2005,

titled

BEFORE TILE ILLINOIS POLLUTIoN (:ON1ROI. BOAR!)

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

WASTE

MANAGEMENT

OF

ILLINOIS,

INC.,

A

Delaware corporation,

)

)

Petitioner,

)

Docket Number: PCB 04-186

)

(Pollution Control Facility

Sitting

Appeal)

COUNTY

BOARD OF

KANKAKEE,

)

)

Respondent.

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

See Attached Service List

Jennifer J. Sackett Polileuz

Querrey

& I

larrow,

Ltd.

175 West Jackson Boulevard

Suite 1600

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 540-7000

I, Catina Beats, a non-attorney, on oath state that I caused to be served this Notice

and relevant document on the attorney listed, on the Service List attached, by depositing into

Mail Depository located at 175

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois, this 20th day

2005.

/ /.

~7~JLJILLL’

7I

PLEASE

TAKE

NO’I’ICE that on this 20~”(lay of May,

the illinois Pollution Control Board, the attached document

A4IIC1JS

CURiAE

BRIEF

which is hereby served upon you.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I flied, electronically, with

MICHAEL WATSON’S

of

Filing

the U.S.

of May,

1k/AL k/k :1/AL!. IVA JSON

By:

One.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN

to before

me this 2OtIt day of May, 2005

Notary

Public

J~vCUrflrrflsy~~1

~‘~‘i 2 2337

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Sl~R\’I(’E lIST

Illinois

Polluiiori (‘ontrol Board

Clerk’s 010cc

Panics

R.

lhoriipson (

enter

Ste, 11—500

100 W Randolph Street

(‘hicago,

I. 60601

ElectronIto liv filed

(‘liarles I Id steii

ic hard Porter

I—fin sh a’s & Cu! heriso n

IOU Park Avenue

P.O. Box 1389

Rockford, liii iois 61105—1389

815-490—4901

Fax

I?epresenting Count’

Board

of

Jttnikab

cc

Via U.S. Mail

13 re ida (‘Jo ski

Kankakee County State’s Attorney’s

C.) ft cc

950 Fast Court Street

Kankakee, Illinois 60901

Via U.S. Mail

Christopher W Bohien

Barmann, Kramer & I3ohlen, P. C.

200 Fast Court Street, Suite 502

P.O. Box 1787

Kankakee, IL

60901

Representing City ofKin:kakee

Via U.S.

Mail

I )oriald I’vloran

Pedersen & I loupt

161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100

(‘hi cago. IL

60601

—3242

312—261—I 140 lax

Representing Ikits/c Management of Illinois,

\~iatJ.S. Mail

Please note: as ol’ May

20th,

2005. Watson has

yet to receive a copy of WMII’s brie! from it,

arid, having not received it. downloaded the

brief froni the P PC

3

webs he.

Keith Runyurr

II 65 P1 urn (‘reek Drive

3ourhoriaais, II. 60914

A

inic’us Curiae

Via

U.S.

Mail

George Mueller

George Mueller, PC’.

501 State

Street

Ouawa. IL

61350

A,nk’us Curiae

Via

U.S.

Mail

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

RI:P’URI: fIlE IllINOIS l’Ol.l.tl’ION (:ONFROL BOAW)

\\:/\5lj: MANA(’,FMFN”l’ (if IlliNOIS, INC.,

I

)elawar’e corporation.

Petitioner.

)

I )oeket Nwiiber: l’(’B

04—186

(Pollution Control l”aeilitv

COIHN’l’Y

I3OARI) 01” KANKAIKIIE

)

Siting Appeal)

Respondent.

N1I(’IIAEI.

WA1’SON’S

,IMICIS (‘1/Ri-IL’

BRIEF

Now conies M!C’l fALl. WATSON (Watson). bvand through his attorneys. QtLRRLY

& I IARIt()W, I. I’D., arid submits the lollowitig document as and for his attuc’itv

ciniac

brief in

this matter. Mr. Watson stihntiits this bi’ief’iiotwitlistaading and without waiving his objections to

the denial of us intervener motion and denial oldie Illinois Pollution (‘ontrol Board of’ his m’iglits

of’ participation arid due process.

I.

IINTRODUC1’ION

\\:Lmste Management of Illinois, Inc.’s (WMII) contents that the County Hoard of

Kanikakee’s (County Board) vote on the September 26. 2003, landfill expansion application was

against the manifest weight of’ the evidence and fundamentally unfair. WMII’s arguments are

almost as imaginative as its convolution oh the facts arid are entirely unsupported by’ either flicts

in

t

lie record or law.

