HomeMy WebLinkAbout11032010 PACAB PacketI
J
f
SEWARD PORT AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD
Regular Meeting
November 3, 12:OOPM COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Ron Long, Chair
Board Member
Term Expires 2011
Vacant
Board Member
Term Expires 2012
Deborah Altermatt
Board Member
Term Expires 2010
Daniel Oliver
Board Member
Term Expires 2010
Daryl Schaefermeyer
Board Member
Term Expires 2012
Robert Buck
Board Member
Term Expires 2012
Paul Tougas
Board Member
Term Expires 2011
Phillip Oates
City Manager
Kari Anderson
Harbor Master
Suzi Towsley
Executive Liaison
City of Seward, Alaska
November 3, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. SPECIAL ORDERS, PRESENTATIONS
REPORTS
A. ARRC Representative Louis Bencardino
B. Harbormaster Report —Kari Anderson
C. Community Development Report- Christy Terry
UNT11
5. Citizens' comments on any subject except those items
scheduled for public hearing. [Those who have signed in
will be given the first opportunity to speak. Time is limited
to 2 minutes per speaker and 30 minutes total time for this
agenda item.]
6. Approval of agenda and consent agenda [Approval of
Consent Agenda passes all routine items indicated by
asterisk (*). Consent Agenda items are not considered
separately unless a Board Member so requests. In the
event of such a request, the item is returned to the Regular
Agenda.]
1
PA CAB Agenda
Page 1
7. INFOMATIONAL ITEMS, REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS —
A. Open Meetings Act update...................................................................Page 3
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Review of attendance record, City Code and PACAB policy regarding inactive and
absentboard members.......................................................................Page 26
B. Election of new Vice Chair...................................................................Page 28
C. PACAB Resolution 2010-07 Supporting and Providing recommendations for City
initiatives to expand existing and attract new business..................................Page 29
D. PACAB Resolution 2010-08 A Resolution Opposing an Application from AquaBounty
Technologies, Inc. to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to Approve and
Market Genetically Engineered Atlantic Salmon in the United
States...........................................................................................Page 38
E. Discuss and provide recommendations for lease parcel sizes on the South Harbor Uplands
.................................................................................................. Page 42
F. Set next work session topic for November 17, 2010 to Review and Provide
Recommendations on Nominating Public Lands for Lease and the Lease Proposal
Policiesand Procedures..................................................................... Page 44
G. Approval of August 4, 2010 Regular Meeting minutes ................................ Page 45
10. CORRESPONDENCE, INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS (No action
required) -
A. Alaska Railroad Quarterly report ...........................................................Page 50
B. WTC Report -The Economic Impact of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan
Economy..........................................................separate packet due to size
C. Economic Development Survey questions for Town Hall meeting...............Page 54
D. Alaska Regional Ports Conference .....................................................Page 55
11. BOARD COMMENTS
12. CITIZEN COMMENTS [S minutes per individual - Each individual has one opportunity to
speak.]
13. BOARD AND ADMINSTRATIVE RESPONSE TO CITIZENS'COMMENTS
14. ADJOURNMENT
City of Seward, Alaska PACAB Agenda
November 3, 2010 Page 2
2
Wohlforth I Johnson I Brecht
Cartledge I Brooking
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Julius J. Brecht
Cheryl Rawls Brooking
Telephone
Cynthia L. Cartledge
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
907.27S.6401
Michael Gatti
Clyde W. Hutchins Jr,
900 WEST STH AVENUE, SUITE 600
Facsimile
RoberIM.Johnson
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99601.2046
907.276.5093
Leila R. Kimbrell
Eric E. Wohiforth
Website
www.akatty.com
OPEN MEETINGS ACT IN
ALASKA
Prepared and Presented By:
Cheryl Rawls Brooking
Wohlforth, Johnson, Brecht, Cartledge & Brooking
cbrooking@akatty.com
2010
3
I. Open Meetings Laws - Overview
PART A - Alaska Open Meetings Act
The Alaska Open Meetings Act (the "Act") is codified in AS 44.62.310 and with policy
behind the procedures described in Section 312. Although the Act has been on the books since 1959,
it was substantially modified in 1994 to clarify definitions of "governmental body" and "meeting"
and thereby give further guidance with respect to interpretation and enforcement under the Act.
Where an issue concerting the interpretation of the Act is not determined by the statutory
language or an Alaska Supreme Court decision, opinions of the Alaska Attorney General and of
courts in other- jurisdictions are referred to for guidance. Municipalities and other governmental
entities have, in many cases, adopted their own ordinances and regulations regarding compliance
with the Act.
In summary, the Act prescribes certain requirements applicable to meetings ofpublic bodies,
and establishes exceptions to those requirements. The following issues are directly addressed in the
Act:
• What public bodies are subject to the Act?
• What is a meeting for purposes of the Act?
• What requirements does the Act impose upon a meeting of a public body?
• What exceptions does the Act establish to the requirements that it imposes upon a
meeting of a public body?
• What are the consequences of a violation of the Act?
When addressing the requirements that the Act imposes upon a meeting of a public body, it
is helpful to refer to related requirements imposed by other provisions of state or local law. All of
these requirements must be complied with, so they should not be viewed in isolation.
Page 2 2010
4
The starting point in detennining how the Act is to be interpreted is found in the words of
the legislature itself, appearing in AS 44.62.312:
(a) It is the policy of the state that
(1) the governmental units mentioned in AS 44.62.310(a) exist to aid in the
conduct of the people's business;
(2) it is the intent of the law that actions of those units be taken openly and
that their deliberations be conducted openly;
(3) the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that
serve them;
(4) the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the
right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to
know;
(5) the people's right to remain informed shall be protected so that they may
retain control over the instniments they have created;
(6) the use of teleconferencing tinder this chapter is for the convenience of the
parties, the public, and the governmental units conducting the meetings.
(b) AS 44.62.310(c) and (d) shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the
policy stated in (a) of this section and to avoid exemptions from open meeting
requirements and unnecessary executive sessions.
It is well to remember the Act's purposes when addressing specific questions of its
application. The Alaska Supreme Court repeatedly relies upon these statements of the Act's purposes
as support for a broad interpretation of the Act's requirements, and a narrow interpretation of the
exceptions to those requirements.
PART B - What is a Public Meeting and What Public Entities are Covered?
The Act begins with the words, "[a]ll meetings of a governmental body of a public entity of
the [State of Alaska] are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another
provision of law."
"Meeting," "governmental body" and "public entity" are each specifically defined terns in
Section 310(h).
Page 3
5
1. What is a Public Meeting?
The definition of "meeting" in the Act initially determines what gatherings of members of
a goveruirental body are subject to the Act's requirements.' The definition of "meeting" varies
depending upon the function of the governmental body:
a. The governmental body has the authority to establish policies or make
decisions for a public entity. There is a meeting of such a body when:
• More than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is
less, are present, and
• a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is
considered by the members collectively.
b. The governmental body has only authority to advise or make
recommendations, but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions
for a public entity. There is a meeting of such a body when:
• More than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is
less, are present, and
the gathering is prearranged, and
the gathering is for the purpose of considering a matter upon which
the governmental body is empowered to act.
Use the following analysis to determine whether one is participating in a meeting subject to
the Act:
a. What is the type of governmental body whose members have gathered?
• Does the governmental body have authority to establish policies or
make decisions? Note that authority to establish policies or make
decisions is broader than authority to legislate. Governmental bodies
in this category include municipal assemblies and councils, planning
and zoning boards, and state boards and commissions.
• Does the governmental body have only advisory responsibilities?
Such governmental bodies may include temporary or pennanent
1 AS 44.62.310(h)(2).
Page 4 201.0
committees who provide advice and recommendations to a main
governing body.
b. If the governmental body has decision making authority:
Iow many members of the body are present? For there to be a
meeting, either four or more members, or a majority of members,
whichever is less, must be present for there to be a meeting.
Note that where there is a vacancy on a governmental body,
the number of members whose presence is necessary for there
to be a meeting subject to the Act may be reduced. Applying
the statutory language literally, the presence of a majority of
the actual members of the body, rather than a majority of the
body's authorized membership, may cause a gathering to be a
meeting. For example, if two seats were vacant on a body of
seven members, a gathering of only three mernbers (a
majority of five) could constitute a meeting.
Are the members collectively considering a matter upon which the
governmental body is empowered to act?
Note that the matter under consideration need not be pending
currently before the body. It is only necessary that the matter
be one upon which the body is ernipower-ed to act.
Note also that all members present need not participate in the
collective consideration, so long as at least the minimum
number of members necessary to constitute a "meeting" are
present.
C. If the governmental body has only advisory authority, was the gathering
prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the
governmental body is empowered to act?
More than three members, or a rnr jority of the members, whichever
is less, is sufficient.
No formality is specified for the necessary prearrangement. An
appointment made in casual conversation could be a sufficient
prearrangement.
What is actually considered a the gathering is irrelevant, so long as
the purpose of the gathering is considering a matter within the
authority of the body. Also keep in mind that a prearranged gathering
to consider a matter upon which the body is not empowered to act
Page 5 2010
7
may become a "meeting" if a matter within the body's authority is
considered.
Although the Act defines what constitutes a "meeting," some ambiguities remain. The
determination of whether a meeting is subject to the Act may depend on the facts of the particular
situation, viewed in terms of the Act's policies. Courts continue to hold that a "meeting" for
purposes of the Act "includes every step of the deliberative and decision making process when a
governmental unit meets to transact business."'- "Deliberation" connotes not only discussion but the
collective acquisition and exchange of facts preliminary to the ultimate decision.'
Under the present law, the following factors do not determine whether a meeting has
occurred for purposes of the Act:'
1985).
a. The presence of a quotlun. A quorum need not be present for a "meeting" to occur.
The presence of four members will constitute a meeting even if that number is less
than a quorum.
b. Formality of a gathering. A gathering need not be formally noticed or scheduled to
constitute a meeting subject to the Act.
C. Setting or location of a gathering. That a gathering is not at the location where the
body regularlymeets, or occurs during a social or civic function does not keep it from
being a meeting subject to the Act.
d. Absence of face-to-face interaction. A conference over the telephone may constitute
a meeting subject to the Act. The Act expressly provides that meetings may be
conducted by telephone conference.' Questions have been raised regarding whether
a series of phone calls or elnails constitutes a "meeting." If the relevant factors are
met, emails or phone calls may constitute a meeting.
2 Brookwood Homeowners Association, Inc. v. M unicipality oFA nchorage, 702 P.2d 1317, 1322-1323 (Alaska
3 Id.
4 Id.; July 6, 1993 Op. AL Atty, Gen.
5 AS 44.62.310(a)
Page 6
2010
2. What Public Entities are Covered?
The Act has broad application and includes not only State entities but also political
subdivisions of the State, instrumentalities ofthe State, boroughs, cities, unified municipalities, the
Alaska Bar Association Board of Governors,' school district boards' and other governmental units.
The State legislature and the court system are excluded (h(3)) but the legislature has adopted its own
version of open meetings rules (Uniforin Rule 22). "Governmental body" also includes
subcommittees of a govenmental body.
The Act describes the meetings of groups to which it applies as all meetings of. a
"govenunental body of a public entity."' "Public entity" means:
an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state including
an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public
authority or corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other
governmental units of the state or a political subdivision of the state;
it does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state
goverinnent.9
"Governmental body" means:
an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or other similar
body of a public entity with the authority to establish policies or make
decisions for the public entity or with the authority to advise or make
recommendations to the public entity; "governmental body" includes
the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a
governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more
members.' °
6 Horowitz v. Alaska Bar Association, 609 P.2d 39 (Alaska 1930).
' Von Stauffenber_g v. Committee for an Honest School Board, 903 P.2d 1055 (Alaska 1995).
B AS 44.62.310(a)
9 AS 44.62.3 1 0(h)(3)
10 AS 44.62.3 1 0(h)(1)
Page 7
9
2010
The definitions are comprehensive. The formality with which a group is formed does not
determine the Act's applicability. The Act applies to a task force or committee whose duration is
temporary, or the subject of whose activities is quite limited." A group need not have decision
making authority to be subject to the Act. A group that is merely advisory must comply with the
Act, as must a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a governmental body. However, underthe
current version of the Act, private organizations receiving public funding are excluded,"-- and
Municipal service area boards meeting solely to act on administrative or managerial matters.
Part C - Requirements for Notice and Agenda
The Act's stated policies regarding meetings of governmental bodies in Alaska13 reflect the
legislature's intent that governmental bodies conduct theirbusiness openly and maintain the people's
right to remain informed. Any questions with regard to application of the Act are to be construed
narrowly to avoid exemptions and to avoid unnecessary executive sessions.
To meet these policy requirements, meetings of a governmental body subject to the Act
require prior notice so that the public may attend. The meeting may be an informal work session or
a formal adjudicatory hearing but the notice requirements are the same whether or not any final
action is to be taken at the meeting. So long as the deliberative process is occurring, the meeting
is considered an open meeting.
AS 44.62.310(e) requires reasonable public notice for all meeting required to be under the
Act:
11 University of Alaska v. Geistauts, 666 P.2d 424, 427-428 (Alaska 1983 ); H ammond v. North Slope Borough,
645 P.2d 750, 764-765 (Alaska 1982).
12 May 23, I994 Op. Ak. Atty. Gen.
13 AS 44.62.310(b)
Page 8
10
2010
The notice inust include the date, time and place of the meeting and if, the meeting
is by teleconference, the location of any teleconferencing facilities that will be used.
The issue ofwhat constitutes reasonable public notice may depend on theregulations adopted
by the governmental entity. Many state regulations and municipal ordinances require at least 24
hours notice of a meeting. The first step in determining reasonable notice is to determine whether
the governmental body has followed its own guidelines and procedures. The nature of the action to
be taken may determine the reasonableness with regard to the timeliness of the notice. For example,
in an emergency, the notice period may be much less. If an issue is complex and would have a
tremendous public impact then more extensive notice may be required prior to a meeting.14
The agenda items for the meeting are not expressly required to be stated but fall within the
concept of reasonable notice. The public should be provided with the substance of the matter to be
discussed. This requirement limits the ability of the governmental body to address changes in the
agenda and add items that have not been publically noticed. Items that are non -controversial or
minimal in nature may not be objected to. However, items that may engender controversy or involve
complex issues should be stated with sonic specificity in the meeting notice.15
In addition to general public notice, other statutes, ordinances and regulations may require
specific notice to be provided directly to individuals who would be affected at a meeting. This may
apply to individuals facing adjudicatoiy hearings or perinit applications, contracts, leases, licenses,
zoning changes or the like.
14 Tunley v. Municipality of Anchorage school District, 631 P.2d 67 (Alaska 1981),
15 Anchorage Inclenendent Longshore Union Local I V. Municipality of Anchorage, 672 P.2d 891 (Alaska
1983). The court interpreted the Municipality of Anchorage public notice requirement, which is similar to the Act's
reasonable public notice standard, and remanded to the trial court the question of whether the Port Commission's
consideration of a terminal use permit application had to be specifically mentioned on the agenda posted in advance of
the meeting or whether the issue could be properly taken tip under the category "Items Not on the Agenda." The trial
court was required to make factual findings regarding the complexity and importance of the issuance of that particular
permit.
Page 9
11
2010
The Act states that notice may be given "by using print or broadcast media," and that "the
notice shall be posted at the principal office of the public entity, or if the public entity has no
principal office, at a place designated by the governmental body."' Note that specific provisions of
law may establish the required media of notice for particular actions (e.g., publication in a newspaper
of general circulation, posting in specified locations).
Part D - Meeting Procedure
Most meetings are held in one place with everyone present, but telephonic meetings are
permitted." If telephonic participation is utilized, the various locations must be made known in the
meeting notice, and meeting materials are to be available at each location. Any votes taken at a
telephonic meeting must be by voice vote.
Meeting procedures generally are defined by statute, regulation or ordinance of the public
entity and will be controlling to the extent the requirements are narrower than the Act. Thus, even
though telephonic meetings are penmitted under the Act, a particular entity may be required to have
a quorum of members physically present in a single location to conduct its business.
The Act requires that meetings be open to the public, giving the right to be present, but does
not require that the public be heard, Often the right to be heard is found elsewhere. For example,
AS 29.20.020(a), which applies to home rule as well as other municipalities, requires that the
governing body shall provide reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard at regular and special
meetings. Other statutes, ordinances and regulations may require that certain actions of a public
body may only be taken after a public hearing.
16 AS 44.62.31 o(e),
17 AS 44.62.310(a).
Page 10
12
2010
II. Open Meetings Laws - Exceptions and Remedies for Violations
Part A - Executive Sessions and Other Non -Public Meetings
1. Executive Sessions
As an exception to its general requirement that meetings of public bodies be open to the
public, the Act permits (but does not require) certain subjects to be discussed privately in executive
session.'s
a. Subjects that may be discussed at an executive session are limited to the following:
I. Matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse
effect upon the finances of the public entity.' Emphasis must be placed on the words
"immediate" and "clearly" in this exception, as the exception is to be narrowly construed to
avoid unnecessary executive sessions.20
2. Subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person.
This provision is qualified by the statement that the person whose reputation or character is
at issue may request a public discussion, in which case the discussion must occur in a public
meeting rather than in executive session.'-' This right may be waived.'-'-
3. Matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be
confidential.'-' Under the Act, in contrast to the situation under the state's public records law,
18 AS 44.62.310(c).
19 AS 44.62.310(c)(1).
20 AS 44.62.312(b),
21 AS 44.62.310(c)(2); Geistauts, 666 P.2d at 429.
22 Ramsey v. City of Sand Point, 936 P.2d 126 (Alaska 1997).
23 AS 44,62.310(c)(3).
Page 11
13
2010
municipalities are explicitly delegated authority to establish topics which maybe discussed
in executive session. Where a municipality's ordinances list subjects that may be
considered in executive session in a manner that is narrower than the Act's exceptions, the
Act is controlling over the municipal ordinance.24
4. Matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not
subject to public disclosure." This may be referred to as the "deliberative process"
privilege.'6
Communicating with an attorney is confidential and privileged and may also occur
in executive session.
b. Requirements for an executive session.
Procedure. Before the executive session, the meeting must be convened as
a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session shall be determined by
majority vote of the body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with
specificity describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the
purpose of addressing the subject in private.''
2. Notice. If an executive session is to be held to discuss a subject that tends to
prejudice the reputation and character of a person, that person must be given adequate notice
of the meeting so the person may request that the subject be discussed in a public session
24 Walleri v. City of Fairbanks, 964 P.2d 463, 468 (Alaska 1998).
25 AS 44.62.310(c)(4).
26 Fuller v. City of Homer, 75 P.3d 1059 (Alaska 2003).
27 AS 44.62.310(b).
Page 12
14
2010
instead of in executive session.29 In Ramsey v. City of Sand Point, 936 P.2d 126 (Alaska
1997), the court found that the police chief had actual notice of the meeting so a defect in
formal notice was clued, and also found that the police chief had waived his right to a public
discussion by failing to appear and request that the proceeding be held publicly.
3. Limitation on activity during executive session. Subjects may not be
considered at an executive session except those mentioned in the motion to convene in
executive session unless auxiliary to the main question. Action may not be taken at the
executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labor negotiator regarding the
handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations. Any other action to be
taken as a result of consideration of a matter in executive session may be taken only in a
public meeting convened after the executive session.'
C. Other executive session issues. The following corrects some common
misconceptions concerning executive sessions.
1. Confidentiality of matters considered in executive session. Provisions in the
Act and in local. ordinances for executive sessions act only as exceptions to the general
requirement that meetings of governmental bodies be open to the public.
2. Consideration of particular documents in an executive session does not make
those documents privileged or confidential indefinitely. Documents considered in an
28 Geistauts, 666 P.2d 424, 429.
29 AS 44,62.310(b).
Page 13
15
2010
executive session remain subject to disclosure under state and local public records laws
unless an exception to those laws permits them to be withheld from disclosure.30
2. Other Non -Public Meetings
Not every gathering of public officials is a group to which the Art's requirements apply. The
Act lists specific exceptions,31 which are to be interpreted narrowly:
1. A. governmental body performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function when holding
a meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatory proceeding;32
2. Juries;
3. Parole or pardon boards;
4. Meetings of a hospital medical staff;
5. Meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a
meeting solely to act upon matters of professional qualifications, privileges or
discipline;
6. Staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a. public entity, including
meetings of an employee group established by policy of the Board of Regents of the
University of Alaska or held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of
Regents; or
7. Meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a
national, state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental
30 Municipality of AnchOra>;e v. Anchorage Daily News, 794 P.2d 584, 590 (Alaska 1990), Fuller v. City of
Horner, 75 P.3d 1059 (Alaska 2003).
31 AS 44.62.310(d),
32 Alaska Department of Law Memorandum March 10, 1998
Page 14 2010
body, or member of the governmental body is a member, but only if no action is
taken and no business of the governmental body is conducted at the meetings.
8. Meetings of municipal service area boards established under AS 29.35.450-29.35.490
when rneeting solely to act on matters that are administrative or managerial in nature.
There are two important features of these exceptions. First, the excepted groups are
completely outside the application of the Act when acting within the scope of the exception. For
example, the gathering of such a group may be closed to the public without complying with the
"executive session" procedures of the Act.
Second, these exceptions will be interpreted narrowly. Only gathering of an excepted group
that conforms strictly to the conditions of the defined exception will be exempt.
