September 1978 
 
 Prepared for the 
 
 United States Travel Service, 
 
 An agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce 
 
 by the United States Conference of Mayors. 
 
 • 
 
 ^ 0F c<v 
 
 8 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 Volume 1 
 
 5 
 
 m 
 
The study was conducted tor the 
 United States Travel Service, an 
 agency of the U.S. Department of 
 Commerce by the U.S. Conference of 
 Mayors, Institute for Urban and 
 Regional Economic Analysis. 
 
 The primary research was conducted 
 by the Department of Tourism and 
 Travel Administration, Graduate 
 School of Management and Urban 
 Professions, New School for Social 
 Research, New York City. 
 
 MARTA GOLDSMITH 
 
 Project Director 
 
 Institute for Urban and Regional 
 
 Economic Analysis 
 U.S. Conference of Mayors 
 
 GERALD T. HORTON 
 Principal Researcher 
 Visiting Professor of Urban Policy 
 
 Graduate School of Management 
 
 and Urban Professions 
 New School for Social Research 
 
 SUSAN ALT 
 
 Research Team Director 
 
 Acting Director, Department of 
 
 Tourism and Travel Development 
 New School for Social Research 
 
 Research Team 
 
 Joan Brown 
 
 Elizabeth Ketger 
 
 Lora Meyers 
 
 Evelyn Weiser 
 
 New School for Social Research 
 
 September, 1978 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 The U.S. Conference of Mayors under the Direction 
 of John J. Gunter as a part of the research program 
 of its Institute for Urban and Regional Economic 
 Analysis, under the direction of Melvin A. Mister, 
 conducted a study of city governmental activities in 
 travel, tourism, and convention promotion for the 
 United States Travel Service, the national govern- 
 ment tourism office of the United States. 
 
 The U.S. Conference of Mayors considers that tour- 
 ism is so important to the cities' economic growth 
 and development that it requires special attention. 
 
 The purpose of the project was to identify and 
 describe the major activities which make tourism 
 development an increasingly significant component 
 of the city's overall economic development program. 
 
 The Conference, in conjunction with the New School 
 for Social Research, conducted a mail survey of the 
 tourism and travel programs in all cities with popula- 
 tions over 100,000. The survey questionnaire re- 
 quested information regarding: 
 
 • Organizations conducting tourism promotion and 
 development programs such as city departments, 
 chambers of commerce, convention bureaus, and 
 international visitor agencies; 
 
 • Activities of each organization such as advertising 
 promotion, tour guides, research and multilingual 
 publications; 
 
 • Budgets of each of the identified organizations, 
 including sources of income and expenditures by 
 activity; and 
 
 • Relationships of the organizational units in areas 
 such as joint planning, programming and funding. 
 
 Responses were received from 150 of the 168 cities 
 surveyed and are presented in Volume 1 . 
 
 Case studies were used to identify and describe 
 notable city programs and their origins so that they 
 may be replicated by other cities. Findings from the 
 case studies are presented in Volume 2. 
 
 The project was managed by the U.S. Conference of 
 Mayors. The Project Director was Marta Goldsmith. 
 
 The research was carried out by the Department of 
 Tourism and Travel Administration, the New School 
 for Social Research. The project manager for the 
 New School was Susan Alt, Acting Director of 
 Tourism and Travel Administration New School for 
 Social Research. The principal researcher and prin- 
 cipal author of the report was Gerald Horton, 
 Visiting Professor for Urban Policy at the New 
 School. 
 
 We wish to thank all the cities who responded to the 
 survey. It was a difficult task and we were gratified at 
 the response. We hope the report will be useful to 
 Mayors and city administrators across the country as 
 they consider the role of travel and tourism in their 
 overall economic development programs. 
 
 September, 1978 
 
 in 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/citygovernmenttoOOunit 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 Chapter 1 
 
 City Government and Travel Promotion in Urban Economic Development 1 
 
 Chapter 2 
 Organization of City Tourism Programs 3 
 
 Chapter 3 
 
 The Financing of Travel Development by City Government 7 
 
 Chapter 4 
 
 Tourism and Convention Activities in City Government 13 
 
 Chapter 5 
 State Involvement in Local Tourism Programs 16 
 
Chapter 1 
 
 CITY GOVERNMENT AND TRAVEL PROMOTION 
 IN URBAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
 
 Today, the tourism, travel, and convention business 
 is booming and the cities are the center of that boom. 
 As Horace Sutton, editor of the Saturday Review, 
 said recently "Only five years after cities had been 
 left for dead, the hardest thing to find in maligned 
 and moribund New York is a hotel room." 
 
 The cities have survived their hand-wringing critics 
 and are centers of activity not only for the citizen, 
 but especially for the traveler. 
 
 Historically, cities have functioned as meeting places. 
 Where industry and commercial activity may move to 
 the suburbs or beyond, conversely the airports, 
 highway systems, and the size and activities of the 
 city itself are major motivating forces drawing the 
 tourist and the conventioneer. 
 
 In addition, the managerial resources, financial in- 
 vestment, and the broad spectrum of support services 
 necessary for the growth and maintenance of this in- 
 dustry are located primarily in America's cities. 
 
 Public funds have been used to build coliseums, 
 stadiums, and convention centers. The size and 
 number of these physical resources demonstrate the 
 growth of the cities' commitment to the visitor as a 
 source of income and economic viability. 
 
 The private sector is the city's full partner in the 
 economic activity of the tourism industry. Conven- 
 tion facilities, trade marts, hotels, and restaurants, 
 and, in some cases, even transportation systems, are 
 intended and designed by the private sector to attract 
 the tourist and business traveler's dollar. 
 
 In the last three to five years, local governments have 
 become increasingly cognizant of the importance of 
 working in tandem with private industry in their 
 redevelopment efforts. Cities are looking to those in- 
 dustries which flourish in the unique environment of 
 a city. This environment, which consists of a high 
 level of opportunity for face-to-face and broadcast 
 communication, commercial diversity, cultural 
 resources, intermodal transportation, and financial 
 and informational services can offer these industries 
 access and opportunities that would not be available 
 in suburban or rural locales. 
 
 Tourism and conventions are two economic sectors 
 that need what a city can offer. Cities are learning to 
 work with the private sector of the tourism industry 
 in their overall economic development effort. 
 
 In describing the important economic characteristics 
 of the American city, one of the most significant 
 ones must be its function as a place to meet and visit. 
 As efforts are made and as means are sought to 
 create jobs, encourage new capital investment, and 
 stimulate economic development in the city, the 
 travel and tourism industry becomes an increasingly 
 obvious and important sector for examination. 
 
 Rejuvenation of the city with its array of theaters, 
 hotels, restaurants, and music has caught the 
 eye of the exploding convention market. Chicago, 
 one of the nation's biggest convention cities, tabu- 
 lated $509 million spent by trade-show and conven- 
 tion delegates in 1977, up from $207 million in 1967. 
 Los Angeles, relatively new to the convention trade, 
 hosted 216 meetings in 1977, its finest year, and 
 entertained nearly half a million delegates who spent 
 more than $100 million in the city. 
 
The travel industry provides employment opportuni- 
 ties as cities seek new jobs for a changing urban 
 population. 
 
 "The travel industry stands out among major U.S. 
 industries as a creator of jobs, especially for 
 minorities, women and youth . . . the groups that 
 most need new jobs," Grover Heiman, editor of Na- 
 tions Business, said in an article on travel. 
 
 Some critics contend these are not very good jobs. 
 "Yet a job within the reach of an inner city resident is 
 a better prospect than are those 30 miles away," Ken- 
 neth Fry, who was the first director of development 
 for the city of Milwaukee and currently an urban 
 consultant in Washington, D.C., said in a recent 
 article. It is also better than no job at all. 
 
