Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2928PRQdECT No* 9 9 94 NC AND RES AND COMMERC AL LAND USE PREPARED BY FRANK OWTH 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. FINAL REPORT UNDER CONTRACT %8 MARZA=EBA@GO SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE * DOCUMENT No, 2928 SOBHTEqb BPDBOBEBCTBIC PROJECT H68SIRG ARD WESIDEHTIBL AHD COBfEBBCIbL LAND USE CORSTRAZBTS REPORT FOB TEE SVSITRA BIDPlOELECTBIG PROJECT Report by Frank Brth d Assocktes, Xnc. Under Contract $0 Hasza-Ebasco Susitna ~oint Venture Prepared for Alaska Power kuthori ty Final Report June 1985 BPI7 QUBSTf OMS OR COmENTS CONCERICIIMG %El$% RBPOWT 8HOUGD BE DIWECFZB TO THE BLASm POWER BUTHORETP SUSITNa PROJECT OFFICE PAGE .IWiw- 2,0 Methodology 2.1 Com~unity Selectioa Criteria 2,2 Data CdIeetLsn 2.2.1 Housiag Demnd and Supply 2.2.2 Residential Land Dernand and Supply 2.2.3 Commercial Land Demand and Supply 2.3 Major Assumptions of The Analysis 3,6 Baseline Conditions. 3.4. Housing Demand 3.2 Woaeisg Supply 3.3 Avezage Residential Lot Size 3,4 Comercia1 Sgaee 3.5 Residential and Comme~cial Land 3.5.1 Residential Land Demand and Supply 3.5.2 Commercial Land Demand and Supply 4.0 Project Effects 4 .I Mousing Demand 4.2 Housing Supply 4.3 Residential and Commercial Land 4.3.1 Residential Land Demand and Supply 4.3.2 Comercia1 Land Demand and Supply kist of References List of Personal Gomanications LIST OF TABLES I Baseline Heusing Bemaad and Supply 2 Average Resddential Lot Size (Acres) and Square Footage Peg Comercial Ernplcyee 13 3 Supply of Residential Land and Commercial Land 14 0 4 Baseline Demand foe Residential Land and Supply of Residential Laad (in Beree) I& 5 Baseliae Demand for Cocnmerckal Land and Supply of Comercia1 Eand (in Acres) 4 Project-Related Housfng Demand and Available Housing 2 0 7 Project-Related Delnand for Residential Land Available Supply of RaabdentiaP Land (in Acres) 25 8 Project-Related Demand for Commercial Land and Available Supply of Comereial Land (in Acres) 27 csbjee~ives of this report are: 1) tc provide inforaation on baselium aad wlth-project eondlltiona related to the demand fan, and supply of, ~ouslng end band by residential and commercial uuc; and 2) determine the ss2gn:nificance of any ilnbalances betwee, supply and demand and how they af- fect ehe ia gmtion of people to cornunities potentially affected by the Susiltna Nyd~oelertric Project. These cornunities Snclude bnt%~.ayell, Bealy, Nenana, Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, WasiLla, Palmer, and Houston. The report was prepred in order to support the needs of the Social SeBeneea Program for the Susitna Hydroelectric Project of the Alaslra Power Authority. It will serve as a guide to refining the gravity model by specifyfng the comu~ieies that. could have difficulty in absorbing project-related employment and population effects. This report is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 discusses the purpose and the organization of the report. pter 2 describes several eonditlone, (variables) that could potentially constrain resddentiinl and business development in the cornunities selected for analysis. The con- ditions are: housing demand, housing supply, demand for residential la,nd, supply of residential land, demaad for romnaercial land, and supply sf coamercial land, Data sources for these conditions are also identi- ffed in this chapter* Chapter 3 forecasts and compares baseline supply and demand for the con- ditions identified in Ghaptef 2. The ability of communities to accomrncr date expected changes in demand conditions is also examined. Chapter 4 examines project~elated effects on housing and land use conditions with- in each community. The last chapter contains recornendations regarding whether capacity constraints should be entered into gravity assignment procedures in the Susitna socioeconomic model. report focuses en the hous%ag and land u%e e~ndition~ in several cornunities located near the vicinity of the proposed Susitna Project : Col~munities were selected fox analysis baaed on the relative size of pxaject-related increases irn population forecasted by the Susltna soeAoeeonomPc node% (Fraek Orth & Associates, Inc., March 1984). mese pr~jectjons demonstrated that significant Project effects on population were likely to occur in Cantwell, Healy, Trappet Ceeek, and Tialkeetna. Somewhat: less significantr but still important, effects were identified in the cornunities sf Nenana, B~uston, Wasflh, sad PaIrne~~ Cornunity boundaries uged in this report represent the Incorporated boundaries fsr the citfes of Palmer, Wasilla, Houston, and Nemna and the boundaeies used in the 1983 socioeconomic surveys of households and businevses for Cantmll, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek (Frank Oxth & Associates, Inc., February 1984). The boundaries for Healy were based oa the 1980 U.S. Census desisgnated place definition. 2,2 DATA COUECTXON Data on housing demand, housing supply, average lot sizes, square footage requirements per comercia1 employee, and land use acreages within each cornunity were collected during L984. Infonaation was obtained from: 1) socioeconomic rep~rts prepared on the Susitna Project; 2) comprehensive development plans; 3) land use maps showing land ownership status, land use by types, and holding capacities for population; 4) assessment records; 5) surveys of population and housing; and 6) key informant interviews with local planring officials, residential and commercial developers, and banking officials. HousLng deragnd in each cornunity was speeiffed by the nalzlnbe~ of occupied hdos~sirag unfes (households), The Susitna soeioeeonoaic model prcalrlched housing demand forecasts by cornunity for both the baseline and with- projecg scemieios. me baseline projeetioss were developed to predict future Roudsing trends within each community. The projections were deriv- ed from historPeal trends in houefng. With-project projectfans were based on the settlement: patterns of project-related workers uqhich, in gum, were derived from each community's distance f zom the Project site and cornunity attractiveness (services, housing, land, and recreation available)* Wouslng supply in each community was specified by the number of total housing units. The Susitna soeioeeononoic model provided housing unit forecasts by cornnunity for both the baseline and with-project scenarios. Data on housing supply was based on socioeconomic model projections con- ducted in FY84 (Frank Orth & Associates, IILC.