Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 24, 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

The vote was 88 in favor, 22 opposed and 0 not voting

(House Roll Call 154 at House Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

Rep. Meekhof, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

While I support many programs in this budget, I cannot support it because it is based on numbers we already know are faulty.

We are facing a $1.5 billion budget shortfall next year and a billion dollar shortfall this year, and the problem is growing larger all the time because the state is taking in $5 million-a-day less than expected.

These budgets fail to address our structural budget shortfall. They are bloated well beyond the governor’s recommendation and they fail to include the potential impact of a GM or Chrysler bankruptcy. Bankruptcies in the auto industry will drastically affect the state budget but they haven’t been factored in.

There are many lawmakers who want to take the easy way out by using federal stimulus funds to fill our budget hole, but this is a bad idea because a year or two from now when the money is gone, all we will have to show for it is another budget deficit and more national debt. Stimulus funds must be used to create jobs.

We need to make real reforms now and reduce spending now. If we don’t get our budget mess under control, we can’t do the things we need to do to attract jobs to our state and fix our economy.

Republicans worked to improve this bill by proposing a 5-percent cut to the budget to make sure we are not spending more than we can afford, but this proposal was defeated. Republicans also proposed keeping the federal stimulus funds separate, in order to ensure that funding levels are maintainable after the stimulus funds are gone.

Finally, Republicans asked for an amendment to increase transparency so taxpayers can see how their money is spent, but this too was defeated.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”

Rep. Genetski, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I cannot in good conscience vote for this budget as I fear the State currently does not have the money to cover the expenditures within it.”

Rep. Walsh, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Community colleges play a crucial role in our state’s education system, and I believe they need proper and consistent funding to continue their excellent work.

However, this legislation will do more harm than good for our community colleges as it imposes a tuition cap on community colleges only. The state has significantly lowered community college funding since the early ’80s. Moreover, community colleges are now realizing declining local revenue as home values plummet across the state. The Legislature must respect the need of locally elected community college boards to establish tuition as they deem appropriate, particularly under the aforementioned circumstances, for the continued operation of their respective institutions.

Community colleges consistently raise tuition at a dramatically lower rate than other universities, and for this they should be applauded, not punished.

For these reasons, I cannot support this legislation at present time.”

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.  

 

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.

 

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.