WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 23

Taxes, Hotel Motel - As introduced, extends by six years the period in which Davidson County may charge an additional $0.50 privilege tax on the occupancy of a hotel room and in which such county may allocate the tax revenue for the purposes of direct promotion of tourism; extends by six years the terms of the committee members that oversee the fund in which the additional tax is deposited. - Amends TCA Section 7-4-202.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Mark Pody

The bill relaxes parcel limits, enabling more splits per parent parcel and letting counties/cities authorize extra partitions by local ordinance to ease housing development.

Withdrawn.
#hotelmotel #taxes
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 23

SB 23 — Summary (Land Division Act; MCL 560.108 amendments)

Status: Introduced; referred to Committee on Regulatory Reform (per bill header)
Subject: Land use — number of parcels resulting from land divisions; municipal/county authority to allow additional splits
Primary statutory target: MCL 560.108 (Section 108 of the Land Division Act)

Purpose / intent

The bill relaxes state limits on how many parcels may be created when an existing “parent” parcel or tract is divided, and it expressly allows counties and municipalities to authorize additional parcel partitions by local ordinance. The sponsor’s stated rationale is to lower legal/formal barriers and costs to creating building lots (e.g., reduce use of plats, site condominiums, or litigation), with the aim of facilitating housing development and potentially lowering lot prices.

Key provisions

  • First-10-acre threshold increased: The cap on parcels created from the first 10 acres (or fraction) of a parent parcel/tract is raised from 4 parcels to 10 parcels.
  • Alternate 1.5-acre option (in some versions/passed text): A division may instead produce up to ten parcels of 1.5 acres each provided the remaining parcels (if any) are at least 3 acres.
  • Continued scaling beyond first 10 acres: For each whole additional 10 acres beyond the first 10, 1 additional parcel is allowed (up to stated maxima in the Act); and 1 extra parcel per whole 40 acres beyond initial thresholds remains.
  • Exemptions and counting:
    • Parcels 40 acres or larger created by division do not count toward the parcel limit (if accessible) and are not subject to the Act’s Section 109 review.
    • A parcel/tract created by an “exempt split” or prior division may be further partitioned without platting if specified conditions are met (time elapsed, size limits, and Section 109 requirements). The bill clarifies and adjusts those conditions in several places (including a carve-out that some earlier 10-year limitations do not apply to exempt-split-created parcels).
  • Local authority: Municipalities or counties that approve divisions under Section 109 may, by ordinance, authorize partitioning/splitting into a greater number of parcels than state Section 108 would otherwise allow — subject to the municipality’s standards. A parcel created under such an ordinance cannot be further partitioned without being subject to State platting requirements.
  • Effective date: generally stated as one year after enactment (some versions give a fixed date such as July 1, 2026).

Who is affected

  • Landowners and developers: greater flexibility to create more building lots from a parent parcel.
  • Counties and municipalities: gain explicit authority to permit additional splits by local ordinance and will need to adopt or apply standards for such partitions.
  • Local planning, zoning, utilities and public-works officials: increased demand to review and manage access, stormwater, utility easements, and environmental/site considerations for newly created parcels.
  • Homebuyers and local taxpayers: possible impacts on housing supply, lot prices, local services and tax revenue.

Fiscal and practical impacts

  • Fiscal: Legislative analysis finds an indeterminate fiscal effect. Increased parceling could raise or lower aggregate property tax revenue depending on how parcels are developed/assessed.
  • Planning & environmental risk: Supporters argue it reduces development costs and could help housing production. Opponents point to potential gaps in survey, stormwater, floodplain/wetland, and infrastructure oversight if local ordinances are not strict; risk of poorly planned development in areas lacking utilities.
  • Legal/regulatory: Shifts some substantive control from uniform State platting requirements to local ordinance standards.

Procedural / timeline notes

  • The bill amends section 108 of the Michigan Land Division Act (MCL 560.108).
  • Effective timing in the bill text: typically takes effect one year after enactment (check enrolled/ final version for exact effective date).
  • Fiscal analyses and committee reports accompanying versions note both potential housing benefits and concerns about local oversight, and they characterize the fiscal impact as indeterminate.

If you want, I can:
- Compare the bill language across the substitute versions (S-1, S-2) and identify differences line-by-line;
- Draft a short local-government checklist of ordinance standards municipalities should consider if they adopt expanded-split authority (access, utilities, surveys, stormwater, etc.).

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.