AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 67-7-207, relative to mineral severance tax.
Summary
HB1517 amends Tennessee’s mineral severance tax law to direct revenues from the tax into the county road fund and specify that those funds must be used for construction, maintenance, and repair of the county road system. The bill also requires each county receiving these revenues to submit an annual written report within 90 days after the end of its fiscal year to the commissioner of transportation and the transportation committee chairs in both chambers.
The required report must detail how much money was deposited into the county road fund, how much was spent, and how those expenditures were designated and used for county road purposes. The bill further makes those annual reports subject to audit by the comptroller of the treasury, adding an accountability and oversight component to the existing tax distribution framework.
Impact
The bill narrows and clarifies the use of mineral severance tax revenues by tying them specifically to county road fund purposes and by imposing reporting and audit requirements on counties that receive the money. It affects Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 67-7-207, and primarily impacts county governments, the Department of Transportation, legislative transportation committees, and the comptroller’s office through new oversight responsibilities.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House Finance, Ways, and Means Subcommittee 11-0, the full House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee 21-0, and then passed on the House floor by consent calendar with 93 yeas and no nays. The unanimous votes suggest general agreement that the measure improves transparency and ensures mineral severance tax revenues are used for road-related purposes.
Contention
No significant opposition is reflected in the available record. The main policy choice in the bill is administrative rather than ideological: counties receiving mineral severance tax revenue must document how the money is spent and accept audit review. Any potential concern would likely center on added reporting and compliance obligations for counties, but the vote history shows no recorded contention over those requirements.