RECE~V~D
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
APR
2
52003
TIlE CITY OF KANKAKEE, an Illinois
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Municipal Corporation
)
polluttofl
Control
Board
)
Petitioner
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-125
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate; KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
Aiid WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MERLIN KARLOCK,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 03-133
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate; KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MICHAEL WATSON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 03-134
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution
Control Facility
Corporate; KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT. OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
KEITH RUNYON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 03-135
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a
body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate; KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 03-144
)
(Pollution Control Facility
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
)
Siting Appeal Consolidated)
)
Respondent
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 24, 2003
there caused to be filed via U.S.
Mail
with the Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and 9 copies ofthe following document, a
copy ofwhich is attached hereto:
City of Kankakee’s Response to Waste Management ofIllinois,
Inc.’s Objections to
theCity’s List of Deponents
Respectfully submitted,
The City ofKankakee
By:______
Attorney fo
City ofKa
ee
Prepared by:
L. Patj~ick
Power #2244357
Corporate Counsel
956
North Fifth Ave.
Kankakee, IL
60901
(815)
937-6937
2
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD\PR
252003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, an Illinois
)
Pollution
Control
Board
Municipal Corporation
)
)
Petitioner
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-125
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate; KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MERLIN KARLOCK,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 03-133
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate; KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MICHAEL WATSON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
V.
)
No. PCB 03-134
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE,
a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
KEITH RUNYON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 03-135
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS
)
I~C.,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-144
)
(Pollution Control Facility
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
)
Siting Appeal Consolidated)
)
Respondent
)
RESPONSE TO WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE CITY’S LIST OF DEPONENTS
Now comes the City of Kankakee, (hereinafter, the “City”), by
and through
its attorneys,
Assistant City Attorneys L.
Patrick Power and
Kenneth A.
Leshen, and responding
to
the Waste
Management ofIllinois,
Inc., (hereinafter, the “WMII”) objections
to its list of deponents,
states
as follows:
1.
The City alleges, on information and belief and based on the documents produced
in response to
the City’s discovery requests that there have been ongoing and massive pre-fihing
and
post-filing
contacts
between
these
attorneys.
Waste
Management
of
Illinois,
Inc.
(hereinafter
“WMII”), disclosed in its answers
to the City’s
interrogatories that its attorney
and
agent, Donald Moran, after the end of the hearing and prior to
the decision,
communicated with
Charles Heiston
and
Elizabeth Harvey concerning
the substance of the hearing.
Each of these
attorneys,
pursuant to their own declarations
and
the declarations of Edward
D.
Smith,
State’s
Attorney of Kankakee, represented separate
and distinct entities.
Donald Moran’s importuning
ofthe County can only be viewed as an improper ex parte effort to
influence the decision-maker
through communications with its
agent, Elizabeth
Harvey.
Rather than acting
as advocates
and
advisors in a legal
forum, these attorneys acted as negotiating agents for their respective clients.
The
fact that
they
can
each put
the
initials
J.D.
behind
their names
does not
allow
them
to
conceal their doings.
2.
The
City
acknowledges that
the
hearing
Officer has precluded
inquiry
into the
legislative
process
concerning
the
adoption
of the
County’s
Solid
Waster
Plan.
However,
Hearing officer Halloran did not
ask the parties
or the Board to
put
on blinders and
ignore the
fact that
the County’s
Solid
Waste Management Plan designates
WMII as the
sole
provider,
a
fact buttressed
in
its
relevance
and
as
evidence
of pre-judgment by
the
fact that
documents
produced trumpet the fact that WMII committed to the County that it would fund the defense of
the Plan in any litigation concerning its legitimacy.
3.
The salient facts are as follows:
a.
The
County
and
WMII agreed
years
ago
that
the
current County
waste
facility
was nearing its
capacity,
a
fact evidenced by much correspondence between the
County and WMII.
b.
The County, recognizing its need and
the financial benefits that would
inure to it,
then designated Wivill as the
sole provider that would be able to
operate a landfill
in Kankakee County.
c.
The only way the County would be
able to
satisfy
it needs,
according to its
own
plan and prejudgment, was to
approve the
siting proposal of WMII.
The City of
Kankakee was, at the same time as this prejudgment occurred,
seeking to
site its
own
facility, a
fact that
made
the
County’s
complicity
with
WMII
all
the more
urgent.
d.
