CL~~SOl~FtCE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~
CITIZENS AGAINST LANDFILL
)
STATE OF 1LUNOIS d
EXPANSION (CALE),
)
pollution
Control
Boar
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 03-236
)
(Pollution Control Facility
AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF
)
Siting Appeal)
ILLINOIS, INC.,
and
LIVINGSTON
)
COUNTY BOARD,
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
See Attached Service List
Please take notice that on August 27, 2003, I caused to be filed by overnight mail with the
Illinois Pollution Control Board an
original and four copies ofthe attached Respondent American
Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to
Compel.
AMERICANDISPOSAL SERVICES OF ILLINOIS,
INC., Respondent
By EHRMANN
GEHLBACH BADGER &
LEE
By__________
Douglas E.
Lee
Douglas E. Lee
Ehrmann Gehibach Badger & Lee
Attorneys for Respondent American Disposal
Services ofIllinois, Inc.
215
E. First Street, Suite
100
P.O. Box 447
Dixon, IL 61021
(815) 288-4949
(815)
288-3068
(FAX)
ProofofService
STATE OF ILLINOIS
COUNTY OF LEE
)
)
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, states
that on August 26, 2003,
a true and correct
copy ofthe foregoing Notice ofFiling, together with the Motion to Compel attached thereto, was
served upon the following persons, at the addresses indicated, by overnightmail and that prior to
3
p.m. onAugust27, 2003, saidRespondentAmericanDisposal Services oflllinois, Inc.’s Opposition
to
Petitioner’s Motion
to Compel was sent by e-mail to the Hearing Officer and
counsel for the
parties, at the e-mail addresses indicated:
DorothyM. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
C. Thomas Blakeman, Esq.
Strong.
Blakeman, Schrock &
Bauknecht, Ltd.
307 W. Washington St.
Pontiac,
IL 61764
tom@sbsltd.com
George Mueller, Esq.
George Mueller, P.C.
501
State St.
Ottawa, IL 61350
gmueller@mchsi.com
BradleyP. Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
halloranb@ipcb.state.il.us
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this 27tl~
day ofAugust,
003.
~$taiy
Public
Carolyn K. Gerwin, Esq.
705
5. Locust St.
Pontiac,
IL 61764
gerwin~mchsi.com
Larry M. Clark, Esq.
700 N. Lake St.,
Suite 200
Mundelein, IL 60060
LClark55@aol.com
Claire A. Manning, Esq.
Posegate & Denes, P.C.
111
N. SixthSt.
Springfield,
IL 62705
Claire~posengate-denes.com
1
N:\Reai
~st\Zoning\DeI\Livingston
Landfill\990680’PCB Appea!\noticeofflhingO4.wpd
2
k(ECE1Vj~
1)
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S
OFFICE
AUG
28
2003
CITIZENS AGAINST LANDFILL
)
EXPANSION (CALE),
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution
Control Board
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 03-236
)
(Pollution Control Facility
AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF
)
Siting Appeal)
ILLINOIS, INC., and LIVINGSTON
)
COUNTY BOARD,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONDENT AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S
OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO COMPEL
Now comes Respondent American Disposal Services ofIllinois, Inc. (“American”), by and
through one of its attorneys, Douglas E.
Lee ofEhrmann Gehlbach Badger &
Lee, and opposes
Petitioner’s Motion to Compel (“Motion”).
In support thereof, American states as follows:
I.
Introduction
While the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“theBoard”) provides partiesthe right to engage
in pre-hearing discovery, that right is not unlimited.
Discovery directed at substantive criteriais not
permitted because the Board’s role in reviewing the
substantive criteria is
limited to
the record
beforethe County Board.
See 415 ILCS
5/40.1(a); Landand Lakes Co.
v. Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
252 Ill. Dec. 614, 319 Iii. App. 3d 41,
743 N.E. 2d
188
(3rdDjSt
2000).
While Petitioner is
entitled to
discovery of facts relevant to
discrete issues ofjurisdiction and
claimed fundamental
unfairness, Petitioner is not entitled to subject either Respondent to a fishing expedition.
See 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 101.616(a).
ThatPetitioner is engagedin such expedition is evident from its Motion~to
Produce, where it admits that its fundamental fairness claim is based, at least in part, on “any such
other bases offundamental unfairness
as may hereafter be discovered and established.”
