2006 House Bill 5553: Give fire authorities legislative and “fee” levying power

Legislation watch

Public Act 652 of 2006

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

Introduced by Rep. Joe Hune (R) on January 18, 2006, to give municipal fire authorities the power to adopt ordinances with the force of law regarding fire prevention, and that allow the authority to charge a property owner for the actual costs incurred in responding to an emergency at the property.
- Referred to the House Local Government and Urban Policy Committee on January 18, 2006.
  - Reported in the House on March 23, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on March 30, 2006, to replace the previous version of the bill with one establishing that a cost recovery ordinance would be rescinded if at least one-third of the incorporating municipalities vote to rescind it within 60 days after the ordinance is adopted by the authority. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on March 30, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Kevin A. Elsenheimer (R) on March 30, 2006, to clarify a reference in the bill to another part of the bill. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on March 30, 2006.
Passed 101 to 3 in the House on April 18, 2006.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on April 19, 2006.
- Referred to the Senate Local, Urban, & State Affairs Committee on April 19, 2006.
  - Reported in the Senate on December 6, 2006, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed 25 to 11 in the Senate on December 13, 2006, to give municipal fire authorities the power to adopt ordinances with the force of law regarding fire prevention, and that allow the authority to charge a property owner for the actual costs incurred in responding to an emergency at the property.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on January 4, 2007.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Sen. Basham's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on December 16, 2006
Senator Basham's statement is as follows:

I'm rising in opposition to this piece of legislation. I think it's well meaning, but there are a lot more questions to it than answers. For example, I understand that emergency services can put a strain on local budgets. I empathize with the proponents of the bill and the many townships that actually support it. My district includes Romulus; that's where the Detroit Metropolitan Airport is. I understand that the city wanted to charge people going to and from the airport because they are providing so many services that they don't get paid for. It would probably be a boom to the city, but I think it's just bad public policy.

These are tough times in Michigan. If the bill is enacted, you can have an emergency where some people might be less likely to report it and seek help if they think you'll charge them for emergency services. I think we're going down a slippery slope with this piece of legislation. There is a lot of--I know in the past there has been ice fishermen floating out on Lake St. Clair and the ice breaks away and the Coast Guard or the sheriffs or somebody might want to charge those ice fishermen for doing some crazy things and floating down Lake St. Clair or the St. Clair River on a big sheet of ice.

I think we should be about good public policy first in saving those lives. You don't want people to not report an emergency just because they don't have the ability to pay. We should be a society that is just. That means that people should receive necessary services for emergencies without the fear of being charged, or in some cases, overcharged.

I ask my colleagues to oppose this piece of legislation.

Reply

Line

2) Sen. Cassis "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on December 16, 2006
Senator Cassis, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No.5553.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows:

I rise to explain my "no" vote on House Bill No.5553, which would allow emergency service authorities to develop a new revenue stream for the emergency services by charging user fees for these services.

I thought that that was what our taxes are to be used for, for the health, safety, and general welfare of our public. As I understand this bill, it represents an expansion of who can charge fees, and therefore, this, in my estimation, is not in the best interest of our taxpayers. Therefore, I voted "no."

Reply

Line

3) What In The by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2006
Sam hill do we pay property taxes for? If we go with this fee (tax) crap then we should abolish all property taxes and just let them bill us. I have never used the fire department so why should I pay? Same with the cops. If I need their services I will have my checkbook ready. This is absurd.
We Need A PART TIME LEGISLATURE. i think a good starting wage would be about $12,000 a year. Even at this most of these mental midgets would be severely overpaid.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation