The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

4

Prepared for Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

Prepared by James A. Wood John C. Downen Pamela S. Perlich Jan E. Crispin Bureau of Economic and Business Research The University of Utah

June 2007

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Key Findings ...... iii Executive Summary ...... v Changes in the Economic Base of Davis County, 1990–2005 ...... 1 Demographics ...... 1 Population...... 1 Race and Ethnicity ...... 3 Education...... 7 Income ...... 7 Poverty ...... 9 Components of Personal Income...... 11 Commuting Patterns...... 13 Employment and Wages...... 16 Employment...... 16 Occupations ...... 22 Wages ...... 25 Major Employers...... 25 Retail Sales...... 30 Consumer Expenditures...... 32 Tax Revenue ...... 35 Real Estate...... 37 Assessed Property Values...... 37 New Residential Construction...... 38 Real Estate Markets...... 41 Nonresidential Construction ...... 42 Commercial Development...... 43 Conversion of Land to Residential and Commercial Use...... 51 Projected Demand for Commercial Space...... 52 Agriculture and the Davis County Economy...... 54 Transportation...... 54 Legacy Parkway...... 55 Commuter Rail...... 55 Hill Air Force Base ...... 61 Historical Overview ...... 61 The Role of Hill Air Force Base in Davis County ...... 63 Outlook...... 67 Davis County in a Regional Context ...... 67 Demographics...... 68 Employment...... 68 Housing Inventory ...... 69 Commercial Sector...... 70 Retail Sector...... 71 Demographic Analysis of Davis County ...... 73 Population...... 73 Age ...... 73 Employment ...... 84 City Projections ...... 86

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH i

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS, cont’d.

City Baselines and Profiles ...... 93 Bountiful ...... 95 Centerville...... 115 Clearfield...... 135 Clinton...... 157 Farmington...... 174 Fruit Heights ...... 193 Kaysville...... 207 Layton...... 227 North Salt Lake...... 248 South Weber...... 269 Sunset ...... 286 Syracuse...... 303 West Bountiful...... 321 West Point ...... 340 Woods Cross...... 357

ii B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

K EY F INDINGS

(1) Since 1990, Davis County’s relative demographic and economic growth have been higher than Salt Lake and Weber Counties but lower than Utah County. Consequently, Davis County’s share and importance in the Wasatch Front economy has increased.

(2) The share of Davis County’s population in the northern portion of the county has increased substantially since 1990. Eighty percent of the county’s population growth since 1990 has been in northern Davis County. The five fastest growing cities in Davis County are all located in the northern portion of the county.

(3) Layton has dominated population growth with an increase of nearly 20,000 residents since 1990. The population gain for Layton exceeds the population gain for all southern Davis County cities. Layton also dominates in employment growth. Since 1990, 41% of the job growth in the county has been in Layton.

(4) In contrast to population, the shares of employment in north and south Davis County have been very stable. In 1990, 63% of the nonagricultural employment in Davis County was north of Farmington and by 2005 that share remained unchanged at 63%.

(5) The changing structure of the Davis County economy has led to a relative decline in the average wage rate. The high-wage government sector has declined from 36% of nonagricultural employment in 1990 to 25% in 2005. The share of manufacturing employment has also declined. In contrast, the service sector, a relatively low-wage sector, has expanded significantly, increasing from 28% to 36% of nonagricultural employment between 2001 and 2005. Half of all new jobs in the county during this period were service sector jobs.

(6) Davis County, with a 13.1% increase in employment between 2000 and 2005, leads the four Wasatch Front counties in job growth.

(7) Retail leakage from Davis County has been reduced in the past 10 years. Indicators of reduced retail leakage are Davis County’s increasing share of Wasatch Front retail sales and the county’s growing per-capita retail sales.

(8) Among Davis County cities there is a substantial variation in per-capita tax revenue, which reflects commercial and residential development patterns. Syracuse has the lowest tax revenue per capita at $164, while North Salt Lake has the highest at $493.

(9) Demographic changes will result in lower demand for “starter” homes, thus reducing levels of new home construction and land consumption in Clinton, Syracuse, Layton, North Salt Lake, and Woods Cross.

(10) New nonresidential construction activity shows that Davis County has maintained its share of office, industrial, and retail construction vis-a-vis the other Wasatch Front counties.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH iii

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

(11) Since 1990, approximately 700 acres a year have been converted from agricultural land to residential and commercial land in Davis County. Residential land accounts for 96% of the converted land. An estimated 13,000 acres have been converted to residential and commercial land since 1990. Layton ranks first in land conversion with nearly 2,300 acres. Woods Cross ranks first in commercial land converted with 98 acres.

(12) There are currently 60,000 acres “in farm land” in Davis County. Assuming half this land can be developed for residential and commercial use, there is sufficient land to meet the needs of residential and commercial development in the county for the next 30 years.

(13) Over the next 20 years the projected range in demand for commercial and industrial land needs is 325 acres to 700 acres, depending on rates of economic and demographic growth.

(14) Ninety percent of the county’s developed industrial property is located in Clearfield/Layton and North Salt Lake/Woods Cross. Sixty percent of developed office space is located in Layton and Bountiful, and nearly 45% of the retail space is located in Layton. These areas of concentration will continue to be advantaged and will capture a significant share of future commercial development.

iv B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

The purpose of this study is to examine the changing economic structure of Davis County over the past 15 years and to develop a current economic baseline for the county and its 15 municipalities. The study’s findings are intended to provide statistical and analytical support for Davis County’s future economic development strategies.

Demographic and Economic Baseline The 2006 economic baseline of Davis County is presented below. Similar profiles for each city are included in the full study.

Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Davis County

Population Population (2006) 286,547 Median Age (2005) 28.2 Households (2005) 81,754 Average Household Income (2006) $68,347

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 95,963 Employer Firms (2005) 6,586 Average Annual Wage (2005) $32,556 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Government 24,002 25.0% Trade, Transportation, Utilities 19,063 19.9% Manufacturing 10,591 11.0% Professional & Business Services 9,221 9.6% Education & Health Services 8,637 9.0%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $2,064.3 Major Retail Categories (millions) Motor Vehicles $514.9 General Merchandise $426.2 Food Stores $351.3 Per Capita Retail Sales $7,204

Housing, New Construction and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 93,000 100.0% Owner Occupied 72,800 78.3% Renter Occupied 17150 18.4% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $198,940 New $250,000

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $41.5 Property Tax Receipts $25.0 Sales and Use Tax Receipts $9.8 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $149 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Utah Population Estimates Committee; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH v

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Demographic Characteristics and Trends Compared to statewide averages, the Davis County population is young, less racially diverse, has higher educational attainment, higher incomes, and fewer individuals in poverty. Since 1990 the population of Davis County has grown by 52.4% from 188,000 to 286,500 (Table 1). Over the same period the total population of the Wasatch Front increased by 47.2 %. Davis County’s growth rate has accelerated since 2000, resulting in a gain of 19.3% between 2000 and 2006, compared to a 15.3% increase for the Wasatch Front.

Table 1 Population Change of Wasatch Front Counties, 1990–2006

1990 to 2006 2000 to 2006 1990 2000 2006 Change Change Davis 188,000 240,204 286,547 52.4% 19.3% Salt Lake 728,000 902,777 996,374 36.9% 10.4% Utah 266,000 371,894 475,425 78.7% 27.8% Weber 159,000 197,541 215,870 35.8% 9.3% Total 1,341,000 1,712,416 1,974,216 47.2% 15.3% Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget

Over the past 15 years Davis County has maintained a consistent share of the population base of the Wasatch Front. In 1990 Davis County accounted for 14% of the population of the four Wasatch Front counties, and by 2006 the county’s share had grown only slightly to 14.5% (Table 2). During this period Salt Lake and Weber Counties’ demographic shares declined, while Utah County made an impressive gain, moving from 19.8% in 1990 to 24.1% in 2006.

Table 2 Population Share of Wasatch Front Counties, 1990–2006

1990 2000 2006 Population Share Population Share Population Share Davis 188,000 14.0% 240,204 14.0% 286,547 14.5% Salt Lake 728,000 54.3% 902,777 52.7% 996,374 50.5% Utah 266,000 19.8% 371,894 21.7% 475,425 24.1% Weber 159,000 11.9% 197,541 11.5% 215,870 10.9% Total 1,341,000 100.0% 1,712,416 100.0% 1,974,216 100.0% Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget

All but one city in Davis County participated in this population expansion. The fastest growing city was Syracuse, with a population increase of 271%. In contrast, the nearby city of Sunset experienced a population decline of 6.9%.

The county’s population growth has been concentrated in the cities of northern Davis County (north of Farmington to the county line). Since 1990 the population of the county has increased by nearly 81,000 people, and 80% of this population growth has occurred in northern Davis County (Table 3). The five fastest growing cities in the county are all located in northern Davis County: Syracuse, Clinton, South Weber, West Point, and Kaysville. These five cities combined for an increase in population of 37,500 since 1990. The population of Layton, the largest city in the county, increased by 19,600 over the past 15 years, the largest absolute increase in population of any city. Since 1990, the population gain for Layton alone exceeds the population gain for all southern Davis County cities.

vi B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3 Population Change by City, 1990–2005

1990 2005 Change North Davis Layton 42,181 61,782 19,601 Clearfield 21,531 27,413 5,882 Kaysville 14,215 22,510 8,295 Syracuse 4,864 17,938 13,074 Clinton 8,015 17,735 9,720 West Point 3,998 7,650 4,779 South Weber 2,871 5,593 1,595 Sunset 5,348 4,947 -401 Fruit Heights 3,808 4,764 956 Total 106,831 170,332 63,501 South Davis Bountiful 38,656 41,085 2,429 Centerville 11,544 14,898 3,354 Farmington 9,506 14,357 4,851 North Salt Lake 6,784 10,538 3,754 Woods Cross 5,381 8,019 2,638 West Bountiful 4,514 4,896 382 Total 76,385 93,793 17,408 Grand Total 183,216 264,125 80,909 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

In 1990 Layton and Bountiful were the two largest cities in the county and they remained ranked first and second in 2005. In 1990 Layton was just slightly (10%) larger than Bountiful, but by 2005 Layton was 50% larger. Demographically, Layton has become the unchallenged leader among the 15 cities in the county.

Davis County’s population has high rates of out-commuting; 45.7% of the resident workers travel outside the county to their job location. In 2000, only Morgan County had a higher rate of out-commuting among Utah’s 29 counties. Two-thirds of the out-commuters work in Salt Lake County and nearly 30% work in Weber County. North Salt Lake has the highest rate of out- commuting with 63.9% of resident workers commuting outside the county. The rate for Bountiful is 53.0% and for Layton 41.7%. Although Davis County has high rates of out- commuting, the rate remained almost unchanged between 1990 and 2000, increasing only slightly from 45.5% to 45.7%. While the rate of out-commuting remained unchanged, the number of out-commuters rose from 36,000 in 1990 to 50,500 in 2000.

Out-commuting has created increased traffic congestion for Davis County, which has prompted the investment of $1.2 billion in commuter rail and the Legacy Parkway. These two transportation projects will be completed late in 2008.

Employment Characteristics and Trends Nonagricultural employment in Davis County increased from nearly 60,000 in 1990 to 96,000 in 2005, an average annual growth rate of 3.2%. Over the same period nonagricultural employment statewide grew at an average annual growth rate of 3.1%.

Davis County’s share of Wasatch Front employment has remained stable over the past 15 years. In 1990 Davis County had 10.2% of the employment in Wasatch Front counties, and by 2005 the county’s share had grown only slightly to 10.6% (Table 4). Both Salt Lake and Weber

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH vii

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Counties have lost employment share since 1990, while Utah County’s employment share, as was the case with population, has grown. In 1990 Utah County accounted for 16% of the employment in Wasatch Front counties and by 2005 that share had increased to 18.5%.

Table 4 Employment Share of Wasatch Front Counties

1990 2000 2005 Employ. Share Employ. Share Employ. Share Davis 59,738 10.2% 84,845 9.7% 95,963 10.6% Salt Lake 368,698 62.7% 545,153 62.6% 555,055 61.0% Utah 93,884 16.0% 152,699 17.5% 167,938 18.5% Weber 66,091 11.2% 88,346 10.1% 90,438 9.9% Total 588,411 100.0% 871,043 100.0% 909,394 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Among the four Wasatch Front counties, Davis County leads in employment growth since 2000 with an increase of 13.1% or about 11,100 new jobs. Utah County ranks second in rate of employment growth since 2000, with a 10% increase (Table 5).

Table 5 Employment Change in Wasatch Front Counties, 1990–2005

1990 to 2005 2000 to 2005 1990 2000 2005 Change Change Davis 59,738 84,845 95,963 60.6% 13.1% Salt Lake 368,698 545,153 555,055 50.5% 1.8% Utah 93,884 152,699 167,938 78.9% 10.0% Weber 66,091 88,346 90,438 36.8% 2.4% State 723,629 1,074,879 1,148,315 58.7% 6.8% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

While the structure of the Davis County economy has undergone change, the geographic concentration of employment has been stable: Clearfield continues to dominate manufacturing employment, Layton retail employment, and Bountiful and Layton office employment.

Davis County has the highest ratio of population to employment of any of the Wasatch Front counties. In 2005 there were 2.9 persons in Davis County for every job, higher even than Utah County’s Table 6 2.72 persons per job (Table 6). Davis County’s high ratio Ratio of Population to is due to out-commuting, which more than offsets those Employment in Wasatch Front Counties, 1990–2005 factors in Utah County creating a high population-to- employment ratio—very young population, high rate of 1990 2000 2005 population growth, and large households. Davis 3.15 2.83 2.90 Salt Lake 1.98 1.66 1.76 Utah 2.83 2.44 2.72 In contrast to population, the employment shares of Weber 2.40 2.24 2.36 north and south Davis County have been very stable. In State 2.39 2.09 2.22 1990, 63% of the nonagricultural employment in Davis Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services County was north of Farmington and in 2005 that share was unchanged at 63%. The employment growth in Farmington, North Salt Lake, and Centerville has helped south Davis County maintain its share of total nonagricultural employment in the county.

viii B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Layton’s employment growth has been spectacular, increasing from 9,284 jobs in 1990 to 24,165 in 2005, an increase of 160.3% (Table 7). Although Clearfield–South Weber continues to be the largest employment concentration in the county, it has experienced only a 13.5% increase in employment over the past 15 years. It is very likely that Layton will overtake Clearfield–South Weber as the largest employment center of the county within the next few years.

Table 7 Employment Change by City, 1990–2005

Absolute Percent 1990 2005 Change Change Bountiful 10,647 11,907 1,260 11.8% Centerville 1,776 4,225 2,449 137.9% Clearfield–So. Weber 23,531 26,717 3,186 13.5% Farmington 2,488 5,191 2,703 108.6% Kaysville 2,615 5,840 3,225 123.3% Layton 9,284 24,165 14,881 160.3% North Salt Lake 4,007 7,401 3,394 84.7% Sunset–Syracuse 2,421 3,954 1,533 63.3% West Bountiful 0 1,928 1,928 Woods Cross 2,969 4,378 1,409 47.5% Total 59,738 95,706 35,968 60.6% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

In 1990 wages in Davis County were 4% above the state average, but by 2005 had fallen 1% below. Wage rates have increased at 3.1% annually since 1990 in Davis County, slightly below the statewide annual increase of 3.5%. The average wage in 2005 in Davis County was $32,556 compared to the state average of $32,832.

The relative decline in wages is due to the changing structure of the Davis County economy. Although government remains a dominant sector, its share of nonagricultural jobs has dropped from 36.6% in 1990 to 25.0% in 2005. Hill AFB is the major government employer with 17,500 employees (civilian and military) in 2006. Although employment at Hill AFB has increased since 1990, it has not grown as rapidly as overall employment. Consequently, the civilian employment at Hill AFB has dropped from 16% of nonagricultural employment in 1990 to 12.5% in 2005.

Other changes in the structure of Davis County’s economy include the decline of manufacturing from nearly 15% of nonagricultural employment in 1995 to 11% in 2005, and most significantly the expansion of the service sector (professional and business services, education and health, leisure and hospitality, and other services). Between 2001 and 2005 the share of employment in services increased from 28.3% to 36.0% of nonagricultural employment. Over this period the number of service jobs increased by 4,300 and accounted for 50% of the job growth in the county.

Agriculture has not played an important role in the Davis County economy for several generations. Davis County can be characterized as one of the least agricultural counties in the state. The earnings data for 2005 show that farms in Davis County actually lost $7.7 million, thus making no contribution to the personal income of the county. The market value of agricultural products produced in Davis County represents a small fraction of the market value of Utah’s agricultural products. Currently, only 2.7% of the value of agricultural products sold in Utah is produced in Davis County (Table 8).

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH ix

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Retail Sales In 2005 retail sales in Davis County totaled nearly $2.1 Table 8 billion (Table 9). The largest retail sector was motor Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold, 1969–2002 vehicles with a 25% share. This sector’s share of sales has (millions of current dollars) declined slightly from its 1990 level of 27.5%. The most rapidly growing sector has been building and garden with County Year Davis State Share a 226.7% increase in sales between 1990 and 2005. The 1969 $10.1 $212.9 4.74% second-ranked sector in terms of growth is general 1978 $18.8 $468.5 4.01% merchandise, which increased by 181.7% over the 15-year 1987 $28.6 $617.8 4.63% 1997 $34.9 $888.5 3.93% period. With the recent addition of Costco in West 2002 $30.4 $1,115.8 2.72% Bountiful, the rate of growth for general merchandise Source: Census of Agriculture: Utah sales is certain to accelerate.

Table 9 In 2006 residents of Davis County had an Retail Sales in Davis County (millions of constant 2005 dollars) estimated household income of $5.7 billion. Residents will spend $4.6 billion on Category 1990 2005 Change consumer purchases, with the largest Building and Garden $60.7 $198.3 226.7% General Merchandise $151.3 $426.2 181.7% expenditure for housing, followed by Food Stores $315.3 $351.3 11.4% transportation and food (Table 10). Motor Vehicles $308.4 $514.9 67.0% Apparel $26.2 $72.6 177.1% Furniture $83.6 $100.6 20.3% Over the past several years Davis County Eating and Drinking $100.6 $210.8 109.5% has improved its retail position among the Miscellaneous $74.0 $189.6 156.2% Wasatch Front counties. The development Total $1,120.2 $2,064.3 84.3% Source: Utah State Tax Commission since the mid-1990s of over 1.5 million square feet of retail space near the Layton Hills Mall, along with major retail developments in Centerville and Bountiful, has reduced retail leakage from the county. An indicator of reduced retail leakage is the increase in market share for Davis County. The county’s share of Wasatch Front retail sales has increased from 10.9% in 1990 to 12.1% in 2005 (Table 11).

Table 10 Potential Consumer Expenditures by Residents of Davis County, 2006

Expenditures (millions) Food $550.4 Alcoholic beverages $45.8 Housing $1,564.3 Apparel and services $169.7 Transportation $871.6 Health Care $229.4 Entertainment $256.9 Personal Care $55.0 Reading $13.7 Education $82.6 Tobacco products $22.9 Miscellaneous $87.2 Cash contributions $142.2 Personal insurance and pensions $500.0 Total $4,587.4 Source: Utah State Tax Commission

x B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11 Share of Wasatch Front Retail Sales by County, 1990–2005 (millions of current dollars)

Davis Salt Lake Utah Weber Year Sales Share Sales Share Sales Share Sales Share Total 1990 $749.8 10.9% $4,210.1 61.0% $1,076.6 15.6% $861.1 12.5% $6,897.6 2000 $1,553.2 11.2% $8,206.2 59.4% $2,553.9 18.5% $1,507.0 10.9% $13,820.3 2005 $2,063.9 12.1% $9,924.6 58.1% $3,395.6 19.9% $1,698.5 9.9% $17,082.6 Note: Retail sales include building and garden, general merchandise, food, motor vehicles, apparel, furniture, eating and drinking, and miscellaneous retail. Source: Utah State Tax Commission

Reduced retail leakage is confirmed by the increase in retail sales per capita in Davis County. Retail sales per capita have risen from $3,988 in 1990 to $7,203 in 2006, an 80% increase, the highest increase among the four Wasatch Front counties (Table 12). Adjusting retail sales for inflation, 1990 retail sales per capita in Davis County were $6,154. Therefore, in real dollars retail sales per capita have increased 17% since 1990, compared to 14% for Utah County, the second- ranked county.

Table 12 Retail Sales per Capita by County, 1990–2005

1990 2000 2005 Change Davis $3,988 $6,466 $7,203 80.6% Salt Lake $5,783 $9,090 $9,961 72.2% Utah $4,047 $6,867 $7,142 76.5% Weber $5,416 $7,629 $7,868 45.3% Note: Retail sales include building and garden, general merchandise, food, motor vehicles, apparel, furniture, eating and drinking, and miscellaneous retail. Source: Utah State Tax Commission

Tax Revenue Table 13 The assessed value of real and personal Per Capita Tax Revenue by City, 2005 property in Davis County in 2006 was $12 billion, 26% larger than the assessed value Property in 1997 of $9.5 billion (in constant 2005 Tax Sales Tax Total* Bountiful $68.04 $167.73 $274.90 dollars). The assessed value of commercial Centerville $99.61 $166.21 $337.62 and industrial property has risen at twice Clearfield $146.68 $171.77 $365.84 Clinton $60.17 $114.93 $239.59 the rate of residential property. In 1997 the Farmington $132.19 $115.76 $329.19 assessed value of commercial and industrial Fruit Heights $73.84 $75.27 $177.22 property was $1.3 billion, and by 2006 the Kaysville $62.05 $124.13 $243.29 Layton $85.90 $189.42 $313.90 value had grown to $2.4 billion, an increase North Salt Lake $142.75 $236.24 $493.33 of 81%. Over the same period the assessed South Weber $40.35 $79.98 $179.69 value of residential property increased by Sunset $40.36 $136.81 $206.40 Syracuse $32.58 $68.39 $164.41 42.7%. Residential property’s share of total West Bountiful $136.52 $226.22 $408.69 assessed value is 63%, compared to 20% West Point $41.56 $78.44 $196.24 for commercial and industrial property. Woods Cross $103.35 $199.64 $330.41 *Property tax and sales tax do not add to total taxes due to other sources of tax revenue. The per-capita property and sales tax Source: Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of revenue for each city reflects the differences Utah; BEBR calculations based on Governor’s Office of Planning in residential and commercial development and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH xi

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

patterns among the cities. Those cities, such as North Salt Lake, Clearfield, West Bountiful, and Layton, that have substantial amounts of commercial property collect much more in property taxes on a per capita basis. Small cities with a commercial tax base are particularly advantaged. North Salt Lake and West Bountiful are the only two cities that collect over $400 per resident in tax revenue. Tax revenue for cities dominated by residential development collect, on a per capita basis, much less tax revenue. Cities such as Fruit Heights, South Weber, West Point, and Syracuse all collect less than $200 in tax revenue per resident (Table 13).

Housing The local housing market represents one of the most important components of Davis County’s economic base. The county’s current housing inventory of 93,000 units comprises 75,000 owner-occupied units and 18,000 rental units (Table 14). Table 14 These residential units have an assessed value of $7.6 billion. Davis County Housing The inventory of housing is concentrated in three cities: Profile, 2006

Layton, Bountiful, and Clearfield. These three cities account Units for nearly half of all residential units in Davis County (Table Total Housing Units 93,000 15). Vacant Units 3,050 Total Occupied Units 89,950 Owner Occupied 72,800 Housing prices vary greatly among cities in Davis County Vacant Owner Units 2,200 (Table 16). Fruit Heights and Farmington have the highest Total Owner Units 75,000 Renter Occupied 17,150 median sales price for existing homes, while Centerville has Vacant Rental Units 850 the highest median sales price for new homes. Clinton and Total Rental Units 18,000 Woods Cross have the lowest priced new and existing Source: Bureau of Economic and Business homes in the county. Despite the presence of some of the Research, University of Utah highest priced housing markets in the state, Davis County’s affordable housing prices have been the driving force behind population growth in Syracuse, Clinton, North Salt Lake, and Layton.

Table 15 Table 16 Housing Inventory by City, Median Sales Price for Existing 2006 and New Homes, 2006

Total Existing New Share Units Fruit Heights $299,900 NA Layton 22,200 23.9% Farmington $289,000 $235,869 Bountiful 14,725 15.8% North Salt Lake $270,165 $211,184 Clearfield 9,500 10.2% Centerville $257,000 $415,789 Kaysville 7,350 7.9% Kaysville $255,000 $321,354 Syracuse 6,100 6.6% Bountiful $244,000 $368,333 Clinton 5,950 6.4% South Weber $239,900 $287,019 North Salt Lake 4,825 5.2% Syracuse $232,500 $228,422 Centerville 4,750 5.1% Woods Cross $209,500 $177,500 Farmington 4,700 5.1% West Bountiful $204,500 $353,333 Woods Cross 2,875 3.1% West Point $189,500 $230,978 West Point 2,560 2.8% Layton $187,485 $289,534 Sunset 1,840 2.0% Clinton $170,000 $195,752 South Weber 1,650 1.8% Clearfield $142,000 $200,000 West Bountiful 1,550 1.7% Sunset $116,450 NA Fruit Heights 1,460 1.6% Source: Wasatch Front Regional MLS and NewReach Unincorporated 965 1.0% Total 93,000 100.0% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

xii B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Farmington has had the greatest appreciation in home prices since 1997 (Table 17). The median sales price of existing homes increased by 89.2%, well ahead of second-ranked Bountiful at 76.2%. Clearfield and Sunset had the lowest levels of price appreciation. Table 17 Affordable housing opportunities have attracted many young Cities Ranked by Percent families to west Davis County communities. The demand was Change in Median Sales driven by the unique age structure of the Utah population. Price of Existing Homes, 1997–2006 Between 2000 and 2005 the population of the 25–29-year age group increased significantly. In Davis County this age group Change grew by 36%, creating very strong demand for “starter” Farmington 89.2% homes. However, the demographics are changing for both the Bountiful 76.2% Kaysville 73.1% county and the state. This age group will increase by only 14% Fruit Heights 65.8% between 2005 and 2010. The peak year in Davis County for Syracuse 60.4% the 25–29-year age group will be 2009, then the population of North Salt Lake 57.8% Davis 53.8% this age group slowly recedes until 2024, when it reverses South Weber 52.8% direction. The changing age structure of the population will Clinton 51.7% mean less demand for “starter” homes in the near future in Centerville 50.4% Woods Cross 47.3% both the state and Davis County. Peak rates of residential Layton 45.2% construction for many of the cities in Davis County were West Bountiful 43.8% reached in 2005 and will not be surpassed for several years. West Point 39.1% Clearfield 37.0% Sunset 28.6% Nonresidential and Commercial Real Estate Market Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple When measured in constant 2006 dollars, the peak period for Listing Service nonresidential construction activity in Davis County was 1995–1998, while the peak year was 1997 at $145.6 million (Table 18). Over the 1994–2006 period, nonresidential construction averaged $112 million annually. Since 1994 Layton has led in retail and office construction and North Salt Lake has led in industrial construction.

Table 18 Since 2000 the value of new industrial, office, and retail Value of Permit-Authorized buildings in Davis County totals $303.2 million (Table Nonresidential Construction in 19). The new construction activity is distributed almost Davis County, 1994–2006 (000) evenly between the three commercial categories; industrial $103.8 million, office $103.0 million and retail Current Constant ’06 Year $96.4 million. Compared to the other Wasatch Front Dollars Dollars 1994 $62,232.8 $104,115.2 counties, Davis County has captured its proportional 1995 $89,334.2 $143,987.8 share of new commercial development. Davis County’s 1996 $66,018.7 $103,669.0 employment base is about one-sixth the size of Salt 1997 $96,387.3 $145,590.7 1998 $95,668.9 $138,188.4 Lake County’s and Salt Lake County has had about six 1999 $67,656.9 $94,126.2 times the amount of new commercial construction since 2000 $65,802.4 $87,699.7 2000: $1.8 billion compared to $300 million. Utah 2001 $66,931.3 $86,584.9 2002 $66,364.5 $85,019.5 County’s employment base is nearly double that of 2003 $95,525.3 $121,983.2 Davis County and new commercial construction in Utah 2004 $83,437.9 $101,017.2 County has been about twice that of Davis County. The 2005 $116,461.2 $128,805.8 2006 $121,904.6 $121,904.6 new construction data indicate that commercial Total $1,093,726.0 $1,462,692.1 development in Davis County since 2000 has been Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, consistent with the employment base of the county and University of Utah shows no signs, in relative terms, of lagging behind commercial development in Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber Counties.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH xiii

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 19 Comparison of Construction Value for Industrial, Office, and Retail 2000–2006 (millions of current dollars)

Davis % of Davis % Davis % Davis Salt Lake Utah Weber Salt Lake of Utah of Weber Industrial $103.8 $530.1 19.6% $147.4 70.4% $74.9 138.5% Office $103.0 $691.8 14.9% $227.7 45.2% $93.0 110.8% Retail $96.4 $582.7 16.5% $234.1 41.2% $97.3 99.1% Total $303.2 $1,804.6 16.8% $609.2 49.8% $265.2 1.14% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

In 2006 Davis County’s retail inventory of 6.2 million square feet was 12.8% of the retail space in the Wasatch Front counties. The county’s 21.1 million square feet of industrial space was 12.9% of the industrial space along the Wasatch Front, while the 3.5 million square feet of office space represents only 8.4% of the office space inventory. The relative position of the county’s office space inventory is not quite as strong as its retail and industrial inventories (Table 20).

Table 20 Inventory and Share of Leasable Commercial Space by County, 2006 (million square feet)

Retail Office Industrial Sq. Ft. Share Sq. Ft. Share Sq. Ft. Share Davis 6.2 12.8% 3.5 8.4% 21.1 12.9% Salt Lake 28.3 58.2% 27.8 66.8% 100.0 61.0% Utah 9.0 18.5% 7.5 18.0% 14.5 8.8% Weber 5.1 10.5% 2.8 6.7% 28.3 17.3% Total 48.6 100.0% 41.6 100.0% 163.9 100.0% Source: Commerce CRG

Land Use Since 1990 over 11,700 acres in Davis County have been platted for residential subdivisions (Table 21). Each year an average of about 700 acres of land is converted from agricultural use to residential use. In 2005 the number of acres platted for residential use reached an all-time high of 1,062 acres. Acreage platted for commercial use since 1990 amounts to a fraction, 4%, of the land platted for residential use. Since 1990 only 443 acres have been platted for commercial use in Davis County.

Since 1990 Layton City has platted nearly 2,300 acres for residential and commercial development (Table 22). Layton leads Syracuse, the second-ranked city, by 460 acres. Woods Cross ranks first among all cities in commercial acreage platted. Since 1990 Woods Cross has platted 98.5 acres for commercial development.

xiv B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 21 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Davis County, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 249.19 0.00 1991 176.44 0.00 1992 474.25 0.48 1993 525.35 0.00 1994 657.81 15.93 1995 728.25 93.02 1996 763.98 12.59 1997 957.71 32.95 1998 784.73 42.18 1999 982.46 48.59 2000 819.10 59.59 2001 917.32 19.78 2002 747.34 27.06 2003 561.62 24.90 2004 461.43 0.00 2005 1,062.45 26.81 2006 864.89 27.76 Total 11,734.32 443.85 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

Table 22 Cities Ranked by Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development from 1990 through 2006

Residential Commercial Total Layton 2,193.23 87.51 2,280.74 Syracuse 1,817.09 4.15 1,821.24 Kaysville 1,507.27 2.22 1,509.49 Clinton 1,216.05 8.05 1,224.10 Bountiful 1,016.17 22.95 1,039.12 North Salt Lake 722.13 80.74 802.87 Farmington 715.81 37.66 753.47 Clearfield 570.77 25.61 596.38 Centerville 413.49 75.91 489.40 Woods Cross 343.88 98.50 442.38 West Point 387.27 0.00 387.27 South Weber 381.22 0.00 381.22 Fruit Heights 197.93 0.00 197.93 West Bountiful 155.95 0.55 156.50 Unincorporated 90.00 0.00 90.00 Sunset 6.06 0.00 6.06 Total 11,734.32 443.85 12,178.17 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

The 2002 Census of Agriculture for Utah reported that Davis County had 65,857 acres of land in 582 farms. Since 2002, about 5,000 acres have been converted to residential and commercial use. Therefore, an estimated 60,000 acres in Davis County are currently defined as “land in farms.” Certainly not all of these acres can be developed for residential or commercial use. A high water

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH xv

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities table, topography, and other features will limit the number of convertible acres. Nevertheless, assuming that 50% of the land currently in farms is suitable for conversion, this 30,000 acres, at the current pace of development, would meet the residential and commercial growth needs of Davis County for about 30 years.

Projected Demand for Commercial Space The future need for commercial land is an important economic development issue for “land- constrained” Davis County. Davis County is the Table 23 smallest Wasatch Front county with 305 square Land Area by County miles compared to Utah County, the largest Square Davis % county, with 1,998 square miles (Table 23). Land Acres Miles Comparison area constraints in Davis County have and will Davis 305 194,866 100.0% continue to, at an increasing rate, impact Salt Lake 738 471,922 41.3% development patterns and characteristics in the Utah 1,998 1,278,932 15.3% Weber 576 368,344 53.0% county. Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture: Utah The demand projections for commercial space in Davis County over the next ten years range from 160 acres to 315 acres, depending on rates of demographic and economic growth (Table 24).

Table 24 Between 2017 and 2027 a minimum of Additional Commercial Space 167 acres and a maximum of 385 acres Requirements by 2017 in Davis County will be required to meet the demand for (acres) office, industrial and retail space (Table

Office Industrial Retail Total 25). For the twenty-year period 2007 to Low Scenario 33 80 47 160 2027, a range of roughly 320 to 700 acres Medium Scenario 50 125 55 230 of commercial land will be needed for High Scenario 70 170 75 315 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah office, industrial, and retail space in Davis County.

In order to be competitive, industrial development will generally need to be in close proximity to I-15. Four cities, West Point, Syracuse, Fruit Heights, and South Weber, are not crossed by I-15 although Highway 89 does travel through Table 25 Fruit Heights and South Weber. Additional Commercial Space Nevertheless, industrial development in Requirements from 2017 to 2027 these four cities will be limited. Ninety in Davis County (acres) percent of the industrial development in Davis County is currently located near Office Industrial Retail Total I-15 at Layton/Clearfield and Woods Low Scenario 40 95 32 167 Medium Scenario 65 160 37 262 Cross/North Salt Lake locations. These High Scenario 90 240 50 380 concentrations of development represent Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah the most competitive and feasible locations for future industrial development in Davis County.

Sixty percent of the office space in Davis County is located in the cities of Bountiful and Layton. Bountiful, with its close proximity to the employment and commercial base of downtown Salt Lake City, as well as its existing commercial development, possesses locational advantages for future office development. Likewise, Layton has the locational advantages of a large, well-

xvi B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities developed commercial sector as well as its central location to rapidly growing north Davis County. Both Bountiful and Layton offer backward linkages (suppliers, business support services) and forward linkages (customers), which enhances the feasibility of office development in these cities.

Retail development is generally more dispersed than either industrial or office employment. Although Layton accounts for 41% of the retail space in the county, the remaining 60% is spread throughout 11 other cities. Two cities, Bountiful and Centerville, do have somewhat higher levels of concentration than the typical city. Bountiful’s retail presence is due to its population base and the city’s long historical role in the commercial development of Davis County. Centerville’s retail development is much more recent, with the development of the 600,000-square-foot Centerville Market Place in 1997. Centerville has the retail advantage of a central location between the populations of north and south Davis County. In the future, retail development will continue to agglomerate around the existing concentrations but will also follow the anticipated population growth in northwest Davis County.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH xvii

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

C HANGES IN THE E CONOMIC B ASE OF D AVIS C OUNTY, 1990–2005

Demographics

Population From 1990 to 2005, the population of Davis County grew 42.7%, from 187,941 to 268,187 (Exhibit 1.1). Among the fifteen cities in Davis County, growth rates ranged from –6.9% for Sunset to 271.3% in Syracuse. The population of the unincorporated parts of the county declined 28.2%, from 5,655 to 4,062. The unincorporated share of total county population decreased from 3.0% to 1.5%.

Table 1.1 shows the 1990 to 2000 population growth by age groups. The county’s population aged over the period, with the median age increasing from 24.7 in 1990 to 26.8 in 2000. Children under 5 years old and 5 to 17-year-olds decreased as a share of the population, as did 25 to 44- year-olds. The fastest-growing group in the county was 45 to 54-year-olds, which increased 62.3% over the period and whose share grew from 8.5% to 10.8%. The group of 21 to 24-year- olds showed significant gains, increasing 57.5%, as did the larger college-age group of 18 to 24- year-olds, which grew 51.9%. The 65-and-older group also grew substantially, with a 51.6% gain.

Table 1.1 Davis County Population Change by Age Group, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 187,941 238,994 27.2% Age Under 5 Years 20,000 10.6% 23,329 9.8% 16.6% 5 to 17 Years 55,426 29.5% 60,634 25.4% 9.4% 18 to 20 Years 9,000 4.8% 13,087 5.5% 45.4% 21 to 24 Years 10,250 5.5% 16,145 6.8% 57.5% 18 to 24 Years 19,250 10.2% 29,232 12.2% 51.9% 25 to 44 Years 62,005 33.0% 67,365 28.2% 8.6% 45 to 54 Years 15,917 8.5% 25,839 10.8% 62.3% 55 to 59 Years 6,237 3.3% 8,550 3.6% 37.1% 60 to 64 Years 5,147 2.7% 6,505 2.7% 26.4% 65 Years and Over 11,567 6.2% 17,540 7.3% 51.6% Median Age 24.7 26.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

From 1990 to 2000, the number of households in Davis County increased 32.8%, slightly faster than the state as a whole, from 53,598 to 71,201 (Table 1.2). According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the number of households in the county further grew to 81,754 in 2005, an increase of 14.8% over 2000. Like the state, and indeed the nation, the county’s household size declined, from 3.45 in 1990 to 3.31 persons in 2000. This is still larger than the statewide average of 3.13, and considerably larger than the national average of 2.59. Within Davis County, household sizes in 2000 ranged from 2.92 persons in Sunset to 3.77 in Syracuse. Syracuse also experienced the greatest relative growth in the number of households, more than doubling from 1,168 to 2,490. The largest absolute gain was in Layton, which grew by 5,552 households.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 1

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 1.1 Davis County Population Change by City, 1990–2005

Absolute Percent 1990 2000 2005 Change Change Davis County 187,941 238,994 268,187 80,246 42.7% Bountiful 38,400 41,303 41,085 2,685 7.0% Centerville 11,536 14,585 14,898 3,362 29.1% Clearfield 21,561 25,974 27,413 5,852 27.1% Clinton 7,961 12,585 17,735 9,774 122.8% Farmington 9,443 12,118 14,357 4,914 52.0% Fruit Heights 3,783 4,701 4,764 981 25.9% Kaysville 14,120 20,354 22,510 8,390 59.4% Layton 41,900 58,634 61,782 19,882 47.5% North Salt Lake 6,786 8,749 10,538 3,752 55.3% South Weber 2,853 4,260 5,593 2,740 96.0% Sunset 5,312 5,204 4,947 -365 -6.9% Syracuse 4,831 9,617 17,938 13,107 271.3% West Bountiful 4,484 4,519 4,896 412 9.2% West Point 3,971 6,037 7,650 3,679 92.6% Woods Cross 5,345 6,426 8,019 2,674 50.0% Balance of Davis County 5,655 4,395 4,062 -1,593 -28.2% Unincorporated Share of County 3.0% 1.8% 1.5% Note: 1990 and 2000 figures are for April 1; 2005 estimate is for July 1. Source: U.S. Census Bureau intercensal population estimates

2 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.2 Change in Households in Davis County, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Households Size Households Size Households Size Utah 537,273 3.15 701,281 3.13 30.5% -0.6% Davis County 53,598 3.45 71,201 3.31 32.8% -4.1% Bountiful 11,152 3.25 13,341 3.05 19.6% -6.2% Centerville 3,017 3.81 4,138 3.52 37.2% -7.6% Clearfield 6,168 3.22 7,921 3.12 28.4% -3.1% Clinton 2,003 3.97 3,529 3.55 76.2% -10.6% Farmington 2,199 4.05 3,087 3.72 40.4% -8.1% Fruit Heights 985 3.96 1,256 3.74 27.5% -5.6% Kaysville 3,751 3.72 5,496 3.69 46.5% -0.8% Layton 12,730 3.28 18,282 3.19 43.6% -2.7% North Salt Lake 2,062 3.14 2,874 3.04 39.4% -3.2% South Weber 677 3.89 1,080 3.76 59.5% -3.3% Sunset 1,706 3.01 1,785 2.92 4.6% -3.0% Syracuse 1,168 3.99 2,490 3.77 113.2% -5.5% West Bountiful 1,101 4.07 1,250 3.59 13.5% -11.8% West Point 1,117 3.81 1,645 3.67 47.3% -3.7% Woods Cross 1,558 3.46 1,936 3.32 24.3% -4.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

In 2000, 3,481 of the county’s 238,994 people lived in group quarters (Table 1.3). Of these, 1,262 were institutionalized, primarily in nursing homes and correctional institutions. The remainder lived in Job Corps and vocational training facilities (1,215), military quarters (618), group homes (116), and other arrangements (270). Clearfield housed the largest portion, 36.5%, of group quarters residents, with 1,271. This represented nearly 5% of the city’s population. Most, 1,018, were in Job Corps and vocational training facilities; another 93 were in nursing homes; and 63 were in group homes. Farmington and Bountiful had the next largest shares, with 592 and 564, respectively. Farmington’s were primarily in correctional and juvenile institutions, while Bountiful’s were mostly residents of nursing homes and other noninstitutional group quarters. South Weber had 197 residents in Job Corps and vocational training facilities. Fruit Heights, North Salt Lake, Sunset, Syracuse, West Bountiful, West Point, and Woods Cross all had no group quarters population.

Greater population details, including historical data from 1940 to 2006 and projections to 2050, are presented in the Demographic Analysis section of this report.

Race and Ethnicity Exhibits 1.2a and 1.2b show the population structure by five-year age group and sex, and the racial and ethnic composition of Davis County in 1990 and 2000. Although the minority population increased (from 7.3% to 10.2%), the county remains largely white and non-Hispanic. Minority is here defined as those who are not white alone, which includes persons of other races as well as persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Non-Hispanic Asians are the largest racial minority, at 1.5% of the county’s total population and 14.6% of the minority population in 2000. Hispanics, an ethnic group that can be of any race, made up 5.4% of the total population and 53.2% of the minority population.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 3

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.3 Davis County Group Quarters Population by City and Detailed Type, 2000

Davis County Bountiful Centerville Clearfield Clinton Farmington Fruit Heights Kaysville Layton North Salt Lake South Weber Sunset Syracuse West Bountiful West Point Cross Woods TOTAL GROUP QUARTERS 3,481 564 10 1,271 71 592 0 59 99 0 197 0 0 0 0 0 Share of county group quarters population 100.0% 16.2% 0.3% 36.5% 2.0% 17.0% 0.0% 1.7% 2.8% 0.0% 5.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Share of local population 1.5% 1.4% 0.1% 4.9% 0.6% 4.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Institutionalized 1,262 429 0 111 71 591 0 54 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Correctional institutions: 542 0 0 13 0 529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Local jails and other confinement facilities 529 0 0 0 0 529 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other types of correctional institutions 13 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nursing homes 649 427 0 93 71 0 0 54 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hospitals/wards, hospices, and schools for the handicapped: 9 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hospitals or wards for drug/alcohol abuse 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mental (Psychiatric) hospitals or wards 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Schools, hospitals, or wards for the mentally retarded 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wards in general hospitals for patients who have no usual home elsewhere 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juvenile institutions 62 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Noninstitutionalized 2,219 135 10 1,160 0 1 0 5 93 0 197 0 0 0 0 0 College dormitories 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Military quarters 618 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Group homes: 116 22 10 63 0 0 0 5 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homes or halfway houses for drug/alcohol abuse 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homes for the mentally ill 17 8 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Homes for the mentally retarded 21 7 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other group homes 71 0 10 54 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dormitories: 1,215 0 0 1,018 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 0 0 0 0 0 Job Corps and vocational training facilities 1,215 0 0 1,018 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 0 0 0 0 0 Other nonhousehold living situations 13 0 0 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other noninstitutional group quarters 257 113 0 67 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and BEBR calculations

4 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 1.2a Davis County Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black 75 - 79 16.6% 70 - 74 65 - 69 American 60 - 64 Indian, 55 - 59 Es kimo, or 50 - 54 Aleut 45 - 49 40 - 44 7.2% Hispanic 35 - 39 52.9% 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 Asian or 15 - 19 Pacific 10 - 14 Islander 5 - 9 22.6% Under 5 Other race 12,000 8,000 4,000 0 4,000 8,000 12,000 0.6% Male Female

Age Distribution of the Davis County Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share State Under 5 10,246 9,754 1.05 10.6% 11.8% Davis County Share of 5–9 11,517 10,789 1.07 11.9% 12.1% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share State 10–14 11,385 10,875 1.05 11.8% 12.1% Total 187,941 100.0% 10.9% 15–19 8,991 8,084 1.11 9.1% 11.2% 20–24 6,794 6,241 1.09 6.9% 9.5% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 7,176 7,322 0.98 7.7% 10.6% White 174,198 92.7% 11.1% 30–34 7,702 7,607 1.01 8.1% 11.1% Black 2,282 1.2% 21.0% 35–39 6,655 6,918 0.96 7.2% 10.9% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 995 0.5% 4.4% 40–44 5,415 5,602 0.97 5.9% 11.0% Asian or Pacific Islander 3,112 1.7% 9.6% 45–49 4,364 4,514 0.97 4.7% 11.5% Other race 79 0.0% 8.8% 50–54 3,445 3,594 0.96 3.7% 11.5% Ethnicity 55–59 3,103 3,134 0.99 3.3% 11.4% Hispanic Origin 7,275 3.9% 4.8% 60–64 2,533 2,614 0.97 2.7% 9.8% 65–69 2,213 2,319 0.95 2.4% 9.3% Minority 13,743 7.3% 9.1% 70–74 1,414 1,600 0.88 1.6% 7.6% 75–79 800 1,116 0.72 1.0% 6.5% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 495 732 0.68 0.7% 6.5% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 258 620 0.42 0.5% 6.5% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that Total 94,506 93,435 1.01 100.0% 10.9% the county's share of the state for the given category exceeds the county's Share 60 years+ 8.9% 5.7% share of total population in the state. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Median Age 24.7 female ratio greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 5

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 1.2b Davis County Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition

85 + Black alone 80 - 84 (NH) 75 - 79 10 . 3 % 70 - 74 AIAN alone (NH) 65 - 69 4.8% 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 Asian alone (NH) 45 - 49 14 . 6 % 40 - 44 Hispanic 53.2% 35 - 39 NHPI alone 30 - 34 (NH) 25 - 29 2.5% 20 - 24 Some other 15 - 19 race alone (NH) 10 - 14 0.8% 5 - 9 Two or more Under 5 races (NH) 13 . 7 % 14,000 10,000 6,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 10,000 14,000 Male Female

Age Distribution of the Davis County Population Sex Share Male Female Ratio Share of State Under 5 11,993 11,336 1.06 9.8% 11.1% Davis County Share 5–9 11,686 10,886 1.07 9.4% 11.7% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share of State 10–14 11,700 11,361 1.03 9.6% 12.0% Total 238,994 100.0% 10.7% 15–19 12,445 11,587 1.07 10.1% 11.1% 20–24 10,433 9,768 1.07 8.5% 9.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 226,039 94.6% 11.1% 25–29 8,668 8,701 1.00 7.3% 9.7% White alone 214,636 89.8% 11.3% 30–34 7,967 7,972 1.00 6.7% 10.7% Black or African American alone 2,521 1.1% 15.6% 35–39 8,571 8,536 1.00 7.2% 11.4% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 1,174 0.5% 4.4% 40–44 8,582 8,368 1.03 7.1% 11.4% Asian alone 3,568 1.5% 9.8% 45–49 7,189 7,338 0.98 6.1% 11.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 609 0.3% 4.1% 50–54 5,642 5,670 1.00 4.7% 10.7% Some other race alone 204 0.1% 10.5% 55–59 4,216 4,334 0.97 3.6% 10.7% Two or more races 3,327 1.4% 10.6% 60–64 3,155 3,350 0.94 2.7% 10.4% Ethnicity 65–69 2,636 2,905 0.91 2.3% 10.3% Hispanic or Latino 12,955 5.4% 6.4% 70–74 2,074 2,360 0.88 1.9% 9.3% 75–79 1,668 1,998 0.83 1.5% 9.2% Minority 24,358 10.2% 7.4% 80–84 894 1,311 0.68 0.9% 8.1% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, SF1. 85 + 532 1,162 0.46 0.7% 7.8% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 120,051 118,943 1.01 100.0% 10.7% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the Share 60 years+ 10.1% 9.5% county's share of the state for the given category exceeds the county's share of total population in the state. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater Median Age 26.8 than one.

6 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Education Except at the upper end, Davis County residents aged 25 and older tend to have more education than similar people in the rest of the state (Table 1.4). A smaller share in the county have less than a high school education or only a high school education, and larger shares have some college, associate’s degrees, and bachelor’s degrees. However, those with graduate or professional degrees have represented a smaller share of the county’s population than in the rest of Utah, until 2005. About one-fifth of Davis County residents 25 and older have bachelor’s degrees, and about one-quarter or less are only high school graduates. The largest share have attended some college but do not have a degree. Note that the 2005 data are based on the American Community Survey, which covers only persons living in households and is subject to significant margins of error, particularly at the county level and particularly at the extremes of educational attainment (i.e., less than high school and doctorate degree).

Table 1.4 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Davis County and the Rest of Utah, 1990–2005

1990 2000 2005 Maximum Level of Davis Rest of Davis Rest of Davis Rest of Attainment County Utah County Utah County Utah Less than High School 10.1% 15.4% 7.8% 12.8% 5.5% 10.3% High School Graduate* 26.4% 27.3% 23.3% 24.7% 26.0% 26.1% Some College, No Degree 31.7% 27.5% 31.3% 28.9% 27.2% 26.9% Associate’s Degree 8.2% 7.7% 8.9% 7.8% 10.5% 9.2% Bachelor’s Degree 17.1% 15.2% 20.7% 17.5% 21.1% 19.0% Graduate or Professional degree 6.4% 6.9% 8.1% 8.3% 9.8% 8.5% Master’s Degree N/A N/A 5.9% 5.3% 7.5% 5.9% Professional Degree N/A N/A 1.5% 1.7% 1.4% 1.5% Doctorate Degree N/A N/A 0.7% 1.2% 0.9% 1.0% *Includes equivalency. Note: The 2005 ACS data cover only those living in households and are subject to large margins of error. Source: U.S. Census Bureau decennial censuses and 2005 American Community Survey

Income Davis County is more affluent than Utah as a whole. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income for the state was $45,726 in 1999 (in current dollars); Davis County’s was $53,726 (Table 1.5), second only to that of Summit County. Davis’s median income grew 13.6% in real terms from 1989 to 1999, while statewide median income grew 15.2%. Five of Davis County’s 15 cities experienced growth greater than that of the state. South Weber, with the third-highest household income in the county, had the largest percentage increase at 26.7%. Ten cities had median household incomes above the county median, with Fruit Heights the highest at $79,192. All but Sunset and Clearfield were above the state median.

The Census Bureau’s figures are published only every ten years, however the Utah State Tax Commission provides annual adjusted gross income data based on federal income tax returns. Table 1.6 shows the share and number of households (as defined by the Tax Commission) with AGIs above $100,000 in the State of Utah, Davis County, and its municipalities. In 1995 (the earliest year for which data are available at both the county and city level), Davis County had only a slightly larger share of high-income households than the state: 5.9% vs. 5.0%. By 2005, Davis’s share had grown to 15.1% while the state’s had increased to 12%. Within the county,

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 7

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.5 Rank of Davis County Cities by Median Household Income in 1999

Current Dollars Constant 1999 Dollars 1989 1999 Change 1989 1999 Change Utah $29,470 $45,726 55.2% $39,688 $45,726 15.2% Davis County $35,108 $53,726 53.0% $47,280 $53,726 13.6% Fruit Heights $54,372 $79,192 45.6% $73,223 $79,192 8.2% Farmington $45,000 $74,250 65.0% $60,602 $74,250 22.5% South Weber $41,339 $70,656 70.9% $55,672 $70,656 26.9% Centerville $42,032 $64,818 54.2% $56,605 $64,818 14.5% West Bountiful $38,451 $61,063 58.8% $51,782 $61,063 17.9% Kaysville $39,221 $60,383 54.0% $52,819 $60,383 14.3% Syracuse $35,413 $58,223 64.4% $47,691 $58,223 22.1% West Point $34,826 $56,985 63.6% $46,901 $56,985 21.5% Bountiful $38,346 $55,993 46.0% $51,641 $55,993 8.4% Clinton $37,230 $53,909 44.8% $50,138 $53,909 7.5% Layton $34,466 $52,128 51.2% $46,416 $52,128 12.3% North Salt Lake $34,237 $47,052 37.4% $46,107 $47,052 2.0% Woods Cross $32,881 $46,271 40.7% $44,281 $46,271 4.5% Sunset $30,947 $41,726 34.8% $41,677 $41,726 0.1% Clearfield $26,875 $38,946 44.9% $36,193 $38,946 7.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and BEBR calculations

Table 1.6 Percent and Number of Households with Adjusted Gross Incomes Above $100,000

1995 2000 2005 Change Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Utah 5.0% 32,178 9.5% 70,719 12.0% 101,677 139.4% 216.0% Davis County 5.9% 3,678 11.7% 8,674 15.1% 12,714 157.5% 245.7% Fruit Heights 15.7% 165 24.6% 294 32.9% 369 109.5% 123.6% Farmington 12.7% 384 19.1% 658 24.8% 1,021 95.6% 165.9% Centerville 9.9% 414 17.4% 767 23.7% 1,086 139.1% 162.3% Kaysville 7.5% 407 15.0% 904 22.5% 1,570 201.4% 285.7% South Weber N/A N/A 13.0% 130 20.5% 245 North Salt Lake 7.1% 107 15.5% 429 18.4% 712 158.6% 565.4% Bountiful 9.8% 1,363 17.2% 2,095 17.9% 2,500 83.4% 83.4% West Point 4.3% 33 9.8% 148 16.0% 334 271.6% 912.1% Syracuse 3.0% 51 8.4% 272 15.6% 866 426.4% 1598.0% West Bountiful 3.0% 25 8.9% 109 15.0% 208 404.6% 732.0% Layton 4.7% 768 11.4% 1,972 14.1% 2,821 201.1% 267.3% Clinton 2.2% 53 5.9% 198 9.4% 466 330.7% 779.2% Woods Cross 2.8% 37 6.9% 136 8.6% 228 211.2% 516.2% Clearfield 1.2% 76 5.2% 358 4.5% 443 288.0% 482.9% Sunset 1.5% 24 4.6% 59 4.0% 56 174.9% 133.3% Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax return data

8 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Fruit Heights had the largest share in 1995 at 15.7% and continued to be the most affluent community in 2005, with nearly one-third of its households earning AGIs above $100,000. All but four cities in 2005 had shares above the statewide rate. Davis County cities that saw rapid growth in both the number and share of high-income households include Clearfield, Clinton, Syracuse, West Bountiful, and West Point. Granted, some of the increase in the number of households with high incomes is due to the effects of inflation and the resulting decline in the value of a dollar (for example, it would take $129,577 in 2005 to purchase what $100,000 could in 1995), but a portion is certainly attributable to increasing affluence.

Poverty The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, but they are updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index.1

Poverty rates in Davis County are, for the most part, considerably lower than both the state as a whole and the nation (Exhibit 1.3). In 1989, the share of persons below the poverty level in the county was 7.1%, versus 11.4% statewide and 13.1% nationally. Among the cities of Davis County, only Clearfield had a higher share living in poverty than the state or the country: 17.5% of the population lived below the poverty level. Woods Cross had the next highest share with 10.1%, while Syracuse had the fewest at 1.8%. In 1999, poverty rates were lower everywhere except in Syracuse and West Point, which both saw increases of about one-half of a percentage point. Countywide, the share of the population living in poverty decreased to 5.1%, and among Davis’s municipalities only Clearfield remained above the state level (but just below the national level) at 12.2%. The next highest was Sunset at 7.8%; Fruit Heights had the smallest share with 0.7%.

For poverty rates by sex and age, a smaller portion of males generally live in poverty than females. This holds true particularly for the older age groups, i.e. 18 and above, but is reversed in some of the younger groups. In 1989, the share of males in Davis County living below the poverty line was 7.1% versus 7.4% of females. Both shares had declined by 1999, though the gap remained nearly the same at 5.1% and 5.5%, respectively. In 1989, 10.1% of both males and females under 5 years old lived in poverty; this declined to 6.6% of males and 8.8% of females in 1999. Of those 5 years old, in 1989 10.9% of males and 9.4% of females lived in poverty. By 1999 the rates had converged and switched: 7.1% of 5-year-old males and 7.4% of 5-year-old females lived below the poverty level. In the 6-to-11 years age group, females not only had consistently lower poverty rates but also experienced a greater decrease in the rate from 1989 to 1999. In 1989, 7.4% of 6- to 11-year-old girls lived in poverty versus 7.7% of boys of the same age. By 1999, the rate for girls had declined to 5.6% while that for boys was down only to 6.6%. In the 12-to-17 years age group, males were better off than females in 1989, but due to a larger decrease in the female poverty rate, nearly three times the male decrease, females in this group were better off by 1999. The 65-to-74 years age group consistently had the lowest share living in poverty, although among men the portion increased slightly from 2.1% to 2.5% while the share of women this age below the poverty level decreased significantly from 5.4% to 3.1%.

1 From http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/definitions.html, accessed May 29, 2007.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 9

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 1.3 Share of Persons Living Below the Poverty Level in 1999

Share of Persons Below the Poverty Rate by Sex and Age: Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 Davis County, 1989 & 1999

1989 1999 1989 1999 USA 13.1% 12.4% Poverty Rate 7.1% 5.1% Utah 11.4% 9.4% Male 6.9% 4.6% Davis County 7.1% 5.1% Under 5 years 10.1% 6.6% Fruit Heights 3.5% 0.7% 5 years 10.9% 7.1% Centerville 3.6% 2.0% 6 to 11 years 7.7% 6.6% Farmington 2.9% 2.4% 12 to 17 years 6.6% 6.1% Syracuse 1.8% 2.4% 18 to 64 years 6.3% 3.6% West Bountiful 5.4% 3.3% 65 to 74 years 2.1% 2.5% North Salt Lake 8.5% 3.3% 75 years and over 6.3% 4.2% Clinton 5.0% 3.6% Female 7.4% 5.5% West Point 3.5% 3.9% Under 5 years 10.1% 8.8% Bountiful 4.9% 4.0% 5 years 9.4% 7.4% Kaysville 5.4% 4.7% 6 to 11 years 7.4% 5.6% Woods Cross 10.1% 4.7% 12 to 17 years 7.1% 5.7% Layton 7.1% 5.6% 18 to 64 years 6.8% 5.0% South Weber 9.3% 5.7% 65 to 74 years 5.4% 3.1% Sunset 9.1% 7.8% 75 years and over 11.4% 7.3% Clearfield 17.5% 12.2% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

10 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Components of Personal Income The Bureau of Economic Analysis tracks components of personal income by place of residence and earnings by place of work (Table 1.7). Personal income by place of residence equals earnings by place of work, less employee and employer contributions for government social insurance, plus a residence adjustment, dividends, interest, and rent, and personal current transfer receipts. The residence adjustment is the net inflow of the earnings of interarea commuters. From 1990 to 2005, total personal income in Davis County grew nearly 80%, from $4.3 billion to $7.7 billion (in constant 2005 dollars). Per capita personal income grew an inflation-adjusted 26.7%, from $22,709 to $28,776. The residence adjustment was consistently positive for the county, reflecting the fact that more county residents bring home earnings from jobs outside the county than nonresident workers take earnings in Davis County away to their home counties. In fact, this figure grew almost 150% in real terms over the period, from $538.6 million to $1.3 billion. Another component of personal income that saw large gains was personal current transfer receipts, such as Medicare, SSI, veterans benefits, and food stamps. They more than doubled from $327.8 million in 1990 to $684.7 million in 2005.

Income and earnings from farming did not fare well over the period. Farm proprietors’ income fell over 200%, from $19.3 million in 1990 to a loss of $19.5 million in 2005. Farm earnings also fell drastically, from $25.5 million to a $7.7 million loss.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 11

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.7 Components of Personal Income, Davis County, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Change Income by Place of Residence Personal income $4,288.5 $4,377.1 $4,554.3 $4,747.6 $4,984.0 $5,251.8 $5,570.2 $5,985.4 $6,328.5 $6,502.3 $6,854.0 $6,889.1 $7,031.5 $7,212.1 $7,519.7 $7,714.3 79.9% Per capita personal income (dollars) $22,709 $22,589 $22,862 $23,166 $23,715 $24,471 $25,356 $26,617 $27,403 $27,562 $28,522 $28,208 $28,222 $28,245 $28,767 $28,776 26.7% Derivation of Personal Income Earnings by place of work $3,056.5 $3,097.8 $3,112.0 $3,197.6 $3,253.6 $3,429.4 $3,496.8 $3,665.7 $3,841.3 $3,930.5 $4,230.4 $4,361.4 $4,689.7 $4,929.8 $5,216.5 $5,289.9 73.1% less: Contributions for gov’t social insurance $301.7 $315.2 $321.6 $338.0 $353.3 $372.6 $379.1 $390.5 $405.5 $414.5 $437.1 $448.4 $481.7 $503.2 $532.3 $559.2 85.3% Employee and self-employed contributions for gov’t social insurance $141.2 $147.7 $149.6 $158.3 $167.6 $178.2 $182.9 $191.5 $198.6 $204.5 $215.1 $220.5 $234.7 $245.2 $257.2 $267.8 89.6% Employer contributions for gov’t social insurance $160.5 $167.4 $172.0 $179.8 $185.7 $194.5 $196.2 $199.0 $206.9 $210.1 $221.9 $227.9 $247.0 $258.0 $275.1 $291.4 81.6% plus: Adjustment for residence $538.6 $575.1 $732.3 $818.4 $914.7 $948.9 $1,134.7 $1,299.9 $1,388.5 $1,479.3 $1,443.4 $1,368.9 $1,263.8 $1,219.0 $1,242.3 $1,334.8 147.8% equals: Net earnings by place of residence $3,293.4 $3,357.7 $3,522.7 $3,677.9 $3,815.0 $4,005.7 $4,252.3 $4,575.1 $4,824.3 $4,995.3 $5,236.7 $5,281.9 $5,471.8 $5,645.6 $5,926.5 $6,065.5 84.2% plus: Dividends, interest, and rent $667.3 $676.3 $667.8 $679.8 $764.1 $819.9 $874.5 $945.1 $1,017.1 $998.0 $1,083.7 $1,034.2 $946.6 $927.3 $931.5 $964.1 44.5% plus: Personal current transfer receipts $327.8 $343.0 $363.7 $389.9 $404.9 $426.3 $443.4 $465.2 $487.1 $508.9 $533.5 $573.0 $613.1 $639.2 $661.7 $684.7 108.9% Earnings by Place of Work Components of Earnings Wage and salary disbursements $2,171.7 $2,187.1 $2,188.6 $2,233.9 $2,300.6 $2,456.8 $2,532.7 $2,619.6 $2,740.4 $2,833.1 $3,015.0 $3,081.5 $3,270.2 $3,362.6 $3,518.7 $3,580.1 64.9% Supplements to wages and salaries $657.2 $676.2 $679.7 $685.1 $679.9 $708.6 $708.4 $724.1 $746.5 $770.2 $830.3 $867.4 $975.9 $1,034.5 $1,119.7 $1,153.7 75.5% Employer contributions for employee pension and insurance funds $496.7 $508.8 $507.7 $505.4 $494.2 $514.1 $512.2 $525.1 $539.6 $560.1 $608.3 $639.4 $728.9 $776.5 $844.6 $862.3 73.6% Employer contributions for government social insurance $160.5 $167.4 $172.0 $179.8 $185.7 $194.5 $196.2 $199.0 $206.9 $210.1 $221.9 $227.9 $247.0 $258.0 $275.1 $291.4 81.6% Proprietors’ income $227.6 $234.5 $243.7 $278.6 $273.1 $264.0 $255.7 $322.0 $354.4 $327.1 $385.1 $412.5 $443.6 $532.7 $578.0 $556.1 144.3% Farm proprietors’ income $19.3 $16.4 $24.8 $23.1 $10.1 $7.2 $4.6 $3.7 $7.1 $3.6 $0.6 -$0.5 -$11.0 -$10.5 -$8.2 -$19.5 -200.9% Nonfarm proprietors’ income $208.3 $218.0 $218.9 $255.5 $263.0 $256.8 $251.1 $318.3 $347.3 $323.6 $384.5 $413.0 $454.7 $543.2 $586.3 $575.5 176.3% Earnings by Industry Farm earnings $25.5 $22.3 $30.6 $29.6 $18.3 $15.7 $12.5 $12.8 $15.9 $12.2 $9.9 $8.5 -$0.8 -$1.5 $0.2 -$7.7 -130.3% Nonfarm earnings $3,031.0 $3,075.6 $3,081.4 $3,168.0 $3,235.3 $3,413.7 $3,484.2 $3,652.9 $3,825.4 $3,918.3 $4,220.5 $4,352.9 $4,690.5 $4,931.3 $5,216.3 $5,297.6 74.8% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

12 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Commuting Patterns The Census Bureau reports how people get to work and how long their commutes are (for those not working at home). Table 1.8 shows that while the number of workers 16 and over increased 39.1% from 1990 to 2000, the number driving alone grew more (41.6%) while the number of commuters carpooling and taking public transportation grew less (23.5% and 37.9%, respectively). Therefore, as a share of workers 16 and over, only those driving alone to work and those working at home increased. Solo drivers increased from 77.5% of workers to 78.9%, and workers at home increased from 3.4% to 4.1%. The portion of workers taking public transportation remained constant at 2.2%, while the shares who carpooled, cycled or walked, or commuted by motorcycle or other means declined. Statewide, solo drivers increased from 73.9% to 75.5% of workers, and those working at home grew from 3.6% to 4.2%, while the shares of carpoolers, those using public transportation, cyclists and walkers, and those taking motorcycles or other means all declined.

Table 1.8 Davis County Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time

1990 2000 Utah Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share 1990 2000 Workers 16 years and over 81,054 100.0% 112,717 100.0% 39.1% 732,376 1,032,858 Drove alone 62,828 77.5% 88,953 78.9% 41.6% 73.9% 75.5% Carpooled 11,478 14.2% 14,173 12.6% 23.5% 15.2% 14.1% Public transportation (including taxicab) 1,801 2.2% 2,483 2.2% 37.9% 2.3% 2.2% Bicycle or walked 1,607 2.0% 1,888 1.7% 17.5% 4.1% 3.3% Motorcycle or other means 617 0.8% 654 0.6% 6.0% 0.9% 0.7% Worked at home 2,723 3.4% 4,566 4.1% 67.7% 3.6% 4.2%

Travel Time to Work Workers who did not work at home 78,331 100.0% 108,151 100.0% 38.1% 706,128 989,523 Less than 5 minutes 2,681 3.4% 3,994 3.7% 49.0% 5.0% 4.4% 5 to 9 minutes 11,821 15.1% 15,551 14.4% 31.6% 15.9% 14.5% 10 to 14 minutes 14,454 18.5% 18,151 16.8% 25.6% 18.8% 17.7% 15 to 19 minutes 14,770 18.9% 17,392 16.1% 17.8% 18.7% 17.5% 20 to 24 minutes 14,195 18.1% 15,864 14.7% 11.8% 15.9% 15.3% 25 to 29 minutes 5,140 6.6% 6,445 6.0% 25.4% 5.2% 5.5% 30 to 34 minutes 8,117 10.4% 12,140 11.2% 49.6% 9.9% 11.3% 35 to 39 minutes 1,457 1.9% 2,683 2.5% 84.1% 1.5% 1.9% 40 to 44 minutes 1,560 2.0% 3,295 3.0% 111.2% 1.8% 2.4% 45 or more minutes 4,136 5.3% 12,636 11.7% 205.5% 7.3% 9.6% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 18.8 22.4 19.1% 18.9 21.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Looking at commute times for Davis County workers, mean travel time increased 19.1% during the 1990s, from 18.8 minutes to 22.4 minutes. Statewide, mean travel time to work increased from 18.9 to 21.3 minutes. The bulk of commuters in the county, 62.0%, had commutes from 5 to 25 minutes long, and were fairly evenly dispersed among the 5 to 9, 10 to 14, 15 to 19, and 20 to 24-minute trip lengths. However, the number experiencing the longest commutes, 45 minutes or more, more than tripled, and their share of total commuters more than doubled from 5.3% to 11.7%. Those with the next longest commutes, 40 to 44 minutes, also increased significantly from 1,560 to 3,295, though they made up only 3.0% of commuters in 2000. This distribution is similar to that for the state as a whole.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 13

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

The Census Bureau also tracks place of work by place of residence. Table 1.9 shows that, statewide, 16.6% of workers commuted outside their county of residence in 2000, an increase from 15.3% in 1990. In Davis County this is much higher, with about 46% of resident workers commuting outside the county, including out of state. This share remained steady from 1990 to 2000, although the share who worked out of state declined from 1.1% to 0.8%. Among the county’s cities, North Salt Lake has the largest portion of resident workers who work outside the county (63.9%), though this has declined from 1990. Although they represented 3.8% of the county’s resident workers in 2000, they composed 5.4% of its out-commuters. This is not surprising given the city’s location on the border with Salt Lake County. At the other end of the scale, only one-third of Syracuse’s resident workers have jobs outside the county, though this is still twice the statewide average. Bountiful and Layton supply by far the largest shares of Davis County residents who work in another county; they also are home to the largest shares of resident workers in the county.

Table 1.9 Resident Workers by City: Place of Work and Share of County Commuters

Share Share of Commuting 1990 Share of County 2000 County Out of County†

Place of Residence Total Resident Workers in Worked County of Residence Worked Outside County of Residence Worked Outside State Workers Commute Out of County* Total Resident Workers in Worked County of Residence Worked Outside County of Residence Worked Outside State Workers Commute Out of County* 1990 2000 Bountiful 16,153 7,096 8,872 185 19.9% 24.7% 19,332 9,077 10,105 150 17.2% 20.0% 56.1% 53.0% Centerville 4,788 2,209 2,537 42 5.9% 7.1% 6,698 3,119 3,525 54 5.9% 7.0% 53.9% 53.4% Clearfield 8,282 5,511 2,673 98 10.2% 7.4% 11,561 7,114 4,350 97 10.3% 8.6% 33.5% 38.5% Clinton 3,311 1,742 1,562 7 4.1% 4.3% 6,249 3,266 2,943 40 5.5% 5.8% 47.4% 47.7% Farmington 3,472 1,723 1,696 53 4.3% 4.7% 5,174 2,764 2,340 70 4.6% 4.6% 50.4% 46.6% Fruit Heights 1,562 837 687 38 1.9% 1.9% 2,284 1,337 922 25 2.0% 1.8% 46.4% 41.5% Kaysville 5,570 3,201 2,270 99 6.9% 6.3% 8,535 4,821 3,630 84 7.6% 7.2% 42.5% 43.5% Layton 19,057 11,984 6,895 178 23.5% 19.2% 28,700 16,745 11,655 300 25.5% 23.0% 37.1% 41.7% North Salt Lake 2,899 912 1,952 35 3.6% 5.4% 4,328 1,563 2,749 16 3.8% 5.4% 68.5% 63.9% South Weber 1,104 499 593 12 1.4% 1.6% 2,024 937 1,075 12 1.8% 2.1% 54.8% 53.7% Sunset 2,329 1,345 973 11 2.9% 2.7% 2,446 1,243 1,196 7 2.2% 2.4% 42.2% 49.2% Syracuse 2,031 1,432 566 33 2.5% 1.6% 4,577 3,050 1,510 17 4.1% 3.0% 29.5% 33.4% West Bountiful 1,880 878 990 12 2.3% 2.8% 2,366 1,257 1,084 25 2.1% 2.1% 53.3% 46.9% West Point 1,674 1,040 621 13 2.1% 1.7% 2,748 1,575 1,159 14 2.4% 2.3% 37.9% 42.7% Woods Cross 2,593 1,165 1,382 46 3.2% 3.8% 3,424 1,712 1,688 24 3.0% 3.3% 55.1% 50.0% Davis County Total 81,054 44,150 35,981 923 100.0% 100.0% 112,717 61,208 50,565 944 100.0% 100.0% 45.5% 45.7% Utah 732,376 620,236 102,264 9,876 1,032,858 861,503 159,786 11,569 15.3% 16.6% * Does not include those working out of state. † Includes those working out of state. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, BEBR calculations

The Census Bureau compiles data on county-to-county worker flows. Tables 1.10 and 1.11 show which Utah counties sent workers to Davis County and to which counties Davis County resident workers commuted in 1990 and 2000. On net, 22,869 more commuters left the county than came into it in 2000. The largest shares of in-commuters to Davis came from the adjacent counties of Weber, which supplied 58.17% of total in-commuters in 2000, up from 54.9% in 1990, and Salt Lake, with 29.2% of in-commuters in 2000, down from 35.9% in 1990. The next most significant sources were Utah County (2.9%), Box Elder County (2.3%), and Morgan County (2.1%). Out-of-state residents account for 1.9% of in-commuters, an increase from 1.5% in 1990.

14 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.10 In-Commuting to Davis County

1990 2000 Number Share Number Share Box Elder County 493 2.18% 660 2.30% Cache County 273 1.21% 334 1.17% Carbon County 5 0.02% Daggett County 6 0.02% Duchesne County 3 0.01% 13 0.05% Emery County 7 0.03% 2 0.01% Grand County 8 0.03% Iron County 6 0.03% 10 0.03% Juab County 4 0.01% Millard County 2 0.01% 5 0.02% Morgan County 424 1.88% 604 2.11% Rich County 2 0.01% 10 0.03% Salt Lake County 8,105 35.89% 8,370 29.22% San Juan County 8 0.03% Sanpete County 3 0.01% 18 0.06% Sevier County 4 0.02% 9 0.03% Summit County 57 0.25% 105 0.37% Tooele County 62 0.27% 339 1.18% Uintah County 8 0.04% 20 0.07% Utah County 358 1.59% 842 2.94% Wasatch County 45 0.20% 65 0.23% Washington County 7 0.02% Weber County 12,387 54.85% 16,659 58.17% Out-of-State 344 1.52% 537 1.88% Total In-Commuters 22,583 100.00% 28,640 100.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.11 Out-Commuting from Davis County

1990 2000 Number Share Number Share Box Elder County 291 0.79% 313 0.61% Cache County 70 0.19% 199 0.39% Duchesne County 12 0.02% Emery County 18 0.05% Iron County 16 0.03% Juab County 17 0.05% Millard County 19 0.05% Morgan County 59 0.16% 96 0.19% Salt Lake County 23,862 64.66% 33,851 65.72% Sanpete County 4 0.01% 21 0.04% Sevier County 7 0.02% 8 0.02% Summit County 108 0.29% 83 0.16% Tooele County 132 0.36% 178 0.35% Uintah County 5 0.01% 6 0.01% Utah County 179 0.49% 803 1.56% Wasatch County 31 0.06% Washington County 23 0.06% 44 0.09% Wayne County 28 0.05% Weber County 11,187 30.31% 14,876 28.88% Out-of-State 923 2.50% 944 1.83% Total Out-Commuters 36,904 100.00% 51,509 100.00% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 15

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Of the 45.7% of Davis County’s resident workers who commuted out of the county in 2000, nearly two-thirds, 65.7%, worked in Salt Lake County. Another 28.9% commuted to Weber County. Salt Lake County became a slightly more popular employment destination over the 1990s, increasing its share from 64.7% of out-commuters in 1990, while Weber County declined from drawing 30.3% of Davis County’s out-commuters in 1990. Utah County more than tripled its share of Davis County out-commuters from 0.5% to 1.6% over the period. Commuters working out of state decreased from 2.5% in 1990 to 1.8% in 2000.

Employment and Wages

Employment From 1990 through 2005, Davis County saw a 130.9% increase in the number of firms in the county, according to Department of Workforce Services data (Table 1.12). To compare this to the growth in the number of workers in the county over the same period, we can use data from the Census Bureau’s 2005 American Community Survey, but with a couple of caveats. First, the ACS surveys only those living in households, omitting residents in group quarters (1.5% of Davis County’s population in 2000); and second, the ACS numbers tend to have large margins of error. Given these warnings, the ACS places the number of workers in Davis County in 2005 at 126,551 (±3,298). This represents a 56.1% (or at most, 60.2%) increase over 1990, less than half the growth in firms.

Table 1.12 Davis County Employment Characteristics, 1990–2005

Average Average Average Total Year No. of Change Change Change Monthly Change Employment Wages* Firms Wage* 1990 2,852 59,738 $1,855,348,604 $2,588 1991 3,089 8.3% 59,751 0.0% $1,849,047,202 -0.3% $2,479 -4.2% 1992 3,242 5.0% 61,478 2.9% $1,876,168,148 1.5% $2,544 2.6% 1993 3,483 7.4% 65,239 6.1% $1,917,413,004 2.2% $2,449 -3.7% 1994 3,712 6.6% 67,569 3.6% $1,985,146,580 3.5% $2,448 0.0% 1995 3,935 6.0% 69,618 3.0% $2,079,677,949 4.8% $2,489 1.7% 1996 4,192 6.5% 73,308 5.3% $2,196,681,184 5.6% $2,497 0.3% 1997 4,451 6.2% 78,200 6.7% $2,315,256,837 5.4% $2,467 -1.2% 1998 4,700 5.6% 80,165 2.5% $2,429,396,811 4.9% $2,525 2.4% 1999 4,837 2.9% 82,234 2.6% $2,504,363,807 3.1% $2,538 0.5% 2000 5,060 4.6% 84,846 3.2% $2,654,878,600 6.0% $2,608 2.7% 2001 5,348 5.7% 87,579 3.2% $2,759,633,354 3.9% $2,626 0.7% 2002 5,355 0.1% 88,894 1.5% $2,868,685,895 4.0% $2,689 2.4% 2003 5,752 7.4% 89,722 0.9% $2,935,577,801 2.3% $2,727 1.4% 2004 6,183 7.5% 93,253 3.9% $3,051,662,269 4.0% $2,727 0.0% 2005 6,586 6.5% 95,963 2.9% $3,124,214,148 2.4% $2,713 -0.5% 1990–2005 130.9% 60.6% 68.4% 4.8% *Constant 2005 dollars. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Table 1.12 also shows that average employment in Davis County increased 60.6% from 1990 through 2005, while total real wages grew 68.4%. Average monthly wages are somewhat low due to the high concentration of jobs in Trade, Leisure & Hospitality, and Education & Health Services. Table 1.13 breaks down total average employment by community. Note that the Department of Workforce Services uses “worksite districts” that may encompass more than one municipality. In Davis County, there are the Clearfield–South Weber and Sunset–Syracuse

16 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.13 Total Employment by Community, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001* 2002* 2003* 2004* 2005* Change Davis County 59,738 59,751 61,478 65,239 67,569 69,618 73,308 78,200 80,165 82,234 84,846 87,579 88,894 89,722 93,253 95,963 60.6% Bountiful 10,647 11,150 11,652 12,432 13,074 12,577 14,067 14,344 14,558 14,805 12,896 14,046 12,015 12,013 12,263 11,907 11.8% Centerville 1,776 1,698 1,931 2,063 2,139 1,976 2,589 2,937 3,246 3,475 2,725 4,128 3,629 3,934 4,142 4,225 137.9% Clearfield–So. Weber 23,531 21,907 20,835 20,489 19,817 19,001 20,047 22,437 22,593 23,346 36,532 14,810 25,473 25,208 25,806 26,717 13.5% Farmington 2,488 2,474 3,119 4,098 4,286 4,090 4,400 4,721 4,795 4,757 2,510 7,255 4,841 4,979 5,051 5,191 108.6% Kaysville 2,615 2,819 3,009 3,147 3,223 3,119 3,549 3,825 4,219 4,293 3,130 6,539 4,937 5,129 5,559 5,840 123.3% Layton 9,284 9,908 10,909 12,205 13,560 13,660 15,723 16,707 16,886 17,399 14,833 24,191 22,216 22,274 23,519 24,165 160.3% North Salt Lake 4,007 4,125 4,496 4,803 5,075 5,111 5,676 6,333 6,799 6,992 5,111 6,795 6,816 6,719 6,951 7,401 84.7% Sunset–Syracuse 2,421 2,648 2,706 3,062 3,294 3,173 3,894 3,575 3,755 3,926 4,484 3,706 3,164 3,484 3,630 3,954 63.3% West Bountiful† N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,112 1,857 1,907 2,042 1,928 -8.7% Woods Cross 2,969 3,022 2,821 2,940 3,101 3,032 3,363 3,321 3,314 3,241 2,625 3,903 3,722 3,970 4,198 4,378 47.5% †New community breakout. *Due to disclosure issues, cities will not add up to county total. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Figure 1.1a Figure 1.1b Davis County Employment by Industry (SIC), 1990 Davis County Employment by Industry (NAICS), 2005

Mining C onstruction Mining C onstruction 0.1% 8.6% Manufacturing Government 0.1% 4.3% Manufacturing 12.6% 25.0% 11.0%

Government TCPU 36.1% 4.0%

Other Services Trade, 2.8% Transp., Utilities 19.9%

Leisure & Hospitality Trade Information 8.9% 23.6% 0.9% Education & Professional & Services FIRE Health Services Business Services Financial Activities 17.2% 2.2% 9.0% 9.6% 4.1%

Note: FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 17

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities districts, the latter of which includes Clinton and West Point. Layton, Centerville, Kaysville, and Farmington saw the greatest growth in employment over the period, with 160.3%, 137.9%, 123.3%, and 108.6% increases, respectively. These increases were driven largely by growth in construction, manufacturing, trade, and services (see city data sheets for details). West Bountiful was a new community breakout in 2001 and saw an 8.7% decline in employment from 2001 to 2005.

Figures 1.1a and 1.1b and Table 1.14 show Davis County nonagricultural employment by industry from 1990 through 2005. Over the study period, the Utah Department of Workforce Services changed the system it uses to classify businesses. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) was developed in the 1930s “to classify establishments by the type of activity in which they are primarily engaged.” It was revised periodically to reflect changes in the composition and organization of the economy, with the last update in 1987. Due to significant and rapid structural changes in the U.S. economy, the SIC system was replaced by the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) in 1997, although the Department of Workforce Services didn’t begin reporting by NAICS category until 2001. Whereas the SIC had classified business establishments into 10 major divisions with two subsequent layers of detail, NAICS uses 20 broad sectors, each with four layers of subcategories. In some cases the DWS combines sectors into larger conglomerations, e.g., Professional and Business Services, and Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. All of this complicates comparisons of economic activity over time, but some generalizations may be made.

It is evident that Government (federal, state, and local) has been and remains a major employer in Davis County, accounting for 25.0% of nonagricultural jobs in 2005, down from 36.6% in 1990. Most of this is due to the presence of Hill Air Force Base, but the county school district is also a significant source of jobs. From 1990 through 2000, Trade, Services, and Manufacturing combined provided more than half of all nonagricultural jobs in the county, with Trade alone accounting for about one-quarter. Construction grew from 4.3% to 8.2% of jobs. From 2001 through 2005, the combined category of Trade, Transportation, and Utilities provided about one-fifth of total nonagricultural employment in the county (from 21.5% in 2001 to 19.9% in 2005), and Manufacturing contributed about one-tenth (11.3% in 2001 and 11.0% in 2005). The broad category of services, comprising Professional and Business Services, Education and Health Services, Leisure and Hospitality, and Other Services, grew from 28.3% of jobs in 2001 to 30.3% in 2005. Note that some categories classified as Trade under the SIC system were moved to services under NAICS, e.g. restaurants. This may account for the difference between Trade’s 25.5% share in 2000 and Trade, Transportation, and Utilities’ 21.5% share in 2001. The distribution of employment by sector for the state in 2005 is included for comparison. Davis County has concentrations similar to those of the state in Manufacturing; Trade, Transportation, and Utilities; Leisure and Hospitality; and Other Services. It has a significantly higher share of Government employment, and is considerably lower in Information.

Table 1.15 gives 2005 Davis County nonagricultural employment data by detailed NAICS sector. Data at the three-digit NAICS level are provided for sectors contributing 10% or more of total jobs or wages. Private-sector jobs account for 75.0% of total average employment, 95.9% of establishments, and 67.3% of total wages. The remainder is provided by local, state, and federal government. Among these, one category of note is federal government Public Administration jobs, in particular those classified as National Security & International Affairs, i.e., Hill Air Force Base. These make up 12.2% of total jobs in the county and pay 22.1% of total wages.

18 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.14 Davis County Nonagricultural Employment by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 59,738 100.0% 59,751 100.0% 61,478 100.0% 65,239 100.0% 67,569 100.0% 69,618 100.0% 73,308 100.0% 78,200 100.0% 80,165 100.0% 82,234 100.0% 84,846 100.0% Mining 35 0.1% 69 0.1% 67 0.1% 102 0.2% 104 0.2% 146 0.2% 110 0.2% 99 0.1% 100 0.1% 77 0.1% 96 0.1% Construction 2,549 4.3% 2,903 4.9% 3,220 5.2% 3,897 6.0% 4,519 6.7% 4,809 6.9% 5,464 7.5% 6,280 8.0% 6,677 8.3% 6,918 8.4% 6,988 8.2% Manufacturing 7,523 12.6% 7,563 12.7% 7,882 12.8% 8,766 13.4% 9,444 14.0% 10,221 14.7% 10,431 14.2% 10,450 13.4% 10,522 13.1% 10,531 12.8% 10,249 12.1% TCPU 2,418 4.0% 2,436 4.1% 2,219 3.6% 2,225 3.4% 2,322 3.4% 2,208 3.2% 2,560 3.5% 2,691 3.4% 2,800 3.5% 3,055 3.7% 3,252 3.8% Trade 14,072 23.6% 14,622 24.5% 15,296 24.9% 16,389 25.1% 17,033 25.2% 18,051 25.9% 19,199 26.2% 19,837 25.4% 20,507 25.6% 20,805 25.3% 21,639 25.5% FIRE 1,297 2.2% 1,526 2.6% 1,808 2.9% 2,299 3.5% 2,748 4.1% 2,768 4.0% 2,938 4.0% 3,190 4.1% 3,231 4.0% 3,036 3.7% 2,932 3.5% Services 10,298 17.2% 10,252 17.2% 10,768 17.5% 11,818 18.1% 12,794 18.9% 13,753 19.8% 15,184 20.7% 16,022 20.5% 16,528 20.6% 17,314 21.1% 18,096 21.3% Government 21,546 36.1% 20,380 34.1% 20,218 32.9% 19,743 30.3% 18,605 27.5% 17,662 25.4% 17,422 23.8% 19,631 25.1% 19,800 24.7% 20,498 24.9% 21,594 25.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Utah NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Share Total Nonagricultural 87,579 100.0% 88,894 100.0% 89,722 100.0% 93,253 100.0% 95,963 100.0% 100.0% Mining 95 0.1% 59 0.1% 62 0.1% 118 0.1% 137 0.1% 0.7% Construction 7,115 8.1% 6,718 7.6% 6,861 7.6% 7,493 8.0% 8,287 8.6% 7.1% Manufacturing 9,925 11.3% 10,073 11.3% 10,353 11.5% 10,462 11.2% 10,591 11.0% 10.2% Trade, Transp., Utilities 18,798 21.5% 18,638 21.0% 18,393 20.5% 19,431 20.8% 19,063 19.9% 19.7% Information 752 0.9% 915 1.0% 893 1.0% 880 0.9% 882 0.9% 2.8% Financial Activities 3,304 3.8% 3,197 3.6% 3,556 4.0% 3,831 4.1% 3,906 4.1% 5.9% Prof. & Business Services 6,926 7.9% 7,648 8.6% 7,740 8.6% 8,220 8.8% 9,221 9.6% 12.8% Education & Health Services 7,566 8.6% 7,630 8.6% 8,003 8.9% 8,319 8.9% 8,637 9.0% 11.2% Leisure & Hospitality 7,845 9.0% 7,881 8.9% 8,013 8.9% 8,291 8.9% 8,503 8.9% 9.1% Other Services 2,425 2.8% 2,647 3.0% 2,685 3.0% 2,775 3.0% 2,734 2.8% 2.9% Government 22,828 26.1% 23,488 26.4% 23,163 25.8% 23,433 25.1% 24,002 25.0% 17.6%

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 19

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.15 Davis County Nonagricultural Employment and Wages by Detailed NAICS Industry, 2005

Avg. Avg. Industry Sector Share Estab’s Share Total Wages Share Monthly Employ. Wage Mining 137 0.1% 8 0.1% $5,686,072 0.2% $3,465 Utilities 101 0.1% 7 0.1% $7,221,751 0.2% $5,988 Construction 8,287 8.6% 1,071 16.3% $285,877,787 9.2% $2,875 Manufacturing 10,592 11.0% 317 4.8% $371,477,108 11.9% $2,923 Food Manufacturing 736 0.8% 20 0.3% $16,491,633 0.5% $1,869 Textile Mills 19 0.0% 4 0.1% $390,557 0.0% $1,759 Textile Product Mills 143 0.1% 13 0.2% $3,415,509 0.1% $1,990 Wood Product Manufacturing 134 0.1% 13 0.2% $2,908,021 0.1% $1,805 Paper Manufacturing 215 0.2% 5 0.1% $7,638,320 0.2% $2,964 Printing and Related Support Activities 440 0.5% 32 0.5% $13,238,029 0.4% $2,506 Petroleum & Coal Products Manufacturing 401 0.4% 8 0.1% $29,452,209 0.9% $6,128 Chemical Manufacturing 411 0.4% 16 0.2% $16,715,428 0.5% $3,387 Plastics & Rubber Products Manufacturing 435 0.5% 17 0.3% $14,980,671 0.5% $2,868 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Mfg 270 0.3% 9 0.1% $11,493,208 0.4% $3,547 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 1,605 1.7% 57 0.9% $60,649,717 1.9% $3,150 Machinery Manufacturing 183 0.2% 12 0.2% $8,503,569 0.3% $3,872 Computer and Electronic Product Mfg 136 0.1% 6 0.1% $5,460,375 0.2% $3,340 Electrical Equipment and Appliances 28 0.0% 3 0.0% $2,477,760 0.1% $7,374 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 2,059 2.1% 25 0.4% $86,569,906 2.8% $3,504 Furniture and Related Product Mfg 415 0.4% 38 0.6% $11,365,415 0.4% $2,284 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 2,898 3.0% 36 0.5% $78,132,539 2.5% $2,247 Wholesale Trade 2,593 2.7% 368 5.6% $106,741,935 3.4% $3,431 Retail Trade 11,974 12.5% 761 11.6% $256,151,608 8.2% $1,783 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 1,921 2.0% 117 1.8% $72,278,898 2.3% $3,136 Furniture and Home Furnishings Stores 307 0.3% 37 0.6% $7,958,128 0.3% $2,164 Electronics and Appliance Stores 317 0.3% 51 0.8% $8,447,727 0.3% $2,223 Building Material & Garden Supply Stores 1,115 1.2% 59 0.9% $27,565,332 0.9% $2,060 Food and Beverage Stores 2,061 2.1% 46 0.7% $36,704,044 1.2% $1,484 Health and Personal Care Stores 500 0.5% 63 1.0% $12,759,262 0.4% $2,129 Gasoline Stations 724 0.8% 65 1.0% $10,446,020 0.3% $1,203 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 684 0.7% 75 1.1% $8,570,622 0.3% $1,044 Sporting Goods/Hobby/Book/Music Stores 740 0.8% 76 1.2% $9,794,267 0.3% $1,103 General Merchandise Stores 2,772 2.9% 34 0.5% $47,855,077 1.5% $1,439 Miscellaneous Store Retailers 581 0.6% 88 1.3% $9,401,956 0.3% $1,349 Nonstore Retailers 254 0.3% 53 0.8% $4,370,275 0.1% $1,437 Transportation and Warehousing 4,398 4.6% 187 2.8% $169,005,782 5.4% $3,202 Information 882 0.9% 99 1.5% $34,180,223 1.1% $3,230 Finance and Insurance 2,714 2.8% 462 7.0% $86,560,407 2.8% $2,658 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,191 1.2% 379 5.8% $31,284,483 1.0% $2,190 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 4,497 4.7% 785 11.9% $229,857,743 7.4% $4,260 Management of Companies and Enterprises 796 0.8% 31 0.5% $35,541,818 1.1% $3,723 Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation 3,927 4.1% 422 6.4% $85,580,650 2.7% $1,816 Education Services 534 0.6% 76 1.2% $10,584,649 0.3% $1,651 Health Care and Social Assistance 8,103 8.4% 526 8.0% $231,119,442 7.4% $2,377 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,821 1.9% 67 1.0% $18,089,756 0.6% $828 Accommodation and Food Services 6,681 7.0% 350 5.3% $70,694,367 2.3% $882 Other Services (except Public Admin.) 2,712 2.8% 393 6.0% $66,938,972 2.1% $2,057 Unclassified Establishments 22 0.0% 11 0.2% $555,237 0.0% $2,127

Total Private Sector 71,962 75.0% 6,320 95.9% $2,103,149,790 67.3%

20 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.15, cont’d. Davis County Nonagricultural Employment and Wages by Detailed NAICS Industry, 2005

Avg. Avg. Industry Sector Share Estab’s Share Total Wages Share Monthly Employ. Wage Local Government 10.5% 3.3% 8.5% Utilities 239 0.2% 16 0.2% $9,019,540 0.3% $3,142 Construction 87 0.1% 5 0.1% $3,445,032 0.1% $3,300 Transportation and Warehousing 279 0.3% 1 0.0% $4,912,986 0.2% $1,469 Information 135 0.1% 6 0.1% $2,192,580 0.1% $1,356 Admin., Support, Waste Mgmt, Remediation 13 0.0% 2 0.0% $469,756 0.0% $3,011 Education Services 6,541 6.8% 76 1.2% $168,063,932 5.4% $2,141 Health Care and Social Assistance 60 0.1% 6 0.1% $1,384,675 0.0% $1,931 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 569 0.6% 13 0.2% $6,842,813 0.2% $1,003 Other Services (except Public Admin.) 33 0.0% 3 0.0% $882,878 0.0% $2,247 Public Administration 2,147 2.2% 88 1.3% $68,759,818 2.2% $2,669 State Government 1.0% 0.5% 0.9% Retail Trade 24 0.0% 2 0.0% $268,667 0.0% $933 Education Services 334 0.3% 3 0.0% $7,588,461 0.2% $1,896 Health Care and Social Assistance 44 0.0% 2 0.0% $1,948,472 0.1% $3,711 Public Administration 538 0.6% 23 0.3% $19,493,888 0.6% $3,018 Federal Government 13.5% 0.3% 23.2% Retail Trade 309 0.3% 2 0.0% $6,282,953 0.2% $1,696 Transportation and Warehousing 315 0.3% 7 0.1% $13,885,789 0.4% $3,676 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 21 0.0% 1 0.0% $1,246,832 0.0% $5,068 Health Care and Social Assistance 96 0.1% 1 0.0% $4,579,226 0.1% $3,975 Accommodation and Food Services 53 0.1% 1 0.0% $1,109,303 0.0% $1,752 Other Services (except Public Admin.) 133 0.1% 1 0.0% $2,726,944 0.1% $1,715 Public Administration 12,035 12.5% 8 0.1% $695,964,613 22.3% $4,819 Executive, Legislative, & Gen Government 235 0.2% 4 0.1% $5,382,970 0.2% $1,907 Community and Housing Program Admin 52 0.1% 1 0.0% $1,170,945 0.0% $1,868 Administration of Economic Programs 2 0.0% 1 0.0% $41,531 0.0% $2,307 National Security & International Affairs 11,746 12.2% 2 0.0% $689,369,167 22.1% $4,891 Total Government 24,005 25.0% 267 4.1% $1,021,069,158 32.7%

Total Davis County 95,967 6,587 $3,124,218,948 $2,713 Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Within nongovernmental employment, the main sources of jobs in Davis County are Retail Trade (12.5%), Manufacturing (11.0%), Construction (8.6%), Health Care and Social Assistance (8.4%), and Accommodation and Food Services (7.0%). In terms of wages, Manufacturing provides the largest share at 11.9%, followed by Construction (9.2%), Retail Trade (8.2%), and Health Care and Social Assistance and Professional, Scientific & Technical Services (both 7.4%, though the latter accounts for less than 5% of total jobs). Accommodation and Food Services jobs pay only 2.3% of total wages and have an average monthly wage of only $882.

