RECEIVE~
BYRON SANDBERG
BEFORE THE
BOARD
CLERK’S
NOV 1 2
OFFICE
2003
STATE OF ILLiNOIS
Petitioner,
No.
PCB
04-33
Pollution
Control Board
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE CITY
OF
KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWNAND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
iNC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
Respondents.
)
_____________
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-3
5
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
DiM 378163 vi November 12,2003
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 12, 2003, we filed with Mr. Bradley
Halloran, the attached
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENT CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
ILLINOIS CITY COUNCIL TO ANSWERREQUESTS FOR ADMISSION OF FACT
AND INTERROGATORY
in the above entitled matter.
WA TE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
NC.
One ofIts A rneys
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney RegistrationNo. 1953923
DiM 378163 vi November 12,2003
BEFORE ~
NTROL BOAR)
BYRON SANDBERG,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-33
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
iNC. and
KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
)
(Third-PartyPollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN
AND
COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
Respondents.
)
_________________________________________________________________________________
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB
04-35
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENT CITY OF
KANKAKEE
TO ANSWER REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION OF FACT AND INTERROGATORY
DiM 378150 vi November 12,2003
Petitioner, WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC. (“WMII”), by its attorneys,
Pedersen & Houpt, pursuant to Sections 101.616(b) and 101.618(h) ofthe Board’s Procedural
Rules,
moves for an order
overruling the objection ofCity ofKankakee, Illinois, City Council
(“City”) to certain requests for admission of fact and one interrogatory and compelling City to
answer them. In support ofthis motion, WIVIII states as follows:
1.
On October 16, 2003,
WIVIII
served Request for Admission (“Request”) on
City.
The Request contained 21 requests to admit facts relating to the contents of the 2002 and 2003
siting applications (nos.
1-21). The filing ofsubstantially the same
application as one
disapproved within the preceding two years is a jurisdictional issue properly considered by the
Pollution Control Board
in a Section
40.1(b) appeal. 415 ILCS
5/39.2(b)(m)
(2002). A true and
correct photocopy ofthe Request is attached as Exhibit A.
2.
On November 7, 2003, City filed its Response to the
Request for Admission
(“City Response”). In its Response, City objected to 18 requests to admit on the grounds that
they called for a legal conclusion. In addition, City objected to 17 requests (nos.
5-2
1) because
they
are alleged
to address issues on
which the record is closed, and no further discovery is
permitted. A true and
correct photocopy of
the City Response is attached as Exhibit B.
3.
None ofthe requests to admit calls for a legal conclusion. Section 101.6 18 allows
a request for admission of
the truth of any “specific statements offact.” Each ofthe requests
involves a specific statement of fact, not a legal conclusion. Statements offact include the
contents of a document, a party’s understanding ofthe meaning ofa document, and a party’s
conduct pursuant to a document.
P.R.S. International, Inc. v. Shred
Pax
Corp., 184 Il1.2d 224,
236-37, 703 N.E.2d 71(1998); Booth Oil Site
Administrative Group v.
Safety-Kleen
Corporation, 194 F.R.D. 76, 80 (W.D.N.Y. 2000). Statements offact involve whether an action
DJM 378150 vi November 12,2003
2
was taken, a statement made, an event occurred or a consequence resulted. Hubeny v. Chairse,
305
Ill.App.3d 1038, 713 N.E.2d 222, 226 (2d Dist. 1999). Such requests to admit statements of
factare proper. Robertson v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 2003 Ill.App. LEXIS 1270, at 2,
4-5
(lstDist., October 17, 2003).
4.
Moreover, a request to admit may seek admission of an “ultimate” fact or a fact
that necessarily leads to a legal conclusion. P.R.S. International, 184 Ill.2d at 236; Hubeny, 713
N.E.2d at 226. Even if the admission offacts
(e.g.
party’s failure to observe red traffic light
resulted in collision that caused compensable injury) requires a legal conclusion
(e.g.,
party was
negligent and liable for injury), a request forthat admission does not call for a legal conclusion
and is proper. Hubeny, 713 N.E.2d at 226. So long as the fact finding must take some analytical
step, no matter how small, from the contents of the admission to reach the legal conclusion, the
request for admission is proper. Hubeny, 713 N.E.2d at 226.
5.
City’s objection to Request Nos.
5
through 21 that the record is closed and no
further discovery is permitted is also
meritless. Requests for admission are not discovery.
P.R.S.
International,
184 Ill.2d at 237. The purpose
of requests to admit are not to discover facts,
but to
establish facts so as to narrow
the
issues for trial.
P.R.S.
International,
184 Ill.2d at 237. Proper
use ofrequests to admit will save substantial time and cost for the parties and the Board.
Szczeblewski v. Gossett,
Ill.App.3d
,
795 N.E.2d 368, 372 (5th Dist. 2003). The Request
seeks to establish facts relating to pre-fihing notice and to the filing ofa second application for
the purpose
of narrowing factual issues
and
obviating
the necessity offormal proofat hearing.
Specific Objections
6.
City objects that it is unable
to respond to Request
No. 4 because it calls for a
legal conclusion. City then asserts that the “allegation speaks for itself” Both claims are
DJM 378150 vi November 12,2003
3
groundless. Whether the 2003 siting application requests location approval for the same 400 acre
landfill for which T&C requested approval in the 2002 siting application is clearly a question of
fact. Safety-Kleen Corporation, 194 F.R.D. at 80. An assertion that an “allegation speaks for
itself’ is not a proper response to a request to admit. Safety-Kleen Corporation, 194 F.R.D. at
80.
7.
City objects to Request Nos.
5
through 21 as calling for legal conclusions. The
objection is withoutmerit. Request Nos.
5
through 21 request that City admit the contents of
two documents: the siting applications filed by T&C with the City ofKankakee in 2002 and
2003. The contents ofthose applications, including the City’s understanding ofthe applications,
are questions offact which are proper subjects for a requestto admit. P.R.S. International, 184
I1l.2d at 236-37; Safety-Kleen Corporation, 194 F.R.D. at 80. The factthat the admission of
certain ofthese Requests may result in reaching the conclusion that the 2003 siting application is
substantially the same as the 2002 siting application does not render any individual Request
improper as seeking a legal conclusion. None of the Requests ask City to admit that the 2003
siting application is substantially the same as the 2002 siting application that was disapproved by
the Pollution Control Board. Even if sucha request to admit were presented, City acknowledges
that the issue is a question offact. (City Response,
¶IJ
19-36.) In any event, RequestNos.
5
through 21 merely seek admission regarding the contents ofthe written applications. The
contents ofthese documents, and City’s understanding ofthem, are questions offact properly
presented in a requestto admit. Robertson, at
2-5;
Szczeblewski, 795 N.E.2d at 371; Safety-
Kleen Corporation, 194 F.R.D. at 80.
8.
City further objects to RequestNos. 5 through 21 because they are alleged to
address issues on which the record is closed, and “in which there can therefore be no additional
DiM 378150 vi November 12,2003
4
discovery or evidence presented.” (City Response,
¶~J
5-2
1.) The objection is groundless.
Jurisdictional issues involving Section 3 9.2(m) ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act is
properly considered by the Pollution Control Board in this appeal. 415 ILCS 5/40.1 (2002).
Hence, the record is not closed on this issue. In addition, the purpose ofrequests to admit is not
to discover facts but to establish them, so that issues may be narrowed and the necessity of
formal proof at hearing minimized. P.R.S. International, 184 I1l.2d at 28_; Szczeblewski,
N.E.2d at
.
The Request is proper as a means to establish facts and obviate the need for
extensive formal proofat hearing.
9.
On October 16, 2003, WMII served interrogatories on City. A true and correct
photocopy ofPetitioner’s Interrogatories are attached as Exhibit C. Interrogatory No. 4 asks that
the City provide information explaining or supporting any denials ofthe requests to admit.
10.
City objected to Interrogatory No.
5
by stating as follows: “The Respondent
objects to this Interrogatory as said Response to the Request to Admit Facts speaks for
themselves and any further comment on the same is irrelevant.” Thus it appears that the City’s
objection to Interrogatory No. 4 is substantially the same as its objection to the requests to admit.
A true and correct photocopy ofthe City’s Answers to Petitioners (Waste Management)
Interrogatories is attached as Exhibit D.
11.
Interrogatory No. 4 is clear. It requests the City to fairly address the substance of
the requested admissions by providing information explaining or supporting its denials. As
discussed above, the Section 39.2(m) issue is relevant in this appeal, and the requests seek the
admission of facts, not legal conclusions. An objection to an interrogatory that asserts that
denials to request to admit “speak for themselves” is legally insufficient, and should be
overruled.