‘Ic!

lingly. WMII’ s brief

is

cluttered with allegations containing absolutely no citation

to

the record (and

when

a

search is done. for which no supporting reference can be

Ibund).

For

example. WMII contends that a person named I3ruce harrison

applied

“direct political

pressure”

and threatened, among other things, County Board members.

(WMII Opening

13!’.

at 22).

I lowever, every County

I

~oard mnern

her

called by

W

MIt

nsa

witness and questioned,

wi

tluo

Lii

variation, testi

lied

that s/Pie never

felt

threatened by I larrison,

i t~in

Rict,

I larri son even contacted

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

luimuiluer. (04/06 PCB hearing ‘I r. 70. 254. 260—271), 2’)6—207: 04i’97 ‘(‘B I earing !‘r. 56. 102,

1

97—199, 248, 308; Olihoff 4/14 Depo. ‘Fr. 30—3!). Likewise, there is absolutely not a shred of

cvi dencc to support WM lIs. again i rnagi native, contention that County Board mcmii hers changed

their position based on political l’n’essure’and public opposition. particularly when all who were

questioned regarding public opposition to WMII’s September 26. 2003. landfill expansion

application paid little attention to it. ignoring picketing and signage. tint opening letters believed

to have bee nu received concerni nug the application, and n’otnti ncly cutt irug o f’! flue fCw and brief i ri-

pe rsonu or tele phonic contacts that were attempted concern

i rig the application. ( A.

,g.

,

04/06 PC B

I

learnnug l’r,54. 76. 212-213, 221. 23. 239-240. 243. 260-261, 269-270, 279. 274-275. 285-286.

310-311; 04/07 PCI3 Ilcarinug ‘Ir. 9-10. 12-13, 13-14, 54-55, 66-67. 60. 00, 94-95, 127-120. 157-

158, 194, 214—216, 279, 303). All sinchu allegations in WMII’s brief without supporting citation

should he stricken.

In flict, the record fully supports the County Board’s detuial of’ the application arid

provides evidence in direct contradiction of WMI l’s allegations of fundamental unfairness, as

described imu more detail below.

II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

4.

Criterion 1:

The evidence

fails

to

show 1/sat

the foci/i/v

is necessary (a

accommodate

the

waste

needs of/lie area

it

Lv

its/ended

to serve

This Criterion is often referred to as the “need” criterion. Under this Criterion, the

Applicant is to designate a geographic area called the service area, and determine based on

disposal capacity and waste generation figures, whether there is a “need” for additional disposal

capacity in

the

geographic area designated. The evidence presenuted by the Applicant with

nespect to this Criterion relates riot only

to the

dcvelopnuenit of a Pacility in a particular location.

2

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Hut also to the si/c (tiunacci. types of \~‘asmc reLlnicsted to he received, amid timncli’aiiic of’

operatioiu.

While tlucre is no reqrnircnuuenut tluai (hue Applicant show an ‘absolute need’’ idr a

proposed facility, the Apphicanut nuuust show that the need is ‘expedient.’ showing some level of

un’genc.y.

Ms. Shuery’h Snuithu testified onu behalf of thue Applicant ~vithirespect to this first criterion.

h’:videice was pi’esenited tlurotnghu huer direct exanuinationu, on bchuall’ of WMII, and through

parlicipanuts amid flue (‘om,mnutv Plannuinig & )evelopnuuent Conumuuissiomu amid County I3oard cross—

cx am i niation cf her. Al tluornghu NI s

,

S ui ithu was of’ thuc opi mi ion tluai the proposed expansionm nu et

Criterion I, she testified in tluc 2003 public luezmring that there was stntiiciemut disposal capacity in

the service area until 2011. inucluded mu her report in flue 2003 application tluat capacity is

~rmbiicienutinnutih 2(111 or 2012, and testified at the 2004 publnc hearing thutmt. on a straight line hasis,

capacity is stmfiicicnut until 2015 (11/20 ôpnuu ‘l’r. p. 33: 1/13 1:41) pm ‘l’r. 76). She based her

opinuionu of’ ‘muced’’ onu a 27—year f’tmttmn’e estinuuate of waste genuet’atioiu arid disposal capacity in the

sen’v icc area, (11/20 6pm fr. 13). h’Iowevcr, durinug the 2004 hcarinug, she testified that slue tuiade

a nuuistake in her 2003 application amid that, rather than suf’ficiemit capacity rnntih 2011 or 2012, it

was her opiiuionu tluat it was sufficient uiutil 2009 or 21)10. (1/13 1:40 pm ‘Fr. 72).