~ March 1984). Wcwever, the housing unit information reported in the aocioeconomlc model did not refleet the ability of the construction industry to respond to changes in demand in each comunity. In order to improve the accuracy of projec- tions for housing units, key infom&nt inteniews were conducted with local developers in each community and the results were incorpcrra-ed in assmptions aboug future growth tread~e Ajustments to trends in housing supply were detemined primarily from key fnformaazt interviews with local contractors, plann%ng officials, and banking officers. For 1983 and 1984, each key informant was asked where in $he c~rniaplnl~les houses and 'taus%nesrraee; were csme;kructed and how many housing units and business establishents they constructed within each cf these locations, Contractors were also asked ts estimate the number of housing unita that were built during the 1983 a~d 1984 construction sea- sons fn each cornunity by all contractors. They also were asked to esti- mte the number to be built during 1985. Addirional questions were asked detailing whether homes are built on a presold or speculative basis, whether the developers face impediments to obtaining construceion finan- cing, the likelihood that larger contractors from Anchorage and Fairbanks would build more homes in the subject comunities, and the rbillty of ~~ii:3~ing sonr;racmcsrs in the seleeged communities to accormiociate projet: red 3-1:iexeases in hsueing and comerc%al demanL The %nfs~ma$ion sbgained from these in$ervie~rs was then used to adjust ehe mdel projection8 of baseliae housing unEts in eeeh comunity. Fer example, the model values for Gantwcll are 127 housing unles in 1984 with ;aria increase of from 0-1 units per year between 1985 and 2002, Baeed on 2nIih;elss~vf ews %rith local contractors about the f 984 c~nstsuetPon searson in Cantwell ad thelr available resourcee, the 1984 vgilue was ra.lsed to 131 wits with a 5 uait per year increase thereafter (Gilbertson and M, HA.Ug%er, personal eomufications, 1984). Mdjuaelnents in the number of tousing unite and average annual gsa-h rates were also mede for Healy, Henam, Wasilla, and Housron pahen sup- ported by data in the key informant interviews. In Wasill&, 133 housing units weze added to the baseline projection in every year. Average abl- nual gro-eh rates in housing units were revised for Bealy (f ron 2.9 per- cent to 3.9 pereent per year), Nenana (from 2.6 perceat to 2 percent per year), and Houstcsn (from 10.1 percent to 6.8 percent per year). Values in Talkeetna were raised for 1985 and 1990 and lowered in 1995, 1999, and 2002 tc refleet the greater initial housing inventory and more moderate growth related to che ability of local eontractorb: ta supply housing. No changes in model projections of housing supply were warranted in Trapper Creek and Palmer, Supply coastraints in cornunity housing markets were detemined by cop paring denoarrd for housing with housing supply. Baseline supply constraints were determined by comparing baseline housing demand with baseline housing unite in communities. Project-related supply effects were determined by comparing project-related housing demand with the a~e~flable supply of housing in each camunitye Available supply of housing is equal to the number of housing unite, that would be vacant under baselire conditions since new housing units were assumed to be ~ccupisd e Damand for residentfa1 land was detewirned by m~ltfpbyiag the number: GA Ttou-sehclds by average 10% size. For the comuni";ee sin the 11,-5u Borough, sevessll sourr-ea af inf ormiation were available. Taelaese sources inelaaded: I) Mat-Su Borough assessoaent records; 2) the Palmer -.rhwdm Cdampr~ ; 3) the City of Houston ; 4) %he M&Canuska.-.Suaftm BQFQU~~~ ; 5) Mat-Su Borougil ; and 6) leey informant S.?aterviews. Per the cornmities of Cantwell, Nealy, and Nenann, key nt interviews provided all data on lot size?. The supply of residential land for communities in the Mat-Su Borough was detemised from borough assessment records (Mat-Su Borough Assessment Department, 1981). The records showed the nusnbe~ of parcels v~ith improvements and the number of parcels without improvements by conunmity. Holding capacity maps were also available for a number of tareas in the Mat-Su Borough. These maps provided an estimate of the number of pe~ple that could be accommodated in square mile sections in some of the smller Mat-Su Borough cornunities such as Talkeetna and Trapptbr Creek. By converting population holding capacdties into households (through persons per household multipliers) and dividing by average resideneial lot size, estimates of the supply of residential land were obtained. The supply of residential land in the earnunities of Pfealy, Nenana, and Cantwell was determined from land use maps for each commity and key info t interviews (Blakeway, Coghill, Cotter, Nail, Easvey, Jouhala, Miller, Ung, iindahl, and Williams, personal comunications, 1984). The supply of residential land consisted of wailable %and with occupied housing units, %and \~%tk unsceupied housing mlts, and land with ats impro~emenatas~ Baseline supply constraints were detemilned by comparing baseline residential land use with baseline residential land supply in comunities. Project-related supply effects were determined by comparing project-related residential land use demand with the available supply of residential land in each community. The available supply of residential land In each cornunity was determined by subtracting baseline demand for res%dentfaB land from basellse supply, The differease reflects the alspaouat of residential land available in each coman%ty tar aceornodate increases in projeet-related demand for residentiai land. Tale demand EBP comerclal land vms projected by multbp"inag the raeio of tale average square footage of somrrcial land per camercial employee by the aumbes of eomercial employees in et~e eomunigy, Values for the sazio were determined from estimtes 05 existing eomereial. acreage that Faere in use in each eomuaity and by the number of employees Ln each corn-. W~JD$ t g . Earristfng cannmercitll acreage was obtained for communities in the Mat-Su Borough from comprehensive development plans, land use st: tus maps, and key informant interviews. The comprehensive development plans contained land use Fnventosies and land ownership patterns. The Land use status maps present the amount of acreage in residential, comercial, indus- trial, and agrAclnltural uses. The number cf jobs, the size of labor force, and the number of business es@abl$ahments were obtained from househsld and business suPvey regor$s, Ehe far the Mat-Su Borough, sscio- ee~nomic model projections, and key informant istenriews. Employment in Wasilla, Palmer, and Houston was estimated from the ratio of business establishments in each commity to total business establishments ia the Mat-Su Borough, employroent to population ratios for the Borough, and labor force data, lilhs banslnesa establishment ratios varied from 2 pe~- cent for Houston to 53 percent for Wasfl1ae The Borough employment to population ratio and community-specific labor force data were then used ts adjust the business establishment ratlios, The values used for %Re cornunity employment to population ratios for Wasilla, Palmer, and Houston were 0.475, 0.36, and 0.20, respectively. These ratios were then applied to the population projections for each community to determine the number of workere in %ash cornunity over time, For some commuulties, information on commercial space requirements per carmnetcial employee as not directly obtainable. For Cantwell, Heaby, aind Nenana, the ratio was determined from key informant interviews, data contained in business survey reports, ratios between baseline employment by place of work and baseline population far Cantwell and the observa- tions of survey interviewers regarding business establishment size. ail.