HB 4090 authorizes the State Administrative Board to convey state-owned property in Detroit, Wayne County, that was formerly the site of the Mound and Ryan Correctional Facilities. The bill sets out the legal description of the roughly 96.14-acre parcel and allows the description to be adjusted if a survey or legal description requires it. It gives the Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (DTMB) authority to manage the sale process and requires approval of deeds by the Department of Attorney General.
The bill gives the City of Detroit a two-year first right to purchase the property, or any approved portion of it, for $1.00, subject to conditions. If the city does not buy it, DTMB may dispose of the property through competitive bidding, public auction, brokerage, negotiated value-for-value conveyance, sale to local governments, sale below fair market value to local governments, or transfer to a land bank authority. Any fair market sale must be supported by an independent appraisal, and the bill allows DTMB to consider economic development benefits such as job creation and capital investment when evaluating value-for-value transactions.
For conveyances to local governments at reduced price or under the city-first option, the property must be used exclusively for public use, and the deed must include that restriction. The bill defines public use to include government administration, corrections, law enforcement, emergency response, education, transportation, parks and recreation, public health, and wildlife conservation, while excluding for-profit or closed uses. It also imposes resale notice requirements, a state right of first refusal, reimbursement of certain state preparation costs, and possible recording requirements.
The bill changes state law by creating a specific land transfer framework for this Detroit property and by directing net sale proceeds to the state treasury and then the general fund. It also provides that the state does not reserve oil, gas, or mineral rights, but if those resources are developed the state receives half of gross revenue. In addition, the state reserves aboriginal antiquities rights and may reenter and retake the property if deed restrictions are violated, with the Attorney General authorized to bring a quiet title action if needed.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The bill passed the House 104-2 and the Senate 34-2, and committee votes were unanimous or near-unanimous, with no recorded committee testimony in the provided materials. The main points of potential contention are the low-cost transfer to Detroit, the public-use restrictions and state reversion rights, and the balance between maximizing state revenue and supporting local redevelopment and economic development.
HB 4090 creates a special statutory authorization for the conveyance of a specific state-owned parcel in Detroit that had been used for correctional facilities, and it establishes the terms under which DTMB and the State Administrative Board may sell or transfer that property. It affects state property disposition procedures, deed requirements, revenue handling, mineral-rights treatment, and enforcement mechanisms for post-conveyance restrictions. The bill also directs proceeds, after allowable costs, to the state general fund and gives the City of Detroit a time-limited opportunity to acquire the property for nominal consideration subject to public-use conditions.
The bill’s legislative history suggests broad support and little opposition. It advanced out of committee unanimously or nearly unanimously and passed both chambers by large margins, including immediate-effect votes. The recorded nays were few, indicating that most legislators viewed the measure as a practical property-transfer and redevelopment bill rather than a controversial policy change.
The main areas of possible disagreement are not reflected in committee testimony but are evident in the bill’s structure: whether the state should transfer valuable land for $1 to Detroit, how strictly the property should be limited to public use, and whether the state should retain strong reversion and revenue-sharing rights if the property is later developed or resold. Another potential point of tension is the bill’s flexibility for DTMB to pursue market-based or negotiated sales if Detroit does not exercise its first right, balancing local control, redevelopment goals, and state fiscal interests.