House subcommittee presses MEDC on SOAR fund oversight, job promises and disclosure of tax-credit terms

The House Oversight Subcommittee on Corporate Subsidies and State Investments on April 30 heard a roughly hourlong presentation from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation on the Strategic Outreach and Reserve (SOAR) Fund and followed with detailed questions about job commitments, compliance and document disclosure.

The presentation, delivered by Kristen Armstrong and Josh Hunt of the MEDC, described SOAR as a two-part reserve established by statute in December 2021 to support (1) the Critical Industry Program, which provides performance-based grants and closing/gap financing to secure or retain transformational projects, and (2) the Strategic Site Readiness Program (SSRP), which pays to make land or infrastructure “investment ready.” Armstrong said, “We’re looking forward to discussing the impact and the value of the SOAR Fund over the past several years,” and emphasized the fund’s legislative-transfer approval step that requires both the Michigan Strategic Fund (MSF) Board and the relevant appropriations committees to sign off before money is spent.

Why it matters: Committee members pressed MEDC on whether SOAR delivers the jobs and local benefits promised, how performance is measured and enforced, and whether legally nonproprietary terms in tax-credit agreements (previously redacted) must be shared after court rulings. The answers will affect how lawmakers evaluate future transfers of state funds for large private investments.

What MEDC told the committee

- Purpose and structure: MEDC officials framed SOAR as a time-limited, competitive tool to help Michigan win large-scale projects in sectors such as semiconductors, EV/battery supply chains, advanced manufacturing and clean energy. Josh Hunt cited national examples of high-dollar incentive packages — for example, Intel’s Columbus plans (about $20 billion investment and roughly $2 billion in incentives from Ohio) and Micron in New York (multi‑year investment and roughly $6 billion in incentives) — to illustrate the competitive environment that prompted creation of SOAR.

- Approval and payout mechanics: MEDC reiterated that SOAR expenditures require a public MSF Board vote and then legislative transfer approvals by the House and Senate appropriations committees before agreements are executed. Critical Industry Program awards are generally reimbursement-based and subject to 100% auditing of claimed eligible expenses; SSRP awards to local entities are milestone-driven and disbursed upon verified completion of milestones.

- Compliance and clawbacks: MEDC said the agency maintains a dedicated compliance team that audits disbursement requests, verifies job and investment milestones, and can enforce repayment triggers such as bankruptcy, project abandonment or material misrepresentation. When asked how often clawbacks had occurred under SOAR, MEDC staff responded that to date no SOAR clawbacks have been triggered. MEDC described an established process for filing claims in bankruptcy proceedings when appropriate.

Projects and status details highlighted to the committee

MEDC walked the panel through approved SOAR projects and their terms as examples of how the program has operated. Examples presented (figures reported by MEDC during the briefing): - Dow (Midland): described as a retention project with 5,000 retained jobs and $785 million in capital investment; MEDC said the MSF approved a $120 million Critical Industry Program performance grant and several tax-exemption elements; transfer approval occurred in fall 2024 and agreements were still being finalized at the time of the briefing. - RNX/Our Next Energy (Van Buren Township): MEDC reported a $200 million CIP grant and a $15 million Jobs for Michigan loan; MEDC noted leadership and market changes but said the company remained in compliance and had received disbursements (MEDC later told the committee RNX/One Next Energy has received just over $70 million to date). - General Motors: MEDC described a multi‑hundred‑million dollar CIP award (figures cited in the briefing ranged in the hundreds of millions), noted the project timelines for job commitments extend over several years, and said compliance is monitored against project-specific base-job and ramp schedules. - Corning (Saginaw County): MEDC said the company’s project was initially presented as roughly $900 million and more than 1,000 jobs, supported by a $68 million CIP grant and SSRP infrastructure support; MEDC reported Corning announced an increased investment and hiring (MEDC said the company signaled it expects to invest about $1.5 billion and create 1,500 jobs and had already hired about 1,000 people, without any additional state support for the increase). - Ford Blue Oval (Marshall): discussed as an example of a large, multiyear project that was resized; MEDC stressed it pursued a public reapproval process when project scope changed and pointed to a community benefits plan and conservation commitments tied to the site.

Data, disclosure and follow-ups requested by lawmakers

Committee members repeatedly asked MEDC for more detailed, digestible data. Specific follow-ups MEDC agreed to provide included: (a) a report breaking out, for the 10 companies still receiving earlier “mega” tax credits, the percentage of employees at the maximum certificated credit level from February 2011 through 2024; (b) average certificated credit per employee for those companies by year back to 2011; and (c) consolidated, easier-to-read summaries of performance due dates and job-creation milestones for SOAR projects. A member also asked whether MEDC would comply with a court ruling requiring disclosure of an unredacted tax-credit agreement (the committee referenced a case described in testimony). MEDC told the panel that information the court found to be nonproprietary is now publicly available and that it can share unredacted agreements except for exempt personal tax identifiers.

Key points of contention and committee concerns

- Timing and delivery of promised jobs: Multiple representatives pressed MEDC on why reported job creation lags initial announcements and why legislative reports show a subset of promised jobs appearing in early reporting. MEDC responded that many projects are still under construction and that job-creation commitments are measured over multi‑year timelines specified in each agreement. MEDC said its contracts include base-job calculations (to protect against counting existing statewide headcount as new jobs) and that some agreements are tranches or milestone-driven.

- Measuring return on investment: Lawmakers asked how MEDC calculates ROI. MEDC said statute requires use of REMI (Regional Economic Modeling, Inc.) modeling to estimate net economic impact, accounting for direct payroll, capital investment and secondary multiplier effects, and that staff incorporate the modeled cost of incentives into that analysis.

- Frequency of renegotiations and reductions: Committee members cited press reports that some announced job totals have been reduced and asked how often incentive packages are renegotiated. MEDC said reductions and scope changes occur but are not frequent; when changes are needed they are handled through public MSF reapproval or amendment processes, and agreements include compliance and clawback provisions that can be triggered if performance fails.

What the committee asked MEDC to provide next

MEDC agreed to follow up with: (1) the requested mega-credit employee and credit-per-employee reports dating back to 2011; (2) a distilled report listing each SOAR award, its contractual job and investment milestones, performance due dates and current compliance status; and (3) details about disbursements to date (MEDC told the committee RNX/Our Next Energy had received just over $70 million).

Ending

The subcommittee did not vote on any SOAR-related funding during the hearing. The meeting record shows two brief procedural actions: Representative Bierlein moved to approve the April 23 minutes (approved by unanimous consent) and the committee excused an absent member by unanimous consent before adjourning. MEDC staff told lawmakers they are available to provide additional reports and to return to the committee for follow-up questions.