Tom Boyd, administrator with the State Court Administrative Office of the Michigan Supreme Court, and Michael Bosanek, Monroe County administrator and chief financial officer, told the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety that a newly proposed trial court funding model would centralize court-generated revenues in a trial court fund held in the Michigan Department of Treasury and redistribute money to local courts based on approved budgets and a uniform workload analysis.

The plan, developed under Public Act 47 of 2024 and produced by teams convened by the Michigan Judicial Council, rests on four funding sources: local maintenance-of-effort contributions from 135 primary funding units, existing court-generated revenues centralized in the new fund, federal funds (largely Title IV-D child-support and Title IV-E childcare/foster-care funding), and additional state general-fund support. Bosanek said the working estimate for annual trial-court operations is $1,220,000,000, with local units currently covering roughly $704,000,000 (about 58%), court-generated revenue approximately $242,000,000 (20%), federal funds about $101,000,000 (8%), and the remainder from state sources.

"We can end profit motivated policing and profit motivated courts by changing the way the money flows," Boyd told the committee, urging separation of the business function of courts (revenue assessment and collections) from judicial decision-making. The presenters said the plan would memorialize local contributions as a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) adjusted annually by taxable value, capped at a 3% increase, and would not ask local units to pay more than they currently do.

The work groups recommended two distinct buckets for financial assessments: an "accountability" bucket (fines and restitution under judicial discretion) and a "tax" or fee bucket that would pass through an indigency screen. Boyd said restitution should go fully to victims: "We recommend giving 100% of each dollar to the victim until he or she is made whole," and that court-generated revenues otherwise be limited to judicial-branch functions under the new fund.

A collections team recommended partnering with the Department of Treasury to operate a centralized receipts, collections and dispersals system. Presenters argued centralized collection would increase efficiency and revenue while reducing sanctions tied to nonpayment (bench warrants, probation revocations, license suspensions), and would enable immediate transmission of payments to victims or to local court funds.

Committee members asked for comparative data from other states the presenters cited. Senator Johnson requested confirmation that the court operations resource report — a workload analysis now underway — would identify staffing needs and address potential overstaffing. Bosanek said the resource report would inform uniform staffing and budgeting, and that local control over allocation would remain.

Members also raised concerns about stakeholder opposition. Bosanek and Boyd acknowledged letters from groups including the Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Townships Association, SEMCOG, sheriffs' associations, police organizations and the Michigan Association of Counties expressing consternation about shifting revenue guarantees to the appropriations process. Boyd said the plan is intended to be phased and noted the legislature would need to extend the existing sunset (currently set for Dec. 31, 2026) to implement major changes.

The presenters delivered the implementation report to the Judicial Council and said the teams completed the plan well ahead of the stated deadline; they asked lawmakers to use the report and the forthcoming draft legislation to continue detailed discussions. The committee ran out of time for public testimony; several written and card-submitted statements were read into the record, including both opposition and neutral comments. The presenters said they would provide state-by-state comparisons of centralized collection outcomes and revenue impacts to committee offices.

Next steps: the report and draft legislation are available to committee members for follow-up; presenters indicated the plan would require legislative action to create the trial court fund, set implementation timelines and address appropriations/backfill for functions now supported by court transfers.