Part B - Enforcement and Remedies
a. Action taken contrary to the Act's requirements by a governmental body with
authority to establish policies or make decisions is voidable." The remedy of voiding an action
taken contrary to the requirements of the Act does not apply to the action of a governmental body
that has only authority to advise or make recommendations to a public entity and has no authority
to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity."'
b. The remedy of voidability applies not only to action taken by a governmental body
with decision -making authority at an illegally closed meeting, but also to action taken at an open
meeting where deliberations or fact-finding concerning the action occurred at an earlier illegally
33 AS 44.562.320(fl.
34 AS 44.62.310(g).
Page 15
17
2010
closed meeting." An illegally closed meeting at any time during the process leading to an action
may render the action voidable.
C. A lawsuit to void an. action taken in violation of the Act must be filed in Superior
Court within 180 days after the date of the action.36 A governmental body may cure its alleged
violation of the act by holding another meeting in compliance with the Act and conducting a
substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the meeting where the alleged
violation occurred.37
d. A courtmayvoid an action taken in violation ofthe Act by a governmental body with
decision malting authority only ifthe court finds that, considering all of the circumstances, the public
interest in compliance with the act outweighs the harm that would be caused to the public interest
and to the public entity by voiding the action. The court is required to consider specified factors in
malting this determination:"
(1) the expense that may be incurred by the public entity, other governmental
bodies, and individuals if the action is voided;
(2) the disruption that may be caused to the affairs of the public entity, other
governmental bodies, and individuals if the action is voided;
(3) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, and
individuals may be exposed to additional litigation if the action is voided;
35 Brookwood Area Homeowners, 702 P.2d at 1323.
36 AS 44.62.310(f).
37 id.
38 1d
Page 16
�3
2010
(4) the extent to which the governing body, in meetings held in compliance
with this section, has previously considered the subject;
(5) the amount of time that has passed since the action was taken;
(6) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, or
individuals have come to rely on the action;
(7) whether and to what extent the governmental body has, before or after the
lawsuit was tiled to void the action, engaged in or attempted to engage in the public
reconsideration of matters originally considered in violation of this section;
(8) the degree to which violations of this section were wilful, flagrant, or
obvious;
(9) the degree to which the governing body failed to adhere to the policy
under AS 44.62.312(a).
The determination whether to void an action depends upon the particular circumstances of
the alleged violation, and in large part is subject to the discretion of the reviewing court. This
standard should not be relied upon as an alternative to compliance with the Act in the first instance.
The potential of having the court void an action in every case imposes uncertainty and delay even
if the remedy ultimately is not granted.
THE ALASKA OPEN MEETINGS ACT
Sec. 44.62.310. Government meetings public. (a) All meetings of a governmental body of a public
entity of the state are open to the public except as otherwise provided by this section or another
provision oflaw. Attendance and participation atmeetings bymembers of the public orbyinembers
of a governmental body may be by teleconferencing. Agency materials that are to be considered at
the meeting shall be made available at teleconference locations if practicable. Except when voice
Page 17
19
2010
votes are authorized, the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote
of each person entitled to vote. The vote at a meeting held by teleconference shall be taken by roll
call. This section does not apply to any votes required to be taken to organize a governmental body
described in this subsection.
(b) If permitted subjects are to be discussed at a meeting in executive session, the meeting
must first be convened as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive session to
discuss matters that are listed in (c) of this section shall be determined by a majority vote of the
governmental body. The motion to convene in executive session must clearly and with specificity
describe the subject of the proposed executive session without defeating the purpose of addressing
the subject in private. Subjects may not be considered at the executive session except those
mentioned in the motion calling for the executive session unless auxiliary to the main question.
Action may not be taken at an executive session, except to give direction to an attorney or labor
negotiator regarding the handling of a specific legal matter or pending labor negotiations.
(c) The following subjects may be considered in an executive session:
(1) matters, the immediate knowledge of which would clearly have an adverse effect upon
the finances of the public entity;
(2) subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of any person, provided the
person may request a public discussion;
(3) matters which by law, municipal charter, or ordinance are required to be confidential;
(4) matters involving consideration of government records that by law are not subject to
public disclosure.
(d) This section does not apply to
Page 18
2010
(1) a governmental body performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function when holding a
meeting solely to make a decision in an adjudicatoiy proceeding;
(2) juries;
(3) parole or pardon boards;
(4) meetings of a hospital medical staff;
(5) meetings of the governmental body or any committee of a hospital when holding a
ineeting solely to act upon hatters of professional qualifications, privileges or discipline;
(6) staff meetings or other gatherings of the employees of a public entity, including meetings
of an employee group established by policy of the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska or
held while acting in an advisory capacity to the Board of Regents;
(7) meetings held for the purpose of participating in or attending a gathering of a national,
state, or regional organization of which the public entity, governmental body, or member of the
governmental body is a member, but only if no action is taken and no business of the governmental
body is conducted at the meetings; or
(8) meetings of municipal service area boards established under AS 29.35.450-29.35.490
when meeting solely to act on matters that are administrative or managerial in nature.
(e) Reasonable public notice shall be given for all meetings required to be open under this
section. The notice must include the date, time, and place of the meeting and if, the meeting is by
teleconference, the location of any teleconferencing facilities that will be used. Subject to posting
notice of a meeting on the Alaska Online Public Notice System as required by AS 44.62.175(a), the
notice maybe given using print or broadcast media. The notice shall be posted at the principal ogee
of the public entity or, if the public entity has no principal office, at a place designated by the
Page 19
21
2010
governmental body. The governmental body shall provide notice in a consistent fashion for all its
meetings.
(f) Action taken contrary to this section is voidable. A lawsuit to void an action taken in
violation of this section must be filed in superior court within 180 days after the date of the action.
A member of a governmental body may not be named in an action to enforce this section in the
member's personal capacity. A governmental body that violates or is alleged to have violated this
section may cure the violation or alleged violation by holding another meeting in compliance with
notice and other requirements of this section and conducting a substantial and public reconsideration
of the matters considered at the original meeting. If the court finds that an action is void, the
governmental body may discuss and act on the matter at another meeting held in compliance with
this section. A court may hold that an action taken at a meeting held in violation of this section is
void only if the court fi ids that, considering all of the circumstances, the public interest in
compliance with this section outweighs the harm that would be caused to the public interest and to
the public entity by voiding the action. In making this detennination, the court shall consider at least
the following:
(1) the expense that may be incurred by the public entity, other governmental bodies, and
individuals if the action is voided;
(2) the disruption that may be caused to the affairs of the public entity, other governmental
bodies, and individuals if the action is voided;
(3) the degree to which the public entity, other governmental bodies, and individuals may be
exposed to additional litigation if the action is voided;
(4) the extent to which the governing body, in meetings held in compliance with this section,
has previously considered the subject;
Page 20
22
2010
(5) the amount of time that has passed since the action was taken;
(6) the degree to which the public entity, other govermnental bodies, or individuals have
come to rely on the action;
(7) whether and to what extent the governmental body has, before or after the lawsuit was
filed to void the action, engaged in or attempted to engage in the public reconsideration of matters
originally considered in violation of this section;
(8) the degree to which violations of this section were wilful, flagrant, or obvious;
(9) the degree to which the governing body failed to adhere to the policy under AS
44.62.312(a).
(g) Subsection (f) of this section does not apply to a governmental body that has only
authority to advise or make recommendations to a public entity and has no authority to establish
policies or make decisions for the public entity.
(h) in this section,
(1) "governmental body" means an assembly, council, board, commission, committee, or
other similar body of a public entity with the authority to establish policies or make decisions for the
public entity or with the authority to advise or make recommendations to the public entity;
"govenunental. body" includes the members of a subcommittee or other subordinate unit of a
governmental body if the subordinate unit consists of two or more members;
(2) "meeting" means a gathering of members of a governmental body when
(A) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present,
a matter upon which the governmental body is empowered to act is considered by the members
collectively, and the governmental body has the authority to establish policies or snake decisions for
a public entity; or
Page 21 2010
23
(B) more than three members or a majority of the members, whichever is less, are present,
the gathering is prearranged for the purpose of considering a matter upon which the governmental
body is empowered to act and the governmental body has only authority to advise or make
recommendations for a public entity but has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for
the public entity;
(3) "public entity" means an entity of the state or of a political subdivision of the state
including an agency, a board or commission, the University of Alaska, a public authority or
corporation, a municipality, a school district, and other governmental units of the state or a political
subdivision of the state; it does not include the court system or the legislative branch of state
government.
Sec. 44.62.312. State policy regarding meetings. (a) It is the policy of the state that
(1) the governmental units mentioned in AS 44.62.310(a) exist to aid in the conduct of the
people's business;
(2) it is the intent of the law that actions of those units be taken openly and that their
deliberations be conducted openly;
(3) the people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them;
(4) the people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide
what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know;
(5) the people's right to remain informed shall be protected so that they may retain control
over the instruments they have created;
(6) the use of teleconferencing under this chapter is for the convenience of the parties, the
public, and the governmental units conducting the meetings.
Page 22
24
2010
(b) AS 44.62.310(c) and (d) shall be construed narrowly in order to effectuate the policy
stated in (a) of this section and to avoid exemptions from open meeting requirements and
unnecessary executive sessions.
ALASKA LEGISLATURE UNIFORM RULES
Rule 22. Open and Executive Sessions. (a) All meetings of a legislative body are open to all
legislators, whether or not they are members of the particular legislative body that is meeting, and
to the general public except as provided in (b) of this rule.
(b) A legislative body may call an executive session at which members of the general public
may be excluded for the following reasons:
(1) discussion of the matters, the immediate knowledge of which would adversely affect the
finances of a goverrunent unit;
(2) discussion of subjects that tend to prejudice the reputation and character of a person;
(3) discussion of a matter that may, by law,'be required to be confidential;
(4) discussion of a matter the public knowledge of which would adversely affect the security
of the state or nation, or adversely affect the security of a governmental unit or agency.
(c) When a legislative body desires to call an executive session in accordance with (b) of this
rule, the body shall first convene as a public meeting and the question of holding an executive
session shall be determined by a majority vote of the members present.
(d) The provisions of this rule ruay not be interpreted as permitting the exclusion of a
legislator from an executive session, whether or not the legislator is a member of the body that is
meeting. A legislator not a member of the body holding an executive session shall, however, be
subject to the same rules of confidentiality and decorum as pertain to regular members of the body.
Page 23
25
2010
N
rn
2010 PACAB Attendance
P = Present
UA = Unexcused Absent
Ex = Excused Absent
Nm = no meeting
Board Member
Jan
Feb
March
April
May
June
July
August
Sept
Oct
Ron Long
P
P
Ex
Ex
P
P
P
P
nm
P
Deborah Altermatt
P
P
Ex
Ex
P
P
P
Ex
nm
Ex
Paul Tougas
P
P
UA
UA
P
UA
UA
Ex
nm
UA
Daryl Schaefermeyer
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
nm
P
Rob Buck
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
nm
P
Dan Oliver
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
nm
Ex
Please see Seward city code 2.30.315
Terms of Office, Filling Vacancies sub section (c)
2.30.310 ADMINISTRATION
(c) The city manager will appoint a city employee to serve as an ex officio member of the
board who shall have the privilege of the floor but not the right to vote.
(Ord. 512, 1982; Ord. 553, § 1, 2, 1986; Ord. 93-23; Ord. 2000-13, § 2, 2000; Ord. No. 2006-02,
§ 1, 3-28-2006)
2.30.315. Terms of office; filling vacancies.
(a) Members of the port and commerce advisory board shall be appointed for a term of three
years; provided, that the terms of initial appointments shall be staggered so that as nearly as
possible a pro rata number of members shall be appointed for each year.
(b) The council may appoint any qualified person to fill a vacancy of any member of the
board provided that the 4Wpintment shall be for the unexpired term of the vacancy.
(c) Following a member's absence from three consecutive regular meetings of the board, the
remaining board members shall decide whether the board member should be retained or
whether to request council appointment of a new member.
ta) members stall not be paid for services on the board or participation in board activi
without prior approval of the city council.
(Ord. 512, 1982; Ord. 93-23; Ord. 2000-13, § 2, 2000)
2.30.320. Meetings and quorum.
(a) The board will meet at a time and place to be designated by the board.
(b) Four members of the board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business
except that, in the absence of a quorum, any number less than a quorum may adjourn the
meeting to a later date. The affirmative votes of at least a majority of those board members
present shall be required for any action.
(c) All meetings and records of the board shall be open to the public. The board shall keep
minutes of proceedings showing the vote of each member upon each question and shall keep
records of any actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office of the city clerk and
shall be a public record.
(Ord. 512, 1982; Ord. 553, § 4, 1986; Ord. 93-23; Ord. No. 2006-02, § 2, 3-28-2006)
2.30.325. Powers and duties.
(a) It shall be the responsibility of the port and commerce advisory board to:
(1) Report annually to the city council at the first council meeting of the new fiscal year
and at any other time as may be requested by the city council. The annual report shall
include, at the minimum, a report on the prior year's activities, a list of any anticipated
requests for appropriations for the year's planned activities and a recommendation
regarding the continuation of the board;
Supplement No. 06-1 2-34
27
Port and Commerce Advisory Board
Agenda Statement
Date: November 3, 2010
To: Port and Commerce Advisory Board
From: Suzi Towsley, Executive Liaison
Subject: Electing a new vice chair
Background and Justification:
The recent resignation of Vice Chair Butts from the Port and Commerce Advisory Board leaves
the board with out a Vice Chair. A Board nomination and election of a new Vice Chair should
take place to fill the vacant position.
W
Port and Commerce Advisory Board
Resolution 2010-07
Sponsored by: PACAB
CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
PORT AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION 2010-
RESOLUTION OF THE PORT AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD,
SUPPORTING AND PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY
INCENTIVES AND SERVICES TO EXPAND EXISTING AND ATTRACT
NEW BUSINESS
WHEREAS, The Seward Economic Development Assessment 2010 suggested in conjunction
with a Business Retention and Expansion Program the City establish incentive policies; and
WHEREAS, incentives would assist growing Seward's existing business and recruiting new
businesses; and
WHEREAS, the Port and Commerce Advisory Board discussed possible incentives and made
recommendations at their Regular Meeting August 4, 2010.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Port and Commerce Advisory Board
that:
Section 1. For the reasons stated in the recitals, the Board recommends Council support for
the following incentives and services:
1. Assist in directing where to obtain low interest loans for property purchases &
construction, and/or;
2. Provide low interest loans for the same, and/or;
3. Extend or waive payments for infrastructure installation (electricity/water/sewage) using
existing assessment district options in Seward City Code, and/or;
4. Include water & sewage construction in the City's minimum payment agreement and/or;
5. Explore opportunities to assist with lowering interest rates for infrastructure construction,
and/ or;
6. Provide lease payment options, including `balloon payments,' credit for developing
infrastructure and lower payments as the lease matures, and/or;
7. Lengthen lease terms, and/or;
8. Expand the City's utility budget billing program, and/or;
9. Refund Building Permit fees after 1 full year of operation for a business either physically
expanding their business or building a new location within City Limits, and/or;
10. Refund Conditional Use, Variance, and other Land Use Permit Fees after 1 full year of
operation for a business either physically expanding their business or building a new
location within City Limits, and/or
29
Port and Commerce Advisory Board
Resolution 2010-07
11. Determine what City property is available for lease and/or for sale and list property on
website with map and with state economic development organization(s), and/or;
12. Offer a fast -track license and permit systems, and/or;
13. Provide a business friendly environment, and/or;
14. Better define our economic development groups in town (i.e. PACAB, Chamber,
Community Development Director and Wednesday Morning Business Breakfast), and/or;
15. Hire or assign someone to target market specific industries, developing long-term
relationships with potential developers, corporations, businesses and industries that could
operate out of Seward, and/or;
16. Heavily market port and harbor to potential, and/or;
17. Commit to Harbor development and expansion, and/or;
18. Advertise property, services and business opportunities in widely dispersed publications,
professional organizations and websites, and/or;
19. Update the lease policy and procedures for the City of Seward, and/or;
20. Joint meetings with businesses, Chamber Director and Community Development to help
navigate through City Processes, and/or;
21. Develop business `How To' kit.
Section 2. This Resolution will be forwarded to Council for direction.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Port and Commerce Advisory Board this 20th day of
October, 2010.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Jean Lewis, CMC
City Clerk
(City Seal)
30
THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
Ron Long, Chair
I
% SE.,:S;MAU BOA; HARBOR
I
rJ � +•s
�y I
f
'
0
I
r�
">`3'�
I
I eg
8
I
1)o>
a.
OCEANNEW
II
,•
-- — —
suac
Sa
„'
Iry L✓,9NfB�� i_ _
f+,ADanoNs 1
D,o_r Y
I
I
UPLAN05 LINE TABLE
Y4W as
sorai : iem ;-
ATS 174
Seward Boat Harbor
.w
1. rxur
- - - - - - - - - --------------
® ---- - --------------
14 '.
LOT 17A _--'
�, I
/
BLOCK ,6
^
/
ATS 174
Res' rrecilar Bay
� � I—`— — —8 ,`�( , \,jam •➢
VA.N BUREN ST '"' e 'yyT �•`,,,
M`l•. e 2 Y
iAUMER
AODIRON I I ,...✓ .'`
I
,.xv c-.,•.ar -�NJ
L
/•
33 y. }'F S DI?
S
In
'N
i
eJ
Rl`yyy
2 1
930 nil :2
/I
WGGTYUAP I'luHE
% •'/
CERTMCAIE Df ONNLRSH/R AND �pCA iHlx
/�,
�
�! � °
el r.�vw� o,"„ :"per � "nre.. m,�.�`w.:;:'Mf",•
,�
Y
�/
n, .N.,=•..
Ps.:ra�N°Y44s4
/
/
WASTEWATER DISPOSAL
=, I --
NOTARYs AbrxOxi Df£�MNT
NO7E5
V
1 rwr°�"110 n4Wfkr,. W re
a� ✓,"
`
i•m,1`°a`",mw�>er xa w'rniiwi ioie
xo wem N Sxre aune•nw i�"Arow• '•D a"n�i w
0, u, snN
-s�9enatNv�
LEGEND
NQA.A. FOAL INFORMAPON
0 v rov.
SEWARO A A POE STAPON
AL
® = A.4r A Ax ty
Loi: 6097't2N
• Aar A w ��
Long: 14975•32'W
„mod sro• w°r
6-111
41 er,re PK n'm
M.O.AA. DATA SHEET 945 W90
PUBUSNED 1012218466
B zs14'Nre
"emu i i% • u.,,.. em
.rr •
/a re'
• � /:jy •lq.yr s
b
MEANMHIGH :R 9. l'
WATER
uF.W A S.'
L�-Cw WA- ..
---- nn vr"9 ymlw
JLi!_i6
ayp,e„eoee /wee :m,r
•
ti—W IO
m-m
.e:ru xro ne, L
SUFKraRY GERwl.4E
.ewr,y en . marbq m
rY 4m �roA re
MONUMENT DETAILS
ir�E/7oo9/7009 _
Nr
M1 NJ
N4
v
PLAT APPRD"
��aw...e sm rw n 4ruvpl
eM
AN
yITT I
� r
._.�.�_
03
�. _.�1 II fi L3 Ca
..
IL
A'i T rf I F! E 17T=I f.r� { P vu{k� Ur��� tiff 1'0 0 4
^' . rWxm ffV- IMfrr 14i f fi i =°a
', ,� \`�. Itil 1 yf 11 tf. II II 11 II It I i �x� ,;���� 1t �t-� t kY �. 4 -:.�'Y}�+��lih.p�t�,^'�'' •�J r��
3 F 01,10
it iHB�{�"k1 % was Fdf n �R
> 't
T
. `y .+.yX.� 3 ft� 'y • e
TOTAL VEHICLE STALLS
TRAILER
HANDICAP
�d ! f ' � ark �+'"�rn^4�53✓. . �. i � .` �
e
riSWitir, NIEftI`NI1N F
s�� I �'r °• i�5`RY ,�
PARALLEL
—. ..__
*J";�[' 'L'r.'v .•,-
i'f:ux.ov§
STANDARD 100
EASEMENTS
AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS
15'
SIDE OF WATER OR WASTEWATER
LINE 15- (3D' TOTAL)
PRNMRY ELECTRICAL LINES
20'
- .... _.
SECONDARY ELECTRICAL LINES
10'
Sponsored by: PZ Commission and PACAB
CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
RESOLUTION 2010-058
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEWARD,
ALASKA, ENDORSING THE SOUTH HARBOR UPLANDS TRYCK
NYMAN HAYES CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OPTION TWO AS
ATTACHED
WHEREAS, Council directed the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Port and
Commerce Advisory Board to hold a joint work session to provide development recommendations
for the new South Harbor Uplands; and
WHEREAS, previous to the May 11, 2010 Joint Work Session the Port and Commerce
Advisory Board held additional work sessions and provided recommendations to Council; and
WHEREAS, previous to the May 11, 2010 Joint Work Session the Planning and Zoning
Commission, Seward City Council and the Kenai Peninsula Planning Commission made
recommendations and approved South Harbor Uplands Plat 2009-17; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Port and Commerce Advisory
Board recommend that the first projects that should receive initial funding efforts include the
Fishing Pier and Boardwalk, both with ADA accessibility; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, Port and Commerce Advisory Board,
Planning and Zoning Commission, and Council have all approved Resolutions supporting the
concept of the Mariners Memorial; and
WHEREAS, the attached conceptual plan and recommendations shall be incorporated into
the update of the Small Boat Harbor Development Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SEWARD, ALASKA that:
Section 1. The South Harbor Uplands Tryck Nyman Hayes Conceptual Development Plan
Option Two as presented at this meeting is hereby endorsed as attached hereto.
