Public Act 120 of 2007

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

• Introduced by Rep. Michael Sak (D) on February 28, 2007, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 community colleges budget. This appropriates $297.3 million in gross spending, compared to $281.3 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. All of this comes from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues). 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 August 22, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
  • Substitute offered in the House on August 22, 2007, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses the preferences of the House majority on various spending items and funding sources. This version was subsequently superceded by another substitute changes in various details. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on August 22, 2007.
  • Substitute offered by Rep. Joan Bauer (D) on August 22, 2007, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses the preferences of the House majority on various spending items and funding sources. For more see the House-passed version, and for detail see analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on August 22, 2007.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on August 22, 2007, to prohibit state universities from discounting the net tuition and fees paid by an individual illegally residing within this country below the standard nonresident tuition and fee rate. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on August 22, 2007.
  • Motion by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on August 22, 2007, to reconsider the vote by which the House did not adopt the amendment by Rep. Agema. The motion passed by voice vote in the House on August 22, 2007.
  • Amendment offered by Rep. David Agema (R) on August 23, 2007, to prohibit community colleges from discounting the net tuition and fees paid by an individual illegally residing within this country below the standard nonresident tuition and fee rate. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on August 23, 2007.
  • Motion by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on August 23, 2007, the vote by which the House adopted the substitute previously recommended by the Committee on Appropriations. This was one of a series of parliamentary maneuvers whose effect was to prevent Republican amendments from being considered or adopted as part of the final bill. The motion passed by voice vote in the House on August 23, 2007.
  • Substitute offered in the House on August 23, 2007, to adopt a new substitute version of the bill as one of a series of parliamentary maneuvers whose effect was to prevent Republican amendments from being considered or adopted as part of the final bill. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on August 23, 2007.
  • Substitute offered by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on August 23, 2007, to adopt a new substitute version of the bill as one of a series of parliamentary maneuvers whose effect was to prevent Republican amendments from being considered or adopted as part of the final bill. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on August 23, 2007.
• Passed 59 to 47 in the House on August 23, 2007, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 community colleges budget. This appropriates $333.8 million in gross spending (all general fund money), compared to $281.3 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. When delays in previous year disbursements are considered that pushed some of those appropriations into this budget, the net increase in community college funding is around 2.5 percent, distributed unevenly to different institutions. Note: As with all House Budgets, this one authorizes spending well in excess of projected revenues, and is based on the presumption of a substantial tax increase.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Moved to reconsider by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on August 23, 2007, to reconsider the vote by which the House passed the bill. This was one of a series of parliamentary maneuvers whose effect was to prevent Republican amendments from being considered or adopted as part of the final bill. The motion passed by voice vote in the House on August 23, 2007.
• Received in the House on August 23, 2007.
  • Substitute offered by Rep. Steve Tobocman (D) on August 23, 2007, to adopt a new substitute version of the bill as one of a series of parliamentary maneuvers whose effect was to prevent Republican amendments from being considered or adopted as part of the final bill. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on August 23, 2007.
• Passed 58 to 51 in the House on August 23, 2007, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 community colleges budget. This appropriates $333.8 million in gross spending (all general fund money), compared to $281.3 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. When delays in previous year disbursements are considered that pushed some of those appropriations into this budget, the net increase in community college funding is around 2.5 percent, distributed unevenly to different institutions. Note: As with all House Budgets, this one authorizes spending well in excess of projected revenues, and is based on the presumption of a substantial tax increase.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on September 4, 2007.
  • Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on September 4, 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 community colleges 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 House 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, to concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. Failed 0 to 107 in the House on September 6, 2007.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the House on September 11, 2007.
• Passed 95 to 14 in the House on October 29, 2007, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 community colleges budget. This appropriates $318.9 million in gross spending, compared to $281.3 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. All of this comes from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues). Individual universities will receive an operations grant increase of approximately 1.2 percent.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on September 12, 2007.
• Passed 36 to 2 in the Senate on October 30, 2007, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 community colleges budget. This appropriates $318.9 million in gross spending, compared to $281.3 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. All of this comes from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues). Individual universities will receive an operations grant increase of approximately 1.2 percent.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 31, 2007.