Matanuska-Susitna Borough Tourism Infrastructure Needs Study

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Tourism Infrastructure Needs Study

Prepared for:

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

June 2008

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Tourism Infrastructure Needs Study

Prepared for:

Matanuska-Susitna Borough

PREPARED BY:

Juneau Anchorage

In association with:

The Boutet Company Klugherz & Associates

MRV Architects

June 2008

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................ES-1 Introduction and Methodology..................................................................................... IM-1 Geographic Overview ................................................................................................... GO-1

A: Base Case Tourism Infrastructure Description Introduction ..................................................................................................................... A-1 Accommodations ............................................................................................................. A-2 Meeting Facilities ............................................................................................................. A-6 Sports Facilities .............................................................................................................. A-13 Other Public Venues ...................................................................................................... A-16 Parks, Campgrounds, Boat Launches and Trails ........................................................... A-20 Transportation ............................................................................................................... A-25 Public Restroom Facilities .............................................................................................. A-29

B: Mat-Su Visitor Markets Introduction ..................................................................................................................... B-1 Out-of-State Market Analysis........................................................................................... B-3 In-State Visitors.............................................................................................................. B-12 Market Outlook.............................................................................................................. B-14

C: Assessment of Tourism Industry Value Assessment of Tourism Industry Value ........................................................................... C-1

D: Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements Introduction .....................................................................................................................D-1 Meeting Facilities .............................................................................................................D-4 Road System Enhancements..........................................................................................D-11 Trail System Enhancements...........................................................................................D-17 Visitor Support Services.................................................................................................D-22 Determining Tourism Infrastructure Investment Priorities..........................................D-24 Potential Large Scale Destination and Attraction Developments................................D-31 Funding Approaches......................................................................................................D-36

E: Focus Areas for Tourism Improvement Focus Areas for Tourism Improvement ............................................................................E-1

F: Tourism Partnering Opportunities Introduction ......................................................................................................................F-1 Partnering Opportunities for Mat-Su Borough ...............................................................F-6

Appendices Appendix A: Tourism Infrastructure Description........................................................ APP-1 Appendix B: Mat-Su Visitor Markets ......................................................................... APP-30 Appendix C: Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements ................................... APP-52 Appendix D: Contacts and Information Sources ...................................................... APP-74 Appendix E: Montana Tourism Infrastructure Investment Program Guidelines................................................................................................................... APP-77

Executive Summary

Tourism Infrastructure Needs Study: Executive Summary McDowell Group, Inc. • Page ES-1

Introduction

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough is interested in understanding what tourism infrastructure investments are

needed to enhance visitors’ experience, increase overnight stays (thereby increasing bed tax revenue), and

maximize the overall economic return. The Borough contracted with McDowell Group, Inc. an Alaska

research and consulting firm with offices in Anchorage and Juneau, to take the lead role in the Tourism

Infrastructure Needs Study. Other members of the study team include The Boutet Company (an engineering

and planning firm based in Anchorage), Klugherz & Associates (a strategic planning and market development

firm based in Seattle), and MRV Architects (an architectural design firm based in Juneau).

The study includes six areas of analysis regarding borough tourism including: an inventory of existing tourism

infrastructure, an overview of visitor markets, the value of tourism to the borough, tourism infrastructure

needs, focus area questions and responses, and partnering opportunities.

• The study team compiled a detailed inventory of the Mat-Su Borough’s existing tourism

infrastructure, including accommodations, meeting facilities, sports facilities, parks, campgrounds,

boat launches, trails and other transportation infrastructure.

• The region’s current in-state and out-of-state visitor markets were analyzed, utilizing comprehensive

McDowell Group tourism research databases. The project also includes a discussion of the outlook for

several visitor markets and analyzes market implications for regional tourism infrastructure.

• The study team examined measures of tourism industry value, such as bed tax receipts and

employment. In addition, McDowell Group utilized modeling to estimate the direct, indirect and

induced economic benefits of the tourism sector in the Mat-Su region.

• The study team then examined how potential infrastructure improvements could enhance the

regional tourism industry and visitor experience. The team forecasted the increased number of

overnight stays likely to result and the overall economic return for four major categories of

infrastructure investment—meeting facilities, road system enhancements, trail system enhancements,

and visitor support services. Additionally, the study team examined development priorities, the

importance of large-scale destination and attraction development, and potential funding approaches.

• The study team responded to a series of questions specifically posed by the Borough at the beginning

of the study (entitled Focus Areas for Tourism Improvement).

• The project concluded with analysis of national trends in partnering that included ways in which

tourism entities, government, private land owners and others can work together to increase the

effectiveness of public dollars spent on tourism development. This section of the report includes

specific partnering recommendations for future tourism infrastructure developments in the region.

• Lastly, appendices provide detailed information supporting the assumptions and findings of the

study.

Key findings from the study are presented on the following pages.


Base Case Tourism Infrastructure Assessment

The study provides a comprehensive look at the borough’s existing tourism infrastructure. The summary

below helps frame the current operating environment and potential for needed tourism infrastructure

developments.

Accommodations • According to an inventory recently conducted by the Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau, 118

different accommodations are available throughout the Mat-Su Borough with a total of 1,602 rooms.

The size of accommodations range from one-bedroom Bed & Breakfasts to a 460-room hotel.

• Fifty-eight percent of accommodations are concentrated in the Talkeetna/Denali State Park area,

including the two largest hotels (which account for 672 rooms).

• Small accommodations, consisting of one to nine rooms, make up the majority of individual facilities

in the borough and are found in all regions in the borough (90 properties or 76 percent). Twenty-

three properties make up the mid-sized accommodations (10 to 49 rooms). Just four properties have

50 rooms or more.

• The market for overnight accommodations is highly seasonal with the highest occupancy rates

occurring in the summer. Along with the two largest hotel properties, several other facilities also close

in the winter.

Meeting Facilities, Sports Facilities, and Other Public Venues • Ten large facilities are available to host a meetings, conferences and events ranging from 101 to 300

attendees. Most large facilities are located in the Wasilla/Palmer area; some additional facilities are

located in Willow and Talkeetna.

• Seven properties can accommodate groups between 51 and 100 participants. Locations vary.

• Twenty small meeting facilities are available throughout the Mat-Su Borough (capacity up to 50

attendees). The smaller, more remote properties are often used for staff or board retreats.

• Any meeting or event that requires a single facility with sleeping rooms, meeting rooms and dining

facilities is limited to approximately 100 attendees.

• While there are more than 400 guest rooms in the Wasilla/Palmer area, there is limited full-service

meeting capacity available to accommodate larger groups.

• While many of the existing sport facilities were developed to meet local residents’ needs, they are

important assets for attracting overnight visitors for tournaments and special events.

• Additional public venues that serve the visitor industry include the Alaska State Fairgrounds,

performance halls, museums, and several visitor centers.

Parks, Trails and Road System • The region includes parts of two national parks and 24 state park units.

• More than 20 public campgrounds offer 830 tent or RV sites. Additionally, 17 remote cabins are

available.


• Over 60 boat launches provide access to waterways, including four prominent launches: Talkeetna

River Boat Launch, Susitna Landing, Deshka Landing, and the Little Susitna River Boat Launch.

• More than 2,000 miles of trails are located within the borough.

• Fewer parks and campgrounds are located along the Glenn Highway than the Parks Highway.

• The region includes 173 miles of the Parks Highway, 110 miles of the Glenn Highway, and

approximately 70 miles of the Denali Highway.

• Additional transportation infrastructure includes the Alaska Railroad, 10 public airports, and 200

private airports and air strips.

• The Parks and Glenn Highways have long stretches of roadway with no restroom facilities. Similarly,

the number of restrooms at trailheads, parks, and boat launches is insufficient.

Mat-Su Visitor Market Assessment

The study team examined both out-of-state and in-state visitor market to the Mat-Su Borough.

Visitor Volume • The approximate annual volume of all visitors to the Mat-Su Borough was estimated to be nearly

780,000 visitors in 2006/2007.

o An estimated 332,000 out-of-state visitors traveled to the Mat-Su Borough. Summer visitation

represented nearly 90 percent of the out-of-state visitor activity.

o The study team estimated that 446,000 Alaskans visited the Mat-Su Borough, with the largest

market being Anchorage residents. Summer visitors represented nearly 60 percent or

262,800 visitors; the number of fall/winter visitors totaled 183,400 Alaskans.

Visitor Spending • Total spending in the Mat-Su Borough by all visitor markets was estimated at $201 million for the full

year period of May 2006 to April 2007. Of this amount, $80 million (40 percent) is attributable to

out-of-state visitors and $121 million (60 percent) to in-state visitors.

Estimated Annual Visitor Expenditures, Mat-Su Borough Expenditures ($Millions)

Out-of-State Visitors Talkeetna $42.5 Palmer/Wasilla 27.4 Glenn Highway 0.9 Off the Beaten Path (Roadless portions of the Borough) 9.0

Subtotal Out-of-State $79.8 million In-State Visitors

Fall/Winter $64.3 Summer 57.0

Subtotal In-State $121.3 million Total Visitor Industry Spending $201.1 million


• Food and beverage represented the leading expenditure category, followed by accommodations,

then fuel and transportation.

Estimated Annual Visitor Expenditures, by Category

Expenditure Category Expenditures ($Millions)

Percent of Total

Food and beverage $70.2 35% Accommodations 49.1 24 Fuel and transportation 45.6 23 Tours and entertainment 28.8 14 Gifts and souvenirs 6.8 3 Other 0.5 <1

• Popular visitor activities included visiting friends and relatives, wildlife viewing, cultural activities,

hiking and nature walking, camping, and flightseeing.

• Overall, the Mat-Su visitor industry is expected to grow.

o The cruise market is anticipated to grow between 2 and 5 percent annually over the next five

years. The percentage of passengers that spend time in Alaska before or after their cruise is

also growing (including participation in tour packages and time spent on their own).

o The independent visitor market that travels to and from Alaska by air is expected to grow

steadily. Many of these visitors rent cars or RVs and have high potential for Mat-Su

communities and attractions.

o Population growth in Anchorage (11 percent over the past decade) is also extremely

favorable for year-round Mat-Su visitation.

Assessment of Tourism Industry Value

The study team developed a number of indicators for estimating tourism value. These include visitor volume

data, visitor spending from two research efforts, direct employment in visitor-affected sectors, known visitor-

related tax receipts, and IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) econometric modeling for direct, indirect and

induced impacts.

• An estimated $201 million in direct visitor industry spending in the Mat-Su region resulted in

approximately 3,100 jobs and $78 million in labor income. (Labor income estimates include

employee payroll and benefits as well as proprietors’ income.)

• After accounting for indirect and induced impacts, total economic value associated with the visitor

industry is estimated at $282 million, nearly 4,000 jobs, and more than $100 million in labor income.

• Receipts from the Mat-Su Borough’s 5 percent bed tax provided nearly $975,000 in 2007. Since

2000, annual bed tax revenues have increased by an average annual rate of 12 percent.

• Annual visitation is expected to grow from the current level of 780,000 visitors to 800,000—860,000

visitors in 2010 and 860,000—1,200,000 visitors in 2017.


Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements

The study team identified four major categories of potential tourism infrastructure developments.

Development costs were estimated for each category as well as their potential effects on visitor volume,

overnight stays, and contribution to the regional economy. The likely impact of each category on the visitor

experience was also evaluated. A summary of findings for each of the recommended tourism infrastructure

development areas is provided below.

MEETING FACILITIES

The Mat-Su region is not competitive in the conference and convention market due to the lack of meeting

facilities that can accommodate meeting and banquet functions in the same building. Two proposed meeting

facility sizes were analyzed in this study.

• Conference facility. At approximately 8,400 sq. ft., the facility could accommodate conferences of

125 attendees (or two concurrent events of 125 people.) Estimated construction costs would be $4.5

million. Based on comparable facilities, the financial gap between operating costs and revenues is

likely to be approximately $200,000. (This estimate includes routine operations and maintenance,

but does not include periodic capital costs or convention marketing.)

o Estimated annual meeting related market potential ranged from nearly 4,000 additional

room nights and $700,000 in new spending to nearly 5,300 room nights and $930,000 in

new spending.

• Convention facility. At approximately 20,300 sq. ft., the larger facility is intended to accommodate

conventions of up to 400 attendees, including meetings, banquets, and three small conference

rooms that could be used for break-out sessions. Two concurrent events of 400 people could also

occur at the facility. Estimated construction cost is $10.8 million. The operating gap is estimated at

$300,000, based on comparable facilities. (This estimate does include routine operations and

maintenance, but does not include periodic capital costs or convention marketing.)

o Annual room nights associated with the convention and meeting market is estimated

between 6,200 and 9,000. New visitor spending associated with these conventions and

meetings is estimated between $1.1 and $1.5 million annually.

• While the initial capital costs are greater, Mat-Su would generate the largest return on investment

from annual operating costs from the larger convention facility.

• The optimal location for a new meeting facility is near Palmer and Wasilla, which offer the closest

proximity to Anchorage, year-round accommodations, and related services like catering,

entertainment, and lighting and sound technicians.

ROAD SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS

The primary need in the region is restrooms, which are ideally placed every 40 to 50 miles along the road

system. The study also recommends improvements to a number of scenic viewpoints along the Glenn

Highway and upgrading the Denali Highway (which will promote a circular travel pattern and prolong visitor

stays in the region).


• Priority wayside and restroom areas include the following:

o Glenn Highway/Parks Highway intersection, mile 32-34

o Glenn Highway, mile 129.3

o Glenn Highway, mile 78.1

o Parks Highway, mile 195.5

o Parks Highway, mile 60-65.

• The study team estimated $500,000 to $1 million in annual investment, which could wholly fund

one or two waysides each year or support an accelerated program with partners.

o Development costs for individual wayside improvements, complete with restrooms and other

amenities can range from $350,000 to $1 million depending on the site, size, enhancements,

and current condition. Ongoing maintenance can be $30,000 to $75,000 per location.

o The amount invested by the Borough could be much more modest, depending on grants

and partners.

o Costs for the Denali Highway upgrade were not explored, as this longer-term consideration

would need to be explored with the State of Alaska, Denali Borough, and other parties.

• Assuming a systematic approach to road system enhancements, the region has potential for

considerable market growth.

o New annual room nights associated with road system enhancements are estimated between

13,000 and nearly 24,000. New visitor spending is estimated between $2.2 and $3.8 million

annually.

o Denali Highway improvements could result in another 2,000 to 4,000 overnights from tour

packages and $600,000 to $1.2 million annually.

TRAIL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS

While the region boasts a trail system of more than 2,000 miles and many outstanding attributes, the study

revealed a number of urgent needs. Priority areas included improved trailheads, restrooms, and signage.

• The following list is roughly prioritized, based on current condition and estimated usage:

o Point MacKenzie – Existing trailhead will eventually be consumed by port development.

Relocate trailhead/parking area approximately one mile north on Point MacKenzie Road and

install restrooms. Provides access to Figure Eight Lake, Flathorn Lake, Susitna River and

beyond.

o Ayrshire Road – Existing trailhead provides access to Figure Eight Lake, Flathorn Lake trail

system, Susitna River and beyond. Restrooms need to be installed.

o West Papoose Twins Road – Construct new trailhead during upgrade of road. Install

restrooms. Provides access to Crooked Lake Trail, Iron Dog Trail, Susitna River and beyond.

o North Crystal Lake Road – Expand existing trailhead. Install restrooms. Provides access to

Willow area trails.

o Willer Kash Road – Expand existing trailhead. Install restrooms. Provides access to Hatcher

Pass trail system, Kashwitna area trails.


o Parks Highway MP 105 – Expand existing trailhead/parking area (possibly relocate short

distance to the north to get off the road). Install restrooms. Provides access to Trapper Lake-

Amber Lake trail system, Trapper Creek trail system.

o Petersville Road MP 4 – Construct new trailhead/parking area. Install restrooms. Provides

access to Petersville-Trapper Creek trail system, Denali State Park trails.

o Butte Pavilion Parking Area – Grade to level out. Install restrooms. Provides access to Jim

Creek, Knik River and Knik Glacier.

o Wendt Road – Expand existing parking area. Install restrooms. Provides access to Matanuska

Moose Range trail system.

o Sutton/Coyote Lake – Expand parking area. Replace damaged restroom. Provides access to

Sutton area trails.

o Kings River – Expand existing parking area. Install restrooms. Provides access to Kings River,

Young Creek and Red Mountain.

o Purinton Creek – Install restrooms. Provides access to Purinton Creek and Boulder Creek area

trails.

o France Road (CMT) – Develop future trailhead to coincide with trailhead move in case the

CMT unit is not moveable. Install single restroom.

o Matanuska Peak Trailhead – Install single restroom.

o Pioneer Ridge Trailhead – Replace outhouse with single restroom.

o Matanuska River Park – Install one restroom on back parking lot.

• The study also recommends an update to the trail plan to inventory and map all the trails in the

region and designate usage, design standards, and responsibility for maintenance. The planning

process will facilitate partnerships and potential funding.

• Continued trail system development is also important, as the region has untapped potential for new

or enhanced trail systems for hikers, equestrians, snow machine riders, and cross-country skiers.

• The study team estimated $300,000 to $500,000 in annual investment, which could wholly fund one

to three trailheads each year or support an accelerated program with partners.

o Development costs for trailheads and related improvements, complete with restrooms and

other amenities, can range from $150,000 to $750,000 depending on the site, size,

enhancements, and current condition. Ongoing maintenance can be $10,000 to $50,000

per location.

o The trail plan update could range from $150,000 to $300,000, depending on the scope of

work and ability to partner.

o The Borough may wish to dedicate $50,000 to $150,000 for a grant program to support

planning, construction, and maintenance efforts that enhance the trail system.

• Considering the importance of outdoor recreation to in-state and out-of-state visitors, significant

market growth could result from an ongoing and systematic approach to the trail system.

o New room nights are estimated between 12,000 and nearly 24,000 annually. New visitor

spending is estimated between $2 and $3.9 million annually.


VISITOR SUPPORT SERVICES

Visitor center kiosks and signage should be found at major access points into the region. Past research shows

that this type of infrastructure can significantly enhance satisfaction. The study team also believes that length

of stay and spending can be influenced as well.

• Priority areas include the following:

o Glenn Highway is identified as the highest priority area and should be incorporated into any

new wayside development.

o Regional information should be made available at the new interpretive center and kiosks

developed through the South Denali Implementation Plan.

o Major airport and rail arrival points should be reviewed to ensure that information meets the

needs of the respective markets.

• A one-time expenditure of $75,000 to $180,000 should be sufficient to cover development of one or

two kiosks and signage upgrades.

• Increased visitor overnights are estimated between 7,000 and 12,500. New visitor spending estimates

range from $2.4 to $4 million annually.

Evaluation Criteria

The study team utilized eight evaluation criteria for recommending tourism infrastructure development

priorities. Ultimately, public policy makers may choose these or other criteria depending on the desired end

result of the borough’s tourism infrastructure investments.

1. Overall development costs

2. Potential economic returns on development costs

3. Distribution of economic benefits in the borough

4. Length of time to achieve market potential

5. Operating and maintenance costs

6. Impact on Mat-Su Borough revenues

7. Funding sources

8. Partnership opportunities

Tourism Infrastructure Priorities

Successful tourism growth is a synergistic result of a complex web of all the enhancements analyzed in this

report. For example, only focusing on trail system enhancements would not result in near the same benefits

as simultaneous development of road, trail and visitor support service enhancements. This makes forecasting

specific economic returns on each category very difficult. Even the relatively stand alone

conference/convention facility – provided it is centrally located and easily accessible – might have some long

term synergistic benefits by exposing meeting attendees to the more widely distributed road, trail and visitor

support services in the region.


The Mat-Su Borough must first strategically decide the desired end result from their visitor industry

investment. Then investments can be chosen that yield those results. Fortunately, the substantial visitor base

that exists, the increased revenue from investments, and a potential increase in bed tax rates makes possible

investments in multiple priorities. The following are the study team’s recommendations based on the

apparent overall best interests of the Mat-Su Borough.

HIGHEST PRIORITY

The tourism investment priority that yields the highest positive return is visitor support services. The

investment required is relatively small and can be implemented quickly. Positive returns for the investment

should be realized in three to five years and the benefits from this investment will be spread throughout the

borough and throughout the year. Additionally, partnering opportunities exist with the Mat-Su Convention

and Visitors Bureau, private companies, and the State Department of Transportation & Public Facilities.

SECOND PRIORITIES

The second investment priorities are both road and trail system enhancements. As the immediate needs are

addressed, the study team recommends funding a more detailed enhancement plan for each program area. It

is assumed that enhancements can be implemented over a period of years allowing benefits to spread

throughout the borough and impact both summer and winter visitor seasons. There are good opportunities

to partner and leverage dollars with the National Scenic Byways Program, other federal and state programs,

as well as user groups and businesses.

THIRD PRIORITY

Development of a conference/convention center is considered a lower investment priority relative to the

positive investment returns on visitor support services, and road and trail system enhancements. Further,

most benefits will be localized around the center. However, a new meeting facility would provide new

spending in the non-summer months, and may provide increased room nights and spending earlier than

some other projects. Development of a conference/convention center offers some opportunities for

partnering.

The comparison table on the following page provides a summary of estimated room nights, new visitor

spending, development costs, and timeframe needed to achieve projections. Operating and maintenance

costs are not expected to affect the outcome of this comparative analysis. They are minor when compared to

development costs and may be offset by grants and partnering.


Comparison of Potential Tourism Infrastructure Enhancements

Tourism Infrastructure Estimated

AnnualOvernights

Estimated AnnualVisitor

Spending

Estimated Development

Cost

Timeframe to Achieve Projections

Conference Facility

Lower range 4,000 $700,000 $4.5 million 3-5 years

Higher range 5,300 900,000 same same

Convention Facility

Lower range 6,200 $1.1 million $10.8 million 3-5 years

Higher range 9,000 1.6 million same same

Road System Enhancement Program*

Lower range 13,000 $2.2 million$0.5 to $1

million annually

8-10 years


Two waysides -- --$0.7 to $2

million 1-2 years

Trail System Enhancement Program

Lower range 12,000 $2.0 million$0.3 to $0.5

million annually

10-20 years


Trail Plan -- --$100,000 to

$300,000 1

Continued trail system development and mapping -- --

$65,000 to $180,000 ongoing

Visitor Support Services

Lower range 7,000 $2.4 million$75,000 to

$180,000 8-10 years


Note: this table includes estimated development costs only (not operations, maintenance, or debt service). Additional details are found in Appendix C. *Market growth from highway enhancements does not include impacts from paving Denali Highway. Denali Highway enhancements are estimated to increase overnight stays by an additional 2,000 to 4,000 nights.

Study Team Recommendations

Potential Large Scale Destination and Attraction Development

The Borough has been engaged in a number of destination and attraction developments. Continued Borough

investment and development is recommended to optimize visitor industry growth and related economic and

employment impacts. Examples of destination and attraction development that warrant future Borough

involvement include:


• South Denali area. This area is expected to grow significantly as the South Denali Implementation Plan

unfolds. The Borough should remain involved in planning and infrastructure development.

• Hatcher Pass. The Borough should continue to develop this area as a visitor destination, as it has

significant long-term potential for virtually all visitor markets.

• Other examples include Independence Mine Tour, Glenn Highway Raptor Center, Palmer Hay Flats

Natural Science and Education/Community Center, and ongoing Trail Destination development.

Bed Tax Rate Analysis • Each community collects and allocates bed tax collections differently, based on their unique

economies and their usage of other funding mechanisms, such as property and sales taxes. At 5

percent, the Mat-Su Borough bed tax rate is considerably lower than Anchorage (12 percent) and

Fairbanks (8 percent).

• The study team developed scenarios for future bed tax collections for 3-, 5-, and 10-year periods with

increased bed tax rates. For each of the scenarios, the study team assumed a 5 percent annual

growth rate in taxable accommodation sales.

o As shown in the table below, if the bed tax were increased to 6 percent, the estimated bed

tax collections would be $1.4 million in 2010, $1.5 million in 2012, and $1.9 million in 2017.

Total collections during the 10-year period would be $15.4 million, compared to $12.9

million under the current 5 percent bed tax rate.

o At a 7 percent bed tax rate, revenue would total $1.6 million in bed tax in 2010, $1.7 million

in 2012, and $2.2 million in 2017. Ten-year collections would total $18.0 million.

o At an 8 percent bed tax rate, revenue would total $1.8 million in 2010, $2.0 million in 2012,

$2.5 million in 2017, for a 10-year total of $20.6 million.

• The study team also developed forecasts utilizing 10 percent and 15 percent annual growth rate in

taxable accommodation sales.

• Other funding options were evaluated, including public bonds, tax reinvestment zones, fees and

permits, and support from federal and state agencies, as well as private businesses and landowners.


Focus Areas

Following is a summary of responses to the seven specific questions posed at the onset of the study.

• Yes, a convention center can contribute significantly to the economy, as it allows the region to attract

a market that it does not serve now. As summarized in the Needed Improvements section, a smaller

conference facility could attract between $700,000 and $900,000 annually in meeting-related

business. A larger convention facility could attract $1.1 to $1.6 million annually.

• The study team recommends construction of one larger facility rather than several small facilities if

this concept is pursued.

• Convention facilities will bring people to the valley for both overnight and day trips. The nature of

the meeting and number of attendees from outside the Anchorage area will influence travel patterns.

• All the tourism investment developments recommended in this study will contribute to overnight

stays. As shown in the Comparison of Tourism Investment table, road and trail system enhancements

have the greatest potential.

• It is economically better to locate a convention facility along the road system, as access to

accommodations, catering, and technical support are critical factors for success.

• Improved signage and restroom facilities greatly contribute to the tourism experience and economy.

• Compared to other areas, it makes sense to increase the bed tax. The study team believes that an

increase to 6 or 7 percent would be readily accepted by residents and the tourism industry. Is it

possible to increase the tax higher, but this should be approached with an educational campaign to

show what the additional funding will be designated for.

Tourism Partnering Opportunities • The study team provides a discussion of partnering trends as they relate to tourism infrastructure

development. Public/private partnerships and various incentive programs have emerged as

mechanisms to support the development of tourism infrastructure.

• There is no single model that works for public/private partnerships. Rather, partnerships are

structured in a variety of ways and can be as varied as the projects and organizations involved.

Usually these partnerships are created through contractual agreements between a public agency or

agencies, for-profit corporations and/or non-profit corporations or user groups. More often than not,

various investment incentives are included in the partnership, such as:

o Financial incentives in the form of government grants or loans from its own resources such as

special taxes, sale of revenue bonds, legislative appropriations (local, state or federal), etc.;

o Quasi-financial incentives in the form of loan guarantees, subsidies, or differential grants that

bridge the gap between official and commercial lending rates;

o Fiscal incentives, such as tax credits, enterprise zones, special districts, workforce incentive

programs, etc.; and

o Other incentives such as planning, management assistance, business development support,

or other technical assistance.

• The study team assessed each tourism infrastructure enhancement priority and then suggested

avenues for public and private partnering.


Conclusions for Tourism Infrastructure Development

INVESTMENT DOLLARS

The Mat-Su Borough has significant opportunity, through increasing bed tax rates and market growth, to

generate substantial investment dollars for tourism infrastructure enhancements.

INFRASTRUCTURE SYNERGY

While visitor support service enhancements may have the best prospect for return on investment, the most

substantial tourism growth will occur through the synergistic effects of simultaneous development of visitor

support services, and highway and trail enhancements.

ECONOMIC ENHANCEMENT

Since a significant portion of Mat-Su’s visitor volume is short-stay through-traffic, infrastructure

enhancements should be successful in extending visitor’s time in the borough and creating economic benefits

as a result.

CAREFUL PLANNING

Conference and convention facilities rarely are profitable in their own right, so the location, sizing, and

operating efficiency of such facilities must be carefully planned.

PARTNERING LEVERAGE

Through partnering, the Mat-Su Borough’s investment dollars can be leveraged for much greater return.

A PROMISING FUTURE

Overall, the Mat-Su Borough has a promising future for tourism development, due to three major

contributing factors. First, the Mat-Su Borough has significant potential to increase its investment dollars.

Second, most infrastructure enhancements evaluated in this study will yield positive returns. Third, market

growth in both in-state and out-of-state markets has a positive outlook and the Mat-Su Borough is in a prime

position to capitalize.

Introduction and Methodology

Introduction and Methodology McDowell Group, Inc. • Page IM-1

Introduction and Methodology

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough contracted with the McDowell Group project team to develop an

independent study of the regional visitor industry. The primary purpose of the study was to identify

infrastructure development opportunities that would increase overnight stays in the Mat-Su region, enhance

economic and employment opportunities for residents, and improve the experience for in-state and out-of-

state visitors.

Study Team Overview

The study was led by McDowell Group, drawing on project management and staff support from the

company’s Anchorage and Juneau offices. Anchorage-based Boutet Company contributed to the Assessment

of Existing Infrastructure and final analysis and recommendations—particularly in the area of transportation

and trail system enhancements. Seattle-based Klugherz & Associates participated in the initial site visit and

identification of infrastructure needs at each stage of the study. Klugherz & Associates also led the project

team’s efforts in exploring partnering opportunities for each development recommendation. Juneau-based

MRV Architects supported the project team by developing estimates of construction and other capital cost for

the conference facilities.

Methodology

Shortly after the commencement of the project, the study team met with the Borough’s Economic

Development Director to refine the scope of the project and identify key contacts. Study team members from

McDowell Group and Klugherz & Associates also conducted a three-day site visit, which provided an

opportunity to personally experience key infrastructure in the borough, and conduct interviews with visitor

industry representatives, business owners, and other government officials.

Concurrently, the study team began compilation of information needed to develop an assessment of the

region’s existing tourism infrastructure. To supplement publicly available data and facility information, the

study team conducted interviews with industry experts, property and land managers, and Borough and

community government officials. (A list of project contacts, data sources, and other resources can be found in

the Appendix.) The team also reviewed available State, Borough and community comprehensive plans, land

use plans, transportation plans, and other documents referencing the need or goals to improve any

component that affects tourism infrastructure in the borough. Finally, the study team used its own industry

expertise to further assess the adequacy of current infrastructure.

Report Organization

GEOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW

This section provides a brief description of the geographic, scenic and recreational attributes in the region. It

also provides a short description of the five unique regions within the borough as defined by the Mat-Su

Convention and Visitors Bureau.


BASE CASE TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE DESCRIPTION

This section includes detailed information regarding existing infrastructure and gaps including

accommodations, meeting facilities, sports facilities, other public venues, parks, campgrounds, boat launches,

trails and transportation.

MAT-SU VISITOR MARKETS

The study includes an analysis of the region’s current in-state and out-of-state visitor markets including visitor

volume, spending, locations visited, and activities within the borough. The section also includes a market

outlook discussion and implications for regional tourism infrastructure.

ASSESSMENT OF TOURISM INDUSTRY VALUE

The study team examined different measures of tourism industry value, such as bed tax receipts, state

employment income figures, number of tourism businesses, etc. This section also includes an estimate of

direct, indirect and induced economic benefits and a discussion of the intrinsic value of tourism.

NEEDED TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

This portion of the study examines how potential infrastructure improvements could enhance the regional

tourism industry by enhancing the visitor experience, increasing the number of overnight stays, and

contribute the most to overall economic return. This chapter also includes a discussion of large destination

and attraction projects in the region and funding approaches.

FOCUS AREAS FOR TOURISM IMPROVEMENT

This portion of the study addresses specific questions provided by the Borough related to infrastructure value

and need.

TOURISM PARTNERING OPPORTUNITIES

The study team provides a summary of national trends in partnering, including ways in which tourism

entities, government, private land owners and others can partner to increase the effectiveness of public

dollars spent on tourism development.

APPENDICES

There are four Appendix sections included at the back of the report.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A contains information that supports the Base Case Tourism Infrastructure Description section. This

appendix provides tables and text describing current tourism-related infrastructure in the borough.

Information on accommodations, sports facilities, Alaska State fairground facilities, museums, campgrounds,

parks, recreational areas, trails and transportation infrastructure in the region can be found in Appendix A.


APPENDIX B

Supplemental information from the Mat-Su Visitor Markets section of the report can be found in Appendix B.

This appendix includes more detailed information about special events and two significant attractions: the

Alaska State Fair and Hatcher Pass.

APPENDIX C

Appendix C includes details regarding size, construction cost, and other information that supports the

Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements section. For example, supplemental information is provided on

potential market increases from meeting facilities, road system enhancements and trail system enhancements,

as well as development costs.

APPENDIX D

Appendix D includes a list of project contacts and data and information sources. A number of individuals

were contacted and provided information that contributed to the development of the project. Additionally, a

number of sources were used to obtain visitor volume estimates, expenditure estimates and information

about visitors’ activities within the Mat-Su region.

APPENDIX E

Appendix E includes Montana Tourism Infrastructure Investment Program Guidelines 2007.

Geographic Overview

Tourism Infrastructure Needs Study: Geographic Overview McDowell Group, Inc. • Page GO-1

Geographic Overview

The Matanuska-Susitna Borough (commonly referred to as the Mat-Su Borough) is the fastest growing area of

Alaska and the nation’s third-fastest growing county/borough. It is bordered by Denali Borough to the north

and Anchorage to the south. The majority of the borough’s 80,000 residents live in (or near) the cities of

Palmer and Wasilla. The balance of the population is distributed within approximately 20 unincorporated

communities throughout the borough. The larger population centers of Houston, Big Lake, Willow, Sutton,

Trapper Creek and Talkeetna are located close to the state highways that transect the region.

Areas of the Mat-Su Borough can be reached by road, railway and air; this high level of accessibility is critical

to the success of the borough’s tourism industry. The George Parks Highway provides access to state and

national parks, and other destinations to the north. The Glenn Highway provides access to the southeastern

section of the borough, including the Matanuska Glacier and the Chugach Mountains. The Alaska Railroad

provides service between Anchorage and Fairbanks, with regularly scheduled stops in Wasilla and Talkeetna.

In addition to the airports in Palmer, Talkeetna and Wasilla, the region also offers several public and private

airfields and floatplane bases.

The Mat-Su Borough encompasses approximately 25,000 square miles of mountains, lakes, rivers, streams,

rolling lowlands and valleys. There are 24 state parks and recreation areas, including Independence Mine

State Historic Park at Hatcher Pass, which attracts visitors year-round. Denali State Park is located on the

borough's northern edge. Denali National Park, home to North America’s highest mountain, is one of Alaska’s

most popular attractions. The borough shares this National Park with the Denali Borough, with about 30

percent of the National Park located in the Mat-Su Borough. These parks provide a variety of year-round

recreational activities for local residents, in-state residents and out-of-state visitors.

Popular summer activities for local residents and visitors include salmon, trout and grayling fishing, hunting,

boating, golfing, mountain climbing, kayaking, rafting, flightseeing, gold panning and horseback riding.

During the winter, recreational activities include skiing, snowshoeing, skating, dog sledding, ice fishing and

snowmobiling. Denali National Park, Denali State Park, Independence Mine State Historical Park and the areas

around Matanuska and Knik Glaciers are especially popular areas for hiking, skiing and camping.

The borough hosts the Iron Dog Snow Machine Race and the Alaska State Fair. Additionally, the famous

Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race winds through the Valley each March. Thousands of visitors attend these events

each year. There are a number of heritage sites and museums in the region, including the Iditarod Park,

Independence Mine State Historical Park, Dorothy Page Museum, Sutton Alpine Historical Park and many

others.

The Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau promotes the region’s scenic, historic and recreational attributes

to Alaska residents and a wide array of non-resident visitors. Additional marketing and visitor information

support is provided by several local chambers of commerce.


Visitor Regions To help visitors differentiate between the geographically diverse areas of the borough, the Mat-Su

Convention and Visitors Bureau developed five unique regions, which are briefly described below. These

regions are also used by the Bureau to define their accommodation and attraction locations.

• Glacier Country (Glenn Highway) -- the southeastern corner of the borough stretching northeast from

Wasilla to Lake Louise and Susitna Lake, including Wasilla, Palmer, Sutton, Chickaloon, Eureka and Lake

Louise. The Chugach Mountain Range borders to the south and the Talkeetna Range to the north. Many

glaciers can be seen from the Glenn Highway that runs along the Matanuska River.

• Gold Rush Country (Hatcher Pass) -- a southern section, including Independence Mine State Historic

Park at Hatcher Pass.

• Lake Country (Knik/Point MacKenzie, Big Lake) -- a small southern section along the Cook Inlet,

including many lakes and the communities of Knik, Big Lake and Houston. The Little and Big Susitna

Rivers, Yentna River and the Iditarod Trail winds through the area. The Parks Highway provides access to

the communities of Big Lake and Houston.

• Denali Country (Willow to Denali) -- in the middle of the borough, stretching north from Willow to

Denali State Park, including the communities of Willow, Talkeetna, Trapper Creek and Petersville. The

Parks Highway passes through Denali Country, providing access to these communities and the State Park.

• Off the Beaten Path (Roadless Portion of the Borough) -- the largest region of the borough,

encompassing a horseshoe-shaped swath of the southwest, north and northeast corner of the borough.

Thirty percent of Denali National Park is located in this region, as well as Denali State Park. The Parks

Highway provides access to these parks. The Denali Highway passes through the northeastern corner. The

Alaska Range stretches along the northern border and the Talkeetna Range stretches along the southeast

border.

(See map on the following page.)


Map of Matanuska-Susitna Borough Tourism Regions

Source: Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau

Base Case Tourism Infrastructure

Description

Base Case Tourism Infrastructure Description McDowell Group, Inc. • Page A-1

Introduction

The Base-Case Tourism Infrastructure Description provides a description of the existing tourism

infrastructure in the Borough. For the purpose of this study, tourism infrastructure refers to developed

facilities that are used by visitors when they are traveling through and visiting the Mat-Su Borough.

The tourism infrastructure examined in this report is grouped into the following categories:

accommodations, meeting facilities used for conventions or conferences; sports facilities, such as ice

arenas, soccer or baseball fields; other public venues, such as the Alaska State Fair Grounds, performance

halls, museums, and visitor’s centers; parks campgrounds, boat launches and trails; transportation, such

as roads, railroads and airports; and public restroom facilities.

The following sections provide an analysis of each infrastructure category, assessing the types of facilities

available, quantity, condition, and challenges.


Accommodations

According to an inventory recently conducted by the Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau, there are

118 different accommodations available throughout the Mat-Su Borough, offering a total of 1,602

rooms. The size of accommodations ranges from one-bedroom B & B’s to a 460-room property.

Some groups, such as fraternal organizations and service clubs, are often willing to share rooms.

However, this arrangement would be inappropriate for many business gatherings. As a result, the

capacity of any property or region is often limited to the number of private rooms.

Mat-Su Lodging by Region

Lodging Size # of Properties

% of Total Properties

# of Rooms

% of Total Rooms

Glacier Country (Glenn Highway) 32 28% 304 19%

Gold Rush Country (Hatcher Pass) 4 3 30 2

Lake Country (Knik/Point MacKenzie, Big Lake) 22 19 236 15

Denali Country (Willow to Denali) 41 35 924 58

Off the Beaten Path (Roadless areas) 19 16 108 7

Total 118 100% 1,602 100%

Note: For more details regarding the tourism regions, refer to page GO-3.

A significant amount of the accommodation inventory in the Mat-Su Borough is found in Denali Country

and in the core area surrounding Wasilla and Palmer (core centers found within Gold Rush Country and

Glacier Country tourism regions).

Denali Country Area

The two largest properties—Mt. McKinley Princess Wilderness Lodge (460 rooms) and Talkeetna Alaskan

Lodge (212 rooms)—make up 42 percent of the rooms in the Mat-Su Borough. Both of these properties

are only open during the summer and are located in the Talkeetna/Denali State Park area. When the

rooms at these properties are combined with others in the area, nearly 60 percent of the lodging is

concentrated in this region of the borough.

Wasilla/Palmer Area

There are an estimated 432 rooms in the Wasilla/Palmer core area, including B & B’s. Combined, the

peak season capacity in the area is approximately 900 guests. However, it is not reasonable to expect

that all rooms would be available for a single conference or event, as many properties have ongoing

business relationships and contracts for particular business travelers and groups. Additionally, many

smaller properties close for the winter or for personal vacations.


A total of 296 rooms are located within properties with 10 or more rooms. These distinctions illustrate

how the total room capacity varies depending on the unique needs of any single event, conference or

tour group.

The table below presents the number of properties in various size ranges. A detailed list of

accommodations, prepared by the Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau, is available in Appendix A.

Mat-Su Lodging Size

Lodging Size # of Properties

% of Total Properties

# of Rooms

% of Total Rooms

Large Accommodations >450 rooms 1 1% 460 29% 200-450 rooms 1 1 212 13 80-199 rooms 0 0 0 0 50-79 rooms 2 2 133 8 Medium Accommodations 30-49 rooms 2 2 73 5 20-29 rooms 5 4 128 8 10-19 rooms 16 14 199 12 Small Accommodations 5-9 rooms 39 33 256 16 1-4 rooms 51 44 141 9 Total 118 100% 1,602 100%

LARGE ACCOMMODATIONS

Understanding the amenities and seasonality of the largest hotel properties is particularly important

when assessing the borough’s ability to handle tour groups, certain board meetings or conferences and

other markets that require all of their guests to be located in one property. The four largest hotels are

relatively new, offer numerous amenities and are situated in scenic settings. They are briefly described

below:

• The Mt. McKinley Princess Wilderness Lodge, the largest hotel in the borough, is a seasonal

property located on 146 acres of land just inside Denali State Park. In addition to Princess

motorcoach and rail passengers, the lodge accommodates tour groups and independent travelers.

Lodge amenities include four restaurants, a great room facing Mt. McKinley, two espresso bars,

outdoor hot tubs, walking trails and a fitness room.

• The Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge is a seasonal property located approximately one mile from

downtown Talkeetna. Guest rooms are available in the main lodge and four adjacent buildings. The

lodge has three restaurants and a bar. Full meeting facilities are available, including four meeting

rooms, a breakout area, an outdoor pavilion, and audio visual equipment for conferences, retreats,

group meals, weddings and other special events.


• Grand View Inn and Suites is located in Wasilla. Each unit has a kitchen equipped with full-sized

appliances. Hotel amenities include banquet and convention rooms, a restaurant and bar, a

swimming pool and fitness center.

• The Best Western Lake Lucille Inn is located in Wasilla. Hotel amenities include a restaurant,

lounge, lakeside gazebo, fitness club and meeting facilities. The onsite banquet facilities can

accommodate up to 350 people; however, the onsite banquet facilities have recently been closed.

MEDIUM ACCOMMODATIONS

Medium-size accommodations in the borough range from 10 to 50 rooms, and make up 20 percent of

total properties. On their own, each of the medium-sized properties can accommodate a small tour

group, meeting or retreat. The market for overnight accommodation in the borough is highly seasonal,

with the highest occupancy rates occurring in the summer. Several of the accommodations in this size

range close in the winter.

SMALL ACCOMMODATIONS

Small accommodations, ranging from one to nine rooms, make up the majority of properties in the

borough (76 percent). Many of the small accommodations in the borough are B & B’s, of which most

are spread along the Glenn and Parks Highways. These B & B’s range from high-end accommodations

with many amenities like jacuzzis, fireplaces, etc., to casual accommodations consisting of simple

bedrooms in family homes. Several smaller properties close for the winter. Those that remain open for

the winter attract visitors for skiing, snowmobiling and snowshoeing. For example, visitors to the Sheep

Mountain Lodge and the Matanuska Glacier Lodge along the Glenn Highway have access to groomed

cross country ski trails and opportunities to snowmobile and snowshoe in the Talkeetna mountain range.

Additionally, visitors to the Motherlode Lodge and Hatcher Pass Lodge in the Independence Mine State

Historic Park also have access to snowmobiling and cross country skiing.


Summary of Accommodations Observations

• The market for overnight accommodation is highly seasonal, with the highest occupancy rates

occurring in the summer. Along with the two largest hotel properties, several medium and small

properties also close in the winter.

• Three out of five rooms are located in Denali Country (see map, page GO-3). This concentration is

reflective of the high demand for viewing Mt. McKinley among Alaska residents and visitors.

Increased South Denali access, coupled with continued visitor industry growth, is very likely to spur

additional demand and hotel growth in this area.

• In the summer months, Talkeetna’s accommodations are typically booked. Currently, Talkeetna lacks

an adequate number of accommodation facilities to support current and future market demand.

• The total number of rooms in the Wasilla/Palmer area ranges from nearly 300 to 432, depending on

the criteria for size, location and seasonality. The number of rooms concentrated in a specific area is

an important guideline to consider when contemplating current and future needs for event,

conference and performance venues.

• Small accommodations, consisting of one to nine rooms, make up the majority of accommodations

in the borough (76 percent). Usually B & B’s or small lodges, these types of accommodations are

found in all regions of the borough, both on and off the road system.


Meeting Facilities

Rapid business and population growth in the Wasilla/Palmer area has resulted in a higher profile for Mat-

Su and greater opportunities for conferences and events. The region’s inherent appeal as a destination is

enhanced by fairly quick access for meeting attendees making travel connections via Anchorage.

Small and mid-sized meeting facilities are available throughout the Mat-Su Borough. The smaller, more

remote properties are often used for staff or board retreats. The larger facilities host a variety of

meetings, conferences and events. However, there are a number of limitations that preclude the region

from competing on a larger scale for this market.

From a meeting planner perspective, ideal convention and conference facilities offer the flexibility to

reconfigure rooms as needed for trade shows and large meeting areas for plenary sessions, receptions,

breakout rooms and onsite dining. The facility should be large enough that a group can efficiently move

between meeting and banquet functions throughout the course of a day. Although in-state conferences

and conventions are typically more willing to meet in a facility that is separate from guest rooms, it is a

competitive disadvantage as the meeting planner has to factor in the added time and expense for

transferring meeting attendees between venues.

This section discusses the meeting facilities available in the Borough and provides details regarding their

capacity and availability of banquet facilities and lodging. The meeting facility section is divided into

“Trade Shows/Large Event Gathering Space,” “Large Meeting Spaces,“ “Medium Meeting Spaces” and

“Small Meeting Spaces.” There is also a short assessment of meeting facilities.

Trade Show/Large Event Gathering Space

Two facilities can accommodate large trade shows or indoor events, the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports

Complex and Raven Hall on the Alaska State Fairgrounds. While these facilities offer adequate size, they

lack the comprehensive services and flexibility needed to make them ideal conference or convention

locations. Both facilities are located in the core Wasilla/Palmer area.

The Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex offers meeting space that can be divided into three smaller rooms

or opened to seat up to 90 people. While it is possible to use the ice area and associated seating for

trade shows, concerts or other special events, the Complex has seasonal commitments for the ice rink

that preclude most non-skating events between fall and spring. While limited kitchen facilities will be

installed soon, lack of full-service banquet facilities further limits the type of events held at the Complex.

The 20,000 sq. ft. Raven Hall is the newest structure on the Alaska State Fairgrounds. The hall has

overhead doors, high ceilings, restrooms, a developing kitchen area, electrical power and phone lines.

The hall has been used for small conventions, trade/consumer shows, exhibitions, the Governor’s

Inaugural Ball and large meetings. The facility does not offer the ability to breakout into smaller meeting

spaces, banquet services or the other amenities required for multi-day events.


Trade Show/Large Event Space

Facility Location Meeting Room Size Overnight Capacity

Banquet Facilities

Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex (Arena Area) Wasilla

2,000 occupants (40,000 sq. ft.) No

Limited with staging kitchen

Raven Hall, Alaska State Fairgrounds Palmer

3,000 occupants (20,000 sq. ft.) No Limited


Large Meeting Spaces

There are nine facilities with spaces large enough to accommodate banquets or meetings between 100

to 300 people. Most of these facilities are located in Wasilla. Several facilities can concurrently offer

banquet facilities, overnight accommodations and meeting space—the Best Western Lake Lucille Inn,

Grand View Inn & Suites, Gold Miner’s Hotel and Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge. (As previously noted, the

Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge is currently open during the summer season only and the Best Western Lake

Lucille Inn has closed its banquet facilities.)

Facilities this size are used to host a variety of events, including weddings, funerals, banquets, business

meetings, conventions, bridal shows and other special events, such as the Iron Man banquet. For the

large facilities that remain open all year, most experience their highest demand in the summer. Most

bookings come from Mat-Su businesses and organizations; however, these facilities are also used by

organizations from Anchorage and elsewhere outside the borough.

