City of Tullahoma v. Bedford County
| Decision Date | 27 January 1997 |
| Citation | 938 S.W.2d 408 |
| Parties | The CITY OF TULLAHOMA, Tennessee, and the City of Shelbyville, Tennessee, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BEDFORD COUNTY, Tennessee, and Kathy K. Prater, County Clerk, Bedford County, Tennessee, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
William G. Colvin, Phillip E. Fleenor, Shumacker & Thompson, P.C., Chattanooga, Stephen M. Worsham, Robertson & Worsham, Gregory & Giffin, Tullahoma, James W. Dempster, Marsha Adcock, McMinnville, Robert F. Hazard, Copeland, Conley & Hazard, Tullahoma, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
John T. Bobo, Diane M. Segroves Bobo, Hunt & Bobo, Shelbyville, for Defendants-Appellees.
In reaction to the Court's decision that Chapter 52 of the Private Acts of 1991 is inconsistent with general laws which mandate a comprehensive plan for the control of solid waste and is, therefore, invalid, Bedford County and the county clerk have filed a petition to rehear, the City of Tullahoma, et al. have filed a motion for clarification regarding the relief to which they are entitled and the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Environment and Conservation have filed a motion seeking permission to file an amicus brief on the petitions, all of which have been granted and are before the Court for consideration.
The petition of Bedford County and the clerk insists that the Court erred in finding that the private act is impermissible class legislation. Their reliance for their position is the fact that the private act was enacted prior to the enactment of the Solid Waste Management Act. Priority of enactment is not determinative. Bedford County and the clerk do not deny the validity of the Solid Waste Management Act and the several other statutes which set forth a uniform statewide policy regarding the disposition of solid waste. Therefore, the only issue is whether the private act is inconsistent with the general law within the meaning of Article XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution. That issue is discussed adequately in the opinion.
The petition filed by the City of Tullahoma, et al. seeks instructions for further proceedings in the trial court on remand. The only issue presented on the motion for summary judgment was the validity of the private act, and that is the only issue decided by the Court. The only relief to which the appellants are entitled at this stage of the proceedings is the declaration that the private act is invalid. The appellants' contention that they are entitled to certain relief, including a refund of all funds collected pursuant to the provisions of the private act, has not been considered by the trial court and is not properly before this Court for review.
The amicus brief filed by the Attorney General and the Commissioner does not challenge the decision that chapter 52 of the 1991 Private Acts violates the equal protection provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. It does, however, request clarification of an inaccurate statement made by the author of the opinion. In the discussion of the authority of local governments to impose and collect tipping fees pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 68-211-835, the Court stated: "There is no provision in any statute authorizing local governments to impose additional fees." A correct statement is: "There is no provision in any statute authorizing Bedford County to impose additional fees by the procedure followed in this case." However, proper treatment of the point can best be accomplished by revising the paragraph in which that statement is made, as follows:
The imposition, collection, and use of fees by counties and municipalities incident to the control and disposition of solid waste is authorized and regulated by Tenn.Code Ann. § 68-211-835. Even though the purposes for which the charges imposed pursuant to the private act are not inconsistent with the purposes of the Solid Waste Management Act, those charges may be imposed only as authorized by general law. The statute provides that only local governments and solid waste authorities may impose county fees, and then, only when statutory conditions are met. The charges in this case were authorized by the General Assembly, not by local government, and they do not conform to the statutory conditions. 1
The original opinion filed in this case will be withdrawn and a revised opinion, a copy of which is attached hereto, will be filed.
Costs are taxed in the revised opinion.
/s/ Lyle Reid
WHITE, J., not participating.
This is a suit for declaratory judgment, filed by the City of Tullahoma and the City of Shelbyville against Bedford County, 1 in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment by the trial court that a private act authorizing the Bedford County Commission to impose a tax on the privilege of disposing of solid waste at landfills in Bedford County does not violate the equal protection provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. 2 This Court, upon finding that the private act is inconsistent with general laws which mandate a comprehensive plan for the control of solid waste in the state, is constrained to declare the private act invalid.
The private act under review is Chapter 52 of the Private Acts of 1991. It provides, in part:
An Act relative to the levy of a privilege tax on solid waste disposal at landfills in Bedford County; to provide for its collection and distribution; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act.
....
Section 2. The legislative body of Bedford County, by resolution, is authorized to levy a tax for the privilege of disposing of solid waste at a landfill located in Bedford County at a rate not to exceed ten dollars ($10.00) per ton of solid waste.
