Assembly Task Force/Ad Hoc Committee

VISITOR INDUSTRY TASK FORCE 2.0 (VITF) AGENDA - UPDATED 7/13/2026 July 16, 2026 at 5:30 PM Assembly Chambers/Zoom Webinar https://juneau.zoom.us/j/83826098583 or call 1 (669) 444-9171 Webinar ID: 838 2609 8583 A. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL B. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We would like to acknowledge that the City and Borough of Juneau is on Tlingit land and wish to honor the indigenous people of this land. For more than ten thousand years, Alaska Native people have been and continue to be integral to the well-being of our community. We are grateful to be in this place, a part of this community, and to honor the culture, traditions, and resilience of the Tlingit people. Gunalchéesh! C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 9, 2026 VITF Meeting Minutes – Draft E. AGENDA TOPICS 1. Downtown Waterfront Restrooms and Covered Shelter Updates 2. Data collection and long-term planning I. Introduction II. Discussion III. Draft recommendations F. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS G. NEXT MEETING DATE – AUGUST 13, 2026 AT 5:30PM H. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS 1. Approaches to Tourism Management Planning Memo 7-10-2026 I. ADJOURNMENT ADA accommodations available upon request: contact the Clerk's Office (907)586-5278 or city.clerk@juneau.gov at least 36 hours prior to a meeting, to request ADA arrangements. Page 1 of 24  VITF 2.0 – MEETING DRAFT MINUTES July 9, 2026 at 5:30 PM Assembly Chambers & Zoom https://juneau.zoom.us/j/83826098583 or call 1 (669) 444-9171 Webinar ID: 838 2609 8583 A. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ella Adkison called the July 9, 2026 VITF meeting to order in the Assembly Chambers and via Zoom at 5:30pm. B. ROLL CALL Task Force Members Present: Ella Adkison; Kirby Day; Neil Steininger; Ren Scott; Matt Catterson; Shem Sooter; Sarah Lowell; Meilani Schijvens; Jeremy Timothy Task Force Members Absent: Kirsa Hughes-Skandijs Staff/Others Present: Alexandra Pierce, Visitor Industry Director; Phil Huebschen, Engagement Specialist C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – a. Director Pierce requested to add an update on the Huna Totem project and an update to the VITF on a recent whale watching incident to the top of the agenda. b. Agenda approved as amended. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Minutes approved as presented a. 2026-06-18 VITF Minutes - Draft E. AGENDA TOPICS a. Huna Totem update and debrief on whale watching incident Director Pierce provided updates on the Huna Totem project and described a recent whale watching incident in Coghlan Cut and how it may interface with VITF work. b. Revisiting long-term tourism planning i. Reintroduction Director Pierce reintroduced the topic of long-term tourism planning, and previous ideas introduced/discussed by the VITF. ii. Discussion General discussion followed. iii. Draft recommendations No formal action was taken. Staff will engage in research towards data resources and differing long-term plan scopes ahead of next meeting. Page 2 of 24  VITF 2.0 – MEETING DRAFT MINUTES July 9, 2026 at 5:30 PM Assembly Chambers & Zoom F. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS a. Director Pierce noted a change in meeting schedule. The revolving loan program discussion will be pushed to later in the meeting cycle due. The July 16 meeting will focus on goals of data collection and long-term plan options. b. Kirby Day noted that he would like more information on which operators are using Coghlan cut through TBMP and SEAWWA. He also noted the great job being done by downtown crossing guard staff. G. NEXT MEETING DATE Thursday, July 16, 2026 @ 5:30pm. H. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS a. VITF Tourism Vision Memo 5-7-2026 b. Regional Dynamics_VITF_V2_Presentation I. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to come before the Task Force, the meeting adjourned at 6:33pm. Page 3 of 24 DOWNTOWN WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II Visitor Industry Task Force 2.0 July 16, 2026 Page 4 of 24  Project Team BRANDON IVANOWICZ – PROJECT MANAGEMENT CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING JAMES BIBB, BUILDING ARCHITECT CARL UCHYTIL, PE, PORT DIRECTOR MATT CRESWELL, HARBORMASTER MATTHEW SILL, PE, PORT ENGINEER Page 5 of 24 Page 6 of 24 Page 7 of 24 Page 8 of 24 Page 9 of 24 Page 10 of 24 Page 11 of 24  12’ WIDE OPERABLE DOOR FOR SEAWALK 36’ X 38’ (1,368 SF) WAITING ROOM Standing Room Capacity Approx. 