An Analysis of Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah: Past and Future Conditions

An Analysis of Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah: Past and Future Conditions Washington County Profile Prepared for The Southwestern Utah Economic Consortium Prepared by Jan E. Crispin John C. Downen Pamela S. Perlich James A. Wood Bureau of Economic and Business Research The University of Utah June 2008

2008 Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Funding Partners of the Southwestern Utah Economic Consortium Dixie State College of Utah Southern Utah University Washington County Economic Development Council Washington County School District Dixie Applied Technology College Five-County Association of Governments Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration Utah Science Technology and Research Initiative State Board of Regents, Utah System of Higher Education Governor s Office of Economic Development

C ONTENTS Executive Summary...iii Demographics...1 Population Levels and Changes...1 Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity...3 Employment...6 Employment...6 Wages...8 Agricultural Employment...10 Occupations...11 Major Employers...11 Commute Patterns...14 Real Estate and Construction...15 Land Ownership...15 Residential Construction...16 Nonresidential Construction...18 Higher Education...21 Degrees Awarded...21 Enrollment...24 Personal Income...26 Retail Sales...28 Demographic and Employment Projections...30 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH i

Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Washington County Population Population (2007) 140,908 Average Annual Growth Rate, 1970 2007 6.5% Net In-Migration, 1970 2007 99,453 Median Age (2006) 30.0 Households (2007) 49,504 Median Household Income (1999) $37,212 Employment Total Farm, Nonfarm and Proprietor Employment (2005) 64,095 Average Annual Growth Rate, 1970 2005 7.7% Farm Employment as a Share of Total Employment 0.8% Nonagricultural Employment (2006) 51,527 Average Annual Growth Rate, 1970 2006 8.0% Employer Firms (2006) 4,851 Major Nonagricultural Employment Sectors (2006) Number Share Construction 8,289 16.1% Retail Trade 7,747 15.0% Health Care and Social Assistance 6,739 13.1% Government 6,141 11.9% Accommodation and Food Services 5,684 11.0% Retail Sales Taxable 2006 Retail Sales (millions) $1,617.6 Average Annual Inflation-Adjusted Growth Rate, 1980 2006 8.5% Major Retail Categories (millions) Amount Share General Merchandise $377.5 23.3% Motor Vehicles $330.3 20.4% Building and Garden $241.3 14.9% Per Capita Retail Sales (2006) $11,991 Wages and Income Total Nonagricultural Wages (2006, millions) $1,431.6 Average Annual Inflation-Adjusted Growth Rate, 1970 2006 8.3% Average Monthly Wage (2006) $2,315 Total Personal Income (2005, millions) $2,689.4 Average Annual Inflation-Adjusted Growth Rate, 1970 2005 7.6% Housing, New Construction, and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2007) 56,316 Total Occupied Units (share of total housing units) 47,485 84.3% Owner-Occupied (share of total occupied) 39,065 82.3% Renter-Occupied (share of total occupied) 8,420 17.7% Recreation or Seasonal Units (share of total housing units) 6,852 12.2% Median Sales Price of Existing Single-Family Homes (2006) $235,070 New Permit-Authorized Dwelling Units (2007) 1,954 Value of Residential Construction (2007, millions) $351.2 Value of Nonresidential Construction (2007, millions) $138.5 Land Ownership (2007) Acres Share Privately Owned 273,700 17.6% Federally Owned 1,161,850 74.7% State Owned 90,689 5.8% Total Area 1,556,000 100% Dixie State College Total Annualized FTE Enrollment (2006 07) 4,202 Total Degrees Awarded 1,317 Tax Revenue Property Tax Receipts (2006, millions) $88.4 Sales Taxes Disbursed (2006, millions) $21.5 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Utah Population Estimates Committee; U.S. Census Bureau; Utah Governor s Office of Planning and Budget; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture; Utah State Tax Commission; Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center; Utah System of Higher Education. ii B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

Executive Summary By all measures, Washington County has been the economic driver of the southwest region since 1970. The county s unprecedented growth makes it the epicenter of activity in the region, as it garners an ever-increasing share of the region s population, employment, and retail sales. In 2007, an estimated 140,908 persons lived in Washington County, an increase of 90,354 people since 1970. The county s population almost doubled for each of the three decades from 1970 to 2000, averaging an amazing 6.5 percent growth annually the highest rate of any county in the state. Population in the region is becoming more concentrated in Washington County. In 2007, seven of ten residents in the region lived in Washington compared with one in three in 1970. The county s current population exceeds that of Iron County by almost 100,000. Net migration is the primary driver of population growth in the county. Cumulative net inmigration into Washington since 1970 approaches 100,000 and accounts for almost 80 percent of the county s population growth. This is a pattern consistent with Arizona and Nevada, but not the state of Utah as a whole. The spectacular growth in Washington County is the culmination of a moderate climate, the rich natural resource endowment of the area, national migration patterns, aging Baby Boomers, and access to road and air transportation. The age distribution of Washington County is distinctive because of the overrepresentation of older age groups. In 2007, an estimated 20 percent of the county s population was at least 60 years old, roughly double the state rate. The minority population of the county increased from 1,895 in the 1990 census to 8,061 by 2000. This increase of 6,166 represents 15 percent of the county s population growth from 1990 to 2000. The largest minority population is Hispanic (59 percent), nearly half of whom are foreign-born. Based on the age distribution of this population (concentrated in prime young working ages with more males than females), it is evident that Hispanics have migrated to Washington County for economic opportunity, not retirement living. In 2006, nonfarm employment totaled 51,527, increasing at an average rate of 8 percent annually since 1970; more than double the statewide rate of 3.4 percent. In the past three years, job growth has never slipped below the 9 percent mark. Washington County is the economic engine for employment growth in the southwest region, adding 48,330 nonfarm jobs to the region s economic base since 1970 almost three-quarters of all new jobs in the region from 1970 to 2006. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH iii

The main drivers of this growth have been the trade and service sectors, and to a lesser extent construction and government. From 1970 to 2006, trade and services added nearly 29,000 jobs. Construction added almost 8,000 and government about 5,200. Reflecting the major employment gains over the period, total inflation-adjusted wages increased from $80.1 million in 1970 to $1.4 billion in 2006, accounting for two-thirds of all wages in the region. The real average monthly wage in the county increased from $2,089 in 1970 to $2,315 in 2006 (in constant 2006 dollars), and went from about 3 percent below the regional average in 1970 to nearly 4 percent above it in 2006. Most of the region s largest employers are located in Washington County. Two companies, Wal- Mart Distribution and IHC s Dixie Regional Medical Center, employ at least 1,000 people. No other county in the region has an employer of this size. Washington County has net out-commuting; that is, more people left the county to work than came in. Almost half of those who commuted outside the county to work went outside the state, primarily to Nevada. Twenty-five percent of out-commuters went to other counties within the region. Almost 40 percent of people commuting to Washington County came from counties within the southwest region. The largest share of these (86 percent) came from Iron County. About one-third of in-commuters came from outside the state, primarily from Arizona. Almost 18 percent of land in Washington County is privately owned, the second highest rate in the region. The federal government owns 75 percent of Washington County (most of which is owned by the Bureau of Land Management, BLM) and SITLA owns about 5 percent. SITLA s holdings include some of the most developable land in the county. The BLM has been a source of developable land over the years and can sell, auction, or give land to cities. Over the past 10 years, BLM has transferred about 17,000 acres for private and public use. In recent years, challenges by environmentalists have made the transfer process long and difficult, a situation that will likely continue. Washington County is the dominant retail market in the five-county southwest region. In 2006, it captured almost 76 percent of all retail sales in the region ($1.6 billion in sales), and had the highest retail sales per capita at $11,991. The rapid growth in the retail sector has been fueled by the county s population expansion as well as by a growing number of shoppers coming from other counties in the region. By way of comparison, 2006 total retail sales in Salt Lake County were $11.1 billion and per capita sales were $8,192. In 2007, Washington County s housing inventory was 56,316 units. Recreational and seasonal units account for 12.2 percent of the inventory, comprising primarily time-share and second homes. Of the 47,485 occupied units, 82 percent were owner-occupied and the remaining 17.7 percent were rentals. More than one-third of the county s housing inventory has been built since 2000. Over the past 30 years, new home construction in Washington County has outpaced that of all other counties in the region combined. The number of permits issued in Washington County is iv B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

