Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Tampa
Daytona Beach
Orlando
LakeOkeechobee
Sarasota
75
4
95
75
MelbournePalm Bay
by Ross DeVol, Lorna Wallaceand Armen Bedroussian
Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained
February 2006
Best Performing Cities2005
1250 Fourth Street • Santa Monica, CA 90401Phone: 310.570.4600 • Fax: 310.570.4601E-mail: [email protected]
© 2006 Milken Institute
Best Performing Cities 2005
Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained
by Ross DeVol, Lorna Wallace and Armen Bedroussian
February 2006
The Milken Institute is an independent economic think tank whose mission is to improve the lives and economic conditions of diverse populations in the U.S. and around the world by helping business and public policy leaders identify and implement innovative ideas for creating broad-based prosperity. We put research to work with the goal of revitalizing regions and fi nding new ways to generate capital for people with original ideas.
We do this by focusing on human capital – the talent, knowledge and experience of people, and their value to organizations, economies and society; fi nancial capital – innovations that allocate fi nancial resources effi ciently, especially to those who ordinarily would not have access to it, but who can best use it to build companies, create jobs and solve long-standing social and economic problems; and social capital – the bonds of society, including schools, health care, cultural institutions and government services, that underlie economic advancement.
By creating ways to spread the benefi ts of human, fi nancial and social capital to as many people as possible – the democratization of capital – we hope to contribute to prosperity and freedom in all corners of the globe.
We are nonprofi t, nonpartisan and publicly supported.
© 2006 Milken Institute
I. Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 1
II. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5
III. Best Performing Cities Index is Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based ............... 7
IV. Best Performing Cities: Largest 200 Cities List ............................................... 9
V. America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance .................................................... 21
VI. Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List ....................................................... 27
About the Authors .................................................................................................. 36
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary
National Economic Conditions
In 2005, the U.S. economy was battered by hurricanes, high oil and natural gas prices, rising interest rates and a deteriorating foreign trade balance—all on the heels of relatively subdued jobs recovery in 2003 and early 2004. Yet between November 2004 and November 2005, nearly 2 million jobs were created, and job growth is continuing at a rate that will sustain current economic expansion. In 2004, real GDP (the value of goods and services produced) rose a healthy 4.2 percent, and when the fi nal 2005 fi gures are released in March, we will likely see growth of 3.6 percent.
The housing market, which was robust in 2004 and the fi rst half of 2005, has only recently displayed signs of moderation. Homeowners refi nanced and extracted equity to maintain solid gains in consumer spending activity for the year. In the business sector, employment gains reduced vacancy rates in offi ce-using industries and spurred new construction. Businesses increased their overall investment spending by near double-digit rates amid renewed confi dence that sales, capacity utilization and profi ts would expand, and that they could resume their postponed investment in information technology.
Top 20 Best Performing Cities
A remarkable fi nding of this year’s index is that six of the top 10 best performing cities are located in Florida. Another six Florida metros scored in the top 30. In the 2004 index, seven Florida metros ranked in the top 20. Such high rankings over the past two years demonstrate the consistency of Florida’s metro placements.
In both 2004 and 2005, Florida experienced extraordinarily severe hurricane seasons. Yet despite the disruption they caused, the state’s economy is creating jobs at a prodigious rate. With expanded tourism, strong migration into the state, storm-related reconstruction under way and minimal heavy manufacturing to slow it down, Florida seems poised to see many of its metros remain among the top performers. A slowdown in new-home and condominium construction should restrain growth but will not be acute enough to derail the state’s top-tier performance.
The Southwest also scored well in 2005, with six metros among the top 20 best performing cities, three in California and two in Arizona.
The Northeast landed two metros in the top 20. By contrast, no Midwestern metro made it into the top 20, and just one scored in the top 50 (Madison, Wis., at No. 35). The next Midwestern metro doesn’t emerge until No. 72 on the list, and just six count among the top 100. Weakness in manufacturing, caused by the recent recession and loss of competitiveness with foreign fi rms (particularly in China), had devastating consequences for the economies of Middle America. Midwestern metros—fi ve from Michigan and four from Ohio—occupy nine of the bottom 10 spots on the index.
Executive Summary Best Performing Cities 2005
2
The Southern and Mountain states have numerous metros in the top 50. This partly refl ects lower business costs, fewer regulatory burdens and an entrepreneurial-driven new business paradigm that is a catalyst for job creation.
California’s metros in the top 20 are Riverside at 10th, Santa Barbara at 16th and Santa Ana (formerly Orange County) at 17th. The Washington, D.C., metro area is seventh this year (and fi rst on the largest cities list), up from 11th place in 2004. Las Vegas, Tucson and Phoenix remain in the top 20. A rebound in high-tech exports and renewed domestic investment in IT and communi-cations hardware and software should improve the position of several technology centers in the 2006 index.
The broadly defi ned service sector—a sector in which the United States demonstrates high productivity—was a consistent factor among metros that rank high on the 2005 index. In particular, business and professional services have been a key source of strength for many metropolitan areas. These services include accounting, legal services, engineering, and computer systems design and related services. A rebound in tourism is also boosting metro job growth within the leisure and hospitality service sectors. Population growth, attributable to economic opportunity that lures migrants from other regions, supports job growth in residential construction and retail trade in many metros. America’s aging population, especially the growing number of retirees, is a channel for growth in health care services
Note that in this year’s index some metros changed their geographic composition. In 2005, the federal Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) updated its defi nitions of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), based on information from the 2000 census. Under these defi nitional changes, direct comparison with the 2004 index for a particular metro area may not be possible. In the tables, we have noted which MSAs are new to the list and highlighted those that underwent geographic defi nitional changes by the OMB.
Best Performing City: Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FloridaThis metropolitan area, located on the state’s central eastern coast, holds the distinction of best performing city in our 2005 index, improving from 31st place in 2004. The area’s economy has expanded at a brisk pace over the past two years, with job growth rising to 5.3 percent in 2004. Although the region’s economic roots lie in space exploration, it has developed a more diversifi ed economy, and business and professional services show strong growth.
Best Performing Cities 2005Executive Summary
3
2005Rank
Rank, Year Ago Metro Index
1 31 Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL 100.002 1 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL 126.813 15 Naples-Marco Island, FL 137.054 18 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 150.555 51 Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL 161.876 29 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 165.607 111 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division 166.978 71 Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO 168.269 9 Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfield Beach, FL Metropolitan Division 173.3710 8 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 180.3111 21 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 187.5712 79 Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, FL 194.2413 98 Ocala, FL 202.3414 17 Tucson, AZ 209.3015 3 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 209.8716 53 Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, CA 220.9417 35 Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, CA Metropolitan Division 235.8718 122 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA 246.7119 NA Camden, NJ Metropolitan Division 263.3120 462 Clarksville, TN-KY 268.29
1 Added/Subtracted County(s)2 Indicates this city's position on last year's 2004 smallest metros list
Composite Index, 2005Top 20 Best Performing Cities
Source: Milken Institute
Best Performing Cities 2005
Ten Largest CitiesConcentrations of fi rms and people enhance economic competitiveness. In addition, greater employment density and effi cient transportation systems directly benefi t productivity. It is unreasonable, for example, to expect New York City, with the densest population in the country, to experience job growth at the same pace as Prescott, Ariz. For these reasons and others, we analyze and compare America’s largest metropolitan areas as a distinct class.
The popularity of cities is growing again after decades of decline, thanks to two factors: increased migration, especially among Hispanic and Asian populations; and an aging population that is spending more on health care, an important sector of big-city economies.
For the third year in a row, the best performing city among the 10 largest metros is the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area (Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV). The metro improved its overall performance from 11th last year to seventh on this year’s index. It is also the only major Northeastern metropolitan area among the top performers. The presence of the federal government helps stabilize the regional economy during national downturns and is a long-term source of expansion. It is also a major customer for many local private fi rms. One of the government’s largest procurement areas is in information and communications technology services. A recent study by the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University found that nearly 72 percent of federal procurement spending in the region occurred in technology-related services, and
Executive Summary
4
that research and development procurement spending had grown by double-digit amounts over the past several years. High-tech activity in the area is nearly 70 percent greater than that for the nation overall. Excluding the government, computer systems design and related services constitute the largest employment sector in the metro area.
The Washington-area offi ce market vacancy rate has declined below 10 percent, driving construction activity higher. Job gains and positive net migration propelled housing prices upward. And the tourism sector, which has rebounded over the past few years, continued to boost the region’s fortunes. That recovery, as well as strong income growth among residents, has helped retail activity. Nearly all major employment categories witnessed gains in 2005.
Top Five Best Performing Small Cities The cutoff for making it to the 2005 largest 200 cities list was a population of 229,000. As a result, 179 metros—62 more than last year because of the new metropolitan-area designations—fall under the small-cities category.
Florida leads this list, as well, with Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, whose high-tech manufacturing industry escalated over the past fi ve years. Centered around Eglin Air Force Base, the metro’s aerospace product- and parts-manufacturing sector has been a major contributor to the area’s high-tech development. The tourism, leisure and hospitality sector picked up dramatically as the beaches of the Emerald Coast became a popular destination.
Best Performing Cities 2005Executive Summary
5
Introduction
The Milken Institute Best Performing Cities Index measures which metropolitan areas of the United States are the most successful at job creation and exhibit the best economic performance. Specifi cally, it measures where:
• jobs are being created • jobs are being maintained • wages and salaries are increasing • economies are growing • businesses are thriving The index allows businesses, industry associations, economic development agencies, investors, academics, and government and public policy groups to assess and monitor a metro’s performance based on objective information. It also provides benchmarking data for use in developing strategies to improve and maintain a metro’s economic performance. The 2005 index applies the same methodology used in previous indexes, including the rankings published with Forbes magazine in its annual “Best Places for Business” edition (through 2003), thus permitting a consistent performance evaluation.
This year’s index incorporates recent changes to the geographic defi nitions of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The Offi ce of Management and Budget (OMB) defi nes a metropolitan statistical area using data from the 2000 census. The OMB uses detailed criteria to defi ne an MSA; in general, each MSA consists of a large population nucleus combined with adjacent territory that has a high degree of economic and social integration with the nucleus, as measured by community ties.1 As defi ned by OMB, there are 361 metropolitan statistical areas.
Increased population growth within counties accounts for the creation of new metropolitan statistical areas. Additionally, because of internal growth patterns, some counties have been added to MSAs or moved from one MSA to another. If specifi ed criteria are met, an MSA with a single nucleus and a population of 2.5 million or more is further divided into geographic areas referred to as metropolitan divisions. There are currently 29 metropolitan divisions. We include the smaller metropolitan divisions in our index to better refl ect geographic growth patterns within large regions.
With these new MSA defi nitions, direct comparison with the 2004 ranking for a particular metro area may not be possible. We have noted which MSAs are new to the list and highlighted those that underwent geographic defi nitional changes by the OMB in the tables.
Introduction Best Performing Cities 2005
6
7
Best Performing Cities Index Is Outcomes-Based, Not Cost-Based
The components shown in the table below are used to calculate the rankings. The index includes measures of job, wage and salary, as well as technology output growth over the past fi ve years (1999-2004) and the latest year’s performance (2004). We also incorporated the latest 12-month job-growth performance.2 Employment growth is given the greatest weight in the index because of its critical importance in determining the vitality of America’s communities. Wage and salary growth, meanwhile, measures the quality of the jobs being created. Technology output growth is included because of its important role in determining the economic vibrancy of cities.
We use fi ve-year growth averages to smooth out the business cycle impacts and to ensure that no city is penalized heavily for a weak performance in the most recent year. We also use the latest year’s performance to provide a sense of the relative momentum among metropolitan economies.
We added other technology measures to refl ect the concentration and diversity of technology industries within the MSAs. High-tech location quotients—which measure the concentration of the technology industry in a particular metro relative to the industry average across the nation—were included as an indicator of a metro’s participation in the knowledge-based economy.3 We also measured the number of specifi c high-tech sectors (out of a potential of 25) whose concentration in a metro was higher than that in the nation as a whole.
The Best Performing Cities Index is an outcomes-based measure, not one that incorporates explicit input measures of business costs; cost-of-living components (housing, for example); or other quality-of-life measures, such as crime rates. Such static input measures, although important, are subject to large variations and can be highly subjective, making them less meaningful than outcome measures.
Businesses locate in particular areas for specifi c reasons. Some, for instance, choose to remain in high-cost cities, even when lower-cost locations are available. The output measures used for this index include the benefi ts of situating in expensive locations.
Best Performing Cities 2005Outcome-Based, Not Cost-Based
Component WeightJob Growth (1999–2004) 0.143Job Growth (2003–2004) 0.143Wage & Salary Growth (1998–2003) 0.143Wage & Salary Growth (2002–2003) 0.143Short-Term Job Growth (July 2004–July 2005) 0.143Relative High-Tech GDP Growth (1999–2004) 0.071Relative High-Tech GDP Growth (2003–2004) 0.071High-Tech GDP Location Quotient 0.071Number of High-Tech GDP LQ>1 0.071Source: Milken Institute
2005 Milken Institute Best Performing CitiesComponents
8
Theoretically, a prospering region will raise wages and rents as both human capital and available space are more fully utilized. Nevertheless, holding all other factors constant (such as the productivity associated with being in one location versus another), a company will choose to locate where business costs are lower and their employees’ standard of living is higher.
National Economic Conditions
After experiencing a relatively subdued jobs recovery in 2003 and early 2004, the U.S. economy is now creating jobs at a pace that will sustain its current expansion. Nearly 2 million jobs where created between November 2004 and November 2005. The economy has withstood the devastating impacts of hurricanes, high oil and natural gas prices, rising interest rates and a deteriorating external trade balance. Real GDP (the value of goods and services produced) expanded at a healthy 4.2 percent in 2004, and when the fi nal 2005 fi gures are released in March, we will likely see growth of 3.6 percent.
The housing market, which was robust in 2004 and the fi rst half of 2005, is only recently displaying signs of moderation. Homeowners refi nanced and extracted equity to maintain healthy gains in consumer spending activity. Employment gains in offi ce-using industries reduced vacancy rates and spurred new construction. Businesses regained confi dence that sales would continue to expand, along with rising capacity utilization, record profi ts and a resumption of postponed investment in productivity-enhancing information technology, as refl ected by the increased overall investment spending by near double-digit rates.
Because of their different economic makeups and employment bases, America’s metropolitan areas respond differently to changes in monetary and fi scal policies. For example, the last U.S. economic slowdown—when the Internet and IT bubble burst—affected cities in strikingly different ways. Some areas, such as Silicon Valley, are struggling still to recoup their losses. The current business cycle has had some fortuitous dimensions for many communities, however, such as a remarkably strong housing sector that continues to drive increases in consumer spending.
The global economy, with the United States as its leading participant, presents opportunities to those geographic areas able to respond quickly to both shocks and opportunities. The rankings show that metros with low business costs and knowledge-based economies are most likely to create jobs.
Best Performing Cities 2005Outcome-Based, Not Cost-Based
9
Best Performing Cities: Largest 200 Cities List
The top 20 best performing cities share the following attributes:
• Each has a strong services sector. Business and professional services, in which the United States demonstrates high productivity, have been key sources of strength for metropolitan areas. • Most have experienced a robust recovery in tourism that is driving job growth in leisure and hospitality services. • Each has population growth that supports employment gains in home construction and related consumer industries. • Many have a growing population of retirees who are spurring growth in the health care services sector.
As in last year’s index, none of the country’s top 20 research universities are located in the 2005 top 20 best performing cities.4 To sustain growth, however, these cities must move up the tech-based research-and-development value chain. A number of studies exist, including those of the Milken Institute,5 that stress both the desirability and necessity of a knowledge-based economy for geographic areas to maintain and expand long-term competitiveness. Because the Best Performing Cities Index uses outcome-based components measured over time, the tendency exists for the data to emphasize growth in jobs, wages and salaries, and high-value-added GMP (gross metro product). Hence, previously high-fl ying tech centers, such as Denver—which also lacks a premier research university—do not appear among the top 20 best performing cities after the burst of the dot-com, technology and telecom bubbles in late 2000. Current best performing cities may be unable to sustain their standings over the long run without a solid university R&D base and strong commercialization links with the private sector.
A remarkable fi nding of this year’s index is that six of the top 10 metros, and another six in the top 20, are located in Florida. The state had seven metros in last year’s top 30 listing. Despite the disruptions caused by hurricanes, Florida’s economy is creating jobs at a prodigious rate. With the expansion of tourism, strong migration into the state, hurricane-related reconstruction under way and minimal heavy manufacturing, Florida seems poised to see many of its metros remain among the top performers. A slowdown in new-home and condominium construction should restrain growth but will not be severe enough to derail Florida’s top-tier performance.
California comes in second, with three metros in the top 20: Riverside ranked 10th, and Santa Barbara and Santa Ana (formerly Orange County) scored 16th and 17th, respectively.
Only one major metro area, Washington, D.C., ranks in the top 20, at an impressive seventh, up from 11th last year. Las Vegas, Tucson and Phoenix remain in the top 20.
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
10
A rebound in high-tech exports and renewed domestic investment in information technology and communications hardware and software should improve the position of several technology centers in the 2006 index.
