Prioritization of municipal solid waste facility projects.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: SF0043 Drafter: TH LSO No.: 14LSO-0228 Effective Date: Immediate Enrolled Act No.: SEA0024 Chapter No.: CH0091 Prime Sponsor: Joint Minerals, Business and Economic Development Interim Committee Catch Title: Prioritization of municipal solid waste facility projects. Subject: Identifies projects and amounts for expenditure of funds previously appropriated. Summary/Major Elements: The act establishes a list of projects and amounts for expenditure by the department of environmental quality for purposes of the municipal solid waste cease and transfer program. The act allows the department of environmental quality the ability to change the order of the projects listed to optimize efficiency, based on project readiness or compliance with grant or loan qualifications or conditions, or to address emergency or immediate environmental concerns. The act also requires the department of environmental quality to report to the joint minerals, business and economic development interim committee and the joint appropriations interim committee, not later than October 15 th each year, regarding modification of the prioritized list encompassed in this act. Comments: Report required.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 8, 12:21 AM
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports removing Cheyenne and Casper from the list because they have sufficient resources to address their own waste issues without state aid, which was intended only for smaller communities unable to pay.
S18
Why they voted this way
The speaker argues it is better to remove these two cities now and let them make their case later because there are significant questions that need answering before funding can be considered.
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports the amendment because he believes these large facilities should stand on their own as transfer stations rather than receiving perpetual state subsidies for costs that could be covered by tipping fees from other communities.
Why they voted this way
The speaker argues that large communities like Cheyenne and Casper do not belong on the list because they can afford their own costs, unlike smaller communities facing exorbitant federal requirements.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
6 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
3 stored
Adopted Standing Committee by H09
Adopted 3rd reading by NICHOLAS,P
Adopted Standing Committee by HINES