Business Plan for Improved Services in Southern Utah

Addressing Public Need: A BUSINESS PLAN for Improved Federal Court Services in Southern Utah by the United States Courts for the District of Utah November 2017 Hon. David Nuffer, USDC Chief Judge Hon. R. Kimball Mosier, USBC Chief Judge D. Mark Jones, USDC Clerk of Court David A. Sime, USBC Clerk of Court This page intentionally blank.  Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... 1 I. History of the District of Utah ................................................................................. 2 A. Early Organization and Judges................................................................................... 2 B. Central and Northern Divisions .................................................................................. 2 C. Historical Disposition of Caseload Outside of Salt Lake City .......................................... 3 D. Relinquishment of Northern Division Space ................................................................. 3 E. Construction of a New District Courthouse in Salt Lake City ......................................... 3 II. Current District Organization and Court Operations .............................................. 4 A. Description of Court Venues State-Wide ..................................................................... 4 B. Status of Rental Agreement in St. George .................................................................. 5 C. Recent 5-Year Caseload Data by County..................................................................... 6 D. Current Disposition of Caseload Outside of Salt Lake City............................................. 9 1. Traveling District Judge ......................................................................................... 9 2. Traveling Magistrate Judge .................................................................................... 9 3. Traveling Bankruptcy Judge ................................................................................... 9 4. Half-Time Magistrate Judge in St. George ..............................................................10 5. Current USPO and USMS Support ..........................................................................10 E. Limitations and Costs Associated with Current Business Model ....................................10 1. Cultural Differences Between Northern and Southern Utah ......................................11 2. Geographic and Seasonal Constraints ....................................................................12 3. Judicial and Court Staff Travel Time and Costs .......................................................12 4. Juror Travel Time and Costs .................................................................................13 5. Gov’t Agent, Bar, Litigant, Witness, and Family Travel Costs ....................................13 6. USPO and USMS Support Personnel and Costs........................................................14 III. Planned Improvement of Services in Southern Utah ............................................14 A. Demographic and Growth Data.................................................................................15 1. Salt Lake County and Wasatch Front .....................................................................18 2. Wasatch Back and Uinta Basin ..............................................................................18 3. Eastern and Southern Utah ...................................................................................18 B. Current and Projected Southern Utah Caseload ..........................................................19 C. Reorganization into Central and Southern Divisions ....................................................21 D. Projected USPO and USMS Support...........................................................................21 E. Timing and Description of Court Facilities Needed in Southern Utah ............................22 F. Future of the Bankruptcy Court in Salt Lake City ........................................................23 IV. Appendices ..............................................................................................................24 State of Utah Letter re: Expiration of Federal Lease at State Courthouse Plan of Federally Leased Space at State of Utah Courthouse in St. George County Map of the District of Utah Utah’s Long-Term Demographic and Economic Projections Summary i This page intentionally blank. ii  Addressing Public Need: A BUSINESS PLAN for Improved Federal Court Services in Southern Utah by the United States Courts for the District of Utah Executive Summary The District of Utah, like many other western districts, comprises a sprawling land area with concentrated population centers and sparsely inhabited rural areas in between. Most of the district’s residents are clustered along the Wasatch Front in northern Utah and in the immediate surrounds; the notable exception is the already large and growing population some 300 miles southwest, concentrated in St. George and the Washington County area. Unlike other districts, Utah has only one federally owned court location, in Salt Lake City, to serve the entire district. Regular travel by district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges has been and will continue to be employed by this court in an attempt to render better service to those populations outside of the Salt Lake City area, with the greatest unmet need occurring in southwestern Utah. Federal law enforcement has been established and expanded in that area to include the FBI, DEA, ATF, ICE, and DHS, as well as the USAO, USMS, and USPO. It is time for the federal court to improve service for residents in this remote part of the District of Utah. Regular district and bankruptcy court proceedings, including a limited number of criminal trials but no civil cases, have been heard by this court in St. George for decades through the work of traveling judges, and since 2010 with benefit of courtroom and chambers space leased by GSA from the State of Utah. Now, demand within the state court system precludes extension of this lease term past June 30, 2024. Washington County remains the fastest-growing county within Utah, and is expected to continue in that position well into the future. The need for improved federal court services to this geographically remote population is both clear and immediate. This court seeks to improve federal court services available in southern Utah for the following four reasons: an underserved population which is already large and growing; the geographic remoteness of that population from Salt Lake City; substantial avoidance of time and costs for travel by all parties for court proceedings; and a federal acknowledgement of community and cultural differences within disparate populations of the District of Utah. To accomplish this, the District of Utah plans to establish a robust and eventually permanent presence in St. George, Utah, to include both District and Bankruptcy Courts, as well as other supporting agencies, most of which already have a presence there. The court’s plan anticipates a formal reorganization of the District of Utah into Central and Southern Divisions before January 1, 2019, and the provision by GSA of adequate federal courtroom, chambers, and supporting staff space for improved court operations in St. George before July 1, 2024. It is imperative that productive work begin in earnest now to accomplish these goals. District of Utah Business Plan 1 November 2017 I. History of the District of Utah Shortly after Mormon settlers became established in the region in 1847, they instituted a provisional government known as the “State of Deseret,” loosely patterned after other territorial governments and including a judiciary of three judges. The State of Deseret lost its status as a self-governing community soon thereafter, when what is present-day Utah became a territory of the United States in 1850. Utah’s territorial status extended from 1850 until its admission to statehood forty-six years later in 1896. Throughout this period, territorial courts were in existence, typically presided over by three federally appointed judges. Beginning with President Fillmore in 1850 and ending with President Cleveland in late 1895, some fifty-one judges were appointed to the territorial courts in Utah, though not all actually served. A. Early Organization and Judges With the arrival of Utah statehood, the District of Utah was established (then a part of the Eighth Circuit), and in January 1896, John A. Marshall was appointed to the district court by President Harrison. Judge Marshall presided until early September 1915, when he resigned the bench and went into private practice. He was succeeded by Tillman D. Johnson, who was appointed in August 1915 by President Wilson, and took the bench in early November that year. Judge Johnson served the court for many years, eventually taking senior status in May 1949. After an interim appointment in 1949 and animated confirmation hearings, his successor, Willis W. Ritter, was re-appointed by President Truman in June of 1950 and confirmed by the Senate later that same year. Judge Ritter then served continuously until his death in March 1978. B. Central and Northern Divisions The District of Utah was organized into Central and Northern Divisions by statute on March 2, 1897, with the Northern Division comprising Weber, Davis, Morgan, Rich, Cache, and Box Elder counties and the Central Division comprising all other counties in the state. This was amended in 1948 to allow court to be held in the Northern Division in Ogden and Salt Lake City, and in 1996 to allow court to be held in the Central Division in Salt Lake City, Provo, and St. George. During Judge Ritter’s time on the bench, a new judgeship was established and subsequently filled in May of 1954 by A. Sherman Christensen, an Eisenhower appointee. Anecdotally it is said that the two judges chafed at this development and, as a consequence, Judge Anderson served much of his tenure in Ogden, Utah, rather than in Salt Lake City. Judge Christensen took senior status in August 1971, and was succeeded in July 1971 by Aldon J. Anderson, a Nixon appointee, who also served often at the Ogden location. With the eventual passing of Judge Ritter in 1978, the large majority of court cases again were heard in Salt Lake City. District of Utah Business Plan 2 November 2017  C. Historical Disposition of Caseload Outside of Salt Lake City For nearly all its history, the principal location of the United States Courts for the District of Utah has been in Salt Lake City, including from 1906 to April 2014 in the historic Frank E. Moss Courthouse. The United States Bankruptcy Court also was located in the Moss Courthouse, which occupancy continues today. However, the district also has benefitted from the travel of magistrate, district, and bankruptcy judges. For many years, district and bankruptcy judges often held court proceedings in the Hansen Federal Building in Ogden (40 miles north of Salt Lake City), though this practice gradually tapered off and then ended with relinquishment of that space in 2012. Beginning in 2002 and 2009 respectively, bankruptcy and district judges have made regular trips to St. George (300 miles south) to hold court, first in an existing downtown federal office building and since January 2010 in GSA-leased space in the State of Utah courthouse there. Magistrate judges provided wider geographic coverage over the district, with a part-time magistrate judge based in Cedar City (and later St. George), Vernal (175 miles east), and Monticello (290 miles southeast) as early as the 1990’s. Court services were very limited: prior to 1995, all criminal defendants who pled “not guilty” were required to travel to Salt Lake City for trial due to the lack of a courtroom, court support staff, and local prosecutorial and defense resources. By the end of 2007, magistrate judge positions outside of Salt Lake City were reduced by attrition to a single half-time magistrate judge in St. George. As a result, Salt Lake City-based magistrate judges began regular travel to outlying locations for court hearings, including Ogden, Provo, Vernal, Moab, Monticello, and Big Water, as well as Tooele Army Depot and Hill Air Force Base for CVB (Central Violations Bureau) matters, and other special events held on BLM land. D. Relinquishment of Northern Division Space In response to a national strategy by the judiciary to reduce its footprint, in 2012 the District of Utah relinquished long-held courtroom, chambers, and supporting spaces in the Hansen Federal Building in Ogden, Utah. These spaces had lapsed into infrequent use by both the district and bankruptcy courts, but long had been considered a critical component of the court’s Continuity of Operations Plan, and have not been replaced by equivalent COOP facilities elsewhere. Additionally, a U.S. Probation Office in Ogden was closed and released in 2011, and satellite USPO offices were released in Salt Lake City and Vernal in 2016. E. Construction of a New District Courthouse in Salt Lake City After being housed in the Frank E. Moss Courthouse for over eighty-five years and facing spatial, logistical, safety, and security challenges, in May of 1992 the District of Utah and the AOUSC formally asked GSA to begin a prospectus District of Utah Business Plan 3 November 2017  development study for an annex to the court facilities here. After considerable time and effort, a new district courthouse was designed and built, and opened for business on April 14, 2014. The bankruptcy court has remained in place in the existing historic Moss Courthouse, but faces the real prospect of at least a temporary relocation due to GSA-planned seismic retrofit work at the building. Although the new courthouse was originally approved and designed to contain fourteen courtrooms and sixteen chambers, Congressional authorization to build the project limited the initial courtroom and chambers count to ten and fourteen. Congress further directed that space not occupied by the judiciary be leased to executive branch agencies, which now occupy a large part of the sixth floor. II. Current District Organization and Court Operations The District of Utah continues to grow, and now comprises five active district judgeships (one presently vacant), four full-time and one half-time magistrate judgeships, and six senior district judges, with all but the half-time magistrate judge based in Salt Lake City. In addition, the District of Utah includes three bankruptcy judgeships and one recalled bankruptcy judge, again all based in Salt Lake City. Of the currently active district judges, two soon will be eligible to take senior status, one in October 2018 and the other in March 2022, and the one half-time magistrate judge in St. George plans to retire in May 2019. Additionally, two of the three active bankruptcy judges soon will be eligible to retire, one in February 2023 and another in June 2024. Technically, the District of Utah remains organized into Central and Northern Divisions, though this is a historical carryover and has little effect on day-to-day operations; civil and criminal cases are assigned to judges without regard to division of origin. Criminal cases arising in southern Utah are assigned to the half-time magistrate judge in St. George for pretrial work on felony cases and for full disposition of misdemeanors and petty offenses. Trial and sentencing of these cases are handled by a district judge who travels from Salt Lake City to St. George, as described in Section II.D.1 below. No civil matters currently are heard in St. George. A. Description of Court Venues State-Wide Federally owned court facilities in Utah no longer exist outside of Salt Lake City. With the exception of leased space in St. George, the District of Utah relies upon informal relationships with state and local officials, who grant occasional access to space at remote locations as an ongoing courtesy. Currently utilized court venues within the District of Utah are: Salt Lake City: New United States Courthouse 7 District Judge Courtrooms (incl 1 SP courtroom) 3 Magistrate Judge Courtrooms 2 Grand Jury Suites 14 Chambers (10 DJ, 4 MJ; all occupied) District of Utah Business Plan 4 November 2017  Frank E. Moss United States Courthouse 3 Bankruptcy Judge Courtrooms 3 Bankruptcy Judge Chambers (all occupied) 1 Office Suite for Recall Judge (occupied) St. George: State of Utah Courthouse (lease) 1 Courtroom (per diem basis) 2 Judges’ Offices (1 DJ; 1 BJ + MJ) 1 Staff Office (courtroom deputy) Vernal: State of Utah Courthouse (courtesy) Courtroom access Moab: State of Utah Courthouse (courtesy) Courtroom access Big Water: Local Council Meeting Room (courtesy) Meeting room access Aneth: Navajo Nation Court (courtesy) Meeting room access B. Status of Rental Agreement in St. George For many years, district and bankruptcy judges traveling from Salt Lake City to St. George held regular court proceedings in the existing federal office building, in addition to regularly scheduled hearings held by the magistrate judge based there. Eventually, this became untenable for the court due to space, security, and other limitations, and the offices were then leased by other federal agencies. In 2009, GSA negotiated a lease with the State of Utah for continuous federal use of two judges’ offices (409 USF ea) and one staff office (377 USF), and for access to one magistrate-sized courtroom (1677 USF), leased on a per diem basis to limit cost (see Appendix for space plan). One office is used by a visiting district judge, with the other shared by the resident half-time magistrate judge and a visiting bankruptcy judge. No other spaces are included in the lease for a public intake function, payment transactions, or other district or bankruptcy judicial or office staff. According to GSA, the lease extends from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2019, with an option to extend for an additional five-year period from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2024. This option to extend has been formally requested by this court and agreed to by the State of Utah, but has not yet been executed by GSA and, when executed, almost certainly represents the final extension available due to increasing court space needs by the State of Utah (see Appendix). District of Utah Business Plan 5 November 2017  C. Recent 5-Year Caseload Data by County In order to better understand both the number and origin of cases filed within the district, the following tables summarize criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases filed by county for the most recent 5-year period. CVB matters are tracked by the Central Violations Bureau, and are not included in the data shown. 5-YEAR CRIMINAL CASES FILED BY COUNTY (cr, po, mj) County/Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTALS Beaver 0 0 0 0 2 2 Box Elder 2 0 3 6 4 15 Cache 18 10 2 3 6 39 Carbon 1 1 0 3 2 7 Daggett 0 0 0 0 0 0 Davis 27 12 23 26 25 113 Duchesne 2 4 6 2 4 18 Emery 2 1 2 1 6 12 Garfield 3 4 0 0 2 9 Grand 13 13 15 11 20 72 Iron 4 13 3 1 1 22 Juab 11 39 27 21 17 115 Kane 58 40 20 38 23 179 Millard 0 1 0 2 2 5 Morgan 0 0 0 0 0 0 Piute 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rich 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salt Lake 785 837 761 917 1069 4369 San Juan 5 10 16 16 4 51 Sanpete 1 2 1 1 3 8 Sevier 11 4 10 7 6 38 Summit 2 8 7 11 8 36 Tooele 18 13 7 5 12 55 Uintah 7 5 6 11 5 34 Utah 86 59 48 33 35 261 Wasatch 7 5 5 5 2 24 Washington 93 196 75 85 95 544 Wayne 4 1 1 0 0 6 Weber 55 41 39 60 36 231 TOTALS 1215 1319 1077 1265 1389 6265 Although variances do exist in the number of criminal cases filed year-to-year by county, the overall trend of total cases filed is clearly rising over the last several years, up some 29% over the last two years. Note too that Washington County represents the second-largest total of criminal cases filed by county over the last five years, exceeded only by Salt Lake County. District of Utah Business Plan 6 November 2017  5-YEAR CIVIL CASES FILED BY COUNTY (cv, mc) County/Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTALS Beaver 2 5 6 6 3 22 Box Elder 17 12 12 13 7 61 Cache 29 18 16 21 24 108 Carbon 11 6 10 9 6 42 Daggett 1 0 0 0 2 3 Davis 124 75 72 62 66 399 Duchesne 8 6 9 6 13 42 Emery 3 2 5 3 2 15 Garfield 4 0 0 1 8 13 Grand 7 5 4 5 5 26 Iron 16 17 17 18 9 77 Juab 5 0 2 0 0 7 Kane 2 3 2 4 8 19 Millard 7 3 8 8 8 34 Morgan 1 2 2 1 7 13 Piute 2 1 0 1 0 4 Rich 3 3 1 0 0 7 Salt Lake 746 758 571 538 780 3393 San Juan 7 3 2 2 5 19 Sanpete 18 18 15 16 13 80 Sevier 4 4 4 4 4 20 Summit 36 26 19 22 33 136 Tooele 23 8 10 13 15 69 Uintah 12 8 5 9 16 50 Utah 193 156 151 162 254 916 Wasatch 11 3 7 8 7 36 Washington 78 54 47 62 60 301 Wayne 3 1 0 1 0 5 Weber 82 64 75 65 70 356 TOTALS 1455 1261 1072 1060 1425 6273 Again, variances exist from year to year in the number of civil cases filed, with the most recent totals trending 33% upwards over the past two years. Washington County by itself represents the fifth-highest total of civil cases filed, by county, over the last five years. This is the largest total outside of the state’s four most-populated counties: Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, and Weber counties, all located along the Wasatch Front in northern Utah. District of Utah Business Plan 7 November 2017  5-YEAR BANKRUPTCY CASES FILED BY COUNTY (bk) County/Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTALS Beaver 12 21 15 12 11 71 Box Elder 272 236 241 224 204 1177 Cache 391 361 366 311 305 1734 Carbon 117 113 136 117 115 598 Daggett 4 2 3 3 1 13 Davis 1650 1548 1483 1318 1243 7242 Duchesne 64 71 99 75 62 371 Emery 40 54 32 33 19 178 Garfield 10 11 6 2 8 37 Grand 39 29 29 38 26 161 Iron 212 168 167 122 109 778 Juab 50 32 50 31 24 187 Kane 22 17 10 13 12 74 Millard 34 25 25 17 27 128 Morgan 32 21 12 15 16 96 Piute 6 3 0 3 1 13 Rich 4 4 3 3 3 17 Salt Lake 7141 6468 5929 5331 5111 29980 San Juan 18 17 21 14 13 83 Sanpete 90 69 68 68 60 355 Sevier 67 74 74 62 62 339 Summit 143 116 86 62 53 460 Tooele 449 442 447 441 417 2196 Uintah 199 164 149 136 152 800 Utah 2551 2139 2045 1750 1628 10113 Wasatch 115 91 86 57 74 423 Washington 933 734 681 457 444 3249 Wayne 3 4 3 2 1 13 Weber 1588 1544 1427 1407 1441 7407 TOTALS 16256 14578 13693 12124 11642 68293 Again, Washington County represents the fifth-highest number of total filings, by county, over the five-year reporting period. Were it possible for southern Utah residents to file for bankruptcy locally, this court is certain that the case filing numbers in Washington County, as well as other southern counties, would be significantly higher. For many, the time and expense of travel to Salt Lake City for an in-person filing is prohibitive. District of Utah Business Plan 8 November 2017  D. Current Disposition of Caseload Outside of Salt Lake City Although the vast majority of trials and other court proceedings currently are conducted at the new United States Courthouse or the historic Moss Courthouse in Salt Lake City, wide geographic coverage is provided by the frequent travel of district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges to more remote parts of the district. 1. Traveling District Judge 12 trips/year to St. George One of the sitting district judges based in Salt Lake City regularly travels to St. George, Utah to hold hearings and infrequent trials there, generally once each month. These trips occasionally include an accompanying staff courtroom deputy, and sometimes also include one or more law clerks to assist the judge. Sometimes too, a member of the Clerk’s Office IT staff travels to St. George to install, upgrade, or maintain court computers and audio-visual systems there. Trips generally last from one to three days, depending on caseload, and are made either by auto or air travel. 2. Traveling Magistrate Judge 6 trips/year to Vernal 6 trips/year to Aneth 5 trips/year to Moab A Salt Lake City-based magistrate judge also regularly travels for hearings to Vernal, Aneth, and Moab, Utah, generally to each location once every other month. These trips routinely last from two to three days, again depending on the court’s calendar at each location, and normally include one accompanying court staff member. Trips to Aneth and Moab usually are combined due to geographic proximity in southeastern Utah, and are routinely made by auto travel. 3. Traveling Bankruptcy Judge 24 trips/year to St. George A bankruptcy judge, also based in Salt Lake City, travels to St. George on a semi-monthly basis to conduct bankruptcy court hearings there, and is occasionally accompanied by one staff member. Trips often last from two to three days, depending on caseload, and are mostly made by air. Trips by bankruptcy court IT support staff also occur but with less frequency. Also, about fifty trips per year are made by Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 case trustees for meetings with creditors in conjunction with bankruptcy court cases. The U.S. Trustee averages three trips per year, primarily for Chapter 11 cases, and in an oversight role of the Chapter 7 trustees. District of Utah Business Plan 9 November 2017  4. Half-Time Magistrate Judge in St. George St. George proceedings 6 trips/year to Big Water Criminal matters are routinely scheduled and heard in St. George by the half-time magistrate judge based there. This judge also travels six times a year to Big Water, Utah for hearings there. Trips include one support staff member and last one to two days. Trips are made by auto travel. 