Committee hears testimony on bill to raise in‑house county road project cap to $350,000; three other bills sent to rules

At a House committee hearing, lawmakers heard testimony on House Bill 48 45, which would raise the dollar threshold that allows county road agencies to perform certain maintenance projects in‑house from $100,000 to $350,000 and place an overall cap of $1,350,000, supporters said.

Supporters said the change is intended to let county road agencies use existing crews and equipment for short‑term preservation work and avoid repeatedly outsourcing small projects. "We are looking at this as an efficiency bill," said Ed Noyola, identified in the hearing as a county official. Testimony described the work the bill targets as short‑term preservation — thin overlays under 1.5 inches, chip sealing and crack sealing — intended to extend pavement life by several years.

Proponents told the committee the $100,000 cap has not been updated since the early 1980s and has become impractical for routine maintenance. They said allowing higher in‑house thresholds can help counties retain seasonal workers by giving crews summer work and keep equipment in use between winter plowing seasons.

Committee members pressed witnesses on procurement safeguards and competition. Committee members were told existing law requires a written analysis before choosing noncompetitive in‑house work; counties must show they have the staffing, equipment and cost advantage before foregoing bids. A witness said counties can accept a single bid if they choose and are not required to obtain multiple competing bids. The transcript records that "they have to do that analysis before they even put it out" and that an in‑house analysis is required "according to the law."

The bill contains an exclusion for larger urban jurisdictions: the draft language states the subsection does not apply to a city or village with a population of more than 500,000. A committee member asked why the exception exists; supporters said it responds to requests from larger urban agencies that already operate under different procurement practices.

Industry concerns and oversight questions were raised. One lawmaker summarized the rationale for a cap as a compromise to assure private road builders that counties would not use the authority to compete excessively with the private sector. A witness said the intent is not to enter the construction business or work outside county boundaries.

A registration card submitted for the record listed Monica Eckerson of the Michigan Road Preservation Association as "neutral on the bill with some concerns." No formal vote on House Bill 48 45 was taken during the hearing; the committee heard questions and testimony and then recessed.

Votes at a glance

Earlier in the same meeting the committee completed roll calls on three separate bills and reported each to the committee on rules with the committee’s recommendation. The transcript records the following outcomes as read into the record by the clerk or chair:

- House Bill 4809: Substitute H‑1 adopted; the substitute was reported with recommendation to the Committee on Rules. The transcript records an earlier roll call result of "14 yays, 2 nays, and 1 pass" on the substitute and later reports the bill to rules.

- House Bill 4834: Substitute H‑1 adopted and the bill was reported to the Committee on Rules with recommendation. The transcript records the substitute was adopted with a roll call summarized as "15 yays, 1 nay, 1 pass."

- House Bill 4835: Reported with recommendation to the Committee on Rules. The transcript records a roll call tally of "13 yays, 1 nay, 3 pass."

The transcript provides the roll call tallies as read in the hearing; the record shows each bill was reported to the Committee on Rules. The committee then moved on to take testimony on House Bill 48 45.

Ending

After questions and testimony the chair noted one registration card on the bill and the committee adjourned. The transcript does not record a committee vote on House Bill 48 45.