RECE~VED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

MAY

03

2004

ILLINOIS

AYERS

OIL

CO.,

)

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

)

Pollution

Control Board

Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

PCBO3-214

(UST Appeal)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE

TO:

Dorothy Gunn, Clerk

Carol Sudman

Illinois

Pollution Control Board

Hearing Officer

100 West Randolph Street

illinois Pollution Control Board

State of Illinois Building,

Suite 11-500

1021

North Grand Avenue East

Chicago, IL 60601

P.O. Box

19274

Springfield,

IL 62794-9274

John Kim

Division ofLegal Counsel

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, IL

62794-9276

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT we are todayfiling with the Pollution Control Board the

original

and nine copies ofMotion forAuthorization of Payment ofAttorneys’ Fees as Costs of

Corrective Action, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto.

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy ofthis Notice ofFiling, together

with

a copy ofthe document described above, were today served upon the hearing officer and

counsel

ofrecord of all parties to this cause by enclosing same in envelopes addressed to

such attorneys at

their business addresses as disclosed by the pleadings ofrecord herein, with postage fully prepaid,

and by depositing same in the U.S. Mail in

the

2004.

MOHAN, ALE WELT, PRILLAMAN & ADAMI

1

North Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 325

Springfield,

IL 62701

Tel: (217) 528-2517

Fax: (217)

528-2553

C;\Mapa\CSD Environmental\Notice of Filing.doc\crk\4/30/04

---

RECE~VED

CLERK’S OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

MAY

032004

ILLINOIS AYERS

OIL CO.,

)

0

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

PCBO3-214

)

(UST Appeal)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

)

Respondent.

)

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AS

COSTS OF CORRECTIVE ACTION

NOW COMES Petitioner, ILLINOIS

AYERS OIL

COMPANY,

by its undersigned

attorneys, and pursuant to

Section 57.8(1) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (415

ILCS

5/57.8(1)),

petitions the Illinois Pollution Control Board (hereinafter “the Board”) for an order

authorizing payment of legal

costs, and in support thereofstates as follows:

1.

On April

1, 2004, the Board ordered the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(hereinafter “the Agency”) to restore $29,603.19

in costs to the Petitioners’ high priority

corrective action plan budget and affirmed $690.00 in reductions made by the Agency.

2.

Under Section 57.8(1) ofthe Environmental Protection Act, the legal

costs for

seeking

payment under the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program are reimbursable from

the underground storage tank fund if the owner or operatorprevails before the Board.

(415 ILCS

5/57.8(1))

3.

A request for reimbursement ofattorney fees

from the underground storage fund

is properly brought as a motion for modification of a final Board order.

Ted Harri~on

Oil

Co.

v.

IEPA, PCB 99-127 (Oct.

16, 2003);

see also Touchdown Sportswear, Inc. v.

Hickory Point Mall

---

g.,

165 Iii. App.

3d 72,

73

(4th

Dist.

1987) (holding that since court must first identify the

prevailing party, attorney-fee petition properly brought as post-judgment motion).

4.

“A prevailingparty, for purposes ofawarding attorney fees, is

one that

is

successful on a significant issue and achieves some benefit in bringing suit.”

J.B. Esker & Sons,

Inc.

v.

Cle-Pa’s Partnership, 325

Ill. App.

3d 276, 280

(5t~~

Dist. 2001); see also

Community

Consolidated School Dist. No

54 v. Illinois

State Board ofEduc., 216 Ill. App. 3d 90,

94

(1st

Dist.

1991) (“To qualify as a prevailing party, a plaintiffmust succeed in obtaining some relief

from the defendant

against whom

attorney fees are sought”).

The party need not necessarily

succeed as

to all issues.

See Becovic

v.

City of Chicago, 296

Iii. App. 3d 236, 240

(15t

Dist.

1998) (citing numerous cases in holding that party prevailed in obtaining $2,750 judgment in suit

seeking $35,300).

5.

The use of the word “may” indicates that the fee-shifting provision is

discretionary.

Ted Harrison Oil Co.

v. JEPA, PCB 99-127 (Oct.

16, 2003).

The Board has not

previously discussed the considerations that it might

employ in exercising that discretion.

Under

some discretionary fee-shifting statutes, a prevailing party “should ordinarily recover an

attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.”

Hensley v.

Eckerhart, 461

U.S. 424, 429 (1983) (construing 42 U.S.C.

1988(b) which provides that “the

court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable

attorney’s fee as part of the costs”).

6.

Fee-shifting statutes are intended to

encourage litigation by providing, as part of

the relief awarded, payment ofthe costs ofmaintaining the action, including attorney fees.

Chicago v.

Illinois Commerce Corn.,

187 Ill. App.

3d 468, 470

(1st Dist.

1989).

.

Board has

2

---

previously recognized that the adjudication ofcontested cases is an essential element in the

formation of the policies that govern the UST reimbursement program.

~

Platolene

500 v.

