CURRENT POPULATION REPORTS

U.S. Department of Commerce BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

Population Estimates and Projections

Series P·25. No. '151 Issufld January 19'19

1976 Population Estimates and 1975 and Revised 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties and Incorporated Places in Idaho

This report is one of a series containing current estimates of the population 'and per capita money income for places in each State. The population estimate relate to July 1. 1976, and the estimates of per capita income (PC I) cover the 1975 and 1974 calendar years. The population estimates include revisions made during the review of the figures with local officials and, to the extent possible, also reflect changes made through the Office of Revenue Sharing challenge program. Population figures for earlier years comparable to the PCI estimates were published earlier in Current Popula· tion Reports, series P-25, Nos. 649 to 698, and are not repeated here. Revisions are being made to the 1975 population figures for approximately 400 places in the United States, to bring them in line with the 1976 figures shown here, however, and will be noted in subsequent reports. The entire 1974 series of income estimates is shown here due to major revisions in data and methodology that, to some degree, affect all areas.

Current estimates of population below the county level and per capita money income for all general-purpose govern­ments were prompted by the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972. The figures are used by a wide variety of Federal, State, and local governmental agencies for program planning and administrative purposes.

Areas included in this series of reports are all counties (or county equivalents such as census divisions in Alaska, parishes in Louisiana, and independent cities in Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, and Virginia) and incorporated places in the State, plus active minor civil divisions (MCD's), com­monly towns in New England, New York, and Wisconsin, or townships in other parts of the United States. 1 These State reports appear in Current Population Reports, Series P·25, in

I I n certain midwestern States (Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Mis­souri, Nebraska, and the Dakotas) some counties have active minor civil divisions while others do not.

alphabetical sequence as report number 740 (Alabama) through number 789 (Wyoming). A list indicating the report number for each State is appended.

The detailed table for each State shows July 1, 1976 estimates of the population of each area, together with April 1, 1970 census population and numerical and percent­age change between 1970 and 1976. The 1970 population and related per capita income figures reflect annexations since 1970 and include corrections to the 1970 census counts. I n addition, the table presents per capita income estimates for the 1975 calendar year and revised figures for 1974, plus calendar year 1969 per capita money income derived from data collected in the 1970 census.

The estimates are presented in the table in county order, with all incorporated places in the county listed in alpha· betical order, followed by any functioning minor civil divisions also listed in alphabetical order. Minor civil divisions are always identified in the listing by the term "township," "town," or other MCD category. When incorporated places fall in more than one county, each county piece is marked "part," and totals for these places are presented at the end of the table.

POPU LA nON ESTIMATES METHODOLOGY

To estimate the population of each subcounty area, a component procedure (the Administrative Records method) was used, with each of the components of population change (births, deaths, net migration, and special populations) estimated separately. The estimates vvere derived in three stages, moving from 1970 as the base year to develop estimates for 1973, and in turn, moving from 1973 as the base year to derive esti mates for 1975, and from 1975 as the base year for 1976.

Migration. Individual Federal income tax returns vvere used to measure migration by matching individual returns for

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. GoveJ:nment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Postage stamps not acceptable; currency submitted at sender's risk. Remittances from foreign countries must be by international money order or by a draft on a U.S. bank. Current Population Reports are sold in two subscription packages: Series P·20, P·23, P-27, and P-SO are available for $40.00 per year ($10 additional for foreign mailing); Series P-25, P-26, and P-28 are available for $70.00 per year ($17.50 additional for foreign mailing!. The single-copy price of this report is 80 cents.

2

successive periods. The places of residence on tax returns filed in the base year and in the estimate year were noted for matched returns to determine inmigrants, outmigrants, and non migrants for each area. A net migration rate was derived, based on the difference between the inmigration and outmigration of taxpayers and dependents, and was applied to a base population to yield an estimate of net migration for all persons in the area.

Natural increase. Reported resident birth and death statistics were used, wherever available, to estimate natural increase. These data were collected from State health departments and supplemented, where necessary, by data prepared and published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Na tional ('.en tel' for Health Statistics. For subcounty areas where reported birth and death statistics were not a'Jailable from either source, estimates were developed by applying fertility and mortality rates. These estimates were subsequently controlled to agree with birth and death statistics for the reported county areas.

Adjustment for special populations. In addition to the above components of population change, estimates of special populations were also taken into account. Special popula­

tions include irnmigrant~ from abroad, members of the /\rrned Forces living in barracks, residents of institutions (prisons and long-term health care facilities), and college students enrolled in full-time programs. These populations were treated separately because changes in these types of population groups are not always adequately reflected in the components of population change developed by standard measures, and the information can be collected for use as an

independen t series. In fJenerating estimates for counties by this procedure, the

rnethod was modified slightly to make the county estimates specific to the resident population under 65 years of age. The resident population 65 years old and over in counties was estimated separately by addinfJ the change in Medicare enrollees between April 1, 1970 and July 1 of the estimate year to the April 1, 1970 popu lation 65 years old and over in the county as enumerated in the 1970 census. These estimates of the population 65 years old and over were then added to estimates of the population under 65 years old to yield estimates of the total resident population in each county.

Annexations ami new incorporations. The 1970 census counts shown in this report reflect all population "correc· tions" made to the figures after the initial tabulations. In addition, adjustments for annexations through December 31, 1976, are reflected in the estimates for areas where arrange­ments were made for determining the population in the annexed area in 1970. 2 For new incorporations occurring

'In general, an annexation was included if the 1970 census count for the annexing area was 5,000 or more and the 1970 census count for the annexed area or areas exceeded 5 percent of the 1970 count for the annexing area. Adjustments were also made for a limited number of "unusual" annexations where the at;Hlexations for an area did not meet the minimum requirements but were accepted for inGiusion in the p'opu lation base.

after 1970, the 1970 population within the boundaries of the new areas are shown in the detailed table.

Other adjustments. For areas where special censuses were conducted at dates that approximate the estimate date, the census results were taken into account in developing the estimates. 3 In several States, the subcounty estimates developed by the Administrative Hecords mElthod were averaged with estimates for corresponding geographic areas which were prepared by State agencies participating in the Federal·State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates (FSCP). These States include California, Florida, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin.

The estimates for the subareas in each county were adjusted to independently derived county estimates. Since all of the data necessary to develop final estimates under the FSCP program are not available at the time subcounty estimates are prepared, only two of the methods relied upon in the standard FSCP program of estimates for counties (i.e., Component Method II and the Administrative Records method) were utilized. The 1976 estimates result from adding the average 1975-76 population change indicated by the two methods to the 1975 county population figures contained in Current Population Reports, Series P·25 and P-26.

The county estimates, in turn, were adjusted to be consistent with independent State estimates published by the Bureau of the Census in Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 727, in which the Administrative Records·based estimates were averaged with the estimates prepared using Component Method II and the Regression method. 4

PER CAPITA INCOME ESTIMATES METHODOLOGY

The 1975 per capita income (PCi) figure is the estimated average amount per person of total money income received during calendar years 1975 tor all persons residing in a given political jurisdiction .. The 1975 estimates are based on the 1970 census and have been updated using rates of change developed from various administrative recprd sets and compilations, mainly from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).

