FAIRBANKS — It always has cost more to live in remote, rural communities than in Alaska’s larger cities, but the gap has widened in the past quarter century, a statewide survey has found.

According to a report attached to the figures, released in May, it costs 3 percent more to live in the Fairbanks area then it does in Anchorage. That’s roughly the same difference as in the mid-1980s, the last time a similar cost-of-living study was completed.

But in Barrow, Bethel and the Aleutians, life is at least 50 percent more expensive than in Anchorage. Those rural-urban gaps in cost of living are up by 10, 14 and 23 percentage points respectively from the previous analysis.

The project, led by the Juneau-based McDowell Group, stems from a work group formed two years ago by then-Gov. Sarah Palin. The group sought to propose ways to make Alaska a more competitive employer as aging work forces and early retirement trends create challenges for employment recruiters.

If the Legislature acts, the study could have a big impact on how much public workers get paid across the state.

Jim Calvin, a consultant with the McDowell Group, told the House Finance Committee on Thursday that “highway access was a critical, critical component” in determining differences in costs of living across Alaska. He said the widening differences in cost of life between urban and rural areas also could be partly because of expanding retail markets in Anchorage and Fairbanks, which have pushed shopping costs downward.

“Rural Alaska has enjoyed none of those benefits,” Calvin said. He said increases in home heating and fuel costs generally hit rural areas, where home heating accounts for a larger share of household spending, harder than urban communities.

The $400,000 project weighed the relative importance of housing, food, transportation and other costs between communities. Data from the project, completed early this year, comes from a survey of thousands of homes and businesses across the state.

The state started using a place-specific cost of living index system in 1961 when drafting union labor contracts. That index, applied by election district, was last updated in 1985.

Kevin Brooks, a deputy state administration commissioner, said any legislative changes would affect workers who work outside union contracts. Changes to union employees would need to follow negotiations with labor groups, he said. The state would try to use the figures to iron out cost-of-living indexes, which are used inconsistently for public workers even within the same community, Brooks said.

Any legislation wouldn’t directly impact school district teachers, but teacher unions could use the numbers when negotiating contracts, Brooks said.

Administration Commissioner Annette Kreitzer told the committee that Gov. Sean Parnell has made no specific recommendation that the Legislature implement the proposed changes. But the consultants recommended the state update cost indexes more regularly as “differen(ces) do change over time, especially in remote areas,” according to a summary of the report.

The McDowell Group worked with firms in Oregon and Washington to survey retail outlets, companies and more than 2,500 households for the project.

Contact staff writer Christopher Eshleman at 459-7582.