Document Moscow_doc_1759a9712f

Growth in Moscow: A Study of Modest Population Growth and Rising Economic Prosperity* Jon R. Miller Professor of Economics College of Business and Economics University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho Steven Peterson Research Economist and Instructor College of Business and Economics University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho Hank Robison Senior Economist EMSI Moscow, Idaho July 17, 2006 *The City of Moscow funded this study, in part. The authors wish to thank Joel D. Plaskon, Andrew Ackerman, Anne Clapperton, and Joel Hamilton for helpful comments and direction. The analysis, discussion and conclusions of this study, however, are solely those of the authors, and do not represent the views of the City of Moscow, the University of Idaho, or any of the individuals mentioned above. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 Table of Contents 1) Introduction, Summary and Conclusions 5 2) Objectives 8 3) An Economic Profile of Moscow 9 4) The Economic Base of Moscow 13 5) Indicators of Decelerating Population Growth in Moscow..... 16 i) 16 ii) Housing 19 iii) School 25 iv) Water 28 6) Indicators of Rising Economic Prosperity in 30 i) Employment 30 ii) 39 7) Possible Reasons for Modest Population and Employment Growth and Rising Economic Prosperity in the Moscow Area 47 i) In-migration of High-income 47 ii) The University of Idaho 54 iii) Washington State 63 iv) Dividends, Interest, Rent and 66 v) Population Growth in Neighboring Jurisdictions 66 vi) Drivers Licenses and Motor Vehicle Registrations 76 vii) Migration from 76 7) Concluding 77 8) Selected References 79 9) Appendices 80 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 Table of Figures Figure 1: Employment in Moscow by Economic Sector (Moscow Economic Figure 2: Earnings by sector (Moscow Economic Figure 3a: 2004 Economic Base of Moscow Figure 3b: 2004 Economic Base of Moscow Figure 4a: Population of Moscow by Figure 4b: Cumulative Percent Change in Employment of Moscow by Figure 4c: Average Annual Percent Change in Population of Moscow by Decade Figure 5a: Moscow Multi-Family/Duplex Housing Starts Figure 5b: Moscow Single Family Housing Starts Figure 5c: Moscow Total Housing Starts Figure 5d: Value of Moscow Single Family Housing Starts Figure 5e: Value of Moscow Multi-Family/Duplex Housing Starts 1985-2005 Figure 5f: Average Permit Value of Single Family Housing- Moscow and Figure 6a: School Enrollment in Moscow Figure 6b: Moscow School District Enrollment Figure 7a: Aggregate Water Use in Moscow 1963-2005 Figure 7b: Moscow Water Use January Versus July Figure 8a: Total Employment in Latah County Figure 8b: Latah County Average Annual Percent Change in Employment Figure 9a: Total Employment in Whitman County Figure 9b: Whitman County Average Annual Percent Change in Employment Figure 9c: Percent Change in Total Employment: Selected Figure 10a: Total Employment Lewis-Clark Valley 1970-2003 Figure 10b: Percent Change in Employment Lewis-Clark Valley 1970-2004 Figure 11a: Total Employment in Quad County Region Figure 11b: Total Employment in Quad County Region by County Figure 12a: Quad County Unemployment Rates Figure 12b: Annual Unemployment Rates for Selected Regions in Washington, 1990-2005 Figure 13a: Real Per Capita Personal Income in Latah County 1970-2005 Figure 13b: Rankings of Real Per Capita Income 1959-2005 by Decade for Idaho Figure 13c: Rankings of Real Median Family Income 1959-1999 by Decade for Idaho Counties..............42 Figure 14a: Real Per Capita Personal Income in Whitman County 1970-2004 Figure 14b: Rankings of Real Per Capita Income 1959-2005 by Decade for Washington Counties Figure 15: Real Per Capita Personal Income in Nez Perce County Figure 16: Real Per Capita Personal Income in Asotin County 1970-2003 Figure 17a: Commuting Patterns in the Quad County Region, 2000 Figure 17b: Latah and Whitman County Commuting Patterns Figure 17c: Net Residence Adjustment for the Quad County Region Figure 17d: Average Home Sale Prices in Latah County Figure 17e: Average Percent Change in Home Sale Prices Figure 18a: UI Enrollment on the Moscow Campus, 1953-2006 (Fall Count) Figure 18b: Annual Percent Change in Enrollment UI Campus 1980-2006 Figure 18c: Student Enrollment at Idaho Universities 1982-2005 Figure 18d: Total UI Employees Figure 18e: UI Employees 1999-2005, by Category Figure 18f: Total UI Budget from all Sources Figure 18g: State Appropriations to the UI 1977-2006 Figure 18h: UI Resident Student Fees Figure 18i: UI Non-Resident Student Tuition Figure 18j: UI External Research Funding ---PAGE BREAK--- 4 Figure 19a: Headcount Enrollment WSU Pullman Campus 1961-2005 Figure 19b: Annual Percentage Change Enrollment Pullman WSU 1986-2005 Figure 19c: Total WSU Staff (Headcount) Figure 19d: Annual Percent Change in WSU Staff Figure 20a: Dividends, Interest, and Rent for Latah and Whitman Counties Figure 20b: Dividends, Interest, and Rent for the Quad County Region (by County) 1969-2004 Figure 20c: Transfer Payments in the Quad County Region by County 1969-2004 Figure 21: Population of Other Cities and Unincorporated Areas in Latah County by Decade and 2004 ...67 Figure 22: Selected Cumulative Growth Rates in Latah County by Figure 23: Population in Latah County 1970-2005 Figure 24: Latah County Average Annual Percent Change in Population 1970-2005 Figure 25: Population in Whitman County 1970-2005 Figure 26: Whitman County Average Annual Percent Change Population 1970-2005 Figure 27: Population in Quad County Region by County Figure 28: Latah County as a Percent of Quad County Population Figure 29a: Driver Licenses in Latah County 1989-2005 Figure 29b :Motor Vehicle Registrations in Latah County 1986-2005 Figure 30a: Driver License Surrenders Latah County Figure 30b: Drive License Surrenders Latah County by State 2001 Table of Figure Continued ---PAGE BREAK--- 5 Introduction, Summary and Conclusions In 1995, we completed a study for the City of Moscow entitled “Why is Moscow Growing?” (Miller and Peterson, 1995). At that time concerns existed in the community that Moscow was growing rapidly and that its qual- ity of life might be in jeopardy. After careful study of many sources of data, we concluded that Moscow was growing, but slowly. We suggested that a housing boom coming on the heels of little building in the 1980s had fostered the appearance of rapid growth. Moscow appeared to be growing faster that it really was. This is, in part, an update of that original study, but not an identical one. For example, we have highlighted and extended in this study growth measures related to economic well being or prosperity, not just indicators of population growth. We also offer here a theory of why Moscow is becoming richer, and test this theory qualitatively with the data. We also use in this study a greatly improved model to provide a profile of Moscow’s economic base. We think, however, that the conclusions of this study will be no less surprising than those of our 1995 effort. We will present data in the follow- ing pages that report the following observable facts: ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 1) Moscow’s population continues to grow, but at a slow and decelerating rate. Even this moderate population growth stands out in the broad Quad- County Region, one in which aggregate population growth is close to zero. 2) Growth in Moscow’s population has not increased enrollment in the Mos- cow School District, nor has it led to increased aggregate water use. 3) Employment trends in Latah County roughly match those of population. 4) Patterns in dividends, interest, rent and transfer receipts in Latah County are similar to those in other counties in the region. 5) Through inferences from Latah County data, we show that the Moscow area is growing richer, especially when richness is measured in terms of median family income. Latah County now has the fourth highest median family income among counties in the State of Idaho. As recently as 1989, it ranked eighth. In 1969 it ranked 15th. 6) Latah County has the highest median family income among counties in the Quad-county region. This hasn’t always been the case. In 1989 it trailed both Nez Perce and Whitman Counties. 7) Moscow is experiencing a robust housing market, both in terms of the number and value of new housing starts and as measured by sales prices of existing houses. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7 These are a summary of the important facts about recent changes in growth and prosperity in Moscow, as we see them. Others might see different facts emerging from the data, but that, too, is an objective of this study, i.e., assembly of impor- tant data in one place in order to facilitate discussion of them. But developing in- formation from data, ascertaining trends, and comparing facts across different lo- cations and jurisdictions is only part of a regional economic story. As regional economists, we cannot resist the opportunity to theorize about why the facts lay the way they do in the region. How can we explain Moscow’s growth and rising prosperity relative to other places in the region? We suggest the following: 1) The University of Idaho (UI) continues to dominate Moscow’s economic base, so favorable trends at the UI in the 1990s could explain some of the population growth and rising economic prosperity of that decade. Likewise, harder times at the UI in the last 5 years might have contrib- uted to a further moderation in Moscow’s population growth. 2) Some of the increased prosperity in Moscow has been the result of a large increase in in-migration of higher-income out-commuters, espe- cially those who live in Latah County and work in Whitman County. In 2000, 2300 individuals lived in Latah County and worked in Whitman County. Only 978 commuted the other way, for an out-commuting ratio ---PAGE BREAK--- 8 with Whitman County of 2.35 to 1. In 1990, the comparable ratio was 2.58. In the Quad-county Region, 2.28 people live in Latah County and work in other counties for every one who commutes the other way. 3) Favorable trends at Washington State University, and higher wages and sala- ries there provide circumstantial evidence that is not inconsistent with our higher-income out-commuters theory. 4) While the effect of historic low mortgage rates undoubtedly stimulated the Moscow housing market, robust high value single-family housing construc- tion is also consistent with the high-income out-commuting theory. 5) And finally, and more speculatively, we suggest that: a high quality of life in Moscow and a willingness on the part of the com- munity to convert agricultural land to high-value housing is not inconsistent with our theory, both through the retention of higher-income UI employees and the attraction of families from other counties. Objectives Much like those in our 1995 study our objectives here are threefold. First we wish to describe recent trends in indicators of growth in Moscow and neighboring jurisdictions. As our last study of this topic was in 1995, the ensuing 10 or 11 years is of particular importance. Again, a benefit of this effort is that we assemble under one cover widely scattered information, and make it available in a user-friendly for- ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 mat. Second, we wish to provide an updated and improved method for providing an economic profile of Moscow, with special reference to a characterization of Moscow’s economic base. We rely in this effort on models developed by a Mos- cow company residing in the Alturus Business Park, EMSI. Finally, we will attempt to apply some expert judgement to the interpreta- tion of data on various growth indicators. We hope to shed light on why Moscow is growing and prospering the way it is. An Economic Profile of Moscow Economists love to tell a regional economics joke about Idaho. The State of Idaho has three capitals, only one of which is Boise. The other two are Salt Lake City and Spokane. Residents and businesses in Moscow pay taxes to the state government and receive services and other direct payments from Boise, but Moscow’s economy is much more related to that of Spokane, the Spokane Func- tional Economic Area, sometimes called the “Inland Empire” by old-timers or, in modern times when imperialism is out of fashion, the Inland Northwest Economy. This regional economy runs from southern British Columbia in the north to the Salmon River in the south, and from the western ranges of the Rocky Mountains in the east to the Columbia Basin in the west. ---PAGE BREAK--- 10 Spokane is the economic center of this regional economy, and performs what economists call central functions for its regional sub-centers such as Lewiston and Coeur d’ Alene, although it is harder and harder over time to dis- tinguish an economic boundary between Spokane and Coeur d’ Alene, as they merge into one metropolitan area. In turn, Lewiston performs some central functions for Moscow, but many would argue that this “regional dominance” is lessening over time. In like manner, Moscow performs central functions for smaller places in the region such as Troy, Deary, Potlatch and Genesee. Exam- ples of such functions include, among others, health care, legal and financial services, and retail trade. An economic profile of Moscow starts with a breakdown of its employ- ment and earnings by economic sector. These appear as Figures 1 and 2. Without surprise we show in these figures that state and local government dominates employment and earnings in Moscow. Of course, by far the largest component of state government is the University of Idaho (UI). Note that both state government and local government account for a higher percent of earn- ings than employment in Moscow, which reflects the higher relative wages and salaries in these sectors. Retail trade and eating/drinking/motels are sectors where the percent of earnings is smaller than the percent of employment, re- flecting relative relatively lower wages and salaries in these sectors. ---PAGE BREAK--- 11 Figure 1 2004 Employment in Moscow by Economic Sector (Percent of Total) 0.9% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 1.8% 2.0% 2.2% 2.3% 3.7% 4.4% 4.4% 4.7% 5.2% 7.3% 8.4% 10.1% 12.9% 26.