Legislation watch
2007 House Bill 4354: Appropriations: 2007-2008 Natural Resources budget
Public Act 122 of 2007
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Michael Lahti (D) on February 28, 2007, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 Department of Natural Resources budget. This appropriates $287.2 million in gross spending, compared to $291.5 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. Of this, $24.7 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $25.2 million. Note: Gov. Jenifer Granholm’s executive budget recommendations are premised on the legislature adopting a 2 percent tax on services which along with other tax increases and a proposed reduction in business taxes represents a net tax hike of approximately $1 billion.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 28, 2007.
- Reported in the House on July 25, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on July 25, 2007, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses minor differences between the Democratic-majority in the House and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items and funding sources. The House has added $20 million from the “21st Century Jobs Fund” for forestry industry subsidies through the state Forest Development Fund. This money was cut as part of a FY 2007 budget deficit deal. It also adds additional money for Payments In Lieu Of Taxes to local governments on DNR land, cormorant control measures, conservation districts, timber harvest marking, and more. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on July 25, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Kevin A. Elsenheimer (R) on July 25, 2007, to distribute general fund money earmarked for marking of trees for harvest by the DNR on quarterly basis, pro-rated on the basis of how much timber is marked each quarter. The amendment failed 51 to 56 in the House on July 25, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Kimberly Meltzer (R) on July 25, 2007, to reduce spending on various administrative expenses, and strip out a provision authorizing "raids" on various conservation funds if to cover proposed spending in this budget in excess of current revenue projections, unless the legislature adopts substantial hunting, fishing and other license fee increases. The amendment failed 50 to 58 in the House on July 25, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Moore (R) on July 25, 2007, to prohibit the DNR from increasing campground fees in the fiscal year covered by this budget. The amendment failed 51 to 57 in the House on July 25, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 28, 2007.
- Passed 58 to 50 in the House on July 25, 2007, the House-version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 Department of Natural Resources budget. This appropriates $311.9 million in gross spending, compared to $291.5 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006, and 287.2 million recommended by Gov. Granholm. Of this, $26.3 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $25.2 million. Note: House-passed budgets are premised on the legislature adopting tax increases in excess of $1 billion. This budget is also premised on the passage of substantial hunting, fishing and other license fee increases.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on August 1, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 1, 2007.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on September 6, 2007, to adopt a version of the bill that essentially strips out all of the appropriations of the House-passed version, which is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on September 6, 2007.
- Passed 24 to 14 in the Senate on September 6, 2007, to send the Department of Natural Resources budget back to the House "stripped" of all actual appropriations, , and $100 “placeholders” in their place. These and some changes in the remaining “boilerplate” language prescribing policies the department must follow establish “points of difference” with the Senate version, the presence of which makes them subjects for negotiation between the bodies. This vote is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on September 6, 2007.
- Motion by Rep. Kathy Angerer (D) on September 6, 2007, to suspend the House rules so as to allow the vote to be voted on immediately. The motion failed 57 to 50 in the House on September 6, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Motion by Rep. Kathy Angerer (D) on September 6, 2007, to suspend the House rules so as to allow the vote to be voted on immediately. The motion failed 57 to 50 in the House on September 6, 2007.
- Failed 0 to 104 in the House on September 11, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on September 11, 2007.
- Passed 63 to 46 in the House on October 29, 2007, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 Department of Natural Resources budget. This appropriates $289.4 million in gross spending, compared to $291.5 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006, and $287.2 million recommended by Gov. Granholm. Of this, $49.7 million is federal money, $23.7 million is from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $25.2 million; and $210.5 million is from other state sources including bonded indebtedness, fees, royalties, etc. Note: the budget presumes that the legislature will adopt approximately $8 million in new hunting fees by Jan. 15, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on September 12, 2007.
- Passed 32 to 6 in the Senate on October 30, 2007, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 Department of Natural Resources budget. This appropriates $289.4 million in gross spending, compared to $291.5 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006, and $287.2 million recommended by Gov. Granholm. Of this, $49.7 million is federal money, $23.7 million is from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $25.2 million; and $210.5 million is from other state sources including bonded indebtedness, fees, royalties, etc. Note: the budget presumes that the legislature will adopt approximately $8 million in new hunting fees by Jan. 15, 2008.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 31, 2007.
- Received in the House on November 6, 2007.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on November 6, 2007.
Comments
1) Sen. Garcia's "journal statement" by Admin003 on October 31, 2007Senator Garcia asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Garcia's statement is as follows:
First of all, I intend to support this budget, but I do want to take this opportunity to say a couple of things about this department that I believe needs some attention.
First of all, some of you may know that I have the Island Lake Shooting Range in my district. Over the last couple of years, some of my constituents have brought suit against the state and the shooting range for the noise that comes from that shooting range. Now there are some disputes between the residents and the shooting range as to who was there first. I think it is clear that the shooting range was there first. However, the type of shooting that has occurred there changed about three years ago and has caused a deterioration in the quality of life for many of my constituents.
Now most of you know that I have been supported by the NRA. The fact that I serve in the military, I have no problem with guns; I have no problem with shooting, but I also represent constituents and believe that they, too, ought to be afforded a quality of life. The judge in the court case ruled in favor of the department. It is my hope that the department will now take some steps to help improve the situation there and help serve all the citizens of the state, including my constituents. It is my hope that we will be able to work something out there.
So while I intend to support this budget, I do hope that the department will keep in mind the fact that we still need to do something about the noise at that range and the complaints that my constituents will have.
"This appropriates $289.4 million in gross spending, compared to $291.5 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006, and $287.2 million recommended by Gov. Granholm."
At least a cut - less than 1 percent, but at least a cut . . .
Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I cannot vote for these budgets as they are based on increased fees, an income tax increases, and the expansion of salestax on services on top of all the other taxes. Government deficits are spending problems, not revenue problems. I cannotbalance the budget on the backs of Michigan citizens and job providers that are barely hanging on and making ends meet.
Holding government harmless is elitist, disingenuous, and wrong. I was not sent to Lansing to preserve government spending to the detriment of its citizens and its job providers. The Income tax increase of 12% (from 3.9% to 4.35%) and spreading a 6 % sales tax on many services and business-to-business transactions on top of all the other taxes will in no way benefit the state's economy or its citizens. However, it will take more money out of people's paychecks and increase the cost of living, which is a double hit to the consumer. It will drive up the cost of doing business and drive out more employers, increasing unemployment and further exacerbating Michigan's plight. We might as well put a red flashing light at the state line warning businesses not to come here.
I could not vote to increase taxes on Michigan's citizens or job providers at a time when so many have either lost jobs, faced failing businesses and otherwise tightened their belts and made cuts in their own budgets. Why should government be held at a different standard than everyone else in the state?"
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
