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

Cluster 3

Tourism/Light Industrial Hubs

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.	2,154	2,280	2,336	2,392	2,476	2,601	2,651	2,718	2,760	2,839	2,890	2,936	3,085

• Population Density, 2000: 1,038 persons per square mile*

• Population Growth Rate, 1990-2000: 28.5%

• Proportion of Housing Units Newly Built, 1990-2000: 23%

• Proportion of Adults with a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree, 2000: 20%

• Proportion of Population in Racial/Ethnic Minority, 2000: 11%

Economy

• Median Household Income:

Year	1999	1989
Median Household Income	$33,151 (in 1989 dollars)	$30,308

• Median Household Income Growth, 1989-1999 (Inflation Adjusted): 10%*

• Poverty Rate, 1999: 15%

• Unemployment Rate:

Year	2000	1990
Unemployment Rate	4.2%*	4.2%

• Unemployment Rate Growth, 1990-2000: 0.21%

• Major Local Employers by Industry:

Major Local Employers	% of Cities in Cluster (w/ Industry as 1 of 3 Top Employers)
Retail trade	82%
Manufacturing	47%
Construction	24%
Health care and social assistance	76%
Accommodation and food services	47%

Other Community Characteristics

• Date of Incorporation: 1908*

• Local Conditions Most Improved Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Sanitary Sewer	82%
Overall economic conditions of community	55%
Drinking water systems	55%
Vitality of downtown/main street	55%

• Local Conditions Most Deteriorated Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall economic conditions of community	90%
Availability of quality affordable housing	60%
Traffic congestion	60%
Drugs/alcohol abuse	30%
Sales tax base	30%
State relations with city	30%

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

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall economic conditions of community	55%
Availability of quality affordable housing	55%
Traffic congestion	55%

Fiscal Conditions

General Financial Outlook

• Ability to Meet Needs Compared to Current Year:
  

	(% of Respondents)
	Less Able	Same	Better Able
Five years ago	70%	30%	0%
Next Year	60%	20%	20%
In Next Five Years	70%	20%	10%

Major Revenue Base

• Per Capita Assessed Value, 2002: $89,110

• Per Capita Sales Tax Revenue, 2002: $254

Significant Budget Drivers

• Top Positive & Negative Budget Influences:

Positive Budget Influences	% of Cities in Cluster		Negative Budget Influences	% of Cities in Cluster
Amount of Reserves	55%		Cost of employee health benefits	82%
Value of city sales tax base	55%		Tax-limiting voter initiatives	64%
Health of local economy	45%		State/federal mandates	36%

Initiative Impacts

• Average Proportion of Operating Budget Lost Due to I-695 (MVET Repeal): 3.19%

• Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations:

Impacts	% of Cities in Cluster
Increased Taxes	63%
Reduced Staff Training	50%
Used Reserves	38%
Eliminated Staff Positions	25%
Increased User Fees	13%
Adopted New User Fees	13%
Reduced Services	0%
Diverted Services	0%
Eliminated Services	0%

Transportation/Infrastructure

• Local Commuter Impacts
  Proportion of Employed Residents that Work in the City, 2000: 49%*

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

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

• Delayed Capital Spending: Past and Future

Spending	% of Responding Cities (3) in Cluster
Delayed Spending over the Past 6 Years	67%
Expect to Delay Spending Over the Next 6 Years	100%

* = High degree of variability in cluster data

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

State of the Cities © 2005 Association of Washington Cities