Board rules establish that a hearing officermust manage the hearing “to ensure development
ofa clear,
complete, and concise record for timely transmission to
the Board.”
35 Ill.
Adm. Code
101.610.
This duty is especiallysignificant in a landfill sitinghearing, forwhich the legislaturesets
a specific time frame forBoard decision and for which the courts have clearlyheld that the Board’s
role is one ofreview ofthe local government’s decision on the criteria, based upon therecord created
at the local hearing, on a manifest weight ofthe evidence standard.
See Landand Lakes, supra.
Thus, to the extent information sought to be discoveredby CALE, from either Respondent, is
informationrelevantto the statutory criteria, the Hearing Officer should deny Petitioner’s request to
produce.
See
Section ll.A. below.
To do otherwise is to present the Board with a different record
than the one presented to the County, a resultdirectlycontraryto that envisionedby the legislaturein
establishing the landfill siting review process.
In addition to seeking the production ofevidence concerning the criteria, Petitioner casts a
wide net in its attempt
to require the production ofnew evidenceunder the guise ofjurisdiction and
fundamental fairness.
The Hearing Officershould not be misled by such attempts but should focus
instead on the specific jurisdictional and fundamental fairness claims made by Petitioner.
To the
extent
CALE
attempts
to
discover new evidence regarding any
claimed jurisdictional
defects,
American asserts that all
information relevant to the Board’s decision on this
question has been
produced.
See
Section ll.B. below.
To the extent CALE attempts to
discover new evidence based upon claims of fundamental
unfairness, the Hearing Officer must not allow the Petitioner to engage in a fishing expeditionbut,
rather, must focus
on
Petitioner’s
specific claims
of fundamental unfairness
as it applies to
the
County’s
hearing process and decision, in light of the wealth ofBoard
and court decisions on the
question ofwhat does and does not constitute fundamental unfairness.
To do otherwise is to deny
the Board
a concise record ofrelevant information upon which to base its
decision.
2
The only argument Petitioner articulates regardingclaimed fundamental unfairness is that the
County Board members pre-judged the statutory criteriabecause theywere overlyconcerned about
the money the County would receive from the expansion.
In the Motion, for example, Petitioner
claims
the process was fundamentally unfair because many members of the siting authority pre-
judged
or
failed
to
judge
whether
American
had
satisfied
the
statutory
criteria
“due
to
an
overpowering desire to obtain the
$162 million host fee that was previouslynegotiated.”
On the basis ofthis proposition, Petitioner seeks to discover a myriad ofinformationrelated
to
each County Board member’s individualreview ofthe record, attendance atthe hearing, reasons
for approval of the expansion,
and
pre-filing contacts.
The Hearing Officer should
deny such
attempts to
invade the mind of the County Board
decision makers as it
is wholly antithetical
to
fllinois’
landfill siting process and the years ofcase law that serve as the basic foundation for this
process.
In one ofthe earliest Board cases on landfill siting review, the Board wisely recognized
that
local authorities will not be held to be biased simplybecause ofa financial benefit which the
county
or municipality might
derive
from
site
approval.
“County
boards
and
other
governmental agencies routinely make decisionsthat affect theirrevenues.
.
.
Public officials
should be considered to act without bias.”
E&E
Hauling,
116
Ill. App. 3d 586,451 N.E.2d
555,
71111. Dec.
587
(2fld
Dist.
1983).
In
their adjudicatory role, the decision makers are entitled to protection of their internal
thought processes.
This principle ofnot invading the mind ofthe administrative decision
makerhas been articulated in
Ash
v. Iroquois CountyBoard, supra;
in
Citizens to Preserve
Overton Park, Inc.
v.
Volpe,
401 U.S. 402 (1971), and in
United States v. Morgan,
313 U.S.
409
(1941).
See DiMaggio
v.
Solid Waste Agency ofNorthern
Cook County,
PCB 89-13 8 (1990).
Soundly adoptedby the Illinois courts, this earlyBoard principle still servesas thefoundation
for landfill siting review.
See
E&E
Hauling, Inc.
v. PCB, supra, affirmed,
E&E
Hauling,
Inc.
v.
Pollution
Control
Board,
107
Ill.
2d
33,
481
N.E.2d
664,
89
Ill.
Dec.
821
(1985);
Waste
3
Managementoflllinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board,
175 Ill. App. 3d 1023, 530 N.E.2d682,
125
Ill. Dec. 524
(2nd
Dist. 1988),
appeal denied,
125 Ill. 2d
575,
537 N.E. 2d 819,
130 Ill.
Dec. 490
(1989).
Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner claims bias on the part ofany one of the County
decision makers, such claim has been waivedbecause it was not made to the County Board prior to
its decision.
See
Waste Management v. Pollution Control Board, supra.
Thesebasic principles have beenspecifically embeddedin landfill-siting caselaw throughout
its history,
and the Hearing Officer should avoid Petitioner’s overreaching attempts to invade such
basic principles.
See Fairview Area Citizens Taskforce v. Illinois Pollution Control Board,
198 Ill.
App. 3d541,
555N.E.2d
1178, 1441ll.Dec.
659(3’~’Dist.
1990),
appealdenied,
133 lll.2d554,561
N.E.2d 689,
149
Ill.
Dec.
319
(local siting authority
can properly consider economic benefit to
community as a factor in approval ofsite, so long as statutory criteria are met);
City ofRockfordv.
County of Winnebago,
186 Ill. App. 3d 303, 542 N.E.2d 423,
134 Ill.
Dec.
244
(2nd
Dist.
1989),
appealdenied,
128 Ill. 2d 672,
548 N.E.2d 1067, 139
Ill.
Dec. 511 (board members arenot required
to avail themselves ofthe opportunity to reviewtherecord);
E & EHauling, Inc.
v. Pollution Control
Board, supra
(fundamental fairness does notrequire personal attendanceofBoard members at siting
hearing);
E &EHauling, Inc.
v. Pollution ControlBoard, supra
(countyboard is not disqualified as
decision maker because county will receive
revenues from the
landfill).
See
also
Woodsmoke
Resorts, Inc. v.
City ofMarseilles,
174111. App. 3d 906,
529
N.E.2d 274,
124111. Dec. 454
(3’~’
Dist.
1988) (city is
not disqualified
from reviewing application for site approval of landfill because it
stood
to
gain $8,000,000
in
waste
fees,
and
city’s plans
to
annex property is
not
evidence of
adjudicative prejudgment).
Based upon
the above,
the
Hearing Officer should
deny
Petitioner’s
broad
attempts
to
ascertainthrough discovery facts regardingbroad allegationsofbias and prejudgmenton the partof
4
the
County
Board
members.
Further,
regarding
Petitioner’s
requested
discovery
of evidence
concerning pre-filing contacts, unless a specific claim ofprejudgment~f adjudicative facts hasbeen
made by Petitioner, as it was made recentlyin theBoard’s reviewofa landfill siting decision,but has
not been made here, the Hearing Officer should deny such request.
See County ofKankakee v. City
ofKankakee,
PCB 03-31(2003); Section
11.B.2 below.
11.
Argument
A.
Petitioner Is Not Entitled To Discovery Directed At The Substantive Siting
Criteria.
As Petitioner concedes in its Motion, Interrogatory Nos.
6 and 19 are directed at Criterion 3
(specifically, American’s real estate
study).
Interrogatory Nos.
13
and 14
are similarlydirected at
Criterion
1
and American’s needs
analysis.
The record
on
these
substantive
criteria
is
closed,
however, and discovery on these issues is not permitted.
Land and Lakes Co.
v. Illinois Pollution
Control Board, supra.
Under Illinois law, Petitioner did not have the right to compel American to
produce documents during the siting hearing.
Petitioner, however,
had the right to cross-examine
American’s witnesses on the real estate and needs issues and it did so.
Petitioner also had the right
to
introduce its own evidence and public comment on these issues, which it did.
The fact that the
Board’s rules permit discovery on some issues, doesnot re-open therecordregardingthe substantive
criteria.
The Motion as to Interrogatory Nos. 6,
13,
14, and 19
should be denied.
B.
Through Its Motion, Petitioner Seeks Information That Is Neither Relevant
Nor Calculated To Lead To Information Relevant To
Issues OfJurisdiction
And FundamentalFairness.
1.
The Information Petitioner Seeks Regarding Notice Is Irrelevant To
The Board’s Determination OfJurisdiction.
In Interrogatory No.
4,
Petitioner seeks information regarding communications between
American and Amoco or BP Oil from and after January
1, 2002.
American has responded that no
5
communications occurredrelated to any issue raisedin the PetitionforReview.
In
InterrogatoryNo.
12, Petitioner asks American to identify all contracts between American and the owner ofthe tank
farm.
American
has responded thatno contracts
currently are in force.
Petitioner complains that
American’s answers are not fully responsive.
As
is
set forth
in Petitioner’s responses
to American’s discovery,
Petitioner claims
American’s
notice to theownerofParcel No.09-33-200-002
was defective in part becauseAmerican
“presumablywould have had contacts that could haveprovided
information about thecorrectidentity
and
address of the owner of the property.”
See
Petitioner’s Responses to American Disposal’s
Interrogatories at No.
2.
What
American’s employeesmight ormight nothave
surmised about the
identity and address ofthe owner ofthe
tank farm, however, is
irrelevant
to whether noticewas
properly served.
Section 39.2(b) ofthe IllinoisEnvironmentalProtectionActidentifies
only one source for the
correct names and addresses ofthose property owners required to be served
—
“the authentic tax
records oftheCounty inwhich such facilityis tobe located.” 415 ILCS 5/39.2(b). Americanwas
under no duty, asPetitioner suggests in its answerto InterrogatoryNo.2, to “make reasonable further
inquiries” regardingthe ownership ofthe tank farmafterAmerican’s timely served certifiedmailings
were returned.
Indeed,
as the Board
recently has held, American’s service was effective
upon
mailing the notices by certified mail,
return receipt
requested.
See
City of Kankakee,
supra.
Interrogatory Nos. 4 and 12
are
not calculated to lead to information relevant to the names
and
addresses
contained
in
Livingston
County’s
authentic
tax
records.
Petitioner’s
Motion
as
to
Interrogatory Nos. 4 and
12 should be denied.
6
2.
The
Information
Petitioner
Seeks
Regarding Pre-Filing
Contacts
Between American
And Members
Of The
County
Board
Is Not
Calculated To Lead To Information Relevant To Whether The Siting
HearingWas Fundamentally Fair.
Inthe Motion, CALE addressesin narrativepre-filing contacts, contracts, and documents and
objects to American’s limited answers to Interrogatories
7,
10, and
11.
Interrogatory No. 7 seeks
informationregarding all meetings between CountyBoard members and American since January
1,
2001.
This encompasses
a period of almost two years before the filing of the siting application.
CALE does not restrict or limit the subject matterofsuchmeetings.
Interrogatory No.
10 is really a
refinement ofInterrogatory No.
7 in that it seeks information for the same time period regarding
communications or meetings between the Livingston County Board and American relating to any
earlier application, the pendingapplication, host fees, theproposed expansion, and opposition to the.
expansion.
This Interrogatory, however, is also an expansion ofInterrogatory No. 7 in that it seeks
information
related
to
meetings
and
communications
between
consultants
for American
and
consultants forthe County Board.
Interrogatory No.
11 seeks identificationofdocuments relatedto
the subject matter ofInterrogatory No.
10.
None ofthe three disputed Interrogatories seeks informationregarding a specific pre-filing
event or contact.
Rather, they are broad fishing expeditions intended to
cover all contacts over
a
two-yearperiod. This is particularly importantbecause CALE never alleges, either in its Petition
for
Review nor in its
answers to American’s discovery requests, that American or its
agents ever did
anything
improper
to
influence
the
County
Board.
In
fact,
CALE’s
Answer
to
American’s
Interrogatory No.11
is that it has no knowledge ofany impermissible
exparte
contact betweenany
member of the County Board
and
any
representative
of American.
Moreover,
when asked
to
describe the factual and legal bases for its claim that members ofthe County Board prejudged the
7
siting application, CALE lists
18 specific instances ofbias, none ofwhich are alleged to be related
to, or resulting from, pre-filing contacts with American.
Instead, the 18 cited instances ofbias deal
generally with the County’s deliberative processes, its reliance upon its own technical consultants,
and most significantly its
desire to receive the host fees associated with the proposed expansion.
An applicant’s prior participation
and
involvement
in
the
legislative processes
before a
countyboard doesnot support an inference that theboard prejudged the application.
E & EHauling,
Inc.
vs. Pollution
Control Board, supra.
There is a presumption that administrative officials are
objective and capable offairlyjudging a particular controversy.
Waste Management vs. Pollution
ControlBoard,
175 Ill.App.3d 1023,530 N.E.2d 682,
125111. Dec. 524
(2’~”Dist.1988).
TheBoard
previouslyrelied upon these decisions to preclude altogetherdiscoveryregarding certaincategories
ofpre-filing contacts between an applicant and a decision maker.