IEPA, PCB 92-9, at 12-14 (May 7,

1992).

In challenging the Agency’s decision, Petitioner has

contributed to the body oflaw in. which UST reimbursement decisions are based.

7.

In addition, fee awards under the present provision help protect the interests of

third-parties, such as adjoining landowners.

Ifthe Agency denies any portion ofa corrective

action as unreasonable or excessive, the owner or operator may not necessarily have an adequate

pecuniary interest to

challenge the Agency’s decision.

Instead of expending significant legal

costs, the owner or operator might yield to a reduced corrective action plan and

in the event that

the plan is subsequently found to be insufficient, the owner or operator can point to the Agency’s

approval in defense.

Under such circumstances, an attorney fee award encourages an appeal to

the Board where complacency “would be less costly than litigation.”

Chicago v.

Illinois

Commerce Corn.,

187 Ill. App. 3d at

470.

In seeking the restoration ofcosts deemed necessary

to

determine the extent ofcontamination, the Petitioner has obtained benefits both for itself and

for third-parties who would have borne the risk ofthe Agency’s cost-cutting.

8.

A finaljustification for awarding litigation costs in this case arises

from the

Board’s ruling on~

the rate sheet.

The Board found that the rate sheet is an improperly

promulgated rule ofthe type courts have found invalid.

Illinois Ayers

Oil Co.,

at p.

16.

Under

the Administrative Procedure Act,

a partywhich has any

administrative rule invalidated by a

court for any reason

“shall” be entitled

to an award of the reasonable

expenses ofthe litigation.

(5

ILCS

100/10-55(c)) Had a court made the same ruling as the Board, the court would have had

no discretion but to

award all

litigation expenses, including those unrelated to invalidation of the

3

---

rule.

Citizens

Organizing Project v. IDNR,

189 IlL2d 593, 598-99 (2000).

While Section

10-

5

5(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act does not technically apply to

an order entered by the

Board, as opposed to

a court, the existence ofthis statutory provision and the nature of the

Board’s ruling with respect to the rate sheet should compel the Board to exercise its discretion to

make a similar award.

9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an

affidavit ofFred C. Prillaman, documenting the

legals in this matter, which total $44,456.49 ($42,744.50 in attorney fees

and $1,711.99 in costs).

This evidence satisfies Petitioner’s initial burden to

specify the legal services provided, including

the identity ofthe attorney providing the legal

services, an itemization ofthe time expended for

the individual service and the hourly rate charged.

J.B. Esker & Sons

v. Cle-Pa’s Partnership,

325111.

App.

3d 276,

283

(5th

Dist. 2001).

Thereafter, the burden shifts

to the challenger to

rebut

the reasonableness of the fees.

Shortino v.

Illinois Bell Telephone

Co., 279 Ill. App.

3d

769,

775

(1st

Dist.

1996).

However, a fee award should not be reduced simply because all requested relief

was not obtained.

Becovic

v.

City ofChicago, 296 Ill. App.

3d 236, 242

(1st

Dist. 1998):

Often,

counsel’s time will be dedicated to

the litigation as a whole, making it difficult to quantify the

precise number ofhours for any particular claim.

Cannon v. William Chevrolet/Geo, Inc., 341

Ill.

App. 3d

674, 687

(1st Dist. 2003);

see also Ardt v. State,

292 Ill. App.

3d

1059,

1Q67 (1st Dist.

1997) (where issues were complex and

inextricably intertwined, court would not engage in

proposed claim-chopping approach).

A fee award includes the cost incurred seeking a fee award.

See Citizens

Organizing Project v.

~NR,

189 Iii.

2d 593,

599 (2000).

WHEREFORE, Petitioner,

ILLINOIS AYERS

OIL COMPANY, requests

that this Board

authorize the payment from the leaking underground storage tank fund the amount of $44,456.49

4

---

in

attorney’s fees

and

litigation costs to ILLINOIS AYERS

OIL COMPANY, pursuant to 415

ILCS

5/57.8(1).

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS AYERS

OIL CO., Petitioner

MOHAN, ALEWELT, PRILLAMAN & ADAMI

1 North Old Capitol Plaza, Suite 325

Springfield, IL

62701

Phone:

(217) 528-2517

Fax:

(217) 528-2553

M:\My Documents\illinoisayersattfeemotion.wpd\crk\4/30/04

L

5

---

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

)

SS.

COUNTY OF SANGAMON)

AFFIDAVIT OF FRED

C. PRTLLAMAN

VERIFYING ATTORNEY FEES

AFFIANT, Fred C. Prillaman, being first duly sworn, states as follows:

1.

The statements made herein

are based upon my personal knowledge, and I

amcompetent to testify hereto.

2.

I am an attorney duly

licensed to practice law in the State ofIllinois; and I

am the

attorneyof record for Petitioner Illinois Ayers Oil Company in the case entitled,

Illinois Ayers Oil Company v. Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 03-214

(hereinafter “Ayers II”).