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% Publishing/Communications Transportation Agriculture High Tech/Envir. Services Recreation/Arts Social Services Business Services Private Education Construction Legal/Professional Finance/Real Estate All Other Industries Other Services Medical Services Local Government Eating/Drinking/Motels Retail Trade State Government Industry Percentage Source: EMSI ---PAGE BREAK--- 12 Figure 2 2004 Earnings in Moscow by Economic Sector (Percent of Total) 1.0% 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.6% 1.6% 1.7% 2.9% 3.5% 3.7% 4.1% 4.6% 5.1% 8.2% 9.4% 11.2% 36.2% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% Agriculture Wholesale trade High Tech/Envir. Services Social Services Military Business Services Ag./Forestry Services Federal Government Finance/Real Estate Legal/Professional Other Services Eating/Drinking/Motels Construction All Other Industries Medical Services Retail Trade Local Government State Government Industry Percentage Source: EMSI ---PAGE BREAK--- 13 Another way to describe a local economy is through its economic base, those sectors of the economy that attract spending and income from outside the economy through sectors that export goods and services from the region. An aggregated version of Moscow’s economic base appears as Figure 3. The Economic Base of Moscow Idaho An economic base input-output model of Moscow, Idaho for year 2004 was created for this study. The modeling software and data were provided by economic modeling specialists (EMSI), a local Moscow firm. A county’s economy can be bifurcated into two types of economic activ- ity, base industries and non-base industries. Base industries are defined as any economic activity that brings income or new money into the region. These in- clude (but are not limited to) high technology companies, agriculture, wood products, general manufacturing, tourism, and portions of wholesale and retail trade industries. Local firms providing retail trade sales or services to indi- viduals living outside the region are included in the region’s base. Payments from state and federal governments are also part of the economic base and in- clude Social Security, Medicare, university funding, student loans, and wel- fare. In university communities, most student-related spending is considered ---PAGE BREAK--- 14 basic. An economic base assessment allocates and attributes all economic activity to its base sectors. Non-base industries are defined as economic activity within a region that support local consumers and businesses within the base sector, re- circulating incomes generated within the region. Non-base industries support the base industries. Four major basic industries were identified for Moscow. The first is the University of Idaho (UI), which included all sources of university expen- ditures such as student spending, student related tourism, research spending, auxiliary services, state spending, and all other related spending except for UI retirees (Figures 3a and 3b). The UI accounts for 52.6% of all jobs (9,383) and 53.9% of all earnings ($265 million) in Moscow. These include the direct, indirect, and induced effects multiplier effects). The second largest base activity is “all other” industries which in- cludes agriculture, Alturas Technology Park, non-UI government, and other industries. It contributes 31.2% of all jobs (5,574) and 32.5% of all earnings ($160 million). The third largest basic industry is the “central function”, which accounts for Moscow’ role as the regional trade hub for Latah County and surrounding regions. It accounts for 9.2% of all jobs (1,641) and 8.1% of all earnings ($40 million). Finally, residents’ outside income includes the ---PAGE BREAK--- 15 Figure 3b Figure 3a 2004 Economic Base of Moscow (Employment) ROI, 1255, 7% Central Function, 1,641, 9% All Other, 5,574, 31% UI, 9,383, 53% Source: EMSI 2004 Economic Base of Moscow, Earnings ($1,000) All Other, $159,935, 32% ROI, $27,287, 6% Central Function, $4,001, 3.9 % UI, $265,453, 54% Source: EMSI ---PAGE BREAK--- 16 economic impacts of dividends, interest, rent, and transfer payments that bring income into the community. It accounts for 7% of all jobs (1,255) and 5.5% of all earnings ($27.3 million). In total there are 17,893 jobs in Moscow and $493 million in earnings in 2004. Indicators of Decelerating Population Growth in Moscow As we stated above, one objective of this study is to describe recent growth in Moscow and relate it to Moscow’s growth in earlier periods. One form of this growth is population growth, and activities that are related to it, such as housing construction, school enrollment, and water use. We begin in the next section with population growth. Population Figures 4a - 4c summarize Moscow’s population picture. Figure 4a shows Moscow population at each census year since 1960 and a population estimate for 2004, the latest year that city population estimates are available from the U.S. Census. Moscow has grown every decade since 1960, with the population almost doubling in these 44 years. This pattern continues into the present decade. While population continues to grow in Moscow, the rate of growth has been moderate. Furthermore, the rate of population growth appears to ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 Population of Moscow, Idaho, by Decade and 2004 11,183 14,146 16,513 18,519 21,297 21,900 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 Year Population Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Figure 4a Figure 4b Cumulative Percent Change in Population of Moscow, Idaho, by Decade 26% 17% 12% 15% 7% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2004 Year Population Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimated Decade Growth ---PAGE BREAK--- 18 Figure 4c Annual Average Percent Change in Population of Moscow, Idaho, by Decade, and 2000-2004 2.4% 1.6% 1.2% 1.4% 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2004 Year Population Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Estimated Decade Growth ---PAGE BREAK--- 19 be decelerating. Figure 4b shows the cumulative percent growth in popula- tion by decade and for 2000 – 2004 expanded to a decade basis. Note that cumulative growth in the 1960s was 3.7 times larger that that which will occur in the present decade if current annual growth rates continue. While growth accelerated moderately in the 1990s, compared to the 1980s, recent experience suggests continuation of a downward trend in population growth. Figure 4c shows this trend of decelerating growth in terms of aver- age annual percent changes by decade. Housing Construction If population grows in Moscow, we would expect it to be reflected in activities related to this growth. Housing is a good example. In 1995, when we last examined trends in housing construction in Moscow, we noted that Moscow was in the midst of a housing boom [Miller and Peter- son, 1995, p. 24]. In the last eleven years, new construction has had its nor- mal oscillations up and down, but continues strong, in spite of moderating population growth. Also in 1995, we noted that new construction in Mos- cow appeared to be even greater, as it came on the heels of a construction glut in the mid to late 1980s. This was especially true in multi-family con- struction. ---PAGE BREAK--- 20 Moscow Multi-Family/Duplex Housing Starts- 1972-2005 70 18 24 41 119 277 40 47 60 30 27 101 119 77 58 8 4 4 20 16 120 134 124 176 81 52 23 12 53 43 182 53 188 226 0 50 100 150 200 [PHONE REDACTED] 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Dwelling Units Average Building Starts Mutli-Family = 64 Per Year Duplex = 14 Per Year Source: City of Moscow Figure 5a ---PAGE BREAK--- 21 Moscow Single Family Housing Starts-1972-2005 36 25 21 36 46 83 58 43 42 35 12 28 34 28 18 15 17 20 45 47 70 64 47 55 75 33 37 32 46 46 54 46 6163 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Dwelling Units Average Building Starts Single Family = 42 Dwelling Units Per Year Source: City of Moscow Figure 5b Figure 5c Moscow Total Housing Starts- 1972-2005 106 4345 77 165 [PHONE REDACTED] 65 39 129 153 105 76 2124 63 198 171 231 156 85 60 44 9989 236 99 249 289 190 65 23 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 [PHONE REDACTED] 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Dwelling Units Source: City of Moscow Average Building Starts = 119 Dwelling Units Per Year ---PAGE BREAK--- 22 Figure 5a shows Multi-Family (including duplex) housing starts in Moscow from 1972-2005. A few observations can be drawn from this figure. First, for whatever reason, multi-family housing starts are volatile, ranging from a high of 277 in 1977 to a low of 4 in 1988 and 1989. Over this thirty-year period, multi- family housing starts averaged 78 per year. Second, after a relative peak in 1996, multi-family construction cooled greatly in the late 1990s, only to resume an up- ward trend in the early part of this decade. Finally, in 2005, multifamily starts rose to near historical highs. Only the boom year of 1977 had a higher number of starts. A similar, though not identical, story emerges for single-family construc- tion. We see in Figure 5b that single-family construction is also volatile, ranging from a high in 1977 of 83 starts to a low of 12 starts in 1982. The late 1980s were also slow years for single-family construction in Moscow. Again, as with multi- family construction, single-family construction was above average in the 1990s, slowed somewhat in the late 1990s, and trended upward again in the early part of this decade. However, in contrast with multi-family construction, single-family housing starts have not risen to the level they achieved in the mid 1990s. We combine multi-family and single-family housing starts in Figure 5c. Again, the pattern over 33 years is a spike in 1977, a large trough in the mid 1980s, a boom in the early to mid 1990s, cooling in the late 90s, and a boom again ---PAGE BREAK--- 23 Value of Moscow Single Family Housing Starts- 1985-2005 in Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars $2.5 $3.4 $1.7$2.0$2.5 $6.7 $5.7 $8.5 $7.8 $6.6 $10.2 $13.6 $4.9$5.4 $4.6 $7.1 $7.9 $9.7 $7.4 $12.0 $13.7 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Millions of Dollars Source: City of Moscow Figure 5d Value of Moscow Multi-Family/Duplex Housing Starts- 1985-2005 in Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars 2.2 2.9 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 5.2 5.7 5.5 5.2 4.9 2.8 1.3 0.9 2.6 4.0 12.5 4.4 12.5 19.2 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Millions of Constant 2005 Dollars Source: City of Moscow and U.S. Bureau of the Census Figure 5e ---PAGE BREAK--- 24 Average Permit Value for Single Family Housing Starts in Moscow and Pullman, in Constant 2005 Dollars $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Real 2005 Dollars Moscow Pullman Excludes Mobile Homes Source: City of Moscow / City of Pullman Figure 5f ---PAGE BREAK--- 25 in the early part of this decade. In three of the last four years, we experienced more housing starts than in all but one year in the last 33 years. Because we don’t have data on the total number of housing units in Moscow over time, we cannot calculate percent changes in the housing stock. But this aside, examina- tion of the housing start data suggests that the slowing of the growth in Moscow