more than double the total number of permits issued in Beaver, Kane, Garfield, and Iron counties. The building permit value of nonresidential construction since 1975 in Washington County totals about $2.1 billion. For the past four years, the value of nonresidential construction in Washington County has exceeded $100 million annually. This marks 2004 to 2007 as the period of greatest commercial development in the history of Washington County. A record high was established in 2006 with $184 million of nonresidential construction. The single largest nonresidential project in Washington County s history is the IHC Dixie Medical Center, which received a permit in 2002 valued at $79.4 million. Dixie State College is one of two institutions of higher education in the region and has been one of the county s major employers for many years. The college offers associate s and baccalaureate degrees as well as numerous certificate programs. Enrollment has more than tripled at Dixie over the past 25 years, growing from 1,380 annualized full-time equivalents in the 1981 82 academic year to 4,202 in 2006 07. Since 1981, enrollment growth has been fairly steady until recently. Enrollment peaked at 4,583 in 2003 04 and has been declining in the past few years (Table 10). These declines were the result of several changes initiated by Dixie in 2003 04, and included (1) eliminating the summer workshop student count from the fall enrollment count, (2) transferring certain certificate programs off campus to the Dixie Applied Technology College, and (3) a change in scholarship policy requiring 12 credit hours per term instead of 15. Enrollment numbers provided for spring 2008 show increases in both headcount and FTE at Dixie over spring 2007. Dixie s headcount increased by 96, for a total of 4,908, and its FTE count increased by 112, for a total of 3,562. Since the 1981-82 academic year, the total number of degrees and certificates awarded at Dixie has increased 410 percent, from 258 to 1,317. Most of the degrees awarded at Dixie are associate s degrees, which totaled 864 in 2006 07. Dixie s most popular program is the associate s degree in general studies (684 of 864 in 2007). Dixie currently offers bachelor s degrees in 10 fields. Dixie s bachelor s degree program is relatively new (in place since 2000 01) but very successful. In 2006 07, a total of 134 bachelor s degrees were awarded, up from just one degree in 2000 01. The largest number of degrees were awarded in business (55) and education (48). Enrollment growth at Dixie is projected to increase by a little more than one-third by 2020. However, given the demographic and economic growth projections for the southwest region in general, and for Washington County in particular, enrollments may be much higher than forecast. The era of extraordinary growth in Washington County is projected to continue well into the future. From 2000 to 2020, Washington County s population is expected to triple, growing by 188,760 persons to 279,864. This represents an average rate of about 5.9 percent annually exceeding the regional annual growth rate of 4.9 percent and the statewide annual growth rate of 2.5 percent.. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH v

Over time, population in the southwest region will become more concentrated in Washington County. Because Washington County garners about 82 percent of the projected increase in the region s population from 2000 to 2020, by the end of the period 75 percent of people living in the southwest will reside in the county. The working-age population is projected to grow the fastest, more than tripling in size. By 2020, there will be 119,191 more persons between the ages of 18 and 64 living in Washington County than there were in 2000. The school-age population will increase almost 180 percent, from 28,326 in 2000 to 79,260 by 2020. Washington County will retain its role as a retirement community, even though the retirementage population is projected to grow more slowly than either the working-age or school-age populations. From 2000 to 2020, the retirement-age population (65+) is projected to increase at an annual rate of 4 percent, slightly higher than the statewide rate of 3.7 percent. Further, about 77 percent of the retirement population in the region will be living in Washington County in 2020. In absolute numbers, only three counties in Utah are projected to have more growth in the retirement-age population; these include Salt Lake, Utah, and Davis. The employment projections for Washington County show the addition of 90,000 new jobs, or about 81 percent of all new job growth in the region from 2005 to 2020. By the end of the period, 73 percent of all jobs in the region will be in Washington County, up from 69 percent in 2005. The fastest-growing sector will be education and health services (201 percent increase), followed by government (169 percent), professional and business services (157 percent), and leisure and hospitality (143 percent). Natural resources and mining is the only sector projected to decline over the period. The most significant employment shift projected for the county is the increase in education and health services. In 2005, this sector s share of employment was about 12 percent. By 2020, its share is projected to increase to 15.2 percent. The long-term growth prospects for Washington County remain very favorable. The forces combining to promote growth, climate, natural resources, and aging Baby Boomers moving into rural communities in the West, will continue to benefit the county well into the future. Washington County s proximity to more expensive communities in the southwestern U.S. is a significant advantage. Although housing costs in the county are high compared with other counties in the region, Washington County is a low-cost alternative to sunbelt living in Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Palm Springs. vi B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

Demographics An Analysis of Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah: Past and Future Conditions Population Levels and Changes The era of extraordinary Washington County population growth began in the 1970s and still has not fully run its course. Population almost doubled for each of the three decades from 1970 to 2000, rising from 13,669 to 90,354. 1 With an estimated population of 140,908 in 2007 (Exhibit 1), it is on pace to replicate this performance in the current decade. Washington County is home to seven of ten residents in the southwest region. Its current population exceeds that of Iron County by almost 100,000. 2 Since 1970, the average annual growth rate of the Washington County population has averaged an amazing 6.5 percent, as compared with 2.5 percent for the state. 3 Since 1990, Washington County has added nearly 92,000 residents, accounting for about one-tenth of the population growth of the entire state. The county reached a milestone in 2003 when it was designated as the St. George, Utah Metropolitan Statistical Area. 4 According to the estimates produced by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, it has grown by 39.8 percent from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006, ranking it as the MSA with the highest growth in the nation. 5 In the most recent set of Utah Population Estimates Committee (UPEC) estimates, the population growth rate of Washington County from 2006 to 2007 has moderated somewhat (to 4.5 percent). Even with this recent slowdown its growth rate is still strong and exceeds all but one other county in the state: Utah County. Net migration to Washington County from 1970 to present has contributed more to population growth than has natural increase, a pattern consistent with Arizona and Nevada, but not the state of Utah as a whole. Nearly 80 percent of the county s growth has come from net move-ins over this 37-year period. Cumulative net in-migration to Washington County since 1990 approaches 75,000, which is nearly one-fifth (18 percent) of the state total net in-migration over the period. According to data from the 2000 census, one-third of Washington County residents moved into the county from 1995 to 2000 (Table 1). These were divided roughly equally between those with in-state and those with out-of-state origins. Utah, California, Nevada, and Arizona were the largest sending states, with Salt Lake (by far the largest gross flows of any state or county), Utah, Davis, and Iron counties the largest sending counties within Utah. Less than 3 percent of persons residing in Washington County in 2000 reported living outside the U.S. in 1995. 6 1 Population increased by at least 86 percent for each of the three decades, as measured by percentage change in consecutive decennial census counts. 2 While the Utah Population Estimates Committee has released its July 1, 2007 county estimates, the Bureau of the Census estimates are still pending. The Bureau of the Census July 1, 2006 estimate for Washington County was 126,312, as compared with the UPEC estimate of 134,889 (a difference of 8,587). 3 This is the simple average of year-over annual rates of change. 4 This designation was based on the revised standards of the Office of Management and Budget that were issued in 2003 and based on an analysis of Census 2000 data. 5 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Press Release: 50 Fastest Growing Metro Areas Concentrated in West and South, http://www.census.gov/press-release/www/releases/archives/population/009865.html, April 5, 2007. 6 This is based on an analysis of the county-to-county migration special tabulation from the 2000 census. Individuals who are residents of a given county on April 1, 2000 are asked where they lived in 1995. Note that there may have been multiple moves in the interim. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 1

