BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

C & F PACKING

COMPANY, INC.,

vs.

Petitioner,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY and

COUNTY OF LAKE,

Respondents.

Charles Gunnerson

Division of Legal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield,

IL 62794-9276

Paula Wheeler

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188

West Randolph Street

Suite 2001

Chicago, IL 60610

NOTICE OF FILING

Brett Heinrich

Meckler, Bulger & Tilson LLP

123 North Wacker Drive

Suite

1800

Chicago, IL 60606

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that I have today November

t~1

2005,

filed by FedEx Next Day Air

with the Office ofthe Clerk of the Pollution Control Board Appearance of Daniel L.

Jasica and

Victor Filippini for the County of Lake, and the Respondent County of Lake’s Combined Motion

to Dismiss and Objection to

C & F Packing

Company’s Request For Variance,

copies ofwhich

are herewith served upon you.

-T5~NIELL.

JASICA

Assistant State’s Attorney

November 21, 2005

Michael J.

Wailer

State’s Attorney of Lake County

Daniel L.

Jasica

#0623 7373

Assistant State’s Attorney

18 North County Street, 3~

Floor

Waukegan,

IL 60085

(847)377-3050

Victor P.

Fiiippini

Holland & Knight

131

5. Dearborn St.

30th

Floor

Chicago, IL

60603

(312) 263-3600

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

NOy

232005

STATE OF

ILLINO,8

)

Pog

)

PCB

2006-053

~‘°n

Control 3oard

)

(Variance Request)

)

)

)

---

PROOF

OF

SERVICE

I, the undersigned, on oath state that I have served on November

21_,

2005,

the attached

Appearance of Daniel L.

Jasica and

Victor Filippini for the County of Lake, and the Respondent

County of Lake’s Combined Motion to Dismiss

and Objection

to C & F Packing Company’s

Request For Variance, by U.S.

Mail, postage prepaid, upon the following persons:

p

Subscribed

ançl Swor

to before me this

Z~Zi°dayofN1Vtw.W’\__,2005.

JOYCE

1~SOAPES

NOTARY PUBLIC

STATEO~WNOIS

M

Commission Ex

lies

08/16/2008

---

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

C & F

PACKING COMPANY, INC.,

)

Nov2320

Petitioner,

)

‘~‘.‘

E

~p

IL’

I

“Ution Cont,~jAb0IS

vs.

)

‘Board

)

PCB 2006-053

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

(Variance Request)

PROTECTION AGENCY and

)

COUNTY OF LAKE,

)

)

Respondents.

)

APPEARANCE

We hereby enter the appearance of the County of Lake as Respondent in the above

referenced matter and ourselves as attorneys therein.

__________

X~v

~

~r

DANIEL L. JASICA

VICTOR P. FILIPPINI

Assistant State’s Attorney

November

17,

2005

Michael J. Wailer

Victor P. Filippini

State’s Attorney of Lake County

Holland

& Knight

Daniel L. Jasica #06237373

131

S. Dearborn

St.

Assistant State’s Attorney

30th

Floor

18

North County

Street, 3~

Floor

Chicago, IL

60603

Waukegan, IL 60085

(312) 263-3600

(847)377-3050

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

C & F PACKING COMPANY, INC.,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

vs.

)

)

PCB 2006-05 3

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

(Variance

Request)

PROTECTION AGENCY and

)

COUNTY OF LAKE,

)

)

Respondents.

)

RESPONDENT

COUNTY OF LAKE’S COMBINED MOTION

TO DISMISS-A-ND

OBJECTION TO C

&

F PACKING

COMPANY’S REQUEST

FOR VARIANCE

Respondent County of Lake (the “County”), by

and through its attorneys, Lake County

State’s Attorney Michael J.

Wailer and Assistant State’s Attorney Daniel L.

Jasica,

and Victor

Filippini,

Holland & Knight LLP, files this

its combined motion

to dismiss and objection to C &

F Packing Company, Inc.’s (“C &

F Packing”) request for variance (the “Petition”) and, pursuant

to

35111. Admin Code

104.230 and

104.224, would show the Board as follows:

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

C &

F Packing, a commercial meat processing operation that has a telling history of

violating applicable IEPA

statutes and regulations and remains well over four hundred thousand

dollars in arrears in connections fees

owed to the County, asks the Board to compel the County to

serve C & F Packing with expanded sewage

transport services through the County’s

intermediate

interceptor.

C & F Packing incorrectly suggests that the sole

issue that the County, as

an

intermediate sewer owner, may consider when reviewing a permit application is whether “there is

adequate capacity in the Lake County

sewer interceptor pipe to receive the flow from the C

& F

I’,

1

---

Packing facility.”

Petition, p.

3.

However, C & F Packing

ignores the plain language of the

intermediate sewer owner certification which

actually requires

the intermediate sewer owner to

certify that the “sewers to which this project will

be tributary have adequate

reserve

capacity to

transport the wastewater

that will be added by the project without causing

a violation ofthe

Environmental Protection Act

(Emphasis added).

The County,

in refusing to execute

C & F Packing’s

latest permit application, has

concluded that, pursuant to its contract with Lake Villa and applicable

federal state, and

local

law, it has no

such obligation and that

C & F

Packing has absolutely no right to utilize

the

County’s interceptor sewer for expanded sewage flows.

C & F Packing contumaciously filed its

Petition to avoid paying its

connection fees and to compel the County to accept C &

F Packing’s

increased sewage flow in violation of the County’s

existing sewer service contracts.

C

& F

Packing’s attempt

to shirk the basic payment obligations that

all other sewer customers must

abide—and that the County must enforce under federal, state, and local

law--warrants further

elaboration.

A.

The County’s Interceptor and Its Availability to Lake Villa Customers

Under Illinois law, the County has no

authority to

serve customers in incorporated areas,

55

ILCS

5/5-15006, unless such service

is provided by intergovernmental agreement.

55 ILCS

5/5-15010.

The County therefore constructed its interceptor for the Northwest Lake Facilities

Planning Area (the “Northwest

Interceptor”) in the

late

I970s pursuant to a series of

intergovernmental agreements.

See Affidavit of Peter KoIb, ¶12-3, which affidavit is attached to

this Objection

as Exhibit

1

(the “Koib

Aff.”).

One such intergovernmental agreement was with

the Village of Fox Lake (“the Fox Lake/County Agreement”), attached to

this Objection as

2

---

Exhibit

2.

The County

financed the Northwest Interceptor through the issuance of revenue bonds

and grant money that was available under the federal Clean Water Act.

Koib Aff., ¶4.

Under the

terms of the Fox Lake/County

Agreement and the County’s revenue bond obligations,

the County

is required to

collect a connection fee for all new and expanded connections to the Northwest

Interceptor.

Koib Aff.,

¶4; Fox Lake/County Agreement,

§~2(d)(i),3.

In 1991,

the County and the Village ofLake Villa entered

into an

intergovernmental

agreement, pursuant to which the County made available

part of the capacity of the Northwest

Interceptor to

certain Lake Villa customers.’

Consistent with its obligations

under the Fox

Lake/County Agreement and the County’s

revenue bonds? Section

6 of the County/Lake Villa

Agreement requires payment of connection fees for all new user connections to

the Northwest

Interceptor.

The County/Lake

Villa Agreement places limits on the total flows that can be

delivered to

the Northwest Interceptor through the two Lake Villa connection points (11,700 P.E.

and 8,505 PB., respectively).

But physical flow is just one of the elements defining the capacity

reserved for Lake Villa customers under the County/Lake Villa Agreement:

Subject to the conditions in

Section 3(a),

3(b),

3( c), and

3(d) above, and the other

terms conditions and provisions of this Agreement, the County

will hold

itself

available, within the limits of available capacity, to

service Village customers with

sewers on a first come, first served basis

after theproper connectionfen

(as set

forth

herein)

have

beenpaid to

the

County.

County/Lake

Villa Agreement,

§3(e)(emphasis added).

‘Exhibit

A to

the Petition attached the body of the original County/Lake Village

Agreement, but not all the exhibits

thereto. The entire body

ofthe County/Lake Villa Agreement

is attached to this Objection as Exhibits

3, with

the three exhibits thereto attached as Exhibits 3A,

3B, and

3C.

2The Fox Lake/County Agreement is expressly incorporated into the County/Lake Villa

Agreement (see Recitals, pp.

1-2), and the County’s Water and

Sewer System Revenue Bonds are

similarly expressly referenced in

Section 7(a) of the County/Lake

Villa Agreement.

3

---

B.

Conditions for Use of the Northwest Interceptor

C & F

Packing’s facility is located in the Village of Lake Villa,

Illinois, which owns

the

local sewer collection system.

Petition, pp.

1-2.

Because Illinois law

precludes County sewer

service

to C & F Packing or other Lake Villa customers except pursuant

to intergovernmental

agreement,

55

ILCS

5/5-15006,

55 ILCS

5/5-15010, neither C & F

Packing’s facility nor any

other Lake Villa customer can deliver sewage directly or indirectly to the Northwest Interceptor,

except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the County/Lake Villa

Agreement.

As

noted above,

one ofthe explicit conditions on the County’s

obligation to

serve parcels located

within Lake Villa and the Village

Service Area (such as the

C & F

Packing parcel) is the receipt

of payment of proper connection fees to the County.

County/Lake Villa Agreement,

~3(e).

Section

6 of the County/Lake

Villa Agreement sets

forth the proper connection fees to

be

paid to the County and Section

7 of the County/Lake Villa Agreement grants the County power

to

subsequently adjust fees for connecting, directly or indirectly, to

the Northwest Interceptor in

order to

pay for the cost

and maintenance ofthe County’s

interceptor system and

to pay offthe

principal and interest on the County sewer system revenue bonds.

To that end and

per properly-

authorized County ordinance,

since September

1,

1997 the County has charged a connection fee

of $1,800 per residential customer equivalent for all users within the Northwest Service Area,

including all users within the Lake Villa Village Service Area.

See

KoIb Aff,

¶

4.

Ofthe County’s $1,800 connection fee, $1,500

ofthat amount

is required to

be forwarded

by the

County to the regional treatment

authority, Fox Lake, pursuant to

the connection fees provisions

set forth

in Section

3 the Fox Lake/County Agreement, as adjusted.

KoIb Aff,

¶

4.

4

---

C.

