Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />Waste Systems Corp. v, <br />County of Martin, 985 F.2d <br />1381 (8th Cir. 1993). C & A <br />Carbone, Inc. v, Town of <br />Clarkstown, New York, 511 <br />U.S. 383 (1994). <br />Ben Oehrleins and Sons and <br />Daughter, Inc. v, Hennepin <br />County, 115 F.3d 1372 (8th <br />Cir. 1997). <br />City of Philadelphia v, New <br />Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978). <br />United Haulers Ass 'n, Inc. v, <br />Oneida -Herkimer Solid <br />Waste Management Auth., <br />550 U.S. 330 (2007). <br />LSP Transmission Holdings, <br />LLC v, Sieben, 954 F.3d <br />1018, 1026 (8th Cir. 2020). <br />General Motors Corporation <br />v, Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 306 <br />(1997). <br />Paul's Industrial Garage, <br />Inc. v, Goodhue County, No. <br />21-2614 (8th Cir. 2022). <br />Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.83- <br />115A.86. <br />Minn. Stat. § 115A.83 subd. <br />2. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, <br />subds. 27 and 28. <br />It should not be viewed as a source of revenue and should be in an amount <br />that is close to the direct and indirect costs in issuing the license and <br />regulating the licensed activity. <br />D. Requiring use of specific waste facility <br />Some municipalities have adopted ordinances that regulate the flow of solid <br />waste, for example, by designating where it must be taken for disposal. This <br />is generally done as a tool to achieve solid waste management goals. <br />Flow control ordinances may raise constitutional issues under the Commerce <br />Clause of the United States Constitution if they interfere with the flow of <br />interstate commerce. <br />Courts have recognized a distinction under the Commerce Clause that <br />generally allows municipalities more authority to take actions affecting solid <br />waste if they are acting as a "market participant" instead of as a government <br />regulator. When a municipality is providing for or contracting for waste <br />management services, it generally is thought to be acting as a market <br />participant. <br />The dormant Commerce Clause prohibits states from implementing <br />regulations that favor in -state economic interests by burdening out-of-state <br />competitors. However, courts have found that local governments may <br />provide differential treatment to entities that perform different services in the <br />same market as long as no actual or prospective competition exists. For <br />example, a county ordinance that requires waste be made into refuse -derived <br />fuel (RDF) and transferred to a state -run energy plant instead of contracting <br />an out of state entity that transfers waste to a landfill does not violate the <br />dormant Commerce Clause because the out-of-state entity performs a <br />different service. <br />State law authorizes counties or sanitary districts to adopt a designation <br />ordinance requiring that all solid waste generated within a specific <br />geographic area must be delivered to a specific solid waste facility. A <br />designation ordinance does not apply to the following materials: <br />• Materials separated from solid waste and recovered for reuse in their <br />original form or for use in manufacturing processes. <br />• Materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the <br />capacity in operation at the time that the designation plan is approved by <br />the commissioner of the MPCA. <br />League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 5/6/2024 <br />City Solid Waste Management Page 8 <br />