BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BATAVIA, ILLINOIS
RESIDENTS
)
OPPOSED TO SITING OF WASTE
)
SEP
TRANSFER STATION
)
STATE
OF
ILLIrJOIS
)
Pollution Control board
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCB 05-1
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Siting Appeal)
APPLICATION OF ONYX WASTE
)
SERVICES MIDWEST, INC. FOR
)
LOCAL SITING APPROVAL FOR
)
A SOLID WASTE TRANSFER
)
STATION
)
)
and
)
)
CITY OF BATAVIA, ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 2, 2004,
we filed with the Office of
the
Clerk of the
Pollution
Control
Board
ONYX WASTE
SERVICES
MIDWEST,
INC.’S
AMENDED
MOTION
FOR
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT;
OR
IN
THE
ALTERNATIVE ITS
MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE BOARD’S JUL’
ORDER, a
copy ofwhich is attached and hereby served
Gerald P. Callaghan
Paul A. Duffy
Freeborn & Peters LLP
311
South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
312-360-6000
THIS FILING IS SUBMIUED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S
OF~ICE
BATAVIA, ILLINOIS RESIDENTS
)
SEP
022004
OPPOSED TO SITING OF WASTE
)
STATE OF lLLI~~U~~
TRANSFER STATION
)
Pollution
Controj
~
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
PCBO5-1
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
APPLICATION OF ONYX WASTE
)
SERVICES MIDWEST, INC. FOR LOCAL)
SITING APPROVAL FOR A SOLID
)
WASTE TRANSFER STATION
)
)
and
)
)
CITY OF BATAVIA, ILLiNOIS
)
)
)
Respondents.
)
ONYX WASTE SERVICES MIDWEST, INC.’S
AMENDED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
ITS MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE BOARD’S JULY
22, 2004
ORDER
Respondent Onyx Waste Services Midwest,
Inc.
(“Onyx”),
by
its
undersigned attorneys
and
pursuant to
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
§
101.516,
hereby amends
its
August
23,
2004
Motion For
Sunm~iary
Judgment Or In The Alternative Its
Motion To Reconsider The Board’s July 22,
2004
Order to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”), and in support thereofstates as follows:
Onyx
initially filed its
Motion
on the
same day that
two
non-participants
in
the public
hearing filed
an
“Appeal of Siting Approval”
(“Revised Petition”)
in
this
action.
The
Board
lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction
over
the
original
Petition
in
this
action,
and
for
the
same
reasons
lacks
jurisdiction
over
the
Revised
Petition.
There
is
no
genuine
issue
as
to
the
dispositive
fact
that
neither
Petitioner
participated
in
the
public
hearing
in
this
matter,
and
Illinois law bars them from challenging the City’s decision.
The Board has no legal authority to
rule on
the merits of the original or the Revised Petition,
and Onyx is entitled to judgment as a
matter oflaw as to
the entire Revised Petition.
THIS FILING IS SUBMITFED ON RECYCLED PAPER
In the alternative, Onyx moves the Board pursuant to
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
§~
101.520
and
101.904,
to reconsider and
modify its
July
22,
2004
Order (“Order”) to strike the extension it
purports to
give to
the Board’s 120-day statutory
decision deadline, to
strike
the permission it
purports to give an individual to file a petition to review Batavia’s local siting approval beyond
the 35-day statutory deadline, and for otherrelief as set forth herein.
INTRODUCTION
AND
BACKGROUND
1.
Onyx
filed a
request (the “Application”)
with
the
City of Batavia (“City”)
on
December
19,
2003
for local
siting
approval
to
construct
a
solid waste transfer station
at
766
Hunter
Drive,
Batavia,
Illinois,
in
accordance with
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(“Act”),
415
ILCS
5/39.2
and
the
City’s
Siting
Ordinance
for
Pollution
Control
Facilities,
Ordinance No.
02-10 (the “Ordinance”).
See
Recklaus Affidavit (“Aff.,” Tab A hereto) at
¶
3.
2.
The City established a
Pollution Control Facility Committee
(“PCF Committee”)
comprised ofseven City Council members, which held a public hearing (“Public Hearing”) from
April
12 through 16, 2004 regarding the Application.
Id.
at
¶~J
3-4.
3.