C & F Packing’s Connection

Fee Arrearage

Against this backdrop, C & F

Packing constructed its

facility in Lake Villa and

sought its

original

2002 pennit (2002-EN-0089) which authorized C & F Packing to

construct a sewer

connection and discharge 48,000

gpd

in average daily flow into the County’s interceptor and the

Fox Lake Treatment Plant.

Although under the 1991

County/Lake Villa Agreement,

C

&

F

Packing was to

have paid $345,600 in

connection fees to the County prior to

making connection

to the County’s interceptor in conjunction with this original permit, in fact only

$37,800 was paid

to the County

in C & F Packing connection fees.

Koib Aff,

¶

5.

In 2002,

C &

F Packing

sought and obtained a supplemental permit (2002-EN-0089-l) to

construct an upgraded pretreatment system and to increase

its

average daily flow of sewage into

the County

interceptor and Fox Lake Treatment Plant to 69,000 gpd.

No

connection fees were

paid to the County

in conjunction with the supplemental 2002 permit, even though an additional

$151,200 was properly due to the County

under the County/Lake Villa Agreement prior to any

expanded service via the County interceptor.

Kolb Aff,

¶

6.

In early 2005,

C &

F Packing

submitted its

latest supplemental permit application to the

County’s Public Works Department.

In its pending application, C & F Packing seeks to modify

its permit “because the present configuration ofthe pretreatment

system does not

conform to

the

specifications provided

in the supplemental

2002

Construction Permit previously issued to

C &

F Packing.”

See

C & F Packing’s January

11, 2005,

proposed Compliance Commitment

Agreement to the IEPA, attached to Exhibit F to the Petition.

C & F Packing also seeks through

its

latest permit application to increase its

permitted discharge into the County interceptor from

69,000 gpd to

147,000 gpd

in average daily

flow.

The connection fees

associated with this

5

---

further expansion total $561,600

under the County/Lake Villa Agreement.

See

Petition, Exhibit

L; KoIb Aff,

¶

7.

Despite repeated requests for payment or some assurance that payment ofthe long

overdue connection fees would be

forthcoming, C & F Packing and Lake Villa have failed and

refused to pay

or even acknowledge

an intent to pay any ofthe County’s overdue connection fees

associated with the prior permits or to

confirm an intent to pay

any of the connection fees

associated with the proposed expansion.

See

Exhibits K and R to the Petition; KoIb Aff,

¶

8.

C

& F Packing

apparently seeks to utilize the County’s Northwest Interceptor and Fox Lake

Treatment Plant for free, notwithstanding the terms of the

Fox Lake/County and the County/Lake

Villa Agreements.

Such freeloading

violates applicable environmental

laws

(see

Section III.D below), and,

is

contrary to the meaning of “reserve”

capacity.

Importantly,

among the provisions

ofthe

County/Lake Villa

Agreement is the

County’s “General

Sewer Use

Ordinance” (which was

referenced

and attached as Exhibit B to

such agreement;

see

Exhibit 3B).

Section IV(4) of the

General Sewer Use Ordinance

(p.1 1) provides that

“reserve capacity

to adequately and

efficiently

handle the additional

anticipated waste

load” of a prospective user is determined

through the issuance of sewer permits

by the County’s

Superintendent of Public Works.

(Emphasis added.)

Because the determination of“reserve capacity” is dependent on the issuance

of sewer permits, and

sewer permits are only authorized under

the County/Lake Villa Agreement

“after the proper connection fees (as set forth herein) have been paid

(see

County/Lake Villa

Agreement,

§3(e)),

there is no “reserve capacity” in the County’s Northwest Interceptor for C &

F Packing unless and until

it pays

all connection fees that

are due.

Accordingly, the County was

6

---

both correct and fully within

its rights not to

sign the intermediate interceptor certificationon C

& F Packing’s

2005 supplemental permit application.

D.

C

&

F Packing’s Flouting of the IEPA Regulations

To further highlight the absurdity of C & F Packing’s Petition, the Board should consider

C

&

F Packing’s history ofTEPA violations relating to its

Lake Villa facility.

First, when the C

& F Packing facility was still under

construction, C & F Packing was the subject of an

enforcement action

before the PCB, Case No. 03-153, for numerous IEPA violations, including

construction activity not covered by an NPDES permit for storm water, subsequentwater quality

violations and

for connecting sanitary sewers without a permit.

A copy of the complaint and

associated stipulation

and consent decree in that first enforcement action are attaehe&heretoas

Exhibits

4 and 5, respectively.

On February

13, 2002,

C & F Packing was issued a permit (2002-EN-0089) to

construct a

pretreatment

system and to make connection to the sewer system.

However, given the extensive

fats and grease discharge from

C &

F Packing’s

operations, that original pretreatment system was

found to be

inadequate to

meet the treatment authority’s discharge standards.

See

October

5,

2004 memo of Chris Kallis

included in the November

1, 2004 IEPA Notice of Violation

(Petition,

Exhibit E).

Ostensibly to remedy that situation, C

& F Packing sought and obtained a

supplemental permit (2002-EN-0089-1) to upgrade

the on-site wastewater pretreatment system

by adding a 1,900 gallon sump pump tank with two

level control pumps rated at

150 gpm

each,

and a circular

18,000 gallon equalization tank which was then to be diverted via a 275

gallon

pump to a

18,000 gallon dissolved air floatation unit.

7

---

On August

15, 2004,

a sewer manhole directly across the street from the

C &

F Packing

facility overflowed.

The cause of the overflow was determined to

be an excess build-up of

grease adjacent to C &

F Packing’s lateral connection to

Lake Villa’s local

sewer line.

Follow-

up inspection revealed that the overflowed sewage was discharged into a residential subdivision

detention pond that itself flowed into

a wetland.

See

October 5, 2004

memo of Chris

Kallis

included in

the November 1,2004 IEPA Notice ofViolation

(Petition, Exhibit E).

On July

9 and

10,

2004,

the Fox Lake Treatment Plant operators noticed a “slug load” of

grease that they traced back to the C & F

Packing facility.

C &

F Packing confirmed to Fox Lake

that its pre-treatment system had failed and that untreated sewage

was flowing off-site for a

period of up to three days.

A subsequent inspection of the C

& F Packing pre-treatment system

by

IEPA inspectors revealed substantial deviations from the plans C

& F Packing had submitted

and the IEPA had

approved in conjunction with the

2002 supplement

permit (2002-EN-0089-1).

Specifically, the

1,900 gallon sump pump tank with pumps was never installed and the

18,000

gallon dissolved air flotation unit as installed was found to have an

actual capacity of only

1,616

gallons.

See

October 5,2004 memo of Chris Kallis included in the November 1,2004 IEPA

Notice of Violation (Petition,

Exhibit E).

As a result of this

sequence of events in 2004, the Illinois Attorney General’s Office has

initiated a second three-count

enforcement action against

C &

F Packing in Lake County Circuit

Court,

Case No.

05 CH

1725, which action

is currently pending.

See

Petition, Exhibit J.

Suffice

it to

say,

C &

F Packing proves a most unworthy and

“unclean” variance

petitioner.

Moreover, C &

F Packing

neither seeks relief that the Board is empowered to

grant

nor, on the merits,

satisfies the Board’s variance criteria.

8

---

II.

THE

PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED

BECAUSE C & F PACKING

SEEKS RELIEF THAT THE BOARD IS NOT EMPOWERED TO GRANT

—35

Ill. Admin.

Code

104.230

The County has no contractual obligation to provide expanded sewage transport services

to C & F Packing because of the existing violations ofthe County/Lake Villa Agreement.

In the

absence of the County/Lake Villa contract, of course, C &

F Packing has no

rights whatsoever to

utilize the County’s Northwest Interceptor.

55 ILCS

5/5-15006.

Unwilling to pay the connection

fees for the services

rendered by the County and Fox Lake in transporting and treating C & F

Packing’s sewage, C & F Packing turns to the Board for “relief”

But it is not, and has never

been, this Board’s prerogative to

determine whether

and to

what extent a private property owner

has the right to utilize a specific public sewer interceptor.

The question presented under these facts is not whether the County’s interceptor has

physical

capacity to

handle the additional flows

C & F Packing seeks to

discharge into the

County

and Fox Lake systems.

The question that

exists—and the question

C &

F Packing

improperly

seeks to have this Board adjudicate through the variance process—is whether the

County must legally “reserve capacity” in

its interceptor for C & F

Packing’s expansion.

Were it

to grant the requested variance, the Board in

effect would rule that the County must allow C &

F

Packing expanded access to. the County’s Northwest Interceptor—in direct contravention ofthe

governing contract, revenue bonds, and

(as discussed in Section III.D

infra)

environmental

regulations.

Tellingly, C & F Packing provides nothing by way of authority or precedent to

support

the Board interjecting itself into this issue and for good reason—there is

none.

C &

F Packing

repeatedly cites

Hawthorn Realty Group,

Inc v.

Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency and

9

---

Village ofLincolnshire,

1985

Ill. Env.

Lexis

516,

PCB

85-85 (Oct.

10,

1985),

in support

of its

variance request.

But the only similarity between

Hawthorn Group

and the facts

here is that both

involve a variance request relating to

35

Ill. Admin

Code 309.222(b).

The differences, however,

are quite glaring.

First, in

Hawthorn Realty,

the Village of Lincolnshire had withdrawn its objection to the

variance request.

Id.,

at

*

2.

Thus, unlike the instant

case, the intermediate sewer owner did not

oppose the relief sought.

Second, there was no issue

advanced at the

Hawthorn Realty

hearing

as

to whether the property owner had the right to

utilize the intermediate sewer or whether the

intermediate sewer owner had a duty to

accept sewage flow from the petitioner.

Rather, it was

presumed that because Hawthorn had built and paid for the interceptor at issue,

it obviously had

the legal right to utilize the interceptor.

Here, the County’s refusal to execute the intermediate

sewer owner’s certificate

is based on the fact that under the County/Lake Villa Agreement C & F

Packing has no legal right to deliver additional

flows to

the County’s interceptor.

Tellingly, C &

F Packing does not

even attempt

to demonstrate any right to utilize the County’s Northwest

Interceptor.

Rather,

C &

F Packing baldly asserts that the County

(and the Board) may not even

consider this

threshold issue when reviewing the permit

application.

