Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances changes to Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Act with amendments on penalties, tax collection and corrective-action payments
Summary
The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee amended and voted to pass Senate Bill 184 out of committee favorably as amended. The changes affect penalty caps, the agency's authority to collect certain fees, outreach provisions and payment rules for corrective actions under the Kansas Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Act.
The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources on a voice vote advanced Senate Bill 184, as amended, to pass the bill out of committee favorably. Committee members adopted a series of amendments that narrowed the Department of Health and Environment’s authority to collect certain fees, restored limits on civil penalties, clarified outreach and site-seeking language, and restricted payment of corrective-action costs to work authorized in a corrective action plan.
Revisor Lawrence summarized the bill for the committee, stating that Senate Bill 184 "would amend the Kansas dry cleaner environmental response act to modify penalties for violations of the act, the required deductible rate for corrective actions, the environmental surcharge rate, the solvent fee, and the delinquency penalty related to environmental surcharges and solvent fees."
Senator Shane proposed an amendment to strike language that would have given the Kansas Department of Health and Environment broader authority to collect taxes; Senator Titus seconded. Senator Francisco offered a substitute amendment to limit collection authority so that collection would be only for taxes assessed "pursuant to this act." The committee adopted the substitute amendment on a voice vote; the chair said the substitute confined collection authority to taxes related to the dry-cleaner program.
Senator Francisco moved additional amendments addressing civil-penalty language, seeking-out-site language, and corrective-action payment language. On penalties, Francisco said he was restoring original statutory penalty language with a $500 cap and the statutory considerations used when assessing civil penalties; another senator suggested an increase to $1,000 but the committee retained Francisco’s restore-and-clarify approach. On site-seeking and outreach, Francisco said he wanted guardrails so the department could continue outreach and respond to complaints but would not engage in unbounded proactive site-seeking. On corrective actions, the committee adopted language specifying that payment of corrective-action costs is limited to actions "that have received approval by the department" and that are set out in a corrective-action plan.
After consideration of those amendments, Senator Bowser moved that the committee pass SB 184 out of committee favorably as amended; Senator Francisco seconded. The motion carried on a voice vote and the bill advanced from committee.
The transcript shows the committee debated statutory limits and administrative mechanics rather than appropriations. The amendments were pitched as clarifications to limit agency authority and to preserve procedural guardrails for corrective action and fee collection.
