C~E~VE~

~

(‘~FTr’F

65448-POH

__________________

SE P 08 2003

SlATE OF 1LLll’~O1S

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOA1RT~!lutjonControl Board

MICHAEL WATSON,

Petitioner,

No. PCB 03-134

v.

(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)

COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY, Consolidated With PCB 03-125, 03-133,

ILLINOIS, and WASTE MANAGEMENT OF

03-135)

ILLINOIS, INC.,

Respondent.

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

See Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 8, 2003, we filed with the Illinois

Pollution Control Board, the attached Petitioner Michael Watson’s Motion to Reconsider

Portions of

the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s Ruling of August

7, 2003, a copy

of

which is attached hereto and served upon you.

Dated: September 8, 2003

Respectfully Submitted,

PETITIONER MICHAEL WATSON

By:QiL~~.

~,,/

On&&Attorneys~~

Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz

QUERREY & HARROW, LTD.

175 W. Jackson, Suite 1600

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 540-7000

Attorneys for Michael Watson

Illinois Attorney No.

6225990

Printed on Recycled Paper

---

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Julia Crews, a non-attorney, on oath state that I served the foregoing Notice of Filing, along with copies

of document(s) set forth in this Notice, on the following parties and persons at their respective addresses and/or

fax numbers, as stated below, this

8th

day of September 2003, by or before the hour of 4:30 p.m. in the manners

stated below:

Via U.S. Mail

Donald Moran

Via U.S. Mail

Pedersen & Houpt

Kenneth A. Leshen

161 North Clark Street

One Dearborn Square

Suite 3100

Suite

550

Chicago, IL 60601.3242

Kankakee, IL

60901

Fax: (312) 261-1149

Fax: (815) 933-3397

Attorney for Waste Management of illinois,

Inc.

Representing Petitioner in PCB 03-125

Via U. S. Mail

Via U.S.

Mail

Patricia O’Dell

Keith Runyon

1242 Arrowhead Drive

1165 Plum Creek Drive

Bourbonnais, IL 60914

Bourbonnaise, IL 60914

Fax: (815) 937-9164

Petitioner in PCB 03-135

Via U.S. Mail

L. Patrick Power

956 North Fifth Avenue

Kankakee, IL 60901

Fax: (815) 937-0056

Representing Petitioner in PCB 03-125

Via U.S. Mail

Elizabeth S. Harvey, Esq.

Swanson, Martin & Bell

One IBM Plaza, Suite 2900

330 North Wabash

Chicago, IL 60611

Fax: (312) 321-0990

Representing Kankakee County Board

Via U.S. Mail

Charles Helston

Richard Porter

Hinshaw & Culbertson

100 Park Avenue

P.O. Box 1389

Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389

Fax: (815) 490-4901

Representing Kankakee County Board

Via Hand Delivery (Original and 9 copies (10 total))

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Clerk’s Office

James R. Thompson Center, Ste. 11-500

100 W. Randolph Street

Chicago, IL 60601

Via Hand Delivery

Bradley P. Halloran

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center, Ste. 11-500

100 W. Randolph Street.

Chicago, IL 60601

Hearing Officer

Interested Party

Via U.S. Mail

George Mueller

George Mueller, P.C.

501 State Street

Ottawa, IL 61350

Fax: (815) 433-4913

Representing Petitioner in PCB 03-133

Via U. S. Mail

Leland Milk

6903 S. Route

45-52

Chebanse, IL 60922-5153

Interested Party

Printed on Recycled Paper

---

~JE

Li

CLERK’S OF~

65448-POll

SEP 08 2003

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOR&lttlon

STATE OF

Control

ILLINO1S

Board

Petitioner,

No. PCB 03-134

(Pollution Control Facility Siting

COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE

COUNTY,

Appeal)

ILLINOIS, INC.,

Respondent.

133, 03-135)

PETITIONER MICHAEL WATSON’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER

PORTIONS OF THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD’S RULING

OF AUGUST 7, 2003

This motion to reconsider, submitted by Petitioner Michael Watson (“Watson”) by and

through his attorneys at Querrey & Harrow, Ltd., addresses two of the issues addressed in the

Illinois Pollution Control Board’s (JPCB) Opinion and Order of August 7, 2003. Specifically,

this motion addresses: (1) The IPCB’s decision compelling Watson to pay a share of the costs

of preparing and certifying the record in the instant matter on the basis that Watson is a “non-

citizen” petitioner; and (2) The IPCB’s decision that under Section 39.2(b) of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act (Act)

(415

ILCS

5/29.2(b)

(2002)), an applicant can effect

service by mailing the prefihing notice to property owners certified mail return receipt

requested, and the service is proper upon mailing, and that Mr. Keller was therefore properly

served with notice.

1.

MIchael_Wa~pj~

citizen1~~L~ana “non-citizen” petiti~jier

Watson is a “citizen” rather than a “non-citizen” petitioner for purposes of taxing the

costs of certification of the record in the instant action. The IPCB’s fmding that Watson is a

“non-citizen” petitioner is in error. No evidence was introduced to suggest that Watson was

Printed on Recycled Paper

---

anything other than a local landowner and “citizen,” even though he had a business interest in

the outcome of the petition. Due to the late filing date of the Motion to Compel by the

Kankakee

County Board and

Kankakee County (hereinafter collectively referenced as

“Kankakee County”), Watson was not given the opportunity to respond to the motion to

compel his payment of costs. If he had been given that opportunity, he would have made the

following points.

First, there is no true “evidence” in the record supporting the contention that Watson

participated in the instant action as anything but a local landowner. Kankakee County’s motion

to compel costs cited only two items of alleged “evidence” in support of that attempt. Initially,

Karikakee County cited pages 64-67 of the public hearing of December

5,

2002 at

6

p.m. (See

Exhibit 1). Those pages contain the cross-examination of Ms. Keller. She testified that her

liushand occasionally drives a garbage truck tbat picks up garbage for United I)isposal, a

company in which Watson has an interest. Watson’s interest in United Disposal, without more,

does not make him a “non-citizen.” Also, the County cited pages 19-20 ofthe public

hearing of

December 6, 2002, a portion of Watson’s counsel’s closing argument. (See Exhibit 2). During

that argument,

Watson’s counsel

commented that Watson owned United Disposal. The County

sought to characterize that comment as evidence. That attempt was truly disingenuous based on:

(1) the law’s clear recognition that comments by counsel during closing argument are not

evidence; and (2) the County’s own stated adherence to that point of law. The County actually

stated that:

“The statements made by attorneys during opening and closing

arguments, and during examination, are not evidence, and cannot

2

Printed on Recj’cfrd Paper

---

be

used

to prove

a particular

position.”

(Kankakee County

Response Bf. 58).

Having

taken

that position,

the County should not be able to contradict itself as a matter

of convenience to suit its

own purposes.

Instead,

it must be held to

its

own statements and the

generally acknowledged law that statements made during closing argument are not evidence.

Shorn

by its own hand of that “evidence,” the

County

can point to

-

and the record

contains

—

noth

ing

to support the finding that Watson

was a “non-citizen.” The County had the

burden

of proof in

that regard, and

failed to sustain that burden.

Second, there is undisputed evidence

in

the record that

no party

contested Watson’s

standing in the instant action as a beneficial property owner. Not even Waste Management of

Illinois, Inc. questioned Watson’s standing in this

regard.

Third, Section 39.2(n) of the Act and

Section

107.306 of the IPCB Rules clearly

exempt

“citizens”

and

“citizens’

groups” from

paying

the costs of preparing the record and all

case law regarding citizen

petitioners follows this

plain reading of this Section.

Neither the

Act nor the IPCB Rules, by their. plain language, distinguishes or

removes Watson from the

category of a “citizen” just because or

if he had

an interest in a waste management company.

Watson has appeared only in his individual capacity, and his interest, if any, in United

Disposal of Bradley, Inc. (otherwise referenced as United Disposal) is irrelevant. The plain

language of the Act and the IPCB Rule does not take that interest into account. The statutory

language is clear and unambiguous, and the County did not sustain its

burden of supplying

evidence that Watson falls within the scope of ~ Act with regard to the payment of costs.

Thus, any resort to legislative history is irrelevant aiid unnecessary.

3

Printed on

Recyded

Paper

---

Fourth, even if the

legislative

history

is considered, it

does

not prevent a

landowner

and

citizen,

irrespective

of

that

individual’s business interests, from

personally appealing

and

being exempt from costs of

certifying

the record under Section 39.2(n) and Section 107.306 of

the

IPCB

Rules. The legislative history upon which the County

relied contained a statement

from

Senator Karpiel that a “citizen”

or “citizen’s group” did not include “persons owning or

operating

a

competing landfill facility.” (See

Exhibit

3). Watson does not fall

within

the

exception

to

a “citizen” or “citizen’s group” because not only does he not own any competing

landfill facility, moreover, there is no evidence in the record that either Watson or the

corporation in which he has an interest, United Disposal of Bradley, Inc., “owns or operates a

competing landfill facility” as referenced

in

the

legislative

history. In fact, according to Waste

Management of Illinois, Inc.’s testimony, there is no operating or permitted landfill in

Kankakee other than Waste Management of Illinois. Inc.’s own landfill (an expansion of which

is a subject of this proceeding)~No evidence was presented concerning any nearby competing

landfill bearing any name similar to “United Disposal” or “United Disposal of Bradley, Inc.”

or otherwise connection to Watson in any way. Thus, Kankakee County did not sustain its

burden of proof on the issue of Watson’s ownership of any “competing landfill”, as it alleges,

sufficient to remove him from the category of “citizen” or “citizen’s group.” Kankakee

County presented

no such evidence,, and the IPCB’s decision was made in error, as it has no

basis in the evidentiary

record. Thus, the legislative history is unavailing, and does not

support the incorrect imposition of costs upon Watson.

