MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Subcommittee
Seventy-Second Session
April 3, 2003
The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining Subcommittee was called to order at 1:32 p.m., on Thursday, April 3, 2003. Chairman Marcus Conklin presided in Room 3161 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Marcus Conklin, Chairman
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Bob McCleary
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Linda Eissmann, Committee Policy Analyst
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Dave Emme, Chief, Bureau of Waste Management, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Joe Johnson, Government Affairs Consultant, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club
Bob Sack, Division Director, Environmental Health Services Division, Washoe County District Health Department
Helen Foley, Clark County Health District
Randy Robison, City of Mesquite
John Pappageorge, Government Affairs Consulting, representing Republic Services of Southern Nevada
Chairman Conklin:
[Called the meeting of the Subcommittee on A.B. 447 to order. Roll was called.] Just to remind everyone, it looks like a lot of familiar faces here, we’ll operate by the same rules and procedures as any of our standing committees. When you come up to testify, please identify yourself prior to speaking each time. It sounds redundant, but it’s very difficult for us when we get to bantering back and forth to keep track of who’s talking on particular issues. If you haven’t marked yourself here and wanting to speak for or against a particular bill, please do so as soon as possible so I don’t skip anybody. I anticipate that there might be quite a few people speaking, although the list right now is very short.
Assembly Bill 447: Makes various changes concerning management of solid waste. (BDR 40-492)
Chairman Conklin:
To get things started, what I’d like to do is have Mr. Emme from NDEP [Nevada Division of Environmental Protection] come up and begin. Mr. Emme, before you begin, to expedite things, all the members that are on this Subcommittee were here for the original testimony, so I’d ask that you work from additional items you have. It’s my understanding there might be an amendment or two. I’d like to start from that premise. Then if any Committee members have questions regarding previous testimony, they are within their rights to ask those questions.
Dave Emme, Chief, Bureau of Waste Management, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources:
[Introduced himself] We do have some amendments we would like to propose. It’s a fairly substantial list of amendments (Exhibit C), which I have provided to you. With your indulgence, I can run through those, briefly.
Chairman Conklin:
I think that’s terrific. How many copies have you provided to us? I just want to make sure there are some available for the opposition so they can take a look at them.
Dave Emme:
I have provided some to some of the other interested parties in the room, and I have a few extra here as well.
The first thing, and obviously the most controversial with this bill, was the funding provision proposing to impose a fee on waste instead of the fee on tires (Exhibit C). Discretion being the better part of valor, we’re proposing to remove that funding provision and simply retain the existing tire fee. The first amendment is to delete Section 1 of the bill, which is the proposed waste fee. The next section, Section 2, is simply not needed because it references Section 1. The next amendment is to Section 3; it deals with our concept of a certificate of designation process for a proposed new regional disposal site. We’re proposing to take out some language that we don’t think we can enforce, and to also add language that clarifies the definition of “regional disposal site” to indicate it’s a large site we’re talking about.
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Emme, for the record, why don’t you feel you can enforce this? What’s the problem with enforcement in the part you’re taking out?
Dave Emme:
This process requires an applicant for a new regional disposal site to submit an application to us and demonstrate the environmental threats or risks posed by the site, and also identify the benefits of the facility. One of the benefits we have listed there was a demonstration of need for the site to provide additional disposal capacity. It’s unlikely, not being a lawyer, but my knowledge of case law in this area would suggest to us that we would be unable to deny a new regional disposal site simply because it wasn’t providing needed disposal capacity. It would likely be considered to be interfering with interstate commerce. We simply don’t think it would stand up.
[Dave Emme] The other provision we’re taking out, Section 3, subsection 3(e), requires an applicant to demonstrate the contribution of a regional disposal site to the recycling goal of 25 percent. Again, it seems that may be somewhat unreasonable when we’re talking about a landfill site and not really a recycling facility.
Assemblyman Geddes:
I’m a little confused on the subsection 3(e). If we open up a new regional disposal site, and there’s no tracking as far as what’s going in there – one of the big issues that came up during the hearing was there was a lot of dispute over the numbers that are reported to NDEP [Nevada Division of Environmental Protection], or being tracked, or being made available. There seems to be a hard time finding out what the accurate numbers are. Would this hurt that ability or would it not affect that?