To compare Davis County’s economic structure to that of the state, BEBR calculated location quotients for the county for 1990 through 2005. Location quotients are the ratio of an industry’s share of employment in a study area (in this case Davis County) to its share in a reference area (Utah). A value greater than one indicates relative specialization in the study area. Table 1.16 shows that, since 1990, Davis has consistently been relatively specialized in Construction and especially Government, with respect to the state. Trade (included in TTU after 2000) has also been an area of modest specialization. Manufacturing shows some concentration in recent years.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 21

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.16 Davis County Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 Construction 1.10 1.17 1.16 1.22 1.20 1.15 1.19 1.23 1.24 1.22 1.22 Manufacturing 0.85 0.89 0.93 0.99 1.03 1.08 1.05 0.99 1.01 1.02 0.99 TCPU 0.69 0.72 0.63 0.59 0.60 0.56 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.65 0.67 Trade 0.99 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.05 1.07 1.09 1.05 1.08 1.07 1.09 FIRE 0.47 0.54 0.59 0.69 0.77 0.75 0.75 0.77 0.74 0.69 0.66 Services 0.69 0.68 0.69 0.69 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 Government 1.73 1.65 1.61 1.54 1.46 1.41 1.37 1.45 1.44 1.46 1.48

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Natural Res. & Mining 0.16 0.10 0.11 0.20 0.19 Construction 1.23 1.20 1.22 1.22 1.21 Manufacturing 1.00 1.07 1.10 1.08 1.08 TTU 1.06 1.04 1.03 1.05 1.01 Information 0.28 0.36 0.36 0.34 0.33 Financial Activity 0.66 0.61 0.66 0.70 0.69 Prof. & Bus. Services 0.63 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.75 Ed. & Health Services 0.85 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 Leisure & Hospitality 0.99 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.98 Other Services 0.98 0.97 0.99 1.00 0.98 Government 1.48 1.45 1.41 1.40 1.42 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate specialization relative to the state. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data

Note that the DWS data are by place of work, that is, we don’t know where the employees and recipients of wages paid in Davis County actually live. For example, in 2000 the average employment in the county was 84,846 according to DWS. But according to the Census Bureau, only 61,208 of the county’s resident workers worked in Davis County (Table 1.9), while 28,640 nonresident workers commuted into the county from other counties or out of state (Table 1.10). So roughly one-third of the jobs in Davis County are held by people who live outside the county.

Occupations To get a better picture of what Davis County residents do, BEBR looked at the Census Bureau’s occupational distribution of the civilian workforce aged 16 and older, which is given by place of residence. Table 1.17 shows that in 1990, more than one-third of Davis County workers were in the technical, sales, and administrative support occupations, with the last being the largest of the three, and in fact the largest single category. Davis County residents were employed in all of these categories at higher rates than workers in the rest of the state (i.e., Utah less Davis County). Additionally, about 30% of employed residents were in the managerial and professional specialty occupations, divided nearly equally between the two categories. The three broad categories of service occupations; precision production, craft, and repair occupations; and operators, fabricators, and laborers each represented more than 10% of the county’s resident workers. Only 1.0% were employed in farming, forestry, and fishing.

22 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.17 Occupational Distribution of Davis County Residents, 1990

Occupation Share Managerial and professional specialty occupations 29.3% Executive, administrative, and managerial occupations 14.8% Professional specialty occupations 14.6% Technical, sales, and administrative support occupations 35.1% Technicians and related support occupations 4.8% Sales occupations 12.1% Administrative support occupations, including clerical 18.2% Service occupations 11.1% Private household occupations 0.2% Protective service occupations 1.3% Service occupations, except protective and household 9.6% Farming, forestry, and fishing occupations 1.0% Precision production, craft, and repair occupations 11.1% Operators, fabricators, and laborers 12.3% Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors 5.4% Transportation and material-moving occupations 3.3% Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 3.6% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of the state. Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 1.18 provides the occupational distributions in 2000 and 2005. Note that the 2005 data are from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which covers only the population living in households and, due to small sample sizes, is subject to large margins of error. Over one-third of Davis County resident workers were engaged in management, professional, and related occupations in both 2000 and 2005, higher participation rates than in the rest of the state. Of these, professional and related occupations accounted for nearly 20% to all workers and more than 20% of women. Sales and office occupations accounted for more than 30% of all workers in both years, including 43% of women; again, higher concentrations than in the rest of the state. Within this category, about 30% of female workers were engaged in office and administrative support occupations. Service; construction, extraction, and maintenance; and production, transportation, and material moving each occupied 10% or more of the county’s workers.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 23

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.18 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Davis County, 2000–2005

2000 2005 Occupation Total Male Female Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 34.5% 36.2% 32.4% 34.3% 35.2% 33.2% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 14.6% 17.5% 11.0% 14.5% 17.0% 11.4% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 9.1% 11.6% 5.9% Farmers and farm managers 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 5.3% 5.6% 5.0% 5.6% 5.8% 5.4% Business operations specialists 2.3% 2.3% 2.3% Financial specialists 3.0% 3.2% 2.7% Professional and related occupations 19.9% 18.7% 21.5% 19.8% 18.1% 21.9% Computer and mathematical occupations 3.7% 5.3% 1.8% 2.9% 4.2% 1.4% Architecture and engineering occupations 2.9% 4.6% 0.6% 2.8% 4.8% 0.3% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 2.1% 3.6% 0.3% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.7% 1.0% 0.4% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.6% 0.8% 0.4% 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% Community and social services occupations 1.2% 1.0% 1.5% 0.8% 0.6% 1.0% Legal occupations 1.0% 1.1% 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% 1.8% Education, training, and library occupations 5.5% 2.2% 9.6% 5.4% 2.4% 9.3% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.5% 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.5% 1.1% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 3.6% 2.1% 5.4% 4.5% 3.1% 6.3% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 2.5% 1.6% 3.7% 3.1% 2.4% 4.1% Health technologists and technicians 1.1% 0.6% 1.8% 1.4% 0.8% 2.2% Service occupations 12.4% 9.1% 16.4% 12.7% 9.0% 17.4% Healthcare support occupations 1.6% 0.4% 3.2% 2.0% 0.3% 4.1% Protective service occupations 1.7% 2.4% 0.8% 2.0% 2.4% 1.6% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, incl supervisors 0.9% 1.4% 0.2% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.8% 0.9% 0.6% Food preparation and serving related occupations 3.8% 2.8% 5.1% 3.0% 2.3% 3.9% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 2.5% 2.7% 2.3% 2.3% 3.0% 1.6% Personal care and service occupations 2.7% 0.8% 5.1% 3.3% 0.9% 6.2% Sales and office occupations 30.9% 21.0% 43.2% 31.2% 21.8% 43.0% Sales and related occupations 13.2% 12.7% 13.8% 12.7% 13.2% 12.1% Office and administrative support occupations 17.8% 8.3% 29.5% 18.5% 8.6% 30.9% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 10.0% 17.3% 1.0% 9.9% 17.4% 0.5% Construction and extraction occupations 5.2% 9.3% 0.2% 5.6% 9.9% 0.3% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.8% 1.4% 0.0% Construction trades workers 4.4% 7.8% 0.2% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 4.8% 8.0% 0.8% 4.3% 7.5% 0.3% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 11.9% 16.2% 6.7% 11.7% 16.4% 5.8% Production occupations 6.7% 8.1% 4.9% 6.1% 7.5% 4.3% Transportation and material-moving occupations 5.3% 8.1% 1.8% 5.6% 8.9% 1.5% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.4% 0.7% 0.1% Motor vehicle operators 2.2% 3.6% 0.5% 1.9% 3.1% 0.4% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Material-moving workers 2.2% 3.0% 1.1% 2.8% 4.4% 0.9% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for the rest of the state. Data for 2005 are based on the American Community Survey, which covers only the household population and is subject to large margins of error. In the ACS some categories were slightly different from the 2000 delineation; data for those are not included. Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

24 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Wages From 1990 to 2005, total nonagricultural wages paid in Davis County increased by two-thirds, from $1.9 billion to $3.1 billion in constant 2005 dollars (Table 1.19). Examining wages paid by major industry reveals that Government is by far the largest source, growing from $859.3 million (in constant 2005 dollars) in 1990 to $1.02 billion in 2005. However, its share of total wages, while still large, has declined. In 1990 Government accounted for 43.6% of total wages; by 2005 it was down to 32.7%. Note that the DWS category of Government does not correspond to the SIC and NAICS Public Administration sector. It includes these, but adds local, state, and federal government-owned establishments classified in other sectors, e.g. Utilities, Construction, Education Services, and Health Care and Social Assistance.

In the private sector, the largest single category in 2005 was Manufacturing, which paid 11.9% of total wages. Trade, Transportation, and Utilities provided 17.3% of total wages in 2005, with the largest sector of this group being Retail Trade. Another group of categories, Professional and Business Services, which comprises Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, Management of Companies and Enterprises, and Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services, contributed 11.2%.

From 1990 to 2000, Services increased its share of total nonagricultural wages paid from 13.6% to 18.9%. Trade grew from 15.0% to 17.6% over the period. Manufacturing rose from 14.2% of wages in 1990 to 17.7% in 1995, before declining back to 14.2% by 2000. Construction’s share nearly doubled, from 4.4% in 1990 to 8.7% in 2000; real construction wages increased from $82.3 million to $231.3 million.

Major Employers Several companies in Davis County have consistently been in the top ranks, by number of employees, since at least 1990. These are Hill Air Force Base, Lagoon in Farmington, Hospital Corp. of Utah (Lakeview Hospital in Bountiful), Davis Hospital and Medical Center in Layton, JC Penney in Bountiful, Management & Training Corp. in Clearfield, the Smith’s Distribution Center in Layton, and Utility Trailer Manufacturing in Clearfield. Tables 1.20a–1.20d list the county’s employers with 200 or more employees in 1990–91, 1995–96, 2000, and 2005. The concentrations in manufacturing, health care, and retail trade are evident, though the last does not show up as much since most retail establishments are smaller. The tables also reveal some of the geographic distribution of economic activity in the county, most notably the agglomeration of manufacturing companies in Clearfield.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 25

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.19 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Davis County by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $1,855.3 100.0% $1,849.0 100.0% $1,876.2 100.0% $1,917.4 100.0% $1,985.1 100.0% $2,079.7 100.0% $2,196.7 100.0% $2,315.3 100.0% $2,429.4 100.0% $2,504.4 100.0% $2,654.9 100.0% Mining $1.3 0.1% $2.6 0.1% $2.8 0.1% $4.5 0.2% $4.4 0.2% $6.0 0.3% $4.9 0.2% $4.4 0.2% $4.0 0.2% $3.0 0.1% $4.1 0.2% Construction $82.3 4.4% $97.5 5.3% $97.0 5.2% $115.2 6.0% $136.5 6.9% $146.6 7.1% $166.0 7.6% $196.5 8.5% $212.1 8.7% $228.4 9.1% $231.3 8.7% Manufacturing $263.9 14.2% $255.5 13.8% $275.2 14.7% $298.8 15.6% $327.7 16.5% $368.7 17.7% $372.0 16.9% $379.8 16.4% $388.9 16.0% $396.2 15.8% $376.6 14.2% TCPU $83.3 4.5% $82.5 4.5% $78.3 4.2% $76.0 4.0% $78.2 3.9% $77.1 3.7% $86.5 3.9% $92.7 4.0% $101.3 4.2% $104.2 4.2% $121.0 4.6% Trade $277.7 15.0% $286.4 15.5% $304.2 16.2% $326.5 17.0% $348.2 17.5% $369.2 17.8% $394.0 17.9% $413.3 17.9% $445.3 18.3% $453.0 18.1% $466.3 17.6% FIRE $35.5 1.9% $44.7 2.4% $49.3 2.6% $58.9 3.1% $67.5 3.4% $68.9 3.3% $77.6 3.5% $83.8 3.6% $93.4 3.8% $87.5 3.5% $86.9 3.3% Services $252.0 13.6% $253.7 13.7% $273.0 14.6% $294.6 15.4% $322.1 16.2% $347.2 16.7% $393.6 17.9% $394.7 17.0% $419.0 17.2% $448.6 17.9% $500.9 18.9% Government $859.3 46.3% $826.3 44.7% $796.2 42.4% $742.9 38.7% $700.5 35.3% $696.0 33.5% $702.0 32.0% $750.1 32.4% $765.3 31.5% $783.5 31.3% $867.8 32.7% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $2,759.6 100.0% $2,868.7 100.0% $2,935.6 100.0% $3,051.7 100.0% $3,124.2 100.0% Mining $4.1 0.1% $2.6 0.1% $3.3 0.1% $4.8 0.2% $5.7 0.2% Construction $247.0 9.0% $229.7 8.0% $236.7 8.1% $259.8 8.5% $285.9 9.2% Manufacturing $373.9 13.6% $378.5 13.2% $392.7 13.4% $378.2 12.4% $371.5 11.9% Trade, Transp., Utilities $509.1 18.4% $510.3 17.8% $508.5 17.3% $544.9 17.9% $539.1 17.3% Information $25.8 0.9% $24.6 0.9% $28.4 1.0% $31.8 1.0% $34.2 1.1% Financial Activities $96.2 3.5% $92.3 3.2% $105.4 3.6% $110.9 3.6% $117.8 3.8% Prof & Bus Services $246.2 8.9% $289.5 10.1% $301.7 10.3% $322.4 10.6% $351.0 11.2% Edu & Health Services $207.9 7.5% $205.7 7.2% $221.4 7.5% $233.2 7.6% $241.7 7.7% Leisure & Hospitality $82.7 3.0% $85.4 3.0% $85.7 2.9% $87.3 2.9% $88.8 2.8% Other Services $60.5 2.2% $64.7 2.3% $65.0 2.2% $71.0 2.3% $67.5 2.2% Government $906.2 32.8% $985.4 34.3% $986.8 33.6% $1,007.3 33.0% $1,021.1 32.7%

Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

26 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.20a Davis County Major Employers, 1990–91

Company Industry City

10,000+ Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military Clearfield

1,000–1,999 Employees Hercules Manufacturing Clearfield

400–499 Employees All American Gourmet Manufacturing Clearfield Smith’s Distribution Center Retail Trade Layton JC Penney #4319 Telecatalog Retail Trade Bountiful Amusement Services (part of Lagoon) Service Industries Farmington Lakeview Hospital/Hospital Corp of Utah Service Industries Bountiful Management & Training Corp. Service Industries Clearfield

300–399 Employees Clover Club Foods Manufacturing Kaysville Thiokol Corp–Space Manufacturing Clearfield Albertsons Distribution #8231 Retail Trade N. Salt Lake Lagoon Service Industries Farmington Humana Hospital Davis North Service Industries Layton

200–299 Employees Staker Paving & Construction Construction N. Salt Lake Chevron USA–Refinery Manufacturing N. Salt Lake Associated Piping and Engineering Manufacturing Clearfield Allied Signal Manufacturing Clearfield Utility Trailer Manufacturing Clearfield R C Willey & Sons Retail Trade Syracuse Computer Sciences Service Industries Clearfield Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 27

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.20b Davis County Major Employers, 1995–96

Company Industry City

7,000–9,999 Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military Clearfield

700–999 Employees Utility Trailer Manufacturing Clearfield SPS (was Sears Payment Systems) Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Layton

500–699 Employees Lifetime Products Manufacturing Clearfield JC Penney #4319 Telecatalog Retail Trade Bountiful Lakeview Hospital/Hospital Corp of Utah Service Industries Bountiful Amusement Services (part of Lagoon) Service Industries Farmington Lagoon Service Industries Farmington

400–499 Employees All American Gourmet Manufacturing Clearfield Allied Signal Manufacturing Clearfield Albertsons Distribution #8231 Retail Trade N. Salt Lake Management & Training Corp. Service Industries Clearfield Humana Hospital Davis North Service Industries Layton

300–399 Employees Hercules Manufacturing Clearfield ICON Health & Fitness (was WESLO) Manufacturing Clearfield Smith’s Distribution Center Retail Trade Layton

200–299 Employees Staker Paving & Construction Construction N. Salt Lake Futura Industries Manufacturing Clearfield Thiokol Corp–Space Manufacturing Clearfield Chevron USA–Refinery Manufacturing N. Salt Lake Zero Manufacturing Manufacturing N. Salt Lake Companion Systems Manufacturing N. Salt Lake Motor Cargo Transportation, Communication, and Utilities N. Salt Lake Wal-Mart Retail Trade Layton South Davis Hospital Service Industries Bountiful Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

28 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.20c Davis County Major Employers, 2000

Company Industry City

10,000+ Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military Clearfield

1,000–9,999 Employees Lifetime Products Inc Human Resources Manufacturing Clearfield

700–999 Employees Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. Manufacturing Clearfield Smith’s Distribution Center Retail Trade Layton Lagoon Corporation Inc Service Industries Farmington

500–699 Employees JC Penney Retail Trade Bountiful Albertsons Retail Trade N. Salt Lake Associates Commerce Solutions Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Layton Lakeview Hospital Service Industries Bountiful Pioneer Adult Rehabilitation Service Industries Clearfield Amusement Service Service Industries Farmington Davis Schools–Admin Office Service Industries Farmington Davis Hospital And Medical Center Service Industries Layton

400–499 Employees Staker Paving and Construction Construction Industries N. Salt Lake Icon Health & Fitness Manufacturing Clearfield Management & Training Corp Service Industries Clearfield

300–399 Employees Lofthouse Foods Manufacturing Clearfield Allied Signal Inc Manufacturing Clearfield Alliant (was Thiokol) Manufacturing Clearfield Motor Cargo Transportation, Communication, and Utilities N. Salt Lake BCBU Inc Service Industries Bountiful TRW SIG 825-949 Service Industries Clearfield

200–299 Employees DFG Inc Manufacturing Clearfield Futura Industries Manufacturing Clearfield APW Zero Cases Manufacturing N. Salt Lake Chevron USA Inc Manufacturing N. Salt Lake Orbit Irrigation Products Manufacturing N. Salt Lake Raytheon Aerospace Support Services Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Hill AFB May Trucking Company Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Layton Utah Auto Auction Wholesale Trade Woods Cross Super Target Retail Trade Centerville Army & Air Force Exchange Service Retail Trade Hill AFB Wal-Mart Retail Trade Layton Super Target Retail Trade Layton South Davis Community Hospital Inc Service Industries Bountiful Davis Schools Service Industries Farmington Davis County School District Service Industries Kaysville Hilltop HeadStart Service Industries Layton SOS Temporary Services Service Industries Layton Tanner Memorial Clinic Service Industries Layton Davis Co Criminal Justice Com Public Administration Farmington Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 29

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.20d Davis County Major Employers, 2005

Company Industry City

10,000–14,999 Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military Clearfield

1,000–1,999 Employees Lifetime Products Inc Human Resources Manufacturing Clearfield Lagoon Corporation Inc Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Farmington

500–999 Employees Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. Manufacturing Clearfield ICON Health & Fitness Manufacturing Clearfield Smith’s Distribution Center Transportation and Warehousing Layton Assoc Payroll Mgt Srvc Finance and Insurance Layton TRW SIG 825-949 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Clearfield Hospital Corporation of Utah Health Care and Social Assistance Bountiful South Davis Community Hospital Inc Health Care and Social Assistance Bountiful Management & Training Corp Health Care and Social Assistance Clearfield Davis Hospital and Medical Center Health Care and Social Assistance Layton Department of Defense Public Administration

250–499 Employees Lofthouse Foods Manufacturing Clearfield Honeywell International Inc Manufacturing Clearfield Alliant Manufacturing Clearfield DFG Inc Manufacturing Clearfield JC Penney Co, Inc. Retail Trade Bountiful Wal-Mart Retail Trade Clinton Wal-Mart Retail Trade Layton Raytheon Aerospace Transportation and Warehousing Clearfield Davis County School District Transportation and Warehousing Kaysville May Trucking Company Transportation and Warehousing Layton HSS Systems Management of Companies and Enterprises Layton SOS Temporary Services Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Layton BCBU Inc Health Care and Social Assistance Bountiful Tanner Memorial Clinic Health Care and Social Assistance Layton Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Retail Sales

Retail trade is a significant source of jobs and wages in Davis County. According to the Utah State Tax Commission, Davis County’s retail sales increased 84.3% in real terms over the study period, from $1.1 billion in 1990 to almost $2.1 billion in 2005 (in constant 2005 dollars). Table 1.21 shows retail sales by major category for each year, including the amount and the category’s share of total sales. In 1990, sales were dominated by Food Stores, Motor Vehicle Dealers, and General Merchandise stores, with 28.2%, 27.5%, and 13.5% of total sales respectively. By 2005, Food Stores had slipped to 17.0%, Motor Vehicle Dealers represented 24.9%, and General Merchandise had grown to 20.6%.

30 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.21 Davis County Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1990–2005 (millions of constant 2005 dollars)

Building & General Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Total Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Garden Merchandise Dealers Accessory Drinking Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1990 $60.7 5.4% $151.3 13.5% $315.3 28.2% $308.4 27.5% $26.2 2.3% $83.6 7.5% $100.6 9.0% $74.0 6.6% $1,120.2 1991 $61.6 5.4% $163.3 14.3% $322.7 28.3% $305.6 26.8% $27.4 2.4% $80.4 7.0% $106.5 9.3% $73.8 6.5% $1,141.2 1992 $69.9 5.7% $179.2 14.6% $330.6 26.9% $328.8 26.8% $29.4 2.4% $92.5 7.5% $112.6 9.2% $84.7 6.9% $1,227.7 1993 $89.6 6.6% $186.2 13.6% $333.9 24.4% $393.3 28.8% $35.5 2.6% $109.7 8.0% $126.9 9.3% $92.2 6.7% $1,367.2 1994 $100.7 6.9% $212.5 14.5% $341.2 23.3% $410.3 28.0% $37.3 2.5% $122.2 8.3% $137.0 9.4% $103.7 7.1% $1,464.9 1995 $111.8 7.2% $234.5 15.2% $349.2 22.6% $420.3 27.2% $34.0 2.2% $138.0 8.9% $143.7 9.3% $113.9 7.4% $1,545.3 1996 $123.5 7.4% $265.5 15.8% $365.4 21.8% $474.9 28.3% $34.5 2.1% $136.7 8.1% $154.6 9.2% $124.4 7.4% $1,679.6 1997 $123.5 7.5% $278.8 16.9% $360.9 21.9% $432.0 26.2% $36.6 2.2% $128.8 7.8% $159.6 9.7% $130.9 7.9% $1,650.9 1998 $129.6 7.3% $327.4 18.5% $353.1 19.9% $463.5 26.2% $52.6 3.0% $127.9 7.2% $171.4 9.7% $144.7 8.2% $1,770.1 1999 $157.1 8.6% $332.4 18.2% $353.7 19.4% $474.0 25.9% $58.5 3.2% $121.2 6.6% $177.1 9.7% $153.4 8.4% $1,827.4 2000 $143.5 7.8% $342.7 18.7% $361.5 19.7% $466.8 25.4% $66.2 3.6% $110.5 6.0% $184.9 10.1% $159.4 8.7% $1,835.6 2001 $139.8 7.6% $361.8 19.6% $351.8 19.0% $480.7 26.0% $65.6 3.5% $108.4 5.9% $185.4 10.0% $155.6 8.4% $1,849.0 2002 $131.1 7.0% $361.4 19.3% $345.1 18.4% $524.5 28.0% $66.8 3.6% $103.1 5.5% $184.6 9.8% $159.2 8.5% $1,875.8 2003 $143.7 7.7% $362.9 19.4% $322.0 17.2% $519.5 27.8% $68.8 3.7% $100.6 5.4% $186.5 10.0% $167.1 8.9% $1,871.1 2004 $161.0 8.2% $422.1 21.4% $327.9 16.6% $518.3 26.2% $70.3 3.6% $99.0 5.0% $200.1 10.1% $176.2 8.9% $1,974.9 2005 $198.3 9.6% $426.2 20.6% $351.3 17.0% $514.9 24.9% $72.6 3.5% $100.6 4.9% $210.8 10.2% $189.6 9.2% $2,064.3 Change 226.7% 77.3% 181.8% 52.9% 11.4% -39.5% 66.9% -9.4% 177.1% 50.3% 20.4% -34.7% 109.5% 13.7% 156.2% 39.0% 84.3% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 31

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 1.2 Davis County Retail Sales by SIC Sector, 1990-2005 $2,500

$2,000

$1,500 Miscellaneous Eating & Drinking Furniture Sales Apparel & Accessory $1,000 Motor Vehicle Dealers Food Stores General Merchandise (millions of constant 2005 dollars) $500 Building & Garden

$0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Source: Utah State Tax Commission

Figure 1.2 shows each category’s contribution to total sales. Sales increased in all categories over the period. Those whose sales grew the most include Building and Garden (up 226.7%), General Merchandise (up 181.8%), and Apparel and Accessory (up 177.1%).

Consumer Expenditures The Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes an annual Consumer Expenditure Survey that shows, by region, how “consumer units” spend their after-tax income.2 The survey provides the average income of the consumer unit for each region, as well as the average annual total expenditures. It then breaks down total expenditures into several categories and subcategories (e.g., food/food at home/dairy products/fresh milk and cream), giving the share spent on each. Aggregate household income in the previous year is published in the decennial census, e.g. the 2000 Census reports household income in 1999. Davis County’s total household income in 1999 was $4,589,783,200. The American Community Survey reports average household income and the number of households at the county level. From the 2005 ACS, BEBR calculated Davis County’s aggregate household income to be $5,542,103,660. The Census Bureau defines a household as “all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence.” So there is a good deal of overlap between a consumer unit and a household, though they are not equivalent. BEBR applied the expenditure shares for the West from the 2005 Consumer Expenditure Survey to Davis County’s 2005 aggregate household income to derive an estimate of total potential expenditures in various categories. The results are reported in Table 1.22. The

2 A “consumer unit” is defined as “Members of a household consisting of (a) occupants related by blood, marriage, adoption, or some other legal arrangement; (b) a single person living alone or sharing a household with others, but who is financially independent; or (c) two or more persons living together who share responsibility for at least 2 out of 3 major types of expenses—food, housing, and other expenses. Students living in university-sponsored housing are also included in the sample as separate consumer units.”

32 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

table also shows an estimated household income for 2006. This was derived by calculating the compound annual growth rate in nominal household income from 1999 to 2005, then applying that rate to the 2005 figure to arrive at an amount for 2006.

Total annual expenditures in Davis County were estimated at $4.4 billion in 2005 and $4.6 billion in 2006. Given Utah’s cultural differences from the nation, and even the region, expenditures on alcohol and tobacco are likely to be lower than the shares indicated in the Consumer Expenditure Survey. Also, Davis County’s average household size in 2005 was 3.2, while the average consumer unit comprised 2.6 persons. Thus, Davis County households’ expenditures on food, shelter, and apparel are likely to be higher than indicated. In general, though, housing accounts for more than one-third of household expenditures, $1.5 billion in 2005, with about one-fifth going to shelter. Transportation represents 19% of total expenditures, $845 million in 2005, and food consumes 12%, with slightly less than half of that going to food away from home.

Comparing other retail categories reveals where sales “leakage” may be occurring. According to the Consumer Survey and BEBR calculations, expenditures on food at home were $298 million in 2005; the Tax Commission reported retail sales in the Food Stores category of $351 million. The difference may be due to a larger household size in Davis County than the consumer unit size in the West, leading to greater household expenditures on food than indicated by the survey. Residents’ expenditures on vehicle purchases, gasoline, and motor oil were about $565 million in 2005; countywide retail sales in the Motor Vehicle Dealers category, which includes gas stations and automotive supply stores, were about $515 million. Some of the county’s 50,000-plus out- commuters could be filling their gas tanks in Salt Lake County. Apparel and services expenditures were an estimated $164 million in 2005, yet the Tax Commission reported only $72.6 million in retail sales in the Apparel and Accessory category for Davis County. County residents are likely traveling to Salt Lake County for much of their shopping in this category. Similarly, expenditures on household furnishings and equipment were about $187 million, but retail sales in the comparable Furniture category were only $100.6 million. Expenditures by Davis County residents on food away from home were estimated at about $236 million in 2005, and reported retail sales for Eating and Drinking establishments were $210.8 million. The excess expenditures may be by Davis County out-commuters buying lunch in their county of work.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 33

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.22 Potential Consumer Expenditures in Davis County

2005 West 2005 2006 Consumer unit characteristics: Income before taxes $65,938 $5,542,103,660 $5,719,021,423 Income after taxes $62,999 $5,295,080,052 $5,464,112,206 After-tax share of pre-tax income 95.5% Average annual expenditures $52,891 $4,445,500,389 $4,587,411,843 Share of after-tax income 84.0% Food 12.0% $533,460,047 $550,489,421 Food at home 6.7% $297,848,526 $307,356,593 Food away from home 5.3% $235,611,521 $243,132,828 Alcoholic beverages 1.0% $44,455,004 $45,874,118 Housing 34.1% $1,515,915,633 $1,564,307,438 Shelter 21.4% $951,337,083 $981,706,134 Owned dwellings 13.9% $617,924,554 $637,650,246 Rented dwellings 6.4% $284,512,025 $293,594,358 Other lodging 1.1% $48,900,504 $50,461,530 Utilities, fuels, and public services 5.5% $244,502,521 $252,307,651 Household operations 1.7% $75,573,507 $77,986,001 Housekeeping supplies 1.2% $53,346,005 $55,048,942 Household furnishings and equipment 4.2% $186,711,016 $192,671,297 Household textiles 0.2% $8,891,001 $9,174,824 Furniture 1.2% $53,346,005 $55,048,942 Floor coverings 0.1% $4,445,500 $4,587,412 Major appliances 0.5% $22,227,502 $22,937,059 Small appliances, miscellaneous housewares 0.3% $13,336,501 $13,762,236 Miscellaneous household equipment 1.9% $84,464,507 $87,160,825 Apparel and services 3.7% $164,483,514 $169,734,238 Men and boys 0.9% $40,009,504 $41,286,707 Women and girls 1.4% $62,237,005 $64,223,766 Children under 2 0.2% $8,891,001 $9,174,824 Footwear 0.6% $26,673,002 $27,524,471 Other apparel products and services 0.6% $26,673,002 $27,524,471 Transportation 19.0% $844,645,074 $871,608,250 Vehicle purchases (net outlay) 8.6% $382,313,033 $394,517,418 Cars and trucks, new 4.9% $217,829,519 $224,783,180 Cars and trucks, used 3.5% $155,592,514 $160,559,414 Other vehicles 0.2% $8,891,001 $9,174,824 Gasoline and motor oil 4.1% $182,265,516 $188,083,886 Other vehicle expenses 5.1% $226,720,520 $233,958,004 Public transportation 1.1% $48,900,504 $50,461,530 Health care 5.0% $222,275,019 $229,370,592 Health insurance 2.4% $106,692,009 $110,097,884 Medical services 1.5% $66,682,506 $68,811,178 Drugs 0.9% $40,009,504 $41,286,707 Medical supplies 0.2% $8,891,001 $9,174,824 Entertainment 5.6% $248,948,022 $256,895,063 Fees and admissions 1.4% $62,237,005 $64,223,766 Audio and visual equipment and services 1.8% $80,019,007 $82,573,413 Pets, toys, hobbies, and playground equipment 0.9% $40,009,504 $41,286,707 Other entertainment supplies, equipment, and services 1.4% $62,237,005 $64,223,766 Personal care products and services 1.2% $53,346,005 $55,048,942 Reading 0.3% $13,336,501 $13,762,236 Education 1.8% $80,019,007 $82,573,413 Tobacco products and smoking supplies 0.5% $22,227,502 $22,937,059 Miscellaneous 1.9% $84,464,507 $87,160,825 Cash contributions 3.1% $137,810,512 $142,209,767 Personal insurance and pensions 10.9% $484,559,542 $500,027,891 Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2005; U.S. Census Bureau; BEBR calculations

34 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities Tax Revenue

BEBR examined Davis County’s tax revenue from 1991 (the first year for which data are available) through 2005. Figure 1.3 shows annual property tax, sales and use tax, and transient room tax receipts in constant 2005 dollars. In 1997, the legislature allowed counties to increase the county option sales tax by 0.25% if they reduced their property tax rates by the same amount. Davis began collecting the additional county option tax, while reducing its property tax rate, on January 1, 1998, which is evident in the graph. Figure 1.3 Davis County Tax Revenue by Major Source, 1991-2005

$25 $23.23 $23.71 $23.78 $24.13 $24.55 $24.99 $23.16 $24.07 $20.91 $20.20

$19.91 $20.42 $20 $19.26 $18.21 $18.44

$15

$10 $11.22 $ 11. 4 4 $10.89 $ 11. 10 $8.73 $9.15 $9.18 $9.77 $5 Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars Millions of Constant $1.57 $0.44 $0.59 $1.30 $0.16 $0.67 $0.71 $0.80 $0 $0.20$0.23 $0.27$0.32 $0.39$2.23 $2.66 $0.47 $0.52 2 $0.48 $0.69 99 93 1991 1 9 $0.50 $0.50 1 96 $0.56 1994 9 8 1995 1 9 1997 19 1 1999 0 2000 3 20 0 2002 5 20 2004 00 Transient Room Tax 2 General Sales and Use Tax Property Taxes Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

Total tax revenue in Davis County in 2005 was $41.5 million, which amounts to a 74.2% real increase over 1991’s revenue of $23.8 million (in constant 2005 dollars; see Table 1.23). Although property taxes continue to provide the bulk of tax revenue, due to the 1997 law their contribution to county coffers has declined, from 97.5% in 1991 to 60.2% in 2005. As a result, total property tax revenue grew only 7.6% from 1991 to 2005, while per capita revenue fell 24.6%. In contrast, total sales and use tax revenue grew 2112.7% over the period, from $441,768 in 1991 to nearly $9.8 million in 2005, and per capita revenue grew 1451.2%. Transient room tax revenue increased 244.3%, from $163,136 in 1991 to $561,659 in 2005. While total tax revenue grew 74.2% from 1991 to 2005, per-capita revenue grew a more modest 22.1%, from $122.19 to $149.21. Table 1.24 provides a detailed breakdown of tax revenue in 1991, 2000, and 2005.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 35

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.23 Davis County Tax Revenue by Source, 1991–2005 (constant 2005 dollars) Property Sales and Transient Total Tax Per Capita Fee-in-Lieu Year Taxes Use Tax Room Tax Revenue* Revenue 1991 $23,232,198 $441,648 $163,136 $23,836,981 $122.19 1992 $20,204,114 $2,909,389 $590,300 $201,741 $24,045,321 $119.53 1993 $20,910,191 $2,633,788 $1,567,600 $225,013 $25,480,426 $123.90 1994 $23,706,830 $3,053,590 $667,018 $268,772 $27,836,302 $131.21 1995 $23,781,352 $3,513,949 $714,359 $323,935 $28,509,405 $131.95 1996 $24,134,527 $3,568,296 $796,755 $394,161 $29,086,195 $132.40 1997 $23,164,012 $4,396,770 $1,297,593 $2,227,356 $31,378,174 $139.86 1998 $18,210,467 $3,304,558 $8,728,601 $2,660,477 $33,176,675 $144.59 1999 $18,443,950 $3,239,697 $11,219,940 $465,389 $33,607,550 $142.79 2000 $19,258,333 $3,188,127 $11,436,951 $518,010 $34,642,806 $144.22 2001 $19,905,694 $3,132,409 $10,894,874 $483,595 $34,638,039 $140.38 2002 $20,415,643 $3,106,887 $11,098,618 $690,321 $35,544,883 $139.34 2003 $24,065,079 $3,580,555 $9,150,402 $498,352 $39,889,629 $152.23 2004 $24,552,939 $3,315,226 $9,182,842 $498,357 $40,132,047 $149.24 2005 $24,993,243 $9,772,379 $561,659 $41,520,703 $149.21 Change 7.6% 13.9% 2112.7% 244.3% 74.2% 22.1% *Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes (tourism taxes, licenses, and permits). Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on UPEC population estimates

Table 1.24 Detailed Breakdown of Davis County Tax Revenue for Selected Years

Current Constant ’05 Per Capita Share Dollars Dollars 1991 Property Taxes: General Fund $7,522,655 $10,897,714 $55.86 45.7% Library $1,478,831 $2,142,312 $10.98 9.0% Flood Control $200,413 $290,329 $1.49 1.2% Municipal Service Areas $163,742 $237,205 $1.22 1.0% Bond Repayment $3,545,696 $5,136,482 $26.33 21.5% Assessing and Collecting $1,422,614 $2,060,873 $10.56 8.6% Other $1,703,157 $2,467,283 $12.65 10.4% Total Property Tax $16,037,108 $23,232,198 $119.09 97.5% General Sales and Use Tax $304,868 $441,648 $2.26 1.9% Transient Room Tax $112,612 $163,136 $0.84 0.7% Total Tax Revenue $16,454,588 $23,836,981 $122.19 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes: General Fund $7,789,797 $8,863,791 $36.90 25.6% Library $3,157,055 $3,592,324 $14.96 10.4% Flood Control $645,487 $734,481 $3.06 2.1% Municipal Service Areas $197,844 $225,121 $0.94 0.6% Bond Repayment $1,546,920 $1,760,197 $7.33 5.1% Assessing and Collecting $1,828,980 $2,081,145 $8.66 6.0% Other $1,758,787 $2,001,274 $8.33 5.8% Total Property Tax $16,924,870 $19,258,333 $80.17 55.6% Fee in Lieu $2,801,833 $3,188,127 $13.27 9.2% General Sales and Use Tax $10,051,177 $11,436,951 $47.61 33.0% Transient Room Tax $455,245 $518,010 $2.16 1.5% Licenses and Permits $212,136 $241,384 $1.00 0.7% Total Tax Revenue $30,445,261 $34,642,806 $144.22 100.0%

36 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.24, cont’d. Detailed Breakdown of Davis County Tax Revenue for Selected Years

Constant ’05 Per Capita Share Dollars 2005 Property Taxes: General Fund $16,184,705 $58.16 39.0% Library $4,145,932 $14.90 10.0% Flood Control N/A Municipal Service Areas $258,467 $0.93 0.6% Bond Repayment $1,835,698 $6.60 4.4% Assessing and Collecting $2,568,441 $9.23 6.2% Other N/A Total Property Taxes $24,993,243 $89.81 60.2% General Sales and Use Taxes Mass Transit Tax $9,184,554 $33.00 22.1% County Option Sales Tax $587,825 $2.11 1.4% Total General Sales and Use Taxes $9,772,379 $35.12 23.5% Special Base Sales Taxes Transient Room Tax $561,659 $2.02 1.4% Tourism—Transient Room Tax $2,248,786 $8.08 5.4% Tourism—Restaurant Tax $313,903 $1.13 0.8% Total Special Base Sales Taxes $3,124,348 $11.23 7.5% Occupation & Business Licensing & Permit Taxes $231,330 $0.83 0.6% Other Licenses and Permits $3,399,403 $12.22 8.2% Fee in Lieu N/A Total Tax Revenue $41,520,703 $149.21 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on UPEC population estimates

Real Estate

Assessed Property Values The Davis County Assessor’s Office provided ten years of data on total valuations by property type and place for the county and its municipalities. Table 1.25 shows values by type in 1997 (in constant 2006 dollars) and 2006, the share each represented of total property values (including personal property), and the inflation-adjusted change in value over the period.

In 1997, total property in Davis County was valued at more than $9.5 billion in constant 2006 dollars. Primary use residential real estate, both land and buildings, was valued at $5.3 billion, representing 56.0% of total property value. Buildings accounted for three-quarters of residential real estate value, at $4.1 billion. Commercial and industrial real estate in the county was valued at $1.3 billion, almost 14% of total property; about 70% was in buildings. Agricultural real estate represented just 0.4% of total property in 1997, almost evenly split between land and buildings. Nonagricultural unimproved real estate was valued at nearly $390 million, accounting for 4.1% of total property value.

By 2006, these values had changed markedly, even adjusting for inflation. The value of total property increased 26.4% to more than $12 billion. The value of primary use residential real estate increased 42.7% (land was up 62.2%); commercial and industrial real estate grew 81.2% (industrial land gained 127.2%); but the value of agricultural real estate declined 57.7%, and unimproved nonagricultural land was down 71.4%. Unfortunately, the assessor’s office could

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 37

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

not provide data on acreage, but the decreases in the last two categories are likely due to smaller quantities of these types of land being available rather than declines in per-acre values. Davis County has the smallest land area in the state and is expected to reach buildout in about 2040, the first county to do so. Therefore, given the limited and diminishing supply of developable land and increasing population, per-acre prices of undeveloped land should generally increase.

Table 1.25 Davis County Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change in Value* Share Value Share Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $1,261,876,412 13.3% $2,046,387,148 17.0% 62.2% Buildings $4,063,586,830 42.7% $5,553,125,101 46.2% 36.7% Total $5,325,463,242 56.0% $7,599,512,249 63.3% 42.7%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $386,015,792 4.1% $876,972,731 7.3% 127.2% Buildings $938,544,344 9.9% $1,522,512,499 12.7% 62.2% Total $1,324,560,136 13.9% $2,399,485,230 20.0% 81.2%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $20,037,650 0.2% $7,437,329 0.1% -62.9% Buildings $21,693,716 0.2% $10,203,581 0.1% -53.0% Total $41,731,366 0.4% $17,640,910 0.1% -57.7%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $389,731,238 4.1% $111,522,886 0.9% -71.4%

Total Land & Buildings $7,083,291,172 74.5% $10,846,134,366 90.3% 53.1% Total Personal Property $804,834,384 8.5% $860,077,858 7.2% 6.9% Total Locally Assessed $7,888,125,555 83.0% $11,706,212,224 97.4% 48.4% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $1,619,021,285 17.0% $307,995,999 2.6% -81.0% Area Total $9,507,146,840 100.0% $12,014,208,223 100.0% 26.4% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

New Residential Construction The local housing market represents one of the most important components of Davis County’s economic base. The county’s current housing inventory of Table 1.26 93,000 units comprises 75,000 owner-occupied units and Davis County Housing 18,000 rental units (Table 1.26). These residential units have Profile, 2006 an assessed value of $7.6 billion. The inventory of housing is concentrated in three cities: Layton, Bountiful, and Units Total Housing Units 93,000 Clearfield. These three cities account for nearly half of all Vacant Units 3,050 residential units in Davis County (Table 1.27). Total Occupied Units 89,950 Owner Occupied 72,800 Vacant Owner Units 2,200 Recently the inventory of residential units in the county has Total Owner Units 75,000 been increasing at a rate of 2,500 to 3,000 units a year (Table Renter Occupied 17,150 1.28). Between 2000 and 2006, there were building permits Vacant Rental Units 850 Total Rental Units 18,000 issued for 19,000 units. Consequently, approximately 20% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business of the housing inventory in Davis County has been built Research, University of Utah

38 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

since 2000. The construction value of these new homes Table 1.27 totals nearly $600 million annually. The peak year for Housing Inventory by City, new residential construction was 1997, when 3,204 2006 building permits where issued. This record level was Total Share achieved due to the large number of permits issued for Units multifamily units. In 1997, 30% of the permits issued for Layton 22,200 23.9% new dwelling units were multifamily units, consisting Bountiful 14,725 15.8% Clearfield 9,500 10.2% primarily of apartment communities in Clearfield (542 Kaysville 7,350 7.9% units) and Layton (256 units). Syracuse 6,100 6.6% Clinton 5,950 6.4% North Salt Lake 4,825 5.2% Typically in Davis County, 85% of building permits Centerville 4,750 5.1% issued are for detached single-family homes. In 2005, the Farmington 4,700 5.1% number of single-family permits hit an all-time high of Woods Cross 2,875 3.1% West Point 2,560 2.8% 2,782, which ranked fourth among Utah’s 29 counties, Sunset 1,840 2.0% behind Salt Lake County, Utah County, and Washington South Weber 1,650 1.8% County. West Bountiful 1,550 1.7% Fruit Heights 1,460 1.6% Unincorporated 965 1.0% Six cities in the county had significant levels of single- Total 93,000 100.0% family activity in the record year of 2005: Syracuse (495 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, units), Layton (383 units), Kaysville (355 units), North University of Utah Salt Lake (324 units), Clinton (317 units), and Farmington (254 units). These are the same six cities that have dominated residential construction in Davis County since 2000 (Table 1.29).

Table 1.28 Building Permits Issued by Type of Residential Structure in Davis County

Single- Duplexes Apartments Manufactured/ Value Year Family and Twin Condominiums (3 or more Total (thousands of Mobile Homes Homes Homes units) current dollars) 1990 891 8 0 50 0 949 $88,751.4 1991 1,031 4 6 16 0 1,057 $110,105.7 1992 1,387 8 18 29 1 1,443 $162,789.5 1993 1,559 20 8 152 0 1,739 $187,056.1 1994 1,544 8 23 170 0 1,745 $196,582.1 1995 1,587 24 51 305 2 1,969 $197,539.1 1996 2,140 26 49 411 9 2,635 $260,901.1 1997 2,182 36 66 908 12 3,204 $286,574.6 1998 2,003 34 159 152 15 2,363 $264,773.2 1999 1,979 28 109 175 3 2,294 $256,965.8 2000 1,686 58 49 33 6 1,832 $235,426.9 2001 2,129 12 60 368 2 2,571 $307,676.1 2002 2,349 42 51 119 3 2,564 $346,228.2 2003 2,608 42 127 87 3 2,867 $426,540.1 2004 2,602 22 155 391 9 3,179 $532,595.1 2005 2,782 60 207 107 4 3,160 $590,265.2 2006 2,471 40 200 252 2 2,765 $571,227.6 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 39

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.29 Cities Ranked by Residential Building Permits Issued Since 2000

Permits Syracuse 3,466 Layton 3,050 Clinton 2,286 North Salt Lake 1,802 Kaysville 1,698 Farmington 1,465 Clearfield 1,164 Bountiful 906 Woods Cross 877 West Point 861 South Weber 543 Centerville 474 West Bountiful 276 Fruit Heights 168 Sunset 8 Total 19,044 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 1.30 Cities Ranked by Residential Building Permits Issued Since 1990

Permits Layton 8,599 Syracuse 4,934 Clinton 4,001 Kaysville 3,527 Clearfield 3,107 Bountiful 2,597 North Salt Lake 2,466 Farmington 2,372 Centerville 1,648 West Point 1,565 South Weber 1,331 Woods Cross 1,211 Fruit Heights 485 West Bountiful 471 Sunset 59 Total 38,373 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

When measured over a longer period of time—1990 to 2006—Bountiful and Clearfield rank among the top six cities in new residential construction, but in recent years these two cities have had relatively small numbers of permits issued for new dwelling units. These cities are approaching build-out and have limited amounts of undeveloped residential land, although they still rank second and third in total housing inventory in the county.

The median price of new homes in Davis County has risen by nearly 50% in the past three years. In 2003 the median closing price for a new home in the county was $168,250, and by 2006 the

40 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities median price had risen to $250,000 (Table 1.31). The median sales price of a new home in Davis County is considerably higher than the median sales price of an existing home, discussed below.

Table 1.31 Median Price of New Homes in Davis County, 2003–06

Price Range (current dollars) 2003 2004 2005 2006 $0 to $99,999 0 0 0 0 $100,000 to $124,999 177 53 0 0 $125,000 to $149,999 474 162 35 0 $150,000 to $174,999 237 359 271 203 $175,000 to $199,999 193 295 316 266 $200,000 to $224,999 187 298 469 308 $225,000 to $249,999 67 156 201 215 $250,000 to $274,999 69 208 244 314 $275,000 to $299,999 78 57 55 156 $300,000 to $324,999 9 17 31 78 $325,000 to $349,999 37 39 84 125 $350,000 to $374,999 0 2 76 115 $375,000 to $399,999 25 52 68 67 $400,000 to $449,999 36 16 46 68 $450,000 to $499,999 19 8 7 26 $500,000 to $599,999 31 67 50 25 $600,000 to $749,999 7 8 11 17 $750,000 to 999,999 2 1 6 7 $1,000,000 and above 0 0 0 0 Total Units 1,648 1,798 1,970 1,990 Median Price $168,250 $202,500 $219,350 $250,000 Source: NewReach

Real Estate Markets Since 1997 the number of Davis County homes sold through the Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service totals 29,430 (Table 1.32). Real estate Table 1.32 sales data prior to 1997 were not available. Layton City leads Total Home Sales in all cities over the 1997 to 2006 period with 8,196 sales. The Davis County, 1997–2006 second-ranked city is Clearfield, with 3,099 existing home Units sales. In 2006 the number of homes sold through the MLS Davis County 29,430 was a record 4,629, with a median price of $198,940 and an Layton 8,196 Clearfield 3,099 average price of $229,834 (Table 1.33). Bountiful 3,061 Clinton 2,924 Fruit Heights is the highest-priced housing market in the Syracuse 2,674 Kaysville 2,005 county. The median sales price of an existing home in 2006 in Farmington 1,463 Fruit Heights was $299,900 and the average price was Centerville 1,104 $354,040. North Salt Lake and Farmington are also high- North Salt Lake 1,061 West Point 925 priced markets. Layton, the largest city in the county, has Woods Cross 886 relatively modest housing prices and ranks in the lower third in Sunset 748 both median and average home prices. Layton’s median home South Weber 605 West Bountiful 418 price in 2006 was $187,485 and its average price was $208,101. Fruit Heights 308 Clearfield is also a major city with modest housing prices Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple (Table 1.34). Listing Service

In terms of housing price appreciation there is wide variation among the cities in Davis County. Farmington ranks first in housing price appreciation since 1997. The median sales price of a home in Farmington has increased by 89% and the average price by 83%. However, in Clearfield

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 41

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

and Sunset the rate of housing price appreciation has been less than half the rate in Farmington (Table 1.35).

Table 1.33 Table 1.34 Median and Average Sales Price of Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Davis County, Existing Homes by City, 2006 1997–2006 Median Average Year Median Average Units Fruit Heights $299,900 $354,040 1997 $132,900 $149,461 1,932 Farmington $289,000 $327,188 1998 $137,547 $157,102 2,177 North Salt Lake $270,165 $350,484 1999 $142,500 $160,963 2,249 Centerville $257,000 $282,570 2000 $145,750 $168,610 2,387 Kaysville $255,000 $290,639 2001 $147,000 $165,645 2,502 Bountiful $244,000 $324,069 2002 $148,945 $167,870 2,649 South Weber $239,900 $235,488 2003 $152,000 $171,877 3,041 Syracuse $232,500 $238,501 2004 $156,950 $176,785 3,457 Woods Cross $209,500 $204,004 2005 $172,250 $197,116 4,407 West Bountiful $204,500 $231,122 2006 $198,940 $229,834 4,629 Davis County $198,940 $229,834 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service West Point $189,500 $201,717 Layton $187,485 $208,101 Clinton $170,000 $175,843 Clearfield $142,000 $143,619 Sunset $116,450 $118,339 Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

Table 1.35 Change in Existing Home Prices by City, 1997–2006

Change in Change in Median Price Average Price Farmington 89.2% 83.5% Bountiful 76.2% 60.0% Kaysville 73.1% 75.6% Fruit Heights 65.8% 43.6% Syracuse 60.4% 72.2% North Salt Lake 57.8% 68.9% Davis 53.8% 49.7% South Weber 52.8% 56.8% Clinton 51.7% 49.3% Centerville 50.4% 46.9% Woods Cross 47.3% 54.7% Layton 45.2% 43.1% West Bountiful 43.8% 42.0% West Point 39.1% 44.8% Clearfield 37.0% 37.9% Sunset 28.6% 29.5% Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

Nonresidential Construction Since 1994 the value of nonresidential construction in Davis County has averaged $84 million annually in current dollars. Electronic data prior to 1994 were not available. In recent years the value of nonresidential construction has been approximately 20% of the value of residential construction. Statewide, the value of nonresidential construction seldom falls below 30% of the value of residential. The relatively low ratio of nonresidential to residential activity in Davis County reflects one of the county’s dominant characteristics: residents commuting outside the county for employment.

42 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

In current dollars, the peak nonresidential year was 2006, with $121.9 million in permit- authorized activity (Table 1.36). Of the 14 nonresidential construction sectors, the leading sectors in order of cumulative (1994–2006) value are additions and alterations of nonresidential buildings, industrial buildings, retail buildings, and office and professional buildings. These four sectors account for about 75% of all nonresidential construction activity in Davis County.

When measured in constant 2006 dollars it’s clear that during the 1995–1998 period, Davis County reached its highest levels of nonresidential construction (Table 1.37). The peak year in constant dollars was 1997 at $145.6 million. In 1997, permits were issued for major retail development in Bountiful and Layton as well as major expansion at Lagoon. The level of construction activity for additions and alterations, retail buildings, and office buildings all peaked in constant dollars in 1997, while the peak year for industrial buildings was one year later.

Four of the county’s 15 cities dominate permit-authorized nonresidential construction activity. Layton, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, and Clearfield have captured two-thirds of the value of nonresidential construction since 1994. Layton was the leader by a large margin, accounting for nearly $300 million of the $1 billion in nonresidential construction in the county since 1994 (Table 1.38). Layton ranks first in the value of nonresidential construction in three of the four major categories: office, retail, and additions and alterations. North Salt Lake ranks first in industrial and manufacturing buildings (Tables 1.39–1.42). North Salt Lake’s industrial development is concentrated along Cudahy Lane and west of I-15.

Commercial Development Tables 1.43–1.47 provide estimates on changes in the inventory of commercial space in the county as well as rankings of cities by type of commercial space. Currently the county has 21.1 million square feet of leasable industrial square footage, 6.2 million square feet of retail, and 3.5 million square feet of leasable office space. These estimates do not include owner-occupied buildings (e.g., Lowe’s, Home Depot) or institutional or government-owned buildings (e.g., municipal office buildings). Therefore, the estimates represent a lower bound of the commercial inventory.

The estimates show that Bountiful is the leader in office space, with nearly 1.1 million square feet, 31% of the county’s office space inventory (Table 1.46). Clearfield is first in industrial inventory with 9.6 million square feet, accounting for 46% of the county’s industrial space (Table 1.44). Clearfield’s position is due almost entirely to the Freeport Center’s 8 million square feet of industrial space. Layton is nearly as dominant with respect to retail space. Layton has 2.5 million square feet of retail space, 41% of the retail space in the county (Table 1.47). Layton Hills Mall (757,660 square feet) and the surrounding 1.5 million square feet of retail is the primary retail concentration in the county.

Table 1.48 shows the major retail concentrations in the county classified by anchorless strip space, community centers, and regional malls. Layton and Bountiful are the two cities with sizeable amounts of anchorless strip space. Layton has approximately 400,000 square feet of this type of space and Bountiful has 300,000 square feet. There are 11 community retail centers, generally defined as more than 100,000 square feet with a national anchor tenant. Six of these centers are located in Layton and are adjacent to or very near the Layton Hills Mall, the only regional mall in the county. Eight of the 11 community centers have been developed since 1994. Layton Hills Mall was developed in 1980.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 43

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.36 Value of Nonresidential Construction in Davis County, 1994–2006 (millions of current dollars)

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total Hotels & Motels $2.0 $1.7 $7.7 $0.0 $7.9 $2.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.6 $0.0 $0.0 $27.3 Amusement & Recreation $1.2 $0.5 $1.0 $8.1 $0.2 $1.9 $0.1 $0.1 $0.0 $1.0 $0.0 $21.4 $3.1 $38.5 Churches $3.2 $3.8 $1.3 $1.6 $7.2 $6.1 $6.3 $8.9 $5.8 $7.6 $5.6 $6.2 $11.8 $75.5 Industrial $19.6 $19.2 $7.0 $11.4 $21.1 $13.3 $9.4 $16.8 $10.6 $11.7 $12.2 $22.8 $20.2 $195.4 Parking Structures $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0 $0.6 $0.0 $0.0 $5.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.3 $6.4 Repair Garages $1.0 $1.2 $0.4 $0.5 $2.2 $0.9 $1.8 $1.5 $0.7 $0.3 $1.0 $1.3 $0.0 $12.8 Hospital & Institutional $4.2 $1.0 $1.9 $1.6 $6.4 $0.0 $0.5 $0.5 $2.2 $5.9 $0.3 $3.5 $0.0 $28.2 Office & Professional $8.3 $7.2 $6.6 $17.1 $15.8 $14.2 $16.9 $14.1 $7.5 $12.9 $14.9 $16.1 $20.6 $172.3 Public Utility $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0 $0.7 $0.0 $0.2 $1.1 $0.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.4 $4.1 School & Education $0.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.2 $0.1 $2.3 $2.4 $1.6 $6.8 Retail $9.0 $16.9 $10.0 $24.4 $12.1 $9.5 $3.4 $4.3 $16.9 $13.8 $16.6 $13.2 $28.3 $178.3 Other $2.4 $1.3 $4.9 $2.7 $1.4 $2.5 $2.3 $1.0 $3.2 $3.6 $3.2 $2.8 $3.5 $34.9 Public Buildings $0.0 $8.7 $6.4 $0.7 $4.7 $4.4 $3.0 $3.5 $0.5 $16.1 $3.2 $7.3 $6.7 $65.1 Additions & Alterations $10.9 $27.7 $18.7 $28.3 $15.8 $12.3 $21.4 $15.1 $18.2 $17.3 $18.5 $19.4 $24.5 $248.2 Total $62.2 $89.3 $66.0 $96.4 $95.7 $67.7 $65.8 $66.9 $66.4 $95.5 $83.4 $116.5 $121.9 $1,093.7 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

44 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.37 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Davis County, 1994–2006 (000)

Current Constant ’06 Year Dollars Dollars 1994 $62,232.8 $104,115.2 1995 $89,334.2 $143,987.8 1996 $66,018.7 $103,669.0 1997 $96,387.3 $145,590.7 1998 $95,668.9 $138,188.4 1999 $67,656.9 $94,126.2 2000 $65,802.4 $87,699.7 2001 $66,931.3 $86,584.9 2002 $66,364.5 $85,019.5 2003 $95,525.3 $121,983.2 2004 $83,437.9 $101,017.2 2005 $116,461.2 $128,805.8 2006 $121,904.6 $121,904.6 Total $1,093,726.0 $1,462,692.1 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 1.38 Cities Ranked by Value of Permit- Authorized Nonresidential Construction from 1994 through 2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Value Share Layton $291,916.0 27.8% North Salt Lake $154,892.0 14.8% Bountiful $135,629.0 12.9% Clearfield $119,977.0 11.4% Centerville $89,544.0 8.5% Kaysville $57,548.0 5.5% Woods Cross $43,709.0 4.2% Syracuse $42,496.0 4.1% Clinton $37,707.0 3.6% Farmington $36,793.0 3.5% West Bountiful $21,432.0 2.0% West Point $8,287.0 0.8% South Weber $4,683.0 0.4% Sunset $3,696.0 0.4% Fruit Heights $672.0 0.1% Total $1,048,981.0 100.0% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 45

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.39 Ranking of Cities by Value of Permit-Authorized Industrial, Manufacturing, and Warehouse Construction from 1994 through 2006 (millions of current dollars)

Value Share North Salt Lake $70.2 33.7% Bountiful $57.0 27.4% Layton $26.7 12.8% Clearfield $20.4 9.8% Centerville $12.3 5.9% Woods Cross $9.9 4.8% Kaysville $5.5 2.6% Farmington $3.9 1.9% West Bountiful $1.2 0.6% Clinton $0.7 0.3% West Point $0.3 0.1% South Weber $0.1 0.0% Fruit Heights $0.0 0.0% Sunset $0.0 0.0% Syracuse $0.0 0.0% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 1.40 Ranking of Cities by Value of Permit-Authorized Office Construction from 1994 through 2006 (millions of current dollars)

Value Share Layton $52.4 29.2% Bountiful $27.8 15.5% Centerville $22.3 12.4% North Salt Lake $20.0 11.1% Kaysville $14.1 7.8% Clearfield $13.4 7.5% Farmington $10.4 5.8% Woods Cross $6.3 3.5% Clinton $4.8 2.7% Syracuse $4.3 2.4% West Bountiful $3.9 2.2% Fruit Heights $0.0 0.0% South Weber $0.0 0.0% Sunset $0.0 0.0% West Point $0.0 0.0% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

46 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.41 Ranking of Cities by Permit- Authorized Retail Construction from 1994 through 2006 (millions of current dollars)

Value Share Layton $71.3 40.4% Centerville $25.2 14.3% Clinton $17.1 9.7% Bountiful $14.2 8.0% Clearfield $12.8 7.2% Kaysville $12.5 7.1% West Bountiful $8.4 4.8% Syracuse $7.9 4.5% Woods Cross $3.7 2.1% North Salt Lake $3.1 1.8% Farmington $0.4 0.2% West Point $0.1 0.1% Fruit Heights $0.0 0.0% South Weber $0.0 0.0% Sunset $0.0 0.0% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 1.42 Ranking of Cities by Permit- Authorized Additions and Alterations to Nonresidential Buildings from 1994 through 2006 (millions of current dollars)

Value Share Layton $65.4 26.7% Clearfield $46.4 19.0% Bountiful $40.8 16.7% North Salt Lake $38.1 15.6% Centerville $15.8 6.5% Kaysville $10.6 4.3% Farmington $7.5 3.1% Woods Cross $6.4 2.6% Clinton $3.9 1.6% Syracuse $3.2 1.3% West Bountiful $2.5 1.0% Sunset $2.1 0.9% West Point $1.5 0.6% Fruit Heights $0.2 0.1% South Weber $0.1 0.0% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 47

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.43 Annual Increase and Inventory of Leasable Industrial Square Footage in Davis County, 1990–2006

Annual Square Year Increase Footage 1990 334,264 17,012,214 1991 12,000 17,024,214 1992 63,181 17,087,395 1993 8,307 17,095,702 1994 88,508 17,184,210 1995 1,059,550 18,243,760 1996 185,017 18,428,777 1997 263,208 18,691,985 1998 319,477 19,011,462 1999 217,020 19,228,482 2000 398,615 19,627,097 2001 235,608 19,862,705 2002 222,805 20,085,510 2003 521,819 20,607,329 2004 244,260 20,851,589 2005 161,763 21,013,352 2006 100,837 21,114,189 Source: Commerce CRG

Table 1.44 Cities Ranked by Leasable Industrial Square Footage in 2006

Square Share Footage Clearfield 9,627,000 45.6% North Salt Lake 4,744,264 22.5% Layton 2,496,700 11.8% Woods Cross 1,786,100 8.5% Kaysville 733,478 3.5% Centerville 652,000 3.1% Bountiful 624,000 3.0% West Bountiful 162,831 0.8% Syracuse 147,630 0.7% Farmington 114,971 0.5% Clinton 13,215 0.1% South Weber 12,000 0.1% Total 21,114,189 100.0% Source: Commerce CRG

48 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.45 Annual Increase and Inventory of Leasable Office Square Footage in Davis County, 1990–2007

Annual Square Year Increase Footage 1990 117,290 1,480,338 1991 17,675 1,498,013 1992 19,210 1,517,223 1993 15,000 1,532,223 1994 29,517 1,561,740 1995 117,619 1,679,359 1996 54,402 1,733,761 1997 14,058 1,747,819 1998 261,979 2,009,798 1999 328,964 2,338,762 2000 153,347 2,492,109 2001 64,147 2,556,256 2002 205,552 2,761,808 2003 220,893 2,982,701 2004 198,410 3,181,111 2005 186,165 3,367,276 2006 93,952 3,461,228 2007 2nd qtr 45,501 3,506,729 Source: Commerce CRG

Table 1.46 Cities Ranked by Leasable Office Square Footage in 2007

Square Share Footage Bountiful 1,086,748 31.0% Layton 1,012,512 28.9% Clearfield 392,131 11.2% North Salt Lake 368,293 10.5% Centerville 169,274 4.8% Kaysville 157,548 4.5% Farmington 152,525 4.3% Woods Cross 96,969 2.8% Syracuse 61,914 1.8% Clinton 4,815 0.1% Sunset 4,000 0.1% Total 3,506,729 100.0% Source: Commerce CRG

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 49

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.47 Cities Ranked by Leasable Retail Square Footage in 2006

Square Footage Share Layton 2,543,152 41.0% Bountiful 936,769 15.1% Centerville 669,893 10.8% Clearfield 428,405 6.9% Clinton 379,790 6.1% West Bountiful 333,173 5.4% Kaysville 268,555 4.3% Woods Cross 211,730 3.4% Farmington 183,856 3.0% Sunset 162,259 2.6% Syracuse 76,340 1.2% North Salt Lake 15,300 0.2% Total 6,209,222 100.0% Source: Commerce CRG

Table 1.48 Major Retail Concentrations in Davis County

Approx. Retail Center Address City Major Tenants Sq. Ft. Anchorless Strip Layton Scattered Layton 400,000 NA Bountiful Scattered Bountiful 300,000 NA

Community Centers Clinton Community Center 1800 North 2000 West Clinton 400,000 Wal-Mart Bountiful Community Center 500 South 500 West Bountiful 300,000 Shopko, TJ Maxx Centerville Market Place 400 West Parrish Lane Centerville 600,000 Target, Wal-Mart Shepard Lane Center Shepard Lane and Hwy 89 Farmington 200,000 Kmart Commons West Bountiful 1400 North 500 West W. Bountiful 333,000 Costco Layton Market Center 1000 West Antelope Dr. Layton 450,000 Target Shopko Plaza 1000 North Main Layton 252,095 Shopko Layton Village 765 West Hill Field Rd. Layton 146,000 Wal-Mart Layton Village West 1055 West Hill Field Rd. Layton 200,000 Sam’s Club Entertainment Place 1425 North Layton Hills Pkwy Layton 114,000 Cineplex Layton Market Center 1000 West Antelope Dr. Layton 450,000 Target

Regional Mall and Surrounding Retail Layton Hills Mall 1400 North Hill Field Rd Layton 757,660 Macy’s, JC Penney Source: Commerce CRG

50 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Conversion of Land to Residential and Commercial Use Since 1990, over 11,700 acres in Davis County have been platted for residential subdivisions. Each year an average of about 700 acres of land is converted from agricultural use to residential use. In 2005 the number of acres platted for residential Table 1.49 use reached an all-time high of 1,062 acres (Table 1.49). Acres Platted for Residential Acreage platted for commercial use since 1990 amounts Subdivisions and Commercial to a fraction, 4%, of the land platted for residential use. Development in Davis County, Since 1990 only 443 acres have been platted for 1990–2006 commercial use in Davis County. Year Residential Commercial 1990 249.19 0.00 The data in Table 1.49 are understated for 2003 and 1991 176.44 0.00 1992 474.25 0.48 2004 due to software conversion in the county 1993 525.35 0.00 assessor’s office. Consequently, figures for 2003 and 1994 657.81 15.93 2004 are incomplete. Unfortunately, these two years 1995 728.25 93.02 1996 763.98 12.59 were years of high levels of residential construction; 1997 957.71 32.95 therefore it is likely that the data in Table 1.49 are 1998 784.73 42.18 understated by as much as 1,000 acres. The actual 1999 982.46 48.59 2000 819.10 59.59 acreage platted for both residential and commercial 2001 917.32 19.78 development since 1990 is probably closer to 13,000 2002 747.34 27.06 acres. 2003 561.62 24.90 2004 461.43 0.00 2005 1,062.45 26.81 Since 1990, Layton City has platted nearly 2,300 acres 2006 864.89 27.76 for residential and commercial development (Table Total 11,734.32 443.85 Source: Davis County Department of Community 1.50). Layton leads Syracuse, the second-ranked city, by and Economic Development 460 acres. Woods Cross ranks first among all cities in commercial acreage platted. Since 1990, Woods Cross has platted 98.5 acres for commercial development.

Table 1.50 Cities Ranked by Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development from 1990 through 2006

Residential Commercial Total Layton 2,193.23 87.51 2,280.74 Syracuse 1,817.09 4.15 1,821.24 Kaysville 1,507.27 2.22 1,509.49 Clinton 1,216.05 8.05 1,224.10 Bountiful 1,016.17 22.95 1,039.12 North Salt Lake 722.13 80.74 802.87 Farmington 715.81 37.66 753.47 Clearfield 570.77 25.61 596.38 Centerville 413.49 75.91 489.40 Woods Cross 343.88 98.50 442.38 West Point 387.27 0.00 387.27 South Weber 381.22 0.00 381.22 Fruit Heights 197.93 0.00 197.93 West Bountiful 155.95 0.55 156.50 Unincorporated 90.00 0.00 90.00 Sunset 6.06 0.00 6.06 Total 11,734.32 443.85 12,178.17 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 51

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

In 2002, the Utah Census of Agriculture reported that Davis County had 65,857 acres of land in 582 farms. Since 2002, about 5,000 acres have been converted to residential and commercial use. Therefore, an estimated 60,000 acres in Davis County is currently defined as “land in farms.” Certainly not all of these acres can be developed for residential and commercial use. High water table, topography, and other features will limit the number of convertible acres. Nevertheless, assuming that 50% of the land currently in farms is suitable for conversion to residential and commercial use, at the current pace of development, this land (30,000 acres) would meet the residential and commercial growth needs of Davis County for about 30 years.

Projected Demand for Commercial Space The future need for commercial land is an important economic development issue for “land constrained” Davis County. Projected demands for office, industrial, and retail space are developed in this section. The methodology is reviewed, beginning with assumptions regarding employment and population growth. Employment increase drives the demand for office and industrial space, whereas population increase drives demand for retail space.

Three employment projection scenarios were made for Davis County for the 2007–2017 and 2017–2027 periods (Tables 1.51 and 1.52). The low scenario projection used an average annual growth rate of 1.69% from the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projections for Davis County. The high scenario assumes the same rate of employment growth that Davis County achieved from 1995 to 2005, 3.26% annually. The 1995 to 2005 period is representative since it includes years of both very high growth and sluggish growth. The midpoint scenario is half the difference between the low and high scenarios’ rates of growth.

Table 1.51 Nonagricultural Employment Projections for Davis County, 2007–2027

Avg. Ann’l. 2007 2017 2027 Growth Rate Low Scenario 100,000 118,250 140,000 1.69% Midpoint Scenario 100,000 127,634 163,000 2.47% High Scenario 100,000 137,800 190,000 3.26% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 1.52 Table 1.53 Projected Change in Davis County Population Nonagricultural Employment in Projections, 2007–2027 Davis County, 2007–2027 Year Total Change 2007–17 2017–27 2007 287,924 Low Scenario 18,250 21,750 2017 339,944 52,020 Midpoint Scenario 27,634 35,366 2027 374,827 34,883 High Scenario 37,800 52,200 Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Budget University of Utah

The population projections (Table 1.53), which are important for the retail space projections, are from the county demographic projections of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.

52 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

The relationship between employment increases and the demand for office and industrial space relies on ratios previously developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research for Salt Lake County over the 1970 to 2005 period. Similar long-term data were not available for Davis County.

The projected demand for retail space relied on population projections and the relationship between population and retail space requirements. Currently, the per-capita retail square footage in Davis County is 21 square feet. This estimate was used for the medium scenario. The low scenario for retail space used 18 square feet/person, similar to Weber County, and the high scenario used 28 square feet/person, similar to Salt Lake County.

Using the employment and population projections for Davis County and applying the space relationships along with the configuration and land use assumptions in Table 1.54, projections were developed for office, industrial, and retail space in Davis County for the next 20 years.

Table 1.54 Configuration and Land Use Assumptions

Category Assumptions Office Office Square Footage/New Job 64 Building Floors 3 Parking Stall Requirements 4 parking spaces/1,000 square feet of office space Industrial Industrial Square Footage/New Job 140 Building Floors 1 Parking Stall Requirements 1 parking space/750 square feet of floor area Retail Retail Square Footage/Person 21 square feet/additional person Building Floors 1 Parking Stall Requirements 5 parking spaces/1,000 square feet of retail space General Assumptions Land Requirements for Landscape 10% Parking Space Size 200 square feet Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research and discussions with land planners.

The projections show that over the next ten years a minimum of 160 acres will be required to meet the demand for office, industrial, and retail space in Davis County (Table 1.55). The maximum number of acres, assuming Table 1.55 high rates of growth occur over the 2007 Additional Commercial Space to 2017 period, is 315 acres. Between Requirements by 2027 in Davis County 2017 and 2027 a minimum of 167 acres (acres)

and a maximum of 380 acres will be 2007 to 2017 required to meet the demand for office, Office Industrial Retail Total industrial, and retail space. Therefore, Low Scenario 33 80 47 160 Medium Scenario 50 125 55 230 over the next 20 years, depending on High Scenario 70 170 75 315 rates of employment and population growth, a range of 327 to 695 acres of 2017 to 2027 Office Industrial Retail Total commercial land will be needed for Low Scenario 40 95 32 167 commercial development in Davis Medium Scenario 65 160 37 262 County. High Scenario 90 240 50 380 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 53

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities Agriculture and the Davis County Economy

Agriculture has not been a major source of income for residents of Davis County for many decades. In the past 40 years, agriculture in Davis County has never accounted for more than 1% of the personal income of county residents. Furthermore, Table 1.56 the market value of agricultural products produced in Market Value of Agricultural Davis County represents a small fraction of the market Products Sold, 1969–2002 value of Utah’s agricultural products. Currently, only (millions of current dollars) 2.7% of the value of agricultural products sold in Utah is County produced in Davis County (Table 1.56). Davis County Year Davis State Share can be characterized as one of the least agricultural 1969 $10.1 $212.9 4.74% counties in the state. The earnings data for 2005 show 1978 $18.8 $468.5 4.01% 1987 $28.6 $617.8 4.63% that farms in Davis County actually lost $7.7 million, thus 1997 $34.9 $888.5 3.93% making no contribution to the personal income of the 2002 $30.4 $1,115.8 2.72% county. Source: Census of Agriculture: Utah

Although Davis County has not been a major producer of agricultural products historically, a substantial amount of the land in the county is defined as “land in farms.” In 1930, about 85% Table 1.57 of the land in the county was in farms. This percentage Farms and Land in Farms in has gradually decreased, and by 2002 only about one- Davis County, 1930–2002 third of the land area was reported in farms. The number of farms in the county in 2002 was 582, with an Average Year Farms Acreage Size average size of 113 acres (Table 1.57). 1930 1,481 162,357 110 1969 699 137,441 197 1978 565 94,151 167 1987 647 63,244 98 2002 582 65,857 113 Source: Census of Agriculture: Utah

Transportation

The volume of daily vehicle traffic has increased substantially in Davis County over the past 10 years. Interstate 15 traffic count data through southern Davis County show a 30%–40% increase in daily traffic since 1996 (Table 1.58). To help alleviate this congestion, over $1.2 billion in construction of new transportation infrastructure is underway in Davis County. The two major

Table 1.58 Average Daily Vehicle Traffic Count in Davis County, 1996–2006

1996 2004 2006 Change Salt Lake/Davis County Line 112,760 125,085 131,440 16.6% 1000 North Bountiful 100,280 134,658 142,365 42.0% Centerville SR 105 Parrish Lane 103,300 132,885 139,630 35.2% Kaysville Interchange SR 273 74,185 102,560 107,770 45.3% Layton Interchange SR 232 66,425 91,210 93,410 40.6% Davis/Weber County Line 89,500 101,735 104,190 16.4% Source: Utah Department of Transportation, Average Daily Traffic

54 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities projects are the Legacy Parkway and commuter rail. In addition, there are numerous smaller UTA and UDOT projects under construction and planned in Davis County to ease traffic congestion.

Legacy Parkway Legacy Parkway will be a 14-mile, four-lane highway from Farmington and connecting to I-215 in North Salt Lake. The highway will have a speed limit of 55 miles per hour and limited truck traffic. The $685 million project is Figure 1.4 scheduled to open in late 2008 Legacy Parkway: Farmington to I-215 Phase (Figure 1.4). Parkway in Blue

A northern extension from Farmington to Pleasant View in Weber County is proposed through the western side of northern Davis and Weber Counties. At this time, the project is part of UDOT’s long- range plan, with construction at least 10 to 20 years in the future.

Commuter Rail The commuter rail line from Salt Lake City to Pleasant View is scheduled to open in late 2008 (Figure 1.5). This $611.6 million project, running adjacent to I-15 through Davis County is anticipated to have a daily ridership of 6,000. The federal share of the project is $489.3 million and the local share is $122.3 million. There will be four stations in Davis County: Woods Cross (700 South 800 West), Farmington (east of Park Lane Bridge), Layton (Gentile and Main), and Clearfield (1000 East State Street). Figures 1.6–1.9 show the approximate station locations outlined in yellow.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 55

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 1.5 Commuter Rail in Davis County

56 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 1.6 Woods Cross Commuter Rail Station (700 South 800 West)

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 57

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 1.7 Farmington Commuter Rail Station (East of Park Lane)

58 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 1.8 Layton Commuter Rail Station (Near Gentile and Main)

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 59

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 1.9 Clearfield Commuter Rail Station (1000 East State Street)

60 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities Hill Air Force Base

Hill Air Force Base (Hill AFB) has played a prominent and important role in the development of Davis County’s economic base for more than half a century. As the county’s leading employer, Hill provides jobs for more than 22,000 military and civilian personnel, including people directly employed at the base, civilian contractors, and various other tenant organizations located on the base. In addition to the salaries paid to the military and civilian force, Hill AFB spends almost $1.0 billion annually for construction and purchases of various goods and services.

Hill AFB is an Air Force Materiel Command base of the U.S. Air Force. In its current configuration, Hill AFB covers almost 6,700 acres, spanning two counties (Davis County and Weber County, with the largest portion of the base located in Davis). The base is bordered by the communities of Roy, Sunset, and Clearfield on the west; Layton on the south; South Weber on the east; and Riverdale to the north (Figure 1.10).

Historical Overview Hill AFB traces its beginnings to 1934, when the Air Corps Materiel Division (now Air Force Materiel Command) recommended that a depot be located in the Rocky Mountain area. Congressional passage of the Wilcox Act in 1935 authorized site selection and construction of seven permanent Air Corps stations, one of which was to be a supply and maintenance depot in the Rocky Mountain area. Through the efforts of the Ogden Chamber of Commerce, by 1939 the federal government had acquired nearly 3,000 acres of land in Davis County with plans to construct the Ogden Air Depot (forerunner of the Ogden Air Logistics Center) at a cost of approximately $8.0 million. The site of the new depot was officially named Hill Field on December 1, 1939 in honor of Major Ployer T. Hill.3,4

Hill Field officially opened in November 1940 and soon became a key maintenance and supply base. With the onset of World War II, the depot was elevated to command status and the Ogden Arsenal was rebuilt and its mission expanded to include manufacturing, loading explosives, and stocking and distributing motorized equipment. During WWII, employment at the depot grew to nearly 22,000, some 15,780 civilians and 6,000 military personnel. Throughout the War, the depot was a major aircraft supply, maintenance, and training facility for stations in Utah and the Pacific Northwest. In 1948, under the auspices of the U.S. Air Force, Hill Field became Hill Air Force Base.5

In the consolidation following WWII, workload and personnel diminished until the outbreak of hostilities in Korea in 1950. During the Korean Conflict, an expansion and modernization program was initiated and employment at the base reached almost 16,000 people in 1952. Following the Korean Conflict, the depot’s maintenance production lines continued work on jet aircraft such as the F-84, F-89, F-101, and F-102, and employment at the depot stabilized at around 12,000 people.6

3 Hill Air Force Base History, available at: www.hill.af.mil/main/library/history. 4 Leonard, Glen M. A History of Davis County. Utah State Historical Society (1999). 5 ibid. 6 Arrington, Leonard and George Jensen. “The Defense Industry of Utah.” Utah State Planning Program Economic and Population Studies (February 1965).

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 61

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 1.10 Hill Air Force Base

62 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

In 1955, the Ogden Arsenal was transferred from the U.S. Army to the U.S. Air Force, doubling the size of the base to about 6,700 acres. The new acreage added more than 600 buildings and structures. As a result of this expansion, base capabilities increased substantially. In 1959, the depot became the logistics manager for the Minuteman ICBM. Depot personnel were also tasked with managing and maintaining the F-101 “Voodoo” and F-4 “Phantom” fighter aircraft. As Utah became a major player in the missile industry, Hill took on a new profile. By 1970, the base had a well-established presence in Davis County, and was the state’s largest employer with a payroll of more than $100 million. In the mid-1970s, the Ogden Air Logistics Center assumed logistics management and depot maintenance responsibilities for the F-16 “Fighting Falcon.”7

In 1982, the center was designated as system manager for the Peacekeeper ICBM. In 1998, Ogden ALC won the competition for the Sacramento ALC depot maintenance workload. The center teamed with Boeing for a public/private contract totaling $1.7 billion over five years to accomplish repair of additional aerospace commodities along with the A-10.8

In 2004, Hill AFB began its Falcon STAR (Structural Augmentation Roadmap) program. The purpose of this $1 billion program was to ensure that F-16s meet their original expectations and serve beyond the year 2020. Aircraft modifications will continue through 2014, with most of the work performed at Hill AFB. In October 2006, the Air Force announced that Hill AFB will be home to one of the first operational units of the F-35 Lightning II, the Joint Strike Fighter that will replace the F-15.9

Table 1.59 shows Hill AFB–related employment and contracting activities in Utah since 1994.

The Role of Hill Air Force Base in Davis County Hill AFB increases the flow of dollars into Davis County three ways. First, employees of Hill who reside in the county spend a significant portion of their earnings locally. Second, Hill purchases goods and services from vendors and suppliers located in Davis County, and finally, a significant amount of prime contracting dollars flow into the county in support of Hill’s missions. Table 1.60 summarizes Hill’s activities in Utah and the amount of that spending that impacted Davis County in FY 2006.

In fiscal year 2006, Hill’s direct spending in Davis County totaled $1.2 billion and included $494 million in payroll, $212 million in Air Force contracts for goods and services needed by the base for operations, and $515 million in Prime Contracts awarded to firms located in Davis County.

Employment and Payroll. Slightly more than 40% of Hill’s direct spending is payroll related. In FY 2006, Hill AFB directly employed 18,755 people (6,224 military personnel and 12,531 civilians) and paid wages of almost $959 million. More than half (10,493) of the military and civilian workers directly employed at Hill AFB live in Davis County. Wages paid to these employees totaled nearly $494 million, comprising $162 million paid to military personnel and $332 million paid to civilian employees (Table 1.61).

7 Crispin, Jan and Pamela Perlich. “Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Impacts of Closing Hill Air Force Base: A Statewide and Regional Analysis.” Bureau of Economic and Business Research, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah (April 2004). 8 Hill Air Force Base History, available at: www.hill.af.mil/main/library/history. 9 Economic Report to the Governor: 2005. Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, available at: www.governor.utah.gov/dea.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 63

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.59 Hill Air Force Base Employment and Contracting Activities in Utah, FY 1994–FY 2006

Employment (millions of current dollars) Grants and Year Total Civilian Military Payroll Contracts 1994 14,118 9,327 4,791 $448.6 $110.0 1995 13,530 8,995 4,535 $442.0 $106.7 1996 13,081 8,747 4,334 $514.5 $89.7 1997 12,831 8,569 4,262 $501.0 $100.5 1998 12,839 8,722 4,117 $516.9 $98.2 1999 13,672 9,499 4,173 $554.2 $116.1 2000 14,791 10,572 4,219 $616.5 $165.4 2001 15,957 11,467 4,490 $660.9 $141.0 2002 16,691 11,799 4,892 $748.2 $152.8 2003 16,641 11,579 5,062 $814.6 $183.0 2004 16,883 11,650 5,233 $865.0 $238.9 2005 16,792 12,008 4,784 $994.4 $337.4 2006 17,518 12,531 4,987 $946.3 $368.3 Note: Employment and Payroll totals do not include non-extended active duty or reserves. Source: 1994–2005: “Atlas/Data Abstract for the U.S. and Selected Areas,” by the Statistical Information Analysis Division of the Directorate of Information Operations and Reports, U.S. Department of Defense. 2006: Hill Force Base, Robert McLean, Chief Acquisition Cost Division.

Table 1.60 Hill Air Force Base–Related Spending: Utah and Davis County, FY 2006

Davis County Component of Spending Amount Specific* Payroll Military Personnel $203,155,254 $161,698,560 Civilian Personnel $755,438,671 $332,411,017 Prime Contract Awards in Utah $567,743,518 $515,057,285 Other Contracts $368,266,962 $212,080,301 Total $1,894,604,405 $1,221,247,163 *Includes (1) employees of Hill Air Force who reside in Davis County, (2) the estimated wages they received in 2006, and (3) contracts awarded to companies located in Davis County. Note: Military personnel include Active Duty military, Non-Extended Active Duty military, and Reserves. Civilians include both Appropriated and Non-Appropriated Fund civilians. Source: Hill Air Force Base, Robert McLean, Chief Acquisition Cost Division. Davis County–specific estimates made by BEBR.

Federal civilian jobs are especially important to Davis County because they pay higher than average wages. Federal civilian employment accounts for about 9% of all nonfarm employment in Davis County. However, wages paid to federal civilians account for about 20% of all nonfarm wages. This disparity occurs because the average earnings of federal civilian employees are much higher than the average earnings of other nonfarm workers in the county. In 2006, the average wage received by a federal civilian working at Hill AFB was $62,265—almost double the average wage per job in Davis County as reported by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Further, the civilian jobs at Hill are stable jobs with good benefits.

The ratio of civilian to military employees is a distinguishing and important feature of Hill AFB, and a contributing factor in the growth and expansion of Davis County. Compared to civilians,

64 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.61 Hill Air Force Base Employment and Payroll: Utah and Davis County, FY 2006

Davis County Totals Specific* Employment Military Personnel 4,939 3,951 Non-Extended Active Duty/Reserves 1,285 1,028 Civilians 12,531 5,514 Total 18,755 10,493 Payroll Military Personnel $190,855,254 $152,674,542 Non-Extended Active Duty/Reserves $12,300,000 $9,840,016 Civilians $755,438,671 $332,416,336 Total Spending $958,593,925 $494,930,894 *Includes employees of Hill AFB who live in Davis County and the estimated amount of payroll they received in 2006. Note: Military personnel include Active Duty military, Non-Extended Active Duty military, and Reserves. Civilians include both Appropriated and Non-Appropriated Fund civilians. Source: Hill Air Force Base, Robert McLean, Chief Acquisition Cost Division. Davis County–specific estimates made by BEBR.

military personnel receive a larger share of their total earnings from payments-in-kind for clothing and housing, so they typically allocate a smaller share of their total spending to these items. Military personnel also have access to goods and services at base commissaries and exchanges. Purchases from such facilities have a dampening effect on retail sales and services in the communities surrounding a military base.

In contrast, civilians are responsible for their own housing, do not have access to commissaries and exchanges on base, and spend a larger share of their income in the local economy. This spending increases demand for goods and services in the local area and drives economic expansion. Because Hill employs such a large number of civilians, its impact on the local community is greater than the impact of a base staffed predominantly by military personnel.

Finally, the jobs at Hill are valuable to Davis County because they are largely unaffected by routine economic cycles. Federal defense spending is not subject to the fluctuations inherent in normal economic and business cycles. The stability of the base adds to its value as a force in the Davis economy.

In addition to the military and civilian personnel employed directly at Hill, another 3,422 people work on the base during the year who are employed by private companies. These individuals work for companies that provide services to Hill AFB employees (e.g., banks, credit unions, etc.) or provide services specific to Hill’s missions.

The importance of Hill AFB in Davis County is underscored by its contributions to employment and earnings in the county. Direct employment at Hill AFB accounts for about 12% of all employment reported in Davis County and about 16% of earnings reported by place of work. Based on data collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the wages paid to employees of Hill AFB who reside in Davis County represent almost 8% of earnings received by all Davis County residents.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 65

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Contract Spending. Contract spending in Davis County totaled $212 million in FY 2006, and included purchases made by the U.S. Air Force to support Hill AFB operations. Contracts for construction, services, materials, equipment and supplies have been awarded to a mix of companies in Davis County. Included in these purchases are materials, equipment and supplies needed in the daily operations of the base, products that are resold at the base commissary and base exchange, and construction. In 2006, $29 million in construction was put in place at the base. If these projects were subject to a traditional permitting process, the value of new non- residential construction in Davis County in 2006 would have increased by nearly 30%.

Over 100 businesses located in Davis County received operations-related contracts for Hill AFB. Table 1.62 lists those companies that received $1 million or more in contracts in 2006.

