The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09072016 PACAB PacketC i (b, VV 41 111.", �) of, S � , , flort,' ('70111 Illercf,',,,� 11c,ily,,tilat- Boar,(,,,,,i Meeting por S e p t e 1,)� e ireo, , 2 SEWARD PORT' AND COMMERCE ADVISORY BOARD Regular MeeqM—,---- September 7, 2016 12:00 PM Library Meeting Room (Upstairs) Darryl Schaefermeyer Chair Term Expires 07/2018 Bob Linville Vice Chair Terni Expires 0712017 Bruce Jaffa Board Member Tenn Expires 07/2018 Vacant Board Member Tenn Expires 07/2016 Carl Hughes Board Member Tenn E, xpires, 07/2017 Brooke Andrews Board Member Tenn Expires 07/2018 Christy Terry Board Member Tenn Expires 07/2016 Jim Hunt City Manager Ron Long Assistant City Manager Norm Regis Harbor Master Jackie C. Wilde Executive Liaison I 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. SPECIAL ORDERS, PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS A. AKRR.- Christy Terry B. Chamber Report - Cindy Clock C. flarbonnaster Report —Nunn Regis, 5. Citizens' comments on any subject except those items scheduled for public hearing. /Those who have signed in will be given thefirst opportunity to speak. Time is limited to 2 minutes per speaker and 30 minutes total litne,for this agenda item.] 6. Approval of agenda and consent agenda [Approval of Consent Agenda passes all routine items indicated IaV 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 City of Seivard, Alaska PA CAB Agenda September 7, 2016 Page 1 7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS, REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS— A. AKRR Monthly Report B. Chamber of Commerce Report C. Harbor Monthly Report D. Economic Benefits of Ports and 11arbors in Alaska 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Approve April 6, 2016 minutes B. Discuss review of Comp Plan for upcoming September 21, 2016 Work Session Topic [to 11. CITIZEN COMM ENTS [5 minutes per individual - Each individual has one opportunity to speak.] 12. BOARD AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSE TO CITIZENS' COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT City oaf` Seward, Alaska PA CAB Agenda Sepleniber 720,16 Page 2 P'A I L P0 AD September 7, 2016 Port and Commerce Advisory Board Port of Seward City of Seward TEL 907.265,2209 FAX 907.2652219 Report to the Port and Commerce Advisory Board Vessel Traffic- • By September 7`' we have 175 vessel dockings, including cruise ships, at the Port of Seward for 2016. • August was a great month tlhat in addWon to our normal freight barges and cruise ships, we had vessels such as the USCG Healy, Sikuliaq, fishing vessels, fuel !barges and other research vessels. • Last cruise ship of the season will be September 181". This is also the last day for the Coastal Classic Train. Events at the Terminal - The 2016 Music and Arts Festival will The held at the Dale Lindsey Cruise Ship Terminal from Friday, September 23 lbeginning at 5 PM through Sunday September 25th ending at 5 PM, This annual event includes music and performers, a children's area, art show, food and artisan booths, beer and wine garden and more. Other Items of Note- • Additional piling repairs to the Cruise Ship Dock will begin mid-October. The successful bidder was Global Diving & Salvage, Inc. Our first set of piling repairs was completed in 2015 and also involved repairs and addiftions to the cathodic protection system, • Our Tiger Grant Master Planning process continues. Since PACAB's last meeting our Railpori Seward Team presented to Council, the Seward Chamber of Commerce and Seward Rotary, Stakeholder meetings continued and presentations were also made internally to the Alaska Railroad Board and staff. Stay tuned for a community meeting in October. • See attached, for information on the Seward Loading Facility. The one and only coal ship scheduled to be loaded at the Seward Coal Loafing Fa ciRy this year left Wednesday, July 2�0, 2016, Last year, just two ships loaded at the facility, which is owned by the Alaska Railroad and operated by Aurora Energy Services, a subsidiary of UsibeIii Coal Mine, Coal frown UsibeIiii's Healy rrine ss transported by rail to Seward. A continued downturn in the global coal market has resulted in a 95% reduction in coal exports over the past five years, "'I"'hiis level of activity is not sustainable, and within three months facility operations will be suspended, WWWOZ The, downturn in global coal demand has impacted ability to sell) Usibelli coal ab�road and a rebound in demand for coal appears unlikely for the foreseeable future. The glut is due, in large part, to a sustained influx of cheap energy on the market, slowing economies in Asia, and a strong American dollar that makes exports more expensive. Whenwill closure occur? On or around September 1, 20,16. Revenue generated from hauling coal to fill one ship does not cover the expense of maintaining the, facility. In fact, the railroad's cost to, maintain the tacitly exceeded revenues from hauling to fill two ships last year. This level of activity is not sustainable. By suspending operations, and putting the facility into cold storage, ARRC will minimize 'facil:lity expense. The facility is not permanently closed at this point. Electrical and other sensifive equipment will be removed to avoid damage frorn possible flooding and other weathe related impacts, Regular maintanence on remaining equipment — includlng belts, the stacker/reclaimer and ship loader — wlfl� cease, Piower will be shut off to all areas excel the office building. iiiiiii�ililillillillsillillillillililI 111111111111111�q Will III, Ailill MEME None. There will no longer be any Seward Coal Loading Facikity employees associated with Aurora Enery Services or the Alaska Railroad. Daily security wall be handled by existing Alaska Railroad port personnel. At the height of its operations, the facility provided jobs to 16 full-time AES ernployees, another 50 jobs at the Alaska Railroad, and 40 jobs at the Healy coal mine directly attributed to facility operations. About 2,000 tons of loose coal is on the facility grounds. This coal will be available for local sales until operations are suspended. What does this mean for other freight corning into Seward? The: Seward terrilinal infrastructure remains viable for other freight. 'The Alaska Railroad owns and operates two additional docks which are riot direcfly affected by the coal facility suspension. The West and East docks continue to serve freight and passenger customers, as in the past. The dock preViOLJSly associated with coal is available to support freight and passenger vessel activity, including berthing and storage. Mans to improve and expand railroad infrastructure and facilities are being addressed in the Seward Rail Port master planning effort stiH underway, ARRC intends to continue to use existing facilities to the extent possiblle. If coal conies back, how long wotild it take to restart operations? The longer the fadtliy is out of operation and without daily maintenance, Ole longer it will take to get it up and running again. We estimate that if there is need for the facility in the short- to imid-term it could take approximately 90 days to get it back into operation. MEMUMM Yes. The perrnit from Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation �Mll remain valid as long as, required reporting is completed and submitted to ADEC. •M to PACAB 07 SEPTEMBER 2016 Seward Chamber of Carr C Cindy Clock Summer business in Seward has been good, charter companies have suffered a bit due to weather and lack of Cohos this year. The Visitor Center has seen an uptick in visitor numbers; I'll release the stats soon. We've resumed our 5 day week at the Chamber and Visitor Center. Our membership drive continues; we need all renewals in by the end of September for inclusion in the 2017 Guide. That's an entire month long extension. We do this because we hate to, see anyone left out 0 Our Signature events (June Halibut Tournament, Mt. Marathon Race and July 411, Festival, and the Salmon Derby) went very well, thanks to the many partners, sponsors, volunteers and of course Chamber staff that all worked hard to make them successful. Otto Hanson (who won the Silver Salmon Derby in 1996) celebrated his 201h anniversary by catching a tagged fish. The tag is good for 2 RT tickets anywhere Alaska Airlines flies. Otto's son .Mike Hanson won $100 for heaviest Silver at 16.22 lbs. John Riley Ekelmann from Palmer won the Youth division with his 13.76 pounder. All results can be found on seward.com as soon as our brand new website is up & running. Seward.com will soon be 100% mobile compatible. 86% of users visit the site with a mobile device. We had 517 fish turned in during derby weighing 5024 lbs. Average weight of each Coho was upwards of 9.5 lbs — two pounds heavier than last year's average. At the September 161h Chamber luncheon we'll hear an update on the Comprehensive Plan from Patrick Cotter of PDC Inc Engineers. September 22nd is a FREE 1.5 hour international trade seminar by Debbie Franklin of the US Dept of Commerce — International Trade Administration — focusing on the international aspects of the travel industry. Breeze Inn conference room 3:00 — 4:30. RSVP by 9/20 to director@seward.com or 224-8051 The Chamber will be hosting Meet The Candidates Night in September (15th?). This will be a forum for our six local candidates running for Council: John Hull, Erik Slater, Marianna Keil, Dale Butts, Suzi Towsley & Rissie Casagranda, 3 d Annual Energy Fair & Forum is scheduled for Oct 14 & 15 at the AVTEC student services building. Bigger and Better! The SMIC group, will resume meeting later this month after taking the summer off. Rise & Shine! Marketing group meets at 7:00 am the first & third Thursdays of the month at the Breeze Inn Lounge. This meeting is open to all Seward businesses. The idea is that by working together, all will profit. Ae Economic Benefits ofPorts ,' Harbors in Alaska Prepared for Port Administrators Northern Economiics PROFESSM"M CONSULING SERVIOI�IS M A lINJED ECONOWC A N A LYS S Fri nIJJJ"n rIIS. Patrick Burden, M.S, - Chairman Marcus L Hartley, M.S. - President Jonathan King, M.S. - Vice President Michael Fisher, MBA-- Prindpal Diane 5 tMe -Office Manager (OnUdtantsi Logan Blair, M.S. Cal Kevr, MBA Leah Cuyno, P10. Don SchUg, Ph.D. Mi:chaell Downs, Ph D. Stephen ftrilkh, M.S, Gary Eaton, M.S. David Weiss, M.S. Michelle Humphrey, M,S, Katharine Wellman, Ph.D. AdrvfliMstia0ve Si�aff� Terri McCoy, B.A. - Editor , ':',i." I 'IE J'A' j I V, 1, YuJ 01" �11 AI vJ 'A', e�0 F �, u 7 2 1 ,:AI Team Member Project Role Michael Fisher Project Manager Michelle Humphrey Analyst and Author Djannfla Chettfour Analyst Terri McCoy Editor Please ci(e, as: Northern Economics, lnc. The Economic Benefits of Ports and Flarbors in Alaska. Prepared for Alaska Association of Flarbormasters and Poirt Administrators. August 2016. Abbreviations 1 Key Find'ngs .~..^~~~.~~.~~.~~~~~~.~~~.~~.~~,~~.~~~~.~,..-----'--~--^'—^~'`^~~1, 2 The Role of Ports and Harbors in Alaska ........................... ......................................................... 2, 2] Mo*e,mentufFreight ---------------_--........... —........... .................. _.... 2 22 Commercial Fishing Industry .... —......... ......... --........ ---_.......... ...................... —'9 23 Tourism .... ........ _..~._.._—........ ........ ----...... —.............. --- .... ............. —l1 3 Economic Impact wf Port and Harbor Facilities .......................................................................... 3] Employment ... ---........ —...... ......... —....................................... .... --- ........... ..... 13 3.2 Revenues amdExpen*s—.......... ...... ....... ...... —...... .............. ..... —........ ........ --- ... |3 1.3 Spending ............ .......... ....... ---_--_—_------......... --- ...... ....... __..... 14 3,4 Activity and Nses.......... _--............................ ........ ........... ................. ....... —.... l7 Table Table 1,Movement of Freight imAlaska bwMode, 2015(Value and Weight) ......... --_—_.............. 2 Table 2.VolurneofTotal Waterborne Freight bvPort, 2013(ShortTumy) .......... ......... ............... 6 Table 3,. Volume ofWaterborne Fneigho6mPort£xcmdim8Pe|n/lewmPnnWucts,2011(5hor Tons) _..6 Table 4�Volume wfWaterborne Freight Per Capita 6vPort, 20,13(Short Tons) -------_....... 7 Table 5.Volume of Waterborne, Freight Excluding Petroleum Per Capita by Port, 20l](Short Tons) '8 Table 6.Regional and Swbreowma|Huhy....... --........... ..... ..................... —_... ...... _......... _'8 Table 7.Number of Fishermen who Fished by Borough and Census Area, 2016-- .............. ...... 11 Table 8.Cruise PassengersVolumes by Community, 2#O8'ZU13... ...... ........ _—........ ... ---11 Table 9.CPV Shared Revenues 6vCity and Borough Governments, FY 20O8 - FY 2014 .......... .... ... 12 Table 10.Revenue Sources asaPortion mfTotal Revenues ..................... ............ ----- ........... 14 Table 11.Expenses Sources asaPortion mfTmta| Expenses ......... —................... —_—................ 14 Table 12. Average Non -Labor Port and Harbor Expenditure Impacts by Borough/Census Area ......... 16 Figure page Figure 1.Percentage ofthe Value ofOutbound Freight bvMode, 2O15 .............. ---............. ..... 3 Figure 2.Percentage ofthe Value ofInbound Freight 6vMode, 201S ... --_—_----------4 Figure ]. Value wfTotal Alaska Waterborne Freight bvCommodity ($ Millions) ..........._—'5 Aeuoe5. Value of Commercial Fishery Landings 6rState, 2014($Mi|Nwn).......... —.......... ..... _—'9 Figmre 6.Val neqJCmrnmemja| Fishery Land im8s inTop 10 Alaskan Ports, 2U33 -Z014 ($ MiUiom) —'10 Figure 7, Percentage of Harbor User Spending in Local Economy by Category ............... _.... —..... 15 Noe tihernftonomiC5 The Economic Benefits of (Ports and Harbors in Alaska Abbreviations AAHPA Alaska Association of Harbormasters an(] Port Administrators CPV Commercial Passenger Vessel Excise Tax DCCED Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development SPHFS Statewide Port and Harbor Facility Survey Northern Economics I Key F'is Ports and harbors across the State of Alaska provide infrastructure and services that SUpport critical economic activities. Ports and harbors also play an important role, in the COMMUnities that they are a part of, by providing local employment opportunities and promoting econornic activity in the surrounding areas. The key findings from this study are summarized below. 0 Ports and harbors are critical to the movement of freight throughout the state. In 2015, $28 billion and 40.8 million tons of goods were moved via marine transport out of the state, and $4.8 billion and 3.4 million tons of goods were moved into the state via marine transport. 0 Ports and harbors support a thriving fishing industry. In 20'14, total Alaskan commercial fishing landings were worth over $1.7 billion and accounted for over one-third of the total commercial fishing landings in the entire United States. Six of the top ten fishing ports in terms of total harvest volume are located in Alaska. 0 Ports and harbors support tourism activities. The presence of harbors has allowed tourism activity, Such, as charter fishing, sightseeing tours, and boat rentals, to grow by providing the infrastructure to enable and support these activities. Over $83 million in shared revenues from the Commercial Passenger Vessel Excise Tax (CPV) has been distributed to local governments since the tax was implernented in 2007. Thiis money allows communities to continue to build infrastructure and services to support the tourism industry. 0 Ports and harbors create local employment. Based on survey responses, port and harbor facilities employ an average of nine full-time and seven part-time employees per year. This number varies significantly based the different type and volume of activity occurring at each facility. 