Personal Income(2001) $54.9 billion Leisure&Hospitality 5.1% Percent Change(2000-2001) 4.3% Other Services 5.3% Government 1.1% Per Capita Personal Income(2001) $24,180 1111 -10.0% -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% .6.0% 8.0% 1110 Source:Department of Workforce Services Governor's Office of Planning and Budget January 2003 www.governor.utah.gov/dea • • • • • • • • • • • • - ECONOMIC • • •• • • O E • • • - GOVERNOR. • • 6®fi �y OF Tk'''' • State of Utah qs • Michael O. Leavitt ®�a od�yya • Governor • m o ei 9 8®aae®0 r®s® • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f�N~'OP....... • ti . iiff �r l 'l1KF A !at • tW • �/� CZ 4111 • STATE OF UTAH • MICHAELO. LEAVITT GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OLENE S. WALKER SALT LAKE CITY LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR • 84114-0601 • • January 9, 2003 1111 My Fellow Utahns: • • It is with great pleasure that I accept the 2003 Economic Report to the Governor. I • commend my Council of Economic Advisors for their service and for the research that went into the preparation of this annual report. The report serves as a critical resource for the state of Utah's • research and planning needs during the upcoming year. • • This past year was a tough one, with many Utahns finding themselves out of work or underemployed. The global, national, and state economies took a downturn in 2001, and were • driven deeper by the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and the falling stock market. The • downturn continued into 2002 and the recovery has been slow to take hold. However,2002 also had • some highlights; most notably,the state hosted the first world class event following the terrorist • attacks, demonstrating that terrorism could not break our nation's resolve. As the world watched, • the state delivered one of the most successful Winter Olympics in history. I was proud to be governor during those 17 days when Utahns showed they could safely and competently host the "2002 Winter Olympic Games." Utah begins 2003 with a sluggish economy and serious budgetary challenges. In 2002, I initiated a"1000 Day Plan"to renew the state's economic momentum. Utah's economic success is • tied directly to the achievements of our education system. We must continue to maintain a high • standard of public education so our children can obtain quality jobs. Our young and educated work . force is the state's largest asset and serves as the greatest incentive for businesses to locate here. We have outlined specific performance measures so we can track our progress, and the • improvements are being felt statewide. In order to maintain our momentum and preserve our quality . of life we need to be good stewards of our land and natural resources. Our strategy is to position Utah within the global marketplace as a capital for technology, investment, employment, and • entrepreneurship. Utah's future resides with being a regional hub of economic activity, while • preserving the quality of life our citizens have come to know and expect. • In this time of uncertainty I am grateful for the trust you have bestowed in me as governor of • this great state to help turn our challenges into opportunities. I welcome your involvement as we • move forward together into Utah's future. . Sincerely, (047.42(0, • 110 • Michael O. Leavitt 110 Governor • • • • Preface •410 The 2003 Economic Report to the Governor is the 17th annual are preliminary estimates(p). Final estimates(e)can be obtained later publication of its kind in Utah. The Economic Report is the principal in 2003 from the contributing entities. Forecasts will be indicated in • source for data,research,and analysis about the Utah economy. It tables and figures with an(f). An(r)indicates the data has been includes a national and state economic outlook,a summary of state revised. An(na)indicates that the data was not available at the time of • government economic development activities,an analysis of economic printing. All of the data in this report are subject to error arising from a activity based on the standard indicators,and a more detailed review of variety of factors,including sampling variability,reporting errors, • industries and issues of particular interest. The primary goal of the incomplete coverage,non-response,imputations,and processing error. • report is to improve readers'understanding of the Utah economy. With If there are questions about the sources,limitations,and appropriate use an improved economic literacy,decision makers in the public and private of the data included in this report,the relevant entity should be • sector will then be able to plan,budget,and make policy with an contacted. awareness of how their actions are both influenced by,and impact • economic activity. Statistics for States and Counties. This report focuses on the state, • Council of Economic Advisors. The Council of Economic Advisors multi-county,and county geographic level. Additional data at the metropolitan,city,and other sub-county level may be available. For • (CEA)provides guidance for the contents of this report. The CEA is an information about data for a different level of geography than shown in advisory committee to the Governor and includes representatives from this report,the contributing entity should be contacted. • state government agencies,Wells Fargo Bank,Thredgold Economic • Associates, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco,Utah Foundation, New This Year. While the content of this report,other than introducing a and all of Utah's major research universities. The mission of the CEA is new year of data and analysis,is consistent with prior years,several • to provide information and analysis that enhances economic decision- updates and new data series or research efforts are worthy of making in Utah. This report is the primary means of the CEA to highlighting. The Special Topics section of this report contains four new • communicate economic information to the general public. chapters:Income Distribution and Poverty Trends in Utah;Utah's School Age Population Boom;Future K-12 Education Challenges;and The • Collaborative EffortlContributors. Chapter authors,many of whom Economic Impact of Utah's Drought. • are special advisors to the CEA and who represent both public and private entities,devote a significant amount of time to this report,making Electronic Access. This report is available on the Governor's Office of I, sure that it contains the latest economic and demographic information. Planning and Budget's Internet web site at www.governor.utah.gov/dea. While this report is a collaborative effort which results in a consensus • forecast for the next year,each chapter is the work of the contributing Glossary. Terms and definitions used in this report are available on the ell organization,with review and comment by the Governor's Office of Governor's Office of Planning and Budget web site at the address listed Planning and Budget. More detailed information about the findings in above. • each chapter can be obtained by contacting the specific authoring entity III Governor list of Contributors). Suggestions and Comments. Users of the Economic Report to the Governor are encouraged to write or call with suggestions that will . Statistics Used in This Report. The statistical contents of this report improve future editions. Suggestions and comments for improving the are from a multitude of sources which are listed at the bottom of each coverage and presentation of data,as well as the quality of research and . table and figure. Statistics are generally for the most recent year or analysis should be sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, . period available as of mid-December 2002. Since there is a quarter or 116 State Capitol,Salt Lake City, Utah 84114. The telephone number is more of lag time before economic data become final,the data for 2002 (801)538-1036. • • • • • II II II II ND • lb • Preface 2003 Economic Report to the Governor i • • • • Contents • Figures • • Tables vii • Contributors • ix • Council of Economic Advisors xi • • Map of Utah xiii • • Executive Summary 1 • • Economic Outlook • National Outlook 5 • • Utah Outlook 7 • • Utah's Long-Term Projections 15 • Economic Development Activities 29 • • Economic Indicators ill • Demographics 31 • Employment,Wages,Labor Force 49 • • Personal Income 65 • Gross State Product 71 • • Utah Taxable Sales 75 S . Tax Collections 81 • International Merchandise Exports 89 • • Price Inflation and Cost of Living 97 S . Regional/National Comparisons 103 Social Indicators 117 • . Industry Focus • Agriculture 121 • Residential and Nonresidential Construction 129 • Defense 135 • • Energy and Minerals 141 • • High Technology 149 • Tourism,Travel,and Recreation 153 • . Special Topics • Income Distribution and Poverty Trends 161 • • Utah's School Age and College Age Population Boom 169 • Future Challenges for K-12 Education 177 • • The Economic Impact of Utah's Drought 189 110 11/ • Contents 2003 Economic Report to the Governor iii • • Figures S 411 Executive Summary Tax Collections A. Utah's Job Growth Rate Declines 1 35. Base-Adjusted Revenue Growth 83 S B. Utah Behind the Mountain States and the Nation 1 36. Revenue Growth and Surpluses 83 C. Many Industries Contracting. 2 37. Unrestricted Revenues as a Percent of State 84 110 D. Defense Spending in Utah at a Record High 2 38. Utah and U.S.Capital Gains 84 E. Construction Downturn Softened by Low Rates 3 F. The Coming Boom in Utah's School Enrollment 3 International Merchandise Exports . 39. Utah Merchandise Exports 90 National Outlook 40. Utah Merchandise Exports by Top Ten Industries 90 1. Comparison of Utah and U.S.Economic Indicators 6 41. Merchandise Exports to Top Ten Purchasing Countries ..91 10 Utah Outlook Price Inflation and Cost of Living 10 2. Utah Economic Indicators 10 42. U.S.Consumer Price Index(CPI-U) 98 3. Comparison of Utah and U.S.Economic Indicators 10 43. CPI-U and GDP Deflator Inflation 98 4. Construction Jobs as a Percent of Total Jobs 11 . 5. Construction Employment Before and After the Olympics 11 Regional/National Comparisons 44. Population Growth Rates 105 . Utah's Long-Term Projections 45. Per Capita Income as a Percent of U.S. 105 6. Population Estimates and Projections by MCD 17 46. Median Household Income as a Percent of U.S 106 11) 7. Utah's Changing Age Structure 18 47. Average Annual Pay as a Percent of U.S 106 . 8. Dependency Ratios for Utah and the U.S 18 48. Nonagricultural Employment Growth 107 9. Utah Dependency Ratios 19 49. Percent of Persons in Poverty 107 10. U.S.Dependency Ratios 19 11. Projected School Age Population 20 Agriculture D 12. Growth of the 65 and Older Age Group 20 50. Percent of Agricultural Cash Receipts by Sector 122 13. Employment Growth by Decade for Utah and the U.S....21 51. Percent Cash Receipts by Commodity 122 14. Industry Employment as a Share of State Employment ..21 52. Farm Assets and Equity 123 ID 53. Net Farm Income 123 MD Demographics 54 Percent Cash Receipts from Livestock by County 124 15. Population Growth Rates. 33 55. Farm Cash Receipts by County 124 16. Utah Population--Annual Percent Change 34 17. Utah Components of Population Change 34 Residential and Nonresidential Construction 18. Utah Total Population 35 56. Residential Construction Activity 130 19. Percent Change in Population for States. 35 57, Value of New Construction 130 110 20. Total Fertility for Utah and the U.S. 36 21. Utah Family Characteristics 36 Defense 58. Federal Defense-Related Spending in Utah 136 Employment,Wages,Labor Force 59. Primary Federal Defense-Related Spending in the U.S. 136 22. Unemployment Rates for Utah,California,and the U.S. ..51 23. Utah Employment--Annual Percent Change 51 Energy and Minerals 24. Percent Change in Employment by Industry 52 60. Mineral Valuation Gross Value Estimate 144 25. Utah and U.S.Employment by Industry 52 61. Value of Nonfuel Minerals 144 26. Utah Average Annual Pay as a Percent of U.S. 53 27. Utah Average Annual Pay Growth Rates 53 Tourism,Travel,and Recreation 1 28. Growth Rates for Total Wages and Salaries 54 62. Travel-Related Employment 154 29. Utah and U.S.Civilian Labor Force Participation Rates ..54 63. Hotel Room Rents 155 64. National Park and Skier Visits 155 Personal Income 65. Traveler Spending 156 11) 30. Per Capita Personal Income as a Percent of U.S 66 66. Tourism Sector Taxable Sales 156 Gross State Product(GSP) Income Distribution and Poverty Trends 31. Utah GSP Percent Share by Industry 72 67. Income Distribution Estimates in Utah and the U.S. ....163 r 32. U.S.GDP--Percent Share by Industry 72 68. Average Income in Utah and the U.S 163 69. Growth Rates of Utah's Average Income 164 1 Utah Taxable Sales 70. Utah Incomes as a Percent of U.S. 164 ' 33. Annual Percent Change in Utah Taxable Sales 77 71. Utah Income Distribution Trends 165 34. Shares of Utah's Sales Tax Base Four Major Sectors .,.77 72. Utah Ratios of Income-to-Poverty Levels 165 OP 1 Ili ' Figures 2003 Economic Report to the Govemor v • • • Figures • • Utah's School Age and College Age Population Boom O. 73. School Age Population Scenarios 171 • 74. College Age Population Scenarios 171 75. Projected School Age per Employed Worker in Utah 172 • 76. Projected Cumulative Population Increase 173 • Future Challenges for K-12 Education • 77. Utah's Tax Burden 179 78. Utah's K-12 Education Spending 179 • 79. K-12 Public Education per Pupil Expenditures 180 80. K-12 Public School Pupil Teacher Ratios 180 • 81. Utah Average Annual Pay as a Percent of U.S 181 • 82. Utah and the U.S.Average Annual Pay 181 83. CRT Statewide Language Arts Results by Grade 182 • 84. CRT Statewide Math Results by Grade/Subject 182 85. CRT Statewide Science Results by Grade 183 • 86. Actual and Projected K-12 Enrollment 183 • 87. Projected K-12 Operating Funds per Pupil 184 88. Language Arts Results by Ethnicity, Income,and Grade 184 • 89. Math Results by Ethnicity,Income,and Grade 185 90. Science Results by Ethnicity, Income,and Grade 185 • The Economic Impact of Utah's Drought • 91. Drought Conditions in the U.S 191 • 92. Statewide Reservoir Storage by Percent of Capacity 192 93. Statewide Reservoir Storage by River Basin 192 • 94. Reservoir Storage Deficit by River Basin 193 • 95. Comparison of Wasatch Front Total Water Use 193 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ili • vi 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Figures • • • • • • • Tables • Utah Outlook International Merchandise Exports 1. Economic Indicators for Utah and the U.S. 12 44. Merchandise Exports by Country and Region 92 • 2. Large Construction and Employment Summary 13 45. U.S.Merchandise Exports by State 93 3. 2002 Olympic Winter Games Projects and Infrastructure .14 46. Merchandise Exports by Industry 94 • 47. Merchandise Export to Top Ten Purchasing Countries 95 Utah's Long-Term Projections • 4. Economic and Demographic Summary 22 Price Inflation and Cost of Living • 5. Population Projections by County and District 23 48. U.S.Consumer Price Index 99 6. Total Employment Projections by Major Industry 24 49. Gross Domestic Product Deflators 100 • 7. Population Projections by Selected Age Groups 25 50. Cost-of-Living Comparisons for Selected Areas 101 8. Population by Age Groups as a Percent of Total 25 • 9. Location Quotients and Rachman Index 26 Regional/National Comparisons • 10. Hachman Index by County 27 51. Population and Households 108 11. Utah Dependency Ratios 28 52. Total Personal Income 109 • 12. Life Expectancies for Utah and the U.S. 28 53. Per Capita Personal Income 110 54. Median Income of Households 111 • Demographics 55. Average Annual Pay 112 • 13. Population,Migration, Births and Deaths 37 56. Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls 113 14. Utah Population Estimates by County 38 57. Unemployment Rates 114 • 15. Total Fertility Rates for Utah and the U.S. 39 58. Percent of People in Poverty 115 16. National and State Population Counts 40 • 17. Rankings of States by Selected Age Groups 41 Social Indicators • 18. Dependency Ratios for States 42 59. Crime,Education,and Home Ownership 118 19. Housing Units,Households,Persons Per Household ... .43 60. Vital Statistics and Health 119 • 20. County Population by Race and Hispanic Origin 44 61. Poverty and Public Assistance 120 21. Net In-Migration by State 45 • 22. City Population Counts 46 Agriculture • 62. Farm Balance Sheet for Utah 125 Employment,Wages,Labor Force 63. Percent of Agricultural Receipts by Sector 126 SO 23. Employment by Industry and Unemployment 55 64. Cash Receipts by Source and County 127 24. Employment by County and Industry 56 65. Personal Income from Farming by County 128 • 25. Wages by County and Industry 57 • 26. Utah Average Monthly Wage by Industry 58 Residential and Nonresidential Construction 27. Utah Population,Labor Force,and Jobs by Industry 59 66. Residential and Nonresidential Construction Activity .. .131 • 28. Labor Force and Components by District&County 60 67. Summary of Construction Activity 132 29. Largest Nonagricultural Employers 61 68. Average Annual Mortgage Rates 132 • 30. Employment Status of Utah's Population 62 69. Housing Prices for Utah 133 • 31. Employment Status of Population by Sex and Age 63 Defense • Personal Income 70. Federal Defense-related Spending:Utah Total 137 32. Components of Total Personal Income 67 71. Primary Federal Defense-related Spending for the U.S. 137 • 33. Personal and Per Capita Income for Utah and the U.S 68 72. Federal Defense-related Spending by County 138 • 34. Personal Income by District and County 69 73. Federal Defense related Spending in Utah 139 35. Per Capita Income by District and County 70 74. Federal Defense-related Spending for the U.S. 140 • Gross State Product(GSP) Energy and Minerals • 36. GSP by Industry(Current Dollars) 73 75. Supply and Disposition of Crude Oil 145 • 37. GSP by Industry(1996 Chained Dollars) 74 76. Supply and Disposition of Petroleum Products 145 77. Supply and Disposition of Natural Gas 146 • Utah Taxable Sales 78. Supply and Disposition of Electricity 146 38. Utah Taxable Sales By Component 78 79. Energy Prices 147 • 39. Utah Taxable Retail Sales by Sector 79 . 40. Utah Taxable Retail Sales by County 80 High Technology 80. High Tech Employment Additions and Reductions 151 • Tax Collections 81. High Tech Sector Employment Trends 151 41. Cash Collection Unrestricted Revenues 85 . 42. Cash Collection Unrestricted Revenues(%Changes) 86 Tourism,Travel and Recreation 4410 43. State Tax and Fee Changes in Legislative Sessions 87 82. Impacts of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games 157 83. Profile of the Utah Travel Industry 158 • lik . Tables 2003 Economic Report to the Governor vii • • • Tables (Continued) • 84. Utah Tourism Indicators 159 • 85. National Parks'Recreation Visits 16041110 Income Distribution and Poverty Trends • 86. Income Distributions for all States 166 • 87. Ratios of Income-to-Poverty Levels 167 88. Poverty by Age 168 • Utah's School Age and College Age Population Boom • 89. Utah Projections--Baseline and Scenarios 174 • 90. School Age Population Change 175 • Future Challenges for K-12 Education 91. Tax Burden by Type of Tax 186 • 92. Utah's NAEP Results by Subject,Grade,and Year 186 • 93. Demographic Indicators of UT School Age Population 187 • The Economic Impact of Utah's Drought 94. Economic Impacts of Drought 194 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 111 110 viii 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Tables • • • • • • i Contributors • Governor's Office of Planning and Budget Tom Brill,Director IS/ 116 State Capitol I Salt Lake City,Utah 84114 Jeff Burks,Energy Policy Coordinator (801)538-1027 Lyle Summers,Chief Economist,Water Resources • http:/lgovernor.utah.gov/gopb Jon Allred,Energy Analyst • Lynne N.Ward,CPA,Director Chapters:Energy and Minerals Neil Ashdown,Deputy Director/DEA Manager • Neena Verma,Research Analyst Utah Foundation Sophia DiCaro,Research Analyst 5242 College Drive,Suite 390/Salt Lake City,UT 84123 • Peter Donner,Senior Economist (801)288-1838 Robert Spendlove,Economist www.utahfoundation.orq • Scott Frisby,Economist Steve Kroes,Executive Director Clara Walters,Administrative Assistant Sara Sanchez,Research Analyst • Ross Reeve,Research Consultant Chapters:Regional/National Comparisons;Future Challenges for K-12 • Lance Rovig,Senior Economist Education Chapters:Executive Summary;Utah Outlook;Utah's Long-Term Projections; • Demographics;Gross State Product;Price Inflation and Cost of Living;Tax Utah State University Collections;International Merchandise Exports;Social Indicators; Economics Department/Logan,Utah 84322-3530 • Defense/Aerospace;Income Distribution and Poverty Trends;The Economic (801)797-2294 Impact of Utah's Drought www.usu.edu • Bruce Godfrey,Professor of Economics • Utah Department of Community and Economic Development Chapter:Agriculture • 324 South State,Suite 500 I Salt Lake City,UT 84114 • (801)538-8700 Utah Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst htto:I/dced.utah.gov 425 State Capitol I Salt Lake City,UT 84114-0141 • Douglass Jex,Research Director (801)538-1034 Jon Kemp,Utah Travel Council http://le.utah.govllfa • Chapters:Economic Development Activities;Tourism,Travel,and Recreation Andrea Wilko,Fiscal Analyst Chapter.National Outlook • University of Utah,Bureau of Economic and Business Research • Salt Lake City,Utah 84112 (801)581-6333 41111 www.business.utah.edu/BEBR James A.Wood,Director • Jan Crispin-Little,Senior Economist Pam Perlich,Senior Research Economist • Alan E.Isaacson,Senior Research Analyst • Chapters:Residential and Nonresidential Construction;High Technology; Utah's School Age and College Age Population Boom • Utah State Tax Commission • 210 North 1950 West I Salt Lake City,Utah 84134 (801)297-3900 • http://tax.utah.gov • Doug Macdonald,Chief Economist Tom Williams,Senior Economist • Leslee Katayama,Economist Chapter:Utah Taxable Sales • Utah Department of Workforce Services • 140 East 300 South/Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 • (801)526-9463 http://iobs.utah.gov • Kris Beckstead,Senior Data Analyst Mark Knold,Senior Economist • Renada Peery,Senior Data Analyst Dana Knold,Data Analyst . Chapters:Employment,Wages,Labor Force;Personal Income • Utah Department of Natural Resources . 1594 W.North Temple,Suite 3610/Salt Lake City,UT 84114 (801)538-7200 ISO httn://www.nr.uta h.gov Roger Lee Bon,Geologist,Utah Geological Survey Ili • Contributors 2003 Economic Report to the Governor ix • • • • • • Council of Economic Advisors • • Council Membership • Neil Ashdown, Deputy Director/DEA Manager, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget • Brad Barber,Consultant to Governor Leavitt • • Jeff Burks, Director,Office of Energy and Resource Planning • Natalie Gochnour, Deputy for Policy and Communications, Governor's Office • Bruce Godfrey,Professor of Economics, Utah State University • Mark Knold,Chief Economist, Utah Department of Workforce Services • • Douglass Jex,Research Director, Utah Department of Community and Economic Development • Steve Kroes, Executive Director, Utah Foundation • Doug Macdonald,Chief Economist, Utah State Tax Commission • Kelly Matthews,Vice President and Economist, First Security Bank Corporation • • Ray Nelson, Professor of Economics, Brigham Young University • Lance Rovig,Senior Economist, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget • Jeff Thredgold, President,Thredgold Economic Associates Andrea Wolcott,Vice President in Charge, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Salt Lake City Branch • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Council of Economic Advisors 2003 Economic Report to the Governor xi • • • • • • Map of Utah • IIle • Bear River District • Logan • ■ Cache Rich • , Brigham aty ■ • Box Elder Rancid. tig Weber • •..a 4�j organ • •" • 1 ■ ■codviiie Summit Dagget • Wasatch Front salt tale at • Tootle • Salt La - Uintal. Basin ■ Heber City District • • Wasatch Duchesne ' vemal • Tooele Prow Utah • Mountainla i d ' Duch ne Uintah • District • Juab • Carbon Neph • I ' Price el, Central District ■Manti • • Castle Cele Sanpete Grand • Millard Filmore■ Emery • Sevier Sou i eastern • ■ Richfield Dis rict • Moa b ■ • Beaver Piute ■ Loa • Beater ■ NiJunction Wayne • II Iron Garfield . Parowan Jr Pang itch Southwestern Monticello ■ District • —� • San Juan . Washington Kane • St.George Kanab • ■ II • 41 10 11 . Map of Utah 2003 Economic Report to the Governor xiii • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • ........._....._._._... • 's Executive •• Summary • • • • Executive Summary • Utah's economy slowed significantly in 2002. The national recession,0 the end of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games,and a degeneration in Games. Job growth in construction increased in the two quarters prior to the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and then fell abruptly in the quarter of • Utah's relative position compared to California and other states,have all the Olympics and the quarter after the Olympics. This is similar to the contributed to the slow down. Income,jobs,population,exports, experience of Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics. Construction • construction,and housing prices,all had slower growth,or outright job growth accelerated going into the Summer Olympics and then declines,during 2002. The rate of job growth has fallen gradually from decelerated abruptly for four quarters after the Olympics in Atlanta. • 6.2%in 1994,the • peak year of the Figure A. Utah's Job Growth Rate Declines Outlook. The outlook calls current cycle,to ° for a return to moderate • -1.0%in 2002. The 7/0 6.0% 6•2% growth during 2003, last time employment 6% 5.4% 5�/° ° accelerating into 2004. • contracted was 1964, 5% - 4.7°/o 4.7°i° 5.1/o Utah's job growth is currently • when jobs fell slightly a 3.9% 4'p/° below the nation's,and the 09 Y 4/0 - 3.7% 3.0%3.2% 3.0% at 0.2/0. The last ° unemployment rate is above. • time the rate of 3% " 12.4% 25/o During 2003,however,this change for job growth 2% ° �'6%1 0% dynamic should switch as . dipped significantly 1% - 1'1/° 0.6% Utah returns to higher job • into negative territory ° 0.3° -1.0% growth than the U.S.and a was in 1954,when 0/° Ian lower unemployment rate. • the state experienced -1% - Utah performs better than the a-2.5%decline. -2% - nation over the long run due • Current expectations co co CO ; t� CO CO ; 01 -) fr to 01 ; o tr co a) o 0 o to strong internal population " " " " " " " " " " " 6' " Q' " a' a' °' N N ccigrowth,a young,well- a re that employment• Y 9 growth in Utah and educated workforce,low Source:Utah Department of Workforce Services . the U.S.will resume business costs,and a strong at a modest pace in work ethic. Service industries . mid-2003. will remain the largest source of new jobs in the state in 2003. Manufacturing job growth will be flat, End of Construction Boom. Construction is the most volatile of Utah's while the mining and construction industries will continue to contract in Oil major industries. Construction employment began to contract during 2000,and should continue declining into 2003. Nonetheless, 2003. Overall,employment should grow 0.7%. With record high births, but near-zero migration,population growth should remain around 1.6% . construction jobs in 2003 will still be 5.8%of total nonfarm jobs,slightly during 2003. above the 1978 to ID 2002 average of Figure B. Utah Behind the Mountain States and the Nation: 10101.10102 International,National, ID of The total value and Regional Context of construction Global Slowdown. Utah's . permits peaked at a 3.5% current slowdown occurs historic high of$3.97 2.a% against the backdrop of a . billion in 1999,and 2.5%' very weak international has since declined to 19'� economy and a continuing II $3.7 billion in 2002. v 1.5% U.S.slump. All the world's . Value should increase : 0.8% major industrial economies to$3.85 billion during u 0.5%• are declining or growing ID2003,however,if a t ( I'u,U 01% , slowly with the exception of . multi year$325 v -0 5%• China. Japan's economy million project were a, -0.4% -0.3% -0.3% grew at less than 1%per . permitted in stages, 5%• -1-1. .2 year during the 1990s,one instead of entirely 7% -1.5% fourth the rate of the 1970s 1 . during 2003,value and 1980s. Though would likely decline. 2.5% Europe's performance over D U.S Mountain Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Utah Wyoming States Mexico the past decade was better ID Olympics-Related Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics than Japan's,its major Construction. Few if economies are currently . any projects were built solely for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Still, growing slowly,if at all. The industrializing economies,which depend on most Olympics-related projects had accelerated construction schedules the industrial world to purchase their exports,are slumping too. As the I to coincide with the Games. Construction and job growth rates would U.S.recovers during 2003,the world economy should pick up as well. ID have been lower in the years preceding 2002 were it not for the Games. With the current slack in world demand,Utah's exports are about$1 A significant amount of activity,scheduled for the 2002 Olympic Winter billion,or 25%lower than would be the case with robust growth le Games between 2002 and 2003,was shifted to the period before the overseas. r Executive Summa lb ry 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 1 1111 1111 1111 National Recovery. For the U.S.,2003 wit be a year of moderate Jobs and Wages • growth as the recession ends. Consumer spending will grow 2.2%,GDP During 2002,Utah's economy experienced its worst slump since the 2.6%,and investment 2.2%. Since investment fell from 2000 through 1950s. Nonfarm employment fell by over 10,000 jobs,a contraction rate ID. 2002,a return to growth during 2003 suggests businesses are beginning of-1.0%. This is •Utah's worst job contraction since 1954. to anticipate better profit opportunities. Falling unemployment should Correspondingly,Utah's unemployment rate rose to 6.0%from 4.4%,the boost consumer confidence. The geopolitical situation is a negative highest in a decade. A monthly average of about 70,000 people were • influence that continues to dampen consumer spending and business out of work in 2002. investment. Positives • for both business and Figure C. Many Industries Contracting The 2002 rate of job consumers include change by division in Utah's • low interest rates and major industries ranged • a stable inflation Total •1 0% from-9.2%in construction, outlook. Mining .9.2% •3 0% to 5.3%in miscellaneous • consauctron services. Information fell Utah Behind the -6.6%,manufacturing • Mountain States. Manufacturing -6.0% - -6.0%,mining-3.0%,and While Utah and the Trade,Trans.,utilities 2 5% trade,transportation and • mountain states Information .6.6% utilities,-2.5%. Finance • experienced robust grew at a rate of 1.9%, Financial Activity 1.9% • economic growth in education and health 3.5%, the 1990s,with each Prof.&Bus.Sere. 2 3% ; state in the re ion and leisure and hospitality • g Ed.&Health Serv. 3 5% grew by 5.1%. Growth in growing rapidly,the Leisure&Hospitality 5.1% finance resulted from low • �� � �' region has begun to interest rates encouraging row less uniform) tither Services 5.3% 9 y mortgage refinancing and • For the mountain Government 1.1% other interest-sensitive • states as a whole, transactions. In 2003, feIIQ.3% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% • jobsduring construction will continue to 2002,compared to Source Utah Department of Workforce Services fall,though not as rapidly, -0.4%for the nation. and most industries should • Within the region, see improvement. Nevada grew almost 3.0%,Montana grew almost 2.0%,and Wyoming 4119 and New Mexico grew less than 1.0%. Utah, Idaho,and Colorado all fell Utah's average annual nonagricultural pay was$30,400 during 2002,up • 1.0%or more. Arizona matched the region's 2.6%from 2001. This is the eighth year in a row that wages have grown faster than -0.3%decline. inflation. • Personal income growth of 2.9%in the Figure D. Defense Spending in Utah at a Record High Economic • mountain states was Performance by • Millions higher than the $2,600 Sector nation's 2.6%. Income Economic performance • growth was positive in $2,400 - $2,354 varied across sectors all states of the region, during 2002. Given • $2,200 - ongoing •though it varied from a $2,0e1 on g g geopolitical low of 1.5%in $2,000 $1,968 events,it is not surprising Colorado to a high of $1891$1,853 $1_912 that defense was up. • 5.2%in Wyoming,with $1,800 -31 685 $1,785 Other sectors range from Utah near the bottom — $1,610 mixed to down. • at 2.2%. $1,600 - --$1,532 ,01.445$1,455 $1,425 • $1,400 - $1,328 Defense Up Population —$1,258$1275 Defense. Utah's defense • , Utah's population grew $1,200 - industry continued with a a robust 1.9%during $1000 . solid pattern of growth • 2002,down from the 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 during 2002,as base • 1990s,but still about Fiscal Years closures and realignments in other states shifted jobs • twice the national Sources:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census;Department of Defense and military spending to average. With the Utah,and as the military • closing of the Olympics,net migration fell from over 14,000 during 2001, build-up accelerated. Hill Air Force Base has become the Air Force's • to 7,400 during 2002. Although in-migration rates have slowed over the new"center of excellence"for low-observable technology. This new Ili past few years,natural increase continues its strong growth path due to classification,the result of a prime military contractor relocating to Hill, a record number of births in 2002 and Utahns living longer. will help ensure the viability of this large Utah employer. Although the 131 • 2 2003 Economic Report to the Govemor Executive Summary • • • . • • defense industry experienced reductions during most of the 1990s,this of production as 80 mines in 2001. Nationally,Utah ranked ninth in the III trend was reversed in the latter end of the decade. Defense spending in value of nonfuel mineral production,and 12th in coal production in 2001. Utah in 2001 totaled$2.35 billion,rising 23%from the previous year. It is likely that these rankings will be lower for 2002 as production and • Increased activity is expected to continue in 2003 as a result of the prices were both down slightly. The state contributed about 3.5%of the geopolitical situation. U.S.total value of nonfuel minerals production in 2001. • Energy,Minerals,and Tourism Mixed Tourism. The lingering effects of 9/11,heightened geopolitical tensions, • Energy. Utah's 2002 and uncertain economic conditions presented a challenging set of crude oil production circumstances for • was less than half of Figure E. Construction Downturn Softened by Low Interest Rates Utah's travel industry in • its peak year 2002. Helping to production in 1985. mitigate the negative • This decline can only 4,500- effects of uncertainty in be offset in the event the marketplace was a of new well drillings in o a,0oo ill successful Olympic the future. If not,• H 3,soo Games,which provided = 3,000- much needed growth Utah's consumers will o • increasingly have to 2,500 • during the first quarter gY • look elsewhere for of 2002,and improved 2,00o the state's visibility• e s both crude oil and � 1soo- around h other t e world. The • petroleum • t,o0° domestic leisure travel products. On the eill • other hand,Utah's a sooIII segment provided the natural gas capacity ° rla - •• only source of growth • N th v inrol- n fp Of O e- N V) uI 10 to f° Of O N F) ' 10 00 n 1 O, O in 2002,as both has risen steadily over Of ^ Of " " " " Of " aO O " 4D 0 f0 0D 4f f° a0 Of..r O, Of Of O, O, Of OI O, O E. Of O Of Of O, Of Of Of Of O, O Of O Of O O, Of O, O Of 0f Of 0) Of Of O, Of Of Of CO 0 • the years,primarily 9' N business travel and due to an increase in international travel • its coal bed methane Source: University of Utah,David Eccles School of Business,Bureau of Economic and Business Research,November 2002. suffered declines. As a fields. The state's result,tourism III electricity consumers employment and 11110 were spared the sharp traveler spending were price spikes faced by their west coast neighbors in 2001. Overall,Utah's both constant during 2002. Given the recession and geopolitical • electricity industry and market environment have drastically changed concerns,it appears the Olympics prevented a severe downturn for over the last decade as a result of evolving federal policy and an tourism in the state. • increasingly competitive Agriculture, • electricity market. Figure F. Utah's School Age Population Will Grow Nearly as Much in the Construction. • Minerals. At$1.8 Next Decade as It Did in the Last Two Decades Combined and High-Tech billion during 2002,the 700,000 Down • value of mineral Agriculture. production dropped only 650,000 Drought and lower • slightly from 2001. The soo,000 mm ;: sli: prices reduced farm value of industrial income during 2002. minerals was up,while 550,000-••---- - -- _ °: '=' '>• P - ..�-._?�`�'`..'_'` > <:, > : .. , A sharp decline in • the value of base cattle and mil k 500 00 - metal coal, 0 s a and prices, ces coupled I ed with II precious metals all 450 000- � ' < :> _ ` . • . `<>..` ... ;; ::: ..<::< » < > ; increasing input• declined. Lower values costs especially resulted from a ::...: >:... . ... . ....::> ...:. :...:............. ::: ....;:::::::.. p Y feed resulted in • combination of low 0 350,000 lower inc omes. The prices,ces lower high fe feed had pricesad • production,and ack300,000 , , a negative impact at elm P act • o u> o ,n o N M a �o n o rn o a for ranchers,but demand in the national FS 8 8 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, rn 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and international r " N N N N N N N N N N N N N N increased income • economy. In Note:Projections are for school age population. Y for farmers growing decreasing order of Source:Governor's Office of Planning and Budget grain and hay. If the • value,contributions from the major industry segments were:base metals drought had not cut hay,forage and grain production in many areas of . ($612 million),industrial minerals($560 million),coal($420 million),and the state,these sectors of Utah agriculture probably would have 1110 precious metals($173 million). In 2002,the Utah Geological Survey experienced near record incomes. These differences have a larger estimates that 89 Large Mines(including coal)will report the same level impact in some parts of the state than in others. • 1 gi I Executive Summary 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 3 • • • Construction. Construction employment fell 9%,from 71,600 to 65,000, Looking Ahead • during 2002. Despite the decline in employment,the value of permit As the recession ends,Utah's economy should resume moderate growth authorized construction was$3.7 billion,only 4%below last year's$3.9 during 2003. After contracting in 2002 for the first time since 1964, billion. Most of the strength in construction is in the residential sector, employment should grow during 2003 at a rate of 0,7%for the year. The where value reached$2.4 billion in 2002,a record high. The number of unemployment rate is expected to fall from the current 6.0%to 5.3%, • new dwelling units receiving building permits was 19,000. The levels not seen since the early 1990s. For the ninth year in a row, • residential sector benefited from low interest rates,which fell from 7%at wages should increase faster than inflation. • the start of the year to 6%by midsummer,providing a significant financial incentive for new homebuyers. Lower interest rates did not After a decade of good progress in education,Utah is confronted with have the same impact in the nonresidential sector. Nonresidential lower state revenues and burgeoning school enrollment. Maintaining,if • construction activity fell 7%in 2002 to$900 million,however not advancing,improvements in education over the next decade will be • nonresidential valuation did finish higher than projected,gaining strength one of the state's biggest challenges. in the latter half of the year. • High-Tech. The downturn in Utah's high technology sector that began in • 2001 gained momentum in 2002. For the first six months of the current • year,employment in Utah's technology sector declined by 9%, representing a net loss of nearly 5,000 jobs. Companies that • • manufacture computers and peripheral products,and those that design computer systems,experienced the largest employment drop in absolute • numbers with a combined job loss of almost 3,200 workers. Only two • industries,Medical Equipment and Supplies,and Scientific Research and Development Services,reported job gains. • Significant Issues: Education and Census 2000 Income and • Poverty Results • Education. Education is always a significant issue in Utah because children represent such a large portion of the population. Although Utah • is near the middle when compared to states in terms of household • income,it is near the bottom in terms of per capita income. When compared to other states,Utah has larger households,so,inevitably, less income is available per child. Consequently,Utah is near the top when compared with other states when measuring the share of income • devoted to education,and currently is the state with the lowest per-pupil funding. The past decade was a period where the growth in the school age population actually slowed,as the grandchildren of the baby • boomers had not yet entered the school system. Coincidentally,the 1990s were the most prosperous decade in 30 years or more, • generating rapid growth in state revenue. A strong economy and slow • enrollment growth allowed greater investment in education. Now that the boomers'grandchildren are entering the schools,and the economy • has slowed,the next decade promises to be more of a funding challenge • than the last. Census 2000 Income and Poverty Results. Census 2000 results • demonstrate that Utah's economic growth during the 1990s was more • equitable than that of the nation's,as well as most states. Significant income growth occurred in all of Utah's income groups from 1989 to • 1999. The top fifth s income grew fastest,(26%),while the bottom fifth • grew second fastest(22%). Utah ranked highest among all states in its proportion of households with"middle range"incomes. Further,the • states poverty data demonstrate that the trend of increasing economic disparity that characterized most of the 1980s,slowed in the 1990s. The • proportion of"severely poor,""near poor,"and"officially non-poor,but • needy"Utahns declined,as did the state's overall poverty rate. Various poverty measures place the state at much lower rankings than a majority • of other states,since the 1990 census. Utah fares especially well in the alleviation of poverty among its most vulnerable populations--children, i the elderly,as well as female-headed households. 4 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Executive Summary • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • •• Economic • • • • . •• Outlook • • • i National Outlook de erYi .-, ,; % ..�; ,, - ":::. ` - - showing some signs of improvement,overall Risks for 2003 While The;na lec s icslowd ra; thara err e> a atsj pa r;-l - business spending is anticipated to be weak in 2003. Low investor • 2001 co ntiad-into _ ral**hat aT 1 iratert ti nal omi confidence might continue to have a negative impact on the stock tnrces.ft tx;rest lte in ffid c r nt iinic inaiai :"j ow t e . market,which would in turn impact consumer spending. Low consumer • t nn dence, weakenrmg a .t actun g ector,asignt ant iitnd n-.1, and business spending could well result in downward pressure on the the"high oly'divisirrt,and aniaentjng rarlave itbntla*r- economy. • to a sly 00)40mkrevjvall githe"-irttqmattP0a4kant,weakening'oreign • ecortotnieacombined witl a;strong"U� ;doll t haye=refuted°€n a j ;: Sustained weakness in the global economy can also have negative Trade tieiicltf t the nation . °-,';,.<;. repercussions on our national economy,resulting in weaker GDP growth --- in 2003. Finally,a factor that may impact all sectors of the economy in • 2002 Summary of Economic Conditions ways that are uncertain is a potential war with Iraq. • The pace of economic recovery remained slow in 2002. The national GDP grew by 2.3%,reflecting a continuation of the weak economic Conclusion • growth evidenced in 2001. The national unemployment rate rose from The anticipated economic recovery remained slow and fragile in 2002. A • 4.8%in 2001 to 5.9%,the highest in eight years. Wages and prices weak overall GDP growth rate did not do much to inspire the confidence remained steady through most of the year. Despite the decline in of businesses. As a result,hiring was slow and sporadic,resulting in a • employment,the nation consistently had high productivity rates through stable,though lackluster labor market. Demand for commercial loans 2002. The Nonfarm business output per hour index rose from an dropped significantly as businesses showed little inclination toward • average of 117.5 in 2001 to 122.5 in 2002. However,business increased investment spending. Retail sales have been mixed. Both the • investment continued to be weak,with financial institutions documenting manufacturing and services sectors have been weak,with the relatively low business loans. Volatility in the stock market has also information technology division showing especially significant declines. • resulted in weakened investor confidence. Both the manufacturing and On the up side,residential real estate continues to hold strong. services sectors(with a few exceptions,such as the health care Mortgage borrowing has been especially aggressive as interest rates • industry)have been weak,with the information technology division continue to maintain record-low figures. Furthermore,prices have held • showing especially significant declines. steady,as has the value of the U.S.dollar. • The U.S.dollar continues to remain strong in the global economy. While 2003 will show some recovery. GDP will grow at 2.6%with an increase this has helped to sustain our buying power in the world market,it has in real business fixed investment of 2.2%. Both consumers and • negatively impacted exports. Weakening foreign economies combined businesses should be encouraged by low interest rates and stable 40 with a strong U.S.dollar have resulted in lower demand for U.S.- inflation. produced goods. The U.S.trade balance in September 2002 was-$38.0 • billion. • Despite an overall slowdown,there were some positive trends in • selected sectors in 2002. Stable and modest consumer spending resulted in impressive profits in retail sales,specifically for large • businesses. 2002 second-quarter after-tax profits for large retailers saw a 35.5%increase from$6.2 billion to$8.2 billion,since the second- • quarter of 2001. Low mortgage rates continued to encourage consumer spending in residential real estate. Residential real estate was one of • the strongest sectors of the economy in 2002. Sales of new one-family • houses in October 2002 increased 16.4%from the previous year. Increased new-home sales occurred through most of 2002,giving a • much-needed boost to the construction industry,as well as to financial institutions. In October 2002,the median sales price of new houses was • $176,700,while the average sales prices was$225,100. • 2003 Economic Outlook • Positive factors affecting 2003. We should begin to see signs of • recovery in 2003. Business investment should start to trend up as the stock market shows signs of stabilization. Housing and automobile sales • should also continue to grow as interest rates remain low. The inflation rate is expected to increase in 2003 but will remain low by historical • standards. The stock market is also anticipated to rebound with investor • confidence slowly building back. Industrial production will increase with a gradual resurgence in demand,resulting in a healthy productivity rate. • Monetary and fiscal policy is also expected to remain expansionary to SO encourage consumer spending and business investment. • lb • National Outlook 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 5 • • • Figure 1 • Comparison of Utah and U.S.Economic Indicators • 2002 Estimates and 2003 Forecasts • • 0.5% • Housing Prices IttAtz 0% • 4.1% • 4.1% • Retail Sales 3.6% • 4.1% ❑Utah 2002 • 2.7% p Utah 2003 • Personal Income 3.6% M U.S. 2002 • 4.2% •U.S. 2003 • 2.6% Average Pay 2.5% • ..,._...:. .. w:r.e 2.3% 3.2% • 6.0% • 5 3% Unemployment Rate ° • 5.7% -1.0% • Nonagricultural o.7% • Employment -0.8% .>"=:: 1.9% • Population :I 1.6% • 0.9% • -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% • • • Source:Council of Economic Advisors'Revenue Assumptions Committee • • • • • • • • • • 496 • 6 2003 Economic Report to the Governor National Outlook • • • Utah Outlook 0 OD Overview Utah's economy slowed significantlyUnlike the Atlanta experience,however,mortgage rates fell to their in 2002. This was largely due to lowest level in 40 years(since 1971)in 2002. Construction job growth . the lingering effects of the national recession and the dot-corn implosion, would have been lower in Utah had mortgage rates not been so low. the completion of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and its related Effective mortgage rates were around 1.3%higher in 1996 than in 2002. . construction build-up,improvements in other states'economies . compared to Utah,and the lack of growth in exports. Post-Olympics Slowdown in Net Migration. Population growth slowed in the months after the Olympics as the frenzy of preparations ended, . In 2002,merchandise exports,population growth,copper production, and many of those helping to host the Games left the state. The post- nonresidential construction,average pay,housing price appreciation,and Games lull was accentuated by the lingering national/global recession. . job growth all slowed in Utah. Since 1994(the peak year of the current During 2001 net migration at 14,200 remained strong in Utah. During cycle),the rate of job growth has fallen gradually from 6.2%to-1.0%in 2002,however,net migration fell to around 7,400. Still,with a record 2002. Such a negative trend was last evidenced in 1954,when job number of births,population grew 1.9%in 2002. . growth declined to-2.5%. Current expectations are that employment growth in Utah and the U.S.will resume at a modest pace by mid-2003. Exports. Utah's exports fell 9%during 2002,from$3.5 billion to$3.2 . billion. Although Utah's exports more than doubled during the 1990s, 2002 Summary of Economic Conditions most of the growth occurred before 1997. Since then,exports have ID End of Construction Boom. Construction is the most volatile of Utah's remained in the range of$3.0 billion to$3.5 billion. East Asia's . major industries. As of 2000,construction employment began to purchases of Utah goods did not fall in 2002,helping to shore up contract. This decline will continue into 2003. Nonetheless,construction exports. The fact that the world economy is barely growing, but exports . jobs in 2003 will still be 5.8%of total nonfarm jobs(slightly above the to East Asia are holding up,bodes well for future Utah export growth. 1978 to 2002 average of 5.5%). 10 Defense. Utah's defense industry continued to rebound in 2002,as the . The total value of construction permits peaked at a historic high of$3.97 threat of war in Iraq and base closures and realignments in other states billion in 1999. Total value declined to$3.7 billion in 2002. Permitted shifted jobs and military spending to Utah. Hill Air Force Base has . construction values will increase in 2003 to$3.85 billion due to the become the Air Force's new"center of excellence"for low-observable permitting of the entire$325 million Intermountain Health Care"Healing technology. This new classification and an additional workload will help 10 Place"hospital project in that year. The IHC project will be built over ensure the vitality of the base in the future. 10 several years,however,and construction job growth will continue to decline in 2003. Contracting in Utah has increased significantly. Contract awards 110 increased 73.1%in 2000 and an additional 34.4%in 2001. Overall Large construction projects of at least$30 million that were under defense spending in Utah in 2001 totaled$2.35 billion,rising 23%from construction in 2002 or scheduled for 2003 are listed at the end of this the previous year. Increased activity is expected to continue into 2002 . chapter. Construction projects are usually listed in reports at either their and 2003 as a result of the war on terrorism. "project value"or"construction value". Construction values are the value High Technology. For the first six months of the current year . of"sticks and bricks". Project values include construction values as well employment in Utah's technology sector declined by 8.8%,representing as architectural and engineering costs. For the most part,the projects 10 listed in this chapter are"project values"and include both construction a net loss of nearly 5,000 jobs. Companies that manufacture computers, permitted and nonpermitted projects. Heavy construction,such as peripheral products,and those that design computer systems II/ experienced the largest employment drop,with combined job losses of highways,does not require permits. almost 3,200 workers. Only two industries--medical equipment and ID Olympics-Related Construction. Few if any projects were built just for supplies,and scientific research and development services,reported 11/ the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Even the venues'sites were positive job growth. 11, constructed largely to train athletes before and after the Winter Games. Utah's high technology sector is concentrated in a few industry Still,most of the Olympics-related infrastructure and projects listed in this segments;computer systems design services(21.5%),medical i chapter had accelerated construction schedules to coincide with the equipment manufacturing(12.4%),and software development(9.7%). 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Construction and job growth rates would There are very few large corporate headquarters conducting research have been lower in the years preceding 2002 were it not for the Games. and development activities in the technology sector in Utah. Many of the These Olympics accelerations,however,borrowed from job growth in technology companies that once formed Utah's elite high-tech core are subsequent years,including mid-to-late 2002 and 2003. either gone or struggling. I Construction job growth was slowing in late 2000 and early 2001 due to Firm Openings and Closings. In order to track trends in Utah I the early completion of Interstate 15 and other large projects. Job employment,state economists follow announcements of job additions growth in construction increased in the two quarters prior to the 2002 and subtractions of 50 or more employees. These announcements are Olympic Winter Games and then fell abruptly in the quarter of the listed in this chapter. Job losses exceeded job gains in 2002 by a wide 11) Olympics and the quarter after the Olympics(the latest data available). margin. As recently as June 2001,Economy.com's(a national economic This is similar to the experience of Atlanta during the 1996 Summer consulting firm)forecast indicated that Utah would rank second in the Olympics. Construction job growth accelerated going into the Summer nation for nonfarm job growth in 2002. However,by November 2002, 40 Olympics and then decelerated abruptly for four quarters after the Economy.com ranked Utah 45th in the nation for nonfarm employment Olympics in Atlanta. growth. I li 1 Utah Outlook 2003 Economic Report to the Govemor 7 • • • 2003 Outlook their expertise on the web,and the extent to which business and • During the 1990s,Utah's economy diversified,becoming broadly government use the Internet. The authors of the study attributed the integrated with the national economy. Utah became much less high ranking to the Olympics and expected the area to drop in rankings dependent on single industries such as federal defense and mining. in the coming year. • While the national recession of 1991 was hardly felt in Utah(because Utah was recovering from its own recession in 1986/87),the current Ohio State University researchers ranked Salt Lake City 15th among the • national/global slowdown is being mirrored in Utah. Indeed,Utah's job most Internet-accessible cities. The study measured the amount of growth has recently declined slightly more than that of the nation. physical infrastructure connecting a city to the Internet. Techies.com,a • Minnesota based recruiting company,also ranked Salt Lake City fourth • Still,by the end of 2003 Utah should be back on a moderate growth in the nation for offering a good combination of top salaries and a low path,and by 2004 Utah should once again be outperforming the nation, cost of living for technology professionals. • Utah usually performs better than the nation over the long-run due to strong internal population growth,a young,well-educated workforce,low Utah ranked 12th in Morgan Quinto's Most Livable State Awards for • business costs,and a strong work ethic. Service industries will remain 2002. State Rankings were based on 43 factors such as crime,teenage • the largest source of new jobs in the state in 2003. Manufacturing job birth rates,local government spending,and income. Utah was also growth will be flat,and mining and construction industries will continue to ranked fourth in the nation by the United Health Foundation in overall • contract in 2003. health. Utah ranked first in low smoking rates,heart disease risk,and • cancer and heart disease deaths. 2002 Nationwide Reports and Rankings • Utah was one of only three states to receive an average"A"grade by National Geographic Adventure magazine listed Utah as having five of Governing Magazine. States were graded on financial management, the"50 Perfect Places in America." The country's top outdoor experts • capital management,human resources,managing for results,and were used to select the 50 places. The Maze in Canyonlands National information technology. The 2002 Digital States Survey ranked Utah Park,Rector near Moab, Muley Point,the San Juan River,and • seventh in the nation in state government's availability to its citizens for Monument Valley were the locations listed for Utah. • online services. Several Utah colleges received recognition in U.S.News&World • Utah was ranked 11th by State Policy Reports based on the quality of Reports ranking of Best Colleges in the nation. The University of Utah the state's budget process. The study looked at states'balanced budget ranked sixth for service learning programs, BYU's doctoral programs • requirements,power to reduce spending,stabilization funds,and were ranked in the top 30 for best value,Westminster ranked in the top • understandable finances. Utah received only an average score for its 10"Best Value"colleges in the western United States,and UVSC,the U • balanced budget requirements and stabilization funds. of U,BYU,and USU were found to leave students with less debt than many peer schools. Utah maintained its position as one of only ten states to receive a AAA • bond rating from all nationally recognized rating services:Fitch,Moody's, Finally,not all rankings were positive for Utah in 2002. The EPA ranked • and Standard&Poor's. The rating services recognized Utah's careful Utah as the second top toxic polluter in the nation. Utah's mining and timely monitoring of economic circumstances,quick and aggressive companies and coal-fired electric plants were cited as the main sources • action once a shortfall was identified,and its moderate debt structure. of pollution. Most of the pollution reported was a controlled byproduct of the manufacturing process,according to industry representatives. • According to a 2002 study by Beacon Hill Institute,Utah was ranked the 11th most competitive state. The authors considered"competitiveness" Utah also led the nation in the number of bankruptcies filed in 2002, • to be an indicator of a state's ability to ensure and sustain high levels of according to a report by the American Bankruptcy Institute. The institute • economic growth and per capita income. The states were ranked reported that one in every 34.5 Utahns filed for bankruptcy in the twelve according to their performance in nine categories. The report indicated months ending March 31,2002. October 2002 filings were up 20%from • that Utah could improve its environmental policy and exports. the same period last year. • Utah ranked ninth in its ability to succeed in a tech-led information age in Housing Prices and Home Ownership • a 2002 study by the Milken Institute. The study assumed that There are three different measurements of housing price movements in investment in science and technology infrastructure,and the leveraging Utah. These measurements come from the National Association of • of those assets for economic development,were the keys to economic Realtors(NAR),the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight success. Utah ranked in the top 25 of all nine indicators except for (OFHEO),and the Utah Association of Realtors(UAR). 411 exports and IPO proceeds. National Association of Realtors. The NAR measures median • - The Progressive Policy Institute ranked Utah 12th best on their"New average prices for existing single-family homes on a changing mix of • existing homes. Utah's median housing price exceeded the U.S. median Economy Index." The index was based on 21 indicators in five housing price from 1995 to 2000. The U.S.median price has grown • categories. The 2002 rank represented a slip from 2001 when Utah was closer to the Utah median price each year since its largest gap in 1996. ranked sixth. The Institute felt that this was due to the fact that while all In 1996,Utah's median existing home price was$122,700,and the U.S. • states gained ground in the index,Utah improved at a slower rate. median existing home price was$115,800. • Yahoo!Internet Life magazine ranked the Salt Lake City-Ogden Utah prices have since slowed relative to the nation. The 2002 third IS. metropolitan area sixth in the nation for the number of people online, quarter median existing home price in the U.S.was$161,800 in 2002, 111 • 8 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah Outlook • • . • • • and$152,100 in Utah. The median existing home price is expected to Vacancy rates for suburban areas increased from 17.7%in the third OD grow by 4.1%in 2003 for the U.S.,but only around 2%in Utah. quarter of 2001,to 22.1%in the third quarter of 2002. Also,office vacancy rates increased for the entire metropolitan area from 16.1%in Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. The OFHEO follows the third quarter of 2001,to 20.2%in the third quarter of 2002. By the price movements on repeat sales of the same single-family homes comparison,vacancy rates nationwide increased for metropolitan areas • with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgages. The growth rate in these from 12.0%in the third quarter 2001,to 15.1%in the third quarter of prices rose steadily beginning in 1988 to a high of 17%in 1994. As 2002. • recently as September 30, 1997,Utah's year-over growth ranking in • housing price appreciation was ranked second in the nation. As of June Hotels. According to the Rocky Mountain Lodging Report,hotel 30,2002,however,Utah's year-over percent change in median housing occupancy rates in the Salt Lake area increased by 3.4%to 68.7%for • prices for existing homes dropped to 51st in the nation including the the first half of 2002 compared to 66%for the first half of 2001. This District of Columbia(highlighting the slowdown in price appreciation in was expected due to the hosting of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. • the Utah existing housing market). Still,by comparison,occupancy rates in the Salt Lake County area hovered around 80%in the mid-1990s. The primary reason for this 411 Utah Association of Realtors. The UAR measures the mean-average decrease is that the number of hotel units in Salt Lake County increased • price on a changing mix of new and existing homes. These prices are from 10,700 in 1994,to around 17,000 units in 2000(a 59%increase). based on homes for sale on the multiple listing service. The mean- • average sales price for Utah homes(excluding Park City)in the third Occupancy and room rates in Salt Lake County were also up in • quarter of 2002 was$160,926(versus$158,880 for the same quarter a September and October of 2002. Occupancy for these months was up year ago). because travel slowed considerably in September and October of 2001 • due to the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks. Average room rates in The mean-average,unlike the median-average,can be skewed by high the Salt Lake County area in October 2002 also grew from around$70 • priced homes(this problem is corrected to some extent by excluding last year to$77 this year. • Park City). The median is the middle value around which one-half of the values are above and one-half are below. The mean is the total of all Apartments. According to EquiMark Properties,Salt Lake County rents • values divided by the number of observations. grew 0.3%for the first six months of 2002 compared to 1.3%for the first six months of 2001. The overall rental rate increased from$646 on • According to figures released by the Utah Association of Realtors,year- average in June of 2001 to an average of$649 in June 2002. over mean-average sales prices for the State of Utah(excluding Park Apartment vacancy rates increased in Salt Lake County to 9.3%in June • City)increased by 1.3%from the third quarter of last year. This figure is 2002. Vacancy rates were 7.7%in 1999,6.3%in 2000,and 7.1%in IIIIIi somewhat higher than NAR's recently reported year-over growth rate of 2001. Vacancy rates could continue to increase as more renters decide -0.6%for existing homes in the third quarter of 2002. to purchase homes(due to low interest rates and low housing price • appreciation). • Lower prices(and lower mortgage rates)contributed to brisk home sales in the third quarter at 5.8%year-over growth. UAR prices usually differ Vacancy rates decreased during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games,but • from NAR and OFHEO due to the inclusion of new homes in UAR have since increased. Rent growth in Salt Lake County also increased measurements,and the fact that the UAR uses mean-average prices through the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. Landlords are currently • rather than median-average prices. offering more concessions to prospective residents. Olympic media and sponsors occupied many of the new multifamily housing units built in • Softening Housing Prices. Housing price appreciation in Utah will 2001. Rental rates have stabilized,and concessions have increased • continue though at a weaker pace in 2003. The softening of housing since the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. prices is largely due to the high home-ownership rate in Utah(72.4%in • Utah versus 67.8%nationwide in 2001, 16th highest in the nation),the recent slowing of job growth in Utah,and the run up in housing prices • during the mid 1990's. • Low interest rates and high internally generated population growth will • boost housing price appreciation. OFHEO housing price growth in Utah, however,has lagged behind growth in housing prices in the U.S.since • the third quarter of 1998. This is expected to continue through 2003. • Office,Hotel,and Apartment Vacancies and Rents • Offices. Salt Lake City metropolitan area office vacancy rates,as • reported by CB Richard Ellis,have increased steadily since 1995(when they were around 6.6%). Vacancy rates in the third quarter of 2002 • reached 20.3%,a rate not seen since 1990. Vacancy rates increased downtown from 13.8%in the third quarter of 2001 to 17.6%in the third 411 quarter of 2002. SIP • MI • Utah Outlook 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 9 • • Figure 2 • Utah Economic Indicators:2001-2003 • IP° z.2 Population '\ 1.9 ❑Utah 2001 • 1.6 • •• 10.6 0 Utah 2002 • Nonagricultural Employment -1.0[r1� " , • 0.7 ■Utah 2003 Unemployment Rate \ ''X X`\'\ IM► ► XXXXX \6.0 5.3 • Average Pay N X. '\ 2.62 8 • 2.5 • 13.5 • Wages&Salaries 1.5 3.3 2.5 • Retail Sales , \. Z1.