The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAPA370SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES SUST ASK i '.u5; SOCIOECONOi\ti!C .~N#o\l YSIS PHASE I REPORT A~R!L, 19'32 Teue1hial Environ mental Speciali1tl, Inc • .....__ __ ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY __ ____.. ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Environmental Studies Final ·Report Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis by Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. for Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. and Acres American, Inc. April, 1982 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors of this report wish to express appreciation to the many people who contributed to its content;especially,officials of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Departments of Finance,Land Management and Planning;the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District,and all local officials of the incorporated cities of Palmer,Wasilla and Houston;Greg Huff and Neil Fried,Alaska Department of Labor;Mike Jens,Frank Moolin & Associ ates,Inc.;Wi 11 i am Renaul d,Morri son-Knudson Co.,Inc.;and Scott Gol dsmith,Institute of Soci a1 and Economi c Research.Other persons \\tIo were contacted for thi s project and deserve recognition are 1i sted in Section 8 of this report. In addition,special thanks is given to Paul Hartsock,David Davies and I rene Gendron WlO served as Associ ates and provi ded assi stance duri ng the early phases of the project.William Workman and Bradford Tuck,subcon- s ultants,are also gratefully acknowl edged for thei r cont rtbuti ons.Or. Workman assisted with project planning during the early phases and Or.Tuck helped develop employment multipliers. The authors also wish to express appreciation to Robert Anderson and Vincent Lucid of Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.for their review and coordination assistance throughout the project. The contributions of these and all others \\tIo aided in the preparation of this report are gratefully acknowledged. - FRANK ORTH & ASSOCIATES,INC. Peter Rogers,Project Manager Frank Orth,Project Advisor and Manager Ron Reisner,Senior Associate Madelaine Jacobs Laurello,Associate Economist Andrew Woolford,Research Associate Robin Hill,Research Associate Shirley Ashenbrenner,Production Coordinator Teri Schafer,Word Processing (i i i) (iv) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- TABLE OF CONTENTS • LIST OF TABLES. LIST OF FIGURES • SUMMARY • • • • • 1 -INTRODUCTION.• ... . . . . . .. PAGE (v) (i x) (xxi) (xxiii) 1-1 3 -IDENTIFICATION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT AREA • 3.1 -Local Impact Areas 1-2 •••••••• 3.2 -Regional -Impact Area 3 ••••• 3.3 -State-Impact Area 4 ••••• 2.1 -Introduction ••••••••••••••••• 2.2 -Work Camp/Village Set Up and Worker Commuting Patterns •••••••••••••• 2.3 -On-Site Manpower Requirements and Payroll 2.4 -Worker Expenditure Patterns ••••••••••• 2.5 -Purchases of Materials,Services and Equipment •• 2 -DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT •• (a)Volume ••••••• (b)Source of Supply. (c)Transportation ••• . ... . ...... . . ........ . ... 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-3 2-3 2-6 2-6 2-7 2-7 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 4.1 -Local Impact Areas 1 and 2. 4 -BASELINE DESCRIPTION AND BASELINE FORECASTS, BY IMPACT AREA.• • • • • • • • • • • • • - -- / (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i ) Population •••••• Housing •••••••••••••• Government Organization and Fiscal Characteri sti cs •••••••• Public Facilities and Services ••••• Economic Base •••••••• Employment •••••••••• Income • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •••• Land Use ••••••••••••••••••••• Fish/Wildlife and Water Recreation Use Patterns •• (v) 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-8 4-17 4-76 4-124 4-136 4-141 4-143 4-148 - - -PAGE 6-94 6-96 6-97 6-98 6-98 6-101 6-105 6-108 6-112 .... ... . ... Population Housing ••••••••••• Public Facilities and Services ••••• Employment ••••• Personal Income •••••••••••• Business Activity ••••• Fiscal (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 6.4 -Impact Area 4 •• 6.3 -Impact Area 3 •- 7 -LIST OF LITERATURE. - (a) (b) (c) Population. Employment. Personal Income. .. 6-112 6-112 6-115 7-1 8 AUTHORITIES CONTACTED 8-1 . ... . . . -9 -COPIES OF LETTERS RECEIVED •• 10 -METHODOLOGIES •• 9-1 10-1 10.1 -Overvi eWe • • • • •· . . . . . . 10-1 10.2 -Baseline Forecasts.· . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2 ·... . . . . ... . · . . . . 10-2 10-6 10-7 10-7 10-20 10-33·. ·...·..... . .... ·. ·.Employment. Population. Housing.• • ••• Facilities and Services. Fiscal • • • • • • • • (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 10.3 -Impact Forecasts ••-(a)Employment ·.·········. (b)Population ·············(c)Income .··..················. (d)Housi ng.······ ···(e)Facilities and Services.······ ··(f)Fiscal .·.····· ······· 10-33 10-35 10-36 10-38 10-38 10-39 (vi i) (vi i i) - - - - - - - - - - - - - LIST OF TABLES - Table 2.3-1 Total On-Site Manpower Requirements,1983-2000 2.3-2 Total Payroll For On-Site Manpower,1983-2000 Page 2-4 2-5 4.1-1 Community Population in the Matanuska-Susitna Rorough 4-5 I 4.1-2 Baseline Forecast of Population in the Mat-Su Rorollgh and Selected Communities,1981-2005 4-7 4-14 4-13 4.1-6 Baseline Forecast of Households in the Mat-Su Borough and Selected Communities,1981-2005 4.1-3 1981 Housing Stock Estimates and Vacancy Rates,By Areas of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough 4-9 4.1-4 1980 Population,Households and Population Per Household Ratios For Selected Communities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough 4-12 4.1-5 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Owner-Renter Distribution By Household Type - - 4.1-7 Baseline Forecast of Housing Stock in the Mat-Su Borough 1981-2005 (Number of Dwelling Units)4-15 - 4.1-8 Baseline Forecast of Vacant Housing Units in the Mat-Su Borough,1981-2005 4.1-9 Municipal Property and Sales Tax Rate 4.1-10 Valuation,Population and G.O.Bonded Debt 4.1-11 Comparison of Average Per Capita Expenditures for Selected Social Services 4-16 4-29 4-32 4-37 4.1-12 Mat-Su Borough Budget:Baseline Forecast of General Fund Revenues 4-39 4.1-13 Property Tax Baseline Projections for Mat-Su Borough 4-40 4.1-14 Mat-Su Borough Budget:Baseline Forecast Revenues for the Service Area Fund;Land Management Fund; and Maximum Total Bonded Indebtedness.4-41 4.1-15 Mat-Su Borough:General Fund,Service Area Fund,Land Management Fund;Expenditure Raseline Forecast 4-43 4.1-16 Mat-Su Borough School District Budget:Baseline Revenue Forecasts 4-48 (ix) ---------------~- - - LIST OF TABLES (cont i nued) Table 4.1-17 Mat-Su Borough School District Budget:Expenditure Forecast 4-50 4.1-18 Mat-Su Borough School District Budget:Baseline Expenditure Forecast,Operations and Maintenance 4-52 4.1-19 City of Palmer Budget:General Fund - Revenue Baseline Forecast 4.1-20 City of Palmer Budget:Special Funds -Revenue Baseline Forecast 4.1-21 City of Palmer Budget:Baseline Expenditure Forecast 4.1-22 City of Wasilla Budget:Baseline Revenue Forecast 4-56 4-58 4-59 4-63 - - - 4-68 4.1-23 City of Wasilla Budget:Baseline Expenditure Forecast 4-64 4.1-24 City of Houston Budget:Estimates of Future Grant Funding -Baseline 4.1-25 City of Houston Budget:Baseline Expenditure Forecast 4.1-26 Talkeetna:Baseline Revenue Forecast 4.1-27 Community Facilities Summary 4.1-28 Baseline Forecast of Water Supply System Requirements For Palmer and Wasilla,1981-2005 4-70 4-74 4-78 4-81 - - 4.1-29 Baseline Forecast of Sewage Treatment Requirements For Palmer and Wasilla,1981-2005 4-83 - 4.1-30 Location,Acreage and Life Expectancy of Landfills in the Mat-Su Borough 4-85 4.1-31 Baseline Forecast of Solid Waste Disposal in the Mat-Su Borough,1981-2005 4-87 - - - - 4-95 4-93 4.1-34 Baseline Forecast of Requirements for State Troopers in the Mat-Su Borough,1981-2005 4.1-32 Estimated Geographic Distribution of General Aviation Basing Demand.Upper Cook Inlet Region,1979-2000 4-92 4.1-33 Estimated Geographic Distribution of General Aviation Operations.Upper Cook Inlet Region,1985-2000 (x) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... - LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 4.1-35 Baseline Forecast of Requirements for Police in Palmer, Wasilla and Houston,1981-2005 4.1-36 Fire Stations in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough 4.1-37 Medical Facilities/Services and Inpatient Utilization Data 4.1-38 Projection of Acute Care Hospital Red Need in the Mat-Su Borough,1981-2000 4.1-39 Characteristics of Public Schools:Matanuska-Susitna School District,1981 4.1-40 Projection of Enrollment and Teachers in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District 4.1-41 Baseline Forecast of Number of Primary School-Age Children in the Mat-Su Borough and Selected Communities,1981-2005 4.1-42 Baseline Forecast of Numher of Secondary School-Age Children in the Mat-Su Borough and Selected Communities,1981-2005 4.1-43 Inventory of Recreational Facilities in the Mat-Su Borough 4.1-44 Baseline Forecast of Requirements for Recreational Facilities in the Mat-Su Borough and Incorporated Communities,1981-2000 4.1-45 Ten Year School-Park Site Acquisition Program in the Mat-Su Borough 4.1-46 Mat-Su Borough Communities:Business Location and Type 4.1-47 Palmer and the Mat-Su Borough:Gross Business Receipts,January 1977-December 1977 4.1-48 Employment By Industry for Adult Residents of Matanuska-Susitna Borough 4.1-49 Occupation of Matanuska-Susitna Borough Adult Residents 4.1-50 Matanuska-Susitna Borough Annual Nonagricultural Employment By Sector (xi) 4-97 4-99 4-103 4-107 4-110 4-113 4-114 4-115 4-118 4-121 4-122 4-126 4-129 4-130 4-131 4-138 LIST OF TABLES (cont i nued) Table 4.1-51 Ratio of Popu~ation to Borough Employment in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,1966,1970-1980 4.1-52 Baseline Forecast of Employment in the Anchorage Region,By Census Division,1981-2005 4.1-53 Per Capita Personal Income in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in Current and 1970 Dollars 4.1-54 Sport Fish Harvest By Species 4.1-55 East Side Susitna Drainage Sport Fish Harvests and Effort By Fishery and Species,1978 4.1-56 West Side Cook Inlet-West Side Susitna River Drainage Sport Fish Harvests and Effort By Fishery ann Speci es,1978 4.1-57 Knik Arm Drainage Sport Fish Harvests ann Effort, By Fishery and Species,1978 4.1-58 Nelchina Herd 4.1-59 Fall 1979 Drawing Permit Applications 4.1-60 Moose-GMU13 Nelchina Basin 4.1-61 Black Bear Harvest Data,Game Management Unit 13, 1973-1978 4.1-62 Brown Bear Sport Harvest Data 4.2-1 Total Resident Population ann Components of Change By Impact Area,1970-1980 4.2-2 Population in the Anchorage Region,1966,1970-1980 4.2-3 Population in the Anchorage,Kenai-Cook Inlet,Mat-Su, and Seward Census Divisions as a Percent of Total Anchorage Region Population 4.2-4 Baseline Forecast of Population in the Fairhanks Region,By Census Division,1981-2005 4.2-5 1981 Civilian Housing Stock in the Municpality of Anchorage,By Type 4.2-6 Vacancy Rates in the Municipality of Anchorage, By Type of Housing Unit,1978-1981 (xi i) 4-139 4-140 4-142 4-149 4-150 4-151 4-152 4-156 4-157 4-158 4-160 4-161 4-175 4-176 4-177 4-179 4-181 4-183 - - - - - - - - - LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table - - - - - - 4.2-7 Post Office Survey Vacancy Rates in the Anchorage Bowl,By Type of Housi ng 4.2-8 Housing Stock in Fairbanks and the Fairbanks-North Star Borough,By Type,October 1978 4.2-9 Vacancy Rates in the Fairbanks-North Star Borough, 1976-1980 4.2-10 Baseline Forecast of Households in the Anchorage Region,1981-2000 4.2-11 Baseline Forecast of Housing Stock in the Anchorage Region,1981-2005 4.2-12 Baseline Forecast of Households in Impact Area 3, 1981-2005 4.2-13 Baseline Forecast of Housing Stock in Impact Area 3, 1981-2005 4.2-14 Municipality of Anchorage Budget:Baseline Expenditure Forecast 4.2-15 City of Fairbanks Budget:Expenditure Baseline Forecast 4.2-16 Total Traffic for Selected Alaska Ports: Historical Trends 4.2-17 Principal Scheduled Common Carrier Marine Services to Selected Alaska Ports 4.2-18 Port of Anchorage Freight Movements in Tons By Commodity 4.2-19 Total Value of Permits Issued For Residential and Non-Residential Construction in Anchorage 4.2-20 Tax Revenue By Source 4.2-21 New Mining Claims Received 4.2-22 Classification and Number of Businesses 4.2-23 Borough and Pipeline Related Assessments 4.2-24 Impact Area 3 Annual Nonagricultural Employment By Sector (xiii) 4-184 4-185 4-186 4-188 4-189 4-190 4-191 4-194 4-197 4-201 4-203 4-204 4-215 4-219 4-220 4-222 4-223 4-228 ----------~.__._- LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 4.2-25 Anchorage Annual Nonagricultural Employment By Sector 4.2-26 Employment in the Anchorage Region,By Place of Employment,1964-1980 4.2-27 Employment in the Anchorage,Kenai-Cook Inlet, Mat-Su and Seward Census Divisions As a Percent of Total Anchorage Region Employment,By Place of Employment,1964-1980 4.2-28 Baseline Forecast of Employment in Impact Area 3, 1981-2005 4.2-29 Baseline Forecast of Employment in the Fairbanks Region By Census Division,1981-2005 4.2-30 1981 Cook Inlet Commercial Salmon Harvest 4.2-31 1981 Cook Inlet Salmon Ex-vessel Values 4.3-1 Projection of Alaska Population 1981-2005 4.3-2 Value of Alaska's Mineral Products:1959-1979 4.3-3 Gross Unrestricted and Petroleum Revenues Alaska 4.3-4 Valuation of Residential,Nonresidential and Total Building Included in Building Permits Issued in Selected Areas of Alaska:1974-1979. 4.3-5 Domestic Fisheries of Alaska 4.3-6 Catch and Value From Alaska's Domestic and Foreign Fisheries 4.3-7 Alaska Timber Harvest on Public Lands,by Ownership, 1959-1979 4.3-8 Land in Farms and Farm Numbers -Alaska 1960-1981 4.3-9 Value of Production hy Areas -Alaska 4.3-10 Agricultural Commodities Produced -Alaska 4.3-11 Visitor and Expenditure Projections 4.3-12 Visitor Expenditures (xiv) 4-230 4-231 4-232 4-233 4-235 4-237 4-238 4-242 4-243 4-245 4-250 4-252 4-253 4-255 4-257 4-259 4-261 4-262 4-263 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 4.3-13 Cities/Areas Visited 4.3-14 Total Sales of Visitor Industry Firms in Alaska and Total Sales to Visitors,1975 4.3-15 Employment Growth:Annual Average Rates,Selected Alaska Industries 4.3-16 State of Alaska:Index Employment Seasonality, Selected Industries 4.3-17 Combined Indicators for Banking,Savings &Loan Associations,Federal Credit Unions and Small Loan Licensee Activity,1976-1979 4.3-18 Total Number of Family Dwelling Units Included in Building Permits Issued in Selected Urban Areas of Alaska,1970-1979 4.3-19 Alaska Insurance Business:Total Insurance Premiums Written,1959-1979 4.3-20 Alaska Public Sector Wages Compared to all Wages Received in Selected Years 4.3-21 Total Federal Government Obligations in Alaska Plus State and Local Government General Expenditures and Net Dollar Exchanges Among Levels of Government 4.3-22 Alaska State Government Expenditure by Function 4.3-23 State of Alaska Revenues by Source Last Ten Fiscal Years 4.3-24 State Annual Nonagricultural Employment hy Sector 4.3-25 Projection of Employment for the State of Alaska,1981-2000 5.1-1 On-Site Construction and Manpower Requirements, 1983-2005 5.1-2 Operations Work Force:1993-2005 5.2-1 On-Site Construction Work Force:Local,Alaska Nonlocal,and Out of State,1983-2000 5.2-2 On-Site Constructi on Work Force:Project Employment and Residence of Individuals Currently Residing in Impact Area 3 (xv) Page 4-265 4-266 4-267 4-269 4-272 4-274 4-275 4-277 4-278 4-280 4-281 4-282 4-285 5-2 5-3 5-8 5-10 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table - - 5.2-3 Impact and Induced Employment Associated with the Construction Work Force 5.2-4 Percentage of Jobs Filled by Inmigrants: Indirect/Induced Employment 5.2-5 Local Indirect and Induced Employment Associaten With the Construction Work Force 5.2-6 Total Local Impact Area 3 Employment:On-Site Construction,Indirect and Induced 5.2-7 On-Site Construction Work Force:Inmigration ann Place of Relocation in Impact Area 3 5.2-8 Inmigrant Indirect and Induced Employment Associated with the Construction Work Force 5.2-9 Total Inmigration Into Impact Area 3:On-Site Construction,Indirect and Induced 5.2-10 Total Population Influx Into Impact Area 3:Direct, Indirect and Induced 5.2-11 Total Population Influx Into Area 3 Associated With the Direct Construction Work Force 5.2-12 Population Influx Associated with the Indirect and Induced Work Force 5-12 5-13 5-14 5-15 5-17 5-18 5-19 5-21 5-22 5-23 - - 5.2-13 Total School-Age Children Accompanying Inmigrant Workers:On-Site Construction,Indirect and Induced 5-25 5.2-14 Total Primary School-Age Children Accompanying Inmigrant Workers into Impact Area 3:On-Site Construction,Indirect and Induced 5-26 5.2-15 Total Secondary School-Age Children Accompanying Inmigrant Workers Into Impact Area 3:On-Site Construction,Indirect and Induced 5-27 5.3-1 Total Payroll for On-Site Construction and Operating Manpower,1983-2005 5.3-2 Total On-Site Construction Work Force Payroll Expenditure Pattern 5.3-3 Total Operations Work Force Payroll Expenditure Pattern (xvi) 5-29 5-30 5-31 - - -LIST OF TABLES (continued) -Table - - - 5.3-4 Local and Impact Area 3 Inmigrant Construction Work Force Propensity to Spend by Area 5.3-5 Alaska Non-Local and Out-of-State Construction Work Force Propensity to Spend by Area 6.2-1 Summarized Impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on Matanuska-Susitna Borough 6.2-2 Summarized Impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on the City of Palmer 6.2-3 Summarized Impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on Wasilla 6.2-4 Summarized Impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on Houston 5-33 5-34 6-8 6-9 6-10 6-11 6.2-5 Impact of the Project on Population in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,1981-2005 6-12 6.2-6 Impact of the Susitna Hydroelectic Project on Housing demand in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 1981-2005 6-16 -6.2-7 Impact of the Susitna Project on Water Requirements In Palmer and Wasilla,1981-2005 6-20 - 6.2-8 Impact of the Susitna Project on Sewage Treatment in Palmer and Wasilla,1981-2005 6-21 6-25 - - 6.2-9 Impact of the Project on Landfill Requirements in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,1981-2005 6-23 6.2-10 Impact of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project on Requirements for State Troopers in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,1981-2005 6-35 6-34 (xvi i) 6.2-14 Total Operations Work Force Payroll Expenditure Pattern 6.2-11 Impact of the Project on Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Enrollment,1981-2005 6-28 6.2-12 Total Payroll For On-Site Construction and Operations Manpower,1983-2005 6-33 6.2-13 Table 6.2-13 Total On-Site Construction Work Force Payroll Expenditure Pattern(a) - - LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 6.2-15 Mat-Su Borough Budget:Forecast of General Fund Revenues 6.2-16 Mat-Su Borough Budget:Impact Forecast of Revenues for the Service Area Fund;Land Management Fund; and Maximum Total Bonded Indebtedness 6.2-17 Property Tax Impact Forecast for Mat-Su Borough 6.2-18 Mat-Su Borough:Impact Projections for General Fund; Service Area Fund;and Land Management Fund Expenditure 6.2-19 Mat-Su School District Budget:Impact Revenue Forecasts 6.2-20 Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on the Mat-Su Borough School District 6.2-21 Mat-Su Borough School District Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast 6.2-22 Mat-Su Borough School District Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast,Operations &Maintenance 6.2-23 Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on Palmer 6.2-24 City of Palmer Budget:General Fund Revenue Impact Forecast 6.2-25 City of Palmer Budget:Special Funds-Revenue Impact Forecast 6.2-26 City of Palmer Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast 6.2-27 City of Wasilla Budget:Impact Revenue Forecast 6.2-28 Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on Wasilla 6.2-29 City of Wasilla Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast 6.2-30 City of Houston Budget:Estimates of Future Grant Funding-Impact Forecast 6.2-31 City of Houston Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast 6.2-32 Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on Houston and Talkeetna (xviii) 6-39 6-40 6-43 6-45 6-47 6-48 6-50 6-51 6-53 6-54 6-55 6-57 6-59 6-60 6-62 6-63 6-64 6-65 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 10.1-1 Baseline Forecasting Techniques 10.1-2 Impact Forecasting Techniques 10.2-1 Summary of Public Facility and Service Standards for Selected Standards for Selected Communities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 10.2-2 Normal Water Consumption 10.2-3 School Design Parameters in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. (xi x) Page 10-3 10-4 10-10 10-13 10-16 (xx) - - - - - - - - - LIST OF FIGURES Fi gure 3.1-1 Socioeconomic Impact Areas 4.1-1 Matanuska-Susitna Business Dispersion 4.1-2 Mineral Resources 4.1-3 Mining Districts 4.1-4 Coal Fields 4.1-5 Land Ownership/Stewardship,Watana Portion 4.1-6 Land Ownership/Stewardship,Devil Canyon Portion 4.2-1 Major Inbound Commodity Flows 4.2-2 Major Outbound Community Flows 4.2-3 Principal Scheduled Alaska Air Service 4.2-4 Tax Revenue by Source 4.2-5 New Mining Claims Received 4.3-1 Total Population of Alaska 5.1-1 On-site Construction Work Force Requirements, 1983-2000 (xxi) 3-3 4-127 4-132 4-133 4-134 4-144 4-145 4-199 4-200 4-209 4-219 4-220 4-240 5-5 (xxii) - - - - - SUMMARY Major and important potenti al soci oeconomi c impacts Hydroelectric Project are summarized below by topic area. impacts,not summarized below,are discussed in the report. of the Susitna Other potent i a1 - - - When reviewing the summary of impacts,t\\O things should be kept in mind. First the magnitude and geographic distribution of these impacts are deter- mined,in part,by a series of carefully and systematically developed judgments and assumptions.Some of the key assumptions include:(1)the number (and relocation timing)of construction \\Orkers that will relocate from outsi de the Rail belt regi on or outsi de Al aska to communities in the Railbelt region;(2)the number (and relocation timing)of construction workers that will relocate from various areas of the Railbelt region to cOlTlTlunities of the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)Borough;and (3)the number of \\Orkers that will remain at place of relocation after construction ends at the Watana and Devil Canyon sites.These and other assumptions are ela- borated upon in Section 5. Second,estimates of employment and population influx reflect the labor demands of the project.If the project attracts more labor than required, there will be an oversupply of labor and a greater population influx than the estimates in this report indicate. Description of the Project The Susitna hydroel ectri c project consi sts of constructi on of the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon Dams.The Watana dam wi 11 be constucted in t \\0 phases,with an ultimate generati ng capacity of 1,020 mega\IiJtts (MW).The fi rst i nst all ment of 680 MW I swill be completed in 1993 with additional generating capacity being completed in 1994. Construction of the 600 MW Devil Canyon Dam begins in 1994 and is expected to be completed in 2002. (xxiii) The operations and maintenance 'f.Ork force for both dams will total 170 persons by the year 2002:70 persons in 1993;a total of 145 in 1994;and finally 170 in 2002.It is expected that this ~rk force, and families,will reside at a permanent village to be constructed in the vicinity of the Watana dam site. On-site construction manpower requirements will reach a peak of 3,500 in 1990,followed by a decrease through 1995 after \'J1ich a second peak of 1699 is reached in 1999 associated with construction of the Devil Canyon dam.The first phase of the Watana dam requires a significantly greater number of workers than both the second phase of Watana and Devil Canyon combined. To accomodate the construction work force it has been proposed that a single-status camp and family-status village should be constructed in the vicinity of the project sites.The family-status village, with facilities for management and professionals,will accomodate approximately 350 families.The single-status camp will consist of portable dorms suitable for 3,150 single \t«>rkers.Additional ser- vices and facilities will also be constructed in both the village and camp. Not all construction 'f.Orkers will choose to live at the camp; ,however,it is assumed that a majority of \t«>rkers will do so,rather then locating housing and incurring the additional costs for rent and commuting. Employment There will be significant employment opportunities for Alaskans.It is estimated that more than 75 percent of the peak-year construction jobs (about 2,800 jobs)will be filled hy Alaskans.The majority of these jobs wi 11 be fill ed by Anchorage resi dents;resi dents of the Mat-Su Borough and Fairbanks will also fill a substantial number of these jobs. (xxiv) - - - - - - - - About 2,800 support jobs will be available in 1990,the peak construction year.Most of these will be filled by Alaskans \'kIo reside in Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough. Construction will occur during 1983-2002.An average of ahout 1,500 construction jobs will be available annually during this period. The 170 permanent jobs that will be available during the operations phase are anticipated to be filled primarily by Alaskans. Some of the construction \f,Orkers currently living in Anchorage, Fairbanks and the Kenai Peninsula will relocate to communities of the Mat-Su Borough during the mid to late 1980's.Almost all of these \f,Orkers will remain at the new residence \'kIen their employment on the project ends. About 30 percent of those \f,Orkers \'kIo \f,Ork on the project and originate from outside of the Railhelt region will relocate to the Railbelt.They will settle predominantly in Anchorage and com- muniti es of the Mat-Su Borough.Ahout half of these \\Orkers wi 11 move out of the Rail belt W1en thei r employment on the project ends in the mid 1990's or early 2000's. On a relative basis,Trapper Creek and Talkeetna will experience the greatest employment impacts.The project wi 11 provi de susbstan- t i ally more employment opportunities for resi dents of these com- munities than will exist in these communities without the project. This also applies to support sector jobs.Service businesses will grow in response to demands made by resident construction \\Orkers and construction and other project employees that use services in the area. There will be a decline in construction employment during the early to mid 1990's.It is anticipated that some of the \\Orkers that (xxv) Income relocated to the Railbelt region will remain and seek other employment.As construction employment rises during the late 1990's to the peak at Devil Canyon (1999),many of those \\Orkers that remai ned wi 11 agai n seek employment on the project.After 1999, constructi on employment wi 11 decrease rapi dly until 2003,\OtIen it will end.There will be a second exodus of \\Orkers from the area. During the construction employment lull in the mid 1990's,Trapper Creek and Talkeetna,as \Ell as other communities of tne Railbelt region,could experience significant increases in unemployment,par- ticularly if outmigration is not great and few joh opportunities are available. Substantial personal income will be generated for construction and operations \\Orkers;for those persons who are employed by firms that provide goods and services for construction and operations (indirect workers)and for those persons \OtIo are employed by servi ce and related firms where construction workers spend their income (induced workers). Total payroll that will be earned by construction and operations workers during 1983-2002 is $888 million;all but $54 million of this amount is construction payroll. During the operations phases for both dams (2002 and thereafter), payroll will be about $6.5 million annually.Prior to 2002,\OtIen only the Watana facility will he in operation,payroll will he approximately $5.6 million annually. A little more than half of the 1983-2002 payroll ($475 million)will be spent in the State.About $436 mi 11i on wi 11 be spent in the Railbelt region and $72 million will he spent in the Mat-Su Borough. (xxvi) - - - - - - - - - - - - - Substantial income will also accrue to construction,operations and support sector workers,especially to residents of the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage. Population In the initial years of construction the population influx into the Railbelt region will consist of construction \\Orkers and their families. There wi 11 be a 1arge number of workers movi ng from other areas of the Railbelt region to the Mat-Su Borough.The majority of the work force will be supplied by Alaska residents,and they will,in almost all cases,live at the work camp.Engineers and professionals will have the option of relocating their families to the construction village.Many workers coming from other areas of Alaska (primarily Anchorage)will view their employment on the project as an opportunity to move to the Mat-Su Borough.There wi 11 also be some relocation to the Railbelt region of out-of-state workers and t hei r f ami 1i es • Further population influx will occur as secondary employment opportunities are generated as a result of the Susitna construction,employing indivi- duals at jobs that closely parallel the existing service-oriented jobs in the Rail belt.Here,too,a percentage of jobs will be filled by out-of- staters,many of whom are dependents accompanying inmigrating construction workers. The analysis of population impacts focuses on the inmigrant population that resettles in communities outside of the work camp and village.The population influx projections include direct workers on the project and their families as well as indirect and induced workers and their dependents. The population of the Mat-Su Borough will increase moderately due to construction of the project.The project-induced increase will be a bout 1,100 by 1990.The Susitna project wi 11 be only one of several factors contributing to the Borough1s rapid growth during (xxvi i) -I about 1,100 by 1990.The Susitna project will be only one of several factors contributing to the Borough's rapid growth during this period.Approximately half of the project-related inmigrants are expected to settle in the area of Trapper Creek and Talkeetna. Most -inmigration will occur bet~en 1986 and 1990. With construction of the project,Trapper Creek's population is expected to rise to 660 by 1990,more than doubling the comrnunity·s projected population in that year. Project-induced population influx into Talkeetna,over 260 by 1990, wi 11 represent a 26 percent increase over the basel i ne forecast 1 evel (i .e.without the project). Bet~en 1990 and 1995,there will be a lull in project construction which is expected to be reflected in some outmigration of project- related population.Trapper Creek will experience a net decline in population during this period.Elsewtlere in the Mat-Su Borough, population levels will continue to increase due to spillover growth from Anchorage and the stimulus of other projects. Outside of the Mat-Su Borough,population impacts are expected to be minimal (less than one percent of total population). Approximately half of the inmigrant population into the Mat-Su Borough will remain after construction of the project is completed. The degree to wtlich 'l.Qrkers move to the Borough in anticipation of gai ni ng employment on either the Susitna project or el sewtlere is unkno~,although it is certain that this will occur.The magnitude of i nfl ux can be better establ i shed at a time closer to wtlen the project will begin and will be a function of the health of the Alaska and Lo~r-48 economies,among other things. (xxviii) - - - - - - - - - Housing Short-term housi ng shortages and rapi d resi denti al constructi on are expected to occur in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna during the late 1980·s.Housing conditions in other areas of the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt region are not expected to be signifcantly affected. The expected near-term shortfall in housing supply in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna might be compensated in whole or in part by speculative advance construction,temporary residence in local lodges and hotels and the use of mobile homes and trailers. The large increase in demand for housing will exert upward pressure on land and housing prices in Trapper Creek and,to a lesser extent, Talkeetna. Public Facilities and Services Rapid population growth in Talkeetna and Trapper Creek can have the potential for hastily built housing development that does not meet health standards for wells and septic tanks.It is anticipated that Borough and State oversight can prevent such problems. Increased traffi c on the Parks Hi ghway can be expected duri ng the constructi on phase;thi s traffi c wi 11 i ncl ude trucks carryi ng supplies and equipment and workers commuting to the work sites. In the Trapper Creek and Talkeetna area,the rapid population increase wi 11 result in a correspondi ng need for increased mai n- tenance of local roads and some requirements for new roads. The access road to the dam sites could be a major addition to the Mat-Su Borough·s road system,possibly contributing to more mineral development and recreational activity in the area. (xxix) An increase of between two and four State Troopers at the substation in Trapper Creek wi 11 be requi red t to accommodate the increase in population in the northern part of the Borough. Trapper Creek may experience an increased need for fire protection and medical care services that are currently not available in the community. Increased Mat-Su Borough population related to the project may contribute modestly to requirements for additional hospital and landfill facilities in the 1990's. Increased student enroll ment rel ated to project-i nduced popul ati on influx is expected to result in the need for additional classroom space and teachers at the Trapper Creek and Tal keetna el ementary schools and Susitna Valley High School. The work camp and family vi 11 age at the dam sites wi 11 provi de extensive housing and facilities and services;thus it is likely that residents of the camp and village will have a negligible impact on most categories of existing cOll111unity facilities in the Mat-Su Borough. Fiscal Impacts on Local Government The methodology used in the fiscal impact analysis is the per capita multi pl i er method and average cost techni que.It assumes current per capita revenues and costs are a good approximation of future flows t other variables remaining constant.The fiscal impact analysis is to be viewed as a set of trend i ndi cators of future fi seal flows t and not as a predictor of actual receipts and costs to be incurred. Fiscal impacts will be generally twice as great in 1990 (Watana peak)as they will be in 1999 (Devil Canyon Peak);however t in all cases these impacts will be small t both absolutely and relatively. (xxx) - - - - - - - ..... The Mat-Su Borough will experience relatively more fiscal impacts than wi 11 incorporated communiti es in the Borough.The Borough administration will experience a short-term impact from the lag bet \>teen recei pt of revenues and out 1ays for servi ce costs.There may be an initial net deficit due to the costs of delivering ser- vi ces to substanti ally 1arger customer groups and recei vi ng addi- tional revenues,both local and state.Increases in local revenues wi 11 be generated in the form of property taxes and servi ce user charges. The tax base in the Mat-Su Borough is expected to expand enough to generate suffi ci ent additi onal revenues to cover project-i nduced expenditures.Per capita shares of property taxes in the Mat-Su Borough decline from $256 in 1981 to $195 in 1990,and $179 in 1999 under the baseline forecast.Declines in per capita share of property taxes with the project are $199 in 1990 and $184 in 1999,over 1981 levels. The Servi ce Area Fund of the Mat-Su Borough Budget wi 11 he impacted most by the project,causing a 28 percent increase in revenues over I baseline in 1990,\'A1ile other funds will average a 2.6 percent change due to the project.Changes in the 1999 impact forecast over baseline forecast will be 50 percent less than those in 1990, averaging 1.3 percent for all funds excluding the Service Area Fund. Ho\>tever,Service Area Fund revenues in 1999 and 2005 will remain a constant 25 percent over those forecast without the project.Thi s is consistent with the population settlement forecasts that the majority of the population influx will reside in the outlying areas of the Borough. The cost of delivering services in the Mat-Su Borough almost douhles by 1990 with or without the project.Costs for administration,fire servi ce,and road mai ntenance and repai rare 1i kely to experi ence the largest increases.Service user charges are anticipated to rise proportionately to the increases in costs of service delivery. (xxxi) Project-induced growth will cause Mat-Su Borough School District revenues to increase on average 2.5 percent over the baseline fore- cast by 1990;1.1 percent by 2000 and 0.7 percent by 2005. Expenditures for social services and facilities will rise approxima- tely 0.9 percent over the baseline forecast in 1990 at a slightly slo\Er rate than increases in total revenues.Expenditures with the project in 1999 will increase approximately half of one percent over the baseline forecast.Bet\Een 1990 and 1999 expenditures will a verage a 41 percent increase among all servi ces with or without the project. Actual impacts associated with the project will be very small,with increases in revenues and expenditures averagi ng about 1.2 percent over the baseline forecast in 1990 and about 0.5 percent over the baseline forecast in 1999. Project-induced fiscal impacts on the cities of Palmer,Wasilla and Houston wi 11 be mi ni rna 1.Growth whi ch wi 11 occur in these com- muniti es \tot1ether the Susitna dams are constructed or not wi 11 have much larger fiscal impacts. Constant rapid growth for the community of Talkeetna can be antici- pated with or without the project.The exact impact of the project will therefore be relatively small \tot1en compared to changes due to normal growth.HO\Ever,relative to project-induced changes in other communities,the impact of the project on Talkeetna is substantial. Fiscal impacts relating to residents of Talkeetna will directly impact the Borough budget through service area funds i.e.road; fire,and flood control.Total revenues from these funds to the Borough will increase 130 percent from 1981 to 1990,and 135 percent from 1990 to 1999 without the project.Total revenues to the (xxxii) - - - - - - - - - Borough with the project will increase 9 percent by 1990 and 3.4 percent by 1999 over baseline forecast. The community of Talkeetna is assumed not to incorporate before 2000 if the Susitna project is not built.Under these conditions the Matanuska-Susitna Borough wi 11 continue to provi de area wi de and non-areawide services.These will be administered by Borough offi- ci al sand pai d for by the Borough government out of funds deri ved both locally and from the State.Property located withi n the ser- vice boundary will continue to be liable for taxes levied to cover the costs of service delivery. The impact of the Susitna hydroelectric project is assumed to accelerate the time-table in W1ich the Talkeetna community will deci de to incorporate.The increased popul at ion i nfl ux wi 11 act as an impetus for the community to organi ze itself such that it can control the del i very of necessary servi ces,and thereby be respon- sible for fiscal flows of revenues and expenditures.Other types of local informal government/community organization may result in areas that are now sparsely populated but which are anticipated to experience rapid growth. Total expenditures in Anchorage are projected to increase one-half of one percent in 1990 due to the project and to remain almost the same as basel ine forecasts for 1999.Normal growth as measured by baseline forecast will result in a 32 percent increase in expen- ditures by 1990 over 1981 levels and a 12 percent increase between 1990 and 1999. Total expenditures in Fai rbanks are projected to increase ei ght- tenths of one percent over the basel i ne forecast for both 1990 and 1999.This constant rate of change is reflected by the fact that with or without the project,the popul ati on in Fai rbanks wi 11 increase approximately 31 percent bet ween 1981-1990 and 18 percent between 1990-1999. (xxxiii) (xxiv) - - - - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 -INTRODUCTION Consideration of socioeconomic impacts resulting from construction and operation of a hydroelectric project in the upper Susitna basin is crucial to meani ngful assessment of project feasi bi 1i ty.Such impacts are impor- tant not only in their own right,but also because of the degree of socioeconomic concern so prevalent in Alaska.The intensity of this conern was recently exemplified as the proposed Rampart Project on the Upper Yukon River was deferred indefinitely.This project was deferred in large part because the homelands of the Interior Natives,areas of habitat for caribou and other game animals,and upstream and downstream fisheries would have been impacted in a manner that was considered unacceptable at the time • The socioeconomic analysis presented and discussed herein is designed to assess important socioeconomic impacts that could result from hydroelectric development on the Susitna River.The overall objectives of the socioeco- nomic analysis are to:(1)determine which socioeconomic conditions are most 1ikely to be impacted and to what extent these conditi ons are 1ikely to change;and (2)provide information that will aid in assessing the significance of potential changes in socioeconomic conditions • Socioeconomic conditions that receive considerable attention include employment,income,population,housing,public facilities and services, and fiscal matters.These conditions are addressed at state,regional, Census Division and/or community levels for each year of construction and the first several years of operation • The approach of this analysis is to define impact areas,describe and ana- lyze baseline socioeconomic conditions,and to develop and compare baseline and impact forecasts.For this project,work force characteristics,resi- dence relocation decisions and commuting modes significantly influence the geographi c di stri buti on and magni tude of changes in soci oeconomi c con- ditions.Due to the importance of these factors,and because they are dif- ficult to predict,an accounting model is used to assist with the impact 1-1 forecasts.This makes it possible to model the effects of changes in fac- tors such as work force characteristics,residence relocation decisions and conmuting modes on the results.Here,in Phase I of the project,results were developed using the best possible estimates for these factors.Phase II will feature precise sensitivity analysis using these factors. Substantial effort is devoted to forecasting additional facilities and ser- vices required as a result of project-induced population influxes to com- munities of the Mat-Su Borough.This forecast,coupled with the detailed fiscal analysis of these requirements,should substantially benefit local planning efforts. The report is organi zed in el even secti ons.The next secti on descri bes elements of the project,such as the work camp and work force estimates, that rel ate di rectly to the soci oeconomi c analysi s.Impact areas are defined in the third section.Baseline conditions are described,and base- line forecasts are made in the fourth section.Next,impact forecasts are made,and outcomes of the project are predicted.In Section 6,the constuction and operation impacts of the project are presented and analyzed for all areas and communities.The report concludes with sections containing:lists of literature and authorities contacted;copies of let- ters received;a cross reference to the Socioeconomic Feasibility Report, and a presentation of methods and assumptions. It is bel i eved that the organi zati on of Secti ons 4-6,the body of the report,is unique to socioeconomic impact assessment reports.It is hoped that this precise,innovative and detailed presentation will be understan- dable,interesting,and convenient for various users. 1-2 - - - - - - - - - - - 2 -DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 2.1 -Introduction The proposed Susitna hydroel ectri c facil iti es project wi 11 be compri sed of constructi on of t v.o dams with accompanyi ng impoundments and po~r pl ant facilities at the Watana and Devil Canyon sites on the Susitna River;a pioneer access road and gravel road;a construction camp and a family village;a permanent townsite and transmission lines leading to Fairbanks, Anchorage and Beluga. The Watana damsite is located on the Susitna Ri ver approximately 115 ai r miles NNE of Anchorage and 140 miles SW of Fairbanks.The Devil Canyon damsite is located approximately 30 miles downriver.The reservoirs at the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon sites wi 11 cover 38,000 and 7,800 acres,respec- t i ve 1y. Access to the sites,W1ich are presently accessible only by air,will be in the form of a hi ghway connected with both the Parks Hi gh way at Hurri cane and the Alaska Railroad at Gold Creek.The road will run along the south side of the Susitna River bet\Een Gold Creek and Devil Canyon,cross the river and continue along the north side to Watana. Construction of the project will span an 18-year period.Work on the pioneer road will begin in 1983 and should be completed by 1985;the gravel road is expected to be in place by the summer of 1986.Work on the Watana site will take place bet\Een 1986 and 1993,at \'ttlich point operations at Watana will begin.As Watana is completed,construction of the Devil Canyon facilities will begin.The project is scheduled for completion in 2002. 2.2 -Work Camp/Village Set-Up and Worker Commuting Patterns The level of impact on the communities surrounding the proposed Susitna hydroelectric facility is proportional to the size of the inmigrant v.ork- 2-1 force,and more directly,to the degree to \tIlich these \ItOrkers choose to live in the surrounding communities versus a contractor-provided \ItOrk camp/village.Worker commuting practices are a function of many variables, which include:the extent of the \ItOrk camp/village facilities offered,the mode of transportation and ease of access to the camp,the type and extent of travel allowances,\ItOrk schedules and the availablility of suitable housing in the surrounding communities.This section of the report focuses on the nature of the \ItOrk camp/village and is intended to provide an over- view of the types and installment phasing of facilities to be included in the \ItOrk camp and family village.It is assumed that a majority of \ItOrkers will prefer accommodations at a \ItOrk camp,as opposed to bearing the burden of locating housing and incurring the additional costs for rent and com- muti ng.The percentage of \ItOrkers choosi ng to 1i ve at the \ItOrk camp is found to be dependent upon the comprehensiveness of the camp,\'A1ich is a factor that must be considered in drawing conclusions as to construction worker location preferences. The contractor-provided facilities for the Susitna project are divided into t\ltO groups:a single-status construction camp and family-status village. The family-status village,with facilities for management and pro- fessionals,will accommodate approximately 350 families in trailer-type houses grouped around a service core containing a school,gymnasium,store, fire station,gas station and recreation area.The single-status construc- tion camp will consist of portable \ItOod frame dorms suitable for 3,150 single \ItOrkers.Other facilities to be constructed include:Offices, dining hall,recreation hall,management club house,gymnasium,fire sta- tion,hospital store,warehouses,laundry,bank,swimming pool and a guest house.The lack of family accommodations for laborers and semi-skilled/skilled workers will be a factor in determining the number of workers in those labor categories that choose to relocate their families in the surrounding communities. Once the facilities become operational,the operations and maintenance \ItOrk force and thei r famil i es wi 11 be accommodated at a permanent to\\fl to be 2-2 - - - - - - - -constructed in the vicinity of the Watana construction camp.This per- manent town wi 11 provi de all necessary servi ces for approximately 170 workers and their families. 2.3 -On-Site Manpower Requirements and Payroll Section 2.2 highlighted the need to project the degree to w,ich the constructi on "'Ork force (and dependents)choose to relocate in the com- munities surrounding the proposed dam site.The direct input to this is the determination of the projected on-site construction and operations man- power requirements.Table 2.3-1 displays the total projected on-site construction and operations manpower requirements from 1983-2005 by occupa- tional category (laborers;semi-skilled/skilled,and Administrative/ Engineering).As displayed in the table,the peak construction period occurs in 1990 with a "'Ork force of 3,498.Section 5 discusses the direct work force characteristics in greater detail. Based on the projected on-s ite manpower requi rements out 1i ned above,the total yearly project payroll,in 1981 dollars,from 1983-2000 can be derived.Table 2.3-2 displays the total projected payroll by labor cate- gory.The payroll during the peak year 1990 totals $97.8 million (all references to dollars in this report are in 1981 dollars).Total payroll is an important consideration in that it defines the parameters of monetary impacts due to the direct "'Ork force.Payroll and payroll distribution are discussed further in Section 5.3. 2.4 -Worker Expenditure Patterns Work force wage and salary spending will result in direct and indirect impacts on the State and on individual Census Divisions,and for this reason must be measured.The concept of measuring the flow of wages and salaries is referred to as expenditure patterns.The output provides an overview of the dollar amounts (of project wage and salary income)spent in the various Census Divisions and communities. 2-3 NI.j::>TABLE2.3-1TOTALON-SITEHANPOWERREQUIREHENTS,1993-2000(a)(INNUMBERSOFWORKERS)199319941985198619871989198919901991199219931994199519961997199919992000----.-------------------------------.--------------.------....--------.LABORERS23II170815245034593459345934592627171216991699195219521195397290SE"I-SKILLED/SKILLED21284732670995695695695667143943949355855638319169AD"INISTRATIVE/ENSINEER.72111817751373373373373354235535535541541522312461TOTALLABOR51603351318367251485148514851483840250624932537292529231901712420(a)SuppliedbyAcresAmericantInc.Note:Thesumofindividualentriesmaynotequaltotalsduetoindependentrounding.1 111111111 11TABLE2.3-2TOTALPAYROLLFORON-SITEKANPOWER,1983-2000!INTHOUSAIIDSOFDOLLARSJ198319841985198619871989199919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000------..-----------------LABORERS956365753636215109590153349153349153349153349116229759647574575745864B8864995277517322 12778SEKHKILLEDISKIllED6951064175413887283773775437754 37754377542557416523 16523 1994522027219631534179072523ADKINISTRATIVEIENGINEER2316803647544815743224762247622476224761660610B98108B910988 12720 12720696639102018TOTALPAYROLL188221091293755550152710213579213579213579213579159409103375103156105478121235121171750922903917319N,l.1lNote:Thesumofindividualentriesmaynotequaltotalsduetoindependentrounding. Each worker has a certain propensity to spend in areas of Alaska as a func- tion of place of residence.For instance,a worker originating from out- of-state and not relocating within the State will spend his income in different geographic areas than will a worker residing in the Mat-Su Borough.The former will in all likelihood spend a lesser percentage of income in the Census Divisions surrounding the proposed project than a Mat-Su resident.The out-of-state \<'orker will spend a percentage of income out of Alaska.Gi ven these differences it becomes necessary to determi ne propensity to spend based on residence:Impact Area 3 (including individual Census Divisions);out-of-state;and Alaska non Impact Area 3. The findings of this exercise are displayed and discussed in Section 5.3. 2.5 -Purchases of Materials,Services and Equipment (a)Vol ume Materi al s,servi ces and equi pment purchases for Watana wi 11 com- mence with pioneer road construction in 1983 and continue into the operational phase.Acquisitions are expected to increase steadily through 1990,then falloff sharply until the opera- tional stage in 1995.Initial volumes will be concentrated in basic materials (pipe and culvert,cement,reinforcing and structural steel,rockbolts,steel mesh,etc.).Materials,ser- vices and equipment for mechanical and auxiliary systems will follow,although sophisticated machinery and equipment (turbines,generators,etc.)are longer lead time items. Consumable materials (petroleum products,etc.)can be expected to follow the basi c demand curve,as can work force camp facilities. Materials,services and equipment for the Devil IS Canyon site will be utilized beginning approximately 1994,with purchases increasing steadily until 1999,then falling off sharply to the 2-6 - - - - - - - - -operati onal expected to Watana. stage in 2002.The expenditure curves can be foll ow a si mi 1ar pattern to those projected for -(b)Source of Supply Almost no projected materials and equipment are available in quantity from within Alaska.Exceptions are aggregates and petro- l eum products.It is not possi bl e at thi s ti me to predi ct with accu racy from v.tlere out -of-state major materi a1sand equi pment will come.Research indicates that existing in-state suppliers of those materials and equipment planned for the projects are concerned about their ability to compete with larger outside sources.This situation will likely be changed to some extent during construction of the Devil 's Canyon dam due to natural and induced growth withi n in-state industry and commerce. Research further indicates that an adequate service industry i nfrast ructure exi sts withi n the state to support the dam pro- jects.Essential services are poised for growth,and sufficient technical expertise exists to train additional manpower as required.Exceptions may occur but \\Ould likely be restricted to such areas as technical services for power generating equip- ment. - (c)Transportation Save for a local railhead and site access roads,adequate transportation systems exist to service the dam projects.Plans call for construction of a railhead at Gold Creek and an access road system east from the Parks Highway. - - All materials, aggregates)wi 11 equipment and services require transshipment. 2-7 (save site-prepared The nature of the material or equipment will determine \OkIether motor freight only, or a combination of motor freight and rail transport are used. Research has established that all material and equipment except steel and explosives can be line hauled at a lo~r dollar per ton-mile by rail than by truck. It is anticipated that bulk materials and equipment from outside the state will be transported via marine transportation.Major transport forms are container,van,flats,railcar,bulk and break-bulk by barge. Container,van,flats,barge bulk and break-bulk will primarily utilize Anchorage port facilities.Anchorage has a port railhead as ~ll as roll-on-roll-off capability for motor freight.Further,Anchorage is the closest port to the dam sites with rai"lhead and motor freight depot capabilities. - - - - A deep-water marine port with railhead exists at Seward as ~ll. Some project-related transshipment spillover can be expected but will be limited by situational economics and the present 40 ton gantry capabilities of the facility. For those materials and equipment which tal to portal rail shipment,employment lizing Whittier's roll-on-rol1-off anti ci pated. lend themselves to por- of railroad barges uti- capability can be - Finally,petroleum products used during the construction process will likely be piped to Anchorage,then transshipped to site via the Gold Creek railhead and tankertruck. 2-8 - - - - - 3 -IDENTIFICATION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT AREA Hydroelectric development in the upper Susitna basin will cause employment, population and related changes for a significant part of Alaska.Due to current and likely future "without project"population levels and distribu- ti ons and to probabl e "with project"i nmi grant resi dence and cOlTVTluti ng pat- terns,most of these changes will occur in the Railbelt corridor.These changes wi 11 be most si gnifi cant wtlere project-i nduced popul ati on changes are large relative to future ("without project")population levels. 3.1 -Local-Impact Areas 1-2 The Borough is designated as the "local"impact area (also referred to as Impact Area 2).It is the smallest statistical area for \'klich relevant time-series economic and socioeconomic data are available and is large enough to contain a population sufficient in size to allow for the organi- zation of social life for the pursuit of one or several common interests and to provide for necessary support systems.Project-induced population changes could be large relative to future ("without project")population levels in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su)Borough and in several communities within this Borough.Potential project-induced changes in the Borough's communities are addressed (although more data are available for some com- muniti es than others)to provi de for an approximati on of the geographi c distribution of changes. The local impact area also includes Impact Area 1:the construction sites, access road,transmission line corridor from the dam sites to the Intertie, some staging areas,impoundment areas and lands to be utilized for the construction camps and villages. 3.2 -Regional-Impact Area 3 Eight Census Divisions,including the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,make up the "reg ional"impact area.These are the Anchorage,Kenai-Cook Inlet, 3-1 Seward,Valdez-Chitina-Whittier,Mat-Su and Southeast Fairbanks Census Divisions,and part of the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Division (see Figure 3.1-1).Population changes could be significant in the seven Census Divisions that surround the Mat-Su Borough,particularly the Anchorage Census Division and the Fairbanks North Star Borough (also a Census Division).Some of the physical inputs and many of the labor inputs for construction and operation will be drawn from Anchorage and the Fairbanks North Star Borough. For analytical purposes,Impact Area 3 is divided into three regions: Anchorage,Fai rbanks and Val dez.The Anchorage,Kenai -Cook Inl et,Seward and Matanuska-Susitna Census Divisions comprise the Anchorage region;the Fairbanks North Star Borough and Southeast Fairbanks Census Division comprise the Fairbanks region,and the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Census Di vi si on compri ses the Valdez regi on.The porti on of the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Division that is in Impact Area 3 is considered separately from these regions. 3.3 -State-Impact Area 4 The fourth impact area is the State of Alaska.Socioeconomic changes that could occur outside of the regional impact area,combined with regional changes,provide an approximation of statewide socioeconomic change. 3-2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - I ill1IIIIIIll Impact Area 1 I ]Impact Area 2 (includes 1) f~.l;;~:.~·~'i~)X::;':\'1 Impact Area 3 (includes 2) Impact Area 4 (State of Alaska) SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT AREAS -Prepared by TES/Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. 3-3 Figure 3.1-1 • 3-4 - - - - - 4 -BASELINE DESCRIPTION AND BASELINE FORECASTS,BY IMPACT AREA 4.1 -Local -Impact Areas 1 and 2 Cu rrent soci oeconomi c condi ti ons in the geographi c areas that coul d be affected by hydroelectric development in the Upper Susitna Basin and recent trends are vital factors in determining the impacts that the project will have in the Impact Areas.In addition,in the case of a construction pro- ject which will span a large number of years,it is also important to con- duct a baseline forecast of the changes in socioeconomic conditions that are expected to occur over time in the absence of the project (natural growth).As the sections below indicate,dramatic changes are expected to occur in the Mat-Su Borough during the next twenty years.These baseline and baseline forecast data will provide the backdrop for the determination of impacts of the project. The socioeconomic conditions that are described here -population,housing, fiscal conditions of government entities,public facilities and services, economic base,employment,personal income and land use -are considered to be of key importance.Further descri pti on of other soci oeconomi c ca te- gories can be found in the Environmental Studies Annual Report 1980, Subtask 7.05:Socioeconomic Analysis.Discussion of the baseline forecast methodology used here can be found in Section 10. (a)Population Baseline Population in the Mat-Su Borough has grown rapidly since 1970.According to U.S.Census Bureau data,the Borough popul ati on grew from 6,500 to 17,766 hetween 1970 and 1980.Thi s increase of 175 percent was far higher than the State increase of 32 percent during that peri od.In additi on,the Borough I s own estimates of 4-1 population in 1980 of approxi~ately 21,000 and of 22,329 in 1981 indicate an even higher rate of population growth. The Mat-Su Borough,1 ike the rest of the State,was affected greatly by the trans-Alaska pipeline construc- tion of the mid-1970's.It was a supplier of labor and services and a place of residence for workers.However, it felt an equal,if not greater,effect.The increasing size and importance of the Municipality of Anchorage had an effect on the Borough in two di sti nct ways:1)the Borough became an easily accessible recreati onal area for Anchorage resi dents;and 2) Anchorage became a supplier of jobs and economic oppor- tunities for Borough residents.Indicative of the latter is the fact that 37 percent of the Mat-Su Borough res i dents commute to or through Anchorage on a da i 1y basis,averaging 100 miles per day (Overall Economic Development Program,Inc.,1980;p.XV).The Mat-Su Borough is now a bedroom community to Anchorage. The Census Bureau (1980)estimate of the population in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough js 17,766,of which approximately 51 percent are male;49 percent female;81 percent married;12 percent single;and 7 percent divorced.In 1970,97 percent of the adult population were Caucasian;2 percent were American Native;and 1 percent were bl ack.The average educati onal 1evel for adults is 13 years with 20 percent havi ng 16 or more years of education.(Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.,September 1980;p.4).The mean househol d income for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is $30,627,despite one of the highest unemploy~ent rates in the state. 4-2 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - A better understanding of the Borough and its individual communities is obtained through examination of the tran- siency of its residents.The rapid increase in popula- tion of 175 percent in the last ten years gives empirical evidence of the growing attraction of the Borough as a place to reside.The 1980 housing study conducted by Pol icy Analysts,Limited,confronted thi s issue and provides comprehensive detail of the demographics and tenure of the Borough residents. The most obvious indicator of the transiency and recent growth in the Borough is the fact that 56 percent of the residents surveyed have lived in the Borough for five years or less,and only 27 percent have lived in the area over 10 years.The average length of residence in the Mat-Su Valley is 9.3 years while the median is only 5.0 years.While 45.9 percent of the residents have moved in the past three years,26.4 percent have moved two or more times.The mean number of moves per house- hold during the past three years is 1.07. Palmer and Butte have the most stable populations with average lengths of residence of 13.0 and 12.4 years respectively.Wasilla,with an average of 7.0 years, has the newest population.Only 3 percent of the resi- dents were born in the Borough,with the majority,44 percent,having moved from Anchorage,and an additional 15 percent coming from other areas of the state (Policy Analysts,1980). The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is the second largest organized Borough in the State of Alaska,covering a total of 23,000 square miles.This amounts to approxi- mately four percent of the total area of the state.Yet 4-3 despite this large geographic area,only about one quarter of the Borough is currently inhabited.The remainder of the Borough is more suitable for recreation,mining and other forms of mineral develop- ment.The Mat-Su Borough presently contains three incorporated communities within its boundaries:Palmer, Wasilla and Houston.Of the inhabited area,approxima- tely 90 percent of the population lives within a 25 mile radius of Wasilla (Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Oepa rtment.April 1978;p.46).The rema i nder of the population is distributed along the Parks Highway and Railroad corridor.Several hundred inhabitants are scattered throughout wilderness regions accessible only by water or air. The growth and current populations of selected com- munities in the Borough are shown in Table 4.1-1. Pal~er and Wasilla stand out as the largest co~unities, with 1981 populations of approximately 2,567 and 2,168, respectively.Wasilla experienced an extraordinary growth rate of 510 percent during the past decade. Other popul ati on centers in the Borough are Bi g Lake, Butte,Houston,Eska-Sutton,Talkeetna and Trapper Creek (Matanuska-Susitna Borough popul ation survey data, 1981)• (ii)Baseline Forecast The Mat-Su Borough,like other areas of the State,will experience rapid growth in the mid 1980 1 s,growth which is tied to projects such as the natural gas pipeline construction (105 percent increase in the Borough1s popul ati on between 1980 and 1990).Because its growth is tied to Anchorage,Mat-Su is projected to continue to 4-4 - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-1 COMMUNITY POPULATION IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH 1939,1950,1960,1970,1976,1980,1981 Community 1939(a)1950(a)1960(a) 1970(a)1976(b)1980(c)1981(b) Ta 1keetna 136 106 76 182 328 265 534 Willow N.A.N.A.78 38 384 134 N.A. Wasi 11 a 96 97 112 300 1566 1548 2168 Palmer 150 890 1181 1140 1643 2143 2567-t~ontana N.A.N.A.39 33 76 40 N.A. Big Lake N.A.N.A.74 36 721 412 2408 Butte N.A.N.A.559 448 2207 N.A.N.A. Chickaloon 11 N.A.43 22 62 20 N.A. Eska Sutton 14 54 215 89 496 N.A.N.A. Houston N.A.N.A.N.A.69 375 325 600 Sources: (a)U.S.Census data from Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.April 1978.Phase I:Comprehensive Development Plan.Palmer,AK;p.50. (b)Mat-Su Census data. (c)Alaska 198!. 14-24.- - Borough Survey.The methodology for these surveys differs from U.S. data and hence the 1976 and 1981 figures are not comparable to Census Department of Labor,Administrative Services Division.January 1, Alaska 1980 Population:A Preliminary Overview.Juneau,AK;pp. 4-5 grow rapidly in the 1990's.The Mat-Su Borough popula- tion is expected to grow at ~n annual average rate of six percent in the 1990 1 s,compared to about 2 percent for the Anchorage region as a whole. Table 4.1-2 displays population projections for selected communiti es in the Mat-Su Borough.The incorporated cities of Palmer,Wasilla and Houston are expected to grow many times over their present levels to populations in 2005 of 7,581,12,053 and 5,909,respectively. Palmer1s percent share of Borough population will drop from 11.5 percent to 8.6 percent.Wasi 11 a and Houston wi 11 increase thei r shares to 13.7 percent and 6.7 per- cent of Borough population.While Palmer is expected to experi ence a decl i ne in its popul ati on growth rate as the gas pipeline is completed,Houston and Wasilla will experience continued high growth rates after 1990 as the completion of the Knik Arm crossing brings these com- munities within a half-houri s drive of Anchorage.The Big Lake area,which is currently a large recreational area and is included in the category of Other in Table 4.1-2,is also expected to receive a large increase of year-round residents after 1990. Trapper Creek will double in population size by the year 2000 to approximately 474 people,growing at a four per- cent average annual rate.Its population is expected to reach 577 by 2005.Growth in Trapper Creek will be constrained by the amount of private land available and, more importantly,by the lack of employment oppor- tunities.The Talkeetna area,growing at an annual rate of five percent a year,will reach population levels of around 1,000 in 1990,1,642 in 2000,and 2,106 in 2005. 4-6 - .. - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - _. TABLE 4.1-2 BASELINE FORECAST OF POPULAT loti IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH AND SELECTED COHMU!UTIES.1981-2005 TOHL TRAPPER MAT -SU YEAR PALMER WASILLA HOUSTON CREEK TALKEETIIA OTHER BOROU8H --------- 1981 2567 2168 600 225 640 16(185 2223J 1982 2734 2331 bbO 234 ,~~17351 23982OlL, 1983 2912 2505 726 243 707 18889 25982 1984 3101 2693 799 253 I''''20486 ""~n'7r,'1-)LO ..·)J 1985 3302 2895 878 ~L7 780 23084 31202L.u ....' 1986 3517 3112 %6 274 320 25261 33950 1m J746 3346 1063 235 8'"27592 J6S94OL 1988 3'i39 3597 1169 296 906 29366 39323 1989 4248 3867 1286 308 qC'''j 30882 41543..JL 1°90 4525 4157 1415 320 1000 31547 42964 1991 4683 4468 1556 333 1051 33172 45263 1992 4c.47 4803 1712 346 1104 34300 47112 1993 5017 5164 1883 360 1160 36150 49734 1994 5193 5551 2071 375 1219 37579 51988 11'95 5374 5967 2278 390 1281 39317 ~,4607 1996 cr 1'-,6415 ~506 406 1347 40955 57191...I,•.'IJ.L. 1997 5757 6896 2757 4""1415 43025 60272~L 1998 5959 7413 3032 439 1487 44670 63000 1999 6167 7969 "''''''E;',rL 1563 46848 66338·.h)~\~~•.rli 2i)(H)6383 8474 3669 474 1M2 48692 69334 2(1)!6606 9093 4036 493 1726 50777 72731 2002 6838 975b 4439 513 1814 C'~?7r 76295J4,·.)J 2003 7077 10469 4883 r~~1906 55166 80034,;.).) 2004 '7""r 11233 C'~~I"]555 2003 57467 83955~,J';',,)...1...'11. 2005 7581 12053 5909 e77 2106 59943 98069JJ, PROJECTED SHAF:E,2005 8,.17.13.7~6 ~.,O.n;2.4i.70.07.100.0:.(~ CUPRnH SHARE m8l}11.5;';Q -~~"7'!1.0:~Q~.,~~~100,O~I'I J.L,.Jh i.••1.I L.LI. NaTE:POPULATION PROJECTIONS ~ERE ~ADE ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING GROWTH RATES:- - ........... PALMER WASILLA HOUSTON TRAPPER CREEK TAU,EETNA -1981-1990:6.57.;1991-2000:3.57- 7.57. -10.07. 4.0X 5.Uk 4-7 Most other growth in the Borough will occur in the southern parts:in the suburban area surrounrling Palmer and Wasilla,and in the Big Lake area.In 2000,about 68 percent of the popul ati on wi 11 be 1i vi ng outsi de of the three cities,Trapper Creek and Talkeetna,compared to 71 percent in 1981. b)Housi ng (i)Baseline The most recent available sets of data on housing in the Mat-Su Borough are a 1979-80 survey prepared by Pol icy Analysts,Limited,the 1980 U.S.Census and a 1981 sur- vey conducted by the Borough.There are substanti a1 differences in the various studies.The Policy Analysts study was the most detai 1ed;the Census was the most extensive in terms of including all units in the Borough,and the Borough study in 1981 is the most current.Together,they provide a view of the housing conditions in the Borough in the last 3 years. The most recent survey indicated a total housing stock in the Borough of 8,582 units,of which 6,810 (79.4 percent)were occupied.As displayed in Table 4.1-3 the majority of units were located in the southern com- munities of the Borough.In 1981,5,391 units,or 62.8 percent of the total,were locaterl in the Palmer-Wasilla a rea;73.4 percent of the occu pi ed res i dences were in this area.This survey did not yield a comprehensive indication of the housing stock by type of housing. The Policy Analysts study indicated that the majority of housing units in the Borough are single family units (83 4-8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-3 1981 HOUSING STOCK ESTIMATES AND VACANCY RATES,BY AREAS OF THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH Number Percent of Vacancy Area of Units Total Rate Talkeetna 196 2.3 1.0% Houston 229 2.7 9.6 Big Lake Special Area 1,750 20.4 49.9 Wasi 11 a 718 8.4 6.7 Suburban(a)3,801 44.3 6.8 Palmer 872 10.2 10.2 Other Areas 1,016 11.8 52.8 Total Borough 8,582 100.0 20.6% (a) Includes an area that is outside of Palmer and Wasilla's city 1imits and extends west to Houston and east to Sutton. Source:Mat-Su Borough Planning Department 4-9 percent}.Mobile homes and multi -family units accounted for 11 percent and 5 percent of the total,respectively. There are only a small number of mobile home and trailer parks in the Borough,most of which are in the Palmer area.The majority of mobile homes are scattered throughout the Borough on individually-owned lots. Multi -fami ly hous i ng uni ts are concentrated in Palmer and Wasilla,which contained 57 and 37 percent of the stock respectively in 1979.The multifamily units are primarily duplexes,but there are some larger apartment buildings with up to 18 units as well. Vacancy rates in the Borough fluctuate considerably. The overall vacancy rate in December 1979 was estimated at 5.1 percent.The Borough's 1981 survey indicated a vacancy rate of approximately 12.4 percent,but this was based on a measure of housing stock that included some recreational units.The vacancy rates in the incor- porated cities ranged from 6.7 to 10.0 percent in 1981. In addition,changes in vacancy rates can occur rapidly. By the autumn of 1981 the housi ng market had ti ghtened considerably,and vacancy rates were probably far lower than the summer1s survey indicated.Conversations with local officials indicate that an average vacancy rate of five percent is considered to be a healthy condition which will encourage growth. Predictably,vacancy rates vary by housing type.In December 1979,the vacancy rates of single family houses equalled 4.7 percent,compared to 9 percent for multi- family units and 6 percent for mobile homes (Policy Analysts,1980). 4-10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - (i i) Table 4.1-4 contains a listing of the 1980 Census popu- lation per household ratios for selected communities in the Mat-Su Borough.For the Borough as a whole,there was an average population per household ratio of 3.07. There is an addi ti ona 1 aspect of the Mat-SIJ hous i ng stock that is important to note.The Borough has a si gnifi cant amount of recreati ona 1 uni ts whi ch are not used all year round.A number of these are located in the Big Lake and Willow areas.In addition,there are a number of vacant cabi ns and other structures scattered throughout the remote areas of the Borough which are not usually considered to be year-round housing.The 1980 Census,and to a lesser extent the Borough's 1981 sur- vey,included a large number of these in their housing count.Consequently,the Census had a housing count of over 10,400 units and a vacancy rate of 42 percent. As shown in Table 4.1-5 the dominant pattern is to own the res i dence one res ides in;in December 1979,83.5 percent of the households in the Borough owned their own homes.The study also i ndi cated a hi gh percentage of si ngl e-fami ly house owners owned thei r homes outri ght and thus di d not need to make any house payments (40.f) percent of house owners). Baseline Forecast Tables 4.1-6 and 4.1-7 contain projections of households and housing stock in the Mat-Su Borough and selected communities.The overall number of households will rise from 6,810 in 1981 to 26,095 in 2000,while the number of dwelling units will rise from 8,582 to 29,198.In 2005,the number of househol ds and housing units are 4-11 - TABLE 4.1-4 1980 POPULATION,HOUSEHOLDS ANn POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLn RATIOS FOR SELECTEO r,OMMIINITIES - IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA ROROIIGH _. Population Popul ati on Per Community In Householrls HOlJseholds Household Ratio -Big Lake 381 IS?2.S1 Butte 967 ?,Q9 1.21 Houston 370 129 ?87 Palmer ?,043 725 ?8?.- Talkeetna 261 Q5 2.7S -Wasil 1a 1,559 507 3.07 Willow 108 42 ?S7 - - - - - - - Source:U.S.Census Bureau.lQ80 CenSlls. - - 4-12 TABLE 4.1-5 MATANUSKA-SlJSITNA ROROUGH OWNER-RENTER DISTRIBUTION RY HOUSING TYPE - -Mode of Singl!'!Multi-Mohile Ownership Total Family Fami ly Home Rental 13.1i 9.7 1i3.2 15.1i Rent free,not owning 2.9 2.5 2.li 4.8 -Total Own 83.5 87.8 34.?79.7 Purchasing (4 0 .5)(54.?)(23.7)(12.1) Own Outright (33.9)(33.6)(l0.1i)(47.n) - Source:Overall Economic nevelopment Program,Inc.July lQ80.Volume II: Economic Conditions Development Options and Projections;p.79. - 4-13 TABLE 4.1-6 BASELINE FORECAST OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE NAT-SU BOROUSH IAl AND SELECTED COMMUNITIES,1981-2005 TRAPPER YEAR PALMER WASILLA HOUSTON CREEK TALKEETNA TOTAL MAT-SU OTHER BOF:OUGH - - -1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 783 874 939 1008 1083 1163 1250 1343 1443 1551 1619 1691 1767 1845 1928 2014 2105 2200 2299 2402 2486 2573 2664 2853 670 727 789 857 930 1009 1096 1190 1292 1404 1524 1656 1799 1955 2124 2308 2509 2727 2965 3189 3422 3672 3940 4228 4536 207 229 253 279 308 341 377 416 460 508 561 621 686 757 837 925 1023 1130 1249 1381 1519 1671 1838 2022 2224 68 72 75 79 83 87 92 97 102 107 112 118 124 131 138 145 161 169 178 186 193 201 209 217 194 206 219 246 262 278 296 314 334 355 377 401 426 513 546 581 618 650 683 717 754 792 4865 5294 5824 6387 7277 8054 9568 WI77 10514 11i82 11694 12468 13120 13891 14653 15583 16380 17408 18326 191il 19923 20762 21629 22523 6810 7402 8099 8843 9927 10916 11986 12910 13788 14417 15354 16156 17245 18235 19371 20528 21885 23145 24670 26095 27373 28715 30122 31598 33146 - - - (A)CALCULATED BY APPLYING POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD (PPH)FIGURES TO THE POP- ULATION FORECASTS IN TABLE 4.1-~.THE PPH MEASURES WERE CALCULATED TO GRADUALLY DECLINE FROM THE LEVELS OF 1980 AS MEASU-:ED 8Y THE CENSUS BUR- EAU,TO A PROJECTED NATIONAL AVERAGE OF 2.657 IN THE YEAR 2000. NOTE:THE SUM OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROU~lD INS. 4-14 - - - TABLE 4.1-7- B,~SELINE FDRECAST OF HOUSING STOCK IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH,1981-2005 (A) (NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS) TOTAL TRAPPER MAT -SU YEAR PALMER WASILLA HOUSTON CREEK TALKEETNA OTHER BOROUGH ---------------- 1981 872 718 229 69 196 6475 8582 1982 918 764 240 72 210 6586 8790 1983 986 829 265 76 223 7216 9~o~";,"; 1984 1059 899 293 80 237 7894 10462 1985 1137 97 '324 84 251 8958 11730.0 1986 1222 1060 358 88 267 9874 12868 1987 1313 1151 395 93 284 10859 14094 1988 1410 1250 4<"7 98 302 11625 15121.n 1989 1515 1357 483 103 320 12314 16092 1990 1628 1474 ~7~108 340 12669 16754 ,,;,).J 1991 1700 1601 589 114 '7/"'1 13362 17728~'O':: 1992 1776 1738 6~"1i 9 385 13904 18574,,;i- 1993 1855 1889 720 126 409 14762 19761 1994 1938 2052 795 17'1 47 ;:-15469 20821.,)"-,j,,; 1995 2024 2230 879 139 462 16308 22043 1996 2114 2424 0"7'1 147 492 17129 23278II.... 1997 2210 2634 1074 155 C'I"';"T 18123 24719,J~..l 1998 2310 2864 1187 163 557 18968 26048 1999 2413 3113 1312 171 592 20071 27672 2000 2522 3349 1450 180 630 21075 29207 2001 2611 3593 1595 187 662 21978 30626-2002 2702 3856 1754 195 696 22911 32115 2003 2797 4137 1930 203 i7~23877 336i5i.J1. 2004 'iQQC;4439 2123 211 769 24873 353104...,... ~OO5 'jQO~4763 2335 219 808 25902 37023..',\,J (Al CALCULATED BY APPLYIN6 THE FOLLOWING VA.CANCY RATES TO THE FORECASTS OF HOUSEHOL~S IN TABLE 4.1-6: PALMER,~;ASILLA,HOUSTON:FIVE PERCENT; TRAPPER CREEK:ONE PERCEtH; TALKEETNA:HiD PERCENT; OTHER:TWENiY-FIVE PERCENT IN 198 i,DECLINING TO FIFTEEN PERCENT IN-2000. NOTE:THE SUM OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES HAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO INDEPENDENT-POUNDING. - 4-15 TABLE 4.1-8 BASELINE FORECAST OF VACANT HDUSING UNITS -IN THE MAT-5U BOROU6H,1981-2005 (Ai TOTAL TRAPPER MAT-SU - YEAR PALMER WASILLA HOUSTON CREEK TALKEETNA OTHER BOPOUSH ---------------- 1981 89 48 ..,.,1 2 1610 1772 -1982 44 36 11 1 4 1292 1388 1983 47 39 13 1 4 1'0')1496"',~ 1984 50 43 14 1 "1507 1620..J 1985 54 46 15 1 "1681 1803..J 1986 58 50 17 1 "1820 1952... 1987 63 ""19 1 6 1965 2108..J..J 1988 67 60 21 1 6 2057 2211 1989 72 65 23 1 6 2137 2304 1990 78 70 'i"1 7 2155 2336....J 1991 81 76 28 .,2180 2374I 1992 85 83 31 8 2210 2417 - 1993 88 90 34 8 2294 2516 1994 92 98 38 9 2349 2586 1995 96 106 42 9 2417 2672 -1996 101 115 46 10 2476 2750 1997 105 125 51 'j 10 2540 2834.. 1998 110 136 57 2 11 2588 2903 -1999 115 148 62 2 12 2663 3002 2000 120 159 69 -1 12 2749 3112.. 2001 124 171 76 2 13 2867 3253 2002 129 184 84 ..14 2988 3400 2003 133 197 92 '"'14 3114 -,.':'C'...,;.,J ...i..lJ 2004 138 211 101 '"'15 3244 3712,;. 2005 143 227 111 2 16 3378 3877 - (A)CALCULATED FROM DATA ON HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSING STOCK IN TABLES 4.1-6 AND 4.1-7.- NOTE:THE SUM OF lNDIVlu';AL ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TDTALS DUE TO 1fWEPENDENT ROUNDING.- - - - -4-16 - expected to reach 33,146 and 37,023,respectively. These projections are based upon declining estimates of popul ati on per househol d measures and an average fi ve percent vacancy rate.These assumpti ons are di scussed more fully in Section 10.2(d). A compari son of these fi gures reveals that in 1990 the Borough will contain an estimated 2,336 vacant housing units (see Table 4.1-8).Of this total,2,163 will be located outside of the incorporated communities;it should be recalled that this figure includes a large number of recreational units.An estimated 183 housing units will be vacant in the cities of Palmer,Wasilla and Houston in 1990. (c)Government Organization and Fiscal Characteristics - - - (i)Government Structure State statutes under Title 29 provide for the establish- ment of boroughs within the State of Alaska.The steps to becomi ng an organi zed borough i ncl ude:fi rst,the recognition and desire of the constituents of an area to organize;the submittal of a petition to the Department of Community and Regional Affairs signed by 15 percent of the voters;review of the petition by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs;a pUblic hearing,anrl finally an election.Even if an election meets with success,the area must conform to certain requirements relating to population,economy,transportation,and cOl11l1unication.Once the above steps are met and the area is deemed capable of functioning as an organized government,it then becomes an organi zed borough.As such,it automatically assumes certain mandatory obliga- 4-17 ti ons and has the power to assume others.The powers vested unto a borough and the abi 1i ty to assume other responsibilities vary depending on whether a borough is cl assifi ed as a fi rst,second,or thi rd cl ass borough. The steps to becoming an incorporated city are similar to those of a borough except that the primary criterion is population.Formation of home rule municipalities is also provided for in the Municipal Code.A home rule municipality is a municipal corporation and political subdivision and is a borough of the first class,or a city of the first class,which has adopted a home rule charter.It has all legislative powers not prohibited by law or charter.The available powers and composition of governing bodies are explained below in greater detail for Anchorage,the Mat-Su Borough,and individual c01tlllunities. (ii)Matanuska-Susitna Borough The Matanuska-Susitna Borough was incorporated as a second cl ass borough on January 1,1964.As such,at the time of incorporation,the Borough automatically assumed three areawide powers;taxation,education,and planning,platting and zoning.In 1966 the citizens of the Borough voted to add parks and recreati on as an areawide power. In addition to the areawide powers listed above,each borough in Alaska has certain IInon-areawidell powers that it can exerci se outs i de of incorporated ci ti es.As a second class Borough,the non-areawide powers are 1 imited to those powers whi ch are granted by 1aw to first class cities and specifically approved by citizens residing outside of incorporated cities and with the 4-18 - - - - - - - - - - ... ... ... formati on of servi ce areas.The Borough has non-area- wide powers of solid waste disposal and libraries. Areawide powers: Administration -Taxation Planning and zoning Education -Parks and Recreation Non-areawide powers: -Solid waste disposal -Libraries Servi ce areas were created and are exerci sed primari ly in the delivery of road maintenance and fire protection. There are presently si x fi re servi ce areas and si xteen road service areas as follows (Matanuska-Susitna Borough 1981-82 Annual BUdget.) ... ... ... ... ... Fire Service Areas Wasilla Lakes Greater Palmer Butte Sutton Talkeetna Road Service Areas Midway Fairview Caswell Lakes 4-19 Other Service Areas Talkeetna Water and Flood Control Garden Terrace Service Area North Colony Bogard Greater Butte South Colony Knik Lazy Mountain Greater Willow Big Lake Meadow Lakes Gold Trail(a) Greater Talkeetna Trapper Creek Alpine Road (a)Consolidated with Woodside Estates and Wilderness Valley Road Service Areas. -Organization The Borough Government has a Mayor-Manager Assembly form of government,with the executive function per- formed by the Mayor,the legislative function by the Assembly,and the administrative direction by a full- time Manager.The five members of the Assembly are elected by district,with the Mayor elected at large. The Borough administration,working under the direc- tion of the Manager,is currently organized under the following departments: -Finance -Public Works -Assessment -Planning -Engi neeri ng The areawide school system is operated under the direction of the school district administration, whi ch is di sti nct from the general government admi- nistration'but subserviant to the Borough Assembly. 4-20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Borough Administration Facilities The City of Palmer serves as the seat of the Borough Government.Borough General Government admi ni stra- ti ve offi ces and school di stri ct admi ni strati ve offices are housed in separate structures in the heart of the City.The Borough also operates a main- tenance facility on the edge of town,which serves as the motor pool and major repair facility. Incorporated Places There are three incorporated communities within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough: -Palmer - a first-class,home-rule city -Wasilla - a second-class city -Houston - a second-class city Palmer The City of Palmer is administratively under a Mayor-Manager-City Council form of government, with a part-time Mayor and a full-time City Manager.Administrative facilities are housed in the City Hall,which shares a location with the library and fire station.The City also operates a maintenance facility. Wasilla The City of Wasilla has a part-time Mayor and a City Council with a full-time City Clerk.City offices are located in the City Administration building. 4-21 Houston The City of Houston has a part-time Mayor-City Counci 1 form of government,wi th a part-time City Clerk.The City Hall and fire department share a facility in the core area of the com- munity.A meeting room is also included in the structure. -Unincorporated Area Within the 23,000 square miles of the Borough, several unincorporated communities are reco~nized in addition to the three incorporated places mentioned above.These include the communities of Talkeetna, Trapper Creek,Bi 9 Lake and Wi 11 ow Butte.Most of these communities are located within areas serviced by roads;however,the bush community of Skwentna is located on the Skwentna River approximately 40 miles from the nearest road.Much of the Borough is moun- tainous and very sparsely inhabited,and thus does not lend itself to the development of community orga- nizations. (i i i)Taxati on The power to tax is not inherent in the organization of the boroughs and ci ti es,but rather a power granted by the Al aska State Consti tuti on and Statutes.Contai ned in the Alaska State Constitution is the provision that "no tax shall be levied..except for a public purpose"(Article IX,Section 6).The following is a summary of the guidelines governing taxation in the State of Alaska (Alaska Department of Community and 4-22 - - - - - - - - - - - .-Regional Affairs,Division Assistance,January 1980. Municipal Property Assessments Determination). of Local Government Alaska Taxable 1980: and Equalized Full Value .- .- .- - -Summary of Property Tax Provisions of the Alaska Statutes Power of Levy (AS 29.53.010,AS 29.53.400,AS 29.53.410,AS 29.43.020) Home rule and general law municipalities may levy tax on all real and personal property located throughout the municipality to support services provided throughout the muncipality,with the exception of second class cities (which have a tax levy limitation of one-half of one percent or five mill s).The maximum rate of taxati on is three percent (thirty mills)of the full and true value of the taxable property. (AS 29.53.405) Cities may levy a higher or lower rate of tax on the value of real and personal property located within "differential tax zones"that receive a higher or lower level of service than other areas of the city . (AS 29.53.450) If a city is located within an organized borough, the borough remains responsible for assessment of property and coll ecti on of taxes 1evi ed by the city.Citi es located in an unorgani zed borough 4-23 --------------------------------- are responsi bl e for assessment and coll ecti on of local property taxes. (AS 29.53 415-460) Subject to voter appraisal,Alaska municipalities may levy and collect a sales tax not exceeding six percent of the volume of sales,rents,and other services provided within the municipality.The sales tax may apply to any or all of these sources.Exempti ons may be granted by ordi nance. Cities exercising this power within an organized borough also exercising the power must tax and/or exempt the same sal es,units and other services that the borough does.There is no such 1 imita- tion on a city in an unorganized borough or a city located withi n a borough whi ch does not exerci se the sales tax power. Second Class City (AS 29.53.410) A majority vote is required before a second class city may exercise the pow~r of taxation. Borough (AS 29.53.010) Boroughs may 1evy a tax on the val ue of real and personal property located outside cities (non-area wi de)to support services provi ded to that area only. (AS 29.63.090) Boroughs may levy a tax on the value of real 4-24 - - - - - - - - - - - - and personal property located withi n speci al ser- vice areas to support a special service or a hi gher or lower 1evel of servi ce than that pro- vided on an area wide or non-area wide basis. -Tax Limitations Municipalities (AS 29.53.050) There is a general tax 1evy of 30 mi 11 s (three percent)for municipalities.This includes the combi ned mi 11 1evy of a muni cipa 1ity and a borough.However,in 1i ght of the Supreme Court decision numbered 1750,October 20,1978,munici- pal i ti es may exceed the 30 mi 11 s (three percent) ceil i ng if necessary to pay bonded debt.Thi s interpretation does not require that bonds be in default or in a situation threatening default. The combi ned mi 11 1evy of a ci ty and a borough may not generate an amount of revenue greater than an amount equal to $1,000 multiplied by the number of residents of the municipalities;nor maya city and/or borough levy a tax upon that proportion of the municipal tax base that exceeds an amount equal to 225 percent of the average state assessed per capita valuation multipled by the number of residents of the municipality.(The state average does not include oil and gas property). A general ceiling of three percent applies to municipal sales taxes.Home rule municipalities may,however,exceed this limitation.However,in ALASKA R[S~L!~~S U~RARY u.s.Depoutme"t of l;"e Interior 4-25 a second opinion by the Supreme Court,number 1735,September 29,1978,it became possible for a municipal ity to levy a !1eneral sales tax on selected sales activities as opposed to having to tax all sales activities. Second Class Cities (AS 29.53.4-10) Second class cities have a tax ceiling of 5 mills (one-half of one percent),however,they may exceed this limit if it is necessary to do so to avoid default on bonded or other indebtedness. -Exemptions The Alaska Statutes provide for a number of tax exemptions,some of which are listed below: Title 29:Required Exemptions Municipal,State,or Federally-owned property,except that private leaseholds,contracts,or other interest in the property is taxable. Property used exclusively for non-profit,religious, charitable,cemetery,hospital,or educational pur- poses. Househol d furni ture of the head of a fami ly or a householder not exceeding $500 in value. Some non-business activities of veterans. 4-26 - - - - - - - - - - Money or deposit. Real property owned by residents over 64 years of age in which they permanently reside. Title 43:Required Exemptions Oil and gas-related properties. Title 10: Exemptions Corporations and Associations:Required - - - - - Title 29:Optional Exemptions and Exclusions Home Rule Home Rule or First or Second Class Boroughs:A home rul e or fi rst or second cl ass borough may adopt an ordinance to bring its property tax structure into entire or partial accordance with the property tax structure of a city within it, including--though not limited to--the exclusion of personal property from taxation,the establishment of exemptions,and the extension of the redemption period. Home Rule or First Class Cities:A home rule or fi rst cl ass ci ty has the same power of exempti ng or excluding property from borough taxes that already exist as city exemptions.However,the city exercising this power must return to the borough a sum equal to the revenues the borough woul d have recei ved had the excl usi ons or exemp- tions not been adopted.The borough assembly will determine that amount annually. 4-27 / Home Rule or General Law Cities:A home rule or general 1aw city withi n an organi zed borough may adopt an ordinance to assimilate its property tax structure enti rely or parti ally to that of the borough,including partial or total exemptions. Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The constitution provides that "rea l property interests conveyed pursuant to this Act,to a native individual,native group,or village,or regi onal corporati on whi ch are not developed or leased to third parties,shall be exempt from State and local real property taxes for a peri od of twenty years after the date of enactment of this Act.II (Public Law 92-203,92nd Congress, First Session,Section 21). Table 4.1-9 lists the property and sales taxes for Anchorage,Fairbanks,and municipalities and some service areas in the organized Borough of Matanuska Susitna.Communities along the Richardson Highway that are unincorporated and unorganized do not levy taxes.Of the communities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Palmer is the only municipality that levies a sales tax.Table 4.1-10 provides data on total assessed valuation for real and personal property,population ann General Obligation Bonded Indebtedness. 4-28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \1111TABLE4.1-9MUNICIPALPROPERTYANnSALESTAXRATES1BOROUGHANnPROPERTYTAXSALESTAXSERVICEAREA(CLASS)TCA197819791980197819791980MUNICIPALITYOFANCHORAGE(UnifiedHomeRule)Anchorage(SA)01.10Administration3.001'.01:1?35Schools5.874.043.93Sewer.53.4fi.41Roads1.651.7f;1.30Police2.602.001.QOFire1.791.591.41'ParksandRecreation.fi8.50.50..,.SolidWaste.23.19 .19IAreaBondsN\J)TOTAL16.4511.791::>.00FAIRBANKSNORTHSTARBOROUGH(SecondClass)Fairbanks(HR)018.508.507.503.03.0~.OAdministration1.701.441.102.0?O?OSchools5.505.745.10TOTAL15.7015.fi813.705.n5.05.0NorthPole(HR)025.804.504.00~.O3.0~.oAdministration1.701.441.101'.02.02.0Schools5.505.745.10TOTAL11':lm1T:1lB"1lf."mOtherAreas(HR)03Administration1.701.441.10?O2.0?OSchools5.505.745.10TOTAL7.207.180.20 TABLE4.1-9MUNICIPALPROPERTYANDSALESTAXRATES(continued)BOROUGHANDPROPERTYTAXSALESTAXSERVICEAREA(CLASS)TCA197819791980197819791980MATANUSKA-SUSITNABOROUGH(SecondClass)Palmer(HR)055.05.02.0?O2.0AOrnTnistration1.151.35?.5ASchools6.055.A55.8?LandFill.10TOTAL7.1012.?011.40Wasilla(2nd)13.501.00 1.20Administration1.151.15?.58.p.Schools6.055.855.R?ILandFi11.10w0Fire.60.60TOTAL""T:3'O~Tn:"-TIHouston(2nd)12Administration1.151.352.5RSchoolsfi.05(a)5.A5I).R?LandFi11.10TOTAL7:307.?OR.40MATANUSKA-SUSITNABOROUGH(SecondClass)GreaterPalmer(SA).50.50Admin1stration031.151.152.58Schools(i.055.R55.82LandFill&Library.10*.20.55TOTAL7.307.ClO9.45,II,IIIII ,111TARLE4.1-9MUNICIPALPROPERTYANnSALESTAXRATES(continued)1JBOROUGHANnSERVICEAREA(CLASS)TCAPROPERTYTAX197A197919AO197ASALESTAX19791980WasillaFires(SA)01.50.no.1l0Administration1.151.3~2.5ASchools6.0~5.A5~.A?LandFills&Library.10.20.55TOTAL7.AOA.OO9.55TrapperCreekRoad(SA)1AAdministration1.352.5A~Schools5.A55.A2IWLandFill&Library.20.55......TOTAL7.40R.%GreaterWillowRoad(SA)20Administration1.352.5ASchools5.855.A2LandFill&Library.20 .55TOTAL7:40R.95TalkeetnaFire(SA)Service24NIiiiT'ilistration1.352.5ASchools5.R55.A2LandFill&Library.20.55Fire.60.60TOTALA.OOQ.'l!)