Agenda Packets - 2023/03/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Jump to thumbnail

RELEVANT LINKS: Ben Oehrleins and Sons and Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin County, 115 F.3d 1372 (8th Cir. 1997). City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978). United Haulers Assn, Inc. v Oneida -Herkimer Solid Waste Management Auth., 550 U.S. 330 (2007). LSP Transmission Holdings, LLC v. Sieben, 954 F.3d 1018, 1026 (8th Cir. 2020). General Motors Corporation v. Tracy, 519 U.S. 278, 306 (1997). Paul's Industrial Garage, Inc. v. Goodhue County, No. 21- 2614 (8th Cir. 2022). Minn. Stat. §§ 115A.83- 115A.86. Minn. Stat. § 115A.83. Minn. Stat. § 115A.03, subds. 27 and 28. Flow control ordinances may raise constitutional issues under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution if they interfere with the flow of interstate commerce. Courts have recognized a distinction under the Commerce Clause that generally allows municipalities more authority to take actions affecting solid waste if they are acting as a "market participant" instead of as a government regulator. When a municipality is providing for or contracting for waste management services, it generally is thought to be acting as a market participant. The dormant Commerce Clause prohibits states from implementing regulations that favor in -state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors. However, Courts have found that local governments may provide differential treatment to entities that perform different services in the same market as long as no actual or prospective competition exists. For example, a county ordinance that requires waste be made into refuse -derived fuel (RDF) and transferred to a state -run energy plant instead of contracting an out of state entity that transfers waste to a landfill does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause because the out-of-state entity performs a different service. State law authorizes counties or sanitary districts to adopt a designation ordinance requiring that all solid waste generated within a specific geographic area must be delivered to a specific solid waste facility. A designation ordinance does not apply to the following materials: Materials separated from solid waste and recovered for reuse in their original form or for use in manufacturing processes. Materials that are processed at a resource recovery facility at the capacity in operation at the time that the designation plan is approved by the commissioner of the MPCA. Materials that are separated at a permitted transfer station located within the boundaries of the designating authority for the purpose of recycling the materials if either: (1) the transfer station was in operation on Jan. 1, 1991; or (2) the materials were not being separated for recycling at the designated facility at the time the transfer station began separation of the materials. Recyclable materials that are being recycled, and residuals from recycling if there is at least an 85 percent volume reduction in the solid waste processed at the recycling facility and the residuals are managed as separate waste streams. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: City Solid Waste Management 6/9/2022 Page 8