population has not manifested itself in slower growth in housing construction. It also appears from the data that new housing in Moscow is adding to the wealth of the community. We see in Figure 5d an upward trend in the real value of single-family housing starts. Comparable data for multi-family units appears in Figure 5e. While these data are not on a per unit basis, they do indicate that value has kept pace with the sheer numbers of starts. In Figure 5f we present information on average real value of single family housing starts in both Moscow and Pullman. In the last ten years, the value per start is reasonably high and trending upward. Throughout the 1990s and into this decade, Moscow appears to have added high value units to its single-family housing stock. School Enrollment As shown in Figure 6a, Moscow School District, including charter schools, accounts for 87% of school enrollment in Moscow. Figures for Mos- ---PAGE BREAK--- 26 School Enrollment in Moscow, 2004 2374, 82% 154, 5% 250, 9% 126, 4% Moscow School District Charter Schools Logos St. Marys Moscow School District Enrollment 1984-2005 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Students Moscow School District (No Charters) Moscow School District (With Charters) Source: Moscow School Districts Figure 6a Figure 6b ---PAGE BREAK--- 27 cow School District are hard numbers. St. Mary’s and Logos School enrollment are based on estimates. In 1995 we presented a similar figure showing school en- rollment in Moscow. While charter schools did not exist at that time, our estimate of the relative percentages of school enrollment, by school, were about the same then. We suggest, again from incomplete data on Moscow private schools, that the relative composition of school enrollment has changed very little in the last decade. In Figure 6b, we show a time series of Moscow School District enrollment for the last 22 years. Enrollment grew in the late 1990s, remained flat in the early to mid 1990s, then declined until 2000. The coming of charter schools in Mos- cow coincides with an end to the decline in total enrollment in the Moscow School District. Traditional Moscow school enrollment continued to trend down- ward in the early part of this decade, while charter enrollment grew and compen- sated for it. We speculate that the availability of charter schools provided an alter- native to private and home schooling in Moscow, arresting the decline in total en- rollment. While the declining trend in school enrollment in the Moscow School Dis- trict has stopped, we certainly would not call this development a transition to rapid growth in enrollment. If our estimates of flat to modest growth in private school enrollment in private schools are correct, we see nothing in school enroll- ---PAGE BREAK--- 28 ment figures to suggest patterns contrary to those we find in Moscow’s population. These conclusions, of course, must be tempered by the fact that demographic con- siderations are beyond the scope of this study. School enrollment trends are driven not only by total numbers of people, per se, but also by the composition of that population. Because the population of Moscow is rising, we suspect an aging population and lower family size are influencing school enrollment. Water Use Another indirect measure of population growth is water use. If water use per capita remains constant, trends in water use will match trends in population. In Fig- ure 7a we show aggregate water use in the City of Moscow. This does not include water use at the University of Idaho. After steadily increasing in the 1980s and early 1990s, annual water use in Moscow has not grown. Because much water use occurs in outdoor watering, and because this use is weather-dependent, fluctuations in water use can stem from weather changes and not changes in population. In Figure 7b, we show January versus July water use in Moscow. Note that January water use is flat or declining since the mid 1990s, sug- gesting that reduced water use has not been the result favorable summer watering weather. As we have seen that the population of Moscow is growing, albeit at slowly ---PAGE BREAK--- 29 Figure 7a Aggregate Water Use in Moscow 1963-2005 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 [PHONE REDACTED] 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Year Millions of Gallons Source: City of Moscow Note: Year 2004 estimated from first 6 months of data Moscow Water Use, January Versus July 1993-2004 (Millions of Gallons) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 [PHONE REDACTED] 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Millions of gallons January July Figure 7b ---PAGE BREAK--- 30 and at declining rates, and that construction has risen rapidly, flat water use is an indication that water conservation measures in Moscow have had some suc- cess in recent years. Again, as with population and school enrollment, water use information coincides with an assessment of modest and decelerating population growth in Moscow. Indicators of Rising Economic Prosperity in Moscow County data are much more economically informative than city data. There are more indicators published and these data are reported more fre- quently. For example, employment and income data are reported for counties on a much more frequent basis than they are for cities. While Latah County is not exactly Moscow, Moscow is a big part of Latah County, and we can infer something about Moscow from Latah County Data. Furthermore, given that population in other areas of the county has grown less rapidly than population in Moscow, we might infer that measures of economic prosperity are higher in Moscow than those published for Latah County as a whole. Employment For most people, it is hard to prosper without a job, so one basic indica- ---PAGE BREAK--- 31 Figure 8a Figure 8b Total Employment Latah County 1970-2004 9 10 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 0 5 10 15 20 25 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Total Employment (1,000) Source: REIS Annual Percent Change in Employment Latah County 1970-2004 4.0% 4.8% 6.6% 3.0% 2.1% 4.3% 7.1% 1.9% 3.3% 3.1% 3.6% 0.3% 2.5% 2.8% 1.1% 1.4% 2.2% 5.3% 2.7% 3.4% 0.1% 2.2% 3.9% 5.0% -0.1% 2.3% 1.5% 0.7% 2.0% 2.1% 5.1% -0.1% -0.5% -0.6% -3.0% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year Percent Change Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 32 Figure 9a Figure 9b Total Employment Whitman County 1970-2004 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 17 18 18 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Total Employment (1,000) Source: REIS Annual Percent Change in Employment Whitman County 1970-2004 -1.6% -0.7% 0.4% 1.5% 0.2% 1.5% 3.5% -3.9% -0.4% 1.0% 2.3% 0.2% -1.5% 2.1% 1.3% 0.1% 5.5% -5.4% 5.1% 0.2% 3.4% 0.2% -1.5% 2.5% 4.9% -0.2% 2.8% 0.3% 0.5% 1.1% 5.4% -1.5% 1.4% 0.7% 1.9% -6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Percent Change Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 tor of economic prosperity is total employment. Figure 8a shows total employ- ment in Latah County from 1970-2003. After robust employment growth in the 4%-5% range in 1994-1996, employment growth slowed greatly in the late 1990s, only to rise in the last few years. Figure 8b shows that in recent years em- ployment growth peaked in 1995 at about 5% per year. While volatile, employ- ment growth has been at least 1.3% per year in three of the 5 years for which data are available. We also see in Figure 8b a downward trend in employment growth in Latah County over the long period 1970-2003. This is consistent with the downward trend in population growth rates we see in Moscow. Figures 9a and 9b show employment levels and annual growth rates for neighboring Whitman County. Whitman County’s total employment continues to rise, albeit slowly. Employment growth in Whitman County is, as in Latah County, very volatile, but the annual growth rates don’t exhibit the downward trend that appears in Latah County. One of the reasons for the negative trend in Latah County growth rates and the lack of a negative trend in Whitman County is that until the mid 1990s Latah County grew at a much faster rate. Starting in the mid 1990s, employment growth rates slowed considerably in Latah County. Fig- ure 9c shows cumulative percent growth in total employment over the period 1969-2003. Note that Latah County employment growth is comparable to the State of Idaho and Asotin County over this time period, but much higher than in ---PAGE BREAK--- 34 Figure 9c Percent Change in Total Employment: Selected Regions 1969-2004 38% 74% 87% 132% 135% 153% 165% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% Whitman, Washington Nez Perce, Idaho United States Latah, Idaho Washington state Asotin, Washington Idaho state Region % Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 35 Figure 10a Figure 10b Annual Percent Change in Employment Lewiston Valley 1970-2003 -6.00% -4.00% -2.00% 0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00% 10.00% 12.00% 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Year Total Employment Asotin Nez Perce Source: REIS Total Employment in Lewis-Clark Valley 1970-2004 18 19 19 20 21 21 22 23 24 25 25 24 23 24 24 24 24 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 34 34 34 34 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Total Employment (1,000) Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 36 Nez Perce and Whitman Counties. We show in Figures 10a and 10b total employment and annual employment growth rates for the Lewiston Valley, Nez Perce and Asotin Counties. On aver- age, employment growth has been higher in the Lewiston Valley than it has in Latah County in the last decade, but here, too, we see a deceleration in employ- ment growth. Total employment in the Quad-County region is shown in Figure 11a, with the pattern disaggregated by county in Figure 11b. Most of the trends discussed above are visible in this figure (perhaps if you stare at it long enough). Part of the reason for decelerating growth in employment in the region could have been the national recession in 2001, and slow growth in employment in the recovery from it. Indeed, Figures 12a and 12b show county unemployment rates in the region that began to rise around the year 2000, reaching a peak in 2003, then falling. Therefore, very recent upticks in employment growth could be the result of an in- creased employment rate from a given labor force, rather than increased employ- ment from an expansion in the labor force itself. In sum, we see no indications that employment growth in neighboring juris- dictions to Moscow indicates anything different from our conclusion of positive, yet moderating growth in the region. Nothing in the employment numbers leads ---PAGE BREAK--- 37 Figure 11a Figure 11b Total Employment Quad-County Region, by County 1969-2004 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Total Employment Asotin Whitman Latah Nez Perce Source: REIS Total Employment in Quad-County Region 1970-2004 44 45 46 47 48 50 52 52 53 55 55 55 53 55 56 55 57 57 60 61 63 63 65 67 70 71 73 73 74 75 77 76 76 77 78 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Total Employment (1,000) Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 38 Figure 12a Figure 12b Quad-County Unemployment Rates 1990-2005 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Percent Latah County Whitman County Asotin Nez Perce Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Annual Unemployment Rates for Selected Regions in Washington 1990-2005 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Percent Asotin Whitman Washington State Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ---PAGE BREAK--- 39 us to believe that Moscow is different from neighboring jurisdictions. Income Income of residents is an important measure of regional prosperity. In Figure 13a we show real per capita income in Latah County, 1970-2003, in constant 2005 dollars. Without question, an upward trend exists in this figure. Figure 13b shows real per capita income rankings for counties in the State of Idaho in ten-year increments from 1959 to 1999. Latah County was ranked 8th in 1959 and 13th in 1999. While real per capita income rose 53% from 1989 to 1999 in Latah County, its relative ranking in the state remained about the same. In areas with substantial student populations, such as Latah and Whit- man Counties, per capita income numbers can be misleading. This fact is shown dramatically in Figure 13c, which shows Idaho rankings, by county, for real median family income. Since 1969 in Idaho, Latah County’s real median family income ranking has climbed each decade from 15th in 1969 to 4th in 1999. Without question, on a real median family income basis, Latah County has become considerably richer