TEDF FUNDING ALLOCATION; MODIFY H.B. 5922:

SUMMARY OF BILL

REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE

House Bill 5922 (as reported without amendment)

Sponsor: Representative Jaime Greene

House Committee: Transportation, Mobility, and Infrastructure

Senate Committee: Transportation and Infrastructure

CONTENT

The bill would amend the transportation economic development fund (TEDF) Law to modify urban county population ranges used in distributing TEDF funding for transportation projects meant to reduce congestion on county and city streets.

MCL 247.911

BRIEF RATIONALE

The TEDF s Category C funding is used solely to reduce congestion in urban counties and is distributed to counties according to population size. Counties within the same population bracket split that bracket s funding. For example, Kent County and Genesee County currently share the same population bracket and receive half of the allocated 24%; however, in 2020 the Census Bureau reported that Kent County grew from 602,622 individuals in 2010 to 657,974 in 2020. Now that the Census has been certified, under current law Kent County will move from its current bracket to the next bracket, sharing funds with Macomb County. This will result in a reduction in funding for Kent County and Macomb County, as their funding will be reduced from 12% to 10% and 20% to 10%, respectively. Accordingly, it has been suggested that the population parameters for Category C funding be amended to ensure that no county loses or gains funds.

PREVIOUS LEGISLATION

(Please note: This section does not provide a comprehensive account of all previous legislative efforts on the relevant subject matter.)

The bill is a companion bill to Senate Bill 1011, which has been reported by the Senate Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Legislative Analyst: Abby Schneider

FISCAL IMPACT

The bill would have no fiscal impact on the State and would have a net zero fiscal impact on local units of government. The bill would adjust the population metrics for the county congestion road funding, which means some local units could receive more funding while others received less funding; however, total funding would not change.

Date Completed: 10-17-24 Fiscal Analyst: Bobby Canell

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.