5. Current USPO and USMS Support United States Probation Office (USPO) support for district and magistrate court proceedings in St. George, Moab, Aneth, and Big Water is provided primarily out of the USPO office in St. George, where four officers, one support staff, and one traveling supervisor are housed in leased space. This local support is supplemented by one probation officer who travels from Salt Lake City to outlying areas if and as needed. A full-time telework probation officer is responsible for court proceedings and a full caseload in the Vernal area of northeastern Utah, again relying on occasional support from a traveling officer out of Salt Lake City. United States Marshals Service (USMS) support for district, magistrate, and bankruptcy court hearings in St. George typically is provided by two locally based Deputy U.S. Marshals (DUSMs) and two local Court Security Officers (CSOs). If one of two DUSMs is not available, then contracted law enforcement personnel are used to assist with courtroom security and prisoner movement. If neither DUSM is available, then DUSMs from Salt Lake City travel to St. George for court proceedings. For traveling magistrate judge hearings in Vernal and Aneth, the USMS provides two DUSMs and two CSOs from Salt Lake City for each session. DUSMs usually are not required in Moab, which is covered by two CSOs from Salt Lake City. Magistrate judge hearings held in Big Water are supported by two DUSMs and two CSOs from the St. George office. E. Limitations and Costs Associated with Current Business Model Though much of Utah’s population is concentrated in a 100-mile swath along the Wasatch Front and in the St. George area, other considerable populations reside along the Wasatch Back and in the northeastern and southeastern areas of the state. As noted earlier, many of these parts of the district benefit from regular travel of magistrate judges for routine hearings, but court proceedings in front of district and bankruptcy judges are held only in Salt Lake City and, monthly or as needed, in St. George by traveling judges as described above. District of Utah Business Plan 10 November 2017  Not all matters related to southern Utah are handled in St. George. For example, a six-week criminal trial arising in St. George was heard in Salt Lake City in 2016, though all parties and most witnesses were from southern Utah. Currently, no civil proceedings are heard in southern Utah. As a result, considerable travel time and expenses are incurred in the conduct of court business by the parties, the bar, and the court; by law enforcement and other agencies; and by witnesses, the jury pool, and the populations served. 1. Cultural Differences Between Northern and Southern Utah In contrast to the more compact geographies and the higher population densities of much of the eastern United States, Utah comprises a much larger geographic area with distinctly urban and rural sets of residents. In part this is attributable to characteristics of the land itself, and to a shorter history of development within the context of the United States. As Utah developed, much of its population, higher-paying employment, and political power were concentrated into its urban areas. Today, some two-thirds or more of the state’s residents are located along the Wasatch Front in northern Utah, with a few other significant population centers distributed elsewhere around the state. With the exception of the greater St. George area in southwestern Utah, most of the eastern and southern parts of the state continue to be sparsely populated, and both the land and its residents remain rural in fact and in character. Beyond the rural and urban contrasts inherent in Utah, significant cultural differences exist and should be recognized by the federal judiciary. Since rural Utahns have long based their economic well-being on working of the land through extractive industries such as oil, mining, timber, or ranching, they often hold disparate views and values than their urban counterparts. With some two-thirds of land in Utah under federal control, nearly all of it in rural areas, federal land regulation (and the government, including the courts) is often seen by rural Utahns as restrictive rather than beneficial. This is particularly true in southern Utah, where the large national parks, monuments, and recreation areas are primarily located. The ongoing debate over whether southern Utah lands are best suited for recreation or for the livelihoods of residents will be decided in Congress, but the courts are viewed as agents of federal policy as they consider administrative actions and even criminal cases. Southern Utahns are not only inconvenienced by travel to Salt Lake City for federal business, they feel they are not understood by those who live and work there. Travel required of parties, victims, defendants and families, government agents, witnesses, jurors, and attorneys only reinforces the perception that the court is not serving them well, yet demands a great deal of them if they choose to – or are required to – participate. District of Utah Business Plan 11 November 2017  2. Geographic and Seasonal Constraints Under the best of circumstances, jurors and other court participants summoned to Salt Lake City from outlying areas face a considerable journey. For example, travel between St. George and Salt Lake City, at over 600 miles round-trip, requires over nine hours travel time under favorable conditions. Travel from more remote areas in southeastern Utah, such as Blanding, require over ten hours travel time round-trip. Other areas even further from main highways require longer times. Due to the presence of geographic barriers all across Utah and variable traffic volumes and seasonal conditions for travel, roadway conditions between Salt Lake City and more remote parts of the district are often unpredictable and sometimes impassable, particularly in winter months. Occasional heavy snows and winter avalanches, springtime flooding and washouts, and summer wildfires and high winds can and do temporarily close roads throughout the state, inhibiting or complicating travel. 3. Judicial and Court Staff Travel Time and Costs Regular travel by magistrate judges and staff to hold hearings in outlying areas of the district (as described in Sections II.D.2 and II.D.4 above) is considered by this court to be a necessary and valuable service to those populations, and is expected to continue as part of the routine business of the court going forward. Based on the already significant and rapidly growing local population in southwestern Utah, however, district and bankruptcy judges regularly travel from Salt Lake City to St. George to hold hearings and occasional trials there (II.D.1 and II.D.3 above). This is in addition to the regularly scheduled hearings held by the half-time magistrate judge based there. Five-year direct costs associated with this travel are shown below. Note that judicial and supporting staff salary costs for time spent commuting to and from St. George are not accounted for in the data shown, but do add significantly to the yearly total travel expenses incurred by the court. COURT TRAVEL COSTS TO ST. GEORGE $ District Costs $ Bankruptcy Costs Yearly Year Judge Staff Total Judge Staff Total $ Total 2012 8126 4760 12886 7100 1897 8997 21,883 2013 6593 2253 8846 6649 2827 9476 18,322 2014 9429 5648 15077 8703 509 9212 24,289 2015 7242 4516 11758 7531 2876 10407 22,165 2016 8262 11423 19685 7085 1921 9006 28,691 District of Utah Business Plan 12 November 2017  4. Juror Travel Time and Costs The large majority of trials in the District of Utah presently are heard in the new United States Courthouse in Salt Lake City, and jurors are drawn from a statewide pool. For the infrequent criminal trials now heard in St. George, jurors typically are drawn from several southern counties in the state. All grand juries are convened in Salt Lake City, with jurors again drawn from a statewide pool, and costs are included in the table below. As described in Section II.E.1 above, travel times for both grand and petit jurors are significant for most, as are reimbursable costs. The District of Utah compensates all jurors for their service and, for those who travel over eighty miles one way, also reimburses per diem costs for meals and incidentals, as well as expenses for juror travel and lodging, all at standard government rates. For grand and petit jurors reporting to the courthouse in Salt Lake City, this includes most of the state’s population outside of the immediate Wasatch Front and Back. Ten-year direct juror expenses are shown below. Note that grand and petit jury cost totals are greater than the simple addition of service and reimbursable costs, since they include miscellaneous items not reflected in those two categories. GRAND AND PETIT JURY COSTS $ Grand Jury Costs $ Petit Jury Costs Yearly Year Service Reimb Total Service Reimb Total $ Total 2007 46546 71018 126908 117047 191559 331535 458,443 2008 48774 105232 162659 102305 161003 288177 450,835 2009 55040 106982 171617 111181 172658 304525 476,142 2010 45756 63221 121170 83115 127335 232051 353,220 2011 40571 74696 124976 192885 313443 540564 665,541 2012 44174 66846 123356 109552 176477 312092 435,448 2013 38220 55527 101353 101893 158703 283114 384,467 2014 47224 102150 158802 66508 116908 196754 355,555 2015 49472 115171 177937 116089 167453 308377 486,314 2016 41191 66846 120272 132379 194836 354213 474,486 5. Gov’t Agent, Bar, Litigant, Witness, and Family Travel Costs Though no accounting of these costs is made by the court, these groups are impacted similarly to other court participants by the geography of the state and the location of scheduled proceedings, particularly jury trials, which often require multiple parties from remote areas of the district to arrange and pay for an extended courtroom presence in Salt Lake City. District of Utah Business Plan 13 November 2017  Of particular concern to the bankruptcy court are the real travel and cost hardships inherent in the in-person-filing of a bankruptcy claim, or travel by multiple creditors and others to Salt Lake City for court proceedings. 6. USPO and USMS Support Personnel and Costs USPO support for court proceedings outside of Salt Lake City is described in Section II.D.5 above. Annual reimbursable costs associated with this support are as estimated in the table below (USPOs). The USMS recently increased its staffing in St. George from one to two Deputy U.S. Marshals (DUSMs), greatly reducing the need and cost for contract law enforcement personnel to assist with court hearings there. Current USMS support for court proceedings outside of Salt Lake City is also described in Section II.D.5 above. Annual estimated reimbursable costs to provide this support are as shown below (DUSMs and CSOs). ANNUAL USPO and USMS REIMBURSABLE COSTS (EST.) USPOs DUSMs CSOs $ TOTALS St. George 0 1,500 0 1,500 Vernal 750 350 2,300 3,400 Aneth 8,750 3,200 3,050 15,000 Moab 2,750 0 3,050 5,800 Big Water 850 300 750 1,900 $ TOTALS 12,350 5,350 9,150 26,850 III. Planned Improvement of Services in Southern Utah Before federal law enforcement agencies and the United States Attorney established offices in southern Utah, those federal services were effectively unavailable locally. Often, those suspected of serious federal crime were charged under state law, with less severe penalties for conviction and less resources for post-incarceration supervision. After federal law enforcement strengthened its presence and the U.S. Attorney opened its office, more effective federal law enforcement ensued, including the local disposition of an increasing number of criminal cases each year. However, more federal court services could and should be rendered locally, based on a rapidly increasing and underserved population in southern Utah, its corresponding caseload, its remote location from Salt Lake City, and the costs to court participants. The District of Utah plans to improve federal court services provided in southern Utah by establishing a robust (eventually full-time) judicial presence in St. George, which will include both the District and Bankruptcy Courts as well as supporting agencies. As stated in Section II above, the coming few years will see the replacement of several district and bankruptcy judges. Replacement of these judges provides specific opportunities to formalize the district’s commitment to improved court services in southern Utah. District of Utah Business Plan 14 November 2017  An eventual permanent judicial presence in that part of the district will significantly reduce or eliminate entirely the recurring travel time and costs of both district and bankruptcy judges and their staffs who now commute