2003 Senate Bill 239 - Michigan Votes

Legislation watch

2003 Senate Bill 239

Public Act 94 of 2003

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Tom George (R) on February 27, 2003, to allow a county to grant or loan funds not derived from property taxes to a nonprofit corporation organized to subsidize economic development loans. See Senate Bill 240.
- Referred to the Senate Local, Urban, & State Affairs Committee on February 27, 2003.
  - Reported in the Senate on March 18, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  - Substitute offered in the Senate on March 19, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which requires that the criteria for the proposed subsidy grants be disclosed, that there be public notice, and that there be a specific statement of the public purpose for the funding. Grants could only be awarded in a public county commission meeting, and recipients would be required to file annual reports on the extent to which their activities have met the stated public purpose. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 19, 2003.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on March 20, 2003, to allow a county to grant or loan any funds not derived from property taxes to a nonprofit corporation organized to subsidize economic development loans. Current law only allows the use of federal, state, or local grants for this purpose. The bill requires that grants or loans be awarded in a public county commission meeting according to an official process, and requires recipients to file annual reports on the extent to which their activities have met the stated public purpose. See also Senate Bill 240, and House Bills 4300 and 4324. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on March 20, 2003.
- Referred to the House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee on March 20, 2003.
  - Reported in the House on April 9, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  - Substitute offered in the House on May 1, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which allows the source of the funds used for the grants or loans to be property taxes levied specifically for economic development purposes. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on May 1, 2003.
  - Amendment offered by Rep. RuthAnn Jamnick (D) on May 1, 2003, to clarify that if the source of the funds used for the grants or loans is property taxes levied specifically for economic development purposes, the tax must have been approved by a vote of the people. Property taxes explicitly levied for economic development purposes are an exception to a prohibition in this statute on using ad valorem taxes for these loans or grants. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on May 1, 2003.
Passed in the House (96 to 9) on May 1, 2003, to allow a county to grant or loan funds derived from property taxes levied specifically for economic development purposes and approved by a vote of the people, to a nonprofit corporation organized to subsidize economic development loans. Current law only allows the use of federal, state, or local grants for this purpose, not property tax revenues. The bill requires that grants or loans be awarded according to an official processin a public county commission meeting, and requires recipients to file annual reports on the extent to which their activities have met the stated public purpose. See also Senate Bill 240, and House Bills 4300 and 4324. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on July 2, 2003.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Ray Basham (D) on July 2, 2003, to require that nonprofit corporations receiving the government loans authorized by the law the bill amends be subject to the Freedom Of Information Act. The amendment failed in the Senate (15 to 21) on July 2, 2003. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the Senate (36 to 0) on July 2, 2003, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 24, 2003.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) What is a TIFA? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 24, 2003]
Could you please explain what the acronym TIFA is? Thank you, e zerod, liberty1@speednetllc.com
(Repsonse to "So let me get this straight... " posted by bkelly)

Answer from MichiganVotes.org Editor:

Try searching MichiganVotes.org for "tax increment financing" in quotes - there are several brief descriptions contained in other bills.

The Citizen's Research Council defines it as follows:
"Tax increment finance districts allow local units of government to capture (from other locally-taxing governmental units) the increase in property tax levies for eligible properties above and beyond the year in which the authority was established. For example, a local unit that establishes a tax increment finance authority DDA, LDFA, or BRA) in 2001 may, in 2002 and every year following, retain property tax revenues above those collected (the increment) in 2001 (base year) that are otherwise due to other units of government, such as counties and school districts. In most cases, tax increment financing proceeds or bond indebtedness incurred therefrom may only be used for public improvements within the TIF district. The State Education Tax (6 mills) and debt obligations may not be captured by the local unit."
(From "Survey of Economic Development Programs in Michigan", at http://crcmich.org/PUBLICAT/2000s/2001/rpt334.pdf)

Jack McHugh
MichiganVotes.org
Reply

Line

2) they aren't conservative [by Anonymous Citizen on June 20, 2003]
i hope no person calling themselves conservative actually voted for this. we need legislation that makes it MORE difficult to spend our tax money -- not easier! this allows our tax money to go into a private corporation where the light of FOIA and OMA doesn't shine! we should force any entity that takes our tax money to be subject to FOIA and OMA - or something similar. if they are "partnering" with the government, then partners open their books and let the other partners see what's actually going on with their investment.
Reply

Line

3) So let me get this straight... [by bkelly on April 4, 2003]
Local municipalities can earmark certain property tax revenue for economic development (TIFA districts), and now counties can use "funds not derived from property taxes to a nonprofit corporation organized to subsidize economic development loans."

Wouldn't it be easier to say, "We'll take whatever we want of the money taken from the people and spend it on businesses that we think will succeed."

If government is so good at "picking winners" why are these guys wrong so often?
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation