Residents urge council to restore Visit Manitowoc contract after court rulings and room tax dispute

During the public hearing on the proposed 2025 budget, multiple residents urged the Common Council to resolve a dispute with the Manitowoc Area Visitor and Convention Bureau and restore a contract to fund tourism promotion.

Gary Stolp, identified himself as vice chair of the Manitowoc Area Visitor and Convention Bureau and a longtime local business owner, told the council the city's treatment of MAVCB had harmed tourism activity. "I am here today so that the City Of Manitowoc taxpayers are aware of the status of MAVCB and Manitowoc's current tourism picture," Stolp said. He said the city had evicted MAVCB from an A-frame visitor center, sold the building for $1.6 million, paid $650,000 to the state and retained $950,000 in room-tax reserves. Stolp said judge Mark Rohrer (transcript reference) ruled in March and May 2023 and 2024 that the city was negligent and had to contract with MAVCB, and he said the city had not submitted a contract in the last six months.

Stolp also said the city has been able to spend approximately $230,000 of current room tax (about 30 percent of collections) while MAVCB was receiving none, and he criticized the mayor's proposed budget for allocating $642,000 for a city tourism department funded from the tourism reserve. He told the council "We need to get this contract worked out ASAP so that the area doesn't miss out on the NFL draft being held here in Green Bay in April and all the other tourist events for the future."

Lee Coomer, a former councilor who previously served as the MAVCB representative, told the council the MAVCB was historically countywide and had private-sector members that promoted attractions across the county. He said litigation has been costly and argued for returning to the countywide model, saying that room-tax reserve money used for litigation and staffing "is not being used to promote the city of Manitowoc."

Why it matters: Public commenters tied the tourism funding dispute to year-over-year declines in room tax revenue and warned that lack of stable promotion could diminish the city's ability to attract regional visitors.

Council procedure note: These remarks came during the public hearing portion of the meeting on the proposed 2025 budget. Council members and staff did not make a contract decision at the meeting; several aldermen referenced the remarks during subsequent budget debate.

Ending: Commenters asked the council to pause final budget action and resolve the contract dispute; the council proceeded with budget consideration but did not announce a new contract at the meeting.