community indicators project 2009-2010

CommunityIndicators Project

2009-2010 REPORT

2 Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 Yampa Valley Partners

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

20413893_MH_CIP08.indd 1 1/8/09 4:35:38 PM

2009/2010 REPORT

COMMUNITY INDICATORS PROJECT

Key Findings The interconnectivity between Moffat, Routt and Rio Blanco counties is the key fi nding in this Community Indicators Report. These three northwest Colorado counties are tied by social, economic, civic and environmental issues. The interconnections among the indicators presented in this sixth edition of the Community Indicators Report are the basis for regional discussions about our growing and changing valley.

Economic: The interdependence of Routt, Moffat and Rio Blanco counties continues to increase due to issues with workforce, housing and transportation. The impact Rio Blanco County has on this northwest Colorado region will grow

Introduction Yampa Valley Partner’s Community Indicators Report is a comprehensive summary of data that is important for understanding the social, economic, civic and environmental topics present in northwest Colorado. The goal of the report is to provide citizens, business and local government offi cials with information that will assist in making informed decisions.

The report will assist organizations and businesses to: Identify community needs Understand economic trends Assess decision making and assist community members in understanding regional issues Provide information to employees, customers and clients Produce grants and reports that include important community data

particularly with the emergence of the energy industry in northwest Colorado and bordering states of Utah and Wyoming.

• Export and import of labor between counties is increasing to meet industries’ needs.• Educational and technical training opportunities are necessary• Energy, recreation and amenities associated with people who move to the region to enjoy the lifestyle are emerging• Affordable housing and transportation needs are increasing due to commuting to other counties for employment• A growing number of people are not dependent on the area’s economy for their own income and are referred to as residential/lifestyle economy

Environmental: Anticipated growth in northwest Colorado is expected to place demands on natural resources. Ability to understand these demands and manage them with a long-range perspective will be critical. • Land fragmentation poses challenges to agriculture• Mountain pine beetles present threats to forests and opportunities for new business and energy use

• Water use and quality, diversions and future water needs• Protection and management of wildlife• Quantifying the regional carbon footprint

Social: The population of the region is expected to at least double over the next 25 years while the median age of the residents and number of minorities is also increasing. These factors will have an impact on our region’s social infrastructure.• Increasing housing inventory is being absorbed by more full-time residents creating fewer vacancies for rentals• The capacity of a community to absorb future growth and changes• Poverty level and the ability to be fi nancially self-suffi cient• Health insurance and health care needs• Use of alcohol, tobacco products and drugs by teens and pre-teens• School districts’ ability to meet the needs of all students at all levels including the growing number of students who do not speak English• Issues surround commuting to jobs in other counties including highway safety, longer work days and child care• Crime and domestic violence issues

Civic/Nonprofi t: Regional interdependence and connectivity will increase the need for communication and collaboration on regional issues by citizens, business, industry and service organizations.• The challenges of increased population, demand for services and our changing economic sectors will pose challenges for local government• Community planning is widely used and can address concerns on a broader level• Philanthropic organizations look at ways to combine resources to maximize effectiveness• Social and service organizations can help improve quality of life

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 3

Executive DirectorAudrey Danner

Board of DirectorsJohn Boyd, Colorado Northwestern Community College

Meg Bentley, City of Steamboat SpringsDarcy Trask, Craig Moffat Co. Economic Development

Marianna Raftopoulos, Consultant, Oil and Gas IndustryTerry Carwile, Craig Chamber of Commerce

George Rohrich, The Memorial HospitalTom Mathers, Moffat County

Barbara Pughe, Colo Northwestern Community CollegeRuss Martin, Town of Hayden

Dave DeRose, MasterWorks MechanicalKerry Hart, Colorado Mountain College

Diane Mitsch Bush, Routt CountyTowny Anderson, Tipping Point Productions

Mike Larson, Mountain Valley BankTonya Griffith, Moffat County National Bank

Community Indicators Project Indicator Production TeamAudrey DannerJames A. FulksScott L. Ford

Stacey KramerJennifer Mapes

Publishing PartnersWorldWest, LLC - Craig Daily Press and Steamboat Pilot

Suzanne Schlicht, PublisherBryce Jacobson, Publisher

Meg Boyer and Kailey Fowler, Graphic design and layout

Special thanksColorado Health InstituteThe Nature Conservancy

Individuals and organizations that provided data for the Community Indicators Project

Yampa Valley Partners is solely responsible for any errors or omissions in this report. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data included in this report are accurate. We ask that you contact us if you know of necessary changes.

Yampa Valley Partners is a northwest Colorado nonprofit organization serving Routt and Moffat counties since 1995. The strength of Yampa Valley Partners is regional dialogue and sharing knowledge through developing community indicators, convening discussions and enabling collaboration. We are committed to providing indicators and data to improve local and regional discussions.

Our Focus• Approach regional issues such as economic diversification, workforce development, civic health and transportation through cooperation and collaboration.• Build alliances that transcend traditional boundaries to create ‘connected leadership’ within the Yampa Valley.• Recognize the unique sense of place and build on that to keep our community strong and healthy.• Capitalize on the civic entrepreneurial spirit of Yampa Valley residents to address those challenges that threaten our quality of life and seize new opportunities to enhance it.

Our Future Yampa Valley Partners is developing an electronic, interactive Web presence at www.YampaValleyPartners.com to host the myriad of data sets supporting the indicators presented. This project will allow us to post data as it becomes available and to provide periodic updates on many segments of this data along with other reports and data sets.

Our Mission Yampa Valley Partners will support the development of healthy communities in Routt and Moffat counties by fostering communication, cooperation and collaboration.

For a presentation on the Community Indicator Project, contact:Yampa Valley Partners of Routt and Moffat [email protected]


Community IndicatorsEconomic Indicators Employment by industry sectors ......................................................8 Businesses by size .........................................................................9 Labor and non-labor income ..........................................................10 Average annual wage by industry ...................................................14 Per capita income, unemployment rate, entrepreneurial ratio ...........15 Recreation, banking ......................................................................16 Housing; building permits, housing cost, area median income .........17 Migration into and out of region .....................................................20 Commuting, import and export of earnings .....................................26 Transportation: airports, bus ridership ...........................................27 Government revenue: tax assessments, commercial tax payers .......28

Environmental Indicators Land parcels and protection: private land, farms and ranches ..........30 Land ownership: public and private ................................................32 Water and air quality: precipitation and pH levels ............................33 Yampa River: peak stream flows ....................................................34 Water use: consumption, diversion ................................................36 Energy: coal, oil and gas ...............................................................38 Forests: timber harvest, mortality and damage ...............................39

Energy use and waste ...................................................................40 Vehicle pollution: carbon footprint, vehicle miles traveled ................42 Agriculture: hay, livestock, market value, farms and ranches ............43 Wildlife: bald eagles, sage grouse .................................................44 Wildlife: mule deer, elk ..................................................................46

Civic Indicators/Nonprofit Citizen participation: voting, community planning ............................47 Nonprofits: giving, historic preservation, nonprofit growth ................48 Nonprofit categories .....................................................................50 Nonprofits: financial health ...........................................................51

Social Indicators Population: total population, age and gender ..................................54 Population projections, housing occupancy race/ethnicity, school enrollment ..............................................55 Poverty and self-sufficiency ...........................................................56 Health and public assistance programs: Medicaid, insurance ..........58 Births and deaths: leading causes, traffic fatalities .........................59 Health: diseases, substance use, doctors and dentists ...................60 Education: enrollment, childcare, test scores ..................................62 Safety: School disciplinary action, domestic violence, crime ............64

Visit our Web site at www.YampaValleyPartners.com to download the CIP report in pdf format and view expanded data sets.


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 EN-29

KEY FINDINGS

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

OUR VISION

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

The Yampa River Valley maintains its status as one of the least developed rivers in Colorado and the western United States.

Deer and elk populations continue to thrive in the region.

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and greater sage-grouse are a primary focus of conservation efforts in the Yampa Valley region. These species serve as a sensitive indicator of shrubland health. Both the numbers of displaying males at leks* and the total numbers of active leks in the region are higher than most recent years, providing an excellent baseline for evaluating future changes in land use.*A lek is a gathering of males, of certain animal species, for the purposes of competitive mating display.

Bald eagle counts in the Yampa Valley increased over the past fi ve years, making this once threatened bird a commonly observed inhabitant of the Yampa Valley.

Timber harvest levels have increased in response to protect forests and communities in the forest urban boundary in the face of pine beetle impacts. Beetles are likely to increase their advances and therefore forest harvest will increase.

Agriculture remains stable varying year-to-year in response to market conditions. The total value of agriculture products since 1992, when adjusted for infl ation, has increased by 18% in Moffat County and have decreased by 30 % in Routt County.

One of the key challenges facing agriculture is the fragmentation of the land into smaller parcels. The total number of ranches/farm parcels has increased, yet the total number of acres zoned ag/forestry has remained essentially the same.

The acid level of precipitation in the Yampa Valley has increased steadily since 2001.

The Yampa Valley continues to be a healthy and diverse ecosystem. The Yampa River is essential to this area’s ecosystem. It remains one of the least developed rivers in Colorado and its continued health is critical to the future of the valley. The river plays an important role in maintaining the diversity of plants and animals that inhabit the area. The river and land in the Yampa Valley also supports the area’s agricultural economy and offers recreational opportunities for both visitors and residents.

Northwest Colorado’s beauty and natural resources are key reasons why the area is changing. In response to some of the challenges change brings, Routt County residents in 1996 voted to create the Purchase of Development Rights program. This has resulted in more than 11,000 acres being withdrawn from future development in Routt County. Community efforts in both Routt and Moffat counties have led to improvements in air and river quality. Providing indicators that help monitor the Yampa Valley’s ecosystem is one of the purposes of this section.

The Yampa Valley community is dedicated to preserving, protecting and enhancing our natural environment in a sustainable manner

for future generations while balancing responsible public and private land use decisions. We value our land and its resources.

KEY FINDINGS

“The Yampa River and it’s abundant tributaries makes up one of the last true ‘wild’ rivers in the Upper Colorado River System and the entire arid, Rocky Mountain West. Yampa River water is the lifeblood of our community in Northwest Colorado, providing

a foundation for our agricultural heritage, the chill for our energy resources, the thirst of our municipalities, a fl ood for the

environment and a thrill for recreation.” KENT VERTREES, MANAGER, STEAMBOAT POWDERCATS

RECREATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR YAMPA/WHITE BASIN ROUNDTABLE

EN-30 Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 Yampa Valley Partners

ENVIRONMENTAL

Moffat Routt Rio BlancoPrivate acres (total and public) 1,109,469 766,185 506,222

Total private acreage protected under conservation easements 14,082 55,526 12,667

Percent of all private land protected in perpetuity 1.3% 7.3% 2.5%

In Colorado, landownders can sub-divide their land into parcels of 35 acres or more and are exempt from many of the planning regulations that govern subdivisions. In many areas in the Yampa Valley the market value of agriculture land exceeds its production value. In Routt County the market value often exceeds the production value by 20 times or more. The appreciation in land’s market value makes it possible for ranchers to subdivide and sell a parcel of land, obtain capital and/or loans to continue funding their agricultural operations. As large ranches become divided into smaller pieces, they are frequently too small to fi nancially support a viable agriculture

operation and this can impact the agricultural operations of ranches that border these smaller parcels. Parcelization is one of the largest challenge facing the agriculture industry in Routt County. Parcelization is a measure of the distribution of sizes of private land parcels in a county. It shows the degree to which large tracts of land have been divided into smaller tracts. The parcelization of private land parallels increasing demand for residential parcels. The indicators below refl ect what is being measured.

Farms and ranches by size, 2002

This indicator tells us how much of each county’s private land base is currently afforded long-term protection from development. Open, undeveloped private lands serve as wildlife habitat and contain the most productive agricultural lands. These lands are generally available to be subdivided and/or developed, unless they are protected by public policies such as zoning and regulations, or long term agreements like conservation easements and Routt County’s Land Preservation Subdivision remainder parcels. Conservation easements are voluntary land conservation agreements which private landowners may enter into with qualifi ed land trusts. They are one tool available to

landowners who wish to protect their land from subdivision and development permanently. In 1996, Routt County voters set aside a fund of tax dollars for the purpose of purchasing development rights and establishing conservation easements. This fund, known as the Purchase of Development Rights Program (PDR), has contributed to the permanent conservation of 11,525 acres since 1997. This program allows a landowner to sell the development rights to some or all of their acreage receive the difference between the agricultural value and the market value.

Private land with long-term protected status, 2007

LAND PARCELS & PROTECTION

Source: Colorado State Forest Service

ENVIRONMENTAL LAND PARCELS & PROTECTION

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Total Agricultural Residences agricultural farm/ranch density acreage residences per acres

Moffat County

2004 1,070,208 665 1,609

2005 1,064,221 707 1,505

2006 1,074,544 692 1,553

Routt County

2004 740,271 1,175 630

2005 698,416 1,200 582

2006 696,109 1,241 561

Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs - Property Tax Division

Residential and agricultural acreage as a measure of parcelization

Source: USDA Agricultural Census


31

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

��

��

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

20413912_BGC_CIP08.indd 1 1/21/09 12:44:44 PM


ENVIRONMENTAL The amount of public versus private land in a region sheds light on the natural resources available to residents and visitors. The relative acreage of public versus private land can tell us about the history, economy and future of the region. While private land is able to be utilized as the property owner may desire, public land is managed by government for all constituents. Its uses may be limited or guided by the missions of these managing entities.

Depending on the managing entity, public lands may be open to public use through both extractive and non-extractive uses of the natural resources including oil, gas, coal, timber, livestock forage, wildlife and recreational opportunities. Because public lands are not generally open to development, a large portion of the Yampa Valley’s landscape will remain in its natural condition.

Public and private land ownership, 2007

LAND PARCELS & PROTECTION

Source: Bureau of Land Management - Little Snake Office, Craig, CO

ENVIRONMENTAL


Water quality Both the upper and lower Yampa River have received favorable ratings from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Index of Watershed Indicators, which measures watershed conditions and vulnerability. The measure of pH in precipitation is a water quality indicator related to air quality. Acidic precipitation is often associated with sulfur dioxide emissions that result from burning wood and fossil fuels. Precipitation is important to monitor because in years of lower total perception pH levels can concentrate. PH levels at Dry Lake and Summit Lake on Buffalo Pass are a concern because scientists have determined that negative impacts to frogs, salamanders, and other amphibians are likely at levels below pH5, with negative impacts to vegetation and other aquatic life also possible. The acid level of precipitation in the Yampa Valley has been at or below the 5.0 level since 1994 but as of 2001, a steady increase of pH levels has occurred.

Air quality PM-10 is a measure of air quality and is defined as particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in size. PM-10 is inhalable and can cause respiratory health risks, degraded visibility, climate changes and damage to soil and vegetation. As the major population center of Routt County, Steamboat Springs provides an excellent location for monitoring the area’s air quality. An ambient air quality sampling network operated by the Routt County Department of Environmental Health in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, is located in downtown Steamboat Springs at the Routt County courthouse annex. Chemical analysis of air quality filter material shows that most of the particulate matter is generated locally through activities such as street sanding, unpaved roads, and wood and coal burning. Fortunately, since 1990 the Steamboat Springs area has seen a 46% reduction in average annual PM-10 levels due to city and county efforts to reduce wood and coal burning and improvements in street sanding and street cleaning efforts.

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

24 Hour average - Max in micrograms/cubic meter 164 139 98 100 119 149 94 86 87 99

Annual average in micrograms/cubic meter 37 32 25 23 25 24 23 22 23.4 24

Total annual precipitation

Snowfall

Acid pH levels in moisture

Air quality/PM-10 monitoring results

WATER & AIR QUALITY

Source: USGS

Source: Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment & Routt County Department of Environmental Health

Source: Western Regional Climate Center

Source: Western Regional Climate Center


ENVIRONMENTAL The Yampa River is a unique in the West because it is still a free-flowing river producing high, overbank flows during the spring snowmelt run-off and low stable base flows in the late summer, fall and winter. The Yampa’s tributary dams have not greatly impacted its annual flow while most of the other tributaries of the Colorado River have dams that control and decrease their spring peaks. The dynamic peak flows of the Yampa play a pivotal role in the lifecycle of species which have evolved with the river. High flows in May and June promote the reproduction of species including the Colorado pike minnow and narrowleaf and Fremont cottonwood trees. These spring flows also produce overbank flows which create and rejuvenate floodplain habitats. Low flows are as much a part of the Yampa’s ancient signature as high flows, promoting riffle habitat that supports the prey base for the native endangered fishes. However, naturally low flows can be further reduced by diversions for irrigation, electricity generation, municipal and industrial uses. In order to maintain flows in the Yampa River, the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program collaborated with the Colorado River Water Conservation District and the City of Craig to expand Elkhead Reservoir to serve the local community, create additional water storage, and to maintain late season base flows for wildlife, fish and vegetation.

Yampa River peak streamflow in cubic feet per second

YAMPA RIVER

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Peak streamflow in cubic feet per secondYampa River near MaybellBlue River below Dillon Reservoir

90 Year 75 Year 50 Year 25 Year 10 Year

Moffat County Yampa River near Maybell, CO (Site = 09251000) 24-May 23-May 24-May 24-May 24-May

Routt County Yampa River at Steamboat Springs (Site = 09239500) 29-May 29-May 29-May 29-May 22-May

Rio Blanco White River near Meeker, CO (Site - 09304500) 29-May 28-May 29-May 28-May 22-May

Source: USGS

Yampa River average date of peak stream flow

“Colorado is close to fully utilizing its Colorado River Basin water compact allocations. The ability to use water is the foundation for the economic and cultural and environmental aspects of our community. The long-term vibrancy of each of our sectors depends on securing additional water to provide for future growth, development and sustainability. Agriculture and the lower valley (Moffat County), is especially vulnerable if additional

water supply needs are not secured. Without supply, future growth can only occur from a redistribution of resources once the Compact water is fully utilized.”

T. WRIGHT DICKINSON, MOFFAT COUNTY RANCHER

FORMER MOFFAT COUNTY COMMISSIONER

FORMER COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD MEMBER FROM MOFFAT COUNTY


Y A M P A V A L L E Y

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Y A M P A V A L L E Y

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

20413906_YVEA_CIP08.indd 1 1/15/09 3:35:16 PM


ENVIRONMENTAL

Source: Colorado Division of Water Resources

*Collection methods changed in 2004. Date now includes all of Colorado River Water Conservation Division 6 and is no longer limited to the Yampa Basin. It now includes the White River, North Platte River and the small portion of the Green River in Colorado.

The Yampa Valley’s river system it is not over-appropriated, meaning that in most years, not all of the water in the river is legally “spoken for” for one of a number of legally defined “beneficial uses.” This is a unique concept in Colorado and the West. In order to use water for most of the beneficial uses, owners must divert their decreed water from the stream. Two other beneficial uses exist which involve water remaining in the stream. These are the “recreational in-channel diversion,” and the “minimum in-stream flow.” Once water is diverted from the stream, some portion may flow

back to the stream as a “return flow,” and another portion of the water may leave the system as a “consumptive use.” Consumptive use is that part of diverted water that evaporates, is transpired by plants, incorporated into products or crops, consumed by humans or livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate water environment. Another way in which water may leave the Yampa system is through a “transbasin diversion,” where water is moved from one watershed into another.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Irrigation 264,154 331,389 283,252 317,794 301,497 338,445 312,562 269,889 303,777 289,971 286,465 309,630 279,755 Power generation 53,761 70,500 71,735 72,092 66,896 57,863 5,704 31,979 38,268 336,352 244,364 422,382 430,809 Industrial 17,732 18,440 20,938 22,906 19,142 14,287 18,568 20,551 19,378 3,110 22,499 15,785 23,725 Livestock 18,119 18,544 13,004 14,726 14,198 13,733 7,667 5,157 2,298 27,355 28,928 30,410 31,228 Fishery 10,512 11,942 9,931 9,736 10,305 7,227 8,302 6,471 7,053 55,945 136,934 63,427 59,399 Municipal 5,338 5,824 no data 5,783 5,437 5,823 5,824 6,525 6,459 8,328 8,944 9,514 12,842 Domestic 3,459 1,660 1,163 1,848 1,699 1,386 620 1,006 829 3,071 3,972 3,646 1,920 Recreation 1,141 1,897 1,935 1,730 1,904 1,535 1,639 1,957 2,700 4,345 4,297 3,980 6,524 Snowmaking 303 323 281 349 350 309 316 291 331 252 331 293 365 Commercial 716 143 91 13 93 21 48 44 17 559 426 343 473

Total transbasin diversions 3,292 4,972 3,458 4,486 2,048 2,490 2,751 1,540 3,474 1,874 2,907 3,013 1,773

Total* 378,527 465,634 405,788 451,463 423,569 443,119 364,001 345,410 384,584 731,162 740,067 862,423 848,813

Acre-feet diverted for use*

Water diversionWater consumption

WATER USE

Source: Colorado Division of Water ResourcesSource: Colorado Division of Water Resources


1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Irrigation 264,154 331,389 283,252 317,794 301,497 338,445 312,562 269,889 303,777 289,971 286,465 309,630 279,755 Power generation 53,761 70,500 71,735 72,092 66,896 57,863 5,704 31,979 38,268 336,352 244,364 422,382 430,809 Industrial 17,732 18,440 20,938 22,906 19,142 14,287 18,568 20,551 19,378 3,110 22,499 15,785 23,725 Livestock 18,119 18,544 13,004 14,726 14,198 13,733 7,667 5,157 2,298 27,355 28,928 30,410 31,228 Fishery 10,512 11,942 9,931 9,736 10,305 7,227 8,302 6,471 7,053 55,945 136,934 63,427 59,399 Municipal 5,338 5,824 no data 5,783 5,437 5,823 5,824 6,525 6,459 8,328 8,944 9,514 12,842 Domestic 3,459 1,660 1,163 1,848 1,699 1,386 620 1,006 829 3,071 3,972 3,646 1,920 Recreation 1,141 1,897 1,935 1,730 1,904 1,535 1,639 1,957 2,700 4,345 4,297 3,980 6,524 Snowmaking 303 323 281 349 350 309 316 291 331 252 331 293 365 Commercial 716 143 91 13 93 21 48 44 17 559 426 343 473

Total transbasin diversions 3,292 4,972 3,458 4,486 2,048 2,490 2,751 1,540 3,474 1,874 2,907 3,013 1,773

Total* 378,527 465,634 405,788 451,463 423,569 443,119 364,001 345,410 384,584 731,162 740,067 862,423 848,813

��

��

��

��

��

��


ENVIRONMENTAL Northwest Colorado has sizeable oil and gas resources. Leasing and development of these resources contributes to the local economy and has impacts on the natural resources of wildlife habitat, migration patterns of elk and deer and other sensitive species. This development also affects the workforce and other needs within the northwest region. It is important to note that while the map shows all oil and gas well locations in Northwest Colorado, each well represented is not necessarily in active production.

Oil and gas production

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Routt 9,429,239 9,365,777 9,584,865 10,046,694 10,516,236 8,606,976 8,290,894 Moffat 7,709,906 7,386,511 6,843,676 8,216,648 7,784,203 8,422,430 8,099,473 Rio Blanco 2,027,341 2,088,876 1,942,772 2,550,883 2,149,481 1,712,553 1,424,019

State of CO 33,411,127 35,203,708 35,880,773 39,813,935 37,820,154 35,490,336 36,135,284

OIL 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Moffat 347,053 344,561 344,947 307,182 280,138 258,660 246,979 233,278

Rio Blanco 6,514,390 6,237,255 5,887,469 5,605,073 5,511,453 5,676,190 5,639,631 5,673,120

Routt 69,590 67,055 66,215 61,586 56,788 106,729 111,435 86,634

GAS

Moffat 19,534,283 17,486,064 19,177,153 18,503,174 19,515,631 19,499,379 19,453,917 15,749,677

Rio Blanco 31,179,299 31,390,490 35,934,280 34,128,038 33,509,758 36,671,348 43,719,692 37,475,168

Routt 116,677 129,234 95,265 99,932 90,258 67,404 38,668 49,129

Coal extraction (in tons)

Oil and gas wells

RESOURCE USE

Oil measured in barrels (42 gallons per barrel). Gas measured in thousand cubic feet (MCF)

Source: Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

Source: Colorado Division of Reclamation Mining and Safety

ENVIRONMENTAL FOREST

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Yampa Ranger District Sale Volume (mbf) 3,000 3,500 0 4,128 11,800 29,634Acres Treated (mbf) 526 318 0 500 953 2,580

Hahn's Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Sale Volume (mbf) 0 0 7,522 80 6,421 3,153Acres Treated (mbf) 0 0 1,363 150 517 307

Parks Ranger District Sale Volume (mbf) 0 9,900 8,373 17,440 10,063 6,842Acres Treated (mbf) 0 1,500 1,544 2,174 899 718

ENVIRONMENTAL


ENVIRONMENTAL FOREST

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Yampa Ranger District Sale Volume (mbf) 3,000 3,500 0 4,128 11,800 29,634Acres Treated (mbf) 526 318 0 500 953 2,580

Hahn's Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Sale Volume (mbf) 0 0 7,522 80 6,421 3,153Acres Treated (mbf) 0 0 1,363 150 517 307

Parks Ranger District Sale Volume (mbf) 0 9,900 8,373 17,440 10,063 6,842Acres Treated (mbf) 0 1,500 1,544 2,174 899 718

Mountain pine beetle infestations are at an epidemic scale, killing entire hillsides of lodgepole pine. This beetle also affects other pine species such as limber pine and ponderosa pine, but the majority of the trees affected are lodgepole. The core of the epidemic lies in the Arapaho, White River and Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests as well as adjacent forested land. Aerial survey results for northern Colorado reveal that there were about 500,000 new acres infested in 2007 in the Medicine Bow and Routt National Forests. This event has affected more than 1.5 million acres since the fi rst signs of outbreak. The annual aerial health survey also reveals that the bark beetle infestation has affected about 349,700 acres in the Routt National Forest in 2007, a 53% increase over the 228,500 acres affected in 2006.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Yampa Ranger District Sale Volume (MBF) 3,000 3,500 0 4,128 11,800 29,634 Acres Treated (MBF) 526 318 0 500 953 2580

Hahn’s Peak/Bears Ears Ranger District Sale Volume (MBF) 0 0 7,522 80 6,421 3,153 Acres Treated (MBF) 0 0 1,363 150 517 307

Parks Ranger District Sale Volume (MBF) 0 9,900 8,373 17,440 10,063 6,842 Acres Treated (MBF) 0 1,500 1,544 2,174 899 718

Tree mortality and damage

Routt National Forest timber harvest

FOREST

Source: USDA Forest Service

Response to this epidemic requires a strong coordinated effort by those who manage the forests as well as those who inhabit them. Communities depend economically and socially on healthy green forests. Beetle damaged forests can increase wildfi re hazards to communities and key watershed, dead trees can fall on people and property, impair wildlife habitat, aesthetics and timber values.

Timber measured in thousands of board feet (MBF). Source: USDA Forest Service


ENVIRONMENTAL

Average annual consumption (kilowatt hours) per residence within the Yampa Valley Electric service area*

Waste produced, recycled

Population growth is causing solid waste generation to increase in the Yampa Valley. In 2006, 64,960 tons of solid waste generated in the Yampa Valley; 47,890 tons in Routt County and 17,070 tons in Moffat County. The recycling rate is waste recycled divided by the waste generated. It is estimated to be 4.9% in the Yampa Valley. The waste generation rate is approximately 7.0 pounds per person per day (ppd) for the entire Yampa Valley compared to 8.0 ppd in 1998.

Residential electricity demand in our valley is a function of the size and energy efficiency of homes, the amount of time homes are occupied, the types of appliances in homes and the price of electricity.

ENERGY USE & WASTE

“The pressure on our local agriculture continues to rise and we must all be aware of the long-range impacts for Northwest Colorado. The Community Indicators assist us with our planning processes by providing the statistical

data for our economic needs and cultural love of this valley.”MARSHA DAUGHENBAUGH, COMMUNITY AGRICULTURE ALLIANCE

Source: 2006 Waste Assessment Summary, Yampa Valley Recycles, Oct. 2008

Source: Yampa Valley Electric Association


LIKE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.STATE FARM IS THERE

WE LIVE WHERE YOU LIVE.

LIKE A GOOD NEIGHBOR STATE FARM IS THERE.®

Providing Insurance and Financial Servicesstatefarm.com®

State Farm® • Home Offi ces: Bloomington, Illinois

For your insurance and fi nancial needs see your local State Farm Agent Dax Mattox.Dax Mattox, Agent1915 Alpine PlazaSteamboat Springs, CO 80487Bus: [email protected]


ENVIRONMENTAL

Daily vehicle miles traveled

Carbon footprint, northwest Colorado federal and state highways

Carbon footprint is a measurement of carbon dioxide emitted through the combustion of fossil fuels and is often expressed as pounds of carbon dioxide or pounds of carbon emitted. The indicator in this report measures vehicle traffic on state federal/state highways in Routt, Moffat and Rio Blanco counties taking

into account cars/light trucks and heavy trucks. Due to these limited factors, it understates the total carbon output that is occurring. It does highlight the impacts from population growth and/or increased economic activity.

VEHICLE POLLUTION

Data calculated using Environmental Protection Agency equation; this example uses 2007 Moffat County data to show how the footprint was calculated for previous years and other counties.

Source: Colorado Highway Department of Transportation, only state and federal highways included

Years set back to recognize average age of vehicles on the road 8.0 (1999)CAFÉ’ MPG Standards combined fleet for the year 20.7Daily vehicle miles traveled (cars and light trucks) 272,565.0Pounds of gasoline consumed at 6.2 pounds per/gal 81,637.8Pounds of CO2 released for every pound of gasoline burned at 19.564 conversion factor 1,597,162.0 Daily vehicle miles traveled for heavy trucks 46,184.0Estimate MPG for heavy trucks 8.0Pounds of #2 diesel consumed at 7.15 pounds per/gal. 41,277.0Pounds of CO2 released for every pound of #2 diesel burned at 22.384 conversion factor 923,944.4Total CO2 released (cars + light trucks + heavy trucks) 2,521,106.4County population 13,861Pounds of CO2 released daily on a per capita basis 181.9

2007 % of Total

Moffat County Total daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) 318,749 100.0% Heavy truck miles 46,184 14.5% Passenger and light truck miles 272,565 85.5% Population estimate 13,861 Per capita DVMT 23.0 Heavy truck 3.3 Passenger and light truck 19.7

Routt County Total daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) 497,649 100.0% Heavy truck miles 36,833 7.4% Passenger and light truck miles 460,816 92.6% Population estimate 22,860 Per capita DVMT 21.8 Heavy truck 1.6 Passenger and light truck 20.2

Rio Blanco County Total daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) 256,914 100.0% Heavy truck miles 50,509 19.7% Passenger and light truck miles 206,405 80.3% Population estimate 6,351 Per capita DVMT 40.5 Heavy truck 8.0 Passenger and light truck 32.5

Source for population esitmates: Colorado Department of Local Affairs

ENVIRONMENTAL


Years set back to recognize average age of vehicles on the road 8.0 (1999)CAFÉ’ MPG Standards combined fleet for the year 20.7Daily vehicle miles traveled (cars and light trucks) 272,565.0Pounds of gasoline consumed at 6.2 pounds per/gal 81,637.8Pounds of CO2 released for every pound of gasoline burned at 19.564 conversion factor 1,597,162.0 Daily vehicle miles traveled for heavy trucks 46,184.0Estimate MPG for heavy trucks 8.0Pounds of #2 diesel consumed at 7.15 pounds per/gal. 41,277.0Pounds of CO2 released for every pound of #2 diesel burned at 22.384 conversion factor 923,944.4Total CO2 released (cars + light trucks + heavy trucks) 2,521,106.4County population 13,861Pounds of CO2 released daily on a per capita basis 181.9

Acres of hay and small grains harvested

MOFFAT Market value ROUTT Market value of agricultural of agricultural products sold products soldYear (in $1000s) Year (in $1000s)

2006 $ 28,265 2006 $ 23,385 2002 $ 22,613 2002 $ 28,195 1997 $ 23,788 1997 $ 28,712 1992 $ 23,916 1992 $ 37,884

Year (1-9 AC) (10-49 AC) (50-179 AC) (180-499 AC) (500-999 AC) (>1000 AC) TOTAL2002 9 178 144 112 58 92 5931997 17 111 105 84 56 121 4941992 9 88 85 74 55 127 438 Year (1-9 AC) (10-49 AC) (50-179 AC) (180-499 AC) (500-999 AC) (>1000 AC) TOTAL2002 0 91 94 94 50 114 4431997 16 54 66 82 43 128 3891992 8 50 67 51 40 134 350

Livestock inventory

A profile of agriculture statistics sheds some light on the status of the agricultural economy and the uses of agricultural lands in the Yampa Valley. The cattle industry as a whole is steady but not growing, while both Routt and Moffat counties show a declining year-round sheep industry. Grain production in Routt and Moffat counties also continues to decline.Hay is the single largest plant crop raised in Routt and Moffat counties. Hay acres are somewhat cyclical due to variable weather/rain patterns each year, as harvesting hay is not always feasible in dryer years. Due to additional water storage efforts in the 1970s and ‘80s, the number of irrigated acres increased from prior years. Conversely, the acreage in small grains (wheat, oats and barley) clearly shows a declining grain farming industry in both counties. Data on farms by size shows an increase in small or part-time operations. It also indicates a consolidation of commercial operations which must get bigger to survive as a sole source of income for a family. This trend is consistent with farms and ranches nationwide. It also indicates that some larger operations have been subdivided into smaller parcels because of the economics of land values in relation to agricultural production values. Gross Value of Farm products is a measure of agricultural economic status. Market value of agricultural products sold is a broad measure of annual sales of crops and livestock in each county. It gives an indication of whether the agriculture industry in both counties is growing, shrinking or stable. It is important to recognize that there are periodic fluctuations due to the cyclical prices received for farm products, particularly cattle.

Value of agricultural products (in 2006 dollars)

Farms and ranches by size in acres

Mof

fat

Rout

tAGRICULTURAL

Source: USDA AG Census & Colorado Department of Agriculture

Source: USDA Agricultural Census

Source: Colorado Department of Agriculture

Source: Colorado Department of Agriculture


ENVIRONMENTAL

Sage grouse

Bald eagle

The vitality of bald eagle populations can be considered one indicator of the health of the Yampa River as well as indicative of continued regeneration of its forests. Most bald eagles in Colorado build their nests in large cottonwood trees along rivers and lakes in areas that are relatively free from human disturbance. A pair of eagles will use the same nest year after year. The availability of large, mature cottonwood trees along a water body is one of the key ingredients for successful bald eagle nesting. The birds and their young depend in large part on the fi sh and waterfowl found around the rivers and lakes where they nest and winter. The Yampa River’s population of breeding bald eagles has grown, and contributes signifi cantly to the number in Colorado

The sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse are chicken-like birds that depend on sagebrush and grassland ecosystems and can serve as a sensitive indicator of the overall health of these environments. Greater sage-grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse populations have been in decline across their range in the west since the turn of the century. Conservation plans in the Yampa Valley are prepared with broad participation from landowners, agencies, conservation, and industry interests. In the early spring, male grouse gather at “leks” to dance and breed on clearings in the sage, and females nest under sagebrush shrubs. During the summer, grouse look for food, including insects, leaves and fl owers throughout the patchwork of sagebrush, grasslands and wet meadows. In the winter months, grouse depend almost entirely on sagebrush leaves for food. Lek counts of breeding males in the spring are widely used to indicate sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse population trends and are the only fi eld measure that can be effectively obtained across large areas. While these counts do not tell us the actual population size, they are the best and most long-term measure available for tracking population trends. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has been carrying out lek counts since the 1950s, and has increased and standardized these efforts since the late ’70s. Tracking the number of active leks provides an index of the distribution of sage grouse and sharp-tailed grouse breeding activity across a population area.

Year Adults Immature Unknown age Total

2003 77 44 50 1712004 13 1 161 1752005 124 31 0 1552006 208 55 0 2632007 226 75 0 3012008 285 78 0 363

Bald eagles in the Yampa River Valley

Year Number of grouse Year Number of active leks

1999 1,895 1999 782000 2,366 2000 922001 2,406 2001 902002 2,317 2002 912003 2,263 2003 902004 2,339 2004 852005 3,207 2005 952006 3,803 2006 1002007 3,246 2007 98

Sage grouse and active leks in Northwest Colorado

WILDLIFE

Source: Colorado Division of Wildlife



��

��

��

��

��

��

��


ENVIRONMENTAL The Yampa Valley supports the largest herds of mule deer and elk in Colorado. These herds are a cornerstone of wildlife-related recreation and economic sectors locally and statewide. Two herd units (Data Analysis Units) occur in the Yampa Valley, the Bears Ears herd and the Flattops/White River herd. Other smaller herd units occur in the western portions of the valley. Herd productivity is the most sensitive indicator of herd health collected by wildlife agencies. It is measured by the ratio of mule deer fawns per 100 does, and elk calves per 100 cows. Changes in these ratios track the effects of wet and dry years, mild and severe winters, and good and bad forage conditions on herd health. These ratios can also indicate the position of the herd relative to carrying capacity which is the maximum number of animals that can be supported without damaging the habitat. Steeply declining ratios can indicate population levels that exceed the resources available. In Colorado, biologists consider a ratio ranging from 50 to

70 fawns/calves per 100 does/cows to be optimum. The ratio of bucks per 100 does (mule deer) and bulls per 100 cows (elk) indicates the impact of hunting seasons on populations, and hunter satisfaction with the sex and age structure of populations. In managing the Yampa Valley’s herds, biologists strive for a ratio of 20 to 25 bucks/bulls per 100 does/cows. These indicators serve an important role in tracking deer and elk population size, growth rate, health and the amount of hunting pressure necessary to maintain populations at desired levels.

Mule deer range

Males:Females Young:Females Males:Females Young:FemalesYear estimate estimate Year estimate estimate

1981 5.7 55.1 1981 4.8 56.31983 7.9 47.5 1983 6.8 43.31985 8.0 52.0 1985 15.0 51.31987 20.2 52.7 1987 22.2 53.81989 25.2 66.2 1989 24.8 64.51991 22.3 55.0 1991 17.5 56.31993 17.7 54.1 1993 18.1 58.11995 25.2 45.6 1995 21.6 45.01997 16.1 42.7 1997 15.3 44.31999 23.9 56.0 1999 25.5 47.52001 23.9 54.7 2001 20.3 64.02003 30.6 50.2 2003 19.0 58.02005 37.5 71.2 2005 27.8 51.52007 34.0 57.0 2007 21.9 50.7

Elk range

Elk post-season ratios

Mule deer post-season ratios

Bear’s Ears deer herd White River deer herd

Male:Females Young:Females Males:Females Young:FemalesYear estimate estimate Year estimate estimate

1987 20 64 1987 18.9 57.21989 19.9 70.6 1989 15.1 63.91991 20.1 75.2 1991 18.9 55.61993 13.3 62.7 1993 11.3 47.11995 17 56.1 1995 10.7 47.61997 14.8 57.6 1997 12.8 47.71999 22.9 59.9 1999 33.6 48.32001 29.3 51.4 2001 32.7 77.32003 33.6 86.3 2003 29.2 87.72005 28.8 63.3 2005 24.6 61.32007 22.8 65.3 2007 20.4 52.9

WILDLIFE

Bear’s Ears elk herd White River elk herd



S-52 Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 Yampa Valley Partners

SOCIAL INDICATORS

COMMUNITY INDICATOR PROJECT 2009-2010

SOCIAL INDICATORS

YAMPA VALLEY PARTNERS S-1

KEY FINDINGS

��

��

��

��

��

��

OUR VISION Community indicators about our regional social systems address a broad range of categories to help measure our communities’ ability to provide basic human needs. Social issues such as physical health, crime and education are also tied closely to the economic health and interconnectivity of our region. Northwest Colorado’s growing population and increasing median age will impact social issues across the region.

KEY FINDINGSPopulation trends in northwest Colorado show continued growth and an older demographic. Projections indicate that the region’s population will at least double over the next 25 years.

Housing units are increasing at a steady pace and more homes are occupied by full-time residents.

Public schools have a growing percentage of minority stu-dents and an increase in programs for English language learners.

Many residents of Routt, Moffat and Rio Blanco counties do not have health insurance.

Federal standards for poverty are much lower than what is needed for residents of northwest Colorado to be self-suf-fi cient. Self-suffi ciency takes into account the income level needed to meet basic needs without relying on state and federal assistance programs.

“The Community Indicators Report was invaluable to us when we wrote our

application for Federally Qualifi ed Health Center designation at the Northwest

Colorado Community Health Center. In particular, the information on people living in Moffat County and commuting to work in Steamboat really helped us to create a picture of the unique economic forces that

affect residents of this region.”DIANE MILLER, ACCESS TO CARE COORDINATOR,

NORTHWEST COLORADO VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION

“The Community Indicators Report is an invaluable tool for my staff at the Craig Chamber of Commerce. We reference it

extensively when working with those who are considering moving their family or their business to northwest Colorado. There’s just no way for us to duplicate the information

contained in this publication and the analysis provided. Those we share it with are

impressed with the quality of information about our community.”

CHRISTINA M. CURRIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRAIG CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The health and happiness of each Yampa Valley community member is a refl ection of the overall social health of this community. We will promote the

physical, mental and social well being of our region. Arts and culture will make a valuable contribution to a diverse culture and

economy. Education will be lifelong, high quality and accessible to everyone living and working in our valley. We will work to plan proactive, preventative health

programs and social services for citizens in a continuous cycle from birth to death.

“The Town of Hayden is infl uenced in so many ways by what happens in the region. Being on top of these trends,

understanding them and then using them to assist policy makers in making great decisions with this information is important for

our community and the whole Yampa Valley.”RUSS MARTIN, HAYDEN TOWN MANAGER


��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

The

is a proud sponsor of

and the ��

SOCIAL


The three-county region of northwest Colorado has grown by 40% since 1990. Routt County’s growth outpaced both Moffat and Rio Blanco counties combined, with a 66% increase. Moffat grew by 24% and Rio Blanco 8% in this time period. The demographic of the regional population is drifting older – an average of 5.5 years since 1990. This increase in age is due in part to people moving to the area who enjoy the lifestyle and are referred to as the residential/lifestyle economy. Both Moffat and Rio Blanco counties saw decreases in the numbers of children and adults 20-45 years old. Routt County saw an increase in teens and adults 45-49 years old.

Total population

Population by age and gender

POPULATION

Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs


Source: U.S. Census

SOCIAL

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 S-55

The number of housing units has increased in all three northwest Colorado counties since 1990. Routt County saw the largest increase with nearly 59% while Moffat saw a 16% increase and Rio Blanco a 10% increase. The number of vacant homes has declined in all three counties indicating that there are more full-time residents in the region.

While the rate of growth has slowed since 2000, population projections indicate that Moffat, Routt and Rio Blanco counties will at least double the number of residents by 2035. Rio Blanco County is expected to triple its population base in the next 25 years. The Colorado State Demography Office anticipates that between 2008 and 2035 the state’s population will increase 56%. During the same period the population of the three northwest Colorado counties is projected to grow at almost twice as fast as the balance of the state.

The population of the Yampa Valley and northwest Colorado is still predominantly white. The proportion of Hispanic residents is increasing. This trend is evident in school enrollment and the number of students participating in English language programs.

Race and ethnicity

Housing Population projections

School enrollment, all types

% of Total

Moffat County White 96.9% Non-Hispanic 84.5% Hispanic 12.4%Black/Africian American 0.3%American Indian 1.0%Asian 0.4% Two or more races (other) 1.4%

Routt County White 97.4% Non-Hispanic 93.5% Hispanic 3.9%Black/Africian American 0.4%American Indian 0.5%Asian 0.7%Two or more races (other) 1.0%

Rio Blanco County White 97.3% Non-Hispanic 91.5% Hispanic 5.8%Black/Africian American 0.2%American Indian 0.9%Asian 0.4%Two or more races (other) 1.2%

1990 2000 2007

Moffat County Total housing units 5,235 5,635 6,071 Occupied 4,178 4,983 5,259 Vacant 1,057 652 812Average household size 2.7 2.6 N/AHousing vacancy rate 20.2% 11.6% 13.4%

Routt County Total housing units 9,252 11,217 14,679 Occupied 5,483 7,953 9,289 Vacant 3,769 3,264 5,390Average household size 2.5 2.4 N/AHousing vacancy rate 40.7% 29.1% 36.7%

Rio Blanco County Total housing units 2,803 2,855 3,071 Occupied 2,180 2,306 2,488 Vacant 623 549 583Average household size 2.7 2.5 N/AHousing vacancy rate 22.2% 19.2% 19.0%

05-06 06-07 07-08 05-06 06-07 07-08 05-06 06-07 07-08

Moffat County 2,533 2,531 2,589 15.7% 17.4% 18.3% 133 171 203

Routt County Hayden RE-1 462 481 524 7.9% 9.2% 12.4% 6 4 12Steamboat Springs RE-2 2,146 2,399 2,327 7.0% 8.2% 8.8% 64 89 105South Routt RE-3 447 499 457 8.5% 10.1% 10.0% 12 14 23

Total 3,055 3,379 3,308 7.4% 8.7% 9.6% 82 107 140

Rio Blanco County Meeker RE-1 676 700 733 10.1% 12.5% 17.8% 13 24 39Rangely RE-4 509 501 519 11.2% 13.2% 13.9% 4 6 7

Total 1,185 1,201 1,252 10.6% 12.8% 16.2% 17 30 46

Total Enrollment % Minority in Public School English Language Learners

Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs and U.S. Census

Source: U.S. Census

Source: Colorado Department of Education

POPULATION

SOCIAL


The number of people living in poverty is an important indicator of the well-being of a community. Qualifi cations for federal and state assistance programs are typically based on income. Both the federal poverty level (FPL) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) are measurements of low income earners.

