..

~

~~-'I

if

w '

I I' I I I l,

I l

I I I I I I I I I

--.~ ·-·--~ .. -

~

SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT No. 7114

WORKING PAPER NUMBER 2: TECHNIC-AL DESCRIPTION OF THE

SOCIOECONOMIC MODEL

FRANK ORTH & ASSOCIATES, INC.

UNDER CONTRACT TO

[}{]~ffi1?£~c::J~[ID~®©@ SUSITNA JOINT VENTURE

FINAL REPORT

MARCH 19514

DOCUMENT No. 1441

.._____ALASKA POWER AUTHORITY _ __.

",-·

L t ,· i·

'

I 1---. '

.

I"

:

'

I -' I I

I I I I I I I I I I I

SCBITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

WORKING Pl.lPER NUMBER 2:

Document No. 1441 Susitna File No. 4.5.3

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC MODEL

Report by Frank Orth & Associates, Inco

Under Contract to Harza-Ebasco Susitna Joint Venture

Prepared for Alaska Power Authority

Final Report March 1984

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

1UiY QUESTXORS OR COMMERTS CONCERNING

TBJ:S RBPOR~ SHOULD BB D~ TO

TBB ALASKA i'OWER AOTBORJ:TY

SUS:IDA PROJEC~ OPP:ICE

'-.:··.

I I I I I I I I I I I .

I I I I I I I I.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC MODEL USED TO PROJECT IMPACTS OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IN THE LICENSE APPLICAITON SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATION COMMISSION

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND ON THE SOFTW.ARE AND NOMENCLATURE

III. ECONOMIC-DEMOGRAPHIC MODULE

IV~ PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES MODULE

V. FISCAL MODULE

B. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC MODEL USED TO PROJECT IMPACTS OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

I. lliTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND ON THE SOFTWARE AND NOMENCLATURE

III. ECONOMIC-DEMOGRAPHIC MODULE

IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES MODULE

V. FISCAL MODULE

C.. REFERENCES

· D. APPENDIX A

PAGE

1

2

10

11

12

13

15

23

26

27

28

35

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I ll

~· I

FINAL WORKING PAPER 112

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC MODEL USED TO PROJECT IMPACTS OF THE SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

IN THE LICENSE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

I. INTRODUCTION

This paper presents a technical description of the socioeconomic impact model used to project the impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project as submitted in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) License Application.

The model was originally set up in a microcomputer environment. During 1983, the model was converted to a more flexible software package on a larger computer system.. This conversion allowed far greater integration and flexioility in the model. Many sets of calculations that w.ere pre­viously done by hand were also included in the computerized model. ·A final advantage of the conversion lies in the ability to print out each of the equations that comprise the model, in the order in which they are executed.

The equations in the Facilities/Services and Fiscal modules of the model have remained almos~ exactly the same as those in the origin&! model. In the Economic-Demographic module, many of the equations are identical to the original model, but major differences in methodology and several smaller enhancements were executed during the conversion. For efficiency and ease of readability! print-outs of the Facilities/Services and Fis­cal modules and the unchanged portion of the Economic-Demographic module are presented in the new format. In the areas in which the original Economic-Demographic modt?.le has changed, the original equations are pre­sented in typewritten form as inserts in Exhibit 2.

. , , \

I .I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I

II. BACKGROUND ON THE SOFTWARE AND MODEL NOMENCLATURE

As a result of the fact the equations are being provided in the form they are input to the computer, it may be difficult for individuals unfamiliar with this computer software package to understand the model without some background explanation. The following description is meant to facilitate understanding of the model by describing the software with which it was formulated and the conventions used in developing it.

A. Description of the Software

Data*Model is a computerizad spreadsheet program in which the data, cal­culations and reports are independent modules. The model can handle up to 500 time periods and 30,000 rows. Data*Model is available for ap­proximately 12 different mini- and micro-computer systems. The major components of a model using this software are:

1.

3.

4.

A Row Definition, which defines all data inputs, parameters, and variables that are used in the model.

Model definition files, which store data and equations.

A Spreadsheet, the data file in which the results of the model's calculations are stored. In this spreadsheet, each variable is a row, and each year for which a projection is made is a column.

Report formats, which store instructions for the presentation of any combination of projections (results) and assumptions. A variety of repo~ts are generated from each spreadsheet model.

Vertical report formats store instructions for the var­iables that are to be displayed, and the order in which they will appear.

Horizontal report formats define the horizontal dimension of the reports: the time periods that are to be shown and the order in which they will appear.

Page 2

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

B. The ~lodules and Conventions for Naming of Files

The model has three modules. TI?-e Economic-Demographic module provides information on the project's work force and the impact that the Project would have on population, employment, and housing in the various impact areas. The Public Facilities and Services module calculates the impact of the Project on facility and service requirements in the Local Impact Area. The Fiscal module calculates the effect of the Project on the revenues and expenditures of incorporated public entities in the region.

Each module has one rowname file which describes all variables that will be used or calculated in that module, and one or more model definition files containing the calculations for each scenario. If there are ul­timately 10 scenarios, there will be more than 30 separate model defini­tion files created. Accordingly, conventions were set for the naming of the files so that which module and scenario are being described may be readily identified.

1. Row Name Files:

As noted above, each module will have one rowname file:

ECON FSER FISM

for Economic/Demographic module for Facilities and Services module for Fiscal module

2. Model Definition Files:

The first four letters stand for the type of module; the second two char­acters for the scenario:

Modules: ECON FSER FISC

for Economic/Demographic module for Facilities and Services module for Fiscal module

Scenarios: 01, 02, etc.

ECONOl, FSEROl, and FISCOl contain data and assumptions used in the ~ERC License Application. ECON02, FSER02, and FISC02 are updated to include recently received data on baseline conditions. ECON03, FSER03, and FISC03 contain the updated data and assumptions on a bus-transit sce­nario as well.

3. Vertical and Horizontal Report Definitions

Vertical report definitions have a suffix of V. Horizontal report defin­itions have a suffix of H.

Page 3

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I

C. Coding of Rownames

Rownames in Data*Model can be up to 7 letters long. Because of the large amount of variables used in the model (approximately 14,000), a stan­dardized rowname coding system was devised.

The seven-character field was divided into 4 components (sub-fields), as shown:

1 234 5 67.

1. The first one-character field is used to describe the s:ategory of information that is being utilized. These groupings reflect the fact that the data on impacts often need to be analyzed from many perspectives. Accordingly, the model calculates the value of the variables with and without the Project, during the construction and operations ph!3.ses, taking into account the indirect/induced effects of the Project.

Possible choices for this field are:

A - Capacity (housing units and capacity of facilities and in the local impact area)

B - Baseline Scenario C - Construction Phase (D + E) D - Direct Effects of Construction Phase E - Indirect and Induced Effects of Construction Phase F - Operations Phase (G + H) G - Direct Effects of Operations Phase H -Indirect and Induced Effects of'Operations Phase I - Direct Effects of Project including both the Construction

and Operations Phases (D + G) J - Direct Total (I + B) K - % Change of Direct Total Over Baseline (I/B*lOO)

L - Vacant Units or Excess (Insufficent) Capacity (under Direct Total Demand) (A-J)

M - Vacancy Rate (under Direct Total Demand) (L/A*lOO)

P - Total Effects of Project, including both the Construction and Operations Phases ( C + F)

T - Total Baseline + Project

U - % Change of Total Over Baseline

V - Vacant Units (under W/Project Demand) W - Vacancy Rate (under W/Project Demand) Z - Statistic

Page 4

(B + P)

(P/B*lOO)

(A-T) (V/A*lOO)

services

• I

I I I I I I I "

'

I I I I I • •

2. The second three-character field indicates the type of data or sta­tistic. There are several hundred of these types of variables. Some examples are shown below:

EMP - Employment POP - Population PPH - Population-per-household HOH - Households AWA - Average Daily Water Requirements PSC - Primary School-Age Children AWV - Areawide Assessed Valuation LPT - Local Property Tax

A complete listing is provided in Appendix A.

