Franklin County court discusses creation of county sports tourism commission, first readings scheduled

Franklin County Fiscal Court members spent the bulk of their Dec. 11 work session reviewing two ordinances that would withdraw the county from a joint city–county tourist commission and establish a separate county Convention & Visitor Bureau focused on sports tourism.

Eddie Jones, the consultant presenting the measures, said the first ordinance would create a seven‑member county CVB with statutory membership requirements (three hotel‑industry representatives, one restaurant representative, nominees from the chamber and appointees from the county judge). The second ordinance reworks the revenue plan so county transient room tax receipts flow to the new county CVB. Jones estimated the county CVB could generate “about $600,000 a year” under the proposed structure and said the funds must be spent on tourism‑related facilities, promotions or debt service for convention/fine‑arts facilities under state statutes.

Why it matters: County leaders said the split is intended to let the county focus CVB resources on sports tourism — tournaments and facilities that bring out‑of‑county visitors who stay in hotels and eat in local restaurants — while the city CVB would continue broader community promotion. Several members said they want clear protections for existing commitments, including a bond payment tied to a special 2% collection currently set aside for a fine‑arts or convention center.

County Treasurer Amy and Robin Antonucci, executive director of the Frankfort‑Franklin County Tourist Commission, flagged near‑term budget effects. Antonucci said the county portion of transient room tax receipts to the tourist commission totaled about $295,000 in fiscal 2024; she warned an immediate split would create a mid‑year hit unless the county and city reach an agreement to keep the city commission whole through program or escrow arrangements.

Concerns and process: Several fiscal court members pressed for safeguards and clarity on (a) whether the court can reject or only ‘approve’ the CVB’s annual budget, (b) how additional funding requests from the CVB would be handled, and (c) whether creating a separate entity risks duplicate functions or future divergence from court priorities. Jones said those operational details are to be resolved in subsequent interlocal agreements: one between the county and city and another between the county and the new county CVB. He described the ordinance votes as step one in a multi‑step process.

Next steps: Both measures were presented on first reading; no final vote occurred on Dec. 11. Court members agreed further drafting and interlocal agreements will follow before any tax collection or governance changes take effect. "We can still change the name of this before we vote," Jones said, noting the ordinance as written is a first step.