Major Commercial Centers

Overview | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

Auburn, Federal Way, Fife, Kent, Lynnwood, Olympia, Puyallup, Renton, Richland, SeaTac, Spokane Valley, Tukwila

Size:
Varies, but mostly medium to large.

Growth:
Low to moderate growth over the 1990s.

Fiscal:
High commercial activity, and low to moderate median household income among residents in metro areas.

For more information about cluster size, growth and fiscal condition, visit 2005 cluster profile.

Economic Development
Planning

Data on this page was collected from an AWC survey on economic development.

Economic Development in Cluster 13 Communities

Percent of cities with economic development departments or staff members: 80%
- Year city began to fund department or staff member: 1994 to 2005
- Number of FTE designated for economic development purposes: 1 to 4.5 FTE
Percent of cities with a written economic development plan: 80%
- Percent of cities using the economic development element of the comprehensive plan as their economic development plan (reported percentage is of those answering yes to previous question): 67%

Focus of city economic development efforts

Industry Area	% of Cities in Cluster
Retail/Service	100%
Technology/Telecommunications	63%
Tourism/Hospitality	63%
Manufacturing	50%
Institutional	38%
Residential (commuters)	38%
Warehousing/Distribution	25%
Agricultural	0%
Comments made under “other” by one or more cities: Downtown redevelopment; Professional/technical workforce development

Major city economic development strategies*

Strategies	% of Cities in Cluster
Quality of Life Improvements	100%
Downtown Revitalization	100%
Infrastructure Improvements	89%
Industrial Parks	50%
Comments made under “other” by one or more cities: Redevelopment incentives; Small business…

City services used to promote economic development*

Services	% of Cities in Cluster
Infrastructure	100%
Streamlined Permitting Process	100%
Location Demographic and/or Other Data Provisions	100%
Parks/Recreation Services	100%
Zoning	100%
Real Estate Development	88%
Community Center Operations	88%
Marketing for Businesses, Business Area, Downtown, etc.	75%
Arts/Cultural Services	75%
Streamlined Business Licensing	71%
Online Development Services	63%
Advanced Telecommunications Provisions	57%
Child Care and/or Youth Programs	50%
Special Event and Facility Services	50%

Tools used to promote economic development*

Tools	% of Cities in Cluster
Special Assessment District/LIDs	75%
Public Facilities Districts (PFD)/Public Development Authority (PDA)	63%
Community Development Block Grant	63%
Public Works Trust Fund Low Interest Loans	50%
Comments made under “other” by one or more cities: Tourism enhancements

Major city barriers to economic development*

Barriers	% of Cities in Cluster
Lack of Flexibility of Local Taxing/Revenue Options	75%
Inadequate Infrastructure	63%
Lack of Private Sector Capital/Funding	63%
Availability of Commercial/Industrial Land	63%
Cost of Land	50%
High Cost of Labor	50%
State Taxes	50%
Environmental Regulations	50%
Comments made under “other” by one or more cities: Lack infrastructure funding mechanism; Need more transit and better education; City center property owners

Infrastructure improvement and expansion needs that are barriers to economic development

Industry Area	% of Cities in Cluster
Streets	75%
Stormwater	50%
Sewer	38%
Advanced Telecommunications	38%
Sidewalks	38%
Water Availability/Quality	25%
Bridges	25%
Comments made under “other” by one or more cities: Parking; Freeway capacity; Access to transit; Limited egress/ingress over Yakima River; Free access point

* Items noted were indicated by 50% or more of cities within the city cluster