HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-89 - Res. Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP)RESOLUTION NO. 3-89
WHEREAS, members of the Board of Directors of the Economic Development
Council of Mason County have been designated by the Mason County Board of
Commissioners as the Overall Economic Development Program Committee for Mason
County, Washington; and
WHEREAS, the Overall Economic Development Program Committee has written and
accepted an initial Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) for Mason County,
Washington; and
WHEREAS, this OEDP shall be updated each year; and
WHEREAS, this OEDP is required before U. S. Department of Commerce funding
for infrastructure projects in Mason County can be considered; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held to consider adoption of the Overall
Economic Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mason County Board of Commissioners
does hereby accept the Overall Economic Development Plan for Mason County,
Washington, and request that the document be forwarded to the Region 10 Office of
the Economic Development Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce.
DATED this 4th day of January, 1989.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Chai„./ (724 C_A
rperson ee
Commissioner Gibson
Commissioner Hunter
ATTEST:
iLdea C 6
Clerk of the Board
xc: File
EDC
o\I RALL ECO O I C
DEV'ELOF Er m F'LAN
MASON COU 'rY, t AS1--i I NiCT'O
1OSS
T H E
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL OF
MASON COUNTY
Addendum
e
ii Minority in Area, Other is 1% not .01%.
1 Section 1.1.. Add. Mason Coouty'o economic development
goals also include retaining existing jobs by
supporting and encouraging existing businesses.
I
2
Add Section 2.1.3. Continue discussions with all
entities within Mason County to plan most effectively
for economic growth and development.
Add Section 2.1.4. Address the economic development
needs of the many small communities located in Mason
County.
8 Add Section 2.1.5. Maintain the present tax base
available to County government.
3 Section 2.3. Add parenthesis (Sanderson and Jnboo
Prairie Industrial Parks).
8 Section 8.6.2.1. Delete. aob-orom planning committee
for 8mroteoe Island seek. Add. Buruteuu Resource
plouoiug Committee oaeba.
OVERALL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMITTEE
FOR MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL OF MASON
COUNTY
Harry Martin,
President
Tim Sheldon, Director
Ms Gerry Geist,
Membership
& Education Committee
MANUFACTURING
Keith Chamberlain,
Owner
Ornamental Stone
Manufacturing
Ward Forrer,
Controller
Simpson Timber Co,
Terry Atkins, VP
Certified Aerospace
Inc.
PROFESSIONAL
Richard T. Hoss,
Attorney at Law
BUSINESS
Terry Shaw, Manager
Land Title Co.
Tom Spikes, VP
1st Olympic Bank
Jim Leggett, Owner
Retail Office Supply
Dave Bayley, Owner
Mason County Title Co.
Harley Somers, Owner
Purdy Realty
Jef Conklin, Broker
Angle Realty
JOURNALISM
Ms Carol Wentlandt,
Mgr, Writer; Belfair
Herald /Shelton
Journal
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Chuck Ruhl,
Commissioner
City of Shelton
M.M. Lyon,
Commissioner
Port of Shelton
Mike Gibson,
Commissioner
Mason County
Harvey Warnaca,
Commisioner,
Mason County
Public Utility
District (PUD) 3
EDUCATION
Ms Sandy Miller, Board
Member
Shelton School
District
SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE
Edward H. Binder,
Economic Development
Planner
The OEDP Committee meets on the fourth Tuesday each month at the office of the
Economic Development Council of Mason County. The authority to undertake the OEDP
project was granted to the EDC of Mason County by the commissioners of Mason County,
the Port of Shelton, and the City of Shelton.
The OEDP document for Mason County was developed and written by John Hill, 6912
Hillgrove Ln SW, Tacoma, Wa. 98499, Phone: (206) 582 4466 under the direction and
authority of the Economic Development Council of Mason County.
MINORITY REPRESENTATION ON OEDP COMMITTEE
Date: November 22, 1988
State: Washington
County: Mason
Prepared By: John Hill
Title: OEDP Consultant
1. Minority in Area or District: Number
Total Population: 35/985 100%
Black Population: 56 001%
Female Population: 17,426 SO%
Spanish Origin: 466a 1.3%
Native American: 1,238 3.4%
Asian Population; 337' 1%
Other: 383 .010
u} Includes migratory seasonal workers
2. Executive Committee of the OEDP:
Harry Martin/ Chairman
Tim Sheldon, Director
Economic Development Council
of Mason County
Ms Gerry Geist, Membership
& Education Committee
3. OEDP Committee Members:
See OEDP Committee for Mason County Washington, next page.
4. Summary:
OEDP Committee Executive Committee
Total Members: 20 3
Cauoasion Members: 20 3
Minority Members: 4 1
ii
G. Method by which Minority Representatives
were Selected:
There are few minority representatives available to work in economic development in
the Mayon County region, Black representatives are non-existent due mainly to the low
residency rate. The Indian Tribes are well represented through their own tribal
offices and have established individual OEDP documents to meet their specific
community and economic development needy. ?here are few representatives from the
Asian and Spanish residents because they are typically migratory seasonal workers that
do not establish year-round residency.
Therefore the minority members of the O8DP Committee are year-round residents who have
expressed their desire and interest in enhancing the quality of life for their
community' They have been selected for their active leadership in community affairs
and their willingness to work for sustained community and economic development for the
benefit of the Mason County community as a whole. All are respected members of the
community, all have the power derived through self-determination and equality, and all
have demonstrated their abilities through their community involvement.
Mr. Edward Binder' economic development planner for the Skokomish Indian
Tribe, speaks for the efforts and concerns of the Native American and American
Indian Community within the boundaries of Mayon County.
There are two reservations, one is represented by the Skokomish Indian Tribe,
the second, The Squaxin Island Indian Tribe' Each is included in the Overall
Development Plan of Mason County with data provided through their Tribal
Economic Development Offices; Skokomish Tribe, Edward Binder, Squaxin Island
Tribe, Jim ?ail.
Ms. Carol Wantlandt is one of two represents the N/NE Mason County Region.
She is a reporter for the 8elfuir Herald/Shelton Journal and is active in
local community affairs, e.g. ?he|er Community Center in Belfair and the EDC
of Mason County,
i i i
Ms. Sandy Miller is m school board member for the Shelton School District in
addition to serving on the education committee for the EDC of Mayon County.
In addition to her involvement on the OEDP Committee, Gerry Geist is also an
active member of the EDC of Mayon County and is the chairperson for the
membership committee.
With the exception of the OEDP Chairman and the EDC Director the balance of the OEDP
Committee for Mason County are representatives of local government and the
commercial/industrial/retail business community.
Harry Martin, a retired real estate executive, serves as the OEDP Chairman and is an
active community leader in Mason County' In addition to his involvement with the EDC
and OEDP Committees Mr. Martin serves as Chairman of the 9lC Board, and as a community
activist at Public Utility District (PUD) and Mason County Commissioners meetings, He
is also a member of the North Mason County Sub -Area Planning Committee and an active
administrator for the Theler Community Center in Beltuir. All are non -paid positions.
