46
Delta County Economic Assessment Prepared by: Better City
Delta County Economic Assessment
Prepared by: Better City
Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Demographics and Employment ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Revenues and Wages ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Industries ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Local Economic Model ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 County Residents ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Workforce ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Industry .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Revenues, Wages, and Transfers .................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Industry Cluster Analysis ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Shift Share Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 Employment Location Quotient Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Industry Cluster Matrix Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix A: Stakeholder Interviews ................................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Figure 1: Delta County Population 2000-‐2013 ................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: Delta County Net Migration and Job Change 2002-‐2013 ................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3: Delta Population Change by Community 2001-‐2013 .......................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Median Age 2000-‐2013 ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Figure 5: Delta County Population by Age 2000-‐2012 ....................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 6: Delta County Population by Age 2014 ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 7: Colorado Population by Age 2014 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 8: Delta County Population by Ethnicity 2013 ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 9: Colorado Population by Ethnicity 2013 ............................................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 10: Delta County Population 18-‐64 by Gender 2000-‐2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 11: Delta County Labor Force Participation 2010-‐2013 .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 12: Colorado Labor Force Participation 2010-‐2013 ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 13: Delta County Labor Force Educational Attainment 2013 ................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 14: Colorado Labor Force Educational Attainment 2013 ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 15: Educational Attainment by Community 2013 ................................................................................................................................................. 10 Figure 16: Delta County Employment 2004-‐2014 ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 17: Colorado Employment 2004-‐2014 ................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 18: Unemployment 2004-‐2014 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 19: Delta County Work from Home 2009-‐2013 .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 20: Delta County Jobs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 21: Delta County Active Business Registrations by Community 2014 .................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 22: Delta County Active Business Registrations through 2014 ............................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 23: Delta County Jobs by Industry 2014 ................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 24: Delta County Basic Industry Jobs ..................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 25: Jobs by Industry – City of Delta ........................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 26: Jobs by Industry -‐ Cedaredge ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 27: Jobs by Industry – Orchard City ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 28: Jobs by Industry – Hotchkiss/Crawford ........................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 29: Jobs by Industry – Paonia ................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 30: Delta County Gross Sales 2009-‐2013 ............................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 31: Delta County Total Payroll by Industry 2014 ................................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 32: Delta County Shift Share 2001-‐2014 ................................................................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 33: Delta County Regional Share 2001-‐2010 ......................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 34: Delta County Regional Share 2010-‐2014 ......................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 35: Delta County Location Quotients 2014 ............................................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 36: Better City Industry Cluster Matrix Variables .................................................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 37: Industry Matrix Quadrants ............................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 38: Delta County Cluster Matrix 2001-‐2010 .......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 39: Delta County Cluster Matrix 2010-‐2014 .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 40: Agriculture and Food Processing 2001-‐2010 ................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 41: Agriculture and Food Processing 2010-‐2014 ................................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 42: Construction and Manufacturing 2001-‐2010 .................................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 43: Construction and Manufacturing 2010-‐2014 .................................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 44: Retail and Wholesale Trade 2001-‐2010 ........................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 45: Retail and Wholesale Trade 2010-‐2014 ........................................................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 46: Tourism 2001-‐2010 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 47: Tourism 2010-‐2014 .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 48: Government 2001-‐2010 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 49: Government 2010-‐2014 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 50: Health Care and Social Assistance 2001-‐2010 ................................................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 51: Health Care and Social Assistance 2010-‐2014 ................................................................................................................................................. 37 Figure 52: Other Business Activity 2001-‐2010 .................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 53: Other Business Activity 2001-‐2010 .................................................................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 54: Delta County Economic Strengths ................................................................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 55: Delta County Economic Challenges ................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Figure 56: Delta County Economic Opportunities ............................................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 57: Delta County Stakeholder Interview Word Cloud ........................................................................................................................................... 42 Table 1: Delta County Employment Overview 2014 ......................................................................................................................................................... 12 Table 2: Delta County Export/Local Gross Sales 2013 (000s) ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 3: Delta County Income from Work 2014 (000s) .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Table 4: Personal Transfers and Other Income 2013 (000s) ............................................................................................................................................ 20
1
Disclaimer
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, Better City, LLC, its members, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it.
2
Executive Summary In the past year, Delta County (the “County”) has seen slight improvements to its economy following several years of little to no growth. In 2009, along with much of the nation, many local jobs were lost and output declined. Additionally, recent declines in mining reduced a major source of high paying jobs for the County. During this time agriculture has been a key driver of the local economy, remaining relatively consistent despite declines in a number of other industries. A viable economic strategy for the County will need to identify the best ways to leverage the strength of the agriculture industry to provide additional, higher wage jobs and identify other areas to diversify the local economy.
This report provides an assessment of the current state of the County’s economy. Subsequent reports will include forward-‐looking market analysis, in depth comparisons between the County and other comparable counties in the region, and recommended action items.
Demographics and Employment The County experienced steady population growth until 2010 primarily driven by migration, but large out-‐migrations in 2011 and 2013 countered some of that growth. The annual population growth rate for this period was 0.4% while the statewide growth rate was 1.5%. The median age in the County increased from 42.7 in 2000 to 46.9 in 2013 and is significantly higher than the state average of 36.8.
Labor force participation in the County of 65% is on par with the statewide level of 66%. Unemployment has steadily declined from a high in 2010 of almost 10% to approximately 6% today. This is higher than the statewide average of 5.2%.
The most prominent industries in the County in terms of number of jobs are public education, agriculture, retail trade and health services. Industries that require easy access to thoroughfares such as transportation and warehousing and wholesale trade are poorly represented in the County. Other industries that employ few residents include information and arts, entertainment, and recreation.
Agriculture provides the largest number of direct basic jobs, which bring in revenue from outside the County. Mining, retail trade, and health services also provide a number of direct basic jobs to the County.
Revenues and Wages Revenues for local businesses declined slightly between 2010 and 2011 and have since remained flat. The most prominent industries in the County based on payroll are government (including public education) and mining. Health services and retail trade also play a significant role. Although agriculture provides a large number of jobs to the region, its contributions to payroll are far less significant.
Exports of goods and services (including tourism) are estimated to contribute $287M to the local economy. Personal transfers such as social security benefits and investment income are estimated to contribute another $483M. Social security comprises 41.6% of these transfers in the County versus 34.3% for the state as a whole. Net commuter income is a $131M inflow to the County due to a large number of residents who commute out of the County to work at the West Elk mine and elsewhere. Wages and personal transfers combine for a total personal income of $604M, or $19,729 per capita.
3
Industries The industries that have been key drivers for the economy from 2001-‐2013 have been agriculture, government, including public education, and mining. Government and mining were especially important from 2001-‐2010 due to their job growth and above average total payroll. Both of these industries declined from 2010-‐2014, which is concerning, as it likely put significant strain on the economy. Potential emerging industries with room for growth include information and recreation. An economic development strategy for the County should address the declining employment in major industries by expanding emerging industries and identifying ways to increase the economic impact of the agriculture industry.