After
the public
hearing and
subsequent
public
comment period required under
the Act and the Ordinance, the PCF
Committee recommended approval of the Request.
Id.
at
¶
6.
The
City
Council
followed
the
PCF
Committee’s
recommendations
and
approved
the
Application on
June
7,
2004.
Id.
The
PCF
Committee
and
City
Council
each
specifically
concluded that Onyx and the PCF Committee complied with all
applicable requirements ofboth
the Act and the Ordinance.
Id
4.
No “unincorporated citizens’
group” or other entity calling itself “Batavia Illinois
Residents
Opposed
To
Siting
Of Waste
Transfer
Station”
participated
in
the
City’s
Public
Hearing on the Application.
Id.
at
¶~f
8,
10.
Janis Rosauer
likewise did not
participate in the
Public Hearing.
Id.
at
¶~J
9-10.
2
5.
The
Petition
offered
no
valid
basis
for
the
Board
to
exercise
subject
matter
jurisdiction.
The Board
nevertheless
issued a July 22,
2004
Order in
which
it purported to
(a)
allow two non-participants in the Public Hearing (“Batavia Illinois
Residents Opposed To Siting
Of
Waste
Transfer
Station”
and
Janis
Rosauer)
leave
to
file
a
petition
challenging
siting
approval; and (b) allow them to file the petition after the statutory deadline.
Petitioners filed the
Amended Petition on August 23, 2004.
ARGUMENT
ONYX IS ENTITLED TO
SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE THE BOARD
LACKS SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE REVISED PETITION
6.
The Petitioners’
failure to
participate in the April 12-16, 2004 Public Hearing bars
the Board from exercising subject-matterjurisdiction over the Amended Petition under 415 ILCS
5/40.1,
and Onyx is entitled to summary judgment.
Legal Standard
7.
A
party
may
move
the
Board
for
summary
judgment
at
any
time
after
the
opposing party has appeared (or after the expiration oftime
within which any party was required
to appear) for all or any part ofthe relief sought.
35 Iii. Adm.
Code
§
101.516.
The Board must
enter summary judgment if the record, including pleadings, depositions
and admissions
on
file,
together with
any affidavits,
shows
that
there is
no
genuine issue of material
fact,
and
that the
moving party
is
entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.
Id.; see
also Dowd v.
Dowd,
Ltd.
v.
Gleason,
181
Ill.
2d 460,
483,
693
N.E.2d 358,
370
(1998).
In ruling on a motion for summary
judgment,
the Board
must consider the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits
strictly against the
movant
and
in
favor of the
opposing
party,
and
grant summary judgment
when the movant’s
right to
it
is
free
arid clear
from doubt.
Additionally,
a party opposing
a motion
for summary
judgment may not
rest on its pleadings, but must
present a factual basis which would arguably
3
entitle it to judgment.
Gauthier v.
Westfall,
266 Ill.
App. 3d 213, 219,
639
N.E.2d 994,
999 (2d
Dist.
1994);
see also
United Disposal of Bradley, Inc.
v. IEPA,
PCB
No. 03-235, 2004 Ill. ENV
LEXIS 337 (Jun.
17, 2004).
8.
The Board
is
a creation of statute and
as such any power or authority
it claims
must be expressly stated in the Act.
Granite
City Steel
v.
IPCB,
155
Ill.2d
149,
613 N.E.2d 719
(1993);
Shepardet al v. IPCB,
272 Ill.App.3d 764,
651
N.E.2d
555
(2nd Dist.
1995).
The Board
has no greater powers than those the legislature confers upon it.
Village ofLombard v. Polilution
Control Board,
66
Ill.2d
503,
506,
363
N.E.2d 814
(1977).
The
Board
lacks
subject-matter
jurisdiction
to
act outside of the
express
grant of authority.
Ogle
County Board
v.
Pollution
Control Bd.,
272
Ill. App.
3d
184,
649
N.E.2d
545
(2d Dist.
1995);
Business
and Professional
Peoplefor the Public
Interest v.
Illinois
Commerce Comm ‘n.,
136
Ill.
2d
192,
243,
555
N.E.2d
693 (1989).
9.
Section 40.1(b) only allows
a third party to
challenge a local siting decisions if it
“participated in the public hearing conducted by the
...
governing body.
. .“
415
ILCS
5/40.1(b).
