AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 9 and Title 13, relative to the "African American Cultural and Historical Grant Act."
SB1172 creates the “African American Cultural and Historical Grant Act” and establishes a special account in the state general fund called the African American cultural and historical grant fund. The fund is intended to support capital projects at Tennessee facilities that highlight the contributions, culture, or history of African Americans. The Tennessee Historical Commission would administer the program, set application and eligibility guidelines, and award grants subject to available funding.
The bill gives priority to projects that build new facilities where none exist, renovate existing facilities in culturally significant areas, improve facilities named for significant African Americans, or restore properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It also allows the commission to use up to 5% of appropriated funds for administration, marketing, and evaluation, and requires annual reporting to legislative finance committees beginning March 1, 2026. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, and the commission may adopt rules to implement it.
The bill would add a new state grant program to Tennessee law, creating a dedicated nonreverting fund and assigning administration to the Tennessee Historical Commission. It would affect state budgeting and grant administration under Titles 4 and 9 by authorizing appropriations, donations, investment of fund balances, and ongoing reporting, while also directing how grants may be prioritized and spent. The practical effect would be to channel state resources toward cultural, historical, preservation, and facility-development projects tied to African American heritage.
The available vote history suggests generally favorable committee sentiment toward the bill, as the Senate State & Local Government Committee recommended passage with amendments by a 7-1 vote. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader support or opposition arguments. The vote pattern indicates the measure was largely accepted, though not unanimously.
The main likely points of contention are the creation of a new state-funded grant program, the use of public money for culturally specific projects, and the scope of the commission’s discretion in awarding grants and setting priorities. Another possible issue is the allocation of up to 5% of funds for administration, marketing, and evaluation, which could draw scrutiny over overhead costs. The single dissenting vote in committee suggests at least one member had reservations, but no transcript is available to identify the specific objection or the member’s reasoning.