ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Home Browse Search

Table 55: Percent Household Income and Average Annual Disposable Personal Income by As shown by the economic indicators provided in Table 56,the effluent-to-land disposal and Household Income Class Required to Finance Alternative Control Measure Costs MF/RO alternatives are projected to have widely different impacts on the City's local economy. Annual Sewer Fee by Treatment Level Because the economic indicators represent only a single year's impacts on the City's economy- Average as Percentage of Average Annual Household Income(HHI)and they are,in fact,annualized economic indicators-these impacts would be repeated every year Annual Annual Average Disposal Personal Income(DPI) for the 20-year life-cycle of the alternative. The losses,whether in dollars or jobs,are linked to a Disposable Current Treatment ETLD Treatment MF/RO Treatment reduction in DPI due to increased sewer fees required to pay for an alternative control measure. Personal ($376.80) ($456.84) ($635.64) All communities possess somewhat unique spending habits as a whole,and a reduction in DPI HH Income Income has different consequences for some economic sectors as compared to others depending on the Class (DPI)(1,2) %,of HHI %of DPI %of HHI %of DPI %of HHI %of DPI community in which the reduction in DPI occurs. The IMPLAN®model output also includes a <10K $5,834 5.33 6.46 6.44 7.81 8.91 10.81 listing of affected sectors for each economic indicator. The Top 10 sectors in the City projected 10-15K $14,584 2.13 2.58 2.58 3.12 3.57 4.32 to be affected by the implementation of alternative control measures in terms of both losses in 15-25K $23,335 1.33 1.61 1.61 1.95 2.23 2.70 employment and labor income are shown in Table 57. The sectors hit hardest by employment 25-35K $35,003 0.89 1.08 1.07 1.30 1.49 1.80 loss are not necessarily the same ones projected to have the greatest impact on loss of income 35-50K $49,587 0.63 0.76 0.76 0.92 1.05 1.27 labor because a smaller number of medium to high paying jobs(for example,health care industry jobs)will have a greater impact on a community's labor income than a larger number of low 50-75K $81,673 0.38 0.46 0.46 0.56 0.64 0.77 paying jobs(for example,food service jobs). 75-100K $105,008 0.30 0.36 0.36 0.43 0.50 0.60 100-150K $145,845 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.31 0.36 0.43 Table 57: Top 10 Sectors Affected by Implementation of Alternative Control Measures 150K+ $204,183 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.25 0.31 Top 10 Affected Employment Sectors(') Top 10 Affected Labor Income Sectors(') ETLD=Effluent-to-Land Disposal (1)Calculated as 82.5%of Average Annual HH Income provided in Table 54. Food service and drinking places Hospitals (2)Data source IMPLAN'2003. Hospitals Health care offices Health care offices Food service and drinking places Table 56 presents the IMPLAN®-modeled economic impacts of each treatment alternative in General merchandise stores Motor vehicle and parts dealers terms of labor income loss,indirect business tax loss,employment loss,and total output loss. Non-store retailers(includes internet retailers) Food and beverage stores Labor income constitutes the wages and benefits of employees and proprietors,and indirect Food and beverage stores Wholesale trade business tax includes the excise and sales taxes paid by individuals and businesses. Total output is the sum of all the goods and services produced in a community's economy. The IMPLAN® Motor vehicle and parts dealers General merchandise stores model was run using the 50-75K income class as a surrogate for all income classes as the Religious organizations Automotive repair and maintenance spending habits of the 50-75K income class have been found to be representative of the Nursing and residential care facilities Nursing and residential care facilities spending habits of all income classes within a community. The losses projected by the model Monetary authorities and depository credit (i.e.,model output)are the sum of all direct,indirect,and induced effects of the cost of an Automotive repair and maintenance intermediation(banks,savings institutions,credit alternative control measure on the City's economy. The model input is the estimated total annual unions,etc.) cost for a particular alternative control measure(see Table 47 and Table 49 for cost estimates). (1)Taken from IMPLAN®model output. Table 56: Annualized Socio-Economic Impacts of Increased Sewer Fees Required to Finance In terms of the impact to the current unemployment rate in Manteca(6.5%as May 2007), Alternative Control Measure Costs implementation of the effluent-to-land disposal alternative would slightly increase the overall Economic Indicators(2) unemployment rate in the City to 6.8 percent. The implementation of MF/RO treatment would Estimated increase the overall unemployment rate in the City to 7.3 percent. While these incremental Annual Labor Indirect Total increases in unemployment ear small,San Joaquin County(unemployment Alternative Control Sewer Fee Income Business Tax Employment Output nem p �ent rate may appear q �'( nem P yment rate Measure Increaser) Loss Loss Loss Loss reported at 7.5%for May 2007)is currently experiencing levels of unemployment over 50 Effluent-to-Land Disposal $78.72 $1,675,250 $398,247 55.3 jobs $8,534,028 percent higher than the statewide average of 4.9 percent. Even a small increase in the - unemployment rate in the City would have a detrimental impact on a county already Microfiltration and $253.56 $5,347,914 $1,271,326 176.6 jobs $27,243,243 experiencing the twelfth highest unemployment rate among California's 58 counties. The Reverse Osmosis (1)Reflects only estimated increase in current residential ratepayer annual fees. projected losses to labor income and total output(similar to gross metropolitan product)for the (2)Considers annual losses to the community due to the entire cost of an alternative control measure. City as a result of financing either the effluent-to-land disposal or MF/RO treatment alternative City of Manteca Amidegradation Analysis III June 2007 City of Manteca Antidegradation Analysis 112 June 2007