The determination of the federal poverty level is adjusted annually based on make-up of the household. Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable tax credit available to some working individuals and families.

What is adequate income and how much money does an individual or family need to make ends meet? Specifi cally, what is the minimum income needed to meet basic needs without some type of assistance? The self-suffi ciency standard calculates this index for 70 different family types for the 64 counties in Colorado.

The percent of individuals at or below FPL in 2005 has remained fairly consistent since 2000. The FPL for 2005 was $9,570 for individuals, $19,350 for family of four. This indicator measures all individuals regardless of working status.

Earned Income Tax Credit is based on the adjusted gross income reported on tax returns and therefore targeted toward working people. In 2006, EITC income limits on a married family of four was $38,348 and an estimated 5.5 million families nationally were lifted above the poverty level because of the EITC program.

Self-suffi ciency standard

Federal poverty level, 2005

Percentage of tax returns claiming earned income tax credit

COMMUNITY INDICATOR PROJECT 2009-2010 YAMPA VALLEY PARTNERS S-4

SOCIAL POVERTY & SELF SUFFICIENCY

Federal Poverty Level, 2005

Self sufficiency standard

Percentage of tax returns claiming Earned Income Tax Credit

The number of people living in poverty is an important indicator of the well-being of a community. Qualifications for federal and state assistance programs are typically based on income. Both the federal poverty level (FPL) and Earned

Earned Income Tax Credit is based on the adjusted gross income reported on tax returns and therefore targeted toward working people. In 2006, EITC income limits on a married family of four was $38,348 and an estimated 5.5 million families nationally were lifted above the poverty level because of the EITC program.

The percent of individuals at or below FPL in 2005 has remained fairly consistent since 2000. The FPL for 2005 was $9,570 for individuals, $19,350 for family of four. This indicator measures all individuals regardless of working status.

Housing

Child Care*

Food

Transportation

Health CareMiscellaneousTaxes

$726

$1,088*

$708$476

$438

$343

$733

$1,008

$1,393*

$708$492

$420

$402

$969

$561

$920*

$708$490

$438

$312

$607$447

$227$249

$134

$106

$218

$775

$227$250

$129$138

$344

$654

$227$242

$134

$126

$299

Moffat Routt Rio BlancoTotal Population Estimate

13,375 21,921 6,046Percent @ or Below Poverty

10.0% 6.0% 9.1%Population at Poverty Level or Below1,340 1,306 551

Children Under 18 at Poverty Level451 298 179

Medium Family Income46,983$ 58,482$ 44,709$

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Moffat County

% of Total 12.9% 12.7% 14.5% 14.9% 14.4% 13.4% 12.6%

Rio Blanco County

% of Total 12.1% 11.8% 13.6% 13.0% 12.5% 12.8% 10.0%

Routt County

% of Total 7.3% 8.1% 9.5% 9.1% 8.4% 7.8% 7.6%

Singleadult

Total monthly expenses: $1,380 Total monthly expenses: $3,768



Two adults, pre-school child,school-age child (per adult)

Moffat County

Routt County

Rio Blanco County

Self-sufficiency annual wage: $16,563Self-sufficiency hourly wage: $7.84






*A child ($167) and child care ($100) tax credit reduces these costs

What is adequate income and how much money an individual or family need to make ends meet? Specifically, what is the minimum income needed to meet basic needs without some type of assistance? The Self-Sufficiency Standard calculates this index for 70 different family types for the 64 counties in Colorado.

Income Tax Credit (EITC) are measurements of low income earners. The determi-nation of the federal poverty line is adjusted annually based on make-up of the household. Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable tax credit available to some working individuals and families.

Source: Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute

Source: U.S. Census

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Moffat Routt Rio Blanco

Total Population Estimate 13,375 21,921 6,046Percent @ or Below Poverty 10.0% 6.0% 9.1%Population at Poverty Level or Below 1,340 1,306 551Children Under 18 at Poverty Level 451 298 179

Medium Family Income $46,983 $58,482 $44,709

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Moffat County % of total tax returns 12.9% 12.7% 14.5% 14.9% 14.4% 13.4% 12.6%

Rio Blanco County % of total tax returns 12.1% 11.8% 13.6% 13.0% 12.5% 12.8% 10.0%

Routt County % of total tax returns 7.3% 8.1% 9.5% 9.1% 8.4% 7.8% 7.6%

Source: U.S. Census


SELF-SUFFICIENCY STANDARD

Single adult Two adults, pre-school child, school-age child

* A child ($167) and child care ($100) tax credit reduces these costs**Per adult

Source: Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute


��

��

��

��

��

˛ Managing funds established by families, individuals and nonprofits while making grants to community organizations.

˛ Educating donors on issues in the community.�

˛ Collaborating with local organizations and projects to accomplish a single, short term goal without establishing new nonprofit organizations.

˛ Incubating new nonprofits until they receive their own 501c3 status.�

��

��

��

��

970-879-8632 | www.yvcf.org | email [email protected]

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � � � � � � ��

��

��

SOCIAL


U.S. Census data shows that in 2005, almost 9,000 residents in Moffat, Routt and Rio Blanco counties have no health insurance. The vast majority of the uninsured come from families where at least one adult works full time. The uninsured population puts strain on local health care systems because those without insurance receive less preventative and therapeutic care.

Federal programs targeted to low income (in 2007 dollars)

Medicaid and Child Health Plan Plus (CHP+)

Uninsured rates, 2005

Federal low-income program spending, 2007

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Moffat County Adjusted to 2007 dollars $5,022,815 $5,286,796 $5,307,636 $6,002,780 $5,129,967 Per capita program spending $378 $395 $397 $440 $368

Routt County Adjusted to 2007 dollars $3,283,295 $4,101,134 $4,035,650 $4,527,826 $4,046,006 Per capita program spending $154 $189 $184 $202 $175

Rio Blanco County Adjusted to 2007 dollars $2,126,806 $2,177,248 $2,138,106 $2,395,756 $2,067,994 Per capita program spending $355 $357 $354 $382 $321

Source: U.S. Census

Moffat Routt ColoradoCHP+ enrollment 253 289 55,110 Medicaid enrollment 974 485 315,027 2006 (est.) total child population 0-18 3,791 5,152 1,277,571 CHP+ enrollment 302 275 70,139 Medicaid enrollment 956 508 310,052 2007 (est.) total child population 0-18 3,784 5,281 1,297,586 % Change in medicaid enrollment 19.4% -4.8% 27.3%% Change in medicaid enrollment -1.8% 4.7% -1.6%

FY

FY

2005

-06

2006

-07

Sources: Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing and Colorado Demography Office

Moffat 19.1%Routt 22.8%Rio Blanco 23.2%Colorado 17.7%

Source: U.S. Census, 2005 Health Insurance Coverage Status for Counties

HEALTH & ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Uninsured rates

“At Independent Life Center we use the Community Indicators Report to gather talking points and information to support grant

requests. There is no other source of this information for us.”EVELYN TILESTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INDEPENDENT LIFE CENTER, INC., CRAIG

Source: U.S. Census

Moffat County = $5,129,967Routt County = $4,046,006Rio Blanco = $2,067,994

SOCIAL

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 S-59

Total birth and death rates have not varied widely within the three counties over the past ten years. Low birth-weight babies (less than 5 pound, 8 ounces) are more likely to develop neurological, respiratory and developmental or behavioral problems. Low birth-weight is attributed to age of the mother, smoking, inadequate or delayed prenatal care and altitude. Inadequate prenatal care is also linked to whether the family or individual has health insurance and to the availability of health care.

When comparing total traffic deaths per annual vehicle miles traveled for each county, Rio Blanco County has the highest number of vehicle-related fatalities. Fatalities for all three counties are also higher in cases where the victim is not using a restraining device. Alcohol-impaired driving (BAC=.08+) was involved in 37.3% of the traffic fatalities in the region during the past five years.

Births

Deaths

Traffic fatalities

Leading causes of death

1996 2006

Moffat County Total population 12,291 13,653Number of births 144 219Birth rate 11.7 16.0General fertility rate 54 83

Routt County Total population 17,718 22,421Number of births 192 245Birth rate 10.8 10.9General fertility rate 44.8 53.1

Rio Blanco County Total population 6,341 6,267Number of births 68 102Birth rate 10.7 16.3General fertility rate 49.9 82.8

Source: National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration and the Colorado Department of Transportation

1996 2006

Moffat County Population 12,291 13,653Total deaths 82 94 Cardiovascular disease 31 17 Cancer 15 25 Respiratory disease 2 8 Unintentional injuries 7 10 Intentional injuries 4 8 Suicide N/A 7 Others causes 23 26

Routt County Population 17,718 22,421Total deaths 75 81 Cardiovascular disease 25 25 Cancer 21 13 Respiratory disease 2 5 Unintentional injuries 6 11 Intentional injuries 3 5 Suicide N/A 5 Others causes 18 22

Rio Blanco County Population 6,341 6,267Total deaths 50 59 Cardiovascular disease 18 18 Cancer 7 16 Respiratory disease 6 2 Unintentional injuries 6 5 Intentional injuries 2 2 Suicide N/A N/A Others causes 11 16

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Moffat County Total fatalities 5 4 1 1 4Alcohol-impaired driving (BAC=.08+) fatalities 2 1 1 1 4Fatalities by restraint use Restrained 2 3 0 0 1 Unrestrained 3 1 1 1 2 Unknown 0 0 0 0 1Fatalities per 1 million miles traveled 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03

Routt County Total fatalities 3 4 5 4 11Alcohol-impaired driving (BAC=.08+) fatalities 0 1 1 1 2Fatalities by restraint use Restrained 0 2 4 1 4 Unrestrained 1 1 0 2 4 Unknown 2 1 1 1 3Fatalities per 1 million miles traveled 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.06

Rio Blanco County Total fatalities 7 4 6 7 1Alcohol-impaired driving (BAC=.08+) fatalities 4 0 2 4 1Fatalities by restraint use Restrained 1 2 1 2 0 Unrestrained 5 2 3 5 1 Unknown 1 0 2 4 1Fatalities per 1 million miles traveled 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.08 0.01

BIRTHS & DEATHS

Moffat Routt Rio BlancoTotal population 13,407 21,680 6,090Number of births 194 236 81Birth rate (per 1,000 in population) 14.5 10.9 13Fertility rate (per 1,000 females age 15-44) 73.5 51.2 66.2Percentage of Low birth weight babies 10% 10% 8% Received prenatal care later then 1st trimester 20% 6% 22% Births to unmarried women 30% 13% 20% Births to mothers with education of <grade 12 23% 6% 13%

Yearly average (2002-2006)

Source: Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment

Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Moffat and Routt counties corner’s office

SOCIAL


Moffat and Routt counties had no reported cases of diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, or polio from 1998-2007. A vaccine for varicella (chicken pox) was introduced in the United States in 1995 and combined with the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMRV) in 2005.

Grand Futures Prevention Coalition of Routt County and Moffat counties surveyed middle school and high school students in the two counties during the 2007-08 school year. A majority of all students surveyed have never used alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs or marijuana. Of those who do use these substances, alcohol is used most often. A new question on the survey on survey asks if students have driven or ridden in a car with someone who has used alcohol or drugs within the past 30 days. There is no indication if the driver was a parent, friend or another adult.

Incidents of preventable diseases in Moffat & Routt counties Physicians and dentists per 1,000 population, 2007

Sexually transmitted diseases

This represents individuals holding active physician and dentist licenses; those with inactive licenses have been excluded from analysis. Providers may or may not be working full time. Yampa Valley Medical Center in Steamboat Springs has a staff of more than 60 active physicians. The Memorial Hospital in Craig has 24 active staff physicians.

2004 2005 2006 2007

Hepatitis B 10 0 1 1

Hepatitis A 2 1 3 2

Hospitalized influenza 0 4 4 3

Meningococcal disease 0 0 1 0

Whooping cough 3 1 1 1

Pneumococcal 0 4 0 2

Chicken pox 8 28 20 3

Tuberculosis 0 1 0 0

Total 23 39 30 12

2004 2005 2006 2007

MOFFAT COUNTY Chlamydia 27 33 30 42Gonorrhea 2 0 1 5Syphillis 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 29 33 31 47

ROUTT COUNTY Chlamydia 11 29 47 33Gonorrhea 3 4 2 3Syphillis 2 1 2 0

TOTAL 16 34 51 36

Teen alcohol and drug use, 2007-2008

Source: Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurses Association

Source: Northwest Colorado Visiting Nurses Association

HEALTH

“The Indicators report provides our school district with a wealth of valuable information. We often refer to it for trends and issues related to our

schools.”PETE BERGMANN, MOFFAT CO SCHOOL

DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT

Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Source: Grand Futures Prevention Coalition Healthy Kids Survey


826-4100943 W. 8th Dr. • Craig, CO 81625

Newly renovated nursing care & rehab facility of Craig

Long Term Care

Rehabilitation Program

Newly Renovated

24 Hour Licensed Nursing

Service

Dietician

Housekeeping

Newly renovated nursing care & rehab facility of CraigCare & Rehab

��

In a typical year,Horizons provides services to:

children under age three with delays in their development145families with a loved one who has a developmental delay or disability living at home and

88adults with developmental disabilities63

Serving children, adults and their families in the five Northwest Colorado

counties since 1975

Horizons Specialized ServicesPO Box 774867

Steamboat Springs, CO 80477Steamboat 879-4466

Craig 824-7804

��

��

��

��

��

SOCIAL


Total school enrollment has remained constant with the three counties since 2003, while the percentage of minorities has increased. Approximately 94% of children in grades K-12 are enrolled in public schools, 4% in private and 2% are home schooled. While the number is still small, less than 1%, a growing

number of students are enrolled in non-district online programs. Graduation rates in Moffat and Routt counties are stable while Rio Blanco County has seen a drop in this rate and corresponding higher drop out rate since 2003.

Routt and Moffat counties’ child care capacity has remained fairly constant over the past ten years while Rio Blanco County’s capacity has decreased slightly in this time period.

The American College Testing Exam (ACT) tests high school students in English, math, reading and science. The highest score possible is 36. Since 2001, Colorado has required all 11th grade students to take the ACT.

K-12 school enrollment, 2006-2007

Child care facilities and capacity ACT scores

CSAPs (Colorado Student Assessment Program), 2007-08

Moffat County 2,395 70 30 36 0 2,531 81.5% 4.4% 651 251 $9,184 $45,879

Routt County

Hayden RE-1 448 30 0 3 0 481 82.9% 1.9% 95 66 $12,522 $42,731

Steamboat Springs RE-2 2,087 12 17 25 258 2,399 87.1% 1.2% 140 244 $14,643 $44,829

South Routt RE-3 457 42 0 0 0 499 90.5% 2.3% 111 57 $13,279 $39,588

Total 2,992 84 17 28 258 3,379 87.0% 1.5% 346 367 N/A N/A

Rio Blanco County Meeker RE-1 678 1 7 14 0 700 78.0% 2.2% 228 96 $9,135 $44,400 Rangely RE-4 478 5 11 7 0 501 84.8% 8.9% 232 74 $12,874 $37,820

Total 1,156 6 18 21 0 1,201 81.3% 5.5% 460 170 N/A N/A

Public school

Out of district*

On-line pgm.

Home school

Non-public school Total

Grad.rate

Grade 9-12

dropout rate

Eligible for free

or reduced lunch

Special Ed.

Per pupil funding

(all revenue sources)**

Avg.teacher salary

Moffat Routt Rio Blanco1993 Facilities 21 35 N/A

Capacity 187 557 N/A

1997 Facilities 21 37 N/A


2002 Facilities 21 34 N/A


2007 Facilities 25 33 12

Capacity 272 602 133

2008 Facilities 23 33 9

Capacity 289 640 115

Source: QualStar

Moffat Routt Rio Blanco Reading Hayden Stmbt. Spgs. South Routt Meeker Rangely

3rd Grade 63.1% 96.4% 87.3% 48.3% 79.3% 65.0%

6th Grade 76.3% 66.7% 86.8% 65.2% 75.0% 83.9%

10th Grade 60.2% 61.9% 82.3% 64.3% 80.4% 56.1%

Writing

3rd Grade 33.5% 50.0% 67.7% 24.1% 64.4% 58.1%

6th Grade 50.6% 48.1% 79.0% 56.5% 57.8% 67.7%

10th Grade 42.2% 42.9% 68.3% 32.1% 56.5% 34.1%

Moffat Routt Rio BlancoMath Hayden Stmbt. Spgs. South Routt Meeker Rangely

3rd Grade 59.5% 96.4% 87.3% 72.4% 84.5% 69.8%

6th Grade 58.3% 55.6% 84.4% 44.0% 39.1% 67.7%

10th Grade 18.1% 33.3% 50.0% 21.4% 37.0% 17.1%

Source: Colorado Department of Education

Scores shown are for students scoring proficient or above

EDUCATION & CHILD CARE

* Student attends school in a district different from the school district where they reside. Source: Colorado Department of Education** Per pupil funding includes all operating revenues from local and state tax collections, grants and other discretionary sources. Funding associated with long-term debt is not included.

Source: Colorado Department of Education/ School District Accountability Report


��

��

��

yampavalleypartners.com

SOCIAL


2006/07

Moffat County Moffat County High School Student enrollment 721Substance abuse - drugs 2Substance abuse - alcohol 12Substance abuse - tobacco 18Assaults/fights 2Dangerous weapons 2Other violations conduct code 122

Total 158Incidents ratio 0.22

Routt County Hayden High School Student enrollment 146Dangerous weapons 6Other violations conduct code 63


Steamboat Springs High School Student enrollment 655Substance abuse - drugs 7Substance abuse - alcohol 10


South Routt County High School Student enrollment 150Substance abuse - alcohol 4Assaults/fights 4Other violations conduct code 9


Rio Blanco County Meeker High School Student enrollment 196Substance abuse - tobacco 5Other violations conduct code 13


Rangely High School Student enrollment 169Assaults/fights 2Other violations conduct code 13


The number of crimes reported in Moffat and Routt counties are broken down by violent and property crimes with the highest percentage in property crimes since 2005. Incidents of domestic violence remain an issue in the region.

Domestic violence

Reported crimes

Disciplinary actions for school safety violations vary greatly over time. In Moffat and Rio Blanco counties, the majority of specific suspensions are for “Substance Abuse – Tobacco.” In Routt County, it is for “Substance Abuse – Alcohol.”

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Moffat County New victims served 931 387 414 332 462Domestic violence 492 334 331 287 350Sexual assault new 439 53 83 45 112

Routt County New victims served 268 302 335 295 331Domestic violence 237 261 294 274 314Sexual assault new 31 41 41 21 17

School disciplinary actions

Source: Advocates Crisis Support Services in Moffat County and Advocates in Routt County

2005 2006 2007 Violent Property Violent Property Violent Property Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime Crime

Moffat County County agency 5 38 10 31 12 27City of Craig 37 342 20 236 33 231

Total 42 380 30 267 45 258Crime rate per 1,000 residents 3.1 28.4 2.2 19.6 3.2 18.5

Routt County County agency 15 24 26 78 12 34Town of Hayden N/A N/A 6 30 2 56Town of Oak Creek N/A N/A 7 7 N/A N/ACity of Steamboat Springs 51 440 67 430 58 468

Total 66 464 106 545 72 558Crime rate per 1,000 residents 3.0 21.2 4.7 24.3 3.1 24.2

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation

Source: Colorado School Accountability Reports

SAFETY

(28.4)


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

20415942_MIA_CIP08.indd 1 1/20/09 3:43:07 PM

• JW Operating• Pioneer Natural Resources• Julander Energy• Yates Petroleum• XTO Energy

• Questar Exploration and Production

• Samson Resources• Quick Silver

��

��

970-824-92221280 Industrial Ave., Suite G

Craig, CO 81625

Yampa Valley Land Trust is a dynamic results-oriented

nonprofi t land conservation organization

dedicated to the protection of

agricultural, natural, scenic and historic

landscapes in Northwest Colorado.

Yampa Valley Land Trust is addressing

TOP community PRIORITIES for

open land preservation and

the protection of environmental resources.

Land conservation

is the BEST investment we can make

for our community’s

health, stability, beauty, economy and quality of life.

SUPPORT YAMPA VALLEY LAND TRUST

WITH YOUR ANNUAL CONTRIBUTION

Conserving Land in Northwest Colorado Since 1992!PO Box 773014, Steamboat Springs, CO 80477

(970) 879-7240*Donate on-line: www.yvlt.org*

conservation • heritage • culture • community • wildlife

conservation • heritage • culture • community • wildlife

wor

king

land

scap

es •

sce

nic

beau

ty •

agr

icul

ture

• o

pen

spac

es •

peo

ple w

orking landscapes • scenic beauty • agriculture • open spaces • people


� ��

��

� ��

��

� ��

��

��

Three great ways to find Steamboat Homefinder

➮

➮

➮

��

��

online��

��

��

��

��


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

ECONOMIC INDICATORS

E-6 Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 Yampa Valley PartnersCOMMUNITY INDICATOR PROJECT 2009-2010

ECONOMIC INDICATORS

YAMPA VALLEY PARTNERS E-1

OUR VISION

KEY FINDINGS

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Yampa Valley citizens, businesses, organizations and local government

agencies nurture a diverse local economy that supports the basic needs of our

community. The people of the Yampa Valley work toward a healthy year-round economic base that thrives through planned business development, technological innovations and

infrastructure, and ensures an affordable cost of living to people with a variety of income levels. The Community Indicator

Report 2009-2010 now includes our ‘White River Valley’ neighbors in Rio Blanco County

Northwest Colorado’s economy is made up of many different sectors. While no single indicator is suffi cient to describe our overall economy, when pieced together, they demonstrate the increasing interdependence between Routt, Moffat and Rio Blanco counties. Although each of the three counties has different economic drivers, there is a shared demand for workforce that impacts housing, transportation and other infrastructure needs. Wherever possible the economic indicators in this report have been expanded to include data for all three northwest Colorado counties. Rio Blanco County Commissioner Ken Parsons says that including this data will provide a more complete view of the northwest corner of the state. “Users will be able to better compare the three-county area, in general and on specifi c measures, to obtain a more accurate picture of what is going on in our region and within each county.” Population growth, improved infrastructure and additional amenities continue to spur diversifi cation. The visitor economy and the growing residential/lifestyle economy will continue to be economic drivers in Routt County. These two economies are intertwined and both are dependent on many of the same community assets ranging from its natural beauty to abundant recreation and cultural opportunities. Development and extraction of energy-related natural resources will be an economic driver in Rio Blanco County. Moffat, situated between Routt and Rio Blanco, will increasingly feel the impacts from both counties’ expanding economies.

The northwest Colorado counties of Routt, Moffat and Rio Blanco are each impacted by the diversity of economic activity occurring in this region. Routt’s growth is driven by visitors and an increasing number of people moving to the area for a lifestyle rich in natural, recreational and cultural amenities. Rio Blanco is being fueled by development of its abundant energy resources. Sandwiched between these two counties, Moffat will experience impacts as a result of the expanding economies of its neighbors. These forces will impact workforce, housing, transportation, health care, schools and social services.

Northwest Colorado’s economic interdependence is illustrated by the import and export of wages between the counties that occurs when workers live in one county and work in another. Residents in Moffat County imported $62 million in wages into their county in 2006 much of which came from working for employers in Routt and Rio Blanco counties.

A greater number of industry sectors are employing more workers as the region diversifi es. Northwest Colorado’s small population and low unemployment encourages workers to seek employment outside their home county. Workers may not possess the appropriate skills necessary to fi ll jobs within their own county. This impacts transportation and other workforce issues as well as offers vocational and higher education opportunities.

The unemployment rate for Moffat, Routt and Rio Blanco counties consistently remains below the state average. Residents of Moffat County will continue to meet the demand for labor in both Routt and Rio Blanco counties. This impacts transportation, housing and other workforce issues.

The attractiveness of northwest Colorado as a place to live, work and play has created a residential/lifestyle economy comprised of people who move to the area to enjoy its natural beauty and recreational and cultural amenities. An increasing number of these full- and part-time residents do not depend on economic activity occurring within the region to make their living. This group has become an economic driver, broadening and diversifying the local economy by bringing new income sources and job opportunities into the Yampa Valley. They also put pressure on the resources of land and housing.

Personal income from non-labor sources is trending upward in Routt County while remaining stable in Moffat and Rio Blanco counties. The growth of non-labor source income is an indicator of the growth of the residential/lifestyle economy associated with retirees and individuals who have suffi cient economic means to live in the area. This is a national economic trend that is occurring in many resort/lifestyle communities.

Agriculture’s share of Routt County’s total personal income has gone from almost 5% in 1970 to less than a half of one percent as other segments of the economy have grown. Although its share as a percentage of overall personal income has declined, agriculture as an economic sector in all three counties has been relatively stable for the past 35 years.

Improvements in air transportation and broadband telecommunications have improved all business capabilities and also make it possible for location neutral businesses and location neutral employees to exist and thrive. Although not as visible as storefronts or industrial sites, growth of location neutral businesses and location neutral employees contribute to regional economic diversifi cation.

KEY FINDINGS

Moffat County | phone 970-824-5517 | Moffat County Courthouse at 221 W. Victory Way, Craig, CO 81625

We Serve the People of Moff at County

Public SafetyMoffat County LibraryThe Memorial Hospital

Veterans Services & Health Care

Citizen ServicesRecreation

Craig-Moffat Airport

20424729_MCC_CIP08.indd 1 1/15/09 10:02:47 AM

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 7 Moffat County | phone 970-824-5517 | Moffat County Courthouse at 221 W. Victory Way, Craig, CO 81625

We Serve the People of Moff at County

Public SafetyMoffat County LibraryThe Memorial Hospital

Veterans Services & Health Care

Citizen ServicesRecreation

Craig-Moffat Airport

20424729_MCC_CIP08.indd 1 1/15/09 10:02:47 AM

E-8 Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 Yampa Valley Partners

ECONOMIC

Total employment 7,331 7,326 7,305 7,393 7,714 8,036 Wage & salary employment 5,207 71.0% 5,175 70.6% 5,167 70.7% 5,237 70.8% 5,427 70.4% 5,642 70.2%Proprietors employment 2,124 29.0% 2,151 29.4% 2,138 29.3% 2,156 29.2% 2,287 29.6% 2,394 29.8% Farm/ranch 441 20.8% 455 21.2% 444 20.8% 435 20.2% 434 19.0% 435 18.2% All other 1,683 79.2% 1,696 78.8% 1,694 79.2% 1,721 79.8% 1,853 81.0% 1,959 81.8%Private employment 5,475 81.3% 5,446 80.8% 5,398 80.5% 5,526 81.1% 5,840 81.8% 6,190 83.0%Government employment 1,260 18.7% 1,296 19.2% 1,308 19.5% 1,288 18.9% 1,298 18.2% 1,266 17.0% Total employment 19,545 19,697 19,631 20,206 21,208 21,939 Wage & salary employment 14,500 74.2% 14,627 74.3% 14,413 73.4% 14,608 72.3% 15,241 71.9% 15,592 71.1%Proprietors employment 5,045 25.8% 5,070 25.7% 5,218 26.6% 5,598 27.7% 5,967 28.1% 6,347 28.9% Farm/ranch 530 10.5% 548 10.8% 535 10.3% 525 9.4% 524 8.8% 526 8.3% All other 4,515 89.5% 4,522 89.2% 4,683 89.7% 5,073 90.6% 5,443 91.2% 5,821 91.7%Private employment 17,174 90.8% 17,279 90.6% 17,203 90.6% 17,808 90.9% 18,837 91.5% 19,561 91.8%Government employment 1,738 9.2% 1,785 9.4% 1,789 9.4% 1,776 9.1% 1,752 8.5% 1,755 8.2% Total employment 4,203 4,273 4,242 4,344 4,677 5,224 Wage & salary employment 2,959 70.4% 3,000 70.2% 2,953 69.6% 3,050 70.2% 3,349 71.6% 3,839 73.5%Proprietors employment 1,244 29.6% 1,273 29.8% 1,289 30.4% 1,294 29.8% 1,328 28.4% 1,385 26.5% Farm/ranch 287 23.1% 297 23.3% 290 22.5% 284 21.9% 283 21.3% 284 20.5% All other 957 76.9% 976 76.7% 999 77.5% 1,010 78.1% 1,045 78.7% 1,101 79.5%Private employment 2,646 69.1% 2,684 68.8% 2,725 70.5% 2,856 71.8% 3,217 74.6% 3,790 78.0%Government employment 1,182 30.9% 1,219 31.2% 1,139 29.5% 1,122 28.2% 1,096 25.4% 1,068 22.0%

2001 % of Total 2002 % of Total 2003 % of Total 2004 % of Total 2005 % of Total 2006 % of Total

Rio

Blan

co C

ount

y Ro

utt C

ount

y M

offa

t Cou

nty

Full- and part-time employment

Full and part-time jobs by industry, 2006

Economic diversification is measured in three ways:

Employment by industry sector Personal income and average wage by industry sector Number of business enterprises by industry sector

All of these measurements are equally important, highly interrelated and particularly valuable when viewed together.

The breakdown of employment and industries shows how many people are working full and part-time jobs in each industry.