0 Ports and harbors reinject local and outside revenues into the economy. Moorage, wharfage, and dockage are the main sources of revenue, and personnel expenses, utilities, and maintenance are the largest expenses for ports and harbors. Port and harbor users also bring in Outside revenues through purchases made at local maintenance and repair facilities, restaurants, shops, and bars. The injection of additional: income from harbor users into the economy leads to more spending, which creates more income, which leads to more spending—also known as the multiplier effect. The average Multipliers associate(] with this spending, range from 1,170, to 1.571 depending on the region of the state in which the spending takes place. NortherniEconornics The Economic Benefits, of Ports and Harboirs, in Alaska Ports and harbors across the State of Alaska provide infrastructure and services that support critical economic activities. From the movement of freight, to Supporting a thriving fishing industry, to playing a major role in tourism, ports and harbors play a key role in Alaska's state and local economies. This report attempts to quantify the econornic impact of ports and harbors using publicly available data Sources, including the United States Department of Transportation, Alaska Fisheries Information Network, and the Alaska Visitors Statistics Program, as well as responses from the 2016 Statewide Port and Harbor Facility Survey (SPHFS). The SPHFS is an electronic survey made up of 26 questions about the employment, revenues, expenses, spending, infrastructure, and activities that happen in and around ports and' harbors. The survey was distributed through the Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port Administrators (AAl-APA). The fLJII survey can be found in Appendix A. 2.1 Molvement of Freiight Marine transportation plays a key role in the movement of goods into, out of, and within the state. Alaskahas more coastliine than the all of the continental United States combined and a very limited road system making marine and air transportation the primary means to transport goods around the state. The distance between Alaska and the rest of the continental United States in combination with the lack of a rail connection also makes marine transportation the primary mode used to move freight into and out of the state. Table I shows both the value and volume of freight moved into, out of, and around Alaska in 2015. Marine transportation (water) accounts for the largest values and volumes of goods shipped out of the state, rnoving a total of $28 billion and 40.8 million tons of goods out of the state in 2015. Marine transport also accounts for the largest volume and the third' largest value of goods brought into the state, moving about 3.4 million tons of goods valued at $4.8 billion in 2015. Crude petroleum products account for the majority of the total weight and value of inbound and outbound waterborne freight, Over 99 percent of the total weight of outbound waterborne freight and almost 70 percent of inbound waterborne freight is crude petroleum, with, 40.7 million tons and 2.3 million tons respectively. Crude petroleurn products also account for over 97 percent of the total value of outbound waterborne freight, accounting for $27.2 billion in 2015, Table 1. Movement of Freight in Alaska by Mode, 2015 (Value and Weight) *Transshipments make up almost three-quarters of the total airfreight that mores through the Anchorage Airport Note: Pipeline volumes omitted from table due to errors in the dataset. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015. It should be noted that the average cost per pound to transport goods via water is significantly less than the cost to transport goods via air, so the while the value of items shipped via air is often higher, the Northern Economics Within State Outbound Inbound Within State Outbound Inbound Mode Millions $ Thousand Tons Air* 867.5 12,7863 13,333.8 119.0 67.2 1711.9 Multimodal 540.5 2,261.6 9,889.1 154.9 388,8 1,263.7 Other 18,3 370.6 22.6 1.2 23.9 0.5 Rail 1,5981 7.1 6.9 3,139.3 3.5 18.5 Truck 14,585.5 882.8 640.2 22,930.3 273.7 196.3 Water 3,4812 28,119A 4,798.1 3,663.2 40,890.5 3,392.6 *Transshipments make up almost three-quarters of the total airfreight that mores through the Anchorage Airport Note: Pipeline volumes omitted from table due to errors in the dataset. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015. It should be noted that the average cost per pound to transport goods via water is significantly less than the cost to transport goods via air, so the while the value of items shipped via air is often higher, the Northern Economics The Economic Benefits of Ports andl Harbors in Alaska volume is typically lower when compared) to marine transport. It should also be noted that both FedlEx and UPS have transshipment operations in Anchorage,, which may be influencing the airfreight totals (both weight and value) in the table above. Transit cargo accounts for almost three-quarters of all airfreight that moves through the Anchorage International Airport (Anchorage Economic Development Corporation, 2016). "Transit cargos do not enter the local economy, but rather are temporarily stored and resorted before continuing on to their final destination. Time restraints associated with each mode of transportation also may influence shipment decisions. As mentioned before, there are no iraill connections between Alaska and the continental United States, but the White Pass and Yukon Railroad operates a route that: crosses the Canadian border around Skagway. The numbers shown in Table I show outbound and inbound rail freight recorded for this route. Figure 1 shows the percentage of the total Outbound freight value broken Out by mode of transportation. Water based transportation moved over 63 percent of the total value of outbound freight ins 2015. This movement of goods would not be possible without the, existing port and harbor infrastructure around the state. Air transport moves the second largest portion of the value of outbound freight at just under 29 percent of the total value. Figure 1. Percentage of the Value of Outbound Freight by Mocle, 2015 Other 0,8% Note: Transshipment volumes included in Air callculation. Pipeline volumes omitted from table due to errors in the dataset. Source! U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015. Marine transport plays a smaller role in terms of value for inbound freight, but is still the top mode of transportation when it carnes to the volume of inbound freight (see Table 1). Figure 2 shows the value of inbound freight, which is more evenly distributed between modes of transportation comparted to NortherinEconomics The Econornk Benefits of Ports aril Harbors in Alaska the value outbound freight displayed in Figure 1, Air and multimodal transport moved the largest portion of the value of goods into the state in: 2015 with 43 percent and 32 percent respectively, Figure 2. Percentage of the VaIue of Inbound Freight byMode, 2015 tail 0.0% Ti 2 Other 0,1% Notes: Transshipment volumes included in Air calculation, Pipeline volumes omitted from table due to errors in the dataset, Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015. Figure 3 combines the total inbound and outbound marine freight movements in 2.015 and breaks the total value of these movements down by the cornmodity moved. Petroleum products accounted for almost 89 percent of the total Value of marine freight movements in 2015, with a total value of $29.2 billion, The petroleum product category includes both crude petroleum, fuel oils, and gasoline. Crude materials, which include mining exports, logs, gravel and other wood products, account for the second largest value of goods moved by water throughout the state. In 20115, just over $1 billion of crude materials were moved via marine transport in Alaska, highlighting the importance of marine transport to a variety of the key industries in Alaska, including oil and gas, mining, and forestry. it also shows the impact the ports and harbors have on the distribution of consumer goods, such as fuel and food products. NortihernEconomics The Economic Benefits of Ports andl Harbors in Alaska Figure 3. Value of Total Alaska Waterborne Freight by Commodlity ($ Millions) Primary Manufactured Goods $93 Manufactured Equipment, Machinery $321 Food and Farm Products $748 Petroleum Products $29,254 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015, Crude Materials $1,007 Chernicak and Related Products $52 Table 2 uses data published by the US, Army Corps of Engineers through the Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center. This is not a comprehensive data set, but is does include data for 31 Alaskan ports and harbors. The dataset records the volume (in short tons) of both domestic and foreign receipts and shipments at each port. The value of shipments is not captured by this dataset. Nio rithern Economics 5 The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska Table 2. Volume of Total Waterborne Freight by Port, 2013 (Short Tons) Port Volume Transported (short tons) Port Volume Transported (short tons) Valdez 28,165,948 Bethel 154,434 Nikiski 4,484,225 Cordova 117,468 Anchorage 2,949,456 Wrangell 80,024 KNalina 2,498,398 Craig 59,661 Unalaska 1,269,649 King Cove 57,555 Ketchikan 1,058,312 Kake 36,396 Seward 718,541 Old Harbor 33,791 Juneau 708,955 Dillingham 19,174 Iliuliuk Harbor 544,580 Humboldt 16,057 Petersburg 510,751 Ho,onah 9,823 Kodiak 344,773 Metlakatla 8,375 Skagway 327,684 Atka 5,560 Whittier 292,418 Seldovia 51,546 Homer 219,082 Egegik 792 Sitka 172,251 Pelican 248 Nome 168,752 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2.013 Valdez saw the largest volume of freight in 2013 with a total volume of just over 28 million short tons. The volume of shipments seen in Valdez is more than the other 30 ports captured in this data set combined. Valdez is the terminus of the Trans -Alaska Pipeline and has a large volurne, of oil exports, causing it to be an obvious outlier among the ports listed, The volurnes, displayed for Nikiski are allso heavily influenced by petroleum products, as it is home to the Tesoro refinery, Table, 3 displays the Volume of waterborne fright excluding petroleum to take a closer look at waterborne commerce in Alaska without the skewing effects of large petroleum exports at selected ports. Table 3. Volume of Waterborne Freight by Port Excluding Petroleum Products, 2013 (Short Tons) Port Volume Transported (short tons) Port Volume Transported (short tons) Kivalina 2,359,460 Cordova 54,354 Anchorage 2,028,287 Nome 25,607 Unalaska 931,176 Kake 21,976 Seward 712,995 Valdez 13,403 Ketchikan 704,192 Bethel 10,851 Juneau 555,541 King Cove 10,219, Petersburg 473,833 Dillingham 8,424 1huliuk Harbor 315,963 Humboldt 7,708 Whittier 283,988 Hoonah 6,763 Skagway 223,120 Metlakatla 6,589 Kod i ak 187,914 Atka 5,560 Sitka 144,893 Nikiski 1,788 Wrangell 73,411 Homer 144 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce Data, 2011 ... . .......... . 6 Nor therriEconomics The Economic Benefits of Ports, and Harbors in Alaska When petroleum volumes are removed,, Kivalina and Anchorage jump to the top of the list, with the largest volumes of waterborne freight. Kivalina is the primary port used by the Red Dog Mine to iimport and export rnateriak, and the vast majority of the waterborne freight that comes through this port is directly tied to mining operations. The Port of Anchorage receives the majority of consumer products corning into Alaska, which are then distributed throughout the state via road, air, or barge. The activities at the, Port of Anchorage and Kivalina illustrate the important role that ports and harbors play in both exporting the natural resources that bring money into the state's economy and the importation of consumer goods needed to Support the state's population. Many of the ports listed serve populations outside of their immediate communities or support other economic functions like the exportation of natural resources. Table 4 shows the volume of waterborne freight per capita, which is calculated by diving the total volume of waterborne freight by population of the community in which the port is in. Many of the communities that receive a high volume of waterborne freight do not have a large Population, resulting in a high volume per capita. Port Valdez Kivalina Whittier Nikishka Skagway Unalaska Seward Petersburg Old Harbor IKetchikan Iliufiuk Harbor Atka King Cove! Kake Kodiak Table 4.Volume of Waterborne Freight Per Capita by Port, 2013 (Short Tons) Volume Per Capita (short tons) Port 7,022 Craig 6,064 1:1156 985 333 276 262 174 148 128 118 ,82 64 59 55 Cordova 51 Source: USAGE, 2013, ADOL&WID, 2013. Nome Homer Wrangell Bethel Seldovia Jluneau Sitka Humboldt Hoonah Anchorage Dillingham Egegik Metlakatla Pelican Volume Per Capita (short tons) 51 44 43 33 25 25 21 19 19 13 10 8 8 6 3 Similar to Table 4, Table 5 shows the volurne of waterborne freight per capita by port, but extracts the volumes recorded for petroleum products. When petroleum is taken out of the equation,, there is a significant, drop on the volume of freight per capita in Valdez and Nikiski, indicating that petroleum is the main commodity transported to and from these ports. With the exception of Kivalina, the ports that han(fle higher volumes of consumer goods, like Whittier and Seward, quickly rise to the top of the list. One exception is Anchorage, which has a relatively low volume of waterborne freight per capita despite some of the largest total volumes of any port listed. The large population served by the Port of Anchorage primarily drives this discrepancy. The Port of Anchorage sees 90 percent of the consumer goods for 85 percent of Alaska (Port of Anchorage, 2016). Northers Economics 7 The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska Table 5. Volume of Waterborne Freight Excluding Petroleum Per (apita, by Port, 2013 (Short Tons) Port Volume Per Capita (short tons) Port Volume Per Capita (short tons) Kivalina 5,727 Juneau 17 Whitter 1,122 Sitka 16 Seward 2,60 King Cove 11 Skagway 227 Humboldt 9 Unalaska 202 H,00nah Seward Petersburg 161 Anchorage 7 Ketchikan 85 Nome 7 Atka 82 Metlakatla 4 Illiuliuk Harbor 69 Dillingham 4 Kake 35 Valdez 3 Wrangell 30 Bethel 2 Kodiak 30 Nikiski 0 Cordova 23 Homer 0 Source: USAGE, 2013. ADOL&W, 2013 Ports and harbors throughout the state commonly play the role of distribution hub for the surrounding region or are part of a transportation system involving multiple ports. The ports listed in Table 6 were identified as regional and Subregional hubs at the Alaska Regional Ports Conference that was put on by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2010. These ports play a role in the state's transportation network that extends beyond their immediate communities. Table 6. Regional and Subregional Hubs Community Type of Hub I Commu Source: Northern Economics, Inc,, 2011. Type of Hub Arctic Barrow Regional Prudhoe Say Regional Ketchikan Interior Koyukuk Subregional Nenana Regional Tanana Subregional Northwest Arctic Kotzebue Regional Nome Regional Port Clarence Subregional lPrince William Sound Seward Regional Valdez RegOnal Whittier Regional Regional Southcentrall Anchorage Regional Homer Subregional Port MacKenzie Subregional: Source: Northern Economics, Inc,, 2011. Type of Hub 8 Nom t her iq Econom ics Southeast Haines Subregional Juneau Regional Ketchikan Regional Petersburg Regional Sitka Subregional Skagway Subregional Southwest Adak Subregional Dillingham Subre&nal Kodiak Regional Naknek Subregional Unalaska/Dutch Harbor Regional Yukon-Kuskokwim Emmonak/Alakanuk Regional Bethel Regional 8 Nom t her iq Econom ics The Economic Benefits, of Ports and Harbors in Alaska 2.2 Commercial Fishing Industry Ports and harbors also play a critical role supporting commercial fishing, one of the biggest industries and source of employment in Alaska. Responses from the SPHFS revealed that fishing fleets, whether they be large catcher processors or sr-nallercharter vessels, make up a significant, portion of the vessels served by ports and harbors around the state. In 2014, the value of commercial fishery landing in Alaska was just over $1.7 billion, and accounted for over 30 percent of the value of all commercial landing in the United States (Figure 4). Over 31,0010 people fish commercially each year in Alaska and seafood harvesting employs over 8,0,00 people annually (Cannon, 2016). Commercial fishermen and processing companies rely heavily on the port and harbor infrastructure around the state to support their booming industry. Figure 4. Value, of Commercial Fishery Landings by State, 20114 (S Million) Ne I I ores $15 ME Source, NOAA Office of Sclience and Technology, 2014. Six of the top ten fishing ports by value and five of the top ten fishing ports in terms of volume in the United States are located in the State of Alaska. Figure 5 shows the top, ten fishing ports in Alaska in terms of value of total commercial fishing landings, Dutch Harbor has the highest value of commercial landings of any port in both Alaska and the United States with $762 million in 2014. Kodiak is the second largest port in Alaska and as well as the second largest in the United States in terms Of Value with $477 million. 