iv
-r ABL_l—= 017 C.O"7~T=;"~T- S
1. EXECUTIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL
1.1. SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND STRATEGIES
1
1
2, MASON COUNTY OBJECTIVES 1
2.1. COUNTY 1
2.2. PORT OF SHELTON 2
2.3. PORT OF SHELTON,
SANDEBSON and JOHNS PRAIRIE INDUSTRIAL PARKS . . 2
2.4. CITY OF SHELTON 3
2.5. SHELTON ACTION PLAN GOALS 4
2'6' CITIZEN SUB -AREA PLANNING 8
2.8,1 NORTH (NE) MASON COUNTY G
2'6.2 HABSTENE ISLAND REGION O
2.6.3 TOTTEN/LITTLE SKOOKUM REGION G
2.7 UNION, TOWN OF G
2'8' SKOKOMlSH lNDlAN TRIBE 7
2.9 SQUAXlN ISLAND lNDlAN TRIBE 13
3. BACKGROUND ON MASON COUNTY ECONOMIC POLICY 14
4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES 16
4,1 PROJECT PRIORITY LIST 18
PRIORITIES FOR MASON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 18
4,2 PORT OF SHEL?ON,
SANDEBSON & JOHNS PRAIRIE INDUSTRIAL PARKS 18
4.3 CITY OF SHELTON iQ
4.3.4.0.0.0.0.1 Sub -Area Planning 20
4.4 SKOKOM[SH [NDlAN TRIBE 20
4.5 SQUAXlN lNDlAN TRIBE 20
S. ASSESSMENT OF MASON COUNTY ECONOMY
....,........... 20
5.1 LAND AND ENVIRONMENT 20
v
-r A B L~ ]=— OF: --
(CONTINUED)
5.1.1 LOCATION 20
S,1.2 CLIMATE . . . ^ . ^ . ^ . . . ^ ^ . ^ ^ . . . . . . . . . 20
5.1.3 TOPOGRAPHY 20
5.1.4 LAND USAGE . . . . . , . ` . . . . , . . ^ . . . . . . 20
5.1.4.1 ZONING 20
S.1.4.2 SUPE8FUND SITES 21
G.1.5 PUBLIC SERVICES . . . . , . ^ . . . . ^ , ^ ^ . . . . . 21
5.1.S.1 SEWAGE COLLECTION/TREATMENT PLANTS .. . .. , ^ 21
5,1.5.3 SOLID WASTE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL 21
5'1.6.4 FLOOD PLAINS AND/OR WETLANDS 22
S.POPULATlON
8.2. POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX
6.3 COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE
6.4 LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT
22
24
24
25
7. INCOME 27
7.1 PERSONAL INCOME COMPONENTS , . . , . , . , , , . . . , . - . . . , 27
COUNTY TAX BASE 30
7.2 EDUCATION . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ^ 32
7.3 COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY 33
7,3.1 PROMINENT PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYERS 33
7.4 Major and Secondary Growth Centers 33
8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND POTENTIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
8.1 CONSTRAINTS 34
8.2 POTENTIALS 35
vi
TABLES
Table 2.8.1
Table 2.8.2
Table 2.8.3
Table 3.0.4
Table 6.2.
Table 6.3
Table 6.4.1
Table 6.4.2
Graph 6.4.3
Table 7.1
Table 7.3
Table 7.4.1
Table 7.4.2
Table 7.4
Table 7.5
7
10
12
17
24
24
25
25
27
28
29
30
31
31
32
vii
GRAPHS
Map 1 5
Map 2 8
Graph 2.8.2 9
Graph 2.8.3 11
Graph 6.4.2 25
Graph 7.1 28
Graph 7.2 28
Graph 7.3 29
Graph 7.4.1 32
Graph 7.4.2 32
viii
OVERAI-I- ECONOMIC DEVEI-OPME0T PL�A0
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND STRATEGIES
1. EXECUTIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOAL
Overall, economic goals serve as guidelines and provide direction for present and
future economic development. The goals and objectives outlined below are those
established by the UEDP committee for Mason County.
The overall goal for Mason County is to develop a diversified economic base with
legislative guidelines that will enhance and protect the quality of life for its
residents. Working as an integrated unit, citizen, business, and local government
organizations seek to produce a sound foundation for fostering a more cosmopolitan
retail, commercial/industrial complex that can provide year-round employment
opportunitiea.
The most important immediate physical requirement is the need to update and expand
certain utilities infrastructure for continued residential/business development.
1.1. SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND STRATEGIES
Mayon Cuunty'y economic development goals for the near future are to enhance and
improve the retail, commercial and industrial business environment to create new
jobs for its residents. An integral segment of this task revolves around the
improvement of legislative guidelines and utilities infrustrmcture' l.e' water
distribution, sewage disposal, roads to protect water quality.
2. MASON COUNTY OBJECTIVES
2.1. COUNTY
2.1.1 Continue efforts with state government to attract state to have
the Washington State Criminal Justice System Training facility
located adjacent to the present Washington State Patrol Training
site.
2.1.2 Become the lead agency in establishing formal communications
between governing bodies in Mason County to develop the guidelines
appropriate to legislative policy infrastructure. eQ. supervise
county efforts that build the legal/environmental settings
1
conducive to the development of new business and the creation of
new employment opportunities.
2'2. PORT OF S8ELTON
2.2.1 Establish forma/ dialogue with Mason County and City of Shelton
officials to develop strategies for near and long-term legislative
needs. i.e. land -use protection for industrial sites to prevent
residential encroachment; municipal services.
2.2.2 Develop a formal marketing package that outlines the strategy and
actions that will be used for Marketing Port of Shelton
commercial/industrial properties.
2.2.3 Study feasibility of acquiring additional raw land for addition to
Port property inventory.
2.3. PORT OF SHELTON~ SANDEBSON and JOHNS PRAIRIE INDUSTRIAL PARKS
2,3.1 Develop plans for new Port office facilities with enlarged public
space for commission meetings and a conference room for conducting
business. A building location near the present entrance to
Sanderson Industrial Park could be designed with lease space for
two or more firms.
2.3.2 Build additional magnet buildings for small commercial or
manufacturing tirm(s).
2.3.3 Add 288,080 gallon elevated water storage tank at Sanderson site.
Drill second well for increased water capacity at Johns Prairie
site.\ Expand and loop existing water distribution system at both
sites for tire protection enhancement; necessary for further
commercial/industrial growth. Long-term, add six miles of looped
water distribution to industrial parks.
2.3.4 Begin study of alternatives for near future development of a
sewage system for industra| waste disposal and protection of water
quality, particularly at Sanderson site.
2.3.5 Widen and harden selected existing roadways in industrial parks
for anticipated increase of heavy commercial transportation
vehicles. Add three miles at Sanderson facility, one-half mile at
Johns Prairie facility. Long term objective; Add two miles of
roadway to open next phase of commercial/industrial expansion.
2.3.6 Add second entrance to Sanderson Industrial Park for enhanced
access by commercial traffio. Requires one-half mile of new 24
foot wide roadway.
1
Present 600,800 gallon storage facility at Johns Prairie
adequate for near -future needs.
2
n
2.3.7 Obtain Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant to develop
action plan for expansion of Sanderson Airfield. Lengthen runway
to 10,000 feet to accommodate industrial development of
commercial/military aircraft maintenance and modification
enterprise proposed by Certified Aerospace, Inc.. Potential of
180 new job opportunities projected. Opens airport to airfrei8ht
and other air related businesses.
2.3.8 Realign and lengthen, by one -quarter mile, private rail system at
Johns Prairie. This will open more developed commercial sites to
lease for clients requiring rail transportation frontage'
2.3.9 Clear and develop additional 100 acre site at Johns Prairie site.
Install appropriate infrastructure for next phase of
commercial/industrial expansion.
2.4, CITY OF SHELTON
2.4,1 Establish formal dialogue with Mason County and Port of Shelton
officials to develop solutions to near and long-term local
legislative concerns, including expansion of municipal services'
i.e. land -use planning, residential encroachment protection at
commercial/industrial sites, etc..
2 3
2.4.2 Build Wallace Boulevard , a new 3 to 5 lane arterial , that will
extend from Olympic Highway North to Johns Prairie Road,
intersecting Shelton Springs Road. The road will provide direct
access to Johns Prairie Road from SB101 and opens approximately 88
acres of retail/commercial properties to near future development.
In addition to eliminating danQerous heavy uommeroja/ traffic
through residential areas, the roadway enhances the development
potential of the Johns Pruire Road industrial corridor'
2,5. SHELTON ACTION PLAN GOALS4
2,5.1 Develop Shelton's downtown as the major retail -business resource
center of the Shelton Trade Area.
2.5.2 Implement Downtown Revitalization/Beautification, as per Shelton
Action Pian,
2.5.3 Preserve 3helton`s small town character through sound }and use
management.
2.5.4 Stabilize and expand existing timber related industries.
2
A cooperative proposal of Mason County and the City of Shelton;
Strongly supported by Port of Shelton.
3
Either configuration includes center left -turn lane.
4
Extracted from Shelton Action Plan; published January 1987
3
2'6.5 Attract new industry within the Shelton Trade Area.
See map, page S.
2.5.6 Investigate feasibility of annexing and providing municipal
services to the following lands for industrial development:
2.6,6.1 All Port of Shelton }ands, Both Sanderson and Johns
Prairie Industrial Parks; to include Sanderson
Airfield/Shelton Airport and property between the Airfield
and existing City limits.
2.5.6.2 All lands east of Highway 101 to the western city limits
from the old Highway 101 city exit to the south, north to
the Mountain View exit with Highway 181.
