TCA § 6-51-104 — Resolution for annexation by referendum — Notice

A municipality, when petitioned by interested persons, or upon its own initiative, by resolution, may propose extension of its corporate limits by the annexation of territory adjoining to its existing boundaries; provided, however, no such resolution shall propose annexation of any property being used primarily for agricultural purposes. Notwithstanding this part or any other law to the contrary, property being used primarily for agricultural purposes shall be annexed only with the written consent of the property owner or owners. A referendum is not required to effectuate annexation of territory if: All of the property owners within the territory proposed for annexation consent in writing; or [Effective until January 1, 2023.] (a) Two-thirds (2/3) of the property owners within the territory proposed for annexation consent in writing; The total area of the property owned by the owners consenting to annexation under subdivision (a)(2)(B)(i) is more than one-half (½) of the territory proposed for annexation; and The proposed annexation consists of nine (9) or fewer parcels; A municipality may by resolution propose annexation of territory that does not adjoin the boundary of the main part of the municipality, without extending the corporate limits of that territory, if the territory proposed for annexation is entirely contained within the municipality's urban growth boundary and is either: To be used for industrial or commercial purpose or future residential development; or Owned by one (1) or more governmental entities. A resolution under this subsection (d) shall be ratified only with the written consent of the property owner or owners. For purposes of this subsection (d), the boundary of the main part of the municipality is defined as the corporate limits of the territory containing its town seat or city hall. Territory that does not adjoin that boundary before a proposal to annex it is introduced cannot be annexed except as provided in this subsection (d). The resolution shall include the plan of services adopted under § 6-51-102. The plan shall be prepared by the municipality in cooperation with the county in which the territory is located. The municipality and county shall enter into an interlocal agreement pursuant to § 5-1-113 to provide emergency services for any interceding properties and to maintain roads and bridges comprising the primary route to the area thus annexed as the municipality and county deem necessary. [Deleted by 2017 amendment.] Subdivision (a)(2)(B) is repealed January 1, 2023. (1) (A) A copy of the resolution, describing the territory proposed for annexation, shall be promptly sent by the municipality to the last known address listed in the office of the property assessor for each property owner of record within the territory proposed for annexation. The resolution shall be sent by first class mail and shall be mailed no later than fourteen (14) calendar days prior to the scheduled date of the hearing on such proposed annexation. The resolution shall also be published by posting copies of it in at least three (3) public places in the territory proposed for annexation and in a like number of public places in the municipality proposing such annexation, and by publishing notice of such resolution at or about the same time in a newspaper of general circulation, if there is one, in such territory and municipality. The resolution shall also include a plan of services for the area proposed for annexation. The plan of services shall comply with the requirements of § 6-51-102 , including the public hearing and notice requirements, prior to the adoption of the resolution. Upon adoption of the plan of services, the municipality shall cause a copy of the resolution to be forwarded to the county mayor in whose county the territory being annexed is located. A person or persons with personal knowledge of the mailing of the resolutions to each property owner of record pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(A) may submit a notarized affidavit to the presiding officer of the municipality attesting that such resolutions were mailed in accordance with this subdivision (b)(1). Failure of a property owner to receive a notice that was mailed pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(A) shall not be grounds to invalidate the annexation. After receiving the notice from the municipality as provided in subdivision (b)(1), the county mayor shall notify the appropriate departments within the county regarding the information received from the municipality. A resolution proposing annexation by written consent of the property owner or owners shall become effective only upon adoption of such resolution by the municipality. Acts 1955, ch. 113, § 3; T.C.A., § 6-311; Acts 2005, ch. 411, §§ 5, 8; 2011, ch. 495, § 1; 2014, ch. 707, § 4; 2015, ch. 512, §§ 3, 11, 16; 2017, ch. 399, § 1; 2018, ch. 1047, § 1. Compiler's Notes. Acts 2015, ch. 512, § 18 provided that the act take effect at 12:01 a.m. on May 16, 2015. However, the governor signed the act and it became law on May 20, 2015. Pursuant to Article II, § 20, of the Constitution of Tennessee, the act takes effect 40 days after the bill became law. Thus, the effective date of the act is June 29, 2015. Amendments. The 2014 amendment, effective May 16, 2015, in (a), added the proviso at the end of the first sentence and added the second and third sentences. The 2015 amendment rewrote the fifth sentence of (b)(1)(A), which read: “The plan of services shall address the same services and timing of services as required in § 6-51-102 ” and added subsections (c) and (d). The 2017 amendment deleted former (d)(5) which read: “This subsection (d) shall only apply in any county having a population according to the most recent decennial census that is greater than forty-four and one-half percent (44.5%) and fifty thousand (50,000) of its population in the preceding decennial census.” The 2018 amendment added (a)(2); and, in present (a)(1), deleted the former last sentence which read: “A resolution to effectuate annexation of any property, with written consent of the property owner or owners, shall not require a referendum.” Effective Dates. Acts 2011, ch. 495, § 2. July 1, 2011. Acts 2014, ch. 707, § 8. May 16, 2015. Acts 2015, ch. 512, § 18. June 29, 2015 [See the Compiler's Notes.]. Acts 2017, ch. 399, § 2. May 18, 2017. Acts 2018, ch. 1047, § 2. May 21, 2018. Textbooks. Tennessee Jurisprudence, 19 Tenn. Juris., Municipal Corporations, §§ 13, 18. Law Reviews. Local Government Law — 1961 Tennessee Survey (Eugene Puett), 14 Vand. L. Rev. 1335 (1961). Attorney General Opinions. Right of non-resident property owners to vote in annexation referendum. OAG 13-106, 2013 Tenn. AG LEXIS 111 (12/20/13). NOTES TO DECISIONS 1. Constitutionality. 2. Description. 3. Rights of Interested Parties. 4. Multi-County Proceedings. 5. Review. 1. Constitutionality. Where a town correctly followed statutory annexation provisions, inclusion of a farm and a subdivision within a single annexation referendum did not deny the farm owners' equal protection or substantive due process under the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State ex rel. Smith v. Church Hill, 828 S.W.2d 385, 1991 Tenn. App. LEXIS 354 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). 2. Description. Where it was not contended that realtors were mislead by description or that they did not vote in election or were surprised, fact that there was error in description did not invalidate annexation where map correctly showed territory and therefore proper description could be determined. Johnson City v. State, 202 Tenn. 318, 304 S.W.2d 317, 1957 Tenn. LEXIS 393 (1957). 3. Rights of Interested Parties. Interested parties do not acquire any vested rights in proceedings commenced under either § 6-51-102 or this section. Central Soya Co. v. Chattanooga, 207 Tenn. 138, 338 S.W.2d 576, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1960) (decided under prior law). Proceeding brought by interested persons for annexation by referendum as provided in this section and § 6-51-105 would not prevent city from proceeding under §§ 6-51-102 , 6-51-103 to annex by ordinance only a portion of the territory in question. Central Soya Co. v. Chattanooga, 207 Tenn. 138, 338 S.W.2d 576, 1960 Tenn. LEXIS 440 (1960) (decided under prior law). 4. Multi-County Proceedings. Municipality lying wholly within one county could annex territory adjoining to its boundaries but lying wholly within another county. Mt. Carmel v. Kingsport, 217 Tenn. 298, 397 S.W.2d 379, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 546 (1965). Provisions of this title providing for multi-county municipalities would be read in pari materia with this section. Mt. Carmel v. Kingsport, 217 Tenn. 298, 397 S.W.2d 379, 1965 Tenn. LEXIS 546 (1965). It was the legislative intent that cities within a county should have priority in annexing that county's property. Bluff City v. Johnson City, 794 S.W.2d 732, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 149 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). Where city seeking to annex land in county in which it was incorporated failed to publish its annexation resolution as required by T.C.A. § 6-51-104 , and failed to seek a referendum as required by T.C.A. § 6-51-105 , but passed a resolution for annexation by referendum, city initiated annexation proceedings, bringing itself within the priority provisions of T.C.A. § 6-51-110 , and obtained precedence over second city incorporated in another county seeking to annex the same land. Bluff City v. Johnson City, 794 S.W.2d 732, 1990 Tenn. App. LEXIS 149 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990). 5. Review. Annexation statutes expressly permit court review when method of annexation is by adoption of an ordinance but make no provision for court review when annexation is by referendum. State ex rel. Vicars v. Kingsport, 659 S.W.2d 367, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 707 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). Court review of annexation by referendum will be allowed when there is a constitutional infirmity. Municipal adjustment of boundary of area to be annexed so that majority of voters would be for annexation was not such an infirmity. State ex rel. Vicars v. Kingsport, 659 S.W.2d 367, 1983 Tenn. App. LEXIS 707 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).