Section 2. The structure types on the Harbor Commercial north side of the uplands and all
parking are excluded from the conceptual development plan endorsement and will be reviewed for
appropriate improvement types during later development stages.
Section 3. All parking and proposed uses of this property shall be brought before council.
Section 4. This resolution shall take affect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Seward, Alaska, this 12t' day of
July, 2010.
33
(City Seal)
CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
RESOLUTION 2010-058
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
THETCITYSEWARD, ALASKA
Willard E. Dunham, Mayor
Valdatta, Bardarson, Shafer, Amberg, Dunham
None
Keil, Smith
None
can Lewi , C
ity Clerk a561u.8„"�
�•••' OF 3610t•
P. q.
•�0� ••��i
• SEAL80
•
34
w
MI
Council Agenda Stai
Meeting Date: July 12, 2010
Through: City Manager Phillip Oates
From:
Agenda Item:
Community Development Director Chri;
ENDORSING THE SOUTH HARBOR
HAYES CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OPTION TWO AS
ATTACHED
BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION
Under the June 2003 Project Cooperation Agreement between the Department of Army and the City
of Seward for Construction of the Harbor Improvements, dredged and excavated material was
deposited behind the newly extended Breakwater creating approximately 3.5 acres of filled land
described by the Corps as `BOD Disposal Area L" On February 12, 2007 the City of Seward
authorized the approval of the Department of Army memorandum for record and accepting Disposal
Area 1. This area is owned by the City of Seward, but also remains subject to the federal doctrine of
navigational servitude.
Council directed the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Port and Commerce Advisory Board
to hold a joint work session to provide development recommendations for the new South Harbor
Uplands. Both Bodies had developed and sent their recommendations to Council on various aspects
of development of this newly created parcel. The Port and Commerce Advisory Board held
additional work sessions and provided recommendations to Council including Resolution 2008-03.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, Seward City Council and the Kenai Peninsula Planning
Commission made recommendations and approved South Harbor Uplands Plat 2009-17. Also, the
Historic Preservation Commission, Port and Commerce Advisory Board, Planning and Zoning
Commission, and Council have all approved Resolutions supporting the concept of the Mariners
Memorial.
A Joint Planning and Zoning Commission and Port and Commerce Advisory Board Meeting was
held on May 11, 2010 with many Council Members, Administration and public also in attendance.
Recommendations developed at the meeting are included in the resolution including: Tryck Nyman
Hayes Conceptual Development Plan Option Two should be adopted as the development plan; initial
funding should be sought for the development of the Fishing Pier and Boardwalk, both with ADA
accessibility; the current zoning should remain as it is in harmony with the development plan; and
the structure types on the Harbor Commercial north side of the uplands should be excluded from the
conceptual development plan approval and should be reviewed for appropriate improvement types
during later development stages.
The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Port and Commerce Advisory Board disagree
regarding the zoning recommendation for this parcel. This Resolution before Council tonight only
7
KET
endorses the TNH Conceptual Development Plan Option Two, excluding the structure types, and
does not recommend a zoning designation.
INTENT:
This resolution proposes to endorse the South Harbor Uplands Tryck Nyman Hayes Conceptual
Development Plan Option Two as presented at this meeting as attached excluding the structure types.
This plan will be used to guide future development and supports initial funding efforts be placed on
the ADA Fishing Pier and Boardwalk.
CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Where applicable, this agenda statement is consistent with the Seward City Code, Charter,
Comprehensive Plans, Land Use Plans, Strategic Plan and City Council Rules of Procedures.
Other: Small Boat Harbor Development Plan
FISCAL NOTE:
No fiscal impact with the approval of this plan.
Approved by the Finance Department:y� �i�C,dK-,•-,
ATTORNEY REVIEW:
Yes: No: X
RECOMMENDATION
Approve RESOLUTION 2010-058 ENDORSING THE SOUTH HARBOR UPLANDS
TRYCK NYMAN HAYES CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OPTION TWO AS
ATTACHED
3
37
Port and Commerce Advisory Board
Resolution 2010-08
Sponsored by: PACAB
CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
PORT AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION 2010-08
RESOLUTION OF THE PORT AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD,
OPPOSING AN APPLICATION FROM AQUABOUNTY TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. TO THE U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA) TO
APPROVE AND MARKET GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ATLANTIC
SALMON IN THE UNITED STATES
WHEREAS, AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. has submitted an application to the FDA for
approval of the "AquAdvantage Salmon", a genetically engineered Atlantic salmon, for human
consumption and marketing in the United States; and
WHEREAS, this is the first genetically engineered animal intended to be use for food in the
United States; and
, the "AquAdvantage Salmon" was bred by inserting a recombinant DNA construct (also
known as a transgene) comprised of a Pacific Chinook salmon growth hormone gene and an Ocean
Pout antifreeze protein gene into fertilized eggs of wild Atlantic Salmon. The bredding of six
subsequent generations led to an "AquAdvantage Salmon" line which bears a single copy of the
integrated transgene. The broodstcok used in spawning of "AquAdvantage Salmon" are females
containing two copies of the transgene that have been scientifically sex -reversed for breeding
purposes, therefore labeled neomales. The neomales are crossed with female Atlantic salmon that do
not posses transgene to produce eggs containing a single copy ofthe transgene. The fish that develop
form these eggs grow at an enhanced growth rate compared to non-transgenic Atlantic salmon; and
WHEREAS, AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. proposes fertilization and incubation to the
eyed -egg stage on Prince Edward Island, Canada; shipment of the eyed -eggs to Panama; grow -out
and processing of fish in Pananma; and , shipment of processed fish to the United States for retail
sale. While AquaBounty maintains the land based rearing ofthe "AquAdvantge Salmon" to be safely
contained with a minimum risk of escapement into the wild; and, in the event of there is an escape,
believes tha the geographical area of the salmon rearing is unfavorable to the survival of
"AquAdvantge Salmon", Alaskans know all to well that fish farming containment measures are not
fail safe. In addition, AquaBounty does not address the possibility of eyed -eggs making their way
into the streams that run into the Northern Pacific Ocean; and
38
Port and Commerce Advisory Board
Resolution 2010-08
WHEREAS, Sewards Port and Commerce Advisory Board urges the FDA to honor the FDA
Amendments Act of 2007 provision (PI 110-85) requiring the FDA Commissioner to "consult with
the Assistant Administrator or the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration to produce a report on any environmental risks associated with
genetically engineered seafood products, including the impact on wild fish stocks", and
WHEREAS, Alaska's wild seafood industry is extremely important to the state and to the
economy of the Seward area, and it could be severely impacted by the sale of genetically engineered
salmon if proper labeling is not required. Should the FDA approve AquaBountys Application to
market their product in the US, it is crucial that the product be mandated to be clearly labeled
"Genetically Modified" to allow customers to make an informed decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Port and Commerce Advisory Board
that:
Section 1. For the reasons stated in the recitals, the Board recommends Council oppose the
approval of genetically enhanced salmon in the Untied States.
Section 2. If despite strong environmental and human health concerns the application is
approved by the FDA , product labeling requirements should include the words "Genetically
Modified" prominently displayed in a minimum font size and a contrasting color on the front of the
package.
Section 3. This Resolution will be forwarded to Council for direction.
Section 4. This Resolution shall take erect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the Port and Commerce Advisory Board this 3rd day of
November, 2010.
THE CITY OF SEWARD, ALASKA
Ron Long, Chair
39
Port and Commerce Advisory Board
Resolution 2010-
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Jean Lewis, CMC
City Clerk
(City Seal)
40
JpG 1N 7ryF CITY OF PETERSBURG
/.dye CPftlRRTp SFs�i
P.O. BOX 329 • PF,TERSBURG, ALASKA 99833
eN
r 'TELEPHONE (907) 772-4519
FAX (907) 772-3759
To: Mayor and Councilors of the Coastal Alaska Communities of Angoon, Coffman Cove, Cordova,
Craig, Gustavus, Haines, Homer, Hoonah, Hydaburg, Juneau, Kake, Kenai, Ketchikan, Klawock,
Kodiak, Kupreanof, Metlakatla, Pelican, Seward, Sitka, Tenakee Springs, Thorne Bay, Valdez,
Wrangell, and Yakutat
From: Debra K. Thompson, Deputy City Clerk
Date: October 11, 2010
Dear Neighbors,
Please join the City of Petersburg in urging the US Food and Drug Administration to decline an
application submitted by AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. requesting approval of genetically engineered
Atlantic salmon for human consumption and to market them in the United States. If approved, the
"AquAdvantage Salmon", also known as the Frankenfish, will be the first genetically engineered animal
intended to be used as food in the U.S.
Alaska's wild seafood industry could be severely impacted by the sale of genetically engineered salmon
if AquaBounty's application is approved and proper labeling is not required. If, despite environmental
and human health concerns the application is approved, the Petersburg City Council strongly believes it
crucial that the FDA mandate the product be clearly labeled "Genetically Modified" to allow consumers
to make an informed choice.
Enclosed is a copy of the City of Petersburg's Resolution #1952 opposing AquaBounty's application. The
FDA is accepting comments on the labeling of food made from "AquAdvantage Salmon" until November
22, 2010. All comments must reference: Food and Drug Administration Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0385.
Comments can be sent electronically at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, or
you can fax or mail your comments to the FDA at:
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852
Fax: 301-827-6870
United we are strong. Please share this resolution with any communities I may have missed and voice
your concerns to the FDA as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
� Jl � UL—
Debra K. Thompson
Deputy City Clerk
41
PACAB Agenda Statement
Meeting Date: November 3, 2010
Through: City Manager Phillip Oates
From: Community Development Director Christy Terry
Agenda Item: South Harbor Uplands Parcel Size Recommendations
BACKGROUND & JUSTIFICATION
Council Approved Resolution 2010-058 endorsing the South Harbor Uplands Conceptual
Development Plan Option Two with two caveats 1) The structure types were to be
determined and in addition 2) the parking and proposed uses of the property would need to
return to Council for final determination.
PACAB has been tasked with providing recommendations on lease parcel sizes for the South
Harbor Uplands.
Some items to consider in your deliberations:
a) The parcel is split zoned with Harbor Commercial to the North and Park to the South.
(a zoning map will be displayed at the PACAB meeting.)
b) The strip of land between the two utility easements on the northern portion of the
parcel is about 55-60' in width. (a parcel map will be displayed at the PACAB
meeting in addition to the one provided in the packet)
c) The buildings displayed in the South Harbor Uplands Fill Area Conceptual
Development Plan Option 2 are sized as follows beginning east and moving west:
two 30'x40', then two 30'x60', then six structures 8 %' by 20', and the final building
to the west before the bathroom is the Harbormaster's building without a size
designation (conceptual plan provided in packet.)
d) For comparison (a plat map of these sites will be posted at the PACAB meeting):
a. Boardwalk lease sites in the harbor are about 30'x 36' lots,
b. `Marina Restaurant' lease parcel is about 80'x 100',
c. two lease parcels to the north of the `Marina Restaurant' are 42'x 100',
d. `Ray's' lease parcel is 105'x 82',
e. `KFT' lease parcel is 131'x 45'
e) Development requirements in the HC district are as follows;
a. building height is limited to 26 feet,
b. no minimum buildable lot size,
c. no front yard setback
d. no side yard setback
42
e. In the HC District, parcels abutting mean high tide —No rear yard setback;
parcels abutting the waterfront boardwalk —Five feet; and parcels not
abutting the waterfront boardwalk or mean high water mark —Ten feet.
f. 100% lot coverage allowed
f) Will one of the requirements in these lease sites mandate decks and structures
connecting to the conceptual board walk?
g) Electric easement to the north- is it really necessary or can it be shifted to allow ease
to access the lots and allow a connecting boardwalk? The Electric Department has
verbally indicated that a removal boardwalk would be allowed in the easement.
h) Will dumpsters be co -located since there will not be vehicle access to north side of
parcels?
i) PACAB should discuss other operational logistics using their collective experience.
CONSISTENCY CHECKLIST
Where applicable, this agenda statement is consistent with the Seward City Code, Charter,
Comprehensive Plans, Land Use Plans, Strategic Plan and City Council Rules of
Procedures.
Other: Small Boat Harbor Development Plan
RECOMMENDATION
PACAB provide recommendations for the South Harbor Uplands Lease Parcel Sizes.
43
Port and Commerce Advisory Board
Agenda Statement
Date: November 3, 2010
To: Port and Commerce Advisory Board
From: Suzi Towsley, Executive Liaison
Subject: Setting a work session topic for November 17, 2010
Backp-round and Justification:
Administration recommends that PACAB Set its next work session topic for November 17, 2010
to Review and Provide Recommendations on Nominating Public Lands for Lease and the Lease
Proposal Policies and Procedures
44
City of Seward, Alaska Port and Commerce Advisory Board Minutes
August 4, 2010 Volume 3, Page
CALL TO ORDER
The regular August 4, 2010 meeting of the Seward Port and Commerce Advisory Board was called to
order at 12:07 p.m. by Chair Long.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG led by Chair Long
ROLL CALL
There were present:
Chair Ron Long presiding, and
Board Members
Dan Oliver Rob Buck
Darryl Schaefermeyer
comprising a quorum of the Board'
Excused: Deborah Altermatt, Paul Tougas, Theresa Butts
Absent
Also were present:
Christy Terry, Community Development
Laura Cloward, Chamber of Commerce
Suzi Towsley, PACAB Liaison
Public:
SPECIAL ORDERS, PRESENTATIONS, AND REPORTS -
Chamber of Commerce Report: Director Laura Cloward
• Reports are varied for local tourism this year; Army resort numbers look good, Visitors centers
numbers are down, Local businesses are varied.
• There were a record number of applicants for July 4`h Mount Marathon race.
• The Silvers are in and it looks like it will be a great year for the Derby.
• The chamber continued to pursue alternatives for future funding of salmon stocking programs.
There was general discussion ofthe limits during the silver salmon derby, conservation/replenishing of
stock in the bay and the fishery sustainability.
General discussion of the upcoming Ombudsman position resolution between Board and director
Cloward took place.
45
City of Seward, Alaska
August 4, 2010
Volume, Page
Port and Commerce Advisory Board Minutes
Community Development Report: Christy Terry
• Kenai Peninsula Economic Development Division report excerpts were reviewed.
• City July camping numbers are up.
• Representatives from the United Methodists Women's division had a walk through of the old
Wesley building on Monday with representatives from the City and had recommitted to being good
neighbors in the community and working to keep the vacated facility form becoming an attractive
nuisance and moving forward
• The Chamber lunch was on Friday and the Lt Governor was scheduled to be in attendance and
speaking.
• City Council Land Policy and Lease procedure work session would be August 5, 2010.
• Planning and Zoning were continuing to revise Title 15 of City Code and would being sending
approved portions to council for consideration and approval, including sign code.
• Terry explained that there was an executive session on Title 7 prior to the work session on Monday
August 9 beginning at 5:00 pm.
• Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the ordinance to allow Wind Energy Conversion
systems within the City of Seward.
There were no Citizens Comments.
Approval of agenda and consent agenda;
The consent agenda was approved via unanimous consent.
PACAB reviewed the schedule of City Council Work sessions in June and July.
The board touched briefly upon the upcoming WTC meeting to announce the Governor's North Star
Awards for Excellence in Anchorage. Chair Long stated he would be in Anchorage and was
tentatively planning to attend.
Board discussed the notes and ideas included in the packet on the Economic Development study:
Idea l and were discussed and not supported by the board.
3- The idea of extending or waiving payment for infrastructure (electricity/sewer/water). This had
been done in the past, post earthquake and was possible as far as PACAB knew. The board expressed
support for this program. This rolled into
Item 4-Special tax assessment district classification was discussed and the potential for how that
could affect city coffers. Would that have performance based thresholds involved?
5- Chair Long expressed the desire to see the City be revenue neutral on the development of
economic incentive by making sure these were neither cost or revenue generators.
6 and 7- The fairness of lowering new businesses tax rates or lease payments as opposed to existing
ones was discussed. The board asked director Terry to rework numbers 6 and 7 into any resolution
of support. The board supported the idea of the city lowering or delaying lease payments required
from businesses, sometimes on individual criteria. This incentive could also be based on the business
improving property, infrastructure development and meeting a threshold ofviability. Provision for a
46
City of Seward, Alaska
August 4, 2010
Volume, Page
Portand Commerce Advisory Board Minutes
reasonable exchange ofvalue for developed infrastructure should be considered as an incentive in city
leases. This topic would be addressed at the Council work session on August 5 2010.
The plausibility of the City helping to get businesses lower insurance rates was discussed by the
board.
10- The board supported the idea of the city refunding building permit fees after one full year of
operation. The board also discussed and supported the idea of refunding or waiving conditional use
permit fees or variance fees if those were approved. All of these would potentially affect the general
fund, though the board believed the affect would be nominal.
Schaefermeyer asked about specific business dis-incentives, i.e.; sign code, zoning code. Terry
responded that she believed that these were being discussed and ironed out as individual cases.
1-City engineer- the board was informed that each department hired or contracted out for specific
projects and the city does not currently have an engineer or civil engineer.
2- Building inspector- the board believed that this would be in competition with the private sector.
4-List of all the leased and sale property on the website- use of the Alaska prospector was supported,
11,12,13,14 all went together, as the idea of Port Marketing Director history was discussed. The
board expressed that they would like to see this discussion compiled in a resolution for council.
Marketing and capital improvement, completion of the SMIC basin was discussed for all its positive
potential. The possibility of a private investor fronting capital was discussed. A Hydro study of the
basin was being done some while ago and the board members remarked that they would like to see
that if it had been completed.
17, Business "How To" kit was supported by the board. Directed Terry said that she had started that
work.
NEW BUSINESS
Resolution 2010-06
Motion (Schaefermeyer/Buck) Adopt Resolution 2010-06 of the Seward
Port and commerce Advisory Board,
supporting and providing
recommendations on the creation of a
Seward Ombudsman
Public Comment made in support of the resolution
Motion to amend 2010-007(Long/Buck)
And
47
add and business retention and expansion
program to title
Changes
WHEREAS, an economic development
ombudsman position would serve as the
primary point of contact for existing Seward
area new —businesses and attracting new
businesses to the Seward area and as a liaison
between the business community and relevant
City of Seward, Alaska
August 4, 2010
Volume, Page
And
Addition
Amendment passed unanimously
Port and Commerce Advisory Board Minutes
government departments and commissions;
and
WHEREAS, this position would pufsae
assisting growing existing business, recruiting
new businesses,
generating events;
WHEREAS, will be most effective if
independent of the City administration in
developing its findings and recommendations
but with the necessary ,cooperation of the
administration in order to fulfill its functions.
Motion for secondary amendment to 2010-007 (Long/Buck)
Change Section 1. to read: Section 1. For the reasons stated in the
recitals, the Board recommends Council
authorize the development of an
ombudsman position and business
retention and expansion program to be
implemented by a qualified employee or by
contract with such contract with the
chamber of commerce with such contract
detailing the specific services to be
provided.
Secondary Amendment passed unanimously
Main Motion Passed as Amended
Unanimous
Board approved unanimously canceling the August 18 works session and replacing it with the August
5 council work session.
July 7 2010 Minutes approved by consensus, with amendments.
BOARD AND ADMINISTRATION RESPONSE TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS —
Rob Buck: would like to see better communication with administration on future title changes to help
streamline the process.
Schaefermeyer agreed.
City of Seward, Alaska
August 4, 2010
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:56
Suzi Towsley
Executive Liaison
(City Seal)
Volume, Page
49
Port and Commerce Advisory Board Minutes
Ron Long
Chair
www.AlaskaRailroad.com • (907) 265-2300
37-year industry veteran begins top executive job in late September
Even before his official start date of September 23, the Alaska
Railroad's (ARRC) new President and CEO Christopher
Aadnesen attended a railroad leaseholder meeting and board
meeting in Fairbanks mid -September. The next couple of
weeks he was on the road, getting acquainted with the
railroad's infrastructure and people.
This is familiar territory for the 37-year industry veteran, who
is well -versed in railroads large and small, privately and
publicly owned, and located in America and abroad.
He most recently (2007-2010) worked for HNTB Corporation, a
nationwide consulting firm. Based in Austin, Texas, Aadnesen led national freight rail services for all
seven of the U.S. Class One railroads. From 2004 to 2007, Aadnesen was CEO and chairman of the
management board for Estonian Railways (ER). Like ARRC, ER provides passenger and freight
services and is owned by a government (privatized in 2001, ER ownership was sold back to the
(see ".Vein PresidentICEO" on pa;e 2)
Ownership transfer to enhance public access to historic collection
In late September, the Alaska Railroad formally transferred ownership of its historical photo
collection to the Anchorage Museum at Rasmuson Center. The collection consists primarily of
photographs, but also includes postcards, invitations, brochures, commemorative buttons and
pins, anniversary press packet, reports, rail tickets, and video film.
The museum has had physical custody of the collection for decades through an informal loan
agreement. During this time the museum has helped to preserve, organize, repair, duplicate,
describe and exhibit the materials. The deed of gift provides the formality required for the
museum to obtain grants and other funds to enhance future efforts to preserve, protect and
display the collection.