4
M p
1*
C01•1412 T...2
FF;Fig
was woe.. aro dm.
oak • mho
Reads sees ateendiad he error,
ems e4 manner servarp
prime, trade ares Mead art rderacei cariadaty of tend
raerodarr trade aaaa tweed as ptrysteed eapredity et Wad
*db. craw sees
Tuba wen Inca *aka*
Set111Ces CCIP110 0,10911 11110t1.1010 *CT II t II
5
n
2.6. CITIZEN SUB -AREA PLANNING
2.8.1 NORTH (NE) MASON COUNTY
2.6,1,1 The sub -area planning committee of Allyn and Beltalr seek a
professional county planner for assistance in developing appropriate
planning for regional water -quality protection. Their primary goal is
water quality protection via stronger regulati ons governing the use and
monitoring of on -site septic disposal systems^ in future building
development'
2.6.1.2 Study potential of moving locus of business district to new
location suitable for on -site septic disposal'
2.6.1.3 Develop 75 acre wetland site at 7heler Community Center in
8elfair as an ecological study site for educational institutions and
local tourism attraction.
2.6.2 HABSTENE ISLAND REGION
2.6.2.1 The sub -urea planning committee for Harstene Island seek to gain
access to u professional county planner for assistance in developing
appropriate strategies for protection of water -quality in their region of
the oounty. Their primary goal is water quality protection via stronger
regulati ons governing the use and monitoring of on -site septic disposal
systems^ in future building development.
2.8.3 TOTTEN/LITTLE SKOOKUM REGION
2.6.3.1 The sub -area planning committee for the unincorporated
Totten/Little Skookum community is working to develop guidelines for
governing regional water -quality protection. Their primary goal is water
quality protection via stronger regulations governing the use and
monitoring of on -site septic disposal systems/ in future building
development.
2.7 UNION, TOWN OF
2.7'1 Implement a local community planning process to enhance and,protect the
water and physical resources. The primary goal is to protect the local
environment for the enjoyment and use of present and future generations of
community members.
2.7.2 Maintain and expand the recreational facilities and play areas at the
Union Community Park.
S
Any on -site local -use soil absorption system. e.g. septic -tank,
dosing systems, mound/fill systems,
S
Any on -site local -use soil absorption system. e.g. septic -tank,
dosing systems, mound/fill systems.
7
Any on -site local -use soil absorption yyatem' e.g, septic -tank,
dosing systems, mound/fill systems.
6
2.7.3 Develop tourist and recreation related potentials when environmentally
feasible with current commercial development efforts.
2.7'4 Secure a land base adjacent to the Hood Canal for assuring public
access to the water through the establishment of a Port of Union.
2.8. SKOKOMlSH lNDlAN TRIBE
The Skokumiyh Indian Reservation is located in Mason County, Washington (See map
on page O). The Reservation boundaries include a total of 4,987 acres, or about
7.5 square miles. The 3kokomiyh Reservation was created by the Point No Point
Treaty, created on January 26, 1855 and ratified by Congress on March 8, 1895.
It was enlarged by Executive Order on February 25, 1874. The tribe is a
federally recognized tribal government; organized under the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1984,
STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF POPULATION
TOTAL SERVICE POPULATION 829
TRIBAL ENROLLMENT 818
NUMBER OF FAMILIES 242
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 217
PER CAPITA INCOME $3,953
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - MALES 36%
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE - FEMALES 26%
% OF POPULATION OVER 16 COMPLETING HIGH SCHOOL 53%
Table 2'8.1
Based on statistical data from the Tribe's 1984/85 Skokumish Human Resources
Survey and the 1988 B{A Indian Service Population and Labor Force Estimates
there are currently 829 Skokomish Tribal Members included in the service
population (see Table 2.8.1). Out of 829 tribal members surveyed, there were
a total of 414 tribal members living on the Reservation with an additional 415
living adjacent to the Reservation. The Skokomish Indian population is
youthful, with 53% under the age of 26, 37% under 15 years of age. Currently
there are over 138 children at, or under, 5 years of age'
7
SKOKOMISH
INDIAN
RESERVATION
ShNton
8
Located in an isolated and rural locale, economic activity on the reservation
is related principally to the abundant water, fish, and timber resources, and
to tourist activities on and adjacent to tribal lands' The seasonal and
cyclical nature of the Skokomish Tribe's fishing economy (and surrounding
Mason County economy), and the fact that Tribal members are strongly tied to
their reservation land and culture and are unwilling to leave the area, even
though faced with inadequate housing, has significantly reduced employment
opportunities for Tribal members. Average Tribal unemployment for 1987 was
32%; 26,6% female; 36,4% male. Table 2.8.2 and the accompanying graph below
provides population and labor force data by age group.
160
150
140
130
120
nn
ao
20
10
o
Skokom ' sh Indian Tribe
EiTploymerrt/Labor Force
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
-
_
0 Pop by Age
a5-4.4
+ smp|ovom
Graph 2,8.2
Skokomish Indian Employment/Labor Force
Sex
Age Groups:
M F 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65-+
Population age 16 +/- 289 254 158 128 AQ 112 28
Employed 133 102 53 GG 58 57 3
Unemployed 76 37 42 28 26 17 O
Labor Force 289 139 95 94 82 74 3
Not in Labor Force 68 iiS 63 32 17 38 25
Unemployment Rate 36.4% 26.6% 44.2% 29.8% 31.7% 23.0% 0,8%
Participation Rate 77.7% 54.7% 60.1% 74.6% 82'8% 86.1% 10%
Table 2.8,2 C: \KASUN\SKOK_EH.MN
A high unemployment rate and low educational level, combined with primarily
seasonal employment, present an unattractive piotore. According to
demographic data extrapolated from the 1884-85 survey, the Tribal service
population (829) unemployment rate is higher on the reservation (37.5%) than
off the reservation (24.2%) and contrasts sharply with Mason County`s (pop.
36,080) April 1988 unemployment rate of 7.9% (Preliminary rate, not seasonally
adjusted) Data generated by the Tribe also documented an unemployment rate of
44.2% for tribal members 16-24 years of age.
Data from the 1984-86 tribal demographic survey clearly points to the
relationship between the low educational achievements and the employment
status of Tribal members. Forty-seven percent (47%) of those Tribal labor
force members unemployed had not completed high school. Table 2.8.3 and the
accompanying graph on page 11 is a pictorial breakdown of employment vs
education statistics.
To achieve the overall strategy of self-determination as a people and u
nation, the Skokomioh Tribe has undertaken a comprehensive effort to develop,
maintain, and strengthen a diversified economic base and tribal human delivery
system for tribal community members. The efforts to promote economic and
community development have been encouraging within the last fifteen years, but
have also been a source of frustration and discouragement. This is; in part,
10
because the 8eaervutton"y small population and land base lacks the critical
mass to create a larger tax base necessary for expanding and strengthening the
development of a diversified and viable tribal economy.
The development of housing, governmental and community services, and the
movement of tribal members back to the reservation (increasing critically
needed support services) has had u major impact on increasing the Tribe's
operating needs from the early 1970s to present. The greater administrative
and governmental responsibilities, coupled with critically needed support
services, has left the Skokumiah Tribe without the necessary financial
resources to impact unmet community and social service needs.
SKOKOM | SA EMPLOYMENT & EDUCATION
GED
*sssn«*T/ow AND MASON cnumTy
~m; oa ~:Lo
Graph 2.8.3
AA
ew
w«
C:\MAS0N\SK0K-ED.P1C
11
EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION
Reservation and Mason County
Educational Not In
Achievement | EM9 % UNEMP % Labor Fru %
Less than HS | 54 38.0% 42 47.2% 83 89'9%
G.E.D. | 31 17.2% 17 19.1% 16 12.1%
HS Degree | 82 34.4% 23 25.8% 18 13.8%
Some College | 23 12.8% G 5.6% 11 8.3%
2 yr Degree | 3 1.7% 1 1.1% 2 1.5%
4 yr Degree | G 2.8% 1 1.1% 1 0.8%
Grad. Degree | 2 1.1% 1 8.8%
Total | 188 89 132
Table 2.8.3 C:\HASDN\SK0K_ED.PRN
In order for the Tribe to successfully generate an independent source of
income for tribal operations, the Tribe has prioritized the following
developmental strategies:
SKOKOMlSH lNDlAN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
2.8.1 Phase l[ expansion of Tribe's 7wana Trade Center for
commercial services, 1989-90.
2.8.2 Development of twenty-one (21) new homey, 1988-89.
2.8.3 Implementation of development permits, land -use
ordinance, and 8&U tax, 1988-89.
2.8,4 Expansion of Tribe's fish processing facility for
increased smoking and storage, 1988-89.
2.8,5 Negotiations and litigation efforts for protecting
treaty rights and the Tribe's resources, 1989-93^
Source: Abstract, Skokosioh Indian Tribe 198080P.