Ms. Snuitlu’s testimiionuy nuot only fluiled to meet the Applicant’s binn’denu of proof with

respect to Criterion I

,

it was also contradictory and showed bias: the following cvidemuce

contradicts. cal Is in to question. and shows thue bias in her opinions, all of which the Conan ty

3

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Hoard ~~:mstree to tntilizc in rlctcrnuuimuiiug icr credibility and nuuakimig .1 (hccismonl as to whether

WMlh’s•evidenceMs.

Snuuithumet

theirworkedhtirdenon

aof’proof’.nuwuiher ofI/orprojectscxanuplc:liar1 WMII and earnucd a l:u’geanuuoutut of’

nuoney from the Applicant on zmn anuntral basis. Ms. Sniuithi testified that shie has earned

$70,000.00 hi’onn WM II in 2001 arid hetwccnu $50,000.00 amid $70,000.00 tronuu W MI I

in 2002. (11/20 6pm ‘Fr. p. 26~27).2 Additionally. Ms. Sruiith testified that, on this

pr~iectalone, in a little over a year she received $1 0.000 for nuierely tmpdating thuc

inforniuationu from her previous report. (1/13 1:40 pnu ‘fr. 49—52).

•

fvIs, Snuitlu has testi tied a dozen times on behalf arid oiulv on behalf’ of applicants, each

tinuuc finding a need liar the proposed facility. (11/20 Opnu ‘Jr. p. 25).

•

Additionally. as respects Ms. Snuuith’s credibilit~’on this subject, she testified in)

opposition to an assertion of need liar a lanudfill proposal in l.aPorte. Indiana (11/20

6pnu~‘hr. p. 28). however. she is asserting a nueed fiar disposal capacity

for

a service

area in this proceeding, which includes Porter

(I’ounty

which is directly adjaccnut aiud

to the I ast

oil,

a Porte.

•

Although an A~uphicanutis allowed

to

define it service

amen

in preparing

a

siting

appl icat ionu, it nuay be striki rig to somuic that not omuly did NIs. Miii i th not choose the

service area. she had absolutely no inuptnt in what would he def’inuecl as tlue service area.

(11/20 ôpnuu ‘l’r, p. 12, 99). In other words, Ms, Snuith sinuphv worked witlu the area

given without expressing an opinuionu \vithu respect to the appropriateness fronuu either

an o

perat io ia I or economical s taiu d po inut of’ the service area,

•

Ms. Snuuith testified that need is relative amid has an ecomuonuic variable, (11/21) 6pm

‘hr. p. 71),

h’Iowever, econonuuics is not an appropriate consideration when

determining need.

•

‘flue service area chosen by the Applicant consists of the Iohlo\ving counutics: Cook,

DuPage. Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, (irundy amid Will Counties in Ill imuois amid Lake,

Newton, Jasper and Porter Cotinties in Indiana. (11/20 6pm ‘l’r. pp 11-12). Ms. Snuithu

calctnhated the population and waste generation rates in the service area to arrive at a

annual and total 27—year waste generation figure, based the geographic boundaries

provided by the Applicant and data provided by the Counties within the service area.

‘flue following tist of evidenuce unuder fluis and subsequent Criterion addressed in this document is not exctusive, and

by providing this list in tuis

anucus

brief, Mr. Watson is not waiving his ability to raise additional or other issues on

appeal should lie become a party to amu appeal at sonic point in time regarding this or other issues.

2

is important to point out, t’ronu an accuracy standpoint, that Ms. Snuith also iestiticd ttuat sic \vasn ‘t certain what

shmc made

in

200 I fronu WM It work, buowcver, she didn’t qualify tier testinuomiy when asked that qimestionu the first

time and when she responded $70,000.00. (t

1/20

6pm fr. p. 26-27).

4

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

I ;20 6pm hr. p. I2-b~. her totah net waste generation figure adjusted tiar

rec’Vching. liar the

2?—\

ear pc’rmod hicginimiimig iii 2005. ms 105 million torus.

I however,

Ms. Smith understated actual recyclinig taking place in thue service area, amid thus.

overstated time waste generation in the service area. ( 1/20 Gpnuu hr. p. 48-52).

