RECE WED
CLERK’S OFFICE
MAY lJ’i 2005
To: Illinois Pollution Control Board
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Re: April 2005 Hearing
—
Public Commet
fUUt0n
Control Board
I. Public Involvement
—
Not!
The law (ordinance) says on page 334 of
the Kankakee County
SWMP
(Solid Waste
Management
Plan)
under the heading “Additional Siting Criteria”:
Public involvement is crucial throughout the landfill site selection process
and should be solicited from the initial stages of the process. Through
solid waste advisory committees, public hearings, etc., local criteria should
be developed to identify a site which reflects the concerns of the public.
The public has not been involved but has been totally excluded, denied,
shut out of the “site selection process.” Please, see the following document
dated February 2004 for further details and documentation.
II. Involved — WMI and Kankakee
County officials
—
Lona Before
the
2002 Public Hearing.
It is my personal opinion that the so-called “Public Hearing” is a misnomer
- - albeit itis a very time-consuming and expensive procedure.
In letters dated October 18, 1999 and April 14, 2000, WMI communicated
with a Kankakee coUnty official about accepting/receiving out-of-county garbage.
The BAN on OUT-OF-COUNTY Garbage was NOT removed until October 9,
2001! An October 5, 2001 letter from WM indicated that WM had the out-of-
county garbage that could provide the money the County desired. (PROBLEM:
Ban on out-of-county garbage). Five days later at the October Kankakee County
Board meeting — without any public input — the ban on 0-0-C garbage was
removed!
This brazen act allowed the FINAL draft ofthe Host (Community) Fee
Agreement to be written and approved. Then the way was clear to submit the
WM Application for Expansion and later the so-called “Public Hearing”.
Again, please refer to the following February 2004 document to view
copies of the letters of 1999, 2000, and 2001, as well as October 9, 2001 Board
minutes pertaining to removal of the ban on out-of-county garbage.
Pat ODell
I
1242A±rowheadDr.
Bóurbonnais, 1L 609 14-4293
III. Citizens Shut Out Again!
On March 17, 2004, the Kankakee County Board denied the WMI
Application for Expansion , since the Board had voted against Criteria 1, 3, and
6.
Apparently WMI does not accept a negative vote or denial! They
requested that the County Board re-consider, re-visit, and re-vote -- at their April
meeting!
Desiring a seat in the first row (of public seating), on April 13, 2004, I
arrived shortly after the County Building was unlocked. The last few months I’d
had to wait a few minutes for the Board Room door to be unlocked, so I was
surprised to see light under the door. Upon opening the door, I encountered two
men who seemed almost to be guarding the door. I started to ask permission to
enter — thought again, and decided no permission was necessary!
I walked toward the front row (of public seating) and stopped —
dumbfounded! Every one of the 34 chairs was filled and a few men stood along
the wall. My friend Ruth called my name and I joined her at the wall — near the
doorway. As I looked around the crowd, I detected that each and every
“nametag” bore the identical message:
WM (one inch high green and gold logo)
GOOD FOR KANKAKEE COUNTY
Amazing! Unbelievable! Unscrupulous! Shut out!
SHUT OUT #1
Some county employee apparently unlocked the Board room door much
earlier than usual 30 minutes or more earlier! How could that person allsw
about 40 people, nicely dressed, all wearing the identical “WM — GOOD FOR
KANKAKEE COUNTY” nametags enter the room and fill the public section
completely? It is my opinion that not even one ofthose 40 folks live and/or work
in Kankakee County. I call this action SHUT OUT
#1.
SHUT OUT #2
I believe people were “imported” by Waste Management for the sole
purpose of shutting out Kankakee County residents from attending their local
Board meeting. Imagine, 40 non-county residents all wearing identical WM
nametags! Although the folks were quiet and well-behaved they filled all the
seats and nearly all the “wall space” allowed by the Fire Marshall.
Pat ODeli
~
1242 ArrowlieadDr.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914-4293
Only 3 of us residents (Ruth Romer, Pat O’Dell, and Keith Runyon)
managed to squeeze into the room, along the wall. Meanwhile, dozens of
Kankakee residents waited out in the hallway — desiring admittance to their
County Board Meetincj.
Later, I was told that our county sheriff was at the door ofthe Board room
— denying admittance to the waiting county people — because the room was
already E~iL
Waste
Management, apparently with great calculation and organization,
arranged for and/or delivered nearly 40 people to Kankakee to fill our County
Board room and SHUT OUT local residents.
It was understood that WM desired another vote — presumably more
positive toward their landfill expansion proposal, and I think that their blatant
SHUT OUT of we residents is unconscionable! I call WM’s action SHUT OUT
#2!
SHUT OUT #3
Certain of the County officials sit upon a dais facing the Board Members
and the public seating area at the back ofthe room. Certainly they could see and
had to be aware of all those people with WM badges — most, if not all, of whom I
believe were not local residents. Why did they do NOTHING? I call this lack of
action on behalf of Kankakee County residents — their constituents --- SHUT
OUT #3.
SUMMARY:
Shut Out #1 — Someone unlocked the door early and allowed non-
residents to fill the Kankakee County Board room.
Shut Out #2— Waste Management orchestrated the invasion of our
County public seating area with 40 people — almost certainly non-Kankakee tax-
paying residents.
Shut Out #3 — Some County employees allowed this WM “invasion” with
impunity!
Please consider my words and examine the copies of letters and minutes
as well as the document dated February 2004. Thank you for “listening.”
Pat O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Drive
~
Qfj..Le
Bourbonnais,
815-932-4197
IL 60914
O
Mrs.PatODeII
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bourbonnais, iL
60914-4293
February 2004
To: Members of the Kankakee County Board
Re: Application for Site Location Approval
—
for the Expansion
of Kankakee Landfill
Questions and Comments
Re: Contributions and Closed Doors
Since 1998, has Waste Management contributed and br is WM currently
contributing money, goods, or services to the campaign/cause of any person
seeking election/appointment to an office/position in or representing Kankakee
County? If so, what was/is the extent of the contributions and who were/are the
recipients?
I am aware of one Sheriff’s car being donated by WM more than a year
ago — around the time of the 2002 Public Hearings?? Isn’t that sort of like
bribery? Is it legal to give large ($40,000) gifts to a county in which a company
desires to do business and is, in fact, awaiting that county’s decision favorable to
said company? Isn’t that type of large gift likely to cause “undue influence”? Or
maybe the influence is due?
Truly abhorrent to me is the notion that large gifts might be made to a
decision-maker before the rendering of a decision — especially to the one and
only “competitor/bidder” for the “proposed” project! Such a notion is
FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR!
By the way, who proposed the proiect? How many RFP’s were there?
How many RFB’s? How many companies responded? Who were those
respondents?
It seems to me that this whole landfill “deal” has been just that!
Meanwhile the residents have been dealt with unfairly. Residents were
supposed to be an integral part of the brainstorming and creative problem —
solving process of how to resolve our waste disposal dilemma. Instead, not only
—
1
O
Mrs.
1242
Bourbonnais,
Pat
Arrowhead
ODeII
IL
Dr
60914—4293
was the “door” not opened to welcome us into the process, but also that “door”
was slammed shut, locked, bolted, and barred!
The County officials have shut out citizens from the initial stages as well
as every stage thereafter. This process has been and still is FUNDAMENTALLY
UNFAIR — because it has been and still is in violation of the County’s ordinance
to involve the public—”crucial” from the “initial stages”!
Re: Out of County garbage—UNACCEPTABLE!
Why is “service area” defined by the profiteer rather than by the servants
of the public—reflecting the desires of said public—being “dumped” upon? The
“dumpees” were not consulted, listened to, or even acknowledged when they
expressed their strong desires, yea demands, to accept NO out of County
garbage!?
• I have seen copies of many pages of signatures under this heading:
We, the undersigned citizens of Kankakee County/Otto Township, oppose the
formation of any new dump location within Kankakee County and the importation
of
~
out of county garbage to current location. We demand that our local
landfill accept only county waste.
It is FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR to lift a decades-old-ban on out of
county garbage in a manner that prohibits public input, discussion, and
involvement! The citizens’ petitions were totally ignored—UNFAIR both
specifically and FUNDAMENTALLY! This UNFAIR treatment of citizens is in
direct default of the Additional Siting Criteria on page 334 of Kankakee County’s
own SWMP!
•
In a letter, dated October 18, 1999, to Effriam Gil, from Dale Hoekstra of
WMI, there is a proposed daily volume of 1200 tons. When and how did the daily
volume increase to 3500 tons per day? Also included in that letter:
• Host Community Benefits
1. Priority volume guarantee:
On an anhual basis, Waste Management will reserve sufficient capacity
for and give first priority to that volume of residential waste generated in
Kankakee County and brought to the site. Any amount of unused volume
may be replaced with out of county waste at Waste Management’s
discretion. *1
-
2
L
o
1242
Bourbonnais,
ArrowheadIL 6091Dr 4-4299
On what basis could WM assert their “discretion” to accept out of county
waste as far back as 1999? That is an implication that the long-standing ban on
out of county garbage was not really consequential and would be lifted!
•
It was two years later, October 9, 2001, that the out of county garbage ban
was actually lifted in an abrupt manner—that allowed no comment, question,
debate, or input from any Kankakee County resident! *2
•
In another letter from Dale Hoekstra of WMI to Effriam Gil, dated April 14,
2000, is this sentence:
2. WMI will have the ability to bring in out of county waste immediately as
outlined in the “Host Agreement”. *3
•
According to a letter dated October 5, 2001, from Dale Hoekstra of WMI to
Mike Van Mill, “The volumes represented above more than exceed the annual
volume required to meet the financial commitment made by WMI in the draft host
agreement.” *4
•
On October 9, 2001 the Kankakee County Board—after the failed motions
to “table” and to “change Article Six so it precludes the bringing in of outside
garbage, until the issue is brought before the board separately”—voted to amend
the Solid Waste Management Plan. Clearly the people /citizens were not
included /did not participate! could not be heard in the process of deciding about
bringing in huge amounts of garbage from outside the county! *5
•
Clearly for several years there has been both written and verbal
communication between WM and County officials—elected or appointed! (See
the above quoted letters dated October 18, 1999, April 14, 2000, and October 5,
2001.) There is also the underlying assumption that out of county garbage
will
be accepted at the landfill—in order “. . .to meet the financial commitment made
by WMI in the draft host agreement.” (see October 5, 2001 letter).
There was never any public hearing, committee meeting, or any time and
place where citizens were allowed to give input and to interact with County
officials regarding repealing the ban on out of county garbage!
This violation of our rights (Kankakee County SWMP page 334) *6
is FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR!
3
O
Mrs.PatO’DeO
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bourbonnais,
IL
6091 4-4293
That FUNDAMENTAL UNFAIRNESS completely negates the fulfillment of
Criterion 8!
Sheryl Smith states, in Criterion 8: Solid Waste Plan Consistency on page
3 that “A citizen’s advisory committee was actively involved in developing both
the Kankakee Needs Assessment and the Kankakee County Plan.” *7 Earlier,
however, on page 1, she also dates those plans as November 1, 1991 and
October 12, 1993 respectively. *8
•
Any citizen who was “actively involved” — prior to 1993 — does not
qualify as proof of compliance with the Kankakee County SWMP, page 334,
Additional Siting Criteria!
Again! Criterion 8 has NOT been met! Inconsistencies abound! Be FAIR?
Reject the proposed landfill expansion!
Re: Trashed!
Why did WM indicate at the 2002 Public Hearing that they were diligent
about keeping the litter and any other junk picked up around their perimeter?
At the 2003 Hearing I heard at least 3 people witness about how their
properties regularly were cluttered with debris from the landfill. Furthermore,
they indicated that pickup of litter by WM employees had occurred only in recent
months in earlier times there was little or no pickup!
Re: Quality Water???
The State of Illinois requires that four (4) quarters of water quality data be
submitted with a landfill application.
The one and only quarter of data included in the Application is dated
February 2002. The WM Application was filed in September 2003 — allowing
plenty of time to both gather the necessary data and to submit the requisite
number of quarterly reports!
Is this WM Application legal or not?
I heard several people bear witness to the fact that they purchased
property and
/01
houses with the understanding that the current landfill would be
-
4
O
Mrs.PatO’DeII
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bourbonnals,
IL 6091 4-4293
closing down in the near future. They were dumbfounded and appalled when
they learned about the WM Application to Expand — and that WM planned to
import garbage from Chicago and even other states!
Is it possible that drilling (to gather water quality data) would have been
too noticeable — too public — and would have alerted folks to the coming
Expansion Application? Some of the people who recently purchased property
said they would NOT have done so had they heard about expansion rather than
closure of the landfill!!
Whatever the reason for submitting only one quarterly report, I insist on
knowing why and who has allowed this (seemingly illegal) breach of the law!
Re: Exit— 2005
Does the Kankakee County Board have an “exit clause” in its Host Fee
Agreement with WM? If not, why not? Waste Management has one!
It certainly isn’t sound judgment nor very wise to lock oneself into a
30-year-agreement about waste disposal. Remember that developing
technologies could very well make landfills obsolete in the near.future.
• “The Kankakee County Plan recommended, however, that the economics
of each alternate system be re-evaluated as part of the five year updates
required under the SWPRA.” Quote: page 5, paragraph 1, of Criterion 8
prepared by Sheryl Smith of Environmental Marketing and Management,
L.L.C. — September 23, 2003. *9
I believe the next update is due in 2005 — and that is only a few months
hence!
Re: Truth that hurts??
This whole “site selection process” has been upside down and
backwards! Please note that the first time (at the end of the “process”) the
public is allowed to be involved — we hear, see, “smell”, and generally begin to
detect many serious issues, flaws, and omissions,
•
Let me review and quote from the minutes of various Kankakee County
Regional Planning Commission meetings:
•
5
O
Mrs.PatO’DeII
I
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bou
rbonnais,
IL
6091
4-4293
January26, 1999 --
*10
February 23, 1999--
*11
May25, 1999--
*12
July 27, 1999
*13
September 28,. 1999
*14
August22, 2000
*15
November 28, 2000
*16
April 30, 2002
*17
January 16, 2003
*18
January28, 2003
*19
Landfill Contract Committee Meeting
November 20, 2001—page 2 *20
During or after my “public comment” on January 20, 2004, one of our
County public servants was overheard to say that somebody’s coached her!
BAD NEWS: Only my husband and a lady friend even knew I was
planning to attend the hearing.
MORE BAD NEWS: NOBODY knew what I would be saying!
MUCH MORE BAD NEWS: The statements I quoted (from the minutes of
the County Board and the RPC) were included in my previously submitted (June
2003) document titled:
To: Illinois Pollution Control Board
Re: May 6, 2003 Hearing — Public Comment
I am including copies ofthe specific pages from which I quoted, with the
quotation highlighted. You are welcome to locate and read the entire document I
submitted last year to the IPCB. Check it.out! They’re your words!
GOOD /BAD NEWS: Perhaps the truth hurts??
Re: Gagged and Shut Out!
What specific law prohibits elected officials from hearing and br reading
any citizen’s concerns, questions, or comments about county business —
especially regarding the siting of a landfill? Citizens are greatly impacted by a
landfill decision — especially in Kankakee County! Remember our lovely aquifer?
Remember the Titanic?
6
O
Mrs. Pat O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bourbonnais,
IL
60914-4293
Why were we residents GAGGED? Why? or What? or Who? said the
County officials could not listen to our input???
Why did our public servants refuse to allow us to communicate with them
— regarding the siting of a landfill expansion??
Meanwhile our county ordinance — Additional Siting Criteria — (page 334 of
the SWMP) clearly states that: “Public involvement is crucial throughout the
landfill site selection process and should be solicited from the initial stages ofthe
process. Through solid waste advisory committees, public hearings, etc., local
criteria should be developed to identify a site which reflects the concerns of the
public.”
But, no! We citizens are GAGGED! We have been SHUT OUT of the
entire process!
Is our situation oxymoronic, illegal, or both???
Criterion 8 has NOT been satisfied!
The proposed expansion is located in Otto Township. Is there even one
person representing Otto Township on the Regional Planning Commission?
Once again — Criterion 8 has been found lacking in public involvement —
from the initial stages! However there has been no lack of involvement between
WMI and Kankakee County officials!
UNFAIR initially! UNFAIR specifically! UNFAIR throughout! UNFAIR to
and at the present time! UNFAIR FUNDAMENTALLY!
Be FAIR! Reject the proposal for a landfill expansion!
&~
Patricia (Pat) O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
815-932-4197
7
Gil,
liireótor
County ofKankakee Planning Commission
189 E.
Court
St.
Kankakee, IL 60901
*1
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Northern illinois/Indiana Region
1031 E.
Fabyan Parkway
Batavia, IL 60510
(630) 232-7664
(630)
232-1087
Fax
RE: KANKAKEE
LANDFILL
PROPOSAL
DearMr. Gil:~
In response to your request, we are pleased to submit a proposal to expand the Kankakee
Recycling and Disposal Facility.
Our proposal includes an approximate 76 acre expansion of which 50 acres will be
adjacent to the existing landfill. The remaining 26 acres are a vertical expansion above the
existing landfill. This expansion would contain approximately 6,000,000 gate tons with an
estimated life of20 years. The breakdown of the expansion with host community benefits
to the county is as follows:
KANIKAKEE LANDFiLLEXPANSION
• 76
Acre Landfill Expansion
50 Acres
26 Acres
• Estimated Life
20 Years
• Proposed Volume
Daily volume of 1,200 tons
• Host Community Benefits
1. Priority volume guarantee:
On an annual basis, Waste Management will reserve sufficient capacity
for and give first priority to that volume of residential waste generated in
Kankakee County and ‘brought to the site. Any amount ofunused
volume may be replaced with Q~ofcou~~~steat Waste
Management’s discretion
2. Waste Management will pay to the county $1.00/ton on all out of
county waste brought to the site. No host fee will be paid on in county
waste. The $1.00/ton will increase annually based on the annual increase
for the preceding year CPI-U-US price index.
A Division ofWaste Managementof Illinois, Inc.
Mrs.
Pat
O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bourbonnals,
II 60914-4293
‘4
3. Waste Management also proposes to draft an agreement with Kankakee
County which would allow the current surcharge of$1.27 to be given
unrestricted to the county’s general find.
Waste Management would be pleased to discuss this proposal in greater detail at the
County’s convenience. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to
contactme at 630/232-7664.
DH:mps
O
Mrs. Pat
O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead.
Dr
Bourbonnais,
IL 60914-4293
/
-r
‘I’
Dale Hoekstra
Division Vice President
Northern Illinois Landfills
ZBA
Case
Solid
Wast.
management
Ptan
Amendment
A
resolution
was
read
for
an
amendment
to
the
SoHd
Waste
Management
agreement,
mgardu~g
the
expansion
of
Kankakee
County~s
present
landlil
A
motion
was
made
by
Mr
Quiglay
end
second
aber
to
appro
resoWtlon,
a
time
ot
discussion
foik,wed
A
motion
was
made
by
Mr
LaGesse
and
second
by
Mrs.
Jackso
tabi
resol
A
roll
vote
was
taken
motion
faIled
3
ayes
to
24
nays
A
motion
was
made
by
Mr
Martin
and
second
by
Mrs
emard
to
than
articte
six
it
precludes
the
bnnging
in
of
outside
garbage,
until
the
Issue
Is
biought
before
the
board
separately.
A
roll
call
vote
was
taken,
motion
failed,
11
ayes
tol6
nays.
A
roll
call
vote
was
taken
for
the
original
amendment,
motion
passed,
26
ayes
to
I
nay.
-
~
~
~
~-~4--r~~
~-~r
~-•,
-.r’-~----
—~--
—~-—
~——
-
—-.-•
_~~__•.-‘__4-4_
~
~_~_~4~-
‘~------
.----
.---
-
Back to top
/~
1
LC~
~
~9
-
-
I
Mrs.
Pat
O’Dell
()
1242
Arrowhead
Dr
Bourbonnais,
IL
60914-4293
~-
r~-—~rf
~
— — —~ — -.
-
SETTLER’S HILL RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL FACILITY
~V
A WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY
-
1031 E. Fabyan Parkway
-
Batavia, IL 60510
~
.
.
~
~~E3
Mr.
Effiiàm Gil
County ofKankakee Planning Commission
189E. Court St...
-
-
Kailkakee, IL 60901
RE: KMIKAKEE LAM)FILL PROPOSAL
Dear Mr. Gil:
Per your request, Waste Management is pleased to submit the following proposal for an
expansion cfthe Kankakee Recycling and Disposal Facility. We have outlined three
variations ofthe expansion foryour review and discussion. The specifics ofthe Host
Community Agreement that apply to each variation are as follows:
1. Kankakee COunty will receive a Host Community benefit for all volume brought
to the site beginning upon the signing ofthe “Host Agreethent”. The Host
-
Community benefit increases each year by the CPI.
2 WIvil will have the ability to bring in o~ ~cia4
q~9~p~tjJy
as outlined
in the “Host Agreement”.
3,- The “Host Agreement” will include the siting approval by Kankakee County for a
-
vertical-and horizontal expansion ofthe landfill. WMI will guarantee capacity for
-
Kankakee County residential waste for a period of20 years.
4. Upon receipt ofa non-appealable siting decision, WM1L will pay the sum of
$1,000,000 to KankakeeCounty.
-
-
5
WVll shall have full control over the facility including pricing, staffing hours of
O~~~o;~etc
The three variation-s ofthe -expansion are as follows:
-
Variation One:
• Expansion capacity of 12 million tons
• Sitelife of26 years
-
• Estimated daily out ofcounty volume of 1,000 tons
-
• Host Community benefit of $1.00/ton for all tonnage received
—
estimated at
~~O’DelI
1242 Arrowh
Bourbonnals
ead Dr
IL 60914 4293
-l
4
$19 million over life of site
-
• County landfill surcharge of$1.27/ton or $24 million over life ofsite
-
Variation Two:
• Expansion capacity of
15.5
million tons
• Site life of26 years
• Estimated daily out ofcounty volume 1,500 tons
• Host Community benefit of$1.50/ton for all tonnage received
—
life ofsite
benefit estimated at $37 million
• County landfill surcharge of$1 .27/ton or $31 million over life ofsite
Variation Three:
• Expansion capacity of 19 million tons
• Site -life of26 years
• Estimated daily out ofcounty volume of2,000 tons
• Host Community benefit of~$2.00/ton on all tonnage received
—
life ofsite
benefit estimated at
$59
million
-
• County landfill surcharge of$ 1.27/ton or $37 million over life of site
-
In each-ofthe above variations, the out ofcounty waste limit would be set On an agreed
formula between,WMI and Kankakee County. An annual volume with some allowances
is one suggested method.
Please review each ofthe variations at your convenience. Should you have any
additional comments or suggestions, please cOntact me at (630)232-7664. We look
forward to working with you as this project progresses..
-
~tO~Il
1242 Arrow
Bourbonnass
head Dr
IL
60914 4293
Division Vice
Northern Illinois Landfills
DH:mps
WASTE MANAGEMEI~IT
-
illinois Landfill Di~sion
~
-
-
1031E.FabyanParkway
-
-
-
Batavia, IL 60510
-
(630) 232-7664
~~ober5,20~)
-
-
ik~Van Mill
Regional Planning Director
-
-
OCT 11 20131
County ofKankakee
189 E. Court St.
-
PLAf~JN1Nt3DEPARTMENT
Kankakee,IL 60901
-
-
-
RE: Kankakee Landfill Expansion
Dear Mr. VanMill:
The County has requested that Waste Management provide support for the solid waste
volumes as presented in the-draft “host agreement” for the expansion ofthe Kankakee
Landfill. Shown below are solid waste volumes currently managed by Waste
-
Management, which could be disposed ofin the expanded landfill.
• Larami~Transfer Station— owned & operated by’Wlvfi;
-
454,540
tons per year
•
-
Hooker Street Transfer Station
-~
owned & operated by WMI;
298,600-tons per year
-
• South Suburbs Transfer Station
—
owned & operated by W~vll;
139,630 tons per year
-
• Gary Indiana Transfer Station
—
owned & operated by WMI;
300,000 tons per year
• Chicago Recycling Facilities (4)
—
one ownedby WIvil, three owned by City of
Chicago
—
all operated by WMI under contract with the City ofChicago;
825,000 tons per year
-
• Total volume available’ for diversion to Kanicakee Landfill
=
2,009,770 tons per
year
The current in-county tonnage disposed in the Kankakee Landfill is approximately
120,000 tons per year ofwhich Wivil has a contract for 64,000 tons per year. The
volumes represented tiboye more than exceed the annual volume require~lto meet the
financial commitment ñiádeby WMI in the draft host agreement.”Pleas~review this
~
me with any questions at 630/232-7664.