Trends in the Yampa Valley’s private sector employment and industries show that retail trade, and accommodations and food service, continue to employ the most people, while also being two of the lowest paid categories. Over the past six years Routt County has seen a 12% increase in the number of jobs with construction becoming the county’s largest job creator. Rio Blanco has seen a 24% increase in the number of jobs with almost 50% of those created in the mining sector. Moffat County saw 10% job growth with the largest growth occurring in wholesale trade. The mining and utility sectors continue to be the primary jobs providers in Moffat and Rio Blanco counties. The outlook for both of these industry sectors will remain strong especially with the expansion of oil and gas development. The tri-county region is the largest coal provider in the state extracting 50% of all coal produced in Colorado and is an indicator of this sector’s continued economic strength and stability. In Routt County, construction, accommodations and food services, and real estate and leasing account for 42% jobs in the private sector. This percentage is down from 44% in 2001. A downward trend is an indicator of economic diversification. During this time period almost 1,500 jobs were created. Farm and ranch employment continues to show a steady decline as an overall percentage of the economy while continuing to employ approximately the same number of people this industry sector has over the past 30 years in Moffat and Routt counties.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

VITALITY & DIVERSITY


*Data suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information

ECONOMIC

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 E-9

Total employment 7,331 7,326 7,305 7,393 7,714 8,036 Wage & salary employment 5,207 71.0% 5,175 70.6% 5,167 70.7% 5,237 70.8% 5,427 70.4% 5,642 70.2%Proprietors employment 2,124 29.0% 2,151 29.4% 2,138 29.3% 2,156 29.2% 2,287 29.6% 2,394 29.8% Farm/ranch 441 20.8% 455 21.2% 444 20.8% 435 20.2% 434 19.0% 435 18.2% All other 1,683 79.2% 1,696 78.8% 1,694 79.2% 1,721 79.8% 1,853 81.0% 1,959 81.8%Private employment 5,475 81.3% 5,446 80.8% 5,398 80.5% 5,526 81.1% 5,840 81.8% 6,190 83.0%Government employment 1,260 18.7% 1,296 19.2% 1,308 19.5% 1,288 18.9% 1,298 18.2% 1,266 17.0% Total employment 19,545 19,697 19,631 20,206 21,208 21,939 Wage & salary employment 14,500 74.2% 14,627 74.3% 14,413 73.4% 14,608 72.3% 15,241 71.9% 15,592 71.1%Proprietors employment 5,045 25.8% 5,070 25.7% 5,218 26.6% 5,598 27.7% 5,967 28.1% 6,347 28.9% Farm/ranch 530 10.5% 548 10.8% 535 10.3% 525 9.4% 524 8.8% 526 8.3% All other 4,515 89.5% 4,522 89.2% 4,683 89.7% 5,073 90.6% 5,443 91.2% 5,821 91.7%Private employment 17,174 90.8% 17,279 90.6% 17,203 90.6% 17,808 90.9% 18,837 91.5% 19,561 91.8%Government employment 1,738 9.2% 1,785 9.4% 1,789 9.4% 1,776 9.1% 1,752 8.5% 1,755 8.2% Total employment 4,203 4,273 4,242 4,344 4,677 5,224 Wage & salary employment 2,959 70.4% 3,000 70.2% 2,953 69.6% 3,050 70.2% 3,349 71.6% 3,839 73.5%Proprietors employment 1,244 29.6% 1,273 29.8% 1,289 30.4% 1,294 29.8% 1,328 28.4% 1,385 26.5% Farm/ranch 287 23.1% 297 23.3% 290 22.5% 284 21.9% 283 21.3% 284 20.5% All other 957 76.9% 976 76.7% 999 77.5% 1,010 78.1% 1,045 78.7% 1,101 79.5%Private employment 2,646 69.1% 2,684 68.8% 2,725 70.5% 2,856 71.8% 3,217 74.6% 3,790 78.0%Government employment 1,182 30.9% 1,219 31.2% 1,139 29.5% 1,122 28.2% 1,096 25.4% 1,068 22.0%

Forestry, fishing, hunting, and agriculture support 69 49 86Mining 45 71 46Utilities 4 4 6Construction 171 145 1,054Manufacturing 35 33 82Wholesale trade 44 3 97Retail trade 200 96 406Transportation & warehousing 91 47 126Information 17 5 68Finance & insurance 32 18 143Real estate & rental & leasing 100 64 783Professional, scientific & technical services 116 86 659Management of companies & enterprises 2 50 7Admin, support, waste mgt, remediation services 69 40 312Educational services 15 12 83Health care and social assistance 127 37 302Arts, entertainment & recreation 54 27 223Accommodation & food services 59 110 192Other services (except public administration) 221 21 399Unclassified establishments 2 6 1

Total 1,473 924 5,075

Industry type Moffat County Rio Blanco Routt County County

As of 2006, there were approximately 7,500 business establishments in northwest Colorado. Of these establishments 90% employ five people or less including the owner. Businesses that employ 50 or more people account for less than 1% of all

businesses in each of the counties. Employers with more than 100 employees tend to be mining, utilities, health care and social services, construction, accommodations and food service.

Business establishments by size

Total number of businesses by industry type

Northwest Colorado employmentFive largest industries 1970 vs. 2000

*Data includes businesses with and without paid employees Source: U.S. Census


Source: U.S. Census



ECONOMIC

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Moffat County Non-labor $102,049 $97,527 $96,151 $94,391 $96,644 $99,972 Labor $249,405 $259,902 $268,226 $288,651 $306,621 $327,899

Total $351,454 $357,429 $364,377 $383,042 $403,265 $427,871

Rio Blanco County Non-labor $52,681 $50,526 $50,136 $51,406 $52,500 $54,938Labor $119,630 $121,718 $124,800 $138,039 $158,394 $180,081

Total $171,311 $172,244 $174,936 $189,445 $210,894 $235,019

Routt County Non-labor $244,065 $232,797 $235,861 $272,456 $293,379 $319,124 Labor $560,551 $607,318 $593,884 $615,206 $649,762 $672,082

Total $804,616 $840,115 $829,745 $887,662 $943,141 $991,206


Labor and non-labor income (in $1,000s) adjusted to 2006 dollars

Labor income: highest grossing industries adjusted to 2006 dollars

Labor and non-labor sources of income in 2006 dollars

Personal income measures the income from both labor and non-labor sources. Labor source income represents wages and salaries for all full and part-time jobs and the income proprietors receive. Labor source income in 2006 continued to be the primary contributor to total personal income. Labor income by industry sector provides greater detail about the sources of income and is another important measurement of economic diversification. The declines in the percentage that the top three industry sectors contributed to labor source income is evidence of the economic diversification occurring in Routt County. Non-labor source income, including dividends, interest, rents and transfer payments such as pension and social security payments are often not tied closely to local economic factors.


Income from non-labor sources in the region is approximately 25%-30% of all personal income. This percentage has been relatively stable for the past 35 years.




2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Moffat County Non-labor $102,049 $97,527 $96,151 $94,391 $96,644 $99,972 Labor $249,405 $259,902 $268,226 $288,651 $306,621 $327,899

Total $351,454 $357,429 $364,377 $383,042 $403,265 $427,871

Rio Blanco County Non-labor $52,681 $50,526 $50,136 $51,406 $52,500 $54,938Labor $119,630 $121,718 $124,800 $138,039 $158,394 $180,081

Total $171,311 $172,244 $174,936 $189,445 $210,894 $235,019

Routt County Non-labor $244,065 $232,797 $235,861 $272,456 $293,379 $319,124 Labor $560,551 $607,318 $593,884 $615,206 $649,762 $672,082

Total $804,616 $840,115 $829,745 $887,662 $943,141 $991,206

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


city of Craig ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

ITS BETTER HERE

CRAIG: 250 West Victory Way, 970.824.9421

ITS BETTER HERE

��

��

��

��

��

��

Call for an appointment.��

Steamboat Springs Plastic Surgery ClinicScott M. Sulentich, MD

��

970.879.4444 | Open Mon.-Fri. | 940 Central Park Drive, Suite 106

��

��


13


ECONOMIC

Moffat County Rio Blanco County Routt County 2001 2007 2001 2007 2001 2007Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting $18,445 $25,969 $37,360 $36,794 $29,763 $29,806 Mining $61,024 $68,451 $59,332 $69,707 $69,379 *** Utilities *** *** $56,764 $64,093 $70,546 $71,306 Construction $38,064 $34,258 $36,096 $76,926 $41,553 $52,311 Manufacturing $35,430 $43,025 $22,441 $25,641 $32,646 $44,487 Wholesale trade $35,180 $46,123 $58,426 *** $53,529 $57,558 Retail trade $26,894 $28,315 $20,151 $18,537 $24,258 $26,121 Transportation and warehousing $40,017 $39,982 $47,863 $63,248 $32,197 $28,779 Information $33,442 $39,377 $33,379 $34,152 $33,359 $33,255 Finance and insurance $34,911 $40,551 $38,040 $29,148 $48,201 $56,778 Real estate and rental and leasing $35,674 $21,367 $29,949 $59,834 $31,016 $38,224 Professional and technical services $20,008 $25,743 $24,281 $32,139 $44,302 $56,660 Management of companies and enterprises *** *** *** *** $98,007 $118,875 Administrative and waste services $17,212 $21,420 $26,293 $44,925 $28,673 $33,934 Educational services *** *** $28,812 $28,762 $30,710 $30,815 Health care and social assistance $25,774 $31,234 $27,039 $34,210 $39,950 $46,262 Arts, entertainment, and recreation $34,178 $26,176 $15,768 $14,735 $21,281 $23,421 Accommodation and food services $10,695 $13,022 $10,356 $19,112 $16,726 $19,265 Other services (Ex. Public Admin) $23,780 $25,021 $30,376 $33,875 $28,592 $32,221 Public administration $36,408 $39,213 $30,116 $32,048 $38,012 $42,540

Average for all industries $34,549 $37,841 $33,530 $51,684 $32,938 $38,449

Average wage measures private sector salary/wage income by industry sector. This is a composite of all wages for jobs in an industry including full-time, part-time and overtime wages and reflects a wide span of employers and jobs across an industry. It is not an index number to determine what an individual should earn in a particular industry. Moffat County saw a 10% real salary wage growth (adjusted for inflation) during the six year period ending December 31, 2007. Rio Blanco saw 54% growth and Routt saw 17% growth. Higher paying jobs in Moffat County are in mining, manufacturing and wholesale trade. Routt County’s higher wage jobs are in management of companies and enterprises, utilities, professional and technical services, finance and insurance, and wholesale trade. Rio Blanco County’s highest paying jobs are in construction, mining, utilities, and real estate and leasing.

Average wage per job by industry adjusted to 2007 dollars

Highest and lowest annual average wage by county, 2007with self-sufficiency income and hourly wage

Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute

*** Data suppressed to avoid disclosure of confidential information Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment


Self-sufficiency means the income individuals require to meet their basic needs without public or private assistance. See page S35.

Management

Real estate and rental and leasing


ECONOMIC


Moffat County Rio Blanco County Routt County 2001 2007 2001 2007 2001 2007Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting $18,445 $25,969 $37,360 $36,794 $29,763 $29,806 Mining $61,024 $68,451 $59,332 $69,707 $69,379 *** Utilities *** *** $56,764 $64,093 $70,546 $71,306 Construction $38,064 $34,258 $36,096 $76,926 $41,553 $52,311 Manufacturing $35,430 $43,025 $22,441 $25,641 $32,646 $44,487 Wholesale trade $35,180 $46,123 $58,426 *** $53,529 $57,558 Retail trade $26,894 $28,315 $20,151 $18,537 $24,258 $26,121 Transportation and warehousing $40,017 $39,982 $47,863 $63,248 $32,197 $28,779 Information $33,442 $39,377 $33,379 $34,152 $33,359 $33,255 Finance and insurance $34,911 $40,551 $38,040 $29,148 $48,201 $56,778 Real estate and rental and leasing $35,674 $21,367 $29,949 $59,834 $31,016 $38,224 Professional and technical services $20,008 $25,743 $24,281 $32,139 $44,302 $56,660 Management of companies and enterprises *** *** *** *** $98,007 $118,875 Administrative and waste services $17,212 $21,420 $26,293 $44,925 $28,673 $33,934 Educational services *** *** $28,812 $28,762 $30,710 $30,815 Health care and social assistance $25,774 $31,234 $27,039 $34,210 $39,950 $46,262 Arts, entertainment, and recreation $34,178 $26,176 $15,768 $14,735 $21,281 $23,421 Accommodation and food services $10,695 $13,022 $10,356 $19,112 $16,726 $19,265 Other services (Ex. Public Admin) $23,780 $25,021 $30,376 $33,875 $28,592 $32,221 Public administration $36,408 $39,213 $30,116 $32,048 $38,012 $42,540

Average for all industries $34,549 $37,841 $33,530 $51,684 $32,938 $38,449

Moffat County 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Business establishments Without employees 862 905 979 977 950 962 956 1,018 1,074 1,019 With employees 358 355 364 390 398 396 409 426 435 454

Total 1,220 1,260 1,343 1,367 1,348 1,358 1,365 1,444 1,509 1,473Civilian labor force 6,468 6,407 6,235 7,015 7,309 7,665 7,563 7,710 7,898 8,442Entrepreneurial ratio 5.30 5.08 4.64 5.13 5.42 5.64 5.54 5.34 5.23 5.73

Routt County 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Business establishments Without employees 2,524 2,598 2,652 2,829 2,881 2,860 3,069 3,137 3,302 3,416 With employees 1,130 1,204 1,287 1,337 1,358 1,423 1,451 1,533 1,578 1,659

Total 3,654 3,802 3,939 4,166 4,239 4,283 4,520 4,670 4,880 5,075Civilian labor force 10,448 11,131 11,212 12,541 13,293 13,985 13,740 14,143 14,634 15,150Entrepreneurial ratio 2.86 2.93 2.85 3.01 3.14 3.27 3.04 3.03 3.00 2.99

Rio Blanco County 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Business establishments Without employees 578 585 586 632 610 604 636 659 674 680 With employees 213 214 217 221 212 228 230 229 238 244

Total 791 799 803 853 822 832 866 888 912 924Civilian labor force 3,168 3,133 3,059 3,244 3,488 3,688 3,560 3,773 4,012 4,787Entrepreneurial ratio 4.01 3.92 3.81 3.80 4.24 4.43 4.11 4.25 4.40 5.18

Total personal income across all three counties has grown since 1970. Per capita income is personal income from all sources divided by population. Approximately two-thirds of the growth in per capita income in Rio Blanco occurred between 2003 and 2006

reflecting the rapid expansion of the mining industry sector. Entrepreneurial ratio reflects the total number of businesses per civilian workforce; the lower the ratio, the higher the entrepreneurial activity.

Per capita income Unemployment rate

Entrepreneurial ratio


Source: U.S. Census & Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

Civilian workforce consist of persons 16 years of age or over, excluding those in the Armed Forces, who are employed or seeking employment.

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Source: Colorado Department of Labor & Employment


ECONOMIC

2000 2007

Dinosaur National

Monument 397,801 230,914

State parks 700,008 645,828

Includes: Yampa River/Elk Head, Stagecoach, Steamboat Lake and Pearl Lake

Source: National Park Service, Colorado State Parks 1998-99 52,089,000 11,389,561 21.9% 1,013,254 8.9%1999-00 52,198,000 10,892,263 20.9% 1,024,832 9.4%2000-01 57,337,000 11,666,672 20.3% 1,003,317 8.6%2001-02 54,411,000 11,128,131 20.5% 1,001,003 9.0%2002-03 57,594,000 11,605,777 20.2% 1,001,020 8.6%2003-04 57,067,000 11,250,761 19.7% 1,002,821 8.9%2004-05 56,882,000 11,816,197 20.8% 971,770 8.2%2005-06 58,897,000 12,533,108 21.3% 1,046,650 8.4%2006-07 55,068,000 12,566,299 22.8% 1,071,786 8.5%2007-08 60,502,000 12,540,603 20.7% 1,022,193 8.2%

1999 3 $97,000,000 N/A 2 $66,000,000 N/A 7 $295,000,000 N/A 2000 3 $94,000,000 -3.1% 2 $66,000,000 0.0% 10 $304,000,000 3.1%2001 3 $102,000,000 8.5% 2 $77,000,000 16.7% 10 $327,000,000 7.6%2002 3 $95,000,000 -6.9% 2 $84,000,000 9.1% 10 $354,000,000 8.3%2003 3 $105,000,000 10.5% 2 $89,000,000 6.0% 10 $389,000,000 9.9%2004 3 $126,000,000 20.0% 2 $87,000,000 -2.2% 10 $420,000,000 8.0%2005 3 $122,000,000 -3.2% 3 $98,000,000 12.6% 12 $474,000,000 12.9%2006 4 $128,000,000 4.9% 3 $127,000,000 29.6% 13 $540,000,000 13.9%2007 4 $136,000,000 6.3% 3 $145,000,000 14.2% 13 $652,000,000 20.7%2008* 4 $146,000,000 7.4% 3 $160,000,000 10.3% 13 $613,000,000 -6.0%

Number of Bank Year-to-yearinstitutions deposits growth



Moffat County Rio Blanco County Routt County

The tri-county northwest region of Colorado includes more than 4.2 million acres including federal, state and local public lands and waterways and offers abundant recreation opportunities. Visitors and residents enjoy the benefits of the recreational amenities which have resulted in growth in both full and part-time residents in Routt County. Increasingly, people moving to the area are not dependent on the economic activity occurring within the region for their income. This residential/lifestyle economy creates secondary effects by increasing the need for services and resources like housing, land and water. More workers fill the needs created by the residential/lifestyle economy and in turn they require housing and services.

