f~5)~7
\~‘&J/
L1~I4~EflVED
CLE~K’SOFFICE
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
JUL
152004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLiNOIS, INC.,
)
Pollution Control
aoard
)
Petitioner,
)
)
No. PCB 04-186
vs.
)
(Pollution Control Facility.
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANTAKEE COUNTY,
)
ILLiNOIS,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
All Attorneys ofRecord
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on July 14, 2004, I mailed for filing with the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, Chicago, Illinois, the attached
Respondent’s Objection to Merlin Karlock’s
Petition to Intervene or, Alternatively, for Leave to File an
Ainicus Curiae
Brief, a copy of
which is herewith
served upon you.
DATED:________________
COUNTY BOARD OF ~
COUNTY,
ILLINOIS,
BY: HINSHAW & CULB
ON
~
Charles F. Heisten
/
9~1V
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
(815)
490-4900
70414041v1 842014
RECEflVE D
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
JUL 152004
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
Petitioner,
)
)
No. PCB 04-186
vs.
)
(Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY,
)
ILLINOIS,
)
)
Respondent.
)
RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION TO
MERLIN
KARLOCK’S PETITION TO
INTERVENE
OR,
ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMICUS CURIAE
BRIEF
NOW COMES Respondent, COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, by and through its Attorneys, HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP, and as and for its
Objection to Merlin Karlock’s Petition to Intervene Or, Alternatively, for Leave to File an
Amicus
Curiae
Brief, states as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
1.
On September 26, 2003, Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (“WMII”) filed a
site
location application with the County Board of Kankakee, Illinois (“County Board”) for
expansion ofan existing landfill located in the County ofKankakee, Illinois.
2.
On March 17,
2004, the County
Board
denied WMII’s application.
3.
WMII has sought review of the County Board’s decision pursuant to Section
40.1(a) of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”),
and Merlin Karlock, an objector in
the local siting hearing, seeks to intervene in these proceedings.
4.
Mr. Karlock asserts that he should be allowed to intervene in this proceeding
because: 1) as an owner ofproperty adjacent to the WMII property, “his property rights will be
70414262v2 842014
immediately and directly affected by the
outcome ofthis case”; 2) he “successfully participated”
in the local siting hearing and the prior case in which WMII sought expansion; and 3) he “fears
that neither the County, nor its attorneys, will advocate as zealously or thoroughly as possible in
defending the Kankakee County Board’s denial of siting approval.” Merlin Karlock’s Petition for
Leave to Intervene (“Petition”), paras. 2-3, 7.
5.
In the alternative, Mr. Karlock seeks leave to file an
amicus curiae
brief with this
Board.
6.
Mr. Karlock’s attorney, George Mueller, does not cite to any legal authority in
support of the Petition, but, rather, adopts and incorporates by reference the
legal
arguments
made
by another
objector, Michael Watson, in his
Motion to Intervene and Motion for Leave to
File an
Amicus Curiae
Brief previously filed with this Board. Petition, para. 4.
7.
Respondent, County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois (County), objected to
Michael Watson’s Motion to Intervene and for Leave to File an
Amicus Curiae
brief and,
likewise, objects to Mr. Karlock’s Petition for Leave to Intervene or, Alternatively, for Leave to
File an
Amicus Curiae
Brief. As noted above, since Karlock’s Motion essentially mimics
Watson’s Motion, in addition to the argument set forth below, the County also adopts its
Objection to Michael Watson’s Motion to Intervene as part of its response to Merlin Karlock’s
objection as if fully set forth herein verbatim.
II.
ARGUMENT
A.
MR.
KARLOCK’S
PETITION TO
INTERVENE
SHOULD
BE DENIED AS
IT
CONTAINS NUMEROUS MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT
AND
IS BASED ON
THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION THAT THE COUNTY BOARD WILL NOT
ADEQUATELY DEFEND ITS DECISION.
8.