Here is a look at the top 20 best performing cities:
Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, Florida holds the distinction of best performing city in our 2005 index, improving from 31st in 2004. The area’s economy has expanded at a brisk pace over the past two years, with job growth rising to 5.3 percent in 2004. Although its economic roots lie in space exploration, the MSA has developed a more diversifi ed economy, with strong growth in business and professional services. Its healthy labor market and below-average cost of living (although recently eroded by rapid home-price appreciation) resulted in strong net migration into the area. The Palm Bay metro area, in particular, has attracted more retirees, as well. Durable manufacturing— chiefl y aerospace and defense-related manufacturing—accounts for 95 percent of overall manufacturing employment in the metro area, compared to a U.S. average of 62 percent. Defense contractors have benefi ted from strong federal anti-terrorism spending. Space-related tourism is another important component of the local economic base.
The area has undergone a mini-construction boom, primarily in housing. Single- and multifamily housing permits more than doubled between 2000 and 2004; numerous Florida metro markets experienced similar white-hot housing markets, propelled by job growth and the associated high in-migration, along with low interest rates. The state’s metro housing market is starting to cool, but median home prices are still up over 25 percent from a year ago.
20042003200220012000
6
4
2
0
-2
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Annual Job GrowthPalm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville vs. United States
Palm Bay-Melbourne-TitusvilleUnited States
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
11
The MSA is home to operational centers of several high-tech defense-related fi rms, such as Lock-heed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. Defense and surveillance-related communications fi rms, such as Harris and DRS Technologies, have grown substantially; Harris alone employs 6,400 people in the metro. The area ranks 13th for high-tech output growth over the past fi ve years and 13th overall in the concentration of high-tech activity. The expansion of such fi rms has caused strong demand for locally produced business and professional services. The rapid increase in numbers of retirees has boosted demand for health care, and Holmes Regional Medical Center in Melbourne is expanding its operations.
Longer term, the winding down of the shuttle program and the emergence of competing space exploration centers in Alabama, Mississippi and New Mexico will pose challenges for maintaining its high pace of economic growth, but the area should continue to rank in the upper tier of performers.
Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Florida, our top performer in the 2004 index, maintained its position among the country’s elite but slipped into second place this year.. Still, the MSA has ranked no lower than third over the past three years. The area recorded job growth of 6.7 percent in 2004 but witnessed a modest deceleration in 2005. Nonetheless, the region is experiencing a virtuous, self-reinforcing pattern of growth. Retirees are increasingly fi nding the area to be an attractive location. More than 25 percent of its population is over 65, double the national average, and that percentage is expected to rise. The local travel and tourism sector is thriving. Growth in fi nancial services and back-offi ce operations, such as call centers, has created new jobs. High-tech manufac-turing has been another growth engine.
Rapid local job and population growth has resulted in one of the country’s strongest construction markets. Single-family housing permits tripled between 2000 and 2004. Construction employment constitutes 11.2 percent of the MSA’s total jobs—more than double the national average. New-home construction will slow down but remain at high levels. The sharp population growth has also caused a rapid increase in the demand for health care services. Overall, the region’s wage and salary growth was second in the country over the past fi ve years.
Naples-Marco Island, Florida, on the Gulf Coast, ranks third on our 2005 index of best performing cities, thanks to broad-based job and salary growth, the highest in the nation over the past fi ve years. Its population is well-off, with per capita income at $41,500, or $10,000 above the national average. Increases in foreign travel and tourism—the result of waning concerns over terrorism in the United States and a weak dollar—are creating jobs. Domestic tourism is rebounding, as well. Strong retirement growth has supported positive net migration and fueled housing demand, though the rapid increase in housing prices has reduced the area’s affordability and poses a risk to growth.
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
12
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, Texas, moved to fourth place in this year’s ranking, up from 18th in our 2004 index. The area has witnessed rapid expansion in cross-border trade with Mexico and has become a major distribution center. Moreover, McAllen’s sister city across the border, Reynosa, has posted strong maquiladora activity and helped to boost retail trade as workers cross the bor-der north to make purchases. Financial, business and professional services have all experienced stellar job growth. The area continues to experience a high rate of net migration, both domestically and from foreign sources. With many jobs being created in lower-paying sectors (such as retail), the area’s wage and salary growth has increased only slightly, and per capita income remains low. Nevertheless, the region is seeing expansion in new sectors, which keeps it among the top areas for job growth in the country.
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, Florida, on the state’s central Atlantic coast, ranks fi fth in our 2005 list. Under the new MSA defi nition, the metro lost Flagler Country to the north (Flagler is no longer included in any MSA) and now comprises just Volusia County. The area’s economy is witnessing strong growth due to greater tourism activity and its attendant impact on retail trade activity, rapid growth in health care, growing appeal as a retirement area and expanding professional services. The region has diversifi ed its travel and tourism base, away from spring break revelers and more toward families and NASCAR enthusiasts. (Daytona is among the fi nal three potential locations for the new NASCAR Hall of Fame.) Even so, the area’s dependence on travel and tourism has fallen by more than 20 percent over the past decade. The growth in its retirement population has spurred increased demand for health care. Virtual-reality training technology is among the metro’s growth sectors, propelled by demand from the military as it prepares troops to operate in hostile environments. The commercial applications of these technologies appear promising, as well, and fi rms in the fi eld, such as Raydon Corp., are expanding in Daytona.
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
20042003200220012000
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Wage and Salary GrowthNaples-Marco Island vs. United States
Naples-Marco IslandUnited States
13
Best Performing Cities 2005
Orlando-Kissimmee, Florida, jumped to sixth place, up from 29th on last year’s index. Its economy is growing at a strong pace, with expansion in domestic travel and a return of international visitors. Disney World added attractions to its lineup, and theme park receipts are growing between 7 percent and 10 percent. Tourism is a huge portion of the area’s economy; employment in the leisure and hospitality services sector represents nearly 19 percent of the MSA’s overall employment base, compared to just 9.5 percent for the nation. But the region’s overall outstanding performance is attributable to more than just a recovery in tourism; fi nancial activities, professional and business services, education and health services, construction, manufacturing and trade are all experiencing robust job gains.
The region also boasts a burgeoning core of technology and telecommunication services fi rms. In defense-related technology, Lockheed Martin is a major employer, and AT&T has signifi cant operations in the area. With fewer zoning and land-development restrictions than other large Florida metros, the area is a magnet for new migrants. In 2004, net migration was 48,000, according to Census Bureau information. Housing prices have soared over the past year, and single-family housing permits have doubled since 2000. Robust gains in offi ce-related employment caused commercial vacancy rates to fall, resulting in new offi ce construction.
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, has improved to seventh place on this year’s index, up from 11th in 2004. The Washington area is the only major Northeastern MSA to rank among the top performers in the nation. The presence of the federal government helps stabilize the region’s economy during national downturns and is a long-term source of expansion. The federal government is also a major customer for many private fi rms in the area. One of its largest procurement areas is in information and communication technology services. A recent study by the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University found that nearly 72 percent of federal procurement spending in the region was in technology-related services, and that research and development procurement spending has grown by double-digit amounts over the past several
Largest 200 Cities List
200520042003200220012000
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Leisure and Hospitality EmploymentDeltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach vs. United States
Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond BeachUnited States
14
years. High-tech activity in the Washington metro was nearly 70 percent greater than for the nation overall in 2004. Excluding the government sector, computer systems design and related services constitute the largest employment category in the metro area.
The offi ce vacancy rate, meanwhile, has declined below 10 percent, driving construction activity higher. Housing prices have also been propelled higher by job gains and positive net migration. Retail activity has risen, aided by strong income growth among residents and a recovery in tourism. Nearly all major employment categories are witnessing gains.
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR-MO, remains in our top 10 best performing cities, positioned at eighth this year. Although it scored seventh last year, the MSA has ranked in the top 10 for the past three years. The area’s economy is seeing growth across an assortment of industries. Wal-Mart remains the cornerstone of its economy, but the region’s success story is based on more than just the success of the retail giant. Many of Wal-Mart’s vendors (among them Fortune 500 fi rms) have established offi ces in Rogers and Bentonville to facilitate interaction with the retailer. The MSA remains a trucking and logistics headquarters for such fi rms as JB Hunt, in Lowell. Poultry and food production is an important component of the region’s economy, with Tyson Foods and Pinnacle Foods, which lists Swanson frozen foods and Duncan Hines among its brands. The University of Arkansas is developing a new research park and has enhanced its standing as a research university in recent rankings. The quality of the jobs being created has improved, as well; the MSA has recorded the third-fastest wage and salary gains in the nation over the past fi ve years. In-migration continues at a high rate, driving the demand for new housing and retail activity. The growing consumer and business base has led to an expansion of banking operations.
United StatesWashington-Arlington-Alexandria
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
Percent Share of Total Employment
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
High-Tech Employment2004
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
15
Best Performing Cities 2005
Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach-Deerfi eld Beach, Florida, is ninth on our 2005 index, the same position it occupied in 2004. Business and professional services, such as accounting and legal services, add employment at a high rate, with growth reaching 6.5 percent on a year-over-year basis in recent months. Demand for professionals with these skills has been so strong that recruitment has extended beyond the area. Tourism expansion is refl ected in the low double-digit gains in passenger traffi c at Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport. Local retirees don’t represent as large a share of the population base as they did 15 years ago but are still are an important component of the economy and spur higher demand for health care. Housing activity has been strong, with rapid gains in median prices. New-home building activity is surging, but housing affordability has fallen, harming the ability to attract workers from outside the region.
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, California, places 10th on the index, down two slots from last year. It remains the fastest-growing metro area in California and continues to have high in-migration from coastal southern California. Much of the migration has been driven by improved housing affordability and new supply availability. Due to rapidly rising home prices, however, the area is no longer as attractive on a cost basis. Nevertheless, with little new housing supply being developed along the coast, new inland construction should remain at a fairly high level. The area has become an important transportation and logistics center, and is capturing a large share of air cargo shipments from Asia. Ontario International Airport has room for expansion. The MSA has important rail linkages with the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, and is adding wholesale and industrial space at a high rate. The area is creating more professional service employment, but income levels are low, relative to coastal areas and the nation overall. Nevertheless, the area ranks fourth in the country in terms of wage and salary growth over the past fi ve years.
20042003200220012000
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Total Housing PermitsRiverside-San Bernardino-Ontario vs. California
Riverside-San Bernardino-OntarioCalifornia
Largest 200 Cities List
16
Las Vegas-Paradise, Nevada, metro fi nished 11th on this year’s list. Low business costs and housing prices spurred population growth into this city of entertainment. Tourism, the metro’s “bread and butter” also experienced robust growth, largely driven by employment in construction and the leisure and hospitality sector, which grew by 16.3 percent and 6.7 percent, respectively, from July 2004 to July 2005. Total employment rose by 7.5 percent during the same period—the fastest growth in the country in terms of job momentum. Additionally, the unemployment rate fell to 4.4 percent. Gaming revenue rose 16 percent from the previous year, while visitor volume increased by 7 percent. Overseas visitors numbered 1.6 million in 2004, a 24 percent increase from 2003.
Despite rising interest rates, strong housing demand fueled outstanding gains in residential construction. The recent trend in Las Vegas real estate includes non-gaming, high-rise condos and hotels catering toward demand for large-scale conventions, business travelers and upscale tenants. The city’s gaming industry will continue to expand; construction of new hotels and casinos is under way both on and off the Strip.
Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce, Florida, jumped to 12th this year, with marked improvement from its 79th position in 2004. Employment in Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce grew nearly 5 percent above the U.S. average between 2003 and 2004, exhibiting the fourth-highest growth in the country. Increasing numbers of retirees, many from southern Florida, boosted the MSA’s population. In addition, the area benefi ted from strong migration trends. The elderly population also helped fuel demand for health care services, and rebuilding after a season of hurricanes generated a 6 percent increase in construction jobs from July 2004 to July 2005. Finally, ports throughout the region were responsible for nearly $32 billion in exports and imports.
2004200320022001
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
Migrants, Ths.
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Net Domestic MigrationPort St. Lucie-Fort Pierce
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
17
Ocala, Florida, ranked 13th in this year’s index, up from 98th place last year. Its low cost of living, relative to other Florida cities, has been a major driver of population growth. Meanwhile, local employment growth scored 4 percent above the national average over the past year. The construction industry contributed most toward the metro’s overall economic performance. Lockheed Martin created a tremendous opportunity for high-tech growth in the region. Indeed, the area’s high-tech GDP growth over the past year ranked third in the nation. Ocala’s manufacturing sector will expand as MRI parts supplier Pro-Fab Plastics builds a 15,000-square-foot facility in the area.
The Tucson, Arizona, metro pulled three spots ahead of last year, ranking 14th on our index. Tucson’s employment base grew 4 percent from July 2004 to July 2005 and outperformed the national average by 4.7 percent over the past fi ve years. With major players like Raytheon and IBM, its high-tech industry gave the metro an added boost in overall rankings; and higher-paying technology jobs spread wealth across other industries. Despite its cyclical nature, defense spending continues to benefi t the metro signifi cantly. Davis-Monthan Air Force Base currently employs more than 7,600. Finally, housing has been an integral part of the local economy, creating tremendous equity for homeowners.
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona, ranks 15th on this year’s index, slipping from third position a year ago. On the upside, in late 2005, Intel, the world’s largest chipmaker, spent $2 billion to reopen an existing factory in Chandler as a semiconductor manufacturing plant, adding 800 employees to its 10,000 local work force. Although Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale suffered job losses in the telecomm industry, the MSA regained some momentum, largely due to construction and defense spending. Between July 2004 and July 2005, the metro’s total employment rose 4.3 percent. As it has in Tucson, home equity here has created a wealth effect that spreads across other industries. In addition, the metro’s low business costs continue to attract California fi rms. The regional population increased by 3.4 percent over the previous year; migration from California has been a key driver of population growth.
Best Performing Cities 2005
United StatesTucson
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Percent Share of Total Employment
Sources: Economy.com, Census Bureau
Computer and Peripheral Equip. MFG Employment2004
Largest 200 Cities List
18
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria, California, leapt to 16th position, up 37 spots from 53rd place last year. The local military presence includes Vandenberg AFB, which employs more than 4,500. The University of California, Santa Barbara, is the largest employer in the metro, with more than 9,500 workers. With the presence of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, high-tech GMP in Santa Barbara-Santa Maria has outgrown the U.S. average by 4 percent. The metro’s skilled labor force benefi ts from higher payrolls, especially with respect to professional services. Wage and salary growth rose 7.6 percent faster than the national average over the last fi ve years. The metro’s quality of life, along with its beautiful climate, has attracted many wealthy retirees to the region.
Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, California, improved 18 spots, to reach 17th position on this year’s Best Performing Cities Index. The metro, formerly defi ned as Orange County, is home to 18 high-tech sectors with location quotients that exceed 1.0. In other words, the metro has a higher concentration of employment in those sectors than the nation on average, and its high-tech output is on average 55 percent more concentrated than high tech is in the nation’s economy as a whole. Professional and business services paid high wages to a growing service sector. Global ties, through such companies as Ingram Micro in Santa Ana, generated strong international business investment. Furthermore, the metro’s broad-based economy has created high per capita income and consumption. Walt Disney, Boeing and the University of California, Irvine, are among the largest employers.
Bremerton-Silverdale, Washington, ranked 18th on this year’s index, moving up 104 spots from last year’s ranking. The area’s military presence is the primary driver of its economic performance. Naval Base Kitsap and Naval Station Bremerton employ more than 25,000. The economic impacts from naval activity has spread across other sectors. Also, the lower cost of living on the island, relative to nearby Seattle, has attracted many wealthy retirees. A new federal transportation bill may help fund an underground tunnel, allowing easier access to Seattle and thus promoting increased economic activity between the two areas. Over the past fi ve years, high-tech GMP in Bremerton-Silverdale has outpaced the nation by 32 percent, while the MSA’s total employment grew 12 percent faster than the national average.
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
200520042003200220012000
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Professional and Scientific Services EmploymentSanta Ana-Anaheim-Irvine vs. United States
Santa Ana-Anaheim-IrvineUnited States
19
Camden, New Jersey, fi nished 19th this year. Last year, the metro area was part of the Philadelphia primary MSA. This year, under changes in metro defi nitions, Camden has become its own metropolitan statistical division. Its waterfront area has grown into a major tourist attraction and a source of wealth for the local economy. Employment within leisure and hospitality services grew by 4 percent from July 2004 to July 2005. Lower costs of living, relative to Philadelphia and nearby suburbs, have had a positive impact on population growth. Health care and defense-related industries also contributed toward the metro’s overall growth. Lockheed Martin (7,100) and Virua Health (5,400) are among the biggest employers. Finally, the port of Camden serves as an essential component of its industry mix.
Clarksville, TN-KY, came in 20th overall in 2005, up 16 spots from last year’s ranking. Under the new OMB defi nitions, the Clarksville MSA now comprises four counties, instead of two. Employment from 1999 to 2004 rose 6 percent faster than the national average. Fort Campbell is a major driver of the local economy, accounting for 29 percent of employment. Federal defense spending may increase, depending on the situation in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. Low business costs and proximity to Nashville provide further incentives for businesses.
