Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tourism Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Visit Montgomery presents FY26 request; committee signals support pending follow‑up on funding model
Summary
Visit Montgomery told the Economic Development Committee it needs an $88,000 FY26 increase to sustain marketing, sports tourism and the MOCO Eats initiative; council members pressed for data linking tourism investments to other county growth sectors and agreed to keep the executive’s recommendation in place while scheduling follow‑up.
Visit Montgomery, the county's destination marketing organization, presented its FY26 budget request and urged the Economic Development Committee to preserve recommended funding increases aimed at rebuilding tourism marketing and event support.
Mr. Ali, county staff, said the county executive’s recommendation adds about $88,000 to Visit Montgomery’s FY25 appropriation, including a $20,000 enhancement and a 3% inflationary adjustment. A Visit Montgomery representative, Kelly, told the committee that visitor spending and visitor counts have rebounded since the pandemic and that investments support programs such as MOCO Eats, the Tastemakers Trail and sports tourism.
“Day‑trip and overnight visitation grew between 2022 and 2023, and visitor spending rose,” Kelly said, pointing to site performance and a claimed return on investment from tourism marketing. Visit Montgomery noted increases in occupancy and revenue per available room and described a suite of marketing and sales initiatives, including new prospecting tools and targeted seasonal campaigns.
Council members asked how hotel tax revenue is counted (including whether short‑term rentals are included), how the $20,000 influencer line item would be allocated, and how Visit Montgomery evaluates impacts on the county’s strategic sectors such as biotech and life sciences. Staff said short‑term rental (STR) activity is included in the state‑collected hotel tax totals and that Visit Montgomery plans to absorb the influencer costs into its operating budget.
Members repeatedly framed the funding as an investment rather than an expense and emphasized the need for a sustainable revenue model. Councilmember Balcom urged a post‑budget review of the long‑standing 7% allocation to tourism and asked staff to place a discussion on the post‑budget list to examine whether the percentage or distribution model should change.
The committee did not move to cut the executive’s recommendation. Instead members expressed support for the proposed FY26 amount and requested follow‑up information on longer‑term funding models and sector‑specific impact measures.
The committee will revisit related budget and policy questions during the post‑budget process.
