state laws at your finger tips
in concise, plain language
Legislation watch

2010 House Bill 6128: Require second Detroit bridge "community benefits" payouts
Introduced by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D) on May 4, 2010 To require the Michigan Department of Transportation to give advice and support to "community representatives" (presumably from labor, environmental, and faith-based organizations) in negotiating "community benefit agreements" with the public-private partnership authorized to build a new Detroit River International Crossing bridge project (DRIC).   Official Text and Analysis.
Referred to the House Transportation Committee on May 4, 2010
Reported in the House on May 11, 2010
Substitute offered in the House on May 26, 2010 To adopt amendments that revise details but do not change the substance of the bill as previously described.
The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010
Substitute offered in the House on May 26, 2010 To replace the previous version of the bill with one that requires the dollar amount of the agreements under the bill to be comparable to similar payment agreements on other large infrastructure projects around the country, and specifies that iff the contractor went out of business the state would be responsible for the cost of any benefits.
The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010
Amendment offered by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D) on May 26, 2010 To tie-bar the bill to House Bill 4961, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HB 4961 would establish a regulatory framework for the Detroit River International Crossing project (DRIC).
The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010
Passed 55 to 51 in the House on May 26, 2010 To require the Michigan Department of Transportation to give advice and support to "community representatives" (presumably from labor, environmental, and faith-based organizations) in negotiating "community benefit agreements" with the public-private partnership authorized to build a new Detroit River International Crossing bridge project (DRIC). The dollar amount would have to be comparable to similar payout agreements on other large infrastructure projects around the country. If the partnership collapsed the state would be responsible for the cost of any benefits.
Received in the Senate on June 1, 2010
Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on June 1, 2010

Comments