Mr. George Mueller, Attorney for Merlin Karlock, clearly misrepresents many
facts in his Petition in an improper attempt to portray the attorneys for the County Board of
2
70414262v2 842014
Kankakee County as biased and unwilling to “advocate as zealously or thoroughly as possible in
defending the Kankakee County Board’s denial of siting approval.” Petition, para. 7.
9.
Such accusations are simply not based in fact, but are merely part of Mr.
Mueller’s standard mantra that he tailors to retrofit all of the cases in which he seeks to intervene.
10.
In
Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C. v. City Council ofRochelle,
PCB 03-2 18, Mr.
Mueller also alleged that the City Council of Rochelle, represented by Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP, might not be willing to vigorously defend its decision to deny siting approval and,
therefore, argued that the citizens group he was representing should be allowed to intervene “to
participate in vigorously, and without reservation, defending the correctness ofthe City Council’s
decision to deny siting approval.” PCB 03-218 (June 19, 2003).
11. This Board properly rejected Mr. Mueller’s arguments and denied intervention,
finding that “third-party objectors are precluded from intervention in an appeal
from a denial of
siting approval.” PCB 03-218 (July 10, 2003).
12. In
Rochelle,
the City Council, through its attorneys, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP,
did, in fact, vigorously defend its decision to deny the site location application, and
this Board
upheld that decision. PCB 03-218 (Apr.
15,
2004).
13.
In fact, Hinshaw & Culbertson’s defense was so vigorous that the applicant chose
not to appeal this Board’s
affirmance of the City Council’s denial of
the application, further
confirming the wisdom ofthis Board’s Order ofJuly 10, 2003 in that matter.
14.
Just as Mr. Mueller had no support for his assertion and insinuation in
Rochelle
that intervention was necessary to vigorously defend the City Council’s decision, likewise, in this
case, Mr. Mueller has no factual support for his accusation that the County Board will not
3
70414262v2 842014
vigorously defend its denial of siting approval, and his Motion is based only upon tenuous
innuendo and unfounded sensationalism.
15.
Because Mr. Mueller has no factual support for this tired argument that he carts
around with him and molds to try to fit the circumstances of each case where he represents
objectors, Mr. Mueller insteadrelies on improper insinuations that Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is
conflicted because of some alleged “relationship” that exists with WMII based on some invoices
that were mistakenly addressed to “Kankakee County Landfill” instead of“Kankakee County.”
16.
This issue was thoroughly addressed and reconciled in PCB 03-125, 133, 134,
135 (cons.) after Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP clearly established that it has always represented
and been paid by the County of Kankakee, and, in fact, as is evidenced in Karlock’s own Brief,
all of the invoices were mailed and sent directly to the State’s Attorney of Kankakee County to
be paid by the County.
See
Exhibit A to Karlock’s Petition, p.
15.
Those invoices were
captioned “Kankakee County Landfill” through a mere clerical error and nothing more.
See
Affidavit of Joan Lane submitted as public comment in PCB 03-125, 133, 134 and 135 (cons.),
and attached hereto as Exhibit A.
17.
Furthermore, as set forth in an affidavit drafted by the Kankakee County Planning
Director, and submitted as public comment in PCB 03-125, 133, 134 and 135 (cons.), the law
firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP never represented WMII in connection with the Kankakee
County Landfill. See Affidavit ofMike Van Mill, attached hereto as Exhibit B.
18.
Mr. Mueller’s assertions that Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is somehow improperly
influencing or not adequately representing the County Board because of its “relationship” with
WMII is simply nonsense and mean-spirited sensationalism, as evidenced by the very fact that
the Kankakee County Board denied siting approval of WMII’s most recent siting application; that
4
70414262v2 842014
fact clearly establishing that Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is not improperly influencing or
inadequately defending the County Board.
19.
To the contrary, the evidence presented by Mr. Muellerhimself clearly establishes
that Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is vigorously defending the County of Kankakee and Kankakee
County Board, not only in this action but in other actions. Petition, para. 9. The fact that
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is defending the County Board’s decision to grant site location
approval of WMII’s previous application does not prove any conflict, but actually establishes
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP’s loyalty and commitment to vigorously defend its clients in all
cases on the separate merits ofeach case.
20.
As is made clear in the Petition, Mr. Mueller has not and cannot allege any real
facts to support his “fears” that the County and its attorneys will not advocate zealously, so,
instead, he rolls out his time-worn, hide bound, generic attack on Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.
As such, Mr. Mueller’s Petition should be wholly disregarded.
21.
It is well settled that “when a governmental entity is involved, ‘interested parties
legitimately may assume that their elected officials will adequately represent their interest as
members of the general public.”
People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago,
329 Ill.App.3d 477,
490, 769 N.IE.2d 84, 96 (2d Dist. 2002),
rev’d in part on other grounds,
202 Ill.2d 36, 779 N.E.2d
875 (2002). Furthermore, the “adequacy of representation can be presumed when the party
on whose behalf the applicant seeks intervention is a governmental body or officer charged by
law with representing the interests ofthe proposed intervener.”
American Nat ‘1 Bank and Trust
Co. ofChicago v. City of Chicago, 865
F.2d 144, 148 (7th Cir. 1989).
5
70414262v2 842014
22.
Because Mr. Mueller has failed to present a single piece of evidence to support
his “fear” that the County Board ofKankakee County and its attorneys will not zealously defend
the County Board’s decision, intervention is neither necessary nor appropriate.
B.
MR.
KARLOCK’S
PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE THE
UNANIMOUS LEGAL AUTHORITY PROHIBITS INTERVENTION.
23.
Mr. Karlock’s Petition for Leave to Intervene should be denied because
intervention is clearly prohibited by the PCB Procedural Rules, the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act and PCB precedent.
24.
Rule 107.200 of the PCB Procedural Rules sets forth who may file a petition for
review concerning siting ofa new pollution control facility, and allows only two types
of people
to do so: 1) siting applicants when there has been a “decision to deny siting” or to “appeal
conditions imposed in a decision granting siting approval”; and 2) a person who participated in
the local siting hearing who is adversely affected by a
unit of local government’s “decision to
grant
siting.” 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 107.200 (emphasis added).
25.
As set forth above, only the applicant may be a petitioner when a siting
application is denied by a local governing unit.
See 35
Ill. Adm. Code 107.200.
26.
Furthermore, Rule 107.202 specifically sets forth who may be parties to a review
of a local government’s decisions concerning a new pollution control facility. Rule 107.202
provides:
a)
In a petition to review a local government’s decision concerning a new
pollution control facility, the following are parties to the proceeding:
1)
The petitioner or petitioners are the persons described in Section
107.200 of this Part. If there is more than one petitioner, they must be
referred to as co-petitioners; and
2)
The unit(s) of local government whose decision is being reviewed
must be named the respondent(s). In an appeal pursuant to Section
107.200(b), the siting applicant must also be named as respondent.
6
70414262v2 842014
b)
Where the interests of the public would be served, the Board or hearing
officer may allow intervention by the Attorney General or the State’s Attorney of
the county in which the facility will be located.
35
Ill. Adm. Code 107.202.
27.
Rule 107.202 then clearly does not allow for an adjacent landowner, such as Mr.
Karlock, to be a party to this proceedings, as Rule 107.202 clearly limits the parties to the
petitioner(s), the unit(s) of local government, and the Attorney General or State’s Attorney (if
they seek intervention).
28.
Therefore, PCB Rules 107.200 and 107.202 clearly do not allow intervention
29. Mr. Karlock’s Petition to Intervene must also be denied pursuant to the plain
language ofSection 40.1 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act, which provides:
(a) Ifthe county board
* * *
refuses to grant approval
* * *
the applicant may
* *
*
petition for a hearing before the TPCB to contest the decision
* *
(b) If the county board
* * *
grants approval
* * *
a third party other than the
applicant
* * *
maypetition the IPCB
* * *
for a hearing to contest the approval
415 ILCS 5/40.1(a).
30.