The PCI estimates are based on a money income concept. Total money income is defined by the Bureau of the Census for statistical purposes as the sum of:

Wage and salary income Net nonfarm self·employment income Net farm·self·ernployment income Social Security and railroad retirement income Public assistance income

3 Only special censuses conducted by the Bureau of the Census or by the California, Florida, Michigan, Oregon, or Washington State agencies participating in the Federal·State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates were used for this purpose. In addition, in a relatively srnall number of caSH$ where special censuses were conducted by localities, where the procedures and definitions were essentially the sarne as those used by the Bureau of the Census, the results of these special censuses were also taken into account in preparing the estimates.

4 For further discussion of the methodologies used in preparing State estimates, see Current Population Reports, P·25, No. 640.

All other income such as interest, dividends, veteran's

payments, pensions, unemployment insurance, ali­

mony, etc.

The total represents the amount of income received

before deductions for personal income taxes, Social Security, bond purchases, union dues, Medicare deductions, etc.

Procedures for State and county PCI estimates. As noted

above, the 1975 State and county PCI estimates were based

on the 1970 census. 5 The updates for these areas were developed by cal-rying forward the aggregate amount (i.e.,

the sum of all individual incomes in the State or county) independently for each type of income identifi(,d in the

census to reflect differential changes in these income sources between 1969 and the estimate date. Data frorn the 1969 and 1975 Federal tax returns provided by tlw ! mernal Revenue Service were used to estimate the change in wane and salary income at the State and county level. All other types of income for these governmental units were updated

using rates of change based on estimates of aggregate money

income provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

At the county level, several modifications at' these

procedures were used to better control the estimates of

income change. For example, the IRS data for sub-State jurisdictions were subject to nonreporting of address infor­

mation on the tax return and to misassignment of geographic

location for reported addresses. To minimize the impact Oil

the esti mates from such potential sources of error, per, capita

wage and salary income for counties was updated intact as a per capita figure using the percentage change in wage and salary income per exemption reported on I RS returns. In addition, because of differences in the definition of income, data collection techniques, and estimation procedures, 1969 income estimates from the census and BEA were not strictly comparable. These differences were especially evident at the county level for nonfarm and farm self-employment income.

BEA estimates for these types of income tend to have considerably more year-to-year variation than estimates

derived from surveys and censuses. To minimize the eflects

of these differences, constraints were imposed on the rate of change in income from these sources in developing the 1975

PCI updates.

As a final step to ensure a uniform series of estimates at

the State and county levels, the updated county per capita

figures were converted to a total aggregate income and were

adjusted to agree with the State aggregate level before a final

per capita income was calculated.

Procedures for subcounty per capita income estimates. The

1975 per capita income estimates for subcounty govern­

mental units were developed using a methodology similar to

that used to derive county-level figures. However, there are

differences in the number of separate categories of income

types used in the estimation procedure, and in the sources used to update the income components.

S I ncome data from the 1970 census reflect income received in calendar year 1969.

3

As in the case of the population estimates, a multi-step procedure was relied upon to update the income figures from

their 1969 level to refer to 1975. Estimates for 1972 were prepared usi ng the rate of change hom 1969 to 1972. Estimates for 1974 were then developed based on the 1972 estirnates, and were updated by an estimate of change from 1972 to 1974. The H375 figures were then based upon the

1974 e~ti mate. Also, as in the case of the population figures, the subcounty income data were uniformly adjusted to

reflecl majol annexation and boundary chanqes which occurred since 1970.

1969 base estimates. The 1910 census PCI figures tor sinall

areas are subject to sizable sampl i ng variabil ity, causing them

to lack sufficient statistical reliability for use in the esti­

mation process. For til is report, the 1969 PCI shown for

areas with a 1970 census sample population estimate of less

than 1,000 is a wei(Jhted average of the original 1970 census

sample value and a re9ression estimate. Fiesearch has indi­

cated that th is procedure results in a considerable improve­

ment in accuracy compared to the procedure relied upon in

earlier estimates, which was to use the county PCI amount fOt" various small governmental units. The resulting 1969

esti mate for each of these areas is a base estimate for preparing '1972, '1974, and 1975 estimates and does not represent a change in the 1970 census value for these areas.

For su bcounty updating, ., 969 total money income was divided into two components: (1) taxable incorne which is approximately comparable to that portion of income in­cluded in I RS adjusted gross income, and (2) transfer income which, for the most part is not included in adjusted gross

income. These 1969 subcounty estimates were adjusted to 1970 census totals for higher level government units. This

was done using a two-way adjustment procedure controlling

both to county totals and to several size class totals for the

State.

1975 PCI updates. The taxable income portion of the 1969

money income was updated usin(J the percent change in

adjusted gross income (AGI) per exemption as computed from I RS tax return data. However, if the number of 1 RS tax

returns for any area was very small, or if the ratios of

exemptions to the population or the cilange in the ratios

from 1969 to 1972, 1972 to 1974, and 1974 to 1975 were

not with in an acceptable range, the I RS data for the

subcounty areas were not used in the update process. In such

cases, the average percent change in AGI per exemption for

similar governmental units in the county was used. Similarly,

if the IRS data for a particular subcounty area passed the above conditions, but the percentage change in AG I per

exemption was excessively large or small compared to that for similar units in the county, the change was constrained to

a proportion of the average change of similar units.

The percentage change in per capita transfer income at the

subcounty leve! was assumed to be the same as that implied

by the B EA estimates at the county level. The estimates of taxable income and transfer income were

adjusted separately to the county controls and were then

4

combined to produce total money income. The PCI estimates were formed by dividing the total money income aggregates by the population esti mates.

LIMITATIONS OF THE ESTIMATES

Population estimates. Tests of the accuracy of the methods used to develop State and county population estimates appearing in Current Population Reports, Series P-25 and P-26 have been documented elsewhere. The results of evaluations against the 1970 census at the State level are reported in Series P-25, No. 520, wh ile similar 1970 tests for counties are presented in Series P-26, No. 21. In summary, the State estimates averaging Component Method II and the Regression method yielded average differences of approxi­mately 1.9 percent when compared to the 1970 census. Subsequent modifications of the two procedures that have been incorporated in preparing estimates for the 1970's would have reduced the average difference in 1970 to 1.2 percent. For counties, the 1970 evaluations indicated an average difference of approximately 4.5 percent for the combination of procedures used. It should be noted that all of the evaluations against the results of the 1970 census concern estimates extending over the entire 1 O-year period of 1960 to 1970.

Since 1970, however, the Administrative Records method has been introduced with partial weight in the estimates for States and counties, and except for the few States in which local estimates are utilized, carries the full weight for estimates below the county level. The data series upon which the esti mates procedure is based has been available as a comprehensive series for the entire United States only since 1967. Nonetheless, several studies have been undertaken evaluating the Administrative Records estimates from the

State to the local level. At the Statewide level, little direct testing can be performed due to the lack of special censuses covering entire States. Some sense of the general reason­ableness of the Administrative Records estimates may be obtained, however,' by reviewing the degree of corre­spondence between the results of the method against those of the "standard" methods tested in 1970 and already in use to produce State esti mates during the 1970's. It must be recognized that the differences between the two sets of estimates may not be interpreted as errors in either set of figures, but may on Iy be used as a partial guide indicating the degree of consistency between the newer Administrative Records system and the established methods.

