Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly approves $450,000 FY26 funding agreement for Ketchikan Visitors Bureau
Summary
The borough assembly voted 6–0 to adopt a $450,000 FY26 Community Promotion & Marketing agreement for the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau after debate about accountability and program responsiveness; an amendment to raise the amount to $465,000 failed.
The Ketchikan Gateway Borough Assembly voted 6–0 on Aug. 4 to adopt a FY26 Community Promotion and Marketing professional services agreement providing $450,000 to the Ketchikan Visitors Bureau (KVB).
Mister Otis moved to adopt the agreement. KVB executive Miss Tetley told the assembly the additional funds would support a planned website redesign and a cruise‑focused microsite, improvements to the visitor center interior (lighting and carpet) and other projects. Tetley said the board had discussed a higher request earlier in the year and that a $65,000 website project is central to planned work.
Assembly discussion focused on accountability and responsiveness from the KVB, especially through the Tourism Best Management Practices (TBMP) program. Miss Palmer and others urged support for increased marketing, citing momentum under KVB leadership, while Miss Arntzen, Mister Bailey and Miss Matson stressed the need to see results from prior investments before adding funds.
Mister Otis moved an amendment to increase the award from $450,000 to $465,000. The amendment was debated and called to roll call; it failed after a 3–4 vote. The original $450,000 motion was then called and passed 6–0.
Assistant manager staff clarified that the KVB’s FY26 funding comes from CPV (bed‑tax) funds: “100% comes out of CPV.” The assembly discussed possible use of CPV funds for city capital requests (e.g., lighting) and directed staff to consider options for capital support and reporting. KVB leadership committed to provide quarterly reports and return on investment data to the assembly.
The assembly did not place additional conditions on the $450,000 other than existing scope and reporting expectations; if the assembly wants dedicated capital funding it may direct staff or request a city capital submission for specific projects.
