Senate debates tire-recycling fee; retailers warn of burden while health officials back program

Senators spent much of the floor session debating Substitute Senate Bill 5, a proposal to fund tire recycling through a small fee levied on tire sales and administered at the retail level.

The bill’s sponsor, identified in the transcript as Senator Tempest, presented the measure to address mounting public-health and disposal problems from waste tires. Senator Richard Carling offered an early amendment to impose a 2.5 percent recycling fee collected by retailers; the amendment was distributed in advance and was adopted by the body. Opponents in the floor debate and in committee testimony argued the retail collection model imposes an undue burden on small businesses and could incentivize cross‑border purchases or illegal dumping.

A tire retailer who testified in a Committee of the Whole (identified in the transcript only as a tire dealer) said the proposed fee would be unfair and administratively difficult for small outlets. He told senators his business sold 421 new tires and 139 retreads in a recent period and noted retreads and used tires would not be covered by the proposed user fee, creating what he called “holes in the bucket” that would reduce revenue and increase administrative costs. “This is unfair,” he said, advocating instead that collection occur at vehicle registration.

Harry Gibbons, director of the Salt Lake County Health Department, answered the chamber in favor of the bill and disputed testimony that the measure would produce “skyrocketing administrative costs.” Gibbons said local health departments would oversee reimbursement to recyclers on a per‑ton basis, that burning for energy recovery could count as recycling under the bill’s terms, and that existing local operations could be reimbursed at up to $20 per ton depending on local board approvals.

Several amendments were adopted on the floor, including a technical one replacing references to the Division of Finance with the Division of Environmental Health for administration. Senators debated a later substitute proposal that would shift collection from retail point‑of‑sale to vehicle registration; sponsors and opponents argued over constitutionality, the likely revenue stream and the practical effects on dealers and registrants. The transcript records that a motion to substitute the second substitute bill failed; the floor also struck the enacting clause of a related House substitute bill to embody its content into the Senate substitute. The transcript does not contain an explicit final recorded passage of the underlying substitute bill in the excerpt provided.

Why it matters: The bill seeks to create a dedicated funding stream to address tire disposal and public-health concerns at a time when local governments and private recyclers are still developing markets for recycled product. The choice of collection point — retailer vs. registration — matters for which entities will carry administrative costs and for the bill’s constitutionality and revenue predictability.

What happens next: The transcript ends with procedural handling (motions and adopted amendments) but does not record a final definitive passage of the substitute as of the session excerpted; the bill may require further floor action or house concurrence on amendments before it becomes law.