WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 993

Industrial Development - As introduced, removes restriction prohibiting county officers from serving on industrial development corporation boards; adds county assessor of property and county trustee as members of such boards. - Amends TCA Title 7, Chapter 53.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by G.A. Hardaway

Tennessee bill removes ban on county officers serving on industrial development boards and adds property assessor and trustee as mandated members.

No Action Taken
#industrialdevelopment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 993

Legislative bill overview

HB 993 modifies Tennessee's industrial development corporation governance rules by removing a blanket prohibition on county officers serving on industrial development corporation boards. The bill specifically adds the county assessor of property and county trustee as designated board members, expanding local government participation in economic development initiatives.

Why is this important

Industrial development corporations are key vehicles for local economic growth, business recruitment, and infrastructure investment. By allowing county officials with financial and property expertise to participate directly, the bill could improve decision-making on development projects—but also creates potential conflicts of interest since these same officials have regulatory and fiduciary duties over county finances and property assessments.

Potential points of contention

  • Conflict of interest concerns: County assessors determine property values and county trustees manage funds; their simultaneous service on development boards could create appearance of impropriety or actual conflicts when development projects affect property valuations or county finances.
  • Accountability and transparency: Elected county officials serving on development boards may blur lines between public governance and private corporate decision-making, raising questions about public oversight and meeting transparency requirements.
  • Why the restriction existed originally: The prohibition likely was enacted to prevent exactly these conflicts, suggesting the bill reverses prior policy judgments about separating county fiscal/regulatory duties from development promotion roles.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.