1987 baseline projections

1 9 8 7 B a s e l i n e P r o j e c t i o n s U t a h O f f i c e o f P l a n n i n g a n d B u d g e t 1 1 6 S t a t e C a p i t o l S a l t L a k e C i t y , U t a h 8 4 1 1 4 1987 BASELINE PROJECTIONS DATA RESOURCES SECTION UTAH OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET 116 S t a t e Capitol S a l t Lake C i t y , Utah 84114 [phone] A p r i l 1987 TABLE OF CONTENTS I n t r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 P o p u l a t i o n Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Components of P o p u l a t i o n Change . . . . . . . . . . .5 School Age P o p u l a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Household Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Labor Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Assumptions of P r o j e c t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 County D i s a g g r e g a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . .18 C o n c l u s i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Appendix A - Computer Model . . . . . . . . . . . .A-l Appendix B - S t a t e of Utah D e t a i l P r o j e c t i o n s . . .B-l Appendix C - MCD-Level D e t a i l P r o j e c t i o n s . . * . .C-l INTRODUCTION An updated p r o j e c t i o n of "Baseline" or "most l i k e l y " economic and demographic c o n d i t i o n s , through the year 2010, for the S t a t e of Utah, its c o u n t i e s , and i t s m u l t i - c o u n t y planning d i s t r i c t s (MCD's) has been prepared.. This r e p o r t p r e s e n t s these p r o j e c t i o n s and a b r i e f sketch of the u n d e r l y i ng a n a l y t i c a l techniques and c r i t i c a l assumptions. As you w i l l see, the p r o j e c t i o n s for some areas of the s t a t e are c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t than p r e v i o u s p r o j e c t i o n s . Obviously, the past few years have presented c i r c u m s t a n c e s which create great d i f f i c u l t i e s in making long term p r o j e c t i o n s . The economy has been s t a g n a n t and even d e c l i n i n g in some a r e a s. Numerous p l a n t c l o s u r e s have occurred c r e a t i n g major imbalances in the labor m a r k e t , and even o u t - m i g r a t i o n , in many c o u n t i e s . And f i n a l l y , dramatic d e c r e a s e s have been measured in U t a h ' s high f e r t i l i t y r a t e s. D e s p i t e t h e s e added u n c e r t a i n t i e s , t h e r e has been an attempt to quantify a l l of the changes t h a t have occurred and develop new long term p r o j e c t i o n s. There is an ever-growing demand for information about the f u t u r e and t h is r e q u i r e s t h a t updates are c o n t i n u a l l y made and a t t e m p t s made to improve the p r o j e c t i o n s . As a r e s u l t of the circumstances mentioned above, the p r o j e c t i o n s are c o n s i d e r a b l y lower for many c o u n t i e s than those p r e v i o u s ly p u b l i s h e d . The e f f o r t of making p o p u l a t i o n and employment p r o j e c t i o n s is a continuous and evolving p r o c e s s . Once these p r o j e c t i o n s are p u b l i s h e d , e f f o r t s will b e g i n to make changes and improvements for next y e a r ' s p r o j e c t i o n s u p d a t e s. Annual updates w i l l be made based on e m p i r i c a l evidence of changing economic and demographic c o n d i t i o n s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , updates are benchmarked to the l a t e s t employment e s t i m a t e s of the Utah Department of Employment S e c u r i t y, p o p u l a t i o n e s t i m a t e s from the Utah P o p u l a t i o n E s t i m a t e s Committee, b i r t h and d e a t h data from the Bureau of Health S t a t i s t i c s and school enrollment data from the Utah Office of E d u c a t i o n , Additional r e s e a r c h i s completed each year on major demographic and economic t r e n d s . For example, during the l a s t year major r e s e a r c h involved studying U t a h ' s d e c l i n i n g f e r t i l i t y r a t e s . Work is a l s o being done each year to improve the computer modeling t e c h n i q u e s . The 1988 p r o j e c t i o n s p u b l i c a t i o n w i l l c o n t a i n age and sex p r o j e c t i o n s by county f o r the f i r s t time. While the p r o j e c t i o n process is improving, the u n c e r t a i n t y of the times makes i t t e c h n i c a l l y more d i f f i c u l t , and c e r t a i n ly d e c r e a s e s the r e l i a b i l i t y of the p r o j e c t i o n s. I t is the goal of the Office of Planning and Budget (OPB), and was f o r m e r l y the goal of the Office of the S t a t e Planning C o o r d i n a t o r , to attempt t o c o o r d i n a t e the planning of s t a t e a g e n c i e s . OPB b e l i e v e s one of the most e f f e c t i v e ways to achieve t h i s goal i s through the use of u p - t o - d a t e , r e l i a b le and c o n s i s t e n t data. Consistency among b a s i c assumptions and data is a n e c e s s a r y component in an e v a l u a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of s t a t e agency p l a n n i n g and b u d g e t i n g . The primary purpose of t h i s r e p o r t is to make a v a i l a b l e to s t a te a g e n c i e s updated p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s for p l a n n i n g and budget purposes in an e f f o r t to achieve planning c o o r d i n a t i o n . It is also hoped that local governments and p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y w i l l u t i l i z e the p r o j e c t i o n s to further a c h i e v e p l a n n i n g c o o r d i n a t i o n. - 1 - This p r o j e c t i o n is c a l l e d B a s e l i n e 1987. A b a s e l i n e p r o j e c t i o n r e f l e c ts t h e future based on the e x i s t i n g economic s t r u c t u r e of the area and the changing demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the p o p u l a t i o n . The b a s e l i n e is not a p r e d i c t i o n or f o r e c a s t of the f u t u r e , but r a t h e r an attempt to d e p i c t the d i r e c t i o n c u r r e n t trends are l i k e l y to take without major changes in the economic base. For example, Baseline 1987 does not assume synfuels development w i l l occur, nor p r o j e c t s l i k e the n u c l e a r waste r e p o s i t o r y in S o u t h e a s t Utah. On the other hand, the c u r r e n t p r o j e c t i o n s have taken into c o n s i d e r a t i o n the reopening schedule of Kennecott. Also i t is assumed that Geneva Steel w i l l not reopen during the p r o j e c t i o n p e r i o d . Alternative p r o j e c t i o n s which assume major changes in the economic base may be compared to t h e b a s e l i n e p r o j e c t i o n to determine t h e i r impact. The b a s e l i n e p r o j e c t i on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y assumes d e c l i n i n g growth r a t e s over time. It is assumed t h a t with a given economic s t r u c t u r e , an a r e a w i l l begin to s t a b i l i z e over the y e a r s as the economy m a t u r e s. These new b a s e l i n e p r o j e c t i o n s are developed by using the Utah Process Economic and Demographic' Model (UPED) - the model OPB h a s used for many y e a rs t o g e n e r a t e both b a s e l i n e p o p u l a t i o n and employment impact p r o j e c t i o n s (a more complete d e s c r i p t i o n of UPED i s found in Appendix A). G e n e r a t i o n of i n i t i a l input data assumptions involved personnel r e p r e s e n t i n g a number of s t a t e agencies i n c l u d i n g the Bureau of Health S t a t i s t i c s , the Department of Employment S e c u r i t y (Job S e r v i c e ) , and the U n i v e r s i t y of U t a h ' s Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Once i n i t i a l ly e s t i m a t e d , these assumptions were s u b j e c t e d to review by o t h e r s t a t e a g e n c i e s, m u l t i - c o u n t y A s s o c i a t i o n s of Governments (AOG's), and county and city o f f i c i a l s and p l a n n e r s . As a r e s u l t of t h e s e reviews, the input assumptions were a d j u s t e d where a p p r o p r i a t e to r e f l e c t reviewers* concerns and s p e c i a l i z ed knowledgeo In t h i s sense, t h i s p r o j e c t i o n r e p r e s e n t s a consensus best e s t i m a t e of f u t u r e c o n d i t i o n s as g e n e r a t e d by the UPED Model when "fed" the a s s u m p t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from t h i s e x t e n s i v e a n a l y t i c a l - j u d g m e n t a l p r o c e s s. A summary of major f i n d i n g s of B a s e l i n e 87 w i l l follow. More d e t a i l ed p r o j e c t i o n s are found in the a p p e n d i c e s . Further d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n can be o b t a i n e d by c a l l i n g the Data Resources S e c t i o n , Utah Office of Planning and Budget, [phone]. This p r o j e c t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n is also a v a i l a b l e in machine r e a d a b l e format. STATE AND MULTI-COUNTY PLANNING DISTRICT (MCD) POPULATION GROWTH F i g u r e 1 p r e s e n t s a schematic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the s t a t e and MCD p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s of B a s e l i n e 1987. Table 1 p r e s e n t s the d a t a upon which F i g u r e 1 i s based and a l s o the p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n among MCD's and the t o t a l s t a t e p o p u l a t i o n . As Figure 1 shows, a l l p a r t s of the s t a t e are e x p e c t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e in p o p u l a t i o n growth (and i t s u n d e r l y i n g economic e x p a n s i o n ) through the next t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s . This growth, however, is not u n i f o r m l y d i s t r i b u t e d . In growing from a 1980 p o p u l a t i o n of 56,050 to 110,000 i n 2010, the Southwest (Five County) MCD i s p r o j e c t e d to grow at an annual growth r a t e of 2.27 p e r c e n t . This is the f a s t e s t average growth r a t e of all t h e MCD's. At the o t h e r extreme, the S o u t h e a s t e r n MCD shows an annual average growth r a t e p r o j e c t i o n of 0.62 percent in growing from 54,650 in 1980 to 65,700 in 2010. ~ 2 - Digital map compilation by State of Utah Office of Planning and Budget Automated Geographic Reference April 1987 3- Primory source mop1 U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. 1980 Population data* Utah Office of Planning and 8udget Data Resources Section. TABLE 1 BASELINE POPULATION PROJECTIONS BY MCD 1980-2010" 1980-2010 MCD 1980 1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Bear River 93,350 105,400 107,150 113,100 119,700 125,200 135,400 150,600 Wasatch Front 949,150 1.047,750 1,063,600 1,146,000 1,251,600 1,343,000 1,475,700 1,642,000 Mountainland 239,050 271,600 275,150 285,500 297,100 306,000 310,500 355,300" Central 47,600 57,200 55,350 53,100 55,100 56,100 59,900 65,500 Southwest 56,050 68,900 72,400 81,200 85,100 89,100 98,100 110,000 Uintah Basin 34,150 39,400 38,000 39,200 40,300 42,100 47,400 54,300 Southeast 54,650 54,750 54,350 55,300 55,200 55,000 59,200 65,700 TOTAL 1,474,000 1,645,000 1,666,000 1,773,400 1,904,100 2,016,500 2,186,200 2,443,400 PERCENT OF STATE POPULATION MCD 1980 1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Bear River 6 ,3% 6 4% 6 4% 6 4% 6 3% 6 2% 6 2% 6 2% Wasatch Front 64 .5% 63 7% 63 9% 64 6% 65 7% 66 6% 67 5% 67 2% Mountai nland 16 ,2% 16 5% 16 5% 16 1% 15 6% 15 2% 14 2% 14 5% Central 3 .2% 3 5% 3 3% 3 0% 2 9% 2 8% 2 7% 2 7% Southwest 3 ,8% 4 2% 4 3% 4 6% 4 5% 4 4% 4 5% 4 5% Uintah Basin 2 .3% 2 4% 2 .3% 2 2% 2 1% 2 1% 2 2% 2 2% Southeast 3 .7% 3 ,3% 3 .3% 3 1% 2 9% 2 7% 2 .7% 2 7% TOTAL 100 .0% 100 .0% 100 .0% 100 .0% 100 .0% 100 .0% 100 ,0% 100 0% *A11 estimates and proj ecti ons are as of 1 July. -4- The s t a t e as a whole is p r o j e c t e d to reach a p o p u l a t i o n j u s t over 2 , 4 4 3 , 0 0 0 in the year 2010. This r e p r e s e n t s an average annual r a t e of growth of 1.70 p e r c e n t from the J u l y 1, 1980 p o p u l a t i o n of 1,474,000. This is rate i s almost double the n a t i o n a l growth r a t e for the same p e r i o d. B a s e l i n e 1987 p r o j e c t s that the Wasatch Front will increase its s u b s t a n t i a l m a j o r i t y of the p o p u l a t i o n in the s t a t e . The Southwest (Five County) MCD i s the only o t h er MCD p r o j e c t e d to i n c r e a s e i t s share of the s t a te t o t a l . The Bear River, Mountainland, S o u t h e a s t e r n , Central (Six County), and U i n t a h Basin MCD's are expected to grow more slowly than the s t a t e average, and thus c o n s t i t u t e a s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n of the t o t a l in 2010 than they did in 1980. COMPONENTS OF STATE POPULATION CHANGE B i r t h s P o p u l a t i o n change in any area over time r e s u l t s from t h r e e phenomena: (1) B i r t h s , (2) Deaths, and (3) Net I n - or O u t - M i g r a t i o n . Utah's b i r t h r a t e has h i s t o r i c a l l y been the h i g h e s t in the n a t i o n . A c r i t i c a l assumption in the p a s t has been t h a t U t a h ' s " t o t a l f e r t i l i t y r a t e " would remain c o n s t a n t , with a s t a t e w i d e average of 3.2 in 1980. The t o t a l f e r t i l i t y r a t e for a given year i s defined as the number of b i r t h s the average woman would have during her e n t i r e c h i l d b e a r i n g p e r i o d ( 1 5 - 4 4 ) , if, during her r e p r o d u c t i v e l i f e , she were t o e x p e r i e n c e the same a g e - s p e c i f i c b i r t h r a t e s t h a t o c c u r r e d for a l l women of c h i l d b e a r i n g age in t h a t given y e a r . The r a t e i s the most complete measure of f e r t i l i t y for a s p e c i f i e d year because i t uses a g e - s p e c i f i c b i r t h r a t e s for each age 15 to 44, thus e l i m i n a t i n g any e f f e c t of the d i f f e r e n c e s in size between age groups of women in t h e i r f e r t i l e y e a r s . As mentioned above, recent a n a l y s i s of the b i r t h data shows t h a t t h i s p r e v i o u s l y c o n s t a n t r a t e began to d e c l i n e in the e a r l y 1 9 8 0 ' s . Given t h i s d e c l i n e , the assumption has been r e v i s e d to i n d i c a t e a continued d e c l i n e from 1986 to 1990, a l b e i t at a slower r a t e than experienced in the e a r l y 1 9 8 0 ' s . After c a r e f u l r e s e a r c h of the n a t i o n a l phenomena of d e c l i n i n g f e r t i l i t y it was concluded t h a t a f t e r 1990, t h e t o t a l f e r t i l i t y r a t e would b e g i n to s t a b i l i z e at a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 . 