Tennessee House Bill HB2662

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/17/26
• Refer: 3/23/26
• Refer: 3/30/26
• Refer: 4/8/26
• Engrossed: 4/13/26
• Enrolled: 4/20/26
• Passed: 5/21/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Chapter 402 of the Acts of 1901; as amended and rewritten by Chapter 131 of the Private Acts of 2004; Chapter 119 of the Private Acts of 2006; Chapter 36 of the Private Acts of 2007; Chapter 12 of the Private Acts of 2023; and any other acts amendatory thereto, relative to the City of Lexington.

Summary

HB2662 is a local private act affecting the charter of the City of Lexington, Tennessee. It amends the city’s 1901 private act, as previously revised, by replacing Section 10 to more clearly define the powers and duties of the mayor. The bill makes the mayor the city’s chief executive officer, assigns supervision of city affairs, authorizes the mayor to preside over board meetings, execute contracts approved by the board, call special meetings, make certain appointments, submit annual budgets, and perform other duties prescribed by the board. The bill also specifies that the mayor may suspend employees for misconduct or dereliction of duty, subject to appeal to the board, and that the mayor serves as a member of all boards and committees created by the board. The mayor has a voice in those bodies but votes only to break ties. It further states that the office of mayor is a full-time position, while allowing the board to define additional functions and duties by ordinance so long as they are consistent with the charter.

Impact

The bill changes the governing structure of Lexington’s municipal charter by clarifying and expanding the mayor’s executive authority and by formalizing the office as full-time. Because it is a private act, its legal effect is limited to the City of Lexington and does not alter general Tennessee municipal law statewide. The act becomes effective only if approved by a two-thirds vote of Lexington’s legislative body, making local ratification a condition precedent to implementation.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had broadly favorable support throughout the legislative process. It passed the House Private Acts Committee 11-1, the House State & Local Government Committee 19-1, and then cleared the House on consent calendar passage 93-0 before the final motion to adopt passed 31-0. The vote pattern suggests little controversy at the state legislative level and a generally positive view of the charter update.

Contention

The only visible opposition came from a small number of legislators in committee, with one no vote in each of the two committee votes. Because there are no committee transcripts provided, the specific objections are not stated, but the likely point of discussion was the scope of mayoral authority and the shift to a full-time mayoral office. The bill’s requirement for a two-thirds vote by Lexington’s local legislative body also indicates that local officials, rather than the General Assembly, are the key decision-makers on whether the charter change takes effect.