260.247. Annexation or expansion of solid waste services by city, notice to certain private entities, when — city to contract with private entity, duration, terms. — 1. Any city or political subdivision which annexes an area or enters into or expands solid waste collection services into an area where the collection of solid waste is presently being provided by one or more private entities, for commercial or residential services, shall notify the private entity or entities of its intent to provide solid waste collection services in the area by certified mail.
2. A city or political subdivision shall not commence solid waste collection in such area for at least two years from the effective date of the annexation or at least two years from the effective date of the notice that the city or political subdivision intends to enter into the business of solid waste collection or to expand existing solid waste collection services into the area, unless the city or political subdivision contracts with the private entity or entities to continue such services for that period. If for any reason the city or political subdivision does not exercise its option to provide for or contract for the provision of services within an affected area within three years from the effective date of the notice, then the city or political subdivision shall renotify under subsection 1 of this section.
3. If the services to be provided under a contract with the city or political subdivision pursuant to subsection 2 of this section are substantially the same as the services rendered in the area prior to the decision of the city to annex the area or to enter into or expand its solid waste collection services into the area, the amount paid by the city shall be at least equal to the amount the private entity or entities would have received for providing such services during that period.
4. Any private entity or entities which provide collection service in the area which the city or political subdivision has decided to annex or enter into or expand its solid waste collection services into shall make available upon written request by the city not later than thirty days following such request all information in its possession or control which pertains to its activity in the area necessary for the city to determine the nature and scope of the potential contract.
5. The provisions of this section shall apply to private entities that service fifty or more residential accounts or any commercial accounts in the area in question.
Notes of Decisions
Am. Eagle Waste Indus., LLC v. St. Louis Cnty., 379 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. 2012).
· cites it 119× “Following a 2007 amendment to section 260.247, which extended hauler-protective business regulations to counties that wish to provide trash collection, Haulers sued County in 2008 for a declaratory judgment that County must comply with section 260.”
Am. Eagle Waste Indus., LLC v. St. Louis Cnty., 463 S.W.3d 11 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 85× “(‘Waste Management”) (collectively “Haulers”) damages on their declaratory judgment claim arising out of the County’s liability for violating section 260.247 RSMo Supp.2008. 1 Section 260.”
Weber v. St. Louis Cnty., 342 S.W.3d 318 (Mo. 2011).
· cites it 50× “Appellants also claim that the County violated section 260.247, RSMo Supp.2007, which requires cities that replace a private waste collection entity to give the entity two years notice of "its intent to provide solid waste collection services in the area by certified mail.”
State ex rel. Am. Eagle Waste Indus. v. St. Louis Cnty., 272 S.W.3d 336 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 44× “Louis County without providing notice to Haulers, in violation of section 260.247, RSMo. (Supp.2007), and the County argued it had constitutional authority to take precedence over the statute due to its status as a charter county with home rule.”
Christian Disposal, Inc. v. Vill. of Eolia, 895 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 18× “The trial court found Christian was estopped from claiming the protection of the two year notice provision contained in § 260.247 RSMo Supp. 1992 because it failed to comply with Village’s statutory request for information.”
Jim Pepper v. St. Charles Cnty., 517 S.W.3d 590 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “Louis County improperly commenced waste collection throughout the county without providing notice to the private collectors as required by section 260.247 RSMo. (Supp. 2013). 272 S.”
Am. Eagle Waste Indus., LLC v. St. Louis Cnty., No. ED101373 (Mo. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2015).
· cites it 75× “(“Waste Management”) (collectively “Haulers”) damages on their declaratory judgment claim arising out of the County’s liability for violating section 260.247 RSMo Supp. 2008.1 Section 260.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 260.247(2): 1 case
Christian Disposal, Inc. v. Vill. of Eolia, 895 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
“The trial court found Christian was estopped from claiming the protection of the two year notice provision contained in § 260.247 RSMo Supp. 1992 because it failed to comply with Village’s statutory request for information.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 260.247(4): 1 case
Christian Disposal, Inc. v. Vill. of Eolia, 895 S.W.2d 632 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
“The trial court found Christian was estopped from claiming the protection of the two year notice provision contained in § 260.247 RSMo Supp. 1992 because it failed to comply with Village’s statutory request for information.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.