AN ACT to amend Chapter 48 of the Private Acts of 1919; as amended and rewritten by Chapter 15 of the Private Acts of 2013; Chapter 25 of the Private Acts of 2016; Chapter 18 of the Private Acts of 2023; and any other acts amendatory thereto, relative to the city of Niota.
HB2661 is a private act that rewrites the charter of the City of Niota, Tennessee. It replaces the city’s existing charter provisions with a comprehensive new charter covering municipal corporate powers, boundaries, elections, the structure and duties of the mayor and board of commissioners, the possible appointment of a city administrator, the city attorney and recorder, finance and budgeting, taxation, and the city court. The bill also preserves the city’s corporate existence and existing ordinances unless inconsistent with the new charter.
The charter update largely modernizes and restates Niota’s governing framework while retaining a commission form of government. It sets out detailed authority for the city to tax, borrow, issue debt, regulate utilities and franchises, manage streets and public works, enforce ordinances, and address nuisances and property maintenance. It also includes procedures for budgets, audits, delinquent tax collection, and municipal court operations, and it specifies that the act takes effect only if approved by a two-thirds vote of Niota’s legislative body.
The bill amends the private charter governing the City of Niota in McMinn County by deleting the prior charter text and substituting a new, consolidated charter. Its legal effect is local rather than statewide: it changes how Niota is organized and administered, including election timing, officer qualifications, departmental oversight, fiscal controls, and enforcement powers. It also authorizes municipal tools such as impact fees, property liens for abatement costs, and franchise and utility regulation, subject to general state law and the County Powers Relief Act.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the General Assembly. It advanced unanimously in the House Private Acts Committee, received strong support in the House State & Local Government Committee with only one dissenting vote, and then passed the House on consent calendar with no opposition. The final motion to adopt also passed unanimously, suggesting general agreement that the charter revision was a routine local government update.
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The only recorded opposition was a single nay vote in the House State & Local Government Committee, but no transcript or discussion explains the objection. The bill’s most potentially sensitive provisions are the expanded municipal enforcement and finance powers, including property-maintenance liens, impact fees, exclusive franchises and contracts, and the creation of a city administrator role, but the voting history suggests these provisions did not generate significant debate.