 The travel industry is becoming an increasingly large 
 segment of the economy of urban America. Cities 
 developed as the focal point of transportation, and 
 older cities are repositories of history and culture. 
 Cities, therefore, are at the center of tourists' in- 
 terests. They provide airports, convention centers, 
 highways, and other support services and activities 
 for the traveler and they perform important func- 
 tions as a place to meet and visit as well as servicing 
 this major growth industry. 
 
 It is necessary that cities realize the importance of 
 this growing industry. As cities begin to examine 
 their economies more closely and to develop policies 
 and programs for economic development, tourism 
 and convention promotion must be addressed. 
 
 Fabian Chavez, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
 Tourism, said, "Tourism is economic development. 
 Tourism should be included as a part of economic 
 development planning at the local, state, and na- 
 tional levels." 
 
 Ideally, a city should be able to develop an overall 
 economic development strategy which would serve as 
 a framework for both public and private investment. 
 This economic strategy should include local public 
 and private activites related to tourism and conven- 
 tion promotion. 
 
 This report focuses specifically on cities and the 
 mechanisms they can employ, intergovernmentally 
 with other governmental resources, and in conjunc- 
 tion with the private sector of the tourism industry, 
 to promote urban capital investment, increased tax 
 revenues, and job development associated with the 
 tourist industry. 
 
Chapter 2 
 
 ORGANIZATION OF CITY TOURISM PROGRAMS 
 
 There are almost as many ways for a city to organize 
 its tourism and convention development activities as 
 there are cities. For this assessment, three basic types 
 are described. A city may (1) conduct all of its 
 tourism related activities within the city government, 
 (2) contract with an outside agency for their services 
 or (3) do both. A few cities which neither have a unit 
 within city government nor contract out for services 
 may fund outside organizations on a noncontractual 
 basis but this arrangement is atypical and the serv- 
 ices provided minimal. 
 
 Of the 150 cities responding to the survey, 26 in- 
 dicated they have an office, organizational unit or 
 staff with the specific responsibility for travel, tour- 
 ism and convention development and have no outside 
 contractual arrangements. Of these, 21 indicated that 
 responsibility for these rest with a line agency, six of 
 the 26 place that responsibility with a city Conven- 
 tion and Visitors bureau and four with the Mayor's 
 Office. These cities are listed in Table 1 on page 5. 
 
 The departments where these responsibilities are 
 placed vary. They include, among others, Depart- 
 ments of Community Services, Departments of 
 Public Information, Departments of Conventions 
 and Tourism and Departments of Commerce. Only 
 four cities specified that their tourism and conven- 
 tion development activities are located in their 
 departments of economic development. 
 
 The staff size for these city units also vary greatly. 
 The largest staffs are the Las Vegas Convention and 
 Visitors Authority and the Miami /Dade County 
 Metro Department of Tourism Promotion both with 
 27 staff people. 
 
 For the 31 cities which indicated that they have full- 
 time professional staffs: 
 
 Number of Full-Time 
 
 Number of Cities 
 
 Professional Staff 
 
 Responding 
 
 1-5 persons 
 
 22 cities 
 
 6-10 persons 
 
 3 cities 
 
 More than 10 persons 
 
 6 cities 
 
 The second type of organizational arrangement is 
 one in which all travel development activities are pro- 
 vided by agencies outside the city government on a 
 contractual basis. This was the most prevelant ap- 
 proach with 72 cities indicating that they contracted 
 out for services and did not have an organizational 
 unit within the city government for tourism and 
 travel development promotion . Examples of cities 
 who contract all of these activities out include: 
 
 • Birmingham, Alabama which has a $238,591 
 contract with an independent Convention and 
 Visitors Bureau; 
 
 • Garden Grove, California which has a three- 
 year $43,000 contract with its Chamber of 
 Commerce; and 
 
 • Fall River, Massachusetts which has a $3,000 
 contract with the Bristol County Development 
 Council. 
 
 Of the three types of organizational arrangements, 
 least prevalent are those cities which have both a unit 
 of city government and contract with outside institu- 
 tions. Thirteen of the cities indicated that they 
 employed this approach. Examples of this approach 
 include: 
 
 • Jacksonville, Florida which has a contract with 
 an independent Convention and Visitors 
 Bureau; but administers the Bureau's advertis- 
 ing through the Information Services Division 
 of the city; 
 
• Boston, Massachusetts which has an Audi- 
 torium Commission and a contract with the in- 
 dependent Convention and Visitor's Bureau 
 through the Freedom Trail Commission and its 
 Foreign Visitors Bureau; and 
 
 • Nashville, Tennessee which has two staff peo- 
 ple in the Mayor's office involved in tourism 
 related activities and has a contract with the 
 Chamber of Commerce for tourism and con- 
 vention promotion. 
 
 A list of these cities is shown in Table 1 on page 5. 
 
 There appeared to be a fairly high level of consisten- 
 cy among the cities with regard to whom they con- 
 tract with for services. Forty-six cities indicated that 
 they had contracts with the local convention or 
 visitors bureau or a similar organization. Thirty con- 
 tract with their Chamber of Commerce. Two cities 
 have contracts with their Foreign Visitor's Bureau. 
 One city, Atlanta, contracts with a state faculty, the 
 World Congress Center. The city of Boston contracts 
 with the Visitor's Information Center. A list of cities 
 which contract with each type of agency is in Table 1 
 on page 5. 
 
 Of the cities responding to the survey questionnaires, 
 37 reported that they were in no way involved in 
 travel tourism and convention development. 
 
 Chart 1 
 
 City Governmental Role in Tourism/Convention Development 
 
 Universe: 148 Cities 
 
Table 1 
 
 AGENCIES WITH WHOM CITIES CONTRACT FOR THEIR 
 TOURISM, TRAVEL, AND CONVENTION DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 
 
 Convention/Visitors Bureau (or similar) 
 
 Chamber of Commerce 
 
 Albany 
 
 
 Flint 
 
 Orlando 
 
 Albuquerque 
 
 Ft. Worth 
 
 Portsmouth 
 
 Akron 
 
 
 Fresno 
 
 Pasadena 
 
 Allentown 
 
 Fresno 
 
 Raleigh 
 
 Anaheim 
 
 
 Grand Rapids 
 
 Philadelphia 
 
 Atlanta 
 
 Garden Grove 
 
 Riverside 
 
 Atlanta 
 
 
 Hartford 
 
 Phoenix 
 
 Austin 
 
 Hollywood 
 
 Spokane 
 
 Baton Rouge 
 
 Jacksonville 
 
 Pittsburgh 
 
 Charlotte 
 
 Huntsville 
 
 Stockton 
 
 Beaumont 
 
 
 Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 Portand 
 
 Chesapeake 
 
 Lexington 
 
 Tampa 
 
 Birmingham 
 
 Lansing 
 
 Providence 
 
 Colorado Springs 
 
 Minneapolis 
 
 Toledo 
 
 Boston 
 
 
 Lexington 
 
 Richmond 
 
 Columbia, S.C. 
 
 Mobile 
 
 Torrance 
 
 Buffalo 
 
 
 Long Beach 
 
 Roanoke 
 
 Denver 
 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Tulsa 
 
 Charlotte 
 
 
 Lubbock 
 
 St. Louis 
 
 Ft. Lauderdale 
 
 Orlando 
 
 
 Chicago 
 
 
 Macon 
 
 St. Paul 
 
 
 
 
 Columbus, 
 
 Ga. 
 
