CLERK’S
OEFfr’p
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SEp
o
4
2003
CITIZENS AGAINST
LANDFILL EXPANSION,
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
o
ut ton ControlBoard
Petitioner,
)
vs.
)
No.
PCB 03-236
)
AMERICAN
DISPOSAL SERVICES OF
ILLINOIS,
)
INC.
and
LIVINGSTON COUNTY BOARD,
LIVINGSTON COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
)
Respondents.
NOTICE
OF FILING
To:
See Attached
Service List
PLEASE TAKE N0CE
that on
September 1, 2003,
I
caused to
be filed by First
Class
Mail
with
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
an original
and
four copies
of the
attached Respondent, Livingston County Board’s Livingston County, Illinois, Supplemental
Answers
to
Petitioner’s
First
Set
of
Interrogatories
and
Supplemental
Response
To
Petitioner’s First Request for Production ofby placing said material in the
U.
S.
Post Office,
Hawley Street,
Mundelein,
IL 60060, postage
prepaid.
LIVING
TON COUNTY BOARD
cxL
~ft~k
Larry M. CI4~j
PROOF
OF
SERVICE
RECEIVED
CLERK’S ornrr
SEP
0
4
2003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
The undersigned,
under oath, states that on September
1, 2cRliJ~usersab,scbhaat
and correct copy ofthe foregoing Notice of Filing together with
the attached
Respondent,
Livingston
County
Board’s,
Livingston
County,
Illinois,
Supplemental
Answers
to
Petitioner’s
First Set of Interrogatories and Supplemental Response
To Petitioner’s First
Request for Production, upon the following persons, at the addresses indicated, by first
class mail and that prior to 10:00a.m. on September 1,2003, said
Supplemental Answers
to Petitioner’s First Set of Interrogatories and Supplemental Response To Petitioner’s First
Request for
Production
were
sent
by email
to
the
Hearing
Officer and
counsel
for
the
parties, at the email addresses indicated:
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson Center
100W Randolph Suite
11-500
Chicago
IL 60601-3218
George Mueller
George Mueller PC
501
State Street
Ottawa IL 61350
gmueller©mchsi.com
Carolyn
K.
Gerwin
705 South Locust St
Pontiac IL 61764
gerwin~mchsi.com
Bradley P.
Halloran,
Hearing Officer
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
James
R.
Thompson Center
100W
Randolph, Suite
11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601
c+n+p
~h
II
Offl~iSal
II
SusanRCiailc
~
Notary Pub4~c
Sla*M flhnois
CenmLssl.n Expkn
O1~i
5106
2003
Subscribed
and sworn to before
C.
Thomas Blakeman
Attorney at Law
307 West Washington Street
Pontiac, IL 61764
Telephone: 815-844-6177
Fax: 815-842-3288
Douglas
E.
Lee
Ehrmann Gehlbach Badger & Lee
P0 Box 447
Dixon
IL 61021
Iee~egbbI.com
Claire A.
Manning
Posegate
& Denes, P.C.
111
N Sixth Street
Springfield,
IL 62705
Claire©posengate-denes.com
C. Thomas Blakeman
Blakeman, Schrock & Bauknecht, Ltd.
307 West Washington Street
Pontiac,
IL 61764
tom©sbsltd.com
AA~
1d1
me,
a
Notary
Pu
ic, th~1st day of September,
iJW~
vf~
N5tary Public
Larry M. Clark
Attorney at Law
700
N
Lake
St, Suite 200
Mundelein,
IL 60060
Telephone:
847-949-9396
Fax: 847-949-9427
RECEILV
t.L’
~
FP~’~
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BO~D04
?01J3
STATE OF ILLINuis
Citizens Against Landfill
Expansion,
)
Pollution
Con
tr& Board
Petitioners,
vs.
)
PCB 03-236
(Pollution Control
Facility Siting Appeal)
American Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.,)
Respondent.
)
)
and
)
Livingston County Board,
Livingston
County,
Illinois,
Respondent.
