Warren County delays consultant search, approves $100,000 split for economic development

The Warren County Board of Supervisors on Nov. 5 voted to postpone issuing a formal solicitation for economic-development consulting services while the board and staff gather prior studies and additional background. Separately, by roll call, the board approved a resolution amending the fiscal year 2025–26 budget to appropriate $100,000 for economic development and set a 50/50 split between staff support and consulting services.

Supporters of pausing the procurement said they wanted time to review earlier studies and to craft a narrowly tailored scope. "We have a very unique situation over the last six, seven, eight years…we need a chartered path that builds public confidence," Dr. Jamieson said, urging a process with public meetings, deliverables and transparency.

County Attorney Miss Scott told the board soliciting bids without a complete, well-defined scope risks multiple addenda or cancellation. "The less addendums or changes that you have to the original solicitation, makes it more straightforward," Miss Scott said.

Supervisor Cullors moved to table the procurement so members could review the statement of need and prior work; Supervisor Henry seconded the motion to table. The tabling was confirmed and left open pending follow-up briefings and retrieval of earlier studies.

Despite the tabling of the procurement, the board addressed how the already-appropriated $100,000 should be split. The modification approved by the board changes a prior allocation ratio (previously described as 65/35 in staff/consulting discussions) to a 50/50 split: $50,000 for staff and $50,000 for consultants. The motion to approve that budget modification passed on a roll-call vote (three in favor, two opposed).

Board members who objected to proceeding without more discussion said one-time funds should not be committed to ongoing personnel costs until the consultant’s recommendations are known. "He may say, 'You have staff here that can do this,'" Supervisor Cullors said, arguing for more deliberation before hiring staff.

County staff and the county attorney recommended developing the solicitation and the county’s expectations before public issuance. Board members discussed inviting town representatives and the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to coordinate; some said that coordination should not be a reason to delay the county’s own planning.

The board did not set a firm date to resume the procurement process; administration was directed to locate prior studies and to continue internal work so the county can return with a clearer scope.

Ending: The board left the procurement effort in a pending state while approving a temporary budget split for the $100,000 already on the books. The county attorney recommended defined solicitation documents before any formal request for proposals is issued, and several supervisors urged a public, transparent restart of economic-development efforts given past EDA issues.