 Madison 
 
 San Francisco 
 
 
 
 
 Columbus, 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Memphis 
 
 San Diego 
 
 
 
 
 Corpus Christi 
 
 Milwaukee 
 
 Savannah 
 
 
 
 
 Dallas 
 
 
 Montgomery 
 
 Seattle 
 
 
 
 
 Dayton 
 
 
 New Orleans 
 
 Spokane 
 
 
 
 
 Denver 
 
 
 New York 
 
 Wichita 
 Winston-Salem 
 
 
 
 
Thirteen of the cities surveyed indicated that they 
 have advisory groups or task forces within the city 
 government organization for travel, tourism and /or 
 convention development. Two cities — El Paso and 
 Nashville — have such units established by city or- 
 dinance. Baltimore has an informal group which in- 
 cludes the three persons in charge of the three agen- 
 cies primarily concerned with promotion and 
 tourism. 
 
 • Wichita, Kansas has a Convention and Tourism 
 Advisory Committee appointed by the City 
 with a membership representing hotels, motels, 
 city facilities, the local university and citizens- 
 at-large. A representative from the convention 
 bureau serves as an ex officio member. The 
 committee reviews and advises the City Com- 
 mission on programs and budgetary considera- 
 tions relating to tourism. 
 
 Other cities having an advisory body include: 
 
 • Fort Lauderdale, Florida has an Economic 
 Development Task Force with representatives 
 from the Greater Fort Lauderdale Chamber of 
 Commerce, the Fort Lauderdale Ambassadors 
 and the Hotel and Restaurant Association. 
 
 • Miami /Dade County, Florida has a recently 
 formed Tourism Development Council with 
 representatives from the Metropolitan Dade 
 County government to establish a countywide 
 resort tax for funding tourism promotion. 
 
 • Boston, Massachusetts has recently formed a 
 pro-Boston program with an Advisory Com- 
 mittee chaired by a deputy mayor with tourism 
 as one of its focal points. The committee will 
 develop recommendations for action and pre- 
 sent them to the mayor. 
 
 • Columbus, Ohio uses its Mayor's Economic 
 Development Council, Promotions and Public 
 Relations Task Force to advise and make 
 recommendations on promotions on plans for 
 economic development for the City including 
 its relationship to travel and tourism and 
 recreational development. 
 
Chapter 3 
 
 THE FINANCING OF TRAVEL DEVELOPMENT 
 BY CITY GOVERNMENT 
 
 More than 100 of the cities surveyed reported a 
 budgeted expenditure for tourism, travel and conven- 
 tion programs and promotion. These expenditures 
 included both city-expended funds and contracted 
 services with Chambers of Commerce, Convention 
 and Visitors Bureaus, etc. 
 
 Las Vegas reported the largest budget, $13.4 million 
 and the largest per capita expenditure $72.43 per 
 citizen. Because the income is derived from both an 
 occupancy tax and a percent of the gaming tax, it 
 bears little relationship to any other city in the United 
 States. 
 
 Thirteen cities, not counting Las Vegas, spend more 
 than $1.75 per capita for travel and tourism as shown 
 in Table 2. 
 
 Table 2 
 
 SELECTED CITIES WITH MAJOR 
 FINANCING FOR TRAVEL DEVELOPMENT 
 
 
 
 PER 
 
 
 
 CAPITA 
 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 AMOUNT 
 
 CITY 
 
 EXPENDITURES 
 
 EXPENDED 
 
 Anchorage, Alaska 
 
 $ 258,000 
 
 S.40 
 
 Arlington, Texas 
 
 290,000 
 
 1.87 
 
 Amarillo, Texas 
 
 316,000 
 
 2.00 
 
 Long Beach, California 
 
 850,000 
 
 2.36 
 
 Little Rock, Arkansas 
 
 1,600,000 
 
 9.08 
 
 Los Angeles, California 
 
 6,800,000 
 
 2.49 
 
 Louisville, Kentucky 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 3.29 
 
 Nashville, Tennessee 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 2.24 
 
 Norfolk, Virginia 
 
 500,000 
 
 1.91 
 
 San Diego, California 
 
 1,200,000 
 
 1.59 
 
 San Francisco, California 
 
 1,300,000 
 
 1.93 
 
 San Antonio, Texas 
 
 1,300,000 
 
 1.75 
 
 Virginia Beach, Virginia 
 
 1,100,000 
 
 4.40 
 
 All thirteen of these cities have a hotel-motel oc- 
 cupancy tax, a portion of which is allocated to travel 
 development. This resource is the basis of their finan- 
 cial support. 
 
 Table 3 on page 8 indicates city expenditures in cer- 
 tain ranges. It also indicates the per capita expendi- 
 ture. 
 
 Tables 4 and 5 indicate the funding sources for the 
 cities responding to the survey. 
 
 Other than general revenues, a hotel-motel room oc- 
 cupancy tax is the most common source of financing 
 for tourism and convention development activities by 
 city government. As noted earlier, the largest funded 
 programs use this source. Approximately 60 cities 
 surveyed indicate that they use transient occupancy 
 tax income for this purpose. 
 
 City governments finance their travel development 
 programs from a number of sources. These include 
 allocations from such sources as the general fund, 
 hotel-motel occupancy tax, entertainment or ticket 
 tax, mixed drink tax and earmarked sales tax as 
 shown in Chart 1. 
 
Table 3 
 
 CITY EXPENDITURES FOR 
 TOURISM AND TRAVEL DEVELOPMENT 
 
 
 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 
 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 
 
 CITY 
 
 PER 
 
 
 
 CITY 
 
 PER 
 
 CITY 
 
 POPULATION 
 
 FUNDS 
 
 CAPITA 
 
 CITY 
 
 POPULATION 
 
 FUNDS 
 
 CAPITA 
 
 $00 - $99,000 
 
 
 
 
 $200,000 - $299,999 
 
 
 
 
 Allentown, Pa. 
 
 109,000 
 
 $ 1,800 
 
 $ .02 
 
 
 
 
 
 Fall River, Mass. 
 
 100,339 
 
 3,000 
 
 .03 
 
 Seattle, Wash. 
 
 530,500 
 
 $200,000 
 
 $ .38 
 
 Gary, Ind. 
 
 186,000 
 
 3,600 
 
 .02 
 
 Beaumont, Tex. 
 
 129,995 
 
 202,482 
 
 1.56 
 
 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 
 
 110,000 
 
 5,000 
 
 .05 
 
 Fresno, Calif. 
 
 190,000 
 
 207,000 
 
 1.09 
 
 Portsmouth, Va. 
 
 100,000 
 
 5,000 
 
 .05 
 
 Austin, Tex. 
 
 320,000 
 
 212,000 
 
 .66 
 
 Raleigh, N.C. 
 
 153,000 
 
 5,000 
 
 .03 
 
 Washington, D.C. 
 
 690,000 
 
 250,000 
 
 .36 
 
 Columbia, S.C. 
 
 112,000 
 
 10,000 
 
 .09 
 
 Anchorage, Alaska 
 
 107,467 
 
 258,000 
 
 2.40 
 
 Flint, Mich. 
 
 193,317 
 
 15,000 
 
 .08 
 
 Hartford, Conn. 
 
 150,000 
 
 274,000 
 
 1.83 
 
 Durham, N.C. 
 
 106,000 
 
 15,000 
 
 .14 
 
 Memphis, Tenn. 
 
 677,000 
 
 275,000 
 
 .41 
 
 Ft. Wayne, Ind. 
 
 190,000 
 
 18,000 
 
 .09 
 
 Milwaukee, Wis. 
 
 637,000 
 
 287,000 
 
 .45 
 
 Chesapeake, Va. 
 
 108,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 .19 
 
 Arlington, Va. 
 
 155,000 
 
 290,000 
 
 1.87 
 
 Bayamon, P.R. 
 
 250,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 .08 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lansing, Mich. 
 
 129,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 .16 
 
 
 
 
 
 Lexington, Ky. 
 
 185,000 
 
 20,000 
 
 .11 
 
 
 
 
 
 Newport News, Va. 
 
