Michigan House Bill HB5464

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/21/26
• Refer: 1/21/26

Caption

Economic development: plant rehabilitation; requirements related to the revocation of an industrial facilities exemption certificate; modify. Amends sec. 15 of 1974 PA 198 (MCL 207.565). TIE BAR WITH: HB 5463'26

Summary

HB 5464 amends Michigan’s plant rehabilitation and industrial development district law to change the rules for revoking an industrial facilities exemption certificate. The bill allows the holder of a certificate to request revocation by certified mail, either for the entire certificate or for just the real property or personal property component, whichever is requested. It also preserves the authority of a local governmental unit to ask the State Tax Commission to revoke a certificate when a project is not completed on time, is not being used for the intended manufacturing, warehousing, or distribution purpose, or is not being pursued in good faith. The bill keeps the existing notice and hearing process, requiring the commission to notify the certificate holder, local officials, assessors, and affected taxing units before revoking a certificate. It also clarifies that revocations for speculative buildings apply only to the portion of the building tied to the violation. In addition, the bill adds a reinstatement pathway: if a revoked facility still qualifies under the act, the commission may reinstate the exemption certificate at the request of the holder or a subsequent owner, with local government concurrence.

Impact

HB 5464 would amend MCL 207.565, the section governing revocation of industrial facilities exemption certificates under 1974 PA 198. The bill would affect certificate holders, local governments, assessors, the State Tax Commission, and local taxing units by clarifying revocation procedures, partial revocation authority, and the possibility of reinstatement after revocation. It would not create a new tax exemption, but would modify how existing industrial property tax exemptions can be ended and potentially restored.

Sentiment

There is no committee transcript or recorded vote information provided, so the bill’s sentiment must be inferred from its text and caption. The measure appears generally administrative and technical, aimed at clarifying revocation and reinstatement rules rather than expanding or restricting the exemption broadly. Its structure suggests a policy preference for giving local governments and the State Tax Commission clearer enforcement tools while also preserving flexibility for project delays or later compliance.

Contention

The main points of contention likely involve the balance between local control and business flexibility. Local governments and taxing units may favor the revocation provisions because they help ensure that tax exemptions are used only for projects that are completed and operated as promised. Industrial property owners and developers may be more interested in the reinstatement language and the ability to request partial revocation, which can reduce the consequences of project changes or delays. The tie-bar to HB 5463 indicates the bill is part of a linked package and would not take effect unless the companion bill becomes law.