Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Property Tow Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Industry representative urges update to Chattanooga private‑property tow rules to reflect Motion Act of 2025
Summary
Mark Shackleford of Shackleford Towing told the board Sept. 4 that Chattanooga’s private‑property tow ordinance contains outdated citations to Tennessee law and should be modernized to align with the Motion Act of 2025 and recent Tennessee Code changes; no formal action was taken.
Get email alerts on the Private Property Tow Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mark Shackleford of Shackleford Towing & Recovery told the Passenger Vehicle and For‑Hire Board on Sept. 4 that Chattanooga’s private‑property towing ordinance needs updates to reflect changes in state law, including provisions introduced in the Motion Act of 2025.
Shackleford said printed copies of the city’s existing private‑property tow ordinance and the Motion Act materials were provided to board members. He told the board that city code still references portions of the Tennessee Code Annotated that have been repealed and that the Motion Act (developed through revisions in 2023, 2024 and 2025) includes new consumer protections and definitions that affect private‑property towing practices.
Shackleford described industry involvement in drafting parts of the Motion Act: “A lot of that stuff I was involved in directly with the Tennessee Tow Truck Association as the vice president. I worked with our lobbyists and some of our legislative leaders… to get that push through,” he said. He said the Motion Act clarifies distinctions the industry and local code should reflect, such as the difference between an abandoned vehicle on public property and an unauthorized or illegally parked vehicle on private property, and updated sign and payment‑method requirements for private‑property tows.
Board members and staff discussed next steps. Shackleford said the matter may need work with the board, legal staff and City Council legislative committees to amend the code; Chris Anderson (mayor’s office) and other staff signaled they would help determine whether the board or council should lead the revision. No vote or ordinance change was taken at the meeting; Shackleford asked the board to coordinate a path forward so local code matches current state law.

