Sullivan County commissioners spent the bulk of their Sept. 18 work session debating a proposed resolution that would authorize the county purchasing agent to advertise a request for qualifications for tourism promotion and development services funded from the county’s occupancy-tax revenues.

The proposal, introduced by Commissioner Vanover, would use the county’s occupancy-tax receipts — which Vanover said have totaled “more than $1,600,000” since collection began in 2023 — to contract for tourism marketing and promotion rather than hire a permanent county tourism director. The resolution (referencing prior commission action, resolution 2024-11-08) would seek firms for an initial one-year contract and require contracted firms to report to the full Board of Commissioners at least once every three months.

The discussion underscored two central tensions: how to avoid duplicating services provided by the regional tourism body (referred to in the meeting as NEDA) and how much discretion county staff should have to negotiate and approve a contract without a further vote of the commission. Commissioner Harvey asked directly whether the resolution would "exclude any funding going to those" (museums, parks and recreation), and Vanover replied that it should not.

Mayor (name not specified) told the commission: "We're not trying to recruit people from the county to come to Blountville. A true marketing ... program would be designed by a professional," arguing that a contractor could target out-of-area visitors and support countywide promotion.

County procurement staff and Chris Davis, who the county identified as the staff contact for the RFQ process, responded to questions about scope and authority. Davis said: "It's just to put out the request for qualifications. It's not hiring anybody, not spending any money." She and other staff described this step as an information-gathering phase: the RFQ would solicit qualifications; an evaluation committee would rank responses, and commissioners would see top-ranked firms before any contract was executed.

Several commissioners urged caution. One commissioner questioned why the county commission "would not vote on where this money goes and how it's spent," expressing concern that shifting funds to a contractor could reduce direct commission control over allocations that have gone in part to municipal partners. Other commissioners emphasized that some portion of occupancy-tax revenue already flows to regional partners and city programs, and asked how much local (county-only) money would remain for new contracts or programs.

Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification about the county’s tourism office and said: "So the Sullivan County Office of Director of Tourism will essentially be replaced by whatever contractor was awarded this." Staff and the mayor repeatedly stressed that the RFQ phase would not obligate the county to spend funds and that the purchasing and contracting steps would follow normal county procedures.

No formal contract award or final vote on the RFQ authorization was recorded during the work session. County attorney and procurement staff asked for clearer language in the resolution so legal review could determine what authority, if any, the county would grant staff to sign contracts. Multiple commissioners requested that, after the RFQ responses are evaluated, the top-ranked firm(s) present to the commission before any contract is executed.

Next steps: Procurement staff said they would prepare the RFQ language and that responses would be evaluated by a selection committee; commissioners expected the matter would return for review and possible action once the county had ranked respondents and identified proposed contract terms. The commission did not adopt a contract or allocate a specific sum at the Sept. 18 work session.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to ensure any future contract would coordinate with regional partners to avoid duplication and to return to the board with recommended language that clarifies whether staff or the full commission must approve any final contract.