Table 1.62 Hill Air Force Base Companies in Davis County Receiving $1 Million or More in Local Procurement Contracting: 2006

Firm Location of Firm Award Amount L3 Communications/Vertex Aerospace Clearfield $47,211,937 Westest Engineering Corporation Farmington $41,780,191 Lear Siegler Services HAFB $19,508,281 Engineering & Software System Solutions Clearfield $11,103,347 Anteon Corporation Clearfield $10,312,811 Fastenal Company Clearfield $8,434,367 Chung & Associates, Inc. North Salt Lake $6,391,452 The Bionetics Corporation HAFB $5,100,000 Sumaria Systems, Inc. Layton $4,157,208 AAI Services Corporation HAFB $3,718,274 Icon Consulting, Inc. Layton $3,663,764 Oasis Systems, Inc. Layton $3,523,639 Manufacturing Technology, Inc. HAFB $3,434,830 Viranim Technologies, Inc. Layton $3,076,604 Innovative Systems Architect Corporation Layton $2,938,629 Dynamics Research Corporation Clearfield $2,734,649 Environmental Abatement Inc. North Salt Lake City $2,487,683 Wasatch Integrated Waste Management Layton $2,384,025 ML Technologies, Inc. Layton $2,354,646 Defense Contract Services HAFB $2,238,858 Shim Enterprise, Inc. Layton $2,080,987 Sobran, Inc. Farmington $1,828,958 Robbins-Gioia LLC Clearfield $1,810,119 Brandaris, Inc. Layton $1,757,706 Cardinal Maintenance Service, Inc. HAFB $1,490,792 Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Layton $1,479,792 Sabioso, Inc. Layton $1,425,313 Advanced Solutions Group Kaysville $1,178,333 Northern Management Services HAFB $1,034,857 Source: Hill Air Force Base, Robert McLean, Chief Acquisition Cost Division

Prime Contract Awards. Apart from local contracting for operations are the dollars spent in support of Hill’s missions. In FY 2006, prime contracts awards to Utah businesses totaled nearly $568 million; of this, $515 million was awarded to businesses in Davis County (Table 1.60). The single largest award recipient was Northrop Grumman Space and Mission Systems Corporation, the largest prime contractor in Utah and one of the top defense contractors in the nation. Other top contractors in Davis County include Valdez Machining, Viranim Technologies and

66 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Camnetics Manufacturing Corporation. Table 1.63 lists companies in Davis County that received prime contracts in 2006.

Table 1.63 Prime Contracts Awarded to Firms in Davis County: 2006

Firm Location of Firm Award Amount Northrop Grumman Space & Mission Systems Corporation Clearfield $511,628,162 Valdez Machining North Salt Lake $802,671 Viranim Technologies Kaysville $795,166 Camnetics Manufacturing Corporation Clearfield $646,341 TopVue, Inc. Clearfield $466,320 Infinite Technologies, Inc. Layton $427,107 Innovative Systems Architect Corporation Layton $272,000 Westest Engineering Corporation Farmington $15,963 Berry Enterprises Clearfield $1,968 Falcon Sheet Metal Bountiful $1,587 Total $515,057,285 Source: Hill Air Force Base, Robert McLean, Chief Acquisition Cost Division

Based on past work on the defense industry, BEBR estimates that about 40%–60% of the prime contracts awarded to Utah companies remain in the state. It is not known how much of the award is spent in Davis County. However, Hill AFB estimates there are about 3,300 contract civilians working at the base. Many of these workers are employed by companies that have received prime contract awards.

Outlook Hill AFB escaped closure under the current recommendations of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. In addition to BRAC’s decision to keep Hill open, the base has received several assignments that have expanded its role in the Air Force. Some of those assignments include upgrading all 356 A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft, assisting with the fabrication of parts and maintenance for the C-17 Globemaster III aircraft, and modifying the F-22A Raptor, which will eventually replace the F-16. The expanded assignments at Hill AFB should ensure the base’s viability well into the future.

Davis County in a Regional Context

This section reviews the relative demographic and economic role of Davis County in the Wasatch Front economy. The Wasatch Front generally refers to Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties, which account for about 75% of the population and economic activity in the state. Although the combined Wasatch Front Table 1.64 counties present a formidable economic entity, Land Area by County there are significant differences among the Square Davis % Acres counties, differences that affect demographic and Miles Comparison economic activity. One of the most significant Davis 305 194,866 100.0% differences is land area. Davis County is the Salt Lake 738 471,922 41.3% Utah 1,998 1,278,932 15.3% smallest county, with 305 square miles, compared Weber 576 368,344 53.0% with the largest county, Utah County, with 1,998 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of square miles (Table 1.64). Land area constraints in Agriculture, Census of Agriculture: Utah Davis County have and will continue to, at an increasing rate, impact development patterns and characteristics in the county.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 67

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Demographics Over the past 17 years Davis County has maintained a consistent share of the population base of the Wasatch Front. In 1990, Davis County accounted for 14% of the population of the four Wasatch Front counties, and by 2006 the county’s share had grown only slightly to 14.5% (Table 1.65). However, both Salt Lake and Weber County’s demographic shares have declined over the same period, while Utah County has made an impressive gain, moving from 19.8% in 1990 to 24.1% in 2006.

Table 1.65 Population Share of Wasatch Front Counties, 1990–2006

1990 2000 2006 Population Share Population Share Population Share Davis 188,000 14.0% 240,204 14.0% 286,547 14.5% Salt Lake 728,000 54.3% 902,777 52.7% 996,374 50.5% Utah 266,000 19.8% 371,894 21.7% 475,425 24.1% Weber 159,000 11.9% 197,541 11.5% 215,870 10.9% Total 1,341,000 100.0% 1,712,416 100.0% 1,974,216 100.0% Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget

Davis County’s relative growth in population since 1990 has been greater than either Salt Lake or Weber County but less than Utah County. Between 1990 and 2006 the population of Davis County increased by 52.4%. Over the same period the total population of the Wasatch Front increased by 47.2%. Davis County’s growth rate has accelerated since 2000, resulting in a population gain of 19.3% between 2000 and 2006 versus a 15.3% gain for the Wasatch Front (Table 1.66).

Table 1.66 Population Change of Wasatch Front Counties, 1990–2006

1990 to 2006 2000 to 2006 1990 2000 2006 Change Change Davis 188,000 240,204 286,547 52.4% 19.3% Salt Lake 728,000 902,777 996,374 36.9% 10.4% Utah 266,000 371,894 475,425 78.7% 27.8% Weber 159,000 197,541 215,870 35.8% 9.3% Total 1,341,000 1,712,416 1,974,216 47.2% 15.3% Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget

Employment Davis County’s share of Wasatch Front employment has remained stable over the past 16 years. In 1990 Davis County had 10.2% of the employment in Wasatch Front counties, and by 2005 the county’s share had grown only slightly to 10.6% (Table 1.67). Both Salt Lake and Weber Counties however have lost employment share since 1990, while Utah County’s employment share, as was the case with population, has grown. In 1990 Utah County accounted for 16% of the employment in Wasatch Front counties, and by 2005 that share had increased to 18.5%.

Among the four Wasatch Front counties, Davis County leads in employment growth since 2000, with a gain of 13.1% or about 11,100 new jobs. Utah County ranks second in rate of employment growth, with a 10% increase (Table 1.68).

68 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.67 Employment Share by Wasatch Front Counties

1990 2000 2005 Employ. Share Employ. Share Employ. Share Davis 59,738 10.2% 84,845 9.7% 95,963 10.6% Salt Lake 368,698 62.7% 545,153 62.6% 555,055 61.0% Utah 93,884 16.0% 152,699 17.5% 167,938 18.5% Weber 66,091 11.2% 88,346 10.1% 90,438 9.9% Total 588,411 100.0% 871,043 100.0% 909,394 100.0% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Table 1.68 Employment Change in Wasatch Front Counties, 1990–2005

1990 to 2005 2000 to 2005 1990 2000 2005 Change Change Davis 59,738 84,845 95,963 60.6% 13.1% Salt Lake 368,698 545,153 555,055 50.5% 1.8% Utah 93,884 152,699 167,938 78.9% 10.0% Weber 66,091 88,346 90,438 36.8% 2.4% State 723,629 1,074,879 1,148,315 58.7% 6.8% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Davis County has the highest ratio of population to employment of any of the Wasatch Front counties (Table 1.69). In 2005 there were 2.9 persons in Davis County for every job, higher even than Utah County’s 2.72 persons per job. The demographic characteristics of Utah County— very young population, high rate of population growth, and large households—are more than offset by the high rates of commuting by Davis County residents. Davis County residents are much more likely to commute than residents of other Wasatch Front counties, which is reflected in the county’s high population-to-employment ratio.

Table 1.69 Ratio of Population to Employment in Wasatch Front Counties, 1990–2005

1990 2000 2005 Davis 3.15 2.83 2.90 Salt Lake 1.98 1.66 1.76 Utah 2.83 2.44 2.72 Weber 2.40 2.24 2.36 State 2.39 2.09 2.22 Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Housing Inventory All four Wasatch Front counties have participated in the housing boom of 2004 to 2006 (Table 1.70). Proportionally, Utah County’s residential activity has been spectacular. Since 2000, 34,600 new housing units have been added to the housing inventory of the county. One out of every four homes in Utah County has been built in the past seven years. Davis County ranks second among the four counties with an increase of 19,000 new homes, which represent 20% of the current housing stock. One out of every five homes in Davis County has been built since 2000.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 69

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.70 Percent of Housing Inventory Added Since 2000

Inventory Built Since % Added 2006 2000 Since 2000 State 928,778 160,184 17.2% Davis County 93,114 19,000 20.4% Salt Lake County 354,325 43,337 12.2% Utah County 138,937 34,622 24.9% Weber County 79,357 8,903 11.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Commercial Sector Since 2000, the value of new industrial, office, and retail buildings in Davis County totals $303.2 million (Table 1.71). The new construction activity is distributed almost evenly between the three commercial categories: industrial, $103.8 million; office, $103.0 million; and retail, $96.4 million. Compared to the other Wasatch Front counties, Davis County has captured its proportional share of new commercial development. Davis County’s employment base is about one-sixth the size of Salt Lake County’s, and Salt Lake County has had about six times the amount of new commercial construction since 2000; $1.8 billion compared to $300 million. Utah County’s employment base is nearly double that of Davis County, and new commercial construction in Utah County is about twice that of Davis County. The new construction data indicate that commercial development in Davis County since 2000 has been consistent with the employment base of the county and shows no signs, in relative terms, of lagging behind the commercial development in Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber Counties.

Table 1.71 Comparison of Construction Value for Industrial, Office, and Retail 2000–2006 (millions of current dollars)

Davis % of Davis % Davis % Davis Salt Lake Utah Weber Salt Lake of Utah of Weber Industrial $103.8 $530.1 19.6% $147.4 70.4% $74.9 138.5% Office $103.0 $691.8 14.9% $227.7 45.2% $93.0 110.8% Retail $96.4 $582.7 16.5% $234.1 41.2% $97.3 99.1% Total $303.2 $1,804.6 16.8% $609.2 49.8% $265.2 1.14% Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Davis County’s inventory of commercial space, however, shows that the relative position of the county’s office space inventory is not quite as strong as its retail and industrial inventories (Table 1.72). In 2006, Davis County’s retail inventory of 6.2 million square feet was 12.8% of the retail space in the Wasatch Front counties. The county’s 21.1 million square feet of industrial space was 12.9% of the industrial space along the Wasatch Front, while the 3.5 million square feet of office space represents only 8.4% of the total office space inventory.

70 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 1.72 Inventory and Share of Leasable Commercial Space by County, 2006 (million square feet)

Retail Office Industrial Sq. Ft. Share Sq. Ft. Share Sq. Ft. Share Davis 6.2 12.8% 3.5 8.4% 21.1 12.9% Salt Lake 28.3 58.2% 27.8 66.8% 100.0 61.0% Utah 9.0 18.5% 7.5 18.0% 14.5 8.8% Weber 5.1 10.5% 2.8 6.7% 28.3 17.3% Total 48.6 100.0% 41.6 100.0% 163.9 100.0% Source: Commerce CRG

Retail Sector Over the past several years Davis County has improved its retail position among the Wasatch Front counties. The development since the mid-1990s of over 1.5 million square feet of retail space near the Layton Hills Mall, along with major retail developments in Centerville and Bountiful, have reduced retail leakage from the county. Davis County’s share of retail sales has grown to 12.1% of retails sales for the four counties (Table 1.73). Reduced retail leakage is confirmed by the increase in retail sales per capita in Davis County. Retail sales per capita have risen from $3,988 in 1990 to $7,203 in 2005, an 80% increase, which is the highest increase among the four counties (Table 1.74). Adjusting retail sales for inflation, the 1990 retail sales per capita in Davis County were $6,154. Therefore, in real dollars retail sales per capita have increased 17% since 1990, compared to 14% for Utah County, the second-ranked county.

Table 1.73 Share of Wasatch Front Retail Sales by County (millions of current dollars)

Davis Salt Lake Utah Weber Year Sales Share Sales Share Sales Share Sales Share Total 1990 $749.8 10.9% $4,210.1 61.0% $1,076.6 15.6% $861.1 12.5% $6,897.6 2000 $1,553.2 11.2% $8,206.2 59.4% $2,553.9 18.5% $1,507.0 10.9% $13,820.3 2005 $2,063.9 12.1% $9,924.6 58.1% $3,395.6 19.9% $1,698.5 9.9% $17,082.6 Note: Retail sales include building and garden, general merchandise, food, motor vehicles, apparel, furniture, eating and drinking, and miscellaneous retail. Source: Utah State Tax Commission

Table 1.74 Retail Sales per Capita by County, 1990–2005

1990 2000 2005 Change Davis $3,988 $6,466 $7,203 80.6% Salt Lake $5,783 $9,090 $9,961 72.2% Utah $4,047 $6,867 $7,142 76.5% Weber $5,416 $7,629 $7,868 45.3% Note: Retail sales include building and garden, general merchandise, food, motor vehicles, apparel, furniture, eating and drinking, and miscellaneous retail. Source: Utah State Tax Commission

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 71

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

There does not appear to be excess supply of retail space in the county. The per-capita retail square footage in the county is 21 square feet; slightly lower than Weber County but higher than Utah County (Table 1.75). Due to the dominance of Salt Lake County in the retail market, the county’s per-capita square feet of retail is 28.3, significantly higher than the other counties.

Table 1.75 Per Capita Retail Square Footage

Retail Square Per Capita Population Footage Sq. Ft. (millions) Davis 286,547 6.2 21.6 Salt Lake 996,374 28.3 28.4 Utah 475,425 9.0 18.9 Weber 215,870 5.1 23.6 Total Wasatch Front 1,974,216 48.6 24.6 Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget and Commerce CRG

72 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

D EMOGRAPHIC A NALYSIS OF D AVIS C OUNTY

Population Population is a stock measure that provides a snapshot at a particular point in time, for example July 1st of each year. Annual births, deaths, and in- and outmigration are the flows that change a population from one year to the next.

From 1940 to 2006, according to the Utah Population Estimates Committee, Davis County’s population increased dramatically, from 15,500 to 286,547. The county’s share of Utah’s population grew from about 3% to nearly 11% (Exhibit 2.1), and it’s the third largest in the state. In just two generations Davis County transformed from small and rural to large and urban.

However, while the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget projects Davis’s population to continue growing into the middle of the century, increasing by nearly 184,000 from 2000 to 2050, its share of the state’s population is expected to decline steadily to about 8% by 2050 (Exhibit 2.2). In fact, beginning in 2015, the GOPB projects net migration in Davis County will become negative, from a loss of 270 in 2015 to a net outflow of more than 3,600 by 2050 (Exhibit 2.3). This will be more than compensated by natural increase (births are projected to exceed deaths by more than 5,000 every year starting in 2013), but will contribute to the county’s declining annual rates of increase, from 3.4% in 2002 to 0.5% in 2037 and thereafter.

While Davis County’s total population is projected to increase by about three-quarters from 2000 to 2050, the number of households is expected to more than double, from 71,698 to 146,811 (Table 2.1). Due to the aging of the population (see below), average household size will decrease, from 3.3 persons to 2.8. Over the same period, employment is expected to grow 76%, from 125,288 in 2001 to 220,495 in 2050.

Davis County’s large population, continued significant growth, and small land area (the smallest in the state) are expected to make it the first county to reach buildout, in about 2040.

Age Another trend in Davis County is the aging of the population. From 2000 to 2050, the GOPB projects the median age to increase from 26.8 to 35.0 (Table 2.2). By way of comparison, Utah’s median age is projected to increase from 27.2 to 34.0, while that of the United States will increase from 35.4 to 39.1 by 2050.

The underlying structural changes driving this increase are shown in Table 2.2 and Exhibits 2.4 through 2.8. Davis County’s population aged 55 and older will more than double over the period, while younger age groups will increase less than 60%. The 55-to-59 cohort will grow the slowest of the older groups, at 113.1%. The oldest group, those 85 and over, is projected to have the most significant growth on several dimensions. It is expected to have the largest absolute increase, with a gain of 30,742; it has the greatest percentage increase at nearly 1800%; and it is by far the largest, single-cohort contributor to total population growth, accounting for 16.7%. The retirement-age population, those 65 and older, will increase by 78,943 or 447.1%, accounting for 42.9% of total population growth; their share of Davis County’s population will triple to 22.8% in 2050.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 73

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.1 Davis County Population Estimates and Components of Population Change, 1940–2006

Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Natural Net In- Population Births Deaths Increase Migration Davis County Population 1940 15,500 365 136 229 0 350,000 12% 1941 16,800 365 128 237 1,063 300,000 1942 18,400 463 112 351 1,249 10% 1943 23,800 598 130 468 4,932 1944 24,700 634 145 489 411 250,000 8% 1945 24,000 661 167 494 -1,194 1946 27,300 756 154 602 2,698 200,000 1947 27,500 1,075 155 920 -720 6% 1948 29,000 992 160 832 668 150,000 1949 29,600 895 161 734 -134 4% July 1 Population 1 July 100,000 Share of the State 1950 31,200 1,007 160 847 753 1951 34,600 1,076 177 899 2,501 50,000 Population 2% 1952 38,400 1,308 190 1,118 2,682 Share of the State 1953 41,300 1,349 165 1,184 1,716 0 0% 1954 43,100 1,421 189 1,232 568 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1955 45,800 1,652 194 1,458 1,242 1956 49,000 1,756 197 1,559 1,641 Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee. 1957 52,700 1,704 192 1,512 2,188 1958 56,600 1,889 255 1,634 2,266 1959 60,400 1,937 240 1,697 2,103 Davis County: 1960 65,600 2,110 268 1,842 3,358 Components of Population Change 1961 70,100 2,193 261 1,932 2,568 7,000 1962 75,600 2,264 311 1,953 3,547 Net In-Migration 1963 80,000 2,146 261 1,885 2,515 6,000 Natural Increase 1964 82,000 2,054 305 1,749 251 5,000 1965 86,000 2,152 311 1,841 2,159 1966 91,000 1,926 307 1,619 3,381 4,000 1967 93,000 2,099 289 1,810 190 3,000 1968 95,000 2,100 356 1,744 256 1969 97,000 2,204 338 1,866 134 2,000 1970 99,600 2,361 381 1,980 620 1,000 1971 107,800 2,375 401 1,974 6,226 0 1972 113,300 2,476 398 2,078 3,422 1973 116,600 2,432 408 2,024 1,276 -1,000 1974 119,900 2,575 388 2,187 1,113 -2,000 1975 123,900 2,760 407 2,353 1,647 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 1976 128,100 3,079 423 2,656 1,544 Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee. 1977 133,200 3,375 491 2,884 2,216 1978 134,900 3,653 471 3,182 -1,482 1979 142,400 3,818 519 3,299 4,201 Davis County: 1980 148,000 4,081 511 3,570 2,030 Year-Over Rates and Amounts of Population Change 1981 153,000 3,988 536 3,452 1,548 1982 158,000 4,084 558 3,526 1,474 12.0% 10,000 1983 162,000 3,862 609 3,253 747 Percentage Change 9,000 1984 166,000 3,845 616 3,229 771 10.0% Amount of Change 1985 170,000 3,667 600 3,067 933 8,000 1986 175,000 3,766 683 3,083 1,917 7,000 1987 179,000 3,765 604 3,161 839 8.0% 1988 184,000 3,906 675 3,231 1,769 6,000 1989 186,000 3,894 658 3,236 -1,236 6.0% 5,000 1990 188,471 3,835 689 3,146 -675 1991 195,088 3,853 694 3,159 3,458 4,000 4.0% 1992 201,158 3,923 766 3,157 2,913 3,000 1993 205,655 3,799 740 3,059 1,438 2,000 1994 212,151 3,807 788 3,019 3,477 2.0% 1995 216,054 4,154 862 3,292 611 1,000 1996 219,685 4,169 825 3,344 287 0.0% 0 1997 224,356 4,432 899 3,533 1,138 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1998 229,450 4,488 972 3,516 1,578 1999 235,364 4,849 988 3,861 2,053 Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee. 2000 240,204 4,809 1,065 3,744 1,096 2001 246,744 4,920 1,087 3,833 2,707 2002 255,099 5,034 1,167 3,867 4,488 Notes: Population estimates for July 1 were produced by the Utah Population Estimates Committee (UPEC). UPEC changed its rounding 2003 262,038 5,283 1,176 4,107 2,832 convention. Estimates before 1990 are rounded while those for 1990 and 2004 268,916 5,608 1,176 4,432 2,446 beyond are not rounded. Birth and death data are from the Utah Bureau of 2005 278,278 5,533 1,211 4,322 5,040 Health Statistics. Downloaded from www.governor.state.ut.us/dea on April 2006 286,547 5,934 1,281 4,653 3,616 16, 2007.

74 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.2 Population Projections by County, 2000–2050 AARC County 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2000–50 Beaver 6,023 6,335 7,575 11,549 13,761 15,535 17,373 2.1% Box Elder 42,860 45,142 49,254 61,675 73,833 85,455 97,789 1.7% Cache 91,897 102,477 114,304 147,776 183,989 223,185 266,711 2.2% Carbon 20,396 19,205 19,023 20,982 23,188 25,118 27,039 0.6% Daggett 933 967 1,024 1,141 1,209 1,258 1,305 0.7% Davis 240,204 276,374 304,502 352,320 382,219 404,170 424,177 1.1% Duchesne 14,397 15,043 15,897 19,021 21,497 23,516 25,543 1.2% Emery 10,782 10,492 10,346 11,359 12,536 13,396 14,240 0.6% Garfield 4,763 4,645 4,955 5,973 6,747 7,356 7,966 1.0% Grand 8,537 8,691 9,039 9,751 10,129 10,403 10,661 0.4% Iron 34,079 40,212 48,772 65,607 77,493 90,268 103,920 2.3% Juab 8,310 8,917 10,112 12,798 14,546 16,067 17,611 1.5% Kane 6,037 6,093 6,618 8,359 9,783 11,033 12,327 1.4% Millard 12,461 13,305 14,199 18,386 22,439 25,726 29,179 1.7% Morgan 7,181 8,525 10,183 16,200 24,595 34,290 46,596 3.8% Piute 1,436 1,356 1,503 1,790 1,797 1,913 2,026 0.7% Rich 1,955 2,086 2,147 2,447 2,636 2,724 2,809 0.7% Salt Lake 902,777 970,748 1,053,258 1,230,817 1,381,519 1,521,926 1,663,994 1.2% San Juan 14,360 14,444 14,481 15,419 16,910 18,269 19,620 0.6% Sanpete 22,846 25,447 27,904 32,902 35,181 36,866 38,492 1.0% Sevier 18,938 19,494 21,038 24,855 26,892 28,337 29,738 0.9% Summit 30,048 36,417 44,511 65,001 85,660 107,554 132,681 3.0% Tooele 41,549 51,835 67,150 95,696 112,722 130,092 148,486 2.6% Uintah 25,297 26,317 27,071 29,289 30,641 31,614 32,538 0.5% Utah 371,894 453,977 527,502 661,319 804,112 964,893 1,147,333 2.3% Wasatch 15,433 20,138 25,516 37,082 46,193 55,179 65,010 2.9% Washington 91,104 125,010 162,544 251,896 353,922 472,355 607,334 3.9% Wayne 2,515 2,527 2,764 3,469 3,943 4,292 4,640 1.2% Weber 197,541 212,707 230,145 271,339 306,227 338,579 371,429 1.3%

State of Utah 2,246,553 2,528,926 2,833,337 3,486,218 4,086,319 4,701,369 5,368,567 1.8%

Davis County Share of State

15%

10.7% 10.9% 10.7% 10.1% 9.4% 10% 8.6% 7.9%

5%

0% 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Note: July 1 populations. Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 75

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.3 Davis County Projected Components of Population Change, 2000–2050

Beginning Natural Residual Year Population Births Deaths Increase Migration Change Davis County Projected Population 2000 240,204 4,809 1,065 3,744 1,096 2.1% 450,000 12%

2001 246,744 4,920 1,087 3,833 2,707 2.7% 11% 2002 255,099 5,034 1,167 3,867 4,488 3.4% 400,000 2003 262,038 5,283 1,176 4,107 2,832 2.7% 10% 350,000 2004 268,916 5,608 1,176 4,432 2,446 2.6% 9% 2005 276,374 5,583 1,244 4,339 3,119 2.8% 300,000 2006 282,217 5,751 1,249 4,502 1,341 2.1% 8% July 1 Population Population Share of the State 2007 287,924 5,764 1,284 4,480 1,227 2.0% 250,000 2008 293,434 5,902 1,292 4,610 900 1.9% Share of State 7% 2009 298,981 5,965 1,316 4,649 898 1.9% 200,000 6% 2010 304,502 6,100 1,328 4,772 749 1.8% 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2011 310,054 6,172 1,349 4,823 729 1.8% Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline. 2012 315,534 6,278 1,364 4,914 566 1.8% 2013 320,866 6,390 1,382 5,008 324 1.7% 2014 325,971 6,476 1,398 5,078 27 1.6% Davis County: 2015 330,833 6,547 1,415 5,132 -270 1.5% Projected Components of Population Change 2016 335,487 6,579 1,432 5,147 -493 1.4% 8,000 2017 339,944 6,618 1,449 5,169 -712 1.3% 6,000 2018 344,262 6,693 1,467 5,226 -908 1.3% 4,000 2019 348,384 6,751 1,485 5,266 -1,144 1.2% Net Migration 2020 352,320 6,782 1,503 5,279 -1,343 1.1% 2,000 Natural Increase 2021 356,047 6,842 1,523 5,319 -1,592 1.1% 0 2022 359,575 6,866 1,544 5,322 -1,794 1.0% 2023 362,929 6,910 1,565 5,345 -1,991 0.9% -2,000 2024 366,144 6,977 1,586 5,391 -2,176 0.9% -4,000

2025 369,206 7,019 1,608 5,411 -2,349 0.8% -6,000 2026 372,108 7,070 1,632 5,438 -2,536 0.8% 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2027 374,827 7,118 1,656 5,462 -2,743 0.7% Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline. 2028 377,416 7,165 1,679 5,486 -2,897 0.7% 2029 379,867 7,201 1,703 5,498 -3,047 0.6% 2030 382,219 7,248 1,727 5,521 -3,169 0.6% Davis County: 2031 384,528 7,288 1,752 5,536 -3,227 0.6% Projected Year-Over Amounts and Rates of Population Change 2032 386,810 7,314 1,778 5,536 -3,254 0.6% 9,000 4.0% 2033 389,065 7,350 1,803 5,547 -3,292 0.6% 8,000 2034 391,291 7,387 1,828 5,559 -3,333 0.6% 3.5% 7,000 2035 393,492 7,423 1,853 5,570 -3,369 0.6% Amount 3.0% 6,000 2036 395,670 7,454 1,878 5,576 -3,398 0.6% Percent 2.5% 5,000 2037 397,825 7,484 1,903 5,581 -3,426 0.5% 2.0% 4,000 2038 399,959 7,509 1,927 5,582 -3,448 0.5% 1.5% 2039 402,073 7,534 1,951 5,583 -3,469 0.5% 3,000 1.0% 2040 404,170 7,571 1,973 5,598 -3,501 0.5% 2,000 2041 406,249 7,590 1,996 5,594 -3,515 0.5% 1,000 0.5% 2042 408,310 7,609 2,017 5,592 -3,531 0.5% 0 0.0% 2043 410,354 7,625 2,038 5,587 -3,543 0.5% 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2044 412,382 7,628 2,057 5,571 -3,543 0.5% Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee. 2045 414,393 7,643 2,075 5,568 -3,557 0.5% 2046 416,388 7,644 2,093 5,551 -3,556 0.5% 2047 418,367 7,661 2,110 5,551 -3,572 0.5% 2048 420,325 7,677 2,126 5,551 -3,593 0.5% 2049 422,262 7,692 2,141 5,551 -3,614 0.5% 2050 424,177 7,708 2,155 5,553 -3,638 0.5% Note: July 1 populations. Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

76 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 2.1 Davis County Demographic and Economic Projections, 2000–2050

School-Age Total Population Population Households Employment (Ages 5–17) Year Number Change Number Change Number Change Avg Size Number Change 2000 240,204 2.1% 60,504 71,698 3.30 2001 246,744 2.7% 60,462 -0.1% 74,287 3.6% 3.27 125,288 2002 255,099 3.4% 61,030 0.9% 77,431 4.2% 3.25 128,105 2.2% 2003 262,038 2.7% 61,539 0.8% 80,175 3.5% 3.22 129,342 1.0% 2004 268,916 2.6% 62,221 1.1% 82,913 3.4% 3.20 132,692 2.6% 2005 276,374 2.8% 63,123 1.4% 85,890 3.6% 3.17 136,174 2.6% 2006 282,217 2.1% 63,720 0.9% 88,332 2.8% 3.15 139,390 2.4% 2007 287,924 2.0% 64,287 0.9% 90,784 2.8% 3.13 142,772 2.4% 2008 293,434 1.9% 64,997 1.1% 93,169 2.6% 3.10 146,156 2.4% 2009 298,981 1.9% 66,052 1.6% 95,513 2.5% 3.09 149,556 2.3% 2010 304,502 1.8% 67,065 1.5% 97,801 2.4% 3.07 152,866 2.2% 2011 310,054 1.8% 68,205 1.7% 100,065 2.3% 3.05 156,016 2.1% 2012 315,534 1.8% 69,407 1.8% 102,273 2.2% 3.04 158,878 1.8% 2013 320,866 1.7% 70,472 1.5% 104,423 2.1% 3.03 161,267 1.5% 2014 325,971 1.6% 71,530 1.5% 106,484 2.0% 3.02 163,338 1.3% 2015 330,833 1.5% 72,605 1.5% 108,447 1.8% 3.01 165,272 1.2% 2016 335,487 1.4% 73,633 1.4% 110,296 1.7% 3.00 167,145 1.1% 2017 339,944 1.3% 74,580 1.3% 112,102 1.6% 2.99 168,931 1.1% 2018 344,262 1.3% 75,591 1.4% 113,862 1.6% 2.98 170,695 1.0% 2019 348,384 1.2% 76,555 1.3% 115,536 1.5% 2.97 172,427 1.0% 2020 352,320 1.1% 77,454 1.2% 117,172 1.4% 2.96 174,133 1.0% 2021 356,047 1.1% 78,162 0.9% 118,727 1.3% 2.95 175,793 1.0% 2022 359,575 1.0% 78,607 0.6% 120,230 1.3% 2.94 177,397 0.9% 2023 362,929 0.9% 79,169 0.7% 121,681 1.2% 2.94 179,022 0.9% 2024 366,144 0.9% 79,644 0.6% 123,074 1.1% 2.93 180,650 0.9% 2025 369,206 0.8% 80,131 0.6% 124,408 1.1% 2.92 182,292 0.9% 2026 372,108 0.8% 80,538 0.5% 125,687 1.0% 2.91 183,926 0.9% 2027 374,827 0.7% 80,909 0.5% 126,876 0.9% 2.90 185,582 0.9% 2028 377,416 0.7% 81,197 0.4% 128,023 0.9% 2.90 187,189 0.9% 2029 379,867 0.6% 81,489 0.4% 129,156 0.9% 2.89 188,739 0.8% 2030 382,219 0.6% 81,740 0.3% 130,248 0.8% 2.88 190,234 0.8% 2031 384,528 0.6% 81,964 0.3% 131,272 0.8% 2.87 191,740 0.8% 2032 386,810 0.6% 82,192 0.3% 132,211 0.7% 2.87 193,263 0.8% 2033 389,065 0.6% 82,434 0.3% 133,176 0.7% 2.86 194,823 0.8% 2034 391,291 0.6% 82,709 0.3% 134,120 0.7% 2.86 196,418 0.8% 2035 393,492 0.6% 83,023 0.4% 135,032 0.7% 2.85 198,076 0.8% 2036 395,670 0.6% 83,342 0.4% 135,919 0.7% 2.85 199,736 0.8% 2037 397,825 0.5% 83,667 0.4% 136,758 0.6% 2.84 201,413 0.8% 2038 399,959 0.5% 84,027 0.4% 137,586 0.6% 2.84 203,080 0.8% 2039 402,073 0.5% 84,387 0.4% 138,398 0.6% 2.84 204,647 0.8% 2040 404,170 0.5% 84,783 0.5% 139,178 0.6% 2.83 206,067 0.7% 2041 406,249 0.5% 85,186 0.5% 139,960 0.6% 2.83 207,338 0.6% 2042 408,310 0.5% 85,578 0.5% 140,686 0.5% 2.83 208,570 0.6% 2043 410,354 0.5% 85,973 0.5% 141,443 0.5% 2.82 209,869 0.6% 2044 412,382 0.5% 86,359 0.4% 142,192 0.5% 2.82 211,238 0.7% 2045 414,393 0.5% 86,758 0.5% 142,918 0.5% 2.82 212,690 0.7% 2046 416,388 0.5% 87,141 0.4% 143,693 0.5% 2.81 214,235 0.7% 2047 418,367 0.5% 87,507 0.4% 144,439 0.5% 2.81 215,818 0.7% 2048 420,325 0.5% 87,847 0.4% 145,228 0.5% 2.81 217,453 0.8% 2049 422,262 0.5% 88,146 0.3% 146,015 0.5% 2.80 218,988 0.7% 2050 424,177 0.5% 88,440 0.3% 146,811 0.5% 2.80 220,495 0.7% Note: July 1 populations. Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 77

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 2.2 Davis County Population Projections by Sex and Five-Year Age Group, 2000–2050

Change: 2000–2050 Sex Age 2000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 Amount Percent Share Male Less than 5 years old 12,086 15,174 16,301 16,952 17,439 17,935 18,779 19,192 7,106 58.8% 3.9% 5–9 years old 11,679 14,123 15,233 16,103 16,535 16,823 17,653 18,294 6,615 56.6% 3.6% 10–14 years old 11,715 12,917 14,176 15,064 15,736 15,994 16,581 17,357 5,642 48.2% 3.1% 15–19 years old 12,350 11,763 12,277 13,273 13,882 14,349 14,677 15,396 3,046 24.7% 1.7% 20–24 years old 10,670 11,594 11,454 11,509 12,046 12,357 12,764 13,196 2,526 23.7% 1.4% 25–29 years old 8,703 14,546 12,712 12,125 11,793 12,037 12,462 12,644 3,941 45.3% 2.1% 30–34 years old 8,038 13,297 14,593 12,409 11,516 10,888 11,104 11,398 3,360 41.8% 1.8% 35–39 years old 8,521 9,806 13,289 14,318 11,948 10,871 10,221 10,537 2,016 23.7% 1.1% 40–44 years old 8,611 8,779 9,783 13,057 13,903 11,429 9,551 9,688 1,077 12.5% 0.6% 45–49 years old 7,285 9,012 8,738 9,603 12,737 13,453 9,856 9,146 1,861 25.5% 1.0% 50–54 years old 5,755 8,840 8,883 8,536 9,308 12,342 10,597 8,747 2,992 52.0% 1.6% 55–59 years old 4,236 7,339 8,640 8,610 8,239 8,948 12,517 9,162 4,926 116.3% 2.7% 60–64 years old 3,181 5,673 7,082 8,276 8,195 7,841 11,417 9,760 6,579 206.8% 3.6% 65–69 years old 2,650 3,997 5,357 6,649 7,726 7,613 7,966 11,133 8,483 320.1% 4.6% 70–74 years old 2,086 2,853 3,651 4,881 6,039 6,983 6,655 9,848 7,762 372.1% 4.2% 75–79 years old 1,668 2,124 2,447 3,119 4,182 5,159 5,767 6,181 4,513 270.6% 2.5% 80–84 years old 915 1,390 1,629 1,885 2,405 3,245 4,551 4,428 3,513 383.9% 1.9% 85 years old and over 539 1,114 1,460 2,008 2,858 4,257 9,365 15,461 14,922 2768.5% 8.1% Total 120,688 154,341 167,705 178,377 186,487 192,524 202,483 211,568 90,880 75.3% 49.4% Median Age 26.0 29.0 30.6 31.7 32.5 33.1 33.7 34.2 Female Less than 5 years old 11,409 14,368 15,432 16,035 16,489 16,954 17,747 18,142 6,733 59.0% 3.7% 5–9 years old 10,900 13,338 14,428 15,235 15,618 15,873 16,643 17,248 6,348 58.2% 3.5% 10–14 years old 11,341 12,265 13,391 14,259 14,868 15,077 15,600 16,325 4,984 43.9% 2.7% 15–19 years old 11,667 11,682 12,313 13,213 13,875 14,307 14,580 15,277 3,610 30.9% 2.0% 20–24 years old 9,814 12,190 11,752 12,059 12,657 13,073 13,474 13,915 4,101 41.8% 2.2% 25–29 years old 8,727 12,818 12,286 11,456 11,426 11,726 12,272 12,426 3,699 42.4% 2.0% 30–34 years old 8,039 11,050 12,883 12,060 10,962 10,690 11,118 11,399 3,360 41.8% 1.8% 35–39 years old 8,493 9,672 11,078 12,703 11,707 10,440 10,248 10,711 2,218 26.1% 1.2% 40–44 years old 8,432 8,680 9,695 10,948 12,431 11,306 9,602 9,971 1,539 18.3% 0.8% 45–49 years old 7,400 8,945 8,674 9,584 10,739 12,128 9,622 9,372 1,972 26.6% 1.1% 50–54 years old 5,766 8,673 8,879 8,548 9,388 10,488 10,693 8,950 3,184 55.2% 1.7% 55–59 years old 4,353 7,485 8,565 8,718 8,361 9,162 11,593 9,139 4,786 109.9% 2.6% 60–64 years old 3,378 5,748 7,315 8,328 8,447 8,095 9,958 10,187 6,809 201.6% 3.7% 65–69 years old 2,929 4,208 5,553 7,033 7,979 8,080 8,540 10,855 7,926 270.6% 4.3% 70–74 years old 2,382 3,125 3,960 5,216 6,591 7,457 7,302 9,030 6,648 279.1% 3.6% 75–79 years old 1,984 2,508 2,806 3,549 4,700 5,909 6,746 7,249 5,265 265.4% 2.9% 80–84 years old 1,332 1,756 2,052 2,296 2,901 3,881 5,457 5,423 4,091 307.1% 2.2% 85 years old and over 1,170 1,650 2,066 2,703 3,580 5,049 10,492 16,990 15,820 1352.1% 8.6% Total 119,516 150,161 163,128 173,943 182,719 189,695 201,687 212,609 93,093 77.9% 50.6% Median Age 27.6 29.3 30.8 32.0 33.0 33.7 34.7 35.7 Total Less than 5 years old 23,495 29,542 31,733 32,987 33,928 34,889 36,526 37,334 13,839 58.9% 7.5% 5–9 years old 22,579 27,461 29,661 31,338 32,153 32,696 34,296 35,542 12,963 57.4% 7.0% 10–14 years old 23,056 25,182 27,567 29,323 30,604 31,071 32,181 33,682 10,626 46.1% 5.8% 15–19 years old 24,017 23,445 24,590 26,486 27,757 28,656 29,257 30,673 6,656 27.7% 3.6% 20–24 years old 20,484 23,784 23,206 23,568 24,703 25,430 26,238 27,111 6,627 32.4% 3.6% 25–29 years old 17,430 27,364 24,998 23,581 23,219 23,763 24,734 25,070 7,640 43.8% 4.2% 30–34 years old 16,077 24,347 27,476 24,469 22,478 21,578 22,222 22,797 6,720 41.8% 3.7% 35–39 years old 17,014 19,478 24,367 27,021 23,655 21,311 20,469 21,248 4,234 24.9% 2.3% 40–44 years old 17,043 17,459 19,478 24,005 26,334 22,735 19,153 19,659 2,616 15.3% 1.4% 45–49 years old 14,685 17,957 17,412 19,187 23,476 25,581 19,478 18,518 3,833 26.1% 2.1% 50–54 years old 11,521 17,513 17,762 17,084 18,696 22,830 21,290 17,697 6,176 53.6% 3.4% 55–59 years old 8,589 14,824 17,205 17,328 16,600 18,110 24,110 18,301 9,712 113.1% 5.3% 60–64 years old 6,559 11,421 14,397 16,604 16,642 15,936 21,375 19,947 13,388 204.1% 7.3% 65–69 years old 5,579 8,205 10,910 13,682 15,705 15,693 16,506 21,988 16,409 294.1% 8.9% 70–74 years old 4,468 5,978 7,611 10,097 12,630 14,440 13,957 18,878 14,410 322.5% 7.8% 75–79 years old 3,652 4,632 5,253 6,668 8,882 11,068 12,513 13,430 9,778 267.7% 5.3% 80–84 years old 2,247 3,146 3,681 4,181 5,306 7,126 10,008 9,851 7,604 338.4% 4.1% 85 years old and over 1,709 2,764 3,526 4,711 6,438 9,306 19,857 32,451 30,742 1798.8% 16.7% Total 240,204 304,502 330,833 352,320 369,206 382,219 404,170 424,177 183,973 76.6% 100.0% Median Age 26.8 29.2 30.7 31.8 32.8 33.4 34.2 35.0 Note: July 1 populations. The far right column indicates the percentage of the total population increase that is accounted for by the given age group. Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

78 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.4 Davis County Population by Age and Sex, 2020 and 2050

2020 2050

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex 85 + 85 + 80 - 84 80 - 84 75 - 79 75 - 79 70 - 74 70 - 74 65 - 69 65 - 69 60 - 64 60 - 64 55 - 59 55 - 59 50 - 54 50 - 54 45 - 49 45 - 49 40 - 44 40 - 44 35 - 39 35 - 39 30 - 34 30 - 34 25 - 29 25 - 29 20 - 24 20 - 24 15 - 19 15 - 19 10 - 14 10 - 14 5 - 9 5 - 9 Under 5 Under 5 25,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25,000 25,000 15,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 25,000 Male Female Male Female

Age Distribution of the Population Age Distribution of the Population Male Female Sex Ratio Male Female Sex Ratio Under 5 16,952 16,035 1.06 Under 5 19,192 18,142 1.06 5–9 16,103 15,235 1.06 5–9 18,294 17,248 1.06 10–14 15,064 14,259 1.06 10–14 17,357 16,325 1.06 15–19 13,273 13,213 1.00 15–19 15,396 15,277 1.01 20–24 11,509 12,059 0.95 20–24 13,196 13,915 0.95 25–29 12,125 11,456 1.06 25–29 12,644 12,426 1.02 30–34 12,409 12,060 1.03 30–34 11,398 11,399 1.00 35–39 14,318 12,703 1.13 35–39 10,537 10,711 0.98 40–44 13,057 10,948 1.19 40–44 9,688 9,971 0.97 45–49 9,603 9,584 1.00 45–49 9,146 9,372 0.98 50–54 8,536 8,548 1.00 50–54 8,747 8,950 0.98 55–59 8,610 8,718 0.99 55–59 9,162 9,139 1.00 60–64 8,276 8,328 0.99 60–64 9,760 10,187 0.96 65–69 6,649 7,033 0.95 65–69 11,133 10,855 1.03 70–74 4,881 5,216 0.94 70–74 9,848 9,030 1.09 75–79 3,119 3,549 0.88 75–79 6,181 7,249 0.85 80–84 1,885 2,296 0.82 80–84 4,428 5,423 0.82 85 + 2,008 2,703 0.74 85 + 15,461 16,990 0.91 Total 178,377 173,943 1.03 Total 211,568 212,609 1.00 Note: July 1 populations. Source: BEBR analysis of data from Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 79

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.5 State of Utah Population by Age and Sex, 2020 and 2050

2020 2050 Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex 85 + 85 + 80 - 84 80 - 84 75 - 79 75 - 79 70 - 74 70 - 74 65 - 69 65 - 69 60 - 64 60 - 64 55 - 59 55 - 59 50 - 54 50 - 54 45 - 49 45 - 49 40 - 44 40 - 44 35 - 39 35 - 39 30 - 34 30 - 34 25 - 29 25 - 29 20 - 24 20 - 24 15 - 19 15 - 19 10 - 14 10 - 14 5 - 9 5 - 9 Under 5 Under 5 250,000 150,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 250,000 250,000 150,000 50,000 50,000 150,000 250,000 Male Female Male Female

Age Distribution of the Population Age Distribution of the Population Male Female Sex Ratio Male Female Sex Ratio Under 5 164,267 155,616 1.06 Under 5 235,348 222,772 1.06 5–9 157,897 149,809 1.05 5–9 225,713 213,743 1.06 10–14 148,814 141,449 1.05 10–14 214,776 203,461 1.06 15–19 131,993 133,502 0.99 15–19 192,355 192,471 1.00 20–24 115,772 119,154 0.97 20–24 176,208 182,007 0.97 25–29 121,313 112,255 1.08 25–29 182,531 172,656 1.06 30–34 122,470 113,778 1.08 30–34 174,545 165,311 1.06 35–39 135,820 125,652 1.08 35–39 167,143 158,869 1.05 40–44 142,527 130,126 1.10 40–44 157,296 150,147 1.05 45–49 108,143 99,135 1.09 45–49 147,984 142,194 1.04 50–54 87,581 81,653 1.07 50–54 133,089 126,600 1.05 55–59 81,563 79,454 1.03 55–59 123,444 116,839 1.06 60–64 76,102 76,190 1.00 60–64 118,591 114,291 1.04 65–69 63,392 65,203 0.97 65–69 120,799 118,945 1.02 70–74 47,533 50,515 0.94 70–74 116,522 116,202 1.00 75–79 30,629 34,548 0.89 75–79 77,241 80,461 0.96 80–84 18,528 22,693 0.82 80–84 49,315 55,157 0.89 85 + 16,970 24,172 0.70 85 + 104,875 118,666 0.88 Total 1,771,314 1,714,904 1.03 Total 2,717,775 2,650,792 1.03 Note: July 1 populations. Source: BEBR analysis of data from Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

80 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.6 Davis County Population Projections by Selected Age Groups, 2000–2050 Total

AMOUNTS Age 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 Less than 5 years old 23,495 27,068 29,542 31,733 32,987 33,928 34,889 36,526 37,334 5–17 years old 60,504 63,123 67,065 72,605 77,454 80,131 81,740 84,783 88,440 18–29 years old 47,062 58,460 60,171 57,417 56,842 58,305 59,876 61,923 63,638 30–39 years old 33,091 36,411 43,825 51,843 51,490 46,133 42,889 42,691 44,045 40–64 years old 58,397 70,711 79,174 86,254 94,208 101,748 105,192 105,406 94,122 65 years and older 17,655 20,601 24,725 30,981 39,339 48,961 57,633 72,841 96,598 15–44 years old 112,065 127,304 135,877 144,115 149,130 148,146 143,473 142,073 146,558 16–64 years old 148,678 175,274 192,678 205,722 213,690 217,670 219,864 222,141 214,523 60 years and older 24,214 29,155 36,146 45,378 55,943 65,603 73,569 94,216 116,545 Total 240,204 276,374 304,502 330,833 352,320 369,206 382,219 404,170 424,177 Median Age 26.8 27.6 29.2 30.7 31.8 32.8 33.4 34.2 35.0 SHARES Age 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 Less than 5 years old 9.8% 9.8% 9.7% 9.6% 9.4% 9.2% 9.1% 9.0% 8.8% 5–17 years old 25.2% 22.8% 22.0% 21.9% 22.0% 21.7% 21.4% 21.0% 20.8% 18–29 years old 19.6% 21.2% 19.8% 17.4% 16.1% 15.8% 15.7% 15.3% 15.0% 30–39 years old 13.8% 13.2% 14.4% 15.7% 14.6% 12.5% 11.2% 10.6% 10.4% 40–64 years old 24.3% 25.6% 26.0% 26.1% 26.7% 27.6% 27.5% 26.1% 22.2% 65 years and older 7.4% 7.5% 8.1% 9.4% 11.2% 13.3% 15.1% 18.0% 22.8% 15–44 years old 46.7% 46.1% 44.6% 43.6% 42.3% 40.1% 37.5% 35.2% 34.6% 16–64 years old 61.9% 63.4% 63.3% 62.2% 60.7% 59.0% 57.5% 55.0% 50.6% 60 years and older 10.1% 10.5% 11.9% 13.7% 15.9% 17.8% 19.2% 23.3% 27.5% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Age Group Shares

100%

90%

80%

70%

65+ 60% 40-64 30-39 50% 18-29 5-17 40% < 5

30%

20%

10%

0% 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050

Note: July 1 populations. Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 81

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.7 Davis County Population Projections by Selected Age Groups, 2000–2050 Male

AMOUNTS Age 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 Less than 5 years old 12,086 13,928 15,174 16,301 16,952 17,439 17,935 18,779 19,192 5–17 years old 31,047 32,429 34,510 37,332 39,846 41,203 42,068 43,674 45,563 18–29 years old 24,070 30,353 30,433 28,520 28,228 28,789 29,492 30,463 31,324 30–39 years old 16,559 18,322 23,103 27,882 26,727 23,464 21,759 21,325 21,935 40–64 years old 29,068 35,387 39,643 43,126 48,082 52,382 54,013 53,938 46,503 65 years and older 7,858 9,450 11,478 14,544 18,542 23,210 27,257 34,304 47,051 15–44 years old 56,893 65,082 69,785 74,108 76,691 75,088 71,931 70,779 72,859 16–64 years old 74,896 89,003 98,106 104,791 108,818 110,539 111,393 111,977 106,323 60 years and older 11,039 13,663 17,151 21,626 26,818 31,405 35,098 45,721 56,811 Total 120,688 139,869 154,341 167,705 178,377 186,487 192,524 202,483 211,568 Median Age 26.0 27.1 29.0 30.6 31.7 32.5 33.1 33.7 34.2 SHARES Age 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 Less than 5 years old 10.0% 10.0% 9.8% 9.7% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.3% 9.1% 5–17 years old 25.7% 23.2% 22.4% 22.3% 22.3% 22.1% 21.9% 21.6% 21.5% 18–29 years old 19.9% 21.7% 19.7% 17.0% 15.8% 15.4% 15.3% 15.0% 14.8% 30–39 years old 13.7% 13.1% 15.0% 16.6% 15.0% 12.6% 11.3% 10.5% 10.4% 40–64 years old 24.1% 25.3% 25.7% 25.7% 27.0% 28.1% 28.1% 26.6% 22.0% 65 years and older 6.5% 6.8% 7.4% 8.7% 10.4% 12.4% 14.2% 16.9% 22.2% 15–44 years old 47.1% 46.5% 45.2% 44.2% 43.0% 40.3% 37.4% 35.0% 34.4% 16–64 years old 62.1% 63.6% 63.6% 62.5% 61.0% 59.3% 57.9% 55.3% 50.3% 60 years and older 9.1% 9.8% 11.1% 12.9% 15.0% 16.8% 18.2% 22.6% 26.9% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Age Group Shares

100%

90%

80%

70%

65+ 60% 40-64 30-39 50% 18-29 5-17 40% < 5

30%

20%

10%

0% 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050

Note: July 1 populations. Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

82 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.8 Davis County Population Projections by Selected Age Groups, 2000–2050 Female

AMOUNTS Age 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 Less than 5 years old 11,409 13,140 14,368 15,432 16,035 16,489 16,954 17,747 18,142 5–17 years old 29,457 30,694 32,555 35,273 37,608 38,928 39,672 41,109 42,877 18–29 years old 22,992 28,107 29,738 28,897 28,614 29,516 30,384 31,460 32,314 30–39 years old 16,532 18,089 20,722 23,961 24,763 22,669 21,130 21,366 22,110 40–64 years old 29,329 35,324 39,531 43,128 46,126 49,366 51,179 51,468 47,619 65 years and older 9,797 11,151 13,247 16,437 20,797 25,751 30,376 38,537 49,547 15–44 years old 55,172 62,222 66,092 70,007 72,439 73,058 71,542 71,294 73,699 16–64 years old 73,782 86,271 94,572 100,931 104,872 107,131 108,471 110,164 108,200 60 years and older 13,175 15,492 18,995 23,752 29,125 34,198 38,471 48,495 59,734 Total 119,516 136,505 150,161 163,128 173,943 182,719 189,695 201,687 212,609 Median Age 27.6 28.2 29.3 30.8 32.0 33.0 33.7 34.7 35.7 SHARES Age 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 Less than 5 years old 9.5% 9.6% 9.6% 9.5% 9.2% 9.0% 8.9% 8.8% 8.5% 5–17 years old 24.6% 22.5% 21.7% 21.6% 21.6% 21.3% 20.9% 20.4% 20.2% 18–29 years old 19.2% 20.6% 19.8% 17.7% 16.5% 16.2% 16.0% 15.6% 15.2% 30–39 years old 13.8% 13.3% 13.8% 14.7% 14.2% 12.4% 11.1% 10.6% 10.4% 40–64 years old 24.5% 25.9% 26.3% 26.4% 26.5% 27.0% 27.0% 25.5% 22.4% 65 years and older 8.2% 8.2% 8.8% 10.1% 12.0% 14.1% 16.0% 19.1% 23.3% 15–44 years old 46.2% 45.6% 44.0% 42.9% 41.6% 40.0% 37.7% 35.3% 34.7% 16–64 years old 61.7% 63.2% 63.0% 61.9% 60.3% 58.6% 57.2% 54.6% 50.9% 60 years and older 11.0% 11.3% 12.6% 14.6% 16.7% 18.7% 20.3% 24.0% 28.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Age Group Shares

100%

90%

80%

70%

65+ 60% 40-64 30-39 50% 18-29 5-17 40% < 5

30%

20%

10%

0% 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050

Note: July 1 populations. Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 83

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Among younger groups, Davis County’s school-age population, those 5 to 17 years old, is projected to increase from 60,504 in 2000 to 88,440 in 2050, a 46.2% gain. The preschool population, those under 5, is expected to increase by 13,839, or 58.9%, from 23,495 to 37,334.

One common measure of age structure is the dependency ratio, which measures the non– working-age population relative to the working-age population. The youth dependency ratio is the number of persons under 18 per 100 working-age persons (those 18 through 64 years old), and the retirement-age dependency ratio is the number of persons 65 and older per 100 working-age persons. Exhibit 2.9 shows that Davis County’s retirement-age population growth will drive an increase in the total dependency ratio from 66.9 in 2005 to 110.2 in 2050. That is, in 2050 there will be more non–working-age persons than those of working age. While the under-5 and school-age dependency ratios show only modest growth over the period, the retirement-age dependency ratio nearly quadruples from a low of 12.4 in 2005 to 47.9 in 2050.

Exhibit 2.9 Davis County Dependency Ratios, 2000–2050

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050 Dependency Ratio 73.4 66.9 66.2 69.2 74.0 79.1 83.8 92.4 110.2 Pop 0–4 per 100 Pop age 18–64 17.0 16.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.5 16.8 17.4 18.5 Pop 5–17 per 100 Pop age 18–64 43.7 38.1 36.6 37.1 38.2 38.9 39.3 40.4 43.8 Pop 65+ per 100 Pop age 18–64 12.7 12.4 13.5 15.8 19.4 23.7 27.7 34.7 47.9

Dependency Ratios 120 Total Dependency Ratio 110.2 Pop 65+ per 100 Pop age 18-64 100 Pop 5-17 per 100 Pop age 18-64 92.4 Pop 0-4 per 100 Pop age 18-64 83.8 47.9 79.1 80 73.4 74.0 69.2 34.7 66.9 66.2 27.7 12.7 23.7 19.4 60 12.4 13.5 15.8

40 43.7 43.8 39.3 40.4 38.1 36.6 37.1 38.2 38.9

20

17.0 16.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.5 16.8 17.4 18.5 - 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2040 2050

Note: July 1 populations. Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline

Employment The Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) also prepares employment projections by county. Exhibit 2.10 shows projections by major NAICS sector for 2001 out to 2050. The categories of Natural Resources and Mining, which includes agriculture, and Information both lose jobs over the period. However, each accounted for only 1.0% or less of total employment in

84 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.10 Davis County Employment Projections by Major NAICS Sector, 2001–2050

Change 2001–2050 Share of Industry 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Amount Increase Natural Resources and Mining 1,341 1,403 1,355 1,280 1,198 1,133 1,082 1,044 1,019 1,011 1,022 -319 N/A Construction 9,599 10,800 12,284 13,478 14,162 14,516 14,676 14,537 14,653 14,291 14,111 4,512 4.7% Manufacturing 10,751 10,810 12,012 12,892 13,595 14,438 15,433 16,613 17,879 19,308 20,932 10,181 10.7% Trade, Trans., Utilities 23,771 25,298 28,128 29,226 29,756 30,160 30,512 30,809 31,162 31,202 31,457 7,686 8.1% Information 1,176 1,128 1,272 1,305 1,271 1,236 1,204 1,177 1,153 1,128 1,108 -68 -0.1% Financial Activity 10,915 12,730 14,478 15,695 16,437 16,999 17,451 17,837 18,168 18,320 18,514 7,599 8.0% Professional & Business Services 12,144 13,715 15,900 17,462 18,605 19,694 20,795 21,964 23,122 24,240 25,507 13,363 14.0% Education & Health Services 10,740 12,224 14,936 18,169 21,954 26,016 30,344 34,946 39,644 44,437 49,716 38,976 40.9% Leisure & Hospitality 9,535 10,398 11,928 12,844 13,243 13,518 13,707 13,772 13,857 13,678 13,595 4,060 4.3% Other Services 7,352 8,335 9,400 10,167 10,724 11,239 11,721 12,155 12,577 12,862 13,246 5,894 6.2% Government 27,964 29,333 31,173 32,754 33,188 33,343 33,309 33,222 32,833 32,213 31,287 3,323 3.5% Total 125,288 136,174 152,866 165,272 174,133 182,292 190,234 198,076 206,067 212,690 220,495 95,207 100.0% Change Shares 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 in Share Natural Resources and Mining 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% -0.6% Construction 7.7% 7.9% 8.0% 8.2% 8.1% 8.0% 7.7% 7.3% 7.1% 6.7% 6.4% -1.3% Manufacturing 8.6% 7.9% 7.9% 7.8% 7.8% 7.9% 8.1% 8.4% 8.7% 9.1% 9.5% 0.9% Trade, Trans., Utilities 19.0% 18.6% 18.4% 17.7% 17.1% 16.5% 16.0% 15.6% 15.1% 14.7% 14.3% -4.7% Information 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% -0.4% Financial Activity 8.7% 9.3% 9.5% 9.5% 9.4% 9.3% 9.2% 9.0% 8.8% 8.6% 8.4% -0.3% Professional & Business Services 9.7% 10.1% 10.4% 10.6% 10.7% 10.8% 10.9% 11.1% 11.2% 11.4% 11.6% 1.9% Education & Health Services 8.6% 9.0% 9.8% 11.0% 12.6% 14.3% 16.0% 17.6% 19.2% 20.9% 22.5% 14.0% Leisure & Hospitality 7.6% 7.6% 7.8% 7.8% 7.6% 7.4% 7.2% 7.0% 6.7% 6.4% 6.2% -1.4% Other Services 5.9% 6.1% 6.1% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.2% 6.1% 6.1% 6.0% 6.0% 0.1% Government 22.3% 21.5% 20.4% 19.8% 19.1% 18.3% 17.5% 16.8% 15.9% 15.1% 14.2% -8.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline

2001 2050 Natural Natural Resources Resources and Mining Construction and M ining 0.5% 6.4% 1. 1% Construction Government Government 7.7% 14 . 2 % Manufacturing 22.3% 9.5% M anufacturing Other Services 8.6% 6.0% Trade, Trans., Other Services Utilities Trade, Trans., 5.9% 14.3% Utilities Leisure & 19 . 0 % Hospitality 6.2% Leisure & Info rmatio n Hospitality Info rmatio n 0.5% 7.6% 0.9%

Education & Financial Education & Financial Activity Health Health Professional Prof & Activity Services & Business 8.7% Services 8.4% 22.5% Business 8.6% Services Services 9.7% 11.6%

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 85

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

2005 and both decline to 0.5% by 2045. While all other sectors show increased employment, several will see declines in their shares of total employment. The largest employment gains are projected in the Education and Health Services sector, which is expected to add 38,976 jobs. This sector will also have the largest increase in its share of total employment, from 8.6% in 2001 to 22.5% in 2050. Professional and Business Services and Manufacturing are also expected to be significant sources of job growth, adding 13,363 and 10,181 jobs, respectively. Interestingly, the GOPB projects Government employment to increase slightly through 2025, then decline for the remainder of the period.

The structure of the Davis County economy is expected to change significantly over the period. In 2001, employment was dominated by Government and Trade, Transportation, and Utilities (TTU), which provided 22.3% and 19.0% of total employment, respectively. The remaining nine sectors each accounted for less than 10%, with most around 7.5% or 8.5%. By 2050, Government and TTU will have declined to shares of 14% each, while Education and Health Services (with its tie to the aging population) becomes the main source of jobs with 22.5% of total employment, and Professional and Business Services provides 11.6%. Of the remaining sectors, Manufacturing will supply 9.5% of jobs, Financial Activity will provide 8.4%, and Construction, Leisure and Hospitality, and Other Services will each account for about 6% of total employment.

To compare Davis County’s economy to that of the United States, the GOPB calculated location quotients and Hachman Index values for the study period. Location quotients compare the employment share of a given industry in a subject region (Davis County) to that in a reference region (the U.S.). Values greater than one indicate that Davis County is specialized in that industry relative to the country as a whole. The Hachman Index measures how closely the distribution of employment among industries in the subject region resembles that of a reference region. As the index approaches one, Davis County’s distribution becomes more similar to that of the U.S.

Exhibit 2.11 shows location quotients and the Hachman Index for Davis County from 2001 to 2050. In 2001, the county was specialized in Government, Construction, Other Services, Financial Activity, and Trade, Transportation, and Utilities. In 2005, the county’s specializations in Construction, Financial Activity, and Other Services had increased, while that in Government decreased and the county was no longer specialized in TTU. By 2050, the GOPB projects that Davis County will be relatively specialized in Financial Activity, Professional and Business Services, Manufacturing, and TTU. Over the period, Davis County’s economy becomes more diversified and similar to the country’s, although by 2050 its Hachman Index is still only .840. Utah’s projected Hachman Index changes only slightly from .98 in 2001 to .97 in 2040 and 2050.10

City Projections Exhibits 2.12–2.15 describe population projections for cities in Davis County from 2000 to 2050. The Wasatch Front Regional Council (in cooperation with GOPB) projects the five largest cities in 2050 to be Layton, Bountiful, Syracuse, Kaysville, and Clinton. In 2000, according to the Census Bureau, they were Layton, Bountiful, Clearfield, Kaysville, and Centerville. Layton

10 Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Analysis Section, 2005 Baseline Highlights Report, April 2005, p. 13.

86 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.11 Davis County Location Quotient and Hachman Index Projections by Major NAICS Sector, 2001–2050

Industry 2001 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Natural Resources & Mining 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.15 Construction 1.21 1.40 1.42 1.42 1.40 1.38 1.36 1.32 1.32 1.28 0.92 Manufacturing 0.90 0.92 1.02 1.10 1.17 1.24 1.31 1.38 1.45 1.53 1.11 Trade, Transportation, Utilities 1.02 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.10 Information 0.46 0.36 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.33 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.97 Financial Activity 1.02 1.13 1.16 1.18 1.20 1.22 1.25 1.27 1.29 1.31 1.50 Professional & Business Services 0.79 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.31 Education & Health Services 0.74 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.85 0.78 Leisure & Hospitality 0.88 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.94 Other Services 1.10 1.13 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 0.87 Government 1.61 1.51 1.42 1.36 1.32 1.28 1.25 1.22 1.19 1.18 0.90

Hachman Index 0.65 0.67 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.84

2001 2050

Government 1.61 Government 0.90

Other Services 1.10 Other Services 0.87

Leisure & Leisure & 0.88 0.94 Hospitality Hospitality Education & Health Education & Health 0.74 0.78 Services Services

Professional & Professional & 0.79 Business Services Business Services 1.31

Financial Activity 1.02 Financial Activity 1.50

Info rmatio n 0.46 Info rmatio n 0.97

Trade, Trans., Trade, Trans., 1.02 1.10 Utilities Utilities M anufacturing 0.90 M anufacturing 1.11

Construction 1.21 Construction 0.92

Natural Resources Natural Resources 0.35 0.15 & M ining & M ining

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

Source: Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2005 Baseline.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 87

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities retains the largest share of county population, declining slightly from 24.5% in 2000 to 23.2% in 2050. Bountiful, while still the second largest city, loses share from 17.3% to 11.3%. The next three largest cities in 2050, Syracuse, Kaysville, and Clinton, each represent less than 10% of total population. Exhibit 2.14 shows that the largest population gains occur in the 2000s and 2010s, with increases leveling off or declining thereafter. Syracuse is projected to gain the most residents in the present decade: 16,765. This quickly drops off to 8,750 in the 2010s, 2,853 in the 2020s, 1,814 in the 2030s, and 1,280 by the 2040s, for a total increase of 31,462 over the period, making it the second largest contributor to county growth (Exhibit 2.15). Layton experiences the largest increase by 2050, gaining 40,089 additional residents—the largest contributor to county growth over the period. Sunset is the only city projected to decline in population, though the losses occur only in the first two decades and population change becomes modestly positive in the 2020s, ’30s, and ’40s.

88 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.12 Davis County City Projections, 2000–2050

450,000 Unincorporated Areas Sunset West Bountiful Fruit Heights 400,000 Woods Cross South Weber North Salt Lake C enterville Farmington 350,000 West Point C learfield C linton Kaysville Syracuse 300,000 Bountiful Layton

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Area 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Layton 58,474 64,212 72,003 79,708 86,076 92,179 98,563 Bountiful 41,301 41,821 42,353 44,439 45,208 46,370 47,813 Syracuse 9,398 19,537 26,163 34,913 37,766 39,580 40,860 Kaysville 20,351 22,624 25,426 29,827 32,938 35,941 39,008 Clinton 12,585 18,436 20,854 24,496 28,508 32,464 33,515 Clearfield 25,974 27,831 27,349 28,330 29,002 29,514 30,222 West Point 6,033 8,685 12,479 19,206 24,565 25,170 25,984 Farmington 12,081 13,960 14,933 18,974 21,234 22,103 23,083 Centerville 14,585 15,133 15,266 16,715 17,695 18,590 19,566 North Salt Lake 8,749 10,376 12,257 13,397 13,642 14,004 14,449 South Weber 4,260 5,908 6,832 10,306 10,577 10,915 11,314 Woods Cross 6,419 8,676 9,237 9,959 10,283 10,547 10,875 Fruit Heights 4,701 5,039 5,514 7,418 8,862 9,634 10,426 West Bountiful 4,484 4,675 4,649 5,403 6,441 7,476 8,495 Sunset 5,204 5,093 4,937 4,880 4,901 4,972 5,076 Unincorporated Areas 4,395 4,369 4,250 4,348 4,520 4,712 4,927 Note: All populations are dated July 1, except for the April 1, 2000 figures produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, and Wasatch Front Regional Council.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 89

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.13 Davis County City Projections, 2000–2050: Share of County

100%

90%

Unincorporated Areas Sunset 80%

West Bountiful

Fruit Heights 70%

Woods Cross

South Weber 60% North Salt Lake

Centerville 50%

Farmington West Point 40%

Clearfield

Clinton 30% Kaysville

Syracuse 20% Bountiful Layton 10%

0% 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Area 2000 2005 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Layton 24.5% 23.2% 23.6% 22.6% 22.5% 22.8% 23.2% Bountiful 17.3% 15.1% 13.9% 12.6% 11.8% 11.5% 11.3% Syracuse 3.9% 7.1% 8.6% 9.9% 9.9% 9.8% 9.6% Kaysville 8.5% 8.2% 8.4% 8.5% 8.6% 8.9% 9.2% Clinton 5.3% 6.7% 6.8% 7.0% 7.5% 8.0% 7.9% Clearfield 10.9% 10.1% 9.0% 8.0% 7.6% 7.3% 7.1% West Point 2.5% 3.1% 4.1% 5.5% 6.4% 6.2% 6.1% Farmington 5.1% 5.1% 4.9% 5.4% 5.6% 5.5% 5.4% Centerville 6.1% 5.5% 5.0% 4.7% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% North Salt Lake 3.7% 3.8% 4.0% 3.8% 3.6% 3.5% 3.4% South Weber 1.8% 2.1% 2.2% 2.9% 2.8% 2.7% 2.7% Woods Cross 2.7% 3.1% 3.0% 2.8% 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% Fruit Heights 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 2.1% 2.3% 2.4% 2.5% West Bountiful 1.9% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.7% 1.8% 2.0% Sunset 2.2% 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% Unincorporated Areas 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% Note: All populations are dated July 1, except for the April 1, 2000 figures produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, and Wasatch Front Regional Council.

90 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.14 Ten-Year Amounts of Population Change of Places Within Davis County, 2000–2050

18,000

Layton 16,000

Bountiful

Syracuse 14,000

Kaysville

Clinton 12,000

Clearfield

West Point 10,000

Farmington

8,000 Centerville

North Salt Lake 6,000 South Weber

Woods Cross 4,000 Fruit Heights

West Bountiful 2,000 Sunset

Unincorporated Areas 0

-2,000 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s

2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s 2000–50 Layton 13,529 7,705 6,368 6,103 6,384 40,089 Bountiful 1,052 2,086 769 1,162 1,443 6,512 Syracuse 16,765 8,750 2,853 1,814 1,280 31,462 Kaysville 5,075 4,401 3,111 3,003 3,067 18,657 Clinton 8,269 3,642 4,012 3,956 1,051 20,930 Clearfield 1,375 981 672 512 708 4,248 West Point 6,446 6,727 5,359 605 814 19,951 Farmington 2,852 4,041 2,260 869 980 11,002 Centerville 681 1,449 980 895 976 4,981 North Salt Lake 3,508 1,140 245 362 445 5,700 South Weber 2,572 3,474 271 338 399 7,054 Woods Cross 2,818 722 324 264 328 4,456 Fruit Heights 813 1,904 1,444 772 792 5,725 West Bountiful 165 754 1,038 1,035 1,019 4,011 Sunset -267 -57 21 71 104 -128 Unincorporated Areas -145 98 172 192 215 532 Note: All populations are dated July 1, except for the April 1, 2000 figures produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, and Wasatch Front Regional Council

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 91

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 2.15 Ten-Year Changes in Population as a Share of Davis County Growth, 2000–2050

35%

30% Layton

Bountiful

25% Syracuse

Kaysville

Clinton 20% Clearfield

West Point

15% Farmington Centerville

North Salt Lake 10% South Weber Woods Cross 5% Fruit Heights

West Bountiful

Sunset 0%

Unincorporated Areas

-5% 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s 2040s 2000–50 Layton 20.7% 16.1% 21.3% 27.8% 31.9% 21.6% Bountiful 1.6% 4.4% 2.6% 5.3% 7.2% 3.5% Syracuse 25.6% 18.3% 9.5% 8.3% 6.4% 17.0% Kaysville 7.7% 9.2% 10.4% 13.7% 15.3% 10.1% Clinton 12.6% 7.6% 13.4% 18.0% 5.3% 11.3% Clearfield 2.1% 2.1% 2.2% 2.3% 3.5% 2.3% West Point 9.8% 14.1% 17.9% 2.8% 4.1% 10.8% Farmington 4.4% 8.5% 7.6% 4.0% 4.9% 5.9% Centerville 1.0% 3.0% 3.3% 4.1% 4.9% 2.7% North Salt Lake 5.4% 2.4% 0.8% 1.6% 2.2% 3.1% South Weber 3.9% 7.3% 0.9% 1.5% 2.0% 3.8% Woods Cross 4.3% 1.5% 1.1% 1.2% 1.6% 2.4% Fruit Heights 1.2% 4.0% 4.8% 3.5% 4.0% 3.1% West Bountiful 0.3% 1.6% 3.5% 4.7% 5.1% 2.2% Sunset -0.4% -0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.5% -0.1% Unincorporated Areas -0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.9% 1.1% 0.3% Note: All populations are dated July 1, except for the April 1, 2000 figures produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, and Wasatch Front Regional Council.

92 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

CITY BASELINES AND PROFILES

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 93

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

B OUNTIFUL

Table 3.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Bountiful

Population Population (2005) 41,821 Median Age (2000) 32.5 Average Household Income (2006) $77,159

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 11,907 Employer Firms (2005) 1,383 Average Annual Wage (2005) $25,312 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Educational & Health Services 2,993 25.1% Trade, Transportation & Utilities 2,452 20.6% Government 1,705 14.3%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $277.0 Major Retail Categories (millions) Motor Vehicle Sales $106.2 Food Stores $89.9 Eating & Drinking $28.8 Per Capita Retail Sales (2005) $6,624

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 14,725 100.0% Owner Occupied 11,125 75.6% Renter Occupied 3,125 21.2% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $244,000 New $368,333

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $11.5 Property Tax Receipts (millions) $2.8 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $7.0 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $275 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 95

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Bountiful, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Total Population 36,659 41,301 12.7% Age Under 5 Years 3,073 8.4% 3,303 8.0% 7.5% 5 to 17 Years 9,761 26.6% 8,943 21.7% -8.4% 18 to 20 Years 1,633 4.5% 1,995 4.8% 22.2% 21 to 24 Years 1,958 5.3% 2,798 6.8% 42.9% 25 to 44 Years 10,149 27.7% 9,861 23.9% -2.8% 45 to 54 Years 4,051 11.1% 4,615 11.2% 13.9% 55 to 59 Years 1,904 5.2% 2,006 4.9% 5.4% 60 to 64 Years 1,620 4.4% 1,862 4.5% 14.9% 65 Years and Over 3,969 10.8% 5,918 14.3% 49.1% Median Age 29.2 32.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Bountiful, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Education 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 8.4% 6.2% High School Graduate* 22.8% 19.3% Some College, No Degree 30.4% 30.8% Associate’s Degree 7.9% 8.2% Bachelor’s Degree 21.6% 24.8% Graduate or Professional degree 8.9% 10.8% Master’s Degree N/A 7.2% Professional Degree N/A 2.1% Doctorate Degree N/A 1.4% By Sex Male: Less than High School 5.1% High School Graduate* 14.7% Some College, No Degree 28.0% Associate’s Degree 7.0% Bachelor’s Degree 27.9% Master’s Degree 10.8% Professional Degree 3.9% Doctorate Degree 2.6% Female: Less than High School 7.1% High School Graduate* 23.3% Some College, No Degree 33.2% Associate’s Degree 9.3% Bachelor’s Degree 22.1% Master’s Degree 4.1% Professional Degree 0.5% Doctorate Degree 0.3% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

96 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 3.1 Bountiful Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Minority Population Composition Sex 85 + Black American 80 - 84 2.9% Indian, 75 - 79 Es kimo, or 70 - 74 Aleut 65 - 69 60 - 64 8.8% 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 Asian or 35 - 39 Pacific 30 - 34 Hispanic 25 - 29 Islander 55.4% 20 - 24 32.2% 15 - 19 10 - 14 5 - 9 Under 5 2,500 1,500 500 500 1,500 2,500 Other race Male Female 0.8%

Age Distribution of the Bountiful Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 1,581 1,492 1.06 8.4% 15.4% Bountiful Share of 5–9 1,765 1,713 1.03 9.5% 15.6% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 2,096 1,939 1.08 11.0% 18.1% Total 36,659 100.0% 19.5% 15–19 1,724 1,650 1.04 9.2% 19.8% 20–24 1,251 1,214 1.03 6.7% 18.9% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 1,126 1,167 0.96 6.3% 15.8% White 35,597 97.1% 20.4% 30–34 1,171 1,128 1.04 6.3% 15.0% Black 31 0.1% 1.4% 35–39 981 1,106 0.89 5.7% 15.4% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 93 0.3% 9.3% 40–44 925 1,086 0.85 5.5% 18.3% Asian or Pacific Islander 342 0.9% 11.0% 45–49 937 1,112 0.84 5.6% 23.1% Other race 8 0.0% 10.1% 50–54 935 1,067 0.88 5.5% 28.4% Ethnicity 55–59 919 985 0.93 5.2% 30.5% Hispanic Origin 588 1.6% 4.3% 60–64 813 807 1.01 4.4% 31.5% 65–69 706 741 0.95 3.9% 31.9% Minority 1,062 2.9% 7.7% 70–74 468 549 0.85 2.8% 33.7% 75–79 283 390 0.73 1.8% 35.1% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 159 287 0.55 1.2% 36.3% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 98 288 0.34 1.1% 44.0% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the Total 17,938 18,721 0.96 100.0% 19.5% city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's share of Share 60 years+ 15.2% 23.7% total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio Median Age 29.2 greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 97

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 3.2 Bountiful Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + Black alone AIAN alone 80 - 84 (NH) 75 - 79 (NH) 3.9% 4.0% 70 - 74 65 - 69 60 - 64 Asian alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 19 . 1% 45 - 49 40 - 44 Hispanic NHPI alone 35 - 39 48.8% 30 - 34 (NH) 5.4% 25 - 29 20 - 24 Some other 15 - 19 race alone 10 - 14 (NH) 1. 6 % 5 - 9 Under 5 Two or more races (NH) 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 17 . 3 % Male Female

Age Distribution of the Bountiful Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 1,662 1,641 1.01 8.0% 14.2% Bountiful Share of 5–9 1,603 1,569 1.02 7.7% 14.1% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 1,705 1,736 0.98 8.3% 14.9% Total 41,301 100.0% 17.3% 15–19 1,914 1,778 1.08 8.9% 15.4% 20–24 1,748 1,683 1.04 8.3% 17.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 40,104 97.1% 17.7% 25–29 1,261 1,258 1.00 6.1% 14.5% White alone 38,846 94.1% 18.1% 30–34 1,050 1,090 0.96 5.2% 13.4% Black or African American alone 96 0.2% 3.8% 35–39 1,206 1,308 0.92 6.1% 14.7% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 99 0.2% 8.4% 40–44 1,344 1,344 1.00 6.5% 15.9% Asian alone 468 1.1% 13.1% 45–49 1,174 1,273 0.92 5.9% 16.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 132 0.3% 21.7% 50–54 994 1,174 0.85 5.2% 19.2% Some other race alone 39 0.1% 19.1% 55–59 955 1,051 0.91 4.9% 23.5% Two or more races 424 1.0% 12.7% 60–64 866 996 0.87 4.5% 28.6% Ethnicity 65–69 783 920 0.85 4.1% 30.7% Hispanic or Latino 1,197 2.9% 9.2% 70–74 720 795 0.91 3.7% 34.2% 75–79 567 686 0.83 3.0% 34.2% Minority 2,455 5.9% 10.1% 80–84 328 468 0.70 1.9% 36.1% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 176 475 0.37 1.6% 38.4% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 20,056 21,245 0.94 100.0% 17.3% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's Share 60 years+ 18.8% 32.4% share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total population Median Age 32.5 in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than one.

