[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6153969,"mediaKeyId","5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62","parentId",5489474,"title","Commission approves rezoning and zoning code text amendments for public services and places of worship","audioSeconds",144,"startMs",2949000,"endMs",3093000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62&start=2949&end=3093","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62/thumbnail_2949000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6153969/Washington-County/Tennessee/Commission-approves-rezoning-and-zoning-code-text-amendments-for-public-services-and-places-of-worship","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153969-2111e7d11d946b2930522aa7d5df894c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770789962&Signature=b2iiWHAfp6oPl~4eAd8nZhi9jz2PtIKtXZdC~lT2EEW3PDm~ctcKTEl9OW10yt--hrxqM4QJSwsjXEzM4aEaQt3wk2buFOhaSvgqHc3gpTiLLkjdAFHFb3TI3wEtnOZt1LhyzppY697SR7u18fL6ok04f3f47FKGvPg8cAQr5bArg2JdJ0gGuJMIDjA6f8h34TthVapmNe-Q2zvVBESl2RunVaFnWk4P1fr0pETkiAmbdhe5yFm3qUSp5FIumrr2mpqBwrazSHZzwa1PzJSce-WSg0ZKlUPWC6YadaE-y6iy2P4nUfPbTr8-XgqgfTJdyCPssSjLi7Tapfv48lo1Kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Washington County, TN","date","2025-07-29T04:25:57.77Z","article","The Washington County Commission unanimously approved several planning items July 22: a rezoning request for a 17‑acre infill property on Gray off Adams Street (resolution 25‑7‑02) and two text amendments to the county zoning resolution (resolutions 25‑7‑03 and 25‑7‑04) that will define and permit a public‑services use and allow churches and cemeteries as permitted uses in commercial districts.

County planning staff told commissioners the 17‑acre property sits between Bob Fitz Road and Gray Station Road and is suitable for PRD‑2 (Planned Residential District‑2). The rezoning came to the commission with unanimous favorable recommendations from the county planning commission. The vote on the rezoning and both amendments was 13 yes, 2 absent.

Planning staff described the two zoning text amendments as housekeeping items intended to close gaps in the zoning code: the first provides a definition for public‑services use and identifies zoning districts where it will be allowed; the second allows churches and cemeteries as permitted uses in commercial districts. Both amendments were reviewed and approved unanimously by Washington County, Johnson City and Jonesborough planning commissions prior to the county commission vote.

Outcome and next steps: The resolutions passed and will be reflected in the county zoning regulations. Staff noted that site‑level development permits and any required public hearings for specific projects remain subject to standard review processes.

Ending: Commissioners and planning staff characterized the measures as proactively clarifying code language to accommodate infill development and avoid future permitting ambiguity.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","July 28th, 2025 - Washington County TN Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The county commission unanimously approved a rezoning request for a 17‑acre infill site and adopted two text amendments to the Washington County zoning resolution to define a public services use and to allow churches and cemeteries as permitted uses in commercial districts.","taxTitle","Washington County, Tennessee","taxId",19116,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6153974,"Resident questions Brightridge land purchase and lack of disclosure about crypto‑mining use",0,4827000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62&start=4827&end=4827","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62/thumbnail_4827000.jpg","/articles/6153974/Washington-County/Tennessee/Resident-questions-Brightridge-land-purchase-and-lack-of-disclosure-about-cryptomining-use","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153974-8df6e3c8f422dbac11bcf3bc684f8245/orig.mp4?Expires=1770789962&Signature=SBepR2~5VA0EK9GZLz94CZes4PHo47hTy52PksOI2sxb34tC7Ts80J9WkZnH7gy3FF0tRFRJoYN30M5EIEmNIK2YrUXqTv9YW6DD0lqCD8KhVlXNHEh5zP5yAwON6XRLS9Sy4PUtv7e3~L7jLjlPFvjLL3sKh3RQiF2VnHMQrdpD~WgtBFbUEOeoh-rgbqyDJirfaK7~X2hNK106x7ZGiuMyBUeJDBNrtAw0Y4joUANoZ-hTl6Pxp0~fu-vVJOMIiSMzSClz0GIDpKm9ibTjtt4CzWlii5DkkmLE3c~u10nq7FGb3K0kTLgak9UwBfpa6fp0aDyspRg2Zsn1EaojOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Johnson City resident raised questions during public comment on July 22 about a Brightridge board land purchase and whether the sale included disclosure of an intended cryptocurrency‑mining use.

Sylvan Britney told the Washington County commission that Brightridge — described in the comment as a publicly owned utility — paid $525,000 for a parcel in Johnson City’s Buffalo Mountain Industrial Park that the county had valued at $193,600. Britney said public records (minutes) for Brightridge meetings held Aug. 22, 2023, and Jan. 23, 2024, did not mention crypto mining and asked whether Brightridge leadership disclosed the intended use when it approved the purchase.

Britney said commissioners and local officials, including “Commissioner Huffine and Johnson City mayor, Hunter,” had declined to answer initial inquiries and had directed questions to Brightridge CEO Jeff Dykes; Britney said Dykes had not responded to requests. She asked the commission to delay any reappointment to the Brightridge board until the public receives a “clear and documented explanation.” \"These are basic questions of fiscal responsibility and public accountability,\" Britney said.

The county clerk announced that a rezoning application tied to Minga Drive had been withdrawn from the agenda, and the commission noted several people had signed up for public comment on that rezoning. The clerk said those speakers had been notified that the item was removed and would not be discussed that evening.

Outcome and next steps: The commission did not take formal action in response to the public comment during the meeting. The resident’s questions centered on disclosure and public record; commissioners and staff did not provide additional documentation on the record at the time. The comment was entered into the public minutes and will be part of the record for any later follow‑up.

Ending: The public comment asked for a documented explanation before any board reappointments are confirmed; commissioners did not commit to a specific follow‑up during the meeting.","A resident urged the commission for transparency on a Brightridge land purchase — $525,000 for a parcel the county valued at about $193,600 — and asked whether the board was informed that the site would be used for cryptocurrency mining.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6153980,"Commission rejects school budget amendment; debate centered on fund balance and pay raises",2357,13363000,15720000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62&start=13363&end=15720","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62/thumbnail_13363000.jpg","/articles/6153980/Washington-County/Tennessee/Commission-rejects-school-budget-amendment-debate-centered-on-fund-balance-and-pay-raises","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153980-ea3bafa6e24fafea8e1876ce6f8b2c79/orig.mp4?Expires=1770789962&Signature=LypfQSq9b4t4J9Y7jahF8ND6L33Gk1XbHqPPihoiiPDvNYdJGsOpZ-YRLvHeS-NU6mB-zaK6lINh6h7ymb5Gtbj7lbkmIKur9-bpf2E3TXElChKorEX4mkxpCUndnSJ1k08XoD~E8EY8k07r~W4O86e6MJRrC1j0eZilCKkYB09VhzETSRbFUh~xFwFCiwsZytWS2Ct2LaA~NZB7vwN3NM-QPga4XhgESYzQN3InYBkUUo7zgPy~qdcYWiVs0sQNIm4tK1l6sLj1HyrAZ-OM2pD178w3LGcU3vMbIO6HOfm-yf8yLu9qbTP25khUhoYwhnTjz7LOuElXrRnU2ge4ug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Washington County Board of County Commissioners voted 8–5 with 2 absent on July 22 to reject a school budget amendment proposed by the Washington County Board of Education that would have formalized recent changes the school board approved July 1.

The amendment sought to reflect several line‑item changes the school board made to its FY2026 budget, including restoration of a $2,095 raise on the teacher salary scale, a 50¢ across‑the‑board increase for classified staff and a $1,000 (reduced from $2,000) flat increase for certain administrators. Commissioners and board representatives disagreed over whether the county should ratify those changes now or require further review of reserves and budget impacts.

Commissioner Malone and others said the school system’s fund balance has been larger than historical estimates and questioned whether the county should accept repeated mid‑year amendments. Director Boyd (school director) said the school system had additional unbudgeted revenue and state allocations during the year that affected fund balance and that the board sought to reflect revisions the board had already adopted.

Commission debate touched on several points: how much fund balance the school system should hold as a reserve; whether salary restorations were budget‑neutral; the need for transparency with the public about decisions; and whether the commission’s earlier budget actions had constrained the district’s options. County officials said the school board had authority to spend less than budgeted amounts but that changing major categories requires commission approval because it affects county accounting and reporting.

The vote: Motion to approve the amendment failed (5 yes, 8 no, 2 absent). Several commissioners who opposed the measure said they were concerned about approving additional obligations tied to personnel costs without clearer, long‑term fiscal planning; supporters said failing to ratify the amendment could create employee and operational uncertainty.

Next steps: Commissioners asked the school board and county finance staff to continue working on a transparent, multi‑month plan to reconcile projected revenues, fund balance and staffing needs. The budget committee and finance staff will provide updated projections in committee and at a future full meeting.

Ending: The commission’s rejection leaves the school board’s July 1 changes in place for the board’s internal accounting, but the county commission declined to ratify the amended numbers in county budget records at this time. Both sides signaled willingness to continue the conversation on timelines and fund balance policy.","The county commission on July 22 voted down the school system’s budget amendment request after extended debate over use of fund balance, teacher and classified staff raises, and the timing of salary restorations.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6153985,"Washington County approves five judicial commissioners after contentious debate over hiring process",3214,6477000,9691000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62&start=6477&end=9691","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5489474-689e0184bebc7b8e2360200666f47f62/thumbnail_6477000.jpg","/articles/6153985/Washington-County/Tennessee/Washington-County-approves-five-judicial-commissioners-after-contentious-debate-over-hiring-process","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6153985-0684ff9ec3d41e03f0a6c441182bcad2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770789962&Signature=eWIqL~bbAAZjZiZzuoCXsepqfZCKvV9Eqaog6FravIvbyhpy-7G5ehcubxSJQUZEhLdON6b4JK-Pyra9r0Y-csRrWVmdknzMrKDfUWDfLFuJc5KJPAeYeyvT9MlsxkQV-6ujLhfKkBMeA9RAdLOLgRXIAbfA-NWIMfxs7zBhOFHV6pB8svBO01qZt3l2cubyxnZuZGFx-knJYc9NvpSlu-z9WDQCiaNbX94Sv1euwb3kUAcaNNJpxwDwnh1a7sWB62lFdVrHGtNN3~l5BYtfQtRrGSV6GhZ-PFuNxRiTeFWVsab0HwvvECoSnMo~M2EFX63~dST99xPCe0Z5VyV81A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Washington County Board of County Commissioners voted 13–0 with 2 absent on July 22 to appoint five judicial commissioners — Steve Summey, Kayla Facemeyer, Patrick Collins, Mikaela Bowser and Sandra Jarrett — ending a months‑long, sometimes contentious process over how the county should staff newly created judicial commissioner positions.

Commissioners debated whether the positions should remain full‑time county appointments or accept part‑time candidates, whether the county must repost the openings if residency or full‑time requirements are changed, and how to train appointees in time to avoid gaps in after‑hours judicial authority beginning Aug. 1.

The debate centered on process and timing. Commissioners pressed county staff and judges for details about training timelines, budget constraints and whether existing night clerks could continue to perform pre‑existing duties. Commissioner Malone asked whether a partial re‑post would be legally required if the residency or full‑time criteria were changed. The county attorney advised that appointments are governed by local resolution terms and that a repost may not be strictly required for an appointment but offered to confirm the legal details.

Judge Minga and Judge Harden (the general sessions judges who led the court’s recommendation) told commissioners the judges had reviewed seven applications forwarded by HR and recommended the five names now appointed. Judge Minga said the judges interviewed four candidates and explained that “we recommended 4 people” from the pool. In public discussion, Clerk Downs and judges said only one night clerk had applied and that some night clerks would not be able to convert to full‑time positions because of pension or retirement hour limits.

Commissioners tried to avoid leaving a gap in after‑hours authority. County staff and judges warned that, if no appointments were made before July 31, judges would continue to perform after‑hours duties and there could be no authorized judicial commissioner to sign certain orders. Commissioner Malone proposed appointing the three full‑time nominees immediately to provide relief, and then reopening and reposting positions to allow part‑time candidates to apply. The commission amended a motion during debate to appoint five commissioners now and to revisit residency and part‑time rules later; that amendment passed before the final vote.

County officials repeatedly emphasized training and probation protections. Judge Harden noted a 90‑day probationary period included in the resolution and said the judicial bench would support new appointees through initial shifts: “If we don't feel they're ready … we will be down here throughout the night until they're ready.” The county attorney said quarterly judicial‑commissioner training exists through a judicial commissioners association and that local training would be provided as needed.

Outcome and next steps: The commission authorized the five appointments by roll call (13 yes, 2 absent). The hiring and compensation package is constrained by the FY2026 budget allocation discussed earlier in the meeting; county staff said they will finalize offers and that individual appointees must accept the terms. Commissioners also directed that the residency and part‑time/full‑time criteria be reviewed and that any reposting or policy changes be brought back to committee for drafting and public notice.

Context and implications: The change replaces the prior night‑clerk arrangement in which court clerks handled limited after‑hours duties; judges said night clerks cannot legally perform many items now assigned to judicial commissioners (for example, issuing certain orders and warrants). Commissioners and judges acknowledged the process rushed several decisions and recommended that the public safety committee or a small special committee work on clearer procedures for future recruitments.

Commissioners and staff said they would follow up with a formal schedule for onboarding and training, confirm any legal posting requirements with the county attorney, and report back to the commission. The commission’s action preserves after‑hours functions by putting authorized commissioners in place before the transition deadline.

Ending: The vote concluded more than an hour‑and‑a‑half debate on the matter; commissioners said they plan to refine processes and provide additional oversight of appointments in coming months.","The Washington County Commission on July 22 appointed five judicial commissioners amid heated discussion about posting, residency rules, part‑time vs. full‑time status, training and the short timeline before existing night‑clerk duties expire on July 31.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves rezoning and zoning code text amendments for public services and places of worship

Resident questions Brightridge land purchase and lack of disclosure about crypto‑mining use

Commission rejects school budget amendment; debate centered on fund balance and pay raises

Washington County approves five judicial commissioners after contentious debate over hiring process