Title: Estes Funeral Home v. Adkins

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  All the Justices 
ESTES FUNERAL HOME, ET AL. 
v. Record No. 022514  OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     September 12, 2003 
BOB ADKINS, ET AL. 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WISE COUNTY 
Ford C. Quillen, Judge 
 
 
 
This appeal involves an equal protection challenge to 
an ordinance levying fees for solid waste disposal in Wise 
County.  We conclude that the classifications in the 
ordinance do not bear a reasonable relation to a 
legitimate governmental objective and that the record is 
devoid of evidence of reasonableness sufficient to make 
the issue fairly debatable.  Thus, we will reverse the 
judgment of the circuit court upholding the 
constitutionality of the ordinance. 
MATERIAL FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 
 
The Wise County Board of Supervisors (the Board) 
enacted an ordinance levying fees for solid waste 
disposal, Ordinance No. 3-1993, in 1993.1  In January 2001, 
                     
1 The Board adopted Ordinance No. 3-1993 pursuant to 
the authority granted in former Code § 15.1-362.1.  The 
current version of that statute, Code § 15.2-2159(A), 
authorizes certain counties to “levy a fee for the 
disposal of solid waste not to exceed the actual cost 
incurred by the county in procuring, developing, 
maintaining, and improving the landfill and for such 
reserves as may be necessary for capping and closing such 
the Board amended Ordinance No. 3-1993 and adopted a new 
fee schedule in order “to appropriately address concerns 
with increasing amounts of solid waste and more accurately 
reflect the current costs of solid waste disposal in Wise 
County.”2  The new fee schedule set forth in the Ordinance 
establishes the following classifications and rates: 
SOLID WASTE FEE 
Households 
 
$30.00 per year 
 
BUSINESSES 
 
Hospitals  
     $1,200.00-[$]2,000.00 per year 
 
Industries 
     $1,800.00-[$]2,500.00 per year 
 
Professional 
     $100.00-[$]500.00 per year 
 
Institutional      $2,500.00 per year 
 
FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS
 
Fast Food  
     $400.00-$800.00 per year 
 
Convenience Stores  $600.00-$1,200.00 per year 
 
Supermarkets 
     $800.00-$1,200 per year 
 
Other [R]estaurants $400.00-$800.00 per year 
 
OTHER BUSINESSES
 
Large Retail 
 
$400.00-$1,200 per year 
 
                                                            
landfill in the future.”  There is no claim in this case 
that the fees levied exceed the actual solid waste 
disposal costs incurred by Wise County. 
 
2 Ordinance No. 3-1993, as amended in 2001, will be 
referred to in this opinion as “the Ordinance.” 
 
2
Small Retail 
 
$100.00 per year 
 
Small Service  
$100.00 per year 
 
Other 
 
 
$50.00 per year 
 
 
After the Board amended Ordinance No. 3-1993 and 
adopted the new fee schedule, several Wise County 
businesses filed an amended motion for declaratory 
judgment against the County of Wise and the members of the 
Board, alleging that the fee schedule in the Ordinance is 
“ambiguous, uncertain and does not set any true criteria 
for the assessment of the landfill use fees.”3  The 
complainants further alleged that the solid waste disposal 
fee levied as to each one of them was “arbitrary” and 
“made in a discriminatory manner,” and that the Ordinance 
is “unconstitutional” and “void on its face.”  The 
complainants asked the court to declare that the Ordinance 
is “void and of no effect” and that, therefore, they “are 
under no obligation to make payment based upon an 
unconstitutional and void [O]rdinance.” 
 
In response, the defendants moved to dismiss.  They 
claimed that the complainants had failed to produce 
                     
3 The complainants are Estes Funeral Home, G & G Car 
Wash #1, G & G Car Wash #2, Gary’s Accounting & Tax 
Service, Gilliam Funeral Home, Holding Funeral Home, 
Indian Creek Monument Sales, Jerry Baker Funeral Home, 
Johnson Enterprise and Electric, Robo’s Drive In, and Roy 
Green Funeral Home. 
 
3
evidence establishing the Ordinance’s unreasonableness.  
Continuing, the defendants asserted that the levies were 
made using “a uniform methodology based on documentation 
of container size, number of collections, and types of 
waste generated and comparisons of similar businesses.” 
 