Table A presents such a comparison for State estimates referring to July 1, 1976. A rather close agreement may be observed in the esti mates for all States at only a 1.1 percent difference. The variation of the Administrative Records method from the average of the other methods does increase for smaller States ina regular pattern, but still reaches an average of only 1.5 percent for the smallest size category. The only consistent variations suggesting a potential for directional bias are indicated in the tendency for larger States to be estimated higher by the Administrative Records procedures than by the other techniques.

A similar comparison may be made at the county level (table B). Although the differences between the FSCP estimates and the Admin istrative Records results are larger at the county level than for States, the variations are well within the range that would be expected for areas of this population size, and the county pattern matches closely the findings for States. The overall differences for all counties is 2.5 percent, and ranges from 1.5 percent for the larger counties to 10.1 for the 26 small counties under 1,000

Table A. Percent Difference Between Administrative Records Estimates and the Average of Component Method II and Regression Estimates for States: 1916

(Base is the average of Method II and Regression estimates) .

Population size in 1970

Item All

States 4 million 1.5 to 4 Less than and over million 1.5 million

Average percent difference (disregarding sign) I) Q 0) 0) <t 0) " , • 0 ~ I) Q I) " " \\I 0 0) 1.1 0.7 1.1 1.5

Number of States .... 0 ... ~ • (I • 0 " • of \II 0/1 0 <;I 0 0) 0 •• 0) 51 16 18 17

With differences of: Less than 1 percent iii 0 ., 0) " 0) 0) ., 0) Q .. 0) 0) (,l Q 0 I) " 25 11 10 4 1 to 2 percentooooeooooooeooo90oooeoo 19 5 5 9 2 percent and overO O •• OOOOO •• OOOO8000 7 - 3 4

Where Administrative Records was: Higher" 0 I) • 0 " 0 0 I) I) • 0 " 0 11' 0 I) 0) I) I) • " ••• 0 (I (I; 0 0) 0) 28 11 9 8 Lower" I) • 0 " " • 0) • 0) ., '" 10 " 0) • " 0) 0 0 0 (II " 0) 0) " 0 " " 0) 0) 0 23 5 9 9

- Represents zero.

population. In addition, the variations from other FSCP methods shown for the 1976 estimates indicate substantial reduction from 1975 levels. Corresponding differences for the 1975 estimates were 3.3 percent, 1.8 and 11.7 percent,

respectively. Three tests of the Administrative Records population

estimates against census counts also have been undertaken. First, a limited evaluation involving 24 large areas (16 counties and 8 cities) was conducted on estimates for the 1968-70 period. 6 Although the test shows the estimates to

6 Meyer Zitter and David L. Word, U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Use of Administrative Records for Small Area Population Estimates," unpublished paper prepared for presentation at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, ,New Orleans, Louisiana, April 27, 1973.

5

be quite accurate (1.8 percent difference), the areas may not be assumed to be representative of the 39,000 units of govern ment covered by the Admi nistrative Records esti­mating system, and the time segment evaluated refers only to

a 2-year period. A more representative group of speci(11 censuses in 86

areas selected particularly for "valuation purposes was conducted in 1973. The areas were randomly chosen nationwide to be typical of areas with populations below 20,000 persons. Table C summarizes the average percent difference between the estimates from the Administrative Records method and counts from the 86 special censuses. Overall, the estimates differed from the special census counts by 5.9 percent, with the largest differences occurring in the smallest areas. Areas of between 1,000 and 20,000 popula-

Table B. Percent Difference Between Administrative Records Estimates and the Provisional FSCP Estimates for Counties: 1976

(Base is the provisional FSCP estimates for counties)

Average per (disregard

Item

--.

cent difference ing s:i.gn). 0 (l I) (I (I Q $ (I (I (t

Number of co equi valents

unties or 0000(101)000000(100(100

rences of: n 1 percent •••••••• ercentoooooeooooooo ercentoeooooooooooo percent~.oooooooooo

With diffe Less tha 1 to 3 p 3 to 5 p 5 to 10 10 perce nt and overoooooooo

--~~-..

All counties

2.5

3,143

906 1,338

504 327

68

Counties with 1»000 or more 1970 popUlation

50,000 25,000 10,000 1,000

Total to to to or more 50,000 25 p OOO 10 ,000

2.4 1.5 2.1 2.5 3.5

3,117 679 567 1,017 854

904 286 184 268 166 1,331 314 264 437 316

505 59 76 206 162 322 19 40 92 171 57 1 3 14 39

Counties with less than 1,000

1970 popUlation

10.1

26

2 7 1 5

11

Table C. Percent Difference Between Administrative Records Estimates (Unrevised) and 86 Special Censuses: 1973

All areas

1,000 to 20,000 Under 1,000 pop

Area

(86)2 ••••••••••••••

(59) (I I) " (I • tot Q 0 '" ••• (I (I 0

ulation (27) ••••••••

IDisregarding sign.

(Base is special census)

Average Number

percent differ- Under 3

ence l percent

5.9 32

4.6 26 8.6 6

2All areas have population under 20,000 persons.

of' areas with differences of:

10 3 to 5 5 to 10

percent percent percent

and over

18 20 16

13 14 6 5 6 10

6

tion differed by 4.6 percent, while the average difference for the 27 areas below 1,000 population was 8.6 percent. There was a slight positive dimctional bias, with about 60 percent of the estimates exceeding the census counts. Again, the impact of population size on the expected level of accuracy may be noted. Even though all of the an;)as in this study are

relatively small-less than 20,000 population-·the larger ones demonstrate much lower variation from census figures than the smaller ones.

The third evaluation involving census comparisons is currently underway, and is based upon the approximately 2,000 special censuses that have been conducted since 1970 at the request of localities throughout the United States. Such areas constitute a fairly stringent test for any method in that they are generally very small areas, often are experi· encing rapid population growth, and frequently are found to have had a vigorous program of annexation since the last census. This evaluation study has not been completed for use here, but will be included in detail as a part of the comprehensive methodology description in Current Popu­latron Reports, Series P·26, No. 699.

As a final caution, it must be noted that for convenience in presentation, the estimates contained in table 1 are shown in unrounded form. It is not intended, however, th at the figures be considered accurate to the last digit. The nature of estimates prompts the rounding of figures in related Bureau reports and must be kept in mind during the application of the estimates contained here.

Per capita income estimates. Similar types of analyses and evaluation are not available for the updated estimates of PCI. Income data and PCI for 1972 are available for the 86 areas in which special censuses were conducted for testing pur· poses. As noted, however, the areas in which the censuses were taken are relatively small. The PCI estimates are based upon .datafrom the 1970 census, which are subject to

sampling variability due to the size of the areas. Conse· quently, PCI did not change enough in the 1970-72 period in

most instances to fTlove outside of the relatively large range of sampling variability associated with the 1970 census results on income for small areas. Thus, it is not possible to obtain a reliable reading or even rough approximations on the accuracy of the change in PCI using the 86 areas as standards. The estimates were made available to persons working with economic statistics in each State for review prior to publication. Comments from this "local" review helped identify problem areas and input data errors.

Work has been initiated to evaluate 1975 State and county PCI esti mates using income data from the Survey of Income and Education (SI E). While this work can indicate major sources of error in the PCI estimates, an indepth eval uation will have to await the 1980 census results.