While the Act allows for intervention by third parties when an application is
approved, “the Act thus does not provide for a third-party appeal where the PCB has refused to
grant site approval.”
McHenry County Landfill, Inc. v. illinois Environmental Protection
Agency,
154 Ill.App.3d 89,
95, 506
N.E.2d 372, 376 (2d Dist. 1987);
see also Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board,
160 Ill.App.3d 434, 444, 513
N.E.2d 592,
598
(2d Dist. 1987) (“following a county board denial of a site approval request,
section 40.1 ofthe Act precludes objectors from becoming parties to a PCB review hearing”).
31.
Based on the explicit language contained in Section 40.1 of the Act, this Board
must deny Mr. Karlock’s petition to intervene because “the PCB is powerless to expand its
7
70414262v2 842014
authority beyond that which the legislature has expressly granted to it.”
McHenry County,
154
Ill.App.3d at
95,
506 N.E.2d at 376. As such, it would be improper and unlawful for this Board
to allow Mr. Karlock to intervene as a party in this proceeding.
See id.
(holding that “the PCB
improperly permitted the objectors to become parties to the proceeding before it” and therefore
finding that the objectors had no standing to appeal under section 41 ofthe Act).
32.
It is clear that Mr. Karlock’s Petition to Intervene should be denied, as this Board
has universally held that third-party objectors, like Mr. Karlock, are not entitled to intervention
when the local unit of government denies an applicant’s request for site location approval.
See
Rochelle Waste Disposal, L.L.C. v. City Council of Rochelle,
PCB 03-218 (July 10, 2003)
(explaining that a third-party objector did not have special intervention rights, and therefore
could not intervene);
Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. v. County Board ofKane County,
PCB
03-104 (Feb. 20 (2003) (same);
Land and Lakes Co. v. Randolph County Board of
Commissioners,
PCB 99-69 (March 18, 1999) (finding that “allowing a third-party to intervene
would be granting party status to someone who does not have party status under Section 40.1 of
the Act”);
Lowe Transfer, Inc. v. County Board ofMcHenry County,
PCB 03-221 (July 10, 2003)
(“It is well established that third-party objectors are precluded from intervention in an appeal
from a denial ofsiting approval.”);
Riverdale Recycling, Inc. v. IEPA,
PCB 00-228 (same);
Land.
and Lakes Co. v. Village ofRomeoville,
PCB 94-195 (Sept. 1, 1994) (same)
33.
Mr. Karlock, as an owner of0 property contiguous to the proposed landfill
expansion, is not unique, as many of the interveners in the cases cited above were owners of
property adjacent to the proposed landfills, and claimed that they should be allowed to intervene
based on that fact, but the PCB disagreed.
See Land and Lakes Co. v. Village ofRomeoville,
91-
7 (Feb. 7, 1991) (finding that a forest preserve had no right to intervene because its interest was
8
70414262v2 842014
as an adjacent landowner);
Land and Lakes v. Romeoville,
PCB 94-195 (finding that a forest
preserve district that was an “adjacent landowner” had no right to intervene);
Lowe Transfer, Inc.
PCB 03-221 (denying intervention to a village located directly adjacent to a proposed landfill
despite contentions that the landfill would have a “significant impact” on the village).
34.
Furthermore, Mr. Karlock has no right as an individual property owner to assert a
private interest in a landfill siting review. In fact, as set forth above, the PCB rules clearly
establish that it is only appropriate for an individual representing the public interest to intervene,
which is why the PCB Rules specifically allow only the State’s Attorney or Attorney General to
intervene in an action such as this.
See Land and Lakes v. Romeoville,
PCB 91-7 (explaining that
the State’s interest in intervention is “to protect the public welfare”);
Land and Lakes v.
Romeoville,
PCB 94-195 (explaining that “a state’s attorney may intervene to represent the public
interest”);
Land and Lakes v. Randolph County,
PCB 99-69 (same);
Lowe Transfer, Inc.,
PCB
03-221 (same);
Rochelle,
PCB 03-218 (same);
Waste Management,
PCB 03-104 (same).
35.
In fact, it is appropriate for only the State’s Attorney or Attorney General to
intervene in the review ofthe denial ofa site location application because “the Attorney General,
‘as chief legal officer of this State,
* * *
has the duty and authority to represent the interests of
the People ofthe State to insure a healthful environment”, and the “State’s Attorney’s ‘rights and
duties are analogous to those of the Attorney General.”
Saline County Landfill, Inc. v. IEPA,
PCB 02-108 (April 18, 2002),
citing Pioneer Processing, Inc. v. IEPA,
102 Ill.2d 119, 464
N.E.2d 238 (1984) and
Land and Lakes Co. v. PCB,
245 Ill.App.3d 631, 616 N.E.2d 349 (3d
Dist. 1993);
see also Land and Lakes Co v. Romeoville,
PCB 91-7 (Feb. 7, 1991) (explaining that
the State’s Attorney and Attorney General represent “a legitimate public interest”).
9
70414262v2 842014
36.
Clearly, the PCB has determined that only an individual protecting the public
interest is allowed to intervene when the PCB is reviewing a local government’s decision to deny
site location approval. Therefore, Mr. Karlock, who is attempting to protect only his private
interests, should not be allowed to intervene.
37.
Moreover, Mr. Karlock’s private right as a property owner would not be affected
by reversal ofthe County Board’s denial because WMII submitted with its application a Property
Value Protection Plan to protect the property value of Mr. Karlock’s land, as well as other
property surrounding the landfill. If WMII somehow violates that Plan, Mr. Karlock then will
have a private right of action against the WMII. Clearly, such an interest is not relevant to a
landfill siting appeal, such as this, but is more appropriately raised in a court of law if, in fact,
Mr. Karlock’s property is actually harmed by the landfill expansion.
38.
Because it is well-settled that a third-party objector, like Mr. Karlock, has no right
to intervene in a case involving landfill siting approval where approval is denied by the local
governing body, Mr. Karlock’s Petition to Intervene should be denied.
C.
MR.
KARLOCK’S
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMICUS CURIAE
BRIEF SHOULD BE DENIED.
39.
Mr. Karlock argues that he should be granted leave to file an
amicus curiae
brief
ifhe is not allowed to intervene as a party in these proceedings; however, this Board should deny
Karlock’s request to file an
amicus curiae
brief because, through his brief, Mr. Karlock will be
attempting to present wholly new arguments to this Board that have not been previously raised
by the parties in the underlying action.
40.
As an amicus, Mr. Karlock is specifically precluded from presenting new
arguments. As explained by the Illinois Supreme Court, an
amicus curiae
is not a party to the
action but is, instead a “friend” of the court, and, as such, the sole function of an
amicus
is to
10
70414262v2 842014
advise or make suggestions to the court.
People v.
P.H.,
145 Ill.2d 209, 234, 582 N.E.2d 700,
711(1991). An
amicus
takes the case as he finds it, with the issues framed by the parties.
Id.
41.
Therefore, an
amicus curiae
has no right to present issues that are not raised by
the parties to the proceeding.
42.
In fact, issues addressed and arguments made only by an
amicus curiae,
and not
by the parties, need not be considered.
See Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Industrial
Commission,
138 Il1.2d 107, 117, 561 N.E.2d 623, 627 (1990);
P.H.,
145 Il1.2d at 234, 582
N.E.2d at 711-12;
In re J. W.,
204 Ill.2d 50, 73, 787 N.E.2d 747, 761 (2003).
43.