While the Meier Lake Conference Center has meeting and accommodation capacity for 100 people, the

rustic accommodations and limited services are not suitable for business-oriented functions.


Large Meeting Space (101 to 300 Occupants)

Facility Location Meeting Room Size Overnight Capacity Banquet Facilities

Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry

North of Wasilla 300 occupants No Limited

Evangelo’s Restaurant Wasilla 300 occupants, (4,500 sq. ft.)

No 250-300 occupants

Palmer Depot Palmer 200 occupants No Limited Willow Area Community Center

Willow 260 occupants No Limited

Best Western Lake Lucille

Wasilla

3 rooms, 188 occupants

(3,000, 900 and 300 sq. ft.)

54 rooms 79 max.

Yes (banquet facilities currently closed)

Alaska Club Community Theater

Wasilla 140 occupants No No

Gold Miner’s Hotel Wasilla 2 rooms, 120 and 50 occupants

28 rooms 56 max.

Limited

Grand View Inn & Suites

Wasilla

3 rooms, 48 to 132 occupants (1,014, 1,118 and

2,132 sq. ft.)

79 rooms 118 max.

168 occupants

Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge

Talkeetna

4 rooms, 35 to 90 occupants (925, 1,850, 1,040 and 1,272 sq. ft.)

212 rooms 450 max.

40-110 occupants

Meier Lake Conference Center

Wasilla 2,132 sq. ft. 100 max. (multiple units)

100 occupants



Medium Meeting Spaces

Several facilities can accommodate between 50 and 100 participants for a meeting or banquet. These

properties are located primarily in Wasilla and Hatcher Pass. As indicated in the table below, the

overnight guest capacity is typically different than the onsite meeting or banquet space capacity.

None of these facilities offer comprehensive meeting services (such as onsite catering and audio-visual

equipment). They are similarly limited in their ability to offer concurrent venues for dining and meeting

functions, unless the group is very small. Most of these facilities also lack the quality of amenities to

make them appropriate for business conventions.

While the Meier Lake Conference Center has meeting and accommodation capacity for 100 people, the

rustic accommodations and limited services are not suitable for business-oriented functions.

Medium Meeting Space (51 to 100 Occupants)

Facility Location Meeting Room Size Overnight Capacity

Banquet Facilities

Homestead RV Park Enclosed Pavilion Palmer 100 occupants 66 RV sites No

The Point Lodge Lake Louise 40 to 60 17 rooms 45 max. Limited

Motherlode Lodge Hatcher Pass 75 occupants (3,200 sq. ft.)

12 rooms 50 max.

125 occupants, (2,700 sq. ft.)

Sunset View B&B Big Lake 75 occupants 11 rooms 22 max. Limited

Agate Inn Wasilla 75 occupants (1,800 sq. ft.)

13 rooms 40 max. Limited

Meier Lake Conference Center Wasilla 2,132 sq. ft.

100 max. (multiple units) 100 occupants

Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex Wasilla

90 occupants (3,000 sq. ft.) No No



Small Meeting Spaces

Small meeting needs are largely served by lodges or bed and breakfast accommodations located

throughout the Mat-Su Borough. According to a recent assessment conducted by the Mat-Su

Convention & Visitors Bureau, all of the facilities listed in the table below can accommodate meetings

and are suitable for retreats for up to50 participants.

Most of these facilities are located outside the Wasilla/Palmer core area, making them ideal for retreats.

None offer full-service banquet services. In most cases, the meeting room spaces are more informal

settings, such as the dining room or living room areas. All properties offer overnight accommodations;

however, in some cases the meeting room capacity is larger than the overnight capacity.

Small Meeting Space (Up to 50 Occupants)

Facility Meeting Room Size Location Overnight

Capacity Banquet Facilities

Castle Mountain B&B unknown Chickaloon 3 rooms/8 max. Limited

Alaska Garden Gate B&B 25-40 occupants Palmer 8 rooms/18 max. Limited

Alaska Gold Rush B&B Cabins

20 occupants

Palmer 8 rooms/20 max. Limited

Majestic Valley Wilderness Lodge

50 occupants Sutton 10 rooms/25 max. Limited

Swiss Alaska Inn 50 occupants Talkeetna 20 rooms/40 max. Limited

Talkeetna Roadhouse 50 occupants Talkeetna 9 rooms/26 max. Limited

Hatcher Pass Lodge 40 occupants Hatcher Pass 12 rooms/40 max. No

Fireweed Station Inn 40-50 occupants Talkeetna 8 rooms/16 max. Limited

Alaska’s Harvest B&B 30 occupants Palmer 5 rooms/21 max. Limited

Lisa’s Cabins 10 occupants Palmer 1 room/4 max. No

River Crest Manor B&B 20 occupants Palmer 3 rooms/12 max. Limited

Sheep Mountain Lodge 24 occupants Sutton 14 rooms/30 max. Limited

Sunshine Lake B&B 40 occupants Talkeetna 6 rooms/11 max. Limited

Susitna River Lodge 20-25 occupants Talkeetna 8 rooms/40 max. Limited

Gate Creek Cabins 35 occupants Trapper Creek 8 rooms/33 max. No

Pioneer Ridge B&B 20 occupants Wasilla 7 rooms/31 max. Limited

Gigglewood Lakeside Inn 15 occupants Willow 3 rooms/8 max. Limited

Riversong Lodge 30 occupants Off the Beaten Path 6 rooms/40 max. Limited

Winterlake Lodge 24 occupants Off the Beaten Path 5 rooms/12 max. Limited

Bentalit Lodge 22 occupants Skwentna 8 rooms/16 max. Limited

Source: Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau and McDowell Group compilation of data.


More description of the small meeting facilities is provided in the table below, as the room configuration

and capacity varies significantly between facilities.

Small Meeting Space Notes

Facility Meeting Room Capacity Meeting Room Notes

Alaska Garden Gate Bed & Breakfast 25-40 25 can be seated tables, 40 can be seated in rows.

Alaska Gold Rush B&B Cabins 20 Round tables or classroom style. Meeting room is in large solarium.

Majestic Valley Wilderness Lodge 50 Located in main hall.

Swiss Alaska Inn 50 Located in restaurant bar area.

Talkeetna Roadhouse 50

Located in café/bakery. Winter capacity preferred - as summer season is too hectic to host meeting. Typically hosts chamber meetings and other similar events.

Fireweed Station Inn 40 to 50 Has two 16' by 30' rooms - either of which could sit 40-50 in rows. Hosts large chamber gatherings. Hosts 23 overnight meeting guests.

Alaska's Harvest Bed & Breakfast 30 Located in 900 sq. room upstairs or downstairs

living room.

Lisa's Cabin 10 In the process of setting up a conference room for 10.

River Crest Manor Bed & Breakfast

20 20 in one room with an additional 15 in the next room.

Sheep Mountain Lodge 24 Often sits 30 for dinner, however, less number would be suggested for all day meeting.

Sunshine Lake B&B/Resort 40 Located in informal 24' by 34' living room with big attached deck (20' by 24').

Susitna River Lodging 20-25 Located in lobby. Gate Creek Cabins 35 Large open great room in cabin.

Pioneer Ridge B&B Inn 20 Currently opening a café with a conference/ banquet room that can serve 25 (4 miles away).

Gigglewood Lakeside Inn 15

Riversong Lodge, Inc. 30 Located in dining room. Hosts meetings for oil industry and special events.

Winterlake Lodge 24 Located in 32' by 32' room. Bentalit Lodge 22 Located in a large adjoined dining/living room. Source: Compiled by McDowell Group.


Summary of Meeting Facilities Observations

• The borough has a disadvantage as it competes with other destinations that have full-service

conference facilities with accommodations either located onsite or in close proximity.

• Any meeting or event that requires a single facility for sleeping rooms, meeting rooms and dining

facilities is limited to approximately 100 attendees. Because of ongoing commitments for guest

rooms and banquet rooms, the practical limit at any given time is likely between 50 and 80

attendees.

• The meeting facilities located within the Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge are an asset for attracting groups

and events—especially in the fall and spring. Other lodges and businesses in the surrounding area

are likely to benefit from increased marketing of this asset.

• While there are more than 400 guest rooms in the Wasilla/Palmer area, there is little full-service

meeting capacity available to accommodate groups that large.


Sports Facilities

Currently, the sports facilities in the Mat-Su Borough are largely designed for local residents. However,

these facilities offer the potential to draw visitors from outside the borough who may stay overnight to

participate in hockey, ice skating, soccer, baseball or other sport tournaments or competitions. This

section provides an overview of sports facilities that draw visitors from outside the Borough. Detailed

tables showing current sports facilities available in the Mat-Su Borough can be found in Appendix A.

Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex

The Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex offers the highest quality and broadest sports usage in the Mat-Su

Borough. Opened in 2004, the 102,000 sq. ft. facility offers four primary activity areas: a National

Hockey League-size ice arena, an indoor artificial turf court, a running/walking track and three

community meeting rooms. These primary activities comprise the first phase elements of the 60-acre

master plan for the complex.

The running track is elevated above and encircles the bleachers in the ice arena. Large windows allow

natural lighting and an outdoor view for walkers, joggers and runners.

OTHER SERVICES

A new trailhead facility was constructed to provide access to nearby Iditarod and Tesoro Iron Dog trail

systems. A paved road and utility corridor linking to the Parks Highway was recently constructed. A new

bike trail also provides access to a new area of the city. By October 2008, the complex hopes to have a

staging kitchen completed. While the primary purpose of this kitchen is to provide support should the

complex need to be used as an emergency evacuation shelter, the kitchen can also be used to cater

events at the facility.

PLANNED PHASE II ADDITIONS

Outdoor amenities make up the bulk of the planned phase II additions. These amenities include an

outdoor skating pond with covered warm-up and seating area, a football/track and field/speed-skating

oval with stadium seating, a soccer field, a high school/college-sized baseball/softball field with spectator

seating and onsite cross-country ski and running trails. There are also plans for limited campground

facilities and an RV Park. Phase II is expected to be completed between 2010 and 2012.

Adjacent to the complex grounds is land owned by five private owners. The owners are currently

planning to construct non-motorized trails that would link the complex to Lake Lucille Park. The

intention is that these trails would be open for public use at no charge. At some future point, the

owners may seek to develop the land for housing.


Ice Arenas

There are three indoor ice rinks in the Mat-Su Borough. All three are National Hockey League-size at 200

feet long by 85 feet wide. All arenas are of good quality, relatively new (within the past five years) or

recently renovated. The facilities are used largely by local residents from the Mat-Su and Anchorage

areas. Larger hockey tournaments and ice skating competitions may draw more Alaska residents from

outside of the Mat-Su/Anchorage region, but would probably require scheduling coordination between

the three facilities.

The largest ice arena is the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex, accommodating 1,500 spectators for

games and skating competitions. Additional seating can be added for concerts and shows,

accommodating a total of 3,000 spectators. The fixed bleachers have heated seats. There are large

windows for natural lighting.

There are eight outdoor skating rinks throughout the borough.

Turf Court The Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex has the only turf court available in the Mat-Su Borough. The turf

court is 175 feet long by 75 feet wide. Divider curtains are available to separate the turf court into thirds

for rental of a smaller area. A safety net around the court prevents stray balls. There is an elevated

viewing area and large windows for natural lighting. Pullout bleachers accommodate up to 450

spectators.

Pools

There are two indoor swimming pools in the Mat-Su Borough. One pool is located at the Palmer High

School. The other is located at the Wasilla High School.

Gymnasiums

The Mat-Su Borough owns and manages a 6,000 sq. ft. gymnasium located in Palmer. Other public

gymnasiums are available at various schools throughout the Mat-Su Borough School District.

A new AT&T Sports Center was completed in January of 2008 on the Palmer-Wasilla Highway. This large

Sports Center is over 60,000 sq. ft. and houses amenities such as basketball courts, a running track and

fitness area. This facility seats 650 people and is already drawing visitors for tournaments.

Shooting Ranges

An indoor pistol shooting facility, Matanuska Valley Sportsmen Range, is located in Palmer. A shotgun

shooting club, Grouse Ridge Shooting Range, is located on Palmer-Fishhook Road in Wasilla. The Upper

Susitna Shooting Association’s range if located at mile 95 of the Parks Highway. Facilities are primarily

used by local residents from the Mat-Su and Anchorage areas.


Golf Courses

There are four golf courses located in Palmer and Wasilla: Palmer Golf Course, Settlers Bay Course,

Sleepy Hollow Golf Course, and Fishhook Golf Course. Two courses are 18-hole. The Palmer Golf Course

is municipally-owned. All the golf courses are open to the public. The courses are generally used by local

residents from the Mat-Su and Anchorage areas. The Palmer Golf Course and Settlers Bay Golf Course

host some local tournaments drawing local and Anchorage residents.

Racetracks

There are two auto racetracks in the Mat-Su Borough. The Alaska Raceway Park is used for drag racing.

The Capital Speedway is used for sprint and stock car racing. The racetracks primarily attract local

residents from the Mat-Su and Anchorage areas.

Auto Racetracks

Racetrack Ownership Management Location Alaska Raceway Park (drag) Private Private Butte

Capital Speedway (sprint, stock) Private Private Willow

Baseball and Soccer Fields

There are approximately nine baseball field and four soccer field complexes in the Mat-Su Borough.

Several other fields are located on school properties throughout the Mat-Su Borough School District.

The fields largely attract local residents and may draw Alaska resident visitors from other parts of the

state for weekend baseball or soccer tournaments. The Herman Brothers Baseball Field, in Palmer, is the

home to the Mat-Su Miners baseball team, which is the professional baseball team for the Valley, and

draws visitors from outside the Valley to league games.

Sports Facility Observations

• While existing sports facilities were primarily designed to meet the needs of the local or regional

resident market, they are important assets for attracting overnight visitors for regional tournaments,

state tournaments and special events.

• Some sports facilities, notably the Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex, the AT&T Sports Center and

other indoor ice arenas, can attract overnight visitation for trade shows, tournaments and other

types of events.


Other Public Venues

The Other Public Venues section addresses non-sports types of facilities that serve as visitor attractions in

the Borough.

Alaska State Fairgrounds

In addition to the 12-day State Fair in late August, the Alaska State Fairgrounds hosts more than 50

events throughout the year. The events range from sports car rallies to religious events to 4-H and

livestock shows. Some events, such as the Girl Scouts Encampment, Camp Fire Alaska and the

Songwriters Camp, are multi-day events, while others are simply evening activities. There are no

overnight accommodations available on the fairgrounds. If hosting multi-day events, participants are

expected to sleep in their RVs, tents or in nearby offsite accommodations. While the Alaska State Fair

attracts visitors from all over the country, the events throughout the rest of year largely attract local or

regional residents. During the fall and winter months, Raven Hall, Colony Theatre and the Hoskins

Exhibits are the most often used facilities for a wide variety of events, such as concerts, gun shows,

classes, banquets, fundraisers and weddings. At least one of the permanent buildings is booked weekly

for events during the off-season months.

Several structures and facilities sit on the Alaska State Fair’s 299 acres. Some of these facilities are only

available during the summer season. A description of these facilities can be found in Appendix A.

Performance Halls

Mat-Su Borough’s performance halls are primarily located in Palmer and Wasilla. These halls can

accommodate small intimate audiences of 70 to larger audiences up to 260. Generally, the facilities are

older, relatively small, lack the ideal electrical lighting and sound technology (or space); have inadequate

back stage, wing and storage space; and require constant setup and takedown efforts because the

facilities have multiple uses. None of these facilities offer onsite banquet facilities or adjacent overnight

accommodations.

Colony High School has the largest hall and includes computerized lighting and sound systems. The

stage is large, but backstage facilities for theater productions are lacking. The Palmer High School has a

small intimate stage used for high school productions and includes a lighting and sound booth. The

Palmer Depot can seat up to 200. The Colony Theatre on the Alaska State Fairgrounds seats about 70

people and has a tech booth area, a lobby with restrooms and two changing rooms upstairs.

The Palmer Arts Council has recently hired an architect student to design a new arts building for a small

plot of land (105 by 150 feet) they recently purchased in downtown Palmer. The Council is seeking

funding support for its new building.


The Machetanz Theatre is used for plays performed by Valley Performing Arts, a community theater

group. This Wasilla theatre seats 172 and has a lighting and sound booth. The Alaska Club Community

Theater in Wasilla offers film screenings with surround sound, but has limited theater production

amenities.

In Talkeetna, there have been some traveling productions at the refurbished Don Sheldon Hangar.

Additionally, Willow has used its community hall, the Willow Area Community Center, for theater

productions.

Plans are underway for a new auditorium project, “Valley Center for Art and Learning,” at the Mat-Su

College (MSC), to include a 500 to 1,000 seat auditorium with basic theatre/auditorium amenities to be

used for fine arts performances, conferences and lectures. Theater components will include a

drama/dance rehearsal studio, a music rehearsal room, music program expansion, trap room, black box

theater and scene shop. Estimated total project cost is between $42 and $66 million. MSC and the

Borough are asking for $2 million through the University budget to complete final engineering and

design.

Performance Halls

Facility Location Seating Stage Colony High School Palmer 250 Yes

Palmer Depot Palmer 200 No

Palmer High School Palmer 200 Yes

Colony Theatre (Alaska State Fair) Palmer 70 Yes

Machetanz Theatre Wasilla 172 Yes

The Alaska Club Community Theater Wasilla 169 Yes

Sheldon Hangar Talkeetna 75 Yes

Willow Area Community Center Willow 250 No

Museums

There are seven museums in the Mat-Su Borough. The museums are located in Wasilla, Palmer, Trapper

Creek and Talkeetna. The museums each tell an important story about the history of the Mat-Su area,

including its mining, agriculture/homesteading, dog mushing, mountaineering and transportation

history. Most of the museums have expanded hours in the summer season and limited winter hours

(shorter days or opened fewer days per week). Below are brief descriptions of the museum facilities.

The Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry (north of Wasilla) has suitable space to host a

reception perhaps as part of a convention program; however, the distance from the Wasilla/Palmer core

area would add some logistical challenges. This museum is quite popular with visitors.


The Palmer Museum of Art and History is co-located with the Palmer Visitor Center is planning to move

into its own building. The museum is run by the City of Palmer and is open year-round. In Wasilla, the

Dorothy Page Museum has high-quality exhibits. These and other museums in Wasilla and Palmer

organize numerous community and children’s programs to bring in local residents as well as visitors. A

description of museums in the Mat-Su Borough can be found in Appendix A.

Visitor Centers

BOROUGH AND COMMUNITY VISITOR CENTERS

The Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau (MSCVB) is a non-profit organization established to

promote the Mat-Su visitor industry. The MSCVB is housed in the Mat-Su Visitor Center at Mile 35.5 of

the Parks Highway on 4.26 acres. The center was built in 1989, comprising 4,000 sq. ft. on two levels.

The center is open to the public mid-May through mid-September. In 2003 and 2004, a new Parks-

Glenn Highway interchange was developed, re-routing access to the center. This re-routing has lead to a

decrease in visitors due to increased high speed traffic and limited access. In October 2007, the MSCVB

adopted a resolution (Mat-Su CVB Resolution FY08-01) to “support exploration of a partner-driven

destination visitor center to showcase the recreational opportunities in the Mat-Su Valley and increase

the visitor experience and length of stay.”

Other community visitor centers in the borough are co-located and operated by local Chambers of

Commerce in Palmer, Big Lake, Houston, Willow and Talkeetna.

NATIONAL AND STATE PARK SERVICES

The National Park Service also operates the Talkeetna Ranger Station in Talkeetna. The facility is open

year-round. The center is the base of operations for the Denali National Park and Preserve’s

mountaineering rangers, offering climbing information for the Alaska Range, other general information

and interpretive programs, films and a bookstore. During the spring and early summer, the station’s

primary function is to serve the almost 2,000 mountaineers who travel from all over the world to climb

Mt. McKinley and other peaks in the Alaska Range. As the summer progresses, rangers shift their

attention to the other visitors that pass through Talkeetna.

The State has also started the planning and design of a South Denali Park visitor center complex with

trails and amenities on Curry Ridge in Denali State Park. The visitor center is expected to offer a

spectacular view of Denali, and include visitor contact, interpretation, food service, theater, power

generation and restrooms.

Other Public Venues Observations

• The venues that currently attract overnight visitors, including the Alaska State Fairgrounds,

performance halls and museums, have seen little capital investment. It is important to maintain

assets like furnishings, lighting and sound systems when reaching outside the community or region

for clientele.


• Many of the other facilities are older, require more costly maintenance, and are not a size or stature

to lure more visitors to the Mat-Su Borough.

• The Alaska State Fair is a large enough attraction to establish some year-round infrastructure.

Facilities are used during the fall and winter months for a variety of events such as concerts, gun

shows, classes, banquets, fundraisers and weddings. At least one of the permanent buildings is

booked weekly for events during the fall and winter months.

• The Mat-Su Borough lacks a stand-alone performance hall, or multi-use facility, that offers the

flexibility to conduct performances and conferences. The proposed auditorium at the Mat-Su

College will significantly increase performance and rehearsal capacity. It may also be possible for

future conferences and events to use performance and college classroom space concurrently.

• Once built, the South Denali Park visitor center will provide a new gathering place for visitors to

receive information about the borough, including interpretation of what the area offers for wildlife

viewing, activities and scenic areas and other visitor amenities, such as restrooms.


Parks, Campgrounds, Boat Launches and Trails

Parks

The Mat-Su Borough has numerous state and city parks, recreational areas, campgrounds and hundreds

of lakes, streams and rivers that provide recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors.

Additionally, the borough shares Denali National Park with the Denali Borough to the north and small

portions of Lake Clark National Park to the southwest and Chugach National Forest to the southeast.

THE KEY ALASKA STATE PARK UNITS

Twenty-four Alaska State Park units are located in the Mat-Su Borough. A broad range of activities are

available, from small picnic areas, trailhead areas, historical parks, canoe trails, boating, to campgrounds

and remote cabins. Three of the key State Park units and developments are discussed below.

DENALI STATE PARK

It is located adjacent to the east side of Denali National Park and Preserve, along the Parks Highway,

about 100 air miles north of Anchorage. The park’s 325,240 acres are largely undeveloped wilderness

with the exception of the two day-use areas, three campgrounds (Byers Lake, Denali Viewpoint North,

and Lower Troublesome Creek), two trailheads (Upper Troublesome Creek and Little Coal Creek), two

public use cabins (on Byers Lake), two scenic lookouts (Veteran’s Memorial and Denali Viewpoint South

(mile 135.2 Parks Highway, including interpretative bulletin board which names the mountains and

other terrain features of the Alaska Range), and three picnic areas accessible from the Parks Highway.

INDEPENDENCE MINE STATE HISTORIC PARK (HATCHER PASS)

The Independence Mine State Historic Park is currently the most visited park unit in the Mat-Su

Borough. The Park is located at Hatcher Pass, northwest of Palmer, and includes a museum and park

staff and volunteers provide guided tours of the historic mine areas. Features include abandoned

buildings and machinery of a 200-worker camp and 1930s hardrock gold mining operation. The mine

manager's house and Assay building have been restored and offer interpretive displays and visitor

information.

NANCY LAKE STATE RECREATION AREA

The Nancy Lake Canoe trails stands out as a one of the state’s most accessible areas for canoe tripping.

In the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area there are 13 remote public use cabins. The biggest attraction of

this area is canoeing through the eight-mile chain of lakes in the Lynx Lake Loop. Portages are well-

marked with orange, diamond-shaped signs marked with a "P". Wet sections are covered with

boardwalk.


There are two maintained campgrounds with road access, water and toilets. South Rolly Lake

Campground, with 99 sites, is located at the end of Nancy Lake Parkway, 6.5 miles off the Parks

Highway. Nancy Lake State Recreation Site, on the northeast shore of Nancy Lake, has 30 sites and can

be reached from mile 66.5 of the Parks Highway. There are nearly 40 miles of maintained trails through

the Nancy Lake State Recreation Area, including 10 miles used only for skiers.

Day-Use Parks and Pavilions

The day-use parks in the Mat-Su Borough are primarily used by the local residents for weddings and

other social gatherings. The facilities in the parks usually consist of a covered pavilion, picnic tables,

barbeque pits and playgrounds.

The City of Wasilla has three pavilions available for public use; two in the Iditapark (the Red and Blue

pavilions) and the McEvoy Pavilion in Newcomb Park. Iditapark includes: basketball, tennis, sand

volleyball courts, Wonderland (a children's playground), a skateboard facility, BMX trails, an

amphitheater, an Armed Forces honor garden and a Garden of Reflection with a waterfall and trellis.

Newcomb Park on Wasilla Lake is popular for swimming in the summer and outdoor ice skating in

winter.

There are five park pavilions at the Matanuska River Park Campground, three pavilions at the Lake Lucille

Park Campground and the Little Susitna River Campground near Houston has a large pavilion available

for reservations. The rental capacity of the pavillions is approximately 65. These parks are generally well

maintained and in good to excellent condition.

A table of day use parks in the borough, including ownership and management is found in Appendix A.

Campgrounds and Public-Use Cabins

There are just over 20 public campgrounds in the Mat-Su Borough with a capacity of 832 tent and/or

RV sites per night. Borough-wide, the number of spaces suggests there is adequate capacity for the near-

term; however, some of the campgrounds, particularly those located near popular fishing rivers, face

high pressure during intense periods associated with fish runs. Maintaining the campgrounds during this

high pressure season is a challenge and can often deter more utilization by visitors to the area. Sixty

percent of the publicly owned campgrounds are located in the Palmer-Willow corridor. A list of public

use campgrounds showing number of campsites, ownership, management and location is found in

Appendix A.

There are 17 public remote cabins in the Mat-Su Borough, of which 13 are located in the Nancy Lake

State Recreation Area, three at Byers Lake in Denali State Park and one at Matanuska Glacier. The State

owns and operates all of these cabins and reports that some are in need of simple routine maintenance

while others are in need of substantial refurbishment.


Access to the remote cabins is varied. The cabins at Nancy Lake are accessible with only a short hike. The

three cabins located on Red Shirt Lake are accessible by ski, plane or foot in the winter, or by plane or

hiking then canoeing in the summer. The hike or ski into Red Shirt is approximately three to four miles.

The Lynx and James Lake cabins require a minimum of a half-day trip, and are only accessible through

the canoe trail system with several portages. The Byers Lake cabins are all easily accessible with only a

half-mile to one-mile trip to all of the cabins.

Remote cabins are in high demand, and the demand is well above the number of cabins available in the

Matanuska Susitna Borough. Many of these cabins are booked months in advance during the high

season, and around popular vacation times year-round.

Boat Launches

There are over 60 boat launches, providing access to waterways in the borough. Most launches are

found on lakes, but at least ten provide access to rivers and creeks. Of the river boat launches, only a few

offer adequate parking and staging areas, improved ramps, sanitation facilities and other amenities such

as picnic and overnight camping areas. Government entities own six of the river launches and the

remaining 54 boat launches are privately owned or run. Snowmobilers use the launch parking areas

during the winter months.

Four boat launches handle the majority of the borough’s river traffic—Little Susitna River Boat Launch,

Talkeetna River Boat Launch, Deshka Landing and Susitna River Landing. Recently, improvements to the

Little Susitna River, Susitna Landing and Talkeetna boat launches were made, funded though the Alaska

Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) using Federal Aid in Sport Fish Act (SFR) allocations.

TALKEETNA RIVER BOAT LAUNCH

The Talkeetna River and its tributaries provide access to numerous wildlife viewing, private cabin access

and sport fishing opportunities. The boat launch is located northeast of Talkeetna, just upstream of the

confluence of the Talkeetna River with the Susitna River and the Chulitna River. The boat launch was

originally constructed by the City of Talkeetna. The Alaska Railroad now owns the only public boat

launch.

In 1996, upgrades were constructed, including pre-cast concrete planks in the launch, improvements to

the parking area with 60 additional parking spaces, a vault toilet, dumpster pad, handicap accessible

toilet and new road signage. These improvements provided better traffic flow, improved sanitation and

are easier to maintain.


SUSITNA LANDING

Susitna Landing is located near the confluence of the Kashwitna and Susitna Rivers and provides access

to a multitude of tributaries in the Susitna River drainage. The landing was originally constructed in the

1970s. In 1986, the ADF&G purchased the 59-acre site. A state-contracted private concessionaire

provides day-to-day operation and maintenance of the site. Since the late 1980s, numerous

improvements have been made, including new buildings, sanitation facilities, ADA accessibility, parking,

hardening of the boat launch ramp and a boarding dock. Currently, the landing provides a double-lane

boat launch ramp, RV and tent camping sites, fish-cleaning tables, a small convenience store, access to

trails and boat trailer and vehicle parking. The landing is also a popular launch for snowmobiling on

winter trails and for private cabin access.

DESHKA LANDING

Deshka Landing is located on the Susitna River, providing access to numerous tributaries in the Susitna

River drainage. The Deshka Landing Outdoors Association LLC (DLOA) privately owns Deshka Landing.

As well as the boat launch, DOLA provides parking, fuel services and boat and snowmobile storage. In

2007, DLOA made substantial improvements to the surrounding retaining walls and parking area

lighting.

LITTLE SUSITNA RIVER BOAT LAUNCH

Sport fishing is popular on the Little Susitna River as well as for float trips, camping, wildlife viewing and

hunting. The Little Susitna Public Use Facility is owned by the ADF&G and managed by the Department

of Natural Resources (State Parks) through a cooperative agreement. Located 30 miles off the Parks

Highway south of Wasilla, the facility includes a double-lane boat launch ramp, a 40-site campground,

RV dump station and angler trails and fishing platforms. The State also developed seven boat-accessible

camp sites within the first four river miles upstream of this facility.

Trails

The Mat-Su Borough reports more than 2,000 miles of trails throughout the borough. The trails offer a

wide variety of motorized and non-motorized recreational use opportunities. Trails also provide year-

round access to off-road areas, lakes and waterways. Many of the trails are only accessible during the

winter, as they cross waterways, wetlands and bogs. As the population grows in the area, and interest in

enjoying the borough’s natural beauty increases, demand for quality trails will undoubtedly increase.

The ownership and management of the trail assets in the Mat-Su Borough is shared by the Alaska

Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Alaska Department of Transportation and

Public Facilities, Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the cities of Palmer and Wasilla.

There are three types of trails in the borough; separated paved trails, multi-use soft surface trails and

single-use soft surface trails.


Most (and perhaps all) of the 86 separated paved pathways are adjacent to the State-managed roads.

The longest trail runs 26 miles, west of Wasilla to Willow. The State Transportation Plan calls for the

development of an additional 26 miles throughout the borough.

Within the 24 management units of Alaska State Parks in the Mat-Su Borough, 15 units have developed

trails. The State does not have a system in place that can characterize the usage, condition or

development standards for all of these trails. As an example, there are 36 miles of trails in the Kesugi

Ridge Trail System that are not included in either the Mat-Su Borough or the State data sets.

SKI TRAILS

Many dedicated ski trails are located in the borough; however, it is difficult to assess the trails in terms of

condition, distance or usage because data is not available. Ski trails are known to exist in the following

locations: Talkeetna Ski Hill, Talkeetna Lake Park and XY Lakes; Trapper Creek; high schools, including

Susitna Valley, Palmer and Wasilla High Schools; Nancy Lakes; Lazy Mountain; Sheep Mountain; Majestic

Valley; Hatcher Pass; and Government Peak.

DOG MUSHING TRAILS AND EQUESTRIAN TRAILS

Anecdotally, there are hundreds of miles of dog mushing trails in the Talkeetna, Willow and Houston

area. There are also trails known for horseback riding; however, there is no GIS data on these trails in

the State or Borough databases.

A list of trails and their seasonal use, ownership and management is found in Appendix A.

Parks, Campgrounds, Boat Launches and Trails Observations

• Well-maintained and accessible recreation areas are attracting both more visitors and more

residents. As the population grows, recreational space will become even more pressing.

• Existing parks and campgrounds require ongoing upkeep and improvements to handle the pressure

of intensive use during the summer tourism season. Currently, the Alaska Department of Natural

Resources estimates the state park units within the Mat-Su Borough have a $20 million deferred

maintenance schedule. Providing ongoing renovation and maintenance of parks, campgrounds,

recreational areas and associated facilities will enhance safety, maximize equipment and facility

lifespan and increase utilization by visitors.

• There are fewer parks and campgrounds along the Glenn Highway compared to the Parks Highway

corridor.

• Trails in the borough lack adequate mapping, directional and trailhead signage, maintenance and

connectivity.

• There are few waterway access points for guided and non-guided sport fishers, motorized and non-

motorized boaters and hunters. Additionally, the condition and availability of adequate parking,

toilets, overnight camping areas, boat launches, fishing platforms and day-use picnic areas is limited.


Transportation

Roads

HIGHWAYS

The Denali, Parks and the Glenn Highways are part of the Federal Highway System, owned and

maintained by the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. There is approximately 173

miles of the Parks Highway within the Mat-Su Borough, beginning at the junction with the Glenn

Highway east of Wasilla. The Parks Highway provides direct access to Fairbanks and Denali National Park.

Recent improvements (completed in 2006) include a four-lane limited access highway from the Glenn

Highway intersection to the Seward Meridian Road and a five-lane highway into Wasilla.

There is approximately 110 miles of the Glenn Highway within the Matanuska Borough. The highway

begins in Anchorage, intersects the Parks Highway approximately 35 miles north of Anchorage and

travels northeast through the Matanuska River Valley. There are numerous undeveloped gravel pull-outs

along the highway and three scenic viewpoint pull-outs (mile 67, 74 and 85, completed in 1995) near

the Matanuska Glacier.

Alaska established a scenic byways program in 1993, administered by the Alaska Department of

Transportation and Public Facilities. The Glenn Highway was designated as an Alaska State Scenic Byway

in June of 2000. The Glenn Highway then became eligible to apply for national designations by the U.S.

Secretary of Transportation and received designation as a National Scenic Byway in June of 2002. A

portion of the Parks Highway, beginning at Trapper Creek and extending north to Healy, is being

considered for possible National Scenic Byway designation.

One of the key benefits of the state and national scenic byways program is the economic opportunities

that are created. Promotion of the byway through maps and other literature by the state and national

programs can increase the number of visitors to the area. Other potential benefits include improved

eligibility for federal grant funds, and national and international marketing conducted by the National

Scenic Byway program for nationally designated byways.

Approximately 70 miles of the Denali Highway is located in the Mat-Su Borough. The Denali Highway is

a two-lane road, 136 miles long between Cantwell (on the Parks Highway) and Paxson (on the

Richardson Highway). All but the last 24 miles into Paxson is gravel road. The Denali Highway is only

open in the snow-free months, approximately mid-May to early October. Along the Denali Highway,

visitors will find great scenic views, hiking, canoeing, wildlife viewing and fishing in the many high

alpine lakes. Due to the condition of the road and limited number of communities served, the Denali

Highway generally only serves recreational and tourist traffic. While the Alaska Department of

Transportation is considering some new re-surfacing methods, there are no improvements planned for

the Denali Highway.

A description of other major roads can be found in Appendix A.


ROAD SIGNAGE

Road signage for trailheads, campgrounds and other attractions is provided along the Parks and Glenn

Highway. The State Parks and Alaska Department of Transportation work together to standardize a plan

for roadway and state park signage. Signs need to be regularly maintained or replaced due to vandalism

or other damage.

Railroad

During the winter, there is weekly passenger train service between Anchorage and Fairbanks with a

scheduled stop in Talkeetna. During the summer, the service is daily. Stops in Wasilla and other “whistle

stops” are made at the passenger’s request. During the Alaska State Fair, the railroad delivers fairgoers

from Anchorage to the South Palmer Station. In the future, the station may also become part of a

commuter system transporting workers between the Mat-Su Borough and Anchorage.

The Alaska Railroad Corporation has three depots: Wasilla, Talkeetna and Palmer (primarily serving

fairgoers). The historic depot in Wasilla is not staffed by the Alaska Railroad. The building is leased to the

Wasilla Chamber of Commerce, and is often closed and locked at train arrival/departure times. The train

depot is open during the summer tourist season and closed during the rest of the year. In 2004, the

new South Palmer Railroad Station opened adjacent to the fairgrounds. The $2.3 million project features

restrooms, covered areas, electronic signage and Glenn Highway Scenic Byway interpretive wayside

panels. It was funded by the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Alaska

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities and Alaska State Fair.

The Alaska Railroad recently completed track realignments between Anchorage and Wasilla. The project

eliminated or reduced the curvature of 70 sharp curves on the main line. The improvements will reduce

the running time between Anchorage and Wasilla from 95 minutes to less than an hour.

In the future, the Alaska Railroad is planning to straighten curves along four miles of mainline track in

south Wasilla to enhance safety, reduce horn noise, improve train travel time, improve operating

efficiencies and reduce costs. The Alaska Railroad, Alaska Department of Transportation and City of

Wasilla have also been discussing ways to alleviate the rail and highway congestion in downtown

Wasilla.

Additionally, the Mat-Su Borough and the Alaska Railroad are studying proposals to develop a rail

extension connecting Port MacKenzie to the existing mainline between Wasilla and Willow. The Port

Mackenzie Rail Extension would be developed to move freight from the port into Interior Alaska. At this

time, this extension would have no anticipated impact on tourism or tourism-related transportation.

Water Transportation

Work was completed on Port MacKenzie in 2000. The port is about two nautical miles northwest of

Anchorage, across the Knik Arm. Port MacKenzie extends 800 feet from shore with 500 feet of docking

space.


Currently, there are no visitor-related water transportation services connected with Port MacKenzie. The

Borough plans to establish ferry service between the Port of Anchorage and Port MacKenzie. The service

includes ferries with open car decks for quick drive-on capability, a hull designed for ice, and powerful

engines to handle strong currents during the two-mile, 10-minute crossing.

As part of the feasibility analysis for the ferry, the study specifically analyzed six potential markets for the

ferry, including the visitor market. The study concluded that there would be a demand for ferry service

by visitors who wanted to travel via an interesting and alternative route between Anchorage and Point

Mackenzie.

Currently, the ferry is under construction with an anticipated delivery date in the spring of 2009. Port

MacKenzie is to start offering ferry service in the fall of 2009. The new ferry will not have the capacity to

handle more than two tour buses per trip. Based on interview research with large bus tour operators, the

capacity needs to handle at least four buses for them to consider the travel option, as they often travel in

convoys.

Airports

The Borough has a high concentration of public and private airports. Within the Mat-Su Borough there

are ten public airports and over 200 private airports and air strips. Most of these airports are

concentrated along the road system.

Eight of these public airports are owned and operated by the Alaska Department of Transportation and

Public Facilities; the other two are owned and operated by the Cities of Palmer and Wasilla. These

airports all have dozens of based aircraft and services such as fuel and/or maintenance. Several of these

airports have air taxi services, although none of them have regularly scheduled air service. A table

providing more infrastructure detail of the ten public airports can be found in Appendix A.

Visitors are most likely to use chartered air services out of Talkeetna and Willow (float and runway)

airports for sightseeing, drop-offs at lodges or cabins and support for Denali mountaineering

expeditions. In Talkeetna, Talkeetna Aero Services, Inc. and Talkeetna Air Taxi provide flightseeing tours

of Mt. McKinley and Denali National Park. In Willow, Willow Air offers flightseeing tours of Hatcher Pass

and Denali National Park, as well as float trips, bear viewing and moose hunts. CPA Air Services also

operates out of Willow and offers flightseeing tours over Whittier, the Knik Glacier, McKinley Basin and

Iditarod flights.

The majority of the private airports and airstrips have small gravel runways, and are used for personal

travel, sightseeing and recreation.

The Mat-Su Borough also contains hundreds of lakes that are suitable for use by small floatplanes.

Currently, only 27 floatplane bases are registered with the Federal Aviation Administration in the

borough. These lakes represent most of the major lakes near the road system, but a few busy lakes,

including Big Lake, are currently not registered. A table providing more detail of the 27 registered bases

can be found in Appendix A.


Public Transportation Services

Mat-Su Community Transit (MASCOT) is a private, non-profit transportation system, which operates a

fixed route, para-transit, and coordinated transportation service – the only public transportation system

in the Mat-Su Borough. Established in August 1999, MASCOT routes are open to the public and cover

the communities of Wasilla, Palmer, Big Lake, Houston and Knik/Fairview, while also running a

commuter route into the Anchorage area five times a day. In addition, MASCOT contracts for provision

of a “24/7” transportation service to the elderly and people with disabilities. Currently, MASCOT

services are geared completely toward local resident use and are rarely used by visitors.

Transportation Observations

• Developing South Denali access, as well as a visitor center, campgrounds and trails, has important

implications for tourism industry growth in the area. Providing new access to Denali National Park

will increase the number of visitors that seek the recreational opportunities in South Denali.

• Potential future development of infrastructure, including development of the Knik Arm Bridge, if

completed, and ferry service between the Port of Anchorage and Port McKenzie, will affect traffic

patterns and traffic volume in the borough.

• Effective signage off the state roadways and in smaller communities is lacking. In addition, there are

few up-to-date maps or materials that help direct visitors to venues, attractions, trails and

recreational areas.

• Maintaining the Glenn Highway as a state and national scenic byway will generate economic growth

and increase tourism in the communities along the highway.


Public Restroom Facilities

A limited number of public restrooms are located along major highways and at trailheads, parks

recreation areas and boat launches throughout the Borough. Eight public restrooms are located along

the Parks Highway and five public restrooms are located along the Glenn Highway. The Borough owns

and maintains twenty-four permanent and seven temporary restroom sites at trailheads, parks,

recreation areas and boat launches. Taking into consideration that the Borough is the size of West

Virginia, restroom facilities are not abundant either along the highways or at public recreation entrance

points.

The Parks and Glenn Highways have long stretches of rural roadway with no rest areas with restroom

facilities. People are inappropriately using turnouts for this purpose. In the case of those public restroom

facilities that do exist (e.g. Denali Viewpoint at mile 134.7 and at the Veteran’s Memorial at mile 147.2

on the Parks Highway), they are unheated and closed in the winter. Additionally, the restroom facilities

at the Veteran’s Memorial are not visible from the highway and there is no signage on the highway to

indicate restroom facilities. However, there is also some sentiment that travelers should come into the

towns to use commercial establishments.

Information in the following tables is drawn from the Trails & Recreational Access for Alaska (TRAAK)

Corridor Assessment and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The first two tables below provide the

locations of public restroom facilities along the Parks and Glenn Highways. Borough permanent and

temporary restroom sites are presented in the third and fourth tables.

Parks Highway: Public Restroom Facilities

Milepost Name Toilets Comments

98.7 Talkeetna Visitors Center X Wayside

104.2 Big Susitna River Wayside X Wayside

121.6 Chulitna State River Rest Area X -

135.2 Denali View Wayside X Wayside

137.2 Lower Troublesome Creek X Campground

147.0 Byers Lake Campground X Campground

147.1 Alaska Veterans Memorial X Wayside

162.4 Denali View Wayside North X Wayside


Glenn Highway: Public Restroom Facilities

Milepost Name Toilets Comments

34.0 Mat-Su Visitors Center X ½ mile off Glenn Highway

76.1 King Mountain State Recreation Area X Campground

85.4 Long Lake State Recreation Area X Campground

101.0 Matanuska Glacier State Rec. Area X Wayside

118.5 Trailhead/Viewpoint X Wayside

Mat-Su Borough Park Restroom Sites (Permanent)

Site Type # of Fixtures

Mat River Park Comfort Station 7

Mat River Park Dump Station 1

Mat River Park Pav F Outhouse-Privy 1

Mat River Park Lower Trail Romtec Restroom 1

Lake Lucille Park Restroom #1 6

Lake Lucille Park Restroom #2 6

Lake Lucille Park Outhouse-Privy 1 1

Lake Lucille Park Outhouse-Privy 2 1

Big Lake Boat Launch Romtec Restroom 1

Christianson Lake Park Romtec Restroom 1

Coyote Lake Park Restroom 2

Crevasse Moraine Romtec Restroom 1

Deshka River CG Portable toilets (15) 15

Fish Creek Park Restroom 2

Kroto Creek Trailhead Romtec Restroom 1

Lazy Mountain TH Romtec Restroom 1

Nichols Park Restroom – 6 hole 6

Pioneer Ridge TH Outhouse-Trail type 1

Sherrod Soccer Field Restroom-Pavilion E 6

Sherrod Softball Restroom-Concession 2

Talkeetna Lakes TH Romtec Restroom 1

Talkeetna River Park Romtec Restroom 2

Talkeetna Downtown Outhouse holding tank 1

West Butte TH Romtec Restroom 1

Source: Mat-Su Borough


Mat-Su Borough Park Restroom Sites (Temporary)

Site Type # of Units Season

Alcantra Trails Rent-a-can 1 Winter

Alcantra Soccer Fields Rent-a-can 4-6 Summer

Alcantra Baseball Fields Rent-a-can 2-4 Summer

Ayshire Winter Trailhead Rent-a-can 1 Winter

Crystal Lake-Talkeetna Rent-a-can 1 Summer

Hatcher Pass Sledding Hill Rent-a-can 1 Winter

Walby Lake Access Rent-a-can 1 Year-round

Source: Mat-Su Borough

Public Restroom Facilities Observations

• Most of the public restroom facilities are unheated and closed during the winter months.

• Given the size of the Borough and distances between public restroom facilities along the highway

systems, public restrooms are not abundant and turnout areas are being used inappropriately.

• Directional road signs for public restroom facilities are not highly visible.

Mat-Su Visitor Markets

Mat-Su Visitor Markets McDowell Group, Inc. • B-1

Introduction

This chapter provides baseline information about current visitor markets, activities and local spending. The

information is presented in two segments: out-of-state visitors and in-state visitors. The chapter concludes

with a brief discussion of market trends that could affect visitation to Mat-Su communities and businesses.

Organization of Information in this Chapter

The information in this section of the report was based on multiple data sources. The following discussion is

intended to help the reader understand the organization of information in this chapter, as each data source

collected and presented information in its own unique manner.

OUT-OF-STATE VISITORS

Information about the out-of-state market was primarily drawn from the Alaska Visitors Statistics Program V

(AVSP V). In this recently conducted study, visitor survey data was aggregated into Summer and Fall/Winter

data sets. Two locations in the Mat-Su region had sufficient visitation for community-level analysis of the

data: Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla. As a result, the majority of information in this section is presented for

three subgroups of visitors:

• Summer visitors to Talkeetna

• Summer visitors to Palmer/Wasilla

• Fall/Winter visitors to Palmer/Wasilla

To supplement this information, the study team developed estimates for visitation and spending for two

additional areas in the region. Data sources included AVSP, accommodation information from the Base Case

Tourism Infrastructure Description, and review of marketing materials for the region and private companies.

• Summer visitors to the Glacier Country (Glenn Highway) region

• Summer visitors to the Off the Beaten Path region

IN-STATE VISITORS

Estimates for Alaska resident visitation and spending were based on findings from the Alaska Resident In-State

Pleasure Travel Study Report and the Mat-Su Visitor Impact Study series. A summary of updated visitation and

spending estimates is presented in this chapter. (Supporting data can be found in Appendix B.)

Overview of Mat-Su Visitor Markets

The Mat-Su Valley attracts a wide array of in-state and out-of-state visitor market segments, including visitors

on motorcoach and rail package tours, independent travelers, adventure travelers, mountaineers, as well as

the meeting and retreat market. The year-round destination offers a wide array of activities for Alaska

residents and out-of-state visitors, such as scenic beauty, Alaska pioneer history, world-renowned special


events, and outstanding recreational opportunities such as hiking, sightseeing, fishing, wildlife viewing,

Nordic skiing and snowmobiling.

Key findings are summarized below:

• Annually, approximately 780,000 visitors travel to the Mat-Su Borough, of which 332,000 are from out-

of-state.

• Most visitors come during the summer season; approximately 90 percent of out-of-state visitors and 59

percent of in-state visitors.

• Visitors spend at estimated $201 million in the borough annually, of which 40 percent is spent by out-of-

state visitors.

• Spending on food and beverages is the leading expenditure category (35 percent), followed by

accommodations (24 percent), fuel and transportation (22 percent) and entertainment (14 percent).