to St. George to hear cases there (see II.D.1, II.D.3, and II.E.2 above). In addition to direct travel expenses, salary costs for commuting time of judges and staff will eventually be eliminated in favor of productive courthouse-based work. A more robust court presence in St. George also will significantly reduce travel time and costs for most other court participants, and it will result in substantial savings to the court and to the taxpayer in the reimbursable costs of jury service. Reimbursable costs now paid to grand and petit jurors will be significantly lowered, since a large and fast-growing segment of the district’s population in southwestern Utah will be within eighty miles of St. George and will no longer routinely be paid reimbursables for jury service. Over the last ten years, grand and petit juror reimbursable costs have exceeded payments made for jury service by some 64% (see II.E.3 above). Finally, an expansion of court services, including the opportunity for civil litigation, will significantly benefit the citizens of southern Utah. Federal jury service will no longer automatically require travel to Salt Lake City, nor will grand jurors summoned from southern Utah necessarily need to travel twice a month for eighteen months to Salt Lake City. An increased level of court services in southern Utah will improve respect for the law and the federal government, as being more responsive to the needs of the people. A. Demographic and Growth Data Demographic and growth data in this section has been drawn primarily from a July 2017 Research Brief authored by the Kem C. Gardner POLICY INSTITUTE, an initiative of the David Eccles School of Business at the University of Utah. The Policy Institute is considered to be a “trusted entity where information can be gathered, analyzed, and shared in order to better the community it serves,” and its stated purpose is to “combine[s] academic rigor with practical experience to assist elected officials, community leaders, and the public in making informed decisions for a prosperous state.” Research for the subject July 2017 brief titled “Utah’s Long-Term Demographic and Economic Projections Summary” was funded by the Utah Legislature, and was done in collaboration with the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, the Utah Association of Governments, and other research entities. It is available to the public on-line; a full copy of the brief is appended to this business plan for further reference. Though the brief’s projections extend further into the future than required by this plan, that longer view does provide an even clearer context for its nearer-term projections. The most recent five-year Utah population figures, by county, are shown below: District of Utah Business Plan 15 November 2017  5-YEAR UTAH POPULATION BY COUNTY County/Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Beaver 6,670 6,754 6,661 6,710 6,782 Box Elder 51,155 51,794 52,280 52,971 54,038 Cache 116,404 117,598 118,872 121,855 123,907 Carbon 21,590 21,340 21,201 21,164 21,188 Daggett 1,114 1,157 1,113 1,113 1,103 Davis 318,476 324,407 329,833 336,091 342,645 Duchesne 19,696 20,283 20,577 20,821 20,608 Emery 10,964 10,945 10,844 10,659 10,573 Garfield 5,226 5,220 5,194 5,164 5,190 Grand 9,529 9,550 9,626 9,757 9,933 Iron 47,311 47,621 48,191 49,406 50,742 Juab 10,485 10,604 10,824 11,071 11,541 Kane 7,302 7,321 7,266 7,271 7,581 Millard 12,816 12,956 13,023 13,104 13,291 Morgan 10,049 10,418 10,776 11,080 11,522 Piute 1,585 1,603 1,593 1,631 1,604 Rich 2,277 2,300 2,323 2,353 2,355 Salt Lake 1,060,336 1,070,799 1,080,874 1,094,650 1,108,872 San Juan 15,448 15,573 15,772 15,902 16,302 Sanpete 28,485 28,631 28,705 29,088 29,489 Sevier 21,053 21,020 21,101 21,238 21,517 Summit 37,936 38,212 38,677 39,278 40,050 Tooele 60,131 61,367 62,182 63,262 65,285 Uintah 35,047 36,145 36,979 37,396 36,580 Utah 544,892 554,401 567,208 585,694 603,362 Wasatch 25,542 26,389 27,342 28,613 29,995 Washington 144,061 147,058 150,500 154,602 160,359 Wayne 2,773 2,748 2,740 2,725 2,718 Weber 236,391 237,918 239,582 242,737 245,672 TOTALS 2,864,744 2,902,131 2,941,858 2,997,404 3,054,806 Though nearly every county in Utah has grown in population over the last five years, the most rapid growth has taken place in Washington County (11.31%), followed closely by Utah County (10.73%). Percentage growth in other counties with large populations remains in the single digit range over the period shown. Since GSA and the court routinely plan new court facilities to be adequate for the judiciary’s needs for a full ten years past initial occupancy, it is most appropriate to consider population growth projections for 2025 and 2035, dates which closely correspond to anticipated occupancy and the ten-year post-occupancy planning period for St. George. These projections, by county, are shown below: District of Utah Business Plan 16 November 2017  PROJECTED UTAH POPULATION BY COUNTY County/Year 2015 2025 2035 Beaver 6,710 7,408 8,017 Box Elder 52,971 60,984 67,664 Cache 121,855 146,338 171,969 Carbon 21,164 24,343 26,870 Daggett 1,113 1,232 1,387 Davis 336,091 385,800 428,627 Duchesne 20,821 24,277 26,596 Emery 10,659 11,550 12,507 Garfield 5,164 5,845 6,405 Grand 9,757 11,182 12,203 Iron 49,406 59,900 67,803 Juab 11,071 15,789 19,925 Kane 7,271 8,684 9,611 Millard 13,104 14,403 15,619 Morgan 11,080 15,613 19,349 Piute 1,631 1,699 1,872 Rich 2,353 2,535 2,773 Salt Lake 1,094,650 1,249,961 1,361,099 San Juan 15,902 17,932 19,330 Sanpete 29,088 33,696 38,580 Sevier 21,238 24,494 26,896 Summit 39,278 46,404 54,706 Tooele 63,262 83,922 102,338 Uintah 37,396 42,077 45,978 Utah 585,694 768,346 968,498 Wasatch 28,613 42,027 54,218 Washington 154,602 219,019 286,768 Wayne 2,725 2,985 3,363 Weber 242,737 286,593 317,344 TOTALS 2,997,404 3,615,036 4,178,317 Every county within the State of Utah is expected to grow over the next ten- and twenty-year period, with the largest increases occurring along the Wasatch Front and in Washington County in southwestern Utah, which is projected to have the most rapid rate of increase in population of any county in the state. Within the next thirty years, Washington County is expected to surpass Weber County in population to become the fourth most populous county in the state (see page 4 of the appended research brief “Utah’s Long-Term Demographic and Economic Projections Summary”). District of Utah Business Plan 17 November 2017  1. Salt Lake County and Wasatch Front The majority of Utah’s population and caseload is clustered in northern Utah, primarily within Salt Lake and other counties along the extended Wasatch Front, and this was one of several primary drivers in the recent design and construction of a new district courthouse in Salt Lake City, opened in April, 2014. In large part because of late Congressional action to reduce the number of courtrooms and chambers actually built, a future ability to add multiple courtrooms and/or chambers within the courthouse appears adequate for the foreseeable future. The sixth floor of the building, now largely occupied by executive branch agencies, is of sufficient height and footprint to accommodate up to four additional courtrooms and supporting spaces, or to house the majority of the bankruptcy court if such a scenario were executed, without unduly impacting other district court, USPO, or USMS spaces in the building. Additionally, though the fifth floor of the courthouse currently houses the U.S. Probation Office and the Tenth Circuit Branch Library, it too is of a sufficient height and footprint to accommodate up to four courtrooms and supporting spaces if needed. 2. Wasatch Back and Uinta Basin Though the Wasatch Back and Uinta Basin areas of the district also are fast-growing, their current and projected population counts do not begin to compare with the Wasatch Front, and these populations will continue to be well served into the foreseeable future by existing court facilities in Salt Lake City. As described in Section II.E.2 above, regular travel by magistrate judges to more outlying areas of the district, including Vernal in the Uinta Basin, will continue to be made for more routine court hearings, preventing the need for those court participants to travel to Salt Lake City, the primary location for court proceedings within the District of Utah. Jurors drawn from more remote areas of northern Utah to Salt Lake City will continue to be paid for jury service as well as for reimbursable costs. 3. Eastern and Southern Utah Unlike the Wasatch Front and Uinta Basin, eastern and southern areas of the District of Utah are not so easily described by prominent geographic features. Most of eastern and southeastern Utah is sparsely populated, with the largest resident populations in this part of the district located in southwestern Utah, primarily in Washington County. District of Utah Business Plan 18 November 2017  Washington County is projected to be the fastest-growing county in the district, and it is this present and future population growth which the District of Utah seeks to better serve by the establishment of increased court presence there. The 2015 population of Washington County alone is expected to increase over 42% by 2025, and over 85% by 2035 (see Section III.A). This large increase, coupled with the geographic and other constraints noted above, compels this planned expansion of court services available in southern Utah. Additionally, five national parks, six national monuments, and one large national recreation area are located in southern Utah, along with other extensive federal lands. Annual recreational visits to these locations are approaching five times the total population of Utah, and they generate a significant federal caseload, to be heard almost exclusively in St. George. Timpanogos Cave National Monument and Golden Spike National Historic Site are located in northern Utah, and do not appear in the table below: ANNUAL RECREATIONAL VISITS TO SOUTHERN UTAH Nat’l Parks 2013 2014 2015 2016 Arches 1,082,866 1,284,767 1,399,247 1,585,718 Bryce Canyon 1,311,875 1,435,741 1,745,804 2,365,110 Canyonlands 462,242 542,431 634,607 776,218 Capitol Reef 663,670 786,514 941,029 1,064,904 Zion 2,807,387 3,189,696 3,648,846 4,295,127 Nat’l Mons 2013 2014 2015 2016 Bears Ears -- -- -- NA Cedar Breaks 466,450 762,907 793,601 899,676 Grnd Stair/Esc NA NA NA NA Hovenweep 24,959 26,808 35,117 42,862 Natural Brdgs 82,330 87,119 94,797 101,843 Rainbow Brdg 54,773 62,910 77,270 86,369 Nat’l Rec 2013 2014 2015 2016 Glen Canyon 1,991,924 2,368,452 2,495,093 3,239,525 TOTALS 8,948,476 10,565,345 11,865,411 14,457,352 B. Current and Projected Southern Utah Caseload Although the City of St. George and Washington County account for much of the population of southern Utah, many other adjacent counties in the District of Utah would benefit from an improvement of federal court services in that area. This court anticipates that most cases filed in the southernmost thirteen counties in the state will be heard in St. George, with the possible exception of San Juan and Grand Counties, which are located east of the Colorado and Green River Valleys, and whose travel times to Salt Lake City and to St. George are comparable. District of Utah Business Plan 19 November 2017  Taken as a whole, cases arising in the proposed Southern Division are seen to be a significant part of the overall case filings in the District of Utah. Five-year caseload data shown in the tables below reflects those cases arising south of the demarcation line on the map at right. This demarcation line was selected because of significant travel distance and time to Salt Lake City and its more distinctly rural character. However, as is the case today, proceedings could be held in Salt Lake City or St. George if or as deemed necessary. 5-YEAR CRIMINAL CASES FILED IN SOUTHERN UTAH Area/Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Southern UT 194 285 144 162 164 189 District-Wide 1215 1319 1077 1265 1389 1253 Southern % 16% 22% 13% 13% 12% 15% 5-YEAR CIVIL CASES FILED IN SOUTHERN UTAH Area/Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Southern UT 153 116 110 131 125 127 District-Wide 1455 1261 1072 1060 1425 1255 Southern % 11% 9% 10% 12% 9% 10% 5-YEAR BANKRUPTCY CASES FILED IN SOUTHERN UTAH Area/Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average Southern UT 1486 1226 1131 843 793 1096 District-Wide 16256 14578 13693 12124 11642 13659 Southern % 9% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% District of Utah Business Plan 20 November 2017  District-wide caseload projections for future years previously were made and are included on page 2-11 in the AOUSC’s most recent “Long-Range Facilities Plan for the District of Utah” dated December 2012. Projections made for 2026 and 2036 are closest to initial occupancy and ten-year post-occupancy planning dates for a St. George facility, and are included in the table below. Utilizing the averages for criminal, civil, and bankruptcy filings established in the five-year caseload tables above, projected future filings for southern Utah are: 10- AND 20-YEAR PROJECTED SOUTHERN UTAH CASELOAD Southern UT % 2026 2036 and Case Type District-Wide Southern UT District-Wide Southern UT 15% Criminal 1590 238 1780 267 10% Civil 1963 196 2212 221 8% Bankruptcy 28819 2306 32715 2617 C. Reorganization into Central and Southern Divisions Within the next few years (specifically, in October 2018 and March 2022), two currently active district judges will be eligible to take senior status, and the subsequent replacement of these judges presents well-timed and specific opportunities to accomplish an increase in both the federal court presence and the level of service provided to southern Utah. The transition of the part-time magistrate judge position in May 2019 offers an opportunity to select a candidate who will perform civil duties, to complement work of the visiting district judges. This court plans to work towards those ends over the coming months, with the specific goal of a reorganization of the District of Utah into Central and Southern Divisions by January 1, 2019. Two of three active bankruptcy judges in Salt Lake City are eligible for retirement in 2023 and 2024, and opportunities again exist for the expansion of bankruptcy court services in St. George before the expected opening of a new facility there. Both district and bankruptcy court support staff also will be gradually increased as the court begins to transition to a more robust presence in St. George. In summary, the District of Utah plans to gradually increase the level of services provided in southern Utah by reorganizing the district into Central and Southern Divisions, with the eventual goal of full-time court presence in St. George. D. Projected USPO and USMS Support USPO support for court operations in southern Utah will increase as the presence of the court increases. Current USPO staff in St. George includes four officers, one support staff, and one traveling supervisor, and this should remain adequate as the court begins to establish an increased presence and level of service there. USPO staff levels were previously projected in facility planning meetings held in 2016 in Salt Lake City with the AOUSC and Tenth Circuit, and it was anticipated District of Utah Business Plan 21 November 2017  that by 2025 the USPO would increase staff in its St. George office to 5 officers, 1 support staff, and 1 resident supervisor. This has been modified only slightly in the facility description in Section III.E below to 6, 2, and 1, respectively. Notwithstanding significant population increases expected in southern Utah by 2025 and beyond, the USMS does not anticipate a significant caseload increase for the District of Utah originating solely from the St. George area. However, the USMS does expect that the overall caseload for the District of Utah will steadily increase due to continued growth in crime along the Wasatch Front. The current USMS agency personnel formula (District Staffing Model) is driven by workload data, and determines how many personnel are needed to accomplish agency missions within the district. District managers then determine where personnel will be assigned. If the criminal caseload increases significantly in the St. George area, the USMS might be allocated additional personnel which could be assigned there. However, if there is no significant district-wide increase in caseload, but simply a shift in where cases are heard, then the USMS may need to reassign personnel from Salt Lake City to supplement its staff in St. George. The USMS anticipates that the current staffing level of two Deputy U.S. Marshals initially will be adequate for the needs of the judiciary in St. George as it begins to establish an increased level of service there. Due to staffing limits, scheduling among district, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges will need to avoid overlapping court proceedings where the presence of DUSMs are required. At occupancy of a new facility in July 2024, the USMS projects staffing levels as previously determined for 2025 in facility planning meetings held in Salt Lake City, and as appear in Section III.E below. This includes eight CSOs, who will be needed to provide security for the courthouse and for screening of all visitors. Appropriate security screening and building security equipment will need to be included in any new court building. Screening at the Utah State Courthouse is being performed currently by the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. Though proposed as early as 2010 but not yet realized or programmed during facility planning meetings in Salt Lake City over the past year, the Federal Public Defender’s Office also anticipates establishing a local presence in St. George by 2025 or earlier, most likely in leased space, for two attorneys and two staff. E. Timing and Description of Court Facilities Needed in Southern Utah Acknowledging that the current lease of courtroom and chambers space in St. George will not be extended beyond June 30, 2024, replacement federal court facilities must be ready for occupancy by the District of Utah before that date. The State of Utah has confirmed this anticipated lease expiration date to the court by letter, which is included as an Appendix to this business plan. District of Utah Business Plan 22 November 2017  In order to provide for the needs of the court without renovation for a period of ten years beyond initial occupancy, the new facility should accommodate approximately 28 court personnel, including judges and chambers staff (but not including USMS, USPO, or USAO personnel), and it should include: 1 District Judge Courtroom w/Jury Room 1 Magistrate Judge Courtroom w/Jury Room 1 Bankruptcy Judge Courtroom 1 District Judge Chambers (3 Law Clerks; 1 Staff) 1 Magistrate Judge Chambers (2 Law Clerks; 1 Staff) 1 Bankruptcy Judge Chambers (1 Law Clerk; 1 Staff) 1 Court Reporter Office 1 Grand Jury Suite 2 Deputy-in-Charge Offices (USDC, USBC) 1 Jury Assembly Area with Jury Admin Office 1 Shared IT Server Room with IT Office (1 Manager; 1 Staff) 1 Shared Budget/Finance/Procurement Office with Vault 1 Human Resources Office Administrative/Operations Space (1 Manager; 8 Cross-Trained Staff) Support Spaces (Shared Conference; Workroom; Files; Supply; Storage) Public Areas (Intake/Transaction Counter; Document Review) General Spaces (Loading Dock; Public Toilets; MEP; TeleData; Custodial) USMS Offices (4 Operations; 1 Admin; 8 CSOs) Prisoner Holding and Movement Facilities; Vehicle Sallyport Secure Parking for Judges and Government-Owned Vehicles Ideally, the facility also should include: U.S. Probation Office (6 Officers; 2 Staff; 1 Supervisor; Support Spaces) U.S. Attorney’s Office (6 Attorneys; 3 Staff; Support Spaces) GSA Building Manager’s Office However, the court recognizes that the ability to secure such a facility for court use by July 1, 2024 will be challenging due to economic, scheduling, and political constraints, and it is primarily focused on increasing the level of service provided in southern Utah with an eventual goal of permanent presence there. Achieving that goal could be accomplished incrementally in phases; the most important current consideration is the continuation and improvement of federal court services in southern Utah beyond the expected expiration date of the court’s lease on June 30, 2024. F. Future of the Bankruptcy Court in Salt Lake City Establishment of an increased bankruptcy court presence in St. George will be done in concert with the district court’s timeline, and the future retirement dates of two sitting bankruptcy judges (2023 and 2024) provide specific opportunities for a commitment to increased services in St. George. The bankruptcy court is District of Utah Business Plan 23 November 2017  committed to placing a judge in St. George at the appropriate time, either through retirement or upon establishment of a fourth bankruptcy judgeship in the District of Utah. A viable bankruptcy court presence in St. George will allow public interaction with the court in two locations, and will reduce space needs for the bankruptcy court in Salt Lake City, as both the workload and support staff will be divided between the two court locations. In view of prolonged uncertainty regarding the planned seismic retrofit of the historic Moss Courthouse, the resultant disruption to the bankruptcy court if and when work is undertaken, and efficiencies to be gained by consolidation of court operations in Salt Lake City, the District of Utah prefers a future occupancy by the bankruptcy court on the sixth floor of the new courthouse, which would offer significant benefit from logistical, operational, and financial perspectives:  USBC will be subjected to one court relocation move, not two.  Construction and occupancy costs of swing space will be avoided.  Reduction in USBC SLC courtroom count from three presently to two.  Increased layout efficiency in new space will further reduce footprint.  Consolidation of court security to one courthouse building saves cost.  Existing sixth-floor tenant lease terms extend from 2014 to 2024.  Times out effectively with increased court presence in St. George. Accomplishing both the increased USBC presence in St. George and a move of the bankruptcy court to the sixth floor of the new courthouse in Salt Lake City would in effect shift some of the court’s existing real estate footprint to southern Utah, lessening the additive effect of any new space constructed there to the net total occupied by the court. IV. Appendices State of Utah Letter re: Expiration of Federal Lease at State Courthouse Plan of Federally Leased Space at State of Utah Courthouse in St. George County Map of the District of Utah Utah’s Long-Term Demographic and Economic Projections Summary District of Utah Business Plan 24 November 2017  CURRENT SPACE The location of the court spaces in the State of Utah, 5th District Courthouse are illustrated in the following image and stacking diagram. Figure 1. State of Utah, 5th District Courthouse – Leased Federal Court Space Key Key Description USF 14a Visiting judges’ chambers 409 14b Visiting judges’ chambers 409 15a State courtroom 1,677 17 District court clerk’s office 377 33a USMS – administrative staff 441 15a.1 State courtroom 2A – vestibule 65 15a.2 Attorney-witness conference room 131 15a.3 Attorney-witness conference room 130 15a.4 State court – shared jury deliberation room 552 28 Judges’ elevator 80 29 Prisoner elevator 67 30 Public elevators 156 33b State court – courtroom holding cells 567 Description Area (USF) Total Area St. George, UT Housing Assessment Study 4|Page Research Brief July 2017 Utah's Long-Term Demographic and Economic Projections Summary Principal Researchers: Pamela S. Perlich, Mike Hollingshaus, Emily R. Harris, Juliette Tennert & Michael T. Hogue Background continue the existing trend of a slow decline. From 2015-2065, rates are projected to decline from 2.32 to 2.29. These rates are projected to remain higher The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute prepares long-term than national rates that move from 1.87 to 1.86 over demographic and economic projections to support in- a similar period. formed decision making in the state. The Utah Legislature funds this research, which is done in collaboration with • In 2065, life expectancy in Utah is projected to be the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, the Of- 86.3 for women and 85.2 for men. This is an increase fice of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, the Utah Association of approximately 4 years for women and 6 years for of Governments, and other research entities. These 50- men. The sharper increase for men narrows the life year projections indicate continued population growth expectancy gap traditionally seen between the and illuminate a range of future dynamics and structural sexes. shifts for Utah. An initial set of products is available online • Natural increase (births minus deaths) is projected to at gardner.utah.edu. Additional research briefs, fact remain positive and account for two-thirds of the cu- sheets, web-enabled visualizations, and other products mulative population increase to 2065. However, giv- will be produced in the coming year. en increased life expectancy and declining fertility, the rate and amount of natural increase are project- State-Level Results ed to slowly decline over time. • Net migration accounts for one-third of the cumula- Population tive population increase to 2065. Projections show • Utah’s population is projected to increase from ap- the contributions of natural increase and net migra- proximately 3 million in 2015 to 5.8 million in 2065. tion converging over time. This represents an increase of 2.8 million people with Age Composition an annual average rate of change of 1.3 percent. • Utah’s median age is projected to increase by seven • The Utah population reached 3 million in 2015. Utah and a half years, rising from 30.7 years in 2015 to 38.3 is projected to reach 4 million in 2032 (17 years after years in 2065. This is a result of declining fertility and 2015), 5 million in 2050 (18 years after 2032), and 5.8 increasing life expectancy, which contribute to a million in 2065. larger share of retirement age persons in the • Though growth rates are projected to decelerate over population. the next 50 years, they are also projected to exceed • The share of the population ages 65 and older is pro- national growth rates. Utah’s growth in each decade jected to double over the next 50 years, rising from ranges from 9.7 percent (2050-2060) to 16.7 percent 10.2 percent of the population in 2015 to 20.3 per- growth (2010-2020). The national range is 4.4 percent cent in 2065. (2050-2060) to 7.5 percent (2010-2020). • In 2015, Utah had 372 centenarians (people at least Components of Population Change 100 years old). That number is projected to be nearly • Utah’s total fertility rate (average number of children 20 times greater by 2065, reaching 6,846 born to a Utah woman in her lifetime) is projected to centenarians. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu AN INITIATIVE OF THE DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS • The population ages 5-17 is projected to increase, but Salt Lake County compose a smaller share of the population in 2065 • Salt Lake County is projected to remain the most pop- than it does today. The school age population is pro- ulous in the state, reaching nearly 1.7 million people. jected to grow from 666,974 in 2015 to 996,717 in 2065, decreasing as a share of the total population • Salt Lake County is projected to add nearly 600,000 from 22.3 percent to 17.1 percent. new residents by 2065 and capture 21 percent of the total state population growth. • The dependency ratio is the population ages 0-17 and 65-plus per 100 persons ages 18-64. Utah’s depen- Washington County dency ratio, which is higher than the national depen- • Washington County is projected to have the most dency ratio, is projected to rise in the next 50 years rapid rate of growth among all counties (229 percent principally because of the aging population. The gap increase over the next 50 years). between Utah and U.S. dependency ratios is project- • The population in Washington County is projected to ed to decrease. grow to over half a million (509,000) by 2065. Households and Employment • Washington County is projected to surpass Weber • The number of households is projected to grow County to become the fourth most populous county steadily into the future, but average household size in the state. (persons per household) is projected to decrease from “Ring” Counties 2.99 in 2015 to 2.57 in 2065. • The population of the metropolitan area is projected • Projections indicate stable employment growth as to geographically expand beyond the four Wasatch well as population growth. Front urban core counties into four accessible sur- • The fastest-growing industries between 2015 and rounding counties. 2065 are projected to be construction, professional • Wasatch County is projected to have the second high- and scientific services, health care, education, and est percentage increase in the state (187 percent over arts, entertainment, and recreation. 50 years). It has strong commuting ties to Summit, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. County-Level Results • Juab County is projected to have the fourth most rap- Population id percentage growth in the state (172 percent in- crease over 50 years). This growth is especially tied to • All counties are projected to grow over the next 50 the Utah County growth dynamic. years. Projected growth is most prevalent in Utah's largest counties adjacent to Salt Lake and Utah • Morgan County is projected to have the fifth most Counties, and in southwest Utah. rapid growth rate in the state (122 percent over 50 years). It has strong commuting ties to Weber, Davis, Utah County and Salt Lake Counties. • Utah County is projected to have the largest numeric • Tooele County is projected to be the sixth most rapid- increase in population, adding over one million new ly growing population in the state (112 percent in- residents to reach 1.6 million by 2065. The Utah Coun- crease over the next 50 years). It has strong commut- ty population nearly approaches the population of ing ties with Salt Lake County. Salt Lake County by 2065. Households • The Utah County population is projected to increase by 177 percent from 2015 to 2065, ranking it as the • Over the next 50 years, Utah County is projected to third fastest growing county over the projection capture 31 percent of the state’s household growth. period. Counties with rapid population growth rates also tend to have high household growth rates. Growth • By 2065, 28 percent of the state’s population will re- rate rankings among the top five counties are identi- side in Utah County. cal, except in the cases of Utah and Juab Counties. • Cumulatively, over the next fifty years, 37 percent of Utah County has the third highest population growth the state’s population growth is projected to be in rate, but the fourth highest household growth rate. Utah County. This means nearly 4 of every 10 new Juab rankings are the reverse. This occurs because of Utah residents will live in Utah County. the relatively large household sizes (persons per household) in Utah County. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 2 gardner.utah.edu • Utah County is projected to add 382,000 new house- holds, the most of any county. Salt Lake County ranks second, with an additional 310,000 households. Washington County is projected to add 150,000 households, the third highest among all counties. The fourth largest increase in households is projected for Davis County, with 102,000 net new households. These four counties account for over three-quarters of projected household growth over the next 50 years. Employment • Salt Lake County is projected to maintain its role as the dominant employer in the state. By 2065, it is pro- jected to employ 4 of every 10 workers in Utah, down slightly from its current level of 45 percent. The capital county is projected to create 610,000 new jobs, over one-third of the state’s net employment growth. • Utah County is projected to add 576,000 jobs and in- crease its share of total state employment from 17 percent to nearly one quarter (24 percent) of all state jobs. This is an increase of 185 percent, the highest growth rate among counties. One in three of the state’s new jobs are projected to be in Utah County. • Davis County is projected to add 156,000 net new jobs, ranking third in absolute growth behind Salt Lake and Utah Counties. • Washington County employment is projected to in- crease by 153 percent by 2065, the second highest percentage growth behind Utah County. It is project- ed to add 131,000 jobs. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 3 gardner.utah.edu  Table 1 Utah Population by County 2015-2065 Absolute Percent Change Change County 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 Rank 2015- 2015- 2065 2065 Beaver 6,710 7,408 8,017 8,606 9,068 9,649 2,939 44% 26 Box Elder 52,971 60,984 67,664 74,440 80,334 86,218 33,247 63% 11 Cache 121,855 146,338 171,969 195,325 212,908 234,744 112,890 93% 7 Carbon 21,164 24,343 26,870 29,069 31,240 33,144 11,980 57% 16 Daggett 1,113 1,232 1,387 1,502 1,603 1,723 610 55% 17 Davis 336,091 385,800 428,627 474,028 510,712 544,958 208,867 62% 12 Duchesne 20,821 24,277 26,596 29,178 31,205 33,153 12,332 59% 14 Emery 10,659 11,550 12,507 13,345 14,226 15,364 4,706 44% 25 Garfield 5,164 5,845 6,405 6,697 7,083 7,509 2,345 45% 24 Grand 9,757 11,182 12,203 13,266 14,139 14,794 5,037 52% 21 Iron 49,406 59,900 67,803 74,812 81,589 89,599 40,193 81% 8 Juab 11,071 15,789 19,925 23,307 26,498 30,069 18,998 172% 4 Kane 7,271 8,684 9,611 10,179 10,736 11,446 4,175 57% 15 Millard 13,104 14,403 15,619 16,605 17,435 18,617 5,514 42% 28 Morgan 11,080 15,613 19,349 21,357 22,678 24,605 13,525 122% 5 Piute 1,631 1,699 1,872 1,938 1,995 2,149 518 32% 29 Rich 2,353 2,535 2,773 2,992 3,158 3,380 1,027 44% 27 Salt Lake 1,094,650 1,249,961 1,361,099 1,470,574 1,594,804 1,693,513 598,863 55% 18 San Juan 15,902 17,932 19,330 20,562 21,775 23,316 7,413 47% 23 Sanpete 29,088 33,696 38,580 41,682 44,609 49,590 20,502 70% 10 Sevier 21,238 24,494 26,896 28,879 30,774 32,802 11,563 54% 20 Summit 39,278 46,404 54,706 60,644 65,624 70,750 31,472 80% 9 Tooele 63,262 83,922 102,338 115,463 125,291 134,272 71,010 112% 6 Uintah 37,396 42,077 45,978 50,609 54,523 57,766 20,370 54% 19 Utah 585,694 768,346 968,498 1,192,304 1,396,997 1,620,246 1,034,552 177% 3 Wasatch 28,613 42,027 54,218 64,526 73,042 82,018 53,406 187% 2 Washington 154,602 219,019 286,768 355,549 429,295 508,952 354,350 229% 1 Wayne 2,725 2,985 3,363 3,593 3,792 4,130 1,405 52% 22 Weber 242,737 286,593 317,344 344,025 368,635 389,334 146,597 60% 13 State Total 2,997,404 3,615,036 4,178,317 4,745,057 5,285,767 5,827,810 2,830,406 94% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Population Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 4 gardner.utah.edu  Table 2 Utah Households by County 2015-2065 Absolute Percent Change Change County 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 Rank 2015- 2015- 2065 2065 Beaver 2,399 2,806 3,161 3,456 3,697 3,995 1,596 67% 22 Box Elder 17,711 21,572 25,058 28,249 30,865 33,826 16,116 91% 13 Cache 37,645 47,540 57,627 66,376 73,831 83,168 45,523 121% 7 Carbon 8,114 9,558 10,824 11,893 12,889 13,928 5,813 72% 20 Daggett 504 567 568 611 659 675 171 34% 29 Davis 106,535 130,716 154,027 174,162 190,571 208,380 101,845 96% 12 Duchesne 6,771 8,102 9,198 10,149 10,992 11,804 5,033 74% 19 Emery 3,836 4,441 5,006 5,420 5,918 6,509 2,673 70% 21 Garfield 2,048 2,351 2,561 2,698 2,821 3,026 977 48% 27 Grand 4,270 5,177 5,955 6,616 7,212 7,680 3,410 80% 18 Iron 16,690 21,996 25,902 29,242 32,663 36,796 20,105 120% 8 Juab 3,526 5,306 7,152 8,760 10,282 11,945 8,419 239% 3 Kane 3,070 3,825 4,232 4,423 4,675 5,033 1,963 64% 23 Millard 4,578 5,300 5,956 6,371 6,815 7,428 2,850 62% 24 Morgan 3,485 5,254 6,926 7,992 8,832 9,804 6,319 181% 5 Piute 696 762 839 854 864 954 258 37% 28 Rich 888 1,009 1,105 1,204 1,287 1,379 491 55% 26 Salt Lake 379,320 454,929 521,352 579,472 635,143 689,490 310,170 82% 16 San Juan 5,146 6,489 7,635 8,591 9,514 10,539 5,393 105% 10 Sanpete 8,611 10,865 12,793 14,192 15,744 17,937 9,326 108% 9 Sevier 7,553 9,279 10,559 11,548 12,526 13,629 6,076 80% 17 Summit 15,044 19,126 23,289 26,140 28,300 30,357 15,313 102% 11 Tooele 20,707 30,108 38,929 45,686 51,099 55,536 34,829 168% 6 Uintah 12,390 14,773 17,175 19,366 21,255 22,954 10,564 85% 15 Utah 164,270 228,671 301,558 380,404 459,411 546,481 382,211 233% 4 Wasatch 9,329 14,934 20,301 24,921 29,077 33,104 23,776 255% 2 Washington 55,377 83,595 111,434 139,895 171,615 204,976 149,599 270% 1 Wayne 1,134 1,301 1,450 1,547 1,657 1,813 679 60% 25 Weber 85,795 105,945 123,153 137,384 148,917 160,949 75,154 88% 14 State Total 987,442 1,256,295 1,515,728 1,757,619 1,989,132 2,234,094 1,246,652 126% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 5 gardner.utah.edu  Table 3 Utah Employment by County 2015-2065 Absolute Percent Change Change County 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 Rank 2015- 2015- 2065 2065 Beaver 4,047 4,712 5,121 5,471 5,800 6,136 2,089 52% 29 Box Elder 26,715 32,201 36,043 39,430 42,740 45,989 19,274 72% 16 Cache 73,119 89,331 102,066 113,435 124,227 134,247 61,128 84% 8 Carbon 11,266 13,974 15,796 17,285 18,629 19,923 8,657 77% 13 Daggett 634 748 832 914 998 1,084 450 71% 17 Davis 172,614 215,258 246,967 275,547 302,616 328,512 155,898 90% 6 Duchesne 12,581 15,695 17,285 18,374 19,318 20,384 7,803 62% 22 Emery 5,036 5,910 6,545 7,180 7,840 8,559 3,523 70% 18 Garfield 3,420 4,063 4,461 4,814 5,144 5,453 2,033 59% 24 Grand 7,569 9,326 10,466 11,492 12,480 13,437 5,868 78% 12 Iron 23,894 29,036 32,971 36,513 39,895 43,126 19,232 80% 11 Juab 5,112 6,214 7,083 7,860 8,626 9,398 4,286 84% 7 Kane 4,799 5,554 6,106 6,591 7,016 7,375 2,576 54% 27 Millard 6,846 7,893 8,644 9,344 10,007 10,633 3,787 55% 25 Morgan 4,456 5,527 6,409 7,258 8,141 9,079 4,623 104% 4 Piute 633 713 781 847 911 975 342 54% 26 Rich 1,445 1,686 1,878 2,054 2,219 2,374 929 64% 21 Salt Lake 844,316 