SECOND CROSSING DEIS
CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU POPULATION FORECAST
PREPARED FOR:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
December 2003
SECOND CROSSING DEIS
CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU POPULATION FORECAST
PREPARED FOR:
HDR Alaska, Inc.
PREPARED BY:
Juneau • Anchorage
December 2003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................i Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................5 Purpose and Scope .......................................................................................................................5 Methodology..................................................................................................................................5 Limitations .....................................................................................................................................6 Chapter 1. Historical Population Growth in Juneau ......................................................................7 Past Growth Trends.......................................................................................................................7 Overview of Past Economic and Demographic Trends ...................................................................9 Chapter 2. Review of Other Local and Statewide Population Forecasts ....................................10 State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development..............................................10 U.S. Census Bureau ....................................................................................................................11 Transportation Planning Related Forecasts..................................................................................12 Chapter 3. Basic Industry Conditions and Outlook .....................................................................13 Chapter 4. 30-Year CBJ Population Forecast...............................................................................17 Chapter 5. Role of West Douglas in Juneau’s Population Growth..............................................20 CBJ Land Management Plan .......................................................................................................20 CBJ Comprehensive Plan ............................................................................................................21 CBJ and Goldbelt West Douglas Conceptual Plan........................................................................22 West Douglas Market Assessment...............................................................................................24 Other West Douglas Development Considerations .......................................................................25 Summary Analysis .......................................................................................................................25 Bridge Location Considerations....................................................................................................27
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to predict long-term population growth in Juneau through the year 2035 and to assess the role of improved access to West Douglas in Juneau’s long-term development. The study includes analysis of historical population growth in Juneau, existing population forecasts, basic industry trends in Juneau, and a review of West Douglas-related planning documentation. Historical Population and Demographic Trends •
Over the past 30 years, Juneau’s population has grown at an average annual rate of about 2.4 percent, with population climbing from about 15,200 to 31,000 residents.
•
From a long-term perspective, Juneau’s rate of population growth has been slowing. Population growth over the past 20 years has averaged 1.4 percent annually, compared to 0.9 percent over the past 10 years. Over the past five years, Juneau has grown at an annual rate of 0.8 percent.
•
Demographic trends affecting Juneau’s population include a decline in the average household size over the past 20 years. In 1980, the average household size in Juneau was 2.74 persons. In 1990 the average was 2.66 and in 2000 the average declined further to 2.60 persons per household.
•
Between 1990 and 2000 the average age of Juneau residents increased from 31.7 years to 35.3 years. Birth rates declined from about 20 births per thousand residents in the 1980s to about 13 births per thousand in 1999. These local trends generally match statewide trends.
Other Population Forecasts •
The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD) Juneau area population forecasts include growth rates ranging from 0.4 percent annually in the low case to about 1.0 percent in the high case, through 2018. At these rates Juneau population would be between 33,000 residents and 37,000 residents, with a middle case of about 34,500 in 2018.
•
Alaska’s overall growth rate is predicted to be somewhat higher than Juneau’s, at between 0.7 percent and 1.5 percent over the 1998 to 2018 period.
•
Statewide population trends are important to Juneau because of the community’s role as state capital. To a degree, the number of workers employed in state government in Juneau depends on statewide demand for government services. Increasing population means increased demand for services.
•
The US Census Bureau population forecast for Alaska indicates an average annual growth rate of about 1.1 percent.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 1
Economic Trends in Juneau •
A variety of forces will shape economic development in Juneau over the next 30 years, some predictable, others unforeseeable. State government, Juneau largest employer, will continue to struggle with budget deficits and an uncertain revenue picture.
•
According to Department of Revenue forecasts, Alaska North Slope (ANS) oil revenue is expected to continue declining through at least 2010.
•
Other forces that will or could affect state government in Juneau include population growth elsewhere in Alaska (affecting the demand for state government services), potential development of ANWR and a gas pipeline, and world oil prices. This analysis assumes that Juneau retains its role as Alaska’s capital.
•
Tourism is likely to continue to be the only real growth industry in Juneau. Cruise ship traffic is expected to continue growing, with passenger traffic perhaps reaching 1.2 to 1.5 million within 10 years, according to one estimate.
•
Mining industry activity will affect Juneau’s economy and population, with the Greens Creek mine likely closing during the forecast period, and the Kensington Mine opening and closing within the next 30 years.
•
Other components of Juneau’s economy, including federal government, the seafood industry, and others should be relatively stable with some prospect for growth.
•
Over the long-term, employment is expected to grow slowly in Juneau, at between 1.0 and 1.5 percent annually. Over the past ten years, employment in Juneau has grown at an annual rate of 1.8 percent, and over the past 20 years, 2.1 percent. Over the past five years, employment growth has slowed to about 1.2 percent annually.
30-Year Population Forecast for Juneau Based on an analysis of recent population and demographic trends in Juneau, and an assessment of local basic industry conditions, the study team prepared low, middle and high case population forecasts for Juneau. •
The low case population projection shows very slow growth for the Juneau area: 0.5 percent annual growth over the 30-year forecast period. This rate of growth would push Juneau’s population to about 37,500 residents
•
The medium case population projection for Juneau is for a 1 percent annual growth rate, lifting the local population to about 42,800 residents by 2035. This represents approximately 12,000 new residents.
•
The high case population projection places Juneau’s population at 50,500 residents in about 30 years. This is almost 20,000 new residents over the forecast period and represents an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. This is slightly above Juneau’s historical 20-year growth rate of a 1.4 percent.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 2
West Douglas Area Background •
The West Douglas planning area is located on the northwest side of Douglas Island beyond the present end of North Douglas Highway. It extends as a belt about 1 mile wide and 8.5 miles long along the west shore of the island. Most of the area is on a bench bounded on the west by Stephens Passage and on the east by the high mountain ridges of Douglas Island.
•
Goldbelt, Inc.’s property covers 1,740 acres along the shoreline, from Outer Point to approximately one mile south of Point Hilda. The width of the property averages between 1/4 and 1/2 mile. CBJ land covers 3,434 acres immediately inland of the Goldbelt property and is also relatively narrow (average 1/2 mile). Immediately upland is undeveloped US Forest Service land.
•
Goldbelt is interested in West Douglas uses that “simultaneously protect the environmental qualities of the land, provide for continued shareholder recreation opportunities, and develop revenue.”1 The CBJ objective is to use the West Douglas area to satisfy community needs for housing, recreational opportunities, and commercial infrastructure.
Role of West Douglas in Juneau’s Growth The role of improved access to North and West Douglas in the long-term growth of Juneau is a critical point in considering the benefits of a second crossing. Key background information and study findings include the following: •
Approximately 60 percent of the property on the CBJ’s long-term land disposal list is on Douglas Island in areas that would directly impact the need for and usage of a second crossing.
•
The City and Borough of Juneau Comprehensive Plan states that three of the most likely sites for new growth are west, south and north Douglas Island. In the Comprehensive Plan, the West Douglas area is designated as a “New Growth Area.”
•
Based on the population forecasts made in this study, Juneau’s population could grow by between 6,500 and 20,000 new residents over the next 30 years. This translates into a need for between 2,500 (in the low case) and 7,700 (in the high case) additional housing units.