Moreover, Mr. Karlock should also be denied the right to right to become an
amicus curiae
because he is not a “friend” ofthe Board as is made clear through Mr. Karlock’s
Petition, which presents untruths to this Board in a hostile and unprofessional manner. The
County respectfully submits that Mr. Karlock’s Petition is only a small harbinger of the biased,
intemperate rhetoric that would follow if he and his attorney were allowed to proceed.
44.
As such, Mr. Karlock does not fit in any manner, shape or form within the
definition of an
amicus curiae,
and he should, therefore, be denied the right to file an
amicus
curiae
brief.
See Mines v. Olin Corp.,
171 Ill.App.3d 246, 248, 524 N.E.2d 1203, 1205 (1st
Dist. 1988) (explaining that “an
amicus curiae
is an impartial individual who suggests the
interpretation and status of the law, gives information concerning it, and whose function is to
advise in order that justice maybe done”) (emphasis added).
45.
Additionally, Mr. Karlock’s Petition for Leave to File an
Amicus Curiae
brief
should be denied because, through his brief, Mr. Karlock will not simply be advising this Board
regarding the law, but he will be advocating a self-interested, bias, and highly subjective point of
11
70414262v2 842014
view. Such is not the role ofan
amicus curiae. See Mines,
171 Ill.App.3d at 248-49, 524 N.E.2d
at 1205. Therefore, Mr. Karlock’s Petition should be denied.
See id.
46.
For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Karlock’s Petition for Leave to File an
Amicus Curiae
Brief should be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, Respondent, COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE, ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that this Board deny Mr. Karlock’s Petition for Leave to Intervene or,
Alternatively, for Leave to File
Amicus Curiae
Brief.
DATED:
7(i~
(~
COUNTY BO~ OF ~~EE COUNTY,
Firm No.
695
HINSHAW & CULBERTS(
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
(815)
490-4900
12
70414262v2 842014
AFFrnAVIT
I,
JOAN LANE, the undersigned being first duly sworn on oath depose and
state as
follows:
1.
1 am an employee ofHinshaw & Culbertson and the Administrative Assistant for
Charles F. Heisten who is a Special Assistant State’s Attorney for the County of Kankakee for
environmental and solid waste matters.
2.
Mr. Heisten and Hinshaw & Culbertson were hired by the State’s Attorney for the
County ofKankakee in late 2001.
3.
At the time that Hinshaw & Culbertson and Mr. Heisten were hired by the
Kankakee County State’s Attorney, a file was opened, Matter Number 809319, at which time the
matter was referred to as the “Kankakee County Landfill”.
4.
I.
was responsible for opçning~the file for Mr. Heisten, and
at
that time I
inadvertently listed the Kankakee County Landfill as the both the “matter” and the “client”.
5.
The landfill itself was not the client.
6.
Since the date that Hinshaw was first retained by the Kankakee County Sraie’s
Attorney several other files have been opened for Hinshaw’s representation of the State’s
Attorney, Kankakee County or Kankakee County
staff,
including Matter Number5, 813053,
813333, and 815142.
7.
1 used the “file intake sheet” for Matter Number 809319 as a template for the file
intake sheets for Matter Numbers 813053, 813333, 815142 and any other file opened on behalf
of the Kankakee County State’s Attorney, Karikakee County or Kankakee County staff.
8.
Because I used the file intake sheet for 809139 as a template for the subsequent
files, the same typographical error referencing that the client was “Kankakee County Landfill”
was made in each of these subsequent files.
9.
All of the bills concerning the application to expand the landfill operated by
Waste Management in Kankakee County have been paid by Kankakee County.
2
I I/80d ~IBt~OB~IB1B 01 8L~ O~ ~IC ISO 0O~iJIHJH’sO ~d Nd SC: I CO~2 0~ Nflf
10.
The reference to “Kankakee Cou.rity Landfill” as the client on the file intake sheet
was merely an inadvertent typographical error.
