Rural Communities

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

Size – Small
Property value – Low
Commercial activity – Low
Growth – Low
Geography – East and west

Cluster characteristics
Population
Economic characteristics
Other community characteristics

Fiscal conditions
Major revenue base
General financial outlook

Almira, Asotin, Bridgeport, Clarkston, College Place, Creston, Cusick, Dayton, Elmer City, Endicott, Farmington, Garfield, George, Hamilton, Harrington, Hartline, Hatton, Hoquiam, Ione, Kettle Falls, Kittitas, LaCrosse, Lamont, Lyman, Malden, Mansfield, Marcus, Mattawa, McCleary, Metaline, Nespelem, Northport, Oakesdale, Oakville, Odessa, Palouse, Pe Ell, Pomeroy, Riverside, Rosalia, Royal City, Soap Lake, South Bend, Sprague, Starbuck, Tekoa, Vader, Waitsburg, Warden, Washtucna, Waterville, Wilbur, Wilson Creek, Winlock

These small communities have a strong rural character, with top employers in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting industries. Collectively, these communities have the smallest median operating budgets and populations of any other city cluster. More than half of these officials report the local economy has worsened and more than half have reopened their 2009 budget due to a reduction in revenues before the end of the year, or expect to do so. Nearly 60 percent of cities reopening budgets have reduced general government spending.

All data is recorded as median value for all cities in the cluster.

Data for individual cities may vary significantly in some categories.

Cluster Characteristics

Population

Average population size:

Year 1990 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Pop. 478 559 570 573 568 560 562 573 575 585 590

Population density, 2009: 747 persons per square mile
Population growth rate, 2000-2009: 0.8%

Economic characteristics

Median household income (1999): $28,893
Poverty rate (1999): 20%
Major local employers by industry (1999):

Major local employers % of cities in cluster
(w/ industry as 1 of 3 top employers)

Retail trade 54%

Health care and social services 52%

Educational services 48%

Other Community Characteristics

Date of incorporation: 1905
GMA-planning cities: 52%
Number of housing units:

2000 2009 Growth
2000-2009

241 268 2.4%

Fiscal Conditions

Major Revenue Base

Per capita assessed value, 2008: $35,751
Per capita sales & use tax revenue, 2008: $54
Decline in sales & use tax distributions, October 2007 - May 2009: 12%

General Financial Outlook

Change in local economic conditions since June 2008:

(% of respondents)

Improved 8%

Stayed about the same 38%

Worsened 54%

Ability to meet financial needs:

(% of respondents)

Less able Same Better able

This year (FY 2009) compared with four years ago 50% 37% 13%

Next year compared with this year 50% 43% 7%

Four years from now compared with this year 57% 33% 10%

Steps taken to balance the budget:

(% of respondents)

Adopted with 2009 budget Imposed after 2009 budget was adopted Not as of survey date

Staffing changes

Froze hiring (city is not replacing employees when they leave/retiree) 8% 8% 85%

Decreased the number of hours/days worked or imposed furloughs 8% 0% 92%

Offered voluntary leave without pay 4% 0% 96%

Laid off employees 16% 0% 84%

Compensation/benefit changes

Eliminated salary increases for employees 0% 8% 92%

Delayed or reduced salary increases for employees 8% 0% 92%

Reduced spending on some employee benefits (i.e. deferred compensation, health care) 16% 4% 80%

Eliminated some employee benefits (i.e. deferred compensation, health care) 8% 0% 92%

Required increased employee contributions for employee/family health care 12% 4% 84%

Cities reopening budget or decreasing expenditures in response to reduced revenues:

Have taken these steps 23%

Had not but considered likely 32%

Had not and did not consider likely 45%

Actions cities are taking to balance budgets for remainder of 2009 (shows responses only from cities planning to amend budgeted expenditures):

Significant increase Slight increase Maintain Slight decrease Significant decrease Not authorized in your city

Infrastructure spending 0% 6% 38% 38% 13% 6%

Public safety spending 0% 0% 47% 33% 13% 7%

General government spending 6% 6% 18% 59% 12% 0%

Scope of services 0% 0% 67% 27% 7% 0%

Size of workforce 0% 7% 67% 13% 7% 7%

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

Cluster 6