4
Local Economic Model A simplified model of a local economy identifies the key flows of labor, capital, and goods and services. The figure below depicts those flows, and quantifies those for which data is available. The local residents (D) provide labor (F) to local industries (H, I) and receive wages (E) in return. In addition to those who live and work in the County, some labor commutes into (K) or out of (B) the County in exchange for wages that flow out of (L) or into (C) the County respectively. Local industry can be separated into two groups: Direct
Basic industries (H) that export goods and services outside of the County and Non-‐Basic Industries (I) that primarily provide goods and services to local residents. Basic industry exports are the key source of outside revenue (J) for the local economy. Such revenue is necessary for the local economy to be able to import goods and services that are not produced inside the County. Finally, transfers of capital (A) into the economy include government transfers such as Social Security and investment income. Transfers out of the economy include savings, contributions for government social insurance, and taxes.
D. County Residents – 30,595 Total | 16,111 Labor Force
Local Industry H. Direct Basic 4,865 Jobs
I. Non-‐Basic 7,780 Jobs
Transfers Out
B. Com
mute Out
3,586 pp
l
Paym
ent
Out
J. Paym
ent In
$28
7M
G. Paym
ent $349M
E. W
ages
$4
73M
F. Labor 11,546 ppl
Goods/Services
In
Goo
ds/Service
s Goo
ds/Services
In
Goods/Services
Out
K. Com
mute In
696 pp
l
Payment
Out
A. Transfers In $483M
L. Wages
$27M
C. Wages
$131M
5
County Residents Population is a key component of a local economy’s productive capacity. An increase in the size or skill level of the local labor force typically increases the output of the economy. However, because the local population also represents the consumers of economic output, an increase in population size does not necessarily equate to a betterment of local economic conditions. For this to occur, output needs to outpace population growth.
The population of Delta County is estimated to be 30,595 (See item D on Page 4). The County experienced steady population growth until 2010 primarily driven by migration increase as shown in Figure 1 below. Two recent years had significant out migration, 2011 with over 500 residents leaving and 2013 with over 100 residents leaving.
Source: DOLA
Figure 1: Delta County Population 2000-‐2013
Figure 2 depicts net migration and the net increase or decrease in jobs. Net migration mirrored job change until 2005, when the two moved in opposite directions. It is unclear what caused the significant drop in migration in 2005. After that point, net migration has tended to lag job change by one or two years.
Source DOLA
Figure 2: Delta County Net Migration and Job Change 2002-‐2013
Figure 3 below depicts population change by community. Most of the growth in recent years has occurred in Paonia, with the city of Delta and unincorporated parts of the County seeing population declines.
Natural'Popula+on'Increase'
Net'Migra+on'
Popula+on'
!600
!400
!200
0
200
400
600
26,000
26,500
27,000
27,500
28,000
28,500
29,000
29,500
30,000
30,500
31,000
31,500
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Popu
la4o
n6Ch
ange
Popu
la4o
n
Net$Migra*on$
Job$Change$
!600
!400
!200
0
200
400
600
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
6
Source: DOLA
Figure 3: Delta Population Change by Community 2001-‐2013
Delta County’s median age has increased from 42.7 in 2000 to 46.9 in 2013 and is well above the state average as shown in Figure 4 below. As shown in Figure 5, this increase in median age is primarily tied to the increase in people aged 45-‐74.
Source: DOLA
Figure 4: Median Age 2000-‐2013
Source: DOLA
Figure 5: Delta County Population by Age 2000-‐2012
Delta&Unincorp.&Area&
City&of&Delta&
Orchard&City&Cedaredge&
Paonia&
Hotchkiss&
Crawford&
!300
!200
!100
0
100
200
300
400
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Colorado'
Delta'County'
30.0
32.0
34.0
36.0
38.0
40.0
42.0
44.0
46.0
48.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0"to"17"
18"to"24"
25"to"44"
45"to"64"
65"to"74"
75"to"90"
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
7
The median age is significantly higher than that of the State due to a high concentration of individuals aged 50-‐69 as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 below. This is coupled with a low concentration of individuals aged 20-‐49. These demographics are a potential area of future concern because as individuals in the County retire, there are currently not enough new workers to replace them. However, as has already been discussed, net migration has tended to follow job growth, so an increase in available jobs could attract new residents to the County.
Source DOLA
Figure 6: Delta County Population by Age 2014
Source: DOLA
Figure 7: Colorado Population by Age 2014
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0)to)4
5)to)9
10)to
)14
15)to
)19
20)to
)24
25)to
)29
30)to
)34
35)to
)39
40)to
)44
45)to
)49
50)to
)54
55)to
)59
60)to
)64
65)to
)69
70)to
)74
75)to
)79
80)to
)84
85)to
)89
90+
0%#1%#2%#3%#4%#5%#6%#7%#8%#
0#to#4#
5#to#9#
10#to
#14#
15#to
#19#
20#to
#24#
25#to
#29#
30#to
#34#
35#to
#39#
40#to
#44#
45#to
#49#
50#to
#54#
55#to
#59#
60#to
#64#
65#to
#69#
70#to
#74#
75#to
#79#
80#to
#84#
85#to
#89#
90+#
8
Source: DOLA Figure 8: Delta County Population by Ethnicity 2013
Source: ACS 5-‐year Estimate Figure 9: Colorado Population by Ethnicity 2013
As shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9, the County population is more ethnically homogeneous than the State as a whole. As shown in Figure 10 below, the working age population is evenly split between males and females.
Source: DOLA
Figure 10: Delta County Population 18-‐64 by Gender 2000-‐2013
Hispanic(14%(
Non.Hispanic(White(83%(
Non.Hispanic(Other(3%(
Hispanic(21%(
Non.Hispanic(White(70%(
Non.Hispanic(Other(9%(
Male%
Female%
Age%18,64%
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
9
Workforce The County labor force consists of those individuals (typically 16 or older) who are either employed or actively seeking employment. As shown in Figure 11 below, the portion of the County population in the labor force is an estimated 65% in 2014. This is higher than the 10 year low of 62% in 2004, but lower than the high of 69% in 2009. Delta County labor force participation is on par with statewide averages.
Source: DOLA, BLS
Figure 11: Delta County Labor Force Participation 2010-‐2013
Source: DOLA, BLS
Figure 12: Colorado Labor Force Participation 2010-‐2013
As shown in Figure 13, 56% of the County’s labor force, has attended at least some college and 21% have earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. These levels of educational attainment are below than state averages of 73% and 41% respectively (Figure 14). Educational attainment levels are slightly higher in Paonia and Cedaredge than the rest of the County as seen in Figure 15.