180 Persons MEZZANINE – STORAGE AND HVAC Chairs and Tables Approx. 90 persons. GROUND FLOOR - 72’ X 38’ (2,736 SF) OVERALL FOOTPRINT Page 12 of 24  GENERAL NOTES: 1" 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ACTUAL BUILDING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS. WHEREDISCREPANCIES ORCONFLICTS ARE FOUND, NOTIFY ARCHITECT PRIOR TO IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE EXACTLY ONE INCH, THE SCALE OF THIS DRAWINGHAS BEEN ALTERED DURING IT'S PRODUCTION, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES COMMENCING WORK. 2. DONOT SCALE OFF OFDRAWINGS. 3. DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRIDLINE, FACE OR CENTER OF FRAMING UNO. 4. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS SHOWNIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR REFERENCE A-300 ONLY. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSFOR ALL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 STRUCTURAL INFORMATION. 5. WHEREDOOROPENINGS ARE NOT DIMENSIONED, LOCATE DOOR OPENINGS TO 72' - 0" ENSURE 3" MINJAMB FRAMING. 6. DIMENSIONS LOCATING OPENINGS ARE TO 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" CENTERLINE OF OPENING, UNO. 7. SEE ENLARGED PLANS FORINFORMATION NOT SHOWNHERE. CONSULTANT SHEET NOTES: A 12' - 8" B 38' - 0" 12' - 8" JAN WOMENS WAITING / HALL MENS 1 2 A-300 A-301 DWI - RESTROOMS C CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU 12' - 8" JUNEAU, AK LOBBY FAMILY D SHEET TITLE: FLOOR PLAN NWA-0000A CHECKED Approver DRAWN Author NorthWind Architects, LLC; Project Number: issue date description 21 A-500 LEGEND: PLAN NORTH EXISTING WALLORPARTITION TO REMAIN 1 A-301 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 A-200 1 NEWWALLORPARTITION SHEET # 1/4" = 1'-0" STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS - SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 06/24/2026 Page 13 of 24  GENERAL NOTES: 1" 1. CONTRACTORSHALL FIELD VERIFY ACTUAL BUILDING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS. WHERE D C B A DISCREPANCIES ORCONFLICTS ARE FOUND, NOTIFY ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE EXACTLY ONE INCH, THE SCALE OF THIS DRAWINGHAS BEEN ALTERED DURING IT'S PRODUCTION, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES WORK. 12' - 8" 12' - 8" 12' - 8" 2. DONOT SCALE OFF OFDRAWINGS. 3. DIMENSIONS ARE TO GRIDLINE, FACE ORCENTER OF FRAMING UNO. 4. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS SHOWNIN ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSFOR ALL STRUCTURAL INFORMATION. 5. ELEVATION DRAWINGS FOR REFERENCE ONLY IDENTIFY DATUM AND DETAILS. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. B.O. BOTTOM CHORD 18' - 0" SHEET NOTES: CONSULTANT B.O. HIGH CANOPY 13' - 6" MECH. MEZZANINE 10' - 0" LEVEL 1 0' - 0" ELEVATION - EAST 1 3/16" = 1'-0" 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" 12'-0" DWI - RESTROOMS CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU B.O. BOTTOM JUNEAU, AK CHORD 18' - 0" B.O. HIGH CANOPY 13' - 6" SHEET TITLE: MECH. MEZZANINE BUILDING 10' - 0" ELEVATIONS NWA-0000A CHECKED Approver DRAWN Author NorthWind Architects, LLC; Project Number: issue date description LEVEL 1 0' - 0" ELEVATION - NORTH A-300 2 SHEET # 3/16" = 1'-0" 06/24/2026 Page 14 of 24  1" NorthWind Architects, LLC; Project Number: NWA-0000A IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE EXACTLY ONE INCH, THE SCALE OF THIS DRAWINGHAS BEEN ALTERED DURING IT'S PRODUCTION, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES SHEET # CHECKED Approver SHEET TITLE: DWI - RESTROOMS CONSULTANT RENDERS DRAWN Author CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU issue date description JUNEAU, AK Page 15 of 24  1" NorthWind Architects, LLC; Project Number: NWA-0000A IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE EXACTLY ONE INCH, THE SCALE OF THIS DRAWINGHAS BEEN ALTERED DURING IT'S PRODUCTION, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES CHECKED JB SHEET # DRAWN HG SHEET TITLE: DWI - RESTROOMS CONSULTANT RENDERS issue date CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU description JUNEAU, AK Page 16 of 24  1" NorthWind Architects, LLC; Project Number: NWA-0000A IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE EXACTLY ONE INCH, THE SCALE OF THIS DRAWINGHAS BEEN ALTERED DURING IT'S PRODUCTION, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES CHECKED JB SHEET # DRAWN HG SHEET TITLE: DWI - RESTROOMS CONSULTANT RENDERS issue date CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU description JUNEAU, AK Page 17 of 24  1" NorthWind Architects, LLC; Project Number: NWA-0000A IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE EXACTLY ONE INCH, THE SCALE OF THIS DRAWINGHAS BEEN ALTERED DURING IT'S PRODUCTION, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES CHECKED JB SHEET # DRAWN HG SHEET TITLE: DWI - RESTROOMS CONSULTANT RENDERS issue date CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU description JUNEAU, AK Page 18 of 24  1" NorthWind Architects, LLC; Project Number: NWA-0000A IF THIS BAR DOES NOT MEASURE EXACTLY ONE INCH, THE SCALE OF THIS DRAWINGHAS BEEN ALTERED DURING IT'S PRODUCTION, AFFECTING ALL LABELED SCALES CHECKED JB SHEET # DRAWN HG SHEET TITLE: DWI - RESTROOMS CONSULTANT RENDERS issue date CITY AND BOROUGH OF JUNEAU description JUNEAU, AK Page 19 of 24 Questions? Page 20 of 24 Memorandum To: Visitor Industry Task Force From: Alexandra Pierce, Visitor Industry Director Date: July 10, 2026 Re: Approaches to Tourism Management Planning: Comparing Destination Management Plans, Sustainable Tourism Plans, and Tourism Strategies On July 9, the VITF discussed tourism plans. Staff have pulled planning documents from several different destinations representing the three dominant tourism plan types. These approaches overlap in practice but differ in scope, sponsor, relevant issues, and structure. Due to the tight turnaround of this memo, this is not a comprehensive overview, but the goal is to identify a few different approaches to stimulate task force discussion. This preliminary research provides an example of each type of plan from a mature, high-volume destination. 1. Destination Management Plans (DMPs) DMPs provide a holistic framework with a focus on the community as a destination. DMPs coordinate all elements of a destination (marketing, infrastructure, workforce, environment, community sentiment) under one roadmap, typically built through heavy stakeholder engagement. DMPs are typically sponsored and implemented by the Destination Management Organization (DMO), but don’t need to be. In Juneau’s case, Travel Juneau would be an important partner in developing and implementing a DMP. • Example - Snowmass, CO: Part of the Aspen Snowmass resort system, which has topped 1.5 million skier visits in a season. Built over ~7 months with input from 200+ stakeholders, organized around four pillars (People, Place, Prosperity, Process). An initial draft was sent back by council after being characterized as more tourism-focused than community-focused and was revised before adoption. Plan: https://tosv.com/598/Destination-Management-Plan 2. Sustainable Tourism Plans Sustainable tourism plans are generally focused on destination sustainability and organized around a triple-bottom-line lens (economic, social, environmental); some apply the Global Sustainable Tourism Council’s framework or best practices. Sustainable tourism plans look at Page 21 of 24  the destination through a sustainability lens and are broken down into granular, individually owned actions and metrics tied to specific sustainability pressures. • Example - Sedona, AZ: A town of roughly 10,000 residents receiving an estimated 3 million+ visitors annually. Built over 18 months by the City and the Sedona Chamber of Commerce & Tourism Bureau with ASU's School of Sustainability, with over 1,000 participants. Organized around four pillars (Environment, Resident Quality of Life, Quality of the Economy, Visitor Experience) with 60+ measurable tactics, each with a timeline and assigned responsible party. Plan: https://visitsedona.com/sustainable-tourism-plan/ (full PDF: https://visit- sedona.s3.amazonaws.com/CMS/9719/sed-stp_4-17-19_hr-update.pdf) 3. Tourism Strategies Strategies tend to focus on positioning and a task list, with less emphasis on organizational restructuring. Two examples show how differently that narrower scope