3.

This case

arises from factual and legal issues that are, in part, common

with issues presented

in

several other cases presentlybefore the Board to-wit:

Godfrey

Sunoco/Midwest Petroleum

v. JEPA, 03-59, Illinois Ayers Oil

Company v. IEPA, PCB

03-70 (hereinafter “Ayers I”),

Clinton Oil Company v. IEPA, PCB 03-75, Willaredt Oil

Companyv. JEPA, PCB 03-107, Freedom Oil

Companyv.

IEPA,

PCB

03-121,

Chronister Oil

Co. v. IEPA, PCB 03-122, Lincoln Land FS

v. JEPA,

PCB

04-5, and

Willaredt

Oil Company v.

IEPA, PCB 04-72.

All of these cases

except PCB 04-5 and

04-72 were already on

file when the Agency issued its denial letter in Ayers II on March

28, 2003.

Tn each of these cases, the environmental consultant for the owner/operator, in

charge ofpreparing the corrective action plan, is C.S.D.

Environmental, Inc.

4.

I specifically beganworking on Ayers

II on May 2, 2003.

During the

first

few months, I worked on matters ofcommonality between the several related cases.

I’ll

---

Primarily this involved attempts to persuade the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency to

settle all of these cases on mutually agreeable terms.

5.

On or about October 13,

2003, our office received a response from the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency that was not encouraging and for practical

purposes, ended further settlement discussion.

We then decided to prosecute Ayers II

first because it was one ofthe larger cases and because it was exemplary ofthe related

cases.

6,

The legal defense

costs incurred since I began working on Ayers II in May

2003

are $44,456.59,

including $42,744.50

in attorney fees and $1,711.99 in associated

legal costs.

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit

1

is

an accurate summary ofthe legal work

done, and legal fees

incurred, with respect to this matter.

This summaryhas been taken

from the actual invoices and thus reflects actual work performed and fees incurred.

Work

unrelated to the Ayers U has been redacted since no reimbursement is sought for those

legal activities.

The summaryreveals the date the work was performed, the description

ofthe work performed, the amount of time spent, and the total fees incurred.

The hourly

rates charged are commensurate with the prevailing rates for environmental legal

services

in

Springfield, Illinois

for the years represented and are the rates charged to all clients of

the respective attorneys.

FURTHERAFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

2

---

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

)

SS

COUNTY OF SANGAMON)

Before me personally appeared Fred C.

Prillaman and

executed the above

Affidavit, and after being duly sworn stated that the above information is true and correct

according to the best ofhis information, knowledge and belief.

Subscribed

and sworn to me this

~

day ofApril, 2004.

MyCommission Expires:

(seal)

c:\Mapa\csD

Environmental\Affidavit

Fred Prillaman,doc\crk\4/28/04

CINDY

R.

KOLLEY

NOTARY PUBLIC,

STATEOF IUNO~S

MISSION EXPIRES 642008J

3

---

Mohan, Alewelt, Prillaman &

Adami

1

North Old

State Capitol

Plaza

Suite 325

Springfield,

IL

62701-1323

(217)528-2517

CSD Environmental

SenAces

2220 Yale

BI~d.

Springfield

IL 62703

April

30,

2004

Professional

Services

Hrs/Rate

Amount

May

2003

5/2/2003

FCP

Recei~.e&

review permit

denial from

Cindy

Davis;

tel

Cindy

Davis

0.20

Illinois

Ayers

Co.

190.00/hr

5/3/2003

FCP

Prepare

and

file

permit appeal

0

0.20

Illinois

Ayers

Co.

190.00/hr

5/5/2003

FCP

Work on

and finalize

letter to

John

Kim

1.00

190.00/hr

5/8/2003

FCP

Receh.e &

review faxed copy

of retum

receipt re 3/28

permit from

0.30

IEPA;

fax

same to Dorothy

Gunn

(Pollution Control

Board);

tel

Joe

190.00/hr

Truesdale

Illinois

Ayers

Co.

5/21/2003

FCP

Recei~e

&

review

Board order

0.10

Illinois

Ayers

Co.

190.00/hr

FCP

Tel

John Kim

0.10

190.00/hr

5/27/2003

FCP

Recei~.e

&

review

hearing officer orders

setting telephonic

status

confs

0.10

re ~rious appeals

190.00/hr

5/28/2003

FCP

Finalize and

file wai~.ersin

all cases;

fax

same to

hearing

officer

0.30

190.00/hr

5/30/2003

FCP

Tel

Cindy

Davis

0.20

190.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

0

(

2.50

475.00

---

CSD Environmental

Services

Page

2

Hrs/Rate

Amount

June

2003

6/2/2003

FCP

Letter to Cindy

Davis

re confw/Kim,

Clay

re

major issues;

tel

John

1.20

Kim

(2x)

