TIF reform bill sparks extended debate over transparency, trade secrets and voter thresholds; laid over for revision

Representative Gann presented House Bill 3841 as a broad rewrite of TIF (tax increment financing) practice, saying it "restores accountability, transparency, and voter consent to a financing tool" and would require a majority approval of voters in affected jurisdictions before a district plan or project is created. He described mandatory impact statements and independent legal and financial opinions as central protections.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on specific drafting choices. Representative Hill asked why the bill strikes earlier blight language and whether section 3(f) removes trade-secret protections and the ability to use executive sessions; Gann replied the bill removes catchall language in one title while retaining the Title 11 definition and said the public should know who a developer is while proprietary internal processes would remain protected.

A sustained line of questioning focused on the phrase in the draft requiring "a majority of the eligible voters," which several members warned could operate as a "poison pill" because typical turnout (often 20–30% of eligible voters) would make achieving a majority of all eligible voters difficult. Members also raised cost concerns for small municipalities (examples cited: a bond election running roughly $10,000) and asked who would pay for training the review committee and for elections. Gann repeatedly said the bill does not eliminate TIFs but insists on transparency and voter consent.

Multiple members requested time to work on drafting changes. The sponsor agreed to collaborate with members; the chair committed to rehearing the bill next week if revised. The committee laid HB 3841 over for further work rather than voting on it today.