62-CV-18-3583 Fi

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Peter K. Butler, Court File No. 

Case Type: Other/ Miscellaneous
The Honorable Thomas Gilligan

Plaintiff,
vs.


City of Saint Paul, Minnesota,

Defendant.

 

The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Thomas 
of Ramsey County District Court, on August 27, 2018 pursuant to Defendant?s Motion to Dismiss
and Plaintiff?s Motion for Summary Judgment. Peter K. Butler, pro re Plaintiff, appeared and
represented himself. Megan D. Hafner, Assistant City Attorney, appeared on behalf of Defendant
City of Saint Paul.

Based upon files, memoranda, af?davits, and proceedings herein, this Court hereby ORDERS

that Defendant?s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Dated: - ,4 . 
f7 Ci?/Z?J?fll L7: 2075

  

 


Thom illiga?f
Judge District Court

led in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/14/2018 3:26 PM

62-CV-18-3583 Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
9/14/2018 3:26 PM

MEMORANDUM

On May 21, 2018, Plaintiff Peter K. Butler (?Butler?) ?led this action against Defendant City
of St. Paul (?the City?). Although Butler did not articulate a discrete cause of action, the essence of
his claim appears to be that the prospective pricing system for solid waste collection in the City of
St. Paul violates Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3a. In his request for relief, Butler ?respectfully
requests the District Court to order [the City] to comply with Minn. Stat. 115A.93, Subd. 3a and
amend its pricing system before October 1, 2018 so that a 35-gallon cart with every-other?week
collection as the lowest cost per gallon of any cart siZe and collection frequency.?

On June 7, 2018, the City moved to dismiss Butler?s Complaint under Minn. R. Civ. P.
1202(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The City contends that: 1) it
did comply with Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3a as a matter of law; and 2) Butler lacks standing to
sue because he has not alleged any injury and the subject statute does not create a private cause of
action for enforcement.

Butler responded to the City?s motion on August 11, 2018 and filed what he characterized as
a ?Motion for Summary Judgment.? Butler explained in greater detail the basis for his contention
that the City had not complied with Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3a. Butler also contends, among
other things, that he has standing, because he contends that under the City?s pricing system, he will
pay an extra $169.44 annually once the City?s new waste collection plan gets underway. Finally, he
suggests that the Minnesota Declaratory Judgment Act provides him with an opportunity to enforce
the City?s compliance with Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3a for himself and others similarly situated.

In a reply filed August 20, 2018, the City contended, among other things, that there is no
legal grounds for Butler?s claimed relief, the Minnesota Declaratory judgment Act does not create a
cause of action which does not otherwise exist, and that Butler cannot seek redress on behalf of

others similarly situated.

62-CV-18-3583 Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
9/14/2018 3:26 PM

The court heard oral argument from Butler and the City on August 27, 2018 and took the
matter under advisement.

The City has implemented ?organized collection? for solid waste within Saint Paul under
what is commonly known as the Waste Management Act. Minn. Stat. Minn. Stat. 
115A.94. Under the Waste Management Act, ??Organized collection? means a system for collecting
solid waste in which a speci?ed collector, or a member of an organization of collectors, is authorized
to collect from a de?ned geographic service area or areas in some or all of the solid waste that is
released by generators for collection.? Minn. Stat. 115A.94.

On _]uly 26, 2017, ?the Saint Paul City Council passed Resolution RES 17?203 to implement
an organized solid waste collection program for its residents pursuant to MN Statute 115A.94 in
order to ensure that all residents have consistency of service and pricing, to reduce truck traf?c, and
to reduce See Residential Solid Waste, Yard Waste and Bulky Waste Collection
Agreement (the ?Collection Agreement?), p. 1. On November 14, 2017, the City reached an
agreement with St. Paul Haulers, LLC (?the Consortium?), a consortium of residential solid waste
collectors licensed to do business in Saint Paul, regarding an organized collection system. Id. The
Consortium agreed, among other things, to collect solid waste generated by the residents of Saint
Paul.

