Agriculture, Dept. of - As introduced, requires the commissioner to annually report the amount of fees, fines, and proceeds resulting from the sale of seized properties collected under Tennessee Apiary Act of 1995 to the chairpersons of the committees having subject jurisdiction over agriculture in both chambers of the general assembly. - Amends TCA Title 1; Title 4; Title 8; Title 11; Title 12; Title 35; Title 36; Title 38; Title 39; Title 40; Title 41; Title 43; Title 44; Title 47; Title 49; Title 50; Title 53; Title 55; Title 56; Title 57; Title 62; Title 63; Title 65; Title 66; Title 67; Title 68; Title 69; Title 70 and Title 71.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Paul Sherrell

Requires Tennessee agriculture commissioner to annually report apiary enforcement fees, fines, and seized property sale proceeds to legislative agriculture committees for oversight.

Placed on cal. Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee for 3/24/2026

#agriculture #dept.of

Legislative bill overview

HB 2322 requires Tennessee's Department of Agriculture Commissioner to submit an annual report to relevant legislative committees detailing fees, fines, and proceeds from the sale of seized properties collected under the Tennessee Apiary Act of 1995. The bill appears designed to create transparency and legislative oversight of beekeeping-related enforcement activities and revenue generation.

Why is this important

This bill establishes a reporting mechanism for tracking funds generated through apiary regulation enforcement, ensuring lawmakers can monitor how the state's beekeeping regulations are being implemented financially. Transparency in fee collection and asset seizures helps prevent potential misuse of enforcement authority and informs policymakers about the costs and revenue implications of apiary regulations.

Potential points of contention

Scope ambiguity: The bill's extremely broad amendments across 28 Tennessee Code titles suggest either drafting issues or hidden provisions unrelated to apiary reporting, raising questions about what actual changes are being made beyond the stated purpose

Revenue allocation uncertainty: The bill doesn't specify whether collected fees should be dedicated to apiary programs, general treasury, or other purposes, potentially leaving open debates about fund usage

Enforcement justification: Whether seized property sales are proportionate enforcement tools or represent overreach in apiary regulation depends on implementation details not clearly addressed in the bill