Summary of Economic Indicators

Similar documents
LA PAZ REGION FOCUSED FUTURE II

Monitoring the Nantucket Economy An Update to the 1993 Nantucket Economic Base Study

ECONorthwest ECONOMICS FINANCE PLANNING

In contrast to its neighbors and to Washington County as a whole the population of Addison grew by 8.5% from 1990 to 2000.

First Quarter 2016 Quarterly narrative REGIONAL SUMMARIES Fort Smith region Northwest Arkansas Central Arkansas Jonesboro

REGIONAL SUMMARIES. Nonfarm employment grew in the second quarter. Non-farm jobs totaled 56,900 in June, up from 55,500 in June 2016.

Florida: An Economic Overview

City of Modesto Economic Indicators December 2014 Edition

Rifle city Demographic and Economic Profile

HUMBOLDT COUNTY: FINANCIAL TRENDS AND INDICATORS

Oregon s Payroll Employment Dropped by 6,400 in February While the Unemployment Rate Held Steady at 8.8 Percent

ECONOMIC CURRENTS. Vol. 2, Issue 1 THE SOUTH FLORIDA ECONOMIC QUARTERLY. Introduction. In this Issue:

City Fee Report State of Minnesota Cluster Analysis for Minnesota Cities By Fee Category

Health Insurance Coverage in 2013: Gains in Public Coverage Continue to Offset Loss of Private Insurance

Property Tax System Overview. Prepared for the Property Tax Working Group

ECONOMIC CURRENTS. Vol. 2, Issue 3 THE SOUTH FLORIDA ECONOMIC QUARTERLY. Introduction. In this Issue:

Polk County Labor Market Review

How can Cleveland County continue to provide services for its citizens?

MORGANTOWN METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA OUTLOOK COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS. Bureau of Business and Economic Research

Third Quarter 2015 An independent economic analysis of Arkansas three largest metro areas: Central Arkansas Northwest Arkansas The Fort Smith region

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report Fourth Quarter 2014

July 2016 Lutgert College Of Business FGCU Blvd. South Fort Myers, FL Phone

monthly statistical report NINTH DISTRICT CONDITIONS I11~L~7*/~ federal reserve bank of minneapolis

Oregon s Unemployment Rate Was Essentially Unchanged at 8.4 Percent in January, as Payroll Employment Grew by 4,200. Millions

CBER Economic Indexes for Nevada and Southern Nevada

New England Economic Partnership May 2013: Massachusetts

Community and Economic Development

ECONOMIC CURRENTS. Vol. 1, Issue 3 THE SOUTH FLORIDA ECONOMIC QUARTERLY. Introduction. In this Issue:


Monitoring the Performance of the South African Labour Market

NEBRASKA SNAPS BACK By the Bureau of Business Research and the Nebraska Business Forecast Council

Six Pillars Data Appendix

How can Newton County continue to provide services for its citizens?

Metropolitan Area Economic and Business Conditions Report First Quarter 2014

Cumberland Comprehensive Plan - Demographics Element Town Council adopted August 2003, State adopted June 2004 II. DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

How can Monroe County continue to provide services for its citizens?

In fiscal year 2016, for the first time since 2009, the

The Province of Prince Edward Island Employment Trends and Data Poverty Reduction Action Plan Backgrounder

The Real Estate Report Volume 41, Number 2 Fall 2017 GENERAL SUMMARY

Economic Trends Report: Spring Hill

Kaua i Economy Shows Signs of Cooling

Arizona Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Housing Trust Fund Economic and Fiscal Impact Report

SPENDING BOOM: THE ORIGINS OF WISCONSIN S 2003 FISCAL CRISIS. M Kevin McGee Department of Economics U Wisconsin Oshkosh October 2003

COMMUNITY REPORT CARD Nine-County Region

How can Columbia County continue to provide services for its citizens?

Data Alert July 22, 2011

Source: StatsSA GDP quarterly figures. Excel spreadsheet downloaded in December 2017.

Investment Company Institute and the Securities Industry Association. Equity Ownership

April 2016 Lutgert College Of Business FGCU Blvd. South Fort Myers, FL Phone

Robert D. Cruz, PhD, Chief Economist

ECONOMIC BULLETIN APRIL 2018

Unemployment in the Great Recession Compared to the 1980s


Multifamily Market Commentary May 2017

Central Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report Fourth Quarter 2015

Monitoring the Performance of the South African Labour Market

Socio-economic Series Changes in Household Net Worth in Canada:

Women in the Labor Force: A Databook

City of Sidney. Appendix #1 Economy. Comprehensive Development Plan Sidney, Nebraska..Small Town Values..Big Time Opportunities

The Property Tax in New York State. Condition Report Prepared for the Education Finance Research Consortium December 2008

CBER Indexes for Nevada and Southern Nevada

NEW ORLEANS REGIONAL COUNCIL FOR BUSINESS ECONOMICS

Economic Recovery. Lessons Learned From Previous Recessions. Timothy S. Parker Alexander W. Marré

MISSISSIPPI S BUSINESS Monitoring the state s economy

COMMUNITY REPORT CARD Nine-County Region

MORE BALANCED ECONOMIC GROWTH By the Bureau of Business Research and the Nebraska Business Forecast Council

How can Scott County continue to provide services for its citizens?