190.00/hr

6/3/2003

FCP

Work

on letter to

Cindy

Davis;

receive

and

review fax

EPA

decisions

1.00

from

Cindy

Davis re

handling

charges;

letter to John

Kim

re

same and

190.00/hr

settlement

conference

0

6/4/2003

FCP

Finalize

letter to Cindy

Davis

0.30

190.00/hr

6/6/2003

FCP

Tel

Carol Sudmari

(Hearing

Officer)

0.10

190.00/hr

6/10/2003

FCP

Tel John

Kim

0.30

190.00/hr

6/12/2003

FCP

Telephone

Cindy

Davis

0.10

190.00/hr

6/13/2003

FCP

Tel

Carol Sudman

0.10

0

190.00/hr

6/16/2003

FCP

Letter to John

Kim

requesting updated

LUST

manager’s

handbook;

tel

1.00

John

Kim

190.00/hr

6/17/2003

FCP

Tel

JohnKim

(2x)

0.30

190.00/hr

6/19/2003

FCP

Tel

Cindy

Davis

0.20

190.00/hr

6/25/2003

FCP

Confw/Cindy Davis

to prep for IEPA

meeting;

attend

IEPA meeting

3.50

w/John

Kim,

et

al.;

tel

Cindy

Davis

(2x)

190.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

0

8.10

1,539.00

July

2003

7/9/2003

FCP

Tel

Kyle

Rominger

re

handling changes

0.30

190.00/hr

FCP

Letter to Bob

Riffle re

arguments

re production of databases

by

IEPA

0.40

190.00/hr

7/10/2003

FCP

Tel

Cindy

Davis, John

Kim

&

Hearing

Officer

0.80

190.00/hr

7/11/2003

FCP

Memo

to file

re settlement

0.50

190.00/hr

7/14/2003

FCP

Finalize and

file wai~ersin

all

8

cases;

recei~.e

and

review

hearing

1.00

officer order setting

status conf

190.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

3.00

570.00

August 2003

8/13/2003

FCP

Work

on letter to John

Kim re settlement

offer

1.00

190.00/hr

---

CSD

Environmental

Services

Page

3

Hrs/Rate

Amount

8/14/2003

FCP

Prepare for and

participate in

tel

conf status

call w/John

Kim

and

Carol

1.00

Sudman

(8

cases)

190.00/hr

8/18/2003

FCP

Recei~.e& review

hearing officer orders

in UST appeals

0.20

190.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

.

2.20

418.00

September 2003

9/3/2003

FOP

Work

on settlement

offer transmit Todd’s

Service Station transcript

to

3.00

Cindy

Davis;

tel

Bob

Riffle (Todd’s Service

Station attorney),

Cindy

190.00/hr

Davis

9/4/2003

FOP

Work

on settlement letter to John

Kim

2.00

190.00/hr

9/5/2003

FOP

Work on settlement

letter to John

Kim;

draft co~.er

letter to John

Kim

1.70

relative

to LUST review standards

re

rate

issues

(Ohappel testimony

in

190.00/hr

Todd’s Service Station)

9/8/2003

FOP

Telephone

Cindy

Davis

and amend settlement

proposal

1.30

190.00/hr

9/9/2003

FOP

Telephone

Cindy

Davis

0.20

190.00/hr

9/11/2003

FOP

Work on

handling charge

language;

fax redraft

of same to Cindy

Davis

2.10

and Joe Truesdale for

review and

appro~I;work on settlement offer to

190.00/hr

John

Kim; recei~.e

and

review faxed

language changes

and excerpts

from

RS

Means

from

Cindy Davis~

9/16/2003

FOP

Recei~e

&

review faxed comments

to draft settlement letter from

Cindy

2.00

Davis

and

Joe

Truesdale;

work

on

revision

190.00/hr

9/17/2003

FOP

Work

on settlement letter to John

Kim

1.00

190.00/hr

9/18/2003

FOP

Work

on settlement letter;

tel

Joe Truesdale

re same;

recei~eand

2.00

review faxed

proposed budget and summary for Ayers

II

from Joe

190.00/hr

Truesdale

9/19/2003

FOP

Work

on settlement

letter;

conftel

call w/Sudman

(H.O.) and

Kim

1.00

190.00/hr

9/22/2003

FOP

Prepare and

file

decision

deadline wai~ers;tel

Cindy

Davis;

recei~eand

1.50

review

hearing

officer orders

setting status conf~work

on settlement

ltr

190.00/hr

9/23/2003

FOP

Finalize

andfax letter to John

Kim

re LUST procedures

and

“market

1.00

conditions”