Under C &

F Packing’s logic,

any property owner anywhere in Lake County (or

elsewhere) could present the County with an

intermediate sewer owner’s certificate and, unless

the County’s Northwest Interceptor lacked physical capacity to

accept the proposed flow, the

County would be obligated to

sign the permit.

Such

a result flies in the

face ofthe County’s

limited contractual

obligations to

serve

municipal

sewer users

and is patently

erroneous.

Moreover,

such a result would make a mockery of facilities planning and would sidestep an

10

---

important element of environmental regulations under the Clean Water Act and Illinois

Environmental Protection Act.

See generally

70

ILCS

1705/33.5(a)(delegation offacility

planning

reviews for Lake County to the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission).

Third,

in

Hawthorn Realty,

Hawthorn had paid for and constructed the intermediary

sewer in connection with Phase I of its

development and then had deeded those sewer

improvements to Lincolnshire.

Id.,

at

*

2-3.

When Hawthorn later sought to

develop Phase II of

its development in the unincorporated county and needed to utilize the interceptor it had built and

paid for, Lincolnshire refused to

sign the intermediary sewer certification for “its” sewer unless

Hawthorn agreed to annex the Phase II development into Lincolnshire.

The Board, in

granting a

variance, seemed to focus on the patent injustice of allowing Lincolnshire to

in effect

prevent

Hawthorn’s access

to an

intermediate sewer line that Hawthorne itself had built and paid for.

The Board also keyed in

on the fact that the specific condition of approval imposed

by

Lincolnshire—annexation— was unrelated to the capacity of the interceptor, the terms of its use, or

any other sanitary sewer considerations.

Id.,

at

*

3, 7~

Here, by

contrast, C & F Packing obviously did not construct or pay for the construction

of the intermediary

sewer it now seeks to access.

To

the contrary

C & F Packing expressly

refuses

to pay

its rightful share of any of the costs associated with the construction, maintenance

or operation of the County’s interceptor.

Moreover, the condition of approval that the County

has established--payment of outstanding connection fees—is

a core sewer-related

issue under the

relevant sewer agreements and applicable federal, state, and county regulations.

It is not some

extraneous matter, unrelated to the provision of sanitary sewer service.

11

---

Thus, the Board in

Hawthorn Realty

granted the variance because under the unique facts

of the case it felt that “Hawthorn could

reasonably expect the Village to

certi& line capacity

without imposing extraneous conditions,”

Id,

at *7

By

contrast, C & F

Packing could not

reasonably expect the

County to

certify that it would provide expanded sewer service

to

C

& F

Packing where, as here, the County’s taxpayers constructed and paid for the intermediate

interceptor and C & F Packing owes

and refuses to pay the County

$459,000 in connection fees

that are owed under the County/Lake Villa Agreement.

Thus, upon

closer examination,

Hawthorn Realty

supports the denial, not

the granting, of C & F

Packing’s proposed variance.

Simply put,

the Board is not

empowered to override the County’s

determination that

C &

F Packing is not entitled

to expanded use of the County’s interceptor through a variance from 35

Ill. Admin Code 309.222(b).

Accordingly, the Board

should properly dismiss

C &

F Packing’s

variance request pursuant to

35

111.

Admin.

Code 104.230(a).

III.

ON THE

MERITS, C & F

PACKING’S VARIANCE REQUEST SHOULD

PROPERLY BE

DENIED—35

Ill.

Admin Code

104.224

A.

C

& F

Packing Has Made No Effort to Achieve Compliance

Assuming

arguendo

that the Petition is somehow not subject to

dismissal, it should still

be denied.

In support of its variance request, C &

F Packing

claims to have gone to

extraordinary

lengths to achieve compliance by

seeking County execution of the Section 309.222(b)

certification.

Closer scrutiny reveals that all

C & F

Packing’s efforts are in

fact mere window-

dressing.

C & F

Packing submitted

its permit application to the County and was immediately

advised of the outstanding connection fees that prevented the County from

signing the permit

application under the County/Lake Villa Agreement.

See

Exhibit

K to the Petition.

C &

F

Packing’s response to the County’s stance, as evidenced from the numerous exhibits attached to

12

---

the Petition, was to repeatedly “demand” that the County

sign the certification and to

pursue

political

intervention from state, federal, and local politicians that

C &

F Packing thought might

be able exert pressure on the County to

ignore its own contracts, ordinances and

its

responsibilities to its

bondholders.

See

Exhibits M, N, 0,

P and

Q

to the Petition; Kolb

Aff., ¶4.

Curiously, C & F Packing not once

acknowledged (or offered to pay)

the outstanding connection

fees nor paid, agreed to

pay, offered to pay,

or acknowledged an intent to

pay all or any of the

County connection fees due in connection with C &

F Packing’s latest proposed expansion.

By ignoring the issue of connection fees entirely,

C & F Packing failed to make even the

feeblest effort to satisfy

the prerequisites for permit execution by

the County.

C & F Packing

knows what is required to obtain the

County’s

certification;

C &

F Packing chooses to ignore its

financial responsibilities

and now asks this Board to

reward its dereliction by granting a variance

from the intermediate sewer owner certification requirement.

B.

Denial of the Variance

Will Not

Cause C & F PackinR to

Suffer Any

Hardship That is Not Self-Imposed

In considering a variance request, the Board must balance the hardship that the petitioner

will endure if the variance is denied against the injury

to the public or environment if the

variance is

granted.

Marathon Oil

Co.

v.

EPA,

610 N.E.2d 789,

793, 242 Ill.

App.

3d 200

(5t1~

Dist.

1993).

However, in making its

evaluation, there

is a “strong presumption

in favor of

compliance” with the IEPA regulations and a variance should be granted “only in

those

extraordinary situations in which the cost of compliance is wholly disproportionate to

the

benefits;

doubts are resolved

in favor ofdenial.”

EPA

v.

Lindgren Foundry Co.,

1970 Ill

Env.

Lexis

12,

*9, PCB No.

70-1 (Sept. 25,

1970).

It is

a “heavy burden” indeed that

C &

F Packing

must

bear.

WillowbrookMotel v.

PBC,

481

N.E.2d 1032,

1036,

135

Ill. App.

3d 343

(Pt Dist.

13

---

1985).

Moreover, in analyzing the “hardship” that a petitioner claims will result from the denial

of a variance, it is beyond peradventure that “the Board will not consider self-imposed hardship.”

Ralph

Korte Constr.

Co.

Inc.

v.

EPA,

1978 Ill. Env. Lexis 407,

*

4, PCB

No. 78-103 (July

20,

1978);

City ofSalem

v.

IEPA,

1998

Ill. Env. Lexis

355,

*

9,

PCB No.

98-1

(July

8,

l998)C’a

self-imposed hardship cannot be the unreasonable or arbitrary hardship upon which the grant of a

variance can be predicated”);

City ofMt.

Olive v.

IEPA,

1984 Ill. Env.

Lexis 42, ~11, PCB No.

83-9 (Sept. 20,

1984)C’The

Board must grant or deny variance by balancing this environmental

harm against that hardship

that

is not

self-imposed”).

Here, the only hardship alleged by

C & F Packing

is that without the variance (and the

supplemental permit that can then be obtained)

it faces the possibility

ofcontinuing

fines and

penalties for its

installation of a pretreatment

system that materially deviated from

the approved

and permitted plans.

As

a preliminary matter, the fact that the granting of a variance might assist

C &

F Packing in

avoiding further prospective

penalties under Count II ofthe ongoing

enforcement action (captioned “Failure

to Construct Wastewater Pretreatment System

as

Permitted”) is not

in and of itself an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship sufficient to justify a

variance.

The Board

must emphasize that under the Act variances are not granted merely

because the petitioner has shown that it cannot comply with regulations despite its

efforts

to achieve compliance.

Rather, a shield from an enforcement action is only

given to a petitioner who

would suffer an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship... .Certainly, most persons would view any defense to an

enforcement

action as a hardship.

But it does not automatically

follow that such a defense is an

arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship.

14

---

General Business Forms,

Inc.

v.

IEPA,

1996

Ill. Env. Lexis

512,

*

25, PCB

No.

95-155

(July

18,

1996).

Moreover,

any hardship that

C &

F Packing

suffers from not being able to obtain the

County’s certification is clearly self-imposed.

That is, if the pretreatment system had been

properly installed in 2002 in accordance with the supplemental permit (2002-EN-0089-1), there

would have been no enforcement action with respect to the unauthorized

pretreatment system and

C &

F Packing would not be seeking yet another supplemental permit to

conform the permit to

the system that it unlawfully installed on-site.

In addition, C

& F Packing’s “hardship” (assuming the Board recognizes the threat of

future penalties as a real hardship in these circumstances) is a direct result of C & F Packing’s

continued refusal and failure to pay any of the

$459,000

in connection fees properly owed to the

County.

C &

F Packing bemoans the fact that it faces the possibility of a $10,000

a day fine,

arguing that

this alone represents an unreasonable hardship.

But to

avoid these prospective

penalties,

all

C &

F Packing must do

is pay its fair share ofthe very

real costs of constructing,

maintaining and operating the facilities that it has and continues to utilize.

C & F Packing

continues to

seek “something for nothing.”

C & F

Packing’s conduct evokes outrage, not sympathy.

Any hardship claimed by

C & F

Packing

is entirely of its own making and is truly self-imposed.

The County’s

refusal to

execute

the intermediate sewer owner’s certification under these circumstances is neither unreasonable

nor arbitrary.

Consequently, C &

F

Packing has not suffered any recognizable “hardship” that

the Board may properly consider in the context ofa variance request.

15

---

C & F Packing faces the same financial challenges

every sewer user faces; the benefits of

sanitary sewer do not come without cost.

The Board should

not assist

C & F

Packing’s efforts to

cheat the County and

its other customers

out ofnecessary and vital

connection fees.

C.

Granting the Variance Will Have Severe Negative Impacts on the Public

No counter-balancing ofthe impacts of granting the variance is required where,as fern,

the hardship is entirely

self-imposed.

Nonetheless, assuming

arguendo

that

C & F

Packing had

made a proper showing of

some

hardship, C & F

Packing conveniently ignores the impact that

granting the variance will have on the public.

