If state Sen. Bo Watson's municipal de-annexation bill is re-introduced in the next Tennessee legislative session, it should cover all the cities in the state and should require a higher threshold of residents to sign a petition to signal a referendum.
The Senate bill unexpectedly was sent to summer study Wednesday, effectively killing it for this legislative session.
As it was proposed, the legislation applied only to Tennessee towns and cities annexed from 1998 forward and required only 10 percent of registered voters in the annexed area to petition for a de-annexation referendum vote.
However, it had been amended to apply to just a handful of municipalities in the state, including Chattanooga. And language in the bill, at least one senator said, could allow for de-annexation referendums on areas taken in before May 1, 1998.
The House version of the bill, which was sponsored by Rep. Mike Carter, R-Chattanooga, and passed 68-25 on March 14, also limited the de-annexation to just Chattanooga, Cornersville, Kingsport, Knoxville and Memphis (after removing Johnson City), would have sunset in 2019, and would have had to be rectified with the Senate bill for final passage.
Not surprisingly, the mayors of Chattanooga, Knoxville and Memphis opposed the legislation, calling it potentially devastating. Although the impact on Chattanooga would have been considerably smaller, Memphis was looking at the possibility of losing more than 100,000 residents.
Annexed residents across the state say the cities never should have moved to take them in, a move they say has resulted in places in a doubling of property taxes and a requirement that they pay for services they don't want. Meanwhile, other residents say they have received virtually no new services since annexation.
In Chattanooga's case involving land sought in 2009, it was alleged then-Mayor Ron Littlefield wanted the areas - separate parcels in the northern and eastern parts of the county - to make up for city revenue shortfalls and to pad the city's population for the 2010 United States Census.
Carter said the cities mentioned in the bill had engaged in "egregious" instances of annexation. But he emphasized the bill, to mollify critics, also required residents in potentially de-annexed area to continue paying property taxes to municipalities while the general obligation bonds approved during their residency were paid off.
It was a 2014 bill by Carter that resulted in the state's current annexation law, which no longer allows cities to annex by ordinance but requires a majority of voters in a referendum - both in the area being annexed and in the city as a whole - for approval.
The 2016 legislation was, according to Watson, "completion of a promise" made when the bill outlawing annexation by ordinance passed.
The new bill appeared to be heading toward passage earlier this week but was sent back to the State and Local Government Committee after Speaker Ron Ramsey, R-Blountville, questioned its fairness and signaled he could not vote for it.
While there, amendments not to Watson's liking were tacked on, including one that would keep de-annexed residents on the docket for a proportional share of costs of public employee retirement obligations incurred while residents were in the municipality. Another raised the percentage of voters' signatures required to force a referendum from 10 percent in the House bill to 20 percent.
We believe, however, if the bill is re-introduced next year, it should have a higher threshold of voters' signatures. If, as has been alleged, annexed residents are anxious to be removed from the city's rolls, at least 20 percent should not be too high a percentage of residents of a relatively small area to ask to express their wishes on a petition.
When it comes to annexation by a municipality in Tennessee, after all, a majority of voters must vote for annexation. In petitions for recall, referendum or initiative within municipalities, the signatures of 15 percent of the city's registered voters are required.
Without a doubt, many residents in the areas affected by the 2016 Carter/Watson bill felt blindsided and powerless when they were annexed over the last 18 years. But if a remedy of de-annexation is prescribed, it should apply to all municipalities in the state and should have the imprimatur of acceptance by a sizable portion of the affected areas.
A summer of study may be able to work out details to make a bill in the 2017-2018 legislature more palatable to everyone concerned.