The Alaska Contractor - Spring 2011 - Keep Trees

Associated General
Contractors of Alaska
8005 Schoon St.
Anchorage, AK 99518
(907) 561-5354
Fax: (907) 562-6118
www.agcak.org
Contractor@agcak.org
Editorial Board
Dick Cattanach
Margaret Empie
Mary Killorin
John MacKinnon
Brook Mayfield
April Reilly
Vicki Schneibel
George Tuckness
Lyn Whitley
8537 Corbin Dr.
Anchorage, AK 99507
(907) 562-9300
Fax: (907) 562-9311
Toll Free: (866) 562-9300
www.AQPpublishing.com
Publisher
Robert R. Ulin
Editor
Rachael Fisher
Graphic Designer
Justin Ritter
Project Sales Manager
Clem E. Mewmaw
Advertising Coordinator
Carol Choi
On the cover: Port of Anchorage.
Cover photo by
© Ken Graham photoGr aphy.Com
Features
Table of Contents
12 Alaska Construction Spending 2011 Forecast excerpts
by Scott Goldsmith and Mary Killorin
20 Project Update: West Construction Company by Jessica Bowman
34 AVTEC’s new wind turbine offers more than power by Nancy Erickson
45 Legislative Fly-In photo essay
46 Energy efficiency programs keep contractors busy by Jody Ellis-Knapp
50 The Changing Face of Energy in Alaska by Rindi White
56 Hydroelectric project on the Susitna River gains momentum by E. Colleen Kelly
59 14th Annual Fairbanks Bowl-A-Thon photo essay
60 Eklutna Inc. Anchorage’s largest private landowner by Carly Horton Stuart
70 Department of Transportation partners with AGC by Commissioner Marc Luiken
74 Back to the future ACES reform by Rachael Fisher
77 A perfect par Neeser Construction and The First Tee of Alaska by Colleen Madonna Flood
78 Oil Pumps Alaska’s Economy to Twice the Size—But What’s Ahead? by Scott Goldsmith
84 Under Canstruction Industry seeks to construct an Alaska
without hunger through design/build competition by Rachael Fisher
86 2010 Winners of AGC’s Excellence in Construction Awards photo essay
ProFiles
16 Florcraft Carpet One by Rachael Kvapil
30 Cowater Alaska Inc. by Bambi Childs
40 R&M Consultants Inc. by Sharon Stockard
66 Crowley Petroleum Distribution Inc. compiled by Tracy Kalytiak
DePartments
4 Winning Bids and Construction Trends
8 President’s Message by George Tuckness
10 Executive Director’s Message by John MacKinnon
24 Contractors & the Law by Robert J. Dickson
38 Safety Report by Chris Ross
44 Financial Services & Contractors by Bill Cessnun
65 Human Resources Update by Barbara Stallone
69 Beacon/WorkSafe by Chris Williams
95 Member News
The Alaska Spring 2011
Publication of the Associated General Contractors of Alaska
www.agcak.org
Editor’s note: We’ve begun to profile two Associate Members in each issue to shorten the length of time these valued
members wait to be featured in The Alaska Contractor.
Corrections: A column on page 8 of Winter 2011 incorrectly said the overall unemployment rate nationally hovered
around 1 percent in 2009. The overall unemployment rate nationally hovered around 10 percent in 2009.
A photo caption on page 44 of Winter 2011 incorrectly identified AGC Vice President Tony Johansen, who was not pictured.
The Alaska Contractor is published by AQP Publishing Inc. for the Associated General Contractors of Alaska. Contents of the magazine are not necessarily endorsed by AGC of Alaska or AQP Publishing Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2011 by the Associated General Contractors of Alaska. For information about articles in this edition or for permission to reproduce any portion of it, contact AQP Publishing Inc.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 3

Note: Winning Bids and
Construction Trends
1) Source from projects advertised
in the AGC of Alaska Bulletin
2) Calculations based
on date of bid
3) Supply/Service; Non-Construction
bid results are not always
advertised in the bulletin
4) RFP results are not always
advertised in the bulletin
ARCTIC & WESTERN
BETHEL MATERIAL SUPPLY
$4,638,000
Specialty Supply Inc.
SAND POINT SCHOOL LOOP ROAD
$4,599,790
Brechan Enterprises Inc.
NOME COUNCIL HWY RESURFACE
$4,359,365
Phillip & Jordan Inc.
NOME HIGHWAY BRIDGE
IMPROVMENTS
$2,233,855
Twin Peaks Construction Inc.
ST MARYS TEACHER HOUSE TRIPLEX
$1,199,500
Tunista Construction LLC
AK YUKON RIVER BRIDGE REHAB
$789,000
MKB Constructors
BETHEL PILING INSTALL
$753,604
Salzburn Services & Drilling
NUIQSUT FIRE STATION
FLOOR REPLACE
$571,000
Concor Construction Inc.
DILLINGHAM FUEL TANKS FAB
$530,675
Brown Minneapolis Tank NW
NOME ANVIL CORRECTIONAL ROOF
$424,761
Silver Bow Construction
KAKTOVIK LIGHTING UPGRADES
$275,083
Tanik Construction Co. Inc.
INTERIOR
FBKS NORTH POLE
WELLER SCHOOLS LIGHTING
$4,095,347
Johnson River Enterprises LLC
DALTON HWY AGGREGATE
$544,500
Exclusive Paving
SOUTHCENTRAL
ANCH AIA RUNWAY 7R/25L REHAB/EXT
$32,191,812.22
QAP
WHITTIER HARBOR PHS I
$3,909,000
Harris Sand & Gravel Inc.
KODIAK UV DISINFECTION FACILITY
$3,540,794
Jay-Brant General Contractors
EAGLE RIVER CLARIFIER/ASH IMPROVE
$1,591,186
MKB Constructors
ANCH ASD HUFFMAN SITE IMPROVE
$1,583,777
Roger Hickel Contracting Inc.
ANCH ASD SOUTH HS TURF FIELD
INSTALL
$1,401,265
Roger Hickel Contracting Inc.
ANCH PINE/4TH AVE STORM PHI
$1,365,449
Pruhs Construction Co. LLC
MAT-SU PHYSICAL SECURITY PCKG
$1,322,364
Howdie Inc.
CHUGIAK ASD ROOF UPGRADES
$1,087,000
Wolverine Supply Inc.
AK AIA/FIA CUPPS GATE/TICKET
COUNTER IMPROVE
$1,002,777
Consolidated Contracting & Engineering
ANCH CAMPBELL LK
SEDIMENTATION REDUCTION
$931,450
Territory North Constructors LLC
4 The Alaska CONTRACTOR Spring 2011

KODIAK FLOORING REPLACE
$774,482
Prosser-Dagg Construction Co. Inc.
WASILLA POOL REMODEL
$518,110
Howdie Inc.
ANCH TURNAGAIN BOOSTER
STATION/RESVOIR
$468,431
Alaska Mechanical Inc.
ANCH ASD EAST GYM HAVAC UPGRADES
$453,895
Consolidated Contracting and
Engineering
ANCH LIBRARY LIGHTING UPGRADES
$449,340
Electric Inc.
ANCH ANTHC SERVER ROOM
UPGRADES
$367,815
Eklutna Services LLC
KODIAK MS GYM ROOF SEISMIC IMPROVE
$334,158
Alutiiq International Solutions LLC
STERLING MORGANS LANDING
PLATFORMS
$331,001
Orion Construction Inc.
ANCH ASD CAMPBELL LIGHTING ECM
$299,900
Clemens Electric Inc.
SoUTHEAST
DOUGLAS GASTINEAU ES
RENOVATIONS
$8,792,700
McGraw’s Custom Construction
ANNETTE IS WALDEN PT PAVING
$6,109,896
Southeast Road Builders
SKAGWAY WWTP UPGRADES
$3,949,000
McGraw’s Custom Construction
AUKE BAY LOADING FACILITY PHS II
$2,452,757
Southeast Earth Movers Inc.
PETERSBURG RUNWAY SAFETY PHS IV
$2,437,750
D & L Construction Co. Inc.
COFFMAN COVE MAINT STATION
$1,241,000
McGraw’s Custom Construction
JUNEAU DIXON/MAIN ST RECONSTRUCT
$1,023,813.45
Miller Construction Co. LTD
JUNEAU WOOD DUCK AVE RECONSTRUCT
$705,277
Miller Construction Co. LTD
JUNEAU SIDEWALK/DRAINAGE
$567,592
Cutting Edge Dev/N Lights Dev
SKAKWAK HWY GEOTECH DRILLING SVCS
$388,785
Geoteck Drilling Services
KETCHIKAN CRK ST BOARDWALK REPLACE
$275,430
CBC Construction Inc.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 5

$650,000,000
$600,000,000
$550,000,000
$500,000,000
$450,000,000
$400,000,000
$350,000,000
$300,000,000
$250,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$450,000,000
$400,000,000
$350,000,000
$300,000,000
$250,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$1,200,000,000
$1,050,000,000
$900,000,000
$750,000,000
$600,000,000
$450,000,000
$300,000,000
$150,000,000
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
$-0
$-0
$-0
highway
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
building
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
annual
TRENDS
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
6 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
Long-term oil development
needed to grow our
construction economy
L
ast issue I brought you a good report on Alaska’s
resourceful efforts to grow our Alaska construction
economy. This was accomplished primarily by the
effi cient use of state funding of a healthy capital budget
and the Department of Transportation being shovel ready
to receive federal stimulus funds. Granted these sources of
funding did not constitute the entire winning formula but
without them our economy would not have been nearly
so robust. The question we should all ask is what to do
about our future?
Alaska has great representation in Washington D.C.,
but we should prepare ourselves for a decline in federal
funds. We already are the envy of every state because of
how much funding we receive. With federal spending at
an all time high, can we expect it to continue? At a time
when all states are crying out for help and the national
debt is more than $14 trillion, our portion will inevitably
be reduced. What can we do to replace these declining
funds? Can we continue to take from our savings to stimulate
our economy indefi nitely? No, we need a long-term
plan to grow private industry. We must become a better
partner to the resource industry and in particular, oil.
The oil industry accounts for one-third of Alaska’s
economy and more than 85 percent of the state’s general
fund revenue—oil is king. We see declining production
and an even greater decline in exploration. ConocoPhillips,
one our largest investors in exploration, did not drill one
exploration well last year and won’t again this year. We
are seeing many good Alaska companies specializing in
oil fi eld services moving their operations to new oil fi elds
in North Dakota, Texas and Alberta, Canada. These are
good-paying jobs that could be in Alaska if we become
more competitive. We do not have a monopoly in the oil
market, and we must turn this trend around.
Some experts are saying our tax structure is no longer
competitive. I believe we should support Gov. Parnell’s
plan for reform. Our oil tax law called ACES stands for
Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share. It could more appropriately
be called Alaska’s Clear and Excessive Share.
We have received a nice, fat windfall from this tax which
has helped replenish our savings and sustain us through
the crash of the American economy. But there are more
GE O R G E TU C K N E S S
President
profi table opportunities for the oil companies to invest in
outside of Alaska. We need to bring the exploration dollars
back to Alaska.
Not only are the taxes higher in Alaska, the costs associated
with remote locations and the environmental regulation
of Arctic exploration makes a stronger headwind.
With oil’s current prices, the state takes more than 80
percent of the revenue—this is twice the tax of any other
state. It is very short-sighted to think the oil industry will
continue to invest in Alaska when our tax structure is the
highest in the nation. If it was your business, would you
promote new investment where the taxes are so high?
AGC of Alaska is supporting one of the newest efforts
promoting tax reform, the Make Alaska Competitive
Coalition or MACC. The new group, a coalition of Alaska
individuals and businesses, is funded by donations from
supporters, but is not accepting any funds from the oil
industry. The coalition is waging war on ACES. Their
message is to stop looking for how much revenue we can
get now from the oil, but rather let’s help to build a stable
future with sustainable reinvestment in oil development.
It is easy for those of us who don’t work in the oil fi eld
to think that this issue is not so important. But we need
only look a little way down the road before we realize
much of the growth of our economy will depend on Alaska’s
ability to continue to receive a stable income from oil.
Let’s not kill the golden goose, when so much is to be
gained from being a good partner and working toward a
long-term plan.
The most important thing we can do as businesses
and individuals is to get involved. Help spread the
message of how important it is for us to keep the oil
fl owing. I don’t know the exact formula to reform ACES,
but I know we went too far when it was passed three
years ago. We cannot afford to let our resources dry up.
Talk to your friends and neighbors, write your legislators.
Help everyone you know, young and old, to understand
how important oil is to Alaska. Become an advocate to
help change and create a more competitive environment
for oil development. I encourage our entire membership
to support this effort.
8 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
A couple things ...
I
n this issue you’ll read about ACES, Alaska’s oil tax
regime, and how it’s driving investment away from
our state. Many Alaska businesses have experienced
a signifi cant drop in business volume as a result of the
tax structure and change in the industry investment on
the North Slope. The current progressivity tax regime is
driving investment to other countries and other states. We
complain about the number of non-residents working in
Alaska, and our own tax policy is making Alaskans work
as non-residents in other states.
Our industry and all of Alaska has benefi tted from
the large capital budget made possible by the high taxes,
but we are concerned that the short-term gain of greater
revenue now may result in a longer-term
loss for the state. Many business leaders
in Alaska are concerned that if ACES is
not addressed and adjusted, then our
Alaska economy could suffer. The Make
Alaska Competitive Coalition was formed
by a group of civic and business leaders
who have a compelling message and are
pushing the state to adopt a tax structure
that encourages jobs and investment in
Alaska. You can fi nd out more at www.
MakeAlaskaCompetitive.com.
Presently there is legislation being
considered that will fi x some of the problems
in ACES. As they weigh the matter
of capping progressivity, lawmakers must ask themselves,
are they managing the state for just two years into the
future, or are they concerned about what’s on the horizon?
You need to get involved.
You’ll also read the latest ISER report by Scott
Goldsmith, “Oil Pumps Alaska’s Economy to Twice the
Size—But What’s Ahead.” It discusses the importance of
oil on Alaska’s economy and looks at our state in 1960
and today—today both with oil and without oil. An
excellent article that details just how oil has benefi tted
the state. In addition to a number of thought-provoking
facts and analyses, it should incite the question in most
reader’s minds: Without oil in Alaska’s economy, where
would you be? The answer in the article is that half of us
wouldn’t be here.
We have an article about wetlands and the legal victory
of a Fairbanks gravel pit owner, Great Northwest, over the
Many business
leaders in Alaska
are concerned
that if ACES is
not addressed and
adjusted, then our
Alaska economy
could suffer.
JO H N MA CKI N N O N
Executive Director
Corps of Engineers. The Corps wanted to extract $55,000
from them in exchange for permission to fi ll part of a
gravel pit Great Northwest had previously dug out. The
article takes you through the history of the Clean Water
Act and all the subsequent interpretations and rulings and
discusses the legal aspects of the case relative to a couple
of recent Supreme Court decisions. It discusses the merits
and precedents of the recent court case won on behalf
of Great Northwest by the Pacifi c Legal Foundation.
With statehood in 1959, Congress granted Alaska title
to 103 million acres so that we could build and sustain a
resource-based economy. Ten years later, Congress passed
the Clean Water Act that said “That land we gave you—
most of it is wetlands and we won’t let
you do anything with it.” Does “breach of
contract” come to mind?
Finally, not related to an article in
this issue, but bears repeating, Gov. Sean
Parnell spoke at the National Press Club
on Feb. 25. The Department of Interior
and the Environmental Protection Agency
are now actually driving our domestic and
foreign policy. This is because these agencies
have locked down America’s resources,
forcing our country to be dependent on an
increasingly hostile Middle East.
Gov. Parnell said, “These are agencies
that can lock down domestic oil with no
responsibility for the consequences. They can force America
to depend ever more heavily on Middle East oil, at enormous
cost of lives, tax dollars and economic opportunity. They do
this by delaying leasing, delaying permitting for exploration
and development, and by attempting sweeping lock-ups of
lands without congressional approval or authority.
“The Department of Interior in the past few years has
acted like a shopaholic with a stolen credit card and a taste for
empire building. Recently, U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
decided to evaluate 87 million acres of federal land in Alaska
and millions elsewhere in the West as potential ‘wild lands.’
That designation, if implemented, would lock up Alaskan oil
without Congress having any input at all.”
It seems like there’s a lot of pushing back against
government overreach, both by businesses and by states
like Wisconsin, New Jersey and Alaska. That sends a
message. Is Washington listening?
10 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Forecast predicts Alaska construction
spending will increase 4 percent
Excerpts from “Alaska’s Construction Spending 2011 Forecast”
By sC o t t Go l d s M i t h a n d Ma Ry Ki l l o R i n
T
he total value of construction
spending “on the street”
in Alaska in 2011 will be $7.1
billion, up 4 percent from 2010.
Excluding the oil and gas sector—
which accounts for 41 percent of the
total—construction spending will be
$4.2 billion—up 5 percent from 2010.
Uncertainty is particularly signifi -
cant in the forecast this year, especially
in the oil and gas sector—in spite of
high oil prices. In January 2011, uncertainty
surrounds most of the largescale
petroleum projects on the North
Slope and in Cook Inlet. Uncertainty
about future developments in the oil
industry underscores the continued
sense of caution within the business
community about the prospects for
the economy.
Private spending
The private sector will spend
$4.5 billion on construction-related
activities in Alaska in 2011. That is 63
percent of total construction spending
and an increase of 6 percent compared
with 2010.
Oil and gas industry spending
is expected to be up about 3 percent
from last year’s revised projections—if
most projects are able to move forward
as planned. None of the three major
producers on the North Slope—British
Petroleum (BP), ConocoPhillips and
Exxon—will be exploring.
BP will concentrate on bringing the
Liberty fi eld into production, developing
existing reserves and maintaining
infrastructure. ConocoPhillips
will also concentrate on developing
existing reserves, particularly the
Alpine West prospect in the National
Petroleum Reserve Alaska. However,
all these projects face environmental
or legal hurdles that have slowed their
development, and in the current environment
it is diffi cult to predict how
much further their timetables will slip
over the next year.
Eni, Pioneer and Shell will have
large North Slope budgets this year.
Eni will bring the Nikaitchuq fi eld
into prospects, and Savant will be
re-starting the Badami fi eld, which has
been shut-in for many years.
Marathon, Chevron and Conoco-
Phillips will all be active in Cook Inlet,
as will a number of smaller companies
like Armstrong Petroleum—which
is leading a partnership to develop a
North Fork gas fi eld—and Cook Inlet
Energy, which has taken over the
assets of bankrupt Pacifi c Energy.
Spending by the mining industry—
on exploration, development and
upgrading existing mines—will be
about the same as last year. The only
signifi cant large scale mine development
this year will be expansion of the
Red Dog mine in northwest Alaska
into the adjacent Aqqaluk site. Capital
spending at the other operating mines,
including the recently opened Kensington
Mine in southeast Alaska, will
primarily be for normal maintenance
and modest upgrades. Exploration and
project planning will continue at the
two large prospects—Donlin Creek
and Pebble.
Spending in the utilities category
will be up 28 percent this year,
because many Railbelt electric utilities
are developing new generating facilities,
and because telecommunications
fi rms are expanding their networks
in rural Alaska. Construction of the
new gas-fi red electric generation
facility by Chugach Electric Association
and Anchorage Municipal Light
and Power is moving forward, as are
plans by Homer Electric Association
to generate its own power with steam
generation and gas turbines. Golden
Valley Electric Association is plan-
ning a wind project at Eva Creek near
Healy, and Cook Inlet Region Inc.
hopes to move forward with its Fire
Island wind project, in Cook Inlet just
west of Anchorage. Stimulus money
is funding $88 million in grants and
loans to United Utilities for installation
of broadband service to 65
communities in southwest Alaska,
using fi ber-optic cable and a microwave
network.
Hospital spending will be considerably
higher than it was last year
(38 percent). Providence Hospital in
Anchorage is embarking on its largest
expansion program in 11 years—the
modernization and enlargement of
the newborn intensive care and maternity
suites, and expansion of cardiac
surgery capacity. Two other large
continuing projects this year are the
new hospitals in Nome and Barrow.
In addition, work will begin this year
on a new Chief Andrew Isaac Medical
Center in Fairbanks.
There are no new large private
commercial construction projects—
12 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

such as new highrise office towers or
shopping centers—planned for this year,
and commercial construction is projected
to fall 21 percent. The absence of large
projects reflects the slowdown in the
overall economy and the adequacy of the
existing stock of retail, commercial and
warehouse space in most communities.
Medical office space is the one category
where demand continues to grow.
Although Alaska has been largely
insulated from the national housing
market crash—both in terms of prices
and foreclosures— residential construction
will decline slightly again this year,
continuing a trend that began in 2007.
Public spending
Public construction spending will be
up 1 percent, to $2.7 billion, due to the
large FY 2011 state capital budget.
Spending for national defense
will be up 1 percent from last year,
even though ARRA funds for military
purposes have largely been spent.
The largest share of the budget is
for military construction at the main
bases in the Anchorage and Fairbanks
regions. Typical projects include
aircraft hangers, housing replacement,
training facilities, air support facilities
and utility upgrades. The Corps
of Engineers provides funds for civil
works such as flood control and environmental
remediation.
Spending for highways and roads
will be 5 percent lower than the revised
total for last year. Highway projects
funded by a portion of the deferred
maintenance package in last year’s
capital budget will cushion the decline.
Spending for airports, ports and
harbors will again be lower than the
year before—down about 11 percent—
because of the absence of new large
projects and because most of the ARRA
funds have been spent. The Anchorage
and Point MacKenzie port development
projects will continue, but at a modest
level of effort because at this point they
depend on state funding. The FY 2011
state capital budget had only small
appropriations for these projects.
The capital construction program for
modernizing and upgrading the Alaska
Railroad will continue this year at a
slightly faster pace than last year. The
focus of the program continues to be
track rehabilitation, siding extensions
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 13

and upgrades, bridge replacement and
upgrades, passenger equipment and a
collision-avoidance system. Construction
of the Tanana River bridge, the first
step in extending the railroad to Fort
Greely, is underway, but is encountering
design challenges that may delay the
project timetable.
The Denali Commission will spend
about the same this year as last year.
Major activities will include waterfront
development and road projects, bulkfuel
tank farms, rural power system
upgrades, and renewable and alternative
energy projects, as well as clinics
and behavioral health projects.
Education project funding will be up
25 percent from last year, largely due
to passage of the large state education
general obligation bond package in late
2010. The state capital budget allocation
for school construction and maintenance
will be about the same as last
year, and we expect local school districts
to spend about the same amount as in
previous years on construction, renovations
and upgrades.
State and local government capital
spending—excluding transportation,
education and energy (electric utilities)
—will be about 29 percent higher than
last year, because of the large FY 2011
state capital budget. The largest project
will be continued construction of the
new Goose Creek Correctional Center
in the Mat-Su Borough.
Construction spending is one of
the important contributors to overall
economic activity in Alaska. Annual
wage and salary employment in the
construction industry in 2010 was about
16,000 workers, with average annual
payroll of $60,000 per worker. This
total does not account for construction
workers who are self-employed—
estimated to be about 9,000 in 2010. The
payrolls and profits from this construction
activity support businesses in every
community in the state. As this income
is spent and circulates through local
economies, it generates jobs in businesses
as diverse as restaurants, dentists’
offices and furniture stores.
Visit www.agcak.org and click
“News & Media” to view the full
report which was generously
underwritten by Northrim Bank.
14 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