In one short paragraph in its Petition,

C & F

Packing suggests that because the County’s Northwest Interceptor has adequate physical capacity

to accept additional flows, allowing C & F Packing to by-pass the County certification

requirement will have absolutely no deleterious environmental impact.

Petition, p.

15.

But under controlling authority, the question is not simply what impact the variance will

have on the environment, but rather the impact that the variance will have on the

“public

or

environment.”

Marathon Oil

Co.

v.

IEPA,

610 N.E.2d 789, 793 (5°’Dist.

1993);

Citgo

Petroleum Corp.

v. PDVMidwest Refining,

L.L.C.,

2005

Ill. Env. Lexis

345,

*

31,

PCB No.

05-

85

(April

21, 2005).

Here,

granting the variance obliterates the County’s gatekeeper role, as the

intermediate sewer owner, to determine who has the right to access

its interceptor and

the Fox

Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Granting a variance overrides the County’s

contractual

limitations onservice and

usurps the County’s

determination that under

its contract with Lake

Villa it need not reserve additional capacity for non-paying sewer users.

More dangerously from a public health and welfare standpoint,

granting a variance

in

light of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of connection fees owed, undermines the entire

16

---

legislative

framework under which sanitary sewers are constructed and operated.

As

demonstrated in Section D below, sanitary sewer works

may only be

constructed and sustained

through the collection of adequate fees, including

connection fees, from its users.

To indirectly

assist one of the largest and most problematic sewer users in the Northwest Regional

Area to

circumvent its obligation to pay

connection fees threatens the County’s and Fox Lake’s ability to

fund its improvements and properly maintain its systems.

The burden of making up these lost

fees necessarily either falls upon the other customers (who did pay their connection fees)

eventually in the form of higher fees

and rates or leads to

a

decrease in the level of service and

maintenance ofthe systems—both ofwhich represent sever adverse

impacts to

the public

and thus

weigh heavily against the granting ofa variance under these circumstances.

D.

Granting the Variance Will Undermine Both Federal and State Law

C&F

Packing’s request of this Board to

grant it a free pass

on the payment of connection

fees also

ignores applicable federal and

state law requirements affecting the Northwest

Interceptor.

As noted in the Fox Lake/County Agreement ~2(d)(i),

10,

the Northwest

Interceptor was financed in part by federal and

state grants.

See also

Kolb

Aft’. ¶4.

One ofthe

conditions on such grants is that the grantee implements a user charge system designed “to

generate sufficient

revenue to

offset the cost” related to the sewerage system.

35

Ill.

Admin.

Code

§360.602(b)(4);

see

id.,

§365.920(b)(4); 40 CFR §~35.925-1

1(a), 35.929, 35-929-1(a).

The

purpose of such user system is not simply

to generate revenue, but “to assure that each recipient

of waste treatment services will pay its proportionate

share ofthe costs.”

40

CFR Subpart E,

App.

B

(c).

So important is the implementation of a user charge system under the Clean Water Act

17

---

that,

as a condition to receiving

any federal or state grant, a grantee must ensure that “the

user

charge system

shall take precedence over

any terms or conditions

ofagreementsnr cQntracts

with

users.”

40 CFR §35.929-2(g);

see

also

35 Ill.

Admin. Code

§365.920(b)(5)(user charge

systems to be incorporated in official enactments of local authority).

It is for this reason that the

County/Lake Villa Agreement expressly requires the payment of connection fees as a condition

of use of the Northwest Interceptor.

C&F Packing is therefore not only

asking this Board to

ignore the express terms ofthe

County/Lake Villa Agreement, but it asks the Board to thumb its nose at the

federal and

state law

requirements that

govern the Northwest Interceptor.

The Board cannot become complicit

with

C&F Packing in

such unlawful conduct.

IV.

REQUEST FOR HEARING

Pursuant to 415

ILCS

5/37 and 35

Ill.

Admin Code

104.234, the County

hereby requests a

hearing on

C & F

Packing’s variance request.

V.

CONCLUSION

The issue before the Board is not simply whether the County

merely has physical

capacity to accept additional

flows into

its interceptor.

The question is whether

there is

“adequate

reserve

capacity to transport the wastewater that will be added

by this project,” see

Application for Permit,

Part 7.4 (Petition, Exhibit B)(emphasis added).

This question is not

an

abstract inquiry about the physical capacity of a pipe, but

a question about the-reservation of

capacity

for a particular project.

It is also a question that must be answered in the broader

context of sewer planning and

the legal conditions affecting sewer service.

When put it its

proper context, the question before the Board

is really the following:

whether this private

sewer

user who constructed an

unpermitted and unauthorized pretreatment system and-who-refusesto

18

---

pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in

essential sewer-related connection fees,

should be

rewarded with a variance that

eliminates the intermediate sewer owner’s

contractual Tight-to

control the expanded use of its interceptor.

The question, properly framed,

is not one that the Board is empowered to

answer and

should therefore be dismissed.

Even if the Board

could answer the question, the only justifiable

answer on the merits,

is that the variance must be

denied.

C

& F Packing should be

“sent

packing” by the Board.

Respectfully submitted,

RESPONDENT COUNTY OF

LAKE

MICHAEL

J. WALLER

State’s Attorney of Lake County

DANIEL L.

JASICA

Assistant State’s Attorney

Michael J.

Wailer

State’s Attorney of Lake County

Daniel L.

Jasica (#06237373)

Assistant State’s Attorney

18 North County

Street, 3~

Floor

Waukegan, IL

60085

(847) 377-3050

OfCounsel:

Victor Filippini

Holland & Knight LLC

131

5.

Dearborn, 30°’Floor

Chicago, IL

60603

U:\WPDATA\CIVIL\LSdljWubIic Works\C&FPackingObjectian.wpd

19

---

Exhibit

1

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

C

& F

PACKING COMPANY, INC.,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

)

vs.

)

PCB 2006-053

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

(Variance

Request)

PROTECTION AGENCY and

)

COUNTY OF LAKE,

)

)

Respondents.

)

AFFIDAVIT OF

PETER KOLB

Peter KoIb, being

duly

sworn on oath, deposes and

states:

1.

That he is and has been the Superintendent ofthe County of Lake Department of

Public Works since December 2004 and has worked for the County of Lake Department of

Public Works since September

1992.

2.

-

In that capacity he

is familiar with the contracts and agreements for sewage

transport services that the County of Lake has entered into with

other municipalities and

sanitary

districts within the Northwest Lake Facilities Planning Area.

Specifically,

based upon his

personal knowledge

and

a review of the Department of Public Works records, the County of

Lake has entered into an

“Agreement for Sewage Disposal” with the Village of Fox Lake as

approved on March

8,

1977, a true and

correct copy of which

is attached to the Respondent

County of Lake’s Combined Motion to

Dismiss and Objection to Petitioner

C &

F Packing

1

~T

Lt~

---

County-retained $300 portion of the $1,800 connection fee has remained the same since the

inception of the County/Lake Villa Agreement in

1991.

The County is obligated to collect its

portion of the connection fee

and apply it to the outstanding indebtedness pursuant to

the

County’s

Water and Sewer System Revenue Bonds, as referenced in

Section 7(a) of the

County/Lake

Villa Agreement.

The County

Water and

Sewer System revenue Bonds were used,

in conjunction with

grants authorized under the Clean Water Act, to finance the County’s

interceptor service in the Northwest Lake Facilities Planning Area.

5.

Based upon his personal knowledge and

a

review of the Department of Public

Works and County of Lake records, in 2001

C & F Packing submitted its

original

permit (2002-

EN-0089) to

the County for certification as the intermediate sewer owner.

The County executed

the certification on September 25, 2001.

Through its original

permit, C & F

Packing sought

authority to construct a

sewer connection and discharge 48,000 gpd

in average daily

flow into the

-

County’s interceptor and the Fox Lake Treatment Plant.

Under the terms ofthe

1991

County/Lake Villa Agreement, which

expressly incorporates therein such connection fee rate

adjustments as are authorized and approved by County ordinance, the County was

due $345,600

in

connection fees based on the 48,000

gpd

in average daily flow approved under Permit

2002-

EN-0089.

However, in fact only $37,800 was paid to the County in

connection with C & F

Packing connection fees for Permit 2002-EN-0089

6.

Based

upon his personal knowledge and a review of the Department of Public

Works and

County of Lake records, in 2002

C & F Packing

sought and obtained a supplemental

permit (2002-EN-0089-l)

to construct an upgraded pretreatment

system and

to increase its

average daily flow ofsewage into the County interceptor and Fox Lake Treatment Plant to

3

---

69,000 gpd.

The County executed

its certification on C &

F Packing’s supplemental permit as

the intermediate sewer owner on September 24, 2002. Under the

terms .of the

1991

County/Lake

Villa Agreement,

which

expressly incorporates therein such connection fee rate adjustments as

are authorized and approved by County ordinance, the County was due

an additional

$151,200 in

connection fees based on the increase from 48,000 gpd to

69,000

gpd in

average daily flow

authorized under supplemental Permit

2002-EN-0089-1.

However, in fact to date the County has

received zero

dollars ($0)

in connection fees in connection

with supplemental-permit 2002-EN-

0089-1.

7.

In its pending

2005

application for supplemental permit, C & F Packing seeks to

increase its permitted discharge into the County interceptor from 69,000

gpd to

147,000 gpd

in

average daily flow.

Under the terms ofthe

1991

County/Lake Villa Agreement,

which expressly

incorporates therein

such connection fee rate adjustments as are authorized and approved

by

County ordinance, the County

is

due an additional $561,600

in connection fees based on this

requested increase from 69,000 gpd

to

147,000 gpd

in average daily

flow.

8.

To date, neither Lake Villa nor C &

F Packing acknowledged

the obligation to

pay, have paid, or offered to

pay, the currently

outstanding $459,000

in connection fees due and

owing in connection with permits 2002-EN-0089 and 2002-EN-0089-1.

Nor has C &

F Packing

or Lake Villa paid, offered to pay,

or acknowledged an intent or obligation to pay, the

additional

$561,600 in connection fees associated with the pending supplemental permitapplication.

9.

He has reviewed the Respondent County of Lake’s combined Motion to Dismiss

and Objection to Petitioner C & F

Packing Company, Inc’s Request for Variance and based on

his personal knowledge and belief, the facts stated therein are true and correct

4

---

Further

Affiant Sayeth Not.

ETER KOLB

Subscribed and Sworn to~foreme

on

4kt4~n&&-/

•••fl•e•..et..,,,l,......,...

“OFFICIAL

SEA

“

L

:

ELIZABETH

BAILEY PAVELICK

:

N4RY

PUBLIC

:

Notary Public.

State of

IIIin&s

:

:

My Commission Expires

8/20/07

:

......

fl.t...,..fl4

*•~

U:\WPDATA\CIvIL\LsdIj\Public Works\C&FPackingKolbAff.wpd

5

---

Exhibit

2

---

PwD

~I2

Secretary

Auditor

Geni

Acctg

Public

Works~

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

)SS

COUNTY

OF

LAKE

COUNTY

BOARD,

LAKE COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

ADJOURNED

ANNUAL

SEPTEMBER1 A.D.,

1976

SESSION

MARCH

8,

A.D.,

1977

MR.

CHAIRMAN

AND

MEMBERS

OF

THE

COUNTY

BOARD:

Your

Public

Service

Committee

presents

herewith

a

Resolution,

pro-

viding

authorization

to execute

a

revised

Agreement

for Sewage

Disposal

with

the

Village

of

Fox

Lake

as

part

0F

the

Northwest

Regional

Sewer

Prolect;

and

requests

its adoption.

Respectf~Iysubmitted,

•

-

$~*1/

.~:.:.i?~~

•

C~AIRMAN

-

VICE-CHAIRMAN

VICE-CHAI~A

N

_________

I

Certified

to be

a

txue

copy

of

Recoids

of

the

L

County

PL~LICSERVICE

COMMITTEE

Bcc:d

Mceth~~

ci

MARO

81377

APPROVED

Ccrij’icatjon

not

valid

unlcss scat

of

Lake Countr,

minois

is aUlx~d.

~

SA~s

coui’rn

cLEa1~

/~7 ~12

—--.~—

—~

---

PWD

~

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS,

the

Board of

Supervisors of

Lake County,

had

established

a

Lake

County

Public

Works

Department

to

facilitate

and

coordinate

the overall

growth

and

development of

Lake County,

particularly to

combat pollution within

its

lakes

and

streams;

and

WHEREAS,

the

County

is

authorized

under the provisions of the

Public Works

Act

as

adopted July

22,

1959,

and

as amended,

to construct and operate

sewage

treat-

ment

f~cilities;and

WHEREAS,

the public

health,

welfare and

safety

of the

residents of the

County

requires the development of regional

wastewater

systems; and

WHEREAS,

the

overall

master plan

for

the

Northwest Regional

Area,

particularly

in

Avon,

Grant

and

Lake Villa

Townships,

has

been

developed and approved

by

the

North-

eastern

Illinois

and

Lake

County

Plonning

Commissions; and

WHEREAS,

the County

of

Lake

on

May

13,

1975,

entered

into

an

agreement

with

the Village

of

Fox

Lake whereby said

Village

will

construct

the

area—wide treatment

facility

for the

Northwest

Region consistent with

the

overall

master plan; and

WHEREAS,

the Village of

Fox

Lake

has

expressed

a

desire

to renew and

revise

said

agreement

for

the

purpose of selling

revenue

bonds to

pay the

local

share of

the cast of

constructing

the

regional

treatment

facility

for the

Northwest

Area;

and

WHEREAS,

the

Public

Service

Committee

has reviewed

the

revised

agreement,

a

copy

attached

hereto and

made

a

part hereof,

and

recommends

that

the County

of

Lake

enter

into

an

Agreement

for

Sewage

Disposal

with

the

Village

of

Fox

Lake.

NOW,

THEREFORE,

BE

IT

RESOLVED,

by

this

County

Board of

Lake County,

Illinois,

that

the Chairman

of the

Board

and

the

Clerk of said

County,

be

and

they

are

hereby authorized and

directed to execute th~attached Agreement

for

Sewage

Disposal

between

the County

of Lake and

the

Village

of

Fox

Lake

whereby sad Village will

construct

-

---

PWD

~‘12

sewage

treatment

facilities

for

sewage

collected

and

delivered by the

County of

Lake

in the

Northwest

Region.

DATED,

at WAUKEGAN,

LAKE

COUNTY,

ILLINOIS,

on

this

8th

day of

March,

A.D.,

1977.

—2—

---

AGREEMENT

FOR

SEWAGE

DISPOSAL

THIS

AGREEMENT

made

and

executed

this

—

day

of

_______________________

1977,

between

the

COUNTY

OF

LAKE,

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

hereinafter

referred

to

as

“COUNTY’

and

the

VILLAGE

OF

FOX

LAKE,

COUNTIES

OF

LAKE

AND

MC

HENRY,

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

hereinafter

referred

to

as

the

“VILLAGE”.

WITNESSETH:

\‘IHEREAS,

the

public

health,

welfare

and

safety of

the

residents

of

the

Northwest

Region

of

the

County

of

Lake

require

the

development

of

coordinated

and

adequate

systems

for

the

collection

and

treatment

of

sewage

and

to

eliminate

pollu-

tion

of

lakes

and

streams;

and

WHEREAS,

the

County

has

established

a

Department

of

Public

Works

pursuant

to an Act

of

the General Assembly of the

State

of Illinois entitled

“An Act in

Relation

to

Water

Supply,

Drainage,

Sewage,

Pollution

and

Flood

Control

in

Certain

Counties”,

as

amended,

for

the

purpose

of

performing

the

function

of

collection

and

treatment

of

sewage

and

has

prepared

a

comprehensive

plan

for

the

disposal

of

sewage

from

areas

of

the

County

and

intends

to

develop

the facilities

needed

to

carry

out

such

plan;

and

WHEREAS,

the

Village

presently

owns

and

operates

a

Treatment

Plant

located

in

the Village

of Fox Lake;

and

-

WHEREAS,

said Fox

Lake

plant has

been designated

by

the Northeastern

Illinois Planning

Cormoission

and Lake County Wastewater Planning

as the master plant

for the

Northwest Regional

Area;

and

WHEREAS,

the

Village proposes

to expand

its existing treatment plant

to

service the

Northwest Regional

Area

in accordance with Northeastern

Illinois

Planning

Comission

and

Lake County Wastewater Plan and to provide sufficient treatment to

meet water quality

standards of

the

Illinois Pollution

Control

Board and Federal

Environmental

Protection Agency on

the terms

and

conditions

herein provided.

NOW THEREFORE,

in consideration of

the mutual covenants

and benefits

of

this contract which inure

to the County and Village,

it

is hereby covenanted and

agreed as follows:

Section

1.

Definitions.

As

used

in

this contract, unless the context shows

clearly

otherwise,

the following

terms

shall mean:

(a)

“County’s Collection System’

means the

facilities

for receiving and

transporting sanitary

and industrial wastes which

the County

has

obligated itself

to receive under the terms of

its contracts with other

persons,

firms,

corporations, municipalities

or districts within the

Northwest Regional

Area,

as outlined

in Exhibit

“A’

attached hereto,

together with

any additions or extensions

to

such system consented

to

by the Village

and constructed or otherwise incorporated

into County’s

System.

(5)

“Village Treatment

System” means

the facilities

for treating and dis-

posing of

sanitary and

industrial wastes which

the County system and

Village

collect,

receive

and

transport

to

the

Village

Treatment

Plant.

Cc)

“8.0.0.”

(Biochemical

Oxygen

Demand)

is

the

quantity

of

oxygen

utilized

in

the

biochemical

oxidation

of

organic

matter

under

standard

laboratory

procedure

in

five

days

at

20°C., expressed

in

milligrams

per

liter.

(d)

“Garbage”

means

solid

wastes

from

preparation,

cooking

and

dispensing

of

food

and

from

handling,

storage

and

sale

of

produce.

---

Ce)

“Industrial

Waste’

means

the

liquid

and

water—carried

wastes

from

industrial

processes,

as

distinct

from

Sanitary

Sewage.

(f)

“Infiltration

Water”

means

the

water

which

leaks

into

a

sewer.

(g)

“Meter”

means

any

device

used

to

measure

flow.

(h)

“pH”

means

the

comon

logarithm

of

the

reciprocal

of

the

weight

of

of

hydrogen

ions

in

grams

per

liter

of

solution.

(i)

“Pr~operlyShredded

Garbage”

means

garbage

that

has

been

shredded

to

such

degree

that

all

particles

will

be

carried

freely

under

the

flow

conditions

normally

prevailing

in

public

sewers,

with

no

particle

greater

than

1/2

inch

in

any

dimension.

(j)

The

words

“Population

Equivalent”

shall

mean:

(1)

The

calculated

population

which

would

normally

contribute

100

gallons

of

sewage

per

day

containing

0.167

pounds

of

5

day

B.O.D.

and

0.22

pounds

of

suspended

solids.

(2)

For

industrial

waste,

the

estimated

number

of

people

contribut-

ing

sewage

equal

in

strength

to

a

unit

volume

of

the

industrial

waste

on

the

basis

of

the

highest

parameter

set

forth

in

Section

1,

paragraph

(j)

(1).

1k)

The

words

“Residential

CustomerEquivalent”

shall

mean

a

single

family

residence

billed

by

the

County

for

Sewage

Charges,

based

on

discharge

of

2—1/2

times

the

population

equivalent

set

forth

in

Section

1,

paragraph

(j)

(1).

(1)

“Sanitary

Sewage”

means

liquid

and

water—carried

waste

discharged

from the sanitary conveniences

of dwellings

and other buildings.

(m)

“Sewage”

means

Sanitary

Sewage

and

Industrial

Waste,

together

with

such

Infiltration

Water

as

may

be

present.

(n)

“Suspended

Solids”

means solids that either float on

the surface or

are in suspension

in water,

sewage

or other liquids, which

are re-

movable

by laboratory

filtering,

expressed

in milligrams

per

liter.

Section

2.

Sewerage

Service.

(a)

As

soon

as

the

Village

Treatment

System

has

been

expanded

and

is

capable

of

treating

the

County’s

Sewage,

on

or

before

December

31,

1978,

but

no

later

than

June

30,

1g79,

the

County

agrees

to

deliver

to

the

Village

Treatment

System all

of

the

sewage

collected

by

it

in

the

Northwest

Area

of

the

County

as

outlined

on

the

attached

Exhibit

“A”.