•
With the community’s available capacity for between 2,500 to 4,000 additional housing units, Juneau appears to have adequate space to meet future housing needs in the low case growth scenario. However, Juneau will continue to struggle with high housing costs resulting from high site development costs. Relatively high density development of the West Mendenhall area would be required, in the absence of significant Douglas Island growth.
1
Minch Ritter Voelckers, West Douglas Conceptual Plan. Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau and Goldbelt, Inc., May 1997.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 3
•
In the middle case population forecast, an additional 4,500 housing units would be needed over the next 30 years. This is more than the available capacity of between 2,500 and 4,000 units. Growth in the absence of a second crossing would result in in-filling of almost all available land and likely higher densities than current levels.
•
The high case population forecast would result in demand for an additional 7,700 housing units, almost double what is available from Juneau’s existing transportation and utility infrastructure, plus development of the West Mendenhall area. This suggests that development of Douglas Island acreage will be required to meet the community’s long-term needs.
•
The additional employment opportunities needed to support Juneau’s predicted population expansion would be based primarily in existing commercial areas; Downtown, the Airport/Valley area, as well as the Lemon Creek area.
•
Juneau has more capacity for commercial growth within existing infrastructure than it does for residential growth. The exception to this is waterfront industrial/commercial property, which is limited, and which West Douglas access and development could provide.
•
After golf course development, the types of businesses most likely to locate in the North and West Douglas area include those related to marine support services, freight shipping and handling services, seafood processing, and visitor-related services.
•
As the West Douglas area develops over time (as the West Douglas population and commercial activity grows), more retail and service-oriented business would locate in the area.
•
In summary, long-term demand for developable housing and waterfront commercial property, rather than general commercial development acreage, indicates the need for better access to North and West Douglas.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 4
INTRODUCTION
Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study is to predict long-term population growth in Juneau through the year 2035. An important secondary objective is to assess the role of improved access to West Douglas in Juneau’s long-term growth. This report provides supporting data for the Juneau Second Channel Crossing Environmental Impact Statement, including traffic analysis and the project’s Purpose and Need analysis. This study provides an area-wide population forecast. Where growth occurs in the community depends on many factors, including the type of economic development that may spur population growth, the location of available land and utilities for residential development, and other factors that are difficult to quantify. The methodology used to develop a population forecast for Juneau is described below.
Methodology This report provides a population forecast, rather than a projection. A projection simply projects past trends into the future. A forecast considers and adjusts for current and potential future circumstances that could affect population growth. This study included five basic tasks: •
Review of historical population trends in Juneau and discussion of forces driving those trends
•
Identification of population forecasts made by other analysts and other forecasts used in infrastructure planning in the Juneau area
•
Discussion of any foreseeable events or trends in the basic economy that could result in faster or slower population growth
•
Preparation of low, middle and high case population growth scenarios
•
Assessment of the effect, if any, of improved access to West Douglas on the timing and/or magnitude of population growth in Juneau overall.
This study does not include the development of an economic and demographic forecast model for Juneau. It is possible to build a model based on historical data that links economic and demographic trends with changes in population. However, such a modeling exercise is beyond the scope of this study. In any case, in the end, subjectivity and professional judgment are required in the assessment of how trends might shift in the future. That subjectivity often makes the more qualitative analysis just as useful to planners and others as the much more complex and resourceintensive econometric approach. CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 5
Limitations Population forecasts provide planners and policy makers with a reference point in which to gauge potential development options. Of course, the farther into the future a forecast looks, the less reliable it is. In other words, a five-year forecast is more likely to be accurate at the end of the forecast period than a 30-year forecast. No researcher can predict the events that often lead to significant changes in population. Alaska’s history is a case in point. World War II, discovery of oil on the North Slope and subsequent pipeline construction (the most important events in Alaska’s modern history) could not have been foreseen. Nevertheless, researchers can analyze historical trends, consider potential trends and developments, and use professional judgment to arrive at population estimates that meet the needs of community planners and policy makers. Because of the inherent uncertainty in any population forecast, in some infrastructure planning efforts it is important to consider the effects of growth rates higher or lower than predicted. Depending on how population forecasts are used, this “sensitivity analysis” can be critical in determining the most appropriate infrastructure development. However, for this project, sensitively analysis is not warranted.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 6
CHAPTER 1. HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH IN JUNEAU
Past Growth Trends Over the past 30 years, Juneau’s population has grown at an average annual rate of about 2.4 percent. Over the 1972 to 2002 period, Juneau’s population has doubled, climbing from about 15,200 to 30,981 residents. This is based on population data published by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD) and the US Census Bureau. The Census Bureau conducts a census every ten years, including an actual count of residents. DOLWD population figures are estimates based on demographic trends and other data, such as Permanent Fund Dividend applications. Figure 1 Juneau Population, 1970-2002
35,000
30,000
2002 Population of 30,981
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000 1970 Population of 13,556
5,000
02
01
20
00
20
99
20
98
19
97
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
19
89
19
88
19
87
19
86
19
85
19
84
19
83
19
82
19
81
19
80
19
79
19
78
19
77
19
76
19
75
19
74
19
73
19
72
19
71
19
19
19
70
-
The 30-year growth rate of 2.4 percent masks significant variability in year-to-year population change in Juneau. Annual population change has ranged from a high of +13 percent between 1981 and 1982 to a low of –3.2 percent between 1986 and 1987. In terms of number of residents, the most growth in a single year occurred in 1982 when Juneau’s population increased by nearly 2,700 residents. The largest single year decline occurred in 1987, when Juneau’s population declined by nearly 900 residents.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 7
Table 1 City and Borough of Juneau Historical Population Trends, 1970 to 2002 Year
Population
Annual Change
Percentage Change
1970
13,556
-
-
1971 1972
14,700 15,200
1,144 500
8.4% 3.4%
1973 1974
15,900 16,600
700 700
4.6% 4.4%
1975 1976
17,600 18,600
1,000 1,000
6.0% 5.7%
1977 1978
19,100 19,400
500 300
2.7% 1.6%
1979 1980
19,900 19,528
500 (372)
2.6% -1.9%
1981 1982
20,494 23,155
966 2,661
4.9% 13.0%
1983 1984
24,985 26,206
1,830 1,221
7.9% 4.9%
1985 1986
27,117 27,685
911 568
3.5% 2.1%
1987 1988
26,800 26,064
(885) (736)
-3.2% -2.7%
1989 1990
26,305 26,751
241 446
0.9% 1.7%
1991 1992
27,579 28,253
828 674
3.1% 2.4%
1993 1994
28,448 28,454
195 6
0.7% 0.0%
1995 1996
28,700 29,230
246 530
0.9% 1.8%
1997 1998 1999
29,713 30,021 30,189
483 308 168
1.7% 1.0% 0.6%
2000 2001
30,711 30,675
522 (36)
2002
30,981
306
Average Percentage Change 5-Year
10-Year
20-Year
5.3%
2.2%
3.8%
6.7%
4.4%
-0.2%
3.2%
3.5%
1.4%
0.5%
2.5%
1.7% -0.1%
1.4%
1.4%
2.3%
1.0%
0.8%
0.9%
1.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000). All other years from DOLWD.