RESPONDENT LIVINGSTON
COUNTY BOARD’S, LIVINGSTON
COUNTY. ILLINOIS
SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PETmONER’S
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
NOW COMES,
the
Livingston County Board,
Livingston County, Illinois,
by its
attorneys,
Larry
M.
Clark and
C.
Thomas Blakeman, and for
its Supplemental Answers
to
Petitioner’s First Set of Interrogatories, pursuant to the Hearing Officer Order entered
on August
28, 2003, states as follows:
5.
Identify each
expert witness or potential expert witness retained or
consulted by LCB with respect to the
Petition for
Review.
Answer:
None
6.
Describe all
communications to, from or among LCB (including
its
members, agents, consultants and employees) relating to annexation or
potential annexation by the City of Pontiac of land at, near or extending
toward
Livingston
Landfill.
Answer: Communications occurred at the
Board Meeting of June
13,
2002
between the
Board Members
and Attorney Larry M. Clark regarding the
possible
annexation of certain
land belonging to or adjacent to the
Livingston
Landfill.
Similar
discussions took place at the
Agricultural
Committee Meeting of June 4, 2002.
Other
attorney-client conversations took place
between certain
Board Members
and
counsel
for Livingston County relating to such potential annexation.
Respondent claims
attorney-client privilege as to such conversations.
Page
1
of
22
10.
For each
Board Member, describe any meetings involving said Board
Member and American Disposal that occurred since January 1, 2001,
other than official
meetings of LCB or committees thereof that were open to the public
in
accordance with
the
Open Meetings Act and describe the substance of communications
related to suth
meetings.
Answer: See attached response of those still-living Board Members who voted in
favor of the Siting Application.
11.
Identify all
documents relating to any agreement, understanding, contract
or proposed agreement between any Board Member and American Disposal.
Answer: See
attached
response of those still-living Board Members who voted
in
favor of the
Siting Application.
12.
Identify any payments, gifts,
agreements,
promises,
services or anything
of value
provided by American Disposal to LCB (or any of its
members, agents,
employees, attorneys or consultants) other than payments made to Livingston
County
pursuant to the Host Agreement.
Answer:
See
attached
response of those still-living Board Members who voted
in
favor of the Siting Application.
18.
Describe any interest, relationship,
agreement
or proposed agreement of
any Board Member with any contractor that had, has or will
have any business with
respect to Livingston Landfill (other than
de minimis contractors doing less than $5,000
worth of business with Livingston
Landfill
in
any given year).
Answer:
See attached response of those still-living Board Members who voted
in favor of the Siting Application.
28.
Describe
all
instances in which it has been discussed or anticipated that
any of LCB’s consultants,
employees,
agents or witnesses
who participated
in
the
Application
process in
any way will or may provide any materials or services to
American
Disposal at any time hereafter.
Answer:
None.
29.
Describe any communications or meetings involving LCB
and American
Disposal that occurred since January
1, 2001
relating to the
Previous Application, the
Application,
host fees, the
proposed
expansion or opposition to the expansion, other
than official meetings of LCB or committees thereof that were open to the public in
accordance with the
Open Meetings Act,
and describe the substance of any
communications related to such meetings, including communications or meetings of
Page
2 of
22
American Disposal’s consultants and LCB’s consultants that occurred between
the
pendency of the
Previous Application and the Application.
Answer:
See
attached response of those still-living Bc~ardMembers who voted
in favor of the
Siting Application as well
as response of Diegar & Associates.
31.
Identify all
çersons consulted
in preparing the ar~swers
to these
lnterrogatories, Petitionec’s First Request for Production of Dotuments to LCB or
Petitioner’s first Request for Admissions by LCB.
Answer: See Answers to Petitioner’s First Set of Interrogatories.
Carl
Borngasser,
Bill Fairfield, William Flott, John
Franey,
Dan Hogan,
Helen Holz, Roger
Kirkton, George Knudsen,
Catherine Kudrick, Arnold Natzke, Glen Rustman, Marvin
Rutledge, Tim Shafer, John
Spafford, Jack Vietti, Roger Wahls, Stan Weber,
and
Robert Weller.