Exhibit 1 Washington County Population Estimates and Components of Population Change, 1940 2007 Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Natural Net In- Population Births Deaths Increase Migration 1940 9,200 227 62 165 0 1941 9,700 236 62 174 26 1942 5,600 222 83 139 4,239 1943 8,600 243 44 199 2,801 1944 8,100 262 55 207 707 1945 8,300 248 59 189 11 1946 8,700 262 75 187 213 1947 8,700 333 81 252 252 1948 8,700 340 64 276 276 1949 9,800 313 77 236 864 1950 9,800 329 93 236 236 1951 9,700 324 63 261 361 1952 9,600 312 73 239 339 1953 9,600 298 69 229 229 1954 9,700 311 71 240 140 1955 10,000 280 80 200 100 1956 10,200 278 80 198 2 1957 10,200 301 72 229 229 1958 10,200 290 81 209 209 1959 10,400 271 82 189 11 1960 10,400 275 81 194 194 1961 10,500 245 89 156 56 1962 10,400 260 81 179 279 1963 10,300 261 85 176 276 1964 10,400 237 95 142 42 1965 10,600 269 102 167 33 1966 11,000 273 104 169 231 1967 11,600 304 104 200 400 1968 12,300 280 104 176 524 1969 13,000 288 92 196 504 1970 13,900 317 121 196 704 1971 15,100 367 128 239 961 1972 16,150 395 122 273 777 1973 17,600 415 149 266 1,184 1974 18,150 480 131 349 201 1975 19,000 495 135 360 490 1976 20,250 542 163 379 871 1977 21,550 598 161 437 863 1978 23,050 665 187 478 1,022 1979 25,000 718 166 552 1,398 1980 26,400 753 180 573 827 1981 27,900 813 189 624 876 1982 29,800 785 179 606 1,294 1983 31,300 786 216 570 930 1984 33,300 744 231 513 1,487 1985 36,800 776 222 554 2,946 1986 40,700 912 258 654 3,246 1987 43,200 923 294 629 1,871 1988 45,000 884 314 570 1,230 1989 47,200 877 321 556 1,644 1990 48,988 936 371 565 1,223 1991 53,693 925 386 539 4,166 1992 57,195 972 408 564 2,938 1993 61,497 1,049 454 595 3,707 1994 67,753 1,176 497 679 5,577 1995 72,910 1,205 502 703 4,454 1996 78,023 1,483 520 963 4,150 1997 82,078 1,508 571 937 3,118 1998 84,579 1,674 571 1,103 1,398 1999 88,105 1,738 662 1,076 2,450 2000 91,104 1,842 667 1,175 1,824 2001 96,902 1,737 662 1,075 4,723 2002 103,750 1,923 688 1,235 5,613 2003 109,767 2,018 697 1,321 4,696 2004 117,316 2,233 803 1,430 6,119 2005 127,127 2,269 759 1,510 8,301 2006 134,899 2,660 902 1,758 6,014 2007 140,908 2,697 848 1,849 4,160 July 1 Population 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 Population Population County Share of the State 0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee. Components of Population Change Net In-Migration Natural Increase -1,000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee. 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Year-Over Rates and Amounts of Population Change Percent Amount -2% 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee. 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% Notes: Population estimates for July 1 were produced by the Utah Population Estimates Committee (UPEC). UPEC changed its rounding convention. Estimates before 1990 are rounded while those for 1990 and beyond are not rounded. Birth and death data are from the Utah Bureau of Health Statistics. Source: Downloaded from www.governor.state.ut.us/dea on November 19, 2007. 0 Share of the State 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000-2,000 2 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

Population also moved from Washington County in large numbers to elsewhere in Utah as well as Nevada, Arizona, and California. On a net flow basis, in- and outflows between Washington County and Nevada were roughly equal; this was also the case with Arizona. Net migration from 1995 to 2000 was strongly positive from California to Washington County. People also migrated from Washington County to Salt Lake, Utah, and Iron counties. However, these outflows were more than offset by inflows; there were no significant net out-migration flows from Washington to other counties in the state. The largest positive net migration within Utah to Washington County in the 1995 2000 period was from Salt Lake, Davis, Utah, and Weber counties. By the 1980 census, St. George had surpassed Cedar City in population, and it has remained the most populous city since. St. George accounted for 56 percent of Washington County s population growth Table 1 Washington County Migration, 1995 2000 State-to-County In-State-to-County In-Flows In-Flows Total 26,656 Total 12,880 Utah 12,880 Salt Lake 5,259 California 3,588 Utah 2,034 Nevada 1,893 Davis 1,308 Arizona 1,242 Iron 964 Idaho 804 Weber 675 Out-Flows Out-Flows Total 14,604 Total 6,450 Utah 6,450 Salt Lake 1,942 Nevada 1,803 Utah 1,389 Arizona 1,254 Iron 819 California 1,190 Davis 441 Idaho 577 Cache 357 Net Net Total 12,052 Total 6,430 Utah 6,430 Salt Lake 3,317 California 2,398 Davis 867 Washington 451 Utah 645 Wyoming 356 Weber 466 Montana 295 Sevier 244 Source: Census 2000, County-to-County Migration File. over the entire twentieth century. According to the most recent postcensal estimates produced by the Bureau of the Census, St. George has accommodated half the total county growth since 2000. Since the 1990 census, St. George has lost share of the county population to other places, especially Hurricane, Washington, and Ivins. According to the Bureau of the Census, the largest places in Washington County on July 1, 2006 were St. George (67,614), Washington (15,217), and Hurricane (12,284). This means that Washington and Hurricane are the third and fourth largest cities in the five-county region. Age, Sex, Race, Ethnicity The age distribution of Washington County is most distinctive because of the overrepresentation of older age groups, with a greater share of its population in each five-year age group beginning with 55 59 (Exhibit 2). Washington County has a very high net migration rate of those 65 years and older. 7 Median age in 2000 was 31 and about one-fifth (21 percent) of the population was at least 60 years old, roughly double the state rate. Although the county does not have a classic rural age distribution, the number and share of 20 24-year-olds are lower than would be the case with the state distribution. However, there has been adequate job creation to attract and keep many of the young working-age persons in the county, certainly more so than in Beaver, Garfield, and Kane counties. Just over half (52 percent) of the population is of working age, while 31 percent is less than 18 and 17 percent is 65 and over. The decline in the sex ratio in the 15 19 age group is probably due to religious missions of young men. 7 Wan He and Jason P. Schatcher (2003) Internal Migration of the Older Population: 1995 to 2000, CENSR-10, U.S. Bureau of the Census. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 3