DJM 378i50 vi November 12,2003
5
WHEREFORE, WMII requests that an order be entered:
(A)
requiring the City to answer Request Nos. 4 through 21;
(B)
requiring the City to answer Interrogatory No. 4 for each request to admit it
denies; and
(C)
and awarding such other and further relief as deemed necessary and just.
Dated: November 7, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
By~One
ofIts A1orneys
/ ~
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
DJM 378150 vi November 12,2003
6
PROOF OF SERVICE
Victoria L. Kennedy, a non-attorney, on oath states that she served the foregoing
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONDENT CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
COUNCIL TO ANSWER REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION OF FACT AND
INTERROGATORY
on the following parties as set out below:
Bradley Halloran, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 WestRandolph Street, Suite 11th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via hand delivery
Mr. George Mueller
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa,IL 61350
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815) 963-9989
Mr. Byron Sandberg
109 Raub Ave
Donovan IL 60931
via electronic transmission-
byronsandberg@starband.net
Mr. Kenneth Leshen
Assistant City Attorney
One Dearborn Square
Suite
550
Kankakee, IL 60901
via facsimile transmission
-
(815) 933-3397
L. Patrick Power, Esq.
956 North Fifth Avenue
Kankakee, IL 60901
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815) 937-0056
Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
via hand delivery
Mr. Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815)
963-9989
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street
Kankakee, Illinois 60901
viafacsimile transmission
-
(815) 937-3932
Christopher Bohlen
Barmann, Kramer and Bohlen, P.C.
300 East Court Street, Suite 502
P.O. Box 1787
Kankakee, IL 60901
viafacsimile transmission
-
815/939-0994
Ms. Claire Manning
Posegate & Denes, P.C.
111 N. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL
62705
viafacsimile transmission
-
(217) 522-6184
by electronic transmission to Mr. Byron Sandberg at the e-mail address noted above, by hand delivery to Mr.
Bradley Halloran and Ms. Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, by facsimile
transmission to the parties with facsimile numbers indicated above, and by depositing a copy thereof enclosed in an
envelope in the U.S. mail at 161 N. Clark St., Chicago, Illinois 60601 on this 12th day ofNovember, 2003.
Victoria L. Kennedy
‘~
DiM 378163 vi November 12,2003
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR)
BYRON SANDBERG,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-33
)
)
(Third-Party
Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
TIlE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE,
ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
NC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
NC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
_________________________________________________________________________________
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-3
5
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWNAND COUNTRYUTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
Respondents.
)
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION
376297.1
____________________________
EXHIBIT
Pursuant to Section 101 .618 ofthe Pollution Control Board Procedural Rules,
Petitioner,
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, iNC. (“WIvilI”) requests that Respondent, CITY OF
KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY COUNCIL (“City”), admit the following facts in writing and
under oath within twenty-eight (28) days ofservice. Failure to respond to the following requests
to admit within 28 days may have severe consequences. Failure to respond to the following
requests will result in all the facts requested being deemed admitted as true for this proceeding.
Ifyou have any questions about this procedure, you should contact the hearing officer assigned
to this proceeding or an attorney.
REQUESTS
TO ADMIT
1.
On March 13, 2002, Town
&
Country Utilities, Inc. (“T & C”) filed an application
with the City ofKankakee pursuant to Section 39.2 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”) requesting location approval for the Kankakee Regional Landfill (“2002 Application”).
Answer:
2.
The Kankakee Regional Landfill is a proposed 400-acre sanitary landfill located
in Otto Township in the City of Kankakee, Illinois.
Answer:
3.
On March 7, 2003, T & C filed a second application with the City of Kankakee
pursuant to Section 39.2 of the Act requesting location approval for the Kankakee Regional
Landfill (“2003 Application”).
Answer:
376297.1
2
4.
The 2003 Application
requests location approval for
the same 400-acre landfill for
which T & C requested location approval in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
5.
The
information
and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion one (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(i)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information
and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion one in the
2002 Application.
Answer:
6.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion two
(415
ILCS 5/39 .2(a)(ii)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion two in the
2002 Application.
Answer:
7.
The location, size and legal description ofthe Kankakee Regional Landfill
presented in the 2003 Application was the same as presented in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
8.
