Wrangell should show the state its numbers

Challenging the U.S. Census undercount for Wrangell would not change the numbers, but presenting the case to the state could be a profitable use of borough time.

While the census count showed Wrangell dropped from 2,369 residents in 2010 to 2,127 in 2020, the Alaska Department of Labor’s Research and Analysis Division arrived at an even steeper loss of population — from 2,412 in July 2011 to 2,096 in its July 2021 estimate.

Considering the lack of empty homes or apartments in town, it’s hard to see where the community lost more than 200 residents in the past 10 years. No doubt some decline is due to younger families with children leaving town, or not moving here, and older families without kids or retirees staying in place, but the loss of 200-plus residents looks about as accurate as a state ferry winter schedule.

To appeal the U.S. Census Bureau count, Wrangell would have to provide evidence that the agency missed actual buildings, not simply undercounted people. That’s just not possible without building-by-building count maps, which don’t exist.

But the borough should at least put together its case and submit it to the bureau and, more importantly, to demographers at the Department of Labor. The state’s own estimates are important for determining future funding based on population. And the state is not nearly as difficult to work with as the Census Bureau.

For example, Wrangell could submit as evidence that the number of residential electrical utility meters in town increased from 1,077 in 2012 to 1,136 in 2020. Granted, most of those new accounts are second meters for shops or other uses at the residence, but the number is up, not down as the state and federal count would suggest.

Further evidence that the population count likely is wrong is the fact that 2,060 applications for the Permanent Fund dividend were submitted with the 99929 ZIP code in 2010, increasing slightly, not falling, to 2,069 in 2020.

Even if the borough has to pay a consultant to prepare and write up the argument, it would be money well spent to push the state to a more accurate — higher — population number for use in future funding formulas.