The Impact of the Recession on Employment-Based Health Coverage

INLAND EMPIRE REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT. School of Business. Fourth Quarter 2018 CENTER FOR ECONOMIC FORECASTING & DE VELOPMENT

Economic Currents Vol. 1, Issue 4

Economic Outlook, January 2016 Jeffrey M. Lacker President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

Monitoring the Performance of the South African Labour Market

Southeast Minnesota Economic and Business Conditions Report: First Quarter 2014

How can Logan County continue to provide services for its citizens?

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

How can Lawrence County continue to provide services for its citizens?

How can Nevada County continue to provide services for its citizens?

Monitoring the Performance of the South African Labour Market

Arizona s Tax System. Presentation to Arizona Economic Forum Kevin McCarthy June 21, 2002 ATRA

How can Montgomery County continue to provide services for its citizens?

County Population

A SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN EL RENO AND CANADIAN COUNTY, OKLAHOMA. An ORIGINS Data Product

Florida: Long-Range Financial Outlook

The US Economy. July 2016, Volume 11, Number 1

MP515. Sales Tax Revenue Trends of. County Governments. in Arkansas

Southwest Florida Regional Economic Indicators. December 2016 VOLUME X NUMBER 12

Twin Cities Area Economic and Business Conditions Report - Second Quarter 2015

How can Fulton County continue to provide services for its citizens?

March 2016 Lutgert College Of Business FGCU Blvd. South Fort Myers, FL Phone

How can Pope County continue to provide services for its citizens?

Key Economic Indicators for Saskatchewan

2017 Regional Indicators Summary

ICI RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE

Note: Map shows population change from April 2010 to July 2012, as a percentage

2009 Minnesota Tax Incidence Study

A SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN SEMINOLE, WEWOKA AND SEMINOLE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA 2011

The State of Working Florida 2011

Georgia Per Capita Income: Identifying the Factors Contributing to the Growing Income Gap with Other States

AUGUST 2012 An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2012 to 2022 Provided as a convenience, this screen-friendly version is identic

Economic Analysis & Revenue Assumptions

Transcription:

La Paz County

Summary of Economic Indicators The economic overview includes a variety of topic areas and benchmarks of economic performance over the past six years Data is indexed based on 2005 county data relative to statewide trends in order to simplify comparisons La Paz County s population and labor force have remained relatively unchanged since 2005. The population significantly older than the state as a whole. The recession has brought about a reduction in construction employment and declines in retail sales and corresponding tax revenues, but the impacts in La Paz County have been less severe than in urban areas of the state. Index Population 100.0 96.6 94.9 93.0 92.5 92.0 Labor Force 100.0 100.3 99.8 99.3 111.0 110.5 Income 100.0 99.8 102.5 103.6 104.6 104.2 Economy 100.0 100.2 98.9 97.6 92.8 97.1 Construction 100.0 122.2 111.4 131.5 71.6 50.8 Assessed Value 100.0 114.1 117.0 101.0 100.7 112.5 Municipal Revenues 100.0 109.8 112.1 124.1 100.8 113.5 Overall Index 100.0 104.6 105.3 104.0 100.8 106.2