The design of the Kankakee Regional Landfill in the 2003 Application was
substantially the same as presented in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
376297.1
3
9.
As proposed in the 2002 Application, the Kankakee Regional Landfill had a
capacity of 50.9 million airspace cubic yards, a waste footprint of 236.3 acres and would receive
in average of
3500
tons of waste per
day.
Answer:
10.
As proposed in the 2003 Application, the Kankakee Regional Landfill had a
capacity of
50.9 million airspace cubic
yards, a waste footprint of 236.3 acres and would receive
an average of 3500 tons ofwaste per day.
Answer:
11.
As proposed in the 2002 Application, the design ofthe Kankakee Regional
Landfill consisted ofa composite liner, leachate collection system, inward hydraulic gradient,
landfill gas management and groundwater monitoring.
Answer:
12.
As proposed in the 2003 Application, the design of the Kankakee Regional
Landfill consisted of a composite liner, leachate collection system, inward hydraulic gradient,
landfill gas management and groundwater monitoring.
Answer:
13.
Both the 2002 Application and 2003 Application proposed that the liner system be
keyed into the Silurian dolomite bedrock.
Answer:
14.
The proposed operation ofthe Kankakee Regional Landfill presented in the 2003
Application is the same as presented in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
376297.1
4
15.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion three (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(iii)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion three in
the 2002 Application.
Answer:
16.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion four (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(iv)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion four in
the 2002 Application.
Answer:
17.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion five (415 ILCS 5/3 9.2(a)(v)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion five in the
2002 Application.
Answer:
18.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion six (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(vi)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion six in the
2002 Application.
Answer:
376297.1
5
19.
The information
and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion seven (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(vii)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as
the information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion seven
in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
20.
The
information
and analysis presented by T & C
to demonstrate compliance
with
criterion eight (415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(viii)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as
the information and analysis presented by T & C
to demonstrate compliance
with criterion eight
in the 2002 Application.
Answer:
21.
The information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with
criterion nine
(415
ILCS 5/39.2(a)(iv)) in the 2003 Application was substantially the same as the
information and analysis presented by T & C to demonstrate compliance with criterion nine in
the 2002 Application.
Answer:
22.
On July 28, 2003, the City received a copy ofthe final report ofMr. Ralph
Yarborough ofGeo-Tecbnical Associates, Inc. concerning the proposed Kankakee Regional
Landfill.
Answer:
23.
The City did not provide a copy of the final report ofMr. Ralph Yarborough of
Geo-Teclmical Associates, Inc. concerning the proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill to any of
the parties who appeared at the siting hearing.
Answer:
376297.1
6
24.
Prior to August 18, 2003, the City received the
written findings of fact
and
conclusions of
law
of Hearing
Officer Robert Boyd.
Answer:
25.
The City did not provide a copy ofthe Hearing Officer’s findings and conclusions
to any ofthe parties who appeared at the siting hearing.
Answer:
26.
The City accepted the Hearing Officer’s findings and conclusions in a written
decision granting local siting approval on August 18, 2003.
Answer:
Re p ctfully Submitted,
~
Donald J. M/ran
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT, P.C.
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-6888
376297.1
7
11/07/2003 FRI 13:53 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANN BOULEN
WOODRUFF
~lO12
THE CITY OF KANKAXEE, ILLINOIS CITY
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES
INC., and KANKAXEE REGIONAL LANDFILL
LLC.,
Respondents.
)
)
o.
PCB 04-33
)
(mid-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
)
)
~o. P~B04-34
(Third-Party Pollution Contol
)
Pacility Siting Appeal)
)~
3
3
4o PCB
04-35
3
(Third Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
RES?ONSflO REQUEST TO ADMIT
NOW COMES the respondent, THE CITY OF ~CANKAXEE,by arid through its
attorneys, CHRISTOPHER W. BOHLEN, CorporatioiiCounsel, KENNETH A. LESHEN and I~.
a~—
EXHIBIT
U
BYRON SANDBERG,
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTIQN CONTROL BOARD
Petitioner,
)
)
3
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
Petitioner,
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRYUTILITIES
iNC., and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL~
L.L.C.,
Respondents.
COUNTY OF KANKAKEB, ILLINOIS and
EDWASD I). SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
Petitioner,
THE CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES
INC., and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL
LL.C.,
Respondents.