11.
The result ofthe client being identified as Kankakee County Landfill on the file
intake sheets was that the invoices sent to Kaxikakee County State’s Attorney Edward Smith
erroneously indicated “Represent: Kankakee County Landfill”.
12.
In January 2003, I had the error corrected on all ofthe files.
13.
At no time has Hinshaw & Culbertson represented the Kankakee County landfill
or its operator, Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., in regard to any siting application, host
agreement negotiation, or otherwise, in Kankakee County.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 ofthe Code of Civil
Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and
correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters
the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verily believes the sa e
t
be true.
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to
before me this
,-4~
/~~ayofMay, 2003,
~
Notary Public
OFF~C1AL
SEAL
~‘
3
I l/B0~d ~IOB~OBt~CI8IE 01 BLCO Ot~ 21C ISO OSUDIHD H’sO èJd Nd SC: I C002 02 Nflf
** II ~3DtJd 1~.LO1 **
I’
:;;.LEXHIBr’~j
AFFXDAVIT
I________
I, MIKE VAN MILL, the undersigned being first duly sworn on oath depose and state as
follows:
1.
I am the Kankakee County Planning Director.
2.
I am familiar with the attorneys that have been hired by the County of Kankakee
to
assist in the legal aspects of the County’s environmental and solid waste management issues.
3.
In 2001 Attorney Charles Heisten and the law firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson
were hired by the State’s Attorney for County ofKankakee.
4.
.
At various times Hinshaw & Culbertson has represented the County ofKankakee,
County staff, and/or the Kankakee County State’s Attorney.
5.
At no time did the State’s Attorney, Kankakee County, or Kankakee County staff
retain Hinshaw & Culbertson or Mr. Heisten to represent Waste Management of Illinois, the
operator ofthe Kankakee County Landfill.
6.
The County of Kankakee has paid all of Hinshaw & Culbertson’s invoices which
are in any way associated with the negotiation of a host agreement with Waste Management of
Illinois.
7.
The County of Kankakee has paid all of Hinshaw & Culbertson’s invoices
concerning the application of Waste Management of Illinois to site a landfill expansion ~n
Kankakee County.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and
correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters
the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that he verily.Ielieves the same to be true
(7
MIKE VANM
SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to
bef~r~methis
_______
_______
of May 2q03.
~
—————~~---i
UOFFIC~ALS~AL
______________________________
ANGELA L sCHNELL
~
Notary&’ublic
~NOTARY
PUBliC,
STATE
OF 1LLIMO~S~
II/IVd
~I0E~06t’I8IB 01 8L0 0P~ ~IC ISO OEWDIHD
MY COMMISSION
H~8O ~d
EXPIRES
Nd LC:I
08108105
C00~ 02 Nfl
PROOF OF
SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of Civil
Procedure, hereby under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe United States ofAmerica, certifies that
on July 14,
2004,
a
copy ofthe foregoing was served upon:
DorothyM. Gunn, Clerk
flhinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 6060 1-3218
Donald Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
George Mueller
George Mueller, P.C.
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
Kenneth A. Bleyer
923 W. GordonTer., #3
Chicago, IL 60613-2013
773/348-4005
Elizabeth Harvey
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One IBM Plaza
—
Suite 3300
330 N. Wabash
Chicago, IL 60611
Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
450
East Court Street
Kankakee, IL 60901
Christopher Bohien
Barmann, Kramer & Bohien, P.C.
200 East Court Street, Suite 502
Kankakee, IL 60914
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Drive
Boubannais, IL 60914
70414040v1 842014
Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz
David Flynn
Querry& Harrow
175
W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604-2827
Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph,
11th
Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
By depositing a cOpy thereof enclosed in an envelope in the United States Mail at Rockford,, Illinois,
proper postage prepaid, before the hour of5:00 P.M., addressed as above.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
100 ParkAvenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61101-1389
(815) 490-4900
70414040v1 842014
