Tennessee Senate Bill SB0357

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Engrossed: 4/7/25
• Enrolled: 4/17/25
• Passed: 5/2/25
• Chaptered: 5/13/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 2; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 12; Title 13; Title 66 and Title 67, relative to local government.

Impact

The implications of SB 357 are significant for the financial operations of utility districts in the specified counties. By instituting a protocol where board members are generally unremunerated but may receive payment under set conditions, the bill aims to streamline district management and reduce financial burdens. This alignment with statewide governance practices seeks to enhance accountability and transparency within local government structures. The bill's enactment foreshadows a move towards more sustainable management of utility services, ensuring that boards can function effectively without the constraints of excessive compensatory frameworks.

Summary

Senate Bill 357, amending various sections of the Tennessee Code Annotated, primarily addresses the governance structure of utility districts in specific counties. It specifically stipulates conditions under which members of a utility district board of commissioners serve without compensation, while also allowing for per diem payments for a limited number of meetings per year. This bill targets counties with populations between 158,100 and 158,200, as determined by the 2020 federal census or subsequent censuses. The revisions introduce a standardized method of compensating utility district board members for their service, potentially leading to increased efficiency in local governance.

Sentiment

The sentiment around SB 357 has been notably supportive among legislators and stakeholders who recognize the potential for improved operational efficiency within utility districts. Proponents argue that the bill fosters a sense of civic duty among board members, focusing their efforts on community service rather than financial incentives. However, concerns have been raised by opponents regarding the adequacy of compensation, particularly for the demands placed on board members, which could deter qualified individuals from serving. This dual perspective highlights a tension between valuing public service and ensuring fair compensation for complex governance roles.

Contention

Contentious points regarding SB 357 primarily revolve around the balance between appropriate compensation and the volunteer nature of public service. Critics of the bill argue that while minimizing financial remuneration can encourage altruism, it might also limit the diversity and expertise of board members willing to dedicate their time. Additionally, the stipulation of per diem payments for select meetings raises questions about fiscal prudence and transparency. How districts manage these limited compensations while maintaining accountability is a focal point for debate among local government advocates.