(a)Landfillonly.Source:AlaskanepartmentofCommunityandRegionalAffairs,nivisionofLocalGovernmentAssistance.January19R1.AlaskaTaxable19AO.Juneau,AK;p.47. .p:.IWNTABLE4.1-10VALUATION,POPULATIONANOr..O.RONOEOOERTFULLVALliEr..0.RONOEOPERCAPITAPERCAPITAOERT'f.TOBOROUGHSOETF.RMINATIONPOPULATIONOERTOERTVALIIATlONVALIIATIONI-I-RO7-1-RO7-1-ROAnchorage,Munlc1palltyofTotal7,4<l5,203,fi!i0704,37R7'\Q,003,OOO17,fi7fi1",fiR7:1.4IifairbanksNorthStarI,444,fiRR,030fiO,7?7:n,Q3!i,OOO'\fi3?3,QR77.3'\Fa1rbanksCity7%,I!il,"003fi,4'\7?O,,\QI,2!iIIi"Ii?I,RII7.fiONorthPole7l,fi3?,QOORI'33'iO,OOO4?liR7,O~Q.4RTotalI',311,47?,DOfiO,777li4,R7",7'i1QIl~R,37Q7.37Matanuska-Susltna9fi!i,41'3,'i00?3,177!iO,"'i'i,OOO7,1774I,fi'i7'i.nPalmerCityI'O,73!i,4007,OQIi?,7Q7,On?,OQ4Q,RQRII.OC;TotalQRIl,I'iR,4:1073,177'iI',747,On?,?71l4?,'i4QC;.3liSource:AlaskaflepartmentofCOllll1unHyanclRegionalAffa1rs,01vls1onofLocalr.overnmentAssistance•.1anuaryIQRI.AlaskaTaxahleIQRO.,Juneau,AKip31.IIIIIIIIIIIIII - (iv)Fiscal Revenues and Expenditures -Baseline:Matanuska-Susitna Borough Budget FY81/82 Revenues The current composition of revenue is as follows: - General Fund Service Areas Fund Land Management Fund Education Operating Fund General Fund 36%of total revenues 3%of total revenues 3%of total revenues 58%of total revenues Property taxes currently provide approximately 37 percent of total General Fund Revenue.The current mill rate for fiscal 1982 is 6.7 per $1,000 assessed valuation,broken down as follows: - - General Government Parks and Recreation Ambulance Service Community College Subtotal Education Total 0.06 0.08 0.24 0.07 .45 6.25 6.70 - - - State School Debt Service Reimbursement monies currently contribute 23 percent of total General Fund revenues.The State reimburses 80 percent of school bonded indebtness for organized boroughs and 100 percent for non-organized boroughs.There is a two-year lag in state reimbursements.House 4-33 Bill #279 woulrl provide for 100 percent state fundi ng for school rleht servi ce payments.The 1982 session of the Alaska legislature is expected to pass this Bill. Municipal Assistance funds for FY81/82 are $2.9 million (Approximately 20 percent of total General Fund revenues).These are derived from corporate income tax revenues and are used for the provisi on of several services.The intent of Municipal Assistance monies is to reduce local property tax levies in proportion to the amount of increased State airl.State Sharerl Revenue for FY81/82 is $2.4 million (16 percent of General Fund revenues) with allocations for lanrl use planning and parks and recreation,as \\ell as a general areawide allocation.Revenue Sharing fund allocations are determined in part by an area's ability to raise taxes.This is in conflict with the intent of Municipal Assistance monies anrl curently there is a legislative proposal from Governor Jay Hammonrl to combine these t\'«>funding sources. - - - - - - - $24 3.5 Federa 1 revenue total Revenue Sharing and currently Genera 1 Fun d rep resent s pravi des revenues. per capita percent of Miscellaneous - sources,including interest on earnings,recovery of wages and fringe benefits and transfers from funrl balances account for approximately seven per- cent of total General Funrl revenues. Currently no taxes are raised for capital projects due to abundant State funding from petroleum reve- nues.The current ratio of bonded indebtedness to 4-34 - - - - - - - - - - total assessed valuation is 0.075,based on a total assessed property value of $893,591,412 as of January 1,1981. Service Areas Fund State Shared Revenue funds and Municipal Assistance monies are provided to local govern- ments for fire service,libraries and road main- tenance and improvements.These account for 70 percent of total Service Area Fund revenues. Revenues from property taxes account for the other 30 percent of total revenues for areawi de ser- vices.In FY 81/82 there were approximately $360,000 in property tax revenues from non- areawide assessed valuations of $715 million. Land Management Fund Revenue sources i ncl ude State grants,recordi ng and land management fees,interest on earnings from sa 1e of Borough 1ands and income from the sale and lease of Borough lands.The fund provides for an analysis of all Borough real property to be categorized for assessment purposes and for general management of all the land to be recei ved by the Borough from the Muni ci pal Land Entitlement Act passed by the State Legislature in 1978.The division handles all applications for lease or purchase of Borough lands,Borough resources (timber,gravel)and for rights-of-way. 4-35 Expenditures Current per capita expenditures for FY81/82 in the Mat-Su Borough Budget are as foll ows:(these figures are based upon a total areawide population of 22,285). - - - - - Areawide General Fund per capita cost Ambulance average per capita cost Sanitation-landfill average per capita cost Library per capita cost when computed on a community basis Fire Service average per capita cost Parks and Recreation per capita cost Land Management Program Administration Road Maintenance and Repair (per mile) Education -average per pupil expenditure including both capital project costs and administrative costs $750 $30 $16 $32 $35 $50 $50 $2,500 $5,650 - - - - Table 4.1-11 provides a comparison of average per capita costs for selected social services provided by cities in Impact Areas 2 and 3. -Baseline Forecast:Matanuska-Susitna Borough Budget Revenue projecti ons incl ude only major sources of revenue and should be viewed as trend indicators of future revenue schedul es and not as predi cti ons of actua 1 future recei pts.In genera 1,revenues increase almost 100 percent between 1981 and 1990, and the rate of increase drops to approximately 50 percent between 1991-2000.Projections for the major 4-36 - - - - - IJ!}1TABLE4.1-11}11COMPARISONOFAVERAGEPERCAPITAEXPENDITURESfORSELECTEDSOCIALSERVICES.LOCALSOLIDGOVTPARKSHEALTHSEWAGEWASTEWATERPUBLICELECTRICROADADMINPOLICEFIREAMBLNC~RECRLIBRARYCARETRANSSERVICEDISPOSALSUPPLYWORKSUTILSKAINT---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ANCHORAGENfASI53$100$19556521S25S84S91S21$124NfA NfA NfAFAIRBANKSNfASI35$142NfAS35NfAS32NfA$ll0NfAS83.102S360NfAKAT-SUBR$750NfAS35S30S50S32NfANfANfA$16NfANfANfA$33+:>PALMER$190$190550$19S23533mNfA$40NfASBOS250NfANfAIw-....jWASILLAS122NfA$34NfAS22$47NfANfA NfANfANfA NfANfAS8BHOUSTON554NfA$17NfAS9NfANfA NfANfASI.50NfANfANfAS33Compiledfromdatacontainedintablesprovidingindividualcityexpendituredata.Note:Thesumofindividualentriesmaynotequaltotalsduetoindependentrounding. sources of revenue for the General Fund are provided in Tabl e 4.1-12.There are two major sources of revenue for this fund:local property taxes and school debt servi ce reimbursement moni es whi ch together compri se approximately 60 percent of total revenue.State funds for school debt service reim- bursement increase from 22 percent of current reve- nues to approximately 27 percent of total revenues by 1986,when 100 percent of local school capital pro- j ect debt isanti ci pated to be rei mbu rsed by the State,after passage of HB#279.Local property tax revenues will double by 1995.Municipal Assistance and State Shared Revenue funds are projected as separate revenue categori es based upon current legislation.Municipal Assistance is assumed to remain $85.26 per capita in real dollars while State Shared Revenues are assumed to be $107 per capita in real 1981 dollars. Tabl e 4.1-13 provi des property tax projecti ons for the Mat-Su Borough.These projections are based on a 4 percent real rate of increase in property values and a mill levy of 6.5 mills per $1000 assessed valuation for 1981-1989,and a levy of 6.75 mills for 1990-2005.The per capita share of property taxes declines from $256 in 1981 to $187 in 1995 when total property tax revenues actually double. Tabl e 4.1-14 provi des revenue projecti ons for the Service Area Fund and the Land Management Fund.The portion of total property tax revenues contributed to this fund are based upon a mill levy of 0.5 mills per $1000 assessed valuation until 1990 when this is pro- jected to increase to 0.75 mills per $1000 assessed 4-38 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... TABLE 4.1-12 M~T-SU BOROUGH BUDGET:B~SELINE FORECAST OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES. A B C D E TOTAL SCHOOL STATE MUNICIPAL FEDERAL 111SC TOTAL PROPERTY OBT SRV SHARED ASSIST REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE-TAXES REIMBS/'H REVENUE SHARING YEAR $S $S S.S $ ._------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1981 5719325 3485006 2384495 1900019 534840 1219451 15243136 1982 5948098 3624407 2566074 2044705 575568 1283378 16042230 1983 6186021 3769383 2780074 2215225 623568 1354285 16928556-1984 6433462 3920158 3004025 2393675 673800 1428271 17853391 1985 6690801 407b965 3338614 2660283 748848 1523088 19038598 198b 6958433 6237756 3632650 2894577 814800 1785932 22324148 1987 7236770 6487266 3947658 3145582 885456 1887194 23589927 1988 7526241 6746757 4207561 3352679 943752 1980608 24757598 1989 7827291 7016627 4445101 3541956 997032 2072001 25900007 1990 8394996 7297292 4597148 3663111 1031136 2172494 27156177...1991 8730795 7589184 4843141 3859123 1086312 2270309 28378865 1992 9030027 7892751 5040984 4016769 1130698 2361845 29523065 1993 9443228 8208461 5321538 4240321 1193616 2470188 30877353 1994 9820958 8536800 5562716 4432497 1247712 2573972 32174654...1995 10213796 8878272 5842949 4655793 m0568 26B7076 33589454 1996 10622348 9233403 6119437 4876105 1372594 2802076 35025952 1997 11047242 9602739 6449104 5138791 1446528 2929079 36613481...1998 11489131 9936848 67410')0 5371380 1512000 3052205 38152565 1999 11948696 10386322 7098166 5655978 1592112 3189676 39870951 2000 12426644 10801775 7418738 5911417 1664016 3323703 41546294 2001 12923710 11233841 7782217 6201045 1745544 3468379 43354736 2002 13440658 11683197 8163565 6504912 1831080 3619427 45242838 2003 13978284 12150528 8563638 6823699 1920816 3777127 47214092 2004 14537416 1'2636545 8983195 7158003 2014920 3941745 49271815...2005 15118912 13142008 9423383 7508763 2113656 4113628 51420350 ... - ASSUMPTIONS: (AlAREAWIDE MILL LEVY 6.0 "ILLS PER S1000 ASSESSED VALUATION,1981-2005. NON-AREAWIDE LEVY 0.5 "ILLS,1981-1989;0.75 "ILLS,1990-2005. (B}0.52 t TOTAL BO»DED INDEBTEDNESS,1981-1985. 0.0765tTOTAl BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.1986-2005. (C}$107.00 FER CAPITA • (D)$85.26 PER CAPITA. (El$24.00 FER CAPITA. INCLUDES ONLY ~AJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR THE NAT-SU BOROU6H BUD6ET. 4-39 TABLE 4.1-13 - PROPERTY TAX BASELINE PROJECTIONS FOR MAT -SU BOROUGH. - NON-HIlDE NON-A-IrIIDE AREAWIDE AREAWIDE TOTAL PER CAPITA PER CAPITA ASSESSED PROPERTY ASSESSED PROPERTY PROPERTY ASSESSED PROPERTY -VALUATION TAX VALUATION TAX TAXES VALUATION TAX YEAR ($000)$($000)$$$$ ._--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 715552.16 357776 893591.41 5361548 5719324.54 40098 256.64 - 1982 744174.25 372087 929335.07 5576010 5948097.52 38751 248.02 1983 773941.22 386971 966508.47 5799051 6186021.42 37199 238.09 1984 804898.86 402449 10051118.81 6031013 6433462.28 35803 229.15 -1985 837094.82 418547 1045375.56 6272253 6690800.77 33503 214.43 1986 870578.61 435289 1087190.58 652Jl43 1.958432.80 32023 204.96 1987 905401.76 452701 1130678.21 6784069 7236770.11 30647 196.15 -1988 941617.83 470809 1175905.33 7055432 7526240.92 29904 191.40 1989 979282.54 489641 1222941.55 7337649 7827290.55 29438 188.41 1990 10!8453.84 763340 1271859.21 7631155 8394995.64 29603 195.40 1991 1059192.00 794394 1322733.58 7936401 3730795.46 29223 192.89 -1992 1101559.68 826170 1375642.92 8253858 9080027.28 29199 192.73 1993 1145622.06 859217 1430668.64 8584012 9443228.37 28766 189.87 1994 1191446.94 893585 1487895.38 8927372 9320957.50 28620 188.91 -1995 1239104.82 929329 1547411.20 9284467 10213795.80 28337 187.04 1996 1288669.02 %6502 1609307.65 9655846 10622347.64 28139 185.73 1997 1340215.78 1005162 1673679.95 10042080 11047241.54 27769 183.29 1998 1393824.41 1045368 1740627.15 10443763 11489131.20 27629 182.37 - 1999 1449577.38 1087183 1810252.24 10861513 11948696.45 27288 180.12 2000 1507560.48 1130670 1882662.32 11295974 12421.644.31 27154 179.23 2001 1567862.90 1175897 1957968.82 11747813 12923710.08 26921 177.69 -2002 1630577.41 1222933 2036287.57 12217725 13440658.48 26690 176.17 2003 1695800.51 1271850 2117739.07 12706434 13978284.82 26460 174.65 2004 1763632.53 1322724 2202448.64 13214692 14537416.21 26234 173.16 2005 1834177 .83 l375633 2290546.58 13743279 15118912.86 26009 171.67 - ASSIJ~PTI ONS:-REAL VALUE OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IS ASSUMED TO INCREASE 4%PER YEAR. AREAWIDE ~ILL LEVY=6.0 MILLS PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUATION.- NON-AREA~IDE ~ILL LEVY=0.5 MILLS (1981-1989) 0.75 ~ILLS (1990-2005)- THE SU~OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING. (9)01 4-40 - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-14 MAT-SU BOROUGH BUD6ET:BASELINE FORECAST OF REVENUES FOR THE SERVICE AREA FUNDj LAND MANAGEMENT FUNDj AND MAXIMUM TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. A B C SERV.AREA NON A-WIDE STATE LAND TOTAL FUND PROP TAX SHARED MANAGEMENT BONDED TOT.REV SHARE REVENUE FUND INDBTDNESS YEAR S $t HI ($('00) ---------------------------------------------------- ----------- 1981 1192537 357776 834811 944438 67019.36 1982 1240290 372087 868203 1016357 69700.13 1983 1289902 386971 902931 1101117 72488.14 1984 1341498 402449 939049 1189819 75387.66 1985 1395158 418547 976611 1322341 78403.17 1986 1450964 435289 1015675 1438801 81539.29 1987 1509003 452701 1056302 1563568 84800.87 1988 1569363 470809 \(198554 1666509 88192.90 1989 1632138 489641 1142496 1760592 91720.62 1990 2546135 763840 1782294 1820814 95389.44 1991 2647980 794394 1853586 1918246 99205.02 1992 2753899 826170 1927729 1996607 103173.22 1993 2364055 859217 2004839 2107727 107300.15 1994 2978617 393585 2085032 2203251 111592.15 1995 3097762 929329 2168433 2314245 116055.84 1996 3221673 966502 2255171 2423755 120698.07 1997 3350S39 1005162 2345378 2554327 125526.00 1998 3484561 1045368 2439193 2669940 13(1547.04 1999 3623943 1087183 2536760 2811404 135768.92 2000 3768901 1130670 2638231 2938375 141199.67 2001 3919657 1175897 2743760 3082340 146847.60 2002 4076443 1222933 2655510 3233382 152721.53 2003 423'1500 1271850 2967650 3391841 158830.43 2004 4409080 1322724 3086356 3558013 lb5183.60 2005 4585443 1375633 3209810 3732364 171790.95 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING: (All'IIll.LEVY FOR SERVICE AREAS,0.5 PER HOOO ASSESSED VALUATION,1981-1989. ~ILL LEVY FOR SERVICE AREAS,0.75 PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUATION,1990-2005. lElS42.38 PER CAPITA. (C)RATIO OF TOTAL BONDED IIIDEBTED~jESS TO TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION IS 0.075. 4-41 The Land Management Fund revenues are based upon $42.38 per capita revenue.Maximum total bonded indebtedness for capital projects is not anticipated to exceed 7.5 percent of total assessed valuation. By 1990 total bonded indebtedness for the Mat-Su Borough could reach $95 million,and $171 million by the year 2005. va 1uati on.Thi s property approximately 30 percent of revenues,i ncreas i ng from $1,375,633 in 2005. tax share accounts for tota 1 Servi ce Area Fund $357,776 in 1981 to - - - - - - - Projections for selected expenditures are displayed in table 4.1-15.These projections are based upon average per capita expenditures found in the FY 81/82 budget.The costs of services that are relatively capital intensive and utilize expensive machinery are assumed to increase in real terms.The increases will be a result of high interest rates in the early 1980s which cause the cost of borrowing money to rise dramatically.These additional costs are built into the cost of capital equipment and thereby drive up the costs of service delivery (see assumptions below table 4.1-15).The cost of delivering services doubles nearly every 10 years for most types of local government service. -Baseline:Matanuska-Susitna Borough School Oistrict Budget FY81/82 The school di stri ct budget for FY81/82 is the si ngl e largest category of revenues and expenditures across all servi ces provi ded withi n the Borough and withi n the incorporated communities. 4-42 - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-15 MAT-5U BOROUGH:GENERAL FUNDj5ERVICE AREA FUUDj LAND MANAGEMENT FUND EXPENDITURE BASELINE FORECAST. A B C D E F G H IlAT-SU AREAWIDE AMBULANCE SANITARY LIBRARY FIRE PARKS LAND MNM6T ROAD TOTAL BOROUGH GEN.FUND LANDFILL.SERVICE ~RECR PROGRAM I'lAINT EXPENDS YEAR POP ADMIN ADMIN ~REPAIR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 22285 16713750 668550 356560 713120 779975 1114250 1114250 797500 22257955 1982 23982 17986500 719460 383712 767424 839370 1199100 1199100 877250 23971916-1983 25932 19486500 779460 415712 831424 909370 1299100 1299100 964975 25985641 1984 28075 21056250 842250 449200 898400 982625 1403750 1403750 1061473 28097698 1985 31202 23401500 936060 499232 998464 lon070 1560100 1560100 1167620 31215146 1986 33950 25462500 1069425 570360 1086400 1247663 1697500 1697500 1284382 34115729 1987 36894 27670500 1162161 619819 1180608 1355855 1844700 1844700 1412820 37091163 1988 39323 29492250 1238675 M,(J626 1258336 1445120 1966150 1966150 1554102 39581409 1989 41543 31157250 1308605 697922 1329376 1526705 2077150 2077150 1709512 41883670 1990 42904 32223000 1353366 721795 1374848 1578927 2148200 2148200 1880463 43428799 1991 45263 33947250 1440269 760418 1448416 1663415 2263150 2263150 2068510 45854578 1992 47112 35334000 1499104 791482 1507584 1731366 2355600 2355600 2275361 47850096 1993 49734 37300500 158253b 835531 1591488 1827725 2486700 2486700 2502897 50614076 1994 51988 38991000 1654258 873398 1663616 1910559 2599400 2599400 2753186 53044818 1995 54607 40955250 1737595 917398 1747424 2006807 2730350 2730350 3028505 55853679 1996 57191 42893250 1819818 960809 1830112 2122930 2859550 2859550 3331355 58677374 1997 ,)1)272 45204000 1917855 1012570 1928704 2237297 3013600 3013600 3i:J64491 61992116 1998 63noo 47250000 2004660 1058400 2016noo 2338560 3150000 3150000 4030940 64998560 1999 66338 49753500 2110875 1114478 2122816 2462467 3316900 3316900 4434034 68631970 2000 69334 52000500 2206208 1164311 2218688 2573678 3466700 3466700 4877437 71974723 2001 72731 54548250 2314300 1221881 2327392 2699775 3636550 3636550 5365181 75749879 2002 76295 57221250 2427707 1281756 2441440 2832070 3814750 3814750 5901699 79735423 2003 80034 60025500 2546682 1344571 2561088 2'n0862 4001700 4001700 6491869 83943972 2004 83955 629b6250 2671448 1410444 268656(i 3116410 4197750 4197750 7141056 38387668 2(1(i5 88069 66051750 2802356 1479559 2818208 3269121 4403450 4403450 7855162 93083056 ASSUMPT Io~~s: EXPENDITURE PRDJECTIONS WERE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PER CAPITA MULTIPLIERS. - (A)$30 1981-1985;+5%1986-1990:+1Z 191-2005. (Elfl6 1981-1985;+5Z 1986-2005. (ClS32 (nli35 1981-1985;+51 1986-J995:+J%1996-2005. (ElS50 (Fii50 (6);250n.00 PER HILE;+10~PER YEAR. PROJECTIONS DO NOT INCLUDE ALL CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURES 4-43 Revenues The compositi on of revenues for the School Oistrict budget for FY81/82 is: State Sources 68% Local Property Taxes 26% Federal Sources 6% State Sources The Foundati on Program is the primary source of State Funds for educati on.Thi sis based upon school popul ati on with a unit cost adjusted for differences in costs of educational service deli- very by geographic location. The instructional unit cost is $38,600 for FY81/82.The cost differenti al for the Mat-Su Borough is 1.04.The #of uni ts for FY81/82 is 358.Therefore,total State Foundati on Program funding for the Mat-Su Borough School Oistrict will be approximately $14.372 million. A.n additi onal component of State revenues comes from pupil transportation revenues,which are $450 per pupil for FY81/82. Local Property Taxes The mi 11 rate for educati on was 6.25 mi 11 s per $1000 assessed valuation for FY81-82.This generated $5,026,883 or approximately 25 percent of the total school budget. 4-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Federal Sources Federal sources currently provi de $300 per pupi 1. These funds are used to provi de speci al programs that would not otherwise be available if the funds were not appropriated. Expenditures The di stri buti on of school budget doll ars by func- tion is as follows: Regular Instruction Vocational Education Special Education Support Services Operations and Maintenance Pupil Transportation Other 33% 4% 6% 18% 19% 8% 12% - - Publ ic Law 94142 requires that a school district provide whatever special educational services may be required by a pupil in that school district. Passage of this bill has resulted in tremendous increases in expenditures for special education programs. The current average costs for pupils,excluding capital project costs,are as follows: $3,900 for high school students $3,250 for junior high school students $2,850 for elementary school students 4-45 Capital Improvements Program The 1980 Six-Year Capital Construction Plan calls for the following schedule of total funding required to complete the following projects: Total Project Cost - - Iditarod Elementary Roof Wasilla High Athletic Field Palmer High Athletic Field Susitna Valley High Addition Sutton Elementary Development Wholesale Maintenance Facility Willow Elementary Addition East Wasilla Elementary Trapppers Creek C1/Multipurpose Palmer High Addition and SWimming Pool West Palmer Elementary Northeast Wasilla Elementary Houston-Willow Senior/Junior High $449,500 316,035 316,035 850,000 106,200 2,182,700 4,129,900 4,193,400 2,909,200 10,479,700 4,639,900 4,461,300 5,095,400 - - Funding Required FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 $1,588,270 964,600 2,463,700 7,846,700 18,766,000 8,500,000 - Anticipated State Funding $1,588,270 (19%) Areawide Borough Funding $28,9R4,300 (81%) The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School Di stri ct IS highest priorities were set forth in the bond issue 4-46 - - election of October 6,1981,which issues passed as foll ows: Palmer Junior High Sprinkling System Wasilla High Sprinkling System Swanson Elementary Sprinkling System Trapper Creek Elementary School Palmer High Atletic Complex Wasilla High Athletic Complex Su-Valley Band and Shop Wasilla Area Elementary School Total $276,808 271 ,000 180,300 2,081,900 491,900 456,000 1,193,000 6,694,500 11,645,408 - - SB 279 Payment of School Bond Principal and Interest With the passage of $11,645,408 school bond issue and $3,228,300 swimming pool issue,the passage of SB 279 obviously becomes the highest priority for the 1981-82 Legislative Session.SB 279 would pick up the Borough's liability for principal and interest on the existing school bonded indebtedness. (Correspondence from Monty Hotchkiss,Busi ness Manager,Mat-Su Borough School Di stri ct,December 23,1981). -Baseline Forecast:Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District BUdget Table 4.1-16 provides projections of major revenue sources for the School District Budget.Total revenues increase from $23.9 million in 1981 to $48.8 million in 1990 (104 percent increase)and to $104.4 million in 2005 (a 114 percent increase).The rate of increase in total revenues is slower than the rate of increase in 4-47 -TABLE 4.1-16 ... HAT-SU SCHOOL DISTRICT BUD6ET:BA5ELINE REVENUE FORECASTS - A B C D YEAR 5CH POP 5T FNDTN ST TRANS TOTAL LOC PROP FEDERAL TOTAL -HAT-SU PROS REV REVENUE ST REV TAXES REVENUES REVENUES BOROU6H ($0001 ($0001 ($000)($000)(SOOOl ($000) ._------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1981 4680 15030 2106 17136 -5362 1404 23902 1982 ~468 17561 2461 20021 ~~76 1640 27238 1983 5924 19025 26M 21691 5799 1777 29267 1984.6401 20~57 2880 23437 6031 1920 31389 - 1985 7114 22847 3201 26048 6272 2134 34454 1986 7741 24860 3483 28344 6523 ~-~?37189",,JL .. 1987 8412 27015 3785 30801 6784 2~24 40108 -1988 9044 29045 4070 33115 7055 2713 42883 1989 9~96 30818 4318 3~136 7337 2879 4~352 1990 10011 33758 4505 38263 7631 3003 48897 1991 10637 35869 4787 40656 7936 3191 ~1783 1992 11166 37653 5025 42678 8253 3350 ~4280 1993 11837 39916 5327 45242 8584 3551 57377 1994 12477 42074 5615 47688 8927 3743 60358 -1995 13215 44562 5947 50509 9284 3965 63757 1996 13897 46862 6254 53116 9655 4169 66940 1997 14767 49796 6645 56441 10042 4430 70913 1998 15561 52473 7002 59476 10443 4668 74587 - 1999 16452 55478 7403 62881 10B61 4936 78678 2000 17334 58452 7800 66252 11295 5200 82747 2001 18183 61315 8182 69497 11748 5455 86700 -2002 19074 64319 8583 72903 12218 5722 90843 2003 20008 67469 9004 76472 12706 6002 9~lS1 2004 20989 70777 9445 80222 13215 6297 99734 -2005 22017 74243 9908 84151 13743 6605 104499 ASSUMPT IONS: (A)t OF INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS *1.04 *$38,600 119S1-19891 +57.1990-2005 lSI 54~0 PER PUPIL (C)BASED ON 6.0 HILLS PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUATION. ID)5300 PER PUPIL PROJECTIONS INCLUDE ONLY HAJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR THE SCHOOL BUDGET 4-48 - - - - - - - school-age population (116 percent by 1990,119 percent by 2005).State revenues comprise approximately three- fourths of total revenues with State Foundation Program revenues accounting for 88 percent of total State funding. Local property taxes for school revenues are based upon a mill levy of 6 mills per $1000 assessed valuation. (Total property tax mill levy assumed to be 6.5 mills per $1000 assessed val uati on for the Mat-Su Borough.) Local taxes comprise approximately 22 percent of total school revenues in 1981 and continue to decline in pro- porti on to total revenues (13 percent in 2005).Thi s occurs due to a proportional increase in State funding which is based upon school age popul ation.Federal Revenues continue to represent a very small portion of total school revenues. Table 4.1-17 provides school budget expenditure projec- tions by function.These are based upon the following relative shares. 1980-1984 1985-2000 Regular instruction 33%30% Vocational education 4%2% Special education 6%10% Support services 18%18% Operations and Maintenance 19%18% Pupil transportation 8%10% -Other 12%12% - - Speci al educati on is anti cipated to increase substan- ti ally due to the passage of PL 94142,whi 1e expen- 4-49 TABLE 4.1-17 NAT-SU BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET:BASELINE EXPENDITURE FORECAST. - - - A B C D E F 6 H -SCH AGE REGULAR VOCATHL SPECIAL SUPPORT OPERTNS PUPIL OTHER TOTAL POP.~-S INSTRN EDUCTN EDUcn~SERVICES ~MAINTN TRANSPTN EXPENDS BOROUGH YEAR ($000)(SOOO)($000)(SOOO)($000)($000){SOOOI (SOOOI --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4680 1981 8726 1058 1587 4760 5024 2115 3173 26442 5468 1982 10195 1236 1854 5561 5870 2472 3707 30894 5924 1983 11045 1339 2008 6025 6359 2678 4016 33471 - 6401 1984 11935 1447 2170 6510 6871 2893 4340 36166 7114 1985 12058 804 4019 7235 7235 4019 4823 40194 7741 1986 13121 875 4374 7873 7873 4374 5248 43737 -3412 1987 14258 951 4753 R""""8555 4753 5703 47528_.J.ioJ 9044 1968 15330 1022 5110 9198 9198 5110 6132 51099 9596 1989 16265 1064 5422 9759 9759 5422 6506 54217 10011 1990 16969 1131 5656 10181 10181 5656 6787 59395 - 10637 1991 18030 1202 6010 10818 10818 6010 7212 63109 11166 1992 18926 1262 6309 11356 11356 6309 7571 66248 11837 1993 20064 1338 6688 12038 12038 6688 8025 70229 -12477 1994 21149 1410 7050 12689 12689 7050 8459 74026 13215 1995 22399 1493 7466 13440 13440 7466 8960 78405 13897 1996 23555 1570 7852 14133 14133 7852 9422 82451 14767 1997 25030 1669 8343 15018 15018 8343 10012 87613 15561 1998 26376 1758 8792 15826 15826 8792 10550 92323 16452 1999 27886 1859 9'lQ"16732 16732 9295 11154 97610..,oJ 17334 2000 29381 1959 9794 17629 17629 9794 11752 102843 -18183 2001 32364 2158 10788 19418 19418 10788 12946 107S80 19074 2002 33950 2263 11317 20370 20370 11317 13580 113166 20008 2003 35612 2374 11871 21367 21367 11871 14245 118707 -20989 2004 37358 2491 12453 22415 22415 12453 14943 124528 22017 2005 39188 2613 13063 23513 23513 13063 15675 130627 - ASSUMPTlONS: PROJECTIONS WERE ~ADE BASED UPON THE FOLLD~IN6: {AI 33%OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES,1981-1984;30%1985-2005. (B)41 1981-1984;2%1985-2005. ICI 6%1981-1984;10%1985-2005. 101 lSI 1981-2005.- {El 191.1981-1984;18%1985-2005. (FI 81 1981-1984,10%1985-2005. (6)m 1931-2005.THIS INCLUDES -SOME CAPITAL INPROVENENTS. (HI TOTAL EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL $5650 1981-1989; $5933 1990-2005.- - 4-50 - - - di tures for vocati ona1 educati on are expected to decrease. Table 4.1-18 provides projections for school budget expenditures for operations and maintenance only.This Table specifically excludes capital improvement expen- ditures.Average per pupil cost is $2,850 for elemen- tary education and $3,550 for secondary education until 1989 when each category is anticipated to increase five percent in real doll ars.Expenditures for both cate- gori es increase 100 percent by 1988,when the school age population in each category also doubles. Educati on expenditures for operati ons and mai ntenance only increase 126 percent between 1981-1990,and increase at a slower rate of 63 percent between 1991 and 2000.However,by 2005,education expenditures will have increased 12.0 percent over 1990 levels. -Baseline:City of Palmer:Annual Budget FY82 The new fiscal year for the City of Palmer will correspond to the calendar year. Revenues The current composition of revenues is as follows: General Fund Taxes 35% (property tax 14%,sales tax 21%) Intergovernmental Revenue 25% Service Charges 30% Miscellaneous 10% 4-51 TABLE 4.1-18 - M~T-SU BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET:BASELINE EXPE~DITURE FOREC~ST,OPER~TIONS &MAINTENANCE. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL - PRIl'I~RY EXPENDS SECDRY EXPENDS SCHOOL POPLTN PRIMARY POPLTN SECDRY EXPENDS YEAR ($OOO)(SOOO)(SOOO)------------------------------------------------- 1981 2527 7202 2153 7643 14845 1982 2953 8416 2515 8928 17344 1983 J199 9117 2725 9674 18791 - 1984 3457 9852 2945 10455 20307 1985 3842 10950 3272 11616 22565 1986 4180 11913 3561 12642 24555 1987 4542 12945 3869 13735 2bb80 1988 4884 13919 4160 14768 28687 1989 5182 14769 4414 15670 30438 1990 5406 16234 4605 17167 33402 1991 5744 17249 4893 18241 35490 1992 .)029 18105 5136 19147 37252 1993 6392 19195 5445 20299 39494 - 1994 6738 20234 5739 21395 41629 1995 7136 21429 6079 22663 44092 1996 7505 22538 6393 23833 46371 -1997 7974 23946 6793 25324 49270 1998 8403 25234 7158 26685 51919 1999 8884 26679 7568 28214 54892 2000 9360 28108 7973 29723 57831 - 2001 9819 29486 8364 31181 60667 2002 10300 30931 8774 32709 63640 2003 10805 32447 9204 34313 66760 -2004 11334 34036 9655 35994 70030 2005 11889 35703 10128 37757 73460 ~SSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIO~S WERE BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING: AVERAGE PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE FOR 0&1'1, ELEMENTARY $2850 1981-1989;$3003 1990-2005 SECONDARY $3550 1981-1989;S3728 1990-2005 4-52 - - - - The local property tax rate is 4.0 mills per $1000 assessed valuation.The current per capita assessed valuation is $25,000 based upon a population of 2,567 persons,and a total assessed valuation of $64,710,668. The sales tax rate is two percent,and per capita retai 1 expenditures average approximately $4,674 per annum. Intergovernmental Revenue comes from State grants and State Shared Revenue. Average per capita service charges include: - Fire Police Ambulance Transportation Sanitation Culture and Recreation Water Fund Charges for service 35% Rents 9% Transfers from General 56% Fund and State Grants $20 28 19 8 23 33 User charges are $34 per person on average. Sewer Fund Charges for Service 76% Interest and Miscellaneous 24% 4-53 User charges are $32 per person on average. Capital Project Fund State Shared Grants 100% $2,260,174 total or $880 per capita.Projects for 1982 Budget include: Hospital Public Works Building Senior Citizens Center Municipal Aid Public Works Building Street Construction Storm Drain Expenditures $1,200,000 300,000 308,000 110,000 258,000 84,174 $2,260,174 - - - -General Fund per capita expenditures for FY82 are $786,broken down as follows:- Administrative Police Ambulance Parks and Recreation Health Library Public Works Fire $190 190 19 23 31 33 250 50 - - Public works include:waste collection,airport, roads,street lights,engineering and administra- tion. 4-54 - - - .... .... Water Fund $80 per capita or $280 per household. Sewer Fund $40 per capita or $145 per household. Table 4.1-11 provides a comparison of average per capi ta costs of sel ected servi ces provi ded by ci ti es in Impact Areas 2 and 3. Bonded Indebtedness The City of Palmer assumes the ratio of bonded indebtedness to total assessed valuation will not rise above 0.04.Current bonded indebtedness for the new water and sewer system required a bond issue of $1.9 million at eight percent interest rate.The $1.9 million represents the local share (50 percent) of total costs for the system • -Baseline Forecast:City of Palmer Budget Revenue projections include only major sources of revenue and do not attempt to identify all possi bl e sources of future recei pts.Tabl e 4.1-19 provi des revenue projections for the General Fund.Local taxes comprise approximately 35 percent of total revenues,i ncreasi ng 79 percent by 1990 and 40 per- cent between 1990-2000.Sales tax revenues are derived from a 2 percent tax on gross retail sales. Revenues from service charges account for approxima- tely 25 percent of total revenues.Service charges are levied for fire,police,ambulance,transpor- tation,sanitation,and culture and recreation, totalling $131 per capita.Total General Fund reve- nues increase from $1.4 million in 1981 to $4.2 million in 2005. 4-55 , TABLE 4.1-19 CITY OF PALMER BUD6ET:6ENERAL FUND REVENUE BASELINE FORECAST. - A B C D PROPERTY SALES TOTAL INTER SERVICE I1ISCL TOTAL -PALrlER TAX TAX LOCAL 60VT CHARSES REVENUE GENERAL YEAR POP REVENUE REVENUE TAX REV REVENUE REVENUE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1981 2567 256700 239963 496663 -354759 336277 231338 1419038 1982 2734 273400 255574 528974 377839 358154 246388 1511355 1983 2912 291200 272214 563414 402438 381472 262429 1609754 1984 3101 310100 289881 599981 428558 406231 279462 1714233 -1985 3302 330200 308671 638871 456336 432562 297576 1825346 1986 3517 351700 328769 680469 486049 474795 302884 1944198 1987 3746 374600 350176 724776 517697 505710 322606 2070789 -1988 3989 398900 372892 771792 551280 538515 343533 2205119 1989 4248 424800 397103 821903 587074 573480 365838 2348294 1990 4525 452500 422997 875497 625355 610875 389693 2501420 1991 4683 468300 4J7767 906067 647191 632205 403300 2588762 - 1992 4847 484700 453098 937798 669855 654345 417424 2679422 1993 5017 501700 468989 970689 693349 677295 432064 2773398 1994 5193 519300 485442 1004742 717673 701055 447221 2870690 -1995 5374 537400 502362 1039762 742687 725490 462809 2970747 1996 5562 556200 519936 1076136 768668 750870 478999 3074674 1997 5757 575700 538164 1113864 795617 777195 495793 3182470 513189 3294135 -1998 5959 595900 557047 1152947 823534 804465 1999 6167 616700 576491 1193191 852279 832545 531102 3409118 2000 6383 638300 596683 1234983 882131 861705 549704 3528522 2001 6606 660600 617529 1278129 912949 891810 568909 3651797 -2002 6838 683800 639216 1323016 945012 923130 588889 3780046 2003 7077 707700 661558 1369258 978041 955395 609471 3912166 2004 r~~732500 684741 1417241 1012315 988875 630829 4049260.)L,J -2005 7581 758100 708672 1466772 1047694 1023435 652876 4190777 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE ~ADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: (A)HILL LEVY OF 4.0 rlILLS PER S1000 ASSESSED VALUATION;AVERA6E PER CAPITA ASSESSED -VALUATION S25000.00. (B)SALES TAX=2I OF GROSS RETAIL SALES,PER CAPITA ESTIMATED RETAIL SALES $4674.00. (C)25I OF TOTAL 8ENERAL REVENUE. (DJ S131.00 1981-1985;$135.00 1986-2005.- PROJECTIONS INCLUDE ONLY MAJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE. - - - 4-56 - - Table 4.1-20 provides revenue projections for special funds including the Water Fund,Sewer Fund,and Capital Projects Fund.In general,revenues increase more than twice as fast between 1981-1990 (76 percent),as they do between 1990 and 1999 (36 percent),consistent with changes in total population for the City of Palmer.The total revenues for each fund increase 100 percent by 1993.These projections are based upon average per capi ta revenues recei ved in FY81. Expenditure projections for the City of Palmer are displayed in Table 4.1-21.In general,expenditures increase 76 percent between 1981-1990,and increase more s1owl y (36 percent)between 1990-2000.These are based upon average per capita costs for delivery of servi ces in FY81.Most of the costs for servi ce delivery double by 1993 or 1994 when the population of the city also doubles.Total expenditures increase from $2.3 million in 1981 to $4.2 million in 1990 and $5.9 million in 2000.The expenditure fore- casts implicitly include an increase in real costs for categories of services that are relatively capi- tal intensive (see assumptions accompanying Table 4.1-21). Projections of maximum total bonded indebtedness for the City of Palmer are displayed in Table 4.1-21. The value of real and personal property is assumed to increase at a rate of 4 percent per annum in current dollars.Total bonded indebtedness is assumed not to exceed 4 percent of total assessed valuation.By 2005 a maximum of $6.9 million in total bonded debt may be incurred at these rates. 4-57 TABLE 4.1-20 - CITY OF PALMER BUDGET:SPECIAL FUNDS-REVENUE BASELINE FGRECAST. WATER FUND REVENUES SEWER FUND REVENUES - ~-A B TOTAL C TOTAL CAPITI CHARGES RENTS TRANSFERS WATER CHARGES INTEREST SEWER PROJELI FOR FRO~FUtlD FOR &I'IISC FUND FUND-YEAR SERVICE FUNDS REVENUE SERVICE REVENUE REVENI ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_. 1981 87278 22443 139645 249366 82144 25940 108084 2258960 1982 92956 23903 148730 265589 87488 27628 115116 24059?"" 1983 99008 25459 158413 282880 93184 29427 122611 25625~ 1984 105434 27112 168694 301240 99232 31336 130568 2728880 1985 112268 28869 179629 320766 105b64 33368 139032 29057t£. 1986 119578 30749 191325 341651 112544 35540 148084 309491 1987 127364 32751 203782 363897 119872 J7854 157726 32964f-.. 1988 135626 34875 217002 387503 127648 40310 167958 3510320 1989 144432 37140 231091 412663 135936 42927 178863 37382:- 1990 153850 39561 246160 439571 144800 45726 190526 398201 1991 159222 40943 254755 454920 149856 47323 197179 4121040 1992 164798 42377 263677 470851 155104 48980 204084 42653~ 1993 170578 43863 272925 487366 160544 50698 211242 44149l 1994 176562 45402 282499 504463 166176 52477 218653 45698'1v 1995 182716 46984 292346 522046 171968 54306 226274 4729120 1996 189108 48628 302573 540309 177984 56205 234189 48945,- 1997 195738 50333 313181 559251 184224 58176 242400 50661i 1998 202606 52099 324170 578874 190688 60217 250905 5243920 1999 209678 53917 335485 599080 197344 62319 259663 54269/* 2000 217022 55806 347235 620063 204256 64502 268758 56170 2001 224604 57755 359366 641726 211392 66755 278147 5813211V 2002 232492 59784 371987 664263 218816 69100 287916 601741Q. 2003 240618 61873 384989 687480 226464 71515 297979 62277 2004 249050 64041 398480 711571 234400 74021 308421 64460 .. 2005 257754 66280 412406 736440 242592 76608 319200 6671280- ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: (A)AVERAGE PER C~PITA CHARGE $34.00. (9)7bZ OF TOTAL WATER FUND REVENUE. (C)AVERAGE PER CAPITA CHARGE $32.00. (D)AVERAGE PER CAPITA REVENUE =$880.00. 4-58 - - - JIIII1I I II1 1I1I1TABLE4.1-21cmOfPALHERBUDGET:B~SHINEEIPENDlTUREfORECAST.KLABCDE fG H I JTOTALTOTALPALKERADKINPOLICEfiREAHBULANCEPARKSHEALTHUBRARYPUBLICWATERsmRTOIALASSESSEDBONDEDPOP,RECRINWORKSSUPPLYEXPENDSVALUATIONINDE8TDNSYEARUOOOIUOOO}----------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------.----------------.----_.---------------------------_...----------------------------198/25674871104871101281504877159(1417957784711641750205160102680212570261299269219822714519460519460IJb7005194662882847549022268150021872010916024770046999128001981291255128055128014560055128669769027296096naooo2lmo1164802618272727912912198411015891905891901550505891911m96U1102m77525024808012404028095067570210281985H026271806271801651006m87594610m2108966825500264160112080299161278710114919861517668210688277184641701648089110902711606192H11281160140680126254581880127519871746711740Jn092196665747n8m8116126121618981125299680149840H7497785m340619881989757910780m209m19581917471216591116171047111119120159560370019688561154219894248807120811m2210208474897704U16881401841115100119840169920mom92101168419904525859750885541217m90274104075140m149m118781l1620001810004197616957881m1991468188977091b4bl2458589m2107709145m154519122928817464018712041451229961919851992484792091094055825446897667111481150m159951127211818776019188044972891016044144199150179512109818272mn101091115m155m165561Im9bl401lb020068046550211077484110199451919866701016270272m104m119m160981171m1lb1161415440207720481812511205844821995517410210601051692282m1082861216021665941771421410615429920214960498b2b611654046621996556210567801088481294951112074127926172m181546146002544496022248051616501212024848.j:::>1997575710918101126645105294116004112411178W189981151121146056021028051446841260505042IUl1998595911322101166176m006120074m057184m196647I56m84767202lBlbO5m2lbIII09252441.0199961671171730120688212701612426514184119117720151116188184913602466805725119116m54512000618112127701249151H8490128617146809197an210m16155385106402551205m85014178956722001660612551401292794150mImll151m204786217m171407552848026424061128781474615898200268381299220nJ819716261913778615727421197822565417949755470402715206348262153mbIl42001707711446101184969375m142602162771219m21154118571135661602830806570145159493638020047125119175014n501188445141599168475227075241725192281l586000291000680038416587366152005758\14401901481602402020152757174mmOil250173199001360648030124070380491725086900ASSUHPTlONS:PROJECIIONSWEREHADEBASEDONTHEfOllOWING:IAI5190.0011981-20051IBI5190.0011981-1985)t111986-2005.ICI•50.0011981-19851'511986-1995;,n1996-2005.IDI•19.0011981-19851'511986-1990;til1991-2005.IE)•23.0011881-20051If)•JI.OO11981-20051161•31.0011981-20051IH)mo.oo11981-19851+511886-2005.III•80.0011981-2(1051IJI•40.0011981-20051IUINCREASESAT4%PERVEARIN1981DOLLARS.IIIASSUHEDHOITOElCEED4%OfTOTALASSESSEDVALUATION. Baseline:City of Wasilla:Annual Budget FY81/82 Revenues The current composition of revenues is as follows: General Fund Per Capita Revenue - - Intergovernmental Transfer 5% State Shared Taxes 56% (Primarily Municipal Assistance) Federal and State Revenue Sharing 35% Licenses,Fines,Misc.4% Capital Project Fund $12 145 90 10 - - - State Grants Li brary Fund 100%$1,750 $47 - 24%II II II 70%of Library FundMat-Su Borough Funds General Fund Transfers Other 6%II II II - - Expenditures The following are average per capita expenditures for FY81/82: - - Administration Fire Service -Wasilla Fire Service Area Library 4-60 $122 34 47 - - - Parks and Recreation 22 Road Maintenance (in addition to 88 $2,500 per mile provided by the State) - Capital Projects See also Table 4.1-11 Capital Projects:Water Supply System $1,750 - - - - - - Currently no bonds have been issued.However,the construction of a new central ized water supply system wi 11 requi re a $1.6 mi 11 ion bondi ng issue to be pa id over a 40 year peri od at an i nteres t rate of 5 to 5.5%percent per annum.The bonds will be issued in 1982 and the first payment will be due in 1983.Funding for this project requires a 50 percent local share to which the City Council appropri ated a total of $235,000 based on a per capita amount.The remaining local share will be derived from an assessment only on lots that will benefit from the improvements.Estimated assessment will be 18¢per square foot.Hookup will not be mandatory but will cost $10-12 per sq. ft.$64,000 has been appropri ated for the ci ty IS own connecti on grant program.The ci ty wi 11 be paying the individual lot owner +or -$800 to hook up the system out of an estimated $1000 total hook up cost.User charges wi 11 cover the opera- ti on and mai ntenance costs for the water supply system.Estimated average househol d cost will be $15.00 per month. Other capital improvement projects for FY81-82 include a Senior Citizen Center,road maintenance 4-61 and repair including paving,storm drainage and bike trails;several parks projects;a Senior Citizen housing project;Old Elementary School; water assessments,and improvements for the 1 ibrary. -Baseline Forecast:City of Wasilla Budget Projections of major sources of revenues for the City of Wasilla are provided in Table 4.1-22.These are derived from average per capita revenues received in FY 81/82.The majority of total revenues comprise State shared taxes and State Revenue Shari ng. Locally deri ved revenues account for only 4 percent of total revenues,which increase approximately 100 percent every 10 years,until 2000:this is con- sistent with anticipated increases in population in Wasilla which is also expected to double every 10 years.Revenue forecasts based upon average per capita receipts should be viewed as indicators of future revenue trends and not as predictions of actual future receipts,as these are subject to change when policy decisions regarding budget appropriations are altered under different admi- nistrations. Expenditure projections for local government services are provided in Table 4.1-23.These are based upon costs of service delivery for FY81/82.Costs of ser- vice delivery,excluding inflation,double approxima- tely every 10 years.Each service accounts for the following share of total expenditures,excluding capital project costs. 4-62 - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-22 CITY OF WASILLA BUD6ET:BASELINE REVE~UE FORECAST. E e D CAPITAL B FEDERAL LIse TOTAL PROJECT F A STATE to STATE FINES GENERAL FUND LIBRARY WASILLA INTGOVT SHARED REVENUE I'fISC FUND STATE FUND YEAR POP TRANSFR TAXES SHARING REVENUE REVENUES GRANTS REVENUES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 2168 26016 314360 195120 21680 557176 3533840 101896 1982 2331 27972 337995 209790 23310 599067 3799530 109557 1983 2505 30060 363225 225450 25050 643785 4083150 117735 1984 2693 32316 390485 242370 26930 692101 4389590 126571 1985 2895 34740 419775 260550 28950 744015 4718850 136065 1986 3112 37344 451240 280080 31120 799784 5072560 146264 1987 3346 40152 485170 301140 33460 859922 5453980 157262 1988 3597 43164 521565 323730 35970 924429 5863110 169059 1989 3867 46404 560715 348030 38670 993819 6303210 181749 1990 4157 49884 602765 374130 41570 1068349 6775910 195379 1991 4468 53616 647860 402120 44680 1148276 7282840 209996-1992 4803 57636 690435 432270 48030 1234371 7828890 225741 1993 5164 61968 748780 464760 51640 1327148 8417320 242708 1994 5551 66612 804895 499590 55510 1426607 9048130 260897-1995 5967 71604 865215 537030 59670 1533519 9726210 280449 1996 6415 76980 930175 577350 64150 1648655 10456450 301505 1997 6896 82752 999920 620640 68960 1772272 11240480 324112 1998 7413 88956 1074885 667170 14130 1905141 12083190 348411 1999 7969 95628 1155505 717210 79690 2048033 12989470 374543 2000 8474 101688 1228730 762660 34740 2177818 13812620 398278 2001 9093 109116 1318485 818370 90930 2336901 14821590 427371 2002 9756 117072 1414620 878040 97560 2507292 15902280 458532 2003 10469 12%28 1518005 942210 104690 2690533 17064470 492043 2004 11233 134796 1628785 1010970 112330 2886881 18309790 527951 2005 12053 144636 1747685 1084770 120530 3097621 1%46390 566491- ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING AVERAGE PER CAPITA REVENUES FOR FlY 1981-1982. (Al $12 (8)$145 (CJS90 (DlSI0 (ElSIO IF)$1,630 (6)$47 - PROJECTIONS INCLUDE ONLY MAJOF:SOURCES OF REVENUE . 4-63 TABLE 4.1-23 - -CITY OF WASILLA BUD6ET:BASELINE EXPENDITURE FORECAST. - D E F A B C LOCAL ROAD TOTAL CAPITAL WASILLA PARKS LIBRARY FIRE 60VT MINT OPERS PROJECTS -YEAR POP &RECR SERVICE ADMIN &REPAIR &MAINT EXPENDS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 2168 47696 101896 73712 264496 190784 678584 3794000 1982 2331 51282 109557 79254 284382 205128 729603 4079250 - 1983 2505 55110 117735 85170 305610 220440 784065 4383750 1984 2693 59246 126571 91562 328546 236984 842909 4712750 1985 2895 63690 136065 98430 353190 254760 906135 5066250 -1986 3112 68464 146264 111098 379664 273856 979346 5446000 1987 3346 73612 157262 119452 408212 294448 1052986 5855500 1988 3597 79134 169059 128413 438834 316536 1131976 6294750 -1989 3867 85074 181749 138052 471774 340296 1216945 6767250 1990 4157 91454 195379 148405 507154 365816 1308208 7274750 1991 4468 98296 209996 159508 545096 393184 1406080 7819000 1992 4803 105666 225741 171467 585966 422664 1511504 8405250 - 1993 5164 113608 242708 184355 630008 454432 1625111 9037000 1994 5551 122122 260897 198171 677222 488488 1746900 9714250 1995 5967 131274 280449 213022 727974 525096 1877815 10442250 -1996 6415 141130 301505 231261 782630 564520 2021046 11226250 1997 6896 151712 324112 248601 841312 606848 2172585 12068000 1998 7413 163086 348411 267239 904386 652344 2335466 12972750 1999 7969 175318 374543 287282 972218 701272 2510633 13945750 - 2000 8474 186428 398278 305488 1033828 745712 2669734 14829500 2001 9093 200046 427371 327803 1109346 800184 2864750 15912750 2002 9756 214632 458532 351704 1190232 858528 3073628 17073000 -2003 10469 230318 492043 377407 1277218 921272 3298258 18320750 2004 11233 247126 527951 404950 1370426 988504 3538957 19657750 2005 12053 265166 566491 434511 1470466 1060664 3797298 21092750 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWIN6 AVERA6E PER CAPITA COSTS : lAl$22 (8)$47 (C)$34;+51 1986-1995;+11 1996-2005. (0)$122 (E)$88 IF)$1,750 4-64 - - - - Parks and recreation 7% Library 15% Fire service 11% Local government administration 39% Road maintenance and repair 28% -Baseline:City of Houston:Annual Budget FY81-82 Revenues The current composition of revenues is as follows: Grants Per Capita Doll ars Roads,Mat-Su Borough 2,675 $4 Roads,Legislature 4,955 8 Roads,Local Service Roads Roads and Trails 102,000 170 Parks and Recreation,Borough 2,196 4 Parks and Recreation,Lawcon 94,154 157 Jobs Legislature 11,246 19 State Revenue Sharing 79,700 133 State Supplement 11 ,800 20 Municipal Assistance 44,500 74 Federal Revenue Sharing 2,544 4 Grant for septage disposal study Fire Hall capital grant SP 168 -per capita grant* $100,000 350,000 194,620 167 583 270 - *$1000 per person based on 1980 census population of 325.Grant for 2 year period.) 4-65 Each grant must be used for the purpose specified at approval and monies cannot be transferred or assigned.Twenty percent of the Revenue Sharing must be used to maintain roads;the remainder can be used at the counci 1 IS di screti on.The Municipal Assistance monies may be used at the Council IS discretion. Expenditures The composition of current expenditures is as foll ows: - - - Administration per capita costs $54.00 Fire service per capita costs 17.00 Parks and Recreation per capita costs (informally 9.00 - administered by the City of Houston) Road -grading per mile $160.00 31 mil es -snow plowing per mile 68.00 23 miles -Culverts and gravel per mile 420.00 31 mil es Total roads per mile $630.00 (per capita - -see Table 4.1-11.$33) Solid waste disposal per capita cost $1.50 paid to Mat-Su Borough to use their landfill at Big Lake. (Correspondence from Elsie O'Bryan,City Clerk, December 21,1981). The City of Houston anticipates obtaining a State Grant for a post offi ce;resi dents are pressi ng for this for reasons of convenience and civic pride. 4-66 - - - - - - Cu rrent fundi ng for roads is adequate for rna i n- tenance only of roads within the city limits; current funds are not adequate for mak i ng road improvements. The existing camper park is an important source of additional retail sales in the Houston area.The space in this park is to be doubled by summer of 1982.There are no local funds for parks and recreati on.Funds are deri ved from the Borough, State Shared Revenues and State Grants,but these funds are administered by the City. The City of Houston is trying to find an alter- native to the current practice of hauling all sep- ti c tank pumpage from the the Mat-Su Borough to Anchorage.The City has authorized an engineering team to evaluate alternatives for a Pumper Dumper Sewage Faci 1 ity to serve the Mat-Su Borough.A questionnaire has been sent out to obtain data on current usage patterns and attitudes towards on- site septic systems.Any capital project expen- ditures for a septage facility will most likely be funded by State grants. -Baseline Forecast:City of Houston Budget Table 4.1-24 provides estimates of future grant fundi ng for the City of Houston based upon major categories of current per capita receipts for FY81/82.Revenues increase at a steady rate of 136 percent every 10 years.Total revenues are projected to doubl e every ei ght years (1988,1995,2003)con- sistent with increases in population. 4-67 TABLE 4.1-24 - CITY OF HOUSTON BUDGET:ESTIKATES OF FUTURE GRANT FUNDING-BASELINE. -H A C D E F G SP168 TOTAL ROAD BJOBS PROG STATE STATE KUNICPL FEDERAL PER ESTIKTD HOUSTON I1AINT PARKS STATE REVENUE SUPPLI'\T ASSIST REVENUE CAPITA GRANT - YEAR POP &REPAIR &RECR LEGISL SHARING REVEUE REVEtWE SHARING SRANT FUNDING --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 600 109200 96600 11400 79800 12000 44400 2400 81000 436800 -1982 660 120120 106260 12540 87780 13200 48840 2640 89100 480~80 1983 726 132132 116886 13794 96558 14520 53724 2904 98010 528528 1984 799 145418 128639 15181 106267 15980 59126 3196 107865 581672 1985 878 159796 141358 16682 116774 17560 64972 3512 118530 639184 1986 966 175812 155526 18354 128478 19320 71484 3364 130410 703248 1987 1063 193466 171143 20197 141379 21260 78662 4252 143505 773864 1988 1169 212758 188209 22211 155477 23380 86506 4·676 157815 851032 -1989 1286 234052 207046 24434 171038 25720 95164 5144 173610 936208 1990 1415 257530 227815 26885 188195 28300 104710 5060 191025 1030120 1991 1556 283192 250516 29564 206948 31120 115144 6224 210060 1132768 -1992 1712 311584 275632 32528 227696 34240 126688 6848 231120 1246336 1993 1883 342706 303163 35777 250439 37660 139342 7532 254205 1370824 1994 2071 376922 333431 39349 275443 41420 153254 8284 279585 1507688 1995 2278 414596 366758 43282 302974 45560 168572 9112 307530 1658384 - 1996 2506 456092 403466 47614 333298 50120 185444 10024 338310 1824368 1997 2757 501774 443877 52383 366681 55140 204018 11028 372195 2007096 1998 3032 551824 488152 57608 403256 60040 224368 12128 409320 2207296 -1999 3335 606970 536935 63365 443555 66700 246790 13340 450225 2427880 2000 3669 667758 590709 69711 487977 73380 271506 14676 495315 2671032 2001 4036 734552 649796 76684 536788 80720 298664 16144 544860 2938208 2002 4439 807898 714679 84341 590387 88780 328486 17756 599265 3231592 2003 4883 888706 786163 92777 649439 97660 361342 19532 659205 3554824 2004 5372 977704 864892 102068 714476 107440 397528 21488 725220 3910816 2005 5909 1075438 951349 112271 785897 118180 437266 23636 797715 4301752 - ASSU/'IPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE KADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING AVERAGE PER CAPITA REVENUES FOR DIFFERENT -- GRANT PR06RA/'IS. (Al SI82 (ElS20 (BlSI61 (FlS74 (ClSI9 lGlS4 (DlS133 (HlS!35 GRANTS WERE CO~BINED INTO CATEGORIES WHERE APPLICABLE. - -4-68 ...The relative shares of each source of funding are as follows: The revenue projection estimates should be viewed as general indicators of future funding patterns and not as predictions of actual future receipts. ... ... Road Maintenance -Borough and State Parks and Recreation -Borough and State Jobs Program -State State Revenue Sharing State Supplemental Revenue Municipal Assistance Revenue Federal Revenue Sharing SP 168 Per Capita Grant 25% 22% 3% 18% 3% 10% 0.5% 18.5% ... Table 4.1-25 provides expenditure projections for specific local services.Total expenditures increase at approximately the same rate as do revenues until 1995 when expenditure increases begin to exceed reve- .nue increases.This is accounted for by the antici- pated increases in the real cost of road maintenance: +five percent between 1986-1900;+three percent 1991-2005 in real current dollars.Local government administration accounts for the majority of local costs,47 percent of total expenditures.Other ser- vices account for the following proportions of total expenditures: Fire Service Parks and Recreation Road Maintenance Solid Waste 4-69 15% 8% 29% 1% TABLE 4.1-25 CITY OF HOUSTON BUDGET:BASELINE EXPENDITURE FORECAST. - A LOCAL 8 C D E HOUSTON GOn FIRE PARKS ROAD SOLID TOTAL YEAR POP ADI'lIN SERVICE "RECR IlAINT WASTE EXPErlDS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 600 32400 10200 5400 19800 900 68700 1982 660 35640 11220 5940 21780 990 75570 -1983 726 39204 12342 6534 23958 1089 83127 1984 799 43146 13583 7191 26367 1199 91486 1985 878 47412 14926 7902 28974 1317 100531 1986 966 52164 17243 8694 33472 1449 113022 - 1987 1063 57402 18975 9567 36833 1595 124371 1988 1169 63126 20867 10521 40506 1754 136773 1989 1286 69444 22955 11574 44560 1929 150462 -1990 1415 76410 25258 12735 49030 2123 165555 1991 1556 84024 27775 14004 55518 2334 183655 1992 1712 92448 30559 15408 61084 2568 202067 1993 1883 101682 33612 16947 67185 2825 222250 - 1994 2071 111834 36967 18639 73893 3107 244440 1995 2278 123012 40662 20502 81279 3417 268872 1996 2506 135324 45183 22554 89414 3759 296234 -1997 2757 148878 49709 24813 98370 4136 325905 1998 3032 163728 54667 27288 108182 4548 358413 1999 3335 180090 60130 30015 118993 5003 394230 433712 -2000 3669 198126 66152 33021 130910 5504 2001 4036 217944 72769 36324 144004 6054 477096 2002 4439 239706 80035 39951 158384 6659 524734 2003 4883 263682 88040 43947 174225 7325 577219 - 2004 5372 290088 96857 48348 191673 8058 635024 2005 5909 319086 106539 53181 210833 8864 698503 - ASSUMPTI ONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MOE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PER CAPITA COSTS:- (AI$54 (SISI7 1981-1985;+5~1986-1995;+1%1996-2005 -(C1$9 (D1S33 1981-1985j+5%1986-1990;+3%1991-2005. (El $1.50 - - 4-70 Expenditures for capital projects were not projected as these.will vary considerably over time depending upon the needs of the Houston community. -Baseline:Talkeetna Service Areas Currently the community of Talkeetna is not an incorporated ci ty and therefore does not have any form of local government.The Matanuska-Susitna Borough provides existing services,which include ambulance,fire protection,solid waste disposal,and road maintenance and repair.Police protection is provi ded by State troopers.Currently servi ces are administered by Borough officials and are paid for by the Borough government out of funds derived both locally and from the State.Service areas are geographic units that form the boundary for the pro- vision of certain services.Property located within the service boundary is liable for taxes levied to cover the costs of service delivery.The following explanation will serve as an illustration of the con- cept of service areas that exist throughout the Borough. There are three separate service areas for Talkeetna, each with its own composition of revenues and expen- ditures as follows: 4-71 Talkeetna Talkeetna Fire Flood Service Control Revenues Total Inter-fund Revenues State General Revenues Local Property Taxes Mill rate Area $26,142 3,600 4,910* 17,632 1.0 Area 1,106 o o 1,106 0.5 Talkeetna Greater Road Ser- vice Area 45,820 o 45 820**, - - - Total Assessed Valuation $20,742,927 $2,602,620 Expenditures $20,176 576 45,820 - *State Shared Revenue:$7.50 per capita x 655 estimated population. **State Shared Revenue:22.91 miles at $2,000 per mile. These service areas may have overlapping boundaries, in which case a resident living simultaneously in both servi ce areas woul d pay a 1.5 mi"1evy for these Borough services in his area,in addition to the non-areawide tax of 0.52 mills for libraries and sani tary 1and fi 11 s,and the areawi de tax of 6.7 mills for education. 4-72 - - - - - - - - -Baseline Forecast:Talkeetna Service Areas A Baseline forecast for revenues is provided in Table 4.1-26.Total revenues are pro.iected to increase steadily through 2005:130 percent from 1981-1990; 117 percent from 1991-2000 and 43 percent from 2000-2005.Talkeetna will therefore experience constant rapid growth even in the absence of the Susitna Hydroel ectri c project.Local property taxes represent approximately 30 percent of total revenues between 1981 and 1990 when their relative share begins to decline to 24 percent in 2000 and 21 per- cent in 2005.The mill levy per $1,000 assessed valuation is anticipated to rise steadily as follows: 1.00 -1981-1985;1.25 -1986 -1989;1.50 -1990 - 1995;1.75 -1996 -2005.This is to cover the rising costs of delivering services to increasing populations of the various service areas. Total property taxes are anticipated to increase 134 percent between 1981-1990,and increase more slowly between 1990 and 2000 (82 percent).The rate of increase for property taxes is si gnifi cantly hi gher than the rate of increase for population.This is due to the fact that 1and val ues wi 11 be r1 Sl ng rapidly as they adjust to increased demand by the population influx.- Due to anticipated growth,it is assumed that roads will experience dramatic increased use;therefore projections assume substantial increases in revenues for road maintenance and repair.These will increase approximately 135 percent every ten years.This ana- lysis has assumed that Talkeetna will not incorporate 4-73 ------------------- TABLE 4.1-26 TALKEETNA:BASELINE REVENUE FORECAST. FIRE SERVICE ROAD SERV TALKEETNA TOTAL AREA AREA TOTAL POP ASSESSD PROPTY ST GEN ST SHARE REVENUES YEAR VALTN TAXES REVENUES REVENUESTO tl5 BOR ($0001 $ $ $ $ --------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 640 20742 20742 4800 45820 71362 1982 '..~21780 21780 5040 50402 772220/.. 1983 707 22914 22914 5303 55442 83659 1984 743 24081 24081 5573 60986 90640 1985 780 25280 25280 5850 67085 98215 1986 820 26576 33220 6150 73794 113164 1987 862 27937 34922 6465 81173 122560 1988 906 29363 36704 6795 89290 132790 1989 952 30854 38568 7140 98219 143927 1990 1000 32410 48615 7500 108041 16415b 1991 1051 34063 51094 7883 118845 177822 1992 1104 35781 53671 8280 130730 192681 1993 1160 37596 56393 3700 143803 208896 1994 1219 39508 59262 9143 158183 226587 1995 1281 41517 b2276 9608 174001 245885 1996 1347 43656 76398 10103 191402 277902 - 1997 1415 45860 80255 10613 210542 301409 1998 1487 48194 84339 11153 231596 327087 1999 1563 50657 88649 11723 254755 355127 2000 1642 53217 93130 12315 230231 385676 2001 1726 55940 97894 12945 308254 419093 2002 1814 58792 102886 13605 339079 455570 2003 1906 61773 108104 14295 372987 495386 - 2004 2003 64917 113605 15023 410286 538914 2005 2106 68255 119447 15795 414389 549631 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE HADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: (AI PER CAPITA ASSESSED VALUATION $32410.00 (BI HILL LEVY PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUA TI ON:1.00 1981-1985 1.25 1986-1989 1.50 1990-1995 1.75 1996-2005 (CI $7.50 PER CAPITA FY81/82. (01 $2000.00 PER MILE,+10%PER YEAR 22.91 tlILES. *REVENUES SO TO MAT-SU BOR BUDGET; EXCLUDES TALKEETNA FLOOD CONTROL. 4-74 - - - - - - by 2005.Assuming the community does incorporate at some future date,then it will have the power to levy local taxes to cover the costs of service del i very. The formation of a city council and the election of a city mayor--both either full-or part-time--will necessitate raising sufficient funds to cover the costs of city administration,in addition to service delivery costs.It is presumed that any form of local city government would provide some services, but would initially continue to rely on the Mat-Su Borough administration for other services.The pace of new service provision would be a function of citi- zen demand,the availability of public monies,and the community's preference for raising local taxes. -Trapper Creek and other Small Communities within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough Baseline Any di scuss i on of fi sca 1 expenditures and revenues for these communities would have to fall under the Mat-Su Borough budget as revenues and expendi tures are collected and administered by the Borough. Changes in revenue receipts would affect the Borough government directly,and the delivery of services to communities indirectly.The Borough has the power to 1evy property taxes on servi ce areas to cover the costs of service delivery which over time could be offset by increases in the tax base.In FY81/82,the areawide mill levy was 6.7 per $1000 assessed valua- tion and the non-areawide (service areas only)mill levy was 0.52 per $1000 assessed valuation. 4-75 -------------------------------------~--------_._- Baseline Forecast It is assumed that neither Trapper Creek nor other small communities will be incorporating before 2000. Although population increases will be substantial, the actual size of the total community is assumed not to be sufficiently large to warrant incorporation. Therefore,the Mat-Su Borough government will remain responsible for the provision of services and facili- ties to the extent necessary. The Borough is assumed to 1evy a total property tax of 6.5 mills per $1000 assessed valuation until 1989 and 6.75 mi 11 s from 1990-2000.Thi s wi 11 i nc1 ude a mill levy of 0.5 for 1981-89 and 0.75 for 1900-2000, for non-areawide services such as fire and road ser- vice.Ambulance service is assumed to continue operating on a user fee basis.Projections of esti- mated local taxes to cover the costs of capital pro- j ects can not be made as thi s wi 11 depend upon the size of the project,the availability of State and Federal grant monies,local preferences,and the Mat-Su Borough's bondi ng capabi 1i ti es.(For further detail concerning the Mat-Su Borough's fiscal impacts,see Section 4.1 (c)(iv). (d)Public Facilities and Services The ability of a community to respond adequately to increased demands is a function of the ability of its institutions to con- ti nue provi di ng servi ces to a 1arger constituency.The impor- tant consi derati ons are therefore current usage and capacity. This section describes the existing public services at the regional and local level,as appropriate to the degree of pro- 4-76 - - - - - - - - - babl e impact of the Susitna Project.The services addressed include:water supply,sewage,solid waste,transportation, communication,police,fire,health care services,education and recreational facilities.Table 4.1-27 summarizes the facilities that are available by community.Much of the information for thi s secti on was obtai ned from:Matanuska -Susitna Pl anni ng documents;Overall Economi c Development Program,Inc.,July 1980:Development Options and Projections;and personal con- tacts. Almost all public facilities and services in the Mat-Su Borough will need to expand considerably to provide current per capita levels of service for a rapidly growing population; education, health care,transportation,and police and fire protection will be affected to the greatest degree.In several of these areas, expansion is already being planned to accommodate this antici- pated growth.Public facility and service requirements for the future have been projected based upon standards related to popu- lation and housing levels.Detailed explanation of the method- ology used can be found in Section 10.2(e).To the extent possible,this analysis will indicate the service categories in which threshold levels will be reached by 2000 that could result in an increase in the demand for public services.Threshold levels occur as communities experience population growth and are willing and able to pay for increased levels of services. Water Supply -Baseline The Ci ty of Pal mer has a water supply tion treatment system which has a 1,368,000 gallons per day (gpd)and supply of 18,000 gpd.In addition,the 4-77 and chlorina- capacity of an emergency City plans to >-a: eI:: ~ ~ :::J V'l V'l l..L.J..............l- N I -I....... U <;j"eI:: l.L.. l..L.J -I >-CO I-eI::....... I-:z :::J ~ :::E:au aLn~aWOH pa~l~un -lC ~pa:re ...wd...loJu ~unc:::-lC -lC -lC -lC -lC -lC -lC -lC -lC -lC (1) E SSQLJ pUOJaS -lC -lCc:::s... (1)SSQ LJ lS...I U>-lC 0 ~aLn~awoH -lC -!C -lC Q~paw/uo~lQJ~UnwwoJ ~-l<-lC -lC -lC -lC -lC -lC ~.;:~-lC '!'l ~-II:iC iC aJ~!I...Ias auo~daLal iC iC oj<-lC -lC oj<oj<oj<oj<-lC -lC oj<-lC -lC -lC -lC oj< ...Ia,'.io d oj<oj<oj<oj<oj<-lC oj<oj<oj<oj<-lC oj<oj<-lC -lC -lC oj< wa1S,\S >1...1 Qd oj<oj<-lC oj<oj<oj<oj< aJ~HO lsod oj<oj<oj<iC oj<oj<oj<oj<oj<oj<oj;oj<-lC oj; 5u~PL~n8 '\HunWl.lJoJ -lC oj<oj<oj<oj<-lC oj<oj<oj<-lC -lC oj<oj< "...IQ...Iq~1 iC oj<-lC oj<oj<-lC -lC -lC d~...I1S...I~'v'-lC ""oj<oj<oj<-lC oj<oj<oj<oj<oj<oj<oj<i: UO~lQ1...lodsue...ll J~Lqnd oj<-Ie PQO...lL~Q~oj<oj<oj<-I<oj<-lC oj<-lC -lC -lC SPQO q -lC oj<-Ie oj<.j<oj<-Ie oj<oj<oj<oj<-+::oj<oj<oj<oj<oj< LQHdsOH LQ...I aua 8 oj<oj<-l<-I<oj< '\HLPQ.:J ~HeaH LQ1ua~~""oj<oj<oj<-lC 'JQ.:J a...lQJ w...Ial 5uOl "".;:-+::;c -+:: ...Ia1uaJ ~+LQaH oj<oj<{:""""oj<-lC oj<oj<oj<-lC LLQH a...lU oj<oj<oj<-lC oj<-lC -lC -lC -lC -lC lua1 S,\S l...lnoJ oj<-j:oj<oj<oj< aJ ~L0d LQJOl oj':oj<-It oj< lsod ...Iadoo...ll a1Q1S -lC oj<oj<""-j:oj<oj<oj<-lC LQsods~a a1SQM P~LoS -lC -lC -lC oj<oj<oj<oj<oj<-lC iC .;c oj<oj<oj<oj<""-lC ...laMas ""oj<-lC oj<oj<oj<-lC ...Ia1QM oj<oj<-lC -lC oj<-lC -lC -lC In ...Ia46~H -lC ""oj<-lC oj<...- 0 0 '\...Iepuo Jas oj<-lC iC oj<...-lC -l<-lC~u A...Ie1UawaL3V'l -lC -Ie -lC oj<-lC ..-j:oj<*-lC oj<-lC -=>'to. (1)(1) (1)~ to.c:::c::: U rtl (1)(1)(1)In..--c:::...-u en -=>'..--to.~c:::rtl ..--rtl rtl c::: rtl (1)(1)(1):::0 to...--c:::rtl to.rtl c:::N to.rtlc::::::0..(1)o~Q)..--0 c:::Q)c:::»rtl (1)0 .0 rtl ~o..-=>,..--Vl E .....Vl c:::0..0 ..---=>'~.c s...c:::c:::rtl ..--~:::l ..--In >((1)0..-=>'rtl ...-...-u ..... Q)ro to.rtl ·....0 rtl rtl rtl ..--0 rtl (1):::r rtl c:::rtl:z ul-I-~::r::a.-:-a.~u c.::.::r::<.!J :>~l.L.. 4-78 - - - - add 216,000 gpd more to its capacity in the near future.Present water consumption peak usage is not known,but it is believed that fluctuations are not large.Present storage capacity is 1,250,000 gall ons.The system is capable of pumpi ng more than 1,000 gallons per minute (conversation with David Soulak,October 1981.) Wasilla is currently completing a new water supply system that includes a pump capacity of 864,000 gpd, chlorination,approximately four miles of pipe and a one million gallon storage capacity.The system extends throughout the downtown area,which is approximately half resi denti al and half busi nesses. The remainder of the city does not have a suf- ficiently high population density to make an extended water system cost effective.Average and peak usage are not known at this time,but it is estimated that nearly twi ce the present popul ati on coul d be served (conversation with Earling Nelson,October 1981.) Outside of these areas,water is provided either on an individual basis,i.e.a well,or by a community water system.There are 215 other public water systems within the Borough;43 Class "A"public water systems (mainly serving subdivisions and trailer parks)of which 21 are designated as community systems;77 Class "B"public water systems (primarily serving schools and businesses);and 95 Class "C" public water systems,serving mainly duplexes and tri p1exes (overall Economi c Oeve 1opment Program, Inc.,July 1980.Volume III:Appendices). 4-79 -Baseline Forecast Palmer1s projected water supply requirements for the years 1981-2005 are displayed in Table 4.1-28.This projection assumes that per capita water consumption in the city will gradually rise to reach average national per capita water requirements for a city of its si ze.By the year 2000,average dai ly water usage will equal about 957,450 gallons,a three-fold increase from the 1981 level.Peak daily water requirements will reach 1,468,090 gallons.By 2005, average daily water requirements will reach an esti- mated 1,137,000 gpd.The projected increase in housing stock in Palmer implies the need for an addi- tional 100,000 linear feet of water distribution pipe by the year 2000. (ii)Sewage Treatment Palmer is the only municipality in the Borough that has a city-wide sewage facility.All other residents in the Borough provide for themselves with septic tanks. Currently,the waste from septi c tanks is trucked to Anchorage for di sposal by pri vate compani es,but voters have recently elected to build a treatment plant in the Borough. The Palmer sewage system is in the form of a two-cell 1 agoon whi ch uses the Hi nde aerati on system,and is located four mil es from town.It currently processes 300,000 gallons per day,with an average 30-day deten- tion time.The system1s capacity could be expanded significantly by adding a third cell (conversation with David Soulak,October 1981). 4-80 - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-28 BASELINE FORECAST OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR PALMER AND WASILLA~1981-2005 (IN GALLONS PER DAY) PALMER WASILLA YEAR AVERAGE (A)PEAK (B)AVERAGE (A)PEAK (B) DAILY WATER DAILY WATER DAILY WATER DAILY WATER REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS - - - - 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 19'~2 1993 1'~94 1'~95 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2()()2 2003 2()()4 2()()5 308040 332454 358758 387005 417373 450176 485482 523357 564134 608160 636888 666947 698366 731174 765258 800928 838219 877165 917650 957450 990961 1025644 1061542 1098696 1137150 513400 551174 591718 635085 6E:8137 785162 842477 903974 970160 1011528 1054707 1099726 1146614 1195178 1245888 1298779 1353885 1411010 1468090 1519473 1572655 1627698 1.~84667 1743630 260160 283450 308616 336086 3t.5928 398336 433642 471926 513538 607648 660893 718829 781581 849701 923760 1004058 10911'7'4 1185787 1271100 1363890 1463454 1570286 1684917 1807916 433600 46'7'930 509016 551526 603318 650408 701322 759686 822898 891261 965088 1045133 1131949 1225661 1327061 1436960 1555738 1684234 1823307 1949020 2091298 2243963 2407773 2583540 2772138 - (Al BASED UPON AN AVERAGE STANDARD OF 120 GALLONS PER DAY PER CAPITA IN 1981 RISING TO 150 IN 2000. (B)BASED UPON A PEAK STANDARD OF 200 GALLONS PER DAY PER CAPITA IN 1981 RISiNG TO 230 IN 2000. NOTE:THE SUM OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO 4-81 There are a number of smaller public sewage systems in the Borough.These are rated by the Alaka Department of Environmental Conservation and classified according to the number of people served.There are 43 Class "A" public sewage systems (located primarily in subdivisions and trailer parks)of which ten are also designated as cOTTlllunity systems;77 Class liB II public sewage systems (mostly located at schools and businesses);and 95 Class "C"public sewage systems (mainly serving duplex and triplex structures). -Baseline Forecast The City of Palmer's sewage treatment capacity has begun to reach its limits and will need to be expanded to serve additional population.Currently, the average requirements of 300,000 gallons per day result in a 30-day detention time;however,city offi ci al s esti amte that the present faci 1 iti es can handle up to 500,000 gallons per day.As Table 4.1-29 shows,this level will be reached around 1989. At this point,the system's capacity will need to be expanded by adding at least a third cell. Table 4.1-29 also contains projections of sewage treatment requirements for Wasilla.As with water supply,population density will need to rise substan- tially to make a city-wide sewage system feasible. Sewage facilities are also needed in the Mat-Su Borough to service the discharge from private septic tanks,whi ch need to be pumped everyone to three years.The City of Houston is currently looking into the economic feasibility of building such a facility. 4-82 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-29 BASELINE FORECAST OF SEWAGE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PALMER AND WASILLA~1981-2005 CA) (IN GALLONS PER DAY) SEl,1JAGE SEl'.Jl4GE YEAR PAU'1ER ~'.JASILLA ------------- 1981 308040 260160 1982 328080 279720 1983 349440 300600 1984 372120 323160 1985 396240 347400 1986 422040 373440 1987 449520 401520 1988 478680 431640 1989 509760 464040 1990 54::,000 il·98~340 1991 561'760 536160 1992 5091640 576360 1993 602040 td 9680 1994 623160 666120 1 '7'95 644880 716040 1996 667440 769800 1997 690840 82752() 1998 715080 889560 1999 740040 '7'56280 2000 765'-i60 1016880 2001 792769 1091 1 1"..:.. 2002 820516 1 170763 2003 849234 1256229 2004 878957 1347934 2005 909720 1446333 (A)CALCULATED BASED UPON A STANDARD OF 120 GALLONS PER DAY. 4-83 ------...-----_.".,-- In most parts of the Borough,residents will continue to 1i ve on plots of one acre or more,and thus wi 11 continue to rely on individual septic tanks. (iii)Solid Waste -Baseline The Borough has non-areawi de sol id waste management authori ty and currently operates a system of ni ne landfills.Table 4.1-30 shows the acreage and life expectancy of each 1andfi 11 .There is no coll ecti on system operated by the Borough,therefore it is the responsibility of individuals to transport their solid waste to the various landfill locations. Palmer operates a collection and disposal system for city res i dents.The City has a contract wi th the Borough and State for use of the landfills.Houston has recently had to close its city landfill and will be using Borough facilities until a new site is located. The Borough hopes to make its solid waste disposal system more economical by eventually closing most of the landfills,setting up transfer stations and then bringing the waste to the aO-acre Central site,near Palmer,for final disposal (Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department). -Baseline Forecast The Borough I s 217 acres of 1andfi 11 are expected to be about suffi ci ent to handl e the projected popul a- ti on through the end of the century,provi ded that 4-84 - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-30 LOCATION,ACREAGE AND LIFE EXPECTANCY OF LANDFILLS IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH Location Acres Life Expectancy Central 80 Indefinite-Big Lake 80 100 years Willow 40 (10 usabl e)5 yea rs-Sunshine 40 Tal keetna 5 10 years Sutton 2 usable 2 years Butte 400 40 yea rs Lake Louise 1 year- Source:Mat-Su Borough Engineering Department 4-85 ------.------"._-- the central landfill near Palmer is operated correctly as a sanitary 1andfill.The Mat-Su Borough1s present system of solid waste disposal is undergoing a transition which will make it better capable of providing for the needs of a rapidly growing population t at a time when compliance with existing and upcoming government regulations is becoming more costly.The move toward a system of a central landfill and dispersed transfer stations will also solve the problem of wind-blown litter which has been associated with some of the unattended sites. Tabl e 4.1-31 contai ns informat~on on the projected annual and cumulative acreage reauirements of the Mat-Su Borough duri ng the years 1981-2005.These figures are calculated on the assumption of an average landfill depth of 13 feet.By the year 2000 t the Borough will require over 14 acres a year for solid waste disposal.The 80-acre central landfill t alone t should be capable of handling much of this land requirement (through 1994).In addition t there are 137 acres in ei ght 1andfi 11 s around the Borough which will continue to be in operation for some time to come. It is expected that in most areas of the Borough residents will continue to be responsible for transporting trash to the landfills or transfer sta- ti ons.The haul i ng of the transfer boxes to the central landfill will be done by contractors t until such time as a Mat-Su Borough Public Works Department is created. 4-86 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TAS LE 4.1-31 BASELINE FORECAST OF SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH,1981-2005 ANNUAL ACREAGE CUMULATIVE ACREAGE REQUIRED FOR SOLID REQUIRED FOR SOLID YEAR WASTE DISPOSAL WASTE DISPOSAL 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2.45 2.76 3.14 3.54 4.09 4.62 5.24 5.78 6.31 6.75 7.38 7.91 8.60 9.25 10.05 10.81 11.69 12.54 13.60 14.56 15.27 16.02 16.81 17.63 18.49 2.45 5.21 8.35 11.89 15.98 20.60 25.83 31.61 37.93 44.67 52.05 59.97 68.57 77.83 87.87 98.68 11 (;.37 122.91 136.51 151.07 166.34 182.37 199.17 216.80 235.30 (3)02 (A)CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF A 1981 ~TANDARD OF .11 ACRES PER THOUSAND POPULATION~INCREASING TO .21 ACRES PER THOUSAND POPULATION IN 2000. NOTE:THE SUM OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING. 4-87 ------------'-'-- (iv)Transportation Baseline The Parks Highway is the principal surface transport route within the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,con- necting what were previously remote sites with both Fai rbanks and Anchoraqe.Of the hi ghways in thi s regi on,the Parks is the newest and most heavily used.A wide variety of commodities are transported annually along the Parks Highway,including about 75,000 tons for local delivery and approximately 150,000 tons of items bound for Fairbanks and other interior points (Institute of Social and Economic Research.June 1980.p.19)The Borough is also connected with Valdez and the Al-Can Highway via the Gl enn and Ri chardson Hi ghways.Duri ng the summer months,the Dena 1i Hi ghway,a 160-mil e di rt road, connects the Parks Highway with the Richardson Hi ghway.The Denali Hi ghway is not plowed in the winter and therefore closed to traffic. Constructi on and mai ntenance of roads in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough are performed under the auspi ces of a number of federal,state and 1oca 1 agenci es.There are federally assi sted state projects;State bonded projects;state assisted borough projects (including the Local Service Roads and Trai 1s Program,and the State Revenue Shari ng Programs for roads administered through road service a reas at the rate of $2,500 per mil e of dedi cated public road);and privately developed public roads {the Borough requires local roads and collectors to be built to minimum standards in accordance with its 4-88 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - subdivision regulations)(Overall Development Program,Inc.July 1980). Economic - - - - The Alaska Railroad connects many of the major com- munities in the Borough,as well as a number of very small conmunities in the northern part which do not have road access.In addition,many communities have active airstrips.The largest airport in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is the Palmer Municipal Airport,with a 5,000-foot runway.As displayed in Table 4.1-26,conmunity airstrips are abundant in Impact Area 2. -Baseline Forecast As the Borough population grows,the skeletal fra- mework of the transport system (especially the railroad system)will need to be filled in and built up extensively to meet the increased demands. Incrementally,as new subdivisions are created,addi- tional roads will need to be put in place.In addi- tion,three major improvements in the Borough's transportation framework will become necessary. The current road system in the Mat-Su Borough can be described as a series of spokes that join at Wasilla. By 1985-1986,as the popu1 ati on exceeds 30,000,it will be necessary to build a collector road ring with a radi us of four or fi ve mi 1es from Wasi 11 a.Thi s road would allow traffic to go to and from the surrounding conmunities without first passing through Wasilla.Such an interconnector system would require the construction of 30 to 35 miles of road. 4-89 As the Borough popul ati on approaches 45,000 a round 1991,a second elliptical ring of roads that passes through Palmer to the east and Willow and Big Lake to the west wi 11 be needed.The road system woul d require about 150 miles.In addition,roads in the Matanuska Vall ey may need to be wi dened to service the increased traffic. Between 1990 and 2000,Borough officials indicate that 150 to 200 miles of road (one-third of the pre- sent road system)woul d need to be upgraded to an arterial standard.This would require redraining, widening and resurfacing.Additional road work will be needed in the Big Lake-Houston area,as the Knik Arm causeway·s completion begins to stimulate popula- tion growth there. Road construction in the Borough is currently done on a contractual basis.As the population of the Borough grows,it is possible that a Public Works Department will become economically feasible,but it is diffi cul t to predi ct when thi s poi nt woul d be reached.In 1981 dollars,the Borough currently estimates the cost of new roads at $100,000 a mi 1e. In addition,one person can administer up to 300 miles of local roads.It is estimated that by 2000, two additi onal admi ni strative personnel wi 11 be needed. As the Mat-Su Borough popul ati on grows,there wi 11 also be an increasing need for mass transportation to serve the commuters who work in Anchorage.The Borough is presently considering increasing its sup- port of rush hour commuter buses.Conti nued growth 4-90 - - - - - - - - - - - - ... - (v) and construction of the Knik Arm Crossing may make a commuter train feasible in the 1990·s as well (conversation with Robert Vroman,Mat-Su Borough Service Area Coordinator,December 1981). The Alaska Department of Transportation,as part of its Upper Cook Inlet Airport System Plan,has fore- cast the demand for airport facilities for the major publ ic ai rports in the Mat-Su Borough for the years 1985,1990 and 2000.These data are di spl ayed in Tables 4.1-32 and 4.1-33.It is expected that most of these facilities will be sufficient in their pre- sent or pl anned capaci ty to accommodate the addi- tional needs. There is,however,need for a new air facility to serve the Wasilla community.The existing facility is not expected to be able to adequately serve future demands,and expansion is limited due to the terrain and a lack of available land.(Peat,Marwick, Mitchell &Co.,1981). Police -Baseline Police protection in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is provided by the Alaska State Troopers,of whom there are a total of 20 in the Borough;17 are stationed in Palmer and three are stati oned in Trapper Creek. Four additional troopers have the responsibility of fi sh and wi 1 dl i fe protecti on and enforcement.The Borough force,which is part of a larger Southcentral detachment,has two snowmachines and one plane.Each 4-91 N :46-? 03 #$<? 1 5%&!'.6!07? ?>;%8/? 9"+(=2)(? 5!)*? ,?)mDo]¿ `y¢¿ '5,N4[V[D...8[V[B5\06[[.D...B5?z£¿/ N)@)¿¿ % M>0,FN 1!N>,CN 2!N?>3,DN 4 N.Mh aA;¿(6EN)µY1¬U{¿&QBBaC<¿b)¤¿;24PeJ.QD(g;¿(5FN;35\eK'REEaJ<¿(6FN4d|¿)V5O©¿;Fx0eA'@7H"FN,8N<G e<¿$A"GN<F }<¿ªm®|k:*nZ¥¹¿ K¿`mskrnf=Njp6LF#·c¿8PL6OW.ZVLd7 T6RU6RZ0d 8 ZT.U0.Zhidw [[./8Rd^l_x*+)J;B&(IF,NDR.}D4CGH..Q.8KRI[R0.8SUTR.7R.7W-Dh¯y~+d¿A30. 8R.WDR8.R.9. %4 W[[R.D6...e8 [:.TW.6...dDD0.>?.6...d:R.. 88R.6.. .de)®^) !°¡d¿F-Nbt? `Cnt¦i,N[R :..d6TRJ.F@![dCRR R.DRMfL..0RC."Vd([okif*¿[R~{y8TRM.D]#DDRRURDU$WL..66.y W$g¿ h^D¿V'C[%XR.;R[:0.D.0:6:.L.<&Dcvz{ o5)U¦)a¿,60 UV':LRER6.(.8URUR4])D T..0.WWXL\i¿ %D:WV1N.8.Y6T.D.TW..:R R!WYZv*#$" !#%R:T8RU&R.D.DRW(:.MRj,R}Ecuc0..[TD88[T6. 8RR.0ºG_¿2.*..TT..+R6..Matpvw*%»¿=¿¶ ¿I/<-b:1+Od%! R.[0X.R. |kxD]u62..gRM.6T.6...d[C. C0.=...d80..RR.7...d pq,j*¿quk7¾M§¿ y¶H¥¼¿%"% $%B±¥kx-¤A;¿ ¦S-¨¿sH|Gp7[Ns.©¿ l/I¡¿FNWd¶+¦0¿ P35a«¤B¡¿ ¸BB¿,9FN :>KN<´t¿Ba<¿',L,F1>%N>lrz]{?w@BN¿©TX¡¿¡¦²>¹¿"³ 8½¿^k8x 9q~Q>Sd¥9S¿ 5N +%. &. !%''. .%&"%'( ..,. )&.%*. #$%. . '. %#%'. -&'.. #. £9£ " " - *+¢U<=@L,£ 75Q->2?~3£ 4ATB CrK sPDE£"6FGH/R1M£ 0V£vw$ê $Ö"1#$q)5êè éTµê)xUÆê .Vfx#),# 8#8. 9 $96rµJ¶7bÆê!$ &)))£ 84sgGWTOê ')ylifxgd£8nê½¨·DdÆê AÕê3i_`aRê <o¾K¶<eÎê(* )*L7êÈy×zP¯9{zÆåê&/9 !-79bj.IO£Ø¡áxê#).zßT·txÙÕ:ê%)£TÚ^Wxêq¡onpJu] S£Æê/Û¸¡Ú³hê""£X¹*ÜÆÉê2;|}{<ê0~´êzt£2n¢âê TãêH9²kÕ=ê,>xtYZÊ8êº£?ê ?¤¤5Æã[xê+uä\Ëê-æ¡ÝItê$¬¥»ê °Áz9Qçê±¼là9É]êc9JmxxÆ|^¦ê*ÚFÌ§Í@xê:N;|}{£# 8 8808/8'8/8'828£8£. 86488ê'8'8'8'8388848#! 8'8!8' )8'8!#88#88'88/8%ê*&)£#8£ê*£/8 £'858%8!8"*'#8+#8!*858!#8!#88+8 8!88 8/8 8! 88!88£*8£!8xê8!8#$8%£#8%£'+8 8!#888w££ 8 */( 8%ê88$!*xê8'8£!8'8'8 * 8!! 8'ê££'£ 8 8'8#8 88£"ÃÏzÂÐ©ê`Z[ec£)8*-"29Em¿MÀAbÆê" %( )N¡ÞÑÄê#+909(Tfmª ê <Sê aÅÒkBÆTSê ]TÁ8xê 6àpAÓo®ê_YXkh£" "«C ê8\mat£ 8zvxê!" " !£&$#£#'8#/8"8"£'ê 8 8 8 8!&8!#8 8 '8#8 88!88ê!£#8*" 8&Õê/#8'ê8#*88 8#8(£/88 8* ! 8%+'- )- &'*!"*- %- '")&%'**%"-#- +- *)-* '*- &&'- %%- %*'&%(*-,)*!-$- &- &mbbg8mA+x +g+zmcP.+m.b_8mx+{Gc` G{A{ #Ab38x &B8 Gz c; !+OU8m GxzA8b`P ;Gmx{.P+xxAcU8mP8 .G{ I_ {A8 bmb>A +_3 zA8m8;bm8A+xgbPG.8gb8mx { A+x8G>A{ b;;G.8mx +`3 x88n+.GJG+`xghbm{ g8oxb__8P &A8 gcPG.8 ;bm.8A+x;bp 8AG.P8x &A8 Vdx{ .c^c_ .qGW8 Gx +_3+GxU G_ +`d{A8mJx8c .mGX8 m+{8 3Gx{rG/z 'A8m8+m8 {As8838{8_zGc`+`4.emm80yGb_+P;+.GQGzG8x G` {A8 cmc>A +{8Vg bm+t38{8`{Gf_<+.GG{ G` !+PY8mU+G`{+G_83 ,{A8 !+PZ8m!bRG188g+m{[8_| .S+>APG`*b{A8_{8m Ga )+xGPP+gubI3G_> Pc_>+_3 xAcmz{8m\ .bmm8.{Gb_+P;+.GRGzG8x ;bmL9_GP8x+`5 {A8 3P{ cmm8.{Gb`+P +.IPGzPc.+{86 _8+m${|b_ gmbH3G`? Pb`> +_3xCbm} {8mV.cmm8.zGb_+P;+.GPG{G8x ;bm +3P{x 33G{Hb`+P =+.GPG{G8x_8+m ${~b_ +m8 ,8G_> .b`xG38m83bmm8.yGc_+P;+.GNHzG8xG_ {A8 bmb>Ax8m8zA8DbP8 _.Eem+>9 m8>Gb_ &A8GPx{mbU GP3G_> G_ "+PX8mAcx8x{A8c_8 .cm K_ {A8cmb>A 8m+PP .b_bUG. 88PbgU8`{!mb>v+V _. P +x8PI`8 cm:2+x{ (A8 im8x8_z%{+{8 'mdbg8t gbPG.8;dm/8 H_ {A8 +% bmb>A]88{x mm++m8+ m8lHm8U8_{x-+x87 gb` + x{+_3+m3 ;bmmm+P +m8+x b;b`8gcTG/8U+_ j8m Acx+_3ickP+{Gd_,{{A8 ;bm/8GPP`883 b 8g+`3xG>`G;H.+`{P {c V88z{A8gmbM8.{83 @mbF c; {A8 cwe>A &+,P8 .b`{+G_x3+{+ b`{A8 gbg P+{Gc_ b;{A8+{$ c mb>A8.PxG8 b= !+PX8m TS~\ifq\ `u{\US~u` {\ze{]o\r~`u|~R\ {uuy\}~ fs c\ oS~ Tu{ubc #KI#* 7 \S{ #KJ# #KI* #I. #>I1 #KI7 #KI9 #KI? #KII #IK #@K #KK# #KK* #KK. #KK1 #OK7 #>K: #LKA $ #VKK * * # * * *! . * 1 + 7 pS~Tu{ubc yuyjSfvq \W~f\ ua ySkp\{ #>B%I *&*1I *. B *1KB1 *BK . Q10. 1I .7..1 .B*K7 .I1.K 1 7I 1**:7 11F%B 1:GK7 1K*.. 7#:*K 717%7 7H 1# : #B% :*P7# ::#*7 =K17I B*K7B ?::.) I 6II {\zf{\YqpT\{ w` ~S\ {uuy\{~ fSfe #KB*,K7I *#*7.'IB */ B.1:# *1KC.B1: *BK 1(I7 . 1.27:7 ..#73KB* .7..7. .B. 77K4 .I117B:: 1"8I: IB 5**B:.1 11B*;B I 1:I B #K 1K-.B.I7 7:.DB11 717*I#BB 7EI77: : #BK *< :*K7K11. ::#*KK#M :K1:##K # K11 B::.##1K7 I 1N#* B. S USlWmS\ZTS\Y yus S~StYS{Y u` # u``fU\{ y^{ duSq[ yuynSguq T WSkXnS_[TS\[yus S~SsYS{[ u`#7u``hX\{ y\{cx~Ss[ yuykSfus -2 - -k2mk XS]XA2 ' (Xc 'S!m-' Xdc'k]XS!2S+ e'by2c'J'Smk X(]XB2 ' k m-'A'k-Xk m-'(Xc ' 2S''! mY+cX mX(cXK 2S mXL2Sm2S ycc'SmkmS!c!k X( ]XA2 ']fXm' m2XS S !!2m2XSB 2AA 'c'bz2c'! (Xc mXmA X(S !!2m3XSm-'2S c'k'" ]X]yAm2XS !'Sk2m 2Sm-'ZcX{+-MS' 'kk2mm' S2S c'k' 4S ]XB2 ' ]cXm' m2XS]'c ]2m k A' !2k]Ak 3( kmS!c! X(X((2 'ck]'cn.XzkT# ]X]yBm5XS 2k yk'! 2S m-'m| XcYz,-2AA c'by2c'cXX]'ck mX]dXm' m2mk +cX6S+ ]X]zA m2XS k o-']XA2 ' )Xc '2S c'k'kp-'c' >AA ' S''$ (Xc !!2m2XSA k{]]Xcq ( 2B2m2'kk'! XS ]c'k'So ]c m2 'k' /S'cXX]'c 2HA S''! ]XC7 ' c !!2m2SA kmm2XUk 8' S''%'! k'AI mX]cX ~2!'m-' (Xc ' 2m- 'mm'c &2kmc2zr2XS2m-2Sm-' XcX{+- XA2 'X((2 2Ak2S!3 m' m0m k}kms2[S (Xc m-c'' Xg*X{dcXX]'ck 2AA ' 2V Xc]Xcm'! 9SmX m-' S'XykmXS (2c'kmm2XS S'c2+@' 2t:AA ' 2S X^'cm2XS S !!2m;XW k' XS!N?Xc kmm2XS2DE 'S''!'!]Xkk2D 2Sm-'2AEXc' 1' 2mY( AJ'ck]XA2 ' (Xc ' X(k2_]'hl xX ' JYc' m-S !'bym'(Xc \QzS2m X(2mk k2' m-2k2k ]cm2BA!z' mXm-' k'c~2 'k-2 -AO'c ]XF2 ']cX2!'(Xc m-'um'iYX]'ck k'! y`XS kmS!c! X(]ZA2 'J'S]'cm-XykU!^X]yAm<XS 2T m-''j m-' 2m =S''! S !!2v2XSk2 ]XA2 'P'Sk'' A' m 2k SXm]Xkk2G' wX ac'!2 m m -m ]X2SmS X( m-' Xm-'c+cX2S+ XRzS2m2'k 2S m-'x| XcX{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hzJ1*AoA1m !W+ch]~A+1 o<1Ah]W c]JA&1m1h~A&1m !m o<Am Am! &]M$BX!pA]W ]5 d]czJ! oA]W J1~1Jm+1XmAo !W+&]<1mA1W1mm ^1~1h Ao An c]mmA$J1 o]AX+A&!o1 :{A+1JAW1m5]h o<1mA1 ]5 c]JA&15]h&1 o<!o !&]VzWCo]zJ+ W11+ A6Aomh1mA +1Wom,1&A+1+ o]!cch]~1<_N1h|J1mo!ozm m!$J1 m<]m AW o<1 1!h'Aoc]JA&1 5]h&1m AW !mAJJ!!W+]zmq]W ]zJ+ W21+ o]<!~1 o<Ahr11W!W+ mA ]57A&1hm h1mc1&oA~1J ~D Ai1 h]o1&oA]W !m1KAW1 <1h1!h1&zhh1WoJ WAW1]c1h!oAW: 5Ah1 m1h~A&1 !h1!m AW o<1!o!WzmH!zmAoY! ]h]z:<s=1Ao `5 !JO3h !W+ h1!o1h !JP1h$]o><]zm1- AW]X1#zAJ.AW: !mAJJ!]zmo]W {oo1zot]W !JI11oW!!I1m !W+ Am<<]]IW !++AoA]W !W1 mo!oA]W Am#1AW: cJ!WW1+ !o<]h1JEW1!W+ oamz$mu!oA]Xm AWj1!v1h !JM1k AJJ $1#zAJo AW<1 &]mw ]55Fh1 ch] o1(oA]W AX t<1m1!h1!m Am 8zW+1+ #! mc4)A!JQAJL!;1 h!p1 ]W o<1!mm1mm1+ ~!Jz!oA]ZAo<AWo?1m1hA&1 !h1!mW5]hM!oA][ ]Wc!A+1RcJ]11m1fzAcS1Wo !o1h &!c!&Ao!W/o<15Ah1i!pAW: ]5o<1!h1! mzhh]}W+AW: 1!&< mo!xA]W An 0Ame!1/ A\ !% 1 Ah1ch]o1&oA]W cJ!WWAW: AW y<1 ]h]z:<<!m#11W $!m1+ ]W o<1 ]$G1&oA~1 b7 !&<A1~AW: ! M!ATzU Wmzh!W(11h~A&1h:!WA!oA]W h!oAX: ]9 1A:<o 5]j!JJ !h1!m Ao< !c]czJ!oA]W+1WmAo ]5 T]h1p@!W c1hmgz!h1MAJ1 <1 Am !W!oA]W!J]h:!WA" oA]W<A&<h!o1m 5Al1ch]o1&qA]X ]W ! m&!J1 9h]M]\1 TABLE 4.1-36 FIRE STATIONS IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH Water Total Water System Number of Capacity on Pumping I.S.0. Paid on Wheels Capacity Fire Stati on Employees Eguipment (gallons)(gpm)Rating Palmer 2 4 3,000 4,000-downtown 6 -City 1,OOO-resi- denti al Wasilla 1 4 6,200 Not determi ned 8 Houston a 3 (a)1,510(a)9 Butte 0 4 5,200 8 Sutton 3 3,200 9 Ta 1keetna 3 800 9 Lakes 5 4,500 8 Shoreline(b) Fishhook Used fire 1,500 9 equipment Trapper Creek ------------inactive------------ (a)Houston will be adding a 3000-gallon tanker to its equipment by 1/82 (b)To be built in 1982. 4-99 (best)to ten (worst);fire insurance rates closely reflect these ratings.Class eight is the best rating possible for an area without a corrmunity water system.The requirements for a rating of eight are a water capacity of 4,000 gallons on wheels and a ser- vice radius of five road miles. A study by Mission Research Corporation Inc.(t~RC) was corrmissioned in 1978 to outline a fire plan that would meet the stated objective.The recommendations of MRC included a redefinition of service areas and the addi ti on of several fi re stati ons to the si x in existence at that time.MRC based its proposed boun- dari es on response time,road conditi ons,and the need for a balance between area and population (Mission Research Corporation,1980).In July 1981, the Mat-Su Fire Chiefs Association submitted a revised fire protection plan which built upon the data compiled by MRC,but which altered the recommen- dati ons somewhat in order to more closely meet the guidelines for an ISO Class 8.This plan puts more emphasis on road distance from fire stations in place of response times.A total of 12 additional stations were proposed,including 5 suggested by MRC. The expansion of the boundaries,in addition to pro- viding more comprehensive service in the Palmer and Wasilla area,includes the addition of service in the vicinity of Willow and Big Lake.Population is per- ceived to increase in Willow whether or not the capi- tal move materializes.There are a few other fire protection facilities in the Borough,namely the Talkeetna Fire Hall with three pieces of equipment and the i nacti ve Trapper Creek faci 1ity.There are 4-100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - no changes recoll1l1ended in the boundari es of these areas.Residents of areas of the Borough not within the boundari es of a fi re service area must rely on their own resources and volunteer assistance of their neighbors. By the end of 1982,several trucks should be added to the water bearing capacity of the fire stations with rati ngs greater than ei ght.These i nc1 ude a 3,000 gallon tanker each for Houston and Talkeetna.In addition,money has been appropriated for the construction of two fire station houses,one at Fishhook which is currently operating out of an old garage and one for a new fi re di stri ct at Shore1 i ne (conversation with Dan Contini,October 1981). The fire stations in Palmer,Wasilla and Houston are the only city-maintained stations in the Borough. There are two paid employees in Palmer and one in Wasilla.All other fire stations are maintained by the Borough and rely on volunteer service. -Baseline Forecast Rapid growth of the Mat-Su Borough population between 1981 and 2005 is expected to result in an increase in the number of areas requesting fire protection. Additional stations will need to be built to put these areas within the maximum five mile service area radius (1.5 miles within Palmer's city limits)that the Insurance Service Organization (ISO)fire rating of eight (six in Palmer)requires.Currently,the Borough I s Fi re Protecti on P1 an call s for the construction of 12 new fire stations;five of these 4-101 wi 11 be in operati on by the end of 1982.Each of these stati ons,in order to comply wi th fi re insurance standards of ISO rating eight,will need fire equipment capable of transporting 4,000 gallons of water. It is likely that fire protection personnel will remain,for the most part,composed of volunteer firemen,though a small number of pai d staff may be added to some of the fire districts. (vii)Health Care -Baseline Data on medical facilities and services available to people in Impact Areas 2 and 3 are shown in Table 4.1-37.The Valley Hospital in Palmer currently pro- vides acute and some long-term care with a total of 23 beds;19 for acute and four for long-term care. There are a total of eight doctors:a pediatrician,a surgeon,an OB/GYN specialist,and five family prac- tictioners. The total of 11,965 outpati ents served in 1980 is a combination of emergency care and X-ray/lab patients in both the Valley Hospital and the Wasilla satellite X-ray lab facility. The Valley Hospital,which was built in 1954,was once more than adequate to serve the residents of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.However,it is now beginning to reach its limits.An independent con- sul tant recently compl eted a cost study of several 4-102 - - - - - - - - - - - - tII,)IIII•JIITABLE4.1-37MEDICALFACILITIES/SERVICESANDINPATIENTUTILIZATIONDATA-1980-FAITH(a)VALDEZ(a)VALLEY"(a)ALASKA"(il)PROVIDENCE(b)ALASKANATIVE(b)Hos~COMMUNITYMEDICALCENTER"LocationGlennallenValdezPalmerAnchorageAnchorageAnchoraqeTypeEmergencyandEmergencyandAcuteandlong-AcuteAcuteAcuteshort-termminorsurgerytermcurefacilityServiceAreaApprox.PaxsonValdezMatanuska-SusitnaAnchorageandAnchorageAnchorage&toGulkanaonBoroughvicinityandvicinityvicinityRichardsonHigh-way&100mileswestonGlennHighway.No.ofBeds5adult15231992681701pediatric~INo.ofDoctors2hospital-38214N/AN/A......0basedwCostperday$lOO/daysemi-$2IO/daysemi-$l85/daysemi-$220/daysemi-privateprivateprivateprivateN/AN/A$200/dayCCUor$230/dayprivate$190/dayprivate$225/dayprivateICUOccupancyRate30%13.4%49%56%82.4%72.3%Admissions2713011,2897,92611,3564,629AverageDay/2.432.453.84.65.79,7PatientPatientDays4,962PerYear66173736,45969,72944,901Outpatientsg,90011,965Served3,725N/AN/AN/ANo.ofAmbulances22EMToutofPalmerN/AN/AN/AFireHallPatientsEvacuatedToAnchorageAnchorageAnchorageSeattleSeattleN/A(a)Source:(b)Source:Conversationswithpersonnelathospital.Ender,RichardL.,etal.January1980.VolumeI:GulfofAlaskaandLowerCookInletPetroleumDevelopmentScenarios.AnchorageSOCioeconomicandPhysicalBaseline.Anchorage.AK.(1978data) a1 ternati ves for expandi ng hospital servi ces in the Borough.The recommendati on was that a new hospital be built in Palmer rather than Wasilla due to the extra costs of sewage,road access,wells and power extension associated with the Wasilla site that was evaluated.The recommendation was unanimously accepted by the Board of Directors of the Valley Hospital Association,and $9 million out of the esti- mated requirements of $10.5 million in funding has, as of this writing,been secured for the project. An additional 32,300 gross square feet (gsf)will be added to the existing 13,040 gsf,and seven beds - three acute,three obstetric and one intensive care - wi 11 be added.Thi sis cons i dered to be suffi ci ent for a Borough population of up to 30,000,and it is estimated that the hospital could serve a population of up to 45,000 with an addition of 30 beds at a 1 ater date.Hospital pl anning has been based on a desired occupancy rate of 55 percent,a state guide- line for rural hospitals. The additi onal space is expected to all ow additi ona 1 physi ci ans to joi n the hospital staff.Up to thi s time,this has been precluded by the crowded con- ditions.Initially,it is expected that an orthope- dic surgeon,an internist,another OB/GYN and an additional surgeon will be added.Use of the hospi- tal by Mat-Su residents who presently use facil ities in Anchorage is expected to increase in response to the new building and the addition of the specialists (conversation with Rae-Ann Hickling,Consultant, October 1981). 