Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission to review Bristol–Washington County settlement over competing retail projects
Summary
The Commission on Local Government opened review of a voluntary settlement between Bristol, Virginia and Washington County concerning competing retail developments (The Falls in Bristol, VA and The Pinnacle in Bristol, TN), placed the review on a statutory six‑month track and requested additional financial statements from the parties.
The Commission on Local Government on March 10 opened its review of a voluntary settlement between the City of Bristol, Virginia and Washington County that responds to competing retail developments straddling the Virginia–Tennessee border.
Carter Glass, who presented the case, said the Pinnacle development in Bristol, Tennessee — a 1.3 million-square-foot retail complex on Interstate 81 — prompted Bristol, Virginia to seek a similar incentive under an amended Virginia Public Facilities Act to finance a competing project known locally as The Falls. Glass told commissioners the Falls project has required substantial financing: $25 million in bonds issued to purchase the property, $10 million for site improvements, and an additional $5 million authorized; he said the city is approaching its legal debt limit and that the settlement must be entered into to transfer revenue bonds to the city’s Industrial Development Authority. (Carter Glass provided these figures to commissioners.)
Zack Robbins, the commission’s local government policy manager, advised that the parties filed their Notice with the Commission on March 4 accompanied by the agreement, supporting data, exhibits and governing‑body resolutions, and that the Commission must render its report within six months. Robbins also confirmed the on‑site tour, oral presentations and public hearings will be held in the Bristol area on May 12, 2014 under the previously adopted review schedule. Staff requested additional financial statements from the city and county to support its fiscal analysis.
Why it matters: The settlement would channel a portion of state sales tax back to the locality to repay bonds used to finance the development; commissioners cited uncertainty about timing of sales‑tax remittances over a multi‑phase project and the potential for litigation by Washington County as key issues to examine.
Next steps: The Commission will hold procedures required by statute (advertising, tour, oral presentations and public hearing) and expects to issue its report within six months of receiving the notice.
