Tennessee House Bill HB0249

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/25
• Refer: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/10/25
• Chaptered: 3/21/25
• Passed: 3/21/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 14 and Title 4, Chapter 29, relative to the industrial development division, building finance committee.

Summary

HB0249 makes a narrow administrative change to Tennessee law governing state boards and commissions. It removes the Industrial Development Division, Building Finance Committee from one statutory list of entities subject to certain provisions in Title 4, Chapter 29, and adds that committee to another list in the same chapter. The bill also references the committee’s creation under Title 4, Chapter 14, aligning the committee’s status within the state’s board-and-commission framework. In practical terms, the measure appears to update how the committee is categorized in state law rather than changing its substantive duties. The bill is tied to the Industrial Development Division’s building finance functions, which suggests it is intended to keep the committee properly recognized in the statutes that govern state entities, appointments, or administrative oversight.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated sections 4-29-246(a) and 4-29-252(a) to reclassify the Industrial Development Division, Building Finance Committee within the state’s statutory list of governmental bodies. This affects the legal treatment of the committee under Tennessee’s boards and commissions laws, but does not create a new program, tax, or regulatory scheme. The main impact is on state administrative law and the statutory organization of the committee itself, with any practical effects falling on the Industrial Development Division and related state oversight processes.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and broadly supported. It passed the House Government Operations Committee 10-0 and later passed the House on the consent calendar 89-0, indicating unanimous or near-unanimous agreement that the measure was routine and technical. The absence of committee transcript debate also suggests there was little public or legislative opposition.

Contention

There is no evident substantive contention in the available record. Because the bill is a technical statutory update concerning the placement of a committee within Tennessee’s boards-and-commissions statutes, discussion likely centered on administrative housekeeping rather than policy disagreement. No opposing arguments or dissenting stakeholders are reflected in the votes or provided transcripts.