(b)

Prior

to

completion

of

the

new

regional

sewage

treatment

plant

and

subject

to

the

necessary

approval

of

State

or

other

required

author-

ities

the

Village

will

accept

for

treatment

sewage

from

the

County

collection

system

over

and

above

the

Village

sewage

up

to

the

capacity

of

the

existing

plant.

(c)

The

Village

shall

expeditiously

proceed

with

the

measures

necessary

to

effect

the

expansion

of

the

Village’s

Treatment

System

to

provide

a

total

design

capacity

of

six

(5)

million

gallons

per

day

average

daily

flow

of

sewage

or

population

equivalent

of

60,000

persons

per

day

subject

to

the

conditions

hereinafter

set

forth.

After

the

Village

has

notified

the

County

of

readiness

to

accept

sewage,

the

Village

shall

continually

hold

itself

ready,

willing

and

able

to

provide

such

service

to the

County in accordance with

the terms

and conditions

of

—2-

---

this

Agreement.

The

Village

shall

not

be

liable

to

the

County

or

to

its

individual

customers

for

any

damages

occasioned

by

unavoidable

delay

in

the

conmencement of

its

service

to

the

County.

(d)

i.

The

County

represents

that

it

has

the

authority

to

serve

persons,

firms,

corporations,

municipalities

and

districts

within

the

Northwest

Regional

Area.

Notwithstanding

the

provisions

of

Paragraph

2

(c),

there

shall

be

no

obligation

upon

the

Village

to

proceed

with

the

necessary

measures

or

incur

the

expense

to

effect

the

expansion

of

the

Village’s

Treatnent

System,

unless

the

County

has

delivered

to

the

Village

certified

copies

of

agree-

ments

for

service

between

the

County

and

persons,

firms,

corpora-

tions,

municipalities

and

districts

within

the

Northwest

Regional

Area;

certified

copies

of

ordinances

authorizing

such

contracts

and

revenue

bonds

to

be

issued

in

sufficient

sum,

together with

federal

funding,

fQr

the

construction

of

all

facilities

for

the

collection

and

transportation

of

sewage

to

the

Village

Treatment

System;

bond

counsel’s

approval

of

such

ordinances

and

revenue

bond

issues;

a

letter

of

intent

representing

to

the

Village

the

County’s

intention

to

issue

such

revenue

bonds

as

an

inducement

to

the Village to

issue

its

revenue

bonds

and proceed with con-

struction of

the

Village Treatment

System;

and provided

that

the

Village

has

the

ability

to

finance

the

necessary

expansion.

ii.

The

Village

shall,

within

30

days

after

the

occurrence

of

the

foregoing,

provide

the

County

with

certified

copies

of

ordinances

authorizing

revenue

bonds

to

be

issued

in

sufficient

sum

together

with

federal

funding

for

the

construction

of

the

Village

Treatment

System

as

provided

in

this

contract

together

with

bond

counsel’s

approval

of

such

ordinance

and

revenue

bond

Issue.

iii.

Revenue

bonds

shall

be

offered

for

sale

by

the

Village

and

County

concurrently.

Upon

sale

of

the

bonds

the

Village

shall

proceed

with

construction

of

the

Village

Treatment

System

and

the

County

shall

proceed

with

the

construction

of

its

facilities

for

the

collection

and

transportation

of

sewage

to

the

Village

Treatment

System

so

that

all

users

may

be

served

as

promptly

as

possible.

(e)

As

the

Village

Treatment

System

approaches

80

of

its

capacity

the

Village

shall

take

necessary

steps

to

implement

additional

expansion

of

the

Village

Treatment

System,

subject

to

the

following:

i.

Certification

by

consulting

registered

engineers

to

the

County,

or

other

acceptable

documentation,

establishing

that

a

sufficient

number

of

users

will

be

served

by

the

County

system

to

not

only

utilize

the

existing

plant

capacity

but

to

warrant

its

expansion

to

serve

a

projected

number

of

residential

customer

equivalents.

Such

projections

and

population

studies

must

establish

that

the

plant

expansion

is

economically

and

financially

feasible

to

support

additional

revenue

bonds,

and

the

parity

bond

requirements

of

the

Village.

ii.

If

the

County

system

requires

additions

and

Improvements

to

meet

projected

population

growth,

the

County

shall

also

supply

to

the

Village

a

letter

of

intent

representing

to

the

Village

that

the

County

Intends

to

issue

additional

revenue

bonds

as

inducement

to

the

Village

to

issue

Village

revenue

bonds

and

to

proceed

with

the

construction

of

additions

to

the

Village

Treatment

System

in

order

to

accommodate

the

additional

sewage

flow.

(f)

A

portion

of

the

interceptor

sewer

constructed

by

the

County

which

lies within

the Village shall

be

paid for

by

the Village and

the

pricE

to

be

paid

for

?aid

portion

of

the

interceptor

sewer

shall

be

in

the

ratio

that

the

Village

required

capacity

bears

to

the

total

capacity

—3—

---

of the interceptor

sewer.

Said interceptor sewer shall

be jointly

owned

by

the

Village

and

the

County

in

the ratio described above.

Within

the

Village

limits,

as

such

limits

are

presently

constituted

and

as

such

limits

may

hereafter

be

extended,

the Village

shall

set,

collect

and

keep

all

rates,

connection

charges,

and

fees

incident

to

said

interceptor

sewer.

Section

3.

Payment

for

Sew~geTreatment.

For the treatment and

disposal

of sewage collected by

the County and

delivered

to

the

Village

Treatment

Plant,

the

County

shall

pay

to

the

Village

on

or

before

the

5th

day

of

each

month

the

amount

of

the

sewer

service

charges

which

became

due during

the

preceding

month

at

the

rate

provided

for

hereafter.

Simultaneously

with

such

payment

the

County

shall

submit

a

written

report

to the

Village setting forth:

(a)

The

list and number of Residential,

Conrercial, Institutional,

and

Industrial

customers

served

in

the

Northwest

Region.

and

billed

for

treatment services

based on

unit charges as described

herein.

(b)

The

total

mumber of

all

residential

Customer

Equivalents

tabulated

for

each

customer

served

in

the

Northwest

Region

and

billed

by

the

County

as

of

each

billing

period.

Charges

for

sewage

treatment

shall

be

as

follows:-

-

The

County,

out

of

the

Operation

Account

of

its

Waterworks

and

Sewerage

System,

shall

pay

to

the

Village

a

monthly

charge

of

$

per

Residential

Customer

Equivalent

for

treatment

and

disposal

of

sewage

collected

by

the

County

and

delivered

by

the

County

to

the

Village

Treatment

System.

Admissable

Convnerciai

,

Industrial

and

Institutiomal

wastes will

be

charged

on

the

basis

of

Residential

CustomerEquivalents

as

defined

in

Settion

1,

Partgraph

(k),

and,

in

addition,

service

charges

and/or

surchargesfor

non—residential

users

are to

be based

upon anticipated strength and

volume

of sewage flow from each

such

non—residential

user.

To

determine

the

service

charge

and/or

surcharge,

the

Village

shall

have

the

right

and

authority

to

inspect

the

plants

and

buildings

and

to

take

samples

of

the

sewage-discharges.

•

.

An

additional

charge

may

be

made

bythe

Village

for

sewage

or

wastes

of

unusual

quality

or

composition

requiring

special

treatment

or

the Village

may

require

pre—treatment

of

said

sewage

or

wastes.

The

Village

reserves

the

right

to

refuse

any

waste it considers detrimental

to the Village Treatment System.

In

determining

Multi—Unit

family

housing

charges,

the

following

schedule

shall

be

used

to

determine

the

Residential

Customer

Equivalent for

each

unit.

3

or more bedrooms per unit

100

Residential Customer Equivalent

2

bedrooms

per

unit

80

Residential

Customer

Equivalent

1

bedroom

per

unit

75

Residential

Customer

Equivalent

These service charges

shall apply to residential customers

in the afore-

said

stated amounts;

service charges to

be paid

by industrial, commercial

and in-

stitutional

customers

shall

be

pro—rated

on

the

basis

of

Residential

Customer

Equivalents

of

sewage

to

be

treated,

as

determined

by

the

County

and

the

Village.

Connection

charges

shall

be

as

follows:

(a)

All

Residential Customers

and Equivalents connecting

to County mains

shall

be required

to

pay

a Treatment Plant Connection fee

as scheduled

below, which sum shall

be paid

by the County to Village prior to such

connection.

-4—

-—~---——---—-——--——---~———-——-

r

---

Connection

Date

Each

Unit

of

Residential

Customer

Equivalent

Before

December

31,

lg77

$200.00

January

1,

1978

to

December

31,

1980

$250.00

January

1,

1981

and

Thereafter

$300.00

(b)

These

connection

charges

shall

apply

to

single

family

residential

customers

in

the

aforesaid

stated

amounts.

Connection

charges

to

be

paid by

the

industrial,

corrtiiercial

,

institutional

customers and multi-

family

buildings will

be rated on

the

basis

of total Residential

Customer

Equivalents

of

sewage

to

be

treated.

‘(c)

These

connection

fees

apply

to

any

new

connections

made

to

the

County

Collection

System,

with

the

exception

of

that

which

is

provided

in

Section

2

(f).

Existing

customers

that

are

on

existing

systems

when

the

County

extends

an

interceptor

sewer

to

make

connections

to

their

system

shall

not

pay

any

connection

fee

if

they

have

service

presently.

Rates

and

charges

may

be

adjusted

from

time

to

time

as

the

need

arises

by

the

Village

after

proper

written

notice

is

given

to

the

County4

The

County

has

the

right

to

object

in

writing

within

thirty

(30)

days

of

written

notice

at

which

time

a

registered

professional

engineer

and

certified

public

accountant,

chosen

by

the

County

and

Village

in

mutual

agreement,

shall

make

rate

studies

determining

the

rat

and

charges

the

County

should

pay

to

the

Village.

•

.

Rates,

charges

and

surcharges

for

treatment

of

sewage

shall

be

the

same

for

Village

Customers

as

for

County

Customers.

The

total

revenue

from

the

rates

and

charges

is

to

be

accumulated

and

used

solely

for

operation,

maintenance

and

replacement

costs,

and

revenue

bond

debt

service

including

principal,

interest

and

required

sinking

fund

reserves.

Revenues

shall

also

be

subject

to

the

financial

requirements

of

Village

revenue

bond

ordinances.

