2011 Senate Bill 8: Authorize local government consolidated service authorities (House Roll Call 449)
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.
View All of Senate Bill 8: History, Amendments & Comments
The vote was 72 in favor, 35 against, and 2 not voting.
(House Roll Call 449)
Comment on this vote View others' comments Add to scorecard
|
|
|
In Favor
Against
Not Voting
Undecided
Authorize local government consolidated service authorities
IN FAVOR
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
| Ananich (D) | Bledsoe (D) | Byrum (D) | Cavanagh (D) | Clemente (D) |
| Dillon (D) | Hobbs (D) | Irwin (D) | Kandrevas (D) | Lane (D) |
| Lindberg (D) | Lipton (D) | Liss (D) | McCann (D) | Rutledge (D) |
| Schmidt, R. (D) | Switalski (D) | Townsend (D) |
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
AGAINST
HOUSE DEMOCRATS
HOUSE REPUBLICANS
| Agema (R) | Genetski (R) | Goike (R) | Haines (R) | Johnson (R) |
| Knollenberg (R) | McMillin (R) | Moss (R) | Nesbitt (R) |
HOUSE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE
| Haugh (D) | Stallworth (D) |
HOUSE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
House Roll Call 449 on 2011 Senate Bill 8
Comments
1) Re: 2011 Senate Bill 8 (Authorize local government consolidated service authorities ) by bill35 on September 1, 2012I 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
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
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.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
