TIFA NOTICES TO COUNTIES

House Bills 5814-5816 (Substitutes H-1)

Sponsor:  Rep. Tom Meyer

Committee:  Commerce

Complete to 6-2-04

A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILLS 5814-5816 AS REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE 6-1-04

Each of the bills would amend an act allowing for the creation of tax increment financing authorities to require that notices of hearings be mailed by certified mail to the treasurer, clerk, and chairperson of the board of commissioners of the county in which the authority district or business district was proposed to be located.  The mailings would apply to hearings on creating a district and designating district boundaries and hearings on development plans and tax increment financing plan, or on amendments to such plans.

Currently, the act requires that the governing body proposing the creation of an authority mail a notice of a hearing, at least 20 days prior to a hearing, to taxpayers of record in the proposed district and to the governing body of each taxing jurisdiction levying taxes that would be subject to capture.  The bill’s special notice provisions would apply only to the notice to counties and not to the mailing to other taxing jurisdictions.

House Bill 5814 would amend the Local Development Financing Act (MCL 125.2154 and 2166).  House Bill 5815 would amend the Downtown Development Authority Act (MCL 125.1653 and 1668).  House Bill 5816 would amend the Tax Increment Finance Authority Act (MCL 125.1803 and 1817).

FISCAL IMPACT:

The bills would have no state or local revenue impact.  They could increase administrative costs at the local level by a small indeterminate amount.

POSITIONS:

           

Representatives from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation indicated support for the bills.  (6-1-04)

            The Michigan Association of Counties testified in support of the bills.  (6-1-04)

The Michigan Municipal League has indicated opposition to the bills as written (although it supports the concept) because they require a mailing to three county officials at the same address.  Notice to the county clerk should be sufficient, says the MML.  (6-1-04)

                                                                                           Legislative Analyst:   Chris Couch

                                                                                                  Fiscal Analyst:   Jim Stansell

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.