5. Of secondary importance here i s the change in timing of b i r t h s . A h i g h er p r o p o r t i o n of women are p u t t i n g off b i r t h s to t h e i r l a t e r years than was e a r l i e r the case. The f e r t i l i t y r a t e s of the e a r l y - 2 0 ' s age group, although s t i l l the peak c h i l d - b e a r i n g ages, are somewhat less than in e a r l i er p r o j e c t i o n s , with c o r r e s p o n d i n g i n c r e a s e s in the l a t e - 2 0 ' s through l a t e - 3 0 's age groups. There were a l s o i n c r e a s e s in the f e r t i l i t y r a t e s among the l a te t e e n a g e y e a r s . The number of b i r t h s i n c r e a s e d r a p i d l y during the 1970's and, as Table 2 and Figure 2 show, is p r o j e c t e d to taper off between 1980 and 2000. From 2000 to 2010, another surge of b i r t h s is expected as another g e n e r a t i o n ages i n t o the prime c h i l d - b e a r i n g y e a r s . Table 3 and Figure 3 shows g r a p h i c a l l y t h i s process of changing age s t r u c t u r e of the s t a t e 's p o p u l a t i o n . - 5 - TABLE 2 STATE OF UTAH BIRTHS, DEATHS & MIGRATION YEAR* BIRTHS DEATHS MIGRATION 1980 41,591 8,108 24,500 1985 37,663 9,078 -7,169 1990 33,700 10,600 6,800 1995 35,100 12,600 -200 2000 37,800 14,300 2,700 2005 41,900 16,100 12,500 2010 46,100 18,100 29,200 * F i s c a l Year FIGURE 2 COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE 5 0 0 0 0 -r Persons • 1 0 0 0 0 -L 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 EH Births H Deaths • Net Migration - 6 - TABLE 3 STATE OF UTAH POPULATION BY AGE GROUP AGE GROUP 1980* 1990** 1995** 2000** 2005** 2010** 0-4 189,752 171,600 173,700 183,000 203,400 227,200 5-17 350,200 462,200 469,900 447,500 455,800 504,600 18-29 351,089 346,500 366,200 413,400 451,400 468 ,400 30-39 186,079 272,900 281,600 267,400 280,600 347 ,800 40-64 274,861 351,600 422,100 500,500 574,000 645 ,700 65 + 109,056 168,600 190,600 204,700 221,000 249,700 TOTAL 1,461,037 1,773,400 1 , 9 0 4 , 1 0 0 2 ,016,500 2 , 1 8 6 , 2 00 2,443,400 *This **The d a t a r e p r e s e n ts p r o j e c t i o n s are t h e Census count as of 1 J u l y of as of 1 A p r il t h e r e s p e c t i ve 1980. y e a r s . FIGURE 3 POPULATION BY AGE GROUP 7 0 0 0 0 0 T Persons 0 - 4 5-17 18 = 2 9 30-39 40-64 65 + Age Groups • 1 980 H 1 9 9 0 H 1 9 9 5 H 2000 • 2005 § 2010 „7_ Deaths As F i g u r e 2 shows, the number of deaths in the s t a t e is expected to r i se c o n t i n u a l l y through 2010. The number of deaths per year i n c r e a s e s at an annual r a t e of 2.71 p e r c e n t , well above the p o p u l a t i o n growth r a t e . The number of deaths per 1,000 p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e s from 5.50 per year in 1980 to 7.42 per year in 2010. This i n c r e a s e occurs d e s p i t e the fact that s u r v i v al r a t e s for each age l e v e l are assumed to remain c o n s t a n t . The r e a s o n for t h is i n c r e a s e is t h a t the p o p u l a t i o n as a whole becomes more h e a v i l y c o n c e n t r a t ed i n the o l d e r , lower s u r v i v a l r a t e age groups. For example, in 1980, 10.64 p e r c e n t of the p o p u l a t i o n was 60 y e a r s old or o l d e r . In 2010, t h i s group is p r o j e c t e d to i n c r e a s e to 14.23 p e r c e n t of the t o t a l. Net M i g r a t i on M i g r a t i o n is t y p i c a l l y the most v o l a t i l e component of p o p u l a t i o n change because i t v a r i e s with demographic changes and economic c o n d i t i o n s . A p e r i od of net o u t - m i g r a t i o n occurred in the 1950's and i n t o the 1 9 6 0 ' s . However no n e t o u t - m i g r a t i o n was experienced in Utah from 1968 u n t i l 1983. We have now e x p e r i e n c e d t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e y e a r s of o u t - m i g r a t i o n from Utah, t o t a l l i n g some 17,000 p e o p l e. During the p e r i o d 1986 to 2010, a t o t a l of 187,000 net i n - m i g r a t i o n is e x p e c t e d to occur in the s t a t e ( i . e . , i n - m i g r a t i o n is expected to exceed o u t - m i g r a t i o n by 187,000). The year of peak net i n - m i g r a t i o n is 2010 with a t o t a l of 29,000. A p e r i o d of net o u t - m i g r a t i o n occurs around the t u r n of the c e n t u r y , reaching a peak of 5,000 in 1996. Out-migration i s c r e a t e d when the economy is not growing fast enough to provide jobs for the growing labor f o r c e . Population growth f r e q u e n t l y occurs during p e r i o d s of o u t - m i g r a t i o n. This p e r i o d of o u t - m i g r a t i o n i s followed by another p e r i o d of net i n - m i g r a t i on d u r i n g the f i r s t decade of the 21st c e n t u r y. SCHOOL AGE POPULATION Table 4 and F i g u r e 4 i n d i c a t e t h a t the f i f t e e n year p e r i o d from 1980 to 1995 is p r o j e c t e d to e x p e r i e n c e very r a p i d growth in school age p o p u l a t i on ( k i n d e r g a r t e n through t w e l f t h g r a d e ) . In 1995, t h e r e are p r o j e c t e d to be 34 p e r c e n t more school age c h i l d r e n in the s t a t e than t h e r e were in 1980. This i n d i c a t e s an average y e a r l y growth of 8,000 p o t e n t i a l s t u d e n t s or an annual a v e r a g e growth r a t e of 1.98 p e r c e n t per y e a r . The d e c l i n e in f e r t i l i t y r a t es and our economic slowing w i l l r e s u l t in a slowdown in the growth of the school age p o p u l a t i o n . School age p o p u l a t i o n w i l l begin to l e v e l out, growing 1.91 p e r c e n t per year between 1986 and 1990, growing 0.56 p e r c e n t a n n u a l l y between 1990 and 1994, and then begin to d e c l i n e . This d e c l i n e w i l l c o n t i n u e through t h e year 2000, when a new demographic cycle and another p e r i o d of rapid growth b e g i n s . These trends will vary somewhat between MCD's, Over the e n t i re t h i r t y year p r o j e c t i o n i n t e r v a l , school age p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e s by 44 percent from 350,200 in 1980 to over 504,700 in 2010 for an average annual growth r a te of 1.23 p e r c e n t. - 8 - TABLE 4 STATE OF UTAH SCHOOL AGE POPULATION YEAR SCHOOL AGE POPULATION AVERAGE ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE 1980 350,200 1985 407,200 3,06% 1990 462,300 2 .57% 1995 469,900 0.33% 2000 447,500 -0,97% 2005 455,800 0,37% 2010 504,700 2 .06% FIGURE 4 SCHOOL AGE POPULATION School Age Population 550000 500000 450000 400000 350000 * 300000 250000 1980 1985 1990 1995 Year 2000 2005 2010 - 9 - HOUSEHOLD FORMATION The number of households in the s t a t e is produced by applying age and sex s p e c i f i c household formation p r o b a b i l i t i e s to each y e a r ' s p o p u l a t i o n . These p r o b a b i l i t i e s are h e l d c o n s t a n t over the p r o j e c t i o n i n t e r v a l . They produce an i n c r e a s e in t o t a l households in the s t a t e from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 448,600 in 1980 t o almost 890,000 in 2010. This r e p r e s e n t s an annual average r a t e of change of 2.31 p e r c e n t per y e a r . This is a more r a p i d growth r a t e than for t o t al p o p u l a t i o n and r e f l e c t s the aging of the p o p u l a t i o n . The lower f e r t i l i t y r a te a s s u m p t i o n which r e s u l t s in fewer number of c h i l d r e n per woman, along with the p r o j e c t e d aging of the p o p u l a t i o n is r e f l e c t e d in the d e c l i n e in average number of persons per household from 3.2 in 1980 to 2.75 in 2010. LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION One major l i n k between the demographic and economic components of UPED is t h e e x t e n t to which persons of each a g e - s e x group w i l l be in the labor force ( e i t h e r are employed or are a c t i v e l y looking for a j o b ) . These p r o p o r t i o n s, c a l l e d l a b o r force p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s (LFPR's) are assumed in Utah to follow n a t i o n a l t r e n d s in each a g e - s e x group and to move c l o s e r to p r o j e c t e d n a t i o n al v a l u e s over time. Table 5 and F i g u r e 5 show the r e s u l t i n g a g g r e g a t e t r e n d s in p e r c e n t a g e of people 16-64 in the labor force for males and females from 1980-2010. Aggregate LFPR's for males are seen to remain roughly constant between 89.7 and 87,4 percent of the working age male p o p u l a t i o n . Female a g g r e g a t e LFPR's are p r o j e c t e d to follow n a t i o n a l l y p r o j e c t e d upward trends w i t h r e s u l t i n g aggregates i n c r e a s i n g from 58.26 percent in 1980 to 65,09 p e r c e n t in 2010, The p r o p o r t i o n of the labor force who are women i s p r o j e c t ed t o i n c r e a s e from 39,4 p e r c e n t in 1980 to 4 2 . 3 p e r c e n t in 2010. EMPLOYMENT Table 6 shows t o t a l s t a t e employment i n c r e a s i n g from 617,300 jobs in 1980 t o 1,188,000 jobs in 2010, This i n c r e a s e of over 570,000 j o b s r e p r e s e n t s an a v e r a g e annual growth r a t e of 2.21 p e r c e n t , 0.51 percent higher than the s t a t e ' s p r o j e c t e d p o p u l a t i o n growth r a t e . This r e f l e c t s the h i g h e r p r o p o r t i on of people in the labor force as d i s c u s s e d above. As is the case with p o p u l a t i o n , employment growth does not occur at a c o n s t a n t r a t e over the p r o j e c t i o n i n t e r v a l . The employment growth r a t e peaks at 2.71 p e r c e n t in the y e a r 1990, and then d e c l i n e s to 1,89 percent per year in the 1995-2000 p e r i o d . However, the f i n a l ten y e a r s of the p r o j e c t i o n p e r i o d show employment growth i n c r e a s i n g to 2.08 p e r c e n t per y e a r. Table 7 and F i g u r e s 6 and 7 show the change in the i n d u s t r i a l s t r u c t u re p r o j e c t e d for U t a h ' s job market. A g r i c u l t u r e , Mining, and Government are p r o j e c t e d to d e c l i n e as p e r c e n t s of t o t a l s t a t e employment with A g r i c u l t u re p r o j e c t e d to continue i t s h i s t o r i c a l d e c l i n e in t o t a l jobs and Government showing the b i g g e s t p r o p o r t i o n a l d e c l i n e of over four p e r c e n t a g e p o i n t s . The Wholesale and R e t a i l Trade and S e r v i c e s s e c t o r s are expected to i n c r e a s e t h e ir p r o p o r t i o n s of t o t a l Utah jobs by 1,5 and 6.2 percentage points, r e s p e c t i v e l y . The o t h e r s e c t o r s remain r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t as p e r c e n t s of the - 1 0 - TABLE 5 STATE OF UTAH MALE AND FEMALE LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES YEAR MALES FEMALES 1980 0.8974 0.5826 1990 0.8808 0.6063 1995 0.8766 0.6433 2000 0.8736 0.6540 2005 0,8772 0,6554 2010 0.8766 0.6509 FIGURE 5 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES Male and Female Rate 0.5 -| j 1 1 1 1 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year ^ Males :0 * Females - 1 1 - TABLE 6 STATE OF UTAH TOTAL EMPLOYMENT* YEAR TOTAL AVERAGE ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT RATE OF CHANGE 1980 617,400 1985 701,300 2.58% 1990 784,000 2.25% 1995 880,100 2.34% 2000 966,500 1,89% 2005 1,067,900 2,02% 2010 1,187/900 2.15% * T o t a l employment i n c l u d e s n o n - a g r i c u l t u r a l wage and s a l a r y employment as w e l l as a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l employment, p r i v a t e household employment and non-farm p r o p r i e t o r s. TABLE 7 STATE OF UTAH TOTAL EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY INDUSTRY 1980 NUMBER PERCENT OF JOBS OF TOTAL Agri cul ture Mi ni ng Construct!on^ Manufacture ng TCPU2 Wholesale & Retail Trade FIRE3 Servi ces^ Government^ Non-Farm Propri etors 21,966 18,500 31,549 87,700 34,120 128,678 25,758 102,232 122,240 44,626 1985 NUMBER PERCENT OF JOBS OF TOTAL Total 617,379 100.00 701,290 100.00 Includes IPP Construction work force ^TCPU - Transportation, Communication & Public Utilities 3FIRE - Finance, Insurance, Real Estate ^Includes Private Household and Federal/State hospitals -'Excludes Federal/State hospitals 2010 NUMBER PERCENT OF JOBS OF TOTAL 1980-2010 AVG. ANNUAL RATE OF CHANGE 3.56 21,340 3.04 3.00 9,738 1.39 5.11 37,554 5.35 14.21 93,999 13.40 5.53 37,013 5.28 20.83 147,920 21.10 4.17 31,059 4.43 16.56 136,073 19.41 19.80 134,742 19.21 7.23 51,852 7.39 20,900 1.76 13,800 1=16 62,400 5.25 165,500 13.93 65,400 5.51 265,800 22.38 58,000 4.88 270,000 22.74 181,400 15.27 1,187,900 100.00 -0.16% -0.96% 2.30% 2.14% 2.19% 2.45% 2.74% 3.29% 1 .32% 84,600 7.12 2.16% 2.21% -13- FIGURE 7 EMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL s t a t e t o t a l s . The o v e r a l l p a t t e r n appears to be one of s i g n i f i c a n t movement away from dependence on the s t a t e ' s t r a d i t i o n a l e x t r a c t i v e - h e a vy maniifacturing-government economic base and toward s e r v i c e s and trade as d r i v i n g s e c t o r s in the Utah economy. Appendix B p r e s e n t s employment p r o j e c t i o n s by major i n d u s t r y for the s t a t e , and Appendix C p r e s e n t s these p r o j e c t i o n s for the MCD's. ASSUMPTIONS Some of the major assumptions u n d e r l y i n g B a s e l i n e 1987 have been d i s c u s s ed above: o Declining t o t a l f e r t i l i t y r a t e s through 1990, and then h e l d constant a t 2.5 average b i r t h s per woman throughout her c h i l d b e a r i n g y e a r s. o Constant age s p e c i f i c m o r t a l i t y r a t e s. o Employment r e l a t e d m i g r a t i o n c o n c e n t r a t e d in e a r l y adult ages with many fewer middle aged and o l d e r a d u l t s being l i k e l y to m i g r a t e. o Constant a g e - s e x s p e c i f i c household formation p r o b a b i l i t i e s. o An approximate 12 percent i n c r e a s e in o v e r a l l female labor force p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s to approximately 65 p e r c e n t of a l l women 16-64, and an i n c r e a s e d p r o p o r t i o n of the l a b o r force made up of women. The other two major c a t e g o r i e s of model d r i v i n g assumptions concern (1) i n d u s t r i a l sector s p e c i f i c basic employment assumptions, and (2) the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between number of people J i v i n g in the s t a t e and the number of " r e s i d e n t i a r y " jobs l o c a t e d in the s t a t e to s e r v e t h e i r needs. As i n d i c a t ed i n Appendix A, UPED u t i l i z e s what is c a l l e d the economic base method in i ts economic component. This method o r g a n i z e s economic a c t i v i t y (as measured by number of jobs in UPED) into two broad c a t e g o r i e s : (1) b a s i c j o b s , which produce commodities - goods and/or s e r v i c e s - to be consumed by people