 139,400 
 
 20,000 
 
 .14 
 
 $300,000 - $399,999 
 
 
 
 
 Colorado Springs, Colo. 
 Hollywood, Fla. 
 
 191,600 
 125,000 
 
 25,000 
 25,000 
 
 .13 
 .20 
 
 Baton Rouge, La. 
 Amarillo, Tex. 
 
 294,000 
 158,000 
 
 309,000 
 316,000 
 
 1.05 
 2.00 
 
 San Bernardino, Calif. 
 
 108,000 
 
 26,105 
 
 .24 
 
 Irving, Tex. 
 
 119,000 
 
 319,650 
 
 2.67 
 
 Charlotte, N.C. 
 
 281,417 
 
 30,000 
 
 .11 
 
 Detroit, Mich. 
 
 1,387,000 
 
 337,000 
 
 .24 
 
 Grand Rapids, Mich. 
 New Bedford, Mass. 
 
 200,000 
 101,000 
 
 30,000 
 30,000 
 
 .15 
 .30 
 
 Albuquerque, N. Mex. 
 
 274,000 
 
 382,869 
 
 1.40 
 
 Providence, R.I. 
 
 175,000 
 
 30,000 
 
 .17 
 
 
 
 
 
 Stockton, Calif. 
 
 122,000 
 
 31,100 
 
 .25 
 
 
 
 
 
 Aurora, Colo. 
 
 145,000 
 
 40,000 
 
 .28 
 
 $400,000 - $499,999 
 
 
 
 
 Orlando, Fla. 
 
 118,000 
 
 40,000 
 
 .34 
 
 Cleveland, Ohio 
 
 679,000 
 
 400,000 
 
 .59 
 
 Winston-Salem, N.C. 
 
 144,310 
 
 40,000 
 
 .28 
 
 Wichita, Kans. 
 
 265,000 
 
 412,000 
 
 1.55 
 
 Garden Grove, Calif. 
 
 123,000 
 
 43,000 
 
 .35 
 
 Corpus Christi, Tex. 
 
 220,000 
 
 415,000 
 
 1.89 
 
 Torrance, Calif. 
 
 135,000 
 
 43,700 
 
 .32 
 
 St. Louis, Mo. 
 
 2,500,000 
 
 450,000 
 
 .18 
 
 Pittsburgh, Pa. 
 
 494,601 
 
 45,000 
 
 .09 
 
 El Paso, Tex. 
 
 420,000 
 
 458,000 
 
 1.09 
 
 Spokane, Wash. 
 
 187,000 
 
 47,000 
 
 .25 
 
 Tuscon, Ariz. 
 
 425,000 
 
 468,000 
 
 1.10 
 
 Jacksonville, Fla. 
 
 590,000 
 
 50,000 
 
 .08 
 
 Atlanta, Ga. 
 
 1,700,000 
 
 480,000 
 
 .28 
 
 New Haven, Conn. 
 
 127,000 
 
 53,406 
 
 .42 
 
 
 
 
 
 Boston, Mass. 
 
 618,000 
 
 55,000 
 
 .09 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. 
 
 156,500 
 
 60,000 
 
 .38 
 
 
 
 
 
 Toledo, Ohio 
 
 367,000 
 
 60,000 
 
 .16 
 
 $500,000 - $999,999 
 
 
 
 
 Riverside, Calif. 
 
 160,000 
 
 64,500 
 
 .40 
 
 
 
 
 
 St. Paul, Minn. 
 
 310,000 
 
 65,000 
 
 .21 
 
 New York City, N.Y. 
 
 7,867,760 
 
 500,000 
 
 .06 
 
 Lubbock, Tex 
 
 175,000 
 
 75,000 
 
 .43 
 
 Norfolk, Va. 
 
 286,200 
 
 546,000 
 
 1.91 
 
 Tampa, Fla. 
 
 287,458 
 
 85,000 
 
 .30 
 
 Oklahoma City, Okla. 
 
 390,000 
 
 561,000 
 
 1.44 
 
 St. Petersburg, Fla. 
 
 236,413 
 
 98,883 
 
 .42 
 
 Phoenix, Ariz. 
 
 685,000 
 
 565,000 
 
 .82 
 
 
 
 
 
 Denver, Colo. 
 
 525,000 
 
 575,000 
 
 1.09 
 
 $100,000 $199,999 
 
 
 
 
 Dallas, Tex. 
 
 891,386 
 
 725,000 
 
 .81 
 
 Madison, Wis. 
 
 172,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 .58 
 
 Long Beach, Cal. 
 
 360,000 
 
 850,000 
 
 2.36 
 
 Portland, Wash. 
 
 384,000 
 
 100,000 
 
 .26 
 
 Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 472,500 
 
 890,000 
 
 1.90 
 
 Hampton, Va. 
 
 130,000 
 
 105,000 
 
 .81 
 
 Chicago, 111. 
 
 3,173,000 
 
 900,000 
 
 .28 
 
 Alexandria, Va. 
 
 116,000 
 
 113,879 
 
 .98 
 
 
 
 
 
 Knoxville, Tenn. 
 
 181,151 
 
 115,000 
 
 .63 
 
 
 
 
 
 Savannah, Ga. 
 
 118,000 
 
 118,000 
 
 1.00 
 
 $1,000,000 and over 
 
 
 
 
 Columbus, Ga. 
 
 175,000 
 
 120,000 
 
 .69 
 
 
 
 
 
 Baltimore, Md. 
 
 845,000 
 
 125,000 
 
 .15 
 
 Nashville, Tenn. 
 
 447,000 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 2.24 
 
 Dayton, Ohio 
 
 225,000 
 
 125,000 
 
 .56 
 
 Louisville, Ky. 
 
 326,359 
 
 1,076,000 
 
 3.29 
 
 Richmond, Va. 
 
 238,000 
 
 125,000 
 
 .25 
 
 Virginia Beach, Va. 
 
 255,000 
 
 1,123,883 
 
 4.40 
 
 Mobile, Ala. 
 
 202,000 
 
 129,500 
 
 .64 
 
 San Diego, Calif. 
 
 754,000 
 
 l,200,(y0 
 
 1.59 
 
 Macon, Ga. 
 
 125,000 
 
 130,000 
 
 1.04 
 
 Miami /Dade, Fla. 
 
 1,745,000 
 
 1,220,679 
 
 .70 
 
 Pasadena, Calif. 
 
 112,864 
 
 147,000 
 
 1.30 
 
 San Francisco, Calif. 
 
 655,000 
 
 1,283,000 
 
 1.93 
 
 Ft. Worth, Tex. 
 
 414,950 
 
 150,000 
 
 .36 
 
 San Antonio, Tex. 
 
 756,000 
 
 1,324,000 
 
 1.75 
 
 New Orleans, La. 
 
 600,000 
 
 150,000 
 
 .25 
 
 Little Rock, Ark. 
 
 176,205 
 
 1,600,000 
 
 9.08 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 1,980,000 
 
 150,000 
 
 .08 
 
 San Jose, Calif. 
 
 575,100 
 
 1,600,000 
 
 2.78 
 
 Jackson, Miss. 
 
 205,000 
 
 163,000 
 
 .80 
 
 Houston, Tex. 
 
 1,450,000 
 
 5,041,890 
 
 3.48 
 
 Tulsa, Okla. 
 
 335,000 
 
 190,000 
 
 1.23 
 
 Los Angeles, Calif. 
 
 2,727,399 
 
 6,779,828 
 
 2.49 
 
 Montgomery, Ala. 
 
 154,700 
 
 190,906 
 
 1.23 
 
 Las Vegas, Nev. 
 
