Visit Marshfield presents marketing results, finances and requests as council readies contract talks

Visit Marshfield delivered a data-heavy presentation to the Marshfield Common Council on its marketing results, spending and program priorities and answered council questions as the city prepares to revisit the tourism entity contract.

The organization’s executive director, Matt McClain, told the council Visit Marshfield is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit and described marketing and event work that, he said, aims to generate paid overnight stays that increase local room-tax revenue. City administrator Steve Parks framed the meeting as a fact-finding discussion rather than a contract negotiation: “No decisions are being made tonight,” he said.

Why it matters: the council must decide whether and how to renew or renegotiate the management contract for room-tax-funded tourism promotion. Wisconsin statute 66.0615 governs how municipalities may collect and spend room tax; council staff provided that statute to members as background. The statute and the city’s contract framework were central to questions about what counts as eligible tourism promotion or tourism development and how Visit Marshfield has been spending room-tax dollars.

Visit Marshfield summarized 2024–25 activities and finances. McClain said the group more than tripled room-tax collections since he started: visits-related collections were about $165,000 when he began (building from his remarks about historical figures) and reached a record of over $501,000 in 2024; first-quarter 2025 room-tax receipts were reported at $140,261, up 16.7% year over year. The group highlighted marketing outputs such as an ongoing YouTube video series (the “Marshfield Made attractions” videos) that the presenters said generated roughly 477,046 impressions and 285,042 views to date, with a view rate they characterized as substantially above travel-industry benchmarks.

Visit Marshfield described recent grants, sponsorships and capital support: among items mentioned were a $73,000 contribution toward the local pickleball project (2025), $20,000 to the Central Wisconsin State Fair (2024), and a $4,675 contribution toward historical signage. The board also said it awarded approximately $15,500 in smaller grants in 2025 to event recipients.

City and council questions focused on accounting, vendor payments and the line between marketing and tourism-development spending. Corey Lott (identified in the presentation as a hotel general manager and state lodging-board member) told the council, “At least 70% of the tax dollars must be spent on tourism promotion and tourism development,” citing the statutory requirement shared earlier in the meeting. Council members pressed for more detailed documentation: copies of invoices and itemized ad spend, the Visit Marshfield retainer and vendor payments, recent external review or audit documentation, and the contract line items that fund marketing, conventions and sports initiatives.

On staffing and vendors, Matt McClain said Visit Marshfield’s operating budget includes a marketing retainer and pass-through advertising buys handled by marketing partner Pilcher Barnett. McClain said Pilcher Barnett’s retainer to Visit Marshfield was $15,000 (retainer/contracted services) and that total marketing placements in 2024 were about $117,007; council members later cited a 2024 ledger entry of about $144,000 that went through the vendor and asked for an itemized reconciliation. Council members also asked for the tourism entity’s most recent external review report and more detail on recurring payments posted to the general ledger (references were made to payroll and accounting services run through an office partner identified in the ledger).

Council members repeatedly emphasized timing and operational risk: Visit Marshfield said it is in the last year of its current contract (the contract began in 2022 and runs through March of its final year; the presentation materials were provided to council staff). Matt McClain said lack of a current contract complicates lease renewals, marketing contract commitments and planning for 2026 events and materials (including the 2026 visitor guide). City administrator Steve Parks confirmed he had notified Visit Marshfield on March 13 that the city wanted to discuss renegotiation and that the current meeting was meant to start that conversation.

Council members asked for a set of follow-up documents and actions. The council requested (a) an itemized budget and vendor invoice history tying ad placements and payments to Pilcher Barnett, (b) the most recent external review or audit/review notes, (c) payroll and accounting explanations for recurring entries paid through the office partner shown on Visit Marshfield statements, and (d) clarification of the line items for “tourism promotion” versus “tourism development” in Visit Marshfield’s budgets. Parks said the city would collect and distribute those materials to council members.

Councilmembers also urged greater cross-organization coordination. Multiple members recommended regular coordination between Visit Marshfield, Main Street Marshfield, Mackie (the office/accounting partner identified in Visit Marshfield bookkeeping) and city communications staff so promotional activities and economic-development priorities align.

The council did not take formal action on the Visit Marshfield contract at this meeting; after the presentation and extended Q&A the council moved to closed session on an unrelated development matter. Parks said the council would determine next steps for the tourism contract after it had time to review the requested materials.

Ending: The council asked Visit Marshfield and staff to provide the requested financial and contract detail for a follow-up discussion. City staff committed to distributing the documents to all council members; council members said they will use that material to decide whether to renegotiate, renew or alter the tourism services agreement.