• The most popular visitor activities include visiting friends and relatives, viewing wildlife, cultural activities,

hiking and nature walking, camping, and flightseeing.

• The market outlook for the Mat-Su Borough is expected to grow.

o About 12 percent of cruise passengers spend additional time in Alaska (outside of their tour

package). This market segment is growing between 2 and 5 percent each year. It is

anticipated that more of these cruise passengers will spend time in the Mat-Su Borough due

to increased public and private investment in infrastructure and attractions.

o Additionally, the out-of-state independent travel market is also growing at a rate of 1 to 3

percent each year. The independent visitor will continue to be an important segment of the

Mat-Su visitor market, especially for adventure travel purposes.

o The Alaska resident population—especially in the Anchorage area—is also growing.


Out-of-State Visitor Market Analysis

Visitors to Talkeetna, Palmer and Wasilla

The best source for information on out-of-state visitors to the Mat-Su Borough is the recently completed

Alaska Visitors Statistics Program V (AVSP V), commissioned by the Alaska Department of Commerce,

Community and Economic Development. The year-long survey project was conducted by McDowell Group

between May 2006 and April 2007. The summer season is defined as May through September 2006 and the

fall/winter season is defined as October 2006 through April 2007.

Visitor Volume

Visitor volume to Alaska communities and regions is determined by applying visitation percentages

(determined in the visitor survey) to overall volume estimates. The following tables give two perspectives on

out-of-state visitor volume to Mat-Su: the percentage of the overall statewide market that visited the area and

the estimated volume of visitors to the area. Because these estimates are made using AVSP V data, visitor

volume can only be provided for Mat-Su Borough overall and for Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla locations.

In summer 2006, 18 percent of out-of-state visitors to Alaska visited Mat-Su. This overall visitation rate

includes both day and overnight visitors. The table below shows the overnight visitation rate for Talkeetna

and the Palmer/Wasilla.

Visitation to Mat-Su by Statewide Visitor Market Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter

Visited Mat-Su 18% 15% Visited Talkeetna 13 2

Overnighted in Talkeetna 7 1 Visited Palmer/Wasilla 9 14

Overnighted in Palmer/Wasilla 4 6

In the twelve-month period between May 2006 and April 2007, an estimated 332,000 out-of-state visitors

went to the Mat-Su Borough, including 212,000 who visited Talkeetna and 175,000 who visited

Palmer/Wasilla. (In some cases, visitors experienced both Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla.) Summer visitation

represented nearly 90 percent of the out-of-state visitor activity.

Out-of-State Total Visitor Volume Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Total

Mat-Su Borough 295,000 37,000 332,000 Talkeetna 207,000 5,000 212,000 Palmer/Wasilla 139,000 36,000 175,000


When focusing on overnight visitation, nearly 117,000 out-of-state visitors spent at least one night in

Talkeetna during their Alaska travel. The Palmer/Wasilla area attracted 80,000 overnight visitors. Mirroring

the overall visitor volume, overnight stays dropped off dramatically during the fall/winter season.

Out-of-State Overnight Visitor Volume Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Total

Talkeetna 114,200 2,500 116,700 Palmer/Wasilla 65,300 15,000 80,300

Visitor Profile

The following tables show travel patterns and characteristics of visitors to Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla

during the AVSP V study periods (summer 2006 and fall/winter 2006-07). No data is shown for fall/winter

visitors to Talkeetna due to the small sample size. Because these estimates are made using AVSP V data,

detailed visitor profiles volume can only be provided for Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla locations. While there

was some overlap between visitors that experienced these two areas of the borough, each market revealed a

number of unique aspects as well. The visitor profile includes the out-of state visitors’ trip purpose, mode of

transportation, length of stay, destinations, type of lodging, activities, previous and future Alaska travel,

demographics, and expenditures.

TRIP PURPOSE

The vast majority of Talkeetna visitors were vacation/pleasure visitors. In contrast, one-quarter of

Palmer/Wasilla summer visitors were traveling primarily to visit friends and relatives. During the fall and

winter months, more than half of the Palmer/Wasilla visitors trip purpose was to visit friends. Business travel

to Palmer/Wasilla increased from 12 percent during the summer months to nearly 30 percent during the

fall/winter period.

Trip Purpose & Packages Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Palmer/Wasilla Trip Purpose

Vacation/pleasure 88% 62% 15% Visiting friends/relatives 7 26 56 Business only 4 12 29

Purchased Multi-Day Package Yes 66% 20% 2%

Package Type (Base: non-cruise, purchased package) Fishing lodge 18% 26% * Adventure tour 15 25 * Wilderness lodge 23 19 * Rail package 17 6 * Other 17 16 *

*Sample size too small for analysis.


MODES OF TRANSPORTATION

During the summer, slightly more than half of Talkeetna visitors either entered or exited Alaska by cruise ship.

In contrast, just one in ten Palmer/Wasilla visitors did so. (These findings about market composition are

reinforced when examining the table on the following page, which shows the percentage of visitors that

overnighted on a cruise ship.)

Palmer/Wasilla visitors were more likely than Talkeetna visitors to enter or exit Alaska by highway and travel

between communities in rental or personal vehicles.

Virtually all fall/winter visitors entered or exited Alaska by air, mirroring travel patterns for the overall Alaska

market.

The mode of transportation used to travel between communities also differed; Talkeetna visitors were

significantly more likely to travel by motorcoach and train while Palmer/Wasilla visitors were more likely to

rent or use their own vehicle.

A table regarding out-of-state visitor transportation modes can be found in Appendix B.

LENGTH OF STAY, DESTINATIONS AND TYPE OF LODGING

Of the summer visitors to Talkeetna, on average they stayed 12.8 nights in Alaska. The top three other

communities visited included Anchorage (89 percent), Denali (86 percent), and Fairbanks (60 percent).

Three out of four visitors (74 percent) stayed in a hotel or motel or lodge (50 percent).

Of the summer visitors to Palmer/Wasilla, on average they stayed 14.6 nights in Alaska. The top three other

communities visited included Anchorage (94 percent), Denali and Seward (52 percent each), and Fairbanks

(40 percent). Just over half of visitors (57 percent) stayed in a hotel or motel or private home (32 percent).

Fall/winter visitors to Palmer/Wasilla tended to focus their travel in Anchorage (88 percent). The leading

lodging choices were personal homes (59 percent) and hotels/motels (46 percent). The average length of

stay was 10.4 nights in Alaska.

A table providing detailed information on out-of-state visitors’ length of stay, destinations, and type of lodge

used in Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla can be found in Appendix B.

ACTIVITIES IN ALASKA

The top three summer activities for out-of-state visitors to Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla included shopping,

wildlife viewing and cultural activities. (Participation in these activities could have been anywhere within the

state and visitors did not necessarily do any of these activities within the Borough.) Summer visitors to

Talkeetna were more likely to be part of a cruise-tour package which included activities such as shopping (86

percent), wildlife viewing (83 percent), cultural activities (72 percent), day cruises (67 percent) and train rides

(55 percent). Visitors to Palmer/Wasilla were more likely to be visiting friends and relatives than those visiting

Talkeetna. The top activities by Palmer/Wasilla visitors included shopping (70 percent), wildlife viewing (61

percent), visiting friends (49 percent), cultural activities (49 percent), and hiking and nature walks (45

percent).


During fall/winter, the majority of visitors to Palmer/Wasilla visited friends and relatives (59 percent), and

shopped (51 percent).

A table providing out-of-state activities while visiting Alaska can be found in Appendix B.

ACTIVITIES IN TALKEETNA AND PALMER/WASILLA

The leading activity reported by Talkeetna visitors while in Talkeetna was flightseeing (15 percent); 7 to 9

percent of visitors reported participation in activities like wildlife viewing, fishing or cultural activities.

While in the Palmer/Wasilla area, visitors’ leading activities during summer included visiting friends and

relatives (25 percent), camping (13 percent) and participating in hiking/nature walks (13 percent). During

the fall/winter season (when an estimated 36,000 people visited the area), 43 percent reported visiting

friends and relatives, and the next highest percentage, 8 percent, reported wildlife viewing activities.

A table providing out-of-state activities while Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla can be found in Appendix B.

PREVIOUS AND FUTURE ALASKA TRAVEL

One quarter of Talkeetna summer visitors had previously vacationed in Alaska, compared to more than half of

Palmer/Wasilla visitors. During fall/winter, the percentage of repeat travelers increased to nearly 80 percent

because many visitors likely return to visit family and friends again.

Previous and Future Alaska Travel Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Palmer/Wasilla Very likely to return to Alaska in next five years 31% 55% 84%

Been to Alaska before for vacation 24% 53% 79%

Average # of vacation trips (base: repeaters) 2.8 4.1 5.9

Previous Mode of Transportation Used to Enter/Exit Alaska Air 76% 77% 90% Cruise 29 10 10 Highway 11 16 2 Ferry 1 3 <1

VISITOR DEMOGRAPHICS

Western US was the leading region for visitor origin. On average, the summer visitor to Talkeetna was 52

years of age and had 2.4 people in their travel party. Just under half (47 percent) were male and 19 percent

had children in their household. They averaged an annual household income of $101,000. The summer

visitor to Palmer/Wasilla was 51 years of age and had 2.2 people in their travel party. Just over half (52

percent) were mail and 18 percent had children in their household. Their average annual household income

was $88,000.


Compared with the summer visitor to Palmer/Wasilla, visitors were much younger (45 years vs. 51 percent

summer) and more likely to have children (30 percent vs. 18 percent summer).

A table providing more detailed demographic information can be found in Appendix B.

VISITOR EXPENDITURES

Expenditure information in the following table reflects out-of-pocket spending by visitors while in each

community, exclusive of transportation. It is important to note that additional economic impacts affect the

borough and local communities that are not reflected in these spending estimates. For example, any visitor

that purchased a tour package would pay the tour operator for the package. In turn, the operator contracts

with local businesses for any included tour components like accommodations, local tours and meals.

On average, summer visitors spent $158 per person in Talkeetna and $144 per person in Palmer/Wasilla.

Among Talkeetna visitors, the leading expenditure categories were tours and lodging. Palmer/Wasilla visitors

spent the largest amount per person on food and beverage, followed by lodging.

During the fall/winter period, visitors spent $171 per person in Palmer/Wasilla, with food and beverage the

leading expense category.

Visitor Expenditures, Average Per Person1 Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Palmer/Wasilla Average in-state expend. $1,328 $1,290 $783 Expend. in location 158 144 171

Lodging 48 44 34 Tours/activity/ entertainment

56 9 20

Gifts/souvenirs/ clothing

18 14 31

Food/beverage 25 51 65 Rental cars/fuel/ transportation

11 23 18

Other - 3 3 1 Based to intercept respondents only. Note: Excludes transportation to/from Alaska. “Other” includes multi-day packages attributable to one community, usually sport-fishing lodge packages.

TALKEETNA FALL/WINTER EXPENDITURE ESTIMATE

While an estimated 5,000 visitors traveled to Talkeetna during the winter months, expenditure data was

captured from too small of a sample for statistical reliability. In order to recognize some spending for these

visitors, the study team conservatively estimated that fall/winter spending was half of the summer

expenditure estimate ($79). The reduction is largely based on the fact that there are fewer opportunities

during fall and winter for tour and retail purchases. Further reinforcing the conservative nature of this

estimate is the fact that more than half of Talkeetna summer visitors are cruise passengers; lodging expenses

for these visitors are paid by the tour operator and not reflected in this spending data.


Glacier Country (Glenn Highway) Region

While visitor travel on the Glenn Highway was not specifically measured in AVSP, the highway/ferry visitor

market is believed to be representative of Glenn Highway summer out-of-state visitors. A summary profile for

each of this market is provided in Appendix B.

Visitor Volume

During summer 2006, an estimated 85,000 visitors entered or exited Alaska by highway or ferry. It is also very

likely that a portion of the 139,000 Palmer/Wasilla visitors drove a portion of the Glenn Highway.

After evaluating visitor volume and travel patterns of the highway/ferry market and factoring in the

accessibility and scenic appeal of the Glenn Highway, the study team conservatively estimates that 90,000

visitors traveled a portion of Glenn Highway during the summer.

During the fall/winter period, about 1 percent of the entire market may have visited the Glenn Highway or

Glacier Country, representing about 2,500 visitors (the survey sample was too small for additional analysis).

Visitor Activities and Travel Patterns

The top activities in Alaska for highway/ferry summer visitors were shopping (60 percent), wildlife viewing

(47 percent) and camping (46 percent). Visitors who entered or exited Alaska by highway and ferry spent an

average of 19 nights in Alaska.

Total out-of-state Visitor Expenditures in the Borough

Summer highway/ferry visitors reported spending an average of $1,310 per person in Alaska. Based on an

average trip length of 18.8 days in Alaska, this market spent approximately $70 per person, per day while in

Alaska.

Recognizing that the largest spending occurred in the retail and service centers of the state, visitor spending

along the Glenn Highway corridor was likely very low on a per-person basis. The relatively small number of

accommodations and the high percentage of highway visitors that camp further reinforces this assumption.

The study team developed a conservative estimate of $10 per person in spending along the Glenn Highway,

for a total spending estimate of $900,000.

Off the Beaten Path Region

During the first phase of this project (Base Case Tourism Infrastructure Description), nearly 20 individual lodges

and remote properties were identified in the “Off the Beaten Path” area of the region. This large region

encompasses a horseshoe-shaped swath of the southwest, north and northeast corners of the borough. The

study team developed an estimate of visitor volume, activities and spending from an analysis of these

individual properties.


Visitor Activities

These properties represent a diverse range of facility types and ambiance. Many properties offer multiple

summer/fall activities such as boating, flightseeing, fishing, hunting, rafting and horseback riding. Several also

offer winter activities such as heli-skiing, snowmobiling and dog sledding. Typically, the lodges are included

in multi-day packages that include accommodations, meals and some activities, with the option to purchase

additional activities.

Visitor Volume and Expenditure Estimates

Few properties are accessible by road; most can only be reached by air or boat. The lodges range in size from

two to 12 rooms. There are a total of approximately 108 rooms available during the peak summer season.

Some properties have room configurations that allow for more than two people per room, but double

occupancy is the standard. Some properties are seasonal, open only during the approximately 105-day

summer season. Others are open year-round.

After reviewing the number, type, and operating season of the remote lodges and properties, the study team

estimates that approximately 8,000 visitors annually spend at least one night in this broadly defined region.

Based on currently published package rates and (conservatively) projected occupancy rates, these visitors are

estimated to spend approximately $9 million annually in lodging packages. Further reinforcing the

conservative nature of this estimate, the study team acknowledges that this estimate does not include

additional spending in the region for tours, some snacks and beverages, souvenirs and other retail purchases,

staff gratuities, and some transportation costs.

Visitor Expenditures Summary: All Out-of-State Visitor Markets

TOTAL VISITOR EXPENDITURES IN TALKEETNA AND PALMER/WASILLA (INDIVIDUALS)

The following table provides a summary of the detailed visitor expenditure information in the Appendix.

During the summer months, visitors spent nearly $33 million in Talkeetna and $20 million in Palmer/Wasilla.

Combined, visitors’ out-of-pocket expenditures totaled nearly $53 million. Fall/winter expenditure estimates

reflect the significant drop in visitation. Visitors are estimated to have spent $400,000 in Talkeetna and $6.2

million in Palmer/Wasilla. Total individual out-of-state visitor expenditures in the Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla

area equal $59.3 million.

Out-of-State Visitor Expenditures Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Expressed in Millions of Dollars

Summer Fall/Winter

Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Talkeetna1 Palmer/Wasilla Total spending $32.7 $20.0 $0.4 $6.2 1 Talkeetna Fall/Winter expenditures are based on McDowell Group estimates. Note: Excludes transportation to/from Alaska.


TOUR OPERATOR EXPENDITURE ESTIMATE IN TALKEETNA AND PALMER/WASILLA

Tour operator spending in the Mat-Su Borough includes any accommodations, transportation, meals, and

other services that are included in a multi-day tour package. These types of expenditures are not reflected in

the out-of-pocket expenditure estimates for Talkeetna, Palmer or Wasilla. As indicated in the Trip Purpose &

Packages data from AVSP V, the vast majority of packages are purchased in the summer months. (Note: the

package participation rate in this table is not specific to the Mat-Su region; i.e., the package could have

occurred outside the region.) The study team developed a conservative estimate based on the number of

cruise-tour passengers that visited the region.

Several adventure-oriented tour operators also bring small groups into the Mat-Su region, including locally

owned Alaskan Tour Guides, Girdwood-based Alaska Wildland Adventures, and national companies like

Backroads, REI-Adventures and the National Outdoor Leadership School. While total visitation from these

small groups likely represents a tiny fraction of the group tour market, their presence reinforces the

conservative nature of the tour operator expenditure estimate.

Based on an examination of tour patterns and prior research, the study team developed an estimate of $85

per person in Mat-Su communities. Tour operator spending in the Mat-Su Borough was estimated to be at

least $10.6 million in 2006.

Estimated Tour Operator Expenditures Summer 2006

Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla

Estimated number of tour passengers 110,000 14,000

Tour operator spending $9.4 million $1.2 million

Source: McDowell Group estimates.

OUT-OF-STATE VISITORS TOTAL EXPENDITURES

Estimated expenditures in the Mat-Su region exceeded $82 million during the 2006-07 study period. For

consistency with the Base Case Infrastructure Description, spending has been grouped into the regions used in

Mat-Su visitor marketing programs.

Visitor and tour operator spending in Denali Country represented nearly $43 million in direct spending,

slightly more than half of the total. This higher percentage is reflective of the large visitor volume and

percentage of visitors that utilize local accommodations.

Visitor and tour operator spending in the Palmer and Wasilla area was estimated to be $27.4 million, or

approximately one-third of the total (referred to as Glacier Country/Gold Rush Country). This estimate reflects

the somewhat smaller volume of visitors compared to Denali Country, as well as the higher percentage of

visitors that stay in private homes or camp.

Nearly $1 million in visitor spending was estimated for Glenn Highway (Glacier Country) visitors (this

estimate excludes spending in Palmer and Glennallen). Visitor spending to remote lodges and other “Off the

Beaten Path” properties was estimated at $9 million.


Total Out-of-State Visitor Expenditures by Mat-Su Region Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Expressed in Millions of Dollars

Estimated Spending

Denali Country (Talkeetna and Denali State Park)

Visitor (summer) $32.7 Visitor (fall/winter) 0.4 Tour operator 9.4

Subtotal Denali Country 42.5

Glacier Country/Gold Rush Country* (Palmer/Wasilla)

Visitor (summer) $20.0 Visitor (fall/winter) 6.2 Tour operator 1.2

Subtotal Glacier/Gold Rush Country 27.4

Glacier Country (Glenn Highway)

Visitor (summer) $0.9

Off the Beaten Path (Roadless portions of the Mat-Su Borough)

Visitor (summer) $9.0 Total Spending $79.8 million

*Visitors’ expenditures in the Palmer and Wasilla area were combined in AVSP V. As a result, Palmer and Hatcher Pass expenditures are included in the Glacier/Gold Rush Country region in this table.


In-State Visitor Market Analysis

Visitor volume and expenditure estimates for the in-state travel market were based on secondary research

from two sources. Key findings from these studies are presented in Appendix B.

• In July 2007, the Alaska Travel Industry Association published the Alaska Resident In-State Pleasure

Travel Study Report. This study was developed by GMA Research Corporation, a Seattle-based survey

research firm, and was based on a statewide survey of 1,100 Alaska residents. The study included

nine Alaska regions.

• Alaska Village Initiatives, an Alaska consulting firm, developed a multiple-volume study on the Mat-Su

visitor industry that included Alaska residents and out-of-state visitors. The Alaska resident travel

findings were based on two telephone surveys conducted by Anchorage-based Dittman Research

Corporation. The survey regarding fall/winter travel to Mat-Su was conducted in May 1998 with 410

Alaskans residing in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Kenai/Soldotna. The survey regarding summer travel

was conducted in October 1998 with 413 Alaskans residing in the same three communities.

Alaska Resident Visitor Volume and Expenditures

VISITOR VOLUME

The study team developed Alaska visitor volume estimates by applying visitation rates from the 1997-1998

study to updated 2007 population estimates using Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development

estimates. These estimates are likely conservative, as the number of accommodations and attractions in the

Mat-Su region has grown considerably in the past decade. (Original population and visitor volume estimates

can be found in Appendix B.)

The number of Alaska residents that traveled to Mat-Su during the fall/winter period is estimated to be over

180,000. The number of residents that travel to Mat-Su during the summer is estimated at 263,000. The

largest market for Mat-Su continues to be Anchorage, based on proximity and population. It is estimated that

as much as 85 to 90 percent of Alaskan resident visitors to the Borough are from Anchorage.

Estimated Alaska Resident Visitation Fall/Winter 2006-07

Community Population % Visiting Mat-Su1

Residents Visiting

Anchorage 283,823 59% 167,500

Fairbanks 31,627 33 10,300

Kenai/Soldotna/Sterling 16,076 35 5,600

Total 331,526 55% 183,400 1 Visitation rates from previous Alaska Village Initiatives study. Fall/Winter percentages were rounded for this table.


Estimated Alaska Resident Visitation Summer 2007

Community Population % Visiting Mat-Su1

Residents Visiting

Anchorage 283,823 86% 244,100

Fairbanks 31,627 44 13,900

Kenai/Soldotna 16,076 30 4,800

Total 322,218 79% 262,800 1 Visitation rates from previous Alaska Village Initiatives study.

EXPENDITURES

Alaska resident spending is estimated to be more than $121 million, assuming visitation rates and

expenditures remained similar to the late 1990s. (Note: travel party and per-person expenditure estimates

from 1997-98 were adjusted to reflect inflation during the 10-year period.)

During the fall and winter months, nearly 185,000 Alaska residents are estimated to take an average of 10

trips into the Mat-Su region. Total in-state visitor spending exceeds $64 million during this season.

While more than 260,000 residents travel to Mat-Su during the summer months, the average number of trips

is only six. (In addition to the summer period being shorter, Mat-Su competes with other Alaska destinations

for in-state visitation including the Kenai Peninsula and Valdez.) Total spending in the Mat-Su region during

summer months is estimated at $57 million.

Total Alaska Resident Visitation and Expenditures in the Mat-Su Fall/Winter 2006-07 and Summer 2007

Mat-Su Expenditures

Fall/Winter

Average spending per person $35.06 Average number of trips 10 trips Estimated residents traveling to Mat-Su 183,400 Estimated total trips 1,834,000

Total Estimated Spending $64.3 million

Summer

Average spending per person $36.12 Average number of trips 6 trips Estimated residents traveling to Mat-Su 262,800 Estimated total trips 1,576,800

Total Estimated Spending $57.0 million

Total Resident Spending $121.3 million


Market Outlook

This section includes a brief discussion of the statewide and regional trends for both in-state and out-of-state

visitors that are likely to affect the Mat-Su visitor industry in the near future.

Cruise and Cruise-Tour Market

On a statewide level, the cruise industry has shown remarkably consistent growth in the past several decades.

Total Alaska cruise volume increased steadily throughout the 1980s and 1990s, reaching a record 1 million

visitors in 2007. More relevant for the Mat-Su region, the number of cruise-tour passengers has likewise

increased, while tour patterns have expanded to bring more and more visitors to the area.

In 2006, 22 percent of cruise passengers participated in an Alaska cruise and overnight land tour package

(approximately 211,000 visitors). The number of cruise-tour passengers does not always rise in direct

correlation with the overall cruise market. For example, in 2002 and 2003 (post 9/11 years) the Alaska market

declined somewhat for these longer, more expensive package tours. The cruise-tour market has since

rebounded. The addition of Royal Celebrity Tours, whose clients overnight in Talkeetna, has also increased

the overall volume of cruise-tour offerings.

The Talkeetna area has become an increasingly popular element of cruise-tour packages. Many of the cruise-

tour package options include two nights in the area. Tour operators are also offering tours that feature

Southcentral and Denali without continuing north to Fairbanks. Increased access and product development in

the South Denali region—coupled with high visitor demand for Denali experiences—is likely to stimulate

disproportionate growth in comparison to other areas of the state.

Finally, a growing volume of cruise passengers spend time on their own in Alaska (separate from their pre-

paid package) before or after their cruise experience. In 2006, 12 percent of all cruise passengers spent

additional time in Alaska (approximately 115,000 visitors). The proximity of Mat-Su to the Anchorage airport

and southcentral ports bodes well for attracting these “disappearing cruisers.”

The cruise market to Alaska is anticipated to grow between 2 and 5 percent annually over the next five years.

This growth is slower than in the past, as Alaska ports are reaching capacity and port infrastructure

enhancement is occurring more slowly. However, major cruise lines own significant land assets in Alaska and

these assets generate important revenues to these companies. In particular, the Denali corridor, between

Anchorage and Fairbanks, is the highest demand area for land tours in the state; there is considerable focus

by the cruise lines and their tour companies to increase visitor volume through this area. Even if the cruise

market overall to Alaska is expected to grow more slowly in the future, cruise-tour volume is expected to

grow steadily.


Independent Travel

While the independent market is not currently showing the strong growth of the cruise market, it is still an

important one for Mat-Su to pursue. The air market, in particular, represents a significant volume of visitors

(defined as visitors who enter and exit Alaska by air). During summer 2006, one-third of air visitors reported

using rental cars to travel between communities. Similarly, 22 percent reported traveling between

communities in a personal vehicle (likely owned by in-state friends or relatives). With Anchorage serving as

the largest transportation hub for air travelers, Mat-Su is well poised to increase its share of this highly mobile

market segment.

The number of visitors that travel to Alaska by highway or ferry has experienced a steady, gradual decline

since the early 1990s. Several marketing initiatives are underway to stem the decline, as these visitors travel

widely throughout Alaska’s highway system and are in Alaska twice as long, on average, as other markets.

This market could grow between 1 and 3 percent annually over the next several years. Despite a modest rate

of growth, this visitor segment is large, fairly reliable from year-to-year, and can be influenced by marketing;

it should represent a significant part of the Mat-Su’s promotional efforts.

Package Tours

Twenty-one percent of visitors that entered and exited Alaska by air reported purchasing a multi-day tour

package that included lodging, transportation and activities. Nearly half of these packages were fishing lodge

packages. Adventure tour packages and wilderness lodge packages were purchased by 15 percent and 14

percent of the market respectively. (Very few highway and ferry travelers purchase multi-day tour packages.)

A wide array of large and small tour operators currently include Mat-Su in their multi-day packages. These

operators range from small groups of 16 to 30 adventure travelers seeking unique lodges and inns, to

motorcoach groups of 40 to 50 passengers seeking sightseeing, dining, and lodging that can accommodate

the entire group simultaneously.

Additionally, a large percentage of the Mat-Su accommodations in the “Off the Beaten Path” region are

multi-day packages. These visitors tend to travel with their individual travel party members, rather than larger

groups.

The market trend for offering increasing variety and customization of package tours is positive for Mat-Su.

Improved transportation within the borough—especially in the Denali Highway and Hatcher Pass area—is

likely to spur new tour patterns and product development. However, small and mid-sized operators already

report accommodation constraints in Talkeetna and along the Glenn Highway.


Adventure Travel

The adventure market is a small market that includes adventure package travelers and adventure-seeking

visitors that travel independently. The natural beauty and attractions in the Mat-Su region are a perfect match

for this niche market. At the extreme range, the National Park Service reports that an estimated 2,000 people

attempt to summit Mt. McKinley annually. Most of these attempts are based in Talkeetna. The region offers

many other opportunities for adventure seekers to experience mountaineering, rafting, hiking, camping,

skiing and other outdoor recreation.

Meetings and Conferences

While Mat-Su hosts a small number of conferences and retreats, the lack of meeting facilities currently

precludes any meaningful growth in this market. Statewide, the number of Alaskan associations is fairly stable

and the market is competitive. The in-state market includes groups like the Alaska Bar Association, Alaska

Municipal League, Alaska Travel Industry Association, and many state and regional associations. It is likely that

many of these groups have pent-up demand for Mat-Su region meetings, as they probably outgrew the

meeting facilities long ago.

Additionally, Mat-Su has the opportunity to tie into the increased national and international exposure

generated by Anchorage. The completion of The Dena’ina Center in fall 2008 will significantly increase both

meeting capacity and marketing efforts.

In-State Travel

Anchorage population growth, with an increase of 11 percent over the past decade, is extremely favorable for

continued year-round visitation from Mat-Su’s closest and largest neighbor. Additionally, Mat-Su itself has

experienced tremendous population growth. (While the focus of this study is to stimulate economic

development associated with visitor expenditures from outside the region, it is noteworthy that Mat-Su

residents travel widely within the borough as well.)

Alaska residents travel frequently to Mat-Su communities for sporting events, festivals and other special

events. Some special events create short-term needs for public restrooms and other services. The potential for

growth in this area is contingent on continued organization support, volunteer efforts and promotional

efforts to sustain the activities.

Several prior studies have indicated that Alaska residents would be motivated to travel to Mat-Su for

performances and concerts. The existing performing arts facilities have some limitations in terms of seating

capacity and availability.


National Parks and Related Growth

Visiting national parks is a highly rated activity among current and potential Alaska travelers. Two areas of the

state are poised for growth: South Denali and Copper Basin/Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve.

Of the two regions, South Denali has significantly more momentum and market recognition, as visiting

Denali is a leading motive for many Alaska travelers. South Denali development will be a cornerstone of the

future development of tourism in the Mat-Su. (Pending infrastructure developments are discussed more fully

in the Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvement chapter of the final report.)

The Copper Basin region is also well poised for growth. This area includes lands owned by Ahtna,

Incorporated (the regional ANCSA corporation), National Park Service, and other private landowners. Market

growth is most likely to come from cruise-tour operators and other package tour companies. Recent visitor

industry planning and development efforts should increase the profile of this accessible and beautiful region.

Mat-Su visitor industry businesses and communities should benefit from increased market awareness and

visitation to the National Parks and surrounding areas. However, it will be important for the accommodations

and attractions located directly within the Mat-Su region to remain competitive with any new developments

in terms of quality and price.

Assessment of Tourism Industry

Value

Assessment of Tourism Industry Value McDowell Group, Inc. • Page C-1

Assessment of Tourism Industry Value

Introduction

The visitor industry plays an important role in diversifying the Mat-Su Borough economy. In-state and out-of-

state visitors are visible throughout the year, using a wide variety of lodging establishments, traveling in RVs

and buses and enjoying recreational activities like hiking and boating.

While tourism can be a high-profile element of life in Mat-Su, it is difficult to measure impacts from this

industry because it does not fall neatly into standard economic categories. Instead, tourism directly and

indirectly affects a wide variety of sectors including accommodation and food service, transportation,

communication, construction and others.

Because of the unique challenges when trying to determine the value of the tourism industry, it is common to

compile several economic and socio-economic indicators including the information found in this section.

• The study team begins with a discussion of the direct and indirect impacts of visitor-related spending,

and how multiplier effects are applied to determine indirect impacts. To reinforce the employment

estimates attributable to the visitor industry, the study analyzed data from the Alaska Department of

Labor and Workforce Development.

• The study team then analyzes a number of additional indicators that help illustrate the impacts of the

visitor industry on the economy including employment in visitor-affected sectors of the economy,

Matanuska-Susitna Borough business licenses, bed tax revenues and sport fishing participation.

• The report includes scenarios for future visitation and bed tax collections, using information collected

during the baseline assessment.

• Finally, this section includes a discussion of the intrinsic value of tourism.


Visitor Related Spending

Direct Spending

Total direct spending in Mat-Su by all visitor markets was estimated at $201.1 million for the one-year period

between May 2006 and April 2007. Detailed information about visitor volume, direct spending by category

and seasonal fluctuations can be found in the preceding chapter entitled Base Case Infrastructure Description:

Mat-Su Visitor Markets.

Out-of-state visitor volume and direct spending was largely based on the recently completed study Alaska

Visitor Statistics Program V. Direct visitor spending was collected by community and region for the summer

and fall/winter period. To maintain consistency with the Base Case Infrastructure Description, out-of-state

direct visitor spending was grouped into the five regions used in Mat-Su visitor marketing programs

(including Denali, Lake Country/Goldrush Country, Glacier Country, and Off the Beaten Path Country).

In-state visitation and direct spending was based on a study conducted specifically for the Mat-Su Borough.

Estimates were updated to reflect population changes and inflation. In this study, direct visitor spending was

not broken into specific regions within the borough. In-state direct visitor spending represents 60 percent of

total visitor industry spending. At 64.3 million, in-state visitor spending during the fall/winter period (October

to April) slightly overshadowed summer spending at $57 million.

Among the out-of-state visitor market, visitor and tour operator spending in Denali Country accounted for 53

percent of the total, or $42.5 million. Spending in the greater Palmer/Wasilla area (Lake Country/Gold Rush

Country) accounted for $27.4 million, or just over one-third.

Estimated Total Direct Expenditures in Mat-Su Borough Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Expenditures ($Millions)

Percentage

Out-of-state Visitors

Denali Country (Talkeetna and Denali State Park)

$42.5 53%

Lake Country/Gold Rush Country* (Willow to Wasilla and Palmer)

27.4 34

Off the Beaten Path (Roadless Portions of Mat-Su Borough)

9.0 11

Glacier Country (Glenn Highway east of Palmer) 0.9 1 Subtotal Out-of-State $79.8 million 40%

In-state Visitors

Fall/Winter $64.3 53% Summer 57.0 47

Subtotal In-State $121.3 million 60% Total Visitor Industry Spending $201.1 million 100%

*Out-of-state visitors’ expenditures in the Palmer and Wasilla area were combined in AVSP V. As a result, Palmer and Hatcher Pass expenditures are included in the Glacier Country/Gold Rush Country region in this table.


As summarized in the table below, food and beverage represented the leading expenditure category,

followed by accommodations and fuel and transportation.

Estimated Direct Visitor Related Expenditures in Mat-Su Borough Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Expenditure Category Expenditures ($Millions)

Percent of Total

Food and beverage $70.2 35% Accommodations 49.1 24 Fuel and transportation 45.6 23 Tours and entertainment 28.8 14 Gifts and souvenirs 6.8 3 Other 0.5 ≤1 Total Visitor Industry Spending $201.1 million 100%

Indirect Impacts

The study team used the IMPLAN (Impact Analysis for Planning) econometric model to estimate employment

impacts associated with this spending. IMPLAN is a predictive input-output model of regional and state

economies that is widely used to measure the economic impact of industries and industrial/commercial

development. An estimated $201 million in visitor industry spending in the Mat-Su region resulted in

approximately 3,100 jobs and $78 million in labor income. (Labor income estimates include employee payroll

and benefits as well as proprietors’ income.) Visitor spending filters through nearly every sector of the

regional economy.

After accounting for indirect and induced impacts, total output (spending) associated with the visitor industry

is $282 million annually, nearly 4,000 jobs and more than $100 million in labor income. (A detailed

discussion of multipliers, including indirect and induced impacts, is provided below.)

Estimated Impact of Total Direct, Indirect and Induced Visitor-Related Spending in Mat-Su Borough

Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Direct Indirect Induced Total Employment 3,100 390 430 3,920 Labor Income $78 million $12 million $13 million $103 million Output (spending) 201 million 38 million 43 million 282 million

*McDowell Group estimates.

TOURISM MULTIPLIER EFFECTS

Money that resident and non-resident visitors spend in Mat-Su circulates through the economy creating

revenue for local businesses as well as jobs and income for people employed by those businesses. Money

spent in hotels, for example, generates profits for hotel owners and payroll for hotel employees who then

spend their income with other local businesses, creating additional employment and income. The economic

activity associated with these cycles of spending is termed the “multiplier effect.”


Multipliers capture indirect and induced economic impacts. Indirect impacts include jobs and income in

businesses that provide goods and services to businesses that serve visitors. For example, a local hotelier or

tour operator purchases fuel, rents office space and purchases services in support of their day-to-day business

operations. Many types of businesses share in these indirect impacts including construction companies, legal

and accounting services, printers, graphic artists and utility providers. Induced impacts include jobs and

incomes associated with providing goods and services to the visitor industry workforce and their dependents.

Induced impacts are felt throughout the private and public sector.

Different visitor markets have different impacts on the local economy. The multiplier effect of cruise visitor

spending in the borough differs from the effect of spending by an independent Alaskan visitor, which may

differ from an independent non-Alaskan visitor. Visitor spending at a lodge owned by a non-Mat-Su resident

has a different multiplier effect than spending by an Anchorage resident at a locally-owned restaurant, for

example.

The degree of the multiplier affect (the size of the multiplier) depends on number of factors, including the

relative amount of local spending on goods and services by the businesses that serve visitors, the residency of

the labor force, average wages paid to workers serving visitors, the residency of the owners of visitor-affected

businesses and the level of service and support sector development in the area to meet the needs of visitors

and businesses that serve visitors.

In general, multipliers are lowest for non-locally owned businesses operating in small communities and

employing a large percentage of non-resident workers. Multipliers are highest for locally-owned businesses

operating in urban settings and employing resident workers who are paid high wages.

Precisely measuring multipliers related to visitor spending requires very detailed information about local

economies, information that is not available for Mat-Su (or any other area of Alaska). In the absence of

detailed data, models such as IMPLAN can provide reasonable multipliers for sectors of the economy that are

affected by visitor spending.

To illustrate the effect of multipliers, the following table shows the total economic impact (in terms of direct

and indirect spending, employment and labor income) of $1 million in visitor spending in each sector of the

visitor-affected economy. The multipliers reflect economic activity in the borough related to visitor spending

and do not capture statewide economic impacts.


Output, Employment and Labor Income Resulting from $1 million in Visitor Spending in Each Visitor Affected Sector in the Mat-Su Economy, 2006 Dollars

Output (Spending)

Employment (jobs per

million $ spent) Labor Income

Air Transportation $1,470,000 10.7 $300,000

Ground Transportation 1,370,000 19.8 580,000

Sightseeing Tours 1,470,000 15.6 860,000

Food & Beverage Stores 1,450,000 20.0 590,000

Hotel/Motel/Lodges 1,420,000 20.5 480,000

Restaurants/Bars 1,340,000 24.3 450,000

General Merch. Stores 1,450,000 19.3 530,000

Infrastructure construction projects related to the visitor industry have their own set of multipliers.

Construction projects—roads, trails, visitor centers and other infrastructure—have temporary, short-term

economic impacts associated with spending money locally in support of construction activity and employing

local construction workers. For example, a $10 million road construction or improvement project would

create about $5 million in labor income in Mat-Su and create 140 jobs for the duration of the construction

project.

In the long-term, the economic impact of infrastructure projects depends on the role they play in drawing

new visitors to the area, extending the stay of visitors already traveling to or through the area and increasing

visitor spending in the borough. The existence of infrastructure can have this affect gradually, to the extent

that it increases capacity to serve the needs and interests of visitors. More importantly, however, is the

marketing effort that accompanies infrastructure development. It is marketing that leverages an investment in

infrastructure into real economic benefit for local businesses and residents.

Employment in Visitor-Affected Sectors of the Economy

Examination of employment and payroll data for business sectors most likely to be impacted by visitor

spending in the borough revealed nearly 400 “visitor-affected” businesses, visitor-affected peak employment

of nearly 6,000 and total payroll of more than $82 million (table on the following page). As indicated in the

previous section, employment and payroll impacts directly attributable to the visitor industry are estimated at

3,100 jobs and $78 million in labor income. Including indirect effects, employment increases to more than

3,900 jobs and $103 million in labor income.

Due to the seasonal fluctuations of visitor volume and spending in the borough, employment in visitor-

affected businesses also fluctuates throughout the year. For example, 2006 employment in borough

accommodation services fluctuated from 364 workers at the lowest to 1,119 workers in the peak season, a

difference of 207 percent.


Employment and Earnings in Visitor-Affected Sectors of the Mat-Su Economy, 2006

# of Employers

Low MonthlyEmployment

Peak Monthly

Employment

Average Annual

Employment Total

Earnings

AverageMonthly

Wage

Total Industries 1,808 16,775 19,086 17,799 $578,784,881 $2,710

Total Government 84 2,487 4,219 3,731 153,287,995 3,423

Retail Trade

Food & Beverage 29 599 702 640 $14,042,440 $1,829

Gas Stations 23 264 288 275 5,792,559 1,756

Clothing & Accessories 15 70 89 77 1,274,397 1,385

Sporting goods, Books, Music, etc. 19 63 83 72 879,420 1,023

General Merchandise 7 797 883 828 20,352,138 2,048

Miscellaneous 32 131 187 153 2,605,965 1,421

Transportation

Air 8 22 104 56 $1,856,818 $2,767

Transit & Ground 6 123 314 261 NA NA

Scenic & Sightseeing 9 27 109 57 2,104,076 3,063

Support Activities 14 64 99 77 2,665,659 2,885

Arts, Entertainment & Recreation

Performing Arts 13 31 139 70 NA NA

Museums, Zoos, Parks, etc. 3 1 7 3 NA NA

Amusements, Gambling, Recreation 32 148 248 187 $2,335,599 $1,040

Accommodation & Food Services

Accommodation 63 364 1,119 641 $12,304,925 $1,599

Food Services & Drinking Places

122 1,156 1,553 1,335 16,091,893 1,005

Total Visitor Affected 395 3,860 5,924 4,732 $82,305,889 $1,449

Percent Visitor Affected 22% 23% 31% 27% 14% -

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Compiled by McDowell Group.


The study team reviewed Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development (ADOLWD) data to

determine average annual employment and peak employment for those businesses most affected by seasonal

fluctuations in visitor spending. (This table does not represent all employers in the borough.)

Particular attention was paid to those businesses that served the out-of-state visitor market. Accommodations

revealed the highest average annual employment and the largest swing between low and peak employment.

This is not surprising, given the seasonal nature of a few large properties. For example, 2006 employment for

Alaska Hotel Properties LLC fluctuated from 17 workers at lowest monthly employment to 305 workers at

peak monthly employment.

Leading Mat-Su Borough Visitor Industry Employers Employment by Sector and Firm, 2006

Low MonthlyEmployment

Average Annual

Employment

Peak Monthly

Employment

Air Transportation

K2 Aviation 6 23 44

Talkeetna Aero Services 3 14 28

Talkeetna Air Taxi Inc. 4 14 26

Wick Air Inc. 6 8 10

Performing Arts

Alaska State Fair Inc. 14 33 68

Government

National Park Service 7 16 27

Activities

Alaska Heli-mush Inc. 3 13 31

Mahay’s Riverboat Service Inc. 3 12 32

Talkeetna River Guides Inc. 0 7 22

Nova River Runners Inc. 0 6 23

North Star Speedway Inc. 0 6 21

Top End Inc. 0 5 17

Talkeetna Fishing Guides 0 5 10

Accommodations

Alaska Hotel Properties LLC 17 130 305

CIRI Alaska Tourism Corp. 12 84 204

Valley Hotel Inc. 64 78 96

Aurora Lodging Management Inc. 44 53 61

Grandview Inn & Suites 24 28 38

Source: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Compiled by McDowell Group. Note: Low and Peak Employment figures represent employment in a single month.


Other Indicators of Visitor Industry Effects

MAT-SU BOROUGH BUSINESS LICENSES

An examination of Mat-Su Borough records indicates that there were 6,115 license holders in 2007, with

1,056 license holders in the visitor-affected sectors. The licensees were sorted by North American Industry

Classification System (NAICS) two-digit codes to broadly categorize each business. The table below shows the

number and percentage of businesses in each category. While it is not possible to determine which

businesses are fully or partially involved in the visitor industry from this analysis alone, this information

indicates that 17 percent of the businesses with Mat-Su Borough business licenses are to some extent in

visitor-affected businesses.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Business Licenses by NAICS Industry Category, 2007

Industry Number of Businesses Percent of Total

Visitor-Affected Sectors

Accommodation & food services 471 7.7%

Arts, entertainment & recreation 302 4.9

Transportation and warehousing 220 3.6

Retail trade 63 1.0

Total 1,056 17.2%

Other Sectors

Agriculture, forestry, fishing & hunting 194 3.2%

Mining 37 0.6

Utilities 15 0.2

Construction 1,005 16.4

Manufacturing 242 4.0

Wholesale trade 865 14.1

Information 84 1.4

Finance and insurance 108 1.8

Real estates, rental & leasing 453 7.4

Professional, scientific & technical services 553 9.0

Management of companies & enterprises 15 0.2

Admin., support, waste mgmt & remed. services 203 3.3

Educational services 137 2.2

Health care & social assistance 436 7.1

Other services (except public administration) 703 11.5

Public administration 7 0.1

Classification not available 2 0.03

Total 5,059 82.8%

All industries 6,115 100.0%


BED TAX REVENUE

The 5 percent bed tax in the Mat-Su Borough is used to market the region and enhance visitor industry

infrastructure. Since 2000, bed tax revenues have more than doubled, increasing 119 percent. During this

time, annual bed tax increases have ranged from 6 percent to 20 percent, for an average annual increase of

11.9 percent. This remarkable period of bed tax growth in the Borough can be attributed to significant

growth in hotel rooms in the past ten years, particularly in the northern end of the borough.

Because of the time lag for reporting, peak-season accommodation sales are reflected in revenues collected

between July and December, while fall and winter season sales are reflected in the January to June period.

As shown in the table below, July through December tax revenues are historically five to ten times higher

than January through June revenues. The dramatic growth has occurred in peak season sales in recent years;

the region has experienced much slower growth during the remaining months.

Mat-Su Bed Tax Revenues, 2000-2007

Year July-Dec Revenues

Jan-June Revenues Total Revenues % Change from

Previous Year

2000 $375,795 $68,076 $443,871 n/a 2001 445,250 67,910 513,159 +15.6% 2002 529,787 86,477 616,264 +20.1 2003 593,724 66,042 659,766 +7.1 2004 634,100 63,785 697,885 +5.8 2005 730,117 79,167 809,284 +16.0 2006 775,566 91,313 866,879 +7.1 2007 888,040 86,172 974,212 +12.4

Source: Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau.

SPORT FISHING IMPACTS

There is no current source of information that quantifies sport fishing related expenditures on a statewide or

regional level. The measurement of participation in sport fishing, and related spending by resident and non-

resident fishers, poses complex challenges related to quantifying spending by each group. A fundamental

issue is determining what is considered a fishing expenditure. Should it be limited to those expenses directly

related to the fishing experience, or include costs like accommodations and in-state transportation incurred to

access the fishing experience? Additional challenges in capturing meaningful data include the large

geographic area and participation by diverse groups of Alaska residents and out-of-state visitors.

While it is beyond the scope of this project to conduct primary research to determine sport fishing

expenditures in the Mat-Su, the study team reviewed several existing sources of information to provide some

baseline information about visitor participation and spending related to this activity. In a study conducted by

Alaska Village Initiatives in 1998, it was found that 26 percent of Alaska residents that visited Mat-Su during

the summer months participated in fishing.


A summary of information gathered from US Fish and Wildlife, Alaska Department of Fish & Game, The

Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, and Mat-Su Visitor Impact Study

(Alaska Village Initiatives) is found in Appendix B.

Growth Projections for Visitation and Bed Tax Collections

VISITATION FORECAST

Total annual visitation to the Mat-Su Borough is approximately 780,000 visitors. When examining visitation

by major market and season, Mat-Su attracts approximately 300,000 out-of-state visitors during the summer,

plus another 37,000 out-of-state visitors during the fall and winter months. Additionally, 263,000 Alaskan

residents visit the Mat-Su during the summer and 183,000 visit during the fall and winter period. These

estimates include visitors that stay in regional accommodations, as well as those visitors who are on day trips,

stay in private homes or camp.

In order to forecast future visitation, the study team developed future growth scenarios for out-of-state and

in-state visitor markets and for each season.

As shown in the table below, summer out-of-state visitor growth rates used by the study team range from 2

percent in the low scenario to 4 percent in the high scenario. These ranges are modest when contrasted with

recent significant growth in bed tax collections. With potential developments at South Denali and Hatcher

Pass, regional visitation could easily surpass these growth rate scenarios.

Growth scenarios for in-state visitor markets range from 0.2 percent in the low scenario to 1.5 percent in the

high scenario. These modest estimates are based on annual changes in Anchorage population.