�c[+e li1l;CN1i1 A`oru iMUn,>, nn �3%
50
RKHORDUSES 00
First herbicide application in 28 years provides safe, effective tool
In late July the Alaska Railroad (ARRC) applied a
glyphosate herbicide along 30 miles of the track between
Seward and Indian and within the Seward Yard. This fol-
lowed a year -long Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (ADEC) permit process, and two months
of subsequent legal actions.
To recap, in summer 2009, ARRC requested an ADEC
permit to use AquaMaster (an herbicide EPA approved
for use in and around water). After a year -long review, ADEC
approved the permit in late April 2010. On June 1, environ-
mental groups appealed, asking the ADEC commissioner for:
1) an immediate stay to prevent spraying; and 2) an adjudica-
tory hearing to decide if ADEC improperly issued the permit.
The commissioner denied the immediate stay except around a
handful of private wells. Represented by the Trustees for
Alaska, opponents appealed. In late July, the Alaska Supreme
Court declined to overturn the commissioner's decision,
allowing ARRC to proceed with the herbicide application.
The railroad hired a licensed and experienced contractor to
apply the herbicide in select areas where water bodies were
further than 100 feet away, as stipulated by the permit.
Spraying occurred July 25-27. The herbicide did an excellent
job of getting rid of weeds between the rails and ties, allowing
inspectors to easily see the track. Even so, vegetation remains
on the track shoulders where train and maintenance crews
walk so that track maintenance crews still manually and
mechanically clear vegetation in these areas.
(cuutinited Ji-om pine /)
country in a year -long process overseen by Aadnesen). In
1996, Aadnesen founded Capitol City Group, a consulting
firm in Austin. Through 2009, Aadnesen specialized in rail
transportation and logistics, management, planning, and
quality systems development.
From 1996 to 2000, Aadnesen held several executive
positions for the Texas Mexican Railway and TFM (the first
privatized Class One section of the old Mexican National
Railway), including COO and executive VP The previous
two decades he was employed by Union Pacific, working with
nearly every department involved with railroad management.
51
An adjudicatory hearing is set for April 5-15, 2011, to decide:
1) Does herbicide application near water wells pose an unrea-
sonable adverse effect? And, 2) Does applying herbicides
under the conditions set in the permit pose a risk of adverse
effect and would that effect be unreasonable? Depending on
the answers, the permit may be revoked or the permit may be
reaffirmed. Additional stipulations could also be imposed on
the permit. The commissioner's decision can be appealed in
court.
In the meantime, ADEC has monitored the railroad's use of
AquaMaster. A month after application, ADEC conducted a
post -application evaluation around Seward. "There was a
clear line of demarcation along the edge of the spray area,"
noted Karen Hendrickson, ADEC Pesticide Program. "Most
vegetation within the spray area was dead or browning, and
vegetation outside of the sprayed areas was green and showed
no signs of pesticide impact."
This observation underscores initial findings of an ongoing
University of Alaska Fairbanks study on herbicide use along
the Alaska Railroad. The study demonstrates that AquaMaster
does not migrate or linger in the soil.
The two-year study first focused on the railroad's south end,
and is now researching herbicide behavior on the northern
end. A final report on south end results, and preliminary data
from the north end research, are expected before the end of
the year. S
Aadnesen earned a bachelor's degree and a master of business
administration degree from the University of Utah.
Subsequently, he completed University of Pittsburgh and
Harvard University executive management programs.
Wherever he goes, Aadnesen becomes involved in the
community. While in Georgetown, Texas, he chaired the local
planning and zoning commission, served on a local theatre
board and wrote columns for the local newspaper. While in
Europe, Aadnesen served on the board of the Community of
European Railway and Infrastructure Companies in Belgium,
and was VP of Estonia's American Chamber of Commerce.
•
111111 D 1
Anchorage and Fairbanks meetings invite discussion from leaseholders
The Alaska Railroad Real Estate Department organ-
ized two Tenant Town Hall meetings in Anchorage
and Fairbanks in mid -September to provide a forum
for face-to-face dialogue on issues important to real
estate customers. Members of the ARRC Board Real
Estate Committee (John Binkley, Jack Burton and
Jon Cook) and of the Real Estate & Facilities
Department were on -hand to greet customers and
answer their questions. About 40 people attended
the Fairbanks event and about 50 attended the Anchorage
event.
As noted during the events, real estate customers are very
important to the Alaska Railroad. During economic down-
turns, real estate's stable net income is even more crucial to
ARRC remaining self-sufficient. Lease revenues also help to
fund capital projects that don't qualify for federal funding.
"Not surprisingly, many of our leaseholders were interested in
HB 357, the land sale law that passed the legislature last ses-
sion," said VP Real Estate Jim Kubitz, who moderated both
rcontiuued from p, ,,e Ij
The transfer agreement stipulates that the collection must
remain in Anchorage. Requests for commercial use of the
photos must still be approved by the railroad. The museum
may convey some materials that are better suited for the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Last
year, the railroad transferred ownership of Railroad
documents and records from federal ownership era (1914 to
1985) to the NARA Anchorage facility.
The railroad collection has always been important to the
museum, said Chief Curator Marilyn Knapp. "This collection
gets a huge amount of use. We consider it a heritage / legacy
collection because of the railroad's significance to state
history."
Now that the museum owns the collection, more staff time
can be dedicated to expanding opportunities to enhance in -
person and electronic access. "We plan to make more of the
collection accessible online through two fronts," explained
52
forums. "The law has raised expectations for the sale of rail-
road land, and we spent quite a bit of time explaining what
the law means to our leaseholders. We explained that the
process for land sale or transfer remains relatively the same in
that the railroad board and legislature must still approve a
proposed land sale. The railroad board is currently working
on a policy to interpret the law's language and to clarify land
sale criteria."
Railroad staff and board members assured both gatherings
that leaseholders and the public at large would have ample
notice and opportunity to comment on the board policy as it
is developed.
Other topics included the cap and floor on lease rents, the
land appraiser selection process, responsibility for lease land
improvements such as sewer and water service, municipal tax
assessments, lease contract insurance and immunity provi-
sions, tenant representation on the railroad's board of direc-
tors, and the appraisal appeal process. A
i
Knapp. "We have our own collection database management
system linked to an e-museum that we expect to finalize in a
year or so. Secondly, we'll continue to partner with the Alaska
Digital Archives (http://vilda.alaska.edu)." Alaska Digital
Archives is backed by a consortium of libraries with main
support and servers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
lhiecmn Curator_llarilivi An,epp, Left, amiRetilroad VPof
(,�,�/,;u•ateAffair, 1Kendli Iinclskon� si;;; tbea�neeinent.
�0�� O D PMS
D �o� oo��
ONRUBLE ��
Sales-and-signing events scheduled for Dec. 4 in Anchorage and Dec. 18 in Fairbanks
The Alaska Railroad's 2011
commemorative annual
poster/print will be available
in early December, in time
for holiday gift giving to
railroad fans and art enthusi-
asts. The artist will be on -
hand at sale -and -signing
events slated for December 4
at the Anchorage Historic Depot,
411 W. Ship Creek Avenue, and on
December 18 at the Fairbanks Depot,
1745 Johansen Expressway. Both
Saturday events are from 10:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m.
The 2011 artwork is a painting that depicts a freight train
crossing the Matanuska Bridge, about 35 miles north of
Anchorage. The artist is Douglas Girard from Palmer, Alaska.
Girard holds a bachelor of fine arts degree from the Art
Center College of Design in California. He has worked as a
005 *ON J IMHd
>IV `dDV'dOHDNV
aldd HDVISOd Yn
Q,I,S LdS2Id
freelance illustrator, taught
art classes and completed
numerous private commis-
sions. His artwork is sold
through galleries in
Anchorage, Wasilla and
Palmer. Girard has been fea-
tured by local and national
news media and his paint-
ings are included in nation-
al and international collec-
tions.
Since 1979, the Alaska
Railroad has commissioned an artist annually to produce art-
work as the basis for limited edition prints, posters, lapel
prints and other cloilectables. As in years past, the railroad
will produce 750 signed and numbered prints, and 4,000
posters. They will be available through the Anchorage
Historic and Fairbanks depots, and from the railroad's online
gift shop. Prints cost $55 and posters are $30. •
:mopaq ssaxppr pirwa aye of pprwa dq aw m iuDs sail 6.zuuueumD iu m I 'saA
palpadssyy awrly ❑ p ourya uosiad »rIuoD
OU071A ssaxppy Ado:) auo ury axon, 3upnpa:)a21
:xsq Ouiprui xaixapsmau xnof ui sxoxxa Suimogoj aqx xaaxxoa asrapd
p;p i , ,� ;� d"W 00SZ-01 S66 XV `aSBaotloud
uo pawed
00Szol Xog 'OBI $>
uonr.rodto:) proapgd 731sEfV
53
Economic Development Survey Questions
City of Seward Town Hall Meeting
November 4, 2010, 7 PM, IMS Rae Building, Corner of 3rd and Railway Avenues
The City of Seward is sponsoring an Economic Development Town Hall Meeting to address
three key economic development issues: (1) year-round city support of retail, restaurant, and
lodging businesses; (2) city encouragement of small businesses and start-ups; and (3) changes
the city could institute to become more business friendly.
To allow identification of key issues, please provide your input to the following questions no
later than November 1, 2010 to datwoodCtcityofseward.net, drop off physically at the Clerk's
Office located at 410 Adams Street, or mail to the Community Development Department, P.O.
Box 167, Seward, AK 99664. Alternatively, please be prepared to discuss these issues at the
Town Hall Meeting. Anonymous responses are acceptable.
1. What can the City do to support retail, restaurant, and lodging businesses year-round?
a. Is there any support or service the City should provide to encourage retail, restaurant
or lodging business success?
b. Should the City offer incentives to assist retail, restaurant, or lodging businesses to
remain open in the winter? If so, what incentives would be helpful?
c. If it was determined that a City of Seward marketing or "Buy Local" campaign should
be undertaken, what organization should lead the effort?
(1) City of Seward;
(2) Chamber;
(3) Merchants' Association;
(4) High School (as a student project);
(5) Other (please list):
2. What can the City do to encourage retention or start-ups of small businesses?
a. What specific changes to the Seward City Code or City lease procedures would
encourage entrepreneurial or small business start-ups or retention?
b. Are there any industry specific or other support services that you feel are necessary to
encourage small business start-ups or retention?
c. What types of entrepreneurial or small start-up businesses are viable in Seward?
d. Should the City offer incentives to assist entrepreneurial or small business start-ups in
Seward? If so, what incentives would be helpful?
e. Are you willing to participate on the Port and Commerce Advisory Board or on a
Seward Business Retention and Expansion Task Force?
3. What would you change or do differently for the City to become more supportive of
business and establish a friendlier business environment?
a. Please list or describe the greatest obstacle to operating your business in Seward that
the City could help eliminate?
b. If a Business Ombudsman position is established, where should that position exist: City
staff, Chamber, or as an independent entity? Should the position be volunteer or funded
by the City or Chamber?
c. Are there specific challenges your business is facing where the city could assist?
d. What recommendations do you have for improving the business climate or quality of
life in Seward?
54
2010 ALASKA REGIONAL PORTS
CONFERENCE
�NQVE 1�8 2a1:0
SON A1,P
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers., and the Alaska Department of
Transportation and .Public Facilities are. pleased to invite you to attend
the 2nd Alaska Regional Ports Conference. Meeting, goals are to share
information :on agency accomplishments, review outcomes of Alaska
Regional Ports Study, collect input on goals and priorities related to
Alaska's water infrastructure., and discuss Alaska port and harborprojects.
8:00am-4,00pm
Egan Civic & Convention Center
Summit Hall Lower Level Meeting Room
555 West 5th Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska
Conference Fee: $30 (for working lunch)
Register online at http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/en/cw/AKPortsStudy.htm
Doors will open at 7:30am. Please arrive early to check -in.
LO
LO
s
Si
CC WS (Camera
Surveillance)
City Council
Meeting
Nand Richey
lc:P&Z.wtuk 5e iong'; PAOkl Wlw It , , �°Social Security
SIcRe
Northern
Wisdom • Trust • Relevance • Innovation
This publication was funded in part through a grant from the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
The Economic Impacts of International
Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Prepared for the
World Trade Center Alaska
July 2010
Prepared by
Northern
880 H Street, Suite 210
119N Commercial Street, Suite 190
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Bellingham, WA 98225
Phone: (907) 274-5600
Phone: (360) 715-1808
Fax: (907) 274-5601
Fax: (360) 715-3588
Emaii: mail -- nareon.com
This publication was funded in part through a grant from the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES IN APPLIED ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Principals:
Patrick Burden, M.S. — President
Marcus L. Hartley, M.S. — Vice President
Jonathan King, M.S.
Consultants:
Alexus Bond, M.A. Bill Schenken, MBA
Leah Cuyno, Ph.D. Don Schug, Ph.D.
Michael Fisher, MBA Katharine Wellman, Ph.D.
Cal Kerr, MBA
Administrative Staff:
Diane Steele — Office Manager
Terri McCoy, B.A.
Preparers
Northern
vv��
k
Eco a
880 H Street, Suite 210 119 N Commercial Street, Suite 190
Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Bellingham, WA 98225
Phone: (907) 274-5600 Phone: (360) 715-1808
Fax: (907) 274-5601 Fax: (360) 715-3588
Finad mail;, norecon.com
Team Member
Project Role
Company
Patrick Burden
Project Manager
Northern Economics, Inc.
Leah Cuyno
Economist
Northern Economics, Inc.
Alexus Bond
Analyst
Northern Economics, Inc.
Terri McCoy
Editor
Northern Economics, Inc.
Please cite as: Northern Economics, Inc. The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the
Alaskan Economy. Prepared for World Trade Center Alaska. July 2010.
Contents
Section
Page
Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................... iv
ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................................ES-1
Seafood..................................................................................................................................... ES-3
Energy..................................................................................................................................... ES-3
PreciousMetals and Minerals........................................................................................................ ES-3
ForestProducts............................................................................................................................. ES-3
1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................1
2 Approach............................................................................................................................... 8
3 The Alaskan Economy and the Export of Goods.......................................................................... 9
4 Seafood...............................................................................................................................14
4.1 Movement of Seafood Exports..........................................................................................15
4.2 Seafood Products and Demand........................................................................................ 18
4.2.1 Seafood Harvesting and Processing Employment............................................................... 19
4.3 Economic Impacts of Seafood Exports............................................................................... 21
5 Precious Metals and Minerals................................................................................................ 22
5.1 Movement of Precious Metals and Minerals...................................................................... 22
5.2 Economic Impacts of Metals and Minerals Exports............................................................25
6
Energy.................................................................................................................................27
6.1
Movement of Energy Exports............................................................................................
27
6.1.1
LNG.................................................................................................................................
28
6.1.2
Refined Petroleum Product...............................................................................................29
6.1.3
Coal.................................................................................................................................
31
6.2
Economic Impacts of Energy Exports.................................................................................33
7
Forest Products....................................................................................................................
35
7.1
Movement of Forest Products Exports...............................................................................36
7.2
Economic Impacts of Forest Products Exports....................................................................37
8
Other Goods.........................................................................................................................
39
9
Services Sector.....................................................................................................................
40
9.1
U.S. Service Exports..........................................................................................................40
9.1.1
Alaska Service Exports.......................................................................................................42
10
References...........................................................................................................................43
Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table Page
Table ES-1. Alaska Ranking for Value of US Exports by State, 2009................................................
ES-2
Table ES-2. Top Ten US States by Value of Exports on a Per Capita Basis, 2009 .............................
ES-2
Table ES-3. Alaska Ranking for Export Value as a Percentage of GSP, 2008....................................
ES-2
Table ES-4. Percent Change in the Value of Exports, 2008-2009...................................................
ES-2
Table ES-5. Summary of Selected Employment Effects, 2008.........................................................
ES-4
Table ES-6. Summary of Selected Economic Output Effects, 2008.................................................
ES-4
Table 1. Alaska Ranking for Value of US Exports by State, 2009.........................................................1
Table 2. Top Ten US States by Value of Exports on a Per Capita Basis, 2009......................................3
Table 3. Alaska Ranking for Export Value as a Percentage of GSP, 2008.............................................3
Table 4. Percent Change in the Value of Exports, 2008-2009.............................................................5
Table 5. Value of Alaskan Exports by Destination Country, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions).........................6
Table 6. Alaskan Goods Exports, 2000-2009 (in $Millions)...............................................................10
Table 7. Alaska Goods Exports as a Percentage of GSP, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions) ............................12
Table 8. Alaska Seafood Production as a Percent of GSP, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions) .........................14
Table 9. Total Value of Alaskan Seafood Exports, 2000-2009 (Including Seattle)...............................17
Table 10. Alaska Seafood Exports as a Percentage of Production, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions) .............18
Table 11. Average Monthly Employment in Seafood Harvesting and Processing Related to Exports,
2000-2008................................................................................................................................
20
Table 12. Total Direct, Indirect, and Induced Employment of Alaskans Resulting from Seafood
Exports, 2008............................................................................................................................21
Table 13. Labor Income and Output from Seafood Exports, 2008 (in $ Millions)..............................21
Table 14. Total Value of Alaskan Precious Metals and Mineral Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions) ....22
Table 15. Total Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment Resulting from Metal and Mineral
Exports, 2008............................................................................................................................26
Table 16. Labor Income and Output from Metal and Mineral Export Employment, 2008 (in
$ Millions).................................................................................................................................26
Table 17. Total Value of Alaskan Energy Exports, by Product, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)...................27
Table 18. Total Direct, Indirect, and Induced Employment Resulting from Alaskan Energy Exports,
2008.........................................................................................................................................
34
Table 19. Labor Income and Output from Alaskan Exports, 2008 (in $ Millions)...............................34
Table 20. Total Value of Alaskan Forest Product Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)..........................35
Table 21. Total Direct, Indirect, and Induced Employment Resulting from Forest Product Exports,
2008.........................................................................................................................................
38
Table 22. Labor Income and Output from Forest Product Employment, 2008 (in $ Millions) ............38
Table 23. Total Value of Other Alaskan Goods Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)............................39
Table 24. Selected U.S. Service Sector Exports, 2005-2008..............................................................40
Table 25. U.S. Exports of Goods and Services, 2005-2009...............................................................41
Table 26. Estimate of Alaska Service Sector Exports, 2007................................................................42
ii Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure Page
Figure ES-1. Alaskan Goods Exports as a Percentage of GSP, 2008................................................ ES-1
Figure ES-2. Value of Alaskan Exports by Destination Country, 2009............................................. ES-1
Figure 1. Alaskan Goods Exports as a Percentage of Gross State Product (GSP), 2008.........................5
Figure 2. Value of Alaskan Exports by Destination Country, 2009....................................................... 6
Figure 3. Gross State Product by Industry Sector, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions) ....................................... 9
Figure 4. Alaskan Goods Exports by Commodity, 2009....................................................................10
Figure 5. Map of the Alaskan North Pacific Groundfish Fishery.........................................................11
Figure 6. Map of Alaskan Energy Sources.........................................................................................12
Figure 7. Goods Exports as a Percentage of GSP, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)......................................13
Figure 8. Alaska Seafood Production as a Percent of GSP, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions) ........................15
Figure 9. Total Value of Alaskan Seafood Exports, 2000-2009 (Including Seattle) (in $ Millions) ........ 17
Figure 10. Alaska Seafood Exports and Non -Exports, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)................................18
Figure 11. Alaska Direct Marine Fisheries Product Exports, 2009 (by Value).....................................19
Figure 12. Seafood Harvesting and Processing, Residents vs. Non -Resident Employment, 2008........20
Figure 13. Alaska Mineral Production by Mine or Sector, 2008........................................................23
Figure 14. Total Value of Alaskan Precious Metals and Mineral Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions) ...24
Figure 15. Minerals & Ores Export Destinations, 2009 (by Value).....................................................25
Figure 16 Energy Export Destinations, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)......................................................28
Figure 17. Total Value of Alaskan LNG Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions).......................................29
Figure 18 Products made from a Barrel of Crude Oil (gallons), 2008................................................31
Figure 19. Location of Chuitna Coal Project.....................................................................................33
Figure 20. Total Value of Alaskan Forest Product Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions).........................36
Figure 21. Forestry Product Export Destinations, 2009 (by Value) ..................................................... 37
Figure 22. Exports of Selected Service Sectors for the U.S., 2007..................................................... 41
Northern Economics III
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Abbreviations
ADNR
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
ADOLWD
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development
APED
Alaska Partnership for Economic Development
APP
Alaska Product Preference Program
BEA
Bureau of Economic Analysis
COAR
Commercial Operator's Annual Report
DOC
United States Department of Commerce
EIA
Energy Information Administration
EU
European Union
FTD
U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade Division
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GSP
Gross State Product
kWh
Kilowatt-hour
LME
London Metal Exchange
LNG
Liquefied Natural Gas
MMBF
Million Board Feet
NAICS
North American Industry Classification System
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OM
Origin of Movement Data Series (US Census Bureau)
TAPS
Trans Alaska Pipeline System
UCM
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc.
WTCAK
World Trade Center Alaska
iv Northern Economics
For the purpose of this study
"exports" refers only to goods
and services sold internationally;
it does not include the Alaskan
goods and services sold out -of
state to domestic buyers. Gross
State Product (GSP) refers to
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
data that are grouped by state.