•

Ms. Smith applies recycling rates inconusistenthy. For the potions of’ the service area

thiat are estimated to gemueraic the larger volunues of waste dtmrimug her 27—year review

period, she uses the lowest muuniber possible amid (hoes riot i nicrcasc it over tinuue, such

as witlu the waste general ion Ii’onui the City of’ C huicago. For ci icr portions of’ the

service area, however. Ms. Sniithi increases the recycling rate, for cx1tmliple with

suhimrban (.‘ook (,‘otrnty, ‘Ibis inconsistcmicy, Ms. Snuithu’s agn’eemilclut that the honug

holding trend luas been br imicn’eased recycling (11/20

6pm

Tr, p.37), and her

agreenuucnt thiat

I

lie trend i mu niore thuamu 50

ot’ the Count cs she i rue uded i mu huer

analysis is fiar recycling to increase (Id.). is evidcmicc tluat that the calctmhatnons and

cstimiiatcs comnaimied in her report are slanted mu fitvor of the Apphicamut and are riot

accrmratc. If’ the actual recycling rates arc applied to Ms. Snuuithu’s waste gemucrationi

nuumuibers, even without any increases in recycling over 27—years, the result is very

difieremut amid the waste gemuerationu cstimuiatcs arc nuuchi less that what Ms. Smith

cstimnated. Icr cxainphe. altliotmgh Ms. Snuuitfu used a 40

recycling rate liar the City

of (‘buicago çidcntilicd as ‘‘Cook (City)’’ waste in h’abhe 2 of bier report), she agreed

that mu 2000 and 2(101 the City Iuad a recyclimug rate of 48

and 45.

respectively If’

the same was clonic ‘or KLmnk~mkee County. anuotluer Coumuty’ for which she decided to

titilize a snuiahlcr recycling percentage thuan what is being achieved. (11/20 ôpnu ‘Fr. P.

50—SI), it rcdttces her waste gcmicration figimres for Kankakcc Coumitv significantly.

•

Ms Smuuithi fails to provide sufficient data or calculations to support the miumuihers mu her

report amid tcstinu omuy’.

I or exanupic. suie admui i ttcd to muuaking a miii stake i mu her

cahculations. btmt provided rio explanatiom or supporti mug (hoc umiuemitation or calculations

for the numbers about which she testified. (I / 13 1:40 pm ‘l’r, 72).

•

Ms. Smith detcrnuimicd the total disposah capacity based on amu tnnutested amid

imiconsistemul “waste receipt’’ and “waste capture’’ factors that she created. Ms. Smtilu

dctermiu med the currently available (permitted) by considering 29 exisling latudfihhs

that accept waste fromii the service area and then reduç~g the capacity available at

those facilities. hucr year. l’ronu the reported capacity date to 2005, amid additionally

reducing the available capacity by applying a “waste receipt factor.” ‘fhis “waste

receipt factor’’ represeruts a reduction in the capacity of’ a lamudfill to reflect that portion

of thue capacity which Ms. Smith believes is ‘reasonably available” to tlue service

area, (1/13 1:40 pm Tr. 59). Tluere is no reference, study or statistical support

provided by Ms. Smith for her reduction of capacity in this nuanner and it results in a

reduction of one

half

of the available capacity as of January 1. 2003. Additionally,

Ms. S mu ithu’ s app! icationu amid choice ci perce ntages to be applied to such a waste

receipt factor, like huer “waste capture’’ figure, is j tmst a mutmauher she decided to apply to

the estimates she developed~(See, 1 1(20 6pm ‘fr, 138).

5

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

•

Ms. Smuuithu proves that her “waste receipt factor” is arbitrary arid unreliable. ~vhuenher

2002 report is compared with luer 20(13 report. Cotmmutrvside Landfill is omue cxamuuphe

of Ms. Snuithu changing bier opinumon as to the percent cnipacity of hanudlills available to

the service area based cmi her own idea of’ huow’ nr ucbu waste that hand Ii I iuu ighut take

fm’onu the service area. In March 2002. she states that 50

of the capaci tv of this

landfill is available to flue service area. I loweven’, ru huer September 2003 report, she

reduced that percentage to 35

with no explanation. these percentages are based

ahmuuost excltmsivelv on her imnstnpported opinion as to what tue lamudhill will receive

fm’onuu tbue service area rather thuan what is actually available. (Sec. 01/13 1 :4Opni ‘l’r. p.

64, 65).

