The Commercial Appeal

De-annexation bill clears Senate

-

NASHVILLE - During a last-minute hustle to adjourn, state senators passed and bill on the floor that was “sent to summer camp” at the last minute last year.

Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixson, has slowly walked his legislatio­n to allow citizens to vote to remove themselves from city borders, and eventually the tax rolls, through a process known as de-annexation.

On Tuesday the Senate Finance Committee voted to put the legislatio­n on the floor for a full debate, the same place the measure stalled last year after concerns about the impact of the legislatio­n on cities forced it to be revised during the summer study session, which Watson called “summer camp.”

Watson has revised the legislatio­n that would require citizens of the cities who vote to de-annex to continue to pay for some services, like utilities and public safety projects, that some cities may have put in place when they were brought into city borders initially. Other lawmakers have put the amendments on the bill that Watson does not support, but was committed to pushing the legislatio­n forward as part of an agreement dating back several years as a part of a counter measure to an effort by the legislatur­e to address annexation.

“You take the will of the legislatur­e and various members of the legislatur­e,” Watson said, noting it’s a two-year process and said the bill would now lie with the House, who could amend it to a different version, one Watson might prefer over his version, or pass his.

The key amendment that Watson does not support is on that Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesbo­ro, added to the bill that would require 20 percent of all residents in the city to join a petition to deannex a specific area. Watson’s initial bill would only require the residents of the area that would be de-annexed to petition.

Another significan­t revision would allow cities to retract their borders on their own terms if they develop and provide a plan to the state before Jan. 1, 2018, an advantage for Memphis, which has been a central figure in the issue.

Other key revisions include prohibi-

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States