Exhibit 2 Washington County Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000 Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex 85 + 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 Under 5 4,500 2,500 500 1,500 3,500 Hispanic 58.6% Minority Population Composition Blac k alone (NH) 2.2% AIAN alone (NH) 15.2% Two or more races (NH) 13.3% Asian alone (NH) 4.8% NHPI alone (NH) 4.7% Some other race alone (NH) 1.1% Male Female Age Distribution of the Washington County Population Sex Male Female Ratio Share Share of State Race and Ethnicity of the Washington County Population Under 5 4,260 3,969 1.07 9.1% 3.9% Share of 5 9 3,800 3,613 1.05 8.2% 3.8% Population Share State 10 14 3,865 3,817 1.01 8.5% 4.0% Total 90,354 100% 4.0% 15 19 4,192 4,406 0.95 9.5% 4.0% 20 24 3,464 3,291 1.05 7.5% 3.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 85,627 94.8% 4.2% 25 29 2,780 2,640 1.05 6.0% 3.0% White alone 82,293 91.1% 4.3% 30 34 2,446 2,336 1.05 5.3% 3.2% Black or African American alone 174 0.2% 1.1% 35 39 2,449 2,508 0.98 5.5% 3.3% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1,229 1.4% 4.6% 40 44 2,476 2,586 0.96 5.6% 3.4% Asian alone 389 0.4% 1.1% 45 49 2,168 2,351 0.92 5.0% 3.4% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 379 0.4% 2.6% 50 54 1,993 2,120 0.94 4.6% 3.9% Some other race alone 87 0.1% 4.5% 55 59 1,694 1,960 0.86 4.0% 4.6% Two or more races 1,076 1.2% 3.4% 60 64 1,716 2,111 0.81 4.2% 6.1% Ethnicity 65 69 2,073 2,143 0.97 4.7% 7.8% Hispanic or Latino 4,727 5.2% 2.3% 70 74 1,958 2,081 0.94 4.5% 8.4% 75 79 1,611 1,783 0.90 3.8% 8.5% Minority 8,061 8.9% 2.5% 80 84 1,034 1,134 0.91 2.4% 8.0% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates 85 + 582 944 0.62 1.7% 7.0% that the county s share of the state for the given category exceeds the county s share of Total 44,561 45,793 0.97 100% 4.0% total population in the state. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Share 60 years+ 21.2% 7.6% one. Median Age 31.0 Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, SF1. 4 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The minority population in Washington County increased to 8,061 in the 2000 census, up from 1,895 in 1990. The minority share of the population increase from 3.9 percent in 1990 to 6.8 percent in 2000. This means that 6,166 of the 41,794 increase in the population of Washington County from 1990 to 2000 were minorities. This is 15 percent of the population growth. The largest minority population is Hispanic, which increased from 862 to 4,727 from 1990 to 2000. This accounts for 3,865 (almost two-thirds) of the 6,166 increase in minority population over this period. According to estimates from the 2000 census, nearly one-half (2,060 of 4,272) of the Hispanics in Washington County are foreign born. 8 The age distribution of this population is very similar to that of the state s Hispanic population, concentrated in prime young working ages and with a pronounced male asymmetry. Evidence of the relatively high fertility rate of Hispanics is the large number of persons in the youngest age group. Hispanic males in Washington County work in the greatest numbers in construction, manufacturing, retail trade (especially building materials and lawn/garden stores), support and waste management services, and accommodation and food services. Female Hispanics work in largest numbers in accommodation and food services and health care. 9 Hispanics have migrated to Washington County for economic opportunity, not retirement living. The second largest minority group is American Indian (not Hispanic), with a count of 1,229 in 2000. If all minorities are removed from the data, the age and sex distribution of white, non-hispanics in Washington County is much more similar to that of Beaver, Garfield, and Kane counties. The reduction in the size of the 20 24-year-old age group relative to the 15 19 age group is larger, the median age is higher, and the share of the population 60 years and older is larger. Retirement in-migrants are disproportionately white and not Hispanic. 8 Census 2000, SF4, PCT48. 9 Census 2000, SF4, PCT85. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 5

Employment An Analysis of Long-Term Economic Growth in Southwestern Utah: Past and Future Conditions Employment Washington County is the economic engine of the southwest region. From 1970 to 2006 total nonagricultural employment increased 1511.8 percent, for an 8.0 percent average annual rate of increase. The county accounted for 5.7 percent of statewide employment growth over the period and 73.1 percent of regional employment growth. Washington has been the only county in the region to have net job growth in every sector from 1970 to 2000 and from 2001 to 2006. The main drivers of this growth have been the trade and service sectors, with construction also making a significant contribution. From 1970 to 2000 (Table 2a), trade accounted for 30.3 percent of county job growth, adding more than 9,000 jobs. However, the sector s share of total employment declined slightly from 33.8 percent to 30.7 percent. Over the same period services contributed 27.7 percent of employment growth, adding more than 8,000 jobs and increasing its share from 15.4 percent to 26.5 percent. Construction employment grew by 1184.9 percent, accounting for 12.2 percent of county growth and increasing the sector s share of employment from 9.8 percent to 11.9 percent. Government job growth of almost 4,000 jobs contributed 13.1 percent of county growth, although the government s share of total employment declined from 28.3 percent to 14.5 percent. Transportation, communications, and public utilities grew the fastest over the period, increasing more than 20-fold but representing only 4.8 percent of total employment by 2000. From 2001 to 2006 (Table 2b), all services combined accounted for 38.9 percent of employment growth, with education and health services alone contributing 16.8 percent. The service sector represented 36.1 percent of total employment in 2006: education and health services supplied 13.4 percent of jobs, leisure and hospitality services 12.7 percent, professional and business services 7.3 percent, and other services 2.7 percent. Job growth in the construction industry contributed 26.2 percent of county employment growth, and the sector represented 16.1 percent of total employment in 2006. Trade, transportation, and utilities accounted for 16.8 percent of employment growth over the period and provided 22.9 percent of jobs in 2006. Government jobs accounted for 11.9 percent of all jobs in 2006, the lowest share of any of the five counties. 6 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