\ 1h1► 4.1 . 3.8 • 14.3 Housing Prices 0.5 • 2.0 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • Percent Changes and Rates • Source:Council of Economic Advisors'Revenue Assumptions Committee t• Figure 3 11111, Comparison of Utah and U.S. Economic Indicators:2002 Estimates and 2003 Forecasts • • . '1 0:9 ❑U.S.2002 • Population 1.0 • 1111111111.11 1.6 II U.S.2003 -0.8 11111111111•11 ['Utah 2002"ILA. Ilii • Nonagricultural Employment _1.0 �0.9 0 Utah 2003 Ell 0.7 • Unemployment RateAA � 1 � 5.7 9 • 6.0 5.3 Average Pay ' �► : ► 113.2 MIIIIIIMINIIIIIIIIIIM 5 6 • • Personal Income : 11 \\111 1. 1�1.'X\'w 4.2 3.6 • 3.7 Retail Sales � i\ 11i 'ti% 14.1 • 4.1 ' '6.8 • Housing Prices 1' . `�'� .� " �4.1 i. 2.0 • -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • Percent Changes and Rates • Source:Council of Economic Advisors'Revenue Assumptions Committee 4011 II • 10 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah Outlook • • • • Figure 4 Construction Jobs as a Percent of Total Jobs 0 • The average for 1978 to 2002 is 5.5%.These construction jobs reflect both permitted and nonpermitted heavy • construction values. The nonpermitted Micron project is also included in the data. • 7.0 • 6.5 • 3 6.0 -. 0 .,, 5.5 C • 5.0 • a. 4.5 - 4.0 - • 3.5 - • 3.0 1978 197911980 19811198211983 1984 1985 111ii1LJj111E 19951996 11998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004I• ■%offotal 6.63 6.53 5.75I5.09 4.82 5.10 5.82 5.72 5.11 4.19381 3.763.874.254.574 6.07 6.35 6.52 6.71 6.94 6.72 6.62 6.07 5.78 5.56 •• Calendar Years • Sources:Department of Workforce Services,Governor's Office of Planning and Budget • AI Figure 5 Year-Over Percent Change in Construction Employment Before and After the Olympics • • 14 • 12 — _ • Georgia 10 - • Olympics: Utah 1)Atlanta 1996q3 8 — 2)Salt Lake City 2002q1 • d • ca 6 — C /1►m 0• 4 — • 2 — • d a 0 • -2 k Construction job growth in Utah would have • September 11,2001 fallen even further were it not for the lowest 4 — mortgage rates since 1971 in 2002. • -6 • q1 q2 q3 q4 q5 q6 q7 q8 q9 q10 q11 q12 Quarters Before and After the Olympics • Sources:Bureau of Labor Statistics,Department of Workforce Services,Governor's Office of Planning and Budget • 1111 • Utah Outlook 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 11 • • T=hle 1 • AN tual and Estimated Economic Indicators for Utah and the U.S.: December 2002 • 2000 2001 2002 2003 %CHG %CHG %CHGel° ECONOMIC INDICATORS UNITS ACTUAL ESTIMATE ESTIMATE FORECAST CY00-01 CY01-02 CY02-03 PRODUCTION AND SPENDING • U.S.Real Gross Domestic Product Billion Chained$96 9,191.4 9,219.0 9,431.0 9,676.2 0.3 2.3 2.6 • U.S.Real Personal Consumption Billion Chained$96 6,223.9 6,379.5 6,564.5 6,708.9 2.5 2.9 2.2 U.S.Real Fixed Investment Billion Chained$96 1,691.9 1,627.6 1,575.5 1,610.2 -3.8 -3.2 2.2 • U.S.Real Defense Spending Billion Chained$96 348.7 366.1 398.4 425.8 5.0 8.8 6.9 U.S.Real Exports Billion Chained$96 1,137.2 1,075.8 1,061.8 1,118.1 -5.4 -1.3 5.3 Utah Exports(Census) Million Dollars 3,220.2 3,506.0 3,186.9 3,355.8 8.9 -9.1 5.3 • Utah Coal Production Million Tons 26.7 27.0 24.7 24.7 1.2 -8.5 0.3 • Utah Oil Production Sales Million Barrels 15.6 15.3 14.1 13.5 -1.9 -7.8 -4.3 Utah Natural Gas Production Sales Billion Cubic Feet 227.7 251.8 250.0 252.5 10.6 -0.7 1.0 • Utah Copper Mined Production Million Pounds 651.9 689.4 564.8 580.0 5.7 -18.1 2.7 SALES AND CONSTRUCTION • U.S.New Auto and Truck Sales Millions 17.4 17.1 16.5 16.6 -1.7 -3.5 0.6 U.S.Housing Starts Millions 1.57 1.60 1.69 1.58 1.71 5.6 -6.5 • U.S.Residential Investment Billion Dollars 426.1 444.8 468.4 472.2 4.4 5.3 0.8 U.S.Nonresidential Structures Billion Dollars 314.2 324.5 272.6 267.9 3.3 -16.0 -1.7 • U.S.Repeat-Sales House Price Index 1980Q1=100 241.5 262.3 280.1 291.6 8.6 6.8 4.1 U.S.Existing S.F.Home Prices(NAR) Thousand Dollars 139.0 147.8 157.9 164.3 6.3 6.8 4.1 • U.S.Retail Sales Billion Dollars 3,360.8 3,488.5 3,617.6 3,765.9 3.8 3.7 4.1 Utah New Auto and Truck Sales Thousands 8`" 78.5 84.8 89.0 -7.6 8.0 5.0 • Utah Dwelling Unit Permits Thousands 18.2 19.7 19.0 18.0 8.4 -3.4 -5.3 • Utah Residential Permit Value Million Dollars 2,140.1 2,352.7 2,400.0 2,350.0 9.9 2.0 -2.1 Utah Nonresidential Permit Value Million Dollars 1,213.0 970.0 900.0 1,100.0 -20.0 -7.2 22.2 • Utah Additions,Alterations and Repairs Million Dollars 583.3 562.8 400.0 400.0 -3.5 -28,9 0.0 Utah Repeat-Sales House Price Index 1980Q1=100 240.5 253.2 255.7 260.8 5.3 1.0 2.0 Utah Existing S.F.Home Prices(NAR) Thousand Dollars 141.5 147.6 148.3 151.3 4.3 0.5 2.0 • Utah Taxable Retail Sales Million Dollars 17,278 17.709 18,427 19,130 2.5 4 1 3.8 • DEMOGRAPHICS AND SENTIMENT U.S.July 1st Population(BEA,Census) Millions 282.1 284 287.4 289.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 • U.S.Consumer Sentiment of U.S.(UotM) 1966=100 107.6 8C- 89.0 89.8 -17.1 -0.2 0.9 Utah July 1st Population(UPEC) Thousands 2,247 2,2 2,339 2,376 2.2 1.9 1.6 410 Utah Net Migration(UPEC) Thousands 18.6 14.2 7.4 0.8 na na na Utah July 1st Population(Census) Thousands 2,243 2,279 2,316 2,353 1.6 1.6 1.6 • Utah Consumer Sentiment of Utah 1966=100 107.6 95.1 88.4 86.6 -11.6 -7.1 -2.0 PROFITS AND RESOURCE PRICES • U.S.Corporate Before Tax Protits Billion Dollars 782.3 670.2 662.2 771.1 -14.3 -1.2 16.4 U.S.Before Tax Profits Less Fed.Res. Billion Dollars 752.2 642.3 639.9 751.5 -14.6 -0.4 17.4 • U.S.Oil Refinery Acquisition Cost $Per Barrel 28.2 23.0 24.1 23.6 -18.4 4.8 -2.1 U.S.Coal Price Index 1982=100 88.0 96.2 99.1 95.8 9.3 3.0 -3.3 • Utah Coal Prices $Per Short Ton 16.9 17.5 17.0 17.0 3.4 -2.9 0.2 • Utah Oil Prices $Per Barrel 28.5 23.5 25.0 25.5 -17.6 6.4 2.0 Utah Natural Gas Prices $Per MCF 3.28 3.66 2.00 2.50 11.6 -45.4 25.0 Utah Copper Prices $Per Pound 0.82 0.72 0.71 0.73 -12.2 -1.4 2.8 • INFLATION AND INTEREST RATES U.S.CPI Urban Consumers(BLS) 1982-84=100 172.2 177.1 179.9 184.1 2.8 1.6 2.3 • U.S.GDP Chained Price Indexes 1996=100 106.9 109.4 110.7 113.0 2.4 1.2 2.1 • U.S.Federal Funds Rate Percent 6.23 3.92 1.67 1.68 na na na U.S.3-Month Treasury Bills Percent 5.81 3.43 1.61 1.69 na na na • U.S.T-Bond Rate,10-Year Percent 6.03 5.02 4.61 4.64 na na na 30 Year Mortgage Rv 'FHLMC) Percent 8.06 6.97 6.52 6.82 na na na • EMPLOYMENT AND AGES U.S.Establishment Emp„yment(BLS) Muir,s 131.7 131.9 130.8 132.0 0.2 -0.8 0.9 • U.S.Average Annual Pay(BLS) Dc ; 35,320 36,214 37,030 38,198 2.5 2.3 3.2 U.S.Total Wages&Salaries(BLS) Billion Dollars 4,652 4,777 4,843 5,042 2.4 1.4 4.1 • Utah Nonagricultural Employment(WS) Thousands 1,074.9 1,081.7 1,070.4 1,078.2 0.6 -1.0 0.7 Utah Average Annual Pay(WS) Dollars 28,817 29,637 30,400 31,163 2.8 2.6 2.5 . Utah Total Nonagriculture Wages(WS) Million Dollars 30,975 32,058 32,540 33,600 3.5 1.5 3.3 INCOME AND UNEMPLOYMENT • U.S.Personal Income(BEA) Billion Dollars 8,399 8,678 8,939 9,314 3.3 3.0 4.2 • U.S.Unemployment Rate(BLS) Percent '0 4.8 5.9 5.7 na na na Utah Personal Income(BEA) Million Dollars 12 54,884 56,366 58,395 4.3 2.7 3.6 • Utah Unemployment Rate(WS) Percent 3.2 4.4 6.0 5.3 na na na Note:Figures in his table may differ from other tables due to different data sources. Source:Council of Economic Advisors'Revenue Assumptions CommitteeIli 111 • 12 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah Outlook • • 0 IP • • Table 2 • 2002 and 2003 Large Construction and Employment Summary 0 2002 Announced Additions of 100 or more jobs: $30 Million Plus Projects in 2002 Began Before 2002: • Best Buy-electronics retail Canyon River Corporate Center-$65m • Bomatic Inc.-plastic containers Diamond Fork CUP-$50m CompuCredit-call center Fresenius Medical Care facility-$65m • Convergys-telemarketing call center Huntsman Cancer Institute Research Hospital-$100m • eCo.Marketing Inc.-call center Jordan Landing (mixed use)-$500m Flour Corp-copper smelter maintenance Logan Canyon Highway-$60m • Fresenius Medical Care-kidney dialysis products McKay-Dee Hospital Complex-$180m III HyClone Laboratories-biopharmaceutical supplies Murray High School-$30m • Ingenix-health-care software/consulting Nebo School District 5 elementary schools-$45m Jet Blue Airways-reservations center NorthShore Corporate Center-$100m • Siebel Systems Inc.-computer engineering One Airport Center-$100m • SkyWest-pilots and mechanics Pacific Landing Office Park-$60m Twinlab-vitamin distribution Pleasant Grove Town Center-$200m • Uinta River Technology- INS data entry RiverPark Corporate Center-$300m • Verizon Wireless-call center Round Valley Golf Resort-$100m Williams International-jet turbine engines Salt Lake City Library-$84m • Sand Hollow Reservoir-$35m • Sandy City Center 1 -$85m • SLC School District new schools and retrofitting -$136m 2002 Announced Subtractions of 100 or more jobs: SLCC 90th South Campus-$143m • American Express-call center Tooele 4 new schools-$49.5m • Consolidated Freight-truck drivers Traverse Mountain(at Fox Ridge)-$2b 40 Delta Airlines-various positions Enterasys-computer network engineers University of Utah Hospital expansion-$43m Weber School District 3 new schools-$40m • Evans& Sutherland -visual computer simulations • Fidelity-financial investments $30 Million Plus Projects in 2002 Began in 2002: Groen-gyroplanes BYU Athletic Complex-$31 m • Hill Air Force Base-storage and distribution Deer Valley Inn-$150m • Infinia Medical Center-care facility Fashion Place Mall expansion-$125m Kmart-retailer Gadspy power generation facility-$81 m • Providian-call center lasis Hospitals-$33m • Qwest-telecommunications Joseph F.Smith Building at BYU-$70m Simons Trucking-drivers and nondrivers Kern River gas pipeline (Utah portion)-$526m • SLOC -Olympic employees State Capitol renovation-$41m . SPS Technologies Inc.-fasteners Thanksgiving Point retail center-$105m ID Utah -propulsion University Hospital Trax Line-$89m Utah Power-electric power USU Engineering Building -$33.2m • Utah State Government-budget cutbacks Well's Dairy-$40m • Williams' petroleum pipeline-$200m 11, $30 Million Plus Projects in 2003 to Begin in 2003: I Federal Courthouse expansion-$70m Intermountain Health Care Murray Hospital-$325m 111/ Sun Rise Development by Kennecott-$1 b IP Union Pacific maintenance facility-$150m II 0111 Ili II Utah Outlook 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 13 • • Table 3 • Projects and Infrastructure Built or Accelerated to Coincide with the 2002 Olympic Winter Games Federal Salt Lake • Total Infrastructure Organizing Committee Project and Infrastructure Description Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures • Venues:(1) Utah Olympic Park $97.1 Million NA $97.1 Million • E-Center Hockey Arena $58.3 Million NA $11.6 Million Delta Center Figure Skating $5.1 Million NA $5.1 Million • Oquirrh Park Speed Skating Enclosure $36.1 Million NA $36.1 Million Soldier Hollow Cross-Country,Biathilon $11.2 Million NA $11.2 Million • Seven Peaks Ice Sheets(Provo) $12.8 Million NA $12.1 Million Ogden Curling Ice Sheet $5.9 Million NA $3.1 Million • Accord Practice Sheet $4 Million NA $0.8 Million Steiner Center Ice Sheets $15 Million NA $3.5 Million • Wasatch Mountain State Park $20 Million NA $8.5 Million U of U Rice Stadium $52.5 Million NA $17.5 Million , Medals Plaza $3.9 Million NA $3.9 Million Housing: , U of U Olympics Village Phases I&2 $120.1 Million NA $31.6 Million Camp Williams Army Reserve Facilities $12.7 Million $12.7 Million NA • Media Housing $11 Million $2 Million $0.5 Million • Transportation:(2) I-15 Expansion $1,590 Million $372.0 Million NA Light Rail North/South Line $312.5 Million $241.3 Million NA • Light Rail U of U Line $118.5 Million $84.6 Million NA . Intelligent Transportation System $31.6 Million $27 Million NA Snowbasin/rrappers Loop Road $15.8 Million $15.8 Million NA Soldier Hollow Access Road $10 Million $9.4 Million NA • Winter Sports Park Road $4.4 Million $3.0 Million NA • Temporary Park and Ride Lots $36 Million $30.8 Million NA Permanent Park and Ride Lots $6.9 Million $5.5 Million NA • Bus Maintenance Facility $5.8 Million $4.6 Million NA SR248 Reconstruction $8.3 Million $7.7 Million NA • 1-80 Silver Creek&Kimball Junction $52 Million $49 Million NA US89&1-84(Corina Drive)Interchange $24.8 Million $4.2 Million NAIS) SR173 Railroad Bridge $5.2 Million Unknown NA 1-215&3500 South Interchange $1.9 Million $1.7 Million NA , Venue Loading/Unloading $11.4 Million $11 Million NA . Transportation Studies $6.8 Million $6.8 Million NA Park City Infrastructure Improvements $11.4 Million $9.5 Million NA • Hotels: Hotel Monaco $32 Million NA NA • Marriot Hotel $50 Million NA NA Little America $185 Million NA NA • Stein Erikson Lodge $30 Million NA NA Resort Additions or Expansions:(3) • Snowbasin Facilities $100 Million NA $23.7 Million Snowbird Expansion $5 Million NA NA • Park City Expansion $150 Million NA $16.3 Million The Canyons Phase 1 Hotel,Lifts&Village $202 Million NA NA • Deer Valley(Deer Crest)Resort $100 Million NA $17.8 Million Brighton Resort $2 Million NA NA • Solitude Resort $100 Million NA NA Zermatt Swiss F, Jrt $40 Million NA NA • Miscellaneous: Telecommunications and UCAN $177.3 Million $6 Million NA • Forest Service Funds $10.5 Million $10.5 Million NA • Soldier Hollow Water/Sewer $11.9 Million $2.2 Million $1.4 Million Gateway Project(Mixed-Use&Transit Hubs) $375 Million NA NA Salt Palace Expansion $47 Million NA $4.6 Million • Alf Engen Museum $10 Million NA NA • LDS Conference Center $240 Million NA NA Total=$4,586.6 Million Total=$917.9 Million Total=$306.4 Million • (1)$58.5 million was repaid by SLOC to the State of Utah for temporary taxpayer assistance in the construction of the Utah Olympic Park. (2)In addition to these transportation infrastructure projects,around$300 million in federal funds was spent on security,and there was an operations"Olympic • Spectator Transportation System"federally funded at$39.9 million.The total Intelligent Transportation System cost was$112 million,but$80.4 million was already included in the$1,590 million listed above for Interstatel5 expansion. 41111 (3)According to the Utah Ski Association,between$300 to$500 million was invested in Utah's ski resorts directly as a result of the Olympics. 1311 • 14 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah Outlook • • ' . • i Utah's Long-Term Projections period,Utah's fertility rate is projected to remain fairly constant at 2.6 le , ,z,,,•Utah` peputati+�i eatt ci?; , i[t tiroff-4 11, i001) nd'r , eetod:: children per woman of childbearing age. National projections have the • tiieacit 7 tt(j :b e e tt3 ,The, h;ia ;, ipti g ed . fertility rate increasing from 2.1 during the next two decades to 2.2 in the t , to of`pr wttor to i ti It wilt,be susaitined t i iapid_fa}d f " last decade of the projection period. Further contributing to the rapid • ii tiiirihriees 'a d a stem ar d ckie iffed a rtcort y rate of natural increase is the fact that Utahns tend to have longer life State Level Results expectancies(mortality rates at any given age are lower)compared to • the nation. The 2002 baseline demographic and economic projections were recently • produced by the Demographic and Economic Analysis section of the The median age is the age that divides the age distribution of a given • Governor's Office of Planning and Budget(GOPB),in association with population into two equal groups one that is younger than the median numerous state and local representatives. While the primary goal of this and one that is older than the median. Utah's median age is projected to • round of updates was to incorporate data from the 2000 Census, increase from 27 years in 2000 to 32 years by the year 2030. Over the analysts also used the opportunity for revising the projections to include same period,the U.S.median age is projected to increase from 36 to 39. • the latest economic indicators as a part of the update process. The increasing median ages in both cases are largely the result of the aging of the baby boomers over time. The difference in median ages • Population. Utah's population,which was 1.73 million in 1990,reached reflects the cumulative effect of Utah's higher fertility rate and the • 2.23 million on April 1,2000,and is projected to achieve 2.79 million in 2010,3.37 million in 2020,and 3.77 million in 2030. Although the interaction of this high fertility rate with the younger population profile of the state. As Utah women in childbearing years continue to have more • projected average annual growth rate decelerates from 2.4%per year in children on average than women nationally,the younger age groups the 1990s to 1.1%per year in the 2020s,these growth rates are more continue to be relatively larger as a portion of the population than is the • than twice the projected rates for the nation as a whole. case for the U.S.as a whole. • Natural Increase. Natural increase,which is the amount by which Dependency Ratio. One summary measure of a population's age • annual births exceed annual deaths,will fuel 81%of Utah's population growth over the next thirty years.The number of births per year is structure is the dependency ratio. This ratio is defined as the number of nonworking age persons(younger than 18,and 65 years and over) • projected to average 51,900 in the 2000s,59,000 in the 2010s,and divided by the number of working age persons(ages 18 through 64). ID of in the 2020s. This compares to projected annual average deaths Historically, Utah's dependency ratio has been significantly higher than of 13,800 in the 2000s, 16,700 in the 2010s,and 20,800 in the 2020s. that of the nation. This has occurred because the pre-school and school • Migration. Net migration is gross in-migration less gross out-migration. age portions of Utah's population have been substantial,relative to its 1110 Positive net in-migration occurs when more people move into the state total population. In 1970,Utah's dependency ratio was 90 while the than move out of the state for a given period of time.Net in-migration is nation's was 79. In 2000,the dependency ratio for the state fell to 69 • projected to occur in the State of Utah over the next three decades. while the nation's fell to 63. In both cases,this decline occurred Approximately 294,400 of the 1.5 million population increase over the primarily because the baby boomers reached working age. • thirty-year projection period can be attributed to net in-migration, Utah's age structure is projected to continue to be characterized by a . meaning in-migration accounts for about 20%of the projected increase. relatively high dependency ratio. However,the state's dependency ratio Net in migration occurs when 1)there is enough job creation to is projected to drop below that of the nation,beginning in 2025,and . accommodate residents who are new entrants to the labor force,and 2) continue throughout the remainder of the projections period. However, there is additional job creation,such that in-migration is necessary to this anomaly is not expected to last more than a few years. The III satisfy labor demand within the state. The sustained net in-migration is projected dependency ratio for Utah in 2030 is 74,while that of the 111/ projected because job creation is also projected to be relatively rapid nation is 78. The trend of converging,then crossing dependency ratios over the next three decades. is primarily because the working age proportion of Utah's population is ID Age Structure and Fertility. A significant amount of attention has been projected to increase while that of the nation is projected to decline. The ID to the trends of the growing school age population(ages 5 to17)in aging of the baby boomers affects the age structure of both Utah and the U.S. However,the aging and retirement of the baby boomers will have a Utah. The growth spurt in this age group is a consequence of the fact 1 that the grandchildren of the baby boomers are now entering the school larger effect on the national dependency ratio because the younger age age years. The State of Utah is projecting an increase of over 100,000 groups in Utah's population will increase more rapidly than those of the people in the school age population over the next decade. It is important nation throughout the entire period. 1 to note that this increase is not mainly fertility-driven or migration-driven. Employment. Utah's nonfarm payroll employment is projected to Rather,it is primarily due to the fact that a significantly large number of increase from 1,075,100 in 2000 to 1,798,600 in 2030. This is an 11, women are presently in their childbearing years. Utah's population is increase of 723,500 jobs over the projections period. The State of relatively young when compared to the nation. Consequently,a greater Utah's average annual growth rate for the projections period is 1.7%, proportion of the state's females are in their childbearing years than the while the corresponding growth rates for the U.S.are projected to be II U.S. Therefore,even if Utah's fertility rate(children per woman)was about half that of Utah. The economies of the westem states have equal to that of the nation,more children would be born in Utah relative suffered along with the national economy. Utah's historically strong job ' to the size of the population. growth has succumbed to negative pressures recently,and in 2002 the 1 In addition to the young population,Utah's women have higher fertility state experienced the worst job growth in nearly fifty years. However, 411rates,ranking the state first among states nationwide. For the projection because of Utah s history of strong economic and employment growth,it is expected that over the long term,the state's economy will recover 1lik 1 Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 15 1 0 • • from the current negative conditions,and expand more rapidly than that County Level Population and Employment Projections • of the nation throughout the projections period. Population. About 1.1 million(or 73%)of the 1.5 million population increase projected for the state between 2000 and 2030 will beel° Over the next three decades,employment growth is projected for every concentrated in the counties of Salt Lake,Utah,Davis,and Weber. This major industry except agriculture and mining in Utah. Further,average is slightly less than the 76%share of the state's population in these • annual growth in every industry except mining is projected to be higher counties in 2000.Therefore,the projected share of the state's population • than for those same industries at the national level. National projections in these four counties in 2030 will decline slightly to 75%. indicate that two of the ten major industries will experience net declines • in employment levels. The two industries are mining,and agriculture. The counties with the highest projected average annual rates of growth Of the ten major industries,construction is projected to have the highest over the 1990 to 2030 period are Washington(3.0%),Tooele(2.9%), • average annual growth rate in the State of Utah over the next three Summit(2.8%),Kane(2.8%),Wasatch(2.7%),Wayne(2.3%),Juab • decades. The projected average annual rate of change for 1990 through (2.1%),and Utah(2.0%). These growth rates are all in excess of the 2030 for Utah's construction sector is 3.4%. Other major industries in state's average annual rate of growth of 1.7%for the 1990 to 2030 • Utah that are projected to have strong employment growth(in excess of period. Thus,these counties will gain in terms of their shares of the 2.0%per year on average)for the 1990 to 2030 period are services, state's total population. • FIRE,non-farm proprietors,trade,and TCPU. Utah's slow growth • industries are projected to be manufacturing and government. Employment. Of the 723,400 net nonagricultural employment creation projected for the state from 2000 to 2030,551,700 jobs(76%)are • Services,nonfarm proprietors,and trade are currently the three largest expected to be within Salt Lake,Utah,Davis,and Weber counties. industries(in terms of employment)in Utah. The number of service jobs Among these,Utah and Weber counties are projected to have average • in Utah is expected to more than double,increasing from 315,400 in annual growth rates of employment in excess of that of the state as a 2000 to 643,200 in 2030,an increase of 327,800 jobs. The number of whole. • nonfarm proprietor jobs and new trade sector jobs are projected to • increase significantly over the projections period as well. These three The counties with the most rapid rates of projected employment growth industries combined are projected to create 71%of the employment are also those counties with rapid rates of projected population growth. . growth in the State of Utah over the next three decades. Rapid employment growth makes it possible for a region to support more Diversification. The State of Utah is becoming more economically people. Population growth reinforces economic expansion as well. • diverse,and hence more like the economic structure of the United The counties with the most rapid rates of projected employment growth • from 2000 to 2030 are Washington(3.2%),Kane(3.2%),Wasatch States,as measured by the Hachman Index. There are specific counties (2.6%),Tooele(2.3%),Summit(2.3%)and Juab(2.2%). • that are very different from the U.S.,and this is not necessarily bad. For example,if the mining industry moved out of Carbon County,the Methods and Assumptionsell economic structure of Carbon County would score higher on the Models. The 2002 long-term projections were produced using the Hachman Index,meaning it would now be more representative of the UPED Model System. The UPED Model is a combination of a three • - economic base of the nation. However the economy of Carbon County component cohort population model and an economic base employment would not be better off. Although the direction of shifts in composition of model. It produces projections of population,components of population • employment by industry are projected to be similar for Utah and the change(births,deaths and migration),households,labor force,and • U.S.,the projected 2000 and 2030 distributions of employment by employment at the Multi-County District(MCD),or regional level. The industry are different for Utah and the U.S. In 2001,the most significant UCAPE and CASA Models allocate the UPED population,components • differences between the industrial composition of Utah and the U.S.were of population change and employment to counties. County or MCD • the large concentration of employment in the mining sector,as well as values are aggregated to yield the projection for the State of Utah. the somewhat large employment concentration in the construction and • nonfarm proprietors sectors. The concentration of employment in the Fertility. MCD-specific birth probabilities by age of mother are assumed TCPU and government sectors was slightly higher in Utah when to remain constant at their estimated 2001 levels to 2030. County mean • compared to the nation. The composition of Utah's trade sector was differences in total fertility rates, 1990-2001,within MCDs are preserved. • exactly the same as the nation in 2001. Utah's other four major The resulting total fertility rates(central birth rates)for MCDs are:2.41 industries had slightly smaller proportions of the overall employment than for Bear River,2.47 for Wasatch Front,2.90 for Mountainland,2.80 for • their national conuterparts(i.e.,FIRE,services,manufacturing,and Central,2.63 for Southwest,2.73 for Uintah Basin,and 2.22 for agriculture). Southeast,yielding 2.51 for the state. • The most significant differences between the employment shares for the Survival. State level survival rates by age and sex are assumed for all • projected industrial composition in 2030 of Utah and the U.S.are the MCDs. Survival rates are assumed to increase along with projected • relatively larger concentration of Utah's employment in the construction U.S.survival rates to 2030. This assumption yields an increase in life and nonfarm proprietors sectors,and the relatively smaller share of expectancy of 4.1 years,from 74.9 years in 1990 to 79.0 years in 2030, • Utah's employment in agriculture and manufacturing. Utah is also for males. For females the similar increase is 3.1 years,from 80.4 in projected to have a slightly larger share of employment in government 1990 to 83.5 in 2030. and TCPU,and a slightly smaller share of employment in services, • mining,trade,and FIRE when compared to the nation. This is the Labor Force Participation. MCD specific labor force participation rates combined result of the differential shifts in industrial composition are assumed to trend with projected U.S.rates to 2020,except where • between Utah and the U.S.in the projections period,and the initial U.S.rates are projected to fall. In effect,this assumes little or no change fp differences in the composition of employment between the two. in Utah male participation rates and increases in middle and older age 11 16 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • • female rates. After 2020,labor force participation rates are assumed to The Department of Natural Resources provided employment forecasts remain constant at their 2020 levels. by county for coal mining and oil and gas extraction which were 110 included. Unemployment Rates. Unemployment rates at the MCD level are • assumed to rise in 2001 and 2002,then fall in 2003. It is further Specific Assumptions.Additional assumptions include: • assumed that MCD level unemployment rates continue to fall until 2008, Davis County reaches build out at 400,000 persons giving an assumed state level unemployment rate of 3.9%from 2008 to • 2030. r Construction employment reverts to its historical share of total employment in 2009 • Multi-Job Holding Rates. MCD specific multi-job holding rates are r Agricultural jobs trend with the U.S. assumed to revert to their 1990-2001 mean over the interval 2001 to • 2006. r Federal Defense employment remains relatively constant after 2001 • Employment Growth Assumptions. For the long-term,2000 to 2030, r Geneva's closing is included • basic employment growth was based on a demographic assumption,but was consistent with a conservative mid-range growth assumption based Additional Information. For additional information on historical as well • upon alternative growth analysis. Growth in export employment is as projected economic and demographic data,including methods, assumed sufficient to generate cumulative net in-migration equal to 19% procedures,and assumptions,visit the web site: • of total population change and to generate cumulative natural increase http.lhvww.governor.utah.govlprojections. • (births minus deaths)equal to 81%of total population change over the interval 2000 to 2030. These percents correspond to those of the last three decades. • ▪ Figure 6 Population Estimates and Projections by MCD:1940-2030 11/ 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 ' 2,500,000 2,000,000- . . ' 1,500A00 . . ' 1,000,000- ■ ,1 500,000 — — 1940 1950 1960 1970 1900 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 l Uintah Basin MCD Southeast MCD ❑Central MCD ❑Bear River MCD II Southwest MCD ❑Mountainland MCD Wasatch Front MCD . Source:2002 Baseline Projections,SOPS,UPED Model System Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 17 • • • Figure 7 . Utah's Changing Age Structure 411° • 85+ 80-84 .■ • 75-79 ■. 70-74 -- • 65-69 -- • 60-64 55-5959 • 50-54 • 40-49 --_' • 40-44 30-34 • 30-34 25-29 • 20-24 • 15-19 10-14 • 5-9 l •0-4 L 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 • • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System 2000 2030 • Figure 8 • Historical and Projected Dependency Ratios for Utah and the U.S. 41/6 85.0 • • • 80.0 • • 75.0 • .F • • 70.0 • C 3 • R • 65.0 • • 60.0 • 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 • —�°—State of Utah•,u'-United States • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System 4101 18 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • • Figure 9 Utah Dependency Ratios:1990 to 2030 • • 90 82 ■0-4 05-17 1=165+ • 80 - 72 74 • 16 69 70 - B7 • 60 _ 14 14 18 23 • so • 40 - 48 • 38 36 39 36 30 • • 20 10 18 16 1 - is is • ° . 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System • • Figure 10 ' U.S.Dependency Ratios:1990 to 2030 90 - 80 - PA 0-4 ❑5-17 ❑65+ I 78 70 - 67 62 63 61 so - 36 50 - 20 21 21 27 40 - 30 29 31 29 29 31 20 - 10 12 11 11 11 12 o 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 ' Source'.2002 Baserme Projections,SOPS.UPED Model System • Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Govemor 19 • . . Figure 11 • Projected School Age Population • 410 900,000 4.0% . 800,000— —3.5% • • 700,000— � —3.0% D • 7600,000— ° , .. —2.5% • N -2.0% -1 • a500,000—� "= `�' p — 1.5% • m 400,000— v a —1.0% D • o 0. 300,000— '° • —0.5% N cn 200,000— • —0.0% v -Y--;m--Population — Growth Rate • 100,000— —-0.5% . 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 -1.0% • 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System • • Figure 12 • Growth of 65 and Older Age Group IP 600,000 5.0% • —4.5% • 500,000— . —4.0% � • d i .a • o • 400,000— —3.5/0 c -3.0% 10 • m XI • N d ma� 300,000— —2,5% a o •co co —2.0% yfu • • 200,000 Q1 N Oa — 1.5% o O • a. 100,000— Population — Growth Rate — 1.0% CD -0.5% • 0 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I 0.0% • 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2021 2025 2029 • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System • al lb • 20 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • . . w • Figure 13 • Total Employment Growth by Decade for Utah and the U.S. all 5.0% • 4.5%• ['State of Utah • 0 4.0% ®United States • v 3.5% • ° • :: 3.0% _ • A, 2.5%— t c c �� a • Q 2.0% s N CD 1.5% • 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s . Source'.2002 Bowline Projections,GOPB:UPED Model System • Figure 14 isIndustry Employment as a Share of Total State Employment II • 2002 2030 II • Trade Trade TCPU 19% 18% FIRE II 4A FIRE TCPU 4% ID P, 4% 4% Manufacturing c� II 9% acts' Manufacturing 8% Constructio �!,� Construcdon Illi II 5% 5% Services Services Mining 25% Mining 29/ 1/ 0% Agriculture III 1% Agriculture 1% Millr Nonfarm Nonfarm Proprieto- Government Proprietors Government 18% 14% 18% 13% ' Source:2002 Baseline Projections.GOPB,UPED Model System • Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 21 0 0 Table 4 • Utah Economic and Demographic Summary • 1-Jul School Age Population Non-Ag Payroll 410 Population (5-17) Employment Households • Average • Year Total AARC" Total AARC" Total AARC* Total AARC* Size • 1990 1,729,227 na 458,454 na 724,013 na 538,385 na 3.16 • 1995 1,995,228 2.90% 491,657 1.41% 908,371 4.64% 644,477 3.66% 3.04 • 2000 2,246,553 2.40% 509,320 0.71% 1,075,144 3.43% 705,423 1.82% 3.13 2005 2,464,633 1.87% 524,458 0.59% 1,184,212 1.95% 792,786 2.36% 3.06 • 2010 2,787,670 2.49% 601,034 2.76% 1,348,977 2.64% 914,309 2.89% 3.00 • 2015 3,126,736 2.32% 696,579 2.99% 1,503,562 2.19% 1,039,599 2.60% 2.96 2020 3,371,071 1.52% 755,423 1.64% 1,617,315 1.47% 1,142,421 1.90% 2.90 • 2025 3,570,016 1.15% 772,652 0.45% 1,709,613 1.12% 1,232,017 1.52% 2.85 2030 3,772,042 1.11% 779,863 0.19% 1,798,566 1.02% 1,322,887 1.43% 2.80 • *AARC-Average Annual Rate of Change • Note: Numbers in this table may differ from other tables due to different data sources. • Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget—Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, UPED Model System. • This is the 2002 Baseline, revised December, 2001. • The last year of historical data is 2001 for employment and 2001 for population. Total population is the population in households plus the population in group quarters. Persons per household is • population in households divided by the number of households. Populations are dated July 1. • • el • • • • • • • • • • • IIII 4111 • • Ili lb • 22 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • w • • Table 5 Population Projections by County and District:April 1 Ile AARC 2000- • MCD/County 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2030 • BEAR RIVER 92,498 108,393 136,097 150,781 171,102 191,989 203,708 214,036 1.52% 0 Box Elder 33,222 36,485 42,745 46,928 53,224 59,433 63,391 68,088 1.56% Cache 57,176 70,183 91,391 101,811 115,697 130,246 137,966 143,615 1.52% • Rich 2,100 1,725 1,961 2,042 2,181 2,310 2,351 2,333 0.58% • WASATCH FRONT 941,172 1,104,356 1,381,778 1,498,463 1,675,743 1,865,039 2,007,635 2,247,652 1.63% Davis 146,540 187,941 238,994 262,241 292,201 323,992 347,412 386,672 1.62% • Morgan 4,917 5,528 7,129 7,506 8,329 9,250 9,981 11,312 1.55% Salt Lake 619,066 725,956 898,387 . 967,390 1,077,556 1,195,554 1,283,784 1,431,843 1.57% • Tooele 26,033 26,601 40,735 50,119 59,780 70,338 79,539 97,055 2.94% Weber 144,616 158,330 196,533 211,207 237,877 265,905 286,919 320,770 1.65% • MOUNTSummit INLAND 236,827 289,197 413,487 482,023 567,921 650,065 701,258 792,953 2.19% Summit 10,198 15,518 29,736 35,162 41,988 49,462 56,001 68,474 2.82% • Utah 218,106 263,590 368,536 428,156 503,039 573,608 615,480 689,586 2.11% Wasatch 8,523 10,089 15,215 18,705 22,894 26,995 29,777 34,893 2.81% • CENTRAL 47,087 52,294 66,192 71,500 77,256 84,409 90,388 94,874 1.21% Juab 5,530 5,817 8,238 9,577 10,954 12,552 13,996 15,660 2.16% • Millard 8,970 11,333 12,405 13,051 13,538 14,250 14,730 14,605 0.55% • Piute 1,329 1,277 1,435 1,448 1,508 1,570 1,606 1,588 0.34% Sanpete 14,620 16,259 22,763 24,488 26,351 28,685 30,611 31,860 1.13% • Sevier 14,727 15,431 18,842 20,117 21,649 23,570 25,159 26,174 1.10% Wayne 1,911 2,177 2,509 2,819 3,256 3,782 4,286 4,987 2.32% . SOUTHWEST 55,489 83,263 140,919 164,441 193,112 224,438 251,404 303,288 2.59% Beaver 4,378 4,765 6,005 6,432 6,932 7,470 7,823 8,417 1.13% • Garfield 3,673 3,980 4,735 4,869 5,332 5,833 6,196 6,841 1.23% Iron 17,349 20,789 33,779 36,457 40,696 45,315 48,954 55,562 1.67% 5 Kane 4,024 5,169 6,046 6,907 8,272 9,765 11,077 13,628 2.75% le Washington UINTAH BASIN 26,065 48,560 90,354 109,776 131,880 156,055 177,354 218,840 2.99% 33,840 35,546 40,516 42,866 44,837 48,042 50,189 51,372 0.79% Daggett 769 690 921 976 1,030 1,112 1,169 1,208 0.91% Ili Duchesne 12,565 12,645 14,371 15,254 16,251 17,685 18,718 19,545 1.03% . Uintah 20,506 22,211 25,224 26,636 27,556 29,245 30,302 30,619 0.65% SOUTHEAST 54,124 49,801 54,180 54,559 57,699 62,754 66,489 67,867 0.75% . Carbon 22,179 20,228 20,422 20,562 21,804 23,769 25,236 25,848 0.79% Emery 11,451 10,332 10,860 10,667 11,103 11,906 12,455 12,438 0.45% . Grand 8,241 6,620 8,485 8,596 8,969 9,638 10,102 10,122 0.59% San Juan 12,253 12,621 14,413 14,734 15,823 17,441 18,696 19,459 1.01% . STATE OF UTAH 1,461,037 1,722,850 2,233,169 2,464,633 2,787,670 3,126,736 3,371,071 3,772,042 1.76% 110 Notes: 1) AARC is average annual rate of change. . 2) 1980 and 1990 populations are April 1 U.S. Census modified age, race and sex(MARS)populations. 3) 2000 populations are April 1 U.S. Census summary file 1 (SF1)populations;all others are July 1 populations. ISources: 1) U.S. Bureau of the Census; Utah Population Estimates Committee. IP2) 2002 Baseline Projections,Govemor's Office of Planning and Budget, UPED Model System. I I III I • II • Ili ' Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 23 1 • • Table 6 • Total Employment Projections by Major Industry • 1110• Industry 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 0 Agriculture (4) 19,660 19,148 18,468 20,595 19,402 5 Mining 18,502 8,604 8,114 8,003 7,675 • Construction 31,548 27,927 54,793 71,598 67,091 Manufacturing 87,7':' 107,102 123,865 130,847 129,507 • TCPU (1) 34,' 42,286 51,496 60,846 63,791 Trade 128,b;,z: 172,394 220,026 251,635 268,359 • FIRE (2) 25,768 34,133 47,678 57,327 65,407 Services (3) 105,839 185,865 243,716 315,368 377,275 • Govemment 124,929 150,557 163,669 184,539 209,910 • Non-farm Proprietors (4) 90,616 152,403 184,868 239,351 261,683 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (5) 667,388 900,419 1,116,693 1,340,109 1,470,100 • Non-Ag Payroll Emp (6) 551,833 724,013 907,909 1,075,144 1,184,212 • Industry 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 • • Agriculture (4) 18,901 18,226 17,470 16,515 16,164 0 Mining 7,511 7,242 6,866 6,465 4,675 Construction 77,730 86,316 93,504 99,958 106,323 • Manufacturing 138,729 147,993 156,586 164,974 173,254 • TCPU (1) 69,759 75,869 81,499 87,127 93,148 Trade 299,181 328,728 350,783 370,293 392,290 • FIRE (2) 73,288 80,710 85,946 90,287 94,777 lb vices (3) 451,524 519,196 568,268 607,898 643,192 i_.:vemment 236,206 262,583 278,904 287,510 295,852 • Non-farm Proprietors (4) 294,809 327,295 351,708 373,561 397,366 • TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (5) 1,667,638 1,854,158 1,991,534 2,104,588 2,217,041 Non-Ag Payroll Emp (6) 1,348,977 1,503,562 1,617,315 1,709,613 1,798,566 • Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget-Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, UPED Model System. • Note: Numbers in this table may differ from other tables due to different data sources. Also, these data are based on • SIC codes and do not reflect the new NAICS classification system. . This is the 2002 Baseline, revised December, 2001. Calculations may not match other projections in this report due to updated information. • (1) Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities • (2) Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (3) Includes Private Household and Agricultural Services employment(SICs 88, 07, 08, and 09) • (4) U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis definition (5) Totals may not add due to rounding • (6) Excludes Agriculture, Private Household, and Non-Farm Proprietor employment • • • • • • IP° 24 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • Table 7 Utah Population Projections by Selected Age Groups • O. Age 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 • • 0-4 189,962 172,252 210,667 251,546 280,481 298,969 301,938 306,681 326,705 • 5-17 350,143 456,783 512,361 524,458 601,034 696,579 755,423 772,652 779,863 18-29 • 351,391 337,682 499,004 536,770 550,338 555,452 579,211 632,344 695,239 • 30-39 184,866 261,192 301,065 327,325 410,129 481,227 477,538 445,675 439,531 40-64 275,455 345,459 532,133 618,850 708,984 805,067 899,399 979,906 1,031,962 • 65+ 109,220 149,482 191,323 205,684 236,704 289,442 357,562 432,758 498,742 15-44 678,160 789,887 1,074,503 1,133,894 1,240,101 1,367,760 1,454,150 1,498,069 1,536,089 • 16-64 864,989 1,003,330 1,416,755 1,560,271 1,749,736 1,933,403 2,064,881 2,174,065 2,285,574 60+ 155,480 201,994 254,144 284,137 341,810 422,364 509,415 588,971 654,137 0 Total 1,461,037 1,722,850 2,246,553 2,464,633 2,787,670 3,126,736 3,371,071 3,570,016 3,772,042 • Median Age 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 • Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget-Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, UPED Model System. • This is the 2002 Baseline, revised December,2001. 1980 and 1990 populations are April 1 U.S.Census MARS populations; all others are July 1 populations. • • ID 10 Table 8 . Utah Population Projections by Selected Age Groups as a Percent of Total Ile Age 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 i . 0-4 13.0% 10.0% 9.4% 10.2% 10.1% 9.6% 9.0% 8.6% 8.7% . 5-17 24.0% 26.5% 22.8% 21.3% 21.6% 22.3% 22.4% 21.6% 20.7% 18-29 24.1% 19.6% 22.2% 21.8% 19.7% 17.8% 17.2% 17.7% 18.4% . 30-39 12.7% 15.2% 13.4% 13.3% 14.7% 15.4% 14.2% 12.5% 11.7% . 40-64 18.9% 20.1% 23.7% 25.1% 25.4% 25.7% 26.7% 27.4% 27.4% 65+ 7.5% 8.7% 8.5% 8.3% 8.5% 9.3% 10.6% 12.1% 13.2% . 15-44 46.4% 45.8% 47.8% 46.0% 44.5% 43.7% 43.1% 42.0% 40.7% . 16-64 59.2% 58.2% 63.1% 63.3% 62.8% 61.8% 61.3% 60.9% 60.6% 60+ 10.6% 11.7% 11.3% 11.5% 12.3% 13.5% 15.1% 16.5% 17.3% II Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% II Source:Governor's Office of Planning and Budget--Demographic and Economic Analysis Section,UPED Model System. ID This is the 2002 Baseline,revised December,2001. r 1980 and 1990 populations are April 1 U.S.Census MARS populations; all others are July 1 populations. I 10 ' Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 25 • • Table 9 • • Location Quotients and Hachman Index for the State of Utah • O. Industry 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 • • Agriculture 0.89 0.94 0.81 0.69 0.60 0.55 • Mining 3.05 1.86 1.86 1.69 1.45 0.97 Construction 1.20 0.81 1.30 1.15 1.17 1.20 • Manufacturing 0.73 0.86 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.87 • TCPU 1.13 1.13 1.08 1.01 1.00 1.04 Trade 1.06 1.01 1.01 0.96 0.95 0.96 • FIRE 0.82 0.77 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.92 • Services 0.88 0.93 0.90 0.97 0.99 0.98 Govemment 1.14 1.10 1.02 1.08 1.08 1.05 • Non-Farm Proprietors 1.12 1.21 1.17 1.13 1.12 1.13 • Nachman Index 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 • • *Location Quotients are measures of relative shares. The share of a given industry in the subject area • (Utah) is compared to that of the reference region (United States). A location greater than 1 indicates specialization in a subject region relative to the reference region. • **The Rachman Index measures how closely the employment distribution of the subject region (Utah) • resembles that of the reference region(United States). As the value of the index approaches one, this • means that the subject region's employment distribution among industries is more similar to that of • the reference region. Note: These data are based on SIC codes and do reflect the new NAICS classification system. IP° Source: 2002 Baseline Projections, GOPB, UPED Model System. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • OD lb • 26 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • • • Table 2 • 2002 and 2003 Large Construction and Employment Summary lie 2002 Announced Additions of 100 or more jobs: $30 Million Plus Projects in 2002 Began Before 2002: • Best Buy-electronics retail Canyon River Corporate Center-$65m • Bomatic Inc. -plastic containers Diamond Fork CUP-$50m CompuCredit-call center Fresenius Medical Care facility-$65m • Convergys-telemarketing call center Huntsman Cancer Institute Research Hospital-$100m • eCo.Marketing Inc.-call center Jordan Landing (mixed use)-$500m Flour Corp-copper smelter maintenance Logan Canyon Highway-$60m • Fresenius Medical Care-kidney dialysis products McKay-Dee Hospital Complex-$180m • HyClone Laboratories-biopharmaceutical supplies Murray High School-$30m • Ingenix- health-care software/consulting Nebo School District 5 elementary schools-$45m Jet Blue Airways-reservations center NorthShore Corporate Center-$100m • Siebel Systems Inc.-computer engineering One Airport Center-$100m • SkyWest-pilots and mechanics Pacific Landing Office Park-$60m Twinlab-vitamin distribution Pleasant Grove Town Center-$200m • Uinta River Technology-INS data entry RiverPark Corporate Center-$300m • Verizon Wireless-call center Round Valley Golf Resort-$100m Williams International-jet turbine engines Salt Lake City Library-$84m • Sand Hollow Reservoir-$35m • Sandy City Center 1 -$85m • SLC School District new schools and retrofitting-$136m 2002 Announced Subtractions of 100 or more jobs: SLCC 90th South Campus-$143m • American Express-call center Tooele 4 new schools-$49.5m • Consolidated Freight-truck drivers Traverse Mountain(at Fox Ridge)-$2b le Delta Airlines-various positions Enterasys-computer network engineers University of Utah Hospital expansion-$43m Weber School District 3 new schools-$40m • Evans & Sutherland-visual computer simulations • Fidelity-financial investments $30 Million Plus Projects in 2002 Began in 2002: Groen-gyroplanes BYU Athletic Complex-$31 m • Hill Air Force Base-storage and distribution Deer Valley Inn-$150m • Infinia Medical Center-care facility Fashion Place Mall expansion-$125m Kmart-retailer Gadspy power generation facility-$81 m • Providian-call center lasis Hospitals-$33m • Qwest-telecommunications Joseph F.Smith Building at BYU-$70m Simons Trucking-drivers and nondrivers Kern River gas pipeline (Utah portion)-$526m • SLOC -Olympic employees State Capitol renovation-$41 m • SPS Technologies Inc.-fasteners Thanksgiving Point retail center-$105m • Thiokol-propulsion University Hospital Trax Line-$89m Utah Power-electric power USU Engineering Building -$33.2m • Utah State Government-budget cutbacks Well's Dairy-$40m • Williams' petroleum pipeline-$200m • $30 Million Plus Projects in 2003 to Begin in 2003: • Federal Courthouse expansion-$70m Intermountain Health Care Murray Hospital-$325m • Sun Rise Development by Kennecott-$1 b • Union Pacific maintenance facility-$150m • 411 • lb • Utah Outlook 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 13 S S • Table 2 • 2002 and 2003 Large Construction and Employment Summary OD2002 Announced Additions of 100 or more jobs: $30 Million Plus Projects in 2002 Began Before 2002: S Best Buy-electronics retail Canyon River Corporate Center-$65m • Bomatic Inc.-plastic containers Diamond Fork CUP-$50m CompuCredit-call center Fresenius Medical Care facility-$65m S Convergys-telemarketing call center Huntsman Cancer Institute Research Hospital-$100m • eCo.Marketing Inc.-call center Jordan Landing (mixed use)-$500m Flour Corp-copper smelter maintenance Logan Canyon Highway-$60m S Fresenius Medical Care-kidney dialysis products McKay-Dee Hospital Complex-$180m • HyClone Laboratories-biopharmaceutical supplies Murray High School-$30m • Ingenix-health-care software/consulting Nebo School District 5 elementary schools-$45m Jet Blue Airways-reservations center NorthShore Corporate Center-$100m • Siebel Systems Inc.-computer engineering One Airport Center-$100m • SkyWest-pilots and mechanics Pacific Landing Office Park-$60m Twinlab-vitamin distribution Pleasant Grove Town Center-$200m • Uinta River Technology-INS data entry RiverPark Corporate Center-$300m • Verizon Wireless-call center Round Valley Golf Resort-$100m • Williams International-jet turbine engines Salt Lake City Library-$84m Sand Hollow Reservoir-$35m • Sandy City Center 1 -$85m • SLC School District new schools and retrofitting -$136m 2002 Announced Subtractions of 100 or more jobs: SLCC 90th South Campus-$143m • American Express-call center Tooele 4 new schools-$49.5m S Consolidated Freight-truck drivers Traverse Mountain(at Fox Ridge)-$2b le Delta Airlines-various positions Enterasys-computer network engineers University of Utah Hospital expansion-$43m Weber School District 3 new schools-$40m • Evans & Sutherland -visual computer simulations • Fidelity-financial investments $30 Million Plus Projects in 2002 Began in 2002: Groen-gyroplanes BYU Athletic Complex-$31 m S Hill Air Force Base-storage and distribution Deer Valley Inn-$150m • Infinia Medical Center-care facility Fashion Place Mall expansion-$125m Kmart-retailer Gadspy power generation facility-$81 m • Providian-call center lasis Hospitals-$33m S Qwest-telecommunications Joseph F. Smith Building at BYU-$70m Simons Trucking -drivers and nondrivers Kern River gas pipeline(Utah portion)-$526m S SLOC -Olympic employees State Capitol renovation-$41 m • SPS Technologies Inc.-fasteners Thanksgiving Point retail center-$105m • Thiokol-propulsion University Hospital Trax Line-$89m Utah Power-electric power USU Engineering Building -$33.2m • Utah State Government-budget cutbacks Well's Dairy-$40m • Williams'petroleum pipeline-$200m S $30 Million Plus Projects in 2003 to Begin in 2003: S Federal Courthouse expansion-$70m Intermountain Health Care Murray Hospital-$325m S Sun Rise Development by Kennecott-$1 b • Union Pacific maintenance facility-$150m S le • iii • Utah Outlook 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 13 S S Table 3 • Projects and Infrastructure Built or Accelerated to Coincide with the 2002 Olympic Winter Games • Federal Salt Lake Total Infrastructure Organizing CommitteeII Project and Infrastructure Description Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Venues:(1) • Utah Olympic Park $97.1 Million NA $97.1 Million • E-Center Hockey Arena $58.3 Million NA $11.6 Million Delta Center Figure Skating $5.1 Million NA $5.1 Million . Oquirrh Park Speed Skating Enclosure $36.1 Million NA $36.1 Million Soldier Hollow Cross-Country.Biathilon $11.2 Million NA $11.2 Million • Seven Peaks Ice Sheets(Provo) $12.8 Million NA $12.1 Million Ogden Curling Ice Sheet $5.9 Million NA $3.1 Million • Accord Practice Sheet $4 Million NA $0.8 Million Steiner Center Ice Sheets $15 Million NA $3.5 Million • Wasatch Mountain State Park $20 Million NA $8.5 Million U of U Rice Stadium $52.5 Million NA $17.5 Million , Medals Plaza $3.9 Million NA $3.9 Million Housing: • U of U Olympics Village Phases I&2 $120.1 Million NA $31.6 Million • Camp Williams Army Reserve Facilities $12.7 Million $12.7 Million NA Media Housing $11 Million $2 Million $0.5 Million Transportation:(2) • 1-15 Expansion $1,590 Million $372.0 Million NA • Light Rail North/South Line $312.5 Million $241.3 Million NA Light Rail U of U Line $118.5 Million $84.6 Million NA • Intelligent Transportation System $31.6 Million $27 Million NA Snowbasin/Trappers Loop Road $15.8 Million $15.8 Million NA Soldier Hollow Access Road $10 Million $9.4 Million NA • Winter Sports Park Road $4.4 Million $3.0 Million NA • Temporary Park and Ride Lots $36 Million $30.8 Million NA Permanent Park and Ride Lots $6.9 Million $5.5 Million NA • Bus Maintenance Facility $5.8 Million $4.6 Million NA SR248 Reconstruction $8.3 Million $7.7 Million NA • 1-80 Silver Creek&Kimball Junction $52 Million $49 Million NA US89&1-84(Corina Drive)Interchange $24.8 Million $4.2 Million NAIP) SR173 Railroad Bridge $5.2 Million Unknown NA 1-215&3500 South Interchange $1.9 Million $1.7 Million NA • Venue Loading/Unloading $11.4 Million $11 Million NA • Transportation Studies $6.8 Million $6.8 Million NA Park City Infrastructure Improvements $11.4 Million $9.5 Million NA • Hotels: Hotel Monaco $32 Million NA NA • Marriot Hotel $50 Million NA NA Little America $185 Million NA NA • Stein Erikson Lodge $30 Million NA NA Resort Additions or Expansions:(3) • Snowbasin Facilities $100 Million NA $23.7 Million Snowbird Expansion $5 Million NA NA • Park City Expansion $150 Million NA $16.3 Million The Canyons Phase 1 Hotel,Lifts&Village $202 Million NA NA • Deer Valley(Deer Crest)Resort $100 Million NA $17.8 Million Brighton Resort $2 Million NA NA • Solitude Resort $100 Million NA NA Zermatt Swiss F. Jrt $40 Million NA NA Miscellaneous: • Telecommunications and UCAN $177.3 Million $6 Million NA Forest Service Funds $10.5 Million $10.5 Million NA • Soldier Hollow Water/Sewer $11.9 Million $2.2 Million $1.4 Million Gateway Project(Mixed-Use&Transit Hubs) $375 Million NA NA Salt Palace Expansion $47 Million NA $4.6 Million • Alf Engen Museum $10 Million NA NA • LDS Conference Center $240 Million NA NA Total=$4,586.6 Million Total=$917.9 Million Total=$306.4 Million . (1)$58.5 million was repaid by SLOC to the State of Utah for temporary taxpayer assistance in the construction of the Utah Olympic Park. (2)In addition to these transportation infrastructure projects,around$300 million in federal funds was spent on security,and there was an operations"Olympic • Spectator Transportation System"federally funded at$39.9 million.The total Intelligent Transportation System cost was$112 million,but$80.4 million was already included in the$1,590 million listed above for Interstatel5 expansion. (3)According to the Utah Ski Association,between$300 to$500 million was invested in Utah's ski resorts directly as a result of the Olympics. el Ill • 14 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah Outlook • • • • 111 Utah's Long-Term Projections • flvorvt8v+r- °,,,: :- .',„,. ' "";.;.F period,Utah's fertility rate is projected to remain fairly constant at 2.6 OD t It`s p4pniatittr eclietl`2 23 mUlraii oil Aprlf 1,2OfD'-and is a ectid children per woman of childbearing age. National projections have the • tt reacfr- 7 Hilt**tliO yeat Ztt* si%gj tiara ,wtiiitt et€ ectS" fertility rate increasing from 2.1 during the next two decades to 2.2 in the the ratd<af rovotr fi ithe nation,iiiitbesiis lied bii.rapjOdaifit , last decade of the projection period. Further contributing to the rapid • nabitai:l crease and a s ro g ndOversified er ito -: rate of natural increase is the fact that Utahns tend to have longer life expectancies(mortality rates at any given age are lower)compared to • State Level Results the nation. The 2002 baseline demographic and economic projections were recently • produced by the Demographic and Economic Analysis section of the The median age is the age that divides the age distribution of a given • Governor's Office of Planning and Budget(GOPB),in association with population into two equal groups one that is younger than the median numerous state and local representatives. While the primary goal of this and one that is older than the median. Utah's median age is projected to • round of updates was to incorporate data from the 2000 Census, increase from 27 years in 2000 to 32 years by the year 2030. Over the analysts also used the opportunity for revising the projections to include same period,the U.S.median age is projected to increase from 36 to 39. • the latest economic indicators as a part of the update process. The increasing median ages in both cases are largely the result of the aging of the baby boomers over time. The difference in median ages • Population. Utah's population,which was 1.73 million in 1990,reached reflects the cumulative effect of Utah's higher fertility rate and the • 2.23 million on April 1,2000,and is projected to achieve 2.79 million in interaction of this high fertility rate with the younger population profile of 2010,3.37 million in 2020,and 3.77 million in 2030. Although the the state. As Utah women in childbearing years continue to have more • projected average annual growth rate decelerates from 2.4%per year in children on average than women nationally,the younger age groups the 1990s to 1.1%per year in the 2020s,these growth rates are more continue to be relatively larger as a portion of the population than is the • than twice the projected rates for the nation as a whole. case for the U.S.as a whole. • Natural Increase. Natural increase,which is the amount by which Dependency Ratio. One summary measure of a population's age • annual births exceed annual deaths,will fuel 81%of Utah's population structure is the dependency ratio. This ratio is defined as the number of growth over the next thirty years.The number of births per year is nonworking age persons(younger than 18,and 65 years and over) • projected to average 51,900 in the 2000s,59,000 in the 2010s,and divided by the number of working age persons(ages 18 through 64). • 63,100 in the 2020s. This compares to projected annual average deaths Historically,Utah's dependency ratio has been significantly higher than of 13,800 in the 2000s, 16,700 in the 2010s,and 20,800 in the 2020s. that of the nation. This has occurred because the pre-school and school • Migration. Net migration is gross in-migration less gross out-migration. age portions of Utah's population have been substantial,relative to its total population. In 1970,Utah's net in-migration occurs when more people move into the state dependency ratio was 90 while the IIIthan move out of the state for a given period of time.Net in migration is nation's was 79. In 2000,the dependency ratio for the state fell to 69while the nation's fell to 63. In both cases,this decline occurred • projected to occur in the State of Utah over the next three decades. primarily because the baby boomers reached working age. Approximately 294,400 of the 1.5 million population increase over the • thirty-year projection period can be attributed to net in-migration, Utah's age structure is projected to continue to be characterized by a • meaning in-migration accounts for about 20%of the projected increase. relatively high dependency ratio. However,the state's dependency ratio Net in migration occurs when 1)there is enough job creation to is projected to drop below that of the nation,beginning in 2025,and • accommodate residents who are new entrants to the labor force,and 2) continue throughout the remainder of the projections period. However, there is additional job creation,such that in-migration is necessary to this anomaly is not expected to last more than a few years. The • satisfy labor demand within the state. The sustained net in-migration is projected dependency ratio for Utah in 2030 is 74,while that of the • projected because job creation is also projected to be relatively rapid nation is 78. The trend of converging,then crossing dependency ratios over the next three decades. is primarily because the working age proportion of Utah's population is • Age Structure and Fertility. A significant amount of attention has been projected to increase while that of the nation is projected to decline. The • paid to the trends of the growing school age population(ages 5 to17)in aging of the baby boomers affects the age structure of both Utah and the Utah. The growth spurt in this age group is a consequence of the fact U.S. However,the aging and retirement of the baby boomers will have a • that the grandchildren of the baby boomers are now entering the school larger effect on the national dependency ratio because the younger age groups in Utah's population will increase more rapidly than those of the • age years. The State of Utah is projecting an increase of over 100,000 nation throughout the entire period. people in the school age population over the next decade. It is important • to note that this increase is not mainly fertility-driven or migration-driven. Employment. Utah's nonfarm payroll employment is projected to Rather,it is primarily due to the fact that a significantly large number of increase from 1,075,100 in 2000 to 1,798,600 in 2030. This is an • women are presently in their childbearing years. Utah's population is increase of 723,500 jobs over the projections period. The State of • relatively young when compared to the nation. Consequently,a greater Utah's average annual growth rate for the projections period is 1.7%, proportion of the state's females are in their childbearing years than the while the corresponding growth rates for the U.S.are projected to be • U.S. Therefore,even if Utah's fertility rate(children per woman)was about half that of Utah. The economies of the westem states have equal to that of the nation,more children would be born in Utah relative suffered along with the national economy. Utah's historically strong job • to the size of the population. growth has succumbed to negative pressures recently,and in 2002 the • In addition to the young population,Utah's women have higher fertility state experienced the worst job growth in nearly fifty years. However,because of Utah's history of strong economic and employment growth,it Ile rates,ranking the state first among states nationwide. For the projection is expected that over the long term,the state's economy will recover • 111 • Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 15 • • • • from the current negative conditions,and expand more rapidly than that County Level Population and Employment Projections • of the nation throughout the projections period. Population. About 1.1 million(or 73%)of the 1.5 million population 11011 Over the next three decades,employment growth is projected for every increase projected for the state between 2000 and 2030 will be concentrated in the counties of Salt Lake,Utah,Davis,and Weber. This major industry except agriculture and mining in Utah. Further,average is slightly less than the 76%share of the state's population in these • annual growth in every industry except mining is projected to be higher counties in 2000.Therefore,the projected share of the state's population • than for those same industries at the national level. National projections in these four counties in 2030 will decline slightly to 75%. indicate that two of the ten major industries will experience net declines • in employment levels. The two industries are mining,and agriculture. The counties with the highest projected average annual rates of growth Of the ten major industries,construction is projected to have the highest over the 1990 to 2030 period are Washington(3.0%),Tooele(2.9%), • average annual growth rate in the State of Utah over the next three Summit(2.8%),Kane(2.8%),Wasatch(2.7%),Wayne(2.3%),Juab • decades. The projected average annual rate of change for 1990 through (2.1%),and Utah(2.0%). These growth rates are all in excess of the 2030 for Utah's construction sector is 3.4%. Other major industries in state's average annual rate of growth of 1.7%for the 1990 to 2030 • Utah that are projected to have strong employment growth(in excess of period. Thus,these counties will gain in terms of their shares of the 2.0%per year on average)for the 1990 to 2030 period are services, state's total population. • FIRE,non-farm proprietors,trade,and TCPU. Utah's slow growth • industries are projected to be manufacturing and government. Employment. Of the 723,400 net nonagricultural employment creation . projected for the state from 2000 to 2030,551,700 jobs(76%)are • Services,nonfarm proprietors,and trade are currently the three largest expected to be within Salt Lake,Utah,Davis,and Weber counties. industries(in terms of employment)in Utah. The number of service jobs Among these,Utah and Weber counties are projected to have average • in Utah is expected to more than double,increasing from 315,400 in annual growth rates of employment in excess of that of the state as a 2000 to 643,200 in 2030,an increase of 327,800 jobs. The number of whole. • nonfarm proprietor jobs and new trade sector jobs are projected to • increase significantly over the projections period as well. These three The counties with the most rapid rates of projected employment growth industries combined are projected to create 71%of the employment are also those counties with rapid rates of projected population growth. • growth in the State of Utah over the next three decades. Rapid employment growth makes it possible for a region to support more Diversification. The State of Utah is becoming more economically people. Population growth reinforces economic expansion as well. • The counties with the most rapid rates of projected employment growth • diverse,and hence more like the economic structure of the United from 2000 to 2030 are Washington(3.2%),Kane(3.2%),Wasatch States,as measured by the Hachman Index. There are specific counties (2.6%),Tooele(2.3%),Summit(2.3%)and Juab(2.2%). • that are very different from the U.S.,and this is not necessarily bad. For example,if the mining industry moved out of Carbon County,the Methods and AssumptionsIP' economic structure of Carbon County would score higher on the Models. The 2002 long-term projections were produced using the Nachman Index,meaning it would now be more representative of the UPED Model System. The UPED Model is a combination of a three • - economic base of the nation. However the economy of Carbon County component cohort population model and an economic base employment would not be better off. Although the direction of shifts in composition of model. It produces projections of population,components of population • employment by industry are projected to be similar for Utah and the change(births,deaths and migration),households,labor force,and • U.S.,the projected 2000 and 2030 distributions of employment by employment at the Multi-County District(MCD),or regional level. The industry are different for Utah and the U.S. In 2001,the most significant UCAPE and CASA Models allocate the UPED population,components differences between the industrial composition of Utah and the U.S.were of population change and employment to counties. County or MCD • the large concentration of employment in the mining sector,as well as values are aggregated to yield the projection for the State of Utah. the somewhat large employment concentration in the construction and • nonfarm proprietors sectors. The concentration of employment in the Fertility. MCD-specific birth probabilities by age of mother are assumed TCPU and government sectors was slightly higher in Utah when to remain constant at their estimated 2001 levels to 2030. County mean • compared to the nation. The composition of Utah's trade sector was differences in total fertility rates, 1990-2001,within MCDs are preserved. • exactly the same as the nation in 2001. Utah's other four major The resulting total fertility rates(central birth rates)for MCDs are:2.41 industries had slightly smaller proportions of the overall employment than for Bear River,2.47 for Wasatch Front,2.90 for Mountainland,2.80 for • their national conuterparts(i.e., FIRE,services,manufacturing,and Central,2.63 for Southwest,2.73 for Uintah Basin,and 2.22 for agriculture). Southeast,yielding 2.51 for the state. • The most significant differences between the employment shares for the Survival. State level survival rates by age and sex are assumed for all • projected industrial composition in 2030 of Utah and the U.S.are the MCDs. Survival rates are assumed to increase along with projected • relatively larger concentration of Utah's employment in the construction U.S.survival rates to 2030. This assumption yields an increase in life and nonfarm proprietors sectors,and the relatively smaller share of expectancy of 4.1 years,from 74.9 years in 1990 to 79.0 years in 2030, • Utah's employment in agriculture and manufacturing. Utah is also for males. For females the similar increase is 3.1 years,from 80.4 in projected to have a slightly larger share of employment in government 1990 to 83.5 in 2030. • and TCPU,and a slightly smaller share of employment in services, • mining,trade,and FIRE when compared to the nation. This is the Labor Force Participation. MCD specific labor force participation rates combined result of the differential shifts in industrial composition are assumed to trend with projected U.S.rates to 2020,except where • between Utah and the U.S.in the projections period,and the initial U.S.rates are projected to fall. In effect,this assumes little or no change fp differences in the composition of employment between the two. in Utah male participation rates and increases in middle and older age 16 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • • • female rates. After 2020,labor force participation rates are assumed to The Department of Natural Resources provided employment forecasts 41110 remain constant at their 2020 levels.Unemployment Rates. Unemployment rates at the MCD level are by county for coal mining and oil and gas extraction which were included. • assumed to rise in 2001 and 2002,then fall in 2003. It is further Specific Assumptions. Additional assumptions include: • assumed that MCD level unemployment rates continue to fall until 2008, ► Davis County reaches build out at 400,000 persons giving an assumed state level unemployment rate of 3.9%from 2008 to • 2030. ► Construction employment reverts to its historical share of total employment in 2009 • Multi-Job Holding Rates. MCD specific multi-job holding rates are ► Agricultural jobs trend with the U.S. assumed to revert to their 1990-2001 mean over the interval 2001 to • 2006. ► Federal Defense employment remains relatively constant after 2001 • Employment Growth Assumptions. For the long-term,2000 to 2030, ► Geneva's closing is included • basic employment growth was based on a demographic assumption,but was consistent with a conservative mid-range growth assumption based Additional Information. For additional information on historical as well • upon alternative growth analysis. Growth in export employment is as projected economic and demographic data,including methods, assumed sufficient to generate cumulative net in-migration equal to 19% procedures,and assumptions,visit the web site: • of total population change and to generate cumulative natural increase http://www.governor.utah.gov/projections. • (births minus deaths)equal to 81%of total population change over the interval 2000 to 2030. These percents correspond to those of the last • three decades. • • • • • Figure 6 41411 Population Estimates and Projections by MCD: 1940-2030 • 4,000,000 • • 3,500,000 • 3,000,000 • II• 2,500,000I I ':. .