1. COUNTY SiTING APPROVAl
    1. ~3?~c:io:~
Apr ~ 03 04:37p
L. Patrick Fcwer
8-S3~-00~8
p.a
RECE~vE D
CLFJ~’Jc’s~!C~
BEFU~ THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAJth
APR 1 8 2003
THE CITY OF K~NKAKFE,an Illinois
)
STATE 9F 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
)
)
)
No. PCB 03-133
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
a body politic and
)
(Tbird~PartyPollution Control Facility
Corporate; KANKAKEE COUNTY
BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
MICHAEL WATSON,
)
Petitioner
)
)
)
No. PCB 03-134
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, a body politic and
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
Corporate; KAN*cAKEE 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 PoUi~tionControl Facility
Corporate; KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
Respondent
)
Apr’ 17 03 04:37p
L. P~trtck Power
~_S~_005z
RECEiVED
C.~i’~ flF~C~
~PR 182003
WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS
)
IINC
)
STATE OF ILLiNOIS
Petitioner
)
-
Pollution Control Board
)
))
No.(PollutionPCB 03-144Control
Facility
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE,
)
Siting Appeal Consolidated)
)
Respondent
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 17, 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 of which is attached hereto:
City of iKankakec’s
Supplemental Response to Waste Management of Illinois, lne’s
Motion to Sever its Appeal of Two Siting Conditions from the Four Appeals Challenging
the Kankakee County Siting Approval
Respectfully submitted,
The City ofKankakee
By:
t/~ ~
Atto ey
.0
City
of Kan
cc
Prepared by:
L,
Paujek Power p2244357
Corporate Counsel
956
NorTh Fifth Ave.
Ka~kakcc.IL 60901
(815) 937-6937
2
L. P,t~r’iok Power’
Apr’ 1~? 03 04:37p
8i5-S37-0055
p.4
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigncd. pu.rsuant to the
orovistons
of Section 1-100 oF the 1~l:co~s
C~
of Civil Proc~durc.hereby under penalty of per urv unde~the laws of the Uu:rea S Lttes
o
~merica. oerT~fiesthat on April 1
7.
2003,
a copy of the foregoing City ot Kanka~ee’s
Supplemental Response to
\Vasle
Management of Illinois, inc.’s Motion to Sever
it.c
Appeal
of
Twi Siting Conditions from the Four Appeals Challenging the Kanl~akee
County Siting Approval
was served upon:
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
James Thompson Center
100W Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, 11, 60601-3218
Charles F. Helsten
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box
1389
Rockford, IL
61105-1389
Fax: (815)
963-9989
Kenneth Leshcn
One Dearborn Square, Suite
550
Kankakee,IL 60901
(815) 933-3385
(815) 933-3397
Fax
George Mueller
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
(815)
261-2149
(815)
433-4913 Fax
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Dr. ~D
Bourboimais. IL 60914
(815)937-9838
(815) 937-9164fax
Donald
3,
Moran
Attorney at Law
161 N. Clark, Suitc3lOO
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 261-2149
(312)261-1149 Fax
Elizabeth Har~’ey,Esq.
One IBM Plaza, Suite 2900
330 N. Wabash
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 321-9100
(312) 321-0990 Fax
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz,
Attorney at Law
175
W. Jaekgon Blvd.. Suite 1600
Chicago,
IL 60604
(3)2)540-7540
(312) 540-0578 Fa~
Leland Milk
6903 S. R
oute
45-52
Chebanse, IL 60922
Patricia O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Dr.
Bourborinais, IL 60914
Brad Halloran.. I-fearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St., Suite 11-500
Chicago, It. 60601-3218
Fax:
(312)
814-3669
By depositing a copy thereofi enclosed in an envelope in the tJriited States Mail at Kankakee,
Illinois, proper postage prepaid, before the hour nf 6:0 p.m., on
17”
du~
of Apnl 2003,
addressed as above.
of April 2003
I~~iry
‘Phi
Pr~parcdby: L.
Patrick
Power
Assistarn
City Auort~ey
95c3 N. I~uth
Avcrw~
Kaakakec, IL 60901
(815)937-6937
Kcnn~th
A.
Lcsh~c
Assistant
City Attc~r’iry
On~Dearborn Sqeare. Suric 550
Ksnkak~cIL 60’~0I
(S
IS) 033-3315
Apr 17 03 04~3Bp
L. Potrick
Power
BEFORI~
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THE CITY OF
KANKAKEE.
an Illinois
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 WASTF. MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
Respondent
)
)
i~’tERLINKARLOCK,
Petitioner
)
)
)
No.
