Tennessee Senate Bill SB1490

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/18/25
• Engrossed: 2/26/26
• Enrolled: 4/27/26
• Passed: 5/22/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 11; Title 12; Title 29 and Title 43, relative to local historical boards.

Summary

SB1490 authorizes local historical boards in Tennessee to enter into contracts with farmers to use land associated with historic sites for agricultural purposes. For historic-site land that is five or more contiguous acres, boards may contract for crop farming; for land with fewer than five contiguous acres, boards may contract for harvesting hay and other naturally grown products of the soil. The bill defines key terms such as “farmer,” “crops,” and “local historical board,” and it applies to boards that oversee historic preservation and design review for designated historic properties or districts. The bill also directs that any proceeds from these contracts be used only for the preservation of historic sites and structures managed by the boards, consistent with applicable state guidelines and U.S. Secretary of the Interior standards. In addition, local historical boards must file an annual report with the Tennessee Historical Commission detailing the contracts entered into and how the proceeds were spent. The commission is also required to develop model contracts for use by local historical boards under this authority.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee law governing local historical boards and related historic preservation oversight by expressly giving those boards authority to lease or contract for agricultural use of historic-site land under specified acreage thresholds. It creates a new revenue-generating mechanism for historic preservation while imposing reporting and use-of-funds requirements, and it assigns the Tennessee Historical Commission a new administrative role in preparing contract templates. The measure affects local historic preservation commissions, nonprofit or governmental preservation entities, farmers, and the management of historic properties and districts.

Sentiment

The available voting history shows strong and unanimous support for the bill at each stage, including an 8-0 committee recommendation and unanimous floor passage in both chambers. There is no committee transcript indicating debate or opposition, and the recorded votes suggest the bill was viewed favorably as a practical preservation and land-use measure.

Contention

No specific contention is reflected in the available materials. The only potential policy issue apparent from the text is the balance between preserving historic-site integrity and allowing agricultural use of protected land, but the bill’s acreage limits, reporting requirements, and preservation-only use of proceeds appear designed to address that concern. The unanimous votes indicate no recorded disagreement among legislators.