190.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

(

18.80

3,572.00

October 2003

10/13/2003

FOP

Recei~.e&

review faxed

correspondence

responding

to settlement

offer

0.30

from

John

Kim;

fax

same to Cindy

Davis

190.00/hr

10/14/2003

FOP

Telephone

Cindy

Davis

0.20

190.00/hr

10/16/2003

FOP

Status

conf hearing officer

0.60

190.00/hr

---

CSD Environmental

Services

Page

4

Hrs/Rate

Amount

10/17/2003

FOP

Fax

letter to

Cindy

Davis

re

hearing

on case/summary of status

0.40

conference

190.00/hr

10/20/2003

FOP

Telephone

Cindy

Davis

0.20

190.00/hr

10/21/2003

FOP

Status

conf. w/Sudman

(H.O.) &

Kim;

set hearing date;

begin work

on

1.40

discovery

190.00/hr

10/22/2003

FOP

Work on disco~,eryrequests

(interrogatories and

requests to

produce);

1.00

work

on wai~.ers;tel

Cindy

Davis

190.00/hr

10/23/2003

FOP

Work

on discovery

requests;

hand deli~r

correspondence

and

drafts

of

2.20

same to Cindy

Davis;

memo to file re disco~ery

issues

190.00/hr

10/24/2003

FOP

Receive

& review

hearing officer orders;

work on disco~.erydocuments

1.00

190.00/hr

10/27/2003

FOP

Telephone

Cindy

Davis

0.30

190.00/hr

10/29/2003

FOP

Recei~e

& review questions

for disco~eryfrom Joe Truesdale;

work on

1.00

amendments

190.00/hr

10/30/2003

FOP

Recei~e

& review copy

of administrati~erecord from John

Kim;

finalize

2.20

and

ser~e

interrogatones

and

requests to produce (via

hand

delivery)

190.00/hr

10/31/2003

FOP

Letter to John

Kim

re disco~.ery

issues;

review of Agency

record

1.20

190.00/hr.

SUBTOTAL:

12.00

2,280.00

November 2003

11/4/2003

FOP

Letters to

Cindy

Davis

and

John Kim

re disco~.eryissues and

1.40

scheduling

ofdepositions;

fax

letter to

Kim

190.00/hr

11/5/2003

FOP

Memo to file

re Agency

duty

re

disco~eryresponses;

tel John

Kim (2x)

0.60

190.00/hr

11/6/2003

FOP

Letter to Gene Adams

re notice/status

conf

0.20

190.00/hr

11/7/2003

FOP

Finalize

letter to Gene Adams

(Ayers

Oil)

0.10

190.00/hr

11/18/2003

FOP

Telephone

Cindy

Davis

0.30

190.00/hr

11/19/2003

FOP

Tel

John

Kim

(2x),

Cindy

Davis,

John

Kim

0.60

190.00/hr

11/20/2003

FOP

Fax

letter to John

Kim

re depositions

and

fax same to Cindy

Davis;

2.00

arrange

for court reporter;

check

status

of similar cases

at

Pollution

190.00/hr

Control Board; recei~.e

and

review faxed response

to interrogatories

from John

Kim;

fax

same to

Cindy

Davis

11/21/2003

FOP

Recei~e&

review faxed

Bauer affidavit from

John

Kim; tel

Cindy

Davis;

1.00

prepare

for depositions

190.00/hr

11/24/2003

FOP

Prepare for depositions;

fax

letter to John

Kim

requesting production of

4.00

documents;

draft emergency

motion to compel

disco~ery;memo

to file

190.00/hr

re good

faith

negotiations;

to CS D’s

office to prepare w/clients

---

CSD

Environmental Services

Page

5

Hrs/Rate

Amount

11/25/2003

FOP

Prepare for and

conduct

depositions of Chappel,

Bauer

and Hawbaker;

6.30

work

on emergency motion

and notice of hearing re same;

prepare

190.00/hr

notices

to

appear at trial

for Chappel,

Bauer and

Hawbaker

11/26/2003

FOP

Telephone

Cindy Davis;

work on

and file emergency motion

3.00

190.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

19.50

3,705.00

December 2003

12/1/2003

FOP

Recei~

&

review faxed response

to emergency

motion from

John

Kim;

3.30

receive

and

review Chappel transcript from

court reporter;

tel

Cindy

190.00/hr

Davis

12/2/2003

FOP

Receh~e& review Bauer and

Hawbaker transcripts and exhibits from

4.40

court

reporter~recei~eand

review hearing officer order denying

190.00/hr

emergency motion; transmit transcripts,

emergency motion,

response

to same

and H.O.

order to

Cindy

Davis; prep for hearing;

tel

Cindy

Davis/Joe Truesdale;

tel

John

Kim; work

on

appeal

ofH.O.

order;

work

on

response to Agency’s response; draft emergency

motion for stay;

draft

letter to John

Kim

12/3/2003

FOP

Attend hearing

at

Pollution

Control Board

and mo~e

for continuance;