48 percent of Alaskan GSP was
attributable to mining (which
includes oil and gas), and
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from the BEA and US government in 2008. Federal,
Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska state, and local governments
Governor's Office of International Trade, 2010 employ a large percentage of
Alaskans, and the state economy
is heavily dependent upon the public sector. Transportation and warehousing and real estate rental
and leasing comprised an additional 17 percent. All other sectors combined amounted to less than
35 percent of 2008 GSP.
Executive Summary
World Trade Center Alaska (WTCAK) commissioned Northern Economics, Inc. to study the economic
impacts of international trade exports upon the Alaskan Economy. As a percentage of Gross State
Product (GSP), Alaska sat near the middle of all states with export values amounting to 7.4 percent of
total GSP in 2008. As shown in Figure ES-1, the seafood, metals and minerals, energy and forest
products industries were the most significant export sectors.
Figure ES-1. Alaskan Goods Exports as a Percentage of GSP, 2008
Figure ES-2 summarizes the value of
Alaskan goods exports by
destination. In 2009, Japan, China,
and South Korea were the top three
recipients of Alaskan goods;
combined, they imported 62 percent
of Alaska's exports. Canada received
10 percent of Alaskan exports, and
Switzerland received 5 percent.
In 2009, Alaska ranked 40th among
all states for goods export value.
Alaska's low standing on an export
value basis understates the
importance of the export sector to
the state economy. If the value of
goods exports is adjusted to account
for the state's relatively small
population, Alaska's standings
improve dramatically. As shown in
Table ES-2, on a per capita basis,
■ Seafood
■ Metals and
Minerals
■ Energy
■ Forest
Products
■ Other
Figure ES-2. Value of Alaskan Exports by Destination
Country, 2009
China
Japan
30%
South Korea
Canada
10%
Switzerland
5%
Spain
4%
utn er
19%
Source: Northern Economics, Inc., using US Census Bureau
Foreign Trade Division data, 2010
Northern Economics ES-1
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Alaska ranked sixth in the nation for value of exports in 2009; it exported an equivalent of $4,660 in
goods for each person in the state.
With the exception of Utah, which saw a slight increase in its exports, all U.S. states saw a drop in the
value of their exports between 2008 and 2009. During this time, the average national drop in the
value of exports was 18.7 percent. As shown in Table ES-4, the value of Alaskan exports dropped only
8.8 percent. This beat the national average by 10 percent and put Alaska in the top ten states to
withstand the decline in exports, highlighting the resiliency of the state's export sector.
Table ES-1. Alaska Ranking for Value of US Exports
by State, 2009
Annual Export
Rank
State
Value ($)
35
Nebraska
4,868,867,546
36
West Virginia
4,822,106,056
37
Oklahoma
4,415,124,146
38
Delaware
4,310,891,618
39
Idaho
3,879,807,527
40
Alaska
3,254,978,781
41
Vermont
3,170,846,510
42
New Hampshire
3,061,594,401
43
Maine
2,276,290,790
44
North Dakota
2,177,803,333
Table ES-3. Alaska Ranking for Export Value as a
Percentage of GSP, 2008'
Exports as a
Rank
State
Percentage of GSP
22
Arizona
7.9
23
Delaware
7.9
24
California
7.8
25
Massachusetts
7.8
26
New Jersey
7.5
27
Alaska
7.4
28
Florida
7.3
29
Minnesota
7.3
30
Connecticut
7.1
31
New York
7.0
Table ES-2. Top Ten US States by Value of Exports on
a Per Capita Basis, 2009
Per Capita
Rank Description Export Value ($)
1
Washington
7,763.79
2
Louisiana
7,282.78
3
Texas
6,579.14
4
Vermont
5,099.79
5
Delaware
4,870.39
6
Alaska
4,660.14
7
Kentucky
4,081.71
8
Connecticut
3,985.45
9
Oregon
3,899.12
10
Utah
3,712.18
Table ES-4. Percent Change in the Value of Exports,
2008-2009
Percent
Rank State Change
1
Utah
0.42
2
Nevada
-7.29
3
Kentucky
-7.76
4
Connecticut
-8.43
5
Alaska
-8.8
6
Arkansas
-8.86
7
Nebraska
-9.98
8
Vermont
-11.83
9
Delaware
-11.92
10
Tennessee
-11.95
Note: These rankings are based on the 50 states only, and do not include Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, or the
U.S. Virgin Islands.
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using US Census Bureau GSP data, US Census Bureau Population
Estimates, and World Trade Center of New Orleans data from the US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division,
Origin of Movement series, prepared by World Institute for Strategic Economic Research (WISER), 2010.
These rankings were compiled using 2008 gross production data released from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA). GSP data for 2009 are not expected to be released until November of 2010.
ES-2 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Seafood
The annual harvest and processing of Alaskan seafood contributes
significantly to the state economy. Thousands of people are employed
annually on fishing boats, on processing vessels, at docks, and in
processing plants, harvesting groundfish (pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish,
rockfish, etc.), crab, salmon, and other marine species.
In 2009, $1.37 billion worth of Alaska seafood (68 percent of total
seafood exports) left Alaska directly and $640 million (32 percent of total
seafood exports) were exported via Seattle. Of the direct exports,
73 percent of products were shipped to Asia, while 12 percent went to
Europe, and 5 percent were sent to Canada. Each year more than half of
Alaskan seafood production is sent overseas.
Energy
Alaska's energy resources are vast and consist of both
renewable and fossil -based sources. The majority of today's
energy exports take the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG);
LNG exports were 78 percent of the total value of energy
exports in 2009.
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. (UCM) is located south of Fairbanks
near Healy, in the Alaska Range. UCM produces an average of
1.5 million tons of coal per year, and in 2009, 40 percent of
production was exported, (McDowell Group, 2010).
Precious Metals and Minerals
Each year the extraction of gold, silver, lead, zinc, and other
industrial minerals yields millions of dollars worth of construction
and manufacturing materials. The mining of these materials
creates jobs both within the industry and in support sectors; the
transportation and storage of materials and workers generates
spending and jobs that extend throughout the logistical network.
Ores and minerals are raw materials that usually need to be
smelted or refined before they can be used. Many Alaskan mines export their products to refineries in
countries such as South Korea, Canada, Japan, Spain, and China.
Forest Products
Alaskan wood products are mostly round logs and primary wood
products and include cants, flitches, shop lumber, wood chips, and
music wood. These forest products have been marketed to Pacific
Rim markets for more than 40 years; the largest consumers of Alaska
wood products exports are China, Japan, and South Korea.
2 The Foreign Trade Division of the U.S. Census Bureau considers all Alaskan export ports to be part of the
Anchorage District. The Anchorage District is representative of state-wide exports.
hftp://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/d/distcode.html
Northern Economics ES-3
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table ES-5. Summary of Selected Employment Effects, 2008 Employment and spending within
Alaska's export sectors create a wave
Direct Jobs Related Indirect and
Total
of economic activity that continues
Export Sector to Exports Induced Jobs
Jobs
beyond the dock, mine, well or forest
Seafood 13,715 7,797
21,511
where the initial effect was generated.'
Precious Metals
As shown in Table ES-5, Alaskan
and Minerals 937 1,285
2,222
export industries provide direct jobs to
Energy 136 497
633
a significant number of Alaskans as
Forestry 153 236
389
well as indirect and induced jobs to a
Total 14,940 9,814
24,755
host of workers in supporting and
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010
related sectors through associated
spending. The revenue generated
through the sale of seafood, energy, precious metals and
minerals, and forestry exports contributed
almost 24,755 jobs and $5.6 billion to the Alaskan economy in 2008 (see Table ES-6).
The federal government does not yet
provide data by state for services that
are provided by U.S. firms to
customers in other countries. It is
known that a number of Alaska
companies provide services to clients
in other countries, but the identities
of the Alaska firms and the value of
the services that are exported are not
reported. A preliminary estimate of
Alaska service sector exports could
range from $580 million to
potentially as high as $1.7 billion.
Thus, service sector exports could
represent about 14 to 43 percent of
the value of goods exported from the
state, and about 1.2 to 3.6 percent of
Alaska's GSP in 2007.
Table ES-6. Summary of Selected Economic Output Effects, 2008
Value of
Indirect and
Total Economic
Exports
Induced Economic
Output
Export Sector ($ millions)
Output ($ millions)
($ millions)
Seafood 2,213
1,346
3,559
Precious Metals 835 414 1,249
and Minerals
Energy 473 140 613
Forestry 83 57 140
Total 3,604 1,957 5,560
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010.
Note: Alaskan seafood exports as measured in this analysis
include estimates of Alaskan products warehoused in Seattle
before being exported internationally. Therefore, this figure does
not agree with the state's 2008 figure of $1.8 billion.
World Trade Center Alaska is a private, non-profit membership organization
providing international trade and business services to members and
WORLD TRADE CENTER community partners across the state. The mission of WTCAK is to assist
Alaskans to successfully compete for trade and investment in the global
ALASKA market place.
431 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 108, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, USA
Phone: 907.278.7233 Fax: 907.278.2982 • Email: info cDwtcak.org Web: www.wtcak.org
This publication was funded in part through a grant from the State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development.
3 Data on export values, sector employment, and industry production were used to determine the direct employment and
economic output attributable to Alaska's export sector. Indirect and induced effects are measured in terms of employment,
labor income, and economic output. These effects were determined through 1-0 analysis using IMPLAN data for the relevant
industries.
° The Foreign Trade Division of the U.S. Census Bureau considers all Alaskan export ports to be part of the Anchorage District.
The Anchorage District is representative of state-wide exports. htip://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/d/distcode.html
ES-4 Northern Economics
I Introduction
World Trade Center Alaska (WTCAK) is a private, non-profit membership organization that provides
international trade and business services to organizations across the state. The mission of WTCAK is to
assist Alaskans in successfully competing for trade and investment in the global marketplace. In pursuit
of this goal, WTCAK commissioned Northern Economics, Inc. to study the economic impacts of
international trade exports upon the Alaskan Economy.
For the purpose of this study "exports" refers only to goods and services sold internationally; it does
not include the Alaskan goods and services sold out -of state to domestic buyers. Gross State Product
(GSP) refers to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data that are grouped by state. To limit confusion
between state -specific and nationwide data, the term "GDP" is not used in reference to the State of
Alaska.
As shown in Table 1, Alaska ranked 40th among all states for goods export value in 2 0094 . Texas was
at the top of the list with $163 billion worth of exports, and was followed closely by California with
$120 billion.
Table 1. Alaska Ranking for Value of US Exports by State, 2009
Rank
State
Annual Export Value ($)
1
Texas
163,046,235,100
2
California
120,142,219,999
3
New York
57,320,623,000
4
Washington
51,739,397,146
5
Florida
46,919,556,478
6
Illinois
41,513,559,039
7
Ohio
34,083,697,044
8
Louisiana
32,714,796,637
9
Michigan
32,553,939,379
10
Pennsylvania
28,253,145,576
11
New Jersey
27,259,303,080
12
Georgia
23,868,217,885
13
Massachusetts
23,574,691,740
14
Indiana
22,889,919,070
15
North Carolina
21,789,312,207
16
Tennessee
20,461,097,921
17
Kentucky
17,608,951,952
18
Wisconsin
16,729,044,512
19
South Carolina
16,515,607,019
20
Minnesota
15,506,267,221
21
Virginia
15,045,245,039
22
Oregon
14,916,688,204
23
Arizona
14,023,616,088
4 The rankings in Figures 1 — 4 are compiled using the 50 states only,
and do not include Washington D.C.,
Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Rank
State
Annual Export Value ($)
24
Connecticut
14,021,952,584
25
Alabama
12,352,189,889
26
Utah
10,336,841,557
27
Missouri
9,507,800,877
28
Maryland
9,229,271,918
29
Iowa
9,040,665,520
30
Kansas
8,891,977,162
31
Mississippi
6,307,993,302
32
Colorado
5,780,011,885
33
Nevada
5,672,751,348
34
Arkansas
5,267,049,146
35
Nebraska
4,868,867,546
36
West Virginia
4,822,106,056
37
Oklahoma
4,415,124,146
38
Delaware
4,310,891,618
39
Idaho
3,879,807,527
40
Alaska
3,254,978,781
41
Vermont
3,170,846,510
42
New Hampshire
3,061,594,401
43
Maine
2,276,290,790
44
North Dakota
2,177,803,333
45
Rhode Island
1,495,230,588
46
New Mexico
1,269,478,272
47
Montana
1,030,118,697
48
South Dakota
1,011,783,473
49
Wyoming
926,092,118
50
Hawaii
562,161,811
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using World Trade Center of New Orleans data from the US Census Bureau,
Foreign Trade Division, Origin of Movement series, prepared by World Institute for Strategic Economic Research
(WISER), 2010.
Alaska's low standing on an export value basis understates the importance of the export sector to the
state's economy. If the value of goods exports is adjusted to account for the state's relatively small
population, Alaska's standings improve dramatically. As shown in Table 2, on a per capita basis,
Alaska ranked sixth in the nation for value of exports in 2009; it exported an equivalent of $4,660
dollars in goods for each person in the state.
2 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table 2. Top Ten US States by Value of Exports on a Per Capita Basis, 2009
Annual Export Per Capita
Rank Description Value ($) Population Export Value ($)
1
Washington
51,739,397,146
6,664,195
7,763.79
2
Louisiana
32,714,796,637
4,492,076
7,282.78
3
Texas
163,046,235,100
24,782,302
6,579.14
4
Vermont
3,170,846,510
621,760
5,099.79
5
Delaware
4,310,891,618
885,122
4,870.39
6 L
Alaska
3,254,978,781
698,473
4,660.14
7
Kentucky
17,608,951,952
4,314,113
4,081.71
8
Connecticut
14,021,952,584
3,518,288
3,985.45
9
Oregon
14,916,688,204
3,825,657
3,899.12
10
Utah
10,336,841,557
2,784,572
3,712.18
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using US Census Bureau Population Estimates and World Trade Center of
New Orleans data from the US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, Origin of Movement series, prepared by
World Institute for Strategic Economic Research (WISER), 2010.
As a percentage of GSP, Alaska sits near the middle of all states, with export value amounting to
7.4 percent of total GSP. As shown in Table 3, eleven states (or 22 percent of all states) are within the
seven to eight percent bracket.
Table 3. Alaska Ranking for Export Value as a Percentage of GSP, 20085
Export Value
State GSP
Exports as a
Rank
State
($ Millions)
($ Millions)
Percentage of GSP (%)
1
Washington
66,885
322,778
20.7
2
Louisiana
41,927
222,218
18.9
3
Texas
192,144
1,223,511
15.7
4
Vermont
3,596
25,442
14.1
5
South Carolina
19,832
156,384
12.7
6
Kentucky
19,089
156,436
12.2
7
Oregon
19,363
161,573
12.0
8
Michigan
44,871
382,544
11.7
9
Indiana
26,507
254,861
10.4
10
Kansas
12,475
122,731
10.2
11
Ohio
45,488
471,508
9.6
12
Idaho
4,988
52,747
9.5
13
Utah
10,294
109,777
9.4
14
Alabama
15,846
170,014
9.3
15
Tennessee
23,237
252,127
9.2
16
West Virginia
5,631
61,652
9.1
17
Iowa
12,093
135,702
8.9
5 These rankings were compiled using 2008 gross production data released from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) in combination with Origin of Movement export data from the Foreign Trade Division (FTD) of
the U.S. Census Bureau. GSP data for 2009 are not expected to be released until November of 2010.
Northern Economics 3
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Export Value State GSP Exports as a
Rank State ($ Millions) ($ Millions) Percentage of GSP (%)
18
North Dakota
2,760
31,208
8.8
19
Wisconsin
20,553
240,429
8.5
20
Illinois
53,445
633,697
8.4
21
Mississippi
7,301
91,782
8.0
22
Arizona
19,742
248,888
7.9
23
Delaware
4,894
61,828
7.9
24
California
144,813
1,846,757
7.8
25
Massachusetts
28,293
364,988
7.8
26
New Jersey
35,479
474,936
7.5
27
Alaska
3,569
47,912
7.4
28
Florida
54,272
744,120
7.3
29
Minnesota
19,159
262,847
7.3
30
Connecticut
15,313
216,174
7.1
31
New York
79,596
1,144,481
7.0
32
Georgia
27,509
397,756
6.9
33
Nebraska
5,409
83,273
6.5
34
North Carolina
25,076
400,192
6.3
35
New Hampshire
3,746
60,005
6.2
36
Pennsylvania
34,448
553,301
6.2
37
Maine
3,011
49,709
6.1
38
Arkansas
5,779
98,331
5.9
39
Missouri
12,834
237,797
5.4
40
Virginia
18,933
397,025
4.8
41
Nevada
6,119
131,233
4.7
42
South Dakota
1,645
36,959
4.4
43
Rhode Island
1,977
47,364
4.2
44
Maryland
11,379
273,333
4.2
45
Montana
1,390
35,891
3.9
46
New Mexico
2,780
79,901
3.5
47
Oklahoma
5,058
146,448
3.5
48
Colorado
7,668
248,603
3.1
49
Wyoming
1,081
35,310
3.1
50
Hawaii
964
63,847
1.5
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using US Census Bureau GSP data and World Trade Center of New Orleans
data from the US Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, Origin of Movement series, prepared by World
Institute for Strategic Economic Research (WISER), 2010.
With the exception of Utah, which saw a slight increase in its exports, all U.S. states saw a drop in the
value of their exports between 2008 and 2009. During this time, the average national drop in the
value of exports was 18.7 percent. As shown in Table 4, the value of Alaskan exports dropped only
8.8 percent. This beat the national average by 10 percent, and put Alaska in the top ten states to
withstand the decline in exports, highlighting the resiliency of the state's export sector.
4 NorthernEconomics
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table 4. Percent Change in the Value of Exports, 2008-2009
Annual Export Value Annual Export Value
Rank State 2008 2009
Percent Chanaa
1
Utah
10,293,513,353
10,336,841,557
0.42
2
Nevada
6,118,991,933
5,672,751,348
-7.29
3
Kentucky
19,089,371,625
17,608,951,952
-7.76
4
Connecticut
15,313,059,446
14,021,952,584
-8.43
5
Alaska
3,569,108,232
3,254,978,781
-8.8
6
Arkansas
5,778,809,479
5,267,049,146
-8.86
7
Nebraska
5,408,858,191
4,868,867,546
-9.98
8
Vermont
3,596,425,853
3,170,846,510
-11.83
9
Delaware
4,894,214,789
4,310,891,618
-11.92
10
Tennessee
23,237,044,064
20,461,097,921
-11.95
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using World Trade Center of New Orleans data from the
US Census Bureau,
Foreign Trade Division, Origin of Movement series, prepared by World Institute for Strategic
Economic Research
(WISER), 2010.
In 2008 Alaskan exports amounted to seven percent of state GSP. As shown in Figure 1, the seafood,
metals and minerals, energy and forest products industries were the most significant export sectors.
The "other" category includes (but is not limited to) crops, waste & scrap, miscellaneous
manufactures, used merchandise, and goods returned to Canada. Many of the goods listed in the
"other" category are not produced in Alaska. As explained further in Section 8, they may be the
product of reporting errors, intermediate warehousing, and/or goods intended for use by Alaskan firms
working abroad.
Figure 1. Alaskan Goods Exports as a Percentage of Gross State Product (GSP), 2008
■ Seafood
r Metals and
Minerals
■ Energy
■ Forest Products
e Other
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from the BEA and US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data
supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International Trade, 2010
Northern Economics 5
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table 5 and Figure 2 summarize the value of Alaskan goods exports by destination. In 2009, Japan,
China, and South Korea were the top three recipients of Alaskan goods; combined, they imported
62 percent of Alaska's exports. Canada received 10 percent of Alaskan exports, and Switzerland
received 5 percent.
Table S. Value of Alaskan Exports by Destination Country, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
Trade Partner
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Japan
1,316
1,039
1,105
1,033
1,189
1,185
1,092
883
1,051
981
China
103
102
148
154
241
337
474
716
733
586
South Korea
449
463
401
567
580
686
726
703
366
458
Canada
165
188
158
231
248
223
451
548
370
318
Switzerland
3
2
47
94
93
103
115
132
148
150
Spain
2
7
68
38
70
72
144
143
30
138
Germany
34
115
118
113
147
183
242
202
208
126
Netherlands
3
31
83
97
92
116
125
114
105
88
Singapore
26
18
11
5
3
77
11
13
18
74
Italy
5
23
20
17
2
27
25
26
3
46
Other
357
429
345
392
492
603
643
531
510
289
World Total
2,464
2,418
2,504
2,739
3,157
3,613
4,046
4,010
3,542
3,255
Source: Northern Economics, Inc., using data from the Foreign Trade Division, 2010.
Figure 2. Value of Alaskan Exports by Destination Country, 2009
Japar
30%
China South Korea
Canada
10%
Switzerland
5%
Spain
4%
vtner
19%
Source: Northern Economics, Inc., using data from the Foreign Trade Division, 2010.
6 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
In 2010 the Alaska Partnership for Economic Development (APED) released a situational analysis of
the current economic development system in Alaska. The study found that Alaska faced future risk
due in part to weak linkages to global market opportunities and lack of diversification within the
state's export -oriented industries. The findings recommend that stakeholders within the state
economy take a collaborative approach to economic development that focuses on developing
stronger export industries (APED, 2010).