Table 2a Washington County Nonagricultural Employment by SIC Sector, 1970 2000 Mining Construction Manufacturing TCPU Trade FIRE Services Government Year Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Share of Region 1970 (D) 312 9.8% (D) 81 2.5% 1,080 33.8% 82 2.6% 492 15.4% 906 28.3% 3,197 33.4% 1980 70 1.1% 537 8.2% 698 10.7% 231 3.5% 1,936 29.6% 408 6.2% 967 14.8% 1,686 25.8% 6,533 40.7% 1990 106 0.7% 1,004 6.8% 1,562 10.5% 869 5.8% 4,416 29.7% 518 3.5% 3,715 25.0% 2,677 18.0% 14,867 55.4% 1991 166 1.0% 1,177 7.3% 1,497 9.3% 881 5.5% 4,855 30.1% 656 4.1% 4,068 25.2% 2,851 17.7% 16,151 56.4% 1992 141 0.8% 1,386 8.0% 1,589 9.1% 860 4.9% 5,192 29.8% 723 4.1% 4,525 26.0% 3,013 17.3% 17,429 56.9% 1993 176 0.9% 1,929 9.8% 1,746 8.9% 965 4.9% 5,987 30.4% 818 4.1% 4,916 24.9% 3,175 16.1% 19,712 58.1% 1994 213 0.9% 2,873 12.3% 1,942 8.3% 1,133 4.9% 7,398 31.7% 984 4.2% 5,389 23.1% 3,390 14.5% 23,322 59.8% 1995 159 0.6% 3,105 12.0% 1,991 7.7% 1,284 5.0% 8,138 31.5% 1,039 4.0% 6,426 24.9% 3,700 14.3% 25,842 60.3% 1996 141 0.5% 3,181 11.4% 2,167 7.8% 1,439 5.2% 8,870 31.8% 1,151 4.1% 6,984 25.0% 3,991 14.3% 27,924 61.0% 1997 152 0.5% 3,194 11.1% 2,208 7.7% 1,475 5.1% 9,157 31.7% 1,060 3.7% 7,350 25.5% 4,256 14.8% 28,852 60.0% 1998 163 0.5% 3,453 11.3% 2,292 7.5% 1,610 5.3% 9,357 30.8% 1,198 3.9% 7,846 25.8% 4,507 14.8% 30,426 60.4% 1999 171 0.5% 3,822 12.0% 2,400 7.5% 1,630 5.1% 9,833 30.8% 1,244 3.9% 8,120 25.4% 4,694 14.7% 31,914 61.1% 2000 188 0.6% 4,009 11.9% 2,387 7.1% 1,627 4.8% 10,296 30.7% 1,300 3.9% 8,896 26.5% 4,876 14.5% 33,579 61.6% Change 168.6% 1184.9% 242.0% 1908.6% 853.3% 1485.4% 1708.1% 438.2% 950.3% Share of Growth 0.4% 12.2% 6.2% 5.1% 30.3% 4.0% 27.7% 13.1% 100% 67.6% Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. (D) Data not reported to avoid disclosure of individual firm data; for these industries, change and share of growth are for 1980 2000. Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of Region column is the county s contribution to the region s growth. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and BEBR calculations. Table 2b Washington County Nonagricultural Employment by NAICS Sector, 2001 2006 Financial Prof. & Bus. Ed. & Health Leisure & Other Mining Construction Manufacturing TTU Information Government Activity Services Services Hospitality Services Year No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share No. Share Total 2001 153 0.4% 4,160 11.6% 2,376 6.6% 9,128 25.5% 672 1.9% 1,489 4.2% 2,419 6.8% 4,267 11.9% 4,878 13.6% 977 2.7% 5,221 14.6% 35,740 63.2% 2002 154 0.4% 4,323 11.6% 2,356 6.3% 9,520 25.5% 706 1.9% 1,560 4.2% 2,669 7.1% 4,686 12.5% 4,925 13.2% 1,116 3.0% 5,336 14.3% 37,351 64.3% 2003 129 0.3% 4,747 12.2% 2,503 6.4% 9,605 24.6% 856 2.2% 1,700 4.4% 2,684 6.9% 5,113 13.1% 5,110 13.1% 1,149 2.9% 5,404 13.9% 39,000 65.2% 2004 149 0.3% 5,686 13.3% 2,847 6.6% 10,072 23.5% 818 1.9% 1,833 4.3% 3,164 7.4% 5,866 13.7% 5,577 13.0% 1,238 2.9% 5,614 13.1% 42,864 66.4% 2005 167 0.4% 7,176 15.2% 3,150 6.7% 10,953 23.2% 883 1.9% 1,976 4.2% 3,467 7.3% 6,336 13.4% 5,869 12.4% 1,357 2.9% 5,913 12.5% 47,247 67.4% 2006 246 0.5% 8,289 16.1% 3,276 6.4% 11,785 22.9% 869 1.7% 2,248 4.4% 3,786 7.3% 6,923 13.4% 6,566 12.7% 1,402 2.7% 6,139 11.9% 51,529 68.1% Change 60.8% 99.3% 37.9% 29.1% 29.3% 51.0% 56.5% 62.2% 34.6% 43.5% 17.6% 44.2% Share of Growth 0.6% 26.2% 5.7% 16.8% 1.2% 4.8% 8.7% 16.8% 10.7% 2.7% 5.8% 100% 82.8% Note: TTU = Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. Figure at intersection of Share of Growth row and Share of Region column is the county s contribution to the region s growth. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and BEBR calculations. Share of Region B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 7

Wages Reflecting the major employment gains over the period, total inflation-adjusted wages in Washington County increased 1687.0 percent from 1970 to 2006, from $80.1 million to $1,431.6 million (Table 3). The county s share of the region s total wages grew from less than one-third to more than two-thirds over the period, and its share of total state wages increased from 0.7 percent to 3.4 percent. The real average monthly wage in the county grew 10.8 percent from 1970 to 2006, from $2,089 to $2,315 (in constant 2006 dollars). The county s monthly wage went from being almost 3 percent below the regional average in 1970 to nearly 4 percent above it in 2006, and gained against the state average from 73.3 percent to 80.3 percent. Table 3 Real Wage Trends in Washington County, 1970 2006 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 Change Total Wages (millions) $80.1 $162.4 $344.3 $867.6 $1,431.6 1687.0% Share of Region 32.4% 39.0% 55.3% 64.5% 70.8% 38.4% Share of State 0.7% 0.9% 1.5% 2.4% 3.4% 2.8% Average Monthly Wage $2,089 $2,077 $1,930 $2,153 $2,315 10.8% vs. Region Average 97.2% 96.0% 99.9% 104.7% 103.9% 6.7% vs. State Average 73.3% 75.7% 75.1% 76.2% 80.3% 7.0% Note: Wages are in constant 2006 dollars. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data. Those sectors paying the largest shares of total wages in 1970 (Table 4a) were government (30.0 percent), trade (28.0 percent), and construction (18.3 percent). Together they paid more than three-quarters of all nonagricultural wages in the county. In addition, the service sector paid almost 10 percent of wages. By 2000, government s share had declined to 16.4 percent, construction s to 13.0 percent, and trade s to 23.8 percent. In their place the service sector more than doubled its share to 26.2 percent of total wages, with manufacturing and transportation, communications, and public utilities adding 8.4 percent and 7.0 percent, respectively. As of 2006 (Table 4b), trade, transportation, and utilities represented the largest source of nonagricultural wages, paying 23.5 percent of the total. Construction s share was up to 17.2 percent, and all services combined paid just over 30 percent of wages, with half of that (16.0 percent) coming from education and health services. The share of wages paid by the various levels of government had further declined to 12.7 percent. From 1970 through 2000 (Table 5a), mining jobs tended to pay the highest average monthly wage (although a figure for the mining sector was not reported in 1970 due to disclosure issues). The next highest paying sectors were TCPU (transportation, communications, and public utilities), construction, government, and FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate). In the 2001 06 period (Table 5b), under the NAICS classification system, the highest-paying sectors included financial activity, education and health services, information, manufacturing, and government. Mining paid the highest monthly wage in 2001, but it had fallen by half by 2003 and was the third lowest sector in 2006. 8 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

Table 4a Total Nonagricultural Wages in Washington County by SIC Sector, 1970 2000 (millions of current dollars, except where noted) Mining Construction Manufacturing TCPU Trade FIRE Services Government Total Year Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Current $ Constant $ 1970 (D) $2.7 18.3% (D) $0.6 4.1% $4.2 28.0% $0.4 2.6% $1.4 9.7% $4.5 30.0% $14.9 $80.1 1980 $1.0 1.6% $7.7 11.6% $8.6 13.0% $3.7 5.6% $14.1 21.4% $4.1 6.3% $8.0 12.2% $18.6 28.3% $65.8 $162.4 1990 $3.0 1.4% $18.6 8.5% $25.9 11.7% $19.3 8.8% $49.1 22.3% $8.8 4.0% $48.2 21.9% $47.2 21.4% $220.1 $344.3 1991 $4.8 1.9% $24.2 9.7% $26.4 10.6% $19.6 7.9% $56.1 22.5% $11.7 4.7% $55.2 22.1% $51.7 20.7% $249.7 $374.1 1992 $3.8 1.4% $24.6 8.9% $29.9 10.7% $19.0 6.8% $62.7 22.5% $14.4 5.2% $67.5 24.3% $56.2 20.2% $278.1 $402.8 1993 $4.9 1.5% $35.4 10.8% $33.1 10.1% $22.6 6.9% $73.9 22.6% $17.9 5.5% $77.4 23.6% $62.2 19.0% $327.5 $460.8 1994 $6.0 1.5% $53.5 13.2% $39.1 9.6% $27.6 6.8% $96.5 23.8% $21.5 5.3% $91.8 22.6% $70.0 17.2% $406.0 $558.3 1995 $4.6 1.0% $59.8 12.8% $44.6 9.5% $31.9 6.8% $112.6 24.1% $23.7 5.1% $111.9 23.9% $78.6 16.8% $467.7 $626.7 1996 $4.4 0.8% $61.3 11.7% $50.8 9.7% $36.7 7.0% $127.9 24.4% $25.5 4.9% $128.1 24.5% $88.7 17.0% $523.5 $683.2 1997 $4.3 0.8% $62.8 11.1% $54.0 9.6% $41.2 7.3% $138.2 24.4% $25.6 4.5% $140.8 24.9% $98.7 17.4% $565.7 $721.0 1998 $5.1 0.8% $71.9 11.4% $56.8 9.0% $46.1 7.3% $144.6 22.9% $30.5 4.8% $158.2 25.1% $117.3 18.6% $630.5 $788.9 1999 $5.4 0.8% $84.1 12.4% $60.4 8.9% $48.1 7.1% $161.2 23.7% $30.2 4.4% $167.3 24.6% $123.3 18.1% $680.0 $828.2 2000 $6.1 0.8% $95.6 13.0% $61.9 8.4% $51.5 7.0% $175.6 23.8% $32.5 4.4% $192.9 26.2% $121.3 16.4% $737.3 $867.6 Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. (D) Data not reported to avoid disclosure of individual firm data. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and BEBR calculations. Table 4b Total Nonagricultural Wages in Washington County by NAICS Sector, 2001 2006 (millions of current dollars, except where noted) Financial Prof. & Bus. Ed. & Health Leisure & Other Mining Construction Manufacturing TTU Information Government Total Activity Services Services Hospitality Services Year Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Wages Share Current $ Constant $ 2001 $5.2 0.6% $98.6 12.4% $62.5 7.8% $207.3 26.0% $17.5 2.2% $39.3 4.9% $53.7 6.7% $117.0 14.7% $52.4 6.6% $16.9 2.1% $126.9 15.9% $797.3 $905.1 2002 $3.5 0.4% $103.2 12.1% $61.5 7.2% $227.0 26.6% $19.1 2.2% $43.2 5.1% $58.7 6.9% $127.1 14.9% $56.6 6.6% $19.6 2.3% $133.5 15.7% $852.9 $949.9 2003 $2.2 0.2% $112.6 12.3% $66.1 7.2% $237.7 26.0% $22.8 2.5% $49.3 5.4% $59.3 6.5% $144.2 15.7% $59.8 6.5% $20.7 2.3% $140.7 15.4% $915.5 $998.5 2004 $2.6 0.2% $144.4 13.9% $78.7 7.6% $263.3 25.3% $23.8 2.3% $54.8 5.3% $71.8 6.9% $159.9 15.4% $66.7 6.4% $22.8 2.2% $152.7 14.7% $1,041.5 $1,110.0 2005 $3.3 0.3% $197.3 16.2% $89.2 7.3% $302.4 24.8% $26.4 2.2% $68.5 5.6% $88.4 7.2% $177.8 14.6% $74.8 6.1% $26.5 2.2% $165.3 13.6% $1,219.7 $1,261.4 2006 $6.1 0.4% $246.5 17.2% $97.4 6.8% $336.3 23.5% $25.7 1.8% $79.3 5.5% $106.6 7.4% $229.4 16.0% $92.6 6.5% $29.4 2.1% $182.4 12.7% $1,431.6 $1,431.6 Note: TTU = Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and BEBR calculations. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 9

