Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2007 Senate Bill 411: Levy state 9-1-1 phone tax
Public Act 165 of 2007
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Ray Basham (D) on April 18, 2007, to establish the allocation formula for the 25-cents per line state 9-1-1 emergency phone service levy that would be created by Senate Bill 410, with 62.25 percent going to counties, and the balance used at the state level for various purposes related to 9-1-1 service specified in the bill.
- Referred to the Senate Energy Policy & Public Utilities Committee on April 18, 2007.
- Reported in the Senate on May 8, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on May 23, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises the allocation forumula. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on May 23, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Energy Policy & Public Utilities Committee on April 18, 2007.
- Passed 35 to 3 in the Senate on May 24, 2007, to establish the allocation formula for the 25-cents per line state 9-1-1 emergency phone service levy that would be created by Senate Bill 410.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on May 24, 2007.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on May 24, 2007.
- Reported in the House on September 14, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on December 12, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that establishes the allocation formula for the 81-cents per line state 9-1-1 emergency phone service levy proposed by a rejected House Committee substitute to Senate Bill 410. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on December 12, 2007.
- Substitute offered by Rep. John Espinoza (D) on December 12, 2007, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that establishes the allocation formula for the 19-cents per line state 9-1-1 emergency phone service levy proposed by the House-passed version of Senate Bill 410. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on December 12, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. George Cushingberry (D) on December 12, 2007, to sunset the 9-1-1 tax on Feb. 28, 2009, reportedly to allow the issue to be taken up again during a lame-duck legislature, when the political hurdles to imposing a tax hike would presumably be lower. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on December 12, 2007.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on May 24, 2007.
- Passed 93 to 15 in the House on December 12, 2007, to establish the allocation formula for the 19-cents per line state 9-1-1 emergency phone service levy that would be created by Senate Bill 410.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on December 13, 2007, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. Passed 33 to 3 in the Senate on December 13, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 20, 2007.
Most Recent Comments
1) No, No, No by Anonymous Citizen on December 17, 2007Quit with the stealing our money thing. We don't have any left. Cut the budget, balance the books.
Reply
Rep. Meltzer, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
The proposed fee increase in SB 410 and SB 411 is nothing short of a tax hike. If this bill passes, everyone who uses a cell phone will get hit with higher monthly bills.
Money for public safety programs should properly come from the General Fund - not from a new telephone tax. This is another example of lawmakers trying to fix Michigan's budget problems through quick fixes and patchwork solutions.
Moreover, after a year, localities could raise fees without a cap or any oversight.
Funding the 9-1-1 emergency system is absolutely a priority, but creating a new telephone tax is not the answer. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time."
Reply
Rep. Sheen, 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 supported the SB410, which was not a tax increase, but I do not support the SB411l as amended which extended the sunset only one year, instead of 2011. This a move which offers another opportunity to raise fees next year, which I do not support."
Reply
View Full Conversation
