Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects sponsor's plan to privatize used-tire program; debate centers on fees, abatement fund and rural service
Summary
Senate Bill 606, which would dissolve waste-tire districts and shift disposal to private market actors while creating a waste tire abatement fund, failed in committee after extensive debate over cost, rural service and previous program funding.
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 606 failed to pass the Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee after a lengthy hearing that produced sustained questioning from multiple senators and testimony from private processors, industry groups and county judges.
Sponsor presentation said SB606 would dissolve the four existing waste tire districts, shift a $3 rim-removal fee to a $1.50 up-front tire generator fee, create a waste tire abatement fund with a $5 million trigger for fee reduction, and allow retailers to charge an additional fee to cover legal hauling and disposal. The sponsor said the proposal would move collection into the private market, create competition across districts and provide an abatement fund for orphaned stockpiles.
Opponents, including district program directors and some committee members, warned that the current $3 structure already underfunds processing and that privatization could increase costs for small retailers and rural communities if hauling costs rise; witnesses described situations where processors were reimbursed but tires were stockpiled and businesses were left liable. Private processors and recyclers (Nucor, Liberty Tire, Davis Rubber) testified they could expand capacity and that market competition would reduce prices, while county officials and retailers urged careful transition and abatement funding.
Senators highlighted recent history: a prior near-term change in statute, a temporary patch, a later small transfer of funds and the need to ensure processing capacity and enforcement. After public testimony and discussion the committee voted; the motion to pass failed and the bill did not advance.