Annual Growth Rate Scenarios by Major Market Segment and Season

Growth Assumption Low Average High

Out-of-State Visitors

Summer 2.0% 3.0% 4.0%

Fall/winter 0.5 0.75 1.0

In-State Visitors

Summer 0.2% 1.0% 1.5%

Fall/winter 0.2 1.0 1.5

Using these growth rates to estimate increases in annual visitation, Mat-Su could expect an estimated

800,000 to 860,000 visitors in 2010. By 2017, the region could host between 860,000 and 1.02 million

visitors annually. (See chart on the following page.)


BED TAX REVENUE FORECAST

Mat-Su bed tax collections were nearly $975,000 in 2007. Based on the current bed tax rate of 5 percent, the

study team estimated total taxable accommodation sales of approximately $19.5 million. From this baseline

information, the study team developed a 3-year, 5-year and 10-year forecast for future bed tax collections.

If the bed tax remains at 5 percent, while accommodation sales grow at an average annual rate of 5 percent,

total bed tax collections are estimated to be $1.13 million in 2010, $1.24 million in 2012 and $1.59 million

in 2017. Total bed tax collections during the 10-year period would be nearly $12.9 million.

If accommodations sales grow by 10 percent annually, bed tax collections are estimated to be $1.3 million in

2010, $1.57 million in 2012 and $2.53 million at the end of the 10-year period. Total bed tax collections

under this growth rate scenario would exceed $17 million at the end of the 10-year period.

Average annual growth of 15 percent results in bed tax collections of $1.48 million in three years, $1.96

million in five years and $3.94 million in 2017. At this growth rate, total bed tax collections would exceed

$22.7 million in 10 years.


Intrinsic Value of Tourism

In addition to the economic and employment impacts previously discussed, the visitor industry has important

intrinsic value for the region. As a key economic sector in the Mat-Su economy, tourism provides jobs and

income for residents who live in the Mat-Su, many of whom have chosen a rural lifestyle. Tourism jobs are

spread throughout the region and rural residents have many opportunities for direct employment near where

they live, providing greater opportunities to live all or part of the year in more remote areas of the borough.

Additionally, the money generated from the visitor industry helps to pay for improvements to infrastructure in

the borough that can benefit local residents. For example, in many communities the development of a

conference center has also provided the local residents a place to gather for local events, performances and

activities. Some of the cost of operating infrastructure, such as recreation facilities, can be offset by the use of

these facilities by visitors, such as visiting hockey teams participating in tournaments at the local ice rink.

Improvements and enhancements to other infrastructure such as roads, trails, ski areas and local communities

that are made to attract more visitors also benefit the local residents in many ways. Improvements can

increase safety and provide more access to recreation opportunities for the locals.

Another opportunity that tourism provides is the access to a new market for regional retailers, crafts people

and manufacturers. For example, the Musk Ox Farm as an attraction exposes an entirely new group of

potential buyers to the wonderful qiviut products. Further, the industry provides an avenue for preserving

and interpreting local art, history and culture. The visitor industry is also a good citizen, supporting and

working with non-profit organizations. In short, the visitor industry provides economic diversification and

contributes to a better quality of life for local residents. Because of the complexity in determining the value of

an industry that affects several economic sectors, the “definition of value” needs to incorporate several

elements including visitor volume, spending, direct and indirect employment, contribution to the tax base

and intrinsic value.

Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements

Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements McDowell Group, Inc. • Page D-1

Introduction

A successful tourism industry is dependent on a number of factors, the cornerstone of which is product and

infrastructure developments. In order to realize the potential economic benefits, these investments need to be

strongly supported by consistent, effective marketing, work force training, and communication with local

populations.

In this section, the study team analyzes how the Mat-Su Borough can stimulate regional tourism

development through infrastructure development. The chapter includes the following:

• Potential tourism infrastructure improvements needed in four major areas: meeting facilities, road

system enhancements, trail system enhancements, and visitor support services. Each development

area is analyzed in terms of the development cost of infrastructure improvements and potential

effects on the visitor market.

• Following the discussion of each individual concept is a recommendation regarding the priority

actions. Factors used to prioritize the development opportunities included: potential for increases in

visitor volume, potential increases in overnight stays, enhancement of the visitor experience and

contribution to the regional economy.

• Additionally, the study team discusses potential large-scale destination and attraction developments

in the region. Two potentially significant regional developments are discussed terms of investment in

construction, other capital costs and estimated visitation (South Denali Implementation Plan and

Hatcher Pass). Several other potential destination and attraction developments are also briefly

addressed, highlighting the importance of continued attraction development in the region.

• Finally, this section includes a discussion of potential funding approaches to implement the priority

strategies. The study team provides a detailed analysis of bed taxes and the effect of increasing the

tax rate to be comparable with other Alaska communities.

Development Concepts Defined

A brief description of each concept is provided below, along with a summary of the principal reasons that it

warranted further exploration.

MEETING FACILITIES

This section analyzes the development costs and potential usage of new meeting facilities. While Mat-Su has a

number of small and mid-sized locations that can accommodate a meeting, the region cannot compete for

most in-state conferences and conventions. These events commonly have a requirement that the meeting

facility must be able to accommodate meeting and banquet functions in the same facility. (In contrast, most

mid-to-large sized groups meeting in Mat-Su would be forced to vacate their meeting room in order to set

up a banquet lunch or dinner.) Many conferences and conventions also require additional onsite space for

breakout sessions, receptions, registration tables, and trade show areas.


Two facility sizes were explored: an 8,400 sq. ft. facility (which would accommodate a conference of 125

attendees or two concurrent events with up to 125 attendees apiece) and a 20,300 sq. ft. facility (which

would accommodate a convention of 400 attendees or two concurrent events with up to 400 attendees

apiece). These two representative sizes were selected to respond to the specific question: “Should the Borough

construct several small meeting or convention facilities or one large facility?” While the region may ultimately

pursue a different facility size or configuration, this approach provided valuable information about the relative

costs and market potential associated with facilities in these size ranges.

ROAD SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS

Many areas of the borough are accessed by the regional highway system. The borough and its communities

have identified a number of highway improvements needed to enhance traffic mobility, safety, sanitation,

and the travel experience. This study examines needed road system enhancements, such as scenic

viewpoints, signage and restrooms, and their relationship to tourism and increased overnight stays.

The primary road system enhancement tourism infrastructure need is for more public restrooms.

Development of these facilities should be considered in conjunction with other desired enhancements like

scenic viewpoints and signage. These elements are addressed as a group for two reasons. First, a coordinated

approach will have a synergistic effect and the greatest impact on the traveling public. Second, it is a more

cost-effective approach when mobilizing construction equipment and supplies.

The study team also briefly addressed the potential impacts of paving the Denali Highway. Especially in light

of the pending South Denali Implementation Plan, enhancing this corridor could help to lengthen visitor

stays in the Mat-Su region by attracting more people to a circular itinerary through Southcentral and Interior

Alaska.

TRAIL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS

This section addresses the potential costs and impacts of enhancement to trails and public recreational sites

like parks, campgrounds, and boat launches. While the region has more than 2,000 miles of trails, many lack

adequate signage, trailheads, maintenance or mapping. Many parks and campgrounds suffer from deferred

maintenance, despite growing usage by residents and visitors.

The availability and condition of these recreational assets have important implications for attracting visitors,

their length of stay, and in-region spending. The current out-of-state visitor market reports far lower

participation in hikes and nature walks in Mat-Su than in other areas of Alaska. Visitor participation is similarly

low for other outdoor activities commonly associated with trails and recreational sites including fishing,

rafting and canoeing. Enhancements would improve visitor participation in these activities and length of stay

in the region.

VISITOR SUPPORT SERVICES

The study team examined the need and potential benefit of improved visitor support services, primarily

through informational kiosks and signage. Prior research shows that visitors who use information centers

report much higher satisfaction ratings. The intended result in Mat-Su would be increased awareness of

activities and attractions, thereby increasing the length of stay and accommodation usage. Optimally, visitor


information services are available at all major entrance points. The existing regional visitor information center

serves visitors that arrive via Anchorage or have already spent considerable time in the region, having traveled

the Glenn or Parks Highways. The South Denali Implementation Plan includes a major Denali interpretive

center and a smaller kiosk at the Petersville Road/Parks Highway intersection. Additional locations to consider

include Glenn Highway and key airport and rail arrival locations.


Meeting Facilities

There is a statewide market for general conference and meeting facilities, but the Mat-Su Borough is not

capturing its share of this market because of the lack of appropriate conference facilities. While the region

occasionally hosts small conferences and retreats, the major limitation is the inability for mid-size or large

groups to conduct meetings and banquet meals in the same facility.

Based on the infrastructure analysis, the practical size limit for meetings that require a single facility for guest

rooms, meeting rooms, and dining facilities is between 50 and 80 attendees. Additionally, while there are

more than 400 guest rooms in the Wasilla/Palmer area, there is little “full-service” meeting capacity available

to accommodate groups over 100 attendees.

To be competitive, meeting facilities should also be equipped with a professional kitchen, sound and lighting

equipment, and banquet supplies. Ideally, the facility would offer additional public spaces, as many

conferences and conventions also require sufficient onsite space for trade shows, break-out sessions and

receptions. Without these assets, a meeting planner has to factor in additional time and expense for renting

multiple meeting venues, leasing equipment and transferring attendees between facilities. Because the

market is extremely competitive, few organizations are compelled to convene in locations that do not meet

minimum facility requirements.

This section includes:

• An overview of competitive meeting destinations and publicly-owned facilities. Because of Mat-Su’s

proximity to Anchorage and the new Dena’ina Civic & Convention Center, the study team also

addresses the possibility of attracting meetings that cannot be accommodated in Anchorage

(overflow).

• A discussion of locations within the Mat-Su region in terms of their suitability for a larger meeting

facility.

• An overview of the two facility sizes and costs used in the study team’s analysis.

• A discussion of market potential for each respective facility size.

• Recommendations.

Competitive Meeting Locations

Outside of Anchorage, the communities that compete the most aggressively for the in-state convention

market include Fairbanks, Valdez, and Juneau. The smaller communities of Ketchikan, Sitka, and Wrangell

have also achieved success in attracting numerous regional and state conventions.

It is important to note that most communities competing for the meeting and convention market are

supported by publicly owned meeting facilities. In Alaska’s relatively small meeting market, public financial

participation is essential for construction and ongoing support of this type of infrastructure. Additionally,

most facilities are intended to accommodate local residents’ events and gatherings such as performances,

graduation ceremonies, trade shows, and various types of celebrations.


The table below provides an overview of the publicly owned meeting facilities in Alaska communities. While

each building configuration and capacity is different, the study team presented comparable information such

as the total facility size, largest internal space, and estimated banquet seating.

Readers should note that banquet seating estimates are compiled from marketing information provided by

the facilities as well as the use of a typical seating ratio of 15 to 18 sq. ft. per person. Actual capacity will vary

with each event depending on the number of people seated at each table, use of a head table, podium,

buffet line, or other elements that require floor space.

Publicly Owned Meeting Facilities

Facility Location Facility Sizesq. feet

Largest Space sq. feet

Estimated Banquet Seating

Dena’ina Civic & Convention Center Anchorage 95,000 50,000 3,400

Soldotna Sports Center Soldotna 52,000 20,000 1,300

Carlson Center Fairbanks 45,000 35,000 2,300

William Egan Civic & Convention Center Anchorage 45,000 19,306 1,200

Centennial Hall Juneau 30,000 11,275 600

Valdez Convention & Civic Center Valdez 20,000 6,464 400

Sitka Harrigan Centennial Hall Sitka 8,871 4,340 285

Nolan Center (civic center portion only) Wrangell 8,856 4,000 260

Ted Ferry Civic Center Ketchikan 8,000 4,500 300

The primary purpose and design for each of these facilities varies considerably. These factors further affect

seating capacity and availability, as shown in the following examples.

• The Valdez Convention & Civic Center includes theater with a sloped floor (seating for 487) and a

large ballroom (approximate banquet-style seating for 400). Even though the total facility size is

20,000 sq. ft., the maximum banquet capacity is based on the largest internal space with a flat floor.

• The Soldotna Sports Center maintains an ice rink that precludes hosting many conferences or large-

scale events during winter months.

• The Fairbanks Carlson Center also maintains an ice rink during winter months, however staff can

remove the ice for concerts, basketball games and other events during the hockey season.

While the financial performance of each facility varies from year to year, it is acceptable to make a general

statement that none of the small or mid-sized facilities have sufficient revenues to cover annual operating

expenses. The civic center portion of the Wrangell facility reports a typical $100,000 operating gap (the

museum and visitor center share in the building operating expenses, resulting in a lower deficit than

comparable facilities). In recent years, the operating deficit for the Valdez meeting facility ranged from

$225,000 to $280,000. The operating deficit for meeting facilities in Sitka and Ketchikan is higher, ranging

from $270,000 to $300,000 in recent years.

None of the publicly-owned facilities in Alaska offer onsite accommodations. While this is a competitive

disadvantage when compared to full-service hotel properties, many Alaskan meeting planners are willing to


accept this separation. The national and international market is typically less willing to compromise on facility

quality and configuration.

ANCHORAGE MARKET POSITION

With scheduled completion of Anchorage’s new Dena’ina Civic & Convention Center in fall 2008, the

community has significantly increased its marketing efforts to attract national and international conventions.

Development of this facility more than triples the municipally-owned meeting space. Expectations about the

Anchorage Convention & Visitors Bureau’s ability to fill the space are extremely high among municipal

leaders, Anchorage area accommodations, and other community members.

Currently, 14 of the 40 Anchorage Convention & Visitor Bureau staff members are employed in the

Convention Sales and Service department. While Anchorage will continue to compete for in-state meetings,

the organization’s emphasis on attracting national and international conventions has grown. Anchorage is

currently competing with internationally-recognized destinations like Las Vegas, Paris, Chicago, and

Helsinki—and frequently winning.

Unlike other markets that may visit multiple communities, the convention market selects a single location for

the meeting venue. A tactic that Anchorage and comparable convention destinations commonly utilize is

hosting a board meeting or regional meeting first before soliciting a national or international event. This

approach allows the organization to gain confidence and familiarity with the community and meeting-related

resources.

The implication for Mat-Su is that increased meeting space in Anchorage has stimulated an even more

aggressive competitive position for attracting large and small conventions to Anchorage. While it is possible

for Mat-Su to position itself as a smaller, more desire alternative than Anchorage, it will be difficult to insert

itself into the sales and negotiation efforts led by the Anchorage Convention & Visitor Bureau staff.

The Mat-Su region has significant potential as a destination for pre- and post-convention tours, spouse and

guest tours, and informal sightseeing by convention delegates. However, potential for attracting small

meetings and conferences as spill-over from Anchorage’s marketing efforts is minimal—even with a new

meeting facility. If a meeting facility is constructed, Mat-Su should adopt an aggressive marketing program

and focus on the in-state meeting and retreat market.

Location Considerations in the Mat-Su Region

It is important to evaluate potential locations for a meeting facility from a “market perspective.” In addition to

assessment of meeting facilities and overnight accommodations, many meeting planners will examine the

local community’s ability to provide professional catering services; technical support for sound, lighting, or

computer equipment; and entertainment for receptions and banquets. These additional amenities make the

destination more competitive and enhance the quality of the meeting experience. Other competitive factors

include the availability of alternative locations for receptions, logistical support during meeting planning and

hosting phases, and availability of ground transportation to shuttle attendees between venues.


PALMER/WASILLA

The Palmer/Wasilla area offers the largest quantity of accommodations on a year-round basis. Year-round

availability of rooms is important, as many conferences and conventions are scheduled during the fall and

winter months. Additionally, the Palmer/Wasilla area offers many of the other professional services needed to

attract and support this market.

When attracting conventions, access between Mat-Su and the Anchorage Airport will be a competitive

advantage when compared to other locations in the region (the distance is similar to the popular meeting

destination of Alyeska/Girdwood). However, easy access to and from Anchorage can work against local

accommodations; any event is likely to include some attendees that commute rather than stay in local

accommodations.

It is important to note that Lake Lucille Lodge recently closed their banquet facilities. This closure underscores

the important relationship between the private sector (provider of critical services like accommodations and

catering), public sector (frequently the supplier for meeting facilities), and marketing. The private sector

simply cannot maintain year-round accommodations or banquet/catering services unless there is sufficient

market demand to warrant the investment in staff, facilities and supplies.

HATCHER PASS

Hatcher Pass is an appealing location for a conference facility due to its scenic beauty, proximity to many

Palmer and Wasilla accommodations, and nearby recreational activities. However, fall and winter access could

be a limitation if the facility is located at upper elevations. Most organizations (whether in-state or out-of-

state) will be far more concerned about efficiency for getting attendees, supplies and services to their

meeting location than recreational opportunities or scenic vistas. The Hatcher Pass location is better suited to

development of a small scale retreat center, but this approach does not optimize overnight stays or spending

in the Mat-Su region. (Because market demand for a small-scale retreat facility would be considerably smaller,

the logical approach to serving this market might be the development of a meeting room in conjunction with

future Hatcher Pass infrastructure developments rather than a stand-alone meeting facility.)

TALKEETNA

While Talkeetna has an extensive accommodation inventory during the summer months, less than one

quarter of the rooms are currently available during the winter months. Of these year-round properties, no

single accommodation is larger than 30 rooms. Small and widely-distributed accommodations pose logistical

challenges for meeting planners. While increased South Denali access is projected to increase the number of

accommodations, the heavy seasonality is not likely to change.

It is important to note that the community infrastructure includes meeting facilities that are under-utilized.

The Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge includes four meeting rooms ranging in size from 925 to 1,850 sq. ft.; the

facility is well-suited for small conferences up to 100 participants. While the property was opened with the

intention of attracting year-round business, low market demand has precluded the owners from remaining

open during the winter season in subsequent years. When considering the additional accommodations,

availability of catering services and attraction base in the community, the challenges are primarily access and

marketing—not meeting facility infrastructure.


OTHER AREAS

Lodges located along the Glenn Highway or remote areas of the borough currently attract a small number of

retreats. However, the small number of accommodations in each lodge, as well as the distance between

properties, is a barrier to attracting larger conferences. Additionally, these more remote locations present

challenges when considering the support services associated with conferences including catering, technical

support, transportation and entertainment.

Summary of Facility Sizes and Costs

The study team selected two representative facility sizes to explore further in terms of development costs and

ability to attract visitors. A common element of both facilities is the ability to handle meetings and meals in

the same building, simplifying transitions for attendees and meeting planners during events. Appendix C

includes detailed information on facility size and programming, estimated development and operating costs,

and a discussion of the market potential associated with each facility.

• Conference facility. At approximately 8,400 sq. ft., the conference facility would have room for

banquet functions and meeting functions. While the maximum building capacity is 250, the facility is

intended to accommodate conferences of 125 attendees, transferring between meeting and dining

functions throughout their event. Estimated construction costs would be $4.5 million. Based on

comparable facilities, the financial gap between operating costs and revenues is likely to be

approximately $200,000. (This estimate does include routine operations and maintenance, but does

not include periodic capital costs or convention marketing.) Comparable facilities in terms of meeting

capacity include Alyeska Resort and the Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge.

• Convention facility. At approximately 20,300 sq. ft. the larger facility is intended to accommodate

conventions up to 400 attendees, including meetings, banquets, and three small conference rooms

that could be used for break-out sessions. Two concurrent events including 400 people could also

occur at the facility. Estimated construction cost is $10.8 million. The financial gap between

operating costs and revenues is estimated at $300,000, based on comparable facilities. (This estimate

does include routine operations and maintenance, but does not include periodic capital costs or

convention marketing.) The Valdez Convention & Civic Center is the closest comparable in the Alaska

market.

It is important to note that the capacity of each proposed facility can change considerably, depending on the

room configuration. Theater-style seating and receptions maximize capacity; conversely, seating capacity is

reduced by banquet-style seating or use of a head table, stage, podium, buffet, or other common use of floor

space.

Summary of Market Potential for Meeting Facilities

The primary visitor market served by this type of infrastructure enhancement is the conference or convention

market. A secondary visitor market would be special events, which commonly need spaces for registration

areas, receptions, meetings or banquets. (An important component of the latter clientele would be Mat-Su

residents. However, the study team focused on the potential for each facility to attract visitation and


spending from outside of the region.) The ability for each facility to attract non-resident usage is contingent

on several factors including:

• An effective marketing campaign for the facility itself as well as the region.

• Ability to offer a quality experience at the meeting facility from the initial contact (site selection and

reservation process) through the actual event (meeting room set-up, transitions, and clean-up).

• The quality and availability of support services including accommodations, catering, and other needs.

• The location of the facility within the region.

The following scenarios presume that all of these components are effective and coordinated for the success of

the meeting facility. Further, the facility will likely require a 3 to 5 year “ramp-up” period before reaching

these targets. Several factors will contribute to this delay. Meeting location and facility decisions are typically

made a year or two in advance. Several state and national organizations plan even further out. Most

importantly, it will take some time and financial commitment for any new facility, and the associated

community services, to achieve market recognition and a reputation for quality service.

CONFERENCE FACILITY MARKET POTENTIAL

Once the conference facility (with a maximum of 125 conference attendees) is established in the

marketplace, the lower range estimate is nearly 4,000 additional room nights and nearly $700,000 in new

visitor spending on an annual basis. At the higher range, the number of room nights associated with

conferences and events is estimated at nearly 5,300. Visitor spending is estimated to exceed $900,000

annually.

Visitor Usage and Spending: Conference Facility (Maximum Capacity 250 or 125-Person Conference)

Annual Events Estimated Room Nights

EstimatedSpending

Lower Range

Small events (1-25 people) 12 225 $40,000

Mid events (26-50 people) 24 1,400 240,000

Large events (51-125) 12 1,600 280,000

Full-facility (125) 3 750 132,000

Total 51 3,975 $692,000

Higher Range



Large events (51-125) 18 2,350 416,000

Full-facility (125) 5 1,250 219,000

Total 65 5,290 $933,000 Source: McDowell Group estimates. Maximum conference capacity is based on the need to accommodate meeting and banquet space in the same facility for this market.


CONVENTION FACILITY MARKET POTENTIAL

For a convention facility (with a maximum of 400 convention attendees) the low range estimate for total

room nights associated with conferences and events is estimated to reach 6,200 annually. Visitor spending

associated with these conventions and meetings is estimated to be nearly $1.1 million annually.

At the higher range, new room nights are estimated to reach 9,000 and associated visitor spending is

estimated at more than $1.5 million annually.

Visitor Usage and Spending: Convention Facility (Maximum Capacity 800 or 400-Person Convention)


EstimatedSpending

Lower Range

Small events (1-100 people) 24 1,800 $315,000

Mid events (101-200 people) 3 900 157,500

Large events (200-350 people) 2 1,100 192,500

Full-facility (400) 3 2,400 420,000

Total 32 6,200 $1,085,000

Higher Range




Full-facility (400) 4 3,200 560,000

Total 47 9,000 $1,575,000 Source: McDowell Group estimates. Maximum convention capacity is based on the need to accommodate meeting and banquet space in the same facility for this market.

Recommendations

• Mat-Su would generate the greatest yield from its investment in capital and operating costs if the

larger meeting facility were developed.

• At approximately 20,300 sq. ft., the facility would be adequate for most in-state conferences and

conventions.

• The facility location should be in close proximity to accommodations in the Palmer and Wasilla area.

This location provides optimal access for potential attendees that fly or drive through Anchorage, the

greatest year-round accommodation inventory, and the widest array of related support services such

as catering, entertainment, lighting/sound technicians, and florists.


Road System Enhancements

This section discusses road system enhancements including scenic viewpoints, restrooms, signage and

waysides. The section is organized in the following manner:

• An overview of identified road construction projects and planning efforts associated with growing

residential and visitor traffic.

• Priority rest area and restroom needs.

• A discussion of costs associated with various road system enhancements.

• An overview of the increased market potential resulting from road system enhancements.

• Recommended actions.

Overview of Road System Needs

The Mat-Su Borough benefits from an extensive network of highways and roads, which allow travelers to

reach most areas of the borough by vehicle. In recent planning efforts, the Borough and its communities

have identified a number of roadside amenities that are needed to improve traffic mobility and safety. Desired

roadside amenities that have been identified by borough communities for the Glenn and Parks Highways

include rest and information stops, scenic viewpoints, slow-moving vehicle pullouts, passing lanes, bridge

walkways, trailhead parking enhancements and improved highway signage.

Other objectives identified by the Borough and communities include identifying ways to ensure safe vehicular

access onto and off of the highways, maintaining the existing scenic quality of the highways, highway

enhancement to existing trailheads and waysides, providing efficient and safe access to communities in the

borough while serving the needs of through traffic, maintaining the Glenn Highway corridor as an attractive

community entry, improving pedestrian and vehicular links between east and west sides of the Glenn

Highway, and maintaining and enhancing the Glenn Highway’s status as a National Scenic Byway.

Other improvements identified by communities along the Glenn Highway include adding information kiosks

at important locations (i.e., the raptor viewing site between mile 118 and 120) and installing trail marking

and signage to clearly identify public parking and access points to trails and recreational public land beyond

the private lots along the highway. This will assist in directing trail traffic onto the dedicated trail and away

from private property. Communities would like to see all public access points along the road system identified

with signage, including rules for responsible use of these sites. In addition to providing adequate trailheads

and trail identification, many communities have identified education of the trail users as an important

objective as it relates to respecting wildlife in the area. For example, the Sheep Mountain community would

like to provide educational information to trail users in the form of information kiosks or signs identifying the

wildlife that live in the area, and particularly the seasons in which their protection is most important.

Additionally, several tour operators are interested in providing service to Hatcher Pass and have identified the

need for improvements to the roads in the Hatcher Pass area in order to adequately accommodate tour buses

and vans. Archangel Road at Hatcher Pass has been identified as being in particularly poor condition and in

need of improvement.


Rest Areas and Restrooms a Priority

Study team interviews revealed broad consensus that restroom facilities are a primary need on the major

transportation corridors. Unfortunately, there is no agency directly responsible for development of these

public services. The Alaska State Department of Transportation & Public Facilities typically does not build or

maintain roadside facilities unless they are associated with a State Park management area. The primary issue

for either agency in developing more facilities is funding for ongoing maintenance and operation.

Many of the facilities along the Parks and Glenn Highway do not have road signage to indicate restroom

facilities. In the case of those public restroom facilities that do exist (e.g. Denali Viewpoint at mile 134.7 and

at the Veteran’s Memorial at mile 147.2 on the Parks Highway), they are unheated and closed in the winter.

There is a clear need for more public restroom facilities, including facilities that are fully accessible according

to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ideally, these facilities should be placed every 40 to 50 miles along the

Parks and Glenn Highways, with adequate signage.

Guidelines for rest area placement vary by state. For example, in Washington, rest areas are recommended

every 60 miles while in California, rest areas are recommended every 30 minutes. If using the 60-mile

guideline, the Glenn Highway would need two full service rest areas between the Parks Highway intersection

and the eastern border of the Borough. If using the 30-minute guideline, the same stretch of Glenn Highway

would require four full service rest areas. The Parks Highway would need approximately three rest areas to

meet the 60-mile guideline or six or more rest areas to meet the 30-minute guideline.

It is important to note that there is some sentiment among Mat-Su residents that travelers should come into

the towns to use commercial establishments. Even with this in mind, there is a clear need for more public

restroom facilities, including facilities that are fully accessible according to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Given the travel speeds and the distance along the Glenn and Parks Highways, full service rest areas facilities

should be placed every 40 to 50 miles along the Parks and Glenn Highways with adequate signage.

The table on the following page reflects the study team’s recommendations. The two priority action items

include full-services waysides with public restrooms. Associated development costs for these first two priority

actions could range from $700,000 to $2 million, however numerous partnering opportunities exist—

especially through the Scenic Byway program.

Road System Enhancement Priorities

Road Milepost Priority Size

Glenn Highway/Parks Highway 32-34 1

Large wayside pull out/South of the Parks/Glenn Hwy. Junction

Glenn Highway 129.3 1 Eureka Summit

Glenn Highway 78.1 2 Medium wayside pull out/King

Mountain View Point

Parks Highway 195.5 2 Small wayside pull out

Parks Highway 60-65 3 Medium wayside Pull out/Nancy

Lake Area


Costs and Locations for Road System Enhancements

WAYSIDE COSTS

Development cost for a fully-developed wayside, complete with restrooms and other amenities can vary

considerably. Typical development costs fall between $350,000 and $1 million, depending on the site, size,

desired enhancements, and the condition of any existing facilities. Ongoing annual investment in

maintenance can vary from $30,000 to $75,000. However, the actual amount invested by the Borough could

be much more modest than these estimates, depending on the ability to secure partners and grant funds.

Appendix C includes a summary of project costs associated with road system enhancements.

The study team estimated $500,000 to $1 million annually for comparison purposes, which could wholly

fund construction of one to two waysides each year. If the Borough is successful at obtaining grants and

partnerships, this funding approach could support an accelerated development program.

RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS FOR WAYSIDE IMPROVEMENTS

The study team recommends that two large, full-service waysides be developed at the two major Glenn

Highway portals into the Borough:

• One should be placed between milepost 32-34 of the Glenn Highway (south of the junction between

the Parks and Glenn Highways).

• Milepost 129, Eureka Summit or just east of the Eureka Summit location.

These waysides should have restroom facilities, potable water, and picnic areas. Additionally, one or more

information kiosks or signage should be placed a these locations to introduce visitors to the Matanuska

Susitna Borough.

As funding allows, additional smaller waysides could be developed at two to three locations along both the

Glenn and Parks Highways, using a guideline of 40 to 50 miles between locations with public restrooms.

• A smaller wayside could be developed near King Mountain View Point at milepost 78.1 of the Glenn

Highway.

• Smaller waysides could also be developed at between milepost 60 to 65 in the Nancy Lake area and

another at milepost 195.5 of the Parks Highway (near Broad Pass).

For the Parks Highway, considerations should be made to improve signage at the existing rest areas to

provide advance notice and distance to next rest area, in order to increase awareness of available areas.

RECOMMENDED LOCATIONS FOR SCENIC VIEW POINTS

The most important areas along the Parks Highway have adequately developed Scenic View Points. When the

South Denali Implementation plan commences, the Parks Highway amenities will be further augmented

between Trapper Creek, the South Denali Visitor Center, and along Petersville Road. (Additional detail is

included later in this chapter in the section titled Potential Large Scale Destination and Attraction

Developments.)


In contrast, the Glenn Highway is underdeveloped. The study team recommends improvements to two to

four scenic existing view points along this highway corridor. Needed enhancements include brush clearing,

interpretive signage, and fixing or installing safety railings. Suggested locations include pull outs and waysides

located at the following mileposts:

• 66 (near Matanuska River)

• 74 (near King Mountain State Recreation Site)

• 78 (near Chikaloon River with views of King Mountain and Matanuska River)

• 115 (near Lion Head viewpoint and access to Old Glenn Highway)

• 120 (near Trooper Bruce A. Heck monument and views of Leila Lake)

• 129.3 (Eureka Summit area).

The cost of improving these facilities will vary depending upon the desired services. The region is fortunate

that the Glenn Highway is designated as a National Scenic Byway, making the corridor eligible for planning

and infrastructure development grants and assistance. Numerous additional byway enhancements are

identified in the Glenn Highway National Scenic Byway Interpretive Plan and the Glenn Highway Partnership

Plan.1

DENALI HIGHWAY CONDITION

Paving the Denali HIghway has been determined cost-prohibitive in the past. The study team believes this

infrastructure enhancement, especially when coupled with South Denali Implementation Plan developments,

could increase visitors’ length of stay in the region. Independent visitors—whether they are traveling in rental

or private RVs and cars—would be significantly more likely to incorporate the Denali Highway into their

itinerary. Several tour operators have expressed interested in development of new tour patterns and

overnight destinations if this road were in better condition. This interest, combined with a paved Denali

Highway, could result in a popular circle trip developing, utilizing the Parks, Denali and Glenn Highways,

resulting in increased visitor volume in the Borough.

Summary of Market Potential for Road System Enhancements

The study team recommends that the region adopt a long-term strategy for improving the travelers’

experiences throughout the region. Beginning with the development of one or two restrooms in critical

areas, the Borough can develop a framework for prioritizing and constructing future waysides, restrooms,

scenic viewpoints, and other enhancements, such as interpretive signage. An impressive body of planning

work, as well as formation of cooperative relationships and goals, has already been accomplished through the

Scenic Byway program.

Readers are cautioned that the market effect of developing only one or two additional restroom facilities

along the Mat-Su road system will have little or no effect on the existing market in terms of length of stay or

expenditures. In contrast, an ongoing, systematic approach to improvements will provide the greatest impact

on increase on future visitation and overnight stays in the region.

1 Further information about the Alaska Scenic Byway program and copies of the existing planning documents can be found online at: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/scenic/organizer-info.shtml#resource.


After examining the unique travel patterns and motives of the major Mat-Su market segments, the study

team forecasts that a comprehensive road system enhancement program could significantly affect regional

visitation, overnights and regional spending. With an ongoing, systemic approach to improvements, the

region could achieve projected results over an 8 to 10 year timeframe.

The ability for Mat-Su to achieve the low or high case scenarios will be affected by the number and quality of

road system enhancements, marketing, accommodation capacity, availability and quality of attractions, and

potential synergies produced by other infrastructure developments including trailhead development and

marketing and implementation of the South Denali plan.

The low case scenario reveals a potential increase of nearly 15,000 overnights annually and $2.8 million

annually in new spending. The high case scenario reflects an increase of nearly 28,000 visitors and more than

$5 million in new spending annually.

Without improvements to Denali Highway, the low case scenario adjusts to nearly 13,000 overnights annually

with $2.2 million in spending. The high case scenario adjusts to nearly 24,000 overnights annually with $3.8

million in new spending. Appendix C includes detailed information on how these estimates were derived.

Potential Annual Increases in Visitor Overnights and Spending Resulting From Road System Enhancements

Market Overnights Spending

Low Case

Summer independent visitors 3,400 988,000

Fall/winter visitors 1,250 222,500

In-state summer visitors 4,900 612,500

In-state fall/winter visitors 3,400 391,000

Subtotal Low Case 12,950 2,214,000

Summer package tour visitors* 2,000 $600,000

Total Low Case (including Denali Highway)

14,950 $2,814,000

High Case

Summer independent visitors 5,125 1,489,000


In-state summer visitors 9,800 1,225,000


Subtotal High Coast 23,600 3,829,750

Summer package tour visitors* 4,000 $1,200,000

Total High Case (including Denali Highway)

27,600 $5,029,750

*Package tour increase is associated with paving of Denali Highway.


Recommendations

• Address priority road system enhancements beginning with the recommended wayside near the

Glenn Highway/Parks Highway junction and the Eureka Summit areas, followed by second and third

priority locations.

• Seek partnerships to assist with planning, construction, and ongoing operations and maintenance

costs.

• Develop a larger-scale highway enhancement program for the region that incorporates the growing

needs from resident and visitor traffic.


Trail System Enhancements

This section addresses needed trail system enhancement infrastructure improvements. It also discusses the

potential value of enhancing regional trails and public recreational sites like parks, campgrounds, and boat

launches, which are an important part of the visitor attraction base and character of the Mat-Su region.

This section includes the following:

• An overview of trail system needs identified in this study.

• A discussion of costs associated with trail system enhancements.

• An overview of the market potential resulting from trail system enhancements.


Overview of Regional Trail System

The ownership and management of the trail assets in the Mat-Su Borough is shared by the Alaska

Department of Natural Resources, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Alaska Department of Transportation and

Public Facilities, Matanuska-Susitna Borough and the cities of Palmer and Wasilla. Because of the multitude of

land status and other management issues, trails are not entirely well connected, marked, maintained or

mapped. In its current state, the regional system is under-developed, and in some areas, under-utilized by

various market segments.

The Matanuska Susitna Borough trail systems are located very close to the two main roads in the borough.

• The area along the Glenn Highway, east of Palmer, has many good trails that are used for hiking,

biking, and ATV activity in the summer, and snow machining, skiing and snowshoeing in the winter.

• The area west of the Parks Highway has hundreds of miles of trails stretching from the Little Susitna

area, north into the Peters Hills. Many of these trails are winter-only trails as they cross several river

major drainages and wetland areas.

• Denali State Park also offers many miles of scenic hiking trails.

• Hatcher Pass area has hiking trails for summer use and winter trails and routes for snow machining

and skiing.

• In addition there are many skiing, hiking and mountain biking trails in the Talkeetna, Palmer, Wasilla,

and Nancy Lake areas.

Trail System Needs

Study team interviews and research consistently found that existing trail systems have similar needs:

improved trailheads, restrooms, access, and signage to increase visibility and use.

Additionally, the regional trail system has repeatedly been identified as having the potential to become a focal

point in the tourism and recreation industry. Increased visitation can be stimulated by enhancing the trail

system in terms of trail infrastructure, access points, and promotion. Examples of this may be increased


linkages between trails and back-country lodges and cabins, development of equestrian trails and an

equestrian center, or enhanced winter trail development for snow machine riders and cross-country skiers.

PRIORITY TRAIL SYSTEM ACTIONS

The following list of trail system needs was provided by the Borough. The list is roughly prioritized, based on

current condition and estimated usage:

• Point MacKenzie – Existing trailhead will eventually be consumed by port development. Relocate

trailhead/parking area approximately one mile north on Point MacKenzie Road and install restrooms.

Provides access to Figure Eight Lake, Flathorn Lake, Susitna River and beyond.

• Ayrshire Road – Existing trailhead provides access to Figure Eight Lake, Flathorn Lake trail system,

Susitna River and beyond. Restrooms need to be installed.

• West Papoose Twins Road – Construct new trailhead during upgrade of road. Install restrooms.

Provides access to Crooked Lake Trail, Iron Dog Trail, Susitna River and beyond.

• North Crystal Lake Road – Expand existing trailhead. Install restrooms. Provides access to Willow area

trails.

• Willer Kash Road – Expand existing trailhead. Install restrooms. Provides access to Hatcher Pass trail

system, Kashwitna area trails.

• Parks Highway MP 105 – Expand existing trailhead/parking area (possibly relocate short distance to

the north to get off the road). Install restrooms. Provides access to Trapper Lake-Amber Lake trail

system, Trapper Creek trail system.

• Petersville Road MP 4 – Construct new trailhead/parking area. Install restrooms. Provides access to

Petersville-Trapper Creek trail system, Denali State Park trails.

• Butte Pavilion Parking Area – Grade to level out. Install restrooms. Provides access to Jim Creek, Knik

River and Knik Glacier.

• Wendt Road – Expand existing parking area. Install restrooms. Provides access to Matanuska Moose

Range trail system.

• Sutton/Coyote Lake – Expand parking area. Replace damaged restroom. Provides access to Sutton

area trails.

• Kings River – Expand existing parking area. Install restrooms. Provides access to Kings River, Young

Creek and Red Mountain.

• Purinton Creek – Install restrooms. Provides access to Purinton Creek and Boulder Creek area trails.

• France Road (CMT) – Develop future trailhead to coincide with trailhead move in case the CMT unit

is not moveable. Install single restroom.

• Matanuska Peak Trailhead – Install single restroom.

• Pioneer Ridge Trailhead – Replace outhouse with single restroom.

• Matanuska River Park – Install one restroom on back parking lot.


TRAIL PLAN UPDATE

The Borough has an existing trails plan that primarily addresses the significant trails in the region, the

importance of establishing legal trail right-of-ways and easements, and on a limited basis, the maintenance

and funding of trails. The study team recommends updating the trail plan, with a more broadly-defined

scope. Revisions to the plan should include an inventory and map of all trails in the borough, designated trail

usage, sustainable design standards, and a plan for trailheads and access points. A trail plan can facilitate

development of important partnerships with various local, state and federal agencies, in addition to the local

communities to establish future trail priorities. These planning efforts will provide guidance in the future

development and management of trails and investment in future priorities.

GPS MAPPING/MEMORIALIZED IN GIS SYSTEM

The study team also recommends further investment in GPS mapping and memorialization in a GIS system.

The GIS and mapping work plan should be coordinated between the Borough and the Alaska Department of

Natural Resources, Division of Alaska State Parks. Mapping and collecting GIS trail data could be effectively

completed with a work plan and direction from the two lead agencies and data collection done with the

cooperation of user groups. Once completed, development of maps will enhance marketing collateral and

information to increase trail usage and visitation to the Borough. Mapping should include an inventory of all

Mat-Su Borough trails with specific trail conditions and design standards cataloged. Other features should

include: location of trailhead(s); record of trail standards, widths and conditions; record of permitted uses;

record of distance, difficulty and terrain features; and location of any facilities, such as cabins, shelters, trail

junctions and landmarks.

CONTINUED TRAIL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

The study team also recommends further exploration regarding the feasibility of new or enhanced trail

systems for hikers, equestrians, snow machine riders and cross-country skiers.

Estimated Costs for Trail System Enhancements

ADDRESS PRIORITY TRAIL NEEDS

Development costs for trailheads can range from $150,000 to $750,000, depending on the scale of the

development and condition of current facilities. Annual maintenance costs range from $10,000 to $50,000,

depending on the size of the trailhead, number of toilets, location, and usage. Appendix C includes an

overview of costs associated with development and maintenance of trailheads, signage, campgrounds, and

other trail system enhancement amenities.

Ongoing annual investment will vary, depending on the number of priority areas addressed and the ability to

secure grants and partnerships. The study team estimated $300,000 to $500,000 annually for comparison

purposes. This amount could wholly fund development or refurbishment of between one and three trailheads

and/or restrooms annually, depending in the location and existing facilities. If grants and partnerships are

secured to offset the construction and operating costs, the development program could be accelerated.


TRAILS PLAN UPDATE

The study team recommends that the Borough take the lead role in the development of a revised trails plan.

Development costs for the plan range from $100,000 to $300,000, depending on the scope of the project.

GPS MAPPING

The study team recommends that this effort be closely coordinated with public land agencies to reduce costs

and maximize efficiencies. The Borough may wish to allocate $15,000 to $30,000 annually to ensure that the

data collection is accurate and compatible with other agencies.

CONTINUED TRAIL SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

The Borough should support planning, construction, and maintenance efforts that enhance the regional trail

system. This effort could become part of the existing tourism development grant program or a specific trail-

related initiative. The study team recommends that the grant application criteria include specific measures to

increase visitor usage of the trails. A suggested funding range for this program is $50,000 to $150,000

annually.

Summary of Market Potential for Trail System Enhancements

An ongoing, systemic approach to improvements is needed, beginning with development of a revised trail

plan. Once implemented, Mat-Su has the potential to become renowned for having outstanding trails and

recreational assets that appeal to numerous market segments.

Completion of sufficient enhancements to achieve the market potential identified by the study team is likely

to require a 10 to 20 year commitment. The region’s ability to achieve the low or high case scenarios will be

affected by the location and type of trail system enhancements, marketing, as well as synergies generated by

concurrent improvements in the regional transportation or accommodations sectors.

Baseline market research revealed that the out-of-state visitor market reports far lower participation in hikes

and nature walks in Mat-Su than in other areas of Alaska. Visitor participation is similarly low for other

outdoor activities commonly associated with trails and recreational sites including fishing, rafting, and

canoeing. Enhancements would improve visitor participation in these activities, stimulate regional spending,

and increase the length of stay in the region.

The primary emphasis in the analysis below is the role that trail system enhancements can play in increasing

the length of stay, overnights, and associated spending from Mat-Su’s existing markets. It is important to

note that significant enhancement of the trail system can attract new markets, thereby increasing Mat-Su’s

overall market share.

The low case scenario estimates nearly 12,000 overnights annually with nearly $2.0 million in new spending.

The high case scenario estimates nearly 24,000 overnights annually with $3.9 million in new spending.

Appendix C includes detailed information on how these estimates were derived.


Potential Annual Increases in Visitor Overnights and Spending Resulting From Trail System Enhancements


Low Case

Summer visitors 2,950 $860,000

Fall/winter visitors 625 105,000



Subtotal Low Case 11,875 1,968,500

High Case

Summer visitors 5,900 $1,700,000




Subtotal High Case 23,750 3,917,000

Recommendations

• Address priority trail needs identified by Borough staff and other study participants.

• Seek partnerships to assist with trail system planning, construction, and ongoing operations and

maintenance costs.

• Develop a larger-scale trail system enhancement program for the region that incorporates the

growing needs from resident and visitor usage.



For many successful destinations, visitor information centers and kiosks are found at several access points,

particularly at airports, rail/bus stations and roads. Past research shows that visitors who use visitor

information centers have a much higher satisfaction level with their visit.

This section includes the following:

• Priority locations for visitor support services.

• Estimated development costs.

• Market potential associated with visitor support service enhancements.


Priority Locations

Optimally, visitor information services are available at all major entrance points. The existing regional visitor

information center serves visitors that are just arriving via Anchorage or have already spent considerable time

in the region, having traveled the Glenn, Parks, or Denali Highways. (The study team notes that the location

for the existing information center is being reconsidered in a separate planning effort.) Additionally, visitor

information is supplemented by local chamber of commerce centers and railroad stations located in Talkeetna

and Wasilla.

The South Denali Implementation Plan includes a major Denali interpretive center and a smaller kiosk at the

Petersville Road/Parks Highway intersection. Development of one or both or these facilities can significantly

enhance the travel experience for visitors arriving from the north—assuming that regional and private sector

information can be distributed from the facilities.

To supplement these visitor support services, the study team recommends additional visitor information

kiosks or signage at the following locations:

• Glenn Highway, developed in conjunction with road system enhancements.

• Ensure that regional information is made available to visitors at the new interpretive center and kiosks


• Review key airport and rail locations to ensure that presentation of information is adequate for the

markets using each area.

Kiosks can be simple or extensive, and may even include a staffed desk. As part of the visitor information

program, Mat-Su should develop a satellite kiosk and signage plan. Kiosks should be designed to be

consistent with other visitor information efforts and should reflect the Mat-Su brand. As the Mat-Su Borough

embarks on a tourism infrastructure development program, it is a good time to re-examine the regional

tourism branding strategy. It is often appropriate to incorporate the destination brand into the infrastructure

(i.e. signage, visitor information kiosks, etc.).


Estimated Development Costs

Development of each information kiosk is estimated between $55,000 to $72,000, depending on the size,

location and amenities. (Development costs do not include personnel costs for manned kiosks.) Appendix C

includes a discussion of assumptions used in estimating development costs. (Maintenance costs are

nominal—especially if the design and construction materials are suitable for the climate.)

Informational signage costs vary considerably, depending on the type of materials used, design costs,

location, size, and other factors. Typically, costs range from $2,500 to $5,000 per location.

Summary of Market Potential for Visitor Support Service Enhancements

The study team recognized that this type of program has the greatest potential to impact the independent

visitor markets (both in-state and out-of-state).

Achieving these projected changes in overnight visitation and spending is contingent on a comprehensive

visitor information program and likely an 8 to 10 year time horizon.

The low case scenario estimates nearly 7,000 new overnights with $2.4 million in new spending. The high

case scenario estimates 12,500 new overnights with $4.0 million in new spending.

Appendix C includes a discussion of how these estimates were derived.

Potential Annual Increases in Visitor Overnights and Spending Resulting From Visitor Support Service Enhancements


Low Case



Subtotal Low Case 6,945 $2,356,000

High Case



Subtotal High Case 12,500 $4,012,000

Recommendations

• The study team recommends development of new satellite information kiosks and signage on the

Glenn Highway, developed in conjunction with road system enhancements.

• Ensure that regional information is made available to visitors at the new interpretive center and kiosks


• Review key airport and rail locations to ensure that presentation of information is adequate for the

markets using each area.


Determining Tourism Infrastructure Investment Priorities

Factors for Evaluating Priorities

Decisions for which new tourism infrastructure projects will be developed depend on the overall goals for

Borough policy makers. Prioritizing project choices will involve several considerations, including:

1. Overall development costs

2. Potential economic returns on development costs

3. Overall economic benefits to the borough

4. Length of time to achieve market potential

5. Operating and maintenance costs

6. Impact on Borough revenues

7. Funding sources

8. Partnership opportunities

While eight considerations guided analysis of the tourism infrastructure enhancements, financial

considerations and distribution of benefits are key measures for evaluating priorities.

Overview of Tourism Infrastructure Enhancements

Below is a summary of key tourism infrastructure developments. Extensive data and analytical detail

supporting the summaries presented below are included in the section of the report that precede this

prioritizing section as well as in Appendix C.

