8.8 Socioeconomics
8.8.1 Affected Environment
This section discusses the environmental setting, consequences, regional and local impacts, and mitigation measures associated with the socioeconomic aspects of MEC. For purposes of this evaluation, the regional area for demographics is defined as Santa Clara County, which is equivalent to the San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The City of San Jose is used for all other information (public services and utilities), because it is intended that the facility’s site will be annexed into the city (refer to Section 8.4.4 for further discussion on the annexation process). Socioeconomic issues relevant to the existing environment include population, employment, economic base and fiscal resources, housing, schools, and public services and utilities.
Most of the MEC site and the electric transmission and natural gas line routes are located in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. Land use in the immediate vicinity of the site is primarily agricultural and open space. Land to the south is primarily agricultural but may be developed into a campus industrial park. There are a few residences (primarily farmers) in the vicinity of the site. A large residential area begins approximately three-quarters of a mile to the northwest (on the other side of Tulare Hill) in the San Jose. The water line routes are located in San Jose. Economic activities close by include an IBM satellite facility and PG&E’s Metcalf Substation.
Section 8.8.1 describes the environment that may be affected by MEC construction and operation. Section 8.8.2 identifies environmental impacts from development of the power plant, and Section 8.8.3 discusses cumulative impacts. Mitigation measures are discussed in Section 8.8.4. Section 8.8.5 presents the LORs applicable to socioeconomics. Section 8.8.6 describes the agencies involved and provides agency contacts. Section 8.8.7 presents the required permits and permitting schedule. Section 8.8.8 provides references used in the development of this section.
8.8.1.1 Population
Santa Clara County is located in the California’s San Francisco Bay area. Located in the South Bay, the county is highly urbanized. Incorporated cities in Santa Clara County include Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and San Jose.
Historical population data for Santa Clara County and San Jose are summarized in Table8.8-1. Annual average compounded population growth rates are summarized in Table 8.8-2. In 1995, Santa Clara County had a population of approximately 1.6 million persons. Over half (55 percent) of that population reside in San Jose. San Jose is the eleventh largest city in the United States and the third largest in California (San Jose Chamber of Commerce, 1999).
The decade from 1980 to 1990 was a period of explosive growth for California. Although the Bay Area also experienced large population increases during this period (Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG], 1995), the rate of growth in San Jose exceeded the rate for San Jose MSA (Santa Clara County) and also the nine-county Bay Area rate. From 1990 to 1995, growth in San Jose exceeded the Bay Area’s and the MSA’s growth rates. However, regional population growth in the future is expected to stabilize as the area becomes more built out. From 1995 to 2015, growth in both San Jose and the MSA is expected to remain slower than the state average.
Table 8.8-1Historical and Projected Populations
Area / 1980 / 1990 / 1995 / 2000 (p) / 2010 (p) / 2015 (p)
City of San Jose / 690,100 / 820,900 / 888,800 / 956,800 / 1,031,600 / 1,048,900
San Jose MSA/
Santa Clara County / 1,295,100 / 1,497,600 / 1,611,200 / 1,719,150 / 1,844,300 / 1,880,650
Nine-County Bay Area / 5,159,800 / 6,020,150 / 6,492,950 / 6,777,900 / 7,374,250 / 7,548,950
California / 23,668,000 / 29,760,000 / 31,910,000 / 34,653,000 / 39,958,000 / N/A
Sources: ABAG, 1995; California Department of Finance (DOF), 1999
(p) projected
Table 8.8-2
Historical and Projected Annual Compounded Population Growth Rates
Area / 1980-1990 / 1990-1995 / 1995-2000 (p) / 2000-2010 (p) / 2010-2015 (p)
City of San Jose / 1.75% / 1.60% / 1.49% / 0.76% / 0.33%
San Jose MSA/
Santa Clara County / 1.46% / 1.47% / 1.31% / 0.71% / 0.39%
Nine-County Bay Area / 1.55% / 1.52% / 0.86% / 0.85% / 0.47%
California / 2.32% / 1.40% / 1.66% / 1.43% / N/A
(p) projected
Historically, Santa Clara County’s ethnic composition has had a Caucasian majority. In 1996, Caucasians accounted for 52 percent of the population. Asians or Pacific Islanders (21percent) and persons of Hispanic origin (23 percent) were also well represented. African Americans constituted only 4 percent of the population (DOF, 1999). However, ethnic projections for 1998 indicate that Caucasians have dipped below the majority for the first time. The ethnic composition was projected to be 49.7 percent Caucasian, 23.8 percent Hispanic, 22.6 percent Asian and Pacific Islander, 3.6 percent African American, and 0.3percent Native American (DOF, 1998).
San Jose’s ethnic composition is very similar to that of the San Jose MSA. However, during the 1990 census, the area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project (i.e., the community of Coyote, zip code 95013) had a higher percentage than average of Caucasians (at 74.6 percent). The same area comprises 23.3 percent Hispanics, 19.5 percent Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 5.9 percent American Indians. No African Americans or other minorities are represented (CD USA, 1998; DOF, 1999). (Although Hispanics can be represented in more than one ethnic category, these data appear somewhat suspect, since all Hispanics would have to be reported in two categories.)
8.8.1.2 Housing
As of January 1, 1998, the total housing stock for the San Jose MSA was 573,593 units (DOF, 1999). Single family homes accounted for 368,188 units, multiple family dwellings accounted for 184,787 units, and mobile homes accounted for 20,618 units. New housing authorizations for the San Jose MSA in 1997 totaled 8,810 units; these were almost evenly split between single family and multi-family units. These authorizations were valued at $1.329 billion (DOF, 1999). In November 1998, the median home price was $295,000. Although the San Jose MSA’s vacancy rate increased slightly between 1990 and 1998 (from 3.7 percent to 3.85percent), the housing shortage in the area is still a significant issue. In addition, the 1998figure is less than the federal housing standard of 5 percent; this also indicates a short supply of housing in the San Jose MSA.
Housing stock for San Jose as of January 1, 1998, was 278,403 units. Single family homes accounted for 184,045 units, multiple family dwellings accounted for 82,689 units, and mobile homes accounted for 11,669 units. San Jose’s vacancy rate is 3.53 percent, which is also less than the federal housing standard of 5 percent.
Although San Jose issued permits for 5,710 units between January 1996 and June 1997 (ABAG, 1999), which is the highest number of any city in the Bay Area, the city and the MSA are still struggling with a housing shortage. By 2020, the San Jose MSA is projected to gain 50 percent more jobs but only 20 percent more housing units (ABAG, 1999).
sac/150038/002r.doc8.8-1
Rev. 6-4-99
8.8.1.3 Economy
The local agencies with taxing power include Santa Clara County and the City of San Jose. Santa Clara County is the center for the development of high technology products. California’s DOF named the county as having the strongest economy in the state (Santa Clara County Office of Education [SCCOE], 1999). For FY 1998, Santa Clara County’s Board of Supervisors approved an annual budget of $2.1 billion. Comparing the FY 1999 Approved budget and the FY 2000 Recommended budget, funding decreases are planned to occur in the following areas: Legislative and Executive, Social Services, Environmental Resources, Employee Services, and Finance. The funding categories generally include the following county programs:
- Special Programs and Reserves: Medical Care Financing, Criminal Justice System, Re-budgeted Items
- Legislative and Executive: Board of Supervisors, County Clerk, County Executive, Assessor, County Counsel
- General Services Agency: Data Processing, Systems Planning, User Training, Communications, Emergency Preparedness, Administrative Management, Registrar of Voters, Facilities Operations
- Health and Hospital System: Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Emergency Services, Disease Control, Public Health, Mental Health, Children’s Center, Alcohol and Drug Services
- Social Services Agency: Administration, Nutrition Services, Welfare
- Law and Justice Departments: Child support, Criminal Units and Crime Laboratory, Public Defender, Conflicts Administration, Municipal Court, Office of the Sheriff, Department of Corrections, Probation Department
- Finance Agency: Controller, Treasurer
- Fire Districts
- Environmental Resources Agency: Housing and Community Development, Planning and Development/Agriculture, Department of Environmental Health, Parks and Recreation
- Employee Services Agency: Human resources, Labor Relations, Occupational Safety and Environmental Compliance, Risk Management
- Roads and Airports
Table 8.8-3 shows how the funds were allocated. Table 8.8-4 shows funding revenues for the county in FY 1997, FY 1998 and FY 2000.