The Board stated
There is no authority for applying
exparte
restrictions concerning Pollution Control
facility siting prior
to
the
filing
of an
application
for
siting approval.
Because
evidence ofthese contacts arenot relevant to the siting criteriaand are not indicative
ofimpermissible pre-decisional bias of the siting authority, we find that the County
Hearing Officer’s
failure to
allow testimony concerning these allegations did not
render the proceedings fundamentally unfair.
Similarly, the contacts between the
applicant and
the
County Board
prior
to
the
filing of the
siting
application
are
irrelevant
to
the
question
of whether the
siting
proceedings,
themselves,
were
conducted in a fundamentally fair manner.
ResidentsAgainstA PollutedEnvironment v. County ofLaSalle &Landcomp Corporation,
PCB 96-
243
(1996).
Based on its beliefthat the decision in
Land & Lakes Company vs.PCB, supra,
“impliesthat
evidence ofpre-filing contacts between the applicant and the actual decision maker..
.
may factor
into the fundamental fairness calculus,” the Board qualifiedits previous ruling in
ResidentsAgainst
A Polluted Environment
by finding that pre-filing contacts “may” be probative of prejudgment of
adjudicative facts in
County ofKankakee.
8
The holdingin
CountyofKankakee
should not be viewed asoverruling the
ResidentsAgainst
A PollutedEnvironmentbut
rather as qualifying and explaining the earlierdecision.
The facts ofthe
instant
case closely mirror the
situation
in
Residents Against A
Polluted Environment
and
are
completely unlike the facts that caused theBoard to qualifyits earlier decisionwhendeciding
County
ofKankakee.
In
Residents AgainstA Polluted Environment,
the petitioners sought broad discovery
related to Landcomp Corporation’s prior participation in the County’s legislative process, adoption
of the Host Agreement,
amendment ofthe Solid Waste Management Plan,
and the
like.
That
is
precisely the kind of information CALE
seeks here, and the production of such information
by
American is not only irrelevant but also
would be onerous in light ofthe fact that American and
Livingston County have enjoyedan on-going business relationshipbasedupon American’s operation
ofthe existing landfill.
In
County of Kankakee,
on
the other
hand,
the applicants sought to
introduce
evidence
regarding specific pre-filing
contacts
that were both
very close in time
and content to the siting
process.
These included
evidence of Town
&
Country’s
attorney
drafting
the Siting
Hearing
Ordinance and
evidence of a pre-filing presentation regarding the application
made by Town &
Country to the CityCouncil. In light ofthese directlyrelatedpre-filing contacts very closein time to
the filing ofthe application, the Board in
County ofKankakee
determinedthat the evidenceofthose
contacts should at leastbe considered on the issue ofprejudgment.
It is noteworthyto point out that
the Board ultimately found that no prejudgment occurred.
Accordingly,
American maintains its
objection
to
discovery ofpre-filing
contacts in
the
broad, unrestricted, and general fashion CALE attempts here.
Evidenceofpre-flling contacts should
only be admissible
when they are closely related in time to
the filing
of the siting application and
when a petitionercan make at least a preliminaryshowing (as was done by thepetitioners in
County
9
ofKankakee)
that the subject matter ofthe pre-filing contacts has some logical relationship to the
siting hearing process.
Lastly, American points out that discoveryregardingpre-4iling contacts betweenthetechnical
consultants for the parties is
entirely improper and not authorized by any previous decision ofthe
courts or the Board.
To the contrary, the decision in
Land & Lakes Company vs. Illinois Pollution
Control Board, supra,
is unequivocal that in the absence of any pre-filing
collusion between an
applicant and the actual decisionmaker, pre-filing contact between an applicant and consultants for
the decision maker cannotdeprive any opponentoffundamental fairness.
CALE has failed to allege
even the possibility of such collusion.
Instead, CALE alleges that the County Board improperly desired host fees from American.
The receipt ofeconomic benefit by a decision maker, however, cannot
legallybeusedto support an
inferenceofbias orprejudgment.
Fairview Area Citizens’ TaskForce vs. Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
198 Ill.App.3d 541,
555
N.E.2d 1178,
144 Ill. Dec. 659
(31d
Dist.
1990).
In
addition to
seeking to
inquire into “potential
bias,” CALE
also
cites in
support of its
Motion inquiryinto financial interest ofCounty Board members.
