As the Senate continues to struggle to lock down the 32 votes necessary to pass the two-way revenue deal Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson struck with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Gov. David Paterson has taken matters into his own hands, submitting a revised revenue bill to the Legislature.

The Legislature, whose members aren’t even in town, and haven’t been since they departed in advance of the July 4th weekend with the revenue bill only half passed (by the Assembly), has refused to accept the governor’s bill.

Paterson spokesman Morgan Hook’s statement on that appears after the jump.

Unsurprisingly, the governor’s bill features an FMAP contingency plan – the lack of which in the legislative plan Paterson cited as the motivation behind his vetoes – and an amended version of the SUNY empowerment plan, which Silver has made clear he doesn’t think should be included in any budget bills.

“The Legislature has failed in its constitutional duty to pass a balanced budget,” Paterson said. “I will, once again, provide it with an option that not only generates enough revenue to balance the budget, but also includes critical policy initiatives that should be addressed.”

“My plan also provides a responsible solution to the very real possibility that full FMAP funding will not be provided to New York. I call upon the Legislature to take up my revised revenue bill and put an end to the budget uncertainty.”

The governor’s new suggestion for the SUNY empowerment plan is that is allow differential tuition for certain doctoral campuses at a maximum of 7 percent, annual general tuition increases at a maximum of 4 percent, and increase the TAP ceiling starting in State Fiscal Year 2011-12 to $5,000 plus 60 percent of the difference between $5,000 and the maximum resident undergraduate SUNY/CUNY tuition.

The Senate Democrats quietly introduced a stand-alone bill that would establish a SUNY empowerment pilot program at four schools: Binghamton, Albany, Buffalo and Stony Brook.

They also introduced a stand-alone FMAP contingency bill that would give the governor less power over the cash – should it come from Congress – and any cuts that might have to be made if it doesn’t, than he had initially proposed.

Also in the governor’s revised revenue bill is a property tax cap – again, no surprise, since Paterson issued a statement earlier today praising New Jersey for getting a cap deal and calling on Albany lawmakers to follow suit.

Specifically, Paterson’s proposed cap would, according to his press release:

“Establish a school district and local government property tax levy cap that would limit tax levy growth to the lesser of four percent or 120 percent of the annual increase in the consumer price index. The tax cap would apply to all school districts other than the ‘Big Five,’ and to all counties, cities (other than New York City), towns, villages, special districts and fire districts.”

Paterson is also proposing a three-year moratorium new unfunded legislative mandates on local governments and school districts.

Senate Democratic spokesman Austin Shafran e-mailed over this response:

“We need a negotiated agreement to resolve the budget, not another un-negotiated press release.”

Paterson spokesman Morgan Hook said:

“Once again, the Governor’s proposed legislation to balance the budget lies on the third floor of the State capitol, refused by the Legislature.”

“Governor Paterson’s bill includes a property tax cap, a plan to make the State’s colleges and universities the best in the nation, and a responsible measure to address the possibility that the State will not get full FMAP funding. These are not controversial measures and they deserve full and immediate consideration by the Legislature.

“Governor Paterson carefully reviews every bill delivered to his desk and treats each piece of legislation with the consideration and respect it deserves. It is unfortunate that the Legislature doesn’t consider his legislation to be worthy of equal treatment.

“Is there any other state capitol in the nation where the Legislature refuses to accept legislation from the Governor, or is this the latest example of Albany’s famous dysfunction?”