1,053,362 1,182,092 1,293,225 1,385,240 1,454,567 610,251 72% 15 San Juan 6,386 7,738 8,684 9,447 10,146 10,850 4,464 70% 19 Sanpete 11,990 14,254 16,074 17,725 19,338 20,924 8,934 75% 14 Sevier 11,938 14,564 16,114 17,302 18,302 19,220 7,282 61% 23 Summit 39,799 49,973 57,240 64,008 70,583 76,693 36,894 93% 5 Tooele 21,331 26,266 29,791 32,892 35,814 38,583 17,252 81% 10 Uintah 19,161 23,817 26,497 28,496 30,283 32,179 13,018 68% 20 Utah 311,650 423,013 520,050 629,808 753,266 887,896 576,246 185% 1 Wasatch 14,111 17,957 21,049 23,972 26,929 29,967 15,856 112% 3 Washington 85,410 123,225 154,444 180,362 200,966 216,247 130,837 153% 2 Wayne 1,763 2,141 2,414 2,668 2,927 3,204 1,441 82% 9 Weber 131,651 169,524 184,636 192,441 197,804 201,696 70,045 53% 28 State Total 1,863,692 2,373,675 2,728,541 3,056,754 3,368,205 3,658,710 1,795,018 96% Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Local Area Employment data I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 6 gardner.utah.edu  Table 4 Utah Total Employment by Industry 2015-2065 Absolute Percent Wage and Change Change Salary 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 Rank Employment 2015- 2015- 2065 2065 Agriculture 5,375 6,139 6,680 7,261 7,878 8,527 3,152 58.7% 10 Mining 10,371 14,594 14,842 13,603 11,955 10,810 439 4.2% 17 Utilities 3,915 3,396 2,853 2,746 2,729 2,707 -1,207 -30.8% 21 Construction 84,679 139,236 189,393 245,869 313,012 394,184 309,505 365.5% 1 Manufacturing 123,742 138,616 144,029 148,167 152,890 156,397 32,655 26.4% 16 Retail 157,969 179,273 189,685 201,068 211,428 220,018 62,050 39.3% 14 Transportation and 51,122 65,317 64,180 60,221 53,381 44,673 -6,449 -12.6% 20 Warehousing Wholesale 50,004 61,934 66,637 69,321 71,380 73,100 23,096 46.2% 12 Information 34,443 43,727 52,475 63,234 74,976 85,930 51,487 149.5% 5 Finance and 60,386 74,663 84,591 95,522 105,455 113,366 52,981 87.7% 8 Insurance Real Estate 18,643 21,591 24,105 26,032 27,040 26,307 7,664 41.1% 13 Professional and Technical 88,018 137,359 181,517 222,857 260,580 292,024 204,007 231.8% 2 Services Management 20,203 19,539 17,860 16,383 14,673 12,541 -7,661 -37.9% 22 Administrative and Waste 85,999 130,583 162,265 191,742 220,526 248,263 162,264 188.7% 3 Services Education 42,128 61,471 70,392 75,231 80,101 86,199 44,071 104.6% 7 Health 140,163 190,858 232,200 261,278 280,145 289,890 149,727 106.8% 6 Arts, Ent, Rec 21,111 30,207 36,676 43,465 50,219 55,756 34,645 164.1% 4 Accommoda- 112,549 137,441 143,292 147,809 151,409 154,388 41,840 37.2% 15 tions and Food Other services 38,697 37,176 40,101 41,403 39,984 35,587 -3,110 -8.0% 19 State and Local 198,676 233,844 264,700 296,485 328,071 358,892 160,217 80.6% 9 Government Federal Government, 34,958 40,581 43,789 46,583 49,215 51,831 16,873 48.3% 11 Civilian Federal Government, 16,166 15,296 15,277 15,320 15,350 15,356 -810 -5.0% 18 Military All Other 464,381 590,834 681,001 765,152 845,806 921,964 457,583 98.5% Employment* State Total 1,863,692 2,373,675 2,728,541 3,056,754 3,368,205 3,658,710 1,795,018 96.3% *Includes farm, sole proprietor, and other categories of employment not covered by the Utah Department of Workforce Services Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015 - 2065 State and County Projections; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Local Area Employment data; Utah Department of Workforce Services Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages data I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 7 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 1: Utah Population by County 2065 2065 Population Cache 1,723 to 49,590 Box Elder 234,744 49,591 to 134,272 Rich 86,218 3,380 134,273 to 389,334 Weber 389,335 to 544,958 389,334 Morgan 544,959 to 1,693,513 Davis 24,605 544,958 Daggett Summit 1,723 70,750 Salt Lake 1,693,513 Tooele 134,272 Wasatch 82,018 Duchesne 33,153 Utah Uintah 1,620,246 57,766 Juab Carbon 30,069 33,144 Sanpete 49,590 Millard 18,617 Emery Grand 15,364 14,794 Sevier 32,802 Beaver Piute Wayne 9,649 2,149 4,130 Iron Garfield 89,599 7,509 San Juan 23,316 Washington Kane 11,446 508,952 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 8 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 2: Absolute Change in Utah Population by County 2015-2065 Absolute Change, 2015 to 2065 517 to 53,406 Cache 112,890 53,407 to 146,597 Box Elder Rich 33,247 1,027 146,598 to 354,350 354,351 to 598,863 Weber 146,597 Morgan 598,864 to 1,034,552 Davis 13,525 208,867 Daggett Summit 610 31,472 Salt Lake 598,863 Tooele 71,010 Wasatch 53,406 Duchesne 12,332 Utah Uintah 1,034,552 20,370 Juab Carbon 18,998 11,980 Sanpete 20,502 Millard 5,514 Emery Grand 4,706 5,037 Sevier 11,563 Beaver Piute Wayne 2,939 518 1,405 Iron Garfield 40,193 2,345 San Juan 7,413 Washington Kane 4,175 354,350 Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Popula- tion Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 9 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 3: Percent Change in Utah Population by County 2015-2065 Percent Change 2015 to 2065 Cache 31.7% to 46.6% 92.6% Rich Box Elder 46.7% to 62.8% 43.7% 62.8% 62.9% to 92.6% Weber 92.7% to 122.1% 60.4% Morgan 122.2% to 229.2% Davis 122.1% 62.1% Daggett Summit 54.9% 80.1% Salt Lake 54.7% Tooele 112.2% Wasatch 186.6% Duchesne 59.2% Utah Uintah 176.6% 54.5% Juab Carbon 171.6% 56.6% Sanpete 70.5% Millard 42.1% Emery Grand 44.1% 51.6% Sevier 54.4% Beaver Piute Wayne 43.8% 31.7% 51.6% Iron Garfield 81.4% 45.4% San Juan 46.6% Washington Kane 229.2% 57.4% Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Population Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 10 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 4: Share of Statewide Growth by County 2015-2065 Share of Statewide Growth, 2015 to 2065 0 to 1.9% Cache 4.0% Rich 2.0% to 5.2% Box Elder 0.0% 5.3% to 12.5% 1.2% 12.6% to 21.2% Weber 5.2% 21.3% to 36.6% Davis Morgan 7.4% 0.5% Daggett Summit 0.0% 1.1% Salt Lake 21.2% Tooele 2.5% Wasatch 1.9% Duchesne 0.4% Utah Uintah 36.6% 0.7% Juab Carbon 0.7% 0.4% Sanpete 0.7% Millard 0.2% Emery Grand 0.2% 0.2% Sevier 0.4% Beaver Piute Wayne 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Iron Garfield 1.4% 0.1% San Juan 0.3% Washington Kane 12.5% 0.1% Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Popula- tion Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 11 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 5: Share of Utah Population by County 2065 Share of State Population, 2065 Cache 0 to 0.9% 4.0% Rich 1.0% to 2.3% Box Elder 0.1% 1.5% 2.4% to 6.7% Weber 6.8% to 9.4% 6.7% 9.5% to 29.1% Davis Morgan 9.4% 0.4% Daggett Summit 0.0% 1.2% Salt Lake 29.1% Tooele 2.3% Wasatch 1.4% Duchesne 0.6% Utah Uintah 27.8% 1.0% Juab Carbon 0.5% 0.6% Sanpete 0.9% Millard 0.3% Emery Grand 0.3% 0.3% Sevier 0.6% Beaver Piute Wayne 0.2% 0.0% 0.1% Iron Garfield 1.5% 0.1% San Juan 0.4% Washington Kane 8.7% 0.2% Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Popula- tion Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 12 gardner.utah.edu  Table 5 Utah Population 2015-2065 Absolute Growth Median Absolute Growth Median Year Total Year Total Growth Rate Age Growth Rate Age 2015 2,997,404 30.7 2041 4,520,678 56,728 1.3% 35.8 2016 3,054,806 57,402 1.9% 30.9 2042 4,577,247 56,569 1.3% 36.0 2017 3,123,607 68,801 2.3% 31.2 2043 4,633,568 56,321 1.2% 36.2 2018 3,193,415 69,809 2.2% 31.4 2044 4,689,532 55,965 1.2% 36.4 2019 3,260,765 67,349 2.1% 31.7 2045 4,745,057 55,525 1.2% 36.6 2020 3,325,425 64,661 2.0% 31.9 2046 4,800,120 55,062 1.2% 36.8 2021 3,389,467 64,042 1.9% 32.2 2047 4,854,748 54,628 1.1% 36.9 2022 3,449,985 60,518 1.8% 32.5 2048 4,909,089 54,341 1.1% 37.1 2023 3,507,364 57,379 1.7% 32.8 2049 4,963,211 54,122 1.1% 37.2 2024 3,562,226 54,861 1.6% 33.0 2050 5,017,232 54,022 1.1% 37.3 2025 3,615,036 52,811 1.5% 33.3 2051 5,071,236 54,004 1.1% 37.4 2026 3,669,342 54,306 1.5% 33.4 2052 5,125,126 53,890 1.1% 37.4 2027 3,723,441 54,099 1.5% 33.6 2053 5,178,833 53,707 1.0% 37.5 2028 3,778,152 54,711 1.5% 33.7 2054 5,232,327 53,495 1.0% 37.6 2029 3,833,308 55,155 1.5% 33.8 2055 5,285,767 53,439 1.0% 37.7 2030 3,889,310 56,003 1.5% 34.0 2056 5,339,307 53,540 1.0% 37.7 2031 3,946,122 56,811 1.5% 34.1 2057 5,393,004 53,696 1.0% 37.8 2032 4,004,069 57,948 1.5% 34.3 2058 5,446,925 53,921 1.0% 37.9 2033 4,062,343 58,273 1.5% 34.4 2059 5,501,088 54,163 1.0% 38.0 2034 4,120,490 58,148 1.4% 34.6 2060 5,555,423 54,335 1.0% 38.0 2035 4,178,317 57,826 1.4% 34.8 2061 5,609,943 54,519 1.0% 38.1 2036 4,235,865 57,548 1.4% 34.9 2062 5,664,555 54,613 1.0% 38.1 2037 4,293,208 57,344 1.4% 35.1 2063 5,719,145 54,590 1.0% 38.2 2038 4,350,268 57,060 1.3% 35.3 2064 5,773,599 54,454 1.0% 38.3 2039 4,407,155 56,887 1.3% 35.5 2065 5,827,810 54,210 0.9% 38.3 2040 4,463,950 56,795 1.3% 35.7 Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Population Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 13 gardner.utah.edu  Table 6 Utah School Age Population (5-17 years of age) 2015-2065 Absolute Growth Absolute Growth Year Total Year Total Growth Rate Growth Rate 2015 666,974 2041 836,467 10,039 1.2% 2016 676,459 9,486 1.4% 2042 846,377 9,910 1.2% 2017 684,631 8,172 1.2% 2043 855,987 9,610 1.1% 2018 693,269 8,638 1.3% 2044 865,150 9,163 1.1% 2019 699,962 6,693 1.0% 2045 873,751 8,601 1.0% 2020 705,631 5,669 0.8% 2046 881,707 7,956 0.9% 2021 708,542 2,911 0.4% 2047 888,990 7,283 0.8% 2022 712,480 3,938 0.6% 2048 895,633 6,643 0.7% 2023 715,336 2,856 0.4% 2049 901,673 6,040 0.7% 2024 717,354 2,019 0.3% 2050 907,179 5,506 0.6% 2025 718,210 856 0.1% 2051 912,247 5,068 0.6% 2026 719,678 1,468 0.2% 2052 916,968 4,722 0.5% 2027 721,751 2,073 0.3% 2053 921,447 4,479 0.5% 2028 724,517 2,766 0.4% 2054 925,810 4,363 0.5% 2029 729,200 4,683 0.6% 2055 930,229 4,419 0.5% 2030 736,180 6,980 1.0% 2056 934,856 4,627 0.5% 2031 742,719 6,540 0.9% 2057 939,808 4,952 0.5% 2032 750,959 8,239 1.1% 2058 945,186 5,378 0.6% 2033 759,942 8,983 1.2% 2059 951,062 5,876 0.6% 2034 770,334 10,392 1.4% 2060 957,453 6,392 0.7% 2035 779,026 8,692 1.1% 2061 964,370 6,917 0.7% 2036 787,890 8,864 1.1% 2062 971,800 7,430 0.8% 2037 797,104 9,214 1.2% 2063 979,706 7,906 0.8% 2038 806,637 9,533 1.2% 2064 988,034 8,328 0.9% 2039 816,444 9,807 1.2% 2065 996,717 8,683 0.9% 2040 826,429 9,984 1.2% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 14 gardner.utah.edu  Table 7 Utah Working Age Population (18-64 Years of Age) 2015-2065 Absolute Growth Absolute Growth Year Total Year Total Growth Rate Growth Rate 2015 1,770,860 2041 2,624,934 27,708 1.1% 2016 1,805,616 34,756 2.0% 2042 2,650,884 25,950 1.0% 2017 1,845,065 39,449 2.2% 2043 2,675,796 24,912 0.9% 2018 1,884,245 39,181 2.1% 2044 2,700,610 24,814 0.9% 2019 1,921,806 37,560 2.0% 2045 2,724,245 23,634 0.9% 2020 1,957,722 35,916 1.9% 2046 2,748,346 24,101 0.9% 2021 1,993,455 35,734 1.8% 2047 2,772,936 24,590 0.9% 2022 2,027,389 33,934 1.7% 2048 2,798,125 25,189 0.9% 2023 2,060,074 32,684 1.6% 2049 2,824,301 26,176 0.9% 2024 2,091,879 31,805 1.5% 2050 2,849,739 25,438 0.9% 2025 2,122,790 30,911 1.5% 2051 2,875,047 25,308 0.9% 2026 2,155,321 32,531 1.5% 2052 2,900,854 25,807 0.9% 2027 2,187,581 32,260 1.5% 2053 2,927,033 26,180 0.9% 2028 2,220,156 32,575 1.5% 2054 2,952,816 25,783 0.9% 2029 2,252,342 32,186 1.4% 2055 2,976,951 24,135 0.8% 2030 2,284,097 31,755 1.4% 2056 2,999,376 22,424 0.8% 2031 2,318,155 34,058 1.5% 2057 3,025,642 26,266 0.9% 2032 2,351,322 33,167 1.4% 2058 3,054,385 28,744 1.0% 2033 2,384,111 32,789 1.4% 2059 3,084,598 30,213 1.0% 2034 2,414,778 30,667 1.3% 2060 3,115,001 30,403 1.0% 2035 2,445,419 30,641 1.3% 2061 3,142,583 27,582 0.9% 2036 2,475,620 30,201 1.2% 2062 3,167,041 24,459 0.8% 2037 2,506,546 30,927 1.2% 2063 3,192,733 25,692 0.8% 2038 2,537,729 31,183 1.2% 2064 3,217,796 25,063 0.8% 2039 2,568,245 30,516 1.2% 2065 3,241,337 23,542 0.7% 2040 2,597,226 28,981 1.1% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 15 gardner.utah.edu  Table 8 Utah Retirement Age Population (65+ years of age) 2015-2065 Absolute Growth Absolute Growth Year Total Year Total Growth Rate Growth Rate 2015 305,273 2041 718,784 17,212 2.5% 2016 318,894 13,621 4.5% 2042 737,883 19,099 2.7% 2017 335,812 16,918 5.3% 2043 758,145 20,261 2.7% 2018 354,259 18,446 5.5% 2044 778,604 20,459 2.7% 2019 372,850 18,591 5.2% 2045 800,316 21,712 2.8% 2020 391,442 18,592 5.0% 2046 821,637 21,321 2.7% 2021 411,593 20,151 5.1% 2047 842,566 20,929 2.5% 2022 431,420 19,828 4.8% 2048 863,081 20,515 2.4% 2023 450,715 19,295 4.5% 2049 882,794 19,713 2.3% 2024 469,232 18,517 4.1% 2050 903,462 20,668 2.3% 2025 487,659 18,427 3.9% 2051 924,451 20,990 2.3% 2026 504,883 17,224 3.5% 2052 944,955 20,504 2.2% 2027 521,321 16,438 3.3% 2053 964,935 19,980 2.1% 2028 537,054 15,733 3.0% 2054 985,028 20,092 2.1% 2029 551,460 14,406 2.7% 2055 1,006,482 21,454 2.2% 2030 