This is not a basis for compelling
further answers to
InterrogatoryNos. 7,
10,
11, however, as the issue offinancialinterest ofCounty
Board members, and even theirconsultants,
is completely answered in InterrogatoryNos.
9,
16, and
17.
The Motion as to Interrogatory Nos. 7,
10, and
11
should be denied.
3.
The Information Redacted
From
The Contract Between American
And JeanneRapp Is Not Calculated To LeadTo Information Relevant
To Whether The SitingHearingWas FundamentallyFair.
Whenproducing a Contract between it and JeanneRapp, American redactedthe agreement’s
financial
terms.
In its
Motion,
Petitioner
claims
these terms
are “highly relevant
to
issues
of
fundamental unfairness and possibly to thereal propertyvalue criterion.” To the extent Petitioner’s
10
claim relates to Criteria 3, it should be rejected.
See
Section 11.A.
above. Nordoes any basis existto
support Petitioner’s theory that the Contract is relevantto evidence offundamental unfairness.
All
parties agreethat Ms. Rapp did not vote on American’sApplication.
Thepurchases pursuant to the
Contract were disclosed in Ms. Rapp’s 2000 and 2001
Statements ofEconomic Interest, copies of
which were produced by Petitioner and are attached hereto for the benefit of the Hearing Officer.
Any potential bias Ms. Rapp may have had thus was appropriately disclosed and addressed.
The
financial details ofthese transactions arenot relevantto any fundamentalfhirnessissue.
TheMotion
as to the redacted Contract should be denied.
C.
Clarification By American Moots Petitioner’s Motion As To Interrogatory
Nos.8And18.
In its Motion, Petitioner states American’s answer to Interrogatory No. 8 “does not indicate
whetherthere are othersuchcontracts with Board Members.”
To the extent American’s answerwas
unclear, American states it is
not aware of any agreement, proposed agreement, understanding, or
contract with any member ofthe County Board not disclosedin its answer to Interrogatory No. 8.
In
its Motion, Petitioner
also states American failed to
identify the “certain options to purchase real
estate” referred to in American’s answerto Interrogatory No.
18.
To the extent American’s answer
was unclear, American states the options referred to
in its
answer to
Interrogatory No.
18
are the
options
disclosed and produced with
its
responses to Petitioner’s
discovery.
The Motion
as to
Interrogatory Nos.
8 and
18 should be
denied as moot.
11
ifi.
Conclusion
For all ofthe foregoing reasons, American respectfully requests that the Motion be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
AMERICAN DISPOSAL SERVICES OFILLINOIS,
INC., Respondent
By EIIRMANN GEHLBACH BADGER & LEE
By~
~
Douglas E.
Lee
Douglas E. Lee
Ehrniann Gehlbach Badger & Lee
Co-Counsel for Respondent American Disposal
Services ofIllinois,
Inc.
215
E. First
St.,
Suite
100
Dixon, IL
61021
(815) 288-4949
(815) 288-3068 (FAX)
12
• STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
TO BE FILED
WITH
THE COUNTY
CLERK
~
J1~
~
MAR
2
20(1
-
C~tjn~’
Clerk
-..
1vL~ttfl~
t;~t~OIS
3.
List
the
nature of
professional services
rendered
(other
than
to
the
unit of government
in
relation to
which
the person is
required
to
file)
and
the
nature
of
the
entity
to
which
they
were
rendered
if
fees
exceeding $5,000
were received
during the
-:preceding calendar
year from
the
entity for professional services rendered
by
the
person making
the
statement. (“Professional
services”
means
services
rendered
in
the
practice of
law,
accounting, engineering~medicine,
architecture, dentistry
or clinical
psychology.)
(TYPE
OR HAND PRINT)
JEANNE
RAPP
(name)
LIVINGSTON
COUNTY
BOARD’
DISTRICT
TWO
•
(office or
position of employment for which
this
statement is filed)•
•
‘•
•.
21912
N
1710
EAST
RD,
PONTIAC
61764
(full post office
address to
which
notification of an
examination of
this statement should be sent)
GENERAL DIRECTIONS
The
interest
(if
constructively
controlled
by
the
person
making
the
statement)
of
a
spouse
or
any
other
party,
shall
be
considered
to
be
the
same
as
the
interest of
the person
making the statement
Campaign
receipts shall
not be
included-in
this
statement
If
additional
space
is
needed
please attach supplemental
listing
1.
List
the
name
artd instrumentof ownership
in
any
entity doing business
with
the
unit of local
government in relation to
which
the
person
is
rerjuircd
to
file,
in
which
the
ownership
interest held by
the
person at
the
date
of
filing
is
in
excess of
$5,000
fair
market
value
or
from
which
dividends
in
excess
of $1,200
were
received
during
the, preceding
calendar year.
(lit
the
case of
real
estate,
location
thereof shall
be
lIstLd
by
the
street address, or
if
none, then by
legal description)
No
time or
demand
deposit
in
a
financial
institution,
nor any debt instrumemit shall
be listed
Business Entity
Instrument ofOwnership
Position ofManagement
‘None.
‘
•
•
‘
‘
‘
2
List
the
name, .zddresm,
and
type of practici. of any
professional organization in
which
the person m4king
the statement
was
an officer, director; associate,
partner or proprictor or served in
any
advisory capacity from
which income in
excess
of
$1,200
was derived’ during the’ preceding calendar year.
‘
‘
‘
•
•
‘
•
‘
Name
Address
Type of Practice
•
-
‘None-
‘
•
•
‘
•
.1
4.
List
the
identity
(including the
address or
legal
description
of real estate)
of
any capital asset from whi.ch .a.ca~italgain
of
$5,OQO or more
was realized
during
the preceding
calendar year.
Sale
of
7
residential
lots
to
Allied
Waste
Transportation.
Tnt.
Lots
2,
3,
7,
13.
21,
22,
and
23
in
Rapp’s
Whispering
Oaks
Subdivision,
Livingston
County,
Illinois
as
recorded
in
Plat
Book
12
at
page
30
as
document
No.
457251.
5.
List the
name of any
entity
and
the nature of
the governmental
action
requested
by
any
entity which has
applied to the
unit
of
local
government
in
relation
to
which
the
person must
file for any license, franchise or permit for annexation, zoning
or
rczoning
of
real
estate
during
the
preceding
calendar
year
if
the
ownership
interest of
the
person
flliiig
is
in
excess
of
$5,000
fair
market
value
at
the
Lime of
filing or
if income
or dividends
in
excess of $1,200
were received by
the person filing
from
the entity
during the
preceding calendar
year.
See
Number
4
-
6.
List
the
name of any
entity doing business with’
the
unit of local government
in relation to
which
the
person
is required to
file
from
which
income
hI-’excess
of
$1,200
was
derived
during
the
preceding
calendar
year other
than
for
professional
services
and
the
title
or
description of
any
position held
in
that entity.
No
time or demand
deposit
in
a
financial institution
nor any debt instrument
need
be
listed.
See
Number
4
—
no
employment
relationship
7.
List
the
name of
any
unit of government which employed the person making the
statement during the preceding calendar
year other than
the unit
of government
in
relation
to which
the person is required
to file.
None
8.
List
the
name
of
any entity
from
which
a
gift
or
gifts, or
honorarium
or
honoraria,
valued
singly
or
in
the aggregate
in
excess of’SSOO,
was received
during the
preceding calendar year.
None
VERIFICATION
“I
declare
that
this
statement
of
economic
interests
(including
any
accompanying
schedules
and
statements)
has
been
examined
by
me
and
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
and
belief
is
a
true,
correct
and
complete
statement of
my
economic
interests
as
required
by
the
Illinois
Governmental
Ethics
Act~
I understand
that
the
penalty for willfully
filing
a
false or
incomplete
statement shall
be
a
fine
not.
to
exceed
$1,000 or
imprisonment in
a penal
institution
other
than the
penitentiary
not to exceed one year, or both fine and imprisonment.”
~
(date)
W.
Jeanne
Rapp
,
(name)
•
•
•
•
County
Board
-
•
-
(office
or p
-
osition of
e mployment fo
-
r
which
,
his
statement is
‘
filed)
21912 N
1710 East Road, Pontiac,
IL
--61764
(full post
office
address to
which notifièation of an
examination of,this statement should, be sent)
-GENERAL
DIRECTIONS
The interest
(if
constructively-
controlled
by
the
person
making
the
statement)
~f
a
spouse
or
any other
party,
shall
be
considered
to
be
the
same
as
the- interest of
the person making
the statement.
Campaign receipts shall
not be
included in
this
statement. If
additional
space
is needed,
please
attadi
supplemental
listing.