BELATED REPORTS

The population estimates shown in this series of reports update those found in Current Population Reports, Series P·25, Nos. 649 through 698 for 1975. The population estimates contained here for States are consistent with Series P-25, No. 727. The county estimates for 1976 are superior to the provisional 1976 figures published .earlier in Series P·25 and P-26 due to the addition of a second method, but will not be reported elsewhere in Curmnt Population Reports. The county population estimates are being replaced by subsequent final 1976 figures developed through the Federal-State Cooperative Program for Local Population Estimates.

DETAILED TABLE SYMBOLS

In the detailed table entries, a dash "-" represents zero or rounds to zero. Three dots " ... " mean not applicable.

Table 1. July 1, 1976 Population and Calendar Year 1975 Per Capita Income Estimates for the State, Counties, and Subcounty Areas

(FOR SUBCOUNTY AREAS WITH A 1970 CENSUS SAMPLE POPULATION LESS THAN 1.000. THE 1969 PER CAPITA INCOME FIGURE IS AN ESTIMATE AND NOT THE 1970 CENSUS FIGURE. FOR DETAILS. SEE TEXT. FOR MEANING OF SyMBOLS, SEE TEXT.)

7

POPULATION ESLJMATED PER CAPITA MONEy INCOME (DOLLARS)

.... - .. ---.--... -.. ----.- I---.. ------~-.. -.--.--... , .. - .. --.. -.. -.-

AREA CHANGE. APRIL 1. 1970 TO 1976

JULY 1. 1970 ---- -.. --.-.. - 'q

__ . ___ ... ______ ,_._ .. ____ , __ ._._ ... ___ .. ____ .... .. __ .. __ ._._._ .. _.1.~~+-.---(-C .. E, __ N._S.U .. S_l .. l--. __ ,. ___ !'.ll.MB£ R 1-. ____ P_E,R_C_E_N_T+ ___ ._l_9.7_ .. S_+.l_. R .. E. v .. '_ I 5 .. £ .. D .. >I.+ • __ _ 1969

STATE OF IDAHO ••••••••••

80lSf CITY' .................. . EMU' •••••••••••••••• •• •• ••• •• GARDEN CITy ••••••••••••••••••• KUNA •••••••••• " •••••••••••••• MUUDIAN 1 .................... .

ADAMS COUNTy ••••••••••••••

COUNCIL ...................... • NEW ~EADOWS •••••••••••••••••••

PANNOCK CQUNTY ••••••••••••

A~JMO ........................ . CHUBRUCK •••••••••••••••••••••• DOWNEy •••••••••••••••••••••••• INKOM ........................ . LAVA HOT SPkINGS ............. . r1CCAMMON •••••••••••••••••••••• POCATELLO ' ••••••••••••••••••••

REAN LAK~ COUNTy ••••••••••

~LOOM!NGTON ••••••••••••••••••• GEORGETOWN •••••••••••••••••••• MONTPELIER •••••••••••••••••••• PARIS ........................ . ST. CHARLES •••••••••••••••••••

RENEWAH COUNTy ••••••••••••

CHATCOLET ••••••••••••••••••••• PLUMi>1ER ...................... . ST. MARIE.S .................. . TENSED ....................... .

BINGHAM COUNTy ••••••••••••

ABERDEEN ••••••••••••••••• " ••• ATOMIC CITy ................. " 8ASALT •••••••••••••••••••••••• bLACKFOOT 1 ••••••••••••••••••••

FIRTH ........................ . SHELLEY •••••••••••••••••••••••

ALAINE COUNTy ............ .

BELLEVUE •••••••••••••••••••••• HAIL'y ....................... . ~ETCHUM ••••••••••••••••••••••• SLJ~I VALLEy ................... .

ROISE COUNTy ••••••••••••••

C/{OUCH •••••••••••••••••••••••• HOF~SESHO[ BEND •••••••••••••••• IDAHO CITy •••••••••••••••••••• PLACERVILLE •••••••••••••••••••

BONNER COUNTy •••••••••••••

CLARK FORK •••••••••••••••••••• EAST HOPE ••••••••••••••••••••• HOPE •••••••••••••••••••••••••• KOOTENAI. ................... .. OLDTOWN ...................... . PONDERAy •••••••••••••••••••••• PRIEST RIVER •• ~ ••••••••••••••• SANDPOINT •••••••••••••••••••••

BONNEVILLE COUNTy •••••••••

AMMON ••••••••••••••••••••••••• IDAHO FALLS •••••••••••••••••••

SEE FOOTNOTE AT END OF TABLE.

R33 067

139 7811

102 915 1 .340 3 466 1 26? 5 43'(

964 615

58 749

?BB 352 59~)

786 610 B]~

45 206

6 641

18,3 b22 052 619 20e

7 277

80 635

2 872 189

33 145

661 20

349 670 36a

3 169

359

R71 1 683 2. ?'Il

,71

2. 272

89 75R ~39

13

19 749

466 197

97 l54 2'17 3'17 ~)93

651

59 ,063

3 757 37 2811

713 015

112 230

84 521 359

2 368 593

? 793

? 877

899 605

52 200

252 2 9?4

586 522 516 023

III 374

5 801

186 421 60ll 615

200 I 6 230

95 443

? 571 151

29 167

542 24

349 9 471

362 614

537 425 '154 180

763

71 511 164

1'1

15 560

367 175

6.1 16e 161 275

1 q93 4 I'l'!

52 '+57

2 545 35 776

120 052

27 5511

1A 39q 981 098 669 6ql

246

65 10

6 549

36 '128

9 26/j

9q 21? 632

-3 101 'Ilia

4 a

047

-15 192 3{)1

38

'I 178

119 -4

19Q 6

575

610

33'1 258 787 191

4 189

99 22 3'1 16 86 72

100 -'193

6 806

212 I 508

16.8

2q,6

21.8 27.3.3

46.4 112.8

94.6

8.6

7,2 1.7

12.5

14,3 83.0

1.5 50.6 18.2 34.0

9.3

14,5

-1.6 24.0 17,2

0.7 q,O

16.8

-15,8 43.3 11.7 25.2

1q.3

7.7 -lb.7

2.1 1,7

22.0

45.q

62,2 18.1 54.1

106.1

28.9

25.4 'Ia,3 45.7 -7.1

26.9

27.0 12.6 54,0 9.5

53.'1 26.2

6.7 -11.9

13.0

'17.6 Q.2

4417

5 205

5 437 5 67? 4 08') 3 861 4 922

q 319

) 700 4 15LI !