3. The third field is a one-character geographic level indicator

1. Camp site camps and village(s) 2. Mat-Su Borough communities 3. Valdez-Chitina-Wllittier communities 4. Yukon-Koyukuk communities 5. Community groupings of other types

For example, the suffix 5MS is used to designate the sum of all areas in the Mat-Su Borough outside of the work site. When popu­lation or employment of the whole borough, including the work sites, is being calculated, the rowname will have a suffix of 6MS.

6o Census divisions 7. Local Impact Area 8. h~chorage and Fairbanks subareas 9. Region

10. State

Page 5

I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~·

I

I I I . I ll

4. Two characters indicating community/place abbreviations.

Work sites: Wl Work camp 1 (At Watana) Vl Village 1 W2 Work camp 2 (At Devil Canyon) V2 Village 2 {No second village is planned at present. This was

placed in the model for future flexibi.lity.) WC Total of Wl, Vl, W2~ and V2. W3 Cantwell railroad camp V3 Cantwell community

Mat-Su Borough Communities PA Palmer WA Wasilla HO Houston OT Other Mat-Su Borough SU Surburban RU Rural and Remote

TC Trapper Creek TK Talkeetna

Railroad communities: {No baseline data at this time) GC Gold Creek SH Sherman CU Curry CH Chase CL Chulitna CA Canyon LA Lane HU Hurricane/Indian River subdivision

!ukon-Koyukuk Communities CN Cantwell HE Healy MC McKinley NE Nenana

Census Divisions and Subareas AN Anchorage FN Fairbanks~orth Star Borough SF SE Fairbanks SW Seward KC Kenai-Cook Inlet MS Matanuska-Susitna Borough YK Yukon-Koyukuk VL Valdez-Chitina-Whittier

Valdez-Chitina-Whittier Communities GL Glennallen VA Valdez CC Copper Center GU Gulkana PX Paxson

Page 6

--~ ,_ . ......,.~ttt""- ,.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I E

I

I I I I I

5. An Example

For instance, BPOP6MS is the rowname that will contain data on baseline population in the ~mt-Su Borough for the years 1981 to 2005o

TPOL2TC contains data on the requirements for police in the Mat-Su Bor­ough community of Trapper Creek under the "with project" scenario.

6. Other Types of Rownames

Most of the rownames follow the conventions listed in the prior pages. However, there were groups of variables that did not fit this mode.

a. Statistics

For instance, certain statistics do not vary by geographic area. In these cases, the format was not used rigorously, as in ZURBAN (the rowname which contains data on the size an area needs to be to be considered an urban area, for health planning purposes).

bo Employment and Payroll by Trade and Labor Category

In the case of the variables describing the annual employment and payroll of "the construction workers by trade, the following cod-ing scheme was used:

1 2 3 567o

1. A constant of D, Direct Construction Work Force.

2. A constant of Z.

3. Type of variable - E = Employment P = Payrate I = Payroll

4 .. Labor Category - L = Laborers S = Semi-skilled and Skilled workers A = Administrative/Engineering workers -T = Total over labor categories

5-7. Trade -Numbers 1 through 73.

Page 7

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ill,!!!;

I I

\

In the case of the rownames for direct construction work force and payroll by labor category by month, the format outlined above was not useful. These rownames follow another conventi.on ~·

1 2 3 4 5 67

1. Constant value of D for direct construction work force.

2. M for Monthly.

3. Type of variable - E = Employment P = Payroll

4. Type of measure - N = Number of employees or dollars S = Percent share of total yearly amount

5. Labor Category - L = Laborers S = Semi-skilled and Skilled workers A = Administrative/Engineering workers T = Total over labor categories

6-7. Month 01 =January 02 = February, etc.

Page 8

I I I I I :I I I I :I I

I I I

.

I I I I

D. Rules and Conventions used in the Model Definition File

1. The Data*Model software contains a distinction which are "built" with data, and variables whi.ch formulas that are dependent on other variables. able to read in data from external data files and results of a set of rows to external data files.

between variables are computed with The model is also

to write ottt the

a. Build Statements. All variables for which data are input (data items and parameters for which values are assumed) are placed toward the beginning of each model definition. In some cases, this will be a series of nll!ilbers reflecting the values for each year.

In other cases, the value of the variable is constant across years, and only one value is provided. Other kinds of "build" variables are calculated by giving a starting value and indicating that they will increase by a cer-c.ain percentage per year. In a few cases, the beginning and ending value of the time series is given, and the model extrapolates the values of the variables for the intervening years.

The variables that are built in this way are the ones for whict values are expected to change in the future, as baseli.ne data are updated or if the details of the Project change in a way that affect the assumptions made in this model.

b. Compute statements follow the build statements. Equations with more than one arithmetic operation are computed in the order list­ed, from left to right (rather than performing multiplication and division operations before addition and subtraction operations). Multiplication is indicated with a "*" and divisi.on is indicated with a "/". When a computation becomes too long to fit on one line, it is "continued" by telling the model to compute the row as itself +,-,*, or I the succeeding rows.

c. Read and Write Statements are used to transfer data from one module to another. The Economic-Demographic module writes out data on population, employment, and housing to external aata files. These are then read back into the Public Facilities e.nd Services and Fiscal modules. The Public Facilities and Services module also writes out data on numbers of school children, which are used by the Fiscal module.

2. Column Control Statements

Each column in the model represents one year of data and projec­tions. Throughout the model, there are column control statements which indicate the columns that the succeeeding statements should relate to. These statements also control the degree of rounding that occurs.

For instance, the following statement indicates that the succeeding equations will refer to Columns 1 through 25 (1981-2005), and the values will be rounded off to the first decimal place:

.1 25 ROUND! .Page 9

- '

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II

III. ECONOMIC-DEMOGRAP&~C MODULE

The rowname file for the Economic-Demographic module is displayed in Exhibit 1. This exhibit lists the variables used throughout the module and the coded rownames which correspond to them.

Exhibit 2 lists the equations which comprise the module. Much of Exhibit 2 is in the form of a print-out from the current version of the model. lalhere the equatlons have changed from the model originally used to cal­culate the impacts in the FERC Licens~ Application, the general form for the ot·iginal calculations has been inserted in typewritten form. Many of these equations contain variables with several subscripts, and thus rep­resent a large number of calculations. The equations are presented in thls form for brevity and clarity of presentatione The equations in the computerized portion of Exhibit 2 are not presented in this form because the software used for the model does not have matrix-handling capabili­ties.

Page 10

I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I • I I I

IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES MODULE

The rowname file for the ~ublic Facility and Service module is displayed in Exhibit 3. This exhibit lists the variables used throughout the module and the coded rownames which correspond to them.

Exhibit 4 lists the equations which comprise the module. The Public Facilities and Services module reads in data provided from the Economic­Demographic module and then calculates the impacts of the Project on public facilities and services provided in the Local Impact Area. Sour­ces of data and assumptions are indicated, where appropriate.

Page 11

'I '

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :I

V. FISCAL MODULE

The rowname file for the· Fiscal module is displayed in Exhibit 5. This exhibit lists the variables used throughout the module and the coded rownames which correspond to them.

Exhibit 6 lists the equations which comprise the module. The Fiscal module reads in data provided from the Economic-Demographic and Public Facilities and Services module:s and then calculates the impacts of the Project on revenues and expend.itv,res of selected local governments lo­cated near the project site. Values for the per capita multipliers used, shown 5.n Lines 7200 through 18000, are based on assumptions made by Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. These were based upon a review of recent his­torical budget information. Budgets reviewed are referenced in the list of references at the end of this working paper.