YCB
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
Cnrporate; K&NKAKEE COUNTY BOARD;
)
Siting Appeal)
And WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOiS,
)
INC.,
Respondent
)
KEITH RUNYON,
Petitioner
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-13S
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
)
Apr 17 0304:38p
L. Patrick Power
815-937-0055
p.S
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS
)
INC.,
)
Petitioner
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-144
)
(Pollution Control Facility
COUNTY OF
KANKAKEE,
)
Siting Appeal Consolidated)
)
Respondent
)
SUPPLEMENT TO CITY OF KANKAKEE’S RESPONSE TO WASTE MANAGEMENT
OF ILLINOIS, INc.’S
MOTIO.N
TO SEVER ITS APPEAL OF TWO SITING
CONDITIONS FROM THE FOUR APPEALS CHALLENGING THE
KANKAKEE
COUNTY SiTING APPROVAl
Now comes City of Kankakee, a Municipal Corporation, (hereinafter “City”), by and
through its attorncys, L. Patrick Power and Kenneth A. Leshen, Assistant City Attorneys, and
filing this supplcmcnt to its rcsponse to Waste Management of Illinots, Inc.’s (hereinafter
“WMII”) Motion to Sever, states as follows:
1..
The Provisions of
735
ILCS
5/2-1006
read as follows:
“5/2-1006. Consolidation and Severance of Cases
An action may be severed, and tction~pending in thc ~.ame court may bc
consolidated, as an aid to convcnience, whenever it can bc done without prcudice
to a substantial right.”
2.
There are a substantial number of cases construing the above rcferred to
provision.
3.
The Cnurt~of Illinois clearly favor consolidation of casc where the same can be
done as a matter ofjudicial economy.
J.F.
lncorporatedv. Vicik,
99111. App. 3d 815.
2
Apr 17
03 04:139p
L. Patrick
Power
q
5-S3~-0055
p.7
4.
The purposes of consolidation arc to expedite resolution of lawsuits, conscrvc
time of thc court, and to avoid additional expenses caused by unnecessary duplication.
Wagner
v. David,
Ill. App. 2d 284, reversed on other grounds 35111. 2d 494.
5.
Consolidation of cases in the same court is proper where they are of the same
nature, arise from the same act or event, involve the same or like issues and depend largely upon
the same evidence.
Rohinson
v. Robinson,
100 111. App.3d 437.
6.
A court does not abuse its discretion when consolidating causes of action where
there are common questions of law and facts existing in both causes and it would be a
convenience to all parties to have their rights determine in one hearing and no rights would be
prejudiced by the consolidation.
Pee/c v. Peck,
16 111. 2d 268;
Ad-, Inc. v. City of Chicago,
247 Til. 3d 97;
Lowe v. Norfolk and Western Ry. C’o.,
124 Ill. App. 3d 80~
7.
Consolidation of separate actions for trial is discretionary with the trial Court
where separate causes are of the same nature, arise from the same act or event, involve the same
like issues arid depend largely upon the same evidence, consolidation is not an abuse of
discretion.
Stone
v.
Cliv
ofBeluidere,
39 Ill. App. 3d $29.
8.
A decision on a Motion for Consolidation would be overturned on review only if
the decision amounted to an abuse of discretion.
Jappa High School District No. 21, Massac
County
v. Jones,
35
TO. App. 3d
323.
9.
Factors to be considered are whether the claims of all the parties arise from the
same project and involve common issues and evidence. Also important is the possibility of
inconsistent results.
J.F. Incorporaled v. Vicik,
99 111. App. 3d
815,
818.
In the instant case, the Illinois Pollution Control Board already exercised its
discretion and consoliinted the causes. It had ample reason to do so. Both cases arise out of the
2
Apr 17 03 04:38p
L.
Patrick
Power
815-9:37-0055
p.S
same factual basis and procedure. The panics arc the same in both cases. The issues and law arc
also the same. In addition, the consolidation avoids the possibility of inconsistent results. The
County cites no substantial prejudice to any rights as a result of the consolidation.
Based upon the foregoing authority, it is clear that the original order of illinois Pollution
Control Board consolidating their cases was not art abusive discretion and is based upon the
principals propounded on the above cases and therefore the original consolidation should not be
reversed as being an abusive discretion by the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
Respectfully submitted,
Prepared by:
L. Patrick Power
~22443S7
Corporatc
Counsel
956 North Fifth Ave.
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815) 937-6937
The
4
Apr 17
03 O4:37p
L.
Patrick Power
815-337-0055
p.1
Please deliver immediately to:
CLER’~’
p~p~
~
5
~3?~c:io:~
s-te.c~:
-
1~
rrOl
L11’~O~
Board
pollution
~O
or:
IPOB
Fax number:
Voice number:
Fax received from:
of:
Fax number:
Voice number:
1-312-814-3669
L. Patrick Power
815-937-0056
615-937-6937
Date:
411
7/03
Time:
4:36:53 PM
Number of Pages:
Subject:
8
Message.’
Brad Hailoran

Back to top