Labor&&Force&
Popula.on&16+&
62%$
65%$
67%$
69%$
68%$
69%$
66%$
66%$
66%$
63%$
65%$
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Labor&&Force&
Popula.on&16+&
71%$
71%$
72%$
71%$
71%$
70%$
69%$
68%$
67%$
66%$
66%$
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
4,000,000
4,500,000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
10
Source: ACS 5-‐year Estimate
Figure 13: Delta County Labor Force Educational Attainment 2013
Source: ACS 5-‐year Estimate
Figure 14: Colorado Labor Force Educational Attainment 2013
Source: ACS 5-‐year Estimate
Figure 15: Educational Attainment by Community 2013
Less$than$High$School$
Grad$10%$
High$School$Grad$$
(or$equiv.)$34%$Some$
College$35%$
Bachelors$Degree$or$Higher$21%$
Less$than$High$School$
7%$High$School$Grad$(or$equiv.)$20%$
Some$College$32%$
Bachelors$Degree$or$Higher$41%$
24%$ 17%$ 14%$ 14%$26%$
35%$
29%$ 34%$ 38%$
34%$
37%$
37%$ 37%$40%$
32%$
5%$17%$ 15%$ 9%$ 8%$
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cedaredge
Delta
Hotchkiss/Craw
ford
OrchardACity
Paonia
LessAthanAHighASchool
HighAschoolAgraduateA(includesAequivalency)
SomeAcollege
Bachelor'sAdegreeAorAgreater
11
Employment While the size and makeup of the labor force can illustrate the potential of an economy, indicators such as the number of people employed and the unemployment rate illustrate the current state of an economy. Delta saw a significant decline in the number of people employed from 15,984 in 2007 to an estimated 14,487 in 2013, as depicted in Figure 16. There was an uptick in employment of almost 700 individuals between 2013 and 2014 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. There was a sharp increase in the unemployment rate between 2007 and 2010, but since that time the unemployment rate has slowly declined. In contrast to the rest of the State, which saw steady employment growth from 2010 to the present, the County has had a much slower recovery from the recent recession. The unemployment level in the County has been higher than the state average since 2010 as shown in Figure 18. Changes in the unemployment level have moved in parallel with state and national trends.
Source: BLS
Figure 16: Delta County Employment 2004-‐2014
Source: BLS
Figure 17: Colorado Employment 2004-‐2014
Source: BLS
Figure 18: Unemployment 2004-‐2014
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
12,500
13,000
13,500
14,000
14,500
15,000
15,500
16,000
16,500
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Une
mploymen
t*Rate*
Total*Employmen
t*
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
2,250,000
2,300,000
2,350,000
2,400,000
2,450,000
2,500,000
2,550,000
2,600,000
2,650,000
2,700,000
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Une
mploymen
t*Rate*
Total*Employmen
t*
Delta&County&
Colorado&
US&
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
12
Employment statistics provide a useful metric to assess how well the economy is utilizing its labor potential, and the reduction in unemployment since 2010 is a positive sign. Several other components of the labor market not captured in employment data can also provide insight into the health of the local economy.
Figure 19 depicts the percentage of employed individuals in the County who work from home. The decline in working from home over this period is not mirrored statewide. It is difficult to draw conclusions from this data because the total numbers involved are small, so small changes can inaccurately appear to represent large trends. Additional research would be needed to determine the full extent of telework and location neutral employment in the County.
Source: Source: ACS 5-‐year Estimate
Figure 19: Delta County Work from Home 2009-‐2013
Total Jobs Employment data does not capture the impact of workers commuting into or out of the County. It also does not take into account individuals who work multiple jobs. In order to identify the
total number of jobs in the County, these additional components must be considered. Table 1 incorporates data and projections from the State Demography Office, the Department of Reclamation and Mining Safety, the Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics to provide an estimate of the number of commuters into and out of the County, the number of multiple job holders, and the total number of jobs in the County1. The County has a larger number of employed residents than jobs. This gap is explained by a significant net outflow of commuters primarily to neighboring counties.
Source: DOLA, BLS, ACS 5-‐year Estimate, Dept. of Reclamation and Mining Safety
Table 1: Delta County Employment Overview 2014
Since a peak in 2008, the total number of jobs in the County declined sharply until 2010 followed by very slight growth to the present as shown in Figure 20.
1 DOLA projections for 2015 jobs were used to estimate 2014 jobs. Straight-‐line growth was assumed between 2013 and 2015. The resulting estimate was adjusted downward using mine specific data from the Department of Reclamation and Mining Safety to account for recent job losses at the Elk Creek mine.
Delta&County&
Colorado&
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Delta&County Total %Population 30,595
&&Population&16+ 24,917 81.4%
&&&&Labor&Force 16,111 64.7%
&&&&&&Employed 15,133 93.9%&&&&&&&&&&Commute&Out&(see&Item&B&on&Page&4) M3,586 M23.7%
&&&&&&&&&&Commute&In&(see&Item&K&on&Page&4) 696 4.6%
&&&&&&&&Net&Commuters M2,890 M19.1%
&&&&&&&&Multiple&Job&Holders 330 2.2%
&&&&&&Jobs 12,572
13
Source: DOLA, Department of Reclamation and Mining Safety
Figure 20: Delta County Jobs
Figure 21 depicts the total number of active business registrations and number of business registrations per capita by the primary location of business. As one would expect, the majority of the businesses in the County are concentrated in the city of Delta; however, the city of Delta has one of the lowest levels of business licenses per capita. Hotchkiss has the highest number of businesses per capita. Figure 22 shows the number of active business licenses by the initial year of registration. The increase in registrations in recent years is a positive sign, but is partially explained by the fact that expired registrations are not included in this data increasing the expected number of registrations closer to the present.
Source: Colorado Secretary of State
Figure 21: Delta County Active Business Registrations by Community 2014
Source: Colorado Secretary of State
Figure 22: Delta County Active Business Registrations through 2014
10,000
10,500
11,000
11,500
12,000
12,500
13,000
13,500
14,000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
343#77#
775#
273# 248#1#
0.16#0.18#
0.09#
0.30#
0.16#
0.00#0"
0.05"
0.1"
0.15"
0.2"
0.25"
0.3"
0.35"
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Ce
daredge
�Craw
ford
Delta
Hotchkiss
Paon
ia
=Orchard=City
Licenses#per#Cap
ita#
Busine
ss#Licen
ses#
0
50
100
150
200
Pre)1990
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Cedaredge' Crawford' Delta' Hotchkiss' Paonia'
14
Industry An economy needs a diverse mix of industries that both provide for local residents needs and are able to attract outside sources of revenue to be robust, stable, and vibrant.
