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

Cluster 12

Medium Retail Hubs

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.	18,867	19,486	19,947	21,214	21,760	22,381	25,855	26,727	27,260	28,002	28,791	29,082	29,376

• Population Density, 2000: 2,341 persons per square mile*

• Population Growth Rate, 1990-2000: 54.4%

• Proportion of Housing Units Newly Built, 1990-2000: 23%*

• Proportion of Adults with a Bachelor’s or Higher Degree, 2000: 20%

• Proportion of Population in Racial/Ethnic Minority, 2000: 32%

Economy

• Median Household Income:

Year	1999	1989
Median Household Income	$39,119 (in 1989 dollars)	$34,911

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

• Poverty Rate, 1999: 14.5%

• Unemployment Rate:

Year	2000	1990
Unemployment Rate	4.9%*	4.8%

• Unemployment Rate Growth, 1990-2000: 0.78%

• Major Local Employers by Industry:

Major Local Employers by Industry	% of Cities in Cluster (w/ Industry as 1 of 3 Top Employers)
Retail trade	91%
Health care and social assistance	73%
Manufacturing	55%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting	18%
Accommodation and food services	18%
Construction	18%

Other Community Characteristics

• Date of Incorporation: 1923*

• Local Conditions Most Improved:

Local Conditions Most Improved Since 1999	% of Cities in Cluster
Vitality of downtown/main street	50%
Availability of quality affordable housing	38%
Vitality of neighborhoods	38%
Parks & recreation	38%

• Local Conditions Most Deteriorated:

Local Conditions Most Deteriorated Since 1999	% of Cities in Cluster
Traffic congestion	50%
Overall city budget condition	38%
City property tax base	38%

• Local Conditions Most Important to Address:

Local Conditions Most Important to Address Over Next 5 Yrs.	% of Cities in Cluster
Overall city budget condition	56%
Traffic congestion	44%
Vitality of downtown/main street	33%
Overall economic conditions of community	33%

Fiscal Conditions

General Financial Outlook

• Ability to Meet Needs Compared to Current Year:
  

	(% of Respondents)
	Less Able	Same	Better Able
Five years ago	67%	11%	22%
Next Year	67%	33%	0%
In Next Five Years	89%	0%	11%

Major Revenue Base

• Per Capita Assessed Value, 2002: $53,240

• Per Capita Sales Tax Revenue, 2002: $150

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
Value of city sales tax base	88%		Tax-limiting voter initiatives	75%
Business/economic development	38%		Cost of employee health benefits	63%
Amount of reserves	25%		Infrastructure needs	50%
Health of local economy	25%		Employee wages and salaries	50%
Reliance on user fees to pay for city services	25%

Initiative Impacts

• Average Proportion of Operating Budget Lost Due to I-695 (MVET Repeal): 5.49%

• Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations:

Impacts of Initiatives on City Services/Operations	% of Cities in Cluster
Used Reserves	86%
Reduced Staff Training	50%
Adopted New User Fees	50%
Eliminated Staff Positions	50%
Diverted Services	17%
Increased Taxes	50%
Reduced Services	33%
Increased User Fees	50%
Eliminated Services	0%

Transportation/Infrastructure

• Local Commuter Impacts
  Proportion of Employed Residents that Work in the City, 2000: 33%*

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

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

• Delayed Capital Spending: Past and Future

Spending	% of Responding Cities (5) in Cluster
Delayed Spending over the Past 6 Years	100%
Expect to Delay Spending Over the Next 6 Years	60%

* = High degree of variability in cluster data

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

State of the Cities © 2005 Association of Washington Cities