WMII, through Dale Hoekstra, Division Vice-President, Illinois Landfill Division,
in
correspondence
January
7,
2002,
addressed
to
Karl
Kruse
and
copied
to
the
Kankakee County Board Members, Lee Addleman, Chuck Helsten, Ed Smith, and
Dennis Wilt
(emphasis added) pledge the resources ofWMII to provide a full and
complete defense for the County in the event ofa legal challenge to the Plan.
e.
Dennis Wilt prepared and spearheaded WMII’s proposed host agreement with the
County and participated in negotiations with Chuck Helsten and representatives of
the County.
4.
The issue
is whether the communications between the parties amongst themselves
and
with
the
applicant,
show or tend
to
show
prejudgment and
fundamental
unfairness.
It
is
disenguous
in
the
extreme
for
WMII
to
try
to
hide
its
complicity
with
the
County
in
the
prejudgment
of its
siting
application
by
claiming
that
depositions
of its
attorneys
somehow
disrupts
these proceedings.
These are issues that
perhaps
would have been best considered by
Wivill prior to its
improper conduct.
5.
According
to
WMII’s
theory,
each of the
attorneys
who
engaged in
improper
c~mmunicationsoutside ofthe hearing process would be protected
from
cross-examination, the
great engine of truth
seeking in
the
adversarial process.
Shielding
improper
conduct, if
any
occurred, would
indeed lower the standards ofthe legal profession.
6.
WMII objects to the City identification of Lee Addleman as
a deponent, arguing
that
this
identification was made solely to
harass.
WMII’s assertion that the City’s
action was
made
solely
to
harass
conveniently
avoids
the
applicable
rules.
It
is
incumbent on
WMII
to
provide
a
physician’s
affidavit
substantiating
Mr.
Addleman’s
unavailability
rather
than
rancorously attacking the
City.
7.
The
WMII
concludes
its
argument
with
the
catchall
phrase
that
the
City
is
engaged in a fishing
expedition.
If the City is
fishing, it
is
only because the County
and WMII
have
filled
the
pond
with
such
a
rich
array
of fish.
The
issue
in
discovery
is
whether the
discovery regarding pre-filing
contacts
may be
probative of prejudgment of adjudicative
facts,
which
is
an
element
to
be
considered
in
assessing
fundamental
fairness.
See
County
of
Kankakee
v.
City
of Kankakee,
Town
and
Country
Utilities,
Inc.
and
Kankakee
Regional
Landfill, L.L.C.,
PCB 03-31, PCB 03-33, PCB, 03-35 (cons.) (Jan. 23, 2003).
8.
Lastly,
WMII
argues
that
the
City
has
identified
an
excessive
number
of
deponents and impliedly queries whether the depositions can be timely conducted.
The truncated
time limits are solely the responsibility ofWMII.
The inconvenience to
attorneys and deponents
is
minimal
as compared
to
the rights of the citizenry of Kankakee County
to
have
a
full
and
complete airing ofthe issues presented to the Board for its consideration and decision.
9.
The
City
adopts
and
ratifies
in
full
Petitioner
Michael
Watson’s
Response
to
WMII’s Objections to Watson’s Request for Depositions.
Wherefore, the City of Kankakee respectfully requests the IPCB Hearing
officer to
overrule the WMII’s objections, so wrongfully brought,
and require the County to produce
the requested persons for their depositions.
Respectfully submitted,
The ~~e?
~0
By its
attorneys, L. Patrick
Power and Kenneth A.
Leshen, Assistant City
Attorneys
Prepared by:
L.
Patrick Power and
Kenneth A. Leshen, Assistant
City Attorneys
956
N. Fifth
Kankakee, IL
60901
937- 6937
Reg. No. 03127454
Reg. No. 2244357
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 ofthe Illinois Code
oiCivil Procedure, hereby under pepalty ofpeljury under the laws ofthe United States of
America, certifies that on April ~‘2003,
a copy ofthe foregoing City ofKankakee’s
1~.esponse
to the Objections ofits List ofDeponents
was served upon:
Thmrothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution
Control
Board
JanesThompson Center
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601-3218
Charles F. Heisten
Attorneyat Law
P.C. Box
1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
Fax:
(815)
963-9989
KennethLeshen
One
Dearborn Square, Suite
550
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815) 933-3385
(815)
933-3397 Fax
GeorgeMueller
Attorney atLaw
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
(815)261-2149
(815)433-4913Fax
KeithRunyon
1165Plum Creek Dr.??D
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
(815)
937-9838
(815)
937-9164Fax
Donald J. Moran
Attorney at Law
161 N. Clark, Suite 3100
Chicago,IL 60601
(312) 261-2149
(312) 261-1149
Fax
ElizabethHarvey,
Esq.
