WPC }1VvrVc}ayb~D)acOqZjHd!yTQKTtNAZ+D2\g{1vzeF] q7¦{X 19V\]hYIW:+, esϊkgO C¤*5yi(tIu.m}]N/7sigVvN8e$nxbhf4ӕjs'iN{/ףuT1Y^dݍpfׇ-',F|CH4Do/sNs:r B6P 9pF7e p!keLijڭ H.xwm!eĎ*p|ڦ𙟂#n UQC%!m70ܣE0hM.nCey E(KDZ}# F UNQ % 0( U: UF UFM  w@ 4  0l 0Dj  UFbUF(< 0DdU: D3 B 0D AO^ 0Ds D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,rAZ"Arial Regular<09Z .Courier New Regular<09Z .Courier New Regular ^E_`Ua PbcDdefӀpD 3|xp((3$ !      0  (#$  0     ߫$   1    X EXXXxXX ExxThechargesarenotauthorizedbysubsection(a)becauseBedford   Countydoesnotownthedisposalfacility;theyarenotauthorizedbysubsection(e)becausetherecorddoesnotshowthatBedfordCountyisahostcountytoa"regional"solidwastedisposalfacility;theyarenotauthorizedbysubsection(f)becausetherecorddoesnotshowtheproceedswereusedforsolidwastecollectionanddisposalorthataregionalsolidwasteplanhadbeenapprovedforBedfordCounty;norarethechargesauthorizedbysubsection(g)becausetherecorddoesnotshowtheproceedswereusedonlyforcollectionanddisposalservicestowhichallresidentsofthecountyhadaccess.ThereisnocontentionthatthechargesareauthorizedpursuanttoTitle5oftheCode.#xx#<09Z .Courier New Regular- -.Courier New Regular  )  (3$ !   XXXXXX   Ad FILEDXX  January27,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular,,,,'dxd d(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  ݛ XXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7XXdd7  ֜a aa 0 aa  aa  aa 8 aa  aa  aa @ aaJanuary27,1997a`   `  0      8      @ FORPUBLICATION   @INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@(ATNASHVILLE̜pppffr*<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP  rpff&o&XXTHECITYOFTULLAHOMA, 8   ( d\  TENNESSEE,ANDTHECITYOF  ( (  SHELBYVILLE,TENNESSEE,ETAL.,  (     0      8   (BedfordChancery PlaintiffsAppellants,  ( tl    0      8   (Hon.CorneliaA.Clark,Judgev.  0      8   (     0      8   (AppealNo.01S019511CH00208pt*>.*jx$S` `@E` 8ttxP S tߛpBEDFORDCOUNTY,TENNESSEE,AND  ( | KATHYK.PRATER,COUNTYCLERK,  ( H@ BEDFORDCOUNTY,TENNESSEE, 8   (     0      8   ( DefendantsAppellees.  (#XX&&o#  #XXXX#XXXX@* ORDER     0 InreactiontotheCourt'sdecisionthatChapter52ofthePrivateActsof1991isinconsistentwithgenerallawswhichmandateacomprehensiveplanforthecontrolofsolidwasteandis,therefore,invalid,BedfordCountyandthecountyclerkhavefiledapetitiontorehear,theCityofTullahoma,etal.havefiledamotionforclarificationregardingtherelieftowhichtheyareentitledandtheAttorneyGeneralandtheCommissionerofEnvironmentandConservationhavefiledamotionseekingpermissiontofileanamicusbriefonthepetitions,allofwhichhavebeen 0&/ grantedandarebeforetheCourtforconsideration.  0 ThepetitionofBedfordCountyandtheclerkinsiststhattheCourterredinfindingthattheprivateact F7>-7 isimpermissibleclasslegislation.TheirreliancefortheirpositionisthefactthattheprivateactwasenactedpriortotheenactmentoftheSolidWasteManagementAct.Priorityofenactmentisnotdeterminative.BedfordCountyandtheclerkdonotdenythevalidityoftheSolidWasteManagementActandtheseveralotherstatuteswhichsetforthauniformstatewidepolicyregardingthedispositionofsolidwaste.Therefore,theonlyissueiswhethertheprivateactisinconsistentwiththegenerallawwithinthemeaningofArticleXI,Section8oftheTennesseeConstitution.Thatissueisdiscussedadequatelyintheopinion.  0 ThepetitionfiledbytheCityofTullahoma,etal.seeksinstructionsforfurtherproceedingsinthetrialcourtonremand.Theonlyissuepresentedonthemotionforsummaryjudgmentwasthevalidityoftheprivateact,andthatistheonlyissuedecidedbytheCourt.Theonlyrelieftowhichtheappellantsareentitledatthisstageoftheproceedingsisthedeclarationthattheprivateactisinvalid.Theappellants'contentionthattheyareentitledtocertainrelief,includingarefundofallfundscollectedpursuanttotheprovisionsoftheprivateact,hasnotbeenconsideredbythetrialcourtandisnotproperlybeforethisCourtforreview.  0 TheamicusbrieffiledbytheAttorneyGeneraland 3)2 theCommissionerdoesnotchallengethedecisionthatchapter52ofthe1991PrivateActsviolatestheequalprotection ,7$-6 provisionsoftheTennesseeConstitution.Itdoes,however,requestclarificationofaninaccuratestatementmadebytheauthoroftheopinion.InthediscussionoftheauthorityoflocalgovernmentstoimposeandcollecttippingfeespursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.68211835,theCourtstated:"Thereisnoprovisioninanystatuteauthorizinglocalgovernmentstoimposeadditionalfees."Acorrectstatementis:"ThereisnoprovisioninanystatuteauthorizingBedfordCountytoimposeadditionalfeesbytheprocedurefollowedinthiscase."However,propertreatmentofthepointcanbestbeaccomplishedbyrevisingtheparagraphinwhichthatstatementismade,asfollows:X EXXX E  0 Theimposition,collection,anduseoffeesbycountiesandmunicipalitiesincidenttothecontrolanddispositionofsolidwasteisauthorizedandregulatedbyTenn.CodeAnn.68211835#X EXXX E#X EXXX E.Eventhoughthepurposesfor h1`'* whichthechargesimposedpursuanttotheprivateactarenotinconsistentwiththepurposesoftheSolidWasteManagementAct,thosechargesmaybeimposedonlyasauthorizedby 7-0 generallaw.Thestatuteprovidesthatonlylocalgovernmentsandsolidwasteauthoritiesmayimposecountyfees,andthen,onlywhenstatutoryconditionsaremet.ThechargesinthiscasewereauthorizedbytheGeneralAssembly,notbbyblocalgovernment,cnordocdanddtheyedonoteconformtothestatutoryconditions.  #  1      ׀ h`    0 Theoriginalopinionfiledinthiscasewillbewithdrawnandarevisedopinion,acopyofwhichisattachedhereto,willbefiled.  0 Costsaretaxedintherevisedopinion.  0      8   ____________________________  0      8   Reid,J.Concur:Birch,C.J.,Drowota,and Anderson,JJ.\\]W]^]jh]^_hite,J.Notparticipating._#X EXXX E #ԛ