4 592

4 '1'111 4 221 4 652 4 661 'I 853 '3 697 II 69()

4 006

'3 226 4 'I'll 'I 434 '3 7'15 3 623

4 649

4 376 4 353 5 150 4 573

4 000

'3 900 4 198 '3 711 4 715 4 015 '3 539

5 409

'3 292 'I 373 6 644 7 629

7'17

3 98e, '3 '190 3 '174 [ 3 483

'3 847

3 513 4 350 3 911 3 6n '3 837 '3 193 3 5'16 .3 793

4 7781 3 503 5 270

4 2?9

11 771

982 5 O?O 3 740 :l 5 u O ' 4.3'72

4 la5

190

11 070 3 3721 4 033 4 2'10 q 441 3 329 'I 295

736 [

3 061 4 017 11 300 3 465 3 437

4 224 4 256 4 952 q 414

Q 114 11 259 3 766 4 749 4 074 3 761i

322

3 26~ 4 270 6 615 7 596

3 936 3 BliO 3 52.3 I

3 'Uri I 3 6~2

3 297 4 121 3 705 3 1184 3 6_35 I

3 0251 3 Q30 3 56;1

337 978

3 n? 3 064 2 31 9 2. 161 2, li9A

2. 732

2. 6n

2 336 2. 510 2. 389 2 478 2 368 1 917 2 659

2 282

1 852 2 202 2 655 2 075 2 08i)

2 753

2 629 2. 541 3 104 2 748

2 326 2 332 2 062 2 940 2. 231 2 244

2 318 2 559 lj 342 Q 911

2. 370

'179 2. 306 2 219 2 165

2 115 2 692 2 420 2 276 2 374 1 976 2 354 2 51 q

2 14b 3 121

PERCENT CHANGE, 1969 TO

1975

67,1

66,0

66,2 (l5,1. 76,2 78,'1 69 11 8

58.1

71.9

90,2 68,2 9'1,7 B8,!

104,~ 92,~

76.7

H,2 101.7 67,0 80.~ 7Q.2

68,9

66." 71.3 65.9 66.~

66.Q

67.7 BO.O 80.0 60.0 (\0,0 57.'1

61.5

42.0 70.9 53,0 55.3

60,9 51.3 %,10 60,9

57.1

66.1 61,6 61.6 61.6 61.6 61,() ,)Os:o 50,,9

(d,9

63.1 68,9

8 Table 1. July 1, 1976 Population and Calendar Year 1975 Per Capita Income Estimates for the State,

Counties, and Subcounty Areas-Continued (FOR SUBCOUNTY AREAS WITH A 1970 CENSUS SAMPLE POPULATION LESS THAN 1,000. THE 1969 PER CAPITA INCOME FIGURE IS AN ESTIMATE AND NOT THE 1970 CENSUS FIGURE. FOR DETAILS. SEE TEXT. FOR MEANING OF SYMBOLS. SEE TEXT.)

POPUU\T!ON ESTIMATED PER CAPITA MONEy INCOME (DOLLARS)

MEA

IONA ......................... . IRWiN ••••••••••••••••••••••••• RIRIE (PART) ••••••••••••••••• SIAN VALLEy ••••••••••••••••••• UCON ••••••••••••••••••••••••••

BOUNDARY COUNTy •••••••••••

RONNERS FERRy •••••••••••• , •••• MOYIE SPRINGS •••••••••••••••••

BUTTE COUNTy ••••••••••••••

AiICO •••••••••••••••••••••••••• BUTTE CITy •••••••••••••••••••• MOORE •••••••••••••••••••••••••

CAMAS COUNTy ••••••••••••••

FAIRFIELD •••••••••••••••••••••

CANYON COUNTy •••••••••••••

CALD.ELL •••••••••••••••••••••• GKEENLEAF ••••••••••••••••••••• MELBA ••••••••••••••••••••••••• MIDDLETON ••••••••••••••••••••• NA~PA ••••••••••••••••••••••••• NOTus ••••••• ~ ••••••••••••••••• PARMA ••••••••••••••••••••••••• WILDER1 •••••••••••••••••••••••

CARIBOU COUNTy ••••••••••••

8ANCPOFT •••••••••••••••••••••• GRACE ••••••••••••••••••••••••• SOOA SPRINGS ••••••••••••••••••

CASSIA COUNTy •••••••••••••

ALAION •••••••••••••••••••••••• BURLEY (PART) ••••••••••••••••• DECLO ........................ . f'ALTA ........................ . OAKLEY ••••••••••••••••••••••••

CLARK COUNTy ••••••••••••••

DU80IS ....................... . SPENCER •••••••••••••••••••••••

CLEARWATER COUNTy •••••••••

ELK RIVER ................... .. OHOFINO ..................... .. PIERCE ....................... . ~EIPPE ....................... .

CUST"R cOUNTy •••••••••••••

CHALLIS ...................... . CLAyTON ••••••••••••••••••••••• LOST RIVER ................... . MACKAy •••••••••••••••••••••••• STANLEy •••••••••••••••••••••••

ELMORE COUNTy •••••••••••••

GLENNS FER~Y •••••••••••••••••• ~OUNTAIN HOME •••••••••••••••••

FRANKLIN COUtHY •••••••••••

CLIFTON ...................... . DAYTOI" ....................... . FRANKLIN •••••••••••••••••••••• OXFORD ••••••••••••••••••••••••

SeE FOOTNOTE AT (NO OF TABLE.

JULY 1, 1976

6 532

2 020 219

170

1 3119 68

1.66

859

412

73 565

15 472 464 240

1 416 24 576

360 812 757

8 027

46H I 168 .3 925

18 A35

2.94 8 595

252 222 1>34

979

111R 37

312 3 153 1 13H

7 115

307

OO') 3" 41

60? 64

20 1'10

1 02 l f 7 273

,q ?3B

1.92 2.30 1J50

61

APR1L 1, 1970

(CENSUS)

890 228 '47

235 664

909 203

2 925

244 42

156

728

336

61 2il8

111 219 323 197 739

20 768 .304 228 748

366 826

2 977

17 017

229 8 079

251 196 656

1(J fJ71

383 3 8~3 1 218

713

;.> 967

7R4 36 '10

539 117

1.7 479

31J6 ~ 451

373

137 198 402

75

CHANGE, lno TO 1976

NUMBER

156 ~133

-6 -27 182

048

111 16

131

76

12 277

253 141

43 677 808

56 584

9

493

102 342 9118

&18

65 516

1 26

178

238

liB -A

-1 247

-71 -730 -nO

32

JIlO

225 -2

1 be 17

2 670

U~ 822

86')

PERCENT

17.5 -58.3 -12.8 -11.5

27.'1

19.1

5.8 7.9

8.'1

8.'1 61.9 6.'1

18.0

22.6

20.0

8.8 43.7 21.8 91.6 18.3 18. 'I 47.6 1.2

22.8

2'/ .9 41. 4 31.8

10.7

28.4 6.'1 0.4

13.3 27 .1

32.1

29. :; -17.8

-11.5

-18.5 -18.8 ·'6,6

1,.5

11.5

2M. "7 -0.6 2.5

12.6 .36.2

10.0 12.7

11.7

40.1 16.2 11.9

-18.7

1975

3 700 3 934 11 836 3 93<; 3 503

3 940

11 233 Il 560

814

11 162 3 635 3 671

602

.3 039

11 139

4 238 4 055 3 397 3477 3 869 3 664 3 393 2 831

767

Oll8

4 242 Il 325 3 194 3 570 3 783

523

11 527

J 165 5 052

265 80q

3 643

,. 029 3 537 3 5011 3 86" 11 177

8')0

3 883 11 320

2 540 2 2119 3 232 1 781

1974 (llEVISED)

3 '148 3 593 q 416 3 594 3 201

3 931

4 19'1 4 522

779

4 241 3 749 3 786

537

3 381

3 987

3 990 4 094 3 402 3 '17'1 3 643 3 389 3 32!) 2 828

4 .,50

Il 330 3 98~ 5 250

318

4 248 4 337 3 202 3 579 3 85"

Il 300

2 920 I] 713 4 110 3 557

370M 3 196 3 166 3 3fJ? 3 77'1

3 66:5

3 746 3 997

3 115

2 396 2 122 3 205 1 680

1969

2 217 2 326 2 859 2 32.6 2 122

478

2 587 2 673

408

2 659 2 339 2 361

2 483

2 693 2 572 2 137 2 126 2 354 2 128 2 152 1 772

489

2 426 2 232 2 785

358

2 701 2 597 1 899 2 123 2 155

391

2 H3 2 856

934

2 281 3 180 2 764 2 47 '\

308

2 621 2 212 2 191 2 588 2 612

2 307

661 611

PERCENT CHANGE. 1969 TO

1975

66.9 69.1 69.2 69.2 65.1

59.0

63.6 70.6

58.4

56.5 55.4 55.5

45.7

39.8

66.7

57.4 57.7 59.0 63.5 64.4 72.2 57.7 59.8

91.5

82.7 80.9 96.6

71.7

57.1 66.5 68.2 68.2 75.:>

47.J

34.4 47.0

54.3

38.d 58.9, 5'1.3 54.0

53,7 59.9 59.<) 49.4 59.9

66.9

45.9 65.5

72.5

70.6 70.5 63.4 70.6

Table 1. July 1, 1976 Population and Calendar Year 1975 Per Capita Income Estimates for the State, Counties and Subcounty Areas-Continued

(FOR SUBCOUNTY AREAS WITH A 1970 CENSUS SAMPLE POPULATION LESS THAN 1.000, THE 1969 PER CAPITA INCOME FOR DETAILS, SEE TEXT. FOR MEAN II~G OF SyMBOLS, SEE TEXT.)

AND NOT THE 1.970 CENSUS FIGURE.

9

_____ ._I_S_AN_E~.:r.!.~!..!E .

POPULA Tl ON ESTIMAT,D PER CAPITA MONEy INCOME

AHEA

-,

PI<ESTON .................... . .. \\[STON •••••••••••••••••••••• .,

FKf~()NT COUNTY •••••••••• .. ASHTON ..................... , .. [)RUM~OND •••••••••••••••••••• .. ISLAND PARK ................ . .. NE~DALE •••••••••••••••••• ••• .. PARKFR ..................... . ., ST. ANTHONy ••••••••••••••••• .. TETON •••••••••••••••• , ••••••• .. WARM RIVER ................. . ..

GEM rOUIHy •••••••••••••• .. EMMETT •••••••••••••••••••••••

GOODING COIIIHY •••••••••••

eLlSS ....................... . GOODING ............................ . HAGERMAN ••••••••••••••••••••• V,ENDELL •••• , •••••••••••••••••

IOAHO COUNTy •••••••••••••

COTTON'·OOD ••••••••••••••••••• Ft::RllINANO ................... . G~ANGEVILLE •••••••••••••••••• KOOSKIA ..................... . PIGGINS .... , ............... '" S] ITES ...................... . t~rpD, .............. e ......... t ............... ..

JEFFERSON COUNTy •••••••••

KAMER ....................... . L~'VISVILLE ................ '" ME~AN ••• B ••••••••••••••••• ~ ••

~iUD LAKE ••••••••••••••••••••• ~,IGBY ..................... '" RrRIF (PART) ............... . RO"EPTS •••••• , •••••••••••••••

JEROME COUNTy ••••••••••••

EDEN ........................ . HAZELTON .................... . JEROME ••••• , ••••••• , •••••••••

K00TENAI COUNTy ......... .

ATHOL •••••••••••••••••••••• • • COEUR n, ALE~E ............... . DAL. TON GARDENS .............. . FERNAN LAKE •••••••••••••••••• HAPRISON .................... . hAlJSEK LAKE ................. . PAYDEN •••••••••••••••••••••••• HAYDEN LAKE ................. .

HUETTER ...................... . POST FAL.LS ................... . oATHDRlIM ..................... . 5P1RlT LAKE .................. . ~TPTE LINE .................. .. ~·)i{LEY ....................... .

LATAH COUI'ITY ............. .

HOvIlL ................. • ... ••• DEARY ........................ . GENESEF ••••••••••••••••••••••• JULIAETP .................... . KO'DRICK ..................... . t-'i()SCOVl ............ ., .. " ................. "" • .. O"iP'IAY ....................... . P'JTLATCH ..................... , TKOy ......................... .

------_.

JULY 1, 1976

.. ""--"'--- -------,---------

3 632 295

H> ~23

1 371 14

169 280 321

3 .\82 510

11

10 72fi

" 015

10 767

140 2 Q50

'j25 1 t.wn

12 902

1l6'i De

3 '127 773 ~)93

210 l89

13 (-.::>5

'N "8,9 AOS 263

? 948 ~R6

til?

13 fUO

38 1f ~)60

~ ,,99

47 274

464 1 e 194

2 ()9!l

229 '320 "95

! 1 i:i7 '~H~

~:i .J 4 'i1J2 1 ('l~f

P06 27

304

27 155

·~bl

"54 74~ IPHj.

439 15 ?60

16Q RJ9 ,104

APRIL 1, 1970

(CENSUS) ------

3 310 230

8 710

1 187 13

136 267 266

2 877 390

10

9 387

3 9'15

Ij 645

114 ? 599

436 1 122

12 891

867 157

3 636 d09 533 263 185

11 740

81 468 5'15 194

2 32'. 528 393

10 253

3113 396

4 1113

35 332

190 16 22e

1 559 179 249 349

1 285 260

49 2 371

741 622

<2 235

;>q 898

350 411 619 423 426

14 146 166 871 541

CHANGE, 1970 TO 1976

1--' ._-----NUMr;E~ PERCENT

(-----,--~ --_._---

322 9.7 65 28.3

1 513 .1.7&4

184 15,5 1 7,7

33 2'1,3 13, '1,9 55 20,7

305 10.6 120 30.8

1 10.0

1 ,341 14.3

70 1.8

2 122 24.5

26 22.8 351 13.5

09 20.4 278 24.8

11 0.1

2 0.2 -19 -12.1

-209 -5.7 -36 -4.4

60 11.3 -53 -20.2

4 2.2

1 915 16.3

lR 22.2 20 '+.3 60 11.0 69 35.6

624 26.9 58 11.0 2'+ 6.1

~ ~77 34.9

41 12.0 164 41.4

1 716 ~1.0

11 942 33.8

274 144.2 1 966 12.1

539 34.6 50 27.9 71 21l.5

146 41.8 532 41,4

115 3'<'.7

4 0.2 2 031 85.7

274 37.0 1 (lq 29.6

5 22.7 74 31.5

2 257 9.1

11 3.1 23 5.6

126 20.4 61 14.4 13 3.1

1 114 7.9 3 1.8

-32 -3.7 26.3 48.6

(DOLLARS) --~'

, PERCENT CHANGE.