From a long-term perspective, Juneau’s rate of population growth has been slowing. Population growth over the past 20 years averaged 1.4 percent annually, and over the past 10 years, 0.9 percent annually. Over the past five years, Juneau has grown at an annual rate of 0.8 percent.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 8
Overview of Past Economic and Demographic Trends Juneau’s long-term population growth during the 1970 to 2002 period is marked by several key events. These events typify the unpredictable nature of population growth in Alaska. The rapid increase in population in the early 1980s had its roots in the discovery of oil on the North Slope and subsequent construction of the TransAlaska Pipeline. The revenues generated by North Slope oil production added billions of dollars to State coffers. State government employment in Juneau increased from about 3,000 jobs in 1975 to 4,500 jobs in 1985. A residential construction boom occurred in the early 1980s, rising from 300 housing units constructed in 1980 to a peak of 900 units constructed in 1983.2 (To place this in perspective, between 100 and 150 housing units have been constructed in Juneau in each of the last five years.) A commercial construction boom occurred at about the same time, adding thousands of square feet of retail and office space to Juneau’s inventory. During a three-year period (1982-84) of rapid economic expansion, Juneau’s population increased by 5,700 residents, an increase of over 25 percent. The next significant event in Juneau’s population trend was the recession of 1986-87. Oil prices dropped to below $10 a barrel, and the resulting precipitous drop in state revenue lead to a decline in state government employment of about 500 jobs, more than 10 percent of the state workforce in Juneau. At the same time, over-expansion in housing and commercial space resulted in the loss of about 350 construction jobs, half of the local construction labor force. Overall, between 1985 and 1987, Juneau lost 1,100 jobs, 8 percent of total employment. As a result, Juneau’s population declined by about 1,600 residents, or 6 percent. Since the 1986-87 recession, Juneau’s economy and population have been growing slowly. State government employment has returned to its pre-recession levels (though state wages and purchasing power have declined in terms of real dollars). Most of the growth has been in the retail and service sectors – with that growth driven in part by tourism. Since 1990, non-agricultural wage and salary employment (which includes all employment except uniformed military and the self-employed, such as commercial fishermen) has increased by 3,400 jobs, about 25 percent. Over the same period, Juneau’s population has increased by 4,200 residents, a 16 percent increase. In other words, population growth has not kept pace with employment growth. Between 1990 and the present, Juneau’s “participation rate” has increased from approximately 52 percent to 56 percent, meaning that the number of jobs in the economy is equal to about 56 percent of the total population. This suggests that a greater percentage of the population is employed than in the past. Contributing to this trend are declining real wages (forcing households to find additional or supplemental employment and income opportunities) and the increase in the number of part-time employment opportunities. This trend is likely to continue in the near-term. Other noteworthy trends include the decline in average household size. In 1980, the average household size in Juneau was 2.74 persons. In 1990 the average was 2.66 and in 2000 the average declined further to 2.60 persons per household. Between 1990 and 2000 the average age of Juneau residents increased from 31.7 years to 35.3 years. Birth rates declined from about 20 births per thousand residents in the 1980s to about 13 births per thousand in 1999.3 2 3
Juneau Trends, December 1993, City and Borough of Juneau, prepared by McDowell Group, Inc. Alaska Population Overview, 1999 Estimates. Alaska Department of Labor.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 9
CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF OTHER LOCAL AND STATEWIDE POPULATION FORECASTS Following is a brief review of the population projections for Juneau and the state overall produced by the State of Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), the City and Borough of Juneau, and the U.S. Census Bureau.
State of Alaska, Department of Labor and Workforce Development The most recent local-area population projections prepared by the State of Alaska were published in 1998 with a forecast period to 2018. Population projections prepared by DOLWD are based on an analysis of demographic trends (rather than economic trends).4 The projections are based on trends in birth rates, death rates and migration. Migration includes in-migration and out-migration. DOLWD projections include low, middle and high cases, with the middle case the most likely. From a demographic perspective, according to DOLWD, marriage and fertility behavior and birth rates have had (and will continue to have) the greatest impact on population growth in Alaska. Birth rates have been declining in Alaska over the past decade, but are expected to increase slowly over the long term. The DOLWD analysis reports that except for a few instances (WWII and pipeline construction) migration has had relatively little effect on population change in Alaska. DOLWD also notes that the influence of migration on Alaska’s population will gradually decline as the state’s population grows. Important long-term trends noted in the DOLWD projections include retirement of baby boomers and movement of their children into the workforce. Alaskans aged 65 and over now account for about 9 percent of the state’s population. By 2025, seniors will account for over one-quarter of the population. Juneau Area Forecast The DOLWD Juneau area population growth rate projections, in five-year increments, range from 0.4 percent in the low case to about 1.0 percent in the high case. At these rates Juneau population could be between 33,000 residents and 37,000 residents, with a middle case of about 34,500 by 2018. Table 2 DOLWD Population Projections for the City and Borough of Juneau Projection
Population Change
Average Annual Rate of Change
Year
Low
Middle
High
Low
Middle
High
Low
Middle
High
1998
30,236
30,236
30,236
-
-
-
-
-
-
2003
31,204
31,388
32,036
968
1,152
1,800
0.63%
0.75%
1.16%
2008
31,914
32,413
33,727
710
1,025
1,691
0.45%
0.64%
1.03%
2013
32,568
33,475
35,521
654
1,062
1,794
0.41%
0.64%
1.04%
2018
33,120
34,447
37,248
552
972
1,727
0.34%
0.57%
0.95%
Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Research and Analysis Section, Demographics Unit. 4
Alaska Economic Trends, September–October 1998, Alaska Department of Labor.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 10
Statewide Forecasts Alaska’s overall growth rate is predicted to be somewhat higher than Juneau’s, at between 0.7 percent and 1.5 percent over the 1998 to 2018 period. A subsequent DOLWD article published in Alaska Economic Trends article in the September-October 1998 provided population projections to 2025. The Department of Labor’s website offers the following advice when using the population projections: This set of projections was based on our preliminary 1998 estimates. The fertility assumptions have proved to be higher than actual fertility. Our mid series projection for 2000 was about 635,400. The 2000 census for Alaska was 626,932, about 8,470 lower than projected. Until new projections are generated, we suggest that the user subtract 8,470 from the published numbers to get a more accurate set of state projections.
Table 3 DOLWD Population Projections for the State of Alaska Mid-Series Projection Year
Population Change
Average Annual Rate of Change
1998
Low 625,676
Middle 628,436
High 631,108
Low -
Middle -
High -
Low -
Middle -
High -
2000
629,831
635,370
640,788
4,155
6,934
9,680
0.66%
1.10%
1.52%
2005
650,335
670,418
690,455
20,504
35,048
49,667
0.65%
1.08%
1.49%
2010
672,869
708,928
745,349
22,534
38,510
54,894
0.71%
1.14%
1.55%
2015
697,621
750,941
805,532
24,752
42,013
60,183
0.72%
1.15%
1.55%
2020
721,136
793,232
868,853
23,515
42,291
63,321
0.61%
1.05%
1.49%
2025
739,148
832,993
934,876
18,012
39,761
66,023
0.41%
0.93%
1.45%
Statewide population trends are important to Juneau because of the community’s role as state capital. To a degree, the number of workers employed in state government in Juneau depends on statewide demand for government services. Increasing population means increased demand for services.