11/07/2003 FRI 13:54 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANN BOHLEN WOODRUFF
~lO13
-2-
PATRICK POWER, Assistant City Attorneys, and here~ith responds
to
the
Request to
Admit as
follows:
I. The Respondent admits Paragraph 1 ofthe R~questto Admit Facts.
2. The Respondent deniesParagraph 2 of the R*quest to Admit Facts.
3. The Respondent denies Paragraph 3 ofthe Request to Admit Facts.
4. The Respondent is unable to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of
the Request to Admit Facts as said Request seeks RespOndent to provide a legal conclusion.
However, without waiving this objection,Respondent states that said allegation speaks for
themselves.
5.
The Respondent objects to replying to this R~questas said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this Re4uest addressing issues on which the
recordis already closed and for which no additional dis4overy or evidence is to be presented.
The City previously madeits determination on this issuth which is found iii the findings offact
and any further discovexy is improper. Therefore the information sought is irrelevant to any issue
before this hearing.
6. The Respondent objects to replyingto this R.~questas said Request seeks a legal
opinion, in addition, the Respondent objects to this
Request
addressing issues
on
which the
record is already elo~edand forwhich no additional disóovery or evidence is to be presented.
‘The City previously made its detennination on this inui which is found in the findings offact
and any fUrther discovery is improper. Therefore the
information sought is irrelevant to
anyissue
before this hearing.
7. The Respondent objects to replying to this: R&juest as said Request seeks a legal
11/07/2003 FRI 13:54 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANN BOHLEN WOODRUFF
I~jO14
‘.3-
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this Request addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and forwhich no additional dis4ovciy or evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its detejj. ination on this issu~which is found in the findings offact
•and any further discoveryis improper. Therefore the information sought is irrelevant to any issue
beforethis hearing.
8. The Respondent objects to replyingto thiä Request as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this Rec~uestaddressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no additional 4isbovery or evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this issue which is found in the findings offact
and
any
further discovery is improper. Therefore the in~fomiationsought is irrelevant to any issue
before this hearing.
9. The Respondent objects to replying to thi~Rbquest as said Request seeks a. legaJ
opinion.
In addition, the
Respondent objects to
this Re4uest addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no additionadi~coveryor evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this 1ss~ewhich is found in the findings of fact
and anyfurther discoveryis improper. Therefore the iiiformation sought is irrelevant to any issue
before this hearing.
10. The Respondent objects to replying to this~:Requestas 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 di~coveiyor evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this issi~ewhich is found in the findings offact
and any further discovery is impropem Therefore th,e i4formation sought is irrelevant to any issue
11/07/2003 FRI
13:54 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANNBOHLEN WOODRUFF
~lO15
beforethis hearing.
11. The Respondent objects to replying to ~~4s~equest as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this Rec~uestaddressing issues on which the
record is already closed and forwhich no additional dis~overyor evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this i~su~which is found in the findings offact
and any further discovery is improper. Therefore the iSormation sought is irrelevant to any issue
beforethis hearing.
12. The Respondent objects to replyingto tljis Fequest as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this ~Pe~uestaddressing issues on which the
record is already closed and for which no additional disicoveryor evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its detennination on this ~ssuewhich is found in the findings offact
and any further discoveryis improper. Therefore the information sought is irrelevant to any issue
before this hearing.
13, The Respondent objects to replying to this request as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In additiori~the Respondent objects to thisRe~uestaddressing issues on which the
record is already closed and forwhich no additional; di~coveryor evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this iss4è which is found in the findings offact
and any further discoveryis improper. Therefore tlz~information sought is irrelevant to anyissue
beforethe hearing.
14. The Respondent objects to replying to t1~isRequest as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this Riqucst addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and forwhich no additiona~di~àoveryor evidence is to be presented.
11/07/2003
FRI 13:54 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANNBOHLEN WOODRUFF
I~1O16
-5-
The City previously made its determination on this i~su~
which is foundin the findings offact
and any further discovery is improper. Therefore the. inçormation solLght is irrelevantto any issue
before the hearing.
15.
The Respondent objects to replying to this ~.equest as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this ke~uestaddressing issues on which the
record is already closed
and for which no additional disthovery or evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this i~suówhich is found in the findings offact
and any further discovery is improper. Therefore thd. infonnation sought is irrelevant to any issue
before the hearing.