• 2,000,000 • 1,500,000 il al • • 1,000,000 um pirini i i II •1101111 im • 500,000 i ii i i irmilli • 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 • ❑ Uintah Basin MCD IR Southeast MCD ❑ Central MCD • ❑ Bear River MCD Southwest MCD ❑ Mountainland MCD M II Wasatch Front MCD • IIII) Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System • • • Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 17 • • • • • Figure 7 • Utah's Changing Age Structure 85+ II • 80-84 .■ • 75-79 70 74 Mill 65-69 -- • 55-59 MI= 55-59 • 50-54 • 40-44 --_ • 40-44 35-39 • 30-34 25-29 • 20-24 • 15-19 10-14 • 5-9 • 0-4 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 • • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System 2000 2030 • Figure 8 • Historical and Projected Dependency Ratios for Utah and the U.S. 85.0 • • • 80.0 • • 75.0 • • • 70.0 • • 65.0 • • • rr 60.0 • 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 • — State of Utah--• United States • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System 4119 18 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • Figure 9 sio Utah Dependency Ratios: 1990 to 2030 • • 90 - 82m 0-4 05-17 065+ • 80 72 74 • 70 , 16 69 67 • 60 _ � 14 14 18 23• 50 - 0 40 - 48 • 38 36 39 36 30 - ID • 20 10 8 ; 1 1 • • 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System O lip Figure 10 . U.S. Dependency Ratios: 1990 to 2030 II • 90 - • 80 - 0-4 05-17 065+ 78 70 - _ 67 62 63 61 • 60 _ 36 II 50 - 20 21 21 27 IIII 40 - • II 30 - 29 31 29 29 31 • 20 - • 10 1 1 II - 11 5 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 • • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System 1/111121 • Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 19 • • Figure 11 • Projected School Age Population . ell 900,000 4.0% • 800,000— —3.5% • • 700,000— ' —3.0% • 600,000— p „., —2.5% • sv —2.0% - • . 500,000— "°° o -1.5% S • o 400,000— ro o, —1.0% �D • a 300,000— m • —0.5% co 200,000— • -0.0% ...I Population — —Growth Rate • 100,000— —-0.5% • 0 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1.0% • 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System • • Figure 12 • Growth of 65 and Older Age Group 410 600,000 5.0% • —45% • 500,000— • —4.0% i . v 0400,000— — .5% co i Q 300,000— —2 5% D •c co 0 200,000 °of ' a •a O • 100,000— Population —4—Growth Rate — 1.0% m —0.5% • 0 ' 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.0% • 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2021 2025 2029 • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System • lb IP° 20 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • • • Figure 13 • Total Employment Growth by Decade for Utah and the U.S. III 5.0% • 4.5%III ❑State of Utah I • o c 4.0/o M United States • V 3.5% • 0 w 3.0%• I Milli ' a• 2.5°/ • 1 :0: 1 Y• 5 C Rc f" t. n II ar ? 1 1. 0 •• ° ` � � � � • O.0% _Mx. ' ; MI fir..< <.. h ... R <, • 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System • Figure 14 41114111 Industry Employment as a Share of Total State Employment • • 2002 2030 • • Trade Trade • TCPU 19% 18% FIRE 4% FIRE TCPU 4% • � 4% 4% Manufacturing • 9% , Manufacturing 8% wa i k- '> w r :•xw � • Construction Construction laissis. „ 5% 5% — Services • Services 29% Mining 25% Mining • 1% 0% Agriculture • 1% Agriculture 1% Nonfarm Nonfarm • Proprietor Government Proprietors Government 18% 14% 18% 13% • • • • Source:2002 Baseline Projections,GOPB;UPED Model System III111 • Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 21 • • • • Table 4 . Utah Economic and Demographic Summary • 1-Jul School Age Population Non-Ag Payroll Population (5-17) Employment Households • Average • Year Total AARC* Total AARC* Total AARC* Total AARC* Size • 1990 1,729,227 na 458,454 na 724,013 na 538,385 na 3.16 • 1995 1,995,228 2.90% 491,657 1.41% 908,371 4.64% 644,477 3.66% 3.04 . 2000 2,246,553 2.40% 509,320 0.71% 1,075,144 3.43% 705,423 1.82% 3.13 2005 2,464,633 1.87% 524,458 0.59% 1,184,212 1.95% 792,786 2.36% 3.06 • 2010 2,787,670 2.49% 601,034 2.76% 1,348,977 2.64% 914,309 2.89% 3.00 • 2015 3,126,736 2.32% 696,579 2.99% 1,503,562 2.19% 1,039,599 2.60% 2.96 2020 3,371,071 1.52% 755,423 1.64% 1,617,315 1.47% 1,142,421 1.90% 2.90 • 2025 3,570,016 1.15% 772,652 0.45% 1,709,613 1.12% 1,232,017 1.52% 2.85 2030 3,772,042 1.11% 779,863 0.19% 1,798,566 1.02% 1,322,887 1.43% 2.80 • *AARC-Average Annual Rate of Change • Note: Numbers in this table may differ from other tables due to different data sources. • Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget--Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, UPED Model System. • This is the 2002 Baseline, revised December, 2001. • The last year of historical data is 2001 for employment and 2001 for population. Total population is the population in households plus the population in group quarters. Persons per household is • population in households divided by the number of households. Populations are dated July 1. • • • • O • • • • • • • • • • • • • 22 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • Table 5 Population Projections by County and District:April 1 • 40 AARC 2000- • MCD/County 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 2030 • BEAR RIVER 92,498 108,393 136,097 150,781 171,102 191,989 203,708 214,036 1.52% • Box Elder 33,222 36,485 42,745 46,928 53,224 59,433 63,391 68,088 1.56% Cache 57,176 70,183 91,391 101,811 115,697 130,246 137,966 143,615 1.52% • Rich 2,100 1,725 1,961 2,042 2,181 2,310 2,351 2,333 0.58% WASATCH FRONT 941,172 1,104,356 1,381,778 1,498,463 1,675,743 1,865,039 2,007,635 2,247,652 1.63% • Davis 146,540 187,941 238,994 262,241 292,201 323,992 347,412 386,672 1.62% Morgan 4,917 5,528 7,129 7,506 8,329 9,250 9,981 11,312 1.55% . Salt Lake 619,066 725,956 898,387 ' 967,390 1,077,556 1,195,554 1,283,784 1,431,843 1.57% • Tooele Weber 26,033 26,601 40,735 50,119 59,780 70,338 79,539 97,055 2.94% 144,616 158,330 196,533 211,207 237,877 265,905 286,919 320,770 1.65% • MOUNTAINLAND 236,827 289,197 413,487 482,023 567,921 650,065 701,258 792,953 2.19% Summit 10,198 15,518 29,736 35,162 41,988 49,462 56,001 68,474 2.82% 4111 Utah 218,106 263,590 368,536 428,156 503,039 573,608 615,480 689,586 2.11% Wasatch 8,523 10,089 15,215 18,705 22,894 26,995 29,777 34,893 2.81% • CENTRAL 47,087 52,294 66,192 71,500 77,256 84,409 90,388 94,874 1.21% Juab 5,530 5,817 8,238 9,577 10,954 12,552 13,996 15,660 2.16% • Millard 8,970 11,333 12,405 13,051 13,538 14,250 14,730 14,605 0.55% • Piute 1,329 1,277 1,435 1,448 1,508 1,570 1,606 1,588 0.34% Sanpete 14,620 16,259 22,763 24,488 26,351 28,685 30,611 31,860 1.13% • Sevier 14,727 15,431 18,842 20,117 21,649 23,570 25,159 26,174 1.10% Wayne 1,911 2,177 2,509 2,819 3,256 3,782 4,286 4,987 2.32% • SOUTHWEST 55,489 83,263 140,919 164,441 193,112 224,438 251,404 303,288 2.59% Beaver 4,378 4,765 6,005 6,432 6,932 7,470 7,823 8,417 1.13% 0 Garfield 3,673 3,980 4,735 4,869 5,332 5,833 6,196 6,841 1.23% Iron 17,349 20,789 33,779 36,457 40,696 45,315 48,954 55,562 1.67% 411 Kane 4,024 5,169 6,046 6,907 8,272 9,765 11,077 13,628 2.75% 411111 Washington 26,065 48,560 90,354 109,776 131,880 156,055 177,354 218,840 2.99% UINTAH BASIN 33,840 35,546 40,516 42,866 44,837 48,042 50,189 51,372 0.79% • Daggett 769 690 921 976 1,030 1,112 1,169 1,208 0.91% Duchesne 12,565 12,645 14,371 15,254 16,251 17,685 18,718 19,545 1.03% • Uintah 20,506 22,211 25,224 26,636 27,556 29,245 30,302 30,619 0.65% SOUTHEAST 54,124 49,801 54,180 54,559 57,699 62,754 66,489 67,867 0.75% • Carbon 22,179 20,228 20,422 20,562 21,804 23,769 25,236 25,848 0.79% Emery 11,451 10,332 10,860 10,667 11,103 11,906 12,455 12,438 0.45% • Grand 8,241 6,620 8,485 8,596 8,969 9,638 10,102 10,122 0.59% San Juan 12,253 12,621 14,413 14,734 15,823 17,441 18,696 19,459 1.01% • STATE OF UTAH 1,461,037 1,722,850 2,233,169 2,464,633 2,787,670 3,126,736 3,371,071 3,772,042 1.76% • Notes: 1) AARC is average annual rate of change. • 2) 1980 and 1990 populations are April 1 U.S. Census modified age, race and sex(MARS)populations. • 3) 2000 populations are April 1 U.S. Census summary file 1 (SF1)populations;all others are July 1 populations. • Sources: 1) U.S. Bureau of the Census; Utah Population Estimates Committee. • 2) 2002 Baseline Projections,Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, UPED Model System. • • • • • • illEl 0 Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 23 • • Table 6 • Total Employment Projections by Major Industry • 410• industry 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 • • Agriculture (4) 19,660 19,148 18,468 20,595 19,402 • Mining 18,502 8,604 8,114 8,003 7,675 • Construction 31,548 27,927 54,793 71,598 67,091 Manufacturing 87,7':' 107,102 123,865 130,847 129,507 • TCPU (1) 34,' 42,286 51,496 60,846 63,791 Trade 128,b;,z. 172,394 220,026 251,635 268,359 • FIRE (2) 25,768 34,133 47,678 57,327 65,407 Services (3) 105,839 185,865 243,716 315,368 377,275 • Government 124,929 150,557 163,669 184,539 209,910 • Non-farm Proprietors (4) 90,616 152,403 184,868 239,351 261,683 TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (5) 667,388 900,419 1,116,693 1,340,109 1,470,100 • Non-Ag Payroll Emp (6) 551,833 724,013 907,909 1,075,144 1,184,212 • Industry 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 • • Agriculture (4) 18,901 18,226 17,470 16,515 16,164 • Mining 7,511 7,242 6,866 6,465 4,675 Construction 77,730 86,316 93,504 99,958 106,323 • Manufacturing 138,729 147,993 156,586 164,974 173,254 0 TCPU (1) 69,759 75,869 81,499 87,127 93,148 Trade 299,181 328,728 350,783 370,293 392,290 • FIRE (2) 73,288 80,710 85,946 90,287 94,777 10 Aces (3) 451,524 519,196 568,268 607,898 643,192 .. ernment 236,206 262,583 278,904 287,510 295,852 • Non-farm Proprietors (4) 294,809 327,295 351,708 373,561 397,366 • TOTAL EMPLOYMENT (5) 1,667,638 1,854,158 1,991,534 2,104,588 2,217,041 Non-Ag Payroll Emp (6) 1,348,977 1,503,562 1,617,315 1,709,613 1,798,566 • Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget--Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, UPED Model System. • Note: Numbers in this table may differ from other tables due to different data sources. Also, these data are based on • SIC codes and do not reflect the new NAICS classification system. • This is the 2002 Baseline, revised December, 2001. Calculations may not match other projections in this report due to updated information. • (1) Transportation, Communications and Public Utilities • (2) Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (3) Includes Private Household and Agricultural Services employment(SICs 88, 07, 08, and 09) • (4) U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis definition (5) Totals may not add due to rounding • (6) Excludes Agriculture, Private Household, and Non-Farm Proprietor employment • • • • • OD Iii • 24 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • Table 7 Utah Population Projections by Selected Age Groups • IND Age 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 • • 0-4 189,962 172,252 210,667 251,546 280,481 298,969 301,938 306,681 326,705 5-17 350,143 456,783 512,361 524,458 601,034 696,579 755,423 772,652 779,863 • 18-29 • 351,391 337,682 499,004 536,770 550,338 555,452 579,211 632,344 695,239 . 30-39 184,866 261,192 301,065 327,325 410,129 481,227 477,538 445,675 439,531 40-64 275,455 345,459 532,133 618,850 708,984 805,067 899,399 979,906 1,031,962 0 65+ 109,220 149,482 191,323 205,684 236,704 289,442 357,562 432,758 498,742 15-44 678,160 789,887 1,074,503 1,133,894 1,240,101 1,367,760 1,454,150 1,498,069 1,536,089 • 16-64 864,989 1,003,330 1,416,755 1,560,271 1,749,736 1,933,403 2,064,881 2,174,065 2,285,574 60+ 155,480 201,994 254,144 284,137 341,810 422,364 509,415 588,971 654,137 • Total 1,461,037 1,722,850 2,246,553 2,464,633 2,787,670 3,126,736 3,371,071 3,570,016 3,772,042 • Median Age 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 • Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget--Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, UPED Model System. • This is the 2002 Baseline, revised December,2001. 1980 and 1990 populations are April 1 U.S. Census MARS populations; all others are July 1 populations. • • • • • Table 8 • Utah Population Projections by Selected Age Groups as a Percent of Total le Age 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 • • 0-4 13.0% 10.0% 9.4% 10.2% 10.1% 9.6% 9.0% 8.6% 8.7% • 5-17 24.0% 26.5% 22.8% 21.3% 21.6% 22.3% 22.4% 21.6% 20.7% 18-29 24.1% 19.6% 22.2% 21.8% 19.7% 17.8% 17.2% 17.7% 18.4% • 30-39 12.7% 15.2% 13.4% 13.3% 14.7% 15.4% 14.2% 12.5% 11.7% • 40-64 18.9% 20.1% 23.7% 25.1% 25.4% 25.7% 26.7% 27.4% 27.4% 65+ 7.5% 8.7% 8.5% 8.3% 8.5% 9.3% 10.6% 12.1% 13.2% 5 15-44 46.4% 45.8% 47.8% 46.0% 44.5% 43.7% 43.1% 42.0% 40.7% • 16-64 59.2% 58.2% 63.1% 63.3% 62.8% 61.8% 61.3% 60.9% 60.6% 60+ 10.6% 11.7% 11.3% 11.5% 12.3% 13.5% 15.1% 16.5% 17.3% • • Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% • . Source:Governor's Office of Planning and Budget--Demographic and Economic Analysis Section,UPED Model System. This is the 2002 Baseline,revised December,2001. • 1980 and 1990 populations are April 1 U.S.Census MARS populations; all others are July 1 populations. • • • • IS • 'lik • Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 25 • • • • Table 9 • • Location Quotients and Hachman Index for the State of Utah • 411011 Industry 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 • • Agriculture 0.89 0.94 0.81 0.69 0.60 0.55 • Mining 3.05 1.86 1.86 1.69 1.45 0.97 Construction 1.20 0.81 1.30 1.15 1.17 1.20 • Manufacturing 0.73 0.86 0.87 0.83 0.83 0.87 • TCPU 1.13 1.13 1.08 1.01 1.00 1.04 Trade 1.06 1.01 1.01 0.96 0.95 0.96 • FIRE 0.82 0.77 0.91 0.94 0.93 0.92 • Services 0.88 0.93 0.90 0.97 0.99 0.98 Govemment 1.14 1.10 1.02 1.08 1.08 1.05 • Non-Farm Proprietors 1.12 1.21 1.17 1.13 1.12 1.13 • Hachman Index 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 • • *Location Quotients are measures of relative shares. The share of a given industry in the subject area • (Utah)is compared to that of the reference region (United States). A location greater than 1 indicates specialization in a subject region relative to the reference region. • **The Hachman Index measures how closely the employment distribution of the subject region (Utah) • resembles that of the reference region (United States). As the value of the index approaches one, this • means that the subject region's employment distribution among industries is more similar to that of • the reference region. Note: These data are based on SIC codes and do reflect the new NAICS classification system. ell Source: 2002 Baseline Projections, GOPB, UPED Model System. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4110 lik • 26 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • • Table 10 Hachman Index by Individual County in the State of Utah ODCounty 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 • • Beaver 0.48 0.46 0.36 0.42 0.48 0.52 Box Elder 0.69 0.53 0.57 0.61 0.61 0.58 • Cache 0.84 0.81 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.82 • Carbon 0.15 0.20 0.37 0.42 0.55 0.71 Daggett 0.35 0.49 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.63 • Davis 0.73 0.83 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.92 • Duchesne 0.21 0.33 0.29 0.43 0.54 0.61 Emery 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.17 0.27 i• Garfield 0.40 0.55 0.58 0.66 0.71 0.75 Grand 0.22 0.60 0.81 0.83 0.84 0.84 III Iron 0.81 0.84 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.91 • Juab 0.65 0.56 0.67 0.72 0.76 0.76 Kane 0.70 0.75 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 • Millard 0.31 0.40 0.36 0.42 0.44 0.44 • Morgan 0.45 0.32 0.47 0.51 0.54 0.55 Piute 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.18 • Rich 0.22 0.18 0.28 0.32 0.35 0.37 Salt Lake 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.96 San Juan 0.10 0.33 0.44 0.33 0.41 0.55 • Sanpete 0.47 0.48 0.60 0.65 0.68 0.70 Sevier 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.73 0.77 • Summit 0.41 0.80 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.82 • Tooele 0.42 0.53 0.82 0.86 0.87 0.88 Oil Uintah 0.21 0.25 0.19 0.30 0.43 0.51 Utah 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 • Wasatch 0.59 0.68 0.73 0.78 0.79 0.79 Washington 0.81 0.88 0.84 0.88 0.88 0.88 • Wayne 0.30 0.27 0.48 0.60 0.68 0.73 • Weber 0.93 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.97 • *The subject region is each individual county, and the reference region is the United States. • • Source:2002 Baseline Projections, GOPB, UPED Model System. • • • • • • • • • • lb • Utah's Long-Term Projections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 27 • Table 11 • Utah Dependency Ratios • el° 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2030 • Dependency Ratio 80 82 69 66 67 70 72 74 • Pop 0-4 per 100 Pop age 18-64 23 18 16 17 17 16 15 15 Pop 5-17 per 100 Pop age 18-64 43 48 38 35 36 38 39 36 • Pop 65+ per 100 Pop age 18-64 13 16 14 14 14 16 18 23 • • Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget-Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, UPED Model System. This is the 2002 Baseline, revised December, 2001. • 1980 and 1990 populations are April 1 U.S. Census MARS populations; all others are July 1 populations. • The dependency ratio is defined as the population ages 0-17 and 65 plus per 100 persons ages 18-64. • • Ili • • • • 41 Table 12Oil Historical and Projected Life Expectancies for Utah and the U.S. • Utah U.S. • • Year Male Female Total Male Female Total • • 1970 69.5 76.6 73.0 67.0 74.6 70.8 411 1980 72.4 79.2 75.8 70.1 77.6 73.9 1990 74.9 80.4 77.7 71.8 78.8 75.3 • 2000 76.0 81.2 78.6 73.0 79.7 76.4 0 2010 77.0 82.0 79.5 74.1 80.6 77.3 2020 78.0 82.7 80.4 75.3 81.4 78.4 • 2030 79.0 83.5 81.3 76.7 82.3 79.5 • 41 Sources: National Center for Health Statistics,Vital Statistics of the United States, • Decennial Life Tables; Governor's Office of Planning and Budget--Demographic • and Economic Analysis Section, UPED Model System. • • 41 OD 28 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah's Long-Term Projections • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • •• Economic • • • • • Development • ...._______,..___. • • Activities 0 • Economic Development Activities Overview,! ilz: Department of Community and Economic Development Ile tatesoffet`avarie iotf siness:I ltiv s� -att 0;ieapa id orretaiti-, Taskforce on Incentives • sobs..lpponents,maii in-that-ts`and nat ciat_mcenbves drain do11a s As a result,in September 2002,the Utah Department of Community and from Ot to Ofroitfhittota0e it ecl tSit:dttierpt bIlo aervi and ' --^`; Economic Development assembled an incentives workgroup to compare • Jr#174itiftetti.W Advocates:of u&nesalnce ves ai t t't ey have:a;•• Utah's economic development incentives with other nearby states. 1100.014frea*****(064t0 Ocistodt atItt pay for.tfie tselves.-:tn I• effe to lilt teliederetandwl ere`Utah stands,the OW bepafitileptof A The workgroup decided that three steps were required in order to • 4066000 and Economic Development,assembled*inC tiv ,: • i accomplish this. First,it needed to identify the major incentives available fOrAttlyPlocomp re Utalf`eeconomicdevelepmme t centives:wiith-� ; in each state. Second,for the analysis to be meaningful,it was 111 otter nearby states.- necessary to understand the general tax structure of the states being - compared. This would include an understanding of their major taxes, 'hetes.I fprnerount:#hptavail ple surveyserstate.incentivesmake it- their rates,and tax exemptions related to economic development. The • apeear:thatri st af- Aire a-fufl menu of- centivss t offer:,;In reality, third step was to decide which incentives certain targeted companies • there-aretelabvelyfew*Officiobusinessincentives(at,teest,in would be eligible for in each state,and how much the incentives would • western states)and.:most are restricted,tpreXa ate,:to rural:areas an€t be worth. Enterpttse ones_,Tti twice elsoj termined that o.verail,-Utah s • Wept*are_"c?3tra it1 t teritdrolii the- fiddle of:t e pack and that To assess the value and impact of the various types of incentives,eight • neither'a.mairre an n-ofexisting-incenttvese;: r °e tangeofnew test cases were constructed based on examples from Utah's incentvee appear necessary : ;m "ecosystems". These examples were chosen from companies that had • applied for Industrial Assistance Fund grants and for which complete Background project data was available. Because of time and resource constraints, • Since the late 1970's,states have offered a variety of business the workgroup limited its study to Utah,eight western states,plus an incentives to attract,expand,or retain jobs. Business incentives,using eastern state with which Utah was"competing"for a specific project. • the Council of State Governments definition,are"public subsidies • including,but not limited to,tax abatement and financial assistance A simplified economic impact model was developed for each state,using programs designed to create,retain or lure businesses." Tax incentives the Bureau of Economic Analysis'RIMS II earnings and employment • refer to credits,abatements,or refunds of corporate or personal income, multipliers,and containing each state's tax rates,average per capita sales and use,property,or other taxes. Financial incentives are government expenditures,as well as other related economic and • generally any other type of direct loan,grant,loan guarantee,job training demographic data. Holding project data constant,an impact model was III assistance,or infrastructure development. In addition to such general developed for the eight test cases in each of the ten states. tax and financial incentives,some states have gone so far as to pass • incentive legislation targeted at specific companies. Members of the workgroup were then assigned a state and asked to determine which of"their"state's incentives would apply to the eight test • Opponents maintain that tax and financial incentives are rarely at the top cases. Only each state's major incentives(usually established by • of the list of factors in a company's location decision. In addition,they statute)and available to companies seeking to locate in a large contend that these incentives are generally inefficient in creating jobs, metropolitan area,were included in the evaluation. Examples of the • often discriminate against existing area businesses,drain dollars from types of incentives included are sales and property tax exemptions for state coffers that could be used for public services and infrastructure, machinery and equipment;sales and income tax credits for job creation • and create a self-defeating zero-sum conflict between the states. and/or investment in machinery and equipment;customized job training • Advocates of business incentives claim that they have a positive effect programs,credits for on site child care,and direct grants. on business location decisions,create jobs,are cost effective,and are • necessary in the coMpetitive environment of economic development. Taskforce Findings • Based on a simple cataloging of state incentives,it appears that most While this debate continues to take place,by 2000,more than 40 states states have a full menu of incentives to offer. In reality,there are • offered incentives in the form of tax credits,exemptions or rebates for relatively few significant business incentives(at least in the western such things as equipment and machinery,inventory and goods in transit, states which constituted the majority of the comparison states),and most • manufacturing raw materials,job creation,and research and are restricted,for instance,to rural areas and to Enterprise Zones. As development. Recently,states have begun linking these exemptions to an example,Utah's state-level incentives include: • corporate and personal income taxes. Some states provide low-or zero- • , interest loans or grants for land,building construction,machinery or plant A sales and use tax exemption for machinery and equipment expansion. purchased or leased by a manufacturer for use in new or • " expanding operations in Utah. In an attempt to illuminate this ever-changing landscape,the Council of A research and development income tax credit for machinery and • State Governments and the National Association of State Development equipment,applicable to corporate or personal income. • Agencies,among others,periodically publish reports on the various tax The Industrial Assistance Fund(IAF),which a company may apply and other incentives that states offer businesses to expand or relocate. to for assistance in relocation or expansion costs. • However,it is difficult and frequently misleading to try to determine how The"Custom Fit Training Program,"which provides employee de the various incentive packages compare,or the value of these incentives training for new or expanding companies. to businesses,based on these surveys. • Economic Development Activities 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 29 ► Rural Enterprise Zones that provide tax credits for companies • locating in rural areas that qualify for assistance. ► The Private Activity Bond Authority(PAB)which is a tax-exempt bonding authority to create a lower cost,long-term source of capital. • Based on a ranking of the incentives that were potentially available to • the eight test cases,Utah's incentive package appears"competitive". • Utah ranked fifth overall out of the ten states. The most common incentive is a sales tax exemption for manufacturing equipment and • machinery. Nine out of the ten states have this. Eight states offer some • type of customized employee training. Four of the comparison states have an investment tax credit. • Some recent studies conclude that incentives have a positive effect in • stimulating overall economic growth within a state. On the other hand, • fewer and lower tax rates are more economically efficient than a broad range of tax/fiscal incentives(the tax system is easier to administer,less • liable to abuse,less distorting to the economy,etc). The more the incentives were made available to companies,and the broader the • eligibility for these incentives,the less their effectiveness. They merely • shift the tax burden to others and are subject to the problems just noted. Furthermore,adopting a particular incentive because other states have it • is not necessarily good policy. According to the 2000 Council of State • Governments incentives survey,just over half of the states use any kind • of cost/benefit assessment in designing or allocating their incentives,and even fewer use a full fiscal impact model in their business recruiting • efforts. • Taskforce Recommendations IP° In general,without other offsetting factors,recruiting companies that pay an average annual wage below the state average will result in a net • fiscal loss to Utah state government. Recruiting companies with capital investment less than their industry average will usually result in a net • loss for local govemment. Consequently,with few exceptions,Utah's • incentives should be targeted to industries and companies that pay higher than the state average wage and fit within Utah's recognized • clusters/ecosystems. • The Industrial Assistance Fund is effective and a unique incentive • among the states. It accounted for one-fourth of Utah's total incentive package in the eighi'test cases. In addition,Utah also has several • potentially effective incentives that are not currently being fully utilized. For example,Private Activity Bond financing represents a potentially • significant incentive for some firms. Utah should increase the allotment • of PAB funds available for manufacturing projects and expand the use of this resource as a major incentive. • Based on the findings of the taskforce,neither a major expansion of existing incentives nor a range of new incentives appear necessary in • Utah,nor are they desirable from an economic efficiency standpoint. Finally,Utah should establish and publish a set of clear guidelines • regarding the availability,criteria,and use of state incentives. These • should then be promoted by training economic development practitioners • on their potential use and advantages for the state. • • 30 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Economic Development Activities . • I I I I I • • • • • • • Economic • • • • Indicators • • • • Demographics • overuie'w - experienced the birth rate occurring for that specific year. Utah's fertility The tata's.Juty.1? 2pop l�on*iesestimated"�tobeZ338=7 �1 rate,2.68 in 2002,continues to be the highest among states nationwide. O. persons,increasing %from 001.,.Although to state continrrss to • eiPerteaOfinet in iigrati ,:natural:increase-aaccounts for thd,rnaorityof According to the National Center for Health Statistics,life expectancy • ine:statet-popuiationg rth_Utah's Oopnlationtrov4is,chara a ed has increased for both men and women in Utah and the U.S.from 1970 by l hbirthralepixilowdeath rate,,bothat;re rd,tavelsforthe-state through 1990,although Utah life expectancy has been consistently • in2002, -;' higher than the national average. Life expectancy in Utah has risen from ==` 72.9 in 1970 to 77.7 in 1990,compared to 70.8 in 1970 and 75.4 in 1990 • Ac rdir gto Census 2004,:Utah's population moteased.29$%from for the U.S. • 1 90 to:2000,growing twice es fast as;the;Ii.S.over the tecade.;Utah ranked fourth states in population growth from 1990:to 2000,. Utah's Young Population • Utah MO.continues to have a distinctive demograp}ic:profile.-The;' Utah's rate of population growth continues to be about twice that of the • state's,population isyounger,lwomen tend`to have mots ntrildren,people nation. The state's population is younger,women tend to have more on average_(tve.n larger housebolds;and petrptetend to survveto elder children,people on average live in larger households,and people tend to • ages.in coparisontoother;States: , •• .. survive to older ages in comparison to other states. All these factors '` lead to an age structure that is quite unique among states. According to • 2002 State and County Population Estimates Census 2000, Utah has the lowest median age(27.1)among states,the The Utah Population Estimates Committee recently released July 1, highest share of its total population is in the preschool age group(9.4%), • 2002 population estimates for the State of Utah and its counties. The and the second highest share of its total population is in the school age • state's population reached 2,338,761 in 2002,a year over increase of group(22.8%). At the same time,the state has one of the smallest 42,790 persons,or 1.9%. The state experienced its twelfth straight year shares of its population in the working age group(59.3%). Only Alaska • of net in-migration in 2002,as well as record setting years for births and (5.7%)has a smaller share of its total population in the 65 and older age • natural increase(births minus deaths). group than does Utah(8.5%). • Utah's counties experienced varied growth rates in 2002. The most Utah continues to have the youngest population in the country,ranking rapid growth in Utah occurred in counties within or adjacent to the first in the percent of the population under 18(32.2%)in 2000. Utah • northern metropolitan region,and in the southwestern portion of the County had the youngest population of any county in the nation(with a • state. The counties that are estimated to have grown faster than the population of 100,000 or more),with a median age of 23.3. The City of state rate(1.9%)over the past year include,Wasatch County,with the Provo,with a median age of 22.9,had the lowest median age of any city OD highest growth rate of 5.6%,followed by Washington(5.3%),Tooele in the nation(with a population of 100,000 or more)in 2000. (4.0%), Rich(3.4%),Utah(3.2%),Summit(3.1%),Cache(2.2%),and • Davis(2.2%). Another way to look at the age structure of a population is by examining the Dependency Ratio,which is a calculation of the number of non- • Several counties experienced population deacrease from 2001 to 2002. working age persons(under 18 and 65 and over)per 100 persons of • The majority of these counties are located in the southern and eastern working age(18 to 64). Based on Census 2000 results,the total areas of the state and they include Daggett(-3.0%),Kane(-1.3%), dependency ratio for Utah was 68.6,compared to 72.2 in 1999. Utah • Garfield(-0.7%),Uintah(-0.2%),and Wayne(-0.2%). continues to have one of the highest dependency ratios among states, just behind South Dakota(70.0). • Components of Population Change • Annual changes in population are comprised of two components:natural Census 2000 Population Counts increase and net migration. Natural increase is the number of births On April 1,2000,the U.S.Census Bureau conducted the 22nd national • minus the number of deaths. Annual births were at a record level in census. In Census 2000,over 281 million people were counted in the 2002 at 48,041,as well as annual deaths at 12,662.Since 1990,over U.S.,representing an increase of 33 million people,or 13.2%from 1990. • 60%of the state's population growth has resulted from natural increase. This ten-year population increase was the largest in American history, • with every state in the country experiencing growth,although to varying Net migration is the second component of population change. For a degrees. Population growth varied significantly by region,with the West • given period,net migration is in-migration minus out-migration,or the and South leading the nation,growing 19.7%and 17.3%respectively. • number of people moving into a place minus the number of people moving out. Total population in the state increased by 42,790 persons Utah's population reached 2,233,169 on April 1,2000,increasing by • from 2001 to 2002. Natural increase accounted for 35,379 persons,or 510,319 people from 1990. This placed Utah fourth among states in 83%,while net in-migration accounted for 7,411 persons,or 17%of the population growth over the ten-year period. Nevada grew the fastest at • total population increase. In 2002,Utah experienced net in-migration for 66.3%,followed by Arizona(40.0%),Colorado(30.6%),Utah(29.6%), • the twelfth year in a row. and Idaho(28.5%). • Fluctuations in the annual amount of natural increase may result from Salt Lake County continued to be the state's largest county in the state, changes in the size,age structure,and vital statistics(fertility and with a 2000 population of 898,387,followed by Utah(368,536),Davis • mortality)of the population. Total fertility rate is the number of births a (238,994),Weber(196,533),and Cache(91,391). Salt Lake City was iiii woman would have during her lifetime if,at each year of age,she the largest city in the state in 2000,with a population of 181,743, • lb • Demographics 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 31 • • • • • followed by West Valley City(108,896),Provo(105,166),Sandy category into two separate categories in 2000. The 2000 categories . (88,418),and Orem(84,324). include(1)Asian,and(2)Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. All of Utah's 29 counties experienced population growth in the 1990s, The majority of Utahns(97.9%)selected only one race in 2000. Among 1110 ranging from a high of 91.6%in Summit County,to a low of 1.0%in those that selected a single race,the majority were White(89.2%), • Carbon County. Five of the state's fastest growing counties over the followed by Asian(1.7%),American Indian and Alaska Native(1.3%), • decade form a ring of high growth around the northern metropolitan Black or African American(0.8%),Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific counties. These counties include Summit(91.6%),Tooele(53.1%), Islander(0.7%),and Some Other Race(4.2%). • Wasatch(50.8%),Juab(41.6%),and Sanpete(40.0%). Southern Utah's rapid growth continued with Washington(86.1%)and Iron(62.5%) The Hispanic population in Utah increased 138%,from 84,597 in 1990 to • counties,the second and third fastest growing counties in the state, 201,559 in 2000. Hispanics accounted for 9%of the state's population • growing more than twice as fast the state in the 1990s. in 2000,compared to 4.9%in 1990. The City of Draper,in Salt Lake County,led the way among the state's Among Utah's counties,Summit County had the fastest growing • largest cities(greater than 9,000). Draper more than tripled in size from Hispanic population(638%)over the decade,followed by Washington • 1990 to 2000,increasing 18,000 people,or 248%. Several other of the (448%),Piute(327%),Garfield(289%),and Iron(262%). Carbon • state's largest cities,all located along the Wasatch Front,doubled in size County was the only county that experienced a decrease in Hispanics over the decade,including South Jordan(141%),Lehi(125%),Riverton over the decade(-6.7%). Hispanics made up 12.6%of the total • (122%),and Syracuse(102%). population in Weber County in 2000,the largest percentage among all counties,followed by Salt Lake(11.9%),Carbon(10.3%),Tooele • Census 2000 Household and Family Characteristics (10.3%),and Summit(8.1%). • Utah continued to have the largest households in the nation,with 3.13 persons per household in 2000,compared to 2.59 nationally. The • number of households in the state reached 701,281 in 2000,a 31% • increase from 1990. Utah also continued to have the largest families in 2000,with 3.57 persons per family,compared to 3.14 nationally. • Over the past several decades,the composition of households in Utah • has changed significantly. The number of family households increased by 30%. However,the proportion of households that are designated • family households remained at 76%. In 2000,only 35%of households IP° in Utah were composed of married couples with"own children"under 18, compared to 42%in 1980. The number of married couples,with or • without children,has declined from 69%in 1980 to 63%in 2000. Despite these trends, Utah ranked first in the nation in 2000 in the • percent of family households(76%)and percent of married couple • families(63%). • Census 2000 State and County Race and Hispanic Origin Counts • As a result of the revised standards for collecting data on race and • ethnicity issued by the U.S.Office of Management and Budget in 1997, Census 2000 was the first national census in which respondents were • allowed to select more than once race.1 The six race categories for • Census 2000 include,White,Black or African American,American Indian or Alaska Native,Asian,Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,and • Some Other Race. Respondents that selected more than one race are included in the"Two or More Race"category. The two categories for • ethnicity include:Hispanic or Latino,or Not Hispanic or Latino. • While allowing respondents to report more than one race may provide a • more accurate representation of the racial diversity of the country,it also means that data on race from Census 2000 are not directly comparable • with the data from previous censuses. Another factor affecting 1990- • 2000 comparability is the splitting of the 1990 Asian and Pacific Islander • 1 According to the U.S.Census Bureau,the Some Other Race Category was included on the • Census 2000 questionnaire for respondents who were unable to identify with the five other 4110 race categories. • 32 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Demographics • • • • • • Figure 15 • Utah Population Growth Rates by County: 2001 to 2002 0 • • � � II 3.1/o Increase or Greater 1.3% \ �� \��\\\ \\ �\\\\� .�� Increase of Less than ` ., _...,..— .. \ . Rich • a \\\�;; �` ° "\?a,`\ Increase of 1.3%to 3.0% Decrease State Average=1.9% • �; \�\\k Daggett •3.0% Summit . Lake 3.1% \\ „ \\ \� • `... \ F 00@te• \\ `\ 4.0% Wasatch\ \� • Utah 5.Ei%a \�. ,\o Uintah 3.2h \--- • JuaI. _.. 6;.. ,.:, = .r0. • #tlarit- .------.::_,_-. _,\, % ;;Eatery e MyGtal, -,-,- - --- ---- - -• -,_, - .., „ . ,„„ _ „„ ,„.„ ,... , , .„ „ ,„,„;,„ $fw .. •• „ • •0.2 • \� \ Garfield • • Washington Kane • o 5.3Dk •1.3/o • • Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee • • • • • • 110Ell • Demographics 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 33 • • • • Figure 16 • Utah Population--Annual Percent Change • 5% • • • 4% ® • • 3% • • L • IL 2% • • 1% • • • 0% I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 , , , , , , 1 1 1 1 , „ „ 1 1 1 1 , , , 1 1 1 1 1 , , , , , 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 • Source:Utah Population Estimates Committee • Figure 17410 Utah Components of Population Change • • 60,000 • A50,000 AAA _ • r • 40,000 AiMjik • 30,000 • • • vir • O. • • 10,000 r g I. s.r 0 • 111 -10,000 • -20,000 • 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 • Net Migration =sa--= Natural Increase Total Population Change • Source:Utah Population Estimates Committee 1111 • 34 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Demographics • • • • • • Figure 18 • State of Utah Total Population: 1900-2000 I. • 2,500,000 • 2,233,169 Y 71 • 2,000,000 - • :Y3 1,722,850 mm -< 1,461,037 ;w • 1,500,000 - ,03.-za .._ , -mitt • 1,059,273 t r ty' : x.." 1 000 000 M , 4 4IIt ; ~t igt 688,862 • t- i=x ;507 847• 550,310u _ 449,396 mom.€ ,, • - = ;; ,n=' 373,351 :� _- r ai 1:�� ,: �. •• R:��;m=meµ ;'r, 2• M fi ,' ,w81's...,..._ . w 4! . :,.. •ate '>.;..1.:.47 " 2 i .;.^• Gam; e Y'a y�>,. .�':.u^' aft -- -:ss-;�z"3'.s .„�'`x pr`,xe �;z gy .. a.>...`__.�asi3 ,x�'E �.ss;s�`.• ,;.•�:,^• ms.. �A:=� zya�47' (;,`s''r-isT ;�.ec ."xsa?'•a's.� 1900 1910 1 1920 1 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990„ 2000 ' • Source:U.S.Census Bureau(April 1st population counts) • 411 Figure 19 • Percent Change in Population for States: 1990 to 2000 • U.S. Rate= 13.2% NH WA 11.4 21.1 ND VT 3 8 MA • MT 0.5 MN � 8.2 1 5.5 OR %.F 12.9 12.4 RI • ': 5 WY rk 8.5 9.6 MI 4.5 IA 6.9 PA it/ CT 8.9 NE 5.4 OH ��� 3.6 NJ N 'v III 66.3 :,.,_tJT'r ,: :'^^'•'; MO 8.6 9.7 WV VA ► 8.9 CA 0.: 14 DE 9 6 m. 8.5 9.3 17.6 • 13.8NC > OK AR• TN 16.7 1.4 MD AZ NM 9.7 13.7 µ22 10.8 • 40.0 " 20.1 MS AL • LA 10.5 10.1 " " TXroosA 22.8 5.9 • AK • 14.0 0 HI `� Percent Change • 9.3 M 39.6 or more (More than Three Times the U.S.Rate) 40 Source:U.S.Census Bureau DI 26.4 to 39.5 (More than Twice the U.S.Rate) • lb 41 Demographics 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 35 4111 Figure 20 • Total Fertility for Utah and the U.S. 5 II 4 • 3 • • • 1 • • • 0 • 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 • Utah U.S. - - - -Replacement Level* • Note: The Replacement Level is the fertility level at which the current population is replaced. • Sources: National Center for Health Statist,'. Governor's Office of Planning and Budget,UPED/CASA,Eileen Brown,"Fertility in Utah:1960-1985." • Figure 21 IP° Utah Family Characteristics as a Percent of Total Households: 1980-2000 • • 76% • Total Families , ,. .7. 76% 78% • ,43 • Families with Children . , �:": ...,.�• ; , 45% —148% 63%° • Married Couples 65/. 169% • 35°0 • Married,with Children 38% 42% • 27% •Married,No Children �M� b I �� : '� 27% 27% o • Female,with Children 6% • _ 5% 2% • Male,with Children • 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% • ❑1980 E1 1990 ■2000 • Source:U.S.Census Bureau 4110 36 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Demographics • • • • • Table 13 • Utah Population Estimates, Net Migration,Births and Deaths • Net Migration IMP as a Percent of July 1st Percent Net Previous Yeaas Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Year Population* Change Increase Migration Y Population Increase Births Deaths • 1940 551,800 - - - 8,419 13,038 4,619 1941 551,000 0 1% -800 -9,631 1.7% 8,831 13,293 4,462 • 1942 571,200 3.7% 20,200 10,231 1.8% 9,969 14,357 4,388 1943 640,000 12.0% 68,800 57,284 9.0% 11,516 16,182 4,666 • 1944 1945 604,700 -5.5% -35,300 -47,122 -7.8% 11,822 16,536 4,714 589,100 -2.6% -15,600 -26,992 -4.6% 11,392 15,937 4,545 • 1946 638,000 8.3% 48,900 36,649 5.7% 12,251 16,955 4,704 1947 636,000 -0.3% -2,000 -19,178 -3.0% 17,178 21,905 4,727 1948 653,000 2.7% 17,000 943 0.1% 16,057 20,856 4,799 • 1949 670,800 2.7% 17,800 2,207 0.3% 15,593 20,354 4,761 1950 695,900 3.7% 25,100 8,966 1.3% 16,134 21,027 4,893 . 1951 706,100 1.5% 10,200 -6,842 -1.0% 17,042 21,801 4,759 1952 723,000 2.4% 16,900 -1,160 0.2% 18,060 23,116 5,056 • 1953 739,100 2.2% 16,100 -2,789 -0.4% 18,889 23,573 4,684 1954 750,500 1.5% 11,400 -7,069 -0.9% 18,469 23,439 4,970 . 1955 782,800 4.3% 32,300 12,784 1.6% 19,516 24,584 5,068 1956 808,800 3.3% 26,000 6,348 0.8% 19,652 24,975 5,323 • 1957 826,300 2.2% 17,500 -2,639 -0.3% 20,139 25,443 5,304 1958 845,200 2.3% 18,900 -955 -0.1% 19,855 25,760 5,905 1959 869,900 2.9% 24,700 4,959 0.6% 19,741 25,610 5,869 • 1960 900,000 3.5% 30,100 10,047 1.1% 20,053 26,011 5,958 1961 936,000 4.0% 36,000 15,371 1.6% 20,629 26,560 5,931 • 1962 958,000 2.4% 22,000 1,817 0.2% 20,183 26,431 6,248 1963 974,000 1.7% 16,000 -3,317 -0.3% 19,317 25,648 6,331 • 1964 978,000 0.4% 4,000 -13,863 -1.4% 17,863 24,461 6,598 1965 991,000 1.3% 13,000 -3,553 -0.4% 16,553 23,082 6,529 1966 1,009,000 1.8% 18,000 2,810 0.3% 15,190 21,953 6,763 • 1967 1,019,000 1.0% 10,000 -6,350 -0.6% 16,350 23,030 6,680 1968 1,029,000 1.0% 10,000 -6,029 -0.6% 16,029 22,743 6,714 • 1969 1,047,000 1.7% 18,000 798 0.1% 17,202 24,033 6,831 1970 1,066,000 1.8% 19,000 612 0.1% 18,388 25,281 6,893 5 1971 1,101,150 3.3% 35,150 14,966 1.4% 20,184 27,400 7,216 1972 1,135,100 3.1% 33,950 14,046 1.2% 19,904 27,146 7,242 • 1973 1,168,950 3.0% 33,850 13,810 1.2% 20,040 27,562 7,522 1974 1,196,950 2.4% 28,000 6,621 0.6% 21,379 28,876 7,497 • 1975 1,233,900 3.1% 36,950 13,897 1.1% 23,053 30,566 7,513 1976 1,272,050 3.1% 38,150 11,761 0.9% 26,389 33,773 7,384 • 1977 1,315,950 3.5% 43,900 14,824 17,220 1.1% 29,076 36,707 7,631 1978 1,363,750 3.6% 47,800 1.3% 30,580 38,289 7,709 • 1979 1,415,950 3.8% 52,200 19,868 1.4% 32,332 40,216 7,884 1980 1,474,000 4.1% 58,050 24,536 1.7% 33,514 41,645 8,131 1981 1,515,000 2.8% 41,000 7,612 0.5% 33,388 41,509 8,121 • 1982 1,558,000 2.8% 43,000 9,662 0.6% 33,338 41,773 8,435 1983 1,595,000 2.4% 37,000 4,914 0.3% 32,086 40,555 8,469 . 1984 1,622,000 1.7% 27,000 -2,793 -0.2% 29,793 38,643 8,850 1985 1,643,000 1.3% 21,000 -7,714 0.5% 28,714 37,664 8,950 • 1986 1987 1,663,000 1.2% 20,000 -8,408 -0.5% 28,408 37,309 8,901 1,678,000 0.9% 15,000 -11,713 -0.7% 26,713 35,631 8,918 • 1988 1,690,000 0.7% 12,000 -14,557 -0.9% 26,557 35,809 9,252 1989 1,706,000 0.9% 16,000 -10,355 -0.6% 26,355 35,439 9,084 1990 1,729,227 1.4% 23,227 -3,480 -0.2% 26,707 35,830 9,123 • 1991 1,780,870 3.0% 51,643 24,878 1.4% 26,765 36,194 9,429 1992 1,838,149 3.2% 57,279 30,042 1.6% 27.237 36,796 9,559 • 1993 1,889,393 2.8% 51,244 24,561 1.3% 26,683 36.738 10,055 1994 1,946,721 3.0% 57,328 30,116 1.5% 27,212 37,623 10,411 • 1995 1,995,228 2.5% 48,507 20,024 1.0% 28,483 39,064 10,581 1996 2,042,893 2.4% 47,665 18,171 0.9% 29,494 40,495 11,001 • 1997 2,099,409 2.8% 56,516 25,253 9,745 1.2% 31,263 42,512 11,249 1998 2,141,632 2.0% 42,223 0.5% 32,478 44,126 11,648 • 1999 2,193,014 2.4% 51,382 17,584 0.8% 33,798 45,434 11,636 2000 2,246,553 2.4% 53,539 18,612 0.8% 34,927 46,880 11,953 2001 2,295,971 2.2% 49,418 14,167 0.6% 35,251 47,688 12,437 • 2002 2,338,761 1.9% 42,790 7,411 0.3% 35,379 48,041 12,662 • Note:In 1996,the Utah Population Estimates Committee changed its convention on rounded estimates so that it now publishes unrounded estimates. Accordingly,the revised estimates for 1990 and thereafter are not rounded. • Sources: 1) Population:Utah Population Estimates Committee • 2) Births:1939-1949 and 1953-1972-Utah's Vital Statistics Reports,Utah Bureau of Vital Records;1950-1952, 1973-1996-Birth Certificates held in the Utah Population Database,partially funded by the Huntsman Cancer • Institute. 1997-Birth records file,Utah Bureau of Vital Records; 1998-2002 Summary data file,Utah Bureau of Vital Statistics. 41111 3) Deaths:1939-Utah's Vital Statistics Reports,Utah Bureau of Vital Records;1940-1996-Death Certificates held in the Utah Population Database, partially funded by the Huntsman Cancer Institute.1997-Death records file, Utah Bureau of Vital Records;1998-2002 Summary data file,Utah Bureau of Vital Statistics. • 111 • Demographics 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 37 • Table 14 • Utah Population Estimates by County Ai2Census 2001-2002 2000-2002 April 1, July 1, July 1, July 1, Absolute Percent Absolute Percent 2002 Percent of 110111 County 2000 2000 2001 2002 Change Change Change Change AARC Total Population . Beaver County 6,005 6,023 6,198 6,285 87 1.4% 262 4.3% 2.2% 0.27% . Box Elder County 42,745 42,860 43,245 43,812 567 1.3% 952 2.2% 1.1% 1.87% Cache County 91,391 91,897 93,372 95,460 2,088 2.2% 3,563 3.9% 1.9% 4.08% . Carbon County 20,422 20,396 19,858 19,858 0 0.0% -538 -2.6% -1.3% 0.85% Daggett County 921 933 944 916 -28 -3.0% -17 -1.8% -0.9% 0.04% . Davis County 238,994 240,204 244,845 250,265 5,420 2.2% 10,061 4.2% 2.1% 10.70% Duchesne County 14,371 14,397 14,646 14,856 210 1.4% 459 3.2% 1.6% 0.64% • Emery County 10,860 10,782 10,473 10,540 67 0.6% -242 -2.2% -1.1% 0.45% • Garfield County 4,735 4,763 4,630 4,599 -31 -0.7% -164 -3.4% -1.7% 0.20% Grand County 8,485 8,537 8,423 8,468 45 0.5% -69 -0.8% -0.4% 0.36% • Iron County 33,779 34,079 34,920 35,507 587 1.7% 1,428 4.2% 2.1% 1.52% Juab County 8,238 8,310 8,570 8,643 73 0.9% 333 4.0% 2.0% 0.37% • Kane County 6,046 6,037 6,037 5,958 -79 -1.3% -79 -1.3% -0.7% 0.25% Millard County 12,405 12,461 12,326 12,335 9 0.1% -126 -1.0% -0.5% 0.53% • Morgan County 7,129 7,181 7,297 7,416 119 1.6% 235 3.3% 1.6% 0.32% Piute County 1,435 1,436 1,404 1,409 5 0.4% -27 -1.9% -0.9% 0.06% • Rich County 1,961 1,955 1,983 2,050 67 3.4% 95 4.9% 2.4% 0.09% Salt Lake County 898,387 902,777 918,279 927,564 9,285 1.0% 24,787 2.7% 1.4% 39.66% • San Juan County 14,413 14,360 14,063 14,216 153 1.1% -144 -1.0% -0.5% 0.61% Sanpete County 22,763 22,846 23,219 23,550 331 1.4% 704 3.1% 1.5% 1.01% • Sevier County 18,842 18,938 19,180 19,232 52 0.3% 294 1.6% 0.8% 0.82% Summit County 29,736 30,048 31,279 32,236 957 3.1% 2,188 7.3% 3.6% 1.38% • Tooele County 40,735 41,549 44,431 46.208 1,777 4.0% 4,659 11.2% 5.5% 1.98% Uintah County 25,224 25,297 26,049 25,984 -65 -0.2% 687 2.7% 1.3% 1.11% • Utah County 368,536 371,894 385,692 398,056 12,364 3.2% 26,162 7.0% 3.5% 17.02% Wasatch County 15,215 15,433 15,947 16,847 900 5.6% 1,414 9.2% 4.5% 0.72% • Washington County 90,354 91,104 95,584 100,611 5,027 5.3% 9,507 10.4% 5.1% 4.30% Wayne County 2,509 2,515 2,509 2,504 -5 -0.2% -11 -0.4% -0.2% 0.11% • Weber County 196,533 197,541 200,567 203,377 2,810 1.4% 5,836 3.0% 1.5% 8.70% eil MCD • Bear River 136,097 136,712 138,600 141,322 2,722 2.0% 4,610 3.4% 1.7% 6.04% • Central 66,192 66,506 67,208 67,673 465 0.7% 1,167 1.8% 0.9% 2.89% • Mountainland 413,487 417,375 432,918 447,139 14,221 3.3% 29,764 7.1% 3.5% 19.12% Southeastern 54,180 54,075 52,817 53,082 265 0.5% -993 -1.8% -0.9% 2.27% • Southwestern 140,919 142,006 147,369 152,960 5,591 3.8% 10,954 7.7% 3.8% 6.54% Uintah Basin 40,516 40,627 41,639 41,756 117 0.3% 1,129 2.8% 1.4% 1.79% • Wasatch Front 1,381,778 1,389,252 1,415,419 1,434,830 19,411 1.4% 45,578 3.3% 1.6% 61.35% • State of Utah 12,233,169 12,246,553 2,295,971 2,338,761 I 42,790 1.9% I 92,208 4.1% 2.0% I 100.00% • Notes: • 1) Totals may not add due to rounding. 2) AARC is the Average Annual Rate of Change • 3) The MCDs are multi-county districts and they are divided as follows: Bear River MCD:Box Elder,Cache,and Rich counties;Central MCD:Juab, Millard, Piute,Sanpete,Sevier,and Wayne counties;Mountainland MCD:Summit, Utah,and Wasatch counties;Southeastern MCD:Carbon, • Emery, Grand,and San Juan counties;Southwestern MCD:Beaver,Garfield, Iron, Kane,and Washington counties; Uintah Basin MCD: Daggett, Duchesne,and Uintah counties;Wasatch Front MCD:Davis,Morgan,Salt Lake,Tooele,and Weber counties. • Sources: • 1) April 1,2000:U.S.Census Bureau 2) July 2000-2002: Utah Population Estimates Committee • • • • el 111 • 38 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Demographics • • 0 • • • Table 15 Total Fertility Rates for Utah and the U.S. • Ile Year Utah U.S. Year Utah U.S. • 1960 4.30 3.65 1981 3.06 1.81 • 1961 4.24 3.63 1982 2.99 1.83 1962 4.18 3.47 1983 2.83 1.80 • 1963 3.87 3.33 1984 2.74 1.81 • 1964 3.55 3.21 1985 2.69 1.84 1965 3.24 2.91 1986 2.59 1.84 • 1966 3.17 2.72 1987 2.48 1.87 • 1967 3.12 2.56 1988 2.52 1.93 1968 3.04 2.46 1989 2.55 2.01 • 1969 3.09 2.46 1990 2.61 2.08 • 1970 3.31 2.48 1991 2.59 2.07 1971 3.14 2.27 1992 2.57 2.07 • 1972 2.88 2.01 1993 2.50 2.05 • 1973 2.84 1.88 1994 2.49 2.04 1974 2.91 1.84 1995 2.52 2.02 • 1975 2.96 1.77 1996 2.55 2.03 1976 3.19 1.74 1997 2.61 2.03 0 1977 3.30 1.79 1998 2.65 2.07 • 1978 3.25 1.76 1999 2.68 2.04 1979 3.28 1.81 2000 2.68 2.07 • 1980 3.14 1.84 2001 2.68 2.07 • 2002 2.68 2.08 • leNote: Utah fertility rates were revised beginning in 1990. • Sources: Eileen Brown, "Fertility in Utah: 1960-1985." • The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, UPED/CASA. Ventura, S.J., Martin, J.A., Curtin, S.C., and Mathews, T.J. • Births: Final Data for 1999, NCHS, National Vital Statistics • Report Volume 48, Number 3, March, 2001. • • • • • • • • • • • • M • lb • Demographics 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 39 • • • • Table 16 • National and State Population Counts: 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census . Rank 1990-2000 1990-2000 Based on 101111 April 1, 1990 1990 April 1,2000 2000 Absolute Percent Percent • Area Population Rank Population Rank Change Change Change U.S. 248,709,873 na 281,421,906 na 32,712,033 13.2 na • Region • Northwest 50,809,229 na 53,594,378 na 2,785,149 5.5 na • Midwest 59,668,632 na 64,392,776 na 4,724,144 7.9 na South 85,445,930 na 100,236,820 na 14,790,890 17.3 na • West 52,786,082 na 63,197,932 na 10,411,850 19.7 na States • Alabama 4,040,587 22 4,447,100 23 406,513 10.1 25 • Alaska 550,043 49 626,932 48 76,889 14.0 17 • Arizona 3,665,228 24 5,130,632 20 1,465,404 40.0 2 Arkansas 2,350,725 33 2,673,400 33 322,675 13.7 19 • California 29,760,021 1 33,871,648 1 4,111,627 13.8 18 Colorado 3,294,394 26 4,301,261 24 1,006,867 30.6 3 • Connecticut 3,287,116 27 3,405,565 29 118,449 3.6 47 Delaware 666,168 46 783,600 45 117,432 17.6 13 • Florida 12,937,926 4 15,982,378 4 3,044,452 23.5 7 Georgia 6,478,216 11 8,186,453 10 1,708,237 26.4 6 • Hawaii 1,108,229 41 1,211,537 42 103,308 9.3 31 Idaho 1,006,749 42 1,293,953 39 287,204 28.5 5 • Illinios 11,430,602 6 12,419,293 5 988,691 8.6 34 Indiana 5,544,159 14 6,080,485 14 536,326 9.7 27 • Iowa 2,776,755 30 2,926,324 30 149,569 5.4 43 Kansas 2,477,574 32 2,688,418 32 210,844 8.5 35 • Kentucky 3,685,296 23 4,041,769 25 356,473 9.7 28 Louisiana 4,219,973 21 4,468,976 22 249,003 5.9 40 • Maine 1,227,928 38 1,274,923 40 46,995 3.8 46 Maryland 4,781,468 19 5,296,486 19 515,018 10.8 23Ili Massachusetts 6,016,425 13 6,349,097 13 332,672 5.5 41 • Michigan 9,295,297 8 9,938,444 8 643,147 6.9 39 Minnesota 4,375,099 20 4,919,479 21 544,380 12.4 21 • Mississippi 2,573,216 31 2,844,658 31 271,442 10.5 24 Missouri 5,117,073 15 5,595,211 17 478,138 9.3 30 • Montana 799,065 44 902,195 44 103,130 12.9 20 Nebraska 1,578,385 36 1,711,263 38 132,878 8.4 37 • Nevada 1,201,833 39 1,998,257 35 796,424 66.3 1 New Hampshire 1,109,252 40 1,235,786 41 126,534 11.4 22 • New Jersey 7,730,188 9 8,414,350 9 684,162 8.9 33 New Mexico 1,515,069 37 1,819,046 36 303,977 20.1 12 • New York 17,990,455 2 18,976,457 3 986,002 5.5 42 North Carolina 6,628,637 10 8,049,313 11 1,420,676 21.4 9 • North Dakota 638,800 47 642,200 47 3,400 0.5 50 Ohio 10,847,115 7 11,353,140 7 506,025 4.7 44 • Oklahoma 3,145,585 28 3,450,654 27 305,069 9.7 26 Oregon 2,842,321 29 3,421,399 28 579,078 20.4 11 • Pennsylvania 11,881,643 5 12,281,054 6 399,411 3.4 48 Rhode Island 1,003,464 43 1,048,319 43 44,855 4.5 45 • South Carolina 3,486,703 25 4,012,012 26 525,309 15.1 15 • South Dakota 696,004 45 754,844 46 58,840 8.5 36 Tennessee 4,877,185 17 5,689,283 16 812,098 16.7 14 • Texas 16,986,510 3 20,851,820 2 3,865,310 22.8 8 Utah 1,722,850 35 2,233,169 34 510,319 29.6 4 • Vermont 562,758 48 608,827 49 46,069 8.2 38 Virginia 6.187,358 12 7,078,515 12 891,157 14.4 16 • Washington 4,866,692 18 5,894,121 15 1,027,429 21.1 10 West Virginia 1,793,477 34 1,808,344 37 14,867 0.8 49 • Wisconsin 4,891,769 16 5,363,675 18 471,906 9.6 29 Wyoming 453,588 50 493,782 50 40,194 8.9 32 • Source: U.S. Census Bureau 410 lb • 40 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Demographics • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •4• • • • v Table 17 Rankings of States by Selected Age Groups as a Percent of Total Population:April 1,2000 All Ages Under Age 5 Ages 5-17 Ages 15.64 Ages 65+ Percent Percent Percent Percent Median Rank State Population State Population of Total State Population of Total State Population of Total State Population of Total State Age United States 281,421,906 United States 19,175,798 6.8% United States 53,035,558 18.9% United States 173,749,172 61.9% United States 34,921,855 12.4% United States 35.3 1 California 33,871,648 Uah 209,378 9.4% Alaska 143,126 22.8% Colorado 2,784,393 64.7% Florida 2,807,597 17.6% Uah 27.1 2 Texas 20,851,820 Texas 1,624,628 7.8% Uah 509,320 22.8% Virginia 4,547,920 64.2% Pennsylvania 1,919,165 15.6% Texas 32.3 3 New York 18,976,457 Alaska 47,591 7.6% Idaho 271,387 21.0% Georgia 5,231,944 63.9% West Virginia 276,895 15.3% Alaska 32.4 4 Florida 15,982,378 Idaho 97,643 7.5% New Mexico 377,946 20.8% Alaska 400,516 63.9% Iowa 436,213 14.9% Idaho 33.2 5 Ilinios 12,419,293 Arizona 382,386 7.5% Texas 4,262,131 20.4% North Carolina 5,116,218 63.6% North Dakota 94,478 14.7% California 33.3 6 Pennsylvania 12,281,054 California 2,486,981 7.3% Louisiana 902,407 20.2% Nevada 1,267,529 63.4% Rhode Island 152,402 14.5% Georgia 33.4 7 Ohio 11,353,140 Nevada 145,817 7.3% South Dakota 151,580 20.1% Washington 3,718,130 63.1% Maine 183,402 14.4% Mssissippi 33.8 8 Mchigan 9,938,444 Georgia 595,150 7.3% Mssissippi 570,823 20.1% Maryland 3,341,007 63.1% South Dakota 108,131 14.3% Louisiana 34.0 9 New Jersey 8,414,350 Mssissippi 204,364 7.2% California 6,762,848 20.0% Tennessee 3,587,451 63.1% Arkansas 374,019 14.0% Arizona 34.2 10 Georgia 8,186,453 New Mexico 130,628 7.2% Wyoninng 97,933 19.8% Vernnnt 383,794 63.0% Connecticut 470,183 13.8% Colorado 34.3 11 North Carolina 8,049,313 Louisiana 317,392 7.1% Kansas 524,285 19.5% New Hampshire 778,254 63.0% Nebraska 232,195 13.6% New Mexico 34.6 12 Virginia 7,078,515 Itnios 876,549 7.1% Nebraska 333,194 19.5% Kentucky 2,542,158 62.9% Massachusetts 860,162 13.5% Illinois 34.7 13 Massachusetts 6,349,097 Kansas 188,708 7.0% Mnnesota 957,300 19.5% Massachusetts 3,988,871 62.8% Mssouri 755,379 13.5% Nevada 35.0 14 Indiana 6,080,485 hdiana 423,215 7.0% Montana 175,193 19.4% South Carolina 2,517,038 62.7% kbntana 120,949 13.4% Indiana 35.2 15 Washington 5,894,121 Colorado 297,505 6.9% Mchigan 1,923,762 19.4% Oregon 2,136,696 62.5% Ohio 1,507,757 13.3% Kansas 35.2 16 Tennessee 5,689,283 Oklahoma 236,353 6.8% Georgia 1,574,084 19.2% West Virginia 1,129,056 62.4% Hawari 160,601 13.3% Nebraska 35.3 17 Mssouri 5,595,211 Nebraska 117,048 6.8% Arizona 984,561 19.2% New York 11,837,998 62.4% Kansas 356,229 13.3% North Carolina 35.3 18 Wisconsin 5,363,675 Arkansas 181,585 6.8% Wisconsin 1,026,416 19.1% Hawaii 755,169 623% New Jersey 1,113,136 13.2% Washington 35.3 19 Maryland 5,296,486 South Dakota 51,069 6.8% llinios 2,368,902 19.1% Wyoming 307,216 62.2% Oklahoma 455,950 13.2% Mnnesota 35.4 20 Arizona 5,130,632 Mchigan 672,005 6.8% Oklahoma 656,007 19.0% Delaware 487,287 62.2% Wisconsin 702,553 13.1% South Carolina 35.4 Ell 21 Mnnesota 4,919,479 North Carolina 539,509 6.7% Washington 1,119,537 19.0% California21,026,161 62.1% Alabarre 579,798 13.0% Mchigan 35.5 22 Louisiana 4,468,976 New Jersey 563,785 6.7% Maryland 1,002,779 18.9% Maine 790,283 62.0% Arizona 667,839 13.0% Oklahoma 35.5 23 Alabama 4,447,100 Mnnesota 329,594 6.7% Indiana 1,119,537 18.9% New Jersey 5,213,656 62.0% Delaware 101,726 13.0% South Dakota 35.6 24 Colorado 4,301,261 Washington 394,306 6.7% New Hampshire 233,877 18.9% Texas 12,892,529 61.8% New York 2,448,352 12.9% Virginia 35.7 25 Kentucky 4,041,769 Maryland 353,393 6.7% North Dakota 121,449 18.9% Rhode Island 648,095 61.8% Oregon 438,177 12.8% Alabama 35.8 26 South Carolina 4,012,012 Alabama 295,992 6.7% Mssouri 1,057,794 18.9% Ilinios 7,673,817 61.8% Vermont 77,510 12.7% Kentucky 35.9 27 Oklahoma 3,450,654 Ohio 754,930 6.6% Ohio 2,133,409 18.8% Mnnesota 3,038,319 61.8% Kentucky 504,793 12.5% New York 35.9 28 Oregon 3,421,399 Mssouri 369,898 6.6% Colorado 803,290 18.7% Indiana 3,753,258 61.7% Indiana 752,831 12.4% Tennessee 35.9 29 Connecticut 3,405,565 South Carolina 264,679 6.6% Arkansas 498,784 18.7% Alabarre 2,743,880 61.7% Tennessee 703,311 12.4% Arkansas 36.0 30 Iowa 2,926,324 Tennessee 374,880 6.6% Vermmnt 113,534 18.6% Mchigan 6,123,659 61.6% Mchigan 1,219,018 12.3% Delaware 36.0 N Na 31 Mssissippi 2,844,658 Kentucky 265,901 6.6% Iowa 545,225 18.6% Connecticut 2,093,694 61.5% South Carolina 485,333 12.1% Maryland 36.0 CD 32 Kansas 2,688,418 Delaware 51,531 6.6% Alabama 827,430 18.6% Wisconsin 3,292,366 61.4% Mnnesota 594,266 12.1% Wisconsin 36.0 CO rn 33 Arkansas 2,673,400 Connecticut 223,344 6.6% South Carolina 744,962 18.6% Ohio 6,957,044 61.3% 8inka 1,500,025 12.1% Mssouri 36.1 Ca 34 Uah 2,233,169 New York 1,239,417 6.5% Nevada 365,982 18.3% Louisiana 2,732,248 61.1% Mssissippi 343,523 12.1% Hawaii 36.2 M 35 Nevada 1,998,257 Virginia 461,982 6.5% Delaware 143,056 18.3% Montana 551,184 61.1% North Carolina 969,048 12.0% North Dakota 36.2 O 36 New Mexico 1,819,046 Oregon 223,005 6.5% Oregon 623,521 18.2% Mssouri 3,412,140 61.0% New Hampshire 147,970 12.0% Ohio 36.2 Ca' 37 West Virginia 1,808,344 Hawaii 78,163 6.5% New York 3,450,690 18.2% Oklahoma 2,102,344 60.9% Wyoning 57,693 11.7% Wyoming 36.2 XI 38 Nebraska 1,711,263 Iowa 188,413 6.4% Connecticut 618,344 18.2% Mssissippi 1,725,948 60.7% New Mexico 212,225 11.7% Oregon 36.3 CD 39 Idaho 1,293,953 Wisconsin 342,340 6.4% New Jersey 1,523,773 18.1% Pennsylvania 7,439,668 60.6% Louisiana 516,929 11.6% Massachusetts 36.5 0 40 Maine 1,274,923 Wyoming 30,940 6.3% Maine 230,512 18.1% Arkansas 1,619,012 60.6% Maryland 599,307 11.3% Iowa 36.6 41 New Hampshire 1,235,786 Massachusetts 397,268 6.3% Kentucky 728,917 18.0% New Mexico 1,098,247 60.4% Idaho 145,916 11.3% New Jersey 36.7 ei 42 Hawaii 1,211,537 North Dakota 39,400 6.1% Virginia 1,276,280 18.0% Arizona 3,095,846 60.3% Washington 662,148 11.2% Rhode Island 36.7 N 43 Rhode Island 1,048,319 New Hampshire 75,685 6.1% Tennessee 1,023,641 18.0% North Dakota 386,873 60.2% Virginia 792,333 11.2% New Hampshire 37.1 0 44 Montana 902,195 Rhode Island 63,896 6.1% Hawaii 217,604 18.0% Kansas 1,619,196 60.2% Nevada 218,929 11.0% Connecticut 37.4 0 45 Delaware 783,600 Montana 54,869 6.1% Pennsylvania 2,194,417 17.9% Idaho 779,007 60.2% California 3,595,658 10.6% MMntana 37.5 CD 46 South Dakota 754,844 Pennsylvania 727,804 5.9% North Carolina 1,424,538 17.7% Nebraska 1,028,826 60.1% Texas 2,072,532 9.9% Vermont 37.7 47 North Dakota 642,200 Florida 945,823 5.9% Rhode Island 183,926 17.5% Iowa 1,756,473 60.0% Colorado 416,073 9.7% Pennsylvania 38.0 g 48 Alaska 626,932 West Virginia 101,805 5.6% Massachusetts 1,102,796 17.4% Florida 9,528,441 59.6% Georgia 785,275 9.6% Maine 38.6 49 Vermont 608,827 Vermont 33,989 5.6% Florida 2,700,517 16.9% Uah 1,324,249 59.3% Uah 190,222 8.5% Florida 38.7 50 Wyoming 493,782 Maine 70,726 5.5% West Virginia 300,588 16.6% South Dakota 444,064 58.8% Alaska 35,699 5.7% West Virginia 38.9 Note:Totals may differ in this table from other tables in this report due to different release dates or data sources. 