Prepared by: Edward Binder, Economic Development Planner
12
2.9 SQOAXlN ISLAND lNDlAN TRIBE
2.9.1 The Sguaxin Island Indian Tribe is in the early
implementation stages of a five year business plan
(1988-1989). The plan is aimed at growing and
developing uguaou}ture businesses for the benefit of
the Tribal community, The Tribe's natural resources in
aquaou|ture otter excellent opportunities for improving
sales volume. The Tribe projects sales volume in the
planned period from $2,800,808 to $8,700.080 with
operating profit margins from 20-30 percent.
2.9'2 The Harstene Oyster Company presents a unique Tribal
business opportunity for expanding aquaoulture into
foreign markets and domestic sales. The Tribe has
selected American Farmed Seafood Inc., a Seattle bayed
company, as the broker for its aquucu|ture products.
2.9.3 A joint venture alliance has been created to buy,
process, and market Tribal members catch of commercial
wildcau8ht salmon. The venture brings with it the
technical assistance which can vertically integrate the
Tribe's aquauulture activities.
2.9'4 Capital equipment cost for the planning period is yet
at $700,080. The first installment of $200,088 is
required in August 1988 for processing wild -caught
salmon. The second investment phase requires $250,000
in January 1989 to double the production at the
Harstene Oyster Company. The final $250,000 will be
required in June 1989 to build pen complexes for e
farm -raised tinfish program.
13
3. BACKGROUND ON MASON COUNTY ECONOMIC POLICY
Mason County has been dependant on timber, lumber products, and, to a lesser
extent, agoaculture as the foundation of its economic strength since the turn
of the century. While they remain important industries to Mayon County's
economic health' both are in u state of change. Though aguaoulture is again
gaining importance/ the timber industry is gradually declining as a source of
new high paying employment opportunities.
The aquacu}ture industry' decimated by water pollution in the 1920s, is in a
rehabilitative and reconstruction phase as water quality in the region
continues to improve. These locally owned businesses are particularly
valuable to Mayon County. They export over 66 percent of their products to
California and east -coast states and bring new money into the local economy.
Employment among the larger shellfish processing companies is growing annually
as new acreage is added to increase production. Direct and indirect
employment currently stands at approximately 616,
Unlike the aquaculture industry the timber and }umber products industry has
been in decline since the late 1960s when industry employment was at a peak.
Simpson Timber Company, long the oounty`s largest non -government employer/ has
steadily decreased employment since 1985. As market conditions have changed,
so have Simpson`o operations. While plant modernization keeps Simpson lumber
processing profitable, declines in Pacific Northwest lumber markets threaten
to increase layoffs of production workers whose salaries are the highest in
the county. An example of the economic impact Simpson Timber Company has in
the county was dramatically illustrated by the permanent layoff of
approximately 350 full-time sawmill workers in 1985. The layoff pointed
vividly to the need for broadening the county"s industrial base to other
manufacturing sectors to protect the future stability of its workforce.
Certified Aerospace has provided the seed for the development of a new
burgeoning manufacturing industry in Mason County. Located at the Port of
Shelton`s (POS) Sanderson Industrial Park (SIP) Certified has operated as a
14
*
sub -contractor to Boeing, Douglas, and other large aerospace firms throughout
the United States. Though salary levels are lower than Simpyon's sawmill
operations0 Certified employs 400 full-time workers and aspires to a goal of
becoming a prime contractor to the federal government. Additionally.
Certified has proposed the creation of a new business to the Port of Shelton.
The project requires that the current airstrip at Sanderson Industrial Park
(Shelton Airport) be lengthened and hardened from its present 5,000 feet to
10,000 feet, /f successful Certified would establish a commercial and
military aircraft maintenance and modification business that could create an
additional 100 employment opportunities.
Additionally, Certitied`s presence in Mason County has created opportunities
for the development of other local manufacturing firms. Barnes Machine Shop,
with 30 employees, was created by an employee of Certified. Now a second,
new, manufacturing firm, Olympic Tool and Engineering is beginning operations
in u recently completed magnet building at POS's Sanderson Industrial Park.
Olympic Tool and Engineering will act as a sub -contractor to Certified
Aerospace for part of their work.
Mason County is home to several Christmas tree growers and brush gathering
operations that provide a significant number of seasonal job opportunities
each year. These businesses are responsible for reducing unemployment by one
to three percent annually in the in the second half of the year. Though wage
and salary levels are lower than other Mason County industries, these
employment opportunities provide large numbers of seasonal jobs.
Douglas Fir Company' for example, has a year-round staff- of 70 but hires
approximately 300 seasonal workers each fall to harvest its Christmas tree
crop. Hiawatha, another large tree grower has similar operations that employ
300+ seasonal workers each year. These and other significant allied companies
share over $30,000,880 in annual sales from Christmas tree and florul industry
sales.
0
Salary differential ratios generally require 3 Certified average
salary jobs for each 2 Simpson sawmill jobs.
15
The largest Mason County employer is represented by federal, state, and local
government rather than private industry. Together government agencies employ
2,334 workers in Mason County, The Washington State Corrections Center at
Shelton and the Washington State Patrol Training facility are just two
source/s for state government employment. Mayon County is working to open
more opportunities for government jobs and is a prime candidate as the new
site for the Washington State Criminal Justice Training facility. A study is
currently under way that focuses on locating the facility adjacent to the
present Washington State Patrol training center on Port of Shelton property.
If successful in attracting the new state agency as many as 88 new families
could relocate to Mason County.
4. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Mason County's efforts toward economic development will continue to be
difficult without a closer bond between business and local government. Retail
businesses must be more energetic in their daily operations to recover sales
which have migrated to other business centers.
Commercial/industrial businesses currently in Mason County need timely, it not
immediate, assistance to train unskilled workers in newer technology to
continue orderly growth.
New business and industry require well developed infrastructure of physical
utilities before locating in a new community. Economic development efforts
can not be successful where fragmented and restrained by political barriers to
growth. i.e, inadequate legal/environmental climate for business investment.
A proactive economic development strategy must be adopted by both the business
community and the uounty`s legislative bodies to overcome this barrier,
County. City, and Port Commissions partially fund the non-profit Economic
Development Council (EDC) of Mason County, As development activities have
grown, funding has not. Though the 2DC has identified significant areas of
growth potential for the county it must have a commitment that funds the
development of the staff and physical space to continue meeting the needs of
the county. The County, City of Sheiton. Port of Shelton, Public Utility
Districts, and the business community must assess their commitment to economic
development from both physical and financial perspectives. There are
essentially three alternatives for each government and business member
desiring effective economic development:
4.0.1 Individually creating and funding an Office of Economic
Development.
4,0.2 Committing substantially increased physical, and
financial support to the present non-profit Economic
Development Council. i.e. to add stuff, modernize
office, upgrade office equipment.
4.0.3 Do nothing, retain existing conditions. status quo.
To achieve new economic development, strategies should be considered that
respond to new development situations. Table 4.0.4 below provides a contrast
between older ideas and fresh alternative strategies that could be used by
Mason County to upgrade economic development efforts.
CHANGES IN S7BA7EGIC APPROACHES
IN ECONOMIC DBVBI—OPMEN7
Table 3.0.4
17
4.1 PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
There are several separate organizations, both private and public sector,
represented in this Overall Economic Development Plan. The values and
concerns of each have been discussed at length in the process of developing
this document. It represents a community effort to bring into the open the
primary concerns of the citizens of Mason County. The diversity of the
organizations make it impossible to prioritize the objectives into one list,
nor is it necessary. Each may well be at different levels, but inter-
connected, and therefore dependent on one another. The need for cooperation
between agencies and citizen groups are reflected by the dependence each has
on the other for specific tasks. For example, the North Mason County sub -area
planning commlttee, a citizen organization, may well develop a water quality
standard that requires stronger controls on local on -site septic systems in
their region. They may also have sufficient local support for the new
standards, but they must have the cooperation of Mason County Commissioners
for legal adoption. The county may identify an area for development of
residential and retail business growth but can tail without the support of the
local Public Utility District (PUD) to install the electrical lines to service
the area.
Mason County has several hard decisions to face soon as it formulates its
economic development strategies for measured growth and economic independence.
The primary focus is on utility infrastructure in business/industrial regions
to provide sites that meet fire safety, water quality, and
commercial/industrial waste disposal needy. Second are those tasks which
enhance the legal/environmental. These guidelines should provide sate,
separate, expansion of residential and business communities.
PRIORITIES FOR MASON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
4,2 PORT OF 3H2LTON,
SANDEBSON & JOHNS PBAlBlB INDUSTRIAL PARKS
4,2.1 Build second magnet building for small commercial or
manufacturing tirm(s). (Sanderson Ind Pk)
18
4.2.2 Upgrade water distribution system to enhance fire flow
and meet near future expansion requirements. (Both
facilities)
4.2.3 Realign and lengthen, by one -quarter mile, private rail
system at Johns Prairie. This project will open
additional developed commercial sites to lease for
clients requiring rail transportation frontage.
4.2.4 Widen and harden selected existing roadways in both
industrial parka for anticipated increase of heavy
commercial transportation vehicles. This project will
involve three miles of roadway at the Sanderson facility,
and one-half mile at Johns Prairie facility.
4,2'5 Add second entrance to Sanderson Industrial Pack for
enhanced access by commercial traffic. Requires one-half
mile of new 24 toot wide roadway.
4.2.6 Create a second staff position, Marketing Representative,
with specific responsibilities for marketing Port of
Shelton commercial and industrial properties.
4.2,7 Obtain FAA grant for study to expand airstrip at
Sanderson Industrial Park to 18,080 ft..
4.2.8 Develop plans for new Port of Shelton office building.
4.2.9 Clear and develop additional 180 acre site at Johns
Prairie site. Install appropriate infrastructure for
next phase of commercial/industrial expansion.
4.3 CITY OF SHELTON
4.3.1 Implement Downtown Beautification; per Shelton Action
Plan, as a step toward increasing Shelton's importance as
the retail -business resource center of the She/tun Trade
Area.
4,3.2 investigate feasibility of annexing and providing
municipal services to the following lands for
residential/industrial development:
4.3.2.1 All Port of Shelton lands, both Sanderson and Johns
Prairie Industrial Parks, including Shelton Airport
to the Shelton city limits.
4.3,2.2 All lands east of Highway 101 to the western city
limits from the old Highway 101 city exit to the
south; north to the Mountain View exit with Highway
101.
4.3.3 Develop Waterfront Plan that enhances public access to
water related activities.
4,3.4 Build Wallace Boulevard, a new 3 to 5 lane arterial that
will extend from Olympic Highway North to Johns Prairie
19
Road, intersecting Shelton Springs Road. The road will
provide direct access to Johns Prairie Road from SR101
and open approximately 80 acres of retail/commercial
properties to near future development.
4.4 Sub -Area Planning
4.4.1 Enhance water quality in sub -area regions through local
ordinance legislation that requires stricter controls on
local use septic systems.
4.5 SKOKOMISH INDIAN TRIBE
4.5.1 See Skokomish OEDP Document
4.6 SQUAXIN INDIAN TRIBE
4.6.1 See Squaxin OEDP Document
5. ASSESSMENT OF MASON COUNTY ECONOMY
5.1 LAND AND ENVIRONMENT
5.1.1 LOCATION
Mason County is located approximately 30 miles west of the Interstate 5
corridor on the southwestern end of Hood Canal and Puget Sound. It is
962.3 square miles of mostly forested land extending to the Olympic
Mountains to the north. It is bordered by Jefferson County on the
north, Kitsap County to the northeast, Grays Harbor County to the west-
southwest, and Thurston County to the southeast. State Route (SR) 101
travels north and south along the Puget Sound Waterways and Hood Canal.
SR 3 and SR 106 branch off of SR 101 toward Kitsap County.
5.1.2 CLIMATE
Climatic conditions are mild year-round. Average annual minimum
temperature is 41.5 °. Average annual maximum temperature is 60.5 °
The average annual rainfall in Mason County is 65.6 inches.
5.1.3 TOPOGRAPHY
Topographic elevations in the county vary from sea level at the Hood
Canal to 6,000 feet in the Olympic Mountain range. Soil conditions vary
from estuary type wetlands to deep stratas of gravelly loam soil.
5.1.4 LAND USAGE
5.1.4.1 ZONING
Mason County does not have a zoning ordinance. All
commercial/industrial and multiple residential developments are
20
subject to Planning and County Commission approval based on
conformance to county regulations. The Shorljne Plaster Program
designates areas of development into urban or rural, conservancy
and natural. Each has its particular restrictive regulations for
development.
5.1.4.2 SUPE8FU0D SlTES U.S. EPA SUPE8FUND PROGRAM
A. EPA ID: WADQ8O7?315-Q
GOOSE LAKE: NW of Shelton, off HWY 181, Shelton, NA 98584
EVENT TYPE: START: COMPLETE:
DSl %xX 01 OCT 79
PA1 28 AUG 85 11 AUG 86
S{1 01 APR 88 01 A98 80
EVENT LEAD:
EPA (FUND)
STATE (FUND)
STATE (FUND)
B. EPA [D: WAD980383378
SHELTON LANDFILL, Front & Pine St, Shelton, NA 98584
EVENT TYPE:
DS1
PA1
START: COMPLETE: EVEN? LEAD:
XXX 24 M88 80 OTHER
14 NOV 87 30 NOV 87 EPA (FUND)
5,1.S PUBLIC SERVICES
5.1.5.1 SEWAGE COLLECTION/TREATMENT PLANTS
5.1.5.2 Hurstene Pointe Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Hurstene Island.
Design Capacity 558 Residences
Current Load 310 Residences
1991: construction will begin for secondary treatment.
5.1.5.2.1 8uatlewood Collection/Treatment Plant,
Pickering Passage.
Design Capacity 350 Residences
Current Load 230 Residences
Secondary Treatment Plant
5.1.5.2.2 All areas with on site treatment plants
are currently in compliance.
5.1.5.3 SOLID WASTE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL
G.1.S.3.1
Current landfill site (active area within 88 acres) will close
in 1991, A second site will be constructed on the 80 acre
site in accordance with Washington State minimum functional
21
standards guidelines. Life of entire site is approximately 25
years.
5.1.5.4 FLOOD PLAINS AND/OR WETLANDS
6.1.5.4.1 FEMA Floodplain Maps' 17 May 1988 ed.
G.1.5.4.2 Wetland Inventory
No mapped inventory. Mayon County Shoreline Master Program
controls activities within the tloodp}ainy and wetlands.
Wetlands determined by Shoreline Master Program definitions.
Table 6.1 illustrates the control of government and private business over
large regions of Mason County Forest lands.
MASON COUNTY LANDS/FORESTS
TOTAL
FEDERAL CONTROL
STATE CONTROL
LOCAL GUVT
SiMPSON TIMBER COMPANY
962.3 Sq Miles 616,872 ACRES
26.8%
9.7%
8.8%
25.8%
Table 5.1
163,889 ACRES
80/866 ACRES
5,228 ACRES
169,080 ACRES
The major components of Mason County natural resources are its forests and the
QO square miles of water in the county that support aguaculture industries and
tourism. The forest lands in the county are controlled largely by the U.S
Forest Service and Simpson Timber Company. Under a unique agreement with the
federal government. Simpson manages both its own forest resources and those of
the federal government in Mason and portions of Grays Harbor counties.
Established in 1946. the arrangement, known as The Cooperative Sustained Yield
Unit (CSY0) agreement gives Simpson exclusive first right purchasing
privileges to all federal government timber in the CSYU.
G.POPULATlON
Washington State figures for 1987 place Mason County population at 35,985.
Shelton is the highest population center of Mason County with 7.668; the State
Corrections facility a prison population of 1'178. The 8e\fair/A|lyn
communities and surrounding residential developments could be called the next
22
largest population center of the counties N-NE region. It has a dispersed
population estimated at 10,880.
SHELTUN Principal City & County Seat 7/688
NORTH MASON COUNTY Unincorporated Region lO'OOO
SHELTON C888EZ7|UNS FACILITY 1/178
The tables below, and on the following pu8e provide the ethnic breakdown of
the county`s population. Washington State population demographics include the
Corrections Facility at Shelton and the Mission Creek Youth Camp in No Mason
County. The figures below clarify both the population and ethnic picture of
Mason County.
8,1 ETHNIC BREAKDOWN
MASON COUNTY
% of Tt) Number
White 95% 32,337
Black 8.1% 56
Native American 3.41% 1,238
Asian 1% 337�
Other 1% 383
Spanish Origin 1.3% 456�
Total ' 34,807
Table 6.1.1 * includes seasonal workers
SHEL7ON CORRECTIONS FACILITY
White 798
Black 218
Native American 36
Asian 12
Other 12
Spanish Origin 102
Total 1,178
Table 6.1.2
23
MISSION CREEK YOUTH CAMP
White 37
Black 16
Indian 6
Hispanic 2
Asian 2
Total 63
Table 6.1.2 a
6.2.POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX
AGE TOTAL MALE FEMALE AGE TOTAL MALE FEMALE
0-4 2,674 1,359 1,315 45-49 1,816 904 912
5-9 2,529 1,303 1,226 50-54 1,944 931 1,013
10-14 2,237 1,154 1,083 55-59 1,893 961 932
15-19 2,603 1,435 1,168 60-64 2,247 1,058 1,189
20-24 2,350 1,343 1,007 65-69 1,927 1,027 900
25-29 2,607 1,405 1,202 70-74 1,362 688 674
30-34 2,800 1,516 1,284 75-79 893 430 463
35-39 2,760 1,388 1,372 80-84 582 292 290
40-44 2,425 1,263 1,162 85+ 347 113 234
TOTAL 36,000 18,570 17,426
SOURCE: WASH ST OR, Apr 87
Table 6.2.
