|
I
<br /> NDd. Household Income: The median household income for the Everett Planning Area
<br /> in 1990 was $30,391. This figure is lower than the median for all of Snohomish County,
<br /> I
<br /> which was $36,847. Sub-area #3 (Southwest) had the highest median household income
<br /> with $48,182, followed closely by sub-area #6 (Silver Lake) with $47,314. Sub-area #1
<br /> (North End) had the lowest median household income at $21,385. The other sub-area
<br /> I
<br /> figures were $35,081 for area #2 (Central), $31,617 for area #5 (South Point), and
<br /> $30,513 for area#4 (Paine - Stickney).
<br /> I Z. Employment: Who Works in Everett and What Do They Do? Everett is the major job
<br /> center for Snohomish County, with approximately one-half of all jobs in the county in
<br /> 1990 being located within the Everett Planning Area. Nearly one third of the 77,500 jobs
<br /> in the Everett Planning Area were located in sub-area #3 (Southwest), with 24,300 jobs,
<br /> I
<br /> and just under one third were located in sub-area #1 (North End), with 23,400 jobs.
<br /> Manufacturing was the leading employment sector in the Everett Planning Area, with
<br /> 33,700 jobs (43% of total), followed by services with 16,6000 jobs (21%), retail with
<br /> 12,100 jobs (16%), WTCU (wholesale, transportation, communications and utilities) with
<br /> 7,600 jobs (10%), and government/education with 7,400 jobs (10%).
<br /> Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 Total
<br /> ' Est. Employ. 23,390 9,938 24,327 7,899 10,515 1,396 77,465
<br /> 1990 Nobs)
<br /> I
<br /> Jobs to House- 1.91 1.01 17.80 2.49 0.71 0.21 1.60
<br /> hold Ratio
<br /> Op
<br /> Jobs to 0.86 0.42 6.47 1.11 0.34 0.07 0.69
<br /> Popul. Ratio
<br /> I Choices for the Future -- Three Alternative Growth Scenarios: As part of the update of its
<br /> comprehensive plan, Everett considered three "alternative growth scenarios" to evaluate different choices
<br /> the community could make about how to grow in the future. A fourth alternative, or "no action
<br /> ' alternative," which would have maintained previous comprehensive plans, was analyzed in the
<br /> Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as a possible fourth alternative, as required by SEPA (State
<br /> Environmental Policy Act). Each alternative was based upon different objectives and assumptions
<br /> concerning future population and employment targets, land use, housing, transportation, capital facilities,
<br /> I economic development, and community image. All of the Alternative Growth Scenarios for the Everett
<br /> Growth Management Comprehensive Plan would have allowed for significant growth within the Everett
<br /> Planning Area. The Planning Commission selected a "Preferred Alternative" that combined the most
<br /> I
<br /> desirable aspects of the alternatives prepared for the draft comprehensive plan and EIS. The following
<br /> table shows the growth levels under the alternative growth scenarios, and the growth levels established
<br /> for the Preferred Alternative.
<br /> 1 2012 Population and Employment Targets for Preferred Alternative
<br /> and Alternative Growth Scenarios.
<br /> Alternative 2012 Population 2012 Employment
<br /> 1990 104,456 77,465
<br /> #1 (Existing Trends) 143,150 122,500
<br /> #2 (Mixed Use Activity Centers)16
<br /> 167,400 127,960
<br /> #3 (Tax Base and Employment Growth) 135,000 137,500
<br /> #4 (Existing Land Use Plans) 139,100 122,500
<br /> IPreferred Alternative 150,000 128,000
<br /> 8
<br />
|