Mixed Resources

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

Size – Medium
Property value – High
Commercial activity – High
Growth – High
Geography – All west

Cluster characteristics
Population
Economic characteristics
Other community characteristics

Fiscal conditions
Major revenue base
General financial outlook

Arlington, Issaquah, Redmond, Snoqualmie, Tumwater, Woodinville

Situated near large urban cities, these cities have experienced rapid population growth in the past decade. In these cities, economic conditions have deteriorated within the past year, and two out of three expect increasing difficulty meeting needs. To cope with budget pressures, all of these cities have frozen hiring and laid off employees, and nearly all have been forced to reopen the 2009 budget in response to reduced revenues.

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. 7,786 11,570 12,770 13,005 13,535 13,775 13,965 14,265 15,030 15,415 16,930

Population density, 2009: 1,618 persons per square mile
Population growth rate, 2000-2009: 37.7%

Economic characteristics

Median household income (1999): $55,845
Poverty rate (1999): 7%
Major local employers by industry (1999):

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

Retail trade 100%

Manufacturing 67%

Health care and social services 50%

Other Community Characteristics

Date of incorporation: 1903
GMA-planning cities: 100%
Number of housing units:

2000 2009 Growth
2000-2009

4,892 7,308 39.4%

Fiscal Conditions

Major Revenue Base

Per capita assessed value, 2008: $242,019
Per capita sales & use tax revenue, 2008: $332
Decline in sales & use tax distributions, October 2007 - May 2009: 45%

General Financial Outlook

Change in local economic conditions since June 2008:

(% of respondents)

Improved 0%

Stayed about the same 0%

Worsened 100%

Ability to meet financial needs:

(% of respondents)

Less able Same Better able

This year (FY 2009) compared with four years ago 67% 17% 17%

Next year compared with this year 67% 17% 17%

Four years from now compared with this year 67% 17% 17%

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) 33% 67% 0%

Decreased the number of hours/days worked or imposed furloughs 33% 33% 33%

Offered voluntary leave without pay 0% 50% 50%

Laid off employees 67% 33% 0%

Compensation/benefit changes

Eliminated salary increases for employees 0% 0% 100%

Delayed or reduced salary increases for employees 0% 0% 100%

Reduced spending on some employee benefits (i.e. deferred compensation, health care) 0% 33% 67%

Eliminated some employee benefits (i.e. deferred compensation, health care) 0% 0% 100%

Required increased employee contributions for employee/family health care 0% 0% 100%

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

Have taken these steps 83%

Had not but considered likely 0%

Had not and did not consider likely 17%

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% 0% 40% 20% 40% 0%

Public safety spending 0% 0% 60% 20% 20% 0%

General government spending 0% 0% 0% 20% 80% 0%

Scope of services 0% 20% 60% 20% 0% 0%

Size of workforce 0% 0% 0% 40% 60% 0%

AWC Website | About AWC | Contact Us

Cluster 10