4-104 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Palmer Pioneer Home provides long-term nursing and non-nursing care for the elderly. Ambulance service in the Borough is dispatched through the Palmer Fire Center on a 24-hour basis. There are presently 10 ambulances located throughout the Borough with one back-up at the Borough office in Palmer.Ambulances are distributed as follows:one ambulance in Sutton;two in Palmer;two in Wasilla; one in Houston;one in Willow;one in Trapper Creek; one in Talkeetna;and one at Matanuska Glacier. The 911 emergency servi ce number is connected directly to the ambulance dispatch center at the Palmer Fire Station and the Valley Hospital. Three public health centers are located in the Borough:Palmer Health Care Center;Wasilla Health Care Center;and Cook Inlet Native Association Health Care Center (Wasilla). These centers provi de the foll owi ng services:well chi 1d assessment,immuni zati ons,pap screeni ng, pregnancy tests,gl aucoma screeni ng,TB sk in tests, VD tests and treatment,and educati ona1 materi a1 on health. There are two mental health facilities located in the Borough:Langdon (Wasilla)and the Mat-Su Mental Health Center (Wasilla).Both facilities provide: individual and group therapy,family and marital counseling,and alcohol and drug consultation. 4-105 ---------------~-~----_._------------- Baseline Forecast The present hospital facilities in the Mat-Su Borough have been suffi ci ent for acute care bed needs,per se,but the hospital has reached its limits in terms of adequate space to house new equipment,additional doctors,files and administration,and other support facilities.Plans are currently underway for construction of new facilities to remedy the problem. It appears,however,that the Borough's growing popu- lation will require an additional hospital by the 1990·s. Table 4.1-38 contains information on projected needs of acute care hospital beds in the Mat-Su Borough's Valley Hospital.Bed requirements will rise from 20 in 1981 to 116 in the year 2000 and 149 in 2005. This set of projections is based upon an assumption that the usage of Valley Hospital as a percent of total Al askan hospital use by Mat-Su Borough resi- dents will rise from 38 percent in 1980 to 75 percent in 2000. The new 30-bed hospital is planned to be sufficient for a population of up to 30,000.Under these guide- 1 i nes,however,there wi 11 be a need for addi ti ona 1 expansion within the first year of the new hospital's opening (1984).An addition of room for 30 acute care beds would provide for the Mat-Su Borough's hospital needs through 1990.An increase of about 50 staff members would be required. By 1990-1991,a new hospital will be needed.There has in the past been strong public support in Wasilla 4-106 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-38 PROJECTION OF ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL BED NEED IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH,1981-2000 Percent of Per Capita Bed Need Valley Use Rate(a)Projected Met By Hospita 1 Based Upon Average o(i1 Y Va 11 ey Bed-Population 1980 Figures Census a Hospital Need(a) 1981 22,285 .450 27 41 20 1982 23,982 .450 30 45 24-1983 25,982 .450 32 48 28 1984 28,075 .450 35 52 33 1985 31,202 .450 38 55 38 1986 33,950 .450 42 56 43 1987 36,894 .450 45 58 48 1988 39,323 .450 48 59 52 1989 41,543 .450 51 60 56 1990 42,964 .450 53 62 60 1991 45,263 .450 56 63 64 1992 47,112 .450 58 64 68 1993 49,734 .450 61 65 72 1994 51,988 .450 64 67 78 1995 54,607 .450 67 68 83 1996 57,191 .450 71 69 88 1997 60,272 .450 74 71 96 1998 63,000 .450 78 72 102 1999 66,338 .450 82 73 109 2000 69,334 .450 85 75 117 2001 72,731 .450 90 75 122 2002 76,295 .450 94 75 128 2003 80,034 .450 99 75 135 2004 83,955 .450 104 75 141 2005 88,069 .450 109 75 148 (a)Per Capita Use Rate,Projected Average Daily Census and the Valley Hospital Bed Need were calculated using the formulas in Section 11.2(e). -4-107 ---.~__._....-------_1 for a hospital,and assuming that the supportive infrastructure is in place at that time,there is a good likelihood that a second hospital will be built in Wasilla after 1990. The Palmer Pioneer Home1s long-term health care faci- 1 iti es for the el derly are currently bei ng operated at capacity.As the population in the areas grows, substantial expansion in long-term health care faci- lities will be needed. Ambulance service will also need to expand as popula- tion in the Borough grows.Presently,plans for the Valley Hospital include funding for 2 additional ambulances.As the center of Mat-Su Borough popula- tion moves west of Wasilla,after 1990,it is likely that additional ambulance service will be needed in that area as well. (viii)Education -Baseline The Matanuska-Susi tna Borough presently operates 17 schools:12 elementary schools,two junior high schools,and three high schools. - - - - - - - - - - - - Communities Trapper Creek Talkeetna t~ontana Creek Will ow Hi gh School x 4-108 Junior Elementary Hi gh School School x X X X - - - - - Wasilla X X X Big Lake X Palmer X X X Glacier View X Skwentna X Butte X At the beginning of the 1981-82 school year there were approximately 4,529 students enrolled in the school system,440 more than planned for.The capa- cities and 1981 enrollments for the schools are displayed in Table 4.1-39.Also illustrated are plans for the expansion of existing facilities.In addition,there are plans for two new schools:an elementary school in the Wasilla area with a capacity of more than 400,and a secondary school in the Houston area with an initial capacity of 300.The Borough schools are equipped to provide education anrl trai ni ng for mentally retarded and physi cally han- dicapped children (conversation with Kenneth Kramer, Mat-Su Borough School District Superintendent, October 1981). Vocational training in the Borough school system includes programs such as auto mechanics,welding, electronics,surveying,home economics,office accounting,small engines,and carpentry.The voca- tional training facilities are tied directly into the regular school facilities and are,at present,able to keep pace with the demand.Besi des servi ng the needs of the immediate community,the schools also provi de educati on by correspondence to any resi dent in the State of Alaska (238 correspondence students during the 1979-1980 school year). 4-109 TABLE4.1-39CHARACTERISTICSOFPUBLICSCHOOLS:MATANUSKA-SUSITNASCHOOLDISTRICT1981SchoolCondition/SchoolTypeGradeCapacityEnrollmentPlansforExpansion.BigLakeE1-6350177Noplans.ButteE1-6500300Noplans.GlacierViewE/J1-86050Currentlyconsistsofport-ables.Plantobuildtwoclassrooms.IditarodEPre-6550460Recentlyburneddown.Plantohavebackinoperationby1/82.SherrodEPre,3-6450454Noplans.SkwentnaE/J/S4-121516Noplans.SnowshoeE1-6500409Newfacility.SwansonE1,2350231Noplans.TalkeetnaE1-612065Noplans.TrappersCreekE1-63040PresentlyfourportablefacilitiesHavesubmittedagrantproposalforfacilityconsistingof4classroomsandagym/multipurposeroom..j:::>I-'.......oI,IIIIIIII,1III II1\1I11TABLE4.1-39(cant.)J1.p.I-'-'-'SchoolCondition/SchoolTypeGradeCapacityEnrollmentPlansforExpansionWasillaElem.E 112090Veryoldfacilitywithhalfofbuildingcondemned.Haveplansforanewfacilityin1984.Wi11owElem.E1-69196Expansionconsideredinthefiveyearbuildingplan.PalmerJ7-8500332Noplans.WasillaJ7-8600353Recentlycompletedaddi-tiontofacility.PalmerS9-12900619Noplans.SusitnaVa11eyJ/S7-12180122Plansforadditionsforthebandandvocationalstudies.WasillaS9-121,200715Recentlycompletedadditiontothefacility.Matanuska-SusitanCom-CCN/AN/A1.500N/AmunityCollegeE=Elementary;-J=Junior;S=Senior;CC=ConmunityCollegeSource:Matamuska-SusitnaBoroughSchoolDistrict. Situated between Wasilla and Palmer is the Matanuska-Susitna Community College,a branch of the University of Alaska,which provides academic and vocational courses to residents in the region.The college has shown steady and healthy growth increasing from an enrollment of 512 in 1969 to 1,500 full and part-time students in 1980-1981. -Baseline Forecast Table 4.1-40 displays the projected need for primary and secondary school teachers and classrooms,between 1981 and 2005,due to natural growth.These projec- tions are based on planning ratios of school-age chi 1dren as a percent of total popu1 ati on that were suggested by the Matanuska-Susitna Borough in 1978; 22.8 percent for the short-term through 1987 and a long-term ratio of 25 percent.This set of projec- tions also assumes that primary school children will continue to represent about 54 percent of the public school population.Junior high and senior high stu- dents have been aggregated in one group;however,it should be recognized that in general the school district prefers to have junior and senior high faci- lities separate where this is feasible.Tables 4.1-41 and 4.1-42 contain projections of the number of school-age children in selected communities. Between 1981 and 2000,it is expected that an addi- tional 6,834 primary school children will be added to the school district1s rolls.A portion of this increase can be accorrmodated by the excess capaci ty that exists at some schools.However,many schools are currently operating near or at full capacity,and 4-112 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TABLE 4.1-40 PROJECTION OF ENROLLMENT AND TEACHERS IN THE MATANUSKA- SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT PRIMARY SCHOOL SECONDARY SCHOOL Number of Number of Students in Number of Students in Number of-Excess of Classrooms &Excess of Classrooms & Enrollment 1981 Capacity Teachers(a)Enrollment 1981 Capacity Teachers(a) 1981 2,526 101 2,153 108 1982 2,953 118 2,515 126 1983 3,203 73 128 2,726 136 1984 3,455 325 138 2,945 147 1985 3,841 711 154 3,273 164 1986 4,180 1,050 167 3,560 174 178 1987 4,542 1,412 182 3,870 484 194 1988 4,884 1,754 195 4,161 775 208 1989 5,182 2,052 207 4,417 1,031 221 1990 5,406 2,276 216 4,605 1,219 230 1991 5,742 2,612 230 4,892 1,506 245 1992 6,029 2,899 241 5,136 1,750 257 1993 6,392 3,262 256 5,445 2,059 272-1994 6,737 3,607 269 5,740 2,354 287 • 1995 7,135 4,005 285 6,079 2,693 304 1996 7,505 4,375 300 6,392 3,006 320 1997 7,975 4,845 319 6,792 3,406 340 1998 8,403 5,273 336 7,157 3,771 358 1999 8,887 5,757 355 7,566 4,180 378 2000 9,360 6,230 374 7,974 4,588 399 2001 9,819 6,689 393 8,364 4,978 418 2002 10,300 7,170 412 8,774 5,388 439 2003 10,805 7,675 432 9,204 5,818 460 2004 11,334 8,204 453 9,655 6,269 483 2005 11 ,889 8,759 476 10,128 6,742 506 (a)Number of teachers was calculated based upon pupil teacher ratios of 25 for primary schools and 20 for secondary schools. 4-113 - TABLE 4.1-41 - BASELINE FORECAST OF NUMBER OF PRIMARY SCHOOL-A6E CHILDREN IN MAT-SU BOROU6H AND SELECTED COMMUNITIES,1981-2005 IA) TOTAL -TRAPPER MAT-SU YEAR PALMER WASILLA HOUSTON CREEK TALKEETNA OTHER BOROUGH 1981 291 246 68 26 73 1824 2527 - 1982 337 287 81 29 83 2136 2953 1983 359 308 89 30 87 2326 3199 1984 382 332 98 31 91 2522 3457 -1985 407 356 108 32 96 2842 3842 1986 433 383 il9 34 101 3110 4180 1987 461 412 131 35 106 3397 4542 1988 495 447 145 37 113 3647 4884 1989 530 482 160 38 119 3852 5182 1990 569 523 178 40 126 3969 5406 1991 594 567 197 42 1--4210 5744 -.,),) 1992 620 615 219 44 141 4390 6029 1993 645 664 242 46 149 4646 6392 1994 673 719 268 49 158 4870 6738 -1995 702 780 298 51 167 5138 7136 1996 730 842 329 53 177 5374 7505 1997 762 912 365 56 187 5692 7974 1998 795 989 404 59 198 5958 8403 - 1999 826 1067 447 61 209 6274 8884 2000 862 1144 495 64 'J"~6573 9360...~~ 2001 892 1228 545 67 233 6855 9819 -2002 9....7 1317 599 69 245 7146 10300';.J 2003 955 1413 659 72 257 7447 10805 2004 989 1516 7'i",,,270 7758 11334..oJ ,oJ -2005 1023 1627 798 78 284 8079 11889 (3)02 (A)CALCULATED AS 54 PERCENT OF TOTAL SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN.- NOiE:THE SUM OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES MY NOT EgUAL TOTALS DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROuNDIN6.- - - -4-114 - - - TABLE 4.1-42 4-115 it is projected that new facilities in addition to those planned in Trapper Creek and Wasilla will be needed by 1985.In 2000,230 additional primary teachers and classrooms will be needed.This would be the equivalent of 19 12-classroom schools or nine 24-classroom schools.These estimates seem to be in accordance with the Borough's plans to acquire 16 new el ementary school sites between 1978 and 1987,most of which would initially accommodate up to 12 classrooms. By 2000,secondary school enrollment will grow to about 8,900 from the 1981 level of 2,155.The schools,which are currently operating at a combined 64 percent of capacity,will be able to absorb a por- ti on of these students;but by 1985-1986 additi onal facilities will be needed.The planned junior-senior high school in the Houston area will provide addi- tional room for 300 students.Beyond that a further 214 cl assrooms and teachers will be needed by 2000. This is the equivalent of 3.5 full-size secondary schools. The increase in enrollment will necessitate the hiring of approximately 273 additional primary school teachers and 291 additional secondary school teachers.It is estimated that other school district personnel requi rements wi'll ri se by about 560,from present levels,by the year 2000. 4-116 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (i x)Recreati on -Baseline This section will focus upon the recreational facili- ties provi ded and rna i nta i ned by pub 1 ic entiti es in Impact Area 2.Additi onal i nformati on on recreational resources in the Upper Susitna River Basin can be found in Section 4.1(i)Fish and Wildlife Use Patterns. Situated between the major population centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks,the Mat-Su Borough and Copper River-Wrangell Mountains area provides a wide range of recreati onal opportuni ti es.As is true of Alaska in general,many of the recreation experiences available are unique in the nation.Endowed with vast natural resources supporting many varieties and speci es of wil dl He,Al aska offers numerous oppor- tunities for recreational activities.These activi- ties are generally characterized by low intensity, low impact,resource-ori ented uses.Opportunity for hunting and fishing,sightseeing,backpacking,and climbing abound.Table 4.1-43 displays a recent inventory of publicly operated facilities in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. \ The largest attraction in the region is Denali National Park and Preserve.The road entrance to the park is off the Parks Highway north of the Borough where a vari ety of services and accommodati ons are available.For climbing expeditions in the Park, Talkeetna serves as a primary take-off point. 4-117 -- --~--~~._-----.--------- TABLE4.1-43INVENTORYOFRECREATIONALFACILITIESINTHEMAT-SUBOROUGH,..NO.•PI',OM,"OMI,,,••INVENTORYOFACREAGE/-~~"i'ACIlI(AQ[ITlIJr1fPOIUAHC.[,.r~(.\QOAN111YANDClAl,'f1CAl10H,~}CAPAC',Y0'IHCIlI[aliONIACllIlilI-A'''i-.~.I,;.~',urpOIII,.~S1/,aCIU'IlSANOFACILITIES.,0'• /'0/"/ISHI"Z[AUCUI.L'.(NOC.Y'INII.AL'.'LO..1L'.IWILLO_""'NO'.'OLlCIIRW/I80H.'1LU.IIIlA.1(,.,L'.r110LA.[,0urH...iNciL,.i;.,V'IOI"_MeVLA.iRIC,ARIA~.<;~-.---........-------,---~----._-----r--L~'P~l\--~------r--;-~&\;.131-I--------------.-------p.~,~,,.'.tJ,i,to~~___~~lli~'",";i\'"~,,,.•r--~I:'f.ij:,.,!/?f.'!"2:.,>.:..-------- ------,n~f.1I4.',I"v:.r.~n3280•-1"',",.lIII~I-j--jl-...-tl",1:,"8,---:~:),\-)&u'~:I----'---------f---.--------t2,;]#,~"p;.'il-'t~.'Me±Jt=0~~;----'-~~----------__'_0-------U~~,..'I::G?'IYOUHIIA.--__~I':-----..!-~c_---~-I-~I_----~~;-~p.r.-.--~',m~''''~18'JIH~'n'"'P,_,.7"1MOOHCRU.4040..,'1-------1------------·--H'~",,\~,~11I---~~~~,,;.~.~'!..--~I-------,,~n~,.\:.z::a;'~~",.----.0'~:~-:.....w.:f-:'"l"l~4r::1t,----------------------'04~;'4n,."~~-';,;--,--,------:,~'j----~--,-----~-.------.-l4.~~-~-",:",,11':"10I'.l.1,'".10~~ft'....t!~...l----------------------••~'liil.II4IO.I..1'~~"40•I.,'l:~-"~••~--,--.----,..-.-['~r--;r•Ir-.."---.~~~..,,~u:.-----------------------'"~'",,!,.~.~n~'Y"""601'",\;'''"'.'II--~-l~c_·----I---~=~~"M'.:.",,),'.,0('""Clot.J!J/II'6~,~.-----------------------'"~'q'''~I",.i~.<·.n..l:':'"24~250l.~··'r·'",.'..""'Sf!!J_'_._'-,-Ji-__i'!.====.-=--=--=-=-_~~_.-===='=,==..=::::f-----.,--__===::::-:;~..,.~'~~.....v:4~!tj~Jil.11;..~'.'40.'0100~~~i::.Ef":.!'1:'t~~;,IOP(~;I",'~;;,~;~~j~~~-~I--·-----..-,-·-·I...:.:.....:..--I~fft\·.....,,"~0:~::--.--r#&.i~~'."--~....--.----..---,.-'A;i-..=---::#I"'0~~'''':!----_".----------------,..':':.'I4;'3~!::;~."'8r~~':~\~'."~'Ir----t-t----l,"d---~"~"r,I',!,t·<:~DIMAlI....I1,,~o(ylllorrOllap/lO'U~OOO~~--------1------------.~~..,1:l!1"~~)1',.'J4t.-~~-----I--~.,..'~I'"'~H',u"..':;.!\h..OrYl"It.p,rw;-;:r<,------'-".------------------n.,~IIiii~;";-_-~,';:.:_~2!!-__1'_1---1:,;j,:~p"'w'HlLl"',J,.54'-~•.{~•"'..I,,'-loI~t,HI:----------------------]4•I/:'!,r:."HIIHMIAL~'U;20'4At':-.',:\A"Oij;iO-M-------~I-~~~,~;'"8------rz-r-~l.~:,",,1.:1~!1II0U"010__~.i~7.;=]~I..'===~~~==~~~.-__.-_~~~:~~~~CH.'''lMtON,~~,I_'__'__I-----,,'~.~,~:L'.(~;~·~l~,15100-~.'i.~';11I------.--~'!J;~--Z. ..------,---,-,--..-.~,••AlYl~1000LlOI!',lfl.A::,-,----------------40i-'""J''''li....if!'.4°~':o,-.'".j~LO[(IHil5~;,;_'--,-,,-------,-------;-_~;~St--'~l'~'IIIVClltIO.'1~~--12--;)----------.-------a,~~,.r'·l'j~·:~T~----------1"---',,'-- -----1-- ---~A~n~,IAL".lNA.p'n';~,_'0~V~'1~.J1''ifilii'"'L (c~;~lO.~W..::~t.;".;".w""D.--1-::----:~r~i!iti==1-,~-----'---==--:;;-·1h',;;1:N~I----·-.-.f."~u./·'.\,'1\\.100'':~~.•---,---------,----,-.r----;------------------~n~--------=-_..,,~.,I",HCMU.I,,W.t!11---------------------------",':MfI "vf...-..-------1~AA-.-.-.!!_,2-.'."..,.,.,------_.----,-,-------A4~4-------..---~~i",II,{'~L'I'\~"II)It'!~':'~----_.-----.----.__.--------II":r:n.r::..1.'-I(.'~:.;.18100...-&,~.____J'.'t.p.I--'--'ex>..J";~~il.';RHl'~R'-4"\liRFl~.~~I~,---,Ktt£\··"11'O'''''1'O'""'''~.----------------_.----------7"~1J'....,a,10"h.·~,,l'~'h"4~9.'4~100~lll•Jt;'i~~~4IIITOTALJ14I!\,I IIIIII1I I II - Chugach State Park,located 10 miles east of Anchorage,is a major recreation area for the metro- polis.The park consists of 495,000 acres and offers camping,canoeing,fishing,hiking,and a variety of winter uses. The Denali State Park is the largest state park within the Borough.Consisting of 282,000 acres,the park is located west of the project site (Impact Area 1).The Denali Master Plan calls for development of a range of recreati ona 1 faci 1 iti es.Wi nter sports, including cross country skiing,dog mushing,ice skating,ice fishing,sledding,and snowmobiling are planned or presently available.Campgrounds,boat launches,picnic areas,and a visitor center are also provided or planned. Nancy Lake Recreati on Area,located just south of Willow,is a 23,000 acre area of numerous lakes.The State Di vi si on of Parks pl ans to develop the area into a major recreati on area with extensi ve faci 1i- ties including cabins,horse trails,camping,pic- ni ci ng si tes,and swimmi ng beaches.The pl an ultimately calls for a total of 1,760 camping units. The Lake Louise area in the southeastern part of the Borough is a major fishing,boating,and hunting area.The area is predominately in private ownership.Lake Louise feeds the Tyone River which is a tributary of the Upper Susitna. The Bi g Lake area between Wasi 11 a and Wi 11 ow has developed into a recreation area mainly catering to persons from Anchorage who maintain summer cabins on the shores. 4-119 Other public and private recreational developments in the Borough include roadside camp9rounds ann lodges, scenic pullouts and hunting lodges in remote areas. The Mat-Su Borough's power to develop playgrounds and neighborhood parks has been at issue for some years. It is likely that there will be future development of this type in the Houston area in the near future. The City's Comprehensive Development Plan currently calls for construction of play fields,ball diamonds and playgrounds. Road transportation is the primary means of access to recreational areas.For remote areas,boats,float planes and light aircraft are often used.All- terrain-vehicles (ATVs)and snowmobiles have also become major modes of transportation,especially for hunting.Use of these vehicles is becoming more restricted,however,as hunting pressure increases and herds decrease.ATVs can also be very detrimen- tal to the fragile ecosystems of the area. Baseline Forecast Table 4.1-44 displays projected requirements,in terms of acreage,of playgrounds,neighborhood parks and cornnunity parks as calculated by applying nati onal standards for rural areas.As previ ously noted,the Mat-Su Borough contains over 305,000 acres of park land,including Denali National Park,which provi des recreati onal enjoyment to peopl e from all over Alaska and the rest of the U.S.as well. However,there is a lesser abundance of playgrounds and neighborhood parks,and,as the Borough's popula- 4-120 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-44 BASELINE FORECAST OF REQUIREKENTS FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH AND INCORPORATED CITIES,1981-2005 PLAY6ROUNDS (A)NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS (B) COMMUNITY (C) YEAR PALIIER WASILLA HOUSTON PALMER WASILLA HOUSTON 'PARKS ---------------- 1981 3.40 2.80 0.89 2.88 2.37 0.76 41.19 1982 3.58 2.98 0.94 3.03 2.52 0.79 42.19 1983 3.85 3.23 1.03 3.25 2.73 0.88 46.06 1984 4.13 3.51 1.14 3.49 2.97 0.97 50.22 1985 4.43 3.81 1.26 3.75 3.22 1.07 56.31 1986 4.76 4.13 1.39 4.03 3.50 1.18 61.77 1987 5.12 4.49 1.54 4.33 3.80 1.30 67.66 1988 5.50 4.87 1.70 4.65 4.12 1.44 72.58 1989 5.91 5.29 1.88 5.00 4.48 1.59 77.24 1990 6.35 5.75 2.08 5.37 4.86 1.76 80.42 1991 6.63 6.24 2.30 5.61 5.28 1.94 85.10 1992 6.93 6.78 2.54 5.86 5.74 2.15 89.15 1993 7.23 7.37 2.81 6.12 6.23 2.38 94.85 1994 7.56 8.00 3.10 6.39 6.77 2.62 99.94-1995 7.89 8.70 3.43 6.68 7.36 2.90 105.80 1996 8.25 9.45 3.79 6.98 8.00 3.21 111.73 1997 8.62 10.27 4.19 7.29 8.69 3.54 118.65 1998 9.01 11.17 4.63 7.62 9.45 3.92 125.03 1999 9.41 12.14 5.11 7.96 10.27 4.33 132.83 2000 9.84 13.06 5.65 8.32 11.05 4.78 140.19 2001 10.18 14.01 6.22 8.62 11.86 5.26 147.00 2002 10.54 15.04 6.84 8.92 12.72 5.79 154.15 2003 10.91 16.13 7.53 9.23 13.65 6.37 161.64 2004 11.29 17.31 8.28 9.55 14.65 7.01 169.49 2005 11.68 18.58 9.11 9.89 15.72 7.71 177.71 IAl CALCULATED BASED UPON A STANDARD OF 3.9 ACRES PER THOUSAND DWELL- IN6 UNITS. IBl CALCULATED BASED UPON A STANDARD OF 3.3 ACRES PER THOUSAND DWELL- IN6 UNITS. Ie)CALCULATED BASED UPON A STANDARD OF 4.8 ACRES PER THOUSAND DWELL- IN6 UNITS. 4-121 TABLE 4.1-45 TEN YEAR SCHOOL-PARK SITE ACQUISITION PROGRAM IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH - - - Project West Palmer Matanuska Lazy Mountai n Palmer Senior High Palmer Junior High Four Corners Jr /Sr Hi gh Houston/Meadow Lakes Jr/Sr High Montana Houston Meadow Lakes Hollywood Rd. North Wasi 11 a Bogard Rd. East Wasi 11 a Description/Purpose Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire additional 70 acres for high school/park complex Acquire additional 55 acres for junior high school/park complex Acquire 180 acres for Jr/Sr high school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 180 acre site for Jr/Sr high school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center,and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex 4-122 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Project Fairview/Parks Trunk/Fishhook Snowshoe Butte Four Corners Glacier View Sutton Pittman Road Talkeetna Willow Big Lake Wasilla Jr/Sr High Sus itna Va 11 ey Jr/Sr Hi gh TABLE 4.1-45 (Cant.) Description/Purpose Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire additional 20 acres for elementary school,community center,and park complex Acquire 35 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 25 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 20 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 40 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 30 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 20 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 20 acre site for elementary school,com- munity center and park complex Acquire 80 acre addition for Jr/Sr high school community center and park complex Acquire 140 acre addition for Jr/Sr high school, community center and park complex Source:Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.March 1978.Ten Year Program for School Sites. 4-123 ---------------~--~.~~~----~----------- tion increases,it is likely there will be interest in the provlslon of additional recreational facilities. added local - Mat-Su Borough planners have favored an approach which calls for sites that combine elementary schools with nei ghborhood parks and pl aygrounds,and hi gh school s with community parks and conmuni ty centers. The current school land acquisition program takes thi s into account by pl anni ng for 40-acre sites for elementary school-park complexes and 180 acre sites for high school-park complexes.Table 4.1-45 con- tains a listing of planned complexes.The planned playgrounds and parks in this acquisition program shoul d be more than suffi ci ent to provi de for the requirements listed in Table 4.1-44. (e)Economic Base (i)Baseline The economy of the Matanuska-Susi tna Borough is domi- nated from Anchorage.Development,as a result,has occurred within close proximity to Anchorage,con- centrated along the Parks Highway,with the exception of the City of Palmer.At least 37 percent of the Borough residents work outside the Borough (Policy Analysts, 1980).Thus,the Borough,to a large de~ree,is a bedroom community.Moreover,many of the recreational homes in the area are owned by Anchorage residents.The Bi g Lake area is perhaps a prime exampl e.One of the Borough's recent planning document notes:"Indicative of the 1 ink between the Borough and Anchorage is the fact that approximately 55 percent of the Borough's tax noti- 4-124 - - - - - - - - - - - - - ces are mail ed to Anchorage addresses It (Mat-Su Borough Planning Department,April 1978,p.172). The domi nant sectors of the Borough I s economy refl ect the large influence of the tourism,recreation and resi- dential elements present there.Table 4.1-46 presents an estimate for the types and locations of businesses in the major communities.Figure 4.1-1 presents the aggre- gated data graphically.From the Table it can be seen that the largest number of businesses are in the support and service sectors.Services,retail trade,and finance-insurance-real estate firms comprise the majority of businesses in these communities. Construction is al so a major category of businesses in the Borough.Thi s refl ects the growth and development conditions present there. Next to Palmer,Wasilla has the greatest number of busi- nesses.Dramatic growth in the community occurred during the pipeline years.Most of the businesses in Wasilla are service or construction-oriented. Manufacturing businesses are concentrated in the Palmer area.In 1972,the city created the Palmer Industrial Park to encourage economic development.The park is zoned for light to medium industry.Half the sites have been fi 11 ed. The Borough is encouragi ng economi c development and is concentrating on promoting the Point MacKenzie area which is situated across the Knik Arm from Anchorage. The foci of the development plan are dairy farming and an industrial complex and a possible petrochemical deve- lopment. 4-125 TABLE4.1-46MAT-SUBOROUGHCOMMUNITIES:BUSINESSLOCATIONANDTYPENumberinCommunity(a)StandardIndustrialClassificationBigLakeHoustonPalmerTalkeetnaWasillaWillowAgriculture,Forestry,Fisheries3-22Mining- -2Construction193503914Manufacturing.3-21243Transportation&PublicUtilities2-208-6+:>WholesaleTrade- -11I~NRetailTrade2438019-180'1Finance,Insurance,RealEstate-1222373Services171115131294PublicAdministration-11235IJonclassifiableEstablishments6-19198Total7493745136438(a)SICclassificationswereassignedbytheOEDPstaffforuseinthistable,andnumberofestablishmentsmustbeconsideredapproximations.Source:OverallEconomicDevelopmentProgramInc.July1980.VolumeII:EconomicConditions,Develop~lentOptionsandProjections.Palmer,AK.pp.19-21.IIItIIIIIJIII,III, FIGURE 4.1-1 MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BUSINESS DISPERSION .Talkeetna -51 •\Villow -38 .Houston -9 Big Lake - -374 Source:Overall Economic Development Program Inc.July 1980. Volume II:Economic Conditions,Development Options and Projections.Palmer,AK.p.24. 4-127 Other indicators of the economy show that the Borough's base is oriented towards the service sectors.Table 4.1-47 presents gross business receipts for 1977 for Palmer and the Borough.Overall,Palmer accounted for 35 percent of total sales in 1977.Notable categories in the table include construction,retail and services, especi ally real estate.Sal es in these sectors rel ate to the tourism,recreation and residential-oriented com- ponents of the economy.Real estate sal es account for the majority of sales in the finance,insurance,and real estate sector.Most likely this includes a large speculative element associated with the potential capi- tal move to the Willow area. Examination of employment data for the Borough provides a different view of the major components of the economY, although the view that emerges conforms with that of the state in general.The largest employer is the govern- ment sector.State and local bodies account for about 90 percent of total government employment.Retail trade is the next 1argest,foll owed by servi ces,transporta- tion-communications-utilities,and construction. Employment figures used in the preceding paragraph are based on place of work.Utilizing survey data dealing with employment by place of residence,the Borough's profile can be presented as in Table 4.1-48.The major difference is in the construction category.This is a ttri butabl e to the fact that constructi on workers who maintain residences there are employed in other parts of Alaska. Table 4.1-49 presents occupational information for the Borough1s residents.The large professional/technical 4-128 - - - - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-47 PALMER AND THE MAT-SU BOROUGH:GROSS BUSINESS RECEIPTS JANUARY I,1977,TO DECEMBER 31,1977 Gross Business Receipts($) Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Standard Industrial Classification Palmer Excluding Palmer Borough Agriculture,Forestry,Fisheries 79,938 441,859 521,797 Mining 644,188 644,188 _Constructi on 3,505,346 22,313,229 ?5,818,575 Manufacturing 1,363,967 899,123 2,263,090 Transportation &Public Utilities 1,679,365 1,134,058 2,813,423 Wholesale Trade 1,463,515 3,383,748 4,847,263 -Retai 1 Goods 16,980,898 15,104,553 32,085,451 Finance,Insurance,Real Estate 954,292 2,952,816 3,907,108 Servi ces 2,792,649 5,589,364 8,382,013 _N on c1ass i fiab1e Establishments 799,689 799,689 Total 28,819,970 53,262,627 82,082,597 Source:Alaska Department of Revenue From:Overall Economic Development Program Inc.July 1980.Volume II:Economic Conditions, Development Options and Projections.Palmer,AK.pp.30-32. _(116)1.2854 4-129 --~-~~-------.....-------- TABLE 4.1-48 EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY FOR ADULT RESIDENTS OF MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH (percent of totaT adults) - - - Industry Agriculture-Fishing Mining Construction Manufactu ri ng Transportation,Utilities,Communications Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Finance,Insurance,Real Estate Professional Services Other Services Education Federal Government State Government Local Government Percent of Adults 2.9 5.5 16.6 2.5 10.5 2.8 11.4 4.5 9.4 9.4 9.1 6.3 5.4 3.6 - - - - - - Source:Policy Analysts,Limited,and Dr.Richard L.Ender.IViay 1980.Mat-Su Housing and Economic Development Study: Survey Findings.p.72. 4-130 - - - - - - - TABLE 4.1-49 OCCUPATION OF MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH ADULT RESIDENTS (percent of total adults) Occupation Professional/Technical Manager,Official Clerical,Sales Craftsmen Operatives Servi ce Workers Laborers Farmers Armed Forces Others (Trappers,Self Employed,etc.) Percent of Adults 20.2 13.8 16.0 14.6 12.2 10.6 9.7 1.2 0.9 1.0 Source:Policy Analysts,Limited,and Dr.Richard L.Ender.May 1980.Mat-Su Housing and Economic Development Study: Survey Findings.p.73. 4-131 FIGURE4.1-2....'t----..............;.-------,".'l'-.-/I::~.',~L/I'\\\'~..:.~~'1\I•.•••.'.•'II,..·AU.A~'.\.'..._....::..~:~.:.\........'\.,.,::.. t.•'I~~-'\<.).",I~.,,~..,,.~~.h.·,I1.".-:\.,~...•."',,.'.i••••••,••.''-A~J•~\l\t.....,YU!.)..:.~ItJ~"·..·~u\:'.;",."..;IIIIIIAuColdHeatBls.,uthIIICCoa1 •PeCcCera~lcClay•PbCoCobaltPtCuCopperSbFeIronSnCv\IIIIIn119l~MINERALRESOURCESMATANUSKA-SUSITNAFrom:OverallEconomicDevelopmentProgramInc.andProjections.p.132.July1980.VolumeII:EconomicConditions,DevelopmentOptions4-132 Matanuska-SusitnaBoroughPlanningDepartmentSource:DISTRICTS!..'.,~\..,••..;.....,••a'...-....;..,"..r!'i:i:~:.iFIGURE4.1-3MINING(locatableMinerals-lodes&placer)~~WIllOWCREEKDISTRICTB~NElCHINADISTRICTc -VAlDEZDISTRICT0-CHULITNADISTRICTE~YENTNADISTRICTF~OTIIER'---"-'--::.'.:.:..:.::'-------l..ll..r.'From:OverallEconomicDevelopmentProgramInc.andProjections.p.140.July1980.VolumeII:EconomicConditionstDevelopmentOptions4-133 and manager/official categories are in keeping with the services and bedroom community orientations of the popu- lation and economy. Outside of the major communities in the Borough,econo- mic activity is related to mining,agriculture,timber products,or in providing recreational services.Figure 4.1-2 shows locations of some of the known mineral depo- sits in the Borough.Many of the mi ni n9 si tes in the Borough are placer mines which work alluvial deposits for minerals.Figure 4.1-3 shows locations of mining districts in the Borough.In addition,the central area from the Talkeetna Mountains north to the Alaska Range has been designated a multiple use area which will per- mit mining activity.Virtually all mining historically has occurred in these di stri cts,and thi s pattern is expected to conti nue (Overall Economi c Development Program,1980,p.139).Of particular relevance to the proposed Susitna dams are the following areas: The Susitna-Chulitna portion of the Yentna Mining District where molybdenum,gold,copper,lead, silver,and antimony are scattered over a distance of several tens of miles. The Upper Susitna River area where the Denali prospect,a copper deposit,has been di scovered but has not yet been developed into a mine. The major mineral resource in the Borough is coal. Extensive deposits of varying quality occur in the river valleys.Figure 4.1-4 shows locations of known fields. Also present in the Borough are peat bogs which may become an important energy source. 4-135 ------r~----· The U.S.Forest Service has classified 1,295,000 acres in the Borough as commercial forest land.This acreage is located primarily in the lowlands,since elevations above 1,500 feet in Alaska are not conducive to timber growth.(There are no commercially valuable timber stands in Impact Area 1 due to the elevation.)Most of the Borough'S timber is suitable only for pulp and chip production.Some lumber is produced for the local market.Louisiana-Pacific Corporation signed a lO-year contract with Japanese concerns for wood chips,which are being produced in the Borough. Agriculture has played an important part in the histori- cal development of the Borough.Up until the early 1960·s commercial agriculture production continued to increase.Since then the number of farms and volume of production has declined.This condition is due to changes in economic activity within the Borough.liThe focus of public attention has turned to land specula- tion,residential subdivisions,service and construction businesses to meet the needs of the Valley's suburban population and public services for people whose employment is not related to agriculture in any manner." (Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department,April 1978, p.104).The Borough government is attempting to reverse the decl ine through various means,including the Point MacKenzie Project. (f)Employment (i)Basel i ne Employment figures in Alaska are collected by place of employment.Virtually all employment in the Borough is 4-136 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - government,servi ce,and support sector ori ented (see Table 4.1-50).Total employment has risen steadily from 1,145 in 1970 to 3,078 in 1979,an increase of 169 per- cent.Employment in the first three quarters of 1980 averaged 3,224.However,the Borough consistently has had high unemployment rates (20 percent in 1970 and 13.8 percent in 1979)that are often the hi ghest in the state.Employment opportunities have not kept pace with the growth of the 1abor force.The Borough is more dependent on seasonal employment than larger population centers such as Anchorage. As displayed in Table 4.1-51,the Mat-Su Borough has an extremely high ratio of population to employment (by place of employment)that averaged around 5.5 during the years for which complete data exist.This is more than twice as high as the overall Anchorage Region's popula- tion to employment ratio of 2.5 and is mostly due to the emergence of the southern part of the Borough as a bedroom community for Anchorage.A lesser contributing factor may be the high prevalent unemployment rate in the Borough. (ii)Baseline Forecast Projections of employment for the Mat-Su Borough and other Census Divisions of the Anchorage Region are shown in Table 4.1-52.For 1981-2000,these projections were made by regressing each Census Division's share of Anchorage Region employment against time (1970-1979). The annual rate at which each Census Division's share of Anchorage Region employment will change was calculated from the regressi ons and appl i ed to the Institute of Social and Economic Research's (ISER's)employment pro- 4-137 TABLE4.1-50MATANUSKA·SUSITNABOROUGHANNUALNONAGRICULTURALEMPLOYMENTBYSECTORPERCENTOFIMPACTAREA3197019751979 19701975 1979Total....!....Tota1....!....Total--L~-~-~~a)TOTA-NonagriculturalIndustries1,145 100.02,020100.03,078100.01.8 1.82.7Mining*-*-11.3I**.0Construction12010.51889.31846.0I2.31.12.2Manufacturing*-301.5401.3I*1.2 1.1.p.Transportation-Communication&•Utilities1149.621810.831610.21.9 1.82.6100WholesaleTrade442.2491.6.81.017415.21.4Reta1lTrade27113.469622.61.73.8Finance-InsuranceandRealEstate221.9623.11294.2.81.32.1Services17915.62BB14.344714.52.01.42.3FederalGovernment1069.31246.1973.1.91.0.8StateandLocalGovernment37632.875837.51,10135.83.24.35.2Miscellaneous*-*-21.7I**1.8*Dataunavailableduetodisclosurepolley.(a)Figuresmaynottotalcorrectlybecauseofaveraginganddisclosurelimitationsondata.Source:AlaskaDepartmentofLabor.StatisticalQuarterly.Juneau,AK.(variousissues),,IIII,III1IIIII, [ - TABLE 4.1-51 RATIO OF POPULATION TO BOROUGH EMPLOYMENT IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH,1966,1970-1980 Employment Population to in Borough Population Employment Ratio 1966 1,138 5,800 5.1 1970 1,145 6,509 5.7 1971 1,414 7,300 5.2 1972 1,445 8,000 5.5 1973 1,607 8,753 5.4 1974 1,784 9,500 5.3 1975 2,020 10,100 5.0 1976 2,269 14,196 6.3 1977 2,524 14,800 5.9 1978 2,954 16,100 5.5 1979 3,078()S.S(a)1980 3,224 a 17,766 (a)1980 Employment in the Borough is hased on the first three quarters of the year. 4-139 - - - TABLE 4.1-52 BASELINE FORECAST OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE ANCHORAGE REGION,BY CENSUS DIVISION,1981-2005 Total -Municipality Kenai-Mat-Su Anchorage of Anchorage Cook Inlet Borough Seward Region -1981 94,681 8,439 4,002 1,631 108,753 1982 97,908 8,834 4,248 1,690 112,680 1983 101,876 9,304 4,535 1,762 117,477 -1984 107,002 9,890 4,883 1,854 123,630 1985 116,356 10,884 5,442 2,020 134,702 1986 124,727 11,806 5,975 2,170 144,678 1987 129,938 12,444 6,373 2,265 151,021 - 1988 132,308 12,819 6,641 2,311 154,080 1989 133,579 13,093 6,858 2,338 155,868 1990 131,705 13,058 6,914 2,310 153,987 -1991 132,980 13,335 7,135 2,337 155,788 1992 133,093 13,498 7,296 2,343 156,231 1993 134,854 13,831 7,550 2,379 158,615 1994 136,571 14,164 7,806 2,414 160,956 - 1995 138,434 14,517 8,076 2,452 163,479 1996 141,174 14,968 8,403 2,506 167,051 1997 144,212 15,457 8,755 2,565 170,989 -1998 147,134 15,942 9,107 2,622 174,806 1999 150,643 16,499 9,505 2,690 179,337 2000 153,935 17,041 9,897 2,754 183,627 -2001 157,238 17,596 10,308 2,819 187,960 2002 160,611 18,170 10,733 2,885 192,399 2003 164,057 18,761 11,176 2,953 196,947 2004 167,577 19,373 11 ,636 3,022 201,608 -2005 171,173 20,004 12,116 3,093 206,386 -Note:The Municipality of Anchorage's percentage share of regional employment was calculated to decline by .17 percent per year. Kenai-Cook Inlet's and Mat-Su Borough's percentage shares were calculated to increase by .08 percent and .09 percent per year,- respectively. - - - 4-140 - jections for the Anchorage Region (See Section 10.2(a) for further discussion of methodology).For 2001-2005, the average annual rate of increase during 1996-2000 was applied to the year 2000 estimate to obtain the year 2001 estimate.The average annual rate of increase W3S then applied to the 2001 employment estimate to ontain the 2002 est i mate.Thi s procedu re was repeated to obtain estimates for 2003-2005. The Mat-Su Borough's and Kenai Cook-Inlet's percentage share will increase by about 0.09 percent and 0.08 per- cent per year,respectively.The Municipality of Anchorage's percentage share will decrease ny about 0.17 percent per year,and Seward's percentage share will remain constant. Given the employment projections for the Anchorage Region,and the Mat-Su Borough's 0.09 percent increase in share per year,employment will increase in the Borough by about fou r to fi ve percent per year. Population is projected to increase at a slightly higher rate per year (See section 4.1(a)).This reflects the continuing trend of persons locating in the Borough and working in Anchorage. (g)Income (i)Baseline Trends in per capita personal income are evident in Table 4.1-53.As occurred elsewhere in the state,nomi- nal personal income rose substantially in the Mat-Su Borough in the 1970 IS,and stabi 1i zed as the trans-Alaska pipeline (TAPS)was completerl.Personal 4-14\ TABLE 4.1-53 PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME IN THE MAT-SU BOROUGH IN CURRENT AND 1970 DOLLARS - Per Capita Personal Income Current In 1970 Year Dollars Dollars{a)- 1970 3,957 3,957 -1971 4,279 4,150 1972 4,539 4,286 1973 4,970 4,526 1974 6,068 5,011 1975 8,092 5,855 1976 8,542 5,718 - 1977 9,032 5,666 -1978 8,939 5,231 1979 8,878 4,704 - (a)Discounted using the Anchorage CPI - U as a measure of inflation. Source:U.S.Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis. 4-142 - - - - - income rose from $3,957 per capita in 1970 to $9,032 per capita in 1977 and declined to $8,878 in 1979. The increase between 1970 and 1979 was therefore 124 percent.However,in real terms (using the Anchorage CPI-U as a measure of inflation)personal income in 1979 was only 19 percent higher than the 1970 level. (h)Land Use (i)Baseline Status of land in the Borough is a complicated and on- going issue,increasing in importance as the Borough continues to experience substantial growth concentrated in the southern portion.Figures 41.5 and 41.6 display tenure patterns and land selections in the areas surrounding the Watana and Devil Canyon sites. Of the 14,720,000 acres in the Borough,25 percent are Federal lands,68 percent State lands,2.5 percent Borough 1ands,one percent Nati ve-owned 1and and 3.5 percent privately owned land.Of 525,836 acres of taxable land in the Borough,only 16 percent (84,838 acres)contain any type of improvements.The current amount of pri vate 1and,though small in proporti on to the total,has been more than suffi ci ent to meet the recent and present demand for land. Both the State and the Borough have been pursui ng 1ann disposal programs which put additional land into private hands.These programs are expected to continue in the future. " 4-143 o510Miles1IIl~---i!'JI!h".~~==~~'Io51015KilometersLEGEND••••STUDYAREABOUNDARY_PRIVATELANDS~FEDERALRAILROADWITHDRAWAL••••••••CIRI"INLIEU"BOUNDARYI ,NATIVESELECTEDLANDSC,K,TVILLAGESELECTIONS(Individualvillageselectionsappearinthecenterofsections.)CCHICKALOONSELECTIONSKKNIKSELECTIONSTTYONEKSELECTIONSIPREPAREDBYTES4-144FIGURE4.1-5LANDOWNERSHIP/STEWARDSHIP,WATANAPORTION oo510Miles·"t:~·~·::iE~~~:::..~#'I¥&;;;;C===:JI(Io51015LEGEND••••STUDYAREABOUNDARYC.PRIVATELANDS~FEDERALRAILROADWITHDRAWAL••••••••CIRI"INLIEU"BOUNDARYoNATIVESELECTEDLANDSC,K,TVILLAGESELECTIONS(Individualvillageselectionsappearinthecenterofsections.)CCHICKALOONSELECTIONSKKNIKSELECTIONSTTYONEKSELECTIONS4-145PREPAREDBYTESFIGURE4.1-6LANDOWNERSHIPISTE\NARDSHIP,DEVILCANYONPORTION END OF MAP INSERTS Much of the land involved in the proposed Susitna Hydro- electric Project has been selected by the Cook Inlet Region,Inc.(CIRI)and its member village cor- porations.Future use of this area will depend largely on future ownership and owner's policies regarding land use. Some 1and near the Susitna Hydroe1 ectri c project si te has been included in two recent State land disposals in the Indian River area.The Indian River subdivision disposal is comprised of 700 acres in 139 parcels.The Indian River remote disposal contains 1,500 acres.Two additional sites may be disposed of in FY83:one of these consists of 2,000 acres near the Indian River sub- division. Land use p1anni ng powers in the Borough for the most part reside with the various land owners.The Borough, however,does exerci se overall p1anni ng authori ty for all lands within its boundaries.Roughly half of the Borough is desi gnated as a speci a1 use di stri ct per- mitting multiple use of the lands within the district. The Borough IS traditi ona1 re1 uctance to all ow zoni ng to be implemented is beginning to change,and planned growth is being advocated as a way to avoid strip deve- lopment and conflicting land use,and to protect wildlife and wildlife habitat. (ii)Baseline Forecast As the population of the Mat-Su Borough grows,an increased amount of 1and for housi ng wi 11 be needed. Based upon an average standard of one acre per household 4-146 - - - - - - - - - lot,an additional 20,616 acres will be required for housing purposes hy the year 2,000. The current 78,962 acres of unimproved subdivision land would be more than adequat~to provide for this increased demand.Borough planners have estimated that present suhdivided land could support a population of 100,000. Land di sposal s by the Borough and the State are expected to continue.The Borough presently has over 100,000 acres which could be sold,and is expecting to receive almost 200,000 acres more ~s part of its land entitle- ment from the State.Most wi 11 be avail ahl e in southern part of Borough. It is diffi cult to project the si ze of futu re land disposals by the State.Negative public input,the oppositi on of other state agencies,Native land selec- t ions,and access prohlems are all factors that can cont ri bute to the cancellation of proposed offeri ngs. However,it is likely that sizeable amounts of State-1and in the Mat-Su Borough will cont i nue to be sold to the private sector. As the Borough continues to grow,the area IS traditional reluctance to allow zoning to he implemented may need to give way.Borough and city officials in the Mat-Su Borough have begun to advocate zoni ng and regi ona 1 planning as a way of controlling growth and preparing for the futll reo -4-147 (i)Fish/Wildlife and Water Recreation Use Patterns (i)Baseline Sport Fi shi ng Many of the developed recreation arens in the Borough are located around bodies of water.This is due to inherent aesthetic values as w=ll as to the activi- ties available,i.e.,fishing and hoating. Throughout Southcentral Alaskn,sport fishing is a major recreati onal acti vity.Perhaps the most reknownerl area is the Kenai Peni nsul a.Fi shi ng pressure there has recently become so intense that fishermen are practically elhow to elbow during the season.One result of this has been an increase in the use of alternative arens in the region. The Alaska Department of Fish &Game (ADF&G)estimn- tes that 71 percent of the 1,285,063 angler days fished in Alaska in 1978 w=re spent in the Southcentral region.The Cook Inlet area (Anchorage, Knik Arm Drainage,East Susitna Drainage,West Cook Inlet West Susitna Drainage,and the Kenai Peninsula)accounted for 752,966 angler days or 59 percent of the total State effort in 1978.The Kenai Penninsula itself had 521,498 or 41 percent of total angler days fished.(Mills,1980.) Data for fou r subareas of the Southcent ral regi on which incorporate Impact Areas 1 and 2 are presented in Tables 4.1-54 through 4.1-57.These subareas are East Susitna Drainage,West Cook Inlet -West Susitna 4-148 - - - - - - - - - - - - ...' TABLE 4.1-54 SPORT FISH HARVEST BY SPECIES(a) ESTIMATED RANK SPECIES SYMBOdb)NUMBER OF FISH HARVESTED 1 Pink Salmon PS 58,808 2 Rainbow Trout RT 46,453 3 Arcti c Grayl i ng GR 42,226 4 Coho Salmon SS 27,154 5 Land locked Coho Salmon LL 24,071 6 Dolly Varden,DV Arti c Char AC 18,034 7 Chum Salmon CS 17,970 8 Burbot BB 8,099 9 Lake Trout LT 7,413 10 Sockeye Salmon RS 4,746 11 Chinook Sa lmon KS 4,184 12 Whitefi sh WF 3,634 13 Other 1,345 14 Northern Pike NP 316 15 Steel head SH 45 (a)For the following areas:East Susitna Drainage,East Cook Inlet -West Susitna Drainage,Knik Arm Drainage,and Glenallen. (b)Symbols are used to identify species in the following tables. 4-149 TABLE4.1-55EASTSIDESUSITNADRAINAGE*SPORTFISHHARVESTSANDEFFORTBYFISHERYANDSPECIES,1978D'y3IJYFI.hedKSSSLLRSPSCSRTACLTGR1111OlherlollIlowCreek22,682"190~05618,9012,45891J2800208921Monlana.Creek25,1624082,45108515,6194,4291,1936))0958921Cle.r(Chunlln.)Creek5,040122,2000282,01"1,9121,50I1,8110859210SheepCreek11,8692~6418°146,9811,6911,101080461189.p-ILittleWillowCreekS,6810lSI0283,1421,0I~))4630))400-'(J10Olhers14,9101632,388 2,368563,9942,6921,5192,1398113,11020890GRANOTOTAL86,0108868,5132,36826150,11114,203S,9)05,6408116,600211IS)*EastSideS"3Itn.Drslna«e(Are.M):AllES3tsltledrainage"oftheSusilllaRiverbelowItscon(1l1encewiththeO.het".River.fishtaken"hllefIshlllllfromtheEaslbankortheSu.It".River'r.."..:IulledInthl.are•.Source:Mills,MichaelJ.July1,1979-June30,wideSportFishHarvestStudies,Vol.21.Division.Juneau,AK.p.44.1980.AnnualPerformanceReportforAlaskaState-AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,SportFishNote:Thesumofindividualentriesmaynotequaltotalsduetoindependentrounding.IIIII•I,IIIIIIII, TABLE4.1-56WESTSIDECOOKINLET-WESTSIDESUSITNARIVEHDRAINAGE*SPORTFISHHARVESTSANDEFFORTBYFISHERYANDSPECIES,1978.DIYIIIVF1llu~dKS'"S5liSP5CSliTACLTGRHP110OtherD~.hkaIllvH9,III8~01,198069103,6)1,0 05190 012Lol<~Cr"ek8,1613262,212nl,2,8331,0152,12115',362,11591,518AI"und"rCr"ek6,911,1692,1,01IftJ1,11,62152,61,0IJ601,81100181r.llch"lltnaRlv~r7321288141J I2JI,023509900 0ChultRivet'1,185408217015501,4J1,6100 0 00Th"odor"Rivet'9055810101,490226J5J00000Lewl_Rivet'112120 046051,210 0 0 0 0OlherRiven6,01182),68J66289R1,1111,52R1,22001,9SJ0126J~ISh~IIL3"e)020028002104500 0 0......11l......\lhlsk~yLII""129002R0 00 000 000lIewlttLak"1120000 012100000 0J"rIriLa""15100100003110 0 0 00Olh"rI.a",,_J,I,2000268001,618551515lOR301J6 J6GIlI\NDTOT1\LJ8,1712,51110,5601,6JI,6,2552,635IJ,Ol83,5085966,125316I~JJ10R.zorCh",sTot.1DIRgingO~ya:800Tot.lClamsT~ken:39,115.WestSid"Coo"Inl"l-W"slSide5"sltn.RiverDraln~ge(llreaN):/IIIW..st_IdeSusltn.RiverdralnlRes.nd.11W,,_t.Id~Cool<Inl..twaleuSouthwardtoCal'"OOIlRIa_.FI.hta"..n1oI1111~flahingfromtheWestbankoftheSusilnlRiverareincludedInthlaar"'.·.Klngalea.than20Inchea.Source:Mills,MichaelJ.July1,1979-June30,1980.StatewideSportFishHarvestStudies,Vol.2l.FishDivision.Juneau,AK.p.45.AnnualPerformanceReportforAlaskaAlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,Sport TABLE4.1-57KNIKARMDRAINAGE*SPORTFISHHARVESTSANDEFFORTBYFISHERYANDSPECIES,1978DaysOVHshedI(S5SLLRSPSCSRTACLTGRIlDOlh"rLIllIeSusltn.RIver12,1279J~,R6508591,5179568865700549759\/051110Crerk(RobhltSlough)J,446472,1120 02795945J250000.Flng"rLake11.502008,58800 0 0 00000KeplerLakeComplex5,1)0002980 005,1800098500-PoLuclll"Lake4,80J004,96J0 0 0 0 00 000I~U1IligLak"9,8650022600 04,8455,4))00180NNancyLakrRecreallonArea,IncludingNallcytake7,6470 026214001,85J1812701450Olh"rs20,4200918~,547J664611710,JJO1,6J6J80I,J74280J6GIlIINOTorA'.75,5401407,89518,884I~2J9I,R421,1J22J,I397,9825072,41J452795---'KllikArmDrainage(ArcaK):AllwalersJnsillelheareahoun,J"dhylheI.lllleSusilnaRIverontheNorlhandWealandlheKnlkAr..ontheSOlllh,InclullingalldraInagesofthelIalalluskaandKnlkRiv"rs.(DoundaryslrramlInclud"dinth"Irra).Source:Mills,Michae1J.July1,1979-June30,1980.AnnualPerformanceReportforAlaskaStatewideSportFishHarvestStudies.Vol.21.AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,SportFishDivision.Juneau,AK.p.42.IIIIIIIIIIIIII Drainage,Knik Arm Drainage,and Glenallen.Table 4.1-54 presents aggregated statistics for these areas by sped es.In terms of number of fi sh harvested, pink salmon,rainbow trout,and arctic grayling are the three most popular species for the combined area. A total of 244,887 angler-days were expended in the area which constitutes 19 percent of the State total and 27 percent of the Southcentral effort.From 1977 to 1978,angler days spent in the area increased ten percent (ibid.). Fishing is a major recreational activity for both Al aska resi dents and non-resi dents.Approximately three-quarters of the estimated 206,185 angl ers who fished in 1978 were residents.Thus,roughly 50,000 sport fishermen were visitors,i.e.,nonresidents. More than half of all sport fishermen in 1978 who were Al aska resi dents were from the Anchorage and Mat-Su Borough area (ibid.). It should be noted that the data presented here was gathered by means of a postal survey to random samples of Alaska sport fishing license holders. Thi s data was corroborated usi ng on-site creel sur- veys of random samples of fishermen.The data was then stati sti cally adjusted to provi de estimates of overall harvest 1evel s and effort.Thi s data is regarded by sport fish biologists as providing effec- tive estimates of sport fishing activity.(ibid.) -Hunting Hunting is the major recreational activity in the region between the Talkeetna Mountains and the Alaska 4-153 Range.The major species hunted are caribou,moose, and bear.Each of these species is briefly addressed below.For the purposes of this study,ADF&G1s Game Management Un it 13 wi"be us ed as the sou rce of hunting data.When available,Subunit 13E,which corresponds more closely to Impact Area 1,will be used as the relevant data area. Caribou The cari bou in the regi on near the project site are part of the Nelchina herd.This herd reached a peak population of about 70,000 in 1962 and a low of about 8,000 in 1972.Reasons for the decl i ne i ncl ude natural factors as well as i nten- sive hunti ng.Current popul ati on estimates put the size of the herd at about 19,000. - - - - - - The following information Alaska Wildlife Management page 81,publ i shed by the Fish and Game. is taken from the Pl ans (Draft,1980) Al aska Department of - - The Nelchina herd has been the most heavily sports-hunted caribou herd in Alaska since 1950.Harvests exceeded 4,000 caribou in most years from 1959 to 1971.Sharp restric- tions in hunting seasons and bag limits in 1972,from an eight-month season to a six-week season,and a three caribou bag limit to one cari- bou,reduced the kill to about 600. The harvest increased to 800 in 1973 4-154 - - - - - - - and to 1,200 in 1974.In 1975,a further reduction in season length to three v.eeks reduced the kill to about 800 caribou.Large harvests in the period 1967-1971 and propor- tionally large kills on a reduced population since 1972 con be attri- buted to increased access,greater use of all-terrain vehicles,ann increased hunting pressure. Table 4.1-58 presents data on harvest totals, hunti ng effort and other vari abl es for the Nelchina herd hunting effort since 1972.Since 1977 the number of permits has heen suhstantially reduced and,correspondingly,the size of the herd has increased dramatically.(The population was estimated at 7,842 caribou in 1972 and 18,981 caribou in 1978).ADF&G received 5,600 permit applications and issued 1,300 permits to harvest Nelchina caribou during the 1980 season.Hunters harvested 630 caribou.ADF&G intends to allow the herd to increase to 20,000 animals w,ich will sup- port an estimated 2,000 annual harvest. Moose Data for moose harvests and hunting pressure are presented in Table 4.1-59 and 4.1-60 for game management Unit 13.Thi s unit i ncl udes a 1a rge part of Impact Area 2,including the project site. Since 1972,the moose harvest and population have remainen fairly constant,accounting for approxi- 4-155 TABLE4.1-58NELCHINAHERDReportedUnit13caribouharvestbysex,residencyofhunter,successratios,andtotalextrapolatedharvest,1972-1978.TotalNumberreportedTotalextr.reportedSuccessNumberNumberResidentNonresident.poYearharvestharvesthuntersratiomales_(~('rcent)fem[lles(Percent)harvestharvest----._-INo.!No.%-'U11972555N/A1,58634%3~8(72%)153(28%)301(56%)237(44%)O'l19736298101,98232%411(67%)203(33%)401(68%)187(32%)19741,0361,1922,55041%656(66%)343(34%)820(82%)181(18%)19756698061,99134%441(69%)201(31%)515(80%)126(20%)19767768221,80743%560(74%)201(26%)642(85%)117(15%)1977360--58062%275(78%)77(22%)1978539--74772%416(79%)111(21%)510(95%)25(4%)PREPAREDBY:SterlingEide,GameBiologistIIISource:AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,DivisionofGame.March1980.AnnualReportofSurvey-InventoryActivities,PartII,Bison,Caribou,MooseandMuskoxen.Juneau,AK.p.33.I,II IIIIIIIIIII,I 1TABLE4.1-59FALL1979DRAWINGPERMITAPPLICATIONSSpeciesHunt#SeasonDatesArea&Game#PermitsTota1#Tota1#PercentManagementtobeApplicationsHarvestedSuccessfulUnit1/IssuedReceivedHuntsCaribou503Aug.20-Units13&1t3005t60063048(eithersex)Sept.2014texcept14CMoose910Sept.1 -Matanuska2002t7409748(antlerless)Sept.20Valley-14A.$::>911Sept.1 -Wi11owto1006672222ISept.20Talkeetna----'U"l14B--...J913Jan.23-Willowto506,0114386Feb.6TalkeetnaSource:ADF&Grecords.1/TheWillowSubbasinencompassessouthwestportionof14Band'westernhalfof14A.From:SoilConservationService,et.nl.,December1980.SusitnaRiverBasinStudy.DraftReport.p.4-86. TABLE 4.1-60 MOOSE -GMU 13 Ne1china Basin A comparison of Annual Moose Harvest and Hunting Pressure.1963-1978 - - - - -Percent Year Season Male Female Unkno-wn Total Hunters Success 1963 Total 1385 343 7 1735 1964 Total 1213 394 0 1607 1965 Total 1318 3 10 1331 1966 Total 1336 181 36 1553 4163 37 1967 1st 1009 319 2nd 112 0 Total 1217*319 16 1552 4027 28 1968 1st 1013 243 2nd 171 0 Total 1240*243 29 1512 4476 34 -1969 1st 817 0 2nd 87 7 8 Total 1204*7 8 1219 2553 48 1970 1st 746 56 14 2nd 271 58 8 Total 1141*.**220 30*1391 3535 39 1971 1st 703 333 - 2nd 205 338 Total 1126*670***18 1814 4881 37 1972 1st 559 5 7 .. 2nd 39 2 1 Total 689*7*16*712 3199 22 1973 Total 604 4 10 618 2513 24 -1974 Total 768 3 23 794 2770 29 1975 Total 690 2 23 715 2978 24 1976 Total 708 1 23 732 3122 23 1977 Total 684 1 13 698 2299 30 - (1977)****Tota1 855 855****3698****23 1978 Total 846 1 16 863 3034 28 - *Moose whose date of kill is unknown are included in the total. **Adult,ant1erless bulls killed during the late antler1ess season are included. ***Data from ant1er1ess permit returns.Harvest ticket returns indicated a female kill of 614. ****Extrapolated results to correct for absence of reminder letters in 1977. (Total =855 ±133.p =.05;hunters =3698 ±1.080.P =.05).- PREPARED BY:Sterling Eide.Game Biologist III Source:Alaska Department of Fish and Game.Division of Game.~~arch 1980. Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities.Part II.Bison.Caribou. Moose and Muskoxen.Juneau.AK.p.195.-4-158 - mately 20 percent of annual state h~rvests.Since the early 1970's,increasingly restrictive regula- tions have heen adopted in an attempt to limit the harvest in the face of i ncreas i ng effort. Currently,the bag limit reads,"0 ne null having an antler spread of at least 36 inches or at least 3 hrow tines on one antler." In light of the demand for permits (to hunt antlerless moose)in 1979,as evidenced from data for the Willow subbasin where more than ten times the number of available permits were applied for, the moose resource in Southcentral Alaska is heing fully utilized and cannot meet existing demand. (See Tahle 4.1-60). As with caribou,practically all hunters are resi- dents of Alaska. Bear The t ~speci es of bear hunted in Unit 13 are hro~and bl ack he~r.Bro~hears are the targeted species,while black bears are most often taken incidentally.Tahles 4.1-61 and 4.1-62 pre- sent harvest data for each species. Several characteristics of hear hunting activities are note\J,(lrthy.Foremost is the fact that many fewer bear are taken and fev.er hunters i nvol ved than for either caribou or moose.Of the hunters, many are non-residents.It is likely that this is a result of the fact that fewer non-resi dents can participate in hunting other species and that 4-159 TABLE4.1-61BLACKBEARHARVESTDATA.GAMEMANAGEMENTUNIT13.1973-1978110.kill::;PercentRegulatoryTotalNo.PercentbyMeanskullPercentsalvagingyearkillmales malesnonres.sizemales(ml11)incidentalkillmeatSeasonandbaglimit197369426134411----3bears;providedthatthetakingofcubsorfemalesaccompaniedbycubsisprohibited..p.Noclosedseason.I.....O"l0197450326410413----Same197571476615429----Same1976603863134254855Same1977583764104214152Same1978644168114193964SamePREPAREDBY:RobertTobey.GameBiologistIISource:AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.DivisionofGame.December1979.AnnualReportofSurvey-InventoryActivities.PartI.BlackBear.BrownBear,andPolarBear.Juneau.AK.p.36.I,I,IIIIJ ,I1JTABLE4.1-62UNIT13Brownbearsportharvestsummarybyyear,sexofbear,residencyofhunter,andlengthofseason.CalendarTotalNo.ofNo.of%of%ofNo.ofNo.by%byLengthofYearKil1**MalesFemalesMa1es*Fema1es*UnknownNonres.Nonres.season19610041020020050%050%001025061%30days19620034021013062%038%000019056%30days1.9630041021019053%048%001026063%30days19640036015020043%057%001023064%30days19650044025018058%042%001021048%30days19660063033026056%044%004 041065%30days19670031016014053%047%001014045%30days19680038018019049%051%001018047%21days19690017015002088%012%000008047%31days.t:>19700027018008069%031%001015056%21daysI-'19710072032 035048%052%005044061%35days01-'19720048028020058%042%000025052%31days19730044026 017060%040%001026059%31days19740072040031056%044%001034047%40days19750080043031058%042%006037046%40days19760059028025053%047%006023039%40days19770038031007082%018%000012032%40days19780063036025059%041%002028044%40daysTOTALS08480466 03500057%0043%00320439052%*Allpercentagesarebasedontotalknownsexbears.**Harvesttotalsforpreviousyearsmaychangeaslatesealingcertificatesareadded.PREPAREDBY:LeeMiller,GameTechnicianVSource:AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,DivisionofGame.December1979.AnnualReportofSurvey-InventoryActivities,PartI,BlackBear,BrownBear,andPolarBear.Juneau,AK.p.95. brown bear are often hunted as trophies.Bear are also often taken incidentally by hunters after caribou or moose. Other Species In the 1978 -1979 season 69 wol ves.59 wol veri- nes,68 1ynx,and 17 otter \'.ere tak en in Unit 13. With the possible exception of wolves.these spe- cies are primarily utilized for commercial pur- poses and primarily taken by trapping methods. In the 1978 -1979 season,77 sheep \'.ere harvested from Units 13 and 14.The majority of the sheep came from the Talkeetna Mountains area.Hunting pressure has been fai rly constant over the past decade,averaging about 300 hunters per year. Boating and Kayaking Much of the boating activity occurring in the ~ter ways of the region is associated with fishing or hunting,i.e.,a means of transportation.Some pleasure boating occurs in the more developed recreation areas. Kayaking,canoeing,and rafting occur throughout the region \'kiere feasible.All levels of difficulty can be found,the pi nnacl e of \'kii ch is the Devil Canyon run.Few individuals have dared the \'kiitewater. Cole in his History of the Use of Upper Susitna River;Indian River!.2.the Headwaters (Cole,1979). recounts the vari ous expedit ions \'kii ch attempted to pass through the canyon.Most did not succeed though they escaped with few serious injuries. 4-162 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The foll owi ng paragraph descri bi ng the resource in the region is tiiken from the for the Army Corps of Engineers by Jones 1975. Not only does much of the Upper Susitna River occupy a stream-cut vallp.y,hut the rapi ds in Devil I s Canyon a re so excep tionally violent and spectacular as to constitute a nearly unique aethestic and recreational resource.Most Alaskan rivers occupy broan glacially scouren valleys,and whitewater heyond class III is rare (conversati ons with members of the U.S.D.I.Alaska Task Force respon sible for recommendations on annitions to the National Wild ann Scenic Rivers System,1974).Only three major white- water rivers are known in Alaska:the Susitna and the Bremner in the Southcentral Region,and the Alsek in the Southeast.All are class VI rivers (I.A.C.rating),at the limit of naviga bility,ann cannot be attempted without risk of life.All three are glacial rivers;the near-freezing water ann its opacity further add to the danger posen hy the turbulence of their rapids.The Susitna and Alsek were recently hoth suc cessfully kayaked by Dr.Walt Rlackanar for the first time.It is not known if anyone has yet attempted the Bremner,a tributary of the Copper.According to whitewater boaters,the characteristics 4-163 v.t1itewater study done &Jones in of the three are quite different, although equally violent.The Bremner is a small,steep river in an exceptionally narrow slot-like gorge;the Alsek is a short,very steep,turbulent river;the Susitna has a relatively flat gradient and owes its violence to its great volume,the constriction of its channel in Devil's Canyon,and the rocky ohstruc tions in its bed.Blackadar has descrihed Devil 's Canyon as much more difficult than the Grand Canyon and as the "Mount Everest"of kayaking (Anchorage Daily Times,March 28,1973). Dr.Blackadar also wrote a letter to the Corps responding to the draft en vi ronmental impact statement concerning the Susitna hydroelectric project descrihing in detail his trip through the canyon.Apparently there are certain sections which have never ~epn traversed hy anyone. (ii)Fish and Game Values Species A variety of fish and wildlife species will ~e impacted by the Watana and Devi 1 I S Canyon Dams and Reservoi rs. They ha ve been i dent ifi ed as f 0 11 ows by fi s h,game and furhearer classifications: - - - - - - - - - - _. Fish Salmon Game Black Bear 4-164 Furhearers Red Fox - - - Wolf Dall Sheep Wolverine Moose Brown Rear Ne 1chi na Ca ri hou -Sockeye -Pink -Coho -Chinook -Chum Eulachon Arctic Grayling Rainbow Trout Dolly Varden Burhot Whitefi sh Humpback Whitefish Three Spined Sticklebacks Long Nose Sucker Paci fi c Lamprey Arct ic Lamprey Spiny Sculpin Lake Trout Empirical Values Pine Marten Mink River Otter Short-Tailed Weasel Musk rat Beaver Coyote Lynx Project efforts to rlate to estahlish commercial and sport values for these impacted species have con- centrated on empirical data collection representative of prevailing valuation methodologies.These include for corrnnercial values the Market Value System,and for recreati onal val ues the Gross Expenditure, Contingency (Willingness-to-Pay or Requirerl Compensation),Travel Cost,and other methodologies. Additionally,empirical data for subsistence replacement cost and legal values was researcherl. Contacts in research and dc'lta collection included government agencies,state agencies,private research 4-165 organizations,educational institutions and private consultants throughout the Uniterl St.ates and Canada. Following are listed those studies and research Mlich have produced value data.There is a wide divergence in reporting technique and methodology. Phillips,William;Depape,Dennis;and Ewanyk, Leoanard.February 1977,Socioeconomic Evaluation of the Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources------ in Alberta,With Particular Reference to the Athabasca Oil Sands Area.Dept.of Rural Economy, Univ.of Alberta.Erlmenton,Alberta. - - Extramarket benefits per person per day for noncon- sumptive recreational fish and wildlife were deter- mined to be: Bi rd Life Animal Life Aquat i c Life - - $3.61/person/day $4.48/person/day $3.12/person/day Resident sport fishermen were determined to incur $26.77 in variable costs per day,and $52.51 per day in capital costs. The total annual extramarket benefits to resident sport fi shermen were estab1 i shed at $144.60 per per- son.Resident hunters were determined to incur $257.29 in costs per person annually.Extramarket benefi ts averaged $200.85 for bi g game,$157.63 for upland bird game and $115.13 for wnterfow1 per annual season. 4-166 - - - - - - Travel cost methodology was utilized in this study. Phillips,William E.;and McElhaney,Evelyn R. December 1977.A Socioeconomic Evaluation of Nonresident Sport Fishing Activities in Alherta. I.M.P.A.C.T.Environments Ltd.Edmonton,Alberta. This study determined that per trip cost to nonresi- dent anglers during 1976 and 1977 was $245.31,this sum actually spent withi n the provi nce.Extramarket benefits to nonresident anglers was $21.42 per day. Travel cost methodology was utilized. Phillips,William E.;and McElhaney,Evelyn R.Dp.c. 1977.A Socioeconomic Evaluation of Nonresident Sport Hunting Activity .i!!.Alberta. Environments Ltd.Edmonton,Alberta. LM.P.A.C.T. Per trip cost to nonresident hunters during 1976 and 1977 was found to be $479.26,thi s sum actually spent within the Province.Extramarket benefits per day were found to be as follows: Big Game $54.97/day Urland Bird $38.68/day Waterfowl $31.56/day Travel cost methodology was utilized. Taylor,C.Robert;Beattie,Bruce R.;and Livengood, Kerry R.December 1980.Puhlic vs.Private Systems 4-167 This study determined values per hunting day in Texas during the big game season v.ere $16.00+for lease holders during 1978 and 1979. for ~Game Hunting. Bozeman,Montana. Montana State University. - - -Pattison,William S.;and Phillips,William E. October,1971.Economic Evaluation of !!.:!....9.Game Hunting:~Alberta Case Study.Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.pp.72-86. This study determined benefits to society in general, to Alberta,and to Northern Alberta specifically from moose hunting during the 1968 hunting season. - - Society Alberta No.Alberta Total per moose kill ed $86.54 $168.83 $171.36 - The total value of the moose hunting experience to each nonresident hunter was established at $293.45 and for each resident hunter at $79.53. This study utilized Willingness-To-Pay methodology. Phillips,William E.and Carroll,Michael R.1978. Socioeconomic Evaluation of the Recreational Use of-- -- Fish and Wildlife Resources ~Alberta,Canada. Univ.of Alberta.Edmonton,Alberta. This study established per day values for hunting and fishing activities for residents and nonresidents in 4-168 - - - - Alberta during 1976 and 1977. follows: Results were as Non- Consumptive Fishing Hunting Activities Activities Activities Res i dent Resident Resir!ent 1976 1976 1976------ $3.00 $7.68 $35.00 Nonresident Nonresident 1977 1977-- $22.80 $58.00 BroMl,William G.,et.ale August,1976.Improved Economic Evaluation of Commercially and Sport-Caught Salmon and Steel head of the Columbia River.Special Report of Oregon State University.Corvallis, Oregon. This study estimated the value per day for salmon and steel head sport fishing in the Columbia River.Thp. estimated value was $22.00 and is recommended as lithe lowest val ue to be used for a fi shery threatened £l some water-related proj ect .Q.!:.i'llternat i ve." Talhelm,Daniel P.,et.ale December,1979.Current Estimates of Great Lakes Fisheries Values:1979 Status Report.Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. Ann Arbor,Michigan. 4-169 Thi s study est i mated the net va 1ue to angl ers of having the Great Lakes sport fisheries,nS opposed to not having them at all,at $21.00 per nay per angler. Masse,William D.and Peterson,Ken.March 21,1977. Evaluation of Incremental Recreational Benefits from Sa 1monoi rl Enhancement.Appendi x 6 to the Brit ish Columbia Snlmonid Enhancement Program Report. Vancouver,British Columhia,Canada. The value per salmonid angler day in British Columhia res determined by this sturly to be $15.00 per day for conventional fishing areas,and $25.00 per day for trophy areas. Gordon,D.;Chapman,D.W.;and Bjorn,T.C.1972. Economic Evaluation of Sport Fisheries:What Q£They Mean?American Fisheries Socip.ty.Lawrence,Kansas. This study utilized travel cost methodology to estahlish values per angler day for salmonid sport fishing in Idaho streams ranging from $23.00 to $34.00. - - - - - - - - - Charhonneau,J.J.,and Hay,M.J. and Economic Values of Hunting North American Wildlife and Conference.Washington D.C. 1978.Determinants and Fi shi ng.43rd Nat ura 1 Res ou rces - - - The U.S.National Sample of Anglers res utilized hy this study in rletermining an estimated daily vnlue to anglers of $25.00 for trout and landlocked sillmon. The hidding game methorlological approach ~s used. 4-170 - - Soil Conservation Service,et.a1.Decemher,1980. Susitna River Basin Study,Willow Subbasin.Draft Report. User-day values were determined by this study in terms of 1981 dollars for the Talkeetna Subbasin a rea. Fishing Withi n Ta lkeetna Suhbasin Outside Anchorage Fairhanks Alaska Freshwater Fishing Big Game Hunt i ng 13.22 19.62 33.04 49.05 46.26 68.66 100.60 388.16 - Travel cost methodology was used in determining these values,and access as a variable was limited to high- way only. Work is proceeding on this stucty to develop travel cost method estimated hig game and fish values incor- porating several other forms of travel access. Dubert,John T.and Young,Robert A.Novemher,1981. Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream Flows: ~Contingent Valuation Approach.American Journal of Agricultural Economics. This study estahlished values of instream flows to fishing activities on the Poudre River in Colorado during 1978.Bidding game methodology was used, inclUding t\',Q different willingness-to-pay situations. 4-171 Flow (cfs) 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 -Commercial Values Value per angler rlay ($) 11.67 20.48 26.53 29.82 30.35 28.10 23.15 15.40 4.85 - - - - - The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has puhlished the following commercial values per pound for salmon species in the Upper Cook Inlet in 1981: - - Kings Reds Pinks Coho Chums -Summary Gi 11 net Average Price 1.48 1.25 0.40 0.90 0.65 Set net Low Pri ce 1.25 0.98 0.31 0.50 0.46 - - Empirical evidence indicates little if any fish and wildlife value work has heen done for the majority of project impacted species.A diverse range of metho- dologies have been historically applied on a 4-172 - - - situational basis.A comprehensive methodology revi ew is i ndi cated,with the understandi ng that a particular approach needs to be selected for this impacted environment. 4-173 4.2 -Regional -I~pact Area 3 The following sections describe the baseline and baseline forecast con- ditions of key socioeconomic variables.Additional discussion of the fore- casts methodologies used can be foun~in Section 11.2. (a)Population (i)Basel i ne As shown in Table 4.2-1 population in Impact Area 3 (the Railbelt)rose from 204,523 in 1970 to 284,166 in 1980. The Railbelt contains over 70 percent of the State's population.The majority is centered in the greater Anchorage area. Within the Greater Anchorage area,there has heen a gra- dual shift in the relative shares ('If population that live within the Muncipality and in nearby areas (see Tables 4.2-2 and 4.2-3).As Table 4.2-3 displays,the Muncipality's share of the total population fell from 87 percent in 1966 to 80 percent in 1980.The Kenai anrl Mat-Su Borough Census Divisions have grown more rapi~ly, and now account for 10.3 percent and 8.2 percent of the Anchoraqe region population,respectively. Population in the Municipality of Anchorage itself rose from 126,385 in 1970 to a peak of 182,000 in 1977,and stabilized at a level of around 174,431 in 1980.The average annual increase in Anchorage population during this period was 3.5 percent. 4-174 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TARLE <'1..?-1 TOTAL RESInENT POPULATION ANn r.OMPONF.NTS OF r.HANr,E, RY IMPACT AREA,1Q70-1QRO -Impact Area ?Impact Area 1 (a)Impact Area <1. Matanuska- Susitna Borough Rail helt State 1980 Census 17,7fin ?R4,1"fi 400,4R1 1Q70 Census fi,S09 ?04,S2~1fl?,1f'1 Net Change +11,?57 +7<l,fi41 +qA,l?O Percent Change +173 +4?+1? Change in Mi 1itary Pop.+141 -4,710 -R,10? Natural Increase +1,410 +45,107 +h1,14:' (Births fl neaths) Implied net Civilian 9,fi8f'1Q,?hli tll),ORO Migration (a)Fairhanks,S.E.Fairbanks Mat-Su,Anchorage,Kenai Peninsula,and Valdez-Cordova Census nivisions Sources:Il.S.Census Bureau and Alaska nepartment of Lahor,Aoministrativp. Services nivision.Alaska's 1980 Population:A Preliminary OVerview.Juneau,AK.p.2h. 4-175 TABLE 4.?--2 POPULATION IN THE ANCHORAGE REGION,1qfili,1q70-I<:lRO Total Kenai-Anchorage Anchorage Cook Inlet Mat-Su Sewarrl Region 19lifi 105,300 7,700 5,AOO ?-,?-OO 121,000 1970 120,385 14,250 n,509 2,:Bfi 14Q,4RO 1971 133,000 14,200 7,300 1',400 Pili ,QOO 1972 14?-,200 14,500 8,000 ?,fiOO 107,300 1973 147,208 13,943 8,753 ?-,597 17?/ifi1 1974 150,fiOO 14,100 9,500 ?-,fiOO 17fi,800 19711 161,300 16,000 10,100 3,000 190,400 - 197fi 179,4fi4 18,697 14,19fi 3,54fi 215,903 1977 182,000 21,300 14 ,800 3,OnO ?21,100 1978 179,800 ?2 ,300 1n,10n 3,100 ?21,300 -1979(a)NA NA NA NA NA 1980 174,431 n,473 17,70fi ?-,80Q n7,47Q - - - (a)1979 data are not yet availahle. Sources:U.S.Census Rureau.1970 Census,1980 Census,and Current Population Reports,various issues. 4-176 - - - TABLE 4.?-1 POPULATION IN THE ANCHORAGE,KF.:NAI-COOK INLET,MAT -SII,ANn SEWARI1 CENSlIS DIVISIONS AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL ANCHORAGE RF.:GrON POPIJLATION 190h,ANn 1Q70-19RO (percent) Total Anchorage Anchorage Kenai Mat-Su Seward Region 190n R7.0 n.d d.R loR 100.0 197n Rd.S Q.5 4.4 1.6 1nO.O 1971 84.R Cl.1 11.7 1.5 1nO.n 1972 R5.0 R.7 I1.R 1.n 100.0 1973 85.3 R.1 'i.1 loS 1nO.n 1974 R5.?R.n 5.4 1.5 10n.n 1975 R4.7 R.ll 'i.3 1.h 10n.o 1970 R1.1 R.7 o.n 1.n 1nn.n 1977 R2.1 9.n n.7 loll 100.0 1978 81.2 10.1 7.3 1.d 1no.0 1979 19RO RO.2 1n.1 R.2 1.3 100.0 Sums of individual ite~s may not equal totals due to independent rounding. Sources:lJ.S.Census Bureau.1'170 r.ensus.19RO Census.and Current Population Reports.various issues. 4-177 (ii)Baseline Forecast Population in the Railbelt is expectetj to rise from 284,166 in 1980 to 483,686 in 2000.The growth rate will be greatest in the mid-1980 1 s (over seven percent in 1985),decl ine substanti ally as constructi on of the natural gas pipeline ends,and then stabilize at aroun(i two percent per year in the 1~90's. Of the three regions that comprise the Railbelt,the Fairbanks region will experience the greatest fluc- tuation in population,due ~ainly to its location on the route of the gas pipeline.The population in the Fairbanks region will rise from 59,753 in 1980 to a peak of 83,702 in 1986 and will decline to 77,593 by 1988. Growth wi 11 then resume at an average annual rate of about 1.5 percent. To be able to compare impact forecasts for the Fairbanks-North Star Borough and Southeast Fairbanks Census Di vi si on with basel i ne forecasts,it was necessary to oevelop baseline forecasts for this Borough and Census Division.These forecasts are shown in Table 4.2-4.Because each areals share of total regional population is assumed to remain constant during the forecast period,the Boroughls and Census Divisionis population will grow at the samE'rate as tt'le re~ional population. The Anchorage region will experience a pattern similar to the Railbelt as a whole--rapid growth through 1987,a stabil izing period and then an average annual growth rate of about two percent during the 1990 1 s.The Anchorage region population of 375,000 in 2000 will 4-178 - - - - - - TABLE 4.2-4 BASELINE FORECAST OF POPULATION IN THE FAIRBANKS REGION,BY CENSUS DIVISION,1981-2005 Total Fai rbanks North Southeast Fairbanks Year Sta r Borough (a)Fairbanks(b)Region 1981 54,602 5,282 59,825 1982 56,466 5,462 61,868 1983 58,197 5,630 63,764 1984 61,973 5,995 67,901 1985 69,168 6,691 75,785 1986 76,394 7,390 83,702 1987 75,399 7,294 82,611 1988 70,819 6,851 77,593 1989 71,017 6,870 77,810 1990 71,162 6,884 77,969 1991 71,795 6,945 78,663 1992 72,805 7,043 79,769 1993 74,186 7,177 81,282 1994 75,328 7,287 82,534 1995 76,585 7,409 83,911 1996 78,051 7,551 85,517 1997 79,609 7,701 87,224 1998 81,286 7,864 89,062 1999 82,996 8,029 90,935 2000 84,702 8,194 92,804 2001 86,430 8,346 94,776 2002 88,193 8,502 96,695 2003 89,992 8,660 98,652 2004 91,828 8,821 100,649 2005 93,701 8,985 102,686 (a)Based on an average share of .9127 of total region. (b)Based on an average share of •0883 of tota 1 region • Sums of individual items may not equal total for the region due to indepen- dent rounding. 4-179 ----------....-.-....- account for 75 percent of the Railbelt.This is s 1 i ghtly lower than the rp.gi on's 77 percent share in 1980.The Valdez region's growth rate follows a similar pattern in the 1990's.In addition,an initial popula- tion influx of 3,500 (30 percent)is proiecterJ for 1982. (b)Housing (i)Baseline In 1981,the Municipality of Anchorage contained 65,771 civilian housing units.Of this total,dn percent were single family units,12 percent were mobile homes ann 42 percent were in multi-family buildings (see Table 4.2-5).The majority of mobile homes were located in mobile home parks. There is no consistent time series for data on the housing stock of the Municipality of Anchorage over the last few years.However,rlata do exist for the Anchorage Bowl whi ch represents oVl;!r 90 percent of the housing units in the Municipality,and this information is indicative of recent trends.Between 1975 and 1981, the civilian housing stock in the Borough increasp.d by 35 percent.The growth in residential housing was strongest between 1975 ann 1978,rluring the construction boom associated with the TAPS pipeline.Bet.ween 1980 and 1981,the growth rate had slowed to about one per- cent. The vacancy rate in the Municipality was calculated by R.L.Polk and Co.to be about 14 percent in 1980 (R.L.Polk and Co.,1981).Tahle 4.2-6 displays data on 4-180 - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.2-5 1981 CIVILIAN HOllSING STOCK IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,BY TYPE Type of Number of Percent of Unit Units Total Single Fami ly 3n,nQ7 45.8 Duplex n,n4n Q.2 3-4 Units 0,211 9.4 5-19 Units 9,350 14.2 20+Units n ,030 g.? Mobile Homes 8,031 12.2 In Parks 1i,140 9.3 On Lots 1,885 2.Q Total 05,771 1nn.n Source:Municipality of Anchorage Planning nepartment. 4-181 vacancy rates by type.As Table 4.2-6 shows,housing units in apartment buildings with 5 or more units had an a verage vacancy rate whi ch was al most twi ce that of single family homes in recent years. Table 4.2-7 shows data on vacancy rates derived from U.S.Post Office surveys,for the Anchorage Bowl.This set of data is not consi dered as accurate as the Pol k data,especially during times of high vacancy rates,but it does show the recent fluctuations in the housing market.As the Tabl e shows,the overall vacancy rate reached a low of approximately one percent in 1975, peaked in 1980,and fell considerably to about five per- cent in 1981. In October,1978,the housing stock of the Fairbanks-North Star Borough stood at 13,738,of which 54 percent were located in the city of Fairbanks (see Table 4.2-8).Single family housing accounted for 50 percent of the Borough1s housing stock.Duplexes accounted for 7 percent;multi fami ly units and mobil e homes represented 28 and 15 percent,respecti vely,of the total.Within the Fairbanks city limits,multi- fam"ily units accounted for a much larger part of the total (43 percent)and mobile homes for a far smaller percentage (2 percent). Vacancy rates in the Fairbanks North Star Borough have risen in the post-pipeline period,but not as dramati- cally as in Anchorage.As Table 4.2-9 shows,the overall vacancy rate rose from a low of 0.4 percent in May,1976,to 9.1 percent in June,1980.Vacancy rates for single family houses remained below 3 percent, whereas the vacancy rates for multifamily units anrl 4-182 - - - - - TABLE 4.2-6 VACANCY RATES IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,BY TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT 197R-1q81 ....Hous i ng Type 197R 1979 1QRO 1QR1 Singl e Family R.n 10.4 10.7 4.4 .... 2-4 Unit 10.4 15.7 Ifl.q 6.R 5 or More Unit 11.7 18.4 1Q.5 13.8.... Overall 9.6 13.7 14.4 R.4 Source:197R-1980:R.L.Polk;1981:Survey condlJctert hy the Municipality of Anchorage Plnnning Oepartment • .... 4-183 TARLE 4.2-7 POST OFFICE SURVEY VACANCY RATES IN THE ANCHORAhE BOWL, BY TYPE OF HOlISING IINIT 197~-lqfn Single Multi-Mohile Year(a)Family Fami ly Home Overall 1975 O.~4.2 0.0 1.n 197fi 0.8 2.5 ~.::l 1.H 1977 1.1 0.3 ~.?3.0 1978 2.2 10.3 3.0 s.q 1979 2.9 16.2 fi.3 9.1 19811 2.0 20.?7.7 11.1 1981 1.6 8.2 S.H 4.q (a)The surveys were conducted in May,June or July Source:U.S.Post Office Vacancy Rate Surveys 4-184 - _. ...TABLE 4.~-8 HOUSING STOCK IN FAIRBANKS AND THE FAIRBANKS-NORTH STAR BOROUGH,RY TYPE, OCTOBER 1q78 ... Fairbanks- North Star Municipality Borough of Fairhanks Single Fami ly £i,849 3,:n2 Duplex 900 714 Multifamily 3,83~1,187 Mobil e Homes ~,097 138 Total 13,738 7,3!i1 ... Source:Fairbanks North Star Borough Community Information r.p.nter. Community Information Quarterly:Summer 1Q8n.Volume III,Number ~.p.70. 4-185 TARLE 4.2-9 VACANCY RATES IN THE FAIRBANKS - NORTH STAR BOROUGH,1970 -19RO (in percent) Single Multi-Mobile Year Family Fami ly Home Overall May 1<)76 0.)n.s 1.1 0.4 November 1977 1.3 1.9 n.1 1.5 May 1978 2.0 4.4 3.7 1.4 August 1979 2.7 12.0 0.4 R.2 June 1980 2.7 13.5 o.R q.1 Housing vacancy surveys are conducted hy lI.S.mail carriers unc1er the supervision of the local postmaster. Source:Fairbanks-North Star Borough Community Information C~nter. Community Information Quarterly:Fall 19Rn.\/olume III,Numher 1. p.81. 4-186 - - - - - - - - mobil e homes rose to 13.5 percent and 6.8 percent in 1980. (ii)Baseline Forecast Tables 4.2-10 through 4.2-13 contain projections of households and housing stock in the Anchorage Region and in the whol e Impact Area 3.By the year 2000,the number of households and housing units will reach 176,604 and 187,232,respectively.The Anchorage region wi 11 conti nue to account for over three-fourths of the housing in the Impact Area.Vacant housing units in the region are estimated to total 8,638 in 1990 and 10,628 in 2000. (c)Fiscal (i)Municipality of AnchorafJe -Baseline Statehood in 1959 brought a home rule charter to the City of Anchorage,and in 1963 the Greater Anchorage Area Borough (GAAB)was establ ished.The Mandatory Borough Act gave the GAAB areawide powers for planning and zoning,education,property assessment, and tax collection.Additional powers including health,sewers,animal control,and transit,and ser- vice area provisions for fire,police,libraries, roads and drainage were l~ter added by voter appro- val.The term areawide refers to responsibilities throughout the total area of the Borough,incl udi ng those areas within incorporated cities. 4-187 TABLE 4.2-10 BASELINE FORECAST OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE ANCHORAGE REGION~1981-2005 (A) y'EAF: 1981 1 '7'82 1';'83 1985 i 9~:3 6 i '7'87 1 ';88 1989 i ':;''7'(> 1 '791 19'7'2 l,c::,qil 1 ''1'::;;5 1996 l'7'cn 1 ':;'98 1 ':"99 2f)(J() 2001 2(ji)2 2(~t)3 :2004 (3)r)4 r'1UN I C I PAL- I T\'OF (i!'·ICHOF:AGE 60137 61''129 63681 ,S6()48 6 c/'7'2() -,'7.-,..'7 ".":'''::'.1 ...:' 76042 78142 79106 8i::~32 82886 83923 ~35275 88117" 9111 :::: '7'5848 97209 '7'85:39 101409 VENAI- ::::EWARD 873'7 9249 '7'776 10327 11234 11981 12785 13390 13914 14277 14716 15219 15751 16374 i 68'71 17620 182.~5 19029 19737 20594 :::::12'76 22022 '-:"--:'/7-:;.........:..I I '_' 2355t) 24353 i"1AT-SU BOROUGH 74-02 8C)C::'9 8843 ';"7'27 1091,S 11 '7'86 12910 13788 14417 1 :::;:::54 16156 17'245 18235 19371 20528 21885 23145 2~·670 26<)95 '-:'/~7~....:....,_,I ,_, 28715 :;::0122 ~~:1598 33146 TOTAL Af\~CHORAGE F:EG I ON 75686 785:=30 81556 85218 '7'1081 96110 100813 104442 1 ()68()8 1 (i7722 110030 111':i32 1148=:8 117 ilS'5 120185 123423 1 =:6':;-1 0 130291 134071 1378()2 14 11517 iS148 i + t55i37 tA)CALCULATED BY APPLYING POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLD (PPH) FIGURES TO THE POPULATION FORECASTS IN TABLE 4.2-2.THE PPH ME~SURES WERE CALCULATED TO GRADUALLY DECLINE FROM THE LEVELS OF 1980.AS MEASURED BY THE U.S.CENSUS BUR- EAU~TO A PROJECTED NATIONAL AVERAGE OF 2.657 IN THE 'lEPIF:2000. i·H.JTE:THE SUri OF I l\lD I \)I DUAL E(~TR I ES tTiA\'(lOT EDUAL TOH"1L:3 DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING. 4-188 - TABLE 4.2-11 BASELINE FORECAST OF HOUSING STOCK IN THE ANCHORAGE REGION,1981-2005 CAl 1 '7'81 1 '7'82 i '"::j83 1984 1'7'85 1986 i S'S7 1988 1 '7"89 1990 1991 i '7'93 1 '7"7'4 1 '=;'97 19(7'8 2.001 :2()()5 (.3)(Ii). j"iUr-!ICI F'AL- ITY OF P,I\iCHORAGE 6S'S9() 69890 6'=?S'7'() 6'=?890 7.3416 76874 79844 82049 8.3061 8.3061 84585 85924 87030 88119 92523 '7'4147 100640 10206'7' 103519 104989 10647'7' r:::ENA 1- :::EL'JARD 11740 11740 11740 11740 117'?6 12585 13424 14060 14,~1 (> 14991 15452 1598c) 17193 177.36 18St)1 1':;:'980 2(~724 2 i t,23 2.31Z::;. 2.3911 24727 25571 I'1AT-SU BDFWUGH 8582 8790 95S'S 10462 12868 1 Lj·0''74 15121 1,::'()'=?2 16754 17728 1::3574 1 '1761 20821 220 Ll·3 2.3278 2471'::? 26048 .-,,"",,!,.-:r~. ~/ai":':" 29207 30626 .32115 TDTAL ANCHDF.:AGE REGION 90212 90420 912:::5 92092 9,:':>942 102327 1 ()7362 111230 11.3763 114El06 117138 11'7139 122~22L) 125()l~·4 127898 1.31~:'18 134'7"7'6 138~':;51 1425i t3 i 4 6 ~~1 '7',=;. 157307 161105 169074 - CA)THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE AND KENAI-CODK INLET FORECASTS WERE CALCULATED BY APPLYING A FIVE PERCENT VACANCY RATE TO THE PROJECTION OF HOUSEHOLDS IN TP:BLE 4.::::-10. NOTE:THE SUM OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING. 4-189 TABLE 4.2-12 BASELINE FORECAST OF HOUSEHOLDS IN IMPACT AREA ~,1981-2005 ANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS YEAR REGION REGION VALDEZ-TOTAL CORDOVA IMPACT AREA ~ 1981 1982 1983 1'7'84 1'=7'85 19E;6 l'::';E:7 1990 i ':;:":;:'1 1 '~':;:'2 1':;:'95 1 '?'~'t:1 2000 2001 20')2 2(){)3 2004 :2C)()5 (3)04 75686 78580 81556 85218 91081 '7',::'110 100813 104442 1 ()68()8 107722 110030 111'~32 i 1 -4-828 1174 c;:'5 120185 123423 1:26910 130291 134071 1378f)2 1 L)·4517 147945 151484 155137 158908 19'::';43 20683 21378 22830 2555..'+ 28305 263''i2 26543 26673 26691 2745() 28054 28570 29133 2'7'779 30463 311':;:'8 ~195() 3567() 36392 37129 37881 38.=:.'t7 2717 2995 3957 4067 41,::'6 3896 4165 Ll:=-,71 4460 4543 4636 l1-780 4921 5()54 5::~()() L.77t::"'7.....1....>._1 ...,:. 5519 6061 \~1 '=i5 ,::::0473 6'=:'17 6764 98346 102258 106891 112115 i 20:30 1 128311 132995 135205 137811 138':;:'38 144162 i ~l78()3 15111':;; 154518 i 5,3555 1718':;:'5 176':::,04 1 :3'=:'3::33 19(>670 1 ?S"'634 204320 - SOURCE:INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH. UNIVERSITY OF ALA5~A.SEPTEMBER 1981. NOTE:THE SUM OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING. 4-190 - TABLE 4.2-13 BASELINE FORECAST OF HOUSING STOCK IN IMPACT AREA 3~1981-2005 (A) ANCHORAGE FAIRBANKS YEAR REGION REGION VALDEZ-TOTAL CORDOVA IMPACT AREA ~ 1"':;;'81 1 17'83 1984 1 '7'85 10:/86 17El7 1'?88 1989 1990 1991 19S'2 1993 1'=?94 1996 19''7'7 1 ;7"=['8 19'"7'9 2()t)(J 2001 2002 2()()4 2005 (3)04 90212 90420 91225 '::';'6942 102327 107:=,62 11 i 230 1 i 4·8()6 1 i 713:=: 11''?13':;' 122224 125044 127EYi'8 131:=,18 134996 138551 142543 1 lj'6499 153627 157307 161105 1,:S5025 169074 25198 251 S'8 25198 25198 26832 27i25 27418 27712 27870 28007 283·'+1 2;:::823 27'457 29999 3059(> ~.)1268 31786 -7 .-,-7 C"., '~''':':'/__/0 33548 34378 37454 38212 38'7'86 ~J9775 40580 4145 4145 i1-155 ·4·27'2 4374 437f f 4374 4SC7'() 4770 48.~,8 5(Ji '7 5167 53()7 546C) 5621 5795 5'7'81 6168 .:'0364 1~,5()5 6649 6797 ,:SSO'''18 7102 119555 11976.3 120578 121562 128148 133826 139154 1 Lj·3532 146316 147583 150347 152':;;;81 i 56E!48 16035(> 163948 168207 172777 17729(\ 1822:5''1 187241 1 SO'7586 202168 ~"2()6887 211748 ::16756 (A)CALCULATED BY APPLYING FIVE PERCENT VACANCY RATES TO THE PROJECTIONS OF HOUSEHOLDS IN TABLE 4.2-12. NOTE:THE SUM OF INDIVIDUAL ENTRIES MAY NOT EQUAL TOTALS DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING. 4-191 The City of Anchorage offered a broad range of ser- vices including police,fire,puhlic works,parks and recreation,lihrary,water,and power,and operated a deep water port,a museum,a small airport,and a large telephone utility.Utility services were even extended beyond city limits.However,two years after the GAAB was formed,the concept of government unification was developed.After much conflict and severa 1 referendums,a uni fi ed Anchorage government was formed.At present Anchorage is cons i dered a unified home rule municipality and operates as a mayor form of government with an eleven-member Municipal Assemply elected from ~ultimember districts.A city manager handles the daily opera- tional aspects of government,and the Office of Management acts as the focal point for bud~et decision-makinq.(Ender,Richard L.et al.January 1980). CURRENT EXPENDITURES FY 1981/82 Current average per capita expenditures for services provided by the Municipality of Anchorage are as follows:(Correspondence from Gene Dusek,Budget Officer,Municipality of Anchorage,December 30, 1981)• Police protection Fire protection Ambulance Parks and Recreation Library Health care Transportation 4-192 $153 per capita cost 100 19 Sfi 21 2S 84 $254 per householrl costSewageService Solid waste disposal Water supply 59 II 348 II II II II II Road repair and maintenance $2R,550 per mile (includes snow removal) Education total expenditure per pupil $4,212 Operations expenditure 3,518 Data on the current revenues of the Municipality of Anchorage will not be provided. -Baseline Forecast:Municipality of Anchorage Bud~et Expenditure projections for the Municipal ity of Anchorage are provided in Table 4.2-14.These are derived from average per capita costs of service incurred in FY81/82.In general,costs of service increased directly with increases in population, however,between 1981 and 1990,population increases (28 percent)are slightly less than those for expen- ditures.Between 1981 and 1990 the overall projected rate of increase will be approximately 32 percent; thi s rate increase decl i nes to 12 percent between 1991 and 2000. The rel ati ve shares of total expenditures for each category of service are: Police Fire 4-193 22% 14% TABLE 4.2-14 ~UNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE BUD6ET:BASELINE EXPENDITURE FORECASTS. I D F H SOLID J A B C PARKS E HEALTH G SEWAGE WASTE WATER TOTAL ANCHORAGE POLICE FIRE Al'18LNC ~RECR LIBRARY CARE TRANS SERVICE DISPOSAL SUPPLY EXPENDS YEAR POP aOuO}aOOO}($OOO}(SOOO}(SOOO}(SOO!)}{SOOO}($000)($000)($OOO}mOO} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 174717 26732 17472 :mo 9784 3669 4368 14676 15899 3669 21665 121254 1932 179410 27450 17941 3409 10047 3768 4485 15070 16326 3768 22247 124511 - 1983 184022 28155 18402 3496 10305 3864 4601 15458 16746 3864 22819 127711 1984 190313 29118 19031 3616 10658 3997 4758 15986 17318 3997 23599 132077 1985 2009112 30747 20096 3818 11254 4220 5024 16881 18288 4220 24919 139468 1986 209820 32102 22031 4186 11750 4406 5403 17625 19094 4406 26018 147021 1987 217298 33247 22816 4335 12169 4563 5595 18253 19774 4563 26945 152261 1988 222731 34078 23387 4443 12473 4b77 5735 18709 20269 4677 27619 156068 1939 224822 34398 23606 4485 12590 4i21 5739 18885 20459 4721 27878 157533 1990 224027 35304 23523 4469 12546 4705 5769 18818 20998 4846 28b13 159590 1991 226005 35616 23731 4554 12656 4746 5863 18984 21183 4888 28865 161087 1992 227024 35777 23838 4575 12713 4768 5889 19070 21279 4911 28996 161814 1993 229940 36236 24144 4633 12877 4829 5965 19315 21552 4974 29368 163892 1994 232299 36608 24391 4681 13009 4878 6026 19513 21773 5025 29669 165573 1995 234507 36956 24623 4725 13132 4925 6083 19699 21980 5072 29951 167147 .- 1996 237668 37454 25205 4789 13309 4991 6165 19964 22277 5141 30355 169650 1997 241086 37993 25567 4858 13501 5063 6254 20251 22597 5215 30792 172090 1998 244125 38472 25889 4919 '13671 5127 6333 20507 22882 5280 31180 174259 1999 247759 39044 26275 4992 13875 5203 6427 20812 23222 5359 31644 176853 :000 251102 39571 26629 5060 14062 5273 6514 21093 23536 5431 32071 179239 2001 254617 40125 27002 5131 14259 5347 6605 21388 23865 5507 32520 181748 2002 258182 40687 27380 5202 14458 5422 6697 21687 24199 5584 32975 184293 2003 261797 41257 27764 5275 14661 5498 6791 21991 24538 5663 33437 186873 2004 265462 41834 28152 5349 14866 5575 6886 22299 24882 5742 33905 189489 2005 269178 42420 28546 5424 15074 5653 6982 22611 25230 5822 34379 192142 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE ~ADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWIN5 AVERAGE PER CAPITA COSTS: (A)$153 1981-1989j+31 1990-2005. (B)$100 1981-1985;+51 1986-1995;+11 1996-2005 (C}$19 1981-1985,+51 1986-1990;+1:1991-2005. (D)$56 (EH21 (Fl$25 1981-1985;+311986-1990;+31 1991-2005 •• (&}$84 (Hi $9l 1981-1989j+31 1990-2005. m$2l 1981-1989;+31 1990-2005. (Jl$124 1981-1989;+34 1990-2005. EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS ARE NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. 4-194 - - Ambulance 3% Parks and Recreation 8% Library 3% Health Care 4% Transportation 12% Sewage Service 13% Solid Waste Disposal 3% Water Supply 18% (ii)City of Fairbanks -Baseline The City of Fairbanks is a hOl"1e rule municipality that operates with a mayor-counci 1 form of govern- ment.The Fairbanks North Star Borough is a seconn- class Borough with a mayor-assembly form of government.The City of Fairbanks offers a broad range of services including police,fire,public works,health and Alaska Land,a division of parks and recreation.The Municipal Util ities System of the City of Fairbanks is responsible for electric, water,steam and telephone services.The City Manager,along with a city clerk and respective department heads,manages the dai ly operati onal aspects of government. CURRENT EXPENDITURES FY 81/82 Current average per capita expenditures for services provided by the City of Fairbanks are as follows: Parks and Recreation Police Protection 4-195 $35 per capita cost 135 Fire Protection Health Care Public Works Sewer Service Electric Utility Water Supply Education per pupil 142 32 102 110 per capita or $418 per household 360 83 or $315 per household. $5,400 total expenniture - Data on the current revenues of the City of Fairbanks will not be provided. Baseline Forecast:City of Fairbanks Budget Table 4.2-15 provides expenniture projections for the City of Fairhanks based upon average per capita costs of service delivery in FY81/82.In general,real costs of services are pro.iected to increase 35 per- cent between 1981 and 1990,decreasing to 18 percent between 1991 and 2000.Thi sis consi stent wi th the forecasts of population increases for these time periods.The relative shares of total expenditures for each category of service are: Parks anrl Recreation 4% Police 14% Fire Service 14% Health Care 3% Public Works 10% Sewer Service 11% Electric Utilities 36% Water Supply 8% 4-196 - TABLE 4.2-15 CITY OF FAIR8ANKS BUDGET:EXPENDITURE BASELINE FORECAST. PARKS FIRE HEALTH PUBLIC SEWER ELECTRIC WATER TOTAL FAIRBANKS &RECR POLICE SERVICE CARE WORKS SERVICE UTILS SUPPLY EXPENDS YEAR POP (SOOO}(SOOO)(SOOO}(SOOO}(SOOO)(SOOO}(SOOO)1$0001 (SOOO} --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 22734 796 3069 3228 727 2319 2501 2154 1887 16681 1982 23510 823 3174 3338 752 2398 2586 2227 1951 17250 1983 24230 848 3271 3441 775 2471 2665 2296 2011 17779 1984 25802 903 3483 3664 826 2632 2838 2444 2142 18932 1985 28798 1008 3888 4089 9"'1 2937 3168 2728 2390 21130.:.<- 1986 31807 1113 4294 4742 1048 3407 3499 3013 2640 23757 1987 31392 1099 4238 4681 1035 3362 3453 2974 2606 23447 1988 29485 1032 3980 4396 972 3158 3243 2793 2447 22022 1939 29568 1035 3992 4409 975 3167 3252 2801 2454 22084 1990 29628 1037 4120 4418 977 3173 3357 2891 2533 22505 1991 29892 1046 4156 4457 1015 3201 3387 2917 2555 22735 1992 30312 1061 4215 4520 1029 3246 3434 2958 2591 23054 1993 30887 1081 4295 4605 1048 3308 3499 3014 2641 2.}491 1994 31366 1098 4361 4677 1065 3359 3554 3061 2681 23856 1995 31886 1116 4434 4754 1082 3415 3613 3111 2726 24251 1996 32496 1137 4519 4894 1103 3480 3682 3171 2778 24764 1997 33145 1160 4609 4991 1125 3550 3755 3234 2834 25258 1998 33844 1185 4706 5097 1149 3625 3835 3302 2893 25791 1999 34555 1209 4805 5204 1173 3701 3915 3372 2954 26333 2000 35266 1234 4904 5311 1197 3777 3996 3441 3015 26874 2001 36300 1271 5048 5466 1232 3888 4113 3542 3103 27662 2002 37041 1296 5151 5578 1257 3967 4197 3614 3167 28227 2003 37796 1323 5256 5692 1283 4048 4282 3688 3231 28802 2004 38567 1350 5363 5808 1309 4131 4370 3763 3297 29390 2005 39354 1377 5472 5926 1336 4215 4459 3840 3364 29990 ASSUMPTI OtiS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PEP.CAPITA COSTS: (AlS35.00 CDNSTANT (B)$135.00 1981-1989;+3%1990-2005. (ClS142.00 1981-1985;+5%1986-1995j+l!1996-2005. (D)S32.00 1981-1985;+3%1986-1990;+3%1991-2005. tE)S102.00 1981-1985;+5%1986-2005. (F)Sl10.00 1981-1989;+3%1990-2005. (6)$94.74 1981-1989;+3l 1990-2005. (HH83.00 1981-1989;+3%1990-2005. 4-197 (d)Public Facilities and Services (i)Transportation Alaska's transportation needs are unique compared to those of the contiguous states.Given a small popula- ti on scattered over a 1arge geographi c area,inmost cases impassabl e by rO(l.d,there is a great rel i ance on marine and air transportation.Of the different regions in Alaska,the southcentral and interior regions (which together comprise the Railbelt)have the most comprehen- sive transportation networks.Two reasons for this comprehensive and extensive transportation system are: 1)diverse economies relative to other areas in the state;and 2)greater concentrations of population. These factors make such a transportati on system both feasible and affordable. -Marine The dominant mode of freight transport in Alaska is marine.Practically every significant population center in Alaska is connected by marine transport, and Fairbanks is an anomaly in this sense.Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 show the major inbound and outbound commodity flows for the State of Alaska in 1977. Valclez Valdez is the state's lar~est port in terms of annual tonnage.(See Table 4.2-16).This is due almost exclusively (99 percent)to its being the termi nus of the trans-Alaska pi pel i ne and there- fore the principal port for the shipment of crude 4-198 - 11FIGURE4.2-1WellCoast890,000c=JAnnualTonsinThoulands1Ketchikan2WrangellJPet",sburg4Sitka5JuneauIiHaimes7Skagway8Yakutat9Cordova10Valdez11Whilller12SewardSeatlle1,200,000Vancouver490.000MajorInboundCommodityFloW1197713Homer14Kenai15Anchorage16Kodiak17Unala,ka18Dillingham19Bethel20Nome21Kotzebue22Barrow23PrudhoeBay24Healy25Fairbankl520.FarEast880,000q\,oAleutianIllandl~I......1.01.0Source:InstituteofSocialandEconomicResearch»UniversityofAlaska.June1980.AlaskaReviewofSocialandEconomicConditions.Alaska'sUniqueTransportationSystem.p.6. FIGURE4.2-2I,NOrthtNpll4.700.0001Ketchikan2WrangellJSitka4Haines5Skagway6Valdez1Whll/ier9Homer/0Kenai/ /Anchorage11KOdiak/JPrudhoeBayC::JAnnua,TOn'/nMillionsMajorOutbouOdCommodityF/0liVsJ977FarEa.t3./00,000~~\.,...-./.cP-eDAt,Source:InstituteofSOcIa]andEconomIcResearch,UniverSItyofAlaSka.June1980.AlaSkaReviewofSocialandEconomicConditions.AlaSka'sUniqueTransPOrtationSYstem.p.7.' I , , I I • I I I I I I I I,..f::>JNoo, TABLE 4.2-16 Total Traffic for Selected Alaska Ports: Historical Trends (in thousands of short tons) Ports 1977 1976 1974 1972 1970 1968 1966 Ketchikan 2,168 1,559 2,162 2,186 1,868 1,881 1,542 Metlakatla 224 174 318 291 117 70 15 Wrangell 656 827 1,023 1,169 1,181 755 502 Petersburg 67 56 205 157 294 134 114 Sitka 553 998 970 1,243 916 1,009 1,072 Juneau 152 i67 154 201 119 126 133 Skagway 1.026 833 1.514 1,388 1,273 575 297 Valdez 10,667 507 357 254 478 182 188 Cordova 36 66 35 42 34 44 57 Seward 115 237 72 62 29 117 49 Homer 126 31 12 170 190 17 14 Whittier 414 457 662 646 349 312 N/A Anchorage 2,220 2,932 2,340 2,058 1,937 1,311 1,009 Kodiak 501 388 217 193 124 109 213 Unalaska 325 350 157 190 252 121 171 Bethel 96 110 41 N/A N/A N/A N/A Nome 64 30 32 43 21 41 47 Br istol Bay 71 59 12 34 169 26 61 Source:U.S.Army,Corps of Engineers,Waterborne Commerce of the United States,Part 4. From~Institute of Social and Economic Research,University of Alaska. June 1980.Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions:Alaska's Unique Transportation System;p.4. 4-201 petrol eum.Currently estimated annual throughput is 60 million tons.The City of Valdez is nearing completion of a 7~0 foot container terminal,which will introduce container cargo shipping to Valdez. Presently there is no con tainer cargo.The Port of Valdez has also just recently inaugurated monthly barge servi ce between Valdez and Seattl e with Pacific Western Lines and has plans to install grain export facilities.Table 4.2-17 lists the current carrier marine services now operating out of Anchorage and Valdez. Transshipment from the Valdez port is by truck. The recent increase in icebergs in the Prince William Sound may pose some difficulties for ships approaching to and departing from Valdez. Anchorage The Port of Anchorage handles approximately 90 percent of the container cargo for the Southcentral region and is second to Valdez in annual tonnage.It is Al aska I s 1argest general cargo port.Current frei ght throughput is esti- mated at approximately 2 million tons.Of this, about 90 percent of the general cargo is inbound, with close to half being petroleum products.The remaining freight consists of bulk construction material delivered by barge from Seattle.Table 4.2-18 shows the trend in freight movement by com- modity from 1965 to 1979.It is estimated that the Port of Anchorage is operating at approxima- tely 50 percent of contai ner handl i ng capacity (PRC Harri s,Inc.and Al aska Consultants,Inc. September 8,1980). 4-202 TABLE 4.2-17 PRINCIPAL SCHEDULED COMMON CARRIER MARINE SERVICES TO SELECTED ALASKA PORTS -Between Carrier Anchorage Valdez A.M.H.S Five times weekly (mid-May--mid- September) Anchorage Seattle S.L.S Twi ce weekly container ship 1.O.1.E.Twi ce weekly Ro1l-on-Ro11-off ship P.W.L.Barge every two weeks (mid-March --mid-November) -C.B.L.Barge monthly (April-November) Abbreviations A.M.H.S.Alaska Marine Highway System S.L.S.Sea-Land Service-1.O.1.E.Totem Ocean Trailer Express P.W.L.Pacific Western Lines C.B.L.Coastal Barge Line - -Source:Institute of Social and Economic Research,University of Alaska.June 1980.Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions:Alaska1s Unique Transportation System;p.3. 4-203 .p.INa.p.ITABLE4.2-18PORTOFANCHORAGEFREIGHTMOVEMENTSINTONSaBYCOMMODITY:1965,1970,1972·1979FreightN.O.S.b,•.......•..Cement,DrillingMud,etc.. .Iron&SteelArticles.Lumber.•..............•.OilField&EquipmentSupplies..........•....PetroleumBulk.PetroleumN.O.S......•.....Vans,Flats,Containers.•.•....Vehicles......•.........•.PlasticMaterial,Insulation....•Total.............•FreightN.O.S....•.........Cement,DrillingMud,etc.•...•Iron&SteelArticles........•Lumber................•.OilField&EquipmentSupplies..............•PetroleumBulk.PetroleumN.O.S....•.....•.Vans,Flats.Containers.•......Vehicles.PlasticMaterial,Insulation.Total..alIncludesbothinboundandoutboundtrafficfromlocal,domesticandforeignports.blN.O.S.'"NotOtherwiseSpecified.Source:PortofAnchorage.FromAlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnter-prise.June1980.AlaskaStatisticalReview1980.p.J-5.1I Approximately 60 percent of the cargo movin9 into the Port of Anchorage is destined for the City of Anchorage with the remainder being rlisperserl throughout other areas in the region. Transshipment is by both truck and rail out of Anchorage. Two physical phenomena hamper activity in the port.The first is the fact that the harbor is not ice free;however,the tidal action ~oes keep the ice broken.A second problem arises from the need to dredge the channel on an annual bas is in order to maintain a sufficient r:fepth for ocean- going vessels. -Marine Highway The Alaska Marine Highway primarily serves southeastern Al ask a connecti ng the numerous i sl ands and communities with each other and Seattle.Another section of the Marine Highway connects Valdez, Cordova,and Whittier.Part of this system connects cities on the Kenai Peninsula with various com- muni ti es out on the Alaska peni nsul a and A1euti an Islands.Total traffic on this system during 1978 was 47,000 passengers and 13,000 vehicles.Valdez was among the busiest ports.There is no service to Anchorage. -Road and Highway The road and highway system in Alaska consists of roughly 11,000 miles of paved and unpaved surfaces. The principal roads connect Anchorage and Valdez with 4-205 Fairhanks and connect these points to the Alaska Highway.The Alaska Highway is the only overland route connecting the Lower-48 with Alaska.The Al-Can Highway consists of approximately 1,520 miles of gravel road and runs from Dawson Creek,Briti sh Columbia to Fairbanks. The Ri chardson Hi ghway,the State 's 01 dest road,is the main arterial route connecting Valdez with Anchorage and Fairhanks.The 370 miles of this high- way from Fai rbanks to Val dez was used quite heavily during construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline, which has left several sections of the road in par- ticularly poor condition.The section from Gulkana to Delta Junction is perhaps the worst.The highway is four lanes from Fairbanks to Eielson and two lanes the remainder of its length (Institute of Social ann Economic Research.June 1980). Rail The 470-mil e corri dor from Sewa rd to Fa i rba nk sis connected,in addition to the Parks Highway,by the only federally-owned and operated rail road in the United States.Physically,the system is well-main- tained.Major renovations and upgrading of the track and struc-tures duri ng the 1975-1977 peri od account for its excellent conditon. Annual traffic volume varies between 1.8 and 2.3 million tons,with coal and gravel accounting for 75 percent of this.It is estimated that the system is 4-206 - -- -- -- -- -- working at only 20 percent of its capacity at present (conversation with Fred Hoefler,Alaska Railroad, January 9,1981).Abollt half the total volume is gravel,transported during the summer months from Palmer to Anchorage.Coal from Healy mines, amounti ng to approximately 500,000 to 600,000 tons annually,is transported to Fai rbanks and Ei el son Air Force Base (Institute of Social and Economic Research.June 1980;p.21). Frei ght servi ce operates three times weekly between Anchorage and Fairbanks,with overnight delivery to Fairbanks of goods arriving in Anchorage by ship. In addition,coal trains operate twice weekly from Healy to Fai rbanks;there is servi ce once or twi ce weekly from Anchorage to meet barges in Whittier; once weekly to Seward,mostly for log movements;and fi ve or si x times weekly for summer gravel trai ns from Palmer to Anchorage.Freight rates are calcu- lated on a per volume basis and therefore no set rate exists. Daily Anchorage-Fairbanks and Anchorage-Whittier passenger service is provided during the summer months with service heing reduced to twice and three times weekly,respectively,during the winter.The passenger trai n wi 11 stop at any 1ocati on for embarking or disemharking passengers. Air Because of the long distances between populaten cen- ters and the lack of roads in Alaska,air transpor- tation is the major form of transportation in moving 4-207 passengers throughout the state.If it were not for air transportation,many coastal and bush com- munities would be inaccessible.The airport facili- ties at Anchorage and Fairbanks are of international classification,and there are two airlines that schenule daily flights to Valdez;Valrlez Airlines anrl Alaska Aeronautical Industries.Also available is cOl'1l1ercial weekly service to Glennallen,Tok,and Delta Junction. Anchorage is the air traffic hub,not only of the region and the state but also for the Northern Pacific Rim.It is also a major refueling point for air traffic between the Far East and Europe.Both Fairbanks and Anchorage serve as refueling stops; Fairbanks,however,is becoming increasingly more important in this role because of the new jet fuel refining capabilities at Earth Resources North Pole refinery outsine of Fairbanks. Figure 4.2-3 is a schematic of international, interstate,and intra-regional schedulen air ser- vices. Private air transportation,is a primary form of transportation to communities that do not offer com- mercial schenuled service.For many areas in Alaska this may be the only link to poplllated centers.This is not necessarily the case in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the Valrlez-Cordova census division because of the comprehensi ve hi ghway systeM; nonetheless,many cOl'lmunities have active airstrips. 4-208 - - - 1111FIGURE4.2-3RiaviAlluli.nAirwIY_NOllhw.1IDrI.nlAi,lin..Inu,nllionolCo"I,"AliI.oAlliin..Well.tnAirline,WllnAi,AI.,.opOlnuPrincipalScheduledAlnkaAi,Se'vice.........ToS.nfroncilCo\ToHonoluluToEUlop.28616S.ndPo.nl11ColdBoy18DulchHo'l><l'19auh.120Anio"2\5..Mory'lnMcG'lIh23Unol.kl..,24Nom.2!iGol.n.26Foi,~nk.21KOll.bu.28a."ow29P,udhooB.y.}.J~lI/)"...""M'------/-/1Kelch•••n2WII..II3P"Cflbu'g4Sllko!iJunuu6Wh".hOfM1Vok""18COIdo..9Anc;ho......10Hom..'IKod,o.121homM\3KIRQS.lmOfl\4Dilhfl9hom\!iPOllHildenToAd.....p-INoI.DSource:InstituteofSocialandEconomicResearch.UniversityofAlaska.June1980.AlaskaReviewofSocialandEconomicConditions.Alaska'sUniqueTransportationSystem.p.23. (ii)Health Care The Municipality of Anchorage,being the predominant metropolitan area and transportation center in the state,has developed a comprehensive acute and long-term hea lth care system in keepi ng wi th the needs of the state,and therefore provides the main medical care for the residents of southcentral Alaska.The communities in the outlying areas are not without medical facilities;but it is not uncommon for patients to be airlifted to Anchorage when necessary. Table 4.1-34 displays the necessary information for eva- luating the capabilities of the various medical facili- ties in Anchorage,the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Valdez,and the conmunities along the Richardson Highway.The best indicators of performance and capa- city are the occupancy rates and average day per patient fi gures.The low average day per pati ent fi gure for Valdez reflects the young,healthy composition of the residents.Even during the peak of the pipeline construction,the occupancy of Valdez Community Hospital never exceeded 50 percent (conversation with supervising nurse,Valdez Community Hospital,Valdez,AK). -Anchorage Anchorage provides a wide spectrum of health services to its residents in addition to the acute care men- ti oned above.The foll owi n9 secti on bri efly descri- bes the long term care,ambulatory service,and other health services offered (Ender,Richard L.,et ale January 1980.Vol ume I:Gulf of Al aska and Lower Cook Inlet Development Scenarios Anchorage 4-210 - - - - - - Socioeconomic and Physical Baseline.Anchorage,AK. p.99). Long-Term Care Convalescent and long term care is provided hy the following: Skilled nursing facilities.There are 101 skilled nursing beds for 24-hour professional restorative care. Intermediate care facilities.The role of the intermediate care facilities is to provide limited nursi ng and personal care to long-term pati ents with chronic medical problems.There are currently 217 intermediate care beds available in Anchorage. Residential and custodial care facilities. Constraints involved in securing licensing and adequate funding have precluded the development of needed residential and custodial facilities. There are currently 100 beds in the Anchorage Pioneer Home for 65-year old Alaskan residents (of at 1east 15 years).There are approximately 14 residential facilities for youth,drug,alcohol, and other rehabilitative clients.Because of federal government reimbursement requi rements, custodial care is more costly to the state than intermediate care and therefore,this element of a comprehensive health care system has not developed in relation to the needs indicated within the com- munity. 4-211 ,-------------------------.__...---_.. Ambulatory Care As an alternative to institutionalizerl care,ambu- 1atory care through outpati ent servi ces,pri vate clinics,practices,etc.is designated to facili- tate at-home convalescence. EMergency Care Trained medics with the Muncipality of Anchorage EMergency Medical Services provide on-site aid in emergency si tuati ons .The Emergency Medi ca 1 Division has five medic units with 36 personnel on staff,including administration. Specialty Services In addition to standard medical facilities and services available,the local delivery system also provides:full burn and debriding rOOM;hypother- mia expertise;comprehensive or orthopedic surgi- cal and therapy uni t;neurosurgery and neurology expertise;two comprehensive critical care units; two comprehensive neo-natal intensive care units; open-heart I.C.surgical expertise;renal dialysis;cardiovascular catheterization;and nuclear medicine. Mental Health Mental health care is provided by both the private and pub 1ic sector.Types of servi ces that pre- sently exist in Anchorage are: 4-212 - - - - - - - - - - - -psychiatric inpatient (200 heds at Alaska Psychiatric Institute); -outpatient therapy and counseling; -crisis lines; -rape and assault counseling; -battered women and children's services; -group homes; -facilities for developmental and emotional disabilities;and -pastoral counseling. In addition,each acute care facility provides psychiatric services,as well as many of the ser- vices listed above. Social Services The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services,Division of Social Services,is the principal provider of social services in the Municipality of Anchorage.Additional services, to ali mi ted degree,are also provi ded by the local municipal and select private organizations. Local social services available in the Anchorage area fall into six categories: 1.children's services; 2.senior citizens'assistance; 3.employment assistance; 4.income assistance; 5.housing assistance;and 6.youth services. 4-213 (e)Economic Base (i)Baseline Anchorage As the major population center in Alaska,Anchorage is the hub of the state1s economy.The metropolis provi des many of the support servi ces requi red by development in other parts of the state with the possible exception of Southeastern Alaska.Most major industries have their state headquarters in Anchorage.In additi on,the sheer si ze of the city creates internal demand for a wide range of goods and services.Anchorage is virtually all service or sup- port oriented,except for some fish processing and construction-related manufacturing. The city's growth over the past decade has been dra- mati c even though the rate of growth in economi c activity has slowed since the pipeline days.Unlike Fai rhanks,the Anchorage economy di d not suffer a precipitous drop in activity after the pipeline,but tended to 1evel off at a hi f!her economi c pl ateau. Indications at present suggest that resumed growth at a moderate rate will materialize,especially as much of the excess capacity created by the pipeline surge is filled. The slowdown in Anchorage I s economy was most pro- nounced in the trade and construction sectors.This, in turn,affected the real estate industry.Table 4.2-19 shows the value of construction authorized for Anchorage by quarter for 1975 through 1980.Deflated 4-214 - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.2-19 TOTAL VALUE OF PERMITS ISSUED FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL IN ANCHORAGE (expressed in current and 1967 dollars) 1975 1976 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 CONSTRUCTION Tota'ConSUuclton (in 000 current $1 3.632 49.214 46.010 22.302 22.323 38.842 n.692 40.797 RM,dentlal (in 000 currenl $1 1.227 38.126 38.065 11.137 6.369 29.795 36.876 21.461 Non-resident,a'(in 000 current $)2.405 11.088 9.945 11.165 15.954 9.047 40.816 19.316 Total Consuucflon (in 000 1ge7 $)'2.542 32.809 31.216 14.169 14.058 24.021 47.115 24,298 Res.dentlal (in 000 1967 $)859 25.417 24.750 7.076 4.011 18.426 22.363 12.794 Non-rasidanltal (in 000 1ge7 $1 1.633 7.392 6.466 7.093 10.047 5.595 24.752 11504 1977 1978 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 CONSTRUCTION Total Construction (tn 000 curren!$)18.563 131,747 134.961 58.064 23.711 56.828 n.853 38.081 ReSIdential (In 000 current $)10.042 49.584 81.605 23.383 16,196 47.100 54.999 23.440-Non-residential (in 000 current $)8.519 82.163 53.356 32.681 7.515 9.728 22.854 14,841 Total Construction (in 000 1967 $)'10.957 76.331 76.078 31.621 13.232 30.952 41.301 19.629 Res,dentlal (In 000 1967 $)5.928 28.728 46.001 13.188 9.038 25.654 29.m 12.082 Non-reaidenltal (In 000 1967 $)5.029 47.603 JO.on 18.433 4.194 5.298 12.124 7.547 1979 1980 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 CONSTRUCTION Total Construction (In 000 Curren'$)11.813 49.367 28.295 11.359 5.399 34.838 60162 Residential (In 000 current $)7.054 37.695 17.682 6.947 1.826 20.615 46024 Non-reSidential (In 000 current $)4.759 11.672 10.613 4,412 3.573 14.223 12.138 Total Construction (In 000 1967 $)'5.963 24.403 13.643 5.320 2.474 15.484 26.340 ReSidential (in 000 1967 $)3.581 18.633 8.526 3.254 837 9.162 21.0215 Non-reSidential (in 000 1967 $)2.402 5.nO 5.117 2.()j7 1.637 6.322 5.314 Source:Municipality of Anchorage.First Quarterly 1980.Quarterly Economic Indicators.Anchorage,AK.pp.4-5 . .... 4-215 figures are presented also.The slowdown in activity is readily apparent in comparing current dollar figures for the first Quarter of 1980 with the first Quarter of 1975. Anchorage is unique in Alaska in that activity almost anywhere el se in the state stimul ates its economy. Thus,if any of the major projects menti oned in the state economic base section occur,the effects will be noticed in Anchorage.(See Section 4.3(e)).Even without major resource development projects Anchorage's economy will be boosted by the many public projects planned for the area.Most important of these is lIprojects 80's,"a large scale civic improvement and construction program.The major ele- ments of this program are described below. Civic/Convention Center - A $20 million project of 50,000 square feet,capable of seating 4,500 people, and si zed to handl e 85 percent of the conventi ons held in the U.S. Performing Visual Arts Center -To be built in pha- ses.Phase One will be a $15.5 million project con- si sti ng of a 2,700-seat concert hall and 300-seat drama center.Ultimately it will include an 1,800-seat opera house and 800-seat playhouse. F Street Mall -To be built in phases.Phase One will be a $5.4 million project.The mall will serve as a pedestrian-only connection between the pre- vious two projects. Sports Arena - A $25 million enclosed sports facility which will seat up to 10,000 people. 4-216 - - - - - - - - - - -Kenai Peninsula The economic base of the Kenai Peninsula is based primari lyon the oil and gas industry,fi shi ng and fish processing,and the tourism and recreation- relateo industries.These industries have greatly expanded over the past decade and generally broadened the economic base.Employment distribution in the region is concentrated in the Kenai-Nikiski industrial area. The Kenai-Cook Inlet area is uncommonly dependent upon manufacturing and extractive industries. Alaska's largest petrochemical plant,Union Oil Company I s Colli er Carbon and Chemi cal Corporati on I s ammonia-urea plant,is located in the Kenai-Nikiski area.Tesoro-Alaska's refinery,Phillips Marathon LNG plant,and SOCAL's refinery also operate in the Western Kena i area.Ni ki sk i was also chosen as the site for Pacific-Alaska's L~IG plant,which has been delayed due to legal conflicts concerning the California receiving facility. Eastern Kenai Peninsula is dominated by Seward. Historically,principal economic activity has been related to the port and thE'Alaska railroad.This activity has beer:reducecl as Anchorage and Val dez have become the major ports of entry for cargo; however it is hoped that the development of Seward's mari ne-ori ented Fourth of July Industri al Park complex will contribute to the revitalization of the port.Presently,50,000 to 150,000 tons of cargo per year are handled through Seward.The port now serves as a shipping point for log and wood chip exports to 4-217 Japan.Approximately 40,000 tons are shipped per year.Future economic activity in the area will 1 ikely develop around the fishing,forest prorlucts, and oil anrl gas industries. Fairhanks As the major city closest to the trans-Alaska pipe- line,Fairbanks enjoyed the greatest stimulus and the sharpest declines resulting from its construction. By almost all inrlicators,Fairhanks'economy suffererl a substanti al IIbust ll from whi ch it is stil 1 reco- vering. Figure 4.2-4 and Table 4.2-20 present sales and pro- perty tax revenue since 1969 for the Fairbanks North Star Borough.The rise ann fall of sales as refl ecterl by revenues duri ng the pi pe 1 i ne is apparent.If the fi gures were di scounted to account for impacts of inflation,the decrease would be even more dramati c.The upward trend in property tax revenues reflects the impact of an increase in value of pipeline-relaterl property and an oil refinery,anrl general inflation. Fairbanks is similar to other cities in Alaska in that it is characterized by few manufacturing and many service or support firms.For Fairbanks,the regional center for interior Alaska,the recent upswing in mining activity is a favorable event. Figure 4.2-5 and Table 4.2-21 present rlata concerning new mi ni ng cl ai ms recei ved.Duri ng the fi rst eight months of 1980,32 percent of all new cl aims were filed in Fairbanks. 4-218 - - FIGURE 4.2-4 -TABLE 4.2-20 TAX REVENUE BY SOURCE City of Fairbanks and Fairbanks North Star Borough Fiscal Years 1969-1980* 16,000 -----Property Tax Fairbanks North Star Borough 19791977 r--- '"'"'"'"/ 1975 -----Sales Tax -0 8,000 :J"; -r::: " :J S 4,000t:: --- °1969 1971 1973 :Jl 12,000 1-1 r;j M.... ,,2 -----City of Fairbanks-----Fairbanks North Star Borough** Fiscal Year*Sales Tax Property Tax Sales Tax Property Tax 1969 $2,166,000 $1,137,000 $1,679,000 $2,747,000 1970 2,526,000 1,254,000 2,087,000 3,331,000 1971 2,757,000 1,650,000 2,188,000 2,448,000 1972 2,949,000 2,123,000 2,360,000 1,504,000 1973 3,111.000 2,354,000 2,497,000 1,786,000 1974 3,878,000 2,360,000 2,780,000 2,290,000 1975 6,~24,000 3,148,000 4,518,000 3,035,000 1976 7,489,000 3,697,000 6,596,000 4,034,000 1977 7,385,000 3,761,000 6,744,000 6,820,000 1978 6,257,000 4,076,000 7,100,000 6,977 ,000 1979 5,645,000 4,004,000 5,819,644 11,621,2:,9*** 1980 5,707,136****4,278,210****5,586,641 13 ,206 ,637*** *The city's fiscal year runs from January 1 through December 31 of the year listed.The borough's fiscal year runs from Ju1y,1 of the previ- ous year through June 30 of the year listed. **Fairbanks North Star Borough figures in years after 1975 reflect the modified accrual basis for revenue. ***Does not include the partial residential property tax exemption. ****The 1980 tax figures are preliminary subject to audit. Source: From: Fairbanks North Star Borough,Finance Department;compiled by the Community Information Center. Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Research Center.Fall 1980. Community Research Quarterly,A Socioeconomic Review.Fairbanks,AK. p.38. 4-219 ------_._-----------_._----_.--------- FIGURE 4.2-5 -TABLE 4.2-21 NEW MINING CLAIMS RECEIVED Alaska 1979-1980,First Eight Months Comparisons Total Filings for First Eight Months of 1980 Anchorage 4% Petersburg 4% - --------------------------------1980-------------------------------1979 8 Moneh 8 Moneh 7-Change January February March April ~June July August Total Total 1979-80 fa irbanks 65 158 165 293 600 361 1,240 998 3,880 1,110 2501. Barrow 0 0 0 0 362 0 0 0 362 150 14lA; Manley Hot Springs 19 0 0 0 7 73 4 42 145 32 3537- Nulaeo 5 19 2 0 452 31 14 23 546 17 3,1127- Me.McKinley 6 1 28 128 110 0 2 0 275 47 485'; Nenana 0 5 15 17 4 8 15 6 70 67 I."I. Rarnpan 0 0 12 0 0 0 6 0 18 3 500r. fe.Gibbon 12 0 0 0 0 9 2 0 23 68 -667- Koezebue 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 840 -1007- Talkeeena 26 266 122 58 227 28 152 334 1,213 694 75;; Pa Imer 12 61 93 98 108 14 72 95 553 226 1457- Nome 141 125 0 137 1,281 42 100 65 1,891 984 92'; Seward 5 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 17 137 -88% Juneau 0 50 102 105 206 125 37 6 631 177 256% Haines 0 4 0 3 4 18 5 7 41 4 9257- Skagway 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 * Petersburg 0 47 335 0 0 45 30 30 487 197 1477. ',.}rangell 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Ketchikan 2 0 0 0 0 3 58 17 80 208 -62;; Sitka 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 * Anchorage 311 0 46 98 0 13 0 16 484 39 1,1417- Iliamna 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 * Aleutian Islands 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 13 0 * Br is to1 Bav 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Seldovia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * Cordova 0 0 1 12 0 1 0 14 28 4 600;; Chitina**69 4 104 32 164 20 8 2 403 21 1,819% Valdez 0 0 0 0 4 0 a 0 I.5 -207- Bethel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 59 62 -5% Kuskokwim 0 0 162 45 2 720 0 5 934 0 * Kodiak 0 0 0 27 0 30 0 2 59 6 883% Homer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *Kenai 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * TOTAL 674 756 1,187 1,077 3,531 1,545 1,746 1.721 12,237 5,419 1267- *Number of units is too small to make a valid percentage comparison. **Includes both the former districts of Chitina and Glenallen. Source:Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys;compiled by the Cormnunity Information Center. From:Fa i rbanks North Star Borough,Community Resea rch Center.Fa 11 1980. Community Resea rch Qua rter1y,A Socioeconomic Review.Fairbanks,AK. p.48.- 4-220 - - - - - Table 4.2-22 presents a list of businesses in the Fairbanks North Star Borough classified by S.LC. categories.The table illustrates the service/support orientation of the area.Of par- ticular note is the number of construction firms. An important el ement of the Borough economy whi ch does not show up in the Table is the military pre- sence.Eielson Air Force Base and Fort Wainwright together account for approximately 7,000 military and related civilian employees. A major basic industry has emerged in the Borough. This is the 30,000 harrels per day North Pole Refi nery of Earth Resources Company.The company recently expanded its capaci ty to produce more jet fuel and diesel/heating oil.The refinery supplies all the jet fuel sold at the Fairbanks airport, i ncl udi ng the 66 fl i ghts per week attri butabl e to foreign carrier refueling stops.Besides assuring a supply of fuels for the interior,the refinery generates substanti al revenues to the Borough.Its assessed value was $33,058,125 in 1980. Total Borough assessment is presented for 1977-1980 in Table 4.2-23,along with related pipeline assessments.From the Table it is apparent that pipeline assessments constitute about a third of the Borough's total assessments. -Southeast Fairbanks The Southeast Fairbanks Borough is unincorporated and consists primarily of communities spread out along the Alaska Highway.The economic base of the area is 4-221 TABLE4.2-22ClASSIFICATIONANDNUMBEROFBUSINESSESFairbanksNorthStarBoroughMarchandSeptember,1980!Yl'~usln"".".Whnles,lIelr,ld('\.illl;i~'-~11e-lr.I~I~~-II..r:Ih1f'(;00(1s1.I!J'l)f's.lleTT,ld"-~"IIt1l1r;lhle(;oodsHlllinr.H-Z'-'alMlnlngBituminousCoalandLigniteHillingOJ1.111dGasF.xtractIon~Jnllmp[allJcMinerals,ExceptFuels~grlcult\lre.ForestryandFls~A~rlculturalProduct1011-CropsA~rlcuJturalProductioll-LlvestorkA~r'culturalServicesForestry,NumberofRusinessps%ChangcNllmherofBusInesses%ChanReMa.rchSeptemberMarch-MarchSl'pt('mherM.'1rch-19801980~.':.1'~980'!)peofnlJsilJ(~ss19801980Sc£'-'--J9~0--------------6~6D-87.RI'[,111TradC'I-,~~"-O1,17712%-16jI--,;x--------4-2Buildilll:M:ILerlalsandCardellSurr1it.·s412i~1615-6,~el)cralMerchandiseStores2228]],12]]-16,FnndStores4140-7%1)07.AllLllmotlveDpalersalldServlrcStatJong][,75-1%Apl)arclan<1Acc~ssorlesSttlres42445%710417.FurnlLurcandlI"meofllrnlshlll~sStorcs'i()1.8-14%412')TF~ltingandDrinklllgPlaces17611~7~0I•DrugalldProprietaryStores6"-17%110%LiquorStoresI)1107.2J'lOtllSl'(1M~rcharl(liseStores27284"'Mlscell,alll'lHIS:;lruppingGon.lsStorl'S177lAS~::.)/,11~0nNOllsLoreRetaIlers:'fJ))(J.'Ilq"f.-949f~27.."Fupl01I!)p;:lIl'rs102H-7>.~O49-lZHi~c('llaIlCtlllS!tetailStores110:~?97.606IJZ1211-8%Finance,IIlStlr.1llceandR(~i11~Rtatl'12116~"l1"II-6%r~~'d-i-L-'A'i~t;''-;~l~'~'othc-;-n~:WR~~n-ks--),-11%1716-6%St'CtlrItlc~JCommnditiesnrok('rsaltdSl'rvI('t's!20%19IS-~,-11lslIr,lllcefarriers1411"'46',0%Illsur-allceAl~eIILs.Rr(lkprsa'idSrrvtccs5~07.]411%Rl':llEst,Hf'lS4,1l7.qII22%IICllding,1rtdOthcrIllvestmelllOfflc~sI0421,712%Sl'rviccsH(d905~%8081If,%ilot-(71s----;mJOLhl'rLodgingPlaces2')-Tt.-0,I;(,~O%Ppr"lOll.)JScrvicc!lID2liDH%II1J1HZAdvprLIsIII~76-147-IJ200%CredItReportIn~AndCnllcctloll~5O~{1416II.tt1;1iIInR.ReproductlOlltS[C'1l0444)-2%220%ServicestoBuildIngs,~646D~22OYrf'rsollll(~1SupplySprvlres7207,01•ComputeralldDataProre~sinr.Sprvicee,If,15-6t,16160%MlsccllanC'llusBusinessSf'rvicC's1111419"I10"AutoRcpaJr,Servicesalltl~~r~r.es1411464~_5HlJO%HI5ceilalleousI{cpairServicesIIII I 7~.,76-1tl%MotionPictures~20"))0%AmllsenlC'ntamir.~.'(rcath'rlServt~1.'5lR4,I',;01·11(,,,1LhSt'rvin'fi4J-2~,':14I~7%I.~".IISI'TVI('-"~lR41.II}~Fdll(,lLl~lll,jlS~'(vi('PsIH:'f'1061071%Sill'1.11Scr\'It'('S!f1~-it}I.%~1t1~P\lms,n(lt.1ItI('.11•ZoologicalG.1rdt'llsI10-2825-II%~klnbership(lrg<lllizations68)\--110"~11..cell,)IH·()tISSl'rvlces122118'.!~1070%II07rublicAdmiulstLitton1~1,7·--------.--------',0%II11IW'TOTAl.L~~~2,!8'lR':2')!7-/C{.Numherofunitsts[no<;rn:111toIfl.'1kl',Iv:l1ietrl'rct'llL:l'.I.'cnrnr;tri"'''Il.I 7n1',"N(lLe:TheS:lll'<iTaxOffiI'£'\1St'Sthl"Sl.llld,lrdIlldllstr1.11rl.l"'filfi(',ltlllllCClJeListIIII'~ll'J'toclassIfybusille~~t'Sth.-It11t1Vf'rf'.i;io;;LPrcdwiththeLllrb,lllksN''\llhSl.I(II"";;nnrollgh.FairbanksNorthStarBorough,SalesTaxOffice;compiledbytheCommunityInformationCenter.Tr,111sportationandPublicUtilitiesLocaIandInterurbanPassengerTralls1tTrurkingalldWarehou~lllRWaterTransportationAirTrallsportatlollrlpelines,E)l;c{'j1LNaLural(;;15lr,lnsportatlOllS('rvIcee;l.l'mmlllll('ationElpctrlc,(;asalldSaTlltaryServiccs~~~ufc1cturingAPl1i1fCIandOtherTextileProd\lctsI.umbcralldWoodProductsFurilitureandFixturesPrIntingandPublishingrptfoleumandCoalProductsRubberandMiscellaneousPlasLIcRrrudll,[e;Le,ltherandleatherProductsStone,ClayandGlassProductsPrimaryHetalII\dustrlesFabricatedMetalProductsMachlliery.ExceptElcctrlcalElectrIcalandElectronIcEquipmentInstrumentsandRelatedProductsHI"lcellaneousManufacturingIndustrlefiCOllstructionr.~~I~~ralBuildingCoutractol"sHeavyConstructionContl"actorsPlumhlng,t1eatlllg,AIrCondJtloniliRralntll1~,ParerBangln~.UecoratlllF,Elcctrh:alWork~lsol,ry.Stonc~orkandrlasterl'lgC<lrpentryandfloorIngRoofJngandSheetMptalWorkCnncn'[CWorkWaterWellDrillingMIscellaneousSpecialTradeContractorsSource:I+:>INNN 1TABLE4.2-23BOROUGHANDPIPELINERELATEDASSESSMENTSFairbanksNorthStarBorough1977-19801111YearBoroughAssessment%ChangeFromPreviousYearPipelineRelatedAssessment*%ChangeFromPreviousYearTotalAssessment~ChangeFr~mPreviousYear.p-INNW1977$856,118,575NA$505,321>,780NA$1,361,445,35529%19781,039,003,02521%595,071,64018~1,634,074,66520r.19791,158,310,82511%795,252,41034%1,950,563,23519r.19801,271,671.200lOr.638,848,930-20%1,910,520,130-27-NANotavailable.*AssessedbytheState.Source:FairbanksNorthStarBorough,AssessingDepartment;compiledbytheCommunityInformationCenter.From:FairbanksNorthStarBorough,CommunityResearchCenter.Fall1980.CommunityResearchQuarterly,ASocioeconomicReview.Fairbanks,AK.p.40. dependent upon highway-related services and busi- nesses,Fort Greely,and agriculture.Government bodies including the military accounted for 82 per- cent of total employment in 1978.Military-related entities employed about 63 percent of the total. Roughly half of the non-government-related employment was in the services category.Retail trade accounted for over a quarter of non-government employment. Because government plays such a dominant role in the economy,seasonal variations in total employment are minor.Highway-related businesses,however,have a definite seasonal cycle. Agricultural activities in the Tanana River Valley, especi ally in the Delta area near the intersecti on of the Ri chardson and Al aska Hi ghways,have been expanding in recent years.In 1978,58,000 acres of undeveloped land was sold hy lottery.Loans were made available through the state for agricultural development.Tracts ranged in size from 2,000 to 3,600 acres.An additional 16,000 acres has been offered for agricultural development since that time. The Tanana River Valley activity,known as the Delta Agricultural Project,has emphasized barley and rapeseed producti on for both domesti c and export markets.A test marketing program in 1979 indicated that Delta barley was equal to or better than export quality.Rapeseed is also getting more attention as an export crop,and fits in well with barley culti- vation on a rotation basis. Several native villages are in the Southeast Fairbanks Borough.Employment trends in these com- 4-224 - - - munities have been similar to trends for the Borough as a whole.Many natives,however,also pursue tra- ditional hunting and gathering activities.Trapping is also a winter occupation for some.During the summer,some nati ves work for the Al aska Bureau of Land Management. Valdez-Chitina-Whitter This region can be divided into two sections;Valdez and the interior communities along the Richardson Highway.Each section is adrlresserl separately below. Valdez Historically,Valdez served as an important point of entry into interior Alaska.The construction of the pipeline and terminal in Valdez ensured the City's present-day role as a major transshipment point to the Interior.Oil shipments account for the overwhelming majority of gross tonnage moving through the port.Unrler construction,however,is a $40 million containerized cargo facility which will expand the port's capacity to handle cargo other than oi 1. State and local government is the largest category of employment in Valdez,accounting for about 25 percent of the entire workforce.The transportation-communications-utilities sector also employs about a quarter of the employed labor force.Retail trade and constructi on foll ow as the next largest employers. 4-225 Growth in the local government sector can be attri buted to the dramati c increase in assessed value of land incorporated by Valdez.The pipe- line terminal is the major piece of property within the city limits.The City of Valdez currently has the second largest per capita assessed value in Alaska,trailing only the North Slope Borough. Valdez is likely to become one of Alaska's few manufacturi ng-ori ented ci ti es.The City is acti- vely promoting diversification of the local eco- nomy.Efforts to promote the fi shi ng industry are underway,including the development of harbor facilities and a processing plant. Interior Communities The economy of the i nteri or communi ti es is based largely upon tourism-related and transportation activities.The latter category includes main- tenance and operation activities relating to the trans-Alaska pipeline as well as the highways. The region has experienced a substantial increase in mlnlng activity recently as Table 4.2-21 illustrates.Important minerals in the area include copper,gold,silver,lead,iron,molyb- denum,and chromite.Sand and gravel deposits are abundant in the area as well.Most mining opera- tions at this time are small,placer-type mines. Although many minerals occur in commercial quan- tities,development problems remain. 4-226 Government constitutes the most important economic sector for the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier area, employing about 40 percent of the work force.The next largest sector in terms of employment is transportation-communication-utilities followed by services and retail trade.In large part,the latter two are related to seasonal tourist-related activities.The region offers extensive natural resources conducive to climbing,hunting,fishing, and camping. Employment opportunities in the interior com- munities are generally limited.Seasonal jobs occur in constructi on and fi re-fi ghti ng.Some natives are employed by AHTNA,Inc.and other Nati ve corporati ons.Some nati ves ei ther rely on or supplement their livelihood through traditional hunting,trapping,ann gathering activities. (f)Employment - (i )Baseline Tabl e 4.2-24 presents non-agri cul tural employment data for the Railbelt.Included in Table 4.2-24 are figures showing each sector's employment as a percent of total state employment in the sector.These fi gures provi de estimates of the Railbelt's (regional)share of total state employment in each sector. In general,the same trends are apparent here as for the state fi gures.Notabl e differences are the rel atively higher share of the servi ce and support sectors and relatively lower shares for producing sectors,with the 4-227 TABLE4.2-24IMPACTAREA3ANNUALNONAGRICULTURALEMPLOYMENTBYSECTORPERCENTOFSTATE19701975 1979197019751979Total1Total--!....Total--!...._I_I1----TOTAL1•NonagriculturalIndustries62,690100.0113,818100.0113,204100.067.870.468.0Mining1,6102.62,2432.02,8222.553.759.248.9Construction5,2648.416,35914.48,2577.3176.363.681.8Manufacturing1,8503.02,5962.33,7053.323.726.928.9-l'>ITransportation-Communication&NfvUtflities6,0219.612,09410.612,06210.766.273.472.2OJWholesaleTrade5,3664.75,0834.590.892.212,11119.379.2RetailTrade15,96514~018,30916.278.676.7Finance-InsuranceandRealEstate2,5204.04,6964.16,1395.481.377.976.4Services8,86814.120,99518.419,67417.477.883.569.4FederalGovernment12,37219.713,02211.412,72811.272.471.271.0StateandLocalGovernment11,58518.517,79915.621,13018.762.660.957.7Miscellaneous52.1217.2712.62619.098.91Figuresmaynottotalcorrectlybecauseofaveraginganddisclosurelimitationsondata.Source:AlaskaDepartmentofLabor.StatisticalQuarterly.Juneau,AK.(variousissues), exception of construction.These differences are to be expected consi deri ng that seafood processi ng and wood products fi rms (mai n components of manufacturi ng)are dispersed along the coasts and in Southeast Alaska,and many mining operations occur outside of Impact Area 3. This structure is highlighted in the regional share figures. Tabl e 4.2-25 presents employment data for Anchorage, including regional share figures relative to Impact Area 3 and the state that clearly illustrate Anchorage's dominance.Not surpri si ngly then,general trends for Anchorage are similar to those for the region and state. In the Anchorage regi on,the re 1ati ve shares of employment held by the components of the region have been relatively stable as shown in Tables 4.2-26 and 4.2-27.The ~1lJnicipality of Anchorage has generally represented between 87 and 90 percent of regional employment.Kenai on average accounted for 7 percent, Mat-Su for 3 percent and Seward for 1.5 percent. (ii)Baseline Forecast As shown in Table 4.2-28,employment in Impact Area 3 is projected to rise from 142,162 in 1981 to 266,835 in 2005.The Anchorage Regi on wi 11 conti nue to domi nate the Area's employment,but will grow,along with the Fai rbanks Regi on,at an average annual rate of about three percent.In contrast,the Valdez-Cordova Region's employment will grow at an average annual rate of about four percent. To be able to compare impact forecasts for the Fairbanks-North Star Borough and Southeast Fairbanks 4-229 TABLE4.2-25ANCHORAGEAtlNUAlNONAGRICUlTURAlH1Pl0vt1ENTBYSECTORPERCENTOFIMPACTAREA3PERCENTOFSTATE1970197519791970 19751979197019751979Total-!...TotalSTotalSS_SSSS_S-------TOTAl1-NonagriculturalIndustries41,995100.069,561100.077,569100.067.061.168.545.443.046.6Mining9582.31,3001.91,9842.659.5 58.070.3I31.9 34.334.4Construction3,5148.46,9139.95,7357.6166.842.369.5I50.926.956.8Manufacturing1,0182.41,5722.31,7352.3155.060.646.8I13.016.3 13.5.p-ITransportation-Communication&NwUtilities3,9079.37,34310.67,99810.664.960.7 66.342.944.647.90WholesaleTrade4,0765.94,0125.376.078.969.072.88,61771.256.3RetailTrade20.510,85215.613,13017.468.071.753.555.0Finance-Insuranceand RealEstate1,9804.73,6155.24,8946.578.677.079.7I63.960.0 60.9Services6,40315.213,18819.013,30617.672.262.8 67.656.2 52.549.9FederalGovernment9,50922.610,17614.69,75812.976.980.076.755.6 55.654.5StateandlocalGovernment6,03714.410,41615.012,40316.452.158.558.732.635.633.9Miscellaneous52.1110.2614.810050.751.9269.661.01Figuresmaynottotalcorrectlybecauseofaveraging.Source:AlaskaDepartmentoflabor.StatisticalQuarterly.Juneau,AK.(variousissues)t1 .... .... TABLE 4.2-20 EMPLOYMENT IN THE ANCHORAGE REGION,BY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT,lQfi4-1QRO (number of employed) Total Anchorage Anchorage Kenai Mat-Su Seward Region 1964 28,071 1,397 1,n6 001 11,205 1965 30,078 1,754 1,082 021 14,137 1960 11,520 2,4fi2 1,138 041 11:\,701 1967 32,936 3,fi77 1,071 638 18,122 19nR 34,019 4,470 9R7 fiOO 40,07fi 1909 17,786 4,11:\3 1,001 fi39 43,579 1970 41,995 3,576 1,1 45 fi92 4.7,408 1971 45,452 3,4S3 1,414 771 51,092 1972 48,252 3,822 1,445 810 1:\4,32 9 1973 50,627 4.,049 1,fi07 874.1:\7,157 1974 58,713 4,487 1,784.935 111:\,919 1971)fi9,n08 5,586 2,020 1,152 78,3nfi 1976 73,096 6,4fi5 2,2fi9 1,137 R2,9n7 1977 76,988 7,33?2,524.1,11:\1:\87,999 1978 7n,893 6,556 2,91:\4 l,nn 87,029 1979 77 ,502 6,779 3,078 1,11)9 88,718 1980 I-I II 78,273 7,Ofi4 3,224 1,354.89,9P; Sources:Alaska nepartment of Labor.Unemployment Insurance Records;and Statistical Ouarterly,various issues • 4-231 TABLE 4.?-n EMPLOYMENT IN THE ANCHORAGE.KENAI-COOK INLET.MAT-SI).AND SEWARD CENSUS DIVISIONS AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL ANCHORAGE REGION EMPLOYMENT. BY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT.19n4-1qRn (percent) - -Total Anchorage Anchorage Kenai Mat-Su $p.ward Region 19fi4 R9.7 4.4 1.fi ?.1 1nn.0 19fi5 89.8 5.1 3.?1.8 100.0 19fifi 88.1 15.9 3.2 1.R 1nn.O 1967 85.9 9.5 ?8 1.7 10n.0 19fi8 R4.9 11.2 ?.11 1.11 100.n 1969 8n.7 9.5 ?.3 1.11 IOn .n 1970 88.6 7.n ?.4 1.5 10n.n 1971 89.0 fi.8 ?.R 1.5 Ion .n 1972 8R.8 7.0 ?.7 1.5 1nn.0 -1973 88.fi 7.1 ?.R 1.5 1 nn.n 1974 89.0 n.R (.7 1.11.1 nn.n 1975 88.R 7.1 ?.n 1.5 1on.n 197fi 88.1 7.8 ?.7 1.4 1no.n 1977 87.5 8.3 :?9 1.1 Inn .n 19n~87.7 7.5 1.4 1.4 100.0 1979 87.4 7.fi 3.5 1.5 100.n 1980 1-I II 87.1 7.9 3.fi 1.5 100.0 Average 1904-1979 88.0 7.5 ?.q 1.0 1no.o Sums of individual items may not equal totals dup.to independent rounding. Sources:Alaska Department of Labor.Unemployment Insurance Recorrls;and Statistical Ouarterly.various issues. 4-232 - - TABLE 4.2-28 BASELINE FORECAST OF EMPLOYMENT IN IMPACT AREA 3,1981-2005 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Anchorage Region 108,754 112,680 117,477 123,630 134,702 144,678 151,021 154,080 155,868 153,987 155,788 156,231 158,615 160,956 163,479 167,051 170,989 174,806 179,337 183,627 187,960 192,399 196,947 201,608 206,386 Fairbanks Region 30,539 31,683 32,994 35,553 40,443 45,285 45,077 42,189 42,061 41,481 41,662 41,874 42,443 42,949 43,596 44,444 45,377 46,416 47,519 48,596 49,663 50,753 51,867 53,006 54,170 Valdez- Cordova Region 2,869 3,148 4,168 4,313 4,492 4,249 4,512 4,643 4,667 4,644 4,678 4,741 4,814 4,886 4,975 5,080 5,196 5,326 5,455 5,589 5,721 5,855 5,993 6,134 6,279 Tota 1 Impact Area 3 142,162 147,511 154,639 163,496 179,636 194,212 200,610 200,912 202,596 200,111 202,128 202,846 205,872 208,791 212,050 216,576 221,561 226,547 232,311 237,812 243,344 249,007 254,808 260,749 266,835 Source:1980-2000:Institute of Social and Economic Research1s MAP model projections,October,1981. 2001-2005:FO&A,Inc.Forecasts.The average annual rate of change was calculated for 1996-2000.This rate was applied to the year 2000 employment estimate to obtain the year 2001 estimate. -This same rate was applied to the year 2001 estimate to obtain the year 2002 estimate.This procedure was repeated to obtain esti- mates for 2003-2005. 4-233 Census Division,with baseline forecasts,it was necessary to develop baseline forecasts for this Borough and Census Division.These forecasts are shown in Table 4.2-29.Employment projections for the Fairbanks region were divided between the Fairbanks-North Star Borough and the Southeast Fairbanks Census Division by calcu- 1ati ng each area I s average share of the regi on ouri ng 1975 and 1976-80 and applying this share to the Fairbanks region projections. (g)Income (i)Basel i ne Annual personal income,on a per capita basis,rose from $4,940 in 1970 to $11,245 in 1976,and has remained close to that level since that time.Per capita pesonal income in the Railbelt in 1978 averaged $11,522.In rea 1 terms,per capi ta income rose by 36 percent bet- ween 1970 and 1978. In Anchorage,per capita personal income,in current dollars,rose from $4,997 in 1970 to $11,839 in 1978,an increase of 137 percent.The largest increases occurred between 1973 and 1975.In real dollars,per capita per- sonal income rose by 39 percent during 1970 and 1978. (h)Commercial Salmon Fisheries There are Cook Inlet commercial fisheries for all five species of salmon harvested in Alaska,king salmon,coho salmon,red salmon,pink salmon and chum salmon. In 1981,a total of 6,655,600 salmon were harvested commercially in Cook Inlet.Salmon were harvested by set gillnet,drift 4-234 - - TABLE 4.2-29 BASELINE FORECAST OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FAIRBANKS REGION,BY CENSUS DIVISION,1981-2005 Total Fai rbanks-No~t~Southeast Fairbanks Year Sta r Borough a Fairbanks(b)Region 1981 29,153 1,386 30,539 1982 30,245 1,438 31,683 1983 31,496 1,498 32,994 1984 33,938 1,615 35,553 1985 38,606 1,836 40,443 1986 43,229 2,055 45,285 1987 43,030 2,046 45,077 1988 40,273 1,915 42,189 1989 40,151 1,909 42,061 1990 39,597 1,883 41,481 1991 39,770 1,891 41,662 1992 39,972 1,901 41,874 1993 40,516 1,926 42,443 1994 40,999 1,949 42,949 1995 41,616 1,979 43,596 1996 42,426 2,017 44,444 1997 43,316 2,060 45,377 1998 44,308 2,107 46,416 1999 45,361 2,157 47,519 2000 46,389 2,206 48,596 2001 47,408 2,255 49,663 2002 48,449 2,304 50,753 2003 49,513 2.355 51,867 2004 50,600 2,406 53,006 2005 51,710 2,459 54,170- (a)Based on an average share of .9546 of total region. (b)Based on an average share of .0454 of total region. Note:Summing columns may exceed total for the region due to rounding. - 4-235 --------,-------------------_.--_._------- gillnet and seine.Table 4.2-30 shows salmon catches by area and gear type. Exvessel salmon prices in Cook Inlet in 1981 ranged from an average of $.40 per pound for pink salmon to an averaqe of $1.48 per pound for king salmon.Average fish weights ranged from 3.5 pounds for pink salmon to 15 pounds for king salmon.Table 4.2-31 shows average weight by species,total catch by species in pounds,and value by species based upon average exvessel pri- ces. Total exvessel value of commercially harvested salmon in Cook Inlet in 1981 totalled $26.6 million. Based upon average annual Cook Inlet salmon harvests,the approximate contributions of Susitna River salmon stocks are as fall ows: Sockeye salmon 20% Chum salmon 90% Coho salmon 70% Pink salmon (odd years)85% 4-236 - - TABLE 4.2-30 1981 COOK INLET COMMERCIAL SALMON HARVEST (lOOO's of fish) -King Red Coho Pink Chum Total UPPER COOK INLET Northern District Set Gillnet .8 249.5 133.1 53.5 46.1 482.8 Central Di stri ct Set Gillnet 9.3 559.8 125.9 20.2 36.6 Drift Gi 11 net 1.5 634.0 235.1 54.4 758.6 Seine (mi nima 1 landings)1.6 2.437.0 LOWER COOK INLET Southern District Set Gillnet .3 54.2 7.0 68.5 8.8 Seine (minimal)24.6 7.2 1.405.3 15.3 1.585.2 Kamishak Seine 4.5 1.8 53.4 60.1 119.9 Outer Di stri ct Seine .1 17 .8 1.0 1.723.7 262.2 1.967.9- Eastern District Seine 9.3 .5*49.9 3.2 62.9 Total 12.0 1.553.7 504.7 3.428.7 1.156.5 6.655.6 *Trolled in the Seward salmon Derby. 4-237 - - TABLE 4.2-31 1981 COOK INLET SALMON EX-VESSEL VALUES (1000 1 s of fish) Average Average Total lbs. Species Weight (lbs.)Price ($l/lb.)(OOO's)Total King Salmon 15.0 $1.48 180.0 $266.400 -Red Salmon 6.1 1.25 9.477.6 11.847.000 Coho Salmon 8.0 .90 4,037.6 3.633.800 Pink Salmon 3.5 .40 12.000.5 4.800.000 Chum Salmon 8.1 .65 9.367.7 6.089.000 - Total 35.063.4 $26.636.200 - - - 4-238 - 4.3 -State-Impact Area 4 Baseline and baseline forecast conditions of key socioeconomic variables in the State are described in the sections below.Additional discussion of the forecast methodologies used can be found in Section 11.2. (a)Popul ati on (i)Baseline Alaska is characteri zed as a 1and of extremes.It encompasses more land than any other state in the United States,yet,with an estimated 1980 population of 400,331,it is the least populated.Most of the popula- tion is concentrated in the Southcentral-Fairbanks region (the Railbelt),and approximately half reside in Anchorage. Al aska I s hi story has been shaped by the exi stence of abundant natural resources and ~an's attempts to realize the benefits associated with these resources.The resul t has been a seri es of boom-bust peri ods,as the fluctuation in tne level of population ov~r the years indicates.Construction in the mid-1970's of the trans-Alaska pipeline (TAPS)was the latest in a line of boom developments that included the Klondike Gold Rush, World War II,and construction of the Al-Can Highway. Popul ati on in the State has ri sen steadily si nce the 1940·s (see Figure 4.3-l).The population size increased by 32 percent between 1970 and 1980 and jumped by 50,000 between 1975 and 1976,alone. 4-239 FIGURE4.3-1200r.o2WI!>O100Joo1910NORTHSLOHj------iOILLEASEPIPELINEAUCTIONlU~"ALASKASTAHt100D1104"RECESSIONIIt--------1GREATOEPRESSIONALCANHWYW.WIII--iWW.IALASKATOTALPOPULATION-"'J>·~lW:-:.71IlIOONOMEt-----iGOLORU5HKlONOIKk:GOLORUSHTOTALPOPULATIONOFALASKA(100YEARS)1880-1980'\\~"''L'\;':\'"~'''POPULATION'512.,1ANNUALGROWTHRATE41>0d..c:o1WJI!r'~~"':~J...•-~.e.:yl'/.~1lw:.'JoW';~'~"""1I"'.l'a'~.''l~1:;;;f.Q_If'~V"".""""-"';"""'Il''''''.·''''''''''''''~''·'''''''''''''~''''''''''''''··'''··--'1~..~d_"-I.%?<0=-o..'tcpee-.'.'tJ':lf.400Z-Ji...%0C..•J!>OZ0...p-IN.p-OvtARHUIO18901110O1910192019301104019!Kl19601910AlaskaPopulationOverview.•Source:AlaskaDepartmentofLabor.IIDecember1979.JIIJuneau.AK.p.7.,I (ii)Baseline Forecast As displayed in Table 4.3-1,the population of Alaska is-projected to rise to 562,400 in 1990 and 675,000 in the year 2000.Average annual popu1 ati on growth wi 11 equal 4.5 percent between 1981 and 1987;1 itt1e growth is expected between 1987 and 1990,and in the 1990's average annual population growth is expected to be about two percent. - - - - - (b)Economic Base (i)Introduction This section will present general descriptions of the major components of the Alaska economy.It is orga- nized by general industry groups which are in turn loosely grouped together into a producti ve sector and servi ce/support sector.Thi s approach approximates a basic/induced classification which will be utilized in the forecast and impact analysis sections of the study where an economic base model is used. (ii)Mining -Oil and Gas The sector whi ch provi des the greatest impetus for the contemporary Alaskan economy is the mining sec- tor.Within this sector the major industry is oil and gas.Table 4.3-2 shows the historical trends of output for various mineral products.Based on preli- minary figures for 1979,crude petroleum and natural gas comprise 97 percent of the total value of mineral 4-241 TABLE 4.3-1 BASELINE FORECAST OF ALASKA POPULATION 1981-2005 - Projected Alaska -Year Population 1981 412,400 1982 428,200 1983 444,500 1984 463,900 1985 498,100 1986 531,900 1987 545,300 -1988 547.700 1989 558,200 1990 562,400 1991 572.700 1992 579,300 1993 588,000 1994 598,500 -1995 608,900 1996 621.100 1997 634.500 1998 646,900 .. 1999 660,900 2000 675,000 2001 689,000 2002 703,000 2003 718,000 2004 732,900 2005 748.200 Source:Institute of Social and Economic Research,University of Alaska. September,1981.Moderate Scenario MAP Model Projection. 4-242 - - - - ITABLE4.3-2VALUEOFALASKA'SMINERALPRODUCTS:1959·1979(thousandsofdollars)CrudeNaturalSand&OtherYearPetroleumaGasbGravelGoldMineralscTotal1959...........$295$16$5,265$6,262$8,673$20,5111960...........1,230305,4835,8879,23021,8601961...........17,6521294,1853,9988,78934,7531962...........31,1874675,3555,78411,39954,1921963...........32,6501,11122,0053,4858,58967,8401964...........33,6271,71918,4882,04510,06865,9471965...........34,0731,79934,4671,47911,63783,4551966...........44,0836,33521,79395613,13386,300.po1967...........88,1877,26827,68391013,099137,147I1968...........186,6954,38820,3668359,416221,700N1969...........214,46412,66518,61588111,018257,643.pow1970...........232,82918,16441,0921,26516,782310,1321971...........234,33717,97232,80653714,044299,6961972..._.......221,74717,98915,21450616,293271,7491973...........239,57419,48219,91369526,821306,4851974...........347,40822,50552,7881,46114,861439,0231975...........364,62642,78625,7802,41939,514475,1251976...........318,78860,455204,7382,86834,191621,0401977...........988,87466,605134,2512,81233,4431,225,9851978........_..2,701,52289,626145,3003,61014,7522,954,8101979P..........5,493,59691.533150,000W17,5435.752,672a/ValuefiguresforPrudhoeBayoilarevaluesatthepointwheretheoilentersthetrans-Alaskapipeline. Consequently,valuefiguresshownabovedonotincludepipelinetransportationcharges.b/Allnaturalgasvaluesshownaboveincludevaluesofbothdryandliquidgas,includingcasingheadgas.c/IncludedarevaluessymbolizedbyaW(withhelq).Source:BureauofMines,U.S.DepartmentoftheInterior;AlaskaOilandGasConservationCommission,OfficeoftheGovernor.From:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnter-prise.June1980.TheAlaskaStatisticalReview.1980.Juneau,AK.p.B-3. producti on in the state. conti nue as the federal through 1985. Thi s trend is expected to leasing program progresses - The impact of the oil and gas industry pervades all areas of Alaska's economy.In fiscal year 1980,it was estimated that the industry would contrihute $1,233 million to the state's coffers.According to the State Department of Revenue,the industry actually paid approximately $2.5 billion in various taxes to the State in 1980.Thi s constituted about 86 percent of gross revenues to the State.In 1981, the Department estimates the industry wi 11 provi de $3.28 billion (90 percent)in unrestricted revenue. The advent of this revenue directly led to abolition of the state income tax in 1980.Table 4.3-3 sum- marizes the trend in petroleum revenues since 1971- In addition to revenue impacts,the industry employs substantial numbers of workers and creates employment and output in virtually all other sectors of the Alaskan economy.Oil companies plan to spend approximately $15 billion on field development in Prudhoe Bay alone in the future to maintain produc- tion at close to 1.5 million barrels per day. The overwhelming majority of crude oil production is shipped out of state to Northwest and California refineries.In Alaska,primary production of 0;1 and gas has spawned several major projects which are serving or may serve as support facilities or purchasers/processors of oil and gas products.The trans-Alaska oil pipeline ;s the largest of this type of project.Constructed between 1974 and 1977,the pipeline employed thousands of workers during its 4-244 .. - - - - TABLE 4.3-3 GROSS UNRESTRICTED*A~PETROLEUH REVENUES (In Xi11ions of Dollars) Alaska Fiscal Years 1971-1982** Fiscal Year --Gross Petroleum Revenues- %of Unrestric- Amount ted Revenues $46.2 21 /~ 47.1 2l/~ 49.3 '1/~/_~';J 79.3 31% 87.6 26% 386.1 5/"/~" 472.5 54% 430.3 55% 819.0 69% 2,253.5 86% 3,279.6 90% 4,572.4 93% been designated for a specific purpose $220.4 219.2 208.1 255.1 333.3 709.7 874.1 787.4 1,178.5 2,632.0 3,641.5 4,936.4 Gross Unrestricted Revenues Incoming revenue which has not (excludes federal grants). The state's fiscal year runs from July 1 of the preceding year through June 30 of the year listed. Preliminary. Estimated. 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980*** 1981**** 1982**** *** **** ** * Source:Revenue Sources FY1980-1932,Alaska Department of Revenue; compiled by the eRC. From:Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Research Center.Winter 1980,Vol.III,No.4.Community Research Quarterly A Socio- Economic Review.Fairbanks,AK.p.31.' 4-245 peak period and cost approximately $12 billion.The growth-induci ng impacts from the project were ubi- quitous'but especially dramatic in Fairbanks and Valdez,the terminus of the pipeline.Anchorage experienced substantial economic growth as well. Several major projects are currently in the planning stages.The largest of these is the Northwest Alaska Gas Pipeline which would run from Prudhoe Bay to the Midwestern United States.The 1979 estimates set the price tag for the Alaskan portion at $6 to $8 billion.Another possible project is a liquified natural gas pl ant located on the Kenai Peni nsul a. The Pacifi c Al aska Company predicts the pl ant woul d handl e up to 430 mi 11 ion cubi c feet of gas per day for shipment to California. The Dow-Shell Group completed a set of feasibil ity studies concerning development of a petrochemical industry in Alaska in September,1981.The studies indicated that development of a worldscale petroche- mical complex in Alaska would be dependent on a real price of $38 per barrel for crude oil,growth in the Pacifi c Rim markets,compl eted constructi on of the Alaska Natural Gas pipeline and infrastructure deve- lopment in Alaska.Potential sites which are under consideration include:Fairbanks,Seward,Valdez, the Kenai Peninsula,and Point McKenzie in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.In addition,Doyon Corporation has recently proposed an alternative pro- ject for the transport and use of natural gas liquids. 4-246 - Hard Minerals The history of hard mineral production in Alaska is characteri zed by "rushes"and "retreats."avera 11 , the potential for a growin9 mineral extraction industry is bright,based on rising world prices and the uncertainties and risks inherent in reliance on foreign supplies.Geologically,A1aska ' s potential is enormous;economically,however,constraints exist which will require substantial investment to over- come. The primary hard minerals mined in Alaska are gold, sand and gravel,coal,stone,and tin.Also mined are small quantities of copper,silver,lead, gemstones,molybdenum,and barite.The value of all non-petroleum minerals in 1979 was rou~h1y $170 million. This component of the m"ining industry is different from oil and gas in that most output is consumed in Alaska.Table 4.3-2 indicates that the value of sand and gravel producti on is second only to petrol eum. Thi s commodity has heen used almost exc1 usi ve1y for local construction.Similarly,coal,until quite recently,was used entirely for local energy produc- tion. The hard mineral industry is characterize<1 by few large scale operations and numerous small ones. Mining employment plays an important role in rural Alaska.Most mining activity in Alaska occurs in the Yukon region,Cook In1et/Mat-Su area,and on the Seward Peninsula,in that order.Based on output, 4-247 --------------_..__._--------------- the Yukon region leads,followed by Kuskokwim,Seward Peninsula,and the Cook Inlet/Mat-Su area. Two additional mineral projects are scheduled for development in Southeast Alaska by 1990.U.S.Borax is deve 1opi ng a 1a rge molybdenum depos it at Quartz Hill,east of Ketchikan,and a high grade deposit of lead,zinc,copper,silver and gold at Greens Creek is being explored southwest of Juneau by Noranda Exploration.The high grade characteristics of these deposi ts assure competi ti veness of the output,and the sites I proximity to tidewater will help avoid some of the costly access problems that are stallin~ mineral development in other parts of the State.All of the production of these projects would be for con- sumption outside of Alaska. The Al aska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, whi ch resol ved the status of the D-2 1ands,shoul d. help to encourage the development of Alaska's mineral resources. Alaska's extensive coal deposits have attracted attention recently,as the Pacific Rim countries have begun to convert from oil to coal fired generating facilities.Currently,there is only one operating coal mine which is near Healy and supplies coal for the generation of heat and electricity for the Fairbanks area.Supplies recoverable with current coal technology,are estimated to exceed 100 billion tons.Substantial deposits are also located in the Beluga coal fields near Cook Inlet,and studies are being conducted to determine the marketability of Beluga coal in Pacific Rim markets. 4-248 - - - (i i) The mining industry in Alaska is constrained hy several major factors.Access to areas of mineral potential is restricted by ownership and/or land sta- tus.Access and development are al so di ffi cul t due to 1ack of surface transportati on routes.Each of these factors,as well as Alaska's climate, topography,and location relative to other markets, contributes to the high cost of mineral exploration and extraction.In addition,environmental regula- tions add to the costs associated with developing mineral resources. Construction Apart from the seafood industry,the construction industry is the most seasonal industry in Alaska.As elsewhere it is also a highly cyclical industry depending upon general economic conditions.More importantly,the industry in Alaska is extremely dependent upon impetus in the form of major projects, usually rel ated to natural resource and energy deve- 1 opments. Construction is both a basic and non-basic industry in that it is determined in part by demand generated externally and in part by internally generated demand.Table 4.3-4 presents the trends in construc- tion activity during the 1974 -1979 period for the major urban areas.The impact of the trans-Al aska pipeline is apparent in both residential and non- resi denti al categori es.Dramati c increases occurred in Anchorage and Fairbanks beginning in 1975. However,in both Anchorage and Fairbanks 1979 permit valuation is actually lower than in 1974.These 4-249 ~INCJ1oTABLE4.3-4VALUATIONOFRESIDENTIAL,NONRESIDENTIALANDTOTALBUILDINGINCLUDEDINBUILDINGPERMITSISSUEDINSELECTEDAREASOFALASKA:1974-1979(inthousandsofdollars)Annual197419751976197719781979Anchorage:Residential.........$88,171.3$125,022.5$101,094.0$156,852.5 $145,691.5$73,565.8Nonresidential......72,467.3117,744.5117,269.7204,299.669,435.745,190.6------~----_.•.-~----_._..--..Total...........$160,638.6 $242,767.0 $218,363.7$361,152.1$215,127.3$118,756.4Fairbanks:Residential.........$20,515.0$44,043.4$44,624.8$52,279.9$33,139.7$22,800.1Nonresidential......26,293.893,734.094,336.731,379.417,448.217,356.7-------_..--~-_._-----------_.--------Total...........$46,808.8$137,777.4$138,961.5$83,659.3$50,587.9$40,156.8Juneau:Residential.........$4,330.3$7,468.4$15,311.9$22,293.1$18,066.3$17,774.4Nonresidential......10,818.33,469.97,834.28,261.213,019.415,622.3_._~------------_..~-Total...........$15,148.6$10,938.3$23,146.1$30,554.3$31,085.7$33,396.7TotalAllAreas:Residential.........$113,016.6$176,534.3$161,030.7 $231,425.5$196,897.5 $114,140.3Nonresidential......109,579.4214,948.4219,440.6243,940.299,903.378,169.6._--------~-----Total...........$222,596.0 $391,482.7$380,471.3$475,365.7$296,800.9$192,309.9Source:CityandBoroughBuildingOfficials.From:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnterprise.June1980.TheAlaskaStatisticalReview.1980.Juneau,AK.p.G-l.,III,I,I ,IIJ - - - fi gures accurately refl ect the boom/bust cycl e created by the pipeline const~uction. The construction industry picked up strength in 1981. Numerous publ ic projects are bei ng spawned by the wealth accruing to the state government.These pro- jects include highway,airport,harbor,school, pUblic works,and cultural facilities throughout the state.Coupled with planned JTlajor private sector projects,primari ly rel ati ng to oil and gas,con- tinued strong construction activity appears likely. (iv)Manufacturing The manufacturing industry in Alaska consists of two major components;food processing (mainly seafood) and forest products.These two components accounted for 72 percent of average JTlanufacturing employment in 1979.Each of these is discussed below. -Seafood Processing Si nce the passage of the Fi shery Conservati on ann Management Act of 1976,cOlTfTlonly referred to as the 11200-mile limit ll ,the Alaskan fishinq industry has been in a state of flux.Fortunately,the ol/erall impact from the law has been quite favorable to the industry.The trend in terJTIs of both vol ume and value of the catch has been steadily increasing. Tables 4.3-5 and 4.3-6 show this trend for both domestic and foreign fisheries.Underlying these fi gures ;s a transferri ng of catch in hi gh valued species such as salmon and crab from the foreign to the domestic fleet.The fishing effort of the 4-251 TABLE4.3-5DOMESTICFISHERIESOFALASKACatchLandedinAlaska.PaymentstoFishermen,andWholesale(ProcessedIValue4.891979459P317P704P89P58P75P341P231P464P889P606P1.243P4.401978408P238P528P64P33P43P334P272P547P806P543Pl,118P171380P45212l312157316P307664349723P2.851977972463171182455424291796172404521.78197658192714056134551322471302934451.15197522601666951372724641482541.00197413266Catch(000000Ibsl.PaymentstoFishermen($000000).WholesaleValue($000000).Catch(000000Ibsl.PaymentstoFishermen($000DOD).WholesaleValue($000000)..Catch(000DODIbs).PaymentstoFishermen($000000).WholesaleValue($000000).SALMONGRANDTOTALSOTHERFINFISHSHELLFISHCatch(000000Ibs).PaymentstoFishermen($000000).WholesaleValue($000000).WHOLESALEVALUEINDEX(DollarValuein1974=1.00).-"'"INUlNREALVALUEINDEX(WholesaleDollarValueAdjustedbyChangesinU.S.ConsumerPriceIndex:1974=1.00).1.001.06.1.542.323.333.32PPreliminary.SOURCE:AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame.NationalMarineFisheriesService.andAlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment.FroM:.~lil5kil;fJilrtmentofCommerceilnd[conomicDevelorl~lellt.Divisionof[conomic[ntrrnrise.June19~O.TheAlaskaStatisticalRevi01".198').Juneau,AK.p.B-16.,,t TABLE4.3-6CATCH&VALUEFROMALASKA'SDOMESTIC&FOREIGNFISHERIES197719781979CATCHLANDEDINALASKA(DOMESTICFISHERIESCATCH)1806P889PCatch(000000Ibs).....................664ExVesselValues($000000)...............349p543P606PWholesaleValues($000000)...............723l,l18Pl,243PFOREIGNCATCHFROMALASKAFCZ2PCatch(000000Ibs).....................3,0333,4573,177PExVesselValues($000000)3..............178p352330.j::oWholesaleValues($000000)4..............979l,936Pl,815PINALLFISHERIESCOMBINEDUlPPwCatch(000000Ibs).....................3,6974,263p4,066pExVesselValues($000000)...............527895936WholesaleValues($000000)...............l,702P3,054P3,058PPPreliminary.1/Thedomesticcatch(fishcaughtbyU.S.citizens)verynearlycoincideswithamountslandedandprocessedinAlaska.2/FCZ=U.S.FisheryConservationZone(Areabetween3and200milesfromshore).3/ExVesselvaluesindicatedforforeigncatcharepoundsoffish,perspecie,multipliedbypricespaidtofishermeninU.S.ports.4/WholesalevaluesforforeigncatchareestimatesofwhatthevalueswouldhavebeenifthesefishhadbeenlandedbyU.S.fishermen.SOURCE:AlaskaDepartmentofFishandGame,NationalMarineFisheriesService,andAlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment.From:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnterprise.June1980.TheAlaskaStatisticalReview.1980.Juneau,AKp.B-16. forei gn fl eet has adjusted to thi s by targeti ng on other species such as groundfish.Regardless of who catches the product,a substantial portion of it is exported out of the state,with a large share destined for Japan. The domestic industry is characterized by numerous private participants in the harvesting sector and relatively fewer processing companies with large domestic and foreign corporate involvement. Different species are concentrated upon in different regions of Alaska.The processing industry employs close to 15,000 workers during the height of the season in July.Average monthly employment was about 7,000 during 1979. Opportunities for growth in the industry exist in fisheries for groundfish and other underutilized spe- cies.It has been estimated that only eight percent of the total allowable domestic catch is being uti- lized.However,major economic problems impede deve- lopment,including transportation costs,high input costs,and low margins. Forest Products The Alaskan forest products industry centers upon the resources of two nati onal forests,the Chugach in Southcentral Alaska and the Tongass in Southeastern Alaska.These two forests are the largest in the United States and account for roughly 93 percent of the annual Alaskan timber harvest.Table 4.3-7 pre- sents the historical timber harvest from public lands by ownership.From the table it can be seen that the 4-254 - - - TABLE1.3-7AlaskaTim/lerHarvest(inthousandboardfeet,Scribnerscale)onPublicLands,ByOwnership,1959-1979BureauofLandManagementNationalForest._-BureauofYearStateIndianAffairsFreeUseCutTotalTongassChugachTotal Total1959002,4998,66611,165266,5917,596274,187285,352196021001,58814,28915,877347,4963,613351,109 367,19619611,98704,68311,342 16,025338,2067,117345,323363,33519626,87208,0495,93613,985366,2757,157373,432394,289-Po196310,63307,5353,62011,155395,1433,847398,990420,778IN196418,14405,5245,66611,190443,7361,373445,109474,443Ul196524,1612,9905,0453,2638,308397,6106,888404,498439,957Ul196631,2201,6505,3498486,197474,2771,217475,494514,561196745,8169,0672,5875723,159474,3372,479476,816534,858196847,9748,1926124911,103529,4963,807533,303590,572196949,0188,68479280359519,3443,997523,341581,402197053,56812,85581493574560,081895560,976627,973197143,1901,870113346459527,7401,680529,420574,939197250,5915,070172845547,5003,021550,521606,227197335,35628,79511145156588,4913,109591,600655,907197451,24112,08339114153544,0255,608549,633613,110197533,5405250930980408,3714,683413,054447,626197641,7141,0118442951,139462,7769,402472,178516,042197760,2517,83532529354NANA455,700524,1401978.30,3011,7991,8621492,011398,7019,873408,574442,685197932,381480159121280NANA459,507492,648Source:Respectiveagencies.FortheBureauofLandManagement,the1979figuresareforthefiscalyearendedSeptember30.FortheBureauofIndianAffairs,figuresfor1977,1978,and1979areforthefiscalyearsendedSeptember30.Otherfiguresareforthecalendaryears.From:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnterprise,June1980.TheAlaskaStatisticalReview.1980.Juneau,AICp.B-8, Tongass National Forest accounts for about 90 percent of the Alaskan timber harvest.The industry is con- centrated in the Southeast,and the pri nci pa 1 pro- ducts of the industry are pul p,cant 1umber (cut on at least two sides),and round 109S.In the past,50 percent of Al aska I s forest products have been exported to foreign countries,principally Japan. Most of the remainder is shipped to the Lower-48. The transfer of lands to native corporations is expected to increase the availability of timber resources,especially round logs.In general,the industry is Quite cyclical,dependinq upon housing construction patterns in the United States and abroad. (v)Agriculture Agriculture is an emerging industry in Alaska.Land in production increased from 7,000 acres in 1978 to 34,000 acres in 1981.Studies have identified nearly 20 million acres suitable for growinq crops. Table 4.3-8 shows total land in farms and the number of farms.Most land in farms consists of grazing lands 1 eased from the State or the U.S.Government. Approximately 138,000 acres of land is in farms exclu- sive of these grazing leases. As of January 1,1981,there were an estimated 380 farms in Alaska,up from 290 in 1974.As of July,1980,there were 960 persons working on farms,either as family mem- bers or hired workers. 4-256 - - Source:AlaskaCropandLivestockReportingService.1981.AlaskaAgriculturalStatistics.Palmer.AK., Alaska I S maj or farm product producti on area,both for crops and 1ivestock,is the Matanuska-Susitna Vall ey, where value of production in 1980 totalled $3,467,000 in crops and $2,973,000 in livestock and poultry.This is equi va 1ent to 67 percent of the value of total state agricutural production.Table 4.3-9 shows value of pro- duction by area in Alaska for selected years. Of growing importance in Alaskan agricultural production is the Tanana Valley,site of the Delta Agricultural Project.The fi rst phase of thi s project,which began in 1978 with the distribution of nearly 60,000 acres of land to 22 individuals,is scheduled to have land clearing completed during 1982.Distribution of land for a second phase of the Delta Project (Delta 11)is tentatively scheduled for 1982.Acreage in this phase of the project is to total 55,000. Other agricultural projects planned by the state include the Nenana project,which could bring 175,000 acres into production,and the Pt.McKenzie project,a 15,000 acre project designed to revitalize the state's dairy industry,to increase vegetable production and to increase livestock production in support of a meat pro- cessing industry. Long-range plans for agriculture in Alaska call for 500,000 acres of agricultural land to be in production by 1990.Expectations are that production of harley wi 11 1ead to both export trade wi th the Ori ent and,by promoting availability of animal feed,to an enhanced livestock industry in various areas of Alaska. - At present,production of barley Alaska,while production of other 4-258 is increasing in commodities has TABLE 4.3-9 VALUE OF PRODUCnUfCBY AREAS -ALASKA (Selected Years)(a) Year Tanana Valley t~atanuska Va 11 ey Kenai Penin. - -dollars South- East South- West State Total CROPS 1960 560,100 1 ,672,600 132,100 32,300 18,900 2,416,000 1965 638,600 1 ,285,200 124,500 20,800 17,900 2,087,000 1975 1 ,389,900 3,501,500 434,600 13,000 5,339,000 1976 1 ,071 ,500 3,163,500 297,000 14,000 4,546,000 1977 1,109,500 3,883,500 499,000 14,000 5,506,000 1978 1,404,500 3,433,500 377,000 14,000 5,229,000 1979 1 ,285,000 3~~3~OOD 286,000 22,000 5,136,000 1980 1,889,500 3,467,000 371,000 60,000 5,787,500 LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY 1960 448,500 2,116,800 177,500 264,400 140,200 3.147,400 1965 357,200 2,115,300 403,400 114,800 221 ,300 3,212,000 1975 400,800 3,100,900 71 ,500 9,900 302,900 3,886,000' 1976 460,500 3,324,600 110,200 9,400 353,300 4,258,000 1977 492,800 3,421,400 102,200 12,200 255,400 4,284,000 1978 476,400 3,147,000 117,300 16,500 283,800 4,041 ,000-1979 494,500 3,072,400 197,100 21 ,600 316,400 4,102,000 1980 354,900 2,973,000 231 ,700 16,200 296,200 3,872,000 TOTAL 1960 1,008,600 3,789,400 309,600 296,700 159,100 5,563,400 1965 995,800 3,400,500 527,900 135,600 239,200 5,299,000 1975 1.790,700 6,602,400 506,100 9,900 315,900 9,225,000-1976 1,532,000 6,488,100 407.200 9,400 367,300 8,804,000 1977 1 ,602,300 7,304,900 601 ,200 12,200 269,400 9~790,000 1978 1 ,880,900 6,580,500 494,300 16,500 297,800 9,270,000 1979 1,779,500 6,615,400 483,100 21,600 338,400 9,238,000 1980 2,244,400 6,440,000 602,700 16,200 356,200 9,659,500 (a)Includes only selected crop and livestock commodities. Source:Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.1981.Alaska Agricultural Statistics.Palmer,AK. 4-259 -----_.--.-.- remained steady or fallen in recent years.Table 4.3-10 shows agricultural commodities produced in Alaska in sel ected years. Alaska imports well over 90 percent of the food consumed in the State.Even with the high cost of transportation from the lower 48 states,imported foodstuffs are still generally cheaper than those produced in Alaska. (vi)Tourism Tourism is not an industry in itself,but is usually described and analyzed in terms of those sectors affected by travel expenditures.Tourism mainly affects the support and service sectors of the economy,although the resources upon which it is based are primarily the natural resources of Alaska.In some ways,tourism represents a "basic component"of the Alaskan economy in that there is externally generated demand for Alaskan products and services. During the winter and summer (1976 -1977)505,007 indi- viduals were projected to have visited Alaska.Table 4.3-11 summarizes the reasons given for visiting Alaska and estimated expenditures for the winter,summer,and combined periods.Not surprisingly,the Table illustra- tes the seasonal nature of visitor trips to Alaska, especially regarding pleasure trips.On the other hand, it is interesting to note that fewer business trips are made in the summer than in the winter,the reasons for which are unclear. Visitor expenditures by type are presented in Table 4.3-12 on a per capita basis and as a percentage of all 4-260 - - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.3-10 AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES PRODUCED -ALASKA (Selected Years) Commodity 1960 1965 1970 1975 1979 1980 - -- --thousand units - CROP PRODUCT!ON OATS FOR GRAI N Bu.79.8 42.0 22.5 16.8 15.6 2f).1 BARLEY FOR GRAIN Bu.87.4 67.2 46.5 70.0 287.0 339.0 ALL SILAGE Tons 20.2 21.7 13.6 15.2 12.4 12.4 GRAI N SILAGE Tons 15.8 17.7 7.4 4.8 4.2 4.7 GRASS SILAGE Tons 4.4 4.0 6.2 10.4 8.2 7.7 ALL HAY Tons 10.5 8.8 9.4 21.4 15.8 15.0 GRAIN HAY Tons 2.5 2.2 1.5 7.1 1.6 2.7 GRASS HAY Tons 8.0 6.6 7.9 14.3 14.2 12.3 POTATOES Cwt.131 .4 131 .0 106.8 108.7 85.0 77 .0 CABBAGE Cwt.3.6 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 4.1 LETTUCE Cwt.6.2 6.5 7.9 9.5 1 3.6 11.3 CARROTS Cwt.7.6 2.9 1.5 2.0 2.4 3.3 OTHER VEGETABLES Cwt.2.8 2.1 3.0 1.8 3.5 4.6 LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY PRODUCTS -EGGS Doz.529.8 766.7 408.0 417.0 558.0 367.0 POULTRY Lbs.55.0 89.0 73.0 167.0 170.0 172.0 BEEF Lbs.357.0 824.0 963.0 664.0 748.0 767.0 PORK Lbs.151 .0 205.0 135.0 150.0 221.0 232.0 MUTTON Lbs.12.0 28.0 52.0 30.0 24.0 18.0 WOOL Lbs.125.0 209.0 239.0 67.0 32.0 38.0 REINDEER Lbs.450.0 637.0 615.0 345.0 NA NA --- ---- - - -million units - - MILK Lbs.20.4 20.7 18.6 16.8 13.0 12.5 Source:Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service.1981.Alaska Agricultural-Statistics.Palmer,AK. 4-261 TABLE4.3-11VIS!I'JB...JINJ~Lc\rCN---.!..!.IJ_~I~';_-'~~l!u..r;..CTlUNSPurposeofTripWinter,1976-1977TotalNumberPerCdpltaofVisitorsExpenditureTotillDollarProjections_______~;~TJ..!T..1.."!:L....-l'J77TntJINUllIl,,'rI',~r,'apita_-0~!ii_i...!'!r_~l:;';E'?.Tl..'illu[(~To~al1),)llarl'rojecti'!!l.2____combin('~Winter;Sumn,erToWIr,;ulld),~rP"r''opit,-,Total!)'llldr_...Q..L.'{isi!or~;~expenditure..!'r'JjeqLlnsPleasureonly56,579S432.-PoMostlypleasure!Isomebusiness10,082513.N0'1Halfpleasure/halfNbusiness11,925583.Mostlybusiness/somepleasure30,8941004.Businessonly74,548792.(000)24,442.I5,172.I6,952.331,017.659,042.0721,47[)16,049IG,04925,G7H41,727S7f,0.74l.67r,.'jJB.7fi4.(Ilno)16B,12l.8I I,H')2.lII),H33.124,OflG.I)31,B79.4(ll'II))278,055S693.SI'l2,7(>..l.')26,131&53.17,01,·1.'127,97463G.17,7H'i.456,57297·1.5'i,1113.(,1\6,275782.90,921.4Source:StateofAlaska.DivisionofEconomicEnterprise,DepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment.VisitorCensus&ExpenditureSurvey,Summer1977.March1978.p.12.JJJJ, TABLE 4.3-12 VISITOR :EXPENDITURES Winter Total Summer Total Share Of Share Of Per Capita All Visitors Per Capita All Visitors Expenditures Expenditure s Expenditures Expenditures .l-%.l-% Transportation to and from Alaska 331..§.Q 177 •29 Air 299.45 131.22 Ship 9.1 25.4 Automobile 22.3 18.3 Bus 1.*1-* Railroad 2.* Organized tours 8.1 266.45 Food/meals 70.10 35.6 Lodging 83.13 27.5 Retail purchases 53.8 27.5 Entertainment/recreation 49.7 18.3 Auto expense (within the State)35.5 14.2 Other transportation (within the State)15.2 13.2 Miscellaneous/other 20.3 12.2 TOTALS $664.100%$589.100% *Less than 0.5% Source:State of Alaska,Division of Economic Enterprise,Department of Commerce and Economic Development.Visitor Census &Expenditure Survey,Summer 1977.March 1978;p.43. 4-263 visitor expenditures.Cities and areas visited are pre- sented in Table 4.3-13.Anchorage,by far,receives more visitors than any other city in Alaska.This points to the fact that Anchorage is the business center of Al aska as well as the "gateway"to the state.Tabl e 4.3-14 presents information concerning visitor-related firms'sales.The tahle shows the suhstantial contribu- tion made to the Alaskan economy by the visitor-relaterl industry.The numbers presented are for 1975 and there- fore are probably somewhat low (Division of Economic Enterprise of the Alaska Department of Commerce anrl Economic Development). (vii)Service and Support Components This sector of the Alaskan economy has experienced substantial growth and diversification in the past decade.The growth in this sector is in part attribu- table to the demand created by expansion of the basic sector of the economy,and in part by the maturati on process of the Alaskan economy in general.The growth in the non-basic sector parallels the general trend of the nation,yet reflects as well the fact that Alaska has passed the threshol d 1evel of economic acti vi ty at which substantial demand for goods and services is generated locally or internally. Table 4.3-15 shows employment growth rates for selected industries over various periods.The total support group has consistently grown faster than that of the total economy.Dramatic growth has occurred in many of the more service oriented categories,i.e.,finance, insurance,real estate,and services.Growth in whole- sal e trade refl ects the demand for goods and servi ces 4-264 - - TABLE 4.3-13 CITIES/AREAS VISITED Winter Summer Total*Total June ~August Sept. ~~%%%% Anchorage 76 68 65 67 66 76 Fairbanks 23 41 41 51 39 34 Juneau 15 38 46 36 39 27 Ketchikan 10 29 41 22 29 24-Kenai 8 12 11 14 13 11 Sitka 7 21 25 23 23 9 Soldotna 6 9 9 9 9 8 Mt.McKinley Nat'!.Park 6 34 36 41 34 26 Haines 4 9 13 5 12 6 Valdez 4 6 6 6 6 7-Kodiak 4 2 2 2 3 3 Homer/Seldovia 3 5 5 6 5 5 Prudhoe Bay 3 2 1 2 2 3 Nome 3 8 9 9 8 8Skagway23343333026 Glacier Bay 2 25 29 27 23 20 Kotzebue 2 9 9 9 9 8Seward244544Barrow233432 *Columns refer to percentage of total visitors in the time period who visited that city.Figures include multiple city visits. Source:State of Alaska,Division of Economic Enteprise,Department of COITDllerce and Economic Development.Visitor Census'&Expenditure Survey,Summer 1977.March 1978,p.19. 4-265 TABLE 4.3-14 TOTAL SALES OF VISITOR INDUSTRY FIRMS IN ALASKA AND TOTAL SALES TO VISITORS for the year 1975 $609,785,050 $140,564,696 Hotels,motels and lodges Gift,souvenir and jewelry shops Travel agencies Air taxis and air charters Bus Co.(tour and airport) Railroads Tour wholesalers and operators Restaurants Guides Car rentals Hunting and fishing camps Boat charters Airlines Cruise ships General stores Marine Highway System Department of Fish &Game* Other TOTALS Total Sales $92,233,498 128,377,694 24,298,150 39,169,272 3,800,656 48,055,908 505,509 39,178,071 2,489,825 5,223,382 666,550 975,430 187,677,308 169,060 14,666,640 15,164,782 1,682,711 5,450,604 Sales to Visitors $54,606,135 2,626,480 963,250 8,438,536 3,545,339 1,561,596 505,509 10,953,684 2,405,490 3,760,835 595,850 864,290 38,173,643 169,060 1,395,147 7,885,687 1,682,711 431,454 %Sales to Visitors 59.2% 2.0 4.0 21.5 93.3 3·2 100.0 28.0 96.6 82.0 89.4 88.6 20.3 100.0 9.5 52.0 100.0 7.9 23.1% - - *To non-residents Source:State of Alaska,Division of Economic Enterprise,Department of Commerce and Economic Development.Impact of Visitor Expenditures upon Alaska's Economy,For the Year 1975.February 1978;p.23. 4-266 - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.3-15 EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ANNUAL AVERAGE RATES SELECTED ALASKA INDUSTRIES (Percent) 1960 1964 1969 1973 to to to to 1963 1969 1973 1978 Wholesale Trade 3.6 11 .4 3.9 11 .7 Retail Trade 3.6 9.1 7.8 8.6 Services 4.4 8.8 9.7 12.5 Transportation -3.6 6.9 1.7 9.3 Communications 11.3 -0.7 11.0 7.1 Publ ic Util ities 12.0 5.6 14.7 5.0 Finance Ins.,Real Estate 8.1 6.1 12.4 14.2 Tota 1 Support 3.3 7.9 7.6 11.0 Total Nonagricultural 1.1 5.8 6.1 8.0 Note:Prior to 1964,6nly jobs covered by unemployment insurance were included in the reported data.Thus,the pre-1964 period is not strictly comparable with the period beginning in 1964. Source:Compiled from data in "Statistical Quarterly,"(Alaska Department of Labor). From State of Alaska,Division of Economic Enterprise,Department of Commerce and Economic Development.The Performance Report of the Alaska Economy in 1979.Vol.Eight.p.25. 11-267 generated from other sector activity which is being met by local Alaskan firms. The figures shown in Table 4.3-15 tend to mask the effects of the post-pipeline economic slowdown.Recent employment fi gures however,indicate some contracti ons occurred in many categories.This trend is apparent upon visual inspection of many of the communities in the Railbelt area,especially in the Anchorage,Mat-Su and Fairbanks areas.Numerous vacant stores and half compl eted developments are scattered throughout these areas. The dip in economic activity after the pipeline boom is an expected occurence.More surprising is the apparent resilience of certain sectors or industries.The slowdown as recorded by employment figures did not occur until several years after the pipeline construction period ended.Reasons for this are indeterminate and may be related to economic behavior or perhaps measure- ment techniques.Nonetheless the overall trend is for continued expansion of the non-basic sector. Another emerging characteristic of these sectors is seasonal variation.The trend is discernible comparing the rati 0 of fi rst quarter employment to thi rd quarter employment.Table 4.3-16 presents this series.Only the services and public utilities sections did not show decreasing seasonality.Brief discussions of most ser- vice and support industries are presented below. 4-268 - - - - - - - - TABLE 4.3-16 STATE OF ALASKA INDEX OF EMPLOYMENJ SEASONALITY, SELECTED INDUSTRIES (a) 1960 1970 1978 Trade .826 .869 .899 Services .770 .937 .874 Transportation .784 .854 .871 Communications .876 .899 .939 Public Utilities .835 .885 .847 Finance,Insurance,Real Estate .888 .793 1 .012 Total Support .810 .881 .898 (a)'Ratio of·January,February and March nonagricultural employment to July,August and September nonagricultural employment. Source:Compiled from data published by the Alaska Department of Labor in the "Statistical Quarterly." From State of Alaska,Division of Economic Enterprise,Department of Commerce and Economic Development.The Performance Report of the Alaska Economy in 1979.Vol.Eight.p.26. 4-269 -Wholesale Trade According to the 1977 Industry Census,there were 649 firms engaged in wholesale trade in Alaska with sales of $1.563 billion.The largest component of sales was petroleum and related products,constituting $532 million or 34.1 percent of total wholesale sales. Groceries and related products accounted for $270 mi 11 i on or 17.3%of the total.Mach"j nery,eQui pment and supplies accounted for $262 million or 16.8 per- cent of the total. Wholesale trade could be considered non-basic now because with recent rapid population growth,espe- cially in the Anchorage area,and the expansion of the oil and gas industry,it has become cost- effective for local,as opposed to Seattle-based wholesalers,to serve the growing local retail trade. -Retail Trade Accordi ng to the 1977 Industry Census,there were 3,781 retail establishments in Alaska with sales of $1.831 bill ion.Grocery stores accounted for the largest share of sales,$410 million or 22.4 percent. Eating and drinking establishments accounted for $254 million or 13.9 percent of total retail sales. Automotive dealers accounted for $241 million or 13.2 percent of the total,and general merchandise stores had $227 million or 12.4 percent. Retail trade has grown as a function of other local changes which reflect expansion of demand in the state.Economies of scale resultinq from a larger 4-270 - - - market apparently have assisted development of retail outlets. Finance,Insurance,and Real Estate Recent trends and activity in this sector of the eco- nomy in Alaska are comparable to what has occurred in the U.S.in general.High,widely fluctuating interest rates and restricted credit have created an air of uncertainty and business caution.Consequent- ly,lending activity has slacked off.This impact is presented in Table 4.3-17 which shows combined indi- cators for financial institutions.A noteworthy distinction between Alaska and most of the U.S.in general is that the state can offset the restrictive pol icies of the Federal Reserve Board by depositing large funds in state financial institutions.Thus the outlook and financial climate may be more favorable in Alaska than elsewhere. Real estate activity in Alaska has ridden a seesaw over the past decade corresponding to the hoom/bust cycle of the pipeline project.In addition,recent record high interest rates have limited existing activity.Excess capacity,mainly in retail space and housing stocks left over from the pipeline period,has gradually been filled.This has been the case in Anchorage and Fairbanks especially.Certain communities have fared better than the state in genera 1•Demand for commerci a1 offi ce,i ndu stri a1, and warehouse space fared better than non-commercial real estate but has been rel ati vely fl at si nce the pipeline period. 4-271 TABLE 4.3-17 COMBINED INDICATORS FOR BANKING, SAVINGS &LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, FEDERAL CREDIT UNIONS,AND SMALL LOAN LICENSEE ACTIVITY:1976-1979 (in millions of dollars) End Total Combined Comb i ned of Number of Value of Tota 1 - Year Institutions All Loans Assets 1976 65 $1 ,455 $2,357 1977 64 1 .784 2,674 1978 60 1 ,935 2,912 1979 60 1 ,833 3,013 Source:Division'of Banking,Securities,Small Loans and Corporations,and the Division of Economic Enterprise, Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development. From State of Alaska,Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.Alaska Statistical Review and General Information.June 1980;p.L-l. 4-272 - - - - - - (ix) Table 4.3-18 shows housing permits issued in various cities.The table shows a slowdown beginning in 1978.It al so shows cl early the fact that Anchorage accounts for roughly half of all home construction activity. Activity in the insurance industry usually follows the general trend set by other sectors.Table 4.3-19 shows the value of total insurance premiums written from 1959-1979.Since 1966,the total val ue has steadily increased.This reflects the general econo- mic growth occurring in Alaska over the time period, a nd also the effects of i nfl ati on on the industry. Adjusted for increases due to inflation,the total would show a downward trend from 1977-1979. -Services The services industry has experienced significant growth over the past decade as measured by employment figures.As is the case for the United States,the service industry is characterized by numerous small establishments.This category includes such pro- fess;onal servi ces as doctors,1awyers,accountants, and economists.Due to the expanding economy this group is experi end ng substanti a 1 growth.The industry serves almost excl usi vely locally generated demand. Government The role of the public sector has been an important one throughout Al ask a I s hi story.The trend over the past decade has been one of a declining share for government 4-273 TABLE4.3-18TOTALNUMBEROFFAMILYDWELLINGUNITSINCLUDEDINBUILDINGPERMITSISSUEDINSELECTEDURBANAREASOFALASKA,1970-1979YearAnchorageFairbanksHomerKenaiPalmerSeldoviaSewardSoldotnaValdezTotal19703,00044461719181113,50719713,0503481223153 8403,46319722,951439112291391663,49419732,08644617132811162,590-PoI19742,8225943525774371613,692N"'-J-Po19754,0101,0511310085 387855,36219763,93899860161721311138395,43019774,8771,56111726775839177337,15419783,28980692160 12593669144,60019791,4694311304768225040292,286Source:CityandBoroughbuildingofficials,andtheU.s.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment.From:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnterprise.June1980.TheAlaskaStatisticalReview.1980.Juneau,AK.pp.G-2,G-3.JIJ TABLE 4.3-19 ALASKA INSURANCE BUSINESS Total Insurance Premiums Written:1959·1979 (in millions of dollars) Year 1959 . 1960 . 1961 . 1962 . 1963 . 1964 . 1965 . 1966 . 1967 . 1968 . 1969 . 1970 .....................•..... 1971 . 1972 . 1973 . 1974 . 1975 . 1976 . 1977 . 1978 . 1979 . Total Insurance $30.0 34.2 36.9 40.1 42.9 74.6 58.6 64.7 70.2 79.8 93.9 113.2 131.5 146.0 155.8 189.6 206.2 356.5 452.5 473.7 488.7 Source:Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Insurance. From:Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.June 1980.The Alaska Statistical Review. 1980.Juneau,AK.p.M-1. 4-275 bodies in terms of total wages paid,especially during the pipeline period.This has neen the result of signi- ficant expansion in the private sectors of the economy. Nonetheless,government in Alaska accounted for 41 per- cent of all jobs,and the federal ~overnment,including military personnel,remains the single largest employer in the state. Table 4.3-20 presents data for total wages paid for the government sectors and shows government wages as a per- centage of total wages paid in the state.The most striking trend is the growth in the state and local com- ponent.Also noteworthy is the relatively small increase in mi 1i tary wages.Thi sis due to the fact that military employment has consistently decreased over the past decade,although total wages pai d have generally increased. Table 4.3-21 presents government expenditures broken down by federal,state,and 1oca 1 components.In 1979 the federal government spent about $1.5 billion in Alaska.The State spent nearly one billion,and local governments spent an estimated $662 million.Total government expenditures in Alaska are estimated at over $3 billion per year.Federal government spending and employment should be considered basic components because they are exogenously determined for the most part. State and local government,on the other hand,should be considered non-basic.Growth in this sector is largely attributable to the increases in state revenues and expenditures.Eventually its growth will be constrained by demands for services of Alaska residents and Alaska1s overall population growth rate. 4-276 - - TABLE4.3-20AlaskaPublicSectorWages·ComparedtoAllWagesReceivedinSelectedYears(inMillionsofnollars)19601965197019751976TotalWages$586$772$1251$2860$3294Government2873765949731054.jO>FederalCivilian108138295318I195N.......FederalMilitary1381442262612(lR.......StateandLocal4294173417467GovernmentWagesasPercentageofTotalAlaska49.048.747.534.032.0U.S.14.816.018.319.2IqJ)*TotalLaborandProprietor'sIncomebyPlaceofResidence-BEAPersonalIncomeSeries.Source:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment.July1978.JobsandPowerforAlaskans,AProgramforPowerandEconomicDevelopment.Juneau,AK.p.33. TABLE4.3-21TOTALFEDERALGOVERNMENTOBLIGATIONSINALASKAaPLUSSTATEANDLOCALGOVERNMENTGENERALEXPENDITURESbANDNETDOLLAREXCHANGESAMONGLEVELSOFGOVERNMENT(inmillionsofdollars)STATEOFALASKAGENERALEXPENDITURES------_.