4

Printed on Recycled Paper

---

Finally,

it is neither logical nor

consistent

with

Section

39.2(n) to impose costs upon an

individual landowner such as Watson. This is particularly so where he is a beneficial owner of

land adjacent to the proposed expansion on at

least two

sides, he is required to

carry

an extra

financial

burden on appeal

that

other citizens of the County are not, and he is also a

shareholder in a c~QrpQra1~PJIwhich is in

the solid waste management business. Under this

logic, Karikakee County would also seek to

exclude from Section 39.2(n) every citizen who

owns shares of or

has a financial interest in

Allied Waste, Inc. United Disposal of Bradley,

Inc. is

an

Illinois corporation, in

good standing, and

is a separate and distinct legal entity from

Watson. (See Exhibit

4). There is not only no evidentiary basis in the record concerning

Watson having an interest in a “competing landfill” as argued by Kankakee County, there is

absolutely np eyidentiaryJ~asi,sto treat or tie Watson as a shareholder of a corporation and the

actual corporation as if they were the

same legal

entity,

which they are clearly not. This

cannot

possibly be

Kankakee County’s.

intent, or the intent of the legislature or the

IPCB

relative to Section 39.2(n) of the Act or Section 107.306 of the IPCB Rules,

as such result is

simply ludicrous and would

result in any shareholder in any corporation participating in the

waste management business (regardless of whether that corporation had an interest in a

landfill) to be deemed a “non-citizen.”

Watson appeared in his individual capacity at the hearings and throughout the petition

proceedings. Accordingly, he is clearly Watson a “citizen” and should be treated as such.

This is so

whether he is employed

by, an officer or shareholder of, or a merely a supporter of

a corporation that conducts itself in the solid waste management field.. He position in that

5

Printed on Recycled Paper

---

regard should have no bearing on

his

role as an individual citizen and landowner.

.

For those

2.

Notice Solely Upon Mailing With Return Receipt Requested, Without Actual

Receipt of Notice by a

Property

Owner, Is Not Sufficient to Perfect Service of

Notice Under Section 39.2(b) of the Act. Thus, Mr. Keller Never Received

i~oper

Notice

____________

_______

The notice provision of Section 29.2(b), by its clear language as construed

by Illinois

courts of review, requires actual receipt of notice via certified mail by a property owner rather

than mere mailing of notice via certified mail with return receipt requested. The IPCB ruled

that

People

&

rel. Devine v. $30, 700 U.S. Currency,

(2002), 199 IlI.2d 142, 776 N.E.2d 1084

controls this issue, and that an applicant can effect service by mailing the prefiling notice to

property owners via certified mail with return receipt requested, and that service is proper

upon mailing. That ruling was wrong, and misconstrued the existing law as to the

requirement

for serving proper notice under statutory language such as that contained in Section 39.2(b).

Under such language, actual receipt of the notice via certified mail is required to correctly

serve a

property

owner. Mailing alone is not sufficient.

The

IPCB ruled

that

People ex rel. Devine

effectively overruled

Ogle County Board v.

Pollution Control Board,

272 Ill.App.3d 184,

649

N.E.2d

545

(2d Dist. 1995), which held

that, under statutory language similar to that in Section 39.2(b),

actual receipt of notice via

certified mail was required to perfect service on a property owner. The Board’s ruling was

wrong because:

People ex. Rel. Devine

involved statutory language that was clearly different

from the statutory language of Section 39.2(b) of the Act that was at issue in

Ogle County.

6

Printed on

Recycled

Paper

---

Thus, the Board should

vacate that portion

of

its ruling finding that

mailing of notice via

certified mail is

sufficient to perfect

service

in

property

owners.

A.

$~atutorvLan2uage in

People ex. rel. Devine

The

statute

at issue in

People ex. rel. Devine

was the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure

Act (725 ILCS 150/1

et seq

(West

2000)).

The

notice

provision of that statute outlines the method of notice required to apprise

individuals of pending forfeiture proceedings. The method of service depends upon the State’s

knowledge of the identity and location of the claimant at the time of service. Section 4,

entitled “Notice to Owner or Interest Holder,” provides that:

“if the owner’s or

interest holder’s name

and current address are

known, then notice or

service shall be giveni by either personal

service or mailing a copy of the notice by certified mail, return

receipt requested, to that address.”

725 ILCS 150/4(A)(1) (West

2000).

The statute requires notice by publication in the event the address or name of the owner

or interest holder is unknown. 725

ILCS 150/4(A)(3)

(West 2000). Owners or interest holders

are obligated

to advise the seizing agency of address changes that occur prior to the mailing of

notice. 725 ILCS 150/4(A)(1) (West 2000) (“if an owner or interest holder’s

address changes

prior to the effective date of the notice of

pending forfeiture, the owner or interest holder shall

promptly notify

...

of the change in address”). Individuals claiming an interest in the

property

subject to

forfeiture may file a claim to the property within

“45

days after the effective date of

notice.” 725 ILCS 160/6(C)(1) (West 2000). Further, the

statute provides when notice is

effective:

7

Printed on Recycled Paper

---

“Notice served

under the Act is

effective

upon

personal service,

the last date of publication,

or the mailing of written notice,

whichever is earlier.”

725 ILCS 150/4(B) (West

2000)(emphasis

added).

Further, under the Drug Asset Forfeiture Procedure Act,

if parties fail to appear at the

forfeiture proceedings, “property may be subject to forfeiture even if no one appears to claim

it.”

Significantly, the statute at issue in s

People ex. rel. Devine

(Drug

Asset Forfeiture

Procedure Act) specifically stated that service was

effective upon the

mailing

of written notice.

B.

Statutory Language in

Ogle County Board

The statute as issue in

Ogle County Board

was

the same one at issue in the instant

action, Section 39.2(b) of the Act.

The pertinent part of Section 39.2(b) of the Act provides that:

No later than 14 days prior to a request for location approval the applicant

shall cause written notice of such request to be served either in person or

by registered mail, return receipt requested, on the owners of all property

within

the subject area not solely

owned by the applicant, and on the

owners of all property within 250 feet in each direction of the lot line of

the

subject

property...