Section

4.

Records.

Permanent

books

and

records

shall

be

kept

by

the

Village

of

operating, maintenance and replacement

costs

as well

as

any other expendi-

tures

incurred

in

the

operation of

the Village Treatment System.

Such records shall

be

maintained

beginning

as

of

the

date

of

the

signing

of

this

agreement.

The

County

shall

keep

records

of

all

of their

customers

and

the

amounts

of

revenue

received

from

them.

All

books

and

records

shall

be

subject

to

inspection

by

the

Village

and

County.

Section

5.

County

Responsibility.

It

is

the

responsibility

of

the

County

to

enforce

“An

Ordinance

Regulating

the

Use

of

Public

and

Private

Sewer

and

Drains,

Private

Sewage

Disposal,

the

Installation

and

Connection

of

Building

Sewers,

and

the

Discharge

of

Waters

and

Wastes

into

the

Public

Sewer

System(s)

of

the

County

of

Lake

in

the

State

of

Illinois’

dated

May

9,

1967,

and

any

amendments

thereto

for

all

sewers

connected

to

the

County’s

Collection

System

and

served

by

the

Village

Treatment

System.

Section

6.

General Requirements.

In order to permit

the Village to proper-

ly

treat

and dispose

of

the

County’s

Sewage,

to protect the public

health and

to per-

mit

cooperation

with

other

agencies

which

have

requirements

for

the

protection

of

the

physical,

chemical

and

bacteriological

quality

of

public

water

and

water

courses,

the

County

shall

prohibit

discharge

into

the

County

System

sewage

of

such

quality

that

is

not

herein

specified

as

admissable.

Admissable

Wastes.

Discharges

into

the

County

Collection

System

shall

con-

sist

only

of

Sewage,

Properly

Shredded

Garbage

and

other

wastes

within

the

following

parameters:

(a)

3.0.0.

of

Sewage

discharged

into

the

County’s

Collection

System

as

determined

by

standard

methods,

shall

not

exceed

300

milligrams

per

liter;

and

(b)

Suspended

Solids

discharged

into

County’s

Collection

System,

as

determined

by

standard

methods,

shall

not

exceed

400

milligrams

per

liter;

and

—5—

---

(c)

The

pH

of

sewage

discharged

into

County’s

Collection

System

shall

not

be

lower

than

5.5

nor

higher

than

10.0.

Acid

wastes

must

be

neutralized

to

a

pH

of

5.5

or

more;

and

(d)

Un—ionized

Hydrogen

Sulfide

in

Sewage

at

points

of

discharge

into

•

County’s

Collection

System

shall

not

exceed

1.5

p.p.m.

as

determined

by

the

Titrimetric

Method

and

Colorirnetric

Method

outlined

in

the

most

current

edition

in

“Standard

Methods

for

the

Examination

of

Water

and

Wastewater’,

published

by

American

Public

Health

Association,

Inc.

The

maximum

amount

of

infiltration

water

which

leaks

into

existing

and

new

sewers

constructed

within

the

County

Northwest

Regional

Collection

System

and

any

existing

or

new

tributary

lateral

sewers

shall

not

exceed

200

gallons

per

day

per

inch

of

pipe

diameter

per

nile.

The

maximum

sewage

flow

rate

delivered

to

the

Village

Treatment

System

by

the

County

Collection

System

shall

not

exceed

250

percent

of

the

normal

average

daily

sewage

flow

of

the

total

residential

popdlation

equivalents

connected

to

the

County

Collection

System.

Section

7.

Points

of Discharg~

Sewage

meeting

the

requirements

of

Section

6

may be discharged

by County

into Village System at the

site of the

Village Treat-

ment

System, or

at

additional

points

of discharge which may be established by agree-

ment

if

such additional

points

of discharge can

reasonably

be

expected

to result

in

a

more

economical

means

of

providing

service

to

County.

Section

8.

Easements

and

Permits.

The

Village

will

grant

to

the

County

any

easements

required

for

connection

and/or

construction

and

maintenance

of

lines

in

dedicated

streets,

subject

to

the

usual

conditions

with

respect

to

restoration

of

the

streets,

hold

harmless

agreements

and

insurance

coverage.

It

shall

be

the

County’s

responsibility

to

obtain

any

required

easement

in

private

property.

The

Village

further

agrees

that

it

will

assist

the

County

in

obtaining

the

necessary permits for the construction of sanitary

sewer extensions

as may be re-

quested by signing the applications

for permit which must

then be forwarded to

the

State

Environmental

Protection

Agency

for

approval.

Such

proceedings

of

applications

for

sewer

extensions

shall

be

made

within

fourteen

(14)

days

of

the

date

the

Village

receives

such

request.

Section

9.

Technical

Assistance.

The

County

shall

provide

technical

assistance

for

plant

operation

and

maintenance

as

requested

by

the

Village

and

as

may

be

required

by

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency.

Section

10.

Grants.

The

Village

and

County

shall

act

as

co—appliers

for

any

State

and

Federal

Grants.

This

agreement

is

contingent

upon

the

receipt

of

State

and

Federal

Grants.

Section

11.

Maintenance

Responsibility.

The

County’s

Collection

System

shall

be maintained

and operated

by the

County at

its expense.

Operation

and main-

tenance

of the Village Treatment System shall

be

the responsibilty

of

the Village.

Section

12.

Regulatory

Bodies.

This

agreement

shall

be

subject

to

all

valid

rules,

regulations

and

laws

applicable

hereto

passed

or

promulgated

by

the

United

States of America,

in particular Public

Law 92—500,

the

State of

Illinois or any govern-

mental

body

or agency having

lawful

jurisdiction or

any authorized

representative or

agency

of

any

of

them.

Section

13.

Contracts

with

Others.

The

County

reservesthe

right

to

con-

tract

with

other

persons,

natural

or

corporate,

private

or

public,

to

perform

sewage

collection

and

transportation

services

subject

to

the

approval

of

the

Village.

Section

14.

Assignment.

Neither

of

the

parties

hereto

shall

have

the

right

to

assign

this

Agreement

or

any

of

its

rights

and

obligations

hereunder

nor

to

terminate

its

obligations

hereunder

by

dissolution

or

otherwise

without first

securing

the

written

consent

of

the

other

party

and

this

Agreement

shall

be

binding

—6—

---

upon

and inure

to

the

benefit

of

the

respective

successors

and

assigns

of

the

parties

hereto.

Section

15.

The

Right

of

County

to

Buy

th~Plant

at

Some

Future

Date.

The

County

shall

have

the first

right

of

refusal

to

purchase

the

Village

Treatment

System.

Section

16.

Notice.

Whenever

in

this

Agreement

notice

is

required

to

be

given

the

same

shall

be

given

by

Certified

Mail

addressed

to

the

respective

parties

at

the

following

address:

Village

of

Fox

Lake

County

of

Lake

Village

Hall

Department

of

Public

Works

301

S.

Route

59

County

Building

Fox

Lake,

Illinois

60020

Waukegan,

Illinois

60085

Attn:

President

and

Board of

Trustees

A

different

address

may

be

hereafter

designated

in writing

by either

of

the

parties.

The

date

of

giving

such

notice

shall

be

deemed

to

be

the

date

of

mailing

thereof.

Billings

for

any

payments

of

and

payment

for

sewage

treatment

and

disposal

charges

may

be

made

by

regular

mail.

Section

17.

Execution of

Documents.

This

Agreement

shall

be

executed

in

six counterparts,

any

of which shall

be

regarded for

all

purposes

as one original.

Each

party

agrees

that

it

will

execute

any

and

all

deeds,

instruments,

documents

and

resolutions

or

ordinances

necessary

to

give

effect

to

the

terms

of

this

Agreement.

Section

18.

WaIver.

No

waiver

by

either

party

of

any

term

or

condition

of this Agreement

shall

be deemed or construed as

a waiver of any other term or con-

ditions,

nor shall

a waiver of any

breach be deemed to constitute

a waiver of any

subsequent

breach

whether

of

the

same

or

a

different provision of this Agreement.

Section

19.

Arbitration.

All

claims

or

disputes

other

than

rates,

connec-

tion

charges

or

fees

of

any

kind

or

nature

whatsoever,

arising

out

of or

related

to

this

Agreement

shall

be

submitted

to

arbitration.

•

Arbitration

shall

be

conducted

substantially

in accordance

with

the

rules

of

the

American

Arbitration

Association

(but

not

by

the

American

Arbitration

Association)

and

in

conpliance with

the

Illinois

Uniform

Arbitration

Act,

providing

that

the

party

found

to

be

at

fault

shall

pay

all

costs

of

arbitration.

Either

party

desiring

arbitration

shall

serve

notice

on

the other.

Each

party

shall

thereupon

have

ten

(10)

days

within

which

to

select

their

respective

arbitrator.

Thereafter

the

arbitrators

so

selected

shall

agree

upon

a

third

arbitrator

In

the

event

of

failure

to

agree

within

twenty (20)

days

after the

service of

notice,

the

parties

shall

apply

to

the

Chief

Judge

of

the

Nineteenth

Judicial

Circuit,

Lake

County,

Illinois,

for

the

selection

of

the

third

arbitrator.

Section

20.

If

any

part

or portion

of

this

contract

is

declared

to

be

invalid, such invalidity shall

in no way affect the validity of any

other part or

portion of this contract.

Section

21.

Entire

Contract.

This

Agreement

merges

and

supersedes

all

prior

negotiations,

representations

and

agreements

between

the

parties

hereto

relating

to

the

subject

matter

hereof

and

constitutes

the entire

contract

between

the parties

concerning

the

treatment

and

disposal

of

sewage

for

the

Northwest

Regional

Area

of

Lake

County.

•

Section

22.

Ten.,

The

term

of

this

contract shall

be

30

years

from

the

-•

date

of

Its

execution.

—1—

---

IN

WITNESS

WNEREOF,

the

parties

have

executed

this

Agreement

as

of

the

day

and

year

first

above

written.

