Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 4, 1990 TAG: 9003042214
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAVID M. POOLE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long
Supporters and opponents alike call it ill-conceived, inequitable and ineffectual.
Yet the tax, which would apply to retail and service companies, is still alive as the 1990 General Assembly enters its final week.
The tax, introduced by Sen. William Fears, D-Accomack, has survived and may become law because it has been the only initiative that would help local governments pay for mandated recycling programs and new landfill regulations.
"In a vacuum, Senator Fears' bill went through as the best alternative that was available," said David S. Bailey, a lobbyist with the Environmental Defense Fund.
Fears' proposal is one of more than 40 recycling bills and resolutions introduced in the legislature this year. Many are technical measures that would give local governments added authority - but not money - to comply with recycling goals set by the 1989 General Assembly.
Starting next year, localities will be required to recycle at least 10 percent of the trash that now ends up in landfills. The figure rises to 25 percent in 1995.
"The crunch is going to come when the localities have to face up to the cost of these mandates," said Sen. Joseph Gartlan Jr., D-Fairfax County.
The solid waste tax is expected to raise about $6 million each year, but no one expects it to cure the state's solid-waste headache.
"I don't guess you could operate a landfill in my district with all the money in the fund," said Sen. Madison Marye, D-Shawsville.
Local governments will spend an estimated $2.5 billion to dispose of residential and industrial garbage over the next 20 years, according to Cynthia Bailey, director of the state Department of Waste Management.
The fee proposed by Fears could raise about twice as much money if it were extended to service industries, as the House Finance Committee is expected to propose.
Criticism of Fears' bill doesn't end with questions about whether it would provide a significant amount of state aid for localities.
Some critics say that because the solid-waste tax is based on gross receipts, there is no correlation between the amount of trash a business generates and how much tax the business would pay. The tax would range from $10 to $10,000.
A home-heating-oil company that generates little or no trash could pay as much in taxes as a fast-food outlet producing mountains of trash each day.
"It has nothing to do with the solid-waste problem," said Lindsay Bruce, president of the Virginia Small Business Council.
Fears said he decided on a gross receipts tax after a sliding formula based on the volume of trash generated proved unworkable.
"It's impossible," Fears said. "If some genius could come up with a way for the Tax Department to figure it out, I wouldn't mind it."
Critics also have said it is unfair that service industries - such as lawyers, banks and advertising firms - would not have to pay the solid-waste tax.
"I don't see any reason why my law office should be exempt, because we're . . . generating reams of paper," said House Finance Chairman Richard Cranwell, D-Vinton.
The House Finance Committee plans to consider adding service industries.
Critics' harshest words have been aimed at Fears, who allowed his bill to be written by representatives of the bottling and beverage industry, two major employers in his legislative district.
State Sen. Dudley "Buzz" Emick, D-Fincastle, said the bill would mean "tax relief" for the soft drink and beer industries.
The bill would repeal a tax on the soft drink industry and part of a tax on the beer industry. Although these industries would not pay lower taxes, their tax bills would no longer rise if they increased production, Emick said.
Fears agreed there was "some truth" to Emick's criticism, but said it would be unfair to "double-tax" bottling and beverage companies.
"If you're going to double-tax an industry, they won't support it," he said. "I think it's damn generous of them."
Walter Marston, a Richmond lawyer who represents the bottling industry, said one reason why his clients have gone along with the proposed solid-waste tax is to avoid "industry-specific" legislation such as the bottle bill.
Marye, who has been trying for more than a decade to place deposits on beverage containers, said the proposed waste tax would do nothing to encourage businesses - or individuals - to reduce the volume of trash now being buried at landfills.
"Industry has to assume some of the responsibility for reducing the waste stream," he said.
"What [the waste tax] does is take the monkey off industry's back. Now industry says . . . `we're being taxed - so we can gum up the landfills all we want.' "
In an interview, Fears dismissed criticism of his bill with the wave of his hand. Fears said no other legislator had the courage to do what he has done - to introduce a new tax.
"If we pass the buck, we're going to put a burden on localities," he said.
Gartlan said that despite flaws in the proposed solid-waste tax, Fears deserved credit for getting the General Assembly to acknowledge that localities will need help to comply with recycling goals and new landfill regulations.
"Fears anticipated that and did a good thing," Gartlan said.
by CNB