This export analysis aims not only to assess the current status of Alaska's export industries, but also to
quantitatively and qualitatively assess the economic benefits that these industries provide to the state
as a whole. Alaskan export industries provide direct jobs to a significant number of Alaskans as well as
indirect and induced jobs to a host of workers in supporting and related sectors through associated
spending. That is to say, employment and spending within Alaska's export sectors create a wave of
economic activity that continues beyond the dock, mine, well or forest where the initial effect was
generated. Measuring the size of this effect highlights the benefit of the export sector to the Alaskan
economy.
Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
2 Approach
This analysis uses both qualitative and quantitative research to assess the economic value of Alaskan
goods and services sold by U.S. companies and residents to foreign firms and residents. Data on
export values, sector employment, and industry production were used to determine the direct
employment and economic output attributable to Alaska's export sector. These direct effects were
used as inputs into an Input -Output analysis (1-0) to derive the indirect and induced effects also
attributable to the export sector.
1-0 analysis is an economic tool used to measure the effects or impacts of an economic activity and is
typically used to evaluate the benefits of a project or entity. The analysis is based on a model of the
inter -industry transactions within a community, region, or state. The 1-0 model is a matrix that tracks
the dollar flow between the industries within a specified economic region of interest. The model can
measure how many times a dollar is re -spent in, or "ripples" through, a community (or a larger
economic region) before it leaks out.
The 1-0 model yields multipliers that are used to calculate the indirect and induced effects on jobs,
income, and business sales/output generated per dollar of spending on various types of goods and
services in the study area. To evaluate the economic effects to the state or a particular region, only the
"local" (i.e., within the state or within the region) expenditures are used in the model; the rest are
considered leakages. More leakages mean smaller multipliers; and the larger the local expenditures,
the greater the multiplier effects. The multipliers for any given industry in any given location are
unique, based on industry composition and geographic area.
The IMPLAN'" software was used to develop the statewide 1-0 model used in this analysis. IMPLAN
uses specific data on the inputs needed to produce the goods or services for over 400 industries, and
state -specific data on the industries available locally from which to purchase those inputs. The most
recent (2008) IMPLAN data for all the economic sectors within the state were applied.
A variety of data sources were used for this analysis including federal, state, and industry resources.
Data on Gross Domestic Product by State (GSP) were obtained from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The U.S. Census Bureau's Origin of Movement data series was used in combination with Census
Bureau Foreign Trade Division data and the National Marine Fisheries Service database to acquire the
reported value of Alaskan exports. Unreported or aggregated export values were extracted through
industry reports and interviews. Employment data were gathered from the Federal Department of
Commerce, the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and a variety of industry
publications and interviews.
Due to discrepancies in methods of data collection, state, federal, and independent resources did not
always agree with one another. The data used in this report are our best estimates of the data that
most accurately portray Alaska industries. We have gone beyond traditional reporting by combining
primary industry analysis (survey results, etc.) and local knowledge of production and movement of
Alaskan goods to yield what we believe are more accurate estimates of export value and production.
Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
3 The Alaskan Economy and the Export of Goods
Alaska is endowed with abundant natural resources and its economy is greatly dependent upon the
management and extraction of these resources. For example, the production value of the
transportation and warehousing industry is heavily dependent on the movement and storage of oil,
gas, coal, minerals and seafood within the state. Additionally, a portion of the revenue within the 'real
estate, rental and leasing' sector comes from payments made for the rental and leasing of machinery
and equipment used for large resource development projects.
Figure 3. Gross State Product by Industry Sector, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)
60,000
0
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
■ Other ■ Real estate and rental and leasing - Mining
■ Construction ■ Wholesale and Retail trade Transportation and warehousing
■ Health care and social assistance ■ Government
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from the BEA, 2010.
As highlighted in Figure 3, 48 percent of Alaskan GSP was attributable to mining (which includes oil
and gas), and government in 2008. Federal, state, and local governments employ a large percent of
Alaskans, and the state economy is heavily dependent upon the public sector. Transportation and
warehousing and real estate rental and leasing comprised an additional 17 percent. All other sectors
combined amounted to less than 35 percent of 2008 GSP.
In line with the state economy as a whole, Alaska's export industries also stem from the state's natural
resources. Table 6 and Figure 4 show the large amounts of seafood, precious metals, minerals, energy
sources, and forest products that are exported directly from Alaska each year.
Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table 6. Alaskan Goods Exports, 2000-2009 (in $Millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Seafood
1,034
1,190
1,321
1,395
1,685
1,969
2,019
1,980
1,800
1,623
Precious Metals and
294
331
427
507
595
595
1,204
1,401
835
994
Minerals
Energy
LNG
145
145
141
148
139
141
156
111
305
257
Refined Petroleum
122
134
130
153
196
184
93
143
144
38
Product
Coal
16
17
9
4
14
14
10
5
23
33
Other
288
1
0
0
27
0
0
2
0
0
Forest Products
210
155
130
152
105
135
112
86
83
88
Other
355
444
346
379
396
574
453
283
351
222
Total
2,464
2,418
2,504
2,739
3,157
3,613
4,046
4,010
3,542
3,255
Source: US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International
Trade, 2010
Figure 4. Alaskan Goods Exports by Commodity, 2009
3cious Metals
nd Minerals
30%
Seafood
50%
tnergy
10%
1q1Q1
Forest Products
Other 3%
7%
Source: US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International
Trade, 2010
Alaska's resource industries are distributed throughout the state. The productive Tongass and Chugach
forests are located in Southeast and Southcentral Alaska. As shown in Figure 5, the commercial
groundfish fisheries extend from the north portion of the Bering Sea to coasts of the Southeast.
Commercial salmon fisheries extend even further north, and also into the major river systems such as
the Yukon and Kuskokwim River drainages.
10 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure S. Map of the Alaskan North Pacific Groundfish Fishery
N
C
Source: NwRrS/NUAA, 1U1U.
Oil and gas extraction are based in the Cook Inlet region and on the North Slope of Alaska and
adjacent waters, primarily near Prudhoe Bay. Coal deposits are found in many parts of the state, but
currently the only active coal mine is the Usibelli coal mine, located in the Interior near Healy. In the
future, a second mine may be developed in Southcentral Alaska to access the Beluga coal field. This
project is still in stages of review, but preliminary plans indicate that a large portion of the extracted
coal is intended for export (Chuitna, 2010; Borrell, 2010).
Northern Economics 11
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 6. Map of Alaskan Energy Sources
Source: EIA, 2010b
Table 7 and Figure 7 show the value of Alaskan exports in relation to GSP. From 2000 to 2008 direct
exports were consistently between seven and ten percent of total GSP.
Table 7. Alaska Goods Exports as a Percentage of GSP, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Gross State 27,034 26,609 29,186 31,219 35,102 39,362 43,264 44,887 47,912
Product
Exports 2,464 2,418 2,504 2,739 3,157 3,613 4,046 4,010 3,542
Exports as % of 9.1 9.1 8.6 8.8 9.0 9.2 9.4 8.9 7.4
GSP
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from the BEA and US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data
supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International Trade, 2010
12 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 7. Goods Exports as a Percentage of GSP, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
15.0%
12.0%
9.0 %
6.0 %
3.0 %
0 0.0 %
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Gross State Product � Goods Exports —Goods Exports as % of Industry Value
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from the BEA and US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data
supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International Trade, 2010
The following sections discuss each of Alaska's export industries in further detail, highlighting their
specific contributions to the state economy, including their direct, indirect, and induced effects.
Indirect and induced effects are measured in terms of employment, labor income, and economic
output. These effects were determined through 1-0 analysis using IMPLAN data for the relevant
industries.
Northern Economics 13
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
4 Seafood
The annual harvest and processing of Alaskan seafood contributes significantly to the state economy.
Thousands of people are employed annually on fishing boats, on processing vessels, at docks, and in
processing plants, harvesting groundfish (Pollock, Pacific Cod, Sablefish, Rockfish, etc.), crab, salmon,
and other marine species. Economic activity within Alaska is generated through employee and
business spending, which creates activity both within the industry and in a variety of related economic
sectors including (but not limited to): transportation and warehousing, retail trade, administrative and
waste services, accommodation and food services, and utilities.
Estimating the total value of production within the seafood industry is challenging. Federal production
data as tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) prove
somewhat inadequate for this purpose. Neither bureau captures "seafood" as an industry; instead,
portions of the industry are captured in NAICS' classifications such as "forestry, fishing and related
activities," "manufacturing," and "wholesale trade," (BEA, 2010; US Census Bureau, 2010).
Furthermore, the values recorded by the two industries are calculated in separate manners and do not
match, (BEA, 2009b).
To accurately capture the value of production within Alaska's seafood industry, this analysis uses
industry -based data (Northern Economics, 20098; Hiatt, 2000-2009; Shirley, 2002). These sources
capture production values using volume and price data gathered from Weekly Production Reports,
Observer Reports, fish tickets and the Commercial Operator's Annual Report (COAR) data. For the
purpose of our analysis, seafood production values are equivalent to "first wholesale values," which
are commonly described as the initial prices at which the processed seafood products are sold (not
the price at which the processor buys the seafood).
In 2008 the total value of groundfish and non-groundfish products in the commercial fisheries of
Alaska was nearly $4 billion, or 8.3 percent of GSP. As shown in Table 8 and Figure 8, seafood
production has been between seven and nine percent of Alaska's GSP since 2000.
Table 8. Alaska Seafood Production as
a Percent of GSP9, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Gross State Product 27,034
Seafood Production 2,234
26,609
2,286
29,186
2,362
31,219
2,557
35,102
2,859
39,362
3,281
43,264
3,430
44,887
3,645
47,912
3,988
Percentage 8.3
8.6
8.1
8.2
8.1
8.3
7.9
8.1
8.3
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010; Northern Economics, Inc. 2009; Hiatt, 2000-2009; Shirley, 2002.
6 The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce
' North American Industry Classification System
8 This document relies heavily on data from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development and
"The Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Fisheries of the Gulf of Alaska and
Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Area: Economic Status of the Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska, 2008" by Hiatt, et al.
9 As calculated by the BEA
14 Northern Economics
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 8. Alaska Seafood Production as a Percent of GSP, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Gross State Product Seafood Production Percentage
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
6.0%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010; Northern Economics, Inc. 2009;
Hiatt, 2000-2009; Shirley, 2002.
4.1 Movement of Seafood Exports
Commercial seafood caught in Alaskan waters can be processed in several ways depending on species
being caught, location of the fishery and preference of the fisherman. Deliveries are either made
directly to a processor or are delivered to an intermediary (such as a tender or mother ship) that will
eventually deliver an aggregated catch to a processor. Some vessels are catcher -processors which, as
their name implies, both catch and process fish. Other vessels do not have processing capability, and
must deliver their seafood to a processor either on land or at sea. Processors operating on land are
referred to as on -shore processors and may also function as canneries. "Off -shore" processers are
usually located within in -shore waters, but are not directly on land. At sea processors may be floating
processors or catcher processors.
Processed seafood takes a variety of forms. Fish may be canned, smoked, headed and gutted, filleted,
made into Surimi, etc. The catch may be sold fresh to local markets, or frozen and sent to distant
ones. According to the Origin of Movement (OM10) data issued by the US Census Bureau,
$1.799 billion dollars worth of seafood was exported internationally from Alaska in 2008. This figure
includes all of the seafood that is exported directly from processors or vendors in Alaska ($1.5 billion),
and the value of transshipments." If, for example, an Alaskan seafood shipment was barged to Seattle
and put directly on a sea -going vessel to Japan, the OM data would record this as an Alaskan export.
If, however, the goods were warehoused or consolidated in Seattle before export to Japan, the OM
10 The OM series is based on origin state; it provides export statistics based on the state from which the
merchandise starts its journey to the port of export; that is, the data reflect the transportation origin of exports.
" Transshipment as defined in this analysis is the shipment of goods to an intermediate destination before
reaching the final destination. No warehousing takes place at this intermediate destination.
Northern Economics 15
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
data would record the shipment as a Washington export. The OM figure does not include millions of
dollars worth of Alaskan seafood products that are warehoused in and exported from Washington.
Alaskan seafood is sent out of state before being exported for several reasons. First, it should be noted
that many of the fishing vessels and seafood processors operating in Alaska are based out of the
Seattle area. Though the harvesting and processing roots of their operations may be in -state, portions
of their businesses are run from out of state.
Warehousing is a significant expense in Alaska. Though Alaskan land is less costly than land in the
coastal regions of the lower 48, the comparative cost of electricity more than offsets this advantage.
Frozen seafood products must stay in cold storage, which requires large amounts of electricity.
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the cost of electricity to a commercial
user in Washington was 7.09 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in December of 2009. The average cost
in Alaska was more than twice this amount, averaging 14.32 cents per kWh (EIA, 2010). In many parts
of rural Alaska electricity is produced solely by diesel generators, and the price is much higher than in
the rest of the state, where much cheaper coal and natural gas are used for electricity production. In
Naknek and Dillingham, where large amounts of salmon are harvested, electricity was 35 and 34
cents per kWh, respectively, for residential users in 2008 (AEA, 2008).
Consolidation for distribution may also be done more effectively from Washington than Alaska.
Seafood products processed in Alaska can be thousands of miles apart, but owned by the same
company (a processor may have a plant in Southeast Alaska, Bristol Bay, and/or on the Aleutian
Chain). Given the state's limited transportation network, and the aforementioned expense of
warehousing, it is more efficient to consolidate products in Washington. From Seattle or Tacoma,
processors are within reach of both international markets via the Port of Seattle, and domestic markets
via port, rail, or truck.
In the case of canned products, shipments are sent to the lower 48 for labeling and further packaging
before sale. A single processor may sell identical canned products to several different companies. Each
company packages and labels their cans for individual sale, whether destined for domestic or
international markets.
Table 9 and Figure 9 show the total value of Alaskan seafood exports sent via the Anchorage District
and the Seattle District12 from 2000-2009. In 2009, $1.37 billion (68 percent of total seafood exports)
left Alaska13 directly and $640 million (32 percent of total seafood exports) were exported via Seattle.
12 The Seattle District includes most ports in the state of Washington, with the exception of Longview,
Vancouver, and Kalama.
13 The Foreign Trade Division of the U.S. Census Bureau considers all Alaskan export ports to be part of the
Anchorage District. The Anchorage District is representative of state-wide exports.
hftp://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/schedules/d/distcode.html
16 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table 9. Total Value of Alaskan Seafood Exports, 2000-2009 (Including Seattle)
Year
Seafood Exports from
Anchorage District
AK Seafood Exports from
Total Value of AK Seafood
Seattle District
Exports
2000
$941,574, 713
$509,875,142
$1, 451, 449, 855
2001
$1,132, 417,161
$605, 266, 070
$1, 737, 683, 231
2002
$1, 256,066,318
$483,213,360
$1, 739, 279, 678
2003
$1,321,692,004
$472,189,170
$1,793,881,174
2004
$1,574,730,200
$498,717,443
$2,073,447,643
2005
$1, 856, 643, 578
$498,181,191
$2, 354, 824, 769
2006
$1,832,228,330
$551,366,156
$2, 383, 594, 486
2007
$1, 725, 348,211
$619,667,322
$2,345,015,533
2008
$1, 530, 325, 433
$682,256,371
$2,212,581,804
2009
$1,373, 758,290
$638, 917, 987
$2.012.676.277
i otal $14,544,784,238 $5,559,650,209
$20,104,434,447
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from NMFS, 2001-2009; NOAA, 2010; Northern Economics, 2009;
Crapo, 1988; Orr, 2010; Plesha, 2010.
Figure 9. Total Value of Alaskan Seafood Exports, 2000-2009 (Including Seattle) (in $ Millions)
$3,000
N
C
O
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
■Seafood Exports from Anchorage District OAK Seafood Exports from Seattle District
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from NMFS, 2001-2009; NOAA, 2010; Northern Economics, 2009;
Crapo, 1988; Orr, 2010; Plesha, 2010.
Alaskan seafood exports from the Anchorage District represented in Table 9 are seafood products that
were exported internationally through an Alaskan port. The exports from the Seattle district were
derived through analysis of species, industry research, and industry interviews. These figures include
products harvested only in Alaska, products produced only in Alaska, and portions of products
Northern Economics 17
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
harvested and produced in both the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. No fresh products exported from
Seattle were included in these figures.
Table 10 and Figure 10 show total seafood exports as a percent of production. Each year more than
half of Alaskan seafood production is sent overseas.
Table 10. Alaska Seafood Exports as a Percentage of Production, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Total Seafood Production 2,234
2,286
2,362
2,557
2,859
3,281
3,430
3,645
3,988
Total Seafood Exports 1,451
1,738
1,739
1,794
2,073
2,355
2,384
2,345
2,213
Percentage 65.0
76.0
73.6
70.2
72.5
71.8
69.5
64.3
55.5
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from NMFS, 2001-2009; NOAA, 2010; Northern Economics, 2009;
Crapo, 1988; Orr, 2010; Plesha, 2010; Hiatt, 2000-2009; Shirley, 2002.
Figure 10. Alaska Seafood Exports and Non -Exports, 2000-2008 (in $ Millions)
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
■ Non -Exported Seafood Production ■ Exported Seafood Production
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from NMFS, 2001-2009; NOAA, 2010; Northern Economics, 2009;
Crapo, 1988; Orr, 2010; Plesha, 2010; Hiatt, 2000-2009; Shirley, 2002
4.2 Seafood Products and Demand
Figure 11 highlights the destination markets of Alaskan seafood product exports. Seventy-three
percent of products are shipped to Asia, while 12 percent go to Europe, and 5 percent are sent to
Canada.
18 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 11. Alaska Direct Marine Fisheries Product Exports, 2009 (by Value)
Other
10%
N eth erlan c
5%
Germany
7%
South Kore
13%
span
13%
27%
Source: Northern Economics, Inc., using data from NMFS and the Foreign Trade Division, 2010.
Japan imported $63 million in frozen sockeye salmon, $58 million in Pollock Surimi, $54 million in
Pollock roe, and $49 million in frozen king crab directly from Alaska in 2009. The top exports to the
Chinese market were frozen pink salmon and yellowfin sole. South Korea, in line with Japan,
imported large amounts of Pollock Surimi and frozen Pollock roe. Germany and the Netherlands
imported Pollock fillets more than any other product. Cod and fresh, frozen, and preserved salmon
were also sent to Europe in significant quantities (NMFS, 2010).
4.2.1 Seafood Harvesting and Processing Employment
Accurately measuring employment within the seafood industry is complicated given the nature of the
business. Seafood harvesting is seasonal. Though some within the industry are employed year-round,
most jobs take place over a set of weeks or months. Many of the seasonal job holders travel to Alaska
for the duration of the work and are not from Alaskan communities. Fishermen are often recorded as
"self-employed" for tax purposes, making it difficult to attribute their income (and associated
spending) to the correct sector. Employees working at processors based within the state can be
tracked (to some degree) through tax and salary payments. Workers that are on vessels based out of
non -Alaska ports that both catch and process seafood on board cannot be tracked in this fashion. The
vessel owner and crew are often paying employment -related taxes to another state.
Northern Economics
19
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 12. Seafood Harvesting and Processing, Residents vs. Non -Resident Employment, 2008
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using data from Northern Economics, 2009 and AKDOLWD, 2006.
The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD) tracks seafood
employment using information from three sources: the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission of the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Labor's Quarterly Census of
Employment and Wages data, and information from the National Marine Fisheries Service (Warren,
2009). The state produces an estimate of average monthly employment, as shown at the top of
Table 11.
Applying the percentage of production that is exported (Table 10) to the state estimates of
employment yields a range of 9,000 (in 2008) to 12,000 (in 2001) seafood industry jobs that are
related to exports on an average monthly basis. That is to say, an average of 9,000 people were
employed within the seafood industry each month in 2008.
Table 11. Average Monthly Employment in Seafood Harvesting and Processing Related to Exports, 2000-2008
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Employment
Processing 8,433 7,904 7,406 7,873 8,535 8,727 9,374 9,143 9,027
Harvesting 8,706 7,959 7,168 7,404 7,330 7,486 7,314 7,260 7,270
Total Jobs 17,139 15,863 14,574 15,277 15,865 16,213 16,688 16,403 16,297
Exports as a % of 65.0 76.0 73.6 70.2 72.5 71.8 69.5 64.3 55.5
Production
Total Export Related 11,136 12,058 10,732 10,717 11,505 11,635 11,596 10,552 9,043
Employment
Source: Northern Economics Inc. using Warren, 2010; NMFS, 2001-2009; NOAA, 2010; Northern Economics,
2009; Crapo,1988; Orr, 2010; Plesha, 2010; Hiatt, 2000-2009; Shirley, 2002.
20 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Unfortunately, the annual average monthly job count as estimated by ADOLWD is not equivalent to
the total number of jobs generated within the seafood industry annually; calculating total jobs from
monthly averages requires additional information. If, for example, 1,000 processing and harvesting
jobs cease at a Southeast plant in one month, but another 1,500 are created in the Bristol Bay region
for the same month, the monthly job count will increase by 500 jobs. Though this paints an accurate
picture of employment within the industry at a given time, it captures only a portion of the total
number of jobs created on an annual basis within the industry.
For the purpose of measuring the statewide economic effects of employment within the industry, this
analysis requires an estimate of the total number of jobs within the seafood industry in a given year.