 185,000 
 
 13,400,000 
 
 72.43 
 
The tax usually requires a state enabling act for the 
 city to institute it. In some cases, such as Tennessee 
 and Texas, that state enabling act requires that the 
 city spend a specific portion of the receipts on 
 tourism promotion. In other areas, such as Georgia, 
 the state legislation states that the local government 
 spend a portion of the income from the tax for that 
 purpose, but does not specify or require a percent- 
 age. Some state legislation makes no reference to 
 how the income should be spent. 
 
 About 25 cities use only a percentage of the hotel- 
 motel tax to fund their travel, tourism, and conven- 
 tion activities. At least four cities (Dayton, Macon, 
 
 Arlington (Texas), and San Antonio) use 100% of 
 this tax for tourism promotion. 
 
 A city council normally institutes the transient oc- 
 cupancy tax that varies from 1% to 8% by local or- 
 dinance. The local ordinance often allocates a 
 percentage or a dollar amount of the tax to tourist, 
 travel, and convention promotion purposes. 
 
 Cities also receive funds from state programs to 
 match local funds. This source is discussed in 
 Chapter 5, "State Involvement in Local Tourism 
 Programs." 
 
U 
 D 
 
 ■So 
 
 Q 
 Z 
 
 D 
 
 -«— > 
 oo 
 
 as 
 
 a. 
 I 
 
 H 
 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 5 
 a x 
 
 w ^ 
 
 O 
 
 z 
 
 E 
 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 < 
 S 
 
 H 
 Z 
 
 a. 
 
 s 
 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 CS 
 U 
 H 
 Z 
 u 
 
 X 
 
 u 
 
 OJ >> O- 
 
 o ■— 
 
 to <N 
 
 w a. M 
 
 > tr cu oj r- - 
 
 JJ 5 _ -C 3 © 
 
 U U w w u< X 
 
 U 
 
 3 ^ 
 
 eg 
 
 to Q 
 
 03 q 
 
 <u 
 
 1- c 
 
 2 P 
 
 03 O 
 
 
 u. D. 
 
 oj 
 
 ZZZa. 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 
 E 
 
 oj 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 to 
 
 '3 
 
 to 
 
 G 
 C 
 
 CT3 
 
 2' 
 u 
 
 £4 
 
 CO 
 
 OJ 
 ffl 
 
 c m 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 
 tO 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 -1 
 
 I— 
 C 
 
 00 
 
 3 
 
 03 
 
 2 
 
 S'tf 
 
 (Q 
 
 00 
 
 c 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 >• 
 
 c/5 
 
 03 
 
 on 
 
 a. 
 C/2 
 
 
 1— ■•"■■ 
 
 H > 
 
 £ 
 
 
 c 
 00 
 
 o 
 ■a 
 ca 
 
 _o 
 o 
 U 
 
 x 
 o 
 
 03 
 
 OJ 
 
 « CQ 
 
 2 .3 
 s '5b 
 
 I > 
 
 
 
 _<: 
 
 u 
 
 03 
 OJ 
 
 JL> 
 
 
 
 
 
 WD 
 
 03 
 00 
 
 0J 
 
 > 
 
 c a, 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 DO 
 
 _0J 
 
 ji 
 
 c 
 
 00 
 
 3 
 
 00 •* 
 
 .E JH 
 
 CQ 
 
 DXj 
 
 3 
 < 
 
 > 
 
 CJ 
 
 O 
 
 3 ° 
 
 c 
 
 5/5 
 
 'x t; 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 
 '3 
 
 X 
 
 O T3 
 03 03 
 
 22 
 
 03 
 
 03 
 
 a> • — 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 -1 
 
 _) 
 
 J _J 
 
 _1 
 
 -J 
 
 -J 
 
 _l 
 
 x 3 
 
 D. 03 
 
 El 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 8 J2 
 
 U 
 
 (j = .: o 
 
 u 
 
 E i> 
 o = & 
 
 &> o 
 
 c x: v 
 
 O 03 
 
 Mt3 
 
 x JS 
 
 SSSSSSSzzo 
 
 o j* .3; o 
 
 to oq O 
 
 "3 3 .2 C 
 
 O 03 Q <• 
 
 J CU " ^ 
 
 . c c 
 
 <_. <-> 03 03 
 
 U 
 
 03 
 OJ 
 
 CQ 
 
 .5 
 '3 
 
 5b' 
 
 03 .3 2 
 
 ^ ^ cm f > 
 
 * »■* ■— ' * — > ^-1 ^y vy vy ^« vv r "^ 
 
 D-,CU(/)COOO(yDC/5C^l(/5r- 
 
 u 
 
 3 
 
 a- 
 
 <l> o 
 3 a 
 
 3 03 
 
 £ E 
 
 o E 
 
 03 
 i~ 
 O 
 X 
 
 c 
 
 2 03 e 
 
 00 *J 3 
 
 c 5 '■ = 
 
 — 03 CO 
 
 3 3 
 
 U 
 
 00 
 3 
 O 
 
 oi 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 03 
 X 
 00 
 3 
 
 00 O 
 
 ■ E « X 3 
 
 3,0 O .£ 
 
 (Z) 
 
 3 .3 ^ 
 
 H > > 
 
 
 -o 
 00 JH 
 
 03 CU 
 
 c .H > 
 .3 x — 
 
 3 u 
 3 D.J5 
 
 "O O 03 
 
 C 1- 
 
 2 > 
 >> 
 
 03 
 
 c -5 
 
 £ « ° O C 
 
 03 i< ^ C 03 
 
 3 CU "^ "^ </} "C 
 
 « _ J / u « ff 
 
 
 <L» 
 
 
 •Uri .^5 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 "> 
 
 
 tn tsi 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 00 
 
 3 
 
 03 03 
 
 c/) to 
 3 3 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 03 03 
 
 <<<<<<<ffla3CQ(j(JUUUUQQQwii.tkii-OIIIi 
 
 u 
 
 00 tU 
 03 »S 
 
 £T^ o o 
 
 a = 3 
 
 03 X 
 
 <<<UUu-lii*l-u 
 
 « 00 00 
 ^ .3 S 
 
 k* 3 to 
 O 03 03 
 
 U, J J 
 
 J* 
 
 3 O u 
 
 o o — 
 
 OO ^^ 
 
 <u .3 
 
 .saJS 
 
 X 3 
 D. 03 
 
 .2 3 
 
 2>o 
 
 — 03 <U 
 
 03 
 D. 00 
 
 « S3 
 
 S S S S Z Z 
 
 3 
 x 
 
 CU 
 
 <J *J U X 
 C/5 CO t/3 C/5 C/D 
 
 2 
 
 •S E 
 
 D. « 
 
 IL> 
 
 > 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 A NN NH 
 
 E 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 3 
 O 
 CJ 
 
 i« >- 
 3 IT 
 
 H H > 
 
 X 
 
 
 < 
 
 X 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 co 03 
 "3 oj 
 
 H 
 
 O CQ 
 
 
 ton 
 tford 
 neap 
 ;inia 
 
 
 « b 3 »" 
 
 H 
 
 sa-- 
 CQ X S > 
 
 3 
 <u 
 O 
 
 X 
 
 CU 
 
 W 
 
 z 
 
 > 
 w 
 
 OS 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 •a 
 
 03 
 
 Q 
 E 
 
 03 
 
 ■a to 
 
 ■* a nS a 
 
 !s CQ X O 
 
 S S ? ? 
 