197'1 1969 TO 197') (PEVISED) 1969 1975

--~------- ~-"-~.-------~-... ~ -.- -- --,---,--,-f-------

_3 512 3 277 2 151 63.3 3 995 3 769 2 3'12 70.6

If 023 4 25<; 2 35" 70,9

4 944 5 243 2 717 82,0 4 350 " 879 2 455 77.2 5 15'1 5 781 2 907 77.3 3 9\;4 'I 480 " 253 77.3 3 214 3 605 1 813 77.3

" 440 Ij 276 2 570 n.l!

t.t 216 'I 709 2 353 79.2 I( 0211 't 5W 2 272 77,3

3 75'1 ,) 5481

2 286 64.2

3 751 3 564 2 320 61.7

" 40'1 4 195 2 51 8 H,~

4 26? " 005

1

2 388 78.5 4 811 4 51S1 2 830 70.0 3 67~ 3 56d 2 1(3 73.9 4 037 3 732 2 216 82,2

4 117 'I 359 2 52'+ 63.1

4 140 4 306

1

2 286 31.1 4 018 4 003 2 377 69,0 4 990 5 252 _ 3 0)6 64.'1 2 961 2 88'+ 1 905 55.4 3 752 3 564 2 lf53 53.0 3 480 3 407 2 059 69.0 3 630 3 616 2 1'17 69.1

3 679 3 873 2 107 74.6

5 50e 5 6'+0 3 35 5 64.2 3 366 3 816 2 153 56,3 'I 096 4 332 2 '+20 69.5 5 371 5 500 3 272 6'1.2

" 296 4 207 2 339 83.7 3 120 3 481 2 205 ~1.~

2 874 3 212 1 9)1 50.11

3 892 3 983 2 166 79.7

2 953 3 095 1 BOR 63.3 3 413 3 358 1 999 70,7 3 815 3 769 2 353 62,1

4 340 4 101 2 70 5 60.4

2 871\ 2 582 1 699 69.4 4 624 4 28'1 2 830 63. '! 4 335 4 205 2 80 9 54.3 4 550 4 378 2 880 58.0 4 126 3 970 2 612 58,0 4 612 4 43K 2 920 57.V 3 81R ,3 699 2 466 54 Q d

5 '176 5 270 3 467 57.9

3 488 3 357 2 206 58,0 3 637 3 525 2 382 52.7 3 595 3 ~O6 2 257 59.3 3 181 3 O'l? 2 100 51.6 2 QUo 2 000 1 ~19 5'7.9 3 823 3 6fll 2 31 6 65.1

q l·f3? 4 378 2 650 67,2

4 443 4 173 2 bll'! 65.5 4 334 4 101 2 'is? 76.4 4 090 4 693 2 53B 61.2 3 546 3 32(1 1 928 83.9 3 9'16 4 265 2 339 68,7 4 353 4 111 2 713 60.4 3 823 3 918 2 193 74,3 4 184 3 969 2 396 74.6 3 812 4 219 2 347 62.4

10 Table 1. July 1. 1976 Population and Calendar Year 1975 Per Capita Income Estimates for the State,

Counties. and Subcounty Areas-Continued (FOR SlIBCOUNTY AREAS WITH A 1970 CENSUS SAMPLE POPULATION LESS THAN 1,000, THE 1969 PER CAPITA INCOME FIGuRE IS AN ESTIMATE AND NOT THE '970 CENSUS FIGURE. FOR DETAILS. SEE TlXT. FOR MEANING OF SyMBOLS, SEE TEXT.)

POPULATION ESTIMATED PER CArIT~ MONEy INCOME (DOLL,v.S)

AHf.A

----------

LE~HI COUNTy., ••••••••••••

LEADORE •••••••••••••• • •• ,···· • SALMON ••••••••••••••••••••••••

LEWIS ~OilNTY ••••••••••••••

CIU, IGMONT .................... . KAM! AH •••••••••••••••••••••••• NEZPERCE ..................... . REUBENS ...................... . PINCHESTER ••••••••••••••••••••

LINCOLN COUNTy ••••••••••••

DIETPICH ..................... . hICHFIELD .................... . SHOSHONE ••••••••••••••••••••••

MAllIsON COI)~ITY ........... .

KEXBURG ...................... . ~lthAR ..... " .. " ....... "" .......... q .. _ .... ..

~INIDOKA COUNTy •••••••••••

AC!':QUIA ...................... . :,URLEY (PAHTl ................ . HEYBLJR' ••••••••••••••••••••••• ~'INI~OKA ..................... . PAUL""" .... ~ .". """ " ......... " ......... "" HUPt::RT~G" •• ~ ....... I •••••••• o ••

NFl PEHCf COUNTy ••••••••••

C'JLDE,AC •••••••••••••••••••••• LAPWAI. ............ , •••••••••• LEWISTON ..................... . PECK ......................... .

ONFIDA COU~TY •••••••••••••

i"IALAf) C j TY ••••••••••.•••••••••

O#YHEE COUNTy •••••••••••••

G~AND VIEW •••••••••••••••••••• H()I~E()ALE. .................... . '''1RSING ...................... .

PAYETTE COUNTy ••••••••••••

FI'UlTLANO .................... . N~r PLyMOUTH •••••••••••••••••• PAyETTE •••••••••••••••••••••••

POWER COUNTy ••••••••••••••

AMERICA~ FALLS •••••••••••••••• I{OCI<LAND ••• , ••••••••••••••••••

SHOSHONE COUNTy •••••••••••

Kt:LLO(;(1. so ........ 8 .... ~ • ~ • ~ • ~ .. ~ ~ e

MULLAN •••••••••••••••••••••••• OS'lURN ........... ; •••••••••••• F) I NEf"-lUHS l & e ............... Q .. ~ .... e .... ~ ~~~LTEpVILLE •••••••••••••••••• r, ~LLACE ••••.•••••••••• '" ••••• I/~ ARDNEP ... ~ ....... Q ..................... , .. ..

!)r~ I GGS ... " • ~ ......... " a • .... ~ 5 4 ........ .

JUL Y 1. 1976

6 476

:3 30~

76 .~37 157

17 912

10 77:3 797

18 042

UP 201

? 470 14'J

1 032 ., 307

30 664

20, 908

;>/\ 377 ?82

2 04'i

7 7~6

2 156 1 23b ~ ~5'j

iii 900

3 1,05 1 170 ? 126 2 1.2P.

,<39 A2':i ItOI

APRIL 1. 1970

(CENSUS)

5 566

111 2 910

3 8107,

m\ ;~~ ,

81 274

057

H4 290 233

13 452

B 272 617

15 731

107 200 637 131 911

4 563

30 376

211 400

26 068 2311

260 ~1l 610

12 401

1 576 9R6

4 021

2 769 2rJ9

19 718

all 279 248 996 967

? 206 492

2 351

727 176 21J,1

CHAI,GE, 1970 TO 1976

910

31 318

641

1~8

236 111

? -17

245

-8 47

-76

1\ 460

2 501 180

2 711

't I 63:1 !

18 121 74'1

382

197

3M

86 27? 17'1

476

580 ?52 834

67'1

6()5 -1"

-812

-20i> -iot) -122

132 -128 -3Ul

-91

16.3

27 .9 10.9 i

16.61

26,7 18.1 20.0

2.5 -6.2

8.0

-9.5 16.2 -6.2

33.2

30.2 29.2_

17 .2

'+.7 0&5

50.9 13.7 13._3 16.3

0.9

-4.7 127.0

1.2 IB.S

13.3

21.?

3_3.1 19.3 ?b_5

20.0

36.1J 25.6 lH.'l

-:J.4 -h~5 -:>,4

b.b -13.2 -]7 .3 -le~5

\'0.1

2d. ,! 3;1.0

0,IJ

197~

------ ---- ----- --,--------PERCEfiT CHANGE.

