Checkmark
Legislation watch
     

Search all years.

2009 Senate Bill 252: Authorize one-month “continuation” school aid budget
Introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on February 18, 2009
To provide a “template” or “place holder” for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 School Aid budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.   Official Text and Analysis.
Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2009
Substitute offered in the Senate on September 25, 2009
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that adopts one-month “interim” school aid budget in the event legislators are not able to agree on a full-year budget before Oct. 1, 2009.
The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on September 25, 2009
To make appropriations for a one-month “interim” school aid budget in the event legislators are not able to resolve a large gap between how much they would like to spend and how much taxes, fees, and borrowed money they expect the state to take in during the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2009. This incorporates the spending caps agreed to by House Speaker Andy Dillon and Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, which on an annual basis means a $218 cut in per pupil school aid, or around 3 percent.
Received in the House on September 25, 2009
Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on September 25, 2009
Substitute offered by Rep. George Cushingberry (D) on September 30, 2009
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that appropriates money at the same level as the 2008-2009 budget, despite the fact that projected revenues will not cover that amount.
The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on September 30, 2009
To make appropriations for a one-month “interim” school aid budget in the event legislators are not able to resolve a large gap between how much they would like to spend and how much taxes, fees, and borrowed money they expect the state to take in during the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2009. This appropriates money at the same level as the 2008-2009 budget, despite the fact that projected revenues will not cover that amount.
Received in the Senate on October 1, 2009
Amendment offered by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on October 1, 2009
To replace the $218 per pupil school aid reduction spending level (around 3 percent) originally passed by the Senate, thereby rejecting the higher spending level originally passed by the House.
The amendment passed 21 to 15 in the Senate on October 1, 2009.
    See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
To make appropriations for a one-month “interim” school aid budget for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2009. This rejects the higher spending level approved by the House, and restores the $218 per pupil cut spending rate previously passed by the Senate.
Motion by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R) on October 1, 2009
To give the bill immediate effect, without which the budget will not go into effect until around next spring, essentially killing the bill. A two-thirds majority is required. Witholding immediate effect votes is a tool of the Senate minority for stopping time-sensitive bills that have passed.
The motion failed 21 to 15 in the Senate on October 1, 2009.
    See Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No".
Received in the House on October 1, 2009
Amendment offered by Rep. Terry Brown (D) on October 1, 2009
To remove the $218 per pupil school aid reduction spending level (around 3 percent) in favor of the higher spending level originally passed by the House.
The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on October 1, 2009
To make appropriations for a one-month “interim” school aid budget for the fiscal year that begins on Oct. 1, 2009. This appropriates money at the same level as the 2008-2009 budget, despite the fact that projected revenues will not cover that amount. The higher spending level would require either using more federal "stimulus" money being reserved for next year's budget, or a tax increase. Reportedly, using more stimulus money this year means a $400 per pupil shortfall next year.

Comments