Committee hears TEDF overview; county and timber groups urge more money for forest roads

Michigan Department of Transportation staff and program managers told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Local Transportation that the Transportation Economic Development Fund (TEDF), created by Public Act 231 of 1987, remains the state’s mechanism to finance targeted road work that supports economic development.

Mike Capp, administrator in MDOT’s Office of Economic Development, told the committee the fund is organized into six categories: A (target industries), B (community service infrastructure), C (urban congestion relief), D (rural all‑season network), E (forest roads) and F (urban areas in rural counties). Capp said the program balances an economic‑development model (local tax benefits, private‑public investment ratio, job creation) with MDOT technical review to score applications for Category A grants.

Capp emphasized that TEDF grants go only to public road agencies and must be spent in the public right‑of‑way. “We never give money to companies,” he said, noting a statutory minimum match of 20 percent and that stronger matches (often 40–45 percent on average) increase scoring. Christine Zuska, TEDF program manager, described recent Category A projects that MDOT says retained and created jobs: one Genesee County headquarters expansion reported a $10,000,000 private investment, a $2,600,000 grant and a net gain of 75 jobs; another Menominee County facility preserved 52 jobs and supported additional hires.

MDOT walked the committee through how the fund is built (license fees and the Michigan Transportation Fund), statutory set‑asides and the distribution formula. Capp cited historical set‑asides (for example, a roughly $36.8 million allocation tied to the Michigan Transportation Fund and a later $3.5 million addition) and said interest and license‑fee receipts add to the TEDF pool. After debt service and fixed sums for Categories E ($5,000,000) and F ($2,500,000), Capp said the remaining balance is split 50 percent to Category A and 25 percent each to Categories C and D.

County and industry stakeholders urged changes. Ed Noyola, chief deputy at the County Road Association of Michigan, and Jim Meter of the Michigan Association of Timbermen both told the committee Category E funding—allocated by formula to 47 eligible counties—has not increased for decades and is insufficient for forest‑access needs. “That is a real necessary necessity that we need to keep those forest roads open,” Noyola said, urging the legislature to consider an increase or at least a prioritization for Category E. Meter told the committee that Michigan’s roughly 20.2 million acres of forest require reliable access to move timber and that stagnant funding makes maintenance and harvest operations difficult.

MDOT staff described program administration and capacity: an TEDF program manager, two program coordinators and four regional grant coordinators (part of a 12‑person office) who also assist with other federal and state transportation grant programs and with communities applying for TEDF funds. Capp said MDOT accepts Category A applications year‑round to remain responsive, but that grant approvals and construction schedules can require multi‑year staging so awards may not be drawn in the year they are approved.

Committee members asked for additional data. The chair requested charts showing the number of applicants versus funded projects, historical allocations and how much unspent Category A funding rolls into later years; Capp said the department could prepare such charts. The only formal action taken at the meeting was adoption of the prior minutes by unanimous consent. The committee adjourned with no further votes recorded.