Tennessee House Bill HB0125

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/13/25
• Refer: 1/16/25
• Refer: 2/26/25
• Refer: 3/4/25
• Refer: 3/12/25
• Refer: 3/18/25
• Engrossed: 3/25/25
• Enrolled: 4/15/25
• Passed: 5/2/25
• Chaptered: 5/8/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 67-4-409, relative to the local parks land acquisition fund.

Impact

The proposed amendment aims to ensure that local governments contribute to the funding of parks and land acquisition efforts, ultimately promoting the development and maintenance of local recreational areas. By reducing the match requirement for distressed counties, the bill also seeks to facilitate access to funding for these communities, which may otherwise struggle to allocate substantial financial resources.

Summary

House Bill 125 aims to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 67-4-409, specifically concerning the local parks land acquisition fund. The bill stipulates that county or municipal governments receiving grants for projects must provide a matching contribution, equal to the grant amount for each specific project. However, for projects located in counties designated as distressed or at-risk by the Appalachian Regional Commission, the required match is lowered to twenty-five percent of the total project cost.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 125 appears to be generally supportive, particularly among lawmakers who advocate for the enhancement of public parks and the recreational infrastructure within local communities. The bill has garnered unanimous support in early voting, indicating a strong collective agreement on its proposed benefits and necessity for local development, particularly in areas facing economic challenges.

Contention

While the bill has been received positively so far, there may be underlying contentions related to budget allocations for matching grants and the potential impact on state funds. Critics might raise concerns regarding the sustainability of this funding model and how it integrates with existing financial commitments to parks and recreational services. Ensuring that the balance of funding does not negatively impact other essential services offered by local governments could be a critical point of debate.