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

Cluster 9

High Income 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.	4,206	4,277	4,286	4,284	4,286	4,295	4,338	4,363	4,390	4,379	4,376	4,369	4,373

• Population Density, 2000: 2,324 persons per square mile*

• Population Growth Rate, 1990-2000: 0.0%

• Proportion of Housing Units Newly Built, 1990-2000: 10%

• Proportion of Adults with a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree, 2000: 72%

• Proportion of Population in Racial/Ethnic Minority, 2000: 9%

Economy

• Median Household Income:

Year	1999	1989
Median Household Income	$122,074 (in 1989 dollars)	$103,477

• Median Household Income Growth, 1989-1999 (Inflation Adjusted): 17%

• Poverty Rate, 1999: 2.2%

• Unemployment Rate:

Year	2000	1990
Unemployment Rate	1.1%	1.1%

• Unemployment Rate Growth, 1990-2000: -0.03%

• Major Local Employers by Industry:

Major Local Employers by Industry	% of Cities in Cluster (w/ Industry as 1 of 3 Top Employers)
Health care and social assistance	100%
Professional, scientific, & technical svcs	86%
Manufacturing	43%
Retail trade	29%
Real estate and rental and leasing	14%
Educational services	14%

Other Community Characteristics

• Date of Incorporation: 1956

• Local Conditions Most Improved:

Local Conditions Most Improved Since 1999	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall sense of community	40%
Parks & Recreation	40%
Vitality of neighborhoods	40%
City property tax base	40%

• Local Conditions Most Deteriorated:

Local Conditions Most Deteriorated Since 1999	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall city budget condition	83%
Traffic congestion	33%
Public transportation/transit service	33%

• Local Conditions Most Important to Address:

Local Conditions Most Important to Address Over Next 5 Yrs.	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall city budget condition	75%
Traffic congestion	50%
City property 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	75%	0%	25%
Next Year	75%	25%	0%
In Next Five Years	100%	0%	0%

Major Revenue Base

• Per Capita Assessed Value, 2002: $458,770

• Per Capita Sales Tax Revenue, 2002: $166

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	83%		Tax-limiting voter initiatives	67%
Value of city property tax base	67%		Cost of employee health benefits	50%
Reliance on user fees to pay for city services	50%		Employee wages and salaries	33%

Initiative Impacts

• Average Proportion of Operating Budget Lost Due to I-695 (MVET Repeal): 5%

• Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations:

Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations	% of Cities in Cluster
Increased User Fees	100%
Increased Taxes	33%
Reduced Staff Training	0%
Eliminated Staff Positions	0%
Reduced Services	0%
Eliminated Services	0%
Adopted New User Fees	0%
Diverted Services	0%
Used Reserves	0%

Transportation/Infrastructure

• Local Commuter Impacts
  Proportion of Employed Residents that Work in the City, 2000: 12%

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

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

• Delayed Capital Spending: Past and Future

Spending	% of Responding Cities (3) in Cluster
Delayed Spending over the Past 6 Years	33%
Expect to Delay Spending Over the Next 6 Years	33%

* = High degree of variability in cluster data

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

State of the Cities © 2005 Association of Washington Cities