16. The Respondent objects to replyingto this ~quest as.said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to thisRecjiiest addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and forwhich no additional ~1isc~overy
or evidence is
to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this i~suèwhich is found in the findings offact
and any further discoveryis improper. Therefore thS, idonnation sought is irrelevant to any issue
before the hearing.
17. The Respondent objects to replying to this ~equest as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this Recjuest addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and
for
which no additional disd~overyor evidence is to be presented.
The City previously madeits determination
On
this i~suéwhich is foundin the findings offact
and any further
discovery is improper. Therefore
the: information sought is irrelevant to any issue
before jbe hearing.
I
18. The Respondent objects to replyingto thi~LRequestas said Request seeks a legal
11/07/Z003 FRI 13:55 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANNBOIILEN WOODRUFF
~IO17
-6-
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this ~e~uest addressing issues on which the
recordis already closed and for which no additional disê~very or evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this i$suS which is found in the findings offact
and any further discoveryis improper. Therefore the infonnation sought is irrelevant to anyissue
before the hearing.
19. The Respondent objects to replyingto this 1~Jequestas said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondent objects to this i~ccjüestaddressing issues on which the
record is already closed and forwhich no additional ~is~overyor evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its detennination on this i~suiwhich is found in the findings offact
and any further discovery is improper. Therefore, the irifonnation sought is irrelevant to any
issue before the hearing.
20. The Respondent objects to replying to this 4equest as said Request seeks a legal
opinion. In addition, the Respondentobjects to this Recjuest addressing issues on which the
record is already closed and forwhich no additional diséovery or evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its detennination on this i~suówhich is found in the findings of fact
andany further discovery is improper, Therefore tI information sought is irrelevant
to
anyissue
before the hearing.
21. The Respondent objects to replying to this Request as said Request seeks a legal
opinion.
In addition, the Respondent objects to this l~e4uestaddressing issues on which the
record is already closed and
for
which no additional disàóvcry or evidence is to be presented.
The City previously made its determination on this i~suiwhich is found in the findings of fact
11/07/2003 FRI 13:55 FAX
815 9390994
BARMANN
BOHLEN WOODRUFF
I~j018
and any further discoveryis improper. Therefore the inloimation sought is irrelevant to any issue
before the hearing.
22. The Respondent admits that it
received a
Technical Associates on July28, 2003.
23. The Respondent admits that it provided po copy ofa final report of“Ralph
Yarborough”. The Respondent states affirmativelythat:it placed on file as a matter ofrecord
with the Kankakee City Clerk a report ofRonald Yatbothugh and said report was available to
any party who sought the same.
I
24. The Respondent admits Paragraph 24 ofthekequest to Admit Facts.
25. The Respondent admits Paragraph 25
0±1
th~•Request to Admit Facts.
26. The Respondent denies Paragraph 26 of~th~Request to Admit Facts.
re~ortofMr. Ronald Yarhorough of Ceo
CITY OP
IlLINOIS CITY COUNCIL
uTiLITIES, INC., and
~ALLANDFILLL.L.C.,
J3ohlen, Corporation Counsel
11/07/2003 FRI 13:55 FAX
815 9390994
BARMANN
BOHLEN WOODRUFF
~l019
STATE OF ILLThJOIS
)
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE
)
I, CHRiSTOPHER W. BORLEN, being first. duty sworn upon oath, deposes and states
that I am the Corporation Counsel forthe City ofKahk*ee, I have the authority to act in its
behalf, that I
have read the foregoing Response to R~qu~stto
Admit Facts, and the contents
therein contained are true and correct to the best ofr~iyknowledge, i or ation and belief.
101
ji/l).
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this
ofNovembem; 2003.
rv\~~ka~av~r\ --
Notary Public
CHRISTOPHER W. BOHLEN
Corporation Counsel
Reg. No. 00244945
385
East Oak Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
(815)
933-0500
• ~.
‘O)~FICiALSEALa
•
Miehele Hustoci
Ilotiry
F?ublIo, State of
Illinois
My Commission
Expires
March16,
2007
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BYRON SANDBERG,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-33
)
)
(Third-Party
Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWNAND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLiNOIS, INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-34
)
)
(Third-Party
Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
THE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC.
and
KANKAKEE REGIONAL
LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
___________________________________________________________________________
)
COUNTY OF KANKAKEE, ILLiNOIS
and
)
EDWARD D. SMITH, KANKAKEE COUNTY
)
STATE’S ATTORNEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
No.
PCB
04-35
)
)
(Third-Party Pollution Control
)
Facility Siting Appeal)
)
(Consolidated)
THE
CITY OF
KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY
)
COUNCIL, TOWN AND COUNTRY UTILITIES,
)
INC. and KANKAKEE REGIONAL LANDFILL,
)
L.L.C.
)
)
Respondents.
)
PETITIONER’ S INTERROGATORIES
EXH~B~T
Petitioner, Waste Management of
Illinois, Inc.
(“WMII”), pursuant to the Rules ofthe
Illinois Pollution Control Board, submits the following Interrogatories
to the Respondent,
CITY OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS CITY COUNCIL.
DEFINITIONS
A.
“T & C” refers to Town
and
Country
Utilities, Inc.
and Kankakee
Regional
Landfill, L.L.C. and their respective agents, directors, officers, employees, attorneys,
representatives and all persons or entities who have acted or purported to act on their respective
behalves.
B.
“City” refers to City of
Kankakee,
Illinois
and the City ofKankakee City Council,
its mayor, departments, elected officials, attorneys, agents, employees and all persons or entities
who have acted or purported to act on its behalf.
C.
“City Council member” refers to any member ofthe City of Kankakee City
Council, who voted.
D.
“Communication” means transmission or exchange ofinformation, facts,
opinions, questions, requests, suggestions, results or conclusions between two
or more persons or
entities, orally or in writing, by any means, including but not limited to meetings, discussions,
correspondence, e-mails, facsimile machine, conversations, phone calls, letters, documents or
memoranda.
E.
The “2002 Siting Application” means T & C’s request for site location approval of
the Kankakee Regional Landfill located in Otto Township, City of Kankakee, Illinois, filed
March 13, 2002.
F.
The “2003 Siting Application” means T & C’s request for site location approval of
2
the
Kankakee
Regional
Landfill located in Otto
Township,
City of
Kankakee,
Illinois, filed
March 7, 2003.
G.
“Facility” shall refer to the proposed Kankakee Regional Landfill located in Otto
Township, City ofKankakee, Illinois which is the subject ofthe 2002 and 2003 Siting
Applications.
H.
“Identify,” when referring
to a communication, means
(1)
to state the nature of
the communication
(e.g.,
telephone
call, letter, meeting), (2) to state the date and time on which
the communication occurred, (3) to state eachperson who participated in the communication,
(4) to state each person who did not participate in the communication, but was present during (or
otherwise
heard)
any part of the communication, and
(5)
to summarize the statements made by
each participant
in or
during the communication.
I.
“Refer” or “Relate” with reference to a subject shall mean the following:
a.
Containing,
comprising, constituting, stating, setting forth, or recording,
contradicting, referring to, relating to or in any way pertaining to, in whole
or in part, that subject;
b.
Describing, discussing,
reflecting, interpreting, identifying, concerning,
contradicting, referring to, relating to, or in any way pertaining to, in
whole or in part, that subject.
J.
The relevant time period for answering the interrogatories is from
January 1, 2003
to the present.
3
INSTRUCTIONS
Continuing Responses. These
interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing in
nature and if, after serving your responses, additional information becomes known or available to
you, that
is responsive to these interrogatories,
then
you are required to
reasonably supplement or
amend your responses.
INTERROGATORIES
INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Identify all persons
who
provided information regarding
or assisted in answering these interrogatories.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Identify all
communications ofthe City that refer or relate
to the 2002 Siting Application or the Facility
with the following persons:
(a)
T&C.
(b)
Any citizen or member ofthe public.
(c)
Devin Moose.
(d) Michael Werthmann.
(e)
Robert Boyd.
(f)
Ralph Yarborough.
ANSWER:
4
INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Identify all
communications ofthe City that refer or relate
to the 2003 Siting Application or the Facility with the following persons:
(a)
T&C.
(b)
Any
citizen or member of
the public.
(c)
Devin Moose.
(d)
Michael Werthmann.
(e)
Robert Boyd.
