V
I
—
~
VU
S£.~.L .3- U
U
V S
£121.
U
.3-U
0 u
0 U 00
~
1J’JXS.LILJSl
‘J’J1JL~.UX ±
‘bf_5J
VV.1.
BAKMANN
BOHLEN &:
CLERK’S OFFICE
WOODKUFFRC.
NOV
7 2003
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
POllution Control Board
GLEN
R. BARMANN
CHRISTOPHER W. BOHLEN
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DEBORAH A. WOODRUFF
ARMEN
R. BLANKE
1932- 19S0
PAULF~TO:
Dorothy
M. Gunn
LJENNIS A 1’TORDEN
~
FAX NO.
312-814-3669
DATE:
November 7, 2003
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): ~
pages
FROM:
Michele @ Chris Bohlen’s Office
RE:
City of Kankakee
PCB 04-33, 34 and 35
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The attached form
is
LEGALLY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended only for the use of The addressee named above. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee
of the recipient, the dissemination, distribution or duplication of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notifythe sender immediately by
telephone and return the original message to us at the address above
by mail.
THANKYOU
SUITE
602
200 EAST COURT STREET
P0. BOX 1787
KANKAKE~,rt.
60901-1787
TB~EPHONE815-939-1123
FAX
815-939-0994
.J_A.f
Vt
P
SV
VU
±S\J.
.3-ti, UI
Sf11.
‘J.LU
CIUUVUO’±
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BYRON SANDBERG,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. .PCB 04-33
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
THE CITY OF KANXAKEE, ILLINOIS CiTY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES
)
INC., and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL
)
L.LC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
__
_______
___
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF LLJNOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
T”acility Siting Appeal)
THE CITY OF KANKAKh~E,ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITLES
)
INC., and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL~
)
L.L.C.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
COUNTY OF KANKAK~E,iLLINOIS and
)
EDWARD 0. SMiTH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
No. PCB
04-35
Petitioner,
)
(Third Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UT1L~J1ES
)
INC., and KANKAKEB REGIONAL LANDFILL
)
L.LC.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
ANSWERS TO PETITIONERS TNTERROGATOIRJES
NOW
COMES the respondent,
THE
CITY
OF KAN.KAKEE, by and
through its
attorneys, CJ-f,ISTOPHER W. BOHLEN, Corporation
Counsel~KENNETH
A,
LESHEN and L.
i..fUu/h(JIJ~)
~1\L
j,)..af
£‘It1~.
O.L,)
U~7~
L~
VU,)
I herewith responds to the Request to Admit as
Christopher W. Bohien, Corporation
Counsel, 385 F. Oak Street, Kankakee, illinois, 6O~01.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. ~ERespondent objects to this interrogatoiy as
being vague, and over broad in that there are no tih~iedescribed in the interrogatory. Respondent
further objects to the term “planning development’knd siting” as the same is vague and
undefined. Without waiving said objection, Resp dent states that Tom Volini had numerous
conversations with various city officials after August 19, 2002, and prior
to
filing the instant
Siting Application. Specific conversations occurdId between Christopher W. Bohien and Torn
Volini informing him ofthe dates ofthe Siting A~licationHeating following the filing ofthe
Application. In addition, Torn Volini parti.cipatec4 n an executive session of the City Council of
Kankakee on February 3, 2003, at which time, heLijifonned the City Council ofthe likelihood of
his intent to file a~Application for Siting, among other things.
ANSWER TO INTERR.OGATORY NO. ~: None other than 2 to 3 telephone
conversations between Christopher W. Eohlen and Tom Volini informing Tom Volini
of
the
likely dates for the hearing.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 4: The Respondent objects to Interrogatory No.
4, as it improperly assumes facts which are incorr~ct.Mr. Werthmann did not testify that he had
any
meetings
with any city personnel including ci~’staff after the filing ofthe Application. He
testified that he had a conversation wit1~David T~on
of Tyson Engineering.