To estimate total annual employment within the seafood industry in 2008 (and the portion of this
employment generated by exports in the following subsection) this analysis combined data from
several sources.
Monthly employment figures were obtained from ADOWLD to estimate the portion of processing and
shore -based employees in each Borough or Census Area during the year. It was assumed that annual
peak fishery related employment within a Borough or Census Area was representative of total annual
job numbers within that area. Fishery fleet details and crew per vessel calculations were used to
estimate the portion of vessel and catcher/processor employment (Northern Economics, 2009; Hiatt,
2000-2009; Shirley, 2002; Warren, 2010). Employment figures from these sources are estimates of
the number of total jobs (not full time equivalent positions) within the industry.
4.3 Economic Impacts of Seafood Exports
In 2008 there were approximately 55,370 jobs within the seafood industry in Alaska; 27,547 were
seafood harvesting jobs and 27,823 were seafood processing jobs. Of these total jobs 55.5 percent or
30,730 were supported by exports. Alaska residents held 30 percent of the seafood processing jobs
and 59 percent of the seafood harvesting jobs.
Total direct, indirect, and induced employment within Alaska attributable to the seafood export
industry is summarized in Table 12. 1-0 analysis also revealed that the indirect and induced jobs
contributed $338 million dollars to the economy in the form of wages.
Table 12. Total Direct, Indirect, and Induced Employment of Alaskans Resulting from Seafood Exports, 2008
Direct Jobs Indirect & Induced Jobs Total Jobs
Seafood Harvesting 9,005 978 9,983
Seafood Processing 4,710 6,818 11,528
Total 13,715 7,797 21,511
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010.
As shown in Table 13, the $2.2 billion worth of Alaskan seafood exports contributed $337 million to
the economy in the form of wages, and generated an additional $1.3 billion in indirect and induced
economic output.
Table 13. Labor Income and Output from Seafood Exports, 2008 (in $ Millions)
Total Value of Exports Indirect and Induced Economic Output Total Economic Output
2,213 1,346 3,559
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010.
Northern Economics 21
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
5 Precious Metals and Minerals
Precious metal and minerals mining are important industries within the Alaskan economy. Each year
the extraction of zinc, gold, lead, silver and industrial minerals yields millions of dollars worth of
construction and manufacturing materials. The mining of these materials creates jobs both within the
industry and in support sectors; the transportation and storage of materials and workers generates
spending and jobs that extend throughout the logistical network. Additionally, taxes paid by the mines
are a valuable source of income for the state and political subdivisions to which they are paid.
According to the 2009 Mining Industry Annual Report completed for the Alaska Miners Association,
$12.3 million was paid in the form of taxes and payments in lieu of taxes to cities and boroughs
throughout the state. An additional $35 million was paid to the state government in royalties, rents,
fees and taxes, (McDowell Group, 2010).
In 2008 total production in the mining industry (not including coal) was valued at more than
$2.3 billion. Though peat, rock, sand, and gravel were extracted in large quantities, their values were
overshadowed by the production values of Alaska's precious metal and mineral industries, which
amounted to more than $2.2 billion or 95 percent of non -coal mining production in 2008. Precious
metal and mineral production consisted of more than 6,262,000 tons of zinc, 800,000 ounces of
gold, 153,000 tons of lead, and 14.6 million ounces of silver (Szumigala, 2009).
Table 14 is a summary of the value of Alaskan precious metal and mineral exports over the last
decade. Please note that the total production value of $2.3 billion in 2008 was determined by
multiplying the estimated quantity of the minerals and metals produced with the annual average
market price of the commodity on the London Metal Exchange (LME) (Szumigala, 2009). In contrast,
the value of the exported materials shown in Table 14 does not include the costs of shipping, smelting
or refining, and other costs incurred beyond Alaska's border but which are reflected in the LME
market price.
Table 14. Total Value of Alaskan Precious Metals and Mineral Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
Product
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Precious Metals
1.2
2.6
47.0
94.3
90.0
84.2
109.7
132.0
143.9
152.5
Minerals
292.9
328.9
379.8
412.8
505.4
510.8
1093.9
1269.1
691.0
841.6
Total 294.0 331.5 426.8 507.1 595.5 595.0 1203.6 1401.1 834.8 994.2
Source: US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International
Trade, 2010
5.1 Movement of Precious Metals and Minerals
As stated previously, zinc, gold, lead, and silver comprise the vast majority of precious metal and
mineral commodity value. Figure 13 displays the state's mineral production by mine or sector, as
detailed in Alaska's Mineral Industry 2008 Special Report 63, published by the Division of Geological
and Geophysical Surveys (Szumigala, 2009).
22 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 13. Alaska Mineral Production by Mine or Sector, 2008
Coal and Peat placer Gold
Rock, Sand and 2.3% 2.0%
Fort Knox N
11.8%
Pogo Mine
12.5%
Gree
Source: Szumigala, 2009; Recreated by Northern Economics, Inc., 2010.
Red Dog Mine
54.5%
Alaska's mineral production values are greatly influenced by the Red Dog Mine, which began
production in 1989 in the Northwest Arctic Borough. Red Dog rivals the world's largest zinc mines
and produces almost 30 percent of the lead concentrate mined in the United States. The mine is co-
operated by Teck Alaska Incorporated (a subsidiary of Teck Resources Limited, headquartered in
Vancouver, Canada) and NANA Regional Corporation (Red Dog, 2010).
Greens Creek mine, located in Southeast Alaska, is the largest silver producer in the United States and
supports 330 employees and 12 full time contractors. Fort Knox and Pogo, gold mines located in the
interior of the state, support a total of 897 full time employees. A host of additional precious metal
mines are in preliminary production stages (Kensington, Donlin Creek, Livengood), each with the
potential to support hundreds of fulltime and/or contractor positions (McDowell Group, 2009). It was
recently announced that Kensington mining operations are scheduled to begin in July 2010 (North of
60, 2010).
As shown in Figure 14, the value of Alaskan precious metal exports has grown over the past decade.
Should additional precious metal mines come online, these values would likely increase going
forward.
Northern Economics 23
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 14. Total Value of Alaskan Precious Metals and Mineral Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
1,400
N
C
.4
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
■ Minerals ■ Precious Metals
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska
Governor's Office of International Trade, 2010
The value of precious metals exported from Alaska shown in Figure 14 may understate the value of
Alaskan product that ends up in the hands of foreign buyers. A large portion of the gold and silver
mined in Alaska is not exported directly, but rather processed at domestic refineries before the final
product is sold. Alaskan product sent directly to a foreign refinery or buyer would be reported by the
Origin of Movement data as an Alaskan export; Alaskan product refined and sold abroad from
another state would not be captured in these figures.
Determining the end buyers of Alaskan precious metals is problematic; there is a significant portion of
the product (especially gold) that is sold on the spot market through pool accounts and clearinghouses
(Weyland, 2010; Davey 2010; Wick 2010). Metals may be aggregated before sale to banks,
governments, private industry, etc. Buyers may be end users or intermediaries. Though the metals
may end up abroad, the amount sold internationally is not clearly defined given that there is no direct
or consistent "customer."
Ores and minerals are raw materials that usually need to be smelted or refined before they can be
used. As shown in Figure 18, many Alaska mines export their products to refineries and buyers in
countries such as South Korea, Canada, Japan, Spain, and China. As with most Alaskan exports, the
majority of exported minerals and ores are destined for Asia.
24 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 15. Minerals & Ores Export Destinations, 2009 (by Value)
Other
10%
Corea
/o
China
10%
Spair
13%
iada
2%
Japan
16%
Source: Northern Economics, Inc., using data from the Foreign Trade Division, 2010.
Canada does receive the second largest portion (22 percent) of the minerals and ores exports, which
may be in part a reflection of the ownership structure in Alaska's mining sector. Many of the state's
largest mines (Red Dog, Fort Knox, and Pogo) are wholly or partly owned by Canadian firms.
5.2 Economic Impacts of Metals and Minerals Exports
According to the Alaska's Mineral Industry report, there were 3,282 full time equivalent positions in
the mining sector (not including coal mining) in 2008 (Szumigala, 2009). This figure included
employment in the exploration and development of minerals, as well as mining employment for gold,
silver, other metals, sand, gravel, rock, etc.
Of total mining employment in Alaska, only a portion of positions are related directly to exports. The
number of direct jobs attributable to metal and mineral exports was estimated using employment
counts and export percentages at the major Alaskan exporting mines of Red Dog and Greens Creek.
Export related employment at the primary gold mines (Fort Knox and Pogo) was derived using refinery
locations. Though Alaska has mines other than these four, most are in the preliminary stages of
production and/or do not produce for export.
Total direct, indirect, and induced employment within Alaska attributable to the metals and minerals
export industry is summarized in Table 15. Nine hundred thirty-seven direct jobs and 1,285 indirect
and induced jobs were attributable to metal and mineral exports. 1-0 analysis also revealed that the
indirect and induced jobs contributed $110 million to the Alaskan economy in the form of wages.
Northern Economics 25
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table 15. Total Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment Resulting from Metal and Mineral Exports, 2008
Direct Jobs Indirect & Induced Jobs Total Jobs
Precious Metals and Minerals 937 1,285 2,222
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010
As shown in Table 16, the $835 million dollars worth of Alaska precious metal and mineral exports
generated an additional $414 million in indirect and induced economic output in 2008.
Table 16. labor Income and Output from Metal and Mineral Export Employment, 2008 (in $ Millions)
Total Value of Exports Indirect and Induced Economic Output Total Economic Output
835 414 1,249
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010
26 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
6 Energy
Alaska's energy resources are vast and consist of both renewable and fossil -based sources.
Geothermal, water and wind energies are being harnessed to supply electricity to communities within
the state, while coal, natural gas and petroleum -based resources are being harnessed for both
domestic use and to supply demand in foreign markets.
The oil and gas industry plays a significant role in Alaska's economy. The state receives over
12 percent of the oil and gas produced from its leases in the form of royalty payments. These
payments may be made in the form of oil or gas or as cash payments. The product supplied through
royalty payments helps provide supply security to Alaska's in -state refineries (ADNR, 2010).
This section focuses on the movement of energy exports and includes descriptions of the LNG,
refined petroleum, and coal export sectors. Each of these is discussed in detail in the following
subsections.
6.1 Movement of Energy Exports
Much of the petroleum produced in Alaska is sent to refineries in the lower 48 and is used to meet
U.S. domestic demand. Only a small portion of total petroleum production is exported, and this takes
the form of refined petroleum products. As shown in Table 17, crude has not been exported from
Alaska since 2000. This is due to a combination of declining output, oil company mergers, and
unfavorable public reactions to exporting domestic oil (Kumins, 2006). The majority of today's energy
exports take the form of LNG; LNG exports were 78 percent of the total value of energy exports in
2009.
Table 17. Total Value of Alaskan Energy Exports, by Product, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
Energy Product
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
LNG
145.1
145.1
140.9
148.4
139.0
141.0
156.5
110.6
305.5
256.7
Refined Petroleum
122.3
134.0
130.4
152.5
196.2
184.3
92.9
142.9
144.4
38.4
Product
Coal
16.3
16.7
9.2
4.2
14.0
14.1
10.1
5.0
23.2
33.1
Other
288.0*
1.0
0.1
0.0
27.2
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
Total
571.7
296.9
280.7
305.1
376.3
339.4
259.4
260.0
473.0
328.2
Notes: *Crude Oil.
Source: US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International
Trade, 2010
Energy products from Alaska are exported primarily to Asian markets. Though China, South Korea,
Singapore, and Hong Kong have imported Alaskan energy products within the last decade, Japan's
consumption dwarfs that of other Asian countries. Figure 16 displays the large percentage of exports
that are sent to Japan.
Northern Economics 27
400
N
C
O
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 16 Energy Export Destinations, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
� Canada � South Korea Taiwan China Hong Kong
� Mexico Ili! Singapore Other Japan
Source: Northern Economics, Inc., using data from the Foreign Trade Division, 2010.
6.1.1 LNG
Alaska is home to the only Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export facility in the United States. The Kenai
LNG Export Terminal is owned by ConocoPhillips and Marathon Oil Company. It was built in 1969
for the purpose of liquefaction, storage, and loading of LNG for export and delivery to Japan. At the
time it was constructed, the plant was the world's largest and was the first to serve the Asia -Pacific
market. According to ConocoPhillips, the plant has achieved over 40 years of uninterrupted supply to
Japanese customers (ConocoPhillips, 2010).
Japan has few natural energy resources within its borders, and depends heavily on nuclear power and
foreign imports to meet its energy demands. Japan currently consumes 48 percent of global imports of
natural gas, and nearly all of the LNG produced at the Kenai facility (FERC, 2010).
28 Northern Economics
350
N
C
O
300
250
200
150
100
50
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 17. Total Value of Alaskan LNG Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska
Governor's Office of International Trade, 2010
Until recently, it was not clear whether or not ConocoPhillips and Marathon Oil would seek to renew
their LNG export license, which is set to expire in 2011. Gas production from Cook Inlet is declining
and in -state electric and gas utilities have suffered from a shortage of supply during winter cold snaps.
According to a recently published article in the Anchorage Daily News, the companies have applied
for an export license renewal which, if approved, will extend exports through March 2013. In times of
need, the LNG plant is expected to reroute some of the gas they produce for in -state use. During the
summer months, when local demand drops, the LNG facility will continue to act as a key customer,
keeping demand for gas high enough to keep all of the inlet's gas wells operating (Bluemink, 2010).
Currently under consideration is the construction of a natural gas pipeline that would extend from the
North Slope of Alaska to markets further south. Several routes are still under consideration, one of
which would involve the construction of an LNG facility in Valdez, Alaska. The remaining routes
channel the pipeline through Canada. Either alternative will result in state revenues from natural gas
exports; however, the Valdez alternative would generate the most direct jobs and spending through
construction of an in -state liquefaction and export terminal.
6.1.2 Refined Petroleum Product
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay produces 400,000 barrels of oil per day, making it the highest yielding oil field
in the United States. Most of the crude is piped through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) to
Valdez, where it is transported primarily to Washington and California for refinement. Since the TAPS
was finished in 1977, over 95 percent of Alaskan petroleum production has come from the North
Slope. The remaining five or so percent comes from the Cook Inlet region in Southcentral Alaska
(ADNR, 2010).
Northern Economics 29
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
There are currently six refineries within the State of Alaska: Flint Hills Resources AK LLC in North
Pole, Tesoro Petroleum Corporation in Kenai, Petro Star, Inc. in Valdez and North Pole, and the
Conoco Phillips and BP Exploration facilities on the North Slope. All combined, the facilities are
capable of distilling about 377,480 barrels of crude per day (ADNR, 2010). Most of the refineries are
considered "topping" plants, with the exception of Flint Hills and Tesoro. Topping plants remove the
lighter, more valuable elements of the crude oil and are not capable of refining the heavier, less
valuable components into more valuable products (EIA, 2010).
None of Alaska's refineries consider export markets their main focus (Gore, 2010; Miller, 2010; Cook,
2010; ADNR, 2010). Both of the facilities on the North Slope (Conoco Phillips and BP) refine just
enough petroleum for local use, producing arctic heating fuel (Diesel) almost exclusively. The Petro
Star refineries in North Pole and Valdez were founded in the mid 1980s to supply heating fuel for
residences and businesses in rural Alaska. Today their largest business is the production of jet fuel;
Alaska's refineries supply 88 percent of the jet fuel consumed within the state (ADNR, 2010).
The Tesoro facility in Kenai also produces jet fuel, and supplies the Anchorage airport with almost half
of its monthly jet fuel demand. The fuel tanks at the airport are linked directly to the refinery via a
75-mile pipeline that also connects to the Port of Anchorage. The Tesoro facility mainly processes the
oil produced in Cook Inlet, and supplements this flow with North Slope and foreign crudes, (ADNR,
2010). Production is primarily for in -state supplies to Tesoro retail stations; only in rare cases are
products exported internationally. Tesoro's last export shipment occurred sometime in 2008 (Miller,
2010; ADNR, 2010).
Flint Hills Resources Alaska is the largest refinery in the state. The Flint Hills facility extends beyond
North Pole, and includes both a 700,000 barrel fuel terminal in Anchorage and a 20,000 barrel jet
fuel terminal in Fairbanks. The plant refines approximately 44,000 barrels of TAPS oil per day to
create products such as gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil, diesel, gas oil, and asphalt (ADNR, 2010).
Though Flint Hills has fed international markets in the past, today production is focused on the
domestic market and little to nothing is exported from the facility (Cook, 2010).
Figure 18 illustrates the products that are made from a single gallon of crude oil according to
production estimates for refineries across the U.S.
30 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 18 Products made from a Barrel of Crude Oil (gallons), 2008
Other Distillate!
(heating oil) —1.88
Heavy Fuel Oil
(Residual) 1.68
Liquefled
Petroleum Gase
(LPG) 1.72
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2010
As mentioned previously, none of the Alaska refineries focus their efforts on export markets. Most
focus on the production of jet fuel, heating fuel, diesel, and gasoline for in -state demand. During the
process of refining jet fuel, secondary refined products are made almost inadvertently (Knutson, 2010;
Eckert, 2010). The export values shown in Table 17 are representative of the sale of these secondary
products. In many cases they are sold in part because of timing and/or circumstance. If, for example, a
refinery has ample supply of a refined product, has no in -state customer, and needs the space in
which the material is being stored, the refinery may turn to export markets (Miller, 2010). In 2009 jet
fuel demand in Alaska dropped, reducing with it both the amount of jet fuel and the amount of
secondary refined product produced. This drop explains the simultaneous reduction in the value of
Alaskan refined petroleum exports.
6.1.3 Coal
Despite being rich with coal deposits, Alaska has only one operating coal mine. Usibelli Coal Mine,
Inc. (UCM) is located south of Fairbanks near Healy, in the Alaska Range. UCM coal is used to
generate approximately 40 percent of the electricity of interior Alaska (McDowell Group, 2010;
Usibelli, 2010). Usibelli produces an average of 1.5 million tons of coal per year, and in 2009
40 percent of production was exported (McDowell Group, 2010).
Northern Economics 31
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Coal mining is a difficult undertaking; coal is usually found beneath one or more layers of rock and
soil. At Usibelli, approximately 100 feet of stone, earth, and mineral lie between each seam of coal
(Usibelli, 2010). The earth and rock removal required to reach coal deposits has presented
environmental hazards, and the permitting and regulatory processes for opening and operating a mine
are extensive.
The Chuitna coal project is a plan to extract the coal deposits of the Susitna basin in Southcentral
Alaska. Alaska coal has comparatively low sulfur content when compared to coal found in many other
parts of the world. This makes it a cleaner burning fuel, and could contribute to better air -quality
conditions in areas that are currently burning coal with higher sulfur content (Borrell, 2010). However,
it should be noted that Alaskan coal is somewhat limited by its comparatively low energy value.
Usibelli coal is ranked as Subbituminous, which is the third lowest on a general four -tiered ranking of
coal grade (Usibelli, 2010).
The Chuitna plan includes construction of a surface coal mine, associated support facilities, and a coal
export terminal. PacRim Coal is leading the project and estimates a 25-year mine life based on proven
reserves (Chuitna, 2010). The location of the proposed development is illustrated in Figure 19.
32 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 19. Location of Chuitna Coal Project
Source: Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), 2006.
The Susitna coal resource is estimated to be as large as 64,230 million tons of coal (M-tons), though
only 10,550 M-tons have currently been identified. Chuitna proven reserves are 700 M-tons (AIDEA,
2006). Should the Chuitna Coal mine be constructed, Alaska can expect a large increase in export
and GSP revenues generated by the mining sector.
6.2 Economic Impacts of Energy Exports
In 2008 there were 136 direct jobs attributable to energy exports. This includes: 25 to 30 percent of
the 110 employees at Usibelli, 57 LNG facility jobs, 48 positions upstream of the LNG plant in the
Cook Inlet gas fields, and 3 on -shore tanker -related positions. No petroleum refinery positions are
completely dependent upon exports of refined products, nor are any upstream oil extraction
positions, so no direct jobs were included for this sector. The indirect and induced jobs generated by
Northern Economics 33
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
the refined petroleum sector were caused by the spending generated from the sale of refined exports
and subsequent respending by the refineries.
Total direct, indirect, and induced employment within Alaska attributable to the energy export
industry is summarized in Table 18. 1-0 analysis also revealed that the 497 indirect and induced jobs
contributed $35 million to the Alaskan economy in the form of wages.
Table 18. Total Direct, Indirect, and Induced Employment Resulting from Alaskan Energy Exports, 2008
Energy Export Direct Jobs
Indirect & Induced Jobs
Total Jobs
LNG 108
210
318
Refined Petroleum 0
254
254
Coal 28
33
61
Total 136
497
633
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010
As shown in Table 19 the $473 million worth
of Alaskan energy exports
generated an additional
$140 million in indirect and induced economic output.
Table 19. labor Income and Output from Alaskan Exports, 2008 (in $ Millions)
Indirect and Induced
Total Value of Exports
Economic Output
Total Economic Output
Energy Export
($ Millions)
LNG 305
33
339
Refined Petroleum 144
95
35
Coal 23
11
239
Total 473
140
613
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010
34 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
7 Forest Products
Alaska is home to two major types of forest: the interior boreal forests characterized by white and
black spruce, quaking aspen and paper birch, and the larger coastal rain forests of the southeast
characterized by Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and red and yellow cedars (Alaska Forest Association,
2010).
Boreal forests are harvested as a commercial timber resource, but not to the extent seen in Alaska's
coastal forest. The coastal forests have long been the backbone of Alaska's timber industry, providing
timber and wood products to world markets since the mid 1900s (Alaska Department of Commerce,
2010). Large scale harvesting supported Alaska's two dissolving pulp mills, one at Sitka and the other
at Ketchikan; however, both mills closed in the 1990s and only a handful of small sawmills still exist.
Harvesting in the Interior provides wood supply for small, local processors that meet local or regional
market demand. Currently, there is little export from the boreal forest.
Forestry within Alaska today takes place on privately held lands, state lands, or within the Tongass or
Chugach National forests. Each land type is handled with varying degrees of management intensity,
from custodial (firefighting, primarily) to intensive (second growth management on coastal islands).
Though harvesting of national forest resources within the state has dropped significantly, timber sales
volumes on the Tongass National Forest continued to support 122 people in 2008 (Alexander, 2009;
Warren, 2008).
According to the Review Draft of "Timber Supply and Demand: 2008" prepared by the Alaska Region
of the U.S. Forest Service, private suppliers in Southeast Alaska (native corporations) harvested
52.3 million board feet (MMBF) in 2008, while harvests from State of Alaska lands amounted to only
11.9 MMBF, reflecting the differences in management intensity, forest acreage, market demand, and
product quality.
Alaska's forest product exports consist mainly of primary wood products made from hemlock, red
cedar, and spruce with occasional wood chip shipments. Present day processors are, for the most
part, individual and family -owned sawmills and independent logging businesses (Warren, 2008).
Table 20 and Figure 20 show trends in forestry export values from 2000-2009.
Table 20. Total Value of Alaskan Forest Product Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Forest
Products 209.5 155.4 129.6 152.1 104.5 135.1 111.7 85.9 83.2 87.8
Source: US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International
Trade, 2010
Northern Economics 35
250
V!
C
O
200
150
100
50
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 20. Total Value of Alaskan Forest Product Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. using US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska
Governor's Office of International Trade, 2010
As shown above, Alaska's wood product industry continues to generate more than 80 million dollars
in exports a year, though this is a significant drop from production a decade ago. From 2000 to 2009,
forest product exports decreased from $209.5 million a year to $87.8 million (US Census Bureau,
2010). The U.S. Forest Service estimates that employment within the industry statewide dropped by
54 percent from 2000-2008. In specific parts of the industry, such as logging and sawmilling in
Southeast Alaska, declines were even greater. Employment in this sector dropped 73 percent from
2000 to 2008 (Alexander, 2009).
Recently, Alaska's wood product industry felt the global recession; dropping housing prices and tight
credit conditions negatively impacted wood product demand (Alexander, 2009). Going forward,
efforts are being made to expand the lands available to the industry. For example, the pending
Logjam Timber Sale on Prince of Wales Island is estimated to be a 73 MMBF project (Harrington,
2010).
The state is also encouraging increases in the value-added aspect of forestry products as further in-
state processing of logs would create additional jobs per board foot (Phelps, 2010). The Alaska
Product Preference (APP) program provides a local bidder with a cost preference of three to seven
percent for using "Alaskan products." The percentage of the benefit is determined by the amount of
the product that is produced and/or manufactured in -state (Alaska Department of Commerce, 2010).
7.1 Movement of Forest Products Exports
Alaskan wood products are mostly primary wood products and include cants, flitches, wood chips,
shop lumber, and music wood (Alaska Department of Commerce, 2010). These forest products have
been marketed to Pacific Rim markets for more than forty years. As shown in Figure 21, the largest
consumers of wood products exported from Alaska are China, Japan, and South Korea.
36 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
South Kore
21%
Figure 21. Forestry Product Export Destinations, 2009 (by Value)
Taiwan Canada
4% 3%
China
46%
2 6 %o
Source: Northern Economics, Inc., using data from the Foreign Trade Division, 2010.
Asian markets use most Alaskan imports for homebuilding and construction. It should be noted,
however, that Alaskan woods are also particularly well suited for musical instrument making. Sitka
spruce logs are valued as tonewood and can withstand rough handling due to their high elasticity to
density ratio and strength. Both red and yellow cedars are used in guitar construction. Alaskan forest
products are exported to both Asia and other parts of the world for the purpose of musical instrument
making (Cole, 2010).
Export of Alaska's forest products in the next decade depends on many factors, including wood
supply and its relative cost to others in the Pacific Rim (British Columbia, New Zealand, Australia,
Russia), specific market demand (such as music wood or nautical cedar beams), exchange rates, and
other economic factors.
Opportunistic markets for products such as higher grade birch, clear Sitka spruce, or veneer -grade
hemlock exist and will continue to do so, but Alaska's forests contain higher volumes of lower -
demand wood fiber that can increase harvesting and processing costs. Pulp mills in the coastal forest
and biomass or wood chip operations in the Interior are examples of past efforts to keep overall costs
competitive.
7.2 Economic Impacts of Forest Products Exports
In 2008, 265 people were employed in the forest products industry in Southeast Alaska. Of these,
153 jobs were directly attributable to exports. Total direct, indirect, and induced employment
attributable to the forestry products export industry is summarized in Table 21.
Northern Economics 37
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Table 21. Total Direct, Indirect, and Induced Employment Resulting from Forest Product Exports, 2008
Direct Jobs Indirect & Induced Jobs Total Jobs
Forestry Products 153 236 389
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010
1-0 analysis revealed that the 236 indirect and induced forest products jobs contributed $16 million
to the Alaskan economy in the form of wages.
As shown in Table 22, the $83 million dollars worth of Alaskan forestry product exports contributed
an additional $57 million to the Alaskan economy in the form of indirect and induced economic
output.
Table 22. Labor Income and Output from Forest Product Employment, 2008 (in $ Millions)
Total Value of Exports Indirect and Induced Economic Output Total Economic Output
83 57 140
Source: Northern Economics, Inc. 2010
38 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
8 Other Goods
Each year there are millions of dollars worth of exports attributed to Alaska that are not part of the
state's major exporting industries. These miscellaneous exports are a combination of goods from a
variety of categories including used merchandise, goods returned to Canada, machinery, computers
and electronic products, apparel, misc. manufactures, etc. (BEA, 2010).
Goods exports as measured by the Origin of Movement series track goods from their initial point of
transportation for the purpose of sale. This initial point is, in some cases, not the point of production
of the good. In 2008, for example, the US Census Bureau's foreign trade statistics show $687,825
worth of paper being exported from Alaska. According to industry reports, all pulp and paper
production mills within the state are closed, and no paper is currently produced.
In cases where state production of a good is less than the reported state export of a good, there are
several possible explanations for the discrepancy:
• State production, by industry, is calculated using a value-added approach. The GSP figures do
not include the same costs of production that are incorporated into the retail price at which
exports are sold. Consequently, the value of the production of a product may be less than the
price at which it is sold.
• All data are subject to reporting errors. Production and/or export data may have been
misreported.
• The origin of movement series does not account for warehousing. There are instances in
which a supplier exports a good that was stored in an Alaskan warehouse, but not produced
in Alaska.
• Alaskan companies working abroad may elect to bring construction equipment or business
materials with them to their foreign job site. These materials would be recorded as exports
from Alaska, though they are not sold to meet demand in foreign markets. This type of good
likely comprises a large portion of the "Goods Returned to Canada" export sector.
Table 23 summarizes the value of "other" Alaskan exports from 2000-2009.
Table 23. Total Value of Other Alaskan Goods Exports, 2000-2009 (in $ Millions)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Other 355 444 346 379 396 574 453 283 351 222
Source: US Census Bureau Origin of Movement data supplied by the Alaska Governor's Office of International
Trade, 2010
Northern Economics 39
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
9 Services Sector
The federal government does not yet provide data by state for services that are provided by U.S. firms
to customers in other countries. Accordingly, the export estimates that are shown in the previous
sections of this report do not include service sector exports. It is known that a number of Alaska
companies in the construction, architecture and engineering, and oil and gas services sectors provide
services to clients in other countries, but the identities of the Alaska firms and the value of the services
that are exported are not reported. Given the lack of state -level information, this section provides a
national comparison of the services sector exports with the goods sector exports to provide an
indication of the potential magnitude of Alaska service exports, and provides an initial estimate of
Alaska service sector exports.
9.1 U.S. Service Exports
Table 24 provides information on exports of selected services as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau
for 2005 through 2008. Data are not yet available for service exports in 2009. Data problems in 2008
preclude estimates for several sectors in that year so 2007 is the latest year for which totals are
available for these selected service sectors. In 2007 total service exports for these sectors were almost
$103 billion. The total value of all exports of all services was about $505 billion.
Table 24. Selected U.S. Service Sector Exports, 2005-2008
NAICS
Sector
Total Revenue ($ Millions)
2005 2006 2007
2008
51
Information
42,960
43,447
51,801
50,998
523
Securities, commodity contracts, and other financial
11,193
12,326
16,197
17,929
investment activities
532
Rental and leasing services
430
515
574
S
54
Professional, scientific, and technical services
24,571
25,834
30,290
S
56
Administrative and support and waste management and
2,525
2,580
2,376
S
remediation
71
Arts, entertainment, and recreation services
136
126
106
149
81
Other services
843
990
1,303
1,333
Total for Selected Sectors 82,658 85,818 102,647
Total for All Services 389,122 435,873 504,784 549,602
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a, and 2010b.
Note:" S" means that the estimate does not meet publication standards because of high sampling variability
(coefficient of variation exceeds 30%).
The selected sectors that are presented by the Census Bureau for 2005 — 2007 are about 20.4 percent
of the total service exports for those same years. Information is not available for other service sectors.
Figure 22 shows that the Information sector accounted for almost half of the value of exports for the
selected service sectors, with Professional, scientific, and technical services accounting for 30 percent.
These two sectors account for about 80 percent of the total value for the selected service sectors. The
Financial activities sector accounted for 16 percent of the total exports for these sectors.
40 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Figure 22. Exports of Selected Service Sectors for the U.S., 2007
Entertainment
not
Professiona
30%
Rent,
1%
16%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 2010a.
Information
50%
Table 25 presents information on annual exports of goods and services for the U.S. for years 2005
through 2009. Since 2006, export of goods has exceeded $1 trillion with services exports accounting
for less than half of that amount.
Table 25. U.S. Exports of Goods and Services, 2005-2009
Exports ($ Millions) Services as %
Year Total Goods Services of Goods
2005
1,281,459
892,337
389,122
44
2006
1,451,685
1,015,812
435,873
43
2007
1,643,168
1,138,384
504,784
44
2008
1,826, 596
1,276,994
549,602
43
2009
1,554, 718
1,045, 543
509,175
49
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b.
Northern Economics 41
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
9.1.1 Alaska Service Exports
As noted earlier, data on service exports by state are not yet available from the Bureau of the Census
or other sources. However, not including an estimate of service sector exports would understate the
overall importance of exports to Alaska's economy. This analysis makes several assumptions regarding
Alaska's service sector exports to arrive at a preliminary estimate:
• Alaska's service sector exports are approximately 43 percent of the value of goods exports —
the same as the relationship of U.S. service sector exports to goods exports in most years
(Table 25).
• The value of selected service sector exports as a percent of total service exports is the same in
Alaska as in the U.S., or about 20 percent (from Table 24).
• Alaska's economy has limited capacity in Information, Finance, Rentals (primarily aircraft),
and Entertainment, so no Alaska exports are assumed from those sectors.
• Alaska's service sector exports are limited to Professional, scientific, and technical services;
Management; and Other (or approximately 33 percent of selected service sectors).
Table 26 presents an estimate of Alaska service sector exports in 2007 using the assumptions noted
above. Based on these assumptions, a preliminary estimate of Alaska service sector exports could
range from $580 million to potentially as high as $1.7 billion. Thus, service sector exports could
represent about 14 to 43 percent of the value of goods exported from the state, and about 1.2 to 3.6
percent of Alaska's GSP in 2007.
Table 26. Estimate of Alaska Service Sector Exports, 2007
Percent $ Millions
Total Alaska goods exports in 2007
4,010
Service exports as % of U.S.
43
Potential service exports
1,724
Select sectors as % of total services
20
Select sectors
352
Adjust for selected services available in Alaska
33
Preliminary Alaska services exports
116
Use selected services % to scale to total service sector exports
580
As % of goods exports in 2007
14 to 43
As % of Alaska GSP in 2007
1.2 to 3.6
Source: Northern Economics, Inc., 2010.
42 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
10 References
Alaska Department of Commerce, Office of Economic Development. Alaska Forest Products.
Accessible at http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/oed/forest products/forest products htm.
Accessed on March 20, 2010.
Alaska Department of Commerce. Forest Products. Accessible at:
http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/oed/forest products/forest products htm. Accessed on
March 15, 2010.
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), Division of Oil and Gas. Annual Report, 2009.
Accessible at http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak us/oil/products/publications/annual/report htm.
Accessed on March 12, 2010.
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Statistical Report for the Power Cost Equalization Program, Fiscal Year
2008. Twentieth Edition. August 2009.
Alaska Forest Association. Alaska Forest Facts. Accessible at http://www.akforest.org/facts.htm#boreal.
Accessed on March 15, 2010.
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), Alaska West Cook Inlet Coal to Liquids
Project. Accessible at: http://www.aidea.org/PDF%20files/BelugaCTLoverview9-20-06pdf.
Accessed on September 20, 2006.
Alaska Partnership for Economic Development (APED). Alaska Forward: Phase I Situational Analysis.
February 5, 2010.
Bluemink, Elizabeth. "Companies seek to renew export license for liquefied gas". Alaska Daily News
Online. April 8, 2010.
Borell, Steve. Executive Director of the Alaska Miners Association. Personal communication with
Northern Economics, Inc. March 15, 2010.
Bornstein, Jay. Bornstein Seafoods. Personal communication with Northern Economics, Inc. March 8,
2010.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce. Frequently Asked Questions. Available
at www.faq.bea.gov. May 18, 2009b.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce. Gross Domestic Product by State.
Available at vvww.bea.gov/regional/asp/. Accessed February, 2010.
Bureau of Economic Analysis, US Department of Commerce. Regional Economic Information System
SA25N. Accessible at www.bea.gov/regional/docs/footnotes.cfm?tablename=SA25N.
October, 2009a.
Cole Sr., Brent. President, Alaska Specialty Woods. Personal Communication with Northern
Economcs, Inc. March 20, 2010.
ConocoPhillips. Liquefied Natural Gas. Accessible at:
http licensing.conocol2hillips.com/EN/Ingprojects/Pages/index.aspx. March 10, 2010
Cook, Jeff. Director of External Affairs and Administration, Flint Hills Resources. Personal
communication with Northern Economics, Inc. March 18, 2010.
Crapo, Cuck., et al. Recoveries and Yields from Pacific Fish and Shellfish. 1988.
Northern Economics 43
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Davey, Larry. General Manager, Pogo Gold Mine. Personal communication with Northern Economics,
Inc. April 26, 2010.
Denton, Steve. Vice President of Business, Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Personal communication with
Northern Economics, Inc. March 17, 2010.
Eckert, Patricia. Trade Specialist, Alaska Governor's Office of International Trade. Personal
communication with Northern Economics, Inc. March 9, 2010.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Overview of LNG Industry. Accessible at
www.ferc.gov/industries/Ing/indus-act/overview-Ing.asp. Accessed on March 15, 2010.
Foreign Trade Division (TradeStats Express), US Census Bureau. State Export Data. Accessible at
http://tse.export.gov/SEDChartDisplay.aspx?UniqueURL=1 xsiugerwjmecu551zdgea3c-2010-
2-3-16-42-8. Accessed on February 3, 2010
Gore, Nancy. Marketing Coordinator, Petro Star Refineries. Personal communication with Northern
Economics, Inc. March 18, 2010
Harrington, Susan, ed. Alaska 2010 Outlook: New decade brings challenges, opportunities. Alaska
Business Monthly. Accessible at
http://www.akbizmag.com/component/content/article/1481.htmi. Accessed on March 20,
2010.
Hiatt, Terry, et al. Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation Report for the Groundfish Fisheries of the
Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Area: Economic Status of the Groundfish
Fisheries Off Alaska. Editions for 2000-2009. 2001-2009.
Knutson, Kip. External Affairs Manager, Tesoro Nikiski Facility. Personal communication with
Northern Economics, Inc. March 18, 2010.
Kumins, Larry. West Coast and Alaska Oil Exports. A Congressional Research Service Report for
Congress. Order Code RS22142. May 25, 2006. Accessible at
http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/064un/RS22142.pdf. Accessed April 1, 2010.
McDowell Group, Inc. The Economic Benefits of Alaska's Mining Industry. Prepared for the Alaska
Miners Association, Inc. Accessible at: http://www.alaskaminers.org/mcd09sum.pdf. January
2010.
Miller, Vern. Manager of Technical Services, Tesoro Refinery in Kenai/Nikiski. Personal
communication with Northern Economics, Inc. March 18, 2010.
NANA Regional Corporation, Inc. Red Dog Mine. Accessible at
http://www.nana.com/index.php?option=com content&task=section&id = 22 &Item id =2 75.
Accessed on March 20, 2010.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Science and Technology. Fisheries of the United
States. Annual Report. Editions: 2001-2008. Current Fishery Statistics No. 2000 - 2008. 2001-
2009.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Fisheries Statistics: U.S. Foreign Trade.
Available at http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/index.html. Accessed in February, 2010.
North of 60. Mining News' Weekly Online Newsletter. Vol. 04, No. 14. Published April 8, 2010.
Northern Economics, 2009. The Seafood Industry in Alaska's Economy. Prepared for the Marine
Conservation Alliance, the At -Sea Processors Association, and the Pacific Seafood Processors
Association. January, 2009.
44 Northern Economics
The Economic Impacts of Intemational Trade Exports on the Alaskan Economy
Orr, Bill. President and Director of Sales, Signature Seafoods. Personal communication with Northern
Economics, Inc. February 16, 2010.
Phelps, Jack. Project Manager, Alaska Office of Economic Development. Personal communication
with Northern Economics, Inc. March 15, 2010.
Plantz, Ron. Director of Human Resources and Community Relations Manager, Greens Creek.
Personal communication with Norther Economics, Inc. March 30, 2010.
Plesha, Joe. Chief legal Officer, Trident Seafoods. Personal communication with Northern Economics,
Inc. March 10, 2010.
Shirley, Susan. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Commercial Fisheries. Wholesale
Valeu by Species Group and Area, 1992-2001; COAR run. September, 23, 2002.
Sumitomo Metal Mining America, Inc. Personal communication with Northern Economics, Inc. April
8, 2010.
Sund, John. Stellar North LLC. Personal communication with Northern Economics, Inc. February 16,
2010.
Szumigala, Dave. Senior Mineral Geologist, Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys.
Personal communication with Northern Economics, Inc. March 15, 2010
Szumigala, D.J., Hughes, R.A., and Harbo, L.A., 2009, Alaska's mineral industry 2008: Alaska Division
of Geological & Geophysical Surveys Special Report 63, 89 p. 2009.
TCW Economics. Economic Analysis for the Non -Treaty Commercial and Recreational Fisheries in
Washington State. Prepared for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. December
2008.
U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division. TradeStates Express. Accessible at
http://tse.export.gov/SEDChartDisplay.aspx?UniqueURL=1 xsiugerwjmecu551zdgea3c-2010-
2-3-16-42-8. February, 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a. Service Annual Survey 2008. Available at
http://www2.census.gov/services/sas/data/Historical/sas-08.pdf. Issued January 2010. Accessed
on March 21, 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b. U.S. International Trade in Goods and Services, 1992 to Present.
Available at http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/. Accessed on March 20,
2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. Origin of Movement Data Series, 2009. Data received from Alaska Governor's
Office of International Trade. March, 2009.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Gross Domestic Product by State.
Accessible at http://vvww.bea.gov/regional/gsp/. February, 2010.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional Economic Information
System. Available at 'http://www.bea.gov/regional/docs/footnotes.cfm?tablename=SA25N.
March, 2010.
US Energy Information Administration, Independent Statistics and Analysis. Average Retail Price of
Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End -Use Sector, by State, December 2009 and 2008.
Available at www.eia.doe.goy/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5 6 a html. Accessed on March 15,
2010.
Northern Economics 45
The Economic Impacts of International Trade Exports on the Alaskan
US Energy Information Administration, Independent Statistics and Analysis. Alaska Quick Facts.
Accessed on March 18, 2010b.
Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. Accessible at: www.usibelli.com. Accessed on March 21, 2010.
Warren, Josh and Jeff Hadland. Employment in Alaska's Seafood industry. Alaska Economic Trends.
November 2009.
Weyland, Jeremy. Director Risk and Power, Kinross Gold Corporation. E-mail communication with
Northern Economics, Inc. April 6, 2010.
Wick, Justin. Sales Accountant, Greens Creek. Personal communication with Northern Economics,
Inc. March 30, 3010.
World Trade Center of New Orleans. U.S. Exports by State. Data from Census Bureau, Foreign Trade
Division Origin of Movement Series prepared by World Institute for Strategic Economic
Research (WISER). March, 2010.
Wolf, Greg. Executive Director, World Trade Center Alaska. Our Place in the Global Marketplace:
Opportunities for Alaska and Alaskans. Presented at the 2010 World Trade Center Alaska
Statewide Economic Forecast Luncheon. January 13, 2010.
46 Northern Economics