LB36A is the appropriation bill tied to Legislative Bill 36, providing funding from the Waste Reduction and Recycling Incentive Fund to the Department of Environment and Energy. The money is designated for Program 513 to help carry out the provisions of LB36, which appears to be the underlying policy bill the appropriation supports. The bill authorizes spending for both fiscal years referenced in the act and caps total expenditures for permanent and temporary salaries and per diems from the appropriated funds.
In practical terms, LB36A does not create a new regulatory program on its own; instead, it supplies the funding needed to implement the related substantive legislation. It directs state resources to the environmental agency responsible for administering waste reduction and recycling initiatives, and it limits how much of the appropriation may be used for personnel costs. As an appropriation measure, its effect is to enable implementation of LB36 by ensuring the department has access to dedicated funding.
Impact
LB36A amends state appropriations law by allocating money from the Waste Reduction and Recycling Incentive Fund to the Department of Environment and Energy for Program 513. It affects state budgeting and the administration of environmental and recycling-related programs, while also imposing a spending limit on salaries and per diems paid from the appropriation. The bill’s legal impact is therefore fiscal and administrative rather than regulatory, supporting the execution of the underlying LB36 provisions.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It advanced unanimously out of one stage with a 35-0 vote and then passed final reading with only one dissenting vote, 48-1. The lack of committee transcript discussion suggests there was little public controversy or debate around the appropriation itself, which is common for technical funding bills that accompany substantive legislation.
Contention
There is little evidence of major contention in the available record. The only visible opposition was a single no vote on final reading, but no transcript is available to explain the objection. Any disagreement likely related to the broader policy package behind LB36 or to the use of Waste Reduction and Recycling Incentive Fund dollars, rather than to the mechanics of the appropriation language itself.