Traverse City commissioners on Aug. 18 debated revisions to the city's implementation policy for voter-initiated tax increment financing and related ballot proposals, but a motion to adopt an amended policy failed. The discussion centered on whether ballot language should remain narrowly factual or include clearer plain-English summaries of project scope, and whether identical or substantially similar proposals should be allowed to return to the ballot with no time limit.

The debate matters because commissioners said the new city charter language requires certain development and TIF proposals to be voted on by the public before the commission can act, and the policy will govern how the city handles petitioned proposals, ballot language, and resubmissions. Supporters of clearer summaries said voters need accessible information to make informed decisions; opponents warned that more descriptive text risks legal challenge and bias.

Commissioners, city staff, and members of the public raised multiple concerns and possible policy fixes. Several commissioners pressed staff to add a short, neutral description of a project's scope to the ballot materials so that voters without prior knowledge can understand what they are being asked to approve. Others argued that even neutral summaries could be framed in ways that favor an applicant and that existing Michigan ballot-language statutes prioritize strictly factual wording. Several speakers urged a cooling-off period (for example, one year) to prevent applicants from repeatedly returning the same proposal to the ballot; other commissioners opposed limits on resubmission, saying voters should be allowed to reconsider and that restricting resubmissions would unduly constrain public choice. City staff and the city attorney explained that the charter amendment adopted last November changes the timing of when the commission may act, and clarified aspects of the process for placing items on the ballot.

Public commenters also weighed in: Fred Bimber urged the commission to follow Michigan statute guidance that ballot language must inform voters, and said the commission should set clear policy about repeated resubmissions; developer Raymond Minerveni argued voters should retain opportunities to reconsider proposals that may be appropriate under changing conditions. The city attorney cautioned that forcing the commission to act after a rejected ballot measure would not necessarily moot litigation and could complicate the legal picture.

No formal change to the implementation policy was adopted at the meeting; commissioners declined to approve the amended policy as presented. Commissioners also clarified procedural points: any two commissioners (one of whom must be among the prevailing side of a motion as described in the meeting) can request that the item be placed back on a future agenda for further discussion. Staff said they will return with additional language options and clarifications for the commission to consider.