l i v i n g o u t s i d e the study area, and (2) r e s i d e n t i a r y j o b s , which produce commodities to be consumed by r e s i d e n t s of the l o c a l economy. R e s i d e n t i a ry a c t i v i t y is f r e q u e n t l y c a l l e d " s e r v i c e " or " p o p u l a t i o n - d e p e n d e n t " a c t i v i t y. The economic base theory argues that b a s i c jobs provide the major d r i v i ng f o r c e l e a d i n g to economic growth or d e c l i n e. I n UPED, each of over 60 i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r s ( a g r i c u l t u r e , coal mining, chemical manufacturing, e t c . ) are s e p a r a t e d into basic and r e s i d e n t i a ry components. Basic employment is analyzed and p r o j e c t e d o u t s i d e the model and i s "fed" to the model as a major i n p u t . R e s i d e n t i a r y employment, on the other hand, is produced w i t h i n the model as a f u n c t i o n of the number of people p r o j e c t e d to be in the study a r e a and of o t h e r i n p u t s to the model. The major assumptions determining the number of r e s i d e n t i a r y jobs per r e s i d e n t , for each s e c t o r , a r e : (1) the number of jobs in t h a t s e c t o r in the n a t i o n as a whole, (2) a c o r r e s p o n d i n g n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n , and (3) a p r o j e c t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between n a t i o n a l s e c t o r - s p e c i f i c employment - 1 6 - per c a p i t a and s e c t o r s p e c i f i c r e s i d e n t i a r y employment per c a p i t a in the study a r e a . N a t i o n a l - l e v e l employment and p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n s are developed from f e d e r a l governmental agency p r o j e c t i o n s . The n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o ns ( w i t h sex and s i n g l e year of age d e t a i l ) is the Series 14-Middle Series p r o j e c t i o n produced by the Bureau of the Census. The n a t i o n a l employment p r o j e c t i o n s are adapted from s e r i e s produced by the Bureau of Labor S t a t i s t i c s , Department of Labor and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce. Base year e s t i m a t e s of the parameters r e l a t i n g to n a t i o n a l and study area employment per c a p i t a are produced for each s e c t o r in i n i t i a l c a l i b r a t i on a n a l y s e s . The c r i t i c a l question is whether these parameters should be e x p e c t e d to change over time. An i n c r e a s e would imply t h a t the study area is becoming more s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t in p r o v i d i n g i t s e l f with the goods and s e r v i c es p r o v i d e d by the s e c t o r e x p e r i e n c i n g the i n c r e a s e . This phenomenon i s known as "import s u b s t i t u t i o n . " A d e c r e a s e , on the other hand, would imply that the s t u d y area is becoming more dependent on o u t s i d e sources of supply for such commodities. There appears to be no reason to expect such import r e l a t i o n - t y pe s t r u c t u r a l changes to occur in any of the s t a t e ' s MCD's in B a s e l i n e 1987. Thus, the 1983 e s t i m a t e s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between study area and n a t i o n al l e v e l r e s i d e n t i a r y employment per c a p i t a r e l a t i o n s h i p s are h e l d c o n s t a n t for a l l i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r s in a l l MCD's. As should be expected, the m e t r o p o l i t an MCD's (Wasatch Front and Mountainland) have higher values than the less s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t r u r a l MCD's. One r e s u l t of t h i s assumption i s the r e l a t i v e constancy of the "economic base m u l t i p l i e r " ( i . e . , t o t a l employment divided by t o t a l b a s i c employment) over the p r o j e c t i o n i n t e r v a l . At the s t a t e l e v e l , the m u l t i p l i e r was e s t i m a t e d at 2.1 in 1983, and with s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s s t a y s at t h i s l e v e l to t h e year 2010. The MCD-level 1980 m u l t i p l i e r s implied by the B a s e l i n e 1987 c a l i b r a t i o n vary from 1.8 in the Uintah Basin to 2.2 in t h e Wasatch F r o n t. B a s i c employment e s t i m a t e s by i n d u s t r i a l sector for each MCD for the c a l i b r a t i o n year 1985 were produced to r e f l e c t a c t u a l 1985 employment l e v e l s. A major a n a l y t i c a l and judgmental e f f o r t was s u b s e q u e n t l y c a r r i e d out to p r o j e c t the f u t u r e growth and/or d e c l i n e of each i n d u s t r y through 2010. Two d i f f e r e n t approaches were adopted and t h e i r r e s u l t s were combined to produce t h e b a s i c employment p r o j e c t i o n s upon which B a s e l i n e 1987 i s based. The f i r s t approach is based upon s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of h i s t o r i c al employment data. Seven d i f f e r e n t s t a t i s t i c a l models were s p e c i f i e d as a l t e r n a t i v e h y p o t h e t i c a l " e x p l a n a t i o n s " of s e c t o r and MCD-specific employment h i s t o r i e s . H i s t o r i c a l employment data were f i t t e d to each of the seven models. Several of the models attempted to use r e l a t i o n s h i p s of MCD to n a t i o n a l employment l e v e l s . National f o r e c a s t s by i n d u s t r y were then used to f o r e c a s t MCD employment by i n d u s t r y . The r e s u l t s of each model were then e v a l u a t e d for goodness of f i t and r e a s o n a b l e n e s s of the b a s i c employment p r o j e c t i o n s produced by extending each model through the year 2010. For most s e c t o r s in most MCD's, one of the seven models provided both a good " e x p l a n a t i o n " of h i s t o r i c a l experience and r e a s o n a b l e p r o j e c t i o n s of future b a s i c employment growth or d e c l i n e. - 1 7 - I n many cases, however, dramatic a l t e r a t i o n s from past trends are v i r t u a l l y c e r t a i n to occur over the next t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s . No s t a t i s t i c al a n a l y s i s of the past can r e v e a l or capture the magnitude of such changes. Thus, a second, judgmental approach to b a s i c employment p r o j e c t i o n s was also c a r r i e d out. L i s t i n g s of p o t e n t i a l major economic developments, including d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e i r probable timing and employment l e v e l s , were developed f o r each MCD by l o c a l - l e v e l p l a n n e r s and o f f i c i a l s with the c o o p e r a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e of s t a t e - l e v e l a n a l y s t s . These l i s t s were s u b j e c t e d to i n t e n se r e v i ew and a n a l y s i s . This process focused on t h r e e a s p e c t s of each event l i s t e d : (1) the l i k e l i h o o d of i t s a c t u a l l y o c c u r r i n g ; (2) the b a s i c , as opposed to r e s i d e n t i a r y , n a t u r e of the a c t i v i t y ; and (3) the extent to which t h e event r e p r e s e n t s a r e a l break from past t r e n d s as opposed to being the l i k e l y s p e c i f i c events c o n s t i t u t i n g the growth (or d e c l i n e ) i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s d e s c r i b e d e a r l i e r. Major economic developments which were found to be h i g h l y l i k e l y to occur, which a r e b a s i c in n a t u r e , and which r e p r e s e n t c l e a r changes from past trends were b u i l t into the Baseline 1987 b a s i c employment p r o j e c t i o n s . In some c a s e s , the jobs a s s o c i a t e d with t h e s e developments were e i t h e r added to or s u b t r a c t e d from the p r o j e c t i o n s developed in the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s . In o t h e r s , the development was of such g e n e r a l i t y and magnitude t h a t i t was used t o r e p l a c e the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s p r o j e c t i o n s e n t i r e l y. COUNTY DISAGGREGATIONS Regional p o p u l a t i o n t o t a l s p r o j e c t e d by the UPED model have been d i s a g g r e g a t e d to the county level (see Table 8 and Figure 8). These d i s a g g r e g a t i o n s were developed in a s s o c i a t i o n with l o c a l p l a n n e r s from the A s s o c i a t i o n s of Governments and county planning o f f i c e s . These county p r o j e c t i o n s are the r e s u l t of s e v e r a l a l l o c a t i o n models and in some cases the judgment of s t a t e and l o c a l p l a n n e r s , In some cases the county a l l o c a t i o ns r e p r e s e n t only small m o d i f i c a t i o n s of d i s t r i b u t i o n p a t t e r n s r e p r e s e n t e d by p r e v i o u s a l l o c a t i o n s. As a r e s u l t of the economic c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r in t h e r e p o r t, t h e p r o j e c t i o n s are c o n s i d e r a b l y lower for many c o u n t i e s than those p r e v i o u s ly p u b l i s h e d . These p r o j e c t i o n s show t h a t growth in seven of the c o u n t i e s in Utah w i l l exceed the s t a t e a v e r a g e , while twenty-two c o u n t i e s w i l l grow at the same r a t e or below the s t a t e average. The p r o j e c t i o n s i n d i c a t e that Washington, Davis and Morgan c o u n t i e s , w i l l be the f a s t e s t growing c o u n t i e s in Utah r e s p e c t i v e l y over the next t w e n t y - f i v e y e a r s , averaging at l e a s t two percent per y e a r . The slowest growth i s p r o j e c t e d to occur in Grand, Daggett, Emery, San Juan, Carbon, Rich and Juab c o u n t i e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . Some of t h e s e c o u n t i es a r e s t i l l r e c o v e r i n g from major economic downturns and i t w i l l take some time t o r e v e r s e the t r e n d s of d e c l i n e . S i g n i f i c a n t economic growth t r e n d s and/or b a s e l i n e economic development p r o j e c t s simply cannot be i d e n t i f i e d in these c o u n t i e s . - 1 8 - FIGURE 8 STATE OF UTAH 980-2010 ANNUAL AVERAGE POPULATION CHANGE I 1 0.00% - 0.99% \ \ ] 1.00% - 1.99% 2.00% - 2.99% 3.00% AND OVER AN JUAN Digital map compilation by Slot* of Utah Office of Planning and Budget Automaied Geographic Reference April 1987 - 1 9 - Primary source map1 U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census. 1980 Population data- Utah Office of Planning and Budget Data Resources Section. TABLE 8 UTAH BASELINE PROVISIONAL POPULATION PROJECTIONS* APRIL 1987 1980-2010 ANN % CHG COUNTY 1980 1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 T9 80--2010 BEAR RIVER 93, 350 105,400 107,150 113,100 119, 700 125,200 135,400 150., 600 T 61% BOX ELDER 33, 500 36,600 37,300 39,000 40, 700 42,000 44,900 49, 500 i 31 % CACHE 57, 700 66,700 67,800 72,000 76, 800 80,800 87,900 98, 300 i 79% RICH 2, 150 2,100 2,050 2,100 2, 200 2,400 2,600 2, 800 0 88% WASATCH FRONT 949, 150 1,047,750 1,063,600 1,146,000 1,251, 600 1,343,000 1,475,700 1,642, 000 84% DAVIS 148, 000 170,000 175,000 195,000 218, 800 240,000 268,000 302. 000 2 41% MORGAN 4, 950 5,450 5,500 6,000 6, 500 7,000 8,100 9 300 2 . 1 2% SALT LAKE 625, 000 689,000 698,000 752,000 818, 600 876,000 962,500 1 ,071 000 1 .81% TOOELE 26, 200 28,300 28,100 30,000 32, 700 35,000 38,400 42 700 1 . 64% WEBER 145, 000 155,000 157,000 163,000 175, 000 185,000 198,700 217 000 1 .35% MOUNTAINLAND 239, 050 271,600 275,150 285,500 297, 100 306,000 310,500 355 300 1 33% SUMMIT 10, 400 12,400 12,700 13,500 14, 100 14,500 15,000 17 400 1 .73% UTAH 220, 000 250,000 253,000 262,000 272, 700 281,000 285,000 326 000 1 .32% WASATCH 8, 650 9,200 9,450 10,000 10, 300 10,500 10,500 11 900 1 .07% CENTRAL 47 600 57,200 55,350 53,100 55, 100 56,100 59,900 65 500 1 . 07% JUAB 5 550 6,250 5,800 5,900 6, 100 6,200 6,600 7 250 0 .89% MILLARD 9 050 14,200 13,600 11,000 11 400 11,600 12,100 12 900 1 . 19% PIUTE 1 350 1,550 1,550 1,550 1, 600 1,600 1,650 1 800 0 . 96% SANPETE 14 800 16,900 16,500 16,500 17, 200 17,500 18,900 20 900 1 , 16% SEVIER 14 900 16,200 15,800 16,000 16, 600 17,000 18,300 20 100 1 .00% WAYNE 1 950 2,100 2,100 2,150 2, 200 2,200 2,350 2 550 0 . 90% SOUTHWEST 56, 050 68,900 72,400 81,200 85, 100 89,lCu 98,100 no 000 2 .27% BEAVER 4, 400 5,050 4,950 5,200 5, 400 5,500 5,750 6, 200 1 15% GARFIELD 3, 700 4,050 4,050 4,250 4, 300 4,350 4,500 4, 850 0 91% IRON 17, 500 19,400 19,500 21,000 21, 700 22,500 24,100 26, 400 1 38% KANE 4, 050 4,700 4,800 5,250 5, 500 5,750 6,250 6, 950 1 82% WASHINGTON 26, 400 35,700 39,100 45,500 48, 200 51,000 57,500 65, 600 3 08% UINTAH BASIN 34, 150 39,400 38,000 39,200 40, 300 42,100 47,400 54, 300 1 56% DAGGETT 750 700 700 700 700 700 800 800 0 22% DUCHESNE 12, 700 14,700 14,300 14,800 15, 200 15,900 17,900 20, 600 1 63% UINTAH 20, 700 24,000 23,000 23,700 24, 400 25,500 28,700 32, 900 1 56% SOUTHEAST 54, 650 54,750 54,350 55,300 55, 200 55,000 59,200 65, 700 0 62% CARBON 22, 400 23,400 23,000 23,400 23, 400 23,200 25,100 28, 000 0 75% EMERY 11, 500 11,800 11,800 12,000 11, 900 11,900 12,700 14, 000 0 63% GRAND 8, 250 7,050 6,850 7,000 7, 000 7,000 7,700 8, 700 0 18% SAN JUAN 12, 400 12,SCO 12,700 12,900 12, 900 12,900 13,700 15, 000 0 64% TOTAL 1 ,474, 000 1,645,000 1,666,000 1,773,400 1,904, 100 2,016,500 2,186,200 2,443, 400 1 70% * These numbers represent estimates & projections as of 1 July of each year. CONCLUSIONS I t can be d i s c e r n e d from t h i s report that Utah can be expected to e x p e r i e n c e continued r e l a t i v e l y good growth through the remainder of the 20th c e n t u r y and well i n t o the 2 1 s t . Although Utah w i l l continue to be a growth s t a t e it w i l l not experience the rapid growth r a t e s of the p a s t . The p o p u l a t i o n growth r a t e in Utah is p r o j e c t e d to be almost twice the growth p r o j e c t e d for the n a t i o n . Growth in Utah w i l l not, however, be evenly d i s t r i b u t e d across the s t a t e . In p a r t i c u l a r , the r u r a l c o u n t i e s h i s t o r i c a l ly dependent on n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e development appear to face the prospect of not b e i n g able to provide adequate jobs to employ a l l of t h e i r young people as t h e y age i n t o the labor f o r c e . Indeed, as has a l r e a d y been observed in the p a s t few y e a r s , the e n t i r e s t a t e w i l l experience p e r i o d s of net o u t - m i g r a t i on i n f u t u r e years as a r e s u l t of inadequate employment o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The o v e r a l l s t a t e - l e v e l p i c t u r e for most y e a r s , however, is one of adequate job growth to meet Utahns' employment needs, and