11114orthernEconomics I dfx W 20 The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Allaska Figiure,5. Value of Commercial IFisherry Landings in Top 10AIlaskan Ports, 2013-2014(S Million) 3 Old" MY/ N N" MORI, N RUDE, WE tgg IN WE Hill. ii IN �/g 010111' MR, INA Dutch Kodiak Afe, t� p j a n Akaska N a ", 1 w S tka K c r�'N " ,,,I n C'rdcrja F"�Ao.',bwg 13fx,stcJ Bmy Harbor klands Pr.?rnnsuh (Other) (C)Cher; f()Mer) Source: NOAA Office of Science and Technology, 2014. Note: Some Alaskan ports are grouped together to protect confidential information. Responses from the SPH FS also indicate that ports and harbors provide and maintain infrastructure that caters specifically to the needs of the fishing industry. Cranes, fish cleaning stations and ice making machines are available at many of the ports around the state, with the primary use of offloading fish product and chilliing fish product. Ports are able to charge for the use of this equipment and bring in additional noin-moorage based revenues. As one respondent put it, "we handle all sorts of freight but our primary Source of revenue is the fishing industry". The economic impacts of the commercial fishing industry extend beyond the primary fishing ports to boroughs and census areas across the, state. Table 7 shows the number of fishermen who fished during 2015 by borough and census areas. There are fishermen living in boroughs that do not contain and commercial fishing ports, like the Fairbanks North Star Borough, that bring the money they earn fishing back to their community, This economic activity can be directly linked to the port and harbor infrastructure throughout the state. 10 Nortit'iernEconomics The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska Table 7. Number of Fishermen who Fished by Borough aind Census Area,2015 Borough/Census Area nnnnnnnnn. .-nnn ......... ...... Fishermen . . ......... . .. . B,orough/Census Area Fishermen Aleutians East Borough 160 ---IIn-nnnnnnn � - . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lake and Peninsula Borough . . ...... - -----------n 105 Aleutians West Census Area 58 Matanuska-Susitna Borough 231 Anchorage Municipality 524 Nome Census Area 214 Bethel Census Area 440 North Slope Borough 3 Bristol Bay Borough 142 Northwest Arctic Borough 107 Denali Borough 2 Petersburg Census Area 405 Dillingham Census Area 412 Prince of Wales -Hyder Census Area 226 Fairbanks North Star Borough 31 Sitka City and' Borough 446 Haines Borough 85 Skagway Municipality 2 Hoonah-Angoon Census Area 117 Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 20 Juneau City and Borough 272 Valdez -Cordova Census Area 328 Kenai Peninsula Borough 1'130 Wrangell City and Borough 165 Ketchikan Gateway Borough 232 Yakutat City and Borough 127 Kodiak Island Borough 454 Yukon -Koyukuk Census, Area 16 Kusilvak Census Area 475 125,183 Sitka Note, Only includes fishermen who fished during the 2015 season. Source: CFTC, 2015, 2.3 Tourism Ports and harbors around the state also play in key role in supporting the tourism ind Ustry by facilitating cruise ship calls, charter -fishing services, and sightseeing tours. The cruise market alone represents over half of Alaska's visitors and between May and September, and in 2013 just under 100,000 out-of-state visitors came to the state via cruise ship (Alaska [department of Commerce, Community, ant➢ Economic Development [ XCED], 2014). Cruise ships carried passengers to 14 ports around the state in 2013. Table 8 displays the volume of cruise passengers that visited each: of these 14 ports for the years 2008- 2013. Table 8. Cruise Passengers Volumes by Community, 2,008-20,13 Community 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Anchorage 0 256 1,282 14,939 10,030 499 Haines 50,121 43,550 32,259 27,176 31,007 32,378 Juneau 1,032,274 1,019,507 879,310 875,947 927,9141 978,559 Ketchikan 941,910 936,220 828,929 844,412 894,320 948,685 Kodiak 11,903 10,235 19,372 14,715 11,551 3,231 Homer 1,163 1,674 12,828 14,990 8,833 254 Hoonalh 126,381 134,575 122,974 127,866 120,786 124,320 Seward 165,959 163,056 136,129 132,779 136,892 125,183 Sitka 289,753 224,335 144,383 129,380 110,714 99,920 Skagway 781,676 785,034 697,060 708,981 755,681 821,874 Unalaska 709 3,398 956 707 1,371 1,285 Valdez 5,553 6,367 469 332 0 245 Whither 220,117 212,598 126,866 130,312 170,758 202,336 Wrangell 4,002 3,842 3,869 4,719 678 6,417 Source: DCCED, 2014. Northern Economics 11 The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska Cruise visitors bring in money to local economies through purchases they make while their cruise ship is in port, as well as through the Commercial Passenger Vessel Excise Tax (CPV). The CPV is imposed on passengers traveling on coirrimercial passenger vessels on a voyage, that lasts more than 72 hours in the state's marine waters, The CPV tax rate of $34.50 per passenger is collected by the state, which then redistributes a portion of the tax collected to the cities and boroughs in which cruise ship port calls Occur, The first seven ports of call each receive $5 for each passenger who paid the CPV, and if the eligible ports are in cities that are located in a borough, both the city and borough receive $2.50 for each CPV passenger fee collected. Table 9 shows the CPV tax revenues shared: with eligible cities and boroughs between 2008 and 2014. Since the CPV was implanted in 2007, over $8,3 million in shared revenue has been distributed to city and borough governments Table 9. (PV Shared Revenues by Cityand Borough Governments, FY 2008- FY 28114 City/Borough FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Anchorage Municipality 0 0 865 63,575 66,190 48,570 2,975 Haines Borough 107,930 215,410 204,635 154,270 146,680 154,080 140,635 Homer (City) 0 2„898 3,725 31,788 32,688 21,710 855 Hoorah (City) 536,010 359,155 640,015 1,130,220 636,345 610,105 626,225 Juneu, City and Borough 0 0 0 0 4,096,730 4,151,020 4,547,635 Kenai Peninsula Borough 367,430 348,645 391,138 406,080 357,553 364,975 307,578 Ketchikan (City) 0 0 0 0 1,947,248 1,977,770 2,214,745 Ketchikan Gateway Borough 2,040,775 2,326,147 2,313,793 2,088,312 1,947,248 1,977,770 2,214,745 Kodiak (City) 5,102 24,778 25,487 15,762 32,622 23,473 4,600 Kodiak Island Borough 5,103 24,778 25,487 15,763 32,622 23,472 4,600 Seward (City) 367,430 345,747 387,413 374,293 324,865 343,265 306,723 Sftka, City and Borough 1,025,670 1,359,030 1,078,480 706,505 414,130 135,355 302,985 Skagway Miunicip4ity 3,717,410 30862,970 3,904,825 3,455,540 3,470,720 3,728,105 4,011,285 Unalaska (City) 0 0 7,620 3,000 1,310 4,120 4,165 Valdez (City) 0 28„355 31,7'30 2,335 1,650 0 1,265 Whittier (City) 1,059,970 1,001,985 1,045,550 695,790 637,265 828,865 950,635 Wrangell, City and Borough 0 9,975 26,180 2,510 19,350 1,730 31,430 Source: DCCED, 2014. �In addition to distributing the shared CPV tax revenue, the legislature also has appropriated over $106 million in CPV-r6lated legislative grants to individual communities that are most impacted by cruise ship activities. These grants are typically used for repairs and upgrades to the facilities used by cruise ships. Without the ports and harbors around the state that can accommodate and attract cruise ship calls, the revenues generated by the CPV Would not exist, 12 Northern Economics The Economic Beiniefit's of Ports andi Harbors in Alaska Economic Impact of Port and Harbor, Facilities 3.1 Employment The SPHFS asked respondents to describe the eimployees that support their port and harbor facilities. A total of 12 ports and harbors from across the state responded to the survey, indicating that they employ an average of 125 year-round employees and 107 seasonal employees each year. Survey responses suggest that on average a single facility employs nine year-round employees and about seven part time employees. It is important to note that the employment varies significantly depending on the size, location, and number of the facilities within each port system. The majority of seasonal employees are hired during the busier summer months of April or May through September or October. Many facilities also hire a smaller number of seasonal, employees (luring the winter months, mainly for snow removal. The Survey also asked about the average pay rates for each employment position. Based on the responses from the 12 participating facilities, we estimated that the average hourly wage is between $22.96 and $25.15. Respondents that managed multiple facilities tended to report higher average hourly rates that the responses received from single facility locations. Along with direct employment, ports and harbors also facilitate a number of indirect jobs in the maritime industrial Support sector, fishing industry, and construction industry. The maritime industrial! Support sector alone consists of more than 800 businesses scattered across the state, providing services and Supplies to the vessel owners and operators that use Alaska's ports and harbors, (McDowell Group, 2014). 3.2 Revenules and Expenses In addition to providing employment opportunities, ports and harbors also bring in revenues from both local and outside sources that are reinjected into the economy through the purchases of services and goods needed to support port and harbor operations. Some of the most common sources of revenues are the fees charged for the use of port and harbor infrastructure Such as moorage, (lockage, and wharfage: • Moorage: Tariff charged for mooring a vessel in a harbor; based on vessel length or stall size. • Dockage. Tariff charged for "parking" at the dock; based on vessel length, • Whar/age: Tariff charged for bringing cargo to/from the vessel to/from the dock; based on weight. Many ports and harbors also generate revenue through the sale of fuel and electricity at their docks. Upland, and facility leases, and transfers from local governments, commonly a distribution of sales and fish taxes, round out the top revenue sources at many of these facilities. In many communities, the harbor is the biggest economic driver. As one respondent put it, "The harbor is the main source of revenue for the City", Table 10 shows the portion of the total annual revenue generated by moorage, dockage, wharfage, fuel and utility sales, transfers from local governments, and leases for three different facility types. Moorage, dockage, and wharfage account for over 50 percent of the average total revenue under each facility type. The portion of total revenues attributable to transfers from local governments varied drastically between respondents, with many facilities reporting that they do not receive any revenue from transfers Nor, t IGhern Economics 13 The Econornic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska and others reporting that tip to 35 percent of their total revenues come from transfeirs. Revenues from utilities and fuel sales accounted for the smallest portion of revenues across all three facility types. Table 10. Revenue Sources as a Portion of Total Revenues, Source: Northern Economics, Inc. SPHFS Survey data, 2016. Table 11 shows the portion of the total average, annual expenses spent on personnel, routine maintenance, major maintenance, utilities and fuel, major expenses (such as heavy equipment and machinery), and transfers Of funds to local governments by facility type. These expenses represent cash flows from ports and harbors that are going back into the economy. Respondents from each facility type indicated that personnel expenses make tip the largest portion of their total average annual expenses ranging from just over 30 percent of total expenses to over 50 percent of average annual expenses. Table 11. Expenses Sources as a Portion of Total Expenses Routine Major Utilities/ Utilities/ Fuel Personnel Maintenance Moorage Dockage Wharfage Sales Transfers Leases Other Facility Type Port Only 31.5 % of Total Revenues 7.5 12.1 1.1 13 7.4 Port ONy 3.2 103 37.5 U 11.4 13.9 16.4 Harbor Only 40,0 10,6 20.0 33 5,8 9,5 10.9 Pori & Harbor 28,8 5.5 20,0 0.2 15.7 201 9.6 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. SPHFS Survey data, 2016. Table 11 shows the portion of the total average, annual expenses spent on personnel, routine maintenance, major maintenance, utilities and fuel, major expenses (such as heavy equipment and machinery), and transfers Of funds to local governments by facility type. These expenses represent cash flows from ports and harbors that are going back into the economy. Respondents from each facility type indicated that personnel expenses make tip the largest portion of their total average annual expenses ranging from just over 30 percent of total expenses to over 50 percent of average annual expenses. Table 11. Expenses Sources as a Portion of Total Expenses The expenses under the personnel category are predominantly employee wages and benefits. These expenses represent cash flows that are coming from ports and harbors and going back into their respective communities through employee spending. 3.3 Spending To understand all of the econornic activities associated with harbors, we asked survey respondents to estimate how harbor users spend their money while they are in the harbor's community. Along with bringing revenue from outside sources into a community, a harbor also attracts users who spend money in the community outside of the harbor facility. Figure 6 shows the percent of total user spending for common categories of purchases. Together, Eating, and Drinking, and Maintenance and Repairs account for over 50 percent of total harbor user spending,. General Merchandise and Lodging combine(] make up aIr-nost 36 percent of total harbor user spending. 14 NorChern Economics Routine Major Utilities/ Major Personnel Maintenance Maintenance Fuel Expenses Transfers Other Facility Type % of Total Expenses Port Only 31.5 8.3 7.5 12.1 1.1 13 7.4 Harbor Only SU 5.6 12,9 12.3 1,6 3.2 9.8 Pon & Harbor 323 12.9 18,0 1.5 2.5 2,6 11.7 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. SPHFS Survey data, 2016. The expenses under the personnel category are predominantly employee wages and benefits. These expenses represent cash flows that are coming from ports and harbors and going back into their respective communities through employee spending. 3.3 Spending To understand all of the econornic activities associated with harbors, we asked survey respondents to estimate how harbor users spend their money while they are in the harbor's community. Along with bringing revenue from outside sources into a community, a harbor also attracts users who spend money in the community outside of the harbor facility. Figure 6 shows the percent of total user spending for common categories of purchases. Together, Eating, and Drinking, and Maintenance and Repairs account for over 50 percent of total harbor user spending,. General Merchandise and Lodging combine(] make up aIr-nost 36 percent of total harbor user spending. 