~led. o-a sur7reqrs c~sduc~ed fa Ele.aly and Gantxqell %a L9Bl4, the num&t%+ CJ% employed adtsles as a perceseage of total popula?k%oct nas 42.2 persent in Kealy and 39.4 percent 2n Cant~~ell (Marcza-Ebasco, 19515). Taking %he eatio oii these t~pz:.rra pescentatges shows that Nealy has aboue 7 perrceae more eapboyed adults 18 igs poplillatian than Cantwell . Applying this persentage to the raeio of emplopent by place of work to populat%ipn ~OB. Can%xae%l of 51.3 percent would imply that the similar ratio for Healy kmuld be aboufc 55 percent. Given che lack of elnployolent data for Nenana, ft vsas assumed that emplo>v meat go populatien ratios for Nenana would be similar to that found for tleafy. Tixis assumption was based on the face that Nenana contains one large employer (the Yutana Barge ~ine) and that residents are within dally commuting distance of Fairbanks. The latker fact implies that residents cf Nenana can take advantage of elnployment opportunities in Fairba&s. Thus, employment in Nenana ws estimated by applying the ratlo of employment by place of work to population in HeaPy to the baseline population of Nen~lla, A ratio of 0.55 was used for the years 1985 ta 2802, Baseline supply constraints were determined by comparing baseline demand for comercia1 land with baseline supply of commercial land. The baseline demand was detemined by applying the average space requiremenk and the employment ta population ratio to the baseline population projections for each ccmuaity. Baseline supply was determined from jinfarmation on existing commercial acreage. Project-related supply ef%e@%s were detemined by comparing project-related comercia1 Land use demaad with the available supply of comercia1 land in each community. The baseline fozecast of the available comercia1 land in each cornunity was determined by subtracting baseline demand for esmercial land from baseline supply. The difference reflects the amount of comercia1 land available in each cornunity to accommodate increases in project-related demand foi eomereia1 landQ F $ME m&YSIS SevernPaZ assumptions were made during the analysis in order to produce projeesioas of housing asd land use conditicns in the eomwanities seiJ,ce*- eu' for analysis. The analysis described fn Chapters 3 and 4 was isa8r.d an ehe Car Transportation Scenario (worst case) which assumed this2 all ~vark-- 0x8 travel ~o the sfte usfng peraeaal vehicles, Morkears were expected to locate permanent residences based upon: 1) the amount of t%a;e i& taices to travel to the site from varioua comunitie~; and 2) eeir~~unity agtraetiveness as defined by the availability of housing, public filefi$ties and services, comereial services, recreation opportunities, quality of schools, and laad. Largely because of their proximity, the co-ua%tfea in the Mat-Su Borough and the Railbelt poxtion of the Y&on-Koyukuk census area were projected to rceceive the largest proportion of population i~migration resulting from the Project. W second major assumption was that current comunity-specific average residential lot sizes and average space requirements per comercia1 ens paoyee would remain unchanged over time except for Cantwell and Henam, Zaa Cantwell and Nenana, the average residential lot size was assumed to increase over time. Because housing unit flensity is higher and growth is slower in the center of these toms as compared to outlying subdivisions, average residential lot size would increase over time. In Nenana, the average space requirement for commercial employees was as- suaed to decline over $ime, Because the Yutana Barge line uses an @st%- mated 43,560 square feet per employee, and the faster growing smaller business establishents in Nenana provide about 300 square feet of work space fot their employees, the ratio of square feet to comraercial elrr ployees would decline over time (Harvey, personal communication, 1984). A third major assumption involved how land was e3.assified as residential or csmercial. Land was determined as resfdentfa1 when it contained a structure with the pximary purpose of providing she]-ter. Land was detegnrsised as comereial when it had buflt on %t a st ucture with the prinaary purpose of providing goods and sarqflces for sale in commercial trassactions. For land parcels with structures, the distinction between residential and comercia1 use was straightforward because improvements on a property clearly determhed the use of the property. In other cases, where no improvements or structures were evident, comprehecsive Land use piLana aad surroandllzg usas determfnaed che prircnsry use of a p:cc-p @$Q.%T bJ 2%~ wexe two situatioaa where determination of primry use was ambig* oets, The first occurred when a structure was used as both a business and z hone. In some of rthese cases, it was possible to make a diatPnctPon bat~~eeaa eke armaaae of a-sea used Ear residential and earnercia1 use when thexe %relee desipated rooms in the structure used solely fox bueiness, In ~thek eases, it was not possible to elearly define residential use and comescfel use. For these eases, it was asswed that the primary purpose of the property and stnrctu~e was fos residential use. Tile secoad case occurred when businesses were seasonal caperationa, Fss these cases, it was assumed that the land was eomwrcfal if: 1) no other use occurred on the land during the off-season; or 2) if the amount of time during the year that ~ras devoted to comolerclel. use exceeded the amount of time during the year ehat was devoted to residential use. A fourth assumption was that the supplies of residential and commercial laad within each cornunity would remain unchanged over time. For each comuaity, the current supply of each of these types of land was not fo~ecasted to change over the projection period. This assumption repre- sented a conservative position in that annexation and changes to compre- hensive land use plans could increase the supply of available residen- eial and comtnercial land in each community. Because these changes repre- sent political actions whose timing cannot be accurately predicted, they were not assumed to affect the supplies of residential and commercial land available for deveX~pment, 0'3 -his chapzrc examines baseline housPng, coamercial, alsd land use conditione in the cornunities of CanEwell, Nealy , Neaa&aa, Palmer, kJaoiXla, Bouston, Tsnliceetna, and Trapper Creek. Bo~eing detaand for each community is ehom in Table 1. Slight increases in baselfne housing delnand are expectec! An the eomt~ni?.f es of Cant%~ell, tlealy, Neaarza, Tdlkeetna, and Trapper Cteek. Groweh Pn the number of households for these cornunities would range from 1 percent per year (I hourjehold] in Can.twelX to about 6 percent per year (10 households) in TaPkeetna, Plodexate Inexeases in the baseline =umber of househofds would occur in the csmunit8es of Palmer, Wasilla, and Houstsn, Households would In.- crease by an average of 10 percent per year (62 households) In M~uston. 