Respectfully submitted,
LIVINGSTON COUNTY BOARD,
LIVINGSTON COUN’~’Y,ILLINOIS
By:
~)~L~5fl ~k
One oflt~fitneYs
C. Thomas
Blakeman
Attorney at Law
307 West Washington Street
Pontiac, IL 61764
Telephone:
815-844-6177
Fax: 815-842-3288
Larry M. Clark
Attorney at Law
700 North
Lake Street
Suite 200
Mundelein,
IL 60060
Telephone:
847-949-9396
Fax: 847-949-9427
Page 3~f22
RESPONSE
OF
ROGER KIRKTON
10.
None.
11.
None.
12.
None.
18.
None to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None to the best of my knowledge.
Page 4 of
22
RESPONSE
OF WILLIAM FLOTT
10.
I
received
a letter from American
Disposal dated May 29, 2002, signed
by
Dave Brant.
It included some
handouts about Livingston
Landfill.
Subsequently,
I
had
coffee at a
local restaurant
with
Dave Bryant and
John McDonnell at
a time when
no
application was on file.
No other board members were present.
They wanted to know if
I
had any questions.
No promises or agreements were discussed or implied.
I
also
visited the Pontiac Landfill
along with fellow Board Member,
Dee Woodburn, to get
some questions answered about their operation.
Bryant and McDonnell were
both
present.
This meeting was
prior to May,
2002.
11.
I
have no agreement or contracts with American Disposal or Allied.
12.
None
18.
None
to the best of my knowledge.
29.
To the best of my knowledge, none other than the meetings mentioned
above
in answer to Interrogatory No.
10,
I
did attend
a
meeting
in
the spring of 2002 at
a time when
no application
was
on file where Carolyn Gerwin was
present discussing
the
organization of a landfill expansion opposition group.
Page
5 of
22
RESPONSE
OF DAN HOGAN
10.
Met once with
Dave Bryant from
American Disposal at
a time when
no
application
was on file concerning the operation of the landfill and the proposed
expansion.
11.
None.
12.
None
18.
None to the best o:my
knowledge.
29.
To the best of my knowledge, no meetings other than the
meeting mentioned
in
Answer to Interrogatory
No.
10 above,
at a time when no application was on file.
I
did
receive
a letter from
American Disposal
in
May of 2002, providing current facts and
information concerning the landfill and correspondence
from
CALE in opposition to the
landfill and any expansion.
Page 6
of
22
RESPONSE OF
GLEN RUSTMAN
10,
Met once with Dave
Bryant and John
McDonnell at a time when
no
application was on file.
The Allied
representatives wanted to know what they had done
wrong
in presenting their side of the
issues with
regard to amending the
solid waste
plan and were advised that Allied needed to do a
better job of advising the public as to
their position.
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None
to the best of my knowledge.
29
To the best of my knowledge, none other than set forth
in the
answer to
Interrogatory No.
10 above.
Pagelof
22
RESPOI9$~QF
JOHN FRANEY
10.
At a
time when
no application was on file
I
met with
Dave Bryant and John
McDonnell from Allied who explained the operation of the landfill.
In August or
September of 2002,
I attended an Open
House at the landfill and viewed the facility and
learned
about its
operation.
At the time of the meeting
and attending the
Open House,
I
was
not a member of the
Livingston County Board.
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None to the best of my knowledge, except
I
have an agreement with Jim
Boomgarden from
Piper City who picks up
my garbage and provides
me with
a
dumpster.
I believe
he has an agreement with the
Livingston Landfill where
he
disposes the
refuse
he picks up although
I
do not know how
much business he does
with the
landfill.
29.
None to the best of my knowledge, except for the information set forth
in
the Answer to
Interrogatory No.
10 above.
Page
8 of
22
RESPONSE
OF ARNOLD NATZKE
10.
I met with
Dave Bryant and another Landfill officer on October 24,
2002,
at
the Landfill at 1:00
p.m.
The meeting
lasted about 30 minutes and we talked about
some improvements that had been
made.
The meeting
was
a result of the
LandfilVs
invitation.