MEMBER PROFILE
FLORCRAFT CARPET ONE By Ra C h a E l KVa p i l
Gearing up to celebrate
50 years in Alaska
F
lorcraft Carpet One is excited for 2012. Next
year marks the 50th anniversary of its Fairbanks
store—a milestone that follows the
Anchorage store’s 25th anniversary. Florcraft
has come a long way from its beginnings as a small
Fairbanks shop. The family-owned company’s reputation
for quality earned it loyal customers and the
ability to expand into the world of interior design,
General Manager Patrice Case said.
In 1962, Al Vacura, George Dujmovich, John
Hajdukovich and Joe Carie founded Florcraft in Fairbanks.
Back then it was a small shop that served only
the Interior. Operations were simple—sell carpet, cut
it at the warehouse and deliver it, Case said.
Ownership changed in 1986 when Richard
Wien and Robert Hanson purchased the business
with John Hajdukovich. Hanson, Case’s father,
worked as a Florcraft employee prior to becoming
an owner. Case said her parents worked together
in the Fairbanks corporate offi ce; and, as a teenager,
she worked every Saturday during the school
year and full-time in the summer fi ling paperwork.
Later she worked in the Anchorage store until she
Florcraft’s Anchorage store on Fifth Avenue celebrated its 25th anniversary last year.
Laminate is one of several fl ooring options offered by Florcraft.
returned to Fairbanks. After her mother and father
passed away in 2002 and 2006, respectively, Wien
appointed Case as general manager and she now
works alongside her husband.
Florcraft employs 35 people in its Fairbanks
and Anchorage stores. Residential and commercial
divisions handle projects of all types and size. In
16 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photo: raChael Kvapil
photo: Cour tesy of florCr aft Carpet one

Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 17

photo: raChael Kvapil
Florcraft employees from the Fairbanks offices.
addition to carpeting, Florcraft sells
hardwood and laminate floors, tiling
and rugs. Its design services department
works from start to finish on
interior design projects, including
paint, wallpaper, lighting, flooring and
window treatments.
“Really what Florcraft sells is
service,” said Case. “Our staff is
knowledgeable and takes care of the
Florcraft’s Fairbanks store on Fox Avenue,
off Phillips Field Road, will celebrate its 50th
anniversary this year.
customer. The commodity is important,
but the service is really what the
customer wants.”
Denali State Bank President Jyotsna
“Jo” Heckman has an extensive history
with both Florcraft’s residential and
commercial divisions. She remembers
Hanson personally hauling oriental
rugs up three flights of stairs so she
could see them in the room firsthand.
“Bob used to tell me don’t choose a
carpet while it’s hanging in the store,”
said Heckman in a phone interview.
“He had a philosophy of personal
customer service and attention to
detail that are in-line with my values.
And I think Patrice and her husband
Jason are doing a fine job carrying on
with that philosophy.”
Recently Florcraft replaced carpet
and blinds in Denali State Bank’s
downtown branch. Last summer,
Heckman also had the flooring
replaced in every room of her new
home, and again Florcraft lived up to
her expectations. The crew began to
remodel her home in June 2010 and
asked when she would like the project
completed. In jest, Heckman told
them that her birthday is June 21. To
her surprise, they worked every night
on the installation so it would be done
before then.
“Who provides that kind of service
anymore?” Heckman asked.
Case attributes Florcraft’s success to
the dedication of its employees, but also
says that they wouldn’t be as effective
without organizations such as Associated
General Contractors of Alaska.
Florcraft joined AGC in September of
‘92. Case said Florcraft finds value in
its membership because AGC assists
small businesses with the bigger
picture, like lobbying and providing
18 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photo: Cour tesy of florCr aft Carpet one

up-to-date information about laws
and regulations that affect the industry,
as well as providing educational classes
and helps members to provide health
insurance for their employees.
“They have the best interest of
the contractors at heart. They provide
services small businesses might not
have the resources to do,” Case said.
Case also appreciates the opportunities
for community involvement
offered by AGC. Most recently Florcraft
participated in the first Operation
Opening Doors project in Fairbanks,
providing new carpet and flooring
in the home of Sergeant Anthony
Senecal. Community involvement is an
important focus for Florcraft and last
year the company won the Association
of Fundraising Professionals Award for
promoting philanthropy in the state.
“It was truly an honor for me to
nominate Florcraft for this award last
fall and to watch proudly as Patrice
accepted the award and dedicated it
to her father,” Gretchen C. Gordon,
CFRE, past president of AFP-Alaska
said in an e-mail.
While Case appreciates Florcraft’s
In addition to carpet, laminates, hardwood and
tile, Florcraft also offers a selection of rugs.
success, she has also set her sights
on the company’s long-term growth.
She hopes to expand market share in
Anchorage and the Mat-Su Valley. At
one time a Florcraft store existed in
Wasilla and she said it would be nice to
see one open there again. As a “forever
optimist” Case sees the options for
Florcraft recently carpeted the second floor of Denali
State Bank’s downtown branch. They are currently
installing carpet in their fourth floor offices.
growth as limitless and looks forward
to the challenges ahead.
Rachael Kvapil is a writer and
photographer who lives in Fairbanks,
Alaska.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 19
photos: raChael Kvapil

Project
Update
Port of Anchorage,
Seward Breakwater Extension,
Whittier Barge Ramp Upgrades
By JE s s i Ca Bo W M a n
PORT OF ANCHORAGE
The Port of Anchorage, dubbed one of 19 U.S. “strategic
ports” by the Department of Defense, underwent extensive
renovations in 2010. WCC contracted with ICRC on the
Port’s Intermodal Expansion Project. The $7 million effort
began in January 2010 and consisted of vibrocompaction
and soils densifi cation on-site.
The second phase began six months later and included
removal of sheet piling in areas that had seen more than
fi ve decades of cargo infl ux and outfl ux. The OPEN CELL
SHEET PILE® bulkhead design, developed by PND Engineers,
required tail walls, which extend into the fi ll, to anchor
the exposed sheet pile at the face of the dock. The composite
soil and sheet pile structure behind the dock bulkhead face
act as a high capacity structural unit.
Six cranes working to install the Northern
Extension of the Port of Anchorage.
photo: GeorGe tipner
With more than a decade of experience in Alaska, West Construction Company specializes in marine construction and
recently fi nished three signifi cant local projects.
“There have been signifi cant challenges [at the Port],”
said Brad West, owner of WCC. “The good news is that we
fi gured out the work could be installed as designed, and we
successfully installed half a dozen cells last year and demolished
a few that had past issues. Every sheet extracted was
measured, recorded, photographed, catalogued, marked,
stacked [and] cleaned.”
Another signifi cant challenge was an extensive Marine
Mammal Monitoring Program to protect beluga whales.
“We had a full-time plan,” said West. If the whales came too
near, WCC had to cease operations on any pile driving or
water work.
The construction budget for this phase of the project was
around $30 million and work was completed in December
2010.
20 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

SEWARD BREAKWATER EXTENSION
In March 2010, WCC also began a $4.8 million project to
shore up and extend the breakwater in Seward.
“We had to take the nose off the existing breakwater and
then tie into place the material. This was all constructed from
barges because you couldn’t get to the site,” said West.
photos: the al asKa sealife Center, universit y of al asKa anChor aGe and miCro speCialties inC.
• 09.22.10 - The breakwater extension “breaks” the water line.
• 10.28.10 - Excavator and barge placing rock on the breakwater extension.
• 10.30.10 - First connection of the new extension with the existing breakwater.
• 11.10.10 - Continued work with excavators and barge on the new breakwater extension.
• 12.02.10 - Completed seamless extension of the breakwater.
Marine construction in tough environments is what WCC
is known for, but properly placing fi ll with an excavator from
a fl oating barge is still no easy task.
“We have a GPS system on our excavator so we always
know exactly where the bucket is,” West said, but nonetheless
the job proved diffi cult because the tolerances were
extremely tight.
“We were setting four-foot stone and the tolerance on
the fi nished rock surface of the breakwater was minus zero
plus six inches, so trying to fi t irregularly shaped 4-foot
stones into that exact shape was a challenge,” West said.
The project was completed in November 2010, and WCC
worked with Brice Companies for the tug and barge, and
TerraSond Limited provided surveying services.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 21

Alaska Railroad wharf confi guration prior to
rehabilitation.
WHITTIER BARGE
RAMP UPGRADES
The Alaska Railroad Corporation’s
rail barge ramp allows loaded railcars
direct access to rail-equipped barges
for transit to Seattle and Canada.
The 120-foot ramp and lift structure
was built by the railroad about 40 years
ago. Its many cables, counterweights
and “two tall lattice towers restricted
the way they unloaded cargo,” said
George Tipner, WCC project manager.
Alaska Marine Lines desired to
retrofi t the structure to allow access
for its 53-foot containers. The project
required replacement of the ramp
counterweight system with a low-
Distant view of refurbished “Tower-less” Alaska Railroad wharf. West crews installing the
railroad rails on shore (inset photo).
profi le hydraulic system; replacement
of the deck with a higher capacity,
fl exible structure; and installation of
new lift beams, main girder reinforcement
and bracing.
The design details and construction
of the project were tailored around the
short work-windows dictated by the
barge traffi c schedule to avoid any
disruptions.
This required a “complicated and
clever plan,” said West. WCC placed
two 15-inch bore hydraulic cylinders
steel pile and caisson cradle foundation
connected to two new lift beams
threaded through reinforced openings
cut in the existing girders of the ramp
to actuate the required up-and-down
movement to set the ramp on the stern
of the barge.
“We’ve done several other barge
transfer ramp facilities, but this was
the fi rst hydraulically-operated one
I’ve done, and was very complicated
due to the logistics of keeping the
existing system operational throughout
construction” said Dempsey Thieman,
principal engineer at PND Engineers,
the project designers.
The $5 million project, led by
WCC Project Manager Bryce Erickson,
began in February 2010 and continued
through the summer. The new hydraulic
system is operated by a remote control,
allowing the operator to stand on the
ramp and have better visibility of the
critical ramp setting process.
With these projects WCC continues
to expand their portfolio of complicated,
unique and successful marine
construction in Alaska.
Jessica Bowman is a writer who lives
in Anchorage, Alaska.
22 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photos: riChard Kr antZ

Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 23

CONTRACTORS & THE LAW
Fairbanks wetlands victory
In a June 2010 decision, the Alaska Federal District Court
handed a victory to a Fairbanks gravel pit owner over
the Corps of Engineers in its effort to extract $55,000
in exchange for permission to fi ll in part of the gravel pit.
The dispute was over the extent of the Corps’ control over
“wetlands,” and turned on the issue of whether the gravel
pit was a wetland “adjacent” to a navigable river. The Alaska
District Court held that the Corps did not have jurisdiction
over the gravel pit that was separated from the Tanana River
by a third of a mile and (1) a berm supporting the Alaska
Railroad tracks; (2) a drainage channel; and (3) a man-made
levy along the banks of the Tanana.
Background
To fully understand the signifi cance of the push-back
against the Corps represented by this case, a little background
is appropriate. In 1972, Congress enacted the Clear
Water Act which prohibits the discharge of any dredged or
fi ll materials into “navigable waters,” which are defi ned as
“waters of the United States,” unless authorized by a permit
issued by the Corps of Engineers. Traditionally federal jurisdiction
existed over all rivers and streams upon which “a log”
could be fl oated. The idea was that if the water body could
support commerce, it was subject to federal jurisdiction.
Initially after the 1972 enactment, the Corps of Engineers
construed the Act to cover only waters that were
“navigable in fact.” Wetlands were not even an issue at that
point. Then, an environmental group sued, and a federal
court held that the regulations were too narrow. As a
result, the Corps issued fi nal regulations in 1975 redefi ning
“waters of the United States” to include not only actually
navigable waters, but also tributaries, interstate waters and
their tributaries, non-navigable intra-state waters whose
use or misuse could affect interstate commerce, and “all
freshwater wetlands” that were “adjacent” to other covered
waters. A “freshwater wetland” was defi ned as an area that
was “periodically inundated” [fl ooded] and was “normally
characterized by the prevalence of vegetation that requires
saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.” In
other words, if the soils were typically saturated either from
periodic fl ooding or otherwise, it was a wetland, no matter
where it was located nor who owned it. In 1977, the Corps
broadened the defi nition by eliminating the need for periodic
fl ooding.
Following a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that
validated the Corps’ regulation that included “adjacent
wetlands” within the coverage of the Act, the Corps again
By ROBERT J. DI C K S O N
expanded its regulations to create the so-called “Migratory
Bird Rule,” in which the Corps purported to extend its
jurisdiction over any marsh where migratory birds had been
seen, or that an endangered species “would” [not necessarily
did] use as a habitat.
By that time, the Corps defi ned wetlands subject to its
jurisdiction as “wetlands adjacent to [navigable waters]
and tributaries to such waters.” “Adjacent” was defi ned to
mean wetlands that were “bordering, contiguous [to], or
neighboring” navigable waters. Even if wetlands were separated
from navigable waters “by manmade dikes or barriers,
natural river berms, beach dunes and the like,” they were
still “adjacent wetlands.” The Corps interpreted its own
regulation to include “ephemeral streams” and “drainage
ditches,” “tributaries” as “waters of the United States” even
though they were dry most or part of the time. In other
words, even streams or drainage ditches that were dry most
of the time were still considered subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction,
and wetlands adjacent to them were also subject to
Corps’ control.
The lower federal courts enforced these positions by
holding that “storm sewers,” irrigation ditches and drains
were subject to Corps jurisdiction. Even “dry arroyos
connected to remote waters through the fl ow of ground
water,” and which were in the middle of the desert but
carried waters in a rain, were also considered “adjacent
wetlands.” A “roadside ditch” that took water over a winding
32-mile path to the Chesapeake Bay was considered subject
to Corps jurisdiction.
Between 1985 and 2006, three U.S. Supreme Court cases
interpreted the Corps’ power under the Clean Water Act. In
1985, the U.S. Supreme Court in Riverside Bayview Homes
approved the imposition of Corps control over a low-lying
marsh near the shores of Lake St. Clair in Michigan, a lake
through which the international boundary runs. A developer
was prevented from building homes on 80 acres because the
Corps denied a permit. The court held that the land was a
“wetland” because the land was saturated, no matter what
the source of water; and the land was an “adjacent wetland”
because the vegetation that existed on the developer’s land
extended beyond the boundary of the developer’s land all
the way to a creek that was a tributary to a “navigable water
way.” In other words, because the vegetation that defi ned
the “wetland” extended from a tributary of the lake all the
way onto the developer’s land, even though the land did not
abut the tributary creek, the Corps could validly treat the
developer’s land as an “adjacent wetland.”
24 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Sixteen years later, in 2001, the Court
held that the Corps’ effort to extend
its jurisdiction through its so-called
“Migratory Bird Rule” was invalid. In
that case, several suburban cities and
villages had purchased a 30-year old,
long abandoned gravel pit far removed
from any tributaries to any lake or rivers
to be developed into a non-hazardous
solid waste disposal site. The bottom of
the pit had developed seasonal ponds of
varying size which were going to have
to be filled in as part of the landfill site.
Because some migratory birds had been
seen on the site, the Corps denied the
permit. The U.S. Supreme Court case,
called SWANCC for Solid Waste Agency
of Northern Cook County, held that
the Clean Water Act did not cover nonnavigable,
isolated, intra-state waters;
and the presence of migratory birds did
not bestow jurisdiction.
Following SWANCC, which undercut
the Corps’ reach substantially, the Corps
remarkably continued on with its regulations
essentially in a “business as usual”
pattern. Then in 2006, the U.S. Supreme
Court decided the Rapanos case, in an
opinion by Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and
Alito. Justice Kennedy agreed with the
result in a separate opinion. Justices
Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer
dissented.
Four members of the court opined
that the term “navigable waters” under
the Clean Water Act, and thus the extent
of the Corps’ jurisdiction, included
“only relatively permanent, standing or
flowing bodies of water, not intermittent
or ephemeral flows of water;” and
that “adjacent wetlands” under the CWA
included “only those wetlands with a
continuous surface connection to bodies
that are waters of the United States
in their own right.” In other words,
there had to be permanent, continuous
standing or flowing water between the
so-called “adjacent” wetland and the
navigable water, meaning that there had
to be no clear demarcation between the
two to be considered adjacent. Justice
Kennedy adopted a different, looser rule
which he called “the significant nexus”
rule. Nevertheless, even applying his
much looser, “significant nexus” rule,
Kennedy concluded that in that case,
the Clean Water Act did not apply to the
developments in question.
The developments in question
involved a site that abutted a manmade
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 25

drain which drained into a creek which
flowed into a river that in turn emptied
into Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron.
The other site involved a parcel of land
one mile from Lake St. Claire, along
which a manmade drainage ditch ran,
though a four-foot wide man-made
berm ran between the parcel and the
drainage ditch. The berm was impermeable
to water, and therefore blocked
drainage from the parcel, though there
was occasional overflow into the ditch.
The ditch emptied into another ditch
that then connected to a creek, which
in turn emptied into Lake St. Claire.
The court held that the CWA, and thus
the Corps’ power, did not extend to
these sites.
The court expressly excluded sites
where there was only ephemeral or
intermittent flow between the site
and some navigable body of water.
Drainage ditches that were only
intermittently filled with water and
dry otherwise could not be considered
“tributaries” to “waters of the
United States.” The simple fact that
there was some “ecological connection”
between the site in question and
the navigable water was not an independent
basis for considering the site
to be “adjacent” to the navigable water.
The Corps’ regulations and its interpretations
of its regulations were thus
considered invalid.
Because only four members of the
court adopted the opinion, it is not
considered binding precedent. Because
Kennedy provided the fifth vote needed
to vacate the lower courts’ decisions
favoring the Corps, his “significant nexus”
rule became the “de facto” standard that
is now applied by the lower courts.
The Fairbanks Case
Great Northwest had operated
since 1993, an approximately 300 acre
gravel pit near the Fairbanks airport. Its
southern boundary bordered the Alaska
Railroad tracks which were situated
atop a large berm. On the other side of
the railroad berm was what was referred
to as “Channel A,” which was a drainage
ditch that did not flow regularly. When
it carried water, it flowed in a westerly
direction south of the railroad and on
the other side of the railroad from the
pit. South of the east-west Channel
A was a flood control levee that ran
along the banks of the Tanana. The
Tanana which ran in a westerly direction
parallel to the pit and was south of
the levee, was about one-third of a mile
from the southern border of the gravel
pit property. Thus between the gravel
pit and the Tanana were (1) the railroad
berm; (2) the sometimes dry Channel A;
and (3) the flood control levee. When
it carried water, Channel A emptied
into the Tanana, past and to the west of
the gravel pit property. Channel A also
caught the southeast corner of the gravel
pit property. Although the Corps took
the position that Channel A ran continuously,
it could never document that and
ultimately admitted that Channel A was
not “a relatively permanent waterway.”
In that sense Channel A was very much
like one of the drainage ditches in the
Rapanos case.
The Corps was willing to grant a
permit to Great Northwest to clear land
on 170 acres and to fill in 62 acres of
the pit. But the Corp also required as a
condition to the permit the payment of
$55,000 to be deposited in “the Conser-
26 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

vation Fund,” a fund apparently used by
the Corps for conservation purposes.
Great Northwest objected to the Corps’
exercise of jurisdiction over the pit.
The judge held that there was no
question that under the Rapanos opinion
of the plurality of four, the gravel pit
could not be regulated by the Corps. But
because the Rapanos case did not have a
single opinion shared by five justices, the
Alaska federal judge had to apply Justice
Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test. Even
applying Kennedy’s “significant nexus”
test, the court concluded that the gravel
pit was not subject to the Corps’ jurisdiction.
A critical fact was that Channel
A did not have year-round surface flow
throughout its length. Thus Channel A
could not be considered a “tributary” to
the Tanana River.
The court accepted that the gravel
pit, devoid of vegetation and migratory
birds, was still considered “a wetland”
because apparently it was saturated.
But the court ruled that the Corps had to
either (1) establish a “significant nexus”
between the gravel pit and the Tanana;
or (2) establish that the gravel pit was
“adjacent” to the Tanana River, using the
Corps’ definitions of “adjacent.” Because
the Corps had never conducted a “nexus
assessment” and ultimately admitted
that Channel A did not flow continuously,
there was no “significant nexus”
between the pit and the Tanana. That
left the Corps to argue that the pit was
simply “adjacent” to the Tanana using
the Corps’ own regulations.
Relying on the Corps’ regulations,
the judge concluded that where a
wetland covered by the CWA is separated
from another wetland by a manmade
barrier, the Corps will be able to
exercise jurisdiction over the far wetland
(i.e., making it adjacent) only if the
wetlands on both sides of the barrier are
in continuous contact with each other
such that they can be considered the
same wetland. That was not the case
with Great Northwest’s gravel pit and
the Tanana, and thus the gravel pit was
not adjacent. The judge held that the
Corps had no jurisdiction over the pit.
Although the Corps appealed the
District Court’s decision to the Ninth
Circuit in San Francisco, the Corps
dropped its appeal on Feb. 15, 2011. No
doubt the Supreme Court’s decision in
Rapanos heavily influenced the government
lawyers’ evaluation.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 27