At a hearing on the defendants’ motion, the circuit 
court considered the depositions of Shannon C. Scott, who 
served as the acting county administrator for Wise County 
when the Board amended Ordinance No. 3-1993, and Delores 
W. Smith, a deputy commissioner of revenue for Wise 
County.4  Scott first explained the rationale for the 
Board’s decision to adopt a new fee schedule: 
 
 
The Board of Supervisors was very concerned 
about being fair, applying fairness and equity 
among all the community of users and the Board 
of Supervisors determined that the only fair way 
was to attempt to measure how much solid waste 
was being generated and that you should pay 
based on how much waste that you were 
generating. 
 
 
Continuing, Scott testified that the commissioner of 
revenue provided a list of businesses in Wise County and 
using that list, the businesses were categorized.  
According to both Scott and Smith, the factors then used 
to classify the businesses and to establish the solid 
waste disposal fees for the different classifications were 
 
4
the size of containers available to businesses and the 
number of times per week the contents of the containers 
were “pick[ed] up.”  The fee schedule set forth in the 
Ordinance contains a range of fees for each business 
classification, except the classifications of 
“Institutional,” “Small Retail,” “Small Service,” and 
“Other,” all of which have flat fees.  A “LANDFILL USE 
FEE-RATE SCHEDULE” prepared by Smith and attached as an 
exhibit to her deposition establishes specific fees for 
those business classifications in the Ordinance having 
only a range of fees, except for the classifications of 
“Industries” and “Professional.”5
 
Scott acknowledged that a business “throwing out 
cardboard” could be charged the same rate as a restaurant 
“throwing out true refuse and heavy garbage.”  This is so 
because the only known factors were the container sizes 
and the number of “pick-ups” per week.  In fact, Smith 
disavowed that the “contents” of a container played any 
role in determining the rate classifications in the new 
fee schedule. 
                                                            
4 Both Scott and Smith served on a committee that 
drafted the new schedule of fees for solid waste disposal. 
5 The “LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE” is set out in 
an addendum to this opinion. 
 
5
The $30 flat fee adopted for households, which 
applies to occupied dwellings regardless of size of 
container or number of “pick-ups” per week, is the same 
rate set for that classification when Ordinance No. 3-1993 
was first adopted in 1993.  Smith stated that “[i]f you 
lived under a roof and had electricity, you had to pay 
thirty [dollars] whether you generated any garbage at 
all.”  According to Scott, 
 
 
[t]hat figure came up . . . when the 
original ordinance was adopted to retire the 
debt on a 1.1 million dollar loan and when the 
Board of Supervisors approved the 3.1 million 
dollar loan from the Virginia Resources 
Authority, it was not the desire and will of the 
Board to change the residential rate. 
 
 
 
They preferred to leave it at thirty 
dollars and the Minutes would reflect that. 
 
 
The circuit court concluded that the Ordinance 
is “valid and constitutional.”  The court found that 
the defendants, “through depositions and exhibits, 
set forth a methodology for the current fee schedule 
using frequency of container pick-ups and container 
size” and that such methodology is “reasonable and 
thus valid.”  Accordingly, the court granted the 
motion to dismiss.  The complainants appeal from the 
circuit court’s judgment. 
ANALYSIS 
 
6
 
The crux of the complainants’ argument before the 
circuit court and on appeal is that the classifications in 
the new fee schedule set forth in the Ordinance are not 
based on “real differences.”  They contend that the 
distinction between households and businesses as well as 
the classifications among businesses do not, in truth, 
render one class different from another.  Thus, the 
complainants assert that the Ordinance violates the Equal 
Protection Clause. 
 
The defendants, in contrast, assert that the evidence 
presented to the circuit court established the 
reasonableness of the classifications in the Ordinance.  
The broad categories were determined by separating types 
of businesses, and the rates for each classification were 
based on container size and number of “pick-ups” per week.  
According to the defendants, this methodology and the 
resulting classifications “are directly related to the 
purpose of the [O]rdinance which is to collect and to 
recover costs of waste disposal in a manner that 
distributes the costs among the more intense producers of 
waste.” 
 
Our review of the challenged Ordinance is guided by 
well-established principles.  Ordinances such as the one 
at issue in this case are presumed to be valid.  That 
 
7
“presumption governs unless it is overcome by 
unreasonableness apparent on the face of the ordinance or 
by extrinsic evidence which clearly establishes the 
unreasonableness.”  Kisley v. City of Falls Church, 212 
Va. 693, 697, 187 S.E.2d 168, 171 (1972) (citing National 
Linen Serv. Corp. v. Norfolk, 196 Va. 277, 279, 83 S.E.2d 
401, 403 (1954)); accord Board of Directors of the 
Tuckahoe Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Richmond, 257 Va. 110, 
116-17, 510 S.E.2d 238, 241 (1999); Twietmeyer v. City of 
Hampton, 255 Va. 387, 390, 497 S.E.2d 858, 860 (1998); 
Town of Narrows v. Clear-View Cable TV, Inc., 227 Va. 272, 
280, 315 S.E.2d 835, 839-40 (1984). 
 
 
The litigant attacking legislative action 
as unreasonable has the burden to establish 
unreasonableness. . . . [L]egislative action is 
reasonable if the matter in issue is fairly 
debatable.  If the presumptive reasonableness of 
legislative action is challenged by probative 
evidence of unreasonableness, the challenge must 
be met by evidence of reasonableness.  If such 
evidence of reasonableness is sufficient to make 
the issue fairly debatable, the legislative 
action must be sustained; if not, the evidence 
of unreasonableness defeats the presumption and 
the legislative act cannot be sustained. 
 
Town of Narrows, 227 Va. at 280-81, 315 S.E.2d at 840 
(citations omitted); accord Mountain View Limited P’ship 
v. City of Clifton Forge, 256 Va. 304, 314, 504 S.E.2d 
371, 377 (1998); Tidewater Ass’n of Homebuilders, Inc. v. 
City of Virginia Beach, 241 Va. 114, 122, 400 S.E.2d 523, 
 
8
528 (1991).  We also accord a “presumption of correctness” 
to the circuit court’s finding.  Tidewater Ass’n, 241 Va. 
at 122, 400 S.E.2d at 528. 
 
The classifications in the Ordinance and fee schedule 
are not inherently suspect, see Duke v. County of Pulaski, 
219 Va. 428, 432, 247 S.E.2d 824, 826 (1978), and do not 
infringe upon the exercise of a fundamental right.  Nor do 
the complainants contend otherwise.  Thus, those 
classifications are “permissible if the governmental 
objective is ‘legitimate’ and the classification[s] bear[] 
a ‘reasonable’ or ‘substantial’ relation thereto.”  Id. 
(quoting Arlington County v. Richards, 217 Va. 645, 648, 
231 S.E.2d 231, 233, vacated by 434 U.S. 976 (1977)); see 
also Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992).  The 
classifications in the Ordinance “carry with them the same 
presumptions and burdens” as the Ordinance itself and “are 
not in and of themselves discriminatory.”  Kisley, 212 Va. 
at 697, 187 S.E.2d at 171-72; accord Sheek v. City of 
Newport News, 214 Va. 288, 290, 199 S.E.2d 519, 521 
(1973). 
 
The reasonableness of a classification rests on 
“whether it embraces all of the classes to which it 
relates.”  City of Newport News v. Elizabeth City County, 
189 Va. 825, 841, 55 S.E.2d 56, 65 (1949).  The basis of a 
 
9
classification “must have a direct relation to the purpose 
of the law, and must present a distinction which renders 
one class, in truth, distinct or different from another 
class.”  Id.  Stated differently, equal protection 
requires only that “ ‘the classification rest on real and 
not feigned differences, that the distinction have some 
relevance to the purpose for which the classification is 
made, and that the different treatments not be so 
disparate, relative to the difference in classification, 
as to be wholly arbitrary.’ ”  City of Portsmouth v. 
Citizens Trust Co., 216 Va. 695, 698, 222 S.E.2d 532, 534 
(1976) (quoting Walters v. City of St. Louis, 347 U.S. 
231, 237 (1954)); accord Tuckahoe Ass’n, 257 Va. at 116, 
510 S.E.2d at 241. 
 
There is no question that the Board’s desire to levy 
a fair and equitable fee on all users of the solid waste 
disposal facilities in Wise County, to address the 
increasing amounts of solid waste, and to adopt a fee 
schedule that accurately reflects the current costs of 
solid waste disposal is a legitimate governmental 
objective.  However, the complainants argue that the 
classifications in the Ordinance and fee schedule bear a 
no reasonable relation to the legitimate governmental 
objective and that, therefore, the Ordinance violates the 
 
10
Equal Protection Clause.  See Duke, 219 Va. at 434, 247 
S.E.2d at 827.  Based on the record in this case, we agree 
with the complainants. 
 
