PREVAILING WAGE; BOND EXEMPTION S.B. 54:
SUMMARY OF BILL
REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE
Senate Bill 54 (as reported without amendment) (Senate-passed version)
PREVAILING WAGE; BOND EXEMPTION S.B. 54:
SUMMARY OF BILL
REPORTED FROM COMMITTEE
Senate Bill 54 (as reported without amendment) (Senate-passed version)
CONTENT
The bill would amend Public Act 10 of 2023, which requires prevailing wages and fringe benefits on State projects, to exempt a State project that was paid for by a bond or bond proposal and that was authorized under the Revised School Code before February 13, 2024, from prevailing wage and fringe benefit requirements.
BRIEF RATIONALE
Public Act 10 of 2023 requires employees working on State projects to be paid prevailing wage and fringe benefits. The Act exempts State projects funded by millages that are authorized under the Revised School Code before February 13, 2024 from prevailing wage and fringe benefit requirements; however, according to testimony, it is typical for schools to take out bonds for their projects and to use millage revenue to pay back a bond, which allows districts to gather all the funding necessary for a large project at one time. Accordingly, it has been suggested that bonds and bond proposals be added to the Act's exemption to better reflect the way school districts use millages as sources of revenue.
PREVIOUS LEGISLATION
(This section does not provide a comprehensive account of previous legislative efforts on this subject matter.)
Senate Bill 54 is a reintroduction of Senate Bill 1186 from the 2023-2024 Legislative Session. Senate Bill 1186 passed the Senate and was referred to the House Committee on Government Operations but saw no further action.
Legislative Analyst: Alex Krabill
FISCAL IMPACT
The bill could have a fiscal impact on the State and units of local government. It would remove bond and bond proposals for State projects from the requirement of prevailing wage if those bond or bond proposals were authorized before February 13, 2024. The total bond revenue is unchanged; however, if the State contracts without prevailing wage, it is possible that the overall costs of the project would be lower, which could allow the State to allocate the additional funding to other projects. Local governments that bonded to use for matching State funds for State projects would be affected in the same way.
Date Completed: 6-18-25 Fiscal Analysts: Bobby Canell
Joe Carrasco, Jr.
Cory Savino, PhD
Michael Siracuse
floor\sb54 Bill Analysis @ www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa
This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.