98 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 3.3

Distribution of Household Income in Bountiful, 1995-2005 25%

20%

1995 2000 2005

15%

10% Share of Households 5%

0%

0 00 00 00 00 0 0 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,000 0 5 0,0 10, 50 5 $5,000 $ $15,000$20,000 $4 $4 $ 100,000 $25 $30 $35 $ 250,000 er - - - $ 1 r Und 01 - $75 ,001 ,001 ,00 0 Ove $5,001 - 50, $10,001$15,001 - $20- $25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $45,001 - $- $75,001100,001 - - $2 $

Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 695 5.0% 397 3.3% 627 4.5% $5,001–$10,000 850 6.1% 462 3.8% 662 4.7% $10,001–$15,000 1,002 7.2% 537 4.4% 828 5.9% $15,001–$20,000 1,011 7.2% 651 5.3% 818 5.9% $20,001–$25,000 1,022 7.3% 631 5.2% 846 6.1% $25,001–$30,000 977 7.0% 642 5.3% 831 6.0% $30,001–$35,000 905 6.5% 696 5.7% 791 5.7% $35,001–$40,000 873 6.3% 688 5.6% 676 4.8% $40,001–$45,000 747 5.4% 646 5.3% 682 4.9% $45,001–$50,000 673 4.8% 590 4.8% 640 4.6% $50,001–$75,000 2,555 18.3% 2,553 20.9% 2,505 18.0% $75,001–$100,000 1,284 9.2% 1,601 13.1% 1,549 11.1% $100,001–$250,000 1,157 8.3% 1,691 13.9% 2,127 15.2% Over $250,000 206 1.5% 404 3.3% 373 2.7% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 99

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.4 Share of Persons in Bountiful Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 4.9% 4.0% Male 4.1% 3.5% Under 5 years 7.3% 6.1% Under 5 years 6.6% 2.7% 5 years 11.1% 8.6% 5 years 9.4% 6.6% 6 to 11 years 6.8% 5.7% 6 to 11 years 6.2% 7.7% 12 to 17 years 4.2% 3.5% 12 to 17 years 4.1% 4.2% 18 to 64 years 4.2% 3.3% 18 to 64 years 3.2% 2.8% 65 to 74 years 2.4% 2.5% 65 to 74 years 2.0% 2.2% 75 years and over 9.0% 6.5% 75 years and over 4.6% 4.9% Female 5.7% 4.4% Under 5 years 8.1% 9.5% 5 years 13.3% 10.9% 6 to 11 years 7.3% 3.7% 12 to 17 years 4.4% 2.7% 18 to 64 years 5.1% 3.8% 65 to 74 years 2.9% 2.8% 75 years and over 12.0% 7.6% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 3.5 Bountiful Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 16,153 100.0% 19,332 100.0% 3,179 19.7% Drove alone 12,258 75.9% 15,681 81.1% 3,423 27.9% Carpooled 2,176 13.5% 1,809 9.4% -367 -16.9% Public transportation (including taxicab) 545 3.4% 499 2.6% -46 -8.4% Bicycle or walked 358 2.2% 253 1.3% -105 -29.3% Motorcycle or other means 91 0.6% 117 0.6% 26 28.6% Worked at home 725 4.5% 973 5.0% 248 34.2%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 15,428 100.0% 18,359 100.0% 2,931 19.0% Less than 5 minutes 593 3.8% 622 3.4% 29 4.9% 5 to 9 minutes 2,540 16.5% 2,743 14.9% 203 8.0% 10 to 14 minutes 2,081 13.5% 2,807 15.3% 726 34.9% 15 to 19 minutes 1,896 12.3% 2,117 11.5% 221 11.7% 20 to 24 minutes 3,583 23.2% 3,713 20.2% 130 3.6% 25 to 29 minutes 1,455 9.4% 1,690 9.2% 235 16.2% 30 to 34 minutes 1,967 12.7% 2,950 16.1% 983 50.0% 35 to 39 minutes 247 1.6% 366 2.0% 119 48.2% 40 to 44 minutes 244 1.6% 377 2.1% 133 54.5% 45 or more minutes 822 5.3% 974 5.3% 152 18.5% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 19.6 20.8 1.2 6.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

100 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Bountiful by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 10,647 100.0% 11,150 100.0% 11,652 100.0% 12,432 100.0% 13,074 100.0% 12,577 100.0% 14,067 100.0% 14,344 100.0% 14,558 100.0% 14,805 100.0% 12,896 100.0% Mining 29 0.3% 27 0.2% D 17 0.1% 18 0.1% D D 20 0.1% 21 0.1% 15 0.1% 24 0.2% Construction 471 4.4% 570 5.1% 616 5.3% 769 6.2% 919 7.0% 982 7.8% 1,042 7.4% 1,108 7.7% 1,049 7.2% 1,047 7.1% 1,024 7.9% Manufacturing 563 5.3% 675 6.1% 717 6.2% 768 6.2% 780 6.0% 746 5.9% 704 5.0% 686 4.8% 559 3.8% 583 3.9% 359 2.8% TCPU 252 2.4% 251 2.3% 184 1.6% 195 1.6% 234 1.8% D D 342 2.4% 367 2.5% 319 2.2% 245 1.9% Trade 4,020 37.8% 4,206 37.7% 4,540 39.0% 4,789 38.5% 4,773 36.5% 5,043 40.1% 5,082 36.1% 5,112 35.6% 5,490 37.7% 5,480 37.0% 4,969 38.5% FIRE 420 3.9% 439 3.9% 452 3.9% 498 4.0% 468 3.6% 454 3.6% 401 2.9% 403 2.8% 453 3.1% 456 3.1% 425 3.3% Services 3,108 29.2% 3,121 28.0% 3,405 29.2% 3,664 29.5% 4,120 31.5% 4,311 34.3% 4,777 34.0% 4,864 33.9% 4,880 33.5% 5,187 35.0% 4,934 38.3% Government 1,784 16.8% 1,861 16.7% 1,720 14.8% 1,732 13.9% 1,762 13.5% 1,738 13.8% 1,783 12.7% 1,809 12.6% 1,739 11.9% 1,718 11.6% 916 7.1% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 14,046 100.0% 12,015 100.0% 12,013 100.0% 12,263 100.0% 11,907 100.0% Mining D D 0 0.0% D D Construction 607 4.3% 412 3.4% 487 4.1% 547 4.5% 561 4.7% Manufacturing 259 1.8% 232 1.9% 183 1.5% 162 1.3% 156 1.3% Trade, Transp., Utilities 3,188 22.7% 2,916 24.3% 2,790 23.2% 2,935 23.9% 2,452 20.6% Information 38 0.3% 23 0.2% 30 0.3% D D Financial Activities 617 4.4% 648 5.4% 744 6.2% 818 6.7% 843 7.1% Prof. & Business Services 1,324 9.4% 1,422 11.8% 1,485 12.4% 1,497 12.2% 1,613 13.5% Education & Health Services 2,958 21.1% 3,050 25.4% 2,943 24.5% 2,994 24.4% 2,993 25.1% Leisure & Hospitality 1,169 8.3% 1,089 9.1% 1,166 9.7% 1,115 9.1% 1,120 9.4% Other Services 532 3.8% 534 4.4% 512 4.3% 487 4.0% 464 3.9% Government 3,354 23.9% 1,689 14.1% 1,673 13.9% 1,665 13.6% 1,705 14.3% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 101

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Bountiful by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $262.4 100.0% $266.6 100.0% $275.7 100.0% $295.2 100.0% $318.5 100.0% $304.2 100.0% $347.0 100.0% $359.3 100.0% $373.6 100.0% $378.1 100.0% $307.9 100.0% Mining $1.0 0.4% $0.9 0.3% D $0.7 0.2% $0.7 0.2% D D $0.6 0.2% $0.6 0.2% $0.5 0.1% $0.9 0.3% Construction $14.7 5.6% $18.7 7.0% $18.8 6.8% $22.3 7.6% $27.6 8.7% $30.7 10.1% $31.0 8.9% $35.3 9.8% $34.8 9.3% $35.4 9.4% $33.3 10.8% Manufacturing $19.7 7.5% $22.9 8.6% $25.9 9.4% $25.6 8.7% $26.5 8.3% $25.5 8.4% $26.2 7.6% $26.5 7.4% $23.5 6.3% $24.1 6.4% $15.6 5.1% TCPU $7.0 2.7% $6.9 2.6% $4.8 1.7% $5.2 1.8% $6.2 2.0% D D $13.4 3.7% $14.6 3.9% $12.2 3.2% $9.0 2.9% Trade $74.5 28.4% $70.2 26.3% $75.2 27.3% $80.0 27.1% $85.2 26.7% $91.8 30.2% $93.7 27.0% $97.6 27.2% $109.9 29.4% $107.8 28.5% $91.8 29.8% FIRE $14.2 5.4% $15.0 5.6% $16.1 5.9% $15.9 5.4% $14.5 4.5% $13.5 4.4% $12.2 3.5% $12.8 3.6% $15.1 4.0% $14.4 3.8% $14.2 4.6% Services $74.9 28.5% $75.0 28.1% $84.1 30.5% $94.1 31.9% $106.6 33.5% $105.0 34.5% $121.7 35.1% $119.0 33.1% $122.0 32.7% $130.4 34.5% $119.8 38.9% Government $56.3 21.5% $57.0 21.4% $50.2 18.2% $51.4 17.4% $51.4 16.1% $50.0 16.4% $53.2 15.3% $54.0 15.0% $53.0 14.2% $53.2 14.1% $23.4 7.6% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $412.4 100.0% $308.0 100.0% $298.3 100.0% $307.0 100.0% $301.4 100.0% Mining D D D D Construction $18.7 4.5% $11.2 3.6% $12.5 4.2% $14.9 4.8% $15.6 5.2% Manufacturing $5.3 1.3% $3.9 1.3% $3.3 1.1% $2.8 0.9% $2.7 0.9% Trade, Transp., Utilities $71.4 17.3% $64.5 20.9% $59.2 19.9% $61.1 19.9% $54.0 17.9% Information $1.4 0.3% $1.1 0.4% $1.3 0.4% D D Financial Activities $18.9 4.6% $20.5 6.7% $24.2 8.1% $26.6 8.7% $29.5 9.8% Prof & Bus Services $47.1 11.4% $59.7 19.4% $48.5 16.3% $50.1 16.3% $50.5 16.8% Edu & Health Services $78.2 19.0% $71.9 23.3% $76.4 25.6% $80.6 26.2% $80.5 26.7% Leisure & Hospitality $11.3 2.7% $11.1 3.6% $11.6 3.9% $10.9 3.6% $11.3 3.7% Other Services $10.8 2.6% $10.9 3.6% $8.9 3.0% $7.7 2.5% $7.0 2.3% Government $149.3 36.2% $53.2 17.3% $52.3 17.5% $50.6 16.5% $50.3 16.7% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

102 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Bountiful, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount* Share Total Nonagricultural 21.1% 17.3% Mining -17.2% -31.7% -17.0% -29.3% Construction 117.4% 79.5% 126.3% 92.8% Manufacturing -36.2% -47.4% -20.9% -32.6% TCPU -2.8% -19.7% 28.3% 9.4% Trade 23.6% 2.1% 23.3% 5.1% FIRE 1.2% -16.5% -0.5% -15.2% Services 58.8% 31.1% 60.0% 36.3% Government -48.7% -57.6% -58.5% -64.7%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural -15.2% -26.9% Mining Construction -7.6% 9.0% -16.7% 14.0% Manufacturing -39.9% -29.1% -48.8% -29.9% Trade, Transp, Utilities -23.1% -9.3% -24.4% 3.4% Information Financial Activities 36.6% 61.2% 56.0% 113.5% Prof & Bus Services 21.8% 43.7% 7.3% 46.8% Edu & Health Services 1.2% 19.4% 3.0% 40.9% Leisure & Hosp -4.2% 13.0% -0.1% 36.7% Other Services -12.8% 2.9% -35.3% -11.4% Government -49.2% -40.0% -66.3% -53.9% *Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 3.9 Bountiful Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 4.65 2.10 0.00 0.87 0.89 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.16 1.08 1.64 Construction 1.04 1.05 1.01 1.04 1.05 1.13 0.99 0.96 0.87 0.84 0.96 Manufacturing 0.42 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.35 0.36 0.29 0.31 0.23 TCPU 0.58 0.55 0.44 0.46 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.72 0.58 0.50 Trade 1.60 1.54 1.57 1.53 1.45 1.55 1.38 1.40 1.47 1.46 1.51 FIRE 1.82 1.54 1.32 1.14 0.88 0.91 0.71 0.69 0.77 0.83 0.95 Services 1.69 1.63 1.67 1.63 1.66 1.74 1.64 1.66 1.63 1.66 1.79 Government 0.46 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.54 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.28

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 0.53 0.45 0.53 0.55 0.55 Manufacturing 0.16 0.17 0.13 0.12 0.12 Trade, Transp, Utilities 1.06 1.16 1.13 1.15 1.04 Information 0.32 0.19 0.25 0.00 0.00 Financial Activities 1.16 1.50 1.56 1.62 1.74 Prof & Bus Services 1.19 1.38 1.43 1.38 1.41 Edu & Health Services 2.44 2.96 2.75 2.74 2.79 Leisure & Hospitality 0.93 1.02 1.09 1.02 1.06 Other Services 1.37 1.49 1.42 1.34 1.37 Government 0.92 0.53 0.54 0.54 0.57 Note: The location quotient is the ratio of an industry’s employment share in a city to its share in Davis County as a whole. Therefore, values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 103

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.10 Major Employers in Bountiful, 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 400–499 Employees JC Penney #4319 Telecatalog Retail Trade Lakeview Hospital/Hospital Corp of Utah Service Industries

100–199 Employees HK Systems Manufacturing Pro-Mark Distribution, Inc. Wholesale Trade Kmart Stores #3085 Retail Trade Skaggs Alpha Beta #262 Retail Trade Albertsons #361 Retail Trade Menlove–Johnson, Inc. Retail Trade South Davis Hospital Service Industries Life Care of Bountiful Service Industries Bountiful Care Convalescent & Rehab Service Industries

1995–96 500–699 Employees JC Penney #4319 Telecatalog Retail Trade Lakeview Hospital/Hospital Corp of Utah Service Industries

200–299 Employees South Davis Hospital Service Industries

100–199 Employees Pro Mark Manufacturing Kmart Stores #3085 Retail Trade Fred Meyer #10 Retail Trade JC Penney #336 Retail Trade Albertsons #361 Retail Trade Smith’s Food King #21 Retail Trade Menlove–Johnson, Inc. Retail Trade Ken Garff Bountiful Motors Retail Trade Intermountain Temporaries Service Industries Life Care of Bountiful Service Industries Bountiful Care Convalescent & Rehab Service Industries

2000 500–699 Employees JC Penney Retail Trade Lakeview Hospital Service Industries

300–399 Employees BCBU Inc Service Industries

200–299 Employees South Davis Community Hospital Service Industries

104 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.10 Major Employers in Bountiful, 1990–2007, cont’d

Company Industry 2000 100–199 Employees Chas W Bangerter & Son Inc Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Albertsons Retail Trade Fred Meyer Store #10 Retail Trade Kmart Stores Retail Trade Smith’s Food and Drug Ctrs Retail Trade Dick’s Market Bountiful Lc Retail Trade Menlove–Johnson Inc Retail Trade Robintino’s Restaurants Retail Trade Intermountain Temporaries Service Industries Havas Interactive Inc Service Industries Bountiful Medical Investors Ltd Service Industries Viewmont High School Service Industries Bountiful High School Service Industries Bountiful Recreation Center Public Administration

2005 500–999 Hospital Corporation of Utah Health Care and Social Assistance South Davis Community Hospital Inc Health Care and Social Assistance

250–499 Employees JC Penney Co, Inc. Retail Trade BCBU Inc Health Care and Social Assistance

100–249 Employees Menlove–Johnson Inc Retail Trade Dick’s Market Bountiful Retail Trade Fred Meyer Store #10 Retail Trade WSI Personnel of Utah Inc Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Davis County School District Educational Services Developers Investment Co Inc Health Care and Social Assistance

2007 500–999 Employees Administrative Services Group LLC Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Lakeview Hospital/Hospital Corp of Utah Health Care and Social Assistance South Davis Hospital Health Care and Social Assistance

100–249 Employees Menlove–Johnson, Inc. Retail Trade Dick’s Market Bountiful Retail Trade Fred Meyer #10 Retail Trade Intermountain Temporaries Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Bountiful Medical Investors Ltd Health Care and Social Assistance Developers Investment Co Health Care and Social Assistance Robintino’s of Bountiful Accommodation and Food Services Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 105

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Bountiful, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 39.0% 41.9% 35.3% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 17.6% 21.9% 12.3% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 10.7% 14.2% 6.3% Farmers and farm managers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 6.9% 7.6% 6.0% Business operations specialists 2.8% 2.6% 3.0% Financial specialists 4.1% 5.0% 3.0% Professional and related occupations 21.4% 20.1% 23.1% Computer and mathematical occupations 2.9% 4.2% 1.2% Architecture and engineering occupations 2.7% 4.5% 0.5% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 2.2% 3.7% 0.4% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.5% 0.8% 0.2% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.9% 1.2% 0.4% Community and social services occupations 1.1% 0.9% 1.4% Legal occupations 1.7% 2.2% 1.1% Education, training, and library occupations 5.5% 1.7% 10.3% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 2.4% 2.3% 2.5% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 4.2% 3.1% 5.6% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 3.1% 2.6% 3.7% Health technologists and technicians 1.1% 0.5% 1.9% Service occupations 10.7% 8.9% 13.1% Healthcare support occupations 1.6% 0.7% 2.8% Protective service occupations 1.0% 1.5% 0.3% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.7% 1.0% 0.3% Food preparation and serving related occupations 2.9% 2.3% 3.7% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 2.9% 3.5% 2.2% Personal care and service occupations 2.3% 0.9% 4.0% Sales and office occupations 33.5% 23.9% 45.5% Sales and related occupations 13.9% 14.3% 13.3% Office and administrative support occupations 19.6% 9.6% 32.3% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 7.3% 12.4% 0.9% Construction and extraction occupations 3.8% 6.7% 0.1% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% Construction trades workers 3.1% 5.4% 0.1% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 3.5% 5.7% 0.7% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 9.3% 12.7% 5.1% Production occupations 4.9% 6.2% 3.3% Transportation and material moving occupations 4.5% 6.6% 1.8% Supervisors, transportation and material moving workers 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 2.2% 3.6% 0.4% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Material moving workers 1.7% 2.1% 1.2% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for Davis County. Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

106 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 3.4 Bountiful Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) Building & General Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Total Garden Merchandise Dealers Accessory Drinking Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1990 $11.6 3.8% $36.0 11.8% $80.6 26.3% $111.1 36.3% $5.7 1.9% $14.9 4.9% $25.3 8.3% $21.1 6.9% $306.4 1991 $12.6 4.2% $31.9 10.6% $80.7 26.9% $104.6 34.9% $5.4 1.8% $13.8 4.6% $26.3 8.8% $24.3 8.1% $299.6 1992 $14.7 4.9% $14.6 4.9% $82.7 27.5% $113.5 37.7% $7.0 2.3% $15.9 5.3% $25.2 8.4% $27.6 9.2% $301.2 1993 $23.7 7.5% $6.5 2.1% $80.0 25.4% $129.0 41.0% $5.2 1.7% $17.7 5.6% $25.1 8.0% $27.4 8.7% $314.6 1994 $31.1 10.2% $78.7 25.7% $123.4 40.4% $5.1 1.7% $12.2 4.0% $26.6 8.7% $28.8 9.4% $305.7 1995 $27.3 8.9% $12.9 4.2% $75.0 24.4% $119.6 38.9% $4.2 1.4% $12.3 4.0% $26.6 8.7% $29.7 9.7% $307.7 1996 $18.9 5.8% $9.6 3.0% $80.7 25.0% $132.0 40.9% $4.3 1.3% $14.3 4.4% $29.5 9.1% $33.2 10.3% $322.4 1997 $17.8 5.6% $7.4 2.3% $81.9 25.8% $126.8 39.9% $4.5 1.4% $18.1 5.7% $29.4 9.3% $32.2 10.1% $318.1 1998 $16.2 5.0% $32.9 10.1% $73.7 22.6% $123.8 37.9% $5.4 1.7% $12.7 3.9% $29.2 9.0% $32.4 9.9% $326.3 1999 $16.2 5.7% $16.0 5.6% $65.9 23.2% $104.8 36.9% $5.4 1.9% $12.7 4.5% $30.0 10.6% $32.8 11.6% $283.8 2000 $13.7 4.9% $23.9 8.5% $65.8 23.5% $100.1 35.7% $5.3 1.9% $10.9 3.9% $28.6 10.2% $31.8 11.4% $280.2 2001 $12.2 4.7% $8.6 3.3% $63.4 24.4% $99.5 38.3% $6.1 2.4% $10.8 4.2% $28.8 11.1% $30.1 11.6% $259.5 2002 $7.4 2.6% $35.1 12.1% $62.7 21.7% $113.1 39.1% $5.7 2.0% $10.5 3.6% $27.4 9.5% $27.5 9.5% $289.4 2003 $4.4 1.7% $10.0 3.9% $50.9 19.9% $114.1 44.6% $6.9 2.7% $10.1 4.0% $29.9 11.7% $29.3 11.5% $255.6 2004 $4.4 1.7% $78.7 30.4% $102.1 39.4% $6.8 2.6% $9.0 3.5% $29.7 11.5% $28.5 11.0% $259.2 2005 $4.5 1.6% $89.9 32.5% $106.2 38.3% $7.5 2.7% $12.1 4.4% $28.8 10.4% $28.0 10.1% $277.0 Change -60.9% -56.7% -72.2% -66.7% 11.6% 23.4% -4.4% 5.7% 31.5% 45.4% -19.0% -10.4% 13.8% 25.8% 32.5% 46.5% -9.6% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$350

$300

$250

Misc ellaneous

Eating & Drinking $200 Furniture

Apparel & Accessory

$150 Motor Vehicle Dealers

Food Stores

General Merchandise $100 Millions of Constant 2005Dollars Building & Garden

$50

$0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 107

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 3.5 Bountiful Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$8

$7 Property Taxes

$6 Sales and Use Taxes

$5

$4

$3

$2

Millions 2005 of Dollars Constant $1

$0

0 3 4 8 2 5 91 95 99 03 04 99 9 99 99 9 99 9 00 0 0 1 1 1992 1 1 1 1996 1997 1 1 2000 2001 2 2 2 200 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $2,512,134 $3,795,988 $8,492,614 1991 $2,387,414 $4,123,918 $8,940,809 1992 $2,412,518 $4,390,133 $9,354,993 1993 $2,435,664 $350,559 $5,174,690 $10,151,691 1994 $2,438,546 $348,035 $5,031,538 $9,875,247 1995 $2,466,981 $356,058 $5,143,086 $9,967,344 1996 $2,524,187 $423,094 $5,335,529 $10,385,001 1997 $2,525,676 $456,429 $5,280,021 $10,280,951 1998 $2,886,680 $485,987 $5,345,104 $11,015,433 1999 $2,832,334 $449,853 $5,574,351 $11,065,968 2000 $2,958,559 $415,295 $5,386,735 $11,047,625 2001 $3,292,210 $435,205 $7,179,409 $11,570,443 2002 $3,047,893 $367,450 $7,371,636 $11,611,028 2003 $3,029,211 $388,477 $6,543,603 $10,832,427 2004 $2,981,605 $416,166 $6,979,224 $11,278,381 2005 $2,845,540 $332,888 $7,010,413 $11,496,676 Change 13.3% -5.0% 84.7% 35.4% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

108 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.12 Detailed Breakdown of Bountiful Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant ’05 Per Source Share Dollars Dollars Capita 1990 Property Taxes: General Fund $1,317,919 $1,993,415 23.5% Other $342,944 $518,719 6.1% Total Property Taxes $1,660,863 $2,512,134 $14.15 29.6% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $2,509,665 $3,795,988 $68.53 44.7% Public Utility Franchise Tax $1,162,327 $1,758,075 20.7% Resort or Innkeepers' Tax Building Permits $171,943 $260,072 3.1% Other Licenses and Permits $109,977 $166,345 2.0% Total Tax Revenues $5,614,775 $8,492,614 $231.67 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes: General Fund $1,821,837 $2,073,017 18.8% Redevelopment Agency $413,269 $470,247 4.3% Other Fee in Lieu $364,975 $415,295 3.8% Total Property Taxes $2,600,081 $2,958,559 $71.63 26.8% Sales and Use Tax $4,734,044 $5,386,735 $130.43 48.8% Franchise Tax $1,684,170 $1,916,370 17.3% Resort or Hotel Tax Building Permits $603,753 $686,994 6.2% Other Licenses and Permits $86,976 $98,968 0.9% Total Tax Revenues $9,709,024 $11,047,625 $267.49 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $1,914,635 16.7% RDA increment $522,537 4.5% Delinquent $75,480 0.7% Fee in lieu $332,888 2.9% Total Property Taxes $2,845,540 $68.04 24.8% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $5,029,511 43.7% Energy Sales and Use Tax $1,980,902 17.2% Total Sales Taxes $7,010,413 $167.63 61.0% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $800,928 7.0% Cable TV Franchise Tax $169,167 1.5% Water Franchise Tax Sewer Franchise Tax Other Franchise Tax $453 0.0% Licenses, Fees and Permits Business License Fees $89,267 0.8% Building Permit Fees $553,908 4.8% Other Licenses, Permits & Taxes $27,000 0.2% Total Tax Revenues $11,496,676 $274.90 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 109

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.13 Bountiful Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $283,167,448 14.4% $464,425,845 24.5% 64.0% Buildings $1,058,493,736 53.9% $978,338,988 51.5% -7.6% Total $1,341,661,185 68.3% $1,442,764,833 76.0% 7.5%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $61,453,270 3.1% $78,274,829 4.1% 27.4% Buildings $116,835,854 5.9% $177,811,358 9.4% 52.2% Total $178,289,124 9.1% $256,086,187 13.5% 43.6%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $187,475 0.0% $29,402 0.0% -84.3% Buildings $624,097 0.0% $44,649 0.0% -92.8% Total $811,572 0.0% $74,051 0.0% -90.9%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $74,887,736 3.8% $2,926,709 0.2% -96.1%

Total Land & Buildings $1,596,159,062 81.2% $1,822,191,720 96.0% 14.2% Total Personal Property $56,500,501 2.9% $50,602,483 2.7% -10.4% Total Locally Assessed $1,652,659,563 84.1% $1,872,794,203 98.7% 13.3% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $312,884,619 15.9% $25,466,939 1.3% -91.9% Area Total $1,965,544,182 100.0% $1,898,261,142 100.0% -3.4% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor's Office

Table 3.14 Bountiful Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 14,725 Vacant Units 500 Total Occupied Units 14,250 Owner Occupied 11,125 Vacant Owner Units 325 Total Owner Units 11,450 Renter Occupied 3,125 Vacant Rental Units 150 Total Rental Units 3,275 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

110 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 3.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Bountiful, 1990–2006 300

250

200

150 Permits

100

50

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 3.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Bountiful by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 100 6 4 0 110 $17,687.9 1991 121 0 6 0 127 $22,008.2 1992 166 0 14 0 180 $31,514.9 1993 139 12 0 24 0 175 $28,527.0 1994 113 0 1 24 0 138 $24,987.7 1995 112 10 39 100 0 261 $35,324.8 1996 149 8 49 31 0 237 $37,543.4 1997 86 10 36 36 0 168 $26,362.5 1998 71 12 39 33 0 155 $26,535.4 1999 71 2 41 25 1 140 $24,275.3 2000 83 4 25 30 0 142 $29,252.3 2001 82 4 36 22 0 144 $31,348.0 2002 87 2 26 69 0 184 $41,958.0 2003 88 4 32 8 0 132 $36,846.0 2004 92 0 12 4 0 108 $38,032.9 2005 97 2 4 16 0 119 $48,845.0 2006 69 0 4 4 0 77 $40,039.0 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 111

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.16 Median Price of New Homes in Bountiful, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 0 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 0 0 0 $175,000–$199,999 50 42 4 $200,000–$224,999 0 26 4 $225,000–$249,999 0 0 0 $250,000–$274,999 0 0 0 $275,000–$299,999 0 0 0 $300,000–$324,999 0 0 0 $325,000–$349,999 0 0 3 $350,000–$374,999 0 3 15 $375,000–$399,999 18 17 8 $400,000–$449,999 0 0 0 $450,000–$499,999 1 1 3 $500,000–$599,999 0 0 0 $600,000–$749,999 4 5 8 $750,000–$999,999 1 3 0 $1,000,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 74 97 45 Median Price* $193,500 $205,770 $368,333 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 3.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Bountiful, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $152,500 $183,904 238 1998 $168,500 $214,957 267 1999 $159,900 $197,409 282 2000 $175,950 $227,227 277 2001 $162,500 $201,224 261 2002 $174,000 $215,701 308 2003 $180,000 $216,936 301 2004 $182,000 $233,415 314 2005 $209,900 $255,281 428 2006 $244,000 $324,069 385 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

112 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Bountiful, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Hotels Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & & Other Mercantile, Other & & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Motels Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,381.5 $410.7 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,342.0 $4,134.2 $6,916.5 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $202.1 $0.0 $0.0 $350.0 $307.3 $6,624.3 $356.7 $3,956.8 $11,797.2 $19,014.6 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $858.0 $2,477.0 $132.5 $17.5 $4,520.0 $8,005.0 $12,570.2 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,604.1 $7,359.5 $0.0 $937.5 $2,837.4 $12,738.5 $19,241.2 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $6,403.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $196.8 $2,785.2 $9,385.9 $13,557.4 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $467.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,289.0 $351.5 $582.9 $471.0 $2,837.5 $7,998.9 $11,128.3 2000 $0.0 $14.8 $23.0 $0.0 $0.0 $689.3 $231.0 $0.0 $1,288.8 $1,760.9 $4,007.8 $5,341.5 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $2,264.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,411.0 $0.0 $0.0 $300.5 $4,044.2 $8,019.7 $10,374.6 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,215.0 $1,071.9 $2,692.3 $0.0 $581.0 $1,442.3 $8,002.5 $10,252.0 2003 $0.0 $76.0 $1,339.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8,650.0 $90.0 $0.0 $5,279.9 $7,166.4 $22,601.3 $28,861.2 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $1,166.0 $0.0 $0.0 $6,138.0 $0.0 $0.0 $737.3 $3,423.0 $11,464.3 $13,879.7 2005 $0.0 $17,500.0 $0.0 $57.0 $769.0 $2,374.0 $648.0 $0.0 $344.0 $2,347.0 $24,039.0 $26,587.1 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,000.0 $0.0 $0.0 $105.0 $2,330.0 $3,435.0 $3,435.0 Total $0.0 $17,590.8 $5,461.1 $57.0 $11,769.4 $27,846.0 $14,156.6 $7,339.7 $10,616.0 $40,792.7 $135,629.3 $181,159.3 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 113

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 3.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Bountiful, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 37.16 0.00 1991 28.50 0.00 1992 116.35 0.00 1993 74.99 0.00 1994 91.40 3.16 1995 104.21 0.18 1996 49.62 3.30 1997 17.60 0.00 1998 17.31 0.00 1999 158.53 0.00 2000 86.77 1.29 2001 12.87 0.94 2003 67.04 0.00 2002 36.05 0.00 2004 7.35 0.00 2005 77.36 1.87 2006 33.06 0.00 Total 1,016.17 22.95 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

114 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

C ENTERVILLE

Table 4.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Centerville

Population Population (2005) 15,133 Median Age (2000) 27.3 Average Household Income (2006) $75,098

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 4,225 Employer Firms (2005) 488 Average Annual Wage (2005) $27,650 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Trade, Transportation, Utilities 1,265 30.0% Construction 836 19.8% Leisure & Hospitality 442 10.5%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $161.5 Major Retail Categories (millions) Building & Garden $66.3 Food Stores $35.4 Motor Vehicles $31.1 Per Capita Retail Sales (2005) $10,674

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 4,750 100.0% Owner Occupied 4,100 86.3% Renter Occupied 500 10.5% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $257,000 New $415,789

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $5.1 Property Tax Receipts (millions) $1.5 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $2.5 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $338 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 115

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Centerville, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Total Population 11,500 14,585 26.8% Age Under 5 Years 1,131 9.8% 1,186 8.1% 4.9% 5 to 17 Years 4,034 35.1% 4,056 27.8% 0.5% 18 to 20 Years 481 4.2% 834 5.7% 73.4% 21 to 24 Years 417 3.6% 845 5.8% 102.6% 25 to 44 Years 3,536 30.7% 3,669 25.2% 3.8% 45 to 54 Years 998 8.7% 1,994 13.7% 99.8% 55 to 59 Years 364 3.2% 593 4.1% 62.9% 60 to 64 Years 288 2.5% 384 2.6% 33.3% 65 Years and Over 567 4.9% 1,024 7.0% 80.6% Median Age 22.0 27.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 4.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Centerville, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 5.8% 4.6% High School Graduate* 22.6% 19.6% Some College, No Degree 30.9% 30.2% Associate’s Degree 8.2% 8.4% Bachelor’s Degree 22.8% 26.3% Graduate or Professional degree 9.7% 10.9% Master’s Degree N/A 7.6% Professional Degree N/A 2.8% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.6% By Sex Male: Less than High School 5.1% High School Graduate* 18.2% Some College, No Degree 25.0% Associate’s Degree 7.4% Bachelor’s Degree 26.5% Master’s Degree 12.3% Professional Degree 4.3% Doctorate Degree 1.3% Female: Less than High School 4.2% High School Graduate* 20.8% Some College, No Degree 34.7% Associate’s Degree 9.2% Bachelor’s Degree 26.2% Master’s Degree 3.4% Professional Degree 1.4% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

116 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 4.1 Centerville Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black American 75 - 79 3.1% Indian, 70 - 74 Eskimo, or 65 - 69 Aleut 60 - 64 10.3% 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 Asian or 30 - 34 Hispanic Pacific 25 - 29 54.8% Islander 20 - 24 30.8% 15 - 19 10 - 14 5 - 9 Under 5

1,000 500 0 500 1,000 Other race Male Female 1.0%

Age Distribution of the Centerville Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 598 533 1.12 9.8% 5.7% Centerville Share of 5–9 810 753 1.08 13.6% 7.0% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 841 855 0.98 14.7% 7.6% Total 11,500 100.0% 6.1% 15–19 563 572 0.98 9.9% 6.6% 20–24 262 276 0.95 4.7% 4.1% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 289 324 0.89 5.3% 4.2% White 11,208 97.5% 6.4% 30–34 394 443 0.89 7.3% 5.5% Black 9 0.1% 0.4% 35–39 443 476 0.93 8.0% 6.8% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 30 0.3% 3.0% 40–44 396 455 0.87 7.4% 7.7% Asian or Pacific Islander 90 0.8% 2.9% 45–49 289 293 0.99 5.1% 6.6% Other race 3 0.0% 3.8% 50–54 206 210 0.98 3.6% 5.9% Ethnicity 55–59 182 182 1.00 3.2% 5.8% Hispanic Origin 160 1.4% 1.2% 60–64 144 144 1.00 2.5% 5.6% 65–69 100 109 0.92 1.8% 4.6% Minority 292 2.5% 2.1% 70–74 73 80 0.91 1.3% 5.1% 75–79 38 60 0.63 0.9% 5.1% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 28 37 0.76 0.6% 5.3% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 13 29 0.45 0.4% 4.8% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that Total 5,669 5,831 0.97 100.0% 6.1% the city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's Share 60 years+ 7.4% 3.4% share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Median Age 22.0 female ratio greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 117

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 4.2 Centerville Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition

85 + 80 - 84 Black alone AIAN alone 75 - 79 (NH) (NH) 70 - 74 5.5% 2.8% 65 - 69 60 - 64 Asian alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 18.1% 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 Hispanic NHPI alone 30 - 34 47.7% (NH) 25 - 29 5.7% 20 - 24 15 - 19 Some other 10 - 14 race alone 5 - 9 (NH) Under 5 1.0% 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 Two or more races (NH) Male Female 19.1%

Age Distribution of the Centerville Population

Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 609 577 1.06 8.1% 5.1% Centerville Share of 5–9 725 644 1.13 9.4% 6.1% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 817 774 1.06 10.9% 6.9% Total 14,585 100.0% 6.1% 15–19 871 811 1.07 11.5% 7.0% 20–24 569 524 1.09 7.5% 5.4% Not Hispanic or Latino 14,300 98.0% 6.3% 25–29 393 412 0.95 5.5% 4.6% White alone 13,988 95.9% 6.5% 30–34 366 411 0.89 5.3% 4.9% Black or African American alone 33 0.2% 1.3% 35–39 451 494 0.91 6.5% 5.5% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 17 0.1% 1.4% 40–44 572 570 1.00 7.8% 6.7% Asian alone 108 0.7% 3.0% 45–49 520 560 0.93 7.4% 7.4% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 34 0.2% 5.6% 50–54 428 486 0.88 6.3% 8.1% Some other race alone 6 0.0% 2.9% 55–59 300 293 1.02 4.1% 6.9% Two or more races 114 0.8% 3.4% 60–64 179 205 0.87 2.6% 5.9% Ethnicity 65–69 170 185 0.92 2.4% 6.4% Hispanic or Latino 285 2.0% 2.2% 70–74 123 126 0.98 1.7% 5.6% 75–79 81 120 0.68 1.4% 5.5% Minority 597 4.1% 2.5% 80–84 50 81 0.62 0.9% 5.9% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 31 57 0.54 0.6% 5.2% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 7,255 7,330 0.99 100.0% 6.1% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 9.7% 5.9% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Median Age 27.3 one.

118 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 4.3 Distribution of Household Income in Centerville, 1995-2005

25%

20%

1995 2000 2005

15%

10% Share of Households of Share

5%

0%

00 00 00 00 0 0 0 0 ,000 5,000 0, $ 45, 50, 75,000 50,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $4 $ $ $ 2 - - - - - $100 nder 1 1 U 001 00 00 01 - ver $ , , , 0 O $5,001 -10,001 $10, 15,001 20 25 30 35,001 -40,001 -45,001 -50,001 - $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 75, $ $100,001 - $250,000

Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 183 4.4% 198 4.5% 147 3.2% $5,001–$10,000 200 4.8% 188 4.3% 160 3.5% $10,001–$15,000 207 5.0% 193 4.4% 183 4.0% $15,001–$20,000 227 5.4% 208 4.7% 216 4.7% $20,001–$25,000 236 5.7% 207 4.7% 196 4.3% $25,001–$30,000 236 5.7% 203 4.6% 210 4.6% $30,001–$35,000 210 5.0% 192 4.4% 221 4.8% $35,001–$40,000 224 5.4% 206 4.7% 191 4.2% $40,001–$45,000 243 5.8% 173 3.9% 202 4.4% $45,001–$50,000 213 5.1% 182 4.1% 196 4.3% $50,001–$75,000 1,037 24.9% 953 21.6% 857 18.7% $75,001–$100,000 539 12.9% 743 16.8% 709 15.5% $100,001–$250,000 377 9.0% 683 15.5% 973 21.3% Over $250,000 37 0.9% 84 1.9% 113 2.5% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 119

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.4 Share of Persons in Centerville Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 3.6% 2.0% Male 3.0% 1.5% Under 5 years 4.3% 4.1% Under 5 years 4.0% 1.7% 5 years 6.3% 0.0% 5 years 8.9% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 6.2% 1.6% 6 to 11 years 6.4% 1.2% 12 to 17 years 4.1% 1.9% 12 to 17 years 2.0% 0.8% 18 to 64 years 2.2% 1.9% 18 to 64 years 1.8% 1.5% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 1.6% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 3.4% 75 years and over 9.9% 1.8% 75 years and over 0.0% 4.3% Female 4.1% 2.4% Under 5 years 4.6% 6.6% 5 years 3.1% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 6.0% 2.2% 12 to 17 years 6.1% 3.1% 18 to 64 years 2.6% 2.2% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 14.0% 0.0%

Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 4.5 Centerville Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 4,788 100.0% 6,698 100.0% 1,910 39.9% Drove alone 3,649 76.2% 5,298 79.1% 1,649 45.2% Carpooled 692 14.5% 743 11.1% 51 7.4% Public transportation (including taxicab) 159 3.3% 209 3.1% 50 31.4% Bicycle or walked 65 1.4% 142 2.1% 77 118.5% Motorcycle or other means 19 0.4% 22 0.3% 3 15.8% Worked at home 204 4.3% 284 4.2% 80 39.2%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 4,584 100.0% 6,414 100.0% 1,830 39.9% Less than 5 minutes 96 2.1% 147 2.3% 51 53.1% 5 to 9 minutes 704 15.4% 1,040 16.2% 336 47.7% 10 to 14 minutes 810 17.7% 754 11.8% -56 -6.9% 15 to 19 minutes 569 12.4% 640 10.0% 71 12.5% 20 to 24 minutes 859 18.7% 817 12.7% -42 -4.9% 25 to 29 minutes 530 11.6% 618 9.6% 88 16.6% 30 to 34 minutes 678 14.8% 1,302 20.3% 624 92.0% 35 to 39 minutes 74 1.6% 301 4.7% 227 306.8% 40 to 44 minutes 73 1.6% 263 4.1% 190 260.3% 45 or more minutes 191 4.2% 532 8.3% 341 178.5% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 19.4 23.4 4.0 20.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

120 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Centerville by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 1,776 100.0% 1,698 100.0% 1,931 100.0% 2,063 100.0% 2,139 100.0% 1,976 100.0% 2,589 100.0% 2,937 100.0% 3,246 100.0% 3,475 100.0% 2,725 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D 0 0.0% D D D D 8 0.2% D D Construction 314 17.7% 370 21.8% 358 18.5% 465 22.5% 476 22.3% 515 26.1% 613 23.7% 761 25.9% 879 27.1% 944 27.2% 749 27.5% Manufacturing 298 16.8% 235 13.8% 287 14.9% 257 12.5% 243 11.4% 220 11.1% 219 8.5% 241 8.2% 261 8.0% 291 8.4% 178 6.5% TCPU 55 3.1% 12 0.7% 27 1.4% 40 1.9% D D D D 40 1.2% D D Trade 543 30.6% 514 30.3% 612 31.7% 637 30.9% 665 31.1% 654 33.1% 898 34.7% 1,020 34.7% 1,170 36.0% 1,254 36.1% 1,059 38.9% FIRE 32 1.8% 27 1.6% 34 1.8% 43 2.1% 68 3.2% 70 3.5% 67 2.6% 58 2.0% 53 1.6% 59 1.7% 63 2.3% Services 259 14.6% 246 14.5% 293 15.2% 293 14.2% 344 16.1% 320 16.2% 409 15.8% 445 15.2% 469 14.4% 476 13.7% 461 16.9% Government 275 15.5% 294 17.3% 320 16.6% 328 15.9% 319 14.9% 320 16.2% 350 13.5% 375 12.8% 366 11.3% 389 11.2% 183 6.7% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 4,128 100.0% 3,629 100.0% 3,934 100.0% 4,142 100.0% 4,225 100.0% Mining D D D D 0 0.0% Construction 904 21.9% 731 20.1% 857 21.8% 841 20.3% 836 19.8% Manufacturing 309 7.5% 329 9.1% 363 9.2% 377 9.1% 415 9.8% Trade, Transp., Utilities 1,042 25.2% 1,075 29.6% 1,129 28.7% 1,234 29.8% 1,265 30.0% Information D D D D 2 0.1% Financial Activities 107 2.6% 100 2.8% 112 2.8% 170 4.1% 162 3.8% Prof. & Business Services 251 6.1% 258 7.1% 234 6.0% 236 5.7% 273 6.5% Education & Health Services 133 3.2% 160 4.4% 264 6.7% 258 6.2% 270 6.4% Leisure & Hospitality 361 8.7% 411 11.3% 411 10.4% 439 10.6% 442 10.5% Other Services 182 4.4% 159 4.4% 162 4.1% 182 4.4% 171 4.0% Government 839 20.3% 407 11.2% 403 10.2% 404 9.8% 388 9.2% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 121

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Centerville by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $44.8 100.0% $43.6 100.0% $47.2 100.0% $51.7 100.0% $54.3 100.0% $52.7 100.0% $64.6 100.0% $72.8 100.0% $81.5 100.0% $89.8 100.0% $68.7 100.0% Mining D D D D D $0.4 0.5% D D Construction $10.5 23.5% $12.5 28.8% $9.4 20.0% $12.2 23.7% $12.5 23.1% $13.6 25.8% $16.5 25.6% $20.5 28.2% $24.7 30.3% $27.9 31.0% $21.7 31.7% Manufacturing $9.1 20.3% $7.6 17.5% $10.5 22.2% $9.2 17.8% $8.9 16.5% $8.2 15.5% $8.0 12.4% $9.2 12.6% $9.6 11.8% $9.7 10.8% $5.7 8.4% TCPU $1.8 4.1% $0.4 1.0% $1.2 2.5% $1.6 3.2% D D D D $1.6 2.0% D D Trade $9.2 20.6% $8.5 19.5% $10.5 22.3% $12.1 23.3% $13.2 24.4% $13.8 26.1% $16.8 26.0% $18.0 24.8% $21.4 26.2% $24.7 27.5% $22.0 32.1% FIRE $0.7 1.5% $0.6 1.3% $0.6 1.4% $0.9 1.8% $2.0 3.6% $2.4 4.6% $2.5 3.8% $1.9 2.6% $1.8 2.2% $2.0 2.2% $2.2 3.2% Services $5.4 12.0% $5.6 12.9% $6.3 13.3% $6.5 12.6% $7.4 13.7% $7.5 14.3% $9.0 13.9% $9.7 13.3% $11.1 13.6% $12.3 13.6% $11.3 16.5% Government $8.1 18.1% $8.3 19.1% $8.6 18.3% $9.1 17.6% $9.0 16.6% $9.1 17.3% $10.3 16.0% $11.7 16.1% $10.9 13.4% $11.3 12.6% $4.7 6.9% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $123.9 100.0% $95.4 100.0% $106.6 100.0% $112.0 100.0% $116.8 100.0% Mining D D D D Construction $29.3 23.7% $22.4 23.5% $24.8 23.3% $25.2 22.5% $25.6 21.9% Manufacturing $9.7 7.9% $10.5 11.0% $11.3 10.6% $12.3 11.0% $13.2 11.3% Trade, Transp., Utilities $27.5 22.2% $27.7 29.0% $31.4 29.4% $34.4 30.7% $36.5 31.2% Information D D D D $0.2 0.2% Financial Activities $3.4 2.8% $3.2 3.4% $3.3 3.1% $5.7 5.1% $6.1 5.2% Prof & Bus Services $6.9 5.6% $7.6 8.0% $5.8 5.5% $5.8 5.2% $7.0 6.0% Edu & Health Services $3.7 3.0% $4.2 4.4% $10.6 9.9% $8.6 7.6% $8.5 7.3% Leisure & Hospitality $3.7 3.0% $4.3 4.5% $4.3 4.0% $4.4 3.9% $4.6 4.0% Other Services $3.4 2.7% $3.1 3.3% $3.2 3.0% $3.8 3.4% $3.6 3.1% Government $36.3 29.3% $12.4 13.0% $11.8 11.1% $11.8 10.6% $11.5 9.9% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

122 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Centerville, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount* Share Total Nonagricultural 53.4% 53.1% Mining Construction 138.5% 55.5% 106.6% 34.9% Manufacturing -40.3% -61.1% -36.7% -58.7% TCPU Trade 95.0% 27.1% 138.7% 55.9% FIRE 96.9% 28.3% 225.7% 112.7% Services 78.0% 16.0% 110.4% 37.4% Government -33.5% -56.6% -41.9% -62.1%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 2.3% -5.7% Mining Construction -7.5% -9.7% -12.8% -7.5% Manufacturing 34.4% 31.3% 35.1% 43.3% Trade, Transp, Utilities 21.4% 18.7% 32.7% 40.8% Information Financial Activities 51.7% 48.2% 78.0% 88.8% Prof & Bus Services 8.6% 6.1% 1.7% 7.9% Edu & Health Services 102.8% 98.1% 131.9% 146.0% Leisure & Hosp 22.5% 19.7% 26.5% 34.2% Other Services -6.3% -8.4% 7.6% 14.2% Government -53.7% -54.8% -68.3% -66.4% *Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 4.9 Centerville Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.98 0.00 0.00 Construction 4.14 4.48 3.54 3.77 3.33 3.77 3.18 3.23 3.25 3.23 3.34 Manufacturing 1.33 1.09 1.16 0.93 0.81 0.76 0.59 0.61 0.61 0.65 0.54 TCPU 0.77 0.17 0.39 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 Trade 1.30 1.24 1.27 1.23 1.23 1.28 1.32 1.37 1.41 1.43 1.52 FIRE 0.83 0.62 0.60 0.59 0.78 0.89 0.65 0.48 0.41 0.46 0.67 Services 0.85 0.84 0.87 0.78 0.85 0.82 0.76 0.74 0.70 0.65 0.79 Government 0.43 0.51 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.64 0.57 0.51 0.46 0.45 0.26

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 2.70 2.66 2.85 2.53 2.29 Manufacturing 0.66 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.89 Trade, Transp, Utilities 1.18 1.41 1.40 1.43 1.51 Information 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Financial Activities 0.69 0.77 0.72 1.00 0.94 Prof & Bus Services 0.77 0.83 0.69 0.65 0.67 Edu & Health Services 0.37 0.51 0.75 0.70 0.71 Leisure & Hosp 0.98 1.28 1.17 1.19 1.18 Other Services 1.59 1.47 1.37 1.48 1.42 Government 0.78 0.42 0.40 0.39 0.37 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 123

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.10 Major Employers in Centerville, 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 100–199 Employees Pineae Greenhouses Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Syro Steel Manufacturing Dick’s Market Retail Trade Skaggs Alpha Beta #249 Retail Trade

50–99 Employees Steven’s Co Construction Bartile Roofs Manufacturing Ideal Redi Mix Manufacturing Radio Data Systems Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

1995–96 100–199 Employees Pineae Greenhouses Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Syro Steel Manufacturing Dick’s Market Retail Trade Albertsons Retail Trade

50–99 Employees Hogan & Associates Construction MC Green & Sons Construction O’Brien Glass (Gary K. O’Brien) Wholesale Trade Intermountain Wholesale Nursery Wholesale Trade

2000 200–299 Employees Super Target Retail Trade

100–199 Employees Tingey Construction Co Inc Construction Industries Hogan & Associates Construction Industries Home Depot Retail Trade Albertsons Retail Trade Dick’s Market Retail Trade

50–99 Employees Pineae Greenhouses Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries MC Green & Sons Construction Industries Salmon and Alder LLC Construction Industries Bartile Roofs Manufacturing Syro Steel Manufacturing Colonial Building Supply LLC Retail Trade Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon Retail Trade McDonald’s Retail Trade

124 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.10 Major Employers in Centerville, 1990–2007, cont’d

Company Industry 2005 100–199 Employees Pineae Greenhouses Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Hogan & Associates Construction Making Memories Wholesale Wholesale Trade Home Depot Retail Trade Dick’s Market Retail Trade Target Corporation Retail Trade Management & Training Corp Management of Companies and Enterprises Odyssey HealthCare GP LLC Health Care and Social Assistance

50–99 Employees MC Green & Sons Construction Bartile Roofs Manufacturing Syro Steel Manufacturing Colonial Building Supply Retail Trade Albertsons Retail Trade Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon Accommodation and Food Services

2007 100–199 Employees Pineae Greenhouses Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting Hogan & Associates Construction Bartile Roofs Manufacturing Home Depot Retail Trade Dick’s Market Retail Trade Super Target Retail Trade Management & Training Corp Management of Companies and Enterprises

50–99 Employees MC Green & Sons Construction Larsen Electric Construction Moffat Brothers Plastering Construction Syro Steel Manufacturing Colonial Building Supply Wholesale Trade Making Memories Wholesale Wholesale Trade Albertsons Retail Trade Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon Accommodation and Food Services Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 125

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Centerville, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 38.1% 42.2% 33.0% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 15.2% 18.9% 10.6% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 10.2% 12.9% 6.8% Farmers and farm managers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 5.0% 6.0% 3.8% Business operations specialists 2.1% 1.7% 2.6% Financial specialists 2.9% 4.3% 1.2% Professional and related occupations 22.9% 23.3% 22.4% Computer and mathematical occupations 3.1% 5.1% 0.6% Architecture and engineering occupations 3.1% 5.5% 0.2% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 2.6% 4.6% 0.2% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.7% 1.2% 0.0% Community and social services occupations 1.3% 1.7% 0.9% Legal occupations 1.3% 2.1% 0.4% Education, training, and library occupations 7.1% 3.2% 12.1% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.8% 1.9% 1.7% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 4.3% 2.6% 6.5% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 2.4% 1.7% 3.4% Health technologists and technicians 1.9% 0.9% 3.2% Service occupations 10.2% 4.8% 17.0% Healthcare support occupations 2.0% 0.2% 4.2% Protective service occupations 0.7% 1.0% 0.2% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.1% 0.0% 0.2% Food preparation and serving related occupations 3.5% 1.0% 6.6% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 1.8% 1.4% 2.3% Personal care and service occupations 2.2% 1.1% 3.6% Sales and office occupations 33.0% 23.3% 45.3% Sales and related occupations 15.1% 16.1% 13.9% Office and administrative support occupations 17.9% 7.2% 31.3% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 9.1% 16.0% 0.5% Construction and extraction occupations 5.7% 10.3% 0.0% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 1.1% 2.0% 0.0% Construction trades workers 4.5% 8.1% 0.0% Extraction workers 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 3.4% 5.7% 0.5% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 9.5% 13.7% 4.3% Production occupations 4.4% 5.8% 2.5% Transportation and material-moving occupations 5.2% 7.8% 1.8% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.6% 0.8% 0.2% Motor vehicle operators 1.4% 2.3% 0.3% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Material-moving workers 3.0% 4.4% 1.3% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for Davis County. Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

126 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 4.4 Centerville Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) Building & Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Garden Dealers Accessory Drinking Total Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1990 $5.1 8.2% $42.2 67.6% $2.8 4.5% $3.6 5.7% $5.8 9.3% $2.9 4.6% $62.4 1991 $7.3 11.9% $39.3 64.3% $2.7 4.5% $3.5 5.7% $5.3 8.7% $3.0 4.9% $61.1 1992 $8.9 13.3% $42.3 63.3% $3.3 4.9% $3.2 4.7% $6.1 9.1% $3.2 4.8% $66.9 1993 $5.5 8.0% $44.4 64.3% $5.2 7.5% $0.090 0.13% $3.1 4.5% $7.1 10.3% $3.6 5.2% $69.0 1994 $4.9 6.9% $47.0 66.2% $5.9 8.2% $0.071 0.10% $3.3 4.6% $7.1 10.0% $2.8 3.9% $70.9 1995 $8.1 10.1% $50.2 62.7% $8.1 10.1% $2.1 2.7% $8.3 10.4% $3.2 4.0% $80.1 1996 $18.5 20.9% $49.9 56.4% $8.3 9.4% $2.3 2.5% $6.2 7.0% $3.4 3.8% $88.6 1997 $19.6 22.9% $45.8 53.4% $8.2 9.6% $1.6 1.9% $6.9 8.0% $3.7 4.3% $85.9 1998 $24.5 25.1% $44.6 45.7% $12.3 12.6% $2.5 2.6% $11.0 11.3% $2.8 2.9% $97.8 1999 $46.6 34.6% $48.6 36.0% $22.4 16.6% $2.5 1.9% $12.2 9.1% $2.5 1.9% $134.8 2000 $46.0 34.1% $44.0 32.6% $27.4 20.3% $0.091 0.07% $2.3 1.7% $12.5 9.3% $2.5 1.8% $134.7 2001 $46.0 35.4% $43.6 33.5% $21.7 16.7% $0.095 0.07% $2.7 2.1% $13.1 10.0% $2.8 2.2% $130.0 2002 $47.7 35.2% $42.7 31.6% $25.4 18.8% $0.077 0.06% $2.1 1.6% $13.4 9.9% $4.0 2.9% $135.4 2003 $52.0 40.6% $29.2 22.8% $26.2 20.5% $0.084 0.07% $2.2 1.7% $13.7 10.7% $4.8 3.7% $128.1 2004 $60.6 39.8% $36.8 24.2% $29.7 19.5% $0.073 0.05% $3.2 2.1% $14.0 9.2% $7.9 5.2% $152.2 2005 $66.3 41.1% $35.4 21.9% $31.1 19.2% $0.149 0.09% $5.8 3.6% $15.2 9.4% $7.5 4.7% $161.5 Change 1193.0% 399.4% -16.0% -67.6% 997.7% 324.0% 64.9% -29.5% 63.7% -36.8% 160.9% 0.8% 162.8% 1.5% 158.9% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$180

Miscellaneous $160 Eating & Drinking Furniture Apparel & Accessory $140 Motor Vehicle Dealers Food Stores Building & Garden $120

$100

$80

$60 Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars ofMillions Constant

$40

$20

$0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 127

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 4.5

Centerville Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$3

Property Taxes Sales and Use Taxes

$2

$1 Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars ofMillions Constant

$0

0 3 4 8 2 5 91 95 99 03 04 99 9 99 99 9 99 9 00 0 0 1 1 1992 1 1 1 1996 1997 1 1 2000 2001 2 2 2 200 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $831,590 $968,362 $2,386,684 1991 $758,643 $1,118,067 $2,500,282 1992 $865,289 $1,166,109 $2,690,368 1993 $898,560 $132,454 $1,558,240 $3,114,363 1994 $1,010,147 $139,807 $1,475,089 $3,147,781 1995 $998,922 $142,085 $1,611,213 $3,309,047 1996 $963,553 $171,753 $1,820,432 $3,438,421 1997 $1,015,376 $173,147 $2,096,444 $3,783,838 1998 $969,899 $170,202 $2,203,839 $3,906,590 1999 $1,395,228 $177,478 $2,290,813 $4,480,383 2000 $1,494,327 $155,227 $2,502,361 $4,741,898 2001 $1,462,177 $143,178 $2,421,513 $4,747,497 2002 $1,675,234 $164,896 $2,498,817 $5,048,514 2003 $1,532,548 $150,134 $2,735,621 $4,561,376 2004 $1,534,346 $155,750 $2,640,159 $4,528,857 2005 $1,507,340 $157,635 $2,515,294 $5,109,169 Change 81.3% 19.0% 159.7% 114.1% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

128 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.12 Detailed Breakdown of Centerville Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 Property taxes: General Fund $470,754 $712,038 29.8% Bond Repayment $39,828 $60,242 2.5% Library Other $39,212 $59,310 2.5% Total property taxes $549,794 $831,590 $72.31 34.8% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $640,219 $968,362 $84.21 40.6% Public Utility Franchise Tax $270,513 $409,164 17.1% Resort or Innkeepers' Tax Building Permits $64,479 $97,528 4.1% Other Licenses and Permits $52,918 $80,041 3.4% Total Tax Revenues $1,577,923 $2,386,684 $207.54 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes: General Fund $732,144 $833,086 17.6% Redevelopment Agency $424,840 $483,413 10.2% Other $19,862 $22,600 0.5% Fee in Lieu $136,419 $155,227 3.3% Total Property Taxes $1,176,846 $1,494,327 $102.46 31.5% Sales and Use Tax $2,199,159 $2,502,361 $171.57 52.8% Franchise Tax $444,042 $505,263 10.7% Building Permits $165,238 $188,020 4.0% Other Licenses and Permits $45,635 $51,927 1.1% Total Tax Revenues $4,030,920 $4,741,898 $325.12 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $779,025 15.2% RDA increment $570,680 11.2% Fee in lieu $157,635 3.1% Total Property Taxes $1,507,340 $99.61 29.5% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $2,515,294 $166.21 49.2% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $248,964 4.9% Cable TV Franchise Tax $54,611 1.1% Other Franchise Tax $495,620 9.7% Licenses, Fees and Permits Business License Fees $57,562 1.1% Building Permit Fees $226,608 4.4% Other Licenses, Permits & Taxes $3,170 0.1% Total Tax Revenues $5,109,169 $337.62 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 129

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.13 Centerville Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $109,067,506 16.7% $105,186,074 15.4% -3.6% Buildings $314,280,427 48.0% $374,379,473 54.7% 19.1% Total $423,347,933 64.7% $479,565,547 70.1% 13.3%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $31,447,261 4.8% $62,751,898 9.2% 99.5% Buildings $46,897,497 7.2% $75,652,028 11.1% 61.3% Total $78,344,758 12.0% $138,403,926 20.2% 76.7%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $318,465 0.0% $50,677 0.0% -84.1% Buildings $1,737,757 0.3% $1,018,939 0.1% -41.4% Total $2,056,223 0.3% $1,069,616 0.2% -48.0%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $19,735,526 3.0% $3,422,223 0.5% -82.7%

Total Land & Buildings $523,484,439 80.0% $641,167,710 93.7% 22.5% Total Personal Property $23,995,633 3.7% $27,464,702 4.0% 14.5% Total Locally Assessed $547,480,072 83.7% $668,632,412 97.7% 22.1% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $106,811,288 16.3% $15,814,137 2.3% -85.2% Area Total $654,291,359 100.0% $684,446,549 100.0% 4.6% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor's Office

Table 4.14 Centerville Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 4,750 Vacant Units 150 Total Occupied Units 4,600 Owner Occupied 4,100 Vacant Owner Units 125 Total Owner Units 4,225 Renter Occupied 500 Vacant Rental Units 25 Total Rental Units 525 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

130 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 4.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Centerville, 1990–2006

180

160

140

120

100

80 Permits

60

40

20

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 4.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Centerville by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 106 0 0 0 106 $10,313.8 1991 141 0 0 0 141 $16,339.5 1992 156 0 0 0 156 $16,431.1 1993 127 0 0 0 0 127 $15,101.7 1994 138 0 18 0 0 156 $17,319.3 1995 124 0 0 0 0 124 $10,177.9 1996 72 0 0 0 0 72 $7,198.6 1997 62 0 12 6 0 80 $8,305.8 1998 69 0 54 0 0 123 $13,706.6 1999 74 0 12 3 0 89 $11,026.6 2000 58 4 0 0 0 62 $9,589.5 2001 41 2 0 0 0 43 $7,002.1 2002 38 12 0 0 0 50 $7,783.5 2003 27 6 0 0 0 33 $6,281.3 2004 49 10 0 57 0 116 $19,088.0 2005 70 16 0 0 0 86 $17,573.0 2006 58 26 0 0 0 84 $20,475.8 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 131

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.16 Median Price of New Homes in Centerville, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 0 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 0 0 0 $175,000–$199,999 1 0 0 $200,000–$224,999 0 0 0 $225,000–$249,999 0 0 1 $250,000–$274,999 0 0 0 $275,000–$299,999 5 0 0 $300,000–$324,999 4 11 10 $325,000–$349,999 0 0 0 $350,000–$374,999 2 2 4 $375,000–$399,999 0 0 0 $400,000–$449,999 0 28 38 $450,000–$499,999 0 0 1 $500,000–$599,999 0 0 0 $600,000–$749,999 0 0 0 $750,000–$999,999 0 0 0 $1,000,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 12 41 54 Median Price* $300,000 $412,500 $415,789 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 4.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Centerville, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $175,000 $187,917 99 1998 $166,500 $179,687 118 1999 $182,250 $191,027 91 2000 $187,900 $194,390 106 2001 $179,900 $198,813 116 2002 $185,000 $194,420 109 2003 $178,000 $200,846 106 2004 $185,950 $200,104 109 2005 $217,260 $243,542 124 2006 $257,000 $282,570 126 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

132 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Centerville, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Hotels Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & & Other Mercantile, Other & & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Motels Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $448.0 $315.2 $224.3 $0.0 $0.0 $1,147.1 $53.8 $2,188.4 $3,661.2 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $456.6 $191.2 $368.6 $5,289.1 $5.0 $357.0 $566.8 $7,234.3 $11,660.2 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $17.5 $888.9 $0.0 $0.0 $206.5 $0.0 $178.0 $598.6 $1,889.5 $2,967.1 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $946.4 $0.0 $187.8 $407.4 $0.0 $0.0 $179.2 $1,720.8 $2,599.2 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,011.5 $0.0 $0.0 $4,728.3 $0.0 $414.2 $147.9 $6,301.9 $9,102.7 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,372.1 $0.0 $0.0 $574.4 $0.0 $8.6 $527.5 $2,482.6 $3,453.9 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $767.3 $180.6 $9,247.5 $41.1 $0.0 $0.0 $510.2 $10,746.7 $14,322.9 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $1,685.0 $1,554.6 $0.0 $807.6 $439.0 $0.0 $1,200.0 $340.3 $6,026.5 $7,796.1 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $287.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $20.3 $746.5 $1,054.6 $1,351.0 2003 $0.0 $76.0 $1,339.0 $0.0 $0.0 $8,650.0 $90.0 $0.0 $5,279.9 $7,166.4 $22,601.3 $28,861.2 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $565.0 $0.0 $750.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $474.6 $1,789.6 $2,166.6 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,649.0 $0.0 $428.0 $1,169.0 $1,625.0 $0.0 $1,496.1 $6,367.1 $7,042.0 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,309.0 $0.0 $1,600.0 $12,291.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,941.0 $19,141.0 $19,141.0 Total $0.0 $76.0 $3,041.5 $12,256.2 $687.0 $22,263.8 $25,235.8 $1,630.0 $8,605.1 $15,748.9 $89,544.3 $114,125.2 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 133

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 4.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Centerville, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 19.24 0.00 1991 29.31 0.00 1992 22.44 0.48 1993 24.79 0.00 1994 56.62 3.63 1995 12.23 36.31 1996 34.54 0.00 1997 29.88 1.12 1998 24.37 11.99 1999 26.12 0.00 2000 15.10 10.57 2001 19.25 0.00 2003 2.14 2.37 2002 6.69 9.44 2004 18.78 0.00 2005 39.30 0.00 2006 32.69 0.00 Total 413.49 75.91 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

134 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

C LEARFIELD

Table 5.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Clearfield

Population Population (2005) 27,831 Median Age (2000) 24.0 Average Household Income (2006) $45,952

Employment* Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 26,717 Employer Firms (2005) 560 Average Annual Wage (2005) $43,429 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Government 14,084 52.7% Manufacturing 6,447 24.1% Prof & Bus Services 1,969 7.4% Trade, Transp, Utilities 1,810 6.8% *Data are for Clearfield–South Weber and include Hill Air Force Base Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $73.1 Major Retail Categories (millions) Food Stores $29.8 Eating & Drinking $18.8 Motor Vehicle Sales $15.2 Per Capita Retail Sales $2,627

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 9,500 100.0% Owner Occupied 5,450 57.4% Renter Occupied 3,600 37.9% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $142,000 New $200,000

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $10.2 Property Tax Receipts (millions) $4.1 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $4.8 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $366 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 135

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Clearfield, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 21,435 25,974 21.2% Age Under 5 Years 2,536 11.8% 3,156 12.2% 24.4% 5 to 17 Years 5,947 27.7% 6,241 24.0% 4.9% 18 to 20 Years 1,598 7.5% 1,811 7.0% 13.3% 21 to 24 Years 1,427 6.7% 2,354 9.1% 65.0% 25 to 44 Years 7,696 35.9% 7,955 30.6% 3.4% 45 to 54 Years 1,162 5.4% 1,982 7.6% 70.6% 55 to 59 Years 437 2.0% 548 2.1% 25.4% 60 to 64 Years 413 1.9% 444 1.7% 7.5% 65 Years and Over 1,220 5.7% 1,483 5.7% 21.6% Median Age 22.6 24 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 5.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Clearfield, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 13.5% 13.4% High School Graduate* 33.6% 31.6% Some College, No Degree 33.2% 31.9% Associate’s Degree 7.6% 8.3% Bachelor’s Degree 9.8% 10.7% Graduate or Professional degree 2.4% 4.0% Master’s Degree N/A 3.3% Professional Degree N/A 0.6% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.1% By Sex Male: Less than High School 13.0% High School Graduate* 28.2% Some College, No Degree 33.5% Associate’s Degree 8.9% Bachelor’s Degree 11.2% Master’s Degree 4.3% Professional Degree 0.6% Doctorate Degree 0.3% Female: Less than High School 13.8% High School Graduate* 35.0% Some College, No Degree 30.3% Associate’s Degree 7.7% Bachelor’s Degree 10.3% Master’s Degree 2.4% Professional Degree 0.6% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

136 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 5.1 Clearfield Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 75 - 79 70 - 74 Black 65 - 69 24.4% 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 Hispanic 40 - 44 45.6% 35 - 39 American 30 - 34 Indian, 25 - 29 Eskimo, or Aleut 20 - 24 8.6% 15 - 19 10 - 14 5 - 9 Asian or Under 5 Pacific Other race Islander 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 0.3% 21.1% Male Female

Age Distribution of the Clearfield Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 1,301 1,235 1.05 11.8% 12.7% Clearfield Share of 5–9 1,432 1,192 1.20 12.2% 11.8% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 1,094 1,023 1.07 9.9% 9.5% Total 21,435 100.0% 11.4% 15–19 1,411 882 1.60 10.7% 13.4% 20–24 1,084 854 1.27 9.0% 14.9% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 1,028 1,020 1.01 9.6% 14.1% White 17,537 81.8% 10.1% 30–34 1,031 1,012 1.02 9.5% 13.3% Black 950 4.4% 41.6% 35–39 806 765 1.05 7.3% 11.6% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 335 1.6% 33.7% 40–44 538 495 1.09 4.8% 9.4% Asian or Pacific Islander 822 3.8% 26.4% 45–49 331 338 0.98 3.1% 7.5% Other race 13 0.1% 16.5% 50–54 249 244 1.02 2.3% 7.0% Ethnicity 55–59 205 232 0.88 2.0% 7.0% Hispanic Origin 1,778 8.3% 12.9% 60–64 186 227 0.82 1.9% 8.0% 65–69 231 234 0.99 2.2% 10.3% Minority 3,898 18.2% 28.4% 70–74 148 175 0.85 1.5% 10.7% 75–79 75 117 0.64 0.9% 10.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 60 76 0.79 0.6% 11.1% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 27 77 0.35 0.5% 11.8% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that Total 11,237 10,198 1.10 100.0% 11.4% the city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's Share 60 years+ 7.6% 7.3% share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Median Age 22.6 female ratio greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 137

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 5.2 Clearfield Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 75 - 79 Black alone 70 - 74 (NH) 65 - 69 16.5% 60 - 64 AIAN alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 6.5% 45 - 49 40 - 44 Asian alone 35 - 39 Hispanic (NH) 30 - 34 50.3% 13.0% 25 - 29 20 - 24 NHPI alone (NH) 15 - 19 1.3% 10 - 14 Some other 5 - 9 race alone Under 5 Two or more (NH) 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 races (NH) 0.5% 11.8% Male Female

Age Distribution of the Clearfield Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 1,618 1,538 1.05 12.2% 13.5% Clearfield Share of 5–9 1,379 1,271 1.08 10.2% 11.7% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 1,087 1,056 1.03 8.3% 9.3% Total 25,974 100.0% 10.9% 15–19 1,434 1,209 1.19 10.2% 11.0% 20–24 1,518 1,452 1.05 11.4% 14.7% Not Hispanic or Latino 23,227 89.4% 10.3% 25–29 1,277 1,291 0.99 9.9% 14.8% White alone 20,515 79.0% 9.6% 30–34 1,100 1,012 1.09 8.1% 13.3% Black or African American alone 903 3.5% 35.8% 35–39 941 861 1.09 6.9% 10.5% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 354 1.4% 30.2% 40–44 737 736 1.00 5.7% 8.7% Asian alone 711 2.7% 19.9% 45–49 584 549 1.06 4.4% 7.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 70 0.3% 11.5% 50–54 425 424 1.00 3.3% 7.5% Some other race alone 28 0.1% 13.7% 55–59 258 290 0.89 2.1% 6.4% Two or more races 646 2.5% 19.4% 60–64 208 236 0.88 1.7% 6.8% Ethnicity 65–69 172 221 0.78 1.5% 7.1% Hispanic or Latino 2,747 10.6% 21.2% 70–74 146 199 0.73 1.3% 7.8% 75–79 156 194 0.80 1.3% 9.5% Minority 5,459 21.0% 22.4% 80–84 92 146 0.63 0.9% 10.8% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 46 111 0.41 0.6% 9.3% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 13,178 12,796 1.03 100.0% 10.9% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's Share 60 years+ 7.4% 8.0% share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total population Median Age 24 in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than one.

138 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 5.3 Distribution of Household Income in Clearfield, 1995-2005

25%

20%

1995 2000 2005

15 %

10 % Share of Households

5%

0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 ,00 ,00 00 00 00 00 00 5 0 5, 0, 5, 0,0 5, 0, 10, 5 $5,000 $ $2 $3 $3 $7 100,00025 $ er - - - - $250,000 1 - r Und 01 - 1 ,001 ,001 ,00 0 Ove ,00 $5,001 50, $10,001$15,001 - $1 $20- $2 $25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $40,000$45,001 - $45,000 $- $ $75 100,001 - $ $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 469 7.1% 320 4.6% 508 5.1% $5,001–$10,000 485 7.3% 319 4.6% 593 6.0% $10,001–$15,000 590 8.9% 398 5.7% 677 6.8% $15,001–$20,000 618 9.4% 452 6.5% 778 7.8% $20,001–$25,000 683 10.3% 495 7.1% 824 8.3% $25,001–$30,000 599 9.1% 517 7.5% 767 7.7% $30,001–$35,000 582 8.8% 480 6.9% 674 6.8% $35,001–$40,000 501 7.6% 542 7.8% 616 6.2% $40,001–$45,000 446 6.8% 529 7.6% 639 6.4% $45,001–$50,000 345 5.2% 452 6.5% 564 5.7% $50,001–$75,000 963 14.6% 1,575 22.7% 1,946 19.6% $75,001–$100,000 243 3.7% 502 7.2% 885 8.9% $100,001–$250,000 76 1.2% 302 4.4% 431 4.3% Over $250,000 56 0.8% 12 0.1% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 139

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.4 Share of Persons in Clearfield Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 17.5% 12.2% Male 19.1% 11.8% Under 5 years 15.6% 14.3% Under 5 years 15.3% 11.9% 5 years 17.7% 12.0% 5 years 13.1% 12.7% 6 to 11 years 11.3% 10.9% 6 to 11 years 11.6% 9.7% 12 to 17 years 19.4% 19.0% 12 to 17 years 19.4% 21.1% 18 to 64 years 19.8% 11.0% 18 to 64 years 23.2% 10.4% 65 to 74 years 5.9% 11.0% 65 to 74 years 4.4% 15.1% 75 years and over 21.8% 8.5% 75 years and over 14.4% 8.6% Female 15.7% 12.6% Under 5 years 16.0% 16.8% 5 years 21.6% 10.9% 6 to 11 years 11.0% 12.4% 12 to 17 years 19.3% 16.6% 18 to 64 years 16.1% 11.7% 65 to 74 years 7.2% 8.1% 75 years and over 27.5% 8.4% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 5.5 Clearfield Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 8,282 100.0% 11,561 100.0% 3,279 39.6% Drove alone 6,328 76.4% 9,120 78.9% 2,792 44.1% Carpooled 1,474 17.8% 1,593 13.8% 119 8.1% Public transportation (including taxicab) 55 0.7% 224 1.9% 169 307.3% Bicycle or walked 170 2.1% 297 2.6% 127 74.7% Motorcycle or other means 76 0.9% 71 0.6% -5 -6.6% Worked at home 179 2.2% 256 2.2% 77 43.0%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 8,103 100.0% 11,305 100.0% 3,202 39.5% Less than 5 minutes 333 4.1% 509 4.5% 176 52.9% 5 to 9 minutes 1,605 19.8% 2,216 19.6% 611 38.1% 10 to 14 minutes 1,918 23.7% 2,352 20.8% 434 22.6% 15 to 19 minutes 1,737 21.4% 1,840 16.3% 103 5.9% 20 to 24 minutes 1,278 15.8% 1,286 11.4% 8 0.6% 25 to 29 minutes 253 3.1% 424 3.8% 171 67.6% 30 to 34 minutes 419 5.2% 906 8.0% 487 116.2% 35 to 39 minutes 80 1.0% 170 1.5% 90 112.5% 40 to 44 minutes 97 1.2% 219 1.9% 122 125.8% 45 or more minutes 383 4.7% 1,383 12.2% 1,000 261.1% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 16.1 20.2 4.1 25.5% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

140 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Clearfield–South Weber by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 23,531 100.0% 21,907 100.0% 20,835 100.0% 20,489 100.0% 19,817 100.0% 19,001 100.0% 20,047 100.0% 22,437 100.0% 22,593 100.0% 23,346 100.0% 36,532 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 336 1.4% 444 2.0% 473 2.3% 517 2.5% 636 3.2% 653 3.4% 637 3.2% 636 2.8% 750 3.3% 791 3.4% 956 2.6% Manufacturing 4,130 17.6% 3,957 18.1% 4,000 19.2% 4,661 22.7% 5,174 26.1% 5,834 30.7% 5,915 29.5% 5,595 24.9% 5,360 23.7% 5,419 23.2% 7,445 20.4% TCPU 402 1.7% 419 1.9% 227 1.1% 246 1.2% 296 1.5% 213 1.1% 316 1.6% 431 1.9% 472 2.1% 602 2.6% 1,650 4.5% Trade 1,138 4.8% 1,132 5.2% 1,220 5.9% 1,407 6.9% 1,385 7.0% 1,412 7.4% 1,589 7.9% 1,708 7.6% 1,771 7.8% 1,802 7.7% 3,965 10.9% FIRE 195 0.8% 190 0.9% 174 0.8% D 165 0.8% 149 0.8% 174 0.9% 190 0.8% 197 0.9% 197 0.8% 375 1.0% Services 2,026 8.6% 2,017 9.2% 2,044 9.8% 2,296 11.2% 2,198 11.1% 2,413 12.7% 2,558 12.8% 3,002 13.4% 3,113 13.8% 3,112 13.3% 5,200 14.2% Government 15,304 65.0% 13,748 62.8% 12,697 60.9% 11,182 54.6% 9,963 50.3% 9,017 47.5% 8,858 44.2% 10,875 48.5% 10,930 48.4% 11,423 48.9% 16,941 46.4% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 14,810 100.0% 25,473 100.0% 25,208 100.0% 25,806 100.0% 26,717 100.0% Mining D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 670 4.5% 727 2.9% 454 1.8% 425 1.6% 394 1.5% Manufacturing 5,642 38.1% 5,872 23.1% 6,197 24.6% 6,386 24.7% 6,447 24.1% Trade, Transp., Utilities 1,865 12.6% 1,903 7.5% 1,614 6.4% 1,742 6.8% 1,810 6.8% Information 23 0.2% 97 0.4% 108 0.4% 95 0.4% 107 0.4% Financial Activities 251 1.7% 287 1.1% 209 0.8% 224 0.9% 225 0.8% Prof. & Business Services 1,137 7.7% 1,412 5.5% 1,401 5.6% 1,538 6.0% 1,969 7.4% Education & Health Services 895 6.0% 517 2.0% 1,000 4.0% 1,070 4.1% 1,146 4.3% Leisure & Hospitality 472 3.2% 443 1.7% 338 1.3% 321 1.2% 289 1.1% Other Services 227 1.5% 249 1.0% 315 1.3% 268 1.0% 246 0.9% Government 3,628 24.5% 13,965 54.8% 13,572 53.8% 13,737 53.2% 14,084 52.7% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 141

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Clearfield–South Weber by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $947.2 100.0% $895.6 100.0% $854.5 100.0% $815.9 100.0% $795.2 100.0% $812.7 100.0% $830.1 100.0% $885.9 100.0% $906.8 100.0% $930.7 100.0% $1,444.4 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% D $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% Construction $13.7 1.4% $17.6 2.0% $17.3 2.0% $16.7 2.0% $20.7 2.6% $22.7 2.8% $22.0 2.6% $20.8 2.3% $24.1 2.7% $26.5 2.9% $34.5 2.4% Manufacturing $152.8 16.1% $140.7 15.7% $141.3 16.5% $159.9 19.6% $181.4 22.8% $216.1 26.6% $205.2 24.7% $196.6 22.2% $195.9 21.6% $204.0 21.9% $272.1 18.8% TCPU $17.3 1.8% $18.4 2.1% $11.2 1.3% $10.7 1.3% $11.0 1.4% $9.5 1.2% $11.3 1.4% $13.6 1.5% $16.2 1.8% $19.1 2.1% $62.7 4.3% Trade $23.6 2.5% $22.3 2.5% $23.2 2.7% $28.0 3.4% $29.1 3.7% $30.8 3.8% $40.0 4.8% $47.4 5.3% $49.9 5.5% $49.3 5.3% $120.8 8.4% FIRE $4.9 0.5% $5.1 0.6% $5.1 0.6% D $5.3 0.7% $5.0 0.6% $6.2 0.7% $6.4 0.7% $6.2 0.7% $5.8 0.6% $11.0 0.8% Services $66.6 7.0% $63.2 7.1% $67.6 7.9% $72.2 8.9% $70.1 8.8% $74.8 9.2% $78.4 9.4% $88.5 10.0% $92.7 10.2% $95.2 10.2% $184.8 12.8% Government $668.3 70.6% $628.3 70.2% $588.8 68.9% $523.4 64.2% $477.6 60.1% $473.1 58.2% $466.9 56.2% $512.7 57.9% $521.8 57.5% $530.8 57.0% $758.6 52.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $482.3 100.0% $1,100.0 100.0% $1,115.9 100.0% $1,153.9 100.0% $1,160.3 100.0% Mining D $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $21.3 4.4% $22.3 2.0% $15.8 1.4% $13.8 1.2% $11.2 1.0% Manufacturing $206.8 42.9% $215.1 19.6% $218.0 19.5% $221.8 19.2% $208.8 18.0% Trade, Transp., Utilities $60.7 12.6% $60.4 5.5% $56.4 5.1% $67.5 5.8% $65.9 5.7% Information $0.6 0.1% $4.3 0.4% $6.6 0.6% $6.9 0.6% $7.0 0.6% Financial Activities $6.3 1.3% $7.4 0.7% $6.3 0.6% $6.6 0.6% $7.0 0.6% Prof & Bus Services $40.4 8.4% $51.4 4.7% $64.0 5.7% $69.5 6.0% $80.7 7.0% Edu & Health Services $18.4 3.8% $22.6 2.1% $22.6 2.0% $24.5 2.1% $25.9 2.2% Leisure & Hospitality $4.7 1.0% $4.6 0.4% $3.4 0.3% $3.1 0.3% $2.8 0.2% Other Services $4.2 0.9% $4.7 0.4% $9.1 0.8% $7.8 0.7% $7.2 0.6% Government $118.9 24.7% $707.2 64.3% $713.7 64.0% $732.4 63.5% $743.8 64.1% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

142 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Clearfield– South Weber, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount* Share Total Nonagricultural 55.3% 52.5% Mining Construction 184.5% 83.3% 151.8% 65.2% Manufacturing 80.3% 16.1% 78.0% 16.7% TCPU 310.4% 164.4% 262.1% 137.5% Trade 248.4% 124.4% 412.9% 236.3% FIRE 92.3% 23.9% 123.6% 46.6% Services 156.7% 65.3% 177.4% 81.9% Government 10.7% -28.7% 13.5% -25.6%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 80.4% 140.6% Mining Construction -41.1% -67.4% -47.3% -78.1% Manufacturing 14.3% -36.7% 1.0% -58.0% Trade, Transp, Utilities -2.9% -46.2% 8.5% -54.9% Information 364.7% 157.6% 1124.0% 408.8% Financial Activities -10.2% -50.2% 11.8% -53.5% Prof & Bus Services 73.2% -4.0% 99.8% -17.0% Edu & Health Services 28.0% -29.0% 40.9% -41.4% Leisure & Hosp -38.8% -66.1% -39.8% -75.0% Other Services 8.2% -40.0% 71.6% -28.7% Government 288.2% 115.2% 525.3% 159.9% *Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 5.9 Clearfield–South Weber Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 0.33 0.42 0.43 0.16 0.48 0.50 0.43 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.32 Manufacturing 1.39 1.43 1.50 0.64 1.87 2.09 2.07 1.87 1.81 1.81 1.69 TCPU 0.42 0.47 0.30 0.13 0.43 0.35 0.45 0.56 0.60 0.69 1.18 Trade 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.10 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.43 FIRE 0.38 0.34 0.28 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.30 Services 0.50 0.54 0.56 0.24 0.59 0.64 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.63 0.67 Government 1.80 1.84 1.85 2.73 1.83 1.87 1.86 1.93 1.96 1.96 1.82

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 0.56 0.38 0.24 0.21 0.17 Manufacturing 3.36 2.03 2.13 2.21 2.19 Trade, Transp, Utilities 0.59 0.36 0.31 0.32 0.34 Information 0.18 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.44 Financial Activities 0.45 0.31 0.21 0.21 0.21 Prof & Bus Services 0.97 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.77 Edu & Health Services 0.70 0.24 0.44 0.46 0.48 Leisure & Hosp 0.36 0.20 0.15 0.14 0.12 Other Services 0.55 0.33 0.42 0.35 0.32 Government 0.94 2.07 2.09 2.12 2.11 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 143

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.10 Major Employers in Clearfield 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 10,000+ Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military

1000–1999 Employees Hercules Manufacturing

400–499 Employees All American Gourmet Manufacturing Management & Training Corp. Service Industries

300–399 Employees Thiokol Corp–Space Manufacturing

200–299 Employees Allied Signal Manufacturing Associated Piping and Engineering Manufacturing Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. Manufacturing Computer Sciences Service Industries

100–199 Employees The Boeing Co. Manufacturing DFG Inc. Manufacturing Futura Industries Manufacturing Lifetime Products Manufacturing Arrow Dynamics Service Industries Clearfield Nursing/Rehab (convalescent) Service Industries General Dynamics Service Industries

1995–96 7000–9999 Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military

700–999 Employees Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. Manufacturing

500–699 Employees Lifetime Products Manufacturing

400–499 Employees All American Gourmet Manufacturing Allied Signal Manufacturing Management & Training Corp. Service Industries

300–399 Employees Hercules Manufacturing ICON Health & Fitness Manufacturing

200–299 Employees Futura Industries Manufacturing Thiokol Corp–Space Manufacturing

144 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.10 Major Employers in Clearfield 1990–2007, cont’d.

Company Industry 1995–96 100–199 Employees Superior Air Handling Construction Angela Maries Manufacturing The Boeing Co. Manufacturing DFG Inc. Manufacturing Malnove Inc. of Utah Manufacturing Naptech Manufacturing Sentinel Consumer Products Manufacturing Kraft Food Service Wholesale Trade Tom Winegar’s Thriftway Retail Trade BCCU/Clearfield Nursing & Rehab Service Industries Computer Sciences Service Industries Kelly Services Service Industries Lockheed Advanced Development Service Industries

2000 10,000+ Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military

1000–1999 Employees Lifetime Products Manufacturing

700–999 Employees Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. Manufacturing

500–699 Employees Pioneer Adult Rehabilitation Service Industries

400–499 Employees ICON Health & Fitness Manufacturing Management & Training Corp. Service Industries

300–399 Employees Alliant Manufacturing Allied Signal Manufacturing Lofthouse Foods Manufacturing TRW SIG 825-949 Service Industries

200–299 Employees DFG Inc. Manufacturing Futura Industries Manufacturing Raytheon Aerospace Support Services Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

100–199 Employees Gardenburger Manufacturing Malnove Inc. of Utah Manufacturing Sentinel Consumer Products Manufacturing Thiokol Corp–Propulsion Manufacturing Americold Logistics LLC Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Carrier Lumping Service LLC Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Albertsons Retail Trade Alliant Foodservice Inc Retail Trade Maceys Inc Retail Trade

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 145

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.10 Major Employers in Clearfield 1990–2007, cont’d.

Company Industry 2000 100–199 Employees Arrow Dynamics Inc Service Industries BCCU Inc Service Industries Clearfield High School Service Industries Computer Sciences Service Industries Officers Club Service Industries Rockwell Strategic Systems Service Industries Syracuse Jr High Service Industries Teleperformance USA Service Industries Department of Treasury Public Administration

2005 10,000–14,999 Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military

1000–1999 Employees Lifetime Products Manufacturing

500–999 Employees ICON Health & Fitness Manufacturing Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. Manufacturing TRW SIG 825-949 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Management & Training Corp. Health Care and Social Assistance Department of Defense Public Administration

250–499 Employees Alliant Manufacturing DFG Inc. Manufacturing Honeywell International Inc Manufacturing Lofthouse Foods Manufacturing Raytheon Aerospace LLC Transportation and Warehousing

100–249 Employees Composite Optics Inc Manufacturing Futura Industries Manufacturing Gardenburger Manufacturing Malnove Inc. of Utah Manufacturing Sentinel Consumer Products Manufacturing US Foodservice INC Wholesale Trade Maceys Inc Retail Trade The Boeing Co. Professional, Scientific and Technical Services IES of Northern Utah LLC Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Teleperformance USA Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Davis County School District Educational Services Officers Club Other Services (except Public Administration) Department of Treasury Public Administration

146 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.10 Major Employers in Clearfield 1990–2007, cont’d.

Company Industry 2007 10,000–14,999 Employees Hill Air Force Base Public Administration/Military

1000–1999 Employees Lifetime Products Manufacturing Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co. Manufacturing

500–999 Employees L3 Communications Vertex Aerospace Transportation and Warehousing TRW SIG 825-949 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Management & Training Corp. Health Care and Social Assistance

250–499 Employees Alliant Techsystems Manufacturing DFG Inc. Manufacturing ICON Health & Fitness Manufacturing Lofthouse Bakery Manufacturing IES LLC Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Strategic Staffing Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs

100–249 Employees Salt Lake City Rail Commuter Consrt. Construction Superior Air Handling Construction Composite Optics Inc Manufacturing Futura Industries Manufacturing Gardenburger Manufacturing Honeywell International Inc Manufacturing Malnove Inc. of Utah Manufacturing US Foodservice Inc Wholesale Trade Maceys Inc Retail Trade Lear Siegler Services Transportation and Warehousing Battelle Memorial Institute Professional, Scientific and Technical Services The Boeing Co. Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Teleperformance USA Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs BCCU/Clearfield Nursing & Rehab Health Care and Social Assistance Youth Health Associates Health Care and Social Assistance Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 147

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Clearfield, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 21.1% 18.9% 23.5% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 9.7% 9.2% 10.2% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 5.6% 5.7% 5.5% Farmers and farm managers 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 4.0% 3.4% 4.7% Business operations specialists 2.2% 2.0% 2.3% Financial specialists 1.9% 1.4% 2.4% Professional and related occupations 11.4% 9.7% 13.3% Computer and mathematical occupations 1.5% 2.2% 0.8% Architecture and engineering occupations 1.4% 2.2% 0.6% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 0.6% 1.0% 0.2% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% Community and social services occupations 1.5% 0.7% 2.3% Legal occupations 0.6% 0.2% 1.0% Education, training, and library occupations 3.0% 1.5% 4.6% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 2.4% 1.6% 3.2% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 1.7% 1.2% 2.3% Health technologists and technicians 0.7% 0.4% 0.9% Service occupations 16.4% 12.8% 20.4% Healthcare support occupations 2.0% 0.5% 3.6% Protective service occupations 2.6% 4.1% 1.0% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 1.3% 2.1% 0.3% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 1.3% 1.9% 0.7% Food preparation and serving related occupations 5.6% 4.7% 6.6% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 3.3% 2.9% 3.7% Personal care and service occupations 2.9% 0.7% 5.5% Sales and office occupations 29.7% 18.6% 42.1% Sales and related occupations 11.7% 9.2% 14.5% Office and administrative support occupations 17.9% 9.3% 27.6% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 13.7% 24.9% 1.1% Construction and extraction occupations 5.5% 10.2% 0.3% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.8% 1.4% 0.1% Construction trades workers 4.5% 8.5% 0.1% Extraction workers 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 8.2% 14.8% 0.9% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 19.0% 24.7% 12.7% Production occupations 12.6% 14.6% 10.4% Transportation and material-moving occupations 6.4% 10.0% 2.3% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 3.0% 5.1% 0.6% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% Material-moving workers 2.6% 3.5% 1.6% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for Davis County. Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

148 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 5.4 Clearfield Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) Building & General Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Total Garden Merchandise Dealers Accessory Drinking Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1990 $2.5 5.7% $14.6 33.3% $11.3 25.8% $1.5 3.4% $12.5 28.4% $1.5 3.3% $43.8 1991 $2.1 5.5% $9.0 24.1% $10.6 28.3% $1.2 3.3% $12.3 32.9% $2.2 5.9% $37.3 1992 $2.0 4.6% $14.5 33.2% $12.3 28.2% $1.2 2.7% $11.2 25.5% $2.5 5.8% $43.7 1993 $2.2 4.0% $21.5 39.4% $12.9 23.6% $1.9 3.5% $14.1 25.8% $2.1 3.8% $54.7 1994 $0.6 1.0% $21.8 37.9% $13.5 23.5% $0.03 0.05% $1.1 1.9% $18.0 31.4% $2.4 4.2% $57.4 1995 $1.7 2.8% $22.9 37.7% $17.4 28.6% $0.03 0.05% $0.9 1.5% $14.9 24.5% $3.0 5.0% $60.8 1996 $1.6 2.6% $22.6 36.6% $21.2 34.4% $0.8 1.4% $12.2 19.7% $3.2 5.3% $61.7 1997 $25.8 41.7% $20.4 33.0% $0.7 1.1% $11.8 19.1% $3.1 5.0% $61.8 1998 $1.1 1.5% $36.2 47.5% $22.2 29.1% $0.7 0.9% $13.4 17.5% $2.6 3.5% $76.2 1999 $0.4 0.5% $1.4 1.7% $41.8 49.9% $21.3 25.3% $0.8 1.0% $13.5 16.1% $4.6 5.5% $83.9 2000 $0.4 0.5% $40.7 49.5% $18.8 22.8% $0.6 0.7% $1.0 1.2% $14.2 17.3% $6.5 7.9% $82.3 2001 $0.4 0.6% $40.4 50.5% $16.4 20.5% $0.6 0.8% $1.2 1.5% $14.3 17.9% $6.6 8.3% $80.0 2002 $0.6 0.7% $38.0 47.5% $17.2 21.4% $1.2 1.5% $16.2 20.2% $6.9 8.6% $80.1 2003 $0.7 0.9% $35.9 46.8% $15.2 19.8% $0.1 0.2% $1.8 2.3% $16.5 21.5% $6.6 8.5% $76.7 2004 $0.8 1.1% $30.8 42.8% $15.0 20.9% $0.1 0.2% $0.5 0.6% $17.9 24.9% $6.9 9.6% $71.9 2005 $0.7 1.0% $29.8 40.8% $15.2 20.8% $0.2 0.2% $0.7 1.0% $18.8 25.7% $7.7 10.5% $73.1 Change -78.0% -88.0% -35.1% -32.4% 104.0% 22.3% 34.8% -19.2% 490.2% 363.2% -50.7% -70.5% 51.0% -9.5% 426.6% 215.7% 66.8% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$90 Miscellaneous Eating & Drinking $80 Furniture Apparel & Accessory Motor Vehicle Dealers $70 Food Stores General Merchandise $60 Building & Garden

$50

$40

$30 Millions ofMillions Constant Dollars 2005

$20

$10

$0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 149

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 5.5

Clearfield Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005 $5

Property Taxes $4 Sales and Use Taxes

$3

$2

$1 Millions 2005 of Dollars Constant

$0

0 3 4 8 2 5 91 95 99 03 04 99 9 99 99 9 99 9 00 0 0 1 1 1992 1 1 1 1996 1997 1 1 2000 2001 2 2 2 200 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $3,432,911 $1,391,763 $5,039,144 1991 N/A N/A N/A 1992 $1,654,601 $1,535,039 $4,404,810 1993 $1,731,698 $2,426 $1,975,244 $5,369,301 1994 $1,727,356 $1,998,282 $5,630,313 1995 $1,788,759 $150,520 $2,236,117 $5,971,481 1996 $2,040,058 $2,539,592 $6,798,728 1997 $2,146,465 $2,518,954 $7,001,905 1998 $2,116,006 $3,895,691 $7,242,726 1999 $2,304,732 $3,908,447 $7,103,298 2000 $2,456,808 $3,348 $4,166,311 $7,452,814 2001 $3,534,925 $4,392,343 $8,815,054 2002 $3,888,145 $4,568,427 $9,584,887 2003 $3,909,732 $4,151,248 $9,147,139 2004 $3,932,465 $4,578,883 $9,548,455 2005 $4,082,324 $4,780,618 $10,181,801 Change 18.9% 243.5% 102.1% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

150 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.12 Detailed Breakdown of Clearfield Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 Property taxes: General Fund $2,269,622 $3,432,911 68.1% Bond Repayment Library Other Total property taxes $2,269,622 $3,432,911 $160.15 68.1% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $920,145 $1,391,763 $64.93 27.6% Public Utility Franchise Tax $19,655 $29,729 0.6% Building Permits $122,139 $184,741 3.7% Total Tax Revenues $3,331,561 $5,039,144 $235.09 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes: General Fund $1,768,154 $2,011,933 27.0% Redevelopment Agency $388,029 $441,527 5.9% Fee in Lieu $2,942 $3,348 0.0% Total Property Taxes $2,159,125 $2,456,808 $94.59 33.0% Sales and Use Tax $3,661,494 $4,166,311 $160.40 55.9% Franchise Tax $360,195 $409,856 5.5% Building Permits $152,446 $173,464 2.3% Other Licenses and Permits $216,523 $246,375 3.3% Total Tax Revenues $6,549,783 $7,452,814 $286.93 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $2,097,977 20.6% Debt Service $593,160 5.8% RDA increment $1,320,874 13.0% Delinquent $70,313 0.7% Total Property Taxes $4,082,324 $146.68 40.1% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $2,745,620 27.0% Energy Sales and Use Tax $1,752,874 17.2% Other $282,124 2.8% Total Sales Taxes $4,780,618 $171.77 47.0% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $36,757 0.4% Cable TV Franchise Tax $604,029 5.9% Water Franchise Tax $250,335 2.5% Licenses, Fees and Permits Business License Fees $150,203 1.5% Building Permit Fees $179,986 1.8% Other Licenses, Permits & Taxes $97,549 1.0% Total Tax Revenues $10,181,801 $365.84 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 151

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.13 Clearfield Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $79,313,357 9.2% $87,183,566 8.1% 9.9% Buildings $233,529,987 27.2% $332,816,530 30.7% 42.5% Total $312,843,344 36.4% $420,000,096 38.8% 34.3%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $43,641,192 5.1% $89,391,957 8.3% 104.8% Buildings $160,636,954 18.7% $286,572,462 26.5% 78.4% Total $204,278,147 23.8% $375,964,419 34.7% 84.0%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $881,018 0.1% $160,731 0.0% -81.8% Buildings $436,838 0.1% $140,041 0.0% -67.9% Total $1,317,856 0.2% $300,772 0.0% -77.2%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $9,073,294 1.1% $2,940,729 0.3% -67.6%

Total Land & Buildings $527,512,641 61.4% $850,265,078 78.5% 61.2% Total Personal Property $194,247,786 22.6% $196,375,851 18.1% 1.1% Total Locally Assessed $721,760,428 84.1% $1,046,640,929 96.7% 45.0% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $136,747,432 15.9% $36,166,431 3.3% -73.6% Area Total $858,507,859 100.0% $1,082,807,360 100.0% 26.1% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 5.14 Clearfield Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 9,500 Vacant Units 450 Total Occupied Units 9,050 Owner Occupied 5,450 Vacant Owner Units 250 Total Owner Units 5,700 Renter Occupied 3,600 Vacant Rental Units 200 Total Rental Units 3,800 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

152 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 5.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Clearfield, 1990–2006

800

700

600

500

400 Permits 300

200

100

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 5.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Clearfield by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 20 0 3 0 23 $1,400.2 1991 18 0 0 0 18 $1,258.6 1992 14 0 0 0 14 $996.3 1993 46 6 0 24 0 76 $4,463.1 1994 40 4 0 20 0 64 $4,324.8 1995 198 2 0 11 0 211 $14,314.9 1996 200 2 0 162 0 364 $24,809.2 1997 217 0 0 542 0 759 $43,000.6 1998 116 2 48 108 0 274 $17,010.1 1999 60 0 8 72 0 140 $7,401.6 2000 99 0 0 0 0 99 $8,825.0 2001 226 0 0 72 0 298 $27,102.2 2002 310 0 8 0 0 318 $34,398.5 2003 171 0 16 0 0 187 $19,410.3 2004 102 0 26 0 0 128 $14,337.6 2005 89 0 0 3 0 92 $12,646.1 2006 42 0 0 0 0 42 $5,630.5 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 153

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.16 Median Price of New Homes in Clearfield, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 26 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 12 19 6 $175,000–$199,999 8 56 26 $200,000–$224,999 0 0 34 $225,000–$249,999 0 0 0 $250,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 46 75 66 Median Price* $147,115 $158,035 $200,000 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 5.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Clearfield, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $103,000 $104,839 212 1998 $105,500 $106,695 221 1999 $108,500 $109,032 246 2000 $113,350 $113,176 223 2001 $119,400 $120,179 262 2002 $119,330 $118,579 301 2003 $115,513 $119,149 343 2004 $119,000 $120,918 355 2005 $129,900 $134,810 459 2006 $142,000 $143,619 477 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

154 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Clearfield, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Hotels Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & & Other Mercantile, Other & & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Motels Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $795.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $204.9 $3,854.8 $4,854.7 $8,121.9 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $181.2 $2,136.3 $2,317.5 $3,735.3 1996 $0.0 $62.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $59.1 $0.0 $0.0 $161.8 $3,075.5 $3,359.0 $5,274.6 1997 $0.0 $329.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,029.1 $1,546.1 $0.0 $165.2 $13,234.3 $16,304.3 $24,627.3 1998 $0.0 $175.2 $1,200.6 $13,949.7 $0.0 $290.0 $340.3 $3,171.0 $1,254.3 $1,675.9 $22,057.0 $31,860.1 1999 $0.0 $70.8 $0.0 $95.4 $0.0 $0.0 $98.0 $3,171.0 $49.0 $1,639.8 $5,124.0 $7,128.7 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $472.7 $0.0 $275.5 $544.8 $2,359.7 $522.3 $3,797.3 $7,972.3 $10,625.3 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $1,042.4 $3,508.5 $0.0 $2,389.4 $0.0 $0.0 $11.1 $2,239.2 $9,190.6 $11,889.3 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,102.7 $0.0 $2,100.0 $951.9 $99.0 $291.5 $3,803.8 $8,348.9 $10,695.8 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $747.8 $0.0 $1,696.5 $0.0 $1,153.0 $4,243.2 $176.7 $1,835.1 $9,852.3 $12,581.1 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $708.2 $8.0 $0.0 $405.8 $1,143.3 $0.0 $122.0 $2,554.6 $4,941.9 $5,983.1 2005 $0.0 $2,725.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,331.4 $1,604.5 $148.4 $47.8 $2,866.0 $10,723.7 $11,860.4 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $989.2 $447.6 $0.0 $3,483.5 $5,436.8 $455.2 $397.1 $3,721.7 $14,931.1 $14,931.1 Total $0.0 $3,363.8 $4,688.2 $20,379.6 $1,696.5 $13,363.8 $12,818.7 $13,647.5 $3,584.9 $46,434.3 $119,977.3 $159,313.9 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 155

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 5.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Clearfield, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 0.00 0.00 1991 0.00 0.00 1992 7.60 0.00 1993 0.00 0.00 1994 23.87 0.00 1995 66.15 4.35 1996 57.77 0.00 1997 71.45 0.00 1998 20.51 0.00 1999 45.96 1.44 2000 70.80 0.00 2001 73.24 0.00 2003 33.18 9.88 2002 4.00 0.00 2004 28.58 0.00 2005 31.58 9.94 2006 36.08 0.00 Total 570.77 25.61 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

156 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

C LINTON

Table 6.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Clinton

Population Population (2005) 18,436 Median Age (2000) 25.3 Average Household Income (2006) $62,758

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 5,950 100.0% Owner Occupied 5,520 92.8% Renter Occupied 315 5.3% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $170,000 New $195,752

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $4.4 Property Tax Receipts (millions) $1.1 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $2.1 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $115 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 157

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Clinton, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 7,945 12,585 58.4% Age Under 5 Years 886 11.2% 1,429 11.4% 61.3% 5 to 17 Years 2,855 35.9% 3,322 26.4% 16.4% 18 to 20 Years 280 3.5% 598 4.8% 113.6% 21 to 24 Years 248 3.1% 875 7.0% 252.8% 25 to 44 Years 2,810 35.4% 3,996 31.8% 42.2% 45 to 54 Years 552 6.9% 1,326 10.5% 140.2% 55 to 59 Years 164 2.1% 317 2.5% 93.3% 60 to 64 Years 113 1.4% 222 1.8% 96.5% 65 Years and Over 226 2.8% 500 4.0% 121.2% Median Age 20.4 25.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 6.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Clinton, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 9.2% 7.5% High School Graduate* 29.5% 31.3% Some College, No Degree 35.1% 31.4% Associate's Degree 10.4% 10.0% Bachelor's Degree 13.4% 15.9% Graduate or Professional degree 2.3% 3.9% Master's Degree N/A 2.9% Professional Degree N/A 0.9% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.1% By Sex Male: Less than High School 7.4% High School Graduate* 25.9% Some College, No Degree 30.5% Associate's Degree 10.4% Bachelor's Degree 19.9% Master's Degree 4.2% Professional Degree 1.4% Doctorate Degree 0.2% Female: Less than High School 7.5% High School Graduate* 36.7% Some College, No Degree 32.3% Associate's Degree 9.7% Bachelor's Degree 11.9% Master's Degree 1.5% Professional Degree 0.4% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

158 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 6.1 Clinton Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black American 75 - 79 7.7% Indian, 70 - 74 Eskimo, or 65 - 69 Aleut 60 - 64 2.4% 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 Asian or 40 - 44 Pacific 35 - 39 Islander 30 - 34 21.4% 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 Other race 10 - 14 Hispanic 0.1% 5 - 9 68.4% Under 5 800 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 800 Male Female

Age Distribution of the Clinton Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 450 436 1.03 11.2% 4.4% Clinton Share of 5–9 597 564 1.06 14.6% 5.2% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 600 586 1.02 14.9% 5.3% Total 7,945 100.0% 4.2% 15–19 365 340 1.07 8.9% 4.1% 20–24 157 174 0.90 4.2% 2.5% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 248 319 0.78 7.1% 3.9% White 7,268 91.5% 4.2% 30–34 362 371 0.98 9.2% 4.8% Black 52 0.7% 2.3% 35–39 386 412 0.94 10.0% 5.9% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 16 0.2% 1.6% 40–44 287 236 1.22 6.6% 4.7% Asian or Pacific Islander 145 1.8% 4.7% 45–49 160 150 1.07 3.9% 3.5% Other race 1 0.0% 1.3% 50–54 119 123 0.97 3.0% 3.4% Ethnicity 55–59 86 78 1.10 2.1% 2.6% Hispanic Origin 463 5.8% 3.4% 60–64 55 58 0.95 1.4% 2.2% 65–69 53 36 1.47 1.1% 2.0% Minority 677 8.5% 4.9% 70–74 24 30 0.80 0.7% 1.8% 75–79 19 21 0.90 0.5% 2.1% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 13 13 1.00 0.3% 2.1% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 4 13 0.31 0.2% 1.9% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that Total 3,985 3,960 1.01 100.0% 4.2% the city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's Share 60 years+ 4.3% 1.4% share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Median Age 20.4 female ratio greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 159

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 6.2 Clinton Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 +

80 - 84 Black alone 75 - 79 (NH) AIAN alone 70 - 74 7.1% (NH) 65 - 69 3.2% 60 - 64 Asian alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 13.5% 45 - 49 40 - 44 NHPI alone 35 - 39 (NH) 2.2% 30 - 34 25 - 29 Some other 20 - 24 race alone 15 - 19 (NH) Hispanic 10 - 14 0.9% 5 - 9 62.2% Under 5 Two or more 800 400 0 400 800 races (NH) 10.9% Male Female

Age Distribution of the Clinton Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 745 684 1.09 11.4% 6.1% Clinton Share of 5–9 646 612 1.06 10.0% 5.6% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 661 629 1.05 10.3% 5.6% Total 12,585 100.0% 5.3% 15–19 604 566 1.07 9.3% 4.9% 20–24 507 570 0.89 8.6% 5.3% Not Hispanic or Latino 11,574 92.0% 5.1% 25–29 609 568 1.07 9.4% 6.8% White alone 10,960 87.1% 5.1% 30–34 480 478 1.00 7.6% 6.0% Black or African American alone 116 0.9% 4.6% 35–39 487 501 0.97 7.9% 5.8% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 52 0.4% 4.4% 40–44 440 433 1.02 6.9% 5.2% Asian alone 220 1.7% 6.2% 45–49 379 384 0.99 6.1% 5.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 35 0.3% 5.7% 50–54 301 262 1.15 4.5% 5.0% Some other race alone 14 0.1% 6.9% 55–59 169 148 1.14 2.5% 3.7% Two or more races 177 1.4% 5.3% 60–64 107 115 0.93 1.8% 3.4% Ethnicity 65–69 73 76 0.96 1.2% 2.7% Hispanic or Latino 1,011 8.0% 7.8% 70–74 47 70 0.67 0.9% 2.6% 75–79 50 37 1.35 0.7% 2.4% Minority 1,625 12.9% 6.7% 80–84 27 53 0.51 0.6% 3.6% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 21 46 0.46 0.5% 4.0% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 6,353 6,232 1.02 100.0% 5.3% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's Share 60 years+ 5.7% 3.0% share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater Median Age 25.3 than one.