(f)
Ralph Yarborough.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO. 4:
If you deny any of the requests to admit
(nos. 1 through 26) previously served upon you on October 16, 2003, indicate what you are
denying, the factual basis therefor, the source ofyour information and identify all documents that
support your denial.
ANSWER:
INTERROGATORY NO.
5:
Please identify each witness you expect to present to
testify at hearing, and state the subject of eachwitness’ testimony and identify any document any
witness will utilize in his or her testimony.
ANSWER:
5
INTERROGATORY NO. 6: Please identify each
document used or relied upon in
preparation of the answers
to these interrogatories.
ANSWER:
Dated: October 17, 2003.
Respectfully submitted,
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
(312)
641-6888
OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Donald J. Moi1~tn
One of
Its A orneys
376301.1
6
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, a non-attorney, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 of the
Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, on oath certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served upon:
Mr. George Mueller
Attorney at Law
501 State Street
Ottawa,IL 61350
Christopher
Bohlen
Barmann, Kramer
and Bohlen, P.C.
300 East Court Street, Suite 502
P.O. Box 1787
Kankakee,IL 60901
Mr. Byron Sandberg
109 Raub Ave
Donovan IL 60931
Bradley Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West
Randolph
Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
City of Kankakee Clerk
Anjanita Dumas
385
E. Oak Street
Kankakee,IL 60901
Mr. Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw
& Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street
Kankakee, Illinois 60901
Claire A. Manning
Posegate & Denes, P.C.
Ill N. Sixth Street
Springfield, IL
62705
by facsimile at the number indicated above and by depositing a copy ther~,enclosedin an envelope in the U.S.
mail at 161 N. Clark St., Chicago, Illinois 60601, at 5:00 p.m. on this
.JIAL
day of October, 2003.
Victoria L. Kenned
376301.1
7
11/07/2003 FRI
13:53 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANN
BOHLEN WOODRUFF
!~iOO9
PATRICK POWER, Assistant City Attorneys, and herewith responds to the Request to Admit as
follows:
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Clfristopher W. Bohien, Corporation
Counsel,
385
B. Oak Steet, Kankakee, Jllinois, 60901.
ANSWERJO INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Rthpondent objects to this Interrogatory. It
seeks information which is not relevant to the current h~aring.The Respondent further states that
all communications regarding the 2002 Application ár&aportion of the record of’ the previous
hearing and appeal. However without waiving this objóetion, Respondent states further that Mr.
Robert Boyd received a copy ofthe tanscripts ofthe 1i~aringofthe 2002 Application. In
addition, Mr. Torn Volini discussed the appeal ofthe 2Q02 Siting Application in an executive
session, during which litigation was discussed on FebrUary3,
2003, with
the Kankakee City
Council.
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO.3:
(a)
None other than on February 3, 2003, the City was notified by Tom Volini of
his anticipation that Town & Country would be refiling~another Siting Application. In addition,
there were telephone
conversations between Chflstoph~rBohien and Torn Volini regarding the
establishment ofdates for the hearingand more specifinhly informing Torn Volini of the dates
when the City was going to hold the hearings.
(b)
Numerous conversations occurred betw*n the members ofthe public and
members ofthe City Council. Those are too numerous t~obe identified herein. The conversations
involved constitutes either questioning or staling opini~nsregarding the Application.
(c)
None
11/07/2003 FRI 13:53 FAX 815 9390994
BARMANN
BOHLEN WOODRUFF
l~joii
-4..
STATE OF rLLINOIS
)
)
COUNTY OF LCANKAKEE
)
I, CHRISTOPH.ER W. BOHLEN, being first duly swami upon oath, deposes and states
that I am the Corporation Counsel for the Cityof Kanicakee,
I
have
the
authority to actin its
bebalf, that I have read the foregoing Responseto Réquêst to Admit Facts, and the contents
therein contained are true and correct to the best ofmy knowledge, information and belief
(~~topht~.rW. Bohien, Corporation Counsel
Subscribed and Sworn to beforeme this
1~’t1ayofNovember,2003.
?UFFICIAL SEAL”
t~lickale
liuston
?Jotar$’ Public,
State of
ilUnols
My
Cammi ion Exphes rvlaron lB 2007
V~vV.eIu
\~,\~Ustm
Notary Public
CHRISTOPHER W. BOHLEN
Corporation Counsel
Rcg. No, 00244945
385
East Oak Street
Kankakee,
IL
60901
(815)
933-0500
