Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2011 Senate Bill 8: Authorize local government consolidated service authorities

Public Act 258 of 2011

  1. Introduced by Sen. Mark Jansen (R) on January 19, 2011, to allow and specify procedures for two or more local governments in Kent County to enter partnerships to provide particular government services, and give these the power to levy up to 5 mills of property tax. The decision to enter such a partnership would not be subject to referendum and an elected official could not be recalled for it. Details of the partnership would be a prohibited subject for collective bargaining between government employee unions and the local governments involved.
    • Referred to the Senate Reforms, Restructuring and Reinventing Committee on January 19, 2011.
      • Reported in the Senate on June 9, 2011, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on June 22, 2011, to adopt a version that applies to the entire state, not just Kent County, and removes a proposed prohibition on governments and their employee unions negotiating the labor contract terms of a potential consolidated authority. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on June 22, 2011.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Coleman Young (D) on June 22, 2011, to strip out a provision establishing that this proposed government service consolidation law would supersede any existing state statute or local ordinance. The amendment failed by voice vote in the Senate on June 22, 2011.
  2. Passed 26 to 12 in the Senate on June 22, 2011, to allow and specify procedures for two or more local governments, and the state, to enter partnership authorities to provide particular services, and give these authorities the power to levy up to 5 mills of property tax with the approval of all voters in the affected area, even if the voters in a particular community voted against the tax. (Potentially this could be a statewide tax if the state were party to one of these agreements.) An authority agreement's terms could supersede both conflicting local ordinances and state statutes. Each member government's unions could bargain over the terms of employment of transferred employees. The decision to enter such a partnership would not be subject to referendum.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the House on June 22, 2011.
    • Referred to the House Local, Intergovernmental, and Regional Affairs Committee on June 22, 2011.
      • Reported in the House on June 28, 2011, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
    • Amendment offered by Rep. Lisa Lyons (R) on November 3, 2011, to require an authority formed to provide emergency medical services to solicit competitive bids from private sector providers for the service. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on November 3, 2011.
  4. Passed 72 to 35 in the House on November 3, 2011, to allow and specify procedures for two or more local governments (but not the state) to enter partnership authorities to provide particular government services; and allow an authority to impose up to 5 mills of property taxes, but only if the government bodies and voters in each jurisdiction separately approve these, and subject to statutory and constitutional caps (Headlee amendment) on each local jurisdiction’s property tax rates. An authority could supersede conflicting local ordinances, but not state statutes. The decision to enter such a partnership would not be subject to referendum. Each local government’s employee union could bargain over the terms of employment of transferred employees.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the Senate on November 3, 2011.
  6. Passed 25 to 10 in the Senate on November 3, 2011, to allow and specify procedures for two or more local governments (but not the state) to enter partnership authorities to provide particular government services; and allow an authority to impose up to 5 mills of property taxes, but only if the government bodies and voters in each jurisdiction separately approve these, and subject to statutory and constitutional caps (Headlee amendment) on each local jurisdiction’s property tax rates. An authority could supersede conflicting local ordinances, but not state statutes. The decision to enter such a partnership would not be subject to referendum. Each local government’s employee union could bargain over the terms of employment of transferred employees.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Signed by Gov. Rick Snyder on December 13, 2011.

Comments

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 8 (Authorize local government consolidated service authorities )  by bill35 on September 1, 2012 
I see so much good coming from this. I really love what they have to offer here. It will help so many in the future. Keep up the good work. Running Shoes

Re: 2011 Senate Bill 8 (Authorize local government consolidated service authorities )  by isabelleelise on October 18, 2011 

I don't see a need for this Bill.  It is my understanding that these partnerships are legal to do now.  There are sections that are very worrisome; that take power away from the voters.  Here are a few:


 


Sec. 11. A contract enteered into pursuant to this act may not be the basis for the recall f any elected officicial as provided under the Michigan election law, 1954 PA 116, MCL 168.1 to 168.992


Sec 10. A contract entered into pursuant to this act shall not by subject to referendum under any local charter provision or local ordinance.


Sec. 9. Except as otherwise provided in this section, if any provision of this act conflicts with any other statute of this state, any promulgated rule of any agancy of this state, any local charter provision, or any local ordinance, the provisions of this act shal control.


 


No taxpayer in their right mind would agree to give up their power as a voter for this lousy piece of legislation.  It's soft-tyranny at best and has no place anywhere on US soil.


Sincerely,


Isabelle Terry


Rockford, MI



2011 Senate Bill 8 (Authorize local government consolidated service authorities )  by admin on January 1, 2001 
Introduced in the Senate on January 19, 2011, to allow and specify procedures for two or more local governments to enter partnerships to provide particular government services, and give these the power to levy up to 5 mills of property tax. The decision to enter such a partnership would not be subject to referendum and an elected official could not be recalled for it. Whether to enter a partnership would be a prohibited subject for collective bargaining with government employee unions and employers, but they could still negotiate the prospective labor contract terms

The vote was 26 in favor, 12 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 333 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

View pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.