SEMCOG
Southeast Michigan Council Of Governments

SEMCOG goes to Lansing

| legislation, transportation

Bill Anderson

Bill Anderson

Every budget, every project, begins with revenue. Bill’s posts will focus on local government revenue issues across the SEMCOG region and state. Also look for a few insights on how legislation coming out of Lansing may impact your community.

Other posts by

On Tuesday, news releases were hitting my email box indicating that Governor Snyder had declared that negotiations on transportation funding were at an impasse. At 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, I was at the state capitol with SEMCOG Executive Director, Kathleen Lomako, and seven local elected officials. We had 14 meetings scheduled for the day with key legislators regarding transportation funding.

Michigan Capitol

Frankly, the day was an emotional rollercoaster. Probably the best term to express the emotion I saw at the Capitol that day was frustration. At some points it was frustration of legislators with their counterparts of the other party, and in many cases frustration was with members of their own party. The one shining light for the day is that they all understand the problem. As one frustrated legislator looked at the materials SEMCOG gathered for the meeting he stated, “I don’t want to look at that, I know the issue. Now let’s talk about what needs to be done to get an agreement on a solution.” I couldn’t argue with that.

Our meeting with the Senate Majority Leader Meekhof was upbeat, despite the negative news released just 24 hours earlier. He wanted a solution; he felt that discussions were nearing a solid agreement. I left that meeting thinking, maybe this is closer than what the media was reporting.

Meekhof
SEMCOG leadership meets with Michigan Senate Majority Leader Arlan Meekhof

After that, I was in a meeting with another key legislator. He was adamant that he could not accept a key issue that was being proposed. Of course, at first glance one might suppose that this was a Democrat showing concern over a Republican plan; however, in this case it was a Republican expressing concerns with provisions being promoted by other Republicans.

Unfortunately, this was not a singular instance of differing viewpoints. Each legislator I talked with had some variation of what needed to be done to craft a solution to the transportation funding issue. The sheer number of variables seems to be bogging down the negotiations.

Pscholka
L to r: Macomb County ISD Board of Education Trustee Donald Hubler, Wayne County Commissioner Raymond Basham (14),Macomb County Commissioner Kathy Vosburg (8), State Rep. Al Pscholka (79), SEMCOG Executive Director Kathleen Lomako, Huntington Woods Commissioner Jeffrey Jenks

Most legislation in Lansing is enacted by following a few simple scenarios. Ninety percent of the bills are enacted with almost universal acceptance. Then there are the major battles between the parties where legislators are expected to vote in lock step with their leaders. We all know about those battles. Transportation funding does not follow either of these typical patterns.

The legislative process is dependent on a single premise: ask a question that can be answered with a “yes” or a “no.” The legislative process hates multiple-choice questions. Here are the questions currently being considered within the context of a transportation funding plan:

Should we add $1.2 billion to our road funding?
  • The overwhelming majority have coalesced behind this figure. Some may not support this figure based on where the money is derived.

Should $800 million of the $1.2 billion come from a combination of increased gas taxes and registration fees, with the remainder coming from existing state revenues?

  • This is the consensus. However, many Republicans want more money to come from existing state resources; some want it all to come from existing state resources. Many Democrats are concerned that too much money is being diverted from existing state resources, which endangers other significant state programs. This is a tightrope issue; one misstep and it all collapses.

McCready
L to r: Kathleen Lomako, State Representative Mike McCready (40), Jeffrey Jenks, Kathy Vosburg, Raymond Basham, Donald Hubler

The big problem is that this is not the end of the questions on this issue.

Should the gas tax and vehicle registration fee increases be accompanied by a cut in income taxes?

  • Democrats who are concerned about too much money being diverted out of other state programs become even more concerned with future reductions in revenue growth.

What type of income tax cuts should occur?

  • Should it be a reduced tax rate, standard deduction increase, more homestead property tax credits, or exempt retirement income from taxes? Democrats generally oppose the rate reduction and prefer more targeted approaches found in the other options…if they agree with a tax cut at all.

Should transportation funding be tied to the prevailing wage debate or paying for health care costs or other significant state issues?

  • These are issues that have been part of the discussions at one time or another.

Any of these issues can result in a no vote on a transportation funding solution. Don’t forget there are also issues related to transit funding and distribution of funds. The frustration of many is that there are too many variables. Just like Proposal 1, the solution may collapse under its own weight.

The best message to Lansing from all of us: if you are going to solve this problem, JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE! Stick to the main issue and let us start fixing our transportation system.

Jacobsen
L to r: Jeffrey Jenks, Kathy Vosburg, Raymond Basham, Kathleen Lomako, State Representative Brad Jacobsen (46), Donald Hubler

Bill Anderson spent 30 years working with the Michigan Legislature in various capacities prior to joining SEMCOG’s staff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *