Michigan plan would centralize court revenues, shift collections to Treasury and rebalance state-local funding

Tom Boyd, state court administrator, and Michael Bosanek, Monroe County administrator, outlined a Judicial Council-backed implementation plan that would centralize court-generated revenue in a new state trial court fund and move receipts and collections to the Michigan Department of Treasury.

The plan, developed under Public Act 47 of 2024 and delivered to the legislature ahead of a Dec. 31, 2026 sunset, aims to reduce conflicts of interest created when local courts both assess and retain revenue. "We can end profit motivated policing and profit motivated courts by changing the way the money flows," Boyd said, framing the recommendations as a measure to protect impartial justice.

Why it matters: Presenters said Michigan trial courts cost about $1.22 billion annually and that the current model relies heavily on local funding (about $704 million, or roughly 58%) and court-generated revenue (about $242 million, or roughly 20%), creating incentives that can undermine equal access to justice. The proposed model would memorialize local contributions as a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) adjusted by taxable value and capped at a 3% escalator, while the state would assume a larger share of ongoing operational funding.

Key components: The implementation plan groups recommendations into four teams. The operational-cost team produced a financial plan and a proposal for facility capital funding, including a $17.4 million grant program requiring local matching (local units would contribute an upfront 1% of their general fund and share remaining costs 50/50). The funding-distribution team would create the trial court fund in the Michigan Treasury and allocate distributions back to local courts based on approved budgets. A separate team recommended uniform assessments and indigency standards (building on Public Act 93 of 2013 and existing court rules) to separate the "accountability" functions (fines, restitution) from the tax/fee components. The collections team recommended centralized collections and an integrated payment system run by Treasury that would notify courts in real time when payments are received.

Presenters argued the change would improve transparency and administrative efficiency and reduce enforcement actions tied to collection (bench warrants, probation revocations and license suspensions). "What Treasury will do is receive the assessment and then go do what treasury does," Boyd said, explaining that the Treasury would use existing debt-collection tools while restitution to victims would be prioritized.

Questions and concerns: Legislators pressed presenters on details. Senator Johnson asked whether the plan would address courts or counties with higher-than-expected staffing levels; Boyd said the court operations resource report (a workload and staffing study) remains in progress and will inform uniform staffing recommendations. Johnson also noted letters from municipal and public-safety organizations (including MML, MTA, SEMCOG, sheriffs and police) and the Michigan Association of Counties raising concerns; presenters acknowledged stakeholder resistance to shifting from locally retained, more predictable revenue to state appropriations but said the plan includes engagement and phased implementation.

Next steps: Presenters agreed to provide committee offices with comparative data from other states cited in their review and to continue stakeholder outreach. The committee ran out of time before live public comment; several written testimony cards (Wes Nakagiri—neutral; Jody White—opposes; Cynthia Mifsud—no position; Tom Howe—opposes) were read into the record. No legislation was voted on during the hearing; the panels adjourned after excusing an absent member.

Sources and limitations: Cost totals, funding shares and dollar amounts were presented by Tom Boyd and Michael Bosanek during the meeting. Where presenters gave approximate figures, the article attributes them to those presenters and notes that some implementation details (for example, exact staffing adjustments and timing of phased changes) remain to be finalized in the court operations resource report and subsequent legislative action.

The committees have not yet introduced implementing legislation on this plan; the presenters said the work is intended to inform potential legislation before the sunset date.