Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Land Use Scenarios for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska

Report and workbook included.This paper presents the projected fiscal impacts on Alaska’s Matanuska-Susitna Borough (MSB) and its taxpayers, through year 2050, of six alternative land use and population scenarios. The analysis is focused on population growth and education spending, due to the overwhelming importance of school expenditures in overall borough finances. The Mat-Su Borough is Alaska’s fastest growing borough. Between 2000 and 2012, MSB population grew by 3.8% per year, from about 60,000 to about 94,000. Also, real1 total school expenditures per student (both operating plus capital) increased by 1.6% per year between 2003 and 2012. The State of Alaska currently pays 71% of these total education costs.2 With Alaska oil production decreasing, state education spending per student is likely to decline. Population growth could therefore be costly to MSB residents if school and other costs increase faster than available financial resources.The Nature Conservancy of Alaska. Bullitt Foundation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.Executive Summary / Introduction / Current MSB fiscal situation and emerging challenges / Fiscal impacts of alternative land use scenarios / Conclusions / References / Appendix A. Fiscal model parameters and model logic / Appendix B. MSB demographic trend

Short-Run Economic Impacts of Alaska Fiscal Options

Today Alaskans are talking about how to close the huge budget deficit the state government is facing, with the oil revenues it has depended on for decades now a small fraction of what they once were. Alaska has had budget deficits for several years, and it has made budget cuts—but it has mainly relied on billions of dollars in savings from the Constitutional Budget Reserve and other funds to cover the deficit. Those savings are dwindling, and the state needs to take measures to close the deficit. An important consideration is how various ways of reducing the deficit might affect Alaska’s economy. This study compares potential short-run economic effects of 11 options the state might take in the next few years to reduce the deficit and that are sustainable over the long term. We looked at economic effects of several types of spending cuts and taxes, as well as reducing the Permanent Fund dividend— the annual cash payment the state makes to all residents—and saving less of Permanent Fund earnings. We’re not advocating or opposing any option: our purpose is to estimate and compare the magnitude of the short-run economic effects of different ways of reducing the deficit. Broadly speaking: • Different ways of collecting money from Alaskans affect those with lower and higher incomes in significantly different ways. • Anything the state does to reduce the deficit will cost the economy jobs and money. But spending some of the Permanent Fund earnings the state currently saves would not have short-run economic effects. Saving less would, however, slow Permanent Fund growth and reduce future earnings. • Because the deficit is so big, the overall economic effects of closing the deficit will also be big.Executive Summary / Table of Contents / Introduction / Revenue Impacts of Taxes and Dividend Cuts / Short-Run Economic Impacts of Fiscal Options / Regional Differences in Impacts of Fiscal Options / Total Economic Impact of Reducing the Deficit / Other Economic Impacts of Fiscal Options / Estimation of Revenue Impacts of Fiscal Options /Expenditure Equations Estimated From the Consumer Expenditure Survey / IMPLAN Model / Estimation of Short-Run Economic Impact

What do we know to date about the Alaska recession and the fiscal crunch?

We provide a broad overview of the state’s economic and fiscal conditions. We show how the economic contraction has spread away from natural resource and mining and state government to household spending dependent sectors. We also show that while the rate at which jobs are being lost has slowed, it is inaccurate to think about that as a sign of a recovery. That is because the engine of growth that is O&G employment as of June 2017 was only 75% of what it was in 2014. Additionally, the softness in spending activity may linger for an extended period of time. We also assess the regional effects of the recession and show the significant heterogeneity in experience. Unsurprisingly, areas with economic bases not associated with Oil and Gas and with relatively little dependence on state government spending are holding up best. After establishing an understanding of the economic conditions, we offer a back of the envelope calculation of the capital investment losses associated with the fiscal uncertainty. Then, we provide a comparison of Alaska’s taxes relative to the rest of the US, and a simulation of the effects of different withdrawal amounts on the permanent fund balance and the earnings reserve.Northrim Ban

2017 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2017 will be $6.5 billion, down 10$2.4 billion, from $2.9 billion last year. All other construction spending will be$4.0 billion, a decline of 7% from $4.3 billion last year. Private spending, excluding oil and gas, will be about$1.6 billion, up 2% from last year—while public spending will decline 12% to $2.5 billion. Wage and salary employment in the construction industry, which dropped by 8.5% in 2016 to 16.2 thousand, will drop another 7.4% in 2017 to 15 thousand, the lowest level in more than a decade.n 2016 the Alaska economy slipped into a recession that is expected to continue at least through 2017. Total wage and salary employment fell in 2016 by 6.8 thousand, about 2%. This year it is anticipated the decline will be 7.5 thousand, or 2.3%, which will return the economy to the 2010 level.5. Weakness in the economy is also reflected in a net outmigration of population over the last four years.Construction Industry Progress Fund Associated General Contractors of Alask

2015 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

OVERVIEW The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2015 will be $8.5 billion, down 3Wage and salary employment in the construction industry, which increased an estimated 6 percent last year, to about 17,600, will decline slightly in 2015.4 Oil and gas sector spending will fall 2$3.8 billion from its record level of $3.9 billion last year. Other spending will be$4.7 billion, a decline from $4.9 billion last year. Private spending, excluding oil and gas, will be about$1.7 billion, down from $2.0 billion last year—while public spending will increase from$2.9 to $3.0 billion. Construction spending in Alaska in 2015 is expected to be strong in spite of the drop in the price of oil from more than$100 per barrel in the summer of 2014 to between $45 and$50 today. However, the longer the price stays low, the greater the risk that some projects will be cancelled or postponed. It is impossible to predict what will happen to the oil price, because world supply has outstripped demand. The price will stabilize, and perhaps begin to increase, only when the low price stimulates more demand and eliminates high cost production, a process that could take more than a year. A further complication is the unpredictability of the role of OPEC in determining oil supply. In particular Saudi Arabia, the largest producer, could decide to restrict supply for political or strategic reasons. Because of the drop in the price of oil, the state is facing a general fund budget deficit of about $3 billion for the current fiscal year (FY2015) and is projected to have a similar deficit in FY2016 (which begins July 1 of this year). However, this will not have a large negative impact on state government construction spending this year for several reasons.Northrim Bank. Construction Industry Progress Fund. The Associated General Contractors of Alaska

Annual Report for the Construction Industry Progress Fund and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska

The Construction Industry Progress Fund (CIPF) and the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Alaska are pleased to have produced another edition of “Alaska’s Construction Spending Forecast.” Compiled and written by Scott Goldsmith and Mouhcine Guettabi of the University of Alaska’s Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER), the “Forecast” reviews construction activity, projects and spending by both the private and public sectors for the year ahead. The construction trade is Alaska’s third largest industry, paying the second highest wages, employing nearly 16,000 workers with a payroll over $1 billion. It accounts for 20 percent of Alaska’s total economy and currently contributes approximately$8 billion to the state’s economy. The construction industry reflects the pulse of the economy. When it is vigorous, so is the state’s economy. Both CIPF and AGC are proud to make this publication available annually and hope it provides useful information for you. AGC is a non-profit, full service construction association for commercial and industrial contractors, subcontractors and associates. CIPF is organized to advance the interests of the construction industry throughout the state of Alaska through a management and labor partnership.Northrim Bank. The Associated General Contractors of Alaska. The Construction Industry Progress Fund

The State of Preschool 2007

Provides data on state-funded pre-K programs for the 2006-2007 school year, such as percentages of children enrolled at different ages, spending per child, and the number of quality standard benchmarks met. Includes state rankings and profiles

Comparing Georgia's Fiscal Policies to Regional and National Peers

The purpose of this report is to analyze the major components of Georgia's state and local revenue and expenditure mixes relative to its peer states. FRC Report 20

2010 Alaska's Construction Spending Forecast

The total value of construction spending “on the street” in Alaska in 2010 will be $7.0 billion, down 3from 2009.1,2,3 Wage and salary employment in the construction industry will continue the slow decline which began in 2006, but the level remains above the long-term average for the industry. Excluding the oil and gas sector—which accounts for 43spending will be$4.0 billion— down 4% from 2009. Private-sector construction spending will be down only 1% from 2009, to $4.4 billion, in spite of the slowdown in the Alaska economy. Oil and gas sector spending will be flat. Spending will increase in the utilities and hospitals4 categories but will decline in mining, residential, other commercial, and the other rural basic sector categories. Public construction spending will be down 5to$2.6 billion, in spite of the infusion of cash from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Although some categories of federal spending will be higher, many will be lower and state spending will also be lower because of the lean FY 2010 capital budget. Uncertainty in this year’s forecast comes from several sources. As we start 2010 there is no clear indication if the national economy is starting to recover from the recession, and if it does, how strong that recovery will be. Although Alaska has been insulated from the worst effects of the recession—the crash in the housing market, high unemployment, and lack of credit—concerns about the national recovery will continue to influence investment decisions in the state, particularly in the commercial and residential markets. Local government capital spending is also vulnerable to reductions in tax revenues from activities, like tourism, driven by the national economy. The passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in early 2009 has provided an important boost to construction spending this year. A second stimulus may be undertaken later this year, but it is too soon to speculate on how that might impact construction spending, so we assume no further federal action. The Alaska economy contracted in 2009 for the first time in 22 years—but the reduction in employment was only about 1%. Forecasts for Alaska’s economy in 2010 vary from further moderate declines in employment to a resumption of growth. This difference of opinion underscores the sense of caution in the business community about the near-term prospects for the economy. As the year begins, petroleum and precious metal (gold and silver) prices are strong and rising, and base metal prices (zinc) have rebounded from the lows of last year. Petroleum and mining capital budgets are particularly sensitive to these prices, which are likely to continue to fluctuate throughout the year. We assume these prices remain strong throughout the year.Construction Industry Progress Fund. Associated General Contractors of Alaska

The Future of Challenges to the Alaskan Public School Funding Scheme After State v. Ketchikan

In 2013, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough initiated a challenge to the Alaska public education funding scheme by paying its required local contribution (RLC) to its school district under protest. The Borough subsequently filed a lawsuit against the State of Alaska in 2014. This Note discusses the supreme court’s constitutional analysis of the RLC in State v. Ketchikan. Despite extensive discussion of the RLC in the context of the Alaska Constitution’s Dedicated Funds Clause, the court failed to sufficiently analyze the RLC (a critical component of public school funding) in the context of the state’s responsibility for education—a duty rooted in the Public Schools Clause. This Note will argue that, unlike the challenge to the RLC under the Dedicated Funds Clause, a successful challenge to the RLC under the Public Schools Clause is a possibility. To prevent a hasty legislative response, the State should consider alternative funding schemes less reliant on RLCs before a court order demands it do so, particularly given the disparities in local contributions that are not necessarily proportional to borough revenues as well as the increased criticism of the RLC after State v. Ketchikan