Tennessee House Bill HB2217

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7; Title 9, Chapter 21 and Title 67, relative to special districts.

Summary

HB2217 is a narrow amendment to Tennessee law governing special districts. The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-84-519(d), by deleting subdivision (2). Based on the text provided, the measure does not add new programs or create a new district structure; instead, it removes one existing statutory provision from the special-districts chapter. Because the bill text is limited to a single deletion, its practical effect is to change the legal framework for the affected special district provision in Title 7. The caption also references Title 9, Chapter 21 and Title 67, but the operative section shown only amends Section 7-84-519(d). The act would take effect immediately upon becoming law, indicating the legislature intended prompt implementation.

Impact

The bill would directly alter Tennessee Code Annotated by removing subdivision (2) from Section 7-84-519(d), thereby changing the rules applicable to the special district addressed in that section. Any local government entity, district board, taxpayer, or other party governed by that provision would be affected to the extent subdivision (2) currently imposes duties, restrictions, or procedures. No additional statutory changes are shown in the text provided, so the bill’s legal impact appears limited and targeted.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition. The bill’s short, technical nature suggests it may have been treated as a housekeeping or corrective measure rather than a controversial policy change. On the available record, sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond the fact that the bill was introduced for immediate effect.

Contention

There are no documented points of contention in the materials provided. If any disagreement existed, it would likely have centered on the consequences of deleting subdivision (2) from the special-district statute—such as whether the removed language affected governance, financing, or administrative authority—but no specific objections, amendments, or stakeholder positions are included in the record.