One
IBM
Plaza, Suite 2900
330N.Wabash
Chicago,IL 60611
(312) 321-9100
(312) 321-0990 Fax
JenniferJ. Sackett Pohlenz,
AttorneyatLaw
175
W. JacksonBlvd., Suite 1600
Chicago,IL 60604
(312) 540-7540
(312) 540-0578Fax
LelandMilk
6903 5. Route
45-52
Chebanse,IL 60922
Patricia
O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Dr.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Brad Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
Fax: (312) 814-3669
By depositing a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope in the United ~tates
Mail at Kankakee,
Illinois, proper postage prepaid, before the hour of 6:00 p.m., on ~
day of April 2003,
addressed as above.
~2
_______
day ofApril 2003.
Prepared by:
L. Patrick Power
Kenneth A.
Leshen
Assistant City Attorney
Assistant City Attorney
956
N. Fifth Avenue
One Dearborn Square, Suite
550
Kankakee, IL
60901
Kankakee,IL
60901
(815) 937-6937
(815)
933-3385
RECEJIVED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
I~PR25
2003
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, an Illinois
)
Municipal Corporation
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
Petitioner
)
V.
)
No.
PCB 03-125
)
COUNTY OF
KANKAXEE,
a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MERLIN KARLOCK,
)
Petitioner
)
)
)
No.
PCB 03-133
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MICHAEL WATSON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 03-134
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
KEITH RUNYON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-135
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE, a
body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
W’ASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS
)
ir’~c.,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-144
)
(Pollution Control Facility
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
)
Siting Appeal Consolidated)
)
Respondent
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 24, 2003 there caused to be filed via U.S.
Mail
with the Illinois Pollution Control Board an original and 9 copies ofthe following document, a
copy ofwhich is attached hereto:
City of Kankakee’s Response to County ofKankakee’s Objections
to the City’s List
ofDeponents
Respectfully submitted,
The City ofKa
.ee
By:
____________
Attorney for City ofKa
akee
Prepared by:
L. Patrick Power
#2244357
Corporate Counsel
956
North Fifth Ave.
Kankakee, IL
60901
(815)
937-6937
2
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
an Illinois
)
1’~unicipalCorporation
)
)
Petitioner
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-125
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MERLIN
KARLOCK,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB
03-133
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
a
body politic and
)
(Third-Party
Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MICHAEL WATSON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
V.
)
No.
PCB 03-134
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE, a
body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
KEITH RUNYON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB
03-135
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE, a
body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate;
KANKAKEE
COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS
)
~
25
2003
INC.,
..
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Petitioner
Pollution
Control Board
)
)
No.
PCB
03-144
)
(Pollution Control Facility
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
)
SitingAppeal Consolidated)
)
Respondent
)
RESPONSE TO THE
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE
CITY’S LIST OF DEPONENTS
Now comes the City ofKankakee, (hereinafter, the “City”), by
and through its
attorneys,
Assistant
City Attorneys L. Patrick Power and Kenneth A. Leshen, and responding to
the County
ofKankakee’s (hereinafter, the “County”) objections to
its list of deponents, states as follows:
1.
The
County
brandishes
the
concept
of attorney-client
privilege in
an
effort
to
thwart the truth seeking process.
Consequently,
it is
first
important to
delineate which
attorney
represented which entity orpersons.
2.
The record ofproceedings ofthe
siting hearing, Volume I, pages
2
and
3, recite
the appearances ofcounsel.
(See
attached hereto and
incorporated herein, pages
2
and
three of
Volume I).
Charles Helston ofHinshaw and
Culbertson represented the Kankakee County Staff.
Elizabeth
Harvey,
accompanied
by
Edward
d.
Smith,
the
duly
elected
State’s
Attorney
of
Kankakee
County,
represented
the
Kankakee
County
Regional
Planning
Commission and
the
Kankakee County Board.
3.
As
a result of the
foregoing,
any communications between Charles Heiston
and
any
other attorneys
from
the firm of Hinshaw
and
Culbertson on the
one
hand
and
Edward
D.
Smith,
duly
elected State’s
Attorney of Kankakee County
and
Elizabeth
Harvey
on
the other
hand, are not privileged.