Table 5a Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Washington County by SIC Sector, 1970 2000 (current dollars, except where noted) Total Average Year Mining Const. Mfg. TCPU Trade FIRE Services Gov t. Current $ Constant $ 1970 (D) $726 $365 $621 $322 (D) $245 $411 $388 $2,089 1980 $1,224 $1,188 $1,024 $1,329 $606 $844 $695 $922 $841 $2,077 1990 $2,344 $1,548 $1,380 $1,850 $927 $1,423 $1,081 $1,468 $1,234 $1,930 1991 $2,429 $1,710 $1,468 $1,855 $963 $1,493 $1,131 $1,511 $1,288 $1,930 1992 $2,262 $1,480 $1,566 $1,841 $1,006 $1,657 $1,244 $1,555 $1,330 $1,926 1993 $2,322 $1,530 $1,578 $1,953 $1,029 $1,828 $1,312 $1,633 $1,384 $1,948 1994 $2,360 $1,552 $1,676 $2,029 $1,087 $1,822 $1,420 $1,721 $1,451 $1,995 1995 $2,393 $1,604 $1,868 $2,069 $1,153 $1,903 $1,451 $1,770 $1,508 $2,021 1996 $2,611 $1,606 $1,953 $2,123 $1,202 $1,843 $1,529 $1,853 $1,562 $2,039 1997 $2,360 $1,639 $2,040 $2,326 $1,258 $2,013 $1,596 $1,933 $1,634 $2,082 1998 $2,629 $1,736 $2,064 $2,386 $1,288 $2,121 $1,680 $2,169 $1,727 $2,161 1999 $2,613 $1,833 $2,098 $2,460 $1,366 $2,026 $1,717 $2,188 $1,776 $2,163 2000 $2,684 $1,987 $2,160 $2,638 $1,421 $2,085 $1,807 $2,073 $1,830 $2,153 Notes: TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. (D) Data not reported to avoid disclosure of individual firm data. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and BEBR calculations. Table 5b Average Monthly Nonagricultural Wages in Washington County by NAICS Sector, 2001 2006 (current dollars, except where noted) Year Mining Const. Mfg. TTU Info. Fin l. Act. Prof & Bus. Ed. & Health Leisure & Hosp. Other Svcs. Total Average Gov t. Current $ Constant $ 2001 $2,810 $1,975 $2,193 $1,893 $2,164 $2,200 $1,850 $2,285 $895 $1,441 $2,026 $1,859 $2,110 2002 $1,905 $1,990 $2,175 $1,987 $2,252 $2,306 $1,831 $2,260 $957 $1,467 $2,085 $1,903 $2,119 2003 $1,407 $1,977 $2,202 $2,063 $2,216 $2,417 $1,842 $2,350 $974 $1,503 $2,170 $1,956 $2,134 2004 $1,429 $2,117 $2,303 $2,179 $2,423 $2,493 $1,892 $2,272 $996 $1,531 $2,267 $2,025 $2,158 2005 $1,635 $2,291 $2,359 $2,301 $2,487 $2,890 $2,125 $2,338 $1,062 $1,627 $2,330 $2,151 $2,225 2006 $2,053 $2,478 $2,477 $2,378 $2,461 $2,939 $2,346 $2,761 $1,175 $1,748 $2,477 $2,315 $2,315 Notes: TTU = Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. Constant-dollar figures are in 2006 dollars. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and BEBR calculations. Agricultural Employment The preceding discussion focused on nonagricultural employment, but agriculture is a significant activity in southwestern Utah. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) publishes county-level employment data back to 1969, breaking down total employment into farm employment and nonfarm employment. Table 6 presents the BEA numbers for total employment and farm employment in Washington County for 1970 through 2005 (2006 data are not yet available). These figures do not coincide with the DWS nonagricultural employment numbers because the BEA uses a different accounting method. The BEA includes proprietors employment, that is, self-employed farmers and other small-business owners, and private household workers, e.g. domestic servants; whereas the DWS reports only wage and salary employment based on company payrolls. Therefore, subtracting farm employment from total employment in the table below will not give figures that match the total nonagricultural employment numbers in the tables above. 10 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

Table 6 Washington County Farm Employment, 1970 2005 1970 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change Total employment 4,819 9,475 21,432 47,552 49,445 51,936 54,320 58,901 64,095 1230.0% Farm employment 384 451 462 542 541 535 530 526 528 37.5% Share of Total 8.0% 4.8% 2.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 7.2% Source: Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce. Although farm employment s share of total employment declined in every county over the study period, the number of farm jobs grew in three counties: Beaver, Garfield, and, somewhat surprisingly, Washington. The number of farm jobs in Washington County increased 37.5 percent from 384 in 1970 to 528 in 2005, although their share of total employment fell by a factor of 10, from 8.0 percent to 0.8 percent. Occupations The Census Bureau s occupational distribution (Table 7) indicates what Washington County residents do (versus those who work in Washington County, which includes in-commuters from other counties and out of state). In 2000, 27.5 percent of employed county residents were engaged in sales and office occupations, and 26.9 percent were in management, professional, and related occupations. Another 18.3 percent worked in service occupations, 13.8 percent in construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations, and 13.2 percent in production, transportation, and material-moving occupations. Only 0.4 percent of county residents were engaged in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations. Examining occupations by sex, 40.9 percent of Washington County women were in sales and office occupations, with nearly one-quarter in office and administrative support occupations. Ten percent of women worked in education, training, and library occupations and 8.9 percent worked in food preparation and serving related occupations. Among county men, 15.7 percent were construction trades workers, 12.1 percent were in sales and related occupations, 10.6 percent worked in management occupations (excluding farmers and farm managers), 7.8 percent were in production occupations, and 6.3 percent were motor vehicle operators. Major Employers As the economic engine of the southwest region, Washington County has some of the largest employers in the region, including over 50 companies with 100 or more employees (Table 8). The Intermountain Healthcare Dixie Regional Medical Center has two campuses in St. George, employing more than 1,500 people. The Wal-Mart warehouse in Hurricane employs around 1,000 people. Wal-Mart also has two retail stores, in St. George and Washington City, that each employ between 250 and 500 workers. Other major employers in the county include Skywest Airlines, Dixie State College, and CabineTec, a manufacturer of kitchen and office cabinetry. There are also several other manufacturing companies that each employ between 100 and 250 workers. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 11

Table 7 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Employed Residents of Washington County, 2000 Occupation Total Male Female Employed civilian population 16 years and over 35,646 19,916 15,730 Management, professional, and related occupations 26.9% 25.9% 28.0% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 12.1% 14.7% 8.8% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 8.4% 10.6% 5.6% Farmers and farm managers 0.4% 0.7% 0.1% Business and financial operations occupations 3.2% 3.4% 3.0% Business operations specialists 1.1% 1.0% 1.4% Financial specialists 2.1% 2.4% 1.7% Professional and related occupations 14.8% 11.2% 19.3% Computer and mathematical occupations 0.7% 1.0% 0.2% Architecture and engineering occupations 1.0% 1.4% 0.3% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% Community and social services occupations 1.6% 1.2% 2.0% Legal occupations 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% Education, training, and library occupations 5.8% 2.5% 10.0% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.8% 1.6% 2.0% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 3.2% 2.2% 4.3% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 2.3% 1.8% 2.8% Health technologists and technicians 0.9% 0.4% 1.5% Service occupations 18.3% 13.9% 23.8% Healthcare support occupations 2.3% 0.6% 4.4% Protective service occupations 1.6% 2.4% 0.6% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.9% 1.5% 0.1% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.7% 0.9% 0.5% Food preparation and serving related occupations 6.7% 5.0% 8.9% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 4.3% 4.6% 4.0% Personal care and service occupations 3.4% 1.3% 5.9% Sales and office occupations 27.5% 16.9% 40.9% Sales and related occupations 13.8% 12.1% 16.0% Office and administrative support occupations 13.7% 4.8% 24.9% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.4% 0.7% 0.1% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 13.8% 23.8% 1.1% Construction and extraction occupations 10.4% 18.1% 0.7% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 1.3% 2.3% 0.0% Construction trades workers 9.1% 15.7% 0.7% Extraction workers 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 3.4% 5.8% 0.3% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 13.2% 18.8% 6.0% Production occupations 6.1% 7.8% 3.8% Transportation and material moving-occupations 7.1% 11.0% 2.2% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 4.0% 6.3% 1.1% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% Material-moving workers 2.6% 3.8% 1.0% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of the state (excluding Washington County). Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 12 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