Such written notice shall also be

.

served upon members of the General

Assembly from the legislative district in which the proposed facility is

located and shall be published in a newspaper’ of general circulation

published in the county in which the site is located.” 415 ILCS 5/39.2(b)

(West Supp. 1993).

The court in

Ogle County

ruled that that language required

actual receipt

of notice by a

property owner in order to perfect proper service.

8

Printed on

Recy&d

Paper

---

Significantly,

Section 39.2(b) does not contain a provision

—

as did the

statute

in

People

&.

rel. Devine

—

t

hat states that

service is effective upon the mailing of written notice.

The opinion

in

Ogle County

was based on the Supreme Court’s opinion

in

Avdich v.

Kleinert,

(1977), 69 Ill.2d 1, 370 N.E.2d 504. In

Avdich,

the Supreme Court interpreted the

inclusion of “return receipt requested” language in the notice provision of a statute

to indicate

that the legislature intended that service of a notice was not to be considered complete until it

was received by the addressee.

Ogle County Board,

272 Ill.App.3d at 195-96 (citing

691l1.2d at9.

The statutory language at issue in

Avdich

provided:

“Any demand made or notice served

...

by sending a copy of

said notice to the tenant by certified or registered mail, with a

returned receipt from the addressee.”

Avdich,

69 Ill.2d at 5. The Supreme Court in

Avdich

ruled that this language required actual

receipt by the addressee in order to perfect service ofthe notice.

Avdic/z,

69 Ill.2d at 8-9.

C.

Difference in Statutory Language

The IPCB’s decision that Section 39.2(b) only

requires mailing

as opposed to actual

receipt of notice, and that

People cx. rd. Devine

eff?ctively overruled

Ogle County Board

is

wrong

—

for one reason. The statutory language at issue in

People ex. rel. Devine

included a

specific provision that said that notice was effectively served upon mailing.’ Neither Section

39.2(b) nor the statute at issue in

Avdich

had such a provision. In that regard, the IPCB

erroneously disregarded the principles of statutory construction in construing a statute

9

Printed on

Recycled

Paper

---

according to

its

plain meaning and, apparently,

and

incorrectly, read the additional provision

allowing

service

by mailing alone in

People ex. rel. Devine

into Section 39.2(b), even though

Section 39.2(b) does not contain such language. Nothing in

People ex. rel. Devine

can be

construed as overruling

Ogle County Board,

which controls this issue in this action.

The IPCB’s ruling was a clear mistake in the application of this law, and should be

reversed.

WHEREFORE, Michael Watson, by and through its attorneys, respectfully requests

that the Illinois Pollution Control Board enter an order: (1) vacating those

portions

of

its

August

7,

2003

ruling (a) taxing the

costs of certifying the record against Watson and (b)

holding that Section

39.2(b)

of the

Environmental

Protection Act requires only mailing of

notice

to

a property

owner in order to perfect service; and

(2)

holding that

(a)

Watson.

is’

not

required to pay the costs of certifying the record and (b) holding that Section 39.2(b) of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act requires actual

receipt of

notice by a property owner in

order to perfect service.

Watson requests any additional relief that th.e Board deems

appropriate.

Dated: September 8, 2003

Respectfully Submitted,

PETITIONER MICHAEL WATSON

B~

Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz

QUERREY & HARROW,

LTD.

175 W. Jackson, Suite 1600

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 540-7000

Attorneys for Michael Watson

Illinois Attorney No. 6225990

Document #: 854487

10

Printed on

Recycled

Paper

---

m

---

1

STATE OF ILLINOIS

COUNTY OF KANKAKEE

)

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

SS.

)

)

APPLICATION BY WASTE MANAGEMENT,)

ILLINOIS, INC., A DELAWARE

)

CORPORATION, FOR APPROVAL OF THE)

SITE LOCATION FOR AN EXPANSION

)

OF THE KANKAKEE LANDFILL.

)

:co~v~

V 0 L U M E XXVIII

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had during the public

hearing before Mr. John Mccarthy, Hearing Officer, at

the Quality Inn, 800 North Kinzie Avenue, Bradley,

Illinois, on the 5th day of December, A.D., 2002 at

6:00

p.m.

---

2

1 KANKAKEE COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS

)

Mr. Mel Blanchette

2 Ms. Loretto Cowhig

Mr. James Tripp

3 Mr. Curt Saindon

Mr.. John Meyer, Jr.

4

Mr. Barry Jaffe

Mr.

George washington, Jr.

5 Mr. Michael Splisbury

Mr. Dennis Peters

6

7

KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS

Mr. Leo Whitten

8 Mr. Leonard Martin

Mr.

Barry Baron

9

Ms. Ann Bernard

Ms. Linda Faber

10 Ms. Karen Hertzberger

Mr. Ralph Marcotte

11 Mr. Edwin Meents

Mr. Jim vickery

12

APPEARANCES:

13

MR. DONALD MORAN,

14

Appeared on behalf of Waste ‘Management,

Applicant;

15

MR. RICHARD S. PORTER,

16

.

Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee county staff;

17 MS. ELIZABETH S. HARVEY,

Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee County

18

Regional Planning Commission and the Kankakee

County Board;

19

MR. L. PATRICK POWER,

20

Appeared on behalf of the city of Kankakee;

EUNICE SACHS & ASSOCIATES

---

3

1 APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

2 MR. GEORGE MUELLER,

Appeared on behalf of Mr. Merlin Karlock;

3

MR. DAVID FLYNN,

4

Appeared on behalf of Mr. Michael Watson;

5 MS. JENNIFER J. SACKETT POHLENZ,

Appeared on behalf of Mr. Michael Watson;

6

MR. KENNETH BLEYER,

7

Appeared on behalf of Mr. Richard Murray;

8

MR..

LEE MILK, Individually;

9

MS. PATRICIA O’DELL, Individually;

10 MR.

KEITH RUNYON, Individually.

11~

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

riir~.1TCE SAfl.4c ~ AccnCTATFS

---

64

1

MR. McCARTHY: Overruled.

2 BY MR. MORAN:

3

Q. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear your answer.

4

A. Yes, he does.

5

Q. What is the nature of your husband’s

6 business relationship with Mr. Watson?

7

A. They’re friends. Sometimes

--

8

Q. And we will be getting to that in a minute,

9 but I want to ask you about you said there was a

10

business relationship between your husband and

11

Mr.’ Watson.

r

12

A. Yes.

13

Q. You said your husband is in the stone

14 cutting business?

15

A. Yes.

16

Q. Do you know what the business relationship

17 is between your husband and Mr. Watson?

18

A. He’ picks up garbage for him every now and

19 then.

20

Q. So your husband drives a vehicle that picks

21 up garbage for Mr. Watson; is that correct?

22

A. Yeah.

rIINTCF

cAru~

2.

A~#TAT~C

---

65

I

2

j

4

5

A.

6

Q.

7

A.

8

Q.

9

10

11

12

13

14

is

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

How often does he do this?

Not very often.

Over the past how many years has he been

up garbage for Mr.. Watson?

I really don’t know.

Has it occurred over the last three years?

No. He just

--

couple months here.

Just over the last couple of months?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, these chores that your husband

performs

for

Mr.

Watson, is this taking garbage to

Mr. Watson’s ‘transfer station?

A. Yes, it is.

Q. And that’s United Disposal; is that

cor rect?

A. Yes.

MR. FLYNN:

MR. MORAN:

objection, relevancy.

we’re probing the obvious

relationship between both Mr. and Mrs. Keller with

Mr. Watson and the reason or basis for this witness

to identify or claim she never received notice.

MR.

FLYNN.: what Mr.

Watson’s business is has

Q.

A.

Q.

picking

---

66

1

absolutely nothing to do with the testimony of this

2 witness. If he wants to probe for a relationship

3 between the two, he can ask him. He’s asked him.

4

He’s answered that.

5

MR. McCARTHY: I’m going to overrule the

6

objection and allow this line of questioning.

I

7 think it’s relevant.

8 BY MR. MORAN:

::~

Keller, do you remember m.y question?

U

Q.

Your husband drives a vehicle that brings

12 waste to Mr. Watson’s transfer facility; is that

13 correct?

14

A. Yes.

15

Q. And that

transfer facility is the United

16 Disposal facility’ in Bradley; is that correct?

17

A. Yes.

18

Q. And is your husband paid for’the work he

19 performs for Mr. Watson in this regard?

‘

20

A. No.

21

Q. Your husband is doing it for free?

22

A. Yes.

~ii~i~rri

CAPUC

.---.-—

---

r~

He’s been doing it for free for a few

Yes

Q. And he does

it for free because he’s a

friend of Mr. Watson; is that correct?

A. Yes

Q.

stone cutting?

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

husband?

A.

Q.

East 6000

A.

Q.

Where is your husband

--

where does he do

Pickett Cut Stone on Grinnell Road.

13 years.

You said you’ve lived at the address at 765

Road for about two years?

Yes.

Do you have any children?

Yes, I do

How old are your children?

Q.

months?

67

A.

:1.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2.

22

r.~

~ t,

I’m sorry?

Pickett Cut Stone on Grinnell Road.

He’s been doing this for how long?

Seven years

How long have you been married to your

A.

Q.

EUNICE SACHS & ASSOCIATES

---

m

-1-

N)

---

1

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

•1

) ss.

Li

COUNTY OF KANKAKEE

)

IN

THE MATTER OF:

)

)

APPLICATION BY WASTE MANAGEMENT,)

ILLINOIS, INC., A DELAWARE

)

CORPORATION, FOR APPROVAL OF THE)

SITE LOCATION FOR AN EXPANSION

)

OF THE KANKAKEE LANDFILL.

)

U

p

VOLUME XXIX

n

b.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had during the public

hearing before Mr. John Mccarthy, Hearin.9 Officer, at

the Quality Inn, 800 North Kinzie Avenue, Bradley,

Illinois, on the 6th day of December, A.D., 2002 at

8:30 a.m.

EUNICE SACHS & ASSOCIATES

---

2

1 KANKAKEE

COUNTY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS

Mr. Mel Blanchette

2

Mr. Ralph Paarlberg

Mr.

James Tripp

3 Mr. Curt saindon

Mr. John Meyer, Jr.

4 Mr. George Washington, Jr.

Mr. Michael Spilsbury

5 Mr.

Dennis Peters

6

KANKAKEE COUNIY BOARPMEMBERS

7 Mr. Leo Whitten

Ms. Ann Bernard

8 Mr. Ralph Marcotte

Mr. Edwin Meents

9. Mr. Jim Vickery

Mr. Duane Bertrand

10 Ms. Frances Jackson

Mr. Karl Kruse

11 Ms. Pamela Lee

Mr. George Hoffman

12

APPEARANCES:

13

MR. DONALD MORAN,

14

Appeared on behalf of Waste Management,

Applicant;

15

MS. ELIZABETH S. HARVEY,

16

Appeared on behalf of the Kankakee County

Regional Planning Commission and the Kankakee

17

County Board;

18 MR. L. PATRICK POWER,

Appeared on behalf of the city of Kankakee;

19

MR.

DAVID FLYNN,

20

Appeared on behalf of Mr. Michael Watson;

21

MR.

KENNETH BLEYER,

Appeared on behalf of Mr. Richard Murray;

22

EUNICE SACHS & ASSOCIATES

(708) 709-0500

---

3

APPEARANCES CONTINUED:

MR. LEE MILK, Individually;

MS. PATRICIA O’DELL, Individually;

MR. KEITH RUNYON, Individually.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

I

.L

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

EUNICE SACHS & ASSOCIATES

---

19

The reason gasification and that technology

hasn’t taken over yet is because of the consolidation

in the waste industry There’s only one or two or

three major players. Every little guy is

being

squeezed out. The major players make money by

putting garbage into the ground, They don’t make

money by gasification and other technologies. But

eventually, that technology is going to come, and the

landfills are going to close, and that landfill is

going to close after it’s scarred a ripe area of

development and without paying any money for it,

This landfill is not about need. It’s

about greed.. You have to understand how the garbage

industry works. They make money hauling, they make

money dumping, and they make money letting other

people dump on their landfill

My client, Mike Watson, owns United

Disposal. He doesn’t dump at the existing facility.

He takes his garbage to Livingston because it’s

cheaper for him to unload a packer load it up onto a

transfer trailer and drive it down to Livingston.

That’s because Waste Management owns the current

EUNICE SACHS & ASSOCIATES

f7A0\

‘7a~n

~

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

---

20

1 facility. They want his hauling contracts. They get

2 his hauling contracts by driving up his costs and he

3 can’t compete.

4

Now, if you also look in the Host Community

5 Agreement, there is a clause in there that guarantees

6

a minimum or a maximum charge to the County of

7 Kankakee for dumping County of Kankakee waste in the

8 expanded facility.. But if you look at it closely, it

9 only applies if Waste Management has the hauling

10 contract. So it may look good on the one end; you’re

11 getting a set price for dumping. But that has

12 nothing to do with the hauling. If they don’t get

13 you on the one end, they’ll get you on the other end.

14

That brings us to Criterion No. 3. As I

15 said, there’s two components. The first one is to

16 minimize incompatibility, and the second one is to

17 minimize impact on property values. With regards to

18 the first part, Mr. Lannert was the witness.

19 Mr. Lannert wasn’t hired by Waste Management to find

20 a place in Kankakee County where incompatibility

21 would be minimized. He was hired to give an opinion

22 that this proposed expansion would minimize

EUNICE SACHS

&

ASSOCIATES

(7flR~ 7AO_fl~flfl

---

Exhibit 3

---

~.

~

4-.

0

01

‘0

4.’

•0

*.

~

-.

01

4’)

‘

‘I)

4.’

~

I.’

0

1-’

0

0

•

V

—

4.’

c

a.,

~

c:

0

...4

.0

C

C

).‘.

L

—

4_~

4-~

C

V

C

a)

tI)

o~

)—

‘U

L

.~-‘

—.‘

a.’

c

o

o

~

~..‘

..-

...-

,~-,

~

~

L

.0

•

‘U

4.’

N

0

0

C

~-‘

‘.-

0

.—

0

:

U

—

0

•

‘1)

4-.

4’)

II

U

..

C

‘V

3

o

~

.

~,

~

~

a.,

C

~

~.—

0.

‘4—

V

U

C7

rJ

t\I

Ifl

44

3

.C

.0

II

‘~

3

)C

,—4

L

4-’

~

V

4-’

~4

*1

0.

v

‘U

E

4-~

4”

‘-‘

V

‘V

.

0

0

4)~

~--

L.

i3

c-.

0

‘1)

o~

-.

•-

-.‘

‘U

‘V

U)

‘V

44

-~

4.’

(1

C-.

—

c

4/’

U

0

0

o.’

)—

.C

3

C

.~

-~

C

‘U

4.’

.~-

L

V

C

3

-I

44

.~

.0

t~

LI

I..

V

I)

U

4-’

0

‘+-

—..

cc.

0

—‘

‘V

.0

~

a’

~

.C

C

.C

.,.-

..

~.

.,

C)~

Cl)

-o

a

V

-

C

—‘

C

C

4-’

0

4-’

411

4))

.C

10

c

~i

4.4

L

~

U

4.’

~—

4.’

‘U

‘4—

~

‘—

I

•

C

1fl

Z

4-’

i—I

0

‘~

U)

C

‘U

0

0

U

0

.-‘

a.,

4’

4.’

4..

3

U

.

C

-.

