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

• 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).
  • 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.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
• Received in the Senate on June 1, 2010.
  • Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on June 1, 2010.