564,649 13,190 2.4% 2056 1,029,384 22,902 2.3% 2031 576,640 11,991 2.1% 2057 1,048,149 18,765 1.8% 2032 588,852 12,211 2.1% 2058 1,064,146 15,997 1.5% 2033 601,095 12,244 2.1% 2059 1,078,369 14,224 1.3% 2034 614,121 13,026 2.2% 2060 1,092,054 13,685 1.3% 2035 628,814 14,693 2.4% 2061 1,108,251 16,197 1.5% 2036 643,797 14,983 2.4% 2062 1,127,225 18,975 1.7% 2037 657,890 14,093 2.2% 2063 1,144,582 17,356 1.5% 2038 671,534 13,644 2.1% 2064 1,162,154 17,572 1.5% 2039 685,764 14,229 2.1% 2065 1,180,818 18,664 1.6% 2040 701,572 15,809 2.3% Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 16 gardner.utah.edu  Table 9 Utah Components of Population Change 2015-2065 Natural Net Natural Net Year Births Deaths Year Births Deaths Increase Migration Increase Migration 2015 50,904 17,353 33,551 21,994 2041 69,138 31,201 37,937 18,791 2016 50,573 17,445 33,128 24,274 2042 69,432 31,922 37,510 19,059 2017 53,382 17,541 35,841 32,960 2043 69,755 32,632 37,123 19,198 2018 54,144 18,256 35,888 33,920 2044 70,100 33,328 36,772 19,192 2019 54,883 19,003 35,880 31,469 2045 70,478 34,003 36,475 19,049 2020 55,563 19,747 35,816 28,845 2046 70,893 34,654 36,239 18,823 2021 56,226 17,839 38,388 25,654 2047 71,349 35,287 36,062 18,566 2022 56,884 18,437 38,447 22,071 2048 71,845 35,909 35,937 18,405 2023 57,534 19,029 38,505 18,874 2049 72,392 36,506 35,885 18,236 2024 58,201 19,615 38,586 16,275 2050 72,985 37,082 35,903 18,119 2025 58,897 20,201 38,696 14,115 2051 73,623 37,642 35,981 18,023 2026 59,623 20,790 38,833 15,473 2052 74,307 38,194 36,113 17,777 2027 60,430 21,381 39,049 15,051 2053 75,031 38,741 36,291 17,416 2028 61,262 21,987 39,275 15,436 2054 75,785 39,284 36,500 16,994 2029 62,122 22,614 39,507 15,648 2055 76,557 39,828 36,730 16,710 2030 62,984 23,260 39,724 16,278 2056 77,343 40,377 36,966 16,574 2031 63,831 23,925 39,905 16,906 2057 78,139 40,938 37,201 16,496 2032 64,657 24,611 40,046 17,902 2058 78,933 41,518 37,414 16,507 2033 65,449 25,319 40,131 18,143 2059 79,717 42,123 37,595 16,569 2034 66,169 26,040 40,129 18,019 2060 80,485 42,755 37,730 16,605 2035 66,807 26,771 40,036 17,790 2061 81,229 43,421 37,809 16,711 2036 67,362 27,509 39,853 17,695 2062 81,944 44,119 37,825 16,787 2037 67,827 28,252 39,575 17,768 2063 82,624 44,850 37,774 16,816 2038 68,218 28,995 39,223 17,837 2064 83,266 45,617 37,650 16,804 2039 68,555 29,736 38,819 18,068 2065 83,868 46,416 37,452 16,758 2040 68,856 30,472 38,385 18,411 Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Population Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 17 gardner.utah.edu  Table 10 Utah Total Employment 2015-2065 Absolute Growth Absolute Growth Year Total Year Total Growth Rate Growth Rate 2015 1,863,692 2041 2,927,472 32,685 1.1% 2016 1,932,688 68,996 3.7% 2042 2,960,009 32,537 1.1% 2017 1,998,217 65,530 3.4% 2043 2,992,403 32,394 1.1% 2018 2,058,177 59,959 3.0% 2044 3,024,653 32,251 1.1% 2019 2,113,031 54,854 2.7% 2045 3,056,754 32,101 1.1% 2020 2,163,867 50,835 2.4% 2046 3,088,695 31,941 1.0% 2021 2,210,750 46,883 2.2% 2047 3,120,470 31,775 1.0% 2022 2,254,342 43,592 2.0% 2048 3,152,074 31,604 1.0% 2023 2,295,518 41,176 1.8% 2049 3,183,499 31,426 1.0% 2024 2,335,118 39,600 1.7% 2050 3,214,743 31,244 1.0% 2025 2,373,675 38,558 1.7% 2051 3,245,805 31,062 1.0% 2026 2,411,432 37,756 1.6% 2052 3,276,685 30,880 1.0% 2027 2,448,420 36,988 1.5% 2053 3,307,381 30,696 0.9% 2028 2,484,712 36,292 1.5% 2054 3,337,889 30,508 0.9% 2029 2,520,483 35,771 1.4% 2055 3,368,205 30,316 0.9% 2030 2,555,872 35,388 1.4% 2056 3,398,322 30,117 0.9% 2031 2,590,957 35,086 1.4% 2057 3,428,234 29,911 0.9% 2032 2,625,769 34,811 1.3% 2058 3,457,930 29,697 0.9% 2033 2,660,302 34,534 1.3% 2059 3,487,402 29,471 0.9% 2034 2,694,557 34,254 1.3% 2060 3,516,636 29,234 0.8% 2035 2,728,541 33,984 1.3% 2061 3,545,619 28,983 0.8% 2036 2,762,252 33,711 1.2% 2062 3,574,337 28,717 0.8% 2037 2,795,701 33,449 1.2% 2063 3,602,770 28,434 0.8% 2038 2,828,921 33,220 1.2% 2064 3,630,902 28,131 0.8% 2039 2,861,942 33,021 1.2% 2065 3,658,710 27,808 0.8% 2040 2,894,787 32,845 1.1% Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Local Area Employment data. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 18 gardner.utah.edu  Table 11 Utah Total Households and Average Household Size 2015-2065 Absolute Growth Average Absolute Growth Average Year Total Year Total Growth Rate Size Growth Rate Size 2015 987,442 2.99 2041 1,664,539 24,196 1.5% 2.67 2016 1,011,905 24,463 2.5% 2.97 2042 1,688,209 23,670 1.4% 2.67 2017 1,039,980 28,075 2.8% 2.95 2043 1,711,483 23,274 1.4% 2.66 2018 1,069,114 29,134 2.8% 2.94 2044 1,734,756 23,273 1.4% 2.66 2019 1,097,501 28,387 2.7% 2.92 2045 1,757,619 22,863 1.3% 2.66 2020 1,125,044 27,543 2.5% 2.91 2046 1,780,277 22,657 1.3% 2.65 2021 1,153,177 28,133 2.5% 2.89 2047 1,802,676 22,399 1.3% 2.65 2022 1,180,155 26,978 2.3% 2.88 2048 1,825,099 22,423 1.2% 2.65 2023 1,206,243 26,088 2.2% 2.86 2049 1,847,852 22,754 1.2% 2.64 2024 1,231,542 25,299 2.1% 2.85 2050 1,870,806 22,954 1.2% 2.64 2025 1,256,295 24,753 2.0% 2.83 2051 1,893,840 23,034 1.2% 2.63 2026 1,281,399 25,104 2.0% 2.82 2052 1,916,951 23,110 1.2% 2.63 2027 1,306,435 25,036 2.0% 2.80 2053 1,940,444 23,493 1.2% 2.62 2028 1,331,723 25,288 1.9% 2.79 2054 1,964,548 24,104 1.2% 2.62 2029 1,357,131 25,408 1.9% 2.78 2055 1,989,132 24,584 1.3% 2.61 2030 1,382,797 25,666 1.9% 2.77 2056 2,013,292 24,161 1.2% 2.61 2031 1,409,046 26,249 1.9% 2.76 2057 2,037,308 24,016 1.2% 2.60 2032 1,435,827 26,781 1.9% 2.74 2058 2,061,648 24,340 1.2% 2.60 2033 1,462,740 26,913 1.9% 2.73 2059 2,086,297 24,649 1.2% 2.59 2034 1,489,601 26,861 1.8% 2.72 2060 2,111,304 25,007 1.2% 2.59 2035 1,515,728 26,126 1.8% 2.71 2061 2,136,644 25,340 1.2% 2.58 2036 1,541,141 25,414 1.7% 2.71 2062 2,161,332 24,688 1.2% 2.58 2037 1,566,339 25,198 1.6% 2.70 2063 2,185,757 24,426 1.1% 2.57 2038 1,591,194 24,855 1.6% 2.69 2064 2,210,140 24,383 1.1% 2.57 2039 1,615,947 24,752 1.6% 2.68 2065 2,234,094 23,954 1.1% 2.57 2040 1,640,342 24,396 1.5% 2.68 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 19 gardner.utah.edu Utah Population Pyramid: 1960, 2015, & 2065 Figure 6 Utah Population Pyramid 1960, 2015, and 2065 Male - 2065 Projection Female - 2065 Projection 100+ Male - 2015 Female - 2015 95 Male - 1960 Female - 1960 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Count Data. Note: The top age group for 1960 is 85+ Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Utah Population Committee, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute State and County Projections, 2015-2065 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 20 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 7 Utah Total Population with Million Markers 2015-2065 6,500,000 6,000,000 5,827,810 2050 5,500,000 5,000,000 2032 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,997,404 2,500,000 2,000,000 Total Population Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Population Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 21 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 8 Utah Population and Growth Projections by Decade 2015-2065 7,000,000 40% 6,000,000 5,827,810 35% 5,285,767 30% 5,000,000 4,745,057 4,178,317 25% 4,000,000 3,615,036 20% 2,997,404 20.61% 3,000,000 17.54% 15% 15.58% 2,000,000 13.56% 11.40% 10% 10.25% 1,000,000 5% - 0% 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 State Population Decade Growth (%) Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; DemographyUTAH Population Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 22 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 9 Projected Percent Growth by Decade Utah and U.S., 2010-2060 Sources: Census Bureau 2014-2060 National Projections; Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 23 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 10 Historical and Projected Total Fertility Rates Utah and U.S., 1990-2065 Source: Census Bureau 2014-2060 National Projections; Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; Utah Department of Health. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 24 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 11 Utah Historical and Projected Life Expectancy 1968-2065 Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; Utah Department of Health. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 25 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 12 Utah Historical and Projected Components of Change 1990-2065 Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; Utah Population Estimates Commit- tee Estimates (1990-2009); DemographyUTAH Population Committee 2010-2016 Population Estimates. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 26 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 13 Select Age Groups as a Percent of the Total Utah Population 2015-2065 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census and Population Division data; Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 27 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 14 U.S. Dependency Ratios 1970-2060 100 90 79.0 80 76.4 71.9 73.1 72.9 70 17.7 65.1 64.0 61.6 61.6 58.9 60 18.6 35.5 37.5 38.2 41.5 50 20.3 20.1 27.7 20.7 40 30 61.3 46.5 41.5 20 41.3 38.2 36.5 36.3 35.6 34.7 34.8 10 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Youth Retirement Age Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census and Population Division data. Note: Dependency Ratios are computed as the number of nonworking age persons per 100 working age (18-64 year old) persons in the population. Youth are less than 18 years old and retirement age is 65 years and older. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 28 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 15 Utah Dependency Ratios 1970-2060 Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census and Population Division data; Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 29 gardner.utah.edu  Figure 16 Historical and Projected Total Employment Growth Utah and U.S., 2010-2065 Sources: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute 2015-2065 State and County Projections; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis & U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics historical employment data. I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 30 gardner.utah.edu ADVISORY BOARD Conveners Kem C. Gardner Roger Tew Michael O. Leavitt Christian Gardner Vicki Varela Mitt Romney Matthew S. Holland Ruth V. Watkins Board Clark Ivory Ted Wilson Scott Anderson, Co-Chair Ron Jibson Natalie Gochnour, Director Gail Miller, Co-Chair Mike S. Leavitt Ex Officio Doug Anderson Vivian S. Lee Senator Orrin Hatch Deborah Bayle Kimberly Gardner Martin Governor Gary Herbert Lane Beattie Ann Millner Speaker Greg Hughes Cynthia A. Berg Cristina Ortega Senate President Wayne Niederhauser Roger Boyer Jason Perry Representative Brian King Wilford Clyde Taylor Randall Senator Gene Davis Sophia M. DiCaro Jill Remington Love Mayor Ben McAdams Lisa Eccles Brad Rencher Mayor Jackie Biskupski Spencer P. Eccles Josh Romney Matt Eyring Charles W. Sorenson James Lee Sorenson KEM C. GARDNER POLICY INSTITUTE STAFF AND ADVISORS Leadership Team Staff Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director Samantha Ball, Research Associate Jennifer Robinson, Associate Director Mallory Bateman, Research Analyst James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow DJ Benway, Research Analyst Dianne Meppen, Director of Survey Research Cathy Chambless, Senior Research Associate Pamela S. Perlich, Director of Demographic Research Marin Christensen, Research Associate Juliette Tennert, Director of Economic and Public Policy John C. Downen, Senior Research Analyst Research Emily Harris, Demographic Analyst Michael T. Hogue, Senior Research Statistician Faculty Advisors Mike Hollingshaus, Demographer Adam Meirowitz, Faculty Advisor Colleen Larson, Administrative Manager Matt Burbank, Faculty Advisor David LeBaron, Research Associate Shelley Kruger, Accounting and Finance Manager Senior Advisors Jennifer Leaver, Research Analyst Jonathan Ball, Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Sara McCormick, Senior Research Associate Gary Cornia, Marriott School of Business Levi Pace, Research Analyst Dan Griffiths, Tanner LLC Joshua Spolsdoff, Research Associate Roger Hendrix, Hendrix Consulting Nicholas Thiriot, Communications Specialist Joel Kotkin, Chapman University Natalie Young, Research Analyst Darin Mellott, CBRE Derek Miller, World Trade Center Utah Chris Redgrave, Zions Bank Bud Scurggs, Cynosure Group Wesley Smith, 24NINE Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute I 411 East South Temple Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 I 801-585-5618 I gardner.utah.edu AN INITIATIVE OF THE DAVID ECCLES SCHOOL OF BUSINESS