Michigan Senate Bill SB0077

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/11/25
• Refer: 2/11/25

Caption

Education: financing; funding for mobile panic alert system in schools; provide for. Amends sec. 11 of 1979 PA 94 (MCL 388.1611) & adds sec. 97n. TIE BAR WITH: SB 76'25

Summary

Senate Bill 77 amends Michigan’s State School Aid Act for fiscal year 2024-2025 to adjust the education appropriations package and create a new targeted allocation for school safety technology. The bill increases the general fund appropriation in section 11 from $78.8 million to $85.5 million while leaving the larger school aid fund appropriation and other funding sources in place, including funds for transportation, meals, early childhood, retirement obligations, and educator fellowships. It also specifies that any unspent general fund money at the end of the fiscal year is transferred to the School Aid Stabilization Fund. The bill adds a new section 97n that earmarks $6.7 million from the general fund for public and nonpublic schools to implement a mobile panic alert system in each school, as required by the Revised School Code. The allocation is structured as a work project appropriation, allowing unspent funds to carry forward into the next fiscal year, with an estimated completion date of September 30, 2027. The bill is tied to Senate Bill 76, meaning it does not take effect unless that companion bill is enacted into law.

Impact

SB 77 would directly amend Michigan’s annual school aid appropriation statute for FY 2024-2025 and create a specific state funding stream for compliance with the mobile panic alert system requirement in MCL 380.1308c. Its practical effect is to provide state support for public and nonpublic schools to purchase and implement panic alert technology, while also modifying the overall distribution of general fund education dollars and preserving the transfer of unspent general fund allocations to the School Aid Stabilization Fund. The bill affects school districts, nonpublic schools, and state education finance administration.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is generally framed as a school safety and education funding measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials. The bill’s structure as a targeted appropriation tied to a companion measure suggests it was developed as part of a coordinated legislative package, likely with broad interest in school safety implementation.

Contention

The main point of contention, based on the text, is not the appropriation itself but the policy and fiscal choice to require and fund mobile panic alert systems in every school, including nonpublic schools. Potential concerns could include the cost of implementation, the mandate’s reach across public and private institutions, and whether the funding level is sufficient. Another notable issue is the tie-bar to SB 76, which makes enactment dependent on passage of the companion bill and indicates the two measures are intended to move together.