can be applied. The VITF 1.0 report can be considered a stripped-down tourism strategy. • Example - Ketchikan Gateway Borough, AK: Alaska's second-largest cruise port, hosting over 1 million cruise passengers annually since 2017 into a community of roughly 12,000 residents. The document is more of a master plan than a strategy and came out of an 18-month process involving roughly 1,600 residents, businesses, and stakeholders, and lands on 8 goals spanning the whole borough, visitor flow, workforce housing, traffic, year-round positioning. The final draft runs 92 pages with a 2-to-5-year implementation schedule. Plan: https://ktntalk.com/ketchikan-tourism-strategy • Example - Savannah, GA: A city of roughly 148,000 residents drawing over 13 million visitors a year, with the bulk of that traffic concentrated in a single one-square-mile National Historic Landmark District. The plan was scoped from the outset around protecting that particularly busy district. The process drew on prior resident and visitor sentiment surveys focused specifically on the historic district, and was designed as a living, 3-to-5-year roadmap balancing resident needs against industry interests, with implementation overseen by a standing Tourism Advisory Committee. Plan: https://www.savannahga.gov/2644/Tourism-Management-Plan The type of plan will dictate the structure, budget and timeline. While any community struggling with its future vis-à-vis tourism will benefit from any of these plan types, scope Page 22 of 24 matters in terms of community buy in and likely implementation success. The scope comparison on the following page breaks down the different plan types: Scope Comparison: Destination management plan Sustainable tourism plan Tourism strategy Geographic scope Entire destination operating Single municipality or district, Can span an entire jurisdiction environment, a single town or matched tightly to a specific (Ketchikan) or target a specific entire area covered by a DMO capacity pressure (Sedona's district within one (Savannah's trails, water, traffic) one-square-mile Historic Landmark District) Sponsoring body Local DMO or state tourism Joint sponsorship, city Local government or a pooled office, often with a consultant government plus chamber of multi-stakeholder funding commerce or tourism bureau model (Sedona: City plus Chamber) Organizing Pillars or functional categories Triple-bottom-line categories, Numbered list of goals or an structure spanning the whole tourism environment, economy, action plan system (e.g. People, Place, resident quality of life, visitor Prosperity, Process) experience Time horizon Multi-year roadmap Multi-year with periodic tactic- Shorter implementation (Snowmass: 5 to 10 years; level review, no fixed end date windows tied to individual Maine: 5-year strategy nested (Sedona's plan has run since goals (Ketchikan: 2 to 5 years; inside the DMP) 2019) Savannah: framed as a living document over 3 to 5 years, neither has not been updated) Specificity Goals and strategies, not Most granular of the three, for Goal-level detail with an action always assigned individual example, Sedona assigns 60+ plan owners or timelines at the tactics, each with a named tactic level owner and timeline Engagement Structured engagement Comprehensive, multi- Ideally targeted around the process (workshops, surveys, stakeholder engagement over a specific issues driving the plan interviews) over several long runway (Sedona: 18 months to a year months, 1,000+ participants) Page 23 of 24 Suggested Metrics From July 9 Discussion Below is a list from staff notes with the topics discussed at the last meeting. • Juneau’s ranking as a destination (admittedly hard to track) • Understanding of cruise industry economic impact (more frequent studies) • Perform community survey less frequently or rotate with visitor survey/economic study. Change up questions to ask if things are working • Centralized tracking of infrastructure improvements. • Centralize data CBJ already has: bed taxes, sales tax, passenger numbers • Measure capacity by how it’s serving local businesses using business climate study • Develop a set of objectives and tie regulation to measuring those objectives • Permitting – number of permits between CBJ and USFS (work closely with USFS to collect shareable data) Page 24 of 24