Tyson Engineering
is a consulting engineer for the City ofKankakee ~ut is not properly defined as “city personnel or
D2iL’.IY±fi’l±’I D
I.JflL~EiLM
Yt
U
IJIJJI. U
£‘
r
PATRICK POWER, Assistant City Attorneys, an~
follows:
ANSWER TO..INTERROGATORY NO. 1
.L,L/
UI/~UU,)
£‘L~.L
j,),r)~
L’tt.A. ~j,)
D41i\flL2i~’(J.’~
DVilL~i~4’~
~?UU1/i\UL’.L’
L~j
UU~
-3-
city staff’. Tyson Engineering, as the consulting engineer, for the City ofKankakee had no input
of any kind regarding the Siting Application.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.
5~:
All members ofthe Karikakee City
Council made the August 19, 2003 decision.
(a)
Jess Gathing, James R. Cox, JeffK
aid, Joann Schwade, Richard Diersen, John
Trnst, Tim Hearn, D2inita Grant, Sam Ciaccio, Hax~ikWilliams, Dennis Baron, Nina Epstein,
Steve Hunter and Cari Brown
-
Alderman of the C~lyofKankakee; Richard Sirnms
Superintendent ofKan.kakee City Municipal Utilit~.99South East Avenue, Kankakee, I1linoi~.
(b)
All of the above, except Richard S~ms,arc alderman and all alderman made the
decision. Richard Simms provided technical assist~nceand advice to the City ofKankakee
including review ofcertain conditions which had ~en suggested by various alderman.
(c)
The alderman reviewed the Apptic~4ipn,the transcript of hearing, the
Environmental Protection Act, Regulations ofthc Environmental Protection Agency, the exhibits
admitted to the record, proposed findings of facts,
d final arguments filed by each ofthe parties
and the proposed findings of fact submitted by the h~aringofficer, Richard Sinims reviewed the
Application, the Act, the exhibits, the transcript oflhéaring.
(d)
None.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6
(e)
Christopher W. Bohlcn, Corporation: Counsel had telephone and written
communication
(f)
The conversation involved Boyd’s ~ illinguess to serVe as l.he hearing officer and
providing ofinformation regarding the previous bering in order to allow Boyd to familiarize
11/U(/ZUU~ teiu
15:5,I
1~AA SLb ~i3tJ~1~94
-4..
himselfwith the documentation process, the Siting
Protection Act.
(g)
We are unable to describe and dein
(Ii)
The telephone communications occi
approximately
5
minutes each
• (i)
Kankakee Illinois
(j)
Christopher W. Bohien and Robcrt~Boyd
• ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.
‘~.
(a)
All Kankakee City Council Members communicated with Mayor Green
relating lo the date ofthe Siting hearings
(b)
Relating to the siting ofthe facility!find the holding ofthe hearings.
(c)
We are unable to describe and deli~te the exact statements.
(d)
The communications are numerou~ ~d often Statements of a general arid non
specific nature were made at various times.
(f)
Alderman and Mayor
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO
None
None
D: Hearing Officer Boyd forwarded to
~t. Those were modified afterthe City
ai’ded his bill for services to C~hrIstoplierW.
~of the Mayor.
~: The City objects to Intefrogatory No. 11, as
bAt(J~1AIN1N t$Ut1L1~iN YYUU1)1(U1~1~
and the copies ofthe Environment
sate the exact statements.
rred in April and May of2003 and lasted
ANSWER TO Th~TERROGATORYNO. ~
ANSW1~TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Christopher W. Bobien his proposed findings of f~
Council Meeting. Heating Officer Boyd also for~
Bohlen as submitted for payment through the offi~
~jSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.