Conference/Convention Facility

The infrastructure opportunity offers the quickest economic return and potential to enhance the regional

economy during significantly slower fall and winter months. It also represents the highest initial development

cost. In the appropriate location (the Palmer/Wasilla area is recommended), this type of development could

be an important component of the regional infrastructure. Development for a small facility is estimated to

cost $4.5 million, and a larger facility $10.8 million. Estimated annual overnights to achieve a return are

projected to be realized within three to five years. The most likely funding scenario is a public bonding

process, with the bond repaid by bed taxes and/or other taxes. Based on comparable facilities, the financial

gap between annual operating costs and revenues is likely to be approximately $200,000 for the small facility

and $300,000 for the larger facility. (These estimates include routine maintenance and operations, but not

future capital costs for facility or equipment upgrades.) This facility has the opportunity for partnerships with

foundations (for example: Rasmuson Foundation and Foraker Group Pre-Development Program) and the

municipal governments of the facility’s location (see Partnership section).


For the smaller facility, the potential return on the development investments over ten years is roughly

estimated to total 30,000 to 40,000 new room nights and $5.3 to $7.0 million in new spending. For the

larger facility, the potential return on investment over ten years is roughly estimated to total 48,000 to

69,000 in new room nights and $8.4 to $12.2 million in new spending. From a development cost

perspective, this represents about a 1:1 return on a $4.5 million conference center or $10.8 million

convention center.

Road System Enhancement Program

A comprehensive road system enhancement program, including waysides, involves a multi-year strategy for

development and implementation. Development costs for recommended road system enhancements will

range from $500,000 to $1 million annually. This funding level allows one or two waysides to be wholly

funded by the Borough or a significantly accelerated development program if grants and partners

supplement Borough funds. Estimated annual maintenance costs can range from $30,000 to $75,000,

depending on the number of new or enhanced facilities, location, and ability to secure partners (such as

public land agencies, area chamber of commerce, private businesses, and non-profit organizations). Road

projects have several natural partnering opportunities and funding structures already in place. Further, newer

programs, such as the National Scenic Byways Programs provide additional opportunities for partnering and

funding. Over a ten-year period, the potential return on development investments are estimated to be

81,000 to 162,000 new room nights and $13.7 to $25.8 in new spending. From a development cost

perspective, this represents about a 2:1 positive return on investment.


A longer time horizon is anticipated for a trail system enhancement program than for other projects

recommended in this plan – 10 to 20 years rather than five to 10 years. Development costs for individual

trailheads and restrooms can range from $150,000 to $750,000, depending on the scale of investment and

the condition of current facilities. Annual maintenance costs for each facility can range from $10,000 to

$50,000, depending on the location, usage, and number of toilets. As with the road system enhancements,

the Borough’s investment could be significantly reduced if grants or partners are secured for construction and

operating costs.

An accelerated trail system enhancement program could potentially be fully realized within 10 years or less.

Over 10 years, development costs for a trail system enhancement program, including the development of a

comprehensive trail plan, are estimated to be $3.1 million to $5.3 million. Potential new room nights

resulting from this spending are estimated at 45,000 to 90,000, with $7.5 to $11 million in new spending.

This represents roughly a 2:1 positive return on initial development costs. As with roads, several trail

partnership opportunities are already in place, including funding partnerships for trail development and

maintenance. In addition, trail user groups have historically been involved in the development and

maintenance of trails throughout the borough.

Visitor Support Services Enhancement Program

Visitor support services involve small infrastructure enhancements (kiosks, signage, information panels, etc.)

but with potential large returns. A one-time development cost investment of $75,000 to $180,000 can


construct one to two kiosks and enhance information signage. This investment is estimated to yield 35,000 to

67,000 total new room nights over a ten year period, with $11.8 to $17.4 million estimated in new spending.

This represents a substantial return on initial development costs. Partnering and some funding opportunities

are available to develop and implement this program. The following tables provide a general summary of the

comparison of tourism infrastructure projects and their potential returns on development costs.


The tables on the following two pages provide a comparison between the proposed enhancements. The first

table compares the investments on the following basis:

• Estimated annual overnights.

• Estimated annual visitor spending.

• Estimated development cost.

• Timeframe to achieve projected visitation and spending.

The second table compares the cumulative impacts from the investments over a 10-year period. The table

includes the following:

• Estimated development cost.

• Estimated total room nights.

• Estimated total new visitor spending.

• Estimated return on the investment.

It is important to note that Borough cost throughout these scenarios could be considerably less, depending

on the ability to secure grant funds and partners.

Operating and maintenance costs are not expected to alter the outcome of the comparative analysis, as these

costs are minor in comparison to the development costs. Furthermore, grants and partnering can alter actual

costs to the Borough considerably.

• Routine operations and maintenance costs are included in the estimated operating deficit projections

for the conference and convention facilities ($200,000 to $300,000 respectively).

• Combined operations and maintenance costs for road system enhancements and trail system

enhancements can range from $10,000 to $125,000 annually, depending on the number of

enhancements, location, existing facilities, and ability to secure partners and grants.

• Operating and maintenance costs for visitor support services will be nominal.




AnnualOvernights

Estimated AnnualVisitor

Spending

Estimated Development

Cost

Timeframe to Achieve Projections

Conference Facility

Lower range 4,000 $700,000 $4.5 million 3-5 years

Higher range 5,300 900,000 same same

Convention Facility

Lower range 6,200 $1.1 million $10.8 million 3-5 years


Road System Enhancement Program*

Lower range 13,000 $2.2 million$0.5 to $1

million annually

8-10 years


Two waysides -- --$0.7 to $2

million 1-2 years


Lower range 12,000 $2.0 million$0.3 to $0.5

million annually

10-20 years


Trail Plan -- --$100,000 to

$300,000 1

Continued trail system development and mapping -- --

$65,000 to $180,000 ongoing


Lower range 7,000 $2.4 million$75,000 to

$180,000 8-10 years


Note: this table includes estimated development costs only (not operations, maintenance, or debt service). Additional details are found in Appendix C. *Market effects from Road System Enhancements do not include effects from paving Denali Highway. It is estimated that enhancements to Denali Highway would increase overnight stays by an additional 2,000 to 4,000 nights.


Comparison of Potential Tourism Infrastructure Enhancements Cumulative Impacts for 10 years – (Development Costs only)


Development Costs

Estimated Total New

Room Nights

Estimated Total New Spending

Estimated Return

Conference Facility

Lower range $6.3 million 30,000 $5.3 million Under 1:1

Higher range 6.3 million 40,000 7.0 million 1:1

Convention Facility

Lower range $13.5 million 48,000 $8.4 million Under 1:1

Higher range 13.5 million 69,000 12.2 million Under 1:1

Road System Enhancement Program* (including Waysides)

Lower range $5.6 million 81,000 $13.7 million 2.5:1

Higher range 12.0 million 162,000 25.8 million 2.1:1

Trail System Enhancement Program (including Trail Plan)

Lower range $3.1 million 45,000 $7.5 million 2.4:1

Higher range 5.3 million 90,000 11.0 million 2.1:1


Lower range $75,000 35,000 $11.8 million Over 100:1

Higher range 180,000 67,000 17.4 million 97:1

*Market effects from Road System Enhancements do not include effects from paving Denali Highway.

Financial Considerations

Borough residents will most likely want to see that any investments that the Borough makes in tourism

infrastructure will bring a positive “bang for the buck.” Using the study team’s assessment regarding the

return on investment (ROI) for development costs, areas that provide the highest positive returns are: visitor

support services (Over 100:1 to 97:1), road system enhancements (2.1:1 to 2.5:1), and trail system

enhancements (2.1:1 to 2.4:1). Conference/convention facility development offers the least attractive ROI

(1:1).

Timing Considerations

Often getting a quick return on investment is desired, especially if trying to meet a political or fiscal cycle.

Additionally, this may be the most important consideration when trying to stimulate the local economy.

Based on estimates for soonest return on investments, road system enhancements and conference facilities

come out on top.

Borough-Wide Impacts

Tourism infrastructure developments that impact most or all areas of the borough, rather than a single

community, may have a higher priority for decision makers. Using geographic dispersion of infrastructure


developments as a desirable criterion, the order of choices that would have the broader borough-wide impact

are trail system enhancements, road system enhancements, and visitor support services. A meeting facility

would logically be located in only one community.

Tourism Infrastructure Priorities

Public policy decisions are far more complex than business investment decisions which are generally limited

to the bottom line. While public policy decisions include financial consideration, many factors (including the

eight prioritizing considerations that guided this analysis) must be weighed.

Further, successful tourism growth is a synergistic result of a complex web of all the enhancements analyzed

in this report. For example, only focusing on trail system enhancements would not result in the same benefits

as simultaneous development of road, trail and visitor support service enhancements. This makes forecasting

specific economic returns on each category very difficult. For example, in the category of road system

enhancements, the economic addition of public toilets is not remotely quantifiable; however, the study team

has been able to estimate the economic benefits of a number of road system enhancements. Even the

relatively stand alone conference/convention facility – provided it is centrally located and easily accessible –

might have some long term synergistic benefits by exposing meeting attendees to the more widely

distributed road, trail and visitor support services in the region.

Therefore, a simplistic choice of a single priority is not practical and does not reflect the reality of how

successful tourism development is managed. Only if the Borough has a single criterion for priority selection,

such as return on investment (ROI), is it possible to rank order. The Borough must first strategically choose

their desired end result from their visitor industry investment. Then investments can be chosen that yield

those results. Fortunately, with the substantial visitor base that exists, the increased revenue from investments

and a potential increase in bed tax rates makes possible investments in multiple priorities.

The following are the study team’s recommendations based on the apparent overall best interests of the Mat-

Su Borough. All the evaluation criteria are considered and resulting in highest, second, and third priorities,

lead by the tourism support services, road and trail system enhancement, and lastly, the

conference/convention facility. Again, readers are reminded that the obvious synergistic benefits of the top

priorities – visitor support services, road and trail system enhancements – should boost the overall return of

public investment. The criteria weighing most heavily in these recommendations were ROI of public money,

scale of economic impact, and the geographic distribution of the economic impacts throughout the

borough. Ultimately, decision makers may choose other criteria to weigh more heavily, such as ROI or

borough-wide impacts.

However, given the study team’s excess of 100 years in tourism development expertise, the following

priorities are recommended to serve in the best overall interest of the people and businesses of the Mat-Su

Borough.


Highest Priority

The tourism investment priority that rises to the top is visitor support services. The investment required is

relatively small and can be implemented quickly. Positive returns for the investment should be realized in

three to five years. Additionally, the benefits from this investment will be spread throughout the borough and

throughout the year. Bed tax receipts can be used to partner with organizations such as the Mat-Su

Convention and Visitors Bureau, private companies, and Alaska Railroad. Visitor support services are intimately

related to the second level priorities, road and trail system enhancements.

Second Priorities

The second investment priorities are both road and trail system enhancements. Once immediate priorities are

addressed, the study team recommends funding for a detailed road system enhancement plan. Similarly,

while immediate trail system needs are addressed, the study team recommends updating the regional trail

plan. Seed money from bed tax receipts can also be used to fund the planning efforts. However, it is assumed

that enhancements can be implemented over a period of years allowing benefits to spread throughout the

borough and seasons. There are good opportunities to partner and leverage dollars with the National Scenic

Byways program, and other federal and state programs, as well as user groups and other businesses.

Third Priority

Development of a conference/convention center is considered as the lowest priority relative to visitor support

services, and road and trail system enhancements. On the plus side, this type of facility will provide new

spending in the non-summer months and is likely to provide increased room nights and spending earlier than

other infrastructure projects. When compared to other potential developments, it is expected to have the

lowest ROI. Additionally, most benefits will be localized around the center; therefore, the location needs to be

in a central area where benefits have the opportunity to spread more widely. A investment of this size often

requires bonding for funding. This can create political complexities and may require a new source of taxes to

support the debt service (i.e. special district taxes, etc.). Development of a conference/convention center

offers some opportunities for partnering, but will require a partnership model designed to uniquely fit the

situation (i.e. center location, size, usages, etc.).


Potential Large Scale Destination and Attraction Developments

This study focuses primarily on smaller-scale physical infrastructure developments, which are important to

ensure that the region optimizes the visitors’ travel experience as well as the economic and employment

impacts from tourism. While the Borough aggressively pursues these projects, it should also continue to work

on larger, destination and attraction development for the region.

The attraction base of any visitor destination is the most central element of tourism planning and

development. Attractions and destinations motivate the visitor to actually spend time and money in the

destination. Other infrastructure (such as accommodations, access, and services) are essential elements of the

visitor experience, but are not the focal point.

Continued Borough investment and development of regional destinations and attractions is important to

ensure long term growth in visitor-related spending and employment. Current and potential attraction and

destination developments include: South Denali, Hatcher Pass, Independence Mine Tour Development, Glenn

Highway Raptor Center, Palmer Hay Flats Natural Science Education/Community Center, and Trail

Destination development. Each of these development concepts is described below.

South Denali Implementation Plan

The National Park Service, the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and the Borough are

collaborating on plans to significantly enhance visitor-related infrastructure and access in the South Denali

area. Mat-Su Borough is a strong advocate of this development, as it has potential to become a premier

tourism destination and recreational hub, thereby increasing the number of visitors and their length of stay in

the region.

The following information is summarized from the Draft South Denali Implementation Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement and the Draft Economic Impacts of the South Denali Implementation Plan.2 The development

plan includes two scenarios, one that provides for core elements of the development plan, valued at $21.8

million in construction costs, and a second element that provides for a full development scenario, which

would cost $46.1 million. The infrastructure provided by each of the two scenarios is set forth below:

SOUTH DENALI IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CORE ELEMENTS

• Curry Ridge Visitor Center (approximately 3.5 miles off the Parks Highway)

• Transportation Center

• Campground off the Parks Highway

• Visitor Center and 3.5-mile access road

• Thirteen miles of trail near new visitor center

2 Economic Impacts of the South Denali Implementation Plan, Draft Final Report, Institute of Social and Economic Research, UAA.


The Implementation Plan Full-Development Scenario includes the previous components, plus the following

infrastructure enhancements, for a total of $46.1 million in public-sector spending.

• Previously identified core development plan elements

• Improved parking at mile 121.5 and new parking at mile 122

• Parking near Rabideux Creek (mile 104.6)

• Information kiosk at Parks Highway/Petersville Road intersection (mile 114.9)

• Non-motorized boat access near Troublesome Creek (mile 137)

• Several enhancements along the Petersville Road including campgrounds, bike paths, turnouts and

redesigned parking areas

The National Park Service anticipates project completion between 2013 and 2015. If state funding is

approved, the timeline could be accelerated. Once underway, the project will require four to six years of

construction.

SOUTH DENALI ISER ANALYSIS

A recent analysis conducted by the Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) for the National Park

Service and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough estimates that additional private investment associated with the

fully-developed scenario would total approximately $30 million. This investment could include 75 additional

hotel rooms associated with larger tour company needs, another 50-60 hotel rooms at smaller properties,

approximately four new dining establishments and one new gas station. ISER estimates that the fully-

developed plan will result in 403 construction jobs for three years and 669 annual on-going jobs from the

new non-resident and visitor spending.

Market changes associated with the fully-developed plan include a 20 percent increase in the number of

cruise-tour visitors that have a two-night, three-day stay in the region included in their land tour package.

Additionally, 20 percent of the current visitor market is project to spend an additional day in the vicinity of

the visitor center.

INCREASED VISITOR SPENDING FROM SOUTH DENALI PROJECT

Direct visitor spending in Mat-Su is projected to increase by $30.9 million from out-of-state visitors and $12.7

million from Alaska residents. This projected increase of nearly $44 million in new visitor spending represents

a nearly 22 percent increase over the current market estimate of $201.1 million in visitor spending. The

combined effects of enhancing access (roads, parking areas, trails and boat launches), accommodations

(campgrounds, hotels, restroom facilities) and attractions (visitor center, scenic viewpoints and trails) results

in far greater impacts than any single enhancement could on its own.

Hatcher Pass Development

Hatcher Pass has significant long-term potential for becoming a central element of the Alaska experience for

virtually all visitor markets. The area offers exceptional scenic beauty, history, outdoor recreation, and year-

round appeal. Significant road, trail, and wayside enhancements have taken place in recent years; these


access and infrastructure improvements resulted in immediate increases in visitation and usage.

Improvements to the road over Hatcher Pass could result in significantly greater visitation and prolonged

visitor time in the region by nearly all visitor markets.

Further planning efforts are underway for downhill and Nordic ski area development. As currently envisioned,

the Hatcher Pass ski area will be a public project and primarily used as a day-use area. Recreational

infrastructure will be developed with the intention of turning it over to be private or non-profit management.

Elements of the development plan are still being refined, based on project feasibility.

In early March 2008, the Borough Assembly received presentations from consultants and advisors engaged

on the project. These consultants and advisors outlined the feasibility for a “New Beginning” model, which

included a full complement of Alpine and Nordic ski amenities, plus a snowboard terrain park, multi-use trails,

slopeside amenities and support infrastructure such as roads and parking. The consultant team also outlined a

scaled-back approach, referred to as the “Modified Approach.” Under this approach, additional amenities

envisioned in the “New Beginning” model would be developed later in the project, as market demand

dictates. Core elements under the “Modified Approach” are:

Northern/Alpine Area

• High-speed quad up to 1,300 vertical feet (6 minute ride) or Quad chairlift (15 minute ride)

• Chair lift for beginning area

• Snow making

• Some trail lighting on runs from the quad

• 8,000 sq. ft. day lodge

• Parking for 400 vehicles (3.5 acres)

• Maintenance building and explosives storage

Southern/Nordic Area

• 15 kilometers of trails as laid out by Bill Spencer (competition and recreation)

• Limited road access

• Limited parking for both Nordic and Alpine overflow

• Limited trailheads for multiple-purpose use (hiking, horse trail riding, mountain biking and

snowmobile)

HATCHER PASS COST ESTIMATES

Including general project costs, such as architectural and engineering costs, these components are currently

estimated to cost approximately $17.0 million. Additional amenities to completed the “New Beginning”

concept are currently estimated to add $23.8 million, for a total project cost of approximately $40.8 million.

Additional amenities outlined in the “New Beginning” model, which could be developed at a later time

include additional trails, lifts, chalets, sledding hills and road access.


Project Cost Estimates, Hatcher Pass Ski Area Development

Category Modified Approach

New Beginning

Northern/Alpine Area $9,800,000 $20,428,277

Southern/Nordic Area 3,400,000 13,766,750

General Project Costs 3,800,000 6,617,192

Total $17,000,000 $40,812,219

Source: Ron Swanson

Independence Mine Tour and Development

The Department of Natural Resources has identified, but not funded, improvements that could affect safety

and increase the Independence Mine attraction. These identified areas of improvement include stabilizing the

mine and adding amenities, such as accommodations and food services, along with major improvements in

the basic infrastructure of water sanitation, electric power and parking. The Borough has also envisioned a

mine tour that is handicapped-accessible using modified ore carts. The tour would be experiential of the

mining environment and daily life of ore miners. The operating and maintenance costs associated with

development of a tour throughout the mine are unknown. To improve access, Fishhook Road over Hatcher

Pass to Willow would need to be improved to handle larger and more vehicles, attracting larger bus tours to

the destination.

Glenn Highway Raptor Center

The Borough envisions a facility located north of Sheep Mountain along the Glenn Highway that provides

information on and viewing of raptors. The area is already recognized for spring and fall raptor migration

viewing. The facility would include a wayside, a viewing pavilion, restrooms, outdoor information panels and

tourist information kiosk. The Borough estimates the cost for the facility would be about $1.5 million. It is

anticipated that the facility would be a popular tourist attraction, especially during the spring and fall

migration periods (lasting two to three weeks each season). At this time, no project feasibility analysis has

been conducted. However, a concept such as the center presents an opportunity to develop a needed

wayside along the Glenn Highway.

Palmer Hay Flats Natural Science Education/Community Center

The proposed Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge Natural Science Education/Community Center will include

a gathering place with views of the refuge, a reception counter, multipurpose space for classrooms and

meetings, and staff offices. The site development and building costs are estimated to be $6.3 million with

projected annual operation and maintenance costs of $65,000. The Borough is in the process of completing a

preliminary feasibility study to refine these estimated costs. The study will gather information on similar

programs, including an examination of fees and annual operations and maintenance costs. Additionally, the

study will include consideration of the number of people that may use the center with estimated revenue

projects.


The center is envisioned to provide year-round, hands-on learning, stewardship and recreational

opportunities. Public programs, special presentations, school programs and training courses are planned.

These programs are primarily geared for community and school use, however, there is a possibility to develop

programs that may attract tourists during the summer season.

Trail Destination Development

While the region currently offers visitors and residents an extensive trail system, there is significantly greater

potential to enhance the trail system in terms of infrastructure, access points and promotion. Examples might

include development of linkages between trails and back-country lodges and cabins, equestrian trails,

enhanced snow machine trails, or development of more extensive cross-country ski trail system. Each of these

trail concepts could be developed around a new or existing focal point such as an equestrian center or

warming huts for winter trail users. The result of a “trail destination” approach to trail system development

could attract new visitor markets, more repeat and year-round visitation, and a reputation among trail

enthusiasts that could rival the Pacific Crest Trail (Western US States), the Appalachian Trail (Eastern US

States), or the Milford Track (New Zealand).


Funding Approaches

Bed Tax Rate Analysis

A possible mechanism for raising funds for tourism infrastructure projects is an increase in the bed tax rate. At

5 percent, the Mat-Su Borough bed tax is considerably lower than Anchorage, Fairbanks North Star Borough

and Fairbanks, and slightly lower than several other Alaskan communities, such as Denali Borough, the City

and Borough of Juneau, and the City of Ketchikan.

The “Selected Bed and Sales Tax Rates” table below presents the bed tax percentages for Boroughs, cities

and towns across the state. These bed tax percentages range from four percent, in places such as Wrangell

and Nome, to eight percent in the Fairbanks North Star Borough, and to 12 percent in Anchorage.

The bed tax rate varies significantly between Boroughs and communities across the state. This variation

reflects the other types of taxes a local government has in effect, the local status of the tourism industry, and

whether all or a portion of the bed tax is dedicated to a specific use.

Selected Bed and Sales Tax Rates

Community Sales Tax Rate Bed Tax Rate

Municipality of Anchorage 0% 12%

Fairbanks North Star Borough 0 8

City and Borough of Juneau 5 7

City of Ketchikan 3.5 7

Denali Borough 0 7

City and Borough of Sitka 6 6

City of Cordova 6 6

City of Kotzebue 6 6

City of Valdez 0 6

Matanuska-Susitna Borough 0 5

City of Kodiak 6 5

City of Haines 5.5 4

Ketchikan Gateway Borough 2.5 4

City of Nome 5 4

City of Petersburg 6 4

City of Wrangell 7 4

City of Palmer 3 0

Kenai Peninsula Borough 3 0

City of Wasilla 2.5 0 Source: State of Alaska, Office of the State Assessor.


It is also important to point out that each community allocates the use of bed tax collections differently,

based on their unique economy, local needs and usage of other funding mechanisms like property tax and

sales tax. Though, as the examples below indicate, a significant portion of the bed tax usually goes back into

tourism related projects.

• In Anchorage, the bed tax is 12 percent. Of the total bed tax receipts in 2007 ($19 million), one-third

of the bed tax ($6.3 million) each is dedicated to the Dena’ina Civic & Convention Center, the

General Fund, and the Anchorage Convention & Visitors Bureau.

• In Fairbanks, the bed tax is 8 percent. In 2007, total bed tax receipts were $2.6 million. The city

receives 22.5 percent ($585,000) and a fixed amount ($400,000 or 15 percent) is appropriated to

the following: Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation ($50,000), Golden Heart Plaza &

Barnette Landing ($30,000), Special Events ($50,000), and discretionary grants ($270,000). The

remaining 62.5 percent (or $1.6 million) is dedicated to the Fairbanks Convention & Visitor Bureau.

• In Juneau, the bed tax is 7 percent. Of the total bed tax receipts in 2007 ($1 million), 57 percent

($590,000) is dedicated to Juneau Convention & Visitor Bureau and 43 percent ($445,000) to the

municipally-owned convention and civic center (Centennial Hall). Centennial Hall then contracts with

Juneau Convention & Visitor Bureau for marketing services, effectively reducing the municipally-

managed percentage.

• In Ketchikan, the bed tax is 7 percent. In 2007, total bed tax receipts were $334,000. The City of

Ketchikan does not use a pre-determined formula to allocate their bed tax revenues. The Ketchikan

Visitors Bureau makes an annual budget request to the city. Once the amount is approved, 55

percent ($184,000 in 2007) of the requested amount is funded from the transient (bed) tax fund.

The other 45 percent ($150,000) comes from the port enterprise fund. Any remaining amount of the

transient tax fund is used to support civic center operations (Ted Ferry Civic and Convention Center).

• In Denali Borough, the bed tax is 7 percent. In 2007, total bed tax receipts were $2.3 million. These

receipts flow into the general fund. Because the Denali Borough does not have a sales or property

tax, bed tax and severance tax (from Usibelli Coal Mine operations) are the only sources of tax

revenue to the borough.

Looking forward, bed tax amounts will likely continue to grow, but not necessarily at the same pace

experienced in recent years. Over the next ten years, the Borough will experience additional accommodation

development, particularly in the South Denali area where ISER estimates another 135 rooms will be needed.

The Borough should be prepared for continued growth in accommodations inventory, accommodation-

related revenues, and bed tax collections, but it may occur in smaller increments than in the past ten years.

Conversely, the bed tax growth rate can be stimulated through infrastructure and marketing investments

designed to attract new overnight business to the region. For example, a conference or convention facility

could add between 3,500 and 9,000 room nights to the Borough’s bed tax base, depending on facility size.

The net result is an additional $17,500 to $45,000 in bed tax each year at the current bed tax rate of 5

percent (assuming an average of $100 per room per night). If the bed tax rate were increased, this return to

Borough coffers would be higher. Similarly, other infrastructure investments identified as priorities in this

report will serve to support and expand existing markets, increase overnight stays, and provide economic

return.


BED TAX RATE INCREASE SCENARIOS

The study team developed scenarios for future bed tax collections for a 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year period,

with increased bed tax rates. For each of these scenarios, the study team assumed a 5 percent annual growth

rate in taxable accommodation revenues. When compared to recent annual average increases in bed tax

collections of nearly 12 percent, the growth rate of 5 percent used in this forecast is very conservative.

If the bed tax were increased immediately to 6 percent, the estimated bed tax collections would be $1.35

million in 2010, $1.49 million in 2012, and $1.9 million in 2017. Total collections during the ten-year period

would be $15.4 million. Over a ten-year period, the Borough would generate nearly $2.6 million in additional

revenues.

An increase in the bed tax to 7 percent would result in an estimated $1.58 million in bed tax in 2010, $1.74

million in 2012, and $2.22 million in 2017. Ten-year collections would total $18 million. Over a ten-year

period, the Borough would generate more than $5 million in additional revenues.

At 8 percent, estimated bed tax collections would increase from $1.8 million in 2010 to $2.54 million in

2017. A total of $20.6 million would be collected over the 10-year period under this scenario. Over a ten-year

period, the Borough would collect an additional $7.7 million in additional revenues.

Additional analysis can be found at the end of Appendix C, which shows how the various bed tax rates (5, 6,

7, and 8 percent) are affected by 10 percent annual growth and 15 percent annual growth in taxable

accommodation sales.

EFFECTS OF INCREASED BED TAX

It is important to consider the cumulative impact of sales and bed taxes when considering an increase. It is

also important to be realistic about advance timing and communication, so tour operators and other industry

members have time to incorporate the increase into their rate structure and marketing.


Numerous Alaska communities have 6 percent and 7 percent bed taxes. While Anchorage and Fairbanks have

the highest bed tax rates at 12 percent and 8 percent respectively, neither of these communities charge sales

tax.

The study team believes that the market and residents would respond positively to a proposed increase to 6

or 7 percent—especially if the increased revenues were reinvested in infrastructure that enhanced residents’

quality of life, visitors’ experience, and local economic opportunities.

A bed tax increase to 8 percent should be approached more cautiously to ensure voter and market support.

With any rate increase, an educational campaign is recommended to communicate intended uses of the tax

collections and potential economic return to regional residents and businesses. Similarly, it will be

advantageous for local marketing organizations and businesses to be able to tie the rate increase to new

infrastructure developments that benefit various visitor markets.

PUBLIC BONDS

Funding for design and construction of convention facilities often comes from the issuance of some type of

bonds. Various bonding options may be available to the Borough, including general obligation bonds,

revenue bonds, special tax bonds, special assessment bonds, and others. These bonds are generally backed

by the issuing agency and repaid through the general fund, bed taxes, special district taxes, operating

revenue, or other fees and taxes.

While it is common for communities inside and outside of Alaska to fund the construction of the meeting

facilities through bonds, there are other approaches that may be more appropriate for Mat-Su. Additional

examples can be found in the Tourism Partnering Opportunities section.

• The Municipality of Anchorage increased its bed tax from 8 percent to 12 percent in support of the

Dena’ina Civic & Convention Center. The increased tax revenues are dedicated for debt service

associated with the bonds.

• The City of Ketchikan did not bond for the Ted Ferry Civic Center. Instead, the facility was developed

from grants and local revenues.

• Capital construction costs for the Nolan Center in Wrangell were paid for through a combination of

grants including a significant endowment from a private family, Rasmuson Foundation, USDA Rural

Development, Denali Commission, and municipal funds.

WAYS TO STRETCH BED TAX REVENUES

There are many ways to stretch bed tax dollars. These include accessing other sources of funding for

infrastructure developments, such as:

• Public Facilities District/Special Use District/Tax Reinvestment Zones, etc. – Many areas that are

contemplating the development of conference or convention facilities will implement a special zone

or district that includes the location of the proposed facility. This zone/district is generally defined as

the area that receives the most benefit from the facilities, and therefore, is taxed accordingly. These


taxes are often used to service the debt on public bonds that were used to finance the construction

of the facility.

• Other Taxes – Some communities and areas will initiate other taxes to help finance construction and

maintenance of tourism and recreation facilities. These include taxes on activities, such as attractions,

ski lift tickets or tours.

• Fees and Permits – It is common practice in many states and countries to require users of

recreational facilities, such as trails and parking, to purchase use permits. These permits help defray

operating and maintenance costs of the facilities. Similarly, fees may be added to ticket prices or

concession sales to defray civic center operating costs.

• Local, State, and Federal Agencies – Government money is available for many of the infrastructure

improvements recommended in this report. Local bed tax dollars can be used to help fund the

planning work and/or provide the matching dollars needed to initiate and complete a project. A few

examples of non-bed tax funding opportunities include:

o Federal/State Departments of Transportation – Provides the majority of the funding for road

system enhancement projects.

o Alaska Department of Natural Resources – Provides funding for trail system enhancement,

State Parks, and other outdoor recreation.

o USDA Rural Development – Administers programs designed to develop essential community

facilities for public use in rural areas, some of which could be considered tourism-related

infrastructure;

o Economic Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce – Invests in essential public

infrastructure in distressed communities to promote long-term economic development.

o Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development – Funds capital

projects in Alaskan communities under the Division of Community & Regional Affairs.

• Foundations/Organizations – Various foundations and organizations exist that are involved in

infrastructure development in Alaska. Examples of these include:

o Denali Commission – This federal-state partnership is designed to provide critical utilities and

infrastructure across the state, with a focus on remote communities. The Denali Commission

has provided funding for infrastructure development in many Mat-Su Borough communities and

for tourism-related infrastructure projects.

o Rasmuson Foundation – The Rasmuson Foundation strives to improve the quality of life for

Alaskans through its competitive grant-making programs. The organization funds community

projects through the Arts and Culture initiative and the Pre-Development Program, a capital

project technical assistance program in partnership with the Denali Commission, The Foraker

Group, and the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority.


o The Foraker Group, Pre-Development Program – This program provides guidance and technical

assistance for capital projects involving new construction or repair and renovation. Priority is

given to projects that have some funding in place and can demonstrate sustainability.

• Private Donors/Private Land Holders – Some infrastructure projects can and should involve private

donors or private land holders. For example, trail development projects may involve gaining

easements across private holdings, requiring the participation of the owner. The involvement of

these individuals or organizations is often a key to success for a particular project.

• Clubs/User Groups – Community clubs and user groups are also key elements to some infrastructure

development. For example, the Adopt-a-Road program, which is successful in many parts of the U.S.

and Alaska, can involve many local groups and help defer road clean-up costs. There are many trail

user groups in the Mat-Su already involved and experienced in trail development and maintenance.

Partnering with these resources will help the Borough stretch its bed tax dollars.

• Native Corporations – The Alaska Native corporation with lands in the Mat-Su Borough, Cook Inlet

Region, Inc., is already a player in the Mat-Su Borough’s tourism sector. They are investors in the

market and will continue to seek opportunities to expand or enhance their presence. Combining

their land ownership, industry knowledge and experience and ability to leverage capital funding may

provide some possibilities to enhance the Borough’s bed tax.

• Local College – The Mat-Su College has been a long-time partner with the Borough. The College

provides an opportunity to implement or expand training programs that support development of the

tourism industry workforce. In addition, as the Mat-Su College proceeds with its plans to develop a

new performance hall, the new facility could provide additional space for meetings and enhance the

cultural attractions with any new theater productions aimed at the visitor market.

The growing base of bed tax dollars allows the Mat-Su Borough new opportunities to stimulate tourism

infrastructure development. Through the above mentioned opportunities and various partnership programs,

the Borough can create unique partnerships to accomplish its goals using bed tax money as the incentive for

project and partnership development.

Focus Areas for Tourism

Improvement

Focus Areas for Tourism Improvement McDowell Group, Inc. • Page E-1

Focus Areas for Tourism Improvement

The study team was requested to address the following specific questions. More background information

that supports responses can be found in the “Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements” section of this

report.

1. Would some form of convention facility significantly contribute to our tourism economy?

Yes, a convention facility would significantly contribute to the tourism economy. Investment in a facility will

draw new meeting and convention business to the borough. Depending on the facility size and the

marketing efforts, the Borough could capture a share of the in-state meetings market, which consists of many

groups that circulate their meetings around the state. Meetings from groups outside of Alaska represent

much smaller market potential due to the lack of upscale accommodations located in the meeting facility

property and the sizable marketing commitment needed to compete at the national and international level.

The contribution to the economy will depend on the facility size, the marketing efforts, the available support

services and the location of the facility.

Assuming a multi-year ramp-up period to develop market awareness, study team estimates suggest that a

small facility (which accommodates 125 conference participants) could generate between 4,000 and 5,300 in

Mat-Su region room nights and between $700,000 and $900,000 in new visitor spending annually. A larger

facility (designed to accommodate 400 convention participants) could generate between 6,200 and 9,000

room nights and between $1.1 million and nearly $1.6 million in new direct visitor spending annually.

(Currently, direct visitor industry spending is estimated at $201 million annually.)

Conference/Convention Annual Impacts on Overnight Stays and Visitor Spending


AnnualOvernights

Estimated Annual Visitor

Spending

Conference Facility (125-Person Conference)

Lower range 4,000 $700,000

Higher range 5,300 900,000

Convention Facility (400-Person Convention)

Lower range 6,200 $1.1 million

Higher range 9,000 1.6 million

It is important to note that each facility (conference or convention) also has the potential to draw visitors into

the region for events and performances and generate revenues from intra-regional usage. The study team

focused on market potential from the meeting and convention market for this analysis.


2. Should the Borough construct several small meeting or convention facilities or one large facility?

The most efficient and economically effective approach for the Borough is to construct one larger facility that

provides flexibility for most types of meetings and conventions that take place in Alaska. There are already a

number of smaller facilities in the borough that can host various types of meetings, which presently

accommodate the current small meetings and retreat market. A larger facility would host both large and

small meetings and would attract larger meetings that presently cannot meet in the Borough because the

facilities do not exist. From an operating cost standpoint, it is also more cost-efficient to build and operate

one larger facility that several smaller facilities.

3. Will such convention facilities bring people to the valley for overnight stays or only day trips?

A convention facility would bring people to valley on both overnight and day trips. Based on the study team’s

analysis of the meetings market potential, it is estimated that a small facility with capacity of 125 would

generate 4,000 to 5,300 room nights. A larger facility with capacity of 400 would generate between 6,200

and 9,000 room nights annually. These estimates are based on an average number of nights per attendee,

which assumed that some attendees will stay overnight and some will make a day trip.

As a meeting destination, the driving distance between Anchorage and the Palmer/Wasilla areas is fairly

comparable to Anchorage and Girdwood (approximately 40 miles). The privately owned property, Alyeska

Resort, located in Girdwood, has successfully developed a reputation in the in-state and out-of-state meeting

and convention market because of the quality of the meeting facilities, onsite accommodations, and very

competitive pricing. (For comparison, Alyeska Resort’s largest meeting room can accommodate up to 250

people for a banquet. When the meeting facility is utilized for concurrent banquet and meeting functions, the

maximum capacity is approximately 120—very similar to the conference facility examined in this study.)

4. What infrastructure improvements will contribute to more overnight stays in the Borough?

All tourism infrastructure development assessed in this study will contribute to overnight stays in the

borough. Below is a table that compares the impacts on overnight stays, which in turn, will impact potential

bed tax revenues for the Borough. Road and trail system enhancements (such as restrooms, scenic overlooks

and trailheads) have the largest annual impact, followed by visitor support services and a

conference/convention facility.

Comparison of Tourism Infrastructure Development and Overnight Stays

Tourism Infrastructure Estimated Annual Overnights

Road System Enhancement Program* 13,000 to 24,000

Trail System Enhancement Program 12,000 to 24,000

Visitor Support Services 7,000 to 12,500

Convention Facility 6,200 to 9,000

Conference Facility 4,000 to 5,300 *Market effects from Road System Enhancements do not include effects from paving Denali Highway, which could increase overnights by 2,000 to 4,000 nights.


It is also important to note that when infrastructure development concepts are examined in terms of potential

return on investment, visitor support services are elevated to the top priority due to the relatively low cost.

More discussion of prioritization is provided in Section D: Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements.

5. Is it economically better to locate a convention facility centrally along the road system or to attach it to some tourism/recreation attractions such as Hatcher Pass?

It is economically better to locate a convention facility centrally along the road system, preferably near the

population and service center of the borough. From a meeting planner’s perspective, the most important

considerations for location include year-round availability of rooms and professional services to attract and

support the market, such as catering, technical support, entertainment and shuttle services. It is a highly

competitive market and meeting planners desire a location that is easy to access, offers quality amenities and

services and a facility that has space for large meetings, break-out sessions, trade shows and receptions. The

primary purpose of a convention is generally to conduct business and seminars. Supplemental activities for

groups can be planned at Borough recreation areas and attractions, based on the interest of the organization.

But the facility does not need to be located in a tourism or recreation attraction area to be successful.

6. Do improved signage and restroom facilities significantly contribute to the tourism experience and economy?

Yes, both signage and restroom facilities contribute significantly to the tourism experience and economy.

Signage: General road signage includes way-finding (directional signage), gateways and entries, attractions,

amenities, billboards and marketing displays. Only a small portion of the traveling public stop at visitor

information centers; therefore, good signage is essential to help the public find their way and direct them to

places where they can spend time and money. To maximize effectiveness of the signage program, it should

be coordinated with the overall tourism marketing programs, as well as other road signage efforts, such as

the scenic byways and other state/federal programs, so as not to duplicate efforts. The signage design

concept should represent the Borough brand.

Restrooms: The number one reason people stop while traveling in the car is to use the restroom. In general,

public restrooms are in short supply for visitors, often few and far between and difficult to find. When visitors

stop to use the restroom, they will spend money if there is a place to do so and may decide to see or do

other activities, if they learn about them at the rest stop. To encourage this spending, public restroom

facilities should be located at or near areas where visitors can spend money, such as retail and activity centers.

The signage program will guide the visitors to these centers. A coordinated Borough-wide public restroom

plan, which identifies current and planned restroom facilities and future facility locations, is recommended.

This plan should address type of facilities, partnership opportunities and a timeline for completion. Such a

program should also be coordinated with signage and visitor information efforts.

7. Compared to other areas, does it make sense to increase our bed tax?

Yes, it does make sense to increase the Borough’s bed tax rate. Compared to other areas in Alaska, Mat-Su’s 5

percent bed tax rate is on the lower end, particularly when compared to Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and

Ketchikan, all of which have bed tax rates of 7 percent or higher. All of these communities also have a

convention center.


It is common practice both inside and outside of Alaska to use a portion of the bed tax to support debt

service and/or operational expenses associated with convention facilities. For example, Juneau allocates 57

percent of its 7 percent bed tax to destination marketing and 43 percent to the municipally owned

convention and civic center.

It is also common for a destination to raise the bed tax rates when contemplating new convention facilities

and to use this tax as part of the funding/financing package. Anchorage recently increased its bed tax from 8

percent to 12 percent to support the new Dena’ina Civic & Convention Center.

Tourism Partnering Opportunities

Tourism Partnering Opportunities McDowell Group, Inc. • Page F-1

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to examine ways that the Borough can leverage its infrastructure development

investments by partnering with other entities such as private land owners, government agencies, and non-

profit organizations.

• In the initial section, the study team discusses trends in partnering as they relate to infrastructure

development. To illustrate the extensive partnering potential for the types of projects considered in

this study (road system enhancements, trail system enhancements, visitor support services, and

convention facilities) the study team provided several partnering examples from inside and outside of

Alaska.

• In the following section, the study team identifies potential partners for each of the infrastructure

development concepts discussed in this study.

Partnering Trends

Infrastructure development for tourism is a multi-dimensional and complex task. Over the past few decades

public/private partnerships (PPPs) and various incentive programs have emerged as mechanisms to support

the development of tourism infrastructure around the world. Organizations such as the UN and the World

Bank have long worked in developing countries on tourism infrastructure projects that facilitate economic

development. In the U.S. and Canada, PPPs have become a key component in the successful development of

a variety of tourism-related infrastructure, including convention and conference facilities and public

recreation/tourism opportunities such as trails, by-ways, historic preservation, event development, etc.

Tourism development, by its nature, is a partnership between the public sector, which provides much of the

basic infrastructure and the private sector, which provides project development and enterprise. Additionally,

the public sector often initiates and stimulates private sector investment through loans, grants, incentive

programs or other support.

There is no single model that works for PPPs. Rather, partnerships between public and private entities are

structured in a variety of ways and can be as varied as the projects and organizations involved. Usually, these

partnerships are created through contractual agreements between a public agency or agencies, for-profit

corporations and/or non-profit corporations or user groups. More often than not, various investment

incentives are included in the partnership, such as:

• Financial incentives in the form of government grants or loans from its own resources, such as special

taxes, sale of revenue bonds, legislative appropriations (local, state or federal), etc.;

• Quasi-financial incentives in the form of loan guarantees, subsidies, or differential grants that bridge

the gap between official and commercial lending rates;

• Fiscal incentives, such as tax credits, enterprise zones, special districts, workforce incentive programs,

etc.;


• Other incentives such as planning, management assistance, business development support or other

technical assistance.

Examples of Private/Public Partnerships

The purpose of this section is to provide examples of public and private partnerships for projects similar to the

tourism infrastructure projects identified in this paper. To the extent possible, most partnering examples are

connected to a particular type of tourism infrastructure project previously discussed.

The range for PPPs related to tourism infrastructure development and the partnership structures is extensive.

The following are just a few examples of programs or projects where the PPP concept has been used for

“brick and mortar” tourism infrastructure development, recreational enhancements, national scenic byway

development and marketing and conference/convention facilities.

Tourism Infrastructure Development Grants

Travel Montana – Tourism Infrastructure Investment Program (TIIP) – This program invests a portion of the

statewide tourism bed tax into “brick and mortar” projects through a competitive grant process. Non-profit

organizations are encouraged to apply for grant funds to assist with building, remodeling, or preserving

tourism and recreation attractions, historical sites, and artifacts. Examples of eligible organizations include

chambers of commerce, economic development corporations, community clubs, and historic preservation

organizations. The minimum grant amount that can be allocated to any one project in a fiscal year is

$20,000; the maximum amount varies with the program funding. A copy of the Montana program guidelines

is included in Appendix E.

Raleigh and Wake County, North Carolina – Occupancy and Prepared Food & Beverage Taxes – The funds

generated from these taxes provides matching grant monies for various tourism-related infrastructure

developments, including a convention center, art museum, whitewater park and aquatics facility.

Public Recreation Enhancement Projects

Massachusetts – Office of Public Private Partnerships (OPPP) – This office was created in the Executive

Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs in the State of Massachusetts. The mission of OPPP is the

following:

Our mission is to develop new models of stewardship in order to protect and sustain our natural,

cultural, historical and recreational pubic resources for future generations.

Partners may be community groups, friends groups, park advocacy groups, corporations, institutions and

dedicated individuals who work collaboratively towards the betterment of Massachusetts’ environmental,

historic and cultural resources. OPPP provides a dollar-for-dollar match for private funding partners for capital

projects on state-owned property.

National Recreational Trails Act Program (RTP) – Established in 1991, this act directs the US Secretary of

Transportation to allocate money to the states for providing and maintaining recreational trails. (The program


funding comes through FHWA). At least 30 percent of the funds received by a state must be reserved for

motorized recreation projects and 30 percent reserved for non-motorized recreation. In Alaska, the

Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides reimbursable, matching funds to develop and maintain

recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses.

(While funded through FHWA, the program is not limited to trails or trailheads located along the state

highway or right-of-ways.)

Alaska also offers the Snowmobile Trails Program, which provides reimbursable, matching grant funds for trail

easement acquisition, development and maintenance of trails and trail-related facilities for snowmobile use.

Snowmobile trail grooming activities are provided through the program’s Grooming Pool. Both the RTP and

snowmobile programs are housed in the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Parks and

Outdoor Recreation.

Alaska Trails Initiative – This Initiative is a separately funded program that provides competitive grants for

development and reconstruction of trails and related facilities in Alaska. This program is also housed in ADNR,

Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.

National Scenic Byways

The National Scenic Byways (NSB) program, administered by the FHWA, offers grants for the development

and marketing of designated scenic byways. The eight grant categories are briefly described below.

1. State and Tribal Programs: an activity related to the planning, design, or development of a State

scenic byway program.

2. Corridor Management Plan: development and implementation of a corridor management plan to

maintain the scenic, historical, recreational, cultural, natural, and archeological characteristics of the

byway, while providing for increased tourism and related amenities.

3. Safety Improvements: safety improvements needed to accommodate increased traffic and changes in

the types of traffic resulting from the byway designation.

4. Byway Facilities: construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, rest areas, turnouts, highway

shoulder improvements, overlooks, or interpretive facilities.

5. Access to Recreation: enhanced access to recreational resources such as trailheads.

6. Resource Protection: protection of scenic, historical, recreational, cultural, natural, and archeological

resources adjacent to a byway.

7. Interpretive Information: development of tourist information including interpretive information about

the byway.

8. Marketing Program: development and implementation of byway marketing programs.

The Glenn Highway National Scenic Byways Association has received grant money from the NSB program,

dispersed through Alaska DOT&PF, for an interpretive plan, a marketing plan and a public relations plan. The

Mat-Su Borough has provided some matching money to these grants through the MSB Tourism

Infrastructure Grant Program. There is significantly more potential for further byway enhancements.


Convention/Conference Facilities

Convention and conference facilities are financially structured in many different ways. There is no single

model that fits all situations. Some facilities are developed through traditional methods, such as public bonds

and tax initiatives, while other developments are made possible through public/public and public/private

partnerships. The following is a sampling of a few different types of conference facilities and how they were

financially structured.

Midwest Airlines Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin – This project was a three-way partnership between the

City, County and State. The Governor signed a bill creating a countywide special purpose district with powers

of taxation on rooms, restaurants and rental cars. This tax backed up the special district’s debt. The City of

Milwaukee turned over all room tax and gave property to the special district. In addition, the City built

companion developments, such as the $9.6 million, 10-block river-walk. The County, via the special district,

increased the county-wide room tax and implemented a new county-wide tax on restaurants and rental cars.

The special district built, owns and operates the new Center. In addition, naming rights were sold to Midwest

Airlines for 15 years, with a renewal option for another five years.

Meydenbauer Center, Bellevue, WA – This is good example of a fairly traditional model for building a

conference center. A total of $29.3 million in special obligation bonds backed by the City of Bellevue were

used to construct this center. The center is self-supporting through revenue generated by users for rent,

catering and other meeting services and the transient occupancy tax. The operating budget is approximately

$6 million, 80 percent of which is covered by revenue generated and 20 percent by transient occupancy

taxes (bed tax). The occupancy tax also covers the payment of the debt for facility construction and land

costs.

McIntyre Hall, Mt. Vernon, WA – This conference and performing arts center was developed through a

partnership between the public facilities district and the Skagit Valley College. The conference center and

grand lobby can be arranged for a variety of meeting and banquet configurations for groups as small as 75

and as large as 300. Free parking and break-out rooms are located in the adjacent Skagit Valley College. The

project is owned by the public facilities district and governed by a board of directors. Funding for the design

and construction of the $17.1 million facility was identified from various sources, with 75 percent of the

funding from public sources and 25 percent raised from the community. (Public funding came from the City

of Burlington, City of Mt. Vernon, and the Skagit Valley Public Facilities District. Private funding was donated

from local businesses including hotels, banks, and other businesses.) Earned revenues, bed taxes from

Burlington and Mt. Vernon, funding from the public facilities district and support from community businesses

and organizations support the operating budget.

Salem Conference Center, Salem, OR – The Salem Conference Center was developed through a partnership

between the City of Salem and a private developer. The Urban Renewal Agency (URA) in Salem built and

owns the $28 million conference center, parking and restaurant. The developer built and owns the adjacent

hotel. The developer operates the conference center under a management contract. The project was funded

through Urban Renewal bonds, repaid with tax increment funds generated within the renewal district, plus a

loan from US Housing and Urban Development, repaid with proceeds from previous loans from riverfront-

downtown urban renewal program and community development block grant program. The developer was


paid a negotiated flat fee to oversee the construction of both the hotel and conference center. The developer

operates the center under a management agreement and the agreement between the developer and the

Urban Renewal Agency calls for allocation of any net profits between the two organizations.

City Conference Center, San Marcos, TX – Another public/private partnership example is the City

Conference Center in San Marcos, Texas. The City of San Marcos entered into a partnership with a developer

to develop the hotel and $23 million City Conference Center. They sold a combination of tax and revenue

certificates of obligation to finance construction, guaranteed by the city and repaid through tax revenues

generated through a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. These taxes cover 70 percent of the construction

cost. The developer leases and operates the conference center under a management contract. The lease

agreement from the developer covers the remaining 30 percent of the construction costs. The city also

funded various infrastructure improvements to the hotel and conference center site including road

improvements and expansion and the extension of electrical services.


Partnering Opportunities for Mat-Su Borough

In this section, the study team explores the wide range of potential partners for each of the major

infrastructure development concepts. To frame the discussion, the study team begins with an overview of

available funding generated from the existing bed tax program. Following this introduction is a discussion of

organizations, agencies, and programs most relevant to each infrastructure development area.

Available Bed Tax Dollars

The amount of money available from bed tax over the next ten years for project development will vary

somewhat depending on the growth in the number of rooms available, bed tax rate increases and growth in

the visitor markets. Any changes in the current bed tax allocation formula for the Mat-Su CVB will also affect

the amount of money available.

Estimates for bed tax available based on a 5 percent to 10 percent average annual growth rate (for ten years)

and no changes to the Mat-Su CVB allocation formula suggest that the Borough will have between $400,000

and $1,100,000 per year to spend on infrastructure development over the next ten years.

Estimated Annual Bed Tax Available for Infrastructure Development

Bed Tax Estimate 2008 2017

5% Average Annual Growth $371,500 $653,400

10% Average Annual Growth 395,800 1,123,400

Assumptions: 5 percent bed tax and no changes to allocation formula.

The Borough has an opportunity to use these dollars to support and stimulate development of its priorities.

The role the Borough can play is one of facilitator and advocate for each project it chooses to advance,

leveraging these bed tax dollars in the most efficient way possible. The challenge is to prioritize projects

where the Borough can be most effective.

Projects and Potential Partners


Visitor support services involve visitor information kiosks and signage at major highway, air and rail entrance

points into the region. Though some kiosk sites have been identified in this study, a more comprehensive

plan may be needed to identify the specific sites and types of information kiosks and signage required. Based

on the location of the sites, the Borough can explore potential partnerships with the Alaska Department of

Transportation and Public Facilities, the National Scenic Byways Programs, the Mat-Su CVB, the Anchorage

CVB and the Alaska Railroad. In addition, kiosks and signage plans can include an opportunity for

organizations and private sector businesses to participate. For example, an attraction might be interested in

co-funding specific visitor information signage that directs travelers to their business or directs travelers along

a scenic drive where their business is located.



Investment in the regional trail system can attract new visitor markets, increase visitors’ length of stay, and

increase regional spending. The study team identified a number of trail system enhancements (including

signage, trailheads, restrooms, and ongoing maintenance) as a priority tourism infrastructure need.

Partnerships for trail development and maintenance have been used for many years throughout the U.S. and

Alaska is no exception. The study team recommends that the Borough play a leadership role in the facilitation

of trail system enhancements and developments.

In addition to the specific trail system enhancements identified in the Needed Tourism Infrastructure

Improvements section, the study team also recommends that the Matanuska Susitna Borough Trails Plan be

updated to identify future needs such as construction, mapping, and system planning. The Borough is likely

to find support among the identified partners for financial support, staff support, and technical assistance. A

revised plan should inventory and map all trails, address individual trail system projects needs, (such as

mapping, parking, signage, trail building, maintenance), prioritize those projects and identify the potential

partners and funding sources specific to each project. (The existing Borough Trails Plan primarily addresses

significant trails in the region, the importance of establishing legal trail right-of-ways and easements, and on a

limited basis, the maintenance and funding of trails.)

POTENTIAL PARTNERS FOR TRAIL SYSTEM ENHANCEMENTS

Many partnership and funding opportunities exist to address current and future trail system enhancements in

the Borough. Partner groups for each project area may be composed of different entities, depending on the

area, the type of trail activity, landowners, and the nature of the requested support. Potential partners

include:

• Federal Agencies – Several federal agencies have been involved in trail development partnerships in

Alaska including:

o National Park Service

o Bureau of Land Management

o USDA

o USDA Forest Service

• State Agencies – The following State of Alaska agencies are often involved in trails projects as

partners:

o Alaska Department of Natural Resource, Division of State Parks

o Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division

o Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Land Division

o Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

o Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development

• Local governments in Mat-Su – Local governments in the borough can and should participate in

trail projects that use their lands, through funding and maintenance partnerships.

• User Groups – Many different user groups can provide both technical assistance and sources of

funding or in-kind services for trail planning, development, and ongoing operations and


maintenance. Some groups (such as the Mat-Su Trails Council, Inc.) are quite active, meeting

regularly and applying for grant funding for specific projects. Potential partnering organizations

include:

o Mat-Su Trails Council, Inc.

o Alaska State Snowmobile Association

o Curry Ridge Riders

o Mountain Bikers and Hikers

o Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc.

o Denali Nordic Ski Club

o Mat-Su Ski Club

o Lake Louise Snowmobile Club

o Mat-Su Motor Mushers

o Alaska Sled Dog Racing Association

o Alaska Dog Mushers Association

o Alaska Mountain & Wilderness Huts Association

o Anchorage snowmobiling clubs

o Anchorage cross-country ski clubs

• Private Land Owners – Private land owners need to be involved in any partnerships that include

gaining easements across privately held land.

• Businesses – Business involvement can come from businesses that are near proposed trail areas and

can be in the form of funding or in-kind services. In some places in the borough, private lodge

owners who rely on the trail system for the client’s recreation will often set snowmobile trails and

provide signage on existing trail systems, or set cross-country ski track for skiers.

• Native Corporations – Native corporations can play a role in partnerships for trail development,

particularly if proposed trail easements cross Native landholdings. Native corporations within the

Mat-Su Borough include Ahtna Inc. (eastern and northeast portion of Borough) and Cook Inlet

Region, Inc.

In addition to the above potential partners and funding sources there are other opportunities for trail

partnerships that could be explored. These include examples from other regions such as:

• Agri-Tourism Trail – This project in Alabama is a partnership between the Alabama Cooperative

Extension, Alabama Bureau of Tourism and Travel, Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries

and Alabama Farmers Federation. The concept is to provide a trail system of attractions related to

agriculture for visitors to experience the heritage and culture of the local area. In this case, the Agri-

Tourism Trail involves visiting areas in Alabama by car. With Mat-Su’s farming heritage, there is an

opportunity to create a Mat-Su Agri-Tourism Trail through some of the farming areas. Partners could

include Alaska Cooperative Extension, Alaska Farm Bureau – Mat-Su Chapter and other related

agencies, organizations and businesses.

• Sno-Park Permit Program – Sno-Park Permit programs are found in several states in the Lower 48.

Sno-Parks are trailhead areas for motorized and non-motorized recreation in the winter months. Sno-


Park users purchase permits to park and use the trails. For example, in Washington there are Sno-Park

permits for areas with ungroomed and groomed trails for cross-country skiers. Snowmobilers can also

purchase Sno-Park permits for motorized trail areas. Washington has 50 Sno-Parks in the state. In

addition, Oregon and Idaho also have Sno-Park programs and accept Washington permits, and vice-

versa. Proceeds from Sno-Park permit sales are used to maintain and improve non-motorized Sno-

Park facilities. The proceeds pay for snow removal, sanitation facilities, trail grooming, trail signs,

mapping, parking lot construction, education, enforcement and Sno-Park program administration.

There has been some interest in Alaska in starting a similar program. The concept may be worth

pursuing in the borough, given the popularity of winter trail recreation.

POTENTIAL PARTNERS FOR TRAIL SYSTEM PLANNING

Future updates to the Mat-Su Borough Trail Plan will be an important component in the coordination of the

vast trail systems found within the borough. (It is important to note that some grants and partnerships may

require the enhancement to be identified in a current planning document.) Established funding and technical

assistance programs that can assist with the development and implementation of trail plans include:

• Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program – National Park Service - Through its Rivers,

Trails and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA), the National Park Service provides technical

assistance to local, state and federal agencies and community groups for trail development,

preserving open space and conserving rivers.

• Alaska State Trails Program – This program is housed in the Alaska Department of Natural

Resources, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. The program oversees the state and federal

funding assistance available for trail development programs. In the past, the Mat-Su Borough has

applied for grant funding in some of these programs.

o Recreational Trails Program (RTP) – This program administered by the Federal Highway

Administration, provides funding assistance to states to develop and maintain recreational trails

for both motorized and non-motorized uses. In FY 2008, Alaska received approximately $1.2

million from this program. Grants are submitted to the program and reviewed by the Outdoor

Recreation and Trails Advisory Board (ORTAB) who then makes recommendations for funding to

the State. The Mat-Su Trails Council was recently awarded $50,000 to purchase a mini-excavator

with boom attached flail mower to maintain and rehabilitate trails in the Borough.

o Snowmobile Trails Program – This program provides matching grant funds for trail easement

acquisition, development and maintenance of trails for trail-related facilities and snowmobile use.

The Snowmobile Trails Advisory Committee (SnowTRAC) is responsible for reviewing grant

applications and recommending funding for the program.

o Alaska Trails Initiative – This is a state grant program that was established to support the

development of trails but currently has no funding.


The study team identified a number of specific locations that warrant development or upgrade of restrooms

as well as enhanced interpretive signage and other rest area amenities like picnic tables and telescopes.

Furthermore, the team recommended an ongoing and systemic approach to these enhancements, as this has


greater potential to increase visitation than development of single or isolated facilities. Typical partners in

highway projects include the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (AKDOT) and

the Federal Highway Administration. To facilitate the future working relationship, the Borough should

develop a Memorandum of Understanding with local, state, and regional governments and agencies that

would be involved in road system enhancement projects.

Other partners that can be included in road system enhancement programs include other federal and state

agencies, municipalities, Native groups, historical societies, user groups or clubs, private businesses, shopping

districts, private land owners and other partners that receive some benefit from the projects.

GLENN HIGHWAY NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAY DEVELOPMENT

An interpretive plan has been completed for the proposed development of interpretive sites and services

along this National Scenic Byway. Each proposed project has been prioritized by phases and potential

partnerships have been identified.

Additionally, the Byway program is an ideal resource for planning, constructing, and maintaining road system

enhancements like trailheads, restrooms and rest areas, scenic overlooks, interpretive facilities and signage,

and safety enhancements.

The Byway program can fund up to 80 percent of a project cost. Additional partners may include:

• Federal agencies – Federal Highways Administration Scenic Byways, U.S. Army

• State agencies – Alaska State Parks, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of

Transportation & Public Facilities, Alaska State Troopers

• Mat-Su Borough

• Municipality of Anchorage

• Native groups – Chickaloon Village Traditional Council

• Historical Societies – Alpine Historical Society, Palmer Historical Society

• User groups/clubs – Anchorage Ski Club, Alpenglow at Arctic Valley Ski Area, Audubon Society, Mat-

Su Birders, snowmobile and ATV groups

• Private businesses – King Mountain Lodge, Lifetime Adventures, Grand View Café and RV Park, Sheep

Mountain Lodge, Eureka Lodge, Slide Mountain Cabins and RV Park

• Private land owners

• Other – Glacier View Elementary School

In the future, the Mat-Su Borough can be instrumental in the development of the infrastructure projects

identified in the interpretive plan by working with the Glenn Highway committee to initiate site-specific

interpretive projects through the tourism infrastructure grant program.

PARKS HIGHWAY STATE SCENIC BYWAY DEVELOPMENT

This byway is in the early stages of development. The Parks Highway planning team is in the process of

developing a Corridor Partnership Plan for the section of highway between Mile 132 (southern boundary of

Denali State Park) and Mile 248 (Healy), which will allow public and non-profit entities to apply for grant


funding for byway improvements. If successful, the process will lead to the designation as a National Scenic

Byway or All American Road.

As mentioned in the prior section, the Byway program is an ideal resource for planning, constructing, and

maintaining road system enhancements like trailheads, restrooms and rest areas, scenic overlooks, interpretive

facilities and signage, and safety enhancements. Based on other scenic byway projects, it is likely to be three

to five years before the completion of an interpretive plan, where specific projects and partners will be

identified. In the meantime, the Borough should continue active participation in the planning phases.

ROAD SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PLANNING

After addressing the immediate needs, the Borough should develop a regional road system enhancement

plan. Waysides, public restrooms and road signage are inter-related and projects may overlap into each of

these areas. Through the development of an area-wide wayside, restroom and signage plan, partners specific

to each project can be identified. For example, some projects may be part of one of the Scenic Byways

projects. In other areas, the partnership may be between a state or federal agency and the Borough. Other

projects may involve a private sector business or Native corporation.

Meeting Facilities

The study team determined that development of a conference or convention facility has the potential to

increase visitation and spending—especially in the fall and winter months. The Borough can provide

important leadership in developing a comprehensive feasibility study to determine the optimal facility size,

location and funding package.

Additionally, the Borough can explore partnerships that can reduce the initial capital construction costs and

ongoing operating and maintenance costs associated with these types of facilities. For example, contributing

a parcel of land (or the proceeds from an alternative parcel) is often an important first step when meeting

local match requirements for grant funds.

A variety of partnerships have been used in other regions of Alaska and the U.S. to develop conference and

convention facilities. The following opportunities for a Mat-Su Conference/Convention Facility represent a

likely list of candidates for partnerships, depending on facility location and its component features:

• Municipal Governments – The participation in a conference or convention facility by a municipal

government will largely depend on facility location. This study recommends the facility be located

close to lodging facilities and other services; therefore, the facility may be in the Wasilla/Palmer area.

If this is the case, both these municipalities stand to reap the benefits of the business generated by

these facilities and; therefore, should be partners in its development. This partnership could take

various forms, including contributing direct funding, providing the site for development and/or other

contributions.

• USDA Rural Development – The Community Programs, a division of the Housing and Community

Facilities Programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development, focuses on essential

infrastructure. Some of this infrastructure can be considered tourism-related, including community

centers that also function as conference sites.


• Denali Commission – This federal-state partnership is designed to provide critical utilities and

infrastructure across the state. Although the Denali Commission has a focus on remote communities,

it has funded tourism-related infrastructure in both rural and urban centers.

• Rasmuson Foundation – If the conference/convention center includes a component that supports

arts and cultural events, then the Rasmuson Foundation could be a natural partner through their Arts

and Culture Initiative. In addition, the Rasmuson Foundation is a partner in the Pre-Development

program, which provides technical assistance for capital project planning.

• The Foraker Group, Pre-Development Program – This program is a joint agreement between the

Denali Commission, the Foraker Group, Rasmuson Foundation and the Alaska Mental Health Trust

Authority to assist organizations to plan for successful capital projects.

Funding for design and construction for these types of facilities generally comes from the issuance of some

type of bonds. Various bonding options may be available to the Borough, including general obligation bonds,

revenue bonds, special tax bonds, special assessment bonds and others. These bonds are generally backed by

the issuing agency and repaid through taxes, fees and/or operating revenues. Depending on the location of

the facilities and structure of the funding package, the Borough may or may not be the agency involved in

the bonding process. Options for bond repayment include general fund, bed taxes, special district taxes,

operating revenue, or other fees and/or taxes. Further study is needed to determine the best funding and

repayment approach for the facility.

Appendices

Appendices McDowell Group, Inc. • Page APP-1

Appendix A: Tourism Infrastructure Description

Below are detailed tables regarding current tourism-related infrastructure in the borough. Accommodations

are listed by number of rooms and then by Borough region.

Accommodations

Mat-Su Lodging by Number of Rooms

# of Rooms Mt. McKinley Princess Wilderness Lodge 460 Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge 212 Grand View Inn & Suites 79 Best Western Lake Lucille Inn 54 Valley Hotel 43 Alaska Choice Inn 30 Gold Miner's Hotel 28 Kashwitna Ridge Lodging 28 Pioneer Motel and Apartments 28 Talkeetna Hideaway 24 Swiss Alaska Inn 20 The Point Lodge LLC 17 Mary's McKinley View Lodge 16 Alaska's Select Inn Motel 15 Sheep Mountain Lodge 14 Agate Inn 13 Colony Inn 12 Hatcher Pass Lodge 12 Latitude 62 LLC 12 Maclaren Enterprises, Inc. 12 Mat-Su Resort 12 Motherlode Lodge 12 Lake Louise Lodge 11 Sunset View B & B/Resort 11 Eureka Lodge 10 King Mountain Lodge 10 Majestic Valley Wilderness Lodge 10 Chinook Wind Cabins 9 Evergreen Lodge 9 Hewitt Lake Lodge 9 Talkeetna Roadhouse 9 Alaska Garden Gate Bed & Breakfast 8 Alaska Gold Rush B&B Cabins 8 Bentalit Lodge 8 Chelatna Lake Lodge 8


Mat-Su Lodging by Number of Rooms (cont’d)

# of Rooms Fireweed Station Inn 8 Gate Creek Cabins 8 Paradise Lodge and Cabins 8 Skwentna Roadhouse, Inc. 8 Susitna River Lodging 8 The Forks Roadhouse 8 Alaska Creekside Cabins 7 Pioneer Ridge B&B Inn 7 Stephan Lake Lodge 7 Alaska Birch Cottages 6 Alaska Kozey Cabins 6 Alaska Vacation Packages.com 6 Deshka River Lodge 6 Pioneer Lodge, Inc. 6 Riversong Lodge, Inc. 6 Sunshine Lake B&B/Resort 6 Wilderness Place Lodge 6 Windbreak Cafe, Bar & Hotel 6 Alaska Denali Bed & Breakfast 5 Alaska Lakeside Lodge 5 Alaska's Harvest Bed & Breakfast 5 Grace And Bill's Freedom Hills B & B 5 Hatcher Pass Bed & Breakfast 5 High Lake Lodge 5 Mendeltna Creek Lodge 5 North Country Bed & Breakfast 5 Northwoods Lodge 5 Talkeetna Cabins 5 Tara Dells Bed & Breakfast 5 Willow Vacation Rental 5 Winterlake Lodge 5 Alaskan Host Bed & Breakfast 4 Alaska's Lake Lucille Bed & Breakfast 4 Anglers Inn 4 Birchwood Cabins 4 Caribou Lodge 4 Chugach Adventure Guides 4 H and H Lakeview Restaurant and Lodge 4 Lake Lucille Bed & Breakfast 4 Matanuska Lodge 4 McKinley View B & B 4 Rainy Pass Lodge 4 Speedway Inn Motel 4


Mat-Su Lodging by Number of Rooms (cont’d)

# of Rooms Talkeetna B and B Inn 4 Talkeetna Hostel International 4 Tollers' Timbers Chalets 4 Alaskan Explorers and Fishermen 3 Alaska's Caribou Cabins 3 A-Lazy Acres B & B 3 Birch Pond Lodge 3 Castle Mountain Bed & Breakfast 3 Denali View Chalets 3 Gigglewood Lakeside Inn 3 Grand View Cafe, Cottages & Campground 3 Lazy Mountain Bed and Breakfast 3 McKinley Foothills B and B 3 Moose Wallow Bed & Breakfast 3 River Crest Manor Bed & Breakfast 3 Rose Ridge Bed & Breakfast 3 Shell Lake Lodge 3 Talkeetna Chalet Bed & Breakfast 3 Adventures Unlimited 2 Alaska Vacation Homes 2 Alaska's Snowed Inn Bed & Breakfast 2 Big Susitna B & B 2 Cookie Jar Gardens B&B 2 Country Pleasures Bed & Breakfast 2 Gatehouse B&B and Vacation Homes 2 Neil Lake Trading Post 2 Northern Lights Adventures 2 Shady Acres Bed & Breakfast 2 The Dream A Dream Dog Farm 2 Trapper Creek Trading Post 2 Willow Creek Resort 2 Winsby's Far North - The Yukon House 2 Alaskan Chalet at Jade Lake 1 Chickaloon B&B 1 Dragonfly Gardens B&B 1 Harrington Gardens Bed & Breakfast 1 Lisa's Cabin 1 Susitna Valley River Guides 1 Timberlings B and B 1 Trapper John's B and B 1 Total Number of Rooms 1,602



Mat-Su Lodging by Region

# of Rooms

Glacier Country Valley Hotel 43 Alaska Choice Inn 30 Gold Miner's Hotel 28 Pioneer Motel and Apartments 28 The Point Lodge LLC 17 Sheep Mountain Lodge 14 Colony Inn 12 Majestic Valley Wilderness Lodge 10 King Mountain Lodge 10 Alaska Garden Gate Bed & Breakfast 8 Alaska Gold Rush Bed & Breakfast Cabins 8 Alaska Creekside Cabins 7 Alaska Birch Cottages 6 Alaska Vacation Packages.com 6 Alaska's Harvest Bed & Breakfast 5 Mendeltna Creek Lodge 5 Tara Dells Bed & Breakfast 5 Matanuska Lodge 4 Alaska's Caribou Cabins 3 A-Lazy Acres B & B 3 Castle Mountain Bed & Breakfast 3 Moose Wallow Bed & Breakfast 3 River Crest Manor Bed & Breakfast 3 Rose Ridge Bed & Breakfast 3 Grand View Cafe, Cottages & Campground 3 Lazy Mountain Bed & Breakfast 3 Cookie Jar Gardens B&B 2 Timberlings Bed & Breakfast 1 Chickaloon Bed &Breakfast 1

Glacier Country Total 274 rooms Gold Rush Country

Hatcher Pass Lodge 12 Motherlode Lodge 12 Hatcher Pass Bed & Breakfast 5 Lisa's Cabin 1

Gold Rush Country Total 30 rooms Lake Country

Grand View Inn & Suites 79 Best Western Lake Lucille Inn 54 Alaska's Select Inn Motel 15 Agate 13 Mat-Su Resort 12


Mat-Su Lodging by Region (cont’d)

# of Rooms

Sunset View B & B/Resort 11 Pioneer Ridge B&B Inn 7 Alaska Kozey Cabins 6 Windbreak Cafe, Bar & Hotel 6 Alaska Lakeside Lodge 5 Alaska's Lake Lucille Bed & Breakfast 4 Lake Lucille Bed & Breakfast 4 Tollers' Timbers Chalets 4 Alaskan Explorers and Fishermen 3 Country Pleasures Bed & Breakfast 2 Shady Acres Bed & Breakfast 2 Winsby's Far North - The Yukon House 2 Alaska's Snowed Inn Bed & Breakfast 2 Gatehouse Bed & Breakfast and Vacation Homes

2

Dragonfly Gardens Bed & Breakfast 1 Alaskan Chalet at Jade Lake 1 Harrington Gardens Bed & Breakfast 1

Lake Country Total 236 Rooms Lake Louise Area

Lake Louise Lodge 11 Eureka Lodge 10 Evergreen Lodge 9

Lake Louise Area Total 30 Rooms Denali Country

Princess Tours/Mt. McKinley Princess Lodge 460 Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge 212 Kashwitna Ridge Lodging 28 Talkeetna Hideaway 24 Swiss Alaska Inn 20 Mary's McKinley View Lodge 16 Latitude 62 LLC 12 Chinook Wind Cabins 9 Talkeetna Roadhouse 9 Fireweed Station Inn 8 Gate Creek Cabins 8 Paradise Lodge and Cabins 8 Susitna River Lodging 8 The Forks Roadhouse 8 Pioneer Lodge, Inc. 6 Sunshine Lake B&B/Resort 6 Alaska Denali Bed & Breakfast 5 Grace And Bill's Freedom Hills B & B 5 North Country Bed & Breakfast 5


Mat-Su Lodging by Region (cont’d) # of Rooms

Talkeetna Cabins 5 Willow Vacation Rental 5 Alaskan Host Bed & Breakfast 4 Birchwood Cabins 4 H and H Lakeview Restaurant and Lodge 4 Talkeetna B and B Inn 4 Talkeetna Hostel International 4 McKinley View B & B 4 Speeway Inn Motel 4 Denali View Chalets 3 Birch Pond Lodge 3 Gigglewood Lakeside Inn 3 McKinley Foothills B and B 3 Talkeetna Chalet Bed & Breakfast 3 Alaska Vacation Homes 2 Big Susitna B & B 2 Trapper Creek Trading Post 2 Willow Creek Resort 2 Northern Lights Adventures 2 The Dream A Dream Dog Farm 2 Susitna Valley River Guides 1 Trapper John's B and B 1

Denali Country Total 924 rooms Off the Beaten Path

Maclaren Enterprises, Inc. 12 Hewitt Lake Lodge 9 Bentalit Lodge 8 Chelatna Lake Lodge 8 Skwentna Roadhouse, Inc. 8 Stephan Lake Lodge 7 Riversong Lodge, Inc. 6 Wilderness Place Lodge 6 Deshka River Lodge 6 High Lake Lodge 5 Northwoods Lodge 5 Winterlake Lodge 5 Anglers Inn 4 Chugach Adventure Guides 4 Caribou Lodge 4 Rainy Pass Lodge 4 Shell Lake Lodge 3 Adventures Unlimited 2 Neil Lake Trading Post 2

Off The Beaten Path Total 108 rooms Source: Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau


Sports Facilities

Below are detailed tables providing descriptions of current sports facilities available in the Mat-Su Borough.

Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex Products and Services

Area Size Offerings

Ice Arena NHL-size

200 feet by 85 feet

Public skating, hockey, figure skating, concerts, graduation ceremonies, trade show

events, etc.

Turf Court 175 feet by 75 feet Soccer, volleyball, flag football, football and

baseball practices, birthday parties, etc.

Running Track 830 feet long 6.4 laps equals one mile

Meeting Rooms (three rooms)

650 sq. ft. per room (30 people capacity)

Retractable walls for 1,950 sq. ft. total (90 people total capacity)

Team meetings, small conferences, team and birthday parties, etc.

Indoor Ice Rinks, Mat-Su Borough

Rink Name Managed By Rink Size Spectator Size Location

Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex City of Wasilla NHL size 200’ X 85’

1,500 seated, with additional

standing room Wasilla

Brett Memorial Ice Arena Mat-Su Borough NHL size 200’ X 85’

500-700 seated, with additional standing room

Wasilla

Palmer Ice Rink City of Palmer NHL size 200’ X 85’ 500-700 seated, with additional standing room

Palmer

Golf Courses, Mat-Su Borough

Course Holes Ownership Location Palmer Golf Course 18 City of Palmer Palmer

Settlers Bay Golf Course 18 Private Wasilla

Sleepy Hollow Golf Course 9 Private Wasilla

Fishhook Golf Course 9 Private Wasilla


Tennis Courts, Baseball and Soccer Fields, Mat-Su Borough

Field Type Ownership Management Location Sherrod Recreational Fields

Baseball, Soccer Mat-Su Borough City of Palmer Palmer

Bumpus Recreational Complex

Baseball, Soccer City of Wasilla City of Wasilla Wasilla

Alcantra Athletic Complex Baseball, Soccer Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough Wasilla

Hays Fields Soccer Complex Soccer Private Private -

Hermon Brothers Field Baseball State of Alaska Private Palmer

Smith Park Baseball State of Alaska Wasilla Little League Inc. Wasilla

Palmer Ball Fields Baseball Mat-Su Borough City of Palmer Palmer

Fritzler / Ressler Little League Fields Baseball City of Wasilla Mat-Su School District Wasilla

Talkeetna Ball Park Baseball Private Private Talkeetna

Cope Industrial Way Ball Fields

Baseball City of Palmer City of Palmer Palmer

Bill Herman Tennis Courts Tennis Courts Mat-Su Borough City of Palmer Palmer

Other Public Venues

Alaska State Fair Facilities

Below are brief descriptions of the facilities located on the Alaska State Fair grounds.

COLONY THEATRE

The Colony Theatre is available year-round as a multi-use facility, featuring a 1,100 sq. ft. main area, with

seating for about 70. The theater also has two handicapped accessible restrooms. Past uses of the theatre

include board meetings, workshops, retreats, community meetings and classes.

FRANCE EQUESTRIAN CENTER

This facility includes two 124-foot by 250-foot arenas and three stables housing 102 stalls, most of which are

10-foot by 8-foot with half doors. The facility also offers bleachers, a VIP area, two small schooling areas, a

lunging corral, a judge’s booth with two announcer positions and PA systems, handicapped accessible

restrooms and a parking lot for 200 vehicles and trailers.

HOSKINS EXHIBITS

This 4,800 sq. ft. multi-use facility features amenities such as a kitchen stage, mini stage, restrooms and a

large, open area surrounded by built-in displays, which can be used in a variety of ways. The building, which

is available during the summer, is used for small banquets, auctions, hobby shows, demonstrations and

sewing and cooking classes.


RAVEN HALL

The 20,000 sq. ft. Raven Hall is the newest structure on the fairgrounds. With overhead doors, high ceilings,

restrooms, a developing kitchen area and generous electrical power and phone lines, this building is used for

small conventions, trade or consumer shows, exhibitions and large meetings.

SHELDON EVENTS CENTER

This 8,000 sq. ft. building, available during the summer, is used for small trade shows, clinics, assemblies of

up to 300 people and multiple events requiring close proximity. Amenities include onsite restrooms and an

exterior area designed for barbeques or other outdoor activities.

Museums

The table below provides a brief description of museums in the Mat-Su Borough.

Museums

Name Description Location Dorothy Page Museum and Old Wasilla Townsite Park

Regional history of mining, farming, Alaska Native and natural history; historic buildings. Much of the collection is owned by the Wasilla-Knik-Willow Creek Historical Society.

Wasilla

Knik Museum

Located on the Iditarod Trail and housed in one of the two remaining buildings from Knik's original townsite, the Knik Museum features the Sled Dog Musher's Hall of Fame on the second floor. The museum building contains a collection of clothing, dishes, furniture and artifacts from Knik's earlier days.

Wasilla

Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry

More than 200 major artifacts include aircraft, construction and mining equipment, tractors and farm machinery, fishing boats, railroad locomotives and road vehicles.

Mile 47, Parks

Highway

Colony House Museum/Palmer Historical Society

The house is an original "Colony Farm House" built expressly for the New Deal resettlement project sponsored in 1935 by the Roosevelt Administration. Visitors learn the history of the Colony Project from descendants of the original colonists who staff the house and serve as tour guides. The house is furnished ca. 1935-45, displaying some original furnishings.

Palmer

Palmer Museum of History and Art

Exhibits depicting the Palmer region’s art, history and development: Alaska Native, mining, homesteading, farming, 1935 Colony Project, Matanuska Maid Dairy. Agricultural showcase of Alaska vegetation and vegetable gardens.

Palmer

Talkeetna Historical Society

History of Talkeetna including mining, railroad and flying. A 12-foot by 12-foot scale model of Mt. McKinley with photographs. Also mountain climbing displays.

Talkeetna

Trapper Creek Museum The museum highlights the history of Trapper Creek, Cache Creek Mining District and Petersville Road. Displays include maps, pictures and artifacts reflecting the Gold Rush.

Trapper Creek


Parks, Campgrounds and Trails

Day Use Parks, Mat-Su Borough

Name Ownership Management

Mat-Su Borough Parks

Lucas Park / A-Moose-Ment Park Mat-Su Borough City of Palmer

Volunteer Park Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Fish Creek Day Park Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Talkeetna Village Park Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Christiansen Lake Park Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Highland Subdivision Park Mat-Su Borough City of Palmer

Coyote Lake Recreation Area Mat-Su Borough -

Palmer Parks

Dolphin Park City of Palmer City of Palmer

Bugge Park City of Palmer City of Palmer

Daron Drive Park City of Palmer City of Palmer

Palmer Town Square (Colony Square) City of Palmer City of Palmer

Wasilla Parks

Carter Park City of Wasilla City of Wasilla

Iditapark /Wonderland Park City of Wasilla City of Wasilla

Leo M. Nunley Park City of Wasilla City of Wasilla

Newcomb Wasilla Lake Park City of Wasilla City of Wasilla

State Parks and Recreational Areas

Nancy Lake State Recreation Area State of Alaska State of Alaska

Summit Lake State Recreation Site State of Alaska State of Alaska

Blair Lake State Recreation Site State of Alaska State of Alaska

Long Lake State Recreation Site State of Alaska State of Alaska

Tokositna River State Recreation Area State of Alaska State of Alaska

Independence Mine State Park State of Alaska State of Alaska

Sheep Creek Slough State of Alaska State of Alaska

Caribou Creek Gold Mining Area State of Alaska State of Alaska


Campgrounds, Mat-Su Borough

Name # of Campsites

Ownership Management Location

Mat-Su Borough

Matanuska River Park 20 Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough Palmer

Lake Lucille Park 59 Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough Wasilla

Little Susitna River Campground

86 Mat-Su Borough City of Houston Houston

Talkeetna River Park 12 Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough Talkeetna

State of Alaska

Lower Troublesome Creek Trailhead 20 State of Alaska - Denali State Park

Buyers Lake Lakeshore Campground 6 State of Alaska - Denali State Park

Byers Lake Campground 74 State of Alaska - Denali State Park

Denali Viewpoint North Campground 23 State of Alaska - Denali State Park

Kepler-Bradley State Recreation Area

0 State of Alaska Private Palmer

Big Lake South State Recreation Site 20 State of Alaska Private Big Lake

Big Lake North State Recreation Site 60 State of Alaska Private Big Lake

Finger Lake State Recreation Site

36 State of Alaska Private Wasilla

Willow Creek State Recreation Area 140 State of Alaska State of Alaska Willow

Nancy Lake State Recreation Site 30 State of Alaska State of Alaska Willow

King Mountain State Recreation Site

22 State of Alaska Private Sutton

Lake Louise State Recreation Area 58 State of Alaska State of Alaska Lake Louise

Matanuska Glacier State Recreation Site 6 State of Alaska Private Glacier View

Montana Creek State Recreation Site

36 State of Alaska Private Montana Creek

Hatcher Pass East Management Area 10 State of Alaska State of Alaska Hatcher Pass

Matanuska Lake 6 State of Alaska State of Alaska Glacier View

South Rolley Lake 98 State of Alaska State of Alaska -

Rocky Lake State Recreation Site

10 State of Alaska Private -


State Parks, Recreational Areas and Campgrounds

Finger Lake State Recreation Area

Location: Mi. 0.7 Bogard Rd. Park Features: Camping and fishing Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit

Picnic Sites Picnic Shelter

36 No Yes 7 days 10 No*

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station

Dump Station Electrical Toilets Water

Yes No No No Yes - Yes

Boat Launch Fishing Cabins Trails Historical Features

Acres

Yes Yes No Yes No 69

* Portable awning available by reservation.

Hatcher Pass East Management Area

Location: Hatcher Pass Road Park Features: Summer & winter recreation Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


Yes Yes Yes No No No

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station


Yes No No No No No


Acres

No No No Yes No 75,000

Gold Mint Trailhead

Location: Mile 14 Hatcher Pass Road Park Features: Trailhead and camping Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Historical Features

Boat Launch

Cabins Daily Parking

Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres

No No No Yes No No No -


Matanuska Lake

Location: Mile 36.4 Glenn Hwy. Park Features: Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


6 tent Tent only Yes 7 days 6 By reservation

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station


Yes No No No Yes Yes


Acres

No No No No No 6

King Mountain State Recreation Site

Location: Mi. 76 Glenn Hwy. Park Features: Camping Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


22 No Yes 14 days Yes 1*

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station




Acres

No No No No No 20


Matanuska Glacier State Recreation Site

Location: Mi. 101 Glenn Hwy. Park Features: Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


6 tent No Yes 7 days 8 no

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station


Yes No No No Yes - Yes -


Acres

No No Yes Yes No 229


Big Lake North State Recreation Area

Location: Mi. 5 North Big Lake Rd. Park Features: Recreation area Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


60 No Yes 7 days 24 3*

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station




Acres

Yes Yes No No No 19

*Portable awning available by reservation.

Big Lake South State Recreation Site

Location: Mi. 5.2 South Big Lake Rd. Park Features: Recreation area Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


20 7 days 10 No*

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station


Yes No No No Yes - Yes


Acres

Yes Yes No No No 22

*Portable awning available by reservation.

South Rolly Lake Campground

Location: Mi. 6.5 Nancy Lake Parkway Park Features: Camping Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


98 No Yes 15 days 12 1

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station




Acres

Small Boat Yes No Yes No -


Nancy Lake State Recreation Site

Location: Mi. 66.5 Parks Highway Park Features: Camping and fishing Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


30 No Yes 15 days Yes Yes

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station


No No No No Yes Yes


Acres

Yes Yes No No No 36

Rocky Lake State Recreation Site

Location: Mi. 3.5 Big Lake Rd. Park Features: Camping and Fishing Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


10 No Yes 7 days No No*

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station




Acres

Yes Yes No No No 49


Willow Creek State Recreation Area

Location: Mi. 20.8 Parks Hwy. Park Features: Camping and fishing Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

140 - No Yes 4-15 days, depending on season

No No

Daily Parking

Fee

Entrance Station

Dump Station

Electrical Toilets Water


Boat Launch

Fishing Cabins Trails Historical Features

Acres

No Yes No Yes No 3,583


Montana Creek State Recreation Site

Location: Mi. 96.5 Parks Hwy. Park Features: Camping Camp Sites

RV Size Limit

Camping Fee

Camping Limit


36 No Yes None 36 No

Daily Parking Fee

Entrance Station


No No No No Yes Yes


Acres

No Yes No Yes No 82

STATE TRAILS

Archangel Road Trailhead

Location: Mile 15 Hatcher Pass Road Park Features: Trailhead Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No No No No No No Yes

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres


Fishhook Trailhead

Location: Mile 16.5 Hatcher Pass Road Park Features: Trailhead Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No No No No Yes No Yes

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres



Gold Mint Trailhead

Location: Mile 14 Hatcher Pass Road Park Features: Trailhead and camping Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres


Canoe Lake

Location: 38 Glenn Hwy Park Features: Excellent Fishing Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No No No No Yes - No Yes

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres

No No No Yes No No Yes 349

Irene Lake


Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails


Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres


Long Lake


Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No No No No Yes - No Yes

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres



Canoe System Trailhead

Location: 4.8 Nancy Lake Parkway Park Features: Trailhead & Fishing Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No Yes No No Yes No Yes

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres

No No No Yes No No Yes -

Winter Trailhead

Location: 2.2 Nancy Lake Parkway Park Features: Trailhead Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No No No No Yes No Yes

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres

No No Yes Yes No No Yes -

STATE PICNIC AREAS

Government Peak

Location: Mile 11 Hatcher Pass Road Park Features: Picnic area Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No No Yes No No No No

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres


STATE CULTURAL PARKS

Independence Mine State Historical Park

Location: 17.3 Hatcher Pass Road Park Features: Independence Mine SHP Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No No Yes No Yes - Yes Yes -

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres

Yes - No No Yes No No No 761


OTHER STATE RECREATION SITES

Summit Lake State Recreation Site

Location: 19.2 Hatcher Pass Road Park Features: Summit Lake SRS Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails


Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres

No No No No No No No 360

Nancy Lake State Recreation Area

Location: 67.2 Parks Hwy. Park Features: Nancy Lake SRA Camp Sites

Camping Limit

Camping Fee

Picnic Sites

Picnic Shelter

Toilet Water Trails

No No No No No No No No

Historical Features

Boat Launch


Fee

Dump Station

Entrance Station

Fishing Acres

No No Yes No No No Yes 22,685


Trails, Mat-Su Borough

Name Season Ownership Management Mat-Su Borough

Crevasse Moraine System Trailhead Year-round Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Lazy Mt / Morgan Horse Trailhead

Year-round Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

West Butte Trailhead Summer Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Jordan Lake Nature Walk Summer Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Trapper Lake Winter Trail Winter Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Amber Lake - Rabideaux Winter Trails Winter Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

Parker Lake Winter Trail Winter Mat-Su Borough Mat-Su Borough

State of Alaska

Goldmint Trailhead Year-round State of Alaska State of Alaska

Fishhook Trailhead Year-round State of Alaska State of Alaska

River Trailhead Year-round State of Alaska State of Alaska

Old Man Creek Trailhead Year-round State of Alaska State of Alaska

Crooked Creek Trailhead Year-round State of Alaska State of Alaska

Purinton Creek Trailhead Year-round State of Alaska State of Alaska

Nancy Lake Canoe Trail System Summer State of Alaska State of Alaska

Redshirt Lake Trailhead Summer State of Alaska State of Alaska

Cragie Creek Trailhead Summer State of Alaska State of Alaska

Reed Lakes Trailhead Summer State of Alaska State of Alaska

Eska Creek Falls Trailhead Summer State of Alaska State of Alaska Upper Troublesome Creek Trailhead Summer State of Alaska State of Alaska

Archangel Road Trailhead Summer State of Alaska State of Alaska

Government Peak Trailhead

Summer State of Alaska State of Alaska

Nancy Lake State Recreation Area Winter Trailhead

Winter State of Alaska State of Alaska

Willow Crk Sled Trailhead (Dave Churchill Mem.)

Winter State of Alaska State of Alaska

Alaska Railroad

Palmer-Moose Creek Railroad Trailhead (south end)

Year-round Alaska Railroad

Corporation -


Trails, Mat-Su Borough (cont’d)

Name Season Ownership Management Palmer-Moose Creek Railroad Trailhead (north end)

Year-round Alaska Railroad

Corporation -

Private lands with Public Right of Ways (ROW)

Ridge Trailhead Year-round ROW -

Old RCA Trailhead Year-round ROW -

Pioneer Ridge - Austin Helmers Trailhead Summer ROW -

McRoberts & Matanuska Peak Trailhead

Summer ROW -

East-West Express Trail Winter ROW -

Tokositna River Trail Winter ROW -

Private

Palmer Hay Flats State Game Refuge

Year-round Private -


Highway Pull-Outs and Waysides

Parks Highway

Information in the following table is drawn from the Trails & Recreational Access for Alaska (TRAAK) Corridor

Assessment.

Parks Highway: Developed Sites

Milepost Name Side of Highway Toilets Parking Interpretive Picnic Viewpoint Comments

98.7 Talkeetna Visitors Center

NB X X X X - Wayside

104.2 Big Susitna

River Wayside

SB X X - X - Wayside

121.6 Chulitna

State River Rest Area

NB X X - X - -

135.2 Denali View

Wayside SB X - X - X Wayside

137.2 Lower

Troublesome Creek

SB X X - X - Campground

147.0 Byers Lake

Campground NB X X X X X Campground

147.1 Alaska

Veterans Memorial

NB X X X X X Wayside

162.4 Denali View

Wayside North

SB X X X X X Wayside


In addition to the developed sites, there are numerous undeveloped pull-outs along the Parks Highway.

Parks Highway: Undeveloped Pull-Outs

Milepost Side of Highway Name Comments

99.3 SB Montana Lake Gravel pull out for lake access 102.3 NB Mat-Su Refuse Transfer - 102.5 - Sunshine Creek Limited parking and camping 104.6 SB Mat-Su Day Use Area Popular trailhead site 123.8 SB n/a Gravel pull off 126.5 NB n/a Paved pull off 127.1 SB n/a Gravel pull off/signed 139.8 SB n/a Paved pull off 140 SB Curry Ride Trailhead - 156 - Kesugi Ridge Trailhead - 161 NB n/a Gravel pull off 162.3 SB n/a Paved pull off 163.1 NB n/a Paved pull out 163.7 SB n/a Double ended paved pull out 163.9 NB n/a Gravel pull out/trailhead 165.6 B n/a Paved pull out 170.3 SB n/a Paved pull out 173 - n/a Paved pull out scenic view point 174 - n/a Hurricane Gulch/heavily used site need to be

176.1 NB n/a Paved pull out 176.6 SB n/a Double ended paved pull out 177.9 NB n/a Paved pull out 178.1 - n/a Honolulu Creek/gravel pull out 179.5 SB n/a Paved pull out 180 SB Mile 180 Lake Double ended paved pull out 183.1 SB n/a Double ended paved pull out 184.5 SB n/a Paved pull out 185 NB East Fork Rest Area Gravel pull out 186.5 NB n/a Paved pull out 187.5 SB n/a Paved pull out 190 SB n/a Double ended gravel pull out 191.2 SB n/a Large paved pull out 194.4 SB Middle Fork Chulitna Limited gravel parking

195.5 NB Scenic Views/Mt McKinley

and Broad Pass Paved pull out


Glenn Highway

Information in the following tables is drawn from the Trails & Recreational Access for Alaska (TRAAK) Corridor

Assessment.

Glenn Highway: Developed Sites

Milepost Name Side of Highway Toilets Parking Interpretive Picnic Viewpoint Comments

41 Mat-Su Visitors Center

NB X X X X - ½ mile off

Glenn Highway

76

King Mountain

State Recreation

Area

NB X X X - - Campground

85.3

Long Lake State

Recreation Area

NB X X X X X Campground

101

Matanuska Glacier State Recreation

Area

NB X X - - X Wayside

118.5 Trailhead/ Viewpoint SB X X X X X Wayside


In addition to the developed sites, there are numerous undeveloped pull-outs along the Glenn Highway.

Glenn Highway: Undeveloped Pull-Outs


36.5 - Matanuska Townsite Overlook - 37.2 - Echo Lake Pull Out Gravel parking and lake access 49.9 NB Matanuska River Overlook Double ended paved pull out 54.2 - n/a Gravel pull off 55 - n/a Gravel pull off 56 NB n/a Gravel pull off 56.5 SB n/a Gravel pull off 57.6 NB n/a Gravel pull off 58.6 NB n/a Small scenic viewpoint 60.3 - n/a Small scenic viewpoint 60.7 SB n/a Double ended paved pull out 61.6 - Alpine Historic Park Parking 62.8 NB Sutton Matanuska River Viewpoint Large Parking Area 65.6 NB n/a Gravel pull out 66.4 - King River Trailhead - 66.8 NB n/a Gravel pull out 66.9 NB n/a Gravel pull out 68.6 NB n/a Gravel pull out 68.7 NB n/a Gravel pull out 70.5 NB n/a Gravel pull out 71.7 SB n/a Gravel pull out 72.9 SB n/a Gravel pull out 73 SB n/a Gravel pull out 74 NB n/a Gravel pull out 74.6 NB n/a Gravel pull out 75.4 NB n/a Gravel pull out 75.5 NB n/a Gravel pull out 76.4 NB n/a Gravel pull out 76.7 NB n/a Gravel pull out 77.4 NB n/a Gravel pull out 77.8 - n/a Gravel pull out 78.1 NB King Mountain Viewpoint Gravel pull out 80 NB n/a Gravel pull out 80.8 NB n/a Gravel pull out 82 NB n/a Gravel pull out 84 NB n/a Gravel pull out 84.6 SB n/a Gravel pull out 85.9 NB n/a Gravel pull out 86.5 NB n/a Gravel pull out 86.6 NB n/a Gravel pull out 87.3 SB n/a Gravel pull out 87.5 NB Weiner Lake Limited access gravel parking



87.6 NB Weiner Lake Large gravel pull off above Weiner Lake 87.8 NB n/a Gravel pull out 90.7 SB Puritan Creek Trailhead - 92.7 B n/a Gravel pull out 96.7 SB n/a Gravel pull out 98.1 - n/a Gravel pull out 101.6 NB n/a Gravel pull out 102.7 NB n/a Gravel pull out 105.5 NB n/a Gravel pull out 106 NB n/a Large pull out overlooking Caribou Creek 106.8 SB Caribou Creek Trailhead Gravel pull out 107.6 NB n/a Gravel pull out 112.7 SB Lions Head Viewpoint Double ended paved pull out 113.7 - n/a Paved pull out 114.3 NB Scenic Viewpoint Signed wide shoulder pull off 115 NB Scenic Viewpoint Double ended paved pull out 117.2 SB Camp Creek Trailhead Double ended paved pull out 118.9 NBz n/a Double ended paved pull out 120.5 SB Paleontological Interpretive Scenic Undeveloped 121.3 SB Signed Trailhead Gravel pull out 123.3 - Belanger Pass Trailhead - 126.4 SB Nelchina River Trailhead - 127 NB n/a Gravel pull out

129.3 NB Eureka Summit Interpretive Site Highest elevation on Glenn Highway, viewpoint,

very rough gravel pull out

Other Major Roads

PETERSVILLE MINE ROAD

The Petersville Road begins at mile 115 of the Parks Highway. The first ten miles of the road are paved, with

winter maintenance ending at mile 14 at the Kroto Creek parking area where a trailhead and restroom facility

are located. This is a very popular area for snowmobiling in the winter. During the summer, travel past mile

14 is recommended for four-wheel drive vehicles only.

TALKEETNA SPUR ROAD

The Talkeetna Spur Road begins at Milepost 98.7 of the Parks Highway. From the Parks Highway junction, it is

14 miles into downtown Talkeetna. There is a paved parallel bike path for much of the way along the Spur

Road. There are no public facilities, trailheads, viewpoints or rest areas along the Spur Road.


PALMER/ WILLOW FISHHOOK ROAD

The Palmer/Willow Fishhook Road crosses the Talkeetna Mountains over Hatcher Pass. Fishhook Road starts at

the junction of the Glenn Highway just east of Palmer and ends 48 miles later at the junction of the Parks

Highway. The road is paved and well maintained up to the entrance of the Independence Mine State Historic

Site. The road is closed at mile 18 in the winter. In the summer the road continues over Hatcher Pass at mile

19 and then continues down to Willow for 29 more miles.

Along the Fishhook Road there are trailheads for Government Peak, Gold Mint Trail, Reed Lakes, Archangel

Trail, Fishhook Trail, Cragie Creek Trail and Willow Creek Trail. At the top of the pass is the Summit Lake

Recreation Area. There are trails and view points at Summit Lake, but no other visitor services.

KNIK ARM BRIDGE

The possibility of an 8,200 foot bridge over Knik Arm, connecting Anchorage and Port MacKenzie area, has

been evaluated over the past few years. In December 2007, the Federal Highway Administration signed a final

Environmental Impact Statement for the project. The final hurdle to start the project will be the approval of

the plan by the Federal Highway Administration. The preferred approach on the Mat-Su Borough side begins

at the intersection of the Burma Road and Point Mackenzie Road, traveling south to the Point Mackenzie

District, and following the northern alignment through the Point Mackenzie District.

If this bridge is developed, it could have implications for visitor traffic patterns; however, at this point, no tour

company is planning for any changes in their programs.


Airports

Mat-Su Borough Public Airports

Airport # of RWs

Primary RW

Length

Primary RW

Width

Primary RW

Surface Taxiway

RW Lighting

Based Aircraft*

Services Available

Big Lake 1 2,435 70 Gravel None MIRL SE - 75 H - 1 UL - 3

Maintenance

Goose Bay 1 3,000 75 Gravel None None SE - 2 None

Lake Louise 1 700 18 Gravel None None None

Airport closed

Palmer 3 6,009 100 Asphalt Full

parallel

MIRL, VASI, PAPI

SE - 200 ME - 15

H - 7 G - 5

Fuel, maintenance, FSS on field

Sheep Mountain

1 2,270 60 ft. (10’usable)

Gravel None None None RW not

maintained

Skwentna 1 3,400 75 Gravel None MIRL SE - 3 None

Summit 1 3,840 80 Gravel None None None None

Talkeetna 1 3,500 75 Asphalt Full

parallel MIRL, VASI

SE - 50 Fuel,

maintenance, FSS on field

Wasilla 1 3,700 75 Asphalt

Full parallel (under const)

MIRL SE - 100 Fuel,

maintenance

Willow 1 4,400 75 Gravel None MIRL SE - 87 ME - 2

Fuel, maintenance

Notes: SE = Single Engine, ME = Multi Engine, J = Jet, H = Helicopters, G = Gliders, UL = Ultralight, RW = runway, FSS - Flight Service Station, MIRL - medium intensity runway lights, PAPI = precision approach path indicator, VASI = visual approach slope indicator. Source: FAA Form 5010


Seaplane Bases

Facility FAA Site FAA Identifier

Public or Private Use?

Beaver Lake Seaplane 50068.65*C D7 1 PublicBig Lake (not registered) - PublicBlodget Lake Seaplane 50870.6*C D75 PublicCottonwood Lake Seaplane 50870.35*C 3H3 PublicFinger Lake Seaplane 50585.12*C 99Z PrivateFlyway Farm Airstrip 50870.52*A 36AK PrivateGooding Lake Seaplane 50584.41 *C 2D3 PrivateKalmbach Lake Seaplane 50870.5*C 54AK PrivateLake Louise 50439.1*C 13S PublicLake Lucille Seaplane 50870.58*C 4A3 PublicLost Lake Seaplane 50870.43*C 57AK PrivateMels Homestead Landing 50870.5 1*A 38AK PrivateMinuteman Lake Seaplane 50877.32*C MFN PublicMorvro Lake Seaplane 50325.01 *C 4K2 PublicNancy Lake Seaplane 50519.5*C 78Z PublicNiklason Lake Seaplane 50870.64*C 4AK0 PublicSeymour Lake Seaplane 50870.47*C 3A3 PublicStormy Hill 50584.42*C 9AK1 PrivateUpper Wasilla Lake Seaplane 50870.62*C 3K9 PublicVisnaw Lake Seaplane 50870.1 8*C T66 PrivateWallis Lake Seaplane 50870.44*C 62AK PrivateWasilla Lake 50870.2*C 5L6 Public Willow (not Willow Seaplane Base)

50878.*A UUO Public

Willow Seaplane 50877.01*C 2X2 Not ListedWolf Lake 50584.21*A 4AK6 Private


Appendix B: Mat-Su Visitor Markets

Out of State Visitor Data

This section includes detailed information about out-of state visitors’ mode of transportation, length of stay,

type of lodging, activities and demographics.

Transportation Modes Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Palmer/WasillaMode of Entry into Alaska

Air 70% 74% 95% Cruise 23 6 - Highway 6 19 4 Ferry 1 2 1

Mode of Exit from Alaska Air 64% 76% 99% Cruise 30 5 - Highway 5 18 <1 Ferry 1 1 1

Used to Travel Between Communities1 Motorcoach/bus 52% 9% * Train 49 9 * Rental vehicle 27 41 * Air 14 10 * Personal vehicle 9 33 * State ferry 4 5 * Rental RV 8 8 * Personal RV 1 9 * None of the above 1 4 * Don’t know/refused <1 1 *

*Sample size too small for analysis. 1 These responses are based to intercept respondents only.


Length of Stay, Destinations and Type of Lodging Visitors to Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla

Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Palmer/Wasilla Average length of stay in Alaska

12.8 nights 14.6 nights 10.4 nights

Regions Visited Southcentral 100% 100% 100% Interior 89 63 25 Southeast 65 30 7 Southwest 4 4 <1 Far North 4 6 1

Leading Alaska Destinations Talkeetna 100% 38% 9% Anchorage 89 94 88 Denali 86 52 8 Fairbanks 60 40 12 Juneau 57 16 5 Skagway 56 20 - Ketchikan 50 13 <1 Seward 49 52 12 Glacier Bay/Gustavus 26 10 - Whittier 33 27 3 Palmer/Wasilla 25 100 100 Kenai/Soldotna 22 35 12 Girdwood/Alyeska 21 29 16 Hoonah/Icy Strait Point 20 2 - Homer 19 33 9 Sitka 14 8 1 Glennallen 13 30 2 Valdez 10 21 2

Lodging Types Used Cruise ship 53% 10% -% Hotel/motel 74 57 46 Lodge 50 18 4 Private home 11 32 59 B&B 14 18 3 Commercial campground 9 19 <1 State/national campground

7 14 2

Wilderness camping 3 6 1 Other 9 12 6


Activities in Alaska1 Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Palmer/WasillaShopping 86% 70% 51% Wildlife viewing 83 61 25

Birdwatching 23 18 6 Cultural activities 72 49 17

Museums 45 41 5 Native cultural attractions 38 15 5 Historic/cult. attractions 25 17 8 Gold panning/mine tour

36 13 2

Day cruises 67 38 <1 Train 55 15 2

Alaska Railroad 44 11 2 City/sightseeing tours 52 23 6 Hiking/nature walk 43 45 6 Fishing 28 33 2

Guided 21 14 1 Unguided 8 24 8

Flightseeing 26 9 2 Visiting friends/relatives 20 49 59 Salmon bake 19 7 - Shows/AK. entertainment 17 12 2

Rafting 16 4 - Tramway/gondola 15 5 3 Camping 14 25 <1 Dog sledding 13 9 5 Kayaking/canoeing 6 3 - Business 5 15 30 Northern Lights viewing 4 1 6

Biking 4 4 <1 Hunting <1 1 - Snowmobiling - - 5 Snow skiing/boarding - - 3

1 These responses are based to intercept respondents only.


Activities in Talkeetna and Palmer/Wasilla1 Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Palmer/Wasilla Wildlife viewing 9% 12% 8%

Birdwatching 2 1 2 Cultural activities 7 12 5

Museums 5 6 - Native cultural tours/act. - - - Historical/cultural attractions 2 5 3 Gold panning/mine tour - 2 2

Visiting friends/relatives 2 25 43 Day cruises 6 1 - Hiking/nature walk 6 13 - Fishing 9 5 -

Guided 5 1 - Unguided 4 4 -

City/sightseeing tours 6 2 2 Camping 3 13 - Flightseeing 15 - - Shows/Alaska entertainment - - - Tramway/gondola - - - Dog sledding 1 4 - Rafting 3 1 - Kayaking/canoeing - 1 - Salmon bake 1 - - Biking - 1 - Hunting <1 - - Snowmobiling - - 5 Northern Lights viewing - - 2 Other 1 5 2 1 These responses are based to intercept respondents only. Note: Participation in shopping, Alaska Railroad and business were not recorded at the community/regional level.


Demographics Summer 2006 and Fall/Winter 2006-07

Summer Fall/Winter Talkeetna Palmer/Wasilla Palmer/WasillaOrigin

Western US 29% 44% 59% Southern US 25 19 15 Eastern US 19 11 6 Midwestern US 18 15 13 Canada 2 4 3 Other International 8 7 2

Other Demographics Average party size1 2.4 2.2 1.5 Male/female 47/53 52/48 49/51 Average age 51.6 51.0 44.7 Children in household 19% 18% 30% Retired/semi-retired 45 42 24 College graduate 65 55 46 Average income $101,000 $88,000 $88,000

1 These responses are based to intercept respondents only.

The following table provides more detailed information on visitors who traveled in Glacier Country (along the

Glenn Highway), including trip purpose, mode of entry/exit to/from Alaska, length of stay, destinations,

lodging type, activities and demographic information.


Glacier Country (Glenn Highway) Market Analysis Summer 2006

Highway/Ferry Glennallen

Estimated Visitor Volume 85,000 69,000 Trip Purpose

Vacation/pleasure 82% 84% Visiting friends/relatives 12 10 Business 7 7

Mode of Entry into Alaska Highway 78% 34% Air 7 60 Ferry 15 3 Cruise - 3

Mode of Exit from Alaska Highway 72% 34% Air 14 62 Ferry 14 3 Cruise - 2

Length of Stay in Alaska Average nights in Alaska 18.8 19.0

Leading Alaska Destinations (Top 5) Anchorage 59% 91% Tok 56 45 Fairbanks 50 66 Kenai Peninsula 48 72 Denali 46 74

Lodging Types Used in Alaska (Top 5) Commercial campground 45% 39% Hotel/motel 37 58 State/national campground 26 24 Private home 22 17 Non-campground camping/other 13 15

Activities in Alaska (Top 10)1 Shopping 60% 72% Wildlife viewing 47 70 Camping 46 50 Museums 44 57 Fishing 36 38 Hiking/nature walk 35 54 Day cruises 33 59 Visiting friends and relatives 29 29 City/sightseeing tours 25 37 Historical/cultural activities 15 25

1 Activities are based to intercept respondents only.


In-state Visitor Data

Alaska Resident Visitor Profile

The study team examined the two recently conducted studies that profiled Alaska residents’ travel patterns in

the Mat-Su region. The most recent study captured Mat-Su travel information at a more general level, as the

context of the study was to understand statewide patterns, motives and information sources. The research

conducted specifically for Mat-Su in 1997-98 probed for significantly more information about travel

frequency, spending and experiences in the region. Key findings from the two studies are summarized below.

ALASKA RESIDENT IN-STATE PLEASURE TRAVEL STUDY

The following information about the in-state pleasure travel market is summarized from the survey conducted

by GMA Research Corporation for the Alaska Travel Industry Association. In-state pleasure travel represents a

significant portion of the Alaska travel market—especially for Mat-Su communities and attractions located

along the highway system. The full study included surveys with residents located in nine Alaska regions:

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Kenai, Mat-Su, Urban Southeast, Rural Southeast, Interior Highways, Southwest and

Other Interior. Travel information most relevant to Mat-Su included the statewide sample and the three

largest and most accessible communities (Anchorage, Fairbanks and Kenai).

This research reinforces the study team’s assumptions about frequent travel by Anchorage residents to Mat-Su

destinations for both day and overnight trips. Additionally, Alaska residents transit the Mat-Su region when

traveling to other Alaska destinations like Denali, Fairbanks and destinations along the Richardson Highway.

Fairbanks and Kenai residents also travel to and through the Mat-Su borough with great frequency. While

their resident population is smaller than Anchorage, they are much more likely than Anchorage residents to

stay in hotels or other accommodations, while Anchorage residents are more likely to camp.

STATEWIDE SURVEY RESULTS

Statewide findings regarding day trips:

• Statewide, 62 percent of residents took one or more day trips 50 miles from home within the past

year.

• Residents living along the Southcentral road system participated in more frequent day trips than

residents in other areas. Kenai Peninsula residents reported the highest in-state pleasure travel rate

(87 percent), followed by Anchorage and Mat-Su residents (85 percent and 84 percent respectively).

• Alaska residents took an average of 10.9 day trips. The average party size was 3.1 people.

• The leading motives for day trips included visiting friends and family (40 percent), fishing (30

percent), shopping (26 percent) and sightseeing (24 percent).

• Peak travel months were June, July and August.


Statewide findings regarding overnight trips:

• Eighty-eight percent of residents took at least one overnight trip in the past year. The average

number of overnight pleasure trips was 6.3 trips. The average party size was 2.9 people.

• Leading motives for in-state pleasure travel included visiting friends and family (50 percent),

fun/pleasure (24 percent), shopping (22 percent) and fishing (21 percent).

• As with day trips, the peak months for overnight pleasure travel were the mid-summer months.

ANCHORAGE SURVEY RESULTS

Anchorage findings regarding day trips:

• The vast majority of Anchorage residents (85 percent) took one or more day trips in the past year.

• Several Mat-Su communities were among the leading day-trip destinations including Wasilla (23

percent), Talkeetna (17 percent) and Palmer (14 percent).

• Leading travel motives included visiting friends and family, fishing, sightseeing and fun/pleasure.

Anchorage findings regarding overnight trips:

• Eighty-one percent of Anchorage residents took at least one overnight trip in the past year.

• Leading destinations included Seward (33 percent), Homer (31 percent), Fairbanks (19 percent),

Kenai (18 percent), Valdez (8 percent), Denali/Denali Park (8 percent) and Talkeetna (8 percent).

• The most frequently mentioned lodging choices included motel/hotel (41 percent), friend/relative

house (29 percent), motorhome/camper in campground (23 percent), tent camping (22 percent),

cabin (16 percent) and motorhome/camper not in campground (12 percent).

FAIRBANKS SURVEY RESULTS

Fairbanks findings regarding day trips:

• Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of Fairbanks residents took one or more day trips 50 miles from home

within the past year.

• Top day-trip destinations included Delta (33 percent), Denali (28 percent), Anchorage (25 percent)

and Chena Hot Springs/Chena Lake (25 percent).

Fairbanks findings regarding overnight trips:

• Virtually all Fairbanks residents took at least one overnight pleasure trip in the past year (94 percent).

• The leading destinations included Anchorage (72 percent), Valdez (27 percent) and Wasilla (10

percent). Travel frequency for each of the three destination communities was similar, ranging from

2.5 trips to 2.9 trips.


• Fairbanks residents utilized motels and hotels significantly more often than other choices. Sixty

percent utilized a motel/hotel while 27 percent stayed with friends or relatives. Various camping

options were mentioned by 15 percent or less.

KENAI SURVEY RESULTS

Kenai findings regarding day trips:

• While 87 percent of Kenai residents reported taking at least one day-trip, Mat-Su communities were

not among the leading destinations.

Kenai findings regarding overnight trips:

• Eighty-eight percent of Kenai residents took one or more overnight pleasure trips in the past year.

• Wasilla was the third most frequently mentioned destination at 13 percent. Kenai residents who had

traveled to Wasilla reported an average of 2.9 trips in the past year.

• It is also important to point out that 10 percent of Kenai residents visited Fairbanks during the past

year. The average number of trips was 2.6. These residents likely transited, and possibly overnighted,

in Mat-Su on their way to and from Fairbanks.

Kenai residents also demonstrate strong preferences for commercial lodging, with 65 percent staying in a

hotel or motel, followed by 48 percent that stayed with friends or relatives. Various camping alternatives were

mentioned by 8 percent or fewer residents.

MAT-SU VISITOR IMPACT STUDIES

The following information is drawn from the series of reports about the Mat-Su visitor markets conducted in

1997-98 by Alaska Village Initiatives. While this study is dated, it is one of the most comprehensive analyses of

the in-state travel market available.

Important conclusions drawn from this research include the fact that the Anchorage market, due to the large

population base and propensity to take frequent day and overnight trips, is the most important in-state

market for Mat-Su. While a significant portion of this market elects to make day trips or camp at various times

of the year, they also use Mat-Su accommodations with great frequency.

Detailed information on visitor volume, travel patterns and activities can be found in Appendix B.

VISITOR VOLUME

During fall/winter 1997-1998, an estimated 166,587 Alaska residents visited Mat-Su.1 The total number of

trips taken by Alaska residents was estimated at nearly 1.7 million trips. Spending in the region was estimated

at $45.3 million. Anchorage residents were nearly twice as likely to visit Mat-Su as residents from Fairbanks or

Kenai/Soldotna.

1 Mat-Su Visitor Impact Study, Fall/Winter 1997-1998, Alaska Village Initiatives


During summer 1998, an estimated 238,214 Alaska residents visited Mat-Su.2 The total number of trips

exceeded 1.4 million, and annual spending by residents visiting during the summer months was more than

$40 million. As in the fall/winter months, Anchorage residents are significantly more likely to visit Mat-Su than

residents from Fairbanks or Kenai/Soldotna.

In the following tables, detailed information on in-state visitor volume, travel patterns, activities and

expenditures is found.

Estimated Alaska Resident Visitation Fall/Winter 1997-98

Community Population % Visiting

Mat-Su Residents Visiting

Anchorage 254,849 59% 150,386

Fairbanks 31,850 33 10,370


Total 303,467 55% 166,587 Source: Alaska Village Initiatives. Fall/Winter percentages were rounded for this table.

Estimated Alaska Resident Visitation Summer 1998

Community Population % Visiting

Mat-Su Residents Visiting

Anchorage 254,849 86% 219,170

Fairbanks 31,850 44 14,014


Total 303,467 79% 238,214 Source: Alaska Village Initiatives.

TRAVEL PATTERNS

In the fall/winter of 1997-98, Alaska residents who traveled to the Mat-Su region took an average of ten trips

there. In the summer of 1998, the average number of trips was six.

Recreation/pleasure was the trip purpose of nearly seven out of ten Alaska residents in the summer and nearly

half during the fall/winter. Mat-Su was the final destination for most residents traveling in the region.

Forty-two percent of Alaska residents visiting the Mat-Su Borough did not stay overnight in the fall/winter

and just over half did not stay overnight in the summer. Thirty-eight percent of fall/winter visitors stayed

overnight at private homes or personal cabins; only 9 percent stayed in motel/hotels or B&Bs. Similarly, just 8

percent of summer visitors stayed in hotel/motels or B&Bs. The most frequently used accommodation choices

were RV camping, private homes and tent camping.

2 Mat-Su Visitor Impact Study, Summer 1998, Alaska Village Initiatives


Leading destinations within the region include Wasilla, Palmer and Big Lake. Willow, Talkeetna and Hatcher

Pass are also popular destinations for the in-state market. During the summer months, the Lower Susitna and

Matanuska Knik river systems are popular destinations.

Alaska Resident Travel Patterns Fall/Winter 1997-98 and Summer 1998

Fall/Winter Summer

Estimated Number of Visitors to Mat-Su 166,587 238,214 Total number of trips 1,665,870 1,429,284 Average number of trips 10 trips 6 trips

Trip Purpose Recreation/pleasure 48% 67% Visiting friends/relatives 35 24 Business 16 9

Final Destination Mat-Su 89% 80% Elsewhere 11 20

Length of Stay in Mat-Su Mean number of nights 1.02 1.55

Lodging Types Used in Mat-Su Did not stay overnight 42% 51% Private homes 26 11 Personal cabins 12 7 Camper/RV 8 12 Motel/hotel 6 5 Rental/B&B 3 3 Tent camping 3 10

Mat-Su Communities Visited Wasilla 57.3% 45.9% Palmer 47.1 55.5 Big Lake 21.7 14.5 Willow 12.4 11.4 Talkeetna 10.7 8.9 Hatcher Pass 8.0 8.9

Other Areas Visited (reported for summer only) Lower Susitna - 18.5% Matanuska/Knik - 12.8 Upper Susitna - 6.8 Denali Highway - 5.7

Source: Alaska Village Initiatives


VISITOR ACTIVITIES

Alaska residents visiting the Mat-Su Borough participate in a wide variety of summer and winter activities. The

top three activities in the summer included visiting attractions (36 percent) (such as the Alaska State Fair,

Hatcher Pass and the Reindeer Farm), visiting sights (29 percent) and fishing (26 percent). The top three

activities in the winter included visiting friends and family (30 percent), snowmobiling (15 percent), and

attending or participating in local sport events (12 percent).

Alaska Resident Visitor Activities Fall/Winter 1997-98 and Summer 1998

% of Total

Fall/Winter

Visiting friends and family 30% Snowmobiling 15 Local sports event 12 Skiing 10 Ice fishing 5 Local business 5 Traveled to make particular purchase 3 Dog mushing 3 Ice racing 3 Ice climbing/hiking 2 Passing through 2 Hunting 2 Go to cabin 1

Summer

Visiting attractions 36% State Fair 29 Hatcher Pass 1.8 Musk Ox Farm 1.5 Visitor Center 0.8 Independence Mine 0.8 Experimental Farm 0.4 Museum 0.4 Iditarod Headquarters 0.4 Reindeer Farm 0.4

Visiting sights 29 Fishing 26 Recreation/sports 22 Water activities 12 Camping 12 Business 5 Hunting 3 Passing through 3 Scenery/wildlife 3 My property 2 Miscellaneous 2 Events 1

Source: Alaska Village Initiatives


VISITOR EXPENDITURES

It was estimated that Alaska residents visiting the Mat-Su Borough in the fall/winter of 1997/98 spent an

average of $27 per person, per trip for food and beverages, road services, lodging and recreation/tours. Total

estimated fall/winter spending was $45 million (1998).

Summer in-state visitors spent an average of $28 per person, per trip for food and beverages, road services,

lodging, recreation/tours and other items or services. Total summer in-state visitor spending estimates was

just over $40 million in 1998.

Alaska Resident Expenditures Fall/Winter 1997-98 and Summer 1998

Mat-Su Expenditures

Fall/Winter (spending per party/per trip)

Food/beverage $35.94 Road services 21.78 Lodging 11.06 Recreation/tours 5.14

Total spending per party $73.92 Average party size 2.72 people Average spending per person $27.18

Total visitor spending $45.3 million

Summer (spending per party/per trip)

Food/beverage $35.37 Road services 33.38 Lodging 13.00 Recreation/tours 11.71 Undistributed (3.29)

Total spending per party $90.17 Average party size 3.22 people Average spending per person $28.00

Total visitor spending $40.1 million

Note: the undistributed category is interpreted as money spent during the trip, but not specifically attributed to the Mat-Su region. Source: Alaska Village Initiatives


Sport Fishing Market Information

This section profiles a summary of information gathered from US Fish and Wildlife, Alaska Department of Fish

& Game, The Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, and Mat-Su Visitor

Impact Study (Alaska Village Initiatives) related to sport fishing impacts on the Mat-Su Borough.

US FISH AND WILDLIFE RESEARCH

The 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation was conducted by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. The purpose of this project (conducted every five years) is to measure the importance of

wildlife-based recreation to the public and the associated economic contributions of hunting, fishing and

other wildlife-based activities.

The survey covers wildlife-based activities in the United States by U.S. citizens. In addition to national

estimates of participation and expenditures on sport fishing, the report also provides tables on a state-by-

state basis. The project surveyed resident (Alaskan) and non-resident anglers and captured expenditures for a

wide variety of fishing related equipment and other items. The expenditures were grouped into three main

categories (trip related, equipment related and other fishing expenditures).

In 2006, 293,000 anglers (137,000 residents and 156,000 non-residents) had total sport fishing related

expenditures within the state of Alaska of slightly more than $517 million. When averaged, approximately

$1,766 was spent per angler. However, this crude method of estimating average expenditures includes

participation in half-day excursions and week-long resort experiences.

Resident anglers in Alaska represented in the survey participated in fishing a total of 1.31 million days or an

average of 9.5 days per angler in 2006. Non-resident anglers participated in fishing a total of 521,000 days or

3.3 per angler.

Data from this study was not available by geographic region in Alaska. Without additional information, it is

not possible to develop meaningful estimates of Alaska resident and non-resident anglers and their associated

spending in the Mat-Su.

However, these data suggest that sport fishing enthusiasts, whether Alaska resident or non-resident, spend a

significant amount of money related to this activity. Anecdotally, sport fishing is very popular on Mat-Su’s

lakes and rivers, and is a key attraction for the region. Many regional lodges—both on and off the road

system—cater to Alaska residents and non-residents. Some lodges charge several hundred dollars a night per

person. In addition, many visitors participate in half-day and full-day fishing excursions. Prices range from

approximately $100 to $180 per person.


ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, SPORT FISH DIVISION

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Sport Fish Division began a project in 2007 to estimate the

economic impacts of sport fishing in Alaska. The purpose of the research is “is to provide reasonably precise

and up-to-date information on the economic contributions of angler spending to the Alaska economy at the

statewide, regional and key sub-region levels.” Data collection was scheduled to be completed in February

2008; results are anticipated by year-end.

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Periodically, the State of Alaska conducts a statewide survey of out-of-state visitors intended to provide

information for future marketing, planning and economic development efforts. The Alaska Visitor Statistics

Program captured participation in a wide array of activities including sport fishing. Participation rates in Alaska

communities ranged from 38 percent in the Kenai and Soldotna area to less than 1 percent in Denali. Homer

captured the highest percentage of guided sport fishing participants, at 23 percent.

The survey also recorded sport fishing participation in several individual Mat-Su communities. Nine percent of

out-of-state visitors to Talkeenta participated in fishing while visiting Talkeetna; more than half of these

visitors participated in a guided excursion. Five percent of out-of-state visitors to the Palmer and Wasilla area

participated in fishing while in the area; the majority of these visitors participated in unguided fishing.

It is important to note that out-of-state visitors also participate in sport fishing in other areas of the borough,

at remote lodges, campgrounds and along the highways.

Sport Fishing Participation by Out-of-State Visitors Southcentral and Interior Communities

Location Fishing Guided Unguided

Kenai/Soldotna 38% 19% 23%

Homer 33 23 13

Valdez 16 6 11

Seward 9 6 3

Talkeetna 9 5 4

Palmer/Wasilla 5 1 4

Glennallen 5 - 4

Whittier 2 <1 1

Fairbanks 1 <1 1

Anchorage 1 <1 1

Denali <1 <1 -

Girdwood - - -

Tok - - -

Source: Alaska Visitor Statistics Program V, Summer 2006


MAT-SU VISITOR IMPACT STUDY

Alaska Village Initiatives conducted a study specifically for the Mat-Su Convention & Visitors Bureau in 1998.

An important component of the study was a telephone survey of Alaska residents living in Anchorage,

Fairbanks and Kenai. The study found that 26 percent of Alaska residents that visited Mat-Su during the

summer months participated in fishing.

Special Events and Attractions

This section includes more detailed information about special events and two significant attractions: the

Alaska State Fair and Hatcher Pass. While out-of-state and in-state visitor volume and expenditures associated

with these events and attractions are already captured in prior chapters, they warrant a special discussion

because they draw visitors into the borough, provide unique national and international media opportunities

and contribute to the character of the Mat-Su region.

Special events such as the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race, Iditarod Days Festival and Tesoro Iron Dog attract an

important component of the Mat-Su Borough’s winter visitor market. Below is a description of the major

winter and summer events in the borough, including attendance numbers, where available.

WINTER EVENTS

Arctic Man

The Arctic Man is one of the world's most difficult downhill ski and snowmobile races; it takes place annually

in early April. The race takes place at Summit Lake (mile 196 of the Richardson Highway). The skier begins at

a summit elevation of 5,800 feet and drops 1,700 feet in less than two miles to the bottom of a narrow

canyon where they meet up with their snowmobiling partner. In 2007, approximately 13,000 spectators

(including in-state and out-of-state visitors) attended the event. This event does not take place in the Mat-Su

Borough; however, a majority of the participants travel the Glenn Highway, or other parts of the region, en

route to the event.

Colony Christmas Celebration

This annual event in Palmer features 200 craft vendors, horse-drawn and reindeer sleigh rides, train rides and

fireworks. The event takes place on the second Friday and Saturday of December. Over 5,000 people

attended this event in 2007. The majority of attendees were local, with approximately 300 to 500 coming

from Anchorage.


Iditarod Days Festival

Wasilla's annual winter celebration of Alaska's Iditarod Sled Dog Race takes place in late February and early

March. The festival offers ten days of independent events. Approximately 3,200 people attended the Iditarod

Days Festival in 2007. Attendees are predominantly local; however, in-state and out-of-state visitors often

attend the Musher’s Ball. Of the 300 who attend the Musher’s Ball, approximately one-fifth are from outside

of Mat-Su.

Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race Restart

The Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race takes place annually in March with a ceremonial start in Anchorage and the

competitive start in Willow. Each team of 12 to 16 dogs and their musher cover over 1,100 miles in 10 to 17

days. In 2007, approximately 20,000 people attended the competitive race start in Willow. Approximately

one-third of attendees were in-state visitors from outside of southcentral Alaska. An additional 2,000 to 3,000

people were spread along the trail up to 42 miles outside of Willow. The competitive start brings a significant

influx of business to area restaurants, gas stations and hotels. Total spending associated with attendance at

the restart is $1.6 million, including residents and visitors. Local attendees are estimated to spend $341,000

and non-local attendees are estimated to spend $1.3 million.

Iditarod Trail Invitational

This sporting event, billed as “the world’s longest human powered winter race,” takes place in late February

and follows the Iditarod Trail from Knik Lake to McGrath (for the short race) or Nome (for the long race).

Participants may travel by snowshoe, bicycle or ski. The event has a limit of 50 racers. In 2008, 36 of the 49

finishers hailed from outside Alaska, including 23 from outside the US.

Talkeetna Moose Dropping Festival

This annual fundraiser of the Talkeetna Historical Society takes place the second weekend in July and includes

the Mountain Mother Contest, a parade, arts and crafts booths, food vendors, live music and an art auction.

Talkeetna Winterfest

This annual, month-long Talkeetna festival in December offers a number of activities including the Bachelor

Society Ball, Wilderness Woman Contest, Taste of Talkeetna and Broom Ball.

Tesoro Iron Dog Snowmobile Race

The Tesoro Iron Dog Race is a snowmobile race that takes place annually in February, beginning in Big Lake

and covering 1,971 miles following the Iditarod Trail to Nome and then backtracking on much of the same

course to the Yukon River, and eventually the Tenana River, for a finish in Fairbanks. Approximately 2,500 to

3,000 people attended the race start at Big Lake in 2008. Attendees are predominantly local.

Willow Winter Carnival

This carnival takes place the last weekend in January and the first weekend in February. Activities include

dogsled racing, cross-country skiing and a talent show.


SUMMER EVENTS

Big Lake Fall Festival/Chili Cook-Off

This September event feature lives music, vendors, carnival games, sled dog rides and a chili cook-off.

Big Lake Triathlon

This triathlon, including a swim, bike and run, through Big Lake is open to all individuals or teams and takes

place in mid-June.

Farmers’ Markets

Alaska-grown produce, flowers and crafts are sold during the summer at the Valley’s weekly markets. Wasilla’s

Dorothy Page Museum & Historic Town Site hosts a market every Wednesday. Every Friday a market is held in

downtown Palmer across from the visitors center.

Houston Founder’s Day

This event takes place the third weekend in August and includes a live band, free BBQ and fireworks.

Nye Frontier Ford Mat-Su King Salmon Derby

The Mat-Su King Salmon Derby runs nearly eight weeks during May, June and early July. The derby begins at

12:01 a.m. on May 20 and closes at 9:00 p.m. on July 13. Participants can choose from hundreds of miles of

prime Mat-Su Valley king salmon rivers in the Susitna, Little Susitna and Knik Drainages. Roadside and remote

fisheries are also included. Prizes are awarded for the heaviest king salmon entered each week, as well as for

the heaviest entered for the entire Derby period. Annually, ticket holder numbers range from 2,100 to 2,500.

Palmer Colony Days

This festival takes place the second week in June and honors the 1935 colonists who started the Matauska

farming community. Festival events include a parade, live entertainment, a car rally, craft fairs, horse-drawn

wagon rides, a farmers’ market, kids’ games and carnival rides. In 2007, approximately 5,000 people

attended this event, including several hundred in-state and out-of-state visitors.


Alaska State Fair

The Alaska State Fair estimated that 285,400 people attended the fair in 2007. Additionally, 50,000 attended

non-state fair events throughout the year in 2007.

Alaska State Fair Attendance, 2000-2007

Year Attendance

2000 304,653 2001 307,599 2002 307,908 2003 312,419 2004 287,196 2005 272,543 2006 268,143 2007 285,400

Source: Alaska State Fair

In 2006, the McDowell Group prepared a report on the Economic Impacts of the Alaska State Fair. The average

2005 fairgoer spent $46.50, for a total spending estimate of $12.7 million. Of this total spending, $1.5

million was spent outside the fairgrounds.

Summary of Impacts from Alaska State Fair Attendees, 2005 Impacts

Number of fair attendees 272,543

Number of fair attendees from outside of Palmer or Wasilla 179,900

Average party size 3.4 people

Average number of times attending the fair 2.3

Total spending for parking fees and gate admissions $2.0 million

Total spending for fair events, activities and other purchases $9.2 million

Total local spending outside of fairgrounds by fairgoers $1.5 million

Total fairgoer spending $12.7 million

Average per person spending $46.50

Source: Economic Impacts of the Alaska State Fair, prepared for the Alaska State Fair by McDowell Group, May 2006.


Sixty-three percent of 2005 fairgoers resided outside of the Mat-Su Borough. Visitors from Anchorage

represented more than 40 percent of attendees. Out-of-state visitors made up 4 percent of fairgoers.

Origin of Fairgoers, 2005 % of Fairgoers Anchorage 41% Wasilla 20 Palmer 14 Eagle River/Chugiak 8 Kenai/Soldotna/Homer/Seward 4 Fairbanks 2 Elmendorf 1 Big Lake/Houston 1 Sutton 1 Willow/Trapper/Talkeetna 1 Other Alaska 4 Other US 3 International 1 Don’t know/refused <1 Source: Economic Impacts of the Alaska State Fair, prepared for the Alaska State Fair by McDowell Group, May 2006.

Hatcher Pass

The Hatcher Pass area is located approximately 55 miles north of Anchorage. The area is a popular visitor

destination for both Alaska resident and non-resident visitors. The Fishhook-Willow Road (also known as the

Hatcher Pass Road) connects the Parks Highway, north of Willow on its western end, with Palmer and Wasilla

at the confluence of the Palmer-Fishhook and Wasilla-Fishhook roads. (Pending infrastructure developments

are discussed more fully in the Assessment of Tourism Industry Value chapter of the report.)

The majority of visitation to the area occurs during the May-September summer season via the Palmer/Wasilla

area. Summer activities include sightseeing, hiking, backpacking, camping, mountaineering, rock climbing,

hang gliding, parasailing, mountain biking, horseback riding and berry picking. The majority of non-resident

visitation occurs during the summer. Winter activities include downhill, Nordic and cross country skiing,

snowboarding, snowmobiling and snowshoeing. Winter visitors are primarily Alaska residents.

Quantifying the precise number of visitors is beyond the scope of this study. However, there are several

sources of data that serve as indicators of visitor trends for the area. The following information was

summarized from the recreational and tourism chapter of the recently developed study entitled Hatcher Pass

– A New Beginning. (References in the Hatcher Pass study regarding Alaska Department of Transportation &

Public Facilities traffic data were supplemented with publicly available information from the department’s

website.)


ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The main source of visitor data available for the East Hatcher Pass Management Area (EHPMA) is the State of

Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). ADNR conducts a selective (unofficial) count of visitors in

the area up to and including Summit Lake State Recreation Area (located at Mile 8 of the Fishhook-

Willow/Hatcher Pass Road) and visitors to the Independence State Historical Park area that includes Hatcher

Pass Lodge. The following table is derived from spot checks of vehicles at various areas in the park during the

summer and assumes 2.5 persons per vehicle. These surveys are not actual visitor counts and are not

statistically reliable. However, they provide useful data to estimate summer visitor trends to the EHPMA.

The table below shows the estimated visitor counts for the last seven years. Based on the data provided,

estimated visitation to the EHPMA increased by 45 percent from 185,300 users in 2001 to 268,700 in 2007.

Areas that showed the greatest increase in visitor counts were: the Fishook Trailhead, the Independence Mine

State Historic Park and Visitor Center and the number of vehicles parked along the Hatcher Pass Road.

Estimated East Hatcher Pass Visitation FY 2001-2007

Location FY 07 FY 06 FY 05 FY 04 FY 03 FY 02 FY 01

Gateway (Bridge) 16,772 11,802 6,742 15,726 13,794 28,938 26,646

Government Peak 6,654 3,736 - - - - -

Mile 12 Lot 4,396 6,748 7,405 5,033 1,319 4,370 4,920

Parked along Hatcher Pass Road

18,310 11,411 11,023 10,709 5,422 7,453 3,272

Motherlode Lodge 28,756 19,571 14,670 15,874 1,428 14,030 8,578

Goldmint Trailhead 26,156 17,825 14,862 16,779 12,886 13,596 16,510

Archangel Trailhead 14,925 12,115 10,308 11,758 11,870 15,752 11,164

Reed Lake Trailhead 5,126 2,849 4,146 3,729 7,908 7,138 4,753

MI 16 Ski Turnaround 3,425 5,124 6,277 4,712 1,333 2,696 2,715

Fishook Trailhead 26,932 22,036 25,235 20,154 12,488 12,541 13,183

Gate at MP 17.5 2,853 7,089 6,106 6,032 7,145 4,754 3,198

East Hatcher Pass Road (Other) 43,396 36,162 37,510 43,191 35,607 41,066 39,198

West Hatcher Pass Road (Other) - - 3,800 10,550 12,540 18,563 3,240

Independence Mine State Historic Park Visitors Center 20,103 13,252 10,634 5,686 1,905 98 93

Independence Mine State Historic Park 18,910 19,826 21,357 14,703 6,239 11,331 10,926

Hatcher Pass Lodge 17,241 30,549 16,845 17,526 15,314 22,097 19,895

Summit Lake 14,752 14,370 26,577 30,916 43,187 26,770 16,997

Total 268,707 234,465 223,497 233,078 200,385 231,193 185,288

Source: State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.


ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC FACILITIES

An additional indicator of visitation trends to the Hatcher Pass area is Alaska Department of Transportation &

Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) traffic data. ADOT&PF has monitored traffic counts at the Little Susitna Bridge

(approximately four miles north of the convergence of the Wasilla-Fishhook and the Palmer-Fishhook roads)

in July of each year from 2000-2006. This data shows that July traffic counts of vehicles crossing the Little

Susitna bridge has increased by 70 percent from 540 in 2000 to 915 in 2006. The majority of this increase

occurred between 2001 and 2002 and was related to better access after the Hatcher Pass Road was realigned

and paved, and improvements were made to the Independence State Historic Park.

Traffic counts are based on the number of vehicles traveling over a given segment of road. A vehicle could be

counted twice if it returned by the same route. This information will not allow the user to estimate the actual

number of visitors using a particular segment of road, but will provide a general sense for how vehicle

activity, over that road segment, has changed over time.

Monthly traffic counts (for the full year) at Little Susitna Bridge began in 2005. In the future, this data will

provide valuable insight into the trend of vehicle activity (both in summer and winter) on this important road

link between Palmer/Wasilla and the EHPMA.

The project team reviewed additional ADOT&PF annual traffic data to better understand trends within the

Hatcher Pass area. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts are based on sampling and adjusted for

seasonality. Monthly variations within each year may be substantial. For the purpose of this study they are

useful for observing vehicle activity trends over time.

• AADT counts at the junction of Palmer-Fishhook Road and the Gold Mint Road were five times higher

in 2006 (502) than the 2000 count (100).

• AADT counts at the junction of Lucky Shot Mine Road (approximately 31 miles east of the junction of

the Parks Highway and the Fishhook-Willow/Hatcher Pass Road) increased by 53 percent from 2000

(90) to 2006 (138).

• AADT counts at the junction of Archangel Drive (approximately 10 miles east of the junction of the

Parks Highway and the Fishhook-Willow/Hatcher Pass Road) increased by 60 percent from 2000

(180) to 2006 (290).

• AADT counts at the junction of Old Willow Road (approximately one mile east of the junction of the

Parks Highway and the Fishhook-Willow/Hatcher Pass Road) increased slightly (2 percent) from 1998

(660) to 2006 (670).

Based on the Little Susitna Bridge counts and the Lucky Shot Mine Road AADT counts, it appears that the

volume of vehicles traveling from Palmer/Wasilla area into the EHPMA has increased substantially over the last

few years. While vehicle activity at the western entrance to the Hatcher Pass area has remained relatively

stable, activity slightly further into the area (Archangel Drive) has increased. It is unknown whether the

increased activity at Archangel is from eastbound or westbound traffic, but seems likely to be from vehicles

venturing farther into Hatcher Pass from the east (Palmer/Wasilla).


Appendix C: Needed Tourism Infrastructure Improvements

This section includes details regarding size, construction cost and other information that supports the Needed

Tourism Infrastructure Improvements section.

Meeting Facilities

CONFERENCE FACILITY PROGRAMMING (MAXIMUM: 250 PEOPLE OR CONFERENCE OF 125)

The study team assumes that the conference facility would be designed in a manner that would be inviting,

comfortable and functional. These assumptions were translated by the study team architect into an overall

facility program that anticipates the amount of space needed for meeting rooms and support functions.

Total facility size needed to accommodate a conference of 125 people for concurrent dining and meeting

functions is nearly 8,400 sq. ft. (A facility of this size would be comparable to the public meeting facilities in

Sitka, Wrangell and Ketchikan.)

The largest areas include the banquet room (2,250 sq. ft.) and the presentation room (1,600 sq. ft.).

Additional public spaces include a small conference room, commercial kitchen and staff offices. Building

support spaces include public areas (such as the lobby and restrooms), as well as spaces intended primarily

for storage and maintenance.

Programming: Conference Facility

Description Sq. Feet Comment

Primary Components 5,300

Presentation room 1,600 Seating for 125, strong A/V capability, presentation focus

Banquet room 2,250 Meal seating for 125, moderate A/V capability.

Small conference room 300 Acoustic separation

Commercial kitchen 800 Capacity for 125 simultaneous meals, storage.

Staff offices 350 Assumption of three staff positions

Building Support 3,077

Vestibule, entry 150 Inviting, durable finishes

Central foyer, lobby 500 Open, flexible

Public restrooms 500 Four women fixtures, three men fixtures

Table and chair storage 400 -

Janitorial, storage 134 -

Mechanical, electrical @ 4% 300 -

Circulation, misc. @ 15% 1,093 -

Total 8,377

Source: MRV Architects.


CONVENTION FACILITY PROGRAMMING (MAXIMUM: 800 PEOPLE OR CONVENTION OF 400)

Total facility size needed to accommodate a convention of 400 people for concurrent dining and meeting

functions is just over 20,000 sq. ft. (At this size, Mat-Su would be competitive with publicly-owned meeting

facilities in Valdez and Juneau.)

The largest rooms in the convention facility are the banquet room (5,600 sq. ft.) and the presentation room

(4,800 sq. ft.).

The convention facility programming plan includes three small conference rooms, frequently used for break-

out sessions during conventions. The commercial kitchen and office spaces are enlarged to reflect the

increased staff and work area needed to support the facility. Additional space is also dedicated to restrooms,

lobby and storage areas.

Programming: Convention Facility

Description Sq. Ft. Comment

Primary Components 13,700

Presentation room 4,800 Seating for 400, strong A/V capability, presentation focus, divisible room (12 sq.ft./comfortable rows, theatre)

Banquet room 5,600 Meal seating for 400, moderate A/V capability, divisible room (14 sq.ft./ 8 seat tables)

Small conference room 900 Acoustic separation, distributed

Commercial kitchen 1,800 Capacity for 400 simultaneous meals, includes associated storage

Staff offices 600 Assumption of five staff positions

Building Support 6,598

Vestibule, entry 250 Inviting, durable finishes

Central foyer, lobby 1,000 Open, flexible

Public restrooms 1,100 Twelve women's fixtures, eight men's fixtures

Table and chair storage 600 -

Janitorial, storage 200 -

Mechanical, electrical @ 4% 800 -

Circulation, misc. @ 15% 2,648 Includes informal seating areas, coffee break stations

Total 20,298

Source: MRV Architects.


CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATING COST ESTIMATES

Based on comparable facilities, the study team estimates $400 per sq. ft. for construction, and $530 per sq.

ft. for total project costs, including design, furnishings, administration and contingency. Total project costs

for the smaller facility are $4,452,000, and $10,760,000 for the larger facility. These numbers represent

bidding in the spring of 2010. (Estimates were developed collaboration with Anchorage-based cost estimators

HMS, Inc.)

Comparable, publicly-owned conference and convention facilities in Alaska report operating expenses

ranging from $300,000 to $380,000 annually. Salaries and benefits represent the largest budget item,

typically between 60 and 70 percent of the facility operating budget. Other costs include utilities, janitorial

supplies, insurance and non-personnel administrative costs like office supplies.

Facility revenues (including meetings and events conducted by local residents as well as visitors) range from

$60,000 to $120,000, depending on the facility location, level of marketing commitment and year-to-year

fluctuations. It is common for a publicly-owned facility to incur a financial shortfall (commonly called the

“operating gap”) of $200,000 and $300,000 annually. These estimates do not include any debt service

associated with the facility development.

Based on a review of comparable facilities, the operating gap for the proposed conference facility is

$200,000. The operating gap for the larger-size facility is estimated to be $300,000; the increase is largely

due to the need for additional staff support for room set-up, event staffing and janitorial tasks.

Facility Construction and Operating Cost Estimates

Facility Total Size Estimated Construction Cost

EstimatedOperating Gap

Conference (250 people or 125 convention)

8,400 sq. ft. $4.5 million $200,000

Convention (800 people or 400 convention)

20,300 sq. ft. 10.8 million 300,000

Source: MRV Architects, HMS, Inc., and McDowell Group.

Potential Market Increases from Meeting Facilities

The primary visitor market served by this type of infrastructure enhancement is the conference or convention

market. A secondary visitor market would be special events, which commonly need spaces for registration

areas, receptions, meetings or banquets. (An important component of the clientele would be Mat-Su

residents. However, the study team focused on the potential for each facility to attract visitation and

spending from outside of the region.)


It is important to note that the ability for each facility to attract non-resident usage is contingent on several

factors including:

• An effective marketing campaign for the facility itself as well as the region.

• Ability to offer a quality experience at the meeting facility from the initial contact (site selection and

reservation process) through the actual event (meeting room set-up, transitions and clean-up).

• The quality and availability of support services including accommodations, catering and other needs.

• The location of the facility within the region.

The following scenarios presume that all of these components are effective and coordinated for the success of

the meeting facilities. Further, the facilities will likely require a three-to-five year “ramp-up” period before

reaching these targets. Several factors will contribute to this delay. Meeting location and facility decisions are

typically made a year or two in advance. Several state and national organizations plan even further out. Most

importantly, it will take some time and financial commitment for any new facility, and the associated

community services, to achieve market recognition and a reputation for quality service.

CONFERENCE FACILITY MARKET POTENTIAL (MAXIMUM: 250 PEOPLE OR CONFERENCE OF 125)

Lower Range Estimate: Total room nights associated with conferences and events is estimated at nearly

4,000. Visitor spending associated with the conferences and meetings is estimated to be nearly $700,000.

The following assumptions were used to develop these estimates.

• The conference facility would host an average of four smaller-scale events per month or 48 visitor

events per year.

o Visitor room nights associated with smaller events and conferences were estimated to have

an average length of stay of 1.5 nights.

o To estimate the event size, the study team used the mid-point for each range. This

conservative approach accounts for groups that require single rooms and those that are

double-occupancy.

• Additionally, the facility is estimated to attract three conferences that maximized facility capacity at

125. The average length of stay for conferences was increased to two nights.

• Meeting and conference spending was estimated at $175 per person, per day. (These expenditure

estimates are conservative when compared to the Juneau Convention & Visitors Bureau estimate of

$273 per person, per day for meeting and convention attendees or the Fairbanks Convention &

Visitors Bureau estimate of $240 per person, per day. However, the study team acknowledged that

accommodation costs in the region are lower. Further, car rental or other transportation costs would

likely accrue to Anchorage, not Mat-Su.)


Higher Range: At the higher range, the number of room nights associated with conferences and events is

estimated at more than 5,300. Visitor spending associated with the conferences and meetings is estimated to

exceed $900,000. Assumptions used to develop these estimates include the following.

• The conference facility would host an average of five smaller-scale events per month or 60 visitor

events per year.

• Additionally, the facility is estimated to attract five full-facility conferences.

• Assumptions about length of stay and meeting attendee spending remained the same.

Visitor Usage and Spending: Conference Facility (Maximum Capacity 250 or 125-Person Conference)


EstimatedSpending

Lower Range Small events (1-25 people) 12 225 $40,000


Large events (51-125) 12 1,600 280,000

Full-facility (125) 3 750 132,000

Total 51 3,975 $692,000

Higher Range



Large events (51-125) 18 2,350 416,000

Full-facility (125) 5 1,250 219,000

Total 65 5,290 $933,000 Source: McDowell Group estimates

CONVENTION FACILITY MARKET POTENTIAL (MAXIMUM: 800 PEOPLE OR CONVENTION OF 400)

Lower Range Estimate: In the low range estimate, total room nights associated with conferences and events

is estimated at 6,200. Visitor spending associated with the conferences and meetings is estimated to be

nearly $1.1 million. The following assumptions were used to develop these estimates.

• The convention facility would host an average of two smaller visitor events per month or 24 per year.

o The average length of stay for smaller events is estimated at 1.5 nights.

• The facility would attract an additional eight larger conferences and conventions annually.

o The average length of stay for these events two nights.

• Average expenditures were estimated to be $175 per person, per night.


Higher Range Estimate: Room nights associated with conferences and events is estimated to be 9,000.

Associated visitor spending estimated at more than $1.5 million annually.

• The convention facility would host an average of three smaller visitor events per month.

• The facility would attract an additional 11 larger conferences and conventions each year.

• Average length of stay and expenditures were identical to the lower range scenario.

Visitor Usage and Spending: Convention Facility Maximum Capacity 800 of 400-Person Convention


EstimatedSpending

Lower Range Small events (1-100 people) 24 1,800 $315,000



Full-facility (400) 3 2,400 420,000

Total 32 6,200 $1,085,000

Higher Range




Full-facility (400) 4 3,200 560,000

Total 47 9,000 $1,575,000 Source: McDowell Group estimates



Potential Market Increases from Road System Enhancements

The following section discusses the potential effects of road sytem enhancements and their ability to help

Mat-Su increase the economic impacts from the visitor industry. Market potential is presented below by

major market segment:

• Summer out-of-state visitation

o Summer package tour visitors

o Summer independent visitors

• Fall/Winter out-of-state visitation

• Summer in-state visitation

• Fall/Winter in-state visitation

Each market is unique in its travel motives and patterns. Using the visitor market profiles and data sources

cited in the Base Case Infrastructure Description, the study team evaluated each major market segment to

determine likely changes in the following areas:

• An increase in Mat-Su’s share of the statewide market

• Potential for increasing overnight stays among the current market

• Potential for increasing spending among the current market

• A combination of these effects

Incremental changes in market share are significant—especially when extrapolated over the size of the

statewide market. To help put the projected Mat-Su visitation changes in perspective, the study team noted

how it compared to the current market size.

The ability for Mat-Su to achieve the low or high case scenarios will be affected by the number and quality of

highway enhancements, marketing, accommodation capacity, availability and quality of attractions and

potential synergies produced by other infrastructure developments, including trail development and

implementation of the South Denali plan.

An ongoing, systemic approach to improvements could achieve these projected results over an 8 to 10 year

timeframe.


SUMMER OUT-OF-STATE VISITATION

During the summer months, nearly 300,000 out-of-state visitors traveled to Mat-Su in 2006. Approximately

half reported spending one or more nights in the region. The high percentage of vacation/pleasure travelers

in this market suggests that Mat-Su could affect future length of stay and spending (just 4 percent of

Talkeetna visitors reported that their primary purpose for their Alaska trip was business, while 12 percent of

Palmer/Wasilla visitors were traveling primarily for business). Because of the unique factors that affect these

markets, the study team’s discussion regarding visitors on tour packages are separated from independent

visitors.

SUMMER PACKAGE TOUR VISITORS

An estimated 110,000 to 120,000 Mat-Su visitors traveled on multi-day tour packages (including cruise-

tours). These visitors typically used multiple types of transportation to travel between communities including

train, motorcoach and passenger van. While smaller-scale highway enhancements such as signage, enhanced

scenic overlooks and public toilets can enhance visitors’ experience, these enhancements are not likely to

change the overall tour pattern or number of nights spent in the region by this market.

However, paving the Denali Highway (or other significant enhancements to improve road condition and

driving speed) is very likely to facilitate an increase in the number of tour operators that include this route in

their itineraries. In addition to scenic beauty, the highway is recognized for wildlife viewing opportunities,

which are highly sought out by tour companies and their clients. When coupled with the pending

infrastructure developments in South Denali, tour operators will be especially interested in maximizing

visitors’ time in the Mat-Su region.

While the size of the statewide package tour market is relatively large, the number of tour packages that

venture outside of the “rail-belt” corridor is considerably smaller. Very few tour packages are sold without

time in Denali. Therefore, adding new destinations increases the overall trip length and cost, and has a

diminishing effect on the market potential.

Low Case: The study team estimates that paving the Denali Highway could increase the number of package

tour visitors that overnight in the region by 4,000 people, or 2,000 room nights annually. Using a

conservative estimate of $150 per person (which accounts for tour operator spending on accommodations,

plus visitor spending on tours, dining and retail purchases), additional spending in the Mat-Su region is

estimated at $600,000. (This increase would represent a 3 percent increase in the current market size.)

High Case: Package tour visitors that spend a night in the region could increase by 8,000 people, or 4,000

room nights annually. Additional spending in the Mat-Su region is estimated at $1.2 million. It is important to

note that achieving this level of growth would likely require a concurrent increase in accommodations that

can handle small and mid-sized groups. (An increase of this size would be an 8 percent increase from the

current market volume.)


SUMMER INDEPENDENT VISITORS

Nearly 200,000 summer visitors currently travel to Mat-Su as independent visitors. They utilize the highway

system extensively; leading transportation modes include rental cars, personal vehicles, rental RVs and

personal RVs.

For this broadly-defined market, experiencing Alaska’s highways represents much more than access between

communities. The highways themselves are part of the attraction that Alaska and Mat-Su offers—especially for

those travelers that learn about the unique attributes of state and national scenic byways. Highways offer the

ability to view scenery and wildlife at the visitors’ own pace. Waysides and scenic pull-outs enhance visitor

safety and comfort, which in turn can encourage visitors to venture farther. Interpretive signage can offer

important insights into the regional history, culture and current way of life. Highway pullouts serve as

informal campsites for some visitors.

It is important to note that a significant portion of the independent market passes through the region

without spending the night. An important potential benefit of roady system enhancements would be slowing

down visitors, stimulating additional spending and overnights in the area.

The study team examined Mat-Su’s share of the statewide market to forecast changes to future travel

patterns. AVSP data revealed that 7 percent of all summer visitors traveling by air spent at least one night in

Talkeetna and 7 percent spent at least one night in Palmer/Wasilla in 2006. Among the statewide

highway/ferry market, 21 percent spent one night or more in the Palmer/Wasilla area and 9 percent

overnighted in Talkeetna. A conservative estimate of the number of independent travelers that spent a night

in the region was approximately 80,000 visitors.

Low Case: The study team estimates that a roady system enhancement program could contribute to an

increase in overnight stays from the statewide air market of 1 percent and an increase in overnights from the

statewide highway/ferry market of 2 percent.

With a statewide summer air market of approximately 600,000 visitors, a 1 percent increase would yield an

additional 6,000 visitors (approximately 3,000 room nights). Based on the average per person, per night

expenditure of $146, spending associated with this market would total nearly $876,000.

Attracting a 2 percent increase in the statewide highway/ferry market would result in an additional 1,600

visitors and an estimated 400 room nights. (While these visitors likely represent an increase of 800 Mat-Su

overnights, AVSP research indicates that about half of the market used hotels, motels, or B&Bs during their

Alaska trip.) Based on an average visitor expenditure of $70 per person, per night, new spending in the Mat-

Su associated with this increase would be nearly $112,000.

Combined, this level of increased visitation and overnights represent an approximate 8 percent increase from

current levels.


High Case: An increase of 1.5 percent in the statewide air market would yield an additional 9,000 visitors

(4,500 room nights); spending associated with this market would increase to $1.3 million. A 3 percent

increase in overnights from the highway/ferry market would yield approximately 2,500 new visitors, 625

room nights and $175,000 in spending. (Combined, the increase in these two markets would result in an

increase of 14 percent over current market estimates.)

FALL/WINTER OUT-OF-STATE VISITATION

An estimated 37,000 out-of-state visitors traveled to Mat-Su during the seven-month period between

October 2006 and April 2007. Approximately 17,000 visitors spent a night in the Mat-Su region. In contrast

to the summer market, the primary Alaska travel motive for fall/winter travelers much more likely to be

visiting friends and family, or business. (Over half of the fall/winter market was visiting friends and relatives,

29 percent were traveling primarily for business and 15 percent were traveling for vacation/pleasure.)

Reflecting these differences in market composition, participation rates in tours and activities was dramatically

lower than among summer visitors.

Just 15 percent of the statewide fall/winter market visited Mat-Su, despite the fact that Anchorage serves as

the leading fall/winter destination and statewide transportation hub. Road system enhancements could

enhance the appeal and comfort of driving to Mat-Su for day trips and overnight trips.

Low Case: An increase of 1 percent in overnight travel to the region would result in 2,500 visitors or

approximately 1,250 room nights. The availability of winter recreational activities and tour operators is a

factor in the projections. (When compared to the current overnight market of 17,000 visitors, these visitors

represent a nearly 15 percent increase.)

Based on the average visitor spending during the fall/winter period of $84 per person, per night, new

expenditures associated with these visitors would be $210,000.

Increasing the percentage of day visitors by 1 percent has the potential to increase sales for restaurants, gas

stations and retail shops. If Mat-Su businesses were able to capture $5 per person from 2,500 additional

travelers, the increased visitation would generate $12,500 in new spending.

High Case: Increasing overnight stays by 1.5 percent yields 3,750 new visitors, nearly 1,900 overnights and

$315,000 in new regional spending. A similar percentage increase in day-trips would generate 3,750 visitors

and $18,750 in new spending. (The high case reflects a 22 percent increase from current visitation levels.)

SUMMER IN-STATE VISITATION

During the summer months, an estimated 263,000 Alaska residents visit Mat-Su an average of 6 times.

Anchorage residents represent more than 90 percent of in-state market, however the proximity between

Anchorage and Mat-Su has important implications for regional lodging (prior research revealed that 51

percent of in-state summer travelers did not stay overnight in Mat-Su). When Alaska residents did overnight

in the region, they were most likely to camp, stay with friends, or stay in their own Mat-Su cabins. Just 8

percent stayed in a commercial accommodation. With an average travel party size of 3.22 people, the

number of room nights attributed to the in-state summer market is approximately 39,000 nights.


For many in-state travelers, the experience of driving Alaska’s highways is both access to a destination and an

activity or attraction unto itself. Enhancement of the highway condition, pull-outs and interpretive signage

can influence in-state visitors to venture further into the region, travel to Mat-Su more frequently, or spend

more time and money during each trip.

Low Case: Increasing the percentage of commercial accommodation usage from 8 percent to 9 percent

would result in nearly 4,900 room nights. A similar increase in room nights could also be achieved by a

modest increase in the average length of stay. (In terms of room nights, the projected increase is

approximately 15 percent above current accommodation usage.)

Prior research shows that Alaska residents are less likely than out-of-state visitors to purchase tours and retail

items. To reflect this more conservative spending pattern, the study team estimated an average expenditure

of $125 per travel party to account for accommodation and dining expenditures. New spending associated

with increased visitation totals $612,500.

High Case: Increasing accommodation usage from 8 percent to 10 percent results in 9,800 room nights and

$1,225,000 in new spending. (The increase represents a 25 percent increase when compared to current

accommodation usage.)

FALL/WINTER IN-STATE VISITATION

In-state visitation during the 7-month fall/winter period is similar to the summer in-state travel market in

terms of relatively low usage of commercial accommodations. Forty-two percent of in-state visitors do not

overnight in the Mat-Su; just 9 percent of the market utilized hotels, motels or B&Bs. The estimated number

of room nights associated with this market is just over 60,000.

Leading winter travel motives include visiting friends and family, snowmobiling, viewing or participating in

sports events and skiing. Road system enhancements like scenic pullouts, parking areas and public restrooms

can facilitate safer, more comfortable trips. Roady system enhancements could also stimulate higher travel

frequency than the 10-trip average revealed in the last survey or an increased length of stay (previously 1.02

nights).

As with the summer in-state market, the study focused on the regional ability to increase overnight

accommodation usage rather than total visitation.

Low Case: An increase from 9 percent to 9.5 percent in accommodation usage could result in nearly 3,400

additional room nights. Reflecting lower accommodation rates during the fall/winter months, the study team

estimated an average expenditure of $115 per travel party. Spending generated from the additional

overnights totals $391,000. (The increase in room nights is nearly 6 percent higher than current levels.)

High Case: Increasing accommodation usage to from 9 percent to 10 percent would result in nearly 6,800

room nights and $782,000 in new spending. (The increase reflects 11 percent growth over current levels.)


SUMMARY

After examining the unique travel patterns and motives of the major market segments, the study team

forecasts that a comprehensive road system enhancement program could significantly affect Mat-Su

visitation, overnights and regional spending.

The low case scenario reveals a potential increase of nearly 15,000 overnights and $2.8 million in new

spending. The high case scenario reflects an increase of more than 27,000 visitors and more than $5 million

in new spending.

As noted in the analysis, the ability for the region to achieve these projects is directly related to the

magnitude and quality of the road system enhancement program, marketing, accommodation capacity and

other factors.

Potential Annual Increases in Visitor Overnights and Spending Resulting From Highway Improvements


Low Case

Summer package tour visitors* 2,000 $600,000

Summer independent visitors 3,400 988,000





Subtotal without Denali Highway 12,950 $2,214,000

High Case

Summer package tour visitors* 4,000 $1,200,000

Summer independent visitors 5,125 1,489,000





Subtotal without Denali Highway 23,600 $3,829,750

*Package tour increase is associated with paving of Denali Highway.


Road System Enhancement Development Costs

Development Cost of Wayside Pull Outs

Size Sq. Ft. of Parking Lot

Minimum # of Parking

Spaces

# of Public Toilets

# of Handicapped

Parking Spaces

Total Development

Cost

Annual Maintenance

Cost

Small 10,000 12-16 2 2 $350,000 $30,000

Medium 15,000 16-20 3 4 500,000 50,000

Large 25,000+ 30+ 4 4 1,000,000 75,000

Note: Ongoing annual investment will vary, depending on additional needs and the need to leverage funds from partners with Borough funds. The study team estimated $500,000 to $1 million annually for comparison purposes.

Development Cost of Wayside Amenities

Amenities Total Development Cost

Annual Maintenance Cost

Informational kiosks $20,000 $1,000

Potable water 40,000 1,000

Signage 500 100

Garbage cans/dumpsters 10,000 2,000

Sheltered/picnic areas 100,000 5,000

DENALI HIGHWAY PAVING COST RANGES

Seven miles of the highway on the Paxson/Richardson Highway is paved. The rest of the highway is an

unimproved two-lane dirt road which is not maintained in the winter. The road can have washouts, soft

shoulders and dangerous conditions at any time of the year. A total of 63 miles of the Denali Highway,

located between the Nenana and Maclaren Rivers, is within the Matanuska Susitna Borough.

There is a broad range of cost from $1 million per mile to rehabilitate and pave the existing road to mountain

standards, up to $3 million per mile for a full reconstruction to highway standards.



Potential Market Increases from Trail System Enhancements

The following section discusses the potential effects of trail system enhancements. The ability for Mat-Su to

achieve the low or high case scenarios will be affected by the location and type of trail system enhancements,

marketing, as well as synergies generated by concurrent improvements in the regional transportation

infrastructure or accommodations.

Market potential is presented below by major market segment:

• Summer out-of-state visitation

• Fall/Winter out-of-state visitation

• Summer in-state visitation

• Fall/Winter in-state visitation

The primary emphasis in the analysis below is the role that trail system enhancements can play in increasing

visitors’ length of stay, overnights and associated spending. It is important to note that significant

enhancement of the trail system can increase Mat-Su’s share of the statewide market.

As with the road system enhancements, an ongoing, systemic approach to improvements is recommended.

Mat-Su could achieve these projected results over an 8 to 10 year timeframe.

SUMMER OUT-OF-STATE VISITATION

While Mat-Su has an extensive trail system, summer out-of-state visitors utilize these assets far less frequently

than in other regions of the state. For example, 43 percent of Talkeetna summer visitors participated in a hike

or nature walk during their entire Alaska trip. While in Talkeetna, only 6 percent participated in this same

activity. The pattern holds true for Palmer/Wasilla visitors as well. Forty-five percent of Palmer/Wasilla visitors

experienced a hike or nature walk in Alaska, but only 13 percent did so while in this area of Mat-Su.

It is difficult to pinpoint the reasons that the same market’s participation in this activity was markedly lower in

Mat-Su than other parts of Alaska. Based on analysis of tour and activity participation in other Alaska

destinations, as well as input from regional visitor industry and trail system experts, the study team believes

that the potential participation for trail-related activities is largely untapped.

To enhance the potential for guided and unguided use of the trails, visitors need to be aware of the variety of

trails and their associated ratings for walking/hiking abilities and distance. Priorities should be placed on trail

systems in areas with wildlife viewing potential, mountain viewing potential, flora and fauna interest,

historical interest, etc. The trails also need to provide a sense of safety, which is implied through mapping,

trailheads and parking, interpretive signage and maintenance.

Trail system enhancements can also encourage participation in other outdoor activities and tours including

day cruises, wildlife viewing, fishing, rafting and canoeing. As with hiking and nature walks, visitors’

participation in these activities is lower in the Mat-Su region than in other Alaska destinations.


The availability of tours and recreational activities are important factors when visitors make decisions about

where to go and how long to spend in each destination. Further, whether visitors participate in trail-oriented

activities independently—or with a local guide or tour company—their overall Mat-Su experience can be

enhanced and their length of stay increased.

Low Case: The study team estimates that enhancing the trail system could increase the percentage of the

market that overnights in the region from approximately 50 percent of the market to 52 percent. The

resulting increase of 5,900 visitors would generate approximately 2,950 room nights. Based on an average

expenditure of $146 per person, spending associated with these visitors would total approximately $860,000.

(These additional visitors represent an increase of 3 percent in estimated visitors that overnight in the region.)

High Case: An increase of 4 percent would result in 11,800 new visitors, an additional 5,900 room nights

and $1.7 million in new spending. (This represents a nearly 6 percent increase in visitors that overnight in the

region.)

FALL/WINTER OUT-OF-STATE VISITATION

The fall/winter out-of-state market, estimated at 250,000 visitors, is small in comparison to the summer

market. However, the vacation/pleasure visitors that come during this period are highly motivated to

experience uniquely Alaskan activities and destinations. Trails are particularly important for visitors and tour

operators that want to experience snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and dog sledding. Mat-Su is well-

poised to grow this market due to its proximity to Anchorage (the primary winter transportation hub and

destination), the assortment of lodges in the region and the virtually world-wide recognition of winter events

like the Iditarod.

An estimated 37,000 visitors traveled to Mat-Su during the fall/winter months; approximately half of these

visitors overnight in the region.

As with the summer market, tour and activity participation among Mat-Su’s fall/winter visitors was lower in

Mat-Su when compared to other Alaska destinations. Snowmobiling was among the leading fall/winter

activities in the Mat-Su region at 5 percent. Participation in this winter activity can be considerably enhanced

by trail maintenance and trailhead development. Skiing and snowboarding was mentioned by less than one

percent of fall/winter visitors.

Review of the statewide vacation/pleasure market’s participation in winter activities demonstrates Mat-Su’s

potential for increasing visitor participation in outdoor recreational activities. Top trail-oriented winter

activities included hiking/nature walks (15 percent), dog sledding (13 percent), skiing/snowboarding (9

percent) and snowmobiling (7 percent).

Low Case: Currently, just 7 percent of the statewide fall/winter market spends a night in a Mat-Su

community. An increase of 0.5 percent in overnight travel to the region would result in 1,250 visitors or 625

room nights. Based on the average visitor spending during the fall/winter period of $84 per person, per

night, new expenditures associated with these visitors would be $105,000. (This increase in overnight visitor

volume represents a nearly 7 percent increase from the current overnight market.)


High Case: Increasing overnight stays by 1 percent would result in a gain of 2,500 visitors, 1,250 overnights

and $210,000 in spending. (This increase represents a nearly 14 percent increase when compared to the

current overnight market during this period.)

SUMMER IN-STATE VISITATION

During the summer months, an estimated 263,000 Alaska residents visit Mat-Su an average of six times. With

an average travel party size of 3.22 people, the number of room nights attributed to the in-state summer

market is approximately 39,000 nights.

The in-state summer market includes a number of frequent users of the Mat-Su trail system—especially boat

launches. Twenty-six percent of the market reported fishing in the region; 22 percent reported participation

in “recreation and sports” (which included activities like hiking and biking); 12 percent participated in water

activities such as boating, swimming and canoeing; and 12 percent reported camping.

However, this market also reports a high tendency to make day trips to Mat-Su and a low rate of

accommodation usage (8 percent). The study team focused its analysis on potential increases to overnight

stays, rather than an increase in total visitation.

Low Case: Increasing the percentage of commercial accommodation usage from 8 percent to 9 percent

would result in nearly 4,900 room nights. Estimated spending associated with these overnights (based on

average spending of $125 per party) is $612,500. (This increase represents a 13 percent increase over the

current estimate of in-state market overnights.)

High Case: Increasing accommodation usage from 8 percent to 10 percent results in 9,800 room nights and

$1,225,000 in new spending. (This increase is a 25 percent increase over the current overnighting market.)

FALL/WINTER IN-STATE VISITATION

As with the in-state summer market, fall/winter travelers report low usage of commercial accommodations in

the Mat-Su region (9 percent). The estimated number of room nights associated with this market is just over

60,000.

The study team estimated the role that trail system enhancements could play in drawing residents further

into the region, extending their stay and ultimately increasing their usage of overnight accommodations like

lodges and B&Bs. Interviews with regional lodge owners and tour operators reinforce the study team’s

assumptions about the potential for market growth.

Leading winter travel motives include several trail-oriented activities like snowmobiling (15 percent), skiing

(10 percent) and dog mushing (3 percent). Based on the popularity of these activities among Alaska

residents, trail system enhancements can stimulate increased travel frequency and overnights.


Low Case: An increase from 9 percent to 9.5 percent in accommodation usage could result in nearly 3,400

additional room nights. Reflecting lower accommodation rates during the fall/winter months, the study team

estimated an average expenditure of $115 per travel party. Spending generated from the additional

overnights totals $391,000. (This represents an increase of nearly 6 percent among overnight stays from this

market.)

High Case: Increasing accommodation usage to from 9 percent to 10 percent would result in nearly 6,800

room nights and $782,000 in new spending. (The percentage of residents that overnight in the region would

increase by 11 percent in this scenario.)

SUMMARY

The study team forecasts that a comprehensive trail system enhancement program could increase the

percentage of the existing visitor markets that overnight in the Mat-Su region. The low case scenario reveals a

potential increase of nearly 12,000 overnights and $2 million in new spending. The high case scenario reflects

an increase of nearly 24,000 visitor nights and nearly $4 million in new spending.

As noted in the analysis, the ability for the region to achieve these projects is directly related to the

magnitude and quality of the trail system enhancement program and associated marketing.

Potential Annual Increases in Visitor Overnights and Spending Resulting From Trail System Enhancements


Low Case

Summer visitors 2,950 $860,000





High Case







Trail System Enhancement Development Costs

TRAILHEADS

Trailheads are facilities that provide access to a trail or trail system. They also provide vehicle parking,

gathering points for groups to meet and to plan trips and areas to rest and relax. At minimum, trailheads

should have reasonable parking areas to handle anticipated capacity. The parking lot should provide safe

access and exit to and from the roadway.

Roadway signage should provide adequate direction and notification to the trailheads, and trailhead signage

should provide specific information about the trail other trails in the area. The size, the amount of parking

and the amenities at each trailhead should be determined by the usage pattern, proximity to other services in

the area and the desire to encourage and promote the use of the many trails in the borough.

Hiking, Biking, Skiing Trailheads

Type Sq. Ft. of Parking Lot


Spaces

# of Public Toilets

# of Handicapped

Parking Spaces

Total Development

Cost

Annual Maintenance

Cost

Small Trailheads 5,000 6-8 1 1 $150,000 $10,000

Medium Trailheads 10,000 12-16 2 2 250,000 20,000

Large Trailheads 15,000 16-20 3 2 400,000 30,000

Major Trailheads 25,000+ 30+ 3+ 2-4 750,000 50,000

RV and Snow Machine Trailheads

Type Sq. Ft. of Parking Lot


Spaces

# of Public Toilets

# of Handicapped

Parking Spaces

Total Development

Cost

Annual Maintenance

Cost

Medium Trailheads 10,000 8-10 1 1 $250,000 $20,000

Large Trailheads 18,000 16-20 2 1-2 400,000 30,000

Major Trailheads 35,000+ 30+ 4 3-4 750,000 50,000

TRAIL AMENITIES AND SIGNAGE

Additional amenities can enhance trails but also will increase development, operation and maintenance costs.

In general, the higher the visitor use is at a trailhead, the more amenities that should be provided.

Trails signage is an important amenity on a trail system. It is important that signs be located and designed to

enhance the outdoor experience. Higher-use areas generally require more signage, with fewer signs necessary

in remote areas.


Trail Amenities

Amenities Total Development Cost

Annual Maintenance Cost

Toilet $60,000 $7,500

Potable Water 40,000 1,000

Garbage Cans/Dumpsters 10,000 2,000

Sheltered/Picnic Areas 100,000 5,000

Fire pit/Barbeque 5,000 250

50-Space Camp Ground 3,000,000 100,000

Signage

Type Primary Information Secondary Information

Total Development

Cost

Annual Maintenance

Cost

Trailhead Kiosks Trail maps and

description of trail length and difficulty

Trail rules Trail etiquette

Emergency contact information

information about vegetation, wildlife

and travel restrictions

$20,000 $1,000

Directional Signs Navigational aid such as trail name, length and route distance

Should be also posted along the

route guiding toward destination

500 25

Warning Sign Cautions trail users of upcoming hazards

Used for dangerous trail segments, narrow bridges,

wildlife habitat and other elements of

increased risk

500 25

Difficulty-level Signs

Post at trailheads or access points where there is a change in trail difficulty level

n/a 500 25

Regulatory Signs Delineate rules, such

as use restrictions and seasonal closures

n/a 500 25

Educational Signs

Interpretive signs for natural and cultural

points of interest along the trail system

n/a 2500 125


Sustainable Trail Standards

All trail users create an impact to the area the trail travels through. The purpose of the trail is to minimize the

impact to the natural environment by confining the activity in one corridor. The trail corridor is modified in

order to handle the traffic it receives. By definition sustainable trails protect the natural environment and are

constructed in a manner that requires minimal on-going maintenance. The following are key elements in

planning for sustainable trails:

• Establish maintenance and design standards for motorized and non-motorized trails.

• Design trails with consideration for grades and slopes. Trails should follow natural topography. Side-

hill slopes of greater than 15 percent should be avoided.

• Coordinate excavation with vegetation and drainage considerations. Minimize soil disturbance in

order to allow vegetation the best chance for survival; aesthetic appeal will be correspondingly high.

• Eliminate the potential for erosion.

• Use arboriculturally correct and aesthetic pruning or removal of tree limbs and shrubs.

• Minimize drainage problems by removing water at the first opportunity.

• Maintain existing drainage patterns; do not force nature.

• Out-slope the trail, 1-3 percent, to allow for sheet drainage; accurately shape backslope to prevent

erosion.

• Use select borrow or retaining walls to improve less than adequate trail surface areas.

• Attain proper slope and compaction through a detailed analysis of onsite conditions during wet and

dry periods.

• Consider the physical and visual relationship of vegetation to the trail.



Achieving projected changes discussed below in overnight visitation and spending is contingent on a

comprehensive visitor information program and a likely 5 to 10-year time horizon.

Potential Market Increases from Visitor Support Service Enhancements

Visitor information kiosks and informational signage play an important role in ensuring that the traveler

understands what there is to see and do in an area. The more the region has to offer, the longer visitors will

stay. Only a small portion of visitors stop at visitor information centers (less than 10 percent nationally),

therefore supporting signage is essential to help visitors find their way to the communities, activities and

attractions found in the region.

Additional visitor information kiosks and signage will have the most impact on independent visitors from both

non-resident and resident markets. In summer, this represents an estimated 200,000 non-resident

independent visitors and 263,000 Alaska residents. If these improvements influence just 3 percent of each

market to stay an additional night in the region, then the region would see $876,000 in additional spending

from non-resident visitors (6,000 visitors @ $146 per night; 3,000 room nights) and $986,250 from resident

visitors (7,890 visitors @ $125 per night; 3,945 room nights), for a total of nearly $1.9 million annually. If

these improvements influenced 5 percent of each market, then the new spending would be $1.46 million for

non-residents and $1.64 million for Alaska residents, for a total of over $3 million.

In fall/winter, visitor support service enhancements will also help influence longer stays from both markets.

Non-resident visitors are small in number and typically are visiting friends and family or traveling on business,

with only a small percentage (15 percent) on vacation. If 5 percent of this market were influenced to spend

just an extra one-half day in the region, then an additional $77,700 would be generated in new spending

(1,850 visitors @ $84; 925 room nights). If 5 percent of this market could be influenced to spend an

additional night in the region, then an additional $155,400 in new spending would be generated.

Alaska residents typically travel to the region during these months on the weekends. The increased spending

at first will come from doing more during their stay, rather than increasing the length of their stay. Additional

visitor information will stimulate travel frequency and longer stays on subsequent trips. If 5 percent of the

non-resident market spent an extra one-half day in the region, then an additional $378,100 in spending

would be generated. If 5 percent stayed an additional night in the region, then the spending would be

$756,200. In total, new spending in fall/winter could range from $456,000 to $912,000 annually from these

improvements.


Potential Annual Increases in Visitor Overnights and Spending Resulting From Visitor Support Service Enhancements


Low Case




High Case




Development Costs

INFORMATION KIOSKS

Construction cost estimates developed by MRV Architects and HMS, Inc., are approximately $72,000 for each

100 sq. ft. building. Facility and cost assumptions used in this estimate include:

• The kiosks would be free-standing and approximately 10 feet by 10 feet. Roof eaves and a covered

standing area would add another 50 sq. ft. of covered space.

• The facility would be designed to be staffed, with roll-up service counters on two sides and some

interior cabinetry.

• The building would be wood-framed, have a pitched roof with metal roofing and be positioned on a

concrete slab. No interior plumbing is anticipated; facility would have sufficient electrical capacity for

lighting and baseboard heat. Design would anticipate use of computers and phone lines.

• At $475 per sq. ft. for construction costs, and a small contingency, estimated construction costs total

$55,000. Factoring typical multipliers for design, administration and furnishings, the total project cost

could reach $72,000 per kiosk.

INFORMATIONAL SIGNAGE

Costs would be similar to signage costs detailed in the previous section on trail-related signs.

MAT-SU BED TAX REVENUE SCENARIOS

BED TAX SCENARIOSProjected Growth 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 TotalLOW CASE = 5% growth

5% bed tax $1,022,923 $1,074,069 $1,127,772 $1,184,161 $1,243,369 $1,305,537 $1,370,814 $1,439,355 $1,511,323 $1,586,889 $12,866,2116% bed tax $1,227,507 $1,288,883 $1,353,327 $1,420,993 $1,492,043 $1,566,645 $1,644,977 $1,727,226 $1,813,587 $1,904,266 $15,439,4537% bed tax $1,432,092 $1,503,696 $1,578,881 $1,657,825 $1,740,716 $1,827,752 $1,919,140 $2,015,097 $2,115,852 $2,221,644 $18,012,6958% bed tax $1,636,676 $1,718,510 $1,804,436 $1,894,657 $1,989,390 $2,088,860 $2,193,303 $2,302,968 $2,418,116 $2,539,022 $20,585,937

MEDIUM CASE - 10% growth5% bed tax $1,071,633 $1,178,797 $1,296,676 $1,426,344 $1,568,978 $1,725,876 $1,898,464 $2,088,310 $2,297,141 $2,526,855 $17,079,0746% bed tax $1,285,960 $1,414,556 $1,556,011 $1,711,613 $1,882,774 $2,071,051 $2,278,156 $2,505,972 $2,756,569 $3,032,226 $20,494,8897% bed tax $1,500,287 $1,650,315 $1,815,347 $1,996,881 $2,196,570 $2,416,226 $2,657,849 $2,923,634 $3,215,997 $3,537,597 $23,910,7038% bed tax $1,714,613 $1,886,074 $2,074,682 $2,282,150 $2,510,365 $2,761,402 $3,037,542 $3,341,296 $3,675,426 $4,042,968 $27,326,518

HIGH CASE - 15% growth5% bed tax $1,120,344 $1,288,395 $1,481,655 $1,703,903 $1,959,488 $2,253,412 $2,591,423 $2,980,137 $3,427,157 $3,941,231 $22,747,1466% bed tax $1,344,413 $1,546,074 $1,777,986 $2,044,684 $2,351,386 $2,704,094 $3,109,708 $3,576,164 $4,112,589 $4,729,477 $27,296,5757% bed tax $1,568,481 $1,803,754 $2,074,317 $2,385,464 $2,743,284 $3,154,776 $3,627,993 $4,172,192 $4,798,020 $5,517,723 $31,846,0048% bed tax $1,792,550 $2,061,433 $2,370,648 $2,726,245 $3,135,181 $3,605,459 $4,146,277 $4,768,219 $5,483,452 $6,305,970 $36,395,433


Appendix D: Contacts and Information Sources

Project Contacts

The project team wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals during the

development of this project. Many other individuals also assisted the team with data clarification and other

questions.

• Laura Bedard, Executive Director, Iron Dog, Wasilla

• Wayne Beissel, Supervisor, Mat-Su Area State Parks, Palmer

• Scott Carrlee, Curator of Museum Services, Alaska State Museum, Juneau

• Stefanie Gorder, Premier Alaska Tours, Anchorage

• Steve Halloran, Vice President of Community, Member & Visitor Relations, Anchorage Convention &

Visitors Bureau

• Deb Hickok, President and CEO, Fairbanks Convention & Visitors Bureau

• Lisa Holzapfel, Director, Rivers and Trails Conservation, National Parks Service, Anchorage

• Jeff Jabush, Finance Director, City of Wrangell

• Maggie Kelly, Director of Alaska Operations, Royal Celebrity Tours, Anchorage

• James King, Director of State Parks, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage

• Bill Luck, Trail Coordinator, Chugach State Park, Anchorage

• Chris Mannix, Director, Denali Nordic Ski Club, Talkeetna

• Cheryl Metiva, Executive Director, Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce, Wasilla

• Marty Metiva, Executive Director, Mat-Su RC&D, Wasilla

• Bob Noll, Finance Department, City of Ketchikan

• Bruce Paulson, Parks and Recreation Staff, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Palmer

• Dean Phipps, Marketing Director, Alaska State Fair, Palmer

• Eileen Probasco, Director of Planning and Land Use, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Palmer

• Bonnie Quill, Executive Director, Mat-Su Convention and Visitors Bureau, Palmer

• Ruby Rector, Borough Treasurer, Denali Borough

• Ross Risvold, Public Finance Director, Municipality of Anchorage

• Mike Schroeder, Planning, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage

• Craig Seibert, Owner, Gate Creek Cabins, Petersville Road

• Steve Silversteen, Planning, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Anchorage

• Chas St. George, Director of Public Relations, Iditarod Trail Committee, Wasilla

• Ed Strabel, Groomer, Mat-Su Ski Club, Hatcher Pass

• Jim Stratton, Director, National Parks Conservation Association, Anchorage

• Ron Swanson, Consultant, RWS Consulting, Mat-Su Borough

• Brad Sworts, Transportation Department, Mat-Su Borough, Palmer


• Warren Templan, Parks and Recreation Staff, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Palmer

• Scott Torrison, Director of Tourism, CIRI, Talkeetna

• Bruce Urban, Recreation & Cultural Services Manager, City of Wasilla, Wasilla

• Miriam Valentine, Ranger, National Parks Service, Talkeetna

Data and Information Sources

Visitor volume estimates, expenditure estimates, and information about visitors’ activities within the Mat-Su

region are drawn from a number of sources, including:

• Alaska Visitor Statistics Program V, Fall/Winter, McDowell Group

• Alaska Visitor Statistics Program V, Summer, McDowell Group

• Alaska Resident In-State Pleasure Travel Study Report, GMA Research

• Alaska Taxable, Municipal Taxation Rates and Policies, State of Alaska, DCCED

• Demand Studies for Facilities Related to Hatcher Pass Ski Area, McDowell Group

• Draft South Denali Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, National Park Service

• Economic Development Plan, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, International Economic Development

Council

• Economic Impacts of the Alaska State Fair, McDowell Group

• Economic Impacts of the Cruise Industry in Alaska, McDowell Group

• Economic Impacts of the South Denali Implementation Plan, Institute of Social and Economic Research

• Glenn Highway National Scenic Byway Interpretive Plan, Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor

Recreation, Interpretation and Education

• Glenn Highway Partnership Plan, HDR Alaska, Inc. and Land Design North

• Haines Convention Center Feasibility Study, McDowell Group

• Hatcher Pass—A New Beginning, Matanuska-Susitna Borough

• Iditarod Restart Financial Impact Study, Northern Economics

• Mat-Su Long Range Transportation Plan, HDR Alaska, Inc.

• Mat-Su Regional Aviation Plan, DOWL Engineers Inc.

• Mat-Su Visitor Impact Study, Fall/Winter, Alaska Village Initiatives

• Mat-Su Visitor Impact Study, Summer, Alaska Village Initiatives

• Mat-Su Visitor Profiles, McDowell Group

• Knik Arm Crossing, Final Environmental Impact Statement, KABTA

• Knik Arm Toll Bridge Traffic and Toll Review, Wilbur Smith Associates

• Denali National Park and Preserve Final South Denali Implementation Plan, National Park Service

• National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 2006, U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service


The study team also collected updated population data from the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce

Development, analyzed cruise passenger data from Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska, compiled business license

and bed tax data for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and utilized the econometric model IMPLAN to identify

employment and labor income impacts of the industry.


Appendix E: Montana Tourism Infrastructure Investment Program Guidelines

A copy of the 2007 guidelines follows this cover page.

TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM GUIDELINES

2007 Purpose - The purpose of the Tourism Infrastructure Investment Program (TIIP) is to provide grant funding to facilitate the development of new tourism-related products, and the enhancement of existing products to encourage visitors to stay in the state of Montana longer. Such developments and enhancements will strengthen Montana’s presence in the marketplace as a competitive tourism destination. Program Summary - Source of funds:

Travel Montana, a division of the Montana Department of Commerce, as part of its annual operating budget utilizing Montana Lodging Facility Use Tax revenues, will provide the funding for the TIIP.

Amount of funds available annually:

Travel Montana will set the TIIP Grant funding amount as part of its annual budgeting process. The amount will be identified as part of Travel Montana’s budget at the June Tourism Advisory Council meeting and announced through various public information sources.

Number and dollar amount of grant awards:

There is no set number of grant awards that may be made in any fiscal year. However, the total dollar amount of the grant award(s) to be made each year may not exceed the total amount of the TIIP funding set by Travel Montana for that specific year. The minimum grant funding that can be allocated to any one proposed project in any fiscal year will be $20,000. The maximum grant funding that can be allocated to any one proposed project will be the maximum of the TIIP funding set for that given fiscal year. A proposed project may receive all, or a portion of the grant funding requested in a specific grant proposal.

Program matching funds policy: The project sponsor must provide a match to the funds available through the TIIP. The required project sponsor match will be a minimum $1.00 for every $2.00 in TIIP monies allocated. The project match must be in the form of a monetary investment (hard match) or money invested in the project during the current fiscal year and the immediate previous fiscal year prior to the application deadline. Proposed matches will be reviewed on a specific project by project basis by

1

Travel Montana. The proof of the hard match or money invested in the project will have to be provided prior to the release of any TIIP funds.

Un-allocated grant funds:

Grant funds not allocated through the TIIP in any given fiscal year will revert back to Travel Montana’s general budget to be re-allocated to other Travel Montana programs.

Time period for spending grant funds:

The project must be completed within 18 months from the signing of the contract by the Department of Commerce.

Program Fund Usage - Only non-profit, tourism-related projects will be eligible for TIIP funding. The TIIP Scoring Committee will review projects submitted for consideration and determine specific project eligibility, rating and level of funding to be allocated. The following types of usage would be allowed and encouraged with funds as part of the TIIP (list is not all-inclusive):

* Project construction costs (brick & mortar) associated with building new and/or remodeling or preserving existing tourism and recreation attractions, historical sites and artifacts

* Costs associated with purchasing new and/or existing tourism and recreation

attractions, historical sites and artifacts * Equipment purchased for specific tourism project operation

The following types of usage would not be allowed with funds as part of the TIIP (list is not all-inclusive):

* Salaries and administrative costs such as rent, postage, utilities, taxes, etc.

* Entertainment, honoraria

* Travel, food or lodging

* Marketing, advertising, trade shows

* Infrastructure such as community roads, sewers, sidewalks, water systems, etc.

* Routine upkeep and maintenance expenses

* Market research/feasibility studies Program Application Process - Program Applicants:

2

TIIP Grant funds will only be allocated to applicant sponsors officially representing tourism-related, non-profit groups (such as chambers of commerce, economic development corporations, community clubs or organizations, historic preservation associations, etc.). Program applicants must be officially recognized by the IRS as having a non-profit status. Montana Indian tribes, cities and counties would be considered as qualifying tourism-related, non-profit groups for the purposes of applying for TIIP Grant funds. State and federal public-sector agencies may apply for grant funds as a part of this program, but may be considered lower in priority to qualified private-sector applicants.

Applicants may apply in successive years, regardless of receiving funding in previous TIIP project applications. Applicants awarded TIIP funds are eligible to re-apply for program funds only after they have successfully completed and closed out their TIIP project contract. Applicants and projects receiving TIIP funds within the previous 5 years may be considered lower in priority to other qualified applicants. Applications for the TIIP Grants are updated by March of each year. To access a current TIIP Application, contact Travel Montana’s Tourism Development Coordinator, 406-841-2795, or download the forms from the program’s website: http://travelmontana.mt.gov/forms/

Project Grant Proposal Review, Scoring & Selection Procedure: Grant proposals received by the established deadline set forth in the application will be reviewed and scored by the TIIP Scoring Committee. This committee will, at a minimum, be comprised of two representatives from the Montana Department of Commerce’s Travel Montana program and three representatives from the Tourism Advisory Council. Grant proposals will be scored on the strength and merit of the proposal as demonstrated in the responses to the TIIP Application’s questions and requests for information. Grant proposals must respond to all sections of the TIIP Grant Application in the manner requested by the application’s questions and requests for information. One grant proposal must be submitted for each project requesting funding consideration.

Following its review and scoring, the committee will present its TIIP Grant Funding recommendation list to the Tourism Advisory Council at their Fall meeting. The Council will act on these recommendations and develop a TIIP Grant funding recommendation list to be sent to the Montana Department of Commerce Director for final approval.

Disbursement of Funds - Following the Montana Department of Commerce Director’s approval of the TIIP Grant Funding recommendation list, Travel Montana will initiate

3

http://travelmontana.mt.gov/forms/

and coordinate the completion of necessary contractual agreements between the Department of Commerce and the appropriate project sponsor(s). Such contractual agreements will outline, among other pertinent details, a Project Implementation Schedule, Duties and Expectations of each party and penalties for non-performance. Upon finalization of the necessary contractual documentation, Travel Montana will facilitate the steps necessary to distribute the grant funds to the appropriate project sponsor(s). No TIIP funds may be obligated until the contract has been signed by both the project sponsor and the Department of Commerce. TIIP funds may only be used for the purpose approved in the application. Project Status Reports - Project sponsors receiving TIIP Grant fund awards will be required to submit quarterly project development and implementation update reports from the time the contract is finalized until such time as the proposed project is completed, and/or until such time as the 18-month time period has expired. These brief reports must follow a pre-determined format to include a short narrative describing the present status of the funded project and an accounting of grant funds invested to date in the development and implementation of the specific project. Project sponsors may also be invited to present project status reports to meetings of the Tourism Advisory Council.

4

Matanuska-Susitna Borough Tourism Infrastructure Needs Study

Documents