14 NorChern Economics The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska Figure 6. Percentage of Harbor User Spending in Local Economy by Caitegiory Source: Northern Economics, Inc, SPHFS Survey data, 2016. The distribution of harbor user spending varies between harbors in different regions of the state. Figure 7 show the average percent of total harbor user spending by spending category in the three regions of the state from which we received survey responses. In Southeast Alaska, a greater portion of harbor users' total spending is on Eating and Drinking, and General Merchandise compared to other regions around the state. Harbor users in Western Alaska tend to spend more on Hotels and Lodging than other regions in the state and harbor users in Southcentral Alaska tend to spend more on Maintenance and Repairs. NogthernEconomics is 4 5 4() 25 20 1 t5 10 ry The Econornk Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska Fiigure 7. Percent of Total Harbor User Spending in Locail IEconomy by Region Eating & Drinkiing , 3eneral Lodyng Malntenanc�e 8, Merchandise Repar (:7their Far,iWies 0 \Pdestern n/ SoWhc(,,,mtrW n t B ii e a s I Source: Northern Economics, Inc. SPHFS Survey data,, 2016, A/ RetaH -rhe injection of additional income from harbor users into the economy leads to more spending, which creates more income, which leads to more spending, and so on, This phenomenon its known as the multiplier effect, Northern Economics used IMPLAN, an economic analysis program, to estimate the multiplier effect of port and harbor expenditures at the borough level for common categories of non- labor expenditures. Using the outputs from IMPLAN and data collected through the SPHFS, Northern Economics calculated the average multiplier associated with port and harbor expenditures in the boroughs for which responses were received (Table 12). Table 12. Average lion -Labor Port and Harbor Expenditure Impacts by Borough/(ensus Area Borough/Censuis Area Average Multiplier . ...... .... . .. ... Juneau, City and Borough 1.376 Kenai Peninsula Borough 1,571 Ketchikan Gateway Borough 1.458 Kodiak Island Borough 1,354 Nome Census Area 1,170 Petersburg Borough 1,292 Sitka, City and Borough 1.342 Valdez/Cordova 1,376 Source: Northern Economics, Inc. analysis from SPHFS Survey data, 2016 and IMP'LAN Group LLC data. 16 Nor tliern Economics The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Allas,ka The multipliers listed in Table, 12 quantify the change in the total income compared to the injection of additional income, In other words, for every dollar spent by harbor users, there is a $1.17 to $1.57 change iin a borough's total income, 3,.4 Activity and Uses, Ports and harbors often play a Ilarger role in the econorny than simply being a marine access point. In many cases, a harbor is a component of much larger transportation network. The following quotes come directly from the responses we received in the SPHFS; We [Bethel] are a hub for 29 villages on the Kuskokwim River, 18 villages on the western coast of Alaska, and 6 villages on the Yukon River. We move 90% of all dry cargo for projects in the region. Dillingham is the hub for the Nushagak drainage and serves 9 surrounding villages. ALL of the construction equipment and materials pass over our dock en route to their destination. Harbors also play a role in supporting marine -based industries through vessel repair, construction, storage, and crewing. Tourism activities also rely heavily on the port and harbor infrastructure around the state. Activities ranging from cruise ship calls, to charter fishing, to sightseeing and whale watching tours all bring Outside money into local and state economies through tourist purchases and state and local taxes. Homer is also well known for vessel repair, construction, storage, and crewing Ketchikan is a port of call for approximately 95% of the cruise ships that serve the Alaskan rn a rket. Ports and harbors also play a key role in strategic military support as well as regional marine safety plans, We [Anchorage] are a National Strategic Seaport, so we are responsible for supporting all US Army Alaska deployments and re -deployments. We also have Supported several projects for existing North Slope oil & gas infrastructure, as well as local utility construction projects (power plants and wind turbine, farms). NortherrEconomics 17 The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska References Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), Commercial Passenger Vessel Excise Tax, Available at J V20RJ,�pm M,,20HNAL,fdf. May 13, 2016. Alaska Department of (Labor and Workforce Development. 2013 Population Estimates. Available at lm[)()rG;tli ;llla,3l„au "I","/p)01',),/utl¢l4y,aKr (fM. July 30, 2016, Anchorage Economic Development Corporation, 2016 3 -Year Econorn ic 0 kitlook Anchorage. Available at pureme :. �.�..O.iCy........ .... .. �wa��d- by A��,�, (I ne T,�p)e nt- � I o� � �es� p�jf, J Ll ly 216. Cannon, lack. "Fishing Jobs Up Slightly in 2012” Alaska Economic Trends. (November 2013. Available at http/],; Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). Fishery Participation and Earnings, Available at �v )s,/`\Vww cfec June 10, 2016. IMP'LAN Group LLC, IMPLAN Systems (data and software), 169,05 Northcross Dr., Suite 1201, Huntersville, NC 28078,wvv,"�,,,,, MPLAN.t,om McDowell Group. Trends and Opportunities in the Alaska Maritime Industrial Support Sector. Prepare(] for Alaska Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development. September 2014. NO,AA Office of Science and Technology, Commercial Fisheries Statistics. Available at May 16, 2016. Northern Economics, Inc. Planning for Alaska's Regional Ports and Harbors. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Alaska District and Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, January 2011. Port of Anchorage, Cargo Distribution, Available at e .."'Icann, JL1Iy 2016, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, Available at h0n, May 10, 2016, 17) U.S. Department of Transportation, 2015 Freight Analysis Framework. Available at liRt May 10, 20,16, 18 Northern Economics The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska, 5 Appendix A: Statewide Port and Harbor Facility Survey Statewide Port and Harbor Facility Survey The purpose of this survey is to collect information that can, be used to document the benefits that port and harbor facilities provide to Alaska. You have received this survey because of your corporate membership in the Alaska Association of Harbormasters and Port Administrators (AAHIPA), A variety of sources provide publicly available information about our port and harbor facilities, but not all of these sources provide complete data. The purpose of this survey is to corroborate or ground truth published information, and to collect information that may not be available anywhere else., Northern Economics is conducting this survey in support ofAAHPA. The results will be, used to document the benefits of ports and harbors in the state through a white paper as well as key findings and statistics that can be used in AAHPA's brochure. We thank you in advance for your time spent collecting and providing this information. The entire survey is on a single page so that you can review the Information you need and, if necessary, print out the survey form, and take additional time to gather the information. If you operate multiple types of facilities, you are welcome to submit multiple survey responses. If you do so, please provide a complete survey for the first facility. On additional facilities, please provide your name (so we can link your multiple responses) and indicate what facility the information applies to in question 6. If you would prefer to have someone else complete the survey, please forward the survey link to them. If there are other privately -owned port and harbor facilities in your community that you think should be documented, you are welcome to share the survey link with them. If you do so, please lot us know so we can track who has received this information. Some examples of the facilities we are interested in, are private docks, barge landings, cruise ship docks, and fuel docks. If you have any questions, please contact Michelle Humphrey or Mike Fisher at Northern, Economics, either by e-mail (miichelle.humphreyi@noreconi,com or miichael.fisher@norecon.com) or phone (907-2!74-5600). Please complete this survey by April 7, 2016. 1 What is your name? Niortlwrn Economics 19 The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska ......... . . . . . . . . . . ............... . 2, What community are you in? 3 Please sipecIy who you represent, such as a city or borough government, or a private facility operator, 4. What us the best way to reach you if we have queslions? Please provide a phone number, e -mall address, etc. 5, What facility type(s) do you manage? Please check all that appoy. poft Harbor Seawall 0111al (Please spacffyt 6. if you are submitting niultipie responses, please give a short name or description to specify what facifity this information applies to. Ifffirs is the first survey/facility you are completing, please respond to every question For additional surveys/facilities, only your name and information specific to each faahty needs to be entered 7 Please describe the facilities you manage (dock iengths, moorage slip/stall sizes and numbers, etc, 20 „i he r irw Economics The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska 8, Rease describe the employees that support these facOrtues How many year-round employees CID You i Flow many hours does each year -found employee work each year (Url averagely How many seasonal einployeer; do You have s Which months do fwasonial employees work? How many houns does, each seasonal employee work each year (on average)? The next few durestions are about financial aspects of your facility, if you are a private facility operator and are not able to provide thfs information, please provide what you can or oarhact Mi,ke or Michei (contact into Rbovey to rltlswss how we can document this information while protecting your company's information 9 Please provide standard pay rates for each employment position In the box below, please Hst each position w4h the, standard pay (hourly rate or saIary). 10 is your facility operated as an enterprise fund or under the general fund? Enterprise Fund (oi, private entity) General Fund Other liplease specify) N or t lll-iii e ( n Eco ntunics 21 The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska 11 Please proVRCle your racrhty's revenues for 2015, by category Rease enter only numbers If you need to specify ranges or provide an explanation, please do so in the follow question Moorage Dockage Wharfage Ufilitias and fuel (sold to USON) Transfers from General Fvnd traw fish tax, other related taxes, other trangf9m) a 12. Please provide ranges or any other information about your revenues here 13 Please provide your facility's expenses for 2015, by category. Please enter only numbers. It you need to specdfy ranges or (provide an explanation, please do so in the follow question, Personnel Routine maintenance Major maintenance jarnirial averrige / typical arnount N okay) Uflifies and fuel (purchased, for sale to Users) Equipment and supplies Major axpensee heavy equapmwnt, etc, (annual average I typical anruunt is okay) Transfers to the General Fund or other fund other 22 NorthernEcoinomics The Economic Benefits of Pons and Harbors in Alaska rrrrrrr— _ . . . . ....... ......... . .... . ... . ...... 14. Please provide ranges or any other information about your expenses here 15 If your facility receives dredging, please provide the dredging frequency, cost, and source of the fonds 16 Please describe capital protects planned for your facility over the next five years (2016-2020). if possible, please provide a, name or simple description, a dollar amount, sources of funds (internal, debt, grants, etc,), and the year(s) in which work will take place 11(this information is provided in detail in a published document, you are welcome to e-mail it to us or send us a link where we can access it 17 Do you have any other needs for your facility that are not currently planned, such as dredging or additional infrastructure? If so, please mention them here If you have cost estimates, it would be helpful for you to include them. 18. Are there any planning documents or other information we should know about that are related to your capital projects? For example, are these projects part of a comprehensive pian for the community or a development plan for your facility? If this Information is provided in detail In a published document, you are welcome to e-mail it to US or send us a link where we can access it. Nord'Ie rn Economics 23 The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska 19 If available" please provide ai Iist of major infrastructure assets and their value. The easiest way to gel this inforrination is to look at the replacement value in your insurance documents, or actual costs for facilities co,nstruicted recently, If you use either of these sources, please provide the year for which they apply, 20 Please descnbe activities that take place in your harbor (if applicable), For example: What is the size of your fleet? What types of vessels use your harbor (recreational, commercial fishing, charters, other commercial, oil spill response, U.S Coast Guard, etc ), What else is important for us to document about the use of your harbor? 21 If you operate a harbor facility, please estimate what percentage of your users' spending go to the following items. A rough estimate or your best guess is fine The reason we are asking this is to get a better understanding of the economic impact of your harbor. "rhe Harbor Economic Impact Model contains spending estimates for different categories, but the original information is dated and primarily based on Southcentral Alaska harbors We are asking for your estimate of these spending categories to create an average'"multiplier'" for harbor spending that is appropriate to your region Note that these items do not include insurance, mortgages, or other expenses that do riot rernain in the local economy. We are focused on goods and services purchased in your community. Please enter responses totaling 100 or 100%. Eating & Drinking Genera$ Merchandise Stores Hotels and (Lodging i Maintenance and Repair Otter Fa(;ilfties Mi,;callaneous Retail 24 f4orfIllhe r in Econom i'cs The Economic Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Allaska 22. Please describe activities that take place; in Your port (if applicable). For oxample: What types and sizes of vessels call at your dock? How firequenVy do these vessels call at your dock? How long is the typical stay'? What do vessels typically load or offload at your dock? Provide cargo types and volurnesitonnages if available 23. Please describe any additional facilities or infrastructure present, if not included above, For example: Do you have publicly or privately owned cranes? Do YOU, have an ice house? Do you have a cold storage facility? Are there processing facilities that use your facilities for offloading fish or snipping processed product? 24, Please describe any other notable uses of your facilities For example: Are you a major hub in your region, or a gateway to the region? Have your facilities been used to support Outer Contineintall Shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploratiion? Do you host oil spill response vessels or equipment? Are your facilli hes used for moving in eq uilipment and materials for major projects'? Are your facilities used for shipping out equipment and materials for major projects? Are there plans for your facilities to be used for any major projects or other activities in the future? 25, If your facility did not exist, please describe how you think this would affect your community region, etc NorthernEconon-lics 25 T'he Economic! Benefits of Ports and Harbors in Alaska 26 In this finial question, (please share any other views you may have of your faality's role that we haven't asked about above. Thank you for the time you have spent collecting and entering this inforimation, If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call or e -main Michelle Humphrey or Mike Fisher at Northern Economics, either by e-mail (michelle.humphrey@norec:on,com or michael.fisher@norecon,com) or phone (907-274-5600). The results of this survey and the other work we are doing will be provided to AAHPA in the summer or fall of 2016. 26 Northern[Economic5