2005 Senate Bill 353: Shift federal block grants to rural projects

Legislation watch

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

Introduced by Sen. Jud Gilbert (R) on March 24, 2005, to require the Michigan Strategic Fund to allocate at least 60 percent of federal community block grant program funds to projects located in rural areas, with water and sewer system development given priority, to the extent this is allowed by federal regulations, and that there are sufficient applicants for grants. The bill defines a "rural county" as one with a population under 90,000.
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development, Small Business and Regulatory Reform Committee on March 24, 2005.
  - Reported in the Senate on June 7, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 9, 2005, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that earmarks 55 percent of the grants to rural areas, not 60 percent. Also, to give priority to projects that create or retain jobs, rather than water and sewer system development projects. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 9, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Jud Gilbert (R) on June 14, 2005, to give the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) more discretion in the kinds of projects to which they may allocate community development block grant money that is not earmarked for rural areas. The amendment passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 14, 2005.
Passed 32 to 5 in the Senate on June 14, 2005, to require the Michigan Strategic Fund to allocate at least 55 percent of the approximately $40 million of federal community block grant funds given to the state to projects located in rural areas, with projects that create or retain jobs would given priority. The bill defines a "rural county" as one with a population under 90,000.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on June 14, 2005.
- Referred to the House Commerce Committee on June 14, 2005.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Sen. Schauer's "no vote journal statement" by Admin003 on June 15, 2005
Senator Schauer, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No.353 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting "no."

The motion prevailed.

Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:

I rise to debate Senate Bill No.353 and offer a reason why we should not support this bill at this time. This is an item that passed through the economic development committee unanimously. However, after study, there are some potential unintended consequences, and I wanted members to know about that, particularly members in a set of counties that under this bill have populations of less than 200,000 and would be considered nonrural. Interestingly, the line of demarcation was drawn on counties of population under 90,000.

What this bill does is legislate something that really isn't needed. It sets aside an earmark of 55 percent of community development block grant funds for these rural counties. If you are among the counties that I am about to mention, your county may not because of this earmark receive community development block grant funds for economic development job projects in your community when they need them. So listen and see if one of your counties is on this list: Allegan County, Bay County, Berrien County, Calhoun County--that is one of mine, Eaton County, Jackson County--that's another one of mine, Lapeer County, Lenawee County, Livingston County, Monroe County, Muskegon County, and St. Clair County. I believe the bill sponsor, Senator Gilbert, yes, St. Clair County is his county.

So 45 percent of the CDBG funds would now be set aside for those counties. And depending on how applications for these block grant funds flow, again, the timing could be such where you have a great jobs project in your community, the MEDC has been working with that company and with your economic developers in your community to put together the package in community development block grant funds are part of that deal, and they wouldn't be there.

So I will be voting "no," and if you are in one of those nonrural counties that would be defined under this bill, you should probably think twice about it as well.

Reply

Line

2) 2005 Senate Bill 353 (Shift federal block grants to rural projects ) by admin on January 1, 2001
Introduced in the Senate on March 24, 2005, to require the Michigan Strategic Fund to allocate at least 55 percent of the approximately $40 million of federal community block grant funds given to the state to projects located in rural areas, with projects that create or retain jobs would given priority. The bill defines a "rural county" as one with a population under 90,000

The vote was 32 in favor, 5 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 225 at Senate Journal 56)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation