Tennessee House Bill HB1453

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/3/25
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Refer: 2/9/26
• Refer: 2/18/26
• Engrossed: 2/24/26
• Enrolled: 2/27/26
• Passed: 3/18/26
• Chaptered: 4/6/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Chapter 568 of the Private Acts of 1939; as amended by Chapter 107 of the Private Acts of 1981; Chapter 129 of the Private Acts of 2006 and Chapter 66 of the Private Acts of 2014; and any other acts amendatory thereto, relative to the City of Portland.

Summary

HB1453 is a local/private act affecting the City of Portland, Tennessee. It amends the city’s private charter laws by deleting Section 11 of Article XII from Chapter 568 of the Private Acts of 1939, as previously amended, and renumbering the remaining sections. The bill does not describe the substance of the deleted section in the text provided, so its practical effect depends on the content of that charter provision and how Portland’s governing documents are organized after renumbering. The act is structured as a conditional local law: it will have no effect unless approved by a two-thirds vote of the Portland city legislative body. If approved, the city’s presiding officer must proclaim the result and certify it to the secretary of state. The bill becomes effective immediately for the limited purpose of allowing the local approval process, but otherwise takes effect only upon that local approval.

Impact

HB1453 changes the private act charter governing the City of Portland by removing one charter section and renumbering the remaining provisions. Because it amends a private act rather than a general state statute, the impact is limited to Portland and to the specific charter framework established by prior private acts. The bill also creates a local ratification requirement, meaning the city council or other legislative body must approve the change before it becomes operative.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong, unanimous support at every stage. The House Private Acts Committee and House State & Local Government Committee both recommended passage without opposition, and the floor votes were also unanimous or passed on consent. There is no committee transcript indicating debate or concern, so the overall sentiment appears favorable and noncontroversial.

Contention

No notable opposition is reflected in the available record. The main procedural point is that the bill’s effectiveness depends on approval by Portland’s legislative body, which means any substantive concern would likely arise locally rather than in the General Assembly. Because the text does not identify the deleted charter section’s subject matter, the specific policy implications are not apparent from the bill itself.