The Act does not
confer subject-matter jurisdiction for the Board to
evaluate a petition from
a
anyone who failed to
participate in the public hearing. 415 ILCS 5/40.1(b).
Neither Petitioner Participated In The Public Hearing
10.
Neither Petitioner participated in any phase the Public Hearing.
See
Aff. at
¶~f
8,
10.
Tn
particular, neither
Petitioner filed an
appearance for the hearing;
questioned or cross-
examined any witness;
or offered any comment during the Public Hearing.
Id.
There was
also
no attorney or other entity representing either Petitioner in
any aspect of the Public Hearing.
Id.
The Public Hearing transcripts confirm that neither
the Petitioners, nor any entity
representing
them, participated in any aspect ofthe Public Hearing.
Id.
at
¶
10.
4
The Revised Petition Establishes
That Janis Rosauer Lacks Standing
11.
The
original
Petition
in
this
matter did
not
even mention
Ms.
Rosauer’s name
much less
identify her as
a petitioner, and thus the Board
erred when it granted leave for Ms.
Rosauer to file an Amended Petition.
12.
The Revised Petition points to no information in the public record for this matter
suggesting that Ms.
Rosauer participated in the Public Hearing held from April
12
through April
16, 2004.
13.
To
the contrary, the Revised Petition clearly establishes that Janis Rosauer failed
to
participate
in the Public
Hearing because her
only involvement
was to
“submitJ
a
written
comment
after
the
close of the public
hearing,”
see
Revised Application
at II.A (emphasis
added).
Section 39.2 makes it clear that such written comments are not part ofthe public hearing
process, because it authorizes their submittal for up
to “30 days
after the date of the last public
hearing,” 415 ILCS
5/39.2(c)(emphasis added).
The clear language ofthe Act demonstrates that
Ms. Rosauer did not participate in the Pubic Hearing.
14.
Submitting a written comment after the close of a public hearing does not confer
standing to challenge a local siting decision.
See
415
ILCS
5/39.2(c),
5/40.1(b).
The only right
that comes with submitting suchcomments
is that the governing body must consider them if they
are
timely.
415
ILCS
5/39.2(c).
The
Revised
Petition
admits
that
Ms.
Rosauer
did
not
participate in
the Public Hearing;
at most
she
submitted
a
comment after the
Public
Hearing
ended, and
as a matter of law she has
failed to
allege facts establishing a right to
challenge the
City’s
siting approval.
15.
The Illinois
Legislature
clearly intended
to have local
siting decisions
proceed
along a strict but well-defmed time schedule.
The Act thus
includes a detailed series of clear,
discrete time limitations for every major step
in the local
siting approval process.
For instance
5
after an application is filed the public hearing may not begin for 90 days;
it must be completed
within
120 days;
and a decision rendered within
180 days.
415
ILCS
5/39.2.
The time for any
entity
to
act in order
to
preserve their right to
challenge the
siting decision ended on April
16,
2004,
the last
day
of the
Public Hearing;
public
comments
Ms.
Rosauer
submitted after the
Public Hearing cannot create standing to challenge the City’s decision.
The
Revised Petition Lacks Any
Factual Basis To Establish Standing
For The Batavia
Citizens’
Group
16.
The Revised Petition
likewise
lacks reference
to
any valid
support in
the public
record to
establish that an entity called “Batavia Illinois
Residents Opposed To
Siting of Waste
Transfer Station” (the “Group”) participated in the Public Hearing.
17.
The Petitioners seek to make an end-run around this defect by alleging for the first
time in the Revised Petition that certain of its members participated in
the Public Hearing.
See
Revised Petition
at
II.B.
The
attempt
fails
because the Petitioners
have pointed
to
nothing
suggesting
that
any Group
member represented or acted
on behalf of the
Group at the Public
Hearing.
In fact, there
is
nothing in the
Amended Petition
demonstrating that the
Group even
existed at the
time of the Public
Hearing.
The Amended
Petition’s
attempt
to
claim that
the
Group can challenge the decision has no
factual support
in the record for this
proceeding.
See
Aff. at
¶~f
8-10.
18.
The standing ofany person to appeal an administrative review proceeding such as
local siting approval must appear as a factual matter in the record made before the administrative
body.
See,
e.g., Allender
v.
