Michigan Senate Bill SB0880

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/18/26
• Refer: 3/18/26

Caption

Appropriations: supplemental; appropriations for multiple departments and branches for fiscal year 2025-2026; provide for. Creates appropriation act.

Summary

Senate Bill 880 is a supplemental appropriations bill for Michigan for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It authorizes a total of $400 in state general fund/general purpose spending, divided evenly among four areas: the Department of Education, the Department of State Police, the Judiciary, and the Legislature, each receiving $100. The bill is framed as an adjustment and supplement to existing appropriations rather than a broad policy change. The bill also sets out the standard constitutional and statutory conditions governing the use of the funds. It confirms total state spending from state sources of $400 and no state spending to local units of government, and it makes the appropriations subject to the Michigan Management and Budget Act. Because the bill is an appropriations measure, its primary effect is on budget authority and spending levels for the listed branches and departments, not on substantive regulatory law.

Impact

SB 880 would amend state spending authority for fiscal year 2025-2026 by adding a small supplemental appropriation from the state general fund/general purpose. It affects the budgets of the Department of Education, Department of State Police, the Judiciary, and the Legislature, but does not create new programs, mandates, or regulatory requirements. The bill’s legal effect is limited to authorizing expenditure of funds under existing budget and appropriations law.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript, vote tally, or recorded debate, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process materials provided. Based on the bill text alone, it appears to be a routine appropriations measure with a narrow fiscal scope and no apparent policy controversy. The absence of recorded discussion suggests the bill may have been treated as a technical or administrative budget adjustment rather than a high-profile issue.

Contention

No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If any concerns were to arise, they would likely relate to the allocation of limited general fund dollars among the four listed recipients or to the appropriateness of a supplemental appropriation in a small amount. However, the record provided does not identify any legislators, agencies, or stakeholders taking opposing positions.