2005 Senate Bill 281 (Appropriations: 2005-2006 Transportation budget )

Legislation watch

Public Act 158 of 2005

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Jim Barcia (D) on March 2, 2005, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Department of Transportation budget. This appropriates $3.417 billion in gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars), compared to $3.283 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $1.207 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes). Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 2, 2005.
  - Reported in the Senate on June 14, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 15, 2005, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses policy differences between the Republican-majority in the Senate and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items and funding sources. Among other things, the bill does not include additional funding for Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s “Jobs Today” public works proposal. For much more detail see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency”>analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 15, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Prusi (D) on June 15, 2005, to use approximately $1 million in state money to continue funding a particular program that previously had been funded with a federal grant that has not been renewed. The amendment failed in the Senate (16 to 22) on June 15, 2005. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Martha G. Scott (D) on June 15, 2005, to remove a provision of this budget that prohibits any of the money it appropriates from being used to fund the Detroit People Mover. The amendment failed in the Senate (13 to 25) on June 15, 2005. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Mark Schauer (D) on June 15, 2005, to add another $1 million to a $6.1 million state subsidy to Amtrak authorized by this budget. The amendment failed in the Senate (18 to 20) on June 15, 2005. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the Senate (35 to 3) on June 15, 2005, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 Department of Transportation budget. This appropriates $3.406 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.283 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $1.207 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes). [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 16, 2005.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on June 16, 2005.
  - Reported in the House on June 28, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 28, 2005, to replace the Senate-passed version of this budget with one that “strips” all actual appropriations. See House-passed version for explanation. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 28, 2005.
Passed in the House (106 to 0) on June 28, 2005, to send the bill back to the Senate "stripped" of all actual appropriations, leaving it in its original form as a "template" or "placeholder." This vote is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 29, 2005.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 35) on June 30, 2005, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on September 13, 2005.
Passed in the Senate (22 to 16) on September 20, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Department of Transportation budget. This appropriates $3.411 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.283 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $1.207 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes). The bill cuts $1 million from the previous year’s $7.1 million state Amtrak subsidy, but restores this if Amtrak locates a maintenance facility employing 660 workers in Battle Creek. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on September 13, 2005.
Passed in the House (56 to 52) on September 21, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Department of Transportation budget. This appropriates $3.411 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.283 billion, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $1.207 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes). The bill cuts $1 million from the previous year’s $7.1 million state Amtrak subsidy, but restores this if Amtrak locates a maintenance facility employing 660 workers in Battle Creek. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 30, 2005.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Rep. McDowell's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 22, 2005]
Rep. McDowell having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

Mr. Speaker and members of the House, I voted no on Senate Bill 281 today because the budget is seriously flawed. It puts at risk public transit programs, local transportation enhancement projects and, of greatest concern, has the potential to result in the loss of 100 existing AMTRAK jobs and may result in AMTRAK sending a maintenance facility to Iowa that could result in a gain of 660 new good-paying jobs here in Michigan."

Reply

Line

2) Rep. Tobocman's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 22, 2005]
Rep. Tobocman, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on Senate Bill 281 today because the budget is seriously flawed. It puts at risk public transit programs. By cutting staff at MDOT to handle local transportation enhancement projects, this budget seriously jeopardizes local economic development efforts in Detroit and across the state. Further, the bill has the potential to result in the loss of 100 existing AMTRAK jobs and may result in AMTRAK sending a maintenance facility to Iowa that could result in a gain of 660 new, good-paying jobs here in Michigan.

Finally, the bill is offensive to the notion of local control. Restrictions on local operating assistance grants, specifically the restriction on Detroit's ability to receive these local funds for a legitimate purpose of improving the Detroit People Mover, as well as dictating bus lengths to local units are abhorrent. Each locality should be allowed to make its own decisions on how to spend local operating assistance grants on various transportation projects. The effort to classify Detroiters as short bus riders suggests racist and other insensitive motives."

Reply

Line

3) Rep. Cushingberry's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 22, 2005]
Rep. Cushingberry, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on the adoption of this transportation conference report because it promotes sprawl, punishes poor people who need access to mass transportation, and uses a wrong- headed strategy of reducing funds for Amtrak to encourage them to build a repair facility in Michigan. We do not need the Conferees to tell our largest City how to spend our share of gasoline taxes. Further the language would cause the States taxpayers to continue the subsidy to the wealthiest communities and promote continued urban sprawl. The cuts to the Department also place a damper on the coordination of mass transportation efforts and causes unnecessary reports as it relates to the WBE and MBE contractors. Overall, this act should be substantially vetoed by the Governor and the authors should be ashamed of this counter-productive action in a State that prides itself on being a leader worldwide in transportation."

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation