William Hamilton, senior fiscal analyst for the nonpartisan Michigan House Fiscal Agency, told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee that the current state transportation gross appropriation is about $6.8 billion and that roughly two‑thirds of that total comes from state‑restricted transportation revenues while about $2.3 billion comes from federal sources and $193 million from general fund/general purpose revenue.

Hamilton said the largest single state restricted revenue source is vehicle registration taxes (about 38 percent of restricted revenue), followed closely by motor fuel taxes on gasoline and diesel. Other material sources credited to the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) include an earmark of income tax revenue (about $600 million in the current year) and an excise earmark from recreational marijuana (approximately $113.6 million estimated for 2025). The motor fuel tax rate is currently 31 cents per gallon, Hamilton said, after statutory inflation adjustments tied to the November 2015 road funding package.

The briefing summarized program allocations: road and bridge programs make up the largest share of the budget (about 83 percent, roughly $5.7 billion), local road agency distributions are substantial, public transit receives about 12 percent (about $806 million), and aeronautics capital assistance is roughly $330 million. Hamilton said the budget supports capital and operating assistance to about 80 public transit systems and about 95 publicly owned, public‑use airports.

Hamilton explained that much state restricted revenue is distributed automatically under Public Act 51 of 1951 (Act 51) and the Michigan Transportation Fund; appropriators do not typically make annual discretionary distributions for those statutory shares. He described the practical difference between state restricted funds (regular monthly distributions to local agencies via the MTF formula) and federal aid (project‑specific allocations under the federal surface transportation authorization, which Hamilton referred to as "IGJA," and which he said expires Sept. 30, 2026).

Hamilton reviewed long‑run revenue history and program impacts. He showed that MTF revenue was nearly flat from roughly 1997 to 2016, rose after implementation of the November 2015 funding package, and now reflects a mix of registration, fuel tax, income tax earmarks and other sources. He also noted recent use of bond proceeds to accelerate state trunkline construction, and said outstanding state trunkline bond debt was on the order of several billion dollars with 2023 debt service in the low hundreds of millions.

On condition and performance, Hamilton presented MDOT pavement measures used since the late 1990s and said MDOT estimates that an additional roughly $2.5 billion a year (plus bridge funding) would be needed to achieve and sustain a 90 percent "good" pavement target for the state trunkline system. He cautioned that pavement condition is only one performance measure among many (safety, mobility, economic development).

Committee members questioned Hamilton about several topics. Representative Brock asked whether Michigan is a net donor or receiver of federal highway dollars; Hamilton said the older donor/receiver analysis is less clear now because large shares of federal transportation appropriations are supported with general federal revenues and that a simple donor/receiver label is not definitive. Brock asked about funding for rail grade separations; Hamilton said such projects are very expensive, often require targeted appropriations, and that there is not an ongoing, large dedicated program for grade separations.

Representative Preston asked about the motor fuel tax trajectory given rising vehicle fuel efficiency and electric vehicle adoption. Hamilton said he is not the agency economist and would not produce revenue projections for the committee, but noted consumption peaked in the early 2000s and has declined slowly; the November 2015 package increased the per‑gallon tax and added other revenue sources, and the current number of electric/hybrid registrations remains a small share of the 12 million vehicle registrations in the state. Representative Frisbie asked whether MDOT has estimated the cost of inaction tied to declining PASER ratings; Hamilton deferred to MDOT for that operational analysis.

Hamilton closed by pointing committee members to House Fiscal Agency publications and data visualizations that underlie the presentation. The committee took no formal funding action at the hearing; the briefing was informational.

Ending: Committee staff said materials would be distributed to members and the HFA presentation is available on the agency website for follow‑up questions.