3,40

work

on

appeal;

tel

Joe Truesdale,

Dan Goodwin;

work

on

questions

190.00/hr

for hearing;

file waiver of decision deadline

in Ayers

II; work

on

motion

for interlocutory appeal

12/4/2003

FOP

Prepare wah.ers

of decision deadline

in other 7 appeals; tel

Cindy

2.30

Davis;

work on

interlocutory

appeal; fax

letter to Cindy

Davis

190.00/hr

transmitting draft

appeal, Platolene case and questions

for hearing

12/5/2003

FOP

Work on

and file interlocutory

appeal;

tel

Cindy

Davis; letter to

Clerk of

4.00

Pollution

Control

Board transmitting

appeal via federal

express

190.00/hr

PDS

Review FOP

motion and

make

reccomendations

re in~lid

rule issue

0.30

135.00/hr

12/8/2003

FOP

Finalize

and

file waivers; fax

same to

hearing officer

0.30

190.00/hr

12/10/2003

FOP

Memo to file re trial

preparation;

recei~.eand

review hearing officer

2.10

orders

in remaining appeals; legal research

and memo

re

burden of

190.00/hr

proof issues

12/11/2003

FOP

Letter to Cindy Davis

transmimtting

interlocutory

appeal,

Owens

0.80

decision

and Agency brief re same,

and Agency

brief re

Todd’s

case

190.00/hr

12/12/2003

FOP

Recei~e

&

review hearing

officer order re Agency response

to

0.10

interlocutory

appeal

190.00/hr

12/15/2003

FOP

Recei’~.e&

review faxed

response to

interlocutory appeal

from

John

0.30

Kim;

tel

Cindy Davis

190.00/hr

12/16/2003

FOP

Prepare for conf/trial

prep wlCindy

Davis,

Joe Truesdale

2.00

1 9000/hr

12/17/2003

FOP

Work on

questions for hearing

1.00

190.00/hr

12/18/2003

FOP

Receh.e

& review Baldwin

Reporting invoice

0.10

NO

CHARGE

190.00/hr

---

CSD

Environmental Services

Page

6

SUBTOTAL:

.Isinii~rv9flfl4

1/5/2004

FOP

1/6/2004

FOP

PDS

CDO

1/7/2004

FOP

1/8/2004

FOP

1/12/2004

FOP

1/14/2004

PDS

1/15/2004

PDS

1/16/2004

PDS

Hrs/Rate

Amount

1.50

135.00/hr

4.50

190.00/hr

6.70

190.00/hr

5.00

190.00/hr

3.20

135.00/hr

2.40

100,00/hr

9.00

190.00/hr

0.10

190.00/hr

0.20

190.00/hr

6.30

135.00/hr

1.70

135.00/hr

2.90

135.00/hr

12/19/2003

FOP

Prepare for

hearing;

prepare

exhibit list

1.00

190.00/hr

12/22/2003

FOP

Recei~e

& review Board order denying

motion to compel

0.20

190.00/hr

12/23/2003

ODO

Revise/modify’ contract documents

.

1.00

100.00/hr

12/24/2003

FOP

Work on

motion

for interlocutory appeal

of Board’s 12/18/03 decision

0.80

190.00/hr

12/29/2003

FOP

Receh.e &

review Board Member Johnson’s dissenting opinion;

continue trial

preparation;

work on trial

brief

2.00

190,00/hr

12/30/2003

FOP

Memo to

PDS re trial

preparation;

draft trial

questions

for Joe

Truesdale

2.00

190.00/hr

12/31/2003

PDS

FOP

Review

deps

and identil~’admissions

Work

on trial

outline;

review trial

exhibits; fax trial

outline to Cindy

Davis

and Joe

Truesdale;

fax

letter to Cindy

Davis

re Olarendon

Hills

Bridal case/Agency

argument re lack of detail

5.40

135.00/hr

3.00

190.00/hr

39.80

7,139.50

1/2/2004

PDS

Review

deps &

trial

brief

complete admissions

of Ohappel

FOP

Continue trial

prep; work

on

trial

brief;

prep questions for trial

for

Hawbaker and

Ohappel;

notes

to file

re correction action

language

and

soils

borings

Continue

hearing prep:

prepare trial

exhibits, finalize

letter to Cindy

Davis re trial

strategy;

revise analysis

of cuts;

to OSD

Env.

for hearing

prep

w/Oindy

Davis

and

Joe

Truesdale; work

on

memo

re borings

analyses;

tel

John

Kim

Continue trial

prep; tel

Dorothy

Gunn (Clerk Pollution

Control

Board)

re

filings;

tel

Dan

Goodwin

Draft

motion to

admit deps.;

draft notes to

FOP

Research for FOP

find

PCB

precedent

on admissions

made

in

depositions

~

Hearing

@

Pollution Control

Board;

finalize and file Willaredt

II appeal

Recei~e

&

review Phase

I info for

Royal

Oil

from Joe

Truesciale

Recei~e

and

review hearing

report from

hearing officer

Begin drafting brief~research and draft

regulatory

background

Draft fact summary

Revise fact

discussion;

begin

research objection

to rate

sheet

---

CSD

Enwonmental Services

Page

7

Hrs/Rate

Amount

1/19/2004

PDS

Research

and

draft objection

to rate

sheet

.

3.50

135.00/hr

1/20/2004

PDS

Research

illegal

rule issues

1.90

135.00/hr

1/21/2004

FOP

Legal

Research and work

on

brief

2.00

190.00/hr

1/23/2004

FOP

Legal

Research re recently filed

cases

@

Pollution

Control

Board

re

0.40

similar issues

190.00/hr

1/26/2004

PDS

Draft

provisions

of brief concerning invalid

rule

3.50

135.00/hr

1/28/2004

PDS

Draft brief re illegal

rule and

rules ofevidence

re summaries

4.30

135.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

59.10

9,429.00

February 2004

2/2/2004

PDS

Draft

rates

portions of brief;

revise relevant

legals

5.30

140.00/hr

2/3/2004

FOP

Work

on

brief

2.00

195.00/hr

FOP

Telephone

status confw/Carol Sudman,

John Kim;

draft

letter to Cindy

0.50

Davis

195.00/hr

PDS

Draft

brief;

research burden

of proof issues;

begin

incorporating

6.00

Truesdale testimony

.

140.00/hr

2/4/2004

PDS

Draft in~estigationcost portion of memo

9.00

140.00/hr

FOP

Telephone Cindy

Davis

0.30

195.00/hr

2/5/2004 PDS

Draft

remaining cost portions of brief

7.90

140.00/hr

FOP

Fax draft

of brief to Joe

Truesdale;

fax

letter to Cindy

Davis

re status of

1.50

briefing/decision

in Todd’s

Service Station case; prepare

and file

195.00/hr

wah.ers

2/6/2004

FOP

Recei~.e

& review comments

to rough draft of brief from Joe Truesdale;

1.40

notes

to file re Rule

213; fax

draft of brief to Cindy

Davis &

Joe

195.00/hr

Truesdale

PDS

Revise

brief;

tel

oonf.

w/ Truesdale

4.30

140.00/hr

2/9/2004

FOP

Notes

and

language for brief;

review and finalize brief;

fax

brief to John

1.00

Kim

195.00/hr

PDS

Revise

and file

brief;

tel

cof.

Truesdale

6.50

140.00/hr

2/10/2004

FOP

Letter to Cindy

Davis

and

Joe Truesdale transmitting

brief

0.30

195.00/hr

2/18/2004

FOP

Memo to file

1.00

195.00/hr

2/24/2004

FOP

Memo to file re CD testimony

re basis of rates

0.50

195.00/hr

---

CSD

Environmental Services

Page

8

Hrs/Rate

Amount

SUBTOTAL:

F

47.50

7,117.50

March

2004

3/2/2004

FOP

Telephone

John

Kim

0.30

190.00/hr

3/5/2004

FOP

Receive &

review motion

for extension of time to file

brief and

motion

to

0.20

strike hearing

officer order from

John

Kim

195.00/hr

3/8/2004

FOP

Receive

&

review hearing

officer order granting

extension to file

0.10

post-hearing brief

195.00/hr

PDS

Draft response to

objection to

depositions

7.00

135.00/hr

3/9/2004

PDS

Revise and

file response to depositions

5.80

140.00/hr

FOP

Receive

& review Agency

brief;

fax

same

to Cindy

Davis

and Joe

1.00

Truesdale

195.00/hr

3/10/2004

PDS

Draft

reply brief

6.30

140.00/hr

3/11/2004

PDS

Draft

reply brief

6.50

140.00/hr

3/12/2004

PDS

Revise and file

reply brief

2.70

140.00/hr

3/18/2004

FOP

Work

on motion to amend

reply brief by

interlineation

0.70

195.00/hr

3/29/2004

FOP

Telephone

Cindy Davis

0.20

195.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

,

30.80

4,413.00

April

2004

4/7/2004

FOP

Telephone

Joe Truesdale; receive

and

review Board opinion

and

order

0.20

195.00/hr

4/8/2004

FOP

Letter to Cindy Davis

transmitting opinion

and

order and discussing

0.60

strategy for remaining cases

195.00/hr

4/9/2004 FOP

Finalize letter to

Cindy

Davis

0.10

195.00/hr

4/12/2004

FOP

Receive

&

review certified copy

of opinion and

order from

POB; tel

0.40

Cindy

Davis

(3x)

-

195.00/hr

4/23/2004

PDS

Review procedural

rules re attorneys fees;

research and

draft motion

6.50

140.00/hr

4/26/2004

PDS

Draft

affidavit of FOP;

revise motion

3.20

140.00/hr

4/27/2004

PDS

Revise

affidavit;

revise motion

1.50

140.00/hr

4/28/2004

PDS

Revise

affidavit and

motion

0.50

140.00/hr

---

CSD

Environmental Services

Page

9

Hrs/Rate

Amount

4/29/2004

FOP

Review

and amend

Motion

for Attomey’s

Fees and affidavit;

remove

1.00

non-Ayersll-related

charges from

billing exhibit

195.00/hr

SUBTOTAL:

14.00

2,086.50

For professional services

rendered

257.30

$42,744.50

Additional Charges

Qty/Price

May 2003

5/2/2003

Photocopying

139

27.80

Illinois Ayers Co.

0.20

FAX to FCP from

C.

Davis

7

1.40

0.20

5/3/2003

Check #21048 to

Illinois Pollution Control

Board for filing fee for appeal

1

75.00

Illinois Ayers Co.

.

75.00

Postage

1

10.45

10.45

5/5/2003

Postage

1

2.12

2.12

Photocopying

22

4.40

0.20

5/8/2003

FAXto

FOP from

C.

Hawbaker (EPA)

2

0.40

Illinois Ayers Co.

0.20

5/28/2003

Photocopying

134

26.80

0.20

Postage

1

4.79

4.79

5/30/2003

Telephone

charges

1

0.06

0

0.06

SUBTOTAL:

0

153.22

June

2003

6/3/2003

Photocopying

7

1.40

0.20

FAXto

FOP from

C.

Davis

7

1.40

0.20

6/30/2003

Lexis

charges

1

4.77

4.77

SUBTOTAL:

7.57

---

CSD Environmental Services

Page

10

July 2003

Postage

Photocopying

Photocopying

Postage

9/11/2003

FAX to

FOP from 0.

Davis

9/16/2003

FAX to

FOP

from Davis

9/18/2003

FAX to

FOP

from Trusdale

9/22/2003

Postage

Photocopying

9/30/2003

Lexis

charges

Telephone

charges

10/16/2003

Photocopying

10/23/2003

Photocopying

Postage

10/29/2003

FAX to

FOP from Truesdale

Qty/Price

Amount

7.56

17.40

19.20

4.79

48.95

1.20

5.80

0.20

4.33

37.20

32.59

0.17

81.49

3.40

38.40

6.07

0.60

48.47

7/7/2003

7/14/2003

SUBTOTAL:

September 2003

SUBTOTAL:

(~t’,fr,hôr9flfl~

7.56

87

0.20

96

0.20

4.79

6

0.20

29

0.20

0.20

4.33

186

0.20

32.59

0.17

17

0.20

192

0.20

6.07

3

0.20

SUBTOTAL:

November 2003

Postage

1.20

11/7/2003

1.20

---

OSD Environmental Services

Page

11

Qty/Pnce

Amount

11/21/2003

FAX to FOP

from

John

Kim

2

0.40

0.20

11/24/2003

Photocopying

377

75.40

0.20

11/26/2003

Photocopying

132

26.40

0.20

11/30/2003

Lexis

charges

1

11.17

11.17

SUBTOTAL:

114.57

December 2003

12/1/2003

FAXfrom

J.Kim

to

FOP

16

3.20

0.20

Photocopying

12

2.40

0.20

12/2/2003

FAXto

FOP

from

Sudiman

.

3

0.60

0.20.

Photocopying

0

286

57.20

0.20

12/4/2003

Photocopying

.

85

17.00

0.20

12/5/2003

FAX to FOP

from

Cindy Davis

4

0.80

0.20

12/6/2003

Federal Express

charges to D.

Gunn

from FOP

1

0

21.49

21.49

12/8/2003

Postage

1

4.10

4.10

Photocopying

173

34.60

0.20

12/11/2003

Photocopying

32

6.40

0.20

Postage

1

3.95

395

~0

12/12/2003

Check #21 580 to Hillier Storage forfile

retrieval

1

7.50

7.50

12/15/2003

FAXto FOP

from John Kim

17

3.40

0.20

12/16/2003

Photocopying

17

3.40

0.20

12/30/2003

Photocopying

209

41.80

0.20

12/31/2003

Lexis

charges

1

155.82

155.82

SUBTOTAL:

363.66

---

OSD

Environmental

Services

Page

13

Qty/Price

Amount

SUBTOTAL:

-

221.51

March

2004

3/5/2004

FAX to FOP from

Davis

3

0.60

0.20

FAX to FOP from

John

Kim

15

3.00

0.20

3/9/2004

Photocopying

34

6.80

0.20

3/10/2004

Photocopying

96

19.20

0.20

3/11/2004

Postage

1

4.33

4.33

3/12/2004

Postage

0

1

6.57

6.57

Photocopying

164

32.80

0.20

3/30/2004

Photocopying

24

4.80

0.20

Postage

1.

1.80

1.80

3/31/2004

Lexis

charges

1

120.95

120.95

SUBTOTAL:

200.85

April

2004

4/9/2004

Photocopying

11

2.20

0.20

4/13/2004

Photocopying

8

1.60

0.20

Photocopying

8

1.60

0.20

SUBTOTAL:

5.40

Total

costs

$1,711.99