 OJ 1> 1/ OJ 
 
 t3 W 
 
 M O 
 
 2 = 
 
 t: 03 
 
 o 
 
 SSzzzzzzo 
 
 -a 
 
 3 
 
 .2? E 
 'S x 
 
 « .a 
 
 OS OS 
 
 ■O <u 
 
 o 
 o.E 
 
 O tu 
 
 tu c 
 3 O 
 
 R2 
 
 OJ 
 
 X 
 
 03 
 U 
 
 CQ 
 
 DScncnLOonc/^cncn 
 
 03 3 
 O. 03 
 
 E fc 
 
 03 O 
 
 H H 
 
 00 OJ 
 >- ™< O 
 
 o .5 
 
 ^=C315 
 
 2«2"5 
 
 to t^M 03 
 O 3 X 
 
 OJ 
 
 03 .5 
 
 03 3 
 
 « 3 
 
 X O oj 3 _ 
 
 s c 
 
 03 "X 
 
 03 
 T3 
 
 1— 
 OJ 
 
 T3 
 3 
 03 
 
 -J 
 
 OJ 
 
 > 
 O 
 
 1— 
 
 a 
 
 c 
 
 OJ 
 
 -o 
 
 o 
 c w 
 
 3 o E .S 
 
 ■a 
 
 '5. 
 03 
 ds 
 
 T3 
 . 3 
 
 03 u- 
 
 O OS 
 
 3=3 
 03 O 3 
 
 — 3 ^^ ^- — ' 03 03 tj -J J— -^- w *** ^* ^ 03 _ : o t- vu vu ~ r- 
 
 <<<<DQCQD3a3UUUQQuu.cutuu.OOOKIIi 
 
 OJ 
 CJ 
 
 3 
 
 OJ 
 
 ■a 
 s s 
 
 oj o 
 D. to 
 oj _*: 
 •O o 
 3 =« 
 
 E 
 _0J 
 
 3 15 
 2 °° 
 
 -ft *0 3 
 ™ c S 
 
 3 -3 2 
 
 £?o3.S 
 
 to 
 
 oj "a> 
 
 53 r,n °° B 
 ^35° 
 
 x "33 **- -x 
 C w ^ 
 
 X 
 
 a 
 E 
 
 OJ 
 
 OJ 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 OJ 
 
 a 
 
 10 
 
X 
 
 O O on 
 
 ^ m (J 
 
 O Z P 
 
 o 
 
 po 
 
 Um go 
 
 
 .3 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 03 
 
 
 <u 
 
 LO 
 
 03 
 
 oa 
 
 00 
 
 .2 
 
 <D 
 
 
 > 
 
 '3 
 
 i/J 
 03 
 
 '5b 
 
 1— 
 
 J > 
 
 w g w 
 
 W £3 U 
 BS Q tf 
 
 HPO 
 u. go 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 s- 
 O 
 
 Xi 
 o 
 3 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 -O ^ <o 
 
 (U 
 
 ^ »- e "3 
 ^ 13 O 3 w 
 
 15 -3 £ £ <s> 
 
 £3 
 
 A o c .23 a-p -c c 
 
 "> 
 
 CO 
 
 £* skssol 
 
 -i— > 
 
 3 
 
 '^^gg^s 
 
 3 
 
 X 
 
 3-.-I 03 <U.-h ni a> IT" 
 
 s 
 
 H 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 3.2 
 
 1/5 
 
 c* 
 
 
 
 <D 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 X) 3 
 
 '3 3 
 
 D 
 O 
 
 GO 
 
 
 
 3 
 03 
 
 | 
 
 D 
 
 s 
 
 hville 
 folk 
 
 ladelp 
 >enix 
 sburg 
 tland 
 
 Louis 
 
 Paul 
 
 Peters 
 
 Anto 
 
 Frani 
 Jose 
 
 ttle 
 
 ingfiel 
 
 a 
 z 
 
 
 O GQ 
 
 5 a 8 
 S zz 
 
 :— U -t-> t-i 
 -3 j3 .3! O 
 
 CL Oh Oh Qh 
 
 . . . « 
 
 *-l -4— > ■*— • 03 
 
 GO GO GO CO 
 
 3 3 o3 >- 
 03 03 <D CX 
 CO GO GO GO 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Z 
 
 
 a as 
 
 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 
 D 
 
 Oh 
 
 z £ 
 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 3 ._ 
 
 »H r/3 
 
 
 03 
 
 w 
 
 
 U- en 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 >; K 
 
 H-l 
 
 
 
 O" 
 
 
 
 5/5 -3 . 
 
 (U 
 
 *-* J£ 
 
 H 
 D 
 
 
 
 i-H 
 
 <u 
 3 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 harlotte 
 hicago 
 
 leveland 
 olorado 
 orpus C 
 all River 
 
 t. Wayn 
 resno 
 ampton 
 ouston 
 
 ansas Ci 
 noxville 
 sxingtor 
 os Ange 
 ouisville 
 
 
 
 <fflUUUUU££fcII^^JJJ 
 
 Zfl 
 
 oz 
 
 o 
 
 GO 
 
 0> 
 
 >» xi 
 
 3 3 
 
 O O 
 
 CO CO 
 
 o o 
 
 03 03 
 
 u 
 
 00 -O 
 3 X> 
 O 3 
 
 3 
 
 u 
 
 03 
 Q 
 
 i-l 
 
 s 
 
 O M 
 00 H 
 ■H 03 
 
 o 5 
 
 03 
 3 
 <u 
 
 -o 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 SjjSSSZZZZOOOh 
 
 00 £> 
 
 Z 03 
 
 £ iS o3 
 
 53 m " " 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 03 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 £ 
 
 CO 
 
 3 +-* 
 ° S 
 
 <D O 
 
 Oh Oh 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 <L> 
 
 "2 
 
 *> 
 o 
 
 T3 
 
 3 
 
 .60 B 
 
 "<U j3 
 
 73 .a 
 
 Oh Oh 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 "3 
 
 03 
 
 3 
 
 (U 
 
 CO 
 
 3 
 03 
 GO 
 
 ° -3 
 2? | 
 
 s § 
 
 03 
 3 > 
 03 03 
 
 CX £- 
 
 > * 
 
 .3 CX 
 
 3 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 GO GO GO GO GO H H 
 
 
 
 o> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 03 
 
 O 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 
 CXT3 
 
 03 
 
 ■i—" 
 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 S 
 
 JD 
 
 
 3 
 
 C/5 
 
 CO 
 
 03 
 
 "o 
 
 O 
 
 !— 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 — 
 
 H H H H H 
 
 u 
 
 Q 
 
 s" 
 
 o 
 
 ■*— ' 
 
 00 
 
 3 
 
 03 
 
 — ' 03 .X 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 <— > 
 to 
 00 
 3 
 3 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 3 
 03 
 
 ^£ 
 
 T3 
 
 3 
 03 
 X 
 
 -9 B 
 
 
 3 
 
 tn 3 
 
 O '^ 
 
 Ih to 
 
 "5 3 3 
 
 <<<< 
 
 03 
 
 oo 3i 
 
 3 c 
 .3 03 
 
 00 
 
 3 
 O 
 Oh 
 
 3 
 
 O 
 
 . — . -t-> 
 o3 <^ 
 
 B 
 
 oj 
 
 j3 
 
 £■§ 
 
 *3 o3 
 3 Jm 
 
 .b 3 
 
 o 
 
 U 03 j3 
 
 03 03 PO PQ PQ 03 
 
 -* _r to to 
 
 
 ctj.2 3 3 
 
 
 esape 
 lumb 
 lumb 
 lumb 
 
 lias 
 
 yton 
 
 nver 
 
 troit 
 
 rham 
 
 h3 O O O 
 
 03 03 <U 0) 3 
 
 u u uu 
 
 QQQQQ 
 
 13 
 
 T3 
 
 -a 
 
 3 
 03 
 
 > 
 o 
 
 l-H 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 T3 
 
 3 
 
 S-l t-H 
 
 03 03 
 
 to 
 
 o< ^ o 
 
 -a -° ^ 
 
 3 
 
 o3 
 
 o3 
 
 1) 
 
 u 
 3 
 W 
 T3 
 3 
 <U 
 
 >-. a. 
 
 Z3 <U 
 OT3 
 
 00 
 
 3 
 
 J J ^ ™ S e ih J! h r 
 
 ii 
 
Chart 2 
 
 Funding Sources 
 
 .92 
 
 O 
 
 CD 
 -Q 
 
 E 
 
 1 70 
 
 60 
 
 50 
 
 40 
 
 30 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 General 
 Revenues 
 
 Earmarked Entertainment 
 Sales Tax or Ticket Tax 
 
 Matching Hotel/Motel Mixed Drink 
 Funds Tax Tax 
 
 Other* 
 
 * Other Funding Sources Include Mayor's Discretionary Fund, Membership Dues from Chamber of 
 Commerce Space Rental, Promotional Income, Private Subscriptions, Federal Grants, City 
 Department of Commerce and Special Investments. 
 
 12 
 
Chapter 4 
 
 TOURISM AND CONVENTION ACTIVITIES 
 CITY GOVERNMENT 
 
 Cities undertake a diversified set of tourism-related 
 activities. The increased mobility of the population 
 for both business and leisure and the increase in the 
 convention business has prompted many cities to 
 look at themselves more carefully and to devise more 
 and better ways to market their assets and attrac- 
 tions. 
 
 There are two ways that a city can approach travel, 
 tourism, and convention development. Either the ac- 
 tivities are carried out by city government or the city 
 turns to the private sector. In the majority of cities 
 surveyed, they do both. 
 
 Activities which cities undertake most are the pro- 
 duction of information materials, the administration 
 of speakers bureaus, and the construction and main- 
 tenance of public facilities. 
 
 The second set of most prevalent activities include 
 national and regional advertising and promotion and 
 public relations. Convention planning and technical 
 assistance are also areas of major involvement and a 
 few cities have a hotel /motel reservation service and 
 do research in tourism development. 
 
 Approximately half of the cities surveyed indicated 
 that they participate in joint activities with the 
 private sector. The activities included: 
 
 BUS LINES 
 
 AIRLINES 
 
 — joint advertising and pro- 
 motion 
 
 arrangements of familiariza- 
 tion tours for travel 
 agents, tour brokers and 
 writers 
 
 assistance with route cases 
 before CAB 
 
 joint advertising and pro- 
 motion 
 
 arrangement of familiariza- 
 tion tours 
 
 traffic control assistance 
 during conventions and 
 busy seasons 
 
 RAILROADS 
 
 — joint promotion and adver- 
 
 
 tising 
 
 
 development of familiariza- 
 
 
 tion tours 
 
 
 development of tour pack- 
 
 
 ages 
 
 
 financial assistance 
 
 HOTELS 
 
 — joint promotion campaigns 
 
 AND 
 
 convention solicitation 
 
 MOTELS 
 
 coordination during special 
 
 
 events 
 
 CAR 
 
 — joint promotion 
 
 RENTAL 
 
 tour development 
 
 FIRMS 
 
 research 
 
 TRAVEL 
 
 — development of tour pack- 
 
 AGENCIES 
 
 ages 
 
 
 information services 
 
 
 brochure distribution 
 
 TOUR BROKERS 
 
 — development of tour pack- 
 
 
 ages 
 
 
 joint promotion 
 
 RECREATIONAL 
 
 — joint marketing and adver- 
 
 FACILITIES 
 
 tising campaigns 
 
 
 refurbishment of historical 
 
 
 sites and buildings 
 
 NONPROFIT 
 
 — joint promotion 
 
 GROUPS 
 
 brochure production 
 
 
 research 
 
 
 coordination of special 
 
 
 events 
 
 13 
 
Some cities indicated that they have organized pro- 
 motional campaigns that include merchants, hotels, 
 restaurants and airlines. Examples include the City of 
 Norfolk which often acts as a catalyst in developing 
 programs and travel packages and assists travel- 
 related businesses to develop promotional material, 
 promotional material. 
 
 Public development of facilities is the most signifi- 
 cant investment for cities in travel development. 
 Categorizing the public capital improvement projects 
 used most frequently, 60 cities have built, renovated 
 or conducted feasibility studies for new convention 
 complexes and civic centers and 16 cities are building 
 and studying sports arenas. A like number have con- 
 structed arts and cultural centers. 
 
 Other cities have local awareness programs to remind 
 the community of the importance of tourism and 
 conventions to local businesses. Independence, 
 Missouri has this type of program entitled "Com- 
 pany's Coming" to educate retailers and local 
 residents on how to help tourists. Nashville col- 
 laborates with a local university on a training pro- 
 gram for employees of hotels, restaurants, auto- 
 mobile service stations and other businesses that deal 
 with visitors on a daily basis. The El Paso Conven- 
 tion and Visitors Bureau periodically conducts a 
 media campaign called "Educate El Pasoans." 
 
 Other examples include San Bernadino's Mayor's 
 Council for International Friendship and Goodwill 
 which serves to bring together the various programs, 
 facilities and events available to the international 
 visitor and Seattle's "Snuggle Up in Seattle" which is 
 a joint promotion to attract off-season Canadian 
 visitors. Table 6 indicates the percentage of cities 
 which work with various private sector groups. 
 
 The large incidence of convention hall /civic center 
 projects illustrates the widespread belief among 
 large cities that the convention and meeting business 
 are the most important part of their travel /tourism 
 development component to generate jobs and in- 
 come. Sporting and cultural events occur more fre- 
 quently as adjunct attractions where convention 
 facilities already exist. In most cases other expen- 
 ditures have occurred after convention facilities were 
 developed. Having constructed major public facil- 
 ities, they must be promoted to be successful. 
 
 It seems clear that the convention business, including 
 the development of supporting facilities to attract 
 that business, is the priority item in present and 
 future planning. Other kinds of new developments 
 are undertaken in hopes of deriving significant 
 returns on investments related to this segment of the 
 visitor's market. 
 
 More than half of the responding cities channel their 
 promotional activities directly through a Convention 
 Bureau and /or Chamber of Commerce. About 43% 
 
 Table 6 
 
 PERCENTAGE OF CITIES PARTICIPATING WITH 
 PRIVATE SECTOR GROUPS 
 
 (Base: 150 Cities) 
 
 Airlines 60% 
 
 Bus Lines 40% 
 
 Railroads 23% 
 
 Hotels 42% 
 
 Motels 62% 
 
 Car Rental Firms 45% 
 
 Travel Agencies 48% 
 
 Tour Brokers 45% 
 
 Recreation Facilities 47% 
 
 Non-profit Groups 48% 
 
 14 
 
of the cities also engage in advertising and media pro- bilitation, both of which are considered to enhance 
 
 motion through other avenues as well. the attractiveness of a city as a tourism, travel, and 
 
 convention destination. 
 The most frequent redevelopment activity reported 
 was the renewal and renovation of the inner-city and 
 
 downtown business areas. Waterfront restoration Transportation improvements represent a very small 
 
 was reported in more than one-fourth of the portion of the redevelopment activities which sug- 
 
 responses. In the past decade federal and state fund- gests that this activity is regarded as functioning on a 
 
 ing encouraged urban renewal and waterfront reha- broader scope than tourism. 
 
 15 
 
Chapter 5 
 
 STATE INVOLVEMENT 
 PROGRAMS 
 
 N LOCAL TOURISM 
 
 The State is an important factor in local tourism 
 development programs. Cities, it is often said, are 
 creatures of the State. That is to say that they exist at 
 the will of the State. Their ability to collect revenues 
 is subject to state discretion. States pass federal funds 
 through to cities as well as generate a substantial por- 
 tion of local income themselves. State projects and 
 programs have a major and continuous impact on 
 local governments and their citizens. 
 