11/07/2003 FRI 13:38 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANN
BOHLEN VOODRUFF
k~looe
5
said documents seeks material which
is not re1ev~.:to
th~she~ng. Further it seeks information
regarding litigation strategy which is not otherwis~availableto the petitioner herein.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. I1’±~Th~Respondent has no information one
wayor the other regarding communications with ~ ~ & Country.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.
i1i~:
Nthie at the present time. However, the
Respondent reserves the right to identify witnesse~t~orthe purposes ofresponding to any issue
raised during the course ofthe hoaxing.
CITY OF 1~NKALKEEiLLINOIS CITY COUT~C1L
TOWN & CK~MrRYUTILITIES, INC., and
•
KANKATKE~:RE(~IONALLArWFJLL L.L.C.,
STATE OE ILLINOIS
)
)
CO’IINTY OF KANKAKEE
)
I, CHRISTOPHER W. BOHLEN, being ti~tduly sworn upon oath, deposes and states
that I am the Corporation Couns~lforthe City of1~ankaizee,I have the authority to act in its
behalf, that I have read the foregoing Response 1o~Pcquc~stto Adimi
is, and the contents
therein contained are true and correct to the b~
. .
owl
,in.frmation and helIef
:ôphe~W. Bohien, Corporation Counsel
~
Michifie Huston
SEAL’
Notfiry
Public, State ol’
i1llnol~
My Commission E~ires
March 1S~2007
Su~cribedand Sworn to before rue this
~I’L
~ay ofNovember, 2003.
Notary Public
BARMANN J3OHLEN WOODRUFF
II
+1
•1
11/07/2003 FRI 13:38 FAX 815 9390994
41 007
CHRISTOPHER W. BOHLEN
Corporation Counsel
Keg. No. 00244945
385 East Oak Street
Karikakee, IL 60901
(815)
933-0500
11/07/2003 FRI 13:35 FAX ~ 9390994
BARMANN
1WHLJ~N WtJUJM~LIk~F
LOj
O0~
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BYRON SANDBERG,
•
Petitioner,
No. PCB 04-33
(Third-Party
Pollution Control
F~eilitySiting Appeal)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, iLLINOIS CITY
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTU,ITES
INC.. arid KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFII!~L
L.L.C.,
Respondents.
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC~
)
Petitioner,
•
~ F
N. PCB 04-34
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
F~cilitySiting Appeal)
THE CiTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES
iNC., and KANKAKEB REGIONAL LAINDFJLL,
L.L.C.,
•
Respondents.
•
___
COUNTY OF
__________~..~,~~.H)
KANKAKEE,
ILLINOIS
and
EDWARD 1). SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
~.
)
NC. :PCB 04-35
•
Petitioner,
~.
)
(Third Party Pollution Coxitroi.
•
~)
Facility Siting Appeal)
~)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
COUNCIL,INC.,arid
KANKAKEE
TOWNAND
REGIONAL
COUNTRYLANDFIflLUTILITIES1
LLC.,
H)
H)
Respondents.
ANSWERS TO
PET1I~ONERS
(WASTE MI~NX~GEMENT)
INTERROGATORIES
NOW COMES the iespondent, THE CITY
KANKAKEE, by and through ~
attorneys,
CH
STONIER W. BOHLEN, CorP~ra~ti1bnCbctnsel, KENNETH A. LESHEN and L.
11/07/2003 F’kl
13:3~ FAX ~15 9390994
13A1(MANN
:B0~
WUOL)1LIF’F’
I~J009
PATRICK POWER, Assistant City Attorneys, ~nd~.irew~thresponds to the Request to Admit as
follows:
•
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO
lr~
Christopher
W Bohlen, Corporation
Counsel, 3S5 E. Oak
Street,
Kankakee, Illinois, 60~O~i.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2~esi~ondentobjects to thisInterrogatory. It
seeks infomiation which is not relevant to the c~1L~ hearing. The Respondent further states that
all communications regarding the 2002 Applicatio~Area~,ortion of the record of the previous
hearing and
app
eai. Howeverwithout waiving thi~~bjection, Respondent states further that Mr.
