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

Cluster 6

Rural Communities

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.	1,005	1,016	1,033	1,054	1,087	1,104	1,128	1,149	1,172	1,180	1,190	1,203	1,198

• Population Density, 2000: 1,062 persons per square mile

• Population Growth Rate, 1990-2000: 20.0%

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

• Proportion of Adults with a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree, 2000: 12%

• Proportion of Population in Racial/Ethnic Minority, 2000: 18%*

Economy

• Median Household Income:

Year	1999	1989
Median Household Income	$28,893 (in 1989 dollars)	$28,591

• Median Household Income Growth, 1989-1999 (Inflation Adjusted): 4%*

• Poverty Rate, 1999: 20%

• Unemployment Rate:

Year	2000	1990
Unemployment Rate	6.6%*	6.4%

• Unemployment Rate Growth, 1990-2000: 1.10%

• Major Local Employers by Industry:

Major Local Employers	% of Cities in Cluster (w/ Industry as 1 of 3 Top Employers)
Educational Services	54%
Health care and social assistance	52%
Retail trade	50%
Manufacturing	43%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting	39%

Other Community Characteristics

• Date of Incorporation: 1908

• Local Conditions Most Improved Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Sanitary sewer	33%
Drinking water systems	33%
Parks & Recreation	33%

• Local Conditions Most Deteriorated :

Local Conditions Most Deteriorated Since 1999	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall city budget condition	61%
Drugs/alcohol abuse	35%
Overall economic conditions of community	35%

• Local Conditions Most Important to Address:

Local Conditions Most Important to Address Over Next 5 Yrs.	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall city budget condition	62%
Overall economic conditions of community	36%
Sales tax base	32%

Fiscal Conditions

General Financial Outlook

• Ability to Meet Needs Compared to Current Year:
  

	(% of Respondents)
	Less Able	Same	Better Able
Five years ago	81%	15%	4%
Next Year	69%	27%	4%
In Next Five Years	88%	8%	4%

Major Revenue Base

• Per Capita Assessed Value, 2002: $27,370

• Per Capita Sales Tax Revenue, 2002: $46

Significant Budget Drivers

• Top 3 Positive & Negative Budget Influences:

Top 3 Positive Budget Influences	% of Cities in Cluster		Top 3 Negative Budget Influences	% of Cities in Cluster
Reliance on user fees to pay for city services	68%		Amount of state aid to city	46%
Amount of Reserves	45%		Cost of employee health benefits	46%
Value of city property tax base	27%		Tax-limiting voter initiatives	46%
Amount of state aid to city	27%

Initiative Impacts

• Average Proportion of Operating Budget Lost Due to I-695 (MVET Repeal): 26.42%

• Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations:

Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations	% of Cities in Cluster
Increased User Fees	59%
Reduced Staff Training	53%
Increased Taxes	47%
Eliminated Staff Positions	41%
Used Reserves	41%
Reduced Services	29%
Eliminated Services	18%
Adopted New User Fees	12%
Diverted Services	12%

Transportation/Infrastructure

• Local Commuter Impacts
  Proportion of Employed Residents that Work in the City, 2000: 31%*

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

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

• Delayed Capital Spending: Past and Future

Spending	% of Responding Cities (16) in Cluster
Delayed Spending over the Past 6 Years	63%
Expect to Delay Spending Over the Next 6 Years	56%

* = High degree of variability in cluster data

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

State of the Cities © 2005 Association of Washington Cities