of i n - m i g r a t i o n . The geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n of new jobs may cause i n - m i g r a t i o n w i t h i n the s t a t e from r u r al a r e a s to m e t r o p o l i t a n c o u n t i e s . Migration is extremely v o l a t i l e and d i f f i c u lt t o p r o j e c t and i s s u b j e c t to c y c l e s in v a r i o u s i n d u s t r i e s . The e x p e c t a t i o n s, as expressed in t h e s e p r o j e c t i o n s a r e , of course, based on a s e t of c r u c i al assumptions about f u t u r e economic and demographic b e h a v i o r . The assumptions have been summarized and d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r . They r e p r e s e n t a consensus best e f f o r t of a l a r g e number of p l a n n e r s , o f f i c i a l s , and a n a l y s t s at both s t a te and l o c a l l e v e l s . They are c e r t a i n l y p l a u s i b l e and r e a s o n a b l e as viewed at t h i s point in time. Nonetheless, as a l l users and producers of such p r o j e c t i o n s are c o n s t a n t l y aware, some of them w i l l prove to be wrong -- some b a d l y wrong. The long term f u t u r e of Utah i s i n h e r e n t l y d i f f i c u l t to p r e d i c t. - 2 1 - APPENDIX A COMPUTER MODEL THE UTAH PROCESS ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC MODEL (UPED) The Utah Process Economic and Demographic Impact S i m u l a t i o n Model (UPED) i s the o f f i c i a l model used by the Office of Planning and Budget to p r o j e ct p o p u l a t i o n and employment growth in the s t a t e . * UPED is a hybrid of two s t a n d a r d p o p u l a t i o n and economic p r o j e c t i o n methodologies: (1) the cohort s u r v i v a l model and (2) the economic base model. In the three-component, c o h o r t s u r v i v a l p o p u l a t i o n model, f u t u r e p o p u l a t i o n l e v e l s are p r o j e c t e d from base year figures by adding b i r t h s , s u b t r a c t i n g d e a t h s , and adding net i n - m i g r a t i o n or s u b t r a c t i n g net o u t - m i g r a t i o n . The values of each of the t h r e e components of p o p u l a t i o n change ( b i r t h s , d e a t h s , and m i g r a t i o n ) are p r o j e c t e d as a function of the i n i t i a l year values and the r e s u l t a nt i n c r e m e n t s are added or s u b t r a c t e d to g e n e r a t e the f i r s t p r o j e c t i o n y e a r 's v a l u e s . The p r o c e s s i s then r e p e a t e d to g e n e r a t e the second p r o j e c t i o n y e a r 's v a l u e s and so on to the l a s t p r o j e c t i o n y e a r . The p o p u l a t i o n i s d i s a g g r e g a t ed i n t o a p p r o p r i a t e s u b - g r o u p s , c a l l e d c o h o r t s , whose v a l u e s are p r o j e c t e d over t i m e . In UPED, sex and s i n g l e year of age c o h o r t s are used. Through the p r o j e c t i o n y e a r s , of c o u r s e , each cohort ages and i t s behavior with r e s p e c t to demand for goods and s e r v i c e s , labor force p a r t i c i p a t i o n , f e r t i l i t y, m o r t a l i t y , and geographic m o b i l i t y v a r i e s with the aging p r o c e s s. According to the economic base concept, for all but the l a r g e st ( n a t i o n a l - c o n t i n e n t a l r e g i o n s ) , the primary determinant of the level of economic a c t i v i t y , and c o n s e q u e n t l y of p o p u l a t i o n s i z e , is the amount of goods and s e r v i c e s produced for export to other a r e a s . Increases or d e c r e a s e s in b a s i c ( e x p o r t ) employment produce corresponding changes in the number of h o u s e h o l d s d e r i v i n g t h e i r income from t h e s e s e c t o r s . These changes, in t u r n, produce changes in the demand for goods and s e r v i c e s produced l o c a l l y for the l o c a l consumption. (These l o c a l p r o d u c t i o n - l o c a l consumption a c t i v i t i e s are r e f e r r e d to v a r i o u s l y as n o n - b a s i c , s e r v i c e , r e s i d e n t i a r y , or population dependent s e c t o r s ) . I n i t i a l changes in p o p u l a t i o n dependent s e c t o r s in t u r n, produce changes in p o p u l a t i o n and in household incomes which g e n e r a t e f u r t h er changes u n t i l , f i n a l l y , a given p r o j e c t e d i n i t i a l change in b a s i c sector employment w i l l produce a " m u l t i p l i e r e d " change in p o p u l a t i o n dependent and l o c a l employment as w e l l as in p o p u l a t i o n. I n UPED, the economic base methodology is adapted to a f f e c t p o p u l a t i on p r o j e c t i o n through the m i g r a t i o n component. Population p r o j e c t i o n s , in turn, g e n e r a t e r e s i d e n t i a r y employment for each l e v e l of b a s i c employment. Thus, t h e cohort s u r v i v a l and economic base methodologies are combined in UPED to form a complex systems model. The workings of the UPED Model and of i t s key d a t a r e q u i r e m e n t s are p r e s e n t e d in Figure A - l . The top t h r e e boxes r e p r e s e nt t h e n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e ( b i r t h s and d e a t h s ) , aging, and the non-employment r e l a t e d part of the m i g r a t i o n components of UPED's p o p u l a t i o n project methodology. The i n i t i a l (Year t) p o p u l a t i o n , c o n s i s t i n g of a c e n s u s - t y p e count or e s t i m a t e of a l l people r e s i d i n g in the area by age and sex is a d j u s t e d to r e f l e c t the temporary absence of some i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e permanent r e s i d e n ts (an i n c r e a s e ) and/or the temporary p r e s e n c e of i n d i v i d u a l s who a r e not *Rodger Weaver, e t . a . , UPED79, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, C o l l e g e of B u s i n e s s , U n i v e r s i t y of Utah and Utah S t a t e Planning C o o r d i n a t o r 's O f f i c e , Salt Lake C i t y , Utah, 1980. - A - l - FIGURE A-l S I M P L I F I E D G E N E R A L F L O W C H A R T O F T H E U P E D M O D E L 1 Model Components Inputs and Outputs Adjusted Natural Increase Population Year 1 4 Population Yean 1 0 Employment Related In-or-Out Migration Yean 1 6 Population Dependent Job Opportunities Year 1 Direct Relationships Iterative Feedback Relationships Basic Job Opportunities Year 1 Yearly Updated Feedback Relationships - -A-2- permanent r e s i d e n t s (a d e c r e a s e ) . Relevant c a t e g o r i e s here include college s t u d e n t s , m i l i t a r y , and LDS m i s s i o n a r i e s . The r e s u l t a n t e s t i m a t e of the permanent r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i o n is then survived by applying cohort s p e c i f ic s u r v i v a l r a t e s . The r e s u l t is the subset of the i n i t i a l r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i on e x p e c t e d to s t i l l be a l i v e the next y e a r . Members of each cohort have aged one y e a r . The a g e d - s u r v i v e d p o p u l a t i o n is a d j u s t e d to r e f l e c t p r o j e c t e d l e v e ls of temporary absence (a d e c r e a s e ) or presence (an i n c r e a s e ) and permanent non-employment r e l a t e d i n - ( i n c r e a s e ) and o u t - ( d e c r e a s e ) m i g r a t i o n . Total b i r t h s are p r o j e c t e d by applying a v e c t o r of age s p e c i f i c b i r t h r a t e s to the female component of t h i s adjusted aged-survived p o p u l a t i o n . I n f a n t s ' sex c o m p o s i t i o n and i n f a n t m o r t a l i t y are a l s o p r o j e c t e d at t h i s s t a g e . The r e s u lt of these c a l c u l a t i o n s , as shown in Box 3, is the Adjusted Natural Increase P o p u l a t i o n at Year t + 1 , which becomes the i n i t i a l e s t i m a t e of p o p u l a t i o n in t h a t year (Box 4 ). This f i r s t approximation p o p u l a t i o n p r o j e c t i o n is the source of two elements of Labor Market A n a l y s i s : (1) the i n i t i a l (pre-employment r e l a t ed m i g r a t i o n ) Labor Force and (2) i n i t i a l P o p u l a t i o n Dependent Job O p p o r t u n i t i es a t Year t+1 (Boxes 5 and 6, r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The Labor Force is d e r i v e d by a p p l y i n g p r o j e c t e d age and sex s p e c i f i c labor force p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s to the p r o j e c t e d p o p u l a t i o n . The p r o j e c t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s are dependent upon b o t h e x t r a p o l a t i o n s of t h e i r s e c u l a r t r e n d s and y e a r - t o - y e a r changes in area economic o p p o r t u n i t y. P o p u l a t i o n dependent job o p p o r t u n i t i e s are p r o j e c t e d as dependent upon (1) t h e s i z e and age composition of the p o p u l a t i o n , (2) p r o j e c t e d s e c t o r s p e c i f ic r a t i o s of area per c a p i t a r e s i d e n t i a r y employment to n a t i o n a l employment per c a p i t a , and (3) p r o j e c t i o n s of n a t i o n a l r e s i d e n t i a r y employment by sector a n d / o r n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n by cohort. Thus, changes in the s i z e and/or demographic composition of the p o p u l a t i o n , in the c a p a b i l i t y of the area to produce goods and s e r v i c e s for i t s own consumption, and/or n a t i o n a l economic and demographic c o n d i t i o n s can a l l i n f l u e n c e the p r o j e c t i o n of each s e c t o rs p o p u l a t i o n dependent job o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The most c r i t i c a l o p e r a t i o n al assumptions here are the l o c a l - n a t i o n a l per c a p i t a r e s i d e n t i a r y employment r e l a t i v e s . Of s p e c i a l importance is the a b i l i t y to a d j u s t these assumptions t o r e f l e c t s t r u c t u r a l changes as market expansion l e a d s to import s u b s t i t u t i on p o s s i b i l i t i e s . As Box 7 i n d i c a t e s , b a s i c employment demand is exogenously p r o j e c t e d by s e c t o r and t r e a t e d p a r a m e t r i c a l l y in UPED. These p r o j e c t i o n s of basic employment are v a r i e d to r e f l e c t the d i f f e r e n t economic developments to be a n a l y z e d . For example, to p r o j e c t the impacts of a p a r t i c u l a r power p l a n t, t h e d i r e c t b a s i c employment by i n d u s t r i a l s e c t o r involved in c o n s t r u c t i n g and o p e r a t i n g the p l a n t would be added to a b a s e l i n e b a s i c employment p r o j e c t i o ns and the sum would serve as the b a s i c job o p p o r t u n i t i e s input for that power p l a n t ' s UPED run. B a s i c and p o p u l a t i o n dependent job o p p o r t u n i t i e s are summed to produce T o t a l Job O p p o r t u n i t i e s at Year t+1 (Box 8 ) . This, i n i t i a l value for both the s u p p l y of and demand for labor are i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the Labor Market component of UPED, where they are used to c a l c u l a t e the p r o j e c t e d unemployment r a t e as an index of the a r e a ' s economic o p p o r t u n i t i e s . This r a t e is compared a g a i n st a p a r a m e t r i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d "normal" range of unemployment r a t e s . If i t is h i g h e r than the upper bound of the range - the o u t - m i g r a t i o n t r i g g e r i ng - A - 3 - r a t e - t h i s is taken to i n d i c a t e inadequate o p p o r t u n i t i e s for the n a t u r al i n c r e a s e p o p u l a t i o n and Employment r e l a t e d Out-Migration at t+1 i s p r o j e c t e d. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , if i t is below the lower bound - the i n - m i g r a t i o n t r i g g e r i ng p r o s p e r i t y is i n d i c a t e d and Employment Related I n - M i g r a t i o n at Year t+I is p r o j e c t e d . The amount of m i g r a t i o n p r o j e c t e d is s u f f i c i e n t to p r o v i d e the l a b o r force r e q u i r e d to adjust the unemployment r a t e to the r e l e v a n t t r i g g e r i n g r a t e, assuming no change in p o p u l a t i o n dependent job o p p o r t u n i t i e s . The demographic d e t a i l of t h i s m i g r a t i o n r e f l e c t s cohort d i f f e r e n c e in (1) labor force-p a r t i c i p a t i o n r a t e s , (2) m i g r a t i o n p r o p e n s i t i e s , and (3) the composition of t h e source p o p u l a t i o n ( l o c a l p o p u l a t i o n for o u t - m i g r a t i o n , n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i on f o r i n - m i g r a t i o n ). Of c o u r s e , the assumption s t r e s s e d in the p r e v i o u s p a r a g r a p h , that job o p p o r t u n i t i e s do not change as a r e s u l t of m i g r a t i o n , is i n v a l i d . The m i g r a t i o n of workers and t h e i r families e i t h e r i n c r e a s e s or decreases p o p u l a t i o n dependent job o p p o r t u n i t i e s . This f i r s t round m i g r a t i o n w i l l prove i n s u f f i c i e n t to a d j u s t the unemployment r a t e to the r e l e v a n t bound of normal r a n g e , and f u r t h e r m i g r a t i o n in the same d i r e c t i o n must be p r o j e c t e d o The s h o r t dash arrows in Figure A-l i n d i c a t e the i t e r a t i v e n a t u r e of the UPED s o l u t i o n to t h i s i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e problem* The i t e r a t i v e process continues u n t i l the c a l c u l a t e d unemployment r a t e is s a t i s f a c t o r i l y c l o s e to the r e l e v a nt t r i g g e r i n g r a t e , at which time s o l u t i o n i s achieved and no f u r t h e r migration or employment changes are c a l c u l a t e d . Final p o p u l a t i o n , m i g r a t i o n f and employment outputs are p r e s e n t e d with the former being used to derive p r o j e c t i o n s of households, labor force, and school age p o p u l a t i o n . The s o l u t i o n v a l u e for p r o j e c t e d p o p u l a t i o n is then fed back i n t o the Model (long dash arrow in Figure A-l) to serve as the i n i t i a l p o p u l a t i o n v e c t o r for the n e x t p r o j e c t i o n y e a r. - A - 4 - APPENDIX B STATE OF UTAH DETAIL PROJECTIONS STATE OF UTAH ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLDS SIZE* 1986 1,666,000 712,600 528,000 3 .16 1987 1,687,400 727,700 538,400 3 «13 1988 1,713,800 744,700 550,400 3 , 11 1989 I , 7 4 3 , 5 00 763,700 563 , 900 3 . 09 1990 1, 773 ,500 784 ,000 578,400 3 .07 1991 1,798,900 801,600 590, 700 3.04 1992 1,827,600 822,200 603,700 3 . 03 1993 1,853,400 841,800 615,700 3 . 01 1994 1,881,600 862,300 629,000 2,99 1995 1,904,100 880 ,100 641,100 2.97 1996 1,921,700 895,300 651,700 2. 95 1997 1,940,100 911,300 662,300 2 . 93 1998 1,963,500 929,200 674,800 2 . 91 1999 1,990,000 948,400 688,900 2.89 2000 2 , 0 1 6 , 5 00 966,500 703 ,000 2.87 2001 2 , 0 4 5 , 7 00 986,200 718,200 2.85 2002 2 , 0 7 5 , 8 00 1,004,900 733,300 2.83 2003 2 , 1 0 6 , 9 00 1,025,200 749,100 2.82 2004 2 , 1 4 8 , 0 00 1,046,800 766,600 2.80 2005 2 , 1 8 6 , 2 00 1,067,900 783,800 2.79 2006 2 , 2 3 0 , 5 00 1,089,500 802,700 2. 78 2007 2 , 2 7 7 , 2 00 1,111,500 822,300 2. 77 2008 2 , 3 3 1 , 1 00 1,136,500 844 ,200 2. 76 2009 2,386 ,400 1,161,800 866,600 2.75 2010 2 , 4 4 3 , 4 00 1,187,900 889,600 2. 75 * Household s i z e i s c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by t o t al h o u s e h o l d s . This d i f f e r s somewhat from the Bureau of the Census c a l c u l a t i o n of household s i z e. - B - 1 - STATS QF UTAH EMPLOYMENT 3Y DETAILED INDUSTRY 1985-2010 AVG ANNUAL CODE INDUSTRY 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 RATE OF CHG i ,2,8,9 AGRICULTURE 19,332 18,200 17,800 17 300 16,900 16,400 -0, 66" 7 AG SERVICES 2,008 2, 400 2,900 3 400 3,900 4 ,500 3. 28% 12 COAL MINING 2,878 3,200 3, 700 4 ,100 4,600 5,200 2. 39% 13 PETRO & NAT GAS 3,850 3,100 3,500 3 ,900 4,500 5,200 1. 21% 10 METAL MINING 2,145 2,200 2,200 2 ,200 2,300 2, 300 0. 28% 14 NON-METAL/FUEL MINING 86A 900 900 I ,000 1,000 1,100 0- 97% 15 GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 10,247 10,800 12,700 14 , 400 16,300 18,400 2, 37% 16 HEAVY CONSTRUCTION* 7,765 5,700 6,600 7 ,400 8,300 9,300 0. 72% 17 SPECIAL TRADES CONST 19,542 20,000 23,500 26 ,900 30,600 34,700 2, 32% 20 FOOD MFG 9,010 10,700 11,400 12 ,000 12,700 13,500 1. 63% 22,23 TEXT & APP MFG 5,866 6,200 6,800 7 ,000 7,200 7,600 1. 04% 27 PRINTING & PUBLISH 6,947 7,800 8,900 9 ,800 10,800 11,900 2. 18% 28 CHEMICAL MFG 2, 799 3,200 3,700 4 ,200 4,800 5, 300 2. 59% 24,25 LUMBER/FURNITURE MFG 6, 706 7,700 9,000 10 ,200 11,500 13,100 2. 7i% 35,36 MACHINERY MFG 22,792 25,000 30,400 35 ,800 41,500 47,700 3, 00% 37 TRANSPORTATION EQUIP 14,385 15,100 18,000 21 ,000 24,200 27,400 2. 61% 29 PETROLEUM REFINING 839 800 800 800 800 800 -0, 19% 33 PRIMARY METAL MFG 4,854 2,600 2,700 2 ,800 2, 900 3,100 -1 -7 8% 34 FABRICATED METAL MFG 6,232 7,100 7,700 8 ,400 9,000 9,800 i, 83% 32 STONE/CLAY/GLASS MFG 4,567 5,100 5,700 6 ,200 6,900 7,700 2, 11% 26,30,31, •JO O Q MISC & OTHER MFG 9,002 10,500 12,100 13 ,700 15,600 17,600 2, 72% JO ) J7 AO RAILROAD TRANSP 3,887 3,900 3,900 3 ,900 3,900 3,900 0 =01 % A2 MOTOR FRT & WAREHSE 10,269 11,900 13,400 14 ,800 16,400 18,200 2. 32% Al LOCAL SUBURBAN TRANS 815 900 900 1 ,000 1,100 1,200 1. 56% A5 AIR TRANSPORTATION A, A2A 5,100 6,200 7 ,400 8,600 9,900 3. 27% AA, A6 PIPE & WATER TRANSP 9A 100 100 100 100 100 0, 25% A7 TRANSPORTATION SERV 1,403 1,600 1, 900 2 ,300 2,600 3,000 3 =09 % A8 COMMUNICATIONS 8,236 9,700 11,400 12 ,800 14,300 16,000 2. 69% A9 ELECTRIC/GAS I SAN 7,885 9, iOO 10,000 10 900 11,900 13,100 2. 05% 50,51 WHOLESALE TRADE 35,555 39,900 44,900 50 800 58,400 67 , 600 2, 60% 58 EAT/DRINKING RETAIL 36,026 41,800 49,300 54 000 58,900 64,800 2. 38% 52 BLDG MAT/FARM EQUIP 5,353 5,900 6,400 7 100 7,700 8,500 1. 87% 53 GEN MERCHANDSE RETAIL 12,195 14,800 17,400 19 000 20,800 23,100 2, 59% 5A FOOD RETAIL 19, A67 22,600 25,500 28 200 31,100 34,500 2. 32% 55 AUTO DLR/SERV STAT 13,681 15,000 16,100 17 .400 18,900 20,800 1, 69% 56 APPAREL RETAIL 5,454 6,200 6, 900 7,600 8, 400 9, 400 2. 20% 57 FURNITURE RETAIL -4,859 5,400 5,000 6,600 7,300 8,000 2, 01% 59 MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL 15,331 18,000 20,700 23 300 26,000 29,100 2, 60% 60,61 BANKS & CREDIT 16,304 19,900 22,600 25 200 27,700 31,100 1, 62% 63,64 INSURANCE 6,905 8,200 9,200 9 900 10,900 12,200 1, 30% 62,67 SECURITIES/INVESTMENT 1,881 2,300 2,700 3 100 3,500 3,900 2. 96% 65,66 REAL ESTATE 5,970 6,500 7,500 8 200 9, 300 10,800 2. 40% 70 HOTELS/LODGING 9,451 11,000 13,300 15 700 18,200 21,000 3, 25% 72 PERSONAL SERVICES 5,551 6,100 6,700 7 300 7,900 8,600 1. 7 7% 43 BUSINESS SERVICES 23,605 30,800 38,900 44 200 49,100 54,800 3. 4 3% 75, 76 MISC & AUTO REPAIR 7,869 9,100 10.800 12 000 13,400 15,000 2. 61% 78,79 AMUSEMENT/RECREATION 7,916 9,500 11,000 12 200 13,400 14,800 2, 53% 88 PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD 3,657 3,700 3,500 3 300 3,200 3,000 -0. 7 9% 80 MEDICAL/HOSPITALS 37,000 46,400 55,300 63 200 71,900 82,200 3. 24% 82,833 PRIVATE EDUCATION 13,693 14,100 14,500 14 700 15,000 15,600 0. 52% 81,84,86, MISC PROF SERVICES 27,328 34,400 40,000 45 100 50,000 55,100 2. 84% FEDERAL PUBLIC ADMIN 10,965 13,700 14,100 14 400 14,900 15,600 1. 42% FEDERAL MILITARY 23,238 24,100 25,000 25 900 26,800 27,700 0. 71% FEDERAL POST OFFICE 3, 450 3,400 3,400 3 500 3,600 3, 700 0. 28% STATE PUBLIC ADMIN 15,138 14,800 15,500 16 400 17,500 18,900 0. 89% STATE SCHOOL 19,863 22,500 25,100 27 700 25,900 31, 900 1 .9 1% LOCAL PUBLIC ADMIN 23,606 25,300 28,200 30 200 32,800 36,000 1 .7 0% LOCAL SCHOOL 38,482 43,000 41,700 38,900 41,000 47,600 0. 85% NON-FARM PROPRIETORS 51,852 55,000 59,100 65 700 75,200 84,600 1. 98% TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 701,290 784,000 880,100 966 500 1,067,900 1, 187,900 2, 132 *INCLUDES IPP CONSTRUCTION MEDIAN AGES 1980=2010 UTAH AND UNITED STATES YEAR 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 UTAH 24 .2 25.2 26.7 27, 8 28 . 7 29.5 30.5 UNITED STATES 30 . 0 31,5 33.0 34 . 7 36 . 3 37.6 38.4 40 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Utah O- U.S. - B - 3 - STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE BY SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 1980 1980 1981 1981 19 32 198: AGE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOT'AI 0-1 21,662 20 ,571 42,233 21 ,186 20,204 41,390 21,020 20 , 045 41,( 1 20,177 19 ,231 39,408 21 ,818 20,742 42,560 21 ,156 20,181 4 i , : 2 19,546 18 ,694 38,240 20 ,351 19,404 39,755 21 ,806 20,720 4 2 , : 3 18,643 17 ,804 36,447 19 ,711 18 ,864 38,575 20 ,326 19 , 380 39 ,: 4 17 ,282 16 ,352 33,634 18 ,810 17,974 36,784 19 ,684 18 ,832 38,i 5 15 , 945 15 ,526 31,471 17 ,955 16,985 34,940 19 , 294 18 ,409 37, y 6 14 ,970 14 ,228 29,198 15 ,059 14,697 29,756 16 ,861 15 , 942 32,£ 7 14,614 14 ,036 28 , 650 15 ,221 14 ,487 29,708 15 ,107 14,744 29,t 8 14,164 13 ,501 27,665 14 ,868 14,299 29,167 15 ,266 14 ,535 29 ,£ 9 14,790 14 ,413 29,203 14 ,439 13 , 776 28,215 14 ,933 14,359 29,2 10 14,031 13 , 363 27,394 15 ,039 14,662 29,701 14 ,474 13,805 28 ,2 11 13,038 12 ,471 25,509 14 ,221 13,564 27,785 15 ,020 14 , 647 29 , 6 12 12,381 11 ,943 24,324 13 ,282 12,720 26,002 14 ,260 13,601 27,8 13 12,564 11 ,996 24,560 12 ,634 12,199 24,833 13 , 332 12, 766 26 , Q 14 12,214 11 ,680 23,894 12 ,798 12,242 25,040 12 ,664 12,234 24 , 8 15 12 9 658 12 , 340 24,998 12 ,464 11,937 24 ,401 12 ,847 12,290 25,1 16 13,215 12 ,877 26,092 12 ,899 12,586 25,485 12 ,504 11,975 24 ,4 17 13,955 13 ,230 27,185 13 ,362 13,012 26,374 12 ,852 12.519 25 , 3 18 14,920 14 ,889 29 ,809 15 ,027 14,955 29,982 14 , 316 14 ,596 28,9 19 14 ,273 16 ,546 30,819 13 ,786 15,786 29,572 13 ,725 15,658 29 , 3 20 11,995 16 , 721 28,716 13 ,551 17,056 30,607 12 ,151 15,999 28 , ] 21 14,724 16 ,434 31,158 16 ,560 17,483 34 ,043 17 ,377 17,541 34 , 9 22 16,486 15 ,360 32,346 16 ,212 15,938 32,150 17 ,958 16,948 34 , 9 23 16,593 15 ,705 32,298 16 ,565 15,756 32,321 16 ,201 15,786 31,9 24 16 ,117 15 , 041 31,158 16 ,620 15 , 540 32,160 16 ,516 15,568 32,0 25 15 , 360 14 ,605 29,965 15 ,831 14 ,874 30,705 16 ,273 15,358 31,-6 26 14 , 656 13 , 954 28,610 15 ,054 14,603 29,657 15 ,494 14 ,860 30 , 3 27 13,927 13 ,327 27,254 14 ,517 13,940 28,457 14 ,883 14,575 29 ,4 28 12,710 12 ,187 24 ,897 13 ,808 13,243 27,051 14 ,362 13 ,841 28,2 29 12,207 12 ,154 24 , 361 12 ,652 12,362 25,014 13 ,716 13 ,406 27 ,1 30 11,708 11 , 647 23,355 12 ,361 12,290 24,651 12 ,765 12,473 25 ,2 31 11,310 10 ,897 22,207 11 ,838 11,783 23,621 12 ,474 12,414 24 ,8 32 11,315 11 ,087 22,402 11 ,441 11,034 22,475 11 ,951 11,906 23 ,8 33 10,702 10 ,476 21,178 11 ,445 11,228 22,673 11 ,550 11,158 22, 7 34 8 , 395 8 ,151 16,546 10 ,827 10,614 21,441 11 ,534 11,335 22,8 35 8 ,373 8 , 377 16,750 8 ,436 8,211 15,647 10 ,881 10,686 21,5' 36 8 ,582 8 ,810 17,392 8 ,432 8,446 16,878 8 s486 8 ,270 16 , 7. 37 8,437 8 ,264 16,701 8 ,635 8 ,872 17,507 8 ,479 8 , 501 16 , 91 38 7,178 7 ,074 14 ,252 8 ,496 8 ,330 16,826 8 , 682 8 , 924 17,61 39 6 , 991 7 , 092 14,083 7 ,233 7 ,134 14,367 8 ,550 8 , 388 16 , 9: 40 6 , 746 6 , 798 13 ,544 7 ,071 7,166 14,237 7 ,311 7 , 210 14,5: 41 6,579 6 ,478 13,057 6 ,818 6,876 13,694 7 ,140 7 , 240 14 , 31 42 6 ,254 6 ,407 12,661 6 ,651 6,554 13,205 6 ,889 6,949 13 r s : 43 5 , 945 6 ,122 12,067 6 ,320 6,477 12,797 6 ,711 6,622 1 3 , 3 : 44 6,050 6 ,249 12,299 6 ,019 6,190 12,209 6 , 389 6 , 543 12,9: 45 5,946 6 , 077 12,023 6 ,059 6,269 12,328 6 ,028 6 ,210 1 2 , 2 : - B - 4 - STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE 3Y SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 1980 1980 1981 1981 1982 1982 AGE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL 46 5,560 5 , 624 11,184 5,955 6,091 12,046 6 ,067 6 ,283 12,350 47 5,550 5,687 11,237 5,568 5,642 11,210 5,961 6 ,107 12,068 ^8 5,449 5,476 10,925 5,549 5,700 11,249 5,565 5,653 11,218 k9 5,696 5,956 11,652 5,454 5,488 10,942 5,552 5 , 711 11,263 50 5 , 634 5,797 11,431 5,695 5 , 970 11,665 5,451 5 , 500 10,951 51 5,569 5 , 668 11,237 5 , 630 5 ,812 11,442 5,688 5 , 983 11,671 52 5,467 5 ,522 10,989 5,560 5,680 11,240 5,620 5,822 11,442 53 5,407 5 ,648 11,055 5,464 5,531 10,995 5,554 5 , 685 11,239 54 5,517 5,616 11,133 5,393 5,659 11,052 5 ,447 5 ,540 10 , 987 55 5,305 5,623 10,928 5,493 5,610 11,103 5 , 367 5 , 651 11,018 56 5,228 5,543 10,771 5,281 5,616 10,897 5,464 5,601 11,065 57 5,022 5,328 10,350 5,201 5,537 10,738 5,252 5 , 608 10,860 58 5,082 5,388 10,470 4,980 5,322 10,302 5,155 5,528 10 , 683 59 4 ,967 5 ,215 10 ,182 5,046 5, 378 10,424 4 ,943 5,311 10,254 50 4,711 5,014 9,725 4 ,928 5,202 10,130 5,004 5,362 10,366 51 4,650 5,127 9,777 4,662 5,005 9,667 4 ,875 5,191 10 ,066 52 4 ,576 4 ,756 9,332 4 , 602 5,111 9,713 4 , 614 4 , 990 9 , 604 53 4,156 4 ,622 8,778 4,517 4 ,730 9,247 4 ,542 5 ,080 9 ,622 54 4 , 059 4 ,589 8,648 4 ,091 4,598 8,689 4 ,445 4 , 705 9 ,150 55 3,894 4,230 8,124 4 ,092 4,665 8,757 4 ,123 4 , 673 8 , 796 56 3,790 4 ,410 8,200 3,929 4,309 8,238 4 ,121 4 ,736 8 , 857 57 3 ,476 4 ,096 7,572 3,789 4,477 8,266 3,923 4,377 8 , 300 58 3,397 4 ,050 7 ,447 3,483 4,159 7,642 3,787 4 ,534 8 , 321 59 3,079 3 , 761 6 ,840 3,391 4,108 7,499 3,474 4 ,216 7 , 690 '0 3,068 3,594 6,662 3,057 3,808 6,865 3 , 357 4 ,149 7 ,506 r l 2,785 3,543 6,328 3,043 3,630 6,673 3 ,033 3 ,840 6,873 '2 2,652 3,341 5,993 2,763 3,563 6,326 3,012 3 , 649 6 , 661 '2 2,298 3,032 5,330 2,614 3,356 5,970 2,720 3,573 6 , 293 '4 2,228 3,096 5 , 324 2,247 3,048 5,295 2,548 3 , 363 5 , 911 '5 1,996 2, 762 4,758 2,181 3,101 5 ,282 2,199 3 , 054 5 ,25 3 '6 1,889 2,566 4 ,455 1,933 2,752 4,685 2,108 3 , 080 5 ,188 '7 1,615 2,454 4 ,069 1,829 2,558 4 , 387 1,870 2, 738 4 , 608 8 1,417 2,135 3,552 1,549 2,418 3 , 967 1, 749 2,518 4 ,267 9 1,346 2,062 3,408 1, 354 2,109 3,463 1,477 2, 381 3 ,858 0 1,190 1,956 3,146 1,266 2,023 3,289 1,273 2 , 067 3 , 340 1 1, 031 1, 604 2,635 1,118 1,900 3,018 1,188 1, 964 3,152 2 916 1,495 2,411 959 1,548 2,507 1, 039 1,825 2 ,864 3 762 1, 370 2,132 846 1,432 2,278 885 1,482 2, 367 4 728 1,254 1,982 695 1,297 1, 992 769 1, 354 2 ,123 5 + 3,011 5,841 8,852 3,282 6,472 9,754 3 ,484 7 , 063 10 , 547 OT 724,501 736,536 1,461,037 752,871 763,779 1,516 , 650 774,903 785 ,896 1, 560 , 799 - B - 5 - STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE 3Y SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 1983 1983 1984 1984 1985 191 :5 AGE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAI 0-1 19,740 18,824 38,564 19 443 18,533 37,976 18 ,970 18,086 37 0 1 20 ,783 1 9 , 8 21 40,604 19 482 18,577 38,059 19,310 18,416 37 7 2 20 , 943 19,967 • 40,910 20 546 19,583 40,129 19,369 18 ,467 37 8 3 21,589 20,511 42,100 20 707 19,737 40,444 20 ,443 19 ,489 39 9 4 20,121 19,176 39,297 21 356 20,283 41,639 20,669 19 , 700 40 3 5 19,929 19,042 38,971 20 279 19 , 304 39,583 20,427 19,386 39 8 6 18,105 17,277 35,382 18 854 18,017 36,871 19,814 18 ,837 38 6 7 16,825 15,912 32,737 18 041 17,220 35,261 18,244 17,421 35 6 8 15,077 14,720 29,797 16 765 15 ,861 32,626 18,604 17,774 36 3 9 15,256 14,524 29,780 15 044 14,680 29,724 17,690 16,748 34 4 10 14,911 14,334 29,245 15 213 14,479 29,692 15,915 15 ,537 31 4 11 14,394 13,735 28,129 14 811 14,243 29,054 15,708 14 ,965 30 6 12 14,998 14,626 29,624 14 351 13,692 28,043 15,346 14,752 30 0 13 14,253 13,595 27,848 14 893 14,514 29,407 14,451 13,776 28 2 14 13,308 12,750 26,058 14 147 13,497 27,644 14,835 14,471 29 3 15 12,660 12,236 24,896 13 157 12,596 25,753 15,244 14,548 29 7 16 12,832 12,281 25,113 12 546 12,117 24,663 13,776 13,194 26 9 17 12,407 11,872 24,279 12 704 12,147 24,851 12,707 12,269 24 9 18 13,856 14,102 27,958 13 386 13,489 26,875 13,526 13 ,633 27 1 19 13,193 15,287 28,480 12 783 14,789 27,572 12,130 13 , 953 26 0 20 12,067 15,744 27,811 11 471 15,335 26,806 10,738 14.534 25 2 21 15,422 16,196 31,618 15 241 15,904 31,145 14,096 15 ,153 29 2 22 18,700 16,862 35,562 16 663 15,473 32,136 16,029 14 ,881 30 9 23 17 ,o76 16,670 34,546 18 532 16,538 35,070 16,064 14,832 30 8 24 16,092 15,452 31,544 17 664 16,276 33 ,940 17,839 15 ,838 33 6 25 16,068 15,222 31,290 15 537 15,054 30,591 16,730 15,604 32 3 26 15 ,836 15 ,178 31,014 15 543 14,987 30,530 14 ,632 14,577 29 2 27 15,222 14,667 29,889 15 478 14,931 30,409 14,823 14 ,505 29 5 28 14,632 14,314 28,946 14 882 14,351 29,233 14,785 14 , 392 29 1 29 14,172 13,846 28,018 14 358 14,267 28,625 14,269 14 ,086 28 3 30 13,788 13,405 27,193 14 170 13,806 27,976 14,034 14,014 28 0 31 12,814 12,480 25,294 13 760 13,371 27,131 13,823 13 , 561 27 3 32 12,529 12,423 24,952 12 795 12,446 25,241 13,418 13,140 26 5 33 12,006 11,921 23,927 12 511 12,396 24,907 12,476 12,224 24 7 34 11,584 11,160 22,744 11 968 11,883 23 ,851 12,175 12,166 24 3 35 11,519 11,333 22,852 11 545 11,135 22,680 11,676 11,696 23 3 36 10 ,885 10,698 21,583 11 491 11,314 22,805 11,299 10,973 22 2 37 8,484 8,273 16,757 10 857 10,676 21,533 11,303 11,15 6 22 4 38 8,478 8 ,501 16 ,979 8 462 8,255 16 , 717 10,678 10 , 523 21 2. 