Michigan House Bill HB5500

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/5/26
• Refer: 2/5/26

Caption

Administrative procedure: other; requirement to provide basis for decisions; provide for. Amends 1969 PA 306 (MCL 24.201 - 24.328) by adding sec. 110.

Summary

House Bill 5500 would amend Michigan’s Administrative Procedures Act to require a state agency, when issuing a written determination about a license, to cite the statutory authority that supports that determination. In practical terms, the bill adds a simple transparency and accountability requirement to agency licensing decisions, ensuring that applicants and license holders can see the legal basis for an agency’s action in writing. The bill does not appear to create new licensing standards or change substantive eligibility rules. Instead, it focuses on the form of agency decision-making by requiring agencies to identify the applicable statute whenever they make a written licensing determination. This would likely affect state administrative agencies that issue licenses, permits, or similar determinations under state law, and it could make it easier for affected parties to understand, challenge, or comply with agency decisions.

Impact

HB 5500 would amend the Administrative Procedures Act of 1969 by adding a new section requiring agencies to include the applicable statutory basis in written licensing determinations. The main legal effect is procedural: it imposes a documentation requirement on agencies but does not alter the underlying licensing statutes themselves. Agencies would need to ensure their written decisions reference the specific law authorizing the determination, which could improve recordkeeping, transparency, and reviewability for regulated individuals and businesses.

Sentiment

Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call history. Based on the text alone, the proposal appears narrowly tailored and likely intended to improve clarity in agency actions, which is generally the kind of administrative reform that tends to draw limited opposition. The available context suggests a neutral to favorable policy posture, but there is no direct evidence of support or resistance in the materials provided.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the supplied committee materials or voting history. The only plausible area of debate would be whether the added citation requirement creates any administrative burden for agencies or whether it is a useful safeguard for license applicants and regulated parties. Since the bill is limited to requiring agencies to cite the statutory basis for written licensing determinations, any disagreement would likely center on administrative efficiency versus transparency rather than on broader policy changes.