The Significance of the Case
According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, 43.3 percent of Alaska’s
surface area (more than 403 million
acres including offshore areas studied)
is what it calls wetlands. The Alaska
wetlands account for 63 percent of
the total wetlands and acreage in the
entire United States excluding Hawaii.
Wetlands in the Lower 48 constitute
only 5.2 percent of its surface area.
The Fish & Wildlife Service consider
“wetlands” to include forest, bogs and
swamps which are forested with Black
Spruce, muskeg and other substantial
vegetation. More than three-quarters
of the total wetland acreage in Alaska
is found in the Arctic, Western and Interior
Alaska regions, i.e., in the rural and
Bush areas. Only 2.6 million of the total
403 million acres (about one-half of 1
percent), are found in the Cook Inlet,
Susitna lowland areas, i.e., in the southcentral
urban areas. Consequently the
designation of wetlands is far more
important to Alaska than it is generally
to the other Lower 48 states.
The Corps’ effort to control over
40 percent of the total land surface
of Alaska, particularly when an antidevelopment
administration is in office,
therefore carries a far greater adverse
impact on Alaska’s economy than similar
restrictions in the Lower 48. The local
district court’s decision in this case is a
major setback to the government’s ability
to obstruct responsible and common
sensical urban development. The fact
that the Corps dropped its appeal to
the Ninth Circuit leaves the Fairbanks
decision for all practical purposes as
the controlling precedent for all Alaska
“wetlands.”
This column provides information
about the law to help users competently
cope with their legal needs. But legal information
is not the same as legal advice—
the application of law to an individual’s
specific circumstances. Although we go to
great lengths to ensure accurate and useful
information, we recommend consulting a
lawyer for professional assurance and your
interpretation of a particular situation.
Robert J. Dickson is a partner of the
Anchorage law firm Atkinson, Conway
and Gagnon Inc.
28 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 29

MEMBER PROFILE
COWATER ALASKA INC. By BA M B I CH I L D S
Banishing the bucket
Need for sanitary services in rural Alaska
keeps contractor fl ush with jobs
For many outdoor enthusiasts in Alaska a
honey bucket is a mildly offensive and familiar
luxury one appreciates when spending
time in the state’s great outdoors. But for
other Alaskans it is a burdensome fact of life, and
an important necessity. In rural communities residents
operate daily without the benefi t of fl ushing
toilets, running tap water or private and sanitary
bathing areas. The permafrost-ridden terrain and
low temperatures in many of the state’s remote
locations simply will not allow for a traditional
sewage system, with its underground piping and
septic tanks.
After realizing the need for a system that could
withstand the challenging conditions of The Last
Frontier, Mark Baron, as president of Cowater
Alaska Inc., partnered with the Alaska Village Safe
Water Program, the Alaskan Native Tribal Health
Consortium, and the Department of Environmental
Conservation to create the Flush Tank and Haul
(FTH®) system.
Cowater Alaska, an offshoot
of Cowater International, developed
a system that embraces
the challenges of the Arctic and
introduced the Flush Tank and
Haul System® in 1989 on the
island of Mekoryuk, in southwest
Alaska.
“The community of Mekoryuk
was willing to try a prototype
in the city hall for one year
before moving onto residential,”
said James Patterson, a P.E.,
project administrator (retired) for
the Village Safe Water Program.
Residents welcomed
Cowater Alaska into their
community to test, install and
eventually develop the system
into what it is today. In doing
this, the company encountered
and defeated many obstacles
but it was the permafrost that
presented the biggest challenge.
“With the melting and freezing of the permafrost,
comes sinking and heaving of the ground. Sewage
systems are constantly submitted to relative movement
which destroys traditional piped systems,” said
Tim Allen, general manager of Cowater Alaska.
Sewage holding tank installation
30 The Alaska CONTRACTOR Spring 2011
PHOTOS: COURTESY OF CO W A T E R ALASKA
GRAPHIC: COURTESY OF CO W A T E R ALASKA

ANTHC workshop, in Kwigillingok, used for
storage and fabrication.
To address the issue of relative
movement, necessary connections on
the FTH® are above ground where a
sewage holding tank can hold approximately
120 gallons of waste. The tank
is heavily insulated to withstand
extreme temperatures and is mounted
off the ground to minimize thawing
and freezing of the permafrost. Once
the tank is full, resident haul operators
use a pump to transfer waste into
a tank, which is then hauled to a pump
station or sewage lagoon via fourwheeler
or snowmachine. The blower
pump, exclusive to Cowater Alaska, is a
vacuum apparatus rather than a liquid
pump and stays functional through
Alaska’s harsh winters. “These blower
pumps operate well in -40ºF temperatures
because they move air rather than
liquid. The colder and more dense the
air, the greater the vacuum and better
system performance,” Allen said.
Water conservation is also an important
feature of these systems. Since rural
Alaskans have to haul or catch their
potable water, using less is mandatory.
So Cowater Alaska and affiliates
conducted a survey to determine the
amount of water residents could use
each day. The results showed that three
gallons is all that can be afforded, so to
work with this extremely low amount,
the FTH® uses a “pint flush” toilet
which is designed to use a minimal
amount of water.
Cowater Alaska, a member of AGC
of Alaska since 2003, is proud of the
environmental rewards of the FTH®.
There is no digging with this completely
above ground design which helps keep
costs low. It also uses less water with
the “pint flush” toilet and less energy
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 31

photos: Cour tesy of Co w a t e r al asKa
Gravity system in Nunapitchuk.
due to the high level of insulation. And
since the FTH® is a completely closed
system there is no potential for pollution
or spillage. The FTH® is not only
functional where other systems fail;
it is also nearly maintenance free and
owner repairable.
The company has expanded its
services to northern communities such
as Nunapitchuk which boasts more
than 100 installments, and Venetie
with installments in the local health
clinic and many private homes. In all
Cowater Alaska has provided sanitary
water services to more than 800
homes and more than 15 communities
throughout Alaska.
Worker preparing foundation pad, Nunapitchuk.
“The mission of our company is to
provide sanitary services to rural Alaska
communities, to raise the quality of
water, to provide running water in
homes and to eventually eliminate the
honey bucket,” said Allen.
However Cowater Alaska is more
than a contractor specialized in
providing fresh water to rural areas,
it also focuses on other projects that
help support Alaska communities
such as managing the
building of sanitation
roads, overseeing the
construction of sewage
lagoons and pump
stations, and landfill
development.
The company also
strives to improve the
quality of life for people
throughout Alaska.
Villages that work with
Cowater Alaska not
only benefit by leaving
behind the days of
hauling heavy honey
buckets 200 to 300
yards away from their
homes in the bitter
cold of an Alaska winter but also stand
to gain jobs for the community. Residents
in the villages served by Cowater
Alaska are hired for the projects being
developed in their areas, and training
programs are provided to for installation
and repairs.
Dennis Anderson, project manager
for Cowater Alaska, has worked for
the company for three years and has
more than 30 years experience in the
construction industry. In 2008, he was
part of a $3 million project staged in the
rural community of Napakiak. Working
with the Departments of Transportation
and USDA’s Rural Development,
Cowater Alaska designed, in association
with MWH Inc., and oversaw
construction by Bering Pacific of a new
landfill for the community along with
a new road to access it.
“For me it’s about helping the
individual. I get to travel and its great
getting to know all of the really nice
people,” Anderson said. “The success
of Cowater Alaska has been the desire
of the people to improve their lifestyle
and give themselves a better standard
of living.”
The first FTH® were installed
more than 20 years ago and continue
to provide trouble-free, reliable sanitary
services in remote Alaska where
residents embraced new technology
to improve the quality of life in the
village and exile an old, unpleasant
task – emptying a honey bucket.
Bambi Childs is a writer who lives in
Anchorage, Alaska.
32 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

AVTEC’s new turbine
offers more than power
Alaskans begin training for
wind energy jobs
By na n C y ER i C K s o n
A
fi eld of wind farms has sprouted up across rural
Alaska to help off-set the high cost of dieselgenerated
utilities. But without in-state training
facilities focusing on wind turbines, small rural power
companies are faced with sending prospective operators
as far away as Vermont—until now.
Beginning this spring, AVTEC, Alaska’s Institute of
Technology, in Seward will offer wind energy and technician
training in conjunction with the existing power plant
operator and industrial electrical programs. A standalone
wind power technician program will teach safety and maintenance
of wind systems as well as integration of wind
power to existing diesel power plants. AVTEC is part of the
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
No virtual classroom for these students. Their main
training tool will be a new Northwind 100, a three-bladed,
100-kilowatt wind turbine, installed in December by STG
Incorporated adjacent to AVTEC’s diesel generator power
plant.
From the ground to the top of its prop, the 132-foot
turbine will begin generating power following integration
to state-of-the-art switchgear installed by
the Alaska Energy Authority. AVTEC Director Fred
Esposito expects the 35-foot blades will begin churning
by mid-March.
Seward is not rated as a great wind resource
according to AEA, but the turbine will generate enough
power to keep the lights on in AVTEC’s three Applied
Technologies buildings, said Esposito. AVTEC’s turbine
is not about generating power, but generating qualifi ed
operators in the fi eld.
Three years in the making, the program is the result
of efforts between AVTEC, the Denali Commission, the
Alaska Energy Authority and the Alaska Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, according to
Esposito.
“A lot of pieces came together, in large part due to
Labor Commissioner Click Bishop’s support of renewable
energy and renewable energy training at AVTEC,”
said Esposito.
Workers from STG Incorporated prepare the concrete slab and tower
base for AVTEC’s newest training tool: a Northwind 100 wind turbine.
AVTEC partnered with AEA and the Alaska Village Electrical
Cooperative (AVEC) to provide the core of trainees
for the new program. A retail cooperative, AVEC serves 53
villages stretching from Kivalina in the north to Old Harbor
on Kodiak Island in the south and from St. Lawrence Island
east to Minto. Wind turbines provide power to 12 of those
communities.
It’s all about the training
“The AEA has built 48 power plants in Bush Alaska,” said
AEA Program Manager Chris Mello. “But without qualifi ed
operators, it doesn’t do much good. AVTEC is the only place
for training.”
STG workers carefully hoist a three-pronged, 2,250-pound blade assembly to
the top of AVTEC’s wind tower. Each blade must be individually pitched and
is colored black to better shed snow and ice in Alaska’s cold climate.
34 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photos: Cour tesy of avteC-al asKa’s institute of teChnoloGy

Rural diesel system operators have been attending
training at AVTEC for 21 years, he added.
“Power plant operators keep the lights going. Whether
generated by small hydro plants, diesel fuel or wind turbines,
he’s integrating that power,” Mello said.
AVTEC has added another alternative energy component
to their power plant course with a two-week hydro
plant operator program.
The nine-week power plant/wind turbine operator
training began at the end of March. Students who have
previously taken AVTEC’s power plant course will be eligible
to take the standalone wind turbine operator class starting
May 31, according to AVTEC’s February e-Newsletter. More
advanced wind turbine classes will be offered in the fall.
STG knows wind towers
STG Incorporated has installed more than 85 percent
of the wind power projects in Alaska, and the company’s
Director of Business Development Clinton White said his
firm is excited to be involved in the AVTEC project.
“It’s a great step forward for the state to make this
resource available,” he said.
An Anchorage-based company and member of Associated
General Contractors of Alaska since 2008, STG began
erecting their first wind turbine in Selawik in 2002. Installation
locations of the remaining 70-plus turbines read like a
travelogue of Southwest Alaska.
White said AVTEC’s turbine project was straightforward
and described it as “a fun one for us,” a benefit to being on
the road system.
A resident of Tununak, Charles Green is a plant operator and certified
wind technician who overcame his fear of heights and thoroughly
enjoys his work.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 35
photo: Cour tesy of aveC

AVTEC’s Northwind 100 arrived in Seward
in four containers from Northern Power
Systems’ U.S. plant in Vermont.
The turbine was shipped in four
containers from Northern Power
Systems in Vermont, said White. The
hollow tower base is bolted to a fabricated
metal ring imbedded in concrete
and supports three 750-pound blades
black in color to better shed snow, ice
and general debris, he added.
The development director said the
Northwind 100 is the most employed
turbine within Alaska primarily due to
the generator size and incorporated
technology well-suited for the arctic
environment.
While keeping wind turbines
operating in Alaska’s frigid weather
is a challenge in itself, White said
their experience working with small
western Alaska communities revealed
The blades on AVTEC’s wind turbine will
begin producing electricity as soon as the
system is connected to AVTEC’s power supply
via state-of-the-art switchgear.
36 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photos: Cour tesy avteC-al asKa’s institute of teChnoloGy

STG employees assemble the three-bladed prop
on the ground before hoisting it to the top of the
100-foot tower.
another hurdle.
White said potential wind turbine
operators are enthusiastic to begin
training until they realize it includes
climbing inside a 120-foot tower.
“They don’t have any trees where
they come from,” he said. “We found
out many get intimidated by height.”
However, Tununak resident Charles
Green, a plant operator and certified
wind technician, loves working on
wind turbines and climbing towers,
according to AVEC’s Public Relations
Officer Amy Murphy.
“When he first received training,
he was afraid of heights because he
never climbed anything,” Murphy
said. “However, after the training he
lost his fear of climbing and enjoys
helping AVEC and his community by
being able to respond to operation and
maintenance issues that occur.”
Renewable energy is
a statewide goal
According to Labor Commissioner
Bishop, his department formed the
Alaska State Energy Sector Partnership
and was awarded a $3.6 million grant
from the U.S. Department of Labor to
train more than 700 Alaskans over the
next three years in support of energy
efficient fields such as hydroelectric,
wind turbine, geothermal and biomass
industries.
In the words of AVTEC Director
Esposito: “We’re training Alaskans in
Alaska for Alaska jobs. The expertise
begins to grow in Alaska and stays in
Alaska. We grow our own experts.”
Nancy Erickson is a writer who lives
in Seward, Alaska.
photo: Cour tesy of stG
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 37

AK Safety
PLUS SAFETY REPORT
Walking and
working surfaces
Construction sites can have many
hazards, ranging from debris,
tools and materials underfoot
to unguarded wall and fl oor openings,
stairs, ladders and uneven surfaces.
Falls are the single largest cause of
injuries in the construction trades, but
falls from height are only part of the
problem. Slips, trips and falls cause 15
to 20 percent of all accidental deaths.
There are more than 3,500 lost time
injuries as a result of slips and falls.
Even an ordinary act such walking can
be dangerous; more than 20 fatalities
per year are reported to OSHA.
OSHA is seeking to fi nalize the
Proposed Rule on Walking/Working
Surfaces and Personal Protective
Equipment (Fall Protection Systems).
The current regulations apply only
to construction and maritime industries;
new regulations would extend
these provisions to all general industry
workers. The proposed rules would
also allow OSHA to fi ne employers
“who jeopardize their workers’ safety
and lives by climbing ladders without
proper fall protection.” The proposed
regulations would also restrict
employers from providing outdated
and dangerous fall protection equipment
such as lanyards and body belts
that are currently allowed (but not
recommended).
The fi rst step in your hazard recognition
and injury prevention program
is to make sure that the behaviors
and actions of your workers are safe.
Because all construction sites are
dynamic—conditions are changing
daily, hourly and sometimes even
more often—it is critical to be sure
that workers are focused and taking
personal responsibility for safety.
Ensure that all workers wear work
boots with slip resistant soles.
Have everyone keep eyes and mind
on task, stay out of the line of fi re and
maintain balance, traction and grip.
These advanced safety skills can be
taught to workers. While they seem
like common sense, these four errors
lead to 95 percent of all injuries.
Ensure that workers are using safe
work practices—e.g. avoiding carrying
loads that prevent them from seeing
obstructions or spills.
Have everyone cover or guard fl oor
holes as soon as they are created.
Use a fall prevention (e.g. guard
rails) or protection (fall arrest device)
system if workers are exposed to a fall
of 6 feet or more.
Survey the work site prior to start
of work, and continually throughout
By Chris Ross, CSP, CPLP,
President, The Engagement Effect
the day to identify and guard any
openings or holes.
Housekeeping is another major
area to tackle in work-site injury
prevention. The condition and level of
housekeeping on a job site tells a lot
about the project. A neat, orderly and
well-maintained site is usually more
productive, organized and is certainly
much safer.
The following checklist should
be used on a regular basis to asses
and control construction work-site
hazards:
Housekeeping
• Is there a documented, functioning
housekeeping program in place?
• Is the work site clean, sanitary and
orderly?
• Are all work surfaces kept dry or
are appropriate means taken to
assure the surfaces are slip-resistant?
Are spills cleaned quickly?
• Is scrap, debris and waste stored
safely and removed from the work
site properly?
• Is every fl oor, working place and
passageway shall be kept free
from protruding nails, splinters,
holes or loose boards to the extent
possible?
Walkways and working surfaces
• Are changes of direction or elevation
readily identifi able?
• Are aisles or walkways that
pass near moving or operating
machinery, welding operations
or similar operations arranged so
employees will not be subjected to
potential hazards?
• Is adequate headroom provided
for the entire length of any aisle or
walkway?
38 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

• Are standard guardrails provided
wherever aisle or walkway surfaces
are elevated more than 30 inches
above any adjacent floor or the
ground?
Floor and Wall Openings
• Are floor openings guarded by a
cover, a guardrail or equivalent
on all sides (except at entrance to
stairways or ladders)?
• Are manhole covers, trench covers
and similar covers, plus their
supports designed to carry a truck
rear axle load of at least 20,000
pounds when located in roadways
and subject to vehicle traffic?
Stairs and Stairways
• Are standard stair rails or handrails
on all stairways having four or
more risers?
• Are all stairways at least 22 inches
wide?
• Are step risers on stairs uniform
from top to bottom?
• Are steps on stairs and stairways
designed or provided with a surface
that renders them slip resistant?
• Are stairway handrails located
between 30 and 34 inches above
the leading edge of stair treads?
• Do stairway handrails have at least
3 inches of clearance between the
handrails and the wall or surface
they are mounted on?
• Where stairs or stairways exit
directly into any area where vehicles
may be operated, are adequate
barriers and warnings provided to
prevent employees stepping into
the path of traffic?
Having a robust safety program pays
huge dividends for contractors. Taking
steps to ensure the safety of your workers
by addressing walking and working
surfaces is a great place to start, and
addresses one of the most hazardous
components of construction.
The Engagement Effect, a division
of Ross Performance Group LLC, offers
solutions in organizational results, safety
and health, leadership, talent management
and culture change. Learn more about us at
www.theengagementeffect.com or e-mail the
author at chris@theengagementeffect.com.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 39

MEMBER PROFILE
R&M CONSULTANTS INC. By sh a R o n st o C K a R d
Surveying the state to
improve infrastructure
Firm delivers engineering, construction services
expertise to contractors
R
&M Consultants has literally helped build
Alaska from the ground up.
Ralph Migliaccio started R&M as a
one-man company in 1969, to provide
geotechnical and engineering services in support
of the construction of the trans-Alaska oil
pipeline. Migliaccio, and others he brought
onboard, soon were performing engineering
and related functions for the original 56 miles
of the Alyeska Pipeline Haul Road, now known
as the Dalton Highway.
R&M next began diversifying to provide
infrastructure support vital to a young and
growing state. Continuing to provide that
support, R&M has grown into one of Alaska’s
most prominent engineering, surveying and
construction services fi rms. It is employeeowned
and based in Anchorage with about 100
employees, and a small offi ce in Fairbanks.
The company’s large footprint can be seen
in projects such as the Susitna Hydroelectric
Project; the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Project; the Seward Highway MP 54.8-59.3
Reconstruction, including the Canyon Creek
Bridge; Amchitka Island Over-the-Horizon
Radar; Fort Greely Missile Defense Project;
and the Alaskan Northwest Gas Transportation
Project.
“R&M prides ourselves on being focused
on improving the infrastructure that makes a
real difference in the day-to-day lives of Alaskans—roads,
water and wastewater systems,
airports, ports and harbors, and schools,” said
Andrea Story, R&M marketing director.
R&M is led by a management team that
includes Bret Coburn, president and chief
executive offi cer, responsible for managing
the fi rm’s fi nances; Len Story, PLS, chief operating
offi cer, oversees all operational aspects
of the fi rm; Charlie Riddle, CPG, senior vice
president, responsible for the Earth Sciences
Department; Frank Rast, PE, senior vice presi-
dent, manages an engineering staff that specializes
in utilities, structural projects, industrial projects,
surface transportation and airport engineering;
Bill Cohen, senior vice president, manages the
Surveying and Mapping Department; and Rich
R&M won a design award for Anchorage’s C Street Extension from
Dimond Boulevard to O’Malley Road. The project included the design
of 1.5 miles of new arterial roadway through an undeveloped area
of Anchorage, and a new modern roundabout freeway interchange.
The C Street Extension was the fi rst new roadway constructed in
Anchorage in 20 years, and was selected as the 2006 Highway Project
of the Year by the Alaska Public Works Association.
40 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photo: GreG martin photoGr aphy

R&M designed the Mears Middle School Site
Improvements project. R&M was recognized at
AGC’s annual banquet in the Under $3,000,000
Transportation, Marine, Heavy, Earthmoving
Category for this project.
Giessel, senior vice president, manages
the Construction Services Department.
Over the years, R&M has built
up its core businesses—engineering,
surveying, earth sciences and construction
services. This diversification enabled
the company to withstand the recent
recession. “With the recent economic
downturn, we definitely saw certain
disciplines become slower, but at the
same time, others picked up,” Story said.
For example, site design slowed, and
private development dropped off. Then
the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act passed, and R&M’s construction
administration team experienced
a boost in work, Story said. “Local
agencies were flooded with money to
construct projects, but couldn’t provide
adequate oversight with their in-house
staff, so they would call on R&M for
those services.”
R&M is committed to sustainable
design, said Len Story, hiring its first
LEED Accredited Professional in 2009.
Currently, the firm is responsible for
surveying, geotechnical, environmental
and civil design work, including major
site and roadway network improvements
to support year-round access to
the new 3,500-seat University of Alaska
Anchorage Sports Arena.
UAA plans to collaborate with
other institutions in the area to create
an environmentally sustainable district
known as the “U-Med Green District.”
As a civil designer, R&M contributes
to the sustainability of the facility
through site selection, parking capacity
including alternative transportation,
site development to protect or restore
habitat and maximize open space, and
stormwater design.
photo: © Ken Graham photoGr aphy.Com
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 41

photo: © Ken Graham photoGr aphy.Com
The Goldenview Water Reservoir, a project completed by R&M for the Anchorage Water &
Wastewater Utility.
“The University will be seeking
LEED certifi cation for this new facility,
and as such, R&M is using a number
of practical site design strategies to
help the facility achieve this goal,” Len
Story said.
R&M performs most of its professional
and technical services in rural
Alaska, and has gained an enormous
amount of reliable knowledge
and expertise there. “We are sensitive
to the unique design challenges
presented by work in rural Alaska,”
Andrea Story said.
Jim Amundsen with the Alaska
Department of Transportation and
R&M employees prepare to do their highway
cleanup of the Seward Highway between
O’Malley and Huffman roads. From left
to right: Nicole Knox, Kristen Keifer, Kristi
McLean, Bret Coburn, Jason Osburn, Ryan
Goentzel, Steve Cegelka, and Nick Straka.
Public Facilities agrees. He has worked
with R&M for many years on a number
of projects, including aviation design
work at Bethel and Tuluskak. “Their
customer service and response are topnotch,”
Amundsen said. “They deliver
what they say they will, when they say
they will. They’re as good as it gets.”
R&M has been an associate member
of Associated General Contractors of
Alaska since 1982 and values being
part of the AGC of Alaska network. “In
our business, we interact with contractors
on a daily basis, and having access
to contacts through AGC makes
developing these relationships easier,”
Andrea Story said. The fi rm also fi nds
great value in The Plans Room. “We
access this site frequently, and have
found it to be a valuable resource in
securing work.”
R&M has been recognized for its
work, including the design of the C
Street Extension from Dimond Boulevard
to O’Malley Road, which included
1.5 miles of new arterial roadway
through an undeveloped area of
Anchorage and a modern roundabout
freeway interchange. The project was
the fi rst new roadway in Anchorage
in 20 years, and was named the 2006
Highway Project of the Year by the
Alaska Public Works Association.
Recently, the Mears Middle School
Site Improvements project, designed
by R&M, was recognized at AGC’s
annual banquet in the Under $3
million Transportation, Marine, Heavy,
42 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photos: Cour tesy of r&m

