Commissioners reject sports tourism contract after debate over fees and scope

The Clay County Board of County Commissioners voted 3–2 on Feb. 25 to reject a proposed three‑year agreement for sports tourism marketing and sales after several commissioners said the deal lacked clarity on travel and conference costs and on measurable performance standards.

The contract before the board would have paid the vendor an annual fee of $66,000 with an additional negotiated allowance of $6,000 for travel and conference registrations. Supporters said the added allowance reflected anticipated conference costs; critics said the allowance should have been included in the vendor’s original $60,000 proposal or built into performance metrics.

“I pulled this item for a few separate reasons,” Commissioner Scrumolo said during the discussion. “...there’s not necessarily tangible performance metrics. The only thing that's really in the contract is that the vendor will go to marketing conferences.”

County staff and the vendor defended the negotiated travel allowance as a practical compromise. “So, we negotiated down to a $6,000 amount,” said Karen, a county tourism staff member involved in the negotiations. The vendor representative added that the $6,000 reflected confidence the vendor could secure reduced or waived registration fees through speaking engagements or other arrangements: “Total registration for these shows is $21,750 and then on the travel, we did an estimate that shows $16,650 ... so minus the $6,000 that's, in our opinion, that's a $32,400 savings to Clay County.”

Several commissioners raised transparency and procurement concerns. Commissioner Condon said she was “gravely concerned about the business practice and transparency,” noting the RFP described an “all‑inclusive” scope and saying she believed the presentation implied additional pay would be sought after award. Other commissioners argued staff had evaluated qualifications, not only price, and that an RFP necessarily allows follow‑up negotiations to clarify scope.

After discussion, a motion to approve the contract failed on a voice vote; the clerk recorded the outcome as a 3–2 vote against approval. The board did not approve a substitute motion during the meeting and directed staff to return the item to rebid or to be reworked and brought back for future consideration.

The contract would have tasked the vendor with sports sales and marketing to recruit events for Clay County assets; proponents cited growth in tourism development tax revenue from roughly $1 million in 2019 to about $2 million in 2023. Opponents wanted either clearer, measurable performance benchmarks in the agreement or a rebid to include travel and conference costs in the original price.

The board’s decision leaves Clay County without a sports tourism vendor while the current contract period has lapsed; staff said county personnel are continuing limited outreach while the board decides next steps.

Votes and next steps: the motion to award the sports tourism contract failed 3–2; commissioners asked staff to return with options — either rebidding or revising the agreement with clearer performance measures and pricing.

Ending: County staff said they will consult procurement and present options to the board; no new contract was executed at the meeting.