Population 20,800 20,700 20,600 20,500 Population Trends Town of Quartzsite 3,570 3,612 3,626 3,640 3,672 3,677 Town of Parker 3,164 3,131 3,234 3,195 3,175 3,083 La Paz County 20,608 20,554 20,704 20,604 20,561 20,489 State of Arizona 5,924,476 6,116,409 6,274,981 6,368,649 6,389,081 6,401,569 La Paz Index * 100.0 96.6 94.9 93.0 92.5 92.0 Annual Growth Rate Town of Quartzsite 2.2% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 0.1% Town of Parker 0.2% -1.0% 3.3% -1.2% -0.7% -2.9% La Paz County 0.7% -0.3% 0.7% -0.5% -0.2% -0.3% State of Arizona 3.5% 3.2% 2.6% 1.5% 0.3% 0.2% Source: Arizona Department of Administration. County Population Growth 2005-2010 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% La Paz County s population has remained relatively constant with less than a one percent annual change since 2005. Overall, the population of La Paz County is down 1 percent since 2005, compared to growth of 8 percent statewide. Population growth in Parker and Quartzsite has also been minimal. In terms of demographics, the county s share of population under 18 significantly lower than the state at 18 percent versus 25 percent. In contrast, the share of population over 64 is more than twice the state average at 33 percent versus 14 percent. These figures do not include seasonal residents that increase the local population in the winter months. Given the aging of the overall population, it is not surprising that public school enrollment has decreased nearly 7 percent in the county since 2005, with declines of 14 to 15 percent over the past five years in the Quartzsite Elementary and Bicentennial Union High School Districts. 20,400-0.5% 20,300-1.0% La Paz County Population La Paz County Growth Rate

Labor Force and Unemployment 8,000 7,500 7,000 6,500 6,000 5,500 5,000 Labor Force and Unemployment Trends 2005-2010 La Paz County Labor Force Labor Force and Unemployment La Paz County Unemployment 11.0% 10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% Labor Force Town of Quartzsite 699 703 699 692 706 706 Town of Parker 1,654 1,662 1,650 1,639 1,679 1,679 La Paz County 7,637 7,670 7,612 7,576 7,773 7,774 State of Arizona (000) 2,859 2,958 3,018 3,117 3,157 3,176 La Paz Index * 100.0 97.1 94.4 91.0 92.2 91.6 Annual Growth Rate Town of Quartzsite 0.4% 0.6% -0.6% -1.0% 2.0% 0.0% Town of Parker 0.5% 0.5% -0.7% -0.7% 2.4% 0.0% La Paz County 0.5% 0.4% -0.8% -0.5% 2.6% 0.0% State of Arizona 2.5% 3.5% 2.0% 3.3% 1.3% 0.6% Unemployment Rate Town of Quartzsite 5.4% 4.4% 4.0% 5.9% 7.6% 7.9% Town of Parker 6.3% 5.2% 4.7% 6.8% 8.9% 9.2% La Paz County 6.8% 5.6% 5.0% 7.4% 9.6% 9.9% State of Arizona 4.7% 4.1% 3.8% 5.9% 9.7% 10.0% La Paz Index * 100.0 106.3 109.8 115.3 146.5 146.1 Source: Arizona Department of Administration. The labor force in La Paz County has not changed significantly since 2005, increasing by only 137 people over this time period, although it has been consistent with population growth. Employment over this same time period is down 119 people. The pattern has been similar but at a smaller scale in Parker and Quartzsite. Labor force participation in the county has remained steady at about 37 percent, compare to just over 50 percent for the state. Following some slight declines in 2007 and 2008, the total labor force in the county grew by 2.6 percent in 2009 and currently exceeds 2005 levels by about 1.7 percent. In contrast, the state realized 11 percent growth in its labor force from 2005 to 2010, although employment increased by only 5 percent. Similar to the state, La Paz County s unemployment rate has increased significantly since 2007. The state went from a low of 3.8 percent unemployment in 2007 to a high of 10 percent in 2010, while La Paz County went from 5.0 to 9.9 percent during that time period. Unemployment is generally lower in Quartzsite but much higher on the reservation, compared to the county overall. As of Sept. 2011, the county s unemployment rate was 10.7 percent overall or 7.8 percent without the reservation, compared to 8.9 percent statewide.

Median Income $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 La Paz County Income Growth Income Growth 10.0% 8.0% 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 0.0% -2.0% Median Family Income Per Capita Income Median Family Income Growth Per Capita Income La Paz County $22,793 $23,319 $24,721 $25,141 $24,897 $24,444 State of Arizona $31,491 $33,423 $34,365 $34,339 $32,943 $32,359 La Paz Index * 100.0 96.4 99.4 101.2 104.4 104.4 Annual Growth Rate La Paz County 3.7% 2.3% 6.0% 1.7% -1.0% -1.8% State of Arizona 6.7% 6.1% 2.8% -0.1% -4.1% -1.8% Mean Household Income La Paz County $63,151 $64,471 $68,046 $68,961 $68,008 $67,263 Annual Growth Rate 3.2% 2.1% 5.5% 1.3% -1.4% -1.1% La Paz Index * 100.0 102.1 107.8 109.2 107.7 106.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Woods & Poole, 2011. The most valid available measure of income at the local level is per capita income. Despite recent minor declines, per capita income levels in the county increased 7 percent from 2005 to 2010, which is considerably more than the 3 percent increase experienced statewide. However, per capita income in La Paz county is till only 75 percent of the state average. Median family income in La Paz County increased by 17 percent during the 2005 to 2010 period, compared to 15 percent statewide. Median family income in La Paz County is was about 62 percent of the state average in 2010. Income data is not available at the city level for cities in La Paz County.