U.S. Census Bureau The U.S. Census Bureau Population Projections Program produces projections of the resident population for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, consistent with the national population projections. Although several alternative series are produced, the preferred series is a time series based on the assumption that past and current trends will continue. Another series, the economic series projections, are based on state-specific data on births, deaths, international migration, and domestic migration. The time series projections tend to be slightly higher than the economic series projections. The economic series projections through 2025 suggest that the state’s population will grow at an average annual rate of between 0.9 and 1.3 percent. Census Bureau population projections for Alaska are consistent with DOLWD projections. Relatively slow growth is expected, generally about 1 percent annually. CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 11
Table 4 U.S. Census Bureau Population Projections for the State of Alaska
Year 1995
Time Series (Preferred) Increase in Annual Rate Projection Population of Increase 603,613 -
Economic Series Increase in Annual Rate Projection Population of Increase 603,641 -
2000
653,293
49,680
1.5%
632,239
28,598
0.9%
2005
699,765
46,472
1.4%
658,796
26,557
0.8%
2010
745,171
45,406
1.3%
689,692
30,896
0.9%
2015
791,246
46,075
1.2%
727,864
38,172
1.1%
2020
837,797
46,551
1.1%
773,202
45,338
1.2%
2025
884,914
47,117
1.1%
824,906
51,704
1.3%
Transportation Planning Related Forecasts CBJ Area Wide Transportation Plan The CBJ Area Wide Transportation Plan (AWTP) “defines a framework for transportation projects in the CBJ for the next 20 years.”5 For purposes of long-range transportation planning it was assumed that Juneau’s population would grow from 30,000 to about 37,000 residents, based on an annual growth rate of 1 percent. Vehicle travel growth of 1.5 percent was also used in the AWTP. This growth rate has been used on other transportation projects, such as the West Egan Drive Corridor Study. The AWTP project did not include detailed analysis of potential population growth in Juneau. According to participants in the planning process, the 1 percent growth was used because it represented a reasonable long-term growth, given current conditions in the economy and recent past growth trends.
5
City and Borough of Juneau Area Wide Transportation Plan, Volume 1, Transportation Plan Recommendations. July 9, 2001. Prepared by the Department of Community Development.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 12
CHAPTER 3. BASIC INDUSTRY CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK Ultimately, without economic opportunity, population growth will not occur over the long-term. Therefore it is useful to consider trends or events that could affect Juneau’s economy. State government dominates Juneau’s economy, but tourism and federal government are also important contributors to the local economic base. Trends in these industries, as well as others, will determine the magnitude of economic growth in Juneau in the foreseeable future. State Government State government is Juneau’s largest employer, with approximately 4,400 jobs and $175 million in annual payroll. Including the indirect and induced employment impacts, state government accounts for 7,900 jobs and $250 million in payroll, or about 45 percent of the local economy. While state government remains the community’s dominant economic force, its relative importance in the Juneau economy has declined over the past 20 years. In 1981, state government directly accounted for 36 percent of all jobs in Juneau. Today it directly accounts for about 25 percent of all employment (4,400 jobs out of a total employment base of 17,200). Similarly, state government accounted for 41 percent of all payroll in the economy 20 years ago, but now accounts for about 30 percent. Table 5 State Government and Total Employment in Juneau 1981, 1991-2000, and Percent of Total Employment 1981
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
State Employment
4,141 4,518 4,530 4,373 4,301 4,315 4,318 4,232 4,237 4,271 4,284 4,444
Total Employment
11,496 14,081 14,518 14,612 15,294 15,812 16,165 16,518 16,461 16,660 17,045 17,288
Percent State
36%
32%
31%
30%
28%
27%
27%
26%
26%
26%
25%
26%
Source: Alaska Department of Labor, Employment and Earnings Reports.
State government employment has been driven primarily by available revenue. However, over the long-term, population growth in Alaska overall will determine state employment in the capital city. As population grows, so too does the demand for the kinds of public services provided by state government. In the near term, funding will continue to be the key issue in state government employment in Juneau. In 2004, state government employment in Juneau is expected to decline as a result of budget cuts, and further cuts are likely. Declining oil revenue, coupled with flat or increased spending, has resulted in significant budget deficits (deficits filled by spending the steadily shrinking Budget Reserve Account). According to Department of Revenue forecasts, Alaska North Slope (ANS) oil revenue is expected to continue declining through at least 2010. In fiscal year 2003, ANS production taxes and royalties will total $1.2 billion. By FY 2010, ANS revenues are expected to total about $775 million.6 6
Fall 2002 Revenue Sources Book, Alaska Department of Revenue, 2002.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 13
In any case, development of new sources of revenue, including sales or income taxes, will be required to fill the gap left by declining oil revenue. Once these sources of revenue are in place, some measure of predictability and stability should be added to the state funding and employment picture over the long term. In the meantime, Juneau can expect continued uncertainty and most likely some decline in state government employment. Events that could affect state government employment in Juneau include potential oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and development of a gas pipeline. Development of ANWR could generate half a billion to $1.5 billion in annual revenues for the state, depending on how much oil is proven economically recoverable.7 The issue of opening ANWR to oil exploration and development is before Congress. If approved, at the earliest, oil production could begin in seven years with peak production achieved some years after that. Development of ANWR would affect Juneau’s economy through additional state revenues. Construction of a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to southern markets is also at least several years away, if it occurs at all. The impact of gas line construction on Juneau’s economy is uncertain, though some increase in state government revenues is likely. The capital move issue is the “wild card” in Juneau’s future. A full capital move would cost Juneau approximately 5,100 jobs, including 2,800 state government jobs and another 2,300 jobs in the support sector. The economy would lose $175 million in annual payroll (including direct and indirect effects), and a total of 8,000 residents – one quarter of Juneau’s population.8 If state government grows over the long-term, following the predicted rate of population growth in Alaska (about 1 percent annually), state employment in Juneau would grow from its current level of 4,400 jobs to about 6,000 jobs over a 30-year period. This employment increase would result in a population increase of about 4,800 residents.9 Tourism The visitor industry is Juneau’s second largest industry in terms of employment. The industry creates an annual average of approximately 1,600 jobs and $30 million in payroll, according to the latest estimates. The visitor industry has been Juneau’s only growth industry in recent years. Cruise ship passenger traffic to Juneau has grown from 87,000 visitors in 1982 to 750,000 in 2002. The economic impact of these visitors has increased at a similar pace, with cruise ship passengers now spending an estimated $90 million in Juneau annually. The outlook for cruise traffic is for continued growth. One projection suggests that traffic could increase to between 1.2 and 1.5 million passengers over the next ten years.10 An issue is whether Southeast Alaska has the infrastructure necessary to handle that level of growth. Construction of additional cruise ship docks is being considered in Ketchikan and Sitka. Another cruise ship dock is being constructed in Juneau at the Rock Dump. Cruise ship port facilities are being developed in Hoonah 7
ANWR and the Alaska Economy: An Economic Impact Assessment. Prepared for SAFE by the McDowell Group, Inc. September 2002. 8 The Capital Economy: An Assessment of the Economic Impacts of a Capital Move on Southeast Alaska. Prepared for the Alaska Committee by the McDowell Group, Inc., August 2002. 9 Estimate based on employment multiplier of 1.8 and participation rate of 0.6. 10 Ketchikan Ports and Harbors Development Plan, B&A Associates, 2003. CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 14