4.
The City alleges, on information and belief and based on the documents produced
in response to the City’s discovery requests that there have been ongoing
and massive pre-filing
arid
post-filing
contacts
between
these
attorneys.
Waste
Management
of
Illinois,
Inc.
(liereinafter
“WMII”), disclosed in its answers
to the City’s interrogatories that its attorney and
agent, Donald Moran, after the end ofthe hearing and prior to the decision, communicated with
Charles
Helston
and Elizabeth Harvey
concerning
the substance of the hearing.
Each of these
attorneys, pursuant
to their own declarations and
the declarations of Edward D.
Smith, State’s
Attorney of Kankakee, represented
separate
and distinct
entities.
Donald
Moran’s importuning
of the County
can only be viewed as an improper ex
parte effort to influence the decision-maker
through communications with its
agent, Elizabeth Harvey.
Rather than acting as advocates
and
advisors in a
legal forum,
these attorneys acted as negotiating agents for their respective
clients.
The fact
that
they
can
each put
the
initials
J.D.
behind their
names
does
not
allow
them
to
conceal their doings.
5.
The City acknowledges
that
the hearing
Officer has precluded
inquiry into
the
legislative
process
concerning
the
adoption
of the
County’s
Solid
Waster
Plan.
However,
Hearing officer Halloran did not
ask the parties or the Board to
put
on
blinders and
ignore the
fact that
the County’s
Solid
Waste Management Plan
designates
WIvilI as the
sole
provider,
a
fact
buttressed
in
its
relevance
and
as
evidence of pre-judgment by
the
fact
that
documents
produced trumpet the fact that WMII committed to
the County that it would fund the defense of
the Plan in any litigation concerning its
legitimacy.
6.
The salient facts are as follows:
a.
The County
and
WMII
agreed years
ago
that
the
current County
waste
facility
was nearing its
capacity, a fact evidenced by much correspondence between the
County and WMII.
b.
The County, recognizing its need and the financial benefits that would inure to
it,
then designated WMII as the sole provider that would be
able to operate a landfill
in Kankakee County.
c.
The only way the County would be
able to
satisfy it needs,
according
to
its
own
plan and
prejudgment, was to
approve the siting proposal ofWMII.
The City of
Kankakee was, at the same time as this
prejudgment occurred, seeking to
site its
own
facility, a fact that
made the County’s
complicity
with
WMII
all
the more
urgent.
7.
Contrary
to the assertions of the County,
the
issue
is
not whether Smith, Gorski,
Helston
and Harvey
were the applicant.
The
issue
is whether the communications between the
parties
amongst
themselves
and
with
the
applicant,
show
or tend
to
show
prejudgment
and
fundamental unfairness.
8.
The
County
alleges
that
depositions
of
these
attorneys
would
somehow
be
disruptive of the adversarial process and lower the standards of the
legal profession.
According
to
this theory,
each of the attorneys who engaged in
improper ex
parte communications
outside
of the hearing process
would
be
protected
from
cross-examination, the
great
engine of truth
seeking in the
adversarial process.
Shielding improper conduct, if any
occurred,
would indeed
lower the standards ofthe legal profession.
9.
The
County
concludes
its
argument
with
the
catchall
phrase
that
the
City
is
engaged in a fishing expedition.
If the City
is
fishing, it is
only because the County and
WMII
have filled
the
pond
with
such
a
rich
array
of fish.
The
issue
in
discovery
is
whether
the
discovery regarding pre-filing
contacts
may be probative
of prejudgment of adjudicative
facts,
which
is
an
element
to
be
considered
in
assessing
fundamental
fairness.
See
County
of
Kankakee
v.
City of Kankakee,
Town
and
Country
Utilities.
Inc.
and
Kanakee
Regional
Landfill, L.L.C.,
PCB 03-3 1, PCB 03-33, PCB, 03-35 (cons.) (Jan. 23, 2003).
10.
The
City
adopts
and
ratifies
in
full
Petitioner
Michael
Watson’s
Response
to
County ofKankakee’s Objections to Watson’s Request for Depositions.
Wherefore,
the City of Kankakee
respectfully requests the IPCB Hearing
officer to
o’irerrule
the
County’s
objections,
so
wrongfully
brought,
and
require
the
County
to
produce the requested persons for their depositions.
Respectfully submitted,
The City ofKankakee
By
its attorneys, L. Patrick
Power and Kenneth A.