-
Division Vice President
-
Illinois Landfill Division
_____________________________
I
- 0 1242
Bourbonnats,
Mrs. Pat
Arrowhead
O’DellIL
60914-4293
Dr
~2
tion was m
to cuepenc
Ronald
hells to thr
Beaver
S~
motion
Ama”
‘nan~
-‘Inn
KANKAXEE COUNTY
BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER B. 2001
The meetingof the Kantrakee CountyBoard, Kenkakee, IllinoIs,held
October
5,
2001, pursuant to
the edinumedmeeting-otJoly4t,-2000
was calledto order at 9:08 am. by the chairmen ofthe Board KM Krunewiththefollowing memberspresent
OUORUM PRESENT:
Mr.
Thompson, Mr. Martin, Mr. Jensen, Res~Rudtar~Mr. Washington. Mr. LaGease,
Mr.
Gtdgle~tMr.
Meents, Mm. Lee, Mr. Stautfenberg,
Mr. Bertrand (0). Mr. Whalen, Ma. Kennedy, Mm. Bernard, Mu. Jsctmon, Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Boudresu. Rev. WIlson. Mr. Marcotte. Mr.
Baron, Mrs. Faber, Mr. James, Mr. McLamn, Mr. Mouse
MEMBERS ASSENT:
Mr.Wmeman
PUBLIC
COMMENTARY
•
ThomasCurt hornOtto
Townstspoke agalnatuaasng anadditional landsll In Otto Township.
LoralneWAtsàn ofOtto Townshipalsospoke
igairint
creating an sddhonal
landfill
In Otto Township.
VACANCY APPO1NTMENT: None
CERTIFICATES OFRECOGNITION:
None
MINUTESOF LAST MEETING
The mInutes ofthe lastmeeting were submIttedto theboard. A motlcnwanmade by Mr. Meents endsecond by Mr. Marcotteto acoept the
finales. Avpice votewastaken. motion canted.
CLAIMS COM&STTEE
The claimscommittee mportwas read for the monthofSeptember 2001. A motion was madeby Mr. Hoffmanand second by Mrs. Faberto
approve the
claIms.
Aroll
cell
vote was taken, motion pessed,
27 ayes
toB says.
COMMUNICAT1ONS
•
Illinois Department of Transportation sent three separate audit reports for the petted beginning January 1,
2000
end andln~
December31, 2000.
a
Aletterwas receIvedregafing
Governor’e HomeTown
Awards
ProjectSurnmadee for2001.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
County
Treasurere
Monthly
Report for August 2001~
County
Collector’s Monthly Report
forAugust
2001
Coroner’s Monthly Report forAuguat,2001
Comner’aReceIptofMoney for August 2001
RecorderofDeeds Monthly Reportfor August2081
County Clarke Monthly Report
for
August 2001
BiNding and Zoning Monthly Report for September, 2001
CIrcuit
Clark’s
Monthly Report for August 2001
Anknal Control Monthly Raport
for
August, 2001
County Monthly
Reaotueon
Listfor August,
2001
The department reports for August 2001 were read. A motionwas
made by Mr.
Washington and second by
Mr.
Jetties to approvethe
reporta. A
voice
votewas taken.
motion canted.
COMMITTEE PRESENTATIONS
AND
RESOLUTIONS
tiEheav and
Brldoe Corynntltee
A rassleton
was
mad (or Essex Township. A motion erosmade by Mr. Plollman
and second by Mr.
Meents
to
approve theresolution. A
voloe vote weetaken, motion canted.
Plannlrvo2urdnostmItune Committee
ZBA Case*0143
A resolution was read for the rezonlng ofan
Al
Agricultural DistrIct
toe
RA Rum?Estate DistrIct. A motion wasmade by Rev. Ructrerand
secondby
Mr.
Thompsontoapprove the resolution. A voice vote was taken, motion canted.
ZSA Case *0132
A
resolution was read for
the
rezordng of
en Al
Agricultural District
a RA RuralEstate
District.
A motIon was made by
Mr.
Bertrand (0),
end seconri by
Mr.
Weshlngton toepprove the reeolutlon. A voice vote weetaken, motioncarried.
ZBA CaseChelaee SandsSubdiulalonFInal Ptat
rresolution was read for the Mat p1stofChelsea SandsSubdivisIon. A motion was
made byMo.
Stautfenbem and second by
Mr.
Meerttc
approve
the
resolution. A voloe vote
was
taken. motiontented.
BA
Caee
Baud
Waste
managementRan Amendment
A resolution was read for err amendment
to
the Bond Waste Management agreement regarding the expansIon of Kenkakee County’s
present tandfI. A motion was
made by Mr.
Quigley end second
.
sberto app
resolution, a time of discussion followed. A
motion was
made
by Mr. LeGease end secondby Mra. Jacksa
tate
creed
A
roll
vote was taken, motionrated,
aeyes to
24
nays. A motion was made by Mr. Martin end second by
Mm.
entard tothan
article
ti
precludesthe bringing
In of
outside
earbaoe. until theIssue
Is
broughtbefore
theboent
separetaly.
A
roll
call
vote
wep,taken,
motton
tailed, Ii ayes to
te nays. A roil
callvote
was taken for the original amendmentmotion passed, 28 eyes
to
I nay.
Assessor(CountyClerklRecorder/Tresnurar
k~
A
resolution was teed
tithe
rowsrdlsgof thePartel Mopping
Contractfor
015
to Bruce Harris & AsnociatesinBatavia,
Illinois.
A
motion
was
made by Mr. James and eaoond by Mr. McLaren toepprove the rearriuton. A mit cas vote was taken, motion canted, 20 ayes
to 3
nays.
A resolution
was
reed for the 2002 Hotldey Calendar. A motion wee made by
Mrs. Jackson
end
second by
Mr. Jamee to
approve the
rasolution. Avolcevotewas taken, motion carded;
Crtn,lnal Juellce
Conssltlae
A reeotoeon wee read In era relmbuwernenlIcrprleonevemedtoel eupenne. some
of
discussion followed. A
motion
wes made by Mm. Lee
end second byMr.
LsGesselu approve
the
resolution. A vcie vole was taken, motion canted.
Flnsncelpsrd,aearAudlr
Co.mnlnss
A
resolution amendment wasread
for the Elate’s Attomey budget a See of discussion fosowed. A motion was made by
Mr.
Meents
and
second by Mr. LaGesse
to
approve tire resolution. A rolloatvote wee taken,
motion canted, 27 eyes too nays.
~O’D~
1242 Arrowhead D
BotirborinalS
tL 6
a less
significant impact on
the
site seI~ctionprocess. However, urban areas have
less undeveloped land and land acquisition costs may be substantially higher
causing land availability to become a significant consideration in the site selection
process.
~AdditionaJSitina Criteria
t_L. tI_
—
k
St
—
3
Process.:
i past 10 ye~rs,Geographic Information Systems (GIS) have been developed to
:t in the siting sc~eeningand election process A GIS can assemble a complex
~
-sortment of
paper maps and tabular information into an
understandable
array of
~ronic”maps that can be easily viewed and
analyzed
according to any set of
j
cntena
--
:
~
-
--
-
.-~1’e
-GIS is a computerized system designed to capture, store, process and analyze
data which can be represented as points, lines, or polygons Data are digitallzed and
(
Page 334
_~
~)Mrs.
Bourbonnais,1242
Arrowhead
Pat
ODellII
60914-4293Dr
I
ç.
