State labor economists acknowledge this number is preliminary - the actual figures could vary. But, they say, construction seems to have peaked at the very least.

This is admittedly confusing to analysts. The overall total dollar figures for construction projects around the state are at or near record levels, excepting the anomalous years of the 1980s.

There are several highly visible large-scale projects currently underway. These are most notable in Anchorage, where projects totaling upward of $500 million are changing the skylines.

These projects include the new convention center, parking garage, museum and two 14-story office complexes, in addition to dozens of smaller-scale buildings spotted throughout the city.

Fairbanks is seeing a host of residential construction, as builders rush to offer homes to newly stationed military squadrons.

Less visible, but no less valuable, are major projects underway on the North Slope and at proposed mining sites across the state.

If there's so much work, why are there fewer jobs? One suggestion is that because many of the big projects are taking place over several years, and the labor-intensive parts of the work are completed on many of them. Other projects that required so many bodies were competed last year — one example is the Pogo mine, which moved from the construction phase to development. The dollar figures likely are driven up by inflation, as well, making only seem like there's more work.

Or the numbers simply could be off; construction could just be flat instead of down 2 percent, said state economist Neal Fried.

Still, the future, while far from bleak, doesn't look as promising for construction employment as it has in the past. For nearly 20 years, construction has seen a slow, yet steady, incline. Fried predicts an upcoming period of slow decline.

In January, he predicted a loss of 200 workers for the construction industry. He's usually not far off the mark.

The numbers look good for construction projects, and so for employment, for the remainder of this year and next. But beyond 2008, the outlook is clouded.

Federal money targeted for Alaska projects is quickly drying up, thanks in large part to an exploding federal deficit, a huge war debt and a newfound frowning upon congressional earmarks. Also, Alaska's most famous earmarkers, Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, are seemingly out of favor among fellow politicians in Washington, D.C.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin cuts a side panel while building a Habitat for Humanity home for a local family during the National Association of Governors 2007 annual meeting in Acme, Mich., on July 22. Palin cut $1 billion from the state capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year, a turnaround from the previous administration's policy. AP Photo/Detroit Free Press/Amy Leang

The big spender of federal money, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, planned to spend a hefty $586 million in 2007. But Corps officials said their budget allocation was expected to plummet to $265 million for 2008.

The future of the Denali Commission may also be in question. The joint federal and state partnership generally receives more than $100 million a year in federal appropriations. Much of that money is matched with local funds, and is spent on building infrastructure in rural communities.

Funding for the Denali Commission is currently going through its annual congressional finagling. Money for the organization was stripped from the House version of a spending bill, but was expected to be reinserted into the Senate version.

Officials at the commission said this procedure is not unusual. Stevens typically ensures the money is put back. But again, Stevens is falling out of favor.

A detriment to his argument of need lies in the lack of state support in the commission's endeavors. Outsiders note that Alaska has a $40 billion permanent fund, several more billions of dollars in a reserve fund, plus for the past two years has recorded hundreds of millions more in surplus money that is compliments of the record-high oil tax revenues. With all that wealth, the state still doesn't contribute its full share in funding Denali Commission projects.

Projects that are funded by state money are expected to remain strong for the next couple of years, thanks in large part to the previous budgetary surpluses. During the waning years of his term, former Gov. Frank Murkowski signed off on a slew of construction projects, many of which will hit the streets over the next year or two.

Gov. Sarah Palin, however, did a complete turnaround with her administration's surplus money. She banked it, and redlined funding for dozens of construction projects. The capital budget went from $2.3 billion for fiscal year 2007 — a Murkowski budget — to $1.3 billion for fiscal 2008.

Shaky foundations?

It's unclear what all this might mean for the future of the construction industry. And construction is generally a good early indicator of how the economy will swing.

Right now, the state's economy is strong and unemployment is performing as expected. But there is an air of uncertainty, which makes investors nervous when they consider moving into the Alaska market.

Most unsettling is the fact that Alaska's government is operating with a gap, bridged in recent years by surpluses flowed to state coffers via oil taxes.

Oil provides funding for about 85 percent of the state's budgets. The state's business portfolio is more diverse than ever, but if crude prices crash, the economy likely will collapse with it.

For a time, the proposed natural gas pipeline, a pipe dream for decades, looked as promising as ever. But in recent weeks, the big oil companies shook those foundations by saying they wouldn't submit a proposal to build the $30 billion-plus project.

The reality of the gas line will come this fall, when proposals come due.

Meanwhile, the state and those in the industry are spending millions of dollars this year to train construction workers, both to replace an aging workforce and to ready for pipeline construction.

Industry officials worry that if the pipeline doesn't happen as Gov. Palin plans, newly trained workers won't be able to find jobs here. They worry that those Alaskans trained will leave the state to find work and won't come back.