in both absolute and relative terms over the years. In Figures 14a and 14b we present comparable information for Whitman ---PAGE BREAK--- 40 Figure 13a Real Per Capita Personal Income in Latah County 1970-2004 (Constant 2005 Dollars) 15 15 16 18 20 18 19 19 20 20 19 19 17 18 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 21 22 21 22 23 22 23 24 24 25 26 25 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Per Capita Personal Income (1,000) Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 41 Figure 13b Rankings of Real Per Capita Income 1959-1999 by Decade for Idaho Counties In Constant 1999 Dollars Rank Region 1999 Rank Region 1989 Rank Region 1979 Rank Region 1969 Rank Region 1959 1 Blaine 31,346 1 Blaine 19,979 1 Blaine 13,392 1 Blaine 10,540 1 Power 7,978 2 Ada 22,519 2 Ada 14,268 2 Ada 12,983 2 Camas 10,373 2 Lewis 7,589 3 Camas 19,550 3 Adams 13,732 3 Nez Perce 11,713 3 Lewis 9,926 3 Ada 7,428 4 Valley 19,246 4 Nez Perce 12,476 4 Bannock 11,214 4 Ada 9,866 4 Bonneville 7,259 5 Boise 18,787 5 Valley 12,344 5 Valley 11,085 5 Clearwater 9,234 5 Nez Perce 7,083 6 Nez Perce 18,544 6 Kootenai 12,330 6 Clearwater 11,080 6 Bonneville 9,177 6 Shoshone 7,079 7 Kootenai 18,430 7 Bonneville 12,123 7 Bonneville 11,006 7 Valley 9,114 7 Valley 6,985 8 Bonneville 18,326 8 Boise 11,747 8 Shoshone 10,944 8 Nez Perce 9,007 8 Latah 6,745 9 Teton 17,778 9 Custer 11,607 9 Benewah 10,865 9 Shoshone 8,778 9 Bannock 6,636 10 Bonner 17,263 10 Camas 11,373 10 Latah 10,793 10 Benewah 8,664 10 Blaine 6,455 11 Bannock 17,148 11 Clearwater 11,234 11 Twin Falls 10,733 11 Adams 8,598 11 Twin Falls 6,455 12 Elmore 16,773 12 Twin Falls 11,096 12 Kootenai 10,634 12 Kootenai 8,513 12 Kootenai 6,392 13 Latah 16,690 13 Bannock 10,976 13 Boise 10,570 13 Bannock 8,409 13 Butte 6,333 14 Twin Falls 16,678 14 Latah 10,892 14 Power 10,005 14 Latah 8,340 14 Caribou 6,247 15 Lemhi 16,037 15 Caribou 10,808 15 Adams 9,841 15 Twin Falls 8,271 15 Oneida 6,165 16 Lewis 15,942 16 Lemhi 10,624 16 Idaho 9,841 16 Power 8,136 16 Clearwater 6,122 17 Shoshone 15,934 17 Clark 10,608 17 Camas 9,821 17 Idaho 7,944 17 Camas 6,098 18 Custer 15,783 18 Bonner 10,527 18 Gem 9,721 18 Gooding 7,925 18 Madison 6,074 19 Jerome 15,530 19 Idaho 10,527 19 Caribou 9,716 19 Caribou 7,830 19 Adams 5,976 20 Washington 15,464 20 Gem 10,450 20 Lewis 9,689 20 Canyon 7,815 20 Elmore 5,917 21 Clearwater 15,463 21 Shoshone 10,373 21 Canyon 9,654 21 Boundary 7,799 21 Bear Lake 5,847 22 Gem 15,340 22 Butte 10,257 22 Jerome 9,447 22 Lemhi 7,755 22 Boise 5,831 23 Benewah 15,285 23 Minidoka 10,110 23 Lemhi 9,325 23 Bonner 7,704 23 Idaho 5,827 24 Caribou 15,179 24 Elmore 9,981 24 Butte 9,189 24 Butte 7,578 24 Canyon 5,764 25 Canyon 15,155 25 Power 9,951 25 Bear Lake 9,119 25 Bingham 7,566 25 Gooding 5,761 26 Butte 14,948 26 Benewah 9,921 26 Minidoka 8,995 26 Clark 7,525 26 Benewah 5,737 27 Payette 14,924 27 Canyon 9,916 27 Gooding 8,970 27 Boise 7,459 27 Lincoln 5,729 28 Adams 14,908 28 Owyhee 9,786 28 Elmore 8,921 28 Cassia 7,421 28 Bonner 5,619 29 Boundary 14,636 29 Lewis 9,780 29 Bonner 8,906 29 Fremont 7,409 29 Cassia 5,588 30 Gooding 14,612 30 Jerome 9,727 30 Cassia 8,789 30 Payette 7,374 30 Payette 5,447 31 Idaho 14,411 31 Cassia 9,726 31 Custer 8,776 31 Custer 7,264 31 Boundary 5,423 32 Bingham 14,365 32 Gooding 9,625 32 Bingham 8,638 32 Elmore 7,261 32 Gem 5,396 33 Lincoln 14,257 33 Bingham 9,474 33 Washington 8,566 33 Gem 7,195 33 Custer 5,376 34 Cassia 14,087 34 Payette 9,400 34 Payette 8,502 34 Bear Lake 7,179 34 Owyhee 5,325 35 Power 14,007 35 Lincoln 9,339 35 Boundary 8,308 35 Minidoka 7,094 35 Washington 5,321 36 Fremont 13,965 36 Washington 9,088 36 Lincoln 8,132 36 Oneida 7,059 36 Bingham 5,305 37 Jefferson 13,838 37 Jefferson 9,055 37 Franklin 7,995 37 Madison 6,896 37 Fremont 5,301 38 Oneida 13,829 38 Boundary 9,054 38 Fremont 7,916 38 Washington 6,864 38 Minidoka 5,282 39 Minidoka 13,813 39 Bear Lake 8,989 39 Clark 7,693 39 Jerome 6,817 39 Lemhi 5,278 40 Franklin 13,702 40 Teton 8,983 40 Jefferson 7,670 40 Lincoln 6,634 40 Jefferson 5,113 41 Bear Lake 13,592 41 Oneida 8,824 41 Owyhee 7,334 41 Jefferson 6,631 41 Jerome 5,082 42 Owyhee 13,405 42 Fremont 8,674 42 Oneida 7,294 42 Teton 6,017 42 Franklin 4,917 43 Clark 11,141 43 Franklin 8,532 43 Teton 7,200 43 Franklin 5,910 43 Clark 4,603 44 Madison 10,956 44 Madison 7,385 44 Madison 6,867 44 Owyhee 5,596 44 Teton 4,018 U.S. 21,587 $ U.S. $14,420 U.S. $12,224 U.S. $9,816 U.S. $7,259 Idaho 17,841 $ Idaho $11,457 Idaho $10,470 Idaho $8,321 Idaho $6,310 Source: U.S. Census ---PAGE BREAK--- 42 Figure 13c Rankings of Real Median Family Income 1959-1999 Per Decade for Idaho Counties Rank Region 1999 Rank Region 1989 Rank Region 1979 Rank Region 1969 Rank Region 1959 1 Blaine 60,037 $ 1 Blaine 37,969 $ 1 Ada 34,809 $ 1 Camas 31,771 $ 1 Bonneville 25,294 $ 2 Ada 54,416 $ 2 Ada 35,813 $ 2 Bannock 34,117 $ 2 Clearwater 31,708 $ 2 Lewis 23,533 $ 3 Bonneville 48,216 $ 3 Bonneville 34,378 $ 3 Bonneville 33,984 $ 3 Ada 30,559 $ 3 Bannock 23,395 $ 4 Latah 46,303 $ 4 Caribou 33,708 $ 4 Clearwater 32,708 $ 4 Bonneville 30,553 $ 4 Ada 23,026 $ 5 Teton 45,848 $ 5 Bannock 31,724 $ 5 Benewah 32,263 $ 5 Lewis 29,930 $ 5 Shoshone 22,716 $ 6 Nez Perce 44,212 $ 6 Nez Perce 30,734 $ 6 Nez Perce 32,029 $ 6 Power 29,398 $ 6 Butte 22,332 $ 7 Bannock 44,192 $ 7 Boise 30,476 $ 7 Shoshone 32,005 $ 7 Clark 28,567 $ 7 Nez Perce 22,261 $ 8 Boise 43,138 $ 8 Latah 30,474 $ 8 Caribou 31,427 $ 8 Caribou 28,218 $ 8 Caribou 21,971 $ 9 Kootenai 42,905 $ 9 Butte 30,411 $ 9 Latah 31,152 $ 9 Bannock 27,919 $ 9 Madison 21,465 $ 10 Caribou 42,630 $ 10 Kootenai 30,013 $ 10 Valley 29,985 $ 10 Shoshone 27,865 $ 10 Valley 21,276 $ 11 Valley 42,283 $ 11 Custer 30,000 $ 11 Kootenai 29,631 $ 11 Nez Perce 27,557 $ 11 Latah 21,202 $ 12 Jefferson 41,530 $ 12 Clark 29,583 $ 12 Blaine 29,512 $ 12 Butte 27,431 $ 12 Power 20,994 $ 13 Madison 40,880 $ 13 Franklin 28,717 $ 13 Bear Lake 28,807 $ 13 Bingham 27,311 $ 13 Kootenai 20,601 $ 14 Canyon 40,377 $ 14 Oneida 28,165 $ 14 Power 28,698 $ 14 Valley 27,170 $ 14 Clearwater 20,409 $ 15 Bingham 40,312 $ 15 Valley 27,967 $ 15 Boise 28,656 $ 15 Latah 27,016 $ 15 Bingham 20,064 $ 16 Gem 40,195 $ 16 Twin Falls 27,895 $ 16 Lewis 28,507 $ 16 Blaine 26,990 $ 16 Blaine 19,989 $ 17 Franklin 40,185 $ 17 Power 27,607 $ 17 Twin Falls 28,344 $ 17 Kootenai 26,106 $ 17 Bear Lake 19,871 $ 18 Camas 40,156 $ 18 Bingham 27,496 $ 18 Bingham 27,992 $ 18 Adams 25,738 $ 18 Lincoln 19,840 $ 19 Twin Falls 39,886 $ 19 Jefferson 27,313 $ 19 Adams 27,744 $ 19 Benewah 25,681 $ 19 Cassia 19,746 $ 20 Custer 39,551 $ 20 Cassia 27,245 $ 20 Idaho 27,367 $ 20 Madison 25,366 $ 20 Twin Falls 19,679 $ 21 Jerome 39,083 $ 21 Bear Lake 27,045 $ 21 Minidoka 26,672 $ 21 Idaho 25,027 $ 21 Jefferson 19,601 $ 22 Bear Lake 38,351 $ 22 Fremont 26,836 $ 22 Canyon 26,504 $ 22 Cassia 24,709 $ 22 Adams 19,526 $ 23 Oneida 38,341 $ 23 Clearwater 26,832 $ 23 Butte 26,434 $ 23 Boise 24,636 $ 23 Minidoka 19,401 $ 24 Cassia 38,162 $ 24 Madison 26,726 $ 24 Franklin 26,389 $ 24 Fremont 24,617 $ 24 Idaho 19,357 $ 25 Bonner 37,930 $ 25 Camas 26,667 $ 25 Jefferson 26,254 $ 25 Bear Lake 24,536 $ 25 Boise 18,733 $ 26 Elmore 37,823 $ 26 Canyon 26,328 $ 26 Gem 26,206 $ 26 Canyon 24,514 $ 26 Elmore 18,714 $ 27 Payette 37,430 $ 27 Minidoka 25,977 $ 27 Madison 26,032 $ 27 Twin Falls 24,422 $ 27 Benewah 18,588 $ 28 Lewis 37,336 $ 28 Adams 25,781 $ 28 Cassia 25,894 $ 28 Boundary 24,174 $ 28 Camas 18,396 $ 29 Clearwater 37,259 $ 29 Shoshone 25,723 $ 29 Lemhi 25,884 $ 29 Minidoka 23,796 $ 29 Custer 18,109 $ 30 Butte 36,950 $ 30 Elmore 25,502 $ 30 Jerome 25,782 $ 30 Bonner 23,790 $ 30 Bonner 18,074 $ 31 Lincoln 36,792 $ 31 Idaho 25,302 $ 31 Fremont 25,353 $ 31 Gem 23,529 $ 31 Canyon 18,035 $ 32 Fremont 36,715 $ 32 Boundary 25,288 $ 32 Boundary 24,859 $ 32 Jefferson 23,327 $ 32 Boundary 17,858 $ 33 Power 36,685 $ 33 Teton 25,219 $ 33 Camas 24,813 $ 33 Elmore 22,710 $ 33 Fremont 17,807 $ 34 Minidoka 36,500 $ 34 Lincoln 25,128 $ 34 Bonner 24,331 $ 34 Lincoln 22,326 $ 34 Oneida 17,588 $ 35 Boundary 36,440 $ 35 Gem 25,055 $ 35 Elmore 23,831 $ 35 Payette 22,292 $ 35 Gem 17,529 $ 36 Gooding 36,290 $ 36 Benewah 24,984 $ 36 Lincoln 23,796 $ 36 Custer 22,229 $ 36 Franklin 17,333 $ 37 Benewah 36,000 $ 37 Lewis 24,640 $ 37 Gooding 23,429 $ 37 Gooding 21,838 $ 37 Jerome 17,136 $ 38 Shoshone 35,694 $ 38 Jerome 24,499 $ 38 Custer 23,144 $ 38 Lemhi 21,713 $ 38 Payette 16,913 $ 39 Washington 35,542 $ 39 Bonner 24,248 $ 39 Payette 22,903 $ 39 Oneida 21,445 $ 39 Gooding 16,685 $ 40 Lemhi 35,261 $ 40 Payette 23,755 $ 40 Oneida 22,658 $ 40 Jerome 20,772 $ 40 Washington 16,603 $ 41 Idaho 33,919 $ 41 Lemhi 23,077 $ 41 Washington 22,069 $ 41 Franklin 20,312 $ 41 Owyhee 16,477 $ 42 Owyhee 32,856 $ 42 Gooding 22,885 $ 42 Teton 20,983 $ 42 Washington 20,170 $ 42 Clark 16,147 $ 43 Adams 32,335 $ 43 Washington 21,068 $ 43 Clark 20,587 $ 43 Teton 18,830 $ 43 Teton 16,108 $ 44 Clark 31,534 $ 44 Owyhee 21,054 $ 44 Owyhee 19,686 $ 44 Owyhee 17,741 $ 44 Lemhi 15,339 $ United States 50,046 $ United States 35,225 $ United States 33,374 $ United States 30,169 $ United States 22,210 $ Idaho 43,490 $ Idaho 29,472 $ Idaho 29,311 $ Idaho 26,374 $ Idaho 20,637 $ Source: U.S. Census ---PAGE BREAK--- 43 Figure 14a Real Per Capita Personal Income in Whitman County 1970-2004 (Constant 2005 Dollars) 18 18 19 20 20 23 21 18 21 19 20 20 19 24 22 21 22 21 20 20 20 20 20 21 19 20 22 21 21 21 22 22 21 22 23 0 5 10 15 20 25 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Per Capita Personal Income (1,000) Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 Figure 14b Rankings of Real Median Family Income 1959-1999 by Decade for Washington Counties Rank Region 1999 Rank Region 1989 Rank Region 1979 Rank Region 1969 Rank Region 1959 1 King 66,035 $ 1 King 44,555 $ 1 Benton 42,683 $ 1 King 37,408 $ 1 Benton 28,598 $ 2 Snohomish 60,726 $ 2 Snohomish 41,092 $ 2 King 42,450 $ 2 Snohomish 34,295 $ 2 King 27,798 $ 3 Thurston 55,027 $ 3 Benton 37,969 $ 3 Snohomish 38,681 $ 3 Benton 33,537 $ 3 Franklin 24,929 $ 4 Benton 54,146 $ 4 San Juan 36,851 $ 4 Cowlitz 36,071 $ 4 Kitsap 33,175 $ 4 Clark 24,451 $ 5 Clark 54,016 $ 5 Kitsap 36,388 $ 5 Clark 36,000 $ 5 Thurston 32,958 $ 5 Kitsap 23,964 $ 6 Kitsap 53,878 $ 6 Clark 36,209 $ 6 Kitsap 35,953 $ 6 Clark 32,086 $ 6 Spokane 23,913 $ 7 Pierce 52,098 $ 7 Thurston 35,859 $ 7 Skamania 35,853 $ 7 Cowlitz 31,727 $ 7 Douglas 23,846 $ 8 San Juan 51,835 $ 8 Pierce 35,108 $ 8 Wahkiakum 35,774 $ 8 Pierce 31,028 $ 8 Lincoln 23,682 $ 9 Island 51,363 $ 9 Whatcom 35,007 $ 9 Thurston 35,444 $ 9 Franklin 30,890 $ 9 Snohomish 23,564 $ 10 Whatcom 49,325 $ 10 Cowlitz 32,842 $ 10 Franklin 35,171 $ 10 Walla Walla 29,867 $ 10 Adams 23,450 $ 11 Skagit 48,347 $ 11 Skagit 32,831 $ 11 Grays Harbor 34,242 $ 11 Spokane 29,760 $ 11 Walla Walla 23,364 $ 12 Wahkiakum 47,604 $ 12 Whitman 32,306 $ 12 Pierce 34,035 $ 12 Douglas 29,751 $ 12 Pierce 23,348 $ 13 Cowlitz 46,532 $ 13 Island 31,824 $ 13 Whatcom 33,384 $ 13 Whatcom 29,681 $ 13 Thurston 23,128 $ 14 Spokane 46,463 $ 14 Spokane 31,784 $ 14 Clallam 33,173 $ 14 Skagit 29,606 $ 14 Skamania 23,073 $ 15 Chelan 46,293 $ 15 Skamania 30,936 $ 15 Skagit 32,741 $ 15 Mason 29,197 $ 15 Garfield 23,022 $ 16 Kittitas 46,057 $ 16 Walla Walla 30,842 $ 16 Spokane 32,555 $ 16 Grays Harbor 29,017 $ 16 Grant 22,956 $ 17 Jefferson 45,415 $ 17 Douglas 30,555 $ 17 Douglas 32,398 $ 17 Clallam 28,995 $ 17 Cowlitz 22,803 $ 18 Walla Walla 44,962 $ 18 Clallam 30,451 $ 18 Walla Walla 32,205 $ 18 Lincoln 28,995 $ 18 Whitman 22,756 $ 19 Whitman 44,830 $ 19 Mason 30,429 $ 19 Whitman 32,195 $ 19 Whitman 28,636 $ 19 Grays Harbor 22,654 $ 20 Skamania 44,586 $ 20 Jefferson 29,907 $ 20 Mason 32,103 $ 20 Wahkiakum 28,633 $ 20 Skagit 22,434 $ 21 Clallam 44,381 $ 21 Wahkiakum 29,679 $ 21 Chelan 31,958 $ 21 Skamania 28,205 $ 21 Chelan 22,265 $ 22 Mason 44,246 $ 22 Chelan 29,631 $ 22 Garfield 31,821 $ 22 Jefferson 27,846 $ 22 Mason 22,245 $ 23 Columbia 44,038 $ 23 Garfield 29,128 $ 23 Lincoln 31,692 $ 23 Adams 27,815 $ 23 Clallam 22,155 $ 24 Douglas 43,777 $ 24 Lincoln 28,711 $ 24 Klickitat 31,253 $ 24 Lewis 27,519 $ 24 Klickitat 21,519 $ 25 Franklin 41,967 $ 25 Lewis 28,656 $ 25 Adams 31,238 $ 25 Island 27,400 $ 25 Whatcom 21,351 $ 26 Garfield 41,645 $ 26 Stevens 28,644 $ 26 San Juan 31,132 $ 26 Chelan 27,107 $ 26 Jefferson 21,261 $ 27 Lincoln 41,269 $ 27 Kittitas 28,535 $ 27 Asotin 30,558 $ 27 Pacific 26,987 $ 27 Asotin 21,190 $ 28 Lewis 41,105 $ 28 Ferry 28,395 $ 28 Lewis 30,536 $ 28 Kittitas 26,827 $ 28 Lewis 20,448 $ 29 Asotin 40,592 $ 29 Grays Harbor 28,257 $ 29 Island 29,904 $ 29 Grant 26,707 $ 29 Kittitas 20,315 $ 30 Klickitat 40,414 $ 30 Asotin 28,146 $ 30 Pacific 29,788 $ 30 Columbia 26,644 $ 30 Yakima 20,217 $ 31 Stevens 40,250 $ 31 Franklin 27,808 $ 31 Yakima 29,443 $ 31 Klickitat 26,597 $ 31 Pacific 19,867 $ 32 Yakima 39,746 $ 32 Yakima 27,507 $ 32 