Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Dmo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
College Park council adopts DMO standards and companion funding policy amid public warnings over successor DMO
Summary
The City of College Park on June 15 adopted an ordinance setting standards for destination marketing organizations and a companion resolution on oversight of tourism funds. The actions passed despite public speakers and nearby officials urging caution about replacing the ATL airport district and alleging conflicts of interest over pre-allocated tourism dollars.
College Park’s mayor and city council on June 15 adopted new rules governing destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and a companion resolution spelling out oversight of tourism promotion funds, a pair of measures supporters said will strengthen transparency even as opponents warned the city against abruptly replacing the regional ATL airport district with an untested successor organization.
The ordinance establishing DMO standards and accountability (item 10H) passed with Councilwoman Dr. Jamal McKenzie, Council Member K, and Councilman Roderick Gay voting in favor and Council Member Arnold opposed. A related resolution setting policy guidance for DMO funding oversight (item 10I) passed with McKenzie and Gay in favor; Arnold opposed and Council Member K abstained.
Why it mattered: Several residents, hospitality leaders and the neighboring elected official from ‘‘Hateville’’ urged the council to pause or arrange a phased transition before ending the city’s contract with the ATL airport district, arguing that the regional organization brings long-standing relationships with convention planners, hotels and event promoters that drive room nights and visitor spending.
“Good governance doesn’t happen at 11:00 at night,” Sheri Godfrey told the council during public comment, urging the council to “table both votes, conduct a proper competitive process, and let accountability standards in your own ordinance actually govern your decision.” Godfrey also said the companion resolution appeared to pre-allocate millions in recovered tourism funds — including what she said was a $2 million allocation to the Gay Botanical Garden — and asked the council to explain whether that raised conflict-of-interest concerns.
Nearby council member Brett Riker said the city should either renew with the ATL district or negotiate at least a two-year transition to give any new DMO time to develop capacity. “If you go from renewal at midnight to a new DMO at 1 a.m. that is not ready,” Riker told the council, urging a data-driven, deliberate approach.
Business owners and hospitality stakeholders who spoke — including Nicole Adams, a member of the airport convention and visitors bureau board, and Christy Dean of Drip Coffee — described tangible benefits they said they had received from the ATL district’s sales and marketing work and cautioned that severing that relationship without a transition risked lost conventions, hotel room nights and local spending.
Council response and outcome: Council supporters said the ordinance will create clearer standards and new oversight mechanisms for DMOs that receive public funds. Council members voting for the measures framed the actions as putting accountability rules in place while giving the city policy tools to manage future DMO relationships.
The record shows the ordinance (10H) passed with a recorded split vote (Mackenzie, K, Gay in favor; Arnold opposed). The companion resolution (10I) passed with two in favor, one opposed and one abstention (McKenzie and Gay in favor; Arnold opposed; K abstained). Council minutes show several related procurement and funding items were moved on and off the consent agenda earlier in the meeting.
What’s next: The council’s action establishes the city’s formal standards for DMO behavior and sets policy guidance for spending tourism promotion funds. Several residents requested a public competitive process (an RFP) and asked staff to provide detailed reporting and auditing requirements for any funds transferred to a successor organization; council members said staff would return with implementation details as part of budget and contract review. The matter remains politically charged: public speakers demanded clearer answers about who will benefit from allocated funds and whether council members’ affiliations influence those outcomes.
Votes at a glance: Ordinance establishing DMO standards (10H) — passed (Mackenzie, K, Gay yes; Arnold no). Resolution on DMO funding oversight (10I) — passed (McKenzie, Gay yes; Arnold no; K abstain).
The council moved on to other business after extended public comment; the meeting entered executive session later that night for personnel and litigation.