Robert Boyd received a copy ofthe transcripts ~ft~hearing ofthe 2002 Application. In
addition, Mr. Torn Volini discussed the appeal óft~2002 Siting Applicationin an executive
session, during which litigation was discussed o:nJ~l~ruai~y3, 2003, with the Kankakee City
Council.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO 3,~
(a)
None other than on February 3, 2’00~theCity was notified by Torn Volini of
his anticipation that Towu & Country would be k~efthfrjganother Siting Application. In addition,
there were telephone conversations between ChEist~her~ohien and Torn Volini regarding the
establishment ofdates for the hearing and rnoie spe~iflcaflyrnforrnrng fom Voirni of the dates
when the City was going to hold the heai~ngs.
(b)
Numerous conversations occune~dl~t~eei~the members of the
public
and
members ofthe City Council. Those are too nuthcr~4sto
~eidentified herein. The conversations
involved constitutes either questioning
~r stating o~hion~
regarding the Application.
(c)
None
11/07/2003 FRI 13:39 FAX ~
9390994
J3ARMAt~ ~UFILbN
WUUIMLIFF
L~J
o10~
-3-
(d)
Apparently Michael
Werthmann~haa
~
COiiVCrS~ttiOri
with
David Tyson ofTyson
Engineering. Tyson Engineering is the city’s cbnsi~ting~engineerbut has had no input of any
kind whatsoever regarding the Siting Application.
(e)
Robert Boyd was contacted by phon~ont~voseparate
occasions to
detennine
if he
would be interested in acting as the hearing officer. ~n two other occasions, h.c received written
communication (1) enclosing documents consisting ~f tr~nscripts,the facility Siting Ordinances
and relevant poiiions ofthe statute ofthe EnvirónrrI~ntaJ?rotectIon Act and (2) correspondence
veri~’ingthe dates for the hearing. Following the I*~ringRobert Boyd e-mailed his proposed
findings offact and recommendations to Cinst~ph&~W. Bohien.
(1)
None
ANSWER TO iNTERROGATORY NO. 4:~The Respondent objects to this interrogatory
as said Response to the Request to
Admit
Facts spc~ksfo~themselves
and any fi~rther
comment
on the
same
is irrelevant.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.
5:~~~
However, during the
hearing the
Respondent may
call
withesses to
rebut any test~mcr~’ypuiportedly offered by the appellants. The
Respondent reserves the right to supplement th~rest~ons~sherein.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORYNO.
i~oné
KAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY COUNCIL
~NTRYUTILITIES, INC., and
~J3GIONAL
FILL LL.C.,
CITY OF KA~
TOWN & COt
KANKA.KBE I
4
Corporation Counsel
11/07/2003
J~’J~1
1J:39 FAX S1~ 2390994
~A1~MANr’4~UliLEtN
WUUDKLIFF
011
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
)
)
COUNTY
OF
KANXAKEE
I, CHRISTOPHER W~BOITLEN, being~firs~duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states
that I am the Corporation Counsel for~thecity o~fK~thkakee,I have the authority to act in its
behalf, that Ihave read the
foregoing Response
td~P4~que~t
to Admit Facts,
and the contents
therein contained are true and
correct to
the best 6firiy knowledge, information and belief.
‘t~he~W.Bohien, Corpo~Io~Counsel
Sul~scribedand Sworn
to before me this
~1~~iay of November,
2003.
____
Notary Public
~HRISTO?IIER W. BOHLEN
CorporationCounsel
Reg. No.
