House panel reviews bills to transfer small state parcels in Peck and Rockford to local governments

The House Appropriations Committee heard testimony on two property-conveyance bills that would transfer underused state parcels to local governments, with sponsors saying the moves would remove maintenance costs from the state and allow local redevelopment.

Representative Alexander told the committee HB 4702 would convey three small state-owned parcels in the village of Peck totaling about two‑tenths of an acre, saying, "This bill resolves the issue so the village can formally own the land it already cares for, streamlining local governance and clearing obstacles for future community investment." He said the village has maintained the slivers of land for decades and intends to purchase them and resell portions at market value to adjacent property owners to square up parcels for potential housing development.

Perry Zlak of the House Fiscal Agency provided the committee with background on how state conveyances work, explaining that properties can be transferred by fair-market sale, competitive bidding or auction, property-for-property swaps, or conveyed for a discounted price if the property is restricted to public use. As Zlak summarized, "If [a property is conveyed] for public use, the property being conveyed would have to remain a public use for 30 years" and other conditions apply. He also noted the state would realize savings by shedding maintenance responsibilities and that sale proceeds would be deposited in the state's general fund.

Floor Leader Posthumous described HB 4724 as a straightforward transfer of a former Michigan State Police post in Rockford, saying the city and a local nonprofit are planning housing on the site and that the bill provides for establishing fair-market value either via an agreed third-party appraiser or, if needed, DTMB's internal appraisers. Committee members asked who verifies appraisals and whether surplus-property pathways could be used to move property directly to bidders; Posthumous said he would follow up with DTMB after the hearing.

Members pressed the issue of state-owned parcels that have been maintained by towns for years. Representative Madoc questioned DTMB's absence at the table, asking whether the department is imposing maintenance burdens on local governments and requesting information about how many properties the state manages but does not maintain. Chair Boland said the department had submitted written comments but was not present to answer in person.

What happens next: The committee heard the presentations and questions but did not take a formal vote on either bill during this session. Sponsors and fiscal staff said they would provide follow-up information on appraisal verification and any surplus-property alternatives.