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

Cluster 8

Residential 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.	7,552	8,591	8,899	9,250	9,623	10,006	13,073	13,567	14,112	14,663	15,770	16,009	16,256

• Population Density, 2000: 2,484 persons per square mile*

• Population Growth Rate, 1990-2000: 114.7%

• Proportion of Housing Units Newly Built, 1990-2000: 30%*

• Proportion of Adults with a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree, 2000: 35%

• Proportion of Population in Racial/Ethnic Minority, 2000: 15%

Economy

• Median Household Income:

Year	1999	1989
Median Household Income	$63,237 (in 1989 dollars)	$56,574

• Median Household Income Growth, 1989-1999 (Inflation Adjusted): 24%*

• Poverty Rate, 1999: 4.5%

• Unemployment Rate:

Year	2000	1990
Unemployment Rate	2.7%	2.7%

• Unemployment Rate Growth, 1990-2000: 0.50%

• Major Local Employers by Industry:

Major Local Employers by Industry	% of Cities in Cluster (w/ Industry as 1 of 3 Top Employers)
Manufacturing	93%
Retail trade	85%
Health care and social assistance	59%
Construction	22%
Professional, scientific, & technical svcs	19%
Educational services	19%

Other Community Characteristics

• Date of Incorporation: 1956

• Local Conditions Most Improved:

Local Conditions Most Improved Since 1999	% of Cities in Cluster
Pedestrian-friendly environment	30%
Parks & Recreation	30%
Vitality of neighborhoods	25%

• Local Conditions Most Deteriorated:

Local Conditions Most Deteriorated Since 1999	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall city budget condition	58%
Traffic congestion	53%
Sales tax base	21%

• Local Conditions Most Important to Address:

Local Conditions Most Important to Address Over Next 5 Yrs.	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall city budget condition	65%
Traffic congestion	50%
Sales tax base	50%

Fiscal Conditions

General Financial Outlook

• Ability to Meet Needs Compared to Current Year:
  

	(% of Respondents)
	Less Able	Same	Better Able
Five years ago	71%	8%	21%
Next Year	83%	13%	4%
In Next Five Years	83%	8%	8%

Major Revenue Base

• Per Capita Assessed Value, 2002: $85,990

• Per Capita Sales Tax Revenue, 2002: $74

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
Amount of reserves	59%		Tax-limiting voter initiatives	78%
Reliance on user fees to pay for city services	55%		Amount of state aid to city	48%
Value of city property tax base	55%		Cost of employee health benefits	43%

Initiative Impacts

• Average Proportion of Operating Budget Lost Due to I-695 (MVET Repeal): 15.18%

• Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations:

Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations	% of Cities in Cluster
Used Reserves	52%
Increased Taxes	48%
Increased User Fees	57%
Reduced Staff Training	38%
Eliminated Staff Positions	38%
Reduced Services	38%
Eliminated Services	19%
Adopted New User Fees	14%
Diverted Services	10%

Transportation/Infrastructure

• Local Commuter Impacts
  Proportion of Employed Residents that Work in the City, 2000: 14%

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

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

• Delayed Capital Spending: Past and Future

Spending	% of Responding Cities (10) in Cluster
Delayed Spending over the Past 6 Years	30%
Expect to Delay Spending Over the Next 6 Years	90%

* = High degree of variability in cluster data

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

State of the Cities © 2005 Association of Washington Cities