and ships will begin calling there in 2004. A similar development is being considered for the Hobart Bay area. Given all of this, lack of infrastructure should not be a constraint on growth. Perhaps of more concern is the quality of visitor experience in ports where up to 10,000 visitors are already calling in a single day. However, development of new ports in remote areas and increased traffic to the less frequented ports will alleviate some of this overcrowding concern. The independent visitor market (visitors arriving by ferry or airline) has been flat in recent years, though little data is available. Estimates place total independent visitor traffic to Juneau at about 150,000. No significant change in independent visitor travel to Juneau is expected, though construction of a road out of Juneau or significantly improved ferry service could increase the number of highway travelers visiting Juneau. In summary, the cruise industry is likely to continue to be one of the few segments of the economy that grows over the next few years. If tourism employment in Juneau grows at an average annual rate of about 2 percent, for example, total employment in the industry would reach 2,900 jobs in 30 years, resulting in a population increase of about 5,800 residents.11 A 3 percent annual growth rate would generate population growth of about 7,800 residents over 30 years. Federal Government The federal government accounts for about 1,000 jobs in Juneau and $60 million in annual payroll. It is Juneau’s third largest industry in terms of employment. The largest federal agencies in Juneau are the U.S. Coast Guard, the Forest Service and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Federal employment in Juneau has been trending down and is now about 200 jobs below the 1990 level. There is no indication that federal government employment will significantly decrease or increase in the foreseeable future. Growth that does occur in Juneau should be in response to local and regional population growth, which will result in increasing demand for federal government services. Other Basic Industries Mining: Mining accounts for about 290 jobs in Juneau, nearly all at the Greens Creek Mine on Admiralty Island. Workers reside in Juneau and commute to the mine on a daily basis. An environmental impact statement (EIS) has recently been completed on a project that will provide for expansion of the mine’s tailings disposal facilities. With this expansion, and given measured ore reserves, the mine should continue to operate for another ten years. Discovery of additional reserves could increase the mine’s life. Closure of the mine could have a direct or indirect impact on between 2 percent and 3 percent of Juneau’s population (based on the current population). The Kensington Mine development project is moving forward, with construction beginning as early as 2004. Development of the mine will create 225 permanent, year-round jobs in Juneau. Like Greens Creek, Kensington miners would reside in Juneau. Development of the Kensington would result in a population increase in Juneau of approximately 500 to 600 residents. Based on current ore reserves, the mine has an anticipated life of about ten years.
11
Estimate based on employment multiplier of 1.5 and a participation rate of 0.75.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 15
Seafood: Commercial fishing and seafood processing account for about 5 percent of Juneau’s basic economy. A total of 541 Juneau residents held commercial fishing permits in 2000, according to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). These fishermen harvested 17.5 million pounds of seafood with an ex-vessel value of $15 million (ex-vessel is the amount fishermen are paid for their fish by processors). In addition, 412 Juneau residents purchased crew licenses in 2000. Based on a commercial fishing employment model developed by the McDowell Group, which considers the length of commercial fishing seasons and crewing practices in each fishery, this translates into the equivalent of about 300 year-round jobs and $9 million in skipper and crew personal income in 2000. In 2001, Juneau processor employment totaled an estimated 65 jobs, with an estimated $1.8 million in payroll. Taku Smokeries accounts for about 80 percent of Juneau’s seafood processing employment. While much of Alaska’s processing sector has been struggling, Juneau’s processing sector has been growing. The volume of halibut processed in Juneau increased from less than 500,000 pounds in 1995 to nearly 3 million pounds in 1999. Ex-vessel value of halibut processed in Juneau increased nearly seven-fold, from $675,000 in 1995 to $4.6 million in 1999. Blackcod production volume increased from 180,000 pounds in 1995 to 1.2 million pounds in 1999, while ex-vessel value increased from $355,000 to $3 million. Douglas Island Pink and Chum (DIPAC) is also an important part of Juneau’s seafood industry. Last year (2001) DIPAC employed an average of 45 workers, with peak employment at 79. The outlook for the seafood industry in Juneau is uncertain. Salmon fishermen will continue to struggle with low prices. Participation in the salmon fisheries is likely to continue declining. On the other hand, the longline fisheries are expected to remain strong (halibut farming is occurring in Europe, but does not at this time appear to represent a real threat to Alaskan fishermen). Value-added processing also holds some promise for Juneau’s seafood industry. Fish waste utilization projects, if proven technically and economically feasible, could increase employment opportunities in Juneau over the long-term. Summary Over the long-term, employment is expected to grow slowly in Juneau, at between 1.0 and 1.5 percent annually, mostly as a result of tourism-related growth and (later in the forecast period) state government growth. This rate of job growth is slightly lower than in Juneau’s past. Over the past ten years, employment in Juneau has grown at an annual rate of 1.8 percent, and over the past 20 years, 2.1 percent. Over the past five years, employment growth has slowed to about 1.2 percent annually. Juneau’s economy will continue to be subject to events and developments that could generate relatively sudden population shifts. For example, some decline in state government employment is likely in 2004 and perhaps the following years as the state struggles to establish a stream of revenue to replace the decline in oil revenues. Also, development of the Kensington mine could push Juneau’s employment base up by 2 percent or more over a three to four year period. However, while year-toyear fluctuation is to be expected, over the long-term employment is expected to grow slowly. Additional tourism-related expansion will be the primary engine for this growth, as well as additional state government growth later in the forecast period. This, of course, assumes that both the Legislature and Capital remain in Juneau. CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 16
CHAPTER 4. 30-YEAR CBJ POPULATION FORECAST Based on the demographic and economic trends outlined in the preceding chapters, the study team prepared low, middle and high case population forecasts for Juneau through the year 2035. These forecasts are based on a simple employment-based model which links assumptions about employment growth in Juneau’s basic industries with long term population growth. Each case is described below in terms of assumptions about the forces at work in the economy. Low Case Scenario •
In the near-term Juneau’s economy suffers from a decline in state government employment, resulting from budget cutting measures.
•
Over the long-term the state’s population grows slowly and state government grows only as needed to support the additional statewide population growth, predicted to be around 0.9 percent annually.
•
North Slope oil revenue continues to decline and a state income tax is initiated, as well as other revenue enhancement measures, adding some longterm stability to the local economy.
•
ANWR is not developed. The gas line is developed late in the forecast period.
•
The cruise ship market matures in Alaska and traffic to Juneau levels off (or grows very slowly) after about five to seven years.
•
The Kensington mine is not developed and the Greens Creek mine closes in about 10 to 12 years.
•
Federal government employment remains stable over the forecast period, growing only in proportion to local and statewide population growth.
•
Access to West Douglas is not improved and a shortage of affordable developable land constrains growth in Juneau.
•
Both the Legislature and the Capital remain in Juneau.
•
Birth rates remain relatively low throughout the forecast period.
The low case population projection shows essentially very slow growth for Juneau. Juneau’s 2002 population estimate was 30,981. This projection assumes 0.5 percent growth over the forecast period, which pushes Juneau’s population to about 37,500 residents in 2035. This is an increase of nearly 6,500 residents over the forecast period. Middle Case Scenario •
CBJ Population Forecast
The state’s population grows moderately and state government employment grows at about the same pace, around 1.0 to 1.5 percent annually.
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 17
•
North Slope oil production and associated revenue is stable in the near term but declines toward the end of the forecast period. A state income tax and other revenue measures are initiated, adding some long-term stability to the local economy.
•
ANWR is not developed and the gas line is developed within 10 years.
•
The cruise ship market matures in Alaska and traffic to Juneau levels off after about 10 years.
•
The Kensington mine is developed within five years and remains in operation for 20 years. Greens Creek mine closes in about 10 to 12 years.
•
Federal government employment remains stable over the forecast period, growing only in proportion to local and statewide population growth.
•
Access to West Douglas is not improved and a shortage of affordable developable land constrains growth in Juneau.
•
The middle case assumes that both the Legislature and the Capital remain in Juneau.
•
Birth rates increase as the baby-boom “echo” population reaches adulthood.
The medium case population projection for Juneau is for a 1 percent annual growth rate, lifting the local population to about 42,800 residents by 2035. This represents about 12,000 new residents. High Case Scenario •
The state’s population grows moderately and state government employment in Juneau grows at about the same pace, around 1.5% annually.
•
Oil prices increase over the forecast period and oil-related revenue grows slowly over the forecast period. A state income tax and other revenue measures are initiated, adding long-term stability to the local economy.
•
ANWR is not developed and the gas line is developed within 10 years.
•
The cruise ship market matures in Alaska and traffic to Juneau levels off after about 15 years.
•
The Kensington mine is developed and remains in operation throughout the forecast period and the Greens Creek mine closes in about 20 years.
•
Federal government employment increases slowly over the forecast period, growing in response to local population growth and increased management responsibilities for federal resources (USFS, USCG).
•
Access to West Douglas is improved with a second crossing and significant commercial and residential development occurs in the area.
•
The high case assumes that both the Legislature and the Capital remain in Juneau.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 18
•
Road access to Juneau is completed, stimulating some economic growth in Juneau.
•
Birth rates increase as the baby-boom “echo” population reaches adulthood.
The high case population projection for Juneau is 50,500 residents by 2035. This is almost 20,000 new residents over the forecast period and represents a growth rate of 1.5 percent. This is slightly more than the 20-year historical growth rate of a 1.4 percent. Figure 2 30-Year Population Forecasts for City and Borough of Juneau 60,000
50,000
Medium High 40,000
30,000
Low
20,000
10,000
19 70 19 72 19 74 19 76 19 78 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 20 04 20 06 20 08 20 10 20 12 20 14 20 16 20 18 20 20 20 22 20 24 20 26 20 28 20 30 20 32 20 34
-
Source
U.S. Census and Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Demographics Section. Forecasts are from McDowell Group.
The low, middle and high case population forecasts all have about the same level of probability, given assumptions made to support each case. All are generally conservative forecasts, with the potential impacts of major unpredictable events, such as a capital move or development (and production of) a substantial volume of oil from ANWR excluded.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 19
CHAPTER 5. ROLE OF WEST DOUGLAS IN JUNEAU’S POPULATION GROWTH An important objective of this study is to assess the role of improved access to North Douglas and the West Douglas area (and subsequent development of that area) in the timing and magnitude of population growth in Juneau. A variety of factors will determine how North and West Douglas might fit into Juneau’s long-range development. These include: •
The City’s official position with regard to growth and its land on North and West Douglas.
•
The private sector’s (Goldbelt’s) interest and plans for development in West Douglas.
•
The availability of land in the borough to meet Juneau’s long-term growth needs, other than that available on Douglas Island.
This chapter addresses these and related factors. It is important to recognize the classic “chicken or the egg” dynamic at work with respect to West Douglas. In the absence of an appropriately located second crossing, development of West Douglas is likely to occur very slowly, if at all. On the other hand, construction of a second crossing may be unlikely in the absence of a demonstrable economic development or traffic-related need. The issues discussed in this chapter can only provide a context for development of West Douglas. The particulars of specifically when and what type of development will occur is impossible to predict. However, it is possible to determine if a fundamental infrastructure need will exist for better access to Douglas Island, given predicted population growth.
CBJ Land Management Plan In addition to 3,400 acres on West Douglas, the CBJ has extensive land holdings elsewhere in the borough that are slated for long-term disposal. These land holdings include: •
164 acres above the community of Douglas
•
335 acres at Lena Loop and Auke Rec By-Pass
•
260 acres on the tip of Mendenhall Peninsula
•
352 acres on Pederson Hill near Auke Lake
•
406 acres on Mendenhall Peninsula
•
654 acres on North Douglas between Grant Creek and Falls Creek
•
2,155 acres on North Douglas between Bonnie Brae and Fish Creek
•
310 acres near the Auke Bay Ferry Terminal
These 4,600-plus acres provide significant capacity for residential growth, assuming of course that adequate access and utilities are available. Lack of access is a major hindrance in the development of these parcels due to the substantial investment required. Access road(s) to the majority of the sites are also necessary to enable and CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 20
promote the development of the utility infrastructure. Most of these parcels will move to the list of properties for “immediate” disposal only when sewer systems are in place. This represents a significant constraint on development, given that disposal can only occur after the city finds the very substantial funding necessary to install sewage disposal systems. Otherwise, the parcel sizes have to be larger, as in the recent Lena Point land disposal, to accommodate on-lot systems or an independent neighborhood collection system. It should be noted that 60 percent of the property on the CBJ’s long-term land disposal list is on Douglas Island in areas that would directly impact the need for and usage of a second crossing. Another important issue is the cost of development in these areas. Site development costs are an increasingly significant portion of housing construction costs in Juneau. Evaluating site development costs associated with residential development on the CBJ land listed above is far beyond the scope of this study. It has been pointed out by CBJ officials, however, that the West Douglas area offers land with the best potential for residential and industrial development.12
CBJ Comprehensive Plan The City and Borough of Juneau Comprehensive Plan states that four of the most likely sites for new growth are Echo Cove, and west, south and north Douglas Island. In the Comprehensive Plan, the West Douglas area is designated as a “New Growth Area.” The Comprehensive Plan defines a new growth area as: Sites in rural areas potentially suitable for urban/suburban residential development – characterized by urban densities and a full complement of services and facilities, including water and sewer, recreational, educational and neighborhood commercial services. Non-residential uses such as port facilities or resource-related industrial development, may also be important.
The CBJ Comprehensive Plan describes New Growth areas as the preferred future community form: Compact growth in urban area is preferable because there the use of land is more efficient, urban services are more economically provided and maintained; adverse environmental impacts are minimized; and the majority of residents who prefer a high level of services are better served….Development of new growth areas as satellite communities [is] the most desirable way to accommodate growth outside the urban area.