~-------_._-_._--._--------------FEDERALOBLIGATIONSBySourceofFundsByTypeofExpenditureLOCALGOVTGENERALEXPENDITURESTOTALFiscalYearTotalMinusFromAwardedFromFromGOVERNMENTEndingState-LocalOwnFederalDirecttoLocalOwnFromFederalSPENDINGJune30TotalGovtGrantsTotalSourcesFundsExpendituresGovtUnitsTotalSourcesStateGovtINALASKA--~~-19731,011807622433189499123286148123151.59219741,107887662474188519143324149143321.730.p.360169I19751,2791,021786552234619167167242,000N......co19761,358 1,050956675281750206426193206272.22619771,5011,1901,029756273794234539267234382.52419781,7011,3561,157863294893264596281264512,84519791,887l,506El,279E964E315E979E300E662E296E300E66E3.147E--- -.-_....-_._------------._---_..------_.._--- ---------EEstimatedbytheDivisionofEconomicEnterprise,AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment.alTotalFederalgovernmentobligationsincludeallamountssetasidefordirectspendingbyFederalagenciesandalsoincludegrantsandloanstotheStateofAlaska,tolocalgovernmentunits,ortootherorganizationsorindividualsinAlaska.FiguresforfiscalyearsendingJune30areinterpolatedfrompublishedfiguresforFederalfiscalyearsendingSeptember30.blGeneraleXflendituresofStateandlocalgovernmentsincludeallexpendituresexceptthosefromtrustfunds(includingretirementfundsandtheunemploymentinsurancebenefitfund)andexpendituresbypubliclyownedutilitiessupportedbyservicefees.Source:CommunityServicesAdministration,U.S.Departmentof Health,Education,andWelfare;BureauoftheCensus,U.S.DepartmentofCommerce;andtheDivisionofEconomicEnterprise,AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDeveloflment.From:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnterprise.June1980.TheAlaskaStatisticalREview.1980.Juneau,AK.p.E-1.I Table 4.3-22 breaks down state government expenditures by function,including amounts awarded to local govern- ments.Table 4.3-23 presents revenues by source for the State government through 1979.Recent trends i ncl ude the abolition of the state income tax in 1980 and a substantial rise in revenues from oil and gas taxes. (c)Employment (i)Baseline Alaska1s economy has been historically dependent upon development of its natural resources,primarily fisheries,minerals,and timber.Employment as a result has been ori ented towards these extracti ve i ndustri es. In addition,the military has played a major role since Worl d War I I.In 1965,approximately 37 percent of Alaska1s work force were military employees. Beginning in the 1960 l s significant shifts in employment began,paralleling the trends for the nation in general. Table 4.3-24 presents Alaska1s nonagricultural wage and salary employment,categorized by major industry sector, for the years 1970, 1975,and 1979.The table presents both levels and percent of total for each industry group.The most notable shift occurred in federal government employment.From 1970 to 1979,total civi- lian federal employment grew slightly while State total employment rose 80 percent.Thus,the proportion of federal government employment fell from 18.5 percent of total employment in 1970 to 10.8 percent in 1979. The sector with the largest absolute gain is State ann local government employment.From 1970 to 1979,thi s 4-279 TABLE4.3-22ALASKASTATEGOVERNMENTEXPENDITURESBYFUNCTION/thousandsofdollarslNaturalResources&TotalFiscalYearsSocialEnvironmentalPublicAdministrationGeneralAllEndingJune30EducationServicesHealthConservationProtectionofJusticeDevelopmentTransportationGovernmentFunctions1970$98,592$15,262$11,114$16,330$3,967$14,914$13,514$97,391$25,293$296,3771971150,39325,52517,84119,7765,54719,57322,480106,62138,491406,2471972177,50931,85519,71422,1045,28423,529225,904119,79747,206672,9021973172,25549,68923,929 24,3057,02831,28124,414145,73564,398543,034+>IN1974184,63751,88729,61127,2337,92535,34130,623166,37663,113596,746OJ01975251,65365,19231,10135,36212,95343,66942,237194,96474,762751,8931976307,80079,87239,19849,76418,38354,57946,995235,75589,202921,5481977358,79091,73653,82381,79220,43067,98954,657253,121104,4121,086,7501978378,816102,08464,00086,04624,45370,64150,168265,922106,1441,148,2741979422,087118,37174,58596,59228,22181,18968,383249,483140,4431,279,354%ofFY1979ExpendituresByFunction33.0%9.3%5.8%7.6%2.2%6.3%5.3%19.5%11.0%100.0%Note:Source:IncludedintheabovefiguresareStatefundsawardedtolocalunitsofgovernmentforthefunctionsindicated.Notincludedintheabovefiguresareexpendituresfromtrustfunds,includingretirementfundsandtheunemploymentinsurancebenefitfund.DivisionofFinance,AlaskaDepartmentofAdministration.From:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnterprise.June1980.TheAlaskaStatisticalReview.1980.Juneau,AK.p.E-3.II1 1TABLE4.3-23STATEOFALASKAREVENUESBYSOURCELASTTENFISCALYEARS(thousandsofdollars)Licenses&IntergovernmentalChargesFines&MiscellaneousFiscalYearTaxesPermitsRevenueForServicesForfeituresRevenue1970$76,265$10.015$93,579$12,293$574$964,232a197185,54610,551133,09912,165662110,142197291,15410,794145,87414,677708106,366197398,46511,420167,44019,09081480,0381974109,40111,113173,70833,39995395,2501975187,98024,052205,29728,4933,956102,8031976578,02316,641319,90819,3433,35380,5661977751,70317,897312,21021,8052,13280,7941978541,54919,099312,79421,2582,307179,2241979798,68019,772313,37324,9252,177266,65226315,23217,42619,93920,013$OtherTaxes6,480306,429409,768177,031163,448$PropertyTaxTAXREVENUESBYSOURCfLASTTENFISCALYEARS(thousandsofdollars)ConservationTaxIncomeBusiness&DisasterTaxOil-GasProductionFiscalYearTaxLicenseTaxFuelTaxSchoolTaxTax&SeveranceTaxCigaretteTax1970$37,294$14,912$10,372$2,097$8,249$2,711197141,71817,90910,9581,46610,5272,967197245,72417,90911,4021,49311,4013,224197350,40018,81312,4041,57612,0283,224197457,61720,35313,7431,64314,7603,4301975104,32029,72425,2142,15129,4243,3111976177,32819,07124,4032,63731,1894,6171977246,24323,25220,4182,58930,1894,8511978179,33221,67523,2872,401116,1434,6271979374,73128,15822,3232,530185,8234,410f'a/$900,041,605wasOilLeaseSale.Nco--'Source:AlaskaDepartmentofAdministration,DivisionofFinance.(TablefirstpublishedinStateofAlaskaAnnualFinancialReportYearEndingJune30,1979.)From:AlaskaDepartmentofCommerceandEconomicDevelopment,DivisionofEconomicEnterprise.June1980,TheAlaskaStatisticalReview.1980.Juneau,AK.p.£-4. TABLE4.3-24STATEANNUALNONAGRICULTURALEMPLOYMENTBYSECTOR197019751979Total%Total%Total%TOTAL1-NonagriculturalIndustries92,400100.0161,689100.0166,406100.0Mining3,0003.23,7902.35,7733.5Construction6,9007.525,73515.910,0926.1Manufacturing7,8008.49,6396.012,8187.7Transportation-Communication&Utilities9,1009.816,47310.216,70410.0.p-INWholesaleTrade3,2003.55,9083.75,5113.3ex>NRetailTrade12,10013.120,30012.623,87714.3Finance-InsuranceandRealEstate3,1003.36,0303.78,0354.8Services11,40012.325,13615.528,34517.0FederalGovernment17,10018.518,28811.317,91510.8StateandLocalGovernment18,50020.029,24718.136,61722.0Miscellaneous200.21,143.7720.41Figuresmaynottotalcorrectlybecauseofaveraging.,I,Source:AlaskaDepartmentofLabor.StatisticalQuarterly.Juneau,AK.(variousissues)IIJ sector employed an additional 18,000 persons.The sector1s share increased slightly over the period to 22 percent of total employment.Thi s trend refl ects the increasing role of state and local governments in pro- viding services to residents.As petroleum-based reve- nues accrue to the State and if these are are passed on to state and 1oca 1 governments,then th is trend wi 11 probably continue. Total government employment in Alaska accounted for 32.8 percent of total employment.This represents a decline from 1970 when government employed 38.5 percent of the total.Nevertheless,government still accounts for more employment in Alaska than any other sector. Another discernible trend over the period is the growth in the service and support sectors.The industry share for services rose ~y 4.7 percent over the period.This was the largest increase in percentage terms of any sec- tor.Transportation,communications,and utilities (TeV);retail trade;and finance,insurance,and real estate (FIRE)all showed increases in industry share. This reflects the "ma turation"of the Alaskan economy as it becomes large enough to support these sectors. Ironically,perhaps,the role of the "pro ducing"sectors which provide.the economic base of the State's economy, is not as important in terms of overall direct employment.With the exception of mining,the producing sectors show a decline in industry share of employment during 1970 to 1979. - The impact trans-Alaska created by the constructi on of the pipeline is evident in figures on 4-283 employment.Construction employment almost quaorupleo from 1970 to 1975.Wholesale trade as well as construc- tion reached higher levels of employment in 1975 than in 1979.The project employed thousands of constructi on workers between 1974 and 1977.Wholesale trade employment surged during the same period as large quan- tities of sand,gravel,and machinery were required.The total employment figures indicate that the state experienced a spurt of ~rowth in employment over the period tabulated between 1970 and 1975 when employment increased by 75 percent to 161,689.In contrast,total employment increased by only 5 percent between 1975 and 1980. (ii)Baseline Forecast Alaska's employment was projected by ISER to rise from 214,200 in 1981 to 351,700 in 2000 (Table 4.3-25).This growth will be caused by a moderate rate of development in oil,fisheries,agriculture and timber processing. Manufacturi ng wi 11 grow more slowly,and the capi tal will not move to Willow.Additionally,State government spending will increase at the rate of growth in real per capita income.(See Section 11.2(a)for further discussion of ISER's assumptions). Projections for 2001-2005 were made by calculating the average annual rate of change in employment for 1996-2000 and applying this rate to the year 2000 employmment estimate to obtai n the year 2001 estimate. This same rate was applied to the year 2001 estimate to obtain the year 2002 estimate.This procedure was repeated to obtain estimates for 2003-2005.As Table 4.3-25 shows,employment is projected to be 391,200 in 2005. 4-284 - - - - - - - - Year 1981 1982 1983 19R4 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 TABLE 4.3-25 BASELINE FORECAST OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA,1981-2005 Baseline Forecast Of Alaska Employment 214,200 223,000 233,500 244,800 268,700 291,000 299,100 298,100 301,100 299,000 303,000 303,700 306,900 311,600 316,200 322,500 329,800 336,100 343,900 351,700 359,000 367,000 374,900 382,900 391,200 - Source:Institute of Social and Economic Research,University of Alaska, September 1981.Moderate Scenario MAP Model Projection. 4-285 (d)Income The average nominal per capita personal income in the state rose from $4,638 in 1970 to $10,254 in 1976.The pace of increase has slowed since completion of the pipeline.Per capita income in the state averaged $11,150 in 1979.After discounting for inflation (as measured by the CPI-U),the real increase in per capita personal income during the period was 27 percent. 4-286 - - 5 -OUTCOMES OF THE PROJECT 5.1 -Work Force Manpower Requirements and Timing:Direct,Operations and Indirect/Induced (a)Manpower Requirements Table 5.1-1 displays the projected total number and lahor classification of on-site construction and operations mi'lnpower for Watana and Devi 1 Canyon dams from 1983-2005.For the construction ~rk force,manpower has heen divided into the categories of laborers,semi-skilled/skilled,anrl engineering/administrative.As displayed in Table 5.1-1,the peak construction year occurs in 1990 with an estimated construction ~rk force of 3,498.Tahle 5.1-2 delineates the staging of the operations ~rk force and distribution between the facilities. Total secondary or indirect/induced employment to accrue to Impact Area 3 is derived by applying an aggregate employment multiplier to the direct construction ~rk force.Employment multipliers are commonly utilized to estimate the total employment impact upon an area.Such multipliers translate the effect of a change in the number of newly created di rect johs associated with a project into their implications for total johs created within a region.Indirect jobs are those created in local industries as a result of local project procurement and induced jobs are those created by the consumption expenditures of ~rkers.Relative to construction of the Susitna hydroelectric facility,the multiplier utilized for Impact Area 3 in 1990 is .82,meaning for every 100 direct construction jobs,82 secondary jobs will be generated.The multiplier increases to .89 in 1999 due to import substitution,time lags in the expenditure of direct construction work force income and 5-1 TABLE5.1-1:ON-SIlECONSIRUClIDNAHDI»'ERATIONSMANPOWERREQUIREMENTS,19BH005(al._-_........--_..--------_....---..-----------_.....-.....----......-..-..-_...............-.-..---------19831981198519861991 19891999 19901991199219931991 1995199619911999 1999200020012002200]20042005.-------.--..----..-..-------....----._--CONSTRUC!ION.--_......_.._-lABORERS14055mBIl12191m1991216922021mB91519m519BI4107b11441002501105SENI-SllllEO/SlIllEO12011914Bmm449502AnmmnoIlb92lIB210mm1082ll21AD"INISIRAlIYElEN61NHR.40106190IB42691594025024H155IB511511115116m24318115922SUB-lDlAlCONSTRUCIION100100110013501902mo2BOIl499125225001299BOO501B021250160016991491'00151OPERATIONSANDNAINJE~AHCE.............--_....--_.._Oo..___..........tJlAllWORCArEGORIES70145115145145115145145145110 110110 110INTOlAl1001001100mo190225002901l49Bm225001169915m94713951145184416421045]2111011011015105--~~----(alSuppltedbyAcresAmerican,Inc••JI I 11TABLE5.1d2:oPERATIONSWORKFORCE:1993-2005YEAR199319941995199619971998199920002n0120022003 2004 2005AclivlliWatana(680MW)30606060606060606060 606060Watana(340MW)45454545454545 4545454545lJ1DevilConyon(600MW)25252525IwDispatchControl4D404040 4040404040 40404040!Total70145145 145145145145145 145170 170170170Source:AcresAmerican,Inc. other such factors that reflect a maturing ~conomy.Based on the direct construction employment forecasts outlined above, these multipliers translate into the creation of approximately 2,900 secondary jobs in Impact Area 3 by 1990.Because the construction WJrk force declines,bet\\€en 1990 and 1999, approximately one-half of these secondary jobs are lost hy 1999. The distribution of these jobs among the various Census Divisions is discussed in the next section. (b)Timing The Watana dam will be constructed in tWJ phases providing an ultimate generating capacity of 1,020 megawatts (MW).The first installment of 680 MW's will be completed in 1993,at vJ'lich time operations manpo\\€r will total 70 persons.The additional gen- erating capacity will reach completion in the following year, 1994,and will result in a total operations WJrk force of 145. Ana lysi s of constructi on manpo\\€r requi reJllents for the 600 MW Devil Canyon dam is based on construction beginning in 1994, with this facility coming on-line in the year 2002.The total on-site operations WJrk force for both dams will equal 170 during the year 2002 and thereafter.Construction of the Watana and Devil Canyon dam facilities entails an overlap of one year in constructi on. As can be seen in Figure 5.1-1,the first phase of the Watana dam requires a significantly greater number of workers than both the second phase of Watana and Devil Canyon comhined.This dif- ference can be attri buted to the additi ona1 1abor r~qui rements in the initial years for the construction of the ~rk.camps, villages,and access road and to the more labor intensive nature of a gravel fi 11 dam (Watana)than a concrete thi n arch dam (Devi 1 Canyon).Dramati c decreases in work force requi rements (relative to the preceding years)occur bet\o\een 1991 and 1996. 5-4 111U1IU1(f).-Zw::IEwa:::loWa:woa:ou.~a:o::350030002500200015001000500//e--.--.838485868788899091929394959697989920000102030405ON-SITECONSTRUCTIONANDOPERATIONSWORKFORCEREQUIREMENTSPREPAREDBYTES/FRANKORTH&ASSOCIATES,INCFigure5.1-1liil 5.2 -Population Influx:Direct~Operations and Indirect/Induced The 1evel of impact of the proposed Susitna hydroel ectri c facil ity on the conmuniti es surroundi ng the project is determi ned primari ly by the degree of population influx which is proportional to the size of the inmigrant work force related to direct project employment and subsequent indirect and induced employment.This population increase creates the short-term,peak demand for services that has the most significant impact.The size of the i nmi grant work force depends on the extent of the pri rna ry 1oca 1 1abor supply,that is the availability of craft and professional labor currently residing in the area from which the labor force could be drawn (Impact Areas 1,2 and 3).This section of the report addresses the issue of work force origin,relocation,and population influx associated with direct~ operati ons and i ndi rect/i nduced work force and is di vi ded into two sec- tions:local availability of work force;and work force inmigration and associated population influx. (a)Local Availability of Work Force Labor supply is highly idiosyncratic,and the amount of available labor from the immediate labor pool depends upon the projected si ze and craft mi x of the future 1abor force,1abor force participation rates~number of unemployed persons in the region,demands placed upon the labor force from other projects~ the match of craft 1abor avai 1 abl e to craft 1abor requi red by the Susitna project,and the differing pol icies and geographic spheres of each craft.In addition,the supply and demand con- di ti ons wi 11 vary from craft to craft.All of these vari abl es make it difficult to project the number of locally available direct construction,operations~and indirect/induced workers who will become employed on or in relation to the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. "Local"versus IInon-local"labor supply is the COlTlT1on termin- ology used in literature referring to the origin of a work 5-6 - - - force.The use of IIl oca l II in this sense is not to be confused with impact area definitions and the "local impact area.1I Given that there are no union hiring hall s in Mat-Su Borough (Impact Area 2),manual craft 1abor for the constructi on and operations work forces will likely be acquired through a com- bination of both the Anchorage and Fairbanks union hiring halls. Based on thi sand observati ons of current constructi on worker commuting practices in Alaska,the immediate or IIl oca l"labor pool is defined as that residing in Impact Area 3 (seven census divisions:Anchorage,Fairbanks,S.E.Fairbanks,Mat-Su Borough,Kenai-Cook Inlet,Valdez,and Seward). - - (i)Direct and Operations Work Force As noted earlier,preliminary estimates of manpower requirements for construction and operations of both the Watana and Devil Canyon dams indicate that there will be a total peak on-site construction work force of 3,498 in 1990.Requi rements for operati ons and mai ntenance man- power commence in 1993 at 70 workers and increase to 170 in the year 2002 and thereafter. The local availability of construction labor is ana- lyzed according to the total manpower requirements, which have been divided into the categories of laborers, semi-skilled/skilled,and engineerinq/administrative. The percentage of jobs which can be filled by the local avail abl e work force vari es with each cl assifi cati on. In general,a greater portion of laborers than engineers and administrators will be supplied IIl oca ll y .1I The basic assumptions for the on-site construction work force are displayed in Table 5.2-1.In summary,the 5-7 -----_._------------------------------------- TABLE5.2-1:onllECOHSIRUCIIOHWORt:FORCE:LOCAL,AL~S~ANOIIlOCAL,ANDOUI-OFSlAtE,198)-1000----~--_._--~------_._~-------------------------------LOCAL198J1Y84lY851986lY81198819891990199119921m19941m1996199119981999200020012002LABORERS18~1111941mIll10811m1m2011IBn1m1b0W281mIllmm8524JI89mr-Sr.IllEDISrillED18011961I21182~8204m40250246611111610914118184m25024618119ADm,sIRAIIYEIEfiGIHEERII1616m26U254120174m261mJ042JI12015461511411915812210J14SUBIOIAlLOCAL2412218501094154520JI22162842264220n105665040165110161mlJ801220122122NON-LOCALALASkANOHOCA!.U1IcoLABORERS1mSm-SrllLEDISUlIED1mADmlSIRAllYEI£HGINHRIN61511SUHOIALALAsrA"ON-LOCALOUI-OF-SIUELABOHERS11011S£HI-SYILLEDISI.lllEDmIlUHINISlkAlIYEI£NGINEERING0011151418121521J228205556nIII4216618448556418lJ951285J808522181251696110895152014019015121118JI25m2J194151110292J16J220811108621181251126J10145II6589JJ5621405520J51125HII2121405422J542II6284H5J5415II80108U6951161285114411]501515100465625124551J548IISUHOIAIOUI-OF-SIU£IIIJALNON-LOCAL10lALU5910,\58195188262JUJ864824481421181]2502~5m469526656610WmlOO1100mo190225002801m8Jm250Q12991101508006994501,III1122212J4m1512JlJOIJI9m8021250160016991191IH1199002128151 - - - - table shows:85 percent of laborers will be supplied locally,five percent from other areas of the state,and 10 percent will originate from out-of-state;80 percent of semi-skilled/skilled workers will be supplied from Impact Area 3,fi ve percent from other areas of the state,and 15 percent from out-of-state;and for the administrative/engineering category,65 percent will come from Impact Area 3,fi ve percent wi 11 come from other areas of the state,and 30 percent wi 11 be from out-of-state. The allocation of the construction work force1s residen- ces among the various census divisions and within Mat-Su Borough communities is initially based on a calculation of the total current proportion of workers,by classifi- cation and census division,to total construction work force in Impact Area 3.The percentage distributions so derived are then appl i ed to the projected Susitna man- power requirements to determine the likely residence di stri buti on of the work force at the begi nni ng of the project.These percentage distributions are adjusted to reflect proximity to the project site,and the percen- tages change over time as certain areas become more attractive as places to reside,and work force migration occurs. Table 5.2-2 displays the residence distribution of the on-site constructi on work force withi n Impact Area 3 prior to factoring in inmigration and relocation. (ii)Indirect and Induced Work Force - - - The determination of the total induced jobs to be created as 5-9 number of indirect/ a result of direct TABLE5.2-2:ON-SIIECOHSlkll(lfONWORt:fORCE:PROJECIEttPLOYHENIANDRESIDENCEOfINDIVIDUALSCURRENTlYRESIDIN6INIHPACIAREA1---~-----------------------_..-------~--.--------------------~------_.------------------------.-------------------------.-------19811904190519861981 19881989mo19911m1991199419951996199119981m200020012002-------.__.6._------------------_...--.--._-.--------~..-..----------.-.-------.-.-In~ALIAREA1Wm850109415452~112276~8422b422m1('5665040165110161mn801220122mANCHORAGERE610N118168b21808114114991m209119491500119480)004801509591019900m90ANCItORAGE1'<1214156128H11351m158814171Il6590m228lb456812611268240368J.nAI-SU16155814104III1~1191118III1\41n4468819182498IJllolHOOl.1111£1n2594121In225mm29J2~b111124512III1441531)580IISEWARD002~)45654~1II23)2I0fAlk~,M5515420:260168481542616m4B4251m91155m109m29011229SEfAlk&ANISII0~21456542I II2))2I0I'AIDEHItIII/lA·WItIrllER551821J~n486055nnII9II~I212926151"AI-SUcon"ItHIIIESPAlnlR2~61\0II151918141I)4199851WASillAII568'II12 15IIII6I245111IIUlItmiSrON(I0,21I565I2II1 211~I0I.--'IRAmRmfl0 0III12~21I00 0I1I1I0aIAIIHINAII214568 1512I21443~0OIItER12\I425411101IIIIIIIII101co)2~o1250656961)66..1111tIltJI,It - - - - (b) construction activity is based on the use of a multiplier as previously discussed,with the results being displayed in Table 5.2-3.Just as with the direct construction work force,it is assumed that a certain percentage of the i ndi rect/i nduced jobs wi 11 be fi 11 ed by inmigrants.The percentage of inmigrants relative to the tota 1 ra nges from zero in Sewa rd to 45 percent in the Mat-Su Borough.For Anchorage,the percentage is approximately 25 percent.Table 5.2-4 outlines the various percentage assumptions for each Census Division in Impact Area 3 and for select conmunities in the Mat-Su Borough.Applying these assumptions to the total indirect/induced manpower requirements as outlined in Table 5.2-3,results in an estimate of the locally available work force by residence (Table 5.2-5). The sum of local available direct and indirect/induced employment by residence is displayed in Table 5.2-6. This total is a combination of Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-5. Work Force Inmigration and Associated Population Influx As indicated earlier,the amount of work force inmigration is directly responsible for the degree of impacts on the various cOl1lllunities in Impact Area 3.Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-5 in the previous section displayed the numbers and residence of the locally available direct and indirect/induced work force asso- ci ated with constructi on of the project.Based on the assump- tions of locally available direct on-site construction and indirect/induced work force outlined earlier,estimates can be made of the number of inmigrants necessary to fulfill the pro- jected total manpower requirements.Table 5.2-7 displays the results of these assumptions for on-site construction and Table 5.2-8 shows similar information for indirect/induced 5-11 TABLE5.2-3255INDIRECTANDINDUCEDE"fLOV"ENTASSOCIATEDWITHTHECONSTRUCTIONWORKFORCE19811984198519861987198819891990199119921991199419951996199719981999200020012002------------------------------------ ------------ -----------..--------------l"fACTAREA121520480610151451204822952865275221171101678426m1114142415111181819141ANCHORA6EREGION18117lm8901260179820152516236618209465821655819641m11101170694118ANCHORAGE15114559075899214101579197018121411716456288457761974101491454498HAT-SU1818648220510414242819910415591569114919l205180105IlKENAI-COOKINLET11101849618191lib11510454II21II526b7074447SEWARD0 0II1I I 2 2IIO·00III I10FAIRBANKS11291081181802162b5llO168284148925892142 18219119911921SEFAIRBANKS0 0 00I II III0 00001II0 0VALDEl-CHITINA-WHITTIER2I5710 11141817Il7414b8910bI"AT-SUCD""UNITIESPAL"ER2I5711202227252010b46101211127INASILLAII56Il19212725191064691211117I(.J1HOUSTONI217II121514116121577b40II.......TRAffERCREEKI 256114752666147241481421291127IbINTALKEETNA2 2b8145057716b50251591524121410t7 2OTHER12114152lOb15811722220b158814910497810010794557121105ItII - - - TABLE 5.2-4 PERCENTAGE OF JOBS FILLED BY INMIGRANTS:INDIRECT/INDUCED EMPLOYMENT 5-13 TABLE5.2-5LOCALINDIRECTANOINDUCEDEItPLOY"ENTASSOCIATEDWITHTHECONSTRUCTIONWORkfORCEU8l1984198519861987198819891990199119921991199419951996199719981999200020012002-------.-------------.------ ------------------------------------ -----------I"PACTAREA1167158m8021119 157817682207 21271m8~1~24m525860109911681069614109ANCHDRA6ERE610N140III529680959Il671512 19111801Il867204442784447J491999789252990ANCHDRA6E1151094425697441058118414781J741058552142216l42m7J177668640874MHU15155468160218268JJ5III2181227J447J1171511611418l10U1kENAI-CDDkINLET99JJ425470 799911588462817284456606lJ76ISEWARD00II1II 22I I0001 1 II10-'fAIRBANkS25-Po269211815l201225281III24112678497812115516416910118SEfAIRBANkS00 0 0 0I1III0 000000I00VALDEI-CHITINA-WHITTIER1I457910II1295 12146674INAT-SUCO""UNITIESPAmRI1 56121820252l1895159II121061WASIlLAII45II171924221795 1 58II12 106IHOUSTONII22710II14Il105121 567610TRAPPERCREEk0 0229141620181474247998 5 0TAlkEETNAII5625l8425J49l819II7II18242522IlIOTHER1010J747961421592001851427J44274470909685507(19)06 TABLE5.2-6:JOIAllOCAll"PACIAREA1E"PIOV"ENJ:ON-SlIECONSJRUCIION,INDIRECTANDINDUCED-_..----_................-_..----~_...._....__a_____....................__.._____..__........__..__....____...__........__..__..__19811984198~198~199719BB19B919901991199Z19911994J99~199b1991199819992000ZOOI2002......-----.-.-.-..----.._..---_..----_._..---IHPACIAREA1408l8b1m18912H4lb091005049m8lbb91m1115m11161815219925482288m~mANCHORAr.EH610NlIB1(10II~b1487209928b6J21~1010l/~I288b1499mmm1481189J20lbIJ92lObi\81ANCHORAGE250m9111180Ib0821912m10bb28512194/142m414lOb114014511541m8mwMHU12JOIII142164m421m409mI9l11112111185m254mIII18IHAHOOr.IHl£l16Hm161mmm414408114Ibl100bl1001~1ZOOm19911120SEmoII2145b11512I2114120fAIRPAIII:S01J9294mmb8416b951m125mm14bmlbl4b4m160m11SEfAIRbANKSII21455/b522IZ211120VALUEHHIlIMHHI1IIERb6222B195258/2b1522111\0112bn1511191"Al-SUCOHHUN111£5PAL"ER11\011221115144111lb10b1015202119II2WASillA229II20 2811J9112B149591418191110IU1HOIIsl0NJ 1451014Ib20/8141i1419985II-'lRAfPERCRmII21101511222015B51511010950U1TAliHINA22219291149bI51022118112121292b15DIHER2221191011/2m211HIm241125164111IZOmIb5m8511119Jn~ employment.Table 5.2-7 displays some outmigration from certain Census Divisions which is in response to workers choosing to relocate withi n Impact Area 3 to areas closer to the project site. Table 5.2-9 shows the total inmigration to Impact Area 3 and various Census Divisions and corrnnunities as a result of direct and indirect/induced employment.Inmigration into Impact Area 3 at the peak of constructi on acti vity wi 11 represent 13 percent of the total direct construction t indirect and induced work force of 5 t 355.When considering only direct on-site construc- ti on work force at the peak (3 t 500 in 1990)the percentage of inmigrants to total is even 10wer t representing approximately 5 percent.This low percentage of inmigration of on-site construction workers is directly related to the availability of local 1abor t the remote location of the dam sites and the provision of temporary camp and family village facilities. During the peak of construction activities t 828 inmigrant emp10yees t associated with direct t indirect and induced emp10yment t will be living in Impact Area 3.Of this tota1 t 170 workers are related to direct on-site construction employment. About 50 percent of the inmigrant employees whose employment on the project is completed after 1990 are expected to remain in the area.After construction activity peaks at the Watana site in 1990 t inmigration subsides until 1997-2000 at which time construction activity peaks at the Devil Canyon site. As construction activity is completed in the year 2002 t approxi- mately 12 percent of inmigrants to Impact Area 3 are expected to remain.For the Mat-Su Borough t the figure is much higher with approximately 50 percent of the inmigrants remaining.The majority of the inmigration to the Borough consists of workers originating from Anchorage,Kenai-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks 5-16 - 11111111TABLE5.2tl7:ON-SIIECONSJRUCIIONWORKFORCE:INMI6RAJlONANDPLACEOFRElOCAI/ONINIMPArlAREA1...----- ------_....------_.._--_..--_..------------..--_..._............-.....-.....~-....--......-_.._..--_......----..---_..---19811~8419851~9619871mIq99199019911992199119141m1996199719991999~OOOZAOI~M~---......--------------..--------..-..-..--------------_..e....-----...-----.-...........-.-..IOIAL'npACtAREA11616~4679l12~Il7170159140III9991919110010~988465ANCNORAGERE610NI~12415199DI147184175160Il7128m122122mIJII~7116101ANCHORAGE5517~O-J]-51-57-n-76-80-96-99-91-91-91-99-98-99-9~-97ftAHU77~12~1512o~zn~B5279m25114724l24lmm249~4~~J9mr.ENAI-COOr.INlEt0 0I~-14-18-20-25-26-26'~7..28-28-~B-~B-~9-28-Z9.~B-~,SEWARD0 00 0 00000 000nAA00AA0fAIR8ANKS44Il16·9-1/-I~-16-19-21-~9-ll·ll-lJ-lJ-ll-lA-n-H-19SEfAIRBANKS00000A0 0000 00 00 00000VALOE/-CHIIINA-IlII1I11ER0 0 00000 0 0000000000A0ftAI-SUCOnMUNlllESPALMER00II699II II\I101010 101010101010,(JlWAmlA00II8101/1414IlIlI~12I~I~1111I~I~\II-'HOUSION00II699IIIIII10 1010101010101010,-...JTRAPPERCAHK~~67lB50577170676l626161616~6~6~6057I~Lr£EJNA~Z67J85A577170676l6~61 61 61676~626A51OTHER219II5675BI105101~~~4919090~n~79~91RB95l~lln7 TABLE5.2-8[N~16RANTINDIRECTANDINDUCEDENPLOYNENTASSOCIATEOmHTHECONSTRUCllONWORKFORCE198JU8419851986198719881989199019911992199J199419951996199719981999200020012002----------------------------------------~-.-..----------------------------------["PACTAREAJ48461812JJJJ247052765862548125015496154254J2SJ45JI218531ANCIIORA6EREGION4J4116421030243148360356541422613987Il9231295JIJm16528ANCHORA6E38J6147190248353mm458353184114n11419124425922913625MT-SU3 310134466H9J8666II2012203142..19232U"lKEHAI-COOKIHLEI2267912141720168535810IIII7 1ISEWARD00 00 0 00 0 0 0 000 0 0000 0 0---'FAIR8ANKS54162127354050554J22149142127293018300SfFAIRBAN~S00 00 0 0 00 0 0 000 0 0 000 00YAI.OEI-CHITINA-WillTTIER002 23445 542 I1 12 2J3 20MI-SUCO~~UHITIESPAL"ER0 011122 3 321I0 1II I110WASILLA0001I22322I I0I1IIII0HOUSTON0 00 01II2I1I 00 0 1 II1 00TRAPPERCREE~1 I4422II31464J33161061016212219II1TALKEETNA0 022 813141B16IJ64246B8 740OTHERII451116182221168535 8101196I(23105 TABLE5.2-9:IOIALIHN/GIAIIOHINIOIKPAOAREA3:OH-SIJECONSIRUCIION,INDIRECTANPIHDUCED_________~.___~_w._______•_______.__________________________•_.___~__________.__•_____._____19B3IV84199519861981IV88190V199~IVVI19V21m199419951m1991IV98191920002001~~f)~.-----------------..------------IMfACTAREAJ6462JObJOO425m664828183m36125218024534542544840926996ANCHORAGEREGlaN5553m2bI401561630181m5?4m2b12092bIm4244444~A281129ANritORAGE4l41164210211302311mmm9825-IV24100155110m44-nMI-Sli10101442196268301118365m2812b1mm21528Vm285m2J:rENAl-fOOl:INtEl2219-5-6-6-8-6-II-19-23-25-73-~{f-18-11-11-2l78UlSEWARD00~000 0 0 000 0000000n~,-'fA,R9ANrs88:,(13119752133)120-1-18-2'-19-II-4-7-2-11-35~SEfAIROANI:S000 00(I0000000000 0000VALDEI-CHITIHHHITriER00223I45542I I I223370MHUCONNlINlI1ISrOlHER00I2 110II14 1413II101010IIIIII II10WASilLA0022912II11161514IIIlIJ131414IJn11HOliSTON0 0II1V10II1312II10101010I)II"'0VTRAPPERcpm33V1260839311111210080116111178284811158lAl/HTNA2,19466111RV868~10656165AI10116V6458,OTHER44IJ1661voIO~128124m102V~939598102103101VI85pOl02 Census Divisions;it is assumed that 100 percent of these indi- viduals who move to the Borough will remain even after their work on the project is completed.When considering Impact Area 3 in its entirety,the percentage of workers that remain is much smaller,since Alaska non-local and out-of-state workers make up a 1arge percentage of the tota1.It is assumed that the majority of these workers will not remain in the area after their work on the project is completed.Consequently only 12 percent of total inmigrants to Impact Area 3 remain after 2002. Within the Mat-Su Borough,the settlement of inmigrants is expected to contrast sharply from the settlement patterns of the existing population.Accordingly,inmigrants will establish residence in the communities of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek with greater frequency.A great deal of settlement will al so occur in "other"areas of the Borough,which corresponds to the areas outsi de of desi gnated citi es or communi ti es,such as Montana Creek,Caswell and Willow.At the peak of construction acti- vity,approximately 89 on-site construction,indirect and induced workers wi 11 i nmi grate to Talkeetna,117 to Trapper Creek,and 128 to other areas of the Borough (Table 5.2-9). Table 5.2-10 contains data on the total population influx into Impact Area 3,by Census Division and for selected Mat-Su Borough Communities,precipitated by direct,indirect and induced employment.These projecti ons are based on assumpti ons that,for the direct construction work force,95 percent of inmigrants will be accompanied by dependents and that an average of 2.11 dependents will come with each inmigrant worker who is accompanied (Table 5.2-11).For the indirect and induced work force,the Alaska State average number of persons per household figure was used to calculate population influx (Table 5.2-12). Total population influx into Impact Area 3 during the peak period (l990)equals 2,324.Of the total population influx 5-20 - - - TABLE5.2-101,TOTALPOPULATIONINFLUXINTOIHPACTAREA3:DIRECT,INOIRECTANOINDUCED-------- ---------------------- - - - - - - ---------------------- ---- - - - - ---------19B319B419B519Bb19B719BB19B9199019911m199319941m1m1997mB1m200020012002200320042005--------------------.--------------------------- ------------------IHPACTAREA3IB217Bb72B521203Ib711Bb7232421911m1014714535b9095711701m112274J27B179m179ANCIIORAGEREGION1571525B3m1IJ9158917772214207516b91027761b021429Bb11771m11227B8m297297 297ANCHORAGE1221174bJ590578B2bm1137103072524242-77352403B5mJJ984-225-292-292-292MAI-5U2B29991235807B9BBb11121074988B5279b7b37B4BI785b8bb844778694b7bb7b b7bmAlCOOKINLETb b212b-Ib-20-23-28-22-37-bO-70-7b-71-b4-57 -55-54-b8-B5 -B7-B7-B7SEWARD000 00 000 00000 0 0000 00 000FAIR~ANKs2424B510752b672B89b49-26-57-75-62-41-20-14-15-5b-107-117-117-117sEFAIR~ANK500 00001 I I 00000000000 00 0VALDEHHITINHHIITIER1 I 56B11121514II53235 7 7 B5I000UlMT-sUCOMMUNITIESINPALMER1I45223033424038333130313233JJ333128272727.....WASILLAI I5b263b4u5049464139373B394041403B35343434HOUSIONII342027313B3735323130 303132 3231302B27 2727TRAPPERCREEKBB273417524227234132729123521219B209225241245m209175169Ib9169TAUEETNA67222713B18b2U926J254m20Bl%IB9m199207210205191mIb9169169OTHERII11374b1992b830137B3bb3423042BB27B2B4m3023052992BO257250250250123106 TABLE5.2-11TOTALPOPULATIONINFLUXINTOI~PACTAREA3ASSOCIATEDWITHTilEDIRECTCONSTRUCTIONWORHORCE198319841985198b198719881989199019911992199319941995199b199719981999200020012002200320042005---------------------------.------------------------------TOIAL1"PACTAREA34749Ib32i112793bb41051147b420m29b274274274301308m251194179 179179ANCIIORAGEHEGION3b381241522993944425535254814133843b73b73b7388393382348303297 297 297ANCllORAGE141550bO-112-152-172-219-221-240-259-2b7·212-212-212-2bb-m-2b8-277-290-292·292-292~AI-SU2021708b457bObb8185b837807lbl742731731731744748740718b88 b7bbibbib~:EHAICOOK1NLEIII4b-42-55-bl-7b-77-79-82-84 -85-8~-85-84-83-84-85-87-87-87-8711lSEWARD0 000000 000 00000000 0 0000I1'0fAJRBANIS11124049-23-33-37-48-56-b8-8b-94-99-99-99-93-92-95-104-lib-117-117-117toSEfA1RBANKS00000000 000 0 0 0 0000 00 0 0o.VALDEl-CHIrINHIIITIlER00 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 000 0000 00 0 0MI-SUCO~~UNIT1E5PAL"ERII3J182427343332303('2929293030 30292802727WASILLAII342l3034n4240l8373737373737373b343434141I0USTONII1118242734II3230lO292929lO30302928 272727TRAPPERCRm55172211415217021420920219018518318318318b187185180 172Ib9169169IALrEEINA55J72211415~17(12142092021911185183183 18318b187185180172Ib91b9Ib9OiliER782b32Ib9224m31731029928227427Q27027027~2772742bbm250250250NOIE:THISTABLEASSUmIIiAlmOFIN"IGRANI5AREACO"PIiNIEDIIIDEPENDENTS.(2l102II TABLE5.2-12255255POPULATIONINflUXASSOCIATEDWITHTHEINDIRECTANDINDUCEDWORKFORCE19B1 19B419B519B619B7198819B919901991199219911994199519961997199B1999200020012002---------------- ---- ------------------------------------------------ -------- ----InPACTAREA1Ilb12850965192411051457IBIl1715 11156BI4182614156B2B70920B29492B4ANCHORAGEREGION1211154595B7B401195111516611550118B615177215175619790816741m74ANCHDRAGElOB1024Il52969097B109111571257965502109195lOB51265269060716265nAT-SUB 82917mIBl205256231IBO9154125486IIIliB104606KENAI-COOKINlEr5416212614194B5641221181121272B10171SEWARD0 000 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 000 0 000lJ1FAIRBANKS11124558759B110Ilb152116601721175713777947Br!vSEFAIRBANKS00 00 0 0I1I00 0000 000 00WVAlDEl-CHITINA-NHITlIERI I56BII121514II512157 7B5InAT-SUCOnnUNITIESPAlnER0 0I 24568 7512I2114120WASIllA00I245677512I211112 0HOUSTON0 0I I2114412IIII22 2I0TRAPPERCREEK1110126191102 127117894526152642555851101TALKEETNAI I56211519494514171061016212220IIIOTHER11II151044496157412211BIl212728 25152121105 associated with direct,indirect and induced employment in 1990, 2,214 or 95 percent,wi 11 relocate to the Anchorage Regi on.The remainder is expected to relocate to the Fai rbanks-North Star Borough,especially to the City of Fairhanks,and to the Valdez- Chitina-Whittier Census Division. Within the Anchorage Region,it is projected that Kenai-Cook Inlet,Anchorage,and Fairbanks will experience a slight net outmigration of population during various stages of construction acti vity as project-i nduced outmi grati on to the Mat-Su Borough exceeds project-induced inmigration from other areas.The total project-induced net outmigration from these areas increases as the project ends.This is as a result of a portion of the inmigrant 'MJrkers and their families returning to other areas of Alaska and to out-of-state locations. During the peak constuction period at Watana (1990),the total project-induced population increase to the Mat-Su Borough totals 1,112,which accounts for 48 percent of the total project- induced population influx to Impact Area 3.Of this total,694 are expected to remain in the Borough at the end of construction in 2002. In 1990,Talkeetna,Trapper Creek and "other"areas of the Borough experience 89 percent of the total population influx to the Mat-Su Borough:Trapper r.reek 31 percent;Talkeetna 24 per- cent and;"other"areas 34 percent.These projections represent considerable population increases relative to the baseline fore- casts for each of these areas.Conversely,Palmer,Wasilla and Houston will experience only moderate increases in population. At the concl usi on of the project,total permanent increases to Trapper Creek,Ta"lkeetna and "other"equal 175,173 and 257 respectively. 5-24 TABLE5.2-13(a)IOIAlSCHOOL-AGECHilDRENACO"PANYINGINMIGRANTNORKERs:ON-slIECONSTRUCTION,INDIRECTANDINDUCED----_..--------_..------_...._..------_..---------------------_..----------------..----_..-_..---_......-------------_..--_..1983198419851986198719881989199019911m1m19941m1996199719981999200020012002200320042005------------------------------------------------U1TOTALIMPACTAREA34443IbO20328b40044956253342b253181I3Bm242mm28719174525252IANCIIORAGEREGION373bI3B175m382430538507412259195m191252300315289205101838383NU1ANCHORAGE2927108m1271832062572J4Ib3492-27I5289997915-63-83-83-83MHU782b32152207m292283262mm206212220230mm210189m176mkENAICOOKINLETII56-5-I-8-10-8-12-17-20-21-20-18-Ib-Ib-15-19-23-25-25-25sENARD000 0 0 00 0 00 0 000 0 000000 0 0FAIR8ANKs66212711141519209-9-17-21-18-13-7-6-6-16-29-34-31-3'sEFAIRBANKS00 0 00 00 0 0 0000 0 000 0 0 0 000VAlDEl-CHIIINA-WltllTI[R00II2233321II1I2 2 21 0000"AI-sUCOMMUNITIESPALm00II689II11109888999988777NASIllA0 012 7911131312111010 10111111II1098 8 8HOUSTON00I1578101099888 8 99888 7 7 7TRAPPERCREEk2 2 7945b27088857b6257535b60b465b356H444444TAlr.EElNA2 2673649557068bJ5b5J5152545656555247444444OiliER33101253718010097918278 75777982828176706666b6130103(a)Calculatedbyapplyingaratioof.86schoolagechildrenperaccompaniedinmigrantworkertothenumberofaccompaniedinmigrants;thesedataassumethat95percentofinmigrantworkersareaccompanied. TABLE5.2-14IOIAlPRIMRVSCHOOL-AGECHILDRENACCOftPANVlNGINftlGRANTWORKERSINIOIftPACTAREA3;ON-SITECONSTRUCTION,INDIRECTANDINDUCED{a)---- - ----.----------- - - - - ----- ---- - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - ----------_.--------------------------------------- ----- - - ----------------------..---19831984198519801997199819891990199119921993199419951990199719981999200020012002200J20042005-----~---------------------------------IOIAlI~PACTAREA3242387110ISS216m3042892JIIJ7987595III16116915510440282828ANCHORAGEREGION20207595148207m292275m14010685104IJ7163171157111554545 45ANCHORAGE151558746899IIIIJB12688260-15027475J428-34-45 -45-45MT-SU4414178JIII127159154143125117III116120125127124 11510J909090KENAICOOKINLEl1I3J-3-4-4-5-4-6-9-11 -11-II-10-9-9-8-10-13-14-14-14SEWnRD0000 0000 0 0 00000 0 00 0 00 0 0FAIR8ANKS33121407810II5-5-9-12-10-7-4-J-J-9-16-19-19 -19SEFAIR8ANKS000000 0 00000 000 0 00 0 0000U"1VAlDEZ-CHIlINA-WHITTIER0 0II I II 2 2 II000IIIII0000IMHUCOMUNITIESNenPALMER00I I345b6555455 555 54444WASIllA0 0I I45677I6666666665444HOUS'ON0 00I344655<544555 544444"TRAPPERCREEkII452434384846413431293133353634JI26242424TAU.HINAII34202730J83734JI29282829JOJlJO2826242424OTHER225 7293944555J50454J41424J45 454441J836JoJonOl03(a)Calculatedbyapplyingaratioof.47primaryschool-agechildrenperaccompaniedworkertothenumberofaccompaniedinmigrants;thesedataassume95percentofinmigrantworkersareaccompanied. IITABLE5.2-15(a)TOTALSECONDARYSCHOOL-A6ECHILDRENACCOMPANYIN6INMIGRANTWORmsINTOIMPACTAREA1:ON-SITECONSTRUCTION,INDIRECTANDINDUCED------------_.-_...-_......------_......-.........--_.......................................~_.................------_.....-----...-----_..............--_......-.......................-_.........-_.....-.........--...-_..........._............-...-............-------_...198119841985198b1981198819891990199119921991199419951996199719981999200020012002200120042005-----------..--------------------.--.--------._.---.----- ---------------/OrALI~PAC1AREA120 207491III181206258244195lib81bl00111DbInIII8711212421ANCIIORAGERE610N17 17bl80125mm217232189118891187115138114m914b18•1818AilCHORA6E111149bl5985951191007b211-1212441Ib177-28-10-10-18MT-SU131214b994lObIII12911910497919b100104lOb101958b800080KENAICOOKINLETII21-2-1-1-I-I-5 -8-9-9-9-0-7-7-7-9-10-11-Il-11SEWARD00 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 000000 00 000 0FAIRBANKS111012567 9104-4-7-10-8-b-1-2-3-7-n-15-15-15SEFAIROANKS00000 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 0 000 0VALDEI-CHITINA-WHll1fER000I1I12I II00 0II1I10 000MT-SUCOMMUNIlIESV1PALMER0 0011I455 5I444I III I1111INWASILLA0 0II145bbb55555 55554444"HOUSTON0 00I21455I I4I44II I I1111TRAPPERCREEK1114202012401915282b2425212910292b222020 20TALKEETNAI1111722251211291<242124 24252b25212120 20204JOIHERII452432lb4b144231151415161717171112101010nOl05(a)Calculatedbyapplyingaratioof.39secondaryschool-agechildrenperaccompaniedworkertothenumberofaccompaniedinmigrants;thesedataassume95percentofinmigrantworkersareaccompanied. The number of school age children accompanying inmigrant direct, i ndi rect and induced 'M)rkers into Impact Area 3 wi 11 tota 1 562 by 1990,the peak year of construction.Of this total,304 will be pri mary school age and 258 wi 11 be of secof'1dary school age. Tables 5.2-13,5.2-14 and 5.2-15 display data on the projected timing and geographic distribution of school age children accom- panying inmigrant \<Klrkers.The calculation of the number of school-age children accompanying inrfirect and induced ~rk force was derived from Mat-Su Borough Planning standards,and for the direct 'M)rk force,historical construction ~rk force data was used. 5.3 -Income:Direct On-Site Construction and Operations and Indirect/Induced Employment (a)Direct and Operations Work Force Total payroll is an important consideration in that it defines the parameters of monetary impacts resulting from direct on-site construction and operations 'M)rk force expenditures.Based on the on-site construction and operations requirements outlined in Section 5.1,the total yearly project payroll from 1983-2005 was derived and is displayed in Table 5.3-1.These totals It.ere derived by matching wage figures to the respective trarfes, assuming that for construction \'.Orkers there are 1,825 worker hours in the year (54 hours per It.eek and an average of 29 It.eeks per year)and for the operat ions \<Klrk force there are 2,496 working hours in the year (48 hours per I'P-ek and 52 \\eeks per year).The payroll in 1990,the peak year,totals $97.8 mill ion. Tables 5.3-2 and 5.3-3 display estimates of construction and operati ons 'M)rk force spenrfi ng patterns in the vari ous Census Divisions of Impact Area 3.Using the total construction anrf 5-28 - - 1TABLE5.3-1lOlALPAYROLLfORON-S/IECONSIRUCIIONANDOPERATIONS"AMPO~ER.I~BH005liNIIiOUSANDSOfDOLLARS)1J1~011~811~8~1~8bIY87IY08IY8~I~~OI~~Im21mIYH1995I~~b1~~7IYYO1m200020012002 2001 20012005(a)CONSIRUCIIOMU"1INl.OlABORERSSE"HUlLEDJSkiLLEDAD"I.IS'RAII~EIENGINEERSU010lALCONSIRUCIION(b)OPERAliONSALLLABORCATEGORIESIDIALPAYROLL11101laYSmo1b8172512110119SOllYSbObl70Y81mos515)91680bIbsn1018bIblll25111lml1125S2m2ImoJill1607WOml'162Ylli11750IJlb~Ib4401520210blJsmJJO~2JOI1071m2ms81018102WOS1lHO2msm10/0sm70bOJll101019611IJbIISl2W8IlbSWIJmml~0J8lW120Ym1441lObO28b77J8195mlsb~~2S7BlbbVBl0yommHJbl2J22JI0II0ll22JObJ5010\lb7l4H82120/021b7711002bBIsmm~SSS~S55~smmy555Y5551bS11b517b517b5171412706820mJ8mSJllS69Y257albb9181BYOmb~5JIJ8007278b~I9S~121m10msommIlum1021bIOb~7bSI7bS11bS11(a)Basedon1,825workinghoursintheyear.(b)Basedon2,496work1n9hoursintheyear. TABLE5.3-2:IOrAlOM-511£COHSIRUCTlOHWORKfORCEPAYRlllE/PEHDHUREPAIlERH(a)11MIHOUSAHD5OFDOLlARSI....-----_.----...---------...........-.......-----------"'---_.---._.----_...-.....-..-------PLACEorWENO/IUREYEARS_."'''''''--_.............-....-_...198319911995198A1991 1988198919901991199~199319911995199A1991lt981999200020012002IOlAlWROll(b)111210A828A17382955J31569'125181bA9782890939A9531lU232mo1101422mm40\Un11192420202Wl4190WINDA9lEINCO"E(c)1119398A15760213852915139020ll729m9950m3990120151121511939124991955325593211n2610915511n01IIIPACIARIAJ36593262131521894&m83m8838163483904198211411118111101669491101'11JJ1221502411923m118542JJ9ANCtlORAGERESIOM219625091028214490205192694730202m093505226915139169S995394961lIm4111151919A19293101111195ANCHORAGE2m1m1$2510596111(141841520b99259252401019m9516m93156595592991216913Z501~65m,1309"AI-SUERESIONmJ9916012229435]5129641960421411569629:41119109211BI2m311140191I5b2251101lENAI-CODl:1Id£lJI3mlIlO1621205126923011m9]50226911J99B56SJ6859134611101t311m1010111Li1Slw~RD65202910~l59II69531111II112635J8J6214IrAIRBANr.S196116293011195352700979519194910b69711m225514292~'23m461150294169m9501w0SErAIRIANlS·5•192536415265614624159152311JJJ2It1VAlDEl-CHIIIU-WHIIIIER6254mJ2l44159165192116]594301191119IS82911S612I401m10...-....--""''''''.............--"''''-_....---.-_..........................................-~.........--..._...--"'._'"-_...------........._...-_...............(a)TableshowstotaleKpendituresbyconstructionworkforceinImpactArea3.(b)Totalconstructionpayroll,alllaborcategories.(c)Grosspayrollminus]0percentfortaKes(f~deral,F.l.C.A.,andunemployment/workman'scompensationwithselfandonedependent)minus10percentfornetIncomesaved.I 11111TASLE5.3-3:TOTALOPERATIONSWORKFORCEPAYROLLEXPENDITUREPATTERN(B)InIhousandsofDollaraPlaceofExpenditure(b)1993 19941995199619971998 1999200020012002200320042005(c)2,6845,559 5,5595,5595,559 5,5595,5596,5176,517TotaIPayroll5,5595,5596,5176,517ExpendableIncome(d)1,6913,502 3,5023,5023,502 3,5023,5023,5023.5024,106 4,1064,1064,106Village1,0152,101 2,101 2,101 2,1012,1012,1012,1012,1012,4642,4642,4642,464Anchorage338700 700700 700700700 700 700821821821 821Fairbanks85175175175175175175175175205205205205U1IWMat-Su253526526 526 526526526526526616 616616616-'(8)Tableshowstotalexpendituresbyoperationsworkforceinselectedsress.(b)Assumedthst60percentofpayrolltobespentatVillage;15percentintheMat-Su8rorough;20percentinAnchorage;and5percentinFairbanks.(c)TotalOperationsPayroll.(d)Grosspayrollminus30percentfortaxes(federal,FICA,andunemployment/workman'scompensationwithselfandonedependent)minus10percentfornetincomeBaved. operations payroll figures calculated above t taxes and savings were subtracted and est i mates \\ere made concerni ng the amounts of income that would be spent in different areas of Impact Area 3.The methodology for determining spending patterns is built upon the basic premise that place of residence is the primary factor determining Where income is spent. Tables 5.3-4 and 5.3-5 are estimates of construction work force spending patterns in the various Census Divisions and out-of- state.These tabl es are a primary source of input for deter- mining work force expenditure patterns.As displayed in the tables t workers residing in all Census Divisiors spend at least 5 percent of their income in the Mat-Su Borough t and the greatest percentage is spent in the Census Division in which they reside.More so than any other Census Division t Mat-Su residents tend to spend a greater percentage of total expendable income out of the Census Di vi si on.Thi sis due to the Borough 's close proximity to a major urhan area (Anchorage)and the existing close business and economic ties.A similar phenomenon is observable in the S.E.Fairhanks spending pattern due to proximity to Fairhanks and dependence on services. Table 5.3-5 reflects assumptions regarding spending patterns by Alaska non-Impact Area 3 and out-of-state work force (residirg at the construction camp/village and not relocating to Impact Area 3).These percentages reflect different patterns from those of Impact Area 3 resi dents because the Alaska Non-Impact Area 3 and out-of-state \IoOrkers do not relocate withi n Impact Area 3.Alaska non-Impact Area 3 workers are assumed to return to their place of residence more often during time off and therefore spend less of their income in Impact Area 3.Workers originating from out-of-state are assumed to spend 70 percent of income outside of Alaska.This explains Why expenditures in the State is less than total expendable in each year. 5-32 TABLE5.3-4LOCALANDIMPACTAREA3INMIGRANTCONSTRUCTIONWORKFORCEPROPENSITYTOSPENDBYAREAPROPENSITYTOSPENnINAREA(a)RESInENCEANCHORAliEFAIRRANKSKENAISEWARnS.LFAIRBANKSVALnEZMAT-SIIAnchorage.95----------.nl)Fairbanks.05.qn--------.01)Kenai.10--.RI)------.nl)U1Seward.10.RI).nl)I--------wwS.LFairbanks.05.15----.75--.n5Valdez.05--------.qn.n5Mat-Su.25.10------.h5(a)assumedpercentageoflocalandImpactArea3inmigrantincomespentinsuchCensusnivision.1 TABLE5.3-5ALASKANON-LOCALANDOUT-OF-STATECONSTRUCTIONWORKFORCE(RESIDINGATBASECAMP)PROPENSITYTOSPENDBYAREAPROPENSITYTOSPENnINAREA(a)RESInENCEOUT-OF-STATEAK.NON-LOCALANCHORAGEFAIRRANKSKENAISEWARnS.E.FAIRRANKSVALnEZMAT-511AlaskaNon-Impact(b)Area3Out-of_State(b)UlIW~.70.RO.10.1R.n!).07.n!).n!)(a)AssumedpercentageofAlaskanon-localout-of-stateincomespentoutofState.inAlaskanon-ImpactArea3.andinImpactArea3CensusOivisions.(b)Areaoriginatingfrom andnotrelocatingtoImpactArea3(residesatconstructioncamp/village).IIIJt - - (b)Indirect/Induced Work Force Income to accrue to indirect work force associated with the construction of the Sustina hydroelectric project is largely dependent upon the degree to which supplies (i.e.,raw materials)for construction are provided from within Alaska ver- sus out-of-state.Until decisions have been made on the sources of such supplies,income associated with indirect work force can not be determined accurately.In addition,as the direct work force associ ated wi th the constructi on project create demands for services,income will accrue to the induced work force. 5-35 5-36 6 -IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT 6.1-Impact Area 1 (a)Displaced Businesses and Residences (i)Res i dences The best available information indicates that no per- manent or temporary resi dences wi 11 be inundated or otherwise totally displaced by the project.Six struc- tures,all cahins used sporadically for fishing,boating and other activities,will be inundated by the creation of the Watana impoundment.Four cabins,used sporadi- cally for fishing,boating,and other activities,will be inundated hy the creation of the Devil Canyon i mpou ndment • (ii)Businesses Business activities in Impact Area 1,with the exception of mining,are directly or indirectly dependent upon the abundance,availability and location of fish and game species in the upper Susitna hasin.These activities include guiding,lodging,trapping,salmon fishing,and recreation and related business activities.Many of these activities will be partia1y displaced in the short-term by the project.The long term displacement effects are not predictable at present. Guiding Some of the guides who operate in Impact Area 1 have exc1l1si ve areas;these and other gui des a1 so operate in non-exclusive areas.The construction and opera- tion of the dams and ancillary facilities will 6-1 disrupt guiding because the abundance and location of fish and game will change until a new equilihrium is established.It is not anticipated that any of the guides will be totally displaced.but the potential for partial displacement is great.As animal behavior and movement patterns change.guides with exclusive a reas wi 11 have to 1earn these new patterns and to relocate some of their physical assets such as airstrips.cabins.etc.in response to these new pat- terns.Those guides without exclusive areas will also have to adjust to the new movement patterns and will have few if any major physical assets to move. Short-term changes in guiding income are difficult to predict.When more information is available regarding changes in fish and game numbers and loca- tions.then it may be possible.with the cooperation of the guides.to estimate these income effects. The long term effect on guirles is uncertain.It depends upon the levels at which fish and game popu- lations stabilize and the new locations of fish and game.It also depends upon state policy regarding puhlic access to Impact Area 1.Increased public access could make the Area less suitable for guided hunts and fishing outings.This could renuce demand for guided outings.and thus reduce guiding income. This could be offset.in whole or in part.by increased public benefits resulting from increased access. In both the short anrl long term.it will be very important for guides to identify new fish and game locations.Unless populations of fish and game fall significantly.and public access is made easier.the only losses that ltoKJuld accrue to guides are:(1)the 6-2 - - time it takes to identify new locations;(2)the cost of moving physicnl assets;and (3)the possihility of increased competition bet\\een guides due to the dam and its ancillary facilities taking a~y some of the a rea. Lodging Currently there are three lodges in the Area:High Lake Lodge,near Devil Canyon,and Stephan Lake and Tsusena Lodges near the Watana dam site.The Hi gh Lake Lodge is 1eased for the feas i bil ity study,and its future use status is unknown.If it were to revert to a hunting and fishing lodge,it \\Ould encounter the same problems as the guides above.In response to changes in fi sh and game numbers and locations,it could offer different services or change the emphasis of its services.For example,it might focus more on remote-site cross-country skiing, photography,business conferences,fresh water fishing,etc.The attractiveness of this option,of course,depends upon the amount of public access to the area. The Stephan Lake and Tsusena Lodges face the same p robl ems as the Hi gh Lake Lodge.However,hecause these lodges are farther than High Lake Lodge from construction sites and the access road,they will probably encounter fe\\er disruptions.In any case, the hydroelectric project could partially displace current activities and services at both of the lodges in both the short and long terms.The extent of this displacement cannot be predicted at this time. Whether these lodges maintain their income flows depends upon their ability to adjust to the changing conditions and to recognize and exploit new oppor- tuniti es. 6-3 Trapping Trappers wi 11 he affected through the loss of hrtbitat for pine marten,mink and river otters,particularly as the Watana reservoir will impound several secon- dary drai nages.In the short term,the numbers and locations of these and other furbearers will change. Trappers wi 11 have to i dent i fy these changes in order to be as successful as they \\ere previously.The amount of displacement is significant in both the short and long term.The effect of this displacement on t rappers I income is unkno\.\fi. Salmon Fishing Spa\.\fiing and rearing areas for Cook Inlet salmon might be affected.This could cause changes in the numbers and relative species mix of salmon returning to the Susitna River.When the impact of the dams on the salmon has been predicted,it will be possible to estimate the short and long term impact on revenues in the Cook Inlet commercial fishery.It will also be possible to consider the impact on recreational and other user groups. Recreation It is certain that sections of the Susitna River will no longer he suitable for white-water kayaking. There will be little if rtny displacement of any other recreational activity currently going on in the upper Susitna basin.With the access road,there is great potential for opening the area up to many more people who cannot now afford to charter a plane,river boat or other means of transportation to get into the Area.If more of the publ i c is allowed to and does 6-4 - - - enter the area,the remote nature of the recreati on experience will be changed.The policy issue becomes:Is it better to have more people recreating ina more congested arei3?Or is it better to have fev..er people recreating in a less congested area? The ansv..er to this issue will have a profound effect on all businesses that derive income from recreation activities in the area. Businesses that cater to recrentional activities include air transport companies,riverboat enterpri- ses,outfitters,fish anrl tackle stores,etc.If thp. public does use the area more,it is quite likely that these recrenti on-support busi nessp.s wi 11 experience growth.Increased access is likely to induce cross-country skiing;kayakitig;boating, including riverboat services and drop camps;pho- togrnphy and snownachi ni ng.The servi ces support i ng these activities are likely to increase commercial and residential land values and increase local recei pts. Existi ng resi dents WlO choose not to adapt to the i ncreaserl acti vity in the area and the concomittant changes in lifestyle will most likely choose to seek new wilderness areas,thereby causing some voluntary but permanent displacement.Residents of the "rn ilroad cOl11lT1unities"are most likely to move. Mining Mining currently consists of intermittent activity on 36 mining sites within a portion of the Upper Susitna Basi n,i.e.,Tal keetna Mountai ns,Mi ni ng Cl aims,Map KX-76.There are 543 lode claims and 84 placer claims on these 36 sites.Three sites are within the 6-5 impoundment area (contour line 2000 1 ):#35,and #129 being currently inactive and #69 currently active. It is anti ci pated that #69 and #129 wi 11 be totally displaced;the former located bet\\een Devil Canyon Dam and Watana Dam,the latter situated east of Watana Dam.#35 may be partially displaced;this site is located north of Devi 1 Canyon Dam.Asi de from the above displacements,tne project could have a beneficial impact on mining.The access road,if usable by miners,will allow current claims to he worked more profitably and will aid in the discovery of new deposits.This applies especially to the Susitna-Chu1 itna porti on of the Yentna Mi ni ng District ....nere molybdenum,gold,copper,lead,silver and antimony are scattered over a distance of several t ens of mi 1es • 6.2 -Impact Area 2 It is anticipated that the impacts of the project on socioeconomic con- ditions in Impact Area 2 will be greatest on the communities of Trapper Creek,Talkeetna,Cant\\ell and the "ra i1rond corrmunities"in this nrea,due to thei r proximity to the project sites and thei r re1 ati ve1y small si ze. Accordingly,the impacts of the project on the Matnnllska-Sllsitna Borough as a I'klole and each of these communities will be discussed separnte1y. Magnitudes of impacts during both the construction and operation phases of the Susitna project are addressed. 6-6 - (a)Matanuska-Susitna Borough Table 6.2-1 presents an overview of impacts of the project on the Borough as a whole.Impacts on the incorporated communities of Palmer t Wasilla t and Houston are summarized in Tables 6.2-2 t 6.2-3 and 6.2-4. (i)Population The population increase related to a large project can be the determinant behind a large number of impacts of a project.Most of the analysis that follows will focus on the impacts of the inmigrant popul ation that resettles in communities of the Borough (and excludes workers and their families that live only at the work camp/village).The work camp and family village at the work sites will provide extensive provision of housing and key facil it i es and servi ces for inhabitants;thus t it is likely that this portion of the new population in the Borough will have little impact on housing con- ditions t facility and service needs or fiscal conditions in existing Matanuska-Susitna Borough communities. Table 6.2-5 displays projected population in the Borough without and with the project t for the years 1981-2005. Construction Phase As a result of the construction of the Susitna pro- ject t the population of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough is expected to increase by up to 4 t 700 in 1990 t including both new on-site and off-site residents. About 1 t llO will resettle in communities in the Borough (off-site).These figures include direct and indirect/induced workers and their dependents.The 6-7 TABLE6.2-1:SUMMARIZEDIMPACTOFTHESUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTONMATANUSKA-SUSITNABOROUGHPresentConditionsWatanaConstructionPeakDevilCanyonPeakPercentPercent1990IncreaseIncrease19811990ForecastImpactOver1999 1999ImpactOverSocioeconomic1981Amount!BaselinewithofBaselineBaselineForecastofBaselineVariahleCapacityUsageForecastProjectProjectForecastForecastWithProject ProjectForecastPopulationN.A.22,28542,96444,076(a)1,112(a)2.6(a)66,33867,204(a)866(a)1.3(a)(b)N.A.4,0026,91410,8423,92856.89,50511,5542,04921.6EmploymentHousingDemand8,5826,81014,41714,7913742.624,67024,9923221.3(no.ofunits)WaterN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.(gallonsperday)SolidWasteDisposal6172.56.76.90.22.513.613.80.21.3(acresperyear)(J)ISewageTreatmentN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.OJ(gallonsperday)Police20203842410.5606223.3Education(primarystudents)3,1362,3885,4065,5651592.98,8849,0111271.4(secondarystudents)3,3802,1414,6054,7381332.97,5687,6741061.4HospitalBeds2320606111.710911010.9(c)0808222.413313521.5Conmunity-Parks(acres)N.A.-NolApplicable(a)PopUlationincreasereferstopopulationinfluxinMat-SuBoroughcommunities,anddoesnotincludepopulationresidingonlyatworkcamp!village.(b)Byplaceofemployment.(c)Conmunityparksgenerallycontainfacilitiessuchaslenniscourts,balldiamonds,playapparatus,basketballcourts,naturewalks,andswimmingpools.Source:ForecastsbyFrankorth&Associates,Inc.(136)1.3163J 11TABLE6.2~2:SUMMARIZEDIMPACTOFTHESUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTONTHECITYOFPALMERPresentConditionsWatanaConstructionPeakDevilCanyonPeakPercentPercent1990IncreaseIncrease19811990ForecastImpactOver19991999ImpactOverSocioeconomic1981Amount/BaselinewithofBaselineBaselineForecastofBaselineVariableCa~UsageForecastProjectProjectForecastForecastWithProjectProjectforecastPopulationN.A.2,567~,5254,567420.96,1676,200330.5_(a)N.A.(b)(b)(b)(b)(b)(b)(b)l.mpIoyment-- -27- - -13HousingDemand8727831,5511,563120.82,2992,311120.5(no.ofunits)Water1,368,000300,000608,000614,0006,0001.0918,000923,0005,0000.5(gallonsperday)mSewageTreatment500,000300,000543,000548,0005,0000.9740,000744,0004,0000.5I(gallonsperday)I.DPolice8888009900.0Education800(c)685(c)(primarystudents)569580111.9826 83040.5(c)951(c)(secondarystudents)1,40048549051.0704 70840.6HospitalBedsN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.-NotApplicable(a)Byplaceofemployment(b)Datanotavailable(c)Schoolserviceareasdonotcorrespondexactlytocitylimits.1981enrollmentmayincludeaserviceareathatextendsbeyondcityboundaries,whereasprojectionsfor1990and1999referonlytoschoolchildrenlivinginPalmerSource:ForecastsbyFrankorth&Associates,Inc.(135)1.3157 fABLE6.2-3:SUMMARIZEDIMPACTOfTHESUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTONWASIllAPresentConditionsWatanaConstructionPeakDevilCanyonPeakPercentPercent1990IncreaseIncrease19811990forecastImpactOver19991999ImpactOverSocioeconomic1981Amount/BaselinewithofI:laselineBa8elineforecastofBaselineVariableCapacityUsageforecastProjectProjectforecast forecastWithProjectProjectforecastPopulationN.A.2,1684,1574,207501.27,9698,010410.5(a)N.A.(b)(b)(b)(b)(b)(b)(b)13(b)Employment-------HousingDemand7186701,4041,421171.22,9652,980150.5(no.ofunits)Water864,000(b)559,000565,0006,0001.11,186,0001,192,0006,0000.5-(gallonsperday)SewageTreatmentN.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.(J)(gallonsperday)It-'0PoliceN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.Education959(c)(primaryst1,17052353071.31,0671,07360.6(secondarystudents)1,800-(c)1,068_(c)44645261.390991450.6HospitalBed8N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.-NotApplicable(a)I:lyplaceofemployment(b)Oatanolavailable(c)Plannedcapacityof150Source:forecastsbyfrankOrth&Associates,Inc.(135)1.3522 TABLE6.2-4SUMMARIZEDIMPACTOFTHESUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTONHOUSTONPresentConditionsWatanaConstructionPeakDevilCanyonPeakPercentPercent1990IncreaseIncrease19811990ForecastImpactOver1999 1999ImpactOverSocioeconomic1981Amount/BaselinewithofBaseline BaselineForecastofBaselineVariableCa~UsageForecastProjectProjectForecastForecastWithProjectProjectForecastPopulationN.A.6001,4151,453382.73,3353,367321.0(a)N.A.(b) (b)(b)15(b)(b) (b)(b)Employment------7HousingDemand229207508522142.81,2491,261121.0(no.ofunits)WaterN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.(gallonsperday)SewaqeTreatmentN.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.(J)(gallonsperday)Il--'l--'PoliceN.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.EducationO(c)O(c)(primarystudents)17818463.444745140.9(secondarystudents)O(c)O(c)15215642.638038441.1liospitalBedsN.A.N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.-NotApplicable(a)Byplaceofemployment(b)Datanotavailable(c)Schoolserviceareasdonotcorrespondtocitylimits.ChildreninHoustoncurrentlyattendschoolsoutsideofthecity.Asecondaryschoolinitiallyacco~nodatinq300studentsisplanned.Source:ForecastsbyFrankOrth&Associates,Inc.(136)1.3159 - TABLE 6.2-5 IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON POPULATION IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH, 1981-2005 Cumulative Baseline Project-Forecast Forecast Related Popu-with of Population lation Influx(a)Project 1981 22,285 0 22,285 1982 23,982 °23,982 1983 25,982 28 20,010 1984 28,075 29 28,104 1985 31,202 99 31,301 1986 33,950 123 34,073 1987 36,894 580 37,474 1988 39,323 789 40,112 1989 41,543 886 42,429 1990 42,964 1,112 44,076 1991 45,263 1,074 46,337 1992 47,112 988 48,100 1993 49,734 852 50,586 1994 51,988 796 52,784 1995 54,607 763 55,370 1996 57,191 784 57,975 1997 60,272 817 61,089 1998 63,000 856 63,856 1999 66,338 866 67,204 -2000 69,334 844 70,178 2001 72,731 778 73,509 2002 76,295 694 76,989 2003 80,034 676 80,710 2004 83,955 676 84,631 2005 88,069 676 88,745 (a)Population influx refers to workers and their families which inmigrate into Borough communities,outside of the work camp and village. Indirect and induced population influx is included. Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. 6-12 - new off-site popul ati on woul d represent an increase of 2.6 percent over the basel ine forecast level of population in 1990,and would result in a total Borough population of 44,076 in that year (excluuing the work camp/village).Over 90 percent of this project-induced population influx will occur between 1986 and 1990,and over 40 percent in 1987 alone. The Susitna project would be only one of several fac- tors contributing to the Borough's rapid growth between 1982 and 1990.With construction of the pro- ject,population in the Borough will increase by approximately 19,000,of which almost 18,000 will be related to baseline forecast growth and 1,100 will be project-related.As mentioned in the baseline fore- cast section (Section 4.1(a)(ii)),spillover growth from Anchorage is expected to be one of the most important factors behind the rapid increase in Mat-Su population. After 1990,the const ructi on work force wi 11 decl i ne substantially,and some inmigrant families (both direct and indirect/induced)will leave the Borough. Between 1990 and 1995,almost 350 people are expected to leave.Overall,Borough population will continue to increase during this time period,as a result of baseline forecast growth. Project-induced population will not increase signifi- cantly in the late 1990·s as the construction of Devil Canyon picks up.It has been assumed that the available work force in the Railbelt will be able to fill the new direct jobs.The inmigration that does occur in that period represents several secondary 6-13 workers and their families.Since population of the Borough wi 11 cont i nue to increase as a resul t of natural growth factors implicit in the baseline fore- cast,the relative size of the project-induced off- site popul ati on wi 11 be far smaller duri ng the Devil Canyon peak.In 1999,project-induced population (866)will account for only one percent of total Borough population. The population influx into the incorporated com- munities is expected to be small;between 1983 and 1990,the project will result in an increase of approximately 40 people in Palmer and Houston,each, and 50 in Wasilla.Over 50 percent of the inmigrant population in the Borough is expected to settle in or near Trapper Creek and Ta 1keetna and the remai nder wi 11 probably establ i sh homes in the Wi 11 ow-Montana Creek area,the suburban area surrounding Palmer and Wasi 11 a,and possi bly in the newly avail abl e Indi an River subdivision (near Hurricane). In addition to this increase in population in Mat-Su Borough com]unities,there will be an additional peak amount of 1,464 people from out-of-state and other areas of Alaska who will be living at the work camp/village full-time in 1990 and 2,124 workers who wi 11 cOlT11lute back and forth to permanent homes out- side of the Borough.This segment of the population i nfl ux is expected to have a 1imited effect on con- ditions in the Borough,as a result of the planned provision of housing and other facilities and ser- vi ces by the constructi on contractor.Thei r major impact will be related to the stimulative effect of expenditures made in Trapper Creek,Talkeetna,and 6-14 - - other Borough communiti es on busi ness acti vity and employment (significant expendit~res will also he made in Anchorage and Fairbanks hy these workers). (ii)Housing Construction Phase The majority of construction workers on the project wi 11 1i ve in housi ng provi ded by the project at the work sites.These workers will have no impact on the housing market in the Mat-Su Borough. As shown in Table 6.2-6,a total of approximately 374 project-induced households are expected to settle in Mat-Su Borough communities between 1983 and 1990,the height of construction activity at the Watana site. Most of the housi ng demand will occu r between 1987 and 1990.Based upon an average five percent vacancy rate,there will be a projected 2,336 vacant housing units in the Borough in 1990,or about si x times as many units as inmigrant households.Thus,the inmigration is not likely to cause any dislocations in the Borough1s housing market as a whole. Between 1990 and 1995,there will be an estimated 28 percent decline in demand for housing by project- related households.However,due to baseline fore- cast growth,the overall number of househol ds in the Borough will continue to increase during this period. At the height of activity in the Devil Canyon portion of the project,322 of the inmigrant households asso- ciated with the project will remain,representing one percent of total Borough households. 6-15 TABLE 6.2-6 IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON HOUSING DEMAND IN THE MATANUSKA- SUSITNA BOROUGH,1981-2005 Projected Baseline Project-Induced Total Housing Forecast of Influx of Housing Stock Households Households Demand 1981 8,582 6,810 0 6,810 1982 8,790 7,402 0 7,402 1983 9,595 8,099 9 8,108 1984 10,462 8,843 9 8,852 1985 11,730 9,927 32 9,959 1986 12,868 10,916 40 10,956 1987 14,094 11,986 189 12,175 1988 15,121 12,910 259 13,169 1989 16,092 13,788 294 14,082 1990 16,754 14,417 374 14,791 1991 17,728 15,354 364 15,718 1992 18,574 16,156 339 16,495 1993 19,761 17,245 295 17,540 1994 20,821 18,235 279 18,514 1995 22,043 19,371 271 19,642 1996 23,278 20,528 282 20,810 1997 24,719 21,885 297 22,182 1998 26,048 23,145 314 23,459 1999 27,672 24,670 322 24,992 2000 29,207 26,095 317 26,412 2001 30,626 27,373 271 27,644 2002 32,115 28,715 259 28,974 2003 33,675 30,122 254 30,37/i 2004 35,310 31,598 254 31,852 2005 37,023 33,146 254 33,400 - Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. 6-16 The majority of housing demand by project-related i nmi grants wi 11 be concentrated in the northern pa rt of the Borough;in that area,demand is expected to exceed supply causing rapid construction and some inflation in land and housing prices (see Sections 6.2 (b),(c),(d)and (e)for detail on specific communities).As Tables 6.2-2,6.2-3 and 6.2-4 display,the impact of the project on housing con- ditions in Palmer,Wasilla and Houston will be negli- gible. -Operations Phase As construction of the Devil Canyon facilities is completed,the outmigration of population will result in a further decline of an estimated 68 project- rel ated househol ds res idi ng in the Borough (between 1999 and 2003).Over 250 of the original 374 project-related households will remain.This decline will be counteracted by a continued increase in households due to baseline forecast growth. Operations of Impact vi 11 age. housing. phase workers are assumed to be residents Area 2 and will live at the dam site There wi 11 be no impacts on Borough - - (iii)Public Facilities and Services Public facility and service impacts have been estimated using the following approach:(1)Appropriate per capita standards were developed,based upon an extensive literature review and the input of local officials; (2)the adequacy of existing facilities and services 6-17 were assessed;and (3)estimates of future needs related to natural growth and to project-induced population influx have been compared with present and planned capa- city. With the exception of Trapper Creek and Talkeetna, substantial increases in public facilities and services will be needed to accommodate baseline forecast growth, and population influx related to the project will only add slightly to these needs.In contrast,the large proportional increase of population in Trapper Creek and to a lesser extent Talkeetna will have substantial impacts on the needs for public facilities and services. The major impacts of the project on public facilities and services will occur during the construction phase of the project.Impacts during the operations phase of the project will be minimal. -Water Supply The water supply needs of the project and of the work force and famil i es 1i vi ng at the Watana and Devil Canyon sites will be provided for by the contractors. There will be no impact on public facilities in the Mat-Su Borough. The population influx associated with the project will have only a slight impact on the public water systems in the Borough.In Palmer,average daily water consumption at the peak of construction at the Watana site (1990)wi 11 ri se one percent over the baseline forecast level of 608,000 gallons per day; water consumption attributable to the population 6-18 - - - influx during the Devil Canyon site construction peak (1999)will represent a 0.5 percent increase over the baseline level of approximately 918,000 gallons per day (see Table 6.2-7). In Wasilla,water consumption is expected to increase by 1.1 and 0.5 percent during the two construction peaks,over the baseline forecast consumption levels during those years.This increase in population will not have major impacts on the Wasi 11 a water system; however,it may contribute slightly to the population density in Wasilla,and thereby to the need for an expans i on of the water system (the present system currently serves only the downtown area).Table 6.2~7 presents water requirements of Wasilla with and without the project,based on total city population. No impacts on the water supply systems in the Borough are expected during the operations phase of the pro- ject.Water supply needs of operations staff will be provided by the work village. -Sewage The sewage treatment needs of the work force and of families living at the construction sites will be provided for at the work camp and family village.No impacts on the local public facilities are expected. Tabl e6.2-8 displays the impact of the project on sewage treatment requirements in Palmer and Wasilla if a central sewage system were to be constructed. Population influx into Palmer will result in an increase in sewage treatment requirements of approxi- 6-19 TABLE 6.2-7 IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT ON WATER REQUIREMENTS IN PALMER AND WASILLA,1981-2005 (in gallons per day) PALMER WASILLA Baseline "With Project"Baseline "With Project" Forecast Water Daily Water Forecast Water Dai ly Water Year Requirements Requi rements Requirements Requirements - 1981 308,040 308,040 260,160 260,160 1982 332,454 322,454 283,450 283,450 1983 358,758 358,909 308,616 308,785 1984 387,005 387,160 336,086 336,261 1985 417,373 417,912 365,928 366,530 1986 450,176 450,860 398,336 399,097 1987 485,482 488,325 433,642 437,063 1988 523,357 527,247 471,926 476,591 1989 564,134 568,557 513,538 518,843 1990 608,160 613,774 588,701 565,436 1991 636,888 642,390 607,648 614,262 1992 666,947 672,125 660,893 667,161 1993 698,366 702,985 718,8?-9 724,495 1994 713,174 735,585 781,581 787,027 1995 765,258 769,562 849,701 855,039 1996 800,928 805,372 923,760 929,248 1997 838,219 842,851 1,004,058 1,009,741 1998 877,165 882,037 1,091,194 1,097,146 1999 917,650 922,626 1,185,787 1,191,861 2000 957,450 962,356 1,271,100 1,277,102 2001 990,961 995,250 1,363,890 1,369,350 2002 1,025,644 1,029,900 1,463,454 1,468,500 2003 1,061,542 1,065,600 1,570,286 1,575,450 2004 1,098,696 1,102,800 1,684,917 1,690,050 2005 1,137,150 1,141,200 1,807,916 1,813,050 Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. 6-20 TABLE 6.2-8 IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT ON SEWAGE TREATMENT IN PALMER AND WASILLA,1981-2005 (in gallons per day) PALMER WASILLA Forecast Baseline Forecast With Baseline With Year Forecast Project Forecast Project 1981 308,040 308,040 260,100 260,160 1982 328,080 328,080 279,720 279,720 1983 349,440 349,587 300,600 300,764 1984 372,120 372,269 323,160 323,328 1985 396,240 396,752 347,400 347,972 1986 422,040 422,681 373,440 374,154 1987 449,520 452,152 401,520 404,688 1988 478,680 482,238 431,640 435,907 1989 509,760 513,757 464,040 468,834 1990 543,000 548,012 498,840 504,854 1991 561,960 566,815 536,160 541,996 1992 581,640 586,156 576,360 581,826 1993 602,040 606,021 619,680 624,564 1994 623,160 626,919 666,120 670,762 1995 644,880 648,507 716,040 720,539 1996 667,440 671,144 769,800 774,373 1997 690,840 694,657 827,520 832,204 1998 715,080 719,052 889,560 894,413 1999 740,040 744,053 956,280 961,178 2000 765,960 769,885 1,016,880 1,021,682 2001 792,769 796,200 1,091,112 1,095,480 2002 820,516 823,920 1,170,763 1,174,800 2003 849,234 852,480 1,256,229 1,260,360 2004 878,957 882,240 1,347,934 1,352,040 2005 909,720 912,960 1,446,333 1,450,440 Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associ ates,Inc. 6-21 mately 5,000 gallons per day (0.9 percent)above the 1990 baseline forecast level and about 4,000 gallons per day (0.5 percent)over the 1999 baseline forecast level.The population influx during 1983-1990 will occur at a time when existing facilities are already reaching their limits,and a third sewage treatment cell will be required (with or without the project). Sewage treatment requirements in Wasilla are currently handled by individual septic tanks,but as the city population grows,a city-wide system will be needed with or without dam construction. Solid Waste The solid waste requirements of personnel and depen- dents living at the construction work sites will be provided for at the camp and village,and will have no significant impacts on public facilities in the Mat-Su Borough. The population influx into the Borough communities associ ated with the project wi 11 increase the annual 1andfi 11 needs of the Borough by .069 hectares (ha) (.17 acres)in 1990 and .073 ha (.18 acres)in 1999. This represents 2.5 percent and 1.3 percent increases over the baseline forecast levels in those years. This population increase may contribute to a slight advance in requirements for additional landfill acreage,whi ch is expected to be needed under the baseline forecast conditions around 1994-1995.Table 6.2-9 displays cumulative landfill requirements in the Borough for the 1981-2005 period,with and without the project. 6-22 TABLE 6.2-9 IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ON LANDFILL REQUIREMENTS IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH,1981-2005 (in number of acres) Cumulative Cumulative Baseline Forecast Requirements,-Requirements With Project 1981 2.5 2.5 1982 5.2 5.2 1983 8.4 8.4 1984 11.9 11.9 1985 16.0 16.0 1986 20.6 20.6 1987 25.8 26.0 1988 31.6 31.9 1989 37.9 38.3 1990 44.7 45.2 1991 52.1 52.8 1992 60.0 60.9 1993 68.6 69.6-1994 77 .8 79.0 1995 87.9 89.2 ,-1996 98.7 100.1 1997 110.4 112.0 1998 122.9 124.7 1999 136.5 138.5 2000 151.1 153.2 2001 166.3 168.6-2002 182.4 184.8 2003 199.2 201.8 2004 216.8 219.5 2005 235.3 238.2 (a)Calculated on the basis of a 1981 standard of .11 acres per thousand population,increasing to .21 acres per thousand population in 2000. Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. - -6-23 By 2003,the number of project-related households that remain in the Borough will by very small as a percentage of total,and their effect on solid waste disposal needs will be minimal. Law Enforcement A compari son of State Trooper requi rements in the Mat-Su Borough with and without the project are displayed in Table 6.2-10. The population influx into Mat-Su Borough communities that is associated with the project will increase the requirements of State Troopers by one to two officers over the baseline forecast need of 38 in 1990,the year of peak construction activity. In addition,though the project construction contrac- tors wi 11 provi de for security around the dam sites, it is expected that the State Trooper force in Trapper Creek may be enlarged somewhat to reflect the growing population in the northern part of the Borough during the construction phase of the project. Altogether,an increased need for four Troopers can be expected at the peak of construction. Fire Protection Fi re protecti on pl anni ng in rural areas such as the Mat-Su Borough is more dependent on the di stance of facilities from population centers and the wi 11 i ngness of the resi dents to form fi re servi ce areas than on the size of population.It is possible that project-i nduced new popul ati on in the Borough 6-24 - TABLE 6.2-10 IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE TROOPERs(a)IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH,1981-2005 Baseline Forecast Forecast wi th Proj ect 1981 20 20 1982 21 21 1983 23 23 1984 25 25 1985 28 28 1986 30 31 1987 33 34 1988 35 37 1989 37 40 1990 38 42-1991 41 45 1992 42 45 1993 45 48 1994 47 50 1995 49 51 1996 52 54 1997 55 57 1998 57 59 1999 60 62 2000 63 65 2001 66 67 2002 69 71 2003 73 75 2004 77 81 2005 80 81 -(a)Based upon a standard of 1.0 policemen per thousand population. Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associ ates,Inc. 6-25 along with baseline growth may contribute to the feasibility of providing fire service to additional areas of the Borough.The revenue from fire service areas is used to pay for equipment and building expenses.Fi refi ghters wi 11 cont i nue to be,for the most part,volunteers. The project facil it i es and work camp/family vill age wi 11 be protected by fi refi ghti ng equi pment and ser- vices at the work sites;there will be little impact on the existing governmental facilities and services. -Health Care The work camp/family village at the construction site will provide facilities for health care,inclUding a 20-bed hospita 1.It is expected that there will be little impact of the construction-site population on the Mat-Su Borough's health facilities,with the exception of cases of major illness or accidents which cannot adequately be handled by the site hospi- tal. The population influx into the Mat-Su Borough com- muniti es associ ated with the project is expected to increase the number of hospital beds needed in 1990 by about one bed.This population influx may contri- bute to a slightly accelerated need for a new hospi- tal,a development which was projected to be required around 1990 under baseline forecast conditions. 6-26 - - - - - - Education School-age chil dren at the construction site will be educated at project facilities and hence will not have an effect on the Mat-Su Borough School District. The impact of the Susitna project on enrollment in the Mat-Su Borough School District is shown in Table 6.2-11.There will be an increase of 159 primary school children and 133 secondary school children accompanyi ng i nmi grants into communities in the Mat-Su Borough between 1983 and 1990,representing about three percent of the baseline forecast levels. These figures will decline to 127 and 106,respec- tively,during the Devil Canyon peak.There will be a need for about seven additional primary school cl ass rooms and teachers and seven secondary school classrooms and teachers in 1990,in addition to the 216 primary school and 230 secondary school classrooms which will be needed to accommodate growth without the project. Public Recreation Facilities Recreational facilities will be provided at the constructi on site for use by project employees and their families.Thus,residents of the work camp are not expected to have much of an impact on public recreational facilities,although some increase in visits to the national and state parks near Mt. McKinley,and to other parks can be expected. Res i dents can a1 so be expected to engage in outdoor recreation activites in portions of the upper Susitna basin where no public facilities now exist. 6-27 TABLE6.2-11IMPACTOFTHEPROJECTONMArANUSKA-SUSITNABOROUGHSCHOOLDISTRICTENROLLMENT,1981-2005PrimarySchoolEnrollmentSecondarySchoolEnrollmentTotalBoroughEnrollmentBaselineProjectRe-ForecastBaselineProjectRe-ForecastBaselineProject-Re-ForecastwithForecastlatedInfluxwithithProjectForecastlatedInfluxwithProjectForecastlatedInfluxProject19812,52702,5272,15302,1534,68004,68019822,95302,9532,51502,5155,46805,46819833,19943,2032,72532,7285,92475,93119843,45743,4612,94532,9496,40186,40919853,842143,8563,272123,2847,114267,14019864,180174,1983,561143,5767,741327,77219874,542835,6253,869693,9388,4121528,56419884,8841134,9974,160944,2549,0442079,25119895,1821275,3094,4141064,5209,5962339,82819905,4061595,5654,6051334,73810,01129210,304(J)10,63728310,921I19915,7441545,8984,8931295,022N19926,0291436,1725,1361195,25611,16626211,429():)19936,3921256,5175,4451045,54911,83722912,06619946,7381176,8555,739975,83612,47721512,69219957,1361137,2496,079946,17313,21520613,42219967,5051167,6216,393966,48913,89721214,10919977,9741208,0946,7931006,89314,76722014,98719988,4031258,5297,1581047,26315,56123015,79119998,8841279,0117,5681067,67416,45223316,68420009,3601249,4847,9731038,07617,33422717,56120019,8191159,9348,364958,45918,18321018,393200210,03010310,1338,774868,86019,07418919,263200310,8059610,9019,204809,28420,02817620,204200411,3349611,4309,655809,73520,98917621,165200511,8899611,98510,1288010,20822,01717622,193Source:ForecastsbyFrankOrth&Associates,Inc.e118)1.3477 - The project-induced population influx into Borough communites wi 11 represent 2.6 percent of Borough population in 1990 and 1.3 percent in 1999.This additional population will have a slight impact on the requirements for public recreational facilities. Transportation The Susitna hydroel ectri c project i ncl udes the con- struction of a road into an area that currently has no auto access.If policymakers decide to allow public access to this road,the result will be a major additi on to the local transportati on system. The ultimate status of the road is unsettled at this point,due to environmental concerns. It is anticipated that the majority of project- related supplies and equipment will be transported by rail to Gold Creek,and then by truck to the work sites.The rail system is currently under- utilized,and the increased revenues are expected to benefit the railroad. An increase in vehicular traffic on the Parks Highway and nearby roads wi 11 resul t to the extent that pri- vate automobiles are allowed to use the access road to the sites.This increase in road traffic could i ncl ude workers commuti ng to and from the si te and traffic related to potential recreational activity in the impoundment areas. 6-29 (i v)Emp 1oyment There will be significant employment opportunities for current Mat-Su residents during 1985-1990 and intermit- tently beyond 1990.By 1990,about 3500 on-site construction (direct)jobs will be filled.It is dif- ficult to predict what proportion of these jobs will be filled by current Mat-Su residents due to:(1)the potential for high inmigration to Alaska,particularly if the economy is ailing in the Lower-48;and (2)com- petition for limited jobs among residents of the Railbelt.A conservative estimate for on-site construc- tion jobs filled by current Mat-Su residents would be 200--it could be significantly more. By 1990 there will be 2,865 support (indirect and induced)jobs generated by the project.Due to construction worker inmigration into the Borough,there will be proportionately more indirect and induced jobs available in the Borough than on-site jobs. Accordingly,at least 300 indirect and induced jobs will probably be filled by Mat-Su residents.As above,it could be substantially more. By 1990 it is estimated that there will be about 6900 jobs in the Borough (without the project).If 500 of the di rect and induced jobs are fi 11 ed by Mat -Su res i- dents,this would represent a 7.2 percent increase in employment in the Borough. By 1999,the peak workforce year for Devi 1 Canyon,the number of on-site construction jobs will decline to about 1700 and the number of indirect and induced jobs will decline to about 1500.This will occur after a 6-30 - relative lull in construction during the mid-1990s. Current Mat-Su residents should hold at least 90 of these direct and 160 of these indirect jobs.Persons who moved to the Borough during 1985-1995 should also fill a significant nu~ber of these johs. As the project enters the operation phase for hoth dams (2003),employment opportunities will diminish signifi- cantly.There will be 170 permanent positions at the Watana and Devi 1 Canyon sites in 2003 and thereafter. Several of these positions cou1rl be filled hy Mat-Su residents. (v)Personal Income Substantial personal income will he earned in the ~1at-Su Borough duri ng the constructi on and operat i on of the dams.Personal income wi 11 increase for construct ion and operati ons I'AJrkers;for those persons who <ire employed hy institutions that provirle goods and services for constructi on and operati ons;and for those persons who are emp 1 oyed hy servi ce and related fi rms where construction v.urkers spend their income.Quantitative estimates of project payroll,constructi on and opera- t ions I'AJrkers I expenrlitu res in the Borough,and increases in constructi on and operati ons I'AJrkers per- sonal income the Borough are discussed he1ow.Personal income that wi 11 accure to support (i ndi rect and induced)sector workers is discllsserl hrief1y. Tables 6.2-12 shows the amount of payroll that wi 11 be earned by construction and operations I'AJrkers rfuring 1983-2005.In 1990,vklen the Watana I'AJrkforce peaks, payroll also peaks at $98 million.There is another 6-31 peak in payroll in 1999,the Devil Canyon workforce peak,at $53 million.Total payroll during 1983-2002 is $888 million;all but $54 million of this amount is construction payroll.During the operation phases for both dams,payroll is expected to be about $6.5 million annually.Prior to 2002,when only the Watana facility is in operation,payroll is about $5.6 million on average. A significant number of workers will maintain their pro- mary residences and spend much of their earnings outside of the Mat-Su Borough.To begin to estimate construc- ti on and operati ons workers I personal income that wi 11 accure to the Borough,it is appropriate to look at the amount of payroll that will be spent in the Borough.In Table 6.2-13,it can be seen that $8.0 million and $4.1 million of construction payroll are estimated to be spent in the Borough in 1990 and 1999,respectively. During 1983-2002,about $67 million of the construction payroll wi 11 be spent in the Borough.If the expen- ditures made in the Borough by the Watana operations work force are added to this amount,a total of $72 million will be spent in the Borough during 1983-2002. Some of the expenditures made by Watana operations per- sonnel cou1 d accrue to Borough fi rms that provide goods and services to the village.These expenditures are shown in Table 6.2-14 in the "village"row.Thus, construction and operations payroll spent in the Borough will be greater than $72 million during 1983-2002. The above payroll expenditure estimates nearly ref1 ect increases in construction and operations workers'per- sonal income in the Borough.These estimates underesti- 6-32 - - - TABLE6.2-12IABlE5.16:IOIAlPAYROllFORON-SUECONS1RUCTIONANDOPERATIONS"ANPOWER,190J-2005liN1I10USANOSOFDOllARS)190119041905190619011900190919901m1m1m19941m1996199119901999200020012002200J20042005(a)(ON51RUmON.......LABORERSJm12501684725J2JJ8m5P1J95686l10984m0551529268061654l101861614125mmillim2989211950ll14SE"'·SI.lllEOISKILlED2601m8361191629441111S0Ill691614015202lOW5415Jl892JOJJOll59521125Bl8'8182m8514ADmISIRA1IV£/ENGINHR94023420159l810555514168Jl410404WI1162l042m814652J14lm413150J8JmJmmmSUBfOlAl(ONS1RUCIION1442106020mlomml5um101669182090910ml4l6l2l22J10140ll22J06J504014m4140242020246114180IWw(b)OPERAliONS----AtllAJORCAHGORIES260455595559m955595559~5595559m,651165176517651710IAlPAYROll1442lObI2Ob11J8m5Jll569925181669182890m69511JOOOI278691959J21m40m5021253041mnlom10m65176517651111102----------(a)Basedon1,025workinghoursintheyear.(b)Basedon2,496workinghoursIntheyear. TABLE6.2-13fAOlE5.17:lOIALOH-SITECOHSIRUCIIONWOR~fORCEPAYROLLEIPEHOllUREPAIlERH(a)IIHlI10USANDSOFDOllARSI~~.-----~-----~---------~.----~-_.---.--.._-----------~----.----PLArrOfWEHO\TUREYEARS-......-.-_......._.----..1YB3198419S5198619871988198919901991un1993199419951m19911998199920002001200210lAlP~YROll(ll).--._..-----.....---.....----------.--..1442106S28m38mSlJI5699251816691828909lB69SHlblnmlo14034m063S04044b13414B2m~o146114180£II'(NDABLEIHCO"E(c)414938B6ISI6D2Il0S291S139020W295458950mlO80J20i51121S118lB12m19m255832118926109IS511nOl'"PACIAREA3mBl282u152IB91~m03HSOB3016l10JYO119B23Wl118111101669491101911]])m50W192319'lJB512mAHCIIORAGEREG/OH2196250910mIHaO2054Bnwl020211709J505226B15IJ916mB5]94B6UIHH11m19mIBm10111/195ANCItORAGE20451mms1059611104IW52069B~S02521010101059516S9J8lI56m5928912169Imo125651mIl08"AI-SUEREG/ONmm1601moml512B6128BOl2141\56962921I11B1092IIBl2mJIll101B18S6ml301(J)KENAI-COOl:INLETIIIm11101621205126923011mo350220UI1389856SJbB5SIH61110193118361010171IwSEwhRD652029105l59H695l2111II11n153816211-PofAIRBANI:S1961162930111951521008185197919/06691136lJm51129nb~3526lui502817b92B29501SEfAIRoms51182536U52656116HIS9IS2J31nH191VALOE/-CHIIIMA-WHIlIIEft6251mm4HS81m821161581303181liSIB8291386m101m10..._..---_..-...-----.-------..-_....---.._..----.-_..-_......-----._____.-----..........-..-------(a)TableshowstotaleRpendtturesbyconstructionworkforceinImpactAreaJ.(b)Totalconstructionpayroll,alllaborcategories.(c)Grosspayrollminus30percentfortaRes(federalIF.l.C.A••andunem~loyment/workman'scompensationwithselfandonedependent)minus10percentfornetincomesaved.J I1TABLE6.2-141TARLE~.1B:TOTALOPERATIONSWORKfORCEPAYROLLEXPENDITUREPATTERN(a)InIhousandsofDollarsPillceofExpenditure(b)19931994 19951996199719901999 20002001200220032004 2005(c)2,6B45,559 5,5595,559 5,559TotalPayroll5,559 5,559 5,5595,5596,5176,5176,5176,517ExpendableIncome(d)1,6913,502 3,502 3,5023,5023,5023,5023,5023.5024,106 4,1064,106 4,106Village1,0152,1012,1012,101 2,101 2,1012,1012,1012,1012,4642,4642,464 2,464Anchorage338700700700700700700700 700821B21B21821Q)IfairbanksB5175175175 175175 175 175175205 205 205205wU1Mat-Su253526 526526 526 526~26526526616616616616(a)Tableshowstotalexpendituresbyoperalionsworkforceinselecledareas.(b)Assumedthat60percentofpayrolltobespenlatVillage;15percentintheMat-SuBrorough;20percentinAnchorage;and5percentinfairbanks.(c)lotalOperationsPayroll.(d)GroBspayrollminus30percentfortaxes(federal,fICA,andunemployment/workman'acompensationwithseIfandonedependent)minus10percentfornetincomesaved. mate personal income impacts because (1)ff'deral income taxes and savings are not included and (2)non-wage and non-salary income are excluded (this is relevant for workers that relocate to the Borough).With an adjust- ment for (1),personal income reslilting from the project will be at least $107 million during 1983-2002.There is no way to adjust for the effect of (2)ahove.The effects of (2)would be to increase personal income s 1i ght 1y• Income will also accrue to support (indirect and induced)sector workers.The amount of income that will accrue to i ndi rect \',Grkers wi 11 depend upon the extent to which goods and services needed for construction and operation are procured in the Borough.Induced income will be in the tens of millions for the Borough. (vi)Business Activity Most business activities in Impact Area 1 (proximity to dams,access roads and transmission lines)are dependent upon abundance and loc~tion of fish and game species. These activities include guiding,lodging,trapping, salmon fishing and other recreation.Short term displacement of such enterprises by construction acti- vity may occur,hut in the long run increased access to the area may increase business opportunities. Guides are expected to have to adjust to changes in abundance and location of fish and game species,hut may benefit from improved access to wilderness areas. Lodges cateri ng to hunters and fi shermen wi 11 be a ffected by the same factors,but may fi nd new oppor- tunities to offer access to sports such as cross country 6-36 - ski i ng or to provi de faci 1iti es for busi ness confer- ences.Trappers will be affected by loss of habitat for furbearers.Salmon stocks wi 11 be affected by changes in species mix and numbers of fish t but long term impacts on Cook Inlet commercial fishermen t recreational fishermen and other user groups are expected to be minor.Impacts on other types of recreation will include the loss of sections of Susitna River to white- water kayaking t but general recreational use is expected to increase as a result of improved access. One active mining site is expected to be totally displaced by the project and one inactive site partially displaced.However t the project may prove beneficial to other mining activities by improving access t hence allowing existing claims to be worked more profitably and facilitating discovery of new deposits. Business activity will increase in the BoroLlgh during the mid to late 1980's as a result of road and dam con- structi on at the Watana site.Busi nesses that supply construction materials such as sandt gravel t fuel t etc.t will have increased sales as will firms that provide transportation services such as trucking t he1icopter t and airplane support services.Further.it is estimated that by 1990 more than 400 support sector jobs wi 11 be created by the project.Exi sti ng support sector busi- nesses such as restaurants t service stations t lodging estab1 i shments t retai 1 food stores.etc.t wi 11 expand and new businesses will be started.Most of this acti- vity will be concentrated along the Parks Highway from Wasilla to Cantwell. 6-37 (vii)Fiscal Impacts on Local Government The methodology used in the fiscal impact analysis is the per capita multiplier method,an average cost tech- nique that assumes current per capita revenues and costs are a good approximation of future flows,other vari- ables remaining constant.It is implicit,therefore, that any revenue or expenditure projections based on per capita amounts will vary in direct proportion to changes in population.The fiscal impact analysis is to be viewed as a set of trend indicators of future fiscal flows,and not as a predi ctor of actua 1 recei pts and costs to be incurred.The analysis is not comprehensive in that it focuses on major sources of revenue and major categori es of servi ce costs.Therefore,projections could be either higher or lower,varying primarily as a result of public policy decisions and budgetary alloca- tions. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Budget Impact forecasts for the major sources of revenue for sel ected funds in the Mat-Su Borough budget are provided in Tables 6.2-15 and 6.2-16.The impacts of the project are greater in 1990 during the peak construction year of the Watana dam than those to be experi enced in 1999,the peak construction year of the Devil Canyon dam.Total revenues between 1990 and 1999 will increase approximately 45 percent with or without the pro- ject,over 1990 levels. The Service Area Fund will be impacted most by the project,causing a 28 percent increase in revenues 6-38 - - TABLE 6.2-15 I'lAT-SU BOROUSH SUDSET:II1PACT FORECAST OF 6ENERAL FUND REVENUES. A B C D E TOTAL SCHOOL STATE I1UNICIPAL FEDERAL HISC TOTAL PROPERTY DBT SRV SHARED ASSIST REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE TAXES REIHBSI1T REVENUE TAXES SHARlIl6 YEAR ~$$~($J $($000) ._------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 5808344 3485006 2384495 1900019 534840 1227192 15339896 1982 6040678 3624407 2566074 2044705 575568 1291429 16142861 1983 6289075 3773445 2783070 2217613 624240 1364125 17051569 1984 6540346 3924208 3007128 2396147 674496 1438463 17980788 1985 6816501 4089900 3349207 2668723 751224 1537005 19212560 1986 7092341 6260355 3645811 2905064 817752 1801854 22523178 1987 7464946 6589251 4009718 3195033 899376 1926811 24085135 1988 7796746 0882128 4291984 3419949 962688 2030739 25384234 1989 8118653 7166273 4539903 3617497 1018296 2127011 26587632 1990 8807249 7486162 4716132 3757920 1057824 2245677 28070964 1991 9140306 7769260 4958059 3950693 1112088 2341774 29272180 1992 9480321 8058273 5146700 4101006 1154400 2429626 30370325 1993 9822449 8349082 5412702 4312962 1214064 2531414 31642673 1994 10197069 8667509 5647888 4500364 1206816 2633013 32912658 1995 10590969 9002324 5924590 4720846 1328880 2745010 34312619 1996 11011739 9359978 6203315 4942949 1391400 2861686 35771077 19<17 11450478 9732906 6536523 5208448 1466136 2990825 37385316 1998 11908874 10122543 6832592 5444363 1532544 3116601 33957516 1999 12378716 10521909 7190828 5729813 1612890 3255145 40689307 2000 12862664 10933265 7509046 5983376 1684272 3388924 42361547 2001 13357664 11345055 7865463 6267377 1764216 3518959 44130191 2002 13869969 11788708 8237823 6564082 1847736 3678005 45987302 2003 14415478 12253156 8635970 6881335 1937040 3836781 47959760 2004 14986233 12738298 9055517 7215639 2031144 4002333 50029163 2005 15579866 13242886 9495715 7566399 2129880 4175195 52189942 ASSW1PTIONS: (AlAREAWIDE MILL LEYY 6.0 MILLS PER ,1000 ASSESSED VALUATION,1981-2005. NON-AREAWIDE LEVY 0.5 I1ILLS,1981-1989j 0.75 MILLS.1990-2005. (8l 0.52 l TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS,1981-1985. 0.0765lTOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS.1986-2005. (Cl.lv7.0a PER CAPITA. !!li$B5.26 PER CAPITA.0.75 HILLS11990-2005l IEl$24.00 PER CAPITA. INCLUDES ONLY I1AJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR THE /'lAT-SU BOROUGH BlID6ET. 6-39 TABLE 6.2-16 MAT-SU 80ROUGH BUDGET:IMPACT FORECAST OF REVENUES FOR THE SERVICE AREA FUND;LAND MANA6EMENT FUNDi AND MAXIMU~TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS. A B C SERV.AREA NON A-WIDE STATE LAND TOTAL FliND PROP TAX SHARED MANAGENENT BONDED TOT.REV SHARE REVENUE FUND INDBTDNESS YEAR $$$($)($0(0) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 1489319 446796 1042523 '7'44438 67019.36 1982 1548892 464668 1084224 1016357 69700.13 1983 1612583 483775 1128808 1102304 72566.25 1984 1677012 503104 1173908 1191048 75465.53 1985 1747821 524346 1223474 1326536 7B651.93 1986 1818549 545565 1272984 1444014 81834.71 1987 lQ14089 I:'''J'j'j~1339862 1588148 86134.00.),"1 ..':'1 1988 19'fqJ66 599750 1399416 1699947 89962.45 1989 2081706 624512 1457194 1798141 '13676.77 1990 3261944 978583 2283361 1867941 97858.32 1991 3;)85293 101559Cf 2369709 1963762 101558.'-i:, 1992 3511230 1053369 2457861 2038478 105336.90 1993 3637944 1091383 2546561 2143835 109138.32 1994 3776692 1133008 2643685 2236986 113J00.77 1995 3912581 1176774 2745807 2346581 117677.44 1996 4078422 1~"':I"'C''":'''2854895 2456981 122352.06•.A-.LJ...JLJ 1997 4240918 1272275 2968642 2588952 i .....7~,.,f CO" ...L ...41 I ~I.) 1998 4410694 1323208 3087486 2706217 132320.82 1999 4584710 1375413 3209297 28481Cib 137541.29 2000 4763950 1429185 3334765 2974144 142918.49 2001 4943379 1483014 3460366 3115311 148418.48 2002 5136692 1541008 3595684 3262794 154110.75 20n3 5339066 1601720 3737346 3420490 160171.98 2004 5550457 1665137 3885320 3586662 166513.70 2005 5770321 1731096 4039225 3761013 173109.63 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE EASED UPON THE FOLLOWING: IA)HILL LEVY FOR SERVICE AREAS: 0.5 PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUATION (1981-1989). 0.75 PER S1000 ASSESSED VALUATION (1990-2005). (B)$42.38 PEP.CAPITA. (CIP.ATIO OF TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS TO TOTAL ASSESSED VALUATION IS 0.075. 6-40 - - - - over baseline in 1990,while other funds will average a 2.6 percent change due to the project. However,even in the absence of the project, Servi ce Area Fund revenues wi 11 ri se 114 percent by 1990 over 1981 levels,increasing at a faster rate than the population increase of 93 percent. Service Area Fund revenues will rise 119 percent by 1990 over 1981 1eve1 s with the project. Changes in the 1999 impact forecast over baseline forecast will be 50 percent 1ess than those in 1990,averagi ng 1.3 percent for all funds, excluding the Service Area Fund.However,Service Area Fund revenues ; n 1999 and 2005 wi 11 remai n a constant 25 percent over those forecast without the project.This is consistent with the popula- tion settlement forecasts that the majority of the population influx will reside in the outlying areas of the Borough. The Borough will have to increase substantially the delivery of services to service areas.These include basic services such as sanitary land fill, library,fire protection,ambulance,and road construction and repair. The Borough administration will experience a short-term impact from the 1 ag between recei pt of revenues and outlays for service costs.There may be an i nit i a1 net defi cit due to the costs of delivering services to substantially larger client groups and receiving additional revenues,both local and state.Increases in local revenues will be generated in the form of property taxes and service user charges. 6-41 The increased population will indirectly expand the tax base through changes of land ownership, whereby more Borough lands will be in private ownership.(See section 6.2(c)(v)for example of impacts on a service area.) Currently property taxes account for 30 percent of total Service Area Fund revenues;however,this may change dependi ng upon the mi 11 1evy rate per $1,000 assessed valuation,the ratio of assessed value to real market value,and the proportion of total Service Area Revenues attributed to property taxes.There is usually a lag between the time new property is placed on tax rolls and is assessed,and the rece"j pt of tax revenues. However,over time,increases in the tax base are anticipated to offset the increases in service delivery cost.In addition,there is a lag in the receipt of State revenues;however,these will cont i nue to increase as long as all ocat i on for- mulae are based upon population. Certai n General Fund sources of revenues wi 11 be impacted more than others:property tax revenues with the project,provided in Table 6.2-17,will ri se nearly 5 percent in 1990 and 3.6 percent in 1999 over the basel ine forecast.Actual property tax revenues will double by 1999 for both fore- casts.These are based on a 4 percent annual rea 1 rate of increase in property va 1ues and a mill levy of 6.75 mills per $1000 assessed valuation.Per capita share of property taxes declines from $256.64 in 1981 to $195.40 in 1990, and $179.23 in 1999 under the baseline forecast. 6-42 - .... - - TABLE 6.2-17 PROPERTY TAX IMPACT FORECAST FOR MAT-SU BOROUGH. PER CAPITA TOTAL AREAWIDE NONAREAWIDE TOTAL PER CAPITA MAT-SU ASSESSED ASSESSED PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY BOROUGH VALUATIml VALUATION TAX TAX TAXES TAX YEAR POP 5 (5000)5 S 5 $ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1981 22285 40098 893591 5361548 446796 5808344 260.64 1982 23982 38751 929335 5576010 464668 0040678 251.88 1983 26010 37199 967550 58053QO 483775 6289075 241.79 1984 28104 35803 1006207 6037243 503104 6540346 232.72 1985 31301 33503 1048692 6292154 J24346 6816501 217.77 1986 34073 32023 1091129 6546777 545565 7092341 208.15 1987 37474 30647 1148453 6890720 574227 7464946 199.20 1988 40112 29904 1199499 7196996 599750 7796746 194.37 1989 42429 29438 1249024 7494142 624512 8118653 191.35 199(,44076 29603 1304778 7828666 978583 8807249 199.82 1991 46337 29223 1354119 8124716 1015590 9140306 197.26 1992 48100 29199 1404492 8426952 1053369 9480321 197.10 1993 50586 28766 1455178 8731066 1091383 9822449 194.17 1994 52784 28620 1510677 9064061 1133008 10197069 193.18 1995 55370 28337 1569033 9414195 1176774 10590969 191.28 1996 57975 28139 1631369 9788213 1223527 11011739 189.94 19'17 61089 27769 1696367 10178202 1".,....."iC'11450478 187.44L.f~L.,.J 1998 63856 27629 1764278 10585665 1323208 11908874 186.50 1999 67204 27288 1833884 11003303 1375413 12378716 184.20 2000 70178 271~4 1905580 11433479 1429185 12862664 183.29 2001 73509 26921 1978913 11873479 1484185 13357664 181.71 2002 76989 26b90 2054810 12328861 1541108 13869969 180.16 2003 80710 26460 2135626 12813758 1601720 1441547B 178.bl 2004 84631 26234 2220183 13321096 1665137 14986233 177.08 2005 88745 26009 2308128 13848770 1731096 15579866 175.56 ASSUMPTIONS: AREAWIDE MILL LEVl =6.0 MILLS PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUATION. NON-AREAWIDE MILL LEVY =0.5 MILLS (1981-1989). 0.75 HILLS (1990-2005t. REAL VALUE OF REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IS ASSU~ED TO INCREASE 4:PER YEAR. (9)01 6-43 Decl i nes in per capi ta share of property taxes with the project are $199.82 in 1990 and $184.20 in 1999,over 1981 levels. State funds for school debt servi ce reimbursement increase from 22 percent of total revenues in 1981 to 26 percent in 1990,when 100 percent of local school capital project debt is anticipated to be reimbursed by the state.This relative proportion remai ns constant through 2005.Thi s represents a 250 percent increase in 1990 over 1981 levels and a 40 percent increase in 1999 over 1990 1eve 1s with the project forecast.Muni ci pal Assi stance monies with the project are projected to be 2.6 percent above baseline forecast in 1990, decreasing to 1.2 percent in 2000 over baseline forecast.Federal Revenue Sharing funds will follow the same trend.These two sources of funding are based primarily upon population and therefore vary directly with population forecast changes. Total bonded indebtedness for the Mat-Su Borough is not anticipated to exceed 7.5 percent of total assessed valuation.By 1990 total bonded indeb- tedness for the Mat-Su Borough could reach $95.3 million (baseline forecast)or $97.8 million with the project.By 1999 thi s could increase to approximately $137 million,with the project,and to $173 million by 2005. Expenditure forecasts are provided in Table 6.2-18 These are based upon average per capi ta expen- ditures found in the FY81/82 budget.The cost of 6-44 - TABLE 6.2-18 MAT-SU BOROUGH:IMPACT PROJECTIONS FOR GENERAL FUND;SERVICE AREA FUNDjAND LAND MANAGEMENT FUND EXPENDITURE MAT-SU AREAWIDE AMBULANCE SANITARY LIBRARY FIRE PARKS LAND MN~ST ROAD TOTAL BOROUGH SEN.FUND LANDFILL.SERVICE &:RECI<PROGRAPI PlAUH EXPENDS VEAR POP ADPIIN ADPIIN &REPR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 22285 16713750 668550 356560 713120 779975 1114250 1114250 797500 22257955 1982 23982 17986500 719460 383712 767424 839370 1199100 1199100 877250 23971916 1983 26010 19507828 780313 416167 832334 910365 1300522 l.JOO522 9M975 26013027 1934 23104 21078247 843130 449669 899339 983652 1405216 1405216 1061473 28125941 1985 31301 23475627 939025 500813 1001627 1095529 1565042 1565042 1167620 31310325 1986 34073 25554728 1073299 572426 1090335 1252182 1703649 1703649 1284382 34234647 1987 37474 28105672 1180438 629567 1199175 1377178 1873711 1873711 1412820 37652273 1988 40112 30084019 1263529 673882 1283585 1474117 2005601 2005601 1554102 40~\44436 1989 42429 31821976 1336523 712812 1357738 1559277 2121465 2121465 1709512 42740768 1990 44076 33056769 1388384 740472 1410422 1619782 2203785 2203785 1880463 44503861 1991 46337 34752594 1474437 778458 1482777 1702877 2316840 2316840 2068510 46893332 1992 48100 .36074737 1530533 808075 153Q191 1767665 2404986 2404986 2275361 48805582 1993 50586 37939740 1609657 849850 1613n2 1859047 2529316 252Q3l6 2502897 51433585 1994 52784 39587912 1679583 836769 1689084 1939308 2639194 2639194 2753186 53814731 1995 55370 41527236 1761362 930210 1771829 2034835 2768482 2768482 3028505 56591442 1996 57975 43481538 1844777 973986 1855212 2152046 2898769 2398769 3331355 59436453 1997 61089 45816586 1943845 1026292 1954841 2267616 3054439 3054439 3664491 62782548 1998 63856 47891914 2031894 1072779 2043388 2370330 3192794 3192794 4030940 65826834 19Q9 67204 50403293 2138444 1129034 2150541 2494627 3360220 3360220 4434034 69470411 2000 70178 52633489 2233063 1178990 2245696 2605007 3508899 3508899 4877437 72791480 2001 73509 55131750 2339056 1234951 2352288 2728654 3675450 3675450 5365181 76502781 2002 76989 57741750 2449790 1293415 2463648 2857832 3849450 3849450 5901699 80407034 2003 80710 60532500 2568192 1355928 2582720 2995955 4035500 4035500 6491869 84598165 2004 84631 63473250 2692958 1421801 2708192 3141503 4231550 4231550 7141056 89041860 2005 88745 66558750 2823866 1490916 2839840 3294214 4437250 4437250 7855162 93737248 ASSUMPTIONS: EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS WERE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:. (Af ~30 1981-1Q85;+5~1986-1990;+14 1991-2005. (B)$16 1981-1985;+5:1986-2005. (C)$32 1981-2005. (I))~35 1981-1985;+5l 1986-1995;+1l 1996-2005. (E)$50 1981-2005. IF)$50 1981-2005. (6)$2500 PER /lllE;+10:PER YEAR PROJECTIONS DO NOT INCLUDE All CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURE. 6-45 delivering services almost doubles by 1990 and increases by only 55 percent in 1999 over 1990 1evel s with or without the project.The vast majority of impacts will be experienced in the increase in delivery of services to service areas with particular emphasis on communities experiencing a large population influx,such as Ta 1keetna and Trapper Creek.Total di fferences between baseline and impact forecasts in the costs of service average 2.6 percent in 1990,and only 1.3 percent in 1999.Costs for administration, fire service,and road maintenance and repair are likely to experience the largest increases. Service user changes are anticipated to rise pro- portionately to the increases in the costs of ser- vice delivery. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Budget The school district budget for FY 81/82 is the single largest category of revenues and expen- ditures across all services provided within the Borough and withi n the incorporated communiti es. Table 6.2-19 provides impact forecasts of school district revenues to 2005,and Table 6.2-20 provi- des a comparison of basel ine and impact forecasts of major revenues and expenditures for the school district budget.Total revenues more than double by 1990 and increase approximately 60 percent by 1999 over 1990 levels with or without the project. Thi sis cons i stent with increases in the school age population.The impact of the project results in an overall 2.5 percent average increase in 1990 over the basel i ne forecast;1.1 percent in 2000, and 0.7 percent in 2005. 6-46 - TABLE 6.2-19 MAT-5U SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET:IMPACT REVENUE FORECASTS. A B C D YEAR SCH PDP ST FNDTN ST TRANS TOTAL lOC PROP FEDERAL TOTAL HAT-SU PROG REV REVENUE ST REV TAXES REVENUES REVENUES BOROUGH ($000)($000)($OOO}($000)($000)($000) ._--------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 4680 15030 2106 17136 5362 1404 23902 1982 S468 17561 2461 20021 5576 1640 27238 1983 5931 19048 2669 21716 5799 1779 29295-1984 6409 20583 2884 23467 6031 1923 31420 1985 7140 22930 3213 26143 ',",i'1 2142 34557OL.IL 1986 7772 24960 3497 28457 6~'l",2332 37312.J .." 1987 8564 27503 3854 31357 6784 2569 40710-1988 9'l~i 29710 4163 33873 7055 2775 43703...J. 1989 9828 31563 4423 35985 7337 2948 46271 1990 10304 34746 4637 39383 7631 3091 50105 1991 10921 36827 4914 41741 7936 3276 52953 1992 11429 38540 5143 43683 8'l~"3429 55364...J" 1993 12066 40688 5430 46117 8584 3620 58321 1994 12692 42799 5711 48510 8927 3808 61245 1995 13422 45260 6040 51300 9284 4027 64611 1996 14109 47577 6349 53926 9655 4233 67814 1997 14987 50538 6744 57282 10042 4496 71820 1998 15791 53249 7106 60355 10443 4737 75535 1999 16684 56260 7508 63768 10861 5005 79634 2000 17561 59217 7902 67120 11295 5268 83683 2001 18393 62023 8277 70300 11748 5518 87566 2002 19263 64957 8668 73625 12218 5779 91622 2003 20184 68062 9083 77145 12706 6055 95906 2004 21165 71370 9524 80895 13215 6350 100459-2005 22193 74837 9987 84824 13743 6658 105225 - - - - - ASSUKPTIONS: (Ai j OF INSTRUCTIONAL UNITS t 1.04 t $38,600 (1981-1989)+5: (B)$450 PER PUPIL Ie)BASED ON 6.0 HILLS PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUATION. (D)$300 PER PUPIL PROJECTIONS INCLUDE ONLY MAJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE FOP.THE SCHO 6-47 TABLE6.2-20SUMMARIZEDFISCALIMPACTSOFTHEPROJECTONTHEMAT-SIJBOROUGHSCHOOLDISTRICT1REVENUES($000)1901Current1990BoselineForecast1990ForecastW.ProjectImpactofProject~ChAnge1999BaselineForecast1999ForecastW.ProjectImpoctofProject~ChangeStateFoundationProgrRmRevenue15,030JJ,75BJ4,7469BB2.9J55,47656,2607621.41StRteTrans.Revenue2,1064,5054,6J71322.937,40J7,5061051.42TotRIStateRevenucs17,1363A,26339,3031,1202.9362,BOl63,766RB71.41LocalProperty1axcs5,3627,6J17,0261972.5R10,66111,00}1421.32FerlerRIRevenues1,4043,00J3,0916B2.9J4,9365,005691.40TotalRevenues2J,90148,B9750,1051,2002.4778,67679,6J49561.220'1I.$::0ex>EXPENDITURES($000)RegularInstructionOpcrationsVocationalSpecialSupportannInstructionEducntionServicesMaintenancePupiITrans-portation2OtherTotalExpends1901Current1990BoselineForecast1990ForecastW.ProjectImpRctofProject~Change1999BaselineForecast1999ForecastW.ProjectImpRctofProject~Change6,72617,B1916,J405212.9229,2BJ29,69641J1.41,05B1,1001,223352.951,9521,9602B1.431,5675,9406,1131732.919,7619,B9913B1.414,76010,69111,0043132.9J17,57017,B1R2461.415,02410,69111,004J132.9317,57017,BlB2401.412,1155,9406,11J1732.919,7619,6991361.413,1737,1277,3362092.9311,71311,8701651.4126,44259,39561,1341,7392.9397,61098,9B61,3761.411.RevenuesdonotinclurleStateReimbursementforSchoolDebtServicePayments.SeeGeneralFundTable5.2B.2.Thiscategoryincludessomecllpitolimprovements.Forecastsin1901$.SelectedyearnfromforeclIstspreparedbyFronkOrth&Associates,Inc.,,IIJII,II I - - Total State revenues comprise approximately 78 percent of total school revenues with State Foundation Program revenues accounting for 88 per- cent of total State funding.Local property taxes provi de approximately 15 percent,with the remainder of revenues coming from Federal sources. Loca 1 property taxes for school revenues are based on a mill 1evy of 6 mill s per $1000 assessed valuation.School Debt Service Reimbursement moni es from the State go to the Genera 1 Fund to pay for major capital projects,and thereby make up the shortfall found between total expenditures and total revenues.The lag between reimbursement of funds and expenditures to be paid produces a short-term impact on fiscal cash flows.This con- dition would prevail even in the absence of the project. Tables 6.2-21 and 6.2-22 provide the impact fore- cast for the Mat-Su Borough School Di stri ct expenditures and Tabl e 6.2-20 provides a summary comparison of baseline and impact forecasts. Total expenditures will follow a similar trend as revenues,i ncreas i ng by 125 percent in 1990 ave r 1981 levels and by 62 percent over 1990 levels without the project.With the project,increases in expenditures between 1981 and 1990 will average 130 percent and 64 percent between 1990 and 1999. In either case,expenditures for education will be rising at a faster rate than the increase in reve- nues.Regular instruction comprises 30 percent of total expenditures,with special and vocational education accounting for 10 percent and 2 percent, respectively.Special education is anticipated to 6-49 TABLE 6.2-21 HAT-SU BOROUSH SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET:IMPACT EXPENDITURE FORECAST. - A B C D E F 6 H REGULAR VOCATNL SPECIAL SUPPORT OPERTNS PUPIL OTHER TOTAL INSTRN EDUCTN EDUCTN SERVICES t~AINTN TRANSPTN EXPENDS YEAR ($000)mOO)($OOO)($OOO)($000)($000 )($OOO)($000) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 8726 1058 1587 4760 5024 2115 3173 26442 1982 10195 1236 1854 5561 5870 2472 3707 30894 1983 11058 1340 2011 6032 6367 2681 4021 33510 1984 11950 1448 2173 11518 6880 2897 4345 36211 1985 12102 807 4034 7261 7261 4034 4841 40341 1986 13174 878 4391 7904 7904 4391 5269 43912 1987 14516 968 4839 8710 8710 4839 5806 48387 1988 15680 1045 r:'l'l;9408 9408 5227 6272 52268.....'L6oJ 1989 16658 III I 5553 9995 9995 1:'1:'1:''''6663 55528..:..:..:.; 1990 18340 1223 6113 11004 11004 6113 7336 61134 1991 19438 1296 6479 11663 11663 6479 7775 64794 1992 20342 1356 6781 12205 12205 6731 8137 67S08 1993 21476 1432 7159 12886 12886 7159 8591 71588 1994 22590 1506 7530 t"1C'C"13554 7530 9036 753021.J":":~ 1995 23890 1593 7963 14334 14.334 7963 9556 79633 19%25113 1674 8";'15068 15068 8371 10045 83709.;,I 1997 26675 1778 8892 16005 16005 8892 10670 88918 1998 28106 1874 93119 16864 16864 9369 11243 93688 1999 29696 1980 9899 17818 1781S 9899 11878 98986 20(fO 31257 2084 10419 IB754 18754 10419 12503 104189 2001 32738 2183 10913 19643 19643 10913 13095 109126 2002 34286 2286 11429 20572 20572 11429 13714 114287 2003 35926 2395 11975 21555 21555 11975 14370 119752 -2004 37672 2511 12557 22603 22603 12557 15069 l'lr:r:-,'lL,J~/L. 2005 39501 2633 13167 23701 23701 13167 15801 131671 ASSUl1PTlONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED UPON THE FOLLOW Ins: (Al 33%OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES,1981-1984;304 1985-2005. lB)4~1981-1984;2;;1985-2005. (C)6Z 1981-1984;10!1985-2005. (D)18!1981-2005. (E)In 1981-1984;18!1985-2005. IF)8::1981-1984;10!1985-2005. (6)l"~1981-2005.THIS INCLUDES..h SOME CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. (H)TOTAL EXPENDITURES PER PUPIL ~5650 1981-1989; 55933 1990-2005. - 6-50 TABLE 6.2-22 MAT-5U BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET:IMPACT EXPENDITURE FORECAST,OPERATIONS ~MAINTENANCE. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL PRIMARY EXPENDS SECDRY EXPENDS SCHOOL POPLTN PRIMARY POPLTN SECDRY EXPEtmS YEAR (SOOO)($000)($000) ------------------------------------------------ 1981 2527 7202 2153 7643 14845 1982 2953 8416 2515 8928 17344 1983 3203 9129 2728 9684 18813 1984 3401 9693 2949 10469 20162 1985 3856 10990 3284 11658 22648....1986 4198 11964 3576 12695 24659 1987 l:""'1C'16031 3938 13980 30011.Jo ...J 1988 4997 14241 4254 15102 29343 1989 5309 15131 4520 16046 31177 1990 5565 16712 4738 17663 34375 1991 5898 17712 5022 18722 36434 1992 6172 18535 5256 19594 38129 1993 b517 19571 5549 20687 40257 1994 6855 20586 5836 21757 42342 1995 7249 21769 6173 23013.44782 1996 7621 22886 6489 24191 47077 1997 8094 24306 6B93 25697 50003 1998 8529 25b13 7263 27076 52689 1999 9011 27060 7674 286(17 55669 2000 9484 28480 807b 30107 58588 2001 9934 29832 8459 31535 61367 2002 10403 31240 B860 33030 64270 2003 10901 32736 9284 34611 67346 2004 11430 34324 9735 36292 706;6 2005 11985 35991 10208 38055 74u46 ....ASSUMPTI OtiS: PROJECTIONS WERE B~5ED UPON THE FOLLOWING: AVERASE PE~PUPIL EXPENDITURE FOR O~M, ELEIlENT~rtY $2850 1981-1989;$3003 1990-2005 SECONDARY $3550 1981-1989:$3728 1990-2005 6-51 increase substantially from 6 percent in 1981 due to the passage of PL 94142.Current p1 ans for capital projects for educational facilities take into account the possible increases in school-age population which will be associated with the pro- ject.It is anticipated that school facilities will have sufficient capacity to adequately handle the influx.Average costs of education excluding capital projects are assumed to increase by 5 per- cent in real doll ars by 1990.Average per pupil expenditures excluding capital projects are assumed to be $3,003 per elementary pupil and $3,728 per secondary pupil. City of Palmer The effects of the Susitna hydroe1 ectri c project on fiscal flows in the City budget will be negli- gible.Total increases in revenues will vary from one percent in 1990 and 0.56 percent in 1999 over the baseline forecast (See Tables 6.2-23 and 6.2-24,6.2-25)In general,increases average 76 percent in 1990 over 1981 and 41 percent in 1999 over 1990 levels assuming normal growth.Between 1981 and 1990 revenues wi 11 increase 78 percent with the project;however,between 1990 and 1999 the impacts on fiscal flows will be virtually the same with or without the project,averaging approximately a 40 percent increase over 1990 1 eve 1s • Loca 1 sou rces total General account for 52 6-52 of revenue provi de 35 percent of Fund revenues:property taxes percent of total local revenues and 11111111111TAB.~~6.2-23:-SUMMARIZEDFISCALIMPACTSOFTHEPROJECTONPALMERCapitalStateTotalTotalTotalWaterTotalProjectPropertySalesLocalIntergovt.ServiceMisc.GeneralFundFundSewerFundFundREVENUES($000)TaxesTaxRevenuesRevenueChargesRevenueRevenueRevenueRevenueRevenues1981Current2562404973553362311.4202491082.2581990BaselineForecast4524238756256103902.5014401903.9821990ForecastW.Project4574278846316173992.5254431924.018ImpactofProject54 967 9243230%Change1.110.951.0.91.152.310.960.681.040.751999BaselineForecast6175761,1938528335313,4095992595,4261999ForecastW.Project6205801,2008578375393,4286022615,456Iff~actofProject34 7548193230~~Change0.49O.700.590.59 0.481.510.56 0.500.770.55TotalBondedParksandPublicWaterTotalIndebted-EXPENDITURES($000)Admin.PoliceFireAmhulanceRecreationHealthLibrarrWorks~Sewer~end.ness1981Current487487128495980856422051032,326 2,6921990BaselineForecast860886238901041401491,1883621814,1983,8321990ForecastW.Project868894240911051421511,1993651834.2363,R320"\ImpactofProject8 82 11 2 21132380IUl%Change0.930.900.841.110.961.431.340.930.831.10.910w1999BaselineForecast1,1711,207327124 1421912041,6194932475,7255,4531999ForecastW.Project1,17B1,2133291251431922051,62B4962485.7565.453ImpactofProject7 62 111193 1310%Change0.600.500.61o.Bl0.700.520.500.560.510.400.540Forecastsin1981$.SelectedyearsfromforecastspreparedbyFrankOrthIlcAssociates,Inc.(135)1.3520 TABLE 6.2-24 CITY OF PALMER SUDSET:GENERAL FUND REVENUE IMPACT FORECAST. A B C D PROPERTY SALES TOTAL INTER SERVICE MISCL TOTAL PALMER TAX TAX LOCAL 80VT CHARGES REVENUE GENERAL YEAR POP REVENUE REVENUE TAX REV REVENUE REVENUE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1981 2567 256700 239963 496663 354759 336277 231338 1419038 1982 2734 273400 255574 528974 377839 358154 246388 1511355 1983 2913 291323 272328 563651 402608 381633 262709 1610431 1984 3102 310224 289998 600222 428730 406394 279746 1714920 1985 3306 330627 309070 639696 45692b 433121 298550 1827704 "t986 "7C'''''352234 329268 681502 486787 475516 304082 1947150":'•.J.i.L. 1987 3768 376794 352227 729020 520729 508671 327526 2082916 1988 4019 401865 375664 777529 555378 542518 350184 2221511 1989 4281 428131 400216 828347 591676 577976 373309 2366706 1990 4567 456677 426901 883578 631127 616514 399(162 2524509 1991 4723 472346 441549 913895 652782 637667 412375 2611128 1992 4885 488463 456615 945079 675056 659425 425865 2700225 1993 5050 505018 472091 977109 697935 681774 439507 2791739 1994 1:"'''''522432 438370 1010802 722001 705284 454247 2888005oJ...",,, 1995 5404 540423 505187 1045610 746864 729571 469590 2987458 -1996 5593 ~59286 522821 1082107 772934 755037 485923 3091735 1997 5789 578881 541138 1120019 800013 781489 502928 3200054 1998 5992 599210 560141 1159351 828108 808933 520613 3312431 1999 6200 620045 579618 1199662 856902 837060 538004 3427606 2000 6416 641571 599740 1241311 886651 866120 557041 3546602 2001 6635 663500 620240 1283740 916957 895725 575414 3667828 2002 6866 686600 641834 1328434 948881 926910 595170 3795525 2003 7104 710400 664082 1374482 981773 959040 615528 3927091 2004 7352 735200 687265 1422465 1016046 992520 636886 4064186 2005 7608 760800 711196 14719Q6 1051426 1027080 658932 4205702 ASSUMPTHlNS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE SASED ON THE FOLLOWING: (Ai MILL LEVY OF 4.0 HILLS PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUATION:AVERAGE PER CAPITA ASSESSES VALUATION $25000.00. (Bl SALES TAX=2!OF GROSS RETAIL SALES,PER CAPITA ESTIMATED RETAIL SALES $4674.00. (Cl 251 OF TOTAL GENERAL REVENUE. (Dl $131.00 1981-1985;$135.00 1986-2005. PROJECTIONS INCLUDE ONLY MAJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE. 6-54 TABLE 6.2-25 CITY OF PALMER BUDGET:SPECIAL FUNDS-REVENUE IMPACT FORECAST. WATER FUND REVENUES SEWER FUND REVENUES -D •B TOTAL C TOTAL CAPITALH CHARGES RENTS TRANSFERS WATER CHARGES INTEREST SEWER PROJECT FOR FROM FUND FOR &I1ISC FUND FUND YEAR SERVICE FUNDS REVENUE SERVICE REVENUE REVENUE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1981 87278 22443 139645 249366 82144 25940 108084 2258960 1982 92956 23903 148730 265589 87488 27628 115116 2405920 1983 99050 25470 158479 282999 93223 29439 122662 2563638 1984 105476 27122 168762 301361 99272 31349 130621 2729974-1985 112413 28906 179861 321180 105801 33411 139211 2909514 1986 119760 30795 191615 342170 112715 35594 148309 3099659 1987 128110 32943 204976 366028 120574 38076 158650 3315784 1985 136634 35135 218615 390383 128597 40610 169206 3536414 1989 145564 37431 232903 415898 137002 43264 180266 3767549 199(1 155270 39927 248432 ·H3629 146137 46148 192285 4018756 1991 160598 41297 256956 458850 151151 47732 198882 4156643-1992 166077 42706 265724 474507 156308 49360 205669 4298476 1993 171706 44153 274730 490589 161606 51033 212639 4444158 1994 177627 45676 2842C'3 507506 167178 52793 219971 4597404 1995 183744 47248 293990 524982 172935 54611 227546 4755721 1996 190157 48898 304252 543307 178972 56517 235489 4921720 1997 196820 506!!314911 562341 185242 58497 243739 5094152 1998 20~731 52388 325970 582089 191747 60552 252299 5273045 1999 210815 54210 337304 602329 198414 62657 261071 5456392 2000 218134 56092 349014 623240 205303 64832 270135 5645821 2001 225590 58009 360944 644543 212320 67048 279368 5838800 2002 233444 60028 373510 666983 219712 69383 289095 6042080 2003 241536 62109 386458 690103 227328 71788 299116 6251520 2004 249968 64277 399949 714194 235264 74294 309558 6469760 2005 258672 66516 413875 739063 243456 76881 320337 6695040 AS SUMP TI ON S: PROJECTIONS WERE MACE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING: fAl AVERAGE PER CAPITA CHARGE $34.00. (Sf 76:OF TOTAL WATER FUND REVENUE. (CJ AVERAGE PER CAPITA CHARGE $32.00. (DJ AVERAGE PER CAPITA REVENUE =$880.00. 6-55 are based on a mill levy of 4 mills per $1000 assessed val uati on;sal es tax revenues represent the balance of local revenues,based upon a 2 per- cent gross retail sales tax assuming average per capita expenditures of $4,674 per year for retail consumption.In addition,Palmer provides ser- vices based upon user-fees to help cover the cost of service delivery.These user fees are assumed to increase 3 percent in real dollars by 1990 and represent 30 percent of total General Fund reve- nues.Charges for servi ce account for 35 percent of total Water Fund revenues;whi 1e servi ce charges provide 76 percent of Sewer Fund revenues (See Table 6.2-25). The ratio of total bonded indebtedness to assessed valuation is currently 4 percent and is not anti- cipated to exceed this ratio.Total possible bonded indebtedness under these assumptions would be $4.0 million in 1990,$5.4 million in 1999 and $6.7 million in 2005,with little variation between the baseline and impact forecasts. Impact forecasts for expenditures are provided in Table 6.2-26 and 6.2-23.Expenditures,like reve- nues,are not noti ceably impacted by the changes in population influx due to the project.Expendi- tures for social services and facilities rise approximately 0.9 percent over the baseline fore- cast in 1990 at a slightly slower rate than increases in total revenues.Tota 1 expenditu res increase from $2.3 million in 1981 to $4.2 million in 1990 and reach $5.7 million in 1999 without the project.Expenditures with the project in 1999 6-56 111 11I1 1I I11II1TABLE6.2-26cmOFPALHER8UDGEr:lHPIlCrEXPENDITUREFORECIlSI.KLA8 CD EFGHIJTOTALTOTALPAmRADmPOLICEFIREAH~UlAHCEPARfSHEALTHWRARYPIJ8l1CWATERSEWERTOTALASSESSEDBONDEOPOPlmmWORY,SSUPPLYWENDSI'ALUATIONINOEBTONSlEARUOOOI110001----------.._-------19812567l877l048mo1781504877l5904179577841116417502053601026807125701672992692198~27145194605194601167005194667882847549021268150021872010916024770046999128001991291155151155l5ll14566155151670049011096116728106m05811657976191827279179121984110258942658942615511258941711529617010217477556174817912409028106117570210281985llO667819062819016511l6781976044107494109107826566264501132251799547778710114919863~")"669245689122184m70m81014109191116m9246147817871408941267499818801275J••1987l7687159087173851978177517086661116806124142989081101m15071714951278m51406198840197615H7B645021097911017292429124578m6161054896121m16074617179018856115421989478\811448Bl78527247698541298470Ilmo141281Im8ll1425041712521971551921011684199045678676868917162197559110710501614157015070111987771651411876714216162mB8lBl219914711897m924lB11479829517810864014642715587412J9908m8771889184lB766099619J9B519924885928080mm256m9842511214715141416119J178111619077119518545122061016044144199150509595J4988i70165m101761116154156556166656112567240401420200746858091077484Jl0199452249926711022400274277105270170159161954171401IJ7J185417946208m48471881120584482O'l19955404102680110576082B~7221088951242971675111781401418610mm21616950I4JI41165404662I1996559110626441094m29659011269617861617Jl79184564146817744741922171551971011217024848U1"199757891099874Im8701069811166451ll1ll17945119101115195624611052JI551517421512605050421998599211184981172651117761120741m8181857551977191572975479168m684556294111109257441999670011780851711427l7B810124m14261019221470461516776174960162480185mJ69116116545120006416171898412555543402251292761475611988871117181684m51J25625662859562IJ141789567220016615176065017984701518541116951526052056852189551741688510800265400615980I147461589870026866110454011416761641041JB150157918112m77m818071255491802746406J74257I5lm61142001710411497601190251l76725Illl4616m2270m214m18648005681202841606595212159m618070047152119688014J8786lB98n1481ll16909622791224261619299005881602940806B75450165B7l6615200576081445520148888640145215lJ011749842158482510641997100608640104120706111517250B6900ASSUHPTIONS:PROJECTIONSWEREnAVE8ASEDONHIEFOLLOWING:IAI1190.0011981-70051(811190.0011981-19851-111986-2005.IC)I50.0011981-19851t511986-1995;til1996-2005.(PI519.0011981-19851-511986-\990;til1991-2005.(EI521.0011881-20051HI111.001198H0051(GI111.001198H005)IHI1250.1)011981-19851-511886-7005.III580.0011981-20051IJI,40.001198H0051IKIINCREASESAT41PERrEARIN1981OOllARS.IIIASSUHEDNOITO£lCmnOFTOTALASSESSEOVALUATION. wi 11 increase approximately hal f of one percent over the baseline forecast.Between 1990 and 1999 expenditures wi 11 average a 41 percent increase among all services with or without the project. Expenditures thus rise faster than population increases with or without the project between 1990 and 1999.No sudden 1arge capita 1 improvements a re ant i ci pated for the City of Pa 1mer with or without the project.Expansion or additions to existing facilities and services appear to be well integrated into the current planning process. City of Wasilla Fiscal impacts on the City of Wasilla will vary due to normal growth,and growth attributed to the population influx associated with the project will be negligible.Actual increases in revenues will average about 95 percent with or without the project,for each decade:92 percent by 1990,104 percent by 2000 for baseline;94 percent by 1990, 102 percent by 2000 for impact forecast (see Tables 6.2-27 and 6.2-28).The higher rates of increase in the 1990·s with or without the project indicate rapid growth at an increasing rate be- tween 1981 and 2005 for the City of Wasilla. Actual impacts associated with the project will be very small,with increases in revenues and expen- ditures averaging about 1.2 percent over the base- l ine forecast in 1990 and about 0.5 percent over the baseline forecast in 1999.The majority of revenues comprise State shared taxes and State revenue shari ng.Locally deri ved revenues from 6-58 - - TABLE 6.2-27 CITY OF WASILLA BUDGET:IMPACT REVENUE FORECAST. E C D CAPITAL B FEDERAL USC TOTAL PROJECT F A STATE &STATE FINES GENERAL FUND LIBRARY ltASILLA INTSOI/T SHARED REVENUE IUSC FUND STATE Fmm YEAR POP TRANSFR TAXES SHARING REVENUE REVENUES GRANTS REVENUES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 2168 26016 314360 195120 21680 557176 3533840 101896 1982 2331 27972 337995 209790 23310 599067 3799530 109557 1983 2506 30076 363424 225573 25064 644137 4085382 117799 1984 2694 32333 390688 242496 26944 692461 4391876 126637 1985 2900 34797 420466 260979 23998 745240 4726617 136289 1986 3118 37415 452102 280615 31179 801312 5082254 146544 1987 3372 40469 488998 303516 33724 866706 5497007 158503 1988 3633 43591 526721 326930 36326 933567 5921067 170730 1989 3907 46883 566507 351625 39069 1004086 6368325 183627 1990 4207 50485 610032 378640 42071 1081228 6857596 197734 1991 4517 54200 654911 406497 45166 1160774 7362109 212282 1992 4849 58183 703040 436370 48486 1246078 7903139 227882 1093 5205 62456 754682 468423 52047 1337609 8483667 244621 1994 5590 67076 810504 503071 55897 1436548 9111179 262715 1995 6004 72054 870651 540404 60045 1543154 9787320 282211 1996 6453 77437 935701 580780 64531 1658449 10518568 303296 1997 6°":"C-83220 1005579 624153 69350 1782303 11304101 325946"l-i 1998 7453 89441 1080749 670810 74534 1915534 12149107 350312 199 0 8010 96118 1161424 720884 80098 2058524 13056008 376462 2000 8514 102168 1234532 766261 85140 2188102 13877844 400159 2001 9129 109548 1323705 821610 91290 2346153 14880270 429063 2002 9790 117480 1419550 881100 97900 2516030 15957700 460130 2003 10503 126036 1522935 945270 105030 2699271 17119890 493641 2004 11267 135204 1633715 1014030 112670 2895619 18365210 529549 20{15 12087 145044 1752615 1087830 120870 3106359 19701810 568089 ASSUMPTI OtiS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED UPON THE FOLLOW INS AVERAGE PER CAPITA REVENUES FOR Fry 1981-1982. (Af$12 (E}$10 (B)$145 (Fl SI.630 (C)$90 (fi}S47 (0)$10 PROJECTIONS INCLUDE ONLY MAJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE. 6-59 TABLE6.2-28SUMMARIZEDFISCALIMPACTSOFTHEPROJECTONWASILLAStaleFederal&.CapitalLibraryInt:erqovt.SharedStateRevenueLicensesTolalGeneralProjectFundREVENUES($000)TransferTaxesSharingFines&.Mics.FundRevenuesFundRevenues Revenues1901Current26314195225573,5331021990BaselineForecast49603374411,0676,7761951990ForecastW.Project50610:>79421,0016,858198ImpactofProject175114823~Chanqe2.041.161.342.,441.221.211.541999BaselineForecast:951,156717792,04712,9893741999ForecastW.Project961,161721802,05813,056376ImpactofProject154111672%Change1.050.43 0.561.270.540.520.53Parks&.FireLocalGovernmenlRoadMain!:.TotalCapital())EXPENDITURES($000)RecreationLibraryServiceAdministration&.Repairo+MProjectExpends.I())1901Current47102742641916793,79401990BaselineForecast911951485073661,3087,2751990ForecastW.Project931981505133701,3247,362ImpactofProject232641687%Change2.201.541.351.1B1.091.221.201999BaselineForecast1753752879727012,51113,9461999ForecastW.Project1763762899777052,52314,017ImpactofProject112541271%Change0.570.27O.700.510.570.480.51Forecastsin1981$.SelectedyearsfromforecastspreparedbyFrankOrth&.Associates,Inc. - licenses and fines account for only four percent of total revenues,though additional revenues are to be generated from an assessment on lots directly benefitting from a new centralized water supply system.The City of Wasi 11 a does not 1evy property taxes,and it does not utilize service user fees to cover costs of service delivery.In addition,capital projects are funded primarily through State and local grants. Expenditure forecasts with the project are pro- vided in Tables 6.2-29 and 6.2-28.Expenditure forecasts are derived from actual average per capita costs of servi ce,with each servi ce accounting for the following share of total expen- ditures,excl udi ng capital project costs:parks and recreat i on seven percent,1 i brary 15 percent, fire service 11 percent,local government admi- nistration 39 percent,and road maintenance and repai r 28 percent.These proporti ons are assumed to.remain fairly constant over the period of the forecasts,with possible increases in administra- tion and road repairs due to the increased popula- tion influx.The trends for expenditures are the same as those descri bed above for revenues,with rates of growth in the 1990·s exceeding those of the 1980·s with or without the Susitna project. City of Houston Impact forecasts of revenues and expenditures are provided in Table 6.2-30,6.2-31 and 6.2-32.The trends of revenues and expenditures are very simi- 1ar with increases of approximately 150 percent 6-61 TABLE 6.2-29 cm OF WASILLA BUDSET:II1PACT EXPENDITURE FORECAST. D E F A B C LOCAL ROAD TOTAL CAPITAL WASilLA PARKS LIBRARY FIRE SOVT MINT OPERS PROJECTS YEAR POP t:RECR SERVICE ADIUN ~REPAIR &MIIH EXPENDS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 2168 4769b 101896 73712 264496 190784 678584 3794000 1982 2331 51282 109557 79254 284382 205128 729603 4079250 1983 250b 55140 117799 85217 305777 220561 784494 4386147 1984 2694 59277 126637 91610 328717 237107 843348 4715204 1985 2900 63795 136289 98592 353771 255179 907627 5074589 1936 3118 68595 146544 111311 380390 274379 981218 5456408 1987 "'l''''''1 74193 158503 120395 411432 296771 1061293 5901695,J ...',L 1988 3633 79916 170730 129682 443172 319665 1143166 6356974 1989 3907 85953 183627 139478 476048 343811 1229517 6837159 1990 4207 92557 197734 150194 513268 370226 1323979 7362450 1991 4517 99366 212282 161244 551029 397464 1421384 7904104 1992 4849 106668 227882 173093 591523 426673 152583'1 8484965 1993 5205 114503 244621 185808 634974 458014 1637920 9108231 1994 5590 122973 262715 199552 681941 491892 1759072 9781941 1995 6004 132099 282211 214360 732548 :,28395 1889613 10507859 1996 6453 141968 303296 232635 787279 567874 2033052 11292942 1997 6935 152571 325946 250008 846074 610283 2184882 12136304 1998 7453 163976 350312 268697 909320 655903 2348206 13043520 1999 8010 176216 376462 288754 977198 704864 2523494 14017186 2000 8514 187308 400159 306930 1033710 749233 2682340 14899526 2001 9129 200838 429063 329100 1113738 803352 2876091 15975750 2002 9790 215380 460130 352930 1194380 861520 3084340 17132500 2003 10503 231066 493641 378633 1281366 924264 3308970 18380250 2004 11267 247874 529549 406175 1374574 991496 3549668 19717250 2005 120B7 265914 568089 435736 1474614 1063656 3808009 21152250 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MAOE BASEO ON THE FOLLOWING AVEP,ri6E PER CAPITA COSTS : (A)$22 (B)$47 (elS34:+5~1986-1995:+IZ 1996-2005. (D)S122 (Elia8 (F}$I,750 6-62 TABLE ~.2-30 CITY OF HOUSTON BUDGET:ESTI~ATES OF FUTURE GRANT FUNDING-IMPACT FORECAST H A C 0 E F 6 SP168 TOTAL ROAD BJOBS PROG STATE STATE I1UNICPL FEDERAL PER ESTHHD HOUSTON MAINT PARKS STATE REVErWE SUPPLIIT ASSIST REVENUE CAPITA SRANT YEAR POP ~REPAIR "RECR LESISL SHARING REVEUE REVENUE SHARING GRANT FUNDING ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1981 600 109200 96600 11400 79800 12000 44400 2400 81000 436800 1982 660 120120 106260 12540 87780 13200 48840 2640 89100 480480 1983 727 132308 117042 13812 96687 14539 53796 2908 98141 529234 1984 800 145601 128801 15200 106400 16000 59200 3200 108000 582402 1985 881 160409 141901 16746 117222 17627 65221 3525 118985 641637 1986 970 176575 156201 18434 129035 19404 71794 3881 130976 706299 1987 1083 197164 174414 20583 144081 21666 80166 4333 146248 788656 1988 1196 217721 192599 22729 159104 23925 88524 4785 161496 870884 1989 1317 239629 211980 25016 175114 26333 '17432 5267 177747 958518 1990 1453 264529 234007 27616 193310 29069 107556 5814 196217 1058117 1991 1593 289997 256536 30274 211921 31868 117911 6374 215108 1159989 1992 1747 318005 281312 33198 232388 34946 129299 6989 235883 1272020 1993 1915 348523 308309 36384 254690 38299 141707 7660 258520 1394092 1994 2102 382487 338354 39930 279510 42032 155517 8406 283713 1529947 1995 2308 420013 371550 43847 306932 46155 170774 9231 311548 1680051 1996 2536 461574 408315 48186 337304 50722 187673 10144 342376 1846296 1997 2788 507353 448812 52965 370758 ~5753 206286 11151 376333 2029413-1998 3064 557580 493244 58209 407462 61273 226708 12255 413589 2230320 199'1 3367 612774 542069 63971 447796 67338 249150 13468 454530 2451094 2000 3700 673461 595754 70306 492145 74007 273825 14801 499545 2693844 2001 4065 739830 654465 77235 540645 81300 300810 16260 548775 2959320 2002 4467 812994 719187 84873 594111 89340 330558 17868 603045 3251976 2003 4910 893620 790510 93290 653030 98200 363340 19640 662850 3574480 2004 5399 982618 869239 102581 718067 107980 399526 21596 728865 3930472-2005 5936 1080352 955696 112784 789488 118720 439264 23744 801360 4321408 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING AVERAGE PER CAPITA REVENUES FOR DIFFERENT SRANT PROGRA~S. (AlS182 (ElS20 (BlS161 (FlS74-(C1S19 (Gl$4 (ol $133 (Hl$135 GRANTS WERE COMBINED INTO CATEGORIES WHERE APPLICABLE. 6-63 TABLE 6.2-31 CITY OF HOUSTON BUDGET:IMPACT EXPENDITURE FORECAST. - A LOCAL F C D E HOUSTON GOVT FIRE PARKS ROAD SOLID TOTAL YEAR POP ADMIN SEF:VICE ~F:ECR MINT IiiASTE EXPENDS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1981 600 32400 10200 5400 19800 900 68700 1982 660 35640 11220 5940 21780 990 75570 1983 727 39256 12358 6543 23990 1090 93238 [984 800 43200 13600 7200 2&400 1200 91600 J985 S81 47594 14933 7932 29095 1322 100917 1996 970 52390 17318 8732 33617 1455 113512 1987 1033 58499 19337 9750 37537 1625 126748 1988 1196 64599 21353 10766 41451 1794 139963 1989 1317 71099 23502 11850 45622 1975 154047 1990 1453 79487 25944 13081 50362 21S0 170054 1991 1593 86043 28442 143.41 5b852 2:)90 188068 1992 1747 94:53 31189 15726 62343 2621 206232 1993 1915 103408 34182 17235 68326 2872 226023 1994 2102 113485 37513 18914 74984 3152 248049 1995 2308 124619 41194 20770 82341 3462 272385 1996 2536 136951 45726 22825 90489 3804 299795 1997 2788 150533 50261 25~89 99464 4181 329529 1998 3064 165436 552J7 27573 109310 4595 362151 1999 3367 181812 60705 30302 120131 5050 :,98000 2000 3700 199818 66717 33303 132028 5551 437417 2001 4065 219510 73292 36585 145039 6098 480524 2002 4467 241218 80540 40203 159383 6701 528044 2003 4910 265140 88527 44190 175189 7365 580411 2004 5399 291546 97J44 48591 192636 8099 638216 2005 5936 320544 107026 53424 211796 S904 701695 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PER CAPITA COSTS: (A)S54 IBlS17 1981-1985:+5Z 1986-1995:+1l 1996-2005 (CI$9 (DIS33 1981-1985:+5Z 1986-1990~+3l 1991-2005. (E)$1.50 - - 6-64 - 111TABU6.232SUMMARIZEDfISCALIMPACTSOfTHEPROJECTONHOUSTONANOTALKEETNAfotalEsti-TolalLocalParks&.RoadmaledGrantExpenni-Govl.FireRecrea-Mainte-SolidHoustonFundin9.....-luresAdmin.ServicetionnanceWaste1981Current436,80068,70032,40010,2005,40019,8009001990Baseline1,030,120165,55676,41025,25812,73549,0302,123Forecast1990Forecast1,058,117170,05478,48725,94413,08150,3622,180w/ProjectImpactor27,9974,4992,0776863461,33257Project~~Change2.722.722.722.722.722.722.6A1999Baseline2,427,880394,230180,09060,13030,015118,9935,003Forecast1999forecast2,451,094398,000181,81260,70530,302120,1315,050w/ProjectImpactof23,2143,7701,7225752871 , 13847Project%Change0.96 0.960.960.96 0.960.960.94TalkeelnaPropertyStateSlateTotalRevenuesO'lTaxesPaidGeneralSharedtoBoroughItoMat-SuRevenuesforRevenuesforfromTalkeetnaO'lU1BoroughFireServiceRoadRepairsServiceAreas1981Current20,7424,80045,82071,3621990Baseline48,6157,500108,041164,156Forecast1990Forecast61,4019,473108,041178,914w/ProjectImpactof12,7861,973014,758Project~~Change26.3026.3109.001999Baseline88,64911,722254,755355,127Forecast1999Forecast100,56013,298254,755368,613w/ProjectImpactof11,9111 ,576013,486Project~oChange13.4413.4403.8Forecastsin1981$.SelectedyearsfromforecastspreparedbyFrankorth&.Associates,Inc.(132)1.3139 with or without the project for both decades until 2000.The overall impact of the project in 1990 will raise revenues and expenditures approximately 2.7 percent over the basel i ne forecast and wi 11 increase fiscal flows slightly less than one per- centage point in 1999 over the baseline forecast. Total revenues and expenditures will rise at the same rate as population increases,doubling approximately every eight years.The rate of growth during the 1990's is anticipated to exceed that of the 1980's for the City of Houston with or without the project,thereby causi ng expenditures and revenues also to increase dramatically with or without the project.Houston does not raise any funds locally,either through property assessments or service user fees.Current revenues are derived from State and local grants;this pattern is expected to cont i nue.However,many 1oca 1 revenue generating alternatives are available to the residents within Houston City limits. As the community grows,it is likely to provide additi onal services for which it may choose to 1 evy taxes,set user charges or other forms of recipient fees.As petroleum revenues decline in the 1990's and State funding cuts back,local com- munities and cities will have to find increasingly creative methods of raising funds to cover the costs of service delivery.Local taxes and user fees are the predomi nant methods used by 1oca 1 fiscal officials. Expenditures for local government administration represent 47 percent of total expenditures,and 6-66 - - - - - road mai ntenance 29 percent,with fi re servi ce comprlslng 15 percent.This distribution of expenditures is similar to that of the cities of Wasilla and Palmer reflecting similar local priorities.Other major services are provided by the Mat-Su Borough. (b)Trapper Creek Table 6.2-33 displays summarized information on expected impacts of the project on Trapper Creek. (i)Population -Construction Phase Trapper Creek wi 11 probably experi ence the 1argest relative population influx and related population impacts of all the communities in Impact Area 2. Between 1983 and 1990,there is a baseline forecast of an increase in popu1 ati on of about 75 peop1 e, bringing the 1990 population level to 320 (growth of about 30 percent).With construction of the project, Trapper Creek I s popu1 ati on is expected to reach 660 by 1990,more than doubling the community's projected population in that year (see Table 6.2-34). Trapper Creek wi 11 experi ence a 1u11 peri od between 1991 and 1995,during which time some project-related families are expected to leave.Growth expected under baseline forecast conditions will only parti- ally compensate for this decline.Between 1991 and 1995,a net outmigration of about 75 people (11 6-67 --_._---._------------_.-------------..-------------------- TABLE6.2-33:SUMMARIZEDIMPACTorTHESllSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTONTRAPPERCREEKPresentConditionsWatanaConstructionPeakDevilCanyonPeakPercentPercent1990IncreaseIncrease19811990ForecastImpactOver19991999ImpactOverSocioeconomic1981Amount/BaselinewithofBaselineBaseline ForecastofBaselineVariableCa~UsageForecastPro,jectProjectForecast ForecastWithProjectProjectforecastPopulationN.A.225320661341106.645670124549.8_(a)N.A.(b) (b)(b)66(b)(b)(b)(b)Employment- --- --31HousinqDemand6968107221114106.51692619254.4(no.ofunits)\~aterN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.(gallonsperday)SewageTreatmentN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.(gallonsperday)PoliceN.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.0)IEducation30(c)40(d)0)(primarystudents)78128-14850-7064.1116151-17135-5530.1CO(secondarystudents)O(d)O(d)347440117.652823057.7HospitalBedsN.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.-NotApplicable(a)Byplaceofemployment(b)Datanotavailable(c)Plannedcapacityof150(d)Schoolserviceareasdonotcorrespondexactlytocommunitydelineations.TheTrapperCreekelementaryschoolservesawideareaoutsideofthecommunity.Secondaryschool-agechildrenfromTrapperCreekattendSusitnaValleyHighSchool.Source:ForecastsbyfrankOrth&Associates,Inc.(135)1.3160I TABLE 6.2-34 IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT ON POPULATION IN TRAPPER CREEK,1981-2005 Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. (122)1.3515 6-69 percent)is likely.If new sources of employment do not develop,this exodus could be somewhat larger. By 1999,the peak year of construction on the Devil Canyon site,the project-related population will account for approximately 40 percent of total com- munity population. Operation Phase By the end of construction of the project in 2003, approximately 170 of the original 340 project-related inmigrants are expected to remain.No further inmigration is expected. (ii)Housing The expected impact of the project on housing demand in Trapper Creek is shown in Table 6.2-35. Construction Phase The population influx into Trapper Creek between 1983 and 1990 will result in an increased demand for approximately 114 housi ng units over the basel i ne forecast level of 107.This is likely to cause a substantial short-term housing shortage.To the extent that this doubling in housing needs cannot be met,it is expected that inmigrants will seek housing in nearby areas of the Borough. Traditionally,the availability of vacant housing in Trapper Creek has been extremely limited.Under baseline forecast conditions,this trend is expected 6-70 - - - TABLE 6.2-35 IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT ON HOUSING DEMAND IN TRAPPER CREEK,1981-2005 Projected Baseline Project-Induced Total Housing Forecast Influx of Housing Stock of Households Households Demand 1981 69 68 0 68 1982 72 72 0 72 1983 76 75 3 78 1984 80 79 3 82-1985 84 83 9 92 1986 88 87 11 98 1987 93 92 56 148 1988 98 97 79 176 1989 103 102 89 191 1990 108 107 114 221 1991 114 112 111 223 1992 119 118 100 218 1993 126 124 82 205 1994 132 131 74 206 1995 139 138 70 208 1996 147 145 75 220 1997 155 153 82 235 1998 163 161 89 250 1999 171 169 92 261 2000 180 178 89 267 2001 187 186 78 264 2002 195 193 66 259 2003 203 201 63 264 2004 211 209 63 272 2005 219 217 63 280 Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associ ates,Inc. (l;~2)1.3517 6-71 to continue,as additional housing is built only to satisfy definite needs.Thus,only.one or two vacant housing units are expected to be available in 1990--far short of the 114 needed. It is possible that speculative activity prior to the construction peak period will result in additional housing units being available to meet part of the increase in demand.Some families may reside tem- porarily in cottages or rooms owned by lodges in the area,and part of the housing needs may be met quickly by purchase of mobile homes and trai 1ers to be used on individual lots or in trailer parks.While there is not a great deal of pri vate 1and in the Trapper Creek area,there is a sufficient amount to support the expected population influx.It is probable that this large increase in demand for housing will have a significant upward impact on land and housing prices. By 1999,the peak year of construction on the Devil Canyon site,the project-related population will account for approximately 40 percent of total com- munity population. -Operation Phase By the end of construction of the project in 2003, approximately 170 of the original 340 project-related inmigrants are expected to remain.No further inmigration is expected. (ii)Housing The expected impact of the project on housing demand in Trapper Creek is shown in Table 6.2-35. 6-72 - - - - - - - - Construction Phase The population influx into Trapper Creek between 1983 and 1990 will result in an increased demand for approximately 114 housi ng units over the basel i ne forecast level of 107.This is likely to cause a substantial short-term housing shortage.To the extent that this doubling in housing needs cannot he met,it is expected that inmigrants will seek housing in nearby areas of the Borough. Traditionally,the availability of vacant housing in Trapper Creek has been extremely limited.Under baseline forecast conditions,this trend is expected to continue,as additional housing is built only to satisfy definite needs.Thus,only one or two vacant housing units are expected to be available in 1990--far short of the 114 needed. It is possible that speculative activity prior to the construction peak period will result in additional housi ng units bei ng avai 1abl e to meet part of the increase in demand.Some families may reside tem- porarily in cottages or rooms owned by lodges in the area,and part of the housing needs may be met quickly by purchase of mobile homes and trailers to be used on individual lots or in trailer parks.While there is not a great deal of private land in the Trapper Creek area,there is a sufficient amount to support the expected population influx.It is probable that this large increase in demand for housing will have a significant upward impact on land and housing prices. The lull period during the early 1990s is expected to result in a net outmigration of eight percent (about 6-73 20 families).As Table 6.2-35 shows,the cumulative number of i nmi grant househo1 ds wi 11 fall to 205 in 1994.This decline will have short-term implications for the Trapper Creek hous i ng market.However,by 1996 continued population influx (mostly related to basel i ne forecast growth)wi 11 bri ng the number of househol ds near to the 1991 1 eve1 •Thus,any over- capacity that may develop duri ng the 1ull wi 11 not last past the medium-term. At the second project construction peak,the 92 project-re1 ated househo1 ds wi 11 account for approxi- mate1y 35 percent of the housing demand in the community. Operations Phase Once construction of the project is completed in 2002,approximately 63 of the i nmi grant househo1 ds are expected to stay in Trapper Creek.No further impacts on housing are expected. (iii)Public Facilities and Services The small,remote,and unincorporated nature of the com- munity contributes to a low current level of available public services and facilities.A major impact of the increase in population in Trapper Creek may be an increased need for services that are currently not available,such as fire protection and closer proximity to medical care. 6-74 - - - - - - - .... .... - .... - .... - Water,Sewage,and Solid Waste Water and sewage needs are currently met by individ- ual wells and septic tanks;solid waste is disposed of by the public at a nearby landfill run by the Borough.To the extent that new housing is built on plots with suitable soil,few impacts from the increased population are expected.It is possible that the added population will exacerbate present problems of insufficient groundwater during dry s pe 11 s• Rapid growth can have the potential for hastily built housi ng development that does not meet health stan- dards for wells,septic tanks,and/or solid waste disposal.It is anticipated that Borough and State oversight can prevent such problems from occurring. Transportation Residents of Trapper Creek can expect to see a substantial increase in traffic on the Parks Highway as a result of constructi on of the Susitna project. This traffic will include trucks carrying supplies and equi pment and possi b1y workers commuti ng to the work sites from Anchorage and the southern part of the Borough.Mai ntenance of the Parks Hi ghway is provided by the State • In addition,the expected rapid increase in popula- tion in the community will result in a corresponding need for increased maintenance of local roads and some requi rements for new roads.To the extent that the population influx stimulates subdivision acti- 6-75 vity,the responsibility for construction of new roads to access these areas wi 11 rest with the deve- lopers.Maintenance of new local roads would be coordi nated through the Trapper Creek Road Servi ce Area. Police Protection It is expected that as a result of the project and the increased population in the area,the force at t he State Trooper substat ion in Trapper Creek wi 11 increase by between two and four troopers.This sta- t i on serves the whol e northern part of the Borough. For Trapper Creek,this will mean an increased police presence in the community. Fire Protection Trapper Creek currently has no active fire protection facilities.The present small size of the community has 1i mited its abi 1 ity to support a fi re servi ce area.There is an existing building that could be used if a new service area were developed. The population influx into Trapper Creek will exacer- bate the need for active fire facilities in the com- munity.It is possible that the influx of project- rel ated househol ds added to the basel i"ne forecast growth during the period between 1983 and 1990 could result in a population level that could support fire protection facilities.Personnel in this case would need to be vol unteers (as is true throughout the Borough). 6-76 - - - - - - - - - - - Health Care With the exception of an ambulance,no formal health care facilities are currently available in Trapper Creek.Residents of the area with medical training help out on an informal basis (without pay)when needed,and health care facilities in Wasilla and Palmer are utilized. Growth of the community,due to both basel i ne fore- cast growth and to project-related inmigration,is expected to put a strain on this informal system of medical care.The community may want to request the establishment of a Public Health Service office in the future. Education A new elementary school is currently being planned for Trapper Creek.It will have an initial capacity of 100 students,and could be expanded to accommodate up to 200 students. The population increase related to the Susitna pro- ject will include an increase in student enrollment at the elementary school of approximately 60 students between 1983 and 1990,over the baseline forecast 1 eve 1 of about 80 in 1990.The res u lt will be a need for expansion of the school in the late 1980's and addition of two or three teachers.This expansion is expected to be suffi ci ent to provi de for the est i - mated 1999 enrollment of 160. The population influx related to the project is also expected to result in an increase by 1990 of about 35 6-77 juni or and seni or hi gh school students from Trapper Creek attending Susitna Valley High School. (iv)Economic Activity Business activity will change little in Trapper Creek du ri ng the 1980s if the dams are not buil t.By 1990,with dam construction,project-induced demand for services will equal or exceed that associated with the forecast baseline population.With dam construction it is very likely that Trapper Creek wi 11 have servi ce types and 1eve1 s simi 1ar to those of Talkeetna today.Because Trapper Creek is on the Parks Highway,it could even have more service busi- nesses than present-day Talkeetna by 1990. The Susitna project will present vastly increased em- p10yment opportunities for residents of Trapper Creek,both in terms of on-site construction,and in terms of jobs in the support sector. Income spent in Trapper Creek is anticipated to increase sharply during the construction phase of the project,as a result of the increased employment of local residents and the inmigrant population,and as a result of expenditures made by work camp residents on items such as food,beverages,gasoline and recreation. (v)Fiscal Impacts on Trapper Creek and Other Small Communities The potential for the Susitna Hydroelectric project to substantially impact the smaller communities within the 6-78 - - - - - - - Mat-Su Borough is not anticipated.Population influx will occur;however,fiscal impacts will be experienced by the Borough administration.Initially,the costs of service delivery will be accelerated and these will not be matched by an immediate parallel increase in reve- nues.It is anticipated there will be a two-year lag between the receipt of revenues and the outlay for addi- tional service costs.This lag is a function of the time it takes to input new property owners on the tax roll s and for the property assessments to be made,and taxes collected. The Borough is assumed to levy an areawide property tax of 6.0 mills per $1,000 assessed valuation for areawide s ervi ces •The non -a reawi de mill 1evy is as s umed to increase to cover the rising costs of fire and road ser- vice to a steadily increasing population.The mill levy for non-areawide services is expected to increase as follows:1.00 -1981-1985;1.25 -1986-1989;1.50 - 1990-1995;and 1.75 -1996-2005.The ambulance service is assumed to continue operating on a user fee basis. Projections of estimated local taxes to cover the costs of capi ta 1 projects can not be made as thi s wi 11 depend upon the size of the project,the availability of State and Federal grant moni es,local preferences,and the Mat-Su Borough's bonding capabilities.(For further detai 1 concerni ng the Mat-Su Borough I s fi sca 1 impacts, see Section 4.1 (c)(iv).) (c)Talkeetna The expected impacts of the project on Talkeetna are summarized in Table 6.2-36. 6-79 fABLE6.2-36:SUMMARIZEDIMPACT[IFTHESUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTONTALKEEfNAPresentConditionsWatanaConstructionPeakDevilCanyonPeakPercentPercent1990lncreaseIncrease19811990ForecastlmpactOver19991999lmpactOverSocioeconomic1981Amount/BaselinewithofBaselineBaselineForecastofBaselineVariableCapacityUsageForecastProjectProjectForecastForecastWithProjectProjectForecastPopulationN.A.6401,0001,26326326.31,5631,77321013.4(a)N.A.(b)(b)(b)71(b)(b)(b)34(b)Employment------HousingDemand1961943344218726.05816587713.3(no.ofunits)\~aterN.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.(gallonsperday)SewageTreatmentN.A.N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.(J)(gallonsperday)I00PoliceN.A.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A. N.A.a[ducation120(d)ned)(primarystudents)1261643830.22092403114.8(secondarystudents)oed) oed)1071383129.01782042614.6HospitalBedsN.A.N.I\.N.A.N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.N.A.-NotApplicable(a)Byplaceofemployment(b)Datanotavailable(c)Schoolserviceareasdonotcorrespondexactlytocommunitydelineations.Secondaryschool-agechilrlrenattendSusitnaValleyHighSchool.Source:ForecastsbyFrankOrth&Associates,Inc.(135)1.3161I (i)Population Construction Phase Between 1983 and 1990,an estimated population influx of 263 is expected as a result of the project (as shown in Table 6.2-37).This will represent a 26 percent increase over the baseline forecast of 1,000. By 1999,210,or 80 percent,of the earlier popula- tion influx will remain.A further moderate decline in population of 37 is expected between 1999 and 2002 •... -Operation Phase... By 2003,about 170 project-related individuals will remain in Talkeetna,representing eight percent of... total community population in that year.No further population influx is expected. (ii)Housing Table 6.2-38 compares projections of housing demand in Talkeetna with and without the project. -Construction Phase The population influx related to the Watana construc- tion phase will result in an addition of 87 house- holds between 1983 and 1990 to the Talkeetna area. As in Trapper Creek,a shortage of available housing is probable.Under baseline forecast conditions, only six vacant housing units will be available in that year.This estimate is based on the community's historically low vacancy rate. 6-81 TABLE 6.2-37 IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT ON POPULATION IN TALKEETNA,1981-2005 Cumulative Project-Relaterl Total Population Population Year Baseline Forecast Influx With Project 1981 640 0 640 1982 672 0 672 1983 707 6 713 1984 743 7 750 1985 780 22 802 1986 820 27 847 1987 862 138 1,000 1988 906 186 1,092 1989 952 209 1,161 1990 1,000 263 1,263 1991 1,051 254 1,305 1992 1,104 236 1,340 1993 1,160 208 1,368 1994 1,219 196 1,415 1995 1,281 189 1,470 1996 1,347 193 1,540 1997 1,415 199 1,614 1998 1,487 207 1,694 1999 1,563 210 1,773 2000 1,642 205 1,847 2001 1,726 191 1,917 2002 1,814 173 1,987 2003 1,906 169 2,075 2004 2,003 169 2,172 2005 2,106 169 2,275 Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. (122)1.3516 6-82 - TABLE 6.2-38 IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA PROJ[Cr ON HOUSING DEMAND IN TALKEETNA,1981-2005 Projected Baseline Project-Induced Total Housing Forecast Influx of Housing Stock of Households Households Demand 1981 196 194 0 194 1982 210 206 0 206 1983 223 219 2 221 1984 237 232 2 234 1985 251 246 7 253 1986 267 262 9 271 1987 284 278 45 323 1988 302 296 61 357 1989 320 314 69 383 1990 340 334 87 421-1991 362 355 86 441 1992 385 377 81 458 1993 409 401 72 473 1994 435 426 68 494 1995 462 453 67 520 1996 492 482 69 551 1997 523 513 72 585 1998 557 546 76 622 1999 592 581 77 658 2000 630 618 77 695 2001 662 650 71 721 2002 696 683 65 748 2003 732 717 64 781 2004 769 754 64 818 2005 808 792 64 856 - Source:rorecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. (122)1.3518 - -6-83 The expected short-term shortfall in housing supply may be made up by speculative advance construction, temporary residence in local lodges/hotels,the use of mobile homes and trailers,and rapid construction. To the extent that the housi ng supply cannot meet demand,it is likely that some inmigrant families wi 11 fi nd housi ng el sewhere in the northern part of the Borough.It is possible that a significant amount of inflation in housing prices will occur. The number of households in Talkeetna is expected to continue to increase in the 1990's as a result of baseline forecast growth.Thus,as Table 6.2-38 displays,the lull in project construction between 1991 and 1995 is not expected to affect the housing market in Talkeetna. Operations Phase At the end of constructi on of the project,about 64 project-related households are expected to remain in Tal keetna.No further impacts on housi ng are expected. (iii)Public Facilities and Services Water and Sewage Talkeetna is served by independent wells and septic tanks;there is a potential for problems in the "downtown"area due to the small size of the lots on which houses are built and the proximity of wells to septic tanks. 6-84 - - - - - - - - It is not poss i bl e to predi ct with certai nty where new residents in Talkeetna will settle.To the extent that project-related inmigrant population settles in the town itself,they will contribute to the need for central water and sewage systems. As in Trapper Creek,it is possible that quickly con- structed housing will need to be closely supervised to ensure compliance with health standards regarding wells and septic tanks. Solid Waste The peak population influx into Talkeetna associated with the project will occur just around the time that the Borough's landfill near Ta"'keetna is expected to be closed (1987-89),according to the Borough1s solid waste disposal plan.A new landfill or a transfer station will be needed at that time.The additional population is not expected to have significant impact on the need for a new landfill. Transportat ion A large amount of the supplies and equipment for con- structi on of the dams will be transported by rail- road.This is not expected to have any adverse effects on rail service for Talkeetna residents. As the population increases and new housing is con- structed,there will be increased need for construc- tion and maintenance of roads in Talkeetna and the surrounding area.However,baseline forecast growth is expected to cause a 1arge part of thi s increased 6-85 need.Construction of new roads to service sub- divisions will be the responsibility of individual developers,and maintenance of local roads will be admi ni stered by the Borough through the Tal keetna Road Service Area. Police Protection As Talkeetna grows,there may be a community desire for a pol ice presence closer than the Trapper Creek substation.The population influx associated with the project between 1983 and 1990,and the proximity of the work camp to the community may further rei n- force thi s tendency.Incorporati on woul d be a pre- requisite to the establishment of a local police force. Fire Protection Increased popul ati on is not expected to affect fi re- fighting facilities in the area;these are planned on the basis of distance between the station and popula- tion centers,and on the availability of pumped water.The pl anned additi on of equi pment to the Talkeetna fire station should be sufficient to serve the community unti 1 such time as a community water system is put into place. Health Care Residents of Talkeetna currently use the health care facilities in the southern part of the Borough and in Anchorage.The population influx related to the pro- ject,along with baseline forecast growth,may result 6-86 - - in sufficient demand to warrant some provision of medi ca 1 care in the communi ty by a pri vate doctor or a Public Health nurse. Education The population influx associated with the project wi 11 i nc1 ude approximately 38 primary school-age children by 1990,just as the enrollment in the ele- mentary school in Ta"'keetna is projected to exceed its capacity of 120.Additional classroom space and teachers will be needed. Between 1990 and 1999,facilities for an additional 75 elementary school children will have to be built, as a result of baseline forecast growth.The Susitna project is expected to have limited impacts during this period. Population influx into Talkeetna is also likely to include approximately 30 junior and senior high school pupils at the peak of construction of the pro- ject.Toge~her with the additi ona1 enrollment from Trapper Creek families,this increase in students at Susitna Vall ey Hi gh School may exceed its present capacity of 180 by 1988 or 1989. (iv)Economic Activity By 1990,without the project,the demand for servi ces will almost double.It is expected that existing busi- nesses wi 11 operate at full er capacity and some will expand their services.A few new businesses will emerge to meet the increased demands.Some of these mi ght offer services not currently available in Talkeetna. 6-87 The project is expected to have a significant impact on Talkeetna's business activity as new residents and workers from the project spend thei r income in Talkeetna.The new residents will have spending pat- terns similar to those residents now living in Talkeetna,and the workers who come to Talkeetna for short visits will be expected to concentrate their expenditures on food,beverages,lodging,and related items.If workers make visits to Talkeetna frequently (this would be probable if workers are allowed to fly to and from the construction site)~the demand for services could be double that implied by the 1990 baseline fore- cast of population. Income spent in Talkeetna is anticipated to increase somewhat during the construction phase of the project~ but at a more moderate level of increase than that anti- cipated for Trapper Creek.The increase in income and "expenditures will be primarily in the form of local residents obtaining employment on the project and due to the inmigrant workers and families.In that Talkeetna is situated off the Parks highway and that the proposed access route does not go through Talkeetna,there wi 11 be fewer purchases of supplies and other goods and ser- vices made by work camp residents in Talkeetna. However,if workers are able to fly into Talkeetna from the work camp,then considerably more income could be spent in Talkeetna,particularly for food,beverages and lodging. (v)Fiscal Impacts:Ta"lkeetna Service Areas Impact forecasts for revenues generated by or on behalf of the Talkeetna Service Areas for the Mat-Su Borough 6-88 - ...Administration are shown in Table 6-2-39 and Table 6.2-32.Due to substantial population changes caused by the project,there will be a 26 percent increase in revenues from property taxes in 1990 over the basel i ne forecast for 1990.The change due to normal growth would increase revenues by 134 percent without the pro- ject and 196 percent with the project,over 1981 levels. Increases over baseline forecasts of 13 percent between 1990 and 1999 with the project are consistent with other trends where the changes due to the project are twice as large in 1990 as they are in 1999.Property tax reve- nues are based upon a non-areawi de mi 11 1evy of 1.5 mills in 1990 and 1.75 mills in 1999 per $1000 assessed valuation. State General Revenues for fi re servi ce areas are based upon population and therefore will follow the same trend as property tax revenues,increasing 26 percent by 1990 and increasing 13 percent by 1999 over the baseline forecast.Revenues for road mai ntenance and repai rare assumed to increase 10 percent per year in 1981 dollars, consistent with assumptions regarding all revenues for maintenance of roads within the Borough that will experience significant increased use. Tota 1 revenues to the Borough wi 11 increase 130 percent from 1981 to 1990,and 135 percent from 1990 to 1999, without the project.Total revenues to the Borough with the project will increase 9 percent by 1990 and 3.4 per- cent by 1999 ove~baseline forecast. Constant rapid growth for the community of Talkeetna can be anticipated with or without the project.The exact impact of the project will therefore be relatively small 6-89 TABLE 6.2-39 TALKEETNA:IMPACT REVENUE FORECAST', - B C D A FIRE SERVICE ROAD SERV TALKEETNA TOTAL AREA AREA TOTAL POP ASSESSD PROPTY ST SEN ST SHARE REVENUES YEAR VALIN TAXES REVENUES REVENUESTO MS BOR f~OOO)$$$$ ._------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 640 20742 2(1/42 4800 45820 71362 21780 5040 50402 7''1'1')-1982 672 21780 ILLL 1933 713 23108 23108 53~8 55442 83898 1984 750 24308 24308 5625 .60986 9091'1 1985 802 25993 25993 6015 67085 99093 1986 847 27451 34314 6353 73794 114400 1987 100('32410 40513 7500 81173 129185 1938 1092 35392 44240 8190 89290 141720 1989 1161 37628 47035 8708 98219 153%2 1990 1263 40934 61401 9473 108041 178914 1991 1305 42295 63443 9788 118845 192075 1992 1340 43429 65144 10050 130730 205924 1993 1368 44337 66505 10260 lA3803 220568 1994 1415 45860 68790 10613 158183 237586 1995 1470 47643 71464 11025 174001 256490 1996 1540 4991:87345 11550 191402 290296 1997 1614 52310 91542 12105 210542 314189 1998 1694 54903 9607'1 12705 231596 340330 1999 1773 57463 100560 13298 254755 368613 2000 1847 59861 104757 13853 230231 398841 2001 191(b2130 108727 14378 308254 431359 2002 1986 64366 112641 14895 339079 466615 2003 2075 67251 117689 15563 372987 506239 2004 2172 70395 123190 16290 410286 549767 2005 "i'"')"C'i3733 129032 17063 414389 560484Ll.{..1 ASSUMPTIONS: PROJECT!ONS WERE KADE BASED 014 THE FOLLOWING: (A)PER CAPITA ASSESSED VALUATION $32410.00 (8)HILL LEVY PER $1000 ASSESSED VALUATION:1.00 1981-1985 1.25 1986-1989 1.50 1990-1995 1.75 1996-2005 (C)$7.50 PER CAPITA FY81/82, (D)52000.00 PER HILE,tl0!PER YEAR 22.91 MILES. t REVENUES GO TO HAT-SU BOR BUDGET; EXCLUDES TALKEETNA FLOOD CONTROL. 6-90 - - - - when compared to changes due to normal growth.However, relative to project-induced changes in other com- munities,the impact of the project on Talkeetna is substantial. The community of Talkeetna is assumed not to incorporate before 2000 if the Susitna project is not built.Under these conditions the Matanuska-Susitna Borough will con- tinue to provide services,including ambulance,fire protection,solid waste disposal,and road maintenance and repair.Police protection will continue under State Troopers.Services will be administered by Borough officials and paid for by the Borough government out of funds derived both locally and from the State.Property located withi n the servi ce boundary will cont i nue to be 1i abl e for taxes 1evi ed to cover the costs of servi ce de 1i very.The mi 11 1evy for educat ion is as sumed to remain constant at 6.0 mills per $1,000 assessed valuation.The non-areawide tax mill levy is assumed to increase,thereby generating additional revenues over and above those that result from real increases in the value of property over time. In addition to stimulating revenues and raising expen- ditures for service delivery,the impact of the Susitna hydroelectric project is likely to accelerate the time- table in which the Talkeetna community will decide to incorporate.The increased popul ati on i nfl ux wi 11 act as an impetus for the community to organize itself such that it can control the delivery of necessary services. The City of Ta"'keetna would be able to levy taxes to cover the costs of government administration and service operations,functioning either as a second class city or a Home Rule city.The city is likely to elect to pro- 6-91 vide its own fire and ambulance services and as a second class city,would continue police protection under State Troopers.The Mat-Su Borough lAOul d cant i nue to provi de services to the rOi'ld service Clrea Mlich lAOuld exclude the city limits of Talkeetna.Local government ~uld then be responsible for providing road maintenance and repair within the City limits.The Borough ~uld con- tinue to levy non-areawide taxes for services delivered under non-areawide powers.The areawide tax 't.(Juld also be levied to cover the costs of education provided hy the Mat-Su Borough School District. Any additional fiscal expenditures are not anticipated. It is assumed that individui'll septic tanks will continue to be the mode of sewage disposal.Water supply systems are anticipated to remain i'lS w=lls on individual lots. How=ver,shaul d ci ty lot si zes prove to be inadequate for individual wells,the residents mi'ly elect to huild a corrmunity w=ll.The costs of thi s waul d most 1i kely be borne by those residp.nt.s \'i10 directly benefit from the improvements.Solid waste will likely continue to be disposed of at the Borough land fill sites.The majority of fundi ng for capital projects is assumed to be grant moni es deri ved from ei ther Rorough or State funds.Local shares will likely be paid for by monies derived from taxes levied on residents MlO henefit directly or by issuing municipal bonds. (d)Railroad Communities - - - - - The purpose are 1i ke 1y Talkeetna: discussed of this section is to identify Mlat types of changes to occur in the "rail road communiti es"north of Gold Creek,Hurricane,Chase,Sherman and Curry.As in Stephen R.Braund 8-Associates·"Sociocultural 6-92 - - - Studies"(1982),these corrnnunities are actually clusters of people having diverse backgrounds,values,goals and sources of income.These people live along the Alaska railroad corri<1or and use the railroad as a meaf'lS to get to Talkeetna and other communities for necessities. Impacts on Chase,Sherman and Curry are likely to be minor.The road could disturb local fish an<1 game species causing them to change their movements.This could impact those in the area that depend on fish and/or game for foo<1 an<1 for income. Impacts on Gold Creek and Hurricane are likely to he relatively greater.Gold Creek is proposed to be a railheiid.This will require over 50 acres of land and certain facilities.This woul<1 certainly change the character of Gold Creek.Additionally,01<1 patented homestea<1s in the Gold Creek area could provide a pri- vate land base that could accommodate commercial,residential or other development.These 1andoWTlers coul d experi ence wi ndfa 11 financial gains at the expense of losing a rather remote environment. The situation is similar at Hurricane.Currently,few people live here,but the Indian River Subdivision was created recently. This subdivision has a capacity for about 140 housing units. There might be more parcels of land available here in the near future.Clearly,Hurricane has the potential to he a good-sized community in several years.It is likely that work.ers would desire to live here.If this were the case,service businesses such as a general store,a bar,a gas station,etc.~uld be established. One other area nea r the "rai 1 road communi ties"deserves con- sideration.This is the Indian River Remote Parcel area.As proposed,the access road and transmission line will be near 6-93 these parcels.The impacts on parcel lando\o.fiers r.uuld he simi- lar to those discussed above for Ch~se,Sherman and Curry. For further information regarding these communities and poten- tial impacts on these communities,see Stephen R.Braund & Associates (1982). (e)Cantwell Cantwell,an unorganized community with very limitE'<1 employment opportunities and land for development,will be affected only slightly hy the hydroelectric project.Due to the lack of pri- vate land,it is unlikely that many construction ~rkers will settle in Cantwell.Service businesses such as service sta- tions,restaurants,bars,and motels (lodges)will experience increased revenues,particularly during the construction period. Also,the hydroelectric project will provide employment oppor- tunities for Cantwell residents. For further information regarding Cantwell and impacts on Cantwell,see Stephen R.Braund &Associates (1982). 6.3 -Impact Area 3 Table 6.3-1 contains a surmnary of the projected impacts of the project on the Railbelt. 6-94 - - - 0'\I~U1TABLE6.3-1SUMMARIZEDIMPACTOFTHESUSITNAHYDROELECTRICPROJECTONIMPACTAREA3(a)WatanaConstructionPeakDevilCanyonPeakPercentPercent1990IncreaseIncrease1990ForecastImpactOver19991999ImpactOverSocioeconomic1980BaselinewithofBaselineBaselineForecastofBaselineVariableAmountForecastProject ProjectForecastForecastWithProjectProjectForecastPopulation284,166397,999400,3232,3240.6473,191474,4191,2280.3Employment114112(b)200,112206,4776,3653.2232,311235,6683,3571.4,Households96,899138,938139,7948560.6171,895172,3844890.3(a)Includesthefollowingcensusdivisions:Anchorage,KenaiPeninsula,Mat-SuBorough,Fairbanks-NorthStarBorough,S.E.FairbanksandValdez-Chitina-Whittier.(b)Averageemploymentduringthefirstninemonthsof1980.Source:ForecastsbyfrankOrth&Associates,Inc.(136)1.3162 (a)Population (i)Construction Phase Overall,the population impact of the Susitna project on the Railbelt will be very slight.Between 1983 and 1990,the population of the region will increase by 86,100 to approximately 400,320,an increase of 22 per- cent.Of this amount,only 2,325 people (three percent) will be related to the project.The vast majority will be re1 ated to natural growth and other major projects, as discussed in Section 4.2. There will be a significant decline in the population related to the project in the early 1990·s as construc- tion on the Watana site winds down,reaching a low of about 600 in 1995.Project-related inmigration to the regi on in the 1ate 1990 I s wi 11 bri ng the number to approximately 1,230 by 1999,the peak of construction at the Devi 1 Canyon site,and then decl i ne sharply to approximately 300 by 2003. These sharp changes in the Railbelt are not expected to have any significant impact on the Railbelt as a whole, due to the relatively small size of the project-induced population as comparerl to the total. In addition to net inmigration into Impact Area 3,the project will also result in some shifting of population within the region.A substantial percentage of inmigrants to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough are expected to move from the Anchorage,Kenai-Cook Inlet and Fairbanks-North Star Borough census divisions. 6-96 - - - - - - - - - (i i ) (b)Housing Over 95 percent of the net inmigration into Impact Area 3 will occur in Anchorage and the Mat-Su Borough. Anchorage will experience a project-related increase of about 1,140 by 1990.In Fairbanks,net inmigration bet- ween 1983 and 1990 will be less than 90 people.For both cities,this represents only a small portion of the baseline forecast population. Operations Phase As the project enters the operati ons phase in 2003, about 300 of the original inmigrants are assumed to remain in the Railbelt.No further inmigration or out- migration is expected after 2003.Due to the partial redistribution of population to the Mat-Su Borough,the Anchorage,Fairbanks and Kenai-Cook Inlet census divi- sions will experience a net outmigration of population by 2003. No significant impacts of the project are expected on housing conditions in the Railbelt,outside of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.At the peak of construction of the project (1990),the cumulative number of inmigrant households into the region is expected to total approximately 855.Thi s represents only 0.6 percent of basel i ne forecast for that year.Based upon the assumptions that (1)the housing stock keeps pace with baseline forecast housing demand and (2)vacancy rates average around 5 percent,the estimated number of vacant housing units in the Railbelt in 1990 of 8,600 will be far more than sufficient to accomodate the inmigrants.In 1999,the number of new project- related households will decline to 489,or 0.3 percent of the total number of households in the Railbelt. 6-97 Similarly,the impacts on the major cities in the region, Anchorage and Fairbanks,will be negligible.By 1990,project- induced inmi grant househol ds wi 11 represent only 0.5 and 0.1 percent,respectively,of total housing demand in these cities. By 1999,new project-induced households will represent only 0.2 percent of the total in Anchorage;Fa i rbanks wi 11 experi ence a net decline in housing demand by project-related households of five. No further impacts on housi ng in the Rail belt wi 11 occur duri ng the operations phase of the project. (c)Public Facilities and Services Impacts of the project on public facilities and services in the Railbelt (outside of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough)have not been quantitatively addressed.The population influx represents such a small percent of current and baseline forecast population levels that impacts on facilities and services are expected to be negligible. (d)Emp 1oyment (i)Construction There will be considerable employment opportunities for residents of Impact Area 3 during the mid to late 1980·s.By 1990,when the work force peaks at the Watana site,a total of 6,365 di rect (on-site construction),indirect and induced jobs will be generated by the project.It is estimated that 79 percent of these jobs (,5049)will be filled by resi- dents of Impact Area 3.The remainder will be filled by other Alaska residents and out-of-state residents. 6-98 - - - - - - As shown in Table 6.3-2,these new jobs for Impact Area 3 residents will represent a 2.5 percent increase over estimated employment in Impact Area 3 without the pro- j ect.Employment opportuniti es wi 11 gradually dimi ni sh during the early to mid 1990's as construction at the Watana si te ends and const ructi on at the Devil Canyon site starts.By 1999,when the work force at Devil Canyon peaks,there will be a total of 3,212 direct, indirect and induced jobs.Of these,it is estimated that 2,548 will be filled by Impact Area 3 residents. As Table 6.3-2 shows,this represents a 1.1 percent increase over estimated employment without the project. During 1985-2002,about 70 percent of the jobs will be filled by residents of the Anchorage Region.About 13 percent of the jobs wi 11 be fill ed by res i dents of the Fairbanks Region,and the remainder,3 percent,will be filled by residents of the Valdez-Cordova Region. It must be borne in mi nd that the Impact Area 3 and Regional shares of employment are best estimates.The actual number of jobs filled by various residents will depend upon several factors,including:(1)employment opportunities and unemployment conditions in Impact Area 3,other areas of the State and out-of-state;relative wages among Alaska industries and between Alaska's construction industry and out-of-state construction industries,and hiring practices. - - - In the peak work force year be 3,498 on-s ite workers. will be laborers;627 semi-skilled/skilled;and administrative/engineering. 