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None
to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None other than the meeting mentioned
in
the answer to Interrogatory No.
10 above.
Page 9 of
22
RESPONSE
OF ROGER WAHLS
10.
To the best of my recollection, at a time when
no application
was on file,
Dave Bryant and
John McDonnell
ofAllied met with
me
one afternoon at Allen’s
Pub
and Grub
in Pontiac for approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
It was
an informal, social
meeting where they inquired of me as a citizen and Board member what concerns
I
may
have regard the operation of the landfills in
the County.
I
recall
addressing vehicle
inspections, cleanliness of Rowe
Road
and
Route 23, traffic safety, litter removal
from
the areas
adjacent
1-55
and odor control.
Understand, these issues were
not in
the form
of
complaint,
but to ascertain Allied’s
procedures and attitude
in addressing these
potentially adverse
issues.
This
is the only meeting
I
had with any Allied
employee or
representative other than official meetings of the
Board or its
committees.
11.
I
have no agreement, understanding, contract or proposed
agreement with
American Disposal.
Nor am
I aware of any Board member having such.
12.
I
have received nothing.
I
am
not ware of any other entity described
in
the
question having received anything of value.
18.
None
to the best of my knowledge.
29.
Except for
my response to Interrogatory No.
10 above,
I have
had no
communication with American Disposal other than
in official meetings of the
Board or its
committees.
Nor am
I aware of any private
meetings involving the
Board and American
Disposal.
I
did meet with
Doris Burnside
and Julie Russow from
CALE at a time when
no application was on file and listened to their objections to the
landfill.
Page 10
of
22
RESPONSE
OF STAN WEBER
10.
None
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None
29.
None, except
I was
contacted by representatives of CALE once
by phone
who expressed their concerns about the
landfill and
expansion.
This occurred at a time
when
no application
was on file.
Page
11
of
22
RESPONSE
OF CATHERINE KLJDRICK
10.
None
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None
to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None
Page 12 of
22
RESPONSE
OF
ROBERT WELLER
10.
None
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None to the
best of my knowledge.
Page 13 of
22
RESPONSE OF JACK VIETTI
10.
At
a time when no application
was on file,
I
met with
Dave Bryant and
John
McDonnell to discuss various landfill issues.
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None to the best of my knowledge.
Page 14 of
22
RESPONSE
OF CARL
BORNGASSER
10.
At a time when
no application was
on file,
I talked with
Dave
Bryant at a
restaurant and
had
a cup of coffee
with
him while
having
a general discussion
about the
Landfill.
Also, Dave and one other person gave
a
rotary program for the
Fairbury club
I
belong to
at a time when
no application was on file.
They gave
a general program on
the landfill that they gave to the Pontiac rotary and
other clubs.
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None
to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None other than the Answer to Interrogatory No.
10 above.
Page l5of
22
RESPONSE
OF
MARVIN RUTLEDGE
10.
None
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None
to the best of my knowledge.
Page 16
of
22
RESPONSE
OF JOHN
R.
SPAFFORO
10.
None
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None
to the
best of my knowledge.
29.
None to the best of my knowledge.
Page
17 of
22
RESPONSE
OF BILL FAIRFIELD
10.
None
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None to the best of my knowledge except for meeting
on December 3,
2002, with CALE members, Doris Burnside and Julie
Russow, who expressed their
opposition to the landfill and any expansion.
Page 18 of
22
RESPONSE
OF HELEN HOLZ
10.
None
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None to the best of my knowledge.
29.
None to the best of my knowledge.
Page 19 of
22
RESPONSE
OF TIM SHAFER
10.
At
a time when no application was on
file,
I met with
Dave Bryant and
John
McDonnell from
Alliad for about 30 minutes to discuss the landfill in general.
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None to the best of my knowledge.
29.
See answer to Interrogatory No.
10 above.
At a time when
no application
was on file,
I received
a telephone
call from
Dave Bryant concerning the general
disposition of
the new Board.
Page 20 of
22
RESPONSE OF KNUDSEN
10.