00244945
385
East Oak
Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815) 933-0500
—
-.~—.--——-—.—-——---~
~0FF~GIALSEAL~
.-
Miche~8Hustort
~Notary
~ubllc,S~teofIllinois
Cojimisslon
Expires
March 16,
—
2007
THE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS
CITY
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITI~
INC., and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILl
LL.C.,
COUNTY
OF
KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS and
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE
COUNTY
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
Petitioner,
Nb PCB 04-34
(Third-PartyPollution Control
Facility Siting Appeal)
THE
CITY
Oi~KANRJ(EE, ILLINOIS CITY~:
)
COUNCIL, TOWN
AND
COUNTRY UTILITIES
iNC., and
KANKAKEE REGIONAIJ
LANDFiLL
)
LL.C.,
)
Respondents~
RESPONSE
TO REQ~ST~TO ADMIT
NOW COMES the respondent, THE CITY
bF
KANKAJ(i~E,by and through its
attorneys, CHRISTOPHER W. BOHLEN, Cor~o~a~i~cnCounsel, KENNETH A. LESHEN and L
11/07/2003 FRI 13.39 FAX 815 9390994
BYRON SANDBERG,
BARMANN BOHLEN
W’OODRUFF
ktl
012
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POILCJTION CONTROL BOARD
Petitioner,
)
N~.
PCB 04-33
)
(Tl~ird-PartyPollution Control
)
F~ciIitySitingAppeal)
)
S)
)
Respondents.
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, TNC~,
Petitioner,
THE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY~
COUNCIL,
TOWN AND COUNTRY
UTILITIB
INC., and KANK.AKEE REGIONAL LANDFILl
L.L.C.,
:Respo~idents.
S
No. PCB
04-35
(Third Party Pollution Control
F~ci1itySitingAppeal)
(Consolidated)
11/07/2003 FRI 13:40 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANNBOHLEN ~VOODRL~FF
gJO.3
PATRICK POWER, Assistant CityAttorneys, a~nd
~rewith responds to the Request to Admit as
follows:
1. The Respondent
admits Paragraph 1 of
t4~
Request to
Admit Facts.
2 The Respondent denies Paragraph 2 ofthe
Request to Admit
I~acts
3. The Respondent
denies Paragraph 3 àf:.tl~Request to Admit Facts.
4 The Respondent is unable to admit or dens’ the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of
the Request to Admit .t~actsas said Request seeks Respondent to provide a legal concJii~ion
However, without waiving this objection, Rcspond~tstates that said allegation speaks for
themselves
5.
~TheRespondent objects to replying
tb~th~
Request as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. J.ii addition,
the
Respondentobjects to~thi~~.eqi.~estaddressing
issues on which
the
record is already closed and tbr which
no
additi~ia1~lisc~veryor evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its detcrmiiiation on th~isi~suewhich is found in the findings offact
and
any ftirther discovery
is improper Therefore the information sought is irrelevant to any issue
before this hearing
t I
6 The Respondent objects to replying to th~isRequest as said Request seeks a legal
opini.ori
In addition, the Respondent objects to~tjui~kequest addressing issues on which the
record is already clo~edand for which no additio~a~discOvery or evidence is to be presented.
The
City
previously made its determination on
this
:~
~sue~whichis found in the findings of fact
and ~y fu~herdiscovery is
improper Therefore tl~ernfonnation
sought is irrelevant to any issue
before this heanng
7 The Respondent objectsto replying to tl~i~Request as said Request seeks a legal
11/07/2003 FRI 13:40 FAX
815 9390984
BAR
I3OEILEN
~i00DRLIF’F
~j
014.
upmion In
add.ition,
the Respondent objects to this Request addressing issues
on which the
record is already closed and for which no additional discovery or evidence is to be presented
The City previously made
its
determination on this i’~suewhich is found m
the
findings of
fact
and any further discovery is improper Therefore the information sought is irrelevant to any issue
before this hearmg
I
8 fhe Respondent objccts to replyingto this Request as said Request seeks a legal
opinion In addition, th~Respondent objects to this Request addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no additional discovery or evidence is to be presented
The City previously made its dctermmalion on this i~suewhich is found in the findings of fact
and any furthei thscovery is improper 1hereforetht~information sought is irrclevaiit to any issue
before this hearing
I
9 The Respondent objects to replying to this Request as said Request seeks a legal
opinion In addition, the Respondent objects to this Request addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no additional discovery or evidence is to be presented
The City previously made its dctcrmmation on this issue which is found in the fmdmgs of fact
and any further discovery is improper Therefore the information sought is irrek,varit to any
issue
before this hearing
10. The Respondent objects to replying~to~this
~equestas
said Request seeks a legaJ
opinion In addition the Respondent
objects
to this Request addressmg issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no additi~n~I~:disdovery or evidence is to be
presented.
