HB4702 authorizes the state administrative board to convey or transfer a specific parcel of state-owned property in the Village of Peck, Sanilac County, currently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Technology, Management, and Budget. The bill allows the property to be transferred by quitclaim deed or by affidavit of jurisdictional transfer, and it permits the legal description to be adjusted if a survey or other legal description requires it. Before any other disposition, the director of DTMB must first offer the property to the Village of Peck, which receives a two-year first right to purchase the property at fair market value.
If the village does not buy the property, the bill authorizes DTMB to dispose of it through competitive bidding, public auction, brokerage, a negotiated value-for-value conveyance, sale to another local unit of government at fair market value, sale to a local unit of government for less than fair market value subject to public-use restrictions, or transfer to the state land bank authority. The bill defines fair market value, net revenue, public use, and unit of local government, and requires fair market value to be based on an independent appraisal. It also requires attorney general approval of the deed or transfer instrument and provides that any net revenue from a sale be deposited into the state general fund.
The bill’s impact on state law is narrow but specific: it creates a one-time statutory authorization for the state to dispose of a particular parcel in Sanilac County and sets the conditions for that disposition. It also establishes ongoing restrictions if the property is transferred to a local government for public use, including deed restrictions, a 30-year repurchase right for the state if the local government later wants to sell, and enforcement authority allowing the state to reenter and reclaim the property if the restrictions are violated. The bill further addresses mineral rights, aboriginal antiquities, and the treatment of surplus equipment on the property.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable and noncontroversial. The bill was reported from committee without amendment on a 27-0 vote and later passed the House on third reading with immediate effect by a 101-3 vote, indicating broad bipartisan support. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to suggest significant opposition.
The main points of potential contention are limited to the property-disposition mechanics rather than the concept of the transfer itself. The bill gives the Village of Peck a preferred opportunity to buy the land, but also allows other local governments to compete for it and permits sale below fair market value only if the property will be used exclusively for public use. The inclusion of a state repurchase right, public-use deed restrictions, and the possibility of reentry if conditions are violated are the primary safeguards, while the only likely policy tension would be over whether the property should be sold at market value, transferred for public use, or conveyed through a value-for-value arrangement.
HB4702 amends state property-disposition authority by creating a specific statutory framework for the transfer or sale of one state-owned parcel in Peck, Sanilac County. It directs DTMB and the state administrative board to manage the conveyance, requires attorney general approval, mandates an independent appraisal for fair market value, and sends net sale proceeds to the general fund. It also imposes deed-based restrictions and enforcement provisions for any transfer to a local government for public use, including a state repurchase option and reentry rights if conditions are breached.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support and little visible opposition. It advanced from committee unanimously and passed the House overwhelmingly, including immediate effect, suggesting lawmakers viewed it as a routine or practical land-transfer measure rather than a controversial policy change. The absence of recorded committee testimony or debate also suggests limited public contention in the available record.
Any disagreement would likely center on the terms of the transfer rather than whether the property should be conveyed at all. The bill balances the Village of Peck’s first opportunity to buy the parcel against broader options for DTMB to seek the best value for the state, including sale to other local governments, public auction, or value-for-value conveyance. Potentially sensitive issues include selling below fair market value for public use, the 30-year state repurchase right, restrictions on future use, and the special treatment of mineral rights and aboriginal antiquities. No specific opposing arguments are documented in the provided materials.