G~?/o~
2.0 OVERVIEW
OF THE
PHASE I
KANKAKEE COUNTY
SOLID WASTE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Kankakee County Plan was
developed in
compliance
with the SWPRA, and
conforms with the waste management hierarchy established as state policy in the Illinois
Solid Waste Management Act (415 ILCS 20/1 et seq., formerly Ill. Revised Statutes,
Chapter 1111/2, ¶7501 et seq.) which places the highest priority on volume reduction
and rebycling and reuse, with the lowest priority on
disposal
in landfill facilities. The
Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Plan consists of two volumes, the Phase I
Kankakee Needs Assessment and the Kankakee County Plan (considered Phase II in
the planning process). The Kankakee County Plan evaluates a 20 year planning period
from 1990
-
2010. ~ A citizen’s advisory committee was actively involved ir~
developing
both the Kankakee Needs Assessment and the Kankakee County
__~______.
Plan. ~
ev ,q_J—~
-
/
£ .J
A)
t)- ~
~
(~
-
~.v.
p
-
The Kankakee Needs Assessment evaluates employment and population
projections for Kankakeè County over the 20 year planning period. Generation rates
for residential, commercial and industrial waste (total waste) were calculated and
forecasts of annual waste generation and disposal requirements over the planning
period were presented. Total waste in Kankakee County was estimated at 8.4 pounds
per capita per day (“pcd”). MW, which is a subset of total waste, excludes industrial
processing and manufacturing wastes. MW generation in Kankakee County was
estimated at 6.8 pcd.
The Kankakee Needs Assessment also discusses the waste
management systems in place in 1990, identifies the haulers servicing the communities,
types of service provided, facilities where recyclables are processed ançl summarizes
the facilities used for final disposal of the waste stream that is not recycled.
-
The Kankakee Needs Assessment presents the following conclusions related to
landfilling of Kankakee County waste in the year 1990:
89
of the MW generated in Kankakee County is landfilled; of this amount, 58
of the residential waste and
65 of the commercial/industrial waste is disposed
of at the Kankakee Landfill.
Landfihling is the primary method of waste disposal in Kankakee County.
Kankakee Landfill Expansion
September 2003
-- Criterion 8: Solid Waste Plan Consistency
~
c
~‘
1H~
~~atODeI~1
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bourbonnais,
IL 60914 4293
1 0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to determine whether the proposed expansion of the
Kankakee
Recycling and Disposal Facility (Kankakee Landfill or existing facility) is
consistent with the
Phase 1
Kahkakee County Solid
Waste Needs Assessment
(‘Kankakee Needs Assessment”),
Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Plan
(“Kankakee County Plan”), the
Kankakee County Five Year Municipal Waste
Management Plan Update
(“Kankakee Plan Update”) and subsequent amendments
adopted by the County Board of Kankakee County (“Kankakee County Board”). This
determination is required by Criterion No. 8 of Section 39.2 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act, that a proposed pollution control facility is consistent with the solid waste
management plan of the county in which the facility is located. Environmental
Marketing & Management, L.L.C. (“EM&M”) was retained by WMII to review the
Kankakee Needs Assessment, Kankakee County Plan, Kankakee Plan Update and
subsequent amendments and evaluate whether the proposed expansion (Subject Site)
is consistent with the goats and principles contained in these documents.
In order to prepare this report, EM&M~reviewed~hefollowing materials: 1)
Kank~JcE~e.t~ee~
Ass~ssme~utdated~~~mber1, 1 9~j) Kankakee County Plan
dated October
12,
1993
and
further amended and re-adopted~i19;~~
Kankakee Plan Update dated August 1, 2000; 4) Landfill Agreement between Waste
Management, Inc. and Kankakee County dated August 20, 1974 (“1974 Landfill
Agreement”); 5) Amended and Restated Host Community Agreement between Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc. and Kankakee County, dated December 21, 2001 (“2001
Host Agreement”); 6) Kankakee County Resolution # 01-10-09-393 approved by the
Kankakee County Board on October 9, 2001; 7) Kan.kakee County Resolution # 02-03-
12-481 approved by the Kankakee County Board on March 12, 2002; and 8) Kankakee
County Resolution # 03-02-11-725 approved by the Kankakee County Board on
February 11, 2003. All of these documents were adopted by the Kankakee County
Board and forwarded to IEPA in accordance with the Illinois Solid Waste Planning and
Recycling Act (415 ILCS 15/1 et seq. formerly III. Revised Statues, Chapter 85, ¶5951,
et seq.) .(“SWPRA”).
-
Consistency
Kankakee
O
Mrs
Pat O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bourbonnais,
IL 60914-4293
3.0
KANKAKEE COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Kankakee County Plan consists of six chapters and outlines the integrated
waste management system the County selected to meet its recycling and waste reduction
goals, while landfiiling the non-recycI~pdportion of its total waste. The Kankakee County
Plan explored other options for long-term disposal, including incineration for volume
reduction or energy recovery, open chamber incineration for MW and closed chamber
incineration for wastes such as tires, auto fluff or plastics. Many of these options were
eliminated due to the higher capital and operating costs when compared to landfilling. The
Kankakee County Plan recommended, however, that the economics of each alternate
system be re-evaluated as part of the five year updates required under the SWPRA.
According to the Kankakee County Plan, the County intends to focus its efforts on
developing waste reduction programs county-wide, while relying on private industry to
provide the recycling, processing and disposal services for the non-recyclable portion of
the total waste stream. The reliance on the private sector to develop disposal services will
minimize the financial outlays and risks the County would face in developing its own
disposal facilities.
Chapters Four, Five and Six of the Karikakee County Plan are
applicable to the Subject Site and will be summarized below to provide insight on the goals,
principles and objectives of Kankakee County in managing its total waste.
Chapter Four
Incineration for Volume Reduction
This chapter focuses on an evaluation of combustion technologies, including open•
chamber and closed chamber (pyrolysis) processes. Open chamber technologies include
mass burn and refuse derived fuel (RDF) technologies. Closed chamber systems involve
heating waste in the absence of oxygen at relatively low temperatures.3 The analysis
evaluates air emissions, air pollution control equipment, energy production and markets,
risk issues, economics, federal and state regulations governing the operations and the
economic feasibility of developing an incinerator for managing the
Kankakee County Solid Waste
Management Plan,
Kankakee
County
Regional
Planning
Commission, Gil & Associates, Inc. and Patrick Engineering, Inc., re-adopted August 1995, p. 242.
,~~Criterion8: Solid Waste Plan -
Kankakee Landfill Expansion
September2003
~at0~lI
1242 Arrowhead
Bourbonnais, IL
Dr 4 4293
6091
to make a recommendation to the County Board to sign a letter ofsupport for the
Kanicakee
\
/
C)
River Basin Stewardship Plan. A motion to recommend the Kankakee River Basin Plan and
forward the Plan to the Kankakee County Board was made by Mr. Millirons and seconded by
T
Mr. Moline. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
~
~i.~LCX~,t7
~..•---~
Mr. Van Mill went over t~~~lts)fthe Planni~tio~afr~th the COmmission. T~e ~
(
-
following issues were discussed in detail.
~
r
Some Commission members were surprised by howhigh thd1an4~ilwas prioritized and how
low aesthetic design and greenways and trails were prioritized.
Mr. Van Mill asked the Commission member about land use issues. Several Commission
• -
members felt that farmland preservation should be a priority. Mr. Meyer indicated that farmland
preservation is difficult for a farmer who wishes to sell offhis farmland and use the proceeds to
-
•fund his retirement. There should be incentives for farmers to leave farmland in production.
Mr. Moline asked why rural sprawl was not addressed under housing issues. The Commissions
concerned that rural sprawl is an issue ofimportance to address. The further from a municipality
a
home is located~the greater the burden to serve the home with utilities, safety, etc., costs our
local government. The issue should be studied soon.
-
-
Transportation was the next issued discussed. Several Commission members agreed that access
to east/west highways and better access to industrial parks needs to be studied.
A majority ofthe Commission felt that there should be~ prfly-w~4e~pa~1cmid open space
agency. It should be dealt within the municipalities. Recreational and park areas in rural
_~y~1Qpmentsshoul4-be-maintai-ned-bydeveiOWOYt1ipproprate-estabiished--agenc-—--—~—
—
The
State requir that the County Solid Waste Plan be up~t~dby 2000. More education is
needed
to improv
unty-wide recycling and to get people inv~Mv~çl
in both the private and
public
sector Tempico
-
.p~permanufacturing company, is looking aVioc~tinga plant in
Kankakee
County that will bri
rappro~mately4~O_i~bsand possibly exteIid~tlielife ofthe
\
~—
lpiidfihl by 20 years A Tempico representative will be at the February 17, 1999, Planning,
-
Zoning, and Agri,~ulthreCommittee meetingto give a resentation, all Commissk~iimembers are
invited
to attendj This Commission will be makm all commendations on the landfill 14
~
-
ork
rain~of4he-PlannmgCommission was put together from the
results ofthe survey, The work program will be documented and endorsed by the Commission
-
The work program will be brokendowirinto~siibcommitte~s~-ac~ordng:to ëa oh section ofthe
program. What subconmiittees are needed and who will be on them will be discussed at the
February meeting.
-
A public hearing on the Greenways and Trail Plan is scheduled forthe April meeting. Status
reports from subcommittees will be heard at the June meeting. September’s meeting will be the
-
annual meeting with appointment ofofficers. The October, November and December meetings
~at
0’ DelI
1242 Arrowhead
Bourbonnais, IL
Dr
60914
4293
A motion was made by Mr. Koehler and seconded by Mr. Jaffe to approve the 5-Year Work
Program. Motion carried by unanimous vote. It will be sent on to the Planning, Zoning,
Agriculture Committee.
-
Mr. VanMill bnefiy discussed
~id Use Elemeiit.
e would like to have the cost ofsprawl
study done this year or early part of2000.
••••-~ -
_)
C-
Mr. Saindon asked if this would be done in office or outside sources.
Mr. Van Mill stated it would be done within- the office. Mr. Van Mill and Mr. Howell wil
-—-~°~
-
attending a meeting in Ottawa and they have done similar studies in counties in Northern Illinois.
Would like to get some ideafrom them on process and procedure.
Mr. Saindon asked if there was a possibility that impact fee would come out ofthis. Mr. Van
Mill stated no, the County has no enabling legislation to propose anything like that. Mr.
Washington stated that impact fees are available from the State for mileage or/and roads, but the
County didn’t qualify because ofpopulation. Mr. Jaffe asked about available grants for land use
planning. Mr. Van Mill stated that there is not must available.
Mr. Van Mill stated that we will continue to update the Land Use Plan, it will be an on going
thing forthe next several years. We will be completing the Pembroke Comprehensive Plan.
Updating the LESA System and municipal boundary agreements will be ongoing for the next
coupleyears.
-
-
0
-
Mr. VanMill then turned it over to Dr. Gil to discuss Solid Waste Management.
Dr. Gil stated that the first thing would be to pdate f the Solid Waste Plan, it is a State law that•
the Plan be updated every
5
years, it is due’ 200
Then there is -the Landfill Study. The
current landfill is scheduled to close in 2005 a~ordingto the State. It takes a
-
roximate
years to site and develop a new landfill, theref’or•-wewi -nee to review a~\ailable(~tionIhe
options to keep the landfill would be to brl~glimited ~garba
m~ii~idejfthe County,
expansionofthecurr~nt-1andfllLui~idercur~entownershipanaman
&Eit(~intyownership
.
and management~Courif~ow~r~hip_~ithpnvate management, aj~4private/Coiiiiiy ownership
with private management The committee would research as to what option is most beneficial
Mr. Saindon asked about an-optionto buy additional land for the landfill. Dr. Gil stated at it is
an option if they cho~tods~so.Kankakee County is th~
o~jy.-county
that has a contract with
it
landfill operator tha11o~ygarbag tfrniIi~id~1he,Countyis allowed.
Mr. Jaffe stated that the Kankakee County Training Center is losing money on recycling and may
have to close its doors. Dr. Gil informed them that the County is giving money to Kankakee
County Training Center to help elevate the cost. The County will be working with Steve
Mitchell from Kankakee County Training Center to solve this problem.
Mr. Milhirons asked about the progress with Tempico coming into the County. Mr. Washington
()
Mrs. Pat O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead Dr
Bourbonnais,
IL 60914-4293
-
Mr. Saindon made a motion to adopt the Corridor Standards. Mr. Bergdahl seconded the
motion. The motion carried by unanimous vote.
Mr. Lammey stated that they are identifying every driveway, agriculture entrance, parcel,
etc. on County Line Road. Traffic from airport would be using north/south roads.
Mr. Koehier stated the new interchange issue between Bradley and Manteno is primarily
to make accessibility to Diversatech easier. It appears the 6000N Road is the best
location for the potential interchange and the Transportation Subcommittee is
recommending it.
Mr. Lammey stated the a diamond interchange is recommended with a grade separation
at the IC and Illinois Route 50.
-
Mr. Jaffe stated that Rep. Novak is working on a wish list and he could recommend the
interchange to the Governor.
Mr. Van Mill informed the Commission that letters have been sent out to the
-- -
Representatives. Also Manteno Township Planning Commission would like to assist in
the Will/Kankakee County road alignments and in the planning process.
Mr. Bergdahl made a motion to except the Interchange at 6000N Road with grade
-
separation. Mr. Jaffe seconded the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 11 ayes to
1 nay.
The 1-57 Corridor Study has formed a study group to look at corridors. They will be
meeting on May 27, 1999 in Manteno. Commission members are encouraged to
Mr. Saindon stated that funding is just for this fall and things are moving along, but
more representatives from Kankakee County.
Mr. Koehier informedthe Commission that the County received a $20,000 grant for
Handicap Accessibly Study (ADA). Mr. Van Mill stated that the credit goes to Brian
Billingsley for getting the grant. The Plan will take approximately one year and the
project is in the Planning Commission’s work program.
Dr. Gil stated that the landfill tour was informative, 25 people attendedthe tour and
learned how the landfill operates. To prevent seepagethey have a leach system and the
methane is cleaned and piped to produce electric. Neighboring citizens are concerned
about the landfill’s option to buy additional property to expand and the pending Tempico
decision. Ifthings stay the way t~ are ejamiflil wil1-last~aimther1.years-andii.iiiilL_~
-
take
5
years to site a new landfifl~Thereare two things the Solid Waste Subcommittee
-
must do: 1) review and revise the Solid Waste Plan that is due in 2000, and 2) complete
the la~tillstudy.~Sdmeofthe option include~i~Bthe landfill study are the Tempico
~
~proj4~1o landfill, County owned and operat~s,~’Countyowned and priv
r~,/
/ ,i,~~
/~-‘1~)xtendcontract with landfill, etc. This Subcommitt.~wU1Iook(fiiiai~cialfeasibility,
L7~.c
1~
- ~
O
1242
Mrs.
Bourbonnais,
PatArrowhead
0 DelI
IL
Dr60914-4293
Mr. Lammey informed the Commission that they are still waiting for legal opinion from the
States’ Attorney’s Office.
-
Mr. Van Mill feels that the Land Use Subcommittee should be involved with the right ofway
issue.
Mr. Saindon presentedthe Solid Waste Subcommittee report. He stated that they are moving
forward with the Solid Waste Plan. Looking at all options. Need to only look at feasibility and
what the best proposal is for the County/v’
~J
f~~_
0
~.
~
~~_el
?
Mr Jaffe stated that citizen do not want waste from outside ofthe County
Mr. Saindon stated that is true, some want Tempico to eliminat~som-e.a~iountofwaste. The
Commission should evaluate proposalsthat include and exclud~outsi~~ountywaste Dr Gil is
working on the feasibhty ofthe different options Within~li~i~t-yearto year and a half the
Sclid Waste Plan---tipdáte-ard-Landfiul Study should be :donëf~Qthercommunities told Dr. Gil
they were first choice for Tempico.
- -
Mr. Van Mill informed that Commission that Tempico is going to East Chicago as a pilot
project.
Mr. Saindon stated that this can not hurt, could get more information on howthis will work.
Mr. Howell gave status report on Land Use. He stated that the major point is to get a baseline on
housing stats in last 10 years. Do we need a cost study? Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map
do not match, more residential zoning than what’s on the land use map. We will-be looking at
the changes over the last 10 years on housing states, travel of school buses, fire/police, etc.
Mr. Van Mill stated that internhas map done. Committee needs to discuss what degrees we are
seeing sprawl, progressive or leap frog. Need to study outside urbanized area. What is the basis
for doing the sprawl study? The study will take time.
Mr. Van Mill stated that an extensionto August forthe Greenways and Trails Plan was given.
The Plan is in the process ofbeing printed. We are working on getting the Municipalities and
Park Districts to sign on to the Plan. County Board has endorsed the Plan. Final print should be
ready for annual meeting.