8 percent per year (133 households) in Wasilia, and about 5 percent per year (70 households) in Palmer. Baseline projections for housing units are also shom in Table 1. Be- eween 1985 and 2002, average annual increases in the amber of housing units across communigies would range from 4 housing units in Trapper Creek to 117 housing units in Waailla. In general, Palmer, Wasil la, and Houston are adding greater numbers of units to housing stock than the smaller communities to the north (Patterson, Soulak, Halapanes, and G. Miller, personal communications, 1984). In 1985, vacancy rates are expected to range from 3 percent in Palmer to 39 percent in Cantwell, Generally, the vacancy rates for communities in the Yukon-Koyukuk census area would be higher than those shom for con-. mities in the Mat-Su Borough. In Cantwell and Healy, vacancy rates are expected to increase over time because older, substandard housing would not be demolished as people move into newer housing units, If the older houses were deaollshed, vacaacy rates would reinain equal to levels shorn Table 1 Baseline Hou~ing Deaand and Supply Selected Comu~it%es 1985, %998, 1995, 1999, and 2002 Cantybze 8% Baseline Aousiag Demand 83 88 83 98 k 01. 136 Idb 3-8f 206 2 25. ~enaandad/~upply .6 .6 .$ ,S .5 BeaBy BaaelLae HoueLag Deaaae 122 141 163 182 199 Baseline Housfn 185 235 285 325 3551 ~emaad/~upply .7 .6 .6 .6 .6 Nenana Baeeline Housing Demand 185 210 238 264 284 Baseffne Housfn 242 277 302 322 337 Dmmod/~upply .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 Talkee tna Baseline Housing Demand 114 146 3-95 242 284 Ba@e%ina Hsusfn 149 184 239 275 382 ~e~and / ~uppl y .8 8 8 .8 .9 .9 Txapper Creek Baseline Housing Belaand 78 97 121 145 165 Ane Hausin 87 107 133 657 178 ~elaandl~upply . 9 .9 .9 .9 .9 Was%l%a Baseline Housing Demand 1,102 1,615 2,365 3,210 4,039 Basel%ne Mousin Supply 1,391 1,977 2,833 3,797 4,744 ~emand/~upply .8 .8 ,8 ,8 .8 Hoas ton BaseXBne Mousing Demnd 254 411 664 975 1,300 Baseline Bousfn 411 6611 911 1,fll 1,261 ~emand/~upply .d . 6 .7 .9 1,O Palmer Baseline Housing Demand 1,073 1,476 1,762 2,0k8 2,255 Baseline Msusfn Supply 1,103 1,517 1,811 2,08~, 2,318 ~emnd/~upply 1.0 -11,O lea B,O 1,0 Source: Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., March 1984, (housing demand projections ); Mat-Su Borough Planning Department, 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984, (base year housing information for Mat-Su cam~nities); Key Irafomanr Interviews. 1984, (base year housing information for Cantwell, Bealy , Nenana and ghowth t~ends in housing suppf y for all comunit%es), *- {'fir <3- S9Wlio Vacancy ~ates %n the other eomwk~itieo: are expeetad to .Ad.E ours- &Arne. However, given eurteatxy avaSlabEe housing end the abllfty of the: construction endustry to add housing to he existin-g seock, baseline hoa@%~lg supply would a~c~rn~date baseline housing demand 1x1 the local 8Zudy axea cornunities between 1985 and 2002, 323 AV E BESTDmTXfi LOT SIZE Data oa t zrage leestdential lot size by eommueity are shown in. Table 2. Aa abated f~ Chapter 2, average residential lot sizes were not assumed to ehdlnge over tinne in most eomunities. Average lot sizes for com~~~~lties ramge in size from 0.2 acres/dwelling unit in blmer to 4.13 acres in T~ayper Cseek, SPACE The ratios used to determine coma~ercial space are also shown in Table 2. Averape comercia1 space requirements for each comercial employee would zasge from 375 feet in Pallner to 10.890 feet in Houston. The estimated residential and eomercial acreages in each cornunity sae sham in Table 3, In order ts prsvide a conservative analysis, supplfes of r~eidentfal and comercia1 land were not asswed to increase over the projection period. In HeaPy, no direct information on the supply of commercial land was svaflable. Hawever, observed comercia1 acreage probably d5d not exceed LO acres 1x2 1984; this ineludes Brannon's, the Healy Roadhouse. the KOlh caapground, and one cafe. Actual acreage was probably closer to 15 acres as may businesses were operated out of homes and some were operated seasonally. Table 2 &exage Residential Lot Size (~cree) aad Squre Footage Per ComercPa1 Employee Selected Comuaitiee 1985, 1990, 1995, 1989, and 2082 CanCvgell Avg. Residential Lot Size 0.7 0,7 8,7 Qe8 6.8 Sq. Ft./~ome~eial Emp. 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Mcahg h\rgy) ResidentiaBLotSfze 1.6 led leg 1.6 1,6 Sq. ~t./@omercial Emp. 1.500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Neaxana Ihvg. Resfdential Lot Size 0.5 0.8 3,.0 1,1 1,2 Sq, ~t./~ormnereial Eap. 8,566 7,095 5,11% 5,071 4,548 Ta%IceeCna Avg, BeaidsntiaP Lot Size 1.2 1,2 12 P,Z 1,. 2 Sq, ~t . /Commeteial Emp. 2,6468 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 Trapper Greek Avg. ResidentialLot Size 4.1 4.1 4.1 4,% 4,1 Sq. ~t./~onunercial Emp. 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 2,640 \qas i%la Avg. Residential Lot Size 1.1 1.1 .ILe$ 1.1 1,P Sq. Ft./~ommercial Emp. 4,987 4,987 4,987 4,989 4,987 Houston Avg. Residential Lot Size 1.1 9.J IeB 1.1 I,$ Sq. Ft./ComerclalEmp. 10,890 10,890 10,890 10.890 10,890 Palmer Avg. Residential Lot Size 0.2 0,2 0.2 0 , 2 Source : CH2M Hill, July 1982, (Palmer data) ; DO&% Engineers, Feb~uary 1983 (land use data for Mat-Su communi- ties); DOWL Engineers, June 1982, (Houston data) ; Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., February 1984, (base year housing unit informtion for Cantwell, Trapper Creek, and Talkeetna); Fraa Orth & Associates, Inc., March 1984 (growth in housing units for all eomuaities); Frank Orth ti Associates, Inc.. 1985 (Cantwell housing data); Mat-Su Borough Assessment Department, November 1981, (residen- tlal land use data for MaZ-Su comunit8es); Mat.sSu Borough P1aaniag Department, Janwry 1982, (residential laad use data for Mt-Su comunities); Overail Economic Development Program Inc., July 1980 (comercial data for Palmer, Wasilla, and Houstoo); and Kegr Iofo~mast Interviews, 1984. Gan"&$ell Res%den%ial Land (acres) Come~cAal Land (acres) NeaBy Residential Land (aeres) Csmercial Land (acres) tqemna Residential Land (aeres) Csmerdal Land (acres) Tdkeetm Wesfdential Laad (acres) Gomercial Laad (acres) Trapper Creek Residential Land (acres) Commercial Land (ac~es) Bousloa Residen%ia% Land (acres) Cornmereial Land (acres) Pabsier Residential Land (acres) Gsmercial Land (acres) Source: CH2M HI=, July 1982 (Palmer data); DOWL Engineers, February 1983, (comercia1 data for Mat-Su eonr madties); DOWL Engineers, June 1982 (Houston data) ; Prank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985 (Cantwell housing data); Mat-Su Borough Assessment Department, November 1981, (residen- tial land use bta for Mat-Su camunities); Mat-Su Borough Planning Department, January 1982, (residential land use data for Mat-Su communities); and Key Informant Interviews, 1984. PL, 10118 term supplies of developable acreages sboam in Table 3 are iak- jeee to change depending 08 several eonditiens. First, the ssuppl:~ of 1taBd rrighin the cornunity boundarfes used for this repore does not in- clude Naefve %aa4ae Hf Natfve land were made