Earthmoving category.
R&M is proud to be ranked No.
16 in CE News’ 2010 “Best Civil Engineering
Firms to Work For” list.
“The single most important and
distinguishing asset of our firm is our
people,” Len Story said. “Realizing this,
the management team is continually
seeking ways to show our commitment
to our employees. Our goal is
to create a work environment where
employees can grow personally and
professionally.”
R&M gives back to its communities
through service projects and a
commitment to local charities. For
example, it has adopted a stretch of
the Seward Highway for trash cleanup.
Recent charitable activities include
Canstruction to benefit Food Bank of
Alaska; an annual charity golf tournament
that has benefitted local charities
such as Bean’s Cafe and Big Brothers
Big Sisters of Alaska; Toys for Tots; the
United Way Day of Caring Food Drive;
a holiday drive for Covenant House
Alaska; and the assembly of “beanie
boxes” for Anchorage’s homeless
during the holiday season.
2010-11 Board of Directors - Seated (L to R): Charlie Riddle and Len Story. Standing (L to R):
Frank Rast, Paul Hetzel, Andrea Story, Bret Coburn.
“There is so much opportunity for
R&M in Alaska. We are a relatively
young state, and our infrastructure
is still very immature, with plenty of
development left to happen,” Andrea
Story said. “At R&M, we are excited
about all the great things left for the
firm to be involved in, from sustain-
able energy projects, to further development
of our highway system, to
improvement of infrastructure in our
rural communities.”
Sharon Stockard is a writer who lives
in Anchorage, Alaska.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 43

FINANCIAL SERVICES & CONTRACTORS
Contractor fi nancing from a
banker’s perspective
Obtaining optimal fi nancing during diffi cult or uncertain
times rests on the quality and accuracy of current
fi nancial statements.
Contractors, more than other industries in general, are
fi nding the going rough as a result of the great recession and
credit crunch of the past few years.
Contractors are sensitive to business cycles, experience
wider revenue swings and deal with high levels of competition.
These factors make contractor fi nancing more challenging for
banks and therefore it becomes imperative for contractors to
clearly demonstrate their creditworthiness.
How do banks determine your creditworthiness?
Bankers lend to contractors who clearly communicate and
demonstrate their ability to repay their loans.
The fi nancial statements most critical in the determination
of creditworthiness are: balance sheet, income statement,
accounts receivable and inventory aging, job status reports
and cash fl ow projections
Are the fi nancial statements prepared in-house or by a CPA?
Are the statements of compiled, reviewed or audited quality?
Third-party confi rmation provides more assurance to bankers.
Primarily a banker must determine if cash fl ow generated
from the operations of the business will be suffi cient to repay
the loan and still meet all other existing and proposed obligations
for that business.
Bankers need to see contracts and cash fl ow projections.
Much of the contractor’s working capital is tied up in construction-in-progress
inventory. Progress billings acceptable to the
project owners are the contractor’s source of cash for labor,
materials, taxes, debt service and other associated costs. A
banker will need monthly and quarterly cash fl ow projections
over the life of these contracts.
In addition to the cash fl ow banks review both collateral
and personal guarantees from the owners. Repossessing equipment
often puts a contractor out of business while collecting
on billings for work-in-progress is sometimes futile. The work
is usually not fi nished so it becomes diffi cult to collect.
If a contract is bonded and not completed by the contractor
the bonding company normally takes fi rst position over the
bank’s rights. Many contractor loans are viewed as unsecured
even with collateral. Personal guarantees and fi nancial capacity
are what banks look for.
Banks consider both fi nancial and non-fi nancial factors
but the following four fi nancial factors are: primary profi tability,
solvency, liquidity and fi nancial leverage.
Many jobs or contracts carry high costs up front and the
BI L L CESSNUN
Vice President,
Northrim Bank
profi ts are realized later on. A contractor must demonstrate the
ability to fi nish jobs profi tably.
Does the company have the cash and working capital on
hand to cover a few months of payroll and other payables?
Will the contractor be able to meet both short- and longterm
obligations to debt and equity holders? The more positive
tangible net worth there is, the better the solvency picture will be.
Is there enough cash fl ow to cover principal and interest, capital
expenditures, rent and lease payments, and other equity draws?
If contractors are highly leveraged with debt there can be a
problem. Debt to worth ratios paint a picture, however the terms
of debt are important. If debt to worth is 4:1 and the majority of
debt is longer term then banks are somewhat assured there is
not a large short-term debt due.
Additionally, banks will consider many non-fi nancial factors:
• Is the contractor a general or subcontractor? Generals
are one step closer to the contract owner, or the source of
payment.
• What is management’s experience? How capable
is management? Is there excessive turnover in
management?
• Is the owner involved? Close supervision by vested
owners positively impacts time and on-budget success.
• What are the billing practices? Bankers will be wary of
front end loaded billings.
• Who are the customers involved? Some public jobs have
lower margins but are larger contracts.
• How seasonal and cyclical is the contractor’s business?
• How capital intensive is the business?
• What is the condition of the equipment?
• What are the OSHA and workmen’s compensation records?
This impacts insurance premiums.
What is the competitive landscape?
In the end a banker will weigh the strengths and weaknesses
of both fi nancial and non-fi nancial factors. High-quality leadership
for the contractor’s business will be the most critical component,
yet the fi nancial picture must make sense and provide
cushion for the “unknown” or possible future negatives.
Expect banks to require loan covenants to include ongoing
fi nancial reporting, minimum fi nancial ratios like current ratio,
debt to worth ratio, and a minimum tangible net worth. Each
contractor is unique so these loan covenants will vary.
Building a strong relationship with your bank is an outcome
of clear communication and full exchange of information. The
better the information the better the decisions made.
44 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Hal Ingalls (Denali Drilling Inc.),
Richard Green (Spenard Builders),
Jim St. George (STG Inc.)
Legislative
Fly-In
The 2011 Legislative Fly-In
was held in Juneau on Feb.
8 and 9. AGC members in attendance
were doing their part to
affect positive changes for the
industry. The Legislative Fly-In
has become a tradition giving
AGC members the opportunity
to meet with legislators to
discuss issues of concern to
the construction industry.
Dave Cruz (Cruz Construction Inc.),
Rep. Mike Chenault (Speaker of the House of Representatives)
John MacKinnon (AGC Executive Director)
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 45

Energy effi ciency programs
keep contractors busy
Improvements deliver
cost savings to
Alaskans
46 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

By Jo d y El l i s-Kn a p p
Owning an energy efficient home
or commercial building is important
in a place where winter rules
much of the year and inclement weather
abounds. In 2010, the Alaska legislature
established a new goal of a 15 percent
improvement in energy efficiency in
buildings across the state by 2020. The
benefits of this goal go beyond the
savings in energy costs, however. Energy
efficiency programs and rebates also put
money in the pocket of Alaska contractors
and businesses.
AHFC (Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation) and AEA (Alaska Energy
Authority) both facilitate state and federally
funded programs that provide Alaskans
with the means to upgrade both
their homes and commercial buildings to
energy efficient, cost-effective structures.
AEA’s federally funded programs target
commercial buildings throughout the
state. Their Alternative Energy and Efficiency
program (AEEE) currently manages
and funds projects totaling $188 million in
state and federal monies. Promoting the
use of renewable resources as opposed to
fossil-based power, the program works to
develop ways to improve energy production
and efficiency.
The Alaska Commercial Energy Audit
program is the newest part of AEA’s
programs, and is funded by the American
AHFC promotes their energy rebate program.
photos: Cour tesy of ahfC
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 47

photo: Jo dy ellis-Knapp
Sean Skaling of AEA.
Recovery and Reinvestment Act to
provide reimbursement for the cost of
a quality energy audit for commercial
buildings. Building owners can apply
for the program and if selected, will
receive an energy audit and an overview
of improvements needed.
These programs differ from Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation’s
revolving loan fund, in that AHFC’s
fund is restricted to public facilities
owned by regional educational attendance
areas, the University of Alaska,
State of Alaska and municipal buildings.
Applicants to the program make
the improvements and repay the loan
via the guaranteed savings of the
energy improvements. AEA’s program
applies to the commercial divisions
not covered by AHFC, with the audit
fee reimbursement giving commercial
building owners a chance to see how
energy improvements can pay for
themselves in a relatively short period.
Sean Skaling, AEA’s program
manager for Energy Efficiency and
Conservation, says this program is going
to be of great benefit to commercial property
owners. “We are very excited to be
offering this program, and apparently so
is the commercial sector. We’ve received
over 130 applications from businesses
who want to participate in the audit.”
The program makes it easier for
commercial building owners to understand
the most cost-effective and beneficial
means of making their buildings
energy efficient. Owners apply for the
program (final application date for this
year was Feb. 15) and once approved,
hire a qualified audit firm to inspect
their building. The applicant will be
reimbursed for the audit, with the
amount based on what improvements
they intend to make, the building’s
square footage and the complexity of its
mechanical system. Applicants have one
year from the date of the audit report to
provide follow-up reports that identify
the measures they implemented.
“We tried to build a net to catch
everyone. AHFC has their residential
rebate programs and their revolving loan
fund for weatherization of schools and
government buildings, but this program
provides assistance to buildings not
covered by the AHFC programs,” said
Skaling.
AHFC also provides rebates and
support for private residences, offering a
weatherization program that is income
based, as well as a Home Energy Rebate
program. The weatherization program
provides free assistance to low-tomoderate
income homeowners who
want to make energy improvements.
The Home Energy Rebate program
is open to all homeowners and has
some similarities to AEA’s commercial
program. Homeowners apply for the
program, which currently has a waiting
list of more than 3,000 applicants, to
have an energy audit done on their
home. Based on a point system that
gives a certain amount of points for each
improvement, homeowners are reimbursed
as much as $10,000 for energy
improvements completed within the
timeframe set by the program.
According to Rosie Ricketts, Program
Manager of AHFC’s Rural Research
and Development Division, a reduction
of approximately 33 percent of energy
usage has been seen in relation to their
programs as of January 2011. “Anecdot-
48 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

ally, homeowners report a 30 percent
reduction in their monthly energy costs
as well,” Ricketts said.
These programs mean more jobs for
contractors across Alaska. James Ord,
Alaska Housing’s information manager
in the Rural Research and Development
Division, said that in early 2011 a
presentation was done for the legislature
to facilitate funding for the programs. It
is estimated 2,500 jobs will be created
between the two programs.
Eayrs Plumbing and Heating, a
Homer-area company that has been
doing business in Alaska for more than
25 years, has reaped some of the benefits
of the program. Owner/partner Steve
Eayrs estimates more than 80 percent
of the residential remodels or new
construction is involved with AHFC’s
energy program. “We get 30 to 40 jobs a
year for residential work that involve the
rebate programs. For commercial, maybe
10 a year with about 20 percent of those
involved in energy programs. Of course,
that number may be higher since I may
not always be involved in the financing
end of things for customers.”
Klebs Mechanical, a full-service
mechanical contracting company that
employs more than 80 technicians, has
also seen more work as a result of the
energy programs. Service and Installation
Division Manager Jeff Robinson
said, “I would say that about one-third of
our sales last year were to homeowners
participating in the AHFC Home Energy
Rebate Program. By compelling families
with older, inefficient equipment to act
and take advantage of the savings, these
programs have increased our business.”
As of 2008, the legislature awarded
state funds totaling $360 million for the
AHFC programs. AEA’s funding totals
$462,000 for audits through September
2012 and is expected to cover between
125 to150 energy audits.
According to AEA’s Sean Skaling,
“There is a lot of work out there for
contractors with all this funding. Knowledgeable
contractors who understand
proper cold-climate building techniques
and best practices in efficient building
energy systems are going to benefit from
the work generated by these improvement
programs.”
Jody Ellis-Knapp is a writer who lives
in Alaska.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 49

By Ri n d i Wh i t E
The Changing Face of
Energy Energy in in Alaska Alaska
Driven by high energy prices, declining natural gas production
in Cook Inlet and new technology, communities across the
state are changing the way Alaskans think about energy.
In Southcentral, Municipal Light & Power and Chugach Electric
are teaming up to bring a new, high-efficiency natural gas power
plant online in Anchorage while Cook Inlet Region Inc. is working
on two projects to use other natural resources – wind and deeply
buried coal – to provide new sources of energy.
50 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

photos: Jeff hermanns
Meanwhile in the Interior, Golden Valley Electric Association
is preparing to build the largest and first wind-powered
project on the Alaska Railbelt. And in Tok, a community
vulnerable to wildfire, a project to use wood chips to heat
its school offers a low-cost source of energy and a way to
reduce the local fire threat.
Fighting fire with heat
In late October, Tok school
district officials turned off the
school’s fuel tank and began
incinerating wood chips from
trees that, a few months before,
posed a threat to the school.
According to State Forester
Eagle Trail Fire
Jeff Hermanns, the Eagle Trail photo: peG Charlie, toK sChool prinCipal
Fire that burned near Tok last
May consumed about 18,000 acres of trees—enough to fuel
Tok School’s biomass burning system for 400 years.
“The driving force in the Interior is: Either we burn it
safely or it burns down our homes and our community,” said
Dave Stancliff who lives in Tok and works for the Alaska
Gateway School District in an effort to expand the biomass
project.
Management of wildfires in the Upper Tanana region
have cost the state and communities more than $100 million
in the past 25 years, according to Hermanns.
Stancliff said the state forestry division identified 30,000
acres of hazardous fuel in the area that is likely to start a
fire if lightning strikes and recommended an extensive treecutting
program.
The Tok Umbrella Corporation, a local nonprofit, successfully
petitioned the Legislature for a $500,000 wood chipper
which Stancliff said is key to making the project work.
“It can chip 50 tons of fuel per hour,” he said.
A ton of wood chips is roughly equal to 100 gallons of
heating fuel, so an hour of chipping can create a pile of chips
equivalent to 5,000 gallons of heating fuel.
Marv Brownell, owner of Yukon Construction Inc., said
constructing the 60 by 90-foot metal building that houses
the boiler and other components, and the 18-foot-deep
Workers set pieces into place in the building that houses the boiler,
wood chip pits and other components for the Tok school biomass project.
concrete chip pit was pretty straightforward. The pit is large
enough to hold 120 tons of chips.
“The neat thing was just working with the whole team to
build a pretty exciting and cutting-edge facility. We had fun
building this one,” Brownell said.
The school district hired an owner’s representative,
Rex Goolsby, to be on site during construction and the
Michigan-based boiler system manufacturer, Gailyn Messersmith,
traveled to Tok to install the system. Together, the
crew completed the project “on budget and on time,” Alaska
Gateway School District Superintendent Todd Poage said.
The project uses wood waste, like brush and limbs,
and chipped logs. The chips are augured from the pit onto
a conveyor belt and carried to the boiler where they are
burned at 2,000 degrees. That’s more than three times hotter
than the average wood stove, Stancliff said.
The high heat means fewer emissions and less ash. Poage
said the air coming out of the stack “is better than the air
quality in downtown Fairbanks on a cold winter day.”
The boiler-heated water circulates through the school
heating system and the floor of the boiler building, then
returns to be heated again.
Tok Umbrella Corporation’s wood-chipper makes quick work of logs, brush and tree limbs. The chipper is a critical component in the Tok School
biomass boiler system.
52 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photo: Karen su m m a r, yuKon Cons truCtion inC.

Poage and Stancliff said the boiler
is running at one-third its capacity. The
district hopes to expand the system
over the next few years, starting with an
expansion to run a heating loop to the
multi-purpose building, which houses
an ice rink, rifle range, zamboni garage
and van storage area.
Stancliff is assisting the district in
its efforts to extend the heating system,
which he said will save the district an
additional $40,000 in fuel costs each
year, and plans this spring to install a
steam turbine to generate electricity.
The district would like to generate up
to 170 kilowatts of electricity and sell it
back to Tok power supplier Alaska Power
and Telephone, according to Poage.
“We’re not trying to be a utility
company and make a profit; we’re just
trying to cover our costs and make
education less expensive,” Poage said.
“The average cost to educate a
student (in Alaska) is about $6,000. This
district is spending another $6,000 per
student just to heat the building and
turn the lights on,” Stancliff said. Poage
said costs are that high at two of the
district’s eight schools.
School officials expect to save at
least $150,000 a year by burning wood
chips instead of costly heating fuel, and
as much as $190,000 more each year
when the school incorporates a steam
turbine to generate its own electricity.
Efficiency means more
power, less fuel
In Anchorage, Chugach Electric Association
and Municipal Light & Power
have teamed up to build a 183-megawatt
power plant, with an estimated cost of
$369 million, next to Chugach’s headquarters
on Electron Drive.
Chugach is footing 70 percent of the
bill and ML&P will pay 30 percent, and
the utilities will split the produced power
based on the same ratio. Construction
is expected to start in 2011, with the
power plant online in early 2013.
Chugach spokesman Phil Steyer
said the project will still use natural
gas to generate electricity, but a steam
turbine will turn waste heat into extra
power without using more fuel.
The new turbines will use only 75
percent of the natural gas Chugach’s
older turbines need to generate a kilowatt
hour.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 53

One of five foundations CIRI installed on Fire
Island last year in preparation for wind turbines
on the island.
“Our customers will save millions
of dollars a year in avoided fuel costs,”
Steyer said.
Chugach officials see the project as a
bridge to future renewable power projects,
such as the Watana Dam project
on the Susitna River that the Alaska
Energy Authority recently endorsed.
“This generation will help us bridge
to a new hydro project on the Railbelt,”
said Steyer.
Wind to fulfill a
power pledge
In 2005, Golden Valley Electric Association
board members pledged to get
20 percent of the utility’s power from
renewable energy by 2014.
“But we weren’t going to do it at all
costs—one of the number one challenges
for us is to lower our cost of power,” said
Mike Wright, GVEA’s vice president of
transmission and distribution.
GVEA customers pay 18.3 cents per
kilowatt-hour for power, about 6.3 cents
more than Southcentral utility rates. The
board stipulated that the increased reliance
on renewable power sources must
not raise rates.
That’s an ambitious goal. But they are
already halfway there—GVEA gets 10
percent of its power from the state-owned
Bradley Lake hydroelectric project.
Solar, hydroelectric and biomass
burning projects are not cost effective
or right for the association’s service
area, which runs from Cantwell to Fairbanks
and east to Delta. But a modest
wind farm fit the bill. After analyzing
wind data, Eva Creek, a site on state
land near Healy, emerged as the best
choice. A road runs nearly to the site
and it’s close to the Intertie—the large
transmission line that connects GVEA
to Southcentral utilities.
Wright said the board voted unanimously
Feb. 28 to proceed with the $90
million Eva Creek project.
54 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photo: Cour tesy of Ciri

enderinG: Cour tesy of ChuGaCh eleCtriC assoCiation
A new combined-cycle power plant being built by Chugach Electric Association and Municipal
Light & Power would produce 183 megawatts of power from its site between Arctic Boulevard
and Minnesota Drive.
The utility is considering erecting 15
1.6-megawatt turbines or 12 2-megawatt
turbines. If the project proceeds
as planned the turbines will be in place
by Sept. 2012 or early 2013.
Tapping energy
resources naturally
Cook Inlet Region Inc. hopes to
begin construction this year on a $162
illustration: Cour tesy of Ciri
Impermeable Overburden
Rock & Soil
Ground Level
million project, including transmission
costs, to erect 33 wind turbines
expected to produce about 144,000
megawatt hours of power annually
on Fire Island near Anchorage, with
turbines spinning by 2012.
That’s about 3.5 percent of the
power consumed annually on the Railbelt,
CIRI spokesman Jim Jager said. The
Underlying Rock
Fresh Water Aquifer
Coal Seam
timeline depends on obtaining power
purchase agreements from Railbelt
utilities. In February the corporation
was still negotiating those agreements.
“Until we have power purchase
agreements, we’re not going to see any
construction,” said Jager.
Delays could not only put off the
project but also significantly affect the
project cost, which depends in part on
federal incentives for building renewable
energy.
The corporation is also working to
develop underground coal gasification,
or UCG.
UCG converts deeply buried coal
deposits into synthesis gas, or syngas,
within the coal seam without mining,
and then produces the gas to the
surface. Jager said CIRI is wrapping up
assessment drilling on land it owns on
the west side of Cook Inlet. Depending
on the results, CIRI hopes to move to
design and permitting the project this
year. If all goes as planned CIRI could
be producing syngas by 2015.
Syngas can be used directly to
generate power or upgraded into
synthetic natural gas or clean liquid
fuels. The first project will likely be to
build a 100-megawatt power plant in
the Beluga area.
“Beyond that could be additional
power generation, converting (syngas)
to natural gas, or it could be gas-toliquids
plants,” Jager said.
The goal, he said, is to develop a
new energy resource in an environmentally
friendly way while adding
value by converting it to marketable
fuels or other products.
Rindi White is a writer who lives in
Alaska.
Underground coal gasification invloves drilling into deep coal seams. Heat and pressure
convert the coal to gas. Learn more at www.cirienergy.com/About_UCG.html
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 55
map: Cour tesy of Ciri