160 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 6.3 Distribution of Household Income in Clinton 1995-2005 35%

30%

25%

1995 2000 2005

20%

15%

Share of Households 10%

5%

0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 ,00 ,00 00 00 00 00 0 5 0 5, 0, 5, 0,0 5,0 0,0 5, 0, 10,000 4 4 5 $5,000 $ $2 $3 $3 $7 100,00025 $ er - - - - $250,000 1 - r Und 01 - 1 ,001 ,001 ,00 0 Ove ,00 $5,001 50, $10,001$15,001 - $1 $20- $2 $25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $ $45,001 - $ $- $ $75 100,001 - $ $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 116 4.8% 99 3.0% 118 2.4% $5,001–$10,000 104 4.3% 89 2.7% 157 3.2% $10,001–$15,000 127 5.2% 103 3.1% 191 3.9% $15,001–$20,000 149 6.1% 134 4.0% 197 4.0% $20,001–$25,000 163 6.7% 133 4.0% 238 4.8% $25,001–$30,000 174 7.2% 161 4.8% 267 5.4% $30,001–$35,000 192 7.9% 207 6.2% 293 5.9% $35,001–$40,000 200 8.2% 216 6.5% 324 6.5% $40,001–$45,000 210 8.7% 268 8.0% 332 6.7% $45,001–$50,000 183 7.5% 268 8.0% 344 6.9% $50,001–$75,000 588 24.2% 1,057 31.6% 1,343 27.1% $75,001–$100,000 168 6.9% 408 12.2% 684 13.8% $100,001–$250,000 53 2.2% 176 5.3% 455 9.2% Over $250,000 22 0.7% 11 0.2% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 161

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.4 Share of Persons in Clinton Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999

By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 5.0% 3.6% Male 5.2% 2.3% Under 5 years 14.0% 4.2% Under 5 years 15.7% 1.5% 5 years 6.7% 0.0% 5 years 12.6% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 2.8% 7.4% 6 to 11 years 2.6% 6.7% 12 to 17 years 2.6% 6.3% 12 to 17 years 3.0% 5.9% 18 to 64 years 4.8% 2.6% 18 to 64 years 4.3% 1.1% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 2.8% 75 years and over 0.0% 0.0% Female 4.8% 5.0% Under 5 years 12.1% 7.3% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 3.0% 8.0% 12 to 17 years 2.1% 6.8% 18 to 64 years 5.3% 4.0% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 5.9% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 6.5 Clinton Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 Census 2000 Census Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 3,311 100.0% 6,249 100.0% 2,938 88.7% Drove alone 2,699 81.5% 5,059 81.0% 2,360 87.4% Carpooled 413 12.5% 838 13.4% 425 102.9% Public transportation (including taxicab) 19 0.6% 72 1.2% 53 278.9% Bicycle or walked 23 0.7% 42 0.7% 19 82.6% Motorcycle or other means 36 1.1% 14 0.2% -22 -61.1% Worked at home 121 3.7% 224 3.6% 103 85.1%

1990 Census 2000 Census Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 3,190 100.0% 6,025 100.0% 2,835 88.9% Less than 5 minutes 17 0.5% 187 3.1% 170 1000.0% 5 to 9 minutes 284 8.9% 459 7.6% 175 61.6% 10 to 14 minutes 686 21.5% 965 16.0% 279 40.7% 15 to 19 minutes 859 26.9% 1,542 25.6% 683 79.5% 20 to 24 minutes 745 23.4% 1,232 20.4% 487 65.4% 25 to 29 minutes 121 3.8% 265 4.4% 144 119.0% 30 to 34 minutes 179 5.6% 373 6.2% 194 108.4% 35 to 39 minutes 42 1.3% 71 1.2% 29 69.0% 40 to 44 minutes 60 1.9% 219 3.6% 159 265.0% 45 or more minutes 197 6.2% 712 11.8% 515 261.4% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 19.6 22.2 2.6 13.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

162 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.6: Nonagricultural Employment in Sunset–Syracuse* by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 2,421 100.0% 2,648 100.0% 2,706 100.0% 3,062 100.0% 3,294 100.0% 3,173 100.0% 3,894 100.0% 3,575 100.0% 3,755 100.0% 3,926 100.0% 4,484 100.0% Mining 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 0.0% Construction 248 10.2% 244 9.2% 325 12.0% 371 12.1% 444 13.5% 466 14.7% 644 16.5% 807 22.6% 880 23.4% 894 22.8% 1,351 30.1% Manufacturing 94 3.9% 107 4.0% 148 5.5% 180 5.9% 194 5.9% 177 5.6% 270 6.9% 115 3.2% 141 3.8% 149 3.8% 96 2.1% TCPU 157 6.5% 166 6.3% 152 5.6% 157 5.1% 173 5.3% 217 6.8% 269 6.9% 47 1.3% 50 1.3% 46 1.2% 22 0.5% Trade 981 40.5% 1,021 38.6% 743 27.5% 761 24.9% 802 24.3% 839 26.4% 906 23.3% 1,084 30.3% 1,208 32.2% 1,248 31.8% 1,310 29.2% FIRE 40 1.7% 42 1.6% 65 2.4% 83 2.7% 115 3.5% 113 3.6% 102 2.6% 77 2.2% 93 2.5% 108 2.8% 171 3.8% Services 152 6.3% 180 6.8% 238 8.8% 463 15.1% 521 15.8% 449 14.2% 644 16.5% 448 12.5% 434 11.6% 548 14.0% 928 20.7% Government 749 30.9% 888 33.5% 1,035 38.2% 1,047 34.2% 1,045 31.7% 1,104 34.8% 1,059 27.2% 997 27.9% 949 25.3% 933 23.8% 606 13.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 3,706 100.0% 3,164 100.0% 3,484 100.0% 3,630 100.0% 3,954 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 541 14.6% 541 17.1% 599 17.2% 724 19.9% 839 21.2% Manufacturing 182 4.9% 176 5.6% 156 4.5% 167 4.6% 178 4.5% Trade, Transp., Utilities 694 18.7% 699 22.1% 707 20.3% 741 20.4% 750 19.0% Information 15 0.4% 5 0.2% 7 0.2% 12 0.3% 12 0.3% Financial Activities 104 2.8% 128 4.0% 144 4.1% 154 4.2% 179 4.5% Prof. & Business Services 220 5.9% 239 7.6% 447 12.8% 253 7.0% 378 9.5% Education & Health Services 346 9.3% 355 11.2% 347 10.0% 426 11.7% 454 11.5% Leisure & Hospitality 220 5.9% 257 8.1% 284 8.1% 352 9.7% 334 8.5% Other Services 93 2.5% 93 2.9% 93 2.7% 90 2.5% 89 2.2% Government 1,290 34.8% 670 21.2% 699 20.1% 712 19.6% 742 18.8% *The Sunset–Syracuse worksite district includes Clinton and West Point. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

Table 6.7 Major Employers in Clinton, 2005–2007

Company Industry 2005 250–499 Employees Wal-Mart Retail Trade

2007 250–499 Employees Wal-Mart Retail Trade Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 163

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.8: Total Nonagricultural Wages in Sunset–Syracuse* by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $58.0 100.0% $64.7 100.0% $60.2 100.0% $66.2 100.0% $74.4 100.0% $75.3 100.0% $99.9 100.0% $85.1 100.0% $92.8 100.0% $98.3 100.0% $101.4 100.0% Mining $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% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $6.4 11.0% $6.2 9.6% $8.2 13.6% $9.1 13.7% $10.6 14.2% $12.0 16.0% $18.5 18.5% $22.5 26.4% $24.9 26.8% $24.8 25.2% $36.5 36.0% Manufacturing $1.6 2.8% $2.2 3.4% $5.0 8.3% $5.9 8.9% $6.5 8.8% $6.6 8.8% $13.0 13.0% $5.3 6.2% $5.7 6.1% $6.1 6.2% $3.4 3.3% TCPU $5.0 8.6% $4.9 7.5% $4.7 7.9% $4.9 7.4% $5.7 7.7% $7.6 10.1% $10.3 10.3% $1.4 1.7% $1.8 1.9% $1.4 1.5% $0.8 0.8% Trade $21.9 37.7% $23.0 35.5% $14.0 23.3% $14.6 22.0% $16.0 21.5% $16.0 21.3% $17.2 17.2% $19.8 23.3% $23.7 25.5% $25.2 25.7% $24.1 23.8% FIRE $0.7 1.1% $0.8 1.2% $1.3 2.2% $1.7 2.5% $2.1 2.8% $2.2 2.9% $1.9 1.9% $1.4 1.6% $1.8 1.9% $2.0 2.1% $3.1 3.1% Services $1.9 3.2% $3.6 5.6% $4.3 7.1% $6.8 10.3% $10.8 14.5% $11.1 14.7% $14.1 14.1% $10.4 12.2% $10.9 11.7% $14.2 14.5% $20.6 20.3% Government $20.7 35.6% $24.0 37.2% $22.6 37.6% $23.3 35.2% $22.6 30.4% $2.4 3.1% $24.9 24.9% $24.4 28.7% $24.2 26.1% $24.5 24.9% $12.9 12.7% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $113.1 100.0% $78.9 100.0% $86.7 100.0% $91.4 100.0% $97.8 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $14.5 12.8% $14.6 18.5% $16.0 18.4% $19.8 21.7% $23.3 23.8% Manufacturing $6.3 5.6% $5.9 7.5% $5.7 6.5% $6.3 6.8% $7.0 7.2% Trade, Transp., Utilities $15.4 13.6% $15.5 19.7% $15.9 18.3% $15.5 17.0% $16.2 16.6% Information $0.7 0.6% $0.3 0.4% $0.4 0.4% $0.6 0.7% $0.7 0.7% Financial Activities $2.4 2.1% $3.0 3.8% $3.5 4.0% $4.0 4.3% $4.5 4.6% Prof & Bus Services $5.3 4.7% $6.2 7.8% $10.7 12.3% $6.1 6.6% $7.6 7.8% Edu & Health Services $7.8 6.9% $7.3 9.2% $8.6 9.9% $11.8 12.9% $11.6 11.8% Leisure & Hospitality $1.6 1.5% $2.0 2.5% $2.3 2.6% $3.0 3.3% $2.8 2.9% Other Services $6.7 5.9% $4.5 5.8% $4.0 4.6% $3.9 4.3% $3.7 3.8% Government $52.2 46.2% $19.5 24.7% $19.9 22.9% $20.5 22.4% $20.4 20.9% *The Sunset–Syracuse worksite district includes Clinton and West Point. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

164 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.9 Employment and Wage Changes in Sunset– Syracuse*, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 85.2% 74.9% Mining Construction 444.8% 194.1% 474.0% 228.2% Manufacturing 2.1% -44.9% 109.0% 19.5% TCPU -86.0% -92.4% -84.0% -90.8% Trade 33.5% -27.9% 10.4% -36.9% FIRE 327.5% 130.8% 375.1% 171.6% Services 510.5% 229.6% 1010.1% 534.7% Government -19.1% -56.3% -37.7% -64.4%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 6.7% -13.5% Mining Construction 55.1% 45.3% 60.4% 85.4% Manufacturing -2.4% -8.5% 11.2% 28.6% Trade, Transp, Utilities 8.1% 1.3% 5.1% 21.5% Information -17.5% -22.7% -10.2% 3.8% Financial Activities 71.8% 61.0% 86.0% 115.1% Prof & Bus Services 71.6% 60.9% 42.3% 64.5% Edu & Health Services 31.3% 23.1% 48.2% 71.4% Leisure & Hosp 52.0% 42.4% 72.4% 99.3% Other Services -4.6% -10.6% -44.2% -35.4% Government -42.5% -46.1% -60.9% -54.8% *The Sunset–Syracuse worksite district includes Clinton and West Point. †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 6.10: Sunset–Syracuse* Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 2.40 1.90 2.29 2.03 2.02 2.13 2.22 2.81 2.81 2.71 3.66 Manufacturing 0.31 0.32 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.38 0.49 0.24 0.29 0.30 0.18 TCPU 1.60 1.54 1.56 1.50 1.53 2.16 1.98 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.13 Trade 1.72 1.58 1.10 0.99 0.97 1.02 0.89 1.20 1.26 1.26 1.15 FIRE 0.76 0.62 0.82 0.77 0.86 0.90 0.65 0.53 0.61 0.75 1.10 Services 0.36 0.40 0.50 0.83 0.84 0.72 0.80 0.61 0.56 0.66 0.97 Government 0.86 0.98 1.16 1.13 1.15 1.37 1.14 1.11 1.02 0.95 0.53

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 1.80 2.26 2.25 2.48 2.46 Manufacturing 0.43 0.49 0.39 0.41 0.41 Trade, Transp, Utilities 0.87 1.05 0.99 0.98 0.95 Information 0.47 0.17 0.21 0.34 0.34 Financial Activities 0.74 1.12 1.04 1.03 1.11 Prof & Bus Services 0.75 0.88 1.49 0.79 0.99 Edu & Health Services 1.08 1.31 1.12 1.32 1.28 Leisure & Hosp 0.66 0.92 0.91 1.09 0.95 Other Services 0.91 0.99 0.90 0.83 0.79 Government 1.34 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.75 *The Sunset–Syracuse worksite district includes Clinton and West Point. Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 165

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Clinton, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 29.8% 29.7% 29.9% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 10.1% 11.6% 8.3% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 6.2% 7.3% 4.9% Farmers and farm managers 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 3.6% 3.8% 3.4% Business operations specialists 1.8% 1.9% 1.7% Financial specialists 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% Professional and related occupations 19.7% 18.2% 21.6% Computer and mathematical occupations 3.7% 5.5% 1.6% Architecture and engineering occupations 3.1% 4.9% 0.9% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 1.7% 3.0% 0.1% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 1.4% 1.9% 0.7% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% Community and social services occupations 1.0% 0.7% 1.4% Legal occupations 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% Education, training, and library occupations 6.4% 2.4% 11.2% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.1% 1.2% 1.0% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 3.8% 2.7% 5.2% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 2.3% 1.8% 3.0% Health technologists and technicians 1.5% 0.8% 2.2% Service occupations 13.0% 9.5% 17.2% Healthcare support occupations 1.4% 0.0% 3.1% Protective service occupations 2.1% 3.2% 0.6% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 1.7% 2.6% 0.6% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% Food preparation and serving related occupations 4.0% 2.7% 5.7% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 1.8% 2.1% 1.3% Personal care and service occupations 3.8% 1.5% 6.5% Sales and office occupations 29.0% 16.0% 44.6% Sales and related occupations 11.9% 8.9% 15.5% Office and administrative support occupations 17.1% 7.1% 29.2% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 13.2% 23.4% 0.9% Construction and extraction occupations 6.2% 11.3% 0.2% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.9% 1.6% 0.0% Construction trades workers 5.4% 9.7% 0.2% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 7.0% 12.1% 0.7% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 14.6% 20.8% 7.1% Production occupations 8.5% 10.5% 6.0% Transportation and material moving occupations 6.2% 10.4% 1.1% Supervisors, transportation and material moving workers 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 2.8% 4.8% 0.2% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% Material moving workers 2.2% 3.3% 0.9% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for Davis County. Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

166 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 6.4 Clinton Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$2.5

Property Taxes $2.0 Sales and Use Taxes

$1.5

$1.0

$0.5 Millions 2005 of Dollars Constant

$0.0

0 2 3 5 6 8 0 1 3 91 94 99 02 04 99 9 99 9 99 99 9 00 0 0 1 1 199 1 1 199 1 1997 1 1 200 2 2 200 2 2005 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $548,084 $237,376 $965,818 1991 $515,141 $369,291 $1,073,275 1992 $494,164 $403,707 $1,094,407 1993 $508,853 $72,299 $525,122 $1,247,327 1994 $507,265 $78,163 $542,591 $1,283,321 1995 $528,763 $63,132 $544,737 $1,389,710 1996 $591,834 $97,611 $644,835 $1,727,151 1997 $645,344 $123,067 $677,242 $1,997,177 1998 $716,647 $130,895 $690,933 $2,100,123 1999 $806,936 $127,985 $732,447 $2,502,460 2000 $841,346 $119,152 $913,437 $2,614,002 2001 $863,394 $121,927 $1,336,932 $2,709,492 2002 $944,492 $163,052 $1,445,766 $2,554,951 2003 $1,033,234 $157,547 $1,369,057 $2,402,291 2004 $1,084,824 $179,757 $1,839,108 $4,058,422 2005 $1,118,520 $179,721 $2,118,917 $4,417,131 Change 104.1% 148.6% 792.6% 357.3% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 167

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.12 Detailed Breakdown of Clinton Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 $965,818 Property taxes: General Fund $362,358 $548,084 56.7% Total property taxes $362,358 $548,084 $68.98 56.7% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $156,938 $237,376 $29.88 24.6% Public Utility Franchise Tax $98,626 $149,177 15.4% Building Permits $15,899 $24,048 2.5% Other Licenses and Permits $4,716 $7,133 0.7% Total Tax Revenues $638,537 $965,818 $121.56 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes: General Fund $634,688 $722,194 27.6% Fee in Lieu $104,715 $119,152 4.6% Total Property Taxes $739,403 $841,346 $66.85 32.2% Sales and Use Tax $802,759 $913,437 $72.58 34.9% Franchise Tax $297,138 $338,105 12.9% Building Permits $438,821 $499,322 19.1% Other Licenses and Permits $19,152 $21,793 0.8% Total Tax Revenues $2,297,273 $2,614,002 $207.71 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $897,501 20.3% Delinquent $41,298 0.9% Fee in lieu $179,721 4.1% Total Property Taxes $1,118,520 $60.67 25.3% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $1,653,703 37.4% Energy Sales and Use Tax $465,214 10.5% Total Sales Taxes $2,118,917 $114.93 48.0% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $214,876 4.9% Cable TV Franchise Tax $61,575 1.4% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $46,076 1.0% Building Permit Fees $646,223 14.6% Other Licenses, Permits & Taxes $210,944 4.8% Total Tax Revenues $4,417,131 $239.59 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

168 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.13 Clinton Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $44,469,256 16.8% $164,910,267 29.0% 270.8% Buildings $144,000,935 54.5% $296,422,352 52.1% 105.8% Total $188,470,191 71.3% $461,332,619 81.0% 144.8%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $643,023 0.2% $15,080,437 2.6% 2245.2% Buildings $3,597,469 1.4% $39,391,350 6.9% 995.0% Total $4,240,491 1.6% $54,471,787 9.6% 1184.6%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $1,440,977 0.5% $354,784 0.1% -75.4% Buildings $1,122,110 0.4% $74,864 0.0% -93.3% Total $2,563,087 1.0% $429,648 0.1% -83.2%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $15,680,343 5.9% $3,517,767 0.6% -77.6%

Total Land & Buildings $210,954,112 79.8% $546,415,620 96.0% 159.0% Total Personal Property $1,931,308 0.7% $12,956,080 2.3% 570.8% Total Locally Assessed $212,885,420 80.5% $559,371,700 98.3% 162.8% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $51,478,371 19.5% $9,916,600 1.7% -80.7% Area Total $264,363,791 100.0% $569,288,300 100.0% 115.3% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 6.14 Clinton Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 5,950 Vacant Units 115 Total Occupied Units 5,835 Owner Occupied 5,520 Vacant Owner Units 100 Total Owner Units 5,620 Renter Occupied 315 Vacant Rental Units 15 Total Rental Units 330 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 169

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 6.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Clinton, 1990–2006 500

450

400

350

300

250

Permits 200

150

100

50

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 6.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Clinton by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 19 0 0 0 19 $1,323.8 1991 32 0 0 0 32 $2,568.4 1992 48 0 0 0 48 $4,184.6 1993 71 0 0 0 0 71 $6,339.8 1994 97 0 0 0 0 97 $9,592.4 1995 123 0 0 0 0 123 $12,055.4 1996 309 0 0 0 0 309 $28,651.4 1997 310 0 0 64 0 374 $30,925.1 1998 237 0 0 0 0 237 $22,546.8 1999 345 0 0 60 0 405 $38,114.4 2000 252 0 0 0 0 252 $27,243.1 2001 298 0 0 0 0 298 $33,607.3 2002 314 0 0 0 0 314 $39,262.5 2003 381 0 28 0 0 409 $59,179.1 2004 384 0 60 0 0 444 $63,522.9 2005 317 0 36 0 0 353 $50,756.8 2006 216 0 0 0 0 216 $33,977.2 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

170 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.16 Median Price of New Homes in Clinton, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 31 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 38 6 0 $150,000–$174,999 88 86 34 $175,000–$199,999 102 115 103 $200,000–$224,999 34 66 57 $225,000–$249,999 3 41 40 $250,000–$274,999 0 0 0 $275,000–$299,999 0 0 5 $300,000–$324,999 0 0 0 $325,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 296 314 239 Median Price* $172,443 $189,130 $195,752 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 6.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Clinton, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $113,843 $115,916 173 1998 $118,000 $118,856 161 1999 $124,000 $125,756 177 2000 $125,300 $127,205 202 2001 $132,500 $133,949 228 2002 $124,900 $130,598 256 2003 $130,900 $134,634 291 2004 $138,525 $141,461 379 2005 $153,850 $158,444 477 2006 $170,000 $175,843 580 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 171

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Clinton, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Hotels Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & & Other Mercantile, Other & & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Motels Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.8 $4.7 $15.5 $25.9 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $446.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $697.8 $0.0 $0.3 $1,145.0 $1,845.5 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $23.4 $23.4 $36.7 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $107.6 $0.0 $149.9 $39.1 $296.6 $448.0 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $1,040.3 $0.0 $0.0 $444.2 $0.0 $0.0 $166.3 $0.0 $1,650.8 $2,384.5 1999 $0.0 $280.1 $1,426.4 $0.0 $0.0 $85.4 $3,576.0 $0.0 $16.2 $18.5 $5,402.6 $7,516.2 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $1,375.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $782.1 $0.0 $138.3 $77.9 $2,373.3 $3,163.1 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.0 $0.0 $19.3 $10.9 $0.0 $205.9 $0.0 $282.1 $364.9 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.3 $596.5 $0.0 $52.3 $0.0 $654.1 $838.0 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $587.7 $9,212.3 $0.0 $14.6 $76.7 $9,891.3 $12,630.9 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $216.5 $3,122.8 $1,070.1 $0.0 $466.2 $917.1 $5,792.7 $7,013.1 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $225.0 $0.0 $342.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,307.3 $1,875.2 $2,074.0 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $2,600.0 $0.0 $0.0 $235.7 $1,762.0 $0.0 $2,286.0 $1,421.5 $8,305.2 $8,305.2 Total $0.0 $280.1 $6,441.7 $717.9 $216.5 $4,843.3 $17,117.5 $697.8 $3,506.5 $3,886.5 $37,707.8 $46,646.1 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

172 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 6.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Clinton, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 36.78 0.00 1991 5.25 0.00 1992 9.96 0.00 1993 6.71 0.00 1994 38.12 0.00 1995 68.64 0.00 1996 114.21 0.00 1997 95.51 0.00 1998 85.14 0.00 1999 90.39 0.00 2000 102.90 0.00 2001 118.58 0.00 2003 101.34 0.00 2002 72.07 0.00 2004 86.17 0.00 2005 64.78 0.00 2006 119.50 8.05 Total 1216.05 8.05 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 173

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

F ARMINGTON

Table 7.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Farmington

Population Population (2005) 13,960 Median Age (2000) 26.3 Average Household Income (2006) $99,625

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 5,191 Employer Firms (2005) 319 Average Annual Wage (2005) $24,833 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Government 2,325 44.8% Leisure & Hospitality 1,364 26.3% Professional & Business Services 351 6.8%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $14.3 Major Retail Categories (millions) Food Stores $9.1 Eating & Drinking $3.0 Furniture $1.2 Per Capita Retail Sales $1,023

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 4,700 100.0% Owner Occupied 4,045 86.1% Renter Occupied 525 11.2% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $289,000 New $235,869

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $4.6 Property Tax Receipts $1.8 Sales and Use Tax Receipts $1.6 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $329 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

174 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Farmington, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 9,028 12,081 33.8% Age Under 5 Years 1,011 11.2% 960 7.9% -5.0% 5 to 17 Years 3,061 33.9% 3,511 29.1% 14.7% 18 to 20 Years 409 4.5% 685 5.7% 67.5% 21 to 24 Years 336 3.7% 693 5.7% 106.3% 25 to 44 Years 2,847 31.5% 3,276 27.1% 15.1% 45 to 54 Years 815 9.0% 1,490 12.3% 82.8% 55 to 59 Years 227 2.5% 486 4.0% 114.1% 60 to 64 Years 153 1.7% 323 2.7% 111.1% 65 Years and Over 401 4.4% 657 5.4% 63.8% Median Age 21.3 26.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Farmington, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 6.4% 5.4% High School Graduate* 14.6% 17.0% Some College, No Degree 33.0% 28.8% Associate’s Degree 8.8% 6.7% Bachelor’s Degree 26.0% 28.3% Graduate or Professional degree 11.3% 13.9% Master’s Degree N/A 8.6% Professional Degree N/A 4.1% Doctorate Degree N/A 1.2% By Sex Male: Less than High School 5.5% High School Graduate* 14.5% Some College, No Degree 21.4% Associate’s Degree 5.2% Bachelor’s Degree 32.0% Master’s Degree 13.6% Professional Degree 5.6% Doctorate Degree 2.2% Female: Less than High School 5.3% High School Graduate* 19.7% Some College, No Degree 36.8% Associate’s Degree 8.4% Bachelor’s Degree 24.2% Master’s Degree 3.1% Professional Degree 2.5% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 175

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 7.1 Farmington Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black 75 - 79 9.7% 70 - 74 American 65 - 69 Indian, 60 - 64 Eskimo, or 55 - 59 Aleut 50 - 54 7.6% 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 30 - 34 Asian or 25 - 29 Hispanic Pacific 57.2% 20 - 24 Islander 25.0% 15 - 19 10 - 14 5 - 9 Under 5

800 400 0 400 800 Other race Male Female 0.4%

Age Distribution of the Farmington Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 532 479 1.11 11.2% 5.1% Farmington Share of 5–9 645 572 1.13 13.5% 5.5% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 668 609 1.10 14.1% 5.7% Total 9,028 100.0% 4.8% 15–19 473 386 1.23 9.5% 5.0% 20–24 267 186 1.44 5.0% 3.5% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 251 286 0.88 5.9% 3.7% White 8,792 97.4% 5.0% 30–34 363 417 0.87 8.6% 5.1% Black 23 0.3% 1.0% 35–39 340 330 1.03 7.4% 4.9% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 18 0.2% 1.8% 40–44 299 329 0.91 7.0% 5.7% Asian or Pacific Islander 59 0.7% 1.9% 45–49 260 232 1.12 5.4% 5.5% Other race 1 0.0% 1.3% 50–54 182 141 1.29 3.6% 4.6% Ethnicity 55–59 117 110 1.06 2.5% 3.6% Hispanic Origin 135 1.5% 1.0% 60–64 79 74 1.07 1.7% 3.0% 65–69 68 73 0.93 1.6% 3.1% Minority 236 2.6% 1.7% 70–74 38 54 0.70 1.0% 3.1% 75–79 30 45 0.67 0.8% 3.9% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 26 27 0.96 0.6% 4.3% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 10 30 0.33 0.4% 4.6% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's Total 4,648 4,380 1.06 100.0% 4.8% share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Share 60 years+ 6.1% 2.4% female ratio greater than one. Median Age 21.3

176 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 7.2 Farmington Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 75 - 79 Black alone 70 - 74 (NH) 65 - 69 6.2% AIAN alone 60 - 64 (NH) 55 - 59 9.4% 50 - 54 45 - 49 Asian alone (NH) 40 - 44 14.7% 35 - 39 Hispanic 30 - 34 NHPI alone 52.0% 25 - 29 (NH) 20 - 24 2.9% 15 - 19 Some other race alone 10 - 14 (NH) 5 - 9 Two or more 1.0% Under 5 races (NH) 800 400 0 400 800 13.7% Male Female

Age Distribution of the Farmington Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 526 434 1.21 7.9% 4.1% Farmington Share of 5–9 594 583 1.02 9.7% 5.2% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 686 690 0.99 11.4% 6.0% Total 12,081 100.0% 5.1% 15–19 800 655 1.22 12.0% 6.1% 20–24 519 362 1.43 7.3% 4.4% Not Hispanic or Latino 11,721 97.0% 5.2% 25–29 399 334 1.19 6.1% 4.2% White alone 11,389 94.3% 5.3% 30–34 341 334 1.02 5.6% 4.2% Black or African American alone 43 0.4% 1.7% 35–39 433 400 1.08 6.9% 4.9% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 65 0.5% 5.5% 40–44 503 532 0.95 8.6% 6.1% Asian alone 102 0.8% 2.9% 45–49 444 400 1.11 7.0% 5.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 20 0.2% 3.3% 50–54 325 321 1.01 5.3% 5.7% Some other race alone 7 0.1% 3.4% 55–59 249 237 1.05 4.0% 5.7% Two or more races 95 0.8% 2.9% 60–64 166 157 1.06 2.7% 5.0% Ethnicity 65–69 123 120 1.03 2.0% 4.4% Hispanic or Latino 360 3.0% 2.8% 70–74 85 73 1.16 1.3% 3.6% 75–79 61 62 0.98 1.0% 3.4% Minority 692 5.7% 2.8% 80–84 19 42 0.45 0.5% 2.8% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 32 40 0.80 0.6% 4.3% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 6,305 5,776 1.09 100.0% 5.1% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 8.1% 4.1% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater Median Age 26.3 than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 177

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 7.3 Distribution of Household Income in Farmington, 1995-2005 25%

20%

1995 2000 2005

15%

10% Share of Households

5%

0%

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ,0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 10,000 15 20 25, 30, 35, 75, $5,000 $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 $ $25 er - - - - $250,000 1 - r 01 - 1 Und 001 001 001 00 0 , , , , 00 Ove $5 50, 5, $10,001$15,001 - $ $20- $ $25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $40,000$45,001 - $45,000 $- $50,000 $7 100,001 - $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 164 5.4% 190 5.5% 169 4.1% $5,001–$10,000 153 5.0% 164 4.8% 152 3.7% $10,001–$15,000 146 4.8% 142 4.1% 134 3.3% $15,001–$20,000 155 5.1% 147 4.3% 174 4.2% $20,001–$25,000 132 4.4% 145 4.2% 164 4.0% $25,001–$30,000 160 5.3% 140 4.1% 176 4.3% $30,001–$35,000 169 5.6% 146 4.2% 164 4.0% $35,001–$40,000 162 5.3% 166 4.8% 173 4.2% $40,001–$45,000 180 5.9% 139 4.0% 190 4.6% $45,001–$50,000 154 5.1% 155 4.5% 186 4.5% $50,001–$75,000 699 23.1% 734 21.3% 823 20.0% $75,001–$100,000 373 12.3% 525 15.2% 595 14.4% $100,001–$250,000 330 10.9% 540 15.6% 869 21.1% Over $250,000 54 1.8% 118 3.4% 152 3.7% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

178 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.4 Share of Persons in Farmington Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 2.9% 2.4% Male 2.4% 2.6% Under 5 years 2.4% 5.7% Under 5 years 2.1% 8.0% 5 years 8.1% 3.0% 5 years 14.3% 4.5% 6 to 11 years 2.5% 3.8% 6 to 11 years 1.4% 2.2% 12 to 17 years 3.3% 1.6% 12 to 17 years 2.2% 2.2% 18 to 64 years 2.3% 2.0% 18 to 64 years 1.9% 2.0% 65 to 74 years 11.2% 0.0% 65 to 74 years 12.8% 0.0% 75 years and over 6.6% 0.4% 75 years and over 7.4% 0.0% Female 3.4% 2.2% Under 5 years 2.8% 2.3% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 3.8% 5.2% 12 to 17 years 4.4% 0.9% 18 to 64 years 2.8% 2.1% 65 to 74 years 10.2% 0.0% 75 years and over 5.9% 0.6% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 7.5 Farmington Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 3,472 100.0% 5,174 100.0% 1,702 49.0% Drove alone 2,712 78.1% 4,121 79.6% 1,409 52.0% Carpooled 394 11.3% 550 10.6% 156 39.6% Public transportation (including taxicab) 98 2.8% 136 2.6% 38 38.8% Bicycle or walked 63 1.8% 67 1.3% 4 6.3% Motorcycle or other means 15 0.4% 20 0.4% 5 33.3% Worked at home 190 5.5% 280 5.4% 90 47.4%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 3,282 100.0% 4,894 100.0% 1,612 49.1% Less than 5 minutes 154 4.7% 180 3.7% 26 16.9% 5 to 9 minutes 368 11.2% 536 11.0% 168 45.7% 10 to 14 minutes 350 10.7% 644 13.2% 294 84.0% 15 to 19 minutes 509 15.5% 776 15.9% 267 52.5% 20 to 24 minutes 687 20.9% 613 12.5% -74 -10.8% 25 to 29 minutes 435 13.3% 284 5.8% -151 -34.7% 30 to 34 minutes 480 14.6% 824 16.8% 344 71.7% 35 to 39 minutes 136 4.1% 169 3.5% 33 24.3% 40 to 44 minutes 74 2.3% 216 4.4% 142 191.9% 45 or more minutes 89 2.7% 652 13.3% 563 632.6% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 20.1 24.9 4.8 23.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 179

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Farmington by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 2,488 100.0% 2,474 100.0% 3,119 100.0% 4,098 100.0% 4,286 100.0% 4,090 100.0% 4,400 100.0% 4,721 100.0% 4,795 100.0% 4,757 100.0% 2,510 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D D D D D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 92 3.7% 100 4.0% 129 4.1% 169 4.1% 187 4.4% 197 4.8% 237 5.4% 277 5.9% 228 4.8% 213 4.5% 185 7.4% Manufacturing D D D D D D D 219 4.6% 275 5.7% 214 4.5% 133 5.3% TCPU 36 1.4% 34 1.4% 28 0.9% 36 0.9% 50 1.2% 47 1.1% 47 1.1% 49 1.0% 49 1.0% 40 0.8% 3 0.1% Trade 243 9.8% 280 11.3% 370 11.9% 415 10.1% 428 10.0% 460 11.2% 469 10.7% 479 10.1% 416 8.7% 413 8.7% 348 13.9% FIRE 66 2.7% 79 3.2% 89 2.9% 93 2.3% 100 2.3% 99 2.4% 70 1.6% 83 1.8% 91 1.9% 97 2.0% 88 3.5% Services 1,038 41.7% 1,008 40.7% 1,053 33.8% 1,125 27.5% 1,268 29.6% 1,377 33.7% 1,514 34.4% 1,467 31.1% 1,600 33.4% 1,725 36.3% 716 28.5% Government 1,006 40.4% 963 38.9% 1,427 45.8% 2,234 54.5% 2,220 51.8% 2,087 51.0% 2,035 46.3% 2,147 45.5% 2,136 44.5% 2,055 43.2% 1,037 41.3% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 7,255 100.0% 4,841 100.0% 4,979 100.0% 5,051 100.0% 5,191 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 201 2.8% 256 5.3% 249 5.0% 264 5.2% 272 5.2% Manufacturing 235 3.2% 208 4.3% 199 4.0% 208 4.1% 251 4.8% Trade, Transp., Utilities 267 3.7% 228 4.7% 205 4.1% 218 4.3% 224 4.3% Information 17 0.2% 20 0.4% 15 0.3% 11 0.2% 11 0.2% Financial Activities 102 1.4% 106 2.2% 131 2.6% 133 2.6% 139 2.7% Prof. & Business Services 340 4.7% 319 6.6% 310 6.2% 339 6.7% 351 6.8% Education & Health Services 124 1.7% 156 3.2% 206 4.1% 199 3.9% 207 4.0% Leisure & Hospitality 1,361 18.8% 1,269 26.2% 1,305 26.2% 1,319 26.1% 1,364 26.3% Other Services 33 0.5% 37 0.8% 48 1.0% 49 1.0% 46 0.9% Government 4,575 63.1% 2,242 46.3% 2,312 46.4% 2,311 45.7% 2,325 44.8% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

180 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Farmington by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $51.7 100.0% $51.9 100.0% $65.1 100.0% $74.8 100.0% $79.5 100.0% $78.0 100.0% $90.6 100.0% $95.3 100.0% $102.3 100.0% $107.2 100.0% $59.7 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% D D D D D $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $2.0 3.9% $2.5 4.7% $2.9 4.4% $3.7 4.9% $4.3 5.4% $4.7 6.0% $5.7 6.3% $6.9 7.2% $4.9 4.8% $5.0 4.7% $4.4 7.3% Manufacturing D D D D D D D $6.7 7.1% $7.3 7.1% $7.6 7.1% $5.7 9.6% TCPU $1.0 2.0% $1.0 1.9% $0.8 1.3% $1.1 1.5% $1.7 2.2% $1.5 2.0% $1.4 1.5% $1.4 1.5% $1.5 1.5% $1.2 1.1% $0.1 0.1% Trade $4.0 7.7% $4.3 8.3% $5.8 8.8% $6.2 8.3% $6.8 8.6% $7.0 8.9% $7.4 8.1% $7.6 8.0% $7.8 7.6% $7.0 6.5% $5.5 9.2% FIRE $1.7 3.3% $2.2 4.2% $2.4 3.7% $2.4 3.2% $2.6 3.2% $2.2 2.9% $1.7 1.9% $2.4 2.5% $3.0 2.9% $3.3 3.1% $2.6 4.4% Services $12.5 24.1% $13.8 26.6% $13.7 21.0% $14.6 19.6% $16.5 20.8% $19.1 24.5% $23.9 26.4% $21.9 23.0% $26.0 25.4% $29.1 27.1% $18.9 31.7% Government $29.5 57.1% $27.7 53.4% $38.4 59.0% $45.5 60.8% $46.3 58.3% $45.0 57.7% $49.2 54.4% $48.4 50.7% $51.9 50.7% $54.0 50.3% $22.5 37.6% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $237.2 100.0% $123.3 100.0% $125.9 100.0% $124.3 100.0% $128.9 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $5.5 2.3% $6.7 5.5% $6.7 5.3% $6.9 5.6% $7.9 6.1% Manufacturing $8.7 3.7% $8.2 6.6% $10.5 8.4% $8.1 6.5% $8.8 6.8% Trade, Transp., Utilities $5.8 2.5% $5.9 4.8% $5.6 4.5% $6.4 5.2% $7.7 5.9% Information $0.7 0.3% $0.6 0.5% $0.6 0.4% $0.5 0.4% $0.6 0.4% Financial Activities $3.9 1.6% $4.3 3.5% $4.6 3.7% $4.9 3.9% $5.7 4.4% Prof & Bus Services $14.9 6.3% $14.1 11.5% $14.1 11.2% $14.6 11.8% $15.5 12.1% Edu & Health Services $3.8 1.6% $4.3 3.5% $6.0 4.7% $6.2 5.0% $6.3 4.9% Leisure & Hospitality $16.0 6.7% $16.0 13.0% $15.8 12.6% $14.9 12.0% $14.2 11.0% Other Services $0.4 0.2% $0.6 0.5% $0.7 0.6% $0.8 0.7% $0.7 0.6% Government $177.4 74.8% $62.5 50.7% $61.3 48.7% $60.9 49.0% $61.5 47.7% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 181

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Farmington, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 0.9% 15.4% Mining Construction 101.1% 99.3% 114.1% 85.5% Manufacturing* -39.3% 14.2% -15.4% 35.2% TCPU -91.7% -91.7% -91.6% -92.7% Trade 43.2% 42.0% 38.0% 19.5% FIRE 33.3% 32.2% 53.5% 33.0% Services -31.0% -31.6% 51.8% 31.5% Government 3.1% 2.2% -23.9% -34.1% *Figures are 1997–2000.

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural -28.4% -45.6% Mining Construction 35.3% 89.2% 42.3% 161.8% Manufacturing 6.9% 49.5% 1.3% 86.4% Trade, Transp, Utilities -16.0% 17.4% 31.4% 141.7% Information -33.8% -7.5% -16.8% 53.0% Financial Activities 36.2% 90.4% 44.8% 166.5% Prof & Bus Services 3.3% 44.3% 4.0% 91.3% Edu & Health Services 66.9% 133.3% 68.2% 209.5% Leisure & Hosp 0.2% 40.1% -10.7% 64.2% Other Services 40.6% 96.5% 72.4% 217.1% Government -49.2% -29.0% -65.3% -36.2% †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 7.9 Farmington Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 0.87 0.83 0.79 0.69 0.65 0.70 0.72 0.73 0.57 0.53 0.89 Manufacturing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.44 0.35 0.44 TCPU 0.36 0.34 0.25 0.26 0.34 0.36 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.23 0.03 Trade 0.41 0.46 0.48 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.54 FIRE 1.22 1.25 0.97 0.64 0.57 0.61 0.40 0.43 0.47 0.55 1.01 Services 2.42 2.37 1.93 1.52 1.56 1.70 1.66 1.52 1.62 1.72 1.34 Government 1.12 1.14 1.39 1.80 1.88 2.01 1.95 1.81 1.80 1.73 1.62

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 0.34 0.70 0.65 0.65 0.61 Manufacturing 0.29 0.38 0.35 0.37 0.44 Trade, Transp, Utilities 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.21 0.22 Information 0.27 0.40 0.30 0.22 0.24 Financial Activities 0.37 0.61 0.66 0.64 0.66 Prof & Bus Services 0.59 0.77 0.72 0.76 0.70 Edu & Health Services 0.20 0.38 0.46 0.44 0.44 Leisure & Hosp 2.09 2.96 2.94 2.94 2.97 Other Services 0.16 0.26 0.32 0.32 0.31 Government 2.42 1.75 1.80 1.82 1.79 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

182 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.10 Major Employers in Farmington, 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 400–499 Employees Amusement Services (part of Lagoon) Service Industries

300–399 Employees Lagoon Service Industries

100–199 Employees Smith’s Food King #135 Retail Trade Shipley Assoc Training Program Service Industries

1995–96 500–699 Employees Amusement Services (part of Lagoon) Service Industries Lagoon Service Industries

100–199 Employees Smith’s Food King #135 Retail Trade Shipley Assoc Training Program Service Industries

2000 700–999 Employees Lagoon Service Industries

500–699 Employees Amusement Services (part of Lagoon) Service Industries Davis Schools–Admin Office Service Industries

200–299 Employees Davis Schools Service Industries Davis Co Criminal Justice Com Public Administration

100–199 Employees Cornerstone Nutritional Labs Manufacturing Davis Schools Educational services Davis County Courthouse Public Administration

2005 1000–1999 Employees Lagoon Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

100–249 Employees Cornerstone Nutritional Labs Manufacturing Davis Schools Educational Services Davis County Courthouse Public Administration

2007 1000–1999 Employees Lagoon Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

100–249 Employees Cornerstone Nutritional Labs Manufacturing Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 183

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Farmington, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 46.1% 50.3% 39.8% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 21.6% 25.0% 16.5% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 15.5% 18.2% 11.5% Farmers and farm managers 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 5.7% 6.3% 5.0% Business operations specialists 2.3% 2.8% 1.6% Financial specialists 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% Professional and related occupations 24.5% 25.3% 23.3% Computer and mathematical occupations 4.6% 6.3% 2.2% Architecture and engineering occupations 3.8% 5.9% 0.6% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 3.2% 5.0% 0.6% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% Community and social services occupations 1.6% 1.3% 2.1% Legal occupations 1.3% 1.8% 0.5% Education, training, and library occupations 5.8% 2.8% 10.3% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 2.2% 2.1% 2.5% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 4.6% 4.4% 4.9% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 4.0% 3.9% 4.1% Health technologists and technicians 0.7% 0.6% 0.8% Service occupations 12.1% 7.5% 18.9% Healthcare support occupations 1.2% 0.0% 2.9% Protective service occupations 2.3% 2.5% 1.9% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 1.5% 2.0% 0.8% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.7% 0.5% 1.1% Food preparation and serving related occupations 2.8% 1.4% 5.0% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 2.7% 2.0% 3.8% Personal care and service occupations 3.1% 1.7% 5.2% Sales and office occupations 26.1% 19.5% 35.8% Sales and related occupations 11.3% 13.5% 8.1% Office and administrative support occupations 14.8% 6.0% 27.7% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 6.6% 10.8% 0.5% Construction and extraction occupations 4.4% 7.5% 0.0% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% Construction trades workers 3.6% 6.0% 0.0% Extraction workers 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 2.2% 3.3% 0.5% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 8.9% 11.5% 5.0% Production occupations 3.3% 3.7% 2.9% Transportation and material-moving occupations 5.5% 7.8% 2.2% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.4% 0.0% 1.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 1.1% 1.9% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 1.7% 2.9% 0.0% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% Material-moving workers 1.9% 2.4% 1.2% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for Davis County. Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

184 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 7.4 Farmington Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1995–2005

(thousands of 2005 dollars) General Motor Vehicle Apparel & Food Stores Furniture Eating & Drinking Miscellaneous Total Merchandise Dealers Accessory Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1995 $2,586.8 7.3% $25,147.8 71.0% $2,493.5 7.0% $139.9 0.4% $204.4 0.6% $3,732.7 10.5% $1,128.5 3.2% $35,433.6 1996 $3,062.6 8.3% $26,039.8 70.6% $2,384.4 6.5% $134.0 0.4% $298.3 0.8% $3,584.5 9.7% $1,356.2 3.7% $36,859.8 1997 $1,696.1 5.4% $22,720.9 72.8% $1,622.3 5.2% $6.0 0.0% $205.1 0.7% $3,417.6 10.9% $1,554.6 5.0% $31,222.7 1998 $21,251.7 75.2% $1,817.2 6.4% $5.7 0.0% $196.3 0.7% $3,382.7 12.0% $1,603.1 5.7% $28,256.5 1999 $19,250.2 74.6% $88.4 0.3% $94.1 0.4% $4,632.4 18.0% $1,738.8 6.7% $25,803.9 2000 $19,341.8 60.4% $68.4 0.2% $10,917.2 34.1% $1,694.8 5.3% $32,022.2 2001 $17,376.2 57.9% $629.5 2.1% $26.3 0.1% $95.2 0.3% $10,232.3 34.1% $1,648.2 5.5% $30,007.7 2002 $17,778.2 75.1% $28.4 0.1% $185.9 0.8% $3,438.3 14.5% $2,226.9 9.4% $23,657.7 2003 $16,236.3 71.2% $24.2 0.1% $449.4 2.0% $3,162.9 13.9% $2,945.6 12.9% $22,818.4 2004 $15,725.4 71.9% $26.6 0.1% $437.6 2.0% $3,160.8 14.5% $2,512.4 11.5% $21,862.9 2005 $9,074.4 63.5% $1,168.1 8.2% $2,995.4 21.0% $1,047.1 7.3% $14,285.0 Change -34.4% -25.6% -63.9% -10.5% -74.8% -70.2% -81.0% -69.1% 471.6% 1317.8% -19.8% 99.1% -7.2% 130.2% -59.7% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$40 Misc ellaneous Eating & Drinking $35 Furniture Apparel & Accessory Motor Vehicle Dealers $30 Food Stores General Merchandise

$25

$20

$15 Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars $10

$5

$0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 185

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 7.5 Farmington Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$2.0

$1.8 Property Taxes $1.6 Sales and Use Taxes $1.4

$1.2

$1.0

$0.8

$0.6

$0.4

Millions 2005 of Dollars Constant $0.2

$0.0

0 2 3 5 6 8 0 1 3 91 94 99 02 04 99 9 99 9 99 99 9 00 0 0 1 1 199 1 1 199 1 1997 1 1 200 2 2 200 2 2005 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $571,487 $548,333 $1,537,801 1991 $581,873 $761,432 $1,836,266 1992 $616,341 $831,770 $1,928,955 1993 $729,073 $118,963 $1,157,005 $2,374,055 1994 $699,644 $110,081 $1,129,148 $2,317,189 1995 $830,314 $94,750 $1,178,234 $2,484,844 1996 $810,033 $27,422 $1,340,990 $2,736,230 1997 $900,862 $131,427 $1,253,827 $2,817,230 1998 $889,675 $121,598 $1,457,368 $2,904,605 1999 $964,918 $106,953 $1,501,846 $3,001,938 2000 $1,105,881 $128,237 $1,577,967 $3,262,197 2001 $1,183,894 $122,242 $1,621,079 $3,428,170 2002 $1,247,075 $125,122 $1,707,591 $3,661,379 2003 $1,566,731 $167,838 $1,461,208 $3,741,379 2004 $1,788,201 $186,218 $1,592,898 $4,346,484 2005 $1,845,415 $193,968 $1,616,064 $4,595,430 Change 222.9% 63.0% 194.7% 198.8% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

186 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.12 Detailed Breakdown of Farmington Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 Property taxes: General Fund $289,781 $438,308 28.5% Bond Repayment $88,050 $133,180 8.7% Total property taxes $377,831 $571,487 $63.30 37.2% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $362,523 $548,333 $60.74 35.7% Public Utility Franchise Tax $215,031 $325,245 21.1% Building Permits $51,629 $78,091 5.1% Other Licenses and Permits $9,682 $14,644 1.0% Total Tax Revenues $1,016,696 $1,537,801 $170.34 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes: General Fund $591,609 $673,175 20.6% Debt Service $155,271 $176,679 5.4% Redevelopment Agency $112,306 $127,790 3.9% Fee in Lieu $112,699 $128,237 3.9% Total Property Taxes $971,885 $1,105,881 $91.54 33.9% Sales and Use Tax $1,386,770 $1,577,967 $130.62 48.4% Franchise Tax $258,114 $293,701 9.0% Building Permits $238,479 $271,359 8.3% Other Licenses and Permits $11,680 $13,290 0.4% Total Tax Revenues $2,866,928 $3,262,197 $270.03 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes: All property taxes not separately listed below $961,283 20.9% Debt Service $370,134 8.1% RDA increment $282,795 6.2% Delinquent $37,235 0.8% Fee in Lieu $193,968 4.2% Total Property Taxes $1,845,415 $132.19 40.2% Local Sales Taxes: General Sales Tax—Local Option $1,342,693 29.2% Energy Sales and Use Tax $273,371 5.9% Total Sales Taxes $1,616,064 $115.76 35.2% Franchise Taxes: Telephone Franchise Tax $545,697 11.9% Cable TV Franchise Tax $38,170 0.8% Licenses, Fees, and Permits: Business License Fees $14,955 0.3% Building Permit Fees $534,149 11.6% Other Licenses, Permits & Taxes $980 0.0% Total Tax Revenues $4,595,430 $329.19 Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 187

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.13 Farmington Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $83,444,665 15.9% $149,358,140 20.0% 79.0% Buildings $253,019,743 48.2% $384,316,613 51.5% 51.9% Total $336,464,408 64.1% $533,674,753 71.5% 58.6%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $16,789,504 3.2% $27,848,178 3.7% 65.9% Buildings $31,166,571 5.9% $44,191,520 5.9% 41.8% Total $47,956,075 9.1% $72,039,698 9.7% 50.2%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $862,666 0.2% $531,041 0.1% -38.4% Buildings $1,291,730 0.2% $660,708 0.1% -48.9% Total $2,154,395 0.4% $1,191,749 0.2% -44.7%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $38,032,133 7.2% $39,585,462 5.3% 4.1%

Total Land & Buildings $424,607,011 80.8% $710,170,831 95.2% 67.3% Total Personal Property $19,990,487 3.8% $22,237,743 3.0% 11.2% Total Locally Assessed $444,597,497 84.7% $732,408,574 98.2% 64.7% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $80,595,243 15.3% $13,516,218 1.8% -83.2% Area Total $525,192,740 100.0% $745,924,792 100.0% 42.0% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 7.14 Farmington Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 4,700 Vacant Units 130 Total Occupied Units 4,570 Owner Occupied 4,045 Vacant Owner Units 105 Total Owner Units 4,150 Renter Occupied 525 Vacant Rental Units 25 Total Rental Units 550 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

188 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 7.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Farmington, 1990–2006 400

350

300

250

200

Permits 150

100

50

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 7.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Farmington by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 62 0 0 0 62 $7,709.6 1991 70 0 0 0 70 $10,451.7 1992 70 0 0 0 70 $9,526.1 1993 74 0 0 4 0 78 $13,014.3 1994 69 0 0 0 0 69 $11,382.1 1995 64 2 0 0 0 66 $12,546.1 1996 63 0 0 0 0 63 $10,541.5 1997 115 18 18 0 0 151 $20,866.0 1998 96 6 18 0 0 120 $17,710.0 1999 124 12 22 0 0 158 $24,421.1 2000 82 2 0 3 0 87 $15,465.0 2001 91 0 0 124 0 215 $25,650.0 2002 148 0 0 0 0 148 $23,055.0 2003 187 2 0 0 0 189 $30,433.0 2004 183 0 0 4 0 187 $40,916.0 2005 254 0 101 0 0 355 $66,847.0 2006 173 0 111 0 0 284 $54,654.5 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 189

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.16 Median Price of New Homes in Farmington, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 16 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 0 0 65 $175,000–$199,999 8 4 23 $200,000–$224,999 0 0 0 $225,000–$249,999 2 4 46 $250,000–$274,999 128 49 42 $275,000–$299,999 0 6 18 $300,000–$324,999 13 11 10 $325,000–$349,999 0 0 1 $350,000–$374,999 0 0 0 $375,000–$399,999 0 0 0 $400,000–$449,999 0 2 0 $450,000–$499,999 0 5 10 $500,000–$599,999 0 0 0 $600,000–$749,999 4 3 1 $750,000–$999,999 0 0 0 $1,000,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 171 84 216 Median Price* $261,621 $267,346 $235,869 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 7.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Farmington, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $157,500 $172,957 92 1998 $163,000 $184,364 120 1999 $182,160 $203,470 135 2000 $177,900 $196,767 140 2001 $191,750 $214,039 126 2002 $183,000 $211,350 113 2003 $185,000 $223,418 142 2004 $205,000 $238,547 162 2005 $225,750 $263,217 203 2006 $289,000 $327,188 230 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

190 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Farmington, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Hotels Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & & Other Mercantile, Other & & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Motels Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $215.3 $765.4 $218.7 $0.0 $416.0 $71.2 $0.0 $17.3 $212.7 $1,916.6 $3,206.5 1995 $0.0 $111.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $810.9 $0.0 $672.7 $1,594.6 $2,570.2 1996 $0.0 $299.2 $0.0 $1,800.0 $0.0 $1,441.8 $0.0 $1,445.4 $246.2 $92.9 $5,325.5 $8,362.6 1997 $0.0 $4,166.0 $0.0 $0.0 $368.1 $3,623.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $486.0 $8,643.1 $13,055.2 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,025.1 $0.0 $1,132.4 $2,157.5 $3,116.4 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $853.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,643.3 $395.0 $0.0 $23.5 $330.5 $3,245.3 $4,515.0 2000 $25.0 $31.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,495.0 $11.0 $0.0 $4.0 $154.5 $1,720.5 $2,293.0 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $523.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,000.0 $19.0 $632.1 $2,174.1 $2,812.5 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $496.0 $0.0 $0.0 $465.0 $254.4 $1,215.4 $1,557.0 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $724.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $521.1 $1,245.1 $1,590.0 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $290.5 $1,116.9 $1,407.4 $1,703.9 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,261.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,321.0 $1,675.4 $4,257.4 $4,708.7 2006 $0.0 $596.0 $0.0 $1,118.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $5.0 $172.0 $1,891.0 $1,891.0 Total $25.0 $5,418.5 $1,618.4 $3,860.7 $891.1 $10,376.1 $477.2 $4,281.4 $2,391.5 $7,453.6 $36,793.5 $51,381.9 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 191

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 7.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Farmington, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 9.13 0.00 1991 22.31 0.00 1992 19.81 0.00 1993 41.57 0.00 1994 34.60 0.00 1995 40.00 0.00 1996 7.67 7.86 1997 31.57 0.00 1998 49.52 1.00 1999 33.67 4.14 2000 48.35 1.60 2001 118.92 9.17 2003 86.63 2.88 2002 12.20 0.00 2004 10.60 0.00 2005 109.03 11.01 2006 40.23 0.00 Total 715.81 37.66 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

192 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

F RUIT H EIGHTS

Table 8.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Fruit Heights

Population Population (2005) 5,039 Median Age (2000) 29.1 Average Household Income (2006) $96,428

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 1,460 100.0% Owner Occupied 1,355 92.8% Renter Occupied 75 5.1% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $299,900

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (thousands) $893.0 Property Tax Receipts (thousands) $372.1 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (thousands) $379.3 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $177 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 193

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 8.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Fruit Heights, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Population 3,900 4,701 Age Under 5 Years 290 7.4% 282 6.0% 5 to 17 Years 1,415 36.3% 1,369 29.1% 18 to 20 Years 177 4.5% 302 6.4% 21 to 24 Years 133 3.4% 275 5.8% 25 to 44 Years 1,017 26.1% 950 20.2% 45 to 54 Years 476 12.2% 706 15.0% 55 to 59 Years 137 3.5% 237 5.0% 60 to 64 Years 110 2.8% 195 4.1% 65 Years and Over 239 6.1% 385 8.2% Median Age 22.9 29.1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 8.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Fruit Heights, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 4.5% 5.6% High School Graduate* 18.1% 14.5% Some College, No Degree 33.5% 33.7% Associate’s Degree 7.5% 7.5% Bachelor’s Degree 23.5% 26.1% Graduate or Professional degree 12.9% 12.6% Master’s Degree N/A 10.5% Professional Degree N/A 1.6% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.5% By Sex Male: Less than High School 6.3% High School Graduate* 9.6% Some College, No Degree 27.8% Associate’s Degree 6.1% Bachelor’s Degree 30.9% Master’s Degree 14.9% Professional Degree 3.5% Doctorate Degree 1.0% Female: Less than High School 5.1% High School Graduate* 18.9% Some College, No Degree 39.0% Associate’s Degree 8.7% Bachelor’s Degree 21.7% Master’s Degree 6.5% Professional Degree 0.0% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

194 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 8.1 Fruit Heights Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black American 75 - 79 4.9% Indian, 70 - 74 Eskimo, or 65 - 69 Aleut 60 - 64 9.9% 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49

40 - 44 Hispanic 35 - 39 49.4% 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 Asian or 15 - 19 Pacific 10 - 14 Islander 35.8% 5 - 9 Under 5 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 Male Female

Age Distribution of the Fruit Heights Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 139 151 0.92 7.4% 1.5% Fruit Heights Share of 5–9 238 246 0.97 12.4% 2.2% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 321 305 1.05 16.1% 2.8% Total 3,900 100.0% 2.1% 15–19 221 209 1.06 11.0% 2.5% 20–24 109 76 1.43 4.7% 1.4% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 57 65 0.88 3.1% 0.8% White 3,819 97.9% 2.2% 30–34 102 118 0.86 5.6% 1.4% Black 4 0.1% 0.2% 35–39 148 150 0.99 7.6% 2.2% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 8 0.2% 0.8% 40–44 127 156 0.81 7.3% 2.6% Asian or Pacific Islander 29 0.7% 0.9% 45–49 151 139 1.09 7.4% 3.3% Other race 0 0.0% 0.0% 50–54 86 100 0.86 4.8% 2.6% Ethnicity 55–59 76 61 1.25 3.5% 2.2% Hispanic Origin 40 1.0% 0.3% 60–64 53 57 0.93 2.8% 2.1% 65–69 50 57 0.88 2.7% 2.4% Minority 81 2.1% 0.6% 70–74 34 36 0.94 1.8% 2.3% 75–79 12 18 0.67 0.8% 1.6% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 11 17 0.65 0.7% 2.3% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 2 2 1.00 0.1% 0.5% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that Total 1937 1963 0.99 100.0% 2.1% the city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's Share 60 years+ 8.9% 1.4% share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Median Age 22.9 female ratio greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 195

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 8.2 Fruit Heights Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition

85 + AIAN alone 80 - 84 (NH) Black alone 75 - 79 3.8% (NH) 70 - 74 1.3% 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 Asian alone 50 - 54 (NH) 45 - 49 23.6% 40 - 44 35 - 39 30 - 34 Some other 25 - 29 race alone 20 - 24 (NH) 15 - 19 Hispanic 1.3% 10 - 14 61.1% 5 - 9 Under 5 Two or more races (NH) 400 200 0 200 400 8.9% Male Femal

Age Distribution of the Fruit Heights Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 147 135 1.09 6.0% 1.2% Fruit Heights Share of 5–9 208 202 1.03 8.7% 1.8% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 265 283 0.94 11.7% 2.4% Total 4,701 100.0% 2.0% 15–19 330 298 1.11 13.4% 2.6% 20–24 210 150 1.40 7.7% 1.8% Not Hispanic or Latino 4,605 98.0% 2.0% 25–29 70 79 0.89 3.2% 0.9% White alone 4,544 96.7% 2.1% 30–34 70 92 0.76 3.4% 1.0% Black or African American alone 2 0.0% 0.1% 35–39 126 143 0.88 5.7% 1.6% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 6 0.1% 0.5% 40–44 180 190 0.95 7.9% 2.2% Asian alone 37 0.8% 1.0% 45–49 195 220 0.89 8.8% 2.9% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 0 0.0% 0.0% 50–54 143 148 0.97 6.2% 2.6% Some other race alone 2 0.0% 1.0% 55–59 121 116 1.04 5.0% 2.8% Two or more races 14 0.3% 0.4% 60–64 95 100 0.95 4.1% 3.0% Ethnicity 65–69 75 61 1.23 2.9% 2.5% Hispanic or Latino 96 2.0% 0.7% 70–74 42 48 0.88 1.9% 2.0% 75–79 36 46 0.78 1.7% 2.2% Minority 157 3.3% 0.6% 80–84 18 24 0.75 0.9% 1.9% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 13 22 0.59 0.7% 2.1% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 2,344 2,357 0.99 100.0% 2.0% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 12.3% 2.4% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Median Age 29.1 one.

196 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 8.3 Distribution of Household Income in Fruit Heights, 1995-2005

30%

25%

1995 2000 2005

20%

15%

10% Share of Households

5%

0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,00 00 0 5 0, 10, 50 5 $5,000 $ $25 $30 $35 $75 100,000 $ 250,000 er - - - $ 1 - r Und 01 - ,001 ,001 ,00 0 Ove ,001 $5,001 - 50, $10,001$15,001 - $15,00 $20- $20,00$25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $4 $45,001 - $4 $- $ $75 100,001 - $2 $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 43 4.1% 64 5.4% 41 3.7% $5,001–$10,000 38 3.6% 46 3.8% 38 3.4% $10,001–$15,000 37 3.5% 38 3.2% 37 3.3% $15,001–$20,000 49 4.7% 46 3.8% 39 3.5% $20,001–$25,000 36 3.4% 47 3.9% 36 3.2% $25,001–$30,000 37 3.5% 39 3.3% 34 3.0% $30,001–$35,000 43 4.1% 47 3.9% 40 3.6% $35,001–$40,000 41 3.9% 42 3.5% 41 3.7% $40,001–$45,000 45 4.3% 46 3.8% 34 3.0% $45,001–$50,000 49 4.7% 49 4.1% 27 2.4% $50,001–$75,000 277 26.4% 239 20.0% 197 17.6% $75,001–$100,000 190 18.1% 198 16.6% 188 16.8% $100,001–$250,000 146 13.9% 251 21.0% 323 28.8% Over $250,000 19 1.8% 43 3.6% 46 4.1% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 197

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 8.4 Share of Persons in Fruit Heights Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 3.5% 0.7% Male 3.6% 0.8% Under 5 years 10.3% 4.7% Under 5 years 11.8% 7.3% 5 years 5.7% 18.8% 5 years 9.5% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 3.3% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 2.5% 0.0% 12 to 17 years 6.1% 0.0% 12 to 17 years 5.9% 0.0% 18 to 64 years 1.9% 0.5% 18 to 64 years 1.8% 0.4% 65 to 74 years 2.4% 0.0% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 0.0% Female 3.4% 0.6% Under 5 years 8.0% 0.0% 5 years 0.0% 37.5% 6 to 11 years 4.0% 0.0% 12 to 17 years 6.3% 0.0% 18 to 64 years 1.9% 0.6% 65 to 74 years 4.8% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 0.0% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 8.5 Fruit Heights Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 1,562 100.0% 2,284 100.0% 722 46.2% Drove alone 1,181 75.6% 1,729 75.7% 548 46.4% Carpooled 255 16.3% 346 15.1% 91 35.7% Public transportation (including taxicab) 36 2.3% 89 3.9% 53 147.2% Bicycle or walked 18 1.2% 17 0.7% -1 -5.6% Motorcycle or other means 7 0.4% 6 0.3% -1 -14.3% Worked at home 65 4.2% 97 4.2% 32 49.2%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 1,497 100.0% 2,187 100.0% 690 46.1% Less than 5 minutes 22 1.5% 20 0.9% -2 -9.1% 5 to 9 minutes 180 12.0% 254 11.6% 74 41.1% 10 to 14 minutes 184 12.3% 370 16.9% 186 101.1% 15 to 19 minutes 264 17.6% 397 18.2% 133 50.4% 20 to 24 minutes 222 14.8% 303 13.9% 81 36.5% 25 to 29 minutes 137 9.2% 117 5.3% -20 -14.6% 30 to 34 minutes 292 19.5% 241 11.0% -51 -17.5% 35 to 39 minutes 22 1.5% 131 6.0% 109 495.5% 40 to 44 minutes 46 3.1% 48 2.2% 2 4.3% 45 or more minutes 128 8.6% 306 14.0% 178 139.1% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 22.6 24.0 1.4 6.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

198 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 8.6 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Fruit Heights, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 43.3% 46.5% 38.9% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 19.7% 26.8% 10.1% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 14.3% 19.3% 7.6% Farmers and farm managers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 5.4% 7.5% 2.5% Business operations specialists 1.4% 1.8% 0.8% Financial specialists 4.0% 5.7% 1.7% Professional and related occupations 23.6% 19.7% 28.9% Computer and mathematical occupations 5.6% 7.6% 2.8% Architecture and engineering occupations 2.4% 4.1% 0.0% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 2.2% 3.7% 0.0% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.6% 0.0% 1.3% Community and social services occupations 1.0% 0.2% 2.1% Legal occupations 0.9% 1.1% 0.6% Education, training, and library occupations 6.7% 1.7% 13.5% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 2.6% 2.5% 2.7% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 3.9% 2.4% 5.8% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 2.2% 1.4% 3.2% Health technologists and technicians 1.7% 1.1% 2.6% Service occupations 11.7% 10.1% 14.0% Healthcare support occupations 2.7% 1.1% 5.0% Protective service occupations 1.0% 0.9% 1.0% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.7% 0.5% 1.0% Food preparation and serving related occupations 5.2% 6.3% 3.7% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 1.5% 1.2% 1.8% Personal care and service occupations 1.4% 0.5% 2.5% Sales and office occupations 30.9% 21.7% 43.4% Sales and related occupations 16.9% 16.0% 18.2% Office and administrative support occupations 13.9% 5.6% 25.2% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 6.5% 10.5% 1.0% Construction and extraction occupations 3.7% 6.1% 0.5% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% Construction trades workers 3.1% 5.0% 0.5% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 2.7% 4.3% 0.5% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 7.7% 11.4% 2.6% Production occupations 4.7% 6.3% 2.6% Transportation and material-moving occupations 2.9% 5.0% 0.0% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% Material-moving workers 1.7% 2.9% 0.0% Note: Shading indicates shares that exceed those for Davis County. Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 199

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 8.4 Fruit Heights Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$500 Property Taxes Sales and Use Taxes $400

$300

$200

$100 Thousands of 2005 Dollars Constant

$0

1 2 4 6 9 1 3 90 95 97 02 04 9 99 99 9 99 9 99 00 0 0 1 199 1 1993 1 1 1 1 1998 1 2000 2 2 200 2 2005 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $438,923 $453,908 1991 $291,392 $210,704 $537,841 1992 $282,609 $219,929 $558,366 1993 $296,939 $48,389 $281,660 $707,606 1994 $304,294 $48,047 $295,380 $744,374 1995 $335,563 $50,495 $325,158 $748,565 1996 $401,830 $63,883 $364,776 $832,428 1997 $419,417 $75,428 $394,214 $844,236 1998 $414,296 $78,082 $414,445 $889,054 1999 $385,516 $67,545 $428,506 $887,128 2000 $353,189 $55,980 $423,527 $827,038 2001 $350,419 $52,492 $406,729 $801,385 2002 $354,788 $52,960 $422,836 $950,117 2003 $362,396 $60,493 $362,212 $812,842 2004 $372,535 $64,516 $402,372 $821,833 2005 $372,071 $64,412 $379,267 $892,988 Change -15.2% 33.1% 80.0% 96.7% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

200 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 8.7 Detailed Breakdown of Fruit Heights Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 Property taxes General Fund $177,971 $269,190 59.3% Bond Repayment $22,658 $34,271 7.6% Other $89,559 $135,462 29.8% Total property taxes $290,188 $438,923 $112.54 96.7% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax Building Permits $7,297 $11,037 2.4% Other Licenses and Permits $2,610 $3,948 0.9% Total Tax Revenues $300,095 $453,908 $116.39 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $261,197 $297,209 35.9% Fee in Lieu $49,197 $55,980 6.8% Total Property Taxes $310,394 $353,189 $75.13 42.7% Sales and Use Tax $372,210 $423,527 $90.09 51.2% Franchise Tax $9,535 $10,850 1.3% Building Permits $30,556 $34,769 4.2% Other Licenses and Permits $4,134 $4,704 0.6% Total Tax Revenues $726,829 $827,038 $175.93 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $307,659 34.5% Fee in lieu $64,412 7.2% Total Property Taxes $372,071 $73.84 41.7% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $379,267 $75.27 42.5% Franchise Taxes Cable TV Franchise Tax $31,759 3.6% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $6,372 0.7% Building Permit Fees $103,519 11.6% Total Tax Revenues $892,988 $177.22 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 201

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 8.8 Fruit Heights Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $33,709,948 17.8% $33,375,356 17.8% -1.0% Buildings $105,824,047 56.0% $120,266,818 64.2% 13.6% Total $139,533,995 73.8% $153,642,174 82.0% 10.1%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $1,657,784 0.9% $2,823,874 1.5% 70.3% Buildings $1,916,680 1.0% $2,412,381 1.3% 25.9% Total $3,574,464 1.9% $5,236,255 2.8% 46.5%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $271,301 0.1% $70,727 0.0% -73.9% Buildings $288,477 0.2% $142,480 0.1% -50.6% Total $559,778 0.3% $213,207 0.1% -61.9%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $7,254,927 3.8% $4,183,257 2.2% -42.3%

Total Land & Buildings $150,923,164 79.8% $179,675,160 95.8% 19.1% Total Personal Property $2,839,028 1.5% $2,631,106 1.4% -7.3% Total Locally Assessed $153,762,193 81.3% $182,306,266 97.3% 18.6% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $35,348,872 18.7% $5,151,599 2.7% -85.4% Area Total $189,111,065 100.0% $187,457,865 100.0% -0.9% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor's Office

Table 8.9 Fruit Heights Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 1,460 Vacant Units 30 Total Occupied Units 1,430 Owner Occupied 1,355 Vacant Owner Units 30 Total Owner Units 1,385 Renter Occupied 75 Vacant Rental Units 0 Total Rental Units 75 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

202 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 8.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Fruit Heights, 1990–2006 80

70

60

50

40 Permits 30

20

10

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 8.10 Residential Building Permits Issued in Fruit Heights by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 9 0 0 0 9 $1,445.6 1991 15 0 0 0 15 $2,350.9 1992 49 0 0 0 49 $7,245.9 1993 59 0 0 0 0 59 $9,550.3 1994 68 0 0 0 0 68 $11,852.1 1995 34 0 0 0 0 34 $5,811.6 1996 15 0 0 0 0 15 $2,618.1 1997 17 0 0 0 0 17 $2,890.6 1998 24 0 0 0 0 24 $5,232.0 1999 27 0 0 0 0 27 $5,673.1 2000 15 0 0 0 0 15 $2,898.8 2001 12 0 4 0 0 16 $2,953.1 2002 11 0 0 0 0 11 $2,468.6 2003 13 0 0 0 0 13 $2,664.7 2004 19 0 0 0 0 19 $3,219.2 2005 50 0 0 0 0 50 $14,935.1 2006 44 0 0 0 0 44 $14,235.5 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 203

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 8.11 Median Price of New Homes in Fruit Heights, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 $100,000–$124,999 $125,000–$149,999 $150,000–$174,999 $175,000–$199,999 $200,000–$224,999 $225,000–$249,999 $250,000–$274,999 $275,000–$299,999 $300,000–$324,999 $325,000–$349,999 $350,000–$374,999 $375,000–$399,999 $400,000–$449,999 $450,000–$499,999 $500,000–$599,999 $600,000–$749,999 $750,000–$999,999 $1,000,000 and Above Total New Home Sales Median Price* *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 8.12 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Fruit Heights, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $208,875 $213,588 23 1998 $237,500 $236,706 23 1999 $229,900 $234,745 28 2000 $199,900 $212,165 39 2001 $197,750 $223,430 27 2002 $215,000 $249,057 22 2003 $255,000 $247,579 34 2004 $222,500 $259,949 30 2005 $230,500 $271,924 42 2006 $299,900 $354,040 40 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

204 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 8.13 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Fruit Heights, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Hotels Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & & Other Mercantile, Other & & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Motels Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.8 $10.8 $17.4 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $56.0 $140.4 $196.4 $308.4 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2003 $0.0 $465.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $465.5 $594.4 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total $0.0 $465.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $56.0 $151.2 $672.7 $920.2 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 205

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 8.14 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Fruit Heights, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 6.67 0.00 1991 1.86 0.00 1992 33.39 0.00 1993 16.28 0.00 1994 17.80 0.00 1995 5.90 0.00 1996 1.62 0.00 1997 11.09 0.00 1998 30.52 0.00 1999 3.73 0.00 2000 0.00 0.00 2001 1.57 0.00 2003 5.16 0.00 2002 0.00 0.00 2004 0.00 0.00 2005 35.02 0.00 2006 27.32 0.00 Total 197.93 0.00 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

206 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

K AYSVILLE

Table 9.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Kaysville

Population Population (2005) 22,624 Median Age (2000) 24.8 Average Household Income (2006) $69,419

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 5,840 Employer Firms (2005) 607 Average Annual Wage (2005) $27,340 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Government 1,616 27.7% Trade, Transportation, Utilities 1,048 17.9% Construction 861 14.8%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $106.4 Major Retail Categories (millions) Motor Vehicle Sales $35.1 Food Stores $27.4 Miscellaneous $20.2 Per Capita Retail Sales $4,701

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 7,350 100.0% Owner Occupied 6,280 85.4% Renter Occupied 920 12.5% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $255,000 New $321,354

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $5.5 Property Tax Receipts (millions) $1.4 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $2.8 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $243 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 207

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Kaysville, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 13,961 20,351 45.8% Age Under 5 Years 1,619 11.6% 2,076 10.2% 28.2% 5 to 17 Years 4,484 32.1% 6,177 30.4% 37.8% 18 to 20 Years 580 4.2% 966 4.7% 66.6% 21 to 24 Years 616 4.4% 1,011 5.0% 64.1% 25 to 44 Years 4,324 31.0% 5,538 27.2% 28.1% 45 to 54 Years 1,166 8.4% 2,024 9.9% 73.6% 55 to 59 Years 418 3.0% 638 3.1% 52.6% 60 to 64 Years 327 2.3% 528 2.6% 61.5% 65 Years and Over 884 6.3% 1,393 6.8% 57.6% Median Age 23.0 24.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 9.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Kaysville, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 6.6% 4.0% High School Graduate* 21.3% 16.7% Some College, No Degree 29.3% 31.1% Associate’s Degree 8.9% 10.4% Bachelor’s Degree 25.6% 27.0% Graduate or Professional degree 8.3% 10.8% Master’s Degree N/A 7.6% Professional Degree N/A 2.3% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.9% By Sex Male: Less than High School 3.2% High School Graduate* 12.2% Some College, No Degree 26.7% Associate’s Degree 9.4% Bachelor’s Degree 30.7% Master’s Degree 12.5% Professional Degree 3.3% Doctorate Degree 1.9% Female: Less than High School 4.8% High School Graduate* 20.7% Some College, No Degree 35.1% Associate’s Degree 11.3% Bachelor’s Degree 23.7% Master’s Degree 3.2% Professional Degree 1.4% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

208 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 9.1 Kaysville Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 American 75 - 79 Black 2.7% Indian, 70 - 74 Eskimo, or 65 - 69 Aleut 60 - 64 8.6% 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 Asian or 40 - 44 Pacific 35 - 39 Islander 30 - 34 26.7% 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 Hispanic 10 - 14 62.0% 5 - 9 Under 5 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 Male Female

Age Distribution of the Kaysville Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 853 766 1.11 11.6% 8.1% Kaysville Share of 5–9 934 910 1.03 13.2% 8.3% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 900 906 0.99 12.9% 8.1% Total 13,961 100.0% 7.4% 15–19 630 621 1.01 9.0% 7.3% 20–24 405 374 1.08 5.6% 6.0% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 433 510 0.85 6.8% 6.5% White 13,519 96.8% 7.8% 30–34 597 569 1.05 8.4% 7.6% Black 12 0.1% 0.5% 35–39 428 502 0.85 6.7% 6.9% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 38 0.3% 3.8% 40–44 411 417 0.99 5.9% 7.5% Asian or Pacific Islander 118 0.8% 3.8% 45–49 321 313 1.03 4.5% 7.1% Other race 0 0.0% 0.0% 50–54 258 274 0.94 3.8% 7.6% Ethnicity 55–59 215 203 1.06 3.0% 6.7% Hispanic Origin 274 2.0% 2.0% 60–64 158 169 0.93 2.3% 6.4% 65–69 151 179 0.84 2.4% 7.3% Minority 442 3.2% 3.2% 70–74 114 134 0.85 1.8% 8.2% 75–79 60 90 0.67 1.1% 7.8% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 35 55 0.64 0.6% 7.3% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 28 38 0.74 0.5% 7.5% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the Total 6,931 7,030 0.99 100.0% 7.4% city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's share of Share 60 years+ 8.7% 5.3% total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio Median Age 23.0 greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 209

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 9.2 Kaysville Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 75 - 79 AIAN alone 70 - 74 Black alone (NH) 65 - 69 (NH) 4.7% 60 - 64 5.6% Asian alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 12.5% 45 - 49 40 - 44 NHPI alone 35 - 39 (NH) 30 - 34 3.4% 25 - 29 20 - 24 Some other 15 - 19 Hispanic race alone 10 - 14 57.6% (NH) 1.1% 5 - 9 Under 5 Two or more 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 races (NH) Male Female 15.1%

Age Distribution of the Kaysville Population

Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 1,088 988 1.10 10.2% 8.9% Kaysville Share of 5–9 1,243 1,079 1.15 11.4% 10.3% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 1,253 1,165 1.08 11.9% 10.5% Total 20,351 100.0% 8.5% 15–19 1,080 1,071 1.01 10.6% 9.0% 20–24 607 656 0.93 6.2% 6.3% Not Hispanic or Latino 19,745 97.0% 8.7% 25–29 512 567 0.90 5.3% 6.2% White alone 19,299 94.8% 9.0% 30–34 614 690 0.89 6.4% 8.2% Black or African American alone 59 0.3% 2.3% 35–39 768 846 0.91 7.9% 9.4% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 49 0.2% 4.2% 40–44 795 746 1.07 7.6% 9.1% Asian alone 131 0.6% 3.7% 45–49 558 582 0.96 5.6% 7.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 36 0.2% 5.9% 50–54 441 443 1.00 4.3% 7.8% Some other race alone 12 0.1% 5.9% 55–59 302 336 0.90 3.1% 7.5% Two or more races 159 0.8% 4.8% 60–64 262 266 0.98 2.6% 8.1% Ethnicity 65–69 190 211 0.90 2.0% 7.2% Hispanic or Latino 606 3.0% 4.7% 70–74 154 181 0.85 1.6% 7.6% 75–79 129 179 0.72 1.5% 8.4% Minority 1,052 5.2% 4.3% 80–84 83 113 0.73 1.0% 8.9% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 54 99 0.55 0.8% 9.0% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 10,133 10,218 0.99 100.0% 8.5% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total population Share 60 years+ 9.4% 8.0% in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than one. Median Age 24.8

210 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 9.3 Distribution of Household Income in Kaysville, 1995-2005

30%

25%

1995 2000 2005

20%

15%

10% Share of Households of Share

5%

0%

0 00 00 00 00 0 0 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,000 0 5 0,0 50 5 $5, $15,000$20,000 $4 $4 $ 100,000 $25 $30 $35 $ 250,000 er - - - $ 1 r Und 01 - $75 ,001 ,001 ,00 0 Ove $5,001 - $10,000 50, $10,001$15,001 - $20- $25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $45,001 - $- $75,001100,001 - - $2 $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 268 4.9% 264 4.4% 260 3.7% $5,001–$10,000 247 4.5% 240 4.0% 254 3.6% $10,001–$15,000 306 5.6% 274 4.6% 270 3.9% $15,001–$20,000 289 5.3% 217 3.6% 275 3.9% $20,001–$25,000 283 5.2% 272 4.5% 279 4.0% $25,001–$30,000 305 5.6% 288 4.8% 300 4.3% $30,001–$35,000 358 6.6% 264 4.4% 280 4.0% $35,001–$40,000 364 6.7% 276 4.6% 306 4.4% $40,001–$45,000 349 6.4% 248 4.1% 293 4.2% $45,001–$50,000 377 6.9% 314 5.2% 273 3.9% $50,001–$75,000 1,314 24.1% 1,570 26.1% 1,445 20.7% $75,001–$100,000 578 10.6% 888 14.8% 1,164 16.7% $100,001–$250,000 366 6.7% 787 13.1% 1,422 20.4% Over $250,000 41 0.8% 117 1.9% 148 2.1% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 211

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.4 Share of Persons in Kaysville Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 5.4% 4.7% Male 5.4% 4.2% Under 5 years 7.2% 11.8% Under 5 years 10.7% 12.9% 5 years 14.6% 5.1% 5 years 21.1% 6.2% 6 to 11 years 5.8% 3.9% 6 to 11 years 6.1% 6.0% 12 to 17 years 3.9% 2.5% 12 to 17 years 3.8% 1.7% 18 to 64 years 4.9% 3.7% 18 to 64 years 3.9% 2.6% 65 to 74 years 5.4% 3.8% 65 to 74 years 2.5% 3.6% 75 years and over 1.5% 10.7% 75 years and over 4.6% 6.7% Female 5.4% 5.1% Under 5 years 3.5% 10.7% 5 years 9.8% 3.9% 6 to 11 years 5.5% 1.8% 12 to 17 years 4.0% 3.4% 18 to 64 years 6.0% 4.8% 65 to 74 years 8.1% 4.1% 75 years and over 0.0% 13.5% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 9.5 Kaysville Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 5,570 100.0% 8,535 100.0% 2,965 53.2% Drove alone 4,227 75.9% 6,708 78.6% 2,481 58.7% Carpooled 774 13.9% 861 10.1% 87 11.2% Public transportation (including taxicab) 186 3.3% 284 3.3% 98 52.7% Bicycle or walked 167 3.0% 93 1.1% -74 -44.3% Motorcycle or other means 28 0.5% 38 0.4% 10 35.7% Worked at home 188 3.4% 551 6.5% 363 193.1%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 5,382 100.0% 7,984 100.0% 2,602 48.3% Less than 5 minutes 243 4.5% 336 4.2% 93 38.3% 5 to 9 minutes 876 16.3% 1,107 13.9% 231 26.4% 10 to 14 minutes 712 13.2% 1,010 12.7% 298 41.9% 15 to 19 minutes 970 18.0% 1,029 12.9% 59 6.1% 20 to 24 minutes 743 13.8% 1,009 12.6% 266 35.8% 25 to 29 minutes 342 6.4% 446 5.6% 104 30.4% 30 to 34 minutes 934 17.4% 940 11.8% 6 0.6% 35 to 39 minutes 174 3.2% 310 3.9% 136 78.2% 40 to 44 minutes 104 1.9% 477 6.0% 373 358.7% 45 or more minutes 284 5.3% 1,320 16.5% 1,036 364.8% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 19.8 24.2 4.4 22.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

212 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Kaysville by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 2,615 100.0% 2,819 100.0% 3,009 100.0% 3,147 100.0% 3,223 100.0% 3,119 100.0% 3,549 100.0% 3,825 100.0% 4,219 100.0% 4,293 100.0% 3,130 100.0% Mining D D D D D D D D D D 0 0.0% Construction 164 6.3% 183 6.5% 157 5.2% 216 6.9% 229 7.1% 259 8.3% 339 9.6% 378 9.9% 362 8.6% 377 8.8% 349 11.2% Manufacturing 418 16.0% 439 15.6% 429 14.3% 366 11.6% 362 11.2% 374 12.0% 396 11.2% 408 10.7% 499 11.8% 461 10.7% 282 9.0% TCPU D 14 0.5% 24 0.8% D D D D D D D D Trade 393 15.0% 417 14.8% 412 13.7% 437 13.9% 415 12.9% 438 14.0% 499 14.1% 624 16.3% 703 16.7% 746 17.4% 777 24.8% FIRE 82 3.1% 85 3.0% 102 3.4% 118 3.7% 105 3.3% 114 3.7% 122 3.4% 129 3.4% 135 3.2% 140 3.3% 158 5.0% Services 492 18.8% 505 17.9% 567 18.8% 608 19.3% 694 21.5% 776 24.9% 807 22.7% 820 21.4% 884 21.0% 796 18.5% 734 23.5% Government 1,059 40.5% 1,134 40.2% 1,283 42.6% 1,334 42.4% 1,340 41.6% 1,323 42.4% 1,293 36.4% 1,346 35.2% 1,512 35.8% 1,643 38.3% 731 23.4% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 6,539 100.0% 4,937 100.0% 5,129 100.0% 5,559 100.0% 5,840 100.0% Mining D D D D 36 0.6% Construction 717 11.0% 714 14.5% 674 13.1% 817 14.7% 861 14.8% Manufacturing 237 3.6% 235 4.8% 254 5.0% 266 4.8% 266 4.6% Trade, Transp., Utilities 868 13.3% 887 18.0% 938 18.3% 1,016 18.3% 1,048 17.9% Information 168 2.6% 182 3.7% 217 4.2% D 257 4.4% Financial Activities 84 1.3% 100 2.0% 124 2.4% 126 2.3% 118 2.0% Prof. & Business Services 554 8.5% 448 9.1% 479 9.3% 499 9.0% 531 9.1% Education & Health Services 223 3.4% 274 5.6% 321 6.3% 389 7.0% 411 7.0% Leisure & Hospitality 431 6.6% 399 8.1% 419 8.2% 451 8.1% 493 8.4% Other Services 163 2.5% 191 3.9% 191 3.7% 217 3.9% 205 3.5% Government 3,093 47.3% 1,506 30.5% 1,513 29.5% 1,551 27.9% 1,616 27.7% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 213

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Kaysville by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $66.0 100.0% $69.4 100.0% $70.9 100.0% $72.6 100.0% $75.5 100.0% $76.3 100.0% $85.1 100.0% $94.8 100.0% $102.7 100.0% $104.8 100.0% $71.5 100.0% Mining D D D D D D D D D D $0.0 Construction $3.5 5.3% $4.3 6.2% $3.6 5.0% $5.5 7.6% $6.1 8.1% $6.8 9.0% $9.6 11.2% $11.5 12.1% $11.2 10.9% $11.9 11.4% $10.7 14.9% Manufacturing $10.7 16.2% $11.3 16.2% $10.5 14.8% $8.2 11.3% $7.6 10.0% $9.6 12.6% $9.2 10.9% $10.4 10.9% $12.4 12.1% $10.8 10.3% $6.6 9.2% TCPU D $0.2 0.3% $0.5 0.8% D D D D D D D D Trade $4.3 6.6% $4.8 7.0% $4.5 6.4% $5.3 7.4% $5.9 7.8% $5.4 7.1% $6.1 7.2% $8.7 9.1% $9.8 9.6% $10.5 10.0% $10.2 14.3% FIRE $1.6 2.5% $1.8 2.5% $2.3 3.2% $2.9 4.0% $2.6 3.5% $2.6 3.4% $3.1 3.7% $3.5 3.7% $4.1 4.0% $4.2 4.0% $6.5 9.0% Services $12.4 18.8% $10.2 14.7% $11.2 15.8% $11.9 16.4% $13.5 17.9% $15.2 19.9% $16.5 19.4% $17.7 18.7% $19.4 18.9% $18.6 17.7% $16.5 23.1% Government $33.2 50.2% $35.1 50.5% $36.6 51.6% $35.9 49.5% $36.4 48.1% $36.5 47.9% $36.5 42.9% $37.4 39.5% $40.1 39.0% $43.2 41.3% $16.8 23.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $206.6 100.0% $129.8 100.0% $135.5 100.0% $148.4 100.0% $159.7 100.0% Mining D D D D $1.5 1.0% Construction $22.9 11.1% $21.9 16.8% $19.5 14.4% $24.0 16.2% $27.3 17.1% Manufacturing $7.2 3.5% $8.5 6.5% $10.8 7.9% $11.6 7.8% $12.3 7.7% Trade, Transp., Utilities $18.7 9.1% $21.0 16.2% $21.5 15.8% $23.7 16.0% $25.2 15.8% Information $4.8 2.3% $6.0 4.6% $7.7 5.7% D $10.5 6.6% Financial Activities $2.7 1.3% $3.1 2.4% $3.8 2.8% $3.9 2.6% $3.6 2.3% Prof & Bus Services $14.5 7.0% $14.3 11.0% $16.7 12.3% $16.8 11.3% $19.2 12.0% Edu & Health Services $5.5 2.7% $5.5 4.2% $6.9 5.1% $9.2 6.2% $9.3 5.8% Leisure & Hospitality $3.8 1.8% $3.5 2.7% $3.8 2.8% $3.7 2.5% $3.6 2.3% Other Services $4.1 2.0% $4.1 3.2% $4.1 3.0% $4.4 3.0% $3.8 2.4% Government $122.3 59.2% $41.9 32.3% $40.8 30.1% $42.1 28.4% $43.2 27.0% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

214 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Kaysville, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 19.7% 8.3% Mining Construction 112.8% 77.8% 205.5% 182.1% Manufacturing -32.5% -43.6% -38.4% -43.2% TCPU Trade 97.7% 65.2% 135.6% 117.5% FIRE 92.7% 61.0% 298.1% 267.5% Services 49.2% 24.6% 32.8% 22.6% Government -31.0% -42.3% -49.2% -53.1%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural -10.7% -22.7% Mining Construction 20.2% 34.5% 19.2% 54.2% Manufacturing 12.3% 25.7% 70.2% 120.2% Trade, Transp, Utilities 20.7% 35.2% 34.8% 74.4% Information 52.7% 70.9% 119.5% 184.0% Financial Activities 40.4% 57.2% 35.0% 74.7% Prof & Bus Services -4.2% 7.3% 32.3% 71.1% Edu & Health Services 84.1% 106.2% 68.3% 117.7% Leisure & Hosp 14.4% 28.1% -4.6% 23.4% Other Services 25.6% 40.6% -6.5% 21.0% Government -47.8% -41.5% -64.7% -54.3% †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 9.9 Kaysville Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction 1.5 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.5 Manufacturing 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.3 TCPU 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trade 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 FIRE 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.4 Services 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 Government 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.1

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 Construction 1.3 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.7 Manufacturing 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Trade, Transp, Utilities 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 Information 3.0 3.6 4.3 0.0 4.8 Financial Activities 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 Prof & Bus Services 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 Edu & Health Services 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 Leisure & Hosp 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 Other Services 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.2 Government 1.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 215

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.10 Major Employers in Kaysville 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 300–399 Employees Clover Club Foods Manufacturing

100–199 Employees Bowman’s Retail Trade

50–99 Employees Davis Area Vocational Center Service Industries

1995–96 100–199 Employees Team Mechanical Construction Bowman’s Retail Trade Cherry Hill, Inc. Service Industries

50–99 Employees Morgan Pavement Maintenance/Morgan Asphalt Construction RMS Information Services Manufacturing Barnes Banking Company Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

2000 200–299 Employees Davis County School District Service Industries

100–199 Employees Team Mechanical Construction Industries Bowman’s Retail Trade Cherry Hill, Inc. Service Industries Davis High School Service Industries Davis County School District Service Industries Davis Applied Technology Center Service Industries Senis Management Inc Service Industries

50–99 Employees Impact Imaging Inc Manufacturing Albertsons Retail Trade Blaine Jensen & Sons Inc Retail Trade Barnes Banking Company Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Basic Computer Services Inc Service Industries

2005 250–499 Employees Davis County School District Transportation and Warehousing

100–249 Employees United Team Mechanical Construction Bowman’s Retail Trade Basic Computer Services Inc Information Barnes Banking Company Management of Companies and Enterprises Davis County School District Educational Services Cherry Hill, Inc. Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

216 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.10 Major Employers in Kaysville 1990–2007, cont’d.

Company Industry 2005 50–99 Employees Page Drywall Inc Construction Impact Imaging Inc Manufacturing KSG Distributing Inc Wholesale Trade Blaine Jensen & Sons Inc Retail Trade Albertsons Retail Trade PC Consulting Inc Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

2007 100–249 Employees United Team Mechanical Construction Bowman’s Retail Trade BCS Human Resources LLC Information Barnes Banking Company Finance and Insurance Cherry Hill, Inc. Arts, Entertainment and Recreation

50–99 Employees Morgan Pavement Maintenance/Morgan Asphalt Construction Page Drywall Construction Robert Speirs Plumbing Construction Fusion Imaging Manufacturing Blaine Jensen & Sons Inc Retail Trade Albertsons Retail Trade PC Consulting Inc Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Red Canyon/Comfort Keepers Health Care and Social Assistance Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 217

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Kaysville, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 45.1% 48.8% 40.3% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 18.0% 24.2% 9.9% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 12.5% 17.6% 5.9% Farmers and farm managers 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 5.3% 6.3% 4.0% Business operations specialists 2.3% 2.8% 1.6% Financial specialists 3.1% 3.6% 2.4% Professional and related occupations 27.1% 24.6% 30.4% Computer and mathematical occupations 5.7% 8.4% 2.1% Architecture and engineering occupations 3.2% 4.9% 0.9% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 2.3% 3.9% 0.2% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.9% 1.1% 0.7% Life, physical, and social science occupations 1.0% 1.1% 0.8% Community and social services occupations 1.5% 1.1% 2.1% Legal occupations 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% Education, training, and library occupations 8.5% 3.5% 15.1% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.5% 2.0% 0.9% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 4.1% 1.7% 7.2% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 3.5% 1.5% 6.1% Health technologists and technicians 0.6% 0.3% 1.1% Service occupations 11.2% 8.7% 14.5% Healthcare support occupations 1.4% 0.4% 2.8% Protective service occupations 1.5% 2.2% 0.6% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.9% 1.6% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% Food preparation and serving related occupations 3.4% 2.7% 4.3% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 2.0% 2.7% 1.0% Personal care and service occupations 2.8% 0.6% 5.8% Sales and office occupations 28.1% 20.6% 37.9% Sales and related occupations 13.5% 12.9% 14.3% Office and administrative support occupations 14.6% 7.7% 23.6% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 6.4% 10.5% 0.9% Construction and extraction occupations 3.9% 6.6% 0.4% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.7% 1.2% 0.0% Construction trades workers 3.2% 5.4% 0.4% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 2.4% 3.9% 0.5% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 9.3% 11.4% 6.4% Production occupations 5.3% 5.0% 5.6% Transportation and material moving occupations 4.0% 6.4% 0.9% Supervisors, transportation and material moving workers 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 1.5% 2.3% 0.4% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Material moving workers 1.4% 2.1% 0.5% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

218 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 9.4 Kaysville Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1995–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) Building & Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Total Garden Dealers Accessory Drinking Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1995 $5.2 13.3% $13.4 34.1% $13.0 33.1% $0.054 0.1% $2.3 5.8% $2.3 5.9% $3.0 7.6% $39.4 1996 $5.5 11.2% $18.5 37.6% $17.1 34.9% $0.109 0.2% $2.2 4.5% $3.0 6.1% $2.7 5.5% $49.1 1997 $4.0 6.1% $28.5 43.4% $21.3 32.5% $0.223 0.3% $2.7 4.1% $4.0 6.1% $4.8 7.4% $65.6 1998 $3.3 4.1% $30.1 37.1% $33.2 40.9% $0.093 0.1% $3.3 4.0% $6.1 7.5% $5.2 6.4% $81.2 1999 $3.2 3.7% $31.3 36.3% $36.9 42.8% $0.057 0.1% $2.7 3.2% $6.4 7.4% $5.6 6.5% $86.2 2000 $1.1 1.4% $31.8 38.8% $32.1 39.2% $0.061 0.1% $2.3 2.8% $7.9 9.6% $6.6 8.1% $81.9 2001 $1.8 2.4% $31.1 40.7% $26.5 34.6% $0.062 0.1% $2.3 2.9% $8.8 11.5% $6.0 7.9% $76.5 2002 $2.3 2.9% $30.5 38.2% $28.9 36.2% $0.434 0.5% $3.1 3.9% $8.8 11.0% $5.8 7.3% $79.9 2003 $7.1 8.3% $28.5 33.4% $31.5 36.8% $0.620 0.7% $2.7 3.2% $8.9 10.4% $6.2 7.2% $85.5 2004 $8.0 9.2% $27.1 31.1% $31.8 36.5% $0.740 0.8% $2.2 2.5% $10.0 11.4% $7.3 8.4% $87.2 2005 $10.1 9.5% $27.4 25.8% $35.1 33.0% $0.629 0.6% $2.8 2.7% $10.1 9.5% $20.2 19.0% $106.4 Change 93.6% -28.4% 104.0% -24.5% 169.0% -0.4% 1063.3% 330.6% 24.0% -54.1% 338.5% 62.3% 569.7% 147.9% 170.2% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$120 Miscellaneous Eating & Drinking Furniture $100 Apparel & Accessory Motor Vehicle Dealers Food Stores $80 Building & Garden

$60

$40 Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars

$20

$0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 219

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 9.5 Kaysville Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$3.0

Property Taxes Sales and Use Taxes

$2.0

$1.0 Millions 2005 of Dollars Constant

$0.0

0 2 3 5 6 8 0 1 3 91 94 99 02 04 99 9 99 9 99 99 9 00 0 0 1 1 199 1 1 199 1 1997 1 1 200 2 2 200 2 2005 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $853,490 $647,295 $1,651,563 1991 $802,585 $880,956 $1,837,469 1992 $815,067 $947,201 $1,973,238 1993 $857,485 $118,676 $1,139,619 $2,284,243 1994 $918,511 $141,293 $1,306,345 $2,534,388 1995 $974,575 $143,787 $1,424,243 $2,846,700 1996 $1,122,495 $196,036 $1,581,541 $3,285,449 1997 $1,158,241 $244,938 $1,749,862 $3,466,481 1998 $1,245,506 $231,686 $1,911,774 $3,699,338 1999 $1,300,914 $224,372 $2,095,245 $3,945,879 2000 $1,296,734 $217,241 $2,186,306 $4,034,851 2001 $1,311,515 $188,160 $2,149,243 $4,080,842 2002 $1,362,664 $218,254 $2,337,604 $4,583,774 2003 $1,370,507 $216,047 $2,579,480 $4,705,623 2004 $1,431,611 $220,132 $2,737,628 $5,180,521 2005 $1,403,854 $217,606 $2,808,418 $5,504,117 Change 64.5% 83.4% 333.9% 233.3% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

220 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.12 Detailed Breakdown of Kaysville Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 Property taxes General Fund $564,273 $853,490 51.7% Total Property Taxes $564,273 $853,490 $61.13 51.7% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $427,950 $647,295 $46.36 39.2% Public Utility Franchise Tax $5,368 $8,119 0.5% Building Permits $85,607 $129,485 7.8% Other Licenses and Permits $8,710 $13,174 0.8% Total Tax Revenues $1,091,908 $1,651,563 $118.30 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $948,694 $1,079,492 26.8% Fee in Lieu $190,919 $217,241 5.4% Total Property Taxes $1,139,613 $1,296,734 $63.72 32.1% Sales and Use Tax $1,921,399 $2,186,306 $107.43 54.2% Franchise Tax $331,759 $377,499 9.4% Building Permits $134,770 $153,351 3.8% Other Licenses and Permits $18,422 $20,962 0.5% Total Tax Revenues $3,545,963 $4,034,851 $198.26 100.0%

2005 $5,504,117 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $834,160 15.2% Library $306,253 5.6% Delinquent $45,835 0.8% Fee in Lieu $217,606 4.0% Total Property Taxes $1,403,854 $62.05 25.5% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $2,373,991 43.1% Energy Sales and Use Tax $434,427 7.9% Total Sales Taxes $2,808,418 $124.13 51.0% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $735,578 13.4% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $48,662 0.9% Building Permit Fees $507,605 9.2% Total Tax Revenues $5,504,117 $243.29 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 221

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.13 Kaysville Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $117,052,604 17.2% $149,555,252 16.1% 27.8% Buildings $337,764,906 49.7% $544,487,386 58.5% 61.2% Total $454,817,509 66.9% $694,042,638 74.6% 52.6%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $12,164,287 1.8% $32,214,053 3.5% 164.8% Buildings $35,479,669 5.2% $82,598,770 8.9% 132.8% Total $47,643,956 7.0% $114,812,823 12.3% 141.0%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $1,451,081 0.2% $429,393 0.0% -70.4% Buildings $2,206,407 0.3% $1,204,218 0.1% -45.4% Total $3,657,487 0.5% $1,633,611 0.2% -55.3%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $38,138,360 5.6% $7,521,022 0.8% -80.3%

Total Land & Buildings $544,257,313 80.1% $893,050,479 95.9% 64.1% Total Personal Property $20,135,933 3.0% $25,986,055 2.8% 29.1% Total Locally Assessed $564,393,247 83.1% $919,036,534 98.7% 62.8% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $115,151,435 16.9% $11,934,850 1.3% -89.6% Area Total $679,544,682 100.0% $930,971,384 100.0% 37.0% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 9.14 Kaysville Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 7,350 Vacant Units 150 Total Occupied Units 7,200 Owner Occupied 6,280 Vacant Owner Units 105 Total Owner Units 6,385 Renter Occupied 920 Vacant Rental Units 45 Total Rental Units 965 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

222 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 9.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Kaysville, 1990–2006

450

400

350

300

250

200 Permits

150

100

50

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 9.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Kaysville by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 125 2 0 0 127 $12,814.5 1991 125 2 0 0 127 $14,811.2 1992 198 4 11 0 213 $24,337.9 1993 249 2 0 0 0 251 $30,184.3 1994 179 0 4 26 0 209 $23,658.5 1995 181 6 0 17 0 204 $24,448.8 1996 241 4 0 4 3 252 $29,285.7 1997 171 8 0 4 4 187 $21,904.9 1998 117 2 0 0 2 121 $18,069.5 1999 129 8 0 0 1 138 $18,166.0 2000 96 0 2 0 3 101 $14,912.4 2001 163 2 0 0 0 165 $26,280.0 2002 166 6 0 0 1 173 $31,667.4 2003 188 0 0 10 1 199 $36,281.5 2004 288 2 0 0 0 290 $56,165.3 2005 355 0 0 0 3 358 $70,490.8 2006 411 0 0 0 1 412 $89,900.1 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 223

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.16 Median Price of New Homes in Kaysville, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 0 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 6 2 15 $175,000–$199,999 40 26 3 $200,000–$224,999 37 28 5 $225,000–$249,999 3 2 0 $250,000–$274,999 0 79 106 $275,000–$299,999 0 0 0 $300,000–$324,999 0 4 24 $325,000–$349,999 11 14 15 $350,000–$374,999 0 30 63 $375,000–$399,999 30 36 28 $400,000–$449,999 15 14 28 $450,000–$499,999 0 0 12 $500,000–$599,999 0 0 0 $600,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 142 235 299 Median Price* $216,892 $268,829 $321,354 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 9.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Kaysville, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $145,200 $167,876 150 1998 $159,000 $170,109 181 1999 $148,500 $169,146 144 2000 $154,900 $178,088 188 2001 $163,250 $184,527 163 2002 $169,500 $207,722 180 2003 $180,000 $212,847 219 2004 $175,000 $200,108 227 2005 $209,000 $231,496 265 2006 $255,000 $290,639 288 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

224 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Kaysville, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Hotels Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & & Other Mercantile, Other & & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Motels Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $1,519.3 $572.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $188.7 $114.8 $2,394.8 $4,006.5 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $1,493.7 $0.0 $0.0 $1,897.1 $2,173.3 $0.0 $275.2 $1,480.6 $7,319.9 $11,798.1 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4,070.0 $0.0 $310.1 $987.4 $5,367.5 $8,428.6 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $16.5 $104.3 $0.0 $242.0 $908.0 $629.0 $228.4 $974.7 $3,102.9 $4,686.9 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,548.4 $0.0 $1,267.1 $0.0 $51.3 $369.1 $45.2 $3,281.1 $4,739.4 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $1,014.7 $582.9 $0.0 $2,010.1 $863.1 $590.3 $43.5 $1,033.2 $6,137.8 $8,539.1 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $697.6 $195.0 $0.0 $1,844.0 $175.7 $0.0 $529.7 $1,005.1 $4,447.1 $5,927.0 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $869.8 $0.0 $0.0 $2,912.4 $724.6 $0.0 $17.4 $742.8 $5,267.0 $6,813.6 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $580.5 $0.0 $548.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,300.2 $2,428.9 $3,111.7 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $886.1 $0.0 $1,501.3 $674.9 $33.2 $1,275.2 $637.2 $5,007.9 $6,395.0 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $1,571.8 $0.0 $0.0 $111.2 $518.1 $38.6 $0.0 $1,041.7 $3,281.4 $3,972.7 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $1,286.2 $1,080.1 $0.0 $0.0 $2,348.6 $897.4 $30.8 $373.9 $6,017.0 $6,654.8 2006 $0.0 $893.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,725.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $876.8 $3,495.2 $3,495.2 Total $0.0 $893.0 $8,469.6 $5,549.3 $0.0 $14,058.8 $12,456.3 $2,239.8 $3,268.1 $10,613.6 $57,548.5 $78,568.4 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 225

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 9.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Kaysville, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 47.65 0.00 1991 49.37 0.00 1992 79.13 0.00 1993 101.92 0.00 1994 102.29 0.00 1995 96.09 0.00 1996 99.08 0.00 1997 106.43 0.00 1998 100.03 0.00 1999 69.77 0.00 2000 68.58 0.00 2001 144.57 0.00 2003 29.38 0.00 2002 42.87 0.00 2004 22.90 0.00 2005 236.46 0.00 2006 110.75 2.22 Total 1,507.27 2.22 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

226 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

L AYTON

Table 10.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Layton

Population Population (2005) 64,212 Median Age (2000) 26.8 Average Household Income (2006) $66,007

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 24,165 Employer Firms (2005) 1,789 Average Annual Wage (2005) $27,350 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Trade, Transportation, Utilities 7,191 29.8% Leisure & Hospitality 3,568 14.8% Professional & Business Services 2,795 11.6%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $825.2 Major Retail Categories (millions) General Merchandise $267.8 Motor Vehicles $131.0 Building & Garden $109.4 Per Capita Retail Sales $12,851

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 22,200 100.0% Owner Occupied 16,300 73.4% Renter Occupied 5,000 22.5% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $187,485 New $289,534

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $20.2 Property Tax Receipts (millions) $5.5 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $12.2 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $314 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 227

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Layton, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 41,784 58,474 41,784 Age Under 5 Years 4,789 11.5% 6,050 10.3% 4,789 5 to 17 Years 11,759 28.1% 14,462 24.7% 11,759 18 to 20 Years 1,765 4.2% 3,142 5.4% 1,765 21 to 24 Years 2,389 5.7% 3,957 6.8% 2,389 25 to 44 Years 15,367 36.8% 17,710 30.3% 15,367 45 to 54 Years 3,345 8.0% 6,521 11.2% 3,345 55 to 59 Years 1,277 3.1% 1,927 3.3% 1,277 60 to 64 Years 1,068 2.6% 1,374 2.3% 1,068 65 Years and Over 1,875 4.5% 3,331 5.7% 1,875 Median Age 25.3 26.8 25.3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 10.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Layton, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 11.8% 8.4% High School Graduate* 28.5% 24.4% Some College, No Degree 32.4% 30.5% Associate’s Degree 7.6% 9.7% Bachelor’s Degree 14.3% 19.7% Graduate or Professional degree 5.4% 7.4% Master’s Degree N/A 6.0% Professional Degree N/A 1.0% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.4% By Sex Male: Less than High School 7.5% High School Graduate* 22.0% Some College, No Degree 29.9% Associate’s Degree 9.1% Bachelor’s Degree 20.9% Master’s Degree 8.3% Professional Degree 1.5% Doctorate Degree 0.8% Female: Less than High School 9.2% High School Graduate* 26.8% Some College, No Degree 31.0% Associate’s Degree 10.3% Bachelor’s Degree 18.4% Master’s Degree 3.8% Professional Degree 0.4% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

228 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 10.1 Layton Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 75 - 79 Black 70 - 74 19.3% 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 American 50 - 54 Indian, 45 - 49 Eskimo, or 40 - 44 Aleut 35 - 39 Hispanic 5.4% 30 - 34 53.8% 25 - 29 20 - 24 Asian or 15 - 19 Pacific 10 - 14 Islander 5 - 9 20.8% Under 5

3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 Other race Male Female 0.7%

Age Distribution of the Layton Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 2,471 2,318 1.07 11.5% 23.9% Layton Share of 5–9 2,543 2,433 1.05 11.9% 22.3% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 2,358 2,269 1.04 11.1% 20.8% Total 41,784 100.0% 22.2% 15–19 1,639 1,733 0.95 8.1% 19.7% 20–24 1,395 1,543 0.90 7.0% 22.5% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 1,878 1,885 1.00 9.0% 26.0% White 37,412 89.5% 21.5% 30–34 1,969 1,846 1.07 9.1% 24.9% Black 842 2.0% 36.9% 35–39 1,636 1,667 0.98 7.9% 24.3% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 238 0.6% 23.9% 40–44 1,335 1,301 1.03 6.3% 23.9% Asian or Pacific Islander 910 2.2% 29.2% 45–49 966 949 1.02 4.6% 21.6% Other race 32 0.1% 40.5% 50–54 706 724 0.98 3.4% 20.3% Ethnicity 55–59 629 648 0.97 3.1% 20.5% Hispanic Origin 2,350 5.6% 17.1% 60–64 524 544 0.96 2.6% 20.7% 65–69 427 427 1.00 2.0% 18.8% Minority 4,372 10.5% 31.8% 70–74 246 252 0.98 1.2% 16.5% 75–79 126 159 0.79 0.7% 14.9% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 61 95 0.64 0.4% 12.7% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 28 54 0.52 0.2% 9.3% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that Total 20,937 20,847 1.00 100.0% 22.2% the city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's Share 60 years+ 7.0% 11.2% share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Median Age 25.3 female ratio greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 229

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 10.2 Layton Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black alone 75 - 79 (NH) AIAN alone 70 - 74 11.9% (NH) 65 - 69 3.3% 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 Asian alone 45 - 49 (NH) 40 - 44 15.4% 35 - 39 30 - 34 NHPI alone Hispanic (NH) 25 - 29 53.1% 1.8% 20 - 24 15 - 19 Some other 10 - 14 race alone 5 - 9 (NH) Under 5 0.8% Two or more 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 races (NH) 13.6% Male Female

Age Distribution of the Layton Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 3,058 2,992 1.02 10.3% 25.9% Layton Share of 5–9 2,883 2,623 1.10 9.4% 24.4% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 2,795 2,688 1.04 9.4% 23.8% Total 58,474 100.0% 24.5% 15–19 2,847 2,795 1.02 9.6% 23.5% 20–24 2,458 2,472 0.99 8.4% 24.4% Not Hispanic or Latino 54,406 93.0% 24.1% 25–29 2,279 2,324 0.98 7.9% 26.5% White alone 50,820 86.9% 23.7% 30–34 2,250 2,121 1.06 7.5% 27.4% Black or African American alone 907 1.6% 36.0% 35–39 2,270 2,171 1.05 7.6% 26.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 255 0.4% 21.7% 40–44 2,187 2,108 1.04 7.3% 25.3% Asian alone 1,178 2.0% 33.0% 45–49 1,875 1,892 0.99 6.4% 25.9% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 141 0.2% 23.2% 50–54 1,441 1,313 1.10 4.7% 24.3% Some other race alone 61 0.1% 29.9% 55–59 969 958 1.01 3.3% 22.5% Two or more races 1,044 1.8% 31.4% 60–64 669 705 0.95 2.3% 21.1% Ethnicity 65–69 555 622 0.89 2.0% 21.2% Hispanic or Latino 4,068 7.0% 31.4% 70–74 418 465 0.90 1.5% 19.9% 75–79 309 348 0.89 1.1% 17.9% Minority 7,654 13.1% 31.4% 80–84 149 221 0.67 0.6% 16.8% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 75 169 0.44 0.4% 14.4% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 29,487 28,987 1.02 100.0% 24.5% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 8.0% 19.6% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Median Age 26.8 one.

230 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 10.3 Distribution of Household Income in Layton, 1995-2005

25%

20%

1995 2000 2005

15%

10% Share of Households 5%

0%

00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ,0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 10,000 15 20 25, 30, 35, 75, $5,000 $ $ $ $ $ 100,000 $ $25 er - - - - $250,000 1 - r 01 - 1 Und 001 001 001 00 0 , , , , 00 Ove $5 50, 5, $10,001$15,001 - $ $20- $ $25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $40,000$45,001 - $45,000 $- $50,000 $7 100,001 - $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 859 5.2% 708 4.1% 806 4.0% $5,001–$10,000 997 6.1% 721 4.2% 945 4.7% $10,001–$15,000 1,148 7.0% 809 4.7% 1,147 5.7% $15,001–$20,000 1,280 7.8% 923 5.3% 1,224 6.1% $20,001–$25,000 1,229 7.5% 870 5.0% 1,210 6.0% $25,001–$30,000 1,237 7.5% 888 5.1% 1,145 5.7% $30,001–$35,000 1,122 6.8% 918 5.3% 1,065 5.3% $35,001–$40,000 1,135 6.9% 958 5.5% 1,064 5.3% $40,001–$45,000 1,077 6.6% 1,015 5.9% 990 4.9% $45,001–$50,000 949 5.8% 1,031 6.0% 1,020 5.1% $50,001–$75,000 3,347 20.4% 4,251 24.6% 4,104 20.5% $75,001–$100,000 1,289 7.8% 2,207 12.8% 2,511 12.5% $100,001–$250,000 692 4.2% 1,752 10.1% 2,621 13.1% Over $250,000 76 0.5% 220 1.3% 200 1.0% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 231

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.4 Share of Persons in Layton Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 7.1% 5.6% Male 6.3% 4.7% Under 5 years 12.2% 7.9% Under 5 years 12.5% 7.3% 5 years 7.7% 11.2% 5 years 9.8% 8.9% 6 to 11 years 9.3% 7.2% 6 to 11 years 9.9% 7.2% 12 to 17 years 7.4% 6.3% 12 to 17 years 8.4% 5.6% 18 to 64 years 5.5% 4.8% 18 to 64 years 3.8% 3.6% 65 to 74 years 3.9% 2.9% 65 to 74 years 1.9% 1.2% 75 years and over 10.0% 5.6% 75 years and over 3.2% 3.7% Female 7.9% 6.6% Under 5 years 11.9% 8.6% 5 years 5.7% 13.7% 6 to 11 years 8.7% 7.3% 12 to 17 years 6.5% 7.0% 18 to 64 years 7.3% 6.0% 65 to 74 years 6.1% 4.2% 75 years and over 14.1% 7.1% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 10.5 Layton Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 19,057 100.0% 28,700 100.0% 9,643 50.6% Drove alone 15,019 78.8% 22,351 77.9% 7,332 48.8% Carpooled 2,772 14.5% 4,190 14.6% 1,418 51.2% Public transportation (including taxicab) 260 1.4% 548 1.9% 288 110.8% Bicycle or walked 334 1.8% 424 1.5% 90 26.9% Motorcycle or other means 179 0.9% 224 0.8% 45 25.1% Worked at home 493 2.6% 963 3.4% 470 95.3%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 18,564 100.0% 27,737 100.0% 9,173 49.4% Less than 5 minutes 578 3.1% 947 3.4% 369 63.8% 5 to 9 minutes 2,635 14.2% 3,798 13.7% 1,163 44.1% 10 to 14 minutes 3,926 21.1% 5,094 18.4% 1,168 29.8% 15 to 19 minutes 3,791 20.4% 4,710 17.0% 919 24.2% 20 to 24 minutes 2,824 15.2% 3,312 11.9% 488 17.3% 25 to 29 minutes 855 4.6% 1,241 4.5% 386 45.1% 30 to 34 minutes 1,699 9.2% 2,337 8.4% 638 37.6% 35 to 39 minutes 460 2.5% 784 2.8% 324 70.4% 40 to 44 minutes 570 3.1% 946 3.4% 376 66.0% 45 or more minutes 1,226 6.6% 4,568 16.5% 3,342 272.6% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 19.2 24.4 5.2 26.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

232 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Layton by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 9,284 100.0% 9,908 100.0% 10,909 100.0% 12,205 100.0% 13,560 100.0% 13,660 100.0% 15,723 100.0% 16,707 100.0% 16,886 100.0% 17,399 100.0% 14,833 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 290 3.1% 366 3.7% 466 4.3% 586 4.8% 644 4.7% 686 5.0% 799 5.1% 826 4.9% 896 5.3% 1,050 6.0% 1,095 7.4% Manufacturing 414 4.5% 471 4.8% 449 4.1% 491 4.0% 501 3.7% 510 3.7% 517 3.3% 572 3.4% 608 3.6% 684 3.9% 138 0.9% TCPU 565 6.1% 622 6.3% 619 5.7% 617 5.1% 694 5.1% 672 4.9% 774 4.9% 719 4.3% D 529 3.0% 315 2.1% Trade 4,472 48.2% 4,597 46.4% 5,008 45.9% 5,378 44.1% 5,803 42.8% 6,255 45.8% 6,748 42.9% 6,982 41.8% 7,010 41.5% 7,148 41.1% 6,731 45.4% FIRE 351 3.8% 525 5.3% 774 7.1% 1,150 9.4% 1,602 11.8% 1,627 11.9% 1,859 11.8% 2,112 12.6% 2,045 12.1% 1,814 10.4% 1,489 10.0% Services 2,067 22.3% 2,071 20.9% 2,134 19.6% 2,375 19.5% 2,631 19.4% 3,024 22.1% 3,256 20.7% 3,692 22.1% 3,882 23.0% 4,146 23.8% 4,028 27.2% Government 1,125 12.1% 1,256 12.7% 1,459 13.4% 1,608 13.2% 1,685 12.4% 1,793 13.1% 1,770 11.3% 1,804 10.8% 1,878 11.1% 2,028 11.7% 1,037 7.0% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 24,191 100.0% 22,216 100.0% 22,274 100.0% 23,519 100.0% 24,165 100.0% Mining D D D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 1,310 5.4% 1,072 4.8% 1,151 5.2% 1,367 5.8% 1,588 6.6% Manufacturing 280 1.2% 348 1.6% 405 1.8% 402 1.7% 386 1.6% Trade, Transp., Utilities 6,778 28.0% 6,855 30.9% 6,852 30.8% 7,216 30.7% 7,191 29.8% Information 283 1.2% 335 1.5% 306 1.4% 359 1.5% 334 1.4% Financial Activities 1,806 7.5% 1,609 7.2% 1,791 8.0% 1,877 8.0% 1,891 7.8% Prof. & Business Services 2,416 10.0% 2,664 12.0% 2,551 11.5% 2,757 11.7% 2,795 11.6% Education & Health Services 2,432 10.1% 2,658 12.0% 2,519 11.3% 2,580 11.0% 2,754 11.4% Leisure & Hospitality 2,981 12.3% 3,197 14.4% 3,258 14.6% 3,411 14.5% 3,568 14.8% Other Services 773 3.2% 916 4.1% 903 4.1% 974 4.1% 1,002 4.1% Government 5,130 21.2% 2,563 11.5% 2,539 11.4% 2,576 11.0% 2,656 11.0% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 233

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Layton by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $207.0 100.0% $228.2 100.0% $258.1 100.0% $282.5 100.0% $307.7 100.0% $317.6 100.0% $363.2 100.0% $386.7 100.0% $415.4 100.0% $430.3 100.0% $326.4 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% D $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% D $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $7.6 3.7% $9.8 4.3% $11.9 4.6% $15.5 5.5% $16.9 5.5% $18.4 5.8% $21.1 5.8% $23.0 6.0% $25.8 6.2% $31.2 7.3% $35.2 10.8% Manufacturing $10.8 5.2% $12.4 5.4% $12.3 4.8% $13.1 4.6% $13.6 4.4% $14.1 4.4% $16.3 4.5% $19.8 5.1% $22.4 5.4% $24.7 5.7% $4.1 1.3% TCPU $20.5 9.9% $22.5 9.9% $22.4 8.7% $22.1 7.8% $23.8 7.7% $24.1 7.6% $25.4 7.0% $24.2 6.3% D $17.7 4.1% $11.8 3.6% Trade $75.8 36.6% $82.3 36.1% $96.7 37.5% $100.6 35.6% $103.1 33.5% $111.8 35.2% $120.4 33.1% $125.2 32.4% $133.6 32.2% $138.0 32.1% $112.4 34.4% FIRE $8.2 4.0% $11.8 5.2% $16.9 6.5% $24.9 8.8% $34.0 11.1% $35.7 11.3% $44.7 12.3% $50.1 13.0% $55.3 13.3% $48.8 11.3% $41.1 12.6% Services $47.5 22.9% $49.7 21.8% $54.8 21.2% $59.4 21.0% $66.4 21.6% $80.6 25.4% $82.4 22.7% $91.1 23.6% $103.2 24.8% $111.9 26.0% $96.5 29.6% Government $36.8 17.8% $39.6 17.3% $43.0 16.7% $46.8 16.6% $49.9 16.2% $51.5 16.2% $52.9 14.6% $53.2 13.8% $55.0 13.2% $57.9 13.5% $25.3 7.7% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $709.8 100.0% $586.1 100.0% $596.1 100.0% $639.8 100.0% $660.9 100.0% Mining D D D $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $37.8 5.3% $30.8 5.3% $31.6 5.3% $40.8 6.4% $45.1 6.8% Manufacturing $8.4 1.2% $9.5 1.6% $10.7 1.8% $11.9 1.9% $11.6 1.8% Trade, Transp., Utilities $168.7 23.8% $174.8 29.8% $175.9 29.5% $188.1 29.4% $186.5 28.2% Information $7.8 1.1% $6.0 1.0% $6.1 1.0% $9.1 1.4% $9.3 1.4% Financial Activities $49.7 7.0% $42.7 7.3% $47.5 8.0% $46.1 7.2% $46.3 7.0% Prof & Bus Services $94.1 13.3% $108.2 18.5% $112.8 18.9% $123.7 19.3% $131.0 19.8% Edu & Health Services $81.3 11.5% $81.0 13.8% $81.7 13.7% $83.0 13.0% $89.6 13.6% Leisure & Hospitality $32.2 4.5% $34.6 5.9% $35.6 6.0% $37.7 5.9% $39.8 6.0% Other Services $18.0 2.5% $23.0 3.9% $20.4 3.4% $24.3 3.8% $25.2 3.8% Government $212.0 29.9% $75.4 12.9% $73.9 12.4% $75.1 11.7% $76.5 11.6% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

234 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Layton, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 59.8% 57.7% Mining Construction 277.6% 136.3% 362.3% 193.2% Manufacturing -66.7% -79.1% -61.7% -75.7% TCPU -44.2% -65.1% -42.5% -63.5% Trade 50.5% -5.8% 48.4% -5.9% FIRE 324.2% 165.5% 402.3% 218.6% Services 94.9% 22.0% 103.2% 28.9% Government -7.8% -42.3% -31.3% -56.4%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural -0.1% -6.9% Mining Construction 21.3% 21.4% 19.2% 28.0% Manufacturing 37.8% 38.0% 37.6% 47.7% Trade, Transp, Utilities 6.1% 6.2% 10.6% 18.7% Information 18.1% 18.2% 19.7% 28.5% Financial Activities 4.7% 4.8% -6.8% 0.1% Prof & Bus Services 15.7% 15.8% 39.2% 49.6% Edu & Health Services 13.2% 13.3% 10.3% 18.4% Leisure & Hosp 19.7% 19.8% 23.7% 32.9% Other Services 29.6% 29.7% 40.4% 50.7% Government -48.2% -48.2% -63.9% -61.2% †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 10.9 Layton Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.9 Manufacturing 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 TCPU 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.4 1.3 0.0 0.8 0.6 Trade 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8 FIRE 1.7 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.9 Services 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 Government 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.3

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 Manufacturing 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 Trade, Transp, Utilities 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Information 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 Financial Activities 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 Prof & Bus Services 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 Edu & Health Services 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 Leisure & Hosp 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 Other Services 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 Government 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 235

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.10 Major Employers in Layton, 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 400–499 Employees Smith’s Distribution Center Retail Trade

300–399 Employees Humana Hospital Davis North Service Industries

100–199 Employees May Trucking Company Transportation, Communication, and Utilities J C Bangerter & Sons Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

1995–96 700–999 Employees SPS (was Sears Payment Systems) Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate

400–499 Employees Humana Hospital Davis North Service Industries

300–399 Employees Smith’s Distribution Center Retail Trade

200–299 Employees Wal-Mart Retail Trade

100–199 Employees Smith’s Machine Bakery Manufacturing J C Bangerter & Sons Transportation, Communication, and Utilities May Trucking Company Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Mervyns Retail Trade ZCMI/Macys Retail Trade ShopKo Stores #88 Retail Trade JC Penney Retail Trade Sam’s Club Retail Trade Smith’s Food King #149 Retail Trade Smith’s Regional Office Retail Trade Young Chevrolet Retail Trade Olive Garden Retail Trade Tanner Memorial Clinic Service Industries FHP Service Industries

2000 700–999 Employees Smith’s Distribution Center Retail Trade

500–699 Employees Associates Commerce Solutions Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Davis Hospital and Medical Center Service Industries

200–299 Employees May Trucking Company Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Wal-Mart Retail Trade Super Target Retail Trade SOS Temporary Services Service Industries Tanner Memorial Clinic Service Industries Hilltop HeadStart Service Industries

236 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.10 Major Employers in Layton, 1990–2007, cont’d.

Company Industry

2000 100–199 Employees RMS Information Services Manufacturing Geneva Rock Products Manufacturing Aerospace Support Technologies Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Eagle Hardware and Garden Retail Trade Kroeger Western Region Office Retail Trade JC Penney Retail Trade ZCMI Retail Trade Mervyns Retail Trade ShopKo Stores #88 Retail Trade Sam’s Club Retail Trade Smith’s Food and Drug Ctrs Retail Trade Young Chevrolet Co Retail Trade Olive Garden Retail Trade Golden Corral Retail Trade Layton City Parks & Rec Service Industries Kelson Physicians Partners of Layton Service Industries North Layton Jr High Service Industries Layton High School Service Industries Northridge High School Service Industries

2005 500–999 Employees Smith’s Distribution Center Transportation and Warehousing ASSOC PAYROLL MGT SRVC Finance and Insurance Davis Hospital and Medical Center Health Care and Social Assistance

250–499 Employees Wal-Mart Retail Trade May Trucking Company Transportation and Warehousing HSS Systems LLC Management of Companies and Enterprises SOS Temporary Services Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Tanner Memorial Clinic Health Care and Social Assistance

100–249 Employees Geneva Rock Products Manufacturing Lowes Home Improvement Retail Trade Meier & Frank Retail Trade Kohl’s Department Stores Inc Retail Trade Kroeger Western Region Office Retail Trade Sam’s Club Retail Trade Target Corporation Retail Trade National Financial Systems Inc Information Davis County School District Educational Services Kelson Physicians Partners of Layton Health Care and Social Assistance Davis Co Mental Health Inc Health Care and Social Assistance Senis Management Inc Health Care and Social Assistance Layton City Parks & Rec Arts, Entertainment and Recreation Red Robin Accommodation and Food Services Olive Garden Accommodation and Food Services McGrath’s Fish House Accommodation and Food Services Mimis Cafe Accommodation and Food Services Golden Corral Accommodation and Food Services Layton City Police Public Administration

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 237

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.10 Major Employers in Layton, 1990–2007, cont’d.

Company Industry 2007 500–999 Employees Smith’s Distribution Center Transportation and Warehousing Associated Payroll Mgmt Svcs Finance and Insurance Davis Hospital & Medical Center Health Care and Social Assistance

250–499 Employees Wal-Mart Retail Trade May Trucking Company Transportation and Warehousing Tanner Memorial Clinic Health Care and Social Assistance

100–249 Employees Creative Development Construction Construction Tolman Construction Construction Geneva Rock Products Manufacturing Home Depot Usa Inc Retail Trade Lowes Home Improvement Retail Trade Smith’s Food King #149 Retail Trade Dans Foods Retail Trade ZCMI/Macy’s Retail Trade Sam’s Club Retail Trade Kohl’s Department Store Retail Trade Macy’s Department Stores Retail Trade Target Corporation Retail Trade National Financial Systems Inc Information HSS Systems LLC Management of Companies and Enterprises SOS Temporary Services Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Central Shared Services Health Care and Social Assistance Davis Behavioral Health Inc Health Care and Social Assistance Kelson Physicians Partners of Layton Health Care and Social Assistance Senis Management Inc Health Care and Social Assistance Olive Garden Accommodation and Food Services Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

238 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Layton, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 33.8% 33.8% 33.7% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 13.5% 15.4% 11.1% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 8.2% 10.1% 5.7% Farmers and farm managers 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 5.2% 5.1% 5.4% Business operations specialists 2.4% 2.5% 2.2% Financial specialists 2.8% 2.5% 3.2% Professional and related occupations 20.3% 18.4% 22.6% Computer and mathematical occupations 4.5% 5.9% 2.9% Architecture and engineering occupations 3.3% 5.2% 1.0% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 2.4% 3.9% 0.5% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 1.0% 1.3% 0.5% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% Community and social services occupations 1.2% 1.1% 1.5% Legal occupations 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% Education, training, and library occupations 5.1% 2.2% 8.8% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.1% 1.1% 1.2% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 3.6% 1.6% 6.0% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 2.4% 1.0% 4.1% Health technologists and technicians 1.2% 0.7% 1.9% Service occupations 11.7% 9.0% 15.1% Healthcare support occupations 1.7% 0.5% 3.1% Protective service occupations 1.8% 2.5% 1.0% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.8% 1.5% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Food preparation and serving related occupations 3.8% 3.1% 4.7% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 2.1% 2.2% 2.0% Personal care and service occupations 2.4% 0.7% 4.4% Sales and office occupations 31.2% 21.6% 43.1% Sales and related occupations 13.9% 13.4% 14.4% Office and administrative support occupations 17.4% 8.2% 28.7% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.4% 0.5% 0.2% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 10.7% 18.2% 1.4% Construction and extraction occupations 5.2% 9.3% 0.2% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.5% 1.0% 0.0% Construction trades workers 4.6% 8.2% 0.2% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 5.5% 8.9% 1.2% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 12.2% 17.0% 6.4% Production occupations 6.7% 8.3% 4.6% Transportation and material moving occupations 5.6% 8.6% 1.8% Supervisors, transportation and material moving workers 0.1% 0.2% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.6% 1.0% 0.1% Motor vehicle operators 2.2% 3.6% 0.4% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% Material moving workers 2.3% 3.2% 1.3% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 239

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 10.4 Layton Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) Building & General Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Total Garden Merchandise Dealers Accessory Drinking Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1990 $23.1 6.7% $93.6 27.1% $84.0 24.3% $65.4 18.9% $16.6 4.8% $4.8 1.4% $34.5 10.0% $23.5 6.8% $345.5 1991 $21.9 5.8% $95.8 25.4% $97.3 25.8% $73.6 19.5% $18.8 5.0% $8.1 2.1% $38.0 10.1% $24.3 6.4% $377.7 1992 $27.0 6.3% $110.5 25.8% $105.3 24.6% $77.9 18.2% $18.0 4.2% $20.0 4.7% $40.8 9.5% $29.0 6.8% $428.5 1993 $34.8 7.5% $115.2 24.9% $98.2 21.2% $87.4 18.9% $18.7 4.0% $23.9 5.2% $49.6 10.7% $34.5 7.5% $462.3 1994 $41.8 7.9% $146.9 27.7% $100.8 19.0% $97.9 18.4% $20.9 3.9% $28.6 5.4% $51.7 9.7% $42.0 7.9% $530.6 1995 $55.0 9.1% $168.9 28.1% $104.2 17.3% $107.9 17.9% $18.8 3.1% $41.4 6.9% $59.8 9.9% $45.7 7.6% $601.6 1996 $61.8 9.2% $176.2 26.1% $111.9 16.6% $126.5 18.8% $18.6 2.8% $57.3 8.5% $70.4 10.4% $51.8 7.7% $674.5 1997 $66.3 9.7% $187.4 27.5% $106.1 15.6% $117.6 17.2% $20.4 3.0% $55.7 8.2% $73.2 10.7% $55.3 8.1% $682.0 1998 $67.1 9.3% $211.8 29.3% $94.8 13.1% $125.0 17.3% $34.3 4.8% $50.4 7.0% $82.2 11.4% $56.9 7.9% $722.5 1999 $76.6 10.0% $232.7 30.3% $93.8 12.2% $129.2 16.8% $39.5 5.2% $42.7 5.6% $85.0 11.1% $67.4 8.8% $766.8 2000 $66.5 8.7% $237.0 31.1% $91.7 12.0% $127.7 16.8% $44.8 5.9% $42.1 5.5% $83.8 11.0% $68.2 8.9% $761.8 2001 $63.4 8.4% $243.0 32.0% $86.7 11.4% $131.0 17.3% $41.3 5.4% $39.1 5.2% $84.2 11.1% $69.6 9.2% $758.3 2002 $64.0 8.3% $247.5 32.1% $85.0 11.0% $142.2 18.4% $39.9 5.2% $36.6 4.7% $87.2 11.3% $69.4 9.0% $771.8 2003 $70.2 9.1% $256.8 33.2% $77.9 10.1% $138.7 17.9% $40.1 5.2% $33.1 4.3% $87.2 11.3% $70.3 9.1% $774.3 2004 $80.9 10.2% $267.1 33.5% $77.5 9.7% $132.0 16.6% $40.4 5.1% $31.3 3.9% $95.2 11.9% $72.2 9.1% $796.5 2005 $109.4 13.3% $267.8 32.5% $82.6 10.0% $131.0 15.9% $40.2 4.9% $21.6 2.6% $101.0 12.2% $71.5 8.7% $825.2 Change 373.1% 98.1% 186.0% 19.7% -1.6% -58.8% 100.2% -16.2% 141.7% 1.2% 353.0% 89.7% 193.1% 22.7% 204.8% 27.6% 138.8% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$900.0

Miscellaneous $800.0 Eating & Drinking Furniture Apparel & Accessory $700.0 Motor Vehicle Dealers Food Stores General Merchandise $600.0 Building & Garden

$500.0

$400.0

$300.0 Millionsof Constant 2005 Dollars

$200.0

$100.0

$0.0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

240 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 10.5 Layton Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005 $13

$12 Property Taxes $11 Sales and Use Taxes $10

$9 $8

$7 $6 $5 $4

$3 $2 Millions 2005 of Dollars Constant $1 $0

1 4 6 7 0 3 5 92 95 98 01 04 99 9 99 9 99 9 00 0 00 0 1990 1 1 1993 1 1 199 1 1 1999 2 2 2002 2 2 200 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $3,329,234 $3,985,182 $9,119,352 1991 $3,136,402 $4,502,640 $9,622,768 1992 $3,544,109 $5,172,606 $10,954,724 1993 $3,758,032 $498,474 $6,327,851 $12,456,459 1994 $3,915,755 $53,787 $6,341,292 $12,674,296 1995 $4,214,753 $585,705 $7,204,047 $13,740,568 1996 $4,696,916 $724,274 $8,037,841 $15,294,455 1997 $4,812,763 $863,927 $8,389,204 $16,003,298 1998 $5,042,255 $857,875 $8,694,684 $16,812,920 1999 $5,191,157 $798,893 $9,474,523 $17,786,379 2000 $5,223,018 $833,450 $9,866,725 $17,829,033 2001 $5,122,466 $688,913 $9,876,314 $18,025,384 2002 $5,522,005 $768,721 $12,254,316 $19,148,299 2003 $5,657,267 $843,865 $9,672,385 $18,531,402 2004 $5,677,929 $709,757 $11,560,055 $18,906,247 2005 $5,516,675 $679,482 $12,163,346 $20,156,411 Change 65.7% 36.3% 205.2% 121.0% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 241

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.12 Detailed Breakdown of Layton Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 Property Taxes General Fund $2,201,077 $3,329,234 36.5% Total Property Taxes $2,201,077 $3,329,234 $79.68 36.5% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $2,634,748 $3,985,182 $95.38 43.7% Public Utility Franchise Tax $891,385 $1,348,262 14.8% Building Permits $235,313 $355,922 3.9% Other Licenses and Permits $66,611 $100,752 1.1% Total Tax Revenues $6,029,134 $9,119,352 $218.25 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $3,857,700 $4,389,568 24.6% Fee in Lieu $732,464 $833,450 4.7% Total Property Taxes $4,590,164 $5,223,018 $89.32 29.3% Sales and Use Tax $8,671,209 $9,866,725 $168.74 55.3% Franchise Tax $1,559,271 $1,774,251 10.0% Building Permits $566,878 $645,035 3.6% Other Licenses and Permits $281,231 $320,005 1.8% Total Tax Revenues $15,668,753 $17,829,033 $304.91 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $4,661,565 23.1% Delinquent $175,628 0.9% Fee in Lieu $679,482 3.4% Total Property Taxes $5,516,675 $85.91 27.4% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $10,369,287 51.4% Energy Sales and Use Tax $1,707,706 8.5% Transient Room Tax $86,353 0.4% Total Sales Taxes $12,163,346 $189.42 60.3% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $1,027,982 5.1% Cable TV Franchise Tax $176,344 0.9% Water Franchise Tax $155,076 0.8% Sewer Franchise Tax $105,108 0.5% Other Franchise Tax $46,152 0.2% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $304,019 1.5% Building Permit Fees $661,709 3.3% Total Tax Revenues $20,156,411 $313.90 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

242 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.13 Layton Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $294,977,012 13.6% $410,741,248 15.6% 39.2% Buildings $883,065,703 40.7% $1,103,103,167 41.9% 24.9% Total $1,178,042,715 54.3% $1,513,844,415 57.5% 28.5%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $118,594,984 5.5% $295,184,292 11.2% 148.9% Buildings $284,630,060 13.1% $460,186,146 17.5% 61.7% Total $403,225,044 18.6% $755,370,438 28.7% 87.3%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $3,694,275 0.2% $1,409,427 0.1% -61.8% Buildings $3,082,722 0.1% $861,351 0.0% -72.1% Total $6,776,997 0.3% $2,270,778 0.1% -66.5%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $67,474,341 3.1% $10,871,405 0.4% -83.9%

Total Land & Buildings $1,655,519,096 76.4% $2,434,712,959 92.4% 47.1% Total Personal Property $154,790,303 7.1% $143,058,350 5.4% -7.6% Total Locally Assessed $1,810,309,399 83.5% $2,577,771,309 97.8% 42.4% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $357,275,943 16.5% $57,001,313 2.2% -84.0% Area Total $2,167,585,342 100.0% $2,634,772,622 100.0% 21.6% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 10.14 Layton Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 22,200 Vacant Units 900 Total Occupied Units 21,300 Owner Occupied 16,300 Vacant Owner Units 650 Total Owner Units 16,950 Renter Occupied 5,000 Vacant Rental Units 250 Total Rental Units 5,250 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 243

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 10.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Layton, 1990–2006 900

800

700

600

500

400 Permits 300

200 100

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 10.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Layton by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 325 0 43 0 368 $25,045.3 1991 381 0 16 0 397 $28,490.7 1992 495 0 4 0 499 $48,086.3 1993 512 0 0 108 0 620 $46,113.7 1994 463 0 0 84 0 547 $41,120.9 1995 406 2 12 174 0 594 $40,594.8 1996 467 0 0 214 0 681 $46,088.0 1997 537 0 0 256 0 793 $53,667.7 1998 693 4 0 11 0 708 $67,747.0 1999 314 6 22 0 0 342 $45,421.4 2000 298 0 16 74 0 388 $34,901.9 2001 358 4 12 62 0 436 $37,348.3 2002 383 10 62 0 0 455 $41,132.8 2003 358 4 12 62 0 436 $54,810.7 2004 294 0 25 85 7 411 $50,193.8 2005 383 10 62 0 0 455 $65,080.0 2006 389 6 74 0 0 469 $66,250.3 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

244 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.16 Median Price of New Homes in Layton, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 26 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 6 0 0 $175,000–$199,999 7 1 0 $200,000–$224,999 36 69 33 $225,000–$249,999 38 41 58 $250,000–$274,999 12 32 24 $275,000–$299,999 43 25 43 $300,000–$324,999 0 0 20 $325,000–$349,999 15 47 61 $350,000–$374,999 0 4 10 $375,000–$399,999 4 2 9 $400,000–$449,999 1 2 1 $450,000–$499,999 0 0 0 $500,000–$599,999 0 12 14 $600,000–$749,999 0 0 0 $750,000–$999,999 0 3 7 $1,000,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 188 238 280 Median Price* $237,500 $239,634 $289,534 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 10.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Layton, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $131,050 $143,355 619 1998 $134,900 $146,506 652 1999 $141,900 $152,905 700 2000 $144,900 $160,894 684 2001 $143,900 $156,241 696 2002 $145,999 $156,452 720 2003 $144,000 $157,363 828 2004 $150,000 $162,033 936 2005 $164,900 $182,781 1194 2006 $187,485 $208,101 1167 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 245

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Layton, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Hotels & Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & Other Mercantile, Other & Motels & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $938.3 $959.7 $519.3 $0.0 $6,383.2 $8,756.5 $0.0 $427.1 $2,828.9 $20,813.0 $34,820.1 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $811.7 $2,075.0 $850.0 $3,872.2 $8,920.1 $300.0 $54.1 $1,597.0 $18,480.1 $29,786.0 1996 $7,672.8 $602.6 $1,310.4 $1,467.5 $184.5 $3,673.1 $2,788.1 $4,807.3 $855.8 $5,523.2 $28,885.3 $45,358.5 1997 $0.0 $3,651.8 $1,259.8 $2,847.1 $1,281.0 $4,472.4 $10,401.7 $0.0 $532.2 $6,605.9 $31,051.9 $46,903.2 1998 $5,291.3 $0.0 $1,310.4 $725.9 $0.0 $10,300.7 $5,036.3 $0.0 $1,135.9 $3,274.5 $27,075.0 $39,108.3 1999 $2,427.3 $1,446.6 $0.0 $1,706.8 $0.0 $2,007.2 $1,687.2 $0.0 $85.9 $2,804.8 $12,165.8 $16,925.4 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $828.3 $2,922.6 $366.5 $598.7 $1,134.8 $0.0 $1,293.5 $8,637.4 $15,781.8 $21,033.6 2001 $0.0 $66.9 $3,035.8 $3,212.4 $0.0 $1,729.9 $1,587.6 $2,440.6 $1,177.7 $5,166.6 $18,417.5 $23,825.6 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $990.3 $1,812.0 $34.7 $1,928.1 $10,768.9 $0.0 $1,458.6 $7,150.7 $24,143.3 $30,929.9 2003 $0.0 $221.3 $0.0 $1,966.0 $4,222.3 $289.7 $1,785.0 $5,013.4 $121.1 $2,557.8 $16,176.6 $20,657.1 2004 $5,555.5 $0.0 $5.0 $2,092.2 $90.0 $2,601.8 $12,493.5 $3,176.7 $3,115.7 $5,380.5 $34,510.9 $41,781.9 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $990.3 $4,715.3 $0.0 $8,046.0 $5,468.8 $0.0 $1,020.2 $6,866.9 $27,107.5 $29,980.8 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $2,499.3 $692.3 $0.0 $6,532.7 $553.9 $0.0 $39.6 $6,989.8 $17,307.6 $17,307.6 Total $20,946.9 $6,927.5 $14,001.0 $26,754.4 $7,029.0 $52,435.7 $71,382.4 $15,738.0 $11,317.4 $65,384.0 $291,916.3 $398,417.9 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

246 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 10.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Layton, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 72.72 0.00 1991 29.84 0.00 1992 108.89 0.00 1993 101.54 0.00 1994 176.66 0.00 1995 208.60 26.28 1996 156.62 0.00 1997 229.65 0.00 1998 199.43 13.7 1999 162.73 13.98 2000 85.97 23.40 2001 100.99 7.21 2003 91.79 0.00 2002 102.03 2.57 2004 75.13 0.00 2005 148.74 0.00 2006 141.90 0.37 Total 2,193.23 87.51 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 247

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

N ORTH S ALT L AKE

Table 11.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of North Salt Lake

Population Population (2005) 10,376 Median Age (2000) 28.0 Average Household Income (2006) $70,086

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 7,401 Employer Firms (2005) 356 Average Annual Wage (2005) $38,889 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Trade, Transportation, Utilities 2,586 34.9% Construction 1,886 25.5% Manufacturing 1,695 22.9%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $75.8 Major Retail Categories (millions) Motor Vehicle Sales $41.7 Food Stores $20.2 Eating & Drinking $7.7 Per Capita Retail Sales $7,308

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 4,825 100.0% Owner Occupied 3,475 72.0% Renter Occupied 1,200 24.9% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $270,165 New $211,184

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $5.1 Property Tax Receipts (millions) $1.5 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $2.5 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $493 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

248 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.2 Change in Population by Age Group in North Salt Lake, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 6,474 8,749 35.1% Age Under 5 Years 761 11.8% 880 10.1% 15.6% 5 to 17 Years 1,687 26.1% 1,912 21.9% 13.3% 18 to 20 Years 272 4.2% 435 5.0% 59.9% 21 to 24 Years 438 6.8% 703 8.0% 60.5% 25 to 44 Years 2,313 35.7% 2,558 29.2% 10.6% 45 to 54 Years 495 7.6% 995 11.4% 101.0% 55 to 59 Years 207 3.2% 355 4.1% 71.5% 60 to 64 Years 195 3.0% 233 2.7% 19.5% 65 Years and Over 448 6.9% 678 7.7% 51.3% Median Age 25.6 28 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 11.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: North Salt Lake, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 13.4% 9.5% High School Graduate* 23.3% 21.8% Some College, No Degree 30.7% 34.6% Associate’s Degree 11.9% 6.4% Bachelor’s Degree 14.5% 19.0% Graduate or Professional degree 6.2% 8.8% Master’s Degree N/A 5.9% Professional Degree N/A 1.8% Doctorate Degree N/A 1.1% By Sex Male: Less than High School 9.0% High School Graduate* 17.0% Some College, No Degree 34.9% Associate’s Degree 6.2% Bachelor’s Degree 19.0% Master’s Degree 9.1% Professional Degree 3.1% Doctorate Degree 1.7% Female: Less than High School 10.0% High School Graduate* 26.8% Some College, No Degree 34.3% Associate’s Degree 6.5% Bachelor’s Degree 18.9% Master’s Degree 2.5% Professional Degree 0.5% Doctorate Degree 0.4% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 249

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 11.1 North Salt Lake Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + Black 80 - 84 American 75 - 79 3.7% Indian, 70 - 74 Eskimo, or 65 - 69 Aleut 8.4% 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 Asian or Pacific 45 - 49 Islander 40 - 44 22.3% 35 - 39 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 Hispanic 10 - 14 64.9% 5 - 9 Other race Under 5 0.7% 400 200 0 200 400 Male Female

Age Distribution of the North Salt Lake Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 370 391 0.95 11.8% 3.8% North Salt Lake Share of 5–9 369 359 1.03 11.2% 3.3% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 341 312 1.09 10.1% 2.9% Total 6,474 100.0% 3.4% 15–19 244 233 1.05 7.4% 2.8% 20–24 250 289 0.87 8.3% 4.1% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 319 300 1.06 9.6% 4.3% White 6,178 95.4% 3.5% 30–34 271 253 1.07 8.1% 3.4% Black 11 0.2% 0.5% 35–39 203 252 0.81 7.0% 3.4% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 25 0.4% 2.5% 40–44 184 189 0.97 5.8% 3.4% Asian or Pacific Islander 66 1.0% 2.1% 45–49 152 152 1.00 4.7% 3.4% Other race 2 0.0% 2.5% 50–54 91 100 0.91 3.0% 2.7% Ethnicity 55–59 107 100 1.07 3.2% 3.3% Hispanic Origin 192 3.0% 1.4% 60–64 96 99 0.97 3.0% 3.8% 65–69 66 96 0.69 2.5% 3.6% Minority 296 4.6% 2.2% 70–74 59 71 0.83 2.0% 4.3% 75–79 27 49 0.55 1.2% 4.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 32 24 1.33 0.9% 4.6% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 8 16 0.50 0.4% 2.7% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the Total 3,189 3,285 0.97 100.0% 3.4% city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's share of Share 60 years+ 9.9% 2.7% total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio Median Age 25.6 greater than one.

250 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 11.2 North Salt Lake Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 AIAN alone 75 - 79 Black alone (NH) 70 - 74 (NH) 8.8% 65 - 69 2.9% 60 - 64 Asian alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 13.8% 45 - 49 40 - 44 NHPI alone 35 - 39 (NH) 30 - 34 3.9% 25 - 29 20 - 24 Some other 15 - 19 Hispanic race alone 10 - 14 59.1% (NH) 0.2% 5 - 9 Under 5 Two or more 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 races (NH) 11.3% Male Female

Age Distribution of the North Salt Lake Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 444 436 1.02 10.1% 3.8% North Salt Lake Share of 5–9 395 355 1.11 8.6% 3.3% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 396 325 1.22 8.2% 3.1% Total 8,749 100.0% 3.7% 15–19 354 392 0.90 8.5% 3.1% 20–24 429 404 1.06 9.5% 4.1% Not Hispanic or Latino 8,193 93.6% 3.6% 25–29 369 349 1.06 8.2% 4.1% White alone 7,808 89.2% 3.6% 30–34 288 306 0.94 6.8% 3.7% Black or African American alone 27 0.3% 1.1% 35–39 328 313 1.05 7.3% 3.7% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 83 0.9% 7.1% 40–44 326 279 1.17 6.9% 3.6% Asian alone 130 1.5% 3.6% 45–49 263 273 0.96 6.1% 3.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 37 0.4% 6.1% 50–54 226 233 0.97 5.2% 4.1% Some other race alone 2 0.0% 1.0% 55–59 184 171 1.08 4.1% 4.2% Two or more races 106 1.2% 3.2% 60–64 120 113 1.06 2.7% 3.6% Ethnicity 65–69 97 112 0.87 2.4% 3.8% Hispanic or Latino 556 6.4% 4.3% 70–74 79 95 0.83 2.0% 3.9% 75–79 68 92 0.74 1.8% 4.4% Minority 941 10.8% 3.9% 80–84 32 41 0.78 0.8% 3.3% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 23 39 0.59 0.7% 3.7% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 4,421 4,328 1.02 100.0% 3.7% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 10.4% 3.8% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater Median Age 28 than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 251

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 11.3 Distribution of Household Income in North Salt Lake, 1995-2005

20%

15%

1995 2000 2005

10% Share of Households 5%

0%

00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 ,000 ,000 0 0 0 0 5, 0, 0, 5, $ 1 50, 50, $15 $20 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 $4 $4 $ er - - - $250,000$2 r nd 1 U 01 - 01 - 01 01 0 01 - 01 - 01 - ve 0 0 ,0 ,0 ,0 0 0 0 O $5,001 -10, $ 15, 20 25 30 35, 40, 45, $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $50,001 - $75,000 $75,001 - $100,000 $100,001 - Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 88 5.9% 150 5.4% 164 4.2% $5,001–$10,000 90 6.0% 151 5.4% 175 4.5% $10,001–$15,000 125 8.3% 163 5.9% 217 5.6% $15,001–$20,000 124 8.3% 186 6.7% 250 6.5% $20,001–$25,000 117 7.8% 182 6.6% 272 7.0% $25,001–$30,000 115 7.7% 155 5.6% 248 6.4% $30,001–$35,000 93 6.2% 175 6.3% 234 6.1% $35,001–$40,000 99 6.6% 137 4.9% 209 5.4% $40,001–$45,000 65 4.3% 139 5.0% 217 5.6% $45,001–$50,000 86 5.7% 128 4.6% 188 4.9% $50,001–$75,000 291 19.4% 482 17.4% 608 15.8% $75,001–$100,000 100 6.7% 299 10.8% 366 9.5% $100,001–$250,000 96 6.4% 341 12.3% 589 15.3% Over $250,000 11 0.7% 88 3.2% 123 3.2% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

252 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.4 Share of Persons in North Salt Lake Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 8.5% 3.3% Male 6.7% 3.3% Under 5 years 15.0% 4.9% Under 5 years 16.9% 3.9% 5 years 14.4% 0.0% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 10.5% 2.8% 6 to 11 years 10.0% 1.4% 12 to 17 years 7.3% 5.1% 12 to 17 years 0.0% 7.5% 18 to 64 years 7.5% 3.2% 18 to 64 years 5.6% 3.4% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 2.4% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 3.1% 75 years and over 6.3% 2.1% 75 years and over 5.5% 0.0% Female 10.3% 3.3% Under 5 years 13.2% 6.2% 5 years 19.1% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 11.1% 4.3% 12 to 17 years 13.6% 3.5% 18 to 64 years 9.4% 2.9% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 1.8% 75 years and over 6.9% 3.4% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 11.5 North Salt Lake Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 2,899 100.0% 4,328 100.0% 1,429 49.3% Drove alone 2,334 80.5% 3,287 75.9% 953 40.8% Carpooled 348 12.0% 600 13.9% 252 72.4% Public transportation (including taxicab) 116 4.0% 186 4.3% 70 60.3% Bicycle or walked 60 2.1% 95 2.2% 35 58.3% Motorcycle or other means 0 0.0% 24 0.6% 24 Worked at home 41 1.4% 136 3.1% 95 231.7%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 2,858 100.0% 4,192 100.0% 1,334 46.7% Less than 5 minutes 114 4.0% 189 4.5% 75 65.8% 5 to 9 minutes 298 10.4% 398 9.5% 100 33.6% 10 to 14 minutes 593 20.7% 711 17.0% 118 19.9% 15 to 19 minutes 751 26.3% 840 20.0% 89 11.9% 20 to 24 minutes 580 20.3% 845 20.2% 265 45.7% 25 to 29 minutes 144 5.0% 262 6.3% 118 81.9% 30 to 34 minutes 238 8.3% 509 12.1% 271 113.9% 35 to 39 minutes 21 0.7% 71 1.7% 50 238.1% 40 to 44 minutes 39 1.4% 123 2.9% 84 215.4% 45 or more minutes 80 2.8% 244 5.8% 164 205.0% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 17.1 20.4 3.3 19.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 253

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.6 Nonagricultural Employment in North Salt Lake by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 4,007 100.0% 4,125 100.0% 4,496 100.0% 4,803 100.0% 5,075 100.0% 5,111 100.0% 5,676 100.0% 6,333 100.0% 6,799 100.0% 6,992 100.0% 5,111 100.0% Mining D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D D D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 351 8.8% 363 8.8% 449 10.0% 477 9.9% 617 12.2% 725 14.2% 774 13.6% 1,052 16.6% 1,233 18.1% 1,262 18.0% 1,010 19.8% Manufacturing 1,298 32.4% 1,316 31.9% 1,510 33.6% 1,685 35.1% 1,777 35.0% 1,936 37.9% 1,962 34.6% 2,239 35.4% 2,407 35.4% 2,324 33.2% 1,366 26.7% TCPU 746 18.6% 743 18.0% 738 16.4% 674 14.0% 600 11.8% 653 12.8% 712 12.5% 912 14.4% 1,081 15.9% 1,262 18.0% 833 16.3% Trade 1,140 28.5% 1,219 29.6% 1,338 29.8% 1,441 30.0% 1,576 31.1% 1,617 31.6% 1,672 29.5% 1,557 24.6% 1,463 21.5% 1,501 21.5% 1,379 27.0% FIRE 33 0.8% 43 1.0% 40 0.9% 46 1.0% 41 0.8% 47 0.9% 40 0.7% 36 0.6% 58 0.9% 67 1.0% 67 1.3% Services 363 9.1% 382 9.3% 358 8.0% 379 7.9% 372 7.3% 390 7.6% 459 8.1% 475 7.5% 496 7.3% 516 7.4% 428 8.4% Government 74 1.8% 59 1.4% 63 1.4% D D D 57 1.0% 62 1.0% 61 0.9% 60 0.9% 28 0.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 6,795 100.0% 6,816 100.0% 6,719 100.0% 6,951 100.0% 7,401 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D D Construction 1,567 23.1% 1,658 24.3% 1,657 24.7% 1,655 23.8% 1,886 25.5% Manufacturing 2,051 30.2% 1,883 27.6% 1,837 27.3% 1,713 24.6% 1,695 22.9% Trade, Transp., Utilities 2,461 36.2% 2,382 35.0% 2,379 35.4% 2,524 36.3% 2,586 34.9% Information 61 0.9% 63 0.9% 55 0.8% 46 0.7% 46 0.6% Financial Activities 50 0.7% 47 0.7% 79 1.2% 86 1.2% 105 1.4% Prof. & Business Services 283 4.2% 473 6.9% 434 6.5% 599 8.6% 781 10.5% Education & Health Services 71 1.0% 77 1.1% 72 1.1% 71 1.0% 78 1.1% Leisure & Hospitality 92 1.4% 84 1.2% 92 1.4% 113 1.6% 127 1.7% Other Services 137 2.0% 137 2.0% 101 1.5% 97 1.4% 97 1.3% Government 20 0.3% 12 0.2% 13 0.2% D D Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

254 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in North Salt Lake by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $138.9 100.0% $142.1 100.0% $160.4 100.0% $171.7 100.0% $184.3 100.0% $185.4 100.0% $201.8 100.0% $234.8 100.0% $257.5 100.0% $268.8 100.0% $200.9 100.0% Mining D $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% D D D $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $14.6 10.5% $17.1 12.0% $17.4 10.8% $20.1 11.7% $25.6 13.9% $27.8 15.0% $30.1 14.9% $40.2 17.1% $49.2 19.1% $53.9 20.0% $46.0 22.9% Manufacturing $49.3 35.5% $47.5 33.4% $59.4 37.0% $66.6 38.8% $69.9 37.9% $75.5 40.7% $79.7 39.5% $92.9 39.6% $98.2 38.1% $94.6 35.2% $54.7 27.2% TCPU $23.5 16.9% $22.1 15.6% $25.1 15.6% $21.9 12.8% $19.9 10.8% $20.9 11.3% $22.8 11.3% $30.6 13.0% $37.9 14.7% $42.8 15.9% $30.3 15.1% Trade $38.1 27.5% $42.1 29.6% $45.7 28.5% $48.5 28.2% $54.8 29.7% $55.2 29.8% $54.9 27.2% $54.4 23.2% $53.7 20.9% $56.2 20.9% $51.5 25.6% FIRE $0.7 0.5% $1.0 0.7% $1.1 0.7% $1.4 0.8% $1.1 0.6% $1.1 0.6% $0.9 0.4% $0.9 0.4% $1.3 0.5% $2.0 0.7% $2.2 1.1% Services $11.2 8.0% $11.2 7.9% $10.6 6.6% $11.1 6.5% $11.0 6.0% $12.0 6.5% $12.5 6.2% $14.6 6.2% $15.9 6.2% $17.9 6.7% $15.6 7.8% Government $1.4 1.0% $1.1 0.8% $1.1 0.7% D D D $1.1 0.5% $1.2 0.5% $1.3 0.5% $1.4 0.5% $0.6 0.3% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $279.4 100.0% $276.7 100.0% $285.5 100.0% $276.5 100.0% $287.8 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% D D Construction $76.5 27.4% $79.6 28.8% $85.7 30.0% $85.5 30.9% $94.1 32.7% Manufacturing $87.2 31.2% $82.8 29.9% $83.6 29.3% $68.2 24.7% $71.5 24.9% Trade, Transp., Utilities $93.8 33.6% $88.8 32.1% $89.3 31.3% $92.4 33.4% $89.9 31.2% Information $1.9 0.7% $1.7 0.6% $1.5 0.5% $1.4 0.5% $1.5 0.5% Financial Activities $1.6 0.6% $1.3 0.5% $3.0 1.0% $3.1 1.1% $4.2 1.5% Prof & Bus Services $9.6 3.4% $14.3 5.2% $15.5 5.4% $17.7 6.4% $19.8 6.9% Edu & Health Services $1.4 0.5% $1.4 0.5% $1.5 0.5% $1.6 0.6% $1.8 0.6% Leisure & Hospitality $1.2 0.4% $1.2 0.4% $1.1 0.4% $1.3 0.5% $1.3 0.5% Other Services $5.1 1.8% $5.3 1.9% $3.8 1.3% $3.7 1.3% $3.7 1.3% Government $1.2 0.4% $0.5 0.2% $0.5 0.2% D D Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 255

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.8 Employment and Wage Changes in North Salt Lake, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 27.6% 44.6% Mining Construction 187.7% 125.6% 214.4% 117.4% Manufacturing 5.2% -17.5% 10.9% -23.3% TCPU 11.7% -12.5% 29.0% -10.8% Trade 21.0% -5.2% 34.9% -6.7% FIRE 103.0% 59.2% 219.6% 121.0% Services 17.9% -7.6% 40.0% -3.2% Government -62.2% -70.3% -55.7% -69.4%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 8.9% 3.0% Mining Construction 20.4% 10.5% 23.0% 19.4% Manufacturing -17.4% -24.1% -18.0% -20.4% Trade, Transp, Utilities 5.1% -3.5% -4.1% -6.9% Information -24.4% -30.6% -19.4% -21.8% Financial Activities 110.2% 93.0% 162.6% 154.9% Prof & Bus Services 175.8% 153.3% 106.6% 100.6% Edu & Health Services 10.3% 1.3% 27.4% 23.7% Leisure & Hosp 37.7% 26.4% 15.3% 11.9% Other Services -29.3% -35.0% -28.5% -30.6% Government †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 11.9 North Salt Lake Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 2.05 1.81 1.91 1.66 1.82 2.05 1.83 2.07 2.18 2.15 2.40 Manufacturing 2.57 2.52 2.62 2.61 2.51 2.58 2.43 2.65 2.70 2.60 2.21 TCPU 4.60 4.42 4.55 4.11 3.44 4.03 3.59 4.18 4.55 4.86 4.25 Trade 1.21 1.21 1.20 1.19 1.23 1.22 1.12 0.97 0.84 0.85 1.06 FIRE 0.38 0.41 0.30 0.27 0.20 0.23 0.18 0.14 0.21 0.26 0.38 Services 0.53 0.54 0.45 0.44 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.39 Government 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 2.84 3.22 3.23 2.96 2.95 Manufacturing 2.66 2.44 2.37 2.20 2.08 Trade, Transp, Utilities 1.69 1.67 1.73 1.74 1.76 Information 1.05 0.90 0.82 0.70 0.68 Financial Activities 0.20 0.19 0.30 0.30 0.35 Prof & Bus Services 0.53 0.81 0.75 0.98 1.10 Edu & Health Services 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 Leisure & Hosp 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.18 0.19 Other Services 0.73 0.68 0.50 0.47 0.46 Government 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

256 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.10 Major Employers in North Salt Lake, 1990–2007 Company Industry 1990–91 300–399 Employees Albertsons Distribution #8231 Retail Trade

200–299 Employees Staker Paving & Construction Construction Chevron USA–Refinery Manufacturing

100–199 Employees Aero Tech Manufacturing Manufacturing AMPAD Manufacturing Companion Systems Manufacturing Bailey’s Moving and Storage Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Motor Cargo Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

50–99 Employees JL Smith General Engineering Construction Nu-Art Lighting & Mfg Manufacturing Beehive Business and Leisure Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Espenschied Transport Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Neil’s Auto Transport Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Carpenter Paper Co. Wholesale Trade Schwan’s Ice Cream Wholesale Trade Jerry Seiner Buick Nissan Retail Trade Village Inn Pancake House #5910 Retail Trade General Electric App Srvs Service Industries

1995–96 400–499 Employees Albertsons Distribution #8231 Retail Trade

200–299 Employees Staker Paving & Construction Construction Chevron USA–Refinery Manufacturing Companion Systems Manufacturing Zero Manufacturing Manufacturing Motor Cargo Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

100–199 Employees Herm Hughes & Sons Construction The L E Meyers Construction AMPAD Manufacturing Aero Tech Manufacturing Manufacturing Bailey’s Moving and Storage Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Conoco Wholesale Trade

50–99 Employees Thermal West Industrial Construction Alpha Protech Manufacturing Big West Oil-Refinery Manufacturing Nu-Art Lighting & Mfg Manufacturing Big West Oil-Distribution Wholesale Trade Feller’s Town and Country Meat Wholesale Trade Jerry Seiner Buick Nissan Retail Trade Neil’s Used Truck And Car Sales Retail Trade Wendy’s #7 Retail Trade CottonTree Partners/Cotton Tree Inn Service Industries General Electric App Srvs Service Industries

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 257

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.10 Major Employers in North Salt Lake, 1990–2007, cont’d. Company Industry 2000 500–699 Employees Albertsons Distribution #8231 Retail Trade

400–499 Employees Staker Paving & Construction Construction Industries

300–399 Employees Motor Cargo Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

200–299 Employees APW Zero Cases Manufacturing Chevron USA–Refinery Manufacturing Orbit Irrigation Products Manufacturing

100–199 Employees Herm Hughes & Sons Construction Industries Sturgeon Electric Company Construction Industries Aero Tech Manufacturing Manufacturing CSI Manufacturing RMT Properties Manufacturing Salt Lake Cable & Harness Manufacturing Bailey’s Moving and Storage Transportation, Communication, and Utilities FedEx Ground Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Horseshoe Express Inc Transportation, Communication, and Utilities

50–99 Employees CDR Enterprises Construction Industries Shamrock Plumbing Construction Industries Thermal West Industrial Construction Industries Tom Stuart Construction Construction Industries Advanced Drainage Systems Manufacturing AMT Labs Manufacturing Arnco Corporation Manufacturing Avant Gard Manufacturing Gould’s Pumps Inc Manufacturing ACT Transportation LLC Transportation, Communication, and Utilities ETC/Espenshield Transport Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Mesa Moving Systems Inc Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Fellers Precooked Meats Inc Wholesale Trade RMT Properties Wholesale Trade THB, Inc. Wholesale Trade Tony’s & Red Baron Pizza/Schwan’s Wholesale Trade Jerry Seiner Buick Nissan Retail Trade

2005 100–249 Employees Zero Manufacturing Manufacturing

50–99 Employees Tom Stuart Construction Construction

258 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.10 Major Employers in North Salt Lake, 1990–2007, cont’d. Company Industry 2007 250–499 Employees Staker Paving & Construction Construction Orbit Irrigation Products Manufacturing Albertsons Distribution #8231 Transportation and Warehousing FedEx Ground Transportation and Warehousing UPS Freight Transportation and Warehousing

100–249 Employees Fluor Industrial Services Construction Sturgeon Electric Company Construction Thermal West Industrial Construction Aero Tech Manufacturing Manufacturing CSI Aquistion Corp Manufacturing RMT Properties Manufacturing Zero Manufacturing Manufacturing Bailey’s Moving and Storage Transportation and Warehousing K & R Investments Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs Wingfoot Corporation Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs

50–99 Employees Bowen Construction Construction Green Construction Construction Herm Hughes & Sons Construction Shamrock Plumbing Construction Tom Stuart Construction Construction WCI LLC Construction Advanced Drainage Systems Manufacturing AMT Labs Manufacturing Salt Lake Cable & Harness Manufacturing Timec Manufacturing Wasatch Container Manufacturing Jardine Petroleum Wholesale Trade THB, Inc. Wholesale Trade Jerry Seiner Buick Nissan Retail Trade Tiger Stripe Paintball/Spec Ops Retail Trade ACT Transportation LLC Transportation and Warehousing LW Miller Diversified Transportation and Warehousing Mesa Moving & Storage Transportation and Warehousing CottonTree Partners/Cotton Tree Inn Accommodation and Food Services Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 259

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of North Salt Lake, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 32.2% 38.4% 24.3% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 15.5% 19.5% 10.4% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 10.4% 12.5% 7.7% Farmers and farm managers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 5.1% 6.9% 2.7% Business operations specialists 2.0% 2.1% 1.8% Financial specialists 3.1% 4.8% 0.9% Professional and related occupations 16.7% 18.9% 13.9% Computer and mathematical occupations 3.9% 6.7% 0.4% Architecture and engineering occupations 1.5% 2.4% 0.4% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 1.0% 1.7% 0.0% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% Life, physical, and social science occupations 1.6% 1.5% 1.7% Community and social services occupations 1.0% 1.3% 0.5% Legal occupations 1.4% 2.2% 0.4% Education, training, and library occupations 3.0% 1.9% 4.4% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.4% 1.2% 1.6% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 3.0% 1.7% 4.6% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 1.0% 1.1% 1.0% Health technologists and technicians 1.9% 0.6% 3.6% Service occupations 14.0% 9.1% 20.2% Healthcare support occupations 1.0% 0.0% 2.4% Protective service occupations 1.9% 2.6% 1.1% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 1.2% 1.7% 0.7% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.7% 1.0% 0.4% Food preparation and serving related occupations 5.8% 4.0% 8.1% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 2.5% 2.1% 2.9% Personal care and service occupations 2.7% 0.3% 5.7% Sales and office occupations 32.6% 20.0% 48.5% Sales and related occupations 12.1% 10.2% 14.5% Office and administrative support occupations 20.5% 9.8% 34.0% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 8.9% 16.0% 0.0% Construction and extraction occupations 7.1% 12.6% 0.0% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 1.7% 3.0% 0.0% Construction trades workers 5.4% 9.7% 0.0% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 1.9% 3.3% 0.0% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 12.1% 16.2% 6.9% Production occupations 6.9% 8.6% 4.8% Transportation and material-moving occupations 5.1% 7.6% 2.1% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.2% 0.4% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 3.0% 4.9% 0.7% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Material-moving workers 1.9% 2.3% 1.4% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

260 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 11.4 North Salt Lake Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) Building & Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Total Garden Dealers Accessory Drinking Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1990 $7.8 14.0% $14.5 26.0% $22.5 40.3% $0.5 0.9% $1.7 3.0% $7.4 13.2% $1.5 2.7% $55.9 1991 $9.0 14.7% $12.7 20.8% $28.7 46.8% $1.4 2.3% $7.8 12.8% $1.6 2.6% $61.2 1992 $6.3 10.8% $12.1 20.9% $29.5 50.9% $1.3 2.3% $6.8 11.8% $2.0 3.4% $58.1 1993 $2.5 3.9% $13.6 21.2% $37.8 59.1% $1.2 1.8% $6.8 10.6% $2.2 3.4% $63.9 1994 $14.7 26.4% $30.3 54.4% $0.5 0.9% $0.9 1.6% $7.8 14.0% $1.6 2.8% $55.6 1995 $19.9 32.4% $26.6 43.3% $0.3 0.6% $1.5 2.5% $7.2 11.7% $5.9 9.6% $61.3 1996 $16.5 24.4% $37.5 55.5% $0.1 0.2% $1.4 2.1% $8.4 12.4% $3.7 5.4% $67.5 1997 $11.9 21.8% $31.5 57.8% $0.2 0.4% $1.5 2.7% $7.0 12.9% $2.4 4.3% $54.4 1998 $12.8 21.7% $34.4 58.2% $0.1 0.1% $2.1 3.6% $7.4 12.4% $2.4 4.0% $59.2 1999 $0.2 0.4% $13.4 22.5% $35.1 58.5% $0.1 0.2% $1.2 2.0% $7.4 12.3% $2.4 4.0% $59.9 2000 $15.0 23.1% $36.1 55.9% $0.1 0.2% $1.5 2.3% $7.6 11.7% $4.5 6.9% $64.7 2001 $15.4 23.0% $40.7 60.6% $1.8 2.6% $7.3 10.9% $1.9 2.8% $67.1 2002 $14.4 21.4% $41.0 60.8% $0.1 0.2% $2.5 3.7% $7.9 11.7% $1.5 2.3% $67.4 2003 $2.8 4.0% $13.9 20.1% $39.9 57.6% $1.4 2.1% $7.3 10.6% $3.9 5.6% $69.2 2004 $0.7 0.9% $14.1 19.1% $45.4 61.7% $1.4 1.9% $7.7 10.4% $4.4 6.0% $73.6 2005 $20.2 26.6% $41.7 55.0% $2.3 3.1% $7.7 10.2% $3.9 5.1% $75.8 Change -91.5% -93.5% 39.0% 2.5% 85.0% 36.4% -75.6% -79.8% 41.6% 4.4% 4.9% -22.7% 159.5% 91.3% 35.6% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$80

$70

$60 Miscellaneous

Eating & Drinking $50 Furniture

$40 Apparel & Accessory

Motor Vehicle Dealers $30 Food Stores

$20 Building & Garden Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars

$10

$0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 261

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 11.5 North Salt Lake Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1991-2005

$3.0

$2.5 Property Taxes Sales and Use Taxes $2.0

$1.5

$1.0

$0.5 Millions of Constant 2005Millions of Dollars Constant

$0.0

1 2 3 4 5 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 00 00 00 00 00 1991 1992 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1991 $758,191 $1,085,312 $2,008,129 1992 $608,331 $1,094,188 $1,810,826 1993 $806,873 $82,484 $1,129,740 $2,168,920 1994 $865,928 $212,347 $1,184,735 $2,337,338 1995 $906,930 $94,542 $1,218,845 $2,394,946 1996 $1,000,558 $120,645 $1,379,582 $2,888,821 1997 $1,161,005 $129,390 $1,396,288 $2,980,041 1998 $1,325,479 $142,987 $1,667,036 $3,410,756 1999 $1,411,831 $116,776 $1,388,477 $3,258,948 2000 $1,330,581 $96,525 $2,151,581 $3,920,118 2001 $1,340,985 $2,147,435 $3,855,524 2002 $1,447,619 $113,817 $2,402,914 $4,205,805 2003 $1,372,432 $114,265 $2,199,399 $4,070,936 2004 $1,394,093 $99,411 $2,258,156 $4,525,566 2005 $1,481,222 $102,260 $2,451,196 $5,118,832 Change 95.4% 24.0% 125.9% 154.9% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

262 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.12 Detailed Breakdown of North Salt Lake Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1991 Property Taxes General Fund $411,060 $595,483 29.7% Debt Service $112,317 $162,708 8.1% Total property taxes $523,377 $758,191 $117.11 37.8% Sales and Use Tax $749,187 $1,085,312 $167.64 54.0% Franchise Tax $5,546 $8,034 0.4% Resort or Hotel Tax Building Permits $77,052 $111,622 5.6% Other Licenses and Permits $31,043 $44,971 2.2% Total Tax Revenues $1,386,205 $2,008,129 $310.18 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $932,142 $1,060,658 27.1% Redevelopment Agency $149,861 $170,523 4.3% Other $2,527 $2,875 0.1% Fee in Lieu $84,829 $96,525 2.5% Total Property Taxes $1,169,359 $1,330,581 $152.08 33.9% Sales and Use Tax $1,890,882 $2,151,581 $245.92 54.9% Franchise Tax $63,339 $72,072 1.8% Resort or Hotel Tax $16,643 $18,938 0.5% Building Permits $265,338 $301,921 7.7% Other Licenses and Permits $39,570 $45,026 1.1% Total Tax Revenues $3,445,131 $3,920,118 $448.06 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $1,331,406 26.0% RDA increment $37,519 0.7% Delinquent $10,037 0.2% Fee in Lieu $102,260 2.0% Total Property Taxes $1,481,222 $142.75 28.9% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $1,675,922 32.7% Energy Sales and Use Tax $761,079 14.9% Transient Room Tax $14,195 0.3% Total Sales Taxes $2,451,196 $236.24 47.9% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $231,459 4.5% Cable TV Franchise Tax $20,809 0.4% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $94,031 1.8% Building Permit Fees $840,115 16.4% Total Tax Revenues $5,118,832 $493.33 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 263

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.13 North Salt Lake Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $47,928,215 7.6% $140,708,477 13.9% 193.6% Buildings $155,440,710 24.5% $311,988,758 30.9% 100.7% Total $203,368,925 32.1% $452,697,235 44.8% 122.6%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $42,744,345 6.7% $131,312,592 13.0% 207.2% Buildings $132,110,239 20.9% $162,531,311 16.1% 23.0% Total $174,854,584 27.6% $293,843,903 29.1% 68.1%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $1,410,472 0.2% $32,233 0.0% -97.7% Buildings $176,107 0.0% $134,310 0.0% -23.7% Total $1,586,579 0.3% $166,543 0.0% -89.5%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $35,659,994 5.6% $1,808,617 0.2% -94.9%

Total Land & Buildings $415,470,082 65.6% $820,318,820 81.2% 97.4% Total Personal Property $130,196,072 20.5% $154,838,328 15.3% 18.9% Total Locally Assessed $545,666,153 86.1% $975,157,148 96.5% 78.7% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $87,942,319 13.9% $35,279,188 3.5% -59.9% Area Total $633,608,473 100.0% $1,010,436,336 100.0% 59.5% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 11.14 North Salt Lake Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 4,825 Vacant Units 150 Total Occupied Units 4,675 Owner Occupied 3,475 Vacant Owner Units 90 Total Owner Units 3,565 Renter Occupied 1,200 Vacant Rental Units 60 Total Rental Units 1,260 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

264 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 11.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in North Salt Lake, 1990–2006

700

600

500

400

Permits 300

200

100

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 11.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in North Salt Lake by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 13 0 0 0 13 $1,634.8 1991 13 0 0 0 13 $1,818.1 1992 23 0 18 0 41 $4,487.1 1993 69 0 0 0 0 69 $12,832.3 1994 120 2 0 0 0 122 $22,862.3 1995 48 2 0 3 1 54 $10,029.2 1996 93 6 0 0 2 101 $16,666.2 1997 101 0 0 0 7 108 $22,440.4 1998 70 2 0 0 10 82 $18,036.1 1999 57 0 0 3 1 61 $16,565.0 2000 61 40 0 0 1 102 $21,516.0 2001 66 0 0 16 1 83 $20,371.1 2002 71 0 0 7 0 78 $22,415.5 2003 126 18 8 3 1 156 $40,104.0 2004 345 8 0 241 0 594 $104,855.5 2005 324 18 0 84 0 426 $88,061.0 2006 306 8 1 48 0 363 $87,681.8 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 265

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.16 Median Price of New Homes in North Salt Lake, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 0 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 52 77 72 $175,000–$199,999 0 0 0 $200,000–$224,999 50 92 57 $225,000–$249,999 45 72 47 $250,000–$274,999 0 0 0 $275,000–$299,999 0 0 0 $300,000–$324,999 0 0 0 $325,000–$349,999 10 1 0 $350,000–$374,999 0 0 0 $375,000–$399,999 0 0 0 $400,000–$449,999 0 0 0 $450,000–$499,999 7 1 0 $500,000–$599,999 67 38 11 $600,000–$749,999 0 3 8 $750,000–$999,999 0 0 0 $1,000,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 231 284 195 Median Price* $217,500 $217,663 $211,184 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 11.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in North Salt Lake, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $160,000 $222,145 60 1998 $205,000 $233,569 72 1999 $204,250 $272,448 75 2000 $176,250 $253,033 85 2001 $163,500 $223,298 103 2002 $237,000 $266,956 92 2003 $269,000 $286,163 104 2004 $212,500 $279,150 133 2005 $289,000 $324,472 152 2006 $270,165 $350,484 185 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

266 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in North Salt Lake, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Hotels & Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & Other Mercantile, Other & Motels & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,643.1 $0.0 $78.1 $0.0 $0.0 $1,500.0 $885.9 $5,107.1 $8,544.2 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $1,252.0 $12,628.1 $0.0 $678.3 $0.0 $32.2 $230.0 $8,774.1 $23,594.7 $38,029.7 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,180.1 $0.0 $90.2 $8.8 $0.0 $1,483.9 $2,747.7 $5,510.7 $8,653.4 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $293.0 $4,554.5 $0.0 $3,635.7 $0.0 $0.0 $55.3 $2,811.0 $11,349.5 $17,143.1 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,142.0 $0.0 $528.9 $534.0 $0.0 $94.6 $5,732.7 $10,032.2 $14,491.0 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,792.0 $0.0 $3,389.5 $1,050.0 $0.0 $1,295.2 $1,231.8 $10,758.5 $14,967.5 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,880.2 $0.0 $2,103.7 $50.0 $0.0 $209.0 $2,385.5 $8,628.4 $11,499.7 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $4,296.2 $0.0 $1,897.2 $190.0 $0.0 $140.0 $564.4 $7,087.8 $9,169.0 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,820.8 $0.0 $146.0 $1,300.0 $0.0 $92.2 $2,131.7 $7,490.7 $9,596.3 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $991.0 $4,199.0 $0.0 $97.2 $0.0 $80.0 $240.0 $3,285.1 $8,892.3 $11,355.2 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,165.3 $0.0 $1,099.4 $0.0 $9.0 $535.9 $2,563.5 $7,373.1 $8,926.5 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $2,279.0 $10,367.3 $0.0 $316.4 $0.0 $1,138.0 $2,400.0 $653.0 $17,153.7 $18,971.9 2006 $0.0 $1,583.7 $209.0 $12,499.8 $0.0 $5,945.8 $0.0 $5,870.0 $1,515.6 $4,289.6 $31,913.5 $31,913.5 Total $0.0 $1,583.7 $5,024.0 $70,168.4 $0.0 $20,006.4 $3,132.8 $7,129.2 $9,791.7 $38,056.0 $154,892.2 $203,261.1 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 267

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 11.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in North Salt Lake, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 0.00 0.00 1991 0.00 0.00 1992 38.26 0.00 1993 77.24 0.00 1994 7.79 0.00 1995 29.26 10.44 1996 17.88 0.00 1997 57.82 28.46 1998 19.18 11.79 1999 92.52 12.67 2000 16.92 12.43 2001 7.16 1.48 2003 37.02 1.03 2002 120.61 0.00 2004 90.53 0.00 2005 66.25 2.44 2006 43.69 0.00 Total 722.13 80.74 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

268 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

S OUTH W EBER

Table 12.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of South Weber

Population Population (2005) 5,908 Median Age (2000) 23.6 Average Household Income (2006) $79,531

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 1,650 100.0% Owner Occupied 1,485 90.0% Renter Occupied 135 8.2% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $239,900 New $287,019

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $1.1 Property Tax Receipts (thousands) $238.4 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (thousands) $472.5 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $180 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 269

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.2 Change in Population by Age Group in South Weber, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 2,863 4,260 48.8% Age Under 5 Years 266 9.3% 354 8.3% 33.1% 5 to 17 Years 1,003 35.0% 1,339 31.4% 33.5% 18 to 20 Years 213 7.4% 285 6.7% 33.8% 21 to 24 Years 114 4.0% 209 4.9% 83.3% 25 to 44 Years 914 31.9% 1,175 27.6% 28.6% 45 to 54 Years 185 6.5% 505 11.9% 173.0% 55 to 59 Years 80 2.8% 151 3.5% 88.8% 60 to 64 Years 53 1.9% 77 1.8% 45.3% 65 Years and Over 102 3.6% 165 3.9% 61.8% Median Age 20.1 23.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 12.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: South Weber, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 8.3% 3.8% High School Graduate* 26.4% 26.7% Some College, No Degree 37.7% 25.7% Associate’s Degree 8.1% 11.2% Bachelor’s Degree 15.2% 25.5% Graduate or Professional degree 4.2% 7.1% Master’s Degree N/A 5.2% Professional Degree N/A 1.3% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.5% By Sex Male: Less than High School 3.7% High School Graduate* 25.4% Some College, No Degree 21.4% Associate’s Degree 13.7% Bachelor’s Degree 27.1% Master’s Degree 5.7% Professional Degree 2.0% Doctorate Degree 1.1% Female: Less than High School 3.8% High School Graduate* 28.1% Some College, No Degree 30.1% Associate’s Degree 8.7% Bachelor’s Degree 24.0% Master’s Degree 4.7% Professional Degree 0.6% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

270 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 12.1 South Weber Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black 75 - 79 8.9% 70 - 74 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 Hispanic 46.3% 35 - 39 American 30 - 34 Indian, 25 - 29 Eskimo, or 20 - 24 Aleut 15 - 19 29.5% 10 - 14 5 - 9 Under 5 Asian or Pacific 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 Other race Islander Male Female 2.1% 13.2%

Age Distribution of the South Weber Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 139 127 1.09 9.3% 1.3% South Weber Share of 5–9 171 182 0.94 12.3% 1.6% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 207 182 1.14 13.6% 1.7% Total 2,863 100.0% 1.5% 15–19 265 154 1.72 14.6% 2.5% 20–24 99 70 1.41 5.9% 1.3% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 75 85 0.88 5.6% 1.1% White 2,673 93.4% 1.5% 30–34 119 122 0.98 8.4% 1.6% Black 17 0.6% 0.7% 35–39 118 132 0.89 8.7% 1.8% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 56 2.0% 5.6% 40–44 99 97 1.02 6.8% 1.8% Asian or Pacific Islander 25 0.9% 0.8% 45–49 63 49 1.29 3.9% 1.3% Other race 4 0.1% 5.1% 50–54 39 34 1.15 2.5% 1.0% Ethnicity 55–59 44 36 1.22 2.8% 1.3% Hispanic Origin 88 3.1% 0.6% 60–64 26 27 0.96 1.9% 1.0% 65–69 19 25 0.76 1.5% 1.0% Minority 190 6.6% 1.4% 70–74 12 9 1.33 0.7% 0.7% 75–79 6 13 0.46 0.7% 1.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 5 6 0.83 0.4% 0.9% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 1 6 0.17 0.2% 0.8% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the Total 1,507 1,356 1.11 100.0% 1.5% city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's share of Share 60 years+ 5.4% 0.6% total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio Median Age 20.1 greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 271

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 12.2 South Weber Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black alone 75 - 79 (NH) 70 - 74 7.2% AIAN alone 65 - 69 (NH) 60 - 64 9.6% 55 - 59 Asian alone 50 - 54 (NH) 45 - 49 7.9% 40 - 44 NHPI alone 35 - 39 (NH) 30 - 34 0.3% 25 - 29 Some other 20 - 24 race alone 15 - 19 (NH) 10 - 14 1.0% 5 - 9 Hispanic 57.9% Two or more Under 5 races (NH) 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 16.1% Male Female

Age Distribution of the South Weber Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 185 169 1.09 8.3% 1.5% South Weber Share of 5–9 218 225 0.97 10.4% 2.0% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 253 233 1.09 11.4% 2.1% Total 4,260 100.0% 1.8% 15–19 315 314 1.00 14.8% 2.6% 20–24 146 129 1.13 6.5% 1.4% Not Hispanic or Latino 4,091 96.0% 1.8% 25–29 98 110 0.89 4.9% 1.2% White alone 3,968 93.1% 1.8% 30–34 122 133 0.92 6.0% 1.6% Black or African American alone 21 0.5% 0.8% 35–39 178 178 1.00 8.4% 2.1% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 28 0.7% 2.4% 40–44 180 176 1.02 8.4% 2.1% Asian alone 23 0.5% 0.6% 45–49 147 150 0.98 7.0% 2.0% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 1 0.0% 0.2% 50–54 114 94 1.21 4.9% 1.8% Some other race alone 3 0.1% 1.5% 55–59 74 77 0.96 3.5% 1.8% Two or more races 47 1.1% 1.4% 60–64 40 37 1.08 1.8% 1.2% Ethnicity 65–69 41 29 1.41 1.6% 1.3% Hispanic or Latino 169 4.0% 1.3% 70–74 13 22 0.59 0.8% 0.8% 75–79 7 17 0.41 0.6% 0.7% Minority 292 6.9% 1.2% 80–84 11 8 1.38 0.4% 0.9% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 5 12 0.42 0.4% 1.0% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 2,147 2,113 1.02 100.0% 1.8% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 5.7% 1.0% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Median Age 23.6 one.

272 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 12.3 Distribution of Household Income in South Weber, 1997-2005

35%

30% 1997 2000 2005 25%

20%

15%

10% Share of Households of Share

5%

0%

0 00 00 ,00 0 0 0, 40, 50,000 $20 $3 $ $ $75,000 100,000 - $10,000 - $15,000 - $25,000 - $35,000 - $45,000 $ 1 r Under $5,00001 01 01 - 0 ,001 ,001 ,00 0 0 Ove 5, 0, $ 50, $10 $15,001 $20- $25,001 $30- $35,001 $4- $45,001 $- $75,001 - $100,000 Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 25 3.2% 34 3.4% 35 2.9% $5,001–$10,000 28 3.6% 48 4.8% 25 2.1% $10,001–$15,000 18 2.3% 36 3.6% 33 2.8% $15,001–$20,000 29 3.7% 33 3.3% 37 3.1% $20,001–$25,000 34 4.3% 26 2.6% 36 3.0% $25,001–$30,000 40 5.1% 30 3.0% 26 2.2% $30,001–$35,000 34 4.3% 40 4.0% 46 3.8% $35,001–$40,000 30 3.8% 42 4.2% 62 5.2% $40,001–$45,000 38 4.8% 49 4.9% 47 3.9% $45,001–$50,000 62 7.9% 41 4.1% 54 4.5% $50,001–$75,000 250 31.9% 300 30.1% 287 24.0% $75,001–$100,000 132 16.8% 189 18.9% 262 21.9% Over $1000,000 64 8.2% 130 13.0% 245 20.5% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 273

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.4 Share of Persons in South Weber Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 9.3% 5.7% Male 12.5% 6.8% Under 5 years 1.9% 0.0% Under 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 2.5% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 2.2% 0.0% 12 to 17 years 13.1% 20.0% 12 to 17 years 17.7% 21.8% 18 to 64 years 12.5% 4.6% 18 to 64 years 17.0% 5.7% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 0.0% Female 5.8% 4.6% Under 5 years 3.9% 0.0% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 2.8% 0.0% 12 to 17 years 7.0% 18.0% 18 to 64 years 7.4% 3.5% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 0.0% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 12.5 South Weber Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 1,104 100.0% 2,024 100.0% 920 83.3% Drove alone 865 78.4% 1,489 73.6% 624 72.1% Carpooled 168 15.2% 375 18.5% 207 123.2% Public transportation (including taxicab) 8 0.7% 51 2.5% 43 537.5% Bicycle or walked 10 0.9% 22 1.1% 12 120.0% Motorcycle or other means 7 0.6% 30 1.5% 23 328.6% Worked at home 46 4.2% 57 2.8% 11 23.9%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 1,058 100.0% 1,967 100.0% 909 85.9% Less than 5 minutes 23 2.2% 23 1.2% 0 0.0% 5 to 9 minutes 62 5.9% 164 8.3% 102 164.5% 10 to 14 minutes 189 17.9% 459 23.3% 270 142.9% 15 to 19 minutes 325 30.7% 573 29.1% 248 76.3% 20 to 24 minutes 235 22.2% 214 10.9% -21 -8.9% 25 to 29 minutes 36 3.4% 90 4.6% 54 150.0% 30 to 34 minutes 93 8.8% 77 3.9% -16 -17.2% 35 to 39 minutes 19 1.8% 17 0.9% -2 -10.5% 40 to 44 minutes 13 1.2% 25 1.3% 12 92.3% 45 or more minutes 63 6.0% 325 16.5% 262 415.9% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 19.9 23.7 3.8 19.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

274 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Clearfield–South Weber by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 23,531 100.0% 21,907 100.0% 20,835 100.0% 20,489 100.0% 19,817 100.0% 19,001 100.0% 20,047 100.0% 22,437 100.0% 22,593 100.0% 23,346 100.0% 36,532 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 336 1.4% 444 2.0% 473 2.3% 517 2.5% 636 3.2% 653 3.4% 637 3.2% 636 2.8% 750 3.3% 791 3.4% 956 2.6% Manufacturing 4,130 17.6% 3,957 18.1% 4,000 19.2% 4,661 22.7% 5,174 26.1% 5,834 30.7% 5,915 29.5% 5,595 24.9% 5,360 23.7% 5,419 23.2% 7,445 20.4% TCPU 402 1.7% 419 1.9% 227 1.1% 246 1.2% 296 1.5% 213 1.1% 316 1.6% 431 1.9% 472 2.1% 602 2.6% 1,650 4.5% Trade 1,138 4.8% 1,132 5.2% 1,220 5.9% 1,407 6.9% 1,385 7.0% 1,412 7.4% 1,589 7.9% 1,708 7.6% 1,771 7.8% 1,802 7.7% 3,965 10.9% FIRE 195 0.8% 190 0.9% 174 0.8% D 165 0.8% 149 0.8% 174 0.9% 190 0.8% 197 0.9% 197 0.8% 375 1.0% Services 2,026 8.6% 2,017 9.2% 2,044 9.8% 2,296 11.2% 2,198 11.1% 2,413 12.7% 2,558 12.8% 3,002 13.4% 3,113 13.8% 3,112 13.3% 5,200 14.2% Government 15,304 65.0% 13,748 62.8% 12,697 60.9% 11,182 54.6% 9,963 50.3% 9,017 47.5% 8,858 44.2% 10,875 48.5% 10,930 48.4% 11,423 48.9% 16,941 46.4% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 14,810 100.0% 25,473 100.0% 25,208 100.0% 25,806 100.0% 26,717 100.0% Mining D 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 670 4.5% 727 2.9% 454 1.8% 425 1.6% 394 1.5% Manufacturing 5,642 38.1% 5,872 23.1% 6,197 24.6% 6,386 24.7% 6,447 24.1% Trade, Transp., Utilities 1,865 12.6% 1,903 7.5% 1,614 6.4% 1,742 6.8% 1,810 6.8% Information 23 0.2% 97 0.4% 108 0.4% 95 0.4% 107 0.4% Financial Activities 251 1.7% 287 1.1% 209 0.8% 224 0.9% 225 0.8% Prof. & Business Services 1,137 7.7% 1,412 5.5% 1,401 5.6% 1,538 6.0% 1,969 7.4% Education & Health Services 895 6.0% 517 2.0% 1,000 4.0% 1,070 4.1% 1,146 4.3% Leisure & Hospitality 472 3.2% 443 1.7% 338 1.3% 321 1.2% 289 1.1% Other Services 227 1.5% 249 1.0% 315 1.3% 268 1.0% 246 0.9% Government 3,628 24.5% 13,965 54.8% 13,572 53.8% 13,737 53.2% 14,084 52.7% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 275

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Clearfield–South Weber by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $947.2 100.0% $895.6 100.0% $854.5 100.0% $815.9 100.0% $795.2 100.0% $812.7 100.0% $830.1 100.0% $885.9 100.0% $906.8 100.0% $930.7 100.0% $1,444.4 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% D $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% Construction $13.7 1.4% $17.6 2.0% $17.3 2.0% $16.7 2.0% $20.7 2.6% $22.7 2.8% $22.0 2.6% $20.8 2.3% $24.1 2.7% $26.5 2.9% $34.5 2.4% Manufacturing $152.8 16.1% $140.7 15.7% $141.3 16.5% $159.9 19.6% $181.4 22.8% $216.1 26.6% $205.2 24.7% $196.6 22.2% $195.9 21.6% $204.0 21.9% $272.1 18.8% TCPU $17.3 1.8% $18.4 2.1% $11.2 1.3% $10.7 1.3% $11.0 1.4% $9.5 1.2% $11.3 1.4% $13.6 1.5% $16.2 1.8% $19.1 2.1% $62.7 4.3% Trade $23.6 2.5% $22.3 2.5% $23.2 2.7% $28.0 3.4% $29.1 3.7% $30.8 3.8% $40.0 4.8% $47.4 5.3% $49.9 5.5% $49.3 5.3% $120.8 8.4% FIRE $4.9 0.5% $5.1 0.6% $5.1 0.6% D $5.3 0.7% $5.0 0.6% $6.2 0.7% $6.4 0.7% $6.2 0.7% $5.8 0.6% $11.0 0.8% Services $66.6 7.0% $63.2 7.1% $67.6 7.9% $72.2 8.9% $70.1 8.8% $74.8 9.2% $78.4 9.4% $88.5 10.0% $92.7 10.2% $95.2 10.2% $184.8 12.8% Government $668.3 70.6% $628.3 70.2% $588.8 68.9% $523.4 64.2% $477.6 60.1% $473.1 58.2% $466.9 56.2% $512.7 57.9% $521.8 57.5% $530.8 57.0% $758.6 52.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $482.3 100.0% $1,100.0 100.0% $1,115.9 100.0% $1,153.9 100.0% $1,160.3 100.0% Mining D $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $21.3 4.4% $22.3 2.0% $15.8 1.4% $13.8 1.2% $11.2 1.0% Manufacturing $206.8 42.9% $215.1 19.6% $218.0 19.5% $221.8 19.2% $208.8 18.0% Trade, Transp., Utilities $60.7 12.6% $60.4 5.5% $56.4 5.1% $67.5 5.8% $65.9 5.7% Information $0.6 0.1% $4.3 0.4% $6.6 0.6% $6.9 0.6% $7.0 0.6% Financial Activities $6.3 1.3% $7.4 0.7% $6.3 0.6% $6.6 0.6% $7.0 0.6% Prof & Bus Services $40.4 8.4% $51.4 4.7% $64.0 5.7% $69.5 6.0% $80.7 7.0% Edu & Health Services $18.4 3.8% $22.6 2.1% $22.6 2.0% $24.5 2.1% $25.9 2.2% Leisure & Hospitality $4.7 1.0% $4.6 0.4% $3.4 0.3% $3.1 0.3% $2.8 0.2% Other Services $4.2 0.9% $4.7 0.4% $9.1 0.8% $7.8 0.7% $7.2 0.6% Government $118.9 24.7% $707.2 64.3% $713.7 64.0% $732.4 63.5% $743.8 64.1% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

276 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Clearfield– South Weber, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount* Share Total Nonagricultural 55.3% 52.5% Mining Construction 184.5% 83.3% 151.8% 65.2% Manufacturing 80.3% 16.1% 78.0% 16.7% TCPU 310.4% 164.4% 262.1% 137.5% Trade 248.4% 124.4% 412.9% 236.3% FIRE 92.3% 23.9% 123.6% 46.6% Services 156.7% 65.3% 177.4% 81.9% Government 10.7% -28.7% 13.5% -25.6%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 80.4% 140.6% Mining Construction -41.1% -67.4% -47.3% -78.1% Manufacturing 14.3% -36.7% 1.0% -58.0% Trade, Transp, Utilities -2.9% -46.2% 8.5% -54.9% Information 364.7% 157.6% 1124.0% 408.8% Financial Activities -10.2% -50.2% 11.8% -53.5% Prof & Bus Services 73.2% -4.0% 99.8% -17.0% Edu & Health Services 28.0% -29.0% 40.9% -41.4% Leisure & Hosp -38.8% -66.1% -39.8% -75.0% Other Services 8.2% -40.0% 71.6% -28.7% Government 288.2% 115.2% 525.3% 159.9% *Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 12.9 Clearfield–South Weber Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 0.33 0.42 0.43 0.16 0.48 0.50 0.43 0.35 0.40 0.40 0.32 Manufacturing 1.39 1.43 1.50 0.64 1.87 2.09 2.07 1.87 1.81 1.81 1.69 TCPU 0.42 0.47 0.30 0.13 0.43 0.35 0.45 0.56 0.60 0.69 1.18 Trade 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.10 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.43 FIRE 0.38 0.34 0.28 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.30 Services 0.50 0.54 0.56 0.24 0.59 0.64 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.63 0.67 Government 1.80 1.84 1.85 2.73 1.83 1.87 1.86 1.93 1.96 1.96 1.82

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 0.56 0.38 0.24 0.21 0.17 Manufacturing 3.36 2.03 2.13 2.21 2.19 Trade, Transp, Utilities 0.59 0.36 0.31 0.32 0.34 Information 0.18 0.37 0.43 0.39 0.44 Financial Activities 0.45 0.31 0.21 0.21 0.21 Prof & Bus Services 0.97 0.64 0.64 0.68 0.77 Edu & Health Services 0.70 0.24 0.44 0.46 0.48 Leisure & Hosp 0.36 0.20 0.15 0.14 0.12 Other Services 0.55 0.33 0.42 0.35 0.32 Government 0.94 2.07 2.09 2.12 2.11 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 277

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.10 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of South Weber, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 38.4% 38.2% 38.8% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 16.0% 19.3% 11.8% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 9.2% 12.7% 5.0% Farmers and farm managers 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 6.2% 5.7% 6.8% Business operations specialists 2.6% 2.0% 3.2% Financial specialists 3.7% 3.7% 3.6% Professional and related occupations 22.5% 18.9% 26.9% Computer and mathematical occupations 6.2% 6.5% 5.8% Architecture and engineering occupations 1.0% 1.7% 0.0% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 1.0% 1.7% 0.0% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Community and social services occupations 2.0% 2.1% 1.9% Legal occupations 0.6% 1.0% 0.0% Education, training, and library occupations 6.2% 3.0% 10.2% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 5.4% 3.1% 8.2% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 4.2% 2.8% 5.8% Health technologists and technicians 1.2% 0.3% 2.3% Service occupations 10.9% 8.3% 14.1% Healthcare support occupations 0.3% 0.0% 0.6% Protective service occupations 3.0% 4.6% 1.1% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 2.7% 3.9% 1.1% Food preparation and serving related occupations 4.3% 2.3% 6.8% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 1.7% 1.5% 2.0% Personal care and service occupations 1.6% 0.0% 3.6% Sales and office occupations 28.0% 19.9% 37.9% Sales and related occupations 12.0% 11.2% 13.0% Office and administrative support occupations 16.0% 8.7% 24.9% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 14.2% 24.3% 1.9% Construction and extraction occupations 8.7% 15.2% 0.7% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% Construction trades workers 8.0% 13.9% 0.7% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 5.6% 9.1% 1.2% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 8.4% 9.3% 7.4% Production occupations 4.9% 6.6% 2.8% Transportation and material-moving occupations 3.6% 2.7% 4.6% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% Material-moving workers 2.4% 0.6% 4.6% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

278 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 12.4

South Weber Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$750

Property Taxes Sales and Use Taxes

$500

$250 Thousands of 2005 Dollars Constant

$0

1 2 4 6 9 1 3 90 95 97 02 04 9 99 99 9 99 9 99 00 0 0 1 199 1 1993 1 1 1 1 1998 1 2000 2 2 200 2 2005 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $126,624 $126,998 $308,712 1991 $129,210 $168,746 $352,082 1992 $123,363 $208,210 $377,084 1993 $127,844 $10,907 $286,583 $479,303 1994 $132,602 $289,995 $500,807 1995 $143,866 $18,419 $322,542 $528,976 1996 $162,194 $23,250 $368,518 $623,854 1997 $168,483 $28,541 $382,952 $670,468 1998 $572,677 $818,042 1999 $192,336 $27,099 $346,311 $758,788 2000 $199,910 $27,886 $397,154 $918,975 2001 $203,610 $27,098 $394,203 $986,195 2002 $234,543 $27,359 $412,611 $958,214 2003 $216,640 $32,180 $369,621 $890,438 2004 $241,892 $33,445 $430,328 $968,920 2005 $238,387 $31,362 $472,540 $1,061,544 Change 88.3% 187.5% 272.1% 243.9% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 279

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.11 Detailed Breakdown of South Weber Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 $308,712 Property Taxes General Fund $83,716 $126,624 41.0% Total property taxes $83,716 $126,624 $44.23 41.0% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $83,963 $126,998 $44.36 41.1% Building Permits $26,392 $39,919 12.9% Other Licenses and Permits $10,030 $15,171 4.9% Total Tax Revenues $204,101 $308,712 $107.83 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $151,181 $172,025 18.7% Fee in Lieu $24,507 $27,886 3.0% Total Property Taxes $175,688 $199,910 $46.93 21.8% Sales and Use Tax $349,032 $397,154 $93.23 43.2% Franchise Tax $121,046 $137,735 15.0% Building Permits $150,249 $170,964 18.6% Other Licenses and Permits $11,611 $13,212 1.4% Total Tax Revenues $807,626 $918,975 $215.72 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $207,025 19.5% Fee in lieu $31,362 3.0% Total Property Taxes $238,387 $40.35 22.5% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $472,540 $79.98 44.5% Franchise Taxes Cable TV Franchise Tax $249,322 23.5% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $12,171 1.1% Building Permit Fees $89,124 8.4% Total Tax Revenues $1,061,544 $179.68 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

280 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.12 South Weber Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $20,228,212 15.2% $32,865,877 16.1% 62.5% Buildings $66,393,320 49.8% $119,701,309 58.8% 80.3% Total $86,621,532 65.0% $152,567,186 75.0% 76.1%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $1,439,326 1.1% $6,314,810 3.1% 338.7% Buildings $2,062,595 1.5% $2,076,590 1.0% 0.7% Total $3,501,921 2.6% $8,391,400 4.1% 139.6%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $703,344 0.5% $338,580 0.2% -51.9% Buildings $888,805 0.7% $427,584 0.2% -51.9% Total $1,592,149 1.2% $766,164 0.4% -51.9%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $10,340,210 7.8% $2,721,834 1.3% -73.7%

Total Land & Buildings $102,055,812 76.5% $177,145,780 87.0% 73.6% Total Personal Property $2,244,693 1.7% $4,475,271 2.2% 99.4% Total Locally Assessed $104,300,505 78.2% $181,621,051 89.2% 74.1% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $29,055,678 21.8% $21,935,133 10.8% -24.5% Area Total $133,356,183 100.0% $203,556,184 100.0% 52.6% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 12.13 South Weber Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 1,650 Vacant Units 30 Total Occupied Units 1,620 Owner Occupied 1,485 Vacant Owner Units 25 Total Owner Units 1,510 Renter Occupied 135 Vacant Rental Units 5 Total Rental Units 140 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 281

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 12.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in South Weber, 1990–2006

400

350

300

250

200 Permits 150

100

50

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 12.14 Residential Building Permits Issued in South Weber by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 29 0 0 0 29 $2,596.7 1991 29 2 0 0 31 $3,215.7 1992 31 0 0 0 31 $2,981.9 1993 40 0 0 0 0 40 $4,367.3 1994 306 8 1 48 0 363 $4,394.0 1995 25 0 0 0 0 25 $3,408.5 1996 67 0 0 0 0 67 $8,913.2 1997 62 0 0 0 0 62 $7,453.3 1998 73 0 0 0 0 73 $9,462.6 1999 67 0 0 0 0 67 $8,843.9 2000 114 0 0 0 0 114 $14,438.3 2001 78 0 4 60 0 142 $12,956.6 2002 70 0 0 0 0 70 $7,804.6 2003 37 0 10 0 0 47 $4,951.9 2004 34 0 12 0 0 46 $5,492.0 2005 69 0 4 0 0 73 $9,609.1 2006 51 0 0 0 0 51 $12,059.3 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

282 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.15 Median Price of New Homes in South Weber, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 2 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 2 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 5 1 0 $175,000–$199,999 6 0 0 $200,000–$224,999 1 8 0 $225,000–$249,999 2 13 1 $250,000–$274,999 0 0 0 $275,000–$299,999 8 11 52 $300,000–$324,999 0 0 0 $325,000–$349,999 0 0 0 $350,000–$374,999 0 0 0 $375,000–$399,999 0 0 0 $400,000–$449,999 0 0 1 $450,000–$499,999 0 0 0 $500,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 26 33 54 Median Price* $191,500 $239,423 $287,019 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 12.16 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in South Weber, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $152,950 $154,076 29 1998 $171,000 $169,148 38 1999 $168,750 $165,487 24 2000 $160,000 $166,190 62 2001 $161,050 $171,434 57 2002 $174,900 $175,080 64 2003 $164,500 $172,124 85 2004 $174,900 $191,491 68 2005 $205,500 $204,344 95 2006 $239,900 $235,488 83 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 283

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.17 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in South Weber, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Hotels & Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & Other Mercantile, Other & Motels & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $60.4 $11.3 $71.7 $120.0 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $202.1 $8.0 $210.1 $338.6 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $120.9 $1.3 $122.2 $191.9 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.8 $72.3 $62.0 $137.1 $207.1 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $59.6 $0.0 $59.6 $86.1 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $1,087.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $91.9 $0.0 $1,179.8 $1,641.4 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $105.8 $0.0 $105.8 $141.0 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $118.1 $13.4 $131.5 $170.1 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $77.6 $0.0 $77.6 $99.4 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $472.9 $0.0 $472.9 $603.9 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $84.0 $26.9 $110.9 $134.3 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $61.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $61.9 $68.5 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $1,942.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,942.8 $1,942.8 Total $0.0 $0.0 $3,030.7 $61.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.8 $1,465.6 $122.9 $4,683.9 $5,745.0 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

284 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 12.18 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in South Weber, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 0.00 0.00 1991 0.00 0.00 1992 0.42 0.00 1993 25.48 0.00 1994 0.00 0.00 1995 1.41 0.00 1996 27.88 0.00 1997 60.64 0.00 1998 13.99 0.00 1999 82.21 0.00 2000 48.51 0.00 2001 34.49 0.00 2003 16.35 0.00 2002 16.37 0.00 2004 0.00 0.00 2005 37.09 0.00 2006 16.38 0.00 Total 381.22 0.00 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 285

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

S UNSET

Table 13.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Sunset

Population Residential Population (2005) 5,093 Median Age (2000) 29.2 Average Household Income (2006) $49,371

Employment* Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 3,954 Employer Firms (2005) 467 Average Annual Wage (2005) $24,725 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Construction 839 21.2% Trade, Transportation, Utilities 750 19.0% Government 742 18.8% *Data are for Sunset–Syracuse

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 1,840 100.0% Owner Occupied 1,330 72.3% Renter Occupied 465 25.3% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $116,450

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $1.1 Property Tax Receipts (thousands) $206.1 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (thousands) $696.8 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $206 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

286 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Sunset, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 5,128 5,204 1.5% Age Under 5 Years 472 9.2% 535 10.3% 13.3% 5 to 17 Years 1,228 23.9% 1,047 20.1% -14.7% 18 to 20 Years 218 4.3% 226 4.3% 3.7% 21 to 24 Years 316 6.2% 369 7.1% 16.8% 25 to 44 Years 1,658 32.3% 1,491 28.7% -10.1% 45 to 54 Years 523 10.2% 481 9.2% -8.0% 55 to 59 Years 288 5.6% 209 4.0% -27.4% 60 to 64 Years 237 4.6% 206 4.0% -13.1% 65 Years and Over 431 8.4% 640 12.3% 48.5% Median Age 28.9 29.2 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 13.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Sunset, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 19.8% 17.3% High School Graduate* 37.2% 37.0% Some College, No Degree 27.9% 28.6% Associate’s Degree 5.4% 6.5% Bachelor’s Degree 7.1% 8.6% Graduate or Professional degree 2.6% 1.9% Master’s Degree N/A 1.5% Professional Degree N/A 0.5% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.0% By Sex Male: Less than High School 17.5% High School Graduate* 30.1% Some College, No Degree 31.0% Associate’s Degree 5.8% Bachelor’s Degree 12.5% Master’s Degree 2.7% Professional Degree 0.3% Doctorate Degree 0.0% Female: Less than High School 17.0% High School Graduate* 43.5% Some College, No Degree 26.4% Associate’s Degree 7.3% Bachelor’s Degree 4.9% Master’s Degree 0.3% Professional Degree 0.6% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 287

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 13.1 Sunset Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black 75 - 79 9.2% American 70 - 74 Indian, 65 - 69 Eskimo, or 60 - 64 Aleut 2.5% 55 - 59 50 - 54

45 - 49 Asian or 40 - 44 Pacific 35 - 39 Islander 30 - 34 20.4% 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 10 - 14 Hispanic Other race 5 - 9 66.9% 1.0% Under 5 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 Male Female

Age Distribution of the Sunset Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 228 244 0.93 9.2% 2.4% Sunset Share of 5–9 265 248 1.07 10.0% 2.3% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 252 230 1.10 9.4% 2.2% Total 5,128 100.0% 2.7% 15–19 193 190 1.02 7.5% 2.2% 20–24 175 209 0.84 7.5% 2.9% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 218 213 1.02 8.4% 3.0% White 4,500 87.8% 2.6% 30–34 190 185 1.03 7.3% 2.4% Black 58 1.1% 2.5% 35–39 169 172 0.98 6.6% 2.5% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 16 0.3% 1.6% 40–44 126 142 0.89 5.2% 2.4% Asian or Pacific Islander 128 2.5% 4.1% 45–49 109 148 0.74 5.0% 2.9% Other race 6 0.1% 7.6% 50–54 123 143 0.86 5.2% 3.8% Ethnicity 55–59 151 137 1.10 5.6% 4.6% Hispanic Origin 420 8.2% 3.1% 60–64 115 122 0.94 4.6% 4.6% 65–69 101 108 0.94 4.1% 4.6% Minority 628 12.2% 4.6% 70–74 51 43 1.19 1.8% 3.1% 75–79 24 38 0.63 1.2% 3.2% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 22 26 0.85 0.9% 3.9% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 8 10 0.80 0.4% 2.1% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the Total 2,520 2,608 0.97 100.0% 2.7% city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's share of Share 60 years+ 13.0% 2.6% total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio Median Age 28.9 greater than one.

288 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 13.2 Sunset Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 75 - 79 Black alone 70 - 74 (NH) AIAN alone 65 - 69 8.7% (NH) 4.8% 60 - 64 55 - 59 Asian alone 50 - 54 (NH) 45 - 49 14.8% 40 - 44 35 - 39 NHPI alone (NH) 30 - 34 25 - 29 0.9%

20 - 24 Some other Hispanic 15 - 19 race alone 59.5% 10 - 14 (NH) 0.4% 5 - 9 Two or more Under 5 races (NH) 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 11.0% Male Fem ale

Age Distribution of the Sunset Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 271 264 1.03 10.3% 2.3% Sunset Share of 5–9 231 220 1.05 8.7% 2.0% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 185 177 1.05 7.0% 1.6% Total 5,204 100.0% 2.2% 15–19 201 172 1.17 7.2% 1.6% 20–24 233 223 1.04 8.8% 2.3% Not Hispanic or Latino 4,657 89.5% 2.1% 25–29 261 245 1.07 9.7% 2.9% White alone 4,284 82.3% 2.0% 30–34 179 185 0.97 7.0% 2.3% Black or African American alone 80 1.5% 3.2% 35–39 177 157 1.13 6.4% 2.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 44 0.8% 3.7% 40–44 153 134 1.14 5.5% 1.7% Asian alone 136 2.6% 3.8% 45–49 121 145 0.83 5.1% 1.8% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 8 0.2% 1.3% 50–54 108 107 1.01 4.1% 1.9% Some other race alone 4 0.1% 2.0% 55–59 88 121 0.73 4.0% 2.4% Two or more races 101 1.9% 3.0% 60–64 97 109 0.89 4.0% 3.2% Ethnicity 65–69 116 102 1.14 4.2% 3.9% Hispanic or Latino 547 10.5% 4.2% 70–74 73 102 0.72 3.4% 3.9% 75–79 79 72 1.10 2.9% 4.1% Minority 920 17.7% 3.8% 80–84 32 27 1.19 1.1% 2.7% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 17 20 0.85 0.7% 2.2% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 2,622 2,582 1.02 100.0% 2.2% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total population Share 60 years+ 16.3% 3.5% in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than one. Median Age 29.2

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 289

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 13.3 Distribution of Household Income in Sunset, 1995-2005

25%

20%

1995 2000 2005

15%

10% Share of Households

5%

0%

0 0 0 0 00 00 0 ,00 00 ,000 00 0 0 ,00 00 0, 0, $5 1 40, 50, 0, $20 $3 $ $ 100 $75,000$ 10 er - $15,000- - $25,000- - - - nd 1 1 1 1 1 1 - $45,0001 1 U 0 0 ver $ ,00 00 ,00 00 ,001 - $35,00000 00 O 0 5, 0 5, 0 5, 5, 0,0 $5,001 - $ 5 $1 $1 $2 $2 $3 $3 $40,0 $4 $ 75,001 - $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 106 6.4% 40 3.1% 57 4.1% $5,001–$10,000 99 6.0% 53 4.1% 68 4.9% $10,001–$15,000 124 7.5% 56 4.3% 95 6.8% $15,001–$20,000 175 10.6% 84 6.5% 120 8.6% $20,001–$25,000 160 9.7% 88 6.8% 121 8.6% $25,001–$30,000 154 9.3% 111 8.6% 105 7.5% $30,001–$35,000 154 9.3% 108 8.4% 115 8.2% $35,001–$40,000 145 8.8% 103 8.0% 118 8.4% $40,001–$45,000 120 7.3% 110 8.5% 104 7.4% $45,001–$50,000 95 5.8% 109 8.5% 86 6.1% $50,001–$75,000 233 14.1% 277 21.5% 261 18.6% $75,001–$100,000 63 3.8% 91 7.1% 96 6.8% Over $100,000 24 1.5% 59 4.6% 56 4.0% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

290 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.4 Share of Persons in Sunset Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 9.1% 7.8% Male 8.7% 7.2% Under 5 years 12.3% 7.4% Under 5 years 16.0% 10.1% 5 years 21.7% 16.8% 5 years 28.3% 36.4% 6 to 11 years 13.0% 15.3% 6 to 11 years 10.8% 13.8% 12 to 17 years 15.2% 15.6% 12 to 17 years 15.1% 18.8% 18 to 64 years 6.7% 6.6% 18 to 64 years 5.8% 4.3% 65 to 74 years 1.9% 0.0% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 15.9% 3.9% 75 years and over 17.9% 0.0% Female 9.4% 8.4% Under 5 years 8.7% 4.7% 5 years 17.1% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 15.5% 17.1% 12 to 17 years 15.4% 11.8% 18 to 64 years 7.6% 8.8% 65 to 74 years 3.6% 0.0% 75 years and over 14.1% 7.7% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 13.5 Sunset Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 2,329 100.0% 2,446 100.0% 117 5.0% Drove alone 1,885 80.9% 1,824 74.6% -61 -3.2% Carpooled 293 12.6% 451 18.4% 158 53.9% Public transportation (including taxicab) 40 1.7% 23 0.9% -17 -42.5% Bicycle or walked 41 1.8% 34 1.4% -7 -17.1% Motorcycle or other means 30 1.3% 15 0.6% -15 -50.0% Worked at home 40 1.7% 99 4.0% 59 147.5%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 2,289 100.0% 2,347 100.0% 58 2.5% Less than 5 minutes 48 2.1% 78 3.3% 30 62.5% 5 to 9 minutes 312 13.6% 298 12.7% -14 -4.5% 10 to 14 minutes 598 26.1% 505 21.5% -93 -15.6% 15 to 19 minutes 667 29.1% 532 22.7% -135 -20.2% 20 to 24 minutes 290 12.7% 321 13.7% 31 10.7% 25 to 29 minutes 77 3.4% 85 3.6% 8 10.4% 30 to 34 minutes 110 4.8% 176 7.5% 66 60.0% 35 to 39 minutes 45 2.0% 30 1.3% -15 -33.3% 40 to 44 minutes 24 1.0% 20 0.9% -4 -16.7% 45 or more minutes 118 5.2% 302 12.9% 184 155.9% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 16.8 21.4 4.6 27.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 291

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Sunset–Syracuse by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 2,421 100.0% 2,648 100.0% 2,706 100.0% 3,062 100.0% 3,294 100.0% 3,173 100.0% 3,894 100.0% 3,575 100.0% 3,755 100.0% 3,926 100.0% 4,484 100.0% Mining 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 0.0% Construction 248 10.2% 244 9.2% 325 12.0% 371 12.1% 444 13.5% 466 14.7% 644 16.5% 807 22.6% 880 23.4% 894 22.8% 1,351 30.1% Manufacturing 94 3.9% 107 4.0% 148 5.5% 180 5.9% 194 5.9% 177 5.6% 270 6.9% 115 3.2% 141 3.8% 149 3.8% 96 2.1% TCPU 157 6.5% 166 6.3% 152 5.6% 157 5.1% 173 5.3% 217 6.8% 269 6.9% 47 1.3% 50 1.3% 46 1.2% 22 0.5% Trade 981 40.5% 1,021 38.6% 743 27.5% 761 24.9% 802 24.3% 839 26.4% 906 23.3% 1,084 30.3% 1,208 32.2% 1,248 31.8% 1,310 29.2% FIRE 40 1.7% 42 1.6% 65 2.4% 83 2.7% 115 3.5% 113 3.6% 102 2.6% 77 2.2% 93 2.5% 108 2.8% 171 3.8% Services 152 6.3% 180 6.8% 238 8.8% 463 15.1% 521 15.8% 449 14.2% 644 16.5% 448 12.5% 434 11.6% 548 14.0% 928 20.7% Government 749 30.9% 888 33.5% 1,035 38.2% 1,047 34.2% 1,045 31.7% 1,104 34.8% 1,059 27.2% 997 27.9% 949 25.3% 933 23.8% 606 13.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 3,706 100.0% 3,164 100.0% 3,484 100.0% 3,630 100.0% 3,954 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 541 14.6% 541 17.1% 599 17.2% 724 19.9% 839 21.2% Manufacturing 182 4.9% 176 5.6% 156 4.5% 167 4.6% 178 4.5% Trade, Transp., Utilities 694 18.7% 699 22.1% 707 20.3% 741 20.4% 750 19.0% Information 15 0.4% 5 0.2% 7 0.2% 12 0.3% 12 0.3% Financial Activities 104 2.8% 128 4.0% 144 4.1% 154 4.2% 179 4.5% Prof. & Business Services 220 5.9% 239 7.6% 447 12.8% 253 7.0% 378 9.5% Education & Health Services 346 9.3% 355 11.2% 347 10.0% 426 11.7% 454 11.5% Leisure & Hospitality 220 5.9% 257 8.1% 284 8.1% 352 9.7% 334 8.5% Other Services 93 2.5% 93 2.9% 93 2.7% 90 2.5% 89 2.2% Government 1,290 34.8% 670 21.2% 699 20.1% 712 19.6% 742 18.8% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

292 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Sunset–Syracuse by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $58.0 100.0% $64.7 100.0% $60.2 100.0% $66.2 100.0% $74.4 100.0% $75.3 100.0% $99.9 100.0% $85.1 100.0% $92.8 100.0% $98.3 100.0% $101.4 100.0% Mining $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% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $6.4 11.0% $6.2 9.6% $8.2 13.6% $9.1 13.7% $10.6 14.2% $12.0 16.0% $18.5 18.5% $22.5 26.4% $24.9 26.8% $24.8 25.2% $36.5 36.0% Manufacturing $1.6 2.8% $2.2 3.4% $5.0 8.3% $5.9 8.9% $6.5 8.8% $6.6 8.8% $13.0 13.0% $5.3 6.2% $5.7 6.1% $6.1 6.2% $3.4 3.3% TCPU $5.0 8.6% $4.9 7.5% $4.7 7.9% $4.9 7.4% $5.7 7.7% $7.6 10.1% $10.3 10.3% $1.4 1.7% $1.8 1.9% $1.4 1.5% $0.8 0.8% Trade $21.9 37.7% $23.0 35.5% $14.0 23.3% $14.6 22.0% $16.0 21.5% $16.0 21.3% $17.2 17.2% $19.8 23.3% $23.7 25.5% $25.2 25.7% $24.1 23.8% FIRE $0.7 1.1% $0.8 1.2% $1.3 2.2% $1.7 2.5% $2.1 2.8% $2.2 2.9% $1.9 1.9% $1.4 1.6% $1.8 1.9% $2.0 2.1% $3.1 3.1% Services $1.9 3.2% $3.6 5.6% $4.3 7.1% $6.8 10.3% $10.8 14.5% $11.1 14.7% $14.1 14.1% $10.4 12.2% $10.9 11.7% $14.2 14.5% $20.6 20.3% Government $20.7 35.6% $24.0 37.2% $22.6 37.6% $23.3 35.2% $22.6 30.4% $2.4 3.1% $24.9 24.9% $24.4 28.7% $24.2 26.1% $24.5 24.9% $12.9 12.7% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $113.1 100.0% $78.9 100.0% $86.7 100.0% $91.4 100.0% $97.8 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $14.5 12.8% $14.6 18.5% $16.0 18.4% $19.8 21.7% $23.3 23.8% Manufacturing $6.3 5.6% $5.9 7.5% $5.7 6.5% $6.3 6.8% $7.0 7.2% Trade, Transp., Utilities $15.4 13.6% $15.5 19.7% $15.9 18.3% $15.5 17.0% $16.2 16.6% Information $0.7 0.6% $0.3 0.4% $0.4 0.4% $0.6 0.7% $0.7 0.7% Financial Activities $2.4 2.1% $3.0 3.8% $3.5 4.0% $4.0 4.3% $4.5 4.6% Prof & Bus Services $5.3 4.7% $6.2 7.8% $10.7 12.3% $6.1 6.6% $7.6 7.8% Edu & Health Services $7.8 6.9% $7.3 9.2% $8.6 9.9% $11.8 12.9% $11.6 11.8% Leisure & Hospitality $1.6 1.5% $2.0 2.5% $2.3 2.6% $3.0 3.3% $2.8 2.9% Other Services $6.7 5.9% $4.5 5.8% $4.0 4.6% $3.9 4.3% $3.7 3.8% Government $52.2 46.2% $19.5 24.7% $19.9 22.9% $20.5 22.4% $20.4 20.9% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 293

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Sunset– Syracuse, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 85.2% 74.9% Mining Construction 444.8% 194.1% 474.0% 228.2% Manufacturing 2.1% -44.9% 109.0% 19.5% TCPU -86.0% -92.4% -84.0% -90.8% Trade 33.5% -27.9% 10.4% -36.9% FIRE 327.5% 130.8% 375.1% 171.6% Services 510.5% 229.6% 1010.1% 534.7% Government -19.1% -56.3% -37.7% -64.4%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 6.7% -13.5% Mining Construction 55.1% 45.3% 60.4% 85.4% Manufacturing -2.4% -8.5% 11.2% 28.6% Trade, Transp, Utilities 8.1% 1.3% 5.1% 21.5% Information -17.5% -22.7% -10.2% 3.8% Financial Activities 71.8% 61.0% 86.0% 115.1% Prof & Bus Services 71.6% 60.9% 42.3% 64.5% Edu & Health Services 31.3% 23.1% 48.2% 71.4% Leisure & Hosp 52.0% 42.4% 72.4% 99.3% Other Services -4.6% -10.6% -44.2% -35.4% Government -42.5% -46.1% -60.9% -54.8% †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 13.9 Sunset–Syracuse Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 2.40 1.90 2.29 2.03 2.02 2.13 2.22 2.81 2.81 2.71 3.66 Manufacturing 0.31 0.32 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.38 0.49 0.24 0.29 0.30 0.18 TCPU 1.60 1.54 1.56 1.50 1.53 2.16 1.98 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.13 Trade 1.72 1.58 1.10 0.99 0.97 1.02 0.89 1.20 1.26 1.26 1.15 FIRE 0.76 0.62 0.82 0.77 0.86 0.90 0.65 0.53 0.61 0.75 1.10 Services 0.36 0.40 0.50 0.83 0.84 0.72 0.80 0.61 0.56 0.66 0.97 Government 0.86 0.98 1.16 1.13 1.15 1.37 1.14 1.11 1.02 0.95 0.53

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 1.80 2.26 2.25 2.48 2.46 Manufacturing 0.43 0.49 0.39 0.41 0.41 Trade, Transp, Utilities 0.87 1.05 0.99 0.98 0.95 Information 0.47 0.17 0.21 0.34 0.34 Financial Activities 0.74 1.12 1.04 1.03 1.11 Prof & Bus Services 0.75 0.88 1.49 0.79 0.99 Edu & Health Services 1.08 1.31 1.12 1.32 1.28 Leisure & Hosp 0.66 0.92 0.91 1.09 0.95 Other Services 0.91 0.99 0.90 0.83 0.79 Government 1.34 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.75 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

294 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.10 Major Employers in Sunset, 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 50–99 Employees Winegars #3 Retail Trade

1995–96 100–199 Employees Smith’s Food King Retail Trade ADIA Services Service Industries

50–99 Employees Winegars #3 Retail Trade

2000 100–199 Employees Adecco Employment Service Business services

50–99 Employees Smith’s Food and Drug Ctrs Retail Trade Day/Night Reporting Ctr Public Administration

2005 50–99 Employees Smith’s Food and Drug Ctrs Retail Trade Adecco North America Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs

2007 100–249 Employees Adecco North America Admin & Support and Waste Mgmt & Remed Svcs

50–99 Employees Smith’s Food King Retail Trade Modern Technologies Corp Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 295

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Sunset, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 17.2% 19.7% 14.1% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 6.4% 7.3% 5.4% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 3.1% 3.1% 3.0% Farmers and farm managers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 3.3% 4.1% 2.4% Business operations specialists 2.1% 2.4% 1.8% Financial specialists 1.2% 1.7% 0.6% Professional and related occupations 10.8% 12.5% 8.7% Computer and mathematical occupations 2.9% 3.6% 2.0% Architecture and engineering occupations 2.0% 3.7% 0.0% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 1.5% 2.8% 0.0% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.6% 1.1% 0.0% Community and social services occupations 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% Legal occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Education, training, and library occupations 2.1% 0.4% 4.1% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 0.8% 1.5% 0.0% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Health technologists and technicians 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% Service occupations 20.6% 17.7% 24.2% Healthcare support occupations 2.5% 0.4% 5.1% Protective service occupations 3.3% 4.0% 2.5% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 2.6% 2.8% 2.5% Food preparation and serving related occupations 4.5% 2.5% 7.0% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 7.2% 10.2% 3.5% Personal care and service occupations 3.1% 0.5% 6.2% Sales and office occupations 28.5% 15.9% 44.0% Sales and related occupations 13.2% 10.9% 15.9% Office and administrative support occupations 15.3% 5.0% 28.0% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 14.3% 25.4% 0.7% Construction and extraction occupations 7.7% 13.4% 0.7% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.8% 1.5% 0.0% Construction trades workers 6.9% 11.9% 0.7% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 6.6% 12.0% 0.0% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 19.1% 21.3% 16.4% Production occupations 11.6% 10.7% 12.6% Transportation and material-moving occupations 7.6% 10.6% 3.8% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.3% 0.5% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 4.5% 5.5% 3.2% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.2% 0.0% 0.6% Material-moving workers 2.5% 4.6% 0.0% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

296 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 13.4 Sunset Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1991-2005

$750 Property Taxes Sales and Use Taxes

$500

$250 Thousands of 2005 Dollars Constant

$0

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 91 92 9 9 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 200 200 200 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1991 $466,969 $448,569 $1,094,359 1992 $176,765 $453,101 $806,793 1993 $238,656 $10,884 $487,229 $1,048,184 1994 $196,299 $597,736 $995,464 1995 $1,000,678 $1,052,373 1996 $280,594 $30,803 $438,018 $908,324 1997 $243,383 $37,079 $639,391 $1,138,132 1998 $210,371 $25,293 $514,903 $980,308 1999 $228,669 $19,096 $501,288 $1,046,508 2000 $197,235 $20,668 $565,892 $1,066,078 2001 $213,139 $23,914 $731,333 $1,071,836 2002 $162,175 $27,057 $735,350 $1,021,940 2003 $226,174 $24,866 $680,334 $1,049,673 2004 $228,325 $29,119 $686,183 $1,047,503 2005 $206,054 $24,826 $696,775 $1,051,180 Change -55.9% 128.1% 55.3% -3.9% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 297

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.12 Detailed Breakdown of Sunset Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1991 Property Taxes General Fund $216,522 $313,665 28.7% Redevelopment Agency $105,825 $153,304 14.0% Total property taxes $322,347 $466,969 $91.06 42.7% Sales and Use Tax $309,646 $448,569 $87.47 41.0% Franchise Tax $101,688 $147,311 13.5% Building Permits $1,842 $2,668 0.2% Other Licenses and Permits $19,909 $28,841 2.6% Total Tax Revenues $755,432 $1,094,359 $213.41 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $109,083 $124,122 11.6% Redevelopment Agency $46,090 $52,445 4.9% Fee in Lieu $18,164 $20,668 1.9% Total Property Taxes $173,337 $197,235 $37.90 18.5% Sales and Use Tax $497,325 $565,892 $108.74 53.1% Franchise Tax $215,373 $245,067 23.0% Building Permits $24,218 $27,557 2.6% Other Licenses and Permits $26,652 $30,327 2.8% Total Tax Revenues $936,905 $1,066,078 $204.86 100.0%

2005 $1,051,180 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $124,954 11.9% RDA Increment $50,639 4.8% Delinquent $5,635 0.5% Fee in Lieu $24,826 2.4% Total Property Taxes $206,054 $40.46 19.6% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $482,307 45.9% Energy Sales and Use Tax $177,072 16.8% Other $37,396 3.6% Total Sales Taxes $696,775 $136.81 66.3% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $53,124 5.1% Cable TV Franchise Tax $19,621 1.9% Water Franchise Tax $20,895 2.0% Sewer Franchise Tax $15,126 1.4% Other Franchise Tax $10,165 1.0% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $22,993 2.2% Building Permit Fees $6,427 0.6% Total Tax Revenues $1,051,180 $206.40 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

298 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.13 Sunset Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $24,282,044 17.1% $28,176,127 23.2% 16.0% Buildings $69,776,639 49.3% $62,059,976 51.0% -11.1% Total $94,058,683 66.4% $90,236,103 74.1% -4.1%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $5,093,586 3.6% $6,292,378 5.2% 23.5% Buildings $10,938,066 7.7% $14,710,213 12.1% 34.5% Total $16,031,651 11.3% $21,002,591 17.3% 31.0%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $16,186 0.0% $0 0.0% -100.0% Buildings $50,520 0.0% $20,000 0.0% -60.4% Total $66,706 0.0% $20,000 0.0% -70.0%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $1,005,559 0.7% $350,270 0.3% -65.2%

Total Land & Buildings $111,162,600 78.5% $113,794,590 93.5% 2.4% Total Personal Property $2,877,134 2.0% $3,510,935 2.9% 22.0% Total Locally Assessed $114,039,733 80.5% $117,305,525 96.4% 2.9% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $27,584,079 19.5% $4,390,321 3.6% -84.1% Area Total $141,623,813 100.0% $121,695,846 100.0% -14.1% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 13.14 Sunset Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 1,840 Vacant Units 45 Total Occupied Units 1,795 Owner Occupied 1,330 Vacant Owner Units 30 Total Owner Units 1,360 Renter Occupied 465 Vacant Rental Units 15 Total Rental Units 480 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 299

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 13.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Sunset, 1990–2006 18

16

14

12

10

8 Permits 6

4

2

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 13.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Sunset by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 0 0 0 0 0 $0.0 1991 1 0 0 0 1 $62.0 1992 0 0 0 0 0 $0.0 1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.0 1994 0 0 0 16 0 16 $631.4 1995 2 0 0 0 0 2 $144.6 1996 2 0 0 0 0 2 $143.2 1997 13 0 0 0 0 13 $757.7 1998 3 0 0 0 0 3 $223.9 1999 2 0 0 12 0 14 $954.8 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.0 2001 1 0 0 0 0 1 $100.0 2002 0 0 0 0 1 1 $72.7 2003 2 0 0 4 0 6 $399.0 2004 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.0 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.0 2006 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.0 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

300 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.16 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Sunset, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $89,950 $92,000 61 1998 $89,700 $91,408 77 1999 $90,500 $91,447 57 2000 $99,950 $101,818 66 2001 $101,750 $101,029 61 2002 $99,500 $97,356 69 2003 $98,500 $95,882 73 2004 $92,950 $95,211 75 2005 $105,500 $104,895 96 2006 $116,450 $118,339 113 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

Table 13.17 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Sunset, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 0.00 0.00 1991 0.00 0.00 1992 0.00 0.00 1993 0.00 0.00 1994 0.00 0.00 1995 0.00 0.00 1996 4.83 0.00 1997 0.00 0.00 1998 1.23 0.00 1999 0.00 0.00 2000 0.00 0.00 2001 0.00 0.00 2003 0.00 0.00 2002 0.00 0.00 2004 0.00 0.00 2005 0.00 0.00 2006 0.00 0.00 Total 6.06 0.00 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 301

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 13.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Sunset, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Hotels & Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & Other Mercantile, Other & Motels & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $244.6 $244.6 $409.2 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $49.6 $49.6 $79.9 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $22.3 $22.3 $35.0 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $133.2 $133.2 $201.2 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $275.2 $275.2 $397.5 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $134.4 $134.4 $187.0 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $33.0 $33.0 $44.0 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $37.5 $37.5 $48.5 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $117.3 $117.3 $150.3 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,600.0 $0.0 $116.2 $1,716.2 $2,191.5 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $268.0 $268.0 $324.5 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $448.9 $448.9 $496.5 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $215.7 $215.7 $215.7 Total $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,600.0 $0.0 $2,095.9 $3,695.9 $4,780.8 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

302 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

S YRACUSE

Table 14.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Syracuse

Population Population (2005) 19,537 Median Age (2000) 24.7 Average Household Income (2006) $65,802

Employment* Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 3,954 Employer Firms (2005) 467 Average Annual Wage (2005) $24,725 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Construction 839 21.2% Trade, Transportation, Utilities 750 19.0% Government 742 18.8% *Data are for Sunset–Syracuse

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 6,100 100.0% Owner Occupied 5,725 93.9% Renter Occupied 225 3.7% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $232,500 New $228,422

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $3.2 Property Tax Receipts (thousands) $636.5 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $1.3 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $164 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 303

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Syracuse, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 4,658 9,398 101.8% Age Under 5 Years 515 11.1% 1,112 11.8% 115.9% 5 to 17 Years 1,636 35.1% 2,627 28.0% 60.6% 18 to 20 Years 193 4.1% 445 4.7% 130.6% 21 to 24 Years 200 4.3% 554 5.9% 177.0% 25 to 44 Years 1,495 32.1% 2,889 30.7% 93.2% 45 to 54 Years 356 7.6% 953 10.1% 167.7% 55 to 59 Years 131 2.8% 294 3.1% 124.4% 60 to 64 Years 76 1.6% 158 1.7% 107.9% 65 Years and Over 197 4.2% 366 3.9% 85.8% Median Age 20.7 24.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 14.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Syracuse, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 10.3% 5.3% High School Graduate* 31.4% 24.2% Some College, No Degree 30.0% 36.6% Associate’s Degree 9.9% 8.8% Bachelor’s Degree 14.1% 19.2% Graduate or Professional degree 4.3% 5.7% Master’s Degree N/A 4.6% Professional Degree N/A 0.7% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.4% By Sex Male: Less than High School 4.5% High School Graduate* 21.3% Some College, No Degree 30.7% Associate’s Degree 9.4% Bachelor’s Degree 23.9% Master’s Degree 7.9% Professional Degree 1.5% Doctorate Degree 0.8% Female: Less than High School 6.1% High School Graduate* 27.2% Some College, No Degree 42.6% Associate’s Degree 8.3% Bachelor’s Degree 14.5% Master’s Degree 1.3% Professional Degree 0.0% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

304 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 14.1 Syracuse Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black American 75 - 79 4.3% Indian, 70 - 74 Eskimo, or 65 - 69 Aleut 6.2% 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 Asian or 45 - 49 Pacific 40 - 44 Islander 35 - 39 27.2% 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 Hispanic 15 - 19 61.5% 10 - 14 5 - 9 Under 5 Other race 400 200 0 200 400 0.8% Male Female

Age Distribution of the Syracuse Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 259 256 1.01 11.1% 2.6% Syracuse Share of 5–9 341 277 1.23 13.3% 2.8% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 367 343 1.07 15.2% 3.2% Total 4,658 100.0% 2.5% 15–19 239 217 1.10 9.8% 2.7% 20–24 131 114 1.15 5.3% 1.9% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 128 175 0.73 6.5% 2.1% White 4,401 94.5% 2.5% 30–34 173 203 0.85 8.1% 2.5% Black 11 0.2% 0.5% 35–39 204 181 1.13 8.3% 2.8% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 16 0.3% 1.6% 40–44 144 146 0.99 6.2% 2.6% Asian or Pacific Islander 70 1.5% 2.2% 45–49 110 115 0.96 4.8% 2.5% Other race 2 0.0% 2.5% 50–54 65 66 0.98 2.8% 1.9% Ethnicity 55–59 70 61 1.15 2.8% 2.1% Hispanic Origin 158 3.4% 1.1% 60–64 36 40 0.90 1.6% 1.5% 65–69 39 36 1.08 1.6% 1.7% Minority 257 5.5% 1.9% 70–74 27 22 1.23 1.1% 1.6% 75–79 21 21 1.00 0.9% 2.2% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 5 13 0.38 0.4% 1.5% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 6 7 0.86 0.3% 1.5% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the Total 2,365 2,293 1.03 100.0% 2.5% city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's share of Share 60 years+ 5.9% 1.2% total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio Median Age 20.7 greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 305

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 14.2 Syracuse Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + Black alone 80 - 84 (NH) AIAN alone 75 - 79 6.1% (NH) 70 - 74 3.6% 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 Asian alone (NH) 45 - 49 19.1% 40 - 44 35 - 39 NHPI alone 30 - 34 Hispanic (NH) 25 - 29 52.0% 2.7% 20 - 24 15 - 19 Some other 10 - 14 race alone (NH) 5 - 9 0.2% Under 5 Two or more 600 400 200 0 200 400 600 races (NH) Male Female 16.2%

Age Distribution of the Syracuse Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 575 537 1.07 11.8% 4.8% Syracuse Share of 5–9 551 477 1.16 10.9% 4.6% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 516 488 1.06 10.7% 4.4% Total 9,398 100.0% 3.9% 15–19 481 438 1.10 9.8% 3.8% 20–24 350 325 1.08 7.2% 3.3% Not Hispanic or Latino 9,055 96.4% 4.0% 25–29 337 389 0.87 7.7% 4.2% White alone 8,739 93.0% 4.1% 30–34 369 384 0.96 8.0% 4.7% Black or African American alone 40 0.4% 1.6% 35–39 383 343 1.12 7.7% 4.2% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 24 0.3% 2.0% 40–44 342 342 1.00 7.3% 4.0% Asian alone 126 1.3% 3.5% 45–49 276 263 1.05 5.7% 3.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 18 0.2% 3.0% 50–54 210 204 1.03 4.4% 3.7% Some other race alone 1 0.0% 0.5% 55–59 147 147 1.00 3.1% 3.4% Two or more races 107 1.1% 3.2% 60–64 85 73 1.16 1.7% 2.4% Ethnicity 65–69 70 69 1.01 1.5% 2.5% Hispanic or Latino 343 3.6% 2.6% 70–74 51 52 0.98 1.1% 2.3% 75–79 34 30 1.13 0.7% 1.7% Minority 659 7.0% 2.7% 80–84 11 21 0.52 0.3% 1.5% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 9 19 0.47 0.3% 1.7% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 4,797 4,601 1.04 100.0% 3.9% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 5.6% 2.2% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Median Age 24.7 one.

306 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 14.3

Distribution of Household Income in Syracuse, 1995-2005

30%

25%

1995 2000 2005

20%

15%

10% Share of Households

5%

0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 ,00 ,00 00 00 00 00 00 5 0 5, 0, 5, 0,0 5, 0, 10, 5 $5,000 $ $2 $3 $3 $7 100,00025 $ er - - - - $250,000 1 - r Und 01 - 1 ,001 ,001 ,00 0 Ove ,00 $5,001 50, $10,001$15,001 - $1 $20- $2 $25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $40,000$45,001 - $45,000 $- $ $75 100,001 - $ $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 58 3.4% 153 4.7% 140 2.5% $5,001–$10,000 81 4.7% 121 3.7% 144 2.6% $10,001–$15,000 109 6.3% 125 3.9% 145 2.6% $15,001–$20,000 85 4.9% 109 3.4% 172 3.1% $20,001–$25,000 125 7.3% 136 4.2% 210 3.8% $25,001–$30,000 125 7.3% 144 4.4% 231 4.2% $30,001–$35,000 116 6.7% 159 4.9% 229 4.1% $35,001–$40,000 152 8.8% 198 6.1% 277 5.0% $40,001–$45,000 121 7.0% 184 5.7% 323 5.8% $45,001–$50,000 114 6.6% 207 6.4% 333 6.0% $50,001–$75,000 446 25.9% 965 29.8% 1,524 27.4% $75,001–$100,000 140 8.1% 463 14.3% 964 17.3% $100,001–$250,000 51 3.0% 253 7.8% 826 14.9% Over $250,000 19 0.6% 40 0.7% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 307

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.4 Share of Persons in Syracuse Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 1.8% 2.4% Male 2.3% 1.8% Under 5 years 3.4% 4.5% Under 5 years 6.3% 3.5% 5 years 0.0% 3.5% 5 years 0.0% 8.1% 6 to 11 years 2.1% 2.6% 6 to 11 years 3.4% 2.2% 12 to 17 years 2.2% 2.5% 12 to 17 years 1.7% 1.1% 18 to 64 years 0.6% 1.7% 18 to 64 years 0.6% 1.2% 65 to 74 years 12.7% 0.0% 65 to 74 years 7.7% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 23.9% 75 years and over 0.0% 13.0% Female 1.3% 3.1% Under 5 years 0.0% 5.7% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 0.0% 3.0% 12 to 17 years 2.8% 3.8% 18 to 64 years 0.6% 2.2% 65 to 74 years 18.8% 0.0% 75 years and over 0.0% 34.5% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 14.5 Syracuse Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 2,031 100.0% 4,577 100.0% 2,546 125.4% Drove alone 1,552 76.4% 3,691 80.6% 2,139 137.8% Carpooled 289 14.2% 622 13.6% 333 115.2% Public transportation (including taxicab) 24 1.2% 26 0.6% 2 8.3% Bicycle or walked 38 1.9% 55 1.2% 17 44.7% Motorcycle or other means 20 1.0% 16 0.3% -4 -20.0% Worked at home 108 5.3% 167 3.6% 59 54.6%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 1,923 100.0% 4,410 100.0% 2,487 129.3% Less than 5 minutes 66 3.4% 204 4.6% 138 209.1% 5 to 9 minutes 240 12.5% 541 12.3% 301 125.4% 10 to 14 minutes 487 25.3% 803 18.2% 316 64.9% 15 to 19 minutes 359 18.7% 752 17.1% 393 109.5% 20 to 24 minutes 228 11.9% 522 11.8% 294 128.9% 25 to 29 minutes 132 6.9% 200 4.5% 68 51.5% 30 to 34 minutes 203 10.6% 517 11.7% 314 154.7% 35 to 39 minutes 29 1.5% 93 2.1% 64 220.7% 40 to 44 minutes 45 2.3% 154 3.5% 109 242.2% 45 or more minutes 134 7.0% 624 14.1% 490 365.7% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 19.1 23.2 4.1 21.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

308 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Sunset–Syracuse by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 2,421 100.0% 2,648 100.0% 2,706 100.0% 3,062 100.0% 3,294 100.0% 3,173 100.0% 3,894 100.0% 3,575 100.0% 3,755 100.0% 3,926 100.0% 4,484 100.0% Mining 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 0.0% Construction 248 10.2% 244 9.2% 325 12.0% 371 12.1% 444 13.5% 466 14.7% 644 16.5% 807 22.6% 880 23.4% 894 22.8% 1,351 30.1% Manufacturing 94 3.9% 107 4.0% 148 5.5% 180 5.9% 194 5.9% 177 5.6% 270 6.9% 115 3.2% 141 3.8% 149 3.8% 96 2.1% TCPU 157 6.5% 166 6.3% 152 5.6% 157 5.1% 173 5.3% 217 6.8% 269 6.9% 47 1.3% 50 1.3% 46 1.2% 22 0.5% Trade 981 40.5% 1,021 38.6% 743 27.5% 761 24.9% 802 24.3% 839 26.4% 906 23.3% 1,084 30.3% 1,208 32.2% 1,248 31.8% 1,310 29.2% FIRE 40 1.7% 42 1.6% 65 2.4% 83 2.7% 115 3.5% 113 3.6% 102 2.6% 77 2.2% 93 2.5% 108 2.8% 171 3.8% Services 152 6.3% 180 6.8% 238 8.8% 463 15.1% 521 15.8% 449 14.2% 644 16.5% 448 12.5% 434 11.6% 548 14.0% 928 20.7% Government 749 30.9% 888 33.5% 1,035 38.2% 1,047 34.2% 1,045 31.7% 1,104 34.8% 1,059 27.2% 997 27.9% 949 25.3% 933 23.8% 606 13.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share

Total Nonagricultural 3,706 100.0% 3,164 100.0% 3,484 100.0% 3,630 100.0% 3,954 100.0%

Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Construction 541 14.6% 541 17.1% 599 17.2% 724 19.9% 839 21.2%

Manufacturing 182 4.9% 176 5.6% 156 4.5% 167 4.6% 178 4.5%

Trade, Transp., Utilities 694 18.7% 699 22.1% 707 20.3% 741 20.4% 750 19.0%

Information 15 0.4% 5 0.2% 7 0.2% 12 0.3% 12 0.3%

Financial Activities 104 2.8% 128 4.0% 144 4.1% 154 4.2% 179 4.5%

Prof. & Business Services 220 5.9% 239 7.6% 447 12.8% 253 7.0% 378 9.5%

Education & Health Services 346 9.3% 355 11.2% 347 10.0% 426 11.7% 454 11.5%

Leisure & Hospitality 220 5.9% 257 8.1% 284 8.1% 352 9.7% 334 8.5%

Other Services 93 2.5% 93 2.9% 93 2.7% 90 2.5% 89 2.2%

Government 1,290 34.8% 670 21.2% 699 20.1% 712 19.6% 742 18.8% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 309

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Sunset–Syracuse by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $58.0 100.0% $64.7 100.0% $60.2 100.0% $66.2 100.0% $74.4 100.0% $75.3 100.0% $99.9 100.0% $85.1 100.0% $92.8 100.0% $98.3 100.0% $101.4 100.0% Mining $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% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $6.4 11.0% $6.2 9.6% $8.2 13.6% $9.1 13.7% $10.6 14.2% $12.0 16.0% $18.5 18.5% $22.5 26.4% $24.9 26.8% $24.8 25.2% $36.5 36.0% Manufacturing $1.6 2.8% $2.2 3.4% $5.0 8.3% $5.9 8.9% $6.5 8.8% $6.6 8.8% $13.0 13.0% $5.3 6.2% $5.7 6.1% $6.1 6.2% $3.4 3.3% TCPU $5.0 8.6% $4.9 7.5% $4.7 7.9% $4.9 7.4% $5.7 7.7% $7.6 10.1% $10.3 10.3% $1.4 1.7% $1.8 1.9% $1.4 1.5% $0.8 0.8% Trade $21.9 37.7% $23.0 35.5% $14.0 23.3% $14.6 22.0% $16.0 21.5% $16.0 21.3% $17.2 17.2% $19.8 23.3% $23.7 25.5% $25.2 25.7% $24.1 23.8% FIRE $0.7 1.1% $0.8 1.2% $1.3 2.2% $1.7 2.5% $2.1 2.8% $2.2 2.9% $1.9 1.9% $1.4 1.6% $1.8 1.9% $2.0 2.1% $3.1 3.1% Services $1.9 3.2% $3.6 5.6% $4.3 7.1% $6.8 10.3% $10.8 14.5% $11.1 14.7% $14.1 14.1% $10.4 12.2% $10.9 11.7% $14.2 14.5% $20.6 20.3% Government $20.7 35.6% $24.0 37.2% $22.6 37.6% $23.3 35.2% $22.6 30.4% $2.4 3.1% $24.9 24.9% $24.4 28.7% $24.2 26.1% $24.5 24.9% $12.9 12.7% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $113.1 100.0% $78.9 100.0% $86.7 100.0% $91.4 100.0% $97.8 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $14.5 12.8% $14.6 18.5% $16.0 18.4% $19.8 21.7% $23.3 23.8% Manufacturing $6.3 5.6% $5.9 7.5% $5.7 6.5% $6.3 6.8% $7.0 7.2% Trade, Transp., Utilities $15.4 13.6% $15.5 19.7% $15.9 18.3% $15.5 17.0% $16.2 16.6% Information $0.7 0.6% $0.3 0.4% $0.4 0.4% $0.6 0.7% $0.7 0.7% Financial Activities $2.4 2.1% $3.0 3.8% $3.5 4.0% $4.0 4.3% $4.5 4.6% Prof & Bus Services $5.3 4.7% $6.2 7.8% $10.7 12.3% $6.1 6.6% $7.6 7.8% Edu & Health Services $7.8 6.9% $7.3 9.2% $8.6 9.9% $11.8 12.9% $11.6 11.8% Leisure & Hospitality $1.6 1.5% $2.0 2.5% $2.3 2.6% $3.0 3.3% $2.8 2.9% Other Services $6.7 5.9% $4.5 5.8% $4.0 4.6% $3.9 4.3% $3.7 3.8% Government $52.2 46.2% $19.5 24.7% $19.9 22.9% $20.5 22.4% $20.4 20.9% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

310 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Sunset– Syracuse, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 85.2% 74.9% Mining Construction 444.8% 194.1% 474.0% 228.2% Manufacturing 2.1% -44.9% 109.0% 19.5% TCPU -86.0% -92.4% -84.0% -90.8% Trade 33.5% -27.9% 10.4% -36.9% FIRE 327.5% 130.8% 375.1% 171.6% Services 510.5% 229.6% 1010.1% 534.7% Government -19.1% -56.3% -37.7% -64.4%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 6.7% -13.5% Mining Construction 55.1% 45.3% 60.4% 85.4% Manufacturing -2.4% -8.5% 11.2% 28.6% Trade, Transp, Utilities 8.1% 1.3% 5.1% 21.5% Information -17.5% -22.7% -10.2% 3.8% Financial Activities 71.8% 61.0% 86.0% 115.1% Prof & Bus Services 71.6% 60.9% 42.3% 64.5% Edu & Health Services 31.3% 23.1% 48.2% 71.4% Leisure & Hosp 52.0% 42.4% 72.4% 99.3% Other Services -4.6% -10.6% -44.2% -35.4% Government -42.5% -46.1% -60.9% -54.8% †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 14.9 Sunset–Syracuse Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 2.40 1.90 2.29 2.03 2.02 2.13 2.22 2.81 2.81 2.71 3.66 Manufacturing 0.31 0.32 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.38 0.49 0.24 0.29 0.30 0.18 TCPU 1.60 1.54 1.56 1.50 1.53 2.16 1.98 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.13 Trade 1.72 1.58 1.10 0.99 0.97 1.02 0.89 1.20 1.26 1.26 1.15 FIRE 0.76 0.62 0.82 0.77 0.86 0.90 0.65 0.53 0.61 0.75 1.10 Services 0.36 0.40 0.50 0.83 0.84 0.72 0.80 0.61 0.56 0.66 0.97 Government 0.86 0.98 1.16 1.13 1.15 1.37 1.14 1.11 1.02 0.95 0.53

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 1.80 2.26 2.25 2.48 2.46 Manufacturing 0.43 0.49 0.39 0.41 0.41 Trade, Transp, Utilities 0.87 1.05 0.99 0.98 0.95 Information 0.47 0.17 0.21 0.34 0.34 Financial Activities 0.74 1.12 1.04 1.03 1.11 Prof & Bus Services 0.75 0.88 1.49 0.79 0.99 Edu & Health Services 1.08 1.31 1.12 1.32 1.28 Leisure & Hosp 0.66 0.92 0.91 1.09 0.95 Other Services 0.91 0.99 0.90 0.83 0.79 Government 1.34 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.75 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 311

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.10 Major Employers in Syracuse, 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 200–299 Employees R C Willey & Sons Retail Trade

1995–96 100–199 Employees Sorenson Construction Construction C H Dredge & Company Transportation, Communication, and Utilities R C Willey & Sons Retail Trade

50–99 Employees Utah Onions Wholesale Trade

2000 100–199 Employees Sorenson Construction Construction Industries R C Willey & Sons Retail Trade Island View Residential Treatment Center Service Industries

50–99 Employees Craythorne, Inc. Construction Industries Utah Onions Wholesale Trade Smith’s Food and Drug Ctrs Retail Trade

2005 100–249 Employees Sorenson Construction Construction R C Willey & Sons Retail Trade Smith’s Food and Drug Ctrs Retail Trade Island View Residential Treatment Center Health Care and Social Assistance

50–99 Employees Craythorne, Inc. Construction Utah Onions Wholesale Trade

2007 100–249 Employees Sorenson Construction Construction R C Willey & Sons Retail Trade Smith’s Food and Drug Ctrs Retail Trade Island View Residential Treatment Center Health Care and Social Assistance

50–99 Employees Craythorne, Inc. Construction Dawson Homes Construction Utah Onions Wholesale Trade Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

312 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Syracuse, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 35.6% 35.0% 36.3% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 13.5% 13.9% 12.9% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 8.0% 9.2% 6.5% Farmers and farm managers 0.6% 0.3% 1.0% Business and financial operations occupations 4.9% 4.4% 5.5% Business operations specialists 2.4% 2.5% 2.2% Financial specialists 2.5% 1.9% 3.3% Professional and related occupations 22.1% 21.1% 23.3% Computer and mathematical occupations 3.8% 6.2% 0.8% Architecture and engineering occupations 4.3% 7.8% 0.0% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 3.3% 6.0% 0.0% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 1.0% 1.7% 0.0% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.6% 0.8% 0.4% Community and social services occupations 1.1% 0.6% 1.7% Legal occupations 0.8% 0.9% 0.7% Education, training, and library occupations 7.3% 3.1% 12.5% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.2% 1.3% 1.0% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 3.0% 0.4% 6.2% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 2.1% 0.4% 4.1% Health technologists and technicians 0.9% 0.0% 2.1% Service occupations 10.2% 6.3% 15.0% Healthcare support occupations 1.4% 0.4% 2.7% Protective service occupations 1.0% 1.1% 0.9% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.9% 1.1% 0.6% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.2% 0.0% 0.3% Food preparation and serving related occupations 3.5% 1.4% 6.1% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 2.2% 2.7% 1.6% Personal care and service occupations 2.1% 0.8% 3.7% Sales and office occupations 28.6% 16.0% 44.2% Sales and related occupations 10.3% 9.4% 11.3% Office and administrative support occupations 18.3% 6.5% 32.8% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.5% 0.2% 0.9% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 13.1% 23.7% 0.0% Construction and extraction occupations 7.4% 13.4% 0.0% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.9% 1.6% 0.0% Construction trades workers 6.5% 11.8% 0.0% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 5.7% 10.3% 0.0% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 12.0% 18.8% 3.6% Production occupations 5.6% 8.8% 1.6% Transportation and material-moving occupations 6.4% 10.0% 2.0% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.3% 0.6% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 2.7% 4.1% 0.9% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.4% 0.7% 0.0% Material-moving workers 3.1% 4.6% 1.1% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 313

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 14.4 Syracuse Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1991-2005

$1.4

Property Taxes $1.2 Sales and Use Taxes

$1.0

$0.8

$0.6

$0.4

Millions of 2005 Dollars Constant $0.2

$0.0

1 2 3 4 5 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 00 00 00 00 00 1991 1992 1993 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1991 $116,391 $579,759 $721,955 1992 $114,608 $567,686 $721,571 1993 $114,089 $12,330 $626,704 $796,106 1994 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1995 $137,757 $23,641 $772,885 $982,401 1996 $163,781 $30,339 $798,809 $1,123,915 1997 $187,450 $38,084 $675,675 $1,104,549 1998 $266,387 $49,798 $767,926 $1,367,941 1999 $349,255 $63,717 $771,361 $1,534,965 2000 $360,245 $63,087 $924,678 $1,976,355 2001 $411,529 $58,365 $1,020,425 $2,146,671 2002 $457,681 $83,562 $1,113,792 $2,380,260 2003 $518,534 $93,436 $1,033,777 $2,386,377 2004 $599,867 $105,213 $1,245,322 $2,722,089 2005 $636,483 $111,033 $1,336,078 $3,212,028 Change 446.9% 800.5% 130.5% 344.9% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

314 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.12 Detailed Breakdown of Syracuse Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1991 Property Taxes General Fund $80,344 $116,391 16.1% Total Property Taxes $80,344 $116,391 $24.99 16.1% Sales and Use Tax $400,206 $579,759 $124.47 80.3% Building Permits $14,638 $21,205 2.9% Other Licenses and Permits $3,175 $4,599 0.6% Total Tax Revenues $498,363 $721,955 $154.99 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $261,152 $297,158 15.0% Fee in Lieu $55,443 $63,087 3.2% Total Property Taxes $316,595 $360,245 $38.33 18.2% Sales and Use Tax $812,638 $924,678 $98.39 46.8% Franchise Tax $147,925 $168,320 8.5% Building Permits $445,944 $507,427 25.7% Other Licenses and Permits $13,785 $15,686 0.8% Total Tax Revenues $1,736,887 $1,976,355 $210.30 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $503,363 15.7% Delinquent $22,087 0.7% Fee in Lieu $111,033 3.5% Total Property Taxes $636,483 $32.58 19.8% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $1,336,078 $68.39 41.6% Franchise Taxes Other Franchise Tax $490,056 15.3% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $31,165 1.0% Building Permit Fees $718,246 22.4% Total Tax Revenues $3,212,028 $164.41 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 315

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.13 Syracuse Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $33,592,429 15.5% $115,531,421 16.5% 243.9% Buildings $105,958,721 48.8% $447,936,232 64.1% 322.7% Total $139,551,149 64.3% $563,467,653 80.6% 303.8%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $1,816,265 0.8% $16,387,153 2.3% 802.2% Buildings $11,362,325 5.2% $22,241,097 3.2% 95.7% Total $13,178,590 6.1% $38,628,250 5.5% 193.1%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $2,704,917 1.2% $650,981 0.1% -75.9% Buildings $1,461,821 0.7% $273,810 0.0% -81.3% Total $4,166,738 1.9% $924,791 0.1% -77.8%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $15,758,940 7.3% $9,288,790 1.3% -41.1%

Total Land & Buildings $172,655,417 79.6% $669,916,650 95.9% 288.0% Total Personal Property $4,648,167 2.1% $12,585,471 1.8% 170.8% Total Locally Assessed $177,303,584 81.7% $682,502,121 97.7% 284.9% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $39,667,626 18.3% $16,405,747 2.3% -58.6% Area Total $216,971,210 100.0% $698,907,868 100.0% 222.1% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 14.14 Syracuse Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 6,100 Vacant Units 150 Total Occupied Units 5,950 Owner Occupied 5,725 Vacant Owner Units 140 Total Owner Units 5,865 Renter Occupied 225 Vacant Rental Units 10 Total Rental Units 235 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

316 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 14.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Syracuse, 1990–2006 700

600

500

400

Permits 300

200

100

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 14.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Syracuse by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 18 0 0 0 18 $1,230.0 1991 21 0 0 0 21 $1,582.1 1992 27 0 0 0 27 $2,489.4 1993 69 0 0 0 0 69 $5,960.0 1994 77 0 0 0 0 77 $7,840.5 1995 103 0 0 0 0 103 $10,789.8 1996 243 0 0 0 0 243 $24,129.0 1997 279 0 0 0 0 279 $28,261.9 1998 271 6 0 0 1 278 $32,766.7 1999 349 4 0 0 0 353 $38,540.1 2000 330 2 0 0 0 332 $35,682.6 2001 506 4 0 0 0 510 $53,495.3 2002 509 20 0 0 0 529 $56,803.7 2003 623 6 0 0 0 629 $76,150.7 2004 479 2 8 0 0 489 $82,374.6 2005 495 12 0 0 0 507 $91,535.8 2006 470 0 0 0 0 470 $100,024.4 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 317

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.16 Median Price of New Homes in Syracuse, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 20 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 53 29 0 $150,000–$174,999 42 21 0 $175,000–$199,999 36 16 45 $200,000–$224,999 72 116 109 $225,000–$249,999 63 25 27 $250,000–$274,999 68 79 84 $275,000–$299,999 1 13 38 $300,000–$324,999 0 5 14 $325,000–$349,999 3 22 45 $350,000–$374,999 0 37 23 $375,000–$399,999 0 0 0 $400,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 358 363 385 Median Price* $209,722 $225,000 $228,422 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 14.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Syracuse, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $135,000 $148,670 76 1998 $141,494 $150,628 125 1999 $146,250 $163,663 145 2000 $151,950 $172,793 137 2001 $162,100 $176,638 202 2002 $157,295 $165,778 233 2003 $168,178 $174,803 281 2004 $177,500 $185,114 354 2005 $184,650 $199,962 537 2006 $232,500 $238,501 584 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

318 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Syracuse, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Hotels & Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & Other Mercantile, Other & Motels & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,477.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.7 $55.2 $1,535.0 $2,568.0 1995 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $9.4 $9.4 $15.2 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,672.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $497.2 $2,170.1 $3,407.7 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $583.5 $3,053.5 $0.0 $3.8 $0.0 $3,640.8 $5,499.3 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $1,404.1 $0.0 $0.0 $75.0 $389.0 $469.5 $148.1 $290.7 $2,776.4 $4,010.4 1999 $0.0 $56.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $900.3 $16.5 $24.3 $8.4 $148.4 $1,154.4 $1,606.0 2000 $0.0 $31.1 $2,442.6 $0.0 $0.0 $597.3 $85.0 $0.0 $183.5 $765.0 $4,104.5 $5,470.4 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,716.5 $230.0 $20.0 $31.1 $370.6 $2,368.2 $3,063.6 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $3,513.8 $0.0 $0.0 $367.7 $0.0 $0.0 $56.4 $491.0 $4,428.9 $5,673.9 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $4,310.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $605.3 $92.5 $132.3 $5,140.6 $6,564.4 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $13.7 $741.0 $0.0 $23.4 $26.5 $804.6 $974.1 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $1,664.4 $0.0 $1,550.8 $0.0 $0.0 $3,513.0 $0.0 $65.8 $6,794.0 $7,514.1 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $3,565.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $3,364.7 $268.7 $64.1 $307.0 $7,569.5 $7,569.5 Total $0.0 $87.6 $16,900.4 $0.0 $4,700.8 $4,254.0 $7,879.7 $4,900.8 $614.0 $3,159.1 $42,496.4 $53,936.6 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 319

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 14.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Syracuse, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 2.25 0.00 1991 0.00 0.00 1992 22.94 0.00 1993 40.11 0.00 1994 40.64 0.00 1995 47.26 0.00 1996 123.06 0.00 1997 167.11 0.00 1998 180.83 0.00 1999 150.63 0.00 2000 132.16 4.15 2001 196.67 0.00 2003 212.52 0.00 2002 48.43 0.00 2004 112.22 0.00 2005 187.15 0.00 2006 153.11 0.00 Total 1,817.09 4.15 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

320 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

W EST B OUNTIFUL

Table 15.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of West Bountiful

Population Population (2005) 4,675 Median Age (2000) 26.9 Average Household Income (2006) $68,383

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 1,928 Employer Firms (2005) 146 Average Annual Wage (2005) $30,595 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Trade, Transp, Utilities 593 30.7% Construction 310 16.1% Manufacturing 309 16.0%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $51.7 Major Retail Categories (millions) Apparel & Accessory $14.3 General Merchandise $13.2 Eating & Drinking $7.6 Per Capita Retail Sales $11,054

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 1,550 100.0% Owner Occupied 1,425 91.9% Renter Occupied 95 6.1% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $204,500 New $353,333

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $1.9 Property Tax Receipts (thousands) $637.3 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $1.1 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $409 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 321

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.2 Change in Population by Age Group in West Bountiful, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 4,477 4,484 0.2% Age Under 5 Years 496 11.1% 335 7.5% -32.5% 5 to 17 Years 1,644 36.7% 1,263 28.2% -23.2% 18 to 20 Years 186 4.2% 300 6.7% 61.3% 21 to 24 Years 135 3.0% 260 5.8% 92.6% 25 to 44 Years 1,493 33.3% 1,222 27.3% -18.2% 45 to 54 Years 342 7.6% 631 14.1% 84.5% 55 to 59 Years 83 1.9% 175 3.9% 110.8% 60 to 64 Years 54 1.2% 108 2.4% 100.0% 65 Years and Over 143 3.2% 190 4.2% 32.9% Median Age 19.3 26.9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 15.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: West Bountiful, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 7.5% 6.8% High School Graduate* 31.4% 27.2% Some College, No Degree 31.2% 32.1% Associate’s Degree 9.5% 8.6% Bachelor’s Degree 14.6% 19.0% Graduate or Professional degree 5.9% 6.2% Master’s Degree N/A 5.1% Professional Degree N/A 1.1% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.0% By Sex Male: Less than High School 6.6% 6.6% High School Graduate* 24.1% 24.1% Some College, No Degree 34.3% 34.3% Associate’s Degree 7.0% 7.0% Bachelor’s Degree 18.2% 18.2% Master’s Degree 8.2% 8.2% Professional Degree 1.6% 1.6% Doctorate Degree 0.0% 0.0% Female: Less than High School 7.0% 7.0% High School Graduate* 30.1% 30.1% Some College, No Degree 30.1% 30.1% Associate’s Degree 10.1% 10.1% Bachelor’s Degree 19.7% 19.7% Master’s Degree 2.2% 2.2% Professional Degree 0.8% 0.8% Doctorate Degree 0.0% 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

322 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 15.1 West Bountiful Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + American 80 - 84 Indian, 75 - 79 Black 0.8% Eskimo, or 70 - 74 Aleut 65 - 69 3.9% 60 - 64 55 - 59 Asian or 50 - 54 Pacific 45 - 49 Islander 40 - 44 28.7% 35 - 39 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 10 - 14 5 - 9 Hispanic 66.7% Under 5 400 200 0 200 400 Male Female

Age Distribution of the West Bountiful Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 235 261 0.90 11.1% 2.5% West Bountiful Share of 5–9 321 328 0.98 14.5% 2.9% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 365 364 1.00 16.3% 3.3% Total 4,477 100.0% 2.4% 15–19 217 193 1.12 9.2% 2.4% 20–24 78 99 0.79 4.0% 1.4% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 137 162 0.85 6.7% 2.1% White 4,348 97.1% 2.5% 30–34 181 200 0.91 8.5% 2.5% Black 1 0.0% 0.0% 35–39 215 222 0.97 9.8% 3.2% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 5 0.1% 0.5% 40–44 151 126 1.20 6.2% 2.5% Asian or Pacific Islander 37 0.8% 1.2% 45–49 108 104 1.04 4.7% 2.4% Other race 0 0.0% 0.0% 50–54 71 59 1.20 2.9% 1.8% Ethnicity 55–59 44 39 1.13 1.9% 1.3% Hispanic Origin 86 1.9% 0.6% 60–64 26 28 0.93 1.2% 1.0% 65–69 20 29 0.69 1.1% 1.1% Minority 129 2.9% 0.9% 70–74 17 29 0.59 1.0% 1.5% 75–79 10 11 0.91 0.5% 1.1% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 7 11 0.64 0.4% 1.5% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 3 6 0.50 0.2% 1.0% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that Total 2,206 2,271 0.97 100.0% 2.4% the city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's Share 60 years+ 4.4% 0.9% share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Median Age 19.3 female ratio greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 323

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 15.2 West Bountiful Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 AIAN alone 75 - 79 Black alone (NH) 70 - 74 (NH) 6.9% 65 - 69 0.5% 60 - 64 Asian alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 11.5% 45 - 49 40 - 44 Hispanic 35 - 39 41.7% 30 - 34 25 - 29 NHPI alone 20 - 24 (NH) 15 - 19 13.3% 10 - 14 5 - 9 Under 5 Two or more races (NH) 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 26.1% Male Female

Age Distribution of the West Bountiful Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 166 169 0.98 7.5% 1.4% West Bountiful Share of 5–9 212 205 1.03 9.3% 1.8% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 244 269 0.91 11.4% 2.2% Total 4,484 100.0% 1.9% 15–19 268 282 0.95 12.3% 2.3% 20–24 203 140 1.45 7.6% 1.7% Not Hispanic or Latino 4,393 98.0% 1.9% 25–29 111 129 0.86 5.4% 1.4% White alone 4,266 95.1% 2.0% 30–34 124 143 0.87 6.0% 1.7% Black or African American alone 1 0.0% 0.0% 35–39 163 178 0.92 7.6% 2.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 15 0.3% 1.3% 40–44 181 193 0.94 8.3% 2.2% Asian alone 25 0.6% 0.7% 45–49 180 194 0.93 8.3% 2.6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 29 0.6% 4.8% 50–54 135 122 1.11 5.7% 2.3% Some other race alone 0 0.0% 0.0% 55–59 89 86 1.03 3.9% 2.0% Two or more races 57 1.3% 1.7% 60–64 57 51 1.12 2.4% 1.7% Ethnicity 65–69 33 35 0.94 1.5% 1.2% Hispanic or Latino 91 2.0% 0.7% 70–74 23 22 1.05 1.0% 1.0% 75–79 12 22 0.55 0.8% 0.9% Minority 218 4.9% 0.9% 80–84 9 18 0.50 0.6% 1.2% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 7 9 0.78 0.4% 0.9% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 2,217 2,267 0.98 100.0% 1.9% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 6.6% 1.2% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Median Age 26.9 one.