Leshen, Assistant
City
Attorneys
Prepared by:
L. Patrick Power and
Kenneth A. Leshen, Assistant
City Attorneys
956
N. Fifth
Kankakee, IL 60901
937- 6937
Reg. No. 03127454
Reg. No. 2244357
1
KANKAKEE COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
2
Mr.
George Washington,
Jr.
Ms.
Loretto Cowhig
3
Mr. Craig Bayston
Mr.
Michael spilsbury
4
Mr.
James Tripp
Mr.
Ralph paarlberg
5
Mr.
Curt Saindon
Mr.
Dennis Peters
6
Mr.
Mike Finnegan
Mr.
John Meyer
7
Mr. David Bergdahl
Mr.
Barry Jaffe
8
KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS
9
Mr.
Wes wiseman
10
Mr.
Duane Bertrand
Mr.
Red Marcotte
11
Mr.
Leonard Martin
Ms. Ann Bernard
12
Mr.
Leo whitten
Mr. George Hoffman
13
Mr.
Bill olthoff
Mr.
Sam Nicholos
14
Ms.
Karen Hertzberger
15
APPEARANCES:
16
MR. DONALD MORAN,
Appeared on behalf of waste Management,
17
Applicant;
18
MR. CHARLES HELSTEN,
Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee County staff;
19
MS.
ELIZABETH
S.
HARVEY,
20
Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee County
Regional planning Commission and the Kankakee
21
County Board;
22
2
EUNICE
SACHS &
ASSOCIATES
(708)
709-0500
1
APPEARANCES CONTINUED:
2
MR.
EDWARD SMITH,
Kankakee County state’s Attorney,
3
Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee County
Regional Planning Commission;
4
MR.
L.
PATRICK
POWER,
5
Appeared on behalf of the City of Kankakee;
6
MR. GEORGE MUELLER,
Appeared
on
behalf
of
Mr.
Merlin
Karlock;
7
MS.
JENNIFER
3.
SACKETT
POHLENZ,
8
Appeared
on
behalf
Mr.
Michael
Watson;
9
MR.
DAVID
FLYNN,
Appeared
on
behalf
of
Mr.
Michael
Watson;
10
MR.
KENNETH
BLEYER,
11
Appeared
on
behalf
of
Mr.
Richard
Murray;
12
MR.
LEE
MILK,
Individually;
13
MS.
PATRICIA O’DELL, Individually;
14
MR.
KEITH
RUNYON,
Individually.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3
EUNICE SACHS & ASSOCIATES
(708) 709-0500
AFFIDAVIT OF SERYICE
Theundersigned, pursuant to theprovisions ofSection 1-109 ofthe Illinois Code
ofCivil Procedure, herebyunderpçpalty of
perjury
under the laws oftheUnited States of
America, certifies thaton April~‘2003,a copyof the foregoing CityofKankakee’s
Response to the Objections of its List ofDeponents was
served
upon:
Dorothy M. Gurin,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
JamesThompson Center
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
Charles F. Heisten
Attorney atLaw
P.O.Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61 105-1389
Fax:
(815)
963-9989
KennethLeshen
One
DearbornSquare, Suite 550
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815) 933-3385
(815)
933-3397Fax
George Mueller
Attorney atLaw
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
(815) 261-2149
(815)433-4913 Fax
KeithRunyon
1165Plum Creek Dr.#D
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
(815)
937-9838
(815) 937-9164Fax
Donald J. Moran
Attorney atLaw
161 N. Clark, Suite3100
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 261-2149
(312) 261-1149
Fax
ElizabethHarvey,
Esq.
One
IBM
Plaza, Suite 2900
330N. Wabash
Chicago,IL 60611
(312) 321-9100
(312)
321-0990Fax
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz,
Attorney atLaw
175
W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 540-7540
(312) 540-0578Fax
LelandMilk
6903 S. Route
45-52
Chebanse, IL 60922
Patricia O’Dell
1242Arrowhead Dr.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Brad Halloran,
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601-3218
Fax: (312) 814-3669
By depositing a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope in
the United ~tates Mail at Kankakee,
Illinois, proper postage prepaid, before the hour of 6:OQ p.m., on ~
day of
April
2003,
addressed as above.
day ofApril 2003.
Kenneth A. Leshen
Assistant City Attorney
One Dearborn Square, Suite
550
Kankakee, IL
60901
(S15) 933-3385
Kankakee, IL
60901
(815) 937-6937