1975 (REVISED) ___ _ 1969 1969 TO

1975

4 016

211 712

5 014

1\ 557 II 403 5 584 5 156 3 89"

I 3 721 I 3 637 3 ~"1 4 -l50

755

3 311 617

3 799

3 021 3 451 3 187 2 e6B 3 39B 3 761 I

4 8571 3 925 3 839 ~ 847 lj 202

596

2 878

190 694 769

879

3 9'jP 3 Ill7 3 870

919 q96

~ 122 4 011

370 097

-.I 780

o 'i'~:) 2. 53(\

llA

669

3 100 3 553

6 084

5 553 5 145 7 08~ 6 022 'I 5'16

3 H'I 2 983 3 712

814

3 307 3 390

968 3 390 2 986 2 8\7

494 3 757

4 735

3 804 3 721 4672

4 0731

3 '155

941

3 32'5 -2 837 4 16'+

729

3 625 3 362 3 655

')21

It 07~

4 512

~ I;~ 3627 3 991 ~ 696 3 37()

.5 An I ; ml

3 370

2 OI~O 2 350

154

2 795 3 001 3 499 3 233 2 'H12

109

1 962 1 862 2 %0

2 191 i

1 9991 2 055-

2 254

1 989 2 272 2 118 1 888 2 270 2 399

2 322 2 271 2 872 2 486

22'1

789

2 987 2 402 3 097 2 486 2 675 3 22'1 2 306

63.0

57.4 58,0

59.0

63.0 46.7 59.0 59.5 '39.5

76.5

85.4 85.3 76.8

65.6 76.0

68.5

51.9 51.9 50.5 51.9 49.7 '16.d

69,7

69.0 69.0 68.d 69.0

60.3

66.1 57.9 b7,"

65.6

69.~ 72.} 55.6

65.1 Ill.9

61. 'I

64.7 66.~ 65. 1+ 61.3 63,0 'l8.1 63.'1

68.6

Table 1. July 1, 1976 Population and Calendar Year 1975 Per Capita Income Estimates for the State, Counties, and Subcounty Areas-Continued

(FOR SUBCOLINTY APEA,S WITH A 197(1 CENSUS SAMPLE POPULATION LESS THM' 1,000, THE 1969 PER CAPITA INCOME FIGURE IS AN ESTIMATE AND NOT THE 1970 CENSUS FIGURE. FOR DETAILS. SEE TEXT. FOR HEA~ING OF SyMBOLS, SEE TEXT.I

11

POPULATIO~ ESTI~ATED PER CAPITA MONEY INCOME (DOLLARS)

1-----------,-------,------------------+------,---------- --------AHEA

TWIN FAllS COU~TY •••••••••

8tH-1L .. ~ ~ .. ., ~ ~ .. ~ .. 0 .. ~ ~ ~ .. ~ # ~ ft ~ ~ ~ " & •

C,ASTLEFOHD .................. .. FILER ...................... '" I~A~\~SEN ........ e _ .... " ........ ~ ..... f> ~ ~ ~ f-lOlLlSTER ••••••••• , ••••• "."" •• KIMBERLy ••••••••••••. " •••••••• t~ILJl-{ T A UGH" ...... " .. ~ ... ~ II ... * • t & • ~ a ~ ..

TWIN F~LLS ••••••••••• " ••••••••

VAlL~Y COUNTy •••••••••••••

CASCADE •••••••• " •••••• " ., ••• " DONNeL.lY .......... , .......... .

WI J5~

3 22"i I

?27 \ 316

778 -93 ~

1 972 1lf9

~.3 769

l.j 46.1

APRIL 1. 1970

(CENSUS)

'11 Iln7

2 975 174

1 IV IH5

57 1 5~7

124 21 914

J 609

CHANGE, 1970 TO __ 1_9_7_6 __ -1

-~;;::;8E~ __ PERCENT

5 "4f 1 13.3

250 I d.4 53 30.5

11~31 12.2 3631 R7.5

36 63.2 41~ 2h.7

25 20.2 1 655 I 8.5

8')21

l) 031 I, UO i 2 320 .3 878 1/ 0321 2 262 .3 959 4 11 () , 2 472

~ ~~~ I ~ m I- ~ m 3 878 q 086 2 287 3724

1 38711 2172 q 865 4 735 2 786

4 7171 q 444/ 2 896 23.6

1974 1975 (QEVISEO) 1969

'I 715! 'I 642 2 628

l;§ I 408

41'531 42121 28761 5 297 4 979/ 3 338

WASHINGTON COUNTY......... H ',(IP 7 633 875 11.5: ::: I : ~~: I : ~:: C~,M8'nDGE ........ "'........... 453 383 70 18.3 34061 32471 Z084

91i5 149

? ,166 f·-CCALL •••• , ••• " •••••••••• , •••

15,8 30,7 23.2

HlilVALE ........... ""........ '>54 176 278 158.0 2 645 2 523 1 549

_,_'~_,;_:_;_;_:_ "_: ~_:,~_. ; __ '_. __ :_o_~_;_;_;_._ '_: ~_._ . __ , ___ ~_~_._._._ . .1. __________ 1'_6_2_°_'--______ : __ 5_: __ ;_;,--'-_________ :_;_;-L _____ 1_;_:_;..L ___ :_;::1_; ;;; L~ ;:; 11970 CENSUS rIGURe INCUmC5 .1970 CeNSUS POPIJLATION RLSIDING IN I\j~[AS ANNLxcn THROUGH DeCEMBeR 31. 1976 ..

PERCH'T CHANGE, 1969 TO

1975

76.0

73.7 71, 1/ 60.2 71.2 71,4 69.6 71.~ 711.6

62.9

5'1.8 58,7 57,8

60.9

63.4 70,8 69.7

66.3 43.1

Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402

Official Business

FIRST-CLASS MAIL POSTAGE & FEES PAID

CENSUS PERMIT No. G-58

1976 Population and 1975 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties, Incorporated Places, and Selected Minor Civil Divisions

(Reports may not be published in numerical order)

No. 740 Alabama No. 741 Alaska No. 742 Arizona No. 743 Arkansas No. 744 California No. 745 Colorado No. 746 Connecticut No. 747 Delaware No. 748 Florida No. 749 Georgia No. 750 Hawaii No. 751 Idaho No. 752 Illinois No. 753 Indiana No. 754 Iowa No. 755 Kansas No. 756 Kentucky No. 757 Louisiana No. 758 Maine No. 759 Maryland No. 760 Massachusetts No. 761 Michigan No. 762 Minnesota No. 763 Mississippi No. 764 Missouri

No. 765 Montana No. 766 Nebraska No. 767 Nevada No. 768 New Hampshire No. 769 New Jersey No. 770 New Mexico No. 771 New York No. 772 North Carolina No. 773 North Dakota No. 774 Ohio No. 775 Oklahoma No. 776 Oregon No. 777 Pennsylvania No. 778 Rhode Island No. 779 South Carolina No. 780 South Dakota No. 781 Tennessee No. 782 Texas No. 783 Utah No. 784 Vermont No. 785 Virginia No. 786 Washington No. 787 West Virginia No. 788 Wisconsin No. 789 Wyoming