The City previously made its determination on this
iSSLLC
which is round in the findings of fact
and any further discovery is improper Therefore tim infoimation sought is irrelevant to any issue
Ii
11/07/2o~3FRI 13:40
FAX 815 9390984
• BARMAI~NBOILEN WOODRUFF
~ 015
—4-.
before this hearing
11 The Respondent objects to replying to tb~sR quest as said Request seeks a legal
opinion In addition, the Respondent objects to thts~eqt cst addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which rio additional 1hsc very or evidence is to be presented
The City previously made
itS
determination on this ~sue inch is found in the findings offact
and any further discovery is improper Therefore t mf miation sought is irrelevant to any issue
before this hearing
12
The Respondent objects to replying to thtis
~.
quest as said Request seeks a legaJ
opinion In addition, the Respondent objects to this ~cq est addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no additional disc very or evidence is to be presented
The City previously made its deteumnation on tins i~sucwhich is found in the findings of fact
and any further discovery is improper Therefore th6
iii
rmation sought is irrelevant to any issue
before tins hearing
13 The Respondent objects to replyrng to t~n~
I
equest as said Request seeks a legal
opinion In addition, the Respondent objects to this R~kuest addi-essmg issues on which the
recoicl is aheady closed and for which no additiona~dis overy or evidence is to be presented
The City previously made its determination on this ~ssu which
ii
s found in the findings of fact
and any f~irtherdiscovery is improper fherefore t1~e
1h
onnation sought is irrelevant to any
issue
before the heanng
I
14 The Respondent objects to replying to t~iis~equest as said Request
seeks a legal
opinion In addition the Respondent objects to thi~R~nest addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no additiona d~sovery or evidence is to be presented
1i/U7/~O03
FRI
1:3:41 F’AX
~
l3390i)~4
•
~AAI~IN~UliJJ~N
WUUDkCUF’F
-5-
The City previously made its determination on thisii~suewhich is found in the findings of fact
and any further discovery is improper Therefore th~inf n-nation sought is irrelevant to any issue
before the hearing
15 The Respondent objects to replying to th~sl~.
opinion In addition, the Respondent objects to this t~.eq
record is already closed and for which no additional disc
The City previously made its determination on this ~sue
and any further discovery is improper Therefore th~i
u-if
before the heanng
16 The Respondent objects to replying to ti~.is
~.
opinion In addition, the Respondent objects to this Req
record is already closed and for which no additiorial~di~c
The City previously made its determination on this ~ssue
and any further discovery is improper Therefore
4
before the hearing
I
17 The Respondent objects to replying to tipis I
opinion In addition, the Respondent objects to this~Req
record is already closed and for which no additional~dis
The City previously made its detennrnatxon on this ~ssu
and any further discovery is
improper 1 herefore
tl~c~
I
befoi e the hearing
I
18
The Respondent objects to replying t this Request as said Request seeks a legal
1Qj
016
quest as said Request seeks a legal
test addressing issues on which the
very or evidence is to be presented.
which is found in the findings of fact
rmation sought is irrelevant to any
issue
~questas said Request seeks a legal
iest addressing issues on which the
wery or evidence is to be presented.
which is found in the findings of
fact
Drmation so Light is irrelevant to any issue
~clUcstas said Request seeks a legal
.icst addressing issues on which the
:oveiy or evidence is to be
presented.