324 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 15.3 Distribution of Household Income in West Bountiful, 1995-2005

30%

25%

1995 2000 2005

20%

15%

10% Share of Households

5%

0%

0 0 00 00 00 0 ,0 ,000 00 00 0 ,0 00 0, 0, , $5,000 10 50, 00 $ $20 $3 $4 $ $75,000$1 100 er - $15,000- - $25,000- - - - $ nd 1 1 1 1 1 1 - $45,0001 1 U 0 0 ver ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,0 ,00 ,0 01 - O 0 0 $5,001 - 50 $10 $15 $20,00 $25 $30,001 $35- $35,000$4 $45 $ 75, $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 46 5.5% 58 4.8% 37 2.7% $5,001–$10,000 54 6.4% 49 4.0% 48 3.5% $10,001–$15,000 50 6.0% 45 3.7% 64 4.6% $15,001–$20,000 45 5.4% 61 5.0% 51 3.7% $20,001–$25,000 63 7.5% 51 4.2% 60 4.3% $25,001–$30,000 45 5.4% 42 3.4% 60 4.3% $30,001–$35,000 50 6.0% 57 4.7% 66 4.8% $35,001–$40,000 55 6.5% 67 5.5% 71 5.1% $40,001–$45,000 59 7.0% 72 5.9% 67 4.8% $45,001–$50,000 69 8.2% 69 5.7% 63 4.5% $50,001–$75,000 215 25.6% 362 29.7% 337 24.3% $75,001–$100,000 64 7.6% 178 14.6% 253 18.3% Over $100,000 25 3.0% 109 8.9% 208 15.0% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 325

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.4 Share of Persons in West Bountiful Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 5.4% 3.3% Male 4.7% 2.7% Under 5 years 8.5% 8.7% Under 5 years 0.0% 4.3% 5 years 6.1% 0.0% 5 years 13.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 6.5% 4.7% 6 to 11 years 10.3% 3.7% 12 to 17 years 3.7% 2.9% 12 to 17 years 3.0% 5.8% 18 to 64 years 4.4% 2.2% 18 to 64 years 4.1% 1.9% 65 to 74 years 8.1% 0.0% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 25.0% 16.4% 75 years and over 0.0% 0.0% Female 6.1% 3.9% Under 5 years 16.1% 13.0% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 3.2% 6.5% 12 to 17 years 4.6% 0.0% 18 to 64 years 4.7% 2.6% 65 to 74 years 13.6% 0.0% 75 years and over 25.0% 16.4% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 15.5 West Bountiful Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 1,880 100.0% 2,366 100.0% 486 25.9% Drove alone 1,454 77.3% 2,018 85.3% 564 38.8% Carpooled 230 12.2% 211 8.9% -19 -8.3% Public transportation (including taxicab) 84 4.5% 21 0.9% -63 -75.0% Bicycle or walked 27 1.4% 0 0.0% -27 -100.0% Motorcycle or other means 13 0.7% 0 0.0% -13 -100.0% Worked at home 72 3.8% 116 4.9% 44 61.1%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 1,808 100.0% 2,250 100.0% 442 24.4% Less than 5 minutes 97 5.4% 72 3.2% -25 -25.8% 5 to 9 minutes 346 19.1% 426 18.9% 80 23.1% 10 to 14 minutes 259 14.3% 388 17.2% 129 49.8% 15 to 19 minutes 265 14.7% 282 12.5% 17 6.4% 20 to 24 minutes 405 22.4% 282 12.5% -123 -30.4% 25 to 29 minutes 137 7.6% 233 10.4% 96 70.1% 30 to 34 minutes 162 9.0% 275 12.2% 113 69.8% 35 to 39 minutes 5 0.3% 35 1.6% 30 600.0% 40 to 44 minutes 29 1.6% 100 4.4% 71 244.8% 45 or more minutes 103 5.7% 157 7.0% 54 52.4% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 18.5 20.3 1.8 9.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

326 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.6 Nonagricultural Employment in West Bountiful* by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 10,647 100.0% 11,150 100.0% 11,652 100.0% 12,432 100.0% 13,074 100.0% 12,577 100.0% 14,067 100.0% 14,344 100.0% 14,558 100.0% 14,805 100.0% 12,896 100.0% Mining 29 0.3% 27 0.2% D 17 0.1% 18 0.1% D D 20 0.1% 21 0.1% 15 0.1% 24 0.2% Construction 471 4.4% 570 5.1% 616 5.3% 769 6.2% 919 7.0% 982 7.8% 1,042 7.4% 1,108 7.7% 1,049 7.2% 1,047 7.1% 1,024 7.9% Manufacturing 563 5.3% 675 6.1% 717 6.2% 768 6.2% 780 6.0% 746 5.9% 704 5.0% 686 4.8% 559 3.8% 583 3.9% 359 2.8% TCPU 252 2.4% 251 2.3% 184 1.6% 195 1.6% 234 1.8% D D 342 2.4% 367 2.5% 319 2.2% 245 1.9% Trade 4,020 37.8% 4,206 37.7% 4,540 39.0% 4,789 38.5% 4,773 36.5% 5,043 40.1% 5,082 36.1% 5,112 35.6% 5,490 37.7% 5,480 37.0% 4,969 38.5% FIRE 420 3.9% 439 3.9% 452 3.9% 498 4.0% 468 3.6% 454 3.6% 401 2.9% 403 2.8% 453 3.1% 456 3.1% 425 3.3% Services 3,108 29.2% 3,121 28.0% 3,405 29.2% 3,664 29.5% 4,120 31.5% 4,311 34.3% 4,777 34.0% 4,864 33.9% 4,880 33.5% 5,187 35.0% 4,934 38.3% Government 1,784 16.8% 1,861 16.7% 1,720 14.8% 1,732 13.9% 1,762 13.5% 1,738 13.8% 1,783 12.7% 1,809 12.6% 1,739 11.9% 1,718 11.6% 916 7.1% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 2,112 100.0% 1,857 100.0% 1,907 100.0% 2,042 100.0% 1,928 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 96 4.5% 109 5.9% 162 8.5% 277 13.6% 310 16.1% Manufacturing 288 13.6% 339 18.2% 315 16.5% 315 15.4% 309 16.0% Trade, Transp., Utilities 669 31.7% 645 34.7% 714 37.4% 664 32.5% 593 30.7% Information 83 3.9% 59 3.2% D D D Financial Activities 31 1.5% 32 1.7% 43 2.3% 51 2.5% 55 2.8% Prof. & Business Services 87 4.1% 79 4.3% 84 4.4% 95 4.6% 86 4.4% Education & Health Services 31 1.5% D 32 1.7% D D Leisure & Hospitality 269 12.7% 233 12.6% 215 11.3% 247 12.1% 224 11.6% Other Services 143 6.8% 166 8.9% 164 8.6% 176 8.6% 161 8.4% Government 414 19.6% 195 10.5% 177 9.3% 186 9.1% 190 9.9% *West Bountiful was not broken out as a separate community until 2001. Therefore, 1990–2000 data are for Bountiful (including West Bountiful), and 2001–05 data are for West Bountiful only. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 327

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in West Bountiful* by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $262.4 100.0% $266.6 100.0% $275.7 100.0% $295.2 100.0% $318.5 100.0% $304.2 100.0% $347.0 100.0% $359.3 100.0% $373.6 100.0% $378.1 100.0% $307.9 100.0% Mining $1.0 0.4% $0.9 0.3% D $0.7 0.2% $0.7 0.2% D D $0.6 0.2% $0.6 0.2% $0.5 0.1% $0.9 0.3% Construction $14.7 5.6% $18.7 7.0% $18.8 6.8% $22.3 7.6% $27.6 8.7% $30.7 10.1% $31.0 8.9% $35.3 9.8% $34.8 9.3% $35.4 9.4% $33.3 10.8% Manufacturing $19.7 7.5% $22.9 8.6% $25.9 9.4% $25.6 8.7% $26.5 8.3% $25.5 8.4% $26.2 7.6% $26.5 7.4% $23.5 6.3% $24.1 6.4% $15.6 5.1% TCPU $7.0 2.7% $6.9 2.6% $4.8 1.7% $5.2 1.8% $6.2 2.0% D D $13.4 3.7% $14.6 3.9% $12.2 3.2% $9.0 2.9% Trade $74.5 28.4% $70.2 26.3% $75.2 27.3% $80.0 27.1% $85.2 26.7% $91.8 30.2% $93.7 27.0% $97.6 27.2% $109.9 29.4% $107.8 28.5% $91.8 29.8% FIRE $14.2 5.4% $15.0 5.6% $16.1 5.9% $15.9 5.4% $14.5 4.5% $13.5 4.4% $12.2 3.5% $12.8 3.6% $15.1 4.0% $14.4 3.8% $14.2 4.6% Services $74.9 28.5% $75.0 28.1% $84.1 30.5% $94.1 31.9% $106.6 33.5% $105.0 34.5% $121.7 35.1% $119.0 33.1% $122.0 32.7% $130.4 34.5% $119.8 38.9% Government $56.3 21.5% $57.0 21.4% $50.2 18.2% $51.4 17.4% $51.4 16.1% $50.0 16.4% $53.2 15.3% $54.0 15.0% $53.0 14.2% $53.2 14.1% $23.4 7.6% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $60.8 100.0% $50.6 100.0% $59.4 100.0% $60.2 100.0% $59.0 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $2.7 4.4% $3.3 6.5% $6.5 10.9% $10.1 16.7% $11.6 19.8% Manufacturing $18.4 30.2% $18.5 36.6% $23.6 39.8% $19.5 32.4% $19.2 32.6% Trade, Transp., Utilities $13.4 22.1% $13.2 26.2% $13.5 22.6% $12.5 20.8% $12.6 21.3% Information $1.2 2.0% $0.6 1.2% D D D Financial Activities $0.9 1.5% $1.0 2.0% $1.5 2.6% $2.0 3.3% $1.3 2.2% Prof & Bus Services $2.3 3.8% $2.0 3.9% $2.3 3.8% $2.4 4.0% $2.0 3.4% Edu & Health Services $0.3 0.4% D $0.2 0.4% D D Leisure & Hospitality $3.0 4.9% $2.6 5.1% $2.5 4.1% $2.7 4.5% $2.5 4.2% Other Services $4.3 7.0% $4.3 8.5% $4.4 7.4% $5.5 9.2% $4.4 7.4% Government $14.4 23.7% $5.1 10.0% $4.9 8.3% $5.2 8.7% $5.3 9.1% *West Bountiful was not broken out as a separate community until 2001. Therefore, 1990–2000 data are for Bountiful (including West Bountiful), and 2001–05 data are for West Bountiful only. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

328 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.8 Employment and Wage Changes in West Bountiful, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000* Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 21.1% 17.3% Mining -17.2% -31.7% -17.0% -29.3% Construction 117.4% 79.5% 126.3% 92.8% Manufacturing -36.2% -47.4% -20.9% -32.6% TCPU -2.8% -19.7% 28.3% 9.4% Trade 23.6% 2.1% 23.3% 5.1% FIRE 1.2% -16.5% -0.5% -15.2% Services 58.8% 31.1% 60.0% 36.3% Government -48.7% -57.6% -58.5% -64.7%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural -8.7% -3.1% Mining Construction 222.7% 253.6% 331.0% 344.6% Manufacturing 7.3% 17.6% 4.5% 7.9% Trade, Transp, Utilities -11.4% -3.0% -6.4% -3.5% Information Financial Activities 77.0% 94.0% 43.0% 47.6% Prof & Bus Services -1.5% 7.9% -12.8% -10.1% Edu & Health Services Leisure & Hosp -16.6% -8.6% -17.5% -14.8% Other Services 12.6% 23.4% 3.1% 6.4% Government -54.1% -49.7% -62.9% -61.7% *West Bountiful was not broken out as a separate community until 2001. Therefore, 1990–2000 data are for Bountiful (including West Bountiful), and 2001–05 data are for West Bountiful only. †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 15.9 West Bountiful Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry* 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 4.65 2.10 0.00 0.87 0.89 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.16 1.08 1.64 Construction 1.04 1.05 1.01 1.04 1.05 1.13 0.99 0.96 0.87 0.84 0.96 Manufacturing 0.42 0.48 0.48 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.35 0.36 0.29 0.31 0.23 TCPU 0.58 0.55 0.44 0.46 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.72 0.58 0.50 Trade 1.60 1.54 1.57 1.53 1.45 1.55 1.38 1.40 1.47 1.46 1.51 FIRE 1.82 1.54 1.32 1.14 0.88 0.91 0.71 0.69 0.77 0.83 0.95 Services 1.69 1.63 1.67 1.63 1.66 1.74 1.64 1.66 1.63 1.66 1.79 Government 0.46 0.49 0.45 0.46 0.49 0.54 0.53 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.28

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 0.56 0.78 1.11 1.69 1.86 Manufacturing 1.20 1.61 1.43 1.37 1.45 Trade, Transp, Utilities 1.48 1.66 1.83 1.56 1.55 Information 4.58 3.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Financial Activities 0.39 0.48 0.57 0.60 0.70 Prof & Bus Services 0.52 0.49 0.51 0.53 0.46 Edu & Health Services 0.17 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 Leisure & Hosp 1.42 1.42 1.26 1.36 1.31 Other Services 2.45 3.00 2.88 2.89 2.93 Government 0.75 0.40 0.36 0.36 0.39 *West Bountiful was not broken out as a separate community until 2001. Therefore, 1990–2000 data are for Bountiful (including West Bountiful), and 2001–05 data are for West Bountiful only. Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 329

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.10 Major Employers in West Bountiful, 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 50–99 Employees AP & F Construction Construction Utah Auto Auction Wholesale Trade

1995–96 100–199 Employees Utah Auto Auction Wholesale Trade ShopKo Stores Retail Trade

2000 100–199 Employees ShopKo Stores Retail Trade

2005 100–249 Employees Salmon Electrical Contractors Construction

50–99 Employees ShopKo Stores Retail Trade Galileo Processing Finance and Insurance

2007 100–249 Employees Utah Auto Auction Wholesale Trade Costco Wholesale Corp Retail Trade Galileo Processing Finance and Insurance

50–99 Employees Salmon Electrical Contractors Construction ShopKo Stores Retail Trade Ovhan Corp/El Matador Restaurant Accommodation and Food Services Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

330 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of West Bountiful, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 28.2% 28.0% 28.4% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 12.2% 16.2% 8.1% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 7.4% 11.2% 3.6% Farmers and farm managers 1.0% 1.9% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 3.8% 3.1% 4.6% Business operations specialists 1.5% 0.5% 2.5% Financial specialists 2.3% 2.6% 2.0% Professional and related occupations 16.0% 11.8% 20.3% Computer and mathematical occupations 1.6% 2.4% 0.7% Architecture and engineering occupations 2.0% 3.3% 0.8% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 1.7% 3.3% 0.0% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Community and social services occupations 1.1% 2.1% 0.0% Legal occupations 0.6% 0.0% 1.2% Education, training, and library occupations 6.4% 2.7% 10.1% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 3.5% 0.7% 6.5% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 3.2% 0.7% 5.7% Health technologists and technicians 0.4% 0.0% 0.8% Service occupations 17.9% 11.7% 24.3% Healthcare support occupations 2.9% 0.7% 5.2% Protective service occupations 2.8% 4.3% 1.2% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 1.8% 3.6% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 1.0% 0.7% 1.2% Food preparation and serving related occupations 4.4% 2.4% 6.4% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 1.7% 2.7% 0.8% Personal care and service occupations 6.0% 1.6% 10.7% Sales and office occupations 31.2% 22.4% 40.4% Sales and related occupations 14.1% 15.0% 13.1% Office and administrative support occupations 17.2% 7.3% 27.3% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 12.0% 22.2% 1.4% Construction and extraction occupations 5.1% 10.0% 0.0% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.8% 1.6% 0.0% Construction trades workers 4.2% 8.3% 0.0% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 6.9% 12.2% 1.4% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 10.8% 15.8% 5.6% Production occupations 7.3% 9.6% 5.0% Transportation and material-moving occupations 3.4% 6.2% 0.6% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.2% 0.5% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.6% 1.2% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 1.7% 2.8% 0.6% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Material-moving workers 0.9% 1.7% 0.0% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 331

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 15.4 West Bountiful Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1995–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) Building & General Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Total Garden Merchandise Dealers Accessory Drinking Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1995 $3.0 7.6% $0.4 0.9% $9.9 25.0% $9.4 23.6% $1.2 3.0% $8.7 21.9% $7.1 17.9% $39.7 1996 $13.6 32.7% $10.1 24.2% $2.0 4.7% $9.1 22.0% $6.8 16.4% $41.6 1997 $5.8 16.7% $10.2 29.1% $2.1 5.9% $9.0 25.8% $7.9 22.5% $34.9 1998 $5.1 15.3% $9.8 29.7% $1.9 5.6% $8.4 25.3% $8.0 24.1% $33.1 1999 $6.8 19.4% $9.7 27.8% $1.6 4.5% $8.3 23.8% $8.5 24.5% $34.9 2000 $6.6 17.9% $11.3 30.6% $2.7 7.2% $8.1 21.9% $8.3 22.4% $37.0 2001 $8.9 21.5% $13.5 32.7% $3.6 8.7% $7.6 18.5% $7.7 18.7% $41.2 2002 $9.5 21.5% $16.2 36.6% $1.8 4.1% $7.2 16.2% $9.6 21.5% $44.4 2003 $8.4 21.0% $16.6 41.4% $0.8 1.9% $6.5 16.2% $7.9 19.6% $40.2 2004 $8.5 21.7% $16.7 42.8% $0.7 1.8% $6.6 16.9% $6.5 16.8% $39.0 2005 $13.2 25.6% $7.0 13.5% $14.3 27.7% $2.3 4.5% $7.6 14.7% $7.2 14.0% $51.7 Change -29.8% -46.0% 52.6% 17.3% 93.5% 48.7% -12.7% -32.9% 1.5% -22.0% 30.1% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$60 Misc ellaneous Eating & Drinking Furniture $50 Apparel & Accessory Motor Vehicle Dealers Food Stores General Merc handise $40 Building & Garden

$30

$20 Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars

$10

$0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

332 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 15.5 West Bountiful Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1992-2005

$1.2

Property Taxes $1.0 Sales and Use Taxes

$0.8

$0.6

$0.4

$0.2 Millions of Constant 2005Millions of Dollars Constant

$0.0

3 8 0 5 92 94 96 99 01 03 9 99 9 9 99 9 00 0 0 00 1 1 1 1995 1 1997 1 1 2 2 2002 2 2004 2 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1992 $229,585 $423,840 $745,120 1993 $249,981 $28,700 $651,064 $1,006,461 1994 $603,200 $637,791 $1,342,485 1995 $631,874 $37,230 $806,510 $1,521,768 1996 $664,414 $38,365 $788,529 $1,590,406 1997 $650,624 $39,193 $900,103 $1,705,885 1998 $680,827 $828,537 $1,654,059 1999 $590,131 $785,249 $1,597,990 2000 $576,363 $763,333 $1,645,277 2001 $588,468 $822,628 $1,688,674 2002 $675,338 $892,879 $1,879,611 2003 $652,991 $43,073 $786,056 $1,750,573 2004 $600,955 $40,352 $790,662 $2,034,477 2005 $637,274 $40,953 $1,057,557 $1,910,612 Change 177.6% 42.7% 149.5% 156.4% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 333

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.12 Detailed Breakdown of West Bountiful Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1992 Property Taxes General Fund $163,907 $229,585 30.8% Total Property Taxes $163,907 $229,585 $51.28 30.8% Sales and Use Tax $302,591 $423,840 $94.67 56.9% Franchise Tax $2,507 $3,512 0.5% Building Permits $50,641 $70,933 9.5% Other Licenses and Permits $12,315 $17,250 2.3% Total Tax Revenues $531,961 $745,120 $166.43 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $275,719 $313,733 19.1% Redevelopment Agency $230,808 $262,630 16.0% Total Property Taxes $506,527 $576,363 $128.54 35.0% Sales and Use Tax $670,843 $763,333 $170.23 46.4% Franchise Tax $159,084 $181,017 11.0% Resort or Hotel Tax $6,429 $7,315 0.4% Building Permits $76,518 $87,068 5.3% Other Licenses and Permits $26,524 $30,181 1.8% Total Tax Revenues $1,445,925 $1,645,277 $366.92 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $326,754 17.1% RDA iIncrement $269,567 14.1% Fee in Lieu $40,953 2.1% Total Property Taxes $637,274 $136.32 33.4% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $674,725 35.3% Energy Sales and Use Tax $369,882 19.4% Transient Room Tax $12,950 0.7% Total Sales Taxes $1,057,557 $226.22 55.4% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $53,925 2.8% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $21,061 1.1% Building Permit Fees $139,495 7.3% Other Licenses, Permits & Taxes $1,300 0.1% Total Tax Revenues $1,910,612 $408.69 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

334 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.13 West Bountiful Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $24,645,587 9.9% $42,008,540 14.7% 70.5% Buildings $77,697,593 31.1% $107,710,137 37.7% 38.6% Total $102,343,180 40.9% $149,718,677 52.3% 46.3%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $16,911,089 6.8% $30,667,379 10.7% 81.3% Buildings $28,878,330 11.6% $42,698,333 14.9% 47.9% Total $45,789,419 18.3% $73,365,712 25.7% 60.2%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $142,996 0.1% $66,158 0.0% -53.7% Buildings $1,847,311 0.7% $1,402,023 0.5% -24.1% Total $1,990,307 0.8% $1,468,181 0.5% -26.2%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $9,128,071 3.7% $1,747,700 0.6% -80.9%

Total Land & Buildings $159,286,956 63.7% $239,052,280 83.6% 50.1% Total Personal Property $42,582,555 17.0% $39,966,471 14.0% -6.1% Total Locally Assessed $201,869,510 80.8% $279,018,751 97.6% 38.2% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $48,063,952 19.2% $6,982,408 2.4% -85.5% Area Total $249,933,463 100.0% $286,001,159 100.0% 14.4% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 15.14 West Bountiful Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 1,550 Vacant Units 30 Total Occupied Units 1,520 Owner Occupied 1,425 Vacant Owner Units 25 Total Owner Units 1,450 Renter Occupied 95 Vacant Rental Units 5 Total Rental Units 100 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 335

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 15.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in West Bountiful, 1990–2006

80

70

60

50

40 Permits 30

20

10

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 15.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in West Bountiful by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 10 0 0 0 10 $824.0 1991 2 0 0 0 2 $237.7 1992 16 2 0 0 18 $1,560.3 1993 13 0 0 0 0 13 $1,278.7 1994 26 0 0 0 0 26 $3,999.1 1995 20 0 0 0 0 20 $2,619.9 1996 31 2 0 0 0 33 $3,470.2 1997 40 0 0 0 0 40 $3,383.2 1998 24 0 0 0 0 24 $2,427.2 1999 9 0 0 0 0 9 $1,058.9 2000 15 0 0 0 0 15 $2,546.2 2001 18 0 0 0 1 19 $3,170.5 2002 21 0 0 0 0 21 $4,785.4 2003 66 0 0 0 0 66 $12,771.4 2004 59 0 0 0 0 59 $12,022.3 2005 76 0 0 0 0 76 $15,548.0 2006 20 0 0 0 0 20 $5,092.1 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

336 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.16 Median Price of New Homes in West Bountiful, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 0 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 0 0 0 $175,000–$199,999 50 42 4 $200,000–$224,999 0 26 4 $225,000–$249,999 0 0 0 $250,000–$274,999 0 0 0 $275,000–$299,999 0 0 0 $300,000–$324,999 0 0 0 $325,000–$349,999 0 0 3 $350,000–$374,999 0 3 15 $375,000–$399,999 0 0 0 $400,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 50 71 26 Median Price* $187,500 $196,130 $353,333 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 15.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in West Bountiful, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $144,000 $160,770 21 1998 $150,000 $171,394 36 1999 $154,000 $164,790 47 2000 $152,250 $163,273 39 2001 $152,900 $166,631 44 2002 $146,125 $158,461 27 2003 $160,000 $182,891 42 2004 $174,000 $189,994 38 2005 $205,000 $215,055 59 2006 $204,500 $231,122 65 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 337

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in West Bountiful, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Hotels & Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & Other Mercantile, Other & Motels & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $367.8 $0.0 $828.0 $208.0 $0.0 $6.4 $355.6 $1,765.8 $2,954.2 1995 $0.0 $10.0 $0.0 $489.5 $0.0 $0.0 $38.0 $0.0 $97.0 $65.2 $699.7 $1,127.8 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $24.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2.5 $0.0 $27.1 $42.6 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $150.0 $0.0 $58.0 $0.0 $2.5 $3.4 $0.0 $213.9 $323.1 1998 $2,627.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,216.3 $0.0 $0.0 $362.9 $145.7 $5,352.2 $7,731.0 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $582.8 $395.0 $0.0 $381.8 $645.9 $2,005.5 $2,790.1 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $127.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $12.7 $915.2 $1,055.4 $1,406.6 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,029.5 $0.0 $78.7 $183.8 $1,292.0 $1,671.4 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $55.0 $4.6 $0.0 $931.6 $70.9 $1,062.1 $1,360.7 2003 $0.0 $121.2 $0.0 $35.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $224.0 $121.9 $502.1 $641.2 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.0 $12.1 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $50.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,914.3 $0.0 $474.5 $10.0 $2,448.8 $2,708.4 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $99.6 $4,851.1 $0.0 $47.6 $0.0 $4,998.3 $4,998.3 Total $2,627.3 $131.2 $0.0 $1,244.4 $0.0 $3,849.7 $8,440.5 $2.5 $2,623.1 $2,514.2 $21,432.9 $27,767.2 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

338 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 15.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in West Bountiful, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 0.00 0.00 1991 5.59 0.00 1992 0.00 0.00 1993 0.00 0.00 1994 25.12 0.00 1995 0.00 0.00 1996 15.90 0.00 1997 4.08 0.55 1998 1.96 0.00 1999 0.00 0.00 2000 44.57 0.00 2001 1.12 0.00 2003 4.86 0.00 2002 25.77 0.00 2004 1.59 0.00 2005 17.46 0.00 2006 7.93 0.00 Total 155.95 0.55 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 339

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

W EST P OINT

Table 16.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of West Point

Population Population (2005) 8,685 Median Age (2000) 26.8 Average Household Income (2006) $71,598

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 2,560 100.0% Owner Occupied 2,395 93.6% Renter Occupied 115 4.5% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $189,500 New $230,978

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $1.7 Property Tax Receipts (thousands) $361.0 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (thousands) $681.3 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $196 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

340 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.2 Change in Population by Age Group in West Point, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 4,258 6,033 41.7% Age Under 5 Years 528 12.4% 540 9.0% 2.3% 5 to 17 Years 1,373 32.2% 1,769 29.3% 28.8% 18 to 20 Years 163 3.8% 306 5.1% 87.7% 21 to 24 Years 182 4.3% 290 4.8% 59.3% 25 to 44 Years 1,484 34.9% 1,807 30.0% 21.8% 45 to 54 Years 287 6.7% 688 11.4% 139.7% 55 to 59 Years 113 2.7% 212 3.5% 87.6% 60 to 64 Years 82 1.9% 128 2.1% 56.1% 65 Years and Over 178 4.2% 293 4.9% 64.6% Median Age 22.3 26.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 16.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: West Point, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 12.0% 7.3% High School Graduate* 30.2% 29.7% Some College, No Degree 31.0% 34.7% Associate’s Degree 6.8% 9.5% Bachelor’s Degree 16.6% 13.6% Graduate or Professional degree 3.4% 5.2% Master’s Degree N/A 4.1% Professional Degree N/A 0.6% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.5% By Sex Male: Less than High School 7.0% High School Graduate* 27.5% Some College, No Degree 36.2% Associate’s Degree 7.8% Bachelor’s Degree 15.2% Master’s Degree 5.6% Professional Degree 0.3% Doctorate Degree 0.4% Female: Less than High School 7.6% High School Graduate* 31.8% Some College, No Degree 33.2% Associate’s Degree 11.1% Bachelor’s Degree 12.1% Master’s Degree 2.7% Professional Degree 0.8% Doctorate Degree 0.6% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 341

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 16.1 West Point Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black 75 - 79 10.6% 70 - 74 65 - 69 American 60 - 64 Indian, 55 - 59 Eskimo, or 50 - 54 Aleut 45 - 49 7.9% 40 - 44 35 - 39 Asian or 30 - 34 Pacific 25 - 29 Islander 20 - 24 Hispanic 20.7% 15 - 19 60.8% 10 - 14 5 - 9 Under 5 400 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 Male Female

Age Distribution of the West Point Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 275 253 1.09 12.4% 2.6% West Point Share of 5–9 323 272 1.19 14.0% 2.7% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 272 263 1.03 12.6% 2.4% Total 4,258 100.0% 2.3% 15–19 176 189 0.93 8.6% 2.1% 20–24 101 122 0.83 5.2% 1.7% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 165 205 0.80 8.7% 2.6% White 4,031 94.7% 2.3% 30–34 220 206 1.07 10.0% 2.8% Black 24 0.6% 1.1% 35–39 157 165 0.95 7.6% 2.4% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 18 0.4% 1.8% 40–44 126 108 1.17 5.5% 2.1% Asian or Pacific Islander 47 1.1% 1.5% 45–49 100 80 1.25 4.2% 2.0% Other race 0 0.0% 0.0% 50–54 50 57 0.88 2.5% 1.5% Ethnicity 55–59 62 51 1.22 2.7% 1.8% Hispanic Origin 138 3.2% 1.0% 60–64 42 40 1.05 1.9% 1.6% 65–69 43 34 1.26 1.8% 1.7% Minority 227 5.3% 1.7% 70–74 20 18 1.11 0.9% 1.3% 75–79 12 14 0.86 0.6% 1.4% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 8 9 0.89 0.4% 1.4% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 8 12 0.67 0.5% 2.3% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the Total 2,160 2,098 1.03 100.0% 2.3% city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's share of Share 60 years+ 6.1% 1.1% total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio Median Age 22.3 greater than one.

342 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 16.2 West Point Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 +

80 - 84 Black alone 75 - 79 (NH) AIAN alone 70 - 74 5.3% (NH) 65 - 69 7.2% 60 - 64 Asian alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 13.9% 45 - 49 40 - 44 NHPI alone 35 - 39 (NH) 30 - 34 0.5% 25 - 29 20 - 24 Hispanic Some other 15 - 19 56.1% race alone 10 - 14 (NH) 0.5% 5 - 9 Under 5 Two or more 400 200 0 200 400 races (NH) 16.6% Male Female

Age Distribution of the West Point Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 292 248 1.18 9.0% 2.3% West Point Share of 5–9 302 315 0.96 10.2% 2.7% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 349 354 0.99 11.7% 3.0% Total 6,033 100.0% 2.5% 15–19 380 296 1.28 11.2% 2.8% 20–24 193 176 1.10 6.1% 1.8% Not Hispanic or Latino 5,790 96.0% 2.6% 25–29 152 172 0.88 5.4% 1.9% White alone 5,600 92.8% 2.6% 30–34 190 222 0.86 6.8% 2.6% Black or African American alone 23 0.4% 0.9% 35–39 260 266 0.98 8.7% 3.1% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 31 0.5% 2.6% 40–44 274 271 1.01 9.0% 3.2% Asian alone 60 1.0% 1.7% 45–49 204 195 1.05 6.6% 2.7% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 2 0.0% 0.3% 50–54 157 132 1.19 4.8% 2.6% Some other race alone 2 0.0% 1.0% 55–59 116 96 1.21 3.5% 2.5% Two or more races 72 1.2% 2.2% 60–64 64 64 1.00 2.1% 2.0% Ethnicity 65–69 54 48 1.13 1.7% 1.8% Hispanic or Latino 243 4.0% 1.9% 70–74 38 44 0.86 1.4% 1.8% 75–79 31 32 0.97 1.0% 1.7% Minority 433 7.2% 1.8% 80–84 12 17 0.71 0.5% 1.3% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 6 11 0.55 0.3% 1.0% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 3,074 2,959 1.04 100.0% 2.5% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 7.0% 1.8% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Median Age 26.8 one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 343

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 16.3 Distribution of Household Income in West Point, 1995-2005

35%

30% 1995 2000 2005 25%

20%

15%

10% Share of Households of Share

5%

0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 ,00 ,00 00 00 00 00 00 5 0 5, 0, 5, 0,0 5, 0, 10, 5 $5,000 $ $2 $3 $3 $7 100,00025 $ er - - - - $250,000 1 - r Und 01 - 1 ,001 ,001 ,00 0 Ove ,00 $5,001 50, $10,001$15,001 - $1 $20- $2 $25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $40,000$45,001 - $45,000 $- $ $75 100,001 - $ $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 29 3.8% 60 4.0% 72 3.5% $5,001–$10,000 19 2.5% 37 2.5% 53 2.5% $10,001–$15,000 27 3.5% 48 3.2% 64 3.1% $15,001–$20,000 43 5.6% 42 2.8% 79 3.8% $20,001–$25,000 46 6.0% 50 3.3% 85 4.1% $25,001–$30,000 48 6.3% 53 3.5% 88 4.2% $30,001–$35,000 37 4.8% 65 4.3% 91 4.4% $35,001–$40,000 63 8.2% 81 5.4% 95 4.6% $40,001–$45,000 69 9.0% 91 6.0% 104 5.0% $45,001–$50,000 72 9.4% 106 7.0% 109 5.2% $50,001–$75,000 213 27.9% 464 30.7% 528 25.4% $75,001–$100,000 65 8.5% 264 17.5% 379 18.2% $100,001–$250,000 33 4.3% 130 8.6% 320 15.4% Over $250,000 18 1.2% 14 0.7% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

344 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.4 Share of Persons in West Point Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 3.5% 3.9% Male 2.9% 5.3% Under 5 years 1.5% 5.6% Under 5 years 2.9% 9.0% 5 years 0.0% 7.5% 5 years 0.0% 10.3% 6 to 11 years 7.4% 7.6% 6 to 11 years 8.4% 15.3% 12 to 17 years 1.5% 2.4% 12 to 17 years 0.0% 4.4% 18 to 64 years 2.5% 2.9% 18 to 64 years 1.4% 2.4% 65 to 74 years 9.5% 0.0% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 15.8% 7.1% 75 years and over 23.1% 0.0% Female 4.0% 2.4% Under 5 years 0.0% 1.5% 5 years 0.0% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 6.3% 0.0% 12 to 17 years 2.7% 0.0% 18 to 64 years 3.6% 3.4% 65 to 74 years 20.5% 0.0% 75 years and over 12.0% 12.7% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 16.5 West Point Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 1,674 100.0% 2,748 100.0% 1,074 64.2% Drove alone 1,363 81.4% 2,322 84.5% 959 70.4% Carpooled 230 13.7% 273 9.9% 43 18.7% Public transportation (including taxicab) 24 1.4% 6 0.2% -18 -75.0% Bicycle or walked 0 0.0% 29 1.1% 29 Motorcycle or other means 21 1.3% 0 0.0% -21 -100.0% Worked at home 36 2.2% 118 4.3% 82 227.8%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 1,638 100.0% 2,630 100.0% 992 60.6% Less than 5 minutes 25 1.5% 111 4.2% 86 344.0% 5 to 9 minutes 95 5.8% 209 7.9% 114 120.0% 10 to 14 minutes 353 21.6% 412 15.7% 59 16.7% 15 to 19 minutes 426 26.0% 542 20.6% 116 27.2% 20 to 24 minutes 375 22.9% 490 18.6% 115 30.7% 25 to 29 minutes 112 6.8% 208 7.9% 96 85.7% 30 to 34 minutes 100 6.1% 269 10.2% 169 169.0% 35 to 39 minutes 19 1.2% 40 1.5% 21 110.5% 40 to 44 minutes 31 1.9% 68 2.6% 37 119.4% 45 or more minutes 102 6.2% 281 10.7% 179 175.5% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 20.1 23.5 3.4 17.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 345

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Sunset–Syracuse* by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 2,421 100.0% 2,648 100.0% 2,706 100.0% 3,062 100.0% 3,294 100.0% 3,173 100.0% 3,894 100.0% 3,575 100.0% 3,755 100.0% 3,926 100.0% 4,484 100.0% Mining 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 0.0% Construction 248 10.2% 244 9.2% 325 12.0% 371 12.1% 444 13.5% 466 14.7% 644 16.5% 807 22.6% 880 23.4% 894 22.8% 1,351 30.1% Manufacturing 94 3.9% 107 4.0% 148 5.5% 180 5.9% 194 5.9% 177 5.6% 270 6.9% 115 3.2% 141 3.8% 149 3.8% 96 2.1% TCPU 157 6.5% 166 6.3% 152 5.6% 157 5.1% 173 5.3% 217 6.8% 269 6.9% 47 1.3% 50 1.3% 46 1.2% 22 0.5% Trade 981 40.5% 1,021 38.6% 743 27.5% 761 24.9% 802 24.3% 839 26.4% 906 23.3% 1,084 30.3% 1,208 32.2% 1,248 31.8% 1,310 29.2% FIRE 40 1.7% 42 1.6% 65 2.4% 83 2.7% 115 3.5% 113 3.6% 102 2.6% 77 2.2% 93 2.5% 108 2.8% 171 3.8% Services 152 6.3% 180 6.8% 238 8.8% 463 15.1% 521 15.8% 449 14.2% 644 16.5% 448 12.5% 434 11.6% 548 14.0% 928 20.7% Government 749 30.9% 888 33.5% 1,035 38.2% 1,047 34.2% 1,045 31.7% 1,104 34.8% 1,059 27.2% 997 27.9% 949 25.3% 933 23.8% 606 13.5% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 3,706 100.0% 3,164 100.0% 3,484 100.0% 3,630 100.0% 3,954 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Construction 541 14.6% 541 17.1% 599 17.2% 724 19.9% 839 21.2% Manufacturing 182 4.9% 176 5.6% 156 4.5% 167 4.6% 178 4.5% Trade, Transp., Utilities 694 18.7% 699 22.1% 707 20.3% 741 20.4% 750 19.0% Information 15 0.4% 5 0.2% 7 0.2% 12 0.3% 12 0.3% Financial Activities 104 2.8% 128 4.0% 144 4.1% 154 4.2% 179 4.5% Prof. & Business Services 220 5.9% 239 7.6% 447 12.8% 253 7.0% 378 9.5% Education & Health Services 346 9.3% 355 11.2% 347 10.0% 426 11.7% 454 11.5% Leisure & Hospitality 220 5.9% 257 8.1% 284 8.1% 352 9.7% 334 8.5% Other Services 93 2.5% 93 2.9% 93 2.7% 90 2.5% 89 2.2% Government 1,290 34.8% 670 21.2% 699 20.1% 712 19.6% 742 18.8% *The Sunset–Syracuse worksite district includes Clinton and West Point. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

346 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Sunset–Syracuse* by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $58.0 100.0% $64.7 100.0% $60.2 100.0% $66.2 100.0% $74.4 100.0% $75.3 100.0% $99.9 100.0% $85.1 100.0% $92.8 100.0% $98.3 100.0% $101.4 100.0% Mining $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% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $6.4 11.0% $6.2 9.6% $8.2 13.6% $9.1 13.7% $10.6 14.2% $12.0 16.0% $18.5 18.5% $22.5 26.4% $24.9 26.8% $24.8 25.2% $36.5 36.0% Manufacturing $1.6 2.8% $2.2 3.4% $5.0 8.3% $5.9 8.9% $6.5 8.8% $6.6 8.8% $13.0 13.0% $5.3 6.2% $5.7 6.1% $6.1 6.2% $3.4 3.3% TCPU $5.0 8.6% $4.9 7.5% $4.7 7.9% $4.9 7.4% $5.7 7.7% $7.6 10.1% $10.3 10.3% $1.4 1.7% $1.8 1.9% $1.4 1.5% $0.8 0.8% Trade $21.9 37.7% $23.0 35.5% $14.0 23.3% $14.6 22.0% $16.0 21.5% $16.0 21.3% $17.2 17.2% $19.8 23.3% $23.7 25.5% $25.2 25.7% $24.1 23.8% FIRE $0.7 1.1% $0.8 1.2% $1.3 2.2% $1.7 2.5% $2.1 2.8% $2.2 2.9% $1.9 1.9% $1.4 1.6% $1.8 1.9% $2.0 2.1% $3.1 3.1% Services $1.9 3.2% $3.6 5.6% $4.3 7.1% $6.8 10.3% $10.8 14.5% $11.1 14.7% $14.1 14.1% $10.4 12.2% $10.9 11.7% $14.2 14.5% $20.6 20.3% Government $20.7 35.6% $24.0 37.2% $22.6 37.6% $23.3 35.2% $22.6 30.4% $2.4 3.1% $24.9 24.9% $24.4 28.7% $24.2 26.1% $24.5 24.9% $12.9 12.7% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $113.1 100.0% $78.9 100.0% $86.7 100.0% $91.4 100.0% $97.8 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% Construction $14.5 12.8% $14.6 18.5% $16.0 18.4% $19.8 21.7% $23.3 23.8% Manufacturing $6.3 5.6% $5.9 7.5% $5.7 6.5% $6.3 6.8% $7.0 7.2% Trade, Transp., Utilities $15.4 13.6% $15.5 19.7% $15.9 18.3% $15.5 17.0% $16.2 16.6% Information $0.7 0.6% $0.3 0.4% $0.4 0.4% $0.6 0.7% $0.7 0.7% Financial Activities $2.4 2.1% $3.0 3.8% $3.5 4.0% $4.0 4.3% $4.5 4.6% Prof & Bus Services $5.3 4.7% $6.2 7.8% $10.7 12.3% $6.1 6.6% $7.6 7.8% Edu & Health Services $7.8 6.9% $7.3 9.2% $8.6 9.9% $11.8 12.9% $11.6 11.8% Leisure & Hospitality $1.6 1.5% $2.0 2.5% $2.3 2.6% $3.0 3.3% $2.8 2.9% Other Services $6.7 5.9% $4.5 5.8% $4.0 4.6% $3.9 4.3% $3.7 3.8% Government $52.2 46.2% $19.5 24.7% $19.9 22.9% $20.5 22.4% $20.4 20.9% *The Sunset–Syracuse worksite district includes Clinton and West Point. Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 347

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Sunset– Syracuse*, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural 85.2% 74.9% Mining Construction 444.8% 194.1% 474.0% 228.2% Manufacturing 2.1% -44.9% 109.0% 19.5% TCPU -86.0% -92.4% -84.0% -90.8% Trade 33.5% -27.9% 10.4% -36.9% FIRE 327.5% 130.8% 375.1% 171.6% Services 510.5% 229.6% 1010.1% 534.7% Government -19.1% -56.3% -37.7% -64.4%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 6.7% -13.5% Mining Construction 55.1% 45.3% 60.4% 85.4% Manufacturing -2.4% -8.5% 11.2% 28.6% Trade, Transp, Utilities 8.1% 1.3% 5.1% 21.5% Information -17.5% -22.7% -10.2% 3.8% Financial Activities 71.8% 61.0% 86.0% 115.1% Prof & Bus Services 71.6% 60.9% 42.3% 64.5% Edu & Health Services 31.3% 23.1% 48.2% 71.4% Leisure & Hosp 52.0% 42.4% 72.4% 99.3% Other Services -4.6% -10.6% -44.2% -35.4% Government -42.5% -46.1% -60.9% -54.8% *The Sunset–Syracuse worksite district includes Clinton and West Point. †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 16.9 Sunset–Syracuse* Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 2.40 1.90 2.29 2.03 2.02 2.13 2.22 2.81 2.81 2.71 3.66 Manufacturing 0.31 0.32 0.43 0.44 0.42 0.38 0.49 0.24 0.29 0.30 0.18 TCPU 1.60 1.54 1.56 1.50 1.53 2.16 1.98 0.38 0.38 0.32 0.13 Trade 1.72 1.58 1.10 0.99 0.97 1.02 0.89 1.20 1.26 1.26 1.15 FIRE 0.76 0.62 0.82 0.77 0.86 0.90 0.65 0.53 0.61 0.75 1.10 Services 0.36 0.40 0.50 0.83 0.84 0.72 0.80 0.61 0.56 0.66 0.97 Government 0.86 0.98 1.16 1.13 1.15 1.37 1.14 1.11 1.02 0.95 0.53

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 1.80 2.26 2.25 2.48 2.46 Manufacturing 0.43 0.49 0.39 0.41 0.41 Trade, Transp, Utilities 0.87 1.05 0.99 0.98 0.95 Information 0.47 0.17 0.21 0.34 0.34 Financial Activities 0.74 1.12 1.04 1.03 1.11 Prof & Bus Services 0.75 0.88 1.49 0.79 0.99 Edu & Health Services 1.08 1.31 1.12 1.32 1.28 Leisure & Hosp 0.66 0.92 0.91 1.09 0.95 Other Services 0.91 0.99 0.90 0.83 0.79 Government 1.34 0.80 0.78 0.78 0.75 *The Sunset–Syracuse worksite district includes Clinton and West Point. Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

348 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.10 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of West Point, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 32.1% 30.3% 34.1% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 14.0% 15.6% 12.0% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 6.9% 9.1% 4.2% Farmers and farm managers 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 6.9% 6.2% 7.8% Business operations specialists 3.1% 3.9% 2.2% Financial specialists 3.8% 2.3% 5.6% Professional and related occupations 18.1% 14.7% 22.1% Computer and mathematical occupations 4.3% 4.8% 3.6% Architecture and engineering occupations 3.2% 5.8% 0.0% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 3.0% 5.6% 0.0% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% Life, physical, and social science occupations 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% Community and social services occupations 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% Legal occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Education, training, and library occupations 7.3% 1.9% 13.7% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 0.2% 0.3% 0.0% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 2.8% 1.5% 4.3% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 2.1% 1.1% 3.2% Health technologists and technicians 0.7% 0.4% 1.1% Service occupations 11.5% 8.6% 14.9% Healthcare support occupations 1.1% 0.0% 2.4% Protective service occupations 1.0% 1.7% 0.3% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.6% 0.9% 0.3% Food preparation and serving related occupations 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 3.6% 5.0% 1.8% Personal care and service occupations 3.9% 0.0% 8.6% Sales and office occupations 33.7% 23.4% 45.8% Sales and related occupations 14.2% 15.9% 12.1% Office and administrative support occupations 19.5% 7.5% 33.7% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.4% 0.3% 0.5% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 9.6% 17.7% 0.0% Construction and extraction occupations 4.5% 8.3% 0.0% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 0.7% 1.3% 0.0% Construction trades workers 3.8% 7.1% 0.0% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 5.1% 9.3% 0.0% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 12.8% 19.7% 4.7% Production occupations 8.1% 11.9% 3.7% Transportation and material-moving occupations 4.7% 7.7% 1.0% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.4% 0.8% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 2.1% 3.0% 1.0% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% Material-moving workers 1.7% 3.0% 0.0% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 349

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 16.4 West Point Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$1.0

$0.8

Property Taxes Sales and Use Taxes $0.6

$0.4

$0.2 Millions 2005 of Dollars Constant

$0.0

0 2 3 5 6 8 0 1 3 91 94 99 02 04 99 9 99 9 99 99 9 00 0 0 1 1 199 1 1 199 1 1997 1 1 200 2 2 200 2 2005 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $135,246 $83,266 $240,731 1991 $129,647 $153,153 $304,466 1992 $141,290 $200,371 $377,127 1993 1994 $160,513 $22,174 $319,706 $548,052 1995 $168,815 $28,635 $303,537 $583,676 1996 $199,093 $33,217 $351,187 $745,360 1997 $212,664 $42,747 $379,996 $698,416 1998 $251,313 $45,099 $403,979 $735,670 1999 $701,964 $812,718 2000 $811,622 $932,473 2001 $66,342 $177,621 2002 $73,727 $2,190 $143,082 $222,261 2003 $319,287 $57,445 $558,154 $1,202,186 2004 2005 $360,988 $63,599 $681,267 $1,704,330 Change 166.9% 186.8% 718.2% 608.0% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

350 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.11 Detailed Breakdown of West Point Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 Property Taxes General Fund $89,416 $135,246 56.2% Total Property Taxes $89,416 $135,246 $31.76 56.2% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $55,050 $83,266 $19.56 34.6% Building Permits $13,730 $20,767 8.6% Other Licenses and Permits $960 $1,452 0.6% Total Tax Revenue $159,156 $240,731 $56.54 100.0%

2000 Property Taxes General Fund $713,281 $811,622 87.0% Total Property Taxes $713,281 $811,622 $134.53 87.0% Building Permits $93,422 $106,302 11.4% Other Licenses and Permits $12,786 $14,549 1.6% Total Tax Revenue $819,489 $932,473 $154.56 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $297,389 17.4% Fee in Lieu $63,599 3.7% Total Property Taxes $360,988 $41.56 21.2% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $470,227 27.6% Energy Sales and Use Tax $211,040 12.4% Total Sales Taxes $681,267 $78.44 40.0% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $84,366 5.0% Cable TV Franchise Tax $12,956 0.8% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $8,183 0.5% Building Permit Fees $509,987 29.9% Other Licenses, Permits & Taxes $46,583 2.7% Total Tax Revenue $1,704,330 $196.24 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 351

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.12 West Point Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $20,619,641 12.1% $46,400,901 19.8% 125.0% Buildings $98,543,924 57.6% $158,538,362 67.6% 60.9% Total $119,163,565 69.7% $204,939,263 87.4% 72.0%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $1,302,614 0.8% $2,934,859 1.3% 125.3% Buildings $3,586,954 2.1% $1,551,206 0.7% -56.8% Total $4,889,568 2.9% $4,486,065 1.9% -8.3%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $1,630,731 1.0% $949,216 0.4% -41.8% Buildings $1,812,620 1.1% $1,534,643 0.7% -15.3% Total $3,443,350 2.0% $2,483,859 1.1% -27.9%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $8,716,659 5.1% $5,540,305 2.4% -36.4%

Total Land & Buildings $136,213,142 79.7% $229,100,630 97.7% 68.2% Total Personal Property $946,788 0.6% $1,536,079 0.7% 62.2% Total Locally Assessed $137,159,930 80.2% $230,636,709 98.4% 68.2% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $33,815,345 19.8% $3,850,696 1.6% -88.6% Area Total $170,975,276 100.0% $234,487,405 100.0% 37.1% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 16.13 West Point Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 2,560 Vacant Units 50 Total Occupied Units 2,510 Owner Occupied 2,395 Vacant Owner Units 45 Total Owner Units 2,440 Renter Occupied 115 Vacant Rental Units 5 Total Rental Units 120 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

352 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 16.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in West Point, 1990–2006 250

200

150

Permits 100

50

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 16.14 Residential Building Permits Issued in West Point by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 35 0 0 35 $2,063.0 1991 43 0 0 0 43 $2,832.7 1992 60 0 0 0 60 $4,795.7 1993 49 0 0 0 0 49 $4,794.5 1994 65 0 0 0 0 65 $7,648.6 1995 104 0 0 0 0 104 $11,385.0 1996 140 0 0 0 0 140 $15,814.4 1997 74 0 0 0 0 74 $8,723.9 1998 49 0 0 0 0 49 $5,940.4 1999 85 0 0 0 0 85 $9,214.1 2000 26 0 0 0 0 26 $3,497.8 2001 69 0 0 0 0 69 $8,328.4 2002 82 0 0 0 0 82 $11,030.5 2003 170 2 15 0 0 187 $26,037.8 2004 196 0 6 0 0 202 $31,400.9 2005 135 0 0 0 0 135 $26,188.8 2006 160 0 0 0 0 160 $28,629.0 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 353

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.15 Median Price of New Homes in West Point, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 0 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 75 23 3 $175,000–$199,999 37 36 26 $200,000–$224,999 68 84 35 $225,000–$249,999 0 9 23 $250,000–$274,999 0 12 52 $275,000–$299,999 0 0 0 $300,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 180 164 139 Median Price* $185,135 $206,845 $230,978 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 16.16 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in West Point, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $130,900 $145,004 52 1998 $142,000 $144,707 61 1999 $134,450 $141,077 81 2000 $135,000 $143,552 68 2001 $143,300 $148,086 61 2002 $149,000 $149,501 84 2003 $152,000 $155,044 77 2004 $152,739 $154,595 119 2005 $171,500 $175,769 148 2006 $189,500 $201,717 174 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

354 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.17 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in West Point, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Hotels & Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & Other Mercantile, Other & Motels & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $0.0 $6.0 $0.0 $25.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $37.4 $16.6 $85.0 $142.2 1995 $0.0 $360.2 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $23.3 $1.0 $384.5 $619.7 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $14.4 $3.2 $17.6 $27.6 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $190.3 $210.3 $400.6 $605.1 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $2,244.0 $263.1 $0.0 $0.0 $95.2 $0.0 $104.0 $132.8 $2,839.1 $4,100.9 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $25.0 $25.0 $34.8 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $931.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $120.0 $1,051.4 $1,401.3 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $38.8 $500.0 $538.8 $690.3 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $213.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $185.9 $399.0 $509.5 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $990.3 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $43.1 $1,033.4 $1,251.1 2005 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,218.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $94.1 $1,313.0 $1,452.2 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $200.0 $200.0 $200.0 Total $0.0 $366.2 $4,378.8 $288.1 $1,218.9 $0.0 $95.2 $0.0 $408.2 $1,532.0 $8,287.4 $11,034.7 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 355

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 16.18 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in West Point, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 16.49 0.00 1991 4.41 0.00 1992 3.22 0.00 1993 3.98 0.00 1994 28.93 0.00 1995 27.48 0.00 1996 51.49 0.00 1997 14.96 0.00 1998 14.02 0.00 1999 19.53 0.00 2000 21.31 0.00 2001 37.44 0.00 2003 0.50 0.00 2002 56.27 0.00 2004 7.58 0.00 2005 8.69 0.00 2006 70.97 0.00 Total 387.27 0.00 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

356 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

W OODS C ROSS

Table 17.1 Current Demographic and Economic Baseline of Woods Cross

Population Population (2005) 8,676 Median Age (2000) 25.5 Average Household Income (2006) $56,121

Employment Average Nonagricultural Employment (2005) 4,378 Employer Firms (2005) 431 Average Annual Wage (2005) $32,533 Major Employment Sectors (2005) Number Share Trade, Transportation, Utilities 1,145 26.2% Construction 739 16.9% Leisure & Hospitality 541 12.4%

Retail Sales Taxable 2005 Retail Sales (millions) $158.6 Major Retail Categories (millions) Motor Vehicle Sales $129.4 General Merchandise $12.1 Eating & Drinking $6.8 Per Capita Retail Sales $18,281

Housing and Real Estate Number Share Total Housing Units (2006) 2,875 100.0% Owner Occupied 2,255 78.4% Renter Occupied 535 18.6% Median Home Prices (2006) Existing $209,500 New $177,500

Tax Revenue Total 2005 Tax Revenue (millions) $2.9 Property Tax Receipts (thousands) $896.6 Sales and Use Tax Receipts (millions) $1.7 Per Capita Tax Revenue (2005) $330 Note: All dollar figures are in current dollars. Sources: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget; U.S. Census Bureau; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; Utah Department of Workforce Services; Utah State Tax Commission; Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service; NewReach; Center for Public Policy & Administration, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 357

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.2 Change in Population by Age Group in Woods Cross, 1990–2000

Category 1990 Share 2000 Share Change Population 5,384 6,419 19.2% Age Under 5 Years 675 12.5% 738 11.5% 9.3% 5 to 17 Years 1,534 28.5% 1,574 24.5% 2.6% 18 to 20 Years 253 4.7% 352 5.5% 39.1% 21 to 24 Years 343 6.4% 480 7.5% 39.9% 25 to 44 Years 1,926 35.8% 2,029 31.6% 5.3% 45 to 54 Years 537 10.0% 568 8.8% 5.8% 55 to 59 Years 112 2.1% 265 4.1% 136.6% 60 to 64 Years 93 1.7% 174 2.7% 87.1% 65 Years and Over 179 3.3% 239 3.7% 33.5% Median Age 23.8 25.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Table 17.3 Educational Attainment of Persons 25 Years and Older: Woods Cross, 1990–2000

Maximum Level of Attainment 1990 2000 Total Less than High School 11.9% 13.7% High School Graduate* 30.0% 23.8% Some College, No Degree 30.1% 31.6% Associate’s Degree 14.2% 9.2% Bachelor’s Degree 9.6% 18.2% Graduate or Professional degree 4.2% 3.5% Master’s Degree N/A 3.0% Professional Degree N/A 0.0% Doctorate Degree N/A 0.5% By Sex Male: Less than High School 16.0% High School Graduate* 22.0% Some College, No Degree 32.0% Associate’s Degree 6.2% Bachelor’s Degree 19.1% Master’s Degree 3.6% Professional Degree 0.0% Doctorate Degree 1.0% Female: Less than High School 11.1% High School Graduate* 25.7% Some College, No Degree 31.2% Associate’s Degree 12.3% Bachelor’s Degree 17.4% Master’s Degree 2.3% Professional Degree 0.0% Doctorate Degree 0.0% *Includes equivalency. Source: U.S. Census Bureau

358 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 17.1 Woods Cross Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 1990

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black 2.6% 75 - 79

70 - 74 American 65 - 69 Indian, 60 - 64 Eskimo, or 55 - 59 Aleut 50 - 54 21.3% 45 - 49 40 - 44 Hispanic 35 - 39 50.4% 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 Asian or 10 - 14 Pacific 5 - 9 Islander Under 5 24.8% 400 200 0 200 400 Other race Male Female 0.9%

Age Distribution of the Woods Cross Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 321 354 0.91 12.5% 3.4% Woods Cross Share of 5–9 340 316 1.08 12.2% 2.9% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 297 305 0.97 11.2% 2.7% Total 5,384 100.0% 2.9% 15–19 240 214 1.12 8.4% 2.7% 20–24 204 214 0.95 7.8% 3.2% Not of Hispanic Origin 25–29 289 269 1.07 10.4% 3.8% White 5,154 95.7% 3.0% 30–34 255 246 1.04 9.3% 3.3% Black 6 0.1% 0.3% 35–39 179 159 1.13 6.3% 2.5% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 49 0.9% 4.9% 40–44 112 149 0.75 4.8% 2.4% Asian or Pacific Islander 57 1.1% 1.8% 45–49 152 173 0.88 6.0% 3.7% Other race 2 0.0% 2.5% 50–54 119 93 1.28 3.9% 3.0% Ethnicity 55–59 58 54 1.07 2.1% 1.8% Hispanic Origin 116 2.2% 0.8% 60–64 45 48 0.94 1.7% 1.8% 65–69 36 33 1.09 1.3% 1.5% Minority 230 4.3% 1.7% 70–74 9 28 0.32 0.7% 1.2% 75–79 18 20 0.90 0.7% 2.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, Census 1990 STF 1. 80–84 9 10 0.90 0.4% 1.5% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. 85 + 1 15 0.07 0.3% 1.8% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that Total 2,684 2,700 0.99 100.0% 2.9% the city's share of the county for the given category exceeds the city's Share 60 years+ 5.1% 1.1% share of total population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to- Median Age 23.8 female ratio greater than one.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 359

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 17.2 Woods Cross Population by Age and Sex, Race, and Ethnicity: 2000

Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex Minority Population Composition 85 + 80 - 84 Black alone AIAN alone 75 - 79 Asian alone (NH) (NH) (NH) 70 - 74 4.9% 2.6% 65 - 69 7.7% 60 - 64 NHPI alone 55 - 59 (NH) 50 - 54 3.0% 45 - 49 40 - 44 Some other race alone 35 - 39 (NH) 30 - 34 1.4% 25 - 29 20 - 24 15 - 19 10 - 14 Two or more 5 - 9 Hispanic races (NH) Under 5 64.4% 16.0% 400 200 0 200 400 Male Female

Age Distribution of the Woods Cross Population Sex Share of Male Female Ratio Share Davis Co. Under 5 387 351 1.10 11.5% 3.2% Woods Cross Share of 5–9 291 317 0.92 9.5% 2.7% Race and Ethnicity of the Population Population Share Davis Co. 10–14 292 293 1.00 9.1% 2.5% Total 6,419 100.0% 2.7% 15–19 296 311 0.95 9.5% 2.5% 20–24 300 306 0.98 9.4% 3.0% Not Hispanic or Latino 6,052 94.3% 2.7% 25–29 330 318 1.04 10.1% 3.7% White alone 5,849 91.1% 2.7% 30–34 250 240 1.04 7.6% 3.1% Black or African American alone 28 0.4% 1.1% 35–39 239 228 1.05 7.3% 2.7% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 15 0.2% 1.3% 40–44 222 202 1.10 6.6% 2.5% Asian alone 44 0.7% 1.2% 45–49 160 159 1.01 5.0% 2.2% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 17 0.3% 2.8% 50–54 121 128 0.95 3.9% 2.2% Some other race alone 8 0.1% 3.9% 55–59 123 142 0.87 4.1% 3.1% Two or more races 91 1.4% 2.7% 60–64 93 81 1.15 2.7% 2.7% Ethnicity 65–69 39 43 0.91 1.3% 1.5% Hispanic or Latino 367 5.7% 2.8% 70–74 28 33 0.85 1.0% 1.4% 75–79 21 28 0.75 0.8% 1.3% Minority 570 8.9% 2.3% 80–84 7 14 0.50 0.3% 1.0% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census, SF1. 85 + 10 16 0.63 0.4% 1.5% Note: NH is Not Hispanic. Total 3,209 3,210 1.00 100.0% 2.7% Note: If a cell is shaded yellow and has bold red type, this indicates that the area's share of the county for the given category exceeds the area's share of total Share 60 years+ 6.4% 1.7% population in the county. Blue shading indicates a male-to-female ratio greater than Median Age 25.5 one.

360 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 17.3 Distribution of Household Income in Woods Cross, 1995-2005

30%

25%

1995 2000 2005

20%

15%

10% Share of Households

5%

0%

0 00 00 00 00 0 0 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,0 ,0 ,0 ,000 0 5 0,0 10, 50 5 $5,000 $ $25 $30 $35 $75 100,000 $ 250,000 er - - - $ 1 - r Und 01 - ,001 ,001 ,00 0 Ove $5,001 - 50, $10,001$15,001 - $15,000 $20- $20,000$25 $30 $35,001$40,001 - $4 $45,001 - $4 $- $ $75,001100,001 - $2 $ Household AGI

1995 2000 2005 Household AGI* Number Share Number Share Number Share Under $5,000 62 4.6% 79 4.0% 69 2.6% $5,001–$10,000 79 5.9% 88 4.5% 91 3.4% $10,001–$15,000 89 6.7% 85 4.3% 132 5.0% $15,001–$20,000 92 6.9% 87 4.4% 137 5.2% $20,001–$25,000 108 8.1% 102 5.2% 140 5.3% $25,001–$30,000 87 6.5% 95 4.8% 131 4.9% $30,001–$35,000 88 6.6% 124 6.3% 147 5.5% $35,001–$40,000 100 7.5% 126 6.4% 159 6.0% $40,001–$45,000 102 7.6% 139 7.1% 191 7.2% $45,001–$50,000 102 7.6% 139 7.1% 173 6.5% $50,001–$75,000 287 21.4% 573 29.2% 692 26.1% $75,001–$100,000 105 7.8% 188 9.6% 359 13.6% $100,001–$250,000 37 2.8% 122 6.2% 216 8.2% Over $250,000 14 0.7% 12 0.5% *Current dollars. Source: Utah State Tax Commission based on federal tax returns

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 361

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.4 Share of Persons in Woods Cross Living Below the Poverty Level, 1989 & 1999 By Age By Age and Sex 1989 1999 1989 1999 Poverty Rate 10.1% 4.7% Male 8.2% 4.1% Under 5 years 17.2% 2.2% Under 5 years 8.7% 2.0% 5 years 6.8% 5.6% 5 years 15.7% 0.0% 6 to 11 years 11.0% 8.4% 6 to 11 years 11.2% 10.7% 12 to 17 years 12.0% 7.7% 12 to 17 years 8.9% 7.1% 18 to 64 years 7.8% 3.5% 18 to 64 years 6.7% 2.9% 65 to 74 years 7.3% 15.5% 65 to 74 years 0.0% 0.0% 75 years and over 16.9% 0.0% 75 years and over 24.2% 0.0% Female 11.9% 5.3% Under 5 years 24.9% 2.4% 5 years 0.0% 9.1% 6 to 11 years 10.9% 6.4% 12 to 17 years 16.0% 8.3% 18 to 64 years 8.9% 4.1% 65 to 74 years 12.5% 26.2% 75 years and over 12.0% 0.0% Source: BEBR calculations from U.S. Census Bureau data

Table 17.5 Woods Cross Commute: Means of Transportation and Travel Time, 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change Means of Transportation Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers 16 years and over 2,593 100.0% 3,424 100.0% 831 32.0% Drove alone 2,100 81.0% 2,563 74.9% 463 22.0% Carpooled 293 11.3% 469 13.7% 176 60.1% Public transportation (including taxicab) 58 2.2% 68 2.0% 10 17.2% Bicycle or walked 56 2.2% 117 3.4% 61 108.9% Motorcycle or other means 27 1.0% 45 1.3% 18 66.7% Worked at home 59 2.3% 162 4.7% 103 174.6%

1990 2000 Change Travel Time to Work Number Share Number Share Number Percent Workers who did not work at home 2,534 100.0% 3,262 100.0% 728 28.7% Less than 5 minutes 95 3.7% 200 6.1% 105 110.5% 5 to 9 minutes 515 20.3% 790 24.2% 275 53.4% 10 to 14 minutes 437 17.2% 393 12.0% -44 -10.1% 15 to 19 minutes 449 17.7% 475 14.6% 26 5.8% 20 to 24 minutes 491 19.4% 629 19.3% 138 28.1% 25 to 29 minutes 176 6.9% 183 5.6% 7 4.0% 30 to 34 minutes 218 8.6% 352 10.8% 134 61.5% 35 to 39 minutes 32 1.3% 85 2.6% 53 165.6% 40 to 44 minutes 25 1.0% 16 0.5% -9 -36.0% 45 or more minutes 96 3.8% 139 4.3% 43 44.8% Mean Travel Time (minutes) 17.6 17.9 0.3 2.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

362 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.6 Nonagricultural Employment in Woods Cross by Industry, 1990–2005

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 2,969 100.0% 3,022 100.0% 2,821 100.0% 2,940 100.0% 3,101 100.0% 3,032 100.0% 3,363 100.0% 3,321 100.0% 3,314 100.0% 3,241 100.0% 2,625 100.0% Mining 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% D D D D D D D D Construction 283 9.5% 263 8.7% 247 8.8% 327 11.1% 367 11.8% 326 10.8% 379 11.3% 435 13.1% 400 12.1% 340 10.5% 269 10.2% Manufacturing 301 10.1% 353 11.7% 333 11.8% 348 11.8% 397 12.8% 403 13.3% 428 12.7% 375 11.3% 412 12.4% 406 12.5% 252 9.6% TCPU 202 6.8% 175 5.8% 220 7.8% 227 7.7% 207 6.7% 128 4.2% D D D D 85 3.2% Trade 1,142 38.5% 1,236 40.9% 1,053 37.3% 1,124 38.2% 1,186 38.2% 1,333 44.0% 1,336 39.7% 1,271 38.3% 1,276 38.5% 1,213 37.4% 1,101 41.9% FIRE 78 2.6% 96 3.2% 78 2.8% 88 3.0% 84 2.7% 97 3.2% 103 3.1% 102 3.1% 106 3.2% 99 3.1% 96 3.7% Services 793 26.7% 722 23.9% 676 24.0% 615 20.9% 646 20.8% 694 22.9% 760 22.6% 809 24.4% 770 23.2% 807 24.9% 667 25.4% Government 170 5.7% 177 5.9% 214 7.6% D D D 217 6.5% 216 6.5% 229 6.9% 249 7.7% 115 4.4% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Total Nonagricultural 3,903 100.0% 3,722 100.0% 3,970 100.0% 4,198 100.0% 4,378 100.0% Mining D D D D D Construction 503 12.9% 499 13.4% 572 14.4% 575 13.7% 739 16.9% Manufacturing 441 11.3% 451 12.1% 444 11.2% 467 11.1% 488 11.1% Trade, Transp., Utilities 964 24.7% 1,049 28.2% 1,066 26.9% 1,141 27.2% 1,145 26.2% Information 62 1.6% 129 3.5% 111 2.8% D D Financial Activities 152 3.9% 139 3.7% 178 4.5% 192 4.6% 189 4.3% Prof. & Business Services 312 8.0% 334 9.0% 316 8.0% 407 9.7% 445 10.2% Education & Health Services 353 9.0% 350 9.4% 298 7.5% 298 7.1% 295 6.7% Leisure & Hospitality 490 12.6% 497 13.3% 525 13.2% 522 12.4% 541 12.4% Other Services 141 3.6% 165 4.4% 197 5.0% 236 5.6% 254 5.8% Government 484 12.4% 239 6.4% 263 6.6% 278 6.6% 281 6.4% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 363

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.7 Total Nonagricultural Wages in Woods Cross by Industry, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 SIC Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $79.3 100.0% $87.0 100.0% $84.0 100.0% $86.9 100.0% $95.6 100.0% $92.7 100.0% $114.5 100.0% $100.5 100.0% $96.8 100.0% $96.4 100.0% $74.0 100.0% Mining $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% $0.0 0.0% D D D D D D D D Construction $9.3 11.7% $8.8 10.1% $7.5 8.9% $10.1 11.6% $12.1 12.7% $9.9 10.7% $11.8 10.3% $15.7 15.7% $12.6 13.0% $11.8 12.2% $8.9 12.1% Manufacturing $9.0 11.3% $10.4 12.0% $9.7 11.6% $9.6 11.0% $12.8 13.4% $12.2 13.1% $13.3 11.6% $12.5 12.4% $14.0 14.5% $14.6 15.1% $8.7 11.7% TCPU $7.2 9.0% $6.0 6.9% $7.6 9.1% $7.6 8.8% $7.1 7.4% $4.3 4.7% D D D D $2.9 3.9% Trade $26.4 33.3% $28.9 33.2% $28.6 34.0% $31.3 36.0% $34.1 35.7% $37.4 40.4% $37.6 32.8% $34.5 34.3% $35.5 36.7% $34.2 35.5% $27.9 37.7% FIRE $2.8 3.5% $6.5 7.4% $3.5 4.2% $3.8 4.4% $3.3 3.4% $4.1 4.5% $4.5 3.9% $4.5 4.4% $4.9 5.0% $4.9 5.0% $4.0 5.4% Services $19.7 24.8% $21.4 24.5% $20.4 24.3% $17.9 20.6% $19.7 20.6% $21.9 23.7% $35.2 30.7% $21.8 21.6% $17.8 18.4% $19.0 19.7% $16.9 22.8% Government $5.1 6.4% $5.1 5.8% $6.7 8.0% D D D $6.9 6.0% $7.1 7.1% $7.0 7.2% $7.2 7.4% $3.1 4.2% TCPU = Transportation, Communications, and Public Utilities; FIRE = Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate; D = Not shown to avoid disclosure of individual firm data

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 NAICS Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Total Nonagricultural $130.0 100.0% $113.1 100.0% $121.8 100.0% $134.3 100.0% $142.4 100.0% Mining D D D D D Construction $17.7 13.6% $16.8 14.9% $17.6 14.4% $18.7 13.9% $24.2 17.0% Manufacturing $15.9 12.2% $15.8 14.0% $15.2 12.4% $15.8 11.8% $16.4 11.5% Trade, Transp., Utilities $33.7 25.9% $38.4 34.0% $39.9 32.7% $43.2 32.2% $44.8 31.4% Information $6.7 5.1% $3.9 3.4% $3.8 3.1% D D Financial Activities $6.3 4.9% $5.8 5.2% $7.6 6.2% $8.1 6.0% $9.6 6.8% Prof & Bus Services $11.1 8.5% $11.6 10.3% $11.3 9.3% $15.7 11.7% $17.6 12.4% Edu & Health Services $7.6 5.8% $7.2 6.4% $7.0 5.7% $7.5 5.6% $7.9 5.6% Leisure & Hospitality $5.3 4.1% $5.6 4.9% $5.5 4.5% $5.6 4.2% $5.7 4.0% Other Services $3.6 2.8% $4.1 3.6% $6.2 5.1% $8.9 6.7% $8.1 5.7% Government $22.1 17.0% $7.7 6.8% $7.7 6.4% $8.2 6.1% $8.0 5.6% Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

364 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.8 Employment and Wage Changes in Woods Cross, 1990–2005

Employment Wages 1990–2000 Amount Share Amount† Share Total Nonagricultural -11.6% -6.7% Mining Construction -4.9% 7.5% -3.7% 3.3% Manufacturing -16.3% -5.3% -3.4% 3.5% TCPU -57.9% -52.4% -59.9% -57.0% Trade -3.6% 9.0% 5.8% 13.4% FIRE 23.1% 39.2% 43.3% 53.6% Services -15.9% -4.9% -14.3% -8.1% Government -32.4% -23.5% -38.5% -34.1%

2001–2005 Total Nonagricultural 12.2% 9.5% Mining Construction 46.9% 31.0% 36.5% 24.7% Manufacturing 10.6% -1.4% 3.0% -6.0% Trade, Transp, Utilities 18.8% 5.9% 32.9% 21.3% Information Financial Activities 24.5% 11.0% 51.6% 38.4% Prof & Bus Services 42.7% 27.2% 59.5% 45.6% Edu & Health Services -16.3% -25.4% 4.6% -4.4% Leisure & Hosp 10.4% -1.6% 8.4% -1.0% Other Services 80.1% 60.5% 123.2% 103.8% Government -41.9% -48.2% -63.8% -67.0% †Real change, adjusted for inflation. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah DWS figures

Table 17.9 Woods Cross Location Quotients by Major Sector, 1990–2005

SIC Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 2.23 1.79 1.67 1.86 1.77 1.56 1.51 1.63 1.45 1.25 1.24 Manufacturing 0.81 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.92 0.91 0.89 0.84 0.95 0.98 0.79 TCPU 1.68 1.42 2.16 2.26 1.94 1.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 Trade 1.63 1.67 1.50 1.52 1.52 1.70 1.52 1.51 1.51 1.48 1.64 FIRE 1.21 1.24 0.94 0.85 0.67 0.80 0.76 0.75 0.79 0.83 1.06 Services 1.55 1.39 1.37 1.15 1.10 1.16 1.09 1.19 1.13 1.18 1.19 Government 0.16 0.17 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.17

NAICS Industry 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mining 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction 1.59 1.77 1.88 1.70 1.96 Manufacturing 1.00 1.07 0.97 0.99 1.01 Trade, Transp, Utilities 1.15 1.34 1.31 1.30 1.32 Information 1.85 3.37 2.82 0.00 0.00 Financial Activities 1.03 1.04 1.13 1.11 1.06 Prof & Bus Services 1.01 1.04 0.92 1.10 1.06 Edu & Health Services 1.05 1.10 0.84 0.80 0.75 Leisure & Hosp 1.40 1.51 1.48 1.40 1.39 Other Services 1.30 1.49 1.65 1.89 2.04 Government 0.48 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.26 Note: Values greater than 1.00 indicate local specialization relative to the county. Source: BEBR calculations based on Utah Department of Workforce Services data.

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 365

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.10 Major Employers in Woods Cross, 1990–2007

Company Industry 1990–91 100–199 Employees Phillips 66 Refinery Manufacturing

50–99 Employees RMT Properties Manufacturing Sweet Thanks Manufacturing Benchmark Regional Hospital Service Industries IHC Central Laundry (Intermountain Health Care) Service Industries

1995–96 100–199 Employees Phillips 66 Refinery Manufacturing Murdock Chevrolet Retail Trade Benchmark Regional Hospital Service Industries

50–99 Employees Moss Industrial Construction Mountain States Construction Construction Westcon/Blue Spruce Construction Construction Crysen Refinery Manufacturing Pipe Fabricating & Supply Manufacturing Jack B. Kelley Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Denny’s Retail Trade

2000 200–299 Employees Utah Auto Auction Wholesale Trade

100–199 Employees Phillips 66 Refinery Manufacturing Murdock Chevrolet Retail Trade Bountiful Psych Hospital Service Industries Woods Cross High School Service Industries

50–99 Employees Greene Concrete Cutting Construction Industries Linford Glass/I Tek dba Peak Profiles Manufacturing Pipe Fabricating & Supply Manufacturing RB’s Interstate Retail Trade

2005 100–249 Employees Holly Refining and Marketing Co. Manufacturing Utah Auto Auction Wholesale Trade Murdock Chevrolet Retail Trade Davis County School District Educational Services Benchmark Regional Hospital Health Care and Social Assistance

366 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.10 Major Employers in Woods Cross, 1990–2007, cont’d.

Company Industry 2005 50–99 Employees Greene Concrete Cutting Construction Farnes Enterprises Corp Wholesale Trade Kmart Corp Retail Trade Consulmed LLC Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Zachry Construction Corp Other Services (except Public Administration)

2007 250–499 Employees Zachry Construction Corp Other Services (except Public Administration)

100–249 Employees Greene Concrete Cutting Construction Murdock Chevrolet Retail Trade Benchmark Regional Hospital Health Care and Social Assistance Intermountain Health Care Other Services (except Public Administration)

50–99 Employees AP and F Construction Construction Westcon/Blue Spruce Construction Construction Holly Corporation Manufacturing Holly Payroll Services Manufacturing Pipe Fabricating & Supply Manufacturing Kmart Corp Retail Trade Consulmed LLC Professional, Scientific and Technical Services Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 367

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.11 Occupational Distribution by Sex for Civilian Residents of Woods Cross, 2000

Occupation Total Male Female Management, professional, and related occupations 27.4% 29.3% 24.8% Management, business, and financial operations occupations 12.3% 14.9% 8.8% Management occupations, except farmers and farm managers 7.0% 10.4% 2.5% Farmers and farm managers 1.0% 1.7% 0.0% Business and financial operations occupations 4.3% 2.8% 6.3% Business operations specialists 2.3% 0.8% 4.2% Financial specialists 2.0% 1.9% 2.1% Professional and related occupations 15.1% 14.4% 16.0% Computer and mathematical occupations 3.5% 5.2% 1.2% Architecture and engineering occupations 2.4% 3.2% 1.3% Architects, surveyors, cartographers, and engineers 1.8% 3.2% 0.0% Drafters, engineering, and mapping technicians 0.6% 0.0% 1.3% Life, physical, and social science occupations 1.1% 1.8% 0.0% Community and social services occupations 0.9% 0.8% 1.2% Legal occupations 0.4% 0.3% 0.6% Education, training, and library occupations 3.0% 0.3% 6.7% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations 1.7% 2.1% 1.0% Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations 2.2% 0.8% 4.0% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners and technical occupations 1.5% 0.0% 3.5% Health technologists and technicians 0.7% 0.8% 0.5% Service occupations 13.4% 8.5% 20.0% Healthcare support occupations 0.8% 0.0% 1.9% Protective service occupations 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% Fire fighting, prevention, and law enforcement workers, including supervisors 0.5% 0.9% 0.0% Other protective service occupations, including supervisors 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Food preparation and serving related occupations 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations 3.5% 3.0% 4.1% Personal care and service occupations 4.4% 0.4% 9.8% Sales and office occupations 34.4% 24.8% 47.5% Sales and related occupations 11.5% 9.8% 13.8% Office and administrative support occupations 22.9% 15.0% 33.6% Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% Construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations 10.4% 17.0% 1.5% Construction and extraction occupations 6.7% 11.7% 0.0% Supervisors, construction and extraction workers 1.7% 2.9% 0.0% Construction trades workers 5.1% 8.8% 0.0% Extraction workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 3.7% 5.3% 1.5% Production, transportation, and material-moving occupations 14.2% 20.4% 5.8% Production occupations 7.3% 9.1% 4.8% Transportation and material-moving occupations 6.9% 11.3% 1.0% Supervisors, transportation and material-moving workers 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Aircraft and traffic control occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Motor vehicle operators 2.6% 4.2% 0.4% Rail, water and other transportation occupations 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Material-moving workers 4.3% 7.0% 0.6% Source: BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau data

368 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 17.4 Woods Cross Retail Sales by Major Sector, 1990–2005

(millions of constant 2005 dollars) Building & General Motor Vehicle Apparel & Eating & Food Stores Furniture Miscellaneous Total Garden Merchandise Dealers Accessory Drinking Retail Year Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share Amount Share 1990 $1.8 1.9% $83.4 90.4% $0.016 0.0% $0.6 0.6% $6.2 6.7% $0.3 0.3% $92.2 1991 $0.5 0.6% $75.8 91.5% $0.6 0.7% $5.7 6.9% $0.2 0.3% $82.9 1992 $1.6 1.8% $82.6 90.5% $0.4 0.5% $6.5 7.2% $0.1 0.1% $91.3 1993 $2.4 2.1% $101.9 89.8% $0.5 0.5% $8.0 7.0% $0.6 0.6% $113.4 1994 $3.1 2.5% $111.6 89.8% $0.8 0.6% $7.6 6.1% $1.2 1.0% $124.3 1995 $2.7 2.1% $112.0 89.0% $2.2 1.8% $8.0 6.3% $1.1 0.8% $125.9 1996 $3.2 2.5% $2.6 2.1% $113.6 89.5% $0.056 0.0% $7.3 5.7% $0.3 0.2% $126.9 1997 $11.1 9.3% $2.8 2.4% $95.6 80.7% $1.6 1.3% $6.6 5.6% $0.8 0.6% $118.5 1998 $6.5 5.5% $1.4 1.2% $95.8 81.0% $7.2 6.1% $6.5 5.5% $0.7 0.6% $118.3 1999 $1.0 0.8% $107.7 86.0% $9.2 7.4% $6.4 5.1% $0.8 0.7% $125.3 2000 $1.0 0.9% $2.8 2.4% $106.3 89.0% $1.6 1.4% $6.4 5.3% $1.2 1.0% $119.4 2001 $3.4 2.5% $123.6 90.7% $0.082 0.1% $0.7 0.5% $6.3 4.6% $2.1 1.5% $136.2 2002 $3.6 2.4% $134.1 91.6% $0.077 0.1% $0.059 0.0% $6.4 4.4% $2.2 1.5% $146.4 2003 $3.4 2.4% $129.7 91.3% $0.3 0.2% $6.5 4.6% $2.2 1.6% $142.1 2004 $9.9 6.3% $3.6 2.3% $133.7 84.4% $1.7 1.1% $6.5 4.1% $2.8 1.8% $158.3 2005 $12.1 7.6% $5.1 3.2% $129.4 81.6% $1.5 0.9% $6.8 4.3% $3.7 2.3% $158.6 Change 283.0% 206.6% 186.6% 66.6% 55.2% -9.8% 397.1% 213.0% 161.7% 52.2% 9.5% -36.3% 1288.6% 707.2% 72.0% Source: Utah State Tax Commission

$160

$140

$120

Misc ellaneous $100 Eating & Drinking Furniture

$80 Apparel & Ac c essory Motor Vehicle Dealers Food Stores $60 General Merchandise Building & Garden Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars $40

$20

$0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 369

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Exhibit 17.5 Woods Cross Tax Revenues by Major Source, 1990-2005

$2.00

$1.75 Property Taxes Sales and Use Taxes

$1.50

$1.25

$1.00

$0.75

$0.50

$0.25 Millions 2005 of Dollars Constant

$0.00

0 2 4 6 8 1 2 3 4 5 9 9 9 0 0 991 993 9 995 9 997 9 000 0 0 199 1 199 1 1 1 1 1 1 1999 2 200 2 200 2 200 Year

(constant 2005 dollars) Property Fee in Sales and Total Tax Year Taxes* Lieu Use Taxes Revenue† 1990 $361,838 $1,183,367 $1,641,088 1991 $629,535 $1,165,419 $1,870,855 1992 $476,196 $1,108,166 $1,684,956 1993 $518,905 $37,205 $1,328,291 $1,958,444 1994 $476,221 $46,964 $1,209,473 $1,809,328 1995 $491,489 $44,283 $1,449,709 $2,125,684 1996 $510,975 $54,516 $1,454,564 $2,199,165 1997 $600,793 $55,001 $1,417,164 $2,243,746 1998 $541,655 $58,218 $1,462,687 $2,322,529 1999 $578,817 $46,359 $1,544,193 $2,476,883 2000 $562,021 $34,914 $1,590,515 $2,414,044 2001 $589,142 $37,616 $1,624,071 $2,562,853 2002 $816,915 $37,006 $1,795,083 $2,825,630 2003 $756,727 $41,733 $1,788,761 $2,832,907 2004 $897,079 $46,985 $1,672,436 $2,761,855 2005 $896,631 $1,732,089 $2,866,668 Change 147.8% 26.3% 46.4% 74.7% *Includes fee in lieu. †Greater than sum of parts because total includes additional taxes not shown here. Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances

370 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.12 Detailed Breakdown of Woods Cross Tax Revenues for Selected Years

Current Constant Per Source Share Dollars ’05 Dollars Capita 1990 $1,641,088 Property Taxes General Fund $160,705 $243,074 14.8% Other $78,519 $118,764 7.2% Total Property Taxes $239,224 $361,838 $67.21 22.0% Municipal General Sales and Use Tax $782,367 $1,183,367 $219.79 72.1% Public Utility Franchise Tax $2,255 $3,411 0.2% Building Permits $33,472 $50,628 3.1% Other Licenses and Permits $27,665 $41,845 2.5% Total Tax Revenues $1,084,983 $1,641,088 $304.81 100.0%

2000 $2,976,065 Property Taxes General Fund $222,976 $253,718 10.5% Redevelopment Agency $240,263 $273,389 11.3% Fee in Lieu $30,684 $34,914 1.4% Total Property Taxes $493,923 $562,021 $87.56 23.3% Sales and Use Tax $1,397,798 $1,590,515 $247.78 65.9% Franchise Tax $5,805 $6,605 0.3% Resort or Hotel Tax $27,683 $31,500 1.3% Building Permits $177,718 $202,220 8.4% Other Licenses and Permits $18,616 $21,183 0.9% Total Tax Revenues $2,121,543 $2,414,044 $376.08 100.0%

2005 Property Taxes All property taxes not separately listed below $371,296 13.0% RDA Increment $525,335 18.3% Total Property Taxes $896,631 $103.35 31.3% Local Sales Taxes General Sales Tax—Local Option $1,707,379 59.6% Transient Room Tax $24,710 0.9% Total Sales Taxes $1,732,089 $199.64 60.4% Franchise Taxes Telephone Franchise Tax $57,911 2.0% Cable TV Franchise Tax $9,197 0.3% Licenses, Fees, and Permits Business License Fees $23,481 0.8% Building Permit Fees $147,359 5.1% Total Tax Revenues $2,866,668 $330.41 100.0% Source: The University of Utah, Center for Public Policy & Administration, Survey of Local Government Finances; BEBR calculations based on U.S. Census Bureau and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget population figures

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 371

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.13 Woods Cross Assessed Values by Property Type, 1997 & 2006

1997 2006 Change Value* Share Value Share in Value Residential Real Estate—Primary Use Land $22,068,832 7.1% $54,685,498 12.3% 147.8% Buildings $84,738,153 27.3% $152,748,709 34.4% 80.3% Total $106,806,985 34.4% $207,434,207 46.7% 94.2%

Commercial & Industrial Real Estate Land $26,353,815 8.5% $69,685,901 15.7% 164.4% Buildings $63,978,486 20.6% $100,515,627 22.7% 57.1% Total $90,332,301 29.1% $170,201,528 38.4% 88.4%

Agricultural Real Estate Land $224,129 0.1% $104,734 0.0% -53.3% Buildings $379,678 0.1% $244,277 0.1% -35.7% Total $603,807 0.2% $349,011 0.1% -42.2%

Unimproved Nonagricultural Real Estate Land $8,876,694 2.9% $1,379,814 0.3% -84.5%

Total Land & Buildings $206,783,940 66.5% $393,689,819 88.7% 90.4% Total Personal Property $44,622,813 14.4% $40,740,038 9.2% -8.7% Total Locally Assessed $251,406,753 80.9% $434,429,857 97.9% 72.8% Total Other (fee in lieu + centrally assessed) $59,427,213 19.1% $9,298,784 2.1% -84.4% Area Total $310,833,966 100.0% $443,728,641 100.0% 42.8% *Constant 2006 dollars. Source: Davis County Assessor’s Office

Table 17.14 Woods Cross Housing Profile: 2006

Category Amount Total Housing Units 2,875 Vacant Units 85 Total Occupied Units 2,790 Owner Occupied 2,255 Vacant Owner Units 60 Total Owner Units 2,315 Renter Occupied 535 Vacant Rental Units 25 Total Rental Units 560 Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah; U.S. Census Bureau; Wasatch Front Regional Listing Service; and NewReach.

372 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Figure 17.1 Total Residential Building Permits Issued in Woods Cross, 1990–2006 250

200

150

Permits 100

50

0 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Year

Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

Table 17.15 Residential Building Permits Issued in Woods Cross by Type of Structure, 1990–2006

Single- Duplexes Apartments (3 Manufactured / Value* Year Family and Twin Condos† Total or more units) Mobile Homes (000) Homes Homes 1990 7 0 0 0 7 $582.2 1991 8 0 0 0 8 $631.1 1992 13 1 0 0 14 $1,205.0 1993 8 0 0 0 0 8 $1,016.1 1994 23 0 0 0 0 23 $1,736.0 1995 22 0 0 0 1 23 $1,580.6 1996 27 2 0 0 0 29 $2,337.9 1997 83 0 0 0 0 83 $5,989.9 1998 83 0 0 0 1 84 $6,213.4 1999 55 0 0 0 0 55 $4,675.0 2000 128 0 0 0 2 130 $11,528.0 2001 169 0 0 0 0 169 $15,182.4 2002 191 0 0 0 0 191 $20,731.5 2003 160 0 6 0 0 166 $17,937.8 2004 74 0 6 0 0 80 $9,748.1 2005 63 2 0 4 1 70 $10,960.7 2006 60 0 10 0 1 71 $12,045.1 †Prior to 1993, condo permits were included with apartment permits. *Current dollars. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 373

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.16 Median Price of New Homes in Woods Cross, 2004–06

Home Price Range* 2004 2005 2006 Under $99,999 0 0 0 $100,000–$124,999 0 0 0 $125,000–$149,999 1 0 0 $150,000–$174,999 73 42 8 $175,000–$199,999 0 0 10 $200,000 and Above 0 0 0 Total New Home Sales 74 42 18 Median Price* $162,328 $162,500 $177,500 *Current dollars. Source: NewReach

Table 17.17 Median and Average Sales Price of Existing Homes in Woods Cross, 1997–2006

Median Average Number Year Price Price of Units 1997 $135,450 $138,534 27 1998 $131,750 $129,932 35 1999 $142,500 $138,804 36 2000 $146,600 $146,077 74 2001 $149,900 $148,217 100 2002 $153,573 $150,636 81 2003 $163,000 $163,491 118 2004 $169,900 $171,284 156 2005 $174,900 $175,974 130 2006 $209,500 $204,004 129 Note: Prices are in current dollars. Source: Wasatch Front Regional Multiple Listing Service

374 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.18 Value of Permit-Authorized Nonresidential Construction in Woods Cross, 1994–2006 (thousands of current dollars)

Amusement Churches Retail, Additions Hotels & Manufacturing Hospital & Office, Bank, Public Total Year & & Other Mercantile, Other & Motels & Warehouse Institutional Professional Buildings Recreation Religious Restaurant Alterations nominal real* 1994 $1,980.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $742.8 $2,722.8 $4,555.2 1995 $1,748.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,401.4 $0.0 $51.4 $167.3 $0.0 $625.4 $646.4 $5,639.9 $9,090.3 1996 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $363.8 $0.0 $527.3 $493.6 $64.1 $1,461.4 $237.4 $3,147.6 $4,942.7 1997 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,098.9 $0.0 $1,599.4 $577.5 $0.0 $815.5 $647.5 $4,738.8 $7,157.8 1998 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $698.8 $928.6 $0.0 $251.8 $116.8 $1,996.0 $2,883.1 1999 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $261.2 $0.0 $0.0 $1,029.9 $785.7 $2,076.8 $2,889.3 2000 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $343.9 $0.0 $67.5 $240.0 $600.6 $0.0 $529.1 $1,781.1 $2,373.8 2001 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $439.6 $0.0 $1,224.5 $70.0 $0.0 $302.2 $757.6 $2,793.9 $3,614.3 2002 $0.0 $0.0 $1,342.2 $200.4 $0.0 $753.5 $587.8 $0.0 $499.9 $83.7 $3,467.5 $4,442.2 2003 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $2,592.6 $0.0 $508.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,301.5 $232.4 $4,634.5 $5,918.1 2004 $0.0 $0.0 $1,136.4 $1,399.0 $0.0 $670.7 $646.3 $0.0 $1,097.3 $650.5 $5,600.2 $6,780.1 2005 $0.0 $1,207.8 $0.0 $888.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $875.0 $790.4 $3,762.0 $4,160.8 2006 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $157.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $58.7 $924.4 $207.8 $1,347.9 $1,347.9 Total $3,728.0 $1,207.8 $2,478.6 $9,885.4 $0.0 $6,362.3 $3,711.1 $723.4 $9,184.3 $6,428.1 $43,709.0 $60,155.7 *Values are in constant 2006 dollars, calculated using the Turner Building Cost Index. Source: Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah

B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH 375

The Changing Economic Structure and Current Baseline of Davis County and Municipalities

Table 17.19 Acres Platted for Residential Subdivisions and Commercial Development in Woods Cross, 1990–2006

Year Residential Commercial 1990 16.49 0.00 1991 4.41 0.00 1992 1.82 0.00 1993 0.00 0.00 1994 13.97 9.14 1995 8.45 15.46 1996 1.81 1.43 1997 59.92 2.82 1998 7.77 3.70 1999 31.53 16.36 2000 69.86 6.15 2001 48.46 0.98 2003 57.44 10.90 2002 14.09 12.89 2004 0.00 0.00 2005 3.54 1.55 2006 25.22 17.12 Total 343.88 98.50 Source: Davis County Department of Community and Economic Development

376 B UREAU OF E CONOMIC AND B USINESS R ESEARCH