Senate Bill 665 amends the Local Community Stabilization Authority Act, specifically the definitions section in MCL 123.1345. The bill updates the statute’s cross-reference to the State Essential Services Assessment Act, MCL 211.1053, and restates a large set of definitions used to calculate and distribute revenue associated with the local community stabilization authority. Those definitions govern terms such as acquisition cost, eligible personal property, commercial and industrial personal property, captured value, personal property exemption loss, qualified loss, and related school debt and tax increment financing concepts.
Substantively, the bill is part of Michigan’s framework for reimbursing local governments and other taxing units for revenue losses tied to exemptions for industrial and commercial personal property. It affects how the Department of Treasury and local entities calculate losses, captured values, and reimbursement-related amounts under the authority’s funding formula. The bill also maintains the statutory definitions used for essential services funding, including ambulance, fire, police, jail operations, and pension-related support for those services.
The bill’s impact is primarily technical and administrative rather than a broad policy change. By updating the cross-reference and preserving the detailed definitions that drive the authority’s calculations, it helps keep the local community stabilization authority statute aligned with the current property tax and personal property exemption laws. The affected parties include municipalities, school districts, intermediate school districts, tax increment finance authorities, and the Department of Treasury, all of which rely on these definitions for revenue-loss calculations and distributions.
The general sentiment around the bill appears neutral to favorable, with no recorded committee testimony or votes indicating controversy in the materials provided. The bill is presented as a statutory update and appears to be tied to companion legislation, suggesting it is intended to work within an existing fiscal and tax-reimbursement structure rather than create a new program. Because there were no recorded votes or discussion snippets, there is little evidence of public disagreement in the available record.
Notable contention, to the extent it can be inferred from the bill text, would likely center on the underlying reimbursement formulas and the treatment of property tax losses for local governments, school districts, and tax increment finance authorities. However, the bill itself does not appear to alter those formulas in a major way; it mainly updates references and preserves existing definitions. The bill is tie-barred to Senate Bill 659, meaning it would not take effect unless that companion bill also becomes law.
SB 665 amends the Local Community Stabilization Authority Act by updating a statutory cross-reference to the State Essential Services Assessment Act and reaffirming the definitions used to calculate property tax loss reimbursements and related distributions. It affects the operation of MCL 123.1345 and, indirectly, the calculation of revenue losses tied to exemptions for industrial and commercial personal property under Michigan’s general property tax laws. The bill primarily affects the Department of Treasury, municipalities, school districts, intermediate school districts, and tax increment finance authorities that participate in or are measured by the authority’s reimbursement formulas.
The available record suggests a generally neutral, technical, and likely supportive posture toward the bill. There are no committee transcripts, recorded votes, or other discussion materials showing opposition or debate. The bill’s tie-bar to SB 659 indicates it is part of a coordinated legislative package, which usually signals a procedural or technical alignment rather than a contested policy shift.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Based on the text, any potential concerns would likely involve how property tax losses are calculated, which local entities qualify for reimbursement, and how exemptions for industrial and commercial personal property affect local revenue. But SB 665 itself does not appear to change those substantive formulas; it mainly updates references and preserves existing definitions, so the bill does not present an obvious new policy dispute in the available record.