Grant 29,274 $ 32 San Juan 26,499 $ 32 Columbia 19,864 $ 33 Grays Harbor 39,709 $ 33 Klickitat 27,124 $ 33 Jefferson 29,177 $ 33 Asotin 26,040 $ 33 Island 19,679 $ 34 Pacific 39,302 $ 34 Columbia 26,806 $ 34 Kittitas 28,892 $ 34 Ferry 25,675 $ 34 Ferry 19,671 $ 35 Grant 38,938 $ 35 Adams 26,652 $ 35 Columbia 28,882 $ 35 Garfield 25,464 $ 35 Pend Oreille 19,448 $ 36 Adams 37,075 $ 36 Grant 26,005 $ 36 Stevens 28,441 $ 36 Yakima 25,373 $ 36 Wahkiakum 19,330 $ 37 Pend Oreille 36,977 $ 37 Pacific 25,244 $ 37 Okanogan 27,763 $ 37 Okanogan 24,731 $ 37 Okanogan 18,902 $ 38 Ferry 35,691 $ 38 Pend Oreille 24,623 $ 38 Ferry 26,794 $ 38 Pend Oreille 22,965 $ 38 Stevens 17,509 $ 39 Okanogan 35,012 $ 39 Okanogan 23,147 $ 39 Pend Oreille 25,970 $ 39 Stevens 22,367 $ 39 San Juan 16,140 $ United States 50,046 $ U.S. 35,225 $ U.S. 33,374 $ U.S. 30,169 $ U.S. 22,210 $ Washington 53,760 $ Washington 36,795 $ Washington 36,355 $ Washington 32,744 $ Washington 24,427 $ Source: U.S. Census ---PAGE BREAK--- 45 County. In Figure 14a, we see that real per capita income shows much less of an up- ward trend than in Latah County. Also, in Figure 14b, we can see that Whitman County has not climbed in the county rankings of real median family income as much as Latah County has. This is partly due to a slower rate of growth in real median fam- ily income. In 1999, Latah County’s real median family income was 1.71 times larger than in 1969. The comparable figure for Whitman County is 1.57. However, some of the relative ranking difference could be accounted for by the tremendous growth in in- come in the Puget Sound region over this time period. Figures 15 and 16 show annual real per capita personal income for Nez Perce and Asotin counties, a time period like that in Latah County, where real income grew. By contrast with Latah County, however, as seen in Figure 13c, Nez Perce County has not climbed in the relative county rankings of real median family income. Likewise, Asotin County was ranked 33rd among Washington Counties in 1969, and 29th in 1999. The income picture for Latah County, unlike the picture for population and em- ployment, contrasts with that of neighboring counties in the Quad-County region. Moscow has become richer both in absolute and relative terms. We are left with the following picture of population growth and economic prosperity in Moscow. In spite of modest and decelerating growth in population and employment, and flat or declin- ing school enrollment and water use, Moscow has become more prosperous in recent times. We offer an explanation of this phenomenon in the next section. ---PAGE BREAK--- 46 Figure 15 Figure 16 Real Per Capita Personal Income in Nez Perce County 1970-2004 (Constant 2005 Dollars) 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 23 24 23 23 22 22 23 24 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 28 28 28 28 28 27 28 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Per Capita Personal Income (1,000) Source: REIS Real Per Capita Personal Income in Asotin County 1970-2004 (Constant 2005 Dollars) 18 18 18 20 19 21 21 21 23 23 22 22 21 22 22 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 24 24 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 28 28 28 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Per Capita Personal Income (1,000) Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 47 Possible Reasons for Modest Population and Employment Growth and Ris- ing Economic Prosperity in the Moscow Area In-migration of High-income Out-commuters Part of the explanation for these recent trends in Moscow could be a juris- dictional imbalance in commuting patterns among counties in the Quad-County region. If Moscow and other Latah County residents out-commute for high pay- ing jobs in other counties, this would be reflected in the income figures, which are measured at the place of residence, but not in employment figures, that are measured at place of work. We see in Figure 17a information on commuting patterns in the Quad-County region for the year 2000. Note that 2300 individu- als live in Latah County and commute to Whitman County to work in the year 2000, while only 978 live in Whitman County and commute to work in Latah County. As many of these individuals are likely Washington State University, Schweitzer Engineering, or Pullman City employees, and these jobs have higher than average wages and salaries, this commuting imbalance could explain some of the differences in income growth. Likewise, 677 Latah County residents commute to work in Nez Perce County, while only 311 commute to Latah County from Nez Perce County. For Asotin County, the numbers are more bal- ---PAGE BREAK--- 48 Commuting Patterns in the Quad County Region, 2000 Place of Residence Place of Work of Whitman County Workers of Latah County Residents Place of Residence Workers % Place of Work Workers % Whitman Co. WA 16,206 83% Latah Co. ID 13,249 79% Latah Co. ID 2,300 12% Whitman Co. WA 2,300 14% Spokane Co. WA 297 2% Nez Perce Co. ID 677 4% Asotin Co. WA 241 1% Spokane Co. WA 107 1% Nez Perce Co. ID 148 1% Asotin Co. WA 65 0% Kootenai Co. ID 54 0% Kootenai Co. ID 61 0% Benewah Co. ID 51 0% Clearwater Co. ID 59 0% Other 320 2% Other 319 2% Total 19,617 100% Total 16,837 100% Place of Work Place of Residence of Whitman County Residents of Latah County Workers Place of Work Workers % Place of Residence Workers % Whitman Co. WA 16,206 89% Latah Co. ID 13,249 89% Latah Co. ID 978 5% Whitman Co. WA 978 7% Spokane Co. WA 529 3% Nez Perce Co. ID 311 2% Nez Perce Co. ID 144 1% Spokane Co. WA 73 0% Asotin Co. WA 40 0% Clearwater Co. ID 60 0% Benewah Co. ID 34 0% Asotin Co. WA 48 0% King Co. WA 33 0% Kootenai Co. ID 39 0% Other 341 2% Other 113 1% Total 18,305 100% Total 14,871 100% Place of Residence Place of Work of Nez Perce County Workers of Asotin County Residents Place of Residence Workers % Place of Work Workers % Nez Perce Co. ID 15,099 70% Nez Perce Co. ID 4,540 50% Asotin Co. WA 4,540 21% Asotin Co. WA 3,954 44% Latah Co. ID 677 3% Whitman Co. WA 241 3% Clearwater Co. ID 235 1% Latah Co. ID 48 1% Lewis Co. ID 203 1% Spokane Co. WA 35 0% Whitman Co. WA 144 1% Garfield Co. WA 30 0% Idaho Co. ID 133 1% King Co. WA 29 0% Other 518 2% Other 190 2% Total 21,549 100% Total 9,067 100% Place of Work Place of Residence of Nez Perce County Residents of Asotin County Workers Place of Work Workers % Place of Resident Workers % Nez Perce Co. ID 15,099 86% Asotin Co. WA 3,954 69% Asotin Co. WA 1,431 8% Nez Perce Co. ID 1,431 25% Latah Co. ID 311 2% Latah Co. ID 65 1% Clearwater Co. ID 233 1% Garfield Co. WA 55 1% Whitman Co. WA 148 1% Clearwater Co. ID 50 1% Lewis Co. ID 61 0% Whitman Co. WA 40 1% Idaho Co. ID 47 0% Lewis Co. ID 27 0% Other 221 1% Other 133 2% Total 17,551 100% Total 5,755 100% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Figure 17a ---PAGE BREAK--- 49 Latah and Whitman County Commuting Patterns Place of Work Place of Work of Latah County Residents of Latah County Residents 2000 Census 1990 Census Place of Work Workers % Place of Work Workers % Latah Co. ID 13,249 79% Latah Co. ID 11,540 84% Whitman Co. WA 2,300 14% Whitman Co. WA 1,550 11% Nez Perce Co. ID 677 4% Nez Perce Co. ID 342 2% Spokane Co. WA 107 1% Spokane Co. WA 49 0% Asotin Co. WA 65 0% Asotin Co. WA 25 0% Kootenai Co. ID 61 0% Kootenai Co. ID 23 0% Clearwater Co. ID 59 0% Clearwater Co. ID 31 0% Other 319 2% Other 195 1% Total 16,837 100% Total 13,755 100% Place of Residence Place of Residence of Latah County Workers of Latah County Workers 2000 Census 1990 Census Place of Residence Workers % Place of Residence Workers % Latah Co. ID 13,249 89% Latah Co. ID 11,540 91% Whitman Co. WA 978 7% Whitman Co. WA 601 5% Nez Perce Co. ID 311 2% Nez Perce Co. ID 236 2% Spokane Co. WA 73 0% Spokane Co. WA 20 0% Clearwater Co. ID 60 0% Clearwater Co. ID 12 0% Asotin Co. WA 48 0% Asotin Co. WA 97 1% Kootenai Co. ID 39 0% Kootenai Co. ID 43 0% Other 113 1% Other 162 1% Total 14,871 100% Total 12,711 100% Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census Figure 17b ---PAGE BREAK--- 50 anced, with 65 commuting to Asotin County from Latah County and 48 going the other direction. In total, there are 2.28 workers who live in Latah County and work elsewhere in the Quad-County region for every worker who commutes the opposite direction. In some sense, Moscow is the bedroom for the Palouse. Differences in commuting patterns of high-wage workers can explain dif- ferences in the levels of income between counties, but not so much changes in the relative income levels. For changes in the relative income levels of median fam- ily income, we need to see if the magnitude of commuting imbalances has changed over time. In 1989, Latah County real median family income was $1,832 lower than that in Whitman County, a ratio of .94. One decade later Latah County's real median family income was $1,473 higher than in Whitman County, a ratio of 1.03. Some of this change could be the result of residential location de- cisions by high-wage workers. Figure 17b sheds some light on one of the possible reasons for income gains in Latah County. In 1990, 84% of Latah County residents worked in Latah County. In 2000, only 79% did so. By far the largest change in commuting pat- terns occurred between Latah and Whitman Counties, as the number of Latah County residents who commuted to Whitman County rose from 1,550 to 2,300. While the absolute magnitude of the change is lower, commuting from Latah County to Nez Perce County almost doubled between 1990 and 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- 51 Figure 17c Figure 17d Net Residence Adjustment for the Quad County Region, 1969-2004 in Constant 2005 Dollars ($1,000) -200000 -150000 -100000 -50000 0 50000 100000 150000 [PHONE REDACTED] 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Real DIR in Thousands Latah County Whitman County Nez Perce County Asotin County Source: REIS Average Home Sale Prices in Latah County 1996-2005 ($1,000) $124 $120 $127 $124 $133 $132 $140 $146 $168 $188 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 $160 $180 $200 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Thousands Year Dollars Source: Latah County ---PAGE BREAK--- 52 Without question, out-commuting from Latah County has increased in recent years. It is not difficult for any Moscow area resident to offer anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon, high-income out-commuters from Latah County. Many of our neighbors and friends live in Moscow and work at WSU or for the City of Pullman or for LCSC in Lewiston. Additional information in support of the prosperity induced by net in- migration of high-income out-commuters appears in Figure 17c. This figure shows what regional economists call the net residence adjustment for the four counties of the Quad-County Region. It is the difference between income earned by residents of a county and income produced in the county by people who might live anywhere. Note in Figure 17c that since the early 1980s Latah County has had a positive and rising net residence adjustment. By contrast, over the same period, Whitman County has almost the mirror image, a negative and declining net residence adjustment. This reflects the income differences from the rise of net out-commuting in Latah County and its decline in Whitman County. Again, if this net out-commuting is by high- income workers, it can explain much of the rising prosperity in the Moscow area. We should note that this story is not inconsistent with robust single-family housing construction in the Moscow area. While the recent period of historically low interest rates certainly spurred an increase in housing demand, the upward trend in ---PAGE BREAK--- 53 Figure 17e Average Percent Change in Home Sale Prices (1996-2005) -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Percentage Change Source: Latah County ---PAGE BREAK--- 54 the number and value of housing starts is consistent with in-migration of high-income out-commuters. Also, though less pronounced, Figures 17d and 17e show that the average sales prices in Latah County are trending upward, as well. The University of Idaho As shown in our economic profile of the city, Moscow’s primary eco- nomic base is the University of Idaho (UI). Much of what happens in Mos- cow, in terms of population, employment and income, stems from develop- ments at the UI. Likewise, Pullman has the same relationship with Washing- ton State University (WSU). Perhaps positive developments at these institu- tions have led to an increase in Moscow’s prosperity. In Figure 18a we show total headcount enrollment at the Moscow campus of the UI from 1953 to 2006. While the trend is upward over this period, UI enrollment was pretty flat for most of the 1990s, the period where we see large increases in income in the Moscow