Dave Emme:
Assemblyman Geddes, I don’t think that this provision would really have anything to do with that. The numbers that seem to be in dispute are numbers that the reports that recycling facilities submit, reporting the number of tons of recyclable material that are collected. This provision deals with landfills. I don’t think anybody is disputing the relative accuracy of the disposal numbers. Each landfill is required by regulation to submit to us reports on a periodic basis on the number of tons they have taken of material and disposed of in their landfills. That information is reasonably good. Most of the larger landfills have scales, so it’s relatively accurate information.
The next amendment we’re suggesting is in Section 6. That’s simply a reference to Section 1 that we’re taking out. The next amendment is in Section 8, and it deals with the issue we were speaking of for submitting recycling reports. We’re trying to reform that reporting requirement so we can standardize it; and rather than have the reports come through local jurisdiction, they are submitted to the Division of Environmental Protection, to ensure some consistency in collecting that information and calculate a recycle rate.
The amendment we’re proposing has to do with the penalty we had suggested for failure to submit a report. The bill has a $100 penalty, and we suggest raising that to $500 to provide a more meaningful incentive.
Chairman Conklin:
Currently, you don’t have any penalty because these are all new regulations for that violation?
Dave Emme:
That’s correct. Also, I would add that the Washoe County Health District is a jurisdiction that has invested a fair amount of effort in collecting recycling reports. They put an awful lot of time into it and they would like to continue to perform that function. Rather than try to accommodate that by changing this language, simply commit on the record that we would be willing to enter an interlocal agreement with them so they can continue to provide and forward that information to us, if they chose to.
The next proposed amendment is in Section 9. Since we are proposing to take out this new funding mechanism of the waste fee, which was intended to provide a modest amount of new revenue, we’d like to remove Section 9, subsection 3. It’s a provision that allows us to provide grants to local jurisdictions. For a recycling coordinator, since it’s unlikely that money would be available for that, we don’t want to be obligated to provide that grant for that purpose. We’re proposing to remove the requirement that a local jurisdiction appoint a recycling coordinator. It becomes irrelevant.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Mr. Emme, you’re removing the requirement to appoint a local recycling coordinator, but according to testimony last week, both Washoe County and Clark County do have recycling coordinator at this time?
Dave Emme:
My understanding is Washoe County has a recycling coordinator; I’m not aware of a position that is dedicated to that in Clark County. That would be a question to pose to them.
The next provisions we wanted to amend were in Section 11. I apologize; I had some handwritten changes that I’ll read for you. Essentially, what we wanted to do here was remove the proposed new language that’s in bold italics, but make a change by proposing a deletion of Section 11, subsection 5, of statute [NRS] 444A.040. The reason for proposing to do that is – I believe this provision has been in law for a number of years. We’ve had these curbside collection requirements in existence since 1991, I believe. Only recently have a couple of municipalities referred to this subsection and seemed to consider it as a loophole from the requirements of providing curbside services.
I don’t think that was ever the intent of the original recycling law when it was passed in 1991. We proposed to pull out that subsection to clarify that there wasn’t any flexibility intended for municipalities to decide whether or not they can provide these services or not. The law was intended to make those services available.
Chairman Conklin:
For clarification, we’re talking about Section 11, pages 6-8. At the beginning of Section 11, we’re talking about “The board of county commissioners in a county whose population is 100,000 or more, or its designee shall make available for use in that county a program for. . .” Is that what we’re talking about?
Dave Emme:
Yes, and then going over –
Chairman Conklin:
You want Section 11, subsection 5, removed, taking out “ The governing body of a municipality may adopt and carry out. . . “ You want that whole subsection deleted?
Dave Emme:
That’s what we would propose.
Chairman Conklin:
In its place you would put “including provision for collection of recyclables from the public municipal landfills and transfer stations.” (Exhibit C)
Dave Emme:
No, let me clarify that. That’s the handwritten addition. We do want to take out Section 11, subsection 5, in its entirety. The additional language I’m suggesting would be a phrase added onto Section 11, subsection 1(b), on page 7, line 6 or line 8. I would suggest adding that to the end of the sentence on line 8, page 7. The phrase would be: “including provision for collection of recyclables from the public at municipal landfills and transfer stations.”
Let me explain what I had in mind. There was a fair amount of controversy over the proposal in the original bill of extending the requirements for collection of recyclables at curbside to apartments or multi-family dwellings. Our thinking is that there just aren’t adequate services for apartment dwellers to be able to participate in recycling. That was our intention for adding this requirement. To deal with the controversy, we’re proposing to take that requirement for curbside collection out, but add this additional language. It simply makes available drop off locations within a community where people could take their recyclables and drop them off, at a landfill or transfer station. Typically, in larger communities there is only one landfill, but there may be a number of transfer stations that can provide reasonably convenient locations.