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
200520042003200220012000
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Leisure and Hospitality EmploymentCamden vs. United States
CamdenUnited States
20
21
America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance
Concentrations of fi rms and people enhance economic competitiveness. In addition, greater employment density and effi cient transportation systems directly benefi t productivity. Land-consuming manufacturing is largely absent from many of the top-ranked largest metropolitan areas, making increased concentrations of fi rms and people possible. For these reasons and others, we analyze and compare America’s largest metropolitan areas as a distinct class. It is unreasonable, for example, to expect New York City, with the densest population in the country, to experience job growth at the same pace as Prescott, Ariz.
Metro populations are growing again after decades of decline. This is attributable to, among other things, increased immigration (especially among Hispanic and Asian populations) and an aging population that is spending more on health care—an important sector of big-city economies.
As the table below shows, among America’s 10 largest cities, the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division has the top-performing economy. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario ranks second, and Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale scores third of the country’s 10 largest cities. The economic activities of these metros were addressed previously in this report because they also place among our top 20 best performing cities. Below are profi les of the other seven metros.
Note that the geographical boundaries of fi ve of the metros in the table below were adjusted by the federal Offi ce of Management and Budget, affecting the statistical compilation of data on which our ranking is based.
Best Performing Cities 2005America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance
2005 Largest
Rank2005Rank
2004Rank Metro
1 7 11* Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Division2 10 8 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA3 15 3 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ4 118 72* Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA5 124 140 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA Metropolitan Division6 125 114* Dallas-Plano-Irving, TX Metropolitan Division7 128 84* Philadelphia, PA Metropolitan Division8 129 105* Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 9 161 127/113/169 New York-White Plains-Wayne, NY-NJ Metropolitan Division
10 183 166 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL Metropolitan Division*Notes: The Washington, D.C. metropolitan division excludes Berkeley, Frederick, Montgomery, Culpeper and King George counties
The Atlanta metropolitan area includes Butts, Dawson, Haralson, Heard, Jasper, Lamar, Meriwether and Pike counties
Top 10 Largest Cities by Population Size2005
Source: Milken Institute
The Dallas metropolitan division includes Delta but excludes Henderson County
The Philadelphia metropolitan division excludes Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Salem counties (they are now part of Camden, NJ, and Wilmington, DE-MD-NJ metropolitan divisions)
The Houston metropolitan area includes Austin and San Jacinto counties
22
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, Georgia, ranks fourth among the Milken Institute’s 2005 10 largest metros. The metro’s 118th rank overall is considerably below its 72nd position on our 2004 index. And signifi cant challenges face the MSA in the near future: Congestion hinders economic growth in Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta. Job losses are expected with the closures of Fort McPherson, Fort Gillem and the ATL Naval Air Station. Delta Airlines’s bankruptcy position creates uncertainty, and the economy is vulnerable to offshoring and mergers associated with the area’s large telecom services sector. This unfavorable mix of industries in its economic base has harmed recent economic performance, but the MSA still has favorable long-term structural fundamentals. Travel and tourism are recovering into and through Atlanta, a major airline hub, and leisure-related employment is bouncing back. The metro’s strengths have been its diverse economy and above-average per capita income. Population growth is fueled by strong in-migration, and the metro is poised to capture substitute convention activity from New Orleans.
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, California, is fi fth among the 10 largest metros on our 2005 index. Its position as 124th on the Best Performing Cities Index is up from 140th in 2004. This immense, ethnically diverse city benefi ts from a falling U.S. dollar that attracts more tourists and fi lm production to the area. Defense contracts are revitalizing the region’s satellite and space industry. But population growth and expanded international trade via the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach burden an already congested, aged public infrastructure. Lengthy commutes and skyrocketing real estate created high costs of living and doing business, and widened the gap between high- and low-income households. Inevitable slowdowns in the real estate market will hit the area particularly hard. The metro remains, however, one of the world’s premier centers of economic and cultural activity. Its size, demographic diversity and history of innovation provide a strong foundation for the economy. Improving the city’s ability to compete globally will only be possible if its fi rms have access to advanced technology and a well-educated, fl exible work force. The metro’s top seven employers are: Kaiser Permanente, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Ralphs, Tenent Healthcare, the University of Southern California and Target Corporation. Encouraging the development of high-tech business and nurturing the ongoing growth of smaller enterprises remain signifi cant challenges.
200520042003200220012000
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
Percent Share of Total Employment
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Telecommunications EmploymentAtlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta
Best Performing Cities 2005America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance
23
Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas, ranked sixth among the 10 largest metros on the 2005 index. The metro far outpaces the overall diversifi cation of large metros, refl ecting “hyper-growth” of the Latino population and Dallas’s new status as a major immigrant gateway. It is a hub for fi nance and service sectors, and a well-positioned distribution center for the southwestern United States. The industrial chemicals company Celanese announced the move of its international headquarters from Frankfurt, Germany, to Dallas, adding up to 500 new jobs. Logistics opportunities expanded: UPS announced the construction of one of six new air freight hubs in the metro; Fluor Corp. (the global engineering and construction giant) is moving its headquarters from California to the MSA to be closer to its many energy clients and to capitalize on the growing Dallas-Fort Worth airport; and a massive inland freight facility is planned to support the Port of Houston. The defense industry will contribute to job and income growth. The Dallas-Plano-Irving metro has a high per capita income. The area, which competes closely with other regional centers like Houston and Atlanta, is seeing its cost advantages erode, potentially constraining future expansion. Further consolidation of the telecom industry undermines growth in this sector.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ranks seventh among this year’s 10 largest metros. The region has witnessed modest gains in employment as manufacturing continues to shed jobs. Thus far, growth in business and health services has barely offset declines elsewhere. In the Greater Philadelphia region, the life sciences industry is a clear potential source of comparative advantage for the region’s economy over the long term. Retention of locally developed human capital (from institutions of higher learning, such as the University of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson University and Temple University) will provide a deeper pool of workforce talent. The city clearly does an excellent job at graduating degree holders in important specialties but lags in related professional fi eld employment. Another area of focus should be on life sciences startups and the associated risk capital, from pre-seed to venture fi nance support. Economic risk to Philadelphia includes consolidation in
Best Performing Cities 2005America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance
200520042003200220012000
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.1
Percent Share of Total Employment
Sources: Economy.com, Milken Institute
Warehousing and Transportation EmploymentDallas-Plano-Irving vs. U.S.
Dallas-Plano-IrvingUnited States
24
the pharmaceutical industry, which hits the metro’s top employers, and rising energy prices that threaten its manufacturing industry. Personal bankruptcies in Philadelphia are declining, as are delinquency rates. The resulting improved credit situation can stimulate consumer spending and provide some insulation against the impact of rising interest rates.
Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, Texas, ranks eighth among the 10 largest metros on this year’s index. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown is a global leader in oil and gas technology. The booming energy sector and mining employment fuel its economy. The metro, which was a major evacuation site for Gulf Coast refugees, has signifi cant trade and export links, relatively affordable housing, low business costs and favorable migration trends. Construction activity remains healthy, and residential real estate price growth has been steady but moderate. The metro’s top employers are: Shell Oil, ExxonMobil, Administaff, Continental Airlines and Halliburton Company. Consolidation in the energy and airline sectors weigh on the economy overall, and the real estate market especially. Several large-scale expansions at and around the Port of Houston area, headlined by Wal-Mart’s huge new distribution center, are set to invigorate the local economy.
New York-White Plains-Wayne, New York and New Jersey, remained ninth in 2005 among the 10 largest metros. Four years after the devastation of 9/11, the New York City economy is healthy, with world-renowned Broadway productions that, among other cultural attractions, draw tourists from around the world and create jobs in the metro. New York-White Plains-Wayne is the nation’s fi nancial capital. Its three largest employers are New York Presbyterian Healthcare Network, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. The surge in investment banking and merger activity is providing the metro with a personal income boost, strengthening current expansion. The metro’s future real estate market is an area of concern. The current record pace of residential permitting is not sustainable, although few signs of slowing are evident. Double-digit price increases have become the norm, increasing the risk of a correction as the market slows and making the city’s budget diffi culties more apparent. Barring windfall revenues, some combination of higher taxes, reduced services or further deterioration of infrastructure seems likely, all of which will limit the metro area’s growth potential.
The Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, Illinois, metro area ranked 10th among this year’s Milken Institute largest metros. Compared to the nation’s largest metropolitan areas, Chicago-Naperville-Joliet has about average housing affordability. Chicago’s downtown leads the country in a widespread revival of residential urban centers. Empty nesters, young entrepreneurs and retirees embrace accessibility to high-quality cultural amenities, restaurants and public services. The metro is also a popular convention center, boasting a high per capita income and well-educated work force. Convention activity in the metro is set to benefi t not only from the expansion of McCormick Place, to be completed in 2007, but also at the expense of New Orleans. The metro lost manufacturing jobs at a faster rate than the nation between 1970 and 2000. The biggest concentration of employment, which used to be in the manufacturing sector, is now in the service sector. A crucial ingredient to expansion will be retention of global headquarters’ operations. One success story, Offi ceMax, will consolidate its Chicago-area headquarters in Naperville, moving 700 jobs from Ohio. Expansion of
Best Performing Cities 2005America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance
25
O’Hare International Airport, with construction to begin immediately, various road projects and federal funding assistance for a huge reconfi guration of freight railroad lines and road intersections are designed to reduce bottlenecks.
200520042003200220012000
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-10.0
-12.0
Percent Change, Year Ago
Sources: Global Insight, Milken Institute
Manufacturing EmploymentChicago-Naperville-Joliet vs. U.S.
Chicago-Naperville-JolietUnited States
Best Performing Cities 2005America’s 10 Largest Cities: Performance
26
27
Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List
The cutoff for making it onto the 2005 largest 200 cities list was a population of 229,000. As a result, 179 metros fall under the small cities category. Among this year’s small cities, Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, Florida, tops the list. Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin’s high-tech manufacturing industry escalated over the past fi ve years. Centered around Eglin AFB, the metro’s aerospace product and parts manufacturing sector has been a major contributor toward the area’s high-tech development. Its tourism, leisure and hospitality sector picked up dramatically as the beaches of the Emerald Coast became a more popular destination.
Bend, Oregon, came in second on this year’s list. The newly established metro offers tourists many outdoor recreational activities, such as skiing in the Mt. Bachelor area. The metro’s attractive health care system and dry climate spurred population growth into the region. St. Charles Medical Center employs more than 1,800.
Third on this year’s small cities list is Prescott, Arizona. Health care and social assistance account for nearly 12 percent of total metro employment. Together, Yavapai Regional Medial Center and VA Medical employ nearly 1,800 workers. Prescott’s beautiful climate and historical attractions enhance its leisure and hospitality sector.
Scoring fourth this year is Panama City-Lynn Haven, Florida, improving 46 spots from 2004. Tourism served as the engine of growth for the metro’s fast-growing service sector. A plan for a new beachfront resort should help improve the area’s economy. Low housing costs attracted migrants and investors into the region.
2005Rank
RankYear Ago Metro Index
1 16 Fort Walton Beach-Crestview-Destin, FL 100.002 NA Bend, OR 111.913 NA Prescott, AZ 131.494 50 Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL 139.385 NA St. George, UT 148.52
Source: Milken Institute
Composite Index, 2005Top 5 Best Performing Small Cities
Best Performing Cities 2005Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List
28
St. George, Utah, a new metro by OMB standards, ranks fi fth on this year’s list. The metro’s geographic position provides access to major markets on the West Coast. Its low cost of living and doing business helped boost population growth. One of the nation’s fastest-growing cities, St. George, boasts a low unemployment rate of 3.8 percent.
Best Performing Cities 2005Best Performing Cities: Small Cities List
29
2004
Ran
k20
05R
ank
Met
roC
ode
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2004
Ove
rall
Inde
x20
04 V
alue
Ran
k20
04 V
alue
Ran
k20
03 V
alue
Ran
k20
03 V
alue
Ran
kG
row
thR
ank
2004
Val
ueR
ank
2004
Val
ueR
ank
2004
Val
ueR
ank
2004
Val
ueR
ank
(in
Tho
usan
ds)
311
MP
AL
Pal
m B
ay-M
elbo
urne
-Titu
svill
e F
L10
9.86
1810
4.11
610
7.51
3510
4.36
62.
60%
3212
9.33
1310
4.2
151.
8513
149
519
100.
001
2M
CC
FC
ape
Cor
al-F
ort M
yers
FL
122.
903
105.
522
126.
062
107.
071
4.68
%2
123.
7024
102.
2737
0.52
156
774
514
126.
8115
3M
NA
PN
aple
s-M
arco
Isla
nd F
L12
6.27
110
4.05
712
9.70
110
4.49
44.
43%
612
8.05
1611
1.18
50.
4218
16
9629
713
7.05
184
MM
CA
McA
llen-
Edi
nbur
g-M
issi
on, T
X
123.
182
103.
819
118.
566
104.
197
4.56
%4
170.
211
132.
461
0.4
185
412
665
815
0.55
515
MD
EL
Del
tona
-Day
tona
Bea
ch-O
rmon
d B
each
FL
112.
0411
102.
6818
110.
1822
103.
859
2.94
%23
133.
219
103.
5926
0.75
101
694
479
161.
8729
6M
OR
LO
rland
o-K
issi
mm
ee, F
L10
8.78
2510
3.62
1010
9.18
2710
2.96
234.
13%
911
0.49
6310
3.21
280.
9470
856
1862
165.
6011
17
DM
WA
SW
ashi
ngto
n-A
rling
ton-
Ale
xand
ria,
DC
-VA
-MD
-WV
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n11
0.41
1410
1.53
3111
0.20
2110
1.90
373.
24%
1610
9.49
6510
1.43
511.
6617
937
4000
166.
9771
8M
FA
YF
ayet
tevi
lle-S
prin
gdal
e-R
oger
s A
R-M
O11
8.11
710
2.19
2312
1.87
310
3.39
143.
64%
1313
0.20
1110
4.53
130.
5315
45
114
391
168.
269
9D
MF
OT
For
t Lau
derd
ale-
Pom
pano
Bea
ch-D
eerf
ield
Bea
ch, F
L M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
110.
0515
102.
0724
110.
3720
103.
1318
2.99
%21
124.
8122
101.
1460
0.86
817
6517
5517
3.37
810
MR
IVR
iver
side
-San
Ber
nard
ino-
Ont
ario
CA
120.
135
103.
4212
121.
234
104.
365
1.66
%74
127.
5719
104.
5711
0.63
127
684
3793
180.
3121
11M
LAS
Las
Veg
as-P
arad
ise
NV
120.
324
105.
571
116.
048
105.
803
7.54
%1
114.
6349
103.
6524
0.45
176
217
716
5118
7.57
7912
MP
SL
Por
t St.
Luci
e-F
ort P
ierc
e F
L11
9.18
610
4.76
411
3.15
1210
3.46
134.
41%
711
8.99
3610
4.36
140.
4617
53
167
365
194.
2498
13M
OC
AO
cala
FL
109.
5420
103.
898
106.
9840
105.
892
2.52
%34
129.
2914
113.
83
0.66
124
414
629
120
2.34
1714
MT
UC
Tuc
son
AZ
104.
7453
101.
9925
106.
5745
101.
6449
3.98
%10
108.
8966
101.
3155
1.68
1613
1090
720
9.30
315
MP
HO
Pho
enix
-Mes
a-S
cotts
dale
AZ
107.
7628
102.
2322
106.
9939
101.
8641
4.33
%8
97.3
512
910
2.52
351.
4435
938
3715
209.
8753
16M
SA
TS
anta
Bar
bara
-San
ta M
aria
, CA
103.
9561
100.
5660
107.
5934
102.
3427
2.44
%39
119.
1535
104.
0219
1.48
3013
1340
222
0.94
3517
DM
SN
TS
anta
Ana
-Ana
heim
-Irv
ine,
CA
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n10
6.48
3910
1.02
4610
8.70
2910
3.60
101.
68%
7110
4.74
8710
0.87
711.
5526
182
2988
235.
8712
218
MB
RE
Bre
mer
ton-
Silv
erda
le W
A11
2.16
1010
2.42
1910
8.52
3010
0.76
842.
93%
2413
2.18
1010
7.93
80.
9176
317
523
924
6.71
NA
19D
MC
AM
Cam
den,
NJ
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n10
5.02
4510
1.03
4310
3.79
6010
2.44
262.
19%
4511
6.11
4610
1.53
470.
8682
1030
1238
263.
3146
420
MC
LAC
lark
svill
e T
N-K
Y10
6.17
4110
2.75
1610
9.95
2410
3.07
201.
79%
6214
3.54
310
5.76
100.
4816
84
149
239
268.
2926
121
MR
EN
Ren
o-S
park
s N
V10
8.99
2410
3.06
1310
7.22
3610
3.19
174.
45%
510
2.35
106
100.
777
0.55
148
413
838
426
9.12
5722
MC
HS
Cha
rles
ton-
Nor
th C
harle
ston
SC
106.
2640
102.
2721
110.
4718
101.
8442
2.69
%30
112.
6358
103.
7323
0.60
133
316
158
327
6.78
371
23M
PR
VP
rovo
-Ore
m U
T10
7.27
3110
3.51
1110
2.57
7110
0.68
903.
50%
1499
.26
121
104.
0917
1.34
407
7741
228
2.05
624
MS
AR
Sar
asot
a-B
rade
nton
-Ven
ice
FL
113.
059
104.
943
110.
4219
99.2
514
94.
64%
312
2.88
2710
2.47
360.
5614
44
127
652
286.
3412
25M
TA
MT
ampa
-St.
Pet
ersb
urg-
Cle
arw
ater
FL
108.
5726
102.
7117
106.
6944
100.
2510
72.
72%
2811
1.88
6099
.61
100
1.02
639
3925
8828
9.01
4126
MG
AI
Gai
nesv
ille
FL
106.
6338
101.
5730
102.
8168
103.
2016
2.46
%36
101.
0411
310
4.57
120.
5913
86
9823
930
1.45
427
DM
WE
SW
est P
alm
Bea
ch-B
oca
Rat
on-B
oynt
on B
each
, FL
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n11
4.13
810
2.29
2011
2.26
1310
1.08
672.
59%
3391
.91
153
100.
398
60.
6911
75
103
1243
302.
8127
28M
HU
NH
unts
ville
AL
104.
5355
100.
8751
103.
5263
103.
5711
1.64
%75
112.
9556
98.9
912
32.
415
947
362
303.
4616
29M
SA
NS
an D
iego
-Car
lsba
d-S
an M
arco
s C
A10
7.12
3310
0.35
7111
5.51
910
0.99
701.
48%
8510
6.25
7699
.43
107
1.63
1916
429
3230
3.94
9030
MB
AK
Bak
ersf
ield
CA
109.
4621
100.
5959
106.
2048
102.
2430
2.12
%47
124.
7623
101.
8342
0.55
147
412
373
530
4.80
4031
MS
TO
Sto
ckto
n C
A11
0.68
1310
0.6
5811
4.11
1110
2.32
282.
03%
5511
4.16
5110
2.13
400.
4317
93
159
650
310.
2813
132
MB
OI
Boi
se C
ity-N
ampa
ID10
8.57
2710
1.86
2710
6.86
4299
.50
139
3.69
%12
148.
662
100.
2091
1.72
153
162
525
312.
7967
33M
LAE
Lake
land
FL
109.
6719
104.
695
100.
1810
010
1.82
433.
03%
2012
9.56
1210
5.79
90.
3619
21
192
524
318.
5622
34M
SA
CS
acra
men
to--
Ard
en-A
rcad
e--R
osev
ille
CA
109.
0323
100.
0787
114.
5110
102.
0932
1.28
%99
104.
7586
101.
2956
1.1
586
8520
1732
2.19
431
35M
MA
DM
adis
on W
I10
4.82
5110
1.02
4710
9.65
2610
1.68
480.
84%
129
113.
8953
101.
8143
0.96
699
4453
233
2.25
1936
MT
RE
Tre
nton
-Ew
ing
NJ
109.
3422
100.
6256
107.
0538
100.
8977
1.57
%79
93.7
915
010
3.08
291.
1751
946
365
335.
7632
37D
MT
AC
Tac
oma,
WA
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n10
4.28
5810
1.33
3510
8.14
3310
3.54
122.
70%
2998
.04
126
102.
7433
0.47
170
217
974
534
4.12
3038
MO
XN
Oxn
ard-
Tho
usan
d O
aks-
Ven
tura
CA
106.
0942
99.1
714
711
7.09
710
4.01
80.
62%
139
107.
1871
100.
679
1.88
1215
779
835
0.43
1122
39M
OG
DO
gden
-Cle
arfie
ld U
T10
6.09
4310
1.27
3710
4.90
5210
1.49
562.
08%
5011
8.85
3798
.93
126
0.66
123
511
247
735
7.57
471
40M
FR
EF
resn
o C
A10
6.99
3599
.97
9411
0.09
2310
0.64
912.
16%
4611
9.91
3210
9.02
70.
5016
15
105
867
361.
5323
141
MV
AL
Val
lejo
-Fai
rfie
ld C
A11
1.59
1299
.94
9712
0.00
510
3.08
190.
89%
124
138.
447
98.4
313
70.
7211
14
134
413
369.
5014
142
MP
OR
Por
tland
-Sou
th P
ortla
nd-B
idde
ford
, ME
104.
8848
101.
5332
105.
1251
101.
9136
1.26
%10
410
5.32
8299
.996
0.71
114
775
511
372.
0220
43M
ALB
Alb
uque
rque
NM
104.
8350
100.
9549
102.
9267
101.
2561
1.71
%68
67.5
220
099
.16
118
2.22
713
1178
137
9.09
128
44M
KIL
Kill
een-
Tem
ple-
For
t Hoo
d T
X10
3.64
6410
1.03
4510
6.56
4610
3.05
211.
46%
8612
2.95
2510
1.07
660.
5614
63
169
346
380.
5334
245
MR
AL
Ral
eigh
-Car
y N
C10
2.95
7110
0.98
4810
8.24
3210
0.12
109
2.04
%54
99.1
412
298
.82
128
1.59
2310
3291
538
2.05
133
46M
FO
CF
ort C
ollin
s-Lo
vela
nd C
O10
7.09
3410
0.95
5010
8.27
3198
.21
181
1.94
%57
115.
3847
100.
8173
1.57
257
8226
938
2.27
7347
MM
OD
Mod
esto
CA
106.
7737
100.
1680
110.
7715
101.
4657
0.61
%14
213
8.71
611
4.05
20.
5913
64
130
498
383.
3761
/541
48M
PO
UP
ough
keep
sie-
New
burg
h-M
iddl
etow
n N
Y10
4.46
5699
.89
102
106.
4947
101.
7047
1.33
%95
106.
7174
101.
0667
1.15
547
7366
439
4.06
211
49M
AN
CA
ncho
rage
AK
109.
9316
100.
6654
103.
4464
102.
0333
2.06
%52
103.
2810
097
.28
162
0.67
122
414
234
539
4.14
NA
50M
MN
CM
anch
este
r-N
ashu
a N
H10
0.36
109
100.
1681
103.
1965
102.
3229
1.82
%60
91.1
215
810
2.83
301.
4633
778
399
404.
2348
151
MJA
CJa
ckso
nvill
e F
L10
4.84
4910
1.76
2810
1.89
8510
2.62
242.
86%
2691
.38
156
94.6
018
80.
6811
94
121
1225
412.
0368
152
MN
AH
Nas
hvill
e-D
avid
son-
-Mur
free
sbor
o T
N10
2.08
8010
1.04
4199
.62
106
100.
8381
1.66
%73
128.
615
101.
0863
0.73
106
767
1396
415.
04N
A53
DM
BE
TB
ethe
sda-
Gai
ther
sbur
g-F
rede
rick
, MD
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n10
3.92
6299
.54
128
110.
5517
101.
5951
1.20
%10
611
2.88
5796
.66
170
1.47
31
1031
1139
416.
5736
154
MK
NO
Kno
xvill
e T
N10
6.79
3610
0.52
6110
2.65
7010
1.71
461.
32%
9611
7.75
4297
.96
146
0.74
104
511
064
741
7.48
4255
MP
EN
Pen
saco
la-F
erry
Pas
s-B
rent
FL
104.
0859
102.
8614
97.0
014
010
0.45
971.
79%
6311
3.47
5510
1.08
640.
7510
28
6143
742
1.11
6356
MH
ON
Hon
olul
u H
I10
4.80
5210
1.04
4299
.05
114
101.
8838
2.90
%25
101.
9610
910
0.76
740.
5016
03
156
900
425.
8278
157
MS
AZ
San
Ant
onio
TX
102.
5677
100.
0886
105.
7049
101.
5354
1.56
%81
97.9
812
899
.42
108
0.93
749
4118
5442
7.89
6458
MA
US
Aus
tin-R
ound
Roc
k T
X10
2.87
7210
0.86
5210
2.27
7599
.74
126
2.09
%48
83.8
718
710
0.21
901.
7514
1216
1412
431.
3011
7159
MW
IMW
ilmin
gton
NC
106
4410
1.96
2610
2.36
7310
1.50
551.
78%
6598
.612
499
.55
105
0.68
120
218
730
343
4.33
5660
MB
AL
Bal
timor
e-T
owso
n M
D10
1.50
8799
.92
9810
5.47
5010
0.70
891.
27%
101
117.
6243
101.
5845
0.99
657
6226
3943
6.48
7461
MS
LOS
an L
uis
Obi
spo-
Pas
o R
oble
s C
A10
7.44
3099
.82
109
110.
8514
100.
3410
41.
18%
108
103.
5496
103.
7922
0.64
126
697
255
438.
5944
162
MD
ES
Des
Moi
nes
IA10
0.78
100
101.
0344
102.
1677
101.
6350
1.69
%70
102.
9310
210
3.65
250.
5814
04
129
512
441.
3012
5263
MR
ICR
ichm
ond
VA
103.
1769
101.
2736
101.
9384
99.7
812
22.
95%
2210
1.46
112
98.2
142
0.75
100
770
1154
446.
1545
164
MV
IRV
irgin
ia B
each
-Nor
folk
-New
port
New
s V
A-N
C10
3.78
6310
0.49
6310
4.88
5310
1.02
690.
97%
118
104.
5989
99.2
711
50.
7894
766
1644
448.
7814
2165
MO
KL
Okl
ahom
a C
ity O
K10
0.87
9610
0.5
6210
2.12
7910
1.10
662.
09%
4910
3.29
9997
.75
150
0.73
107
858
1144
457.
6713
1166
MA
LAA
lban
y-S
chen
ecta
dy-T
roy
NY
101.
1994
99.8
810
410
2.74
6910
0.89
761.
67%
7210
3.81
9210
0.24
881.
2050
860
845
458.
8449
67M
VIS
Vis
alia
-Por
terv
ille
CA
107.
629
99.8
710
610
9.88
2510
0.39
101
1.40
%88
121.
3428
109.
046
0.3
195
119
640
245
9.69
711
68M
AM
AA
mar
illo
TX
103.
5965
101.
1338
99.1
911
010
0.93
741.
34%
9212
7.99
1710
1.20
580.
4916
64
150
236
470.
4650
169
MC
HR
Cha
rlot
te-G
asto
nia-
Con
cord
NC
-SC
102.
5976
100.
0389
103.
1866
99.5
213
63.
77%
1198
.19
125
101.
2857
0.69
116
510
114
7547
2.89
931
70M
ALL
Alle
ntow
n-B
ethl
ehem
-Eas
ton
PA
-NJ
102.
9870
99.8
410
810
1.60
8810
0.97
711.
78%
6499
.50
120
101.
0765
0.77
967
7278
047
3.03
871
71M
CO
OC
olor
ado
Spr
ings
CO
100.
8698
100.
2976
103.
9258
99.3
514
52.
45%
3796
.49
136
97.1
716
42.
079
1219
576
473.
5180
72M
LIN
Linc
oln
NE
101.
3192
99.6
412
010
1.98
8310
0.15
108
2.35
%41
102.
6110
410
0.67
781.
1752
948
278
479.
3977
73D
MM
IAM
iam
i-Mia
mi B
each
-Ken
dall,
FL
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n10
1.74
8510
1.11
3910
1.82
8699
.78
121
1.58
%78
104.
7088
101.
1061
0.72
108
510
02
364
481.
2238
74M
NO
WN
orw
ich-
New
Lon
don
CT
104.
9846
100.
1383
99.7
310
499
.91
117
1.82
%59
87.7
517
499
.42
109
1.34
419
4926
648
7.74
461
75M
PR
OP
rovi
denc
e-N
ew B
edfo
rd-F
all R
iver
RI-
MA
101.
3990
99.6
312
210
3.68
6110
1.95
350.
54%
150
114.
4850
100.
5582
0.8
908
5716
2948
9.66
9676
DM
NA
SN
assa
u-S
uffo
lk, N
Y M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
101.
6886
99.7
511
510
1.38
9110
1.28
601.
01%
116
103.
3597
101.
4650
1.01
648
5428
1549
2.16
621
77M
SP
MS
prin
gfie
ld M
O10
2.61
7510
0.01
9210
1.75
8710
1.78
442.
07%
5112
5.99
2095
.68
182
0.62
131
218
439
149
7.18
5278
MS
AV
Sav
anna
h G
A10
4.32
5710
2.75
1598
.57
117
101.
4658
0.90
%12
370
.719
810
1.01
680.
7410
55
116
311
502.
19
5-yr
Job
Gro
wth
1999
- 2
004
1-yr
Job
Gro
wth
2003
- 2
004
5-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 1
998
- 20
031-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
200
2 -
2003
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1Jo
b G
row
th(J
uly0
4 -
July
05)
5-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 1
999
- 20
041-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
200
3 -
2004
Hig
h-T
ech
GD
P L
Q
2005
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s L
arge
st 2
00 C
ities
Lis
t
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
30
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
2004
Ran
k20
05R
ank
MSA
Po p
ulat
ion
2004
Ove
rall
Inde
xN
A79
MH
AS
Hag
erst
own-
Mar
tinsb
urg
MD
-WV
103.
5367
99.5
013
210
4.20
5610
0.96
731.
18%
107
117.
3544
103.
9720
0.49
165
414
824
551
0.72
951
80D
MF
TW
For
t Wor
th-A
rling
ton,
TX
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n10
0.85
9999
.95
9610
3.66
6298
.08
186
1.48
%84
119.
9631
101.
3753
1.32
436
8618
8751
9.40
1561
81M
FA
EF
ayet
tevi
lle N
C99
.30
123
100.
1184
104.
2355
103.
2215
0.77
%13
212
0.16
3010
0.71
760.
4118
43
168
348
522.
3959
82M
TA
LT
alla
hass
ee F
L10
1.39
9110
0.33
7410
1.33
9310
0.00
113
1.59
%77
100.
2411
610
1.57
460.
711
55
115
332
527.
5082
83M
MIN
Min
neap
olis
-St.
Pau
l-Blo
omin
gton
MN
-WI
100.
1911
499
.69
117
102.
2676
100.
2810
61.
37%
8910
6.84
7299
.97
950.
9866
853
3116
528.
6366
184
MJA
MJa
ckso
n M
S10
4.91
4710
1.45
3397
.73
129
102.
2131
1.60
%76
86.9
217
896
.21
176
0.58
139
218
151
753
4.08
1071
85M
LUB
Lubb
ock
TX
102.
3379
100.
2379
98.5
511
899
.24
151
0.88
%12
714
1.71
410
3.4
271.
2646
511
825
853
4.22
744
86D
MLE
CLa
ke C
ount
y-K
enos
ha C
ount
y, IL
-WI M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
103.
4968
99.4
113
610
6.85
4398
.44
171
1.33
%94
114.
0352
99.2
511
61.
4534
691
851
539.
6911
2287
MS
AY
Sal
t Lak
e C
ity U
T10
0.87
9710
0.43
6697
.71
131
98.2
817
83.
09%
1894
.97
141
98.9
312
51.
0561
1217
1019
542.
41N
A88
DM
ED
IE
diso
n, N
J M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
104.
6754
99.5
512
510
1.50
9010
0.48
960.
75%
134
95.3
113
897
.42
155
1.60
2111
2522
9154
7.76
103
89D
MO
AK
Oak
land
-Fre
mon
t-H
ayw
ard,
CA
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n99
.42
122
98.4
918
210
6.95
4199
.01
158
1.56
%82
100.
3811
510
2.65
341.
6518
173
2464
549.
4825
90M
MC
DM
erce
d C
A10
7.17
3210
0.34
7310
9.04
2810
1.74
450.
89%
126
82.7
419
193
.72
191
0.42
182
317
623
755
1.13
751
91D
MW
ILW
ilmin
gton
, DE
-MD
-NJ
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n98
.29
134
100.
2877
101.
3294
100.
7286
2.66
%31
91.5
415
598
.40
138
0.72
110
510
868
055
4.66
9992
MB
LDB
ould
er C
O10
0.26
112
99.9
210
093
.91
169
97.5
319
03.
05%
1910
8.15
6899
.57
102
3.05
216
627
955
6.85
5593
MS
PO
Spo
kane
WA
102.
4678
99.7
611
499
.00
115
100.
8579
2.50
%35
102.
5910
596
.517
10.
6213
05
113
436
557.
1010
6194
MLI
TLi
ttle
Roc
k-N
orth
Litt
le R
ock
AR
100.
6110
410
0.15
8298
.23
121
101.
2262
0.24
%16
811
3.81
5410
0.02
941.
1356
692
637
561.
4312
095
MP
OT
Por
tland
-Van
couv
er-B
eave
rton
OR
-WA
98.0
414
110
0.6
5796
.00
151
98.9
016
42.
31%
4310
2.33
107
100.
3687
1.52
289
4020
6456
3.17
8196
ME
UG
Eug
ene-
Spr
ingf
ield
OR
98.9
012
710
0.66
5596
.31
148
99.7
812
32.
36%
4094
.65
146
99.7
299
0.81
887
8033
257
3.00
1461
97M
LEX
Lexi
ngto
n-F
ayet
te K
Y96
.69
162
99.7
111
699
.75
103
100.
6492
2.28
%44
117.
9838
97.2
916
00.
891
776
425
573.