Section 3. The proceeds received by the county from the tax shall be retained by the county and deposited into the general fund of the county. This tax shall be used by Bedford County to offset expenses realized by the county resulting from a landfill operation within the county, including, but not limited to, road maintenance and repair, the employment of a qualified inspector or inspectors, vehicles, equipment and test services for the purpose of monitoring and inspecting solid waste disposal in Bedford County.
Bedford County does not own or operate a landfill. The only landfill located in the county is owned and operated by an intervening plaintiff, Sanifill, Inc.
The appellants insist that the private act authorizing the county commission to impose a tax on the privilege of disposing of solid waste in landfills in Bedford County is in conflict with the Solid Waste Management Act and other statutes regulating the disposal of solid waste. 3
The appellees assert that the Court of Appeals properly held that the obligation imposed is a privilege tax authorized by the legislature for the purpose of producing revenue for the county's general fund and, as such, is valid.
This appeal is from the grant of summary judgment for Bedford County and the county clerk, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Rule 56.03 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Here, the facts are not in dispute, the only issues are questions of law. Consequently, the scope of review is de novo with no presumption of correctness. See Tenn.R.App.P. 13(d); Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn.1993).
While the legislature has wide discretion in declaring those privileges which may be subject to taxation for the purpose of raising revenue, Knoxtenn Theatres v. Dance, 186 Tenn. 114, 208 S.W.2d 536, 538 (1948), that discretion does not extend to the imposition of a charge, whether a tax or a fee, which is inconsistent with a mandatory general law unless there is a reasonable basis for the discrimination. In the case of Brentwood Liquors Corp. of Williamson County v. Fox, 496 S.W.2d 454 (Tenn.1973), an act authorizing Williamson County to levy a privilege tax on retail liquor dealers was found to be unconstitutional. That Court's conclusion rested on the lack of a reasonable basis for the additional tax burden:
Chapter 276 of the Private Acts of 1957 recites no reasonable basis, nor can we conceive of any reasonable basis why a particular business in Williamson County should be subject to a different and higher tax than are similar businesses in all the counties of the State.
The record does not show that Bedford County is unique or distinguishable from other counties in any aspect pertinent to the issues in this case, so there is no reasonable basis for excepting it from applicable general law. Consequently, if the private act offends "obligatory" general law or violates "uniform state policy," it is rendered invalid by the constitution. City of Alcoa v. Blount County, 658 S.W.2d 116, 118 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983).
The Court of Appeals held that the "local privilege tax is not in conflict with state mandated 'fees,' which are not in the same category as taxes." Whether the charge for depositing waste in a landfill is a tax or a fee, even though denominated a tax, is determined by its purpose. A tax is a revenue raising measure levied for the purpose of paying the government's general debts and liabilities. Memphis Retail Liquor Dealers' Ass'n v. City of Memphis, 547 S.W.2d 244, 245-46 (Tenn.1977). See City of Knoxville v. Lee, 159 Tenn. 619, 623, 21 S.W.2d 628, 629-30 (1929); 16 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 44.02 (rev.3d ed. 1994). A fee is imposed for the purpose of regulating a specific activity or defraying the cost of providing a service or benefit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Vanderbilt Univ.
...this Court reviews a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo with no presumption of correctness. See City of Tullahoma v. Bedford Cnty. , 938 S.W.2d 408, 412 (Tenn. 1997). In reviewing the trial court's decision, we must view all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the no......
-
Church v Perales
...do not enjoy a presumption of correctness on appeal. See Nelson v. Martin, 958 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tenn. 1997); City of Tullahoma v. Bedford County, 938 S.W.2d 408, 412 (Tenn. 1997). Accordingly, when we review a summary judgment, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the non......
-
Thomas & Associates, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County
...judgments enjoy no presumption of correctness on appeal. Nelson v. Martin, 958 S.W.2d 643, 646 (Tenn. 1997); City of Tullahoma v. Bedford County, 938 S.W.2d 408, 412 (Tenn. 1997). Accordingly, appellate courts must make a fresh determination that the requirements of Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56 have......
-
Bellsouth v. City of Memphis
...specific activity or defraying the cost of providing a service or benefit to the party paying the fee." City of Tullahoma v. Bedford County, 938 S.W.2d 408 (Tenn.1997). * * The City does have the right to be reimbursed for the added cost of repaving more frequently. In Porter, the Court sai......