39 8,682 8,924 17,606 8 461 8,483 16,944 8,322 8,139 16 4 40 8,576 8,411 16,987 8 684 8,916 17,600 8,346 8,378 16 7 41 7,338 7,241 14,579 8 573 8,417 16,990 8 ,558 8 ,801 17 3 42 7 ,168 7,265 14,433 7 350 7,252 14,602 8 ,454 8,322 16 7 43 6,910 6,972 13,882 7 170 7,266 14,436 7,249 7,171 14 4 44 6,738 6 , 647 13,385 6 921 6, 976 13,897 7,082 7 ,181 14 2 45 6,378 6,541 12,919 6 716 6,634 13,350 6 , 809 6 ,888 13 6 - B - 6 - STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE 3Y SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 1983 1983 1984 1984 19< B5 19c 15 ^GE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL ^6 6 , 017 6,202 12,219 6 , 356 6,522 12,878 6 610 6 , 540 13 150 + 7 6,055 6,277 12,332 5,995 6,186 12,181 6 252 6 , 434 12 686 + 8 5,938 6,097 12,035 6,022 6,256 12,278 5 890 6 , 098 11 988 + 9 5,550 5,643 11,193 5,912 6,076 11,988 5 917 6, 165 12 082 50 5,532 5,702 11,234 5,519 5 ,625 11,144 5 805 5 , 991 11 796 51 5,427 5,493 10,920 5,499 5,684 11,183 5 417 5, 544 10 961 52 5,658 5,970 11,628 5,390 5,472 10,862 5 390 5 , 601 10 991 53 5,595 5,806 11,401 5,624 5,942 11,566 5 292 5 , 384 10 676 54 5 ,518 5,672 11,190 5,550 5,782 11,332 5 508 5 , 851 11 359 55 5,405 5,515 10,920 5,466 5,638 11,104 5 434 5 , 682 11 116 56 5,323 5 , 624 10,947 5,352 5,481 10,833 5 349 5 , 543 10 892 57 5,416 5 ,576 10,992 5 ,268 5 ,590 10,858 5 238 5 , 393 10 631 58 5,188 5,582 10,770 5,341 5,541 10,882 5 143 5 , 498 10 641 59 5,099 5 ,499 10,598 5,125 5,544 10,669 5 219 5, 446 10 665 >0 4 ,887 5,279 10,166 5 , 033 5,456 10,489 5 008 5 , 447 10 455 Jl 4 , 935 5,334 10,269 4,811 5,243 10,054 4 903 5 , 364 10 267 i2 4 ,809 5,158 9,967 4,860 5,292 10,152 4 690 5, 148 9 838 i3 4 ,540 4,946 9,486 4,724 5,105 9,829 4 726 5, 186 9 912 i4 4 ,456 5,037 9,493 4,447 4,896 9,343 4 578 4 , 999 9 577 15 4 ,457 4,769 9,226 4,461 5,091 9,552 4 409 4 , 901 9 310 16 4,140 4,735 8,875 4 , 4 61 4,825 9,286 4 418 5, 091 9 509 17 4,099 4,789 8,888 4,112 4,783 8,895 4 378 4, 819 9 197 18 3,907 4,427 8,334 4,071 4 ,827 8 ,898 4 044 4 , 770 8 814 • 9 3,759 4 ,577 8,336 3,869 4 ,466 8,335 3 986 4 , 807 8 793 '0 3,428 4,247 7,675 3,696 4 ,596 8,292 3 764 4 , 440 8 204 1 3,313 4,166 7,479 3 ,377 4 ,257 7,634 3 596 4 , 548 8 144 2 2,994 3,846 6 ,840 3 ,259 4 ,159 7,418 3 283 4 , 201 7 484 3 2,951 3 , 650 6,601 2,930 3,837 6, 767 3 151 4 , 099 7 250 4 2,642 3,567 6 ,209 2,857 3,638 6,495 2 805 3 , 779 6 584 5 2,480 3,355 5,835 2,566 3,550 6,116 2 741 3 , 580 6 321 6 2,119 3 , 028 5,147 2, 379 3 , 315 5,694 2 434 3 , 468 5 902 7 2,030 3 , 049 5 , 079 2,038 2,996 5 , 034 2 260 3 , 241 5 501 8 1,783 2, 685 4,468 1,930 2,980 4 ,910 1 919 2 , 901 4 820 9 1,659 2,471 4 ,130 1,689 2,628 4,317 1 808 2, 884 4 692 0 1,382 2, 318 3 ,700 1,547 2,405 3, 952 1 561 2 , 531 4 092 1 1,191 2 , 0 0 1 3 ,192 1,289 2,236 3,525 1 424 2, 296 3 720 2 1,099 1,882 2,981 1,100 1,914 3,014 1 180 2, 119 3 299 3 954 1,736 2,690 1,007 1,787 2, 794 1 000 1, 803 2 803 4 802 1,397 2,199 862 1,629 2,491 904 1 1 665 2 569 5 + 3 , 711 7 , 616 11,327 3,929 8 ,129 12,058 4 147 8 , 760 12 907 OT 791, 392 801, 661 1,593,053 805,034 815,079 1,620,113 814 466 826, 174 1, 640 640 - B - 7 - STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE BY SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 1986 AGE MALES FEMALES 1986 TOTAL 1987 MALES FEMALES 1987 TOTAL 1988 MALES FEMALES 0-1 17 979 17,110 35 088 17 706 16 ,851 34 557 17, 517 16 ,671 34 , It 1 18 909 18,033 36 942 17 844 16 ,988 34 832 17, 656 16,809 34 , ki 2 19 236 18 , 343 37 578 18 789 17 ,915 36 704 17, 808 16 ,950 34 , 71 3 19 272 18,377 37 649 19 112 18 ,228 37 340 18 , 747 17,877 36, e: 4 20 313 19 ,364 39 677 19 151 18 ,260 37 411 19, 069 18,185 37 , 21 5 20 512 19,561 40 073 20 179 19 ,248 39 427 19 , 100 18,223 37 , 32 6 20 195 1 9 , 1 6 4 ' 39 359 20 ,326 19 , 374 39 701 20 , 075 19 ,138 39,23 7 19 652 18 , 689 38 341 20 093 19 ,073 39 166 20, 303 19,358 39,66 8 18 101 17,293 35 394 19 ,552 18 ,599 38 151 20, 066 19,055 39,12 9 18 471 17,649 36 ,120 18 033 17 ,229 35 262 19, 553 18 , 602 38 , If 10 17 580 16,645 34 ,225 18 390 17 ,565 35 955 18, 012 17,201 35,2] 11 15 772 15,390 31 162 17 440 16 ,515 33 955 18, 304 17 ,486 35,7? 12 15 607 14 ,870 30 477 15 ,698 15 ,321 31 019 17, 416 16,495 33 , 91 13 15 215 14,625 29 841 15 509 14 , 772 30 281 15, 653 15,271 30 , 92 14 14 371 13 ,678 28 050 15 146 14 ,541 29 686 15, 488 14 , 733 30 ,22 15 14 680 14,341 29 021 14 245 13 ,584 27 829 15, 065 14 ,487 29s5i 16 15 185 14 ,510 29 695 14 649 14 ,320 28 969 14 , 260 13,607 27 ,86 17 13 706 13,129 26 835 15 090 14 ,416 29 506 14, 602 14 ,266 28 ,86 18 13 587 13,799 27,386 14 517 14 ,600 29 117 15, 879 15 ,865 31, 74 19 12 079 14,429 26,508 11 ,986 14 ,390 26 376 12, 742 15 ,184 27 , 92 20 10 595 14 ,442 25 037 9 778 14 ,408 24 186 9, 725 14,448 24,17 21 15 130 15,096 30 226 14 859 14 ,537 29 396 13, 624 14 ,591 28 ,21 22 15 372 14,431 29 803 16 254 14 ,295 30 549 16, 114 13 ,835 29,94 23 15 888 14,521 30 409 15 065 14 ,003 29 068 16, 073 13,966 30,03 24 15 897 14,416 30 314 15 528 14,064 29 593 14 , 843 13 , 651 28 ,49 25 17 256 15,382 32 638 15 220 13 , 952 29 172 14 , 996 13 , 713 28 , 70 26 16 144 15,308 31 452 16 572 15 ,080 31 652 14 , 693 13, 771 28 ,46 27 14 265 14,284 28 549 15 644 14 ,997 30 641 16 , 212 14 ,884 31,09 28 14 445 14 ,130 28 575 13 803 13 ,913 27 716 15 , 304 14 ,734 30 , 03 29 14 434 14,275 28 710 14 048 14 ,027 28 075 13 , 537 13,921 27,45 30 14 235 13,998 28 234 14 360 14 ,194 28 554 14, 083 14,039 28 ,12 31 13 979 13 , 927 27 907 14 095 13 ,908 28 002 14 , 331 14,194 28,52 32 13 767 13,479 27 245 13 843 13 ,839 27 682 14 , 068 13,910 27 97 33 13 362 13,066 26 428 13 630 13 , 397 27 027 13, 814 13,845 27 , 65 34 12 404 12,134 24 538 13 205 12 ,966 26 172 13, 576 13,381 26 , 95 35 12 152 12,117 24 269 12 316 12 ,085 24 401 13 , 195 12,971 26 ,16 36 11 659 11,657 23 316 12 050 12 ,064 24 114 12,285 12,084 24,37 37 11 269 10,929 22 197 11 562 11 ,602 23 164 12, 014 12,056 24 , 07 38 11 247 11,098 22 345 11 183 10 ,876 22 059 1 1 , 530 11,591 23 ,12 39 10 632 10,472 21 105 11 186 11 ,051 22 238 1 1 , 164 10 ,872 22,03 40 8 303 8,116 16 419 10 566 10 ,414 20 981 1 1 , 162 11,030 22,19 41 8 319 8 , 354 16 673 8 259 8 , 090 16 349 10, 540 10 ,403 20 , 94 42 8 530 8 , 766 17 296 8 277 8 , 321 16 598 8 , 255 8 ,094 16 , 34 43 8 419 8,293 16 712 8 472 8 , 720 17 192 8, 261 8,316 16,57 44 7 238 7 ,155 14 392 8 372 8 ,255 16 627 8, 461 8 , 709 17,17 45 7 059 7 ,164 14 223 7 193 7 . 129 14 322 8 , 346 8 ,247 16 ,59 STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE BY SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 1986 1986 1987 1987 1988 1988 AGE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL 46 6,785 6 ,865 13,651 7,015 7 ,132 14 ,147 7,170 7 ,116 14,285 47 6,584 6,520 13,104 6,742 6,837 13,579 6,991 7,120 14,111 48 6,216 6 ,409 12,626 6,531 6,489 13,020 6 ,707 6 ,822 13,529 49 5,863 6,073 11,936 6,174 6,377 12,551 6 ,505 6,472 12,977 50 5,883 6 ,141 12,024 5,816 6,045 11,861 6,142 6 , 363 12,505 51 5,768 5 ,968 11,737 5,832 6 ,112 11,944 5 , 783 6 ,031 11,814 52 5,379 5 ,520 10,898 5,714 5,937 11,651 5 ,794 6 , 095 11 ,889 53 5,357 5,573 10,930 5 ,332 5 ,486 10,819 5 , 681 5 , 915 11,596 54 5,250 5 , 360 10,610 5 , 300 5,542 10 ,841 5 ,291 5,469 10,760 55 5,461 5,817 11,278 5,192 5,323 10 ,515 5,255 5 ,514 10 ,769 56 5 ,385 5 ,647 11,032 5,399 5,775 11,174 5,146 5 ,295 10 , 441 57 5,295 5,509 10,805 5,322 5,608 10,930 5,348 5 , 745 11,094 58 5,168 5,359 10,527 5,218 5,471 10,689 5,255 5,579 10,834 59 5,080 5,460 10,540 5,100 5,319 10,419 5,160 5 ,440 10,600 50 5,152 5 , 404 10,556 5, Oil 5,415 10,425 5,041 5,285 10,326 51 4,932 5,409 10,341 5,069 5 , 363 10,433 4 , 941 5 , 384 10,325 52 4,830 5,322 10,152 4,854 5,363 10,218 5,000 5 , 328 10 , 328 53 4 ,610 5,096 9,706 4,743 5,264 10,007 4,777 5,315 10,092 54 4,632 5,135 9 , 767 4,514 5,043 9,556 4,654 5,219 9,872 55 4 ,587 5,058 9,645 4 ,636 5 ,188 9,824 4,528 5 ,104 9 , 632 56 4,419 4,958 9, 377 4,590 5,110 9,700 4,645 5 ,246 9,891 57 4,387 5 ,136 0,523 4 , 386 5,003 9,390 4 ,560 5,160 9, 719 58 4,347 4 ,859 9,206 4 ,355 5,171 9,526 4 , 362 5 , 046 9,408 59 4 ,007 4 ,806 8,213 4 ,301 4 ,894 9,195 4,316 5 ,207 9 , 522 ?0 3 ,921 4 ,825 8,746 3,942 4,824 8,766 4 , 2 31 4,916 9 ,147 '1 3,705 4,449 8,155 3,858 4 ,826 8,684 3,884 4,830 8 , 714 3,537 4 , 537 8 ,073 3 ,642 4,440 8,083 3,795 4 ,814 8 , 608 '3 3 ,212 4 ,188 7 ,401 3,456 4,516 7,972 3,563 4,427 7 , 990 ?A 3,054 4,079 7,134 3,113 4,166 7,279 3,350 4 ,490 7,840 '5 2, 728 3,760 6 ,488 2,966 4 , 053 7,019 3 ,027 4 ,142 7 ,168 '6 2,633 3 ,538 6,172 2,621 3,713 6 , 334 2,850 4 , 000 6,851 '7 2,341 3,426 5, 768 2,531 3,494 6,025 2,523 3 ,667 6,190 r8 2,151 3,170 5,322 2,228 3,348 5,576 2,409 3 ,417 5 ,826 '9 1,821 2,841 4,562 2,039 3,099 5,138 2,113 3 , 273 5 , 387 10 1,691 2,804 4 ,494 1,703 2, 763 4 ,466 1,906 3 , 012 4 , 918 11 1,459 2,443 3 , 902 1,579 2, 702 4 ,280 1,592 2,666 4 , 259 12 1, 318 2,198 3,516 1,350 2, 336 3,686 1,4 61 2,582 4 ,043 S3 1, 086 2,015 3,100 1,211 2, 088 3,299 1,242 2,219 3 ,461 14 909 1,698 2 , 606 985 1,893 2,878 1,098 1,963 3 , 061 15 + 4,427 9 ,438 13,865 4 , 672 10,064 14,736 4 , 959 10 ,805 15,754 •OT 827,792 838,824 1,666,616 837 ,838 849,571 1,687,408 850 , 576 863 ,214 1,713,790 - B - 9 - STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE BY SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 1989 1989 1990 AGE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES 0-1 17 ,407 16,567 33,974 17 ,520 1 17,512 16 672 34,184 17 ,402 2 17,666 16,815 34 480 17 ,522 3 17,811 16,955 34 766 17 ,669 4 18,742 17 872 36 614 17 ,812 5 19,054 18 182 37 237 18 , 729 6 19,032 18 148 37 180 18 ,986 7 20.083 19 153 39 236 19 ,041 8 20,307 19 368 39 675 20 , 085 9 20,098 19 087 39 185 20 ,337 10 19,553 18 594 38 147 20 ,098 11 17,949 17 146 35 095 19 ,487 12 18,302 17 488 35 790 17 ,947 13 17,391 16 466 33 856 18 ,278 14 15,657 15 256 30 912 17 ,388 15 15,429 14 701 30 131 15 ,598 16 15,103 14 532 29 634 15 ,464 17 14,239 13 580 27 819 15 ,070 18 15,441 15 746 31 188 15 ,093 19 13,822 16 396 30 217 13 ,476 20 10,506 15 270 25 776 11 ,521 21 13,646 14 678 28 324 14 , 661 22 14,917 13 929 28 846 14 ,926 23 15,986 13 541 29 527 14 ,782 24 15,906 13 668 29 574 15 ,803 25 14,364 13 361 27 725 15 ,432 26 14,554 13 598 28 152 13 ,923 27 14,425 13 647 28 071 14 ,288 28 15,963 14 694 30 657 14 ,180 29 15,124 14 813 29 937 15 , 784 30 13,642 13 993 27 635 15 ,264 31 14,131 14 098 28 229 13 ,695 32 14 ,379 14 255 28 634 14 ,182 33 14,113 13 972 28 085 14 ,428 34 13,833 13 885 27 718 14 ,132 35 13 ,622 13 424 27 046 13 ,884 36 13,215 13 008 26 222 13 ,643 37 12,300 12 110 24 410 13 ,230 38 12,029 12 078 24 107 12 ,314 39 11,553 11 618 23 171 12 ,053 40 11,168 10 880 22 048 11 ,557 41 11,162 11 042 22 204 11 ,164 42 10,554 10 420 20 974 11 ,167 43 8,267 8 116 16 383 10 ,555 44 8,281 8 335 16 616 8 ,287 45 8,452 8 714 17 167 8 ,274 1990 1995 FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES 16 674 34 ,193 18 164 17,286 16 568 33,970 17 ,924 17 064 16 678 34,200 17 763 16 907 16 820 34,489 17 609 16 764 16 955 34,768 17 ,513 16 671 17 869 36,598 17 388 16 562 18 107 37 , 093 17 222 16 396 18 164 37,205 17 353 16 526 19 161 39,245 17 515 16 685 19 ,398 39,735 17 697 16 859 19 081 39,179 18 622 17 764 18 536 38,023 18 879 18 015 17 148 35,094 18 922 18 056 17 458 35,736 19 925 19 004 16 446 33,834 20 150 19 198 15 223 30,822 19 852 18 861 14 743 30,206 19 335 18 411 14 494 29,564 17 744 16 969 15 092 30,185 18 768 18 621 16 275 29,751 15 393 18 115 16 463 27,984 11 715 17 082 15 570 30,232 16 218 1 7 050 14 006 28,932 17 143 16 165 13 626 28,408 16 228 1* 098 13 234 29,037 16 399 15 341 13 371 28,803 16 420 15 165 13 248 27,171 14 528 13 675 13 474 27,762 13 179 12 599 13 458 27,638 12 899 12 308 14 775 30,560 13 886 12 287 14 890 30,154 14 110 12 808 14 054 27 , 749 13 126 12 880 14 160 28,343 13 818 13 295 14 321 28,749 14 006 13 542 14 014 28,147 15 845 14 831 13 932 27,815 15 277 14 962 13 462 27,106 13 700 14 119 13 036 26,266 14 165 14 205 12 132 24 ,446 14 381 14 332 12 106 24,159 14 112 14 037 11 620 23 ,177 13 799 13 890 10 894 22,058 13 517 13 382 11 051 22,218 13 082 12 928 10 432 20,987 12 153 12 006 8 139 16,426 11 880 11,960 8 342 16,616 11 400 11 517 STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE BY SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 1989 1989 1990 1990 1995 1995 AGE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL 46 8,339 8,247 16,586 8,443 8 , 713 17,156 11 ,014 10 ,807 21 321 47 7,162 7,119 14,281 8,330 8,251 16,581 11 ,024 10 , 967 21 991 48 6,970 7 ,118 14,088 7,142 7,117 14,260 10 ,414 10 , 361 20 774 49 6,695 6,817 13,512 6,958 7,113 14,071 8 ,161 8 , 081 16 ,242 50 6 ,485 6 ,470 12,955 6, 676 6,815 13,491 8 130 8 ,271 16 401 51 6,121 6 , 360 12,481 6,463 6 ,468 12,930 8 274 8 , 631 16 905 52 5,758 6,025 11,783 6 ,094 6,355 12,449 8 140 8 ,170 16 311 53 5,773 6 , 083 11,857 5,739 6 , 015 11,754 6 976 7 ,038 14 014 54 5,649 5 , 907 11,557 5, 742 6,075 11,817 6 768 7,026 13 794 55 5,256 5 ,450 10,707 5,612 5,887 11,499 6 474 6,715 13 189 56 5,218 5,494 10,713 5,220 5,431 10,651 6 244 6,351 12 595 57 5,108 5,277 10 , 385 5,180 5,476 10,656 5 871 6 ,227 12 098 58 5 ,292 5 , 725 11,016 ' 5,054 5,259 10,313 5 491 5 ,884 11 374 59 5,207 5,556 10,762 5,243 5,700 10,943 5 473 5,926 11 399 60 5,109 5,413 10,522 5,155 5,528 10,684 5 330 5,734 11 064 61 4,979 5 ,264 10 ,243 5,047 5, 391 10,437 4 931 5,287 10 219 62 4 ,882 5 , 357 10,238 4,920 5,238 10,158 4 872 5 , 325 10 196 63 4 ,928 5,289 10,217 4,812 5,318 10,130 4 736 5 ,091 9 827 64 4 , 696 5,278 9,974 4 ,844 5,252 10,096 4 873 5 , 500 10 373 65 4 ,672 5,284 9 ,956 4,714 5 , 343 10,057 4 856 5,429 10 286 66 4,547 5,168 9, 715 4 , 688 5, 346 10,035 4 828 5 , 382 10 210 67 4,621 5,300 9 , 920 4,525 5,224 9, 749 4 741 5 , 319 10 060 68 4,536 5 , 206 9,742 4 ,596 5 , 344 9 , 941 4 680 5,475 10 155 69 4,328 5 ,089 9 ,416 4 ,498 5,247 9 , ' 7 / ,5 4 740 5,490 10 230 70 4,251 5 ,228 9,479 4 ,263 5,112 9,375 4 536 5 ,532 10 068 71 4,167 4 ,925 9,092 4,186 5,232 9,418 4 427 5,477 9 903 72 3,824 4,822 8,646 4,098 4,915 9,013 4 233 5,294 9 527 73 3,713 4 ,796 8,509 3,742 4,804 8,546 4 213 5, 335 9 548 74 3,456 4 ,407 7,863 3,599 4,767 8 , 366 4 029 5 ,170 9 199 75 3,257 4,461 7,718 3,359 4,381 7 ,740 3 773 4 , 986 8 760 76 2,911 4 ,090 7,001 3,129 4,401 7,529 3 607 5,008 8 616 77 2,743 3 , 949 6 ,692 2,801 4 , 037 6,838 3 447 4 ,664 8 111 78 2, 405 3 , 586 5 , 991 2, 612 3,858 6,469 3 070 4 ,466 7 537 79 2,285 3 , 343 5,627 2,281 3,506 5,786 2 882 4 , 344 7 226 80 1, 977 3 ,181 5,158 2,135 3,248 5 , 383 2 587 3 , 913 6 500 81 1,781 2,905 4 , 686 1,847 3,066 4 , 912 2 340 3 ,823 6 16 3 82 1,475 2,551 4 , 026 1,647 2,776 4 ,423 2 017 3 , 403 5 420 83 1, 344 2 , 4 51 3,795 1,357 2,422 3,779 1 812 3,154 4 966 84 1,127 2,086 3 ,214 1,218 2, 301 3 ,519 1 516 2 , 759 4 275 85 + 5 , 311 11,533 16 ,845 5,641 12,289 17,930 7 524 16 ,289 23 813 TOT 865,043 878,484 1, 743 ,527 879 ,741 893,720 1 773,460 943 779 960,203 1,903 982 - B - l l - STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE 3Y SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 2000 2000 2005 AGE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES 0-1 19,528 18 582 38,110 21,672 1 19,080 18 164 37,244 21,255 2 18,694 17 792 36,486 20,853 3 18,380 17 496 35,876 20,435 4 18,118 17 246 35,364 20,000 5 17,880 17 030 34,910 19,568 6 17,595 16 751 34,346 19,078 7 17 ,452 16 620 34,072 18,714 8 17,319 16 499 33,818 18,425 9 17,267 16 449 33,717 18,213 10 17,168 16 349 33,517 17,992 11 17,016 16 207 33,223 17,714 12 17,140 16 328 33,469 17,560 13 17,284 16 459 33,743 17,402 14 17,449 16 600 34,049 17,323 15 18,291 17 457 35,748 17,162 16 18,634 17 799 36,432 17,103 17 18,623 17 778 36,401 17,196 18 20 ,228 19 986 40,214 18,047 19 17,322 20 478 37,800 15,621 20 14,549 20 210 34,759 13,745 21 19,765 20 488 40,253 19,523 22 19,554 18 452 38,006 20,840 23 19,686 18 483 38,168 21,621 24 18 ,585 17 085 35,670 21,586 25 16,507 15 580 32,087 21,085 26 15,842 14 916 30 , 758 20,008 27 15,189 14 550 29,739 18,182 28 14,118 13 425 27 ,543 18,181 29 14,276 14 134 28,409 17,009 30 14,839 14 320 29,159 15,470 31 13,456 13 033 26,488 15,274 32 12,445 12 170 24,614 14,970 33 12,492 12 169 24,661 14,216 34 13,696 12 152 25,848 14,640 35 13,891 12 674 26,565 15,119 36 12,927 12 746 25,673 13,690 37 13 ,602 13 149 26,751 12,635 38 13,809 13 410 27,219 12,673 39 15 , 690 14 725 30,415 13,872 40 15,037 14 780 29,818 14,014 41 13 ,456 13 901 27,357 13,083 42 13,863 13 938 27,801 13,697 43 14,014 14 015 28,029 13,846 44 13,720 13 676 27,396 15,580 45 13,420 13 570 26,990 14,945 2005 2010 201C FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL 20,620 42,292 23,897 22 ,735 46 , € 20,232 41,487 23,610 22 ,471 46 , C 19,845 40,698 23,300 22 ,172 45 i 4 19,451 39,886 22,981 21 ,873 44 ,8 19,036 39,035 22,628 21 ,536 44 11 18,636 38,205 22,259 21 ,198 43 4 18,162 37,240 21,792 20 , 744 42 5 17 ,821 36,535 21,403 20 , 380 41 , 7 17,551 35,976 21,003 20 ,006 41 • o 17,350 35,563 20,617 19 , 640 40 ,2 17,134 35,126 20,178 19 , 215 39 3 16,872 34,586 19 ,671 18 , 737 38 , 4 16,729 34,289 19,273 18 , 360 37 6 16,572 33,974 18,942 18 ,04 0 36 9 16,480 33,804 18,690 17 , 784 36 .4 16,350 33,512 18,413 17 ,538 35 ,9 16,300 33,403 18,235 17 , 372 35 . 