Michigan Senate Bill SB0522

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 9/26/23
• Refer: 9/26/23

Caption

Economic development: Michigan strategic fund; Michigan strategic site readiness program and critical industry program; eliminate. Amends sec. 9 of 1984 PA 270 (MCL 125.2009) & repeals secs. 88s & 88t of 1984 PA 270 (MCL 125.2088s & 125.2088t). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0520'23

Impact

The proposed changes enhance oversight of financial assistance programs administered by the Michigan Strategic Fund, which could lead to greater scrutiny of how state resources are allocated and the impacts of those allocations. The focus on detailed outcomes, including the number of jobs created or retained and their corresponding salaries, seeks to ensure that tax payer money is being effectively utilized for economic development and that there is a tangible return on investment for the state. Furthermore, repealing sections 88s and 88t indicates a move away from some previous program initiatives, potentially streamlining focus on core areas of funding and assistance.

Summary

Senate Bill 0522 focuses on amending the Michigan Strategic Fund Act, specifically targeting section 9 related to the reporting and audit requirements of the fund's activities. The bill mandates that the Michigan Strategic Fund must provide annual activity reports to various legislative and executive stakeholders by April 10 of each year, detailing financial assistance provided, projects financed, and the outcomes such as job creation and retention. This structured reporting aims to enhance transparency and accountability within the Fund's operations.

Contention

The bill may face contention regarding the repeal of the Michigan strategic site readiness program and critical industry program. Detractors might argue that these programs are vital for ensuring that Michigan remains competitive in attracting and assisting industries that could provide significant employment opportunities. The changes could elicit concerns among stakeholders about the potential reduction in support for specific industries or regions that may have relied heavily on these funds, raising questions about future economic development strategies and their equity across the state.