6.3 COMPONENTS OF POPULATION CHANGE 1980 - 1987
Estimated Births
Estimate Deaths
Natural Increase
Net Migration
Total Change
Table 6.3
3,462
2,054
1,408
3,408
4,816
24
8.4 LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT
WORKFORCE RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
1984 1985 1986 1987
Resident Workforce 12.149 12,350 12,830 12.858
Total Employment 10,938 11,310 11,618 11,540
Number Unemployed 1/210 1,040 1,220 1,118
Unemp Rate 10.8 8.4 9.5 8.0
Table 6.4.1
EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS
1984 1985 1986
CONSTRUCTION 343 311 299
MANUFACTURING 1,869 1,916 1'870
LUMBER & WOOD 1,363 1,343 1,060
82T&lL TRADE 1,209 1,296 1,324
WHOLESALE TRADE N/A 197 199
FIN, INS, 8L ES? 244 246 264
SERVICES QOO 953 985
GOVERNMENT 2'170 2,286 2,334
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT:
IN COUNTY: 8,098
OUT OF COUNTY: 2,832
8,548 8,335
2,782 3,275
2400
2200
2ran
1800
�soo
moo
1000
ouo
Soo
^oo
zoo
u
1904
eAPLmWE»T o*mAoEn/xr/cn
�M,
C: \11ASUNNUMP-P?RIl.09
Table 8,4.2 Graph 6,4.2
Table 6.4.2 and the accompanying graph point to a general stagnation in higher
paying jobs in manufacturing and particularly in lumber & wood products
industries. Replacement job opportunities are in retail and service sectors
where salaries are typically at or near minimum wage, Table 6,4.3 and Graph
6.4.3 on pages 26-27 affords a seven year view of the employment patterns of
Mason County`s resident civilian labor force. This data provides a vivid
picture of the cyclic nature of annual employment in Mason County, In this
picture employment appears strongly influenced by seasonal hiring in both
Christmas tree and floral brush gathering industries,
25
RESIDENT CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE & EMPLOYMENT IN MASON COUNTY
(BENCHMARK: MARCH 1987)
1987 AN AVE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JNE JLY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC
CVLN LABOR FORCE 12,650 12,050 11,970 12,110 12,470 12,560 12,780 13,070 12,890 12,950 13,050 12,950 12,980
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 11,540 10,650 10,650 10,900 11,380 11,500 11,720 12,070 12,000 12,010 11,920 11,950 11,770
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1,110 1,400 1,320 1,210 1,090 1,060 1,060 1,000 890 940 1,130 1,000 1,210
% OF LABOR FORCE 8.8% 11.6% 11.0% 10.0% 8.7% 8.4% 8.3% 7.7% 6.9% 7.3% 8.7% 7.7% 9.3%
1986
CVLN LABOR FORCE 12,830 12,150 12,070 12,210 12,570 12,630 12,880 13,290 13,070 12,700 12,640 14,020 13,700
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 11,610 10,730 10,740 10,970 11,340 11,460 11,730 12,080 11,930 11,600 11,530 12,810 12,380
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1,220 1,420 1,330 1,240 1,230 1,170 1,150 1,210 1,140 1,100 1,110 1,210 1,320
% OF LABOR FORCE 9.5% 11.7% 11.0% 10.2% 9.8% 9.3% 8.9% 9.1% 8.7% 8.7% 8.8% 8.6% 9.6%
1985
CVLN LABOR FORCE 12,350 11,880 11,820 11,770 11,900 12,150 12,100 12,840 12,440 12,370 12,860 13,310 12,840
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 11,310 10,300 10,330 10,590 10,940 11,290 11,260 11,790 11,620 11,580 12,020 12,320 11,720
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1,040 1,580 1,490 1,180 960 860 840 1,050 820 790 840 990 1,120
% OF LABOR FORCE 8.4% 13.3% 12.6% 10.0% 8.1% 7.1% 6.9% 8.2% 6.6% 6.4% 6.5% 7.4% 8.7%
1984
CVLN LABOR FORCE 12,140 11,800 11,710 11,760 11,870 11,810 12,180 12,680 12,490 11,960 12,510 12,720 12,220
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 10,930 10,120 10,320 10,550 10,570 10,670 11,030 11,530 11,440 10,960 11,540 11,490 10,950
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1,210 1,680 1,390 1,210 1,300 1,140 1,150 1,150 1,050 1,000 970 1,230 1,270
% OF LABOR FORCE 10.0% 14.2% 11.9% 10.3% 11.0% 9.7% 9.4% 9.1% 8.4% 8.4% 7.8% 9.7% 10.4%
1983
CVLN LABOR FORCE 12,320 11,720 11,650 12,020 12,270 12,470 12,930 12,650 12,630 12,270 12,100 12,450 12,610
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 10,750 9,730 9,730 10,160 10,590 10,590 11,450 11,190 11,290 11,030 10,740 11,170 10,930
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1,570 1,990 1,920 1,860 1,680 1,880 1,480 1,460 1,340 1,240 1,360 1,280 1,680
% OF LABOR FORCE 12.7% 17.0% 16.5% 15.5% 13.7% 14.5% 11.7% 11.6% 10.9% 10.2% 10.9% 10.2% 13.3%
1982
CVLN LABOR FORCE 10,990 10,630 10,490 11,010 11,020 11,110 11,100 10,970 10,850 11,000 11,220 11,410 11,090
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 9,730 8,830 8,880 9,080 9,380 9,550 9,610 9,560 9,540 9,620 9,440 9,750 9,210
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1,260 1,800 1,610 1,930 1,640 1,560 1,490 1,410 1,310 1,380 1,780 1,660 1,880
% OF LABOR FORCE 11.5% 16.9% 15.3% 17.5% 14.9% 14.1% 13.6% 13.0% 11.9% 12.3% 15.6% 15.0% 17.0%
1981
CVLN LABOR FORCE 11,090 10,700 10,660 11,100 11,270 10,900 11,530 11,160 11,200 10,950 11,420 11,170 11,030
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 9,750 9,600 9,600 9,810 10,010 9,870 10,040 9,930 9,860 9,910 9,600 9,570 9,240
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1,340 1,100 1,060 1,290 1,260 1,030 1,490 1,230 1,340 1,040 1,820 1,600 1,790
% OF LABOR FORCE 12.1% 10.3% 9.9% 11.6% 11.2% 8.9% 13.4% 11.0% 12.2% 9.1% 16.3% 14.5% 16.2%
1980
CVLN LABOR FORCE 11,020 10,880 10,590 10,720 11,190 11,010 11,100 11,300 11,120 11,150 10,880 11,150 11,210
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 10,180 9,750 9,820 9,890 10,250 10,300 10,420 10,560 10,460 10,410 10,120 10,290 9,940
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 840 1,130 770 830 940 710 680 740 660 740 760 860 1,270
% OF LABOR FORCE 7.6% 10.4% 7.3% 7.7% 8.4% 6.4% 6.0% 6.7% 5.9% 6.8% 6.8% 7.7% 11.3%
1980-87 AVERAGES
CVLN LABOR FORCE 11,924 11,476 11,370 11,588 11,820 11,830 12,075 12,245 12,086 11,919 12,085 12,398 12,210
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 10,725 9,964 10,009 10,244 10,558 10,654 10,908 11,089 11,018 10,890 10,864 11,169 10,768
TTL UNEMPLOYMENT 1,199 1,513 1,361 1,344 1,263 1,176 1,168 1,156 1,069 1,029 1,221 1,229 1,443
% OF LABOR FORCE 10.1% 13.2% 12.0% 11.6% 10.7% 9.9% 9.7% 9.4% 8.8% 8.6% 10.1% 9.9% 11.8%
Source: Washington State Employment Security; Labor Market & Economic Analysis 7 Mar 88
Table 6.4.3 C:\MASONAC_LBR.PLN
26
Since 1980, unemployment has rarely dipped below eight percent (8%) before
August. It begins rising in September and climbs dramatically in December
each year, returning to double digit unemployment in January
o/v/L/ww uwewPLO,mewr HISTORY
MASON CoumTr
'i r M ^ w u ^ S o w
Graph 6.4,3
7. lNCOME
o
Both DIVIDENDS -INTEREST -RENT and TRANSFER PAYMENTS have increased over one -
hundred percent (180%) during the period between 1979 and 1986. During the
same period WAGES & SALARIES have risen thirty three percent (33%) overall.