Chicago ZoningBd. ofAppeals,
63
Ill. App. 3d 204,210, 381
N.E.2d
4,
8
(1st
Dist.
1978).
The Act
precludes the
introduction
before the
Board of any
“new or
additional evidence in
support of or in opposition to” the governing body’s decision,
415
ILCS
5/40.1(a),
and directs the Board to
evaluate a petition “based exclusively on the record” before
6
the
City.
415
ILCS
5/40.1(b).
The
Amended Petition’s
allegations
about
the Group and
its
members is
nothing more than an attempt to boot-strap information completely absent from the
record, nearly four months after the Public Hearing closed and nearly two months after the time
to
challenge
the decision
ended.
See
Aff.
at
¶~f
8,
10.
The
Board
should
thus
strike
each
reference in the Amended Petition to the nature ofthe Group and its membership.
19.
The Petitioners’ attempt to claim that the mere presence ofa Group member at the
Public Hearing somehow confers standing to the entire Group
is
likewise unsupported in Illinois
law and must fail.
The Board Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Over The Revised Petition
20.
There
is
no
genuine
issue
of the
material
fact
that
the
Petitioners
failed
to
participate in
the Public Hearing.
This
failure is
a
complete bar to challenging the City’s siting
approval under 415 ILCS
5/40.1(b).
21.
The Act thus does not grant the Board subject-matterjurisdiction over the Revised
Petition.
WHEREFORE,
Onyx requests the Board
to
enter an Order granting Onyx’s Motion
for
Summary Judgment and enteringjudgment on Onyx’s behalfwith respect to the entire Amended
Petition, and for such other relief as the Board deems to be reasonable
and appropriate.
7
IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
ONYXREQUESTS TILE
BOARD
TO RECONSIDER ITS JULY
22,
2004
ORDER
22.
In the alternative, Onyx requests that the Board reconsider its
July 22,
2004 Order
and modif~r
it to
(a)
strike the Order’s extension of the 120-day decision deadline regarding the
Amended Petition,
(b)
strike the Order’s references
to
Janis
Rosauer as
the “petitioner” in
this
action,
and
(c)
strike the Order’s
authorization for Janis Rosauer to file a
petition in this
action
beyond the 35-day statutory deadline.
23.
A
motion
for
reconsideration
brings
to
the
Board’s
attention
“errors
in
the
Board’s
application ofthe law,” among other things.
Continental Casualty Co.
v.
Security Ins.
Co.,
665 N.E.2d 374,
377
(1st Dist.
1996);
see
also Korogluyan v.
Chicago
Title
&
Trust Co.,
572 N.E.2d 1154,
1158
(1st
Dist.
1991);
Citizens Against Regional Landfill v.
County Board of
Whiteside
County,
PCB
93-156,
1993
Ill.
ENV LEXIS
235
(111.
Pol.
Control Bd.,
March
11,
1993).
Tn
ruling on
a
motion
for reconsideration, the
Board may
correct
errors arising
from
oversight
or omission.
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
§
101.904.
The Board must
also
consider
factors
including new evidence to conclude that the Board’s decision was in error.
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
§
101.902.
THE BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO UNILATERALLY EXTEND THE
STATUTORY 120-DAY DECISION DEADLINE
24.
The Board
should revise its Order and
strike the extension it purports to
give to
the 120-day deadline it has to decide challenges to the City’s siting approval.
25.
The Act requires the Board to
render any decision on
a
challenge to
local siting
approval within
120
days after the petition is
filed.
415
ILCS
5/40.1(a),(b).
The Act does not
grant the Board authority to ignore or unilaterally extend the deadline.
26.
The Board’s
own regulations
acknowledge
that
in
accordance with
Act
Section
40.1,
“only
the
applicant
for
siting
may waive
the
decision
deadline,”
and
that
unless
the
8
applicant does so “the Board
will issue
its decision within
120
days after the proper
filing and
service
of a petition for review.”
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
§
107.504;
see,
e.g. Alliancefor
a
Safe
Environment v. Akron LandCorp.,
No. PCB 80-184, 1980 Ill. ENV LEXIS 237 (Oct. 30,
1980)
27.
Onyx, the applicant in this
matter, has not
agreed to
waive the Board’s decision
deadline and there is no support in the record for an extension ofthe 120-day deadline.
28.
The Board
exceeded its
statutory
authority when it agreed to
“restart”
a
120-day
decision deadline period once an amended petitionto review the City’s siting approval is filed.
29.
The
Board
should
reconsider
its
Order
and
strike
the
provision
purporting
to
“restart” the 120-day decisionperiod.
THE BOARD
CANNOT ALLOW A BATAVIA RESIDENT
TO FILE A PETITION AFTER THE STATUTORY RILING DEADLINE
30.
The Order’s mistaken identification of“one Batavia resident, Janis Rosauer” as
a
Petitioner lacks any support in
the record, and the Board should
strike from the Order both
any
reference identifying Ms. Rosauer as the petitioner, and the Order’s allowance of time for her to
file a petition beyond the 35-day time limit in the Act.
31.
The Act
requires
eligible
third-party
petitioners
to
file a
challenge
to
any
local
siting approval no later than 35 days after a final decision.
415 ILCS
5/40.1(b).
32.
One Petitioner clearly identifies itself as “Batavia, Illinois Residents Opposed To
Siting Of Waste Transfer Station” in the Petition.
While Ms.
Rosauer signed the notice offiling,
she did not sign the Petition and her name does not appear anywhere in
it.
There is no
support
for
a
conclusion that
a person who merely
signs
a
notice of filing
for an unincorporated
group
may be deemed to be
a
petitioner for purposes ofcleaning up defects in a petition.
33.
Ms.
Rosauer,
in
her
individual capacity, did
not file any
petition to
review the
City’s
decision within the 35-day time limit.
Aff. at
¶~f
9-10.
9
34.
Because Ms.
Rosauer did not participate in the Public Hearing held from April
12
through 16, 2004 she
is barred from filing a petition at any time, and the Board lacks jurisdiction
over any petition Ms. Rosauer files in this matter.
35.
Additionally, since Ms. Rosauer did not file
a
petition within 35
days ofthe City’s
June 7,
2004
decision,
Section 40.1(b) bars her
from
filing
the Revised Petition
on August 23.
Section 40.1(b) likewise
does not
authorize the Board
to
review
a
petition filed
more than
35
days
after the
decision, and the Board will
therefore lack subject-matter
jurisdiction over
any
petition Ms. Rosauer files in the future.
36.
It was therefore
futile for the Board to
authorize Ms.
Rosauer to
file a petition to
review the City’s siting approval, because the Board cannot have subject-matter jurisdiction over
it regardless ofwhen it was filed.
37.
The Board should
reconsider its Order and strike any reference to Ms.
Rosauer as
the petitioner, and the permission it purports to give Ms.
Rosauer to
file an untimely petition to
reviewthe City’s
decision.
38.
Additionally,
there
is
nothing
in
the
record
or the
Amended Petition
as
to
the
Group’s form,
membership
or even its
existence at the time of the Public Hearing.
No new or
additional evidence in support ofor in opposition the City’s decision may be considered at point
(415 ILCS
5/40.1(a)),
and the
Board
should
strike
all
such allegations
about the
Group
in the
Amended Petition.
WHEREFORE,
Respondent Onyx
Waste
Services
Midwest,
Inc.
respectfully requests
that
the Board
grant
Onyx’s
Motion
For
Summary Judgment,
and
enter judgment
in
Onyx’s
favor as to the entire Amended Petition.
In the alternative, Respondent respectfully requests the
Board to reconsider its July 22,
2004 Order and
(a)
strike its purported extension ofits statutory
120-day decision deadline; (b)
strike any
reference identifying Janis
Rosauer
as the Petitioner;
10
(c)
strike the permission it seeks to
give Janis Rosauer to
file a petition following expiration of
the 35-day deadline to challenge
local siting decisions, and
dismiss
the Revised Petition to
the
extent it refers to
Ms. Rosauer as a Petitioner; and (d) for such other relief as the Board deems to
be reasonable and appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
ONYX WASTE SERVICES MIDWEST,
INC.