41, Source:U.S.Census Bureau • • • •e• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •o• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •e• • • • 0 Table 19 o Housing Units,Households,and Persons Per Household by State: 1990 and 2000 Decennial Census(Thousands) (.., ,v 7 Persons Persons per Persons Persons per Persons y Total Total per Household Total Total per Household Total Total per State Housing Units Households Household Rank Housing Units Households Household Rank Housing Units Households Household United States 102,262 91,946 2.63 115,905 105,480 2.59 13.3% 14.7% -1.6% Alabama 1,670 1,507 2.62 18 1,964 1,737 2.49 32 17.6% 15.3% -5.0% Alaska 233 189 2.80 3 261 222 2.74 4 12.0% 17.5% -2.2% Arizona 1,659 1,369 2.62 18 2,189 1,901 2.64 9 31.9% 38.9% 0.8% Arkansas 1,001 891 2.57 31 1,173 1,043 2.49 32 17.2% 17.1% -3.2% California 11,183 10,381 2.79 4 12,214 11,503 2.87 3 9.2% 10.8% 2.7% Colorado 1,477 1,282 2.51 49 1,808 1,658 2.53 20 22.4% 29.3% 0.9% Connecticut 1,321 1,230 2.59 26 1,386 1,302 2.53 20 4.9% 5.9% -2.3% Delaware 290 247 2.61 21 343 299 2.54 18 18.3% 21.1% -2.7% Florida 6,100 5,135 2.46 50 7,303 6,338 2.46 44 19.7% 23.4% 0.0% Georgia 2,638 2,366 2.66 13 3,282 3,006 2.65 8 24.4% 27.0% -0.5% Hawaii 390 356 3.01 2 461 403 2.92 2 18.2% 13.2% -2.8% Idaho 413 361 2.73 7 528 470 2.69 6 27.8% 30.2% -1.5% Illinois 4,506 4,202 2.65 15 4,886 4,592 2.63 10 8.4% 9.3% -0.8% Indiana 2,246 2,065 2.61 21 2,532 2,336 2.53 20 12.7% 13.1% -2.9% Iowa 1,144 1,064 2.52 47 1,233 1,149 2.46 44 7.8% 8.0% -2.2% Kansas 1,044 945 2.53 41 1,131 1,038 2.51 27 8.3% 9.8% -1.0% Kentucky 1,507 1,380 2.60 25 1,751 1,591 2.47 42 16.2% 15.3% -4.9% Louisiana 1,716 1,499 2.74 6 1,847 1,656 2.62 13 7.6% 10.5% -4.4% Maine 587 465 2.56 34 652 518 2.39 50 11.1% 11.4% -6.6% Maryland 1,892 1,749 2.67 12 2,145 1,981 2.61 15 13.4% 13.3% -2.2% Massachusetts 2,473 2,247 2.58 29 2,622 2,444 2.51 27 6.0% 8.8% -2.8% EllMichigan 3,848 3,419 2.66 13 4,234 3,786 2.56 17 10.0% 10.7% -3.6% Minnesota 1,849 1,648 2.58 29 2,066 1,895 2.52 26 11.7% 15.0% -2.5% - Mississippi 1,010 911 2.75 5 1,162 1,046 2.63 10 15.0% 14.8% -4.3% Missouri 2,199 1,961 2.53 41 2,242 2,195 2.48 38 2.0% 11.9% -2.2% Montana 361 306 2.53 41 413 359 2.45 46 14.4% 17.3% -3.3% Nebraska 661 602 2.54 39 723 666 2.49 32 9.4% 10.6% -2.0% Nevada 519 466 2.53 41 827 751 2.62 13 59.3% 61.2% 3.7% New Hampshire 504 411 2.62 18 547 475 2.53 20 8.5% 15.6% -3.4% New Jersey 3,075 2,795 2.70 10 3,310 3,065 2.68 7 7.6% 9.7% -0.9% N New Mexico 632 543 2.74 6 781 678 2.63 10 23.6% 24.9% -4.0% 0 New York 7,227 6,639 2.63 16 7,679 7,057 2.61 15 6.3% 6.3% -0.7% co North Carolina 2,818 2,517 2.54 39 3,524 3,132 2.49 32 25.1% 24.4% -2.1% M North Dakota 276 241 2.55 36 290 257 2.41 48 5.1% 6.6% -5.5% O Ohio 4,372 4,088 2.59 26 4,783 4,446 2.49 32 9.4% 8.8% -3.9% 0 O Oklahoma 1,406 1,206 2.53 41 1,514 1,342 2.49 32 7.7% 11.3% -1.6% 3_ Oregon 1,194 1,103 2.52 47 1,453 1,334 2.51 27 21.7% 20.9% -0.2% C) Pennsyhenia 4,938 4,496 2.57 31 5,250 4,777 2.48 38 6.3% 6.3% -3.3% Xl Rhode Island 415 378 2.55 36 440 408 2.47 42 6.0% 7.9% -3.2% cD South Carolina 1,424 1,258 2.68 11 1,754 1,534 2.53 20 23.2% 21.9% -5.5% =, South Dakota 292 259 2.59 26 323 290 2.50 30 10.6% 12.0% -3.4% o Tennessee 2,026 1,854 2.56 34 2,439 2,233 2.48 38 20.4% 20.4% -3.2% Texas 7,009 6,071 2.73 7 8,158 7,393 2.74 4 16.4% 21.8% 0.2% st CD Utah 598 537 3.15 1 769 701 3.13 1 28.6% 30.5% -0.7% G) Vermont 271 211 2.57 31 294 241 2.44 47 8.5% 14.2% -5.0% < Virginia 2,497 2,292 2.61 21 2,904 2,699 2.54 18 16.3% 17.8% -2.6% co Washington 2,032 1,872 2.53 41 2,451 2,271 2.53 20 20.6% 21.3% -0.2% p West Virginia 781 689 2.55 36 845 736 2.40 49 8.2% 6.8% -5.9% Wisconsin 2,056 1,822 2.61 21 2,321 2,085 2.50 30 12.9% 14.4% -4.3% Wyoming 203 169 2.63 16 224 194 2.48 38 10.3% 14.8% -5.6% Note: Numbers may not sum up to total due to rounding. Source: U.S.Census Bureau W 4 Table 20 Total County Population by Race and Hispanic Origin in Utah:April 1,2000 Geographic Area Total Population by Race iv Two or o More w m Single Race Races 0 Native 0' American Hawaiian 3 Black/ Indian and and Other Some Hispanic ci 73 Total African Alaska Pacific Other Origin(of v Population Total White American Native Asian Islander Race Total any race) 0 P. o State of Utah 2,233,169 2,185,974 1,992,975 17,657 29,684 37,108 15,145 93,405 47,195 201,559 co 0 0Beaver 6,005 5,899 5,599 16 54 37 5 188 106 333 o Box Elder 42,745 42,061 39,699 71 375 409 34 1,473 684 2,791 co Cache 91,391 90,184 84,286 348 529 1,814 181 3,026 1,207 5,786 oCarbon 20,422 19,924 18,601 56 216 71 9 971 498 2,097 Daggett 921 907 871 6 7 1 0 22 14 47 Davis 238,994 234,285 220,486 2,615 1,379 3,665 639 5,501 4,709 12,955 Duchesne 14,371 14,012 12,956 21 769 30 8 228 359 508 Emery 10,860 10,725 10,386 20 71 34 11 203 135 568 Garfield 4,735 4,665 4,496 8 87 19 2 53 70 136 Grand 8,485 8,373 7,861 21 327 19 4 141 112 471 iipIron 33,779 33,215 31,416 119 737 251 92 600 564 1,383 Juab 8,238 8,154 7,955 12 84 28 4 71 84 217 Kane 6,046 5,961 5,804 2 94 13 3 45 85 140 Millard 12,405 12,255 11,653 13 163 59 25 342 150 891 Morgan 7,129 7,053 6,994 3 13 11 0 32 76 103 Piute 1,435 1,422 1,372 2 17 3 1 27 13 64 Rich 1,961 1,952 1,925 0 1 8 0 18 9 36 Salt Lake 898,387 875,285 775,666 9,495 7,892 22,991 11,075 48,166 23,102 106,787 San Juan 14,413 14,195 5,876 18 8,026 25 5 245 218 540 Sanpete 22,763 22,424 21,040 71 199 109 81 924 339 1,510 Sevier 18,842 18,656 18,014 51 376 49 17 149 186 481 Summit 29,736 29,375 27,299 72 91 285 13 1,615 361 2,406 Tooele 40,735 39,696 36,330 521 694 244 72 1,835 1,039 4,214 Uintah 25,224 24,864 22,130 29 2,365 56 20 264 360 894 Utah 368,536 361,703 340,388 1,096 2,206 3,917 2,122 11,974 6,833 25,791 Wasatch 15,215 15,005 14,549 33 65 45 15 298 210 775 Washington 90,354 88,866 84,543 186 1,328 405 384 2,020 1,488 4,727 Wayne 2,509 2,491 2,441 4 9 2 4 31 18 50 Weber 196,533 192,367 172,339 2,748 1,510 2,508 319 12,943 4,166 24,858 Note:As a result of the revised standards for collecting data on race and ethnicity issued by the U.S.Office of Management and Budget in 1997, Census 2000 was the first national census in which respondents were allowed to select more than one race. Respondents that selected more co than one race in 2000 are included in the"Two or More Races°category. Race data from Census 2000 are not directly comparable with data from 3 the 1990 Census and previous censuses. 0 co -v Source:U.S.Census Bureau 7 ci co • • • •,• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •,• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •,• • • • • • • •.• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •e• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.• • • • o Table 21 o Utah Net In-Migration by State ra v v State 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 1985-2000 S 2 Alabama -20 -107 -65 -209 -71 -94 -62 -81 60 136 75 69 -60 -113 -3 -51 -596 Alaska -72 33 355 130 47 -93 -43 -29 15 128 71 46 24 0 115 34 761 Arizona -2,403 -2,544 -3,112 -2,366 -1,112 50 429 199 464 -44 -978 -742 -220 -752 -1,281 -1,594 -16,006 Arkansas -25 71 -314 -106 61 29 40 35 -22 16 -17 -64 -67 -15 -151 -29 -558 California -4,277 -3,821 -5,003 -4,094 -2,109 1,212 4,853 7,884 10,956 12,125 9,265 7,380 5,121 2,518 1,212 1,826 45,048 Colorado -262 -195 -261 -394 -412 25 -87 153 -308 186 -153 -123 -49 -806 -1,152 -1,033 -4,871 Connecticut -40 -24 -117 -77 -54 73 81 137 123 150 104 39 80 22 -64 -38 395 Delaware 22 4 -76 -47 -65 20 -1 22 20 -5 13 41 36 -28 -7 -8 -59 Dist.of Col. -33 -29 -9 -12 -13 -2 -8 -23 -27 1 11 -5 3 -9 -22 -17 -194 Florida -366 -372 -508 -567 -280 -297 274 249 342 254 246 97 -45 -296 -267 -356 -1,892 Georgia -146 -189 -349 -160 -102 -51 144 -86 -199 -189 -156 -126 -53 -106 62 -216 -1,922 Hawaii 27 174 3 -2 39 -2 217 180 291 413 146 327 289 293 318 356 3,069 Idaho 1,620 1,924 2,003 915 251 76 18 -429 9 -186 -270 -248 38 -395 -444 -1,035 3,847 Illinois 77 95 -135 -97 48 -43 145 98 248 261 393 43 253 249 -15 -230 1,390 Indiana -40 -28 -12 -226 -105 9 -12 34 66 54 23 -68 40 -108 -79 -71 -523 Iowa 196 99 96 -43 40 -65 -24 -37 -20 -94 -31 -60 -96 -110 -23 -89 -261 Kansas 9 35 -39 -66 79 89 -69 -52 121 67 11 -56 -3 -7 -106 -127 -114 Kentucky -1 -7 -126 -98 2 -82 -64 -25 17 -5 44 -106 -48 -33 -70 -67 -669 Louisiana 18 -7 200 -27 121 56 33 64 192 64 -38 106 45 -13 133 68 1,015 Maine -27 -72 -68 -90 -17 17 38 50 51 130 33 -54 42 0 -11 -4 18 Maryland -168 -158 -215 -304 -207 102 41 223 139 155 90 125 51 -63 -87 -79 -355 Massachusetts -160 -112 -251 -307 -182 89 162 283 49 122 141 -58 -65 -116 -217 -251 -873 Michigan 0 -266 -189 -117 -97 -71 29 65 160 84 -62 128 5 -21 -35 -45 -432 Minnesota -48 -36 -50 -161 -41 -88 154 68 -60 -91 -53 -36 115 -188 -279 -345 -1,139 Mississippi -18 -9 -45 31 40 12 -36 -65 38 -42 -7 81 -22 45 -45 -34 -76 EllMissouri -110 -205 -214 -171 -153 -60 14 217 -127 -59 -308 -200 -229 -164 -229 -277 -2,275 Montana 236 450 172 85 90 77 -29 -78 -61 -111 -170 7 213 86 -78 197 692 Nebraska 32 -13 61 -153 -32 -221 -4 2 34 -21 -23 -6 -37 7 -89 -42 -505 Nevada -423 -800 -1,821 -2,614 -3,103 -2,449 -508 419 837 -71 67 -235 -653 -910 -1,024 -1,014 -14,302 New Hampshire -27 -15 -31 -67 -70 62 152 90 110 18 -17 30 -138 -43 -68 -43 -57 New Jersey -88 -61 -64 -150 -25 99 150 182 290 135 361 55 31 39 -12 -14 928 New Mexico -244 -444 -187 68 -433 239 68 -45 -386 89 -97 -142 94 269 -174 81 -1,244 New York -111 -109 -33 -142 -69 133 256 288 386 303 143 376 255 94 64 -56 1,778 • North Carolina -74 9 -226 -195 -180 95 86 -14 -17 -69 72 -76 -36 -101 -79 -74 -879 North Dakota 71 104 112 92 93 143 100 50 57 97 15 -12 60 25 49 28 1,084 IV O Ohio -88 -137 -120 -159 -232 -167 61 10 106 95 -14 -70 48 94 -135 -105 -813 O w Oklahoma 16 -62 261 141 -41 28 5 -140 62 7 30 -244 -111 -251 -20 55 -264 ITI Oregon -162 -162 -449 -809 -790 -864 -397 -87 -406 -152 -217 -584 -504 -350 -789 -547 -7,269 p Pennsylvania 50 -128 -238 -323 -12 9 70 73 250 226 41 45 207 45 -69 -95 151 = Rhode Island 10 -9 -12 -22 -14 -2 15 27 10 36 -9 4 -9 -44 12 -3 -10 O B South Carolina -14 -76 -8 -18 -64 -58 54 94 218 82 33 -50 -47 -42 -19 -169 -84 5' South Dakota 19 -48 11 46 86 52 28 15 -12 3 -62 -3 136 24 -19 48 324 23 Tennessee -78 -109 -257 -184 -107 -25 26 -73 -38 -92 -124 -187 29 -75 0 -164 -1,458 -cb 0 Texas -934 -773 -201 -395 -423 -295 -109 289 24 187 -93 -269 -49 -711 -738 -521 -5,011 o Vermont 0 -10 -37 -68 9 -2 41 74 12 40 30 1 23 23 9 -12 133 C Virginia -239 -251 -317 -408 -197 -188 113 121 161 107 218 235 -2 -261 -409 -347 -1,664 Washington -550 -818 -968 -1,204 -1,605 -1,801 -806 -585 -53 606 14 109 -367 -950 -510 -453 -9,941 N West Virginia -1 85 -30 -45 5 -38 -29 -16 -15 22 13 -29 27 13 0 -41 -79 ,n Wisconsin 99 52 -83 -47 -20 75 -65 -135 19 -68 -84 -47 -61 -55 -146 -178 -744 < Wyoming 350 642 962 375 58 187 27 88 239 -38 96 272 288 54 138 135 3,873 co 3 Foreign 0 -361 -341 -194 272 192 906 1,725 1,728 922 1,038 779 692 680 667 962 9,667 O Total -8,397 -8,790 -12,345 -15,055 -11,096 -3,808 6,477 11,508 16,153 15,984 9,854 6,495 5,274 -2,556 -6,186 -6,478 -2,966 Note:The IRS area-to-area migration data provides an annual indication of migration flows among the states.Although not differing significantly,the state's official estimates provide , the best indication of the netflow of migration,while the IRS data provide the onlysource of gross flows and of the annual origins and destinations of migrants. '1 01 Source:IRS Area-to-Area Migration Data;Statistical Information Services,IRS • • Table 22 • U.S.Census Bureau City Population Counts:April 1, 1990 and April 1,2000 Decennial Census . Percent Percent Change AARC Change AARC 411. 1990 2000 90-00 90-00 1990 2000 90-00 90-00 • Beaver County 4,765 6,005 26.0% 2.3 Davis County 187,941 238,994 27.2% 2.4 • Beaver city 1,998 2,454 22.8% 2.1 Bountiful city 36,659 41,301 12.7% 1.2 Milford city 1,107 1,451 31.1% 2.7 Centerville city 11,500 14,585 26.8% 2.4 • Minersville town 608 817 34.4% 3.0 Clearfield city 21,435 25,974 21.2% 1.9 Balance of Beaver County 1,052 1,283 22.0% 2.0 Clinton city 7,945 12,585 58.4% 4.7 • Farmington city 9,028 12,081 33.8% 3.0 Box Elder County 36,485 42,745 17.2% 1.6 Fruit Heights city 3,900 4,701 20.5% 1.9 • Bear River City town 700 750 7.1% 0.7 Kaysville city 13,961 20,351 45.8% 3.8 • Brigham City city 15,644 17,411 11.3% 1.1 Layton city 41,784 58,474 39.9% 3.4 Corinne city 639 621 -2.8% -0.3 North Salt Lake city 6,474 8,749 35.1% 3.1 • Deweyville town 318 278 -12.6% -1.3 South Weber city 2,863 4,260 48.8% 4.1 Elwood town 575 678 17.9% 1.7 Sunset city 5,128 5,204 1.5% 0.1 • Fielding town 422 448 6.2% 0.6 Syracuse city 4,658 9,398 101.8% 7.3 Garland city 1,637 1,943 18.7% 1.7 West Bountiful city 4,477 4,484 0.2% 0.0 • Honeyville city 1,112 1,214 9.2% 0.9 West Point city 4,258 6,033 41.7% 3.5 Howell town 237 221 -6.8% -0.7 Woods Cross city 5,384 6,419 19.2% 1.8 • Mantua town 665 791 18.9% 1.8 Balance of Davis County 8,487 4,395 -48.2% -6.4 Perry city 1,211 2,383 96.8% 7.0 • Plymouth town 267 328 22.8% 2.1 Duchesne County 12,645 14,371 13.6% 1.3 Portage town 218 257 17.9% 1.7 Altamont town 167 178 6.6% 0.6 • Snowville town 251 177 -29.5% -3.4 Duchesne city 1,308 1,408 7.6% 0.7 Tremonton city 4,264 5,592 31.1% 2.7 Myton city 468 539 15.2% 1.4 • Willard city 1,298 1,630 25.6% 2.3 Roosevelt city 3,915 4,299 9.8% 0.9 Balance of Box Elder County 7,027 8,023 14.2% 1.3 Tabiona town 120 149 24.2% 2.2 • Balance of Duchesne County 6,667 7,798 17.0% 1.6 • Cache County 70,183 91,391 30.2% 2.7 Amalga town 366 427 16.7% 1.6 Emery County 10,332 10,860 5.1% 0.5 • Clarkston town 645 688 6.7% 0.6 Castle Dale city 1,704 1,657 -2.8% -0.3 Cornish town 205 259 26.3% 2.4 Clawson town 151 153 1.3% 0.1 Hyde Park city 2,190 2,955 34.9% 3.0 Cleveland town 498 508 2.0% 0.211110 Hyrum city 4,829 6,316 30.8% 2.7 Elmo town 267 368 37.8% 3.3 Lewiston city 1,532 1,877 22.5% 2.1 Emery town 300 308 2.7% 0.3 • Logan city 32,762 42,670 30.2% 2.7 Ferron city 1,606 1,623 1.1% 0.1 • Mendon city 684 898 31.3% 2.8 Green River city(pt) 744 868 16.7% 1.6 Millville city 1,202 1,507 25.4% 2.3 Huntington city 1,875 2,131 13.7% 1.3 • Newton town 659 699 6.1% 0.6 Orangeville city 1,459 1,398 -4.2% -0.4 Nibley city 1,167 2,045 75.2% 5.8 Balance of Emery County* 1,728 1,846 9.4% 0.9 . North Logan city 3,768 6,163 63.6% 5.0 Paradise town 561 759 35.3% 3.1 Garfield County 3,980 4,735 19.0% 1.8 • Providence city 3,344 4,377 30.9% 2.7 Antimony town 83 122 47.0% 3.9 Richmond city 1,955 2,051 4.9% 0.5 Boulder town 126 180 42.9% 3.6 • River Heights city 1,274 1,496 17.4% 1.6 Cannonville town 131 148 13.0% 1.2 Smithfield city 5,566 7,261 30.5% 2.7 Escalante town 818 818 0.0% 0.0 • Trenton town 464 449 -3.2% -0.3 Hatch town 103 127 23.3% 2.1 • Wellsville city 2,206 2,728 23.7% 2.1 Henrieville town 163 159 -2.5% -0.2 Balance of Cache County 4,804 5,766 20.0% 1.8 Panguitch city 1,444 1,623 12.4% 1.2 • Tropic town 374 508 35.8% 3.1 Carbon County 20,228 20,422 1.0% 0.1 Balance of Garfield County 738 1,050 42.3% 3.6 • East Carbon city 1,270 1,393 9.7% 0.9 Helper city 2,148 2,025 -5.7% -0.6 Grand County 6,620 8,485 28.2% 2.5 • Price city 8,712 8,402 -3.6% -0.4 Castle Valley town 211 349 65.4% 5.2 Scofield town 43 28 -34.9% -4.2 Green River city(pt) 122 105 -13.9% -1.5 . Sunnyside city 339 404 19.2% 1.8 Moab city 3,971 4,779 20.3% 1.9 Wellington city 1,632 1,666 2.1% 0.2 Balance of Grand County* 2,316 3,252 37.7% 3.3 • Balance of Carbon County 6,084 6,504 6.9% 0.7 Daggett County 690 921 33.5% 2.9 • Manila town 207 308 48.8% 4.1 • Balance of Daggett County 483 613 26.9% 2.4 • 0 • 46 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Demographics • • • • Table 22(Continued) • U.S.Census Bureau City Population Counts:April 1, 1990 and April 1,2000 Decennial Census le Percent Percent Change AARC Change AARC • 1990 2000 90-00 90-00 1990 2000 90-00 90-00 • Iron County 20,789 33,779 62.5% 5.0 Draper city 7,257 25,220 247.5% 13.3 Brian Head town 109 118 8.3% 0.8 Herriman NA 1,523 NA NA • Cedar City city 13,443 20,527 52.7% 4.3 Holladay(1990 CDP) NA 14,561 NA NA • Enoch city 1,947 3,467 78.1% 5.9 Midvale city(Annexation) NA 27,029 NA NA Kanarraville town 228 311 36.4% 3.2 Murray city 31,282 34,024 8.8% 0.8 • Paragonah town 307 470 53.1% 4.4 Riverton city 11,261 25,011 122.1% 8.3 Parowan city 1,873 2,565 36.9% 3.2 Salt Lake City city 159,936 181,743 13.6% 1.3 • Balance of Iron County 2,882 6,321 119.3% 8.2 Sandy city 75,058 88,418 17.8% 1.7 South Jordan city 12,220 29,437 140.9% 9.2 • Juab County 5,817 8,238 41.6% 3.5 South Salt Lake city(Annexation) NA 22,038 NA NA Eureka city 562 766 36.3% 3.1 Taylorsville city(1990 CDP) NA 57,439 NA NA • Levan town 416 688 65.4% 5.2 West Jordan city 42,892 68,336 59.3% 4.8 Mona town 584 850 45.5% 3.8 West Valley City city 86,976 108,896 25.2% 2.3 • Nephi city 3,515 4,733 34.7% 3.0 Balance of Salt Lake County* 296,525 209,642 -29.3% -3.4 Rocky Ridge NA 403 NA NA • Balance of Juab County 740 798 7.8% 0.8 San Juan County 12,621 14,413 14.2% 1.3 Blanding city 3,162 3,162 0.0% 0.0 • Kane County 5,169 6,046 17.0% 1.6 Monticello city 1,806 1,958 8.4% 0.8 Alton town 93 134 44.1% 3.7 Balance of San Juan County 7,653 9,293 21.4% 2.0 • Big Water town 326 417 27.9% 2.5 Glendale town 282 355 25.9% 2.3 Sanpete County 16,259 22,763 40.0% 3.4 . Kanab city 3,289 3,564 8.4% 0.8 Centerfield town 766 1,048 36.8% 3.2 Orderville town 422 596 41.2% 3.5 Ephraim city 3,363 4,505 34.0% 3.0 • Balance of Kane County 757 980 29.5% 2.6 Fairview city 960 1,160 20.8% 1.9 • Fayette town 183 204 11.5% 1.1 Millard County 11,333 12,405 9.5% 0.9 Fountain Green city 578 945 63.5% 5.0 • Delta city 2,998 3,209 7.0% 0.7 Gunnison city 1,298 2,394 84.4% 6.3 Fillmore city 1,956 2,253 15.2% 1.4 Manti city 2,268 3,040 34.0% 3.0 1110 Hinckley town 658 698 6.1% 0.6 Mayfield town 438 420 4.1% -0.4 Holden town 402 400 -0.5% 0.0 Moroni city 1,115 1,280 14.8% 1.4 • Kanosh town 386 485 25.6% 2.3 Mount Pleasant city 2,092 2,707 29.4% 2.6 Leamington town 253 217 -14.2% -1.5 Spring City city 715 956 33.7% 2.9 • Lynndyl town 120 134 11.7% 1.1 Sterling town 191 235 23.0% 2.1 Meadow town 250 254 1.6% 0.2 Wales town 189 219 15.9% 1.5 • Oak City town 587 650 10.7% 1.0 Balance of Sanpete County 2,103 3,650 73.6% 5.7 Scipio town 291 290 -0.3% 0.0 • Balance of Millard County 3,432 3,815 11.2% 1.1 Sevier County 15,431 18,842 22.1% 2.0 Annabella town 487 603 23.8% 2.2 • Morgan County 5,528 7,129 29.0% 2.6 Aurora city 911 947 4.0% 0.4 Morgan city 2,023 2,635 30.3% 2.7 Elsinore town 608 733 20.6% 1.9 • Balance of Morgan County 3,505 4,494 28.2% 2.5 Glenwood town 437 437 0.0% 0.0 Joseph town 198 269 35.9% 3.1 • Piute County 1,277 1,435 12.4% 1.2 Koosharem town 266 276 3.8% 0.4 • Circleville town 417 505 21.1% 1.9 Monroe city 1,472 1,845 25.3% 2.3 Junction town 132 177 34.1% 3.0 Redmond town 648 788 21.6% 2.0 I Kingston town 134 142 6.0% 0.6 Richfield city 5,593 6,847 22.4% 2.0 Marysvale town 364 381 4.7% 0.5 Salina city 1,943 2,393 23.2% 2.1 • Balance of Piute County 230 230 0.0% 0.0 Sigurd town 385 430 11.7% 1.1 Balance of Sevier County 2,483 3,274 31.9% 2.8 • Rich County 1,725 1,961 13.7% 1.3 Garden City town 193 357 85.0% 6.3 Summit County 15,518 29,736 91.6% 6.7 • Laketown town 261 188 -28.0% -3.2 Coalville city 1,065 1,382 29.8% 2.6 Randolph city 488 483 -1.0% -0.1 Francis town 381 698 83.2% 6.2 • Woodruff town 135 194 43.7% 3.7 Henefer town 554 684 23.5% 2.1 Balance of Rich County 648 739 14.0% 1.3 Kamas city 1,061 1,274 20.1% 1.8 • Oakley town 522 948 81.6% 6.1 Salt Lake County 725,956 898,387 23.8% 2.2 Park City city 4,468 7,371 65.0% 5.1 IIII Alta town 397 370 -6.8% -0.7 Balance of Summit County 7,467 17,379 132.7% 8.8 • Bluffdale city 2,152 4,700 118.4% 8.1 le • 1111 • Demographics 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 47 III 111 Table 22(Continued) . U.S.Census Bureau City Population Counts:April 1, 1990 and April 1,2000 Decennial Census . Percent Percent Change AARC Change AARC 41110 1990 2000 90-00 90-00 1990 2000 90-00 90-00 . Tooele County 26,601 40,735 53.1% 4.4 St.George city 28,502 49,663 74.2% 5.7 • Grantsville city 4,500 6,015 33.7% 2.9 Toquerville town 488 910 86.5% 6.4 Ophir town 25 23 -8.0% -0.8 Virgin town 229 394 72.1% 5.6 • Rush Valleytown 339 453 33.6% 2.9 Washington city 4,198 8,186 95.0% 6.9 • Stockton town 426 443 4.0% 0.4 Balance of Washington County* 2,432 5,858 140.9% 9.2 Tooele city 13,887 22,502 62.0% 4.9 II town 181 236 30.4% 2.7 Wayne County 2,177 2,509 15.3% 1.4 Wendover city 1,127 1,537 36.4% 3.2 Bicknell town 327 353 8.0% 0.8 3alance of Tooele County 6,116 9,526 55.8% 4.5 Loa town 444 525 18.2% 1.7 • Lyman town 198 234 18.2% 1.7 . Uintah County 22,211 25,224 13.6% 1.3 Torrey town 122 171 40.2% 3.4 Ballard town 644 566 -12.1% -1.3 Balance of Wayne County* 1,086 1,226 12.9% 1.2 • Naples city 1,334 1,300 -2.5% -0.3 Vernal city 6,644 7,714 16.1% 1.5 Weber County 158,330 196,533 24.1% 2.2 • Balance of Uintah County 13,589 15,644 15.1% 1.4 Farr West city 2,178 3,094 42.1% 3.6 Harrisville city 3,004 3,645 21.3% 2.0 . Utah County 263,590 368,536 39.8% 3.4 Huntsville town 561 649 15.7% 1.5 Alpine city 3,492 7,146 104.6% 7.4 Marriott-Slaterville NA 1,425 NA NA • American Fork city 15,696 21,941 39.8% 3.4 North Ogden city 11,668 15,026 28.8% 2.6 Cedar Fort town 284 341 20.1% 1.8 Ogden city 63,909 77,226 20.8% 1.9 • Cedar Hills town 769 3,094 302.3% 14.9 Plain City city 2,722 3,489 28.2% 2.5 • Eagle Mountain town NA 2,157 NA NA Pleasant View city 3,603 5,632 56.3% 4.6 Elk Ridge town 771 1,838 138.4% 9.1 Riverdale city 6,419 7,656 19.3% 1.8 Genola town 803 965 20.2% 1.9 Roy city 24,603 32,885 33.7% 2.9 • Goshen town 578 874 51.2% 4.2 South Ogden city 12,105 14,377 18.8% 1.7 Highland city 5,002 8,172 63.4% 5.0 Uintah town 760 1,127 48.3% 4.0 • Lehi city 8,475 19,028 124.5% 8.4 Washington Terrace city 8,189 8,551 4.4% 0.4 Lindon city 3,818 8,363 119.0% 8.2 West Haven city NA 3,976 NA NA • Mapls•Dn city 3,572 5,809 62.6% 5.0 Balance of Weber County` 18,609 17,775 -4.5% -0.5 0 Orem city 67,561 84,324 24.8% 2.2 Payson city 9,510 12,716 33.7% 2.9 • Pleasant Grove city 13,476 23,468 74.1% 5.7 State Total 1,722,850 2,233,169 29.6% 2.6 Provo city 86,835 105,166 21.1% 1.9 • Salem city 2,284 4,372 91.4% 6.7 Santaquin city 2,386 4,834 102.6% 7.3 AARC=Average Annual Rate of Change • Saratoga Springs NA 1,003 NA NA Spanish Fork city 11,272 20,246 79.6% 6.0 Note: The Utah Population Estimates Committee provided April 1, • Springville city 13,950 20,424 46.4% 3.9 2000 population estimates for the following areas:Hanksville,240; Vineyard town 151 150 -0.7% -0.1 resulting Balance of Wayne County,986;Hooper,4,081;resulting • Woodland Hills town 301 941 212.6% 12.1 Balance of Weber County,13,694;Leeds,590;resulting Balance of Balance of Utah County 12,604 11,164 -11.4% -1.2 Washington County,5,815;Holladay,19,246;Taylorsville,58,764;and • West Jordan,78,714;resulting Balance of Salt Lake County,193,254. Wasatch County 10,089 15,215 50.8% 4.2 In the case of Washington County and Salt Lake County,onlythe • Charleston town 336 378 12.5% 1.2 annexation increment impacts the Balance of County figure. The • Heber city 4,782 7,291 52.5% 4.3 annexation increment for Leeds,is 43,for Holladay is 5,687,for lvlidwaycity 1,554 2,121 36.5% 3.2 Tayiorsv “is 1,325,and for West Jordan is 10,378. • Wallsburg town 252 274 8.7% 0.8 Balance of Wasatch Count 3,165 5,151 62.7% 5.0 Source:US Census Bureau • Washington County 48,560 90,354 86.1% 6.4 • Enterprise city 936 1,285 37.3% 3.2 Hildaletown 1,325 1,895 43.0% 3.6 • Hurricane city 3,915 8,250 110.7% 7.7 Nins town 1,630 4,450 173.0% 10.6 . La Verkin city 1,771 3,392 91.5% 6.7 • Leeds town 254 547 115.4% 8.0 New Harmony town 101 190 88.1% 6.5 • Rockville town 182 247 35.7% 3.1 Santa Clara city 2,322 4,630 99.4% 7.1 • Springdale town 275 457 66.2% 5.2 .Si 41011 48 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Demographics • • • • • Employment, Wages, Labor Force • 40 E ve ieyi °;= ``' ;,;,, `:- .. : ;:.`= ; _=:,v , _ Manufacturing. Declining employment rates in 2002 has put this industry Utah' ;e nprn el ow =rf'2002 par teIs�haf` the•nation" £sand in a four-year slump. This year's job losses numbered at 7,300. Over • oori0 Ito ttthgs te'-oftheeconomythathas haracteriz the:_, the four-year period,the industry saw a total job loss of 13,000. The pt 9-'ttp od,=-One cons uence of,t):te reitentecOnomiqefump nag ` continuing decline of the manufacturing sector in Utah parallels that of • beera sigMom-tt�less,tf joke.:.f�lonfarrri:employment,fell by.ever td,000 the nation's. These trends reflect the industry's response to an netjobtbi fle0tiriga*fr ion rateof 1°%;;_t,itah's2tltf2unemployment overbuilding of its production capacity that peaked in 1997. • Tate of OK'One highest in over a decade; On average,there We a :; • 616 O; taiins uitempltyed in.2002_:'This:trend is expected to reverse in Trade,Transportation,Utilities. This is a new category within NAICS. 21 t} ;5n r atedl;.:albeit:grudu ;recovery of the ect omy';;; Significant changes in definitions have occurred in some of these sub- • . :;::;w -, ;•�� : :_� , ; __: :__ ��� � :_:��.�����° ��� categones For instance,"trade"no longer includes restaurants Ttt 00 Olyrntppic;WlnterGames.provided'a temper ry buttimely,.relief' "Utilities"does not include the communications or waste-disposal • fo r•Uta ris..;Ttte crtsisfent deriiina fry joplfrew:tfistailed id Jan€€ary er d industries. This industry category still employs nearly 214,500 Utahns, F` .tary�01y. :cofibnue tho ugh the tainder-of IO2:: making it the largest employment classification within NAICS. However, • m` - =" ' = 2002 was not a good year,as approximately 5,400 jobs were eliminated. • ff'he rapidtipansten of.:tha ittg tecttnpto .y sector'rring the 990s Both trade and transportation were industries that developed excess stalled a:. „... td=of the decade,>pt f by 2tt0I,s tffered a mktor ec)rne:.. capacity,resulting in necessary readjustments in 2002. • '' is r pacted othaiAreas of tiiii; oilfijit at both Me national=enrf:state •level': :apfd,andexcessivegip? t:duringttre:indiaipeairodintti =:e ,=_.:: ` , Information. This is a new industry category established within NAICS. • 001ice of equally htgh del ante result d ip, rf c anti recent It includes many of the new information-sector businesses such as • resplt;.a stg�trfrcant. rtra h...oneftho'hightechnologyse rtrtrecent.:, internet service providers,satellite communications,cellular phones and yearn: It appears that... trend will contirius into,,. ,. w ::. .. .. � • pagers. It also includes some of the"old"information industries like • Job Growth by Industry. Utah's industries have experienced varying libraries,newspapers,television,and radio. This industry enjoyed • trends in job growth over the past year. Before analyzing these trends,it phenomenal growth during the 1990s as new technology industries is important to note that in 2002,Utah implemented the new North emerged. Employment in this industry nearly doubled in the 1990s and • American Industry Classification System(NAICS). The implementation peaked in 2000. However,these industries have also experienced • of NAICS has had some obvious consequences on the way that the excessive growth beyond market sustainability,and are in a second year state's industries have been evaluated and profiled. NAICS replaces of decline. The industry employed 31,300 workers in 2002,a reduction • Standard Industrial Classification(SIC),which was the original industry of roughly 2,200 positions from the previous year. Ile identifier established in the 1930s. The SIC was developed for a different industrial era and was becoming increasingly incompatible with Financial Activity. The financial activity sector was one of the growing the changing economy. The present economy has evolved toward a industries in 2002. Favorable interest rates were the primary spark • service and information-based one,while the earlier economic era was behind this industry's vitality. This sector employed around 63,400 • primarily dominated by manufacturing and raw-material sectors. The workers in 2002, 1,100 more than in 2001. SIC was not built with the flexibility to identify the newly emerging • industries of the present time. This shortcoming prompted the creation Professional and Business Services, Businesses whose major resource of NAICS. is human capital are grouped together within this sector. This category • covers a broad spectrum of diverse industries. Some members include • The new NAICS system is not completely compatible with the SIC computer and software development,company headquarters,call system. The two systems use different parameters to define and identify centers,research firms,and waste management. It is a relatively large • industries. While some of NAICS'classifications share titles with the SIC sector that employs around 133,500 workers. This industry evidenced classifications,such as construction and manufacturing,even those are robust growth throughout the 1990s,often reaching double-digit growth • not defined the same as in the SIC. Other NAICS industries are new, rates. However,it hasn't been impervious to the readjustments of the • such as information,accommodation and food services,as well as high technology industries,and employment declined by 1.9%in 2001, management of companies. More information on NAICS in Utah can be and 2.3%in 2002. The 2002 decline represents a loss of approximately • attained at http://iobs.utah.gov. 3,100 jobs. Despite these recent setbacks,this sector will play a lead role in the state's economic growth in the future. • Mining. While the state's overall employment numbers in this sector are• Education and Health Services. This was one of the state's more very low,mining is a crucial component of the economy in specific parts of the state. This industry employs around 6,700 workers less than dynamic economic sectors. Both health care and education are strong • 1%of all employment. Employment has fallen in this industry through industries in the current environment of economic decline. Given Utah's most of the past decade,and 2002 marks one of the steepest declines large and growing school age population,the state's education sector • yet,with the loss of 500 jobs. will always be stable. Health care is a growing industry nationwide. National demographic trends suggest that this growth will continue well• Construction. The construction industry recorded its third straight year of into the future. This industry added around 3,900 additional positions • declining employment. This is not surprising,considering that it followed over 2001. The sector currently employs 113,400 workers,making it one a record 11-year expansion. This industry usually grows in spurts,and of the major employers of the state. • the 11-year continuous expansion was quite unique. The industry lost le over 6,600 jobs during 2002. Job loss is expected to continue into 2003, Leisure and Hospitality. This is another new NAICS identified sector. It although at a slower rate. combines the restaurant division of retail trade from the old SIC system • 111 • Employment,Wages, Labor Force 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 49 • • a 41 with the hotel and recreation divisions from services. Together,they than their U.S.peers. Other factors that explain Utah's higher than , make up this new classification that gives us some sense of employment average labor force participation are as follows:1)Utah's large families within the tourism industry of Utah. The industry employs around and lower-than-average wages may influence families to have more thanIII 103,400 workers. one wage earne;,and 2)Until the more recent past, Utah's economy has made jobs readily available to persons who are looking for work. III Other Services. This is a catch-all sector within NAICS. It has a a potpourri of businesses within its classification. As a result,a simple Approximately 97.9%of Utah's workers are employed in nonagricultural profile of this sector is difficult. It's not a significantly large sector--it industries. Of the nonagricultural workers,7%are self-employed,private a employs around 32,100 workers. The sector experienced a growth of household,or unpaid family workers. Hence,about 91%of employed 5.3%over 2001,and has enjoyed substantial and consistent growth people are nonagricultural wage and salaried workers. rates throughout the past decade. a High Technology. Neither the former Standard Industrial Classification Public Administration(Government). Government is a large sector in (SIC)coding structure,nor the North American Industry Classification a Utah that currently employs around 192,300 workers. This includes System(NAICS)have a"high technology"sector. This designation is illfederal,state,and local governments in areas such as national defense, the identification of various NAICS codes that encompass work activities education,administration of government programs,counties,and cities. that center upon high technology products and services. When a For 2002,this industry expanded by approximately 2,200 positions. evaluating employment in these codes,the downturn in the high 2002 saw the reversal of a long trend as federal government technology sector in the last year and a half becomes enumerable. In . employment increased,largely as a result of jobs moving into Hill Air the first half of 2002, Utah's high-tech sector saw an 8.8%decline,a net Force Base. Local governments grew as a result of expanding public loss of nearly 5,000 jobs. This is a significant loss in such a short period education. State government showed no employment growth. of time. Of greater concern is the fact that these high technology jobs • are well-paying jobs that average about 70%higher than the state's Wage Growth Slows. In 2002, Utah's average annual nonagricultural average wage for all industries statewide. i wage was$30,400. This reflects a 2.6%year-over wage growth and • marks the smallest yearly increase since 1993's 2.4%increase. Last The excessive capacity-building that occurred in these industries and the year,average wages increased by 2.8%,slightly higher than the 2002 subsequent cutbacks was not something unique to Utah. These trends • percentage. But the 2001 gain of 2.8%matched the rate of inflation for occurred at the national level as well. This has had a negative impact that year,as measured by the U.S.Consumer Price Index(CPI-U). on the overall economy of both Utah and the nation. Despite the recent • Thus,there were no real gains in terms of purchasing-power. The 2002 slowdown,the high technology sector will continue to play an important • average wage gain of 2.6%outpaced 2002's 1.6%inflation rate. and significant role in the economic recovery for both regions. However, Although small,this reflects higher real wage gains(1%)than in 2001. the current period of economic readjustment might well continue into Si 2003. Major Employers. Utah's list of top ten major employers changes little • from year to year. With approximately 22,500 employees,the State of Conclusion • Utah ranks as the largest employer. IHC,a large health care Both Utah and the United States witnessed considerable economic organization with several hospitals and clinics,ranks second,with decline over the past year. In 2002,Utah experienced its worst • approximately 22,000 jobs. Education is a large employer in Utah as economic performance based on job growth in 48 years. The state • well,and five of the remaining top eight employers fall within this enjoyed extraordinary economic success during the 1990's due to the classification. The University of Utah(including the University Hospital) rapid expansion of its high technology sector. However,necessary • and Brigham Young University each have approximately 18,000 readjustments within this same sector have also contributed to its current employees. Granite,Jordan,and Davis school districts range from economic malaise. 2003 could well see a continuation of the • 6,500 to 9,000 workers. Hill Air Force Base,though not employing as readjustment process currently affecting this sector. However,it is many civilian workers as it did several years ago,ranks fifth with 11,500 hoped that following this crucial period of"growing pains,"Utah's long • - civilian jobs. Wal-Mart,with its growing number of stores in Utah,now term economic projections will be positive. ranks sixth. Convergys,a multi-county telemarketing company that • employs roughly 8,000 workers, ranks ninth in the list of top ten major • employers in Utah. Labor Force Composition. In 2001,Utah's civilian,non- • institutionalized labor force comprised 72%of the state's 15 years and 411 over population. This is significantly higher than the national average of • 67%. Both Utah women and men take part in the labor market at higher rates than their national counterparts. • One reason for Utah's high labor force participation is its young • population. Moreover,Utah's teenagers and young adults are much • more likely to work than their U.S.peers. In addition,Utah's 55 years and older population comprises a relatively small share of the state's • adult population,and Utahns in this category are also more likely to work IP 50 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Employment,Wages, Labor Force • • • • Figure 22 Unemployment Rates for Utah,California,and the U.S. 411410 10 - • • • 8 • • g • 4 - • 2 - • • • O e- N M et h CO t` CO CO O N M V' 141 O 00 01 O e- O0 00 00 00 CO CO 00 CO 00 CO O1 01 O 01 01 T O1 o 01 01 O O a) a) O1 01 01 01 01 01 01 a) 0) 01 O1 01 01 a) 0 01 01 O O O N N• N n Utah -e-U.S. - California f=forecast • Sources:Utah Department of Workforce Services,Regional Financial Associates,WEFA,Council of Economic Advisors • 4410 Figure 23 • Utah Nonagricultural Employment--Annual Percent Change: 1950 to 2002 • • 10% • • 8% • 6/o o • ',:nR11111. TIT Eir 71. • 4%• 11111 •• 2 Is IR E 2101:Ill 12,11,!!lis •:,111,1,12:8E1 Llit 1:111,1,71,11;EIHEll 2 • 2/o 0% • -2% • • -4% O N -4' O co O N t0 CO O N .0 CD 00 CZ, N d' CO 00 O N 'V CO CO O N IDIt) to u'1 I01 tO CD 00 CO 1- 1,- 1,- I-- 1' CO CO CO CO CO 01 01 CO CO CO O • rn a, 0, rn oa CA O, 0) CO 0101 CO CO CA 0f CO 01 CO 01 CO CO CO CO CO 01 0 0 N Source:Utah Department of Workforce Services f=forecast • lb • Employment,Wages, Labor Force 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 51 41 Figure 24 . Percent Change in Utah Employment by Industry:2001-2002 Annual Averages . 111101 Total 1.0/o 11E11 . Mining -9.2/0 -3.0%< . Construction . Manufacturing -6.0 Trade,Trans.,Utilities -2.5%:: >: , . Information -6.6/041 Financial Activity >gii 1.9% . ............................. Prof.&Bus.Serv. -2.3% . Ed. 0 &Health Serv. �`3.5/o Lei sure sure&Hospital ity p rtY 5.1% • Other Services MilitilliMiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieignOiligiN 3/o o • Government ' "1.1%................ ......................... • -10.0% -8.0% -6.0')/0 -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% • • Source:Utah Department of Workforce Services • • Figure 25 110° Utah and U.S.Nonagricultural Employment by Industry:2001 • U.S. Utah • Natural Natural • Construction Resources Construction • Resources Government 0.7% 6.6% Government 0 4% 5.2% 15.7% 17.6% • Manufacturing :; i1 £ --... ° :,: Manufacturing :::'s:. .:.;:...:>;:... 12.6/o 0 i Other • Services :.:::::. ::.... .....:1> ::>_. :: :... Other Servic s 11.3,0 e 4.3/o ° .;»� 2.8/o ::::.:.::.:... • Leisure& • Leisure& Hospitality • k T rade,T rans. Hospitality T rade,T rans. 5.3% s Utilities `` �* tt:., z: 5.3% 4 Utilities • 20.3/0 � � • Ed.&Health ' Ed.&Health Serv. rigii 20.3% Serv. Information 10.1% Information • 11.5% 3.1/o 2.8/° Prof.&Bus.Serv. Financial Activity o Prof.&Bus. Financial • Serv. Activity 12.6% 5.8% • 12.6% 5.9% • source:utan Department or vvoncrorce services • • El IP° 52 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Employment,Wages,Labor Force • • 0 . . • Figure 26 Utah Average Annual Pay as a Percent of the U.S.Average . 41110 • 100% . . • 95% . • 90% • • 85% • • • 80% O t• ti n O` 05 e0 N M )000 (O ti O0 . N) M) C) O Ch) °C O O• O) C) 6) C) C) 6) C) C) C) C) C) C) Cr) C) O C) C) Cr) C) C) C) C) O C) N N N • Note:For workers covered by unemployment insurance f=forecast • Source:Bureau of Labor Statistics • 41411 Figure 27 • Growth Rates for Utah Average Annual Pay: Percent Change • 12% • 10.9% 10.7%....,... • 10% 9 5°/n • • 8% . 6.4% • • 6/ 5.5% 5.3% 4.8% 4.8% 0 4 4% • 4% 40%42/0 37/04.0% 3.7/041% 3.8% 0 0 • 3.2% 2.8% 26% 23% 24% 2• 6% . • 2.2% • 2% 16% 1.2% • 0% • 03 • tiO OO 00O e0- N0 M°0 OS log O f• 00 C0 CN M tC) O O N O 6) COO COO COO O C) COO) 6) C) O C) Cf O) O O) C) C) O O N N 41111111 Source:Utah Department of Workforce Services,Council of Economic Advisors f=forecast 41 • Employment,Wages,Labor Force 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 53 • • Figure 28 . Growth Rates for Utah Total Nonagricultural Wages and Salaries: Percent Change a 16 15.2 14.3 14 12.3 . 12 11.3 10.5 • 10 9.5 9.4 9.2 • 8.6 8.6 8.8 • 8 7.1 7.1 7.6 7'4 • 62 6.4 66 6.4 5.9 • 6 5.2 • 4 3.6 3.5 3.1 2 • • 0N C) et Y) CO I`,: CO on O e- N M er It) CO N. CO CO O e- `� • n r- co co co co co co co oo co co an O) C) O O) O) O O) C) O O O N O O CO on O CO O O O O CO CO CO CO CO CO C) CO O CO O O O O O • N N N Source:Utah Department of Workforce Services,Council of Economic Advisors f=forecast • • Figure 29 1111011 Utah and U.S.Civilian Labor Force Participation Rates: Persons 16 years and Older . • 90 • 81.6 80 77.8 • 74.4 74.7 71.8 • 70 68 65.3 67.2 62.2 60.2 • 58.6 60 56.8 50 • • 40 30 • 20 • 10 • • • Utah 1990 U.S.1990 Utah 2001 U.S.2001 ®Male fl Female ❑Total • Source:U.S.Census Bureau,U.S.Department of Labor,Bureau of Labor Statistics • I, • 54 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Employment,Wages, Labor Force • • • • . • • Table 23 • Utah Nonagricultural Payroll Employment, Industry Percent of Total,and Unemployment Rates illiTotal Employment Industry Percent of Total • Percent Trade,Trans. Financial Prof.&Bus Edu.& Leisure& Other Unemployment Year Number Change Increase Mining Constru. Manufact. Utilities Infor. Acti ity Sernices Health Hospitality Semites Goat. Rates • 1940 115,000 4.6 5,100 na na na na na na na na na na na na 1941 131,800 14.6 16,800 na na na na na na na na na na na na • 1942 170,800 29.6 39,000 na na na na na na na na na na na na 1943 189,400 10.9 18,600 na na na na na na na na na na na na • 1944 173,100 -8.6 -16,300 na na na na na na na na na na na na 1945 168,800 -2.5 -4,300 na na na na na na na na na na na na 1946 168,500 -0.2 -300 na na na na na na na na na na na na • 1947 178,000 5.6 9,500 na na na na na na na na na na na na 1948 183,400 3.0 5,400 na na na na na na na na na na na na • 1949 183,500 0.1 100 na na na na na na na na na na na na 1950 189,153 3.1 5,653 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.5 1951 207,386 9.6 18,233 na na na na na na na na na na na 3.3• 1952 214,409 3.4 7,023 na na na na na na na na na na na 3.2 1953 217,194 1.3 2,785 na na na na na na na na na na na 3.3 • 1954 211,864 -2.5 -5,330 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.2 1955 224,007 5.7 12,143 na na na na na na na na na na na 4.1 • 1956 236,225 5.5 12,218 na na na na na na na na na na na 3.4 1957 240,577 1.8 4,352 na na na na na na na na na na na 3.7 • 1958 240,816 0.1 239 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.3 1959 251,940 4.6 11,124 na na na na na na na na na na na 4.6 1960 263,307 4.5 11,367 na na na na na na na na na na na 4.8 • 1961 272,355 3.4 9,048 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.3 1962 286,382 5.2 14,027 na na na na na na na na na na na 4.9 • 1963 293,758 2.6 7,376 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.4 1964 293,576 -0.1 -182 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.0 • 1965 300,164 2.2 6,588 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.1 1966 317,771 5.9 17,607 na na na na na na na na na na na 4.9 1967 326,953 2.9 9,182 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.2 • 1968 335,527 2.6 8,574 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.4 1969 348,612 3.9 13,085 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.2 • 1970 357,435 2.5 8,823 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.1 1971 369,836 3.5 12,401 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.6 1972 387,271 4.7 17,435 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.3 • 1973 415,641 7.3 28,370 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.8 1974 434,793 4.6 19,152 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.1 0 1975 441,082 1.4 6,289 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.5 1976 463,658 5.1 22,576 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.7 • 1977 489,580 5.6 25,922 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.3 1978 526,400 7.5 36,820 na na na na na na na na na na na 3.8 • 1979 549,242 4.3 22,842 na na na na na na na na na na na 4.3 1980 551,889 0.5 2,647 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.3 1981 559,184 1.3 7,295 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.7 • 1982 560,981 0.3 1,797 na na na na na na na na na na na 7.8 1983 566,991 1.1 6,010 na na na na na na na na na na na 9.2 • 1984 601,068 6.0 34,077 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.5 1985 624,387 3.9 23,319 na na na na na na na na na na na 5.9 • 1986 634,138 1.6 9,751 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.0 1987 640,298 1.0 6,160 na na na na na na na na na na na 6.4 1988 660,075 3.1 19,777 na na na na na na na na na na na 4.9• 1989 691,244 4.7 31,169 na na na na na na na na na na na 4.6 1990 723,629 4.7 32,385 1.1 3.9 14.4 21.4 2.4 4.8 9.8 9.1 8.7 2.8 21.7 4.3 • 1991 745,202 3.0 21,573 1.1 4.2 13.8 21.7 2.3 4.9 10.3 9.3 8.9 2.6 21.0 5.0 1992 768,602 3.2 23,488 1.0 4.6 13.3 21.5 2.5 5.0 9.9 9.6 9.1 2.5 20.8 5.0 • 1993 809,731 5.4 41,129 1.0 4.9 13.2 21.3 2.3 5.2 10.6 9.7 9.3 2.6 20.1 3.9 1994 859,626 6.2 49,895 0.9 5.6 13.1 21.3 2.4 5.4 10.9 9.5 9.2 2.5 19.1 3.7 1995 907,886 5.6 48,260 0.9 6.1 12.9 21.3 2.4 5.3 11.6 9.3 9.3 2.5 18.4 3.6 • 1996 954,183 5.1 46,297 0.8 6.4 12.8 20.9 2.7 5.4 12.1 9.3 9.3 2.5 17.9 3.5 1997 993,999 4.2 39,816 0.8 6.5 12.7 20.7 2.8 5.4 12.3 9.3 9.2 2.5 17.9 3.1 • 1998 1,023,480 3.0 29,461 0.7 6.7 12.5 20.6 2.9 5.5 12.4 9.4 9.1 2.6 17.7 3.8 1999 1,048,498 2.4 25,018 0.7 6.9 12.1 20.4 3.1 5.5 12.7 9.4 9.0 2.6 17.6 3.7 • 2000 1,074,879 2.5 26,381 0.7 6.7 11.7 20.4 3.3 5.5 13.0 9.5 9.0 2.7 17.7 3.2 2001 1,081,685 0.6 6,806 0.7 6.6 11.3 20.3 3.1 5.8 12.6 10.1 9.1 2.8 17.6 4.4 2002p 1,070,400 -1.0 -11,285 0.6 6.1 10.7 20.0 2.9 5.9 12.5 10.6 9.7 3.0 18.0 4.4 • p=preliminary • na=not available Source:Utah Department of Workforce SerNces,Workforce Information • • • S. • ,lb • Employment,Wages, Labor Force 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 55 rn Table 24 Utah Nonagricultural Payroll Employment by County and Major Industry:2001 Trade, Profess.& Education& oTransp., Financial Business Health Leisure& Other co Mining Construction Manufacturing Utilities Information Actility Services Services Hospitality Services Goeemment m 0 0 State Total 7,209 71,620 122,092 219,954 33,514 62,214 136,646 109,520 98,328 30,471 190,117 _3 o Beater 44 100 93 458 - 36 12 40 371 35 671 m Box Elder 28 943 7,193 3,015 153 397 730 1,068 1,270 302 2,428 o Cache 43 2,217 8,317 6,481 592 1,006 6,400 3,178 3,112 963 10,228 o Carbon 618 414 360 2,004 100 220 703 799 763 331 2,343 5 Daggett - 17 2 25 2 - 3 1 147 6 224 co o Dais 95 7,115 9,925 18,798 752 3,304 6,926 7,566 7,845 2,425 22,828 3 Duchesne 633 383 122 1,182 141 132 146 421 293 134 1,535 o Emery 688 269 22 943 162 51 102 84 143 148 893 Garfield 10 77 116 208 113 21 12 152 792 18 610 Grand 91 267 55 830 43 141 172 267 1,469 53 831 Iron 34 868 1,496 2,546 110 513 1,654 1,066 1,494 265 3,914 Juab 41 204 386 366 - 50 300 217 458 57 582 Kane - 133 373 368 6 61 32 46 901 244 738 Ell Millard 97 64 136 1,197 28 65 168 262 346 66 1,056 Morgan 7 337 241 362 33 67 21 171 28 369 Piute - 5 - 70 - 7 2 13 31 2 146 Rich - 46 4 77 - 32 7 24 126 54 205 Salt Lake 2,171 33,755 53,423 119,204 20,498 43,764 85,400 46,302 43,821 16,896 79,480 San Juan 208 201 160 571 12 51 35 339 488 67 1,683 Sanpete 8 436 903 1,133 180 181 309 553 477 120 2,502 Sever 342 377 592 2,048 69 142 305 742 772 187 1,637 Summit 70 1,562 563 2,663 227 1,049 1,232 531 5,528 386 2,035 Tooele 41 629 1,486 1,650 183 242 2,004 710 973 263 3,465 Uintah 1,688 545 166 2,182 115 275 508 678 903 269 2,531 Utah 70 10,782 19,474 25,477 7,381 5,050 18,386 30,482 12,071 3,567 21,316 m v Wasatch 29 614 234 802 43 137 337 408 978 89 1,056 o Washington 153 4,160 2,376 9,128 672 1,489 2,419 4,267 4,878 977 5,221 Wayne - 91 38 133 - 7 2 327 174 22 316 CD Weber - 5,009 13,836 16,033 1,932 3,758 8,273 8,956 7,533 2,497 19,274 ci? Note:These data are based on the new NAICS classification system and do not reflect the former SIC codes. ro S" Source:Utah Department of Workforce Semites,Workforce Information. r- d 0 0 T O 0 0 fD • • • •1P• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.0 • • • • . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e. . . . m Table 25 o Utah Nonagricultural Payroll Wages by County and Major Industry:2001 0 i rase Trans. Financial Professional& Education& Leisure& Other County Mining Construction Manufacturing Utilities Information Activity Business Sent Health Sere: Hospitality Services Government m Si' State Total $368,858,541 $2,179,248,872 $4,424,116,603 $6,162,696,028 $1,355,010,639 $2,273,193,942 $4,649,806,977 $2,960,519,382 $1,205,485,978 $674,007,268 $5,804,953,445 r- v o Beaver 1,131,575 2,077,180 2,617,611 12,194,714 - 704,533 205,258 999,576 3,441,506 489,840 14,996,007 -n Box Elder 909,614 25,579,455 354,326,108 63,260,452 2,628,283 9,846,980 23,008,711 21,288,398 10,537,431 3,999,145 64,150,514 o Cache 1,080,070 46,230,069 237,091,383 117,347,878 18,350,053 23,578,310 140,164,213 70,269,393 25,730,565 17,328,479 253,092,635 m Carbon 40,448,526 15,908,895 14,202,778 53,059,635 2,343,649 4,929,898 14,825,074 18,793,986 6,339,386 7,827,815 55,753,593 Daggett - 577,795 26,400 646,711 11,050 - 54,252 10,290 2,174,123 105,754 6,416,479 Davis 3,765,060 225,031,281 340,661,468 463,809,395 23,526,374 87,594,054 224,298,527 189,354,705 75,309,922 55,137,001 825,567,335 Duchesne 32,925,325 9,489,322 3,037,049 26,694,756 3,581,704 2,892,069 4,524,585 8,340,871 2,273,762 2,653,970 36,189,208 Emery 40,415,085 9,137,745 597,835 40,707,581 4,084,783 902,637 2,076,641 1,541,303 924,394 4,180,035 21,232,890 Garfield 430,257 1,393,043 2,170,727 3,216,052 3,601,648 413,432 124,938 2,996,147 9,965,786 260,158 15,872,388 Grand 3,745,845 6,321,871 783,953 16,212,932 927,399 2,663,427 4,060,424 5,178,779 16,776,234 921,418 23,753,818 Iron 1,178,865 18,365,007 42,217,858 51,442,357 2,518,816 11,543,249 24,735,903 20,052,239 13,038,359 4,685,823 93,223,039 Juab 1,234,760 4,988,650 12,474,253 6,538,238 - 1,062,206 10,671,458 2,979,555 3,511,117 1,014,383 13,732,907 Kane - 2,953,599 10,623,357 5,467,090 77,102 1,087,685 278,469 777,626 12,840,075 4,955,426 18,256,865 Millard 4,433,619 1,254,080 4,403,311 40,890,767 603,911 1,385,028 4,357,164 5,545,691 2,488,641 1,076,779 28,585,306 Morgan 192,585 8,937,698 8,792,880 10,386,557 - 794,657 1,761,121 314,846 1,213,829 486,954 8,993,408 EFPiute - 71,684 - 1,633,270 - 101,329 36,177 175,745 150,050 48,900 2,810,306 Rich - 1,038,322 108,895 1,123,901 - 402,145 70,828 415,976 1,082,499 634,277 4,563,597 Salt Lake 121,691,094 1,142,319,952 1,992,951,000 3,842,874,789 756,926,568 1,753,324,692 3,236,975,994 1,420,790,577 614,590,693 403,653,993 2,625,838,264 San Juan 7,074,199 4,460,040 5,870,624 9,766,774 104,307 915,883 736,062 6,281,891 6,128,648 1,097,323 42,495,799 Sanpete 250,939 9,855,196 17,177,532 17,785,827 4,338,787 3,522,663 4,782,027 10,787,135 2,508,676 2,070,719 52,335,455 Sevier 14,923,184 6,880,492 14,370,645 47,946,881 1,434,299 3,760,306 6,855,955 13,393,948 5,822,919 4,461,483 42,575,248 ^v Summit 2,586,193 52,525,963 25,187,273 57,895,034 8,739,562 36,379,516 54,498,102 13,465,889 107,010,868 8,742,241 55,889,120 0 cii Mode 2,311,138 18,242,083 53,618,562 32,220,053 5,002,154 5,340,627 89,437,341 16,104,776 8,502,452 4,459,697 125,924,990 m Uintah 80,071,842 12,675,004 3,199,922 57,362,037 2,202,606 9,707,570 11,110,447 12,528,847 6,805,912 6,099,860 67,270,582 o Utah 2,144,902 296,118,587 644,643,196 601,728,392 431,461,160 153,218,405 528,022,444 726,300,973 121,230,476 67,737,458 574,421,143 0 Wasatch 755,349 14,727,678 6,726,029 16,996,260 1,174,561 3,433,822 11,307,607 8,935,811 11,353,225 2,199,716 30,044,916 XI Washington 5,158,515 98,612,729 62,538,412 207,301,266 17,453,744 39,303,587 53,709,951 117,002,769 52,407,867 16,892,044 126,931,691 o Wayne - 1,908,887 471,405 1,877,776 - 152,621 10,124 7,433,400 1,368,923 327,520 7,367,714 Weber - 141,566,565 563,226,137 354,308,653 63,918,119 114,232,611 197,107,180 258,458,240 79,957,640 50,459,057 566,668,228 0 0 CD Notes:Totals differ in this table from other tables due to different release dates or data sources. Also,these data are based on the new NAICS classification system and do not reflect the former SIC codes. , o 3 Source:Utah Department of Workforce Services,Workforce Information. 0 al v Cri Table 26 op Utah Average Monthly Wage by Industry • 8 Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 m Total Nonagricultural Jobs $1,644 $1,710 $1,801 $1,823 $1,867 $1,936 $2,016 $2,114 $2,202 $2,291 $2,401 $2,470 3 Mining 3,010 2,973 3,179 3,253 3,293 3,314 3,470 3,658 3,752 3,759 3,997 4,264 x Construction 1,833 1,916 1,888 1,875 1,942 2,049 2,102 2,209 2,279 2,370 2,481 2,536 o Manufacturing 2,047 2,143 2,233 2,238 2,300 2,386 2,502 2,616 2,684 2,767 2,915 3,020 Trade, Trans., Utilities 1,621 1,603 1,694 1,740 1,788 1,825 1,951 2,047 2,112 2,245 2,322 2,335 g Information 2,260 2,474 2,648 2,513 2,301 2,408 2,531 2,797 2,929 3,303 3,506 3,369 c� Financial Activity 1,759 1,838 2,000 2,097 2,097 2,212 2,367 2,511 2,728 2,754 2,925 . 3,045 m Professional & Business Sery 1,658 1,853 2,079 2,098 2,154 2,259 2,229 2,341 2,474 2,602 2,720 2,836 o Education& Health Serv. 1,617 1,673 1,745 1,769 1,820 1,873 1,925 1,996 2,061 2,099 2,210 2,253 Leisure& Hospitality 588 613 640 653 678 709 752 796 848 888 958 1,021 Other Seances 1,111 1,105 1,119 1,162 1,223 1,294 1,373 1,453 1,532 1,591 1,639 1,843 Gommment 1,697 1,804 1,883 1,911 1,970 2,040 2,116 2,185 2,264 2,304 2,417 2,544 EPYear-0\er Percent Change Industry 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 99-00 00-01 Total Nonagricultural Jobs 4.0 5.3 1.2 2.4 3.7 4.1 4.8 4.2 4.1 4.8 2.8 Mining -1.2 6.9 2.3 1.2 0.6 4.7 5.4 2.6 0.2 6.3 6.7 Construction 4.5 -1.5 -0.7 3.6 5.5 2.6 5.1 3.2 4.0 4.7 2.2 Manufacturing 4.7 4.2 0.2 2.8 3.7 4.9 4.6 2.6 3.1 5.4 3.6 Trade, Trans., Utilities -1.1 5.6 2.7 2.8 2.1 6.9 4.9 3.2 6.3 3.4 0.6 Information 9.5 7.0 -5.1 -8.4 4.7 5.1 10.5 4.7 12.8 6.1 -3.9 m Financial Activity 4.5 8.8 4.8 0.0 5.5 7.0 6.1 8.7 0.9 6.2 4.1 -o Professional & Business Sery 11.8 12.2 0.9 2.7 4.9 -1.3 5.0 5.7 5.2 4.5 4.3 Education& Health Sery 3.5 4.3 1.4 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.7 3.3 1.8 5.3 1.9 0 Leisure& Hospitality 4.2 4.5 1.9 3.9 4.6 6.1 5.9 6.5 4.7 7.9 6.6 i Other Services -0.5 1.2 3.9 5.3 5.8 6.1 5.8 5.4 3.9 3.0 12.5 Govemment 6.3 4.4 1.5 3.1 3.6 3.7 3.2 3.6 1.8 4.9 5.3 CD Cl, C- a- o Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Information. -17 0 CD • • • •t• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • As • ii • . . . .i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i. . . . g Table 27 o Utah Population,Labor Force,Nonagricultural Jobs and Wages Percent Change d 1999 2000 2001 2002(f) 2003(f) 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 CD m so v Total Population 2,193,000 2,247,000 2,296,000 2,335,000 2,380,000 2.5 2.5 2.2 1.7 0 EI -n Civilian Labor Force 1,086,100 1,104,200 1,115,380 1,127,660 1,141,000 1.7 1.7 3.4 1.9 m Employed Persons 1,045,500 1,068,400 1,066,700 1,060,000 1,080,530 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.3 Unemployed Persons 40,600 35,800 48,700 67,660 60,470 -11.8 -11.8 39.7 16.0 Unemployment Rate 3.7 3.2 4.4 6.0 5.3 U.S. Rate 4.2 4.0 4.8 5.9 5.7 Total Nonfarm Jobs 1,048,498 1,074,879 1,081,685 1,070,400 1,078,200 2.5 0.6 -1.0 0.7 Mining 7,203 7,350 7,209 6,700 6,500 2.0 -1.9 -7.1 -3.0 Construction 72,783 72,239 71,621 65,000 62,300 -0.7 -0.9 -9.2 -4.2 Manufacturing 126,696 125,675 122,093 114,800 115,200 -0.8 -2.9 -6.0 0.3 Trade,Trans., Utilities 213,735 218,929 219,945 214,500 215,300 2.4 0.5 -2.5 0.4 Information 32,601 34,950 33,512 31,300 31,500 7.2 -4.1 -6.6 0.6 Financial Activity 57,935 58,784 62,213 63,400 63,200 1.5 5.8 1.9 -0.3 EFProfessional& Business Services 133,051 139,298 136,645 133,500 133,200 - 4.7 -1.9 -2.3 -0.2 Education&Health Services 98,124 101,810 109,516 113,400 116,100 1.4 7.6 3.5 2.4 Leisure& Hospitality 94,348 96,876 98,345 103,400 105,800 1.8 1.5 5.1 2.3 Other Services 27,167 28,849 30,471 32,100 33,300 2.5 5.6 5.3 3.7 Government 184,855 190,119 190,115 192,300 195,800 1.7 0.0 1.1 1.8 o Goods-producing 206,682 205,264 200,923 186,500 184,000 1.2 -2.1 -7.2 -1.3 co Service-producing 841,816 869,615 880,762 883,900 894,200 2.8 1.3 0.4 1.2 m Percent Svc.-producing 80.3% 80.9% 81.4% 82.6% 82.9% b 0 3. U.S. Nonfarm Job Growth% 2.4 2.2 0.3 -0.8 1.4 xi o Total Nonag Wages (millions) $28,828 $30,975 $32,058 $32,540 $33,600 7.4 3.5 1.5 3.3 =. Average Annual Wage $27,495 $28,817 $29,637 $30,400 $31,163 4.8 2.8 2.6 2.5 g Average Monthly Wage $2,291 $2,401 $2,470 $2,533 $2,597 4.8 2.9 2.6 2.5 o 0 Establishments (first quarter) 61,818 63,723 66,287 68,000 m 3 p= preliminary f=forecast Note: Numbers in this table may differ from other tables due to different data sources. co Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services,Workforce Information. 41 III I• Table 28III Utah's Civilian Labor Force and Components by Planning District and County:2001111110 I Civilian Total Total Unemployment . County Labor Force Employed Unemployed Rate . State Total 1,115,380 1,066,661 48,719 4.4 I Beaver 2,351 2,253 98 4.2 • Box Elder 16,988 16,040 948 5.6 Cache 44,765 43,330 1,435 3.2 • Carbon 8,869 8,306 563 6.3 Daggett 413 394 19 4.6 • Davis 123,005 118,310 4,695 3.8 0 Duchesne 6,048 5,671 377 6.2 • Emery 3,696 3,341 355 9.6 • Garfield 2,731 2,480 251 9.2 • Grand 5,197 4,847 350 6.7 • Iron 14,865 14,184 681 4.6 • Juab 3,694 3,510 184 5.0 • Kane 2,859 2,758 101 3.5 Millard 4,291 4,082 209 4.9 • Morgan 3,580 3,450 130 3.6 IP Piute 613 566 47 7.7 • Rich 952 915 37 3.9 • Salt Lake 486,166 465,220 20,946 4.3 • San Juan 4,303 3,913 390 9.1 Sanpete 8,811 8,306 505 5.7 • Sevier 8,160 7,785 375 4.6 • Summit 15,092 14,216 876 5.8 • Tooele 12,834 11,888 946 7.4 • Uintah 11,707 11,165 542 4.6 • Utah 172,455 165,933 6,522 3.8 • Wasatch 6,577 6,213 364 5.5 • Washington 41,139 39,580 1,559 3.8 • Wayne 1,553 1,471 82 5.3 Weber 101,669 96,535 5,134 5.0 • Salt Lake-Ogden MSA 710,840 680,066 30,774 4.3 • • Note: Numbers have been left unrounded for convenience rather than to denote accuracy. • Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Information. 4110 lb • 60 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Employment,Wages, Labor Force • • • • Table 29 Utah's Largest Nonagricultural Employers: December 2001 Illik Approximate Firm Name Business Employment • • State of Utah State Government 22,500 Intermountain Health Care(INC) Hospitals and Clinics 22,000 • University of Utah(Incl. Hospital) Higher Education 18,000 Brigham Young University Higher Education 18,000 • Hill Air Force Base Military Installation 11,500 Jordan School District Public Education 9,000 Wal-Mart Stores Department Stores 9,000 • Granite School District Public Education 8,000 Convergys Telemarketing 8,000 • Davis County School District Public Education 6,500 • Utah State University Higher Education 6,000 Salt Lake County Local Government 6,000 • Smith's Food King Grocery Stores 5,500 U.S. Postal Service Mail Distribution 5,500 • Alpine School District Public Education 5,500 • Novus (Discover Card) Consumer Loans 5,500 Internal Revenue Service Federal Government 5,000 • Albertsons Grocery Stores 5,000 Delta Airlines Air Transportation 4,500 • Autoliv ASP (Morton Intl) Automotive Components Mfg. 4,500 • Salt Lake City School District Public Education 4,000 Weber County School District Public Education 3,500 • United Parcel Service Courier Service 3,500 Icon Health& Fitness Exercise Equipment Mfg. 3,500 Zlons First National Bank Banking 3,500 INF ATK Thiokol Propulsion Aerospace Equipment Mfg. 3,000 Salt Lake City Corporation Local Government 3,000 • Qwest Communications Telephone Service/Communications 3,000 • Weber State University Higher Education 3,000 Salt Lake Community College Higher Education 3,000 • K Mart Corp. Department Stores 2,500 Nebo School District Public Education 2,500 • Dick Simon Trucking Trucking 2,500 • Provo City School District Public Education 2,500 Utah Valley State College Higher Education 2,500 • Fred Meyer Stores Department Stores 2,000 Kennecott Minerals Copper Mining and Smelting 2,000 • Communications & Commerce Telemarketing 2,000 III Novell Corp(Utah Power) Electric Power Generation and Distrib. 2,000 Novell Computer Software 2,500 • Wells Fargo Banking 2,000 Washington County School District Public Education 2,000 • JC Penney Company Department Stores 2,000 • Super Target Stores Department Stores 2,000 RC Willey Home Furnishings Home Furnishings Store 2,000 • Shopko Stores Department Stores 2,000 Macey's Inc. Grocery Stores 2,000 • Kelly Services Temporary Employment Placement 2,000 • Ogden City School District Public Education 2,000 Skywest Airlines Air Transportation 2,000 • Home Depot Building Supply Store 2,000 Utah Transit Authority Bus Transportation 2,000 • Sinclair Oil Hotels and Ski Resort 2,000 _iik 11111. Source:Utah Department of Workforce Services,Workforce Information. • II • Employment,Wages, Labor Force 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 61 a; Table 30 Employment Status of Utah's Population,Class of Worker,and Reason for Unemployment IV 1999 2000 2001 wPercent Percent Percent U.S. Percent Change m Number Distribution Number Distribution Number Distribution Distribution 1998-99 1999-00 0 0 g Employment Status of Civilian Noninstitutional Population Population Age 16 and Over 1,500,000 100.0 1,527,000 100.0 1,552,000 100.0 100.0 1.8 1.6 7.1 Civilian Labor Force 1,086,100 72.4 1,104,200 72.3 1,115,000 71.8 67.2 1.7 1.0 o Participation Rate 72.466667 - 72.311722 - 71.842784 - - - - P. g Total Employed Persons 1,045,500 69.7 1,068,400 70.0 1,067,000 68.8 64.5 2.2 -0.1 m Unemployed 40,600 2.7 35,800 2.3 48,000 3.1 2.7 -11.8 34.1 G) Unemployment Rate 3.7 - 3.2 - 4.3 - 4.0 - - o Not in Labor Force 413,900 27.6 422,800 27.7 437,000 28.2 32.8 2.2 3.4 I o Class of Worker of Employed Persons Total Employed Persons 1,045,500 100.0 1,068,400 100.0 1,067,000 100.0 100.0 2.2 -0.1 Total Nonagricultural Workers 1,026,700 98.2 1,043,100 97.6 1,044,400 97.9 97.6 1.6 0.1 Wage and Salaried 954,700 91.3 969,100 90.7 970,100 90.9 90.4 1.5 0.1 Self Employed, Private ErHousehold, Unpaid Family 72,000 6.9 74,000 6.9 74,300 7.0 7.2 2.8 0.4 Total Agricultural Workers 18,800 1.8 25,300 2.4 22,600 2.1 2.4 34.6 -10.7 Reason for Unemployment Total Unemployed Persons* 40,000 100.0 36,000 100.0 48,000 100.0 -10.0 33.3 Job Losers 12,000 30.0 13,800 38.3 na na 15.0 Job Leavers 7,500 18.8 3,800 10.6 na na -49.3 Re-entrants 17,500 43.7 15,600 43.3 na na -10.9 New Entrants 3,000 7.5 2,800 7.8 na na -6.7 Note:Totals differ in this table from other tables due to different release dates or data sources. m *Total shown is sum of components. It may be different than the unemployed estimate in employment status portion of table. B oSource: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,Geographic Profile of Employment and Unemployment, 1998, 1999,2000; unpublished tabulations. B CD I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •,• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .• • • • • • • • e• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • g Table 31 e Employment Status of Utah's Civilian Noninstitutional Population by Sex&Age:2001 Annual Averages 3 o Civilian Labor Force Unemployment Ciulian CiNilian Labor Force co Noninstitutional Percent of Total Error Range Percent of CD Population Number Population Employment Number Rate of Rate* Population r o Total 1,552,000 1,115,000 71.8% 1,067,000 48,000 4.3 3.9-4.9 67.2 0 16 to 19 years 157,000 104,000 66.2 91,000 13,000 12.5 9.4-14.2 52.2 0 20 to 24 years 207,000 170,000 82.1 158,000 12,000 7.1 5.3-8.5 77.9 cp 25 to 34 years 327,000 269,000 82.3 258,000 11,000 4.1 2.8-4.8 84.6 35 to 44 years 288,000 248,000 86.1 240,000 8,000 3.2 2.2-4.2 84.8 45 to 54 years 229,000 196,000 85.6 192,000 4,000 2.0 1.4-3.2 82.6 55 to 64 years 160,000 103,000 64.4 101,000 2,000 1.9 .3-2.1 59.2 65 and o',er 182,000 27,000 14.8 26,000 1,000 3.7 .4-6.2 12.8 Men Total 768,000 627,000 81.6 603,000 24,000 3.8 3.2-4.6 74.7 16 to 19 years 79,000 53,000 67.1 47,000 6,000 11.3 8.4-15.0 53.0 20 to 24 years 103,000 91,000 88.3 84,000 7,000 7.7 5.0-9.4 82.6 25 to 34 years 167,000 161,000 96.4 157,000 4,000 2.5 1.8-4.0 93.4 IF35 to 44 years 145,000 139,000 95.9 134,000 5,000 3.6 2.0-4.6 92.6 45 to 54 years 115,000 109,000 94.8 107,000 2,000 1.8 .6-2.6 88.6 55 to 64 years 80,000 57,000 71.3 57,000 67.3 65 and over 17.5 Women 784,000 488,000 62.2 464,000 24,000 4.9 4.2-5.8 Total 78,000 50,000 64.1 44,000 6,000 12.0 8.4-15.2 60.2 "co 16 to 19 years 105,000 79,000 75.2 74,000 5,000 6.3 4.3-8.9 51.3 w 20 to 24 years 159,000 107,000 67.3 102,000 5,000 4.7 3.4-7.0 73.3 m 143,000 109,000 76.2 106,000 3,000 2.8 1.7-4.5 76.3 35 to 44 years 114,000 87,000 76.3 84,000 3,000 3.4 1.6-4.8 77.3 o 3 45 to 54 years 80,000 45,000 56.3 44,000 1,000 2.2 .4-4.2 76.8 X 55to64years 51.8 0 65 and mer 120,000 90,000 75.0 84,000 6,000 6.7 4.7-9.1 9.4 p- 64,000 57,000 89.1 54,000 3,000 5.3 2.9-7.9 0 Hispanic Origin 56,000 33,000 58.9 30,000 3,000 9.1 5.4-13.4 68.6 m Men 56,000 50,000 88.3 47,000 3,000 5.3 2.8-7.8 80.6 o Woman 48,000 31,000 64.9 29,000 2,000 5.2 2.1 -8.4 56.9 m 3 9. *90-percent confidence interval. Note: Numbers in this table differ from other tables due to rounding. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished printout. rn w el I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • Personal Income • ii, f vetview, government(including military)pays 19%. Trade(wholesale plus retail) 0 t�taf�s-�(102 fc� d tatai-peril iearie�af- �� �is,u lo• iilia� 2� , accounts for roughly 15%of Utah's total earnings,while manufacturing from tf 2001:tot i=Atsis bek the1 , gr # f recastof t0 . '_ - constitutes 13%. Construction,transportation/utilities,and • 1Jtah's 2002`per t apit t=persona[WidOini44dreciitiiiat$24 Tht},an finance/insurance/real estate are all between 7%and 8%,while mining • inci se-oft A%;over the 301 astitnats tahe 2001-peir capita-income and agriculture/agricultural services each generated about 1%of ranks-4ai t ng tkie: 0 states,( x0l tieg Washington,DC): earnings. • 2002 Summary and 2003 Outlook Per Capita Personal Income. Utah's 2001 per capita personal income • Utah's 2002 total personal income(TPI)is forecasted at$56.4 billion,up of$24,180 ranked 45th among the 50 states(excluding Washington • 2.7%from the 2001 total. If the forecast holds,this will be the lowest D.C.). During the 1970s,Utah's PCI ranged between 83%and 85%of total personal income growth in at least the last 40 years. The primary the United States PCI. However,from 1977 to 1989,this parameter • cause of this anomoly is the economic recession that has characterized dropped 10 percentage points(from 85%to 75%). From 1989 to 1997, • most of 2002. Utah's 2002 TPI growth is lower than the forecasted gradual improvements in this comparison occurred:it peaked at 81%in national TPI growth of 3.0%. The declining national TPI growth will also 1997,then slipped back to 79%in 2000 and 2001. • be the lowest growth rate in over 40 years. The Utah and U.S. economic slowdown of 2001-2002 is evident in these TPI low-growth County Personal and Per Capita Income. Unlike the past two years, • rates. none of Utah's 29 counties posted double-digit 2000 to 2001 growth rates in total personal income. In fact,only Tooele County registered • Per capita personal income(PCI)is an area's annual total personal growth of over 8%. Most counties were in the 3%to 4%growth range. • income divided by the total population as of July 1 of that year. Utah's These slower growth rates are a direct reflection of the sharp economic 2002 PCI is approximately$24,750,an increase of 2.4%over the 2001 contraction that began in 2001. • estimate. Utah's 2002 PCI is around 80%of the national PCI. Utah's PCI,as a percent of the national PCI,rose in the early 1990s from 77%, Four counties,Summit,Salt Lake,Kane,and Davis,have 2001 PCI • leveling off around 81%in 1997,and has fallen slightly since. estimates higher than the state average. Summit County's$41,400 is • the highest in Utah;it exceeds the state average by 71%. San Juan Significant Issues County's$12,800 is the lowest;it is only 53%of the Utah average. The • Composition of Total Personal Income. The largest single component 2001 per capita income of the United States,at$30,177,is higher than • of total personal income is"earnings by place of work." This portion that of all of Utah's counties except Summit County. • consists of the total earnings from farm and nonfarm industries,including contributions for social insurance. In 2001,Utahns'earnings by place of Conclusion work reached$42.2 billion,representing 77%of TPI. About 10%of this The slowing year-over gains in Utah's total and per capita personal • figure was proprietors'income,while 90%was wages,salaries,and income estimates are a direct reflection of the current contraction in • other labor income. Nonfarm earnings($41.9 billion)were over 99%of Utah's economy. Utah's average,to a greater degree than the national total earnings while farm income comprised less than 1%. Private sector average,relies heavily upon wage earnings for its income generation. • nonfarm earnings accounted for 81%of nonfarm earnings,while Lost jobs have a strong negative impact on total personal income. earnings from public(government)industries made up 19%. Although Moreover,the average annual pay of Utah's workers is somewhat lower • earnings from government employment have been declining as a share than the U.S.average,which contributes to the state's lower ranking in • of Utah's total earnings,it is still relatively more important than the U.S. per capita personal income. share(19%to 16%,respectively). • The other two major components of TPI are dividends,interest,and rent • (DIR),and transfer payments. In 2001,DIR amounted to$9.2 billion, • and transfer payments were$5.8 billion. Some of the major differences between the economic compositions of Utah and the United States lie in • these two parameters. Perhaps the most significant is that Utah transfer payments comprise a much smaller share of TPI than the national figure • (11%versus 14%). DIR is also relatively smaller. Thus,Utahns must • rely to a greater extent on wage earnings. The problem with this is that Utah's average wage is only 83%(in 2001)of the U.S.average. • The evolution of the industrial composition of Utah's TPI has changed in • recent years. In 1980,prior to the last two recessions,goods-producing • industries(mining,construction,manufacturing)generated over 30%of Utah's total earnings. By 2001,that share had dropped to 21%. • Similarly,22%of U.S.earnings are from goods-producing jobs. • Four major industry sectors generate over three-fourths of Utah's total OUP earnings. The service sector is the leader providing 28%of earnings; • lb , • Personal Income 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 65 • • Figure 30 . Utah Per Capita Personal Income as a Percent of U.S. 111111110 90 • • 84.9 85.3 :4.9 • 85 84.1 84.2 :4.4 83.7 • 82.8 2 5 82.9 :3.1 :2.4 82.4 82.3 • •1.3 81.1 :0.7 :0.6 • 804 :0.4 80 79.5 79.. 79.6 794 79.6 78.9 78.9 • 77.9 78.1 77.6 774 76.6 • 75.6 753 • 75 • • • 70 co © . N M O w F- co C) O N CO e} )L) IC F- co C) O N CO N IC N. CO C) O N • N. N. F- N. ). N. N. oD ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao ao o) o) C) C) C) G) C) O C) O O N C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) C) a°)) C) O o N N N . Source:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis,Governor's Office of Planning and Budget • f=forecast • 4100 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 66 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Personallncome • • • • • • • • e• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •e• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •e• • • • Table 32 o Components of Utah's Total Personal Income . g Millions of Dollars Percent Change 2001 Percent Distribution B Components 1999r 2000r 2001p 99-00 00-01 Utah U.S. m Personal income $48,923 $52,622 $54,884 7.6 4.3 100.0 100.0 Earnings by place of work 38,071 40,706 42,229 6.9 3.7 76.9 71.9 less:Personal contrb.for social insurance 2,170 2,293 2,406 5.7 4.9 4.4 4.3 plus:Adjustment for residence 24 22 26 -8.3 18.2 0.0 0.0 equals:Net earnings by place of residence 35,925 38,435 39,850 7.0 3.7 72.6 67.6 plus:Dividends,interest,and rent 7,940 8,854 9,189 11.5 3.8 16.7 18.9 plus:Transfer payments 5,058 5,334 5,845 5.5 9.6 10.6 13.5 Components of earnings 38,071 40,706 42,229 6.9 3.7 76.9 71.9 Wage and salary disbursements 30,410 32,660 33,792 7.4 3.5 61.6 57.0 Other labor income 3,710 3,959 4,201 6.7 6.1 7.7 6.5 Proprietors'income 8/ 3,951 4,087 4,236 3.4 3.6 7.7 8.4 Farm proprietors'income 154 84 188 -45.5 123.8 0.3 0.2 Industry Distribution Nonfarm proprietors'income 3,797 4,003 4,048 5.4 1.1 7.4 8.2 Utah U.S. Earnings by industry 38,071 40,706 42,229 6.9 3.7 76.9 71.9 100% 100% Farm earnings 251 190 297 -24.3 56.3 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 EpNonfarm earnings 37,820 40,516 41,932 7.1 3.5 76.4 71.4 99.3 99.4 Private earnings 28,992 33,057 34,006 14.0 2.9 62.0 60.0 80.5 83.4 Ag.services,forestry,fishing&other 157 184 203 17.2 10.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 Mining 427 468 479 9.6 2.4 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.9 Construction 3,036 3,162 3,227 4.2 2.1 5.9 4.4 7.6 6.1 Manufacturing 5,028 5,260 5,263 4.6 0.1 9.6 10.6 12.5 14.8 Durable goods 3,528 3,714 3,645 5.3 -1.9 6.6 6.6 8.6 9.2 Nondurable goods 1,500 1,547 1,618 3.1 4.6 2.9 4.0 3.8 5.6 o Transportation and public utilities 2,789 2,985 3,064 7.0 2.6 5.6 4.9 7.3 6.8 w Wholesale trade 2,172 2,345 2,324 8.0 -0.9 4.2 4.3 5.5 6.0 0 Retail trade 3,908 3,975 4,087 1.7 2.8 7.4 6.3 9.7 8.8 = Finance,insurance,and real estate 2,981 3,148 3,355 5.6 6.6 6.1 6.9 7.9 9.7 § Services 10,393 11,531 12,006 10.9 4.1 21.9 21.3 28.4 29.7 Government and government enterprises 6,928 7,459 7,926 7.7 6.3 14.4 11.5 18.8 15.9 co Federal,civilian 1,776 1,982 2,068 11.6 4.3 3.8 2.2 4.9 3.0 o Military 393 424 454 7.9 7.1 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.3 o State 1,906 2,053 2,199 7.7 7.1 4.0 2.4 5.2 3.3 s Local 2,852 3,000 3,205 5.2 6.8 5.8 6.0 7.6 8.3 m o Population(thousands) 2,193 2,247 2,296 3 Per capita personal income(dollars) 22,202 23,476 24,180 gl r=revised p=preliminary Note:The above population estimates,prepared by the U.S.Department of Commerce,differ somewhat from Utah Population Estimates Committee numbers. Source:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis,September 2002. III 411 Table 33 . Personal and Per Capita Income-Utah and U.S. Total Personal Income Per Capita Personal Income IP (millions of dollars) Annual Growth Rates (dollars) . Utah as % Year Utah U.S. Utah U.S. Utah U.S. of U.S. . 1960 $1,832 $409,617 6.9 4.4 $2,035 $2,276 89.4 1961 1,958 427,094 6.9 4.3 2,091 2,334 89.6 . 1962 2,137 454,486 9.1 6.4 2,230 2,447 91.1 1963 2,221 477,521 4.0 5.1 2,281 2,534 90.0 • 1964 2,334 511,831 5.1 7.2 2,386 2,679 89.1 0 1965 2,472 553,074 5.9 8.1 2,494 2,859 87.2 1966 2,629 601,119 6.3 8.7 2,605 3,075 84.7 . 1967 2,773 644,282 5.5 7.2 2,721 3,264 83.4 . 1968 2,984 707,542 7.6 9.8 2,900 3,550 81.7 1969 3,249 774,262 8.9 9.4 3,103 3,846 80.7 • 1970 3,614 834,455 11.2 7.8 3,391 4,095 82.8 • 1971 4,026 899,249 11.4 7.8 3,658 4,348 84.1 1972 4,514 988,362 12.1 9.9 3,979 4,723 84.2 • 1973 5,057 1,107,992 12.0 12.1 4,326 5,242 82.5 1974 5,686 1,220,181 12.4 10.1 4,743 5,720 82.9 • 1975 6,355 1,326,214 11.8 8.7 5,150 6,155 83.7 • 1976 7,302 1,469,752 14.9 10.8 5,739 6,756 84.9 1977 8,331 1,630,901 14.1 11.0 6,328 7,421 85.3 • 1978 9,606 1,841,340 15.3 12.9 7,041 8,291 84.9 • 1979 11,026 2,072,839 14.8 12.6 7,786 9,230 84.4 1980 12,464 2,313,921 13.0 11.6 8,464 10,183 83.1 All 1981 14,078 2,588,335 13.0 11.9 9,290 11,280 82.4 11.0 1982 15,282 2,756,954 8.5 6.5 9,807 11,901 82.4 1983 16,481 2,935,040 7.8 6.5 10,333 12,554 82.3 1984 18,223 3,260,064 10.6 11.1 11,233 13,824 81.3 1111 1985 19,462 3,498,662 6.8 7.3 11,846 14,705 80.6 1986 20,367 3,697,359 4.6 5.7 12,248 15,397 79.5 • 1987 21,208 3,945,515 4.1 6.7 12,638 16,284 77.6 • 1988 22,225 4,255,000 4.8 7.8 13,156 17,403 75.6 1989 23,843 4,582,429 7.3 7.7 13,977 18,566 75.3 • 1990 25,939 4,885,525 8.8 6.6 14,996 19,584 76.6 1991 27,750 5,065,416 7.0 3.7 15,603 20,039 77.9 • 1992 29,788 5,376,622 7.3 6.1 16,234 20,979 77.4 • 1993 31,950 5,598,446 7.3 4.1 16,844 21,557 78.1 1994 34,579 5,878,362 8.2 5.0 17,651 22,358 78.9 • 1995 37,278 6,192,235 7.8 5.3 18,514 23,272 79.6 • 1996 40,354 6,538,103 8.3 5.6 19,519 24,286 80.4 1997 43,696 6,928,545 8.3 6.0 20,618 25,427 81.1 110 1998 46,781 7,418,497 7.1 7.1 21,624 26,909 80.4 • 1999 48,923 7,779,511 4.6 4.9 22,202 27,880 79.6 2000 52,623 8,398,796 7.6 8.0 23,476 29,770 78.9 • 2001(p) 54,884 8,678,255 4.3 3.3 24,180 30,472 79.4 • 2002(f) 56,366 8,939,000 2.7 3.0 24,750 31,100 79.6 p= preliminary • • f=forecast Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget • illiP Ili • 68 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Personal Income • • • • Table 34 Total Personal Income by District and County 4116 IMF Millions of Dollars Percent Change • 1998 1999 2000(p) 2001(f) 98-99 99-00 00-01 • State Total $46,771.9 $48,922.7 $52,622.3 $54,883.7 4.6 7.6 4.3 Bear River 2,468.1 2,583.8 2,706.0 2,806.9 4.7 4.7 3.7 • Box Elder 856.0 894.3 957.0 1,004.9 4.5 7.0 5.0 • Cache 1,582.7 1,656.9 1,714.7 1,766.1 4.7 3.5 3.0 Rich 29.4 32.6 34.3 35.9 10.9 5.2 4.7 • Wasatch Front 31,970.9 33,490.9 35,797.8 37,130.7 4.8 6.9 3.7 • North 9,272.3 9,745.6 10,437.0 10,890.6 5.1 7.1 4.3 • Davis 5,056.5 5,381.5 5,790.3 6,114.6 6.4 7.6 5.6 Morgan 137.5 145.3 157.6 165.7 5.7 8.5 5.1 • Weber 4,078.3 4,218.8 4,489.1 4,610.3 3.4 6.4 2.7 • South 22,698.6 23,745.3 25,360.8 26,240.1 4.6 6.8 3.5 0 Salt Lake 22,091.0 23,071.5 24,588.7 25,400.1 4.4 6.6 3.3 Tooele 607.E 673.8 772.1 840.0 10.9 14.6 8.8 I Mountainland 7,462.8 7,981.0 8,635.7 9,046.3 6.9 8.2 4.8 • Summit 1,040.2 1,124.4 1,214.9 1,295.1 8.1 8.0 6.6 Utah 6,141.5 6,550.6 7,088.8 7,393.6 6.7 8.2 4.3 • Wasatch 281.1 306.0 332.0 357.6 8.9 8.5 7.7 • Central 992.4 1,037.6 1,078.5 1,112.0 4.6 3.9 3.1 • Juab 118.4 121.E 126.0 129.9 2.7 3.6 3.1 Millard 203.3 206.5 209.E 211.5 1.6 1.5 0.9 • Piute 21.5 22.1 21.4 21.6 2.7 -3.2 0.9 de Sanpete 303.3 324.4 339.0 350.5 7.0 4.5 3.4 Sevier 303.2 317.7 335.0 349.4 4.8 5.4 4.3 • Wayne 42.7 45.3 47.5 49.1 6.1 4.9 3.4 • Southwestern 2,316.7 2,444.8 2,628.0 2,760.9 5.5 7.5 5.1 Beaver 100.8 110.2 128.5 138.4 9.3 16.6 7.7 • Garfield 75.7 79.4 82.8 86.1 4.9 4.3 4.0 Iron 501.3 518.2 546.9 560.8 3.4 5.5 2.5 41) Kane 128.1 131.0 143.0 148.6 2.3 9.2 3.9 • Washington 1,510.8 1,606.0 1,726.8 1,827.0 6.3 7.5 5.8 • Uintah Basin 630.1 646.1 702.9 749.8 2.5 8.8 6.7 Daggett 12.9 13.2 13.2 13.3 2.3 0.0 0.8 • Duchesne 235.4 236.8 255.7 272.1 0.6 8.0 6.4 Uintah 381.8 396.1 434.0 464.4 3.7 9.6 7.0 • Southeastern 931.0 964.4 983.4 1,000.6 3.6 2.0 1.7 • Carbon 417.9 430.0 443.2 454.3 2.9 3.1 2.5 • Emery 177.7 182.7 189.5 193.1 2.8 3.7 1.9 Grand 157.4 169.2 169.2 172.9 7.5 0.0 2.2 • San Juan 178.0 182.5 181.5 180.3 2.5 -0.5 -0.7 • Salt Lake-Ogden MSA 31,225.8 32,671.8 34,868.1 36,125.0 4.6 6.7 3.6 U.S. percent change -- -- -- -- 4.9 8.0 3.3 • p= preliminary • f=forecast • • Note: The 1999 and 2000 state total estimates are comparable with the county estimates but • not with the estimates shown elsewhere in this chapter. IMF Sources: 1998-2000, State Total 2001: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, BEA, May, September 2001; 2001: Utah Department of Workforce Services,Workforce Information, November 2002. • Personal Income 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 69 I Table 35 . Per Capita Income by District and CountyAiLn. Millions of Dollars Percent Change IPS 1998 1999 2000(p) 2001(f) 98-99 99-00 00-01 . State Total $21,594 $22,202 $23,476 $24,180 2.8 5.7 3.0 . Bear River 18,737 19,246 19,793 20,252 2.7 2.8 2.3 • Box Elder 20,591 21,104 22,321 23,237 2.5 5.8 4.1 Cache 17,612 18,350 18,714 18,915 4.2 2.0 1.1 • Rich 15,729 16,935 17,447 18,104 7.7 3.0 3.8 • Wasatch Front 22,802 25,193 25,768 26,233 10.5 2.3 1.8 • North 21,771 22,360 23,458 24,057 2.7 4.9 2.6 • Davis 21,896 22,812 24,100 24,973 4.2 5.6 3.6 Morgan 20,074 20,779 21,995 22,708 3.5 5.9 3.2 • Weber 21,369 21,780 22,757 22,986 1.9 4.5 1.0 • South 25,048 25,712 26,856 27,256 2.7 4.4 1.5 Salt Lake 25,051 25,891 27,330 27,661 3.4 5.6 1.2 I. Tooele 17,188 17,695 18,542 18,906 2.9 4.8 2.0 • Mountainland 19,302 19,862 20,691 20,896 2.9 4.2 1.0 • Summit 37,189 38,767 40,528 41,405 4.2 4.5 2.2 Utah 17,380 18,114 19,128 19,170 4.2 5.6 0.2 • Wasatch 20,144 20,991 21,547 22,424 4.2 2.6 4.1 Central 15,344 15,902 16,217 16,899 3.6 2.0 4.2 • Juab 15,122 15,053 15,206 15,158 -0.5 1.0 -0.3 • Millard 16,539 16,629 16,880 17,159 0.5 1.5 1.7 • Piute 15,743 15,529 14,833 15,385 -1.4 -4.5 3.7 Sanpete 13,877 14,385 14,858 15,095 3.7 3.3 1.6 Sevier 16,389 16,995 17,745 18,217 3.7 4.4 2.7 IP) Wayne 17,703 18,560 18,756 19,570 4.8 1.1 4.3 • Southwestern 17,478 17,760 18,506 18,735 1.6 4.2 1.2 • Beaver 17,139 18,433 21,339 22,330 7.6 15.8 4.6 Garfield 16,334 17,081 17,426 18,596 4.6 2.0 6.7 • Iron 15,836 15,758 16,104 16,060 -0.5 2.2 -0.3 • Kane 21,130 21,882 23,578 24,615 3.6 7.8 4.4 Washington 17,808 18,239 18,928 19,114 2.4 3.8 1.0 • Uintah Basin 16,065 16,080 17,301 18,007 0.1 7.6 4.1 • Daggett 15,201 14,995 14,139 14,089 -1.4 -5.7 -0.4 Duchesne 16,559 16,447 17,782 18,578 -0.7 8.1 4.5 • Uintah 15,290 15,717 17,184 17,828 2.8 9.3 3.7 Southeastern 17,011 17,696 18,186 18,945 4.0 2.8 4.2 • Carbon 20,158 20,903 21,763 22,877 3.7 4.1 5.1 • Emery 16,280 16,737 17,472 18,438 2.8 4.4 5.5 • Grand 19,197 20,241 19,868 20,527 5.4 -1.8 3.3 San Juan 12,416 12,673 12,606 12,821 2.1 -0.5 1.7 • Salt Lake-Ogden MSA 23,953 24,738 26,075 26,491 3.3 5.4 1.6 . U.S. 26,893 27,843 29,469 30,177 4.9 8.0 3.3 p= preliminary • f=forecast • Note:The 1999 and 2000 state total estimates are comparable with the county estimates but • not with the estimates shown elsewhere in this chapter. • Sources: 1998-2000,State Total 2001: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, BEA, May, September 2001; al) 2001: Utah Department of Workforce Services,Workforce Information, November 2002. lh 0 70 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Personal Income • • • • li Gross State Product • ` oiew,:. 23 - Utah's industrial composition has evolved over time much like the U.S. Ill t04tatr l rsiiitCtlAt is> 'e`i c$t. ali (Mit d=pfd In 1965,both the U.S.and Utah were natural resource and sewit l- roduced 6y .telabor= st p •of it' at t _state ltiet6r manufacturing based economies. Over the last part of the past century • r €itvi hoot :0111 1.0 d'i r tGrasst rttt@S' -Pr t ppy-:,,,-F in both the U.S.and Utah,agriculture,mining,and manufacturing have • Con pt ily«_GSA?is gross tputless in rsnedtate inputs;,The Bureau decreased,and service and FIRE(finance,insurance,and real estate) of Economic Mal}ysis );retea d its iestimates d f 5f?for 000 it--- ` have grown. • June 24G ,. . .. ,._1 Significant Issues 4110 Estimates of Real and Nominal GSP In June 1999,the Bureau of Economic Analysis made several major • GSP is a measure of production,as distinguished from income or improvements to the way it estimates GSP. The revisions were centered spending. It is the sum of the value added by each industry in the in the manufacturing and financial service industries. As a result, 1996 • state's economy and is expressed in dollars. Changes in nominal manufacturing gross product was revised upward 13%for Utah,and the (current dollar)GSP from one year to the next result from quantity state as a whole is more productive than previously estimated. • changes in production and product price changes. BEA attempts to separate these by calculating real(constant dollar)GSP,which Another important change in GSP has to do with a 1999 reclassification • theoretically holds prices constant. of how GDP,or Gross Domestic Product is calculated. Before the • • reclassification software purchases were counted as an expense;they Changes in real gross product for an industry reflect changes in the are now classified as an investment. Expenses are not included in the • quantity of output,not the price of the product in the market. In order to figuring of GDP,but investments are. Consequently,software sales, • calculate real GSP,price indices are constructed to account for the which are growing much faster than the economy as a whole,are now inflationary or deflationary prices. There are alternative approaches to factored into the GDP figures. • the construction of price indices,and these have significant implications for the measurement of prices and quantity over time. When price Conclusion • indices are used to adjust current dollar GSP,the result is real GSP. Gross State Product can be used to measure aggregate production in a • state. For Utah this aggregate production has shown solid increases for BEA has historically used a fixed weight approach to calculate real GSP. more than ten years. This growth should continue at a somewhat slower • Observed relative prices in a base year are assumed constant over time. This introduces what is called"substitution bias",and tends to understate pace in the future. GSP can also be utilized to show the change in • real growth in rapidly growing industries and overstate it in slower growth industry composition over time and as such can prove useful in industries. monitoring the diversity in the economic structure of Utah. le • An alternative is a chain-type index that reduces substitution bias but introduces additional complexities in interpretation and use.1 The most • recent BEA estimates include current dollar GSP,and real GSP • measured in chained 1996 dollars. But because of the problems mentioned earlier,real GSP measured in fixed weight 1996 dollars has • not been included in the measurement. • Current Dollar GSP • Utah's current dollar GSP is estimated by BEA to be$62.780 billion in 1999 and$68.549 billion in 2000. This was the sixth highest rate of • growth in the nation at 9.2%. The national average for nominal GSP was 7.1%. • • Real GSP Utah's real GSP(measured in chain-weighted 1996 dollars)has been • increasing since 1986. BEA estimates real GSP for Utah to be$59.784 billion in 1999 and$63.242 billion in 2000. This was a 5.8%rate of • growth ranking Utah 11th fastest in the nation. The national average for • real GSP was 4.5%. • GSP Trends Utah performed quite well through the 1990s in terms of real GSP. • Through this decade,Utah's GSP surpassed that of the nation in all but 1 J.Stephen Landefeld and Robert P.Perker,"BEA's Chain Indexes,Times Series,and • two years(Utah was slightly lower than the nation in 1997 and tied the Measures of Long-Term Economic Growth,"Survey of Current Business 77(May 1997):58- national average in 1999). Utah was ranked among the top five fastest 68;and Howard L Friedenberg and Richard M.Beemiller,"Comprehensive Revision of Gross • growing states four times through the decade. state Product by Industry,1977-94,"Survey of Current Business 77(June 1997):15-41. OW • el • Gross State Product 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 71 • • I I Figure 31 . Utah Gross State Product--Percent Share by Industry . Ash 1965 o 2000 IPS Agriculture Mining . FIRE** 3.0% Mining Agriculture 18% 13.2% 6.3% FIRE** 1.0% Construction Construction 16.9% 5.8% . •' 5.2% :z,, M nufactu g a rin t * w `' t 14.9% . Government _, ., Manufacturing l 1:::4-:•:''',._„„;•, ' TCU* • -ir 4 !, 19.3% 8.8% • .. , Government 14.1% • Services Wholesale • 10.0% 44411 TCU* Trade • Wholesale 10.2% 6.2/o Retail Trade Trade Services Retail Trade • 9.9% 0 20.8% 10.0% 7.0% • *Transportation,Communication and Utilities • **Finance,Insurance and Real Estate • Source:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis • Figure 32 • 111110 U.S. Gross Domestic Product-Percent Share by Industry • 1965 2000 • • g MiningMining . Agriculture Agriculture o Construction FIRE** 3.5% 2.0% 1.4% 1.2/o 0 14.2% Construction FIRE" 5.4/o • {.+ • Government `�aM .,:, -.a:A .. . M to g „AMMO ..;, �� anufac rin rye : ;__ • Manufacturing ` m S Services .IIIPIPPr4 28.5% Government 8.6% • o < ;' 11.6m a.5% 4#4 10.7/0001441 w • Wholesale • Retail Trade TCU* Trade 9.8% Wholesale 9.0% 6.8% • Services Retail Trade • Trade 21.8% 9.0% 6.7% *Transportation,Communication and Utilities • **Finance,Insurance and Real Estate • Source:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis • IMO 72 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Gross State Proc ct • • • Table 36 Utah Gross State Product by Industry(Millions of Current Dollars): Selected Years Ilia, GIP Industry 1986 1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 • Total Gross State Product $24,473 $31,359 $42,236 $46,290 $51,523 $55,070 $59,084 $62,780 $68,549 Private Industries 20,234 25,783 35,386 39,006 43,889 46,948 50,591 53,816 58,874 • Agriculture,forestry,and fisheries 356 502 533 510 562 603 658 684 713 Farms 298 427 416 378 409 436 460 462 454 • Agricultural services,forestryand fisheries 58 75 117 132 153 167 198 222 259 Mining 1,001 1,534 1,256 1,282 1,296 1,162 1,074 1,061 1,208 Metal mining 142 382 448 514 411 278 237 230 265 0 Coal mining 255 210 286 304 409 324 335 340 335 Oil and Gas 583 858 484 414 423 452 416 403 517 • Nonmetalicminerals 22 84 37 49 53 109 86 88 91 Construction 1,271 1,268 2,307 2,701 3,093 3,369 3,800 4,214 4,405 Manufacturing 3,472 4,638 5,915 6.681 8,115 7,753 7,998 8,212 8,559 • Durable goods 2,382 3,216 3,826 4,434 5,186 5,037 5,164 5,278 5,502 Lumber and wood 73 146 173 176 186 175 189 216 216 • Furniture and fixtures 73 80 126 133 152 143 180 196 201 Stone,clay,and glass products 199 129 190 226 234 281 317 309 315 Primarymetals 95 508 616 720 661 792 782 799 892 • Fabricated metals 210 294 408 425 478 525 485 560 569 Industrial machinery 749 446 399 570 1,306 710 830 630 622 • Electronic equipment 287 400 385 341 348 428 358 492 487 Motor vehicles 47 129 425 639 495 550 599 592 608 • Other transportation equipment 500 696 594 586 591 650 582 592 620 Instruments and related 59 199 222 312 362 356 392 368 415 Misc.manufacturing services 91 188 287 305 374 427 449 525 556 • Electronic equipment+instruments 345 599 607 653 709 784 750 859 902 Nondurable goods 1,090 1,423 2,089 2,247 2,929 2,716 2,834 2,935 3,057 • Food&kindred products 381 384 490 576 597 681 626 689 666 Tobacco products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Textile mill products 3 25 16 20 16 14 19 20 21 • Apparel and other textile products 81 66 88 74 79 68 71 57 53 Paper products 62 91 212 228 301 284 259 350 379 • Printing and publishing 264 300 430 413 505 588 610 596 621 Chemicals 118 207 351 448 891 540 576 550 614 • Petroleum products 137 253 388 346 359 334 456 410 455 Rubber&plastics 43 95 111 138 176 204 214 259 244 Leather products 1 1 2 5 4 4 4 4 4 • Transportation,communications,and utilities 2,735 3,123 4,017 4,372 4,588 4,933 5,253 5,505 5,901 Transportation 1,047 1,393 1,884 2,043 2,149 2,406 2,597 2,680 2,746 Railroad transportation 277 216 256 272 266 270 230 238 238 Local and interurban 26 21 28 31 35 41 49 50 58 Trucking and warehousing 436 589 786 846 915 1,012 1,158 1,180 1,232 • Water transportation 2 1 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 Transportation by air 233 479 707 784 812 954 1,021 1,058 1,063 • Pipelines,except natural gas 29 17 23 20 19 17 20 17 13 Transportation services 45 70 82 89 101 108 113 129 134 • Communications 612 689 905 998 1,064 1,080 1,191 1,335 1,519 Electric,gas,and sanitary 1,075 1,042 1,229 1,332 1,375 1,447 1,465 1,491 1,636 Wholesale trade 1,607 1,878 2,637 2,886 3,185 3,398 3,842 3,993 4,254 • Retail trade 2,538 2,919 4,403 4,875 5,261 5,816 6,327 6,741 6,881 Finance,insurance,and real estate 3,395 4,111 5,913 6,658 7,951 9,079 9,796 10,427 12,685 • Depository institutions 498 845 1,065 1,262 2,113 2,669 2,759 3,075 5,012 Nondepositoryinstitution 131 119 309 358 428 577 683 623 680 Security brokers 70 83 117 127 194 212 244 256 292 • Insurance carriers 150 227 431 523 555 666 727 736 726 Insurance agents 103 175 282 307 337 349 369 409 449 • Real estate 2,341 2,647 3,669 4,047 4,339 4,606 4,954 5,308 20 5,525 Holding and investment 103 15 41 34 (16) (1) 60 2 11110 Depository+Nondepository 629 964 1,373 1,620 2,541 3,246 3,441 3,698 5,692 Seraces 3,859 5,809 8,405 9,042 9,838 10,836 11,844 12,978 14,268 Hotels and lodging 190 240 334 357 396 453 501 556 596 • Personal services 158 205 304 278 290 316 351 362 388 Business services 690 1,103 1,944 2,131 2,406 2,808 3,085 3,682 4,300 • Auto repair and parking 253 315 444 503 543 597 699 764 784 Misc.repair services 99 124 141 156 169 168 192 192 200 Motion pictures 86 70 110 160 174 182 168 181 180 • Amusement and recreation 134 185 268 303 348 391 464 517 599 Health seances 1,007 1,623 2,266 2,377 2,583 2,749 2,911 3,007 3,196 • Legal services 207 284 359 398 369 422 475 484 567 Educational services 224 328 422 434 449 476 506 563 623 Social services 56 99 174 192 220 247 275 298 345 • Other services 276 614 879 986 1,088 1,213 1,362 1,463 1,573 Membership organizations 460 591 728 729 765 775 808 868 872 • Private households 21 28 34 2 37 38 39 45 41 44 Business services+Other services 965 1,717 ,822 3,117 3,494 4,021 4,448 5,145 5,873 • Government 4,239 5,575 6,849 7,283 7,634 8,122 8,493 8,965 9,675 Federal civilian 1,491 1,771 1,942 2,039 2,009 2,062 2,130 2,274 2,546 Federal military 368 439 473 476 502 503 512 537 578 • State and local 2,380 3,365 4,434 4,769 5,123 5,556 5,851 6,154 6,551 COPP Source: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis • lb • Gross State Product 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 73 I Table 37 I 41 Utah Real Gross State Product by Industry(Millions of Chained 1996 Dollars):Selected Years Industry 1986 1990 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 • Total Gross State Product $32,385 $36,301 $43,952 $46,965 $51,523 $53,999 $57,011 $59,784 $63,242 VIP Private Industries 26,025 29,305 36,676 39,483 43,889 46,111 48,974 51,570 54,661 IIAgriculture,forestry,and fisheries 446 537 615 575 562 670 756 847 906 Farms 366 452 499 441 409 512 572 660 693 . Agricultural services,forestry and fisheries 85 90 121 135 153 161 186 195 216 Mining 919 1,304 1,332 1,286 1,296 1,200 1,309 1,303 1,217 Metal mining 154 323 457 435 411 310 340 374 402 . Coal mining 123 134 245 286 409 341 373 433 449 Oil and Gas 697 862 629 530 423 438 510 422 330 . Nonmetalicminerals 25 87 38 49 53 104 83 83 89 Construction 1,681 1,482 2,491 2,787 3,093 3,234 3,481 3,664 3,603 Manufacturing 4,042 4,997 5,911 6,691 8,115 7,728 7,928 8,365 8,395 . Durable goods 2,626 3,430 3,812 4,410 5,186 5,114 5,332 5,577 5,808 Lumber and wood 119 204 169 173 186 168 181 200 215 • Furniture and fixtures 97 93 135 141 152 140 170 181 184 Stone,clay,and glass products 222 150 200 230 234 276 300 279 285 • Primary metals 120 513 654 674 661 793 802 911 968 Fabricated metals 255 322 424 443 478 517 460 512 521 Industrial machinery 536 353 352 535 1,366 785 1,025 858 875 • Electronic equipment 172 259 285 299 348 470 474 760 880 Motor vehicles 70 187 443 671 495 553 600 571 591 • Other transportation equipment 656 871 ' 625 607 591 642 565 562 546 Instruments and related 94 279 255 348 362 331 334 301 311 Misc.manufacturing services 114 217 292 314 374 421 432 499 529 • Electronic equipment+instruments 307 541 551 645 709 794 802 977 1,077 Nondurable goods 1,425 1,565 2,099 2,279 2,929 2,619 2,608 2,796 2,627 Food&kindred products 506 437 501 633 597 653 576 608 575 • Tobacco products 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Textile mill products 3 25 17 21 16 14 18 19 20 Apparel and other textile products 91 71 88 76 79 68 69 53 51 Paper products 88 106 260 202 301 307 261 346 316 • Printing and publishing 455 423 478 455 505 557 546 511 510 Chemicals 174 247 368 440 891 538 543 530 591 • Petroleum products 126 183 291 321 359 272 367 464 318 Rubber&plastics 42 95 111 141 176 208 209 254 243 . Leather products 1 1 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 Transportation,communications,and utilities 2,802 3,292 3,959 4,285 4,588 4,756 4,826 5,136 5,514 Transportation 1,005 1,389 1,829 1,954 2,149 2,270 2,286 2,351 2,451 • Railroad transportation 205 198 243 262 266 267 216 231 242 Local and interurban 41 30 31 33 35 41 45 48 56 Trucking and warehousing 442 578 776 823 915 922 969 971 1,033IIPIP Water transportation 2 1 1 1 2 4 5 5 6 Tra )ortation by air 228 495 675 729 812 912 915 949 972 • Pip..,nes,except natural gas 29 18 24 18 19 19 21 18 14 Transportation services 62 75 80 88 101 106 112 129 127 • Communications 632 722 905 998 1,064 1,065 1,155 1,324 1,534 Electric,gas,and sanitary 1,209 1,196 1,224 1,334 1,375 1,420 1,386 1,472 1,550 • Wholesale trade 1,935 1,972 2,650 2,785 3,185 3,502 4,192 4,341 4,470 Retail trade 3,233 3,217 4,379 4,834 5,261 5,853 6,404 6,812 6,973 Finance,insurance,and real estate 5,071 5,148 6,377 6,899 7,951 8,716 9,160 9,567 11,316 . Depository institutions 873 1,203 1,209 1,346 2,113 2,397 2,358 2,532 3,941 Nondepositoryinstitution 196 134 314 350 428 620 741 703 770 Security brokers 63 82 114 125 194 225 276 387 589 • Insurance carriers 399 394 528 565 555 618 653 629 568 Insurance agents 242 286 321 324 337 333 339 368 401 • Real estate 3,131 3,036 3,837 4,145 4,339 4,524 4,769 4,980 5,040 Holding and investment 203 28 59 42 (16) (1) 40 12 1 • Depository+Nondepository 1,079 1,325 1,525 1,699 2,541 3,008 3,069 3,222 4,769 Services 5,982 7,334 8,994 9,350 9,838 10,449 10,978 11,585 12,230 . Hotels and lodging 279 286 344 362 396 416 432 448 464 Personal services 235 251 318 286 290 305 331 332 343 Business services 902 1,305 2,099 2,216 2,406 2,727 2,882 3,314 3,692 Ill Auto repair and parking 377 387 465 509 543 572 648 699 699 Misc.repair services 162 179 156 169 169 159 170 154 147 • Motion pictures 126 84 119 169 174 178 163 166 155 Amusement and recreation 196 228 286 314 348 379 431 471 515 • Health services 1,827 2,185 2,399 2,438 2,583 2,675 2,732 2,740 2,837 Legal services 358 373 386 414 369 404 437 434 491 Educational services 358 418 455 456 449 456 458 487 513 • Social senAces 88 125 186 200 220 237 250 259 283 Otherservices 432 787 945 1,013 1,088 1,168 1,277 1,329 1,384 • Membership organizations 636 716 801 764 765 736 728 720 681 Private households 28 34 37 39 38 38 43 38 39 Business services+Other services 1,343 2,086 3,044 3,229 3,494 3,895 4,159 4,644 5,078 • Government 6,425 7,054 7,285 7,487 7,634 7,888 8,042 8,226 8,599 Federal civilian 2,424 2,391 2,117 2,098 2,009 2,010 2,039 2,105 2,296 • Federal military 492 534 512 505 502 493 495 503 522 State and local 3,546 4,147 4,660 4,884 5,123 5,385 5,507 5,618 5,783 • Note:Real GSP data by industryfor Utah is not available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis before 1986. Source:U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis • Il 74 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Gross State Product • • • • Utah Taxable Sales • 440 Chet" wl: :q; : _::;m.:,:', _;. " Goods stores,will see gains of 18%in 2002. Food store sales,which i4 OM taaxabiesalea will-lie at.1 Theere-giowa h mkt fist tab',iliA typically grow less than average due to high competition and smaller -were tredi tying last yearYearilt was emlirtiAtttat tilattral.haltviitiutit11..0 price gains,but are now meeting stiff competition from big-box discount • rt edetf,tty ttnrrr tt> itetsbt ;t 5 ,gam,bite afebound<n b usinees department stores,will experience a 9%sales decline in 2002. This • tveitlreerthas Rot itddure ,,Theaero'gro th rate is theto(riest.rate of snear 4%drop in 20 . Apparel store sales will be up about low a 01 since`I B < t(l fg& 3�tlrart.t tittle sales g tt�rltr,>fell about f 5% f7%,1%lower than its ten-year average. Miscellaneous Shopping • year Folli tp uryearsdf f0%% to 12%year) growaart t s,taxe a Goods store sales,which grew 2.5%in 2001,will see an improvement to ales Wet ovwn ta, rowtth ra} boitee 4 :`tad 75,gfoOtivddit:g ," nearly 5%in 2002. Intense competition from big discount department • an 2000 ') S rec ton in 2001-a•aniatifiti tatae"2ogat tb stores,as well as Internet sellers,has cut into Miscellaneous Shopping • taxable sales2:lA"2002 hitt gaeiter safes e o ly11.6 despfte_.an Goods store sales. For the year 2002,the Nondurable Retail sales will filfusioc frot the-2002 Olympic linter Games which appeared�tojum _ be up 4.4%,two percentage points lower than its ten-year average of • start epartt ertt re,r tit ilaf ous shopping ads,and fietet;salea 6.3%,but not bad considering wages and salaries will rise less than 1%. e id!qua er setae felt almost 2 ,.andpird quarter taxable. les • 'sh uld be flak:.Dedlirithg!eibplOment acid Iowerrwege gains have: ; Retail Durable Goods. We classify Retail Durable goods vis-a-vis the • .comnbinedwitti falling tutsinesss;irivestment to dampen taxable"saleein igeneral definition of items that last three or more years into three broad 2002.-.F lfowi tg a ekt x start the first gearteref 2005,wee sect°: sectors:Building and Garden stores,Furniture stores,and Motor Vehicle • o i " u r i Dealers. These sectors are usuallyimpacted b 1 talate<�s�i�s to tnprease���:t��e�se€xtrid t>"sitagii�fdt€zt gf€a�ef�; �,° ' p y: )changes in the Thj$;016ori6,assumes""no signfftrarit:tpacta fain en Iraq to`eitd no housing starts,2)movements in interest rates,and 3)job growth. • new terrOrls'tattadlCs trilitmerta. TaXbbje Sales cant,be dissected.into Despite declining employment in Utah during 2002,zero-rate auto loans three,:major omp enls. :.'1 and historically low mortgage rates have boosted hard-goods sales. • Residential construction values are expected to rise 2%in 2002, • Retail='t le et"$f84"b lion ich repre nie t t";`:_ - bolsterin hard-goods sales. However,Buildingand Garden store sales T°l�• 1fta tikesales'" ill grc t l`(�4'trr2>ff2,bet tth n the were flat in2002. In contrast,Furniture store sales were predicted to • .':2,5 =gar rrt 2001,.but efl f low the lasttert«y tav�geof if make a near 5%gain in 2002. While lumber store sales will fall 3%, hardware store sales(including some big-box types)will see a near 20% • ° > Taxa less laves nertt d itilliy_ ales,at 4Xbitlj©n, gain. In 2000, Building and Garden store sales fell 3/o,so the 5% • lepresents25%:oftaxable Oho.and wiktrop1,4-2t#02.;. "; rebound in housing values contributed to positive growth here. •Aik •f Taxable. ervices,,at$4 6 bill on will debts*-iit,i2002 and After homes are built,they must be furnished. Furniture and Home represent f4%:eftaxabie:eales=,TileS%dtc1ineis,in ttrast Furnishing store sales are anticipated to make gains near 5%in 2002, tG the:8:7° _average gains since 199"l. possibly due to a 10%gain in lagged 2001 residential permit values that • were to be completed into homes. This is the biggest gain since the 2002 Summary boom days of 1996. It also may reflect changes in the way retailers sell • Retail Trade. Retail trade sales rose in double digits four out of the five their wares. The more than 50%gains in the household appliance years between 1992 and 1996. An end to the economic boom came in sector account for half of the 5%gain. Radio,TV and Electronic store • 1997 when retail trade sales slowed down to a 3.3%growth rate. Retail sales will advance 10%,while the large Furniture store subsector will • trade sales growth improved to 5.3%in 1998 and 1999,and fell back to grow only 1.5%. For the past four years the housing market in Utah has 4.8%in 2000. But in 2001 retail trade sales decreased to a 2.5%growth been more resilient than expected,mostly due to falling interest rates • rate,despite the nonfarm wage growth of nearly 4%. The slowdown in and good growth in housing-purchasing age cohorts. Weaker sales are • job growth,tailing off of construction permit values,the national expected here in 2003 especially if residential construction values recession,as well as the events of 9-11 took their toll on Utah consumer decline 2%. • confidence,which fell from 107.6 to 95.1 in 2001. Zero-rate car loans and historically low mortgage rates stimulated retail sales in 2002. During the first nine months of 2002,Motor Vehicle Dealer sales growth, • During the first nine months,retail trade rose almost 5%in Utah. This is at 8.5%,were much stronger than nonfarm wage growth at 1.5%. Zero a decent showing considering consumer inflation has been rising only to near-zero%financing lured in consumers with strong job prospects • 1.6%. and increasing financial stability. Historically low financing enticed strong • sales at recreation and utility trailer dealers(up 17%)and motorcycle Retail Nondurable Goods. Nondurable goods sold by retailers are dealers(up 13%),who also market the increasingly popular ATVs. It is • classified into the following sectors:General Merchandise,Food, anticipated that new car sales will not continue to gain 8%in 2003. Apparel,Eating and Drinking,and Miscellaneous Shopping Goods However,as wages improve somewhat,a near 5%sales growth is • stores. At$11.9 billion in 2002,Nondurable Retail sales represent more expected. • than one-third of all taxable sales. In 2002,sales in this sector are predicted to grow 4.1%. General Merchandise store sales,where big Business Investment and Utility Sales. This category includes taxable • discount stores are taking market share not only from traditional business-to-business(B2B)purchases of supplies and equipment and • department stores,but also from Grocery and Miscellaneous Shopping business-to-consumer(B2C)sales of utilities,as well as final sales at wholesale trade stores. In 2002,these sectors will comprise more than IL 25%of all taxable sales(down from 27%in 2001). Almost 15%are 1 Taxable sales consist of final sales of most tangible personal property in the state. Taxable 411, found in the goods-producing sectors of Agriculture,Mining and sales of selected services such as hotel and lodging,automobile leases,amusements and repairs to tangible personal property are also taxable in Utah. Manufacturing,and their Wholesaling Trade counterparts,while 10%of • 121 • Utah Taxable Sales 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 75 • • • • • taxable sales are in the service producing sectors:Transportation, 1. 9111 Impact on Taxable Sales. Our modeling suggests that 9-11 . Communication,and Public Utilities. In six out of the eight years and its secondary economic affects on tourism,transportation and between 1991 and 1998,taxable sales in this major sector rose more investment is depressing taxable sales 2.3%per year,or by$37 IPIP than 10%. However,following the near 10%gain in 1998,taxable sales million in state sales taxes. . rose only 1.4%in 1999. Back-to-back 9%gains nationally,in order to meet Y2K expectations for business fixed investment in 1999 and 2000, 2. 2002 Winter Olympics Impact. The Olympics brought thousands • propelled similar purchases in Utah to a near 7%gain in 2000. of people,from sports aficionados,contractors,and media people into the state. They spent money on Utah goods and services, • The 3%decline in U.S.fixed investments in 2002 led to steeper declines particularly in the hotel(up 130%in February),department store(up in Utah where capacity utilization might be higher than average,and 33%in February),eating and drinking(up 23%in February),and • where high-tech investment dropped more precipitously due to the apparel store(up 23%in February),sectors during calendar year • Olympic buildup. While expenditures in the very small Agriculture, 2002. However,some tradeoffs occurred,as amusement and Forestry and Fishing sector gained 9%,the balance of the goods sectors recreation were flat and business investment purchases fell 11%. • slashed investment between 10%and 20%. Mining purchases will be off Our modeling confirmed earlier estimates by the Governor's Office at least 13%in 2002. After several large nonresidential projects were of Planning and Budget--that the Olympics would add about$280 • completed in time for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games,Construction million(0.9%)to taxable sales in 2002. • sector purchases will be down nearly 13%. Manufacturing purchases will also be down between 15%and 20%. 3. Internet Sales. Given the fact that surveys put Utahns in the top • ten Internet users and PC purchasers,the inability to tax remote In contrast,we expect Transportation,Communications and Public Utility sales is a big issue with respect to the sales tax base. Dr.William • sales and purchases to slide only 1%,following the 15%gain in 2001. Fox et al from the University of Tennessee recently estimated that • Through the first nine months of 2002,Electric sales were up 7%,due Internet sales would cost Utah about$55 million in state and local partially to Utah's warmer summer season increasing air conditioning sales taxes by 2002,and about$192 million in 2006.2 Based on • demand. Natural Gas sales slipped almost 9%following price and rate quarterly surveys at the U.S.Department of Commerce we calculate decreases relative to sharp increases in 2001. While Telephone the loss to be about 1.4%of state and local sales taxes,or about • Communication sales fell 11%during the first three quarters,Mobile $22 million in fiscal year 2004.3 • Telephone sales growth increased only 3%. 4. North American Industry Classification System(NAICS). The • Overall,the mix of Business Investment(down 8%)and Public Utility President's Office of Management and Budget,as well as all sales(down 4%)will fall 6%in 2002,but some improvement is expected federal government agencies,have adopted a new,updated At) as U.S.business investment picks up in 2003. classification system,which parallels systems in Mexico and 11110 Canada,two of our largest trading partners. If new funding were Taxable Services. Taxable services,which rose at lightening speed in available,the reporting of taxable sales under the NAICS system • the economic expansion between 1990 and 1996,slowed down to less would be possible by late 2003. With over 150 new industry • than 4%growth in 1997. In 1998,taxable service growth went back on classifications,some of which are new technology-driven sectors, the fast track by growing almost 11%. But in 1999 slower tourist-related the distribution of taxable sales under NAICS would give our reports • sales brought down taxable-services growth to less than 6%. Improving more definition. tourism and surging Y2K demand in the Business Services sector • increased the growth in overall Services to 9%in 2000. Slower growth • was anticipated in 2001,but the 1%decline was not foreseen. Even the Winter Olympics boost could not overcome declines in two major • subsectors: 1)Auto Rentals and Repairs,where sales will be down nearly 4%in 2000,and 2)Business Services,where sales will be off 8% • in 2002,connected to and remarkably close to the Business Investment decline mentioned above. • Sales Forecast and Other Public Policy Issues. Several issues 111 affect this very important tax base for Utah state and local governments. • In some cases the impacts are not independent of each other. The m;-tner in which these issues are resolved may affect how taxable sales • are reported,or if they are reported at all. • • 2 Donald Bruce and William Fox,"State and Local Sales Tax Revenue Losses from E- • Commerce:Updated Estimates,"University of Tennessee,September 2001. • 3 Commerce reported Internet B2C retail sales amounted to between 1.2 and 1.3%of total • retail sales during the first three quarters of 2002.E-commerce sales were 0.8%of total sales in the second quarter of 2000. See www.census.gov/mrts/www/current.html. El • 76 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah Taxable Sales • • • • Figure 33 • Percent Change in Utah Taxable Sales 4410 20% • Forecast • 15% :::1":. .., 2,\078.s. ote , • 10% 'e '��r t P��~yft�iSti..rTti,�ti'ft?it5'frAt'Sif '7iyYltlt/51'`�- �!i� :.;P • CO T. Ni CI n �{ O O it— N CI N CO h CO COO a— J V CO SD CO XI CO CO 70, A ' CO CO O O O O O O O O O O co O7 O • V m V V V 4.V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V • -5% • tl Current$Change ❑Real$Change • -10% • Source:Utah State Tax Commission • • ill Figure 34 Shares of Utah's Sales Tax Base--Four Major Sectors • • 1984 2002 Estimates • $12.3 billion $32.5 billion • • Services Services 14.1% Business • 11.0% Investment 4111 Business 25.2% Other Other Investment • 2.0% 35.0% 4.0% s x s s z ;,, ' z c • G r?. • rn;i • • Retail Trade Retail Trade • 52.0% 56.7% Source:Utah State Tax Commission 140III • Utah Taxable Sales 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 77 • • a Table 38 . Utah Taxable Sales by Component . Business11011 Calendar Retail Investment Taxable All Total Gross Year Sales Purchases Services Other Taxable Sales S 1981 $4,901 $3,821 $919 $217 $9,857 • 1982 5,200 3,513 1,062 244 10,020 . 1983 5,638 3,648 1,138 262 10,686 . 1984 6,401 4,254 1,385 284 12,324 1985 6,708 4,122 1,379 304 12,513 • 1986 7,010 3,689 1,414 265 12,378 1987 6,951 3,398 1,587 252 12,188 . 1988 7,346 3,684 1,718 269 13,017 1989 8,048 3,675 1,849 320 13,892 1111 1990 8,407 3,874 1,829 664 14,774 . 1991 8,918 4,355 2,040 685 15,998 1992 9,860 4,342 2,223 888 17,313 • 1993 10,994 4,956 2,499 892 19,341 1994 12,097 5,609 2,802 1,019 21,527 • 1995 13,080 6,231 3,205 1,093 23,609 . 1996 14,404 6,878 3,594 968 25,844 1997 14,873 7,044 3,724 1,188 26,829 • 1998 15,657 7,729 4,122 1,137 28,646 • 1999 16,493 7,839 4,351 1,316 29,999 2000 17,278 8,372 4,746 1,250 31,645 • 2001 17,709 8,611 4,702 1,380 32,402 2002(e) 18,427 8,076 4,604 1,393 32,500 • 2003(f) 19,130 8,345 4,607 1,494 33,576 • Business Calendar Retail Investment Taxable All Total Gross el° Year Sales Purchases Services Other Taxable Sales • 1982 6.1% -8.0% 15.6% 12.6% 1.7% • 1983 8.4% 3.8% 7.2% 7.4% 6.6% . 1984 13.5% 16.6% 21.7% 8.5% 15.3% 1985 4.8% -3.1% -0.4% 7.0% 1.5% • 1986 4.5% -10.5% 2.5% -12.7% -1.1% • 1987 -0.8% -7.9% 12.3% -5.0% -1.5% 1988 5.7% 8.4% 8.2% 6.7% 6.8% • 1989 9.6% -0.2% 7.6% 18.8% 6.7% 1990 4.5% 5.4% -1.1% 107.8% 6.3% • 1991 6.1% 12.4% 11.6% 3.2% 8.3% 1992 10.6% -0.3% 9.0% 29.6% 8.2% 411 1993 11.5% 14.1% 12.4% 0.5% 11.7% • 1994 10.0% 13.2% 12.1% 14.2% 11.3% 1995 8.1% 11.1% 14.4% 7.2% 9.7% • 1996 10.1% 10.4% 12.1% -11.4% 9.5% • 1997 3.3% 2.4% 3.6% 22.7% 3.8% 1998 5.3% 9.7% 10.7% -4.2% 6.8% • 1999 5.3% 1.4% 5.5% 15.7% 4.7% 2000 4.8% 6.8% 9.1% -5.0% 5.5% • 2001 2.5% 2.9% -0.9% 10.4% 2.4% 2002(e) 4.1% -6.2% -2.1% 0.9% 0.3% • 2003(f) 3.8% 3.3% 0.1% 7.3% 3.3% • e= estimate • f=forecast fp. Source: Utah State Tax Commission 78 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Utah Taxable Sales • • . . .i• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •60 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .60 • • • c Table 39 rg- Utah Taxable Retail Sales and Annual Percent Change by Sector ✓ Dollar Amounts(Millions) Atg.Annual Cr %Change cD 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002(e) 90-01 Co ou Retail Trade 8,407 8,918 9,860 10,994 12,097 13,080 14,404 14,874 15,657 16,494 17,278 17,709 18,427 CD co 6.1% 10.6% 11.5% 10.0% 8.1% 10.1% 3.3% 5.3% 5.3% 4.8% 2.5% 4.1% 7.1% Nondurables 5,757 6,144 6,657 7,140 7,656 8,295 9,047 9,482 10,006 10,492 11,091 11,367 11,867 6.7% 8.3% 7.3% 7.2% 8.3% 9.1% 4.8% 5.5% 4.9% 5.7% 2.5% 4.4% 6.3% General Merchandise 1362 1484 1619 1717 1816 2033 2256 2328 2463 2619 2797 3100 3652 9.0% 9.1% 6.1% 5.8% 12.0% 11.0% 3.2% 5.8% 6.3% 6.8% 10.8% 17.8% 7.6% Apparel 415 452 506 581 591 614 665 693 757 760 789 802 857 8.9% 11.9% 14.8% 1.7% 3.9% 8.3% 4.2% 9.3% 0.4% 3.8% 1.6% 6.9% 5.9% Food Stores 2161 2226 2374 2496 2677 2784 3050 3258 3381 3493 3641 3513 3197 - 3.0% 6.6% 5.1% 7.3% 4.0% 9.5% 6.8% 3.8% 3.3% 4.2% -3.5% -9.0% 4.7% Eating and Drinking 861 935 1025 1140 1234 1349 1473 1554 1677 1815 1906 1946 2063 8.6% 9.6% 11.2% 8.2% 9.3% 9.2% 5.5% 7.9% 8.2% 5.0% 2.1% 6.0% 7.6% Miscellaneous Shopping Goods 958 1047 1133 1206 1338 1515 1603 1649 1728 1805 1958 2006 2098 9.3% 8.2% 6.4% 10.9% 13.2% 5.8% 2.9% 4.8% 4.5% 8.5% 2.5% 4.6% 6.7% Durables 2,650 2,774 3,203 3,854 4,441 4,785 5,357 5,392 5,651 6,002 6,187 6,342 6,560 4.7% 15.5% 20.3% 15.2% 7.7% 12.0% 0.7% 4.8% 6.2% 3.1% 2.5% 3.4% 8.6% Motor Vehicles 1577 1591 1783 2140 2331 2431 2710 2775 2965 3175 3390 3570 3731 0.9% 12.1% 20.0% 8.9% 4.3% 11.5% 2.4% 6.8% 7.1% 6.8% 5.3% 4.5% 8.4% Builr:ng&Garden 575 630 764 941 1160 1241 1337 1310 1351 1476 1426 1460 1457 9.6% 21.3% 23.2% 23.3% 7.0% 7.7% -2.0% 3.1% 9.3% -3.4% 2.4% -0.2% 8.8% Furniture&Home Furnishings 498 553 656 773 950 1112 1310 1307 1335 1351 1371 1312 1372 11.0% 18.6% 17.8% 22.9% 17.1% 17.8% -0.2% 2.1% 1.2% 1.5% -4.3% 4.6% 9.0% Business Investment 3,874 4,355 4,342 4,956 5,609 6,231 6,878 7,044 7,730 7,839 8,372 8,612 8,076 12.4% -0.3% 14.1% 13.2% 11.1% 10.4% 2.4% 9.7% 1.4% 6.8% 2.9% -6.2% 7.1% Agriculture,Forestry&Fishing 10 10 13 23 19 13 17 26 22 27 32 36 39 0.0% 30.4% 72.9% -17.4% -31.6% 33.8% 48.3% -13.2% 20.5% 18.5% 12.5% 9.0% 13.4% IMF Mining 150 186 153 142 149 176 174 245 259 180 202 210 182 24.0% -17.7% -7.2% 4.9% 18.1% -0.9% 40.7% 5.6% -30.5% 12.2% 4.0% -13.4% 1.2% Construction 203 207 228 247 290 343 371 389 400 422 408 368 322 2.0% 10.1% 8.3% 17.4% 18.3% 8.1% 4.8% 3.0% 5.5% -3.3% -9.8% -12.5% 5.9% Manufacturing 889 936 1000 1083 1155 1368 1513 1464 1601 1540 1543 1583 1339 5.3% 6.8% 8.3% 6.6% 18.4% 10.6% -3.2% 9.3% -3.8% 0.2% 2.6% -15.4% 5.4% Transportation,Comm.&Pubic Utilities 1351 1644 1407 1552 1657 1776 1935 2062 2291 2392 2742 3164 3136 21.7% -14.4% 10.3% 6.8% 7.2% 8.9% 6.6% 11.1% 4.4% 14.6% 15.4% -0.9% 6.8% Wholesale Trade 1271 1372 1541 1909 2339 2555 2869 2858 3157 3278 3445 3251 3058 N 7.9% 12.3% 23.9% 22.5% 9.2% 12.3% -0.4% 10.5% 3.8% 5.1% -5.6% -6.0% 9.0% <O Services 1,829 2,040 2,223 2,499 2,802 3,206 3,594 3,724 4,122 4,350 4,745 4,701 4,604 11.5% 9.0% 12.4% 12.1% 14.4% 12.1% 3.6% 10.7% 5.5% 9.1% -0.9% -3.0% 8.7% m Hotels&Lodging 307 351 373 400 423 473 528 557 551 556 583 597 665 8 14.3% 6.3% 7.2% 5.8% 11.8% 11.6% 5.5% -1.1% 0.9% 4.9% 2.4% 11.4% 5.5% O Amusement&Recreation 194 228 256 303 378 451 495 544 572 650 714 723 715 _3 17.5% 12.3% 18.4% 24.8% 19.4% 9.6% 9.9% 5.2% 13.6% 9.8% 1.3% -1.1% 12.2% c) Personal 91 99 110 130 146 167 178 177 185 190 200 208 206 N 8.8% 11.1% 18.2% 12.3% 14.4% 6.5% -0.2% 4.3% 2.7% 5.3% 4.0% -1.2% 7.7% o Health 76 68 77 85 84 91 90 92 88 86 93 95 100 P- -10.5% 13.2% 10.4% -1.2% 8.0% -1.2% 2.5% -4.1% -2.3% 8.1% 2.2% 5.2% 3.4% Education,Legal&Social 111 126 137 144 160 175 194 167 195 207 224 225 218 5. 13.5% 8.7% 5.1% 11.1% 9.6% 10.6% -13.8% 16.7% 6.2% 8.2% 0.4% -3.1% 6.0% CD Auto Rental&Repairs 525 572 601 677 763 901 1012 1073 1160 1169 1239 1268 1222 C) 9.0% 5.1% 12.6% 12.7% 18.1% 12.2% 6.1% 8.1% 0.8% 6.0% 2.3% -3.6% 8.3% O Business 446 502 564 625 645 711 780 775 948 1042 1223 1158 1070 CAD 12.6% 12.4% 10.8% 3.2% 10.2% 9.7% -0.6% 22.3% 9.9% 17.4% -5.3% -7.6% 8.7% C Finance Insurance&Real Estate 79 94 105 135 203 236 318 339 423 450 469 427 408 54 19.0% 11.7% 28.6% 50.4% 16.2% 34.9% 6.5% 24.9% 6.4% 4.2% -9.0% -4.5% 16.3% All Other 664 685 888 892 1,019 1,092 968 1,188 1,137 1,316 1250 1380 1,394 3.2% 29.6% 0.5% 14.2% 7.2% -11.4% 22.7% -4.2% 15.7% -5.0% 10.4% 1.0% 7.3% Grand Total Taxable Sales 14,774 15,998 17,313 19,341 21,527 23,609 25,844 26,829 28,646 29,999 31,645 32,402 32,500 8.3% 8.2% 11.7% 11.3% 9.7% 9.5% 3.8% 6.8% 4.7% 5.5% 2.4% 0.3% 7.3% • -4 e=estimate CO Source:Utah State Tax Commission o Table 40 Utah Taxable Retail Sales by County and Region 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 a Avg.Growth IVCounty 1994-2001 o Box Elder $270,086,492 $255,311,338 $313,399,510 $341,801,574 $378,656,784 $392,554,576 $388,463,051 $385,714,523 $403,260,000 5.2% 0 '^' Cache 592,265,682 643,424,439 700,827,166 738,962,198 815,747,488 877,516,245 881,748,639 936,747,843 995,542,000 6.8% a Rich 11,515,077 10,252,664 10,848,221 12,425,163 14,599,275 15,593,403 16,731,346 16,201,275 18,087,000 5.0% o Bear Riser Region 873,867,251 908,988,441 1,025,074,897 1,093,188,935 1,209,003,547 1,285,664,224 1,286,943,036 1,338,663,641 1,416,889,000 6.3% 3 5. Davis 1,628,953,240 1,792,686,798 1,948,114,497 2,082,405,096 2,333,000,552 2,501,488,171 2,561,945,556 2,689,665,418 2,775,043,000 7.4% m Morgan 28,204,835 32,975,103 36,673,879 34,597,815 43,190,274 52,752,568 55,091,635 55,337,047 52,672,000 10.1% o Salt Lake 10,526,443,225 11,456,330,532 12,495,049,840 13,279,907,345 14,480,792,082 15,032,355,344 15,941,513,323 15,849,186,277 15,750,528,000 6.0% Summit 424,263,835 481,055,880 532,065,605 585,960,819 631,299,089 685,939,692 742,862,484 828,954,759 858,977,000 10.0% Tooele 189,412,717 204,822,816 229,458,354 247,605,386 282,754,708 306,930,181 330,279,699 363,790,726 383,795,000 9.8% m Utah 2,485,729,203 2,729,006,721 3,018,664,563 3,263,562,889 3,670,050,662 3,938,892,458 4,170,665,617 4,327,743,545 4,437,536,000 8.2% o Wasatch 77,853,975 91,141,976 104,349,093 118,482,941 136,583,244 155,799,341 171,726,889 173,995,773 179,749,000 12.2% al Weber 1,716,143,480 1,871,898,257 2,039,495,130 2,151,273,281 2,264,121,035 2,375,445,131 2,456,562,991 2,507,881,470 2,544,215,000 5.6% 3 Wasatch Front Region 17,077,004,510 18,659,918,083 20,403,870,961 21,763,795,572 23,841,791,646 25,049,602,886 26,430,648,194 26,796,555,015 26,982,515,000 6.6% ., Juab 41,049,378 44,498,957 52,093,322 58,330,085 61,049,366 67,800,309 73,826,705 69,536,762 70,166,000 7.8% Millard 80,606,243 84,805,492 86,426,974 102,956,430 102,324,784 108,565,176 107,366,842 120,365,006 125,884,000 5.9% Piute 4,153,237 5,737,337 5,549,494 4,647,900 5,197,828 5,556,641 5,742,323 5,662,930 6,233,000 4.5% Sanpete 84,773,473 93,422,662 101,273,513 109,374,363 117,860,224 125,822,688 143,234,506 158,161,385 159,613,000 9.3% Sevier 155,308,506 167,792,163 171,174,291 179,499,588 247,516,691 212,472,805 219,208,375 219,773,375 229,668,000 5.1% EtWayne 14,979,670 17,293,540 17,770,582 18,566,025 22,689,627 23,000,106 23,460,239 23,594,673 24,118,000 6.7% Central Region 380,870,507 413,550,151 434,288,176 473,374,391 556,638,520 543,217,725 572,838,990 597,094,131 615,682,000 6.6% Beaver 34,626,306 36,412,579 41,936,668 45,761,964 54,028,444 56,796,599 59,533,738 57,175,694 56,543,000 7.4% Garfield 46,588,854 53,989,631 59,463,916 64,208,586 67,964,766 71,530,129 73,145,377 66,456,789 68,125,000 5.2% Iron 269,104,272 296,098,117 328,599,441 334,517,242 358,583,543 403,990,858 417,168,360 420,915,573 425,557,000 6.6% Kane 68,713,093 79,603,840 85,348,929 91,571,511 92,767,501 99,972,386 107,426,955 101,547,886 98,964,000 5.7% Washington 790,641,230 876,072,647 954,639,002 994,050,920 1,066,865,802 1,159,452,168 1,237,822,795 1,375,237,567 1,503,247,000 8.2% Southwest Region 1,209,673,755 1,342,176,814 1,469,987,956 1,530,110,223 1,640,210,056 1,791,742,140 1,895,097,225 2,021,333,509 2,152,436,000 7.6% Daggett 16,367,912 8,026,924 9,433,030 8,931,045 10,152,206 11,083,920 13,701,974 14,634,974 15,508,000 -1.6% Duchesne 91,128,287 92,152,625 103,539,767 138,833,857 148,993,949 113,995,306 152,667,814 163,767,205 137,933,000 8.7% Uintah 225,274,014 238,265,849 249,885,277 300,310,299 335,704,139 331,526,601 439,786,724 497,521,181 474,446,000 12.0% Uintah Basin Region 332,770,213 338,445,398 362,858,074 448,075,201 494,850,294 456,605,827 606,156,512 675,923,360 627,887,000 10.7% Carbon 243,379,366 246,727,509 270,180,228 302,766,134 350,262,447 344,787,306 346,715,900 361,591,203 356,953,000 5.8% Emery 68,117,764 59,567,320 63,933,988 85,273,673 108,296,650 86,178,899 78,516,158 102,670,903 107,095,000 6.0% Grand 98,898,658 123,463,929 125,597,997 136,682,724 143,307,479 167,663,347 162,911,808 165,549,440 176,413,000 7.6% San Juan 65,840,801 73,747,605 83,951,301 79,420,183 102,358,862 96,128,945 89,321,720 87,304,705 91,568,000 4.1% Southeast Region 476,236,589 503,506,363 543,663,514 604,142,714 704,225,438 694,758,497 677,465,586 717,116,251 732,029,000 6.0% v SUBTOTAL 20,350,422,825 22,166,585,250 24,239,743,578 25,912,687,036 28,446,719,501 29,821,591,299 31,469,149,543 32,146,685,907 32,527,438,000 6.7% x OUT-OF-STATE 1,176,245,745 1,442,191,794 1,604,193,876 916,015,985 200,035,296 176,949,414 175,863,321 $ 255,447,596 -27,438,000 -19.6% w USE TAX cx m GRAND TOTAL $21,526,668,570 $23,608,777,044 $25,843,937,454 $26,828,703,021 $28,646,754,797 $29,998,540,713 $31,645,012,864 $32,402,133,503 $32,500,000,000 6.0% G7 iv cp y Source:Utah State Tax Commission • • • •,• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •!• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •.• • • • • • • • Tax Collections • • ii) CtV$1ltlew; 5t'2, ;" ,1;`-:; :�.,' " =_„-_, :: - --:,i==_ ;` fiscal year 2000. Fiscal year 2000 had the largest single-year growth in Tax- llections dropped sigrnftcantly iit fiscal year 200.4,Coflecfions f 1 revenue since 1984(when inflation-adjusted revenues grew$359.6 • as a:r aujt oftlhe gls to ession w t ut xie pene : ythe:Wi million),and fiscal year 2002 had the largest decrease in revenue. Trade Center disasterpt $t_et pr t,200 t eent 'af'tihe Oiymp3 : ? • corlfitn ctio build-to-. d.theldsscf b s,:napitai: ai s,end,c"r prati- Inflation-Adjusted Surpluses. The$736,000 General and School Fund profits dc[e:to e dtif t lrppldsiot `-Fiscal year 003,t €;poll ores year-end surplus was considerably less than the$12.5 million inflation should reemain.l eakiikikto-co tipu t w akness_in;inv st ient.ir#con e, ` adjusted surplus in fiscal year 2001 and the$118.1 million surplus in • employment_r fuctions high.de urder►s,ati'de`laalktf-pent-iif?_ 4,3 fiscal year 2000. By comparison,year-end surpluses over the past consumer=demand,,Currentcondit'tdn highli ts:i ludethefollbwitn ' nineteen years(fiscal year 1983 to fiscal year 2002)have averaged • $39.1 million. Indeed,fiscal year 2002 had a$394.7 million revenue iw 'i"GenirilarOOdtopi Fund' venues grew$*"finitlinii in ftsbal<„ deficit that was turned into a$736,000 surplus through budget cutbacks, • " _year 2© and$tt9.3 million n frs lyear:2> 01r;5 Revenues- ' bonding,lapsing monies,rainy day funds,and revenue transfers from • : shopped growing in fiscal year4002, - at-yearvtitt essedl restricted funds. For budgeting purposes,year-end surpluses are the ecline of$:1g ;. silken.:Generaal ennd: chool,Fund revenues are- beginning revenue balance for the start of the next fiscal year and are • , ;expected to decline another$2 _8,million in_fiscal year 2t} ,: : considered one-time money. • ,1: Capital gains"income tax paytme its declined.to$ 14 8 million in Windfall,Inflation,and Tax Rate and Base-Adjusted Revenue • rstal year:2 i2jfrom 1$4,0millionihthte?i*ot:fist:lye�ar:-:Cajlital' Growth. When revenues are adjusted not only for inflation,but also for gains,1aayments should ntinua o, line to l`etand$95"miliion in windfalls,tax rate and base changes,fiscal year 2002 revenues dropped • ';fis"7, l year2 3; ` = $153.7 million compared to growth of$172 million in fiscal year 2001 '' ; ' , -' ---"-' and growth of$264.5 million in fiscal year 2000. From 1992 through • t*.:., Theytearendrevenuesirplue'also;shran signfftently'ir" scat 2001 inflation,windfall,and tax rate and base adjusted revenue year 2i to 3f1,t.•. . ail belowthe$39 t million inflatrctrt,;= collections came in above the average growth of$139.2 million(the • `adlustedaver'ages€�r. scal:years 1 .: :: 02)y:: - 1980 to 2003 average). State government experienced an abrupt : b 4 turnaround in revenue collections when after 10 years of above average • >. •Ir�tfeed,fiscei�year�fT41�-hed a 94.7-rntlltQrt r�ventrsficttil�tat growth revenues collections came in at a negative$153.7 million in fiscal :.wasturned inte_a 73fiid00 surpiuethrough< 105.a miner tf • bid tcutrac s the:use-tif$133.3 millio r in din da=,:furnds. b . „ year 2002. (including 20million°frare-public educations"rainy,day'fund),a • Fiscal year 2002 is more reminiscent of,although much more severe $53.3 mrllttl€t`:uttch-to last ds"frctrrt casts for' ;:. $ft2. .rnil- '' than,the Utah recession years of 1983, 1986 and 1987. Rate,base and ill ,,. trrrevenpe ttat sfers from resin • funds,end$2(i.31ntikert fry inflation adjusted growth in revenues was also negative in 1987. Fiscal • fregttintng he10,0ei t1 r tvsceusr evus ss once. year 2002 revenue collections would have been$18 million higher were • r�; .Revers estimates issued in November 2 2 for:thae 200 =fly' it not for a re-bracketing of the income tax cut that year. `;,'year show as itional shortfall of$117 million =A special:Session • ::: cifthe"Utah€,L islatur<e�till.he held.inmi4.4: ember21402-t+ideal Action to Balance the Budget Shortfall. The decrease in revenue < ithe=ne:re en d icit :; --_y_,_,.,�::,;,_ collections in fiscal year 2002 was due to the combination of a national • recession,which was deepened by the World Trade Center disaster on 4.`= The primary taxes effected are individual inOon a taxes of$1S,-,, September 11,2001,the end of the Olympics construction build-up,and • millic t do-sales to es of$31 million Ti're-220313udg aa_: _ '- the drop in capital gains and corporate profits due to the dot-corn • reduced from$3 7:billiontos$3.4,4kon end a 7 %:learthan:the-" implosion. : origitial°budget=,,Tla_$117:millign is'in`addititr tc�tiae$�113 milfion • shortfall-forftst l year 2"address d:bye special**ion* the Final(non-withholding)income tax payments declined$144.3 million in '<: tiolLegisioii*o Jiily�fll}2.., fiscal year 2002(from$177.7 million in fiscal year 2001 to$33.4 million • in fiscal year 2002). Final payments are all non-withholding income tax 1� ;.l i re-tax llections ntinued:tct:s,. assealestaxcd1l ti€ine in collections net of refunds. Final payments come from volatile capital • , ::=,:fisoalyear2ti02�fortlhe thyea(`merctw veeth ughin€ raa : gains,interest income,entrepreneurial profits,partnership income,and • '`;_,;taxesas;a pereentoftotal revenues decline 'i titatyear,- - other income distributions. Capital gains income tax payments declined to$114.8 million in fiscalyear 2002 from$184.9 million in the prior fiscal • ::> u u at ve taxcollectit, s�including ad tustme nts fi`r"bracket ..W .. .. . :. .. year. ':<°.creep `were$l 4 billion lower than they would otherwise have:: • • beery due:to'tax reds tions authorized,duri in preetninew :' -; The fiscal year 2002 budget shortfall of$394.7 million was balanced le islative s sions. ;-:_ - _ i:: • through a combination of measures including:1)$105.5 million in net • 2002 Summary budget reductions,2)$113.3 million from the Budget Reserve Account, more commonly known as the rainy day fund,3)$53.3 million by Inflation-Adjusted Revenues. Inflation-adjusted General Fund and replacing state fund cash appropriations for capital facilities with bonds, • School Fund revenues dropped$192.8 million in fiscal year 2002. After 4)$82.3 million in revenue transfers from restricted funds including • adjusting for inflation,this was considerably lower than the$121.3 millionii• $35.4 million made available by replacing restricted fund cash growth that occurred in fiscal year 2001,and the$327 million growth in appropriations for capital facilities with bonds,5)$20 million from the • Ill • Tax Collections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 81 • • Reserve for Growth in Student Population(public education rainy day collections should show little or no growth due to recent federal tax fund),6)$17.7 million from surpluses and beginning balances,and 7) changes that allow corporations to accelerate depreciation for three $2.6 million from miscellaneous sources. years. Income Tax Continues Its Preeminence. Income taxes were larger The original fiscal year 2003 budget passed by the 2002 General than sales taxes in fiscal year 2002 for the 5th year in a row. Prior to Session was based on revenue estimates of$3.7 billion. Estimates 1111 fiscal year 1998,the sales tax made up the largest portion of state issued in November 2002 reduced the budget to$3.4 billion and were government's unrestricted revenues. In fiscal year 2002 income tax 7.7%less than the original estimates. A special session of the Utah collections were 41.7%of total unrestricted revenue collections,whereas Legislature will be held in mid-December 2002 to deal with the new sales tax collections were only 37.4%of the total. Income taxes were revenue deficit. Inflation-adjusted General and School Fund revenues only 34.0%of the total as recently as 1989(when sales taxes were should continue to drop in fiscal year 2003(by$26.5 million). This$26.5 . 37.1%of the total). This reversal in tax preeminence during the 1990s is million reduction is much lower than inflation-adjusted average increases due in part to: 1)sales tax rate reductions;2)stronger historic growth in of$139.2 million per year over the past twenty-three years. sales tax exempt services industries than in taxable goods industries;3) increased sales tax exemptions;4)increased sales over the internet;5) • income tax bracket creep;6)capital gains realizations;and 7)the • transfer of unrestricted general fund monies to restricted accounts. Historic Tax Reductions. Tax collections in Utah experienced a net • reduction of$222.4 million(on an annualized basis)due to statutory • changes that occurred during the past nine legislative sessions. The • cumulative reduction in taxes authorized in these sessions for fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2003 is$1.63 billion. Nonetheless,an • individual taxpayer may actually be paying more in taxes now than eight years ago. This is because non-state government taxes may have • increased,and/or an individual's income,spending,or property values • may have increased. More income or spending,or greater property values,can result in higher taxes even at lower tax rates. There are 633 • taxing entities other than state government in Utah. . Bracket Creep. The net reduction in tax collections does not,however, account for income tax increases due to inflation or"bracket creep." Bracket creep has occurred in Utah since 1973(the year in which the • current brackets were established). Around$3.9 million per year is currently raised from income tax bracket creep. The cumulative"bracket • creep"effect from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 2003 is a tax increase of S $176 million. Thus,the net reduction in state government taxes over this period including"bracket creep"is$1.45 billion. Tax increases due to • "bracket creep"have been lessened in the 1990's due to lower inflation (than in the 1970's and 1980's)and because most taxpayers have • "crept"into the top income tax bracket. • Fiscal Year 2003 Outlook • The Governor's Office of Planning and Budget,Utah State Tax Commission,and the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst announced on November 22,2002 that revenue estimates for the 2003 fiscal year • showed an additional shortfall of$117 million.This was in addition to the $173 million shortfall for fiscal year 2003 addressed by a special session • of the Utah Legislature in July 2002. The primary taxes affected were • individual income taxes of$88 million and sales taxes of$31 million. These tax shortfalls were offset by increases in certain other taxes such • as the insurance premium tax of$10 million and the inheritance tax of $13 million. Other minor increases and decreases made up the • difference to total a net$117 million reduction. • Sales taxes will be weak in fiscal year 2003 due to slow business • investment(supply and equipment purchases),and lower consumer confidence and spending. Income tax collections could be negative due • to numerous job layoffs and fewer capital gains. And,corporate tax 1111 82 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Tax Collections • • • • Figure 35 • Inflation,Windfall, Rate and Base-Adjusted Revenue Growth in Combined General and School Fund Revenues 41110 300 • The average growth in inflation, Net out-migration,downsizing at Geneva Steel 250 windfall,rate and base-adjusted and Kennecott Copper,the completion of the , • revenues from FY80 to Intermountain Power Project,changes in coal FY03 is$139.2 million. mining technology,and lower oil prices all s n''. s, , • 200 €h contributed to a general slowdown in FY1986 ! i , !, ` and FY1987: . .. .. • ro 150 .t Bxt b' O ,. • o �F afi: w r F y £ � % i /,i ri g n k ; 7'. • c 50 yb � � � fr z fn s O 9 a 3 >�,1 r 3�' , P, Yn P .3 V 0 g ., `3. ' ' c'' ' 5 s3 f�.