Chairman Conklin:
First of all, this may just be a typo, you have in here under Section 11 (Exhibit C), “Amend this section by removing proposed new language. . . subsection 5. . .” There is no new language in Section 11, subsection 5. Is that a mistake? We just want to make sure we understand what you’re trying to get at.
Dave Emme:
There probably should be a comma there, Chairman Conklin, after new language. I would say remove the new language in Section 11 that is in bold and italics. Then in addition to that, we want to propose a deletion of Section 11, subsection 5, as described earlier and propose adding this phrase on page 7 to Section 11, subsection 1(b).
Chairman Conklin:
So I can simplify this and make sure we’re on the same page, you’re proposing to delete everything that’s in this bill under Section 11 that’s new. Correct?
Dave Emme:
Correct.
Chairman Conklin:
Then, adding only the phrase under Section 11, subsection 1(b) that you’ve listed here.
Dave Emme:
Correct. In addition to that, proposing a deletion of Section 11, subsection 5.
Chairman Conklin:
Now we’re all on the same page. Are there any questions from the Committee about these changes?
Dave Emme:
The next section is Section 12. In a similar manner, what I would like to do here is remove all of the proposed new language and retain only the deletion that occurs in Section 12, subsection 1(a). This has to do with the reporting requirement. I want to retain that proposed deletion. As a change, I want to change page 8, line 42, where it says, “once every 6 months” to “once every 3 months.” That would be a proposed change to existing law. All that does is increases the frequency with which a municipality or their franchise has to provide information to the public about the opportunities to recycle. Instead of requiring that every six months, it would require it quarterly. I believe that to the extent the services provided by a franchise to a waste hauler that they bill quarterly and it would be a simple matter to include that information in the billing.
Chairman Conklin:
From a businessperson’s perspective, if you’re doing it semiannually and you’re locked into a contract, and now we have to do it annually, let’s say you have 1 million customers, that’s a lot of paper and money.
Dave Emme:
I appreciate that. We look forward to hearing from the disposal industry as to whether there’s a concern with that. I think it would be a relatively simple thing because they’re sending the mailings anyway.
Chairman Conklin:
It could just be a printing matter.
Dave Emme:
Section 15 is the next proposed amendment (Exhibit C). This is vital for us. Since we’re removing the proposed new waste fee that was in Section 1, we certainly want to retain the existing tire fee that is the source of our funding. We need to take out Section 15, subsection 2. That section, where it says, “NRS 444A.090 is hereby repealed.” We’d like to remove that because originally it was proposing to repeal the tire fee.
Section 16 can be removed because it’s not needed since what we have left, to our thinking, would not present an additional cost to local government. Finally, Section 17 dealt with the effective date and was complex because it was implementing a new fee. Since that’s no longer the case, if these amendments are accepted, we would propose to make the bill effective upon passage.
That’s the extent of the amendments we’ve proposed. I’d like to provide a little information about the tire fee because I know that at the previous hearing there was some discussion about increasing that or changing the allocation formula regarding the tire fee. I’d like to provide a little background since I was around at the time when the fee was originally imposed. That tire fee came about in the 1993 Legislative Session. It came about as part of a bill that imposed requirements on both the Division of Environmental Protection and the Health Districts. Those new requirements were to implement new permitting and enforcement responsibilities at municipal landfills.
There were a set of new landfill regulations that came down and were passed from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], and were intended to be implemented by the states. We had the burden and responsibility, and sought jurisdiction and approval from the EPA to implement these federal regulations. That bill, in 1993, provided that additional authority and responsibility on our jurisdictions. It also provided an additional funding source for our agencies to implement this new responsibility.
[Dave Emme] The allocation recognizes the fact that the Division of Environmental Protection has statewide responsibilities for certain aspects of the program. We have to provide recycling information; we have sole responsibility for that. We have a responsibility for oversight of the two local jurisdictions, the Clark County Health District and Washoe County Health District, to ensure their programs are complying with the federal landfill mandates. Essentially, it recognizes that we have a lot more territory to cover than either Washoe County or Clark County.
If you just look at municipal landfills, which was the intent of this fee structure and of the responsibilities of the bill in 1993, the Washoe County Health District is regulating one municipal landfill; Clark County Health District regulates three; we regulate 16 that are scattered throughout the rest of the state. In terms of ground to cover and responsibilities, the allocation formula that was established and agreed to then dealt fairly with the distribution of responsibilities. With the amendments –
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Emme, so you know, we’re not going to address that fee structure. We’re leaving the tire fee in there as it is now; we’re not going to touch that fee structure.