7,1 PERSONAL INCOME COMPONENTS
(lN $1000) %
YEAR WG & SAL CHG
1979 $185,727
1980 $118,243
1981 $121,848
1982 $115,454
1983 $122,899
DIVIDENDS
(NT & 8NT
15.0% $39,440
10.6% $48,178
3.8% $58,762
-6.5% $69,536
8.1% $70,181
% TRANSFER % TOTAL
CHG PAYMENTS CHG PEBS INC
19.9% $43,665 13.8% $244.116
18.1% $53,966 19.1% $279,339
18,0% $63,665 15.2% $308,617
1.3% $72,943 12.7% $313,477
15.1% $783972 7.8% $342,650
CONTINUED ON FOLLOWING PAGE
27
(/N $1000)
YEAR WG & SAL
% DIVIDENDS %
CHG lNT & RNT CHG
TRANSFER
PAYMENTS
% TOTAL
CHG PE8S INC
1984 $133,722
1985 $143,472
1986 $149,140
`~~ -
Ica
="
°"
70
80
�
30
�
"
8.1% $76/137
8.8% $80.271
3.8% $86,062
7.9% $85,725 7,9% $387,340
5.2% $94,573 9.4% $393,099
5,6% $99,787 5.2% $417,686
C:U&S0N\|NCCH.PRN
Table 7.1
CHANGES I /wooME SC)uRoES IS79-19eS
�
�w°O S=
Graph 7,1
rRA=*p°°=*
iKC CHG.P|C
�
Graph 7.1 illustrates income component changes. It implies the possibility of
an increase in u retirement population making permanent residences in what
were summer homes in Mason County. Graph 7.2 provides percentage changes
between wage & salary, dividends -interest -rent, and transfer payments for the
same period indicated in graph 7.1.
-
PERCENrAcaE omAwcaEs IN /mcOmE SOURCES
�
�
�
Graph 7.2
-
�
T
�
�
��
28
Graph 7.3 advances a view of poor wage and salary performance over the period
as annual percentage growth have lagged behind other income sources in six of
the past eight years. Per -Capita Income in Mason County is currently just
seventy-nine percent (79%) of the average per -capita wage for Washington
State; lower if transfer income is removed as an income source. Per -capita
wage disparities between state and }uoa\ work forces widened during the
recession of 1981-1982 and have not recovered.
`
~-
`
`
PER —CAPITA INCOME 1979 — ISSIS
6�. �. .1. ..o �
Graph 7,3
PER -CAPITA INCOME 1979-1986
MASON COUNTY-WASHlNGTON-UNITED STATES
�
YEAR 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
POP 29,980 31,400 32,280 33,108 33,800 35,000 35/388 36`080
PER CAP
{NC MC $8,171 $8,895 $9,518 $9,477 $10/123 $10,504 $11,144 $11,615
% Ch8 9.0% 8.1% 6.5% -0.4% 6.4% 3.8% 5.7% 4,1%
PER CAP
INC WA $9,783 $10,694 $11,663 $12.067 $12,671 $13,304 $13,914 $14'625
% ChO 10.8% 8.5% 8.3% 3.3% 4.8% 4.8% 4.4% 4.9%
PER CAP
INC US $9,838 $9,912 $10`947 $11,480 $12,083 $13,115 $13,844 $14.421
% Ch8 9.9% 8.8% 9.5% 4.6% 5.0% 7,9% 5.3% 4.0%
Source: Wash St Univ Coop Ext Service C:\MASON\FERCPINC.PRN
Table 7.3
29
COUNTY TAX BASE
Department of Revenue data indicates that retail tax revenues have been slowly
declining since 1984. If this trend continues it could threaten reductions in
county services, particularly if revenue declines in other tax generating
areas are considered. Graph 7.4, Tables 7.4 and 7.4.1 illustrate the pattern
of stagnation.
4.140
0130 -
B16o
8110 -
0100 _
®I0 _
MASON COUNTY
TAXABLE TRAMS 19914-112o7
�\ \ \ .:-
s1B ^ A / N
n�`,.. /\ /\
70 SO B1 02
V /1
5otr41 9tmsr%ng0On St. Oept . of
ATL TRAM ISM ALL INOln.
Graph 7.4
MASON COUNTY
YEAR 1
NN
BB
MASON COUNTY TAXABLE TRADE
RETAIL
79 $56,931,574
80 $57,289,200
81 $60,232,766
82 $75,855,889
83 $77,498,208
84 $70,958,459
85 $69,881,802
86 $74,036,557
87 $75,289,888
ALL IND
$103,621,493
$99,035,958
$100,441,217
$119,937,621
$125,718,967
$135,896,395
$133,338,470
$133,317,296
$133,700,007
TOTAL
$160,553,067
$156,325,158
$160,673,983
$195,793,510
$203,217,175
$206,854,854
$203,220,272
$207,353,853
$208,989,895
Source: Gash. St. Dept. of Revenue, 10 MAY 19
Table 7.4
MASON COUNTY/SHELTON TAX REVENUES
2
3
1) TAXABLE
4 RETAIL SLS
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
$103,621,493
$99,035,958
$100,441,217
$119,937,621
$125,718,976
$135,896,395
$133,338,470
$133,317,296
$133,700,007
$308,966
$288,520
$311,986
$327,401
$361,454
$386,899
$433,909
$418,350
$723,876
$18,803
$31,120
$21,976
$20,255
$21, 751
$30,660
$17,340
$16,546
$50,618
Table 7.4.1
2) LCL SALES/USE
TAX DIST
$900,576
$824,450 3) HOTEL/MOTEL
$700,598 TAX DIST
$495,015
$620,842 4) REAL ESTATE
$623,390 EXCISE TAX
$546,118 COLLECTIONS
$663,565
$947,953
Except for out of period collections other categories, particularly
hotel/motel & real estate excise taxes, provide patterns similar to retail tax
revenue performance. When all industries are considered the picture is one of
30
%. /\
n
stagnation beginning in 1984 with a decline, and remaining flat in the period
1985 through 1987.
CITY OF SHELTON
YEAR 1
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
$58,398,314
$69,149,830
$68,657,964
$74,727,695
$68,165.272
$84,929,748
$71,417,186
2
$294,543
$265,232 $4,682
$289,408 $6,624
$308,189 $4,891
$533,587 $7.683
$787,103 $7.797
$742,203 $7,205
$687,824 $9,838
$644,445 $9,135
1} TAXABLE
RETAIL SALES
2> LOCAL SALES/USE
7A% DISTRIBUTIONS
3) HOTEL/MOTEL
TAX DISTRIBUTIONS
Table 7.4.2 C-,\NAS0N\TA1REVS, MC
Mason County'y annual budget rose rapidly in the period 1979-1984. Since then
it has flattened, and in 1988 began declining. (see Table 7,4 and Graph 7.4.1)
As would be expected, assessed property values are closely related to budget
performance and, in 1988, are both in a state of decline. Other tax revenue
performance levels are similarly in decline or still at 1983-84 levels.
Unless this trend is reversed or new sources of tax revenues are developed
Mason County faces the prospect of reducing already inadequate services.
