Michigan House Bill HB4566

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/16/23
• Refer: 5/16/23

Caption

Vehicles: registration; revenue from vehicle registration fees; allocate to county where registrant resides and distribute per lane mile to local road agency. Amends sec. 810 of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.810).

Impact

The bill aims to impact local road agencies significantly by mandating that the funds returned to counties be distributed based on the total number of lane miles of highways, roads, or streets under the jurisdiction of local road agencies. This provision is expected to provide better funding for road maintenance and improvements where they are most needed, recognizing the relationship between vehicle registration numbers and infrastructure demands. The aim is to promote efficient use of state transportation funds in improving local roads and highways, thereby supporting the overall infrastructure of the state.

Summary

House Bill 4566 seeks to amend the Michigan Vehicle Code, specifically section 810, by revising the allocation of funds collected from vehicle registration fees. Under this bill, all fees received under the relevant sections must be deposited into the state treasury and credited to the Michigan transportation fund. The Secretary of State will return the money to each county based on the proportion of vehicles registered in that county relative to the total number of vehicles registered statewide. This revision is proposed to enhance the funding mechanism for transportation at the local level by ensuring a fair distribution of resources according to vehicle registration.

Contention

One point of contention surrounding HB 4566 may involve the distribution method and its implications for various counties, especially those with larger populations and, consequently, more vehicles. Some advocates may express concerns that this approach could lead to inequitable funding for rural areas that may not have as many vehicles registered but still need adequate road funding for maintenance and development. The debate over balancing urban and rural needs in infrastructure funding is likely to arise, with proponents arguing that the proposal ensures a more direct correlation between road funding and usage, while opponents might argue for a more equitable formula that considers unique community needs.