The most prominent industries in the County in terms of number of jobs are public education, agriculture, retail trade and health services. Figure 23 shows the number of jobs across all major industries for employers located in the County. Industries that require easy access to thoroughfares such as transportation and warehousing and wholesale trade are poorly represented in the County. Other industries that employ few residents include information and arts entertainment and recreation. These industries do not face the same obvious impediments and may have room for growth.
Source: DOLA, Department of Reclamation and Mining Safety
Figure 23: Delta County Jobs by Industry 2014
Industries that export goods and services outside of the County or are able to attract buyers from outside of the County are the key source of external capital for the economy. These direct basic industries typically include natural resource extraction, large-‐scale
26#51#67#143#165#184#196#290#355#374#449#553#579#618#751#761#886#
1,347#1,464#1,470#
1,843#
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
Management
U0li0es
Private7educa0onal7services
Transporta0on7and7warehousing
Arts,7ent.,7and7rec.
Informa0on
Wholesale7trade
Finance7ac0vi0es
Real7estate
Admin7and7waste
Professional7services
Mining
Manufacturing
Public7Administra0on
Construc0on
Accommoda0on7and7food
Other7nonKgovt.7services
Health7services
Retail7trade
Agriculture,7forestry,7and7fishing
Public7Educa0on
15
manufacturing, accommodation, and non-‐local government. Non-‐basic industries that cater to local residents include personal services such as barbers and dry cleaners, grocery stores, primary and secondary education, and local government services. There are a number of hybrid industries that provide goods and services to both local and external customers, such as restaurants that cater to both tourists and locals.
Figure 24 depicts estimates2 of the number of basic and non-‐basic jobs in each industry. The total number of direct basic jobs (see Item H on Page 4) is estimated to be 4,865 and the number of non-‐basic jobs (see Item I on Page 4) is estimated to be 7,708. Agriculture, mining, retail trade and health services provide the largest number of basic jobs in the County. Agriculture is by far the largest direct basic job producer in the County highlighting its key role in bringing outside revenue into the County. Retail trade and health services are typically not large contributors to direct basic jobs and may indicate some individuals commute to Delta County to purchase goods or healthcare. Additional research would need to be conducted to identify the scope of this activity.
2 Direct basic job numbers are derived from job estimates described in footnote 1 and DOLA economic base analysis.
Source: DOLA, Department of Reclamation and Mining Safety Figure 24: Delta County Basic Industry Jobs
Tables 19-‐22 depict the total number of jobs in each industry by community.
Direct'Basic'Jobs'
Non0Basic'Jobs'
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Management U0li0es
Private7educa0onal7services Transporta0on7and7warehousing
Arts,7ent.,7and7rec. Informa0on
Wholesale7trade Finance7ac0vi0es
Real7estate Admin7and7waste
Professional7services Mining
Manufacturing Construc0on
Accommoda0on7and7food Other7nonIgovt.7services
Health7services Retail7trade
Agriculture,7forestry,7and7fishing Government
16
Source: Census County Business Patterns, DOLA
Figure 25: Jobs by Industry – City of Delta
The primary industries in the City of Delta are retail trade, public education, and health services. Agriculture, accommodation, food services, construction and other services are also significant employers in the City.
Source: Census County Business Patterns, DOLA
Figure 26: Jobs by Industry -‐ Cedaredge
Real estate, professional services, and public education are the primary employers in Cedaredge.
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
Management U1li1es
Private8educa1onal8services Arts,8ent.,8and8rec.
Real8estate Transporta1on8and8warehousing
Professional8services Finance8ac1vi1es
Informa1on Admin8and8Waste Wholesale8trade
Mining Manufacturing
Public8administra1on Construc1on
Accommoda1on8and8food Other8nonKgovt8services
Agriculture,8forestry,8and8fishing Health8Services Public8educa1on
Retail8trade
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Wholesale.trade Management
Private.educa;onal.services Arts,.ent.,.and.rec.
U;li;es Informa;on
Admin.and.Waste Other.nonCgovt.services
Mining Manufacturing Construc;on
Finance.ac;vi;es Public.administra;on
Health.Services Accommoda;on.and.food
Agriculture,.forestry,.and.fishing Retail.trade
Public.educa;on Professional.services
Real.estate
17
Source: Census County Business Patterns, DOLA
Figure 27: Jobs by Industry – Orchard City
Orchard City jobs primarily come from public education, agriculture, and public administration.
Source: Census County Business Patterns, DOLA
Figure 28: Jobs by Industry – Hotchkiss/Crawford
The economy in Hotchkiss/Crawford is dominated by agriculture, followed by public education, health services, and retail trade.
0 50
100
150
200
250
Private-educa1onal-services
Wholesale-trade
Real-estate
Transporta1on-and-warehousing
Admin-and-Waste
Health-Services
Retail-trade
Informa1on
Construc1on
Professional-services
Mining
Manufacturing
Public-administra1on
Agriculture,-forestry,-and-fishing
Public-educa1on
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Wholesale/trade Management Informa9on
Other/non;govt/services Private/educa9onal/services
Arts,/ent.,/and/rec. Professional/services
U9li9es Transporta9on/and/warehousing
Real/estate Finance/ac9vi9es
Public/administra9on Manufacturing
Accommoda9on/and/food Mining
Admin/and/Waste Construc9on Retail/trade
Health/Services Public/educa9on
Agriculture,/forestry,/and/fishing
18
Source: Census County Business Patterns, DOLA
Figure 29: Jobs by Industry – Paonia
Paonia jobs are concentrated in miscellaneous services, public education, and agriculture.
Revenues, Wages, and Transfers Export revenues, net personal transfers including government transfers and investment income, and net commuter wages are the three sources of external revenue for the local economy. Net commuter wages, net transfers and payment for imports are the sources of capital outflows. Therefore, the primary strategies to increase the flow of capital to local residents include:
• Expand or add exporting industries • Attract individuals to the community with positive net
personal transfers (retirees, investors) • Attract commuters to live in the community • Reduce imports
Identifying the size and relationship of these inflows and outflows is important in determining the impact of each of these strategies.
Revenue Figure 30 shows gross sales for all industries in the County according to Colorado Department of Revenue data. Revenues for local businesses declined slightly between 2010 and 2011 and have remained flat since.
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Management Real1estate
Private1educa:onal1services Wholesale1trade
Admin1and1Waste Informa:on
Public1administra:on Transporta:on1and1warehousing
Construc:on Manufacturing
Arts,1ent.,1and1rec. Finance1ac:vi:es
Accommoda:on1and1food Mining
Retail1trade Professional1services
Health1Services Agriculture,1forestry,1and1fishing
Public1educa:on Other1nonNgovt1services
19
Source: Colorado Department of Revenue
Figure 30: Delta County Gross Sales 2009-‐2013
Table 2 estimates the portion of revenues attributable to direct basic industries (see Item J on Page 4) and non-‐basic industries (see Item G on Page 4) based upon the percentage of total payroll associated with direct basic jobs3.