Hydroelectric project on the Susitna River
gains momentum
State’s focus on renewable energy garners project support
By E. Co l l E E n KE l ly
It’s an ambitious policy with a simple
goal: generate more electricity from
renewable and alternative energy
sources. In 2010, the Alaska State Legislature
passed the Alaska State Energy
Policy, a bill with a goal to generate 50
percent of the state’s electricity using
renewable energy by 2025. And, to help
power its future, Alaska is dusting off a
decades-old proposal—a large hydroelectric
dam on the Susitna River.
Understanding Alaska’s
energy history
In 1977, not far out of the statehood
starting gate, Alaska would strike it
Map of the project’s proposed location.
Gr aphiC: Cour tesy of aidea/aea
rich extracting oil from the fi elds in the
North Slope. Within a decade, Alaska’s
North Slope would be pumping out
2.2 million barrels of oil per day, representing
25 percent of the entire oil
production in the United States.
However in 1986, right on the
heels of this economic boom, oil prices
56 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

egan to slump, substantially impacting
state revenue. While in no position to
fund a multibillion dollar alternative
energy project, a large-scale hydroelectric
dam which would power much of
Alaska’s Railbelt began to take shape.
So now, some 30-odd years later,
why the renewed interest in this renewable
energy resource?
Support for the Susitna Dam
In January 2011, Alaska Gov. Parnell
submitted an aggressive funding bill to
the Legislature which would give the
Alaska Energy Authority the green light
to proceed with a large-scale hydroelectric
dam on the Susitna River.
“Let’s work together this year to
invest at least $65 million to jump start
planning, design and permitting for the
Susitna Hydro Project; provide at least
$25 million for renewable energy grants;
$10 million for a Southeast Energy Grant
Fund; and $25 million for weatherization,”
said Gov. Parnell in his deliverance
of the State of the State address.
The Legislature provided millions of
dollars to the AEA the previous year for
preliminary planning, design, permitting
and fi eld work of the proposed
Susitna and Chakachamna dams and
other hydroelectric projects. However,
the primary focus of the funding was to
determine which project had a greater
likelihood of being built: a Susitna or
Chakachamna dam.
Consultants for AEA continue to
review past and ongoing studies in
order to identify data gaps and potential
environmental concerns. Alaska
Department of Fish & Game Statewide
Hydropower Coordinator Monte Miller
said his department will “let the science
speak for itself” and will make its recommendation
for the proposed Susitna dam
project after analysis of the studies’ fi ndings
later this year. Miller said he won’t
anticipate the results from any studies
and has no predisposition to accept or
reject any hydroelectric project.
What is the Alaska Railbelt?
Alaska’s Railbelt is the area spanning
the state’s Southcentral and Interior
regions connecting 70 percent of
Alaskans along the Alaska Railroad.
Currently, six electric utilities service
this population but only fi ve of which
comprise a new united utility formed
to better respond to Alaska’s growing
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 57

energy needs. The Alaska Railbelt
Cooperative Transmission and Energy
Company, established in January 2011,
includes: Chugach Electric Association,
Matanuska Electric Association,
Homer Electric Association, Seward
Electrical System and Golden Valley
Electric Association. Municipal Light
and Power which services the Municipality
of Anchorage, including Joint
Base Elmendorf-Richardson, declined
membership but has pledged to
provide necessary support to ARCTEC.
Two members from each utility board
comprise the ten-member ARCTEC
board; MEA General Manager
Joe Griffith serves as its president.
ARCTEC will streamline the management
of future power projects as well
as coordinate the receipt of funds for
infrastructure projects and programs
to best address the energy needs of
Alaska’s Railbelt populations.
Alaska Railbelt communities,
including Anchorage, Fairbanks,
Seward and the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley, currently use 5,300 to 5,400 gigawatt
hours every year; the proposed
Susitna project is expected to produce
2,600 gigawatts annually. Also, during
the summer months when electrical
consumption is lower, 600 megawatts
could power the entire Railbelt for short
durations, said AEA External Affairs/
Project Manager Karsten Rodvik.
Hydropower currently provides
nearly 24 percent of the electrical energy
used in Alaska and is one of the most
affordable means of renewable energy.
“ARCTEC is a win/win for the State
of Alaska and for every citizen who
lives along the Railbelt,” said Griffith.
Gov. Parnell’s proposed bill also
seeks to repeal the existing Railbelt
Energy Fund first created by the Legislature
in the 1980s. It also proposes the
creation of a new Railbelt Energy Fund
to be controlled by the AEA.
It’s about dam time
In November 2010, the AEA
recommended the Low Watana site
on the Susitna River to be the primary
hydroelectric project for Alaska’s
Railbelt; Lake Chakachamna on the
Kenai Peninsula was suggested as
an alternative site for a comparable
hydroelectric dam.
The proposed Susitna project
would likely be either an embankment
or roller-compacted concrete
dam standing approximately 700 feet
tall, running 2,700 feet along its crest
creating a 39-mile long reservoir,
which would be two miles at its widest
point.
Acquisition, construction, ownership
and operation of the proposed
Susitna hydroelectric dam project
would be the responsibility of the AEA
as outlined in the governor’s bill.
If approved, the AEA expects the
dam to take 11 years from start to
finish—6.5 years to get it licensed and
4.5 years to build. The dam is estimated
to cost $4.5 billion.
“The ideal large hydroelectric
project for the Railbelt should be
cost-effective, reliable, offer long-term
power, [and] help the state meet its
goal of producing 50 percent of our
power from renewable resources by
2025,” said former AEA Acting Director
Mike Harper. “We believe the Susitna
Project does all this.”
E. Colleen Kelly is a writer who lives
in Alaska.
58 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Fairbanks 14th Annual 2011
BoWL THon
CoNGRATuLATIoNs To ouR wINNeRs:
1st Place: First National Bank Alaska
2nd Place: Lynden Transport Gutterbusters
3rd Place: American Fast Freight
4th Place: Lynden Transport Alley Cats
Red Lantern: Interior Alaska Roofing Inc.
FIRST NATIONAL BANK ALASKA
Jenny & Charlie Mahlen, Michael Lee,
Pamela & John Wentz
UAF
AGC of Alaska’s 2010 “Associate of the Year”
Diane Shoemaker, Fountainhead Development
(Sophie’s Station and Wedgewood Resort in Fairbanks)
AGC of Alaska appreciates your
continued participation in and
support of this fun event!
All profits benefit the Fairbanks
AGC education Fund
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 59

Anchorage’s village corporation
focuses on growth, sustainability
By Ca R ly ho R t o n st U a R t
As Anchorage’s largest private landowner, Eklutna Inc.
stands poised to gain a signifi cant market share within
the Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna boroughs. “We
are truly Anchorage’s village corporation,” Eklutna CEO
Curtis McQueen said. “There’s not a major road, utility or
artillery that doesn’t cross over our lands.”
Eklutna already owns 90,000 acres within the Municipality
of Anchorage, and 20,000 acres in the Mat-Su borough, with
an additional 67,000 acres in Mat-Su due to be conveyed
from the Bureau of Land Management. Incorporated in 1972
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA),
the village corporation serves the Dena’ina people of the Knik
Arm area. Within the Municipality of Anchorage Eklutna’s
lands encompass Eagle River, Birchwood, Chugiak, Peters
Creek and the Native village of Eklutna. When it receives
its 67,000 acres from the BLM, Eklutna will also become the
largest private landowner in Mat-Su.
Eklutna functions as a leading real estate fi rm and design/
build management fi rm specializing in land development,
commercial and industrial facilities construction, project
management, site acquisition and government contracting.
“When it comes to construction, from dirt to roof, we
have skin in the game—we do civil all the way to vertical,”
McQueen said.
One such project is the Powder Reserve subdivision
in north Eagle River. The proposed 404-acre master plan
community will consist of 1,600 homes of various densities—
million-dollar homes, moderate $400,000 homes, high-end
condos and more affordable housing phases. The subdivision
will be marketed to the public, though McQueen said
he expects it to appeal strongly to military families due to its
proximity to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. The development
also includes plans for a town center with commercial,
retail and community support facilities,
and a school site.
Eklutna hired DOWL HKM
for the engineering portion
Eklutna’s sand and gravel operations supply gravel to the Anchorage and Mat-Su markets. Located along the Glenn Highway, the mine lies adjacent
to a high-growth area in Anchorage. photos: Cour tesy of eKlutna inC.
60 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Curtis McQueen, CEO of Eklutna Inc.
of the master plan. Like Eklutna, DOWL
HKM is a member of AGC of Alaska.
McQueen said AGC membership
has helped the corporation “affi liate
ourselves with only the serious players.
AGC is a great qualifi er of the best of
the best.”
Because Eklutna owns most of the
remaining developable commercial
and industrial land in the municipality
of Anchorage, the corporation has the
option of leasing the land, designing/
building a facility and/or selling the
property. McQueen said the corporation
prefers to lease its land, though in certain
advantageous situations, commercial
land held by the corporation may be sold.
The Fred Meyer site in Eagle River is one
such example —the Portland, Ore.-based
hypermarket brings an anchor franchise
to enhance and promote the development
of adjacent corporate lands.
“When we started, our biggest
struggle—as indigenous people who
adore land—was making land available,”
McQueen said. “But like every Native
corporation, we’ve evolved. Now our
focus is on a proactive land-management
approach.”
Existing leased properties include
an Offi ce Depot, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation headquarters, two Spenard
Builders Supply stores and four major
schools. Eklutna only charges $10 per
year to the Municipality of Anchorage
for the schools. “That’s part of our civic
side, our commitment to giving back,”
McQueen said. It also made 72 acres of
land available two years ago to Matanuska
Electric Association for a multimillion
power plant.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 61

An aerial view of the Birchwood Industrial Park gravel extraction
operation. Once the gravel is removed, this location will become the
premier industrial park for the Municipality of Anchorage.
Fred Meyer and Spenard Builders Supply in Eagle River occupy Eklutnaowned
lands. The corporation owns most of the remaining or developable
commercial and industrial land in the Municipality of Anchorage.
Eklutna’s 155-acre Birchwood Industrial Park development
has been the focus of many industry leaders since it
would open much-needed industrial lands near downtown
Anchorage. In May 2009, Eklutna signed an agreement with
Cook Inlet Regional Inc., the Alaska Railroad Corp. and
Granite Construction to allow for site preparation. The site
will be mined for its gravel as it’s prepared for future use as an
industrial park. The gravel will be shipped by train to a South
Anchorage operation run by Central Paving Products.
Established in 2006 as the development and management
arm of the corporation, Eklutna Services LLC (ES) is a subsid-
62 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photos: Cour tesy of eKlutna inC.

Eklutna recently completed the fi nal development
of 97 lots in the 404-acre Powder Ridge subdivision
in Eagle River.
iary focused on construction, development,
facility design/build, leasing and
government contracting. A certifi ed 8(a)
company, ES is eligible to receive federal
contracts on a sole-source or limited
competition basis, though McQueen
said 8(a) contracting constitutes only
about 15 percent of Eklutna’s book
of business. In 2008, ES completed a
federal contract awarded through the
Bureau of Land Management. Later that
same year, it was awarded a task order
on Elmendorf Air Force Base through
Weldin Construction Inc.
“Over the next decade Eklutna will
grow, whether we want to or not, because
more people will move to Alaska and most
of those folks will settle in Anchorage and
Mat-Su,” McQueen said. “We’re taking a
balanced approach to growing our business.
These days we sell less and lease
more, which means we retain ownership
yet industry can build on it. That keeps
Eklutna land for future generations, but
supports the market today.”
In 2006, Eklutna entered into a joint
venture with Cook Inlet Region Inc. and
Alaska Interstate Construction, a CIRI
subsidiary, to supply sand and gravel to
Anchorage and Mat-Su markets. The
sand the gravel operation is the only
mine accessible within the Municipality
of Anchorage. The estimated 20 million
to 50 million tons of gravel reserves
provide materials for building pads,
housing developments and capital projects
like roads.
With opportunity comes responsibility,
and Eklutna is dedicated to
inspiring community pride, unity and
self-respect among its 178 shareholders.
McQueen admits developing or selling
a piece of land “goes counter to cultural
preservation, but if we take that revenue
and reinvest it in ourselves, in some ways
it’s just reconverting an asset.”
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 63

And sometimes business and conservation
do mix. Case in point: The 22-mile
Eklutna River was once an abundant
salmon fi shery. Due to construction of
the Glenn Highway and other developments
along the river’s route, the salmon
have long since disappeared. Eklutna’s
sand and gravel mining operations
along the river will increase the level of
water in the watershed, thereby reestablishing
the salmon habitat. Restoring the
salmon fi shery was identifi ed as a top
priority by Eklutna’s elders. Jim Jager,
director of corporate communications
for CIRI, said rehabilitating the Eklutna
River and restoring the salmon fi shery
“is benefi cial to everyone – shareholders
and everyone in upper Cook Inlet.”
In 2010, Weldin Construction Inc.
and Eklutna collaborated on three projects
with a combined total budget of
$4 million on Joint Base Elmendorf-
Richardson. The projects were successfully
completed ahead of schedule
without claims, disputes or safety incidents.
“Eklutna’s goal of building a
company with a respected reputation
within the Alaska business community is
commendable and speaks to the leadership
and stability within the corporation,”
President Richard Weldin said. “Our experience
working with Eklutna was positive
and we look forward to partnering with
Eklutna on future projects.”
McQueen said evaluating the competition,
examining successful and failed
projects, and gaining insight into the
politics of the industry helps the corporation
fulfi ll its mission of expanding its
assets and business ventures through
orderly, diversifi ed growth.
“We think the Pacifi c Rim and China
have opportunities for Anchorage, so
Eklutna could have a role in international
business. Our lands are logistically
situated if gas pipeline comes to
fruition. We’re big fans of the military
base, so we’ll continue to grow there.
The Alaska Railroad Corp. has talked
about doing high-speed trains—those
depots would likely be on our lands. The
Dena’ina are a nomadic people who
learned how to interact with different
people and adapt to different environments.
Those instincts still work very
well in today’s business world.”
Carly Horton Stuart is a writer who
lives in Anchorage, Alaska.
64 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

HUMAN RESOURCES UPDATE
Employees don’t quit the company,
they quit the manager
What do you mean they don’t quit the company?
Well, they may have been hired by the company
but the impression of the company is formed
by how their manager treats them. In fact, impressions are
formed when the applicant applies for a job. How they are
treated through that process may ultimately decide if the
person accepts the job your company offers.
As the business owner, you have a multitude of responsibilities
but probably none are as important as treating the
employees with dignity and respect, and putting the right
person in the right job. Gee, and you thought your job was
to make money to stay in business and produce a profi t.
Well, that is part of running a business but unless you are a
sole proprietor, you depend on an employee to do their job
to take care of your customer.
OK, I’m starting to understand where you are going with
this. Understanding the difference between a manager and
leader is of paramount importance, if you want your business
to be successful. Remember, leadership is a behavior, you
lead people and manage assets, and the job of a manager
is to lead.
Five practices common to successful leaders are a
demonstration of challenging the process, they inspire by a
shared vision, they enable others to act, they model the way
and they encourage the heart.
You are probably thinking that sounds great but how
do I really fi gure out who in my organization has those
qualities? First and foremost, you need to think about
your behaviors and decide if you exhibit those qualities.
Are you a micromanager who doesn’t know how to
delegate responsibility? Do you berate an employee who
challenges why something is done a certain way or do you
appreciate the employee who thinks differently than you?
Do you communicate your vision for the company or do
the employees operate in a vacuum? Do you enable the
employees to provide outstanding customer service each
and every day? Are you a role model for the employees?
What is this encourage the heart? You hire human beings
and each and every person should be valued for what they
bring to the organization. After all, you made the decision
to hire that individual.
All right, I don’t think I am a “perfect” manager all the
time but I try to do most of the things you have listed. If I
want to hang onto my best employees, what else should I be
doing? One thing is certain—the companies that effectively
By Ba R B a R a sta l l o n E, sphR
identify and pay their best performers, listen with open ears
and consistently act will keep their best employees with
them, through good times and bad.
Leadership does not stop on the day you hire or promote
someone into a position of authority. In reality it is just
beginning. Employees are looking for their next job on the
second day they begin work for your company. How could
that be? I haven’t even really had a chance to teach them the
job I hired them to do?
It goes back to the manager or supervisor being “the
company.” After all, you are only one person and can only
be in so many spots in one day. The individual you put in
the manager or supervisor’s job must display the leadership
qualities we have described. It is your job as the owner to
communicate, communicate and communicate more. You
must continually assess how your manager or supervisor
is performing their job. Are they leading employees or just
managing the asset?
Do you or your manager say, “I just need a warm body?”
Human beings are not warm bodies. They are individuals
and you have put your company’s assets at risk when you
hire an employee. Ensure your manager understands the
culture of your company, and can share that effectively with
the employees.
Be a role model for your manager or management team.
Complement them when they do something exceedingly
well, and discipline in private when needed. This behavior
should carry over in how they address their subordinates.
The old holiday party or holiday bonus that you thought
kept employees with your company, no longer is the motivator
it once was. Employees want immediate gratifi cation
when they do something exceedingly well. The least expensive
reward any manager can give is just a “thank you.”It
goes back to that dignity and respect thing.
Now that you’ve had a refresher course in leadership, jot
down a list of items you think you need to share with your
managers, so the next employee that leaves the company
doesn’t leave because of a bad manager.
Barbara Stallone, SPHR is a partner in The Human Resource
Umbrella LLC, an Anchorage-based human resource consulting
company and AGC member. Send questions about this column
or suggestions for future columns to Barbara@HRUmbrella.com,
or call (907) 727-2111 or (888) 470-0903 Visit the website at
www.hrumbrella.com.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 65

MEMBER PROFILE
CROWLEY PETROLEUM
DISTRIBUTION INC. Compiled by tR a C y Ka ly t i a K
Fueling Alaska’s development
Black Navigation began transporting fuel and
freight into coastal and Arctic Alaska in 1896,
and 20 years later sailed in Prince William
Sound and the Yukon and Tanana rivers.
That company was absorbed into Crowley, a
corporation that now operates 14 Alaska marine
and aviation petroleum terminals with a combined
fuel capacity of 39 million gallons; employs 650
people in Alaska; provides transportation, distribution
and sales of petroleum products to more than
280 Alaska communities; serves dealers at 17 Shell
service stations and operates a fl eet that includes
double-hulled barges and Z-drive tugs.
Crowley pioneered the use of barges to transport
railcars between Ketchikan and Prince Rupert,
British Columbia, and has since provided marine,
petroleum distribution and energy support services
from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska, for
both coastal and inland communities.
Crowley’s history in Alaska
Mid 1950s u Crowley supplies Distant Early
Warning Line radar installations for the U.S. Air
Force, including sites on the Aleutian Chain and
the northern coast into Canada—the fi rst penetration
of the Arctic by commercial tug and barge
service. The accomplishment was a harbinger of
development of the North Slope.
1957 u Oil is discovered in Cook Inlet, and oil industry
offi cials call on Crowley. Huge tidal variations and
12-knot currents made setting platforms without a
marine support structure or the high-horsepower
tugs of today diffi cult. Crowley pioneers a technique
of rafting tugs together to achieve necessary
horsepower; establishes Rig Tenders Dock near
Kenai to furnish supply and crew boat services;
and builds six ice-strengthened tug supply boats.
1958 u Crowley is the fi rst to offer common carrier
transportation of cargo in containers from the
Lower 48 to Alaska.
1963 u Crowley began the Alaska Hydro-Train;
this involved transporting rail cars by barge from
Kotzebue Aviation
66 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photos: Cour tesy of Cr o w l e y maritime Corp.

Seattle to the Alaska Railroad terminal
in Whittier.
1969 to 1985 u Crowley moves cases of
salmon from canneries in Bristol Bay to
Seattle-bound anchored ships. In 1971,
Crowley put two 400-by-76-foot house
barges into service. In the early 1970s,
using smaller barges with cranes and
forklifts aboard Crowley called on 20
canneries—hauling supplies north
between April and June and salmon
south to Kodiak for shipment to Seattle
between July and October.
1968 u Oil is discovered at Prudhoe
Bay and the oil industry turned to
Crowley. Using its experience in the
Arctic, Crowley began summer sealifts
to Prudhoe Bay.
1973 u Passage of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline Authorization Act touched
off the largest commercial construction
project ever undertaken in the
world to that point. Crowley acquires
Mukluk Freight Lines, and hauls more
of the 48-inch pipe required for the
pipeline than any other carrier.
1974 u Crowley acquires Anchoragebased
Northwestern Construction
Company and is involved in such
notable civil construction projects
as the north-south runway at Ted
Stevens International Airport, and
Duck Island, the first gravel drilling
island in the Beaufort Sea.
1975 u With pipeline construction
underway, the Crowley summer sealift
flotilla to the North Slope faced the
worst Arctic ice conditions of the
century. The large sealift fleet—with 47
vessels carrying 154,420 tons of cargo,
including 179 modules reaching as tall
as nine stories and weighing as much
as 1,300 tons each—stood by for
nearly two months waiting for the ice
to retreat. In late September the ice
floe moved back and Crowley’s tugs
and barges lined up for the arduous
haul to Prudhoe Bay. When the ice
closed, it took as many as four tugs to
push the barges back through it.
Jan. 1, 1983 u Crowley joins AGC of
Alaska.
Mid 1980s u Crowley transports,
stores and sells petroleum products
throughout Alaska’s coastline and
major Western Alaska river systems
to more than 100 villages operating
from tank farms in Nome and
Kotzebue. During warmer months,
line-haul barges replenish tank
farms and smaller lighterage barges
carry fuel to remote villages with no
docks. Crowley positions “floater”
barges in Bristol Bay to supply to
the commercial herring and salmon
fishing and processing industry.
1989 u Crowley provides tanker
escort and docking services in Valdez
harbor for the Alyeska Pipeline
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 67

Arctic Hawk
Service Company, using some of
the most technologically advanced
and powerful tugboats in the world.
During tanker escorts, Crowley tugs
are tethered to, or shadow, tankers in
the event braking or steering assistance
is needed. This operation was
put in place following the Exxon
Valdez grounding on March 24, 1989.
In 1989 and 1990, Crowley was the
principal contractor of equipment and
personnel to provide marine support
for the massive spill cleanup effort.
At the peak of operations, 66 vessels
were deployed, mobilized from operations
as far away as Los Angeles. In
2001, Crowley tugs in Valdez stopped
a tanker from colliding with a fi shing
boat. In 2002, Crowley tugs secured
a tanker experiencing mechanical
problems. Crowley has positioned
vessels to provide the world’s largest
comprehensive spill prevention and
response capability to Alyeska and
its member companies.
2001 u Crowley transports the largest
modules made in Alaska from
Anchorage to BP Explorations Inc.’s
Northstar Island and oil fi eld on the
North Slope.
September 2005 u Crowley acquired
the Alaska-based fuel distribution
business of Northland Fuel LLC.
The purchase consisted of the assets
of Yukon Fuel Company, Northland
Vessel Leasing and the stock of Service
Oil and Gas Inc. Crowley also acquired
the assets of Yutana Barge Lines LLC
from an affi liated company.
Crowley in Alaska today
The recent recession has slammed
businesses and driven fuel prices
on a wild, usually upward, trajectory.
Offi cials at Crowley are keenly
aware of how higher fuel prices affect
customers, said Bob Cox, Crowley’s
vice president of business develop-
Fairbanks propane
ment in Anchorage.
“People need fuel to heat their
homes, operate their vehicles and
run the airplanes that serve Western
Alaska, and when prices go up, it puts
their budgets under a lot of pressure,”
Cox said.
About two-thirds of the cost of a
gallon of fuel, on average, is Crowley’s
cost to purchase the fuel from its
supplier.
“We are always working to reduce
the cost of the other one-third of the
cost of that gallon of fuel, by operating
more effi ciently and more safely—
as demonstrated by the company’s
investment in the new double-hulled
165-series barges and the shallowdraft
tugs, Sesok and Nachik, which
were designed for Alaska’s waters,”
Cox said.
Looking forward
“As a state, we need the good jobs
that resource development provides
either directly or through the suppliers,
vendors and contractors that support
that development,” Cox said. “These
are the infrastructure projects that
AGC member companies design,
manage and build. Crowley is proud to
participate in this vital work. A signifi -
cant portion of Crowley’s business
throughout Alaska is fuel and freight
for construction projects that AGC
members are undertaking.”
All information in this article provided
courtesy of Crowley Maritime Corp.
68 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photos: Cour tesy of Cr o w l e y maritime Corp.