By:
Gerald P. Callaghan
Paul A. Duffy
Freeborn & Peters LLP
311
S. Wacker Drive
Chicago,
IL
60611
Date: September 2, 2004
629575
attorneys
11
Ph
—4-
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BATAVIA, ILLINOIS
RESIDENTS
)
OPPOSED TO SITING OF WASTE
)
TRANSFER STATION
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
)
PCB
05-1
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
APPLICATION OF ONYX WASTE
)
SERVICES MIDWEST, INC. FOR
)
LOCAL
SITING APPROVAL
)
FOR A SOLID WASTE
)
TRANSFER STATION
)
)
and
)
)
CITY OF BATAVIA, ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Respondents.
)
AFFIDAVIT OF RANDY RECKLAUS
1.
My name
is
Randy
Recklaus.
I
am Assistant
City Administrator of the City of
Batavia (“Batavia” or the “City”).
I have personal knowledge ofthe matters set forth herein.
2.
In connection with my position as Assistant City Administrator, I was involved in
the City’s
handling
of Onyx
Waste Services
Midwest,
Inc.’s
(“Onyx”)
“Application for Local
Siting Approval”
(“Application”)
seeking approval
to
construct a
solid
waste
transfer station
(“Site”) in Batavia.
3.
Onyx filed its
Application on
December
19,
2003.
Pursuant to
Section
6(A) of
the City’s
Siting Ordinance for Pollution
Control Facilities,
Ordinance No. 02-10, as
amended
(“Siting
Ordinance”),
the Mayor of Batavia
appointed a
Pollution
Control
Facility Committee
(“PCF Committee”) to
conduct a public hearing (the “Public Hearing”) for the Application.
The
PCF Committee consisted ofseven City Council members.
4.
The
PCF
Committee
held the
Public
Hearing
regarding
the
Application from
April
12 through April
16, 2004.
5.
1 attended the entire
Public Hearing from beginning to
end and on each day from
April
12
through April
16,
2004,
with
the exception of a brief
15-
to
20-minute
period during
which an individual named Greg Popovich was commenting.
6.
After
the
Public
Hearing
and
subsequent
public
comment
period,
the
PCF
Committee
recommended
approval
of
the
Request.
The
City
Council
followed
the
PCF
Committee’s
recommendations
and
approved the Application with conditions
on
June 7, 2004.
The
PCF
Committee
and
City
Council
each
specifically
concluded
that
Onyx
and
the
PCF
Committee complied with all applicable requirements ofboth the Act and the Siting Ordinance.
7.
With
the
exception of a
portion of the remarks
of Greg Popovich,
I
saw and
listened to each member ofthe public who made any statement during the Public Hearing.
8.
No individual who participated in the Public Hearing identified him- or herselfas
r
a member or representative ofan entity called “Batavia, Illinois Residents Opposed To Siting Of
Waste Transfer Station.”
L
9.
No
individual
who participated in
the Public Hearing identified herself as Janis
Rosauer or as a representative ofJanis Rosauer.
10.
In connection with my
preparation of this
affidavit, I reviewed the transcript of
the
Public
Hearing.
The
transcript
confirms
the
fact
that
no
member
or
representative
of
“Batavia,
Illinois
Residents
Opposed To
Siting Of Waste Transfer
Station” participated
in the
Public Hearing.
The transcript
also confirms the fact that neither Janis
Rosauer nor any person
2
identifying
him-
or
herself as
a
representative
of
Janis
Rosauer
participated
in
the
Public
Hearing.
AFFIANT SAYS NOTHING FURTHER.
By:_______
Randy Recklaus,
Assistant City Administrator
Date:___________
SUBSCRIBED
and SWORN to
before me this
/
~
day of August, 2004.
(P~ E
.*,~
*
~.
*
P~.
TMOFFICIAL SI3AL”
~
~
JEANETTE
ARMBRUST
~Notary
Pubflc,
State
of
lIIinois~
L
My
Commis~on
ex~ima
O9/O5/O4~
623956
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The
undersigned
attorney
hereby
certifies
that
on
September
2,
2004,
he
caused
a
copy
of
Respondent ONYX WASTE
SERVICES MIDWEST,
INC.’S
AMENDED
MOTION
FOR
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT;
OR
IN
THE
ALTERNATIVE
ITS
MOTION
TO
RECONSIDER THE BOARD’S JULY
22
2004 ORDER to be delivered
by hand delivery to:
Dorothy M. Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R.
Thompson Center
100 West Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
and by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to
Matthew M. Klein
322 W. Burlington
LaGrange, Illinois
60525