Mr. Van Mill informed the Commission that the Airport Subcommittee has not yet meet.
Hoping to get meeting set soon with Ed Pasel, working around his schedule. A scaled down
proposal ofthe 3~Airport was handed out.
-
Mr. Saindon stated that funds have been budgeted by the State for the purchase of land for the
airport.
Mr. Howell informed the Commission that money was coming from Illinois First.
O
Mrs.1242
Bourbonnais,
PatArrowhead
O’Dell
IL
Dr60914-4293
Mr. Millirons made a motion to forward a resolution to the County Board to resolve the
interchange agreement issues. Mr. Howell seconded the motion.
-
Ms. Dugan stated that would be in the best
~~1db,o~
interest,
Mr. Saindon noted that without airport~needfor interchange, but would be in the best
interest ofCounty to encourage the villages to
settle
on a boundary line.
Above statedmotion carried with a vote of7 ayes to 1 nay.
Mr. Bergdahl informed the Commission that the final copy ofthe Greenways & Trails
Plan was passed out to them at this meeting. There has been no meeting since the
approval ofthe Plan.
Mr. Van Mill informed the Commission that the Brochure Plan is in the print stage. The
Bourbonnais Park District and the Village ofManteno have usedthe G-reenways and
Trails Plan.
-
Mr. Saindon statedthat the last Solid Waste meeting was with Dean Olson, SW director
Will County. Mr. Olson had good information on the development
/
oftheir landfill.
Dr. Gil stated that Tempico will be in air for a number oi~years,f1’heCounty’s options
are for Waste Management to expand the existing landfl
--
ii and look at new ways to get
host fees and marke~competition. Mike Watson a local hauler is interested in owning
and operating a lançlfill. The County wants to..see from possible newlandfill operators,
the highesthost few, evidence oflandfihiopé~rationskills, and a guarantee for20 years of
capacity.~-
.~
Mr. Saindon informed the Commission that some garbage is not go~ingto our landfill.
LI/~M~,
stated that Will Count6~)25Omillion ~
01.
Dr. Gil stated that one proposal wants to include-garbage from the third airport.--.
Mr. Van Mill gave an overview ofthe work program that was approved in February and
most of the issues are successful andlor moving forwards.
1. Land use will be over time; boundary agreement and prison important.
2. Rural transit is getting offthe ground.
3. ADA Grant is underway.
-
-
4. Greenways and Trails Plan
—
done.
-
-
-
5.
Major transportation issues moving forward.
6. Transportation Long Range Plan will be approved very soon.
-
()
Mrs. Pat
O’Dell
1242 Arrowhead
Bourbonnais, IL
Dr
60914-4293
Motion passed.
Land Use:
Mr. Howell: They are working on objectives to allow a decision on how much sprawl, if
any, where the problems are and cost ofsprawl study done here would be.
Mike VanMill: Passed out report on growth ofKankakee County, and setting criteria to
measure economic development in the county. These indicators will be the basis for
policy decisions to the board. Asks board to considerthese and provide feedback. Need
sound basis fordecisions and policies, there is a lot ofdata to review, This will be a
working
report and take some time to write, Brian wrote an excellent report on the
number ofsubdivisions in unincorporated Kankakee and
how they are fillingup,
considered school data, traffic count and agriculture is the backbone ofKankakee.
Of
102 counties
Kankakee ranked
10 in cashreceipts in
soybeans. Approximately 4,300
acres has
been converted from
agriculture to other uses and this number will be changing.
In the
future the forest preserves and open land usage can be considered.
-
A two
to
threeweek time frame and a working report for the July meeting.
-
RH: Passed out copies ofan article from the Tribune, “Smart Growth: The Lesson we
can’t seem to Learn”.
RH: Soil and Water Conservation District, farmland
protection
jury scheduled forFriday
June
2 that will show the bad aspects ofdevelopment. RH and Brian B.
will be attending,
anyone is welcome to attend.
-
Solid Waste:
-
CS: There
has been severalmeetings reviewing/developing documents received. This is
not the solid waste plan that is being updated. This draft forsiting procedures and criteria
used should municipality orprivate entity wish to establish a pollution control facility in
an
unincoiporated area ofthe county. The application must be in accordance with the
solid waste lan in use
In summery there are 9 criteria established by state
-
law to
e used in an application. There is a fee for the process, a public hearingby the
solid waste subcommittee,
summary and recommendation
made to PZA
and then passed
to
County Board for finalreview and decision on application.
RH: What is the rule ofthe Health Dept in this?
CS: To file environmental impact type statements, sign offby Health, traffic, highway,
etc.
F
--~--~
A
P~
-
Mike VanMill: Any corrections notif~rMichelle. It will be ready forPZA for review and
brought back for public hearing.
-
-
O
Mrs.
Pat O’Dell
1242Bourbonnais,ArrowheadIL
60914-4293Dr
F
-
O~&tJ~L’~
A~a~
~ 3~
-‘
-
~
~
L~-~A~
-
-
--
----
~
-
~/~p&s~4
6t s~J/r!~
~-
po(~cAf~~
-
~
-
~
—~-~------~-
~-~--
-
---
--
-~
~
---
i-O-
1$~9~u~.
~A’~Q~-
~.
~-
--
-
4
~
~
~LO~
---
-.-
-
-
-- ---
/~
~_-s~
~QJ~N~
~
J~..
~r~t
~-
1J/~
~
54~L(r1LQQO(~
~
RP~~*
J/(
.7..
~
-.-/-
~-~---.-------—-~
~
:--
-
t~°~
- -
~
~,~jLL
-
~
~&~tAô~,
~-
tQ~LW-~-t
4~~z~a~’(
-
~
~Azdr~~ ~ a~~b(
~
J/~c4~
~
~~
~
~
~
--
~
L~o~
~-u~QcL~
~
~
~~~jj~j)
~$
Mr. Bergdahl made a motion to accept the Quality Inn as the location ofthe public hearing for
the Landfill Siting process, second by Mr. Blanchette. Motion carried.
Mr. Jaffe made a motion to accept the dates and times ofthe public hearing as follows: July 22-
25,
2002 and July 29, 2002 with 3 sessions each day: 9:00 a.m.
—
11:30 a.m., 1:30p.m.
—
4:00
p.m., and 6:00 p.m.
—
8:30 p.m. Inaddition July 30—31, 2002 and August 1, 2002 with 1
session each day: 6:00 p.m.
—
8:30 p.m. Mr. Washington seconded the motion. Motion carried.
-Mr. Van Mill talked about the selection ofthe bearing officer. The staffin the Planning
Department and Mr. Heisten reviewed a number ofindividuals that are qualified. We received a
statementofqualifications from a number ofindividuals and further looked into whether they
had represented Waste Management in any way. With the help ofMr. Heisten, the staff
recommends John McCarthy.
-
Mr. McCarthy has the experience, has served as hearing officer on
landfill sitings, and has no involvement with Waste Management at this time.
Mr. Saindon statedthat the
cost ofthe hearing officer would be covered by Waste Management
application fee.
-
-
p.j
\Mr. Blanchette asked how the hearing officerbills the County.
-
-
(
Mr. Van
Mill explained that it is
an hourly rateplus travel and lodging. His rates are.comparable
~
!with the others considered.
~c~j
-
~, /
Mr. Meyer made a motion to accept John McCarthy as the hearing officer for the Waste
“~
/
Management Landfill Siting process. Mr. Spilsbury seconded the motion. Motion carried.
//
Mr. Saindon stated that it
was brought up about whether there is a requirement to have a quorum
of
the Regional Planning
Commission Members forthe hearing sessions. Mr. Heisten informed
us that a
quorum
of6 members ofthe Planning Commission is not required, but itis
recommended that at the
start ofeach day there is a quorum. We encourage Planning
Commission Members and County Board Members to be at as many sessions as possible.
Mr.
Van
Mill also stated that
Mr. Helsten is strongly encouraging a quorum.
-
Mr. Saindon statedthat at a later datewe may send out a survey as to who can attend the
-
morning sessions.
-Mr. Washington infonned the members that tomorrow morning, Mr. Van Mill will be taking to
the Planning, Zoning, and Agriculture Committee a request to approve a per diem of$40 per
session for the member that attends. The per diem will also be coveredby Waste Management’s
-
application fee.