Revenue gathering for the City of Shelton, like the county, has shown no
significant gruwth. While it's revenues do show improvement, its
have not recovered to the 1984
BUDGET &
YEAR
79
@O
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
level to date,
retail sales
MASON COUNTY
ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE HISTORY
197Q-1A8B
MC BUDGETS
$3,535,323 |
$4'273,794 |
$4'527,388 |
$4,742,399 |
$5,816,056 |
$6.292,406 |
$8,326,745 (
$6,366,745 |
$6,366,745 |
$6,207,342 |
Table 7.4
MC ASSESSED VALUE
$597/687,478
$646.682,612
$717,995/186
$1,057,604,919
$1,298/661.550
$1,388'110,392
$1,388.186,198
$1,435.224.345
$1,431,196,925
$1,431,702,471
31
7
6
S
4
3
MASON COUNTY BUDGET HISTORY
1979 - 1988
78 BO 81 87 83 B1 85 86 B7 BB
IN MILLIONS $
Graph 7.4.1
7.2 EDUCATION
1600
1500
1400
1300
1280
1100
1000
900
B00
700
800
500
PROPERTY ASSESSED VALUE HISTORY
1979 - 1996
79 80 91 82 83 B4 95 BB 87 88
IN MILLIONS OF 3
Graph 7.4.2
HISTORY OF MASON COUNTY STUDENT POPULATION 1976 - 1987
YEAR 76 77 78 79 80 81
GRAPEVIEW NO 054 76 102 106 118 148 150
HOOD CANAL NO 404 316 334 304 322 340 296
M M KNIGHT NO 311 173 180 184 194 245 246
NO MASON NO 403 1,194 1,160 1,183 1,219 1,253 1,206
PIONEER NO 402 253 271 294 324 339 381
SHELTON NO 309 3,424 3,586 3,579 3,501 3,468 3,338
SOUTHSIDE NO 042 187 196 202 202 221 226
DIST ANNUAL TTLS 5,623 5,829 5,852 5,880 6,014 5,843
YEAR
82 83 84 85 86 87
GRAPEVIEW NO 054 158 125 132 144 152 138
HOOD CANAL NO 404 292 305 313 338 335 349
M M KNIGHT NO 311 242 225 232 219 210 187
NO MASON NO 403 1,211 1,271 1,318 1,393 1,477 1,611
PIONEER NO 402 405 488 536 567 567 637
SHELTON NO 309 3,310 3,250 3,188 3,228 3,308 3,385
SOUTHSIDE NO 042 214 214 194 190 192 199
DIST ANNUAL TTLS 5,832 5,878 5,913 6,079 6,241 6,506
Source: Washington State Superintendent of Schools C:IMASONISTUPOP,MC
Table 7.5
32
7.3 COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
7,3.1 PROMINENT PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYERS:
BUSINESS
PRODUCT FT 87 EMP SALES
1. Simpson Timber . , Wood products 893 . . $108M
2. Certified Aerospace .Aircraft Co 480 . . . $33M
3. Fir Luna Conv. Inc Nursing Home 140 . . . N/A
4. Manke Lumber Co. Logging & Hauling . 130 . . . .N/A
5. Safeway Super Market 110 . . N/A
6. Alderbrook Inn Resort . . . . ' . ^ . 100 . , $2M
7. De|son Lumber Wood Products 118 $iO+M
8, ITT Rayonier , Wood Product Research 88 . N/A
Q, Taylor United , . Shellfish .80 , $411
18. Douglas Fir . . Xmas Trees +300 yol skrs .70. . . N/A
11. Olympia Oyster Cu. Shellfish 'GG . . $1.25M
12, Pr1uenettery Market .Groceries .44 . N/A
13. Shelton Binder Bindings & Strapping , .39 . . N/A
14. Asemoo Electronics .34 . . N/A
16. Barnes Machine Shop. .Manufacturer . 30 . . $1M
16. Hiawatha . . . ,Evergreens +380 snl wkry 27 $5-18M
17, Shelton Journal . Newspaper -27 . N/A
18. Belfair Thrittway Groceries .GO . N/A
19, 8elfair Cate . . Restaurant .23 . N/A
20. Continental Floral Floral Brush +125 yn} 08 0/A
21. Cascade Floral . Floral Brush N/A . N/A
C:kl1A50N\0M0GRAP
7.4 Major and Secondary Growth Centers
The City of Shelton and adjacent unincorporated areas represent the most
active growth center for Mason County. Shelton, the county seat, has a
population of 7.660. It is bolstered by scattered residential populations
in the regions immediately surrounding the city limits. The second most
populous region of the county is represented by Worth Mason County where the
communities of 8eltair and Allyn and other surrounding small communities
collectively comprise a population of approximately 18,000. Hoodsport,
Union, 7wuna, et. al. on Hood Canal have smaller groups of county
population.
8. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND POTENTIALS
8.1 CONSTRAINTS
Both political and economic constraints are important aspects that )eft
unchanged affect the future of economic development for Mason County.
Politically the local legislative processes tend to be reactive rather than
proactive in land -use issues. In nearly all cases delays in establishing
guidelines that protect water quality and land -use stand as roadblocks that
business and residential development investors look upon unfavorably.
Furthermore, the reluctance of local government to establishing land -use
policy guidelines could be contributing to falling property values within
the county.
Weak land -use policies often attract high -risk businesses unable to obtain
licensing for their operation in counties where even nominal guidelines
prevail. Under current guidelines high -risk businesses can put the oounty's
opportunity for attracting more appropriate business opportunities in
jeopardy. Reactive legislation to stop undesirable business siting in the
county can result in expensive litigation and expensive settlements for
county government.
Economically, Mason County, like several other Washington State counties, has
historically been dependent on the timber/wood products industry as the
mainstay of its economy. In recent years a burgeoning manufacturing industry
has developed in the machined component manufacturing sector. Certified
Aerospace and the resulting spin-off tirms, manufacturers of aircraft
34
components, represent the beginning of diversification away from dependence
on the wood products industry.
A revitalized aquaculture industry, dependent on water quality for increased
production, is growing and employing more workers annually.
However, the manufacturing, aguuuu}ture/ and Christmas tree and brush
industries together lack the depth or strength of the wood products industry
in Mason County. With wood products in decline, wages and tux revenues as
economic indicators in Mason County are flat or falling. Property values are
in decline, wage and salary levels, particularly in retail, service, Christmas
tree and floral brush industries, are substantially lower than levels in
manufacturing. Except for timber exports the wood industry is in decline in
the county. Manufacturing firms (i.e. Certified Aerospace, Barnes Machine,
et. al,) are stable but remain subject to government procurement contracts for
much of their business, and therefore subject to reduced federal spending'
Reduced government spending is possible with the new administration in 1989.
An unskilled labor force adds to the uncertainty of attracting firms using
higher levels of technology in their manufacturing processes. The lack of
trained journeyman machinists has been a problem for Certified Aerospace.
Though not insurmountable, each of these factors inhibit economic growth to
some degree.
Training programs that upgrade skills in selected job areas are available and
plans are currently under development for establishing an active program; some
training has already been accomplished.
Retail sales can be increased using new marketing and management strategiey.
New businesses, seeking lower fixed operating costs and proximity to the
Interstate 5 corridor, can be attracted to Mayon County.
A concerted and cooperative effort by business and local government
leadership can overcome many of the constraints that have been illuminated.
A redoubling of commitment to economic development will add to the
possibilities for future success in Mayon County.
35
8.2 POTENTIALS
The basic ingredients for economic development in Mason County are its current
operating businesses, land for new residential -commercial -industrial
developments, and its available iaborforce.
Mason County enjoys the benefits of a well developed timber -wood products
industry which provides important employment and tax revenues. In addition,
there is a developing employment potential in the machining industries that
are growing in and around Shelton. The Aquaculture industry is growing in
importance as water quality improves. Though still at relatively low dollar
volumes there are increased employment opportunities provided by the
aquaculture industry each year. With its natural beauty, Mason County's
tourism industry industry continues to grow. Finally, there is a thriving
Christmas tree and floral brush industry that provides large numbers of
seasonal jobs.
Together these industries provide an economic base that cannot be ignored.
They provide the foundation from which the county can build new businesses.
The emphasis for new businesses should focus on small to medium size
enterprises, particularly on those that can build on county resources and
provide stable, year-round employment that will help reduce the cyclical
nature of the county's annual unemployment levels.
Additionally, the retail business sector, in decline for several years, has
the potential for attacking the business slippage that has grown into a tax
revenue leakage problem for the county. Agent James Freed, Washington State
Cooperative Extension Service Office in Mason County, states:
If retail business in the county were increased by just two percent
(2%) 160-200 full and part-time job opportunities could be created for
county residents.
When retailers begin to respond to their community obligation of providing
selection, shopping hours, and good service, business and jobs will return to
the local retail economy.
Water quality and land -use planning are issues that have become major concerns
for citizen groups that have formed in several regions of the county. As
36
these groups gain experience they seek cooperative liaisons with the county to
develop and implement measures that will assure the maintenance and
enhancement of water quality and continued growth in residential/commercial
development in the county.
These, and other factors, point to the potentials upon which the community of
Mason County can expand its economy. With the addition of physical
infrastructure development in key locations the possibility for success in
creating and attracting new business will be enhanced. Combined with the
development of the legal/environmental infrastructure through local government
action, the economic future of Mason County can grow to meet its needs well
into the 21st century. C:\MASON\OEDP.DOC
37