Oct. 17, 2025 | This Week in Government: LEO Opens Latest Going PRO Grants, Says 10K Fewer Workers Will Receive Training Support

The Going PRO workforce training program will serve 300 fewer employers and 10,000 fewer workers after being cut by 42% in the 2025-26 fiscal year, the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity noted in a press release announcing the latest round of grants.

LEO on Tuesday opened its latest cycle of grants. Businesses have until Oct. 30 to apply for $29 million.

In the final budget passed earlier this month, Going PRO saw a $22.9 million cut. The House had originally proposed eliminating all funding from the program.

“The Going PRO Talent Fund is helping Michiganders gain the skills that translate directly into better jobs, higher wages, and more stability at home,” Stephanie Beckhorn, director of LEO’s office of employment and training, said in a statement. “At the same time, employers are able to fill critical skill gaps with talent that’s prepared to succeed from day one. Stronger families and stronger businesses strengthen Michigan’s economy and keep our state moving forward.”

Business groups are supportive of Going PRO as a strong training program for workers in the state.

The program awards grants to employers to assist in training, developing, and retaining current and newly hired employees.

Between 2014 and 2025, the program provided more than 8,000 awards, with the average award being around $36,209 or $1,287 per person, according to information on LEO’s website. About 90% of those awards have gone to small businesses, and workers who receive training typically see a 9% wage increase.

Going PRO supports classroom instruction, on-the-job training for new hires and Registered Apprenticeships. The training options help employers of all sizes address specific skill gaps while giving workers the credentials and experience necessary to advance their careers, LEO said.

The application process includes criteria aimed at addressing emerging workforce needs. There is a focus on industry-recognized certifications that help ensure workers receive technical training that is valuable across industries. Additionally, employers who have not received a Going PRO Talent Fund award in the past two fiscal years will receive additional consideration.

“The Going PRO Talent Fund is a powerful resource for employers statewide who are committed to training and upskilling new employees, current staff, and apprentices – without the heavy financial burden that training often creates,” Jenn Deamud, executive vice president of workforce at Michigan Works! Berrien, Cass, Van Buren, said in a statement. “From conversations with employers in our region, it’s clear these funds give them the ability to strengthen their teams, expand their capacity, and keep growing right here in Michigan.”

Applications close at 5 p.m. on Oct. 30.

Legislation that would place transparency measures for budget earmarks into statute was reported by a Senate panel on Tuesday with near-unanimous support with one member questioning the effectiveness of what was being proposed.

Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee reported SB 596 and HB 4420, dealing with transparency requirements for legislative earmarks.

Reported 16-1 was SB 596, which would enact several transparency requirements for legislative earmarks. Reported 17-0 was HB 4420, which outlines requirements to be contained within the earmark request form.

Sen. Sarah Anthony, D-Lansing, sponsor of SB 596 and chair of the committee, said the two bills would expand work over the past three years to improve legislative transparency.

“Together, these bills represent a significant step forward in modernizing our budget process, reinforcing the public trust, and ensuring that legislatively directed spending items are more transparent and responsible,” Anthony said.

Rep. Tom Kunse, R-Clare, sponsor of HB 4420, said his bill would address a top legislative priority of his: transparency.

“To bring our spending to the forefront, to make this public is inherently a good thing,” Kunse said. “This is one of the goals of Lansing, for me, is that we’re going to leave it a better place than what we found.”

Sen. Jeff Irwin, D-Ann Arbor, was opposed to SB 596. He told reporters there are better ways to improve legislative transparency than the bills before the committee.

“I think it’s an unworkable approach to trying to get more transparency,” Irwin said. “What we should do is just pass the Legislative Open Records Act, and we should subject the Legislature to full transparency…My biggest issue is just that this is unworkable and unnecessarily complicated way to not pass FOIA on the Legislature.”

Irwin also said it could lead to a situation where the Legislature is incentivized to complete its work on the budget as late as possible ahead of the fiscal year deadline.

Both bills were substituted prior to being reported. An S-1 substitute for SB 596 contained several changes.

It defines a “legislatively directed spending item” as being an appropriation that authorizes a specific amount of money with “a grant, loan, or other economic assistance or incentive to a specific entity, local unit of government, or project or activity in a local unit of government.”

This would exclude appropriations made in response to declared state disasters or emergencies, monies provided for under formula-driven or grant award processes, or if the recipient is a government agency or group that provides services otherwise required by law to be provided by a state department or agency.

Earmarks would have to be taken up before the appropriations committee or subcommittee in the chamber from which it was introduced to be included in a bill or conference report.

As reported, for-profit groups would not be eligible for earmarks. Nonprofit groups eligible for earmarks would have to have operations for at least three years in the state and have an office in the state for at least one year. Nonprofits would also have to have a board of directors.

The House and Senate would have to post earmark requests online within five business days of the request being submitted.