6-99 for Watana,1990,there will Of these 2,369 (68 percent) (18 percent)will be 502 (14 pe rcent )will be The major trades for the TABLE 6.3-2 BASELINE EMPLOYMENT AND IMPACT FORECASTS FOR IMPACT AREA 3 SELECTED YEARS - - Baseline Impact Forecast Forecast Difference %Difference 1981 142,162 1990 200,111 205,859 5,049 2.5% 1999 232,311 234,859 2,5 4 8 1.1%- 2003 254,808 254,928 120(a) - - (a)Assumes that about 70 percent of operation johs (120 of 17C jobs)are filled by Impact Area 3 residents). - 6-100 - - - - - - - - - - - - (i i ) 1 aborers category are:1aborers (61 percent);excavators (9 percent);drillers (5 percent);and others (25 percent).The major trades for the semi-skilled/skilled category are:heavy truck dri vers (15 percent);carpen- ters (13 percent);electrical transmission technicians (11 percent);kitchen workers (8 percent);1i ght truck drivers (6 percent),and others (37 percent).The major professions for the administrative/engineering category are:civil engineers (19 percent);surveyors (14 percent)and all others (67 percent).The above trades and professions dominate in most years of construction at both the Devil Canyon and Watana construction sites. Ope rat ion The Watana facility will begin operating in 1993 and the Devil Canyon faci 1 ity wi 11 begi n operat i ng in 2002.It is estimated that about 70 permanent jobs will be available at the Watana facility beginning in 1993 and that another 75 permanent jobs will be available during 1994-2001,for a total of 145 permanent jobs.Beginning in 2002,an additional 35 permanent jobs will be available.Thus,a total of 170 permanent jobs will be generated by the projects by 2002. It is estimated that about 70 percent of the operations jobs will be filled by residents of Impact Area 3.This means that 120 of the 170 total permanent jobs wi 11 be filled by Impact Area 3 residents. - - (e)Personal Income Substantial personal income will be earned in Impact Area 3 du ri ng the const ruct i on and operat i on of the dams.Persona 1 6-101 income will increase for construct.ion and operations 'Mlrkers; for those persons wtlo are employed by institutions that provide goods and services for construction and operations;and for those persons MlO are employed by service and related firms where construction v.orkers spend their incomes.Quantitative estimates of project payroll,corstruction and operations workers expenditures in the Borough,and increases in construc- tion and operations 'MJrkers personal income in the Borough are discussed below.Personal income that will accrue to support (indirect and induced)sector v.orkers is discllssed hriefly. Table 6.3-3 shows the amount of payroll that will be earned by construction and operations 'MJrkers during 1983-2005.In 1990, payroll peaks at $98 million.There is another peak in payroll in 1999 at $53 million.Total payroll during 1983-2002 is $888 million;all but $54 million of this amount is construction payroll. Du ri ng the operati ons phases for both dams,payroll is expected to be about $6.5 million annually.Prior to 2002,when only the Watana facility is in operation,payroll is about $5.6 million in most years. Some of the construction 'MJrkers will maintain their primary residences and spend much of their earnings outside of Impact Area 3.To begin to estimate construction and operations workers personal income that wi 11 accrue to Impact Area 3,it is appropri ate to look at the amount of payroll that wi 11 be spent in the Area.In Table 6.3-4,it can be seen that $48.4 million and $24.8 million of construction payroll are estimates to be spent in the Area in 1990 and 1999,respectively.During 1983-2002,about $422 million of the construction payroll will be spent in the Area.If the expenditures made in the Area hy the Watana operat ions 'MJrk force are added to thi s amount,a 6-102 - - ITABLE6.3-3TOTALPAYROllFOROH-SIIECONSTRUCTIONANDOPERATIONSM"PO~ER,1901-200~lINT1IOUSAHDSOFDOllARS)1901 1901190~1906 1901mo1909199019911m199119911m19961m1990199920002001200270012004200~(a)CONSTRUCIIOHmII--'oWlADORERSml-SUllEDISllllEDADnINISIRA1IYE!ENGINEERSUBlDTAlCONSTRUCIIDN(b)OPERAIIONSAlllADORCA1E60RIESTOTALPAYROllIII02----_.-l09~125016041m2110119m19~6061109046~90~~Im2600616m10106161412~mmilJIm29Bt211m111116011I60161191629411111501116916110I~m1060~Il~11092101lOll59511m010'11026410m9102m01591010m~1mom10101WI1Jb2lBI271181m2114J6S~11J1501019461mm111710602061110295mum2~10166910209091069~H16l2l221101101421386350404161141102120202461741802604~m~m~m~~~9~mm9m9m,6511ml6~ll6m144210602861110mml~69915101669102890910m1410001718691959121m4059150m530111/51910m\069165116511 6517(a)Basedon1,825workinghoursintheyear.(b)Basedon2,496workinghoursintheyear. TABLE6.3-4TOIAION-SITECONSTRUCllONWORKfORCEPAYROllElPENOllURE~AllERN(a)11KIIIOIISANOSOfDOllARSI___._._••_••__•~_._...6.__•___•______•___•___••fLACEOfElPENOlluREYEARS-_.-...19011981190519061987198819091910199119921m1994199519961991I9f8199920002001,002rOlAlPIaROLL(b)......~...--_..----------------.---~.----..----.------....----....--.----..-...--...-.--.....-_.1m10692Bb711929551115699151916691020fom&951116mnJIG1403122m3504044b1l1148242020216114100W[HOA91EIHCO~E(c)4149308b151bO2IJ0529m19020um51599501l~3BOOl2015112451lB1012m1955125m211892610915511nOlI"PACTAREA1lb50329211152109U26103m881816318J90119823441117B17110466Hf11019Iml2~7502411921m11854m9ANCIIORAfiEREGIONmb250910182114002051026W10202m091505226815119168S885JY48WIlI9l11m1mb18/93101111195AHClIORAGE20~51m1m1059b141(\.\18m20m2~8252101018105951b59J83msm920912169wso12~651mW9O'l~Al-SU[REGIONIIIm11012n0IJ5J5119612980127111569629)41119IOnP81291131114019lB56mlluIIHRAHOOI:INlEImmIIJO1m,05126923011JlbO350,not11B9056m958Ill!1170IfllIllb1010111~SEWI,RDb5202940515911bY53H11II11261519lb214a.p.fAIRBARI:S196lib29104119535270007051919491066911UlJ22551mnb~15'6461.502841691029501SEFAIRbAKIS5I1825361152b5bl4b24159152311II32191VALDE/-CHIIINA-WIII1IIER!251mmw581b518217bl~94JOJ181 110laO291Jab42140111510-......-..-........._.............-.--...-_..............._.--....----....._._.............-.-_..---........----_..---(a)TableshowstotalexpendlturesbyconstructionworkforceinlillpactArea3.(b)TotalconstructIonpayroll,allloborcategories.(c)GrosspaYI'ollminus)0percentfort<Jxes(federal,F.l.e.A.,andunelnjJloYlllent/workman'scompensationwithselfandonedependent)wlnus10percentfornelincolllesaved.•t total of $436 million will be spent in the Area during 1983-2002. Some of the expenditures marie by Watana operati ons personnel could accrue to firms in the Area that provide goods and ser- vices to the village.Thp.se expenditures are shown in Table 6.3-5 in the "Village"row.Thus,construction and operations payroll spent in the Area will be greater than $436 million during 1983-2002. The ahove payroll expenriiture estimates nearly reflect increases in construction and operations v.orkers'personal income in the Area.These estimates underestimate personal income impacts because (1)federal income taxes and savings are not included and (2)non-wage and non-salary income are excluded (this is relevant for v.orkers that relocate to the Area.With an adjust- ment for (1),personal income resulting from the project will he at least $651 million during 1983-2002.There is no way to adjusts for the effect of (2)above.The effects of (2)'nOul d be to increase personal income slightly. I ncome wi 11 also accrue to support (i ndi rect and i nrluced)sec- tor v.orkers.The amount of income that wi 11 accrue to i ndi rect workers wi 11 depend upon the extent to wtli ch goods and servi ces needed for construction and operation are procurred in the Borough.Induced income wi 11 be in the hundreds of mi 11 ions for the Area. (f)Business Activity Many of Alaska's industry sectors will experience more growth as a result of the hydroelectric project.Hard minerals mining, for example,will grow as sand and gravel are mined as near as possihle to the dam construction sites.Additionally,it v.ould 6-105 TABLE6.3-5TABLE6.2-43(a)TOTALOPERAfIONSWORKFORCEPAYROLLEXPENDITUREPATTERNInIhousandsofDollarsPlaceofExpenditure(b)1993 19941995199619971990 1999200020012002 200320042005(c)2,6045,5595,5595,5595,5595,5595,5595,559 5,5596,5176,517 6,5176,517TotalPayrollExpendableIncome(d)1,6913,5023,502 3,5023,5fJ2J,5023,5023,5023.5024,106 4,1064,1064,106Village1,01S2,1012,1012,1012,101 2,101 2,101 2,1012,1012,464 2,464 2,464 2,464Anchorage338700700700700700700700700821 821821021m175IFoirbanks85175175175 175 175175175205205205205......amMut-Su253526526526 526526')26526526616616 616616(a)TableShowstotalexpendituresbyoperationsworkforceinselectedareas.(b)Assumedthat60percentofpayrolltobespentatVillage;15percentintheMot-SuBrorough;20percentinAnchorage;and5percentinFairbnnks.(c)TotalOperationsPayroll.(d)Grosspayrollminus30percentfortaxes(federal,FICA,andunemployment/workman'scompensationwithselfalldonedependent)minus10percentfornetincomesailed.I - - - - - be more feasible to mine other hard minerals of the upper Susitna basin if surface transportation (the access road)into the basin is developed. The construction industry~of course~will also benefit. Besides the dam~~rk camp~and village construction there will also be significant housing~public facilities~and private building construction in the Mat-Su Borough. Secondary manufacturing could grow in the Anchorage area as structu res are manufactu red for use at the canst ruct ion si te. Other manufacturing is not anticipated to be affected signifi- cantly by the project The transportation sector~notably the Alaskan Railroad and trucking companies,will experience significant demand for their services.Nearly all construction materials and equipment will be transshi pped to the sites via rai 1 ~truck transport ~or a combination of both (see Section 2.5). Additional impacts on air transportation services can be expected.Rai 1 way impact wi 11 be ta Anchorage based pri vate ai r charter busi ness as they are used to transport personnel ~spe- cialized and expedited equipment~and as couriers. Service businesses~especially motels~hotels~restaurants~and bars in Anchorage and Fairbanks will experience increased demand duri ng the 1ate 1980s and earl y 1990s.Much of thi s increase in busi ness wi 11 result from v.orkers WlO are wait i ng to get hired on the project and those WlO spend time temporarily in Anchorage and Fairbanks waiting to return to their primary resi- dences or while on leave from their jobs. The project could have a negative impact on the fishing industry in the Cook Inlet area if salmon availability declines.Future 6-107 availability of salmon will have to!:'e estimated before this analysis can be done. (g)Fi sca 1 Impacts (i)Anchorage Impact forecasts to 2005 for expenditures in Anchorage are provided in Table 6.3-6 and a comparison of baseline and impact forecasts is provided in Table 6.3-7.The project has little impact:total expenditures in Anchorage are projected to increase one-half of one per- cent in 1990 due to the project and rema ina 1most the same as baseline forecasts for 1999.Normal growth as measured by the baseline forecast will result in a 32 percent increase in expenditures by 1990 over 1981 levels and a 12 percent increase between 1990 and 1999. Increases are evenly distrihuted ~mong all categories of service. (ii)Fairhanks Impact forecasts to 2005 for expenditures are pro- vided in Table 6.3-8,and a comparison of baseline and impact forec~sts is provided in Table 6.2-45.The project will have virtually no impact on fiscal con- ditions in Fairhanks.Total expenditures in Fairbanks are projected to increase eighth-tenths of one percent over the baseline forecast for hath 1990 and 1999.This constant rate of change is reflected by the fact that with or without the project the population in Fairbanks will increase approximately 31 percent betl,<,een 1981-1990;and 18 percent hetl,<,een 1990-1999.Growth in Fairbanks,with the project,is 6-108 - TABLE 6.3-6 ~UNICIPAlITY OF ANCHORAGE 9UO&ET:II'IPACT EXPENDITURE fORECASTS. I D F H SOLID J A B C PARKS E HEALTH G SEWA6E WASTE WATER TOTAL ANCHORAGE POLICE FIRE AMBLNC ~RECR LIBRARY CARE TRANS SERVICE DISPOSAL SUPPLY EXPENDS YEAR POP (SI)OO)aOOO}1S000l ($OOO)1$000l ($000)(SOOO}(fOOOl (SOOO)($0001 aOOOI --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 174717 26732 17472 3320 9784 3669 4368 14676 15899 3669 21665 1212:,4 1982 179410 27450 17941 3409 10047 3768 4485 15070 16326 3768 22247 124511 1983 184144 28174 18414 3499 10312 3867 4604 15468 16757 3867 22834 127796 1984 190430 29136 19043 3618 10664 3999 4761 15996 17329 3999 23613 132158 1985 201425 3(1818 20143 3827 11280 4230 5036 16920 18330 4230 24977 139789 1986 210410 32J 93 22093 4198 11783 4419 5418 17674 19147 4419 26091 147434 198i'217876 33335 22877 4347 12201 4575 5610 18302 19827 4575 27017 152666 1988 223557 34204 23473 4460 12519 4695 5757 18779 20344 4695 27721 156646 1989 225741 34538 23703 4504 12641 4741 5813 18%2 20542 4741 27992 158177-1990 225164 35484 23642 4492 1261)9 4728 5798 18914 21105 4870 28758 1604Q(l 1991 227035 35778 23839 4575 12714 4763 5839 19071 21280 4911 28997 161821 1992 227749 35891 23914 4539 12754 4783 5908 19131 21347 4926 29088 162330 1993 230182 36274 24169 4638 12890 4834 5971 19335 21575 4979 29399 164065-1994 232341 36615 24396 4682 13011 4879 6027 19517 21777 5026 29675 165603 1995 234430 36944 24615 4724 13128 4923 6081 19692 21973 5071 29941 167092 1996 237703 37460 25208 4790 13311 4992 6166 19967 22280 5142 30359 1691>75 199 7 241326 38031 25593 4863 13514 5068 6260 20271 22619 5220 30822 172261 19~18 244510 38512 25930 4927 13693 5135 6343 20539 22918 5289 31229 174534 1999 248184 39111 26320 5001 13898 5212 6438 20847 23262 5368 31698 177156 2000 251441 39625 26665 5067 14081 5280 6522 21121 23568 5439 32114 179481 2001 254340 4M81 26973 5125 14243 5341 6598 21365 23839 5501 32484 181550 2002 257892 40641 27349 5197 14442 5416 6690 21663 24172 5578 32938 184086 2003 261505 41211 27733 5269 14644 5492 6783 21966 24511 5656 33399 186665 20 1)4 265170 41788 28121 5343 14850 5569 6879 22274 24854 5736 33868 189281 2005 268886 42374 28515 5418 15058 5647 6975 22586 25203 5816 34342 191934 ASSUHPTI ONS: PROJECTIONS WERE HADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWIN6 AVERAGE PER CAPITA COSTS: {A)SIS3 1981-1989;t31 1990-2005.-(B}~100 1981-1985;+54 1986-1995;+lt 1996-2005 (CIS19 1981-1985;t5l 1986-1990;+ll 1991-2005. !D}$56 (EH21 (F)~25 1981-1985;+3!1986-1990;+3!1991-2005 •• (6)S84 (H}$91 1981-1989j+3~1990-2005. ([)S21 1981-1989;+37.1990-2005. (J}$124 1981-1989:+3t 1990-2005. EXPENDITURE PROJECTIONS ARE NOT ALL INCLUSIVE. 6-109 TABLE6.3-7SUMMARIZEDFISCALIMPACTSOFTHEPROJECTONANCHORAGEANDfAIRAANKsrotaIAnchor-ageParksanelHealthTranspor-SewageSolidWasteWaterEl(penrl-PoIiceFireAmbulanceRecreationLibrart~lationServiceDisposal~tl)n~s1981Current26,73217,4723,3209,784J,6694,J6814,67615,899J,66921,665121,2541990BaselineForecast35,J042J,52J4,46912,5464,7055,76918,81820,9984,84628,613159,5901990ForecastW.Project35,48423,6424,49212,6094,72A5,79818,91421,1054,81028,75A160,400ImpactorProject1801192J6J2J299610724145010~Change0.51 0.510.510.500.490.500.510.510.500.510.511999BaselineForecast39,D4426,2754,9921J,8755,20J6,42720,8122},2225,35931,644176,85}1999ForecastW.Project39,11126,3205,0011},8985,2126,43820,84723,2625,J6831,698177,156ImpactorProject674592}91135409543D}~Change0.170.170.1f10.170.17O.170.170.170.17O.17O.11(J)I............ParksandFireHealthPubIicSewerElectricWaterTotaloFd'r'bdnksRecreationPoliceServiceCareWorksServiceUtilities~~enditl)re9---1981Current7963,069 3,2287272,}192,5012,1541,88716,6811990BaselineForecast1,0374,1204,4189773,17J3,3572,8912,5}}22,5051990ForecastW.Project1,0464,1564,4569053,2013,J862,9162,55522,702ImpactorProject9}638821l2925221911~Change0.88 0.870.86 0.82O.flO0.86 0.860.870.881999BoselineForecaat1,2094,8055,2041,1733,7013,9153,J722,95426,3331999ForecastW.Project1,2204,0475,2491,10}3,733 3,9493,4012,98026,564ImpactofProject1142451032}42926231~Change0.910.870.860.850.IJ60.670.660.R80.88Forecastsin1981$.SelectedyearsfromforecastspreparedbyFrankOrth&Associales,Inc.III III TABLE 6.3-8 CITY OF FAIRBANKS BUD&ET:EXPENDITURE IMPACT FORECAST. PARKS FIRE HEALTH PUBLIC SEWER ELECTRIC WATER TOTAL FAIRBANKS &:RECR POLICE SER~'ICE CARE WORKS SERVICE UTILS SUPPLY EXPENDS YEAR POP ($000)(SOOOI ($OOOl ($0001 ($0001 ($0001 ($000/(SOOOI ($0001 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1981 22734 7%3069 3228 727 2319 2501 2154 1887 16681 1982 23510 8""3174 3338 7""2398 2586 2227 1951 17250L~.JL 1983 24442 855 3300 3471 782 2493 26S9 2316 2029 17934 1984 26028 911 3514 3696 833 2655 2863 2466 2100 19098 1985 29050 1017 3922 4125 930 2963 3196 2752 2411 21315 1986 32085 lI23 4331 4784 1058 3436 3529 3040 2663 23964-1987 31667 1108 4275 4722 1044 3392 3483 3000 2628 23652 1988 29743 1041 4015 4435 980 3185 3"''1 2818 2469 22215LIL 1989 29827 1044 4027 4447 983 3194 3281 2826 2476 22278-199~1 29888 1046 4156 4456 985 3201 3386 2916 2555 22702 1991 .30153 1055 4193 4496 1023 3229 3416 2942 2578 22933 1992 3(678 1070 4252 4559 1038 3275 3464 2984 2614 23256 1993 31158 1091 4333 4646 1058 3337 3530 3040 2664 23698 1994 31637 1107 4399 4717 1074 3398 3584 3087 2705 24062 1995 32165 1126 4473 4796 1092 3445 3644 3139 2750 24463 1996 32781 1147 4558 4936 1113 3511 3714 3199 2802 24981 1997 33435 1170 4649 5035 1135 3581 378B 3263 2858 25479 1998 34140 1195 4747 5141 1159 3656 3868 3331 2919 26016 1999 34858 1220 4847 5249 1183 3733 3949 3401 2980 26564 2000 35574 1245 4947 5357 1207 3810 4031 3471 3041 27109-2001 36257 1269 5042 5460 1231 3883 4108 3533 3100 27630 2002 36992 1295 5144 5571 1256 3962 4191 3610 3162 28190 2003 37747 1321 5249 5684 1281 4043 4277 3683 3227 287115 2004 38519 1348 5356 5801 1307 4125 4364 3759 3293 29353 2005 39305 1376 5465 5919 1334 4210 4453 3835 33,,0 29952 - ASSUI1PTIOt~S: PROJECTIONS WERE MADE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PEP.CAPITA COSTS: (AI$35.00 CONSTANT (B)$135.0l)1981-1989;+3%1990-2005. {ClSI42.00 1981-1985;+54 198b-1995;+I7.1996-2005. (0)S32.00 1981-1985:+3t 1986-1990;+3:1991-2005. (E)$102.00 1981-1985;+5t 1986-2005. IF)'110.00 1981-1989;+3~1990-2005. (6l$94.74 19~1-1939;+34 1990-2005. (Hl$83.00 1981-1989;+3~1990-2005. 6-111 projected to increase total expendituures by 36 per- cent in 1990 over 1981 levels,and by 18 percent in 1999 over 1990 levels.Once ngnin,increases are evenly distributed among all categories of service. 6.4 -Impact Area 4 (a)Population The population impact of the project will be very slight in terms of the total State population.As sho.....,in Tah1e 6.4-1, Alaska population is forecast to incrense from npproximate1y 428,200 in 1982 to 564,720 in 1990,with construction of the project.Out of the projected increase of 136,500 people,only ahout 2325 are project-related.By 1990,project-related popu- 1 ati on wi 11 represent only a 0.4 percent increase over the base- line forecast level. During the 1990s,project-induced new population will decline (reaching a low of 535 in 1995)and then reach n second peak in 1999 of 1,228.Overall,State population will continue to increase moderately throughout the period. (b)Emp 1oyment The employment impacts of the project ar~shown in Tah1e 6.4-2 for selected years.Years before construction begins,in 1981, statewide employment is 214,200.When the 'MJrkforce peaks at Watana,state-wide employment is estimnted to be 309,365--6365 more than the forecast of employment without the project.Thi s represents a 2.1 percent increase over the baseline forecast.A little more than half of these new jobs will he on-site construction jobs.The remainder will be support (service and re 1 at ed)jobs. 6-112 - - - - - - TABLE 6.4-1- IMPACT OF THE SUSITNA PROJECT ON ALASKA POPULATION,1981-2005 Project Baseline Forecast Related Total Forecast of Al aska Population of Al aska Year Population Infl ux Population 1981 412,400 0 412,400 1982 428,200 0 428,200 1983 444,500 182 444,682 1984 463,900 178 464,078 1985 498,100 672 498,772 1986 531,900 852 532,752 1987 545,300 1,203 546,503 1988 547,700 1,671 549,371 1989 558,200 1,867 560,067 1990 562,400 2,324 564,724 1991 572,700 2,191 574,891 1992 579,300 1,735 581,035 1993 588,000 1,014 589,014 1994 598,500 714 599,214 1995 608,900 535 609,435 1996 621,100 690 621,790 1997 634,500 957 635,457 1998 646,900 1,170 648,070 1999 660,900 1,228 662,128 2000 675,000 1,122-676,122 2001 689,000 743 689,743 2002 703,000 278 703,278 2003 718,000 179 718,179 2004 732,900 179 732,900 2005 748,200 179 748,200 - Source:Forecasts by Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. 6-113 Q)It-'t-'~TABLE6.4-2BASELlNEANDIMPACfFORECASTSOFEMPLOYMENTFORTHESTATEOFALASKA,1981-2005,SELECfEOYEARSBaselineImpact'"'"YearPhaseForecastForecastDifferenceDifference1981Pre-Construction214,200N.A.N.A.N.A.1990Construction-Watana303,000309,3657,3652.1%1999Operation-Watana343,900347,112j,2121.O~OConstruction-DevilCanyon2003Operation-Watana374,900375,070170Operation-DevilCanyon,IIIII,I - - - - - (c) In 1999,when the Watana facility is in operation anrl the Devil Canyon 't.Grkforce peaks,state-wide employment will be about 347,100--3212 more than the employment forecast without the pro- ject.This v-Quld be approximately a one percent increase over the baseline forecast.As above,slightly more than half of these jobs will be on-site construction. In 2003 when both dams are opp.ratinq,170 persons will he neederl at the faci 1i ti es.Thi sis an i nsi gni fi cant increase over the 2003 baseline employment forecast of 374,900. It is expected that more than threp.quarters of tile project generated jobs will be filled by Alaskans.This will help lower the unemployment rate,provided t~at inmigration like that during the trans-Alaska pipeline is not repeaterl here. Personal Income Substantial personal income will be earned in the State rluring the construction and operations of the dams.This has heen discussed previously in Section 6.3(e). In 1990 when the v-Qrk force peaks at Wt:ltana,$48.4 -54.6 mi 11 i on of the constructi on payroll wi 11 be spent in the State. In 1999,when the v-Qrkforce peaks at Devil Canyon,$28.3 million -31.3 million of the construction and operations payroll will be spent in the State.From 2003 onward,W1pn both dal1ls are in operation,about 4.1 million will be spent in the State annually. During construction of Wt:ltana and Devil Ct:lnyon,anrl the early years of operation of Watana (1983-2002),$452 -506 million wi 11 be spent in the State.Most of thi s money wi 11 be spent in Anchorage,Fairbanks,and the Mat-Su Borough. 6-115 The ahove payroll expenditure estimates nearly reflect increases in personal income in the State resulting from the project. These estimates understate personal income impacts hecause (1) federal income taxes and savings are not included and (2)non- wage and non-salary income are excluded (this is relevant for workers that relocate to Impact Area 3).Adjusti ng for the effects of (1),personal income resulting from the project will range from $674 -$755 million during 1983-2002.The effects of (2)will he to increase slightly these personal income estimates. 6-116 - - - - - - -7 -LIST OF LITERATURE 7.1 -Introduction The following is a list of sources examined and utilized in the development of the Susitna hydroelectric project socioeconomic profile and impact analysis.They are arranged into three sections:7.2 -Energy Development Impact Studies;7.3 -Data;and 7.4 -Methodologies. 7.2 -Energy Development Impact Studies Battell e Pacifi c Northwest Laboratori es,Systems Department.June 1975. The Soci a 1 and Economi c Impact of a Camp Gruber Energy Center.A Report to the Federal Energy Administration,Volume III.Richland,WA. 66 pp. Community Development Services,Inc.October 1976.Socioeconomic Impact Study WPPSS 1 and 4,Vol.1:First Progress Report.Seattle,WA 144 pp.(prepared for Washi ngton Publ ic Power Supply System). Comllunity Development Servi ces,Inc.Soci oeconomi c Impact Study WNP 1 and 4,Vol.4.Final Report.Seattle,WA.157 pp.(prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System.) Community Development Services,Inc.October 1975.An analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of WNP-3 and WNP-5.Seattle,WA.121 pp. (prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System.) Flynn,C.B.and J.A.Chalmers.January 1980.The Social and Economic Effects of the Accident at Three Mile Island:Findings to Date. Mountain West Research,Inc.Tempe,AZ 85282.99 pp. Idaho Power Company.January 1980.Appl ication for License:Project No.2848:Cascade Hydroelectric Project.Boise,10. Information Resources Press.1977-1980.EIS -Digest of Environmental Impact Statements.Arlington,VA 22209.Vol.1-#1 -Vol.4-#3.n.p. Internati onal Engi neeri ng Company,Inc.,Robert W.Retherford Associ ates Division.December 1979.Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project -Peters- burg &Hrangell,Alaska:Application for License Before the Federal Regul atory Commi ssi on for the Al aska Power Authority.Anchorage, AK 99502.2 vols. Jones,V.K.September 1978.Payments to the Public Sector for Construction of a Nuclear Generating Station:A Case Study of Washington Public Power Supply Systems Projects WNP-3 and WNP-5. Washington Public Power Supply System,Richland,WA.43 pp. 7-1 -,- Matchett,Suzanne,Mary Savela,Judith Wirth.October 1980.Copper Creek Project Draft Envi ronmental Impact Statement Support Document: Hu~an Environment.Seattle,WA.pp.95. Paci fi c Northwest Laboratory and Battelle Human Affai rs Research Centers. May 1979.Beluga Coal Field Development:Social Effects and Management Alternatives.(prepared for U.S.Department of Energy). Seatt 1e City Light.January 1981.Copper Creek Project:Ora ft and Fi na 1 Environmental Impact Statement.Seattle,WA.n.p. Seattle City Light.August 1980.South Fork Tolt River Hydroelectric Project:Draft SEPA Envi ronmental Impact Statement.FERC Project 2959.Washington.349 pp. - .- U.S.Bureau of Power,Federal Power Commission. Project No.2740-South Carolina:Final Statement.Washington,DC.361 pp. Ma rch 1977.Bad Creek Envi ronmental Impact U.S.Department of Energy,Bonneville Power Administration.March 1980. Boardman Coal Plant and Associated Transmission,Adopted Rural Electrification Administration:Final EIS (USDA-REA-EIS-77-4F). Washington,DC 20545.n.p. U.S.Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.March 1978.Solomon Gulch Project No.2742-Alaska:Final Environmental Impact Statement.Washington,DC 20545.n.p. U.S.Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. December 1978.Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project,Kodiak Island, Alaska:Application for License before Federal Energy Regulatory Corrrnission for Kodiak Electrical Association,Inc.Washington,DC 20545.n.p. U.S.Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regul atory Commi ssi on.February 1979.Green Lake Project No.2818-Alaska:Final Environmental Impact Statement.Washington,DC.189 pp. U.S.Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.November 1979.North Fork Stanislaus River Project No.2049 -r.alifornia: Draft Environmental Impact Statement.Washington,DC.223 pp. U.S.Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.April 1980.Sultan River Project No.2157 -Washington,Draft Environmental Impact Statement.Washington,OC 20426.n.p. U.S.Department of Energy,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.April 1980.Swan Lake Project No.2911-Al aska:Fi nal Envi ronmental Impact Statement.Washington,DC 20545.n.p. U.S.Department of the Army,New England Division,Corps of Engineers. August 1977.DickeY-Lincoln School Lakes:Environmental Impact Statement.Waltham,MA.n.p. 7-2 - -- - - - - - U.S.Department of the Army,Corps of Engineers,New England Division. September 1978.Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes Project at Dickey, Maine:Draft Environmental Impact Statement.Waltham,MA.02154. 11 vols. u.S.Department of the Army,Corps of Engineers,New England Division. 1980.Environmental Impact Statement,Dickey Lincoln Schools. Appendix C,Social and Economic Assessment.Waltham,MA.485 pp. u.S.Department of the Army,Corps of Engineers,New England Division. 1980.Envi ronmental Impact Statement,Di ckey-Li ncol n School Lakes. Appendix C,Supplement 2,Social and Economic Assessment.Waltham,MA. 7 pp. U.S.Department of the Army,Office of the Chief of Engineers.January 1977.Hydroelectric Power Development,Upper Susitna River Basin, Southcentral Railbelt Area,Alaska:Final Environmental Impact Statement.Washington,DC.20545.398 pp. U.S.Department of the Army,Corps of Engineers.March 1977.Marysville Lake Project,Yuba River,California:Draft Environmental Impact Statement.Sacramento,CA.358 pp. Washi ngton Publ ic Power Supply System.January 1980.Satsop Constructi on Report Quarterly Socioeconomic Report of WNP-3/5 Vol. 3,Report No.4.October 1,1979 to December 31,1979.Seattle, WA. Washi ngton Publ i c Power Supply System.January 1,1980 to March 31, 1980.Satsop Constructi on Project Quarterly Soci oeconomi c Report of WNP-3/5 Vol.4,Report No.1.Richland,WA.n.p. Westi nghouse El ectri c Corporation,Envi ronmental Systems Department. December 1974. Socioeconomic Effects of Construction and Operations of WNP-3 and WNP-5 and Alternati ves to All evi ate Adverse Effects. Pittsburg,PA.n.p. 7-3 7.3 -Data Agricultural Experiment Station,School of Resources Management and the Institute Research,University of Alaska.1978. Planning Study.Fairbanks,AK.n.p. Agriculture and Land of Social and Economic Yukon-Porcupine Regional - Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.Various quarterly issues.Information & Reporting System.Juneau,AK. Alaska Department of Commerce &Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise (Prepared hy Parker Research Corporation). December,1977.Visitor Census and Expenditure Survey,1977, Winter,1976-1977.Juneau,AK.31 pp. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development.July 1978. Jobs and Power for Alaska,A Program for Power and Economic Development.Juneau,AK.n.p. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.1979.Numbers.Juneau,AK.127 pp. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.The Performance Report of the Alaska Economy in 1979.Juneau,AK.Volume Eight.32 pp. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.June 1979.An Assessment of the Domestic Market for Alaska Wood Products.Juneau,AK.32 pp. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.June 1979.What You Never Thought to Ask About Mi ni ng.Juneau,AK.28 pp. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.February 1980.Community Project Matrix. Juneau,AK.n.p. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Economic Enterprise.June 1980.The Alaska Statistical Review 1980.Juneau,AK.n.p. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Oivision of Economic Enterprise and U.S.Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.April 1977.Alaska Farm Cost of Production Survey.Juneau,AK.22 pp. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Energy and Power Development.1980.Alaska Regional Energy Resources Planning Project,Phase 2,Vol.II,Hydroelectric Development.(Prepared for D.O.E.Office of Environmental Assessment.)n.p. 7-4 - - - - - Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Division of Occupational Licensing,Guide Licensing and Control Board.August 1980.State of Alaska Guide Register 1980.Juneau,AK. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs.July 1973. Pipeline Corridor Smaller Communities Survey.Juneau,AK.n.p. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,Division of Community Planning.March 1974.Selected 1970 Census Data for Alaska Communities,Part V -Southcentral Alaska.Juneau,AK.60 pp. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,Division of Community Planning.February 1976.Report of FY75 Trans-Alaska Pipeline Impact Expenditures by state and local governments.Juneau,AK. 34 pp. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,Division of Local Government Assistance.January 1980.Alaska Taxahle 1979 Municipal Property Assessments and Equalized Full Value Determinations. Juneau,AK.135 pp. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,Division of Local Government Assistance.January 1981.Alaska Taxahle 1980.lJuneau, AK.119pp. Alaska Department of Community and Regional Affairs,Division of Local Government ,Assistance.1979.City Financial Reporting Manual,FY 1980.Juneau,AK. Alaska Department of Education.December 1980.1980-1981 Alaska Education Directory.Juneau,AK.59.pp. Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.Undated.Requirements for On-Site Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal System Serving A Single Family Dwelling.Wasilla,AK.n.p. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.1980.Draft Report:Alaska Wildlife Management Plans.Juneau,AK. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Game.December 1979. Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities,Part I,Black Bear, Brown Bear,and Polar Bear.Juneau,AK.115 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Game,Alaska Board of Game. 1980.Alaska Game Management Units.Juneau,AK.Map. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Game,Alaska Board of Game. 1980.Al as ka Hunt i ng Regulations.No.21.Juneau,AK.71 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Game,Alaska Board of Game. 1980.A1 as ka Trapping Regulations.No.21.Juneau,AK.58 pp. 7-5 ------------. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Game.March 1980. Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities,Part II,Bison, Caribou,Moose and Muskoxen.Juneau,AK.197 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Game.June 1980.Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities,Part III,Deer,Elk,Marine Mammals,Mountain Goats,and Sheep.Juneau,AK.107 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Game.June 1980.Annual Report of Survey-Inventory Activities,Part IV,Furbearers,Upland Game,Wolf,and Wolverine.Juneau,AK.111 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Division of Sport Fish,Alaska Board of Fisheries.1980.1980 Alaska Sport Fishing Seasons and Rag Limits.Juneau,AK.80 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.November 1979.Susitna Hydroelectric Project:Preliminary Final Plan of Study.Anchorage,AK.82 pp. Alaska Department of Fish and Game.1980.Sport Fish Survey.Juneau,AK. 24 pp. Alaska Department of Labor,Administrative Services Division.September 1980.Trade and Regulated Industries Occupational Employment Statistics.1979.Juneau,AK.69 pp. Alaska Department of Labor,Administrative Services Division. 1,1981.Alaska 1980 population:A Preliminary Overview. AK.44 pp. January Juneau, Alaska Department of Labor,Employment Security Division.May 26,1972. Economic Analysis,Issue 10,Vol.1.Juneau,AK.15 pp. Alaska Department of Labor.Undated.Labor Market Information Directory. Juneau,AK.23 pp. Alaska Department of Labor.Undated.Educational Institutions Occupational Employment Statistics.Juneau,AK.15 pp. Alaska Department of Labor.Various issues.Statistical Quarterly. Juneau,AK. Alaska Department of Labor.Various monthly issues.Alaska Economic Trends.Juneau,AK.22 pp. Alaska Department of Labor. Highlights.Juneau,AK. Various monthly issues. 80 pp. Labor Force Alaska Department of Labor.Various Annual Issues.Wage Rates for Selected Occupations Anchorage,Fairbanks and Regional Areas. Juneau,AK. Alaska Department of Labor.June 1978.Occupational Employment Statistics-Manufacturing Industries 1977.Juneau,AK.28 pp. 7-6 - Alaska Department of Labor. Juneau,AK.37 pp. Alaska Department of Labor. Forecast.Juneau,AK. July 1978.Alaska Economic Outlook to 1985. August 1979.Occupational Employment 17 pp. ... Alaska Department of Labor.September 1979.Occupational Employment Statistics --Nonmanufacturing Industries 1978.Juneau,AK.68 pp. Alaska Department of Labor.December 1979.Alaska Population Overview. Juneau,AK.53 pp. Alaska Department of Labor.December 1979.Occupational Supply and Demand.Juneau,AK.30 pp. Alaska Department of Labor.1980.Annual Planning Information,FY 1981. Juneau,AK.80 pp. Alaska Department of Labor,September 1980.Occupational Supply and Demand.Juneau,AK.35 pp. Alaska Department of Labor.October,1980.Occupational Employment Statistics,1979.Juneau,AK.28 pp. Alaska Department of Labor.November,1980.Planning Information for Vocational Education.Juneau,AK.63 pp. Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Agriculture.Various Annual Issues.Alaska Agriculture Statistics.Palmer,AK. Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Agriculture and U.S.Department of Agriculture.June 1980.Alaska Agricultural Statistics.Palmer,AK.30 pp. Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Research and Development,Land and Resource Planning Section.1980.Susitna Basin Land Use/Recreation Atlas,Planning Background Report. Anchorage,AK.n.p. Alaska Department of Revenue,Petroleum Revenue Division.March 1978. Petroleum Revenue Forecast.Juneau,AK.48 pp. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Transportation Planning Division.1979.Alaska Highways Annual Traffic Volume Report,Volume I.Juneau,AK.402 pp. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,Transportation Planning Division.1980.Alaska Highways Annual Traffic Volume Report,Volume I.Juneau,AK.402 pp. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,Planning and Programming Unit,Central Division Transportation Planning.June 1981. Upper Cook Inlet Airport System Plan Draft Summary.Anchorage,Alaska. 30 pp. 7-7 Alaska Division of Agriculture,Cooperative Extension Service, Agriculture Experiment Station.Monthly.Alaska Farm Reporter. Palmer,AK.n.p. Alaska Division of Economic Enterprise and Municipality of Anchorage. March 1978.Anchorage:An Alaskan Community Profile.2 pp. Alaska Miner's Association,Inc.Dawn Ki rk.ed.January 1980.The Alaska Miner.Anchorage,AK.23 pp. Alaska Miner1s Association,Inc.Dawn Ki rk,ed.Oecember 1980.The Alaska Miner.Anchorage,AK.23 pp. Alaska Northwest Publishing Company.1980.The Milepost.Anchorage,AK. 498 pp. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program.May 8,1978.Alyeska-Fairhanks Case Study.Anchorage,AK.118 pp. Alaska Office of the Governor.November 1980.The Alaska Economic Informati on and Reporti ng System,Quarterly Report.Juneau,AK.10 pp. Alaska Office of the Governor,Division of Policy Development and Planning. 1978.Alaska Data Inventory Catalog.Juneau,AK.137 pp. Alaska Office of Labor,Research and Analysis.October 1980.Federal, State,and Local Government Occupational Employment Statistics. Juneau,AK.27 pp. - - Alaska Pacific Bank.Undated. Forecast.Anchorage,AK. Alaska Business Trends,1979 Economic 39 pp. Alaska Power Authority.April 1980.A Report of the First Series of Community Meetings on the Feasibility Studies for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project and Other Power Alternatives.Fairbanks, Talkeetna,Wasilla,Anchorage,AK.61 pp. Anchorage Economic Development Commission.September 1976.Anchorage Economic Report.Anchorage,AK.15 pp. Anchorage School District.Septemher 1980.Adopted Financial Plan FY 1980 -1981.Anchorage,AK.n.p. Anchorage School District.September 1981.Adopted Financial Plan FY 1981 -1982.Anchorage,AK.n.p. Arctic Environmental Engineers.July 1977.Solid Waste Disposal Study.Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.Anchorage,AK. n.p. Arctic Environmental Engineers.October 17,1978.Solid Waste Disposal Report.Prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.Anchorage,AK. n.p. 7-8 Bantz,Don and Associates,N.D.Undated. Native Association Health Department. Tribal Health Plan:Copper River Anchorage,AK.83 pp. Barclay,J.C.and R.W.Marley.March,1977.Estimation of Commercial Fisheries Benefits and Associated Costs for the National Income Account.Vancouver,British Columbia,Canada.43 pp. Berry,Brian J.1967.Geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Prentice-Hall,Inc.Englewood Cliffs,NJ.146 pp. Bishop,R.C.et al.September,1978.Wisconsin1s Lake Michigan and Green Bay Commercial Fisheries:A Statistical Overview.Madison,Wisconsin. 48 pp. ...Bornhoff and Associates.1973 • Matanuska-Susitna borough. Palmer Comprehensive Devlopment Plan. Anchorage,AK.80 pp. Brown,W.G.et al.August,1976.Improved Economic Evaluation of Commercially and Sport-Caught Salmon and Steel head of the Columbia River.Corvallis,Oregon.30 pp. B~reau of Land Management,Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office. March 1980.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program:Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios,Local Socioeconomic Systems Analysis.Technical Report Number 46,Volume 2.Anchorage,AK. 356 pp.and Appendix. Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans.1979.Fisheries Statistics of British Columbia,1979.Vancouver,British Columbia.28 pp. CH2M Hill.July 1981.Socioeconomic Data Pamphlet for the Matanuska- Susitna Borough.Prepared for Overall Economic Development Program, Inc.Anchorage,AK.12 pp. City of Fairbanks,Department of Finance. Fairbanks:1982;1981.Fairbanks,AK. 1981.Annual BUdget:City of 128 pp.;138 pp. ... ... City of Houston,Office of the Mayor.January 1981.Ordinance 80-Z-1 (Amendment To Budget For FY 1980-81).Houston,AK 4 pp • City of Houston,Office of the Mayor.October 1981.Ordinance 80-Z-1. (Amended).Houston,AK.1 p. City of Houston,Office of the Mayor.May 1981.Ordinance 81-Z-1 Establishment and Adoption of the Operating and Capital Budget for FY81/82.Houston,AK 4 pp. City of Palmer,Office of the Mayor.November 1981.City of Palmer. Budget Preparation Worksheet for Fiscal Year 1982.Palmer,AK.48 pp. City of Wasilla,Office of the Mayor.June 1981.City of Wasilla:Budget FY/81.Wasilla,AK.6 pp. Coastal Zone Management Program Development.Alaska Federal Withdrawals. January 1979.(map) 7-9 Cole,Terrence.July 1979.The history of the use of the upper Susitna River:Indian River to the Headwaters (for Alaska Department of Natural Resources,Division of Research and Development).Juneau,AK. 39 pp. Coopers &Lybrand.February 1978.Impact of Visitor's Expenditures Upon Alaska's Economy for the Year 1975.Anchorage,AK.28 pp. Darbyshire and Associates.June 1980.Socioeconomic Community Profiles,A Background for Planning:Delta Junction,Dot Lake,Northway,Tanacross, Tetlin,Tok.(prepared for Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company).n.p. Dow-Shell Group.1981.Volume 7:Infrastructure and Socioeconomic Impacts.Anchorage,AK.(Report to the State of Alaska, Ender,Richard L.,Jan Gehler,Susan Gorski and Susan Harper.June 1978. Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program.Anchorage Socioeconomic and Physical Baseline Executive Summary.Technical Report No.124. Anchorage,AK.33 pp. Ender,Richard L.,Jan Gehler and Susan Gorski.January 1980.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program.Gulf of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios.Anchorage Socioeconomic and Physical Baseline Vol.I.Anchorage,AK.357 pp. Ender,Richard L.,Jan Gehler and Susan Gorski.January 1980.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program.Gulf of Alaska and Lower Cook Inlet Petroleum Development Scenarios.Anchorage Impact Analysis.Vol.II. Technical Report No.48,Vol.II.Anchorage,AK.250 pp. Fairbanks North Star Borough.December 1979.1979 Annual Report. Fai rbanks,oAK.24 pp. Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Information Center.Various issues.Community Information Quarterly.Fairbanks,AK. Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Information Center.Various issues.The Energy Report.Fairbanks,AK. - - Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Research Center. Community Research Quarterly,A Socioeconomic Review. Various issues. Fai rbanks,AK. Fairbanks Town and Villiage Association for Development,Inc.January 1979.Community Facilities Summaries.Fairbanks,AK.187 pp. Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development,Inc.April 8-9, 1978.A Report of the Upper Tanana Regional Forum on the Impact of Construction and Operation of the Al-Can Gas Pipeline.Fairbanks, AK.64 pp. 7-10 ... ... ... ... Fairbanks Town and Village Association for Development,Interior Development District Association.September 1980.The Overall Economic Development Program for the Economic Development Distri~t of Interior Alaska.Fairbanks,AK.101 pp. Fisson,Sue,Don Moore and Cindy Quisenberry.1977.Energy Costs, Consumption and Impacts in Fairbanks.Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks,AK.Impact Information Center -Special Report No.5. 69 pp. Fisson,Sue and Cindy Quisenberry.1977.Impact Information Center Final Report.Fairbanks North Star Borough,Fairbanks,AK. Chapters 3,7,8,10,12,and 13.n.p. Forrest,Marilynn.July 1979.Fairbanks Cost of Living Update. Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Information Center, Fairbanks,AK.Special Report No.5.42 pp. Hyman Resources Planning Institute.November 1974.Manpower and Employment Impact of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.Volume II,Technical Report.Prepared for United States Department of Labor,Manpower Administration,Region X.Seattle,WA.n.p • Institute of Social and Economic Research,University of Alaska.June 1980.Alaska Review of Social and Economic Conditions:Alaska's Unique Transportation System.Anchorage,AK.28 pp • Jones &Jones.March 4,1975.An Inventory and Evaluation of the Environmental,Aesthetic and Recreational Resources of the Upper Susitna River,Alaska.Seattle,WA.320 pp. Livengood,K.R.July,1981.Bias in Recreational Benefit Estimates: Further Evidence.Urbana,Illinois.10 pp. Logsdon,Charles,Wayne Thomas,John Kruse,Monica Thomas and Sheila Helgath.Undated.Copper River-Wrangell Socioeconomic Overview.The Institute for Social and Economic Research and the Agricultural Experiment Station,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,AK.n.p. Logsdon,Charles,Kenneth L.Casavant,and Wayne C.Thomas. Input-Output Tables for Alaska's Economy:A First Look. Experiment Station,University of Alaska,Fairbanks,AK. 15 pp. 1977. Agricultural Bulletin 48. ... Main,Hurdman and Cranstoun.1981.City of Fairbanks:Comprehensive Annual Report:Years Ended December 31,1980 and 1979.Fairbanks,AK. 96 pp. Main,Hurdman and Cranstoun.1981.Municipal Utilities System of the City of Fairbanks:Financial Statements Years Ended December 31,1980 and 1979.Fairbanks,AK.19 pp. Masse,W.D.and K.Peterson.March,1979.Evaluation of Incremental Recreational Benefits from Salmonid Enhancement.Vancouver,British Columbia,Canada.43 pp. 7-11 Matanuska Electric Association,Inc.September 1980. Matanuska Power Requirements Study.Palmer,AK. Alaska 2 26 pp. - Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Finance Department.June 1981.Matanuska- Susitna Borough 1981-82 Annual BUdget;1980-81 Annual Budget;1979-80 Annual Budget.Anchorage,AK.volumes I,II.n.p. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Health Planning Council.September 1980. Proposed Matanuska Susitna Borough Health Systems Plan.Palmer,AK. n.p. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.1976.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Population Survey.Palmer,AK.n.p. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.March 1978.Ten Year Program for School Sites.Palmer,AK.4 p.- Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.April 1978.Phase I: Comprehensive Development Plan.Palmer,AK.?45 pp. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.May 1978.Phase II: Comprehensive Development Plan.Palmer,AK.Preliminary Draft. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.January 1979.Phase III:Comprehensive Development Plan.Palmer,AK.Preliminary Draft.n.p. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department.1981.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Population Survey.Palmer,AK.n.p. Matansuka-Susitna Borough Planning Department.March 1981.Infrastructure Report Inventory Data.Prepared for the Dow-Shell Petrochemical Feasibility Study.Palmer,AK.n.p. Matansuka-Susitna Borough School District.June 1981.Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 1981-82;1980-81. Anchorage,AK.167 pp.;181 pp. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District.October 13,1981.Prioritized Capital Project List.Palmer,AK. Matanuska Telephone Association,Inc.Undated.Supplemental Loan Proposal. 1978-1983.n.p. Matanuska Telephone Association,Inc.December 1980.Fill Report. Palmer,AK.12 pp. Mat-Su Fire Chiefs Association.July 1981.A Revised Fire Protection Plan for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough,Alaska.Prepared for the Matanuska- Susitna Borough,Alaska.10 pp. 7-12 - - - Matz,George,Ben Harding and Russell Wertz.July 1979.1978 Fairbanks Energy Inventory.Fairbanks North Star Borough,Community Information Center,Fairbanks,AK.Special Report No.4.88 pp. Mills,Michael J.July 1,1978 -June 30.1979.Annual Performance Report for Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies,Vol.20. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Sport Fish Division.Juneau, AK.112 pp. Mills,Michael J.July 1,1979 -June 30,1980.Annual Performance Report for Alaska Statewide Sport Fish Harvest Studies,Vol.21. Alaska Department of Fish and Game,Sport Fish Division.Juneau, AK.65 pp. Mission Research Corporation. Matanuska Susitna Borough. 1980.Fire Protection Plan for the Anchorage,AK. Municipality of Anchorage,Office of the Mayor.October 1981. Municipality of Anchorage 1982 Recommended Budget.Volumes I,II. Anchorage.AK.n.p. Municipality of Anchorage,Office of the Mayor.1981. Anchorage:Fiscal Outlook 1982-1987.Preliminary. n.p. Municipality of Anchorage,AK. Municipality of Anchorage,Planning Department.1978.Population Profile.Anchorage,AK.32 pp. Municipality of Anchorage,Planning Department.Various Undated Issues. Quarterly Economic Indicators.Anchorage,AK.Vol.1.No.1.11 pp. Municipality of Anchorage.November 6,1979.Anchorage Recreation Facilities Committee Reports.Anchorage,AK. Municipality of Anchorage. Report.Anchorage,AK. August 1980. 4 pp. Anchorage Economic Development Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company.Manpower and Impact Planning Department.September 1981.Gas1ine Planning Update.Fairbanks,AK. 43 pp. Overall Economic Development Program,Inc.July 1.1979 -June 30.1980. Annual Overall Development Program Report.Wasilla,AK.37 pp. Overall Economic Development Program.Inc.July 1980.Volume I: Annual Overall Economic Development Program Report July 1,1979-June 30,1980.Wasilla.AK.31 pp. Overall Economic Development Program,Inc.July 1980.Volume II: Economic Conditions,Development Options and Projections.268 pp. Wasilla,AK.268 pp. 7-13 -----,------- Overall Economic Development Program,Inc.Volume III:Appendices. July 1980. Pattison,W.S.and W.E.,Phillips.October,1971.Economic Evaluation of Big Game Hunting:An Alberta Case Study.Edmonton,Alberta,Canada. 25 pp. Phillips,W.E.D.DePape and L.Ewanyk.1978.A Socioeconomic Evaluation of the Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Alberta. Edmonton,Alberta,Canada.116 pp. Phillips,W.E.and E.R.McElhaney.December,1977.A Socioeconomic Evaluation of Nonresident Sport Hunting Activity in Alberta.Edmonton, Alberta,Canada.117 pp. Phillips,W.E.and E.R.McElhaney.December,1977.A Socioeconomic Evaluation of Nonresident Sport Fishing Activity in Alberta.Edmonton, Alberta,Canada.88 pp. Phillips,W.E.D.,DePape and L.Ewanyk.February,1977.Socioeconomic Evaluation of the Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Alberta,Vol.4.Edmonton,Alberta,Canada.219 pp. Phillips,W.E.D.,DePape and L.Ewanyk.February,1977.Socioeconomic Evaluation of the Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Alberta,Vol.2.Edmonton,Alberta,Canada.176 pp. Phillips,W.E.and W.S.Pattison.November,1972.Hunter Guiding Activity in Northern Alberta:Wildlife Economics and Policy.Edmonton, Alberta,Canada.36 pp. Phillips,W.E.and M.C.Carroll.Undated.Socioeconomic Evaluation of the Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Alberta,Canada. Edmonton,Alberta,Canada.Vol.1.10 pp. Policy Analysts,Limited and Dr.Richard L.Ender.May 1980. Housing and Economic Development Study:Survey Findings. AK.n.p. Mat-Su Anchorage, Porter,Edward D.June 1980.Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program. Bering-Norton Petroleum Development Scenarios Economic and Demographic Analysis.Technical Report No.50.Institute of Social and Economic Research.University of Alaska.175 pp. PRC Harris Inc.and Alaska Consultants Inc.,September 8,1980. Summary:Southcentral Region of Alaska Deep-Draft Navigation Study. Anchorage,AK.42 pp. R.L.Polk and Company.1981.Profiles of Change.Anchorage,AK.n.p. Rogers,George W.and Jack Kreinheder.1980.Socioeconomic Analysis for Fishery Areas and Census Division.Limited Entry Study Committee.241 pp.(Prepared for Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency.) 7-14 Samples.K.C.and R.C.Bishop.June.1981. Wisconsin Profile.Madison,Wisconsin. The lake Michigan Angler: 59 pp. A - - Scott.Michael.J.February 1979.Southcentral Alaska's Economy and Population.1965-2025:A Base Study and Projections.The Institute for Social and Economic Research.University of Alaska.Anchorage, Fairbanks.Juneau.AK.n.p. Skaqit Alaska.Inc.January 15-21.1981.The Frontiersman (untitled). Wasi 11 a,AK. Skaqit Alaska,Inc.April 9-15.1981.The Frontiersman "Palmer Proves Best Hospital Site".Wasilla.AK. Soil Conservation Service.December 1980.Susitna River Basin Study, Willow Subbasin.Draft Report.n.p. South Central Health Planning and Development.March 1979.Health Systems Plan.Anchorage.AK. Stephen R.Braund &Associates.March 1982.Alaska Power Authority Susitna Hydroelectric Project Sociocultural Studies.Anchorage.Alaska. Swartz.A.N.August,1981.The Economic Impact of Commercial and Recreational Fishing in Calhoun County.Texas.34 pp. December.1979.Current estimates of Great lakes 1979 Status Report.Ann Arbor.Michigan.18 pp. - - Tal he 1m ,D.R.et a l. Fisheries Values: Tay~or.C.R ••B.R.Beattie and K.R.livengood. vs.Private Systems for Big Game Hunting. December.1980. Bozeman.Montana. Public 14 pp. - - TRA/FARR.Wasilla Comprehensive Planning Study.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Newsletter I.April 28,1980.Seattle.WA. TRA/FARR.Wasilla Comprehensive Planning Study.Matanuska-Susitna Borough Newsletter II.August 25.1980.Seattle.WA. Tryck.Nyman &Hayes.March 1975.Community Development Plan (Vol.I & II).Anchorage.AK.Report for City of Delta Junction,AK.2 vols. n.p. United States Department of Commerce.1980.Finances of Public School Systems in 1977-78.Bureau of the Census.Washington.D.C.n.p. United States Department of Commerce.1980.State Government Finances in 1979.Bureau of the Census.Washington.D.C.n.p. United States Department of Commerce.1980.State Government Tax Collections in 1979.Bureau of the Census.Washington.D.C.n.p. United States Department of Commerce.1980.City Government Fi nances in 1978-79.Bureau of the Census.Washington.D.C.n.p. 7-15 ----,----------_...._._....._-------------_.._-----_._----------- 6tQFC¥ 3;F¥F;`Fu¥ zI¥uFL¥Z;X;¥,zF¥C`QvQ;Qzt¥ #;t;¥ ,zF¥ &;XF¥ t;ZQ¥;I¥¥ 6uQFC¥ 3;F¥F;`Fu¥ zI¥NF¥!uFQz¥ F;¥ zI¥ %;tC¥ &;u;LFaFv¥ ,zzFC¥)F¥zuQuFt;Z¥ 3NFZI¥*QZ¥;uC¥ ;¥ %F;F¥3;[F¥%zF¥zzX¥ !vZF¥3NFZQX{I¥3;Q ¥;I¥uQztbFt;Z¥!c;?¥3;FcGt¥ t?Nz;LF¥ $¥¥;tC¥ FuCQ?F¥ 6tQFC¥ 3;F¥F;`Ft¥ zI¥ NF¥ !tFQz¥F;¥ zI¥ %;tC¥ &;t;LF`Fv¥ ;I¥ uQzw`Fu;Z¥!`;?¥3;F`Ft¥%zG¥ zzX¥"x\F¥ 3NFZQXzJ¥3;Q¥ *QZ¥;uC¥ ;¥%F;F¥4;ZF¥!uCF¥t?Nz;LF¥ $¥ ¥;tA¥ Zz; ¥ 6tQFC¥3;G¥ F;dFu¥ zI¥5;tz;Qzt¥FCF;Z¥QLN;¥C`QtQ;¤ Qzu¥;tC¥ ];Y;¥ F;eFt¥ zI¥ 5;uz;Qzu¥;tC¥ ,>ZQ?¥;?QZQQF¥ &;?N¥ /Q?N;Czu¥ QLN;¡¥ ;I¥ tQzt`Ft;Z¥ !f;?¥ 3;F`Fu¥Izg¥ &QZFz¥ |¥ &QZFz¥ zF¥FuF¥ $¥ u?Oz;LF¥ $¥¥ 6tQFC¥ 3;F¥ F<hFu¥ zI¥ %;>z¥F;¥ zI¥%;>z¥3;QQ?¥ 'G¥ QZ¥ 3;t¥ ;t?Q?z¥ ¥¥ 6uRFB¥4;F¥tQzu`Ft;Z¥ ,zF?Qzt¥LFt?¥0FLQzu¥ QZ¥ Z;X;¥ ,Fz?NGiQ?;Z¥ za;u¥ /FIQtF ¥;tC¥ ,Hz@NFjQ?;Z¥;?SZQ ¥ Qu;Z¥tQzu`Ft;Z¥!`;?¥4;GaFt¥7;ZBF£¥ $¥¥ 6tTFC¥ 3;G¥ tQzu`Ft;Z¥,zG?Qzt¥ LFu?¥ 1FLQzt¥ F?Fa>G¥ Z;X;¥-Fz?NFkQ?;^¥z`;t¥/FIQuH¥ ;tC¥,Fz?NFjQ?;Z¥ ;?QZQ¥ FtCQ¥8zZ¥!! ¥tQzu`Ft;Z¥ !l;?¥ 3;FmFt¥ 8;ZCF£¥$¥¥ 6xQFC¥3;F¥,z;Z¥4FQ?F¥ 63¥ .z¥*IIQ?F¥9;?;t?¢¥2;F¥ 3F¥t?Nz;LF¥$¥ t¥ 6uQFQ¥ zI¥ Z;X;¥!uQF¥ zI¥ 3z?Q;Z¥;tC¥ ?}uznQ?¥ /FG;?N¥#_¥ Z;X; ¥ /GQF¥zI¥ 3z?Q;Z¥;tC¥?ztzaQ?¥ ztCQQzu¥Z;X;¥ /FFtF¥zF?;¥;tC¥ FuCQF¥ +Qzu¥ ;Q>;tX¥$¥¥ 6tQFQ¥ zI¥Z;X;¥ ?Q?¥ tQzuoFt;Z¥ !vI~`;Qzt¥ ;uD¥ ;;¥ FuG¥ #Z¥ zF¥/QF¥ /FLQzu¥ z`btQ¥ zZSz ¥ ¥;?XLztC¥Kz¥ -Z;utUuM¥ ;tFZZ¥ NQz?NQt;¥PQQu;¥zG¥ GuF¥;Xzu;¥ ZX;t;¥ &Fu=;¥%;XF¥5;£ZQu;¥ v¥ 6tQFQ¥ zI¥ Z;X;¥ ?Q?¥uQztpFu;Z¥!tIzh;Qt¥;xC¥ ;;¥FtF¥ 5NF¥Nt;¥/FLQzt¥ ;?XLztC¥Iz¥/FLQzt;Z¥ ;yC¥|qrtQ¥,Z;ttVuL¥ u?Nz;LF¥$¥ t¥ :;NQuLzu¥4;F¥F;`Fu¥ zI¥ /FFtF¥F?F`>G¥sZz`Ft¥ (FFE¥ Wt¥ NF¥zt?Q{t¥ !tC¥ *Z`Q;¥:¥ t¥ 7.4 -Methodologies ABT Association Inc.January 1979.Forecasts for Western Coal/Energy Development.Western Coal Planning Assistance Project,Missouri River Basin Commission.Omaha,NB.135 pp. Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development.Undated. State of Alaska Quarterly Econometric Model.Juneau,AK.n.p. Alaska,State of,Division of Policy Development and Planning.August 5, 1980.State of Alaska Railbelt Electrical Power Alternatives Study, Request for Proposals (additional information).Juneau,AK.n.p. Alaska Division of Policy Development and Planning. Bibliography of Community Planning Supplement. October 1975. Juneau,AK.n.p. ... Anderson.1970.A Note on Economic Base Studies and Regional Econometric Forecasting Models.Journal of Regional Science.Vol.10,No.3. pp.325-333. Anderson,E.and J.Chalmers.1977.Economic/Demographic Assessment Manual:Current Practices,Procedural Recommendations,and a Test Case.Mountain West Research.Tempe,AZ.299 pp. Andrews,Wade H.and Dennis C.Geertsen.January 1974.Social Dimensions of Urban Flood Control Decisions.Utah State University, Logan,UT 84322.69 pp. Andrews,Wade H.,Gary Medsen and Gregor Legaz.December 1974.Social Impacts of Water Resource Developments and Their Implications for Urban and Rural Development:A Post-Audit Analysis of the Weber Basin Project in Utah.Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources,Utah State University,Logan,UT.178 pp. Andrews,Wade H.,Rabel Burdge,Harold Capener,Keith Warner,Kenneth Wilkinson.1973.The Social Well-Being and Quality of life Dimension in Water Resources Planning and Development.Institute for Social Science Research on Natural Resources,Utah State University,logan,Utah.Proceedings of the Conference of the University Council on Water Resources,July 10-12,1973.213 pp. Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development.July 1977. Description and Technical Description of the Economic/Demographic Projection Model.Phoenix,AZ.n.p. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.March 1981.Alaska Economic Scenarios Review Document.Office of the Governor,State of Alaska, Division of Policy Development and Planning and the Governor's Policy Review Committee.Comment Draft Working Paper No.21.67 pp. Juneau,AK.67 pp. Baker,Janet K.,Norbert Dee,and James R.Finley.1974.Measuring Impacts of Water Resource Developments on the Human Environment. American Water Resources Association,Water Resources Bulletin. Vol.10,No.1.Washington D.C.pp.10-21 pp. 7-17 Bendix,Selina and Herbert R.Graham.1978.Environmental Assessment - Approaching Maturity.Ann Arbor Science Publishers,Inc.,Ann Arbor,MI.288 pp. Bishop,R.C.and T.A.Heberlein.December,1980.Simulated Markets, Hypothetical Markets,and Travel Cost Analysis:Alternative Methods of Estimating Outdoor Recreational Demand.Madison,Wisconsin.45 pp. Bishop,R.C.and T.A.Heberlein.December,1979.Measuring Values of Extramarket Goals:Are Indirect Measures Biased?Madison, Wisconsin.5 pp. Biswas,Asit K.and Robert W.Durie.Sociological Aspects of Water Development.Water Resources Bulletin.Washington D.C.n.p. V Booz,Allen &Hamilton,Inc.Undated.A Procedures Manaul for Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact of the Construction and Operation of Coal Utilization Facilities in the Old West Region.Old West Regional Commission.Washington,D.C.290 pp. Brown,William G.,et.ale August,1976.Improved Economic Evaluation of Commercially and Sport-Caught Salmon and Steel head of the Columbia River.Special Report of Oregon State University. Corvallis,Oregon. Burchell,R.W.,and D.Listokin.1978.The Fiscal Impact Handbook. The Center for Urban Policy Research.New Jersey.527 pp. ~Butler,Lorna M.and Robert E.Howell.October 1980.Community Needs Assessment Techniques.Coping With Growth Series.Western Rural Development Center,Corvallis,OR.22 pp. Canter,Larry W.1977.Environmental Impact Assessment.McGraw Hill Book Company,New York.331 pp. Canter,Larry W.1979.Water Resources Assessment -Methodology & Technology Sourcebook.Ann Arbor Science Publishers,Inc.,Ann Arbor,MI.529 pp. Center for the Study of Social Policy.1975.Handbook of Forecasting Techniques.Institute for Water Resources,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Fort Belvoir,VA.Contract DACW 31-75-C-0027.314 pp. - J j Chalmers,J.A.1977.Bureau of Reclamation Construction Worker Survey. Engineering and Research Center,U.S.Bureau of Reclamation,Denver, CO.222 pp. Chalmers,J.A.and Anderson,E.J.1977.Economic/Demographic Assessment Manual:Current Practices,Procedural Recommendations, and a Test Case.Engineering and Research Center,U.S.Bureau of Reclamation,Denver,CO.300 pp. 7-18 1977.Environmental Ann Arbor Science - - - - - - - Charbonneau.J.J ••and M.J.Hay.1978.Determinants and Economic Values of Hunting and Fishing.43rd North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.Washington D.C.n.p. Cheremisinoff.Paul N.and Angelo C.Morresi. Assessment and Impact Statement Handbook. Publishers.Inc ••Ann Arbor.MI.438 pp. Clonts.Howard A.and Lonnie P.Cain.1976.Implications of Watershed Development on Land Value and Landowner Attitudes.Agricultural Experiment Station/Auburn University.Auburn.AL.Bulletin 479.41 pp. Coleman.Edwin.August 15.1977.Personal Income:Some Observations on its Construction.Uses and Adequacy as a Subnational Income Measure. Paper delivered at the Meeting of the American Statistical Association. Chicago.IL.17 pp. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory.June,1976.The Economic Impact Forecast System:Description and User Instructions. Technical Report N-2.n.p Cor'wi n.Ruthann.1975.Envi ronmental Impact Assessment.Freeman, Cooper and Company,San Francisco.277 pp. Daniels.Belden,H.November 9,1979.The Consideration of Social and Economic Measures in Project Evaluation -An Overview.Boston, MA.85 pp. Daubert.John T.and Robert A.Young.November.1981.Recreational Demands for Maintaining Instream Flows:A Contingent Valuation Approach.American Journal of Agricultural Economics.n.p. Department of the Army,Seattle District,Corps of Engineers. Manual for Social Impact Assessment.Seattle.WA.Draft. 1975.A 51 pp. - - - Eakland.Peter,et ale January 1980.Alaska OCS Socioceconomic Studies Program:Western Gulf of Alaska Petroleum Development Scenarios Transportation Systems Analysis.Technical Report No.37.273 pp. FiE~ld,Donald R••James C.Barron.and Burl F.Long.1974.Water and Community Social and Economic Perspectives.Ann Arbor Science Publishers.Inc ••Ann Arbor.MI.302 pp. Finsterbusch.K.and Wolf.C.P.1977.The Methodology of Social Impact Assessment.Dowden.Hutchinson and Ross Publishing Co •• Stroudsberg,PA.n.p. Finsterbusch,K.1977.Methods of Evaluating Non-Market Impacts in Policy Decisions with Special Reference to Water Resources Development Projects.U.S.Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources,Fort Belvoir.VA.IWR Contract Report 77-78.46 pp. Floyd.F.Charles and Clemon F.Sirmans.July 1975.The Economic Impact of Recreational Land-Use in an Island Environment:A case study of Jekyll Island.Georgia.Skidaway Island.Georgia.184 pp. 7-19 ---,--,---------------------_.--------_._--- Foell.Wesley K.(Ed.).1979.Management of Energy/Environmental Systems.John Wiley &Sons.Chichester.U.K.487 pp. Glickman.Norman J.February.1977.Impact Analysis with Regional Econometic Models (Draft).University of Pennsylvania.PA.n.p. Goldsmith.Oliver Scott.April 1981.Description of Sensitivity Analysis of MAP Model Components for Railbelt Electrical Power Study.Draft Working Paper #2.Part 2:The Household Formation Model.For Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.Institute of Social and Economic Research.Anchorage.AK.35 pp. Goldsmith.Oliver Scott.April 1981.Description and Sensitivity Analysis of MAP Model Components for Railbelt Electrical Power Study Draft Working Paper #3.For Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.Institute of Social and Economic Research. Anchorage.AK.35 pp. Goldsmith.Scott and Lee Huskey.1980.Electric Power Consumption for the Railbelt:A projection of Requirements.Technical Appendices. Institute of Social and Economic Research for the State of Alaska House Power Alternatives Study Committee and Alaska Power Authority. Anchorage.AK.n.p. Gordon.D••D.W.Chapman.and T.C.Bjorn.1972.Economic Evaluation of Sport Fisheries:What Do They Mean?American Fisheries Society. Lawrence.Kansas.n.p. Guseman.P.K.and Dietrich,K.T.1978.Profile and Measurement of Social Well-Being Indicators for Use in the Evaluation of Water and Related Land Management Planning.U.S.Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.Vicksburg,MS.Misc.Paper Y-78-2.112 pp. Holt,S.,D.Fraser and J.A.Estes.Some Economic Consequences of the Depredation of Pismo Clams by Sea Otters.Santa Cruz,California.35 pp. Institute of Social and Economic Research,University of Alaska.March 1977.Alaska Interregional Cost Differentials.Fairbanks,AK.152 pp. Isserman.Andrew.July 1977.The Accuracy of Population Projections for Subcounty Areas.(Published in Journal of the American Institute of Planners,Volume 43,No.3.)New York,NY.pp.247-257 - Laboratory of Architecture and Planning,MIT. the Local Impacts of Energy Development: Forecasting Methods and Models (Draft). November 1976.Predicting A Critical Guide to Cambridge,MA.n.p. Leistritz,F.L.,D.M.Senechal,and Lorent Low.1980.Socioeconomic Effects of Energy Development:The Role of Impact Models in Policy Making.Paper presented at National Energy Policy Conference, University of West Virginia.Morganstown,May 1,1980.n.p. 7-20 - .- - - Leistritz,F.Larry and Steven Murdock.1981.The Socioeconomic Impact of Resource Development:Methods for Assessment.Social Impact Assessment Series,No.6.Westview Press,Boulder,Co.286 pp. Leistritz,F.L.,S.H.Murdock,N.E.Toman,and T.A.Hertsgaard. 1979.A Model for Projecting Localized Economic,Demographic,and Fiscal Impacts of Large Scale Projects.Western Journal of Agricultural Economics.Volume 4,No.2.pp.1-16. Ler'ner,Sally C.1980.Energy Policy:A Potential Source of Positive Social Impacts.Paper presented at National Energy Policy Conference,University of West Virginia.Morgantown.May 1,1980. n.p. Louis Berger &Associates,Inc.August 20,1980.Best and Final Proposal for Isolated Industrial Facilities Development for Alaska OCS Oil and Gas Activities.Fairbanks,AK n.p. Louis Berger,&Associates,Inc.March 1973.Methodological Improvements in Measuring Economic Effects of Multi-purpopse Water Resource Projects.East Orange,NJ.79 pp.(prepared for the Office of Water Resources Research). Love,Carl and Richard Stafford.April 23,1975.The Application of Modeling Methods to Socioeconomic Impact Analysis of Energy Development Projects.Westinghouse Research Laboratories. Scientific Paper 75-7C55-IPPAN-PI.Pittsburgh,PA.26 pp. McEvoy,James I II and Thomas Di etz (Eds.).1977.Handbook for Environmental Planning and Social Consequences of Environmental Change.John Wiley &Sons,New York.323 pp. Malone,D.W.1975.An Introduction to the Application of Interpretive Structural Modeling in Baldwin,M.M.(ed.)Portraits of Complexity: Applications of Systems Methodologies to Societal Problems. Battelle Memorial Institute,Columbus,OH.n.p. Markusen,Ann Roell.February 1978.Socioeconomic Impact Models for Boomtown Planning and Policy Evaluation.Paper for Presentation at the Western Regional Science Association Meeting,25 February 1978. 38 pp. Masse,William D.and Ken Peterson.March 21,1977.Evaluation of Incremental Recreational benefits from Salmonoid Enhancement. Appendix 6 to the British Columbia Salmonoid Enhancement Program Report.Vancouver,British Columbia,Canada.n.p. Michalson,Edgar et al.,(ed.)1974.Multiple Objective Planning for Water Resources.Volume 1.Proceedings of the UCOWR Work Shop on Multiple Objective Planning and Decision-Making,Las Vegas,Nevada, July 16-18,1974.Idaho Research Foundation,Inc.,Moscow,10.63 ipp. 7-21 -----,-------._-------_._---- Michalson,Edgar et al.,(ed.) Water Resources.Volume 2. Multiple Objective Planning January 14-16,1975.Idaho 122 pp. 1975.Multiple Objective Planning for Proceedings of the UCOWR Conference on and Decision-Making,Boise,Idaho, Research Foundation,Inc.,Moscow,ID - - ~Missouri River Basin Commission.January 1979.A Guide to Methods for Impact Assessment of Western Coal/Energy Development.Western Coal Planning Assistance Project.Billings,MO.n.p. Mitchell,A.et al.1975.Handbook of Forecasting Techniques.U.S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources,Fort Belvoir,VA.IWR Contract Report 75-7.316 pp. Mitchell,Arnold.1977.Handbook of Forecasting Techniques.Part I. Center for the Study of Social Policy under Contract to U.S.Army Institute for Water Resources,Fort Belvoir,VA.Supplement to IWR Contract Report 75-7.74 pp. - - Mountain West Research,Inc.December,1975. Projections for Rosebud County,Montana. Demographic and Economic Tempe,Arizona.n.p. ! J i V Mountain West Research,Inc.1976.Mid-Yellowstone Areawide Planning Organization:Economic Demographic Projection Model.Billings, Montana.n.p. Mountain West Research,Inc.October 1977.Construction Worker Survey. Tempe,Arizona.222 pp. Mountain West Research,Inc.January 1978.Bureau of Reclamation Economic Assessment Model (BREAM)Technical Description.for U.S. Department of the Interior,Bureau of Reclamation.Tempe,AZ 85282. n.p. Mountain West Research,Inc.January 1979.Fact Book for Western Coal/Energy Development.Western Coal Planning Assistance Project, Missouri River Basin Commission.Omaha,NB.534 pp. Mountain West Research,Inc.1979.A Guide to Methods for Impact Assessment of Western Coal/Energy Development.Billings,Montana. n.p. Mountain West Research,Inc.August 1980.Bureau of Reclamation: Economic Assessment Model (BREAM),Technical Description and User's Guide.For Water and Power Resources Service,U.S.Department of the Interi or.Tempe,AZ.115 pp. Muller,T.1976.Economic Impacts of Land Development.The Urban Institute,Washington,D.C.URI 98000.68 pp. Mull er,T.1975.Fi sca 1 Impacts on Land Development.The Urban Institute,Washington,D.C.URI 98000.68 pp. 7-22 - - - - Murdock,Steve H.and F.Larry Leistritiz.1979.Demographic and Economic Effects of Large-Scale Energy Development in Rural Areas:An Assessment Model in Gene F.Summer and Arne Selvik (eds.), Nonmetropolitan Industrial Growth and Community Change.Lexington, MA.pp.223-53. Murdock,Steve H.and F.Larry Leistritz.1979.Energy Development in the Western United States.Praeger Publishers,New York.363 pp. Nac:hmias,David.1979.Public Policy Evaluation.St.Martin's Press, Inc.,New York.195 pp. National Research Council.1979.Sociopolitical Effects and Energy Use and Policy,Supporting Paper 5,Study of Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems.National Academy of Sciences.Washington,D.C. 511 pp. North Slope Borough,Department of Public Safety.1980.Challenge to the Police Role in Rural Alaska:The North Slope Borough Experience. 34 pp. Pattison,William S.,and William E.Phillips.October,1971.Economic Evaluation of Big Game Hunting:An Alberta Case Study.Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics.pp.72-86. Phillips,W.E.July,1981.The Role of Socioeconomic Data in Sport Fishing Research:The Nature and Meaning of Survey Data.Edmonton, Alberta,Canada.6 pp. Phillips,William E.,and Michael R.Carroll.1978.Socioeconomic Evaluation of the Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Alberta,Canada.University of Alberta,Edmonton,Alberta.n.p. Phillips,William,Dennis DePape,and Leonard Ewanyk.Feb.1977.Socio- economic Evaluation of the Recreational Use of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Alberta,with Particular Reference to the Athabasca Oil Sands Area.Dept.of Rural Economy,University of Alberta,Edmunton, Alberta.n.p. Phnlips,William E.,and Evelyn R.McElhaney.Dec.1977.A Socioeconomic Evaluation of Nonresident Sport Fishing Activities in Alberta. I.M.P.A.C.T.Environomics Ltd.,Edmonton,Alberta.n.p. Ph-illips,William E.,and Evelyn R.McElhaney.Dec.1977.A Socioeconomic Evaluation of Nonresident Sport Hunting Activity in Alberta. I.M.P.A.C.T.Environomics Ltd.,Edmonton,Alberta.n.p. Porter,E.April 1981.Description and Sensitivity Analysis of MAP Model Components for Railbelt Electric Power Study.Draft Working Paper #2 for Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.Part 1:Regionalization Model.Institute of Social and Economic Research.Anchorage,AK.32 pp. Reaume,David M.1980.Migration and the Dynamic Stability of Regional ~/ Econometric Models.State of Alaska,Department of Commerce and Economic Development,Juneau,AK.n.p. 7-23 -------------------------,.-------- Rimbey,Neil.October 1979.Growth Impacts on Public Service Expenditures:Some Questions For the Community.Coping with Growth Series.Western Rural Development Center.Corvallis,Or.44 pp. Rivkin Associates,Inc.February,1978.Socioeconomic Impact Analysis for Juneau and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough:Potential Consequences of a New Capital City for Alaska.Prepared for the Capital Site Planning Commission.Washington,D.C.149 pp. Rosen,Sherman J.1976. Prentice-Hall,Inc. Manual for Environmental Impact Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs,N.J.232 pp. Shi el ds,Mark A. Bibliography. Belvoir,VA. 1974.Social Impact Assessment:An Analytic U.S.Army Institute for Water Resources,Fort IWR Paper 74-P6.129 pp. Siegler,Theodore,and Meyer,Neil.March 1980.Assessing Fiscal Impact of Rural Growth.Coping with Growth Series.Western Rural Development Center.Corvallis,OR.5 pp. Singh,Raghu N.and Kenneth P.Wilkinson.1974.On the Measurement of Environmental Impacts of Public Projects from a Sociological Perspective.American Water Resources Association,Water Resources Bulletin.Vol.10,No.3.pp.415-425. Smith,Charles R.et ale 1973.Social and Cultural Impact of a Proposed Reservoir on a Rural Kentucky School District.Kentucky Water Resources Institute,Lexington,KY.189 pp. Sonnen,Michael B.and Larry C.Davis.1979.Wild Rivers -Methods for Evaluation.American Water Resources Association,Water Resources bulletin,Vol.15,No.2.pp.404-419. Stenehjem,E.J.and J.E.Metzger.1980.A Framework for Projecting Employment and Population Changes Accompanying Energy Development. Argonne National Laboratory,Argonne,11.78 pp. Stinson,D.S.and O'Hare,M.1977.Predicting the Local Impacts of Energy Development:A Critical Guide to Forecasting Methods and Models.Laboratory of Architecture and Planning,Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Cambridge,MA.98 pp. Suchman,Edward A.1967. Foundation,New York. Evaluative Research.Russell Sage 186 pp. Talhelm,Daniel P.,et.ale December,1979.Current Estimates of Great Lakes Fisheries Values:1979 Status Report.Great Lakes Fisheries Commission.Ann Arbor,Michigan.n.p. Taylor,C.,Robert,Bruce R.Beattie,and Kerry R.Livengood.Dec.1980. Public vs.Private Systems for Big Game Hunting.Montana State University.Bozeman,Montana.n.p. 7-24 - - - Tuck,Bradford H.November 1980.Economic Development Planning for Anchorage:A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis.Prepared for the Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department.University of Alaska.Anchorage,AK.204 pp. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District.Setember 1975.A t4anual for Social Impact Assessment,Seattle,WA.51 pp. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District.1980.Community Impact Reports Chief Joseph Dam.Seattle,WA.n.p. u.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Engineer Institute for Water Resources.June 1981.Report of Survey of Corps of Engineers Construction Workforce. Ft.Belvoir,VA.n.p. United States Department of Commerce,Bureau of the Census.July 1977. Guide for Local Area Population Projections.Technical Paper 39. Washington,D.C.84 pp. United States Department of Commerce,Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1975.Evaluation of Economic and Demographic Data Useful in Water Resources Planning.U.S.Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources,Fort Belvoir,VA.IWR Pamphlet No.3.n.p. U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission.April 1980.Final Supplement No.1 to the Final Environmental Statement for Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,Units 1 and 2 Proposed by Portland General Electric Company. Washington,D.C.20555.n.p. University of Alaska,Arctic Environmental Information and Data Center. 1980.Current Research Profile for Alaska,1979.Anchorage,AK. 420 pp. University of Alberta,Faculty of Extension.1980.Computer Models for Forecasting Socioeconomic Impacts of Growth and Development. Edmonton,Alberta.Proceedings of conference,April 20-23,1980. n.p. Wakeland,W.1976.QSIM2:A Low-Budget Heuristic Approach to Modeling and Forecasting.Technological Forecasting and Social Change.Vol.9.pp.213-229. Warden,Richard E.and W.Tim Dagodag.1976.A Guide to the Preparation and Review of Environmental Impact Reports.Security World Publishing Co.,I os Angeles.138 pp. White,William T.,B.Malamund and J.Nixon.May,1976.A Model for the Socioeconomic Analysis of Water Projects. 7-25 / \// - 8 -AUTHORITIES CONTACTED 8.1 -Introduction Contained in this section is a comprehensive list of government agencies organizations,institutions,and individuals contacted to assist in the development of this socioeconomic profile and impact analysis.The section is divided into four distinct categories:Federal Institutions;State Institutions;Local Institutions;and Other Institutions,Organizations, and Individuals. 8.2 -Federal Institutions GOVERNr~ENT OF Victoria,B.C. CANADA,DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS Bill Massey,Chief of Recreational and Habitat Economics Department -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 13,1982;discussed Canadian Government studies of commercial fish values. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, Victoria,B.C. BRITISH COLUMBIA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT - - Jon OIRiordan,Ph.D. -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 13,1982;discussed his work in establishing recreational values for fresh water fish and some game species in British Columbia. U.s.DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Anchorage,AK E.R.Robinson,Director -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 12,1981;infor- mation on housing data for Copper River Region. U.s.DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Delon Brown,Chief Researcher -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 5,1980;identified forecasting models and socioeconomic data and information. Soil Conservation Service Anchorage,AK Sterling E.Powell,P.E.,River Basin Planning Staff -Meeting with Peter Rogers;January 29,1981;discussed goals,objec- tives and status of river basin planning project. - John 0 I Nei 1,Coordi nator Telephone discussion with David Davies; Discussed resource valuation studies done for Basin Cooperative Study 8-1 July 14, the Sus itna 1981; River ----------------------,,------- -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 12,1982;discussed his work in establishing fish and game values for Alaska. John O'Neil,Coordinator -Telephone discussion with Peter Rogers;January 13,1982;discussed economic valuation of big game. -Meeting with Peter Rogers;January 15,1982;discussed economic valuations of recreational activities in the Susitna Basin and exten- sions of the travel cost methodology. Economics,Statistics and Cooperative Service Natural Resource Economics Division Anchorage,AK Paul Fuglestad,Agricultural Economist -Meeting with Peter Rogers;January 29,1981;discussed methods and results of agriculture and timber potential studies for the Willow subbasin;discussed plan of study for other subbasins;discussed popu- lation projects for the river basin. u.S.DEPARTMENT OF ARMY Corp.of Engineers Seattle,WA Art Harnisch,Chief of Economic and Social Evaluation Section -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;December 11,1981;discussed work force characteristics in rural areas. u.S.DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Marine Fisheries Service Seattle,WA Jack Richards,Regional Economist -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 12,1982;discussed NMFS studies to determine commercial and recreational values of salmon. Bureau of Economic Analysis Washington,DC Al Silverman,Regional Economist -Telephone conversation with Robin Hill;December 22,1981;requested data on Alaska wage and salary income. 8-2 - - - - - - u.s.DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Michael Hay,Economist -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 12,1982;discussed game value data in the National Survey of Fishing and Hunting. u.S DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Anchorage,AK ~~i chael Brown -Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;January 30,1981;discussed type,quality,and quantity of data available regarding the historic use of Alaska's inland waters for travel,trade or commerce. Bureau of Land Management,Outer Continental Shelf (SESP) Anchorage,AK Gary Hennigh;Charlie Smythe,Socioeconomic Specialists -Meeti ng with Andy Woolford;January 9,1981;di scussed OCS,SESP Studies and Enclave Development Study (Louis Berger &Associates). Charlie Smythe,Socioeconomic Specialist -Meeting with David Davies;September 24,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. Bur'eau of Mi nes Anchorage,AK -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 8,1981;obtained information and map on mining claim locations in Upper Susitna River Basin. Joanne Gidlund,Public Affairs Office -Phone discussion with David Davies;February 10,1981;regarding information on 0-2 legislation. Quality of the Environment Division,Resources For the Future - - Elizabeth Willman.Fellow -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner; referral names for Game Valuation in the Wildlife Service. u.s.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Railroad Administration Alaska Railroad Anchorage.AK January 7.1982;obtai ned U.S.Depa rtment of Fi sh and Fred Hoefler,Traffic Officer -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 9,1981;discussed freight schedules,capacity.upgrading.employment,and payroll. 8-3 --_._---,---------------------------- 8.3 -State Institutions ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Juneau,AK Lee Hays -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 3,1981;regarding information on school districts in the Mat-Su Borough and Valdez- Chitina-Whittier Census Division. Dave Scott,Deputy Director of Management and Finance -Telephone discussion with Madelaine Laurello;December 15,1981; requested information on State Debt Service Reimbursement Program. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Valdez,AK Rick Quiroz,Planner -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 27,1981;regarding Environmental Assessments for portions of Richardson Highway. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Anchorage,AK Reed Gibby,Transportation Planner -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;November 5,1980;regarding Mat-Su Borough Transportation Study. -Meet i ng with Andy Woolford;Janua ry 7,1981;di scussed and obtai ned data on highway and bridge conditions,road capacities and plans for upgrading for Parks,Glenn,Denali,and Richardson Highways. Bill Humphrey,Transportation Planner I -Phone discussion ,with Andy Woolford;November 5,1980;regarding Mat-Su Borough Transportation Study. Eugene Weiler,Traffic Data Supervisor -Telephone discussion with Andy Woolford;May 12,1981;requested traffic counts on Denali Highway. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS (CRA) Anchorage,AK Richard Spitler,Planner -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 21,1980;discussed CRA's acti- vities in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census division and obtained studies on communities in this division. Mark Stephens,Planner VI -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 6,1981;discussed activities in Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Census Division (Richardson Highway corridor) and existing community profiles. 8-4 - - - - - - - - - -Phone discussion with David Davies;September 25,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. Ed Busch Telephone discussion with Robin Hill;September 24,1981; discussed the availability of statewide public service standards and demographic forecasts for the Mat-Su Borough. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Anchorage,AK Sterling Eide,Regional Supervisor for Game Division -Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;established com- munication and obtained data. -Meeting with Peter Rogers;August 19,1980;established communication and obtained data on harvest. Sterling Miller,Game Biologist III -Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;established com- munication and obtained data. Larry Heckart,Fisheries Biologist IV -Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;established com- munication and obtained data. Michael Mills,Fishery Biometrician III -Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;established com- munication and obtained data. -Telephone discussion with David Davies;July 13,1981;set up meeting for July 15,1981. -Meeting with David Davies,July 15,1981;Discussed and obtained most recent ADF&G POS,resource valuation studies and methods,and 1980 sport fish harvest data (Annual Report) -Meeti ng with Peter Rogers;October 14,1980;requested answers to questions of ADF&G's Final Preliminary Plan of Study;determined status of ADF&G1s Susitna effort;determined and established optimal com- munications channels and methods of coordination with ADF&G;obtained socioeconomic data and information on recreational fisheries for Areas 2 and 5 from ADF&G;established timetables for data and information outputs and sharing with ADF&G. - - - Meeting with Peter discussed ADF&G's work (Work Packages 5-9). Rogers; plans June 5 and 6, and FO&A,Inc.'s 1981;obtained and proposed increment Christopher Estes,Fisheries Biologist III -Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;established com- munication. 8-5 ----------__.._-----------, and Licensing Supervisor,Fish &Game ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Juneau,AK Linda Lockridge,Records Licensing Division -Meeti ng with Peter Rogers; game harvest August 20,1980;obtained information on - - - Bi 11 Yankee,Economi st II -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 21,1980;discussed structure on non-petro revenue model and revenues from hydro projects. -Phone discussion with David Davies;February 6,1981;regarding data on gross sales by census division. Hazel Nowlin,Administrative Assistant I -Phone discussion with David Davies;February 20,1981;regarding Gross Business Receipts by Borough -North Star,Mat-Su,Anchorage, 1970 -1977. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Anchorage,AK Heinz Noonon,Energy Economist -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 3,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Division of Research and Analysis Anchorage,AK Neil Fried,Labor Economist -Meeting with Peter Rogers;January 30,1981;discussed employment data,multipliers,labor supply data,location quotients and the availability of commuting and labor migration studies. -Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;June 5,1981;discussed results of Muncipality of Anchorage1s multiplier study. Cal Dauel,Administrative Officer -Meeting wit h Andy Woolford;January 8,1981;di scussed income and employment multipliers;industry linkages;and consumer price index for Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Greg Huff,Labor Economist -Meeting with Andy Woolford;December 15,1981;discussed fore- casted Alaska construction labor force supply and demand. -Phone di scuss i on with Andy Woolford;January 11,1982;di scussed wage rates for selected occupations. -Phone conversation with Robin Hill;December 28,1981 requested information on wage and salary income. 8-6 - - - - - - - - - ... ... ... ... -Phone conversation with Ron Rei sner;January 12,1982;di scussed paper entitled "A Discussion of the Methods for Evaluating The Economic Va 1ues of Fi sh and Wil dl ife". Ron Stanek,Resource Specialist II -Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;established com- munication. Steve Burgess,State Wide Coordinator for Habitat -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 12,1982;discussed sta- tus of ADF&G study to determine fish and game values for Alaska. -Telephone discussion with Peter Rogers;January 12,1982;discussed ADF&G1s plans to conduct fish and game valuation studies. Dennis Haanpaa,Fisheries Biologist IV,Commercial Fisheries -Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;established com- munication. Jerry Sexton,Game Biologist II Meeting with Peter Rogers;August 19,1980;established com- munication and obtained gain harvest data. Lee Miller,Fish and Game Technician V Meeting with Peter Rogers;August 19,1980;established com- munication and obtained game harvest data. Greg Bos,Game Biologist IV -Phone discussion with David Davies;February 10,1981;regarding obtaining a copy of the Alaska Wildlife Management Plans. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Anchorage,AK Jeff Hartman,Regional Bioengineering Coordinator -Telephone di scussi on with Peter Rogers;October 27,1981;di scussed salmon valuation techniques. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY Division of Fire Prevention,Southcentral District Anchorage,AK Dave Taylor,Fire Protection Engineer -Telephone discussion with Robin Hill;September 28,1981;discussed fire prevention facilities in the Mat-Su Borough. 8-7 ------------------------------------ Division of Fish and Wildlife Protection Anchorage,AK Rodney Mills,Detachment Commander Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;establish communication. Ms.LObb,Clerk -Telephone discussion with Peter Rogers;January 15,1982;discussed financial survey of guides who operate in Game Management Unit 13. Division of Public Safety Palmer,AK Michael Dekreon,Trooper -Interview with Robin Hill;October 12,1981;discussed the police facilities and services available in the Mat-Su Borough. Lt.Rhodes -Interview with Robin Hill;October 13,1981;discussed standards used to determine a need for additional police protection. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Research and Development,Land and Resources Planning Anchorage,AK Carol Larsen,Public Information Officer -Meeting with David Davies;September 25,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. Bob Loeffler,Associate Planner -Meeting with David Davies;September 25,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 19,1980;discussed land use planning methods,status of Willow subbasin area land use planning, and socioeconomic implications of land use zoning. Steve Reeves,Chief,Land Resourcer Planner;Randy Cowart,Planner -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 9,1981;discussed time sched- u1 es and co11 aborati on regardi ng Regi ona1 P1 an for the Upper Susitna. Division of Pipeline Surveillance Fairbanks,AK E1stun Lausen,Socioeconomic Officer -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 7,1981;regarding community profiles and studies of Southeast Fairbanks and Va1dez- Chitina-Whittier census divisions. 8-8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Juneau,AK Linda Lockridge,Records and Licensing Supervisor,Fish &Game Licensing Division -Meeting with Peter Rogers;August 20,1980;obtained information on game harvest Bi 11 Yankee,Economi st II -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 21,1980;discussed structure on non-petro revenue model and revenues from hydro projects. -Phone discussion with David Davies;February 6,1981;regarding data on gross sales by census division. Hazel Nowlin,Administrative Assistant I -Phone di scussi on with Davi d Davi es;February 20,1981;regardi ng Gross Business Receipts by Borough -North Star,Mat-Su,Anchorage, 1970 -1977. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Anchorage,AK Heinz Noonon,Energy Economist -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 3,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Division of Research and Analysis Anchorage,AK Neil Fried,Labor Economist -Meeti ng with Peter Rogers;January 30,1981;di scussed employment data,multipliers,labor supply data,location quotients and the availability of commuting and labor migration studies. -Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;June 5,1981;discussed results of Muncipality of Anchorage1s multiplier study. Cal Dauel,Administrative Officer -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 8,1981;discussed income and employment multipliers;industry linkages;and consumer price index for Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Greg Huff,Labor Economist -Meeting with Andy Woolford;December 15,1981;discussed fore- casted Alaska construction labor force supply and ctemand. -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 11,1982;discussed wage rates for selected occupations. -Phone conversat i on with Robi n Hill;December 28,1981;requested information on wage and salary income. 8-9 -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 12,1982;requested information on 1981 CPI for Anchorage SMSA. Division of Research and Analysis Juneau,AK Steve Harrison,Labor Economist -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 20,1980;discussed population data and LABMOD (short-run labor projections model). Chuck Caldwell,Chief of Research and Analysis -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 20,1980;discussed levels of disaggregation of employment data and employment estimates. Chris Miller,Lahor Economist -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 20,1980;discussed structure of LABMOD and income and employment multipliers. Rod Brown,Supervisor of Research -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 20,1980;discussed income and employment multipliers and economic base analysis. Sally Saddler,Labor Economist -Phone discussion with David Davies;February 23 and 25;requested labor data information. Dave Swanson,Demographer -Phone discussion Meeting with Andy Woolford;August 18,1981; obtained information on demographic estimates and projections. James Wilson,Economist -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;November 19,1981;infor- mation on local and regional labor supply. ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Division of Energy and Power Development Anchorage,AK Secretary -Phone discussion with David Davies;September 25,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. David Reaume,Economist -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 6,1980;identified forecasting models. Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;January 30,1981;discussed availability of State's Long-Term Energy Plan. 8-10 - - - - - - - - - - - ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION Anchorage,AK Jim Allen,Anchorage/West District Supervisor -Phone conversation with Robin Hill;September 28,1981;discussed water and and sewage standards. UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA Institute of Social and Economic Research Anchorage,AK Lee Huskey,Economist -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 6,1981;discussed employment and popul ati on multi pl i ers and Valdez-Chit ina-Whitt i er community studies. Scott Goldsmith,Assistant Professor of Economics -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 4,1980;identified forecasting models. -Meeting with Peter Rogers;July 8,1980;determined relevance of ISER demographic and economic models for Work Package 4. -Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;August 13,1981;discussed availability of ISER's MAP outputs. -Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;July 13,1981 discussed form and content of ISER's planned MAP outputs. -Phone di scuss i on with Peter Rogers;September 21,1981;di scussed availability of ISER's MAP outputs. -Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;November 24,1981;discussed ISERls statewide and regional employment,population and household pro- jections. ARCTIC ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION AND DATA CENTER (AEIDC) Anchorage,AK Barbara Sokolov,Director,Information Services -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 6,1981; data cataloging and retrieval,especially as Richardson Highway corridor. HOUSE POWER ALTERNATIVES STUDY COMMITTEE Juneau,AK apprised of AEIOC it pertai ns to - Hugh Malone -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 6,1980;established communication channels. 8-11 ALASKA STATE TROOPERS Glennallen Trooper Post Glennallen,AK Bob Cockrell,State Trooper -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 4,1981;regarding trooper facilities and personnel in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier cen- sus divisions. Palmer Trooper Post Palmer,AK Lt.Rhodes -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;December 11,1981;discussed existing and future State Trooper needs in Alaska. ALASKA STATE HOUSING AUTHORITY Anchorage,AK Bill Foster,Housing Director -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 9,1981;discussed housing studies/surveys in Matanuska and Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census divisions. 8.4 -Local Institutions CITY OF FAIRBANKS Fairbanks,AK - - - - - - -Telephone from Madelaine Laurello;November 30,1981;requested copies of annual budget FY 1981/82;information on utilities in Fairbanks. Fred Brantingham,Utility Director -Telephone from Madelaine Laurello;November 30,1981;requested copies of utility budget FY 1981/82. Greg Mumm,Finance Director Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;December 11, requested data on per capita costs of del ivery of services City of Fairbanks. 1981; by the - - - ClTY OF HOUSTON Houston,AK Elsie O'Brien,City Clerk -Meeting with Robin Hill;October land,fire protection,recreational ilities available in the City. 8-12 13,1981;discussed housing and and solid waste disposal fac- - - Elsie O'Bryan,City Clerk Meeting with Madelaine Laurello;December.21,1981;reviewed annual budget for FY 1981/82;discussed sources of revenue;per capita expenditures and reviewed population projections. Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;December 11,1981; requested data on average per capita costs of del i very of servi ces by the City of Houston. CITY OF PALMER Pa'lmer,AK Dave Soulak,City Manager -Meeting with Robin Hill;October 15,1981;discussed water,sewage, police,fire,recreation and housing available in the City. -Telephone discussion with Robin Hill;October 20,1981;requested further information on water and sewage facilities in Palmer. Meeting with Madelaine Laurello;December 22,1981;reviewed annual bUdget for FY 1982;discussed _sources of revenue;per capita expenditures for services,and'reviewed population projecti ons. Marsha Craig,City Clerk Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;December 11,1981; requested data on average per capita costs of delivery of services provided by the City of Palmer. Dan Contini,Fire Chief Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;December requested information regarding costs of delivery for the City of Palmer. 11,1981; servi ce to .... .... .... -Phone discussion with Robin Hill;December 17,1981;regarding the impacts that population growth will have on police and fire protection in Palmer. -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 4,1981;regarding data on EMT (ambulance)and fire facilities in the Borough. -Telephone conversation with Robin Hill;October 20,1981;regarding fire protection facilities in the Borough. CITY OF WASILLA Wasilla,AK Earling Nelson,City Clerk -Meeting with Robin Hill;October 14,1981;Discussed water,fire and education facilities and services in the City,and the expected pat- tern of future growth • 8-13 ------------ -Telephone discussion with Robin Hill;October 20,1981;requested further information on water facilities. -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;December 11,1981;discussed existing public services in Wasilla,threshholds,and future needs. Meeting with Madelaine Laurello;December 23,1981;reviewed annual budget for FY 1981/1982.Discussed sources of revenue;per capita expenditures for services,and new water supply system. Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;l1ecember 11,1981; requested data on average per capita costs of delivery of services by the City of Wasilla. Jake Wright,Fire Chief Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;December 11,1981; requested information regarding costs of delivering fire service to the Wasilla Fire Service Area. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Fairbanks,Ak Mr.Easton,Business Manager -Telephone from Madelaine Laurello;November 30,1981;requested copies of school bUdget FY 1981/82. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Anchorage,AK Mike Meehan,Director of Planning -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 4,1980;established contact and identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. Shawn Hemme,Assistant Planner -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 4,1980;established contact and identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. Barbara Withers,Regional Economist Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;discussion of socioeconomic information and studies. Chuck Becker,Economic Development Director Meeting with David Davies;September 23,1980;discussion of socioeconomic information and studies. Bruce Silva,Demographer -Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;June 5,1981;discussed results of Municipality's multiplier study. 8-14 - - - - - - - - - - - -Meeting with Robin Hill;October 15,1981;discussed housing and demographic trends,vacancy rates,size of households,and survey methodologies. Gene Dusek,Budget Officer Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;November requested copy of annual city budget for FY 1981/82;tax concerning bonded indebtedness;total assessed valuation. 23,1981; information Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;December 11,1981; requested data on average per capita costs of del i very of servi ces by the City of Anchorage. ANCHORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT Anchorage,AK Mel Greaves,Director of Budget Department -Telephone from Madelaine Laurello;November 30,1981;requested copy of annual school district budget for FY 1981/82. FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH Community Research Center Fa"irbanks,AK Karen Fox,Research Analyst -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 2,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. Cathy Nichols,Research Aide -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;December 8,1981;information on current housing stock and vacancy rates -City of Fairbanks.-PLANNING DEPARTMENT Fa'irbanks,AK John Kent -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;December 9,1981;information on current and historical housing stock and vacancy rates -Fairbanks North Star Borough. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH OFFICE Palmer,AK Rick Feller,Planner -Telephone discussion with Andy Woolford;April 11,1981;obtained definition of different classifications of sewage systems. Rodney Schulling,Planner -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 6,1981;regarding Borough areawide and non-areawide services,with particular atten- tion to Talkeetna and vicinity. 8-15 --_._--_._------'---------._--_.--------------------------- -Meeting with Robin Hill;October 12,and 14;obtained copies of planning documents for solid waste,health care and fire protection, and a copy of the facil iti es inventory prepared for the Dow-Shell Group.Discussed housing conditions in the Borough and public service planning standards. -Meeting with Madelaine Laurello;December 22,1981;reviewed pre- liminary population projections developed by FO&A,Inc. Walt Chapel,Controller Telephone from Madelaine Laurello;December 3,1981;requested information regarding tax collections;G.O.hond issues. -Correspondence to Madelaine Laurello;December 4,1981;provided population data;total assessed valuation data by category of pro- perty. Alan Tesche,In-house Attorney -Meeting with David Davies;September 26,1980;general discussion of Borough. Lee Wyatt,Planning Director -Meeting with David Davies;September 26,1980;discussed Borough development objectives. Claud Oxford,Engineer -Meeting with Robin Hill;October 14,1981;discussed sanitary landfill capacity. Vern Roberts,Finance Director Telephone convers at i on wi thRob in Hi 11 ;November 19,1981 ; establish contact. - - - - - - Correspondence from Madelaine Laurello;December 11,1981; requested average per cap'ta costs of vari ous servi ces provi ded by the Mat-Su Borough. Meeting with Madelaine Laurello; annua 1 budget of the Mat-Su Borough sources of revenue;categories indebtedness. December 21,1981;discussed for FY 1981/82;discussed major of expenditures,and bonded - - -Telephone from Madelaine Laurello;December 15,1981;information regardi ng general obl i gati on bonds for capital improvements in the ~~at-Su Borough. Pat Stevenson,Senior Accountant Meeting with Madelaine laurello;December 21,1981;discussed annual budget of the Mat-Su Borough for FY 1981/82. 8-16 - Steve Van Sant,Director of Land Management -Meeting with Madelaine Laurello;December 22,1981;obtained infor- mati on on total assessed val uati on for 1970 to 1981 in the Mat-Su Borough;discussed acreage belonging to Native Lands;State Lands, Federal Lands and Borough Lands. Bob Vroman,Service Area Coordinator -Phone conversation with Robin Hill;discussed the implications of population growth on transportation infrastructure. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA SCHOOL DISTRICT Pa"lmer,AK Monty Hotchkiss,Business Manager -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 13,1981;discussed capacities and plans for expansion of public school facilities in the Mat-Su Borough.-Meeting with Madelaine Laurello;December annual budget for FY 1981/82;focussed expenditures;enrollment projections. 22, on 1981; revenue discussed sources; - - -Correspondence to Madelaine Laurello;December 23,1981;enclosed 6 year 1980 Capital Improvement Plan and anticipated sources of funding. -Telephone conversation with Madelaine Laurello;November 23,1981; requested copy of annual school budgets for FY 1980/81,FY 1981/82. Marie Keen,Accountant -Telephone conversation with Madelaine Laurello;December 16,1981; requested clarification of computations to determine state revenues. -Telephone conversation with Madelaine Laurello;December 15,1981; requested information regarding G.O.Bonds for school construction pro- j ects. Kenneth Kramer,Superintendent Bruce DeMond,Assistant Superintendent -Meeting with Robin Hill;October 14 ,1981;discussed present capa- city and utilization of schools,and planned expansion •.Exchanged some background information on the Susitna project. -Letter from Robin Hill;November 3,1981;requested additional information on school facilities. - VALDEZ POLICE DEPARTMENT Valdez,AK Police Officer -Phone di scuss i on with community and judicial census divisions. Andy Woolford;February 5,1981;regarding facilities in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier 8-17 --_._--_._---------------------------- MAGISTRATE Glennallen,AK Sheldon Spector,Magistrate -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 5,1981;regarding community and judicial facilities in the Valdez-Chitina-Whittier census divisions. COPPER RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT Glennallen,AK Dr.Krinke,Superintendent -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 5,1981;regarding school facilities and enrollment for the Copper River region. TRAPPER CREEK COMMUNITY COUNCIL Trapper Creek,AK David Porter,Nancy Robinson and Gail Saxowsky,Council Members Meeting with Peter Rogers,Steve Braund and Charlotte (APA); October 21,1981;discussed local business,plans for new school faci- lity,access plans,Subtask 7.05 study,and how Trapper Creek might be impacted by the dam(s)and access plans. -Phone conversat i on with Robi n Hill;December 3,1981;di scussed population growth and economic activity in Trapper Creek. 8.5 -Other Institutions,Organizations,and Individuals AHTNA,INC. Copper Center,Ak Lee Adler,Director -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 5,1981;regarding community facilities/infrastructure for the Ahtna region. -Phone discussion with David Davies;February 20,1981;to deter- mine status of Ahtna,Inc.lands in Susitna area. ALASKA BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT COROROATION Anchorage,AK Gary Selk,Partner -Interview with Ron Reisner;January 18,1982;obtained listing of contractors likely to engage in access road system,airport and dam construction. 8-18 - - - - - - - - ALASKA HOSPITAL Anchorage,AK Director of Medical Records -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 4,1981;regarding data on facilities and capacity. Tom Kent,Statistical Analyst of Medical Records -Phone conversation with Robin Hill;requested statistics on number of patient days by Mat-Su Borough residents. ALASKA MINERS 'ASSOCIATION Anchorage,AK -Meeting with Andy Woolford;January 7,1981;discussed location and number of mining claims in the Upper Susitna Basin;discussed impli- cations of access routes to mining activity. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS ALASKA CHAPTER Anchorage,AK Barbara Horn,Assistant Director -Interview with Ron Reisner;January 18,1982;obtained listing of contractors 1i kely to engage in access road system,ai rport and dam const ruct ion. ATCO Anchorage,AK Mr.Osborn,Industrial Marketing Representative Interview with Ron Reisner;January 19,1982;discussed what materials equipment and labor would be avai"lable for the camp in state. BATTELLE,PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES Richland,WA Ward Swift and Michael Scott -Meeting with Peter Rogers and others;July 29,1981:(1)identified whether Battelle is providing the "without Susitna forecast"desired by the APA;and (2)determined when Battelle expects to receive new outputs from ISER. Jeff King,Senior Research Engineer -Meeti~g with Peter Rogers;July 29,1981;discussed and methods for assessing socioeconomic impacts Susitna and other potential energy developments. Battelle's scope associ ated with Mike Scott,Senior Research Economist Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;May Battelle's workplan for Alternatives Study and sharing. 8-19 28,1981;di scussed data and i nformat ion -Phone discussion with Peter Rogers;December 23,1981;discussed ISER's statewide and regional employment,population and housing project ions. -Phone di scussi on with Peter Rogers;October 16,1981;di scussed Battelle's plans for using ISER's MAP output. BEN MARSH AND ASSOCIATES Anchorage,AK Nancy Cole,Assistant Property Manager -Meeting with Robin Hill;October 15,1981;discussed housing market conditions in Anchorage. BRADFORD H.TUCK,PH.D Anchorage,AK Brad Tuck,Economic Consultant -Meeting with Peter Rogers;October 22,1981;discussed baseline forecast methods. CCC ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS Anchorage,AK - - - - - - - - - Richard Moorehouse and Gordon Harrison,Sub-contractors Phone conversation with Andy Woolford;November 24, discussed methodolgy for deriving work force characteristic tions used in Dow-Shell Group Petrochemical feasibility study. CHEVRON OIL CO. An chora ge,AK 1981; assump- -Jim Howard,Sales -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 21, 1982;discussed labor share component of fuel prices. CONSTRUCTION AND RIGGING Anchorage,AK Paul Reynolds,President -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 19,1982;discussd what materials,equipment and labor are available in Alaska for access road system and airport. COOK INLET REGION,INC. Anchorage,AK Marge Sagerser,Land Manager -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 3,1980;established communications channels and identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. CIRI representatives -Meeting with Peter Rogers and other team members and the APA; October 20,1981;discussed alternative access plans,potential. 8-20 - - - - - COPPER RIVER HOUSING AUTHORITY Copper Center,AK Thea Smelcher,Housing Director -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 11,1981;housing information in Copper River Region. COPPER RIVER NATIVE ASSOCIATION Copper Center,AK Secretary -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 4,1981;regarding community facilities in the Ahtna region. Ms.Billy Peters,Health Director -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 20,1981;infor- mation on health services in Copper River Region. COPPER VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Valdez,AK Dan Teggler -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 2,1981;regarding Copper Valley Electric Association rates,capacities,power require- ments. COPPER VALLEY VIEWS Kenny Lake,AK Reporter -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 2,1981;regarding circulation and information on other media in the immediate vicinity. DARBYSHIRE AND ASSOCIATES Anchorage,AK Mr.Ralph Darbyshire -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 7,1981;regarding socioeconomic profiles. DOYON CORPORATION Faiirbanks,AK Doug Williams,Land Planner -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 3,1980;established communication channel and identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. 8-21 DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. Midland,Michigan Mr.Hugh Starks,Property Manager for Michigan Division Phone conversation with Andy Woolford;November 24,1981; discussed construction work force characteristics assumptions made in Dow-Shell Group Petrochemical feasibility study. FAIRBANKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Fairbanks,AK Bob Dempsey,Business Analyst -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 2,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. FAIRBANKS TOWN AND VILLAGE ASSOCIATION FOR DEVELOPMENT,INC. Fairbanks,AK Art Patterson,Representative -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 9,1981;discussed community profil es and other studi es they have prepared for Interi or District. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY Tallahassee,FL Phil Sorensen,Ph.D,Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 12,1982;discussed his work in establishing methodology to determine values for fish and game species. FRANK MOOLIN &ASSOCIATES,INC. Anchorage,AK Mike Finnegan,Project Control Manager -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;November 19,1981;infor- mation on local labor supply and workforce characteristics. Mike Jens,Project Manager -Meeting with Andy Woolford;December 15,1981;discussed Susitna labor force requirements and availability of local labor. GUIDE LICENSE REVIEW BOARD Anchorage,AK -Phone discussion with David Davies;September 25,1980;infor- mation on guide services in Susitna River Basin area. HIGH LAKE LODGE Mat-Su Borough,AK John Wilson,Resident Manager -Meeting with Peter Rogers;July 7,1980;obtained socioeconomic data from along the Upper Susitna River. 8-22 - - - - - - - - - - INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 1547 Anchorage,AK John Fenwick,Dispatcher -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 18,1982;discussed relocation patterns of construction workforce. IRONWORKERS LOCAL 751 Anchorage,AK Jim Rushing,Dispatcher Phone di scussi on with Andy Wool ford;January 18,1982;di scussed relocation patterns of construction workforce. INSURANCE SERVICE ORGANIZATION San Francisco,CA Gary Morse,Customer Service Representative Telephone conversation with Robin Hill;September 29,1981; discussed the fire suppression rating schedule. LABORERS AND HOD CARRIERS LOCAL NO.341 Anchorage,AK Ray Lee,Financial Secretary -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford,January 18,1982;discussed relocation patterns of construction workforce. LABORERS STREET PAVERS AND TUNNEL WORKERS LOCAL 440 Seattle,WA Mike Dillon,Dispatcher -Phone conversation with mation on classifications vs.semi-skilled/skilled. M.B.CONTRACTING Anchorage,AK Andy Woolford;January 12,1982;infor- of construction workers,i.e.,laborers -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 19,1982;discussed what materials,equipment and labor are available in Alaska for access road system and airport. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Langsing,Michigan Dan Tachelm,Ph.D.,Assistant Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 8,1982;discussed his work in determining recreational values for sport fish. 8-23 MORRISON-KNUDSEN COMPANY,INC. Anchorage,AK W.J.Renauld,Area Manager-Alaska -Meeting with Andy Woolford;December 16,1981;discussed Susitna labor force requirements and availability of local labor. MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION,INC. Palmer,AK Ken Ritchey,Engineeering Services -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;November 5,1980;requesting Power Requirements study. -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 19,1981;infor- mation on average electricity consumption from 1975 -1980. Bud Goodyear,Public Information Officer -Meeting with David Davies;September 26,1980;obtained information on electrical supply and demand and future projections. -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 6,1980;obtained information regarding power requirements study. MATANUSKA TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION Palmer,AK Don Taylor,Traffic Equipment Engineer -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 10,1981;infor- mation on telephone service in Mat-Su Borough. Graham Rolstad,Chief Engineer -Meeting with David Davies;September 26,1980;obtained information on telephone service and projections. N.W.ALASKAN PIPELINE COMPANY Fairbanks,AK Sue Fisson,Socioeconomic Coordinator -Phone discussion with David Davies;January 8,1981;discussed gas pipeline corridor community profiles;obtained copies. Meeting with Frank Orth;June 16,1980;determined Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Company's recent and current activities in socioeconomics. -Telephone discussion with Andy Woolford;November 20,1981;infor- mation on construction workforce characteristics and monitoring of Alaska pipeline construction. -Phone di scussi on with Andy Wool ford;December 14,1981;di scussed projected manpower requi rements for gas pi pel i ne by craft and mi x of in-state vs.out-of-state workers. 8-24 - - - - - - Virginia Manna,Socioeconomic Research -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 3,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY Corvallis,OR Bi 11 Brown,Ph.D.,Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 12,1982;discussion about his work in determining sport values for salmon and steel head. OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM,INC. Wasilla,AK Don Lyon,Director -Meeting with Irene Gendron;June 5,1980;identified sources of socioeconomic data and information. -Meeting with David Davies;September 26,1980;discussed socioecono- mic data and information and obtained recent study. -Meeting with Peter Rogers;November 19,1980;discussed results of Economic Program for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. -Telephone discussion with Robin Hill;November 9,1981;discussed housing conditions and population estimates for the Mat-Su Borough. Russell Cotten,Project Development Coordinator -~4eeting with Robin Hill;October 14,1981;discussed future growth in the Borough and its possi bl e effects on housi ng and publ ic ser- vices. PALMER VALLEY HOSPITAL Palmer,AK Ann Demmings,Director of Medical Records -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 4,1981;regarding data on facilities and capacity. -Phone discussion with Robin Hill;December 10,1981;regarding average daily census statistics. Valerie Blakeman,Administrative Secretary -Meeting with Robin Hill;October 14,1981;discussed the plans for hospital expansion and renovation. Rae-Ann Hickling,Consultant -Phone discussion with Robin Hill;October 14,1981;discussed the plans for hospital expansion,the planning standards used and the possible increase in number of doctors serving the Borough. 8-25 -------------------- PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS LOCAL 867 Anchorage,AK Alan Pilto,Dispatcher -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 18,1982;discussed relocation patterns of construction workforce. PLUMBERS AND STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 367 Anchorage,AK Don Wagner,Dispatcher -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;January 18,1982;discussed relocation patterns of construction workforce. PROVIDENCE HOSPITAL Anchorage,AK Lisa Ebmeyer,Assistant Planner -Phone discussion with Robin Hill;December 10,1981;requested statistics on the number of patient days of Mat-Su Borough residents. QUEBEC HYDRO CENTER Quebec,Ontario Pierre Savignac,Conseiller -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;November 20,1981;infor- mation on hydroelectric construction workforce characteristics. ROGERS AND BABLER Anchorage,AK Harold Kerslake,Managing Partner Interview with Ron Reisner;January 20,1982;discussed what materials,equipment and labor are available in Alaska for access road system and airport. REED HANSEN Kitsap,WA Reed Hansen,Economic Consultant -Telephone discussion with Peter Rogers;December 23,1982;discussed method to estimate induced employment. -Meeting with Peter Rogers;December 28,1982;discussed adjustments to induced emmployment estimation methodology. UCHITAL COMPANY Anchorage,AK Ann Massey,Office Manager -Phone Conversation with Ron Reisner;January 20,1982;discussed what materials,equipment and labor are available in Alaska for access road system and airport. 8-26 - - - - - - - - - - - UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Edmonton,Alberta Bill Phillips,Ph.D.,Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Rei sner;January 7,1981;di scussed his work in determining recreational value of moose. UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver,B.C. Tony Dorcey,Ph.D.,Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 12,1982;discussed his work determining salmon values in a timber industry study. Gordon Munro,Ph.D.,Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 12,1982;discussed known studies in fish and game valuation. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SANTA CRUZ Santa Cruz,CA Susan Holt,Ph.D.,Assistant Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 13,1982;discussed her work in determining recreational values for ocean species. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Champagne/Urbana,IL Kerry Livengood,Associate Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Resiner;Janauary 7,1982;discussed his study to determine recreational value of deer in Texas. UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY Lexington,KY Alan Randall,Ph.D.,Agricultural Economist -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 6,1982;discussed his studies in developing game values. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND College Park,Maryland Kenneth McConnell,Ph.D.,Associate Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 8,1982;discussed a reference list which he has compiled dealing with work done to determine economic values of fish and game species. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN Madison,Wisconsin Richard Bishop,Ph.D.,Associate Professor -Phone conversation with Ron Reisner;January 6,1982;discussed his work in developing recreational values for game. 8-27 VALDEZ COMMUNITY HOSPITAL Valdez,AK Director of Statistical Records -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 4,1981;regarding data on facilities and capacity. VALDEZ VANGUARD Valdez,AK Reporter -Phone discussion with Andy Woolford;February 2,1981;regarding circulation,service area,and existence of other publications in the a rea. 8-28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 - COPIES OF LETTERS RECEIVEO Section 9 contains copies of letters received from individuals in thecourseofresearchingthecontentsofthisreport.Given that the majorityofresearchwasconductedbypersonalandtelephoneinterviews,and reviewofothermaterials,there are few letters. 9-1 (~Banelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories P.O.Box 999 Richland,Washington U.S.A.99352 Telephone (509) Telex 15-2674 January 18,1982 Mr.Peter Rogers Frank Orth and Associates 225 l08th N.E. Bellevue,WA 98004 Dear Peter: Enclosed are the basic employment,total employment,and population estimates for the low,middle,and high cases with Susitna. You rs t ru 1y, ~./r:-!1 ~,-,_11/;';?~~uF ~i7,~tMichaelJ.Scott Senior Research Economist MJS:cw Enclosure cc:J.J.Jacobsen 9-2 - _." - - - - - - - - - RECEIVED r /',II f UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND ..r.lf 5 1981 COLLEGE OF"AGRICULTURE COLLEGE PARK 2074Z DE.PARTMENT OF"AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE ECONOMICS ~lr.Ron Reisner Frank Orth Associates 225 108th Avenue N.E. Suite 311 Bellevue,~"ashington 98004 Dear Hr.Reisner: January 11,1982 Enclosed are title pages from several significant sources of benefit estimate of wildlife recreation.If you investigate these references, you will find other sources.This should give you a start in this area. Sincerely, K.E.HcConnell Associate Professor KEH:vmk Enclosures 9-3 MATRNUSKR-SUSITNA BOROUC-H SCHOOL DISTRICl KEN KRAMER S~.PEP,lrdEr~UENT OF S(HCXXS December 23,1981 Ms.Madeline Laurello Associate Economist c/o Frank Orth and Associates 225 l08th Avenue N.E. Suite 311 Bellevue,Washington 98004 Dear ~1s.Laurello, f<t:.CEiVEO DE C2 B 1921 - - - - - - - - Please find.attached the October,1980 Six Year Capital Construction Plan.Also attached are those projects submitted to the Borough this fall,ranked in priority, for consideration as legislative requests. I hope this is the information you needed.If not,please let me know. Sincerely yours, ,'"-/~rt ..;....--t F _;.-!AV:~'f~~1 (L.otchki ss Business Manager I fFLH:1c Attachments 9-4 - - - - - -I L f'***.,..,:..)..l ('1 __ .'J RECEIVED C[C 2 1 19S1 I:.JJ7)2S~·41il I'~)UCI i G·G50 .. -r. ..,~;I'\~ ..,;.~~.....'-". ,-,,........_....~.._.__. .\.;::I December 15,1981 Madeliane Laurello Frank Orth &Associates,Inc. 225-108th Avenue N.E.,Suite 311 Bellevue,WA 98004 Dear Ms.Laurello: Per our recent telephone conversation and your letter of November 27,1981,I have enclosed a copy of the Municipality of Anchorage's 1982 Preliminary Operating Budget.Unfortunately we do not have sufficient copies of our 1981 Approved Budget for me to send you a copy. However,the 1982 budget document contains comparative data for 1981,and in many cases also for 1980. Taxes levied by the Municipality of Anchorage In 1981 are as follows: Property Tax Hotel-Motel Tax $30,129,040* 1,980,800 *does not include property taxes of $26,133,867 for the Anchorage School District. Sincerely, Gene Dusek Budget Officer GD:pjt -9-5 - RECEIVED DEC 0 7 i%f r:Joful1icipal Utilities S)'stem of the City of Fairbanks 645 FIFTH AVENUE P.O.BOX 2215 FA'RBANKS.ALASKA 99707 907-455-1000 - - - December 2,1981 - -Frank.Worth &Associates 224 -108Th Avenue N.E. Sui te 211 Bellvue,Washington 98004 ATTENTION:Madelyn Lavello RE:Request for 1981 Financial Statement &1982 Proposed Budget - -Dear Ms.Lavello: Fursuant to our telephone conversation of November 30,1981,I am en- closing a copy of the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities Systems Financial State- ment for L~e years ending December 31,1979,1980.I am also enclosing per your request a copy of the Proposed Budget for the year of 1982,pertaining - - to MUS. A financial statement for the year of 1981 will not be available until approximately March of 1982.I have placed your Company's name on the mailing list and I will forward the statement to you as soon as they become available. Should you find that I can be of any further assistance to you,please do not hesitate to contact me. - - - - - - System Hayes the Cont 9-6 r::-":--~ t·'):1CH/me I..~"F )';;-C--_ \,:.t..l .'.•"'1\",'• •C·I"_~"V'."'.,,J ,\..,.. ,.t "..;:.. RECEIVc.J LJi...~U L '1~8\ Ar'£HORAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT 4600 DeBarr Avenue Pouch 6-614 Anchorage,Alaska 99502 [907]333-9561 November 30,1981 Frank Orth and Associates 224 108th Avenue N.E. Suite 211 Bellevue,Washington 98004 Attention:Miss Lavrello Re:Hydro Electric Study Information Please find enclosed copies of the 1980-31 and 1981-82 budget documents. Due to the high demand of these documents in future years,we request that they be returned after the necessary data is obtained. If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call area code 907 269-2356. Si ncere l{,t 9:A';...!~~~f Melvin J.Greaves,Jr. Budget Di rector i1JG:ng Enclosures 9-7 November 23,1981 Frank Orth and Associates Suite 311 224 10Sth Ave.,NE Bellevue,Washington,98004 Mitchell W.Henning,Mayor R.=Ct:JVED DEC 0 it 831. - - - - - - - ATTN:Miss Laurello Dear Miss Laurello: Please find the attached budget information from the City of Houston for the current and immediate past fiscal years. We hope that this information will aid you in your study. Sincerely, .~//1 c/Jry~ Elsie M.O'Bryan City Clerk 9-8 S.R.BOX 2727 •VIA WASILl.A ALASKA 99667 •692·6669 - - - - - - - - - - - BOX B.PALMER,ALASKA 99645 •PHONE 745-3246 PLANNING DEPARTMENT November 20,1981 Mr.Palmer McCarter,Director AlasK=Department of Community and Regional Affairs Division of local Government Assistance Pouch B Juneau,AK 99311 Dear Mr.Carter: RE:1) 2) MSB Initial 1981 Population Estimation Submittal 9/30/81 Your letter of 11/4/81 Enclosed please find somewhat revised estimates of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough's 1981 total population,its three incorporated cities,and various pertinent service areas,together with the supporting data requested by your letter of November 4,1981. The revisions occurred in the recalculation of data previously used for otne'!'purposes.\·Ie are also forvJardi:ls revised service area infcr~ction sheets,It/hich \·;ere incorrectly filled out in our first submittal.Huch of this information was provided to the State Demographer,Mr.David Swanson,at the recent Alaska Municipal League Conference so that he could begin his review. We have a large amount of raw data,survey forms and other detailed back- ground inforJiation developed during the vaccncy survey conducted by the .Borough last SUTT'mer and I-till be happy to supply whatever additional information you might require.We have Expended considerable effort in deveropn,ent of these figul'es and feel the ~ethodology conforms closely to guidelines prescribed by your depart~ent,i.e.,The Housing Unit Method. :: Thank you for your indulgence. App:-jved by: ~~~~~ Rodney Schulling S Principal Planner RS:mu Enclosure 9-9 '.1 atan usIt a·Sus If naB 0 r0 (J t1 h BOX B.PALMER.ALASKA 99645 •PHONE 745-4801 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE December 4,1981 - - - - Frank Orth &Associates 224 108th N.E. Suite 311 Bellevue,Washington 98004 Attention:Madelaine Laurello Dear Ms.Laurello: Enclosed please find copies of our correspondence directed to the State of Alaska Department of Co~munity and Regional Affairs dated Kovember 20,1981 which is our most recent submittal in reference to population of the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.I am sure that this in- formation will be helpful as it relates to the questions you asked yesterday. I have discussed with the Assessment Depart~ent the information you requested regarding a separation of improved lots into commercial and residential.They indicate that this is not possible from the standpoint of the current programming of our computer,however,at some later date we will probably be able to pull that information from our new computer data once we have converted to our new system.He will be happy at times in the future,of course,to give you information if it is available,such as computer runs.~aturally there is a cost involved in things of that type. We appreciate your interest in our Matanuska-Susitna Borough. Sincerely, >i~L:.c:/of /'"( Walter Chappel Controller run 9-10 - - - - - - - - - - - UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA InstltJte of Social and Economic Research 707 'A'St.,Suite 206 Anchorage,Alaska 99501 Phone (907l 278·4621 November 25,1981 Peter Rogers Frank Orth and Associates 225 108th Avenue N.E. Suite 311 Bellevue,washington 98004 Dear Peter, RECE1VED DEC 0 3 ~.~?~ Enclosed is the output you requested.All variables are from the moderate case economic projection for the Battelle Railbelt power alternatives study. I hope the variable titles are self-explanatory. /7/I -Enclosure 9-11 Sincerely, II . //I/.,-t-/ \ /,;: / Oliver Scott Goldsmith Associate Professor of I \, Economics -~~:~BalfeHe PacifiC ~orth\\esl Labonlorle~ Date If}/;1 /~I To:f1f-~teo~ From MICHAEL J.SCOTT - ~~7LJU~~ ..-v~lt41 ~mAJl.kAdr-Ju-wit"- h1V!~~dt (]aAJ--.-- jitJu - 9-12 RECEIVED 0 C1 2 2 1SSf. \ \ ~ - - - - - - - - - - Itl<'lfillNlWWIIEWIPIYAI1l0llUM~lIAIr'"WillalU,''fAIHJ""UlU'"I'IN~10S(NDERWNlll·R[VISED.~[NO(RDIlAC"llllUWCOpySlND",""IEANDPIN'COPllS10PUl:~0r'"ADDIH~SE[).Rl·ORDlRHOMIIllROS[HlJDNlWS,WOSlHUD,'EXAS.WRitEfORQUOtAtiONSONOVlW"WINllIJfORMS-PeJu1~ETTER®MatanuslmTelephoneAssociation,Inc.P.O.Box1388-907·7'-I~-'32--/(ADDRESS-Palmer,Alaska99645ro,L1"""2-69FROMNAMEDAlE1/2-/f('G/....e/Ao'uE:bISIGNED~)~u(..tcl~ll~CLvJt-J(}<..')LPo.("'6dd:c'::?4';0/It<-~,fi'J"'"L:,'(1~/,{~c~~~S-L~_/21,<-1-~~-v-«-~~~~~£~b~~~~~L_<1Y'-~Ad'dsL·,d/~rC~~f~.~~:.J:~d~J~A~;(a1LA~-=-~~V7~AG'.\5,')DRE55,U8JECIMr-I(J\RplySIGNAIliREDAIfRrCrr'l:Hr:ETAIiHI'p---- DEI·.\fCT.\IE~'T 0.'1..~\nOIl ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION JAY S.HAHIJOItO,'OITtNOR 3301 EAGLE STREET POUCH 7-018 ANCHORAGE,ALASKA 99510 (907)264-2400 - - Frank Orth &Associates Economic and Business Consultants 225 108th Ave.N.E.,Suite 311 Bellevue WA 98004 Dear Mr.Woolford: January 16,1981 - - - I just got back to Anchorage and I was talking to Cal about your visit to this office.He mentioned you were interested in multi- pliers which have been used in Alaska.I have just finished a project concerning the University of Alaska using various multi- pliers borrowed from literature on the subject.I have xeroxed this literature and you will find it enclosed. I hope you find it useful and do not hesitate to call us if you need any further information. Yours Sincere:J1Y,~\- I~Jf/l . Neal Fried Labor Economist 9-14 - - - - - - - - - 10 -METHODOLOGIES 10.1 -OVERVI EW The goal of this analysis is to provide an assessment of socioeconomic changes that coulct occur if hyctropo~r is cfeveloperl from the Susitna River. The following tasks ~re conrlucted to meet this goal: 1.Review the literature; 2.Determine availability of data; 3.Define impact areas; 4.Describe and analyze haseline conctitions anct trencfs; 5.Develop baseline (without project)forecasts; 6.Develop impact (with projp.ct)forp.casts; 7.Compare and contrast baseline and impact forecasts;anct 8.Determine the significance of projected socioeconomic changes. Various types of literature such as Ferleral Energy Regulatory Commission applications,environmental impact statements anct methods for socioeconomic impact assessment ....ere revie~d.The main objectives ~re t.o:hecome more familiar with recent socioeconomic assessments in Alaska;identify and eva- luate state-of-the-art assessment methods and techniques;and to understanct problems in implementing these methods and techniques.The availahility of time-series data for different geographic areas of Alaska was cfetermined. The available data limited the choice of assessment methods because it was not possible to collect a significant amount of primary cfata. Impact areas ....ere defi ned based upon data avai 1abi 1ity,probabl e r.orker residence and commuting patterns,and locations of most of the socioecono- mic:changes.Because this project involves Io.Ork camps and a village anct due to the vastness of Alaska,the impact areas defined in this study are 1ar'ger than most impact areas revi e....ed in the 1iterature. 10-1 In order to better understand the impact areas and make haseline forecasts, recent socioeconomic conditions were described and analyzed.These included employment population,income,housing,facilities and services, fiscal,land use,and other socioeconomic elements. Baseline forecasts \\ere made for each socioeconomic element.A brief description of the forecasting technique used for each element and subele- ment is shoWTl in Table 10.1-1.Forecasts v.ere made for the years 1981-2005. Impact forecasts '.'.ere made for each of the above soci oeconomi c el ements. An accounting model was developed to handle the several lahar categories and geographic disaggregations.This model was c:omputerizerl to provide for efficient analysis and to make sensitivity analysis feasible.A brief description of the forecasting techniques (Ised for each element and suhele- ment is provided in Table 10.1-2.The impact forecasts \\ere made from 1983,the year in which construction is to begin,to 2005. Baseline and impact forecasts were compared and contrasted to identify pro- ject-induced changes in the forecasted haseline conditions.Next,the significance of these changes was analyzed and discussed. 10.2 BASELINE FORECASTS (a)Employment Forecasts Basel ine forecasts \\ere made for the state,Impact Area 3 and most impor- tant,Impact Area 2 (Mat-Su Borough).Numerous types of methods \\ere investigated and evaluated for potential application.After considerable analysis,it was determined that the Institute of Social and Economic Research's (ISER's)Man-in-the-Arctic Program (MAP)model v.JaS most appropriate to serve as the basis for employiment forecasts. ISER·s forecasts are currently the best available for the state and for Impact Area 3 and its regions,Anchorage,Fairhanks and Valdez.This is 10-2 - - - - - - - - - - - ELEMENT EMPLOYMENT State and Regional Census Division POPULATION State and Regional Census Di vi si on COfTlllU n i ty TABLE 10.1-1 BASELINE FORECASTING TECHNIQUES FORECASTING TECHNIQUE Time-series econometric(a) Linear regression Time-series econometric(a) Linear regression Population Share (judgmental) INCOME State,Regional and Census Division HOUSING Regional and Census Division FACILITIES AND SERVICES Census Di vi si on and Community FISCAL Census Di vi si on and Community Trend analysis and judgment Person per household trend mu It i p 1i er Per capita planning standards Per capita multiplier (a)Includes Results from Institute of Social and Economic Research's Man-in-the-Arctic Model,October,1981. 10-3 TABLE 10.1-2 IMPACT FORECASTING TECHNIQUES - - ELEMENT EMPLOYMENT State.Regional and Census Division State and Regional POPULATION State.Regional and Census Division State and Regional INCOME State.Regional and Census Division HOUSING Regional and Census Division FACILITIES AND SERVICES Census Division and Community FISCAL Census Division and Community FORECASTING TECHNIQUE Accounti ng morlel Time-series econometric (f(O\ comparison purposes only)a) Accounting morlel Time-series econometric (fo~ comparison purposes only)(a) Accounting Model Person per household trend mu It i p1i er Per capita planning standards Per capita multiplier - (a)Includes Results from Institute of Social and Economic Research's Man-in-the-Arctic Model.Octomber.1981. 10-4 - - - - - -because the growth of state and regional employment will he determined in large part by natural resource development and state government spending over the next t'l.€nty years.Moreover,the Mat-Su Borough's economy and other Impact Area 3 Census Divisions'growth will be dictated mostly hy these same factors.Thus,it was appropriate to disaggregate ISER's regional employment forecasts to obtain employment forecasts for the Mat-Su Borough and other Census Division. ISER's MAP model is described in Goldsmith and Husky (1980)and the key employment and government assumpti ons underlyi ng statewi de and regi anal employment forecasts of Sections 4.2(f)and 4.3(c)are provided in Battelle Paciific North'l.€st Laboratories (1981).For this study,asumptions asso- ciated with ISER's "mo derate economic growth"and "moderate government expl~nditure"cases 'l.€re adopted.For state government spending,it was assumed that spending will increase at the rate of growth in real per cap'ita income.These assumpti ons,with some mi nor adjustments,'l.€re used by ISER to develop state and regional employment forecasts. Forecasts for Mat-Su Borough employment 'l.€re made hy regressing each Census Division's share of Anchorage Region employment against time (1970-1979). The annual rate at v.t1ich each Census Divisions'share of Anchorage Region employment will change was calculated from the regressions and applied to ISER's employment forecasts for the Anchorag~Region.This method was cho- sen because it is probable that future changes in Census Divisions'shares will be similar to past changes.For example,it is expected that the Alaska HighMiY Pipeline will effect the relative share of employment in the Census Divisions in much the same way that the trans-Alaska Pipeline affected these shares.Further,there are no major projects that are assumec\to occur during 1981-2000 in these Census Divisions.Thus,the potential for significant changes in the 1970-1979 share trends is rela- t i lie 1y sma 11 ISER's employment forecasts 'l.€re extended from 2001 to 2005 using the methods described in Section 4.3(c)(ii). 10-5 Employment forecasts were not developed for Mat-Su communities.Employment data is not available for these communities.Employment could have been estimated by distributing Mat-Su employment to communities according to each community's population share.This was rejected because it is knov.fi that there is no typical ratio of employment to population for these c Ollll1U nit i es • - - (b)Population - Population forecasts for the State and Anchorage,Fai rbanks and Valdez regions (Impact Area 3)were those developed hy ISER during Septemher,1981 using the MAP model.Like the employment forecasts,the moderate economic growth and state goverment spending scenarios were the hasis for these forecasts.THe forecasts period used hy ISER was 1981-2000. To obtain population forecasts in the Fairbanks North Star Borough and SE Fairbanks Census Division,average Borough and Census Division shares of the Fairbanks region population were calculated and applied to ISER's popu- 1 ati on forecasts for the Fai rbanks regi on duri ng 1981-2000.It was assumed that these population shares \',()uld remain constant during the forecast peri od.Forecasts for 2001-2005 were made usi ng the same methodology as that discussed in Section 4.3(c)(ii). Population forecasts for each Census Division of the Anchorage region, Anchorage,Kenai-Cook Inlet,Seward,and Mat-Su,were made as follows. Census Division shares of regional population for 1966 and 1970-1980 were regressed against time.The annual rate at W1ich each Census Divisionis share was calculated from the regressions and applied to ISER's population forecasts for the Anchorage region.This provided annual population forecasts for each Census Division for 1981-2000.Forecasts for 2001-2005 were made uSing the same methodology as that discussed in Section 4.3(c)(ii). Popul ati on forecasts for important communiti es of the Mat-Su-Borough were made by assuming an annual rate of population growth for each community 10-6 - - within the overall constraint of the population forecast for the Mat-Su Borough.These rates are provided in Table 4.1-2. -(c)!~ous i n9 - - - - - The baseline forecast demand for housing (i.e.,number of households)was developed by applying population per household (PPH)measures to the fore- casts of population.The PPH measues are assumed to decline from the 1980 level (U.S.Census Bureau information)to a projected national averge of 2.657 in the year 2000,for each Census Division and Mat-Su Borough com- munity. It is not possible to predict housing stock hy year,since future construc- tion of residential units is a function of a large number of factors.To obtai n an approximatati on of the number of housi ng .units,an average vacancy rate was appl i ed to the forecasted number of househol ds,for each Census Division and Mat-Su Borough community. The forecasts of number of households and number of housing units w:re com- pared to yield an approximate number of vacant housing units for each loca- ti on .. (d)Facilities and Services The general approach to forecasti ng publ i c faci 1ity and servi ce requi re- l11ents during 1981-2005 was:(1)to develop appropriate standards for each serv'i ce category and for each rel evant community that rel ate servi ce and facility requirements to the size of population,(2)to assess the adequacy of existing facilities and services and to quantify any over-or under- capacity usi ng these standards,and (3)to esti mate futu re needs based on the application of these standards to the population growth forecasts. First,standards can be divided into tM>basic categories--average and prescriptive.Average standards are based on recent data on existing ser- 10-7 --------~-_._-_.._----------- vi ce 1eve1 s on a per capita basi s for a gi ven area.These data are often obtained from the latest available census or survey.A commonly used set of national average standards is the U.S.r.ensus of Governments,Which con- tains data on selected service types and population serviced.Average st anda rds may be bas ed on nat i ana 1,regi ana 1,or stat e a vera ges,or on averages for a given type or size of community;their distinguishing feature is that they are based on an average of What currently exists and not on What should exist.On the other hand,for some service types there exist prescriptive standards that are set by relevant agencies or asso- ciations.These standards often vary by size,type,and community,and may be of a vol untary or mandatory nature.For instance,a state government may require certain standards for health care and education;standards for fire protection based on insurance tables may he used widely. A mix of average and prescriptive standards have been used in this ana1y- sis.The objecti ve has been to provi de detail ed measures of adequate ser- vice levels I'klile keeping in consideration the resource constraints that most communities face. Second,the required level of puh1ic facilities and services per capita will vary from community to community,based on factors such as the size of the community,the type of community (urban,rural,or suburban),demogra- phic and socioeconomic characteristics,and geological conditions.To the extent that these factors are taken into account in the development of standards,these standards are preferred.Other sources that were reviewed are listed in the List of Literature. Third,in some cases relevant standards may be hased on variables other than population per se--for example,the number of dwellings or the numher of school-age children.These variables are related to population levels, but the actual ratios may change over time.Service categories such as education and health care are especially sensitive to demographic changes. Where possi b1 e,forecasts of demographi c changes have been incorporated into the analysis. 10-8 - Fourth,it is cautioned that,due to the many factors that influence the needs for public facilities and services,the uniqueness of each community, and the-subjectivity in rleciding Mlat service levels are adequate,the standards listed should not be considered absolutes but rather general i ndi cators. The standards recommended in the following discussion have also included consideration of local preferences,based on conversations with local, Borough,and State officials.For instance,a conversation with an offi- cial at the State Troopers'post in Palmer indicated that this agency looks at the average case10ad per trooper as a major determining factor in dec'iding Mlether the local force is adequate.This consideration has accordingly been included into the discussion of law enforcement. Finally,standards are recommended for the level of public service most appropriate --the community,Borough,or State level.This methodology refl ects the facts that (1)the responsi bil iti es of these government enti- ties vary depending on service type,(2)the areas that will be affected by the project may also vary,and (3)some per capita standards may be constant regardless of the characteristics of the community,Mlereas others will be different for each community.Most public facilities and services will be affected at the community and Borough level. A summary of the recommended standards is displayed in Table 10.2-1.In the sections below,specific considerations relating to the choice of standards are discussed. (i)Water Supply Water systems are comprised of three components --the supply source,the treatment facility,and the pipe distribution net'v.Ork.The most widely USE!d standards for water servi ce are the average and peak water consumpti on per'capita,in terms of gallons per day (gpd).Facility standards some- times include pipe length per thousand d~l1ings,and treatment capacity. 10-9 TABLE 10.2-1 SUH~ARY OF PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE STANDARDS FOR SELECTED CO~~UNITIES IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH Water Supply Average Water Supply & Treatment (gpd per capita) Peak Water Supply & Treatment (gpd per capita) Se~aoe and Solid Waste Se~age Treatment (gpd per capita) Palmer 150 230 150 Wasilla 150 230 Houston Trapper Talkeetna Creek Total Mat-Su Borouoh Solid Waste Disposal (acres per 1,000 popul ati on) Education Haximum Primary School-Age Children to Teacher Ratio Maximum Secondary School-Age Children to Teacher Ratio Primary School Space (square feet per pupil Secondarv School Space (souare feet per pupil Teacher to Support staff ratio Health Care Hospital Beds (beds per 1,000 population) Desired Hospital Bed Occupancy Rate Hospital Staff (staff per 100 patients) .21 25 20 90 150 B:1 .21 25 20 90 8:1 .21 .21 25 90 8:1 .21 25 90 8:1 .21 25 20 90 150 8:1 a 55% 250 aBased upon a formula sho~n on page 8. 10-10 - TABLE 10.2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITY AND SERVICE STANDARDS FOR SELECTED COMMUNITIES IN THE HATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH Hospital Space (square feet per bed) La ..Enforcement Pol ice Officers (officers per 1,000 popul ati(ln Pol ice Vehicles (vehicles per 1,000 population) Palmer 1.5 .5 Wasilla Houston Trapper Talkeetna Creek Total Mat-Su Borouoh 750-BOO 1.0-1.5 1.0 F ire Protect ion Fire Flo~of Water a _(gpm and duration) -Pumpers Per Station Maximum Response Time (in minutes) Libraries 1,750 1,500 200 gpm 200 gpm 200 gpm gpm for gpm for for t ....enty for t ....enty for t ....enty 7 hours 6 hours minutes minutes minutes 2 2 2 2 2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 Library Collection (numbers of volumes) Parks and Recreation Playgrounds (acres per 1000 d..elling units) Ne ighborhood Park (acres per 1,000) dwellincj units) Communi!:y Park (acres p~r 1,000 d ..elling units) 15,000- 20,000 3.9 3.3 15,000- 20,000 3.9 3.3 10,000 3.9 3.3 10,000 10,000 3.5 per capita 4.8 a Analysis is based upon ISO class standards discussed on page 10. gpd =gallons per day gpm =gallons per minute -10-11 The standards are relevant only for communities that have or are expected to devp.lop l'ater systems.Only two communities in Impact Area 2 --Palmer and Wasilla --have city-wide water supply systems.Other residents rely on individual "€lls or "community"systems that serve a particular sub- division,trailer park,or other small area. Water consumption is a function of use by residential, commercial/industrial,public,and miscellaneous users.The estimated per- centages wtli ch each of these categori es of users represent are shov.T1 in Table 10.2-2.Commercial and industrial users account for more than 40 percent of normal water consumption,and this should be taken into account when looking at communities that do not have much industry. Standards for average water consumption per capita vary.The estimate of 150 gpd is considered most appropriate as it is in the mid-range of estima- tes and as it seems to be most consistent with present and future con- ditions in Alaska,and especially in the Mat-Su Borough.For instance, Palmer currently has an average water usage rate of 120 gpd and this rela- tively low usage might be attributed to thp.small amount of industry in the area.It is expected that future growth will include an increase in i ndustri al acti vity and hence a ri se in average per capita water consump- tion to about 150 gpd by the year 2000.AssociAted with this average rate is a peak water consumpti on 1evel of 230 gpd.From 2001 to 2005,these standards are held constant. Treatment facilities should have a capacity equal to at least peak water consumption needs.No fixed standards are available for storage capacity, though three days I worth seems to be a norm.Storage capacity is also sometimes related to firefighting needs. (ii)Sewage Collection and Treatment The amount of sewage generated is a function of the amount of water that is used daily.It has been estimated that an average 65 percent of total 10-12 - - - - - - - [ - TABLE 10.2-2 NORMAL WATER CONSUMPTION (Gallons Per Capita Per Day) Class of Consumption Normal Range Average Domestic 15-70 50 Comrnerci a1 ,Industrial 10-100 66 Public 5-20 10 Mi s ce 11 a neous 10-40 25 Total 40-230 150 Source:Fair G.,et ale 1966 Water Supply and Wastewater Removal. John Wil ey and Sons.New York,NY,in Stenehjem,E.J.and ,).E.Metzger. May 1980.A Framework for Projecting Employment and Population Changes Accompanying Energy nevelopment,Volume II.Prepared for U.S.Oepartment of Energy.Argonne National Laboratory,Argonne,IL,78 pp. 10-13 water supplied becomes sewage,or 100 gpd per capita,with the remainder used for miscellaneous purposes such as watering lawns and gardens,fire- fighting,and generating steam (Stenchjem and Metzger,1980,p.40).This standard may be appropri ate for a moderate-sized ci ty such as Anchorage, but seems to be less accurate ~en looking at rural communities.For instance,Palmer's sewage flows are currently equal to 100 percent of average water usage,or 120 gallons per day per capita.A constant stan- dard of 120 gpd has been used. (iii)Solid Waste Disposal Solid waste can be disposed of through inciner~tion or sanitary landfill disposal;sanitary landfill has become the prevalent mode. Facility requirements for solid waste disposal can be measured in terms of the amount of land needed per capita on an annual basis.Published stan- dards range from 0.2 to 0.3 acres per thousand people,depending on assump- tions of pounds of waste per capita,depth of the site and the rate of compressi on of the waste. A lower standard of .11 acres per thousand population has been assumed ini- tially for the Mat-Su Borough,based on the premises that waste production per capita is much lOl\er and the fill depth of the central landfills is twice as high as national averages.This standard is calculated to rise to 0.21 acres by 2000,and held constant at this level hetl\een 2001 and 2005. To the extent that garbage collection facilities are orovided,approxi- mately 1/3 truck per 1000 housing units and three employees per truck are recommended.These standards are of limited use,since in Impact Area 2, only Palmer provides garbage collection service. 10-14 - - - - - - - (iv)Education The maj or determi nant of the requi rement for educat i ona 1 faci 1 it i es and services is the number of school-age children per capita,modified to take into account pri vate school attendance.It is assumerl that the present sChool-age children per capita ratio will fall in the short-term,and then begin to rise.The Mat-Su Borough has indicated that approximately 27 per- cent of the total Borough population w:lS of school-age.For long-range planning purposes this percentage has been rounded to 25 percent.Short- term planning through 1987 uses an estimate of 22.8 percent.For purposes of this study,the ratio is assumed to rise gradually from 22.8 percent in 1987 to 25 percent in 2000 and then held constant at that level through 2 OOS. A major servi ce standard for educati on re1 ates the number of school-age chi 1dren to the number of c1 asses and teachers.The maximum acceptahl e class sizes are usually considered to be 30-32 in primary schools and 30-35 in secondary schools.The Mat-Su Borough uses optimum standards \lklich are substantially lower:25 students per class for primary schools and 20-22 for secondary schools.In addition,Mat-Su Borough School District sta- tistics show that teachers (including vocational teachers,guidance coun- selors and library teachers)comprise about 50 percent of total school district personnel requirements. With regard to classroom space,the standards that can be used are number of classrooms (one for each class),or alternatively,the square feet per pupil (90 square feet for primary school students and 150 square feet for secondary school students).For the purposes of this study,space required has been projected in terms of number of classrooms. In addition,the Mat-Su Borough uses certain concepts and design parameters as standards rklich indicate need,location and size for new schools.The design parameters are displayed in Table 10.2-3. 10-15 TABLE 10.2-3 SCHOOL DESIGN PARAMETERS IN THE MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH Parameter E1 ementary Junior High Senior High Grades 1-6 7-8 9-12 Students per Class 25 22 20 Optimum Number of Classrooms 24 27 60 Optimum Enrollment 600 600 1,200 -r~i nimum Size (Rural)6 room or 12 room or 150 students 300 students (Other)10 room or 14 room or 20 room or 250 students 300 students 400 students - Source:Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department. Year Program for School Sites. 10-16 March,1978.Ten - - - The Borough's Ten Year Program for School Sites (March,197B)assumed the concept of a nei ghborhood unit served by a si ngl e el ementary school with a group of neighborhoods served by one junior and one senior high school.In the southern part of the Borough,I'tlere population density is expected to increase most rapidly,it is expected that elementary schools will serve approximately fi ve square mil es of developed area.Secondary school swill serve approximately 15 square miles. It is assumed that the present ratios of primary school students (54 per- cent of total)and secondary school students (46 percent of total)will remai n constant.It is beyond the scope of thi sana lys is to forecast changes in distribution by school and by grade. (v)Health Care Standards for acute public health care focus on the capability of hospital facilities and staff to accommodate the expected number of patients without building overcapacity that will then add to hospital costs.While rule-of- thumb bed multipliers of bet'Neen 2.1 and 5.8 beds per 1000 population are often used,it has become appropri ate to base the number of beds on a measu re of the long-term average dai ly census of pat i ents using the hos- pital divided by the desirable occupancy rate.In Alaska,the recommended occupancy rates are 80 percent for urban hospitals and 55 percent for rural hospitals.The formulas used are: - Acute Care Patient Days at Valley Hospital plus Days at Alaska/ Providence for Borough Residents Borough =Hospital Use Rate Population for Borough Residents Hospital Use Rate for Borough Residents x Projected Average Estimated Borough Population Proport ion 10-17 365 days =Projected Average in year Daily Census (PADC) Mi nimum Da i1 y Census x of Bed Need Occupancy =Va 11 ey Hospital Met at Va 11 ey for Rural Acute Care Bed Hospita 1 Hospita 1 Need 55%) A significant aspect of the hospital system in Alaska needs to be taken into account.The Municipality of Anchorage has developed a comprehensive acute and long-term health care system that provides the main medical care for the residents of Southcentral Alaska,as Yell as other areas of the State.A large percentage of people living in areas such as the Mat-Su Borough presently elect to use hospital in Anchorage over the local hospi- tal due to the larger number of doctors (especially specialists)and the more modern fcilities.Howver,the percentage of patients that use the Valley Hospital has been rising rapidly in recent years,an this trend should be encouraged by the planned addition to and renovation of this hospital,and the possible addition of certain medical specialists to the staff.It is assumed that the usage of Valley Hospital as a percentage of total Alaskan hospital use by Mat-Su Borough residents will rise from 38 percent in 1980 to 75 percent in 2000 and remain constant at that level through 2005. Age and sex distributions of the population are important determinants of hospital use.For the purposes of this study,demographic factors have been assumed to remain constant. Other components of public health care systems include ambulance service, long-term nursing homes and public health clinics.The effects of popula- tion growth on these components will be discussed qualitatively,as no spe- cific standards exist. - - - (vi)La w Enforcement - Police service standards range from one officer per thousand population in unincorporated rural areas to 1.5 officers per thousilnd in small commun- ities and 2 officers per thousand in moderately large cities. - 10-18 - Alaska State Troopers judge the relative adequacy of their staffs in terms of the average case load (i .e.number of crimes)that each Trooper is charged with investigating.Six cases per Trooper is about average.and eight is considered the level at I'.t!ich additional staff is needed. Indirectly.this confirms the usefulness of the stanrJard for rural areas mentioned in the first paragraph.The staff of 20 officers stationed in the Mat-Su Borough have been averaging about six cases per Trooper and are servicing a population of 19.050 (this excludes the City of Palmer.\ok1ich has its own police force).This implies a current average of 1.05 officers pe r thousa nd. The standard range for vehicles used is betv.een one-third to one vehicle per thousand population. (vi"i)Fire Protection The major variah1es that are used to judge fire protection are (1)the ava'ilah1e flow of water.(2)the frequency of response.and (3)the man- power needed. There are several standards that relate these variables to population size. Water flow.response time or service radii.and the equipment capacity are of particular use.It is common in communities of less than 7.000 to rely on volunteer firefighters.and thus standards for manpo~r are not appli- cable to the communities under study. Fire protection planning in Alaska.as in many other areas.often takes the form of trying to achieve a certain fire rating as measured by the Insurance Service Organization (ISO).The ISO is a national organization that rates fire protection on a scale from one (best)to ten (~rst);fire insurance rates closely reflect these ratings. Communiti es without a community water system can at best achi eve an ISO rating of 8 (\ok1ich is the objective that the Mat-Su Borough presently hopes 10-19 to achieve for its most populous fire districts).The requirements,to achi eve a rating of 8 are:that d\o\€11 i ng cl ass property be withi n fi ve road miles of a fire station (on roads that are in good condition)and that the fire department has demonstrated its anility to deliver 200 gallons per minute (gpm)for a period of t\o\€nty minutes without interruption.The latter requirement implies a need for a capacity of 4,000 gallons of water II on wheels.II (e)Fiscal Impact Analysis I nt roduct ion The fiscal impact analysis aims to project impacts of population change on local government revenues and expenditures.The results are to be treated as trend indicators and not predictions of actual experience.The per capita multi pl i er fi scal impact method wi 11 be used to supply average cost data per person,per pupil and per household W1ere applicanle.The analy- sis assumes that current average costs are a good approximation of the real costs to provide services to future residents,and current per capita reve- nues or their relative proportions will remain constant in the future. Projections will be provided for the period 1981-2005. The Data Base The analysis relies heavily on secondary data sources including actual 1981 expenditu res and revenues from FY 1981/82 budgets;budgets for previ ous years,and estimates of revenues and expenditures anticipated in FY 1982/83 budgets.Capital Improvement Programs and plans have been consulted and time series data was collected and analyzed W1ere available.Some primary data was obtained during personal interviews with local government offi- cials. 10-20 - - - - - - - - - Major Factors Affecting Fiscal Impact Analysis Poplation Forecasts Baseline population forecasts ~re developed by FO&A,Inc.These fore- casts form the basis of the per capita multiplier fiscal impact method and are therefore extremely important.Please refer to section 11.2(b) for assumptions utilized in the development of population forecasts. The anticipated population influx is assumed to be similar to the composition of the current population utilizing social services and facilities. Infllation -The revenue and expenditure projections will be presented in current 1981 dollars and will represent real increases or decreases in spending, unless noted otherwise. Should the reader wish to factor in inflation a 10%(10 percent)annual inflation rate should be assumed.Current studies in Alaska are using 10%as a moderate scenario,with 8%for an optimistic scenario and 12% for a pessimistic scenario. Assessed Valuation Both real and personal property are used to calculate total assessable property for generating local property taxes. Projections are based on time series data bet~en 1970 and 1981. Projections consider both new additions to property tax rolls anrl increases in the value of existing property. 10-21 Tax Rates Tax rates remain constant over time unless stated otherwise. Levels of Service The supply of services is assumed to remain at current levels (i.e. quantity and quality)with the exception of new or expanded service facilities described in current Capital Improvement Programs. Servi ce area boundari es are assumed to remai n constant throughout the projection period. The demand schedul e for certai n servi ces ~he different for the incoming population.e.g.the existing rural residents may not demand the same level of services that new incoming residents from urhan areas wi 11 demand because they are used to a di fferent type of 1i festyl e. However.the limitations of a per capita multiplier fiscal impact method require the analyst to assume that the current demand schedules for ser- vices remain constant. Costs of Service The per capita multiplier method does not take into account economies or diseconomies of scale or threshold effects.unless otherwisf>stated. It is assumed that communities currently experiencing minimal excess servi ce capaci ty wi 11 cause the analysi s to overstate the incremental costs due to development;conversely.cases of minimal deficient service capacity will result in an underestimate of the incremental costs due to development. 10-22 - - - - - - - - - - Revenue Sources Maj or sou rces of revenue wi 11 be i dent i fi ed and project ions computed from 1981 to 2005.The analysis does not attempt to identify all current sour- ces of revenue as many of these contribute relatively small amounts of the total revenues coll ected.Therefore,the reader shoul d vi ew the revenue projections as trend indicators of future revenue schedules and not as pre- dictions of actual future receipts. The composition and relative proportions of revenue sources will remain constant,unl ess stated otherwi see Public policies regarding the allocation of and distribution of revenues will remain unchanged. - Current surpluses or fund balances will Approximately 5%of the total budget can be balance. Regional Economic Changes: be projected over time. assumed to remain as a fund - - - - There are many local,state and national events that could affect economic trends in Alaska in general,and in Impact Area 2 in particular.These events would cause the rates of population and economic growt.h to increase, thereby altering many of our assumptions Which in turn would alter the ana- lysis.These include but are not limited to: The proposed capital move to Willow.The analysis assumes this will not take place. Industrial development of Point MacKenzie. Construction of the Knik Arm crossing providing increased access to Anchorage from the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.It is assumed thi swill be open by 1989. 10-23 Development of mineral resources. Development of additional agricultural resources within the Mat-Su Valley and expansion of existing agricultural developments. Construction of the Trans Alaska Gas Pipeline. Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fiscal Impact Assessment General Assumptions Growth of the Borollgh will be continuous ancl gradual as new developments are phased in over time. - - - - - - Relatively more of the muniti es,i.e.,in the outlying areas embody environments are not munities. growth wi 11 be outs i de of the i ncorporatecl com- outlying areas betv.een Butte and Wasilla.The the preferred lifestyle;people seeking urhan necessari ly attracted to the incorported com- - There are currently no huilding codes in the Mat-Su Borough and none are anticipated in the foreseeahle future. Individual v.ells and septic tanks are an acceptahle method for obtaining fresh water and disposing of waste respectively.There will he no demand for a central \>Kiter supply system and sewage collection ancl disposal system beyond those which currently exist within the Borough. Revenue Sources Analysis assumes composition of revenues remains within the following range based upon current proportions: - - - - -General Fund Service Areas Fund 36%General Fund Range 3%Service Areas Fund 10-24 31-41% 2-4%- - - Land Management Fund Education Operating Fund General Fund-Revenues 3%Land Management Fund 58%Education Operating Fund 2-4% 57-67% - Impact projections are provided for General Fund Revenues basecl on the fall owi ng assumpti ons. Property taxes are a function of assessed values of real and personal pro- perty. Per capita assessed value of real and personal property increases at an annual average of four percent per year in real terms.This is assumed to continue.(Time series data for the Mat-Su Borough 1970-1979). The following mill rates will be levied per $1000 assessed valuation for property tax revenues: 6.5 mills for 1981-1989. 6.75 mills for 1990-2005. The breakdown is as follows: 0.5 for non-areawide services 6.0 for a rea wi de servi ces 0.75 for non-areawide services 6.00 for areawide services 1981-1989 1900-2005 Passage of House Bill #279 waul d provi de for 100%State fundi ng for school debt service payments.Upcoming session of Alaska legislature expected to pass this Bill.(Currently,State reimburses 80%of school bonded indebtedness for organi zed Boroughs and 100%for non-organi zed Boroughs.)There is a two year lag in State reimbursements \>i1ich is anticipated to remain unchanged. Miscellaneous sources of revenue,including interest on earnings and rACO- very of wages and fringe benefits.account for approximately 7 percent of total General Fund revenues. 10-25 Currently no local taxes are raised for capital projects due to ahundant State funding from petroleum revenues.This situation is assumed to continue as petroleum revenues are anticipated to rise steadily,peaking in 1986 and falling off gradually until 2005.(University of Alaska. ISER.July 1978.) The ratio of total bonded indebtedness to total assessed valuation is not anticipated to exceed 0.075. Bonded indebtedness wi 11 remai n unt i1 exi st i ng issues are reti red,or new bonds are issued. Revenues from the Federal PILOT program (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)are not included in the analysis.The Matanuska-Susitna Borough Budget estimated that Federal PILOT for FY82 would he -0-due to rerluced Federal funding. Service Areas Fund -Revenues Baseline projections are provided for Service Areas Fund Revenues hased on the following assumptions. Composition of revenue assumed to remain constant as follows: Current local property tax mill rate 0.5 for non-areawide services, including fire and road services,anticipated to remain at 0.5 for 1981-1989;and 0.75 for 1990-2005. Land Management Fund -Revenues Baseline projections are provided for Land Management Fund Revenues. Revenues from the sale of private lands is not expected to increase in real terms unless the Capitol is moved to Willow.The analysis presumes t hat move wi 11 not be made. 10-26 - - - - - - - - - - - - Matanuska-Susitna Borough Budget General Fund;Service AreCls Fund;Land Management Fund:Expenditures: Baseline projections are provided for the Mat-Su Borough expenditures based upon the following assumptions: Rea 1 costs (1981 $)of servi ces provi ded by Borough wi 11 not chClnge significantly until approximately 1990 or 1995 when gradual increases in real terms will hegin to occur. In general,assume current average per capita costs are a good approxi- mation of future real costs (inflation not included). The costs of services that are relatively capital inte~sive and utilize €~xpensive machinery are assumed to increase in real terms.The in- creases will be a result of high interest rates in the early 1980s 'tKlich cause the cost of borrowing money to rise dramatically.These adr!i- tiona1 costs are built into the cost of capital equipment and therehy drive up the costs of service delivery. Assume real rate of increase in road maintenance costs,annual average increase =10%.This 10%annual increase appears reasonable after, looking at the trend of previous expenditures on road maintenance; adjusting for increased demand by new residents for adequate road maintenance;and after talking with local officials regarding those increases. 1980 1981 increase in expenditures per mile 33.3% 1981 1982 increase in expenr!itures per mile 25.0% Di scussi on with 1oca 1 offi ci a1s revea 1ed tremendous increase in demand for improved road maintenance of existing roar!s and maintenance expander! to rural roads,currently not served by Borough. 10-27 Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District BUdget Revenu'es Baseline projections are provided for Fp.deral,State and local sources of revenue based upon the foll owi ng assumpti ons: Composition of revenue assumed to remain within +3%of current proportions: - - State sources 68% local Property Taxes 26% Federal Sources 6% local Property Taxes Formula for computing local share: State Range local Federa 1 65-71% 23-29% 3-9%- areawide assessed valuation x mill levy School taxes vary according to assessed value vs market value,and total population and not according to the number of pupils. A mill rate of 6.0 mills per $1,000 assessed valuation is assumed to remain constant. Expenditures Baseline projections are provided for expenditures on education based upon the following assumptions: 10-28 - - - - - - - The foll owi ng rel ati ve proporti ons are assumed: 1985-2005 1981-1984 Regular Instruction Vocational Education Special Education Support Services Operations and Maintenance Pupil Transportation Other 30% 2% 10% 18% 18% 10% 12% 33% 4% 6% 18% 19% 8% 12% - The proportion of regular instruction and vocational education will be rerluced from 1981 levels to reflect the increase in special education. PL 94142 requires that a school district provide ....natever special edu- cational services may be required by a pupil in that school district. Passage of this law has resulted in tremendous increases in expen- ditures for special education. ~ital Improvements Program The 1980 Six Year Capital Construction Plan is assumed to remain unchanged,ho~ver,annual requests to the legislature for additional projects may be forthcoming. (see discussion of school bonded indebtedness in section 4.1(c)(iv).) City of Palmer:Fiscal Impact Assessment General Assumptions Palmer is growth oriented and the majority of residents support efforts to expand the local industrial anrl economic base. 10-29 Palmer will attempt to attract industry through an aggressive on-going campaign. Factors influencing additional industrial growth include: -Development of industrial park -Railroad spur at industrial part site -Muni ci pal ai rport at i ndustri al park site that can handl e 1arge C-130 cargo planes. Palmer,as a first class city offers more services: Own police protection 0...."fire statio" Levies taxes -currently low Completion of water supply system and se'M?r system will allow orderly growth to occur Current expansion of jail 6 miles outside of the city limits is expected to generate an additional 150 full time permanent jobs. Baseline projections are provided for revenues and expenditures for the City of Palmer Budget based upon the foll owi ng assumptions: Composition of General Fund revenues will remain within +3%of the current proportions. The current per capita costs are assumed to remain constant in real 1981 dollars. 10-30 - - City of Wasilla:Fiscal Impact Assessment General Assumptions The Knik Arm Crossing will have a significant impact on the Wasilla and Bi g Lake areas and the area \'.est of Wasi 11 a. - - - - - - - - - - - '\oiasilla is a growth oriented community but as a second class city it is not able to offer a wide variety of services. It is assumed that voter approval to levy property taxes will not he forthcomi ng. Individual household will continue to be responsihle for pumping of sep- tic tanks by private contractor. There will not be a demand for a centralized sewage collection and treatment system before 1995. City of Houston:Fiscal Impact Assessment General Assumptions There is potential for significant growth anrl change in the City of Houston resulting from the completion of the Knik Arm Crossing and deve- lopment of Point Mackenzie.These developments will increase access to the Houston area.Currently there is grarlual steady growth. The community presently is construction oriented and many workers currently commute bet~en the Houston area and const ructi on \\Qrkcamps; this is assumed to continue. School s and roads are anti ci pated to be impacted the most by futu re growth;there is currently no school in Houston,though construction is planned to begin in 1985. 10-31 ----------------~------------------------- Current funding for roads is adequate for maintenance only of roads withi n the city 1i mits;cu rrent funds are not adequate for mak i ng road imp rovement s. Houston does not levy a property tax and this is assu~ed not to change. City residents generally do not favor growth;they desire to maintain their current lifestyle. The influx of new people are anticipated to display a demand for social services that is greater than the current demand of existing residents. The existing camper park is an important source of additional retail sales in the Houston area.The space of this park is to be doubled hy summer of 1982.There are not any local funds for parks and recreation. Funds are deri ved from the Borough,State Sha red Revenues and State Grants,but are administered hy the City. -Water is supplied through on-site wells and sewage is handled by on-site septic tanks.This is assumed to remain constant through 2000. Currently police protection provided by State troopers,not stationed close enough to City of Houston.By 1990 foresee demand for local police force which ~~uld initially operate out of the fire hall. Anticipate obtaining a State Grant for a post office;currently have an identity problem as mail goes to City of Wasilla. Local bonded indebtedness not anticipated until 1995 or 2000 as State Grants will provide major portion of capital improvement costs. 10-32 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Community of Talkeetna (Provides an example of the Service Areas Fund as part of the ~1at-Su Borough Administration Burlget). Municipality of Anchorage:Assessment of Fiscal Expenditures Baseline projections for expenditures in the Municipality of Anchorage are provided.In general it is assumed that population changes in the Municipality of Anchorage inrlucerl hy the Susitna Hydroelectric project will not cause changes in the real cost of delivering social services.Present average per capita costs will provine a good approximation of future ser- vice costs;these are assumed to remain constant in real $terms. City of Fairhanks:Assessment of Fiscal Expenditures Baseline projections of expenditures for the City of Fairbanks are pro- vided.In general it is assumed that population changes in the City of Fairhanks induced by the Susitna-Hydroelectric project will not cause changes in the real cost of delivering social services.Present average per capita costs wi 11 provi de a good approximati on of future servi ce costs; these are assumed to remain constant in real $terms. 10.3 -IMPACT FORECASTS (a)Emp 1oyment (i)Direct (On-site Construction Operations) Constructi on and operati ons ~rkforce data was avai 1abl e by year (1983-2005)and by trade for 1990.Workers \o.ere divided into the following labor categories according to skill level:laborers;semi-skilled/skilled and administrative/engineering.Assumptions ~re made regarding ~at per- 10-33 '-.....-------------------~---------------------------- centage of each 1abor category woul d come from:Impact Area 3 and Census Divisions within this area;outside of Impact Area 3 yet within Alaska;anrl outside of Alaska.Depending on the labor category,30-55 percent of the workers ....ere assumed to come from outside of Impact Area 3. It was assumed that some of the construction workers currently living in the Anchorage,Fairbanks and Kenai-Cook Inlet Census Divisions would migrate to the Mat-Su Borough during the 1980's.Additionally,it was assumed that about 30 percent of the construction workers initially residing outside of Impact Area 3,would relocate to Impl1ct Area 3.The other 70 percent would maintain their primary residence outside of Impact Area 3 and live temporarily at the work camp or village.Assumptions ~re a1so made regardi ng ...mere the rel ocat i ng workers woul d choose to relocate within Impact Area 3. The relocation patterns of workers,coupled with determinations of how many current residents in Impact Area 3 would be employed on the project,pro- viderl estimates of direct employment for Mat-Su corrmunities and Census Divisions of Impact Area 3 for each year during 1983-2002. (ii)Indirect and Inrluced Total indirect and induced employment that will accrue to Census Divisions of Impact Area 3 was derived by applying aggregate employment multipliers to the direct construction and operations work forces that will reside in these Census Divisions.Multipliers userl are as follows: - - - Census Division Anchorage Mat-Su Kenai-Cook Inlet Seward Multiplier (Time-Period 2.1 (1983-1984);2.2 (1985-1987);2.3 (1988-1996); 2.4 (1997-2005) 1.8 (1983-1987);1.9 (1988-2005) 1.4 (1983-1989);1.5 (1990-1999);1.6 (2000-2005) 1.3 (1983-1999);1.4 (2000-2005) 10-34 - - - Fairbanks S.L Fairbanks Valdez-Chitina Whittier 1.5 (1983-1989);1.6 (1990-1999);1.7 (2000-2005) 1.2 (1983-1999);1.3 (2000-2005) 1.3 (1983-1999);1.4 (2000-2005) The multipliers for the Mat-Su Borough were increased by one-tenth in each year (over What they would normally be)to account for expenditures in the Borough made by workers Who reside at the camp or vi 11 age and outs i de of the Mat-Su Borough. (b)Population The forecast of population influx resulting from the project has been pre- dicated on the forecasts of direct indirect/induced employment and the associ ated 1evel and geographi c di stri buti on of v.orkers i nmi grati ng from other areas.The number of inmigrating workers was multiplied by an anpropri ate dependents per accompani eo worker or househol d si ze standard measure,for each Census Division and selected communities in Impact Area 3. (i)Associated With Direct Work Force Empirical studies of construction I,o,{)rker characteristics indicate that those workers Who bring their families with them to new work locations tend to have family size l'Alich differs from the general population.This study has utilized the findings of a recent study conducted for the U.S.Army Corps of Engineer.(U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,1979),'tklich indicates that workers accompanied by dependents have an average of 2.11 dependents. Further,it is assumed that 95 percent of the on-site constructi on workers who inmigrate into Impact Area 3,from out-of-state or other areas of Alaska,are accompanied by dependents.The facilities at the work camp, the schedule of work and the remote nature of the site make it unl ikely that many workers without families would have any incentive to establish a residence outside of the work camp.On the other hand,workers with fami- 10-35 - lies outside of the Railbelt region may decide that the duration of the project is long enough to justify settling closer to the project. (ii)Indirect and Induced Workers \'kIo inmigrate into Impact Area 3 to fill a portion of the indirect and induced jobs generated by the project,are assumed to have charac- teristics similar to other residents of Alaska.Accordingly,the popula- t ion i nfl ux associ ated wi th the i nmi grant i ndi rect and i nduced ~rk force has been calculated by applying forecasts of average household size for each year.These forecasts,developed by the Institute of Social and Economic Research,decline over time to reflect the national trend toward smaller average households. (c)Construction Workforce Expenditure Patterns and Personal Income The methodology for determining construction ~rk force payroll expenditure patterns is built upon the basic premise that place of residence is the primary factor determining v.+1ere income is spent.For the pur- poses of this analysis,~rkers are grouped into three categories according to residence/commuting patterns:1)local ~rkers (those originating from within Impact Area 3 as 'Nell as those relocating to Impact Area 3 communities;2)Alaska non-Impact Area 3 \\()rkers (those not relocating in the Borough and residing at the construction camp/village);and 3)out-of- state ~rkers (those not relocating in the Borough and residing at the construction camp/village).The reason for these rlifferent classifications is that it is assumed that each group wi 11 exhi bit different wage and salary spending behavior.Tables 5.3-4 and 5.3-5 (See Section 5)are estimates of construction ~rk force spending patterns in various Census Divisions and areas haserl on place of resirlence.For example,Tahle 5.3-4 indicates that on average,construction ~rkers living in Anchorage can be expected to spend 95 percent of their income in Anchorage and 5 percent in the Mat-Su Borough;workers living in the Mat-Su Borough can be expected to spenrl 25 percent of income in Anchorage,10 percent in Fairbanks - 10-36 ----------------------------------------------""'" and 65 percent in the Mat-Su Borough;and et cetera.In all cases,it is assumed that the majority of v.orkers wi 11 res i rle at the hase camp for a few weeks at a time,but will have dependents living at their permanent place of res i dence.Thi s accounts for the hi gh percentage of income spent at place of residence. Table 5.3-5 reveals similar information for the Alaska non-local and out- of-state construction work force residing at the construction camp or vi 11 age.Thi s tabl e takes into account all 1,o,(lrkers that do not relocate to Impact Area 3.They live at the construction camp or village.The fact. that they will in all likelihood have dependents and/or other financial obligations outside of the Impact Area accounts for t.he large percentage of income spent out-of-state or outside of Impact Area 3.The out-of-state work force is assumed to spend a higher percentage of income in Impact Area 3 rlelative to the Alaska non-local \'Klrk force because the out-of-state work force will be less inclined to travel to their place of residence during time off,consequently resulting in more income being spent locally. The derivation of the total disposable income to be spent in the various Census Divisions is based on the summation of each column of Tables 5.3-4 and 5.3-5 combined.For example,total income to be spent in Fairbanks equals 90 percent of Fairbanks residents payroll;15 percent of S.E. Fail~banks residents;10 percent of Mat-Su;5 percent of Alaska non-Impact Area 3 work force payroll;and 7 percent of out.-of-state (non-relocating) for each Census Division. The values associ ated with the different percentages,i.e.,95 percent of Anchorage residents'income spent in Anchorage and five percent in Mat-Su, are based on the ratio of the number of Susitna project construction workers living in Anchorage to total Susitna construction \'Klrkers living in Impact Area 3 by year (the percentage changes over time due to the influx of relocating workers to Impact Area 3,from Alaska non-Impact Area 3 and out--of-state).The percentage calculated is then applied to local and Impact Area 3 inmigrant construction "expendable"rayroll for each year,to -10-37 "------------------------------------- show that portion of income Vvttich will be spent by the \',{)rk force residing in Anchorage.Local and Impact Area 3 inmigrant construction \>vOrk force payroll represents a portion of the total payroll,as does Alaska non-local and out-of-state,based on residence distribution.Based on these percen- tage distributions,total payroll can be allocated to on-site construction work force by residence (Table 5.3-2)and operations work force (5.3-3). Expendabl e payroll (payroll ....oi ch can be spent after taxes and savi ngs) is determined based on the assumption that 30 percent of wage and salary is taxed lind 10 percent of net payroll is saved.When these assumptions are applied to total payroll per year,expendable payroll equals 63 percent of the total. Quantitative estimates of personal income that will accrue to construction and operations workers that reside permanently and temporarily/ intermittently in the Borough If,€re made.These estimates \'.ere made hy adding savings and all taxes except for social security taxes to the expen- dable payroll in the Borough in each year during 1983-2002 (d)Housing Off-site project-induced housing demand is based upon the number of inmigrant households (i.e.the number of inmigrant direct,indirect and induced employees).This demand is then compared to projected available suply (based upon five percent vacancy rate)in order to obtain an approxi- mation of the future adequacy of housing to accommodate the population influx.For areas in which baseline forecasts vacant housing do not appear to be adequate,possible problems and possible changes in settlement pat- terns are discussed. (e)Facilities and Services Impacts of the project on public facilities and services in Impact Area 2 have been addressed using a three-step procedure. 10-38 - - - .- ,-- Fir'st,demands for each service category v.ere estimated hy applying the per capita standards explained in Section 10.2(d)to the forecasts of popula- tion with the project.These population forecasts include inmigrant workers and dependents that resettle off-site,and cover both direct and secondary population influx.As a result of the planned provision of extensive community facilities at the work camp/village,on-site residents are not expected to have significant impact on most facilities and ser- vices.The exceptions are transportation and recreation;the impacts that the on-site residents will have on these service categories are discussed qualitatively. Second,these forecasts of requirements for public facilities and services were compared to the baseline forecasts of service requirements to illustrate the magnitude of change in demand.To the extent possible, threshold levels (the population size at which it hecomes necessary to pro- vide more extensive facilities and services)and economies of scale v.ere identified. Third,the forecasts of service requirements v.ere compared to present and planned facilities,taking into account present capacity utilization. (f)Fiscal Impact Analysis The baseline forecast provides all the necessary data to implement the impact forecasts for 1981-2005.The analysis assumes that current average costs are a good approximation of the real future costs of service,and current per capita revenues or their relative proportions will remain constant in the future,with or without the project.The hydroelectric pro- jet wi 11 therefore not change real per capita costs or recei pts,but wi 11 alter gross revenues and expenditures. The reader is referred to the detailed baseline forecast methodology (10 ..2-(e))which outlines all the assumptions for each section of the analy- sis..Major factors affecting the fiscal baseline analysis are assumed to 10-39 ""-------,----,---------- also affect the impact analysis.Impact forecasts will be made for all budgets analyzed in the baseline forecast,and will follow the haseline methodology at all stages except where noted below. (i)Matanuska-Susitna Borough Budget General Fund Revenues -Property Taxes -School Debt Service The remai nder of the impact forecast wi 11 follow the basel i ne forecast met hoda logy. 10-40 - - ARLIS .Alaska Resources LIbrary &Infonnation ServIces Anchorage,Alaska ERRATA SUBTASK 7:05:SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS This insert is to accompany the 'Environmental Studies Final Report,Subtask 7.05:Socioeconomic Analysis.The report was prepared by Frank Orth and Associates,Inc.for Terrestrial Environmental Specialists,Inc.,and Acres American,Inc.as part of the environmental studies for the proposed Susitna Hydroelectric Project. The errata provide a list of all the information either corrected or omitted due to errors in the writing and production of the report.The data is arranged by section number and title as in the table of contents.The page number and rele- vant paragraph and line number are provided to ensure easy application.4ny portion of a paragraph appearing at the top of a page is considered the first paragraph.All references to dollars are in 1981 dollars. Frank Orth and Associates,Inc.apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused the reader. ERRATA Page ~ list of Tables Paragraph Number line(s)Correction xviii Insert page titled 'list of Tables (continued)'after page xviii. See attached. Summary xxviii &2 delete lines 1 and 2. xxxi 2 5 change to read: declines to $199 "Per capita share •••• " xxxii 3 delete:'Actual'. change to read:"Total fiscal impacts ••••will be relatively very small." 3 10 delete:'a cross refernce to the Socioeconomic Feasibility Report,, 2 5 Disregard Table 2.3-1.~efer to page 5-2,Table 5.1-1 3 3 Disregard Table 2.3-2.Refer to page 5-29,Table 5.3-1 5 2 delete:'to portal'. Insert:"Fairhanks North Star"after 'Mat-Su'• 2-3 2-8 3-2 2-3 1.,2.,3.INTRODUCTION;DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT;IDENTIFICATION OF IMPACT AREAS. 1-2 4.BASELINE DESCRIPTION AND BASELINE FORECASTS. 4-27 change 'or'to "on". 4-46 4 &2 delete '(19%)'after 'Anticipated State Funding'and delete '(81%)'after 'Areawide Borough Funding'.These funds are in addition to the bonds issued after the election,October 6, 1981. 4-61 2 14 change:'cost $10-12 per square foot' to "per running foot". 4-65 *footnote Insert:"Drawn from funds available from grant of"before '$1000 per person •••' Page Number List of Tables 4-74 Paragraph Number Table 4.1 -26 ERRATA Line(s) footnotes Correction refer to footnotes as follows: (A)column 3 (S)column 4 (C)column 5 (D)column 6 4-81 Table 4.1 footnote -28 4-89 2 8 4-96 3 6 4-143 3 4 5.OUTCOMES or THE PROJECT 5-16 2 4 5-16 2 8&9 5-16 4 2 5-16 4 4 5-20 9 6.IMPACTS or THE PROJECT 6-10 Column 1,Row 7 6-10 Table 6.2-3,footnote C •6-18 6-22 4 5 6-24 2 2 Insert:"independent rounding" after 'due to' chlilge table II to:4.1-27 ch lIlge 'six'to "four". r igure 4.1-5 4.1-6 Insert""or 827 per sons"after 'rep re- sent 13 percent'. Insert:"or 318 persons"after 'approx- mately 5 percent'. Irsert:"(764 persons)"after'approxi- mately 12 percent'• Insert:"0,819 persons)"after 'remaining: I rsert:"(764 persons)"after 'remain after 2002'. incomplete word."students" refer to Table 6.2-2,page 6-9, footnote (c).This applies to Wasilla • Replace:'were assessed I with "was assessed". Replace:'This represents'with "These represent •••" Replace 'are'with "is". Page ~ List of Tables Paragraph Number Line(s)Correction 6-28 TEtlle 6.2-11 Heading Column 4 6-31 3 13 6-34 TEtlle 6.2-13 Row 7,heading. 6-45 TEtlle 6.2-18 Footnotes 6-46 14 6-72 3,4,5 and 6-72 1,2,3 6-101 7 6-104 TEtlle 6.3-4 Row 7, Heading 6-107 5 2 6-111 Table 6.3-8 Footnotes Correct spelling "with". Replace:'will accure to'with "will accrue to". "Mat-Su"Region. Refer to footnotes as follows: (A)column 4 (8)column 5 (C)column 6 (D)column 7 (E)column 8 (F)column 9 (G)column 10 Replace:'user changes t with "user charges". Delete paragraphs. Delete paragraphs.These are repetitions of text on pages 6-70, 6-71. Replace 'and others (37 percent)'with "and others (47 percent)". "Mat-Su Region". Insert:"The greatest impact"instead of 'Railway impact'. Refer to footnotes as follows: (A)column 3 (8)column 4 (C)column 5 (D)column 6 (E)column 7 (F)column 8 (G)column 9 (H)column 10 6-114 '6-115 TEtlle 6.4-2 5 Columr,5, ~ow 2 6 Replace '7,365'with "6,365". "mout $4.1 million" Page ~ list of Tables Paragraph ~umber ERRATA Correction 10.METHODOLOGIES 10-5 10-6 10-21 10-35 10-38 4 2 7 5 3 3 2&3 Change 'Census Division'to plural. Insert:"will chan~e,"between 'share' and 'was calculated • Replace 'refer to section 11.2(b)'with "refer to section 10.2(b)". Insert:"workers who reside temporarily at the camp or village and permanently outside of ••••,"to replace 'workers who ••••outside of •••••'. replace 'salary is taxed'with "salary is paid in taxes". LIST Of TABLES (continued) Table 6.2-15 Mat-Su Borough Budget:Forecast of General Fund Revenues 6.2-16 Mat-Su Borough Budget:Impact Forecast of Revenues for the Service Area Fund;Land Management Fund; and Maximum Total Bonded Indebtedness 6.2-17 Property Tax Impact Forecast for Mat-Su Borough 6-39 6-40 6-43 6-47 6.2-1B Mat-Su Borough:Impact Projections for General Fund; Service Area Fund;and Land Management Fund Expenditure 6-45 6.2-19 Mat-Su School District Budget:Impact Revenue Forecasts 6.2-20 Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on the Mat-Su Borough School District 6.2-21 Mat-Su Borough School District Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast 6.2-22 Mat-Su Borough School District Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast,Operations &Maintenance 6.2-23 Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on Palmer 6.2-24 City of Palmer Budget:General Fund Revenue Impact Forecast 6.2-25 City of Palmer Budget:Special Funds-Revenue Impact Forecast 6.2-26 City of Palmer Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast 6.2-27 City of Wasilla Budget:Impact Revenue Forecast 6.2-2B Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on Wasilla 6.2-29 City of Wasilla Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast 6.2-30 City of Houston Budget:Estimates of Future Grant Funding-Impact Forecast 6.2-31 City of Houston Budget:Impact Expenditure Forecast 6.2-32 Summarized Fiscal Impacts of the Project on Houston and Talkeetna 6-48 6-50 6-51 6-53 6-54 6-55 6-57 6-59 6-60 6-62 6-63 6-64 6-65