The first distinction in the Ordinance is between 
households and businesses.  We recognize, as Scott and 
Smith testified, that it is not possible to determine the 
exact amount of solid waste produced by each household and 
business.  However, the only basis articulated for the $30 
yearly flat fee set for the classification of “Households” 
was that the Board simply wanted to leave the rate for 
that classification at the same level that was established 
when Ordinance No. 3-1993 was adopted.  The Board’s 
rationale bears no relation to the governmental objective 
of establishing a fair and equitable fee schedule that is 
based on the size of containers and the number of “pick-
ups” per week, and that reflects the current costs of 
solid waste disposal in Wise County.  Nor does it explain 
why the Board set a flat rate for the classification of 
“Households” as well as for certain business 
classifications, i.e., “Institutional,” “Small Retail,” 
“Small Service,” and “Other,” but established a range of 
fees for the other business classifications.  The 
government “may not rely on a classification whose 
relationship to an asserted goal is so attenuated as to 
 
11
render the distinction arbitrary or irrational.”  City of 
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 
446 (1985). 
 
Our conclusion does not mean that flat fees are per 
se impermissible.  For example, in Mountain View the 
municipal ordinance at issue established refuse collection 
charges by classifying residential and commercial users 
and setting different flat rates for the various 
classifications.  256 Va. at 306, 504 S.E.2d at 372.  The 
rate for single family residences receiving weekly service 
was $13.50 per month.  However, the rate for apartment 
house owners collecting refuse in “dumpsters” and 
receiving weekly or biweekly service was $12.55 per month 
for each residential unit.  Id.  Businesses requiring one 
collection per week were charged $13.50 per month.  Id. at 
307, 504 S.E.2d at 372. 
 
Although the former city manager conceded in Mountain 
View that the cost of refuse collection from businesses 
did not differ from the cost of collecting refuse from 
apartment buildings, we concluded that the evidence of 
reasonableness was sufficient to make the issue fairly 
debatable.  Id. at 313-14, 504 S.E.2d at 377.  The 
municipality presented evidence not only showing that it 
was impractical to weigh refuse at the point of collection 
 
12
but also establishing that the per residential unit rate 
charged to an apartment complex reflected the greater 
volume of waste generated by such a facility.  Id. at 314-
15, 504 S.E.2d at 377.  In contrast, evidence that would 
make the reasonableness of the Ordinance’s distinction 
between households and businesses a fairly debatable issue 
is absent from the record in this case. 
 
The absence of evidence demonstrating the 
reasonableness of the various business classifications and 
the relationship of those classifications to the Board’s 
stated governmental objective is even more glaring.  
Despite repeated assertions by Smith and Scott that the 
business classifications turned on the size of containers 
and number of “pick-ups” per week, that distinction is not 
borne out in either the Ordinance itself or the “LANDFILL 
USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE.”  For example, according to the 
“LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE,” a large retail business 
with a small container of 0-1000 gallons that is picked up 
one to three times per week is charged a fee of $400, a 
“fast food” restaurant with the same size container but 
with one to four “pick-ups” per week is also charged a fee 
of $400, but a convenience store with a 0-1000 gallon 
container and only one “pick-up” per week has to pay $600.  
While the nature of the solid waste generated by a 
 
13
convenience store may place greater demand on the solid 
waste disposal facilities in Wise County than the solid 
waste produced by a large retail business or “fast food” 
restaurant, the record is devoid of any evidence 
establishing such a distinction among these 
classifications or any others.  Instead, Smith 
affirmatively stated that the “contents” of a container 
had no bearing on the classifications in the Ordinance or 
on the fees charged. 
 