0268h

Page 12

I I I I I I I I

I I I. '

I I I I I '

I I

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC MODEL USED TO PROJECT THE IMPACTS OF THE

SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

I. INTRODUCTION

This section of the paper presents a technical description of the current version of the socioeconomic model used to project the impacts of the Susitna Hydroelectric Project.

The model was originally set up in a microcomputer environment. During 1983, the model was converted to a more flexible software package on a larger co~puter system. This conversion allowed far greater integration and flexibility in the model. Many sets of calculations that were pre­viously done by hand were also included in the new version of the computerized model. A final advantage of the conversion lies in the ability to print out each of the equations that comprise the model, in the order in which they are executed.

The equations in the Facilities/Services and Fiscal modules of the model have remained almost exactly the same as those in the original model. In the Economic-Demographic module, several enhancements and refinements to the model were executed during the conversion. For efficiency and ease of readability, print-outs of the current versions of the Facilities/ Services, the Fiscal, and the Economic-Demographic module are presenteda

Some minor· changes that occurred in the model as a result of the con.ver­sion deserve to be noted here:

1. First, the Data*Model software package has a more flexible way of rounding off decimal pl~. For this reasop., the outputs of the revised model may diffe:t' from early reports solely as a ·result of rounding.

2. Second, in creating the new model, it was decided to provide as much flexibility for future conditions as possible. One example of this is the inclusion of variables for many small geographic communities that w~re not in the original model. Thus, the model now has the capabiJ.ity t:o project the impacts of the Project on communities such as Healy, Nf~nana, and Paxson. In the current version, some baseline data had bE~en collected on these communities, and impacts on the population and the demand for housing are projected.

Page 13

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

3. As mentioned above, some calculations that were previously per­formed by hand as part of the analysis of the projections, have now been included in the model. For instance, the model now contains equations which calculate the percent change in popula­tion, employment, and facility and service requirements over the baseline projections. The calculations which relate the need for facilities and services to present and planned capacity were also added to the computerized portion of the model. The model also contains procedures to generate the attraction indices for each community in the local impact area, as well as two assign­ment procedures to allocate village family units to workers by their labor category, origin, and marital status.

Page 14

-1 I I

I I I I.

.

. I'

I I I I I I I

'I I n II II

II. BACKGROUND ON THE SOFTWARE AND MODEL NOMENCLATURE

. As a result of the fact that the equations are being provided in the form they are input to the computet·, it may be difficult for individuals unfamiliar with this computer so,ftware package to understand the model without some background explanation. The following description is meant to facilitate understanding of the modt~l by describing the software with which it was formulated and the conventions used in developing it.

A. Descrietion of the Software

Data*Model is a computerized spreadsheet program in which the data, cal­culations and reports are independent modules. The model can handle up to 500 time periods and 30,000 rows.. Data*Model is available for ap­proximately 12 different mini- and micro-computer systems. The major components of a model using this software are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

A Row Definition, which defines all data inputs, parameters, and variables that are used in the mod~l.

Model definition files, which store data and equations.

A Spreadsheet, the data file in which the results of the model's calculations are stored. In this spreadsheet, each variable is a row, and each year for which a projection is made is a column.

Report formats, which store instructions for the presentation of any combination of projections (results) and assumptions. A variety of reports are generated from each spreadsheet modelo

Vertical ~~;"ort formats store instructions for the vari­ables that are to be displayed, and the order in which they will appear.

Horizontal report formats define the horizontal dimension of the reports: the time periods that are to be shown and the order in which they will appear.

Page 15

,. ''·

I I I

.I I I I I I I I I I I I I '

I I

B. The Modules and Conventions for Naming of Files

The model has three modules. The Economic-Demographic module pro'lides information on the Project's work force and the impact that the Project would have on population, employment, and housing in the various impact areas.. The Public Facilities and Services module calculates the impact of the Project on facility and service requirements in the Local Impact Area. The Fiscal module calculates the effect of the Project on the revenues and expenditures of incorporated public entities in the region.

Each module has one rowname file which describes all variables that will be used or calculated in that module, and one or more model definition files containing the calculation~ for each scenario. If there are ul­timately 10 scenarios, there -will be more ~han 30 separate· model defini­tion files created. Accordingly, conventions were set for the naming of the files so that which module and scenario are being described may be readily identified~

1 o Row Name Files:

As noted abo~e 7 each module will have one rowname file:

ECON for Economic/Demographic module FSER for Facilities and Services module FISM for Fiscal module

2. Model Definition Files:

The first four letters stand for the type of module; the second two char­acters for the scenario:

Modules: ECON FSER FISC

for Economic/Demographic module for Facilities and Services module for Fiscal module

Scenarios: 01, 02, etc.

ECONOl, FSEROl, and FISCOl contain data and assumptions used in the ~ERC license application. ECON02, FSER02, and FISC02 are updated to include recently received data on baseline c•:)ndi tions. ECON03, FSER03, and FISC03 contain the updated data and assumptions on a bus-transit sce­nario.

3. Vertical and Horizontal Report Definitions

Vertical report definitions have a suffi.x of V. Horizontal report defin­itions have a suffix of H.

Page 16

·-::

I I I ' '

I .

I I I I I .I

I I I '

I I ' I I ' I I

C. Coding of Rownaru.e~

Rownames in Data*Model can be up to 7 letters long. Because of the large amount of variables used in the model (approximately 14,000), a stan­dardiz~d :t:owname coding system was devised.

The seven-character field was divided into 4 components (sub-fields), as shown:

1 234 5 67.

1. The first one-character field is used to describe the category of information that is being utilized. These groupings reflect the fact that the data on impacts often need to be analyzed' from many per­spectives. Accordingly, the model calculates the value of the vari­ables with and without the Project, during the construction and oper­ations phases, taking into account the indirect/ induced effects of the Project.

Possible choices for this f.ield are:

A - Capacity (housing units and capacity of facilities and services in the local impact area)

B - Baseline Scenario C - Construction Phase (D + E) D - Direct Effects of Construction Phase E - Indirect and Induced Effects of Construction Phase F - Operations Phase (G + H) G - Direct Effects of Operations Phase H - Indirect and Induced Effects of Operations Phase I - Direct Effects of Project including both the Construction

and Operations Phases (D + G) J - Direct Total (I + B) K - % Change of Direct Total Over Baseline (I/B*lOO)

L - Vacant Units or Excess (Insufficient) Capacity (under Direct Total Demand) (A-J)

M -Vacancy Rate (under Direct Total Demand) (L/A*lOO)

N - Indirect Effects of Project and Operations Phases

includ.ing both the Construction (E + H)

0 - Indirect TotE.l {N +B) P ,- Total Effects of Project,

and Operations Phases including both the Construction

R-· % Change of Indirect Total Over Baseline

Q - Statistic related to the Gravity Model

T - Total Baseline + Project U - % Change of Total Over Baseline V - Vacant Units (under W/Project Demand) W - Vacancy Rate (under W/Project Demand) Z - Statistic

Page 17

{C + F) (N/B*lOO)

(B + P) (P/B*lOO) (A-T) (V/A*lOO)

I I I I I

I I I I I I

I I

I I I

2. The second three-character field indicates the type of data or sta­tistic. There are several hundred of. these types of variables. Some examples are shown below:

EMP - Employment POP - Population PPH - Population-per-household HOH - Households WTS - Gravity Model Attraction Value For Schools AWA - Average Daily Water Requirements PSC - Primary School-Age Children AWV - Areawide Assessed Valuation LPT - Local Property Tax

A complete listing is provided in Appendix A.