According to the City, this solid waste collection program ?is a new coordinated garbage
collection system where each street/ alley has one designated residential garbage hauler, and prices
and services are consistent across St. Paul. This program, which will begin October 1, 2018, will also
work hand?in?hand with the citywide recycling program to support Saint Paul?s longer?term vision
for reducing waste.? The Consortium agreed to offer four levels
of ?Residential Trash Collection Services,? which included collection of: 1) a 30?38 gallon trash cart

with every other week service; 2) a 30-38 gallon trash cart with weekly service; 3) a 60-68 gallon trash

62-CV-18-3583 Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
9/14/2018 3:26 PM

cart with weekly service; and 4) a 90?98 gallon trash cart with weekly service. The Collection
Agreement, Ex. 4a. The base cost in dollars per unit per month for the four levels of ?Residential
Trash Collection Services? are: 1) $11.06 for a 35 gallon trash cart with every other week service; 2)
$13.28 for a 35 gallon trash cart with weekly service; 3) $18.17 for a 64 gallon trash cart with weekly
service; and 4) $19.47 for a 95 gallon trash cart with weekly service. Id. The base price in dollars per
unit per month for the four levels of ?Residential Trash Collection Services? are: 1) $20.28 for a 35
gallon trash cart (approximately 2?3 kitchen-size bags) with every other week service; 2) $23.44 for a
35 gallon trash cart (approximately 2-3 kitchen?size bags) with weekly service; 3) $32.03 for a 64
gallon trash cart (approximately 4?5 kitchen?size bags) with weekly service; and 4) $34.15 for a 96I
gallon trash cart (approximately 5?7 kitchen?size bags) with weekly service.

it 1' 1px;: \xv'wwage.

Butler contends that, as part of this solid waste collection program, 78,000 residential property
owners in Saint Paul were required to select a cart size and collection frequency byJune 1, 2018. Butler
is a resident of Saint Paul. On May 14, 2018, Butler chose a 35 gallon trash cart, with collection every
other week, for $20.28 per month.

Under Minn. Stat. ?[t]he waste management goal of the state is to foster an
integrated waste management system in a manner appropriate to the characteristics of the waste stream
and thereby protect the state?s land, air, water, and other natural resources and the public health.? The
primary waste management practice under the Waste Management Act is ?waste reduction and reuse.?
Minn. Stat. ?Waste reduction. . .means an activity that prevents generation of
waste. . ., including: (4) changing procurement, consumption, or waste generation habits to result in

smaller quantities. . .of waste generated.? Minn. Stat. 115A.03, subd. 36b(4).

 

1 The Collection Agreement references a 95 gallon cart, but the City?s website references a 96 gallon cart. The
discrepancy is not signi?cant for the purpose of this court?s analysis.

3

62-CV-18-3583 Fi

Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3 provides that a ?licensing authority shall require licensees to
impose charges for collection of mixed municipal solid waste that increase with the volume or weight
of the waste collected.? This provision effectively provides a licensing authority, such as the City, with
a choice of having its licensees impose charges for solid waste collection which increase either for the
volume of waste collected or the weight of waste collected. If the licensing authority chooses to
implement a pricing system based upon volume rather than weight, then Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd.
3a applies: licensing authority that requires a pricing system based on volume instead of weight
under subdivision 3 shall determine a base unit size for an average small quantity household generator
and establish, or require the licensee to establish, a multiple unit pricing system that ensures that
amounts of waste generated in excess of the base unit amount are priced higher than the base unit

?7

price. The City elected to base its pricing system on volume instead of weight, hence the parties
agree that the ultimate resolution of this matter turns upon an interpretation of Minn. Stat. 115A.93,
subd. 3a.