 State involvement in local tourism development is 
 evident in three ways: 1) States pass enabling legisla- 
 tion which allows for the collection of taxes to sup- 
 port local promotion activities, 2) they assist 
 localities through the provision of matching funds 
 and 3) they undertake activities jointly with cities. 
 
 Fifty-nine cities indicated that they fund all or part of 
 their tourism promotion and convention develop- 
 
 ment activities with a hotel-motel occupancy tax. 
 Four cities indicated that they derived support from a 
 mixed-drink tax, four from an entertainment or 
 ticket tax and two from an earmarked sales tax. 
 These taxes were made possible through state en- 
 abling legislation. 
 
 Nineteen states provide matching funds to local 
 governments to be used in the area of tourism and 
 convention development. The amount of funds an- 
 nually provided to a city ranges from $2,250 in Lex- 
 ington, Kentucky to more than $300,000 provided to 
 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania by the State Bureau of 
 Travel Development. Table 7 gives examples of cities 
 which receive matching funds from the states and the 
 amount received. Twenty-five cities indicated that 
 they receive matching funds from their states. 
 
 Table 7 
 
 STATE MATCHING FUNDS FOR LOCAL USE 
 
 STATE 
 
 CITY 
 
 Anchorage 
 
 AMOUNT 
 
 Alaska 
 
 $50,000 
 
 
 
 $30,000 
 
 
 
 $ 4,000 
 
 Arizona 
 
 Phoenix 
 
 $10,000 
 
 Arkansas 
 
 Little Rock 
 
 Not Avail. 
 
 DESCRIPTION 
 
 Dollar for dollar match, $50,000 ceiling 
 
 Applied for yearly; tourist information 
 
 Applied for yearly; for brochures 
 
 Grant applied for yearly for piggy back 
 advertising 
 
 State matches funds on a 2 for 1 basic; State 
 sets amount of appropriations. 
 
 16 
 
Table 7 
 STATE MATCHING FUNDS FOR LOCAL USE (Continued) 
 
 STATE 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 Louisiana 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 Minnesota 
 
 New York 
 New Mexico 
 N. Carolina 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 Washington 
 Wisconsin 
 
 CITY 
 
 Chicago 
 
 Lexington 
 
 Louisville 
 Shreveport 
 Fall River 
 
 Springfield 
 Flint 
 
 Lansing 
 
 Minneapolis 
 
 St. Paul 
 
 Albany 
 Albuquerque 
 
 AMOUNT 
 
 Not Avail. 
 
 $2,250 
 
 $50,000 
 $ 5,000 
 $ 3,000 
 
 Not Avail. 
 $ 58,501 
 
 $34,000 
 
 Reviewed 
 Annually 
 
 Reviewed 
 Annually 
 
 Not Avail. 
 
 Not Avail. 
 
 Winston-Salem Reviewed 
 Annually 
 
 Pennsylvania Philadelphia 
 
 Erie 
 Memphis 
 
 Seattle 
 Milwaukee 
 
 Reviewed 
 Annually 
 
 $37,000 
 
 $50,000 
 
 Reviewed 
 Annually 
 
 Reviewed 
 Annually 
 
 DESCRIPTION 
 
 Specific project requests proposed from city 
 to state. When these projects are approved, 
 the state matches funds on a 1 to 1 basis 
 
 State reimburses 1/2 cost of promotion on 
 regional basis 
 
 State matches funds 
 
 State matches funds 
 
 Funds matched on 1 to 1 basis from Bristol 
 County Development Council 
 
 State matches funds 
 
 Matching funds from Michigan State Travel 
 Department for personnel, sales and promo- 
 tion 
 
 State convention bureau grant based on local 
 support 
 
 State matches city funds for tourism and 
 convention development outside the State 
 
 State matches city funds for tourism and 
 convention development outside the State 
 
 State match for promotion 
 
 State match for special projects 
 
 State matches city fund for special events 
 
 State matches funds 
 
 State grant 
 
 City matches funds from private sector and 
 county to fund convention and visitors 
 bureau 
 
 State matches funds 
 
 State provides funds for advertising 
 
 17 
 
Joint programming between cities and states occurs 
 in the areas of promotion and public relations, 
 organizing familiarization tours for travel brokers 
 and writers, preparing information materials and in 
 technical assistance and research. This differs from 
 matching funds in that the state agencies participate 
 in the implementation of a program: 
 
 • In Birmingham, for example, the State works with 
 the city on joint advertising programs, promotion 
 and public relations, packaging tour development, 
 
 familiarization tours and preparing information 
 materials. 
 
 In Little Rock, Arkansas, the State works with the 
 city on several programs including package tour 
 development, promotion of public relations, tech- 
 nical assistance and research. 
 
 Chart 3 provides a more complete picture of the 
 prevalence and various types of collaboration. 
 
 Activity 
 
 Chart 3 
 Coordination of Activities: States and Cities 
 
 Number of Responses** 
 10 20 30 40 
 
 50 
 
 Promotion/Public Relations 
 
 Familiarization Tours 
 
 Preparation of Info. Materials 
 
 Research 
 
 Technical Assitance 
 
 Joint Advertising 
 
 Matching Funds 
 
 Package Tour Development 
 
 Public Facilities 
 
 Financial Assistance 
 
 Other* 
 
 *0ther Activities Included Joint Participation at Travel Shows, Foreign Trade Missions for Tourism, 
 Monthly Meetings for Discussion of Travel Development, and Convention Coordination 
 **91 Cities Responding 
 
 In addition to discussing what state relationships ex- 
 ist, the questionnaire also asked cities to indicate the 
 kinds of assistance that they would like to see the 
 states undertake. Promotion, advertising and direct 
 
 funding all rank high on the preference list. Chart 4 
 on the following page indicates these preferences in 
 more detail. 
 
 18 
 
Chart 4 
 
 Activities That Cities Would Like to See 
 States Undertake 
 
 Activity 
 
 10 
 
 Number of Responses 
 20 
 
 ** 
 
 30 
 
 Promotion and Advertising 
 Funding 
 
 General Expansion of Efforts 
 
 Coordination of Activities in 
 State 
 
 Development of Package Tours 
 
 Research 
 
 Convention Development 
 
 Other* 
 
 ** 
 
 Responses Included Technical Assistance, (Consumer Protection and Local Awareness Programs. 
 91 Cities Responding 
 
 Thirty-three cities desired more promotion and 
 advertising for tourism by the State government, both 
 general promotion of the region and of specific 
 tourist attractions. Many also wanted the State to 
 participate in more travel trade shows and develop 
 familiarization tours for travel agents and tour 
 wholesalers. Several cities wanted increased State 
 budgets for developing and printing brochures and 
 more effective dissemination of information mate- 
 rials. One city suggested that the State act as a 
 catalyst for regional promotions. 
 
 Thirty cities want more funding and creation or ex- 
 pansion of matching fund programs. Cities pointed 
 out a need for more funding both for the cities and 
 for the State agency itself. 
 
 Nine cities thought the State agency should act as a 
 coordinator of tourism activities between state agen- 
 
 cies and between regions of the State and between the 
 cities' tourism effort and private industry. 
 
 One city called for a master plan for the State, rather 
 than the cities working independently on tourism 
 development. Another city wanted the State's help in 
 securing more direct air flights to the city. 
 
 Seven cities wanted the state to supply them with 
 more research data. Suggestions include marketing 
 information and air transportion studies. 
 
 Other services cities would like from the states in- 
 clude more development of package tours, conven- 
 tion development, development of tourist attrac- 
 tions, technical assistance, consumer protection and 
 quality control standards, and community education 
 and local awareness programs. 
 
 19 
 
 1> U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1979 O - 275-722 (VoL I) 
 
„tt»ENT OP c 
 
 A r es TR »ve l 
 
 PE N N STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 A00007CHl,3733