Michigan House Bill HB6216

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/26/24
• Refer: 11/26/24

Caption

Economic development: brownfield redevelopment authority; definitions of housing property and tax capture revenues and cap on total tax capture revenues; clarify definitions and modify cap. Amends secs. 2, 14a & 16 of 1996 of 381 (MCL 125.2652 et seq.).

Impact

If passed, HB6216 will directly affect how local governments and developers can access and utilize financial resources for redeveloping blighted properties. The bill raises the annual limit for total income tax capture, sales and use tax capture, and withholding tax capture revenues, aiming to provide municipalities with the necessary financial tools to revitalize deteriorating areas. Such measures are expected to spur local economies by minimizing financial barriers to redevelopment, consequently enhancing housing availability and economic opportunities in underdeveloped regions.

Summary

House Bill 6216 proposes amendments to the Brownfield Redevelopment Financing Act (1996 PA 381) to clarify definitions related to housing property, tax capture revenues, and impose caps on total tax capture revenues. The bill seeks to refine the operational framework that governs brownfield redevelopments in Michigan, enabling the state to effectively manage economic development initiatives while ensuring appropriate funding limits to avoid fiscal overruns. It explicitly defines what constitutes blighted property and details the processes by which authorities can approve brownfield plans, thereby enhancing the legislative clarity around redevelopment financing.

Contention

The bill is likely to face scrutiny as it raises concerns among community advocates who may argue that increased tax capture could dilute funding for essential local services. Critics of brownfield redevelopment financing often express worry regarding the prioritization of economic over social needs, particularly in vulnerable communities. Furthermore, the bill's provisions for tax capture may lead to disputes over land use priorities and the effectiveness of redevelopment plans, spurring debate on whether the legislative changes adequately address the root causes of urban decay or merely facilitate further development at the expense of community needs.