Butler contends that the City did not comply with the mandates of Minn. Stat. 115A.93,
subd. 3a, because the City?s pricing system ?fails to charge higher prices for waste generated above the
base unit amount on a per gallon cost basis.? In other words, Butler contends that in order to establish
a pricing system which complies with Subdivision 3a, the price must be calculated on a per?gallon cost
basis. According to Butler: 35?gallon cart collected every other week for $20.28 per month costs
$0.27 per gallon per collection ($20.28 2.2 collections per month 35 gallons)? whereas 95?gallon
cart collected every week for $34.15 per month costs $0.08 per gallon per collection 
collections per month 95 gallons).? Accordingly, Butler argues that the pricing system fails to charge
higher prices for waste generated above the base unit amount as required by Subdivision 3a because

?[t]he smallest waste?collection option costs $0.27 per gallon per collection while the largest option

costs $0.08 per gallon per collection.?

led in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/14/2018 3:26 PM

62-CV-18-3583 Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
9/14/2018 3:26 PM

Butler also contends that, since he is a resident of Saint Paul, who has chosen the smallest
volume and frequency of solid waste collection, he is being overcharged according to his review of
the Waste Management Act and has standing to sue on behalf of others similarly situated. Initially, it
appeared that he would be satis?ed if this court ordered the City to change its pricing system to re?ect
his methodology; however, it appears that he now contends that he has been damaged by what he
believes is a pricing system which violates Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3a. In addition, although he
did not provide a legal basis for his lawsuit in his Complaint, Butler now contends that he may bring
this action under Minn. Stat. 555.01, et seq., the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

The City contends that its pricing system is fully compliant with Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd.
3a. The City set a price for its small 35 gallon base unit (either $20.28 per bi?weekly collection or
$23.44 per weekly collection). It also established higher prices for medium and large carts ($32.03 and
$34.15 respectively), each of which had greater volumes to contain amounts of solid waste that
exceeded 35 gallons. The City argues that Butler?s per gallon pricing methodology adds language to
Subdivision 3a which are not contained within its plain language. The City also contends that Butler
has no standing to sue the City and that the Waste Management Act does not create a private cause
of action for Butler or others. Finally, the City contends that there is no legal authority for the court
to set solid waste pricing or award damages.

This motion originally came before the court as a motion to dismiss filed by the City. In
considering this motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under
Minn. R. Civ. P. the question before this court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally
sufficient claim for relief. See Hebert 12. Cig?y g?le?ij/ Lakes; 744 226, 229 (Minn. 2008). This
court must consider all facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe all reasonable inferences in
favor of the non?moving party. Bridal) v. Lakew'l/e Motor Exprm?, Inn, 663 550, 553 (Minn.

2003). However, this court may consider matters outside the pleadings if the pleadings refer to or rely

62-CV-18-3583 .
FII

ed in District Court
State of Minnesota

9/14/2018 3:26 PM

on the outside matters. In re Hemepz'n Count] 7986 Raj/cling Ling, 540 494, 497 (Minn. 1995).
The City has attached documents such as pages from its website and the Residential Solid Waste, Yard
Waste and Bulky Waste Collection Agreement. Those documents are referenced in the Complaint
and Butler did not object to consideration of them in connection with this motion. Accordingly, the
court will consider those documents, without converting the City?s motion into a motion for summary
judgment.2

In the ordinary circumstance, this court would initially address the threshold questions of
whether Butler has standing to sue and whether he has a private cause of action for himself or others
under the Waste Management Act. Here, however, since the matter can be resolved by going to the
heart of the matter, the court will only address whether Butler?s substantive contention states a cause
of action upon which relief can be granted.

The Waste Management Act provides a straightforward directive to licensing authorities such
as the City impose charges for collection of solid waste which increase with the volume or weight
of the waste collected. Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3. If a licensing authority chooses to impose
charges for the collection of solid waste which increase with the volume of the weight of the waste
collected, the Waste Management Act provides an additional straightforward directive to licensing
authorities such as the City 1) determine a base unit size for an average small quantity household
generator; and 2) establish a multiple unit pricing system which ensures that amounts of waste
generated in excess of the base unit amount are priced higher than the base unit price.

3

The City chose a 35 gallon container as its ?base unit size.? It set the price of the 35 gallon
container, which holds approximately 2?3 ?kitchen?size bags.? While the record here is silent

regarding the analysis which resulted in the selection of the 35 gallon container as the ?base unit size,?

 

2 Although Butler filed a ?Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and in Support of Motion for
Summary judgment,? the purported motion for summary judgment was neither timely, nor properly supported. In any
event, any such motion is mooted by the court?s ruling on the City?s motion to dismiss.