Table 2: Delta County Export/Local Gross Sales 2013 (000s)
3 The percentage of total payroll associated with direct basic jobs is the sum of the products of the percentage of each industry’s jobs that are direct basic and that industry’s payroll as a percent of total payroll.
Wages and Other Transfers Figure 31 depicts the total payroll by industry for the County, which equals approximately $500M. The most prominent industries in the County based on payroll are government (including public education) and mining. Health services and retail trade also play a significant role. Although agriculture provides a large number of jobs to the region, its contributions to payroll are far less significant.
Source: BEA
Figure 31: Delta County Total Payroll by Industry 2014
Gross%Sales%(000s)%%
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2013Gross)Sales $635,295
Basic)Industry)Payroll)=)%)of)Total 45.1%
Export)Sales $286,728Local)Sales $348,567
Total&Payroll&(000s)&
0 40,000 80,000 120,000
Private/Educa4onal/services Arts,/ent.,/and/rec.
Management Real/estate
U4li4es Informa4on
Admin/and/waste Transporta4on/and/warehousing
Wholesale/trade Professional/services
Finance/ac4vi4es Accommoda4on/and/food
Agriculture,/Forestry,/and/Fishing Manufacturing Construc4on
Other/nonKgovt./services Retail/Trade
Health/Services Mining
Government
20
Table 3 below identifies the how local industry payroll is distributed to individuals inside and outside of the County (see Items E and L on Page 4). It also identifies wages for local residents who work outside of the County (see Item C on Page 4). Due to the large number of workers who commute out, net commuter wages are positive, representing an inflow of approximately $104M.
Table 3: Delta County Income from Work 2014 (000s)
Table 4 below lists personal transfers (see Item A on Page 4) including government transfers such as social security, non-‐profit transfers, and business transfers such as company retirement plans. It also lists investment income including dividends, interest, and rent. These transfers are a significant driver in the local economy amounting to approximately $483M, which is approximately 2/3 the size of local employment income. Social security comprises 41.6% of these transfers in the County vs 34.3% for the state as a whole.
Table 4: Personal Transfers and Other Income 2013 (000s)
2014Employee,Payroll $382,498
Proprietor,Income $117,054
Total,Payroll $499,553Wages,to,local,commuters $130,678
Wages,to,external,residents ($26,634)
Net,commuter,wages $104,044Local,area,employment,income $603,597
Delta&County 2013Transfers&from&government $244,430
Transfers&from&non:profit $3,770
Transfers&from&business $2,554
Investment&income $232,476
Total&other&income $483,230
21
Industry Cluster Analysis The local economy was analyzed using shift share and location quotient methodologies to identify industry clusters as shown in the following sections.
Shift Share Analysis
Methodology Shift share analysis is a method of dissecting job growth into its component parts to better detect the factors contributing to growth. The following three components are identified through this analysis:
State Share
This is the portion of job growth that can be attributed to overall economic growth in the larger reference area (statewide). It is calculated by multiplying the number of jobs in the local area at the beginning of the time period by the reference area growth rate.
Industry Mix
Industry mix represents the portion of an industry’s job growth in an area due to that industry’s nation or statewide expansion or contraction. It is calculated by multiplying the number of jobs in the
local area at the beginning of the time period by the reference area growth rate for the specific industry and subtracting state share.
Regional Shift
This is the most important component of job growth for local economic development. It highlights the change in employment that is due to an area’s competitive advantages in a particular industry. It is calculated by subtracting industry mix and state share from the total number of jobs gained or lost in the selected local industry.
Analysis Figure 32 depicts the shift share analysis for the County from 2001 to 2014. The industries with the highest total growth over this period as seen by the purple lines include health services, mining, government, and agriculture. In the cases of mining, health services and government, the growth mirrored growth across the industries as seen by the red sections. State job growth also explains a portion of the increase in health services, government, and agriculture as seen by the state share. Over this period, the industries that suffered the greatest losses in the County include construction, wholesale trade, and administrative and professional services.
22
Figure 32: Delta County Shift Share 2001-‐2014
!400 !300 !200 !100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
!400 !300 !200 !100
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Health
0Services
Mining
Governm
ent
Agriculture,0Forestry,0and
0Fishing
Other0non
!govt0services
Real0estate
Arts,0ent.0and
0rec.
Inform
aHon
Manufacturin
g
Retail0Trade
Private0EducaHon
al0services
Managem
ent
TransportaHo
n0and0wareh
ousing
Finance0acHviHes
Accommod
aHon
0and
0food
UHliHes
Profession
al0services
Admin0and
0waste
Who
lesale0trade
ConstrucHo
n
State0Share Industry0Share Regional0Share Total0Job0Change
23
Figure 33, which illustrates the regional shift component for each industry from 2001 to 2010, highlights growth in construction, manufacturing, and real estate due to County specific factors.
County industries that have lagged behind statewide and industry trends include administrative services, accommodation and food services, professional services and wholesale trade.
Figure 33: Delta County Regional Share 2001-‐2010
Regional)Share)
!150
!100
!50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Construc/o
n
Manufacturin
g
Real8estate
Inform
a/on
Retail8Trade
Health
8Services
Mining
Transporta/o
n8and8wareh
ousing
Finance8ac/vi/es
Agriculture,8Forestry,8and
8Fishing
Arts,8ent.8and
8rec.
Governm
ent
Other8non
!govt8services
Managem
ent
Private8Educa/on
al8services
U/li/es
Who
lesale8trade
Profession
al8services
Accommod
a/on
8and
8food
Admin8and
8waste
24
Figure 34 depicts regional share for the period from 2010 to 2014. It highlights a decrease in competitiveness for most industries across the County in recent years. The greatest region specific job losses during this period were in construction, government, and retail
trade. Agriculture and information exhibited gains in regional share over this period, highlighting the important role agriculture is playing in the economy, and potentially identifying a future opportunity in the information industry.
Figure 34: Delta County Regional Share 2010-‐2014
Regional)Share)
!250
!200
!150
!100
!50
0
50
100
Construc/o
n
Manufacturin
g
Real8estate
Inform
a/on
Retail8Trade
Health
8Services
Mining
Transporta/o
n8and8wareh
ousing
Finance8ac/vi/es
Agriculture,8Forestry,8and
8Fishing
Arts,8ent.8and
8rec.
Governm
ent
Other8non
!govt8services
Managem
ent
Private8Educa/on
al8services
U/li/es
Who
lesale8trade
Profession
al8services
Accommod
a/on
8and
8food
Admin8and
8waste
25
Employment Location Quotient Analysis
Methodology Employment location quotient (LQ) is a method of quantifying the concentration of an industry cluster in an area when compared to a national or state average.
LQ’s are calculated as shown below.