Received
and granted one request from
John
McDonnell
and
David
Bryant of American Disposal to meet with
me at my home.
This meeting took place
at a
time when
no application
was on file.
Our discussions centered for the
most part on
my
listening to their views concerning the
landfill and
its
operations and
the contributions
the business
is making to the
county
as a whole.
11.
None
12.
None
18.
None
to the
best
of
my knowledge.
29.
To the best of my knowledge no meetings other than the
meeting
mentioned above
in answer to Interrogatory
No.
10.
with American Disposal.
Did
receive a letter dated May 29, 2002 from American Disposal
providing current facts and
information concerning the
landfill.
Also, at
a time when
no application was
on file,
I met
with
Carolyn Gerwin
and other CALE representatives at the home of Doris Burnside to
listen
to their concerns about the
landfill
and future expansion and
I received
certain
materials that they had
researched on the
subject.
Shortly after that Dr.
And
Mrs.
Gerwin stopped
by my residence and we discussed their concerns about the
landfill.
Julie Russow also stopped by the
house to deliver additional material.
Page
21
of
22
RESI’ONSE OF
DEIGAN & ASSOCIATES
29.
The following
communication
events occurred between
Deigan
&
Associates,
LLC and
the Applicant/Applicant’s
Consultants during
the
period between the
pendency
of the Previous Application
and the
Application:
October 22, 2002
-
Gary Deigan
and Kerry
Van Allen
(Deigan & Associates, LLC)
attended
a
meeting
with
the American
Disposal Representatives and their
consultants at Livingston
Landfill.
The substance of the communications during
this meeting was to
discuss
the withdrawal of the Previous Appflcation and
a
schedule
and format for refiling an amended
siting Application.
November 13, 2002
-
Gary Deigan attended
a
meeting
with American
Disposal
Representatives and their consultants at Livingston Landfill.
The substance of
the communciations during this meeting was to inspect the operations of the
landfill
and confirm the schedule
and
format of the amended
siting
Appliation.
Page 22 of
22
-
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFV’F
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
SEP
0
4
2003
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Polluti0,~Corn
Citizens Against Landfill
Expansion,
)
ro,
flood
Petitioners,
)
)
vs.
)
PCB 03-236
(Pollution
Control
Facility Siting Appeal)
American Disposal Services of Illinois, Inc.,)
Respondent.
)
and
)
)
Livingston County
Board,
Livingston
county,
Illinois,
Respondent.
)
RESPONDENT LIVINGSTON COUNTY BOARD’S.
LIVINGSTON
COUNTY. ILLINOIS
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE
TO
PETITIONER’S
FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
NOW COMES, the Livingston County
Board,
Livingston County,
Illinois, by
its
attorneys,
Larry M.
Clark and
C.
Thomas Blakeman,
and
for its Supplemental
Response
to Petitioner’s First Request for Production of Documents, pursuant to the
Hearing Officer
Order entered
on August 28, 2003, states as follows:
1.
All documents identified
in response to Petitioner’s First Set of
I nterrogatories
to Respondent LCB.
RESPONSE:
See
Record
on
Appeal
and
Answers
to
Petitioner’s
First
Set
of
Interrogatories and Supplemental Answers to Petitioners
First Set of Interrogatories from
both Respondents.
Also see attached Memo from Larry M. Clark to Livingston County Ag
Committee
dated
June 4,
2002.
3.
All documents
that contain
or otherwise
relate to
facts or information that
Respondents contend refute, in
any way, the
basis for reversal contained
in
the Petition
for Review.
RESPONSE:
See
Record
on
Appeal
and
Answers
to
Petitioner’s
First
Set
of
Interrogatories and Supplemental Answers to Petitioners
First Set of Interrogatories from
both Respondents.
6.
All documents that refer to CALE or its
members or representatives.
Page
1
of
7
RESPONSE:
See
Record
on
Appeal
and
Answers
to
Petitioners
First
Set
of
Interrogatories and Supplemental Answers to Petitioners
First Set of Interrogatories from
both
Respondents.
7.
All
documeijt$
relating
to
any
agreement,
ur.dcrstanding
or
transaction
between any Board Member and American Disposal.
