WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 6129

Transportation: funds; population threshold for certain grants; increase. Amends secs. 10e & 13c of 1951 PA 51 (MCL 247.660e & 247.663c)

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Ann Bollin

Creates a Neighborhood Roads Fund and expands funding/over sight for local bridges, transit grants, and IPAF to boost multimodal mobility and infrastructure.

bill electronically reproduced 06/24/2026
#transportation:funds
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6129

Summary of HB 6129 (2025-2026) – Michigan Transportation: funds; population threshold for certain grants; increase

Purpose and intent

  • The bill amends multiple provisions of 1951 PA 51 (the comprehensive transportation framework) to restructure and expand how transportation funds are allocated, prioritized, and administered in Michigan.
  • It focuses on increasing and clarifying funding flows for the Michigan Transportation Fund and related programs, with particular attention to public transit, local roads, bridge investments, and the creation/management of new funding streams (notably the Neighborhood Roads Fund and an infrastructure projects authority fund).

Key provisions and changes

  • Sections updated (or added) to reflect new priorities and funding mechanisms:
    • The Comprehensive Transportation Fund (CTF) priorities and allocation framework:
    • Priority 1: Bond principal and interest for bonds issued under section 18b for comprehensive transportation purposes, ensuring debt service is funded.
    • Priority 2: Administration costs of the department for CTF administration (cap tied to the 1987 administration levels, adjusted by CPI).
    • Priority 3: Operating grants to eligible authorities/governmental agencies that provide public transportation (per updated formulas and caps).
    • Priority 4: Remaining funds allocated per annual appropriation to public transportation programs, intercity services, and federal-matchable projects; includes specific line-items (e.g., specialized services, local bus capital, new services, development, and other programs).
    • Funding distributions must adhere to federal guidelines where applicable, with reporting and quarterly progress requirements.
    • Public transportation grant formulas and caps:
    • Urbanized areas with >100,000 population and smaller urbanized/nonurbanized areas have specific operating grant percentages (e.g., up to 50% of eligible operating costs for larger urban areas; up to 60% for smaller/nonurbanized areas, with minimums for water-based services).
    • Preference/fare reduction requirements: grants require preferential fares for seniors (65+) and persons with disabilities, with discounts capped at 50% of the regular fare.
    • Restrictions on charter service using funds (limited to incidental use).
    • annual reporting and quarterly progress reporting by grant recipients.
    • Local transportation programming and planning:
    • Intercity carriers, eligible authorities, and agencies must submit Local Transportation Programs (LTPs) by specific dates (e.g., March 1 annually) and align with TIP/STIP formats where practical.
    • Department must prepare and file department transportation program documents for public inspection (by March 1 for LTPs; by April 1 for the state transportation program; by May 1 for commission action on the state program).
    • Contract/grant agreements and multi-year funding obligations may be used to guarantee minimum funding levels for approved projects.
    • Neighborhood Roads Fund (Sec. 13c):
    • Creation of a dedicated Neighborhood Roads Fund in the state treasury.
    • Annual distribution plan (starting FY 2026-2030 and then from 2031 onward) with specified allocations:
      • An annual $100 million set aside for a local bridge advisory board to repair closed/restricted/critical bridges.
      • $40 million to the local grade separation fund.
      • $100 million remaining to be split among:
      • 35% to the comprehensive transportation fund for eligible authorities (with 5% reserved for urban areas ≤100,000 population and 5311 nonurbanized areas).
      • 65% to the Infrastructure Projects Authority Fund (IPAF).
      • After distributions, 80% of the remainder goes to:
      • 65% to county road commissions.
      • 35% to city/village road agencies.
      • 20% of the remainder goes to the State Trunk Line Fund.
      • For 2031 onward, adjusted dollar amounts and distribution shares (e.g., separate $10M to the local grade separation fund; 75%/25% split to CTF/IPAF with subsequent distributions to counties and municipalities; remainder to trunk line fund, etc.).
    • Matching funds not required from local units for distributions under this fund, though matches can be pursued from other sources.
    • Infrastructure Projects Authority Fund (IPAF):
    • Created as a separate fund; department administers for audits.
    • Annual reporting requirement on project status, funding, location, project outcomes, and fund balance.
    • Up to 20% of IPAF receipts may be used for supplemental operating grants to eligible authorities/entities, subject to conditions (must align with operating grant formulas; not in years where CT F funding is below 2026 levels CPI-adjusted; requires balanced budget documentation; supplements but does not replace other funding).
    • Qualified investments (grants/loans) may be made for high-capacity mobility projects and regionalized efforts, with criteria including regional impact, readiness, financial sustainability, and alignment with federal funding opportunities.
    • Long-standing programmatic provisions preserved or updated:
    • Public transportation services for fixed routes, demand actuated services, and accessibility requirements; emphasis on wheelchair-accessible vehicles and service hours parity.
    • Annual reporting to the legislature on services for seniors and persons with disabilities.
    • Provisions related to street railways, credit programs, and potential budget adjustments to support street railway operations, subject to statutory limits (up to 8% of private investment, etc., in certain years).
    • General auditing and oversight provisions for contracts and grants.

Who would be affected

  • Local governments and road commissions (counties, cities, villages) that receive Michigan Transportation Fund distributions, and those administering LTPs/STIPs.
  • Public transportation authorities and agencies (urbanized and non-urbanized) that rely on state operating and capital grants.
  • Intercity carriers and regional transit authorities, which would participate in state transportation program planning and funding.
  • Bridge authorities, local grade separation initiatives, and other local infrastructure initiatives funded through the Neighborhood Roads Fund.
  • Residents who rely on public transit, seniors, and persons with disabilities who would benefit from transit fare preferences and improved access.
  • The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) as administrator and overseer of fund allocations, reporting, auditing, and program development.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Annual budgeting and appropriation cycle governs fund distribution, with explicit sequencing:
    • Priority payments, then administration costs, then operating grants, then other public transportation and capital allocations.
    • Annual state transportation program planning, with deadlines:
    • March 1: Local transportation programs submitted; department prepares transportation program for public inspection.
    • April 1: Department prepares the proposed state transportation program.
    • May 1: Michigan Transportation Commission acts on the state program for the upcoming fiscal year starting October 1.
    • October 1: New fiscal year begins; grant agreements or MOUs may be executed to support programs.
  • The Neighborhood Roads Fund distributions have defined schedules (beginning FY 2026-30, with changes starting FY 2031) and require ongoing reporting to the governor, the state transportation commission, and the legislature.
  • IPAF requires annual reporting on funded projects, with a December 30 deadline for status reports.
  • Supplemental operating grants under IPAF are capped and contingent on CT F funding levels and budgetary constraints, with a requirement for balanced-budget verification for recipients.

Potential impact for readers

  • More explicit and potentially larger set-asides for local bridges and grade separations, improving critical infrastructure.
  • A more robust and transparent framework for public transit funding, including specific operating and capital grant formulas, fare-relief requirements, and reporting obligations.
  • Creation of the Neighborhood Roads Fund to formalize distribution to local road networks and IPAF, enabling targeted investments in multimodal and high-capacity mobility projects.
  • Enhanced oversight and planning requirements for local transportation programs, with stronger emphasis on regional coordination and alignment with federal programs.

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

Sign in to ask a question.