`s1 3 y. B i ,.,�', 5 • w 6. • C -50 '•n;': The CY1982 recession caused corporate Beginning in CY1989 job growth rates in Utah Stock options and strong capital gains created • -100 profits,oil prices and growth in exceeded those in California and the Nation.Net large revenue growth in FY2000.FY2002 growth employment to decline in FY1983. in-migration began in CY1991 and peaked in declined due to a national recession,the dot-com • 150 CY1994 at 22,800.Employment also peaked in implosion, the 9/11 terrorist attack,and the end CY1994 at 6.2%.Personal income growth of the Olympics build-up. • peaked in CY1995 at 8.9%. -200 • 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003e • ®Millions 212.6 130.1 170.2 6.3 179.9 180.3 40.9 -32.6 117.2 180.0 129.4 137.5 143.1 161.2 210.1 234.9 262.4 267.3 210.4 144.4 264.5 172.0-153.7 -26.5 Fiscal Years • • • 4411 Figure 36 • Inflation-Adjusted Revenue Growth and Surpluses for Combined General and School Fund Revenues • • 500 • A$50 million inheritance windfall,stock options,and strong capital gains,created large growth in FY2000. • 400 FY2002 growth declined due to a national recession, in dot-corn implosion, 9/11 terrorist attack,and the end • ', 300- of the Olympics build-up. _ • C - c • a0+ 200- C O - • U 0 100-• - - c 0 ^ u • -100- • -200 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 • e • I--1 Growth 204.6 110.6 163.3 7.4 359.6 164.5 47.5 50.8 171.3 171.3 109.4 105.1 128.6 157.7 268.6 247.1 254.9 230.1 193.5 139.1 327.0 121.3-192.8-26.5 • -10-Surplus NA NA NA 18.9 127.7 28.7 2.7 42.1 13.6 94.9 62.9 42.4 5.9 2.1 43.3 60.2 10.1 40.0 47.1 7.7 118.1 12.5 0.7 NA II" Fiscal Years • II • Tax Collections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 83 • • II I Figure 37 . Sales Tax,Income Tax, and All Other Unrestricted Revenues as a Percent of Total State Unrestricted Revenues . III t5 • •40- • cc 35- • 7-5 l ~ • O 30- ! • 0 a 25 - • 20 IllIIIIIIIMi • • • 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003e !.Others 30.8 30.4 30.4 28.8 29.8 29.7 28.6 30.0 30.3 26.3 28.0 2f 27.8 25.8 23.6 22 3 22.8 23.5 22.5 21.8 23.6 22.4 23.0 22.7 20.9 21.3 • I !Sales 40.4 39.0 38.1 38.5 37.8 37.3 41.1 39.4 38.6 37.8 37.5 37.1 37.8 37.8 38.7 39.8 39.7 38.8 39.2 39.4 36.4 36.8 34.9 35.3 37.4 37.4 0 ......income 28.8 30.6 31.5 32.7 32.4 33.1 30.3 30.6 31.1 35.9 34.5 34.0 34.4 36.4 37.7 37.9 37.4 37.7 38.3 38.8 40.0 40.8 42.1 42.0 41.7 41.3 • `The"Omers"category includes unrestricted fines and fees,investment income,liquor profits mineral lease,school land income(ended in fiscal 1988),federal revenue sharing(ended in fiscal 1982);and, • corporate,gross receipts,severance,beer,cigarette,insurance,inheritance and motor fuels taxes. • • Figure 380 Comparison of Utah and U.S.Capital Gains: October 28,2002 • • 700 200 • - 180 • 600- - 160 • 500- • y CBO is the source for the U.S.through FY01. - 140 ea Econonry.corn is the source for the FY02 and FY03 c • G estimates for the U.S.The Tax Commission is the - 120 G p 400- source for Utah through FY02.GOPB is the source p • p for Utah's FY03 estimate.Utah's FY03 value was46 to modeled using stock market price indices lagged six - 1 OO in =O 300- months;i.e.,the capital gains estimate was derived >_ • using the performance of CY02 stock price indices. - 80 O m 2 • 200- - 60 -40 • 100 • 0 0- 20 FY88 FY89 FY90 FY91 FY92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 • US Capital Gains 148 163 154 124 112 127 152 153 180 261 365 455 553 644 293 280 • -4-UT Capital Gains 29.4 31.2 33.1 30.1 33.5 32.3 43.6 51.4 57.5 1 89.1 122.8 145.1 167.3 184.9 114.8 95.0 Fiscal Years • III 411101) 84 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Tax Collections • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • • • Table 41 0 Cash Collection Unrestricted Revenues(Millions of Current Dollars): FY 1985 to FY 2003 0 a. cn l/1 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 General Fund(GF) Sales and Use Tax 555.4 558.6 559.0 617.6 667.4 707.4 740.3 802.4 881.9 978.2 1,055.1 1,162.5 1,252.1 1,251.8 1,316.4 1,369.6 1,431.4 1,441.3 1,434.0 Liquor Profits 18.9 19.0 17.2 15.9 16.0 16.6 17.6 16.6 18.1 17.9 20.1 22.2 24.3 26.3 26.9 28.7 30.3 32.5 32.6 Insurance Premiums 22.3 26.1 27.8 28.2 26.4 30.0 27.8 30.2 34.0 38.2 40.9 40.1 43.1 44.6 47.7 52.2 46.0 56.6 62.1 Beer,Cigarette,and Tobacco 21.3 21.1 24.0 29.2 30.7 30.2 31.0 34.6 34.3 36.4 37.7 37.8 41.2 53.2 60.1 58.0 57.9 60.0 61.5 Severance Taxes 46.9 43.8 21.5 29.2 28.1 30.1 31.0 18.2 19.3 18.9 21.4 20.4 23.8 23.0 13.1 23.0 45.6 23.8 21.8 Inheritance Tax 4.8 4.7 2.3 3.4 9.8 7.6 4.8 4.0 7.6 8.2 25.0 8.3 10.3 25.4 8.2 64.6 30.0 9.4 22.5 Investment Income 14.4 12.0 3.8 10.7 19.2 17.9 11.0 7.0 4.4 6.4 12.3 16.8 16.3 15.7 15.0 19.5 27.5 9.7 7.4 Other 23.4 22.2 24.7 26.5 27.4 32.6 33.9 27.7 26.0 30.0 32.9 37.2 34.9 40.8 38.3 41.0 46.5 50.6 46.0 Circuit Breaker Credits -2.2 -1.5 -1.2 -1.2 -1.4 -3.4 -3.5 -4.1 -4.2 -4.5 -4.7 -4.6 -4.4 -4.5 -5.3 -4.4 -5.4 -5.3 -5.3 SubtotalGF 705.1 706.0 679.1 759.6 823.7 869.1 894.0 936.5 1,021.41,129.7 1,240.6 1,340.6 1,441.6 1,476.2 1,520.41,652.2 1,709.8 1,678.7 1,682.5 School Fund(SF) EllIndividual Income Tax 435.5 454.3 533.3 569.9 615.6 647.6 717.6 784.4 842.3 925.3 1,026.9 1,139.1 1,237.3 1,377.5 1,463.9 1,654.9 1,712.7 1,610.2 1,588.8 Corporate Franchise Tax 65.9 84.0 68.9 78.8 93.0 99.7 87.8 80.9 79.5 121.1 153.5 168.4 182.9 189.1 184.3 179.6 174.8 119.4 110.0 School Land Income 18.4 11.2 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Permanent Fund Interest 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.1 4.5 4.6 4.7 6.5 4.4 4.9 3.2 3.5 2.5 6.8 2.4 9.0 9.6 9.8 Gross Receipts Tax 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.5 2.8 4.2 3.7 3.6 4.5 4.1 4.4 8.4 9.1 7.2 7.9 7.3 8.3 8.0 7.4 Other 9.8 11.2 12.3 9.9 13.7 11.2 12.9 16.4 5.5 6.9 8.4 8.5 4.8 7.1 7.6 8.5 9.7 5.6 6.1 Subtotal SF 529.6 560.8 623.0 665.1 728.3 767.2 826.5 890.0 938.2 1,061.8 1,198.0 1,327.5 1,437.6 1,583.3 1,670.5 1,852.8 1,914.4 1,752.7 1,722.0 rnTransportation Fund(TF) o Motor Fuel Tax 89.3 92.2 100.0 129.4 131.2 132.5 131.1 136.4 141.3 150.4 155.5 163.2 168.4 217.7 225.2 237.6 229.4 237.9 242.8 Special Fuel Tax 17.8 19.4 20.6 27.6 29.3 29.1 36.8 33.4 35.6 36.2 40.7 43.7 46.2 72.4 73.2 76.6 80.6 84.4 86.5 Other 33.8 34.7 34.8 35.5 36.9 38.7 39.6 44.6 47.3 49.6 52.6 54.3 52.6 54.8 58.5 65.0 64.5 62.8 65.0 m Subtotal TF 140.9 146.2 155.4 192.4 197.4 200.3 207.4 214.3 224.2 236.2 248.7 261.2 267.3 344.9 356.9 379.1 374.5 385.2 394.3 N neral Lease Payments 34.2 32.6 22.4 28.8 50.8 34.9 32.4 32.5 30.3 33.3 29.1 34.7 34.1 33.5 31.5 39.6 57.9 36.6 36.6 TOTAL 1,409.8 1,445.6 1,479.9 1,645.9 1,800.2 1,871.4 1,960.3 2,073.4 2,214.1 2,461.0 2,716.4 2,964.0 3,180.6 3,437.9 3,579.2 3,923.7 4,056.5 3,853.2 3,835.3 Sources:Comprehensive Annual Reports, Division of Finance;Utah State Tax Commission Annual Reports;Governor's Office of Planning and Budget 0o cn rn Table 42 Cash Collection of Unrestricted Revenues(Current Dollar Percent Changes): FY 1985 to FY 2003 N m 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 0 B General Fund((F) Sales and Use Tax na 0.6 0.1 10.5 8.1 6.0 4.6 8.4 9.9 10.9 7.9 10.2 7.7 0.0 5.2 4.0 4.5 0.7 -0.5 o Liquor Profits na 0.7 -9.6 -7.3 0.4 3.9 5.8 -5.5 9.3 -1.3 12.2 10.3 9.7 8.2 2.3 6.6 5.6 7.6 0.0 Insurance Premiums na 17.1 6.5 1.7 -6.4 13.7 -7.2 8.4 12.7 12.3 7.3 -2.0 7.4 3.4 7.1 9.3 -11.8 23.1 9.6 E Beer,Cigarette,and Tobacco na -1.2 14.0 21.6 5.3 -1.8 2.7 11.5 -0.9 6.3 3.4 0.3 9.0 29.2 12.8 -3.4 -0.2 3.5 2.6 coSeverance Taxes na -6.6 -50.8 35.3 -3.5 7.0 3.1 -41.5 6.1 -2.0 13.4 -4.9 16.8 -3.2 -43.3 76.3 98.0 -47.7 -8.8 G) Inheritance Tax na -1.3 -50.9 48.5 183.6 -22.3 -36.6 -17.4 91.9 7.4 204.8 -66.6 23.5 147.2 -67.6 683.7 -53.5 -68.6 138.8 11 Investment Income na -16.3 -68.1 178.6 80.0 -7.0 -38.8 -36.1 -37.8 46.2 93.4 36.5 -2.8 -3.6 -4.5 29.9 40.9 -64.6 -24.5 Other na -5.0 11.0 7.2 3.7 18.8 4.2 -18.4 -6.0 15.3 9.6 12.9 -6.1 16.8 -6.1 7.1 13.5 8.8 -9.2 Circuit Breaker Credits na -32.9 -16.4 -7.2 21.2 140.9 4.5 15.8 2.9 7.0 5.7 -1.7 -4.4 1.8 17.0 -17.4 23.8 -1.3 -1.7 Subtotal GF na 0.1 -3.8 11.9 8.4 5.5 2.9 4.8 9.1 10.6 9.8 8.1 7.5 2.4 3.0 8.7 3.5 -1.8 0.2 School Fund(SF) Individual Income Tax na 4.3 17.4 6.9 8.0 5.2 10.8 9.3 7.4 9.9 11.0 10.9 8.6 11.3 6.3 13.1 3.5 -6.0 -1.3 impCorporate Franchise Tax na 27.5 -18.0 14.4 18.0 7.2 -12.0 -7.8 -1.8 52.3 26.8 9.7 - 8.6 3.4 -2.5 -2.5 -2.7 -31.7 -7.8 School Land Income na -39.0 -29.3 na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na Permanent Fund Interest na na na na 49.9 45.8 1.3 2.8 37.5 -32.0 10.9 -35.5 9.8 -29.4 178.0 -64.9 274.7 7.7 1.6 Gross Receipts Tax na na na 782.0 -37.4 48.3 -11.7 -2.9 25.9 -8.4 6.3 90.3 8.6 -20.8 10.3 -7.4 13.6 -4.6 -7.0 Other na 15.2 9.7 -20.2 39.6 -18.6 15.1 27.1 -66.4 25.9 20.7 1.3 -42.7 45.9 7.1 11.9 13.8 -42.4 8.9 Subtotal SF na 5.9 11.1 6.8 9.5 5.3 7.7 7.7 5.4 13.2 12.8 10.8 8.3 10.1 5.5 10.9 3.3 -8.4 -1.7 Transportation Fund(TF) Motor Fuel Tax na 3.2 8.5 29.4 1.4 1.0 -1.1 4.0 3.6 6.4 3.4 5.0 3.2 29.3 3.5 5.5 -3.4 3.7 2.0 Special Fuel Tax na 8.9 6.5 33.6 6.4 -0.7 26.4 -9.2 6.5 1.8 12.3 7.6 5.7 56.7 1.1 4.6 5.2 4.7 2.4 Other na 2.6 0.5 2.0 3.8 4.9 2.3 12.7 6.1 4.8 6.1 3.1 -3.0 4.1 6.7 11.1 -0.8 -2.6 3.5 Subtotal TF na 3.7 6.3 23.8 2.6 1.4 3.6 3.3 4.6 5.4 5.3 5.0 2.3 29.0 3.5 6.2 -1.2 2.9 2.4 Mineral Lease Payments na -4.7 -31.3 28.8 76.2 -31.2 -7.3 0.5 -6.9 10.1 -12.8 19.5 -1.8 -1.8 -6.1 26.0 46.0 -36.7 -0.2 TOTAL na 2.5 2.4 11.2 9.4 4.0 4.7 5.8 6.8 11.2 10.4 9.1 7.3 8.1 4.1 9.6 3.4 -5.0 -0.5 Average Annual Growth Rate na 2.5 2.5 5.3 6.3 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.8 6.4 6.8 7.0 7.0 7.1 6.9 7.1 6.8 6.1 5.7 XSources:Comprehensive Annual Reports,Division of Finance;Utah State Tax Commission Annual Reports;Govemor's Office of Planning and Budget (') 0 ro 0 0 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •9• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •C • • • • • • Table 43 • State Tax and Fee Changes(Over$200,000)Enacted in the 1994 through 2002 Regular and Special Legislative Sessions(A)(B)(C) 41111. Tax&Fee Cumulative Bill Number and Effective Year Bill Subject Changes to FY2003 FY 1995 • H.B.145(1994 Session) Sales Tax Exemption-Replacement Pads for Steel Mills ($516,700) H.B.162(1994 Session) Sales Tax-Repeal of Flood Tax Authorization ($516,700) H.B.205(1994 Session) Tax Credit for Low-Income Housing (226,600)• Venous Bills(1994 Session) Sales Tax Exemptions Repealed 10,713,500 S.B.9(1994 Session) Property Tax Rate&Residence Exemption Changes (8,500,000) • S.B.191(1994 Session) Treatment of Admission and User Fees 3,290,000 Subtotal FY 1995 ($18,839,800) ($169,558,200) • FY 1996 Various Bills(1995 Session) Sales Tax Exemptions Authorized ($3,613,000) S.B.254(1995 Session) Gross Receipts Taxes 9,400,000 • S.B.56 and 254(1995 Session) Property Taxes(1) (141,440,833) S.B.56 and 254(1995 Session) Income Taxes(1) 4,500,000 • Subtotal FY 1996 ($131,153,833)($1,049,230,664) FY 1997 • S.B.56 and 254(1995 Session) Property Taxes(Restricted to New Growth,1995 Session)(1)Construction ($8,703,800) H.B.274)1995 Session) Additional Sales Tax on Protects(1995 Session) (2,000,000) • H.B.58(1996 Regular Session) Driving Under the Influence—Repeat Offenders(2) 258,000 Vanous Bills(1996 Session) Reinstate Sales Tax Exemptions (1,188,300) H.B.349(1996 Regular Session) Gross Receipts Taxes-Modifications(3) (4,750,000) • H.B.404(1996 Regular Session) Income Tax-Health Care Insurance Deduction(4) (4.000,000) H.B.405(1996 Regular Session) Minimum School Program Act(Property Taxes) (30,000,000) • H.B.405(1996 Regular Session) Income Taxes(1) 1,500,000 H.B.3001(1996 November Session) Sales Tax-Manufacturing Exemption Modifications(1996 Nov.Session)(5) (8,700,000) S.B. 95(1996RegularSession) Income Tax-Credit for Disabled Education Costs (750,000)• S.B.237(1996 Regular Session) Income Tax Rate Reductions(6) (41,000,000) S.B.275(1996 Regular Session) Sales Tax-Ski Exemption(7) (338,000) • H.B.27(1997 Session) Cigarettes Tax Increase and Regulation(8) 462,000 Subtotal FY 1997 ($99,210,100) ($694,470,700) • FY 1998 S.B.239(1996 Regular Session) Tax Credits for Rural Economic Resettlement Zones(Tax Credits) ($275,000) . H.B.3001(1996 November Session) Additional Sales Tax-Manufactunng Exemption Modifications(1996 Nov.Session)(5) (8,700,000) S.B.161(1997 Session) Motor Vehicle Compliance With Insurance,Registration,And Sales Tax Requirements 870,000 S.B.252(1997 Session) Collection of Fuel Tax(9) 10,000,000 • S.B.253(1997 Session) Fuels Taxes,and Repeal of Environmental Surcharge on Petroleum(10) 63,250,000 S.B.253(1997 Session) Sales Tax Reduction(10) (34,300,000) • H.B.27(1997 Session) Cigarettes Tax Increase and Regulation(8) 21,800,000 H.B.111(1997 Session) Transportation Corridor Funding(11) 4,300,000 le H.B.225(1997 Session) Assessment on Workers'Compensation(12) 6,100,000 H.B.359(1997 Session) Endangered Species Mitigation Fund(13) 400,000 H.B.414(1997 Session) Registration Fee on Vehicles(14) 16,500,000 • Subtotals FY 1998 $79,945,000 $479,670,000 FY 1999 • H.B.3001(1996 November Session) Additional Sales Tax-Manufactunng Exemption Modifications(1996 Nov.Session)(5) ($11,200,000) S.B.252(1997 Session) Additional Collection of Fuel Tax 300,000 . H.B.154(1997 Session) Property Tax Circuit Breaker (215,00D) H.B.414(1997 Session) Additional Registration Fee on Vehicles 495,000 S.B.34(1998 Session) Sales Tax Exemption for Higher Education Athletic Events(15) (402,000) • Subtotals FY 1999 ($11,022,000) ($55,110,000) FY 2000 • H.B.58(1998 Session) Oil and Gas Severance Tax Amendments(16) ($900,000) 5.6.47(1998 Session) Research Tax Credit(17) (3,200,000) • S.B.185(1998 Session) Sales and Use Tax Exemption Amendments and Study(18) 5,600,000 S.B.220(1998 Session) Research and Development Credit for Machinery and Equipment(19) (2,000,000) H.B.396(1999 Session) Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Steel Mills (617,500)• S.B.19(1999 Session) Sales and Use Tax Exemption for Heating Aids and Accessones (311,000) S.B.69(1999 Session) Manufactunng Sales and Use Tax Exemption(20) (5,600,000) • S.B.150(1999 Session) Utilities in Highway Rights-of-Way(21) 1,600,000 Subtotals FY 2000 ($5,428,500) ($21,714,000) • FY 2001 H.B.25(1999 Session) Income Tax Deduction for Health Cam Insurance(22) ($1,770,000) S.B.62(1999 Session) Individual Income Tax Credits for At-Home Parents (500,000) • H.B.345(2000 Session) Unemployment Insurance Amendments(23) (26,500,000) S.B.15(2000 Session) Use of Tobacco Settlement Revenues(24) (5,500,000) • Subtotals FY 2001 ($34,270,000) ($102,810,000) FY 2002 • HB 78(2001 Session)HB 98(2001 Session) Sales and Use Tax-Sales Relating to Schools(School Related Activities) ($281,000) Enterpnse Zones(Income Tax Credits for Rural Areas) (300,000) SB 34(2001 Session) Individual Income Tax-Relief for Low Income Individuals(25) (800,000) • SB 36(2001 Session) Individual Income Tax Bracket Adjustments(26) (18,000,000) SB 58(2001 Session) Repeal of Nursing Facilities Assessment(27) (4,422,400) • SB 71(2001 Session) Tax Credits for Special Needs Adoptions(Income Tax Credit of$1,000) (256,000) HB 205(2001 Session) Employers'Reinsurance Fund Special Assessment(Workers'Compensation)(12) 6,135,000 • HB370(2001 Session) Hazardous Waste Amendment(28) 1,694,000 Subtotals FY 2002 ($16,230,400) ($32,460,800) FY 2003 • HB238(2002 Session) Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendments(29) $13,800,000 Subtotals FY 2003 $13,800,000 $13,800,000 40 Grand Total for Taxes and Fees FY 1995 to FY 2003(A)(B)(C) ($222,409,633)($1,631,864,364) *See next page for footnotes • ,li • Tax Collections 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 87 411 Table 43(Continued) State Tax and Fee Changes(Over$200,000)Enacted in the 1994 through 2002 Regular and Special Legislative Sessions(A)(B)(C) FOOTNOTES: IPS (A)This table is not adjusted for tax increases due to income tax"bracket creep."The most recent fiscal note estimate for indexing income taxes for inflation is$3.9 million(fiscal note from the 2000 General Session).Tax increases due to"bracket creep"have been lessened in the 1990's due to lower inflation(than in the 1970's and 1980's)and because most taxpayers have"creeped"into the top income tax bracket. B)This table is not adjusted for inflation.Only fiscal notes for state tax and fee increases or decreases greater than or equal to$200,000 are listed.Changes in local . taxes are excluded.Extentions of exiting laws are excluded.For example,SB76(1999 Session)extended the sales tax exemption for pollution equipment at a cost of $6,000,000. (C)This table does NOT include shifts within the total state budget due to earmarking or other diversions.For example,H.B.393(1996 Session)reduces General Fund sales tax revenues by$36 million beginning in FY1998 in order to earmark sales taxes to local water and local transportation projects;but,total budget sales taxes were not reduced by this bill. (1)In 1995 the Legislature and Tax Commission increased the residential exemption from 32%to 45%,decreased the basic school rate from.00422 to.00264,and reduced the state assessing and collecting rate from.0003 to.000281.The 1995 Legislature also restricted the growth in taxable valuations to new growth only,effective in fiscal year 1997. In 1996 the Legislature further ordered the Tax Commission to reduce the basic school rate to a level sufficient to generate a$30 million tax cut. . State income taxes increased due to the reduction in property tax deductibility against federal income taxes owed. . (2)Increased fines and surcharges. (3)Effective January 1,1996,reduced gross receipts tax rates 53 percent to benefit electric utilities. • (4)Effective January 1,1996,allows 60 percent of health care insurance,not already deductible against federal taxes,to be deducted against state taxes owed. (5)As of July 1996(FY97)30%of the exemption is allowed,as of July 1997 60%is allowed,and as of July 1998 100%is allowed.The original fiscal note for FY99 was • $28.6 million.The Tax Commission subsequently ruled that parts(in addition to equipment)were eligible for the exemption(which raised the fiscal note to$71.3 million). In November 1996 a special session of the legislature met to modify the law in order to restore the fiscal note to$28.6 million in FY99. • (6)Reduced effective income tax rates as of January 1,1996.Reduced top rate from 7.2 percent to 7.0 percent on taxable incomes over$7,500.The minimum income tax rate will be reduced from 2.55%to 2.3%. . (7)This is a consensus estimate.The Fiscal Analyst's estimate is$65,000. (8)Increases cigarette tax 25 cents per pack.FY1997 fiscal impact is from stocking up of inventories in order to partially avoid the July 1,1997 tax increase. • (9)Changes the point of collection for the diesel fuels tax from dealers to refineries. • (10)Raises the diesel and gasoline tax 5 cents a gallon and reduces the sales tax by 1/8th cent.Enactment of this bill will generate$63,250,000 in increased revenue to the Transportation Fund due to the increase in the diesel and gas tax and the 1/2 cent diversion from underground storage tanks to highways.There will be a decrease in General Fund sales taxes of$34,300,000.The net tax change from this bill is$28,950,000. • (11)Implements a 2.5 percent tax on rental cars to pay for transportation corridors. (12)Permits the Department of Workforce Services to impose an assessment related to the Employers'Reinsurance Fund. • (13)Creates an Endangered Species Mitigation Fund and imposes a royalty tax on brine shrimp harvesting. • (14)Increases the vehicle registration fee by$10 and trucking fees by about 10 percent.This restricted money goes into the Centennial Highway Trust Fund. (15)Amounts paid for admission to an athletic event at an institution of higher education that is subject to the provisions of Title IX are exempt from sales and use tax. (16)Extends the repeal date for a tax credit for workover credits and recompletions of oil wells. 410 (17)Gives a 6%tax credit for qualified research activities conducted in the state. • (18)Reduces the sales tax exemption for machinery and equipment from 100%in FY1999 to 80%in FY2000. After July 1,1999,vendors shall collect sales tax on 20% of the sales price of normal operating replacements. • (19)Gives a 6%individual or corporate income tax credit on the purchase price of machinery,equipment or both. (20)Reinstates the manufacturing sales tax exemption on replacement parts at 100%. S.B.185(1998 Session)had previously reduced this exemption to 80%. • (21)Permit fees and compensation paid into the Transportation Fund for access to rights-of-way on Interstate Highways by telecommunication companies. (22)Increases income tax deduction for amounts paid for health care insurance from 60%to 100%of amounts not deducted from federal taxes. • (23)Changes in the reserve rate and calculation method will produce a tax reduction for all employers paying this insurance at the contributory rate.Taxes(income to • the Employment Compensation Fund)will be reduced by$26,500,000 per year beginning in fiscal year 2001.The reserve fund was reduced from 22 to 18 months. (24)The hospital assessment tax was repealed in fiscal year 2001.This was a tax rate on hospital gross revenues,as well as$0.9 for each surgery performed.The tax rate was adjusted quarterly so that no more than$5.5 million annually was collected. • (25)Exempts an individual from paying income taxes if federal AGI is less than the sum of the individual's personal exemptions plus his/her standard deduction • (removes about 30,000 low income individuals from state income tax rolls). (26)The top bracket was increased from$7,500 to$8,626 and the bottom bracket was increased from$1,500 to$1,726(15,000 taxpayers were dropped out of the • highest bracket). (27)Repeals the$1.83 per patient day nursing home"bed"tax(the hospital bed tax was repealed in the 2000 General Session). • (28)Established fees and taxes that apply to the reprocessing,treatment,or disposal of certain types of radioactive waste. (29)Increased tax on cigarettes 18 cents per 20 pack,from 51.5 cents to 69.5 cents. • • • • • • • 88 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Tax Collections • • • • li International Merchandise Exports • oAitt to t-- -. :_' the merchandise was shipped. Because shippers often have operations WO Utah :. rt'f 1 fr m 3` �`lll''ra °i$2 hiliion in several states,exports from one state are occasionallyattributed to a .. s�xpv-s el Jla t �[� fl�i2, 0 � b.tp,,to 3 - � p Atl iUtakfe exports more thia t'doubled duri the 9 0s,most:i f different state. Errors do occur in the estimates of exports from the • tie r ceirrefibetbrei00t, "Sifice°t en,a prts>have retitirtatf In states. Still,the Census is the only source of export data by state,and, • #tie r• _@f$ 0 b 111 <t ,5 billion E ports old_have-fallen ven in Utah's case,the data tend to correspond with known activity. farther without a eur in. hipments of p n ry` metals to Switzerland.- ; Further,EastAsla'a put hraseauf"f t%go't s ttld not:fag:41200Z 1pi , Another limitation is the data account for the value of merchandise to`shore up,exports; hefactthat thewortd ecinomy E ri t raly: ing== exports but not service exports.This means that exports of business • .b€at tpbrtsto East Asia; teraiding-t iiticles well Eris tt€ure Ut b-expert services(such as financial services or computer software),educational • gr :.' , - ......._ services(such as international students paying tuition to purchase Utah 2002 Summary education),tourist services(such as purchases made by international • travelers in Utah),and other services sold in international markets are Value of Utah's Merchandise Exports. Utah ranked 32nd among the not included in the value of these exports. • states in the value of merchandise exports during 2002. Export estimates for 2002 are based on the first three quarters of data reported Conclusion • by the U.S.Census Bureau;the growth rate for the year is assumed to Utah's exports fell 9%during 2002,from$3.5 billion to$3.2 billion. What • be the same as that observed from the third quarter of 2001 to the third appears to be a one-time surge in primary metals shipments to quarter of 2002,-9%. In line with Utah's 9%decline,exports for the U.S. Switzerland bolstered exports during 2002. East Asian demand for Utah • and 22 of the states fell from 2001 to 2002. Utah's exports are about products appears set to grow again after several years of decline. With • 3%of Texas'$94.2 billion. As the leading state,Texas accounted for demand rising,East Asia may once again become a primary force for almost one seventh of the nation's$688.6 billion merchandise exports Utah's export growth. • during 2002. With$92.1 billion in exports,second place California is essentially tied with Texas. However,during 2001,California was the • lead exporting state,exporting about 80%more than Texas. U.S. • merchandise exports fell 6%from$731 billion to$689 billion. • Utah's Merchandise Exports by Industry. During 2002,exports of primary metal products(gold,copper and steel)were$1.2 billion,almost • one-third of the total.Other major export products include computers and iill electronics($601 million,or 15%),transportation equipment($357 million,or 17%),chemicals($189 million,or 7%),and food($169 million, • or 7%). • Destination of Utah's Merchandise Exports. Utah's largest markets for merchandise exports are in Western Europe,East Asia,and Canada. • During 2002,the top five destination countries for Utah's merchandise • exports accounted for$2.3 billion of the$3.2 billion total,or 71%,while the top ten accounted for$2.7 billion,or 83%. Exports of primary metals • to Switzerland make it Utah's largest market. Primary metal purchases • also make the United Kingdom Utah's second largest market. • Significant Issues East Asia. The East Asian crisis of 1998 appears to be nearing the end • of its course. At any rate,Utah's$877 million in exports to East Asia during 2002 are essentially the same as in 2001. After peaking at$1.1 • billion in 1997,Utah's exports there declined to$746 million in 1999, • recently stabilizing in a range around$900 million. As a share of total exports,East Asia bottomed at 24%in 1999,before increasing to 28% • during 2002. At$322 million,Japan is Utah's largest East Asian market, followed by Singapore at$252 million,Korea at$72 million,the • Philippines at$65 million,and Hong Kong at$50 million. Computers • and electronics are Utah's largest export to East Asia,followed by transportation equipment. East Asia appears to be on a course leading • to larger purchases of Utah's exports. • Limitations of Data. The export data presented have been generated • by the U.S.Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Division in cooperation with SO the U.S.Customs Service. Census uses information on the Customs Service shippers export declaration to determine from where in the U.S. • Iii • International Merchandise Exports 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 89 • 411 • • Figure 39 . Utah Merchandise Exports(Millions of Dollars) 4,000 • y9 • 3,000 ^` , � rn N • 1 :000rniliiilulul • ,000 • 4r • 0,4 • 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 • Note:Exports for 2002 are estimated based on the first three quarters. • Source:U.S.Census Bureau • • • • Figure 40 5 Utah Merchandise Exports by Top Ten Industries:2002 • • Primary Metals • Computers and Electronics • r Transportation Equipment • Chemicals „h; • Food • Miscellaneous Manufactures 1..A... Machinery • • Electrical Equipment • Unclassified • • • Plastics • 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 • Millions of Dollars • Note:Exports for 2002 are estimated based on the first three quarters. • Source:U.S.Census Bureau 5 • 90 2003 Economic Report to the Governor International Merchandise Exports • • • • • Figure 41 Utah Merchandise Exports to Top Ten Purchasing Countries: 2002 • Switzerland• • United Kingdom • Canada ;" _!.., ..; • Japan • Singapore , ;, ;.. .< • Netherlands • Mexico• Korea • Philippines • • Hong Kong 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 • Millions of Dollars • Note:Exports for 2002 are estimated based on the first three quarters. • Source:U.S.Census Bureau • 410 • • • • • 40 • • • • • • • • International Merchandise Exports 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 91 411 Table 44 , Utah Merchandise Exports by Purchasing Country and Region(Millions of Dollars) . 2001-02 1101 Percent Percent Rank Country 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Change . 1 Switzerland $71.4 $248.8 $399.5 $452.9 $696.4 $893.2 28.2% , 2 United Kingdom 768.2 720.2 628.9 246.0 421.3 437.8 3.9% I 3 Canada 495.8 486.8 568.5 605.8 543.2 379.8 -30.1% . 4 Japan 516.3 397.1 378.5 402.1 396.4 314.7 -20.6% 5 Singapore 63.0 38.0 44.0 54.9 46.3 245.5 430.7% . 6 Netherlands 108.8 98.2 120.8 151.2 154.3 99.5 -35.5% 7 Mexico 88.6 77.1 78.7 102.1 113.6 90.0 -20.8% . 8 Korea 112.1 50.7 67.2 128.9 127.6 70.7 -44.6% 9 Philippines 94.5 111.6 79.6 105.2 79.4 63.7 -19.7% . 10 Hong Kong 44.1 28.5 40.4 58.4 53.2 48.5 -8.8% I 11 Germany 147.1 88.0 75.7 104.5 93.6 47.6 -49.2% 12 Belgium 74.0 45.2 53.1 72.8 58.6 45.8 -21.8% . 13 China 26.0 33.6 17.3 32.6 40.6 44.4 9.2% 14 Taiwan 98.8 44.6 43.6 76.3 57.1 43.1 -24.5% • 15 France 46.1 42.7 57.1 46.9 54.1 36.9 -31.9% 16 Australia 33.2 44.2 44.9 59.7 54.1 36.1 -33.2% . 17 Costa Rica 2.9 2.2 2.7 18.6 20.8 24.3 16.9% 18 Italy 48.6 27.0 45.9 39.6 37.5 21.8 -41.9% • 19 Thailand 74.9 50.9 23.4 17.9 23.3 21.5 -7.9% . 20 Malaysia 57.5 70.5 47.3 44.0 50.3 21.5 -57.3% 21 Turkey 4.1 7.5 19.8 30.3 33.5 18.0 -46.2% • 22 Spain 15.7 19.3 15.0 18.2 19.6 15.6 -20.5% 23 Ireland 45.9 50.5 64.0 98.3 55.3 13.1 -76.3% • 24 Sweden 21.6 23.7 7.1 12.2 13.6 10.9 -19.7% 25 India 7.4 4.6 5.8 11.8 12.0 9.3 -22.7% • 26 Brazil 15.4 14.6 24.5 41.1 41.7 9.1 -78.2% 27 Norway 3.7 5.6 3.8 5.7 8.8 8.8 -0.4% ell 28 Israel 9.6 9.7 8.6 8.9 9.7 6.2 -36.4% 29 Finland 3.4 3.4 4.3 3.4 5.5 6.2 11.5% • 30 Ukraine 2.5 3.8 7.1 7.5 8.9 5.1 -43.2% • 31 New Zealand 12.1 9.2 9.7 7.0 6.4 5.0 -21.1% 32 Russian Federation 4.8 2.3 3.0 5.7 3.8 4.5 19.4% • 33 Denmark 3.2 3.2 14.2 8.7 5.2 4.5 -14.1% 34 Chile 23.9 17.8 6.2 7.1 5.9 4.4 -25.8% • 35 Colombia 4.1 4.0 4.6 3.2 4.9 4.0 -18.1% • 2001-02 Percent 1111 Rank Region Change • 1 Western Europe 1,370.3 1,393.5 1,521.0 1,301.6 1,669.7 1,666.4 -0.2% 2 East Asia 1,096.4 830.3 746.0 923.4 880.3 876.5 -0.4% • 3 Canada 495.8 486.8 568.5 605.8 543.2 379.8 -30.1% 4 Mexico 88.6 77.1 78.7 102.1 113.6 90.0 -20.8% • 5 Latin America 78.2 65.0 71.8 110.0 119.3 68.5 -42.5% • 6 Australia/Pacific 46.2 54.4 55.9 68.0 61.8 42.2 -31.7% 7 West Asia 34.6 44.2 52.6 58.1 52.8 31.6 -40.2% • 8 Eastern Europe 13.9 15.0 24.3 31.3 38.3 22.1 -42.4% 9 Africa 13.4 11.3 14.2 19.8 27.1 9.8 -63.6% • Total 3,237.3 2,977.6 3,133.0 3,220.2 3,506.0 3,186.9 -9.1% • Notes: . 1. Rank based on 2002 exports. 2. 2002 exports based on the first three quarters. • Source: U.S.Census Bureau 110 11111 • 92 2003 Economic Report to the Governor International Merchandise Exports • • • • • • Table 45 • • U.S.Merchandise Exports by State(Millions of Dollars) 110 2001-02 Percent • Rank State 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Change • 26 Alabama $2,834 $3,325 $3,629 $2,443 $2,833 $3,440 $3,703 $4,537 $4,560 $4,899 $5,625 $5,765 $8,249 43.1% • 35 Alaska 2.850 3,134 3,195 746 860 855 850 969 760 950 985 966 2,745 184.2% 16 Arizona 3,729 4,465 5,109 4,154 4,923 6,048 9,938 13,557 10,753 10,123 9,997 9,120 11,865 30.1% 34 Arkansas 920 1,147 1,324 1,046 1,428 1,761 1,997 2,212 1,934 1,829 2,068 2,084 2,833 35.9% • 2 California 44,520 50,415 56,307 62,295 71,285 82,692 98,634 103,802 98,809 102,864 129,939 114,390 92,089 -19.5% 28 Colorado 2,274 2,574 2,594 5,526 6,881 8,226 10,065 11,329 10,733 11,171 12,265 11,092 5,471 -50.7% • 25 Connecticut 4,356 4,995 5,028 9,925 9,978 12,583 13,053 12,897 12,140 11,335 13,180 13,412 8,276 -38.3% 40 Delaware 1,344 1,441 1,508 3,350 3,646 4,295 4,585 5,104 4,969 4,857 5,888 4,643 2,082 -55.2% • 46 District Of Columbia 320 269 344 4,485 4,839 5,163 5,085 4.881 4.392 4,345 4,728 4,972 1,159 -76.7% 8 Florida 11,634 13,257 14,431 13,733 15,601 17,594 19,618 22,889 23,173 22,544 24,213 23,614 24,602 4.2% 15 Georgia 5,763 6,815 7,652 5,758 6,685 8,208 8,618 9,810 11,212 11,061 11,772 12,048 14,055 16.7% • 51 Hawaii 179 148 206 187 178 183 295 303 211 244 369 319 475 48.9% 42 Idaho 898 958 1,076 1,189 1,470 1,812 1,610 1,716 1,460 2.117 2,797 1.865 1,935 3.7% • 7 Illinois 12,965 14,025 15,328 19,702 23,650 29,456 32,225 34,225 33,838 30,857 32,249 31,807 25,438 -20.0% 13 Indiana 5,273 5,724 6,148 8,287 9,326 10,791 12,119 13,097 13,949 14,584 14,813 14,602 14.830 1.6% • 30 Iowa 29 Kansas 2,189 2,263 2,476 1,932 2,278 2,494 2,695 3,117 3,412 2,985 3,262 3,312 4,807 45.2% 2,113 2,148 2,514 3,042 3,441 4,379 4,971 5,133 4,403 4,856 5,050 5,433 5,053 -7.0% • 21 Kentucky 3,175 3,217 3,648 3,249 4,000 4,802 5,824 6,904 7,440 8,016 8,758 7,451 10,173 36.5% 10 Louisiana 14,199 15,456 16,151 3,049 3,534 4,516 4,731 4,374 4,392 3,947 3,860 3,983 16,662 318.3% 41 Maine 870 915 902 1,043 1,114 1,285 1,249 1,590 1,664 1,785 1,665 1,620 1,955 20.7% • 31 Maryland 2,592 3,363 3,879 2,554 2,721 3,301 3,510 3,861 4,014 4,068 4,997 5,252 4,522 -13.9% 11 Massachusetts 9,501 10,018 10,400 10,980 11,884 13,637 15,368 17,368 16,467 17,106 19,747 17,218 16,380 -4.9% • 5 Michigan 18,474 20,236 20,414 24,251 35,392 35,719 38,128 37,920 39,269 41,312 51,615 50,605 34,128 -32.6% 20 Minnesota 5,091 5,376 6,137 9,461 9,580 12,066 13,884 13,793 13,499 14,401 17,539 16,522 10,195 -38.3% • 33 Mississippi 1,605 1,738 1,963 796 1,088 1,355 1,222 1,421 1,414 1,454 1,776 2,731 3,026 10.8% 27 Missouri 3,130 3,367 3,664 4,653 5,123 5,566 6,591 7,043 6,832 7,431 7,931 6,884 6,687 -2.9% 52 Montana 229 279 268 239 253 269 341 430 390 404 551 479 385 -19.6% • 36 Nebraska 693 960 1,233 1,730 1,947 2,235 2,453 2,494 2,472 1,991 3,141 3,226 2,588 -19.8% 45 Nevada 394 427 507 482 418 613 692 807 765 1,083 1.754 1,678 1,190 -29.0% 0 43 New Hampshire 973 988 917 1,033 1,189 1,412 1,745 1,931 1,987 2,159 2,475 2,260 1,881 -16.8% 9 New Jersey 7,633 8,740 8,955 13,551 15,635 16,988 18,458 20,815 20,033 21,008 28,778 25,934 16,851 -35.0% • 44 New Mexico 3 New York249 309 356 390 470 416 917 1,780 1,896 2,965 645 1,198 1,241 3.6% 22,072 23,261 22,628 36,504 32,720 39,008 44,965 48,885 45,565 43,297 53,007 52,040 36,902 -29.1% le 14 North Carolina 8,010 8,540 10,374 7,669 8,570 10,122 11,587 13,102 12,920 13,571 14,975 14,338 14,734 2.8% 48 North Dakota 360 335 336 324 375 465 576 623 657 635 712 769 855 11.2% 6 Ohio 13,378 14,855 16,306 17,151 18,849 20,271 22,555 25,107 24,815 26,562 29,125 29,225 27,291 -6.6% • 38 Oklahoma 1,646 1,770 1,987 2,275 2,116 2,399 2,538 2,722 2,623 2,405 3,257 3,123 2,373 -24.0% 22 Oregon 4,065 4,264 4,890 5,966 6,585 8,980 8,481 8,359 8,144 11,164 9,434 7,251 9,791 35.0% • 12 Pennsylvania 4,547 4.951 5,600 6,936 7,427 8,987 9,479 10,300 10,382 10.164 12,864 12,264 15,639 27.5% 24 Puerto Rico 3,872 4,195 4,407 4,484 5,188 5,528 7,894 7,724 8,494 9,424 10.9% • 47 Rhode Island 23 South Carolina 595 679 859 893 964 904 955 1,127 1,113 1,105 1,169 1,120 1,109 -1.0% 3,116 3,741 4,222 3,140 3,405 4,350 4,925 5,674 5,857 6,477 7,818 7,996 9,746 21.9% • 49 South Dakota 205 218 232 202 245 321 397 435 374 1.143 498 467 558 19.5% 17 Tennessee 3,746 4,344 5,156 5,942 7,307 9,214 9,328 9,917 9,873 9,343 11,414 11,643 11,518 -1.1% 1 Texas 32,931 40,079 43,553 34,192 38,454 42,528 48,252 56,293 59,029 61,706 68,746 63,225 94,189 49.0% • 32 Utah 1,596 1,906 2,706 2,027 2,207 2,269 2,769 3,237 2,978 3,133 3,220 3,506 3,187 -9.1% 37 Vermont 1,154 1,091 1,314 1,198 1,202 1,490 2,611 2,592 2,758 2,827 2,660 1,720 2,519 46.5% • 53 Virgin Islands 153 225 192 243 115 181 212 207 218 5.5% 18 Virginia 9,333 10,004 9,784 7,868 9,712 10,150 10,926 11,512 11,460 10,722 10,547 7,905 11,034 39.6% • 4 Washington 24.432 27,053 28,041 27,057 24,690 21,591 25,498 31,746 37,960 36,826 33,355 35,142 34,756 -1.1% 39 West Virginia 1.550 1,656 1,746 732 911 1,073 1,218 1,299 1,178 897 1,472 1,958 2,219 13.3% 19 Wisconsin 5,158 5,319 6,173 5,638 6,670 7,668 8,410 9,792 9,221 9,546 10,858 11.439 10,205 -10.8% 4110 50 Wyoming 264 328 368 82 85 93 124 176 158 156 142 141 541 282.6% Unknown State 82,924 74,967 69,751 69,520 71,965 83,115 58,621 68,119 72,557 64,506 64,790 50,443 35,978 -28.7% • United States 394,045 421,851 448,156 464,767 512,670 583,865 624,767 688,896 682,977 695,009 782,429 730,897 688,612 -5.8% • Notes: 1. Rank based on 2002 exports.• 2. 2002 exports estimated based on the first three quarters. • Source:U.S.Census Bureau • • • • 410lb • International Merchandise Exports 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 93 • • Table 46 Utah Merchandise Exports by Industry(Thousands of Dollars) INDUSTRY 2001-02 N, Percent 2002 cp o Rank Code Name 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Change Share w w m 0 0 • § 21 111 Agricultural Products $18,970 $18,459 $17,238 $21,547 $7,106 $2,761 -61.2% 0.2% 5. 28 112 Livestock And Livestock Products 252 318 437 475 402 424 5.5% 0.0% v 29 113 Forestry Products 535 389 548 606 514 370 -28.0% 0.0% O 27 114 Fish Products 10,507 5,043 3,047 2,161 5,228 791 -84.9% 0.1% 0- 0 30 211 Oil and Gas 13 49 0 39 0 15 0.0% m 11 212 Minerals 312,700 167,523 130,711 1-1546 104,973 47,657 -54.6% 3.0% 0 5 311 Food 131,547 129,669 135,425 176,394 231,203 168,896 -26.9% 6.6% m 20 312 Beverages 1,717 3,923 4,987 3,625 5,278 3,262 -38.2% 0.2% 0 18 313 Raw Textiles 3,305 2,724 3,783 10,011 8,146 5,003 -38.6% 0.2% 24 314 Milled Textiles 2,565 1,292 2,362 1,623 1,905 1,689 -11.3% 0.1% 22 315 Apparel 5,089 4,409 6,560 4,370 5,038 2,698 -46.4% 0.1% 19 316 Leather 5,775 7,279 14,485 10,114 7,047 4,791 -32.0% 0.2% 26 321 Wood Products 1,157 1,207 1,731 1,119 1,791 1,289 -28.0% 0.1% 13 322 Paper 7,519 10,979 37,419 43,046 45,158 35,603 -21.2% 1.3% if 14 323 Printed Material 34,443 22,254 24,647 21,775 21,597 16,878 -21.8% 0.6% 25 324 Refined Petroleum 90 1,687 2,027 165 1,052 1,574 49.6% 0.0% 4 325 Chemicals 213,598 204,280 153,385 170,403 229,872 189,055 -17.8% 6.6% 10 326 Plastics 37,224 26,061 30,899 51,584 57,355 47,902 -16.5% 1.6% 16 327 Stone, Clay,Glass, Concrete 7,929 7,328 9,981 10,930 12,451 8,629 -30.7% 0.4% 1 331 Primary Metals 944,850 944,538 975,144 661,588 1,008,351 1,232,540 22.2% 28.8% 12 332 Fabricated Metals 54,704 46,312 38,918 47,664 57,331 39,711 -30.7% 1.6% 7 333 Machinery 152,618 161,839 188,180 229,512 184,919 105,431 -43.0% 5.3% 2 334 Computers and Electronics 557,305 521,816 499,391 537,677 510,977 601,289 17.7% 14.6% 8 335 Electrical Equipment 63,560 84,442 100,760 116,804 101,700 73,865 -27.4% 2.9% 3 336 Transportation Equipment 418,257 384,271 497,094 619,264 588,757 357,423 -39.3% 16.8% 15 337 Furniture 4,147 5,481 6,446 15,701 11,559 9,262 -19.9% 0.3% 6 339 Miscellaneous Manufactures 165,403 142,736 163,635 192,570 214,517 155,075 -27.7% 6.1% 5 17 910 Scrap 5,812 3,000 3,374 5,703 4,934 7,268 47.3% 0.1% m 23 920 Used Merchandise 6,123 4,359 3,250 3,076 2,616 2,369 -9.5% 0.1% 2 9 980 Unclassified 69,633 63,914 77,090 89,098 74,196 63,411 -14.5% 2.1% 0 0 a) Total 3,237,346 2,977,581 3,132,957 3,220,190 3,505,974 3,186,930 -9.1% 100.0% m Note: n1. Rank based on 2002 exports. m 2. 2002 exports estimated based on first three quarters. m x 0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 0 y • • • •,• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •9• • • • . . . .i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e. . . . Table 47 Utah Merchandise Exports to Top Ten Purchasing Countries by Industry in 2002(Thousands of Dollars) 0 United g, Code Industry Name Switzerland Kingdom Canada Japan Singapore Netherlands Mexico Korea Philippines Hong Kong Industry Total s 0 m 111 Agricultural Products $0 $5 $212 $1,902 $16 $2 $0 $331 $0 $0 $2,468 m 112 Livestock And Livestock Products 0 0 104 21 0 0 0 0 0 119 244 x 0 113 Forestry Products 0 0 300 21 3 0 0 0 0 9 332 N 114 Fish Products 0 73 14 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 97 211 Oil and Gas 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 212 Minerals 0 175 1,460 18,657 118 10,033 183 43 0 110 30,779 311 Food 734 1,839 25,160 51,457 3,854 4,939 8,616 8,702 723 8,203 114,227 312 Beverages 0 791 1,683 527 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,001 313 Raw Textiles 0 20 233 24 0 0 3,723 13 50 39 4,103 314 Milled Textiles 0 18 1,097 81 9 29 74 0 0 14 1,322 315 Apparel 54 421 217 422 0 9 286 34 6 4 1,453 316 Leather 28 253 777 2,197 219 149 178 109 38 63 4,011 321 Wood Products 13 32 156 28 31 391 125 0 0 0 776 322 Paper 11 450 18,240 408 8,818 4 3,351 11 435 3,322 35,050 323 Printed Material 86 1,028 5,292 388 75 136 1,337 52 1,102 1,495 10,991 324 Refined Petroleum 0 37 1,177 6 226 0 10 30 0 0 1,486 325 Chemicals 139 5,589 32,709 60,812 7,960 5,763 6,426 9,515 338 5,553 134,803 326 Plastics 10 1,433 5,599 2,017 6,746 551 1,454 301 142 123 18,377 327 Stone,Clay,Glass,Concrete 342 267 4,491 100 17 1,344 108 14 14 47 6,744 331 Primary Metals 874,014 300,674 42,108 454 180 3,418 68 595 494 209 1,222,215 332 Fabricated Metals 3 2,052 9,551 1,632 1,135 222 2,211 650 1,172 141 18,768 333 Machinery 544 10,881 32,179 7,791 978 1,660 6,207 1,805 1,091 -2,434 65,571 334 Computers and Electronics 13,278 53,136 28,809 73,046 197,657 9,814 11,175 5,548 57,205 23,431 473,100 No 335 Electrical Equipment 364 23,443 8,818 1,538 13,544 357 425 156 36 741 49,422 0.) 336 Transportation Equipment 583 20,791 99,234 64,927 1,118 49,393 38,125 37,348 134 141 311,793 m 337 Furniture 23 155 5,743 103 40 183 249 20 122 34 6,671 o 339 Miscellaneous Manufactures 2,697 12,617 26,396 23,844 2,118 10,838 3,964 3,709 322 1,918 88,423 o 910 Scrap 0 0 2,835 62 0 5 841 0 11 121 3,874 r' 920 Used Merchandise 15 51 1,539 349 0 16 86 11 0 7 2,075 CD 980 Unclassified 223 1,559 23,659 1,849 596 219 780 1,698 276 204 31,062 0 a- Total 893,162 437,788 379,807 314,664 245,458 99,474 90,002 70,706 63,709 48,481 2,643,252 0 St m Note: 0 1. 2002 exports estimated based on the first three quarters. m o Source: U.S.Census Bureau co 01 a a a 0 a a a a I • I I a • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • . • • Price Inflation and Cost of Living • O eivitainr - Housing. Low interest rates on 30-year and 15-year fixed-rate 40Kam rea n' p to 9 ` , met 2 8 ff in" 1,as =. , mortgages in 2002 were the lowest in three decades of record keeping. The low rates increased housingconstruction,home sales,and • eas�i�:b t CPS ter The gas rt©tnsetic firrfd�i�"tatrlairt�`t�ve��Fi€ ;,` de atart r+ aedto1<2%`in 02fr m2>4°7%In 2001 t to `W-t t. f encouraged current homeowners to refinance. • jiv'kV Ytilpijh siettted cotes remained near.the*ohm average;`e thirdquaittr2002 itir4u,Sit4index(natitonataiera a ais:1(10}`for% Federal Reserve. In an attempt to stimulate consumer spending and • cittes=ir. to was.Selt Lake:Ctty, a, vo rem,, -,cedar tty investment activities,the federal funds rate was cut to 1.25%,its lowest 92.1 St,George,'94 9 and Logari,2 93.7 ,; _< _ ; " . point in four decades. Economic recovery will determine whether or not • " additional cuts will follow. The Fed's policy shift is due to a vulnerable • 2002 Summary economic outlook fueled by slow economic growth and potential Consumer Price Index. Due to slow economic growth and potential geopolitical risks. • geopolitical risks,the national rate of inflation decreased in 2002. The Consumer Price Index(CPI-U)is estimated to have decreased to 1.6% Conclusion • in 2002,measured on an annual average basis,compared with 2.8%in Although inflation has gradually increased in the past few years,a short • 2001,and 3.4%in 2000. economic decline is expected to keep inflation low throughout much of 2002. Likewise,energy prices are anticipated to stay relatively low. • Gross Domestic Product Deflators. In 2002 the Gross Domestic Economic growth is expected to resume at a moderate rate during the Product(GDP)chain-type implicit price deflator is estimated to decrease second half of 2002. • to 1.2%. The GDP personal consumption deflator in 2002 is expected to • fall to 1.4%compared with 2.0%in 2001. Beginning in 1996,the Real Gross Domestic Product was reported using a chain-weighted inflation • index. Under this method,the composition of economic output(the • weighting)is updated each year. • Utah Cost of Living. The American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association(ACCRA)Cost of Living Index is prepared • quarterly and includes comparative data for approximately 270 urban areas. The index consists of price comparisons for a single point in • time,and does not measure inflation or price changes over time. The cost of consumer goods and services in the urban areas is • measured and compared with a national average of 100. The composite index is based on six components:grocery items,housing,utilities, • transportation,health care,and miscellaneous goods and services. • The first quarter 2002 composite index for Provo-Orem was 95.7,slightly • lower than the national average for the period. The second quarter 2002 composite index for Logan was 93.7. Other Utah cities,included in the • third quarter survey,were Cedar City(92.1),Salt Lake City(99.0),and • St.George(94.9). Most western cities were near or slightly above the national composite index of 100. • 2003 Outlook • The national Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers(CPI-U)in • 2003 is forecast to increase to 2.3%,higher than the 1.6%inflation rate in 2002. This is due to an expected moderate economic recovery. • Significant Issues • Labor market. The increase in unemployment,generated by a national • wave of company downsizing and layoffs,is expected to gradually improve during the first half of 2003. Of chief concern is how decreased • wage and price pressures will translate into inflation. • • 1 The cost of living data for Provo•Orem are for first quarter 2002;both second and third • quarter 2002 data were not published. OD 2 The cost of living data for Logan are for second quarter 2002;third quarter 2002 data were not published. • Ili • Price Inflation and Cost of Living 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 97 • • 411 Figure 42 U.S.Consumer Price Index(CPI-U):Average Annual Percent Change 12% 4118 10.3% • 10% 8% 2% • 6% .5.4% 4 8°/ . 4 3% 410/ ,2% 4% 0 36% 36% • 3.4% 3•2/ 3.0% 30% ° 26% 28% 30/ 28% • 2.3%o 22% 2% 1.9% 16% 1.6% • 0% •N M d M �0 t- 00 O O e- N M 1(1 CO 1� O O O e- °0 O co . O O O CD O O W 01 O O 01 01 O 01 O O O 01 O O W 0 01CD . N 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 1 01 N N Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics • • • Figure 43 5 CPI-U and GDP Deflator Inflation • 14 • • 12 - • 10 - • • 8 - E • w _ 11111 CC.1 6 -._ ;==°' F • 4 - • 77,7 2 - __ • • 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 • � ,,:-1GDP —e—CPI-U • Source:Bureau of Economic Analysis,Bureau of Labor Statistics,Council of Economic Advisors • 106 98 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Price Inflation and Cost of Living • • • . . . .i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i. . . . m. Table 48 U.S.Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers(1982-1984=100):(Not Seasonally Adjusted) ro o Annual v Annual Aug. c Aug. Percent o Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Index Dec-Dec Change co o. 1959 29 28.9 28.9 29 29 29.1 29.2 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.2 r 1960 29.3 29.4 29.4 29.5 29.5 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.6 1.4% 1.5% <' 1961 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 29.8 30.0 29.9 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 29.9 0.7 1.1 cp 1962 30.0 30.1 30.1 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.3 30.3 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.3 1.3 1.2 1963 30.4 30.4 30.5 30.5 30.5 30.6 30.7 30.7 30.7 30.8 30.8 30.9 30.6 1.6 1.2 1964 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 30.9 31.0 31.1 31.0 31.1 31.1 31.2 31.2 31.0 1.0 1.3 1965 31.2 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.4 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.6 31.7 31.7 31.8 31.5 1.9 1.6 1966 31.8 32.0 32.1 32.3 32.3 32.4 32.5 32.7 32.7 32.9 32.9 32.9 32.5 3.5 3.0 1967 32.9 32.9 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 33.7 33.8 33.9 33.4 3.0 2.8 1968 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.7 34.9 35.0 35.1 35.3 35.4 35.5 34.8 4.7 4.3 1969 35.6 35.8 36.1 36.3 36.4 36.6 36.8 37.0 37.1 37.3 37.5 37.7 36.7 6.2 5.5 1970 37.8 38.0 38.2 38.5 38.6 38.8 39.0 39.0 39.2 39.4 39.6 39.8 38.8 5.6 5.8 1971 39.8 39.9 40.0 40.1 40.3 40.6 40.7 40.8 40.8 40.9 40.9 41.1 40.5 3.3 4.3 1972 41.1 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 41.7 41.9 42.0 42.1 42.3 42.4 42.5 41.8 3.4 3.3 1973 42.6 42.9 43.3 43.6 43.9 44.2 44.3 45.1 45.2 45.6 45.9 46.2 44.4 8.7 6.2 1974 46.6 47.2 47.8 48.0 48.6 49.0 49.4 50.0 50.6 51.1 51.5 51.9 49.3 12.3 11.1 1975 52.1 52.5 52.7 52.9 53.2 53.6 54.2 54.3 54.6 54.9 55.3 55.5 53.8 6.9 9.1 1976 55.6 55.8 55.9 56.1 56.5 56.8 57.1 57.4 57.6 57.9 58.0 58.2 56.9 4.9 5.7 EP 1977 58.5 59.1 59.5 60.0 60.3 60.7 61.0 61.2 61.4 61.6 61.9 62.1 60.6 6.7 6.5 1978 62.5 62.9 63.4 63.9 64.5 65.2 65.7 66.0 66.5 67.1 67.4 67.7 65.2 9.0 7.6 1979 68.3 69.1 69.8 70.6 71.5 72.3 73.1 73.8 74.6 75.2 75.9 76.7 72.6 13.3 11.3 1980 77.8 78.9 80.1 81.0 81.8 82.7 82.7 83.3 84.0 84.8 85.5 86.3 82.4 12.5 13.5 1981 87.0 87.9 88.5 89.1 89.8 90.6 91.6 92.3 93.2 93.4 93.7 94.0 90.9 8.9 10.3 1982 94.3 94.6 94.5 94.9 95.8 97.0 97.5 97.7 97.9 98.2 98.0 97.6 96.5 3.8 6.1 1983 97.8 97.9 97.9 98.6 99.2 99.5 99.9 100.2 100.7 101.0 101.2 101.3 99.6 3.8 3.2 1984 101.9 102.4 102.6 103.1 103.4 103.7 104.1 104.5 105.0 105.3 105.3 105.3 103.9 3.9 4.3 1985 105.5 106.0 106.4 106.9 107.3 107.6 107.8 108.0 108.3 108.7 109.0 109.3 107.6 3.8 3.5 0 1986 109.6 109.3 108.8 108.6 108.9 109.5 109.5 109.7 110.2 110.3 110.4 110.5 109.6 1.1 1.9 w 1987 111.2 111.6 112.1 112.7 113.1 113.5 113.8 114.4 115.0 115.3 115.4 115.4 113.6 4.4 3.7 m 1988 115.7 116.0 116.5 117.1 117.5 118.0 118.5 119.0 119.8 120.2 120.3 120.5 118.3 4.4 4.1 0 1989 121.1 121.6 122.3 123.1 123.8 124.1 124.4 124.6 125.0 125.6 125.9 126.1 124.0 4.6 4.8 0 1990 127.4 128.0 128.7 128.9 129.2 129.9 130.4 131.6 132.7 133.5 133.8 133.8 130.7 6.1 5.4 1991 134.6 134.8 135.0 135.2 135.6 136.0 136.2 136.6 137.2 137.4 137.8 137.9 136.2 3.1 4.2 5' X 1992 138.1 138.6 139.3 139.5 139.7 140.2 140.5 140.9 141.3 141.8 142.0 141.9 140.3 2.9 3.0 m 1993 142.6 143.1 143.6 144.0 144.2 144.4 144.4 144.8 145.1 145.7 145.8 145.8 144.5 2.7 3.0 0 1994 146.2 146.7 147.2 147.4 147.5 148.0 148.4 149.0 149.4 149.5 149.7 149.7 148.2 2.7 2.6 Er 1995 150.3 150.9 151.4 151.9 152.2 152.5 152.5 152.9 153.2 153.7 153.6 153.5 152.4 2.5 2.8 S 1996 154.4 154.9 155.7 156.3 156.6 156.7 157.0 157.3 157.8 158.3 158.6 158.6 156.9 3.3 2.9 m 1997 159.1 159.6 160.0 160.2 160.1 160.3 160.5 160.8 161.2 161.6 161.5 161.3 160.5 1.7 2.3 0 1998 161.6 161.9 162.2 162.5 162.8 163.0 163.2 163.4 163.6 164.0 164.0 163.9 163.0 1.6 1.6 co 1999 164.3 164.5 165.0 166.2 166.2 166.2 166.7 167.1 167.9 168.2 168.3 168.3 166.6 2.7 2.2 3 2000 168.8 169.8 171.2 171.3 171.5 172.4 172.8 172.8 173.7 174.0 174.1 174.0 172.2 3.4 3.4 0 2001 175.1 175.8 176.2 176.9 177.7 178.0 177.5 177.5 178.3 177.7 177.4 176.7 177.1 1.6 2.8 2002 177.1 177.8 178.8 179.8 179.8 179.9 180.1 180.7 181.0 181.3 181.6(e) 181.09(e) 179.9(e) 2.5(e) 1.6(e) e=estimate co co • Sources:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Gouemor's Office of Planning and Budget I I Table 49 . Gross Domestic Product Price Deflators: 1996=100 Ill Gross Persona1011 Domestic Change Consumption Change . Product from Expenditures from (Chain-Type) Previous (Chain-Type) Previous . Year Deflator Year Deflator Year . I 1970 29.1 5.3% 28.0 4.7% . 1971 30.5 5.1 29.2 4.3 1972 31.8 4.2 30.2 3.5 • 1973 33.6 5.6 31.9 5.4 . 1974 36.6 8.9 35.1 10.3 • 1975 40.0 9.4 38.0 8.2 1976 42.3 5.6 40.1 5.4 • 1977 45.0 6.5 42.7 6.6 • 1978 48.2 7.1 45.8 7.1 1979 52.2 8.3 49.8 8.8 • 1980 57.1 9.2 55.2 10.8 • 1981 62.4 9.3 60.1 8.8 1982 66.3 6.2 63.5 5.7 • 1983 68.9 3.9 66.2 4.3 • 1984 71.4 3.7 68.6 3.7 • 1985 73.7 3.1 71.0 3.4 1986 75.3 2.2 72.7 2.4 • 1987 77.6 3.0 75.5 3.8 111110 1988 80.2 3.4 78.4 3.9 1989 83.3 3.8 81.9 4.4 4111 1990 86.5 3.9 85.6 4.6 • 1991 89.7 3.6 88.9 3.8 1992 91.9 2.4 91.6 3.0 ID 1993 94.1 2.4 93.8 2.4 • 1994 96.0 2.1 95.7 2.0 • 1995 98.1 2.2 97.9 2.3 1996 100.0 1.9 100.0 2.1 • 1997 102.0 2.0 101.9 1.9 • 1998 103.2 1.2 103.0 1.1 1999 104.7 1.4 104.7 1.7 • 2000 106.9 2.1 107.4 2.5 • 2001 109.4 2.4 109.6 2.0 2002 (e) 110.7 1.2 111.1 1.4 • e=estimate • • Sources: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis and • estimates by Govemor's Office of Planning and Budget and WEFA • • 100 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Price Inflation and Cost of Living i • • • • Table 50 American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association(ACCRA) • Cost of Living Comparisons for Selected Metropolitan Areas:Third Quarter 2002 •le 100% 16% 28% 8% 10% 5% 33% Composite Grocery Trans- Health Misc. Goods • Component Index Weights: Index Items Housing Utilities portation Care &Services • • U.S. Average 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 • Utah Areas • Salt Lake City 99.0 110.3 96.1 82.6 100.7 87.9 101.0 Cedar City (Nonmetro) 92.1 110.9 70.1 84.4 93.1 89.1 103.6 • Logan(Nonmetro) 93.7 102.2 82.9 91.5 97.6 85.7 99.3 • Provo-Orem** 95.7 109.2 82.3 87.0 101.1 93.5 101.3 St. George(Nonmetro) 94.9 113.0 79.9 90.2 94.4 93.6 100.3 • Western Areas • Phoenix AZ 96.2 102.0 84.6 96.8 107.2 111.2 97.5 • L. A.-Long Beach CA 135.2 109.6 199.1 110.6 112.9 111.1 109.6 San Francisco CA 184.1 141.1 332.7 92.4 130.0 143.8 123.7 • Denver CO 102.9 105.5 109.2 75.2 109.5 119.1 98.6 • Boise ID 94.9 83.5 91.6 87.4 97.9 106.0 102.5 Las Vegas NV 104.8 107.8 97.8 99.7 109.5 121.6 106.5 Albuquerque NM 99.7 96.8 94.9 97.5 100.9 98.2 105.6 • Portland OR 111.7 103.5 121.5 109.5 112.4 119.5 106.E Cheyenne WY 102.7 113.4 100.6 95.1 98.3 92.4 103.9 • Seattle WA 148.2 116.0 228.2 123.3 111.5 160.3 111.2 41110 Other Areas • Atlanta GA 97.7 101.0 96.2 92.4 102.5 102.0 96.6 Boston MA(MA Part) 135.5 114.8 177.3 153.9 106.4 134.8 114.6 • Minneapolis MN 106.1 98.9 103.7 114.1 119.0 121.2 103.5 • St. Louis MO-IL 100.7 108.0 93.8 107.2 103.0 97.6 101.2 New York (Manhattan)NY 218.3 146.8 415.7 155.9 120.2 165.6 138.2 • Philadelphia PA 120.2 115.1 132.9 141.0 118.7 133.2 105.4 • Dallas TX 98.0 96.3 92.6 98.4 96.8 100.7 103.2 • Notes: For data on additional cities, visit the ACCRA website at www.coli.org. *These data are for second quarter 2002;third quarter 2002 data were not published. • **These data are for first quarter 2002; both second and third quarter 2002 data were not published. • Source: American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association(ACCRA), P.O. Box 407, Arlington VA 22210-0407. • • • • • • • 411111) • II • Price Inflation and Cost of Living 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 101 a a a 0 a a I I I I a • • • • • • • • a I• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 410, • • • • • • i Regional I National Comparisons • `411110 tiilt ; _: . f i Median Household Income During tti rstguarte o2002, a natons es sor caughtupwit ; Utah is anomalous when comparing personal income and median ia3's ndnotriy;, ree*in,t'ne:: rest$ United)tat$ a Fe, hn .: . household income. While Utah has a very low per capita personal • stril irigty ffererktr n is diiiiiiigtheziiistrive y ire itiv)4 d4 l *u income,the state's median household income is ranked 12th in nation. • `i1e l€xa,Mt tat a,end:Wytaing sfie?ing:sigrts iattltsy ire snnie hat This is largely explained by Utah having the largest household size in ins€tlafeer rri he cession'end;the rernssnitftie*economiW: _. the nation. The per capita figures are diluted by a larger number of • strilg9tt%.$ignificantlyy.',Populati n grriwtt nas exneededllie tii et 'f children.Therefore,the median household figures provide a more • aVeragtgfot,airilostaii westerrtstates,fncleding.Iltat but r r ns grrd accurate measure of family income. Utah's$47,342 median household 'has ttottecessarilyf€ltaied suit # rnajor(tt+tff the Western states ranl income is 112%of the national average of$42,228. The only mountain • In the bottom halt pr.tfie bottom quettite ofell stites:v;+hen their rate of state with a higher household income than Utah is Colorado,with .lncorue growth ovecthe'pestyear-is measu :.red:. $49,397,or 117%of the national median. Some of the lowest household incomes are found in the mountain states,with Montana ranking 49th • Population Growth and New Mexico ranking 45th. These figures are three-year averages During the 1990's,the mountain states were the fastest growing region from 1999-2001. Because of sampling variability,the Census Bureau • in the nation. Four states--Arizona,Colorado,Nevada,and Utah-- recommends using three-year averages for ranking purposes. were among the fastest growing states in the nation last year. However, • these growth rates were generally at least a half a percentage point off Average Annual Pay • the average annual growth rate during the population boom years of the Another measure of income is the average annual pay of workers 1990s. Utah's growth rate during this period went from 2.6%a year to covered by unemployment insurance. Among the mountain states,all • 1.3%a year. This is still higher than the average annual growth rate of but Colorado are below the national average. Utah's average annual 0.9%;however,the gap between Utah and the nation's annual growth pay of$30,074 per worker in 2001 is 83%of the national average. The • rate in 2002 is shrinking compared to the 1990s. In the previous mountain region as a whole averages$30,529,or 84%of the national • decade,Utah's growth rate more than doubled the national average. In average of$36,214. Utah ranked 35th among the states for wages. the last year,that gap has decreased from 1.4%to 0.4%. Regionally,Utah was in the middle of the mountain states. Arizona, • Personal Income Growth Colorado and Nevada all ranked higher while Idaho,Montana,New Mexico,and Wyoming ranked lower. Those four states,collectively, • Total personal income in the mountain region grew 7.1%per year during have some of the lowest wage rates in the nation,with Montana ranking • the 1996 to 2001 period. However,March 2001 saw the beginning of a 51st. recession and personal income growth in the mountain region and Utah 40 began to slow down. Personal income for the region grew by 4.5% Nonagricultural Payrolls during 2001 and Utah's personal income grew at a marginally slower The mountain states showed positive employment growth for all states in • rate of 4.3%. Despite this,Utah ranked 16th in the nation for growth the region in 2001. While the growth for some of the states in this region • from 2000-2001. The mountain region was a strong performer,with five were below 1%,at least they were positive. Many states in the nation of the eight states ranking in the top ten for growth during this period, saw contractions in their nonagricultural payroll employment during • New Mexico and Wyoming held the first and second place among the 50 2001. During the five-year period of 1996-2001,the national growth rate states for personal income growth. Only Arizona and Colorado had was 2.0%.Most of the states in the region exceeded this rate,with the • personal income growth at a slower rate than Utah during 2000 2001. exception of New Mexico and Montana. Utah's five-year growth rate • Despite the rapid growth during the 1996 to 2001 period,the states of was 2.5%,ranking it in the middle of the mountain states. Nevada had the mountain region are still some of the smallest in the United States,in the strongest growth during this period at 4.6%,followed by Colorado • terms of personal income. As personal income is a measurement of the and Arizona. • size of the economic base,only Colorado and Arizona have economies larger than the median of the 50 states. Utah has the 35th largest The latest data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics for the period • economy,placing it between Arkansas and Missouri in relative size. of October 2001 to October 2002 shows much slowing in Utah's Wyoming has the smallest economy in the nation at 51st place,behind employment. During this time period,employment has contracted by • Washington D.C. 1.5%. This is the second largest contraction among mountain states. Only Colorado shed more jobs during this time period,losing 1.7%of its • The mountain region produced$514.1 billion in personal income in total employment. Among all 50 states and DC,Colorado,Utah, • 2001,or 5.9%of the nation's total of$8.7 trillion. This is the same Delaware,and Georgia had the largest percentage losses. percentage as in 2000. Utah accounted for 10.7%of the mountain • region's income,down slightly from the 10.8%of the region's income in The mountain states have performed slightly better than the national 2000. Utah's per capita personal income in 2001 was$24,180,ranking average unemployment rate since 1996. The difference in 2001 was • 46th in the nation(including Washington D.C.). Utah's per capita income about the same as in 1996. During this period,Utah had one of the best • growth rate from 1996 to 2001 was slightly below the national median, unemployment rates in the country,at 3.5%in 1996,3.2%in 2000 and ranking the state 27th in terms of growth. Per capita personal income in 4.4%in 2001.During 2001,among the mountain states,only Wyoming • the mountain states was$27,567 in 2001,about 90.5%of the national and Colorado had lower unemployment rates. Nationally,the average. Utah is well below the mountain states average,at 79.4%of unemployment rate rose from 4.0%in 2000 to 4.8%in 2001. While this • the national average.Colorado has the highest per capita income among rise in unemployment both nationally and within Utah is concerning,it is Oil the mountain states.In 2001,Wyoming joined Colorado and Nevada in important to note that the rates are still below what many economists exceeding the national average. have considered a"full employment"rate of 5%. • III • Regional/National Comparisons 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 103 • • a Poverty Rates , Similar to median household income,the Census Bureau's measure of poverty rates has considerable volatility,and the Bureau suggests using three-year averages for ranking purposes and two-year averages to . evaluate movement over time. The mountain states have wide disparity in poverty rates,with New Mexico the highest in the nation,having 18.8%of its residents classified as living below the poverty line. Utah has one of the lowest poverty rates in the nation,with only 8.0%of its 411 residents living in poverty. For the three-year period,the national rate . was 11.6%,and among the mountain states,Arizona,Idaho,and Montana as well as New Mexico had rates above the national average. . Colorado, Nevada,Wyoming and Utah had rates below the national average,with Utah having the lowest poverty rate in the mountain region. Conclusion While Utah and the mountain states experienced robust economic growth in the 1990s,that growth has been slowing recently and even 41 turned into a contraction in employment for Utah. Utah's personal income and median household income managed to grow from 2000 to 2001,but employment has declined and unemployment has risen. • Employment declined faster than the national and regional averages and unemployment has risen. It appears that the economic recession that 41 began in March of 2001 has picked up steam in Utah this year and has . harmed the state more than many other states. • • • OD • • • • • • • 411 • 4110 • • • 1111 104 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Regional/National Comparisons • • • • Figure 44 • Population Growth Rates--U.S.and Mountain Division States: 2000-2001 • 5.0% • 4.5%- 4.3% • 4.0%- S 3.5%- • 3.0%- 2.8% • E. 2.5%- 2.2% • 2.1% ;ws=-" 2.0a 1.7% • 1.5%- • 1.3% 0 ' • 1.0%- 0.9/0 o • 0.5%- 0.4/o i • -0.5% U.S. Mountain Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Utah Wyoming• States Mexico • Note:Numbers in this chart may differ from other tables due to different data sources. • Source:U.S.Census Bureau all Figure 45 Per Capita Income as a Percent of U.S.-- Mountain Division States:2001 • • • • 120% • 109.8% • 100.0% • 100% 98.1% 96.5%' :1 sco ';`',,• o a8. ° ° 80.8% 78.6% 79.4% • 80% s o s•. 76.0% • • 60% ' . . `` • U.S. Mountain Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Utah Wyoming States Mexico OUPSource:U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis • • Regional/National Comparisons 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 105 I I Figure 46 . Median Household Income as a Percent of U.S.--Mountain Division States: 1999-2001 Three-Year Average . Aii_ 1111116 120% • 116.7%, . 112.8% 110%- • 106.1% 100.0% • 100% • 95.8% 93.3% ,F2 90%o- :£ 89.4% • a _. - , 80%- 80.7% " • 70% - ' • •60% •U.S. Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming Source:U.S.Census Bureau • • • • Figure 47 Average Annual Pay as a Percent of U.S.--Mountain Division States: 2001* , • • 110% • 104.8% 100.0% • 100%° i 92.3% 91.5% • 90%- ,:.',f- „ • c 843%v . 83.0% • v d 80% • 76.7% 77.2% 77.4% •S 70 ° 69.6% /o • .,. • 60% _ ' , :,, • U.S. Mountain Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Utah Wyoming • States Mexico Ankill *For workers covered by unemployment insurance Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor StatisticsIIIPIP III • 106 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Regional/National Comparisons • • • • • Figure 48 . • Nonagricultural Employment Growth--U.S.and Mountain Division States:October 2001 to October 2002 SO • 3.5% • 2.8% • 2.5%- • 1.9% • 1.5%- 0.8% • .