3. The third field is a one-character geographic level indicator.

1. Camp site camps and village(s) 2. Mat-Su Borough communities 3. Valdez-Chitina-whittier communities 4. Yukon-Koyukuk communities 5. Community groupings of other types

For example, the suffix 5MS is used to designate the sum of all areas in the Mat~Su Borough outside of the work site. When popu­lation or employment of the whole borough, including the work sites, is being calculated, the rowname will have a suffix of 6MS. Also, included in this listing is the Municipality of Fairbanks~

6. Census divisions 7. Local Impact Area or Groups of Census Divisions containing

Workers Who Relocate 8. Anchorage and Fairbanks subareas 9. Region

10. Alaska outside of the Region 11. State

4. Two characters indicating community/place abbreviations.

Work sites: Wl Work camp 1 (At Watana) Vl Village 1 W2 Work camp 2 (At Devil Canyon) V2 Village 2 (No second village is planned at present. This was

placed in the model for future flexibility.) WC Total of Wl, Vl, W2, and V2. W3 Cantwell railroad camp V3 Cantwell community

Mat-Su Borough Communities PA Palmer WA Wasilla HO Houston TC Trapper Creek TK Talkeetna OT Other Mat-Su Borough SU Surburban RU Rural and Remote

Page 18

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I {

I I ' ' I ' .

I

Railroad communities: (No baseline data at this time) GC Gold Creek SH Sherman CU Curry CH Chase CL Chulitna CA Canyon LA Lane HU Hurricane/Indian River subdivision

Yukon-Koyukuk Communities CN Cantwell HE Healy MC McKinley NE Nenana

Census Divisions and Subareas AN Anchorage FN Fairbanks~or~h Star Borough and the Municipality of Fairbanks SF SE Fairbanks SW Seward KC Kenai-Cook Inlet MS Matanuska-Susitna Borough VL Valdez-Chitina~~ittier

YK Yukon-Koyukuk

Valdez-Chitina~ittier Communities GL Glennallen VA Valdez CC Copper Center GU Gulkana PX Paxson

5. An Examp~

For instance, BPOP6MS is the rowname that will contain data on baseline population in the Mat-Su Borough for the years 1981 to 2005.

TPOL2TC contains data on the requirements for police in the Mat-Su Bor­ough community of Trapper Creek under the "with project" scenario.

6. Other Types of Rownames

Most of the t"Ownames follow the conventions listed in the prior pages. However, there were groups of variables that did not fit this mode.

a.. Statistics

For instance, certain statistics do n~t vary by geographic area. In these cases, the format was not used rigorously, as in ZURBAN (the rowname which contains data on the size an area needs to be to be considered an urban area, for health planning purposes)a

Page 19

( .

. ( b.

I . I

I I I I I ,.,

1'.

I I ' .

I I I. l I (

Employment and Payroll bY Trade and Labor Category

In the case of the variables describing the annual employment and payroll of the co·nstruction workers by trade, the following cod- . ing scheme was used:

1 2 3 4 567.

1. A constant of D, Direct Construction Work Force.

2. A constant of z.

3. Type of variable -E = Employment p = Payrate I = Payroll

4. Labor Category - L = Laborers S = Semi-skilled and Skilled workers· A = Administrative/Engineering workers T = Total over labor categories

S-7. Trade -Numbers 1 through 73.

In the case of the rownames for direct construction work force and payroll by labor category by month, the format outlined above was not useful. These rownames follow another convention:

1 2 3 4 5 67

1. Constant value of D for direct construction work force.

2. M for Monthly.

3. Type of variable - E = Employment P = Payroll

4. Type of measure - N = Number of employees or dollars S = Percent share of total yearly amounr

5. Labor Category - L = Laborers S = Semi-skilled and Skilled workers A = Administrative/Engineering workers T = Total over labor categories

6-7. Month 01 =January 02 = February, etc.

Page 20

I I I 11

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

c. Relocation Multipliers, Marriage Proportions

In the case of the variables describing relocation potential, the following coding scheme was used:

1 234 5 6.

1. A constant of Z, Statistic.

2-4. A constant of RLM, Relocation Multiplier.

5. Type of category - L = Labor Category 0 = Origin M = Marital Status

6. Associated with L, L = Unskilled Laborers

Associated with 0,

Associated with M,

S = Semi-Skilled/Skilled Workers A = Administrative/Enginee~ing

A = Anchorage F ~ Fairbanks S = Other Alaska 0 = Out-of-State

S = Single M = Married

d. Village Assignments

In most cases, the statistics or variables used in the village assig~~ent procedures vary by labor category, origin, and marital status. Typica.lly, the last three characters of any variable or statistic read by labor category, origin, and marital status. For example, AOS refers to Administrative/Engineering workers from Out-of-State who are single. Frequently, the following may appear: L7AM. This designation is read the same way as above, ignoring the seven, which is just a referent to the fact that this variable represents a group of workers from several census divisions within the Railbelt.

Page 21

I I I I I

I I I I I I I' '

I I

I I

D. Rules and Conventions used in the Model Definition File

1. The Data*Model software contains a distinction between variables which are .. built .. with data~ and variables which are compnced with formulas that are dependent on other variables a Tl:le model is also able tc1 read in data .from external data files and to write out the results of a set of rows to external data files.

2.

\

a. Build Statements. All variables for which data are input (data items and parameters for which values are assumed) are placed toward the beginning of each model defini t.ion. In some cases, this will be a se't'ies of numbers reflecting the values for each year.

In other cases, the value of the variable is constant across years, and only one value is providedo Other kinds of .. build .. variables are calculated by giving a starting value and indicating that they will increase by a certain percentage per year. In a few cases, the beginning and ending value o:f the time series is given, and the model extrapolates the values of. the variables for the intervening years.

The variables that are built in this way are the ones for whi'ch values are expected to change in the future, as baseline data are updated or if the details of the Project change in a way that affects the assumptions made in this model.

b. Compute statements ioll.ow the build statements. Equations with more than one arithmetic operation are computed in the order list­ed, from left to right (.rather than performing multiplication and division operations before addition and subtraction operations) .. Multiplication is indicated with a "*.. and division is indicated with a "/... When a computation becomes too long to fit on one line, it is .. continued" by telling the model to compute the row as itself +,-,*, or I the succeeding rows.

c. Read and Wri.te Statements are used to transfer data from. one module to another. The Economic-Demographic module writes out data on population, employment, and housing to external -data · files. These are then read back into the Public Facilities and Services and Fiscal modules. The Public Facilities and Services mndule also writes out data on numbers of school children, which are used by the Fiscal module.

Column Control Statements

Each column in the model rrr cesents one year of data and projec­tions. Thro•..:ghout the model, there are column control statements which indicate the columns that the succeeeding statements should relate to. These statements also control the degree of rounding that occurs.

For instance, the following statement indicates that the succeeding equations will refer to Columns 1 through 25 (1981-2005), and the values will be rounded off to the first decimal place~

1 25 ROUNDl Page 22

I. !

I I I I I

I . '

I 1 .•

I

I I I. '

'

I I I I' 1: . \

I

III. ECONOMIC'-~DEMOGRAPHIC MODlfLE

The 'l'owname file for the Economic-Demographic module is displayed in Exhibit 1. This exhibit lists the variables used throughout the module and the coded rownames which correspond to them.

The following table shows what impa~t areas have been included in the economic-demographic module and what information is provided:

List of Impact Areas

Work Sites Wl Work Camp 1 (W)a Vl Village 1a

No Data

W2 Work Camp 2 (DC) x V2 Village 2 ~;

W3 Cantwell RR Camp ~

V3 Cantwell Community x

Mat-Su Borough Communities PA Palmer WA Wasilla HO Houston TK Talkeetna TC Trapper Creek SU f-'uburban Area RU Rural/Remote

Railroad Communitiesb

SH Sherman CU Curry GC Gold Creek CH Chase CL Chulitna CA Canyon LA Lane HU Hurricane/

Indian River Subd.

