Introduced by Sen. Nancy Cassis (R) on October 21, 2003, to revise the population threshold needed to qualify as an "urban township" in the Local Development Financing Act. The Act authorizes local governments to create local development authorities to undertake public facility projects funded by tax increment financing. Tax increment financing allows an authority to capture the increment of increased local property tax revenue that results from the economic growth which is supposed to result because of the new public facilities. These projects are intended to provide incentives for particular businesses to locate in an area. Under current law, an urban township must have population of 20,000 or more, or 13,000 or more if located in a county with at least 150,000. The bill would allow a township of any size to qualify if it is in a county with at least 450,000 people (Kent, Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties).
Referred to the Senate Economic Development, Small Business and Regulatory Reform Committee on October 21, 2003.
Referred to the Senate Natural Resources & Environmental Affairs Committee on October 22, 2003.
Reported in the Senate on December 4, 2003, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on December 9, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which establishes adds to the current definition of urban township a township which has a written agreement with an adjoining township to develop one or more public facilities on contiguous property located in both townships, located in a county with a population of one-million or more (Oakland and Wayne Counties). The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on December 9, 2003.
Passed in the Senate (38 to 0) on December 11, 2003, to include in the definition of "urban township" for purposes of establishing a local development finance authority, a township which has a written agreement with an adjoining township to develop one or more public facilities on contiguous property located in both townships, located in a county with a population of one-million or more (Oakland and Wayne Counties). A local development finance authority may use revenue "captured" from the increment of increased local property taxes that result from economic growth which is supposed to occur due to the new public facilities funded by the authority. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on December 16, 2003.
Referred to the House Commerce Committee on December 16, 2003.
Referred to the House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee on December 17, 2003.
Reported in the House on February 3, 2004, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed in the House (58 to 42) on February 11, 2004, to include in the definition of "urban township" for purposes of establishing a local development finance authority, a township which has a written agreement with an adjoining township to develop one or more public facilities on contiguous property located in both townships, located in a county with a population of one-million or more (Oakland and Wayne Counties). A local development finance authority may use revenue "captured" from the increment of increased local property taxes that result from economic growth which is supposed to occur due to the new public facilities funded by the authority. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on March 4, 2004.
1) Rep. Waters' "no vote comment" [by Admin003 on February 12, 2004] Rep. Waters, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on Senate Bill 780 because the health and strength of the state depends on the health and strength of its cities. A number of laws have been enacted over the years to help preserve or refurbish Michigan's struggling urban centers. Unfortunately, a disturbing trend is now taking place in which these laws are being amended - turned on their heads, actually - to provide incentives to growing suburbs, rather than cities. SB 780 is an example of this trend. This bill and too many other bills that this Legislature has before it this session facilitate piece-meal development and sprawl, when the more appropriate policy should be to promote big-picture, healthy land-use." Reply
2) Rep. Tobocman's "no vote explaination" [by Admin003 on February 12, 2004] Rep. Tobocman, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on Senate Bill 780 because the health and strength of the state depends on the health and strength of its cities. There are many laws to facilitate this goal. There is a disturbing trend of amending laws that were drafted for struggling urban centers to help attract development to rural greenfields and undeveloped areas. If additional tools are needed for townships to be able to support their tax base, than those tools should be discussed, debated and considered on their merits. SB 780 provides a tool to one township without addressing the systemic problems of either our urban centers or our townships." Reply
3) Rep. Murphy's "no vote journal comment" [by Admin003 on February 12, 2004] Rep. Murphy, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted no on Senate Bill 780 because many have stressed the health and strength of the state depends on the health and strength of its cities. There are many laws to facilitate this goal. There is a disturbing trend of amending laws that were drafted for struggling urban centers to help their growing suburbs. SB 780 is an example of this trend." Reply