1424
98M
BR
WB
row
nsvi
lle-H
arlin
gen
TX
109.
8917
99.8
111
110
7.06
3710
0.33
105
2.45
%38
80.4
819
389
.38
198
0.26
198
019
937
257
3.97
331
99M
GR
BG
reen
Bay
WI
102.
6774
101.
7429
102.
3374
100.
9772
-0.9
0%19
510
5.76
7710
0.20
920.
3519
33
171
295
581.
6870
100
MS
AE
Sal
em O
R10
1.45
8810
1.36
3499
.96
102
100.
9275
0.18
%17
197
.26
130
101.
3454
0.6
134
316
536
958
2.65
NA
101
DM
RK
IR
ocki
ngha
m C
ount
y-S
traf
ford
Cou
nty,
NH
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n10
1.88
8399
.51
131
104.
1757
98.4
317
20.
92%
121
96.6
213
410
1.17
590
.94
7311
2841
158
2.78
6510
2M
LAC
Lanc
aste
r P
A10
2.69
7310
0.34
7210
0.56
9910
1.54
530.
42%
156
94.9
014
399
.55
104
0.58
141
413
148
758
3.36
NA
103
MW
OR
Wor
cest
er M
A98
.91
125
99.0
615
799
.10
113
100.
7385
0.31
%16
412
0.99
2910
0.97
701.
3342
1127
779
597.
1060
110
4M
IND
Indi
anap
olis
IN10
3.57
6610
0.37
6997
.81
124
99.5
113
80.
22%
169
105.
1184
99.3
311
21.
3144
689
1622
598.
6913
0110
5M
DE
ND
enve
r-A
uror
a C
O98
.44
133
99.7
811
310
3.85
5998
.15
182
1.80
%61
87.2
617
697
.80
148
1.61
2011
2423
3059
9.80
342
106
MD
UR
Dur
ham
NC
97.9
514
210
0.44
6510
2.06
8099
.02
157
0.82
%13
184
.76
185
100.
5781
2.58
49
4545
160
0.37
121
107
MS
AA
San
ta R
osa-
Pet
alum
a C
A10
1.21
9399
.79
112
104.
4554
96.5
019
20.
59%
144
107.
969
95.3
118
41.
4732
1312
468
609.
4517
2110
8M
GU
LG
ulfp
ort-
Bilo
xi M
S10
0.66
103
99.3
113
810
2.47
7210
1.99
34-0
.93%
197
119.
3234
104.
0618
0.45
178
317
425
361
1.19
158
109
MS
AX
San
ta C
ruz-
Wat
sonv
ille
CA
97.0
915
210
0.26
7897
.75
126
94.0
120
01.
70%
6995
.28
139
101.
4849
1.26
4713
1425
161
4.51
1191
110
MA
UG
Aug
usta
-Ric
hmon
d C
ount
y G
A-S
C10
0.66
102
100.
4268
97.7
213
010
1.19
640.
53%
151
105.
4680
99.2
911
30.
5115
94
128
515
618.
3615
0111
1M
SH
RS
hrev
epor
t-B
ossi
er C
ity L
A98
.912
610
0.79
5396
.82
143
101.
8840
1.16
%11
086
.29
182
100.
7575
0.46
174
413
938
261
9.75
831
112
MC
HT
Cha
ttano
oga
TN
-GA
100.
2711
099
.91
101
98.0
212
210
1.11
651.
08%
112
117.
7641
100.
6080
0.37
191
119
349
062
4.45
1491
113
MS
YR
Syr
acus
e N
Y96
.69
161
99.0
216
195
.56
155
99.2
015
22.
33%
4211
6.71
4510
1.5
481.
2149
942
654
625.
7811
6111
4M
OM
AO
mah
a-C
ounc
il B
luff
s N
E-I
A10
0.58
105
99.2
114
310
1.15
9510
0.84
801.
56%
8094
.914
294
.39
190
0.72
109
510
680
463
5.82
184
115
MY
AK
Yak
ima
WA
99.4
612
199
.17
148
100.
9997
103.
0122
1.53
%83
122.
9226
94.8
818
70.
2220
00
200
229
636.
45N
A11
6D
ME
SS
Ess
ex C
ount
y, M
A M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
97.2
615
098
.41
184
102.
0381
100.
0111
20.
61%
141
119.
7333
96.7
416
91.
9610
1218
739
642.
0616
5211
7M
WIS
Win
ston
-Sal
em N
C98
.13
137
99.9
893
94.9
916
199
.46
141
3.24
%15
94.7
314
510
4.14
160.
418
64
133
442
644.
6372
111
8M
AT
LA
tlant
a-S
andy
Spr
ings
-Mar
ietta
GA
99.7
011
910
0.10
8510
2.02
8299
.00
159
0.40
%15
796
.93
131
98.4
413
61.
1653
851
4708
645.
3586
111
9M
MO
NM
ontg
omer
y A
L98
.46
131
100.
0291
100.
7698
101.
5652
1.76
%66
87.8
517
392
.18
194
0.54
153
218
635
564
7.26
891
120
MH
AI
Har
risbu
rg-C
arlis
le P
A10
0.08
117
99.5
412
997
.89
123
100.
5095
0.67
%13
795
.25
140
99.4
510
60.
7699
1034
519
647.
7912
612
1M
YO
RY
ork-
Han
over
PA
100.
1411
510
1.09
4097
.12
139
100.
4298
1.27
%10
084
.88
184
98.1
114
50.
5913
74
136
402
649.
2015
7112
2M
LYN
Lync
hbur
g V
A95
.88
171
99.8
211
092
.17
181
99.3
914
41.
34%
9311
7.93
3910
0.53
841.
1455
1221
233
654.
8880
112
3M
CE
DC
edar
Rap
ids
IA97
.57
147
99.6
611
994
.71
163
99.7
412
80.
31%
163
127.
5818
103.
8121
1.35
387
8324
565
6.22
140
124
DM
LOS
Los
Ang
eles
-Lon
g B
each
-Gle
ndal
e, C
A M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
97.8
514
499
.10
154
97.4
213
499
.41
142
1.02
%11
510
2.30
108
100.
8472
1.59
2211
2299
3865
6.86
1141
125
DM
DA
LD
alla
s-P
lano
-Irv
ing,
TX
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n98
.67
128
100.
0290
99.1
611
197
.83
187
0.83
%13
090
.53
162
99.1
411
91.
5724
148
3813
657.
83
1091
126
MK
AN
Kan
sas
City
MO
-KS
97.3
014
999
.63
121
99.5
710
798
.67
167
1.35
%90
103.
0810
198
.16
143
1.29
457
6419
2566
4.28
941
127
DM
SE
AS
eattl
e-B
elle
vue-
Eve
rett,
WA
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n96
.22
166
99.8
710
595
.48
158
98.3
317
63.
14%
1776
.62
194
99.0
512
22.
226
763
2421
667.
4884
112
8D
MP
HI
Phi
lade
lphi
a, P
A M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
98.4
513
298
.79
171
99.6
610
510
1.02
680.
45%
155
101.
6511
196
.79
167
1.34
398
5238
8366
8.34
1052
129
MH
OU
Hou
ston
-Sug
ar L
and-
Bay
tow
n, T
X
101.
9382
99.4
813
310
1.04
9698
.09
185
1.17
%10
994
.84
144
99.2
811
40.
8879
599
5180
674.
3114
8113
0M
SW
BS
cran
ton-
-Wilk
es-B
arre
PA
98.6
312
999
.15
151
96.3
114
799
.87
120
0.01
%17
910
5.63
7811
1.68
40.
8780
943
552
679.
4815
413
1M
SA
LS
alin
as C
A10
0.44
107
97.9
119
511
0.59
1610
0.72
87-0
.20%
186
103.
7294
101.
8841
0.39
188
218
241
569
0.94
911
132
MB
AT
Bat
on R
ouge
LA
101.
8284
100.
4864
96.2
215
010
0.39
100
-0.1
7%18
510
3.84
9197
.57
153
0.52
155
412
472
969
1.71
118
133
ME
LPE
l Pas
o T
X10
0.26
111
99.5
612
497
.12
138
99.8
711
91.
42%
8794
.10
147
97.6
215
20.
6212
95
107
713
693.
3117
8113
4M
CO
SC
olum
bia
SC
99.7
211
810
0.42
6798
.42
119
100.
7983
0.31
%16
593
.90
148
97.3
215
90.
5115
83
158
679
707.
0113
8113
5M
CO
UC
olum
bus
OH
100.
5410
699
.11
152
101.
3592
99.2
914
80.
57%
148
96.9
113
298
.30
140
0.83
866
8816
9471
2.04
160
136
MR
EA
Rea
ding
PA
96.9
156
100.
3770
92.5
117
998
.47
170
2.02
%56
72.1
919
710
1.09
620.
6113
26
9539
271
6.03
163
137
MM
ILM
ilwau
kee-
Wau
kesh
a-W
est A
llis
WI
94.7
218
299
.11
153
95.2
315
999
.68
130
1.05
%11
411
1.19
6210
1.64
440.
7795
690
1516
724.
3816
813
8M
UT
IU
tica-
Rom
e N
Y96
.82
158
98.9
716
295
.84
152
99.2
415
00.
06%
176
110.
3664
102.
7631
1.06
6010
3529
973
2.47
1772
139
MB
RP
Bri
dgep
ort-
Sta
mfo
rd-N
orw
alk
CT
96.7
016
099
.15
149
96.4
014
699
.76
125
0.90
%12
296
.50
135
98.5
813
21.
0659
859
903
733.
1439
114
0D
MN
EA
New
ark-
Uni
on, N
J-P
A M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
100.
7310
198
.35
185
98.7
811
699
.32
147
-0.1
3%18
410
4.76
8596
.09
177
1.37
3710
2921
5373
5.36
1321
141
MP
ITP
ittsb
urgh
PA
98.9
312
498
.93
163
97.2
113
698
.94
160
0.25
%16
710
6.84
7398
.98
124
0.9
7711
2324
0273
6.68
NA
142
DM
CA
BC
ambr
idge
-New
ton-
Fra
min
gham
, MA
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n93
.48
192
97.8
919
699
.15
112
97.3
319
11.
29%
9810
5.31
8398
.56
133
2.95
320
11
465
737.
3112
3114
3M
LAA
Lafa
yette
LA
101.
4389
98.5
217
995
.75
154
99.5
513
50.
02%
178
111.
9059
102.
2338
0.65
125
511
924
674
2.30
1511
144
MS
TL
St.
Loui
s M
O-I
L97
.91
143
98.8
616
596
.43
145
99.6
213
11.
00%
117
91.0
415
998
.66
131
0.96
688
5527
8874
3.73
1611
145
ME
VA
Eva
nsvi
lle IN
-KY
98.5
413
098
.10
191
99.9
810
110
0.58
930.
64%
138
99.9
611
795
.92
180
0.89
784
141
348
746.
3117
314
6M
BU
FB
uffa
lo-N
iaga
ra F
alls
NY
96.9
115
499
.17
146
92.8
917
599
.76
124
0.62
%14
010
6.56
7598
.83
127
0.94
727
6911
5474
6.40
1771
147
MN
EH
New
Hav
en-M
ilfor
d C
T97
.66
145
99.0
915
696
.50
144
99.4
014
3-0
.10%
182
98.9
812
310
0.23
891.
4236
1033
846
746.
5897
114
8M
SO
US
outh
Ben
d-M
isha
wak
a IN
-MI
94.7
818
099
.92
9993
.24
173
100.
5494
2.05
%53
90.1
416
596
.02
179
0.58
142
414
431
874
8.45
115/
6914
9M
CIN
Cin
cinn
ati-
Mid
dlet
own
OH
-KY
-IN
99.6
912
099
.43
135
98.2
612
099
.87
118
0.39
%15
989
.80
166
99.3
611
00.
7111
33
153
2058
756.
0917
1115
0M
HU
TH
untin
gton
-Ash
land
WV
-KY
-OH
104.
0460
99.5
413
093
.91
168
100.
8878
0.33
%16
210
5.35
8195
.08
185
0.22
199
218
828
775
7.00
1391
151
MLO
ULo
uisv
ille
KY
-IN
96.0
317
099
.47
134
97.7
312
810
0.03
111
1.23
%10
510
1.71
110
98.2
614
10.
5414
93
155
1201
758.
1018
3115
2M
SP
IS
prin
gfie
ld M
A98
.26
135
98.8
416
799
.52
108
99.7
412
70.
45%
154
111.
3661
98.7
129
0.51
157
412
568
875
9.57
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1Jo
b G
row
th(J
uly0
4 -
July
05)
5-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 1
999
- 20
041-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
200
3 -
2004
Hig
h-T
ech
GD
P L
Q5-
yr J
ob G
row
th19
99 -
200
41-
yr J
ob G
row
th20
03 -
200
45-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
199
8 -
2003
1-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 2
002
- 20
03
2005
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s L
arge
st 2
00 C
ities
Lis
t
31
Best Performing Cities 2005Largest 200 Cities List
2004
Ran
k20
05R
ank
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2004
Ove
rall
Inde
x12
4115
3M
BIR
Bir
min
gham
-Hoo
ver
AL
97.5
614
899
.85
107
99.3
210
910
0.06
110
-0.2
0%18
789
.05
167
96.0
617
80.
7698
510
410
8276
5.51
1551
154
MF
OR
For
t Sm
ith A
R-O
K10
0.09
116
100.
3275
97.5
213
210
0.00
114
0.58
%14
588
.53
171
97.3
715
70.
3019
61
197
282
771.
5817
915
5M
ER
IE
rie P
A96
.09
167
99.8
910
389
.59
188
97.6
918
81.
12%
111
104.
1390
99.7
598
0.75
103
781
282
772.
9910
51
156
MA
NN
Ann
Arb
or M
I98
.25
136
98.4
918
310
1.58
8999
.35
146
0.60
%14
388
.97
168
93.0
519
21.
1157
779
339
774.
2814
4115
7D
MB
OS
Bos
ton-
Qui
ncy,
MA
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n95
.86
172
98.5
118
010
2.12
7898
.27
179
0.92
%12
099
.51
119
97.5
315
40.
8089
687
1810
781.
3913
6115
8M
CO
RC
orpu
s C
hris
ti T
X10
0.41
108
99.1
015
597
.51
133
100.
3710
30.
16%
173
90.7
116
110
0.04
930.
5415
13
163
410
783.
1013
41
159
MM
EM
Mem
phis
TN
-MS
-AR
98.0
713
998
.83
168
97.2
213
599
.97
116
1.35
%91
103.
2998
97.2
816
10.
4218
02
178
1250
784.
1915
316
0M
AK
RA
kron
OH
98.1
013
899
.40
137
94.1
016
610
1.19
630.
34%
161
103.
8093
97.9
514
70.
4816
71
190
702
789.
1712
7/11
3/16
916
1D
MN
EY
New
Yor
k-W
hite
Pla
ins-
Way
ne, N
Y-N
J M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
97.0
015
399
.18
145
96.2
814
998
.28
177
1.06
%11
395
.88
137
99.5
610
30.
7893
412
011
450
789.
5911
11
162
MD
UL
Dul
uth
MN
-WI
98.0
614
099
.03
160
97.7
412
798
.65
168
0.75
%13
511
7.80
4010
1.00
690.
4916
41
198
276
791.
1816
716
3M
NE
ON
ew O
rlea
ns-M
etai
rie-
Ken
ner
LA97
.614
699
.612
394
.15
165
100.
7188
0.68
%13
686
.34
181
96.8
416
50.
4716
95
102
1320
791.
5817
616
4M
BIN
Bin
gham
ton
NY
94.0
918
798
.60
175
90.0
018
694
.78
199
-0.0
4%18
114
0.03
510
2.21
391.
9211
1220
249
792.
3119
316
5M
HA
RH
artfo
rd-W
est H
artf
ord-
Eas
t Har
tford
CT
96.2
416
599
.03
159
97.1
313
798
.55
169
0.46
%15
299
.87
118
99.2
411
70.
9471
768
1185
794.
3388
116
6M
AT
AA
tlant
ic C
ity N
J10
2.03
8199
.24
141
96.9
914
110
1.42
59-0
.79%
193
90.4
516
491
.01
196
0.38
190
317
326
979
9.48
180
167
MB
EA
Bea
umon
t-P
ort A
rthu
r T
X94
.86
179
98.0
319
488
.85
191
100.
8382
0.89
%12
510
7.83
7010
2.75
320.
5614
53
164
383
800.
3819
016
8M
PE
OP
eoria
IL96
.36
164
100.
0788
91.6
318
399
.11
156
0.55
%14
910
5.54
7999
.997
0.54
152
316
636
880
8.76
170
216
9M
KA
LK
alam
azoo
-Por
tage
MI
96.8
215
798
.28
187
95.4
915
710
2.50
250.
16%
172
88.7
216
986
.76
200
0.98
674
143
319
808.
9310
2117
0M
KIN
Kin
gspo
rt-B
risto
l-Bris
tol T
N-V
A96
.04
169
98.2
618
893
.96
167
100.
3810
20.
34%
160
125.
2521
96.3
417
40.
7797
511
730
181
1.88
921
171
MA
SH
Ash
evill
e N
C10
0.21
113
99.3
013
995
.76
153
100.
4199
0.16
%17
491
.18
157
97.2
116
30.
4717
24
137
387
812.
8916
52
172
MG
RN
Gre
ensb
oro-
Hig
h P
oint
NC
96.9
115
599
.15
150
91.6
518
299
.15
153
1.91
%58
88.5
617
095
.03
186
0.63
128
510
966
881
4.63
152
173
DM
SA
FS
an F
ranc
isco
-San
Mat
eo-R
edw
ood
City
, CA
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n88
.53
199
97.6
519
997
.80
125
95.9
219
50.
86%
128
91.8
115
499
.57
101
1.55
2712
1516
8981
5.48
108
174
MC
OL
Col
umbu
s G
A-A
L93
.87
189
98.5
917
695
.53
156
99.1
415
4-0
.64%
192
103.
6795
100.
4285
1.23
4810
3628
081
9.27
1911
175
MF
OW
For
t Way
ne IN
95.7
217
499
.05
158
88.3
319
397
.57
189
1.31
%97
100.
6811
410
1.38
520.
7992
413
540
282
5.88
1521
176
MC
HW
Cha
rlest
on W
V10
0.92
9599
.55
127
93.7
517
298
.37
174
0.96
%11
983
.46
188
95.3
818
30.
6013
54
145
308
829.
24N
A17
7M
HO
LH
olla
nd-G
rand
Hav
en M
I97
.17
151
98.8
316
994
.64
164
98.8
016
50.
22%
170
136.
258
99.1
012
00.
6911
84
147
252
832.
4417
42
178
MG
RV
Gre
envi
lle S
C95
.80
173
99.1
914
494
.77
162
99.5
213
70.
40%
158
92.5
615
297
.36
158
0.84
846
9358
483
3.82
1811
179
MR
OA
Roa
noke
VA
96.0
816
898
.66
173
95.1
616
098
.23
180
1.72
%67
102.
7510
397
.38
156
0.72
112
317
229
183
5.30
1891
180
MT
UL
Tul
sa O
K96
.77
159
99.2
614
092
.34
180
95.9
119
61.
26%
103
84.1
818
698
.51
135
0.85
834
122
882
852.
9918
2118
1M
RO
HR
oche
ster
NY
94.9
117
898
.58
177
90.2
518
499
.60
133
-0.9
3%19
697
.99
127
98.5
513
41.
4829
771
1041
859.
6219
4118
2D
MG
AR
Gar
y, IN
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n94
.73
181
99.2
214
287
.12
197
101.
8839
-0.1
0%18
390
.76
160
99.0
612
10.
3419
42
180
692
876.
0216
618
3D
MC
HI
Chi
cago
-Nap
ervi
lle-J
olie
t, IL
Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n95
.18
176
98.6
517
493
.87
170
98.3
617
50.
58%
146
87.3
417
597
.62
151
0.83
858
5078
4887
8.22
1851
184
MD
AV
Dav
enpo
rt-M
olin
e-R
ock
Isla
nd IA
-IL
95.1
117
799
.67
118
89.8
418
799
.56
134
-0.5
6%19
110
8.65
6798
.68
130
0.50
162
218
537
588
4.13
1471
185
MS
AJ
San
Jos
e-S
unny
vale
-San
ta C
lara
CA
85.7
520
097
.86
197
93.2
017
495
.77
197
0.09
%17
586
.75
179
98.3
139
3.74
116
517
4190
6.11
1371
186
MM
OB
Mob
ile A
L94
.24
184
98.8
516
688
.69
192
98.3
917
32.
72%
2772
.86
196
91.5
719
50.
4517
72
183
401
915.
1418
8118
7M
DA
YD
ayto
n O
H93
.70
190
98.1
219
089
.48
189
99.1
215
5-0
.99%
198
93.8
414
997
.79
149
0.92
7511
2684
691
9.44
1742
188
MS
PA
Spa
rtan
burg
SC
94.0
818
898
.119
293
.85
171
98.7
316
61.
27%
102
87.1
917
710
0.53
830.
418
72
189
264
931.
4819
218
9M
WIC
Wic
hita
KS
94.2
218
599
.55
126
87.1
819
696
.06
194
-0.3
5%19
075
.88
195
95.7
518
12.
158
511
158
593
3.12
2001
190
MR
OC
Roc
kfor
d IL
92.5
619
598
.916
486
.35
198
98.1
218
40.
29%
166
115.
1748
99.3
411
10.
516
33
170
335
945.
0319
719
1M
HIC
Hic
kory
-Len
oir-
Mor
gant
on N
C88
.63
198
99.9
695
85.0
319
995
.56
198
0.58
%14
787
.94
172
98.1
314
40.
4118
34
140
353
947.
4818
6119
2D
MD
ET
Det
roit-
Livo
nia-
Dea
rbor
n, M
I Met
ropo
litan
Div
isio
n91
.81
196
98.0
419
389
.16
190
99.9
911
5-0
.87%
194
93.3
315
196
.30
175
0.82
873
154
2016
960.
0014
3219
3M
GR
AG
rand
Rap
ids-
Wyo
min
g M
I95
.34
175
98.5
018
192
.75
177
98.9
216
10.
45%
153
86.5
718
096
.45
173
0.54
150
315
776
896
4.24
1871
194
MC
LEC
leve
land
-Ely
ria-
Men
tor
OH
93.3
019
398
.80
170
90.0
818
599
.71
129
-0.3
1%18
982
.87
190
96.4
817
20.
5714
33
152
2137
978.
6218
6219
5D
MW
RE
War
ren-
Far
min
gton
Hill
s-T
roy,
MI M
etro
polit
an D
ivis
ion
94.6
518
397
.80
198
92.5
817
898
.91
162
-0.0
1%18
082
.32
192
94.4
318
91.
0462
315
124
7798
1.67
1951
196
MT
OL
Tol
edo
OH
94.1
818
698
.72
172
92.7
717
699
.61
132
0.03
%17
785
.66
183
96.8
116
60.
3818
91
191
658
989.
0816
419
7M
LAN
Lans
ing-
Eas
t Lan
sing
MI
96.5
716
397
.55
200
96.9
714
298
.91
163
-0.2
6%18
883
.14
189
89.7
197
0.47
171
119
445
610
08.7
219
619
8M
CA
NC
anto
n-M
assi
llon
OH
93.7
191
98.1
618
987
.69
194
96.5
019
30.
8%13
396
.91
133
96.7
616
80.
2919
71
195
411
1021
.20
1752
199
MY
OU
You
ngst
own-
War
ren-
Boa
rdm
an O
H-P
A92
.78
194
98.3
118
687
.23
195
99.4
614
0-1
.30%
200
90.4
616
392
.31
193
0.46
173
316
059
010
31.8
819
820
0M
FLI
Flin
t MI
91.2
519
798
.56
178
80.4
120
098
.15
183
-1.0
9%19
968
.48
199
88.7
319
90.
6712
14
132
444
1050
.87
Foo
tno
tes:
1A
dded
/Sub
trac
ted
Cou
nty(
s)2
Add
ed/S
ubtr
acte
d M
etro
(s)
3In
dica
tes
this
city
's p
ositi
on o
n la
st y
ear's
200
4 la
rges
t m
etro
s lis
t4
Indi
cate
s th
is c
ity's
pos
ition
on
last
yea
r's 2
004
smal
lest
met
ros
list
NA
New
Met
ro
5-yr
Job
Gro
wth
1999
- 2
004
1-yr
Job
Gro
wth
2003
- 2
004
5-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 1
998
- 20
031-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
200
2 -
2003
Job
Gro
wth
(Jul
y04
- Ju
ly05
)5-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
199
9 -
2004
1-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 2
003
- 20
04H
igh-
Tec
h G
DP
LQ
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1
2005
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s L
arge
st 2
00 C
ities
Lis
t
32
2004
Ran
k20
05R
ank
Met
roC
ode
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2004
Ove
rall
Inde
x20
04 V
alue
Ran
k20
04 V
alue
Ran
k20
03V
alue
Ran
k20
03 V
alue
Ran
kG
row
thR
ank
2004
Val
ueR
ank
2004
Val
ueR
ank
2004
Val
ueR
ank
2004
Val
ueR
ank
(in
Tho
usan
ds)
161
MF
WB
For
t Wal
ton
Bea
ch-C
rest
view
-Des
tin F
L11
6.93
710
4.64
711
3.27
1410
8.24
34.
23%
1914
6.76
1210
1.61
600.
8728
625
181
100.
00N
A2
MB
ND
Ben
d O
R11
8.03
410
4.89
411
8.90
410
3.86
154.
68%
1512
5.62
4110
4.71
290.
6950
548
134
111.
91N
A3
MP
RE
Pre
scot
t AZ
116.
159
103.
4712
116.
825
104.
0412
4.29
%18
135.
4320
110.
373
0.64
613
100
191
131.
4950
4M
PA
NP
anam
a C
ity-L
ynn
Hav
en F
L10
8.83
3010
4.03
1010
7.31
4310
4.63
74.
13%
2218
1.37
110
9.63
60.
7639
543
158
139.
38N
A5
MS
AU
St.
Geo
rge
UT
133.
421
108.
41
120.
013
105.
076
7.30
%4
147.
7411
103.
0838
0.48
107
214
911
014
8.52
NA
6M
MA
RM
ader
a C
A12
2.61
310
4.8
611
1.61
2010
7.21
52.
51%
4698
.67
108
106.
1219
0.73
426
2813
915
8.67
297
MK
NE
Ken
new
ick-
Ric
hlan
d-P
asco
WA
113.
3513
101.
2648
114.
499
103.
3422
4.77
%14
132.
1825
98.8
710
91.
672
536
215
170.
80N
A8
MLO
ALo
gan
UT
-ID
113.
7712
102.
3821
106.
0248
102.
9826
3.68
%27
130.
6132
102.
5243
0.82
327
1711
017
4.51
69
MY
UM
Yum
a A
Z12
5.18
210
5.96
211
4.63
810
4.32
96.
84%
513
0.77
3010
5.14
250.
315
82
132
176
176.
06N
A10
MC
OE
Coe
ur d
'Ale
ne ID
117.
176
105.
613
109.
8230
102.
9427
7.47
%3
111.
6970
100.
3682
0.59
725
5312
218
4.30
NA
11M
IDA
Idah
o F
alls
ID11
2.30
1510
2.96
1610
6.02
4710
4.18
114.
41%
1791
.63
140
101.
4763
1.59
47
1611
019
3.39
6712
MB
EL
Bel
lingh
am W
A11
5.28
1010
2.30
2310
7.44
4210
4.20
105.
83%
711
1.90
6910
0.89
720.
6070
463
180
203.
4971
13M
FLA
Fla
gsta
ff A
Z10
7.36
4010
2.41
2010
7.61
4010
2.79
303.
73%
2514
6.17
1311
0.02
40.
9124
311
612
320
7.88
NA
14M
HA
NH
arris
onbu
rg V
A10
9.17
2910
1.59
3710
5.44
5310
1.95
523.
28%
3015
7.44
510
1.54
611.
307
122
111
212.
594
15M
DO
VD
over
DE
110.
9421
103.
7211
109.
5931
101.
9354
3.94
%24
105.
8789
104.
2730
0.52
905
4713
923
9.24
216
MLS
CLa
s C
ruce
s N
M11
1.06
2099
.96
100
109.
1235
104.
0413
2.89
%36
89.5
815
110
6.46
150.
9915
94
186
264.
0113
117
MIO
WIo
wa
City
IA10
7.12
4210
0.02
9511
1.46
2110
1.77
595.
10%
1213
3.28
2411
1.17
20.
7245
473
137
268.
1560
18M
YU
BY
uba
City
CA
106.
5247
100.
7368
113.
9512
102.
1548
6.08
%6
114.
8159
112.
371
0.58
743
107
151
268.
29N
A19
MS
AS
Sal
isbu
ry M
D10
7.84
3510
2.35
2210
2.51
6810
2.16
461.
76%
7211
4.16
6310
6.89
130.
7441
715
115
275.
33N
A20
MH
INH
ines
ville
-For
t Ste
war
t GA
117.
845
104.
049
111.
8618
108.
852
-0.5
2%16
112
5.57
4210
7.41
110.
5388
490
7327
6.36
NA
21M
WIN
Win
ches
ter
VA
-WV
110.
8522
102.
0826
108.
0537
100.
4310
45.
22%
1010
6.67
8610
1.86
570.
834
554
113
279.
9318
22M
PU
GP
unta
Gor
da F
L10
7.67
3610
3.45
1412
8.61
110
8.04
44.
07%
2394
.78
125
102.
3844
0.27
167
017
415
729
5.56
583
23M
OLY
Oly
mpi
a W
A10
8.66
3210
0.85
6110
9.47
3210
2.61
333.
57%
2811
9.95
5010
2.27
490.
412
83
9322
530
7.76
2024
MF
AR
Far
go N
D-M
N10
6.67
4610
1.82
3010
5.40
5410
2.39
441.
23%
9213
0.63
3110
3.08
370.
6365
540
182
314.
02N
A25
MW
AR
War
ner
Rob
ins
GA
108.
0933
100.
4876
113.
7413
103.
2124
0.23
%13
314
2.24
1610
6.07
210.
7936
477
124
315.
4312
26M
ME
DM
edfo
rd O
R10
7.97
3410
2.29
2410
7.94
3910
2.52
402.
57%
4411
6.1
5497
.96
125
0.56
803
9819
331
9.69
513
27M
BA
RB
arns
tabl
e T
own
MA
107.
0743
99.6
211
311
4.01
1010
2.76
311.
14%
9313
9.39
1710
1.10
690.
8033
621
229
320.
8110
128
MS
IUS
ioux
Fal
ls S
D10
4.32
6310
0.73
6711
0.07
2710
2.43
433.
07%
3310
2.62
9610
0.26
850.
7837
538
203
321.
34N
A29
MH
AF
Han
ford
-Cor
cora
n C
A11
3.09
1410
0.48
7411
4.88
710
2.25
452.
64%
4013
4.33
2210
3.72
340.
2417
42
141
143
325.
0021
30M
BS
MB
ism
arck
ND
106.
1049
101.
5839
107.
9838
104.
628
2.46
%48
87.5
415
698
.23
122
0.62
696
3598
331.
6614
1331
MG
RL
Gre
eley
CO
112.
2816
101.
928
112.
2317
100.
0611
84.
87%
1393
.81
129
108.
399
0.39
131
394
219
332.
1628
332
MLA
DLa
redo
TX
116.
338
101.
5740
112.
3216
102.
5934
1.93
%67
110.
4775
106.
2918
0.24
173
115
521
933
3.77
8133
MB
ILB
illin
gs M
T11
0.25
2310
1.44
4510
6.48
4610
1.62
651.
72%
7315
1.42
899
.67
980.
5777
472
144
337.
85N
A34
MIT
HIth
aca
NY
104.
4562
100.
0296
110.
1126
103.
6917
1.63
%78
104.
5690
98.3
212
01.
0014
89
100
352.
2031
35M
MY
BM
yrtle
Bea
ch-C
onw
ay-N
orth
Myr
tle B
each
SC
107.
3341
103.
3215
109.
3234
102.
9328
1.05
%96
116.
4753
100.
6980
0.36
142
395
218
354.
90N
A36
MB
OW
Bow
ling
Gre
en K
Y10
3.64
7010
1.17
5010
3.12
6510
3.38
212.
67%
3912
6.56
3810
5.62
240.
4013
03
121
109
357.
3098
37M
GR
JG
rand
Jun
ctio
n C
O10
9.52
2610
1.71
3210
7.58
4110
0.63
981.
14%
9411
4.94
5810
2.57
420.
5778
551
127
361.
14N
A38
MM
OV
Mou
nt V
erno
n-A
naco
rtes
WA
111.
5618
101.
5938
115.
346
101.
5369
5.21
%11
93.5
913
197
.27
134
0.32
155
311
811
136
5.08
1023
39M
JON
John
son
City
TN
103.
8169
102.
5218
96.9
510
610
0.26
113
1.77
%71
153.
646
105.
0027
1.00
136
2318
736
6.99
540
MC
AS
Cas
per
WY
112.
2317
103.
4613
111.
4123
103.
4520
2.36
%52
83.7
916
397
.68
129
0.28
166
215
469
382.
7042
141
MC
HV
Cha
rlotte
svill
e V
A10
4.24
6510
1.15
5210
5.53
5110
1.23
741.
05%
9710
8.42
8010
0.30
830.
9223
95
181
387.
139
42M
RE
DR
eddi
ng C
A10
9.91
2499
.19
127
111.
8019
101.
0680
2.08
%60
113.
0866
98.7
511
30.
7147
626
178
388.
2811
43M
TY
LT
yler
TX
105.
7155
100.
8263
100.
8777
101.
0779
1.52
%84
128.
5735
102.
1152
0.71
466
2418
638
9.02
7044
MA
UB
Aub
urn-
Ope
lika
AL
111.
5319
104.
048
105.
0056
103.
9514
0.81
%10
798
.40
110
101.
2067
0.35
148
214
412
138
9.83
NA
45M
MO
WM
orris
tow
n T
N97
.75
134
101.
3747
98.2
299
102.
4941
3.54
%29
162.