Yukon-Koyukuk Communities

CN Cantwell HE Healy NE Nenana MC McKinley Park

Municipaliti~

FN Fairbanks AN Anchorage

. I '

Baseline Data Only

Page 23

With Project Data Only

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Baseline and With ProjectC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

,,

I I l i

j

I l ' I I I I I :

I I I

! 1'', .,

I I 11

I I I

/

'

Census Divisions and Subareasd

AN Anchorage

No Data

FN Fairbanks-North Star SF Southeast Fairbanks SW Seward KC Kenai-Cook Inlet MS Matanuska-Susitna VL Valdez-Chitina

Whittier YK Yukon-Koyukuk

(portion)

Valdez-Chitina~hittier

Communitiesd

GL Glennallen VA Valdez CC Copper Center GU Gulkana PX Paxson

Baseline Data With Project Baseline Only Data Only and With

ProjectC

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

a Sites do not exist under the baseline scenario. b Gravity assignments exist but are aggregated into the RU portion of

Matanuska-Susitna Borough. · c Baseline employment projections were not made at the community level. d Baseline and With-Project Data for these areas r.nd communities are

only presented in the economic-demographic module.

Exhibit 7 list~ the equations which comprise the module. All of Exhibit 7 is in the form of a print-out from the current version of the model.- The model begins by using the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) projections for employment, population, and households. Trends establish­ed from census data are used to project employment, population, and house­holds for the Yukon-Koyukuk census division that is included in the model. These form the basis for the baseline projections of these vari­ables. Next, information on direct project manpower requ:trements are input. These are followed by a series of build statements which contain assumptions and parameters for the residence, relocation, payrates, sea­sonality of project employment, origin of the work force, work village assignment ,factors, unemployment rates, retention factors, baseline infor­mation for the local coiili!lunities, percent shares used for distributing aggregated baseline population and employment figures, secondary employ­ment multipliers, the number of secondary jobs filled by inmigrants, per­sons per household multipliers, and occupancy rates (lines 23300 to 82500).

The model begins by calculating baseline employment for the census divi­sions. Calculations needed for village assignment procedures begin on lines 93000 and end with line 124200. Two assignments are used. One that

Page 24

r;_,

I I !

'

'

I; ! : t 1

I l (

I I I I I I I

I

I I

allocates village family units to workers of various types as defined by labor, origin, or marital status and as determined by the subcontractor. The other assignment procedure fills any undistributed village family units with work~rs of various categories by prioritizing how they are filled. Assignments continue until all units are assigned or until there ar~ no more workers left to assign.

After village assignments have been made, the model then executes proce­dures to account for the attractiveness of the work camp and the willing­ness of workers to relocate (lines 124300 to 137300). The result of this procedure is a determination of the number of relocating workers by labor category, origin, and marital status.

Once the number of relocating workers have been determined, the gravity model procedures begin. First, data are input for the attraction factors of each community where workers may relocate. Attraction factors include housing, schools, commercial services, public services, availability of land, and recreation. Second, the weights each worker type will attach to those attraction factors are also input (lines 137400 to 158600). These two sets of calculations are then combined to create an attraction index by community (lines 158700 to 290300). Travel times are then input, and scaling factor calculations commence. After the scaling factors have been determined, workers are assigned to communities through the attraction constrained version of the gravity model (lines 317000 to 349900).

The next series of routines calculate the employment projections for the with-project scenario and all of the various components of those projec­tions (lines 350000 to 41080) necessary for assessing impacts.

Population is more difficult to project because of the need to .allow for diminished outmigration. Workers can remain in the areas they have been assigned to through the gravity model after they have completed their jobs on the Susitna Hydroelectric Project. This complexity is accommodated through the use of an outmigration function that is adjusted from the peak year of construction employment. These functions have the capability to be changed if it is decided to adjust the rate of retention (the opposite of outmigration) as it is defined in the model (lines 410900 to 565100). The rate of retention can also be adjusted for the secondary workers who inmigrate into the communities. Another complexity that has been accummo­dated within the model is the ability to take into account the jobs that are vacated by permanent residents in order to work on the Susitna Proj­ect. These jobs can also be filled by inmigrants.

For certain census divisions, outmigration must be taken into account during the first years of construction. Those divisions that are con­sidered part of the Railbelt, but outside of the defined local ~.mpact area (Mat-Su Borough and a portion of the Yukon-Koyukuk Borough) are allowed "to send" workers into the local impact are~ as well as "to receive" work­ers that come from other parts of Alaska outside the Railbelt and from out-ofstate. Therefore, the possibility that outmigration may exceed inmigration for certain areas must be taken into account. This possibili­ty is handled by using information from the village assignment procedures that calculated the construction work force by original residence and the number of non-relocating workers that continue to reside in the census divisions that "send" workers into the local impact area.

From here on the model operates in a straightforward manner, calculating population and household demand using standard well-established techniques.

Page 25

I I I . l i

I I ' . ' .

1":. ! l {

1·,

1 .

"

.. 1;

...

I I I I I I I I I I I

IV. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES MODULE

The rowname file for the Public Facilities and Services module is displayed in Exhibit 3o This exhibit lists the variables used throughout the. module: and the coded rownames which correspond to them.

Exhibit 8 lists the equations which comprise the module. The Public Facili­ties and Services module reads in data provided from the Economic-Demographic module (population and households) and then calculates the impacts of the Project on public facilities and services provided in the Local Impact Area. Sources of data and assumptions are indicated, where appropriate.

Page 26

""'" :"'

I "

I

I I

:_I·· ' .

I 1 .-

··1.·.·

I I I I I I I I I

V. FISCAL MODULE

The rowname file for the Fiscal module is displayed in Exhibit 5.. This exhibit lists the variables used throughout the module and the coded rownames which correspond to them.

Exhibit 9 lists the equations which comprise the moduleo The Fiscal module reads in data provided from the Economic-Demographic and Public Facilities and Services modules (population, households, and school children) and then cal­culates the impacts of the Project on revenues and expenditures of selected local governments located ne&r the project site. Values for the per capita multipliers used, shown in Lines 7200 through 18000, are based on assumptions made by Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. These wer'j based upon a review of recent historical budget information. Budgets reviewed are referenced in the list of references at the end of this working paper.

0268h

Page 27

1 I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

REFERENCES

Acres American, Inc., personal communication, S~ptember, 1981.

Ahtna~ Inc., personal communication, October 4, 1982.

Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, personal com­munication, September 1981.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Alaska Economic Trends, (monthly) various issues dated from January 1981 to December 1982.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Alaska Planning Information, January 1983.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Alaska Population Overview,. no date.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Wage Rates for Selected Occupations, 1981.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Occupa­tional Employment Forecast, August 1979.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Occupa­tional Employment Statistics, various issues dated from June 1978 to August 1981.

Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Occupa­tional Supply and Demand, September 1980.

Alaska Department of Labor, Division of Research and Analysis, per­sonal communication, January 30, 1981.

Alaska Department of Labor, Division of Research and Analysis, per­sonal communication, December 15, 1981.

Alaska Department of Labor, Division of Research and Analysis, per­sonal communication, November 4, 1983.

Alaska Department of Labor, Statistical Quarterly, various issues.

Alaska Department of Public Safety, State Troopers, Cantwell Post. Personal Communication. September 1981.

Alaska Department of Public Safety, State Troopers, Palmer Post. Personal Communication. September 1981.

Alaska Department of Public Safety, State Troopers, Cantwell Post. Personal communication. October 31, 1983.

Alaska Department of Public Safety, State Troopers, Palmer Post. Personal communication. November 3, 1983.

Page 28

.I I

-I

: 1

[

[

[

I I (

I I I. c

I I

I

I

REFERENCES (cont.)

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Traffic Division, personal communication, September 21, 1982.

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Planning and Research Division, personal communication, September 22, 1982.

Alas~~ Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Main­tenance and Operations Division, personal communication, September 23, 1982.

Alaska Magazi·ne and the Alaska Journal, The Milepost, Alaska North­west Publishing Company, Anchorage, AK.

Alaska Railroad, personal communication, January, 1981.

Anderson, E. and J. Chalmers, Economic/Demographic Assessment Man­ual: Current Practices, Procedural Recommendations, and a Test Case, Mountain West Research, Tempe, AZ, 1977.

Arctic Environmental Engineers, Solid Waste Disposal Study, prepared for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, 1977 and 1978.

Burchell, R.W. and D. Listokin, The Fiscal Impact Handbook, The Center for Urban Policy Research, Princeton, NJ, 1978.

CH2M Hill. Palmer Comprehensive Development Plan 1982 Revision, prepared for City of Palmer and Matanuska-Susitna Borough. July 1982.

City of Fairbanks, Finance Department, 1981 Annual Budget, Fair­banks, AK, no date.

City of Faiz•banks, Finance Department, _!'roposed Annual 1982 Budget, Fairbanks, AK, no date.

City of Fairbanks, Finance Department, 1983 Annual Budget, Fair­banks, AK, no date.

City of Fairbanks, Finance Department, Municipal Utilities System 1983 Annual Budget, Fairbanks, AK, no date.

City of Houston, Office of the Mayor, Ordinance 80-Z-1, Establish­ment and Adoption of the Operating and Capital Budget for FYSl/82, Wasilla AK, June 1981.

City of Houston, Office of the Mayor, £!~inance 82-Z-1~ Fiscal 1983 Capital and Operating Budget, Wasilla AK, no date~

Page 29

. ' . I

' ' .·,,

.j . j

I

I ~~

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I

REFERENCES (cont.)

City of Houston, Office of the Mayor, Ordinance 83-Z-1, Fiscal 1984 Capital and Operating Budget, Wasilla AK, no. date.

City of Houston, Public Works, personal communication, November, 1983.

City of Houston, Deputy Clerk, Personal communication, November, 1983.

City of Houston, City Clerk, Personal communication, November, 1983.

City of Palmer, Office of the Mayor, Budget Preparation Worksheet for Fiscal Year 1982, Palmer AK, November 1981.

City of Palmer, Office of the Mayor, Final Detail Budget Report for Fiscal Year 1983~ Palmer AK, June 1983.

City of Palmer, Palmer Comprehensive Development Plan: 1982 Revi­sion, Palmer, AK, 1982.

City of Palmer, Ci.ty Manager, personal communication, October 15, 1981.

City of Palmer, Public Works Director, personal communication, November, 1983.

City of Palmer, Deputy Clerk, personal communication, November, 1983.

City of Palmer, Fire Chief, personal communication, December, 1981.

City of Palmer, Fire Chief, personal communication, November, 1983.

City of Wasilla, Office of the Mayor, City of Wasilla: Budget FY/81, Wasilla AK, June 1981.

City of Wasilla, Office of the Mayor, City of Wasilla: Budget FY/83, Wasilla AK, no date.

City of Wasilla, City Administrator, Personal communication, Novem­ber 1983.

City of Wasilla, Deputy Clerk, Personal communication, November 1983.

City of Wasilla, Acting Fire Chief, Personal communication, Novemrer 1983.

Page 30

I. I

I. I I I I I I I I

I

I I I I

REFERENCES (cont.)

Community of Cantwell, Inc., 1982 Population Census, conducted in coordination with the u.s. Postal Service, Cantwell, AKD

Community of Cantwell, Inc. Personal contact with Gerry Moberg, President. November 1983.

Denver Research Institute, Socioeconomic Impacts of Power Planes, prepared for Electric Power Research Institute, February, 1982.

Frank Orth & Associates, Inc. Susitna Hydroelectric Project Environ­mental Studies, Subtask 7.05: Socioeconomic Analysis Phase I Report, prepared for Acres .American, Inc. and the Alaska Power Authority, April, 1982.

Frank Orth & Associates, Inc., Susitna Hydroelectric Project, Envi­ronmental Studies, Household and Business Survey Reports for Trapper Creek, Talkeetna, and Cantwell (draft), December 1983.

Goldsmith, S. and Huskey, L., Electric Power Consumption for the Railbelt: A Projection of Requirements - Technical Appendices, Institute of Social and Economic Research, prepared for State of Alaska House Power Alternatives Study Committee and Alaska Power Authority, May 1980.

Institute of Social and Economic Research, Man-In-The-Arctic Program Model, September 1981.

Institute of Social and Economic Research, Man-In-The-Arctic Program ]'fodel, Reference Case-Population, Employment, and Households, 1982-1983.

Leistritz, F.L. and S. Murdock, The Socioeconomic Impact of Resource Development: Methods for Assessment, Westview Press, Boulder, co, 1981.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Construction and Design, personal com­munication, November 2, 1983.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Engineering Division, personal communi­cation, January 3, 1983.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Engineering Division, personal communica­tion. November 2, 1983.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Finance Department, personal communica­tion, December, 1981.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Finance Department, personal communica­tion, November, 1983.

Page 31

--

'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

REFERENCES .(cont.)

Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Health Planning Council, Health Systems Plan, Volume !-Background Analysis, Palmer, ~X, 1980.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, Matanuska-Susitna Borough Population Survey, Palmer, AK, 1981.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, Matanuska-Susitna Borough Population Survey, Palmer AK, 1982.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, Matanuska""·Susitna Borough Population S~rvey, Palmer, AK, 1983.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, personal communica­tion, October 1981 ..

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, personal communica­tion, October 1982.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Planning Department, personal communica-tion, November, 1983. ·

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fire Service Area Coordinator, personal communication, November, 1983.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Road Service Area Coordinator, perb~nal communication, December, 1981.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Road Service Area Coordinator, personal communication, November, 1983.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, Prioritized Capital Ptoj­ect List, October, 1981.

Ma tanuska-Susi tna Boxough Finance Department, Ma tanuska··Susi tna Borough 1979-1980 Annual Budget, Volumes 1 and 2, Palmer AK, no date.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Finance Department, Matanuska-Susitna Borough 1980-1981 Annual Budget, Volumes 1 and 2, Palmer AK, no date.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Finance Department, Matanuska-Susitna Borough 1981-1982 Annual Budget, Volumes 1 and 2, Palmer AK, June 1981 ..

Matanus~~-Susitna Borough Finance Department, Matanuska-Susitna Borough 1983-1984 Annual Budget, Volumes 1 and 2, Palmer AK, April 1983.

Page 32

1 ~ 1

I

I

I I

I

I I

I I

I I

REFERENCES (cont.)

Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District 1980-81 Final Budget, Palmer AK, June 1980.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 1981-82, Palmer AK, June 1981.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District, Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Final_Budget 1983-84, Palmer AK, July 1983.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Business Manager, personal communication, December 1981.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District Assistant Superintendent, personal communication, November 1983.

Mountain West Research, Inc., Construction Worker Profile, prepared for the Old West Regional Commission, Tempe, AR, December 1975.

Mountain West Research, Inco, Construction Worker Survey, prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Tempe, AR, October 1977.

Uountain West Research North, Inc. , Guide to Social ·Assessment, Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management Social Effects Project, Billings MT, July 1982.

Municipality of Anchorage, Office of the Mayor, 1982 Annual OQerat ing Budget, Volumes 1 and 2, Anchorage, AK, no date.

Municipality of Anchorage, Office of the Mayor, Assembly Memorandum Number AIM-154-83; P.roposed 1984 Operating Budget, Anchorage, AK, October 1983. -

Municipality of Anchorage, Office of thei Mayor, Proposed 1984 Muni cipal Budget_, Anchorage, AK, October 1983.

Policy Analysts, Limited and Dr. Richard End~!r, Mat-Su Housing and ~?nomic Development Study: Suryey F~~dingsJ Anchorage, AK, May 1980.

