January 13, 2009
Tough Times Cause Lawmakers To Examine "Bottle Bill" Revenue
With economic times remaining tough and Connecticut lawmakers staring at a deficit expected to grow into the billions, politicians are looking for ways to create new revenue streams.
One idea currently being mulled over would allow the state to potentially recoup millions of dollars from un-redeemed bottles and cans sold across the state. Some Connecticut officials say changing the current “bottle bill” would help bring in more money.
Currently, Connecticut’s bottle redemption law requires all consumers who purchase a beer or other malt beverages, soda water, or other carbonated soft drinks to pay a 5-cent deposit fee. According to the current process, a retailer offering such products pays the container distributors 5 cents for every container delivered to the store. Then, the retailer charges the customer 5 cents for each returnable bottle or can purchased. If the customer redeems those bottles and cans at the store, the retailer is required to pay the customer 5 cents for each container returned. The distributor then must reimburse the retailer or redemption center 5 cents for each beer and carbonated soft drink container returned, plus a handling fee of 1. 5 cents on each beer container and 2 cents on each carbonated soft drink container.
In reality, however, only a small percentage of consumers choose to redeem their bottles and cans, meaning the distributors keep all the money made on un-redeemed deposits.
“I would say that I only get about 25 percent, of what I sell, returned,” said Jim Barbato, owner of Southend Spirits in Cheshire. “I think, for most people, it just isn’t enough money to motivate them to return everything. It is easier to just throw things in the recycling bin.”
Barbato, who has owned Southend since 1980, said that he does not keep a detailed account of how many beverage containers are redeemed at his establishment per year, but he does have a certain amount of customers who bring them back on the regular basis.
“I do hear from customers that they bring their returnables to other places, but, for the most part, I would say they aren’t returned,” he stated.
However, Cheshire resident Hans Seitz said he makes it a point to return as many bottles and cans as possible. As proof, he carted two bags full of plastic containers into Everybody’s Market on South Main Street.
“I bring a lot in each week,” admitted Seitz. “Getting the money back is one aspect of it, but I also think it is the best way to recycle.”
When asked about the state’s interest in the revenue stream created by non-returned items, Seitz said he believed it was acceptable that distributors retained “a certain amount” but, he added,“I don’t think they should be allowed to keep everything.”
Unlike Seitz, Carolyn Behr stated that she “rarely buys anything that is returnable.” Behr remarked that “it just isn’t worth it” to return any containers she may have, a sentiment that was expressed by many individuals in town.
Last summer, the state passed a bill requiring all bottle and can distributors in Connecticut to keep a close account of all the money saved on items not returned by customers and report those findings to the state. This new law comes on the heels of an effort in March of 2008 to overhaul the “bottle bill,” which would have required distributors to pay a portion of the money saved to Connecticut. That bill was ultimately defeated in the Connecticut State Senate.
However, the recent downturn in the economy has forced the state to re-examine that potential revenue stream, which, according to studies, could produce significant money.
In 2005, the Connecticut Legislative Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) used data collected from Massachusetts, which has a bottle redemption law that allows the state to keep a portion of un-redeemed deposits, to calculate that distributors make an estimated $20 million from non-returned deposits each year.
In her address to the Connecticut State Legislature last November, Gov. M. Jodi Rell laid out several ideas for helping to stabilize the upcoming budget, including “seizing unclaimed deposits.”
“Instead of the money going to beverage bottling and distribution companies, that money can be more useful to fund programs for education, after-school programs, unemployment, and fuel extension,” said Rell, on her Web site.
However, opponents of any change or expansion of the law suggest that, while it could create a new revenue stream for the state, it would have dire consequences for other businesses in the area.
At a March 2008 meeting of the legislature, representatives from distributors suggested that the money collected from un-redeemed deposits was used to offset other company costs for such things as transportation and handling fees. Removing that source of income would significantly hamper their ability to do business, they argued. Locally, however, Barbato suggested that any change to the law would probably not affect his business in any substantial way. “I don’t see how it could,” said Barbato.
http://www.cheshireherald.com/node/217