available, aoderate in- cxeaees fn the supply of developable land would occur inside the bound- aries u~ed ~OE b~t~el~le Second, the boua3ariea used in this report were chosen sc that they would confo~m with those used fa the socioecsnom%gz model. If the~e boundaries were enlarged, then there would be greater supplies of developable land available near tfie Mat-Su Borough cornunities and Healy. Fob example, there are approxintately 210 acres of ptivate land within one mile of Tafkeetna, 1,280 acres of private land within one mile of Trapper Creek, ernd 640 acbes of private land within one ntfle cf Healy (DOWL Engineers, 1983; U.S. Departmeat of Interior, 1976). There is substantially more private acreage surrounding the cornunities of Houston, Wasilla , and Palraer as private lands account for about 95 percent of the land Bur- rounding these cornunities (DOWE Engineers, 1983). FOE Cantwell and Eldnana, there is lietle available private land outside of the bolandaries used for these two communities (U.9 Department af Interior, 1976). Third, the loneterm supply of developable land can be increased olrer ti= through land use regulations governing development densities and through annexations for second and first elass cities. Currently. the ciefes of Houston and Palmer have set-aside enough residential and cow mercial land to ~ccomodate foreseeable growth for a 20-year period (M)WL Engineera, 1982 and 1983). 1 addition, the cornunities of Wasilla, Palmer, and Houston can expand by annexing adjacent land area. T'ne comparisoa of residential land demand to supply is shorn in Table 4 for each community. As shorn in. Table 4, no residential land use con- straints would exist for any community under baseline conditions. Table 4 Ba~ekine Demad faz Residential Land and Supply of Res$denEial Land (Pa ~chspes) Selec~ed Cornunities 1985, 1990, 1995, 1999, and 2002 Demaad SUPP~Y 11 Ratio - Talkee tna De~and SUPP~Y~/ Ratio - aaa 171 224 278 327 600 600 600 600 680 .2 .3 .4 * 5 .ti Trapper Creek Bernand 322 401 500 599 681 SUPP~Y~~ 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 Ratio .1 .I. .I .I .2 Mouseon Demnd 279 452 730 1,673 1,430 SUPP~Y~~ 4,668 4.668 4,668 4,668 4.668 Ratio - .I . b .2 . 2 .3 Source : CH2M Hill, 1982, (Palmer data) ; DOWI, Engineers, 1983 (land use dafa for Mat-Su communities); DOWL Engineers, 1982, (Houston data); Frank Orth h Assoeiates, Inc., February 1984, (base yeas housing unit information for Cantwell, Trapper Creek, and Talkeetna); Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., March 1984 (growth in housing units for all comunities); Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985 (Cant:xell housiug data); Mat-Su Bo~ough Assesamen%: Department, November 1981, (residea- tial band use data hr Mat-Su comunities~ Mat-Su Borough Planuing Deparement, January 1982, (residential land use data for Mat-Su comunities); Overall Econatnic Development Program Inr., July 1980 (commercial data for Paher, Wasilla, and Houston); and Key Infosrnant Interviews, 1984. 16 In 2985, ses$dcaeial land use would not exceed 4% parcennt of av~\if :ib%e Land .An say ccsmraa:ty. En MenSam and Houstm, only 6 pezcen% of tile %upply of residential land would be asedr By 2002, 78 genrcect of reof- de~tial laad in Waa,sbl%s~ would be in use. Oaly 16 percent of avafliable residential land in Tbapger Creek woubd be used in 2002, The other cow munities would fall rirPthia the 16 to 78 percent saage in 2002. 3,5,2 @smesc$a% Laad Demand and Su~plv, Table 5 eompsres the demnd for commercial land with the available supply of land in each eomunity. The delnand for comercia1 land muld increase rap%dly ia the communities of Canbwell, Talkeetna, Houston, Healy, and Tgappa~ Creek, ranging from 44 percent in Cantwell to 374 percent in Souszon bemeen 1985 and 2002, In absolute terms, the ~hAnges in ;~ncwell and Trapper Creek represent a total of less then two acres in either eomudty. The percentage of avablable cormmercial land in use would not exceed LOO percent in any comuniltgr under baseline conditions during 1985. In Txap~~r Creek, only 10 percent of the available commercial land would be in uBe. 1;~ Cantwell, 40 percent of comercia1 Land would be fn use durira~ 1985. By 2002, rhe use of eomercial land uroaald range from 20 percent An Trapper Creek to 190 percent fn Nenaoa. Only Cantwell, Nenaaa, Talkeetna, HeaLy, and Wasilla would use 50 percent or more nf the available commercial land in their com~mitles by 22002. Baeell~e Bemnd foe Comercia% Land and Supply of Co~merciaB Laad (in &re@) Selected Cornunities 1985, 1990, 1995, 1989, and 2082 Trapper Creek hmnd SUPP~Y~/ Ratlo ,, Houston kmnd S~PP~Y~/ Ratfo ,, Palmer Demnd 20 24 28 38 34 SUPP~Y~~ 121 121% 121 121 121 Ratis - .2 .2 , 2 .3 . 3 Source : CNZM Hill, 1982, (Palmer data) ; DOa Engineers, 1983 (land use data for Mat-Su communities); DOljL Engineers, 1982, (Houston data); Frank Orth h Associates, Inc. , February 1984, (base year housing unit informtion for Cantwell, Trapper Creek, and Trplkeetna); Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., March 1984 (growth in housing units for all comunities); Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., 1985 (Cantwell housing data); Mat-Su Borough Assessment Department, November 1981, (resides- t%al %and use data for i%lBat-Su comunft%es); Mat-Su Borough Planning Department, 1982, (residential land use data for Mat-Su communities); Overall Economic Development Program IBC., July 1980 (comercial data for Palmer, Gdasilla, and Houston); and ~ey Informant Interviews, 1984. 18 4,0 PROJECT EFFECTS A os~joe assuqtion 06 the soef oecononale project% alas 2.n th$s chapter 988%; that ~ehe baseline supplies of housing, resf dentgal land, and ~omerci~~l kaSghd w&?xe used ~o deternine the w%.r~tbp+oject s-applf es of Rousing and land cchsaacterfstics in the cornunities selected for analysis, in other ~fr~s:ds, the Project was assumed to affect the demand side of RousBng and la~d uae mrkets and nat khe supply side. Therefore, baseline supplies cf huushf: and land defined the ability of communities to accept in-. migrating pro)eet-selated workers. P9c:.jeelb effects on the demand for housing are shown in Table 6. Tl2is table shows the nuo~ber of project-elated households that would relocate to a specific comu~ity if sufficient housing urere available. For Cant- 1 two group8 of project-related workers are identified. The firet prolap are nonloeal Railhead workers accompanied by families. While all nojlocal, unaccompanied Railhead workers would be aceornodated at single status housing provided by the Power Authority, it was assmed that about 7 percent af the ~lonlocal workers would be accompanied by families and require housing in the cornunity (Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., April 1985). The second group represents workers who would move their permaeat residence to Cantwell to obtain work on the projeet-related facllfties at the dam site, It was assued ghat each of these dam sLte workers would obtain houstfng in Cantwell and tfnat thei~ housing would not be provided by the Alaska Power Authority except when they are working at the Project s%te, Large increases in project-related housing demand would occur in the cornunities of Cantwell, Healy, Trapper Creek, and Talkeetna. Web the Project construction period, between 175 and 241 project-related workers would seek housing in Cantwell, between 23 and 86 project-related workers would seek housing in Healy and Trapper Creek, and between 16 and 59 pxdject-related workers wauld seek housing in Talkeetna. These project- related Pnereases w~ula account for increases aver baseline Cemand of be- tween 40 and 274 percent f~,r these eomunkties during 1990. 