6 16,383 33,579 18,047 17 ,181 35 2 17,874 35,920 18,592 18 , 380 36 9 18,426 34,047 15,884 18 , 711 34 5 19,306 33,051 13,556 18 ,898 32 4, 20,271 39,793 18,841 19 ,637 38 4 19,608 40,448 20,423 19 ,250 39 6 20,34 7 41,968 20,559 1 Q ,316 39 8 20,234 41,820 20,598 19 ,216 39 8: 19,679 40,764 21,219 19 ,816 41 o: 18,988 38,996 21,053 19 , 969 41 o; 17,431 35,613 20,763 19 ,824 40 5; 17,448 35,629 21,380 20 , 511 41 8< 16,407 33,416 21,302 20 ,751 42 01 15,267 30,737 21,200 20 ,450 41 6: 14,763 30,037 20,468 19 ,801 40 2: 14,608 29,578 18,848 18 , 332 37 it 13,769 27,985 19,127 18 ,584 37 7] 14,496 29,137 18,080 17 ,445 35 52 14,645 29,764 16,401 16 ,225 32 62 13,324 27,014 16,089 15 , 611 31 69 12,413 25,048 15,714 15 , 386 31 0? 12,393 25,066 14,916 14 ,491 29 4C 12, 382 26,254 15,384 15 ,239 30 62 12,875 26,889 15,773 15 , 308 31 08 12,922 26,004 14,296 13 , 941 28 23 13,269 26,966 13 ,217 12 , 994 26 21 13,484 27,331 13,223 12 ,958 26 18 14,669 30,249 14,314 12 , 921 27, 23 14 , 750 29,695 14,435 13 , 386 27, 82 - B - 1 2 - STATE OF UTAH SINGLE YEAR OF AGE BY SEX 1980-1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 2000 2000 2005 2005 2010 AGE MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES TOTAL MALES FEMALES 46 13 ,167 13,093 26,260 13,417 13 ,885 27,302 13,539 13 , 396 47 12, 758 12,682 25 ,440 13,790 13 , 929 27,719 14 ,062 13 , 68^ 48 11,878 11,816 23,694 13,935 14 ,024 27,960 14 ,161 13 ,873 49 11,628 11,803 23,430 13,639 13 , 699 27 , 338 15,846 15 ,043 50 11,134 1 1 , 353 22,486 13,315 13 ,576 26 ,891 15 ,182 15 ,098 51 10,729 10,650 21,379 13,028 13 ,095 26,123 13 , 641 14 ,231 52 10,706 10,792 21,499 12,584 12 ,668 25 ,252 13,950 14 ,249 53 10,112 10,186 20,298 11,708 11 ,788 23 ,496 14,074 14 ,321 54 7 ,892 7,938 15,830 11,424 11 ,771 23,195 13,717 13 976 55 7,835 8,101 15,935 10 ,898 11 ,284 22,182 13,329 13 785 56 7 , 945 8,425 16,370 10,462 10 ,555 21,017 12,975 13 239 57 7 , 797 7,962 15,759 10,405 10 663 21,069 12,481 12 761 58 6 , 640 6,851 13,491 9, 776 10 064 19 ,840 11,525 11 84 7 59 6,419 6,823 13,243 7,593 7 814 15 ,406 11,207 11 791 60 6 ,120 6,510 12,630 7,511 7 959 15,470 10,658 11 288 61 5,869 6 ,152 12,021 7,572 8 265 15 ,837 10 ,178 10 565 62 5,492 6 ,021 11,514 7,404 7 808 15,211 10,071 10 646 63 5 ,118 5,667 10,785 6,281 6 693 12,974 9,460 10 044 64 5,060 5 ,690 10,750 6 , 022 6 643 12,665 7,275 7 764 65 4 ,990 5,598 10,588 5,794 6 420 12,214 7 ,234 7 966 66 4 , 699 5,257 9,956 5,627 6 149 11,776 7 , 335 8 307 67 4,675 5,376 10,051 5,300 6 098 11,398 7 ,178 7 931 68 4 ,593 5 ,243 9,837 4,994 5 841 10,835 6,154 6 917 69 4,748 5,706 10,454 4,970 5 934 10,904 5,931 6 926 70 4 , 643 5,597 10,239 4,813 5 804 10,617 5,617 6 665 71 4 , 530 5 ,494 10,024 4 ,471 5 427 9 ,898 5 , 362 6 342 72 4 ,400 5,367 9 , 767 4 , 395 5 467 9,861 5 , 015 6 213 73 4 , 268 5 ,440 9, 708 4 ,244 5 275 9,519 4 , 661 5 896 74 4 ,214 5 , 376 9,589 4 ,269 5 617 9,886 4 , 527 5 895 75 3,984 5 , 348 9 , 332 4,117 5 452 9 , 570 4 , 325 5 706 76 3,788 5 ,213 9 , 001 3,915 5 273 9,188 3 ,930 5 279 77 3,543 4,984 8,527 3,716 5 093 8,809 3,772 5 243 78 3,423 4 , 912 8,335 3,505 5 045 8,550 3,541 4 963 79 3,196 4 ,675 7,871 3,372 4 891 8,263 3 ,469 5 157 80 2,879 4 ,402 7,282 3,067 4 , 742 7 ,810 3 ,216 4 , 890 81 2, 670 4 , 304 6,974 2,829 4 509 7,339 2,973 4 , 616 82 2,448 3 ,885 6 , 333 2,542 4, 174 6,716 2, 704 4 , 316 83 2,105 3,609 5,715 2,363 3, 984 6,347 2,456 4 , 139 84 1,885 3 , 365 5 , 250 2,105 3 , 640 5 , 745 2,252 3 , 850 85 + 9 , 502 20 ,374 29 ,876 11,4 73 24, 295 35,768 13,115 27 , 701 TOT 998,378 1,017,858 2,016,236 1,083,482 1,102,886 2,186,368 1,212,689 1,230,849 2 APPENDIX G MULTI-COUNTY DISTRICT LEVEL DETAIL PROJECTIONS BEAR RIVER MCD - C - l - BEAR RIVER MCD ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLDS SIZE* 1986 107 ,150 44 800 33 000 3 .24 1987 108,500 45 600 33 600 3 23 1988 110 , 000 46 500 34 200 3 22 1989 111,400 47 400 34 800 3 20 1990 113,100 48 700 35 500 3 19 1991 114,300 49 700 36 000 3 17 1992 115,800 51 000 36 600 3 16 1993 117,000 52 200 37 100 3 15 1994 118,500 53 400 37 700 3 14 1995 119,700 54 500 38 300 3 12 1996 120,400 55 500 38 800 3 10 1997 121,200 56 500 39 300 3 08 1998 122,300 57 700 39 900 3 07 1999 123,600 58 900 40 600 3 05 2000 125,200 60 000 41 400 3 02 2001 126,800 61 300 42 300 3 00 2002 128,500 62 500 43 200 2 98 2003 130,500 63 800 44 100 2 96 2004 133,000 65 200 45 200 2 94 2005 135,400 66 600 46 300 2 92 2006 138,000 68 000 47 500 2 91 2007 140,700 69 400 48 600 2 89 2008 143,800 70 900 49 900 2 88 2009 147,100 72 500 51 200 2 87 2010 150,600 74 200 52 600 2 87 * Household s i z e i s c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by t o t al h o u s e h o l d s . This d i f f e r s somewhat from the Bureau of the Census c a l c u l a t i o n of household s i z e. - C - 2 - BEAR RIVER MCD MAJOR INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS INDUSTRY 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 AGRICULTURE 4 , 6 61 4 ,408 3,800 3,900 3,900 3,900 3 ,900 MINING 10 12 0 0 0 0 0 CONSTRUCTION 1,888 1,499 1, 700 2,000 2,200 2, 500 2 , 900 MANUFACTURING 9,793 13,019 15,100 17,900 20,700 23 ,800 27 ,000 TCPU* 752 768 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1 , 300 TRADE 6,207 6 ,574 7,500 8,400 9 , 200 10,200 11 ,500 FIRE** 889 729 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1 , 300 SERVICES*** 3,412 4,308 5,100 5,800 6,400 7,000 7 ,800 GOVERNMENT 9,476 10,400 11,200 11,800 12,700 14 ,000 NONFARM PROPRIETORS 2,646 3,096 3 ,200 3, 300 3 , 600 4 ,100 4 ,500 TOTAL 39,170 43,889 48,600 54,500 60,000 66,600 74 ,200 * T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , communication and p u b l i c u t i l i t i es ** F i n a n c e , i n s u r a n c e and r e a l e s t a te *** S e r v i c e s i n c l u d e s p r i v a t e household employees BEAR RIVER MCD PROJECTIONS BY FIVE YEAR AGE GROUPS 1985-2010 AGE 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0-4 13 187 12 056 11,415 11,409 12,843 14,718 5-9 11 974 12 942 11,897 11,244 11,531 13,170 10-14 10 250 11 560 12,634 11,576 11,202 11,674 15-19 8 522 9 172 11,408 1^§ 335 11,570 11,421 20-24 11 007 9 581 10,032 12,122 13 ,534 13,158 25-29 10 221 9 567 8,088 8,531 11,338 13,278 30-34 7 758 9 425 8,932 7,427 8, 312 11,529 35-39 5 569 7 448 9,210 8,703 7,532 8,665 40-44 4 572 5 553 7,297 8,877 8,651 7,818 45-49 3 973 4 568 5,481 7,078 8,781 8,805 50-54 3 468 3 874 4,469 5,363 7,079 8 ,921 55-59 3 279 3 340 3,742 4 , 316 5,299 7 ,094 60-64 2 879 3 110 3,175 3,560 4,188 5,239 65-69 2 887 2 823 3,040 3,100 3,511 4 ,163 70-74 2 507 2 789 2,738 2,927 3,019 3,428 75-79 1 970 2 288 2,526 2,485 2, 672 2,777 80-84 1 292 1 593 1,829 2,003 2,000 2,157 85 + 1 010 1 395 1,772 2,100 2,394 2,576 TOTAL 106,325 113,084 119,685 125,156 135,456 150,591 - C - 4 - WASATCH FRONT MCD - C - 5 - WASATCH FRONT MCD ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLDS SIZE* 1986 1 063 600 496 100 351,200 3 03 1987 1 077 200 508 600 357,800 3 01 1988 1 097 000 521 300 366,400 2 99 1989 1 121 000 535 800 376,800 2 97 1990 1 146 100 551 500 387,900 2 95 1991 1 166 600 564 700 397,100 2 94 1992 1 189 600 580 300 406 , 900 2 92 1993 1 210 300 595 100 416,000 2 91 1994 1 233 200 610 800 426,100 2 89 1995 1 251 600 624 300 435,100 2 88 1996 1 266 000 635 600 442,700 2 86 1997 1 280 500 647 300 450,300 2 84 1998 1 299 100 660 500 459,500 2 83 1999 1 321 300 674 900 470,200 2 81 2000 1 342 600 688 500 480,600 2 79 2001 1 365 500 702 900 491,500 2 78 2002 1 389 300 716 600 502,600 2 76 2003 1 416 800 731 600 514,600 2 75 2004 1 445 900 747 300 527,500 2 74 2005 1 475 700 762 700 540,600 2 73 2006 1 505 100 777 400 553,400 2 72 2007 1 535 200 792 200 566/200 2 71 2008 1 570 200 809 200 580,700 2 70 2009 1 605 700 826 200 595,400 2 70 2010 1 642 100 843 700 610,400 2 69 * Household s i z e is c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by t o t al h o u s e h o l d s . This d i f f e r s somewhat from the Bureau of the Census c a l c u l a t i o n of household s i z e. WASATCH FRONT MCD MAJOR INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS INDUSTRY 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 AGRICULTURE 5315 5 , 722 5,600 5 ,600 5 700 5,800 5 ,900 MINING 7 ,122 2,822 3,000 3 ,200 3 400 3,600 3 , 900 CONSTRUCTION 21,608 24,245 26,500 31,200 35 600 40 ,500 45,600 MANUFACTURING 60,121 64,936 70,600 81,600 91 900 103,200 115,300 TCPU* 26,989 29,158 33,100 37,700 42 000 46 , 600 51,600 TRADE 95,898 110,083 126,400 144,900 161 200 179,800 200,300 FIRE** 20,770 25,738 30 ,800 35,200 39 000 43 ,400 48,900 SERVICES*** 71,019 95,086 116 ,500 138,500 155 300 172,200 189 ,400 GOVERNMENT 86,017 94,294 103 ,800 108,500 111 800 118,500 127,600 NONFARM PROPRIETORS 28,016 32,656 35,100 38,000 42 600 49 ,200 55,200 TOTAL 422,875 484 , 740 551,400 624,400 688 500 762,800 843 , 700 * T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , communication and p u b l i c u t i l i t i es ** F i n a n c e , i n s u r a n c e and r e a l e s t a te *** S e r v i c e s i n c l u d e s p r i v a t e household employees WASATCH FRONT MCD PROJECTIONS BY FIVE-YEAR AGE GROUPS 1985-2010 AGE 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0- 4 117,616 113 065 115 913 122,516 136 474 151,245 5- 9 115,097 117 295 114 165 115,817 124 843 140,539 10- 14 94,315 114 459 118 288 114,122 118 074 128,580 15- 19 81,709 90 385 110 759 113 ,141 111 381 116,663 20- 24 86,045 82 889 91 434 110,084 116 820 117 , 796 25- 29 96,064 90 992 89 076 95,754 119 967 130,963 30- 34 89,274 96 347 93 540 89,364 99 983 127 , 367 35- 39 72,855 88 803 97 812 93,360 92 194 104,675 40- 44 55,108 73 452 90 135 97,961 96 321 96,744 45- 49 43,776 55 098 73 966 89,503 99 347 99,322 50- 54 38,094 43 091 54 597 72,718 89 423 100,508 55- 59 36,514 36 993 42 135 52,979 71 671 88,961 60- 64 34,220 34 940 35 585 40,256 51 364 70 ,172 65- 69 29,520 33 534 34 384 34,765 39 594 50,466 70- 74 23,269 28 634 32 322 32,907 33 598 38,2.18 75 = 79 16,870 21 140 25 678 28,632 29 415 30,207 80- 84 10,250 13 621 16 853 20,104 22 519 23 , 261 85 + 8,299 11 321 14 940 18,644 22 684 26,413 TOTAL 1,048,895 1,146 ,059 1,251,582 1,342,627 1,475,672 1,642,100 - C - 8 - MOUNTAINLAND MCD - C - 9 - MOUNTAINLAND MCD ECONOMIC Sc DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLDS SIZE* 1986 275,150 89,400 76,900 3 .58 1987 279 , 000 90,700 78 , 700 3 . 54 1988 282,400 93,100 80,400 3 . 51 1989 284 , 400 95,100 81,800 3 .48 1990 285,500 97,000 83,100 3 . 44 1991 287 , 600 98,700 84,700 3.40 1992 290 , 300 100,800 86 ,200 3 . 37 1993 292,900 102,800 87,800 3.34 1994 295,200 104,800 89,300 3 . 30 1995 297,100 106,700 90,900 3.27 1996 299,000 108,400 92,500 3 . 23 1997 300 ,800 110,200 94,100 3.20 1998 303,600 112,200 95,900 3 .17 1999 304 , 900 114,100 97 ,400 3.13 2000 306 ,000 115,800 98,900 3 . 09 2001 307,700 117,800 100,700 3 . 06 2002 308,500 119,400 102,100 3.02 2003 305,500 121,100 103,100 2.99 2004 309,900 123,200 104,500 2.97 2005 310,500 125,100 105,400 2.95 2006 317,000 128,100 108,200 2 . 93 2007 325,100 131,400 111,600 2 . 91 2008 334,600 135,100 115,300 2.90 2009 344 , 600 139,000 119,400 2.89 2010 355 , 300 143,200 123 , 600 2.88 * Household s i z e is c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by t o t al h o u s e h o l d s . This d i f f e r s somewhat from the Bureau of the Census c a l c u l a t i o n of household s i z e. - C - 1 0 - MOUNTAINLAND MCD MAJOR INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS INDUSTRY 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 AGRICULTURE 3,901 3 ,723 3,600 3,500 3,500 3 ,400 3 ,400 MINING 1,054 310 200 200 200 200 200 CONSTRUCTION 3,990 3 ,799 3 , 900 4,400 5,000 5 ,400 6,200 MANUFACTURING 13,333 11 ,727 11,200 12,300 13,300 14 ,300 15 , 900 TCPU* 2,356 2 ,471 2,900 3 , 300 3,600 4 ,000 4 ,500 TRADE 14,220 16 ,720 19,000 21,300 23,300 24,800 28 ,500 FIRE** 2,316 2 , 745 3 ,000 3 ,400 3 , 700 3 ,900 4 ,500 SERVICES*** 20 , 340 26 ,246 30,600 34,900 39,200 43 , 900 51,300 GOVERNMENT 12,350 14 ,527 15 ,500 15,900 15,900 16,200 18,400 NONFARM PROPRIETORS 5,923 6 ,768 7,000 7 ,500 8,200 9,000 10,300 TOTAL 79 , 783 89 ,036 96,900 : .06,700 115,900 125,100 143 , 200 * T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , communication and p u b l i c u t i l i t i es ** F i n a n c e , i n s u r a n c e and r e a l e s t a te *** S e r v i c e s i n c l u d e s p r i v a t e household employees MOUNTAINLANDS MCD PROJECTIONS BY FIVE-YEAR AGE GROUPS 1985-2010 AGE 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0-4 36,559 24 ,986 24,427 25 559 27,465 32, 158 5-9 30, 988 34,546 23,528 22 813 23,532 28, 088 10-14 24,437 29,620 33,429 22 457 2 1 , 378 24, 433 15-19 27,227 30,050 35,168 38 485 27,855 29 , 002 20-24 36,654 35 ,778 38,264 42 667 44,865 39 , 824 25-29 25,578 24,014 23,464 25 642 28 ,863 37 , 378 30-34 18,854 20,377 19,170 18 415 19,818 27 , 412 35-39 14,661 18,247 19,981 18 649 17,499 2 1 , 782 40-44 10,596 13,636 17,108 18 593 17,020 18 , 402 45-49 8 ,198 9,974 12,907 16 145 17,307 17 , 784 50-54 7 , 329 7,919 9,685 12 481 15,434 18 , 154 55-59 6,940 7,004 7,602 9 264 11,823 15, 848 60-64 6,215 6,535 6 , 622 7 164 8 ,653 1 1 . 