-
-
-
-
..~,
-
-
-
I.’iist
the name and
instrument
of ownership
in’
any entity doing business
with
the unit
of
local
government in relation to
which
the
person
is
required
to
file,
in
which
the
ownership
interest
held
by
the
person
at
the
date of
filing
is in
excess of
$5,000
fair
market
value
or
from
which
dividends
in
excess
of $1,200
were
received
during the preceding
calendar
ye-ar.
(in
the, case
of real
estate,
location
thereof
shall
be
listed’ by
the street address, or
if none, then by
legal description.) No
time or
demand
deposit
in
a
financial
institution,
nor any d.bt instrument shall
be
listed
Business Entity
Instrument
ofOwnership
Position ofManagement
-
-
None.--
-
-:‘
--
—
‘“
.
‘‘
--
-
•-
-
-
Name
-None
2. List
the
name, address-and
type
of’practice of any
professional
organization in which
the
person making the statement
was
an
officer, director, associate,partner or
proprietor or
served in any
advisory
capacity from
which’income in
excess
of $1,200
was
derived
during the
preceding calendar
year.
•
-
Address,
-
Type’ of Practice
-
3.
List
the nature of professional
services rendered (other
than
to
the
unit, of government in relation
to which
the person is
required
to
file)
and
the
nature
of
the
entity
to
which
they
were rendered
if fees
exceeding $5,000
were received during the
preceding
calendar
year from the
entity
for professional
services
rendered
by the
person making
the statement. (“Professional
services”
means
services
rendered
in
the
practice
of
law,
accounting,
engineering, medicine,
architecture, dentistry or clinical
psychology.)
STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS
TO BE FILED
WITH THE COUNTY
(TYPE
OR HAND PRINT)
APR
28
2000
None
4.
List
the
idenlity
(including
the
address
or
legal
description
of real
estate)
of
any capital asset from which a capital gain
of
$5,000
or
more
was realized during
the preceding calendar year.
Sale
of
8
residential
lots
to
Allied
Waste
Transportation,
Inc.
—
Lots
1,
4,
5,
6,
9,
10,
19
and
20
in
Rapp’s
Whispering
Oaks
Subdivision,
Livingston
County,
Illinois,
as
recorded
in
Plat
Book
12
at
Page
30
as
Document
No.
457251.
5.
List
the
name of
any
entity
and
the nature of
the
governmental
action
requested
by
any
entity which
has applied
to the
-
unit of
local government in relation
to
which
Ihe person must
file for any license,
franchise or permit for annexation,
zoning
or
re2oning of
real
estate
during
Ilic
preceding
calendar year
if
the
owncrshiip
interest of
the
person’
filing
is in excess
of
$5,000 fair market value
at
the
time of filing or if income or dividends in excess of $1,200 were
received by
the
person
filing
from
the entity
during the
preceding calendar year.
See
Number
4
6.
List
the
name of
any
entity doing business
with
the
unit
of local government
in relation
to
which the
person is required
to
file
from
which
income i~~xcess
of
$1,200
was
derived
during
the
preceding
calendar
year other
than
for
professional
services
and
the
title
or
description of
any
position
held
in
that
entity. No
time or
demand deposit
in
a
financial
institution
nor any debt instrument
need
be listed.
See
Number
4
—
-
no
employment
relationship
-
7.
List
the
name
of
any
unit of
government,
which employed
the
person making
the statement during the
preceding calendar
year other than
the unit of government in
relation
to
which
the person
is required
to
file.
None
8.
List
the
name
of
any entity
from
which
a
gift
or
gifts,
or
honorarium
or
honoraria,
valued
singly
or
in
the
aggregate
in
excess of’$500, wasreceived during the preceding calendar year.
None
VERIFICATION
“I
declare
that
this
statement
of
economic
interests
(including
any
accompanying
schedules
and
statements)
has
been
examined
by
me
and
to
the
best
of
my
knowledge
and
belief
is
a
true,
correct
and
complete
statement of
my
economic
interests
as
required
by
the
Illinois
Governmental
Ethics
Act.
I understand
that
the
penalty
for willfully
filing
a
false
or
incomplete statement
shall
be
a
fine
not
to
exceed
$1,000 or
imprisonment
in
a
penal
institution other than
the penitentiary
not to exceed one year, or both fine and imprisonment.”
(signatiS’re of person making the s~.at~1ment)
~OOC
(date)