Skier/boarder days

State parks/national monument visitors

Deposits of all FDIC-insured institutions

A leading indicator of a community’s economic activity is the strength of personal and business economic activity through financial institutions. The number of institutions and the value of all the deposits indicate economic activity.

*2008 data is as of June 30, 2008 Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Source: Colorado Ski Country USA

Season Nationally Colorado % CO Steamboat % Steamboat Share Share of CO

RECREATION & BANKING

“Twentymile Coal Company is a major employer and taxpayer in both Routt and Moffat Counties. We are very interested in, and continually evaluating, both community factors which affect and influence our business, and how our operations may affect our local communities and the

Northwest Colorado region.”STEVE CALLAHAN, DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES,

PEABODY ENERGY-TWENTYMILE MINE

ECONOMIC


Season Nationally Colorado % CO Steamboat % Steamboat Share Share of CO

Moffat County 2006 HUD Median family income: $52,900 2007 Renter-occupied households: 1,519

0 to 30% $16,150 260 145 31 to 50% $26,950 682 176 51 to 60% $29,645 784 180 61 to 80% $43,100 1,081 187

Routt County 2006 HUD Median family income: $72,200 2007 Renter-occupied households: 2,667 0 to 30% $21,800 567 36631 to 50% $36,350 1,044 54551 to 60% $39,985 1,215 55661 to 80% $58,900 1,780 593

Percent of HUD median Four person income Households at or Households paying 30% family income limit below median range or more of income in rent

Percent of HUD median Four person income Households at or Households paying 30% family income limit below median range or more of income in rent

Rio Blanco County 2006 HUD Median family income: $52,400 2007 Renter-occupied households: 745

0 to 30% $16,150 143 7731 to 50% $26,950 324 10051 to 60% $29,645 361 10061 to 80% $43,200 474 100

Percent of HUD median Four Person Income Households at or Households Paying 30% family income Limit Below Median Range or more of income in rent

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has determined that when housing rental cost begins to exceed 30% of gross household income the ability to meet other needs such as food, transportation and medical care become stressed. The problem becomes acute at 35%. This stress is most felt in households where gross income is $35,000 or less annually.

Many federal/state programs target aid based on a percent-age of the average median income (AMI). This is calculated annually based on household types.

Housing starts measured by building permits is a leading economic indicator for any community. Homebuilding is one of the most reliable indicators of past and future economic activity. Total valuation at the time of construction shows a growing disparity between Routt, Moffat and Rio Blanco counties.

Residential building permits

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Moffat $47,200 $48,600 $53,100 $52,900 $53,600 $55,300

County 80% of AMI for 4-person household $43,100 $44,250

Routt $65,600 $67,400 $72,700 $72,200 $73,600 $75,700 County 80% of AMI for 4-person household $58,900 $60,500

Rio $47,500 $50,900 $52,650 $52,400 $54,000 $56,800 80% of AMI for 4-person household $43,200 $45,450

Number of Avg cost Number Avg cost Number Avg cost Number Avg cost Number Avg sost units per sq/ft of units per sq/ft of units per sq/ft of units per sq/ft of units per sq/ft

Moffat County 1,793 $90.66 28 $61.97 106 $67.80 41 $35.26 958 $16.02

School district RE-1 (West Routt) 364 $142.42 6 $135.59 61 $139.65 8 $100.00 228 $26.53

School district RE-2

(Steamboat Springs) 1,645 $268.48 88 $281.75 1,399 $248.42 4,022 $310.34 452 $36.52

School district RE-3 (South Routt) 394 $126.42 6 $88.32 123 $134.11 50 $120.56 173 $22.68

Single family homes Duplex/triplex (per unit) Townhomes Condos Mobile homes

Median housing price is often used as an indicator of the cost of housing in a community. However, median housing price does not reflect the variety of housing and location options available. The indexed cost of housing is a composite measure based on Moffat and Routt county assessor data that does reflect both variety and location.

On average, properties in the RE-2 school district are two to two-and-a-half times more expensive than similar type properties in Moffat County. Compared to the 2003 index, single family homes in Routt County increased 61% and mobile home prices declined 6%, while housing prices in Moffat County have increased 49% for single family homes and 5% for mobile homes.

Cost-burdened renter households, 2007

BlancoCounty

Area median income

2007 Moffat Rio Blanco Routt

Permits 66 78 598

Valuations $12,847,997 $9,566,304 $185,330,773

Indexed cost of housing, 2007

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

HOUSING


On a lot <= to .5 acre and sq.ft living area between

>=1,200 btl <=3,000

On a lot <= to .5 acre and sq.ft living area between

>=1,200 btl <=3000 sq.ft <3,000 sq.ft <3000


Source: Moffat and Routt counties Office of the Assessor

Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development

Source: U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development


18

Caring for Our Community


19

Some of our services…��

Caring for Our Community

The Heartbeat of the Valley


ECONOMIC

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Moffat County Move in $12,313 $10,889 $10,980 $15,329 $19,408 Move out $13,077 $13,197 $15,300 $16,788 $18,533

Net change $(764) $(2,308) $(4,320) $(1,459) $875

Rio Blanco County Move in $6,582 $6,469 $7,562 $9,008 $11,337 Move out $7,709 $6,871 $9,053 $7,065 $10,974

Net change $(1,127) $(402) $(1,491) $1,943 $363

Routt County Move in $40,544 $51,835 $59,379 $51,832 $63,503 Move out $26,895 $31,590 $36,076 $36,579 $40,011

Net change $13,649 $20,245 $23,303 $15,253 $23,492

When people move, or migrate, into or out of an area, their potential to generate income goes with them. This economic migration has a net economic impact on each county affected by the move. Using IRS data, it is possible to estimate the level of this migration. When more than 10 tax returns are available in a given area we are able to identify the specific county where people moved to or from. The majority of the migration into northwest Colorado is from people moving to the area from outside of Colorado. Conversely, most people moving out of the region move to another state. In 2007, Routt County had an economic gain in personal income due to migration of $23.5 million. The economic value of this net gain is approximately equal to total personal income generated by Routt County’s retail trade sector for the same period. Moffat County had a gain of $900,000 in personal income due to migration. Rio Blanco saw a gain of $400,000.

Economic migration of income (in $1,000s) of AGI

Ten-year net population migration Economic migration, 2006

In-migration in the Yampa Valley by county, 2006


AGI=Adjusted gross income Source: Internal Revenue Service

MIGRATION



Returns Exemptions Cum. AGI Avg Household ($OOO omitted) AGI

Moffat County Migration into county 448 934 $19,408 $43,321 From within Colorado 188 372 $8,611 $45,803 From out of Colorado 260 562 $10,797 $41,527 Migration out of county 418 869 $18,533 $44,337 To within Colorado 185 373 $8,738 $47,232 To out of Colorado 233 496 $9,795 $42,039 Net change 30 65 $875 $(1,016)

Rio Blanco County Migration into county 260 541 $11,337 $43,604 From within Colorado 96 191 $4,269 $44,469 From out of Colorado 164 350 $7,068 $43,098 Migration out of county 221 444 $10,974 $49,656 To within Colorado 120 236 $5,919 $49,325 To out of Colorado 101 208 $5,055 $50,050 Net change 39 97 $363 $(6,052)

Routt County Migration into county 1,002 1,593 $63,503 $63,376 From within Colorado 390 610 $27,995 $71,782 From out of Colorado 612 948 $35,508 $58,020 Migration out of county 863 1,272 $40,011 $47,462 To within Colorado 410 649 $21,621 $52,734 To out of Colorado 433 602 $18,390 $42,471 Net change 173 321 $23,492 $15,032

Returns Exemptions Cum. AGI Avg Household ($OOO omitted) AGI

Moffat County Migration into county 448 934 $19,408 $43,321 From within Colorado 188 372 $8,611 $45,803 From out of Colorado 260 562 $10,797 $41,527 Migration out of county 418 869 $18,533 $44,337 To within Colorado 185 373 $8,738 $47,232 To out of Colorado 233 496 $9,795 $42,039 Net change 30 65 $875 $(1,016)

Rio Blanco County Migration into county 260 541 $11,337 $43,604 From within Colorado 96 191 $4,269 $44,469 From out of Colorado 164 350 $7,068 $43,098 Migration out of county 221 444 $10,974 $49,656 To within Colorado 120 236 $5,919 $49,325 To out of Colorado 101 208 $5,055 $50,050 Net change 39 97 $363 $(6,052)

Routt County Migration into county 1,002 1,593 $63,503 $63,376 From within Colorado 390 610 $27,995 $71,782 From out of Colorado 612 948 $35,508 $58,020 Migration out of county 863 1,272 $40,011 $47,462 To within Colorado 410 649 $21,621 $52,734 To out of Colorado 433 602 $18,390 $42,471 Net change 173 321 $23,492 $15,032

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

20413910_VNA_CIP08.indd 1 1/21/09 1:20:45 PM


��

��

��

��

20415284_MH_CIP08.indd 1 1/19/09 10:19:23 AM


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

20415284_MH_CIP08.indd 2 1/19/09 10:19:34 AM


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

20415284_MH_CIP08.indd 3 1/19/09 10:20:12 AM


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

20415284_MH_CIP08.indd 4 1/19/09 10:20:35 AM


ECONOMIC

Moffat Rio Blanco Routt Net Net Net1970 $1,341 $(759) $(1,460)1980 $(6,364) $(36,785) $(2,045)1990 $19,230 $(19,460) $(15,368)2000 $40,194 $(12,592) $(32,445)2001 $42,898 $(9,608) $(37,088)2002 $47,687 $(12,089) $(42,703)2003 $46,657 $(12,220) $(40,862)2004 $51,195 $(14,708) $(44,134)2005 $57,071 $(20,770) $(47,861)2006 $62,379 $(35,319) $(47,121)

Worker commute between counties is measured only in the decennial census, so we demonstrate the continued interdependence of northwest Colorado counties using net inflow and outflow of salaries and wages. Inflow means that the residents who live in a county imported wage/salary income into that county from employment outside of the county. Outflow means that employers located in the county paid wages/salaries to individuals who lived outside of that county. A net positive indicates the value to the county’s economy gained (imported) as a result of individuals working outside of the county. A net loss is just the reverse and reflects the value of wages/salaries employers of the county exported to residents that do not live in the county.

Work commute and traffic volumes

Import/export of earnings, 2006 dollars (in $1,000’s)

COMMUTING

Average daily traffic counts have increased 40% in the Yampa Valley since 1990, but only 3% since 2000 with the highest concentration

of traffic in the region recorded in downtown Steamboat Springs.

The Indicators report is a valuable asset to new entrepreneurs that need to understand their potential customers. As a business counselor, I encourage prospects to understand the economy they are investing in carefully.

RANDY RUDASICS, MANAGER, BOGUE ENTERPRISE CENTER, COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE


Source: U.S. Census, Colorado Department of Transportation

ECONOMIC


The remote location of northwest Colorado poses challenges to travel in and out of the Yampa Valley. Air service is a critical component of the regional economy benefiting both the tourism industry and the residential/lifestyle economies. Year-round commercial air service is available at Yampa

The increasing number of commuters is reflected in the increase in bus usage within the town of Steamboat Springs and routes between Steamboat Springs, Hayden, Milner and Craig since 1995. Ridership on all bus routes has increased more than 24,000 riders, almost 300%. Through the use of regional public funding, the City of Steamboat Springs provides regional bus service between Steamboat Springs, Hayden and Craig.

TRANSPORTATION

Yampa Valley Regional Airport1998 110,1841999 108,2752000 116,2852001 99,2092002 108,4142003 103,4822004 Missing2005 129,2522006 127,3892007 138,949

Valley Regional Airport with increased service from mid-December through mid-April to serve the winter tourism industry. Subsidies provided by the Steamboat Ski & Resort Corporation, local governments and local businesses guarantee airline revenue to attract and retain air service. The Steamboat Springs Airport and Craig-Moffat County Airport provide service for private planes.

Commercial deplanements Regional bus ridership

“The Indicator Project is the most useful thing done locally. As a local business

person, you need local facts, not rumors, to make good decisions. The

Community Indicator Report provides local organizations with those facts. When the EDP tries to recruit a business to Moffat

County, their decisions hinge on the information in the report. I just wish you

did the report every year.”SCOTT COOK, COOK CHEVROLET CRAIG/STEAMBOAT SPRINGS

CHAIR, CRAIG/MOFFAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP

“The Community Indicators provide an invaluable resource for our valley. The information of how our people and our businesses are progressing within our bioregion is critical for a healthy and vibrant

community.”NOREEN F. MOORE, BUSINESS RESOURCE DIRECTOR,

ROUTT COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE

“The Community Indicators Report is an invaluable document and resource and is critical to our efforts to better educate urban Colorado on the importance of the economy of rural Colorado to the entire state. I only wish we could duplicate this in more regions

throughout rural Colorado. This is truly a valuable asset and tool for northwest Colorado and the Yampa Valley.”

