Tennessee Senate Bill SB0986

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/23
• Engrossed: 4/10/23
• Enrolled: 4/20/23
• Passed: 5/5/23
• Chaptered: 5/17/23

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 82, Part 3 and Title 66, relative to utility districts.

Impact

The introduction of SB 0986 is expected to have significant implications for the governance of utility districts across the state. By allowing for per diem payments rather than a fixed compensation structure, the bill seeks to promote volunteerism in public service roles while also ensuring that utility districts can operate within their budget constraints. The targeted approach based on county populations aims to balance cost-efficiency with the need for effective governance in diverse community settings.

Summary

Senate Bill 0986 aims to amend certain provisions of the Tennessee Code regarding utility districts. Specifically, the legislation addresses how members of a utility district board of commissioners are compensated for their service. The bill stipulates that in designated counties with specific population parameters as per the 2020 federal census, board members will serve without regular compensation but may receive per diem payments for a limited number of meetings each year. This change is intended to streamline operations and encourage qualified individuals to serve on boards without expecting salary compensation.

Sentiment

Sentiment around SB 0986 appears to be neutral to positive among those who recognize the need for fiscal responsibility in public sector roles. Proponents argue that this measure will not only save taxpayer dollars but also attract a broader range of candidates who might be motivated by the opportunity to serve rather than monetary compensation. Some potential concerns may arise regarding the limits placed on per diem payments, which could affect the willingness of individuals to partake in utility district management.

Contention

Notable contention around SB 0986 may stem from the perception of reducing compensation for board members, as critics could argue that the lack of regular payment may deter qualified individuals from serving in these demanding roles. Furthermore, the specific population thresholds might lead to disparities between utility districts in different counties, igniting debates on equitable treatment across varying population sizes. The effectiveness and fairness of this compensation model will likely be closely monitored as the bill progresses.