Michigan House Bill HB5244

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/6/25
• Refer: 11/6/25

Caption

Economic development: other; joint exercise of a power, privilege, or authority related to the economic development of this state; prohibit. Amends secs. 4, 5 & 7 of 1967 (Ex Sess) PA 7 (MCL 124.504 et seq.).

Summary

HB 5244 amends Michigan’s Urban Cooperation Act to bar the state and state departments or agencies from entering into interlocal agreements for the joint exercise of powers related to economic development. The bill also excludes the Michigan Strategic Fund and other state public bodies or agencies created to carry out economic development functions from the act’s general authorization for joint exercises of power with other public agencies, other states, Canada, or the federal government. The bill retains and restates the act’s detailed framework for interlocal agreements, including provisions on purpose, duration, financing, revenue allocation, staffing, procurement, property, liability, audits, and dispute resolution. It also preserves rules governing separate legal entities created by interlocal agreements, including their powers to contract, employ staff, acquire property, borrow money, and issue bonds or notes within specified limits, while reaffirming that such entities may not levy taxes, issue bonds in their own name, or administer state grant/loan assistance programs.

Impact

HB 5244 would narrow the scope of the Urban Cooperation Act by removing state-level participation in interlocal agreements tied to economic development and by carving out economic-development-focused state entities from the act’s joint-power provisions. In practical terms, it would limit how Michigan state agencies can collaborate with local or out-of-state public agencies on economic development projects under this statute, while leaving the broader interlocal agreement structure intact for other public purposes. The bill would amend MCL 124.504, 124.505, and 124.507.

Sentiment

Based on the bill title and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided material, the bill appears to have been framed as a restriction on state involvement in economic-development interlocal arrangements rather than a broadly expansive local-government measure. The available context does not show recorded support or opposition, so overall sentiment cannot be measured from hearings or roll calls. The text itself suggests a policy preference for limiting state participation in economic development collaborations under this act.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s prohibition on the state and state agencies entering interlocal agreements for economic development, which would reduce flexibility for state-local partnerships and could affect existing or planned development initiatives. Another likely issue is the carveout for the Michigan Strategic Fund and similar entities, which indicates a targeted restriction on state economic-development bodies rather than a general change to all interlocal cooperation. No specific stakeholder objections or endorsements are included in the provided transcripts or votes.