Economy 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Agriculture Mining 2011 Distribution of Employment by Industry Construction Manufacturing TCPU Wholesale Trade La Paz County Retail Trade Industry Employment Arizona 2011 Total Industry Employment La Paz County 5,840 5,398 5,761 5,966 5,796 5,483 5,492 Total Establishments La Paz County 805 769 830 964 807 743 792 Basic Industry Employment La Paz County 511 438 425 407 358 359 272 Basic Industry Share 8.8% 8.1% 7.4% 6.8% 6.2% 6.5% 5.0% La Paz Index * 100.0 97.1 96.1 94.4 86.6 85.3 73.7 Source: Dun & Bradstreet, 2004-2010. **Basic sectors include agriculture, mining and manufacturing. FIRE Services Government During the last 5 years, the county has seen a decrease in overall employment and in the number of establishments through 2010, and very limited growth in 2011. La Paz County has a somewhat higher share of its employment base in retail trade, services and government than the state, and a much lower share of employment in manufacturing and construction. Services make up the largest share of total employment locally at 44%, followed by retail at 21%. The share of people employed in basic industries, those that bring in wealth from outside the area, has declined from nearly 9% in 2005 to 5.0% in 2011, excluding retail and services, compared to roughly 11% for the state. However, unlike some communities a sizeable portion of the retail and services base is serves tourists and winter visitors and can actually be considered a basic industry. The Town of Quartzite is dominated by retail which accounts for 40% of local employment, followed by services which accounts for 35%. Parker has only 17% of its employment base in retail, close to the state average, and 47%t of its employment in services. Parker also has a large share of employment (17%) in government. Both lack basic employment outside of tourism.

Retail Sales $240,000,000 $230,000,000 $220,000,000 $210,000,000 $200,000,000 $190,000,000 Retail Sales Trends 2011 Taxable Sales (000) Economic Indicators Retail Sales per Capita $12,500 $11,000 $9,500 $8,000 2011 Total Tax Collections (000) La Paz County $209,765 $236,383 $237,331 $230,752 $215,917 $234,422 $209,693 Non-Retail Share 42.1% 45.4% 46.1% 46.4% 46.3% 46.0% 40.6% Growth Index ** 100.0 112.7 113.1 110.0 102.9 111.8 100.0 Taxable Sales per Capita La Paz County $10,179 $11,500 $11,463 $11,199 $10,501 $11,441 $10,234 State of Arizona $15,710 $17,774 $18,372 $17,633 $15,076 $13,657 $13,938 La Paz Index * 100.0 99.9 96.3 98.0 107.5 129.3 113.3 Source: Arizona Dept of Revenue. ** County growth rate compared to AZ growth rate. After rising sharply in 2006, taxable sales have generally declined since 2007. The only exception is a spike in retail sales in 2010 when a new Wal- Mart opened. Although this increase in retail sales was sustained in 2011, drops in restaurants and bars, contracting and other taxable activities offset the gain in retail sales from Wal- Mart resulting in declining sales overall. Taxable sales in 2011 fell to their lowest level since 2005. Overall, taxable sales and sales per capita have dropped by roughly 12 percent in the since their peak in 2007. Statewide sales have dropped 23 percent since 2007. The level of taxable sales per capita in 2011 is roughly 73 percent of the statewide figure, up from 65 percent in 2005. The drop in per capita sales locally since 2007 has been less given that population has not grown. Taxable sales from establishments other than retail represent about 40 percent of 2011 sales in the county which generally provide some stability. Contracting sales represent nearly 9 percent of total taxable sales, down from 15 percent in 2007.

$30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 La Paz County Construction Activity Construction Total Permit Value (000) Construction Activity New Housing Units Total Permit Value (000) $28,207 $28,340 $23,462 $18,839 $5,708 $2,235 Residential $22,671 $20,616 $18,239 $13,146 $1,780 $1,114 Commercial $5,536 $7,724 $5,223 $5,693 $3,928 $1,121 La Paz Index * 100.0 118.8 109.2 115.8 62.6 40.9 New Housing Units 654 619 494 304 37 46 Source: Arizona State University,College of Business, Construction Activity Reports. 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Total permitting activity is down significantly from the peak in 2006 and dropped to its lowest level for the entire period in 2010. It is important to note that permit valuations include additions and alterations, as well as new structures. The total value of permits issued has fluctuated from a high of $28.3 million in 2006, to a current low of $2.2 million, which is a decline of roughly 92 percent; this compares to a 77 percent drop in total permit valuation for the state during the same period. The decline in the county s total valuation figure has been driven by losses in both residential and commercial permits which dropped by 95 percent and 86 percent, from the peak in 2006. The number of new housing units in the county peaked in 2005 at 654, and then declined sharply to 37 in 2009 and 46 new u nits in 2010. Permitting activity in Quartzsite remained fairly strong through 2009, but dropped off significantly in 2010. Parker experienced a drop off in both residential and commercial activity between 2008 and 2009, but then saw a jump in residential activity with 25 new housing units in 2010.

Thousands $26,000 $24,000 $22,000 $20,000 $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 Assessed Value La Paz County Assessed Value Net Assessed Value (000) Res. Value per Capita Assessed Value Nonres. Value per Employee $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 Total Net Value (000) $147,448 $172,148 $200,054 $235,122 $244,806 $245,133 Growth Rate -0.6% 16.8% 16.2% 17.5% 4.1% 0.1% La Paz Index * 100.0 105.0 92.4 90.5 93.9 107.5 Residential Net Value (000) $55,428 $73,047 $83,043 $106,851 $112,755 $106,926 Per Capita Value $2,690 $3,554 $4,011 $5,186 $5,484 $5,219 La Paz Index * 100.0 124.4 125.8 107.7 120.0 135.9 Comm/Ind Net Value (000) $29,105 $35,689 $36,754 $41,006 $40,227 $42,047 Per Employee Value $4,088 $4,929 $5,084 $5,845 $5,727 $6,006 La Paz Index * 100.0 111.7 126.7 107.8 91.8 100.2 Source: Arizona Department of Revenue, Abstract of the Assessment Role, 2005-2010. $0 Total assessed value in La Paz County has risen steadily, increasing by 66% from 2005 to 2010, although the majority of that growth occurred prior to 2009. Statewide assessed value increased 55% during the same period. Despite a decrease in 2010, residential properties in the county have seen substantial valuation increases since 2005, growing by more than 92% during the period. This compares to an increase of 54% for the state during the same period. Commercial and industrial assessed values also grew during this period but at a slower rate, increasing nearly 45% in the county and 54% statewide. Residential values in the county currently represent about 44% of the total assessed value, up from 38% in 2005. Despite a small decrease in 2010, the average value of residential property has increased with per capita residential valuation increasing 94% since 2005, compared to only 43% statewide. Commercial/industrial assessed value per employee has also risen steadily since 2005 and is up 47% for both the state and the county. Assessed value in both Parker and Quartzsite has grown more slowly than in the county overall, with overall growth rates ranging from 34 to 43 percent. Per capita residential values are also significantly lower than the county average.

Municipal Revenues $12,000,000 $11,000,000 $10,000,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 Total and Per Capita General Fund Revenues 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total GF Revenues Per Capita Revenues La Paz County Municipal Revenues $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Local Tax Collections (000) $4,397 $4,593 $4,752 $4,866 $4,949 $5,257 Annual Change na 4.5% 3.5% 2.4% 1.7% 6.2% Growth Index* 100.0 104.5 108.1 110.7 112.6 119.6 General Fund Revenues (000) $8,194 $9,244 $9,366 $10,726 $7,764 $9,040 Annual Change na 12.8% 1.3% 14.5% -27.6% 16.4% Growth Index* 100.0 112.8 114.3 130.9 94.8 110.3 Per Capita GF Revenues $399 $446 $455 $522 $379 $441 Annual Change na 12.0% 1.8% 14.8% -27.4% 16.4% Growth Index* 100.0 112.0 114.0 130.9 95.1 110.7 Source: La Paz County Annual Budget * La Paz County compared to Arizona in 2006 = 100. $0 Total county general fund revenues increased modestly from 2006 to 2009, dropping significantly in 2010 but increasing again in 2011. In total, general fund revenues grew by 10 percent from 2006 through 2011. In terms of local tax collections in the general fund, property taxes make up about 75 percent and sales taxes make up most of the remainder. County tax collections increased modestly throughout the six year period, despite declines in sales tax revenues. Sales taxes represent about 11 percent of general fund revenues in 2011, compared to about 14 percent in 2006. Given that population in the county has not grown, per capita general fund revenues have remained fairly steady, increasing about 11 percent over the past six years, despite significant declines in 2010. For the Town of Quartzsite, which is largely reliant on sales taxes, general fund revenues grew by only 2.5 percent since 2006, peaking in 2008. Per capita revenues increased significantly from 2006 to 2008, but are now back at 2006 levels.