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

Cluster 4

Moderate Commercial Areas

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.	1,333	1,345	1,360	1,388	1,395	1,406	1,435	1,435	1,436	1,423	1,433	1,442	1,443

• Population Density, 2000: 877 persons per square mile*

• Population Growth Rate, 1990-2000: 8.7%

• Proportion of Housing Units Newly Built, 1990-2000: 12%

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

• Proportion of Population in Racial/Ethnic Minority, 2000: 12%*

Economy

• Median Household Income:

Year	1999	1989
Median Household Income	$29,871* (in 1989 dollars)	$26,754

• Median Household Income Growth, 1989-1999 (Inflation Adjusted): 16%

• Poverty Rate, 1999: 18%*

• Unemployment Rate:

Year	2000	1990
Unemployment Rate	4.8%*	4.8%

• Unemployment Rate Growth, 1990-2000: -0.25%

• Major Local Employers by Industry:

Major Local Employers	% of Cities in Cluster (w/ Industry as 1 of 3 Top Employers)
Retail trade	75%
Manufacturing	60%
Health care and social assistance	50%
Educational Services	45%
Accommodation and food services	35%

Other Community Characteristics

• Date of Incorporation: 1905*

• Local Conditions Most Improved Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Drinking water systems	43%
Sanitary Sewer	36%
Homeland Security/Emergency Preparedness	21%
Vitality of downtown/main street	21%
Parks & Recreation	21%
Volunteerism/community services	21%

• Local Conditions Most Deteriorated Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Drugs/alcohol abuse	46%
Unemployment	38%
Overall economic conditions of community	23%
Overall city budget condition	23%

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

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Streets/bridges	54%
Drugs/alcohol abuse	38%
Overall economic conditions of community	31%
Unemployment	31%
Overall city budget condition	31%

Fiscal Conditions

General Financial Outlook

• Ability to Meet Needs Compared to Current Year:
  

	(% of Respondents)
	Less Able	Same	Better Able
Five years ago	73%	9%	18%
Next Year	55%	45%	0%
In Next Five Years	82%	18%	0%

Major Revenue Base

• Per Capita Assessed Value, 2002: $44,340

• Per Capita Sales Tax Revenue, 2002: $95

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	42%		Cost of employee health benefits	42%
Health of local economy	42%		Tax-limiting voter initiatives	42%
Reliance on user fees to pay for city services	25%		Infrastructure needs	33%
Amount of federal aid to city	25%
Homeland security	25%
Budget/economic development	25%

Initiative Impacts

• Average Proportion of Operating Budget Lost Due to I-695 (MVET Repeal): 11.59%

• Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations:

Impacts	% of Cities in Cluster
Used Reserves	57%
Increased Taxes	43%
Eliminated Staff Positions	43%
Reduced Staff Training	29%
Increased User Fees	14%
Adopted New User Fees	14%
Reduced Services	14%
Diverted Services	14%
Eliminated Services	0%

Transportation/Infrastructure

• Local Commuter Impacts
  Proportion of Employed Residents that Work in the City, 2000: 40%*

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

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

• Delayed Capital Spending: Past and Future

Spending	% of Responding Cities (4) in Cluster
Delayed Spending over the Past 6 Years	75%
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