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

Cluster 11

Small Commercial Centers

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.	2876	3004	3111	3214	3345	3536	3814	3945	4265	4419	4552	4642	4706

• Population Density, 2000: 1,331 persons per square mile*

• Population Growth Rate, 1990-2000: 74.8%

• Proportion of Housing Units Newly Built, 1990-2000: 31%

• Proportion of Adults with a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree, 2000: 23%

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

Economy

• Median Household Income:

Year	1999	1989
Median Household Income	$39,639 (in 1989 dollars)	$32,294

• Median Household Income Growth, 1989-1999 (Inflation Adjusted): 15%*

• Poverty Rate, 1999: 10.9%

• Unemployment Rate:

Year	2000	1990
Unemployment Rate	4.0%*	3.7%

• Unemployment Rate Growth, 1990-2000: 0.72%

• Major Local Employers by Industry:

Major Local Employers	% of Cities in Cluster (w/ Industry as 1 of 3 Top Employers)
Retail trade	86%
Health care and social assistance	71%
Manufacturing	64%
Educational services	29%
Accommodation and food services	21%
Public Administration	21%

Other Community Characteristics

• Date of Incorporation: 1911*

• Local Conditions Most Improved Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall economic conditions of community	44%
Sales tax base	33%
City relationships with community groups	33%

• Local Conditions Most Deteriorated Since 1999:

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Traffic congestion	44%
Vitality of downtown/main street	33%
Sales tax base	22%
Overall city budget condition	22%
Streets/bridges	22%
Availability of quality affordable housing	22%
Overall economic conditions of community	22%
Drugs/alcohol abuse	22%
Sanitary sewer	22%
City property tax base	22%

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

Local Conditions	% of Cities in Cluster
Vitality of downtown/main street	56%
Overall city budget condition	33%
Drinking water systems	33%

Fiscal Conditions

General Financial Outlook

• Ability to Meet Needs Compared to Current Year:
  

	(% of Respondents)
	Less Able	Same	Better Able
Five years ago	56%	0%	44%
Next Year	67%	0%	33%
In Next Five Years	44%	22%	33%

Major Revenue Base

• Per Capita Assessed Value, 2002: $94,130

• Per Capita Sales Tax Revenue, 2002: $250

Significant Budget Drivers

• Top Positive & Negative Budget Influences:

Positive Budget Influences	% of Cities in Cluster		Negative Budget Influences	% of Cities in Cluster
Value of city property tax base	56%		Tax-limiting voter initiatives	67%
Value of city sales tax base	56%		Cost of employee health benefits	67%
Business/economic development	56%		Infrastructure needs	44%

Initiative Impacts

• Average Proportion of Operating Budget Lost Due to I-695 (MVET Repeal): 2.06%

• Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations:

Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations	% of Cities in Cluster
Used Reserves	33%
Reduced Staff Training	33%
Adopted New User Fees	33%
Eliminated Staff Positions	22%
Diverted Services	11%
Increased Taxes	11%
Reduced Services	11%
Increased User Fees	0%
Eliminated Services	0%

Transportation/Infrastructure

• Local Commuter Impacts
  Proportion of Employed Residents that Work in the City, 2000: 28%*

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

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

• Delayed Capital Spending: Past and Future

Spending	% of Responding Cities (5) in Cluster
Delayed Spending over the Past 6 Years	20%
Expect to Delay Spending Over the Next 6 Years	80%

* = High degree of variability in cluster data

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

State of the Cities © 2005 Association of Washington Cities