140cieazte increases in housing demand ?auld oreul: %a other comwufiitirr~ frazn projecz-related eonstruetion and operations aet%vit%es. me number 02 households that nsuld seloca~e ts Nenaaa, Palmer, tqasilla, sr Hou~tsn 3&~oaald EEinGe fzorn 9 households per comafey to 41 households per com~ni- Zy over the Project construction period. The percent increase over baer 51a.e housing demand wauld range from 2 percent in 63aeflE;a to 20 garcent %.n 2Geaam %a 1990, Tbe ability of a eomunity to accomodate project-related housing demand ba determined by the number of housing units that would be vac;mt after baselane housing demand is met. The number of available housing units is shorn in Table 6 lor each community. If the assumptions outllned in chaptezs two and three car-inue to apply for the with-project slcen.irio, sufficieng housing would exist in Healy, Nenana, Wasilla, and Palmer to aceomobte the population influx caused by the Project as shown in Table 6. However, insufficient housing would be available in the cornunities of H~u~toa, Cantwell, Talkeetna, and Trapper Creek. In Youston, insufficient housing to accomnaodate project-related demand would not OCCUZ. until 2002. However, there is excess capacity in the loesf coastruction industry in Houston. Full use of the capability of Ehis industry would add 306 units to the total shown for Houston in 2002. Thus. Houston would probably be able to accommodate potential housing demand created by the Project. me nubes of hauseholds that camot be acccbmodated in Q%a;ltwell would range from about 122 in 1985 to 168 in 1990. Umet ~OUSIPI~ demand in Cantwell would represent about 70 percent of the pro jec t-related households seeking to in-migrate to the town in 1990. In addition. denrand for housing would exceed supply in every year after 1990. Cunrently, there is no excess capacity in the Cantwell conetruetion industry tc increase available housing. ~vailable housing in Cantwell can be increased in two ways. First, large contractors from Fairbanks could enter the Cantwell market to help meet the expected demnd fax housing (Anchorage contractors are considered to 9*, UL *roo far away). It 88 likely that FairbaaIqs eeretrae~ors may enzes El e Can-L~re3-2 market as several have already ente~ed the. N~afy market. Baai~s %a Pnfrbanlcs also have some expercl~aca with finsnneing in the Cane~~elI. z~a~xket (Lomay, personal comunicatlca, 1984). Second, the potential shortage of housing could be alleviated by project workers bringing their ow8 mobile homes inato a comu~itg. Accoxdlng to surweys of const~uction workera conducted on the Anchorage-Faiebanlrs ?inteatie Transmiaeion Line Project and the Terror Lake Hydroelectric Project, between 7 and 24 percent of the workers resided in mobile hcrnes dur%ng construction (Frank Orth & Associates, July 1984; Harzsr--Ebasco. April1 1985). Assuming that these percentages would be representative of %he percentage of Susitna Project construction workers living in mobPle homes, unmet project-related demand in Cantwell would be reduced by 10 to 33 percent in 1990. Hawever, umet project-related demand would stf ll exist in every year between 1985 and 2002. SafficPenf housing would exist in Talkeetna during 1985 but not 1x3 aubsequeni: years because project-related demand would continue to illcrease while slrailable housing is expected to decrease. As shown in Table 6, umet project-related demand would raoge froc L households in 1995 to 28 households in 2002. According to available secondary data, as many as 19 housing units per year have been added to the Talkeetna housing stock between 1982 and 1983 (mt-Su Borough Planning Department, 1982-1983). Wswever, the merage rate sf new hoursing units acBded each year since 1980 was 9 units per year. The average rate was assumed for lthe prcpjeetions shorn in Table 6. The ability to add 19 units in a year e~.%ggests that excess capacity exists in the local construction industry. If 19 units were added in each year after 1985, there would be sufficient housing in Talkeetna during the 1985 to 2002 period to accommodate all Project workers who might relocate there. ng an increase in. housing supply of 9 units per year and 24 percent of the in-migrating construction workers bring their own mobile homes with them, umet project-related demand would not exist in Talkeetna unZiP 1999, Under these condICions, unminet project-relazed demand wsuld range from 6 units in 1999 to 17 units in 2002. merefore, it is unlike- ly that Talkeetna would experience a hausing shortage due to project- a t er'Sac%a on hoursirng if a greater pexcentage of eens$racbl, asz capac8tlp ?rere uged to pcavlde housing, some r~orkers briag mobile home:^, OE a c~mb%na&%~n of bath of %13ese OCCUFB~ 1% Trapper Greek, there wauld be less available housing than in Tafkeet-- begween 1985 and 2002, Fourteen ksueeholds would not be accsmnodated :!.XI 1985, and thfs would grow to 76 households by 1990. Uamet deruaxld. woad exceed 88 pezcene of project-related workere who would relocate Ske~e in 1990. However, excesa capacity in the construction industry p~~bably exists in this cornunity as well. Between 1982 and 1983, an esefmted 11 houeing units were added to the total housing stock. If thAa rate is assumed to be a measure? of the ability of the constsuctian industry go add housing in Trapper Creek, then housing supply estimates fof the cornunity could be much higher than those shc-m in Table 6 which are based on an average increase of four houseboLds per year. Applying the rate of 11 units per year to estimates of Trapper Creek housing stock in $984 (83 mita), would increase the number of available housing units to 16 units in 1985, 52 units by 1390. and 83 units by 1995. Based on this informtion, umet demand ~ould still exist in the community durfng 1985 and 1990, however, it would be substantially reduced. Thereafter, available housing would he sufficient to accommodat~ project-related demnd hr housing, The Bntrodcctioa of mobile homes to Trapper Greek would reduce, but nst eliainate, unmet project-elated demnd for housing. If 24 percent of the %=-migrating workers to Trapper Creek bring mobile homes and net additions to housfng supply are assumed to occur at the rate of 4 units per year, then unmet project-related demand would decrease by 20 to 30 percent between 1990 and 2002. FOP the communities of Talkeetna and Trapper Creek, the entrance of Mat- Su Valley contractors into the local housing market in 1985 could in-- crease the capacity of the construction industry in these two cornunities so that a sufficient nunber of housing unito could be constructed to . accommodate expected increases in housing demand (Berberich. Buell, Da%is, Malapanes, McMasters. Miller, mil, Waelbrock. Wilkins, Wilson, ,lendp tlaads , personal comunieations , 1986s ) . The Pnceet Eve for ~heae c m- Zracgors to aove ghefse som%wai%ies mu%d not be very great as t:he area ehey ase presently working .&a experiencing substantial gra~fth and rzoa~stxuetLoa f &naacfn@; my be more dgf ff cult to obtain in Talkeetna andl Trappen: Creek because of the unfarniliaritg of banks about condftlboras in those camunitir?s. However, mlay of the Mat-Su Valley coatreactars have established perforlasnce resoxds with Anchorage banks and the risk of building holnes =Ln Trapper Creek and Talkeetna would be oplbstcbneially zedueed if the hom~s that they build dire prcsold. sy, Trapper Creek and Talkeetna are likely to experience dfffi- ~i%tty in provicllng project-related housing. Excess eonstructfon capaciey , the ingroduction of mobile homes, and entry by additional contractors my provide the means to meet housing demand. Ia Cantwell, the demand would be greatest and excess construction capacity would not be 8ufficfent to meet that demand, Table 7 compares the project-related demand for residential land with the 0 available supply of land in each community. The Project demnd for rest- dential land would be greatest in those cornunities experiencing the greatest increase in ptoject-related households. Thus, Cantwell, Healy. Trapper Creek, and Talkeetna would experience relatively greater impacts fro= co. ltruction of the Project than would Nenana and cornunities in the eouthern EiLat-Su Borough. The cornunities with the most limited amount of available residential land would include Cantwell, Healy, Talkeetna, and Palmer. Other com- munities such as Wasilla, Houston, Trappen: Cxeck, and Nenana would have larger supplies of residential acreage available. Project-Belazed Demnd far Wegfden8IaP Lsnd and Available Supply of Reefdentla1 Land (ia Acres) Selected GomFrnLties 1989, 1990, 3995, 1999, and 2002 Ca~.~c%~elI P-Related DU 118 169 144 165 149 Available SU 184 178 159 164 159 11 Umet Demand 0 O 0 I 0 Healy P-Belated DU 40 137 187 118 185 Available SU 252 222 187 15% 130 I! Umee Demand 0 8 0 8 0 P-Related BU 6 33 33 40 37 Available SU 1.484 1,405 1,339 1,282 1,234 1i UmeE Demand .,,- 0 0 0 0 0 Talkee tna B-Related Dm 18 68 53 59 53 Available SU 469 429 376 322 273 a/ Umee Demand ,- 0 0 0 0 8 Trapper Creek P-Related DU 95 355 277 306 269 Available SU n/ 3,978 3,899 3.800 3,701 3,619 UmeE Deaand - 0' 0 0 0 8 Wasilla P-Redated DWL 13 45 37 40 35 Axfailable Su 4,676 4.091 3,236 2,273 1,328 liTgmet Demand r! 0 0 6 0 0 Hsustsn P-Belated Dm 11 40 31 35 31 Available SU 4,389 4,216 3,938 3,595 3,238 Umet Demand 1/ 0 8 0 6) 8 P-Related BU 2 7 6 7 6 Available SU 397 31 7 260 206 161 a/ Umet Demand - 0 0 0 0 0 1/ Umet demand is equal to zero whenever supply exceeds demand. Source : CH2M Hill. 1982, (Palmer data) ; DOWL Engineers. 1983 (land use data for Mat-Su communities) ; DOWL Engineers, 1982. (Houston data) ; Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., February 1984. (base year housing unit information for Cantwell, Trapper Creek, and Talkeetna); Frank Orth & Associates, Ine., March 1984 (growth fn housing units for all csmmunitles); Frank Orrh & Associates, Inc., 1985 (Cantwell housing data); mt-Su Borough Bss~9~sment Department, November 1981, (resfden- $%a1 land use data f~r MaeSu comunities); Plat-Su Borough Planning Department, January 1982, (residential land use data for Mat-Su communities); Key Informant htervfews, 1984. BeeldenEfaJ- laad use constra2nts would not exi~t %n aay 60mwaity except: geaedbly Gant~ePI. In 1990, available supply of residential. land tould exceed project-related demnd for residential baad by 9 acres. 9?hs 178 aczea of available Land ssdd aeeomodate a toga% of 254 households a8 the prevailing average lot size of 0.7 acres in 1990, Project-related deaand for land has the gzeatest likelfhood of exceeding ~ivaiIab3,e supply 3.m 1999. Newever, slight variations in the forecase assumptions and roagnddng procedures could easily reduce umet demnd foe Cantwell Jtn 1999 to zero. By 2002, there would be 10 acres of residential land available for use in hnme311 out of the total 248 acres. The faad use conetraiata Gan%wcll are minor and could disappear if Ahtna Native Corporation develops 8oBe of its land to provide housing or if the 160-acre parcel of land being disputed because of litlstion over title is placed in no%-Native private omexship. Table 8 compares the project-related demand for commercial land with the available supply of land in each comunity. The pro ject-related demand for eotnosercial land wodd increase rapidly in the cornunities of Cant- ~rell, Talkeetna, Nenana, and Trapper Creek. As a percent of available comercia1 land, projestlelated demand would range from 2 percent in 5Jasllla to 67 percent in Nenana during 1990. The changes in the anrolant of comercia6 acreage affected by the Project would range from I acre in Healy and Ca,newell in 1990 to 8 acres in Noustoa. Less than 8 acres of coanmgreial acreage would be available in either Cantwell, Healyl or Nenana during the Project construction perPod. atwe en, Acreage would be more plentiful in Trapper Creek and Talkeetna (b, 15 and 30 aeres) during the c~nstruction period. All other cornunities would bve usused commercial acreage in 2xcess of 30 acres. Table 6 PrcjecE-Related Demnd for Comesrial Land and Available Supply 0% C~maneseial Lad (As Acres) Seleeted Camanitie~ 1985, 1990, 1995, 1999, and 2002 P-Relazed BCE 0 1 0 8 6 BvaflaBle SCE 8 7 6 6 5 Umet Demaad 0 0 0 0 0 P-Related DCL 0 2 0 P 0 Available SCE 3 3 2 2 1 Umez DemnFBd 0 0 0 0 0 Tsappe~ Creek -elated DCL P 3 I. 1 0 Available S@% 17 16 16 86 15 Umet Demnd 0 0 0 0 8 Y~si3~la P-Related DCL 1 6 1 3 1 Available SCL 484 4018 33% 279 2 31 Ume~ Demand 0 0 0 0 0 P-Rebated DCL 8 2 0 0 0 Avadlablhe %@L 101 97 93 90 8% 1/ The Railhead facility which would lease a 25-acre site from 1985- 1993 is not shown under either supply or demand. Source: CH2M Hill, 1982, (Palmer data) ; DOWL Engineers, 1983 (land use data for Mat-Su comudties); DOWL Engineers, 1982. (Houston data); Fra* Orth & Associates, IBC~, February 1984, (base year housing unit informatioa for Cantwell, Trapper Greek, and Talkee tna) ; Prank Orth & Associates, Inc.. March 1984 (growth in housing unizs for all cornmunitLee); Franb Orth & Associates, Iac., 1985 (6an~ell housing data); Mat-Su Borough Assessment Department, November 1981, (residen- tdal f.and use data fh>% Mat-SU comunities); Hat-Su Borough Planning Department. January 1982, (residential land use data for Mat-Su comunities); Key Informant Interviews, 1984. "araed on the analysis %HI th%s report, the eomunieies of Cantwell, e 3 *~;llgeeens, end Trapper Creek may expe~iesee difficulties Pn meeting pro ject-related inereaees f n housing demnd. In iGan%weIl, I% is assu~med ghat 15 percent of the pro jeet-related demnd for housing is met through use of mabile homes9 tbb 5 percent of the pro)ect-.eelated