PROHIBIT MINIMUM STAFFING REQUIREMENTS

Senate Bill 485 as passed by the Senate

Sponsor:  Sen. John Pappageorge 

Senate Bill 486 as passed by the Senate 

Sponsor:  Sen. Arlan Meekhof 

Senate Bill 487 as passed by the Senate 

Sponsor:  Sen. Jack Brandenburg 

Senate Bill 489 as passed by the Senate 

Sponsor:  Sen. Dave Hildenbrand 

Senate Bill 490 as passed by the Senate 

Sponsor:  Sen. Bruce Caswell 

Senate Bill 492 as passed by the Senate

Sponsor:  Sen. Darwin L. Booher

Senate Bill 488 & 491 as passed by the Senate 

Sponsor:  Sen. Dave Robertson

House Committee:  Local, Intergovernmental, and Regional Affairs

Senate Committee:  Local Government and Elections

Complete to 6-27-11

A SUMMARY OF SENATE BILLS 485 - 492 AS PASSED BY THE SENATE 6-22-11

The six bills would amend various laws to prohibit a local unit of government from adopting minimum staffing requirements for local unit employees in a charter, ordinance, or resolution.  The bills specify that any such provision in a charter, ordinance or resolution adopted on or after the effective date of this legislation would be void and unenforceable.  Each bill would apply to a different form of local government.

The bills specify that these provisions would not apply to the adoption of a resolution involving a collective bargaining agreement.

Senate Bill 485 (S-1) would amend the Home Rule City Act (MCL 117.5). Senate Bill 486 (S-1) would amend Public Act 156 of 1851, which governs county boards of commissions (MCL 46.11d). Senate Bill 487 (S-1) would amend Public Act 293 of 1966, which governs charter counties (MCL 45.515b). Senate Bill 488 (S-1) would amend Public Act 139 of 1973, which provides for an optional unified form of county government (MCL 45.551 et al). Senate Bill 489 (S-1) would amend the Charter Township Act (MCL 42.1b).  Senate Bill 490 (S-1) would amend Chapter 16 of the Revised Statutes of 1846, which governs townships (MCL 41.3a).  Senate Bill 491 (S-1) would amend the Home Rule Village Act (MCL 78.26).  Senate Bill 492 (S-1) would amend the General Law Village Act (MCL 61.1d).

There is a similar package of bills in the House:  HB 4760-4765 and HB 4767-4768.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As written, the bill would not be expected to have any significant state or local fiscal impact.

                                                                                           Legislative Analyst:   J. Hunault

                                                                                                  Fiscal Analyst:   Jim Stansell

■ This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan House staff for use by House members in their deliberations, and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.