6

 Fi

the City made its selection. It established a base level price, which according to the Collection

Agreement, factored in ?[t]he cost to each [Residential Dwelling Unit] by the Consortium

Member for providing Base Level Services: Trash Collection Costs, which is further divided into the

fuel portion and non?fuel portion. Bulky Base Costs. Billing Costs. Disposal Costs.? The

City determined that the base unit cost for the 35 gallon container was either $11.06 or $13.28 per
month, depending on the frequency of collection. The base unit price for the 35 gallon container was
either $20.28 or $23.44 per month, depending on the frequency of collection. The City has also
offered two other larger container sizes, a 64 gallon container which holds approximately 4?5 ?kitchen?
size bags? or a 96 gallon container which holds approximately 5?7 ?kitchen?size bags.? The City
established a pricing system for these larger containers, which increase as the volume of the containers
increase: 64 gallon container with a cost of $18.17 per month and a price of $32.03 per month; and
96 gallon container with a cost of $19.47 per month and a price of $34.15 per month.

The City: 1) established a base unit size; 2) established a multiple unit pricing system; and 3)
provided residents with a choice between a container which could hold 2?3 ?kitchen?size? bags at the
lowest price and a container which could hold 5?7 ?kitchen?size? bags at the highest price.
Accordingly, this pricing system ensures that amounts of waste generated in excess of 35 gallons are
priced higher than the base unit price and complies with Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3a.

In support of his argument that the pricing system chosen by the City does not comply with
Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3a, Butler contends that a pricing system based on volume should be
calculated on a per?gallon basis rather than upon container size. He contends that this court should
reference dictionary definitions for terms which are unde?ned in the Waste Management Act and that
those definitions support his position. He contends that his per?gallon methodology results in

proportional price increases as the container volume increases. So, for example, rather than a nominal

led in District Court
State of Minnesota
9/14/2018 3:26 PM

62-CV-18-3583

Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota

9/14/2018 3:26 PM

increase in price between the 35 gallon container collected bi?weekly ($20.28 per month) and the 96
gallon container collected weekly ($34.15 per month), his pricing methodology would result in pricing
for the 96 gallon container at 2.7 times the price of the 35 gallon container.

Presumably, the City could have chosen to make a determination that its base unit size would
be calculated on a per-gallon basis. It also could have made the pricing differences proportional
among the various container sizes which it offered for collection. However, there is no reading of the
plain language of Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd. 3a, which would require the City to have done so. See
Homart Dew. Co. 12. Count} g?Henanin, 538 907, 911 (Minn.1995) (stating that if a statute is free
from ambiguity, courts look only at a statute's plain meaning); Tuma Commim'aner qumn. Sea, 386
702, 706 (Minn. 1986) (stating that if a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court may not
attempt to construe or interpret it, but must ?give effect to the statute's plain meaning?); Graffiti,
639 56, 61 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (when an ordinance is clear and unambiguous, the trial court
is not to look beyond the plain meaning). Here, it seems reasonable and consistent with the
Subdivision to calculate the ?base unit size? on the volume of the smallest container, rather than on
an incremental measurement of the volume of the smallest container. See Minn. Stat. 115A.93, subd.
3a (establishing a size based on ?an average small quantity household generator? which suggests an
aggregated volume). The Subdivision also does not mandate proportionality. It simply requires an
increase in price so that amounts of waste generated in excess of the base unit amount are priced
higher than the base unit price.

This court has no reason to doubt the accuracy of the results of Butler?s per?gallon
methodology. Butler may also have a point that, under his methodology, he is paying more per?gallon
for solid waste collection bi?weekly in a 35 gallon container than a resident who chose to use a 96

gallon container collected weekly. However, just because the City has chosen to establish a volume

62-CV-18-3583 Filed in District Court

State of Minnesota
9/14/2018 3:26 PM

pricing system based on container size, rather than by price per-gallon, does not mean that it has not
complied with the Waste Management Act.
For these reasons, Butler?s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

TAG