Location Quotient (LQ) = Local Proportion State Proportion
Local Proportion = # of Employees in Industry X in County Total # of Employees in County
State Proportion = # of Employees in Industry X in State # of Employees in State
For Example, in 2014 the County had 12,572 estimated jobs and 1,470 jobs in the agriculture industry resulting in a local proportion of 11.7%. For the same period, Colorado had 3,061,583 total jobs and 46,309 jobs in the agriculture industry for a state proportion of 1.5%. The LQ is derived by dividing the 11.7% local proportion by the 1.5% state proportion resulting in an LQ of 7.73 for the mining industry. This indicates that the concentration of agriculture jobs in the County is almost eight times greater than the state as a whole. An LQ of 1.0 would mean that the local concentration of an industry was the same as the statewide concentration.
Industries with high LQ’s (above 1.25) are typically export-‐oriented industries that are beneficial to a local economy because they bring money into the region. High LQ industries may also indicate a higher than average demand in an area. Industries that have both high LQ’s and high job numbers typically form a region’s economic base. Such industries not only provide jobs directly, but also have a multiplier effect, creating jobs in other dependent industries like retail trade and food services. Industries that are unable to support local demand typically have an LQ below 0.75.
26
Analysis Figure 35 shows the LQ calculations for the County. The most concentrated industries in the County are agriculture, mining and utilities. The first two of these industries are key sources of outside revenue and their concentration is due to the abundant natural resources, quality farmland, and concentrated agricultural
experience in the County. Some industries that fall below the average range such as wholesale trade and manufacturing may highlight a disadvantage of the area such as its distance from major freeways. Others not facing obvious disadvantages, such as information and recreation, may be indicative of industries with room to grow.
Figure 35: Delta County Location Quotients 2014
7.7 3.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
Agriculture,7Forestry,7and
7Fishing
Mining
UBliBes
Governm
ent
Retail7Trade
Other7non
Igovt7services
Health
7Services
Manufacturing
ConstrucBo
n
Real7estate
Accom
mod
aBon
7and
7food
Inform
aBon
Finance7acBviBes
Arts,7ent.7and
7rec.
Adm
in7and
7waste
Who
lesale7trade
TransportaBo
n7and7wareh
ousing
Profession
al7services
Private7EducaBon
al7services
Managem
ent
27
Industry Cluster Matrix Analysis
Methodology Shift share, location quotient, and wealth creation measures can be combined into a matrix analysis to provide a more comprehensive view of the economy. This analysis plots industries in a two-‐by-‐two matrix with the natural logarithm of location quotient on the x-‐axis and job growth as represented by regional shift on the y-‐axis. The size of each industry bubble in the matrix represents total payroll. Similar analysis can be performed using other measures for job growth and industry size; however, regional shift and total payroll provide advantages over other variables. These advantages are shown in Figure 36.
Other Variables Better City Variant Y-‐‑Axis: Industry Job Growth Rate
Y-‐‑Axis: Regional Shift as calculated using Shift Share Analysis. Advantage: This method shows the growth that is due to inherent strengths in the region, excluding growth due to statewide and industry trends.
X-‐‑Axis: Location Quotient
X-‐‑Axis: Natural Logarithm of Location Quotient Advantage: Large outliers can cause apparent clustering of other industries. This variable depicts the differences between LQs, but on a comparable scale. With this measure, an industry with a concentration equal to the state average would have a value of 0 rather than 1.
Bubble Size: Number of Jobs
Point Size: Wealth creation as measured by total payroll per industry. Advantage: This method gives credit for industries with higher paying jobs and better describes economic impact of an industry.
Figure 36: Better City Industry Cluster Matrix Variables
28
Figure 37: Industry Matrix Quadrants
In this analysis, industries will fall into one of four quadrants, as shown in Figure 37.
Quadrant One: Industries in this quadrant are concentrated in the region and growing due to regional advantages. Large industries in this quadrant distinguish the regional economy as they increase workforce demand. Small industries in this quadrant are possibly emerging exporters that should be developed.
Quadrant Two: Industries in this quadrant are growing over time but are still less concentrated than the state average. Depending on the
industry, they may settle at the state average or continue to grow and move into Quadrant One.
Quadrant Three: Industries in this region are less concentrated than state averages and are losing ground. Such industries may face significant competitive disadvantages in the area.
Quadrant Four: Industries in this quadrant are declining, but are still more concentrated than the national average. If a large industry is in this quadrant the region is often losing its export base. The region should plan and invest accordingly.
It is important to also note the size of an industry to identify short-‐term economic impacts. Growth or contraction in industries with high payrolls will have a large impact on the local economy. Small industries may be important for an economy’s future but will take time to have a significant impact.
Analysis Figure 38 shows the results of the Better City Industry Cluster Matrix analysis for the period from 2001-‐2010 and Figure 39 depicts the period from 2010-‐2014.
Location(Quotient
Region
al(Share
Quadrant(1 Quadrant(2
Quadrant(4 Quadrant(3
29
Figure 38: Delta County Cluster Matrix 2001-‐2010
Mining%
Government%
Health%Services%
Retail%Trade%
Other%services,%except%public%administra=on%
Construc=on%
Manufacturing%
Agriculture,%Forestry,%and%Fishing%
Accommoda=on%and%food%services%
Finance%ac=vi=es%
Professional%and%business%services%
Wholesale%trade%
Transporta=on%and%warehousing%
Admin%and%waste%
Informa=on%
U=li=es%
Real%estate%
Management%of%companies%and%enterprises%
Arts,%entertainment,%and%recrea=on%
Private%Educa=onal%services%
!200
!150
!100
!50
0
50
100
150
200
250
!3.0 !2.0 !1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
30
Figure 39: Delta County Cluster Matrix 2010-‐2014
Mining%
Government%
Health%Services%
Retail%%Trade%
Other%services,%except%public%administra=on%
Construc=on%
Manufacturing%
Agriculture,%Forestry,%and%Fishing%
Accommoda=on%and%food%services%
Finance%%ac=vi=es%Professional%and%business%services%
Wholesale%trade%
Transporta=on%and%warehousing%
Admin%and%waste%
Informa=on% U=li=es%Real%estate%
Management%of%companies%and%enterprises%
Arts,%entertainment,%and%recrea=on%
Private%Educa=onal%services%
!300
!250
!200
!150
!100
!50
0
50
100
150
!3.00 !2.00 !1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
31
Quadrant One: The only industry that has remained in quadrant one from 2001-‐2014 is agriculture, again highlighting the key role it plays in the local economy. Construction, mining, health care, retail trade, other services and government also fall into this quadrant from 2001-‐2010 with some growth due to local factors and above average concentration. Government and mining were especially important from 2001-‐2010 given the high location quotient, regional shift, and above average total payroll. These factors make their declines from 2010-‐2014 especially concerning as they put significant strain on the economy. The decline in other industries that started in quadrant one such as retail trade and health care is likely tied to losses in the previously mentioned basic industries.