which is found in the findingsoffhct
~niiation sought is irrelevant to any issue
11/07/WO:3
FRi 1:3:41
FAX
~15 i~3909i~4
•
~ARMANf~.BO1-1L~NWOODRUFF
opinion In addition, the
Respondent objects
to this 1~equSt addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no
additional
cry or evidence is to be piesented
The City previously made its detenmniation on Ibis ii~su~bach is found in the findings of fact
and any ft~herdiscovery is improp~ Therefore the~
in~
iation sought is irrelevant to any issue
before the heanng
I
19. The Respondent objects t~r~l~’ing~
t~s~
opinion Tn addition, the Respondent objects to this
recoi d
is already closed and for which no additiona~~lisc
The City previously made its determination on this a~sue
and any further discoveiy is improper Therefore, th~
iii
issue before the hearing
20 The Respondent objects to replying to t1~.is~
opinion In addition, the Respondent obj ects to this ~Req
1
ecord is alieady closed and forwhich no additional’di~c
The City previously made its
detennination
on this i1ssue
and any further discovery is iniproper Therefore th~
iij~
before the hearing
21 The Respondent objects to replying to
opinion In addition, the Respondent obj ects to this Re
record us already ciosed and forwhich no addu1ional~du~
The
City previously made its detennrnation on
this ~ssi.
t~
~i17
quest as said Request seeks a legal
est addressing issues on which the
very or evidence is to be presented.
which is found in the findings of fact
)rtnation
sought is irrelevant to
any
~questas said Request seeks a legal
iest addressing issues
0-i-i
which the
~iveryor evidence is to he presented.
which is found in the findings offact
irmation
sought is irrelevant to any issue
equest as said Request seeks a legal
uest addressing
iSSUeS
on which the
overy or evidence is to be presented.
which is found in the findings of fact
11/07/2O~3 FRI 13:41 FAX 815 9390994
•
DARMANN
B0I-ILEN WOODRUFF
I
and any further discovery is improper.~Tl~iercfoi~the irif
before the hearing.
22. TheRespondentadmitstb~atitrecci~red~arep
Technical Associates on July 28, 2003.
H
23. TheRespondentadmitstl~ati~prov~d~d~o~
Yarborough” The Respondent states affirmatively t~it~i
with the Kankakee City C~erka report ~
any party who sought the same.
24 1 he Respondent admits Para~raph24 ofithe
25
The Respondent admits ParagTaph
25
o~th~
26. The Rcsponde~tdenies Para~apii~6 o~th9~
CITY OF~KA../
•TOWN S ~tY~JN’
~By
i
(~\_jhr1stc3
L~
015
nation sought is irrelevant to any issue
rt ofMr. RonaldYarborough ofCeo
py of a final report of“Ralph
placed on file as a matter ofrecord
ugh an.d said report was available to
~cquestto Admit Facts.
~equestto Admit Facts.
.equest to Admit Facts.
KEE, ILLINOIS
CITY
COUNCIL
RYTJT1LITIES,
(~~j~___~
INC.,L.L.C.,
and
phJe
W.
Bohien, Corporation Counsel
11/07/2003 FRI 13:41 FAX 815 9390994
•
BARMANN BOHLEN
)
)
STATh OF ILLINOIS
COUi~TYOFKANKAKEE
• I, CHRISTOPHER W. BOHLEN~being fir~tIdu~sworn upon oath, deposes and states
that I am the Corporation Counsel for~th~City
o~:K.~l~kcc,,
1 have the authority to act in its
behalC that I have read the foregoing :Res~onset~~eqt~e~tto Admit Facts, and the contents
therein contained are true and correctto th~best f~iyk~owledge,iu’f~ationand belief.
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this
~~day ofNovember, 2003.
~
Notary Public
CHRISTOPHER W. J3ORLEN
Corporation Counsel
Reg. No. 00244945
385 East Oak Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815)933-0500
WOODRUFF
k~i
019
Counsel