CLARKE BECKER, PRESIDENT/CEO, COLORADO RURAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL


ECONOMIC

School districts $14,367,377 48.5%

Junior colleges $1,421,926 4.8%

County government $11,197,668 37.8%

City/town government $1,333,056 4.5%

Special districts $1,303,432 4.4%

Total $29,623,459 100.0%

Assessed Value % of 10

Tri State Electric $86,428,800 28.0%

Colowyo/Kennecott $43,739,227 14.0%

Wexpro Company $43,596,981 14.0%

Rockies Express Pipeline $25,434,600 8.0%

Pacifi corp-Electric $23,598,000 8.0%

Chevron $23,402,417 8.0%

Salt River Project $19,829,400 7.0%

Trapper Mining Inc $14,948,534 5.0%

Public Service $11,746,440 4.0%

Western Gas Resources $11,496,716 4.0%

Total $304,221,115 100.0%

Total for county $473,894,520

% 10 Ten represent 64.2%


Chevron U.S.A., Inc. $243,859,948 45.5%

Encana $90,439,961 16.9%

ExxonMobil $80,115,826 14.9%

Merit Energy Company $42,104,650 7.9%

Blue Mountain Energy, Inc. $23,069,104 4.3%

Shell Frontier Oil & Gas $12,827,430 2.4%

Lone Mountain Prod. Co. $12,154,290 2.3%

Rockies Express Pipeline $11,466,000 2.1%

Pioneer Natural Resources $10,104,470 1.9%

Colorado Interstate Gas $10,072,000 1.9%

Total $536,213,679 100.0%

Total for county $720,785,942



Twentymile Coal Company $33,629,630 24.1%

Public Service of Colorado $26,604,100 19.0%

Steamboat Ski & Resort Corp $18,966,720 13.6%

Yampa Valley Electric Ass’n. $11,116,700 8.0%

Pacifi corp $9,805,800 7.0%

Union Pacifi c Corporation $9,546,400 6.8%

Salt River Project $8,750,500 6.3%

Starwood Steamboat LLC $8,636,950 6.2%

Qwest Corporation $6,378,500 4.6%

Steamboat STS Development $6,313,300 4.5%

Total $139,748,600

Total for county $1,094,622,850





City/town government $534,699 1.0%


Total $53,469,892 100.0%




City/town government $264,489 1.0%


Total $26,475,370 100.0%

The property tax analysis refl ects the diversity of properties assessed in each county. Education collects the largest share of property taxes in Moffat and Routt counties. Both Moffat and Rio Blanco counties’ top 10 commercial tax payers represent more

than two-thirds of each county’s total property tax assessment. While Routt County’s top 10 commercial tax payers account for 13% of the total property tax. This highlights the diversity of Routt County’s property tax base.

Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs and Moffat and Routt counties Offi ce of the Assessor

Assessed valuations by property class, 2007

100.0%

Property tax by taxing authority Property tax by taxing authority Property tax by taxing authority

Top 10 commercial taxpayers Top 10 commercial taxpayers Top 10 commercial taxpayers

GOVERNMENT REVENUE

CIVIC INDICATORS

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 C-47

How a community works together to plan, make decisions and solve problems is an indication of its civic health. Citizen participation and interaction with local organizations and governments is vital to establishing and maintaining relationships and addressing regional issues. Measurable civic health indicators include voter participation, community planning and philanthropy. These indicators help us to understand the level of commitment individuals have to their community. When residents take a participatory approach to

local governance, they enable the community to produce healthy economic, social and environmental sectors and ultimately keep up with changing times. Nonprofi t organizations play an important role in the Yampa Valley. They provide critical services by fostering a healthy population, providing cultural opportunities, preserving our natural environment, promoting economic development and educating our citizens about evolving issues.

COMMUNITY INDICATOR PROJECT 2009-2010

CIVIC INDICATORS

YAMPA VALLEY PARTNERS C-1

KEY FINDINGS

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

� ��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� �

� �

��

� �

� �

� �

��

��

��

� �

� �

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

Moffat County Routt County Rio Blanco County

2002 9,208 4,617 16,966 7,661 3,804 2,502

2004 6,801 5,771 12,828 11,810 3,474 3,021

2006 8,402 4,290 13,447 7,960 3,579 2,222

2008 6,589 5,819 14,591 12,967 3,615 3,134

��

��

��

��

OUR VISIONKEY FINDINGSCommunity planning is widely used in the Yampa Valley to address issues such as development and preservation of rivers, land and structures.

Yampa Valley residents support an extensive network of philanthropic and nonprofi t organizations. These organizations provide services to the community.

This report shows the collective fi nancial status of nonprofi t agencies in the Yampa Valley.

Voter participation Community planning Voter participation is an important indicator of community involvement. The percentage of the voting age population who vote is best measured by turnout at elections. Voter turnout during presidential elections is higher than in non-presidential election years indicating that statewide and regional elections do not have the same level of interest as national elections. The number of residents who vote has consistently increased in Routt and Moffat counties over the past six years.

A community depends on the ability of its local government to execute a variety of plans. To set goals and achieve desired results, citizen input at community meetings is a critical component of the collaborative planning process. Community plans provide direction to government offi cials, policy makers, organizations and private entities to accomplish their objectives. The Steamboat Springs Comprehensive Plan, West of Steamboat Plan, and Moffat County and Craig Master Plan set policy ranging from urban growth boundaries to land use and regulations.

Status Last Updated Next Update PlannedCity of Steamboat Base Area Plan Active 2005 Craig Area/Moffat Co. Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Master Plan Hayden Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan Active Hayden Town Plan Active 2005/07 Moffat Co. and Craig Master Plan Active Moffat Co. Fairgrounds Master Plan Active Moffat Co. Land Use Plan Active Moffat Co. Wildland Fire and Fuel Mitigation Plan Active Mountain Town Sub Area Plan Active 2005 Oak Creek Town Plan Adopted Active 2008 Routt Co. Master Plan Active Sarvis Creek Plan Active Stagecoach Community Plan Active 2009Steamboat Ski Area Master Plan Active 2004 Steamboat Area Community Plan Active 2005 2010Steamboat Sidewalk Master Plan Active 2006 Steamboat Trail System Master Plan Active Upper Elk River Valley Community Plan Active Vision 2030 Routt County Pending 2009West of Steamboat Area Plan Active 2006 Yampa River Management Plan Active 2003 Yampa Town Plan Active 2009Yampa Valley Legacy Plan Active 1995

The vitality of the Yampa Valley community depends on our capacity to engage effectively in mutual learning and decision making in order to maintain and

improve our quality of life. We call this capacity our “civic health.”

Active Votes Active Votes Active Votes voters cast voters cast voters cast

Moffat County Routt County Rio Blanco County

2002 9,208 4,617 16,966 7,661 3,804 2,5022004 6,801 5,771 12,828 11,810 3,474 3,0212006 8,402 4,290 13,447 7,960 3,579 2,2222008 6,589 5,819 14,591 12,967 3,615 3,134

Source: Yampa Valley Partners

*Voter data provided by Colorado Secretary of State’s offi ce does not include provi-sional ballot information and may not represent full voter turnout.

Voter participation

C-48 Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 Yampa Valley Partners

CIVIC

Charitable contributions as a percentage of adjusted gross income (AGI)

Yampa Valley citizens are generous and philanthropic supporting all sizes of nonprofit organizations to meet community needs. Within Moffat and Routt counties, there are a total of 250 nonprofits of which 169 are public 501(c)3 charitable organizations, some that are headquartered in one county and provide services throughout the region. This data set breaks down charitable contributions as a percentage of adjusted gross income. It represents the total percentage of all donations (to local and national charities) only for people who choose to itemize deductions on their federal tax returns.

Growth of IRS-recognized nonprofits by NTEE category

Within the public charities, 501(c)3, the IRS classifies them by type ranging from arts and culture to youth development. This is a measurement of the type of philanthropic activities the community is willing to donate time and dollars. The growth of IRS-recognized nonprofits by NTEE (National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities) category reflect growth by category. This is an indication of what the community values over time.

1990 1995 2000 2008

Moffat Routt Moffat Routt Moffat Routt Moffat RouttArts, culture & humanities 1 4 4 9 5 12 7 20Education institutions 3 4 3 7 5 11 5 17Environmental quality, protection & beautification 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 4Animal related 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 4Health and rehabilitative services 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 6Mental health and crisis intervention 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1Crime & legal related services 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2Agriculture, food, nutrition 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2Housing & shelter 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4Public safety & disaster preparedness/relief 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2Recreation, sports & leisure 1 3 1 5 2 9 3 16Youth development 2 1 2 1 3 2 5 2Human services 4 7 4 9 4 11 5 17International & foreign affairs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Community improvement & capacity building 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 3Philanthropy & grant making 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2Public & society benefit 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2Religious 5 8 7 10 7 11 10 17

Total 20 36 25 56 33 73 47 122

CONTRIBUTIONS & NONPROFITS

Historic preservation


2007

Moffat National Register 14

Routt National Register 24

Rio Blanco National Register 13

Preservation of historic structures is an important indicator of the Yampa Valley’s commitment to cultural heritage. In 2004, the City of Steamboat Springs received the Preserve America award for its historic preservation efforts.

Source: Colorado Historical Society

2004 2005

Moffat County 1.3% 1.4%Routt County 1.8% 3.2%

“The Community Indicators Report is a necessary tool for managing the progress of Vision 2030’s desired outcomes and recommended actions and tracking success. The indicators in Yampa Valley Partners report provide a tangible way to track progress on many of the recommendations within the Vision

2030 report, allowing citizens to better manage the Vision 2030 project for years to come.”

MARSHA DAUGHENBAUGH AND KATHY STOKES CO-CHAIRS VISION 2030 COMMUNITY COMMITTEE

“I have distributed numerous Community Indicators Reports to local and state leaders at various functions since the report began. All of these leaders agree that the Community Indicators Report is an innovative and forward-thinking concept in

terms of a tool to help formulate policy.”TERRY CARWILE, CRAIG CITY COUNCIL



“Real Hero”“25 YEARS of Shaping Steamboat Athletes”

What Heroes are made of:

COMMITMENTPio began volunteering his time training students and athletes

25 years ago and has been shaping young lives ever since.

INSPIRATIONWhile his passion for the youth in our community is

obvious, Pio Uto is an inspiration to all who know him.

DEDICATIONWhen asked by wife Becca when he might retire from

volunteering, Pio responded, “Nah, I’m not going to do that.”

From where Alpine Bank sits,Pio is a Real Hero.

1901 Pine Grove Road, Steamboat Springs, CO 970-871-1901MEMBER FDIC

20417204

��

��

��

��

��

��

C-50 Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 Yampa Valley Partners

CIVIC

Nonprofit organizations fall into two basic categories: Public charities, 501(c)3 and all others that range from business organizations like chambers of commerce to service clubs, civic and fraternal groups. A majority of the nonprofits in both counties are classified as public charities of which a small sub-set is private philanthropic foundations. The IRS subsection codes demonstrate the diversity of nonprofit organizations in Moffat and Routt counties.

Nonprofit organizations by IRS subsection codes, 2006

Moffat Routt

Private foundations 1 24

Public charities 47 122

IRS subsection codes present

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS


501(c)2 501(c)3 501(c)4 501(c)5 501(c)6 501(c)7 501(c)8 501(c)10 501(c)12 501(c)19 Total

Moffat

Total 0 48 8 3 6 1 3 1 0 3 73% of Total 0.0% 65.8% 11.0% 4.1% 8.2% 1.4% 4.1% 1.4% 0.0% 4.1% 100.0%

Routt

Total 1 146 7 6 7 0 3 0 2 5 177% of Total 0.6% 82.5% 4.0% 3.4% 4.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.0% 1.1% 2.8% 100.0%


501(c)2 Title Holding Corporation for Exempt Organization501(c)3 Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Pre vention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations501(c)4 Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees501(c)5 Labor, Agricultural, and Horticultural Organizations501(c)6 Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, Etc.501(c)7 Social and Recreation Clubs501(c)8 Fraternal Beneficiary Societies and Associations501(c)10 Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations501(c)11 Teachers’ Retirement Fund Associations501(c)12 Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual Ditch or Irrigation Companies, Mutual or Cooperative Telephone Companies, Etc.501(c)19 Post or Organization of Past or Present Members of the Armed Forces

IRS subsection code descriptions

“In a knowledge-based world, where information unlocks wealth, those who live in the densest city or least populated lands require

data, or they risk irrelevance and poverty.JEFF DEVERE, COLORADO NORTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, STRATEGIC SERVICES, CENTER FOR COMMUNITY

INNOVATION AND ADVANCEMENT


CIVIC

Yampa Valley Partners Community Indicators Project 2009-2010 C-51

Public charities 501(c) that have more than $25,000 in revenue are required to file a disclosure report annually with the IRS providing information on sources of income and types of expenses. Nonprofits can engage in revenue-generating activities that result in annual surpluses or profits. The distinction between

nonprofits and for-profit companies is what happens to the surplus. For-profit businesses may distribute their gains to the owners or shareholders. Nonprofits must reinvest surpluses back into the organization and its tax-exempt purpose. Surpluses may not be distributed to individuals affiliated with the organization.

Nonprofit 501(c)3 balance sheet summary, 2006

Nonprofits 501(c)3 income statement, 2006

This balance sheet and income statement groups together as one business entity all Moffat and Routt nonprofits that are required to file an IRS disclosure form to reflect the nonprofit sector’s economic health. Because Yampa Valley Medical Center (YVMC) is the largest nonprofit in Routt County, while Memorial Hospital in Craig is a county facility with a different IRS nonprofit designation, the financial statements are prepared with and without YVMC data. Taken as a whole, the nonprofit industry sector is showing positive growth.

Beginning year End of year Beginning year End of year Beginning year End of year Assets Cash $28,610,963 $32,103,393 $10,222,623 $13,746,581 $871,469 $1,343,728 Accounts receivable $8,791,885 $8,873,347 $1,388,424 $1,223,133 $2,124 $37,867 Pledges & grants receivable $1,312,478 $2,703,574 $1,312,478 $2,703,574 $1,080,635 $886,833 Other receivables $371,747 $493,597 $371,747 $493,597 $- $- Inventory $1,935,731 $2,136,480 $243,671 $176,111 $1,000 $- Pre-paid expenses $890,885 $570,395 $570,103 $246,883 $12,714 $3,298 Investments $24,701,378 $29,515,170 $13,934,059 $15,304,334 $113,063 $123,781 Land & building less Accumulated depreciation $73,537,941 $71,840,043 $29,198,299 $29,732,668 $408,008 $419,785 Other assets $1,796,158 $3,156,523 $1,225,776 $2,618,508 $73,565 $335

Total $141,949,166 $151,392,522 $58,467,180 $66,245,389 $2,562,578 $2,815,627 General liabilities $54,171,708 $52,651,485 $13,020,061 $12,990,220 $1,172,603 $923,137 Fund balance $87,777,458 $98,741,037 $45,447,119 $53,255,169 $1,389,975 $1,892,490

With Yampa Valley Medical Center W/out Yampa Valley Medical Center

Routt Moffat

Revenue Contributions $23,369,596 $22,868,076 $1,996,573 Direct activity $73,295,652 $16,083,055 $181,570 Non-direct activity $3,060,105 $1,836,578 $45,274 Special events $994,749 $994,749 $50,607 Gross sales $110,392 $110,392 $177,693 Other revenue $917,369 $386,250 $17,483

Total revenue all sources $101,747,863 $42,279,100 $2,469,200 Expenses Grants $4,498,199 $4,498,199 $476,721 Individual assistance $272,815 $272,815 $18,629 Benefits paid to members $64,585 $64,585 $3,900 Compensation, benefits & payroll $39,077,185 $12,777,682 $916,573 Payroll taxes $2,310,159 $732,200 $48,870 Professional fees $340,636 $340,636 $66,634 Occupancy expenses $1,084,823 $1,084,823 $107,268 Operational expenses $13,537,496 $2,208,471 $133,751 Interest $2,210,592 $228,231 $9,978 Depreciation $4,429,600 $1,172,411 $46,570 Other $24,013,228 $11,829,750 $230,198

Total expenses $91,839,318 $35,209,803 $2,059,092 Surpluses $9,908,545 $7,069,297 $410,108

With Yampa Valley W/out Yampa Valley Medical Center Medical Center

Routt Moffat

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Source: Internal Revenue Service financial disclosure from 990 and 990EZ

community indicators project 2009-2010

Documents

community needs

important community

northwest colorado counties

community members

northwest colorado region

rio blanco counties

transportation needs

regional issues