Quadrant Two: The information industry, which includes publishing and software development, fell in this quadrant from 2001-‐2014. Arts entertainment and recreation is also on the cusp of quadrant two for the period from 2010-‐2014. These industries may represent emerging opportunities for the local economy.
Quadrant Three: There are several industries in this quadrant including transportation/warehousing, wholesale trade, and professional and business services that are underrepresented due to its distance from major transportation nodes and relatively small population. Accommodation and food services is an industry that falls in this category, but should have the potential to at least match statewide levels of concentration and maintain steady job numbers.
Quadrant Four: The industries in this quadrant are potential areas of concern because of their concentration and declining growth. No major industries fell into this quadrant from 2001-‐2010. However, as mentioned above, several industries including mining and government contracted from quadrant one to quadrant four in
2010-‐2014. If these industries continue to decline new industries will need to emerge to create balance.
Industry Detail Figures 34 to 45 depict cluster matrices of individual industries broken down to the sub-‐sector level.
32
Figure 40: Agriculture and Food Processing 2001-‐2010
Crops and livestock production have remained a key component of the local economy over the past 15 years. Value added activity such as food processing has declined in recent years. A notable example of this is the recent loss of a Meadow Gold facility to the Front Range. Agricultural support industries have seen some growth due to local factors since 2010. Both of these agricultural sub-‐sectors have the potential to play an important role in future economic growth.
Figure 41: Agriculture and Food Processing 2010-‐2014
Food$and$beverage$product$
manufacturing$
Crops$and$livestock$produc7on$
Forestry,$fishing,$and$agrictulture$support$ac7vi7es$
!80$
!60$
!40$
!20$
0$
20$
40$
60$
80$
100$
!0.5$ 0$ 0.5$ 1$ 1.5$ 2$ 2.5$
Food$and$beverage$product$
manufacturing$
Crops$and$livestock$produc7on$
Forestry,$fishing,$and$agrictulture$support$ac7vi7es$
!40$
!20$
0$
20$
40$
60$
80$
!0.5$ 0$ 0.5$ 1$ 1.5$ 2$ 2.5$
33
Figure 42: Construction and Manufacturing 2001-‐2010
Between 2001 and 2010, specialty trade contractors and building construction were strong contributors to the economy, but dropped into quadrant four between 2010 and 2014. Food and wood product manufacturing declined from 2010-‐2014, but other manufacturing saw some region specific growth for both periods. This sectors somewhat low concentration in the area may indicate room for additional growth in the future.
Figure 43: Construction and Manufacturing 2010-‐2014
Special(trade(contractors(
Construc1on(of(buildings(
Heavy(and(cilvil(
engineering(construc1on(
Food(and(beverage(product(
manufacturing(
Other(manufacturing(
Wood(product(and(furniture(manufacturing(
!20$
0$
20$
40$
60$
80$
100$
120$
140$
160$
!1$ !0.5$ 0$ 0.5$ 1$ 1.5$
Construc)on*of*buildings*
Heavy*and*cilvil*
engineering*construc)on*
Food*and*beverage*product*
manufacturing*
Wood*product*and*furniture*manufacturing*
Other*manufacturing*
Special*trade*contractors*
!200$
!150$
!100$
!50$
0$
50$
!1$ !0.5$ 0$ 0.5$ 1$
34
Figure 44: Retail and Wholesale Trade 2001-‐2010
Between 2010 and 2014 most retail and wholesale sectors have seen declines in regionally driven growth. This decline may be due to a decline in the basic sector industries upon which retail trade relies.
Figure 45: Retail and Wholesale Trade 2010-‐2014
Clothing)and)clothing)
accessories)stores)
Spor2ng)goods,)hobby,)book)and)music)
Other)retail)
Food)and)beverage)stores)
Automo2ve)&)other)repair)&)maintenance)
Wholesale)trade)
Motor)vehicle)and)parts)dealers)
Gasoline)sta2ons)
Nonstore)retailers)
Furniture,)electronics,)appliances)
Miscellaneous)store)retailers)
!150%
!100%
!50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
!2% !1.5% !1% !0.5% 0% 0.5% 1%
Other&retail&
Food&and&beverage&stores&
Automo5ve&&&other&repair&&&maintenance&
Gasoline&sta5ons&
Wholesale&trade&
Motor&vehicle&and&parts&dealers&
Nonstore&retailers&
Furniture,&electronics,&appliances&
Miscellaneous&store&retailers&
Spor5ng&goods,&hobby,&book&and&music&
Clothing&and&clothing&
accessories&stores&
!70$
!60$
!50$
!40$
!30$
!20$
!10$
0$
10$
20$
!2$ !1.5$ !1$ !0.5$ 0$ 0.5$ 1$
35
Figure 46: Tourism 2001-‐2010
Both accommodation and recreation have performed moderately well in recent years. Their low concentration in the County may indicate room for growth. Food services and drinking places are less concentrated in the County than statewide averages and are losing ground. It is expected that such an industry should be able to keep pace with statewide averages.
Figure 47: Tourism 2010-‐2014
Accomoda'on)
Arts,)entertainment,)and)recrea'on)
Food)services)and)drinking)
places)
!100$
!80$
!60$
!40$
!20$
0$
20$
40$
60$
!0.9$ !0.8$ !0.7$ !0.6$ !0.5$ !0.4$ !0.3$ !0.2$ !0.1$ 0$ 0.1$
Accomoda'on)
Arts,)entertainment,)and)recrea'on)
Food)services)and)drinking)
places)
!70$
!60$
!50$
!40$
!30$
!20$
!10$
0$
10$
20$
!0.8$ !0.7$ !0.6$ !0.5$ !0.4$ !0.3$ !0.2$ !0.1$ 0$ 0.1$
36
Figure 48: Government 2001-‐2010
Government employment, including public education, has been steady across federal, state, and military jobs; however, local government saw significant growth from 2001 to 2010, but lost those gains between 2010 and 2014. This may be a reflection of the rest of the economy as population shifts due to job losses and gains elsewhere impact the demand for local government services.
Figure 49: Government 2010-‐2014
Local&government&
Federal&government,&
civilian&
State&government&
Military&
!60$
!40$
!20$
0$
20$
40$
60$
80$
100$
120$
140$
!1.5$ !1$ !0.5$ 0$ 0.5$ 1$
Military(
Local(government(
Federal(government,(
civilian(State(government(
!140%
!120%
!100%
!80%
!60%
!40%
!20%
0%
20%
!1.5% !1% !0.5% 0% 0.5% 1%
37
Figure 50: Health Care and Social Assistance 2001-‐2010
Social assistance has remained in quadrant one since 2001. This, and the high concentration of nursing and residential care facility jobs may be due in part to the above average age of the County population. Aging demographics often lead to an increase in all healthcare services, however, other health care services have declined due to regional factors in recent years. This may be a trend that can be reversed.
Figure 51: Health Care and Social Assistance 2010-‐2014
Ambulatory+health+care+services+
Social+assistance+
Nursing+and+residen7al+
care+facili7es+
!300$
!200$
!100$
0$
100$
200$
300$
400$
!0.6$ !0.4$ !0.2$ 0$ 0.2$ 0.4$ 0.6$ 0.8$ 1$ 1.2$ Ambulatory+health+care+services+
Social+assistance+
Nursing+and+residen7al+
care+facili7es+
!150%
!100%
!50%
0%
50%
100%
!0.6% !0.4% !0.2% 0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1% 1.2%
38
Figure 52: Other Business Activity 2001-‐2010
Publishing industries including software publishing have seen regional driven growth since 2001 and could provide future opportunities. Much of the decline in other finance activities since 2010 is likely tied to reduced mortgage lending during the recent recession.
Figure 53: Other Business Activity 2001-‐2010
Professional+and+business+
services+
Administra4ve+and+support+services+
Other+Finance+Ac4vi4es+
Publishing+industries+
Management+of+companies+
and+enterprises+
Other+informa4on+
Insurance+carriers,+funds,+
trusts+
!200$
!150$
!100$
!50$
0$
50$
100$
!3$ !2.5$ !2$ !1.5$ !1$ !0.5$ 0$ 0.5$
Professional+and+business+
services+
Administra4ve+and+support+services+
Other+finance+ac4vi4es+
Publishing+industries+
Management+of+companies+
and+enterprises+
Other+informa4on+
Insurance+carriers,+funds,+
trusts+
!140%
!120%
!100%
!80%
!60%
!40%
!20%
0%
20%
40%
!2.5% !2% !1.5% !1% !0.5% 0% 0.5% 1%
39
Conclusion This analysis identifies three key industries: agriculture, mining, and government services that have provided much of the County’s economic activity over the past 15 years. Agriculture has been a consistent performer in terms of job growth, while government and mining have seen recent declines. This is concerning due to the above average payrolls found in both of these industries. Meanwhile, despite agriculture’s leading role in providing jobs, it lags behind several industries in terms of payroll. An economic development strategy for the County should address the declining employment in these major industries, and identify ways to increase the economic impact of the agriculture industry.
The mining industry is driven by global commodity market prices and national politics and there is little that can be done to influence these underlying factors. Efforts to identify opportunities in other industries that provide a diverse employment base could help mitigate the boom bust cycle associated with extractive industries.
Government jobs in the County are primarily local government and public education. These jobs are non-‐basic, and their growth or contraction will largely follow trends in the local economy as a whole.
The agriculture sector is a key source of outside revenue for the County and is a promising area for future growth. Crop and livestock production has remained an active part of the local economy, and agricultural support services are growing. Measures to reclaim some of the losses that have occurred in food manufacturing may help to further enhance this sector and bring additional prosperity to the region.
Other potential growth areas include recreation and information industries. Identifying avenues to support the development of these industries could provide additional diversification to the local economy.
In addition to these industry factors, the County has an older population, which brings with it some workforce concerns as many of these individuals approach retirement, but also brings significant personal income transfer. This provides additional outside revenue to the County and increases local economic activity. Going forward, all of these aspects of the local economy are important considerations for the development of the County’s economic development strategy.
40
Appendix A: Stakeholder Interviews In addition to the quantitative assessment provided above, a number of interviews with key community stakeholders were conducted to develop a qualitative picture of the local economy. Key economic strengths, challenges and opportunities were identified and are described in Figure 54, Figure 55 and Figure 56 below.
Figure 54: Delta County Economic Strengths
The key economic strengths identified centered around outdoor recreation and agriculture. The inclusion of agriculture is expected, but the emphasis on outdoor recreation is surprising given the small size of the industry in the data above. This may indicate untapped potential in outdoor recreation.
Figure 55: Delta County Economic Challenges
Challenges identified include limited government engagement and support, declining population and lack of skilled labor, and poor broadband access.
0%# 5%# 10%#15%#20%#25%#30%#35%#
ACCESS#TO#CAPITAL#DEMOGRAPHICS/LABOR#FORCE#
EMERGENCY#PREPAREDNESS#ENERGY/RENEWABLES#EVENTS/ATTRACTIONS#
LOCATION#MANUFACTURING#
MINING#HEALTH#CARE#AGRICULTURE#
ENTREPRENEURIAL#CENTERS/ENVIRONMENTAL#HEALTH#
FOOD#PROCESSING#LAND/WATER#USE#
RESTAURANTS#TOURISM#INFRASTRUCUTURE#
EDUCATION#QUALITY#OF#LIFE#
HUNTING#NATURAL#BEAUTY#
ORGANIC#AGRICULTURE#GENERAL#AGRICULTURE#OUTDOOR#RECREATION#
0%# 10%# 20%# 30%# 40%# 50%#
CITY#APPEARANCE#
RETAIL#
HOUSING#
EDUCATION#
MARKETING#
ACCESS/TRANSPORTATION#
DECLINING#AGRICULTURAL#
EXTRACTION#
BUSINESS#ENVIRONMENT#
JOB#OPPORTUNITIES#
TOURISM#INFRASTRUCUTURE#
ACCESS#TO#CAPITAL#
INTERNET#
DEMOGRAPHICS/LABOR#FORCE#
GOVERNMENT#ENGAGEMENT#
41
Figure 56: Delta County Economic Opportunities
Stakeholders identified potential for future growth in food processing, sporting events, outdoor recreation, agriculture, and retirement communities.
Figure 57 below is a word cloud depicting the stakeholder interviews. Word size corresponds to its frequency during the interviews.
0%# 5%# 10%# 15%# 20%# 25%# 30%#
EQUIPMENT#MANUFACTURING##HEALTH#CARE#
LAND#RESTAURANTS#
IMPROVE#CITY#APPEARANCE#NEW#BUSINESS#
ENTREPRENEURIAL#CENTERS/RETAIL#
AGRICULTURAL#TOURISM#ENERGY/RENEWABLES#
HOUSING#ORGANIC#AGRICULTURE#
TECHNOLOGY#BUSINESSES#AGRICULTURAL#SUPPORT#
EXTRACTION#RETIREMENT#COMMUNITIES#
GENERAL#AGRICULTURE#OUTDOOR#RECREATION#EVENTS/ATTRACTIONS#
FOOD#PROCESSING#
42
Figure 57: Delta County Stakeholder Interview Word Cloud
![Delta enterprises[1]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/557f89ead8b42a2f198b4681/delta-enterprises1.jpg)
