Bruce Clark, et al., v. City of Saint Paul, et al.. St Paul, MN Trash Collection Lawsuit
The St. Paul, MN, city charter allows residents "the right . . . to require ordinances to be submitted to a vote." A referendum can be required by a petition signed by at least eight percent of those who voted in the last election for mayor, if the petition is filed within 45 days after an ordinance is published.
Minn. Stat. 115A.941 requires cities to provide for trash collection, which may be organized collection, city-provided collection, or private collection. Until 2018, St. Paul relied upon open waste collection, meaning that residents contracted with collectors of their choice.
In 2017, after negotiations with a consortium of haulers, the city passed an ordinance calling for organized collection. The council entered into a contract with the consortium, which divided the city up into areas, each serviced by a different hauler. Residents were required to accept service from that hauler. The plan was finally adopted by ordinance on August 22, 2018. Prior contracts were declared "null and void" as of October 1, and the new collection system took effect that date.
On October 16, a group of St. Paul residents submitted a petition to authorize a referendum on the ordinance. The County Elections Office determined that the petition contained the required number of signatures.
The City Council conceded that the petition had the required number of signatures, but refused to call for a referendum. They relied upon an opinion of the City Attorney that the referendum ordinance was preempted by state solid waste statutes. It also argued that the contract was already in place with the consortium of haulers, and that a referendum would be unconstitutional interference with the contract.
Some of the petitioners then sought judicial review in Ramsey County District Court. The District Court agreed that there should be a referendum. It first held that the state statutes regarding trash collection were subject to other provisions of law, such as the referendum provision of the City Charter. There was thus no conflict. It also held that the contract contained provision for events such as the referendum, and was therefore not impaired. The City then appealed and asked for accelerated reveiw by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The high court agreed to take the case.
The city first argued that the referendum provision was preempted by the state statutes regarding trash hauling. But the Supreme Court noted that the state statute allowed for considerable flexibility. And it pointed out that even if the referendum were successful, other ordinances were in place requiring trash collection, and that these ordinances met the city's obligation under the state statute.
The high court next noted that the statute required that cities use "appropriate local control" over the trash process. The city argued that the ordinance in question was its appropriate local control. But the court noted that it could not identify anything in the phrase "appropriate local control" that would exclude the referendum process.
The city next argued that the referendum would be an unconstitutional impairment of contract, since the signed contract was already in place when the ordinance was passed. But the high court pointed out that a successful referendum need not affect the contract. The city conceded that the repeal of the ordinance would not terminate the contract.
The court noted that the city could arguably breach the contract if the referendum were successful. But it distinguished a breach of contract from an unconstitutional impairment of contract.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court. The referendum will appear on the 2019 November ballot.
No. A19-0916 (Minn. Oct. 16, 2019).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Author's Note:I am a resident of St. Paul, and will be voting no at the referendum. Prior to the ordinance, I contracted with a private hauler and received excellent customer service. When the ordinance went into place, my neighborhood was assigned to Waste Management Services. At a higher cost than what I was paying previously, I was assigned a smaller trash cart.
On January 25, 2019, we wheeled out the cart shown here. (The grey cart is the trash. The blue cart is the recycling, which is not at issue.) The lid is not completely closed, and the City's contract with the consortium allows the hauler to add additional fees in such a case. If the lid is open more than a certain amount, then the hauler is allowed to charge $3 for each additional bag. The hauler determined that there were four additional bags, and added $12 to the bill.
I told the hauler that there were not four additional bags and that I refused to pay the $12 fee. Therefore, I paid the normal charge, but did not pay the $12. This fell on deaf ears, and the only response from Waste Management was that the $12 charge would be added to my property taxes.
I requested a hearing, and I appeared at the Legislative Hearing on October 17, 2019 (Case Number RLH TA 19-773). The hearing examiner recommended that the assessment be reduced from $12 to $3. This recommendation will be passed on to the City Council, which will consider it on November 13.
After my victory at the hearing (which took place during normal business hours, meaning most people would need to take a day off from work), I went back to the parking ramp across the street. The parking cost $9.
In my opinion, the ordinance and contract negotiated by the City Council gives unfettered power to a private corporation to take advantage of the taxing power of the city, and allows them to operate with little concern for the consumer. In my opinion, the assessment for "four bags" was arbitrary.
The hauler knew full well that nobody would be dumb enough to appeal a $12 charge, because it obviously cost more for me to appeal than to just pay. I suspect most consumers are smarter than I am, so they just grudgingly pay the $12, knowing that they have no practical way that they can appeal.
In other words, a multi-billion dollar company can get away with arbitrarily adding charges. Today, it's four bags, and tomorrow they can just as easily call it five bags. If the multi-billion dollar company knew that I could take my business elsewhere, then they wouldn't do this. But they know that consumers don't have any real recourse. As long as they have a monopoly, they can get away with this.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case summaries
Copyright 2019, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com
