SB-0900, As Passed Senate, January 25, 2006

SUBSTITUTE FOR

SENATE BILL NO. 900

     A bill to amend 1996 PA 376, entitled

"Michigan renaissance zone act,"

by amending section 8c (MCL 125.2688c), as amended by 2003 PA 93.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

     Sec. 8c. (1) The board, upon recommendation of the board of

the Michigan strategic fund defined in section 4 of the Michigan

strategic fund act, 1984 PA 270, MCL 125.2004, and upon

recommendation of the commission of agriculture, may designate not

more than  20  40 additional renaissance zones for agricultural

processing facilities within this state in 1 or more cities,

villages, or townships if that city, village, or township or

combination of cities, villages, or townships consents to the

creation of a renaissance zone for an agricultural processing

facility within their boundaries.

     (2) Each renaissance zone designated for an agricultural

processing facility under this section shall be 1 continuous

distinct geographic area.

     (3) The board may revoke the designation of all or a portion

of a renaissance zone for an agricultural processing facility if

the board determines that the agricultural processing facility

fails to commence operation or ceases operation  does 1 or more of

the following in a renaissance zone designated under this section:

.

     (a) Fails to commence operation.

     (b) Ceases operation.

     (c) Fails to commence construction or renovation within 1 year

from the date the renaissance zone for the agricultural processing

facility is designated.

     (4) Beginning on the date of the amendatory act that added

this subsection, the board shall consider all of the following when

designating a renaissance zone for an agricultural processing

facility:

     (a) The economic impact on local suppliers who supply raw

materials, goods, and services to the agricultural processing

facility.

     (b) The creation of jobs relative to the employment base of

the community rather than the static number of jobs created.

     (c) The viability of the project.

     (d) The economic impact on the community in which the

agricultural processing facility is located.

     (e) All other things being equal, giving preference to a

business entity already located in this state.