demand for b~us%ag is met thsougb entry by Fafrballtcs ccntraetors, and that 2 percent 69 aITouaed fox error, Nowever, the increase in available housing uaf ts fsom these sources is assmed to be offset by the number of available housing =its in Cantwe11 which are substandard in condition. merefore, the number of available hocsing units shown in Table 6 are assued ta repxesent the amber of housing units that can actually be used for shelter, UwccamodateB a~rkers at Ca~satweakl would be allocated to Wealg, tJenallin, and Fairbanks which have the capacity to absorb them. Fax TaLkeetna, assuming that 15 percent of he project-related demand for hou~fng is met through the use of mobile homes, that 5 percent of the project-related demand is met through entry of Mat-Su Valley contractors, thar an additional 3 units per year can be provided by local contractors, and ghat 2 percent is allowed for error, umet project-related demand would be eliminated between 1985 and 2002. Because most of the available boasing units in Talkeetna are in good condition, unmet project-related demand %Hh Talkeetna %B aa~~umed to be very close to zero, Applying the assumptions used for Talkeetna to Trapper Creek, unmet de- aaad from the Ptojeet would be reduced between 1985 and 1999 and elimi- nated thereafter. Under these. conditions, unmet project-related demand would be xeduced by about 50 pltrcent in 1985 and 1990 in Trapper Creek. During 1995 and 1999. et project-related demand would be reduced to 20 and 3 percent of the reepective numbers shown in Table 6. However, br cause the condition of the housicg units that are available after base- Pine housing demand is met is not known, a conservative constraint using the umet project-related demand numbers sham in Table 6 is used. Work- era that cannot be aeconomodated at Trapper Creek are allocated to the subu~ban area of ehe Mat-Su Borough, The following re;omendations regarding the incorporation of capacity Cantwell ~7.aould be unable to aceomnodate the expected hounsimag demand placed upon ft: by the Susizna Prc~jece asadex the condi- tko~s 886~~;led to occur in this report, Therefore, housfrmg cp- pacity eoaetsaiots should be fneorpozat@d into 6he gravity model allocations for Castwell to prevent mare households from in- lnigratjing into bnme%l than can adequately be accomodailted by the supply of houeing and the production cspabilfties of the local construction induetry. 2) Using baseline supply forecasts, Talkeetna would be able to ac- earnodate almost all the housing demand expected from the Susit- aa Project, Because there appears to be excess capacity in the local construetian industry, no capacity constraPnt should be ikncorporated in the gravity model allocations for this community, Trisppex Creek would be unable to acconunodate over 88 percent of the hou~seholds projected to in-migrate to the community as a result of Susitna Project construction durPng 1990. These households are unable to move into this cornunity because of the inability of the local construction industry to keep up with housing demand. Although some excess capacity exists in the local construction industry, it is not sufficient to accommodate all the project-related demand for housing. Therefore, it is recornended that capacity constraints as outlined above be incorporated into gravity model allocations for Trapper Creek. The presence of houaing constraints Trapper Creek could be relnoved under certain conditione. Since there is plenty of residential land available in the c~mfnmity (78 percent vacant in Trapper Creek during 20021, the penebration of the housing market by Mat-Su valley contractors could provide sufficient housing to accomodate project-related delaand. How- ever, the kikeiihood that entry by Mat-Su valley contractors would occur ie not known at this efllle. Therefore, rhe recommendation is no2 mod%- ffed. For a11 other communities, constraints in housing supply, residen- tial land supply, and commercial land supply are not expected to occur, LIST OF REF DOkX Engiaeeers, (draft) , Febxw sy 1983. Do"%% Engineers , Junile 1982, Pxa* Orth h Phsseciates, Inc. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Emiron- mengal Studies, , Pre Fred Orth & As%;sciatee, Ine. Skssjetna Mydroelestrie Project, Environ- mental Studies, Prepared for Alaska Power Authority. Bellevue, WA: July 1984. Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Environ- mentab StudAes (draft) . Prepared for Alaska Power huth Barza-Ebaseo Susitna Joint Venture, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, En- vihomental Studies, Cantwell Househ and aska Katza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture, Susitna Hydroelectric Project, En- Prepared for Alaska Parer Authority. Anchorage, AK: April 1985. Plat-Su Borough Assessment Department. Palmer, AKt November 198 Mat-Su Borough Planning Department, Janury 1982. Matanuska-Susitna Planning Department, Palmer, AK: 1982, Matamska-Susitna Plaming Department, Matanuska-Susitna B Palmer, &Kt 1982, Matanuska-Suaiena Planning Departmegat, Palmer, AK: 1983. CES (eksia&$slued) Ovezajll Ecoaoraic Development Program Iac. $$ Volume .I Uaited State% Department of Interior. Geological Surveybbprps of Land Dieposals In Fairbanks aad Healy areas. Flled 1976. Jig& Bbakke~ray, Healy Contractor, personal ccmuafcatfon, October 25, 1984, Bob Buell, kJasilfa contractor, personal comua&catAoa, December 12, 1984.. Jack Cagghila, Menam eontractor, personal comudcatisn, November 23, 1984, W%lliarn Cottet, Neaaw contractor, pers~nal comuaieation, Mavembar 23, 1984, Geoggc Davis, WasLila C~ntract~r, personal comunicatlon, Novembee 28, 1984, Bcb Gilbertson, Cantwell Contractor, petsoual communication, October 26, 1984, Robert Ball, Ben Lornand Construction Co.. personal eomunication, November 23, 1984, Urea Barvey , City Clerk, City of Menam, personal comanica.tion, October 24, 1984 and December 27. 1984. Casl Jouhala, Nenana contractor, personal eomunication, October 24, 1984, Jeff Ring, McKinley Park contractor, personal camnunication, November 29, $984, Steve LindahP, Healy contractor, personal communication. October 25, 1984. Jim Looney, National Blaska Bank of the North, personal communication, Decembe~ 3, $984, Jim Malapanes, Wasilla-Palmer contractor, personal camunication, Novelnber 27, 1984, Robert McMasters, McMastere Homes, petsonal comunication, December 18, 1984 Gary Miller, Houston contractor, personal comunication. Nove3ber 27, 1984, Mke Miller, Gant~~ell contractor, personal eomunieation, Betober 26, 1984, Jim NaP1, Houston contractor, personal communication, December 26, 1984. LIST OF PFB-SONU Co (continued) David SouSak, City Manager, City of Paloaer, personal eonomunfcatio~\, Hovembex 28% $984. Daa igaelbt-oek, Msat-Su Valley ccntractcr, personal comuniecption, De~eaber 12, 8984 e Jpm Bilkins, Wasilla area coneractor, personal cormuaieati0n, Novembea: as, rs8.c. O~ie Williams, Henam contractor, pereoaal communication, November 20, 1984, Ddlas Wilson, Wasilla area contractor, personal eonununication, Ncvenber 28, 1984, Jah Woods, Houston contractor, personal cornmunfcation, December IT, 1984.