The Sweetwater Board of Commissioners authorized city staff to finalize a contract with an outside retail recruitment consultant after a committee recommendation and discussion at a call meeting.

The committee reviewed the single proposal received and recommended entering a contract valued at $50,000 per year. The contract can run between one and three years but is structured as a three‑year agreement with the option to terminate at the end of each year. The committee said the consultant would update the city’s market “gap analysis” (the city’s current version dates to 2019), provide traffic and daytime‑population data, produce a market guide and trade‑area analysis, and do targeted outreach to roughly 30 retailers that match Sweetwater’s demographics.

Jessica (staff member) told the board that the consultant had represented the city before on a grant basis and that the firm would attend the International Council of Shopping Centers convention annually to market the community. Committee members noted Sweetwater’s resident population of about 6,000 and a daytime population they estimated at about 35,000; the committee also cited a figure presented in the packet that retail “leakage” from ZIP code 37874 amounted to roughly $216,000,000 a year in resident spending occurring outside the ZIP code.

Board members debated timing and priorities. Some members said the city already has many projects under way and could defer hiring a consultant; other members argued the work is an investment intended to increase the sales‑tax base and to recruit retail for vacant commercially zoned lots near the interstate and Highway 68. Commissioners also observed that Sweetwater staff do not have the time or the retailer contacts to do this outreach themselves.

The board voted to authorize staff to proceed with executing the contract once the city attorney’s requested contract language is inserted and both parties approve the final form. The motion carried on a voice vote; one commissioner was recorded as voting against.

City staff said the contract will require a budget amendment because the $50,000 annual cost was not included in the current budget. The committee suggested possible funding sources including the industrial development fund, tourism funds, and available departmental planning/engineering funds. Staff will return with a recommended funding source and the finalized contract language.

Actions noted in the meeting: the committee recommended selecting the consultant that submitted a proposal; the board authorized finalizing and signing the contract subject to attorney changes and final approval by both parties.

What happens next: staff will receive the corrected contract language from the city attorney, finalize the agreement with the consultant, and bring the contract and a budget‑amendment recommendation back to the board for administrative execution and bookkeeping.