Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Solid Waste topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House approves solid-waste fee overhaul after contested debate over cost shifts

Utah House of Representatives · March 1, 2017
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lawmakers passed a measure to let the Division of Solid Waste set an equitable fee schedule covering program costs after debate over a perceived inequity in current fees; the bill passed 42–27 amid questions about cost shifts and interstate commerce implications.

The House on March 1 approved the third substitute of House Bill 115, a proposal to revise how nonhazardous solid-waste program fees are set and to address what the sponsor called a long-standing inequity in fee burdens among facilities.

"That cost is roughly just under $1,800,000," Representative McHale said on the floor, describing the program oversight cost. He said 68 facilities have plans of operation but only 40 pay regulatory fees; "90% of it is being bore by the private industry today," he told colleagues, and used examples where an East Carbon facility pays roughly $725,000 while the Salt Lake Valley landfill pays about $33,000 under current fee rules.

The bill gives the Division of Solid Waste authority to adopt an equitable fee schedule and requires consultation with industry and local government. An amendment added language directing the division to consider fee differentials for transfer stations and to include public notice and hearings as part of setting new fees.

Opponents and questioners raised concerns that the proposal could shift costs from private operators to public taxpayers, and discussed whether certain classification differences or interstate competition might be affected. Representative McHale acknowledged some stakeholders oppose changes and said the bill is not unanimous consensus but intended to broaden the base and lower rates to those currently overburdened.

After extended debate and questions from several members, the House passed the bill on a recorded vote, 42 yea and 27 nay, and referred the bill to the Senate for further consideration.