RESPONSE:
None.
10.
All documents that relate to any expression by aEtoard Member of approval
or disapproval of expansion
of Livingston
Landfill and/or
approval of the
Application or
Previous Application.
RESPONSE:
See
Record
on
Appeal
and
Answers
to
Petitioner’s
First
Set
of
Interrogatories and Supplemental Answers to Petitioner’s
First Set of Interrogatories from
both Respondents.
See specifically Livingston County Board Resolution No. 03-012 dated
May
15, 2003, which
is
a nart of the Record on Appeal.
11.
All documer~ts
that relate to any expression by ~ Board Member of approval
or
disapproval
of collec~?~
of
additional
host
fees
resulfrg
from
the
expansion
of
Livingston Landfill and/or
pproval of the Application or Previç”,s Application.
RESPONSE:
See
Record
on
Appeal
and
Answers
te
Petitioner’s
First
Set
of
Interrogatories and Supplemental Answers to Petitioners First Get of Interrogatories from
both Respondents.
See specificallyAmendment Agreement of February 15, 2001,to
Host
County Agreement and Related Documents (Livingston Coun~:~
Exhibit
No.
3).
12.
All documer~s
dating from and after May 1, 2002 h&ating to actual, proposed
or potential use of Host Fees from the
proposed expansion to fund any County expenditure
or project.
RESPONSE:
See
Record
on
Appeal
and
Answers t~Petitioner’s
First
Set
of
Interrogatories and Supp!)mental Answers to Petitioners
First Set of Interrogatories from
both Respondents.
I’
Page
2
of
7
Respectfufly submitted,
LIVINGSTON COUNTY BOARD,
LIVINGSTON COUNTY,
ILLiNOIS
By:
~
III
a(hh
One of l~)4rneys
C.
Thomas Blakeman
Blakeman,
Schrock & Bauknecht,
Ltd.
Attorneys at Law
307 West Washington Street
Pontiac, IL
61764
Telephone:
815-844-6177
Fax: 815-842-3288
Larry M. Clark
Attorney at Law
700
N Lake St Suite 200
Mundelein, IL 60060
Telephone:
847-949-9396
Fax:
847-949-9427
Page
3 of
7
~Earrg~4Rt
Qflarb
~dtanug~Pd
~ath
700
NORTH
LAKE STREET, SUITE 200
MUNDELEIN,
ILLINOIS
60060
(847) 949-9396
•
Fax (847)
949-9427
MEMORANDUM
To:
Agricultural &
Zoni;ig Committee
Livingston County
From:
Larry M. Clark
Re:
Amendment of Solid Waste Plan
Date:
June 4,
2002
This Memorandum is written pursuant to theCounty’s request for an opinion ofoptions and
possible ramifications of the County Board’s approval or denial of an amendment to the Solid Waste
Plan that would provide part ofthe requirements needed for American Disposal Services ofIllinois
and Allied
Waste Industries, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to
as
“Allied’)
to
obtain local
siting
from
Livingston County.
In order for a landfill company to obtain permissionto buildor expand a landfill
in Illinois,
they must first
obtain permission
(local
siting approval) from
the
local
entity that
has
jurisdiction over the property (the county ora municipality, if located within the corporate limits of
a municipality).
This
process is commonly referred to as a SB
172 hearing, named for the Senate
Bill from
which it originated.
SB
172 requires
that an applicant must meet
a number ofstatutory criteria in order to obtain
such local
approval.
These criteria include, among others, whether the facility is needed; whether
it will be designed, built and operated so as
to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizenry;
whether the traffic impactwill be minimized; and most importantly for this discussion, whether the
proposed facility is consistent with the
County’s Solid Waste Plan.
If the applicant cannot meet all
Page 4 of
7
of the required criteria, local approval may be denied.
Without local approval, an applicant cannot
seek
a State IEPA permit a~d
cannot construct a facility.
If local
approval is denied, an applicant
may seek review before the Pollution Control Board, the Appellate Courts, and the Illinois Supreme
Court.
