House Bill 6069 would amend the Michigan Strategic Fund Act to require the fund’s written agreements to include default and clawback provisions for certain recipients of state economic development assistance. Beginning April 1, 2027, if a recipient of a loan, grant, or other project assistance reports a new listing on the registry created under the anti-offshoring accountability act during the term of the agreement, the agreement must provide for an event of default and the return of funds.
The bill is tied to the Michigan Strategic Fund’s financing and incentive agreements and would add a condition that can trigger repayment or other enforcement action when a recipient is identified on the anti-offshoring registry. It is structured as a contingent amendment and would only take effect if a related bill, Senate Bill No. _____ or House Bill No. 6070, is enacted. The act itself would take effect 90 days after enactment, but the new section would not become operative until the specified date in 2027.
HB6069 would change the legal terms governing state economic development awards under the Michigan Strategic Fund Act by requiring anti-offshoring enforcement language in future agreements. This would affect recipients of state loans, grants, and other project assistance, giving the fund a statutory basis to declare default and seek clawback of funds if a recipient appears on the anti-offshoring registry during the agreement term. The bill would also indirectly affect how the Michigan Strategic Fund structures and monitors incentive contracts, and it depends on enactment of related legislation before it can take effect.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or roll-call sentiment in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a policy preference for conditioning state economic development support on domestic job retention and discouraging offshoring. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials means the overall sentiment cannot be measured from legislative discussion, but the bill’s structure suggests it is intended as an accountability and enforcement measure.
The main potential point of contention is whether the state should use clawback provisions and default triggers tied to a company’s appearance on an anti-offshoring registry as a condition of receiving public assistance. Supporters would likely view this as a safeguard to protect Michigan jobs and public investments, while critics may argue it could create uncertainty for businesses, complicate incentive agreements, or be difficult to administer and enforce. Another possible issue is the bill’s contingent effective-date structure, since it depends on passage of related legislation, which may raise questions about how broadly and consistently the new enforcement regime would apply.