Dave Emme:
Enough said on that then. I think that’s probably all that I have to offer. The last thing I would suggest is that – we proposed some things here that stirred up more controversy than I thought they would. I think what we probably need to do is perhaps form a recycling advisory committee within the state, and spend a little more time working through this and coming up with some proposals that can draw a wider range of support, perhaps for the next session.
Assemblyman Geddes:
When you talk about the recycling committee, is that something you would want to do within the Division, underneath the Environmental Commission? Do want us to put that in statute? What are your intentions?
Dave Emme:
I’d rather you didn’t put that into statute. It’s something that I offer that I think would be a good idea to build some support around the issue. We’ve had a number of informal discussions. We held a lengthy recycling forum in Clark County a couple of years ago. We’ve had a number of meetings to try to address the issue. Perhaps in our agency – I’d suggest our agency take the lead and form a committee of interested stakeholders and see if we can come up with something that people can embrace.
Chairman Conklin:
Any other questions for Mr. Emme? I’d suggest you hang around for a little while; we might have more questions for you. Mr. Johnson, I have you listed as supporting the bill, but not marked to speak. Did you want to come up? [Mr. Johnson indicated he wanted to speak to the amendments.]
Joe Johnson, Government Affairs Consultant, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club:
[Introduced himself] We would like to go in opposition to the amendment. We think the tipping fee – the part of the amendment that poses to remove the tipping fee and removing the deletion of the tire fee. We would like to see those two provisions retained. I understand the difficulty in getting the bill passed, but I think we’d like to go on record as opposing that. We’d like to be included in any continuing process as a stakeholder. We have active volunteers who are working in the area and certainly would like to participate there.
There’s one other additional problem that was brought to my attention. In at least one instance in Douglas County, a group that does composting of forest products and runs a responsible program, is being charged by the County a tipping fee. I don’t have language to propose to make that correction. I don’t know that this is the particular forum to do that, but I would like to alert you to the problem.
Chairman Conklin:
I think this is probably not the forum, but we appreciate that. A couple of people are marked as neutral, but it doesn’t look as if anyone wants to speak. Mr. Sack and Ms. Foley are next. Mr. Sack, are you with the Health District in Washoe County? [Mr. Sack said he was.]
Bob Sack, Division Director, Environmental Health Services Division, Washoe County District Health Department:
[Introduced himself] Just a straightforward statement supporting the bill with the amendments as proposed by the Division of Environmental Protection. Also, we would be more than happy to participate in any statewide committees or discussions on recycling issues.
Helen Foley, Clark County Health District:
[Introduced herself] With the changes in the bill we are far more supportive than we would have been otherwise. Whether it’s considered today or two years or four years from now, at some point Clark County needs to start being treated more fairly. Only 16.8 percent is Washoe County; 69.5 percent of the population comes from Clark County. Yet, we receive 30 percent of the allocation and Washoe County receives 25 percent of this allocation. We are responsible for our Solid Waste Management Authority; we have to fund it and we do not feel we are receiving the proportional amount based on our population. I wanted to make that very clear for the record. We’re happy with not having the tire fee repealed.
Chairman Conklin:
It’s not part of the bill. We don’t have a fee structure to do anything with that tire fee at this time. Just an “FYI” [for your information], we’re not discussing that issue. It sounds to me like you’re in support of this bill, as amended. Is that correct?
Helen Foley:
The issue is the same statute and could be considered if you wanted to. I just want to make it very clear that Clark County is not being treated fairly, but that doesn’t mean you have to consider it in any way, and I recognize that.
Chairman Conklin:
Unfortunately, this is a Subcommittee and I have very defined instructions as pertains to this particular bill. I welcome you to come to the Committee when we hear this after we make our recommendations on the bill.
Assemblyman Geddes;
Ms. Foley, on that question, you had mentioned the fee is going to support the Solid Waste Management Authority, but not a recycling coordinator. Is that correct?
Helen Foley:
That is correct. From what I understand, Clark County Health District does not have a recycling coordinator.
Assemblyman Geddes:
Mr. Sack, is your fee going towards the recycling coordinator?
Bob Sack:
We use a portion of the money we get for a portion of the recycling coordinator’s salary. But yes, we have a full-time recycling coordinator.
Assemblyman Geddes:
The money that we are pulling out of tires for the purpose of a recycling program – and I agree with the argument of the county percentages being disproportionate, and the Chairman said we’re not going to address that issue – but if one county is using it to actually support recycling and the other is supporting solid waste disposal, I’m not sure I would argue for an increase at that point or a change in the ratio, unless it was dedicated to recycling, as the intent of the bill is that the dollars go to recycling. If it’s going to the Solid Waste Management Authority, I’m not sure it’s being spent properly, currently.
Chairman Conklin:
Ms. Foley, I wasn’t trying to stop you there; I’m trying to keep us on task because we have a lot of ground to cover. If you have an amendment you’d like to offer up under this bill addressing that situation, you certainly have that option. The Committee has the option of whether to hear that amendment, but you could come forward with one, and there may be an opportunity to do so, when this bill comes to Committee. I wasn’t trying to shut you off.
Helen Foley:
We feel there are so few dollars here, we would not want to take money away from Washoe County at this point. If there was an appetite to increase the tire fee, we would feel that maybe Washoe County could remain at their current level, with Clark County, and possibly the State, receiving more if there was an increase, possibly to $1.50 for the tire fee rather than, at the current level, reducing Washoe County’s rate. We aren’t interested in doing that.
Chairman Conklin:
So noted for the record. Any other questions? I have several people against this bill. Is there anyone neutral on this bill who has something to add? Mr. Robison, City of Mesquite, please come forward.
Randy Robison, City of Mesquite:
[Introduced himself] I signed in as neutral, not sure if I wanted to speak until I had seen the amendments. I would like to speak to one other proposed amendment, Section 11, the proposal to delete subsection 5, on page 8, line 17. The City of Mesquite has a population of about 15,000, yet we reside in Clark County, which is, as you know, over that 400,000. Historically, we have used Section 11, subsections 5 and 6, as the necessary flexibility to meet our needs in our city that is a very different situation than the county at large. In effect, our landfill is located in Lincoln County, about seven miles across the line. We use the provisions in Section 11, subsections 5 and 6, to meet the needs of our residents in Mesquite as it relates to recycling. We’d be concerned if that provision was deleted entirely.
Chairman Conklin:
You do understand that there’s, at least as I read this, the amended language would then put the regulatory jurisdiction on your Board of County Commissioners. Correct? Mr. Emme, could you come up for a clarification? As I understand what you’re trying to do, and I could be off base, so please clarify this for me; you’re going to delete the amended language of Section 11, subsection 5. We’re going to delete the proposed language in the printed bill and add in under Section 11, subsection 1(b), at the end of the paragraph, “including provision for collection of recyclables from the public municipal landfills and transfer stations.” That sentence would take Section 11, subsection 5, away and put it under the jurisdiction of the Board of County Commissioners. Is that correct?
Dave Emme:
Yes, that was the proposal. The jurisdictional structure of this particular statute has always been troublesome. It starts with the Board of County Commissioners as being obligated to make services available when the Board of County Commissioners may not have jurisdiction within an incorporated city, like Mesquite. It’s always been unclear as to how the requirements apply in a situation like this with the City of Mesquite. It reads, “The board of county commissioners. . . or its designee. . .” I’ve always considered it that they have authority there and can delegate that to municipalities within their jurisdiction.
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Emme, with your proposed amendment, are you looking to strike Section 11, subsection 6, as well? It gives the municipality the governing right to participate with an adjoining municipality. If we’ve taken it away from the municipality in the first place and given it to the county, do we need Section 11, subsection 6? I’m sorry I’m probably not helping you, Mr. Robison; I think I’m swaying you to the against side, but I’m just trying to get clarification.
Dave Emme:
I think what I was suggesting was to allow the municipality to participate in a program of an adjoining municipality, putting a period at the end, and striking out the “pursuant to subsection 5” phrase.
Chairman Conklin:
I could be wrong, but I think that’s just going to be assumed. If we take out Section 11, subsection 5, it’s just going to be assumed they can do that, providing the Board of County Commissioners for both municipalities think it’s a wonderful thing. Would you agree, Mr. Robison?
Randy Robison:
If you delete Section 11, subsection 5, it’s your opinion then that leaving subsection 6 in – or we don’t need to leave subsection 6 in?
