Washington County commission requests state to re‑enact Regional Retail Tourism Development District Act

At a special-called meeting, the Washington County Board of Commissioners voted 10–0, with five members absent, to approve Resolution 260301, which asks state legislators to introduce a private act to re-enact the Regional Retail Tourism Development District Act for Washington County.

The resolution, introduced by Commissioner Davenport and seconded by Commissioner Johnson, asks the Tennessee General Assembly to convert the earlier public act (Public Chapter 498, 2019) into local legislation applicable specifically to Washington County. Kathy Bower, introduced as city manager, and Mark Mamantov, identified as Johnson City’s attorney, appeared to explain the request and answer commissioners’ questions. Mamantov said the change is intended to remove ambiguity about whether the statute is a public act or local legislation and to ensure its durability in the face of legal challenge. "This basically would make it bulletproof so that there's no question," Mamantov said.

Mamantov told the board the 2019 act uses a narrow population class that practically applies only to Washington County and that, without a clear private act, developers and financiers could question the county’s authority to rely on tax revenues for major projects. He said sales-tax revenues from a large retail project "could result in ... a $100 million financing," language the board used to frame potential economic scale; that figure was presented by counsel as an example, not as a commitment or an appropriation.

Commissioners asked for comparisons to the Border Region Act and the Pinnacle in Bristol. Mamantov said the Border Region Act lacked the population-class limitation and noted structural differences between the statutes, explaining why Washington County’s request follows a different legal approach. A commissioner asked which legislative committee would hear a private act; Mamantov said he was uncertain but suggested State and Local Government as a possibility.

Allison, identified in the meeting as the county attorney, said her role was to format the resolution for the county’s consideration and to include Exhibit A (the public act) so the public and board could compare texts. She emphasized the procedural nature of the step: sending a request to Nashville does not bind the county and, if the Legislature acts, any resulting private act would return to the county later for the required two-thirds approval or other actions.

There were no public commenters signed up for the meeting. Earlier in the agenda the board voted to suspend rules to consider the special agenda and then approved the agenda as presented. After discussion the clerk recorded a roll-call vote of 10 yes and five absent on Resolution 260301; Chairman Greg Matherly announced the resolution passed with the required two-thirds margin for this stage. The board adjourned following a motion by Commissioner Huffine and a second by Commissioner Wexler.

Next steps: if the Tennessee General Assembly introduces and passes a private act, the county will have a subsequent local vote or other procedural steps before any local program or financing could proceed.