- c 0.5%- U 0 I .. I I I I 1 .1% • a �_ 0.5% -0.4% -0.3% -0.3% • o -1.5%- -1.2/o • -1.7% 1.5% • -2.5% • U.S. Mountain Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Utah Wyoming States Mexico • Note:Numbers in this chart may differ from other tables due to different data sources. • Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics • ill Figure 49 • Percent of Persons in Poverty:Three-Year Average 1999 to 2001 • • 20% 18• a°i° 18%- 16%- • 14.4% • 14% 12.9% 12.7% • 12%- 11.6% - __;. w , 10.3% • v 10%- 9.0% 9.0% a 8% ' 8.0% • 6% • 4%- • . • • 0% U.S. Arizona Colorado Idaho Montana Nevada New Mexico Utah Wyoming Source:U.S.Census Bureau INF11 • Regional/National Comparisons 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 107 Table 51 . Population and Households--U.S., Mountain Division,and StatesAga. Rates of Households Rankings IP Population Population Change (July 1 Estimates) (July 1 Estimates) Rank by Rank by . Annual Persons Rank by Rank by Annual Persons per 2000 2001 Growth Rate 2000 per Population Population Growth Rate Household . Division/State (thousands) (thousands) 2000-01 (thousands) Household 2000 2001 2000-01 2000 United States 282,125 284,797 0.9% 106,429 2.60 • 411 Mountain States 18,267 18,650 2.1% 6,911 2.65 . Arizona 5,165 5,307 2.8% 1,940 2.68 20 20 2 8 Colorado 4,323 4,418 2.2% 1,754 2.46 24 24 3 43 . Idaho 1,299 1,321 1.7% 486 2.65 39 39 7 10 Montana 903 904 0.1% 356 2.47 44 44 40 40 . Nevada 2,019 2,106 4.3% 784 2.64 35 35 1 11 New Mexico 1,821 1,829 0.4% 665 2.69 36 36 31 6 • Utah 2,242 2,270 1.3% 731 3.I"" 34 34 14 1 Wyoming 494 494 0.1% 194 2 51 51 45 39 • Other States • Alabama 4,451 4,464 0.3% 1,740 2.50 23 23 37 30 Alaska 628 635 1.2% 220 2.80 48 47 17 4 • Arkansas 2,678 2,692 0.5% 1,046 2.50 33 33 27 30 • California 34,000 34,501 1.5% 11,552 2.92 1 1 9 2 Connecticut 3,410 3,425 0.4% 1,292 2.57 29 29 30 18 • Delaware 786 796 1.3% 297 2.60 45 45 13 15 D.C. 571 572 0.1% 243 2.21 50 50 41 51 • Florida 16,054 16,397 2.1% 6,432 2.49 4 4 4 32 Georgia 8,230 8,384 1.9% 3,047 2.67 10 10 5 9 • Hawaii 1,212 1,224 1.0% 412 2.89 42 42 18 3 Illinois 12,436 12,482 0.4% 4,600 2.64 5 5 34 11 • Indiana 6,090 6,115 0.4% 2,339 2.54 14 14 32 21 Iowa 2,928 2,923 -0.1% 1,144 2.47 30 30 49 40al Kansas 2,692 2,695 0.1% 1,040 2.51 32 32 44 26 Kentucky 4,047 4,066 0.4% 1,584 2.49 25 25 29 32 • Louisiana 4,470 4,465 -0.1% 1,667 2.60 22 22 48 15 Maine 1,277 1,287 0.8% 529 2.37 40 40 22 50 • Maryland 5,311 5,375 1.2% 2,014 2.60 19 19 15 15 Massachusetts 6,357 6,379 0.3°- 2,453 2.51 13 13 35 26 i Michigan 9,952 9,991 0.4°, 3,833 2.54 8 8 33 21 • Minnesota 4.931 4,972 0.8% 1,979 2.44 21 21 20 46 Mississippi 2,849 2,858 0.3% 1,048 2.64 31 31 36 11 • Missouri 5,604 5,630 0.5% 2,248 2.43 17 17 28 48 Nebraska 1,713 1,713 0.0% 667 2.49 38 38 46 32 • New Hampshire 1,240 1,259 1.6% 483 2.53 41 41 8 24 New Jersey 8,429 8,484 0.7% 3,081 2.69 9 9 24 6 • New York 18,989 19,011 0.1% 7,058 2.61 3 3 43 14 North Carolina 8,077 8,186 1.3% 3,192 2.49 11 11 10 32 • North Dakota 641 634 -1.0% 249 2.45 47 48 51 44 Ohio 11,360 11,374 0.1% 4,453 2.49 7 7 42 32 • Oklahoma 3,453 3,460 0.2% 1,317 2.54 27 28 38 21 Oregon 3,429 3,473 1.3% 1,394 2.44 28 27 12 46 • Pennsylvania 12,283 12,287 0.0% 4,755 2.49 6 6 47 32 Rhode Island 1,050 1,059 0.8% 406 2.51 43 43 21 26 • South Carolina 4,023 4,063 1.0% 1,539 2.55 26 26 19 19 South Dakota 756 757 0.1% 290 2.51 46 46 39 26 • Tennessee 5,702 5,740 0.7% 2,268 2.47 16 16 23 40 • Texas 20,947 21,325 1.8% 7,487 2.77 2 2 6 5 Vermont 610 613 0.6% 245 2.42 49 49 25 49 • Virginia 7,104 7,188 1.2% 2,730 2.55 12 12 16 19 Washington 5.908 5,988 1.3% 2,323 2.52 15 15 11 25 • West Virginia 1,807 1,802 -0.3% 718 2.45 37 37 50 44 Wisconsin 5,372 5,402 0.6% 2,105 2.49 18 18 26 32 Note: Population numbers will be revised by the U.S.Census Bureau in December 2002. IIPIP Source: U.S.Census Bureau 108 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Regional/National Comparis.,ns • • • Table 52 • Total Personal Income-U.S.,Mountain Division,and States m Rates of Total Personal Income Rankings Total Personal (saar) • Income Change Rank by Total Personal Income 2nd 2nd Total Rank by Rank by • Avg.Ann. Percent Quarter Quarter Percent Personal Avg.Ann. Percent 1996 2000 2001 Growth Rate Change 2001 2002 Change Income Growth Rate Change • Division/State (millions) (millions) (millions) 1996-2001 2000-2001 (millions) (millions) 2001-02 2001 1996-2001 2000-01 • United States $6,538,103 $8,398,796 $8,678,255 5.8% 3.3% $8,669,920 $8,904,967 2.6% • Mountain States 364,491 491,783 514,119 7.1% 4.5% 513,864 529,140 2.9% Arizona 95,787 130,982 137,314 7.5% 4.8% 137,088 141,674 3.2% 23 3 8 • Colorado 100,012 142,752 147,860 8.1% 3.6% 148,167 150,422 1.5% 21 1 28 Idaho 24,173 31,314 32,525 6.1% 3.9% 32,484 33,566 3.2% 42 14 20 • Montana 16,992 20,678 21,673 5.0% 4.8% 21,633 22,218 2.6% 46 35 9 Nevada 43,331 59,948 62,966 7.8% 5.0% 63,059 65,696 4.0% 32 2 4• New Mexico 33,232 39,772 42,354 5.0% 6.5% 42,070 44,168 4.8% 38 36 1 Utah 40,354 52,622 54,884 6.3% 4.3% 54,918 56,162 2.2% 35 12 16 • Wyoming 10,609 13,717 14,544 6.5% 6.0% 14,445 15,234 5.2% 51 11 2 • Other States • Alabama 87,221 105,796 109,773 4.7% 3.8% 109,740 112,647 2.6% 24 41 24 Alaska 15,762 18,773 19,641 4.5% 4.6% 19,650 20,535 4.3% 48 45 11 • Arkansas 48,700 59,205 61,613 4.8% 4.1% 61,380 64,151 4.3% 34 39 19 California 812,404 1,099,375 1,128,256 6.8% 2.6% 1,128,323 1,156,811 2.5% 1 7 45 • Connecticut 109,354 141,151 145,341 5.9% 3.0% 145,566 147,751 1.5% 22 20 40 Delaware 19,369 24,767 25,853 5.9% 4.4% 25,796 27,114 4.9% 44 19 14 • D.C. 18,517 22,158 22,959 4.4% 3.6% 23,036 23,612 2.4% 45 47 27 Florida 355,136 454,106 474,626 6.0% 4.5% 474,193 492,621 3.7% 4 18 12 • Georgia 172,935 232,179 240,896 6.9% 3.8% 240,495 248,826 3.3% 11 6 25 Hawaii 30,393 34,308 35,510 3.2% 3.5% 35,411 36,807 3.8% 40 51 30 • Illinois 322,790 401,030 412,200 5.0% 2.8% 411,340 418,531 1.7% 5 34 43 Indiana 132,890 165,815 169,885 5.0% 2.5% 169,454 173,182 2.2% 16 33 49 111111, Iowa 64,696 77,790 79,893 4.3% 2.7% 79,761 81,570 2.2% 30 48 44 Kansas 60,074 74,124 76,973 5.1% 3.8% 76,689 80,342 4.5% 31 32 21 • Kentucky 78,221 98,125 101,326 5.3% 3.3% 100,934 104,378 3.3% 26 27 35 Louisiana 87,879 103,824 109,560 4.5% 5.5% 108,827 114,077 4.6% 25 44 3 • Maine 26,434 32,793 34,384 5.4% 4.9% 34,276 35,861 4.4% 41 24 7 Maryland 140,809 180,353 189,142 6.1% 4.9% 188,899 196,618 3.9% 15 16 6 • Massachusetts 180,237 241,318 248,202 6.6% 2.9% 248,478 251,716 1.3% 10 8 42 Michigan 238,095 293,744 297,609 4.6% 1.3% 297,595 302,749 1.7% 9 42 51 • Minnesota 122,080 158,817 164,589 6.2% 3.6% 164,370 168,648 2.5% 17 13 26 Mississippi 48,898 59,881 62,163 4.9% 3.8% 61,969 64,731 4.3% 33 37 22 • Missouri 123,992 153,830 158,906 5.1% 3.3% 158,423 162,788 2.7% 18 31 34 Nebraska 39,618 47,534 49,489 4.6% 4.1% 49,299 51,922 5.1% 36 43 18 • New Hampshire 30,228 41,630 42,986 7.3% 3.3% 42,993 43,835 1.9% 37 4 36 New Jersey 246,659 317,346 326,723 5.8% 3.0% 325,753 338,485 3.8% 8 22 41 • New York 530,990 664,927 684,774 5.2% 3.0% 683,235 685,853 0.4% 2 29 39 North Carolina 167,638 218,537 225,234 6.1% 3.1% 225,430 231,609 2.7% 13 15 37• North Dakota 13,607 16,027 16,434 3.8% 2.5% 16,370 16,997 3.7% 50 50 47 Ohio 264,162 320,377 327,745 4.4% 2.3% 327,376 335,314 2.4% 7 46 50 II Oklahoma 66,289 83,035 86,750 5.5% 4.5% 86,432 90,107 4.1% 29 23 13 • Oregon 75,561 95,406 97,814 5.3% 2.5% 97,723 100,794 3.0% 28 28 48 Pennsylvania 299,001 364,953 377,461 4.8% 3.4% 376,868 392,413 4.0% 6 40 31 • Rhode Island 24,818 30,728 31,995 5.2% 4.1% 31,865 33,548 5.0% 43 30 17 South Carolina 76,287 97,659 101,110 5.8% 3.5% 100,766 104,239 3.3% 27 21 29 • South Dakota 15,883 19,509 20,174 4.9% 3.4% 20,093 21,130 4.9% 47 38 32 Tennessee 119,287 150,344 154,911 5.4% 3.0% 154,840 159,901 3.2% 20 25 38 • Texas 428,726 587,228 609,489 7.3% 3.8% 607,435 623,852 2.6% 3 5 23 Vermont 13,073 16,691 17,531 6.0% 5.0% 17,500 18,121 3.4% 49 17 5 • Virginia 169,938 222,498 233,107 6.5% 4.8% 234,189 238,499 1.8% 12 10 10 Washington 139,328 186,863 191,763 6.6% 2.6% 194,386 197,446 1.5% 14 9 46 • West Virginia 33,771 39,506 41,230 4.1% 4.4% 41,096 42,678 3.7% 39 49 15 Wisconsin 121,864 152,953 158,116 5.3% 3.4% 157,802 163,018 3.2% 19 26 33 saar=seasonally adjusted annual rate. OWSource: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis • III • Regional/National Comparisons 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 109 a a Table 53 . Per Capita Personal Income--U.S.,Mountain Division,and States . Rates of Per Rankings MN Capita Personal Per Capita Personal Income Change Income as a Percent Rank by Rank by Rank by . Per Capita of U.S.Per Capita Per Capita Average Average Personal Income Avg.Ann. Annual Personal Income Personal Annual Annual . Growth Rate Growth Rate Income Growth Rate Growth Rate Division/State 1996 2000 2001 1996-2001 2000-01 1996 2000 2001 2001 1996-2001 2000-01 United States $24,270 $29,770 $30,472 4.7% 2.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% . Mountain States . Arizona 20,883 25,358 25,872 4.4% 2.0% 86.0% 85.2% 84.9% 39 28 41 I Colorado 25,514 33,018 33,470 5.6% 1.4% 105.1% 110.9% 109.8% 8 4 46 Idaho 20,093 24,101 24.621 4.1% 2.2% 82.8% 81.0% 80.8% 43 39 39 • Montana 19,173 22,895 23,963 4.6% 4.7% 79.0% 76.9% 78.6% 47 19 5 Nevada 26,004 29,696 29,897 2.8% 0.7% 107.1% 99.8% 98.1% 18 50 51 . New Mexico 18,964 21,837 23,155 4.1% 6.0% 78.1% 73.4% 76.0% 48 42 1 Utah 19,514 23,476 24,180 4.4% 3.0% 80.4% 78.9% 79.4% 46 27 23 . Wyoming 21,732 27,767 29,416 6.2% 5.9% . 89.5% 93.3% 96.5% 20 1 2 Other States I Alabama 20,138 23,766 24,589 4.1% 3.5% 83.0% 79.8% 80.7% 44 41 17 • Alaska 25,901 29,913 30,936 3.6% 3.4% 106.7% 100.5% 101.5% 15 49 18 Arkansas 18,934 22,108 22,887 3.9% 3.5% 78.0% 74.3% 75.1% 49 48 14 • California 25,373 32,334 32,702 5.2% 1.1% 104.5% 108.6% 107.3% 11 8 49 Connecticut 32,773 41,392 42,435 5.3% 2.5% 135.0% 139.0% 139.3% 1 6 31 • Delaware 26,140 31,500 32,472 4.4% 3.1% 107.7% 105.8% 106.6% 12 25 22 D.C. 32,352 38,801 40,150 4.4% 3.5% 133.3% 130.3% 131.8% 2 26 16 • Florida 23,909 28,286 28,947 3.9% 2.3% 98.5% 95.0% 95.0% 23 46 36 Georgia 23,055 28,212 28,733 4.5% 1.8% 95.0% 94.8% 94.3% 26 21 43 • Hawaii 25,249 28,301 29,002 2.8% 2.5% 104.0% 95.1% 95.2% 22 51 33 • Illinois 26,672 32,248 33,023 4.4% 2.4% 109.9% 108.3% 108.4% 10 30 34 Indiana 22,501 27,228 27,783 4.3% 2.0% 92.7% 91.5% 91.2% 32 34 40 Iowa 22,464 26,572 27,331 4.0% 2.9% 92.6% 89.3% 89.7% 34 45 25VIP Kansas 22,977 27,537 28,565 4.4% 3.7% 94.7% 92.5% 93.7% 29 23 10 • Kentucky 19,957 24,244 24,923 4.5% 2.8% 82.2% 81.4% 81.8% 41 20 28 Louisiana 19,978 23,227 24,535 4.2% 5.6% 82.3% 78.0% 80.5% 45 36 3 • Maine 21,163 25,681 26,723 4.8% 4.1% 87.2% 86.3% 87.7% 36 15 9 Maryland 27,545 33,959 35,188 5.0% 3.6% 113.5% 114.1% 115.5% 6 12 11 • Massachusetts 29,166 37,960 38,907 5.9% 2.5% 120.2% 127.5% 127.7% 3 2 32 Michigan 24,398 29,516 29,788 4.1% 0.9% 100.5% 99.1% 97.8% 19 43 50 • Minnesota 25,904 32,207 33,101 5.0% 2.8% 106.7% 108.2% 108.6% 9 11 29 Mississippi 17,793 21,017 21,750 4.1% 3.5% 73.3% 70.6% 71.4% 51 40 15 • Missouri 22,828 27,452 28,226 4.3% 2.8% 94.1% 92.2% 92.6% 30 32 26 Nebraska 23,670 27,756 28,886 4.1% 4.1% 97.5% 93.2% 94.8% 24 44 8 • New Hampshire 25,733 33,576 34,138 5.8% 1.7% 106.0% 112.8% 112.0% 7 3 45 New Jersey 30,266 37,649 38,509 4.9% 2.3% 124.7% 126.5% 126.4% 4 13 37 • New York 28,566 35,016 36,019 4.7% 2.9% 117.7% 117.6% 118.2% 5 16 24 North Carolina 22,350 27,055 27,514 4.2% 1.7% 92.1% 90.9% 90.3% 33 35 44 • North Dakota 20,921 25,007 25,902 4.4% 3.6% 86.2% 84.0% 85.0% 38 31 12 Ohio 23,496 28,202 28,816 4.2% 2.2% 96.8% 94.7% 94.6% 25 37 38 • Oklahoma 19,846 24,046 25,071 4.8% 4.3% 81.8% 80.8% 82.3% 40 14 7 • Oregon 23,270 27,821 28,165 3.9% 1.2% 95.9% 93.5% 92.4% 31 47 48 Pennsylvania 24,467 29,713 30,720 4.7% 3.4% 100.8% 99.8% 100.8% 16 18 19 • Rhode Island 24,310 29,258 30,215 4.4% 3.3% 100.2% 98.3% 99.2% 17 24 20 South Carolina 20,096 24,273 24,886 4.4% 2.5% 82.8% 81.5% 81.7% 42 29 30 • South Dakota 21,399 25,823 26,664 4.5% 3.3% 88.2% 86.7% 87.5% 37 22 21 Tennessee 22,022 26,367 26,988 4.2% 2.4% 90.7% 88.6% 88.6% 35 38 35 • Texas 22,167 28,035 28,581 5.2% 1.9% 91.3% 94.2% 93.8% 28 7 42 Vermont 22,019 27,376 28,594 5.4% 4.4% 90.7% 92.0% 93.8% 27 5 6 • Virginia 25,173 31,320 32,431 5.2% 3.5% 103.7% 105.2% 106.4% 13 9 13 Washington 25,015 31,627 32,025 5.1% 1.3% 103.1% 106.2% 105.1% 14 10 47 • West Virginia 18,527 21,861 22,881 4.3% 4.7% 76.3% 73.4% 75.1% 50 33 4 Wisconsin 23,301 28,471 29,270 4.7% 2.8% 96.0% 95.6% 96.1% 21 17 27 • Source: U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis Illb 11111 • 110 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Regional/National Comparisons • • • • Table 54 Median Income of Households--U.S., Mountain Division,and States • ill) Median Income of Households(2000 Dollars) Median Income of Households(1999 Dollars) Median Income of Households • Two-year Moving Average* Three-year Average*(2000 Dollars) 1996 2000 2001 1999-2000 2000-01 1999-2001 • Standard Standard Two-year Average Standard Amount As a% Amount Amount Amount Error Amount Amount Error Difference Pct.Chg. Amount Error Rank of the U.S. • United States $39,869 $41,990 $42,228 $129 $43,195 $42,695 $109 -$500 -1.2% $42,873 $109 100.0% • Mountain States • Arizona 35,538 39,783 42,704 1,441 40,095 41,799 1,104 1,704 4.1% 40,965 905 32 95.5% Colorado 46,000 48,240 49,397 1,190 50,380 49,492 1,011 -888 -1.8% 50,053 941 8 116.7% Idaho 38,989 37,611 38,241 966 38,344 38,451 903 107 0.3% 38,310 869 39 89.4%• Montana 32,221 32,777 32,126 737 33,330 32,909 730 -421 -1.3% 32,929 660 49 76.8% Nevada 43,292 45,758 45,403 1,130 45,538 46,219 891 681 1.5% 45,493 946 17 106.1%. New Mexico 28,179 35,093 33,124 1,238 35,337 34,598 1,036 -739 -2.1% 34,599 1,022 45 80.7% Utah 41,605 47,550 47,342 1,601 48,896 48,110 1,108 -786 -1.6% 48,378 1,007 12 112.8% • Wyoming 34,770 39,629 39,719 1,166 40,150 40,227 925 77 0.2% 40,007 838 34 93.3% • Other States Alabama 34,039 35,424 35,160 1,006 37,460 35,786 866 -1,674 -4.5% 36,693 787 42 85.6% • Alaska 59,287 52,847 57,363 2,012 54,458 55,842 1,337 1,384 2.5% 55,426 1,278 1 129.3% Arkansas 30,468 29,697 33,339 1,144 31,027 31,932 802 905 2.9% 31,798 697 50 74.2% 0 Califomiaonec 43,598 46,816 47,262 727 47,233 47,692 588 459 1.0% 47,243 507 14 110.2% Connecticut 47,313 50,172 53,347 1,240 52,657 52,460 1,083 -197 -0.4% 52,887 1,203 3 123.4% • Delaware 44,156 50,365 49,602 1,468 50,650 50,686 1,240 36 0.1% 50,301 1,276 7 117.3% D.C. 35,908 41,222 41,169 1,023 41,724 41,771 873 47 0.1% 41,539 897 30 96.9% • Florida 34,419 38,856 36,421 417 39,000 38,181 495 -819 -2.1% 38,141 445 40 89.0% Georgia 36,503 41,901 42,576 1,073 42,474 42,823 794 349 0.8% 42,508 779 24 99.1% Hawaii 46,923 51,546 47,439 1,256 50,129 50,212 1,020 83 0.2% 49,232 1,034 9 114.8%• Illinois 44,431 46,064 46,171 879 48,281 46,760 770 -1,521 -3.2% 47,578 693 13 111.0% Indiana 39,481 40,865 40,379 948 42,692 41,192 680 -1,500 -3.5% 41,921 822 28 97.8%• Iowa 37,304 40,991 40,976 1,133 42,895 41,556 812 -1,339 -3.1% 42,255 729 26 98.6% Kansas 36,603 41,059 41,415 1,115 40,938 41,810 952 872 2.1% 41,097 1,072 31 95.9% • Kentucky 36,410 36.265 38,437 1,009 36,557 37,857 774 1,300 3.6% 37,184 806 41 86.7% 411i Louisiana 33,994 30 718 33,322 1,195 33,130 32,449 846 -681 2.1% 33,194 774 48 77.4% Maine 38,974 37,266 36,612 952 39,793 37,459 752 -2,334 5.9% 38,733 751 36 90.3% Maryland 49,418 54,535 53,530 1,652 55,755 54,794 1,271 961 -1.7% 55,013 1,264 2 128.3% • Massachusetts 44,364 46,753 52,253 1,518 47,400 50,155 1,197 2,755 5.8% 49,018 1,176 11 114.3% Michigan 44,062 45,512 45,047 868 47,869 45,915 822 -1,954 -4.1% 46,929 727 15 109.5% • Minnesota 46,046 54,251 52,681 1,134 52,865 54,223 1,198 1,358 2.6% 52,804 1,073 4 123.2% Mississippi 29,967 34,299 30,161 1,186 34,877 32,709 1,061 -2,168 -6.2% 33,305 954 47 77.7% • Missouri 38,490 45,097 41,339 1,204 45,157 43,847 996 1,310 2.9% 43,884 859 20 102.4% Nebraska 38,208 41,750 43,611 1,116 41,972 43,263 889 1,291 3.1% 42,518 838 23 99.2% • New Hampshire 44,266 50,926 51,331 719 50,634 51,839 836 1,205 2.4% 50,866 997 6 118.6% New Jersey 53,321 50,405 51,771 933 52,320 51,791 802 -529 -1.0% 52,137 807 5 121.6% New York 39,776 40,744 42,114 600 42,179 41,998 492 -181 -0.4% 42,157 498 27 98.3%• North Carolina 39,991 38,317 38,162 951 39,479 38,774 732 -705 -1.8% 39,040 648 35 91.1% North Dakota 35,351 35,996 35,793 804 35,848 36,397 784 549 1.5% 35,830 799 44 83.6% • Ohio 38,271 42,962 41,785 661 43,053 42,973 581 -80 -0.2% 42,631 578 22 99.4% Oklahoma 30,820 32,432 35,609 690 34,027 34,473 583 446 1.3% 34,554 721 46 80.6% • Oregon 39,869 42,499 41,273 752 43,416 42,479 707 -937 -2.2% 42,701 720 21 99.6% Pennsylvania 39,202 42,176 43,499 723 41,730 43,426 594 1,696 4.1% 42,320 623 25 98.7% • Rhode Island 41,547 42,197 45,723 1,147 44,376 44,549 901 173 0.4% 44,825 1,012 19 104.6% South Carolina 38,940 37,570 37,736 1,023 38,675 38,177 816 -498 -1.3% 38,362 899 38 89.5% • South Dakota 33,167 36,475 39,671 856 37,775 38,582 643 807 2.1% 38,407 592 37 89.6% Tennessee 34,587 34,096 35,783 791 36,921 35,415 719 -1,506 -4.1% 36,542 741 43 85.2% • Texas 37,150 38,609 40,860 512 40,391 40,273 548 118 0.3% 40,547 576 33 94.6% Vermont 36,348 39,594 40,794 944 42,435 40,747 777 1,688 -4.0% 41,888 791 29 97.7% • Virginia 44,046 47,163 50,241 1,148 48,508 49,360 921 852 1.8% 49,085 964 10 114.5% Washington 41,199 42,525 42,490 1,264 46,007 43,101 1,031 -2,906 -6.3% 44,835 1,108 18 104.6% • West Virginia 28,360 29,411 29,673 674 30,676 29,952 549 724 2.4% 30,342 602 51 70.8% Wisconsin 44,934 45,088 45,346 1,123 47,427 45,846 864 1,581 -3.3% 46,734 962 16 109.0% • *Because the sample of households contacted in small population states like Utah is relatively few in number,the data collected for two or three years is • combined to calculate less variable estimates.The Census Bureau recommends using 2-year averages for evaluating changes in state estimates over time, and 3-year averages when comparing the relative ranking of states. • The Standard Error is a measurement that indicates the magnitude of sampling variability for the estimates. Note that the standard errors for U.S.estimates are much smaller than those for the states. • Ranking is done for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 4111111 Source:2001 September Current Population Survey,U.S.Bureau of the Census,Money Income in the United States:2000. • • Regional/National Comparisons 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 111 41 I Table 55 . Average Annual Pay For All Workers Covered by Unemployment Insurance: U.S.,Mountain Division,and States . Rates of Change NMfor Average Rankings Annual Pay Average Annual Pay . as a Percent of Rank by Rank by Rank by Average Annual Pay Avg.Ann. Percent U.S.Average Annual Pay Average Avg.Ann. Percent . Growth Rate Change Annual Pay Growth Rate Change C.: . '3ioni5tate 1996 2000 2001 1996-2001 2000-01 1996 2000 2001 2001 1996-2001 2000-01 United States $28,946 $35,320 $36,214 4.6% 2.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% I Mountain States Arizona 26,387 32,610 33,408 4.8% 2.4% 91.2% 92.3% 92.3% 21 12 39 . Colorado 28,520 37,168 37,950 5.9% 2.1% 98.5% 105.2% 104.8% 10 1 43 Idaho 23,353 27,701 27,765 3.5% 0.2% 80.7% 78.4% 76.7% 46 45 51 . Montana 21,146 24,272 25,194 3.6% 3.8% 73.1% 68.7% 69.6% 51 44 15 Nevada 27,788 32,277 33,122 3.6% 2.6% 96.0% 91.4% 91.5% 24 43 37 . New Mexico 23,716 27,498 28,698 3.9% 4.4% 81.9% 77.9% 79.2% 41 36 8 Utah 24,572 29,229 30,074 4.1% 2.9% 84.9% 82.8% 83.0% 35 27 28 . Wyoming 22,870 26,836 28,025 4.1% 4.4% 79.0% 76.0% 77.4% 43 25 6 Other States • Alabama 25,180 29.041 30,090 3.6% 3.6% 87.0% 82.2% 83.1% 34 42 16 • Alaska 32,461 35,144 36,140 2.2% 2.8% 112.1% 99.5% 99.8% 15 51 30 • Arkansas 22,294 26,317 27,258 4.1% 3.6% 77.0% 74.5% 75.3% 47 28 17 California 31,776 41,207 41,358 5.4% 0.4% 109.8% 116.7% 114.2% 6 4 50 I Connecticut 36,592 45,486 46,963 5.1% 3.2% 126.4% 128.8% 129.7% 2 6 21 Delaware 30,711 36,535 38,434 4.6% 5.2% 106.1% 103.4% 106.1% 8 16 2 • D.C. 44,458 52,965 56,024 4.7% 5.8% 153.6% 150.0% 154.7% 1 15 1 Florida 25,641 30,560 31,551 4.2% 3.2% 88.6% 86.5% 87.1% 29 22 22 • Georgia 27,492 34,214 35,114 5.0% 2.6% 95.0% 96.9% 97.0% 18 9 36 Hawaii 27,363 3. 628 31,250 2.7% 2.0% 94.5% 86.7% 86.3% 31 50 44 • Illinois 31,296 36,045 39,058 4.5% 2.7% 108.1% 107.7% 107.9% 7 17 35 Indiana 26,477 31,030 31,778 3.7% 2.4% 91.5% 87.9% 87.8% 27 40 40all Iowa 23,679 27,931 28,840 4.0% 3.3% 81.8% 79.1% 79.6% 39 31 20 Kansas 24,609 29,361 30,153 4.1% 2.7% 85.0% 83.1% 83.3% 33 26 34 • Kentucky 24,462 28,800 30,017 4.2% 4.2% 84.5% 81.5% 82.9% 36 24 9 Louisiana 24,541 27,888 29,134 3.5% 4.5% 84.8% 79.0% 80.4% 38 47 5 • Maine 23,850 27,664 28,815 3.9% 4.2% 82.4% 78.3% 79.6% 40 37 10 Maryland 30,295 36,395 38,237 4.8% 5.1% 104.7% 103.0% 105.6% 9 13 3 0 Massachusetts 33,937 44,168 44,976 5.8% 1.8% 117.2% 125.1% 124.2% 4 2 45 • Michigan 31,521 37,011 37,387 3.5% 1.0% 108.9% 104.8% 103.2% 12 48 48 Minnesota 28,866 35,414 36,585 4.9% 3.3% 99.7% 100.3% 101.0% 14 11 19 • Mississippi 21,822 25,208 25,919 3.5% 2.8% 75.4% 71.4% 71.6% 48 46 32 Missouri 26,601 31,384 32,422 4.0% 3.3% 91.9% 88.9% 89.5% 25 29 18 • Nebraska 23,294 27,693 28,375 4.0% 2.5% 80.5% 78.4% 78.4% 42 30 38 New Hampshire 27,691 34,736 35,479 5.1% 2.1% 95.7% 98.3% 98.0% 17 7 42 • New Jersey 35,928 43,676 44,285 4.3% 1.4% 124.1% 123.7% 122.3% 5 21 46 New York 36,816 45,358 46,664 4.9% 2.9% 127.2% 128.4% 128.9% 3 10 29 • North Carolina 25,410 31,068 32,026 4.7% 3.1% 87.8% 88.0% 88.4% 26 14 25 North Dakota 21,242 24,683 25,707 3.9% 4.1% 73.4% 69.9% 71.0% 49 35 11 • Ohio 27,776 32,508 33,280 3.7% 2.4% 96.0% 92.0% 91.9% 22 41 41 Oklahoma 23,329 26,988 28,020 3.7% 3.8% 80.6% 76.4% 77.4% 44 39 13 • Oregon 27,028 32,776 33,203 4.2% 1.3% 93.4% 92.8% 91.7% 23 23 47 Pennsylvania 28,973 34,015 34,976 3.8% 2.8% 100.1% 96.3% 96.6% 19 38 31 • Rhode Island 27,194 32,615 33,592 4.3% 3.0% 93.9% 92.3% 92.8% 20 20 27 • South Carolina 24,049 28,179 29,253 4.0% 3.8% 83.1% 79.8% 80.8% 37 32 14 South Dakota 20,724 24,802 25,600 4.3% 3.2% 71.6% 70.2% 70.7% 50 19 23 • Tennessee 25,963 30,557 31,491 3.9% 3.1% 89.7% 86.5% 87.0% 30 33 26 Texas 28,129 34,943 36,039 5.1% 3.1% 97.2% 98.9% 99.5% 16 8 24 • Vermont 24,480 28,914 30,240 4.3% 4.6% 84.6% 81.9% 83.5% 32 18 4 Virginia 28,003 35,172 36,716 5.6% 4.4% 96.7% 99.6% 101.4% 13 3 7 • Washington 28,881 37,099 37,475 5.3% 1.0% 99.8% 105.0% 103.5% 11 5 49 West Virginia 24,075 26,888 27,982 3.1% 4.1% 83.2% 76.1% 77.3% 45 49 12 • Wisconsin 26,021 30,694 31,556 3.9% 2.8% 89.9% 86.9% 87.1% 28 34 33 Note:Numbers in this chart may differ from other tables due to different data sources. all Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics • 112 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 111 Regional/National Comparisons • • • • Table 56 Employees on Nonagricultural Payrolls-U.S.,Mountain Division,and States • 4 • Rates of Change for Employees on Employees on Rankings • Employees on Nonagricultural Nonagricultural Payrolls Payrolls (not seasonally adjusted) Rank by Rank by Rank by Nonagricultural Payrolls Employees Average Rank by Percent • Avg.Ann. Percent October October Percent on Nonag. Annual Percent Change 1996 2000 2001 Growth Rate Change 2001 2002(p) Change Payrolls Growth Rate Change (unadjust.) • Division/State (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) 1996-2001 2000-01 (thousands) (thousands) 2001-02 2001 1996-2001 2000-01 2001-02 • United States 119,568 131,743 131,968 2.0% 0.2% 132,395 131,849 -0.4% • Mountain States 7,359 8,489 8,597 3.2% 1.3% 8,619 8,595 -0.3% Arizona 1,892 2,243 2,266 3.7% 1.0% 2,274 2,267 -0.3% 21 4 10 30 • Colorado 1,900 2,213 2,232 3.3% 0.9% 2,220 2,183 -1.7% 22 5 13 49 Idaho 493 560 569 2.9% 1.8% 577 570 -1.2% 42 6 4 44 • Montana 360 388 392 1.7% 1.1% 395 402 1.9% 46 29 9 2 Nevada 843 1,027 1,054 4.6% 2.6% 1,053 1,083 2.8% 35 2 1 1 • New Mexico 695 745 757 1.7% 1.6% 762 768 0.8% 37 25 6 5 Utah 955 1,075 1,082 2.5% 0.6% 1,087 1,071 -1.5% 34 9 19 48 • Wyoming 221 239 246 2.1% 2.6% 250 251 0.1% 51 17 2 15 • Other States Alabama 1,829 1,931 1,914 0.9% -0.9% 1,919 1,900 -1.0% 24 47 46 42 Alaska 264 284 290 1.9% 2.1% 292 296 1.4% 50 20 3 3 . Arkansas 1,086 1,159 1,156 1.3% -0.2% 1,162 1,162 0.0% 32 39 35 19 Califomia 12,743 14,488 14,697 2.9% 1.4% 14,744 14,721 -0.2% 1 7 7 24 • Connecticut 1,584 1,693 1,682 1.2% -0.6% 1,686 1,681 -0.3% 27 41 41 27 Delaware 376 650 651 11.6% 0.1% 419 412 -1.7% 39 1 29 50 • D.C. 623 420 419 -7.6% -0.2% 653 653 0.0% 45 51 34 20 Florida 6,183 7,081 7,198 3.7% 1.7% 7,199 7,228 0.4% 4 3 5 9 • Georgia 3,527 3,949 3,954 2.3% 0.1% 3,953 3,866 -2.2% 10 13 27 51 Hawaii 531 551 554 0.8% 0.4% 548 550 0.3% 43 49 22 11 • Illinois 5,685 6,045 6,005 1.1% -0.7% 6,016 5,950 -1.1% 5 43 44 43 Indiana 2,814 3,000 2,938 0.9% 2.1% 2,955 2,932 -0.8% 14 48 51 40 Iowa 1,383 1,478 1,469 1.2% -0.6% 1,477 1,475 -0.1% 30 42 42 23 Kansas 1,227 1,345 1,357 2.0% 0.9% 1,369 1,373 0.3% 31 19 12 12 • Kentucky 1,672 1,825 1,817 1.7% -0.4% 1,827 1,850 1.3% 26 31 37 4 Louisiana 1,810 1,920 1,931 1.3% 0.6% 1,948 1,941 -0.3% 23 38 20 31 • Maine 543 604 609 2.4% 1.0% 617 620 0.4% 41 12 11 10 Maryland 2,211 2,450 2,470 2.2% 0.8% 2,490 2,489 -0.1% 20 14 15 21 • Massachusetts 3,035 3,323 3,335 1.9% 0.3% 3,344 3,302 1.3% 13 23 24 45 Michigan 4,361 4,674 4,587 1.0% -1.9% 4,623 4,589 -0.7% 8 45 50 38 • Minnesota 2,433 2,676 2,674 1.9% -0.1% 2,682 2,671 -0.4% 19 22 33 33 Mississippi 1,089 1,154 1,134 0.8% -1.7% 1,137 1,137 0.0% 33 50 49 16 Missouri 2,567 2,749 2,732 1.3% -0.6% 2,739 2,699 -1.4% 16 40 39 47 • Nebraska 835 909 909 1.7% 0.1% 916 918 0.2% 36 26 30 14 New Hampshire 554 622 627 2.5% 0.8% 628 627 -0.1% 40 10 16 22 • New Jersey 3,639 3,995 4,024 2.0% 0.7% 4,041 4,029 -0.3% 9 18 17 28 New York 7,939 8,635 8,633 1.7% 0.0% 8,648 8,609 -0.5% 3 28 31 34 • North Carolina 3,547 3,934 3,901 1.9% -0.8% 3,921 3,921 0.0% 11 21 45 18 North Dakota 309 328 330 1.3% 0.6% 335 334 -0.2% 48 37 18 26 • Ohio 5,296 5,625 5,566 1.0% 1.0% 5,590 5,543 -0.8% 7 46 47 41 Oklahoma 1,354 1,490 1,509 2.2% 1.3% 1,520 1,529 0.6% 29 16 8 7 • Oregon 1,475 1,607 1,596 1.6% -0.7% 1,606 1,603 -0.2% 28 34 43 25 Pennsylvania 5,306 5,691 5,701 1.4% 0.2% 5,719 5,679 -0.7% 6 35 26 37 • Rhode Island 442 477 479 1.6% 0.5% 485 488 0.6% 44 33 21 8 South Carolina 1,675 1,860 1,835 1.8% -1.3% 1,845 1,845 0.0% 25 24 48 17 • South Dakota 349 378 379 1.7% 0.4% 382 379 -0.7% 47 27 23 36 Tennessee 2,533 2,729 2,712 1.4% -0.6% 2,725 2,717 -0.3% 17 36 40 29 • Texas 8,256 9,433 9,513 2.9% 0.8% 9,501 9,453 -0.5% 2 8 14 35 Vermont 275 299 299 1.7% 0.1% 302 303 0.2% 49 30 28 13 • Virginia 3,136 3,517 3,528 2.4% 0.3% 3,530 3,516 -0.4% 12 11 25 32 Washington 2,416 2,711 2,698 2.2% -0.5% 2,700 2,664 -1.3% 18 15 38 46 West Virginia 699 736 735 1.0% -0.1% 738 733 -0.8% 38 44 32 39 . Wisconsin 2,601 2,833 2,826 1.7% -0.3% 2,847 2,868 0.8% 15 32 36 6 • Note: This data varies slightly from data reported by the State of Utah Department of Workforce Services. • Source:U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics le • 1111 • Regional/National Comparisons 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 113 • 0 a Table 57 . Unemployment Rates-U.S., Mountain Division,and States . Unemployment Unemployment Rate Unemployment Rate (not seasonally adjusted) Rankings by Unemployment Rate IN Rate Change . October October (unadjust.) (unadjust.) Division/State 1996 2000 2001 1996-2001 2000-01 2001 2002(p) 1996 2000 2001 2001 2002(p) . United States 5.4% 4.0% 4.8% -0.6% 0.8% 3.9% 5.4% . Mountain States 5.1% 3.8% 4.5% -0.6% 0.7% 4.9% 5.1% . Arizona 5.5% 3.9% 4.7% -0.8% 0.8% 5.2% 5.7% 17 24 22 13 13 Colorado 4.2% 2.7% 3.7% -0.5% 1.0% 4.1% 5.2% 41 46 40 27 22 Idaho 5.2% 4.9% 5.0% -0.2% 0.1% 4.0% 5.5% 23 7 16 31 18 Montana 5.3% 4.9% 4.6% -0.7% -0.3% 4.0% 4.3% 20 7 26 31 37 II Nevada 5.4% 4.1% 5.3% -0.1% 1.2% 6.1% 4.5% 18 19 11 3 35 II Mexico 8.1% 4.9% 4.8% -3.3% -0.1% 5.6% 5.8% 2 7 20 5 11 Utah 3.5% 3.2% 4.4% 0.9% 1.2% 4.1% 5.1% 47 39 30 27 25 Wyoming 5.0% 3.9% 3.9% -1.1% 0.0% 3.3% 3.9% 30 24 38 42 43 Other States I Alabama 5.1% 4.6% 5.3% 0.2% 0.7% 5.4% 5.6% 26 12 11 8 15 • Alaska 7.8% 6.6% 6.3% -1.5% -0.3% 5.6% 6.8% 3 1 3 5 2 Arkansas 5.4% 4.4% 5.1% -0.3% 0.7% 3.6% 5.1% 18 14 15 40 25 . California 7.2% 4.9% 5.3% 1.9% 0.4% 5.4% 6.4% 5 7 11 8 6 Connecticut 5.7% 2.3% 3.3% -2.4% 1.0% 3.0% 4.2% 14 49 47 45 38 . Delaware 5.2% 4.0% 3.5% -1.7% -0.5% 2.8% 3.9% 23 23 44 47 43 D.C. 8.5% 5.8% 6.5% -2.0% 0.7% 6.2% 6.0% 1 2 1 1 9 • Florida 5.1% 3.6% 4.8% -0.3% 1.2% 5.0% 5.1% 26 32 20 15 25 Georgia 4.6% 3.7% 4.0% -0.6% 0.3% 4.2% 4.6% 34 30 36 26 33 • Hawaii 6.4% 4.3% 4.6% -1.8% 0.3% 5.2% 4.0% 8 16 26 13 41 Illinois 5.3% 4.4% 5.4% 0.1% 1.0% 5.0% 6.7% 20 14 9 15 3 • Indiana 4.1% 3.2% 4.4% 0.3% 1.2% 4.3% 5.0% 43 39 30 23 28 Iowa 3.8% 2.6% 3.3% -0.5% 0.7% 2.7% 4.0% 46 47 47 49 41 • Kansas 4.5% 3.7% 4.3% -0.2% 0.6% 3.9% 4.6% 37 30 32 34 33 Kentucky 5.6% 4.1% 5.5% -0.1% 1.4% 5.0% 4.9% 15 19 6 15 294111 Louisiana 6.7% 5.5% 6.0% -0.7% 0.5% 5.5% 5.8% 6 4 5 7 11 • Maine 5.1% 3.5% 4.0% -1.1% 0.5% 3.8% 4.1% 26 35 36 37 39 Maryland 4.9% 3.9% 4.1% -0.8% 0.2% 4.3% 3.9% 31 24 35 23 43 • Massachusetts 4.3% 2.6% 3.7% -0.6% 1.1% 3.8% 5.2% 39 47 40 37 22 Michigan 4.9% 3.6% 5.3% 0.4% 1.7% 4.7% 5.6% 31 32 11 20 15 • Minnesota 4.0% 3.3% 3.7% -0.3% 0.4% 3.2% 3.9% 45 38 40 44 43 Mississippi 6.1% 5.7% 5.5% -0.6% -0.2% 5.3% 6.7% 11 3 6 12 3 • Missouri 4.6% 3.5% 4.7% 0.1% 1.2% 4.0% 4.9% 34 35 22 31 29 Nebraska 2.9% 3.0% 3.1% 0.2% 0.1% 2.8% 3.2% 51 41 50 47 50 • New Hampshire 4.2% 2.8% 3.5% -0.7% 0.7% 3.3% 4.8% 41 45 44 42 32 New Jersey 6.2% 3.8% 4.2% -2.0% 0.4% 4.5% 5.5% 9 29 34 22 18 • New York 6.2% 4.6% 4.9% -1.3% 0.3% 4.9% 5.7% 9 12 17 18 13 North Carolina 4.3% 3.6% 5.5% 1.2% 1.9% 5.4% 6.0% 39 32 6 8 9 • North Dakota 3.1% 3.0% 2.8% -0.3% -0.2% 1.4% 3.7% 50 41 51 51 49 Ohio 4.9% 4.1% 4.3% -0.6% 0.2% 4.1% 5.6% 31 19 32 27 15 • Oklahoma 4.1% 3.0% 3.8% -0.3% 0.8% 3.7% 4.1% 43 41 39 39 39 Oregon 5.9% 4.9% 6.3% 0.4% 1.4% 6.0% 7.0% 13 7 3 4 1 • Pennsylvania 5.3% 4.2% 4.7% -0.6% 0.5% 4.6% 5.3% 20 17 22 21 21 Rhode Island 5.1% 4.1% 4.7% -0.4% 0.6% 4.1% 5.2% 26 19 22 27 22 • South Carolina 6.0% 3.9% 5.4% -0.6% 1.5% 5.4% 5.5% 12 24 9 8 18 • South Dakota 3.2% 2.3% 3.3% 0.1% 1.0% 2.7% 2.7% 49 49 47 49 51 Tennessee 5.2% 3.9% 4.5% -0.7% 0.6% 4.3% 4.5% 23 24 29 23 35 • Texas 5.6% 4.2% 4.9% -0.7% 0.7% 4.9% 6.2% 15 17 17 18 7 Vermont 4.6% 2.9% 3.6% -1.0% 0.7% 2.9% 3.9% 34 44 43 46 43 • Virginia 4.4% 2.2% 3.5% -0.9% 1.3% 3.5% 3.8% 38 51 44 41 48 Washington 6.5% 5.2% 6.4% -0.1% 1.2% 6.2% 6.7% 7 6 2 1 3 • West Virginia 7.5% 5.5% 4.9% -2.6% -0.6% 3.9% 6.2% 4 4 17 34 7 Wisconsin 3.5% 3.5% 4.6% 1.1% 1.1% 3.9% 4.9% 47 35 26 34 29 • (p)=preliminary • IllbSource: U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics ill • 114 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Regional/National Comparisons • • • • Table 58 Percent of People in Poverty--U.S., Mountain Division,and States m Percent of Persons in Poverty Percent of Persons in Poverty Two-year Moving Average** Percent of Persons in Poverty Three-year Average** • 1996 2000 2001 1999-2000 2000-2001 Two-year 1999-2001 Standard Standard Average Standard Amount • Percent Percent Percent Error Amount Amount Error Difference Amount Error Rank • United States 13.7 11.3 11.7 0.1 11.6 11.5 0.1 -0.1 11.6 0.1 • Mountain States Arizona 20.5 11.7 14.6 1.2 11.9 13.2 1 1.2 12.9 0.9 14 • Colorado 10.6 9.8 8.7 0.8 9.1 9.2 0.7 0.1 9 0.7 37 Idaho 11.9 12.5 11.5 1.1 13.3 12 1 -1.3 12.7 0.9 16 • Montana 17.0 14.1 13.3 1.3 15 13.7 1.1 -1.3 14.4 1 9 Nevada 8.1 8.8 7.1 0.8 10 7.9 0.7 0.8 9 0.7 37 New Mexico 25.5 17.5 18.0 1.5 19.2 17.7 1.3 -1.5 18.8 1.2 1 • Utah 7.7 7.6 10.5 1.0 6.7 9.1 0.8 0.7 8 0.7 42 • Wyoming 11.9 10.8 8.7 0.9 11.2 9.7 0.8 -1.5 10.3 0.8 26 Other States • Alabama 14.0 13.3 15.9 1.2 14.3 14.6 1 0.3 14.8 0.9 8 Alaska 8.2 7.6 8.5 0.9 7.6 8.1 0.7 0.5 7.9 0.7 44 • Arkansas 17.2 16.5 17.8 1.4 15.6 17.1 1.1 1.6 16.3 1 4 California 16.9 12.7 12.6 0.5 13.4 12.6 0.4 0.4 13.1 0.4 13 • Connecticut 11.7 7.7 7.3 0.8 7.4 7.5 0.7 0.1 7.4 0.7 48 Delaware 8.6 8.4 6.7 0.9 9.4 7.6 0.8 0.9 8.5 0.8 41 • D.C. 24.1 15.2 18.2 1.4 15 16.7 1.2 1.7 16.1 1.1 5 Florida 14.2 11.0 12.7 0.7 11.7 11.9 0.5 0.2 12 0.5 21 Georgia 14.8 12.1 12.9 1.1 12.5 12.5 0.9 0.1 12.6 0.8 18 Hawaii 12.1 8.9 11.4 1.1 9.9 10.2 0.9 0.3 10.4 0.8 24 • Illinois 12.1 10.7 10.1 0.7 10.3 10.4 0.6 0.1 10.2 0.5 28 Indiana 7.5 8.5 8.5 0.8 7.6 8.5 0.7 0.9 7.9 0.6 44 • Iowa 9.6 8.3 7.4 0.8 7.8 7.8 0.7 - 7.7 0.7 46 Kansas 11.2 8.0 10.1 0.9 10.1 9.1 0.8 -1.1 10.1 0.8 31 • Kentucky 17.0 12.6 12.6 1.1 12.3 12.6 0.9 0.2 12.4 0.9 19 Louisiana 20.5 17.2 16.2 1.3 18.2 16.7 1.1 -1.5 17.5 1.1 2 Maine 11.2 10.1 10.3 0.9 10.3 10.2 0.7 -0.1 10.3 0.8 26 111. Maryland 10.3 7.4 7.2 0.8 7.3 7.3 0.7 7.3 0.7 49 Massachusetts 10.1 9.8 8.9 0.8 10.8 9.4 0.7 0.7 10.2 0.7 28• Michigan 11.2 9.9 9.4 0.7 9.8 9.6 0.6 -0.2 9.7 0.5 34 Minnesota 9.8 5.7 7.4 0.8 6.5 6.5 0.6 -- 6.8 0.6 50 • Mississippi 20.6 14.9 19.3 1.4 15.6 17.1 1.2 1.6 16.8 1.1 3 Missouri 9.5 9.2 9.7 0.9 10.4 9.4 0.8 -1 10.2 0.8 28 • Nebraska 10.2 8.6 9.4 1.0 9.8 9 0.8 -0.8 9.7 0.8 34 New Hampshire 6.4 4.5 6.5 0.7 6.1 5.5 0.6 -0.6 6.2 0.7 51 • New Jersey 9.2 7.3 8.1 0.7 7.6 7.7 0.5 0.1 7.7 0.5 46 New York 16.7 13.9 14.2 0.6 14 14 0.5 14.1 0.5 11 • North Carolina 12.2 12.5 12.5 0.9 13.1 12.5 0.8 -0.6 12.9 0.7 14 North Dakota 11.0 10.4 13.8 1.1 11.7 12.1 0.9 0.4 12.4 0.9 19 • Ohio 12.7 10.0 10.5 0.7 11 10.3 0.6 -0.7 10.8 0.6 23 Oklahoma 16.6 14.9 15.1 1.2 13.9 15 1 1.1 14.3 0.9 10 • Oregon 11.8 10.9 11.8 1.0 11.7 11.3 0.9 -0.4 11.8 0.9 22 Pennsylvania 11.6 8.6 9.6 0.6 9 9.1 0.5 0.1 9.2 0.5 36 Rhode Island 11.0 10.2 9.6 0.8 10.1 9.9 0.7 -0.2 10 0.8 32 • South Carolina 13.0 11.1 15.1 1.2 11.4 13.1 0.9 *1.7 12.7 0.9 16 South Dakota 11.8 10.7 8.4 0.9 9.2 9.6 0.8 0.3 9 0.7 37. Tennessee 15.9 13.5 14.1 1.2 12.7 13.8 1 1.1 13.2 0.9 12 Texas 16.6 15.5 14.9 0.7 15.4 15.2 0.6 -0.2 15.2 0.5 7 • Vermont 12.6 10.0 9.7 0.9 9.8 9.9 0.8 9.8 0.8 33 Virginia 12.3 8.3 8.0 0.8 8.1 8.1 0.7 0.1 8 0.7 42 • Washington 11.9 10.8 10.7 1.0 10.2 10.8 0.9 0.6 10.4 0.8 24 West Virginia 18.5 14.7 16.4 1.2 15.2 15.6 1 0.4 15.6 0.9 6 • Wisconsin 8.8 9.3 7.9 0.8 8.9 8.6 0.7 -0.3 8.6 0.7 40 • *Statistically significant at the 90%confidence level • **Because the sample of households contacted in small population states like Utah is relatively few in number,the data collected for two or three years is combined to calculate less variable estimates.The Census Bureau recommends using 2-year averages for evaluating changes in state estimates over time, • and 3-year averages when comparing the relative ranking of states. The Standard Error is a measurement that indicates the magnitude of sampling variability for the 1111_dik estimates. Note that the standard errors for U.S.estimates are much smaller than those for the states. 61111, Ranking is done for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Source:March Current Population Survey,U.S.Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States:2001. • II 1110 Regional/National Comparisons 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 115 • • • • Social Indicators 400• 1iorylo ;- Bachelor's degree or higher(26.1%)in Utah. The state ranks 16th QuafiO.of�l!ifs le-a sub` ve notio n11iat`is` fff' ' fay :;v'r_ highest in higher education. . . . >� ,b . ..,.;., 1? t�::.east(e , f:�we e, 9 9 • -{e connection beeneconomic performance at quelfty,df life is'- ;�° `indisputable; Throughvttoz:Itab'eecal chitin ed;to-ieflect` e ' Home Ownership. According to the U.S.Census Bureau,home • national trend of:slow growth at started in,tfae-last quarter ot20(3'(::.•It is ownership rates for 2001 show that Utah has the 16th-highest proportion too soon i0 knowwhich qualitiOilte easurehrentswill be• ffectd,,end, of home owners at 72.4%. The rate for the nation is 67.8%. The lowest • by how much=,According to the st,recent,datnevailable,` tat s>::-=,'' rates were in Washington D.C.(42.7%),New York(53.9%),Hawaii III violent crtmeir e:continues to drop.',P©ve +,rates remain low, (55.5%),and California(58.2%). educational attainment remains tigf,actd tUt :'a birlti ratecontinues tta • be the-h1ghest among,states Utah ranI thiniin,the nation-on:the:< Vital Statistics and Health. Utah's unique age structure impacts its indicators of OM well-being: Thestateratnked third highest t ttieralt ranking among other states on many vital statistics. According to • health status -Overall,,Utah continues:to k wrong t(te-toit states in Census 2000,Utah continues to have the highest percentage of the • termsofttaatttyof Rte.'_ population under 18 years of age(32.2%)in the nation and the lowest median age(27.1). Utah also has the second-lowest percentage of the • Utah Quality of Life Information population age 65 and over(8.5%)behind Alaska. The vital statistics Education and the Economy a Concern to Utahns. The Utah listed below,excluding health insurance coverage,are from the National • Consumer Survey,a quarterly survey conducted by Valley Research, Center for Health Statistics. Inc.,provides valuable information about consumer sentiment and Utah's • demographic characteristics. The survey has been administered for Births. Utah's birth rate in 2001 continues to be the highest estimated • several years and allows comparisons over time. The most recent rate of all states at 21.8 births per 1,000 people. Texas and Arizona survey was taken in October 2002. Interviews were conducted by rank second and third at 17.5 and 17.2 respectively. The U.S.rate is • telephone with 500 randomly-selected adults throughout Utah. The 14.5. survey report details the answers given by respondents. One of the • questions asked is"What is the most important issue facing Utah Deaths and Other Statistics. The overall death rate in Utah was 5.7 • today?" In October 2002,education and the economy were on the per 1,000 people in 2000,which ranked second-lowest among U.S. minds of Utahns. Of the respondents,29%indicated that education was states. The age-adjusted death rate was 7.9 per 1,000 people,ranking • the most important issue facing the state. Their main concerns were the fifth lowest. Utah ranks last among all states for the estimated death lack of adequate funding,class size,and the overall quality of education. rate for cancer,in 2002. Utah's AIDS rate per 100,000 people for 2001 • Twenty-three percent indicated that the economy was the most important was 19.0--the third lowest in the nation. 4011 issue facing the state. Health Insurance Coverage. According to the U.S.Census Bureau, • Utah's Kids Count. According to the Annie E.Casey Foundation's approximately 13.6%of the Utah population was without health National Composite Rank,Utah ranked third among states in child well- insurance coverage(a three-year average for 1999-2001). Utah ranked • being,behind New Hampshire and Minnesota in 2002.1 The Foundation 22nd among states. The U.S.average was 14.5%. • tracks indicators of child well-being by state that are published in the 2002 Kids Count Data Book. A state's National Composite Rank is Poverty. According to the U.S.Census Bureau,Utah's 2001 poverty • determined by the sum of the state's standing on each of 10 measures rate(based on a 3-year moving average)was 8.0%,or the tenth lowest of the condition of children arranged in order from best(1)to worst(51). in the nation. States with lower poverty rates than Utah were Alaska • The Foundation's indicators are:percent low birth weight babies;infant (7.9%),Indiana(7.9%),Iowa(7.7%),New Jersey(7.7%),Connecticut • mortality rate;child death rate;rate of teen deaths by accident,homicide, (7.4%),Maryland(7.3%),and Minnesota(6.8%)2 In the U.S., and suicide;teen birth rate;percent of teens who are high school approximately 11.9%of the population was in poverty. • dropouts;percent of teens not attending school and not working;percent of children living with parents who do not have full-time,year-round Public Assistance. There were an estimated 22,474 recipients of • employment;percent of children in poverty;and percent of families with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families(TANF)in 2001. Utah ranked • children headed by a single parent. 11th lowest among states in the total number of TANF recipients. Approximately 79,716 people in Utah received benefits from the Federal • Current Data on Social Well-Being Food Stamp Program,which dispersed$22.8 million worth of benefits in • Crime. Statistics for 2001 from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Utah in 2001. Utah ranked 39th in the number of food stamps uniform crime reports show the rate of violent crimes(murder and non- recipients,and 29th in the amount of benefits from the Federal Food • negligent manslaughter,forcible rape,robbery,and aggravated assault) Stamp Program. in Utah at 234.1 per 100,000 persons. This is an 8.4%decrease from • the 2000 violent crime rate. Only six other states had lower rates than Utah. Utah's rate continues to be significantly lower than the U.S.rate of • 444.8. • Education. Census 2000 data ranks Utah as the fourth highest state in • its proportion of persons age 25 and over with at least a high school 1 Rankings are based on data from 1990-1999. GIP degree(87.7%). Between the 1990 and 2000 censuses,there was a 2 Virginia has the same poverty rate(8.0%)as Utah. 17%increase in the percent of persons 25 years and over with a • Ill • Social Indicators 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 117 • • I Table 59 , Crime,Education,and Home Ownership CRIME EDUCATION HOME OWNERSHIP • Educational AttainmentMPS Persons 25 Years Old and Over I Violent Crime* Property Crime** 2000(2) per 100,000 People per 100,000 People High School Bachelor's Degree Home Ownership Rates 2001 (1) 2001 (1) or Higher or Higher 2001 (3) Rate Rank Rate Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank Percent Rank U.S. 444.8 (g 3626.8 (X) 80.4 (X) 24.4 (9 67.8 (X • Alabama 438.6 23 3880.8 20 75.3 46 19.0 45 73.2 15 I Alaska 588.3 11 3,647.9 26 88.3 1 24.7 21 65.3 43 . Arizona 540.3 16 5,537.1 2 81.0 32 23.5 25 68.1 38 Arkansas 452.8 22 3681.4 24 75.3 47 16.7 50 71.2 23 . California 617.0 9 3286 34 76.8 42 26.6 13 58.2 48 Colorado 350.7 31 3868.2 21 86.9 8 32.7 3 68.5 35 . Connecticut 335.5 33 2782.4 41 84.0 20 31.4 4 71.8 18 Delaware 611.4 10 3441.4 30 82.6 25 25.0 20 75.4 7 • District of Colombia 1,736.7 1 5972.8 1 77.8 41 39.1 1 42.7 51 Florida 797.2 2 4772.5 5 79.9 35 22.3 32 69.2 34 • Georgia 497.0 19 4149.3 13 78.6 38 24.3 23 70.1 29 Hawaii 254.6 43 5131.5 3 84.6 18 26.2 14 55.5 49 • Idaho 243.1 44 2890.3 38 84.7 17 21.7 36 71.7 19 Illinois 636.9 8 3460.8 28 81.4 30 26.1 15 69.4 33 . Indiana 371.8 27 3459.6 29 82.1 26 19.4 44 75.3 8 Iowa 269.1 39 3032.1 37 86.1 11 21.2 39 76.6 2 • Kansas 404.8 25 3916.6 19 86.0 12 25.8 17 70.4 28 Kentucky 257.0 42 2681.1 42 74.1 50 17.1 48 73.9 13 • Louisiana 687.0 7 4651.1 7 74.8 49 18.7 46 67.1 39 Maine 111.5 49 2576.7 45 85.4 13 22.9 28 75.5 6 • Maryland 783.0 3 4083.8 15 83.8 22 31.4 5 70.7 27 Massachusetts 479.5 21 2619.1 44 84.8 16 33.2 2 60.6 46 • Michigan 554.7 14 3526.8 27 83.4 23 21.8 35 77.1 1 Minnesota 264.4 40 3319.3 33 87.9 2 27.4 11 76.1 4IMP Mississippi 350.1 32 3835.1 22 72.9 51 16.9 49 74.5 10 • Missouri 541.3 15 4234.9 12 81.3 31 21.6 37 74.0 12 Montana 352.4 29 3336.3 32 87.2 6 24.4 22 68.3 37 • Nebraska 304.3 36 4025.3 17 86.6 9 23.7 24 70.1 30 Nevada 586.8 12 3679.2 25 80.7 33 18.2 47 64.6 44 • New Hampshire 170.3 47 2151.3 51 87.4 5 28.7 9 68.4 36 New Jersey 390.1 26 2835.2 40 82.1 27 29.8 6 66.5 40 New Mexico 781.1 4 4542.8 9 78.9 37 23.5 26 70.8 26 • New York 516.0 17 2409.1 47 79.1 36 27.4 12 53.9 50 • North Carolina 494.3 20 1143.7 10 78.1 39 22.5 29 71.3 22 North Dakota 79.6 51 2338.1 48 83.9 21 22.0 33 71.0 25 • Ohio 351.9 30 3825.7 23 83.0 24 21.1 40 71.2 24 Oklahoma 512.3 18 4094.7 14 80.6 34 20.3 42 71.5 20 • Oregon 306.7 35 4737.4 6 85.1 14 25.1 19 65.8 42 Pennsylvania 410.4 24 2550.7 46 81.9 28 22.4 30 74.3 11 • Rhode Island 309.6 34 3375.3 31 78.0 40 25.6 18 60.1 47 South Carolina 720.3 6 4032.4 16 76.3 43 20.4 41 76.1 5 • South Dakota 154.8 48 2177.2 50 84.6 19 21.5 38 71.5 21 Tennessee 745.3 5 4407.5 11 75.9 44 19.6 43 69.7 32 • Texas 572.8 13 4579.9 8 75.7 45 23.2 27 63.9 45 Utah 234.1 45 4008.9 18 87.7 4 26.1 16 72.4 16 • Vermont 105.0 50 2664.2 43 86.4 10 29.4 8 69.8 31 Virginia 291.3 37 2886.9 39 81.5 29 29.5 7 75.1 9 • Washington 355.0 28 4796.8 4 87.1 7 27.7 10 66.4 41 West Virginia 279.4 38 2280.1 49 75.2 48 14.8 51 76.4 3 • Wisconsin 231.1 46 3090.1 36 85.1 15 22.4 31 72.3 17 Wyoming 257.3 41 3260.4 35 87.9 3 21.9 34 73.5 14 • Note: Rank is most favorable value to least favorable. When states share the same rank,the next lower rank is omitted. • *Violent crimes are offenses of murder,forcible rape,robbery,and aggravated assault. **Property crimes are offenses of burglary,larceny-theft,and motor-vehicle thefts. • Sources: (1)Federal Bureau of Investigation,"Crime in the United States,2001"; (2)U.S.Census Bureau,Census 2000-Summary File 3; IIPIP(3)U.S.Census Bureau,"Housing Vacancy Survey," Annual 2001. 111 • 118 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Social Indicators • • • • Table 60 • • Vital Statistics and Health le VITAL STATISTICS AND HEALTH Persons Without • Births per Deaths per Estimated Deaths AIDS cases per State Health Health Insurance 1000 People 1000 People by Cancer per 100,000 People Ranking (3 Year Average) • 2001 (1) 2000(1) 100,000 Persons 2001 (2) 2001 (3) (1999-2001)(4) 2002(2) • Rate Rank Rate Rank Rate Rank Rate Rank Rate Rank Percent Rank • U.S. 14.5 (X) 8.7 (X) 195.1 09 14.8 N (>q 09 14.5 (X) • Alabama 13.7 32 10.3 43 219.5 10 9.8 23 -11.0 45 13.2 25 Alaska 16.0 6 4.7 1 110.3 50 2.8 47 2.4 25 17.7 8 • Arizona 17.2 3 8.3 16 180.9 42 10.2 21 -4.4 35 18.4 5 Arkansas 14.3 21 11.0 48 230.3 5 7.4 30 -9.3 42 15.0 17 • California 15.5 9 6.8 4 150.1 48 12.5 15 5.2 22 19.2 4 Colorado 15.9 8 6.6 3 142.6 49 6.5 32 13.6 10 15.1 16 • Connecticut 12.7 42 9.2 28 204.4 27 17.1 10 16.5 4 9.7 39 Delaware 13.9 30 9.0 24 226.1 7 31.1 5 -5.9 38 9.5 43 • District of Colombia 14.7 17 11.5 49 209.9 23 152.1 1 n/a n/a 13.6 20 Florida 13.2 38 10.7 46 243.3 2 31.3 4 -12.5 46 17.8 7 • Georgia 16.5 4 8.1 12 163.4 45 20.9 6 -4.8 36 15.3 14 Hawaii 14.5 18 7.0 5 163.3 46 10.1 22 14.4 7 9.7 40 • Idaho 16.0 7 7.5 7 174.1 43 1.4 49 6.8 19 16.5 10 Illinois 15.0 14 8.8 20 198.7 31 10.6 19 -1.6 30 13.6 21 • Indiana 14.4 20 9.3 30 212.6 17 6.2 33 4.5 23 10.8 33 Iowa 13.1 39 9.8 37 218.9 12 3.1 46 13.7 8 8.0 49 • Kansas 14.5 19 9.3 30 196.7 34 3.6 41 6.9 18 11.4 30 Kentucky 13.6 34 9.9 39 223.8 8 8.2 26 -6.1 39 13.0 27 . Louisiana 15.3 11 9.4 34 212.7 16 19.3 8 -21.4 50 19.7 3 . Maine 10.9 50 9.8 37 233.2 4 3.7 40 13.7 9 10.7 36 Maryland 14.2 22 8.4 17 189.8 38 34.6 3 1.6 28 11.3 31 Massachusetts 13.0 40 9.1 26 214.8 15 12.0 16 15.4 5 8.7 46 Michigan 13.4 37 8.8 20 198.2 33 5.5 34 0.1 29 9.9 38 411111 Minnesota 13.9 31 7.8 10 181.0 41 3.2 44 23.1 1 7.8 50 Mississippi 15.1 12 10.3 43 216.9 14 14.7 12 -19.1 49 15.2 15 Missouri 13.7 33 10.0 40 218.5 13 7.9 27 -2.1 32 8.8 45 • Montana 12.3 45 9.1 26 210.1 22 1.7 48 1.9 27 16.0 11 • Nebraska 14.8 15 9.0 24 192.6 36 4.3 38 9.4 16 9.6 42 Nevada 16.1 5 8.1 12 194.7 35 12.0 17 -9.3 43 17.2 9 • New Hampshire 11.9 48 8.0 11 198.5 32 3.2 45 20.2 2 9.0 44 New Jersey 14.0 25 9.2 28 209.8 24 20.8 7 6.5 20 12.5 28 • New Mexico 15.4 10 7.7 9 164.0 44 7.8 28 -7.6 40 23.2 1 New York 14.0 26 8.7 19 190.4 37 40.5 2 -3.1 33 15.8 12 • North Carolina 15.1 13 9.3 30 201.6 30 11.6 18 -3.8 34 14.2 18 North Dakota 12.2 46 9.3 30 204.9 26 0.5 51 11.4 13 10.9 32 • Ohio 14.0 27 - 223.3 9 5.1 37 3.4 24 10.8 34 Oklahoma 14.8 16 10.4 45 211.0 20 7.0 31 -7.7 41 17.9 6 ID Oregon 13.5 36 8.8 20 210.2 21 7.5 29 7.8 17 13.1 26 Pennsylvania 12.2 47 10.9 47 242.5 3 15.0 11 2.2 26 8.7 47 • Rhode Island 12.7 43 10.1 42 226.6 6 9.7 24 9.7 14 7.2 51 South Carolina 14.1 23 9.4 34 206.7 25 17.9 9 -14.6 48 13.3 24 • South Dakota 14.1 24 9.5 36 211.5 19 3.3 43 5.7 21 10.4 37 Tennessee 14.0 28 10.0 40 219.5 11 10.5 20 -10.1 44 10.8 35 • Texas 17.5 2 7.3 6 161.8 47 13.6 13 -4.8 37 23.0 2 Utah 21.8 1 5.7 2 110.1 51 5.5 35 19.0 3 13.6 22 • Vermont 10.6 51 8.6 18 212.0 18 4.1 39 15.3 6 9.7 41 Virginia 14.0 29 8.1 12 187.8 39 13.2 14 9.6 15 11.9 29 • Washington 13.6 35 7.6 8 185.4 40 8.9 25 12.3 12 13.5 23 West Virginia 11.4 49 11.7 50 260.8 1 5.5 36 -12.6 47 14.2 19 • Wisconsin 12.9 41 8.8 20 203.6 28 3.6 42 12.4 11 8.5 48 Wyoming 12.7 44 8.1 12 202.3 29 1.0 50 -1.8 31 15.6 13 • Note: Rank is most favorable value to least favorable. When states share the same rank,the next lower rank is omitted. • *Due to processing problems,Ohio's data for 2000 are not shown. • Sources: (1)National Center for Health Statistics,"National Vital Statistics Report."2001 Mortality rates for states had not been released. (2) Morgan Quinto Press.State Rankings 2002.A Statistical View of the 50 United States(Data reprinted with permission from the American Cancer Society); 411 at the time of the printing of this document. (3)CQ's State Fact Finder,2002. Rankings Across America,by Kendra Hovey and Harold Hovey. Congressional Quarterly.Washington D.C. (4)U.S.Census Bureau,Health Insurance Coverage:2001,"Current Population Survey." September 2001. • III • Social Indicators 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 119 Table 61 , Poverty and Public Assistance . POVERTY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE1101 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families(TANF) Federal Food Stamp Program . (Monthly) All Ages in Poverty 2001 (2) 2001 (3) 2001 (4) . 3-year Average 1999-2001 (1) Thousands of Dollars Percent of . Percent Rank Recipients USA Rank Persons Rank Benefits Rank I U.S. 11.6 09 5,382,063 (X) (9 17,316,276 (>9 $3,738,896 09 . Alabama 14.8 8 42,538 0.8% 28 411,292 15 34,108 25 II 7.9 44 17,484 0.3% 43 37,897 47 8,141 43 Arizona 12.9 14 83,310 1.5% 18 291,372 22 35,649 23 III 16.3 4 27,375 0.5% 37 256,441 25 20,874 31 California 13.1 13 1244667 23.1% 1 1,668,351 1 288,467 1 . Colorado 9.0 37 27,137 0.5% 38 153,952 33 18,913 33 Connecticut 7.4 48 58,653 1.1% 23 157,031 32 22,706 30 IIDelaware 8.5 41 12,842 0.2% 47 31,886 50 5,571 50 District of Colombia 16.1 5 42,591 0.8% 27 73,494 40 8,276 42 isFlorida 12.0 21 117,122 2.2% 13 887,256 4 82,897 8 Georgia 12.6 18 117,268 2.2% 12 573,505 9 59,292 11 Hawaii 10.4 24 35,232 0.7% 34 108,313 36 7,989 44 . Idaho 12.7 16 2,268 0.0% 50 59,667 44 7,661 45 Illino. 10.2 28 172,408 3.2% 7 825,295 5 89,872 7 i Indic 7.9 45 118,775 2.2% 11 346,551 16 39,822 16 low. 7.7 46 44,496 0.8% 25 126,494 34 20,625 32 . Kan 10.1 31 33,076 0.6% 35 124,285 35 10,998 38 Kern. . 12.4 19 79,722 1.5% 19 412,680 14 29,030 27 • Louisiana 17.5 2 62,089 1.2% 22 518,384 11 38,068 19 Maine 10.3 26 25,842 0.5% 39 104,383 37 12,254 36 . Maryland 7.3 49 66,923 1.2% 20 208,426 29 57,004 13 Massachusetts 10.2 29 91,588 1.7% 16 219,223 27 42,370 15 • Michigan 9.7 3d 195,499 3.6% 5 641,269 7 152,442 4 Minnesota 6.8 50 115,122 2.1% 14 197,727 30 55,608 14 Mississippi 16.8 3 36,602 0.7% 33 297,805 21 29,373 26 410 Missouri 10.2 30 119,411 2.2% 10 454,427 13 38,029 20 • Montana 14.4 9 15,884 0.3% 44 61,957 43 9,661 40 Nebraska 9.7 35 23,892 0.4% 40 80,652 38 12,731 35 • Nevada 9.0 38 19,717 0.4% 42 69,396 42 7,028 47 New Hampshire 6.2 51 13,634 0.3% 46 35,554 49 5,890 49 • New Jersey 7.7 47 110,477 2.1% 15 317,579 18 71,192 9 New Mexico 18.8 1 52,119 1.0% 24 163,265 31 16,528 34 • New York 14.1 11 592,653 11.0% 2 1,353,542 3 287,119 2 North Carolina 12.9 15 87,739 1.6% 17 493,672 12 58,233 12 . Norte Dakota 12.4 20 8,894 0.2% 48 37,755 48 7,216 46 Oh._) 10.8 23 189,592 3.5% 6 640,503 8 97,192 6 • Oklahoma 14.3 10 32,499 0.6% 36 271,001 24 37,109 22 Oregon 11.8 22 43,319 0.8% 26 281,450 23 37,489 21 • Pennsylvania 9.2 36 210,931 3.9% 4 748,074 6 119,896 5 Rhode Island 10.0 32 40,663 0.8% 30 71,272 41 6,041 48 • South Carolina 12.7 17 40,143 0.7% 31 315,718 19 28,752 28 South Dakota 9.0 39 6,236 0.1% 49 44,594 45 9,599 41 • Tennessee 13.2 12 156,247 2.9% 8 521,510 10 38,398 17 Texas 15.2 7 338,787 6.3% 3 1,366,210 2 164,567 3 • Utah 8.0 42 22,474 0.4% 41 79,716 39 22,786 29 Vermont 9.8 33 14,417 0.3% 45 38,874 46 9,768 39 . Virginia 8.0 43 63,633 1.2% 21 332,312 17 62,208 10 Was'.'i^c*.on 10.4 25 140,446 2.6% 9 308,589 20 34,736 24 • West _Ida 15.6 6 39,382 0.7% 32 221,361 26 12,066 37 Wisconsin 8.6 40 41,257 0.8% 29 215,786 28 38,363 18 • Wyoming 10.3 27 898 0.0% 51 22,539 51 3,883 51 Note: Rank is most favorable value to least favorable. When states share the same rank,the next lower rank is omitted. • Sources: (1)U.S.Census Bureau.'Poverty In the United States:2001."Current Population Survey,September 2002; (2)U.S.Department of Health and Human • Services,Administration for Children and Families."Total Number of Recipients."As of June 2001.Welfare reform replaced the Aid to Families with • Dependent Children(AFDC)program with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families(TANF)as of July 1,1997.National total includes 86,090 recipients in U.S. territories(73,408 in Puerto Rico); (3)U.S.Department of Agriculture, Food Nutrition and Consumer Services."Food Stamp Program:Benefits;" (4)Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2001,U.S.Department of Commerce. April 2002. 410 CI • 120 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Social Indicators • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • •• Industry • 0 • • •• Focus • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • Agriculture OD• -Pyisi atieu�=3- '' !' affected equally. What is bad for one part of agriculture is oftentimes Nit Ptilfttliconvigfign ftar rttpg't14 gattAtme fatgh•ttt Tfttsi? ` good for another. High feed prices had a negative impact on the net • #tti real ,tif re *ivefy hiall pi :s-antt 4Crea d(traducttort 1 Howe r , returns obtained by livestock operators,but these higher prices yielded 3r©ugtrtdtrer Ortce4111 ittAjieSitalan trtcarr ep:t1)206 =;"fats- = increasing returns for grain and hay operators. If the drought had not cut • 11601ns=u4-fif e);r_b <reuera$d€rt„g003':Aen•1iueAlcibl *- pt%tom hay,forage and grain production in many areas of the state,these to)O,crsa -prsv ded-M f totent tnol$0:010ofttvii4O atttt ;i€jrrrmattitve1s sectors probably would have experienced incomes similar to the highs • Of rpdtJctt ,t i o ur.Agtiouftttr `,tlOtok a : j tertt'ra1 ti„14 s ° received in the mid 1990s. These differences have a larger impact in • sector in Uta r`s;econottty that witt:pi vid8's€€ e�epttitjar =' V-- some parts of the state than in others. • 2002 Summary Regional/Sector. The drought that persisted in 2002 was especially National. On May 13,2002 President Bush signed the new farm bill. evident in southern Utah where its effect on the production of cattle and • This bill has new provisions to assist farmers and ranchers. However, calves was devastating. Some operators were not able to use range the new bill does not affect all producers equally. Most of the provisions and pasture lands because little or no forage was produced in some • of the bill are primarily designed to assist farmers in the region where areas. Many cattle producers in southern Utah were forced to liquidate • most of the nation's grain is grown. The major exceptions to this all or a major portion of their cattle operations. Grain producers in generalization are provisions designed to help the dairy sector.The long- southern Utah were also adversely affected. Some planted fields only to • term impact of these provisions are not known. lit is likely that much will "plow them under"when rains did not come and growth did not occur. • be learned in the coming year as farmers adjust to the provisions in the Operators who had reliable source(s)of water,or were located in the new farm bill. However,it is likely that the primary beneficiaries will be northern part of the state,were able to obtain yields that were near • producers in the central states. normal. As a result,the effects of the drought affected some areas of • the state to a much larger degree than it did other areas. The nation's economy is currently in a recession. Agriculture,as most other sectors,is being affected by this downturn. The United States One consequence of the decline in milk prices was the apparent • Department of Agriculture(USDA)personnel are forecasting a 2002 net abandonment of plans to build a large dairy operation in Box Elder • farm income at about$36.2 billion,which represents a decline of about County. This operation would have been the largest dairy in the state 21%from 2001. Most of this decline is the result of a major reduction in (about 20,000 cows). Expansion plans for other operations in the dairy • the price of livestock and livestock products. Forecasted milk prices industry as well as other agriculture industries have been deferred or have dropped to the low levels of 2000,which were the lowest(when abandoned as a result of the recession. The potential for expansion • adjusted for inflation)in at least 20 years. However,farm household exists in some industries(e.g.increased production in the turkey industry OD income is projected to decline only slightly(just over 1%). The reason in Sanpete County),but it is likely that expansionary investments will be for this difference is the outside income received by farm families limited in the short run. • (nationally more than 54%of farm operators,as well as 55%of their • spouses are employed off the farm). The year 2001 was notable for the shift in the relative importance of agriculture(as measured by personal income)in some areas of the • Recent increases in the price of grains have bolstered cash farm state. Most sectors of the Utah economy have been adversely affected receipts. This has also decreased government payments to grain by the recession. As a result,nonfarm personal income declined in • farmers as a result of the counter cyclical provisions of the 2002 farm many counties. These declines occurred at the same time that personal bill. This did allow payments to be made to farmers in areas such as income from farming increased. The counties that were affected the • Utah that were hard hit by the drought. While the disaster payments most by this shift in farm versus nonfarm personal income were Beaver, • were not large in total,they were a welcome addition to cash flow. Rich,Piute,Sanpete,Sevier,and Wayne counties. The gains were • especially dramatic in Beaver and Rich counties where hog(Beaver)and If weather patterns are normal,grain prices should decline from their cattle(Rich)production are especially important. In most other counties, • current levels. It is also expected that livestock and milk prices will personal income from farming changed at about the same rate as increase. This should result in an increase in the value of agricultural personal income from nonfarm industries. The only counties where • production in Utah in 2003. agriculture declined relative to nonagriculture were San Juan and Juab counties,where the livestock and dry farm grain producers have been • State. Agriculture in Utah is dominated by the production of livestock hurt for several years. and livestock products(about two-thirds of gross receipts). As a result, • the status of these sectors largely determines the status of agriculture in • the state. • Prices for cattle and milk were relatively high in 2001. Consequently,net farm income in 2001 rose sharply and reached a record level when • adjusted for inflation. Utah agriculture was therefore one bright spot in • an otherwise dismal economic outlook for the state. However,these record high incomes were short-lived. Cattle and milk prices declined • sharply in 2002. Coupled with increasing input costs--especially feed, 111110 this has resulted in income decline for these sectors. Unlike some sectors of the Utah economy,agriculture is one industry that is not • 111 • Agriculture 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 121 • • 41 41 41 Figure 50 Percentage of Agricultural Cash Receipts by Sector in Utah:2001 41 ell 41 Cattle&Calves 41 33.5% ' i„, -;•-. !=:' " .--, 41 Hogs • '':, ''j,:j 4 Vegetables ie Sheep/Lambs/Wool iz.,...._ .................. :1 Fruits&Nuts 41---- j,,,,,,..... tor Greenhouse/Nursery . . %••,-- • 5.6% s __ Food Grains Feed Grains e ..., ,. . .•..„,. . . :. , ,„....... , .••• 1.2% 41... „, ...:-.1 “,Dairy It:It .,„,.. All Hay 0 21.2% -;:i';': 11.4% Misc.Livestock • Poultry 2.8% Misc livestock=Misc less wool 7.9% 0 Source: Utah Agricultural Statistics Other crops=All other less nursery plus oil crops • • Figure 51 lb Utah Cash Receipts by Commodity:2000 • • Cattle&Calves 411 34.5% • •Other Livestock 3.4% • Other Crops 1.0% Hogs Vegetables • 0 __..... 1 Fruits&Nuts • 1.8% Sheep/Lam bs/VVool 1 Greenhouse/Nursery 0 Food Grains • , ,,•:1, 1.9% -.-. Feed Grains 0 • Dairy All Hay 18.4% .t-.7 • 9.7% • Poultry 8.0% • Source: Utah Agricultural Statistics • IS" Ili • 1 22 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Agriculture • • • • • • • Figure 52 Farm Assets and Equity in Utah Billions • $14 • • $12 • • $10 • $8 • • $6 • • EIIIIIII • • • . _ • 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 • M Farm Assets 0 Equity • Source:United States Department of Agriculture is Figure 53 Net Farm Income in Utah • • Millions • $450 • $400 $395 • $350 • $321 • $300 $288 $283 $269 • $250 $248$243 $245 $209$212 $216 $227 411 $200 $202 • $160 $150 $134 410 411 $100 $81 $71 $56 $55 $68 $48 • $50 $37 • $0 • O a- N M eT CO CO h 00 01 O e- N M V 10 CO h CO 01 O CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CO CO CO T 01 T 01 0) 01 O 01 01 Cr) O 01 01 01 01 01 d> O T 01 01 O 01 01 O 01 O 01 01 O T O O N N • Source:United States Department of Agriculture • • Agriculture 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 123 Figure 54 Livestock Products as a Percentage of Total Cash Receipts by County in Utah:2001 Percent 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 BEAVER t::r.-• ..-• • -2" • ••••••••.-:. ,••••.... aE::• ......1 93.9 • BOX ELDER -E: -" • ^ -.3.: 169.2 CACHE 4:;'•- -tzw, , • r...•• , iss.s CARBON ,..y-"••••::- • -::„, , • ••••:z.- DAGGETT - 1 ••••• -172.0 DAVIS 2... "..a" ,115.5 • DUCHESNE EzE" , , '• 2.177,7 •GARFIELD . • : „ • EE 79.6 -"•172.3 IRON_ -• .L4 64.3 • JUAB EE' ' ▪ EE -'"E'EEE 53.7 KANE •_" Es: • ne- 187.8 MILLARD ' "11," a.• 78.2 ' ..r.";a 186.5 • 186.1 SALT LAKE_ • -EE • 155.6 • SAN JUAN_ ' , SANPETE FE " • ..-.E"^ : - •..."" au, 190.2 • SEVIER .E • .183.1 SUMMITT_ , ; , :EE.▪ E.:, 190.5 TOOELE F' - , "ai.a.,A••• 179.2 UINTAH_ ' -a "aa. -" 177.1 UTAH " iir •••' I ,a J 66.0 • WASATCH aE ••:%",E, EE • ' • ••• r 175.6 WASHINGTON &Tz-- 22a"T. 70.7 WAYNE z --" • . 2 183.4 WEBER a• . . • 3.. 77J749 • Source:United States Department of Agriculture • 411/ Figure 55 Farm Cash Receipts by County in Utah:2001 • Millions of Dollars • 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 BEAVER ' aa , :za.-'1118 • BOX ELDER -En• -••• 110.1 CACHE ▪ • 1117.8 CARBON 22s216.1 DAGGET 12.5 DAVIS :DEE. • ' 138.6 DUCHESNE "" - " •EMERY_ 16.6 GARFIELD EEr•---7-110.8 GRAND_„2al 4.7 • IRON_ • • •;..r 7.R' 44411 46.8 JUAB 116.4 • KANE_7714.9 MILLARD ,a1,a , ▪ aP„.- ' • 184.9 • MORGAN ."22 PIUTE ".-• .J10.8 RICH a..". 26.6 • SALT LAKE 129.3 SAN JUAN_ az• "112.2 • SANPETE ' .....EE-," , " 199 SEVIER...EEE,E".2' :"„ . 142 • SUM MITT 2242 T• 23.1 TOOELE •UINTAH 134.5 WASATCH a . 19 WAS 2GTON al 13.3 4YNE • 116.3 • WEBER • Source:Utah Agricultural Statistics • 124 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Agriculture • • . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e. . . . Table 62 2 Farm Balance Sheet for Utah(Millions of Dollars) m Category 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Assets $5,296 $5,063 $5,406 $5,585 $6,038 $7,942 $8,164 $8,639 $9,210 $9,634 $10,365 $10,653 $11,437 Real Estate 4,112.7 3,881.0 4,160.1 4,433.6 4,841.2 6,706.5 6,956.3 7,250.2 7,776.2 8,045.3 8,523.9 8,972.5 9,720.2 Livestock and Poultry 536.5 572.0 582.7 566.3 637.9 626.9 626.4 511.0 553.4 625.3 583.7 684.2 745.3 Machinery&Motor Vehicles 428.7 444.6 440.5 441.0 430.3 461.0 471.3 495.0 499.2 551.3 552.2 584.2 588.1 Crops 123.5 94.9 114.6 95.2 90.3 117.7 114.7 101.2 121.0 150.9 147.8 126.0 127.3 Purchased inputs 12.2 12.4 15.5 17.5 27.2 29.3 36.4 22.7 24.5 28.7 29.5 22.6 27.5 Financial 82.7 58.1 92.9 31.8 11.2 0.3 -40.9 258.8 236.0 232.7 527.6 263.9 228.1 Claims 743.0 683.1 661.9 660.8 653.7 650.4 668.6 688.2 709.5 766.9 786.6 787.1 884.8 Real estate debt 428.2 390.3 372.7 355.8 352.9 340.4 339.4 348.1 350.9 372.7 375.7 376.0 456.7 Non real estate debt 314.8 292.8 289.2 305.0 300.8 310.0 329.2 340.1 358.6 394.2 410.9 411.1 428.1 Equity 4,553.3 4,379.9 4,744.4 4,924.6 5,384.4 7,291.3 7,495.6 7,950.7 8,500.8 8,867.3 9,578.1 9,866.3 10,551.7 Debt/Equity 16.3 15.6 14.0 13.4 12.1 8.9 8.9 8.7 8.3 8.6 8.2 8.0 8.4 lapSource: Utah Agricultural Statistics W 0 0 0 0 3 0 CD 0 0 0 CD 0 0 B 0 1. Cn • • Table 63 • Percent of Agricultural Receipts by Sector • Percent 1101 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 • Cattle 30.0 28.3 37.7 31.8 27.5 33.2 31.0 32.8 34.5 33.5 • Sheep 4.3 4.5 2.1 2.9 3.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.5 . Hogs 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.8 4.0 5.0 5.7 9.7 9.5 Dairy 24.3 25.1 21.8 22.1 24.7 20.4 23.6 23.2 18.4 21.2 • Poultry/eggs 8.4 11.7 9.5 8.4 8.2 7.7 7.2 7.7 8.0 7.9 Other livestock 5.2 4.6 4.5 6.2 7.7 4.7 4.7 3.0 3.3 2.8 • Food grains 5.8 4.9 2.5 3.9 4.2 3.1 2.6 2.3 1.9 1.7 • Feed grains 2.6 3.1 2.0 3.1 3.5 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.2 Hay 8.0 6.6 9.1 10.3 8.7 11.8 10.8 10.4 9.7 11.4 • Vegtables 2.8 3.1 4.1 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 Fruits/Nuts 2.9 3.6 1.5 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.0 1.8 0.9 • Greenhouse/Nursery 2.5 2.6 3.3 4.9 4.7 5.3 5.9 6.6 5.9 5.6 Other crops 2.2 1.4 1.2 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.0 0.8 • Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 • Source: Utah Agricultural Statistics • • • • • • 110 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II 01) 126 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Agriculture • • 0 • • • •o• • • III • • • • • • • • • • • •S• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • *co • • • Table 64 co Cash Receipts by Source in Utah Counties(Millions of Dollars) . 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 County Livestock Crops Total Livestock Crops Total Livestock Crops Total Livestock Crops Total Livestock Crops Total Livestock Crops Total Beaver $17 $4 $21 $18 $3 $21 $19 $4 $23 $25 $4 $29 $63 $6 $69 $119 $6 $124 Box Elder 47.3 26.4 73.7 46.0 30.5 76.5 49.6 35.4 85.0 55.8 39.4 95.2 61.9 37.3 99.2 67.4 32.6 100.0 Cache 78.6 13.4 92.0 80.0 13.7 93.7 83.1 17.4 100.5 86.2 22.1 108.3 93.2 17.8 111.0 83.4 16.7 100.1 Carbon 4.3 0.6 4.9 3.5 0.5 4.0 4.0 0.7 4.7 4.2 0.8 5.0 4.8 1.1 5.9 4.9 1.1 6.0 Daggett 1.7 0.2 1.9 1.0 0.3 1.3 1.0 0.5 1.5 0.9 0.4 1.3 1.9 0.6 2.5 1.6 0.5 2.1 Davis 12.4 22.4 34.8 11.8 29.7 41.5 12.6 25.8 38.4 14.5 22.2 36.7 9.8 29.1 38.9 5.0 30.1* 35.1 Duchesne 26.0 4.4 30.4 25.3 3.5 28.8 26.7 6.3 33.0 29.5 6.5 36.0 30.1 8.0 38.1 32.5 7.7 40.2 Emery 10.6 2.0 12.6 10.8 1.5 12.3 10.4 2.3 12.7 11.0 2.0 13.0 11.8 3.4 15.2 12.2 3.2 15.4 Garfield 7.7 1.2 8.9 7.0 0.9 7.9 6.5 1.4 7.9 7.0 1.2 8.2 8.3 1.8 10.1 8.5 1.7 10.2 Grand 2.1 0.6 2.7 1.6 0.7 2.3 1.6 0.8 2.4 1.5 0.5 2.0 6.2 1.1 7.3 3.7 1.2 4.9 Iron 12.1 9.7 21.8 10.5 10.5 21.0 11.5 12.5 24.0 12.1 10.8 22.9 17.8 12.8 30.6 16.8 13.3 30.1 Juab 5.3 2.9 8.2 5.1 2.7 7.8 5.4 3.9 9.3 5.1 4.6 9.7 10.8 4.0 14.8 8.2 3.3 11.5 Kane 4.0 0.4 4.4 3.7 0.4 4.1 4.3 0.6 4.9 3.9 0.5 4.4 4.3 0.5 4.8 4.1 0.5 4.6 Ell Millard 27.8 21.5 49.3 24.4 16.5 40.9 24.5 21.0 45.5 35.8 24.2 60.0 49.9 22.2 72.1 55.5 16.3 71.8 Morgan 11.5 1.3 12.8 10.9 1.0 11.9 10.5 1.4 11.9 12.3 1.7 14.0 13.1 1.9 15.0 10.8 1.8 12.6 Piute 7.0 1.0 8.0 6.4 0.9 7.3 7.7 1.2 8.9 8.2 1.1 9.3 9.3 1.6 10.9 8.4 1.3 9.7 Rich 17.1 1.7 18.8 16.7 2.2 18.9 16.4 4.0 20.4 16.6 3.6 20.2 19.7 4.4 24.1 21.4 3.8 25.2 Salt Lake 23.1 9.0 32.1 24.6 13.7 38.3 33.0 13.0 46.0 37.9 11.8 49.7 17.5 11.2 28.7 15.9 12.5 28.4 San Juan 8.1 1.6 9.7 7.0 2.7 9.7 9.5 3.5 13.0 7.8 2.0 9.8 9.0 7.1 16.1 7.9 5.0 12.9 o Sanpete 75.7 4.7 80.4 70.7 3.8 74.5 70.2 6.5 76.7 74.3 6.7 81.0 77.3 9.2 86.5 85.3 7.9 93.2 vim,, Sevier 24.1 4.2 28.3 25.4 3.2 28.6 30.5 5.0 35.5 31.0 5.4 36.4 26.7 5.9 32.6 30.7 6.0 36.7 0 Summit 15.6 0.9 16.5 13.5 0.9 14.4 15.1 1.4 16.5 14.5 1.2 15.7 19.6 2.0 21.6 17.5 1.8 19.3 o Tooele 8.7 2.9 11.6 7.4 3.0 10.4 7.5 3.4 10.9 8.2 3.7 11.9 10.5 3.1 13.6 12.2 3.1 15.3 B_ Uintah 20.2 3.9 24.1 19.2 3.2 22.4 21.2 4.3 25.5 17.3 4.9 22.2 25.0 6.8 31.8 22.9 6.2 29.1 x Utah 56.5 22.5 79.0 58.7 32.0 90.7 61.6 29.2 90.8 70.2 30.8 101.0 74.6 30.5 105.1 65.5 41.3 106.8 m $ Wasatch 9.9 1.3 11.2 9.5 1.3 10.8 9.0 1.5 10.5 9.4 1.6 11.0 8.4 1.6 10.0 6.5 1.9 8.4 o Washington 7.6 6.0 13.6 6.9 4.3 11.2 7.7 4.8 12.5 6.9 4.0 10.9 9.5 4.0 13.5 8.1 3.7 11.8 m Wayne 8.6 1.5 10.1 8.7 1.2 9.9 8.0 1.5 9.5 11.0 1.8 12.8 12.5 2.1 14.6 12.7 2.2 14.9 0 Weber 25.4 6.6 32.0 23.8 7.3 31.1 30.0 7.7 37.7 28.3 7.2 35.5 29.3 7.9 37.2 21.9 8.5 30.4 0 CD CD o Total 576.1 178.7 754.8 557.9 194.9 752.8 597.6 221.3 818.9 646.1 227.0 873.1 736.1 244.8 980.9 770.2 240.9 1,011.1 Source:Utah Agricultural Statistics N l. I 111 Table 65 . Personal Income from Farming by County(Thousands of Dollars) . a County 1970 1975 1980 1984 1990 1992 1997 1998 1999 2000 • Beaver $1,360 $776 $1,365 $1,052 $11,295 $9,297 $11,225 $12,723 $23,735 $37,086 • Box Elder 10,178 11,117 12,101 6,523 30,739 26,769 28,089 30,511 27,915 22,214 . Cache 9,007 10,343 15,569 9,132 29,493 31,862 21,955 27,139 36,402 22,419 . Carbon 275 181 771 772 2,670 964 -2,777 6 -1,926 -2,150 Daggett 83 370 636 346 684 710 -97 -151 -113 -304 Davis 2,576 2,941 7,499 3,137 16,060 26,746 8,763 9,713 9,577 6,403 41 Duchesne 1,617 1,697 3,340 1,830 14,445 11,724 2,930 2,609 1,456 794 Emery 678 180 432 583 6,840 3,663 1,850 1,817 751 -296 41 Garfield 346 498 949 1,421 5,231 3,320 -322 -485 -452 -853 . Grand -2 325 744 321 782 493 82 30 288 -290 Iron 3,135 1,261 1,283 2,075 12,864 7,545 11,254 10,193 15,996 11,879 . Juab 682 492 328 558 4,587 3,959 295 -187 4,770 1,341 Kane 320 132 382 431 1,913 510 702 585 778 441 . Millard 2,536 5,665 8,153 8,117 16,592 17,010 13,784 15,326 25,324 17,834 Morgan 1,728 1,910 2,053 2,255 4,741 3,010 5,106 5,847 7,747 4,179 . Flute 520 760 1,239 1,031 3,050 1,802 2,414 2,873 4,217 2,325 Rich 1,980 852 1,217 1,239 6,886 9,158 2,640 2,176 4,564 5,503 • Salt Lake 6,746 7,152 11,474 3,921 12,477 12,978 2,911 3,528 2,684 2,255 San Juan 1,903 1,686 2,048 3,014 5,902 2,291 1,457 1,178 3,010 -513 • Sanpete 5,615 3,838 2,139 6,719 19,998 22,014 13,093 16,975 20,064 22,095 Sevier 3,138 2,193 3,829 9,068 10,583 18,250 11,668 12,809 7,731 9,841 • Summit 2,471 2,001 3,498 2,624 9,074 2,722 4,602 5,390 14,633 9,947 Tooele 563 1,434 2,152 1,946 6,262 1,818 1,985 1,927 2,064 3,758 • Uintah 1,631 813 3,190 4,774 12,900 6,615 2,229 1,399 4,366 721 Utah 9,806 8,869 8,620 8,067 23,743 20,412 19,744 22,673 30,506 33,768 41 Wasatch 1,282 956 1,486 1,247 4,226 2,264 2,226 2,539 2,186 -272 Washington 2,214 1,890 3,031 2,002 4,819 2,051 -582 -736 73 -1,298 • Wayne 446 303 917 485 3,241 4,410 2,791 3,385 5,119 4,305 400 Weber 4,677 2,302 4,261 2,579 10,762 14,002 1,800 4,220 4,650 741 State 77,511 72,937 104,706 87,269 292,859 268,369 171,817 196,012 258,115 213,873 • Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Iii 1101) 128 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Agriculture • • • • • • li Residential and Nonresidential Construction • • imio Ovenneiar ;: _' condominiums accounted for over 10%of all new residential units in the it condominium Aswasthe case with single-family units condo u '#�� �440tfs�n: >,tciri�as"�trOern:r?x� `c� �)i���t) ;�"?fte< tue state. g y , • if`partni"t=out 4tiget construction(re0dertti4iia[iresidentatand construction was highly concentrated in two counties--Salt Lake and a t'tonsk alteration 't. repairs)in#he.sta was$37 bjiiion, 1y4 Utah--which accounted for over 70%of all new condominium activity. • fi�l9biliipn:trt2(t01:CespitetftO ce s,ssivn;theualttetaf -,::,::; "�: Surprisingly,neither of the two recreation/second home counties-- ;rece = residential cdnstru i [react t, 2Atifillion>in 20.02 attplkane record" " Washington and Summit--experienced high levels of new condominium • high, T'h inum erolnewdwellingunits;tt�atracdiuedflrl ng:per i construction in 2002. • was 0 000. :'i residential sectorbe[ ed from lob interest rates, . _is o Low interest rates have enabled households to move from renting to :wt[`� feii`irc ,'��a:�tth��stert�fths�eertd°6f�t�y naidsr�rnrr4°. .. �. • p tidin a signif�[ nt,financial incentive form lrome aiy rs."Lower. owning. Consequently the demand for rental units has softened and intterestrates id. otgive=supportt _the_nonresidential clog_- ' ,, new apartment construction declined. Currently,there are about • Nonresidential cpnstt tidnn,activityfell:7%in 2002 tr $900 million .