Table 8 Major Employers in Washington County, 2006 Company Industry Employees Wal-Mart Transportation and Warehousing 1000 1999 IHC Hospital Health Care and Social Assistance 1000 1999 Skywest Airlines Transportation and Warehousing 500 999 Dixie State College Educational Services 500 999 Dixie Regional Medical Center Health Care and Social Assistance 500 999 CabineTec Manufacturing 250 499 Wal-Mart Retail Trade 250 499 Cross Creek Manor Health Care and Social Assistance 250 499 Interstate Rock Products Inc. Construction 100 249 Quality Excavation Inc. Construction 100 249 Split Rock Inc. Construction 100 249 Deseret Laboratories Inc. Manufacturing 100 249 Pace American of Utah Inc. Manufacturing 100 249 Ram Manufacturing Co. Manufacturing 100 249 St. George Truss Company Manufacturing 100 249 Wilson Electronics Inc. Manufacturing 100 249 Orgill Inc. Wholesale Trade 100 249 Wells Dairy Inc. Wholesale Trade 100 249 Albertsons Retail Trade 100 249 Auto Select St. George Ford Retail Trade 100 249 Boulevard Furniture Retail Trade 100 249 Costco Wholesale Retail Trade 100 249 Harmon City Retail Trade 100 249 Home Depot USA Inc. Retail Trade 100 249 Hurst Stores Inc. Retail Trade 100 249 Lin s Supermarket Inc. Retail Trade 100 249 Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse Retail Trade 100 249 Newby Buick Olds Pontiac GMC Retail Trade 100 249 Sears Roebuck Retail Trade 100 249 Smith s Food and Drug Ctrs. Retail Trade 100 249 Stephen Wade Auto Center Retail Trade 100 249 Target Corporation Retail Trade 100 249 Andrus Transportation Services Transportation and Warehousing 100 249 Dats Trucking Transportation and Warehousing 100 249 Washington School District Transportation and Warehousing 100 249 Spectrum Information 100 249 Western Wats Interviewing Center Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 100 249 AllConnect Admin. & Support and Waste Mgmt. & Remed. Svcs. 100 249 Express Services Inc. Admin. & Support and Waste Mgmt. & Remed. Svcs. 100 249 Substitute Employees Educational Services 100 249 Washington School District Educational Services 100 249 Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Center Health Care and Social Assistance 100 249 IHC Rehabilitation Services Health Care and Social Assistance 100 249 RedCliff Ascent Inc. Health Care and Social Assistance 100 249 Red Cliffs Regional Inc. Health Care and Social Assistance 100 249 Red Rock Canyon School LLC Health Care and Social Assistance 100 249 SG Nursing Home LLC Health Care and Social Assistance 100 249 Department of the Interior Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 100 249 St. George City Recreation Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 100 249 Green Valley Resort Accommodation and Food Services 100 249 Red Mountain Spa Management Accommodation and Food Services 100 249 Xanterra Parks and Resorts Inc. Accommodation and Food Services 100 249 St. George City Public Administration 100 249 St. George City Police Public Administration 100 249 Washington County Public Administration 100 249 Washington County Sheriff Public Administration 100 249 Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 13

Commute Patterns Washington County sent 318 more commuters out of the county than came in, in 2000 (Table 9). The main source of in-commuters to Washington was Iron County, which sent 677, or nearly one-third of all in-commuters. Other significant in-state sources included Salt Lake County, which sent 194 or 9.5 percent; and Utah County, which sent 101 or 5.0 percent. Within the region, Kane County sent 78 workers, 3.8 percent of in-commuters; Beaver County sent 19, or 0.9 percent; and Garfield County sent 12, or 0.6 percent. More than one-third, 38.3 percent, of in-commuters lived out of state. Mohave County, Ariz. was the largest out-of-state source, sending 422 or one-fifth of all in-commuters. Clark County, Nev. sent 99 in-commuters, or 4.9 percent; Arizona s Coconino and Maricopa counties sent 55 or 2.7 percent and 32 or 1.6 percent, respectively. Los Angeles County, Calif. sent 27 workers or 1.3 percent of all incommuters. The main destination of out-commuters was Clark County, Nev., which took 737 Washington residents, or 31.3 percent of all out-commuters. In fact, 58.2 percent of those working outside the county commuted to another state. Mohave, Maricopa, and Coconino counties took 182 (7.7 percent), 73 (3.1 percent), and 20 (0.8 percent), respectively. Orange and Los Angeles counties in California took 30 (1.3 percent) and 20 (0.8 percent), respectively. Within the region, 544 Washington residents (23.1 percent of out-commuters) worked in neighboring Iron County, 41 (1.7 percent) in Kane County, and 4 (0.2 percent) in Beaver County. More than 300 Washington workers commuted even farther north, with 207 going to Salt Lake County, 38 to Utah County, 37 to Cache County, and 27 to Wasatch County. Table 9 Washington County Summary Commute Flows, 2000 In-Commuting to Washington County Out-Commuting from Washington County Residence County No. Share Workplace County No. Share Iron Co. UT 677 33.2% Clark Co. NV 737 31.3% Mohave Co. AZ 422 20.7% Iron Co. UT 544 23.1% Salt Lake Co. UT 194 9.5% Salt Lake Co. UT 207 8.8% Utah Co. UT 101 5.0% Mohave Co. AZ 182 7.7% Clark Co. NV 99 4.9% Maricopa Co. AZ 73 3.1% Kane Co. UT 78 3.8% Kane Co. UT 41 1.7% Coconino Co. AZ 55 2.7% Utah Co. UT 38 1.6% Davis Co. UT 44 2.2% Cache Co. UT 37 1.6% Maricopa Co. AZ 32 1.6% Orange Co. CA 30 1.3% Weber Co. UT 29 1.4% Wasatch Co. UT 27 1.1% Los Angeles Co. CA 27 1.3% Coconino Co. AZ 20 0.8% Beaver Co. UT 19 0.9% Los Angeles Co. CA 20 0.8% Garfield Co. UT 12 0.6% Beaver Co. UT 4 0.2% Other 249 12.2% Other 396 16.8% Total In-Commuters 2,038 100% Total Out-Commuters 2,356 100% Net Out-Commuters 318 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 County-to-County Worker Flow Files. 14 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

Real Estate and Construction Land Ownership Washington, the fastest-growing county in the region, is 17.6 percent privately owned (the second-highest rate) and 74.7 percent federally owned (Exhibit 3). Most of the federal land is owned by the BLM (40.8 percent of the total), but there are also about 400,000 acres of national forest that make up one-quarter of the county. The 135,000-acre Zion National Park, 2,860 acres of which are in Iron County, makes up 8.5 percent of the county. State-owned lands account for 5.8 percent of the county, with most of that under SITLA ownership plus about 10,000 acres of state parks, 850 acres of wildlife reserve, and a 2.5-acre UDOT parcel along I-15 at the northeast corner of Washington City. The Paiute tribe has a 28,000-acre reservation northwest of St. George and centered on Shivwits that makes up less than 2 percent of the county. Exhibit 3 Land Ownership in Washington County by Entity, Bureau of Land Management BLM Wilderness Area US Forest Service USFS Wilderness Area National Park Service State Trust Land State Parks and Recreation State Wildlife Reserve UDOT Paiute Tribal Lands Private Water Owner Acres Share Federal Government 1,161,850 74.7% Bureau of Land Management 631,519 40.6% BLM Wilderness Area 3,656 0.2% US Forest Service 344,468 22.1% USFS Wilderness Area 50,237 3.2% National Park Service 131,971 8.5% State Government 90,689 5.8% State Trust Land 79,662 5.1% State Parks and Recreation 10,177 0.7% State Wildlife Reserve 848 0.1% UDOT 3 0.00% Paiute Tribal Lands 28,183 1.8% Private 273,700 17.6% Water 1,577 0.1% Total 1,556,000 100% Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, last update March 3, 2007, downloaded September 19, 2007; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah. B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 15