As reported, the S-2 substitute version of HB 4420 would require legislative earmark requests to include the name of the lawmaker making the request and any cosponsors if applicable.

The name of the recipient and their address would also have to be included. Confirmation that nonprofits have a board of directors, have had an office in the state over the previous 12 months, and has operated in the state for at least three years would also be required.

A statement proving no conflict of interest would also be required with each request, as would verification of a recipient’s nonprofit states or a statement that it is not a for-profit group.

The Supreme Court will consider past precedent from two prior decisions around the Consumer Protection Act next month when it hears arguments in a case being brought by Attorney General Dana Nessel against Eli Lilly and Company.

The case, Attorney General v. Eli Lilly (MSC Docket No. 165961), has been winding its way through the courts and has already been subject to one session of oral arguments as the Supreme Court weighed whether to take up the case.

On Nov. 5, the case will lead the morning session of oral arguments being heard by the Supreme Court. The session beings at 9:30 a.m.

Nessel wants to investigate insulin pricing at Eli Lilly and Company but has been blocked from doing so under the Consumer Protection Act based on precedent created by Smith v. Globe Life Insurance Company (1999) and Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc. (2007).

One of the questions the Supreme Court will weigh when it hears the case is if those decisions were decided correctly, and even if not, if they should still be retained.

The court will also consider whether the attorney general adequately pled a claim that Eli Lilly violated the Consumer Protection Act and if it is necessary to adequately plead a violation of the MCPA for a court to determine whether MCL 445.904(1)(a), an exemption to the MCPA, applies.

Legislation that would largely pause the issuance of new marijuana business licenses and cap how many licenses can be approved in a community based on population drew supportive testimony from industry officials Wednesday before a Senate panel.

Concerns over what was described as an oversaturated market drove the support by business owners and industry group leaders who spoke on the legislation.

“There is an oversaturation of many communities of retailers,” Sen. Sam Singh, D-East Lansing, sponsor of SB 597, said. He said the cap on marijuana licenses is patterned after the caps on liquor licenses in communities.

It was a stance that many supporters of the bills echoed in their testimony before the Senate Regulatory Affairs Committee.

As introduced, SB 597 would ban the Cannabis Regulatory Agency from issuing marijuana retailer licenses if issuing them would result in there being more than one retailer per 5,000 residents in the community where the applicant has applied. The same restriction would be enacted for provisioning center licenses under SB 598.

Substitutes adopted for SB 597 and SB 598 changed the restriction to one license per 10,000 residents.

Exemptions for retail locations and provisioning centers in resort districts would be allowed at the agency’s discretion. Communities with fewer than 10,000 people would be able to have one license.

Committee chair Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Bloomfield Township, said the legislation is intended to address regulatory burdens for those within the industry and will be the subject of multiple hearings.

“We want to address licensing barriers and safely expand product, all while increasing revenue to our state,” Moss said. “It will be focused on finding the best solutions to solve the problems facing the cannabis industry and improving our existing regulations on these products.”

He said the effort comes following the Legislature’s passage of a long-term road funding plan as part of a budget agreement that will enact a 24% wholesale tax on cannabis, a move that drew major pushback from the industry and has already prompted a lawsuit.

The Cannabis Regulatory Agency has no position on the bills (editor’s note: This story was changed to correct the CRA’s position on the licensing legislation).

Robin Schneider, executive director of the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association, said an overextended market can lead to lower prices which can harm businesses and result in job losses.

“Our members are asking this committee to assist our industry in creating market stability and thoughtful and collaborative industry planning moving forward so that at the very least they can make business decisions based on projections that include predictability,” Schneider said.

Rob Sims, former professional football player and co-founder of Primitiv, a company with multiple dispensary locations, said oversaturation is an issue that has affected other states and provides lessons for Michigan.

“I encourage you to taking a measured approach moving forward by limiting licenses to a reasonable number,” Sims said. “We can avoid the pitfalls that hurt other states and communities. A well-regulated industry will not only protect small businesses, but also ensure sustainable tax revenue, job stability, and continued public safety.”

Ryan Metz of New Buffalo Township supported reining in the number of licenses for marijuana businesses.

“Our community has experienced firsthand what happens when marijuana licensing goes unchecked,” Metz said. “What we have in New Buffalo Township’s not regulation. It’s oversaturation without boundaries.”

He said only a few years ago there were no marijuana establishments in the town of about 2,500 residents. Local leaders have approved dozens of marijuana licenses, with more than 25 operating dispensaries.

Members of the panel also took up bills that would set up a licensing structure for those seeking to process consumable hemp products from industrial hemp. Supporters of the hemp bills said stronger regulations are needed to root out a growing unregulated market of products proliferating at gas stations and convenience stores statewide.

Under SB 599, the Industrial Hemp Research and Development Act would be repealed and replaced with the Industrial Hemp Processing Act.

The new act would create a licensing process for those seeking to process, package, transport, distribute, or sell consumable hemp products.

Provisions within the act would allow for sampling and testing of consumable hemp products, require the Cannabis Regulatory Agency to promulgate rules for the processing of industrial hemp and set up the process and fees for licensure as a consumable hemp processor.

Labeling requirements for consumable hemp products would also be enacted, as well as civil fines and misdemeanor penalties for violations of the act.

Derek Sova, policy and legislative specialist for the Cannabis Regulatory Agency, said the agency supports the hemp change.

“Michigan has one of the most robust systems in the country for manufacturing and testing and selling those types of products, and so we think it makes the most sense to just put everything in that system,” Sova said.

The final three bills of the package (SB 600, SB 601, and SB 602), would amend the Medical Marihuana Facilities Licensing Act, the Industrial Hemp Growers Act, and the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act, respectively, to eliminate references to the former industrial hemp act.

Sen. Dayna Polehanki, D-Livonia, said there have been intoxicating consumable hemp products that have been sold online and at gas stations and convenience stores with no regulatory oversight.

“In the absence of clear rules and regulations, these products are often deceptively labeled,” Polehanki said. “They’re also making it into the hands of minors, and this is unacceptable…This package eliminates the gray area in current law that allows these intoxicating products to be sold outside of Michigan’s cannabis regulatory framework.”

Kimberly James, director of the office of cannabis affairs for the city of Detroit, spoke in support of SB 599.

James asked for language to be included that would provide enforcement capability for local communities to clamp down on the sales of unregulated intoxicating hemp products at stores.

“Local governments need to have the authority to stop this practice immediately when products are in a regular store and explicitly state they contain THC,” James said.

K-12 schools and local governments took a revenue hit in the long-term road funding plan passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan said in a report released Thursday.

The state also largely addressed a $1.1 billion projected shortfall due to federal tax and spending changes while maintaining overall spending almost identical to the last fiscal year, the group stated.

Citizens Research Council members on Thursday discussed with reporters the highlights of its State Budget Note covering the 2025-26 fiscal year budget.

The group also noted that taking into account the $9.3 billion in contingency monies authorized in boilerplate language, the total budget comes to about $84 billion, down only slightly from $84.1 billion from the previous fiscal year.

A key part of the budget was a long-term road funding plan that will enact a 24% wholesale tax on cannabis, which has drawn significant pushback and prompted a lawsuit by industry. The plan required legislation to be passed to implement a fuel tax swap, redirecting all revenues generated at the pump to roads while seeking to backfill the money historically provided to other areas, including schools.

Robert Schneider, senior research associate with the CRC, said the road funding plan will generate about $1.1 billion in new funding for roads in the current fiscal year, growing to $2 billion by 2030.

K-12 schools and local governments are most affected by the fund shift, he said.

Exempting fuel from sales tax reduces funding at the pump by $680 million per year. Local governments stand to lose $93 million from the constitutionally earmarked revenue sharing that they otherwise would receive.

The Legislature as part of the budget ensured additional sales tax revenue equal to the estimated School Aid Fund revenue loss due to the exemption of fuel from the sales tax would be placed into the School Aid Fund to offset the loss.

“If you’re in the K-12 schools, there was another important element of the budget agreement that probably is causing some consternation for school groups while the School Aid Fund is held harmless,” Schneider said.

Due to increased School Aid Fund appropriations to colleges and universities totaling $400 million in the latest budget, the available funding for K-12 schools was reduced by that amount.

Schneider said about $280 million of the estimated $680 million hit to the School Aid Fund was backfilled for K-12 schools.

No provisions were included in the budget to backfill the $93 million in lost revenue sharing monies for local governments. The $35 million for a new public safety revenue sharing program and $7.5 million in one-time funding based on average annual violent crime counts for each jurisdiction partially offsets the lost revenue.

Schneider said the roughly $1.1 billion budget hole the CRC had projected over the summer due to federal tax and spending changes (See Gongwer Michigan Report, July 30, 2025) was addressed by the Legislature this month.

A roughly $450 million hit to the state’s insurance provider assessments that support Medicaid was averted legislatively as well as codifying federal business tax changes on the state level, which addresses a potential $670 million effect on the budget.

Schneider added that the budgets over the next few years will be tight.

“If the Legislature wants to add significant new public investments to programs, it’s probably going to have to come from something already funded in the budget,” Schneider said. “The inflationary pressures from caseload costs and state employee costs will probably eat up a good chunk of our future growth.”

Total General Fund appropriations in the fiscal year 2025-26 budget are at $14.1 billion, down about $760 million from the previous fiscal year.

The main sources of the reduction were about $400 million reduction in General Fund for higher education, about $100 million less for the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, and other scattered cuts throughout the budget.