Another response to Linda Wait's question (fixed with help from u/ConsciousImpact9272)
https://doorcountypulse.com/wide-range-of-topics-brought-to-rep-kitchens-listening-sessions/ says that Linda Wait asked a question to Joel Kitchens. Kitchens either didn't say everything he could have said, or maybe he did and it just wasn't reported.
So here is my response to Linda Wait's question:
In the Wizard of Oz, Glinda tells Dorothy, "You always had the power my dear, you just had to learn it for yourself". That is how it is with room tax and state law. The municipalities of the county already have the power to help the Town of Sevastopol. No one needs to wait for the state to change the law before going home to Kansas.
The law states that lodging tax not shared with the municipalities must be used for:
any of the following that are significantly used by transient tourists and reasonably likely to generate paid overnight stays at more than one establishment... that are owned by different persons and located within a municipality in which a tax under this section is in effect; or, if the municipality has only one such establishment, reasonably likely to generate paid overnight stays in that establishment
In the list for "any of the following" there are three options. #3 is:
3. Tangible municipal development, including a convention center.
At the tourism zone commission meeting on June 3, 2021, Van Lieshout made this observation...
https://doorcountytourismzone.com/uploads/meetings/6-3-2021%20final%20minutes.pdf (page 5)
Van Lieshout replied that the thought was municipalities can apply funds against tourism related expenses and development for tourism infrastructure. Maybe a road project if you can convince yourself that it supports tourism. He believed that every municipality could identify expenses that would qualify without difficulty. We can certainly help with that, he said.
So all the municipalities have to do is to redirect some of the 70% lodging tax revenue which would otherwise go to the Tourism Zone for its own expenses and for funding Destination Door County. Instead they could use it for "tangible municipal development" purposes which are currently funded by property tax revenue. If every municipality submitted a resolution towards this end, the DCTZ would have to comply. And if it didn't, the DCTZ board members opposing them could be removed.
The Town of Sevastopol could come up with one or more projects in the town that fit as "tangible municipal development". An itemized list could be submitted to the other municipalities for consideration. If they agree, they could vote to redirect some of the 70% to fulfill the requests.
Together, all of the municipalities could coordinate the allocation of money. Maybe it would just be for roads as mentioned by Van Lieshout. I could imagine Nasewaupee and Sturgeon Bay wanting to fix the Potawatomi tower, and Washington Island wanting to repay the debt on the Mountain Park tower. Other towns could purchase and remove billboards along the Coastal Byway to make it even more scenic.
While Destination Door County might object to this, they lack the authority to say "no" to the county board. Room tax money is collected by the DCTZ because the municipalities authorize it, and it goes to Destination Door County because DCTZ authorizes it.
Are they required by law to send it to DDC?
The law saws https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/66/vi/0615/1m/a
A tax imposed under this paragraph by a municipality shall be paid to the municipality and, with regard to any tax revenue that may not be retained by the municipality, shall be forwarded by the municipality to a tourism entity or a commission if one is created
This says that municipalities are able to "retain[]" the room tax money. In this case, that would mean getting some of the 70% from the DCTZ.
Currently, none of the 70% is retained by the municipalities.
Another part of the law says https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/document/statutes/66.0615(1m)(d)1:
Any amount of room tax collected that must be spent on tourism promotion and tourism development shall either be forwarded to the commission for its municipality or zone if the municipality has created a commission, or forwarded to a tourism entity.
This does not stop the municipalities from receiving money back from the DCTZ. "Or zone" means that the DCTZ is enough. DDC is not required to receive the money. Instead, the Town of Sevastopol could designate a municipal "tourism entity" which is willing to have a consisting of a committee of their own board members. The "tourism entity" would be responsible for spending it on tangible municipal development within Sevastopol.
Or if it was desired, a single second "tourism entity" could be designated, of which the main purpose is to forward money back to the municipalities. In this case, DCTZ would send money to two entities, DDC and a "Joint Tangible Municipal Development Tourism Entity" or whatever they want to rename the entity they are designating, probably something that sounds better. But DDC would do more things and the "Joint Tangible Municipal Development Tourism Entity" would mainly write checks back to their municipalities.
It might be possible to get DDC to go along with it by explaining it as part of sustainable tourism. Part of sustainable tourism is maintaining the wellbeing of the communities impacted by the tourism.
Diverting some of the lodging tax money away from DDC might encourage them to become fully transparent with how they currently spend it. This could press DDC to justify their budget to the municipalities during public hearings, so elected board members and ordinary citizens in attendance can weigh their needs against those of the Town of Sevastopol and others. Deeper scrutiny could make them more efficient, and eventually the benefits of the efficiency could more than outweigh the initial negative impact of having less funding.
[Note: although I was able to revise this post with constructive criticism from ConsciousImpact9272 concerning an earlier, now-deleted version of this, the responsibility for the text remains with me personally. If there are problems with this post, blame me, because ConsciousImpact9272 is not responsible for the verity, tone, wisdom, etc. of this post.]