area. After substantial growth in the first part of the current decade, the UI has experienced a decline in enrollment on the Moscow cam- pus in the last two years. In Figure 18b we show annual percent change in headcount enroll- ---PAGE BREAK--- 55 Figure 18a Figure 18b UI Enrollment on the Moscow Campus 1953-2006 Fall Headcount 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 53 56 59 62 65 68 71 74 77 80 83 86 89 92 95 98 01 04 Year Headcount Source: University of Idaho Annual Percent Change in Headcount Enrollment UI Campus FY 1980-2006 -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Year Percent Change Source: UI ---PAGE BREAK--- 56 ment. A slight downward trend in the rate of growth is apparent in this figure since the late 1980s. This trend is similar to that in Moscow population we saw in Figure 4c. While the UI has experienced slowing (or declining) annual student growth in the last fifteen years, we see in Figure 18c that this is some- what different from the experience of the other two large universities in the state. Since 1994, the last time we were doing research for our original study, the UI has been overtaken by Idaho State University as the second largest insti- tution, and has lost ground relative to Boise State University, as well. In terms of employees at the UI, we also note some recent changes. As seen Figure 18d, after rapid growth in employees in the late 1990s and first year of this decade, employment at the UI has trended downward since. Total UI employment in 2005 was lower than at the beginning of the decade. This, too, is consistent with the moderation in population growth in Moscow since 2000, compared with the decade of the 1990s. We disaggregate employment at the UI in Figure 18e. Here we see that the recent flat trend or slight decline in employment has been broadly based across faculty, staff and graduate assis- tants. While growth of faculty and staff has become negative this decade, we cannot rule out the possibility that increases in the 1990s were part of the cause of rising prosperity from 1990 to 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- 57 Figure 18c Figure 18d Student Enrollment at Idaho Universities (Headcount, Fall Semester 1982-2005) 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year Fall Headcount Boise State University Idaho State University University of Idaho Lewis Clark State College Source: Idaho State Board of Education Total UI Employees 1999-2005 2700 2750 2800 2850 2900 2950 3000 3050 3100 3150 3200 3250 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Total Employees Source: University of Idaho ---PAGE BREAK--- 58 Figure 18e Figure 18f UI Employees 1999-2005, by Category 0 200 400 [PHONE REDACTED] 1200 1400 1600 1800 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Employees Administration Staff Faculty Graduate Student Employees (RA/TA) Source: University of Idaho Total UI Budget From all Sources 1990 to 2006 (In Constant 2005 Dollars) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 [PHONE REDACTED] 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Millions of Dollars Source: University of Idaho ---PAGE BREAK--- 59 In terms of dollar impact in the local economy, we see in Figure 18f that the UI total budget in constant dollars increased slowly in the late 1990s and the first two years of this decade. But after reaching a peak in 2002, in real inflation- adjusted terms, the UI budget has trended downward. In Figure 18g, we see that the trend in real basic state appropriations is largely flat since the mid 1990s. To- tal state appropriations, which includes student fees, have increased somewhat in real terms. This is no accident. In Figures 18h and 18i we see that that the UI has increased its budget through increases in student tuition and fees significantly above the general rate of inflation. Particularly noteworthy is the sharp upward trend in real non-resident student tuition which resumed again in 2001 after hav- ing abated somewhat in the mid to late 1990s. Finally, in Figure 18j, we show the last component of UI funding, external research grants. Here, we see that real external research funding at the UI, while rising steadily for two decades and growing rapidly in the first three years of the recent decade, has fallen the last three years. The trend in the 1990s was up, how- ever, so again this might have caused some of the increase in prosperity. In sum, we see nothing in the UI data that contradicts our interpretation of growth in Moscow as indicated by its population growth, namely slow and decel- erating growth, especially in the early part of this decade. The UI Moscow cam- ---PAGE BREAK--- 60 Figure 18g Figure 18h State Appropriations to the UI 1977-2006 (In Constant 2005 Dollars) $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Year Millions of Constant Dollars Basic State Appropriation Total State Appropriation Source: University of Idaho UI Resident Student Fees 1980-2005 (In Constant 2005 Dollars) $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2 3 4 5 Year Constant Dollars Source: University of Idaho ---PAGE BREAK--- 61 Figure 18i Figure 18j UI External Research Funding 1980-2006 $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 Year External Funding Funding 24 28 26 25 25 24 25 27 30 38 38 38 41 46 53 45 44 49 53 51 53 71 69 83 81 75 74 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (In Constant 2005 Dollars) Source: University of Idaho Nominal UI Non-Resident Student Tuition Academic Year 1980-2005 In Constant 2005 Dollars $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 82 85 88 91 94 97 0 3 Year Source: University of Idaho ---PAGE BREAK--- 62 Figure 19a Figure 19b Headcount Enrollment WSU Pullman Campus 1961-2005 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 1961 1963 1965 1967 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Year Students Source: WSU Annual Percent Change in Headcount Enrollment WSU Pullman Campus 1986-2005 -8.0% -6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Percent Change Source: WSU ---PAGE BREAK--- 63 pus headcount growth has slowed. Faculty, staff and graduate assistant num- bers have declined. As human numbers have slowed or declined on campus, the real budget of the UI has remained flat, as well. We’ll have to wait for the 2010 Census for new information on median family income. Certainly the UI contributed somewhat to this growth in the decade of the 1990s, but a turn- around will have to occur at the UI for a positive effect on prosperity to occur again by 2010. Washington State University While WSU is a more prominent component of the economic base of Pullman than it is of Moscow, developments at WSU surely spill over to Mos- cow, especially when we recognize the imbalance of commuting patterns be- tween the two areas. In Figure 19a we see that WSU has experienced steady growth in students throughout the 1990s and the first half of this decade. In Figure 19b we see, however, that the rate of growth, as at the UI, has fallen in the most recent years. Total staff, probably more important for the question at hand, has also risen steadily since the early 1990s, as shown in Figure 19c. In Figure 19d, we see that the percent change in total staff has been positive every year since 1994. We suggest that WSU growth, increased net out-commuting from Latah County, and rising income in Latah County are all consistent with ---PAGE BREAK--- 64 Figure 19c Figure 19d Total WSU Staff (Headcount) 1998-2005 5,419 5,586 5,760 5,916 5,860 5,688 5,897 6,090 6,218 6,248 6,344 6,406 6,434 6,543 6,730 6,892 7,055 7,164 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Headcount Source: WSU Annual Percent Change in WSU Staff 1988-2005 -4.00% -3.00% -2.00% -1.00% 0.00% 1.00% 2.00% 3.00% 4.00% 5.00% 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Percent Change Source: WSU ---PAGE BREAK--- 65 Figure 20a Figure 20b Dividends, Interst, and Rent for Latah and Whitman Counties, 1969-2004 in Constant 2005 Dollars ($1,000) 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Real DIR ($1,000) Latah County Whitman County Source: REIS Dividends, Interst, and Rent for the Quad County Region by County, 1969-2004 (Constant 2005 Dollars) ($1,000) $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Real DIR ($1,000) Latah County Whitman County Nez Perce County Asotin County Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 66 the “rich net out-commuter” theory of rising prosperity in Moscow. Dividends, Interest, Rent and Transfers Another possible reason for rising income in the Moscow area is net in- migration of richer retirees living on nonlabor income. Indeed, Figure 20a shows that in the 1990s both Latah and Whitman Counties experienced increases in divi- dends, interest and rent (DIR). With falling interest rates and other returns to capital in the late early 2000s, we now see a decline in DIR, but we cannot rule out the possibility that higher DIR contributed to greater prosperity in Latah County. But because the same DIR patterns appear for other counties in the re- gion (see Figure 20b), which did not experience the relative increase in prosperity, we suggest that this was not a major factor. Figure 20c shows transfer payments in the four counties of the Quad County Region. These rise steadily everywhere, so it does not appear that rising transfer payments can explain the relative increase in economic prosperity in Latah County. Population Growth in Neighboring Jurisdictions It is possible that growth in neighboring areas could lead to an increase prosperity in Moscow. This is especially true for areas where Moscow serves as a ---PAGE BREAK--- 67 Figure 20c Population of Other Cities and Unincorporated Areas in Latah County by Decade, and 2004 Region 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 Moscow 11,183 14,146 16,513 18,519 21,297 21,900 Onaway 191 166 254 203 229 222 Deary 349 411 539 529 550 528 Genesee 535 619 791 725 942 903 Troy 555 541 820 699 795 769 Kendrick 443 426 395 325 368 356 Potlatch 880 871 819 790 787 760 Bovill 357 350 289 256 304 295 Juliaetta 368 423 522 488 606 582 Unincorporated 6,309 6,938 7,807 8,083 9,057 8,854 County Total 21,170 24,891 28,749 30,617 34,935 35,169 Figure 21 Transfer Payments in the Quad-County Region by County, 1969-2004 (Constant 2005 Dollars) ($1,000) $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Transfers ($1,000) Latah County Whitman County Nez Perce County Asotin County Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 68 Selected Cumulative Growth Rates for Cities in Latah County by Decade Region 1960-1970 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2004 Moscow 26% 17% 12% 15% 7% Onaway -13% 53% -20% 13% Deary 18% 31% 4% -10% Genesee 16% 28% 30% -10% Troy 52% -15% 14% Kendrick -18% 13% Potlatch 0% Bovill -17% -11% 19% Juliaetta 15% 23% 24% -10% Unincorporated 10% 13% 4% 12% County Total 18% 15% 6% 14% 2% Source: U.S. Census Figure 22 Figure 23 Population in Latah County 1970-2005 (1,000) 25 26 28 28 28 27 28 28 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 31 30 30 31 31 31 31 32 33 34 34 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year Population (1,000) Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 69 “higher order place” in a central place hierarchy, i.e., if Moscow serves as a re- gional center. Figure 21 shows the population experience for Moscow and other cities and unincorporated areas of Latah County in the last four decades. Mos- cow’s population in 2004 is just under twice what it was in 1960. For Latah County as a whole, the comparable figure is one and two-thirds. This suggests that Moscow has become a larger component of the population of Latah County over the years. Since 1980, Onaway, Deary, Troy, Kendrick and Potlatch have lost population. Figure 22 confirms the population exodus from most other cities in Latah County in recent periods. If U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates are correct, experience in the first four years of this decade suggests that all cities and the unincorporated areas of Latah County will experience a decline in population for the current decade. This means that Moscow, as a higher order central place for many of these other cities, might be losing the economic impact from the central functions provided to these areas. This effect, however, could be mitigated somewhat, if the loss of population in Moscow’s hinterland migrates to Moscow. Figure 23 confirms the fact that Moscow’s slowing growth is reflected in Latah county totals. Latah County population growth has been pretty flat in the last ten years. Figure 24 shows the annual percent change in population for ---PAGE BREAK--- 70 Figure 24 Figure 25 Latah County Average Annual Percent Change in Population 1970-2005 -3.0% -2.0% -1.0% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Percent Change Source: REIS Population in Whitman County 1970-2005 (1,000) 38 39 41 41 42 38 39 39 39 39 40 41 40 39 40 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 40 40 40 40 41 41 41 40 40 40 40 40 20 25 30 35 40 45 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Population (1,000) Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 71 Figure 26 Figure 27 Whitman County Average Annual Percent Change in Population 1970-2005 -12% -10% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year Percent Change Source: REIS Population in Quad-County Region, by County 1960-2005 - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 Year Population Nez Perce County Latah County Whitman County Asotin County Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census ---PAGE BREAK--- 72 Latah County from 1970-2005. In four of the last eight years Latah County’s population growth has been negative, and in the other years it was less than If we look to the west to Whitman County, we find a similar experience to Latah County, but even more pronounced and prolonged. As seen in Figure 25, the population of Whitman County is lower today than it was in 1973. Fig- ure 26 shows that Whitman County has experienced low or negative annual rates of population growth since the late 1990s. When we expand our population focus to the Quad-County region, com- prised of Latah, Whitman, Nez Perce and Asotin Counties, we find the same pattern of flat or no population growth in recent years. According to the U.S. Census estimates, the Quad-County region added roughly 350 people in the last 5 years, with the increase accounted for by Asotin and Nez Perce Counties. Figure 27 shows in graphical form this flattening growth trajectory. As seen in Figure 28, Latah County has increased its percentage of Quad-County population since 1960, although its portion slipped in the last 5 years. The population data for the region suggest that population growth is not a given for an area. Whitman County’s constant or declining population, the depopulation of other cities in Latah County, and the rising percentage of population that lives in Latah County are all consistent with the in-migration of ---PAGE BREAK--- 73 Figure 28 Latah County as a Percent of Quad County Population by Decade, 1960-2000, and 2005 22.9% 23.3% 24.2% 25.4% 26.1% 25.9% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 Year Population Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census ---PAGE BREAK--- 74 Figure 29a Figure 29b Driver Licenses in Latah County 1989-2005 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Driver Licenses Source: Idaho Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Registrations Latah County 1986-2005 20,000 22,000 24,000 26,000 28,000 30,000 32,000 34,000 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Registrations ---PAGE BREAK--- 75 Figure 30a Figure 30b Driver License Surrenders 1997-2001 900 950 1,000 1,050 1,100 1,150 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Surrenders Source: Idaho Department of Transportation Driver License Surrenders to Latah County, by State 2001 310 274 121 99 58 53 36 28 27 25 21 20 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Washington All others Oregon California Utah Montana Texas Arizona Nevada Alaska Colorado Illinois Ohio State Surrenders Total = 1,092 Source: Idaho Department of Transportation ---PAGE BREAK--- 76 high-income out-commuters theory of rising prosperity in the Moscow area. Drivers Licenses and Motor Vehicle Registrations Another measure of growth in an area comes in the form of driver’s li- censes and motor vehicle registrations. These are available at the county level of reporting. In Figure 29a we see that after remaining flat in the late 1990s, total drivers licenses in Latah County have grown. Since the year 2000, Latah County has added about 1800 drivers. As seen in Figure 29b, however, this increase in drivers has not been matched by an increase in motor vehicle regis- trations, which have trended downward over the same time period. This some- what puzzling result could be explained in part by rising gasoline prices and a change in household composition. For example, the household transportation implications of a rising college student population, retaining UI retirees in Moscow, and flat or declining K-12 student enrollment would be consistent with the observation of more drivers and fewer cars. Migration from Out-of-State Our last indicator of growth taken from a “neighboring” jurisdiction comes from a measure of in-migration. We don’t have migration figures per ---PAGE BREAK--- 77 se, but instead show information in Figure 30a on drivers license surrenders. This measure of in-migration peaked at about 1125 in 1998, and declined until 2001, the most recent year for which we could obtain data. As in the past, we see in Figure 30b that most in-migrants come from the State of Washington. Californians, while the third largest source of in-migrants to Latah County, are roughly one-third the amount of in-migrants from Washing- ton State in 2001. More people surrendered an Oregon driver’s license than a California license in 2001. Concluding Comments Regional economies and the political jurisdictions they support change over time. The Moscow area continues to grow in population and employ- ment, but the growth rates are low and decelerating. We see this reflected in other indicators as well, such as flat school enrollment and water use. While Moscow is growing slowly, it is growing faster than other areas in the region. And, at the same time, Moscow residents on average are becoming richer, both in absolute terms and relative to people in neighboring jurisdictions. These are the pieces of a regional puzzle we’ve attempted to assemble with this study. How can we explain these characteristics of modern Moscow? ---PAGE BREAK--- 78 Changes in regional economies occur for many reasons. Economic base theory suggests that good times at the UI and WSU in part of the 1990s certainly contrib- uted to rising prosperity in Moscow. It’s another form of Moscow’s economic base, however, that gives a more distinct shape to the puzzle. We strongly suggest that the general amenities of the Moscow community have attracted and continue to at- tract high-income residents of the Quad-County Region to live here and work somewhere else. Furthermore, we suggest that one particular amenity stands out in the last decade. This is the availability of quality, upper-income housing and a will- ingness on the part of the community to create more of it. We see this in the value of housing construction and the continued (and rising) dominance of Moscow as the residence of choice for high-income out-commuters. Others may assemble pieces of the Moscow puzzle differently and draw different conclusions from their picture. But we have performed a systematic study of re- gional economic information and surrounded it with accepted regional economic theories. We stand behind our conclusions, but we welcome the discussion that this document might engender. After all, informed and open debate among those wish- ing to disagree agreeably could be another amenity that has led to growth and pros- perity in Moscow, and if we are careful, to more of it in the future. ---PAGE BREAK--- 79 Selected References City of Moscow, Moscow, Idaho, http://www.moscow.id.us/. City of Pullman, Pullman, Washington, http://www.ci.pullman.wa.us/. Economic Modeling Specialists (EMSI), http://www.economicmodeling.com/. Idaho Department of Commerce. County Profiles of Idaho. 2001-2003. Boise, Idaho. IMPLAN Group Inc.(now MIG, Inc.). 2001-2002 IMPLAN Database and Documentation. 1940 South Greeley Street, Suite 101, Stillwater, MN. 78pp. Logos School, Moscow, Idaho, http://www.logosschool.com/. Meyer, Neil.L.; Guaderrama, Marisa; Taylor, Garth. Developing Coefficients and Building Input–Output Models Agricultural Economics Extension Paper 00-10. University of Idaho, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System. 2000. Moscow, Idaho. Miller, Ronald and Peter D. Blair. 1985. Input-Output Analysis: Foundations and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Moscow, School District, http://www.sd281.k12.id.us/. St. Mary’s School, Moscow, Idaho, http://www.stmarysmoscow.com/. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, http://www.uihome.uidaho.edu/uihome/. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990 and 2000 Census. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Information System (REIS). 2004. Washington, D.C. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999, 2003. Washington, D.C. Washington State University, Pullman Washington, http://www.wsu.edu/. ---PAGE BREAK--- 80 Appendices: Selected and Supporting Data Series of Interest ---PAGE BREAK--- 81 Selected Cumulative Idaho Population Growth Rates 1969-2004 Rank Region 1969-2004 1969-1979 1979-1989 1989-1999 1999-2004 1 .Boise County 325% 65% 16% 91% 16% 2 .Blaine County 271% 74% 30% 43% 14% 3 .Kootenai County 250% 68% 15% 57% 15% 4 .Teton County 204% 16% 22% 69% 27% 5 .Ada County 201% 53% 19% 46% 13% 6 .Canyon County 159% 38% 5% 43% 25% 7 .Bonner County 158% 52% 11% 39% 10% 8 .Madison County 135% 47% 22% 16% 13% 9 .Valley County 122% 53% 10% 27% 4% Idaho State 97% 32% 7% 28% 9% 10 .Boundary County 92% 32% 16% 18% 7% 11 .Jerome County 88% 45% 0% 21% 7% 12 .Jefferson County 78% 31% 8% 16% 9% 13 .Payette County 75% 25% 6% 24% 6% 14 .Bonneville County 73% 27% 9% 14% 10% 15 .Owyhee County 73% 31% 0% 25% 5% 16 .Gem County 71% 26% 31% 6% 17 .Franklin County 65% 20% 4% 22% 9% 18 .Gooding County 65% 35% 21% 3% 19 .Twin Falls County 63% 23% 4% 20% 6% 20 .Elmore County 62% 25% 36% 0% 21 .Power County 54% 38% 6% 7% 22 .Bingham County 50% 26% 3% 11% 4% 23 .Bannock County 47% 26% 2% 15% 0% United States 46% 12% 10% 13% 5% 24 .Benewah County 45% 27% 2% 14% 25 .Oneida County 44% 15% 5% 20% 1% 26 . Latah County 44% 16% 9% 14% 1% 27 .Lincoln County 42% 11% 24% 8% 28 .Lemhi County 41% 32% 17% 29 .Custer County 41% 10% 26% 7% 30 .Fremont County 41% 27% 8% 4% 31 .Camas County 40% 48% 0% 32 .Washington County 31% 15% 18% 0% 33 .Cassia County 26% 15% 0% 10% 0% 34 . Nez Perce County 25% 8% 3% 11% 1% 35 .Clark County 25% 8% 0% 26% 36 .Minidoka County 22% 26% 5% 37 .Idaho County 22% 12% 14% 1% 38 .Adams County 20% 17% 9% 39 .Caribou County 10% 31% -18% 3% 40 .Bear Lake County 9% 18% -11% 5% 41 .Butte County 13% -11% 42 .Lewis County 12% -18% 6% 0% 43 .Clearwater County -22% -16% 5% 44 .Shoshone County -34% -28% 0% Source: REIS Table A1 ---PAGE BREAK--- 82 Table A2 Selected Washington Cumulative Population Growth Rates 1969-2004 Rank Region 1969-2004 1969-1979 1979-1989 1989-1999 1999-2004 1 .San Juan County 328.7% 115.1% 26.1% 43.2% 10.4% 2 .Island County 213.5% 64.7% 38.0% 22.5% 12.6% 3 .Clark County 209.1% 47.0% 22.6% 48.4% 15.6% 4 .Thurston County 198.4% 58.3% 30.4% 31.9% 9.7% 5 .Jefferson County 180.0% 50.7% 27.4% 33.1% 9.6% 6 .Mason County 169.8% 50.3% 24.0% 31.6% 10.0% 7 .Snohomish County 145.2% 23.1% 38.0% 34.0% 7.8% 8 .Stevens County 141.3% 56.9% 13.2% 29.9% 4.5% 9 .Benton County 140.2% 60.0% 5.1% 28.7% 10.9% 10 .Kitsap County 135.9% 38.8% 29.7% 25.7% 4.2% 11 .Franklin County 131.5% 32.3% 8.4% 31.4% 22.9% 12 .Whatcom County 123.3% 29.3% 18.1% 33.5% 9.5% 13 .Skagit County 117.0% 20.1% 23.8% 33.7% 9.2% 14 .Ferry County 113.5% 60.6% 8.2% 16.2% 5.7% 15 .Pend Oreille County 111.2% 43.6% 4.6% 31.5% 7.0% 16 .Douglas County 110.7% 33.7% 18.2% 26.2% 5.7% 17 .Grant County 103.2% 21.2% 13.3% 36.7% 8.2% 18 .Clallam County 99.3% 46.8% 10.6% 16.3% 5.6% 19 .Skamania County 88.1% 33.6% 8.7% 20.0% 7.9% Washington State 85.6% 20.0% 18.3% 23.1% 6.2% 20 .Pierce County 83.8% 16.7% 20.6% 21.4% 7.6% 21 .Chelan County 74.0% 12.0% 16.3% 27.2% 4.9% 22 .Yakima County 62.0% 19.5% 11.0% 18.1% 3.4% 23 .Klickitat County 61.4% 23.3% 8.0% 15.5% 4.9% 24 .Okanogan County 59.7% 21.1% 10.9% 18.8% 0.1% 25 .Lewis County 59.1% 19.6% 9.1% 16.5% 4.7% 26 .Spokane County 58.1% 21.6% 6.4% 16.6% 4.9% 27 .Asotin County 56.8% 23.8% 5.3% 18.7% 1.3% 28 .King County 55.5% 8.1% 19.5% 17.1% 2.8% 29 .Adams County 47.9% 22.1% -0.9% 19.6% 2.2% 30 .Kittitas County 47.0% 1.8% 5.9% 25.6% 8.5% 31 .Walla Walla County 42.1% 14.8% 4.0% 13.8% 4.6% 32 .Cowlitz County 41.7% 15.0% 3.7% 14.6% 3.6% 33 .Pacific County 41.1% 12.8% 8.8% 13.8% 1.0% 34 .Grays Harbor County 20.7% 13.0% -3.8% 6.2% 4.6% 35 .Wahkiakum County 12.2% 12.7% -11.8% 13.9% -0.9% 36 .Whitman County 10.3% 7.6% -1.5% 6.0% -1.8% 37 .Lincoln County 9.1% -2.2% -4.9% 14.1% 2.8% 38 .Columbia County -5.4% -11.3% 3.3% 0.1% 3.1% 39 .Garfield County -16.1% -5.5% -13.4% 7.0% -4.1% Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 83 Cumulative State Population Growth Rankings 1990-2000 and 2000 to 2005 RK State 1990-2000 RK State 2000-2005 1 .Nevada 66% 1 .Nevada 21% 2 .Arizona 40% 2 .Arizona 16% 3 .Colorado 31% 3 .Florida 11% 4 .Utah 30% 4 .Georgia 11% 5 . Idaho 29% 5 .Utah 11% 6 .Georgia 26% 6 . Idaho 10% 7 .Florida 24% 7 .Texas 10% 8 .Texas 23% 8 .Colorado 8% 9 .North Carolina 21% 9 .North Carolina 8% 10 .Washington 21% 10 .Delaware 8% 11 .Oregon 20% 11 .Virginia 7% 12 .New Mexico 20% 12 .Washington 7% 13 .Delaware 18% 13 .California 7% 14 .Tennessee 17% 14 .Oregon 6% 15 .South Carolina 15% 15 .South Carolina 6% 16 .Virginia 14% 16 .New Mexico 6% 17 .Alaska 14% 17 .New Hampshir 6% 18 .California 14% 18 .Alaska 6% 19 .Arkansas 14% 19 .Maryland 6% U.S. 13% U.S. 5% 20 .Montana 13% 20 .Hawaii 5% 21 .Minnesota 12% 21 .Tennessee 5% 22 .New Hampshir 11% 22 .Minnesota 4% 23 .Maryland 11% 23 .Arkansas 4% 24 .Mississippi 11% 24 .Montana 4% 25 .Alabama 10% 25 .Maine 4% 26 .Oklahoma 10% 26 .Missouri 4% 27 .Kentucky 10% 27 .New Jersey 4% 28 .Indiana 10% 28 .Kentucky 3% 29 .Wisconsin 10% 29 .Wisconsin 3% 30 .Missouri 9% 30 .Indiana 3% 31 .Hawaii 9% 31 .Wyoming 3% 32 .Wyoming 9% 32 .Connecticut 3% 33 .New Jersey 9% 33 .Oklahoma 3% 34 .Illinois 9% 34 .South Dakota 3% 35 .Kansas 9% 35 .Nebraska 3% 36 .South Dakota 8% 36 .Illinois 3% 37 .Nebraska 8% 37 .Mississippi 3% 38 .Vermont 8% 38 .Rhode Island 3% 39 .Michigan 7% 39 .Alabama 2% 40 .Louisiana 6% 40 .Vermont 2% 41 .Massachusetts 6% 41 .Kansas 2% 42 .New York 5% 42 .Michigan 2% 43 .Iowa 5% 43 .New York 1% 44 .Ohio 5% 44 .Iowa 1% 45 .Rhode Island 4% 45 .Louisiana 1% 46 .Maine 4% 46 1% 47 .Connecticut 4% 47 .Ohio 1% 48 3% 48 .Massachusetts 1% 49 .West Virginia 1% 49 .West Virginia 0% 50 .North Dakota 1% 50 .North Dakota 51 .District of Colu 51 .District of Colu Source: REIS Table A3 ---PAGE BREAK--- 84 Table A3 Average Age of Housing Stock 1939-2004* Rank County Average Age 1 Shoshone 48 2 Lewis 44 3 Butte 43 4 Oneida 43 5 Franklin 41 6 Washington 41 7 Bear Lake 41 8 Caribou 41 9 Minidoka 40 10 Nez Perce 40 11 Cassia 39 12 Clark 39 13 Lincoln 39 14 Clearwater 38 15 Gooding 38 16 Bannock 37 17 Latah 37 18 Twin Falls 37 19 Power 37 20 Bingham 36 21 Idaho 36 22 Payette 36 23 Jerome 36 24 Benewah 36 25 Lemhi 35 26 Bonneville 34 27 Camas 34 28 Fremont 34 29 Owyhee 34 30 Gem 33 31 Jefferson 33 32 Elmore 33 33 Custer 33 34 Adams 32 35 Boundary 32 36 State 31 37 Bonner 31 38 Canyon 27 39 Valley 26 40 Ada 26 41 Blaine 25 42 Kootenai 25 43 Boise 25 44 Madison 25 45 Teton 22 Source: U.S. Census * Weighted average of interval data ages are approximation Table A4 Year 2000 County Vacancy Rates County Housing Rank by Rental Vacancy Rate Region Home-Owner Vacancy Rate Rental Vacancy Rate 1 Custer 5.1 32.5 2 Caribou 2.2 28.9 3 Adams 3.5 17.7 4 Valley 4.8 17.5 5 Camas 4.7 16.0 6 Shoshone 4.2 15.4 7 Fremont 3.5 15.2 8 Butte 4.4 14.7 9 Clark 3.3 14.2 10 Blaine 2.0 13.6 11 Clearwater 2.9 13.3 12 Bear Lake 2.8 12.8 13 Idaho 3.0 12.7 14 Boise 4.5 12.1 15 Lemhi 3.4 11.7 16 Cassia 2.7 11.3 17 Minidoka 1.7 11.0 18 Lewis 2.8 10.6 19 Owyhee 3.3 10.0 20 Teton 2.4 9.7 21 Bingham 1.7 9.4 22 Elmore 3.0 9.3 23 Payette 2.3 9.3 24 Lincoln 3.2 9.2 25 Boundary 1.8 9.1 26 Bannock 2.1 8.4 27 Benewah 1.8 8.2 28 Kootenai 2.2 7.8 29 Bonner 2.4 7.7 30 Twin Falls 2.3 7.5 31 Washington 2.9 7.4 32 Gem 2.3 7.1 33 Jefferson 1.9 7.0 34 Madison 1.6 7.0 35 Canyon 2.5 6.9 36 Power 3.4 6.1 37 Bonneville 1.6 5.9 38 Oneida 3.0 5.6 39 Jerome 1.9 5.4 40 Nez Perce 1.3 5.4 41 Gooding 2.0 5.3 42 Ada 1.8 5.1 43 Franklin 2.3 4.6 44 Latah 1.9 4.5 State 2.2 7.6 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census ---PAGE BREAK--- 85 Moscow School District Enrollment (1984-2005) Enrollment Year Regular Charter Total 1984 2,469 2,469 1985 2,537 2,537 1986 2,584 2,584 1987 2,623 2,623 1988 2,669 2,669 1989 2,654 2,654 1990 2,595 2,595 1991 2,681 2,681 1992 2,659 2,659 1993 2,680 2,680 1994 2,657 2,657 1995 2,649 2,649 1996 2,669 2,669 1997 2,609 2,609 1998 2,596 2,596 1999 2,477 2,477 2000 2,411 172 2,583 2001 2,393 125 2,518 2002 2,443 173 2,616 2003 2,355 208 2,563 2004 2,374 154 2,528 2005 2,452 154 2,606 Source: Moscow School District Table A4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 86 Water Use on the Palouse 1976-2005 Millions of Gallons 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 [PHONE REDACTED] 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Millions of Gallons UI WSU City of Moscow City of Pullman Source: Cities of Moscow, Pullman, UI, and WSU Total Major Palouse Water Users 1976-2005 Moscow, Pullman, WSU, UI 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Millions of Gallons Source: Cities of Moscow, Pullman, UI, and WSU Table A5 Table A6 ---PAGE BREAK--- 87 Table A7 Total Employment Nez Perce County 1970-2004 15 15 16 17 17 18 18 19 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 21 22 22 23 23 25 25 25 26 26 26 27 26 26 26 26 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Year Total Employment (1,000) Source: REIS Table A8 Total Employment Asotin County 1970-2004 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Total Employment (1,000) Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 88 Table A9 Table A10 Percent Change in Direct Construction Employment 1969-2004 336% 289% 190% 111% 111% -39% -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% Asotin Idaho State Washington State Nez Perce Latah Whitman Region % Source: REIS Cumulative Percent Change in State and Local Employment 1969-2004 177% 168% 166% 135% 80% 71% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% Nez Perce Latah Idaho State Washington State Asotin Whitman Region Percent Change Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 89 Table A11 Table A12 Annual Percentage Change in Net Residence Adjustment for Latah County, 1969-2004 in Constant 2005 Dollars ($1,000) -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Percent Source: REIS Net Residence Adjustment for Latah and Whitman County, 1991-2004 in Constant 2005 Dollars Millions) 47.5 49.7 51.8 55.2 55.9 58.8 63.9 67.0 68.9 78.8 82.8 85.7 88.4 94.0 -39.5 -40.4 -41.8 -45.0 -45.9 -48.5 -51.4 -53.8 -54.9 -65.2 -62.5 -67.1 -70.3 -77.7 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 [PHONE REDACTED] 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Real $Millions Latah County Whitman County Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 90 HeadCount Enrollment Idaho Universities Acad. Year Boise State University Idaho State University University of Idaho Lewis Clark State College Total 1982 11,241 7,046 9,185 2,031 29,503 1983 10,871 6,992 9,237 2,164 29,264 1984 11,003 7,040 8,970 2,031 29,044 1985 10,758 7,021 8,848 2,036 28,663 1986 10,967 6,958 8,584 2,049 28,558 1987 11,377 7,312 9,032 2,164 29,885 1988 11,747 7,616 9,444 2,275 31,082 1989 12,586 8,028 10,019 2,540 33,173 1990 13,529 9,139 10,544 2,667 35,879 1991 14,254 10,048 10,941 2,816 38,059 1992 14,908 10,755 11,448 3,029 40,140 1993 15,296 10,781 11,543 3,226 40,846 1994 15,099 11,875 11,730 3,330 42,034 1995 14,969 12,027 11,727 3,118 41,841 1996 15,137 12,139 11,133 2,967 41,376 1997 15,467 11,870 11,027 3,008 41,372 1998 15,744 12,232 11,437 2,972 42,385 1999 16,209 12,650 11,305 2,815 42,979 2000 16,482 12,843 11,635 2,696 43,656 2001 17,176 13,663 12,067 2,952 45,858 2002 17,688 13,352 12,423 2,967 46,430 2003 18,431 13,625 12,894 3,228 48,470 2004 18,418 13,803 12,824 3,145 48,190 2005 18,650 13,977 12,476 3,222 48,325 Source: Idaho State Board of Education Table A13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 91 Idaho Student Enrollment Growth Average Yearly Percentage Increase 1982-2004 Headcount FTE's Boise State University 2.14% 1.93% Idaho State University 2.54% 2.62% University of Idaho 1.35% 1.19% Lewis Clark State College 2.12% 2.11% Total 2.11% 1.89% Table A14 Total Headcount Enrollment University of Idaho - All Campuses FY 1996-2006 10,000 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000 13,500 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 Source: University of Idaho Table A15 ---PAGE BREAK--- 92 Basic State Appropriation 1977-2004 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2 3 4 Thousands Year BSU ISU LCSC UI Source: Idaho State Board of Education Table A16 Total WSU Budget FY 1998-2007 in Constant 2005 Dollars $442 $439 $440 $445 $482 $480 $496 $514 $504 $509 $400 $420 $440 $460 $480 $500 $520 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year Millions of Constant Dollars Source: WSU Table A17 ---PAGE BREAK--- 93 Table A18 Table A19 Annual Percent Change in Transfer Payments for Latah County, 1969-2004 in Constant 2005 Dollars ($1,000) -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Percent Change Source: REIS Source: REIS Annual Percentage Change in Net Residence Adjustment for Latah County, 1969-2004 in Constant 2005 Dollars ($1,000) -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Percent Source: REIS ---PAGE BREAK--- 94 Poverty Rates by County Idaho Region 1989 1993 1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Ada 9.2 9.1 8.6 8.9 8.7 8.4 7.3 7.7 8.6 9.3 Adams 15.2 12.6 14.0 14.6 15.8 15.5 14.6 15.4 14.3 13.3 Bannock 12.4 12.4 13.2 13.9 13.4 13.7 12.9 13.1 13.5 13.5 Bear Lake 12.8 12.1 13.6 13.4 12.5 12.4 12.0 12.4 11.8 11.2 Benewah 12.9 13.9 14.6 14.4 15.2 14.9 13.8 14.1 13.6 12.9 Bingham 15.3 15.2 15.2 14.7 15.2 14.6 13.2 13.0 12.6 12.9 Blaine 7.3 6.6 6.6 7.5 7.0 6.8 6.2 6.9 6.6 6.3 Boise 11.6 11.0 10.8 11.3 9.5 8.0 10.8 11.0 11.0 10.0 Bonner 17.5 14.9 15.1 15.2 14.2 14.5 13.7 14.3 14.1 13.4 Bonneville 10.2 10.6 11.1 12.2 12.1 11.7 10.5 10.6 10.9 11.6 Boundary 18.5 15.4 16.7 16.5 16.2 16.1 15.4 16.5 14.9 13.8 Butte 13.2 12.7 13.8 15.4 15.1 15.4 15.2 15.4 13.5 14.0 Camas 5.8 8.2 7.9 7.4 6.0 6.6 7.1 8.6 6.1 7.4 Canyon 19.4 17.0 14.8 16.0 15.1 14.1 12.7 12.8 13.4 13.5 Caribou 9.8 7.7 9.2 9.6 10.1 10.3 9.7 10.2 10.1 10.0 Cassia 15.4 15.6 15.5 15.4 15.5 15.3 14.6 15.3 14.8 14.6 Clark 12.9 10.2 9.9 12.4 10.4 15.6 14.6 16.1 15.8 16.1 Clearwater 12.2 12.2 13.1 14.9 15.2 14.5 14.3 14.5 13.4 12.8 Custer 11.3 11.3 12.0 12.1 12.8 11.9 11.9 13.6 12.3 12.0 Elmore 13.6 11.2 12.1 12.7 12.7 12.9 11.5 12.1 12.3 11.7 Franklin 12.0 11.8 12.1 12.5 12.0 10.7 10.4 10.2 10.3 9.7 Fremont 15.2 13.6 14.5 14.4 15.9 14.9 14.2 14.8 13.6 13.2 Gem 18.6 15.7 15.1 15.4 14.1 13.1 12.4 12.3 12.3 11.8 Gooding 17.7 15.2 15.1 14.8 14.4 13.4 13.0 13.1 12.2 11.7 Idaho 14.9 14.0 15.7 17.6 17.1 15.9 14.9 16.1 15.9 15.0 Jefferson 16.5 13.6 13.8 13.1 13.3 12.2 11.5 11.4 11.0 11.0 Jerome 14.4 15.1 14.7 15.4 15.3 14.5 13.1 13.3 12.9 12.9 Kootenai 13.0 11.5 11.0 11.5 11.3 11.5 10.6 10.9 10.8 10.4 Latah 12.7 12.6 13.3 13.5 13.0 13.0 13.6 14.1 14.0 14.0 Lemhi 17.7 15.5 15.5 15.8 16.0 15.0 14.5 15.7 15.1 13.4 Lewis 11.9 14.1 15.1 15.2 15.8 13.7 13.7 13.9 12.7 12.3 Lincoln 20.0 13.1 15.0 13.0 14.1 12.9 11.3 12.1 10.9 11.1 Madison 16.3 14.9 15.3 15.3 13.8 13.8 15.4 16.3 16.9 15.5 Minidoka 16.2 15.1 16.2 16.3 14.9 14.5 14.0 14.2 13.3 13.3 Nez Perce 11.9 11.1 11.4 12.8 12.3 12.1 11.4 11.3 11.1 11.8 Oneida 11.8 11.2 12.7 12.8 13.5 11.8 11.2 11.0 11.4 10.3 Owyhee 26.3 10.5 21.7 21.4 21.5 18.4 17.1 18.0 18.2 16.2 Payette 21.5 17.8 17.5 17.2 15.8 14.3 13.6 13.3 13.3 13.4 Power 15.4 13.8 15.4 17.8 14.9 16.1 14.6 14.6 13.8 14.5 Shoshone 15.9 20.7 21.4 20.1 18.7 17.5 16.8 16.8 17.0 16.6 Teton 13.1 10.4 10.1 9.7 10.2 10.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.0 Twin Falls 13.4 13.3 13.6 14.1 13.5 13.2 12.2 12.7 12.6 12.7 Valley 10.8 11.8 12.6 13.8 11.9 11.3 10.0 10.7 9.8 9.7 Washington 23.3 18.8 18.4 18.4 17.7 15.4 15.2 16.0 15.0 13.8 Idaho State 13.5 12.5 12.6 13.0 12.6 12.1 11.2 11.5 11.7 11.8 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census---Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates Caution: These estimates are model based and may differ from Census Table A20 ---PAGE BREAK--- 95 Table A21 Sources of Community Income, 1969-2003 Washington State King County (Seattle) 1969 2003 1969 2003 Personal income 100% 100% 100% 100% Net earnings by place of residence 79% 70% 80% 74% Dividends, interest, and rent 13% 16% 14% 17% Personal current transfer receipts 8% 14% 6% 9% U.S. Idaho State 1969 2003 1969 2003 Personal income 100% 100% 100% 100% Net earnings by place of residence 78% 69% 79% 67% Dividends, interest, and rent 14% 16% 13% 18% Personal current transfer receipts 8% 15% 8% 15% Spokane Whitman Asotin 1969 2003 1969 2003 1969 2003 Personal income 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Net earnings by place of residence 74% 64% 76% 63% 73% 58% Dividends, interest, and rent 15% 17% 18% 19% 14% 19% Personal current transfer receipts 11% 19% 6% 18% 12% 23% Ada (Boise) Latah Nez Perce 1969 2003 1969 2003 1969 2003 Personal income 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Net earnings by place of residence 79% 71% 76% 66% 77% 63% Dividends, interest, and rent 13% 19% 16% 21% 14% 17% Personal current transfer receipts 8% 9% 8% 13% 9% 20% Source: REIS