Next Generation 911 Legislation Could See Vote This Week in House

Senate Bill 400 is anticipated to see a floor vote in the House this week. The League is supportive of the legislation as it was passed out of committee. Please contact your state Representative and encourage them to pass SB 400 without amendments.  Below are talking points for the legislation.

Why does Michigan need Next Generation 911?

The existing analog copper 911 network is antiquated, using 55-year-old technology riddled with technical limitations that cannot support modern communications technology.

What does Next Generation 911 do?

Next Generation 911 is an IP network that is more reliable, redundant, resilient, and has the capacity and capability to send more data with the voice call to the appropriate 911 Center.

The Next Generation 911 network allows for the delivery of improved wireless location accuracy which provides for more accurate and efficient delivery to the appropriate 911 Center and a more efficient response from first responders to an emergency.   This is critical with wireless 911 calls being more than 80% of 911 callers today.

The Next Generation 911 network improves access to 911 for all citizens including the deaf and hard of hearing community through direct access utilizing text to 911, and the opportunity to transmit other multi-media such as photos and videos.

The Next Generation 911 network allows for seamless transfers of 911 calls between geographically diverse 911 Centers in all situations such as a wireless caller on the move or call overload from a major incident.

How much will it cost?

The bill dedicates the following additional amounts to NG 911 network service delivery and other costs:

NG 911 Network Delivery:     roughly $19.0 million

County 911 Operations:         roughly $0.5 million

MSP Regional Dispatch:        roughly $0.1 million

State 911 Administration:       roughly $0.4 million

911 Training:                          roughly $0.3 million

Total:                                      roughly $20.2 million

Where do we get the money?

The existing funding mechanisms are inadequate to fund the new network and related IP routing and delivery of 911 calls while supporting the legacy network during the transition. The fund will be depleted by this summer.

The legislative framework of SB 400 outlines an adjustment in the state 911 fee from 19 to 25 cents, generating approximately an additional $6.4 million annually. This recommended adjustment is in line with the current statute Sec.401a.(2)(4) which states “the state 911 charge shall not be more than 25 cents or less than 15 cents” and “shall reflect the actual costs of operating, maintaining, upgrading, and other reasonable and necessary expenditures for the 911 system in this state”.

The legislative amendments of SB 400 also outline an adjustment to the amount collected from prepay wireless phone retailers from 1.92% to 5%.  This new rate establishes equitable contributions from prepay customers and is calculated using the latest weighted average of local and state 911 charges. It is estimated that this change will generate approximately an additional $13.8 million dollars.

What else is in the bill?

  • Creation of a definition for IP-based 911 service providers.
  • Retains the current $.42 cap on the amount that a county board of commissioners can levy by board resolution for local 911 operations and dispatch.
  • Allows a county or service district to change its 911 service provider in its 911 plan by board resolution.
  • Makes the wireline companies’ technical surcharge consistent across the state rather than county by county.
  • Provides the MPSC with standing to take action if fees are not reported, charged, collected, or remitted to the fund. It also requires reporting on such actions.
  • Changes auditing requirements to require counties, not just PSAPs, to ascertain that the auditing of 911 funds is conducted. It also changes the state 911 fund audit, by the auditor general, to a biennial, rather than annual, process.
  • Requires the MPSC to hear a case to establish the process for NG 911 reimbursements for network costs for providers that meet NENA i3 standards for NG 911. Requires that the MPSC  only approve reimbursement invoices from the U14000 fund for “costs related to the transport, routing, or delivery to PSAPs of IP based 911.” Finally, it requires contracts entered into after the effective date of the act to be competitively bid.
  • Requires a report from the MPSC to the governor and legislature on NG 911 costs and projected future expenses (the entire act sunsets in 2021).

 

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

Upcoming MI Indigent Defense Commission Meeting

The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission will meet on Tuesday, December 19 at 1:00 pm in the lower level of the Capitol National Bank Building (200 N. Washington Square, Lansing).

The agenda is posted on the MIDC’s website – http://michiganidc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/12-19-17-agenda-and-attachments.pdf. At the meeting, Commissioners will begin reviewing compliance plans. The agenda includes a list of the plans that will be considered at next week’s meeting. The Commission tentatively plans to have three special meetings in January. Compliance plans will be considered during meetings held January 5 and 8 also.

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

Medical Marijuana Emergency Administrative Rules Released

With less than two weeks to go before the State starts accepting medical marijuana facility license applications, the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs released emergency administrative rules for the purpose of implementing the Medical Marihuana Facilities Act (MMFLA). The rules outline procedures and requirements for potential licensees, and took effect yesterday upon being filed with the Secretary of State.

Upon the League’s review of the 51 rules, it appears they follow what has been previously shared by LARA through their advisory bulletins. Below is a very brief overview of the rules.

Rule 1 – Definitions
Rule 2 – Terms
Rule 3 – Adoptions by reference (NFPA, food safety, etc.)
Rule 4-13 – Application procedures, requirements, inspections
*Rule 6 – Local requirements to be submitted
*Rule 9 – Requires proof of certificate of use and occupancy
Rule 14-18 – Notifications, reporting for changes, theft criminal activity, and penalty, violations, fines
Rule 19 – Temporary operation
Rule 20 – Transition period
Rule 21 – State licenses, licensees, operation
Rule 22 – Stacked licenses
Rule 23 – Changes to licensed facility
Rule 24 – Operation at same location
Rule 25-27 – Facility requirements (security, transporting, building and fire safety, security plan and measures
Rule 28 – Prohibitions
Rule 29-32 – Testing and sampling
Rule 33 – Edibles
Rule 34 – Max THC levels
Rule 35 – Storage of products
Rule 36 – Product destruction and waste management requirements
Rule 37-39 – Tracking and labeling
Rule 40-42 – Provisions centers (sale, purchase limits, marketing and advertising)
Rule 43 – Employees
Rule 44 – Definitions
Rule 45-51 – Contested case hearings

 

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

Coalition Kickoff to Reinstate MI Historic Preservation Tax Credit

Please join the Michigan Historic Preservation Network for lunch on Wednesday, November 8, at noon, to kick off the coalition to reinstate the Michigan Historic Preservation Tax Credit!

As you know, the Michigan Historic Preservation Tax Credit was an important tool to drive economic revitalization and leverage investment in historic properties throughout the state. That credit was eliminated in 2011, but recently legislation was introduced to reinstate it (Senate Bill 469). Attend the coalition kick off to learn how you can support the effort.

Please RSVP to mhpn@kelley-cawthorne.com by Friday, November 3, 2017.

The event is taking place in the League’s Lansing office located at 208 N. Capitol Avenue starting at noon on Wednesday, November 8, 2017. For more information contact Nancy Finegood, MHPN Executive Director, at 517-371-8080

 

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC) Publishes Compliance Plan Application, Instructions for Submission, and Sample Plans

A guide for municipalities who are the court funding unit has been developed to assist with compliance of the first four standards issued by the MIDC. The document provides instructions for determining local cost share and illustrates a sample plan.

This spring the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs approved the MIDC’s first four standards for indigent criminal defense services. Those first four standards cover training and education of counsel, the initial client interview, use of investigation and experts, and counsel at first appearance and other critical stages.

The full text of the approved standards can be found on the MIDC’s website.

The MIDC has approved several documents to assist funding units with compliance planning for MIDC Standards 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Commission has published a detailed application with instructions for completing the form, a guide for submission of compliance plans, cost analyses, and local share calculations, as well as sample plans for a variety of systems to consider. The MIDC has Regional Managers working statewide to assist with compliance planning.  Application workshops will be conducted throughout September for work group members to attend via webinar.

Every court funding unit in Michigan is required to submit a plan for compliance with the first four standards for indigent defense, along with a cost analysis, to the MIDC no later than November 20, 2017. Contact your MIDC Regional Manager for questions or further information.

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

LARA Seeking Participants for Medical Marijuana Work Groups

The Bureau of Medical Marihuana Regulations (BMMR), housed within the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA), is seeking participants for medical marijuana stakeholder work groups. The bureau is facilitating the five stakeholder work groups to discuss and provide suggestions on regulatory topics related to the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act (MMFLA). The five work groups, one for each license type, are:

  1. Grower
  2. Processor
  3. Safety Compliance Facility
  4. Provisioning Center
  5. Secure Transporter

The work groups will gather information only and do not take the place of the licensing board nor the advisory board as provided for in the MMFLA. The purpose is to collect input on the various regulatory topics of each work group. The deadline to apply is Tuesday, September 5, 2017. For more information, visit www.michigan.gov/medicalmarihuana.

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

MI Downtown Association Seeking Nominations for MDA Awards

The Michigan Downtown Association is asking for nominations for its first annual MDA Awards. Winners will receive their awards during the MDA’s annual Statewide Michigan Downtowns Conference in Bay City, October 18-19, 2017. The deadline for award nominations is August 25 via email to info@michigandowntowns.com with “MDA Award Nominations” in the subject or post-marked letters sent to to Michigan Downtown Association, PO Box 82369, Rochester, MI 48308.

There are six award categories. Nominees for categories 1 through 5 must be MDA members and/or from MDA member communities. There is a complete list of MDA members on their web site.

  1. Best Downtown Economic Development Project Under 1 Million Dollars
  2. Best Downtown Economic Development Project Over 1 Million Dollars
  3. Best Promotions & Marketing Project/Program: Small Town Under 10,000 Population
  4. Best Promotions & Marketing Project/Program: Mid-size and Large Communities Over 10,000 Population
  5. MDA Volunteer of the Year (a volunteer activity for MDA, not in a community)
  6. Lifetime Achievement (this person does not have to be an MDA member and can be anyone for any downtown in Michigan)

Nomination Information Required for all Award Categories:

  1. Community name
  2. Name of person or project being nominated
  3. Address of project or person
  4. Contact information for project or person
  5. Name and contact information of person making the nomination
  6. Project description/why do you feel this project or person should win this award? (250 words or less and 5-6 bullet points which best summarize the project or why the project or person should receive this award)
  1. Number of full and part-time jobs created (if applicable)
  1. Total project cost
  1. Names of the primary project architect, engineer, and general contractor
  1. Age of the building/project (if applicable)
  1. Architectural style of the building (if applicable)
  1. 3-4 photos (jpgs) of the interior and 3-4 photos (jpgs) of the exterior (if applicable)

NOTE:  All Nominations must be for achievements/projects within the past 1-3 years.

For more information or questions contact Tiffany Dziurman, MDA Assistant Director, at (248) 838-9711.

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

New Legislation Seeks to Eliminate Local Control in Zoning

Last week legislation was introduced in both the House and Senate to amend the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. The bills eliminate a local unit of government’s ability to regulate short-term rentals. House Bill 4503 and Senate Bill 329, mirror each other in language, mandating all short-term rentals are a residential use of property and a permitted use in all residential zones. The League disagrees and believes short-term rentals operated as commercial business establishments are inconsistent with residential land use. 

In many places across the state, short-term rentals are taking over once vibrant residential neighborhoods and turning them in to areas transient in nature that go dark part of the year. This is having a detrimental impact on quality of life. An overabundance of short-term rentals can potentially remove affordable homes and housing units off the market leading to decreased enrollment in neighborhood schools. If enacted, this legislation will undo regulations municipalities have put in place to negate these negative impacts and prohibit other communities from regulating in the future. 

We need your help to stop this legislation! The Michigan Realtors Association assisted in writing the bills and are aggressively pushing for quick action. They have been contacting Representatives and Senators in an attempt to say municipalities are overstepping on private property rights, prohibiting property owners from maximizing the value of their property. We know this isn’t accurate, but need you to contact your State Representative and Senator today to urge their opposition for HB 4503 and SB 329! Even if short-term rentals are not an issue in your community, you should be very concerned about the impact of preempting local zoning efforts. If enacted, this legislation would set a dangerous precedent undermining decision-making at the local level. 

Also, please contact the committee chairs where the legislation has been referred urging them to not take up the bills. HB 4503 was referred to the House Committee on Tourism & Outdoor Recreation chaired by Representative Holly Hughes. SB 329 was referred to the Senate Committee on Local Government chaired by Senator Dale Zorn.

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

House Committee Deadlocks on Physically Present to Vote Bill

Legislation that would ban elected government officials from voting remotely through Skype or conference call failed to get majority support in the House Committee on Oversight this week.

House Bill 4184 is a reintroduction of legislation which passed the House and Senate last term, but died after the House declined to vote on a Senate change. The legislation, as introduced, amends the Open Meetings Act to require an elected member of a public body be physically present to vote on an issue in order for a meeting to be considered open to the public. There is one exception that allows one remote video vote a year for a “good cause” such as a serious illness or a family member death.

The committee deadlocked 3-3 on moving the bill to the House floor when one Republican member joined the panel’s two Democrats in voting no. The vote was reconsidered and essentially tabled for the day.

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.

Senate OKs Brownfield Redevelopment Bills

On Wednesday the Senate passed a five-bill package (SB 111, SB 112, SB 113, SB 114 & SB 115) which would allow “transformational” redevelopment projects to capture state tax when a gap is identified between the financial viability of a development project and the cost of building that development.

The legislation requires a certain level of private investment from each project based on the population size of the community the project will be located in. The League worked closely with the bill sponsor and stakeholders to have the investment threshold lowered for the lowest population group so more communities would have the opportunity for a transformational project if the legislation is enacted.

In addition to the private investment, a project must show a net economic benefit and get approval from the local unit of government, where the project will be located, before it would be eligible for state tax capture. Only one project could be approved in a community per year, and the total tax capture the state authorizes cannot exceed $40 million per year.

The legislation now moves to the House and has been referred to the Committee on Tax Policy.

Jennifer Rigterink is a legislative associate for the League handling economic development, land use and municipal services issues.  She can be reached at jrigterink@mml.org or 517-908-0305.