Phovidence Hospital~ Medical Records, personal communication, Oc tober 1981 and November 1983.

Railbelt Sehool D~striet Superintendent, personal communication, September 30, 1982.

Reaume, D.M., "Alaska Regional Economies: 1980 to 1982", Daily Jour nal of Commerce, Seattle WA, December 25-26, 1980.

Page 33

_,

i

-I

~.-1 .

I rl \

I

I .

tl 1 ....

'

I I I I I I

I I I

REFERENCES (cont.)

Stenehjem, E.J. and J.E. Metzger, A Framework for Projecting Employ­.ment and Population Changes Accompanying Energy Development, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, 1980.

Talkeetna Volunteer Fire Department, Personal communication, Novem­ber 1, 1983 ..

Trapper Creek Community Council, personal communication, November 1, 1983.

Tuck, B.H., Economic Development Planning for Anchorage: A Theo­retical and Empirical Analysis, Anchorage, 1980.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Enginee:- Institute for Water Resour­ces, Constuction Workforce, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. June, 1981.

u.s. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, C~nsus of Popula­tion and Housing, 1980, and Public Law 94-171 Counts by Enumeration District, 1960, 1970, and 1980, U.S. G.P.O.: Washington D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Outer Continental Shelf Office, Alaska OCS Socioeconomic Studies Program, Econom:lc and Demographic Structural Change in Alaska, Technical Report Number 73, National Technical Information Ser­vice: Springfield, VA.

Valley Hospital, personal communicati~ns, October 1981, October 1982, and November 1983.

0090h

·Page 34

-

I I I I li

{

I~

J

I /

I I I. /

/

I I I

APPENDIX A

Three Character List of Variable Names

Economic/Demographic Module*

Variable Characters

AEM ASL AWV

BAM

BAS

BEX l3FM.

BFS

BOM

BOS

BSF BSM

BSS

DCE DEL DES DEA

DIN D1S DMP DNR DRC DSI DSP EAA

EAE EAL

EAO E.AR .EAS

EAS EAV ELB

Definition

Adjusted enclave multiplier for operations workers Adjusted nonlocal share of construction work force Family Village Units adjusted for units going to operations workers Scaling Factor calculation for Anch. married relo­t!aters Scaling factor calculation for Anch. single relo­caters Exponent for scaling factor calculation Scaling factor calculation for Fair. married relo­caters Scaling factor calculation for Fair. single relo­caters Scaling factor calculation for Out-of-State mar­ried relocaters Scaling factor calculation for Out-of-State single relocaters Scaling factor in gravity model Scaling factor calculation for Other Alaska mar­ried relocaters Scaling factor calculation for Other Alaska single relocaters Devil Canyon Employment Laborers by original residence for aggregated areas SS/S workers by original res.·for aggregated areas Adm./Eng .. workers by orig. res. for aggregated areas Direct inmigrating construction workers Travel time Married direct inmig. const. workers Number of nonrelocaters by area Number of relocaters % of income that is disposable Single direct inmig. const. workers Number of nonlocal Adm./Eng. workers after 1st adjustment for relocation Total Professional Workers Number of nonlocal construction laborers after 1st adjusi:ment for relocation Total Adm./Eng .. from Out··of-State Total Adm .. /Eng. from Railbelt Number of nonlocal SS/S workers after 1st adjust­ment for relocation Total Adm./Eng. from Other Alaska Number of Adm./EngG workers residing in village Total Construction Laborers

Page 35

r

[

[

[

IJ

II I

Variable Characters

ELO ELR ELS ELV EMP ENR EOR ESK ESO ESR ESS ESV ETL

ETS

ETA

EXP GEA HEA

HOH HSE IMW INS INW· JHH JRI LCA LCL LCS LWA LWL LWS MEN MES MPN MUL NRA NRL NRS OCR OJI ORF

OTE PAE PLB PMH

PN!.f PNS

Definition

Total laborers from Out-of-State Total laborers from·Railbelt Total laborers from Other Alaska Number of laborers residing in village Employment Employment by new residence Employment by original residence Total Semi-skilled/Skilled Workers Total SS/S workers from Out-of-State Total SS/S workers from Railbelt Total SS/S workers from Other Alaska Number of SS/S workers residing in village Number of nonlocal const. laborers after 2nd ad­justment for relocation Number of nonlocal SS/S workers after 2nd ad­justment for relocation Number of nonlocal Adm./Eng. workers after 2nd adjustment for relocation Power function for travel time factor Operations workers residence assignment factor Secondary operations workers residence assignment factors Households Housing Units Inmig. jobs after adjustment for outmigration Income spent Inmigrating Workers Jobs Per Household for State Jobs requiring inm.igrants to fill Local Construction Adm./Eng. workers Local Construction Laborers Local Construction SS/S workers Adm./Eng. workers by original residence Laborers by orignal residence SS/S workers by original residence Monthly employment Monthly share of construction employment Monthly payroll Secondary Employment Multiplier Number of nonrelocaters who are Adm./Eng. workers Number of nonrelocaters who are laborers Number of nonrelocaters who are SS/S workers Occupancy Rate Inmig. Jobs before adjustment for outmigration Retention Rate (1 - Outmigration Rate) for Second­ary Workers Other Employment Payroll for Total Professional Workers Payroll for Total Laborers Persons Per Household for Married Inmigrating Construction Workers Peak married non-Railbelt relocaters Peak single non-Railbelt relocaters

Page 36

I .·I

I

I

I I I ' Variable

I POJ ' POP

PPH

I PRA

PRL PRM PRS I ' PRS

I PSK PSH

PTS

I QAM -

Q.AS

I QAT ' QFM

I QFS

QOM

~ QOS

~ QSM

'

QSS

I QWT ' RAM

RAS

a RCA RCL RCS RFM c RFS RLC RLM

I RN11 RNS ROM ROS

I RRS RRM RSM

I RSS SAO SAR SAS

I SCF

I

Characters Definition

Peak inmig. jobs Population

. Person Per Household Remaining nonlocal Adm./Eng. workers after village assignment Remaining nonlocal laborers after village Peak married Railbelt relocaters Remaining nonlocal SS/S workers after village assignment Peak single Railbelt relocaters Payroll for Total Semi-skilled /Skilled Workers Persons Per Household for Single Inmigrating Con­struction Workers Propensity to spend Weights on attraction factors for Anch. married relocaters Weights on attraction factors for Anch. single relocaters Gravity model attraction factors by community Weights on attraction factors for Fair. married relocaters Weights on attraction factors for Fair. single relocaters Weights on attraction factors for Out-of-State married relocaters Weights on attraction factors for Out-of-State single relocaters Weights on attraction factors for Other Alaska married relocaters Weights on attraction factors for Other Alaska single relocaters Gravity model weights by worker category Relocaters-Anch. married Relocaters-Anch. single Number of relocaters who are Adm./Eng. workers Number of relocaters who are laborers Number of relocaters who are SS/S workers Relocaters-Fairbanks married Relocaters-Fairbanks single Total Relocaters by community Relocation Factors Married non-Railbelt relocaters Single non-Railbelt relocaters Relocaters-Out-of-State married Relocaters-Dut-of-State single Single Railbelt Relocaters Married Railbelt relocaters Relocaters-Other Alaska married Relocaters-Other Alaska single % Share of Adm./Eng. from Out-of-State % Share of Adm./Eng. from Railbelt % Share of Adm./Eng. from Other Alaska Scaling ,£actor sum

Page 37

1: '

'

I I i

I I

~' '

'

~ Ldj

I I I

Variable Characters

SEH

SLC SLO SLR SLS SLW SPP

SSE

sso SSR sss TAM TAS TFM TFS TOM

TOS

TSM

TSS

UMP UWA to UGA

uwv

VAH VLJ WlE W2E WCA WVA ZEA ZEL ZES ZIA ZIL ZIS ZMP ZPL ZPS ZPA ZRL

Definition

Percentage Share of Anchorage Employment; percentage share Yukon-Koyukuk census area, Whittier census division.

or Fairbanks Subarea of Mat-Su Borough, or Valdez-Chi tina-

% Share of Construction Workers at Cen. Div. level Percentage Share of Laborers from Out-of-State Percentage Share of Laborers from Railbelt Region Percentage Share of Laborers from Other Alaska % Share of Const Workers at community level Percentage Share of Anchorage or Fairbanks sub­area populations; percentage share of Ma t-Su Bor­ough, Yukon-Koyukuk census area, or Valdez­Chit.ina-Whittier census division • . Percentage Share of Secondary Jobs Going to In­migrants Percentage Share of SS/S Workers from Out-of-State Percentage Share of SS/S Workers from Railbelt Percentage Share of SS/S Workers from Other Alaska Total attraction index for Anch. married relocaters Total attraction index for Anch. single relocaters Total attraction index for Fair. married relocaters Total attraction index for Fair. single relocaters Total attraction index for Out-of-State married relocaters Total attraction relocaters Total attraction relocaters Total attraction relocaters Employment Rate

index

index

index

for Out-of-State single

for Other Alaska married

for Other Alaska single

Family units left after each round in the 2nd assignment procedure Undistributed Family Village Units after 1st as­signment procedure Vacant Housing Units Vacated local jobs Wat~na Firs~ Phase Employment Watana 2nd Phase Employment Work Camp Attractiveness Factors Family Village Units Employment by Professional Occupations Employment by Unskilled Trades Employment by Semi-skilled/Skilled Trades Payroll by Pr.ofessional Occupations Payroll by Unskilled Trades Payroll by Semi-skilled/Skilled Trades Married proportion Payrate by Unskilled Trades Payrate by Semi-skilled/Skilled Trades Payrate by Professional Occupations Relocation Multipliers for Origin, Marital Status, & Labor Category

Page 38

--'~

•• I I

0 .

.

I I I

Variable Characters Definition

ZSP Single proportion

* List includes all variables use& in the model f!.or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission License Application plus thClse variables that were added into the model used to produce the revised 1933 forecasts.

Page 39

-

I \

I I n II

I . .

II II

B.

' . .

\1 II

D

~ . . .

I . . . m ~J

i . .

" ~ I I I

.I

Facilities and Services Module

Variable Characters

ADC AHU AWA BDN CPK cws MIN NPK PCL. PLY POL PSC PWA SBN SCL SCP sew SEW sse sws TCL TSC

Definition

Average daily census for patient-days Average hospital use rate Average water standard per capita Hospital Beds Per capita community park standard Cumulative solid waste requirements Minimum occupancy rate Per capita neighborhood park standard Primary school children per teacher Per capita playground standard Per capita police standard Primary school children as % of total Peak water standard per capita Share of hospital bed need Secondary school children per teacher % of school children in population . % of school children per inmigrating worker Per capita sewage standard Secondary school children as % of total Per capita solid waste standard Total teachers or classrooms Total school children

Page 40

-

I I Fiscal Module

I Variable Characters

ADH ADM

I AMB A.'MH APT

I AVB AWM AWV CDF

I CEH CPF CPR

I CPE DIF ELH

I ELU FIR F!R FRH

I FRP FRS FRV

I FSH FSR GSH HLH

I HLT IGH IGR

I JOH JOB LEH LFH

I LFM LFR

··' LIB

I LMR

' LME - LPT

LRH

I LIH LPM MIS

I MRD MUH MUN NAl

I NAM . NAV

NPM

I NPT

I

Definition

General Administration per capita exp. General Administration Ambulance Ambulance per capita exp. Area wid~ P~operty TAx Area"t-niie asses:;;ed valuation Areawide mill t:a.te Areawide Assessed Valuation Area-specific cost differential Capital projects per cap. expenditure Capital Projects revenue Capital projects per capita revenue Capital Projcects exp. Deficit Electric utilities per capita exp. Electric Util. expe Fire service per cap. expenditure Fire service exp. Federal rev. sharing per capita Federal rev. sharing per pupil Federal revenue-sharing Federal revenue-sharing for education Federal & state revenue per capita Federal and state funds Gross sales per ~apita revenue Health per capita exp. Health Intergovernmental revenue per capita Intergovernmental revenue Job program per capita grant Job program Land management per capita exp. Licenses, fines, etc. per capita revenues Licenses, Fines, etc. revenues Library Fund Revenue Library exp. Land management revenue Land management expenditure Local property taxes Library fund per capita revenue Library per capita exp. Local tax mill rate Miscellaneous revenue Miscellaneous revenue multiplier Municipal Assistance per capita revenue Municipal Assistance revenue Non-areawide valuation Non-areawide mill rate Non-areawide assessed valuation Non~areawide fire tax rate Non-areawide property tax

Page 41

-

I I Variable

OPT

I OTH .1

~ -· O.AM OAP

I PAH PAK PAV

m PBH PBW '

PCV

a PIU PKH .

PKR PLC

m POH

_;}

PPT PTP

m PTR RDR REG REP

~ RMM RMH RMI

Q RMR SCH SDR SED

m SFC SFD SFH

c SFI SFP SFU SGii SGR a ' SLF SLH SPE

m . SPG SPH

~ SP3 SPT '

SSA SSH

~ SSM STH STN

1: STP STR SUH SUP

lj svc .

=

I~

Characters Definition

Other School exp. percent share Other School Exp. Operations and maintenance exp. ~perations and maintenance percent share Parks and recreation per capita exp~ Parks and recreation Per capita assessed valuation Public works per capita exp. Public works exp. Assessed valuation per capita Instruction per unit cost Parks and recreation per capita revenue Parks and recreation revenue Police exp. Police per capita exp. Property tax per capita Pupil transportation percent share of exp. Pupil transportation exp. School debt remibursement ratio to bonded indebt. Regular instruction exp. Regular instruction percent share of exp. Road maintenance revenue Road maintenance per capita exp. Road maintenance per capita revenue Road maintenance expenditure Shared revenue to service area per capita School debt reimbursement Special education percent share of exp. Sewer charges Sewer fund interest revenue multiplier Sewer charges per capita revenue Interest and miscellaneous in sewer fund State foundation revenue State foundation per instructional unit State general revenue per capita State general fund contract revenue Sanitary landfill exp. Sanitary landfill per capita exp. Special education exp. SP168 Grant SP168 Capital grant per capita revenue School support services percent share of exp. Support service exp. State revenue for service areas State shared per capita revenue State-shared revenue Transportation per capita revenue. State transportation fund exp. Sales tax rate as a percent of gross sales Sales tax revenue Supplementary Grant per capita revenue State supplement revenue Service charge for water

Page 42

I I I I I I I

Variable Characters

·svE SVH SVR SWE SWH SWI SWR TAD TAV TBI TBP TEX TER TLT TPT TRE TRH TRN TSE TSF TSP TSR TWF voc VOP WFD WFH WFP WFR WFT WSH WSP

0339h

Definition

Service area exp. Service charge per capita revenue Service area revenue Solid waste exp. Solid waste per capita expenditure Sewer per capita expenditure Sewer exp. Total assessed valuation determinant Total assessment valuation Bonded indebtedness Total bonded indebtedness as a % of assessed val. Total exp. Total education revenue ~otal local taxes Total property taxes Total revenue Transportation per capita exp. Transportaion exp. Total school exp. Total sewer fund Total school exp. per pupil Total state revenues Total water fund Vocational educ. Vocational educ. as percent share of total exp. Water fund rent multiplier Water fund per capita revenue Water fund transfers per capita revenue Water fund revenues Transfer from other funds to water fund Water supply exp. per capita Water supply

Page 43

-