714
102.
9340
0.48
106
630
129
392.
07N
A46
MW
EN
Wen
atch
ee W
A10
1.98
8810
1.62
3510
4.55
5810
2.54
393.
73%
2612
8.57
3610
1.48
620.
3614
61
167
103
401.
6222
147
MR
OE
Roc
hest
er M
N10
6.99
4410
0.05
9411
0.22
2510
1.49
711.
66%
7697
.15
115
100.
288
0.93
214
6417
540
4.23
852
48M
MID
Mid
land
TX
105.
9951
100.
8462
90.2
815
510
0.56
101
2.43
%50
175.
713
108.
1810
0.89
266
3112
040
4.91
5449
MG
RE
Gre
at F
alls
MT
104.
6860
101.
5343
97.1
710
410
2.81
292.
50%
4712
3.84
4410
8.78
70.
3514
91
171
8041
6.91
4950
MG
LFG
lens
Fal
ls N
Y10
2.87
7810
0.82
6496
.68
108
101.
3673
1.33
%90
113.
7665
104.
9728
1.17
107
1412
842
0.38
1551
MC
HE
Che
yenn
e W
Y10
7.50
3810
0.14
9110
9.46
3310
3.07
252.
69%
3887
.73
155
90.6
617
30.
4511
65
5985
423.
64N
A52
ME
LCE
l Cen
tro
CA
109.
4727
98.1
515
911
1.44
2210
3.68
187.
66%
211
5.10
5794
.45
159
0.29
160
213
715
243
0.75
NA
53M
MO
GM
orga
ntow
n W
V11
4.98
1110
1.65
3411
1.17
2410
2.01
511.
64%
7777
.916
998
.611
50.
3215
42
145
114
434.
1066
54M
LAT
Law
ton
OK
103.
3172
100.
4877
99.9
585
103.
7816
2.44
%49
112.
7267
100.
8973
0.44
119
311
911
143
4.29
NA
55M
ELI
Eliz
abet
htow
n K
Y10
6.17
4810
0.39
8010
3.25
6410
3.29
230.
49%
124
136.
9719
98.8
111
10.
4611
25
5611
043
4.54
156
MM
ISM
isso
ula
MT
107.
6437
100.
9257
112.
4115
102.
5935
1.38
%89
110.
3476
90.2
817
40.
4910
21
169
9943
8.75
2557
MB
UR
Bur
lingt
on-S
outh
Bur
lingt
on V
T10
5.16
5810
1.12
5410
5.11
5510
0.70
96-0
.3%
151
102.
1798
101.
9155
1.62
38
720
444
1.65
1003
58M
LOG
Long
view
TX
103.
0976
101.
6833
95.7
411
710
0.72
952.
17%
5711
4.58
6110
0.75
770.
6266
539
200
444.
97N
A59
MLE
BLe
bano
n P
A10
9.26
2810
1.9
2910
2.00
7210
1.63
640.
45%
126
100.
6610
293
.52
165
0.65
605
5212
445
2.58
NA
60M
FA
IF
airb
anks
AK
108.
6831
101.
5741
105.
4752
102.
4942
0.94
%10
096
.94
117
99.2
010
30.
3714
13
126
8645
3.14
NA
61M
FA
MF
arm
ingt
on N
M10
5.77
5410
2.24
2510
3.00
6610
0.79
932.
41%
5111
7.07
5210
3.41
360.
2017
60
178
124
453.
7231
62M
SF
ES
anta
Fe
NM
104.
7459
100.
4875
105.
7149
99.6
213
02.
09%
5990
.24
146
106.
7614
0.51
916
2913
945
6.01
2763
MV
INV
inel
and-
Mill
ville
-Brid
geto
n N
J10
1.24
9610
0.89
5898
.48
9310
2.57
361.
09%
9512
6.29
3910
2.36
470.
4511
44
6915
145
6.49
NA
64M
VE
RV
ero
Bea
ch F
L10
9.61
2510
0.87
5911
3.96
1110
9.79
10.
43%
128
71.5
817
795
.56
149
0.36
144
311
412
445
8.63
261
65M
CS
BC
olle
ge S
tatio
n-B
ryan
TX
105.
7853
99.7
710
710
4.17
5910
1.76
602.
19%
5610
3.73
9399
.18
105
0.63
643
101
189
459.
7719
166
MR
AP
Rap
id C
ity S
D10
3.15
7410
0.76
6610
9.96
2910
1.85
561.
59%
7910
3.91
9294
.43
160
0.5
964
7811
746
0.02
NA
67M
CA
RC
arso
n C
ity N
V10
3.28
7310
1.5
4410
4.56
5710
1.59
663%
4593
.74
130
94.8
815
40.
4511
74
9156
472.
31N
A68
MB
SW
Bru
nsw
ick
GA
101.
4993
101.
2349
101.
2576
103.
6019
0.49
%12
511
9.69
5199
.01
106
0.41
127
557
9847
4.12
NA
69M
HO
TH
ot S
prin
gs A
R10
3.94
6810
1.17
5110
0.33
8410
0.94
894.
16%
2185
.71
158
100.
5981
0.44
120
486
9247
6.47
NA
70M
VA
DV
aldo
sta
GA
107.
4939
100.
1490
101.
7173
101.
8655
0.82
%10
612
1.34
4510
2.28
480.
3514
73
115
124
481.
2156
71M
GR
FG
rand
For
ks N
D-M
N10
2.87
7910
0.87
6097
.81
101
102.
6232
2.14
%58
106.
6287
102.
9839
0.39
134
117
096
484.
9941
172
MP
OC
Poc
atel
lo ID
103.
4571
101.
1553
94.8
812
010
0.81
923.
08%
3210
9.09
7998
.88
108
0.67
553
127
8349
1.88
1291
73M
AP
PA
pple
ton
WI
101.
6791
99.9
110
210
4.02
6010
1.03
811.
48%
8613
8.46
1810
1.45
640.
6363
212
921
349
6.19
5574
MLW
RLa
wre
nce
KS
104.
3264
100.
7865
102.
9067
98.3
915
31.
69%
7513
4.82
2198
.21
123
0.71
494
8410
350
1.09
NA
75M
GA
GG
aine
svill
e G
A10
5.54
5699
.02
134
110.
0328
101.
7063
1.04
%98
125.
6540
96.3
214
00.
4999
310
416
150
7.89
3476
MD
UB
Dub
uque
IA98
.07
125
100.
2483
94.3
112
910
2.16
471.
49%
8511
1.58
7110
5.90
220.
4910
37
2091
514.
2263
177
MT
US
Tus
calo
osa
AL
100.
0910
410
1.42
4698
.53
9210
0.35
107
5.33
%9
101.
4610
010
1.68
580.
3115
72
130
195
516.
62N
A78
MF
LWF
ond
du L
ac W
I10
0.04
108
100.
7069
88.5
416
099
.82
127
2.62
%41
151.
977
100.
8275
0.67
547
1999
519.
31
5-yr
Job
Gro
wth
1999
- 2
004
1-yr
Job
Gro
wth
2003
- 2
004
5-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 1
998
- 20
031-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
200
2 -
2003
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1Jo
b G
row
th(J
uly0
4 -
July
05)
5-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 1
999
- 20
041-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
200
3 -
2004
Hig
h-T
ech
GD
P L
Q
2005
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s Sm
alle
st 1
79 C
ities
Lis
t
Best Performing Cities 2005Smallest 179 Cities List
33
Best Performing Cities 2005Smallest 179 Cities List
2004
Ran
k20
05R
ank
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2004
Ove
rall
Inde
xN
A79
MB
LCB
lack
sbur
g-C
hris
tians
burg
-Rad
ford
VA
102.
0987
99.8
010
610
0.85
7810
0.12
116
-0.3
7%15
313
0.90
2910
1.96
541.
179
131
151
523.
0817
80M
LEW
Lew
isto
n-A
ubur
n M
E10
3.12
7599
.511
910
8.06
3610
1.54
681.
56%
8112
4.54
4310
0.23
860.
2717
03
122
107
524.
7323
381
MN
AA
Nap
a C
A10
6.7
4599
.54
118
120.
422
100.
9982
-0.1
7%14
388
.23
153
94.4
715
80.
7343
549
132
526.
5768
82M
JAS
Jack
sonv
ille
NC
99.8
511
010
2.79
1710
3.27
6310
1.56
670.
90%
103
96.1
012
210
5.87
230.
3215
20
175
154
530.
3735
183
MB
LMB
loom
ingt
on IN
99.7
011
210
0.15
8896
.70
107
101.
8058
-1.2
9%17
214
4.69
1410
0.15
901.
356
712
178
533.
2587
84M
CU
MC
umbe
rland
MD
-WV
105.
3357
99.9
799
97.4
410
299
.54
132
0.52
%11
811
5.72
5610
2.13
510.
6659
718
101
534.
8439
185
MD
OT
Dot
han
AL
97.4
213
610
1.06
5596
.48
110
101.
2375
3.05
%34
120.
3448
98.1
912
40.
4711
03
109
135
539.
1038
186
MG
VL
Gre
envi
lle N
C10
0.42
100
100.
6970
100.
5981
100.
7594
1.53
%83
110.
8473
94.7
815
60.
8827
310
516
154
1.87
2887
MS
TC
St.
Clo
ud M
N10
2.27
8510
0.13
9210
2.38
6999
.89
126
0.74
%11
012
9.73
3310
3.77
330.
671
213
117
954
8.85
431
88M
AB
IA
bile
ne T
X99
.25
116
99.6
111
497
.01
105
101.
0977
4.65
%16
100.
1210
310
0.90
710.
4910
03
106
159
550.
29N
A89
MC
LDC
leve
land
TN
97.7
613
310
1.54
4294
.44
128
100.
9785
-0.1
8%14
417
8.27
210
2.03
530.
8035
482
107
550.
9476
390
MW
AC
Wac
o T
X99
.94
109
100.
4678
98.9
690
100.
0312
12.
58%
4398
.79
106
98.8
112
0.53
844
6022
255
3.92
881
91M
OC
EO
cean
City
NJ
102.
8977
102.
5119
107.
2344
102.
5538
-18.
30%
179
81.1
216
610
1.28
660.
2916
32
153
101
561.
37N
A92
MA
ME
Am
es IA
97.7
913
298
.87
140
101.
5074
102.
0850
1.43
%87
96.2
812
110
8.64
80.
5583
488
8056
3.93
821
93M
WA
EW
ater
loo-
Ced
ar F
alls
IA10
1.47
9499
.65
112
94.4
512
710
0.13
115
1.70
%74
121.
1347
106.
4416
0.49
984
6616
256
6.38
3794
MC
HO
Chi
co C
A10
2.49
8397
.44
167
105.
6650
98.8
314
32.
00%
6399
.40
105
102.
1350
0.53
856
2221
356
7.61
911
95M
ST
JS
t. Jo
seph
MO
-KS
104.
4861
101.
0356
98.4
096
98.7
714
70.
80%
108
110.
0677
101.
8856
0.62
681
166
122
580.
2271
196
MW
IHW
ichi
ta F
alls
TX
97.2
314
098
.65
147
100.
3783
100.
3910
62.
23%
5514
8.5
1095
.61
147
0.96
174
7114
858
2.39
NA
97M
JEF
Jeff
erso
n C
ity M
O10
1.35
9599
.67
111
101.
3775
101.
7462
0.56
%11
611
6.07
5599
.87
950.
5094
116
214
258
9.47
5998
MA
NI
Ann
isto
n-O
xfor
d A
L97
.84
130
101.
6136
90.1
315
610
2.55
37-0
.63%
162
92.5
113
610
0.22
870.
8231
634
112
592.
5264
99M
JOB
Jone
sbor
o A
R10
0.43
9910
0.66
7297
.21
103
100.
5210
20.
83%
105
101.
1910
110
0.70
790.
4711
14
8011
259
3.60
NA
100
MK
ISK
ings
ton
NY
99.7
911
198
.15
158
99.5
687
100.
7097
2.97
%35
88.2
115
483
.85
176
0.92
228
818
259
4.97
511
101
MT
ER
Ter
re H
aute
IN95
.19
152
99.7
410
894
.67
124
101.
8157
0.51
%11
990
.87
143
101.
1468
0.89
256
2716
961
6.24
7210
2M
JAT
Jack
son
TN
98.4
912
110
0.68
7196
.25
113
100.
9488
0.64
%11
310
7.81
8398
.44
118
0.43
122
555
110
619.
0165
103
MT
EX
Tex
arka
na T
X-T
exar
kana
AR
100.
1210
399
.92
101
99.5
488
100.
6099
3.24
%31
96.3
212
099
.32
102
0.28
165
116
313
362
0.26
451
104
MA
TH
Ath
ens-
Cla
rke
Cou
nty
GA
100.
0910
599
.05
131
102.
2571
101.
7461
-0.1
9%14
510
2.88
9497
.56
131
0.47
108
541
174
623.
48N
A10
5M
PA
SP
asca
goul
a M
S87
.92
177
98.7
314
379
.33
178
101.
9353
5.51
%8
101.
6399
100.
2984
0.77
384
6715
662
6.43
3210
6M
WA
UW
ausa
u W
I10
1.6
9210
0.22
8410
0.78
7910
0.18
114
0.66
%11
297
.54
114
96.8
513
60.
4312
14
7512
862
6.83
611
107
MC
OM
Col
umbi
a M
O10
5.79
5299
.61
115
98.7
791
98.5
415
02.
01%
6210
2.30
9797
.69
128
0.45
113
213
815
163
0.30
5210
8M
ELK
Elk
hart
-Gos
hen
IN10
0.12
102
104.
825
94.2
813
010
1.52
700.
50%
121
76.1
517
692
.89
167
0.41
125
399
192
633.
1444
109
MS
TG
Sta
te C
olle
ge P
A10
2.39
8499
.412
110
2.34
7098
.79
146
0.29
%13
283
.42
164
97.2
813
30.
9916
96
140
634.
8130
110
MLA
RLa
Cro
sse
WI-
MN
99.6
611
310
0.14
8998
.47
9410
0.96
86-0
.10%
140
92.6
613
510
2.37
460.
4511
53
112
129
646.
5877
111
MS
HE
She
rman
-Den
ison
TX
94.9
615
698
.97
136
92.8
213
999
.64
129
4.17
%20
85.3
816
099
.994
0.96
186
3311
665
2.70
1293
112
MO
SH
Osh
kosh
-Nee
nah
WI
99.3
511
599
.56
117
95.7
711
698
.86
141
2.25
%54
113.
8964
100.
7478
0.47
109
213
615
965
6.01
831
113
MH
AT
Hat
tiesb
urg
MS
100.
0910
698
.92
138
100.
5082
100.
4710
31.
55%
8210
6.32
8810
2.37
450.
3015
91
164
130
658.
0313
5311
4M
JOH
John
stow
n P
A96
.06
146
98.7
914
294
.11
133
101.
1776
1.57
%80
110.
6774
94.4
715
70.
8429
470
148
661.
1075
115
MW
IIW
illia
msp
ort P
A98
.18
123
99.9
898
94.2
113
210
0.32
109
0.49
%12
396
.77
119
98.9
107
0.64
626
3211
966
3.81
NA
116
MR
OR
Rom
e G
A10
4.04
6698
.44
154
98.2
698
98.8
314
40.
54%
117
120.
1549
99.4
510
00.
3813
75
5894
669.
0986
117
MC
OV
Cor
valli
s O
R10
0.41
101
100.
2982
92.3
814
298
.88
140
0.38
%13
080
.44
168
96.7
913
72.
361
810
7967
0.96
NA
118
MC
ON
Col
umbu
s IN
91.6
317
110
2.07
2784
.63
175
100.
2711
21.
89%
6993
.19
134
99.3
610
10.
5779
489
7367
2.92
NA
119
MLE
TLe
wis
ton
ID-W
A10
1.97
8998
.64
148
94.6
812
310
0.00
123
0.22
%13
412
8.22
3710
0.91
700.
6852
312
859
677.
7410
512
0M
JAN
Jane
svill
e W
I95
.19
153
100.
1686
91.5
614
910
0.98
831.
42%
8891
.35
141
100.
1989
0.36
143
544
157
683.
5823
121
ME
AU
Eau
Cla
ire W
I10
0.60
9899
.70
109
96.2
611
299
.81
128
-0.2
9%14
893
.53
132
100.
0392
0.62
674
6815
369
0.01
481
122
MA
LEA
lexa
ndria
LA
98.9
211
910
1.71
3199
.61
8610
0.85
91-0
.16%
141
85.5
815
996
.12
141
0.29
161
116
114
769
3.20
531
123
MC
HA
Cha
mpa
ign-
Urb
ana
IL99
.45
114
97.8
416
410
3.67
6198
.30
154
-0.7
8%16
410
8.02
8210
4.07
320.
5582
461
215
700.
1433
124
MB
AN
Ban
gor
ME
102.
7282
99.2
812
599
.01
8998
.07
160
-0.8
6%16
510
7.73
8496
.00
143
0.66
575
4614
870
0.36
5712
5M
ALT
Alto
ona
PA
101.
0997
99.8
910
396
.21
115
100.
8890
-0.7
2%16
390
.27
145
95.7
014
40.
5875
476
127
701.
8092
112
6M
OW
EO
wen
sbor
o K
Y95
.65
149
99.0
513
293
.91
136
99.3
113
42.
25%
5313
1.36
2710
1.68
590.
3714
02
147
111
704.
2485
212
7M
OD
EO
dess
a T
X10
3.97
6710
0.21
8591
.76
146
101.
4272
0.38
%12
994
.77
126
93.0
716
60.
2916
21
165
124
719.
54N
A12
8M
LON
Long
view
WA
94.8
215
898
.73
144
91.5
215
097
.98
161
2.73
%37
114.
5662
100.
7776
0.5
974
8596
721.
81N
A12
9M
MU
SM
uske
gon-
Nor
ton
Sho
res
MI
102.
7780
100
9792
.05
144
98.8
913
8-0
.05%
138
109.
7778
99.1
910
40.
593
115
817
472
4.58
113
130
MP
UE
Pue
blo
CO
98.2
412
298
.28
156
96.5
110
999
.14
136
1.97
%65
76.6
517
597
.93
127
0.48
105
545
150
724.
9784
131
MS
PR
Spr
ingf
ield
IL95
.22
151
98.8
114
194
.21
131
95.5
417
80.
91%
102
112.
2968
99.7
597
0.94
205
3720
572
5.68
9613
2M
JOP
Jopl
in M
O97
.87
129
99.6
711
094
.94
119
100.
4110
50.
50%
122
97.0
111
610
0.87
740.
3713
82
134
164
726.
72N
A13
3M
DA
GD
alto
n G
A98
.05
126
99.0
313
397
.94
100
100.
5710
00.
00%
137
77.5
217
294
.04
163
1.48
53
111
130
731.
6693
134
MW
HE
Whe
elin
g W
V-O
H97
.88
128
99.6
111
696
.21
114
99.9
812
41.
95%
6683
.84
162
97.6
213
00.
3913
22
139
149
738.
4511
813
5M
FLR
Flo
renc
e-M
uscl
e S
hoal
s A
L92
.69
169
100.
5373
86.4
317
210
0.04
120
2.07
%61
91.1
814
210
6.08
200.
2716
92
142
142
740.
5258
113
6M
SA
OS
an A
ngel
o T
X97
.13
141
97.4
616
696
.31
111
100.
3310
81.
91%
6877
.18
174
90.8
817
21.
0712
312
310
674
3.17
NA
137
MB
UN
Bur
lingt
on N
C93
.90
161
99.1
312
991
.84
145
95.9
717
61.
81%
7098
.62
109
106.
9812
0.49
101
310
813
875
3.90
891
138
MP
AR
Par
kers
burg
-Mar
ietta
-Vie
nna,
WV
-OH
101.
9690
98.3
155
89.9
015
995
.67
177
0.73
%11
112
1.22
4699
.96
930.
5873
310
316
375
7.07
3513
9M
BLO
Blo
omin
gton
-Nor
mal
IL98
.09
124
96.9
117
110
6.72
4510
0.07
117
-0.3
3%14
910
4.47
9194
.17
162
0.52
891
159
158
762.
7414
140
MH
MT
Hou
ma-
Bay
ou C
ane-
Thi
boda
ux L
A10
6.07
5096
.73
172
100.
7780
100.
9487
-0.1
7%14
280
.48
167
93.9
716
40.
2317
51
156
199
767.
1581
141
MP
ISP
ittsf
ield
MA
98.9
911
898
.52
152
94.8
712
197
.12
170
-0.2
0%14
610
7.5
8510
1.37
650.
7148
311
013
276
7.36
3614
2M
SH
BS
hebo
ygan
WI
97.2
513
999
.16
128
98.3
697
100.
3011
00.
62%
114
77.7
317
070
.37
179
0.41
126
479
114
770.
1610
814
3M
SU
TS
umte
r S
C96
.78
143
98.8
813
994
.04
135
100.
9884
-0.4
2%15
613
3.62
2398
.26
121
0.42
124
215
110
677
1.92
941
144
MP
INP
ine
Blu
ff A
R98
.612
099
.83
105
94.5
712
510
0.29
111
1.31
%91
83.2
216
591
.16
171
0.33
150
215
210
677
5.25
1011
145
MM
AC
Mac
on G
A97
.89
127
99.4
812
091
.65
147
98.2
515
6-0
.90%
167
97.6
511
296
.59
139
0.68
517
1122
877
8.50
621
146
MM
OR
Mon
roe
LA10
2.14
8698
.18
157
98.4
395
97.1
316
9-0
.94%
168
130.
9928
95.1
515
10.
5386
213
317
177
8.68
731
147
MA
LNA
lban
y G
A96
.75
144
98.7
114
591
.63
148
99.9
312
50.
16%
135
93.1
913
398
.47
117
0.53
875
4216
378
9.89
1141
148
MM
AS
Man
sfie
ld O
H94
.24
160
97.1
716
992
.56
141
98.8
813
9-0
.47%
160
149.
179
96.7
313
80.
9519
474
128
792.
5688
149
MR
AC
Rac
ine
WI
95.0
215
510
0.05
9390
.06
158
101.
0878
-0.3
5%15
089
.66
150
98.6
611
40.
3215
13
9719
479
2.60
111
150
MD
NV
Dan
ville
VA
93.8
916
295
.74
179
90.9
615
499
.19
135
-3.5
6%17
813
2.06
2696
.06
142
1.23
810
310
880
0.33
951
151
MLA
KLa
ke C
harle
s LA
97.4
713
598
.54
151
87.9
616
597
.67
164
2.59
%42
90.8
514
495
.49
150
0.48
104
396
195
805.
15N
A15
2M
SA
DS
andu
sky
OH
100.
0810
799
.34
124
93.7
113
710
0.05
119
-1.2
7%17
111
4.59
6099
.78
960.
2717
21
172
7980
8.70
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1Jo
b G
row
th(J
uly0
4 -
July
05)
5-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 1
999
- 20
041-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
200
3 -
2004
Hig
h-T
ech
GD
P L
Q5-
yr J
ob G
row
th19
99 -
200
41-
yr J
ob G
row
th20
03 -
200
45-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
199
8 -
2003
1-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 2
002
- 20
03
2005
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s Sm
alle
st 1
79 C
ities
Lis
t
34
Best Performing Cities 2005Smallest 179 Cities List
2004
Ran
k20
05R
ank
MSA
Pop
ulat
ion
2004
Ove
rall
Inde
x19
9315
3M
SA
GS
agin
aw-S
agin
aw T
owns
hip
Nor
th M
I93
.72
165
97.0
517
087
.87
167
99.3
813
3-0
.25%
147
98.7
310
710
4.1
310.
6753
462
209
809.
9210
615
4M
GO
LG
olds
boro
NC
96.2
614
599
.35
123
94.7
412
298
.12
158
-0.0
9%13
911
1.03
7210
5.08
260.
1917
80
179
114
814.
6499
155
MD
EC
Dec
atur
IL88
.07
176
98.9
413
785
.15
174
99.5
513
10.
58%
115
129.
2534
102.
6541
0.36
145
214
811
181
7.14
781
156
MLI
MLi
ma
OH
97.2
813
898
.51
153
95.5
811
898
.85
142
0.92
%10
194
.29
127
98.3
611
90.
3813
62
150
107
817.
5210
915
7M
RO
MR
ocky
Mou
nt N
C93
.66
166
99.0
713
090
.12
157
98.7
914
5-0
.87%
166
89.9
214
795
.63
146
1.09
117
1314
582
2.21
NA
158
MD
AI
Dan
ville
IL92
.92
168
98.0
516
287
.50
168
102.
1349
0.90
%10
477
.55
171
86.6
617
50.
4312
34
8783
827.
2617
4315
9M
AN
EA
nder
son
SC
95.1
115
410
0.46
7992
.23
143
99.0
313
7-0
.44%
159
84.1
116
110
9.68
50.
1917
70
173
174
828.
2876
116
0M
VIC
Vic
toria
TX
95.3
115
098
.57
150
91.0
715
296
.33
174
1.97
%64
89.8
214
898
.55
116
0.58
762
146
113
831.
0585
116
1M
LAF
Lafa
yette
IN95
.79
148
99.8
410
490
.98
153
98.2
615
5-0
.41%
155
89.7
614
997
.35
132
0.66
563
102
182
832.
54N
A16
2M
MO
EM
onro
e M
I10
2.75
8196
.69
173
103.
6262
100.
0112
2-1
.69%
175
94.7
912
482
.42
177
0.27
168
017
615
383
2.79
691
163
MF
LOF
lore
nce
SC
97.8
313
199
.39
122
94.0
413
497
.95
162
0.34
%13
197
.78
111
100.
1091
0.31
156
115
719
783
4.98
NA
164
MB
CR
Bat
tle C
reek
MI
99.0
911
798
.66
146
87.9
416
696
.81
171
-1.1
0%16
914
2.62
1510
6.38
170.
2816
42
143
139
836.
4219
9116
5M
BC
YB
ay C
ity M
I97
.35
137
99.2
312
686
.81
171
98.4
615
1-2
.86%
177
99.4
110
496
.88
135
0.73
444
8110
984
1.25
107
166
MK
OK
Kok
omo
IN86
.93
179
97.6
616
584
.49
176
97.7
016
311
.36%
153
.25
178
95.6
114
80.
5192
312
410
185
0.51
1011
167
MT
OP
Top
eka
KS
97.0
514
298
.14
160
94.5
212
696
.51
173
0.95
%99
95.0
612
391
.22
170
0.38
135
392
228
855.
04N
A16
8M
AN
DA
nder
son
IN92
.22
170
97.3
016
882
.07
177
96.2
717
50.
78%
109
102.
7395
97.9
612
60.
6658
550
131
858.
7610
016
9M
KA
KK
anka
kee-
Bra
dley
IL96
.00
147
98.5
914
992
.77
140
97.3
016
7-1
.15%
170
97.5
711
391
.95
168
0.75
404
8310
786
8.79
110
170
MD
EZ
Dec
atur
AL
93.8
316
310
0.34
8188
.14
163
98.4
115
20.
51%
120
92.4
013
791
.55
169
0.39
133
116
014
887
1.30
9717
1M
GA
DG
adsd
en A
L94
.48
159
100.
1687
86.0
117
398
.62
149
-1.6
0%17
496
.93
118
103.
6135
0.27
171
116
810
388
0.11
NA
172
MM
ICM
ichi
gan
City
-La
Por
te IN
93.7
616
498
.12
161
91.3
315
197
.28
168
-0.4
3%15
710
8.05
8195
.07
152
0.56
813
120
110
907.
0690
173
MJA
KJa
ckso
n M
I94
.90
157
99.0
013
593
.59
138
96.7
217
20.
11%
136
86.9
215
795
.65
145
0.37
139
213
516
391
3.76
115
174
ME
LME
lmira
NY
88.7
117
596
.51
176
88.3
916
298
.11
159
-2.0
0%17
693
.84
128
98.8
211
00.
8430
312
590
930.
8479
175
MN
ILN
iles-
Ben
ton
Har
bor
MI
87.1
817
896
.57
175
88.3
916
197
.34
166
0.44
%12
788
.76
152
94.8
315
50.
412
94
6516
394
2.10
1121
176
MS
IOS
ioux
City
IA-N
E-S
D90
.95
173
96.6
117
486
.93
170
98.6
714
8-0
.36%
152
92.4
138
99.4
799
0.44
118
214
014
394
8.37
116
177
MM
UN
Mun
cie
IN91
.13
172
96.4
717
787
.09
169
98.1
615
7-1
.54%
173
92.1
513
994
.98
153
0.5
953
117
118
980.
0210
317
8M
WE
IW
eirt
on-S
teub
envi
lle W
V-O
H93
.616
795
.917
888
.04
164
97.3
716
5-0
.39%
154
77.2
617
394
.32
161
0.32
153
311
312
810
04.7
1N
A17
9M
SP
FS
prin
gfie
ld O
H90
.88
174
97.9
616
377
.15
179
95.1
217
9-0
.44%
158
18.9
217
976
.83
178
0.18
179
017
714
310
77.0
8
Foo
tnot
es:
1A
dded
/Sub
trac
ted
Cou
nty(
s)2
Add
ed/S
ubtr
acte
d M
etro
(s)
3In
dica
tes
this
city
's p
ositi
on o
n la
st y
ear's
200
4 la
rges
t met
ros
list
4In
dica
tes
this
city
's p
ositi
on o
n la
st y
ear's
200
4 sm
alle
st m
etro
s lis
tN
AN
ew M
etro
5-yr
Job
Gro
wth
1999
- 2
004
1-yr
Job
Gro
wth
2003
- 2
004
5-yr
Wag
es &
Sal
arie
s G
row
th 1
998
- 20
031-
yr W
ages
& S
alar
ies
Gro
wth
200
2 -
2003
Job
Gro
wth
(Jul
y04
- Ju
ly05
)5-
yr R
elat
ive
HT
GD
P
Gro
wth
199
9 -
2004
1-yr
Rel
ativ
e H
T G
DP
G
row
th 2
003
- 20
04H
igh-
Tec
h G
DP
LQ
# of
HT
GD
P
LQ
s O
ver
1
2005
Bes
t P
erfo
rmin
g C
itie
s Sm
alle
st 1
79 C
ities
Lis
t
35
Best Performing Cities 2005Endnotes
1 Statistical and Science Policy Branch, Offi ce of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Offi ce of Management and Budget. OMB Bulletin No. 04-03.2 The latest 12-month job performance calculates the percentage change from the same month one year previous, e.g., the percentage change in jobs from July 2004 to July 2005. The 12-month percentage change is a measure of recent momentum and captures which metropolitan areas are improving their performance in recent months. The annual growth rate measures the percentage change from calendar year 2003 to 2004. Whereas the annual growth rate does not indicate whether high growth was achieved or diminished in the fi rst or latter half of the year, the 12-month growth rate captures that aspect.3An industry’s location quotient (LQ) measures the level of employment concentration in a given location, in this case, an MSA, relative to the industry average across the United States. A metro with an employment LQ higher than 1.0 in a high-tech industry has a denser concentration of that industry than the nation has, on average. It is an indication of how successful a metro is in being home to an above-average mass of high-tech industries. Metros that exceed the national average in high-tech industry LQs have an edge attracting and retaining high-tech fi rms because of their dense employment bases and other positive agglomeration, or clustering, factors.4 Th e Center. 2003. “The Top American Research Universities,” The Lombardi Program, November. 5 Please visit our web site at www.milkeninstitute.org
36
About the Authors Best Performing Cities 2005
About the Authors
Ross DeVol is director of regional economics at the Milken Institute. He oversees the institute’s research on the dynamics of comparative regional growth performance, and technology and its impact on regional and national economies. He is an expert on the intangible economy and how regions can prepare themselves to compete in it. He authored the ground-breaking study America’s High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development, and Risks for Metropolitan Areas, an examination of how clusters of high-technology industries across the country affect economic growth in those re-gions. He also created the “Best Performing Cities Index,” an annual ranking of U.S. metropolitan areas that shows where jobs are being created and economies are growing. His most recent work involves the study of biotechnology and other life-sciences clusters, and the impact these industries have on regional economies. Prior to joining the institute, DeVol was senior vice president of Glob-al Insight Inc. (formerly Wharton Econometric Forecasting), where he supervised the Regional Economic Services group. He was the fi rm’s chief spokesman on international trade. He also served as the head of Global Insight’s U.S. Long-Term Macro Service and authored numerous reports on behalf of the U.S. Macro Group. He is ranked among the “Super Stars” of think tank scholars by International Economy magazine.
Lorna H. Wallace is a research fellow in regional economics at the Milken Institute. Her expertise is in international business, especially the impact of foreign direct investment on the competitive-ness of subnational, national and regional economies. She designs, develops and performs research on international trade issues, particularly determining the relationship among the triad of global trade: imports, exports and foreign direct investment. Her research relates international business to workforce development, with an emphasis on the systemic role of government. Wallace has extensive work experience around the world in the public and private sectors; her award-winning research is widely published. She was educated in Canada (B. Admin.) and earned her M.B.A. and Ph.D. in international business from Rutgers University.
Armen Bedroussian is a senior research analyst with the Milken Institute. Bedroussian has exten-sive graduate training in econometrics, statistical methods and other modeling techniques. Before joining the institute, he was an economics teaching assistant at the University of California, River-side, where he taught intermediate micro- and macroeconomics to undergraduates. Since coming to the institute, Bedroussian has contributed to several projects and co-authored Manufacturing Matters: California’s Performance and Prospects, Th e Economic Contributions of Health Care to New England and America’s Biotech and Life Science Clusters, among others. Bedroussian earned his bachelor of science in applied mathematics and a master’s in economics from the University of California, Riverside.
Tampa
Daytona Beach
Orlando
LakeOkeechobee
Sarasota
75
4
95
75
MelbournePalm Bay
by Ross DeVol, Lorna Wallaceand Armen Bedroussian
Where America’s Jobs Are Created and Sustained
February 2006
Best Performing Cities2005
1250 Fourth Street • Santa Monica, CA 90401Phone: 310.570.4600 • Fax: 310.570.4601E-mail: [email protected]
© 2006 Milken Institute