- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Public Act 111 of 2009
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on February 24, 2009, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 community colleges budget. This would appropriate $299.3 million in gross spending, the same amount as the FY 2008-2009 budget enrolled in 2008. All of this comes from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues).
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 24, 2009.
- Reported in the House on April 2, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on April 2, 2009, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that add's $97 million in federal "stimulus" money. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on April 2, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Justin Amash (R) on April 2, 2009, to require community colleges to prepare and submit to the legislature a plan to cut the cost of operations by 5 percent in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Also, to require each university to post on on the internet a listing of all expenditures, with the purpose of each (a "check register"). The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on April 2, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Fred Miller (D) on April 2, 2009, to establish as the intent of the legislature looking for ways to consolidate community college (taxing) districts. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on April 2, 2009.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 24, 2009.
- Passed 88 to 22 in the House on April 2, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 community colleges budget. This would appropriate $396.3 million in gross spending, compared to $299.3 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. $299.3 million of this comes from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), same as last year. $97 million is federal "stimulus" money, earmarked for job training programs.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on April 21, 2009.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 21, 2009.
- Reported in the Senate on June 23, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 23, 2009, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Republican-majority in the Senate on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
- Amendment offered by Sen. John Gleason (D) on June 23, 2009, to add $3.5 million to reimburse community collegess for foregone property tax revenue due to renaissance zone tax breaks. The amendment failed 15 to 21 in the Senate on June 23, 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 21, 2009.
- Passed 36 to 0 in the Senate on June 23, 2009, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 community colleges budget. This would appropriate $295.8 million in gross spending, compared to $299.3 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. All of this comes from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), same as last year. The Senate version does not contain $97 million is federal "stimulus" money added by the House and earmarked for job training programs.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on June 23, 2009.
- Failed 0 to 109 in the House on June 25, 2009, 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.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on September 17, 2009.
- Passed 107 to 0 in the House on September 23, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 community colleges budget. This would appropriate $299.3 million in gross spending which is exactly how much was appropriated for this budget in FY 2008-2009. The entire amount comes from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), same as last year. The conference version contains no federal "stimulus" money.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on September 30, 2009, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 community colleges budget. This would appropriate $299.3 million in gross spending which is exactly how much was appropriated for this budget in FY 2008-2009. The entire amount comes from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), same as last year. The conference version contains no federal "stimulus" money. Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on September 30, 2009.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 8, 2009.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4435 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 Community Colleges budget ) by Admin003 on June 24, 2009
Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:
Fellow Senators, I ask for consideration in regard to this amendment. This has been enacted for the state in Act 376 of 1996 about the disbursement of money to community college districts. My amendment would restore the reimbursement of the renaissance zone to our community college districts. This distribution of funds is required by the renaissance zones act and provides those community colleges that lose tax revenue as a result of exemption of property to be reimbursed. Where there are renaissance zones, there can be a significant loss of local revenue that would have gone to local libraries and community colleges.
We as a state went in and took away local revenues when we created the renaissance zone act. That is why there is a provision to reimburse the locals for certain necessities. These community colleges are expecting this money. Unless there are plans to modify the renaissance zone act, I see no option but to adopt my amendment to restore this transfer of this $3.1 million as required by the current law.
All of us understand the amenities and the opportunities that community colleges give all of our neighboring communities. At this particular time, we are offering more burdens and responsibilities to these community colleges for the new generation of workers. Therefore, I ask that we put back in place this $3.1 million. They are expecting it and have expected it for years and have gotten. I see no need to change that. I would ask for support for my amendment.
Reply
Senators Hardiman and Gleason asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Hardiman’s statement is as follows:
I rise to speak in favor of the community colleges budget and the substitute version passed by the Appropriations Committee. The subcommittee held hearings at Mott Community College in Flint, Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek, and Alpena Community College. I do appreciate the subcommittee members and their work in this bill, as well as fiscal and policy staff and our staff as well.
I’m encouraged by the new programs and outreach that the community colleges are making to nontraditional students and to those displaced by job loss in particular. Community colleges are providing a way for students and preserving hope that better days are ahead.
Here is what the subcommittee and full committee have recommended. Operations funding is maintained at the 2008-2009 budget levels. The subcommittee does not include House changes regarding the Indian Tuition Waiver or the federal stimulus funds. The subcommittee does meet the Senate leadership target by cutting renaissance zone payments by $3.5 million below the Governor’s recommendation. The subcommittee does not include House proposals on part-time faculty tuition increases. On the use of Fund balances and consolidations, the subcommittee does include language in seeking new ways to collaborate and serve of students.
This is a responsible budget which will help many of our neighbors to pull themselves up on their feet again or train for better job opportunities. I am hopeful that the full Senate will support it.
Reply
This bill, as passed by the State House, diverts $97 million
in federal economic “stimulus” money to cover ordinary costs associated with operating
Michigan community colleges.
Using federal “stimulus” money to fatten up appropriations
to operate any ongoing program of this kind is terrible State policy. The Senate should correct this by
pulling the $97 million of stimulus money back out of funding for community
colleges.
Reply
View Full Conversation
