Main Home | 2005 Report Home | Press Room | Cluster Profiles | City Level Data | Talking Points

Cluster 2

Rural Commercial Centers

Overview | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

All data is recorded as an average for all cities in the cluster.
Data for individual cities may vary significantly in some categories.

Community Conditions

Population

• Average Population Size, 1990-2002:

Year	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002
Pop.	4,323	4,358	4,407	4,426	4,466	4,558	4,610	4,663	4,723	4,734	4,786	4,805	4,781

• Population Density, 2000: 1,333 persons per square mile

• Population Growth Rate, 1990-2000: 12.4%

• Proportion of Housing Units Newly Built, 1990-2000: 11%

• Proportion of Adults with a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree, 2000: 14%

• Proportion of Population in Racial/Ethnic Minority, 2000: 24%*

Economy

• Median Household Income:

Year	1999	1989
Median Household Income	$27,456 (in 1989 dollars)	$27,128

• Median Household Income Growth, 1989-1999 (Inflation Adjusted): 1%

• Poverty Rate, 1999: 22%

• Unemployment Rate:

Year	2000	1990
Unemployment Rate	6.4%	6.3%

• Unemployment Rate Growth, 1990-2000: 1.01%

• Major Local Employers by Industry:

Major Local Employers	% of Cities in Cluster (w/ Industry as 1 of 3 Top Employers)
Retail trade	72%
Manufacturing	44%
Educational Services	39%
Health care and social assistance	28%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting	28%

Other Community Characteristics

• Date of Incorporation: 1903*

• Local Conditions Most Improved Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Drinking water systems	45%
Streets/bridges	27%
Sanitary Sewer	27%
Parks & recreation	27%
Sales tax base	27%

• Local Conditions Most Deteriorated Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall economic conditions of community	56%
Availability of quality affordable housing	33%
Overall city budget condition	22%
Traffic congestion	22%
Drugs/alcohol abuse	22%
Unemployment	22%
Vitality of downtown/main street	22%
State relations with city	22%

• Local Conditions Most Important to Address over Next 5 Years:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall economic conditions of community	67%
Overall city budget condition	44%
Streets/bridges	33%
Sales tax base	33%

Fiscal Conditions

General Financial Outlook

• Ability to Meet Needs Compared to Current Year:
  

	(% of Respondents)
	Less Able	Same	Better Able
Five years ago	64%	9%	27%
Next Year	91%	9%	0%
In Next Five Years	82%	9%	9%

Major Revenue Base

• Per Capita Assessed Value, 2002: $41,430

• Per Capita Sales Tax Revenue, 2002: $168

Significant Budget Drivers

• Top Positive & Negative Budget Influences:

Positive Budget Influences	% of Cities in Cluster		Negative Budget Influences	% of Cities in Cluster
Reliance on user fees to pay for city services	44%		Tax-limiting voter initiatives	60%
Amount of reserves	33%		Infrastructure needs	50%
Amount of federal aid to city	33%		Cost of employee health benefits	50%
Business/economic development	33%
Health of local economy	33%

Initiative Impacts

• Average Proportion of Operating Budget Lost Due to I-695 (MVET Repeal): 4.24%

• Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations:

Impacts	% of Cities in Cluster
Used reserves	63%
Eliminated staff positions	63%
Increased user fees	50%
Adopted new user fees	38%
Reduced staff training	38%
Reduced services	25%
Diverted services	25%
Increased taxes	25%
Eliminated services	13%

Transportation/Infrastructure

• Local Commuter Impacts
  Proportion of Employed Residents that Work in the City, 2000: 55%

• Infrastructure Needs
  (In order: most important to least important)

New Capacity Needs	Replacement Needs
Sewer Water Stormwater Sidewalks Street lighting Bridges Streets	Sewer Stormwater Water Streets Street lighting Sidewalks Bridges

• Delayed Capital Spending: Past and Future

Spending	% of Responding Cities (8) in Cluster
Delayed Spending over the Past 6 Years	63%
Expect to Delay Spending Over the Next 6 Years	88%

* = High degree of variability in cluster data

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

State of the Cities © 2005 Association of Washington Cities