The authors of the West Douglas Conceptual Plan interpreted this and other language in the Comprehensive Plan as clear direction that land use in the West Douglas area should be located in “compact urban areas within the more rural setting.” The West Douglas Concept Plan proposes a development “node” concept for the area, as described in the next section. The Comprehensive Plan also identifies West Douglas as a “Resource Reserve.” This land use designation is applied where it is appropriate to conserve the area until more specific land uses are identified, approved and developed. The Comprehensive Plan also points toward the need for additional property for commercial and industrial development potential:
12
“Land for new houses grows rare”, Juneau Empire, August 31, 2003.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 21
•
It is advisable to have more than a 15-year supply of vacant land in some categories, especially commercial and industrial, to facilitate long-range planning for needed public services and facilities…
•
The major port facilities for commercial and industrial goods and materials are located on the southern part of the downtown waterfront. Because of geography and development pattern of that area, room for expansion is limited. In addition, traveling up the Gastineau Channel is a significant detour for most barge traffic. Truck traffic to and from the port adds to the noise and congestion in the downtown area.
Commercial and industrial development are envisioned for the West Douglas area, as articulated in the West Douglas Conceptual Plan.
CBJ and Goldbelt West Douglas Conceptual Plan The West Douglas planning area is located on the northwest side of Douglas Island beyond the present end of North Douglas Highway. It extends as a belt about 1 mile wide and 8.5 miles long along the west shore of the island. Most of the area is on a bench bounded on the west by Stephens Passage and on the east by the high mountain ridges of Douglas Island. The CBJ and Goldbelt, Inc. own adjoining properties along approximately eight miles of West Douglas Island. Goldbelt’s property covers 1,740 acres along the shoreline, stretching from Outer Point to a point approximately a mile south of Point Hilda. The width of the property averages between 1/4 and 1/2 mile. The City and Borough’s property covers 3,434 acres immediately inland of the Goldbelt land and is also relatively narrow (average 1/2 mile). Immediately upland is undeveloped United States Forest Service land, part of the Tongass National Forest. Both CBJ and Goldbelt have long been interested in exploring development possibilities for the area. In 1995 Minch Ritter Voelckers was hired as lead consultant to perform conceptual planning and land use analysis. MRV conducted land survey and reconnaissance work, and established overall planning goals and a conceptual design using input from CBJ, Goldbelt, and the public. After a review of various draft plan alternatives, Goldbelt’s Board of Directors and the CBJ Planning Commission approved the general conceptual plan. (The study effort took into account concurrent planning by separate parties to develop a golf course in the area.) The CBJ and Goldbelt each have their own goals for the property. Goldbelt is interested in uses that “simultaneously protect the environmental qualities of the land, provide for continued shareholder recreation opportunities, and develop revenue.”13 The CBJ is more committed to satisfying community needs – for example housing, recreational opportunities, and commercial infrastructure. The CBJ is also committed to retaining the environmental attributes of the area. Conceptual Plan Development Recommendations MRV’s land surveying efforts established that while many large areas of the land in question were inappropriate for development, other portions of the property were “very attractive.” The report recommends that the area be developed in terms of five 13
Minch Ritter Voelckers, West Douglas Conceptual Plan. Prepared for the City and Borough of Juneau and Goldbelt, Inc., May 1997. CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 22
discrete nodes – “high-density developed portions separated by lower use and/or protected regions.” These compact areas will provide a full complement of residential, commercial, industrial and recreational uses. The development schedule would be phased, driven by population growth, land needs, and development opportunities. This land use concept takes into account Goldbelt’s goals of keeping large areas of the land undeveloped, and also follows CBJ’s preference as stated in the CBJ Comprehensive Plan for promoting compact urban sites. The proposed development areas are referred to as Area 1-A, Area 1-B, Area 2, Area 3, and Area 4, with Areas 1-A and 1-B closest to the current road and Area 4 the farthest away. Development Area 1-A This development area is located approximately two miles beyond Outer Point and covers about 120 acres, including one-half mile of beach frontage. It is recommended that this site include significant housing (up to 700 units) and a supporting commercial core. Recommended acreage according to usage is: open park and public space (15 acres), commercial (15 acres), mixed use (15 acres), high density housing (15 acres), medium density housing (30 acres) and special uses (such as a lodge or office complex; 30 acres). This area would support a population of about 2,500. Development Area 1-B This development area is located on the upland side of the proposed road, just north of Area 1-A. It includes the proposed golf course (approximately 200 acres) and adjacent, dispersed housing. Residents are expected to utilize the commercial support of Area 1-A. Development Area 2 Area 2 is located at Inner Point (about two miles along the shoreline further southeast of Area 1-A) and covers about 50 to 70 acres. The primary function of this area will be for water-dependent industrial, commercial, and possibly recreational uses. The potential for marine activity is positive due to a high water depth and storm protection. Most development in this area is expected to be of either waterfront industrial or waterfront commercial nature. Possible developments include a dock, boat launch, breakwater, ice plant, fish processing facility, fueling service, and fuel storage facility. Development Area 3 Development Area 3 is located less than a mile beyond Inner Point and covers approximately 80 acres. The area will be developed primarily for residential purposes (600 units) with some recreational zones, which may include public camping, beach access, and RV accommodations. Acreage and usage is assumed to match the following: open and public areas (10 acres), mixed use (commercial, housing; 15 acres), high density housing (15 acres), medium density housing (20 acres), low density housing (20 acres), and special uses (RV, camping; 20 acres). A target population of 2,000 is assumed for this area.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 23
Development Area 4 Development Area 4 covers about 100 acres located nearly 10 miles southeast of Outer Point (along the shoreline). This area is not expected to be developed for a number of years due to extensive road and utility development costs, and the need to cross environmentally sensitive lands at Hilda Creek. Because it will be separated from other commercial centers, it will likely support commercial and industrial activity in addition to a major housing component (750 units). Acreage and usage is expected to include: open and public areas (15 acres), mixed use (commercial, housing; 15 acres), high density housing (15 acres), medium density housing (25 acres), low density housing (20 acres), and special uses (marina uses; 10 acres). Area 4 would support a population of about 3,000.
West Douglas Market Assessment In 1992 the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development funded a study of the development potential for the West Douglas area. The Market Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis of the West Douglas Project examined the potential for development of a wide range of port and industrial uses.14 The West Douglas market assessment considered a two-phase development scenario that had been defined by Goldbelt, Inc. Phase I included construction and operation of a barge landing in the Inner Point area. Uplands development could include a freight staging area, a tank farm and warehouse. The Phase II development would be market-driven but could include a deepwater port, a small boat marina, seafood processing facilities, boat repair and service, other commercial and marine uses and residential development. The West Douglas market assessment found that there was a limited commercial market for a proposed barge landing located at Inner Point, because the cost of transporting fuel and freight over the 17 miles from the barge landing to the downtown area represented a serious competitive disadvantage compared to existing barge facilities. Phase II development was also contingent upon a second crossing. The study identified some market potential for cruise ship related traffic, marina-related usage, small-scale fish processing, and residential development. Regarding the second crossing, the 1992 West Douglas market analysis concluded: ...a second crossing would play a critical role in the timing and magnitude of industrial, commercial and residential development of the West Douglas area.
And: The proposed site of the West Douglas development is 17 miles from the downtown area and in fact 17 miles from any service and supply center. That represents a 17 mile disadvantage that freight or fuel distributors would have compared to the competition based in town.
The study also points out that the West Douglas area provides no property tax benefits to the City and Borough of Juneau. The 3,400 acres of city-owned property
14
A Market Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis of the West Douglas Project. Prepared for the Alaska Department of Commerce and Economic Development by McDowell Group, Inc., July 1992.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 24
will generate tax revenue only after it is sold, and Goldbelt’s 1,700 acres will be taxable only after the land is developed.
Other West Douglas Development Considerations According to a Goldbelt representative, development of the corporation’s land in the West Douglas area is contingent upon construction of a second crossing. In the absence of a second crossing, no development is planned in the immediate future.15 Regional transportation planning includes highway and ferry connections linking the Juneau and Hoonah areas via road and ferry links from West Douglas. The US Forest Service’s Southeast Alaska Proposed Public Road and Ferry Projects, prepared for the Southeast Conference, identified various road and ferry projects with long-term development potential in the region. A proposed route between Juneau and Hoonah includes 4.5 miles of new road from the end of the existing North Douglas Highway to Middle Point. A ferry service would cross Stephens Passage to Young Bay where an existing two-lane road connects to Hawk Inlet. From Hawk Inlet another ferry connection would link to the Chichagof Island road system and the community of Hoonah. This $124 million project has only very long term potential, but does represent additional future use of the West Douglas area.
Summary Analysis West Douglas Housing Development Based on the population forecasts made in this study, Juneau’s population could grow by between 6,500 (in the low case) and 20,000 (in the high case) new residents over the next 30 years. This translates into a need for between 2,500 and 7,700 additional housing units, based on an average household size of 2.6 persons per household. From a housing perspective, the community’s need for better access to Douglas Island depends on the existing infrastructure’s capacity for additional housing development. A 1992 McDowell Group study found that Juneau’s infrastructure could accommodate 3,000 additional housing units over the current (then, in 1992) inventory of 10,500 units. Since 1992, Juneau’s housing inventory has increased by about 2,000 units. With expansion of utilities, since 1992, to areas such as Back Loop Road, and additional infilling, the community (excluding Douglas Island) probably has the capacity for an additional 1,000 to 1,500 housing units. Beyond that, the only area with significant housing development potential is the CBJ land in the West Mendenhall Area, including Pederson Hill area and Mendenhall Peninsula, a total of about 1,000 acres. This area may have a housing development capacity of between 1,500 and 2,500 housing units, depending on the density of development. With capacity for an additional 2,500 to 4,000 housing units, Juneau appears to have adequate space to meet future housing needs in the low case growth scenario (0.5 percent per year population growth, resulting in demand for 2,500 new housing units). However, Juneau will continue to struggle with high housing costs resulting
15
Goade, David, Goldbelt, Inc., Vice President, personal communication, September 2003.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 25
from high site development costs. Development of the West Mendenhall area would be required. In the middle case population forecast, an additional 4,500 housing units would be needed over the next 30 years. This is somewhat more than the community’s available capacity of between 2,500 and 4,000 units. In the middle case population forecast (and even in the low case), growth in the absence of a second crossing would result in in-filling of almost all available land and likely higher densities than are now typical of Juneau. Further, high site preparation and related development costs would be expected. The high case population forecast of 1.5 percent annual growth would result in demand for an additional 7,700 housing units, almost double what is available within Juneau’s existing infrastructure, plus the West Mendenhall area. This suggests that development of Douglas Island acreage will be required to meet the community’s long-term needs. Some Douglas Island property can and will be developed in the absence of improved access. The West Juneau and Douglas proper areas both have some, though limited, capacity for additional housing development. Significant housing development in that area is unlikely (or at least would be discouraged by the CBJ) given the traffic congestion-related problems already being experienced along Douglas Highway and the Douglas Bridge. Similarly, further housing development along North Douglas highway in the absence of a second crossing is unattractive because of traffic and safety concerns. North Douglas Highway is a 45-mph highway with direct residential driveway access. Additional housing development in the area would exacerbate an already difficult traffic environment. In summary, a second crossing would clearly be required, in the high-case population forecast, to meet the community’s long-term housing needs. In the middle case, the need for a second crossing is less compelling, however, full buildout of all available property and high-density development would be required. Further, by the end of the forecast period, about all of Juneau’s available land will have been developed. The community will continue to face high construction costs, and development of the West Mendenhall area would be required. In the low case, Juneau appears to have adequate space to accommodate long-term housing demand, assuming the West Mendenhall area is developed. Again, however, community expansion with the existing infrastructure will do nothing to relieve the high cost of housing development in Juneau. West Douglas Business Development and Employment Employment growth in the West Douglas area is expected to be narrowly focused, initially. Golf course related business development is likely to be the first type of development in the general, located near the end of the existing North Douglas Highway. Following that, the types of businesses most likely to locate in the area include those related to marine support services, freight shipping and handling services, seafood processing, and visitor-related services. Later in the area’s development (as the West Douglas population and commercial activity grow), more retail and service-oriented business would locate there. In any case, employment growth is not expected to occur at the same rate as residential growth. The employment needed to support Juneau’s predicted population expansion will occur primarily in existing commercial areas: downtown, CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 26
the Airport/Valley area, as well as the Lemon Creek area. Juneau has more capacity for commercial growth, within existing infrastructure, than it does for residential growth. In-filling of commercially zoned areas, and redevelopment of commercial areas allowing for higher density commercial activity, provide significant long-term commercial development opportunities in Juneau. The exception to this is waterfront industrial/commercial property, which is limited, and which West Douglas access and development could provide. In other words, long-term demand for housing and waterfront commercial property, not general commercial development, indicate the need for better access to North and West Douglas.
Bridge Location Considerations A number of second crossing locations are being considered. The location of the crossing is important in terms of West Douglas development and overall community development. The key factor in any residential development is distance and travel time to commercial centers. Juneau has two commercial hubs, the downtown area and the airport/Valley area. For West Douglas, the crossing location that provides the most immediate access to Egan Drive and the airport/valley commercial area will generate the highest level of development. Long-term improvements to Egan Drive include overpasses or other intersection improvements at the Loop Road, McNugget, Yandukin (Fred Meyer), Sunny Point, Vanderbilt Hill and Salmon Creek intersections. These improvements will streamline traffic flow along Egan Drive, especially during peak hour traffic, and would induce commuter and other traffic traveling to and from West Douglas to use Egan Drive rather than North Douglas Highway. The crossing location that provides the most immediate access to Egan Drive and the airport/valley commercial area would spur the greatest level of development in the West Douglas area. This suggests an optimal crossing location between Vanderbilt Hill and Industrial Boulevard. A Mendenhall Peninsula crossing location would provide the most immediate access to West Douglas, simply in terms of travel distance to existing roadways. A crossing in that area could also facilitate infrastructure development in the Mendenhall Peninsula area, where future housing development may be required. However, a Mendenhall Peninsula crossing may not provide the most immediate access to Egan Drive and Juneau’s commercial/employment centers. A Salmon Creek crossing location could provide the necessary access to developable CBJ land in the North Douglas area (to meet long-term housing needs), but a bench road may be required to address traffic concerns on North Douglas Highway. A Salmon Creek crossing would not be optimal, relative to other crossing options, in terms of providing access to the West Douglas area.
CBJ Population Forecast
McDowell Group, Inc. • Page 27