983 65-69 6 ,054 6 ,278 6,592 6 655 7,101 9, 029 70-74 5,378 6,084 6,298 6 557 6,571 7 , 344 75-79 3 ,811 4 ,987 5,581 5 743 5 , 918 6 , 232 80-84 2,272 3,105 3,997 4 415 4 ,504 4 , 872 85+ 1,647 2,398 3,272 4 241 4 ,938 5, 623 TOTAL 273,398 285,538 297,095 306,045 310,544 355, 348 - C - 1 2 - CENTRAL MCD - C - 1 3 - CENTRAL MCD ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLDS SIZE* 1986 55 , 350 22,900 16 , 500 3 . 38 1987 53, 700 21,700 16 ,200 3 . 32 1988 52,700 21,200 16 ,100 3 .27 1989 52,800 21,500 16,300 3.24 1990 53 ,100 21,800 16,500 3 . 21 1991 53,400 22,000 16,800 3 .18 1992 53,800 22,300 17,100 3.15 1993 54,300 22,700 17,400 3.12 1994 54,700 23,000 17,700 3 .10 1995 55,100 23,300 18,000 3 . 07 1996 55,500 23,500 18,300 3.03 1997 56,100 23,800 18,600 3 . 01 1998 56,000 24,100 18,800 2 . 98 1999 56,000 24,300 19,000 2,95 2000 56,100 24,600 19,200 2.92 2001 56,500 24,900 19,500 2.90 2002 57,200 25,300 19,800 2.89 2003 58,000 25,700 20,200 2.87 2004 58,900 26,100 20 ,500 2.87 2005 59,900 26,600 20,900 2.86 2006 61,000 27,000 21,300 2,86 2007 62,000 27,500 21,700 2.86 2008 63,200 28,000 22,100 2.86 2009 64,400 28,500 22,500 2.86 2010 65,500 29,000 22,900 2.86 * Household s i z e i s c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by t o t al h o u s e h o l d s . This d i f f e r s somewhat from the Bureau of the Census c a l c u l a t i o n of household s i z e. - C - 1 4 - CENTRAL MCD MAJOR INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS INDUSTRY 19 80 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 AGRICULTURE 3, 649 3, 440 3,500 3 ,600 3,600 3,700 3 , 300 MINING 706 687 700 700 800 900 900 CONSTRUCTION 822 4, 820 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2 , 200 MANUFACTURING 2, 047 1, 916 1,900 2,100 2,200 2,400 2, 600 TCPU* 589 1, 044 1, 300 1,300 1,400 1, 400 1, 500 TRADE 2, 604 3, 324 3,400 3 ,800 4 ,000 4 ,400 4, 900 FIRE** 347 402 400 " 500 500 500 600 SERVICES*** 1, 439 1, 654 2,300 2,600 2,900 3 ,200 3 , 500 GOVERNMENT 3, 919 4, 320 4,100 4,100 4 ,100 4 ,400 4, 900 NONFARM PROPRIETORS 2, 278 2, 769 2,800 3,000 3,300 3 , 700 4 , 100 TOTAL 18, 400 24, 376 21,800 23,300 24,600 26,600 29, 000 * T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , communication and p u b l i c u t i l i t i es ** F i n a n c e , i n s u r a n c e and r e a l e s t a te *** S e r v i c e s i n c l u d e s p r i v a t e household employees - C - 1 5 - CENTRAL MCD PROJECTIONS BY FIVE-YEAR AGE GROUPS 1985-2010 AGE 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0-4 7,051 4 ,472 4 ,898 5,497 6,157 6,532 5-9 7 , 374 6 , 003 4,383 4 , 666 5,408 6 ,205 10-14 5 ,831 6 , 623 5,909 4,211 4 ,605 5,469 15-19 4 ,517 5 ,171 6 , 303 5,454 4,160 4 , 618 20-24 4,963 3 , 700 4,452 5,251 4 ,925 3 , 747 25-29 4 ,433 3 , 796 4,079 4 ,690 5,929 5,683 30-34 3 ,800 3,402 3 ,825 3,932 4 , 753 6,265 35-39 3,210 3,210 3,374 3,682 3,912 4 ,895 40-44 2,290 2,530 2,958 3,028 3,402 3 , 750 45-49 1,882 1,947 2,364 2,718 2 , 8 4 1 3 , 302 50-54 1,690 1,702 1,896 2,265 2,655 2,855 55-59 1,891 1,492 1,637 1,800 2,185 2,624 60-64 1,811 1,727 1,414 1,530 1, 710 2,124 65-69 1,985 1,739 1, 731 1,429 1,552 1,750 70-74 1,899 1,937 1, 740 1,719 1,472 1,598 75-79 1,304 1,689 1,713 1,531 1,533 1, 344 80-84 982 1,077 1, 305 1,315 1,190 1,207 85 + 648 850 1,128 1,387 1,541 1,558 TOTAL 57,561 53,067 55,109 56,105 59,930 65 ,526 1985 I n c l u d e s IPP c o n s t r u c t i o n camp and non-camp p o p u l a t i o n. - C - 1 6 - SOUTHWEST MCD - C - 1 7 - SOUTHWEST MCD ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLDS SIZE* 1986 72 400 25 ,400 22,200 3 28 1987 76 100 26 ,500 23,400 3 25 1988 78 200 27 ,400 24 ,200 3 23 1989 79 900 28 200 24,800 3 21 1990 81 200 28 900 25,400 3 19 1991 82 200 29 600 25,900 3 17 1992 83 200 30 300 26,300 3 16 1993 83 800 30 900 26,600 3 15 1994 84 700 31 600 27 ,000 3 13 1995 85 100 32 200 27,300 3 12 1996 85 300 32 700 27,600 3 10 1997 85 700 33 400 27,900 3 08 1998 86 600 34 100 28,300 3 06 1999 87 800 34 900 28,900 3 04 2000 89 100 35 700 29,500 3 03 2001 90 700 36 600 30,100 3 01 2002 92 300 37 500 30,800 3 00 2003 94 100 38 400 31,500 2 99 2004 96 100 39 400 32,300 2 98 2005 98 100 40 300 33,100 2 97 2006 100 300 41 300 33 ,900 2 96 2007 102 500 42 200 34,800 2 95 2008 104 900 43 300 35,700 2 94 2009 107 400 44 400 36,600 2 93 2010 110 000 45 500 37,600 2 92 * Household s i z e is c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by t o t al h o u s e h o l d s . This d i f f e r s somewhat from the Bureau of the Census c a l c u l a t i o n of household s i z e. - C - 1 8 - SOUTHWEST MCD MAJOR INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS INDUSTRY 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 AGRICULTURE 1,810 1,750 1, 700 1,700 1,600 1, 600 1,500 MINING 499 305 300 300 300 400 400 CONSTRUCTION 1,308 1,440 1,700 2,000 2,300 2,700 3,100 MANUFACTURING 1,498 1,541 2,000 2, 300 2,600 2,900 3 , 300 TCPU* 1,006 1,016 1,300 1,500 1,800 2,100 2,500 TRADE 4 ,120 5,576 6 ,800 7 ,800 8,800 10,000 11,200 FIRE** 785 856 1,100 1,200 1,400 1, 500 1,800 SERVICES*** 2,184 3 , 992 5 ,100 6 , 000 6 ,900 7 ,800 8 ,900 GOVERNMENT 4,616 4 ,900 5 ,800 6,200 6,500 7 ,200 8 ,100 NONFARM PROPRIETORS 2,386 2,762 3,100 3,200 3,500 4 ,100 4 ,700 TOTAL 20,212 24,138 28,900 32,200 35,700 40 , 300 45 , 500 * T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , communication and p u b l i c u t i l i t i es ** F i n a n c e , i n s u r a n c e and r e a l e s t a te *** S e r v i c e s i n c l u d e s p r i v a t e household employees SOUTHWEST MCD PROJECTIONS 3Y FIVE-YEAR AGE GROUPS 1985-2010 AGE 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0-4 8 ,162 8 , 342 8,353 8,641 9721 10869 5-9 8,380 8 ,575 8,054 8 ,119 8750 9963 10-14 6,773 8,671 8 , 319 7,846 8226 8973 15-19 5,690 7,144 8,500 8,139 8001 8462 20-24 5,637 5,778 6 ,406 7,705 7875 7912 25-29 5,611 6,574 5,556 6,282 8308 8774 30-34 4,718 6,647 6 , 363 5,424 6648 8967 35-39 3,835 5,394 6 ,418 6,173 5619 7003 40-44 2,875 4 ,184 5,073 6 , 058 6115 5742 45-49 2,250 3,130 3,978 4 ,819 5980 6183 50-54 2,101 2,380 3,018 3 ,855 4830 6080 55-59 2,253 2,181 2,271 2,890 3812 4843 60-64 2,179 2,277 2,050 2,145 2812 3764 65-69 2,555 2,411 2,373 2,181 2334 3010 70-74 2,305 2,729 2,528 2,522 2416 2603 75-79 1,694 2,235 2,521 2, 380 2427 2370 80-84 969 1,435 1,787 2,008 1947 2004 85+ 710 1,082 1,510 1,941 2323 2511 TOTAL 68,697 81,169 85,078 89,128 98 ,144 110,033 - C - 2 0 - UINTAH BASIN MCD - C - 2 1 - UINTAH BASIN MCD ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLDS SIZE* 1986 38 000 14 200 10 600 3 .56 1987 37 900 14 400 10 700 3 53 1988 38 300 14 700 10 900 3 51 1989 38 800 15 000 11 100 3 48 1990 39 200 15 400 11 400 3 45 1991 39 500 15 600 11 500 3 42 1992 39 600 15 900 11 700 3 40 1993 39 800 16 200 11 800 3 37 1994 40 100 16 500 12 000 3 34 1995 40 300 16 800 12 200 3 31 1996 40 500 17 000 12 400 3 28 1997 41 000 17 300 12 600 3 25 1998 41 200 17 600 12 800 3 22 1999 41 600 18 000 13 000 3 19 2000 42 100 18 300 13 300 3 17 2001 42 900 18 700 13 600 3 15 2002 43 800 19 200 14 000 3 13 2003 44 900 19 700 14 400 3 12 2004 46 100 20 200 14 900 3 10 2005 47 400 20 800 15 300 3 10 2006 48 700 21 300 15 700 3 09 2007 50 100 21 900 16 200 3 09 2008 51 500 22 500 16 700 3 09 2009 52 900 23 100 17 200 3 08 2010 54 300 23 700 17 600 3 08 * Household s i z e is c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by t o t al h o u s e h o l d s . This d i f f e r s somewhat from the Bureau of the Census c a l c u l a t i o n of household s i z e. - C - 2 2 - UINTAH BASIN MCD MAJOR INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS INDUSTRY 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 AGRICULTURE 1,427 1,334 1,300 1, 300 1, 300 1, 300 1, 300 MINING 2,741 2,258 1, 700 1,900 2,000 2,300 2 , 700 CONSTRUCTION 573 1,028 600 800 900 1,100 1,300 MANUFACTURING 357 371 400 400 500 500 600 TCPU* 865 832 1,000 1,100 1,300 1,500 1,800 TRADE 2,340 2,575 2,900 3,200 3,500 4,000 4 ,600 FIRE** 237 244 300 300 300 400 400 SERVICES*** 1,771 2,144 2,300 2,600 3,000 3 ,400 3 ,900 GOVERNMENT 2,426 2,988 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,500 4 , 000 NONFARM PROPRIETORS 1,662 1, 784 1,800 2,000 2, 300 2,600 3 , 000 TOTAL 14,399 15,558 15,400 16,700 18,200 20 , 600 23 , 600 * T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , communication and p u b l i c u t i l i t i es ** F i n a n c e , i n s u r a n c e and r e a l e s t a te *** S e r v i c e s i n c l u d e s p r i v a t e household employees UINTAH BASIN MCD PROJECTIONS BY FIVE-YEAR AGE GROUPS 1985-2010 AGE 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0-4 5,483 4 ,157 4,306 4,874 5,751 6 325 5-9 5 ,482 4,974 3,893 4 ,086 4,898 5 864 10-14 4 ,438 4 , 980 4 , 689 3,711 4,107 4 996 15-19 3 ,115 3,856 4 ,471 4 ,228 3,514 3 969 20-24 2,930 2,763 3,454 4 ,064 4 ,204 3 620 25-29 3,176 2,705 2,692 3,437 4,504 4 821 30-34 2,945 2, 730 2,474 2,513 3,562 4 803 35-39 2,446 2,597 2,540 2,337 2,577 3 736 40-44 1,766 2,141 2,342 2,317 2,296 2 615 45-49 1,515 1,573 1,965 2,172 2,272 2 335 50-54 1,270 1,409 1,488 1,873 2,162 2 325 55-59 1,112 1,170 1, 321 1,404 1,837 2 168 60-64 983 1,014 1,083 1,231 1, 355 1 808 65-69 873 931 972 1,041 1,207 1 348 70-74 742 829 887 926 1,012 1 175 75-79 542 669 747 798 849 934 80-84 342 432 528 587 639 686 85 + 196 317 432 547 655 753 TOTAL 39,356 39,247 40,284 42,146 47,401 54,281 SOUTHEAST MCD - C - 2 5 - SOUTHEAST MCD ECONOMIC & DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY HOUSEHOLD YEAR POPULATION EMPLOYMENT HOUSEHOLDS SIZE* 1986 54,350 19,800 17,600 3 . 08 1987 55,000 20,200 18,000 3 . 06 1988 55,200 20,500 18,200 3 .03 1989 55,200 20,700 18,300 3 . 01 1990 55,300 21,000 18,600 2.98 1991 55 ,300 21,300 18,700 2.95 1992 55,300 21,600 18,900 2 . 93 1993 55,300 21,900 19 ,000 2 . 91 1994 55,200 22,200 19,200 2,88 1995 55,200 22,400 19,300 2.86 1996 55,000 22,600 19 ,400 2 . 83 1997 54 ,800 22,800 19,500 2 . 81 1998 54,700 23,000 19,600 2. 78 1999 54,800 23,300 19,800 2.76 2000 55,000 23,600 20,100 2.74 2001 55,600 24,000 20,500 2 . 72 2002 56,200 24,400 20,800 2. 70 2003 57,100 24,900 21,200 2.69 2004 58,100 25,400 21,700 2.68 2005 59,200 25,900 22,200 2.67 2006 60,400 26,400 22,700 2. 66 2007 61,600 26,900 23,200 2.65 2008 62,900 27,500 23,800 2.64 2009 64,300 28,100 24.3H0 2.64 2010 65,700 28,700 24 ,900 2,63 * Household s i z e i s c a l c u l a t e d by d i v i d i n g t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n by t o t al h o u s e h o l d s . This d i f f e r s somewhat from the Bureau of the Census c a l c u l a t i o n of household s i z e. - C - 2 6 - SOUTHEAST MCD MAJOR INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS INDUSTRY 1980 1985 1990 19 95 2000 2005 2010 AGRICULTURE 1,203 1,117 i 100 1, 100 1,100 1,100 1,100 MINING 6 ,368 3,344 3 500 4, 000 4,500 5 ,000 5 , 700 CONSTRUCTION 1,360 723 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 MANUFACTURING 551 489 600 600 700 800 800 TCPU* 1,563 1,724 1 800 1, 900 2, 000 2,100 2,200 TRADE 3 ,289 3,068 3 600 3, 800 4 , 000 4,300 4 ,800 FIRE** 424 345 400 400 400 500 500 SERVICES*** 2,067 2, 643 3 200 3, 600 4,000 4 , 600 5 , 300 GOVERNMENT 3,994 4,237 4 100 4 , 000 3 ,800 4 , 000 4 ,400 NONFARM PROPRIETORS 1,715 2S017 2 000 2, 100 2,200 2,500 2,800 TOTAL 22,534 19,707 21 000 22, 300 23,600 25,900 28, 700 * T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , communication and p u b l i c u t i l i t i es ** F i n a n c e , i n s u r a n c e and r e a l e s t a te *** S e r v i c e s i n c l u d e s p r i v a t e household employees SOUTHEAST MCD PROJECTIONS BY FIVE-YEAR AGE GROUPS 1985-2010 AGE 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 0-4 5,832 4 ,542 4,353 . 4,486 4,987 5 , 358 5-9 6,265 5 ,540 4,282 4,117 4,557 5 ,211 10-14 5 ,176 5,953 5,267 4,078 4 ,188 4 , 764 15-19 4 ,453 4 , 750 5,462 4 ,814 3 , 981 4,218 20-24 4 , 331 4 ,103 4 ,296 4,964 4,857 4 ,238 25-29 4 ,544 4 ,287 3,991 4,201 5,509 5,692 30-34 4 , 366 4,213 3,955 3 , 695 4,396 5 ,993 35-39 3 ,730 4,093 3,954 3,718 3,813 4 , 700 40-44 2,599 3,370 3,684 3,568 3,633 3,874 45-49 2,171 2,392 3,085 3,378 3,485 3 , 692 50-54 1,997 2,066 2,274 2,937 3,373 3,595 55-59 2,046 1,882 1,947 2,144 2,888 3,402 60-64 1,857 1,903 1,749 1,813 2,074 2,858 65-69 1, 785 1,810 1,850 1,714 1,827 2,114 70-74 1,560 1, 716 1,734 1,771 1,695 1,825 75-79 979 1,354 1,482 1,496 1,566 1,522 80-84 559 753 1,025 1,122 1,157 1,226 85 + 415 567 760 1,017 1,233 1, 382 TOTAL 54,665 55,294 55,150 55,033 59,219 65,664 - C - 2 8 - COUNTY EMPLOYMENT - C - 2 9 - TOTAL EMPLOYMENT* BY MCD AND COUNTY COUNTY 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20] .0 BEAR RIVER 39,170 43 ,889 48,500 54 ,400 60,000 66 , 600 74 200 BOX ELDER 14,661 17,054 18,200 19 ,800 21,300 23 , 100 25 200 CACHE 23,695 26,115 29,700 33 ,800 37,900 42 , 500 48 000 RICH 814 721 700 800 800 900 1, 000 WASATCH FRONT 422,875 484,586 551,400 624 300 688,500 762, 600 843 , 700 DAVIS 48,550 61,476 69,400 76 700 83,000 92 , 300 102 , 500 MORGAN 1,579 1,526 1,700 1 900 2,000 2, 200 2, 400 SALT LAKE 307,421 349 , 718 400,700 456 900 506,800 563 , 000 624 , 200 TOOELE 10,649 11,309 12,200 13 400 14,300 15 , 400 16 , 600 WEBER 54,676 60,557 67,400 75 400 82,400 89 , 800 98, 000 MOUNTAINLAND 79 , 783 89,036 96,900 106 700 115,900 125 , 100 143 , 200 SUMMIT 5,071 6,868 7,500 8 500 9,500 10, 500 12, 300 UTAH 71,879 79,310 86,300 94 800 102,700 110 , 700 126 , 500 WASATCH 2,833 2,857 3,100 3 400 3,700 3 , 900 4 , 400 CENTRAL 18,400 24,376 21,800 23 300 24,600 26, 600 29, 000 JUAB 2,265 2,046 2,300 2 500 2,600 2, 800 3 , 100 MILLARD 3,645 8,445 5,500 5 800 6,000 6, 300 6, 700 PIUTE 463 410 400 400 500 500 500 SANPETE 5,222 5,906 6,000 6 500 6,900 7, 600 8, 400 SEVIER 6 , 022 6,800 6,800 7 300 7,800 8 , 500 9 , 300 WAYNE 783 769 800 800 800 900 1, 000 SOUTHWEST 20,212 24,138 28,900 32 200 35,700 40, 300 45 , 500 BEAVER 1,585 1,781 2,000 2 100 2, 300 2, 600 3 , 000 GARFIELD 2,156 1,817 2,000 2 100 2,200 2, 700 3 , 200 IRON 6,968 7,452 8,600 9 500 10,500 1 1 , 300 12, 300 KANE 1,403 1,563 1,900 2 100 2,300 2, 600 2, 900 WASHINGTON 8 ,100 11,524 14 ,400 16 400 18 ,400 2 1 , 100 24 , 100 UINTAH BASIN 14,399 15,558 15,400 16 800 18,200 20 , 800 23 , 600 DAGGETT 450 306 300 300 300 300 400 DUCHESNE 5,738 5,662 5,700 6 200 6,700 7, 700 8 , 800 UINTAH 8,211 9,590 9,400 10 300 11,200 12, 800 14 , 400 SOUTHEAST 22,534 19,707 21,000 22 400 23,600 25, 900 28 , 700 CARBON 9,372 8,636 9 ,400 10 100 10,700 1 1 , 700 13 , 000 EMERY 5 ,480 4,712 4,900 5 200 5 ,500 6, 000 6 , 700 GRAND 3,702 2,718 2,900 3 000 3,100 3, 500 3 , 900 SAN JUAN 3 ,980 3 , 641 3,800 4 100 4 , 300 4, 700 5 , 100 STATE TOTAL 617,373 701,290 784,000 880 100 966,500 1,067, 900 1,187, 900 * INCLUDES NON-FARM PROPRIETORS AND AGRICULTURE - C - 3 0 -