The executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-2009 Department of Transportation budget. This would appropriate $3.424 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.360 billion, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $1.316 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes), compared to $1.200 billion the previous year.   Official Text and Analysis.

With the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

To replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses the preferences of the House majority on various spending items and funding sources. For more see the House-passed version, and for detail see analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency. Note: the substitute was later reconsidered and replaced by an essentially identical substitute as a means to sweep away a series of Republican amendments without requiring "vulnerable" Democrats to case "no" votes on these that might be used against them in a political campaign.

Require the Department of Transportation to post on a website all its expenditures during a fiscal year, and the purpose of each. Note: Although passed, the amendment was not included in a subsequent substitute version of the bill that was adopted.

To require the state to assume jurisdiction of county road C-56 between US 31 at Charlevoix and M-75 at Boyne city in Charlevoix County.

To waive tolls for U.S. military vehicles on the Mackinac Bridge.

To strip out a provision requiring the state to provide an easement to cetain homeless shelter in Grand Traverse County.

To remove $10 million from the department's information technology line item and shift it grants to local governments for road and bridge projects, to be "designated for mitigation of road surface distress caused by the severity of the 2007-2008 winter season".

To require priority be given in allocating Transportation Economic Development Fund infrastructure subsidies to a firm that makes solar photovoltaic energy components. Note: The sponsor of the amendment has also introduced legislation authorizing potential cash grants to a company in this business in the form of refundable tax credits.

To require that not more than $25,000 be spent to to post on a website all the department's expenditures during a fiscal year, per the Agema amendment.

To earmark $500,000 for enhanced inspection of imported products entering the port of Detroit, with inspections targeted at "product safety standards" and products that are "contaminated, adulterated, harmful, or a threat to border security".

To adopt a substitute version of the bill that is essentially identical to the original substitute before it was amended, as a means to sweep away a series of Republican amendments that were added to the bill. This allows the amendments to be indirectly defeated without requiring "vulnerable" Democrats to cast "no" votes on them that might be used against them in a political campaign.

To strip out a provision requiring the state to provide an easement to cetain homeless shelter in Grand Traverse County.

The House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-2009 Department of Transportation budget. This would appropriate $3.424 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.360 billion, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $1.316 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes), compared to $1.200 billion the previous year.

To give the bill immediate effect.

With the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.

To adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Republican-majority in the Senate on various spending items and programs. Among other things the Senate version contains $167.4 million in federal money also contained in House Bill 5221 and Senate Bill 511 for airport safety and improvement projects. For more details see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency.

To strip out a provision that allows the transportation department to finish a $20 million Detroit River international crossing (DRIC) study, but only on the condition that this does not bind the state in any way to construction or future action on the project. Note: The owner of the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario has proposed building a second bridge with essentially no Michigan taxpayer dollars; the DRIC project would use state money to build a second bridge a short distance away.

To strip out a provision that allows the transportation department to finish a $20 million Detroit River international crossing (DRIC) study, but only on the condition that legislation is enacted permitting "public private partnerships" to pay for the project. Note: The owner of the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario has proposed building a second bridge with essentially no Michigan taxpayer dollars; the DRIC project would use state money to build a second bridge a short distance away.

The Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-2009 Department of Transportation budget. This would appropriate $3.593 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.360 billion, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $1.449 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes), compared to $1.200 billion the previous year. The Senate version contains $167.4 million in federal money also contained in House Bill 5221 and Senate Bill 511 for airport safety and improvement projects.

To concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.

To adopt a compromise version of the 2008-2009 Transportation budget reported by a House-Senate conference committee. This would appropriate $3.612 billion in gross spending, compared to $3.360 billion, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $1.460 billion is federal money (mostly from gas taxes), compared to $1.200 billion the previous year. A controversy over funding for a Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) project held up the budget and was resolved with an agreement to allow the Department of Transportation to proceed with various preliminary activities for a publically-funded bridge including acquisition of some property, but cannot commit the state to actual construction. The controversy is centered on the fact that the owner of the existing Ambassador Bridge is willing to build an additional bridge with little or no taxpayer money.