Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waste Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tire-recycling overhaul fails after heated floor debate and conflict-of-interest disclosures
Summary
A proposed rewrite of the state's tire-recycling program (third substitute House Bill 377) failed 36–37 after extended debate over fee structure, landfill restrictions and a sponsor’s disclosed board ties; members warned amendments could advantage middlemen and urged more stakeholder review.
Third Substitute House Bill 377 — a set of amendments to Utah’s tire-recycling program that would change reimbursement rates, collection obligations and disposal rules — was debated at length on the House floor and failed by one vote.
Sponsor remarks and program rationale: The bill’s sponsor reported steady progress under the existing recycling program and proposed raising recycling reimbursements and requiring reprocessors to pick up tires statewide, including from remote dealers. The sponsor argued the amended structure would create incentives for reprocessors to expand pickups and increase the program’s statewide reach.
Conflict-of-interest disclosure and objections: Representative Miller announced a potential conflict of interest, stating he had been asked to serve on the board of a firm engaged in tire recycling and went on record with that disclosure. Other members, including Representative Milner and Representative 12, said they were concerned the amendments could shift subsidies toward middlemen rather than the actual reprocessors and tire dealers. Representative 12 urged postponement to allow more input from tire dealers and processors who shaped the original program.
Key technical debates: Lawmakers debated whether tires should be barred from private landfills or only public landfills; a motion to insert the word "public" before "landfill" (to limit prohibition to public landfills) failed. Members also disputed size- and weight-based fee structures, transportation reimbursement amounts, and whether out-of-state tires received unfair subsidy differentials. Several members asked for data and stakeholder engagement before making final changes.
Final action: The House called the previous question and later voted on the third substitute; the clerk announced 36 affirmative votes and 37 negative votes — HB 377 failed and will be filed.
What's next: Opponents asked for more stakeholder consultation and detailed fee analysis; proponents said the bill will encourage competition and expand recycling coverage if redesigned.