Table 8.8-3Santa Clara County Budget Appropriations for FY 1998, FY 1999 and FY 2000 Recommendations ($ Million)
Expenditures by Agency / FY 1998 (Actual) / FY 1999 (Approved) / FY 1999 (Adjusted) / FY 2000 (Recommended)
Special Programs and Reserves / $54 / $122 / $122 / $132
Legislative and Executive / $52 / $60 / $341 / $59
General Services Agency / $132 / $125 / $175 / $143
SCV Health and Hospital System / $781 / $467* / $475* / $776
Social Services Agency / $350 / $427 / $432 / $420
Law and Justice Departments / $355 / $367 / $374 / $366
Environmental Resources Agency / $46 / $69 / $9 / $68
Employee Services Agency / $42 / $494 / $50 / $48
Finance Agency / $118 / $33 / $91 / $31
Roads and Airports / $21 / $38 / $53 / $50
Fire Districts / $38 / $42 / $42 / $53
Total Expenditures / $1,990 / $1,801 / $2,247 / $2,147
*The totals for the Santa Clara Valley Health and Hospital System are incorrect for FY 1999. Correct information will be provided at the FY 2000 Recommended Budget hearings in June 1999.
Source: County of Santa Clara, 1999
Table 8.8-4
Santa Clara County Revenues, 1997- 1998 ($ Million)
Revenues by Type / FY 1998 (Actual) / FY 1999 (Approved) / FY 1999 (Adjusted) / FY 2000 (Recommended)
Taxes – Current Property / $204 / $207 / $207 / $213
Taxes – Other than Current Property / $23 / $28 / $36 / $30
Licenses, Permits, Franchises / $16 / $8 / $8 / $8
Fines, Forfeitures, Penalties / $15 / $5 / $5 / $17
Revenue from Use of Money/Property / $47 / $31 / $31 / $26
Aid from State Government / $486 / $515 / $520 / $520
Aid from Federal Government / $239 / $294 / $302 / $319
Charges for Current Services / $54 / $56 / $57 / $58
Transfers / $89 / $95 / $96 / $94
Other Revenues / $32 / $48 / $50 / $34
Total Revenue / $1,205 / $1,286 / $1,312 / $1,319
Source: County of Santa Clara, 1998
ac/150038/002r.doc8.8-1
Rev. 6-4-99
As shown in Table 8.8-4A, San Jose adopted a $623 million general fund budget in FY 1998-99, a 23 percent increase over the prior year. However, the proposed budget for FY 1999-2000 is $590 million, a 5.3 percent decrease from the current budget. For FY 1999-2000, there is a slight decrease in General Government spending and Community Services, but a strong increase in spending for Public Safety (10%). The proposed FY 1999-2000 budget anticipates a decrease in revenues from the Federal Government, Departmental Charges and Other Revenue, as shown in Table 8.8-4B.
Table 8.8-4ASan Jose General Fund Budget Appropriations FY 1997, FY 1998 and FY 1999 ($ Million)
1997-98
(Actual) / 1998-99
(Adopted) / 1999-2000 (Proposed)
General Government / $46 / $53 / $52
Public Safety
Fire / $77 / $77 / $87
Police / $156 / $159 / $174
Capital Maintenance / $47 / $50 / $50
Community Services
Environmental Services / $1 / $1 / $1
Library / $18 / $17 / $17
Planning, Building & Code Enforcement / $20 / $25 / $23
Convention, Arts & Entertainment / $10 / $9 / $9
Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood / $34 / $38 / $37
Non-Departmental / $96 / $192 / $138
TOTAL / $507 / $623 / $590
Source: City of San Jose, 1999.
Table 8.8-4b
San Jose General Fund Revenue Sources for FY 1997, FY 1998 and FY 1999 ($ Million)
1997-98
(Actual) / 1998-99
(Adopted) / 1999-2000 (Proposed)
Fund Balance / $109 / $118 / $67
Property Taxes / $63 / $61 / $67
Sales Taxes / $121 / $121 / $128
Transient Occupancy Taxes / $7 / $7 / $7
Franchise Fees / $26 / $26 / $29
Utility Taxes / $65 / $48 / $50
Licenses and Permits / $66 / $61 / $62
Fines and Forfeitures / $8 / $9 / $9
Money & Property / $15 / $13 / $13
Revenue from Local Agencies / $30 / $32 / $32
Revenue from State Government / $39 / $39 / $43
Revenue from Federal Government / $6 / $2 / $2
Departmental Charges / $21 / $20 / $18
Other Revenue / $7 / $8 / $6
Interfund Transfers & Reimbursements / $54 / $58 / $57
TOTAL / $634 / $623 / $590
Source: City of San Jose, 1999.
ac/150038/002r.doc8.8-4A
Rev. 6-4-99
The San Jose MSA economy is based on (in order of importance): services, manufacturing, and retail trade (see Table 8.8-5). High technology jobs are projected to continue to drive the San Jose MSA’s economy (ABAG, 1995). Multimedia, networking, and other new types of high technology companies will continue to locate in the valley to have access to the technological and business community that has nurtured high technology businesses in the past.