~Mr~ Jaffe asked if the Planning CommissionMembers can bring in experts to testify-
Mr: Van Mill. explained that no they can not. You are to base your recommendation on what is
-
Taste Subcommittee acts as a quasi-judge. Ifsomeone from the public
they can.I~.—
/ “
-
C’)
Oc
C’.l
..~.
cc
=~
be
~
0
1
~Minutes
--
-
Kankakee County/1~egiona1Planning Compiissi,pn Meeting
January 16, 2003
-
4th
Floor Administration Building
-
9
00 am
Members Present
CraigBayston
Dave Bergdahl
Mike Spilsbury
Mike Finnegan
Joim Meyer, Jr.
Barry
Jaffe
Loretto Cowhig
Mel Blanchette
Jim
Tripp
Ralph
Paarlberg
Curt
Saindon
George Washington, Jr.
Members Absent
Dennis Peters
Dennis Millirons
Mr. Washington called the meeting in order at 9:10
a.m.
Others
Elizabeth Harvey, Attorney
-
-
-
It
-
proceedingsRoll
Call wasaretakenopenandto athequorumpublicwasbut
closedpresent.forThepublicpublicparticipationwas
informedand
comments.that
these
1/
p
~~it7’t
~
/
Ms. Harvey went over the instruction and overview
ofwhat the Commission’s role in the
-
proceedings are. The Commission can
accept or deny the Hearing Officers
recommendation based on the application, hearing, transcripts and public cqmment. The
Commissionmust determine ifall nine (9) criteria have been met. Each issue and criteria
should be voted on individually.
-
The first issueto be addressed
was whether the County has jurisdiction over the
application.
The Commissiondiscussed
this
issue and noted that the
Hearing Officer
denied
all the
motions
made on this issue.
Motion
was made
by Mr. Meyer to accept the Hearing Officer
ruling on the County
having
jurisdiction over the application, seconded by Mr. Jaffe.
Motion Carried.
Next is the issue ~6fthe proceedings being fundamentally fair.
The Commission dis~ussedthis issued ancl\also noted that the H~ringOfficer denied all
the motions made on~this issue\ (The Cornn~issionwas disappoint~çlin the public
participation
~/~ ~
~-
\~J~t-~-~y’t’h~/
‘~“v~~
e
Lr-~(2-e-~~
~
Minutes of
the
.Tanuaiy 16, 2003,
RPC Meeting
Page 1 of S
review the Phase One and Phase Two prequalification recommendations ofstaff, and that
the work on the grant would begin in July, and would be a two year process. He further
stated that the next meeting ofthe Subcommittee would be on February
25,
2003, at 6:30
p.m.
Mr. Howell also stated that the review ofthe Subdivision Process to see if thereis a role
for the Land Use Subcommittee to play is a topic ofconversation. General discussion
about the potential role ofthe Land Use Subcommittee, and the Planning Commission in
this area was held.
Mr. Washington reported on the Work Program ofthe Airport Subcommittee, stating that
having members become more involved in the many meetings discussing the Airport is
an immediate goal. Mr. Van Mill stated that an Airport Subcommittee meeting will be on
February 6 at 5:00 p.m. with two speakers scheduled, one from Natural Resources to
speak on -Stormwater runoff, and Mr. Doctor, who is the IDOT Clearinghouse for the
Airport.
Mr. Spilsbury reported on the Work Program ofthe Community Development
Subcommittee, beginning with the juestionnaire that was sent to a numberoflocal
jurisdictions, stating what was asked on the questionnaire, and stating that two responses
had been received, with a February 28 deadline. Mr. Van Mill stated that therewill be a
meeting to discuss-Enterprise Zones and Tax Increment Financing issues, and
that it
tentatively is set forMarch 6.
Mr. Spilsbuiy suggested that an additional item be added to the Work Program ofthe
Community Development Subconmiittee, that ofInvestigate and Initiate the Preparation
ofa Kankakee County Economic Development Strategy.
Mr. Bergdahl reported on the Work Program ofthe Transportation Subcommittee, stating
that the first
Corridor Study on 6000 N Road/Warner
Bridge Road is coming to an end,
with a Public Meeting scheduled for March
5,
2003, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the
Quality un. He further stated that the Corridor Preservation Process is also coming to a
Public Meeting, and Mr. Lammey announced that the Public Meeting on this issue will be
held over two days, from 4:00 p.m. on 7:00 p.m. on March 20, 2003, and from 8:30 am.
to 11:00 a.m. on March 21, 2003.
--Saindon reported on the Work Program ofthe Solid Waste Committee, stating that
the reconintOndations ofthe Solid Waste Committee will go to a special session ofthe
County Board on Friday, January 31, 2003. He summarized the two amendments that
have been made to the Kankakee County Solid Waste Management Pla~ias (1) lifting of
the ban on out-of-county waste; and (2) reconfirmation of~the one facility~rilypolicy.
He statedthat future events may require-further amendments.
-
— -
Mr. Washington reported on the Work Program ofthe Executive Committee, and Mr.
Saindon statedthat if any members ofthe Planning Commission had topics they wished
discussed, to bring those topics to a member of the Executive Committee, which is
~~!!dDr
Bourbonnais, IL 6091
I~s’,
c~
2°
1/\~
~
Mike Quigley as Chairman ofthe Landfill Contract Committee
was made by Mr. Wiseman and seconded by Mr. Graves. Roll Call Vote (3-ayes/O-
nays/i-absent Lee). Motion carried.
Mr. Quigley started offwith a statement: Since a lot ofthese issii~havebeen addressed,
(f~-~’
-
he didn’t believe in redundancy, but at the same time he felt it was important that all
~
j\e~1M
those issues be talked about in this Committee. He also want to make it understandably
that this Committee during its purpose was.to negotiate a “Host Agreement”. When he
was asked to work with Waste Management; the Planning Department, Doug, Wes and
4~.
—~
Pam they were doing so with the fact ofbringing a proposal to~~~ble
—
not a contrac~
-
~-
-
and this ~~~ittee
was put together to finalizethis proposal ~1\1thoug1-ithis ii1~i.i~
me~ng~u~fe)tt1~is is the pl~ee,wberethey negoti~t~1h~Hn~t~greenaentwi
Waste~Managementand ~t~snOt a place to citethe ments ofwhether or not we want a
Landfill Th& two (2) public hearings that ~
the process
—
onea public siting
hearingwhich will be held by both entities an~~~ewill also be an9th~b~oi~iin
Whei~thérèis -a siting and approval by the Stat
~
e last meeting it was asuggestion
--
to possibly look at outside counsel
—
someone~ffomoutside) to look at the Host
Agreement. Mr. Quigley advised that in working with this document and workingwith
the people they have, there have been several people who voiced their opinion that we
were not getting the best bang for ourbuck and they have looked at all the agreements
within this region/area and he believed that wehave (or close to) an agreement
—
maybe
3’~’
~
/‘
with the exception of a few things. There were issues regarding the “Tipping Fees” and
if anyone does not understand that, Mr. Gil or--V-an-Mill can address that issue. In this
C?Tj~i~o
yip--
proposal, they chose to take the position that~
~
wç ccrnld
(
1i~with because with the process ofthe expansion over the next 20 years, that 3,500
~
,----.‘
wastetons
of
as
waste
the County
could be
grows.
circumvented
So in essence,by
ourweownwouldwastestillandgetreduceto
keeptheourout
ofCounty
7
/
/
proportion/share ofwhatever we generate in this County, but still have enough ofthe
process coming into theCounty so that we can make sure that it’s a dollar amount that’s
acceptable to anybody. They tried to bend and look at a happy medium that makes
everybody happy; that makes the Landfill where it has enough generation to be profitable
not only for the peoplerunning it, but also forthe communities -that are -involved. ~Mr.
Quigley also mentioned there are also a couple ofissues that Mr. Smith maybe able to
clarif~rfor us. In the Host Agreement thereis also some offers made to help out the
~\ ~Countyin different areas (i.e., the Sheriff’s-Department). Those issues were brought to
the table by WasIc Management to make sure if there were needs, those needs would be
addressed.
-
-
A motion was made by Mr. Graves and seconded by Mr. Wiseman that the recording
Secretary for the Landfill Contract Committee will be Chris Richardson. As per the
E~2~r!dDrBourbonriats,
IL
6091