`'.:;"j,' 207,000 rental units in the state. In 2002,less than 2,000 new units • However nonresidential valtia on finis ed higher than pro cted;gainin ' were added to the inventory,an increase of less than 1%. These data sti'ea0ti��iritt[e lam I'ialf€�f ttiejra�r_:i.;:.:-,:_`�,, '-. :.:::: :.....?:=: :. :; new apartment very • apartmentconstruction threatensthe localapartment markets. make clear thaten == _ -. modest. Certainly at this point,there is little indication that new 2002 Summary any of • Residential Sector. Residential construction seemed unfazed by weak Vacancy rates have increased slightly in 2002,but there are no signs of • demographic and economic growth in 2002. Demand for new owner- significant excess capacity in the rental market. occupied units was supported by mortgage rates that were below 7%for• much of the year and actually fell below 6%for a few months. These Nonresidential Sector. Nonresidential valuation was down about 7%in • extraordinarily low rates pushed the value of residential construction to 2002. With the recent completion of Olympic-related projects and $2.4 billion,breaking the previous record set in 2001 by$50 million. Gateway,2002 was expected to be as much as 20%lower,but this sector has shown increasing strength as the year progressed. Through • The residential sector is comprised of two major categories:single-family the first quarter,nonresidential construction was down more than 30%. • and multifamily dwelling units. In 2002 new single-family units By the end of the second quarter,the decline had narrowed to 16%and outnumbered multifamily units by about 3 to 1. The number of single- by the end of the third quarter,to 14%. The fourth quarter was • family units was just over 13,500 units,followed by multifamily units at particularly strong with$112 million in new nonresidential construction in • 4,500 units,and mobile homes/cabins at 900. October 2002,up 97%over October of 2001. 411 Residential construction is highly concentrated in the state,with a few A review of nonresidential construction by type of use shows that the communities capturing most of the new construction activity. Nearly half performance in 2002 for the three major categories of use--industrial, • of all new residential construction in 2002 was located in Salt Lake and office and retail-- is below the five-year average. Of these three • Utah counties. At the county level,an important shift is underway in sectors,the office market is performing closest to its five-year average, followed by retail,then industrial. Two nonresidential sectors that have single-family construction--Salt Lake County is being seriously • challenged for its perennial role as the leader in new home construction. performed well in 2002 are"hospitals and other institutional buildings" Historically,the level of single-family construction in Salt Lake County and"schools and other educational buildings". The new IHC hospital in • has consistently been two to three times greater than the second ranked St.George and a new indoor football facility at BYU have been the most • county,which has almost always been Utah County. However,in the significant projects in these two sectors. past few years Utah County has closed the gap,and in 2002 the number • of new homes in Utah County was only 10%below Salt Lake County's Conclusion • total. Total construction valuation in Utah in 2002 was$3.7 billion,which included$2.4 billion in residential construction,$900 million in • The surge in single-family activity in Utah County is due,in part,to the nonresidential construction and$400 million in additions,alterations and incorporation of two new cities;Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain. repairs. • Over the past few years these new communities have accounted for 20%to 25%of all new homes in Utah County. While new home Despite a slowdown in economic and demographic growth residential • construction in Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain has been construction held up surprisingly well,finishing the year with 19,000 • impressive,in 2002 Lehi led all cities in Utah County in new home units. The single most important factor contributing to the strength of the construction. Salt Lake County's leader was South Jordan. The residential sector was low mortgage rates. • statewide leader by a significant margin in new home construction was • St.George,which produced almost 50%more new homes than the Multifamily units accounted for about one out of every five new dwelling second ranked city,South Jordan. units. For the first time there were more new condominiums built than • apartments. Rental units accounted for only 10%of all new residential New multifamily construction(apartments and condominiums)is down units. • some 15%in 2002. Most of the softness is in new apartment • construction. In 2002,less than 10%of all new residential units in Utah The value of nonresidential construction fell only 7%as institutional were new rental units and for the first-time ever,the number of new buildings,including a new hospital in St.George,gave support to this IS condominium units exceeded the number of new rental units. In 2002, sector. • ii • Residential and Nonresidential Construction 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 129 • • 411• • 411 Figure 56 . Utah Residential Construction Activity . . III I 25 . •20 N • m 15 :. • i 10 • 5 - • A • .......... a • 0 i O N P. P. O N [t �O COO N t0 OD O h P. h h a, 00 00 CO el 00 O Of O Q1 O v • T a-. OA a— 6) O O O a— Cf OA OA O> a- a— O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r N 0 O Sin Ie-Fami N • g ly - - - Multi-Family Total Source:University of Utah,David Eccles School of Business, Bureau of Economic and Business Research • • Figure 57Ili Value of New Construction • $4,500 • $4,000 • $3,500 77 • L $3,000 • u. / • o $2,500 • r to :::: os: i • $500 -NZ-1 ,: .. • • n rr n r- r- co 0o 0o as or, or c> rn rn a o O O O O T T Of Of O T 01 O T OD COOn O N a- a- a- a- a- a- a- a- a- a- a- a- a- a- N O O N —Residential -•Nonresidential--0-Renovations*Total I Source:University of Utah,David Eccles School of Business,Bureau of Economic and Business Research • SO 111 • 130 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Residential and Nonresidential Construction • • • • • • Table 66 Residential and Nonresidential Construction Activity in Utah • ISValue of Value of Value of • Single- Multi- Mobile Residential Nonresidential Add., Alt., Total • Family Family Homes/ Total Construction Construction and Repairs Valuation Year Units Units Cabins Units (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) • 1970 5,962 3,108 na 9,070 $117.0 $87.3 $18.0 $222.3 II 1971 6,768 6,009 na 12,777 176.8 121.6 23.9 322.3 . 1972 8,807 8,513 na 17,320 256.5 99.0 31.8 387.3 1973 7,546 5,904 na 13,450 240.9 150.3 36.3 427.5 II 1974 8,284 3,217 na 11,501 237.9 174.2 52.3 464.4 • 1975 10,912 2,800 na 13,712 330.6 196.5 50.0 577.1 • 1976 13,546 5,075 na 18,621 507.0 216.8 49.4 773.2 • 1977 17,424 5,856 na 23,280 728.0 327.1 61.7 1,116.8 1978 15,618 5,646 na 21,264 734.0 338.6 70.8 1,143.4 • 1979 12,570 4,179 na 16,749 645.8 490.3 96.0 1,232.1 • 1980 7,760 3,141 na 10,901 408.3 430.0 83.7 922.0 • 1981 5,413 3,840 na 9,253 451.5 378.2 101.6 931.3 1982 4,767 2,904 na 7,671 347.6 440.1 175.7 963.4 • 1983 8,806 5,858 na 14,664 657.8 321.0 136.3 1,115.1 • 1984 7,496 11,327 na 18,823 786.7 535.2 172.9 1,494.8 • 1985 7,403 7,844 na 15,247 706.2 567.7 167.6 1,441.5 • 1986 8,512 4,932 na 13,444 715.5 439.9 164.1 1,319.5 1987 6,530 755 na 7,305 495.2 413.4 166.4 1,075.0 411 1988 5,297 418 na 5,715 413.0 272.1 161.5 846.E • 1989 5,197 453 na 5,632 447.8 389.E 171.1 1,008.5 • 1990 6,099 910 na 7,009 579.4 422.9 243.4 1,245.7 1991(r) 7,911 958 572 9,441 791.0 342.6 186.9 1,320.5 • 1992 10,375 1,722 904 13,001 1,113.6 396.9 234.8 1,745.3 • 1993 12,929 3,865 1,010 17,804 1,504.4 463.7 337.3 2,305.4 1994 13,947 4,646 1,154 19,747 1,730.1 772.2 341.9 2,844.2 • 1995 13,904 6,425 1,229 21,558 1,854.6 832.7 409.0 3,096.3 • 1996 15,139 7,190 1,408 23,737 2,104.5 951.8 386.3 3,442.6 1997 14,079 5,265 1,343 20,687 1,943.5 1,370.9 407.1 3,721.6 • 1998 14,476 5,762 1,505 21,743 2,188.7 1,148.4 461.3 3,798,4 1999 14,561 4,443 1,346 20,350 2,238.0 1,195.0 537.0 3,971.0 • 2000 13,463 3,629 1,062 18,154 2,140.1 1,213.0 583.3 3,936.0 • 2001 13,851 5,089 735 19,675 2,352.7 970.0 562.8 3,885.4 • 2002(e) 13,600 4,500 900 19,000 2,400.0 900.0 400.0 3,700.0 • r= revised e= estimate • na= not available • Source: University of Utah, David Eccles School of Business, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, • November 2002. • IIII. •• Ill • Residential and Nonresidential Construction 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 131 a I 411 Table 67 Summary of Construction Activity in Utah III a % Change . Type of Construction 2001 2002(e) 2001-2002 Total Construction Value $3.88 billion $3.70 billion -4.6% I Residential Value $2.35 billion $2.40 billion 2.1% 411 Total Dwelling Units 19,675 19,000 -3.4% I Single Family Units 13,851 13,600 -1.8% Multifamily Units 5,089 4,500 -11.6% Mobile Homes/Cabins 735 900 22.4% . • Nonresidential Value $970.0 million $900.0 million -7.2% Additions, Alterations, 111 and Repairs $562.8 million $400 million -28.9% . I Source: University of Utah, David Eccles School of Business, Bureau of . Economic and Business Research, November 2002. • • • • • Table 68 OP Average Annual Mortgage Rates for 30-year Conventional Mortgage for Utah • Mortgage Mortgage • Year Rates Year Rates • 1967 6.52% 1985 12.42% • 1968 7.03% 1986 10.18% • 1969 7.82% 1987 10.20% 1970 8.35% 1988 10.34% • 1971 7.83% 1989 10.32% 1972 7.38% 1990 10.13% • 1973 8.04% 1991 9.25% • 1974 9.19% 1992 8.40% 1975 9.04% 1993 7.33% • 1976 8.86% 1994 8.35% • 1977 8.84% 1995 7.95% 1978 9.63% 1996 7.80% 411 1979 11.19% 1997 7.60% • 1980 13.77% 1998 6.92% 1981 16.63% 1999 7.43% • 1982 16.08% 2000 8.06% 1983 13.23% 2001 6.97% 4111 1984 13.87% 2002(e) 6.50% • e= estimate • Source: Federal Home Mortgage Corporation and Freddie Mac410 132 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Residential and Nonresidential Construction • • • . • Table 69 • Housing Prices for Utah: 1980 to Second Quarter 2002 •• Year-Over Year-Over Percent Percent • Year Index Change Year Index Change • 1980 102.0 1992 133.7 6.5 1981 109.1 7.0 1993 148.2 10.8 • 1982 112.6 3.1 1994 173.6 17.1 • 1983 114.5 1.7 1995 193.9 11.7 1984 113.9 -0.6 1996 211.1 8.8 • 1985 116.6 2.4 1997 224.5 6.4 1986 118.9 2.0 1998 236.5 5.3 • 1987 116.4 -2.1 1999 240.6 1.7 • 1988 113.1 -2.8 2000 240.5 0.0 1989 114.9 1.5 2001 253.2 5.3 • 1990 118.7 3.4 2002(2Q) 255.7 1.0 • 1991 125.5 5.7 • • • Source: Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Housing Price Index, Washington D.C., 2002. • • le • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • le • rii • Residential and Nonresidential Construction 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 133 • • • • Defense • r 3 ; liir"; the first time since military downsizing began about a decade ago. SID tOtf--S i t it tt ontinued p-xpan,,i 2002,ei-baSe„ckisures Additionally,because of military downsizing in other parts of the country, • and reiligfnritergeirizindieritiitess#ited eb arrd°militarysp tdirt tt Hill has become the home of Northrup Grumman Corp.,the prime ttt l. ifr I?ar€ iHSth :tedr ttse fir 1*t3t 's`dterof contractor for the military's B-2 stealth bomber. The move helped make ellenne f r,10 ps: dlitelte n ttigy,-'100,i*ok sfcatio i :`;, Hill the Air Force's new"center of excellence"for low-observable • reauittif - rir'rte ilitary: nfrdotgr retvcattr t*Rifl will help ensure the`; technology. The future of Utah's defense industry is much more certain • altifltYafthiSierge then-envie f nseiattustty than in years past,and the increase in operations at Hill Air Force Base • eideate{t,f u ro;:dtrrintg-inr eEot:tite 1f 9t?s,Ails tre ti was should prove to be a buffer against future base closures. • rev edAt a fatter end of the decade: Def ris spendi gin tUta # • 200 of l f$2.3 'billion,Ong 2a%fora the,prevf ius`rear trtcreiied Defense Depot Ogden(DDO)was designated for closure by the • activit ,is-oipected to cvri11 itte in 2002 end 2003-As a re ft`uf the War • Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission(BRAC)in 1995, vrE::terrvrtarr. ,r - _:-- - ° ' and was officially closed in September 1997 after 56 years of operation. Most of the property is being obtained by Ogden City,and in December • Trends 1999 the city approved a 70-year redevelopment project for DDO. • Nationwide,as a percent of gross domestic product(GDP),defense Under the terms of the agreement,the city will lease the 1,128 acres to spending was 2.5%in 1999,2.4%in 2000,and 2.5%in 2001. In Utah, the Boyer Company,who will in turn redevelop the property into a major • total defense spending currently stands at$2.35 billion-which is a 23.1% regional business and industrial park. The lease is for 40 years,with growth from 2000. As a percent of the Gross State Product(GSP), three 10-year renewal options and a long-term buyout option of$22 • defense outlays have diminished significantly from the 1980's,with a million. The property will be developed over the next 15 to 20 years and high of over 8.3%in 1987,to a low of 2.2%in 1998. Lately,however, is expected to create approximately 7,000 jobs in Northern Utah. • this has reversed,with a rate of 3.4%in 2001. • Workforce reductions at Tooele Army Depot(TEAD)have brought the Contracting Activity total number of jobs lost to reductions in force and realignment since I• During the cold war build-up of the mid-1980s,a number of defense 1988 to roughly 2,500. The current workforce at TEAD roughly numbers • contractors in Utah routinely received contracts in the$50 million range 463 employees. While the loss of jobs at TEAD has been difficult,this is on an annual basis. Throughout the 1990s,defense contracts to private another example of how redevelopment of former military bases can • firms decreased considerably at both the state and national level. actually help an area's economy. The 1,700 acres that were formerly However,in recent years,defense contracting in Utah has increased owned and occupied by TEAD have been transformed to a private • significantly. Contract awards increased 73.1%in 2000 and an developer,who has renamed the area the Utah Industrial Depot(UID). 40110 additional 34.4%in 2001. More than 40 businesses or organizations have taken up residency at the depot,which has 2.5 million square feet of existing space. New job • The large increase in contracting is primarily attributed to TRW Inc. In projections total more than 3,800 as a result of the redevelopment of this recent years,TRW has been the state's top contract recipient with property. IUD currently employs 830 people. • $296.5 million in 2000 and$566.7 million in 2001 in prime contract • awards. The remaining top nine contractors averaged$35.8 million in Outlook 2001. Other major defense contractors include L-3 Communications, In recent years the United States has spent less than 3%of its GDP on • Sinclair Oil,Evans and Sutherland,B P PLC, URS Corp.,Utah State defense. Homeland security and the war on terrorism will warrant University,Northrop Grumman Corp.,Envirofoam Technologies,and increased defense spending in 2003. In order to transform the military to • Alcoa Inc. In 2002,TRW merged with Northrop Grumman Corp.,making accommodate modern needs,future closures of unneeded bases will • Northrop the nation's second largest defense contractor. continue,thereby funneling those costs more efficiently. Increased operations at Hill Air Force Base have improved the chances of surviving • Geographic Distribution the next round of base closures in 2005. Federal defense spending in Utah is concentrated in Davis,Salt Lake, • Tooele,and Weber counties,though significant spending occurs in Utah, Conclusion • Cache,Washington,and Box Elder counties. Contracting activity The importance of defense to Utah's economy is gradually increasing as associated with a variety of weapons systems and other projects the workload transfers from base closures in other states to produce • accounts for most of the defense spending in Salt Lake County. Payroll more jobs locally. The rapid conversion of military facilities at DDO and and procurement contracts at Tooele Army Depot and Dugway Proving TEAD to commercial use illustrates the state's ability to absorb jobs lost • Grounds account for spending in Tooele County. from federal cutbacks. Expectations of commercial success are strong IIII for both new facilities. In addition,new operations beginning at Hill Air Military Facilities Force Base should prove to be a strengthening influence on the • Hill Air Force Base,one of the state's largest basic employers and center remainder of Utah's defense industry. • of Utah's defense industry,has for years been faced with the possibility of base closures as a threat to its survival. Developments over the past • several years may serve to ease that possibility. In 1999,Hill was selected as headquarters for one of 10 new"expeditionary"forces that • will be used for quick deployment to trouble spots around the world. This selection has brought the 388th fighter wing up to full strength for • Iii • Defense 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 135 41 Figure 58 . Federal Defense-Related Spending in Utah . S Millions . $2,600 . $2,400 - $2,354 $2,200 - $2,081 $2,000 - $1,968 ; : 1,912 I $1,891 $ ,_$1,853 $1,785Il $1,800 - V,:'E ::;` $1,685 :T;°t'< sue,'= `. ,= `> i •i$1,610 $1,600 - -_$1,532 • =, $1 44 1 � , 5$ 455 $1,425 �;� 14 - 00 $ , •" 1 328 • $1,258 $1,275 ;' ',,, „ •1 200 .-<: €: • 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 • Fiscal Years • Sources:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census;Department of Defense • • Figure 59 411110 Primary Federal Defense-Related Spending in the United States • Billions • $260 • $253 • $250 • • $240 - $238 $235 $236 • $230 $232 2 $230 $230 • $ 28 $226 $226 $227 $226 $225 $225 •3 z - $220 • '7 • 216 • 2 10 • 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 • Fiscal Years • Sources:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census;Department of Defense • El 1111011 136 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Defense • • • • • • • Table 70 • Federal Defense-Related Spending: Utah Total(Thousands of Dollars) 011) Gross Defense Procurement State/ State Spending • Wages and Contract Military Local Product as Percent Fiscal Year Salaries* Awards Retirement Grants Total** (Current Dollars) of GSP . 1986 $784,567 $805,747 $94,612 $301 $1,685,227 $24,473,000 6.9% 1987 794,294 1,182,097 98,743 5,766 2,080,900 25,202,000 8.3% • 1988 817,787 866,782 98,876 1,318 1,784,763 27,244,000 6.6% 1989 870,295 979,116 108,005 10,186 1,967,602 28,713,000 6.9% • 1990 890,892 883,014 115,442 1,232 1,890,580 31,359,000 6.0% 1991 922,035 804,404 125,526 598 1,852,563 33,658,000 5.5% • 1992 852,772 614,286 134,844 8,431 1,610,333 35,671,000 38,395,000 4.5% 1993 847,053 532,269 146,743 5,932 1,531,997 4.0% 1994 763,608 524,001 152,426 4,514 1,444,549 42,236,000 3.4% . 1995 794,333 495,771 161,964 2,845 1,454,913 46,290,000 3.1% 1996 760,514 393,157 171,978 2,849 1,328,498 51,523,000 2.6% • 1997 642,492 433,428 180,862 1,212 1,257,994 55,070,000 2.3% 1998 620,622 464,739 189,130 171 1,274,662 59,084,000 2.2% • 1999 678,173 548,103 193,157 5,445 1,424,878 62,780,000 2.3% 2000 762,281 948,877 200,412 155 1,911,725 68,549,000 2.8% • 2001 867,407 1,275,131 210,903 120 2,353,561 69,691,525 3.4% Percent Change • 2000 to 2001 13.8% 34.4% 5.2% -22.6% 23.1% 1986 to 2001 10.6% 58.3% 122.9% -60.1% 39.7% • Absolute Change • 2000 to 2001 I $105,126 $326,254 $10,491 ($35) $441,636 1986 to 2001 $82,840 $469,384 $116,291 ($181) $668,334 • Notes:Numbers in the"State/Local Grants"column are taken from the Census Bureau's Federal Aid to States for FY 2001. • *Does not include fringe benefits.**These totals do not match those in the previous table because the data sources and concepts are slightly different. • Sources:Federal Aid to States for FY 2001;U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census.Consolidated Federal Funds • Report FY 2001;U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census.Gross State Product;1986-00,U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis.2001,estimated by the Go'emor's Office of Planning and Budget. Ile Table 71 • Primary U.S.Federal Defense-Related Spending(Selected Categories):All States and Territories(Thousands of Dollars) • Gross Defense Procurement State/ Domestic Spending • Wages and Contract Military Local Product as Percent Fiscal Year Salaries* Awards Retirement Grants Total (Current Dollars) of GDP • 1986 $61,900,746 $150,055,345 $17,769,127 $111,366 $229,836,584 $4,452,900,000 5.2% 1987 65,097,948 147,616,385 18,732,723 127,430 231,574,486 4,742,500,000 4.9% ID1988 67,270,619 142,175,108 18,640,881 113,637 228,200,245 5,108,300,000 4.5% 1989 72,771,040 132,259,473 20,669,532 172,125 225,872,170 5,489,100,000 4.1% • 1990 69,103,253 135,259,039 21,235,041 175,978 225,773,311 5,803,200,000 3.9% 1991 75,254,721 139,570,721 22,669,073 111,454 237,605,969 5,986,200,000 4.0% • 1992 73,851,077 129,124,509 24,024,591 223,899 227,224,076 6,318,900,000 3.6% 1993 73,947,670 129,996,047 25,752,104 241,816 229,937,637 6,642,300,000 3.5% . 1994 73,470,136 125,982,520 26,478,356 212,466 226,143,478 7,054,300,000 3.2% 1995 71,192,209 126,003,863 27,695,928 244,824 225,136,824 7,400,500,000 3.0% • 1996 72,955,074 128,628,822 27,922,897 247,408 229,754,201 7,813,200,000 2.9% 1997 66,719,191 119,858,710 29,595,559 191,715 216,365,175 8,318,400,000 2.6% • 1998 67,178,127 126,726,012 30,457,015 171,324 224,532,478 8,781,500,000 2.6%1999 70,412,959 133,775,555 31,078,737 159,370 235,426,621 9,274,300,000 2.5% • 2000 2001 70,009,814 133,830,978 32,110,614 114,372 236,065,778 9,824,600,000 2.4% 70,273,656 149,314,126 33,321,020 163,250 253,072,052 10,082,200,000 2.5% • Percent Change 2000 to 2001 0.4% 11.6% 3.8% 42.7% 7.2%• 1986 to 2001 13.5% -0.5% 87.5% 46.6% 10.1% • Absolute Change 2000 to 2001 $263,842 $15,483,148 $1,210,406 $48,878 $17,006,274 • 1986 to 2001 $8,372,910 ($741,219)$15,551,893 $51,884 $23,235,468 • Note:*Does not include fringe benefits. m Sources:Consolidated Federal Funds Report FY 2001;U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census. Gross Domestic Product;U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis. • II • Defense 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 137 I • Table 72 . Federal Defense-Related Spending in Utah by County(Thousands of Dollars) . ell Change in Total Spending • 2001 2000 from 2000 to 2001 • • County Wages* Procurement Other Total** Total** Absolute Percentage • • Beaver $537 $0 $397 $934 $861 $73 8.5% . Box Elder 3,897 23,039 3,611 30,547 32,716 (2,169) -6.6% Cache 1,767 30,246 9,784 41,797 36,767 5,030 13.7% • Carbon 274 0 1,162 1,436 1,286 150 11.7% . Daggett 0 0 65 65 62 3 4.8% Davis 654,262 821,838 55,217 1,531,317 1,099,360 431,957 39.3% • Duchesne 0 700 621 1,321 747 574 76.8% Emery 0 33 386 419 733 (314) -42.8% • Garfield 0 0 318 318 315 3 1.0% • Grand 0 0 327 327 459 (132) -28.8% Iron 896 318 2,616 3,830 3,520 310 8.8% • Juab 0 0 394 394 397 (3) -0.8% • Kane 0 0 672 672 668 4 0.6% Millard 471 245 623 1,339 1,648 (309) -18.8% • Morgan 0 0 1,181 1,181 1,165 16 1.4% • Piute 0 0 121 121 147 (26) -17.7% Rich 0 0 182 182 151 31 20.5% • Salt Lake 103,802 248,691 78,792 431,285 462,465 (31,180) -6.7% 0 San Juan 193 924 355 1,472 467 1,005 215.2% Sanpete 950 69 1,130 2,149 1,896 253 13.3% • Sevier 696 0 1,481 2,177 2,050 127 6.2% Summit 3,374 4,598 3,151 11,123 25,030 (13,907) -55.6% • Tooele 49,283 68,015 3,762 121,060 119,216 1,844 1.5% • Uintah 294 28 1,110 1,432 1,405 27 1.9% Utah 14,409 46,065 24,279 84,753 45,832 38,921 84.9% • Wasatch 0 106 655 761 603 158 26.2% Washington 18,732 28 11,248 30,008 26,786 3,222 12.0% • Wayne 0 0 213 213 198 15 7.6% • Weber 13,570 30,188 34,994 78,752 66,886 11,866 17.7% Undistributed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% • State Total $867,407 $1,275,131 $238,847 $2,381,385 $1,933,836 $447,549 23.1% • • Notes: *Does not include fringe benefits. **The totals here will not match the following table because the data sources and • concepts are slightly different. • Source: Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2001: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. • • • • • lib 138 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Defense • . • . • • Table 73 • Federal Defense-Related Spending in Utah (Thousands of Dollars) . OD UTAH-TOTAL (Thousands of Dollars) • Fiscal Year 2001 Navy& Air Other Defense • PERSONNEL/EXPENDITURES Total Army Marine Corps Force Activities • I.Personnel-Total 33,070 10,845 1,607 19,304 1,314 Active Duty Military 5,038 319 165 4,554 0 • Civilian 14,394 2,121 29 10,930 1,314 Reserve and National Guard 13,638 8,405 1,413 3,820 0 • II.Expenditures-Total $2,394,613 $428,618 $132,742 $1,614,230 $219,023 A. Payroll Outlays-Total 1,118,192 236,546 47,819 775.033 58,794 • Active Duty Military Pay 166,440 10,846 5,990 149,604 0 Civilian Pay 639,073 95,312 1,265 483,702 58,794 • Reserve and National Guard Pay 101,776 73,814 3,618 24,344 0 Retired Military Pay 210,903 56,574 36,946 117,383 0 • B. Contracts-Total 1,250,520 171,935 81,981 836,375 160,229 Supply and Equipment Contracts 283,216 24,204 37,542 105,447 116,023 • RDT&E Contracts 108,622 33,176 25,146 24,942 25,358 Service Contracts 806,325 65,478 19,293 702,706 18,848 • Construction Contracts 38,752 35,472 0 3,280 0 Civil Function Contracts 13,605 13,605 0 0 0 • C. Grants 25,901 20,137 2,942 2,822 0 • EXPENDITURES(Thousands of Dollars) MILITARY&CIVILIAN PERSONNEL Payroll Grants/ Active Duty . Major Locations Total Outlays Contracts Major Locations Total Military Civilian . Hill Air Force Base $801,896 $660,857 $141,039 Hill Air Force Base 15,957 4,490 11,467 Clearfield 588,259 14,302 573,957 Salt Lake City 672 127 545 • Salt Lake City 301,393 84,363 217,030 Dugway 546 29 517 North Salt Lake 82,737 746 81,991 Tooele 487 0 487 • Draper 66,800 25,492 41,308 Tooele Army Depot 463 9 454 Ogden 66,528 38,251 28,277 Provo 254 247 7 41111 Tooele Army Depot 37,789 23,224 14,565 Draper 234 5 229 Logan 36,875 5,912 30,963 Ogden 234 5 229 • Dugway Proving Grounds 35,107 0 35,107 West Jordan 124 0 124 Brigham City 29,264 6,647 22,617 Park City 86 75 11 • PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS(Thousands of Dollars)• Navy& Air Other Defense . (Prior 7 Fiscal Years) Total Army Marine Corps Force Activities 2000 $949,993 $122,195 $143,204 $592,796 $91,798 • 1999 532,907 104,705 80,850 284,789 62,563 1998 470,140 117,115 84,675 203,773 64,576 • 1997 442,443 94,060 111,371 157,009 80,003 1996 394,677 96,900 48,194 200,486 49,097 • 1995 479,324 165,912 55,558 141,069 116,785 1994 521,169 203,902 83,620 125,934 107,713 . Top 10 Contractors Receiving the Largest Dollar Total Amount • Volume of Prime Contract Awards in Utah (Thousands of Dollars) • TRW Incorporated $566,739 L-3 Communications Holding, Incorporated 104,722 • B P PLC 33,858 Sinclair Oil Corporation 31,863 • Evans&Sutherland Cmpt Corporation 29,643 URS Corporation 26,905 . Envirofoam Technologies,Incorporated 25,038 Utah State University 24,102 • Northrop Grumman Corporation 23,781 Alcoa Incorporated 22,255 • • Note:Accounting conventions used by DIOR difffer from those used by the Census Bureau and therefore numbers may not match. le Source:"Atlas/Data Abstract for the US and Selected Areas,"by the Statistical Information Analysis Division of the Directorate of Information Operations and Reports(DIOR). • • Defense 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 139 • . I Table 74 . Federal Defense-Related Spending in the United States(Thousands of Dollars) . UNITED STATES-TOTAL (Thousands of Dollars) Om Fiscal Year 2001 • Navy& Air Other Defense . PERSONNEL/EXPENDITURES Total Army Marine Corps Force Activities I.Personnel-Total 2,781,445 1,285,743 739,963 666,014 89,725 . Active Duty Military 991,006 385,875 314,938 290,193 0 Civilian 627,619 210,478 176,399 151,017 89,725 . Reserve and National Guard 1,162,820 689,390 248,626 224,804 0 II.Expenditures-Total $243,778,088 $73,834,340 $75,556,890 $69,797,166 $24,589,690 . A. Payroll Outlays-Total 106,013,308 35,988,096 34,409,303 31,397,153 4,218,756 Active Duty Military Pay 37,873,204 12,842,885 14,320,697 10,709,622 0 . Civilian Pay 29,878,749 9,759,347 9,110,030 6,790,616 4,218,756 Reserve and National Guard Pay 5,065,731 3,157,508 589,056 1,319,167 0 • Retired Military Pay 33,195,624 10,228,356 10,389,520 12,577,748 0 B. Contracts-Total 135,225,127 3,651,533 40,497,100 38,023,710 20,188,924 5 Supply and Equipment Contracts 63,018,523 13,905,479 19,523,037 18,396,712 11,193,295 RDT&E Contracts 21,085,479 5,579,437 4,550,174 8,779,400 2,176,468 • Service Contracts 43,625,967 11,538,033 14,772,978 10,696,664 6,618,292 Construction Contracts 4,394,114 2,391,400 1,650,911 150,934 200,869 • Civil Function Contracts 3,101,044 3,101,044 0 0 0 C. Grants 2,539,653 1,330,851 650,487 376,303 182,010 • EXPENDITURES(Thousands of Dollars) MILITARY&CIVILIAN PERSONNEL • Payroll Grants/ Active Duty • Major Locations Total Outlays Contracts Major Locations Total Military Civilian Newport News,VA $6,014,004 $172,743 $5,841,261 Fort Hood,TX 49,400 45,764 3,636 • San Diego,CA 4,948,840 2,679,753 2,269,087 Fort Bragg,NC 44,475 39,193 5,282 St.Louis,MO 4,853,405 176,561 4,676,844 San Diego,CA 33,726 21,592 12,134 • Marietta,GA 4,755,417 109,601 4,645,816 Camp Lejeune,NC 31,656 28,821 2,835 Norfolk,VA 3,614,751 2,430,788 1,183,963 Camp Pendleton,CA 30,574 28,328 2,246 • Long Beach,CA 3,091,655 61,043 3,030,612 Norfolk,VA 27,083 16,817 10,266 Washington,DC 2,660,124 1,144,331 1,515,793 Great Lakes, IL 26,931 25,152 1,779 Arlington,VA 2,623,188 1,517,894 1,105,294 Washington,DC 24,721 10,803 13,918 1110 Huntsville,AL 2,416,315 221,039 2,195,276 Arlington,VA 24,397 9,990 14,407 • Sunnyvale,CA 2,367,839 45,066 2,322,773 Fort Campbell,KY 24,366 23,740 626 • PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS(Thousands of Dollars) • Navy& Air Other Defense (Prior 7 Fiscal Years) Total Army Marine Corps Force Activities • 2000 $123,294,978 $32,614,979 $38,963,003 $35,368,606 $16,348,400 1999 114,875,127 30,049,383 37,451,740 32,438,343 14,935,661 • 1998 109,385,850 28,471,955 36,652,133 30,138,618 14,123,145 1997 106,561,099 28,249,679 34,522,055 30,971,306 12,818,059 • 1996 109,407,896 28,829,374 33,855,101 34,886,724 11,836,698 1995 109,004,783 27,290,168 36,900,622 33,399,384 11,414,609 • 1994 110,315,963 26,844,126 35,111,813 37,062,026 11,297,998 • Top 10 Contractors Receiving the Lar. 3st Dollar Total Amount Volume of Prime Contract Awards in the US Only (Thousands of Dollars) • Lockheed Martin Corporation $14,637,182 • The Boeing Company 13,323,975 Newport News Shipbuilding 5,889,298 • Raytheon Company 5,476,976 Northrop Grumman Corporation 5,121,300 • General Dynamics Corporation 4,892,436 United Technologies Corporation 3,365,091 • General Electric Company Incorporated 1,742,781 TRW Incorporated 1,736,810 • Science Applications International 1,709,861 • Note:Accounting conventions used by DIOR difffer from those used by the Census Bureau and therefore numbers may not match. • Source:"Atlas/Data Abstract for the US and Selected Areas,"by the Statistical Information Analysis Division of the Directorate of Information Operations and Reports(DIOR). 110 III • 140 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Defense • • • • • • li Energy and Minerals • • 0 l l,044-.39vetlt€#:w., "V 2003 should see an average of$2.50 per mcf,which is still relatively flat lftati' .2ot}2cructeliltaSs=fit iatf-4li p kyear. ;;,-`<` when compared to the last decade or so. • Ord ion in 0$S thikdeclineoert only` -offset th t er�t i`; - w ll.dtil ings;l _tF a fott>ire:-t1,i_tt t;_i taht°s o: r,=w €nvr6asir ottiava Consumption. Utah's demand for gasoline,jet fuel,diesel and other • to totoo)ielseOleie f#tbbttt a ,00110 et01101,0 r t ;06 , petroleum products will continue to set annual records due to anticipated fhe iatl'Ietitef dttiW tune,has° OaCkl gliSerrstearillit vertl1 ` economic growth. Gasoline consumption exceeded one billion gallons in • YearS, inarilylf[te ft,4nAnC'e45e in its I tl (caatbed r ftratie}.field 2002,with diesel consumption approaching one half billion gallons. :TS s te`selectti ty jatudne ere' eredf a rilri .pr€cejjilres. Warm winters have kept Utah residential natural gas demand roughly flat • f400dArthOiri:West.cojst itegtili0 4001 -:t verall litaft,ele otty since 1997. Industrial demand for natural gas is in decline,a reflection • fndustryant rnattet a iro tnetttli0e drastlealtytttanted c i-tf e last of industrial activity in Utah. decade as a ' uit of volvingfed t licy aril ri.increasirit4ly • torrrt)etttiueel tri rrr rket.• : ;'W Electricity • 2002 Summary and Review Production. Fossil fuel power plants provide nearly all of Utah's power supply. Hydro-electric power,which once met more than 13% of Utah's • Petroleum and Natural Gas needs,has declined to less than 2%,in part because of recent dry Production. Utah's production of crude oil continues to decline each weather years that leave reservoir levels below normal. • year as oil fields are drained to meet rising consumer demand. Fourteen • million barrels of Utah crude oil were produced in 2002,less than half of Prices. Utah largely escaped the electricity price spikes that caused what was produced in its peak year, 1985. This decline may ease a little serious economic difficulty along the West Coast in 2001. Meanwhile, • if a rise in world oil prices inspires new well drilling,or if new technology urban power demand is rising at about 4%per year,while industrial enhances crude oil recovery efforts from existing fields. However, Utah demand in Utah is down by about the same rate. • reserves are still in decline,and consumers will increasingly look to • Wyoming,other states,and foreign countries for both crude oil and Consumption. Hot summers from 2000 through 2002 produced record petroleum products. demand for electricity in Utah. • In contrast,overall natural gas production in Utah is still rising year by Industry Trends. The electricity industry and market environment • year because of growth in CBM(Coal Bed Methane)fields. This changed greatly in the last decade and new market trends have relatively new source of natural gas has made up for the declining emerged that are likely to influence electricity prices and supply reliability • for the foreseeable future. First,evolving federal policy is encouraging conventional gas and petroleum fields in Utah. CBM now accounts for about one-third of all of Utah's natural gas,resulting in a record total competitive wholesale electricity markets. This in turn has spawned a output of more than 300 billion cubic feet(Bcf)in 2002. CBM is growing merchant supply sector that has played an increasingly • expected to make up for declining conventional gas fields for 10 to 15 important role in acquiring,constructing,and operating new power plants • more years,and will then follow the same path of conventional oil and in the West. gas fields into decline. Carbon County leads the state in CBM • production,at over 100 Bcf per year in 2002,followed by Emery County Second,the 2000-2001 experience in the Western electricity markets at a fast increasing 8 Bcf. demonstrates that electricity consumers are increasingly exposed to risk • of supply reliability and extreme price volatility that accompany most • Overall,in contrast to crude oil,Utah's natural gas reserves have shown commodity markets. As competitive wholesale electricity markets modest increases over the past few years. continue to evolve in the future,consumers will will be subject to • electricity markets that will likely exhibit further uncertainty and volatility. Prices. On a long-term basis,prices for oil and gas are moderate,even • trending below average in constant dollars. Sharp price spikes will occur Third,gas-fired generation has emerged as the resource of choice for • now and then,for several reasons: the electricity supply industry in the West. While new gas-fired generation can mitigate against future environmental compliance costs, • ► International political tensions reliance on natural gas will also increase electricity price volatility and ► New regional pipelines that allow fuel to flow more easily supply uncertainty. • away from Utah to meet sudden energy demands caused Finally,electric utilities whose generation portfolios are dominated by • by hot or cold weather in other places coal-fired generation are increasingly exposed to an uncertain future with • ► Trends in deregulation and regulatory evolution respect to environmental regulations and emission-control standards. World oil prices rose sharply in early 2002 to nearly$30 per barrel,and Multi-pollutant legislation and regulations currently being proposed by • then declined to about$25 per barrel,which is moderate by historic the Bush Administration,EPA's regulations on regional haze,the Kyoto standards. Predictions of military conflict with Iraq in the near future may protocol,and alternative proposals to control carbon emissions all • contribute to regulatory uncertainty and environmental compliance cost cause market jitters. However,world production capacity should be able • to make up for any loss of Iraqi production. risks. • Natural gas prices also spiked,rising above$3.60 per thousand cubic Conclusion feet(mcf)in 2001,and then settling to about$2.00 per mcf in 2001. Utah production of crude oil continues to decline each year as oil fields are drained to meet rising consumer demand. On the contrary,the • 111 • Energy and Minerals 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 141 • • a 0 state's natural gas reserves have shown modest increases over the past Compared to 2001,the 2002 values changed as follows: (1)base . few years. Utah residential natural gas demand has remained roughly metals decreased$81 million;(2)industrial minerals increased$23 flat since 1997,while a slack economy over the past two years has million;(3)coal decreased$60 million;and(4)precious metals Nig resulted in a decline in industrial demand. An'anticipated economic decreased$67 million. recovery in 2003 will likely result in increasing demand for gasoline,jet II fuel,diesel and other petroleum products. Price fluctuations are likely to Base Metals. Base metal production valued at approximately$612 . occur for any combination of political,structural,and regulatory reasons. million was the largest contributor to the value of minerals produced in 2002. The value of base metals decreased approximately$81 million • miners Overview (12%)compared to 2001,due to lower copper,molybdenum,and the'eet1 aterdva) `ofml erat r duCt14t't�ltt:tttalif aet 4' ei1io in beryllium production,as well as continued low metal prices. In 111 p descending order of value,base metals produced in Utah were:copper, • 20p1." tiitsnas tfl€testly kxrtftan € ittetr_20fi tie fp a yearof magnesium,molybdenum,and beryllium. These metals were produced coritlnued-1 w ioorices,,clikoki pf ucttt� of_sex r i. k,:and by magnesiutt m, Copper Company(copper and molybdenum)from rec u -3 t ts; f inas, C E d at€ne,tt vu 1 5 5 flant . le one mine in Salt Lake County,by Brush Resources, Inc.(beryllium)from ltt�ttt�n�ien�llrlterna�ot�ecotuu�tt , irs debt �n��iritraf ua�ta�,,°, two mines in Juab County,and by U.S.Magnesium LLC(magnesium) ID rt€rtb ptfs"fromthe nta ridtstsy segment were. t11 G" S12 from its electrolytic facility,using brines from the Great Salt Lake. The million; liditstrlairr nerais�6€trnllilt xet7 f_{ iirt�i `and ' facility is located at Rowley in Tooele County. • preys meta s{ 1 mrtiliiti lnt 20 ,the,t h: eo ica°s estimates that tg tate Mines r( ctudinitca#)wll>repad t me)evei • of pradt[ctzon 460 minesin 001.T i'hiugt 'tid oven t er 0t1#h Industrial Minerals. Industrial-minerals production(including sand and "Utah Msion of Oil,G stand Miningr ived lve new Large Ml0e;;;_ ; gravel)valued at approximately$560 million was the second-largest • �ermit a, licatie s ftveacresand lariat-Ostia/to' ar er dtsturbance and 20 new S contributor to the value of minerals produced in 2002,and accounted for • p gip' f rtlall approximately 32%of the total value of minerals produced. In Mline:pe titappltcatiatte esOien = ram=distufta :°Ail r ,the are eapplications-exert=:title were.made to angitioroliii8mall comparison to the relatively few Large Mines(6)and facilities that . Mine to serge Minepermit status; etahoneil1k tah tank ninth_in the produce base and precious metals,there are about 72 active Large value of ilanfuei mnet t prod ictton and to in coal prods +n its Alt . Mines and brine-processing facilities that produce a myriad of industrial- • if is iikety that"these kings_ryill bell for20> the:stale___ mineral commodities and products. The above number of mines does • not include the numerous sand and gravel operations that are spread contttb t 21 1.%.dine, .S,falai lee of tt fuel,.€metal,', " throughout every county in the state. The estimated value of industrial gr€ itt>�tirrt in 2003:: • minerals increased approximately$22 million(4%)compared to 2001, due primarilytoincreased valuesof Portland cement �3{eraireysiaiipat4tiit= ifh ti�+�*�c �rari � �perjatli:,=== ;. . construction sand ALP precious metal=end base i fetal producti feti20 will decrease; and gravel,and phosphate. Overall,most commodity prices were " stable,while some commodity prices actually increased during the year. inodereteiy�fOr�fitesii�rld y>Wa�irt a.ro :=lttdsisttaai"�tzni�ai.,�st� �i�, .should also decrease aiaiveTatiOperefOrt predicte red ctioriin d . forthetr`.products. industral�mineralptodectlbn;is oselylinkedttl_ The five most important commodities or groups of commodities regional:and 4eta construction::and population gteisttn,eftd wlR'be ,, produced,in descending order of value,were:(1)construction sand and • el'felt:ey decided constr thin activity rn1he ai-i Lake Valley=,Coat gravel,crushed stone,and silica;(2)salines,including salt,potash • production was mo ate)y lowerin 206 rftuti `notexpected"€o decline (potassium chloride),sulfate of potash,and magnesium chloride;(3) tn,20 ,coal,pnt es re. tpe"tdto reaalrt stpady,rPortland cement;(4)lime,including quicklime and hydrated lime;and(5) • Low metes r ces stave lid to.sig?.:iftcatttty redud e plo�ratio) fiv tfe�s ,sttghy:ittes:: phosphate. Together,these commodities contributed nearly 90%of the ce and;belayed_the opening of veral base..and pr iou�fall:,nines total value of industrial minerals produced in Utah. • 'trtdt f{ rts. .: a tab iilt trig f prices rtl,take la Coal. Approximately 24.7 million tons of high-Btu,low sulfur coal • , ,.,; valued at$420 million were produced from 11 mines located in Carbon, :Signihtcantregulatoryss€ies;tll in t :`im;aft the n itierals indu, Emery,and Sevier Counties in 2002. Coal production was the third- . _. .; Plargest contributor to the value of minerals produced in 2002,and • ;irt:iJta�. €a"tha�e>�ea�ed �aatalit���cr��ti��rfiie l� s'tpan for inerat" �: 'exploration:a ;del elo t,state arid-ted�lregttlations that causeaccounted for 24%of the total value of minerals produced. The value of • '_. '' - coal produced decreased about$60 million(13%)in 2002,due to a difft€xtitip�3,and:delays ftt ttb�ainittg`rpgt�ire�t�eitl#sr,7h�,tativeput�ic erce * - moderate decrease in production coupled with lower average coal • A p ;pilot Ailing irtttry e :daelperls lnttsy_s €llllhgness :_ :: td.develep, �:rp4ttuttes:`„__; : ::: prices. • 2002 Summary Precious Metals. Precious metals valued at$173 million were • The value of Utah's mineral production in 2002 is estimated to be$1.77 produced from three Large Mines in 2002 and accounted for billion,a decrease of about$186 million(10%)from 2001. Estimated approximately 10%of the total value of minerals produced. The value of • contributions from each of the major industry segments were: precious metal production was attributable to gold(91%)and silver(9%). • Precious metal values decreased approximately$67 million(28%) ► Base metals,$612 million(34%of total) compared to 2001,due to substantial decreases in the production of • ► Industrial minerals,$560 million(32%of total) both gold and silver. The three main producers of precious metals were ► Coal,$420 million(24%of total) Kennecott's Bingham Canyon mine,which recovers both silver and gold i as byproducts;Kennecott's Barneys Canyon mine,which is a primary ► Precious metals,$173 million(10%of total) gold producer;and Chief Gold Mine's Trixie mine,which produces a IIPIP 142 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Energy and Minerals • • • • • small amount of gold and silver. The Bingham Canyon and Barneys Significant Issues Affecting Utah's Mining Industry UP Canyon mines are located in western Salt Lake County,and the Trixie mine is located in southwestern Utah County near the town of Eureka. Significant regulatory issues that affect the long-term viability of Utah's mineral industry are the decreased availability of public lands open for The Barneys Canyon mine is in its final stage of heap-leach operation mineral exploration and development,and state and federal regulations 411 and will end gold production in the next two to three years. that cause difficulties and delays in obtaining required permits. The • negative public perception of the mining industry also dampens Active Mines and New Mine Permits. Eighty Large Mines and 110 industry's willingness to develop new resources. • Small Mines reported production in 2001. The Large Mines,grouped by industry segment were:industrial minerals(60);coal(13);base metals Conclusion • (4);precious metals(2);and gems,fossils,geodes,and other(1). The Utah's mineral industry continues to decline primarily due to reduced • Small Mines were grouped as follows:precious metals(11);industrial base metal and precious metal production,continued low metal prices, minerals(85);and gemstones,fossils,geodes,and other(14). We and a moderate slowdown in coal production coupled with lower coal • estimate that 89 Large Mines(excluding sand and gravel)will report prices. In contrast,industrial mineral values were higher in 2002, • production in 2002. buoyed by increased demand for Portland cement,construction sand and gravel,and phosphate. However,these increased values were not • Through mid-November 2002,the Utah Division of Oil,Gas and Mining enough to overcome declining values in the other segments of Utah's received five new Large Mine permit applications(five acres and larger mineral industry. • disturbance)and 20 new Small Mine permit applications(less than five acres disturbance). All except one of the Large Mine applications were Overall,the outlook for 2003 is another year of moderately lower mineral • made to change from Small Mine to Large Mine permit status. These valuation. Industrial-mineral values should remain about the same in • numbers represent a decrease of one Large Mine permit application and 2003,although an anticipated slowdown in the production of several 12 Small Mine permit applications compared to 2001. New Large Mine commodities might affect overall values. Coal production and prices will • permits included four industrial mineral operations and one base metal remain nearly the same. operation. New Small Mine permits were grouped as follows:industrial • minerals(16);base metals(2);and gems,fossils,geodes,and other(2). The number of producing Large Mines increased this year,which 41 increased the state's mineral production base. However,the overall Nonfuel Mineral Production Trends. According to unpublished level of mineral exploration continued to decline. Utah,which ranked • preliminary data from the U.S.Geological Survey,the value of Utah's ninth in the nation in the value of nonfuel mineral production,and 12th in nonfuel mineral production in 2001 was$1.35 billion,a decrease of 6% coal production in 2001,could fall in rankings in 2002 and 2003. • compared to 2000. Nationally,Utah ranked 9th in the value of nonfuel Significant issues that affect the long-term viability of Utah's mineral Or mineral production and accounted for approximately 3.5%of the U.S. industry are the limited availability of public lands open for mineral total in 2001. Between 1990 and 2001,the value of nonfuel mineral exploration,the difficulty in acquiring permits due to increased • production in Utah ranged from a low of$1.18 billion in 1991,to a high regulations,and the negative public perception of the mining industry. of$1.85 billion in 1995. The Utah Geological Survey's estimate for the • value of nonfuel mineral production for 2002 is$1.35 billion,$125 • million,or 9%less than its estimate for 2001. • The number of exploration permits issued is expected to be lower in 2002 than in 2001. Only 10 Notices of Intent(N01)to explore on public • lands were filed with the Utah Division of Oil,Gas and Mining through • mid-November 2002,compared to 14 for all of 2001,and 15 for 2000. The 2002 NOIs were grouped as:industrial minerals(3),precious metals • (4),and base metals(3). • 2003 Outlook • The value of mineral production in Utah is expected to decrease again in 2003. Operator surveys indicate that in 2003,overall base metal values • will be slightly higher while precious metal values will be substantially lower. A modest increase in metal prices is forecast for the year,but • decreased production of several metals will reduce overall values. The • opening of one or two small base metal mines in the next two to three years will add incrementally to the state's base-metal values. Precious • metal production will be substantially lower in 2003 due to decreased production from Kennecott's Bingham Canyon and Barneys Canyon • mines. Industrial-mineral values will also be lower,with lower regional • demand for sand,as well as gravel and crushed stone. The production of cement and lime products is expected to remain nearly the same as tiskthe current year. Coal production and prices are expected to remain flat IMP in 2003. Low base metal and precious metal prices will continue to depress exploration for these metals for the foreseeable future. • 121 , • Energy and Minerals 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 143 I 11 Figure 60 . Mineral Valuation—Gross Val.--Estimates MN Millions $800 • $749 . $688 $703 $700 • ;,,� ; $612 • $600 $583 $560 • $534 $514 • � '$500 $500 $474 $453 $456 $469 r,=-$420 z-1.• • $300 $236 $212 . $200 ::::; € . 1$ 54 $153 $173 H a£ • $100 > •sue.: F ! • Y f 411 Coal -se Metals Industrial Metals Precious Metals . ■1998 M 1999 2000 0 2001 0 2002 • Source:Utah Geological Survey • Figure 61 MP Value of Nonfuel Minerals Millions 411 $2,500 • 411 $2,000 $1,850 411 1740 1680 411 $1,520 $1,500 $1,340 $1,350 $1,430 $1,290 $1,310 $1340 $1330 $1,350 • $1,180 • $1,000 $500 • 411 $0 • 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 411 Source:U.S.Geological Survey • we 144 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Energy and Minerals • • • • Table 75 4111 Supply and Disposition of Crude Oil in Utah (Thousand Barrels) Supply Disposition • Field Colorado Wyoming Canadian Utah Crude Refinery Refinery Refinery Year Production Imports Imports Imports Exports Receipts Inputs Stocks • 1980 24,979 15,846 12,233 - 8,232 45,516 45,599 665 • 1981 24,309 14,931 11,724 - 7,866 43,700 42,673 762 1982 23,595 13,911 12,033 7,826 41,246 40,368 614 • 1983 31,045 14,696 7,283 - 8,316 43,615 43,185 632 1984 38,054 13,045 6,195 13,616 43,672 43,746 607 • 1985 41,144 13,107 6,827 - 14,597 45,549 45,021 695 1986 39,245 12,567 7,574 15,721 45,132 45,034 559 • 1987 35,835 13,246 7,454 - 12,137 45,664 44,483 612 1988 33,350 12,783 14,739 8,411 48,882 47,618 599 . 1989 28,512 13,861 18,380 - 6,179 46,775 46,767 609 1990 27,693 14,494 18,844 7,725 49,104 48,985 728 • 1991 25,930 14,423 20,113 - 8,961 48,647 48,852 513 1992 24,075 13,262 21,949 6,901 50,079 49,776 645 • 1993 21,819 11,575 22,279 - 7,758 48,554 48,307 691 1994 20,661 10,480 26,227 8,048 48,802 48,506 767 • 1995 19,988 9,929 24,916 7,861 46,695 46,666 767 1996 19,504 9,857 24,905 175 7,713 46,126 45,766 590 0 1997 19,585 8,565 28,191 525 7,819 48,492 48,486 654 1998 19,198 8,161 28,414 2,200 7,785 49,539 49,023 702 • 1999 16,255 7,335 28,461 6,400 7,180 49,861 49,870 720 2000 15,635 7,302 25,332 7,948 6,786 49,275 49,178 604 2001 15,265 7,078 26,515 8,505 6,718 49,942 49,686 555 • 2002(e) 14,100 6,950 26,780 9,208 6,651 49,713 49,599 560 • e=estimate • Source:Utah Energy Office • eVTable 76 Supply and Disposition of Petroleum Products in Utah (Thousand Barrels) • • Supply Consumption by Product • Refined Refinery Motor Jet Distillate All Year in Utah Imports Stocks Gasoline Fuel Fuel Other Total Exports • 1980 40,340 7,474 2,237 15,534 2,637 8,401 9,542 36,113 22,136 • 1981 46,994 8,755 2,137 15,549 2,424 7,098 5,839 30,910 23,630 1982 43,824 10,339 2,209 15,793 2,801 6,438 5,683 30,715 22,119 • 1983 52,019 8,099 1,851 15,954 3,284 6,387 6,796 32,421 25,298 1984 47,968 10,057 1,982 16,151 3,413 6,894 6,516 32,974 24,121 . 1985 51,276 9,392 1,915 16,240 3,808 5,941 6,122 32,111 23,365 1986 51,822 8,026 1,863 17,541 4,335 7,312 5,720 34,907 19,983 0 1987 52,345 8,321 1,581 17,623 4,969 6,768 6,247 35,607 20,719 1988 55,742 8,616 1,808 18,148 4,977 7,328 5,965 36,418 23,327 • 1989 54,384 9,375 2,190 17,311 5,095 6,179 6,603 35,188 22,326 1990 57,349 11,998 1,733 16,724 5,281 7,339 5,920 35,264 24,969 • 1991 57,446 11,359 1,823 17,395 5,917 7,789 6,584 37,685 26,544 1992 57,388 10,534 1,619 17,905 5,607 8,062 5,729 37,303 25,642 • 1993 57,597 10,707 1,692 18,837 5,518 8,000 5,649 38,004 23,691 1994 59,458 11,555 2,153 19,433 5,270 8,401 5,925 39,028 25,265 • 1995 57,363 12,289 2,015 20,771 5,658 9,164 6,824 42,417 24,205 1996 58,852 12,692 1,724 21,170 6,303 9,921 8,412 45,806 24,561 • 1997 59,849 12,949 1,505 22,024 6,277 11,260 6,252 45,813 26,248 1998 61,424 12,842 1,655 22,735 6,373 11,191 5,946 46,245 26,527 • 1999 62,744 14,509 1,687 23,141 7,443 10,576 6,441 47,601 26,756 2000 58,030 14,568 1,568 23,558 7,517 11,663 6,796 48,553 26,861 2001 59,190 15,764 1,537 23,982 7,593 11,004 7,055 49,524 27,666 • 2002(e) 60,038 17,135 1,528 24,365 7,752 10,905 6,754 49,776 28,025 • e=estimate OWSource:Utah Energy Office • • Energy and Minerals 2003 Economic Report to the Governor 145 • • I Table 77 I Supply and Disposition of Natural Gas in Utah (Million Cubic Feet) Supply Consumption by End UseALI In Gross Marketed Actual Electric Lease& . Year Production Production Sales Residential Commercial Industrial Utilities Plant Pipeline Total 1980 87,766 47,857 na 40,578 17,391 43,545 5,133 7,594 851 115,092 ge 1981 90,936 58,865 na 38,592 16,540 42,779 3,087 511 721 102,230 . 1982 100,628 56,368 na 47,452 20,336 39,804 3,023 5,965 1,126 117,706 1983 96,933 54,700 na 44,047 18,877 40,246 1,259 4,538 1,218 110,185 1984 183,062 73,154 na 44,246 18,962 42,709 271 8,375 1,015 115,578 • 1985 208,803 78,906 na 47,062 20,170 37,448 235 9,001 1,201 115,117 1986 239,411 91,036 na 13,603 18,687 28,264 230 13,289 1,102 75,175 . 1987 262,045 96,360 na 41,536 14,811 23,884 263 17,671 822 98,987 1988 278,463 101,925 na 42,241 17,911 30,365 196 16,889 1,362 108,964 • 1989 278,081 120,089 na 45,168 16,522 33,963 636 16,211 1,037 113,537 1990 319,632 145,875 63,336 43,424 16,220 35,502 907 19,719 875 116,648 • 1991 323,660 144,817 65,288 50,572 19,276 43,120 5,190 13,738 864 132,766 1992 314,275 171,293 94,725 44,701 16,584 40,878 , 6,576 12,611 1,284 122,649 • 1993 336,183 225,401 137,864 51,779 22,588 42,301 6,305 12,526 2,513 138,044 1994 347,019 270,858 160,967 48,922 ,26,501 36,618 8,900 13,273 2,807 137,073 • 1995 303,233 241,290 164,059 48,975 26,825 42,373 8,707 27,012 2,831 156,824 1996 281,208 250,767 179,943 54,344 29,543 42,213 3,428 27,119 3,601 160,371 • 1997 274,920 257,139 183,427 58,108 31,129 44,162 4,078 24,619 2,935 165,159 1998 297,265 277,340 201,416 56,843 30,955 45,501 5,945 27,466 2,788 169,634 • 1999 276,967 262,614 205,036 55,474 30,361 40,859 6,481 23,810 2,561 159,675 2000 281,177 269,285 227,700 55,626 31,282 39,378 10,544 24,670 2,674 164,319 • 2001 302,706 284,431 251,800 55,331 31,206 33,858 15,155 25,558 2,792 163,900 2002(e) 309,951 282,736 250,000 61,795 36,334 28,015 8,886 26,478 2,914 164,423 • e=estimate • na=not available Source:Utah Energy Office • Table 78 • Supply and Disposition of Electricity in Utah (Gigawatthours) • Net Generation by Fuel Type Consumption by End Use • Other • Year Coal Fossil Fuels Hydro Other Total Residential Commercial Industrial Other Total 1980 10,870 421 823 - 12,114 3,293 3,569 3,800 512 11,174 • 1981 10,869 270 623 - 11,762 3,476 3,909 3,930 530 11,845 • 1982 10,635 232 1,024 - 11,891 3,630 3,033 4,610 745 12,018 1983 10,921 109 1,394 - 12,424 3,678 3,375 4,786 769 12,608 • 1984 12,321 38 1,391 38 13,788 3,825 3,935 4,656 950 13,366 1985 14,229 54 1,019 109 15,411 3,996 4,272 4,663 658 13,589 • 1986 15,155 80 1,413 171 16,819 3,984 4,262 4,583 662 13,491 1987 25,221 105 856 164 26,346 3,991 4,127 4,570 784 13,472 • 1988 28,806 64 593 174 29,637 4,186 4,356 5,259 765 14,566 1989 29,676 85 562 173 30,496 4,134 4,365 5,622 782 14,902 . 1990 31,519 103 486 152 32,260 4,188 4,713 5,553 772 15,225 1991 28,884 484 604 186 30,160 4,458 5,009 5,674 722 15,862 . 1992 31,543 612 580 186 32,921 4,458 5,170 6,085 668 16,381 1993 31,919 575 818 148 33,461 4,687 5,130 6,093 921 16,831 • 1994 32,764 780 716 195 34,455 5,031 5,561 6,322 945 17,860 1995 30,260 775 926 140 32,101 5,056 5,503 7,018 781 18,358 • 1996 30,693 324 1,019 192 32,229 5,481 5,911 7,660 860 19,858 1997 32,144 326 1,331 169 33,969 5,660 6,462 7,430 820 20,373 • 1998 33,207 494 1,299 160 35,161 5,756 6,709 7,511 724 20,700 1999 34,125 544 1,247 156 36,071 6,236 7,282 7,568 792 21,879 • 2000 34,046 888 742 160 35,828 6,467 7,934 7,880 869 23,151 2001 33,204 1,157 490 153 35,005 6,757 8,243 7,347 941 23,288 • 2002(e) 33,639 799 535 180 35,151 7,083 8,304 6,850 1,022 23,259 e=estimate • Source:Utah Energy OfficeIMP II • 146 2003 Economic Report to the Governor Energy and Minerals • • . . . . e•. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i. . . . g Table 79 Energy Prices in Utah(Current Dollars) rs Field Price Average End-Use Price 5 o al Natural Natural Natural Electric Electric Electric Electric a Natural No.2 Motor Gas Gas Gas Power Power Power Power Coal Crude Oil Gas Coal Distillate Fuel Residential Commercial Industrial Residential Commercial Industrial Industrial Year ($/tons) ($/barrel) ($/mcf) ($/tons) ($/gallons) ($/gallons) ($/mcf) ($/mct) ($/mcf) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) (c/kWh) 1980 $25.63 $19.79 $1.86 $29.63 $0.91 $1.23 $2.74 $5.59 $2.26 5.5 4.3 3.3 4.4 1981 26.87 34.14 1.87 32.79 1.04 1.37 3.23 5.35 2.58 6.0 5.0 3.7 4.9 1982 29.42 30.50 2.47 33.38 1.01 1.35 3.41 3.43 2.45 6.3 5.7 4.2 5.4 1983 28.32 28.12 2.56 30.64 0.96 1.13 4.26 4.32 3.15 6.9 6.3 4.4 5.8 1984 29.20 27.21 3.16 30.64 0.95 1.12 5.68 4.96 3.52 7.4 6.5 4.6 6.2 1985 27.69 23.98 3.23 32.34 0.93 1.14 4.86 4.91 3.23 7.8 6.9 5.0 6.5 1986 27.64 13.33 2.90 32.32 0.78 0.85 4.64 4.73 3.00 8.0 7.1 5.2 6.7 1987 25.67 17.22 1.80 30.95 0.83 0.93 4.97 4.98 3.20 8.0 7.1 4.9 6.6 1988 22.85 14.24 1.70 29.50 0.84 0.96 5.11 4.08 3.10 7.8 7.0 4.6 6.5 1989 22.00 18.63 1.61 28.05 0.94 1.03 5.14 4.16 3.30 7.4 6.7 4.1 6.1 1990 21.78 22.61 1.70 26.80 1.12 1.14 5.28 4.30 3.62 7.1 6.3 3.9 5.7 1991 21.56 19.99 1.54 27.40 1.02 1.10 5.44 4.50 3.69 7.1 6.1 4.0 5.7 1992 21.83 19.39 1.63 27.54 1.01 1.12 5.44 4.40 3.91 7.0 6.0 3.7 5.6 1993 21.17 17.48 1.85 27.34 1.00 1.10 5.13 4.06 3.67 6.9 6.0 3.8 5.5 IF 1994 20.07 16.38 1.53 26.10 0.98 1.12 4.96 3.84 2.74 6.9 5.9 3.8 5.5 1995 19.11 17.71 1.14 25.27 1.00 1.14 4.74 3.64 2.34 6.9 6.0 3.9 5.6 1996 18.50 21.10 1.39 24.50 1.06 1.20 4.47 3.38 2.10 6.9 5.9 3.7 5.5 1997 18.34 18.57 1.85 25.33 1.10 1.25 5.13 3.91 2.55 6.9 5.7 3.5 5.4 1998 17.83 12.53 1.73 25.45 1.05 1.09 5.57 4.34 3.00 6.8 5.7 3.4 5.3 1999 17.36 17.69 1.92 25.15 1.19 1.29 5.37 4.12 2.94 6.2 5.1 3.3 4.9 2000 16.93 28.51 3.28 24.63 1.40 1.50 6.20 4.92 3.93 6.2 5.1 3.3 4.9 2001 17.54 23.50 3.66 27.30 1.25 1.20 8.08 6.79 5.28 6.7 5.5 3.6 5.2 IV 0 2002(e) 17.00 25.00 2.00 23.36 1.35 1.40 6.30 5.17 4.45 6.6 5.5 3.8 5.3 0 w m e=estimate o 0 o Source:Utah Energy Office 73 m 0 0 p- 0 0 m 0 0 m 3 0 V • • li High Technology • 40 overview! --go-4,,H,,,,nam:', ‘,,,i,,-,,,,,,,,t,,ttt,„„!,::,ZzM: 71:4:....;!31.:-' -'7,!1-,q Notably absent from Utah's hi gh-tech hi h-te h list is the drug industry and the The'ilovrOrtilrf Wells • :t etogOetto :began' 01,1,,` aerospace industry(including aircraft parts and guided missiles). Utah's • gained•momentum-tn•20 .;For iiiifiriztsix th _ 0024^' :; == drug industry is comprised primarily of companies that encapsulate . empleyrr#erlt fri•i�tett�tectfr�t�ny seoter;r�linad =.g,$ s,representing herbal supplements. These companies do not have sufficiently large • a&iiet1ass,rsfnear jpt o nies`thatmaoufa .cO p '• Research and Development(R&D),nor do they employ the requisite arid:penphierel-jiridu>cts�art sietet;desic '#io ters.ysterms''• number of scientists or engineers to be included in the high-tech sector. • experteni ed The largest employment-dr plin abisotute•rnurmtserewith•a�;';, Companies that are primarily engaged in medical research are included • • • ' ' '• theNAICSsector"R& ontbined lol toes of a rs 3,2t10•Wtrkers. Ohlyt 1r111 hies=a, .'•= in Din physical,engineering,and life sciences'. • medicaCetiOineott•and su ies•ar scientific research*F` Those companies that are involved in the research and development of • development seovices,- reporled;pos)ttve,job growt ,; = l drugs have been included in the category"other". • What is High Technology? Aerospace has been excluded for similar reasons. In the past,this The high technology sector has long been a topic of discussion partly sector heavily invested in its research and development. However, • because it is viewed as an engine of growth. However,the high federal spending for defense-related R&D has been declining and has • technology sector has no universally accepted definition. The definition not been replaced by industry-sponsored research. As a percentage of developed by the Bureau of Economic Business and Research(BEBR) sales,R&D spending in the Aerospace industry in 2000 was 7.3%,down • is a combination of basic research at the individual firm level and use of from 9.3%in 1998. Currently,the ratio of R&D spending to sales in • pre-existing data collected by the National Science Foundation(NSF). Utah's aerospace industry is less than 1.0%as most of the local Inclusion in the high-tech sector requires that an industry be conducting manufacturing utilizes"off-the-shelf'technology that was developed • research and development(R&D)at a rate higher than the average for during the 1980s. Therefore,Utah's Aerospace industry is no longer all industries(1.5 times average)and employ a larger share of its included in the high-tech sector,although the industry still employs a • workers in science and engineering activities than the rate for all large number of scientists and engineers. • industries(1.5 times average). Based on NSF data,the ratio of R&D spending as a percentage of total sales for all industries in 2000 was Utah's high technology sector is concentrated in only a few industry • 3.4%. The ratio of R&D scientists and engineers as a percentage of all segments;computer systems design services(21.5%),medical workers for all industries as of January 2001 was 5.9%. Therefore,to be equipment manufacturing(12.4%),and software development(9.7%). • included in BEBR's high-tech sector,an industry must spend,as a • percentage of sales,5.1%on R&D and classify 8.8%of its workers as The largest high-tech industry in the state,as measured by employment, scientists and engineers.1 is computer systems design services,which accounts for 21.5%of the state's high-tech workers(almost 11,000 people). This industry includes The second step in defining Utah's high-tech sector utilizes basic companies that provide expertise in the field of information technologies • research at the individual firm level. Data collected by BEBR through (firms that test and support software to meet the needs of particular surveys show that some firms in Utah undertake a significant amount of clients),design software systems,and provide on-site management and • R&D,but are classified in industries that do not meet the criteria outlined operation of computer systems. This industry does not include • above. Data on these companies are included in the category"other", companies that design and manufacture computers and peripheral Likewise,at the national level,some industries that spend heavily on equipment. • R&D and employ large numbers of scientists and engineers,are not included in Utah's high-tech sector