Between 1995 and 1998, employment in the San Jose MSA increased by 137,250 jobs. This 17percent increase (5.25 percent average annual compound growth rate) is well above California’s net increase (10 percent) during that same period. Government and construction led the expansion; most gains were in local education and special trades. However, although government and construction employment increased substantially between 1995 and 1998, the contribution by these sectors to the San Jose MSA economy remained relatively small. Employment in the services industry also increased (15 percent), primarily in business
sac/150038/002r.doc8.8-4B
Rev. 6-4-99
services and health care. The agriculture and mining sectors saw the only decrease in employment (21 percent).
Table 8.8-5Employment Distribution in the San Jose MSA, 1995 to 1998
Industry / 1995 / 1998 / 1995-1998
Number of Employeesa / Employment Share / Number of Employeesb / Employment Share / Percentage Change / Average Annual Compound Growth Rate
Agriculture, Mining / 6,430 / 1% / 5,100 / 1% / -21% / -7.4%
Construction / 28,730 / 3% / 44,000 / 5% / 53% / 15.3%
Manufacturing / 231,590 / 28% / 250,300 / 26% / 8% / 2.6%
Transportation, Utilities / 25,440 / 3% / 29,000 / 3% / 14% / 4.5%
Wholesale trade / 52,240 / 6% / 59,400 / 6% / 14% / 4.4%
Retail trade / 120,430 / 15% / 134,600 / 14% / 12% / 3.8%
Finance, Insurance andReal Estate / 31,280 / 4% / 31,600 / 3% / 1% / 0.3%
Services / 278,410 / 34% / 319,000 / 33% / 15% / 4.6%
Government / 52,800 / 6% / 91,600 / 9% / 73% / 20.2%
Total Employment / 827,350 / 100% / 964,600 / 100% / 17% / 5.25%
Sources:
a: ABAG, 1995
b: California CEDD, 1999
Table 8.8-6 provides more detail on the characteristics of the San Jose MSA labor force. It shows employment data for the San Jose MSA and for San Jose in relation to California. Over half (51 percent) of the San Jose MSA’s labor force works in San Jose, while 54 percent of the San Jose MSA’s unemployed laborers reside there. However, the MSA’s unemployment rate (3.4 percent) is well-below California’s unemployment rate (5.8percent), with only 32,100 people unemployed. California does not forecast unemployment rates, so no future forecast is available.
Table 8.8-6San Jose MSA Employment Data, 1998
Area / Labor Force / Employment / Unemployment / Unemployment Rate
San Jose / 485,460 / 468,260 / 17,200 / 3.5%
San Jose MSA / 957,000 / 924,900 / 32,100 / 3.4%
California / 16,326,600 / 15,380,700 / 945,900 / 5.8%
Source: CEDD, 1999
8.8.1.4 Plant Construction
Actual construction will take place over approximately 18 to 20 months during the 2-year construction period, from the fall of 2000 to the summer of 2002. Personnel requirements will be minimal during the mobilization period (i.e., during the first 4 months of the construction period). The primary trades in demand will include boilermakers, carpenters, electricians, ironworkers, laborers, millwrights, operators, pipefitters, and others, as presented in Table 8.8.7. Tables 8.8-7 and 8.8-8 estimate construction personnel requirements for the plant and pipeline facilities, respectively. Total construction personnel requirements during the 20 months of construction will be approximately 4,085 person-months, or 340.4person-years. Construction personnel requirements will peak at 399 workers during month 16 of the construction period.
sac/150038/002r.doc8.8-4B
Rev. 6-4-99
Table 8.8-7Construction Personnel for Plant Construction by Month
Months After Notice-To-Proceed
Discipline / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / Total
Insulation Workers / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 6 / 10 / 14 / 20 / 24 / 24 / 18 / 6 / 0 / 122
Boilermakers / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 5 / 20 / 36 / 42 / 42 / 42 / 42 / 36 / 25 / 15 / 5 / 0 / 0 / 310
Bricklayers/Masons / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 30
Carpenters / 0 / 2 / 7 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 12 / 14 / 14 / 10 / 8 / 8 / 8 / 6 / 5 / 4 / 4 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 133
Electricians / 0 / 2 / 4 / 5 / 10 / 12 / 14 / 20 / 39 / 56 / 58 / 65 / 65 / 52 / 44 / 31 / 21 / 14 / 4 / 4 / 520
Ironworkers / 0 / 2 / 3 / 5 / 10 / 10 / 18 / 18 / 25 / 30 / 30 / 30 / 25 / 8 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 1 / 0 / 0 / 224
Laborers / 2 / 3 / 9 / 9 / 9 / 9 / 10 / 15 / 15 / 13 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 10 / 7 / 7 / 15 / 11 / 3 / 2 / 182
Millwrights / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 13 / 19 / 24 / 24 / 22 / 16 / 8 / 2 / 1 / 0 / 133
Operating Engineers / 4 / 4 / 6 / 6 / 6 / 6 / 6 / 10 / 12 / 12 / 12 / 12 / 12 / 10 / 7 / 5 / 4 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 138
Painters / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 18
Pipefitters / 0 / 0 / 2 / 3 / 6 / 6 / 12 / 49 / 63 / 79 / 86 / 86 / 74 / 74 / 52 / 34 / 25 / 10 / 4 / 4 / 669
Sheetmetal Workers / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 6 / 8 / 6 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 26
Surveyors / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 34
Teamsters / 2 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 3 / 4 / 4 / 5 / 5 / 5 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 2 / 1 / 1 / 1 / 58
Total Manual Staff / 10 / 17 / 36 / 44 / 58 / 61 / 80 / 139 / 196 / 252 / 275 / 296 / 285 / 250 / 207 / 160 / 127 / 68 / 22 / 14 / 2,597
Total Contractor Staff / 3 / 6 / 11 / 15 / 17 / 17 / 26 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 32 / 32 / 32 / 32 / 30 / 24 / 18 / 12 / 6 / 4 / 410
Total Site Staff / 13 / 23 / 47 / 59 / 75 / 78 / 106 / 169 / 227 / 284 / 307 / 328 / 317 / 282 / 237 / 184 / 145 / 80 / 28 / 18 / 3,007
Table 8.8-8
Construction Personnel Requirements for Pipeline Construction by Month
Months After Notice-To-Proceed
Discipline / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / Total
Water Line
Pipefitters / 5 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 15 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 201
Laborers / 9 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 27 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 18 / 362
Teamsters / 5 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 15 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 193
Surveyors / 1 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 3 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 48
Operating Engineers / 2 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 6 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 4 / 80
Foremen/Supervisors / 2 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 5 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 69
Water Line Subtotal / 24 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 71 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 953
Gas Line
Foreman/Supervisors / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 4 / 4 / 3 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 14
Equipment Operators / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 6 / 9 / 7 / 5 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 27
Surveyors / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 3
Laborers / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 12 / 25 / 28 / 10 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 75
Teamsters / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 6
Gas Line Subtotal / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 25 / 40 / 40 / 20 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 125
Total / 24 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 73 / 88 / 88 / 68 / 71 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 48 / 1,078
sac/150038/002r.doc8.8-1
rev. 6-4-99
Available skilled labor in Santa Clara County was evaluated by surveying local labor unions (Table 8.8-9) and contacting the CEDD (Table 8.8-10). Both sources show that the workforce in the county will be adequate to fulfill MEC’s labor requirements for construction. In addition, as shown in Table 8.8-5, the construction workforce within the San Jose MSA has been growing at an average annual rate of 15.3 percent per year.
Table 8.8-9Labor Union Contacts
Labor Union / Contact / Phone Number
IBEW Local No. 332 / Julie McCarthy / 408/294-4906
Cement Masons Union Local 400 / Hector Cartez / 408/266-9160
Millwrights Local Union 102 / Ed Gable / 510/635-0323
Operating Engineers Union Local No. 3 / Terry Empert / 408/295-8788
Table 8.8-10
Available Labor by Skill in Santa Clara County, 1995 to 2002
Occupational Title / Annual Averages / Absolute Change / Percentage Change / Average Annual Compounded Growth Rate
1995 / 2002
Carpenters / 4,450 / 5,430 / 980 / 22% / 4.06%
Masons / 1,590 / 2,080 / 490 / 31% / 5.52%
Painters / 1,600 / 2,120 / 520 / 33% / 5.79%
Metal Workers / 5,120 / 6,350 / 1,230 / 24% / 4.40%
Electricians / 15,000 / 17,040 / 2,040 / 14% / 2.58%
Welders / 1,210 / 1,470 / 260 / 22% / 3.97%
Excavators / 190 / 250 / 60 / 32% / 5.64%
Graders / 110 / 140 / 30 / 27% / 4.94%
Industrial Truck Operators / 1,450 / 1,740 / 290 / 20% / 3.71%
Operating Engineers / 510 / 650 / 140 / 28% / 4.97%
Helpers, Laborers / 23,440 / 30,940 / 7,500 / 32% / 5.71%
Pipefitters / 1,700 / 2,270 / 570 / 34% / 5.95%
Administrative Services Managers / 3,020 / 3,630 / 610 / 20% / 3.75%
Mechanical Engineers / 2,640 / 3,500 / 860 / 33% / 5.80%
Electrical Engineers / 18,430 / 24,400 / 5,970 / 32% / 5.77%
Engineering Technicians / 21,860 / 26,700 / 4,840 / 22% / 4.08%
Plant and System Operators / 750 / 860 / 110 / 15% / 2.77%
Source: CEDD, 1999
It is expected that most of the construction labor force will be drawn from the local area and will commute daily less than 30 miles each way to reach the job site. Almost all of the workforce will commute 60 miles or less.
8.8.1.5 Plant Operation
The proposed MEC facility is expected to begin commercial operation in 2002. It is expected to employ at least 20 full-time employees. Anticipated job classifications are shown in Table8.8-11. All of the permanent workforce are expected to commute from within Santa Clara County.
Table 8.8-11Plant Operation Workforce
Department / Personnel / Shift / Work days
Operations / 10 Operating Technicians / Rotating 12-hour shift, 2operators per shift, 2relief operators / 7 days a week
Maintenance / 5 Maintenance Technicians
(2 mechanical, 1 electrical, and 2instrumentation) / Standard 8-hour days / 5 days a week
(Maintenance technicians will also work unscheduled days and hours as required [weekends])
Administration / 5 Administrators (1 Operations Supervisor, 1 Maintenance Supervisor, 1 Plant Manager, 1 Plant Administrator, and 1 Plant Engineer) / Standard 8-hour days / 5 days a week with additional coverage as required
sac/150038/002r.doc8.8-1
Rev. 6-4-99
8.8.1.6 Fiscal Resources
The MEC initial capital cost is estimated to be $300 to $400 million; of this, materials and supplies are estimated at approximately $250 million. The estimated value of materials and supplies that will be purchased locally is between $5 and $10 million. The total sales tax expected to be generated during construction is $412,500 to $825,000 (i.e., 8.25 percent of local sales). MEC will provide about $40.8 million in construction payroll, at an average salary of $60 per hour (including benefits).
The annual operations budget will be $2 to $4 million, which will be spent locally. In addition, there will be an annual maintenance budget of $10 to $15 million. Assuming an average operations salary of $50,000 per year, MEC will spend $1 million in annual operations payroll.
MEC is expected to bring both sales tax and property tax revenue to Santa Clara County. The valuation of a power generating facility for property tax purposes is typically based on one of two approaches: 1) the cost approach (i.e., the cost to build MEC until the point at which it is operational, including tangible and soft costs); or 2) the revenue approach (i.e., MEC’s anticipated revenue-generating capability over time). Generally, the cost approach is used if projected revenues are difficult to establish (Jackson, 1999). According to the California State Board of Equalization, the selection of valuation approach is decided by the jurisdiction that is charged with assessing the property. The California State Board of Equalization is currently debating whether a power generating facility should be valued at the county or the state level. If it were assessed by the state, the property tax revenues would be allocated on a countywide basis; if it were assessed at the county level, the allocation would be disbursed to the local tax jurisdiction within which the facility is located (Jackson, 1999).