Nor is there any evidence explaining the basis for 
classifying certain businesses like households and setting 
a flat fee for those businesses when the classifications 
were supposedly based on size of containers and number of 
“pick-ups.”  In other words, the classifications set forth 
in the Ordinance and the “LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE” 
are not based on distinctions that render “one class, in 
truth, distinct or different from another class.”  City of 
Newport News, 189 Va. at 841, 55 S.E.2d at 65.  The Equal 
Protection Clause “keeps governmental decisionmakers from 
treating differently persons who are in all relevant 
respects alike.”  Nordlinger, 505 U.S. at 10. 
CONCLUSION 
 
In sum, we conclude that the complainants carried 
their burden of establishing the unreasonableness of the 
 
14
classifications in the Ordinance.  That unreasonableness 
not only is apparent on the face of the Ordinance but also 
was clearly shown by extrinsic evidence.  When, as here, 
“the presumptive reasonableness of legislative action is 
challenged by probative evidence of unreasonableness, the 
challenge must be met by evidence of reasonableness . . .  
sufficient to make the issue fairly debatable.”  Town of 
Narrows, 227 Va. at 281, 315 S.E.2d at 840.  The 
defendants failed to present evidence of reasonableness 
sufficient to make the issue fairly debatable.  Thus, the 
Ordinance cannot be sustained.  See id.
 
For these reasons, we will reverse the judgment of 
the circuit court and enter judgment here in favor of the 
complainants. 
Reversed and final judgment. 
 
15
ADDENDUM 
 
COUNTY OF WISE, VA 
LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE 
 
 
I.  CONVENIENCE STORES 
 
  
   
 
  
   SIZE            #PICK-UPS  
 CLASSIFICATION  
  FEE AMOUNT 
               -----------------------------------------------
--------------------------- 
CANS 
   
 
       1-4 CANS            1 PU              
SMALL  
     $600.00 
 
SMALL CONTAINER       2 CUBIC YDS 
       1 PU             
SMALL  
     $600.00 
  
          (0-1000 GALLONS)           3-4 PU           
MEDIUM  
     $800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
                 4+ PU      
     
LARGE             $1,200.00 
 
MEDIUM CONTAINER    4-6 CUBIC YDS      4 CUBIC YDS- 
                 (1000-3000 GALLONS)        1-2 PU    
     
MEDIUM              $800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            3-5 PU           
LARGE          
   $1,200.00 
   
 
 
 
 
            6 CUBIC YDS-  
  
 
 
 
 
                 1 PU      
     
MEDIUM  
 
     $800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            2-5 PU            
LARGE             $1,200.00 
 
LARGE CONTAINER    8-18 CUBIC YDS      8 CUBIC YDS- 
  
           (3001+ GALLONS) 
       1 PU 
   
     
MEDIUM  
     $800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
                 2-5 PU    
     
LARGE             $1,200.00 
  
 
 
 
 
           10+ CUBIC YDS- 
  
 
 
 
 
                 1+ PU 
   
     
LARGE  
   $1,200.00 
 
 
 
16
COUNTY OF WISE, VA 
LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE 
 
II. LARGE RETAIL 
 
  
 
             SIZE 
 
    #PICK-UPS      
CLASSIFICATION 
       FEE AMOUNT 
               -----------------------------------------------
---------------------------     
CANS 
 
 
       1-4 CANS 
       1 PU 
 
     
SMALL  
 
$400.00 
  
 
SMALL CONTAINER       2 CUBIC YDS           1-3 PU    
     
SMALL  
 
$400.00 
                 (0-1000 GALLONS)           4-7 PU            
MEDIUM  
          $600.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            8+ PU 
   
     
LARGE  
   $1,200.00 
 
MEDIUM CONTAINER    4-6 CUBIC YDS      4 CUBIC YDS- 
  
       (1000-3000 GALLONS)           1 PU 
          
SMALL  
 
$400.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            2-3 PU           
MEDIUM  
     $600.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            4+ PU 
          
LARGE             $1,200.00 
  
 
 
 
 
            6 CUBIC YDS- 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            1-3 PU           
MEDIUM   
     $600.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            4+ PU 
         
LARGE    
   $1,200.00 
 
LARGE CONTAINER    8-12 CUBIC YDS           1-2 PU            
MEDIUM  
     $600.00 
  
           (3001+ GALLONS)           3-5 PU          
LARGE             $1,200.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17
COUNTY OF WISE, VA 
 
LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE 
 
III. OTHER RESTAURANTS 
 
  
                  SIZE            #PICK-UPS       
CLASSIFICATION        FEE AMOUNT 
               -----------------------------------------------
---------------------------   
CANS 
 
 
       1-4 CANS 
 
  1 PU 
 
     
SMALL               $400.00 
 
SMALL CONTAINER       2 CUBIC YDS 
 
  1-4 PU          
SMALL  
    $400.00 
                 (0-1000 GALLONS)           5-7 PU           
MEDIUM    
          $600.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            8+ PU 
          
LARGE   
     $800.00 
 
MEDIUM CONTAINER    4-6 CUBIC YD       4 CUBIC YDS- 
  
       (1000-3000 GALLONS)           1-2 PU           
SMALL  
     $400.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            3-4 PU          
MEDIUM   
 
     $600.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
       5+ PU 
          LARGE 
 
 
$800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
            6 CUBIC YDS- 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            1-3 PU            
MEDIUM              $600.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            4+ PU             
LARGE               $800.00 
 
LARGE CONTAINER    8-12 CUBIC YDS           1-2 PU           
MEDIUM           $600.00 
  
           (3001+ GALLONS)           3-5 PU           
LARGE               $800.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18
COUNTY OF WISE, VA 
LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE 
 
IV.  FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS 
 
  
 
             SIZE            #PICK-UPS       
CLASSIFICATION 
       FEE AMOUNT 
               -----------------------------------------------
--------------------------- 
CANS 
 
 
       1-4 CANS 
 
  1 PU 
          
SMALL            $400.00 
 
SMALL CONTAINER       2 CUBIC YDS           1-4 PU            
SMALL               $400.00 
  
          (0-1000 GALLONS)           5-7 PU          
MEDIUM              $600.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            8+ PU 
          
LARGE               $800.00 
 
MEDIUM CONTAINER    4-6 CUBIC YDS      4 CUBIC YDS- 
  
       (1000-3000 GALLONS)           1-2 PU   
     
SMALL  
 
$400.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            3-4 PU           
MEDIUM  
     $600.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            5+ PU 
          
LARGE          $800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
            6 CUBIC YDS- 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            1-3 PU            
SMALL  
   
$600.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            4+ PU 
          
MEDIUM  
     $800.00 
 
LARGE CONTAINER    8-12 CUBIC YDS           1-2 PU           
MEDIUM  
     $600.00 
  
           (3001+ GALLONS) 
       3-5 PU           
LARGE  
 
$800.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
19
COUNTY OF WISE, VA 
LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE 
 
V.  SUPERMARKETS 
 
                         SIZE            #PICK-UPS       
CLASSIFICATION        FEE AMOUNT 
               -----------------------------------------------
--------------------------- 
SMALL CONTAINER     2-6 CUBIC YDS           1-6 PU           
SMALL  
 
$800.00 
  
          (0-3000 GALLONS)           7+ PU 
          
LARGE          $1,200.00 
 
LARGE CONTAINER    8-18 CUBIC YDS      8 CUBIC YDS- 
  
           (3001+ GALLONS)           1-4 PU            
SMALL  
 
$800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            5+ PU            
LARGE  
   $1,200.00 
   
 
  
 
 
           10 CUBIC YDS- 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            1-3 PU          
SMALL  
     $800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            4+ PU            
LARGE    
        $1,200.00 
  
 
 
 
 
           12+ CUBIC YDS- 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            1-2 PU    
     
SMALL  
     $800.00 
  
 
 
 
 
                 3+ PU            
LARGE  
   $1,200.00 
 
 
 
 
 
 
20
COUNTY OF WISE, VA 
LANDFILL USE FEE-RATE SCHEDULE 
 
VI.  HOSPITAL, MEDICAL, ETC. 
 
                         SIZE            #PICK-UPS       
CLASSIFICATION        FEE AMOUNT 
               -----------------------------------------------
--------------------------- 
    
SMALL CONTAINER     2-6 CUBIC YDS           1-6 PU            
SMALL  
   $1,200.00 
                 (0-3000 GALLONS)           7+ PU             
LARGE  
   $2,000.00 
 
LARGE CONTAINER    8-18 CUBIC YDS      8 CUBIC YDS- 
  
           (3001+ GALLONS) 
       1-4 PU           
SMALL  
   $1,200.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            5+ PU             
LARGE  
   $2,000.00 
  
 
 
 
 
           10 CUBIC YDS- 
  
  
 
 
 
 
            1-3 PU            
SMALL  
   $1,200.00 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            4+ PU 
         
LARGE  
   $2,000.00 
  
 
 
 
 
           12+ CUBIC YDS- 
  
 
 
 
 
 
            1-2 PU            
SMALL  
   $1,200.00 
  
 
 
 
 
                 3+ PU             
LARGE   
   $2,000.00 
 
21