BEACON/WORKSAFE
The role of Designated
Employer Representative
Many industry professionals
know the role of designated
employer representative is
a person working within a company
managing the drug and alcohol testing
program on behalf of their employer.
This person is tabbed with being “in the
know” on matters related to the company’s
testing programs. Their responsibilities
are vast, variant and essential
to the overall success of any company
drug and alcohol testing program.
Knowing all companies do not deal
with Department of Transportation
compliance matters, but asserting that
most companies deal with compliance at
some level (international law, state laws
and statutes, union agreements, contract
requirements, etc.) there is great value
in identifying ways the role of the DER
can be supported by their employers
and third-party service providers (i.e.
Beacon). Some helpful tips include:
Encourage Proper Selection of
the DER Role
There is no perfect model to fi t
the role of DER, but a company’s best
chance at success in managing a drug
and alcohol testing program is to select
the right fi t and invest in that person.
The learning curve is substantial, highly
variable information exists which they
are responsible for understanding and
they must have the ability to communicate
information throughout the
organization. Therefore, the DER role
needs stability coupled with longevity.
Keep that in mind when deciding the
best fi t to serve as the DER.
Know What Applies
Each company/DER must identify
which rules apply to them. This can be
a very simple identifi cation process for
some, but very complicated for others.
Some companies have multiple DOT
modes to comply with, work in different
states with variable state laws and have
several different contract requirements
to manage. Comprehensive understanding
of your needs and objectives
is critical to program success. Within
industry it is often discovered that
companies have specifi c obligations for
compliance purposes but are unaware
of the requirements either partially or in
entirety. It is important to encourage the
employer/DER to know what resources
are available to assist in this arduous
process, as the result of non-compliance
can sometimes mean fi nes, loss of
contracts and loss of company revenue.
Understand the Company Policies
Many third-party providers give
template plans to clients for their own
private use. The intent is to assist the
employer with policy development and
to ensure the policies contain all necessary
information. However, simply
obtaining a template plan is not enough.
Service providers and employers/DERs
should discuss pertinent components
of the plan to ensure understanding.
This open style dialogue will increase
the likelihood the program policies will
refl ect current needs, ensure comprehension
and the overall program will
be managed effectively. As the DER,
you must have a strong grasp of the
company policies to appropriately
manage the program. Remember, policies
are living documents that must
change regularly to refl ect the current
needs of the company.
Self Audit
Periodically (I suggest annually)
an employer/DER needs to review the
policy and records of the company.
This process is to ensure the objectives
of the program are being met.
Many organizations which utilize
BY CH R I S WI L L I A M S
self-auditing as a regular practice fi nd
there are fewer surprises when primary
focus is placed upon their program. A
brief but focused audit can really alleviate
future issues and is an invaluable
experience for the DER participating.
Third-party services to audit employer
programs are available upon request.
Back to School
Industry associations provide
several education opportunities a DER
can participate in. A new trend in recent
years has been the creation of specifi c
DER education curriculums geared
at tooling DERs for success within
their position. Promoting continuing
education opportunities to DERs and
gaining participation furthers the
needed education effort. Industry as
a whole greatly benefi ts from DER
involvement and the company will
enjoy further programmatic success by
having an educated DER at the helm
of their respective program.
The current societal landscape in
regards to drug and alcohol use and
misuse is ever changing and very
complex. A workplace reality is that these
problems manifest in our dynamics
every day. A drug and alcohol testing
program is a tool utilized by employers
to combat drug and alcohol abuse/
misuse in the workplace. Correlation
exists between an effective program
and a well managed one. It is encouraged
to have the right person in the
role of the DER; overall programmatic
effectiveness is at stake.
Chris Williams is director of drug
and alcohol testing services for Beacon/
WorkSafe, a full third-party administrator
of drug and alcohol testing services
offering comprehensive program support
to employers nationwide.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 69

Department of Transportation
partners with AGC
Joint support for statewide issues
By Co M M i s s i o n E R Ma R C lU i K E n
I
am enthused and humbled to be selected
as commissioner of the Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) of this great state. DOT&PF
plans, designs and delivers transportation
projects that are the backbone of Alaska’s
economy. We could not have done this
without the help of citizen support, the
Associated General Contractors of Alaska
(AGC) members and our consulting
community. DOT&PF’s task is always an
uphill climb and we must continue to work
together to provide the transportation
infrastructure that will increase opportunities
for future generations.
It is my duty to keep our mission,
vision and values forefront in DOT&PF’s
daily activities. Our priorities need to be
integrated with our vision to provide safe
and effi cient transportation that enhances
our quality of life, provide new access to
resource development, and to support and
provide for the creation of Alaskan jobs
in the process. To implement these priorities
effi ciently we must maintain a trusted
and transparent relationship with our
partners and our citizens. The AGC/
DOT&PF partnership agreement is the
model for cooperative leadership and is
also the foundation for promoting effi -
ciencies in project delivery. A successful
practice for maintaining trust is the
industry/DOT&PF meetings we have
had over the last several months on
concrete specifi cations, asphalt specifi -
cations, erosion and sediment control
specifi cations, and traffi c control pay
items. In collaboration with AGC,
DOT&PF will continue these industry/
owner dialogues and expand them
into other construction areas that need
quality improvement or better communication
on mutual goals and standards.
I encourage your participation and your
ideas.
With limited fi nancial resources we
continuously walk a tight wire in providing
deferred maintenance to keep existing
infrastructure safe and operational, and
to plan, design and construct new or
improved infrastructure to increase safety
or to provide access to new resources.
While DOT&PF awarded nearly a half
Co M M i s s i o n E R Ma R C lU i K E n
70 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

illion dollars of construction projects
last year and the governor’s proposed
capital budget this year exceeds $870
million, developments in Congress may
reduce our federal-aid funding by as
much as 20 percent for the remainder of
the year. We hope this reduction will not
curtail the department’s efforts to bid
another half billion dollars of projects by
October 2011, but uncertainties remain.
The new federal highway and aviation
bills are in Congressional committees,
and substantive changes are anticipated
with the change in House leadership.
We are certainly very interested in how
these new bills will affect Alaska’s future
funding. We must find efficiencies to
stretch our dollars further. Efficiencies in
project delivery can only be completely
realized if we work with trusted partners.
Risks are reduced and innovation
can be realized.
Our deferred maintenance needs are
large. Our limited road network serves
the majority of Alaskans in their day-today
activities and maintains the access
to goods and services necessary for
our economy. Supplementing our road
network is the department’s 255 airports,
of which 169 of these are the only means
of access for those communities. The aviation
industry is the fifth largest supplier
of Alaska’s gross state product. The ferry
system is the only surface mode to some
coastal communities. The Department
has a multi-modal challenge unique in
the country and the world, and we must
maintain these assets to meet the basic
needs of our citizens.
Our state’s future is in the development
of our resources and a transportation
infrastructure necessary to deliver those
resources to state and global markets.
One of DOT&PF’s priorities will be to
build “Roads to Resources,” whether it be
to provide basic road access to Gubik gas
deposits, the Ambler mining district or
western access to the Seward Peninsula.
There is much to do, and DOT&PF and
AGC need to strengthen the partnership
we have developed in order to make this
happen.
The department, and Alaska’s citizens,
demand outstanding performance from
its contractors who build our transportation
infrastructure. Lives depend on it. In
turn, AGC members and the public must
be assured of an equal level of trust and
performance from the department. I have
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 71

quickly learned that we have a department
of outstanding talent, knowledge
and commitment. However, to
ensure our continued performance,
we are implementing a performancebased
system to continually evaluate
DOT&PF’s overall performance. Similar
to other state DOTs, we will soon have
a web-based “dashboard”that measures
and reports our performance.
Discussed at previous AGC meetings,
we have a renewed focus on storm water
compliance. While none of us enjoy a
new and stricter imposition of federal
control over our state transportation
project delivery program, it is imperative
that we work together to create
and support a culture of compliance
with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) Consent Decree and the
Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (APDES) permit conditions. The
Consent Decree’s term is for three years
on construction storm water compliance.
The costs for our extra efforts are
large, and it is in the best interests of
all citizens that federal regulators have
no reason to extend the term of this
Consent Decree. Together we will build
our projects better and will continue
to do so long after the oversight of a
federal agency is past.
In closing, DOT&PF has many
challenges and many successes. Our
challenges mirror many other state
DOTs: maintaining a qualified and
knowledgeable workforce in face of
baby boomer retirements; expediting
project delivery in an increasingly regulatory
environment; and meeting the
public’s needs for a safe transportation
system. Our successes build upon our
challenges including: developing and
mentoring new productive employees;
continually meeting our increasing
federal funding goals year after year
in spite of new regulation; and finally,
delivering and constructing those projects
necessary for the public’s safety
represented in a decrease of more than
20 percent in Alaska highway fatalities
over the last five years and a 48
percent reduction in aviation accidents
over the last decade. I look forward to
building upon the strong relationship
AGC and the department already has
and will entertain any new concepts to
make our transportation system safer,
stronger and more efficient.
72 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Back to the future
Oil and Alaska: a proven, powerful partnership
BY RA C H A E L FI S H E R
One year ago, AGC of Alaska Executive
Director John MacKinnon wrote
a column, “It’s taxes stupid,” to bring
attention to legislation that would
attempt to undo some of the negative
impact of Alaska’s Clear and Equitable
Share.
Another year with ACES has passed
and the construction industry, particularly
those who work on the North
Slope, continues to suffer the unintended
consequences of the tax’s stifl ing
effect on oil exploration.
ACES gave the state’s economy a
boost and allowed Alaskans to enjoy a
healthy capital budget while much of the
country felt the full effect of the national
recession. But the industry that helped
build Alaska seems to be growing weary
of the progressive tax’s take—ACES taxes
oil twice as much as any other market with
the state taking more than 80 percent of
current oil revenue.
“Although high oil taxes help the
state’s treasury, oil must be produced
in order for it to be taxed,” MacKinnon
wrote.
In addition to implementing progressively
higher taxes, ACES also took
away incentive for new development
by curtailing deductions and credits.
The lack of incentive for investment in
oil exploration in Alaska coupled with
capping the profi ts to be had here at far
less than other markets is threatening the
livelihood of Alaska’s biggest industry.
You’d be hard pressed to fi nd a
contractor who doesn’t agree that
working in Alaska is logistically challenging
with limited infrastructure, and
some of the most remote locations and
extreme climate conditions in the world.
Add a hefty dose of environmental regulation
to that. Then add an excessive tax
structure to the mix and it isn’t diffi cult
to see how The Last Frontier is quickly
becoming an unattractive place for oil
companies to do business.
“I think not only is ACES not
conducive to business, I don’t think that
it is fair to expect that they are going
to come up here and invest hundreds
of millions of dollars in new projects
when their best case scenario is a 15
percent take,” said Carlile Transportation
Systems CEO Harry McDonald. “I
don’t think we should give it away but I
think it has to be fair.”
It is costly to do business here with
many of the expenses being beyond
control but oil taxes can be controlled
by the state. Oil companies, like any
other business, will seek the most profitable
opportunities. And in the face of
anticipated declines in federal spending
as the country wrestles with a huge
national debt, private industry growth
is more important than ever to Alaska’s
construction economy.
In Alaska, private industry growth is
dominated by oil. Now Alaska is facing
both declining production and a sudden,
steep decline in exploration. This year—
for the second consecutive year—
ConocoPhillips, a long-time investor in
AIC’S 2010
EQUIPMENT
the state’s oil industry, will not drill any
exploration wells. The oil giant is one of
Alaska’s most active explorers and 2010
was the fi rst time in more than 40 years
that the company did not drill a single
exploration well. And it’s not alone—
only one exploration well will be drilled
in Alaska this year. Meanwhile the
trans-Alaska pipeline is only operating
at one-third capacity and production is
expected to decline further.
“I think that the state needs to make
itself competitive for the oil companies
otherwise they are going to take the
profi ts they make from the state and go
spend them somewhere else just like
any other business would,” Steve Percy,
president of Alaska Interstate Construction,
said.
Percy would like to see a combination
of adjustment to the progressivity
of ACES and a method to reward oil
companies who engage in additional
development and get more oil into the
pipeline.
Without exploration activity the
Alaska companies that specialize in
oil fi eld services are among the fi rst
UTILIZATION AV E RAG E
EQ U I P M E N T TY P E
SERV I C E TR U C K S
SNO W B I R D S
SNO W B L O W E R S
16G MO T O R GR A D E R
TRI M M E R S/DI T C H W I T C H
B-70 HE AV Y HA U L UN I T S
KEN W O R T H TR A C T O R T-500
KEN W O R T H TR A C T O R T-800
966 FR O N T EN D LOA D E R
988 FR O N T EN D LOA D E R
D-9 DO Z E R
HITAC H I 450 EX C AVAT O R
TOTAL
NU M B E R
O N SL O P E
74 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
9
14
4
3
5
6
15
13
8
2
3
4
86
EQ U I P M E N T
VA L U E
$914,745.00
$1,598,723.32
$411,249.00
$569,839.47
$640,351.75
$1,125,332.53
$1,957,144.44
$1,333,548.57
$2,728,944.24
$910,882.89
$1,026,409.47
$1,467,921.79
$14,685,092.47
HO U R S
P E R UN I T
1373.67
300.86
327.50
535.67
121.20
51.67
753.20
481.08
748.13
324.50
121.00
90.75
526.98
• A typical work week for in service equipment is 70 hours/week or 3,640 hours/year
• Decent utilization is 1,000 hours/year minimum
TO TA L
IN T E R N A L
RE N T
$210,171.00
$219,024.00
$65,500.00
$110,883.00
$33,330.00
$18,910.00
$282,450.00
$118,826.00
$329,17 5.00
$71,390.00
$35,937.00
$29,040.00
$1,524,636.00
GRAPHIC: COURTESY OF AIC

to feel the trickle-down effect of ACES.
Companies are faced with such undesirable
options as losing revenue, laying off
employees or relocating operations to
active oil exploration sites.
Alaska businesses such as AIC, Carlile,
Cruz Construction and Little Red Services
have experienced signifi cant drops in
the volume of business related to oil
exploration.
This year AIC will have an equipment
fl eet valued at $20 million on the North
Slope, specialized for Arctic work, sitting
underutilized and depreciating without
exploration activity.
“If we can’t put that depreciation cost
against a project then it comes out of our
margins. We have to keep the equipment
ready for when and if it’s needed, and if
we can’t make money on that equipment
then it is just a huge cost center,” Percy
said.
Carlile is trying not to buy new tractors
this year (in a normal year it would
purchase 20 to 30). The company experienced
a 30 percent drop in volume in ’09.
Typically at this time of year there
would be as many as 70 Carlile trucks
running north but only half are working
now. And usually the company would
have added 15 employees on at this time
of the year but added none in 2011.
“Quite honestly I was adding this
piece of equipment under the assumption
that we would revise our tax and get
back into the market,” LRS President and
CEO Doug Smith said. “A key element is
the exodus of equipment to the Lower 48.
It is diffi cult and timely to get equipment
back should we start a more active drilling
program.”
The near halt of oil and gas development
in the state is also forcing skilled
Alaskan workers to look Outside for
employment that offers a future with
long-term, good-paying jobs.
The number of AIC employees working
in the oil and gas division is projected to
plummet more than 68 percent in 2011,
leaving the company with only 125 of the
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 75

nearly 400 employees who were employed
by AIC in 2010. The division’s man-hours
worked is projected to fall more than 60
percent this year. And for the first time in
five years, the company’s upward trend in
the number of employees working in the
North Slope shop will reverse and result
in 13 Alaskans being laid off.
Since 2008 Little Red Services has
weathered a reduction of more than 6,000
hours of hot-oil truck utilization, a 20
percent drop in demand, which resulted
in substantial revenue loss and triggered
the layoff of 11 Alaskan employees.
The remaining LRS employees now
face a decline in the level of health care
benefits and are paying more due to the
change in benefit structure. LRS also had
to abolish its modest profit sharing at year
end—2008 was the first time in 10 years
the company was unable to offer it to
employees.
“A key point for all businesses here is
that employees are aware of the decrease
in production on the North Slope and are
starting to look to new development in
North Dakota and East Texas. My concern
is that we will lose unique skill sets to
more robust activity and longevity,” Smith
said.
LRS’ high-pressure pump operators
need about three years of experience
with the complicated units before the
employee will be fully trained—replacing
those specialized skills is time-consuming
and expensive.
Cruz Construction had 200 Alaskans
working through the exploration
season in 2008. This year only a dozen
of the company’s employees are working
on the Slope. Cruz looked Outside for
sustenance and last year began working
in North Dakota, where the demand
for rigs exceeds the current supply of
160 active drilling rigs, with 40 full-time
employees there and plenty of work to
keep them busy. Alaska’s North Slope
has only 12 active rigs, with the majority
of the Slope’s rigs now sitting idle.
Cruz attributes the booming oil
industry in North Dakota to the state’s
understanding that lower taxes and a
business-friendly environment means
more jobs, more business, more prosperity
and a brighter future.
“If nothing happens we are going to be
forced to look other places, like Canada,
for somewhere to work AIC equipment
and essentially it’s going to push us out of
the state,” Percy said.
AIC expects to spend 66 percent less,
a decline of $1.4 million, this year with
76 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

vendors who support the oil and gas
division stretching the trickle-down
effect of ACES further across the state.
“Every Alaskan is impacted by oil
production; our economy is based on
oil. No one will be able to hide from a
decline throughput,” said Smith.
Gov. Parnell has proposed reform
for Alaska’s oil tax law. AGC of Alaska
supports this reform. So do many of its
members.
“I think if the Governor’s bill is
passed it will send a good sign to the
oil companies that we realize it was a
BY CO L L E E N MA D O N N A FL O O D
mistake as a state and we are trying to
get it back to what’s reasonable and
fair,” McDonald said.
Legislators are considering capping
ACES’ progressivity to try to spur North
Slope investment.
“Based on my recent meetings in
Juneau, the feedback from the legislators
I spoke with was they haven’t heard
from the oil companies any willingness
to step up and offer up something from
their side that would encourage this
discussion,” Percy said. “The Legislature
hasn’t heard the producers identify any
Neeser Construction and The First Tee of Alaska
Jerry Neeser, CEO of Neeser
Construction, hit a hole in one for a
great cause with ongoing sponsorship
of The First Tee’s Alaska Chapter.
The First Tee is a 501(c)3 not-forprofi
t organization, established by the
World Golf Foundation in November
of 1997. Nine years later The Russian
Jack Springs Junior Golf Association
became The First Tee of Alaska.
The program’s mission is to teach life
skills through the game of golf and nine
core values, according to The First Tee of
Alaska Executive Director Billy Bomar.
The program’s core values include
sportsmanship, honesty, integrity,
respect, courtesy, perseverance, confi -
dence, judgment and responsibility.
“I love seeing our youth doing
something that allows them to have fun
while at the same time stresses upon
them important life skills that they can
carry off to school and into their futures
with them. Our golf program provides
the youth of Alaska with the opportunity
to do just that,” Bomar said.
More than 300 youth in Anchorage
are served by the program. Aspiring
golfers, age 6 to 18, play at Russian
Jack Springs Park and Anchorage Golf
Course with clubs provided by The
First Tee of Alaska at a cost of $120 per
session.
A perfect par
Neeser Construction has been
instrumental in helping The First Tee
of Alaska expand its impact on the
state’s youth. “Jerry Neeser is an avid
golfer. He also truly enjoys the idea
of being able to help the community.
Combining his natural generosity with
his love of golf in his support of The
First Tee of Alaska just seems to come
effortlessly to Jerry,” said Bomar.
Paula Field, president of The First Tee
of Alaska, was quick to compliment Jerry
Neeser for his overall commitment to
the youth development program, “Jerry’s
sponsorship of our 2009 kickoff party
at the Petroleum Club of Anchorage
allowed us to raise over $20,000 in just
two hours.” Neeser paid for the party,
established a purse of $5,000 for teams
that played with the celebrity players
being auctioned—which encouraged
bidding—and put in the highest bid for
a celebrity, said Field.
Neeser’s commitment to Alaska’s
youth also shines behind the scenes,
not just at public events. He allows
Bomar and Field to use his company’s
conference rooms, equipment and
other resources so valuable non-profi t
dollars go directly to the youth they are
intended to serve.
When asked how important Neeser’s
sponsorship is to her organization, Field
specifi c projects or anything that would
encourage them to want to rule in their
favor. That’s frustrating for them and
hampering any decision on ACES.”
Even if the ACES reform passes this
year it will take at least a couple years to
see results.
“The longer we wait the rougher it is
going to get and the harder it will be to
come back,” McDonald said. “As Alaskans
we need to convince our legislators
we need the change. Oil companies will
respond. There is lots of opportunity in
Alaska if we fi x the taxes.”
Neeser Construction and The First Tee of Alaska have
joined forces to create a winning team dedicated to
providing Alaskan youth with opportunities to learn
life and golf skills.
responded, “When I ask for something
for our charity from Jerry and Neeser
Construction Inc., Jerry is more likely
to ask me if that is really all I need.
How often does someone respond to a
charity request with the phrase, ‘What
do you need?’ ”
Colleen Madonna Flood is a writer
who lives in Alaska.
Want to get involved?
The First Tee of
Alaska’s upcoming events
April 8: Wine tasting and silent
auction, Tanglewood Lakes Dome
July 13: Annual fundraiser,
Petroleum Club of Anchorage
July 23: Humpy’s/Great Northern
Homebrew’s Club Golf Tournament
For more information:
Visit www.thefi rstteealaska.org
or contact Billy Bomar
at (907) 727-6197 or
billybomar@pga.com.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 77

Oil money has driven most of the growth and paid for state
government operations in Alaska for 40 years. We’ve all
gotten used to that money, so it’s easy to underestimate
how much of the state’s prosperity is built on oil. Think
about this: without oil, the economy today would be
only half the size.
But now times are changing. The North Slope
is producing just a third the oil it once did—and
there’s a danger Alaskans will assume the state can
keep going the way it is, without future oil development.
Not true.
The economy is larger and more mature than it was
before oil, but it hasn’t moved beyond oil. Other industries
will help drive future growth—and if North Slope natural
gas goes into production, it will expand the economic base
and create jobs. But gas won’t replace oil: gas is not nearly as
valuable as oil (see page 77).
Oil will still be the state’s biggest economic engine in
the years ahead. This paper describes the overall economic
contributions of oil, and then discusses possible steps for
Alaskans to take toward a strategy for the future—a strategy
that protects Alaska but also takes advantage of oil development
opportunities.
What are spinoffs of oil wealth?
In an earlier publication, we estimated that a third of
Alaska jobs—about 127,000 jobs in 2007—are oil-related: they
depend in some way on oil production or state oil revenues. 1
But close to 20% more jobs—60,000 in 2007—can be
traced to the “spinoff” benefits of oil wealth. These are broad
economic benefits created both by oil industry activities and
by state spending of its huge oil revenues—which so far
total $157 billion (adjusted for inflation). Specifically what
are these oil-wealth spinoffs?
• An economy that’s twice as big, as well as richer and
more stable.
• A population that’s twice the size, which creates economies
of scale.
• State taxes that are the lowest in the country on households
and many types of non-oil businesses. 2
• State spending per person that is the highest in the
nation.
These spinoffs have helped other parts of the economy
prosper and add more jobs than they otherwise could have.
Altogether, counting oil-related and spinoff jobs, half of
Alaska’s jobs can be traced in some way to oil development. 3
That’s 187,000 jobs in 2007 (Figure 1).
But the spinoff benefits go far beyond jobs: they extend
to virtually all Alaska households, communities, and busi-
nesses. For example, a family of four enjoyed on average
an estimated value of about $22,000 in 2010—in tax relief,
Permanent Fund dividends, and enhanced public services.
Communities, industries, and local businesses enjoy tax
relief, lower costs, economies of scale, better infrastructure,
enhanced opportunities, and improved quality of life.
What’s ahead?
We’re doing well now: the big question is how to keep
Alaska prosperous in the decades ahead.
There are known and estimated oil reserves that could
benefit Alaska for generations to come. But the huge Prudhoe
Bay field was a once-in-a-lifetime discovery. Future production
will be much more technologically challenging and
expensive—and less profitable for the state government. But
new oil production is critical for the health of the economy.
Alaskans need to understand that.
78 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Background
When Alaska became a state, in
1959, the cash economy was very small
and depended mostly on federal activities
and seasonal salmon fisheries. Oil
from Cook Inlet provided a boost in
the 1960s. Then, in 1968, oil companies
discovered the largest field ever found
in North America—the Prudhoe Bay
field on Alaska’s North Slope.
North Slope production started in
1977, when the trans-Alaska oil pipeline
was completed. Prudhoe Bay was
initially estimated to hold 9 billion
barrels of recoverable oil, but by 1997
it had produced more than that. At the
peak of North Slope production in 1988,
Prudhoe Bay and smaller fields, mostly
Kuparuk, produced 2 million barrels a
day—which at the time was 16% of U.S.
and 2% of world production.
Prudhoe Bay was a once-in-a-lifetime
discovery. It and other North Slope
fields have been an enormous boon to
Alaska because (1) the oil was so plentiful;
(2) it was cheap to produce; and
(3) it was on land the state government
owns—meaning the state has collected
much larger revenues than it otherwise
would have.
So far Alaska has produced 17 billion
barrels of oil—which make up 80% of
the value of all Alaska resource production
since 1959 but 98% of the $161
billion in resource revenues the state
government has collected (Figure 2).
Prudhoe Bay has been the big source,
but smaller fields on the North Slope
and in Cook Inlet also contributed.
Then and now
Figure 3 shows the difference oil has
made. It compares Alaska’s economy,
population, and resource production
value now and in 1961.
• Size of economy. Alaska had 92,000
jobs in 1961. By 2007 it had four
times as many—about 374,000.
That includes military jobs, wage
and salary jobs, and an estimate of
self-employed Alaskans.
• Stability of economy. In 1961,
summer jobs in fishing and
construction made up a big share
of Alaska’s private jobs, and
private employment was 66%
higher in the summer. But many
jobs created since then are yearround,
making Alaska’s economy
much more stable.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 79

Still, the fishing industry remains one of Alaska’s largest
private employers, and summer jobs in tourism have
multiplied since the 1960s. So the economy continues to
be more seasonal than economies in other states, with
private employment 28% higher in summer. But as Figure
4 shows, tens of thousands of year-round jobs generated
by oil production and oil revenues have created much
more stability.
• Depth of economy. One measure of the depth of an
economy is how many local businesses it can support,
providing goods and services for residents and other
businesses. Alaskans in the 1950s sometimes joked
that getting a haircut required flying to Seattle: the
thin, seasonal economy just couldn’t support many
year-round local businesses. In 1961, there were about
7,000 jobs in such businesses, making up 8% of Alaska’s
90,000 jobs. By 2007, there were about 82,000 jobs in
businesses providing goods and services for households,
and those jobs made up 22%—nearly one in four—of
Alaska’s 374,000 jobs.
• Size of population. Alaska’s population is now triple what
it was in 1960, up from 226,000 to 710,000 in 2010.
Alaska can support a population that large because oil
has generated so many jobs.
• Value of resource production. Alaska’s economy is based
largely on natural resources, so a good measure of the
state’s wealth is the value of resource production. In
1961, that value—from seafood, mineral, and timber
production—was about $3,000 per person (in today’s
dollars), for Alaska’s 226,000 residents. In 2007, with
oil in the resource base, the value of resource production
was $40,000 per person—ten times as much, even
though there were three times as many residents.
Without oil
On page 78 we introduced the idea of how much smaller
Alaska’s economy might be without oil. Figure 5 provides
more detail on the size of and basis for the economy, with
and without oil.
It’s impossible to know exactly what would have
happened, without oil. But using what seem like reasonable
assumptions, we estimated how the number of Alaska
jobs in 2007, and the basis for those jobs, might have been
different, without oil development.
The basis for the economy—for all the jobs—is new
money from outside Alaska. We call the sectors that bring
money in the economic drivers. How much the economy
grows depends on how much money those drivers bring in,
and how long the money circulates before leaking out of the
economy. Without oil, there would have been a whole lot
less money coming in.
In 1960, Alaska had 92,000 jobs; the first pie in Figure 5
shows how many jobs each economic driver supported. The
other pies show two views of 2007—the actual number and
basis of jobs in 2007, and what might have been, without oil.
What’s the difference?
• Without oil, the state would have about half as many jobs
as it does today, and the federal government would still
support the majority. The economy would be bigger
than in 1960, but structurally similar.
80 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

• The biggest changes without oil
would likely have been big growth in
tourism, expansion of the seafood
and mining industries, and development
of the air cargo industry.
• Alaska’s economy would have
remained very seasonal. Seafood
and tourism—the two private
industries generating the most
jobs, in the absence of oil—are
active mostly in the summer.
• Alaska households and businesses
wouldn’t have benefited from state
government oil revenues—so far,
$157 billion (in today’s dollars).
Spinoffs of oil wealth
About a third of Alaska jobs are
related to oil production, state and local
oil revenues, and individual Alaskans
spending their state Permanent Fund
dividends. 4
Beyond those oil-related jobs are
more jobs that can be traced to the
transformative effects oil has had on the
economy, people, and government—the
spinoff effects of oil wealth: a bigger,
richer, more stable economy; high public
spending coupled with low state taxes
for households and most non-oil businesses;
and a bigger population.
By reducing the costs of doing business
and improving economic opportunities,
these spinoffs have helped other
economic sectors prosper and create
about 60,000 jobs, or one in five Alaska
jobs.
But as we said earlier, the benefits of
oil wealth go far beyond jobs to reach
Alaska households, businesses, and
communities. Partly these benefits are
from oil industry activities, but many are
the result of how the state has used its
oil revenues. Figure 6 shows what the
state did with the $157 billion (in today’s
dollars) it has collected so far.
How has the state used
it’s oil money?
• Extra spending for services and
unique programs. About 44%—$70
billion—of oil revenues went for,
among many other things, new
and expanded operating programs;
construction of schools, community
facilities, and other infrastructure;
loans to students, fishermen, and
others; and aid to municipalities
and schools. Some revenues funded
the start-up of special corporations
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 81

that make home mortgage loans
and promote economic development.
Most famously, in 1982 the
state began sending annual checks
(Permanent Fund dividends) to
every resident, from the earnings of
the Permanent Fund.
• Tax relief. Almost a third of oil
revenues—$50 billion—went to
keeping state taxes on households
and businesses low. Households
pay no state income or sales taxes,
and most non-oil businesses pay
about a third to half the taxes they
would pay, if their taxes made up
the same share of total revenues as
in other states. 5
• Savings. The state has saved about a
quarter of its oil revenues, mostly in
the Permanent Fund and the Constitutional
Budget Reserve. Alaska’s
constitution prohibits spending the
Permanent Fund principal, but the
legislature can spend the earnings.
The budget reserve makes loans to
cover government spending, when
there are budget deficits.
Low state taxes and high public
spending have made Alaska a much more
attractive place to live—as evidenced by
the much bigger population. That’s especially
noticeable among older Alaskans,
most of whom used to leave the state
when they retired. Now, Alaskans 65 and
older are the fastest-growing age group.
Oil and the future
Earlier we imagined what Alaska’s
economy might have been like, without
oil. But oil has been a reality in Alaska for
40 years, and even as production drops,
the state has assets it lacked before oil—
including better infrastructure, reduced
living costs, and savings accounts that
have the potential to produce billions of
dollars in future earnings.
These legacies of oil help cushion the
decline in oil production. But we can’t
be complacent. The huge North Slope
oil discovery was incredibly lucky for
Alaska—and we need to recognize that it
was luck. We can’t just count on more luck
as our plan for the future. A better strategy
is to take stock of what we have and build
on our strengths. Here are some things to
keep in mind as we look ahead:
• Alaska’s future prosperity depends
on continued oil production. Other
economic drivers besides oil are
also critical. The federal government
82 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

supports one in three Alaska jobs. The seafood
and tourism industries create thousands of
seasonal jobs that are especially important in
rural areas. Mining has a potentially bright
future, and the air cargo industry is small but
growing. The increasing number of older Alaskans
is a less visible but real economic driver;
when older residents spend their pensions,
they create jobs. But all the likely growth in
those drivers can’t replace oil.
• We shouldn’t assume high oil prices can shield us
forever from the effects of declining production on
the state’s North Slope lands. Production is a third
what it once was, and it’s expected to continue
dropping.
• North Slope natural gas would add to the economic base
but can’t replace oil. On an energy-equivalent basis,
the current market value of oil is more than twice
that of gas. It’s also far more expensive to move gas
to market. So the state’s gas tax base, which is the
market value minus transportation costs—the wellhead
value—would be only a small fraction of the
current wellhead value of oil production (Figure 7).
• There’s still a lot of oil on the North Slope and offshore.
We don’t know just how much, but enough to
support a thriving industry for generations (Figure
8). In the near-term, oil will come mainly from
producing fields, which may have about 5 billion
barrels of conventional oil remaining. There are
other known but not yet producing fields on state
land, and it’s likely more will be found as exploration
continues. Production from those fields
will depend on economics. The North Slope also has
billions of barrels of viscous and heavy oil, which is
thick and expensive to produce. Very little of that is
currently economic to produce, but the vast size of the
reserves represents a tremendous opportunity. If the
technological challenges of producing that oil can be
overcome, it would generate a lot of jobs—but not the
same level of state revenues as the older fields.
Beyond state lands, federal lands are currently estimated
to have 33 billions barrels of technically recoverable oil, in
both onshore and offshore areas. How much of that oil is
actually produced will depend on geology, economics, technology—and
politics.
What’s the Next Step?
Given how important oil is and will continue to be, Alaskans
should focus on developing a strategy that will provide
the greatest long-term benefits from future oil production
for the state, the economy, and Alaskans. What should we
consider in such a strategy?
• Don’t expect a home run: have realistic expectations about
the benefits of future oil production, compared with the
enormous good fortune that came our way with past
North Slope oil development. We’ll have to work harder
to craft policies that benefit Alaska.
• Determine where the “sweet spot” lies: the level of oil taxation
that promotes maximum long-term benefits for the state—
in oil production, employment, and state revenues. A first
step would be maintaining an inventory of potential oil
investments and assessing their sensitivity to different
tax rates.
• Resist the temptation to “do something”—that is, to use the
state’s oil wealth for economic diversification projects. We’ve
tried that in the past with little success. As oil revenues
become tighter, the urge to spend them in attempts to
diversify will increase—and put us at risk of making big,
wasteful mistakes. A better bet is to conserve our oil
wealth and benefit from its earning power.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 83

Industry seeks to construct an
Alaska without hunger through
design/build competition
By Ra C h a E l Fi s h E R
This year marked Canstruction’s
fourth anniversary in Anchorage.
The creative competition is not
your typical charity event. It doesn’t
raise money through sponsorships,
ticket sales or auctions. It nets a
different commodity—food, from the
hands of engineers, architects, contractors
and the construction community
who build elaborate structures made
entirely from canned food donations.
Canstruction gives Food Bank of
Alaska a needed boost after the holidays.
The goal this year was to raise
35,000 cans, a 2,000-can increase from
2010.
“The competition gives Food Bank
of Alaska much needed canned goods
to bridge the gap between the holidays
and the spring community-wide food
drives. Thirty thousand pounds of food
(the amount used in the sculptures)
will help provide assistance to those
in need,” said Jim MacKenzie, director
of development and communications
for Food Bank of Alaska, in an e-mail.
PCL Construction was this year’s
signature sponsor and donated
$10,000 to Food Bank of Alaska, some
of which provided seed money for
Canstruction 2011.
“We are really excited that we were
able to help bring in enough food for
more than 23,000 meals,” said Louis
Gire, business development manager
for PCL’s Alaska operations and
Canstruction 2011 judge.
Teams from the design/build
community spend eight to 12 weeks
planning and fundraising for the
competition. A partnership with
Carrs/Safeway offers Canstruction
teams the opportunity to order cans
at a discounted rate of cost plus 10
percent.
“The teams love participating not
just for doing good in the community
but also as a great team-building
exercise that brings together people
that might not typically work
together on a project to really think
creatively, solve problems and work
as a team,” said Canstruction Chair
Iris Matthews.
The DOWL HKM team
began to plan in November and
by December the concept of their
structure took shape. Eric Voorhees,
engineer at DOWL HKM and steering
committee member of Canstruction,
said the team planned to raise $1 for
each can needed for the design and
spent about $5,500 on cans this year.
“One thing we’ve worked on over
the years is trying to use cans that the
food bank wants, items on their wish
list which are usually items that are
shelf stable or move out of their warehouse
quickly,” Voorhees said.
And label color is the other important
factor in can selection.
The structures are built during a
12-hour period at designated spaces
in the University Center. Only fi ve
team members are permitted to build
at one time, including those who are
unpacking and organizing cans, or
cutting foam-core or other materials.
Teams may swap members and are
allowed no more than 15 minutes for
transition.
About 25 DOWL HKM employees
were on this year’s team and broke
into sub teams of three to fi ve people
to take turns building smaller pieces of
the structure.
“Everybody who wants to build
defi nitely can,” Voorhees said.
The maximum size allowed is
10 feet long, 10 feet wide and 8 feet
tall. No glass containers, pet food or
alcohol are allowed; and the use of
junk food or soda may draw a penalty
Merri Mike Adams of the Food Bank of
Alaska receives check from PCL Construction
Manager Scott Ivany.
from the jury for not using nutritious
food. Cans must be unopened with
labels intact, legible and unaltered so
they remain usable to the food bank.
Structures must be self-supporting
though Velcro, clear and double-sided
tape, high-tension rubber bands, nylon
string, wire and tie-backs are permissible.
For leveling purposes foam-core,
cardboard, Masonite, plywood and
plexiglass are permitted.
“Each year our team tries to build
something more challenging than we
have done before. It is easy to build the
more ‘vertical’ structures, but very hard
to build structures with more threedimensional
aspects to them, such as
cantilevering,” Voorhees said.
“Join the Pack to Fight Hunger,”
canstructed by RSA Engineering Inc.
84 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photo: Cour tesy of pCl Cons truCtion serviCes
photos: Justin ritter

Members of DOWL HKM’s 2011 Canstruction
team pose with the fi nished can-structure at
the end of a long Build Night.
Judging is done by a panel within
the local design/build industry which
this year included Louis Gire, PCL
Construction; Misty Stoddard, Rainproof
Roofi ng; and Dave Cavitt, Furniture
Enterprises of Alaska. This year
the judges spent a little more than
an hour looking at the sculptures and
45 minutes deliberating, according
to Gire. He said some of the entries
were so creative the judges struggled
to categorize them. Local winners go
on to compete internationally through
submission of slide photography to a
panel of jurors for judging during the
SDA/AIA International Convention.
The art with heart was on display
at the University Center during Fur
Rondy. Canstruction also coincided
with engineering week in the schools
and offered students a fun way to look
at the profession.
“When it’s all said and done, the
cool thing is you can walk through the
University Center and look at all these
elaborate structures made out of cans
with just gravity, for the most part,
holding them together,” said Voorhees.
The People’s Choice award encourages
the public to get involved in the
food drive and vote by leaving cans in
the bin at their favorite structure.
Look forward to seeing the results
of a little friendly competition next
year as DOWL HKM looks to reclaim
the Juror’s Favorite award from Enterprise
Engineering. DOWL HKM won
the coveted award the fi rst two years
while Enterprise claimed back-to-back
wins most recently.
“They earned it. Now we have to
try to get it back,” Voorhees said.
Rachael Fisher is the editor of The
Alaska Contractor.
photo: Cour tesy of riChard pribyl, dowl hKm
Awards
Structural Ingenuity -
RSA Engineering Inc. for Join the
Pack to Fight Hunger
Best Use of Labels -
DOWL HKM for Big Meals on
Wheels: A Food Drive Alaska Style
Best Meal -
PDC Inc. and Architects Alaska
for 4th Avenue CAN-tertainment
Juror’s Favorite -
Enterprise Engineering for
PUSHING GOOD NUTRITION
Honorable Mentions
• Michael Baker Jr. Inc. and F. Robert
Bell & Associates for PIGLOO
• Coffman Engineering for
The ‘CAN’
• RIM Architects for “Bread is like
dresses, hats and shoes—in other
words, essential!”
• KPB Architects and Schneider &
Associates for “CAN you win the
Last Great Race on Earth?”
• R&M Consultants for
AlaskCAN Sushi.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 85

AGC
members’
projects
2010 Winners of AGc's
Excellence in construction Awards
86 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Meeting the Challenge of a Job, Under $3,000,000
Transportation, Marine, Heavy, Earthmoving
Contractor: roGer HiCKel Contr aCtinG inC.
Project: asD mears miDDle sCHool site imProVements
roGer HiCKel Contr aCtinG inC. W a s a W a r D e D a Contr aCt to Cons truCt tHe mears
miDDle sCHool site imProVements ProJeCt in tHe sPrinG oF 2010. tHis ProJeCt W a s
aDminis tereD BY tHe anCHor aGe sCHool Dis triCt. WorK assoCiateD W i t H tHis ProJeCt
inCluDeD m a s s Gr aDinG oF m o r e tHan 6 aCres, ins tall ation oF a neW runninG tr aCK,
oVer-eXCaVation oF tHe eXistinG ParKinG lot, m o r e tHan 205,000 sQuare Feet oF neW
PaVinG, eleCtriCal uPGr aDes anD Cons truCtion oF neW s torm Dr ain s Y s t e m s.
a m a J o r CHallenGe oVerCame DurinG tHis ProJeCt inCluDeD an eXCeeDinGlY tiGHt
Cons truCtion WinDoW in orDer to aCHieVe suBs tantial ComPletion Prior to sCHool
r e s u m i n G in m i D-auGus t. DesPite tHis tiGHt sCHeDule, anD tHe FaCt tHat tHe ProJeCt
sCoPe inCreaseD Dr astiCallY aFter a W a r D Due to an o W n e r initiateD CHanGe in W H i C H a
runninG tr aCK W a s aDDeD to tHe ProJeCt, tHouGH Pos t-BiD Par tnerinG rHC W a s aBle to
C o m P l e t e tHe ProJeCt on sCHeDule anD WitHin tHe o W n e r s’ BuDGet.
Spring 2011
The Alaska conTrAcTor 87
photos: Cour tesy of roGer hiCKel Contr aCtinG inC.

