Tennessee Senate Bill SB0751

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Chaptered: 5/8/25
• Passed: 5/8/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 13, Chapter 14, Part 1, relative to development districts.

Summary

SB0751 revises Tennessee’s statutory framework for development districts, which are the nine regional entities that coordinate economic development and related regional planning across the state. The bill deletes existing language in Tennessee Code Annotated § 13-14-111 and replaces it with a new statement of legislative intent emphasizing state financial support for regional economic development plans, activities, and programs that benefit local governments, the state, and Tennessee residents. The bill requires the state budget, through the Department of Economic and Community Development or its equivalent, to include a separate line item for development district funding. That funding is set at an amount equal to 50 cents per capita based on the most recent population estimate or census figure. It also provides that appropriations to development districts may not be reduced except as part of an across-the-board reduction affecting multiple departments and agencies. The bill further directs that state funding be allocated among the nine districts based on each district board’s per capita assessment, with any remaining funds distributed using a formula developed by the department in coordination with the districts, taking into account population, number of counties served, and regional cost-of-living differences. The bill establishes a funding table tying district per capita assessments to annual state appropriations, with listed appropriation levels of $295,000, $340,000, and $370,000 depending on the assessment range approved by the district board. In practical terms, the measure strengthens and formalizes state support for regional planning organizations and creates a more specific funding structure for their operations. It affects state budgeting practices and the statutory duties of the development districts and the Department of Economic and Community Development. The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly favorable. It passed the Senate State & Local Government Committee and the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee unanimously, and then passed the floor 32-0. There is no recorded opposition in the available votes, suggesting broad bipartisan support for maintaining and clarifying state funding for development districts. No major controversy is reflected in the available record. The main policy issue embedded in the bill is the commitment of state funds and the formula for distributing them among districts, but the unanimous committee and floor votes indicate little visible disagreement. Any potential concern would likely center on budgetary commitment, allocation fairness among regions, or the requirement that appropriations not be reduced except through across-the-board cuts.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 13, Chapter 14, Part 1, by replacing the existing funding-related language in § 13-14-111 with a new statutory funding mandate for development districts. It creates a specific budget line item for development district support, sets a per-capita state funding benchmark, limits reductions in appropriations, and directs how funds are to be distributed among the nine development districts. This changes state budgeting and administration for regional economic development entities and reinforces their role in regional planning and coordination.

Sentiment

The bill was received very positively in the legislative process. It advanced unanimously through both relevant Senate committees and passed the floor 32-0, indicating broad support and little to no opposition. The voting record suggests lawmakers generally agreed with continued state investment in development districts and with clarifying the funding structure.

Contention

No significant contention is evident in the available record. The only potentially debatable issues are the fiscal commitment to a dedicated per-capita funding level and the formula used to allocate funds among districts, including considerations such as population, counties served, and cost of living. However, the unanimous votes suggest these issues did not generate visible disagreement during consideration.