It’s true that national politics traditionally earn the most attention — but state and local policies are often more impactful to our readers. For that reason, USA TODAY’s Michigan Center for Community Journalism is piloting a monthly article outlining bills that could impact the state’s more rural communities.
Here’s the recently proposed bills we’re keeping an eye on:
A year-long statewide moratorium on data centers
This bill was introduced and referred to the Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 26 and hasn’t seen movement since. The committee met April 30, but HB5594 wasn’t on the agenda.
HB5594 would prohibit certain approval or operation launches for data centers for “a designated time,” to provide for “the powers and duties of certain state and local governmental officers and entities.”
The moratorium would end April 1, 2027. The bill was introduced by Rep. Jennifer Wortz.
HB5594 is part of a package that also aims to prevent the Michigan Public Service Commission from approving contracts, tariffs, discounts or rates between electric utilities and qualified data centers until April 1, 2027 (HB5595) and amend the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act to be subject to the Data Center Regulation Act (HB5596).
Widespread limits on how municipalities regulate new housing
A bill package aimed at addressing the state’s housing crisis includes nine bills. According to information shared by the Michigan House Democrats, the majority of reforms listed under the “Housing Readiness Package” would apply to “metropolitan statistical areas” or “metro areas.”
According to data from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, the state has 16 metropolitan statistical areas, which include counties like Battle Creek, Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Ingham, Ionia, Kent, Lapeer, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Montcalm, Muskegon, Oakland, Ottawa, St. Clair, Washtenaw and Wayne, while counties like Allegan, Branch, Emmet, Hillsdale, Lenawee, Sault Ste. Marie and Sturgis are part of “micropolitan statistical areas” — and still others like Charlevoix, Cheboygan, Gladwin and Oscoda belong to neither.
Since the package’s introduction, small and medium-size municipalities across the state have passed resolutions in opposition, arguing local regulation rights would be stripped.
HB5529 and HB5530 would set a 1,500-square-foot minimum lot size for single-family homes “in metro areas” if the land is served by public water and sewer.
HB5531 lays out requirements for the timely submission and approval of development proposals. It would impose a timeline of 30 days for municipalities to review an initial application, ask questions, request clarification, or request studies or additional documents. Once all information is submitted, municipalities would have 60 days to review those materials and approve or deny the project.
HB5532 updates the rules around protest petitions. If an amendment to zoning ordinance would increase the authorized number of dwelling units in a particular area, the petition would need to be signed by at least 60% of landowners in the affected area or 60% of landowners within 300 feet of the affected area.
Those four bills were given a first reading after being introduced Feb. 18, then referred to the Committee on Regulatory Reform. They left committee March 3, were placed on second reading, and then were referred to the Committee on Government Operations. Since then, there’s been no movement, but at least one co-sponsor has been removed.
Meanwhile, HB5581 would cap the minimum dwelling size requirement at 500 square feet in metropolitan statistical areas, and HB5582 would cap mandatory parking requirements at one space per dwelling unit, according to information from the Michigan House Democrats.
HB5583 addresses setback requirements in metropolitan statistical areas, and HB5584 would permit duplexes in single-family residential zones “within or adjacent to” metropolitan statistical areas. HB5585 would define accessory dwelling units and allow them on parcels with single-family homes, and would prohibit additional parking mandates.
Those five bills were also referred to the Committee on Government Operations in February. Since then, there’s been no movement, but at least three of the bills’ co-sponsors have been removed.
No required social media platforms for students
HB5589 would amend the revised school code by prohibiting school personnel from requiring students to use social media platforms for school-related activities. The bill was introduced Feb. 26 and referred to the Committee on Education and Workforce. There hasn’t been major action since.
More transparency in tariffs
HB5637 would amend the Michigan Consumer Protection Act by adding a section requiring anyone selling goods or services to publicly disclose price adjustments caused by tariffs, in-country or otherwise.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Noah Arbit on Feb. 26 and referred to the Committee on Government Operations.
Arbit also introduced HB5638, which would require the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget to prepare a statewide tariff response plan for executive branch departments and agencies.
HB5639 would require the state treasury to develop an online tariff calculator, where residents can input their ZIP code, household income, spending habits and other metrics to estimate the total cost and impact of tariffs on their finances.
HB5640 would require the state treasury to publish a monthly report on tariffs imposed on the state and their economic impact.
HB5641 would create the Michigan International Trade Commission within the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity. The commission would provide analysis and information on international trade and competitiveness relating to state industries, inform the public on the competitiveness of state businesses in international markets, provide the legislature with a quarterly analysis on the trade impact of tariffs on state industries, and make recommendations as to how the state can improve global economic competitiveness.
The bills have seen little movement since their introduction.
How does a bill become a law in Michigan?
The process of adopting law in Michigan is long, beginning with the introduction of a bill in the State House of Representatives or Senate, referral to a standing committee, leaving committee, going to the floor for debate, then being passed or defeated. The bill must then pass through the remaining chamber for approval before heading to the governor’s desk for their signature.
At various points during this process, a bill can languish and die. A standing committee may hold public hearings, discussion and debate, followed by reporting the bill (referring it back to the full chamber) with or without amendments, voting not to report the bill, or taking no action at all.
The governor has fourteen days to consider each bill that reaches their desk, at which point they can sign, veto, or decline to do either. If the governor fails to sign or veto, the bill may become law after fourteen days, depending on whether the current legislative session has ended. After a bill is vetoed, the legislature can override by a two-thirds vote of the members serving in each chamber.
Learn more at legislature.mi.gov/publications/howbillbecomeslaw.pdf.
The Michigan Center for Community Journalism is providing this coverage for free as a public service. Please take a moment to support local journalism by subscribing.
— Contact reporter Tess Ware at tware@usatodayco.com.
This article originally appeared on Livingston Daily: No movement on statewide data center moratorium, housing rules
Reporting by Tess Ware, Livingston Daily / Livingston Daily
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