‘4-

C

C

0

‘U

C

‘I)

‘-~

3

0

p~’~

V

0

0

II

C

-~

V

L-

0

‘U

U

‘V

(U

C

~—

.c

-.-

N

~

‘~

E

‘U

U

ai

~

-o

•~

V

X

0

t)

c-

~

4~J

£3

..—

—.

•.‘

‘U

U

I

‘U

0.

U

-~

v)

.C

•‘

U

V

ô~

ii

0

‘V

C

I

0

0

‘‘

.C

0

“~

~‘

0

•

3

tn

._~

~

a..’

..-

I~

.

4-’

£3

‘U

,.4

..~

--‘

-

L

.C

C

U

S’—

o

o

o

‘U

4-’

0

‘V

~-4

U

0

3

4-’

J

C)

L

V

I—

*1

V

-.

a.’

0

4—’

4-’

:

c

C

0

c

a

‘—

o

n

U

0

3

a.~

..c

0.t,

~

U

tI

0

11)

V

4

4

.

0

3

0

C

4-’

0

a.j

•

V

44

0

I/)

V

~

L

C

~

V

L

•

0

Lr’.

C-

V)

E

C))

‘V

e-

‘V

‘U

‘U

U

V

41)

~-

a

‘—4

4.4

:3

4’~

41)

Cr’,

‘V

-

C-

U

o

c

.C

4.’

V

C

01

C

3

‘1)

a.

~

‘4-

4”

-

a

-i

a.,

~

4’

C

-.

‘V

3

3

C

0

~

4-’

C

)

.C

‘V

0)-.’

V

£3

01

0

C-

4-’

4-

—‘

0

.~-

~fl

4-

‘0

‘U

0

~

a.

c

—‘

—

CI)

-o

E

C

4’)

—

‘V

0

0

‘.-‘

~

C

44

0~

—‘

V

4-.

C

.~

‘V

C

V

----i

—

C

~

~

C

0.

C

3

..—

~

0

E

0)

•

‘V

a)

44

.-•

4-

4-..

0

C

V

3

C

‘—

—

I-

0

C

u

~

•

4-’

0’-

0

V

c~

).

‘~

:r

‘O

‘U

N

—‘

3

0

0

3

C

‘—&

—‘

4-’

II

..-

V

,

L

‘V

..‘

~

U

-.

-

—‘

4))

U

4’

V

C

D

—~

C

4-

—,

‘V

a.’

AZ

4.)

~J

4-

f

~

0

0

E

C

0

‘

4’)

&~

P4

“—

~—

U

+-‘

I..

a.,

—4

~

a..’

o

0.

--

C

U)

C

0

LU

£3

0

•‘‘

V

44

‘0

~‘

--‘

1.’

i..I

4-.

C

0

4-’

—‘

~

‘0

+—

‘4—

4-’

0)

C

C--

—.‘

45

—.4

‘V

0

~I)

£11

0

~/)

.~.

~.—

...4

~

~

4)

.

(/1

..‘

C

44

.4

—

‘U

V

S.—

4-

).

0

.~

~

V

.

-.

(I)

U

4/)

~

0)

.—

‘V

*1

CO

.

IV

~

a..’

-.-

‘-‘

4))

—‘

~

-

0)

4)

V

C

(‘3

i-r~

‘V

‘V

V

—

.C

(3

4-’

U

4-’

U~

0

‘0

‘V

1-4

4/)

.-

C

0-.

0

C/)

‘0

3

C

£3

4))

0

‘U

0.~.~-

U

I—

‘V

40

(3.

3

3

0

.

I)

I)

4--

0

0

N

-.4

3

II

~

C

V

0

•

‘.‘

~..

CI

If)

0

—

---

‘V

4’

~-

.~

4-

-.4

Z

0

4.’

C-.

3

).

0

4-’

3-’

•

:3

0

0)

40

i-a

,.C

i-i

C

V

0

4-’

‘V

LU

C

U)

-.-‘

C

‘V

.C

i-fl

—‘

4-’

-O

0

II

-

4?

~

‘V

4.’

‘V0

‘U

a)

C/I

~-‘

0

C

-

0

—.‘

Z

3

4)

~.‘

I)

‘OX

4-

‘0

4-

•

01

:3

‘4—

‘V

‘—‘

U

Li

..—‘

3

.,—

.4

3

•r—

4-

i—

c

a

i—’

a

~

‘

4-,

~

U

0

ci)

‘V

(Ta)

0i-

Cl)

U

3

3

—J

0

0

—J

Li

4-’

-‘

~

0

3--.

41)

AZ

U

I)

•

.-

.—

,.C

‘U

0

U)

0

.~—

C

-~

£3

Ii

•.

•

‘4-

4/)

3

U)

4.’

4.’

45

C

4-

,~.

4-

.‘.

..

—‘

CI

C

U

a.

0

0

+-..

~

0

.‘

0)

0

0)

v

C))

‘U

4-

‘.—

0

i-’

LU

44

0C

•

0

cl)

‘-.

‘U

V

V

CCI

0

C

‘U

‘$-

0

‘0

~

4-

LI

4))

U

4.’

4-’

C

..

..

(1)

i-f)

.~

.~

LU

~-‘

a.

•.-

(#1

.0

‘V

1)

~‘

C

‘U

..

.,-

~

‘0

~

3

I

C

V

C

3

.~—

‘V

~0

0

40

U)

Ct)

U..

~

(1)

0

L)

V

—‘

0

‘U

10

45

..—

0

.C

U

LI

-‘

C

‘

‘V

U~

i—

C

I

I—

I

0

C

U

‘V

t:

c

v

0

1)

C-

V

I—

0

£3

I-

AZ

4)

0

C-

.~

3

0

,

CI

4-

0

~

C

0

.C

-

CI

I

‘0

0)

4.’

AZ

0

0

LU

a.?

*

4-’

1)

~-

0

4)

Q

.

.—

4-’

0

40

IV

C

in

0)

.-~

4.’

ID

4.’

~

)

..-

3—.

i..’

a

i—’

0

--

a.)

‘U

a

•

0

0

U

V

I)

C

~4

Z

‘U

iS

U

3--

Z

4-’

LI)

0.4))

r

3

C

C-

C4~

4-

‘~

Cl

40

U

t

U

0

~‘-

4.’

~4

C

CI

AZ

.C

‘V

4-.

LU

4-

1)

0

X

•

i-’

+-‘

0

4-

C

-‘--

C-

‘0

~

•

U)

~

4?

0

~-‘

0.

0

C

3

3

1)

C

0

1—

‘0

i-fl

..—

..

C

3

4)

1)

4)

C

~—4

Cl)

I—

‘—4

‘4-

b-4

U.

CT

C--

4-

4)

4’

V

4-’

U)

LU

—‘

C

i-’

C-

‘U

0

E

0

0.

C

Cl)

—‘

C/)

•

AZ

0

II)

in

1)

45

—‘

CI~

3

(0

4-

40

tfi

V

E

in

E

0

4))

LU

—~

—‘

3-.

LU

V

V

t”

LI

V

C

C

—‘

~

0

4)

‘0

4)

C

-

C

0—’

0

CI)

4.~J

.~-

‘U

Cl

£

,~-

V

0

0

(1

~

Lii

1

E

a

C

0

‘0

4))

LI

4))

0

4))

.4)

~

(I)

‘0

3

0.

i-

.~

3

4-

Q

04—’

Cl)

CO

Cl)

~L_~L_JJ

~

L””

“.

LL~U

L__.~

L_L.~

L~J

Ui

LU””

Li”

LLU”

Liii”

Li

r’J

r\J

-j

C/)Ct~

I—

P-4ZZQ

OuJQ’-4

4-4

Cl)

Cl)

LI

J’VCflV)

~I

LU~

CI

U.

4—

OuJ..~

z-,uj

wz

(/)4J

4/)

‘0

a)

-0

-0

—I

a)

a.)

U’)

:3

0

I

---

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Both GENERAL ASSEMBLY

REGULAR SESSION

SENATE TRANSCRIPT

52nd LegislatiVe Day

22, 1989

basically one word from

“may”

to “shalt” ‘for the reimbursement of

local governments that have furnished emergency disaster services

directly related to or required by the emergency disaster for the

entire expense eligible under the public assistance program. This

only would take effect ~‘f the Governor, in ‘fact, declares a

disaster by proclamation. I don’t know of any opposition, and

would move for its adoption.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR DEMUZIO)

Discussion? The question is, shall House Bill 89 pass. Those

in favor wilt vote Aye. The opposed, Nay. The voting is open.

Have all voted who wish? Have all

voted

who wish? have

all

voted

who wish? Take the record. On that question, the Ayes are 56,

the ‘Nays are

none, none

voting Present. House Bill 89, having

received the required constitutional majority, is declared passed.

90 is on the Recall List for tomorrow. 98. Senator Karpiel. On

the Order of House Bills

3rd

Reading is House Bill 98, Madam

Secretary.

SECRETARY HAWKER:

)-~ouse Bill 98.

(Secretary reads title of bitt)

3rd Reading of the bill.

PRESIDING OFFICER: (SENATOR DEMUZIO)

Senator Karpiet.

SENATOR KARPIEL:

Thank you, Mr. President. Excuse me. House Bill 98 provides

that the plaintiff in a review proceeding of a landfiLl siting

decision of the county board or municipality must pay for

preparing and certifying the record. We did put on an amendment

which exempts citizens groups from—— that’ h.’ve participated in

the siting proceeding and is located

--—

to be affected by the

proposed facility, they’re exempted from this Act. And if you

will

bear with me,

I

have told the Pollution Control Board that

I

224

---

m

-÷

---

File Number

5350-473-6

I, Jesse White, Secretary of State of the State of Illinois, do

/iprphii rprfjfii I-lint

UNITED DISPOSAL OF BRADLEY, INC., A DOMESTIC

~

UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE

JUNE 25,

Li

1984, APPEARS TO HAVE COMPLIED WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THE

L

BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT OF THIS STATE RELATING

TO

THE FILING OF

ANNUAL REPORTS

AND

PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE TAXES,

AND

AS OF THIS DATE,

IS IN GOOD STANDING AS A DOMESTIC CORPORATION

IN~

THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS

****** *****

-k

******** * ****** ***** **** ****** *** ** ****** **** **

In Testimony Whereof,

I hereto set

my hand and cause to be affixed the Great Seal of

5TH

the State of illinois

SEPTEMBER

this

A.D.

SECRETARY OF STATE

To all to whom these Presents Shall Come, Greeting:

‘,I.. /

~,

/,.-.~

Li,-,’,

‘Li

•.),:

//

day of

2003