Tennessee Senate Bill SB2600

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/2/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 6, Chapter 51 and Title 6, Chapter 58, relative to annexation.

Summary

SB2600 revises Tennessee’s annexation laws by changing several provisions in Titles 6, Chapters 51 and 58. The bill removes language that limited certain annexations to territory entirely within a municipality’s urban growth boundary, deletes a related definitional subdivision, and replaces a growth-plan requirement with language allowing a municipality to annex territory in a county’s planned growth area or rural area without first amending the growth plan. It also deletes another section of the annexation statutes outright. In practical terms, the bill would make it easier for municipalities to annex land in areas outside the strict urban growth boundary framework and reduce procedural barriers tied to growth-plan amendments. The measure takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

SB2600 would amend Tennessee annexation statutes in Title 6 by loosening restrictions on municipal annexation and eliminating certain statutory provisions tied to growth boundaries and growth-plan amendments. It would affect municipalities, counties, and landowners in planned growth areas and rural areas by changing when and how annexation can occur, and it would remove at least one existing annexation-related section from the code.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a policy change favoring municipal flexibility in annexation rather than a neutral technical cleanup.

Contention

The likely point of contention is the bill’s expansion of municipal annexation authority into county planned growth areas and rural areas without requiring a growth-plan amendment. Municipal governments may support the added flexibility, while counties, rural residents, and property owners concerned about annexation could oppose it because it reduces procedural protections and may alter local control over land use and service boundaries.