It is my understanding that Livingston County first entered into a Host County Agreement
with
Allied’s predecessor
in
1994
for portions
of the Pontiac
facility.
This
Agreement has
been
modified
and
amended
several
times
over
the
course
of the
last
8
years.
The
Host
County
Agreement has been developed in conjunction
with the Livingston County Solid Waste Plan so as
to provide as much control over the disposal of solid waste
as pos3ible.
The last 5-year update to
the
Solid Waste Plan
specifically provided for the expansion of the Streator Landfill because the
facility needed to be expanCçd, but did not address any other expan~hns
so that the County could,
in fact, retain such
control
t.
7ltil they were ready to extend it
to another.
The last amendment to the
Host County Agreement
specifically anticipated the expansion ofthe Streator facility as well as the
Pontiac facility and greatly increased the host fee to be paid to the County.
The County now stands
to collect a host fee
that
is competitive with all
others throughout the State of Illinois.
Should theCounty determine not to amendthe Solid Waste Plan to provide for an expansion
to the Pontiac landfill, the possible ramifications include the following:
o
tipping fees
increases would be frozen, subject only to CPI increases
o
waste
deposited into the Pontiac facility would eventually cease
o
waste
would h~tve
to be
transported to
Streator or other disposal facilities
Under the terms of the HosifFee Agreement, if the County does not amend the Solid Waste Plan,
Allied may
still
(and probal4ly would) file an application for an expanded landfilll for the Pontiac
facility.
The County
would
be obligated to hold
a
hearing
to determine if Allied meets
all
of the
required criteria, including the one that relates to
compliance with the County’s Solid
Waste Plan.
If Allied is
denied
local
siting
approval
based
upon
the
County’s
determination
that
it does
not
comply
with the Solid Waste Plan
(or other criteria), the denial
may
be appealed to
the Pollution
Control Board, appellate courts,
and potentially the Illinois
Supreme Court.
To
date the PCB
and
courts have not issued definitive opinions to indicate whetheror not this proposedfacility could be
Page
5 of
7
successfully deniedlocal siting approval based upon the Solid WastePlan Criterion.
In my opinion,
however, it would
appear more likely than not that the PCB
and courts
would uphold any County
denial
based upon this criteria
If the denial is upheld, or if Allied withdraws its application for expansion, the Host Fee in
place at the time
(currently $1.50
to $2.50/ton)
will be frozen and no further increases would take
place,
except for CPI increases annually.
Once the landfill reaches capacity, all further Host Fees
will terminate.
Haulers would
then have to
find alternate disposal facilities.
Ifthe County agrees to amend the Solid Waste Plan, then Allied would still have to perform
the following:
o
apply for and
receive local
siting approval of all
applicable
criteria (8
criterion
as
well as any
specific conditions imposed by the County with
an approval)
o
apply for and
receive a state permit from IEPA
In one
year tipping
fees
would
escalate to
$4.00/ton plus
yearly CPI increases for the life of the
landfill.
The County would retain rights to 25
years ofcapacity, water well protection, certain free
disposal, and
home
value protection rights.
The
one
“indeterminate” in
this
review
is the possibility that the Pontiac
landfill property
could
be annexed into the City of Pontiac
and exclude the County
from local
siting review.
The
County’s
Plan
Criterion
would
still
be
applicable,
but
the City would
be
the party
“determining”
whether or not the County’s Plan Criterion was met.
The County could intervene in the City’s local
siting hearing and could eventually appeal
any adverse determination
to the PCB
and courts.
The
outcome of such a scenario is questionable at
best.
In order for the City to annex the landfill property, they must have contiguity to the property
and either (a) the consent ofAllied or (b) must go through a specific petition forannexation
that
is
subject to approval
by the majority of the property owners of the annexed land.
Practically neither
is a viable alternative because ofcontiguity requirements and thelack ofdeterminable outcomes for
Page
6
of
7
Allied.
Finally, Pontiac cannot “force” annex this property, even if they had contiguity,
because a
municipality can only
“force” annex parcels of 60 acres or less.
Page
7
of
7