VILLAGE

OF

FOX

LAKE

COUNTY

OF LAKE,

ILLINOIS

By:

By:

_____________________________

Pr

sident,

oard

of

Trustees

~,fr~ircnan,Lake

County

Boarf

ATTEST:

•

ATTEST:

_______________________________________

~n

p

•

Village

Clerk

Counfr~’Clerk

(SEAL)

(SEAL)

-8-

---

EXHIBIT

“A”

AGREEMENTS

BETWEEN THE

VILLAGE

OF

FOX

LAKE

AND

LAKE COUNTY

PUBLIC

WORKS

DEPARTMENT

---

Exhibit

3

---

Agenda

Item

#

PWD

#3

DISTRIBUTION

County Board

County

Clerk

County

Administrator

State’s

Attorney

Public

Works

COUNTY

BOARD,

LAKE

COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

.AIXJOURNED

R±XXJLAR

SEPTEMBER,

A.D.,

1990

SESSION

APRIL

9,

A.D.,

1991

MR.

CHAIRMAN

AND

MEMBERS

OF

THE

COUNTY

BOARD:

Your

Public

Service,

Planning

and Zoning, and Financial and Administrative

Committees

present

herewith, a

Joint

Resolution,

authorizing

the

Chairman of the County

Board to execute an Agreement for Sewage Disposal with the Village of Lake Villa,

and request its adoption.

c

Respectfully

submitted,

~

~

CHAIRMAN

71

CHA~BMAN

•

•

CELl

IAN’

• ~S(2J?iide

/

VICE ~4hM~

V

E CHAI

VTCE ~HAI

6 ~

,~LI

6kJ~

~

~

~.

•

•

i~&d~&~

Certified Lobe a

pg~r~dsjn1k~4J~cSSg

Board r,~eeting

of

‘APR•

91991

APPROYW

of

I

F:

‘4444-

~JL?..

.&2~

C

‘MlIII,J

&

PLANNING

ZONING

C0~IJ1

CL

~

FINANCIAL

AND

4D1~

StRATIVE

COI’Rl.I flEE

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS

COUNTY

OF

LAKE

)

)

55

)

---

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS,

the

County

of

Lake

owns

and operates

a

sanitary

sewer

systemi serving

incorporated and unincorporated communities

in Northwest Lake County;

and

WHEREAS,

pursuant

to

the

Regional

Wastewater

Plan,

said

Northwest

sewer

system

is designed

to

serve

the

Village

of Lake

Villa;

and

WHEREAS,

on May 8,

1990 and August

14,

1990,

the Lake County

Board

had

approved

two

separate proposa1~ for

sewage

disposal

service

to

Lake

Villa,

neither

of

which

were

accepted

by

the

Village of Lake Villa;

and

WHEREAS,

further negotiations with the Village of Lake Villa

have resulted

in

an Agreement which provides for the abandonment

of

existing

treatment

facilities

serving

the

Village

and

the

transmission

of

sewage flows through

the

Northwest system to the

Village

of Fox Lake regional treatment plant;

and

WHEREAS,

the consolidation of sewage treatment facilities

in

NSrthwest

Lake County

is ‘considered to

be environmentally

sound

and economically cost effective;

and

WHEREAS,

the

Village

of Lake Villa has

found

the

terms

of

said Agreement for Sewage Disposal to be acceptable;

and

WHEREAS,

the

Public

Service,

Planning

and

Zoning,

and

Financial

and

Administrati’ve

Committees

have

reviewed

said

Agreement and recommend its adoption.

NOW,

THEREFORE,

BE

IT RESOLVED,

by this County Board of Lake

County,

Illinois,

that

the Chairman of

the

County Board and’the

Clerk

of

said

County

be

and

they

are

hereby

authorized

and

I

‘

‘

PWDI/3

---

directed

to

execute

the

attached Agreement

for

Sewage

Disposal

with the Village of Lake Villa for connection of

its

local sewer

system

to the Northwest Regional Sewer System.

BE

tT

FURTHER

RESOLVED,

that

the

Chairman

of

the

County

Board

and

the

Clerk

of

said

County

shall

not

so

execute

said

Agreement unless and until the President and Board of Trustees

of

Lake Villa have first approved

and authorized’ said Agreement and

the President

and Village Clerk

shall have

executed and attested

said Agreement on or before May 31,

1991.

DATED at WAUKEGAN,

LAKE COUNTY,

ILLINOIS,

on this 9th day of

April, A.D~, 1991.

‘

PWD

//3

---

EXEGUTION COPY

AGREEMENT

FOR

SEWAGE

DISPOSAL

Entered

Into

By

and

Between

The County of Lake,

Illinois

and

/

The Village of Lake’ Villa,

Illinois

As of

April 9,

1991

---

AGREEMENT

FOR

SEWAGE

DISPOSAL

THIS

AGEEEMENT

made

and

executed

this

9th

day

of

April,

1991, between the VILLAGE

OF LAKE VILLA,

a municipal corporation

located in Lake County,

Illinois,

hereinafter referred

to

as the

“Village”,

and the COUNTY OF LAKE,

Illinois, hereinafter referred

to as the

“County”.

WITNES

SETH:

WHEREAS,

the public health,

welfare,

and safety of the res-

idents of the Village and the residents

of the County require the

dec’elopment

of

coordinated

and

adequate

systems for

the collec-

tion

and

treatment

of

sewage

so

as

to

eliminate

pollution

of

lakes and streams;

and

WHEREAS,

the

County has

established

a

Department of Public

Works pursuant to anAct

of the General Assembly

of the State of

Illinois entitled

“An Act

in Relation

to Water Supply.

Drainage,

Sewage,

Pollution;

and

Flood

Control

in

‘Certain

Counties”,

as

amended,

for

the

purpose

of performing

the

function

of

sewage

disposal,

has

prepared

a comprehensiveplan

for

the disposal of

sewage

from areas

of

the County,

and intends to

develop

the fa-

cilities needed

to carry out such plan;

and

WHEREAS,

the County

has

entered into

an

agreement

with the

Village

of Fox Lake whereby the Village of Fox Lake will perform

the

function

of sewage treatment

for the County

in the Northwest

Regional

Area

for

certain

fees

as

outlined

in

the

agreement

be-

tween Fox

Lake

and

the

County,

which

agreement

and

any

amendments

---

thereto

are,

by

this

reference,

incorporated herein

and made

a

part hereof as if fully set forth;

and

WHEREAS,

the County has constructed an interceptor and trunk

sanitary sewer

system

in the Northwest Regional

Area

to collect

and transport sewage tothe

Fox Lake Plant;

and

-

WHEREAS,

the

Village

of

Fox

Lake

proposes

tQ

expand

its

existing treatment

plant

to

service

the Northwest

Regional

Area

in accordance with Northeastern

Illinois Planning

Commission and

Lake County Waste Water Plan,

and to provide sufficient treatment

to meet water quality standards of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board

and Federal

Environmental Protection

Agency

and County on

the

terms

and

conditions

herein

provided;

and

WHEREAS,

the Village

of Lake

Villa currently

owns and oper-

ates

a

sewage

treatment

plant

to

serve

portions

of

its

jurisdic-

tion and

said plant has been placed

on restricted

status by the

Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

due

to pollution being

discharged therefrom into the waters of Lake County;

and

WHEREAS,

the elimination

of the Lake Villa sewage treatment

plant and diversion of its effluent

to the Fox Lake plant was an

alternative evaluated

and

recommended in the

1975 Facilities Plan

for Wastewater Collection

and Treatment in the NOrthwest Area of

flnt;

WHEREAS,

Lake Villa has applied for,

and NIPC has approved,

an amendment

to

the

1975 Facilities

Plan determining that elinti-

nation

of the existing Lake Villa plant

and diversion of

sewage

flows

from

Lake

Villa’

to

the

Fox

Lake

sewage

treatment

plant

through two

connection points

to

the

County’s collection

system

-2—

---

is

the

most

cost

effective

solution

to

the

long—term

sewage

treatment

needs

ofLakeVifla;

NOW,

THEREFORE,

in

consideration

of

the

mutual

covenants

contained herein,

it is hereby agreed as follows:

SECTIOU

1.

DEFINITION.

As

used

in

this

contract,

unless

the context shows clearly otherwise,

the following shall mean:

(a)

“County’s collection system’~ shall mean

the facilities

for

receiving

and

transporting

sanitary

-sewage

aS

Industrial

Wastes

which

County

has

obligated

itself

to

receive

under

the

terms

of

contracts

with

other

per—

sons,

firms,

corporations,

or districts,

together with

any

additions

or

extensions

to

such

facilities

con-

structed

-

or

otherwise

incorporated

into

County1

$

Northwest

Project in the future.

-

(b)

“Customer” -shall mean any dwelling,

business,

industry

or institution that

is connected

to the Village

system

and

that

discharges

sewage,

either

directly

or indi-

rectly,

-into

the

County’s collection system.

Cc)

B.0.D.° (Biochemical

Oxygen

Demand)

shall

mean

the

quantity

of

oxygen utilized

in the

biochemical

oxida—

tion

-

of

organic

matter

under

standard

laboratory

procedure

in

five

days

at

20

C.,

expressed

in

parts

per

million.

-

-

-

(d)

-

“Garbage”

shall

mean

the

solid

wastes

from

the

prepara—

-

tion,

cooking,

and

dispensing

of

food

and

from

han-

dling,

storage,

and sale of produce.

—3—

---

(e)

“Industrial

Waste”

shall

mean

the

liquid

and

water—

carried

wastes

form

industrial processes,

as

distinct

from Sanitary Sewage.

(f)

‘

“Infiltration Water”

shall

mean

the water which

leaks

into

a sewer.

-

(g)

-

“!‘~et~er”shall mean any device used to measure flow.

(h)

“pH”

shall mean the common logarithm of

the reciprocal

of

the weight

of hydrogen ions

in grams per

liter

of

-

solution.

(1)

“Properly Shredded Garbage” shall mean Garbage that has

been shredded tosuch degree that all particles will be

carried

freely

under-

the

flow

conditions

normally

prevailing

in public

sewers,

with no particle

greater

than

½

inch in any dimension.

(3)

“Population Equivalent”

(P.E.) shall mean:

(1)

The

calculated

population

that

would

normally

cpntribute

100

gallons

of

sewage

per

day

contain-

ing 0.167

pounds

of

S day B.O.D.

and 0.22

pounds

of suspended solids.

-

(2)

For

industrial

waste,

the

estimated

number

of

people contributing

sewage

equal

in

strength

to

•

unit

volume

of

the

industrial

waste

on

the

basis

of

the

highest

parameter