2010 Winners of AGc's Excellence in construction Awards
Transportation, Marine, Heavy,
Earthmoving with Specialty
Contractor as Prime Contractor
Contractor: ColDFoot enVironmental serViCes inC.
P roject: eXterior aBatement & PaintinG oF
al asKan Co m m a n D BuilDinG
tHis ProJeCt Consis teD oF 15,000 sQuare Feet oF asBestos
Contamin ateD m at e r i a l s (aCm) anD leaD-BaseD Paint
aBatement on eXterior W a l l s anD rooF anD tHe eXterior
PaintinG oF 45,000 sQuare Feet. tHis ProJeCt inCluDeD:
multiPle HealtH HaZarD aBatement – ColDFoot’s CHallenGes
W e r e to saFelY remoVe BotH aCm anD leaD-BaseD
Paint unDer neGatiVe Pressure Containment s m e a s u r i n G
m o r e tHan 30’, monitor For PossiBle eXPosures or
releases oF aCm anD leaD to BotH emPloYees anD tHe
enVironment, anD C o m P l e t e tHese tasKs W H i l e tHe BuilDinG
W a s oCCuPieD BY Co m m a n D anD aDministratiVe staFF.
more tHan 90 PerCent oF tHe W o r K inVolVeD W i t H tHis
ProJeCt W a s ComPleteD at HeiGHts oF m o r e tHan 6 Feet
usinG sCaFFolDinG anD aerial liFt s Y s t e m s. tHe Client HaD a
CritiCal timeline anD meetinG tHe eXPeCtations oF Clients is
ColDFoot’s toP Priorit Y. in orDer to meet tHese DeaDlines,
tHe BuilDinG W a s sPlit into PHases anD uPon ComPletion oF
eaCH PHase, areas W e r e CleareD For HaZarDous m at e r i a l s
anD turneD oVer to tHe rePair anD Paint CreWs. tHis
ProJeCt W a s ComPleteD in less tHan t W o montHs, aHeaD oF
sCHeDule anD W i t H no W o r K-rel ateD inJuries.
88 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

photo: Cour tesy of Coldfoot environmental serviCes inC.
Spring Spring 2011
2011
The Alaska conTrAcTor 89

photos: Cour tesy of denali drillinG inC.
2010 Winners of AGc's Excellence in construction Awards
90 The Alaska conTrAcTor
Transportation, Marine, Heavy,
Earthmoving with Specialty Contractor
as Sub-Contractor
Contractor: Den ali DrillinG inC.
P roject: Por t oF anCHor aGe nor tH eXtension
DDi W a s a W a r D e D a Contr aCt to ProViDe Cons truCtion anD
GeoteCHniCal DrillinG serViCes For tHe Por t oF anCHor aGe
nor tH eXtension ViBroComPaCtion ProJeCt. DDi W a s a
suBContr aCtor to West Cons truCtion anD assisteD tHem
BY DrillinG 3,200 X 30” Diameter Holes to assist W i t H tHe
ViBroComPaCtion W o r K West W a s a W a r D e D.
tHe W o r K starteD in FeBruarY anD W a s ComPleteD in maY,
aHeaD oF sCHeDule, W i t H Zero los t m a n Hours Due to aCCiDent s
anD no Del aYs to West Cons truCtion Due to DDi sCHeDule
ConFliCt or eQuiPment B r e a K D o W n. to KeeP uP W i t H tHe Poa
anD West Cons truCtion’s aGGressiVe sCHeDule, W H o W e r e at
t i m e s oPer atinG tHree Cr anes, DDi m a n a G e m e n t team ProViDeD
aDDition al CreWs, DrillinG eQuiPment anD oPer ateD arounD-tHe-
CloCK W H e n neCessarY to s taY on sCHeDule.

inset photos: photos: © Ken Graham photoGr photoGr aphy.Com
2010 Winners of AGc's Excellence in construction Awards
photo: Cour tesy of alCan General inC.
Meeting the Challenge of a Job,
Between $5,000,000 & $15,000,000 Vertical
Construction
Contractor: alCan Gener al inC.
P roject: museum eXPansion - Pl anetarium, imaGinarium anD re-rooF
tHe anCHor aGe museum Pl anetarium, imaGinarium, anD eXistinG BuilDinG re-rooF
ProJeCt s are PHases 2 anD 3 oF tHe oVer all museum eXPansion. tHe nearlY $12
million W o r t H oF FolloW-on W o r K eXemPliFies alCan Gener al’s aBilitY to PerForm
HiGH-risK W o r K in anD oVer oPer atinG FaCilities liKe a museum.
PHase 2 anD 3 W o r K inCluDeD suBs tantial Demolition anD Cons truCtion oF eXistinG
sPaCes into oFFiCes, Cl assrooms anD tHe imaGinarium WitHout DisruPtinG onGoinG
museum oPer ations or D a m a G i n G anY ar tiFaCt s anD eXHiBit s.
tHe eXistinG rooF anD CuPol a W e r e DemolisHeD anD rePl aCeD in W i n t e r ConDitions
F o l l o W i n G tHe s a m e ProtoCol. tHe anCHor aGe museum is a trulY out s tanDinG
aCHieVement in HiGH-risK Cons truCtion W H i l e ProteCtinG anD maintaininG tHe
oPer ation oF an oCCuPieD FaCilitY.
The Alaska conTrAcTor 91

2010 Winners of AGc's Excellence in construction Awards
92 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photos: Cour tesy of al asKa trailbl aZinG inC.

2010 Excellence in
Construction winners
Contractors that won 2010 AGC
Excellence in Construction Awards are
Kiewit/Cornerstone JV, Alcan General
Inc., Roger Hickel Contracting Inc., QAP,
Coldfoot Environmental Services Inc.,
Denali Drilling Inc., Alaska Trailblazing Inc.
and American Marine Corp.
Five winning projects are featured in
this issue of the Contractor Magazine.
Four other winning were featured in the
Winter 2010 issue of the magazine.
Vertical Construction with Specialty Contractor as Sub-Contractor
Contractor: al asKa tr ailBl aZinG inC.
P roject: anCHor aGe museum eXPansion
in tHe s u m m e r oF 2009, al asKa tr ailBl aZinG l anDsCaPinG CreWs BrouGHt to liFe tHe museum’s neW
l anDsCaPe Pl ans W H i C H W e r e DesiGneD BY tHe asla a W a r D-WinninG l anDsCaPe arCHiteCt, CHarles
anDerson W i t H loCal Consultation From elise HuGGins at eartHsCaPe DesiGn in anCHor aGe.
tHe W o r K tr ansFormeD a 2-aCre ParCel oF Gr aVel surrounDeD BY asPHalt anD ConCrete to
BeautiFul ForesteD Commons W i t H l arGe Gr assY l a W n area, W a l K W a Y s anD BenCHes W H e r e PeoPle
Can HaVe lunCH, CHat W i t H FrienDs anD enJoY tHe s u m m e r liGHt.
al asKa tr ailBl aZinG ComPleteD tHe ProJeCt on t i m e W i t H a ConDenseD sCHeDule Due to otHer
ConFliCt s tHat aFFeCteD tHe W o r K. tHe ProJeCt W a s ComPleteD For BiD PriCe W i t H no CHanGe orDers
or inCreaseD Cos t s to tHe o W n e r or Gener al Contr aCtor.
tHere W e r e no loss t i m e inCiDent s or inJuries oF anY sor t on 5,000 Hours oF l aBor. Part oF
al asKa tr ailBl aZinG’s resPonsiBilitY as a Contr aCtor on tHis ProJeCt W a s to Create a sPaCe CoulD Be
enJoYeD BY tHe resiDent s oF al asKa as W e l l as tHe m a n Y Visitors tHe s tate Get s eVerY Year.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 93

94 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Member NEWS
Reilly resumes
ownership of
Rain Proof Roofi ng
Pat Reilly, long-time owner/
CEO of Rain Proof Roofi ng, of
Anchorage has resumed ownership
and management of the
Anchorage-based company.
Reilly had been with the
company since 1973 and
became president in 1983
taking over from Jack Markley.
He sold the company to UIC,
a North Slope Native corporation,
in 2002 and retired from
the fi rm in 2005.
“The company is now
back in family ownership and
management,” said Reilly and
“it will again be a vital part of
the construction industry for
both commercial and residential
roofi ng projects.”
Long active in construction
organizations, Reilly
was president of Associated
General Contractors of Alaska
in 1999, and he and his wife
April won AGC’s coveted Hard
Hat Award in 2000 and 2002
respectively.
Granite Construction and
Great Northwest earn
recognition from AKDOT&PF
Civil Rights Offi ce
AGC of Alaska and the AKDOT&PF Civil
Rights Offi ce recently partnered to host the “Future
Connections—A DBE and Prime Networking Social,”
to create an avenue to explore business opportunities
between prime contractors and Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises (DBEs).
Granite Construction Company and Great Northwest
Inc. were honored at the event in February for
being the top two contractors with top dollars spent
for DBE subcontracting in fi scal year 2010.
Florcraft/Carpet One
general manager
appointed to Anchorage
Port Commission
Patrice Case, general manager of
Florcraft/Carpet One has been appointed
to the Anchorage Port Commission.
The Port Commission consists
of nine members appointed by the
mayor and confi rmed by the assembly.
Its role is to regulate the operation of
Mary Kay Bunker wins
2011 Constructive Woman Award
Mary Kay Bunker, project engineer
for PCL Construction Services has been
presented with the 2011 Constructive
Woman Award. The National Association
of Women In Construction
Alaska Chapter presents the award to
individuals who have demonstrated
outstanding capabilities as a construction
professional. Nominations are
made by the individual’s employer.
“Mary Kay would be an asset to
any fi rm,” said Scott Ivany, head of
PCL’s Alaska Operations. “She works
the terminal and transportation facilities
by promulgating a terminal tariff
containing rates, charges, rules and
regulations applicable at the port and
subject to the approval of the assembly
and the Federal Maritime Commission.
Case is known throughout the state
as a dedicated philanthropic leader.
She serves as President of the Board of
Directors for the Breast Cancer Detection
Center in Fairbanks and contributes
her time to other nonprofi ts
including the Rotary Club of Fairbanks
and the American Heart Association.
above and beyond the call of duty—
often at the sacrifi ce of personal needs
—placing the company and client
fi rst. We are very proud of her and her
accomplishments.”
Left to right: Joe Spink, Granite Construction Company; Jon Dunham, Alaska
DOT&PF; Tony Johansen, Great Northwest Inc.; John MacKinnon, AGC of Alaska
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 95
photo: Cour tesy of pCl

Member NEWS
In Memoriam
Herring, John M. (Dec. 12, 1939 to Jan. 30, 2011)
John founded Construction Unlimited Inc. in 1984 after working for many fi rms.
He received his BS in civil engineering from UAF in 1967, and went to work for SS Mullen. John
was part of the early oil fi eld development, ice roads and ice islands. He worked for S&G
Construction in the 1970s running such projects as International Airport Road and the construction
of Benson Boulevard. Later with Phillips and Jorden in the early 1980s he ran the Kenai/
Seward “Y” project.
John loved construction--from running the equipment to meeting the challenges in the fi eld.
He will be greatly missed, by his wife of almost 47 years and his four kids and two grandchildren.
John was always willing to help others with his knowledge and truly lived life.
In lieu of fl owers please make a contribution to Providence Alaska Hospice, American Cancer
Society for melanoma research or your favorite charity.
Baron, Mark John (M.P.A, M.S., B.Sc.)
Peacefully on Feb. 17, 2011, surrounded by family, Mark Baron passed away at the Ottawa
General Hospital. He dedicated his life to international development, working with communities
around the world.
Mark graduated from the University of Alberta, the University of Illinois and Queens University.
He began his career as an engineering professor, working at the University of Alberta, Khonkaen
University (Thailand), University of Zambia, University College of East Africa (Nairobi, Kenya),
and Yaba College of Technology (Nigeria). He also managed water projects in many countries
including Peru, Ghana, Honduras and Cameroon.
As the owner and president of Cowater International Inc., Mark provided leadership to the
company and expertise on development projects. As president of Cowater Alaska Inc., he worked
to bring water and sanitation systems to remote northern communities.
Contributions in memory of Mark Baron may be made to the Harry Durance Foundation for
Education (Bangkok) or an international charity of your choice.
West Construction Company
wins Aon Build America Award
The Associated General Contractors of America’s Aon
Build America Awards recognize the nation’s most signifi -
cant construction projects. A panel of judges, representing
all areas of construction, evaluated more than 115 projects
this year, assessing each project’s complexity, use of innovative
construction techniques and coordination with partners,
among other criteria.
The Umm Qasr Pier and Seawall, which won for best
new international construction project, is a strategic shipping
area for Iraq and is often the target for unfriendly groups
throughout the region. West Construction was on site within
days of receiving a request for assistance to construct a vital
pier. Because the fi xed portion of the pier was on unstable
soil, the work was completed from a barge instead of on
land. The workforce was 70 percent Iraqi, requiring West
Construction to train more than 60 individuals in surveying,
pile driving and heavy equipment operation.
The awards, which were announced during the association’s
annual convention in Las Vegas, are considered by
many to be the most prestigious recognition of construction
accomplishments in the U.S.
96 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011

Jeff Kinneeveauk
ASRC Energy
Services
names new
president
photo: Cour tesy of asrC
ASRC Energy Services named
Jeff Kinneeveauk president and
chief executive officer, succeeding
Mark C. Nelson, who retired.
Kinneeveauk began his relationship
the Arctic Slope Regional Corp.
family of companies with an internship
in 1995. AES is a subsidiary of
ASRC. Since 1999 Kinneeveauk has
served in management positions,
most recently as senior vice president
of shareholder programs.
During his ASRC career Kinneeveauk
has overseen construction
projects in Nairobi, Kenya, and has
been based in Washington, D.C. He
serves on the board of ASRC Civil
Construction Inc., the American
Red Cross of Alaska and the Alaska
Native Heritage Center.
Kinneeveauk was born in Point
Hope, Alaska, and is an ASRC
shareholder. He graduated from
Anchorage’s Bartlett High School
and earned a physics degree with
an emphasis in engineering from
Northwest Nazarene University in
Nampa, Idaho.
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 97

Member NEWScontinued
Resolve Marine Teams with PENCO &
American marine for Emergency Response
On Feb. 2, 2011, a team of emergency
responders from Resolve Marine
Group, Pacifi c Environmental Corporation
(dba PENCO) and American
Marine Corporation demonstrated
their marine fi re fi ghting and emergency
response capabilities in Honolulu
Harbor. The trained crew of
locally and internationally recognized
professionals conducted an equipment
deployment exercise, utilizing pumps
and fi re fi ghting monitors staged at the
PENCO/American Marine facilities on
pier 13, and operated from the deck
Read us online!
Links to the electronic
versions of the current and
archive issues of The Alaska
Contractor magazine are
online at agcak.org under
“News and Media” tab or at
AQPpublishing.com under
“Business” publications.
of the American Marine Corporation
owned and operated motor vessel
(M/V) American Islander. The exercise
was part of a vetting process, whereby
the U.S. Coast Guard in Washington
D.C. and in Honolulu approved the
Resolve Marine-PENCO-American
Marine team as the only providers
of OPA90 Salvage and Marine Fire
Fighting services (SMFF) in the 14th
Coast Guard District.
Resolve Marine Group and PENCO/
American Marine have previously
teamed to deliver timely response and
AGC of Alaska Calendar
AGC Construction Olympics –
April 21 – Fairbanks
Spring Board Meeting –
April 21& 22 – Fairbanks
AGC Spring Sports Train Ride –
April 30 – Anchorage
“in-water” repairs to marine casualties
in Hawaii, including the foundering
M/V Tong Cheng and the grounded
M/V Vogetrader. Together, Resolve
Marine Group and PENCO/America
Marine meet or exceed the criteria for
SMFF providers enumerated in the
new regulations, and continue to be
proactive in meeting maritime industry
needs in the Pacifi c.
AGC Tailgate Party – June 1 – Anchorage
Golf Tournament – June 17 – Anchorage
Golf Tournament – July 15 – Fairbanks
AGC Chili Cook-off – October 5 – Anchorage
AGC Annual Convention – November 2-5,
2011 – Hotel Captain Cook, Anchorage
AGC Members Christmas Open House –
December 14 – Anchorage
AGC Members Christmas Open House –
December 15 – Fairbanks
98 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011
photo: Cour tesy of resolve marine

Welcome new AGC Members
from December 2010 - February 2011
GENERAL CONTRACTORS
STEPPERS CONSTRUCTION INC.
Barb Doty – President, Casey
Eshleman – Operations Manager
6382 E. Beechcraft Road
Wasilla, AK 99654-9332
Phone: (907) 746-1880
Fax: (907) 746-2670
E-mail: caseye@steppers-alaska.com
Heavy Civil, Whole Vertical
Building, Wood & Steel Structures
R ecruited by: Dave Cruz,
Cruz Construction
JTA CONSTRUCTION LLC
Jason Everard - President
P.O. Box 110570
Anchorage, AK 99511-0570
Phone: (907) 350-2556
Fax: (907) 644-4606
E-mail: Jason@JTAcontstruct.com
Heavy, Utility, Residential Sitework
Recruited by: Ben Northey,
Colaska
CCI ALLIANCE
Robert Pulido –
Program Manager West
P.O. Box 35028
Ft. Wainwright, AK 99703-0028
Phone: (907) 356-1681
Fax: (907) 356-3028
E-mail: rpulido@cci-alliance.com
Website: www.cci-alliance.com
Building Contractor
BYLER CONTRACTING
Dennis Byler and Dean Beaulieu
617 S. Knik Goose Bay Road
Wasilla, AK 99654-8076
Phone: (907) 357-3773
Fax: (907) 357-3061
E-mail: Dean@bylercontracting.com
E-mail: Dennis@bylercontracting.com
Building, Industrial
Recruited by: Molly Marler,
American Fast Freight
SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS
EARTH STONE INC.
Peggy L. Knapman – President
911 Kathy Place
Anchorage, AK 99504-2243
Phone: (907) 223-7780
Fax: (907) 929-9329
E-mail: earthstoneinc@gci.net
Concrete Finishing, Curb, Gutter,
Sidewalk, Flat Work, Decorative
Concrete
ARCTIC AIR
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Larry Zirkle – Managing Partner
P.O. Box 231972
Anchorage, AK 99523-1972
Phone: (907) 561-0511
Fax: (907) 222-6306
E-mail: admin@aaes-ak.com
HVAC Service
RAY ELECTRIC INC.
Troy Keturi and Clyde Waller
P.O. Box 55007
North Pole, AK 99705-5007
Phone: (907) 378-9698
Fax: (907) 488-0081
E-mail: troy@keturi.com
Electrical Contracting, Dirt Work,
Snow Removal
CHEMTRACK ALASKA INC.
Carrie Lindow – President
11711 S. Gambell St.
Anchorage, AK 99515-3444
Phone: (907) 349-2511
Fax: (907) 522-3150
E-mail: info@chemtrack.net
Environmental Services,
Construction Management and
Facilities Management
ANCHORAGE PROTECTIVE
COATINGS, INC.
Alejandro Paredes, Russell Graves,
Rigoberto Paredes
205 E. Dimond Blvd., Suite 721
Anchorage, AK 99515
Phone: (907) 644-0386
Fax: (907) 345-0386
E-mail: apcoatings@gci.net
All Phases of Drywall Installation
and Finishing, Painting
ASSOCIATE CONTRACTORS
STOEL RIVES LLP
S. Lane Tucker – Partner
510 L St., Suite 500
Anchorage, AK 99501-1959
Phone: (907) 277-1900
Fax: (907) 277-1920
E-mail: sltucker@stoel.com
Business Law Firm Providing
Corporate and Litigation Services
CHARTER COLLEGE
Mike Zamora – Program Head of
Construction Management
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.,
Suite 120
Anchorage, AK 99508-4140
Phone: (907) 277-1000
Fax: (907) 777-1383
E-mail: mike.zamora@
chartercollege.edu
Construction Management and
Trade Education
FAIRBANKS FUEL
DISTRIBUTORS
Lee Peterson – General Manager
412 E. Van Horn Road
Fairbanks, AK 99701-7624
Phone: (907) 452-4477
Fax: (907) 374-2888
E-mail: 1petersen@fairbanksfuel.com
Website: www.fairbanksfuel.com
Sales of Heating Oil, Diesel,
Gasoline and Aviation Fuel
COFFMAN ENGINEERS INC.
Dave Coffman, Harold Hollis,
Will Veelman, Dan Stears
800 F St.
Anchorage, AK 99501-3538
Phone: (907) 276-6664
Fax: (907) 276-5042
E-mail: grahamk@coffman.com
Website: www.coffman.com
Consulting, Engineering Work
in Civil, Structural, Mechanical,
Electrical, and Corrosion Control
Recruited by: Anne Denny,
Spenard Builders Supply
New AGC Members continues on next page
Spring 2011 The Alaska conTrAcTor 99

New AGC Members continued
TRIODETIC INC.
Sue Staniszewski
4465 E. Genesee St.
Syracuse, NY 13214-2253
Phone: (800) 535-2743
Fax: (315) 453-7817
E-mail: sstaniszewski@triodetic.com
Website: www.Multipointfoundations.com
Manufacturer of Space Frames,
Domes, Foundations for Problem
(Flooding, Permafrost) Soil
Conditions
DIGITAL BLUEPRINT INC.
Richard Blaylock, Glenda Blaylock,
David Dubois
903 W. Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, AK 99503-2400
Phone: (907) 274-4060
Fax: (907) 274-4086
E-mail: dave@digital-blueprint.com
Reprographics Serving the
Architectural, Engineering and
Construction Industry in Alaska
KLONDIKE SALES INC.
Keith White - President
15120 Oxford Bluff Circle
Anchorage, AK 99516-4269
Phone: (907) 562-7000
Fax: (907) 562-2957
E-mail: kwhite@klondikesales.com
Website: www.klondikesales.com
Lighting Manufacturers
Representative
Recruited by:
Trisha Stockinger, Willis
TUNDRA TRAINING & SAFETY
Ronald Durheim –
Training Coordinator
P.O. Box 876872
Wasilla, AK 99654
Phone: (907) 745-3483
Fax: (907) 746-3483
E-mail: rdurheim@tundratraining.com
Safety Training: First Aid, CPR,
Safety Meetings, OSHA 10-hr Equal,
HAZWOPER, Wilderness First Aid,
Remote Construction
100 The Alaska conTrAcTor Spring 2011