Chairman Conklin:
It would be my opinion, and we can get this clarified; I think Ms. Eissmann and I are both looking at it thinking, if you take out Section 11, subsection 5, you must by necessity take out subsection 6, because we’ve given it to the County Commissioners. Then, if two counties decide Mesquite and Pioche can do something together, I know that’s kind of far away, but then it’s between the County Commissioners and that’s fine. I would assume the municipality would go to the county and say, “This is what we’re going to do, do you have a problem it?” and they’d probably say “no.”
Randy Robison:
I certainly understand the perspective, but you have swayed me to the opposition.
Chairman Conklin:
I figured that was going to happen. For the Committee, before we go any further, the addition that has been proposed for Section 11, subsection 1(b), only applies to 100,000 and above. Therefore, it might be prudent for us to consider leaving in subsections 5 and 6 if we chose to accept the amendment. Leave in subsections 5 and 6 with some sort of stipulation, if it’s necessary and I guess the Legal Division can answer that, for the municipalities in counties where they have 99,999 or fewer people. Does that make sense? [Assemblyman McCleary requested a clarification on his statement.]
Section 11, page 6, starts out saying “in a county. . . 100,000 or more. . .” and then it lists out the provisions. One of the amendments is to add under Section 11, subsection 1(b), certain amendments that are listed in Exhibit C, then, also amending Section 11, is to strike subsection 5. That’s what’s being proposed. What I’m saying is we should probably leave Section 11, subsection 5, in and make it clear that that applies when Section 11, subsection 1, does not, which is 100,000 or fewer, or Section 11, subsection 2.
Now that we have that clarified, I have four people signed in in opposition, but none of them wanting to speak. Somehow, I don’t think that’s right. Mr. Pappageorge, is there anyone else representing Republic that would like to come forward as well? Just you?
John Pappageorge, Government Affairs Consulting, representing Republic Services of Southern Nevada:
[Introduced himself] We did oppose A.B. 447 as written. The amendments sound reasonable. However, since we just received them moments before the hearing, we do need to send them down and have them looked at. And then, if indeed you do pass this out, then we’ll be at the Committee hearing on Monday and if we have hang-ups we’d tell you then. I’d like to reserve that opportunity. I think we can live with what we’re hearing, but not being the expert, I may be wrong.
Chairman Conklin:
Mr. Musgrove? [Indicated he didn’t wish to speak.] Ms. Rucker, did you want to speak against the bill or were your concerns addressed? [She indicated her concerns had been addressed.] Mr. Rosse? [Indicated he didn’t need to speak.] Mr. Johnson? [He had already spoken.] Is there anyone who wants to add testimony for things for which we have not already heard testimony on behalf of for A.B. 447? Hearing none, I’ll bring the bill back to the Subcommittee for a short work session.
For the record, I understand this bill, and this is for your benefit, Mr. Pappageorge, will probably not be on work session on Monday. Probably. It looks like the schedule is pretty packed. We’ll probably hear it in Committee on Wednesday, provided we have a recommendation to take it back to Committee.
Assemblyman Geddes:
During the testimony on Monday I had made an information request to Republic for some recycling statistics. I was just checking to see if we could have that available for the Committee work session.
Chairman Conklin:
I think from what I’m seeing, if everyone is okay with the proposed amendments, with the exception of the City of Mesquite . . . Is there an appetite to amend and do pass with the amendments proposed in addition to the amendments proposed? We need to get clarification on Section 11, subsections 5 and 6. We don’t want to delete it if it’s necessary to keep it in; we want to delete it if it’s not.
ASSEMBLYMAN McCLEARY MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO COMMITTEE AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 447.
Assemblyman McCleary:
I think these are reasonable compromises. I think we ought to keep Section 11, subsection 5, personally.
Chairman Conklin:
If I could restate, are you saying to make a motion to Amend and Do Pass, with these amendments. However, not striking Section 11, subsections 5 and 6; leaving subsections 5 and 6 for when subsections 1 and 2 of Section 11 don’t apply, then we move to subsections 5 and 6.
Assemblyman McCleary:
Since you put it so simply, yes.
Chairman Conklin:
I’m trying my best.
ASSEMBLYMAN GEDDES SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Conklin:
To restate, the motion is to send back to Committee the recommendation that we Amend and Do Pass A.B. 447 with the proposed amendments by the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, with the exception that under Section 11, we keep subsections 5 and 6 as is, with the stipulation that they only apply when subsections 1 and 2 do not.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (Ms. Ohrenschall was absent for the vote.)
Chairman Conklin:
The hearing on A.B. 447 is closed; we are adjourned. [Adjourned at 2:22 p.m.]
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Erin Channell
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, Chairman
DATE: