Michigan House Bill HB4105

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/20/25
• Refer: 2/20/25
• Report Pass: 4/30/25
• Engrossed: 5/20/25
• Refer: 5/29/25

Caption

House Bill 4105 of 2025

Summary

HB4105 amends the Michigan Memorial Highway Act to designate a specific segment of M-150 in Oakland County, also known as Rochester Road, as the "William S. Broomfield Memorial Highway." The named portion runs from the intersection with Tienken Road south to the intersection with M-59. The bill is a commemorative roadway designation and does not create a new transportation program, funding source, or regulatory requirement. In practical terms, the bill adds a new section to 2001 PA 142, the state law governing memorial highway designations, and authorizes the use of the honorary name for signage and official recognition of that roadway segment. The underlying highway remains part of the state trunkline system, and the measure primarily affects state highway naming records and any related sign installation or administrative mapping by transportation officials.

Impact

The bill amends 2001 PA 142 (the Michigan Memorial Highway Act) by adding a new memorial designation for a defined segment of M-150 in Oakland County. Its legal effect is limited to naming the roadway segment the "William S. Broomfield Memorial Highway" and incorporating that designation into the state statute governing memorial highways. It does not alter traffic rules, ownership, maintenance responsibilities, or funding obligations for the road, but it may require MDOT and related agencies to update signage, maps, and reference materials.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It was reported from committee without amendment on a 15-0 vote and later passed the House on third reading by a wide margin, 105-2, with immediate effect. No committee transcripts were provided, and the vote totals indicate the measure was largely noncontroversial and treated as a ceremonial or honorary designation.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The only notable opposition is the small number of negative votes on final passage, which may reflect general objections to memorial highway bills, concerns about proliferation of honorary designations, or disagreement with the specific commemoration. Because no committee discussion transcripts are available, no detailed policy dispute is apparent, and the bill appears to have been considered primarily as a symbolic tribute to William S. Broomfield.