•

‘‘Service Area’’ is a term that Ms. Snuuithu presemuts as a factual periuuitted restriction of

au area witbuimu which a lanudtill may accept waste. but this is unutrtmc, (See, 01/13

:4opmuu ‘hr. p. 66). Ms. Snuithu testified that in hlhimiois a landfill pernuit applicant

designates a service area that it imutends to serve as pan’t of its sit inig agreenuiei’nt. but in

reality the lamidhill can accept waste li’onuu anywhere, (t) 1 / 13 1:40pm ‘Fr. p. 64). A

I

anuch fill is ‘nec to accept waste from any towmi, county, state, or country regardless of

the

service area tluat has designated or thue areas iromuu whuichu it accepted waste in tbue

past.

•

Ms. Snuuith ignored geography arid chistanuce hetweemu waste gencratiomu areas and

landtihhs when she fornued her opinlionu on what percentage of waste 11cm the service

area wotmld he delivered to handfihhs outside of thue service area. (01/13 I :40pnuu ‘hr. p.

61).

•

Ms. Snuuithu testified that she did muot include several landfills near or in the service area

whichu are either in the siting process or a pernuitting process. (01/13 I :40pruu ‘l’r. p.

58).

•

According to Ms. Smith, the service area will generate an average of 3,9 nuihhions tons

of waste on an annual basis. (01/13 1 :40pnuu ir. p. 73). Arid dividing her estimate of

existing landfill capacity available to the

service area by the average annual

generation means that the service area has more than 14 years of disposal capacity

available to it, (01/13 1 :40pnu Ir. p 74). This nueans that ifno additional capacity is

permitted and all of her “waste receipt factors” are applied, the service area will have

adedhuate landfill capacity until the beginning of 2019. h’lowever, Ms. Smith testified

that the service area will run out of landfill capacity in 2009, which contradicts her

own numbers and her own previous conclusions, (0 1/13 1:40pm Tr. p. 74).

•

Ms. Smith

testified

that in

her September 2003 report, the amount of waste that she

estimates

will

he generated

within

the 27 year period is 31

millions

tons

less than her

estinuate from the report in 2002. (01/13 1:40pm

‘l’r. p. 64).

‘h’he reduced waste

6

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

eenmem’Lmtiomi nitnmnher results mm an estimated capacity shiortFmlh

of’

It) nuillioni tons hess

than Ms. Snmitbus prc\iutns estimate mu March 2002, (01/13 I :4cpnni hr. p. 71).

•

Ms. Snuithu did not consider the potential expansionu of’ the (‘II,) aimdhill in Chicago.

hlhiniuis, altluotmgbu sue it’ aware Ihat it nuay happen. ((tI/I 3 I :4Opmui ‘hr. p. 87).

Becatmsc the City t’or Chicago does riot have to go thuroughi siting fUr a landfill. tlue

additiomual capacity cntmhd exist almost imuutuuediatehy alter thue expiration

of’ the

muuorator’unui. (Oh / 13 I :40pmnm ‘h’r, p 87),

•

Ms. Smitbi did not imicbtmde ahh available capacity available to thic service area iii her

report. If she did conisiiher all of the available capacity, it wotmhd he clear that the

service area has suh’iicienut disposal capacity until the \“ear 2037 arid the potemutial

available lanudlil h capacity’ until the year 2043.

It

(‘ri/er/on 3:

‘The evidence fails

to s/low Iii at I/ic fad/itt’ /5 located so (is’

to nzini,,,/ze snconspatibthtr nit/s I/ic character of’ tile surrounding area

(aid to minimize the effect on the value oft/se

surrowidung

property

C’i’iteriomu 3 places the btmrden onu the petitiommen7’apphicaut to establish two conuponuents.

character of’ the sui’n’otm

ndi

ug area amid value of hue stmrroundi mug property’, ‘h

‘lie

Apph icant mu

inst

show it has or will mimuinuize inuconupatihihity or el’fect of the fimcihity on thuese two items. Mr.

l,amincm’t is the only witness prescmited by WMII on thue first element amid, ahtluough huis testijuuomuy

contained several deficiencies, WMII ‘s overwhehiuuimug failure witbu respect to its binrden of proof’

omu

~,‘

riterion 3 was (hue second Factor, as its wittuess. Patricia l3eavcr—McGarr. comnnuitted perjury

and her testi muuony had to be disregarded by tlue County Boarth.

I hue Ibllowimug items are sonic, htmt not tnhl of tlue deficiencies in Mr. Laniniert’s analysis:

•

Mr. Lannert Fails to evaluate and discuss tbuat the facility will be muotbuing more thami a

“pipe Farm,” The proposed facility intends to re—circulate the heachate, which will require

vertical heachate re-circulation wells. The design has the pipes protruding four feet above

the final cover. (11/22 1 :3Opni tr. 64-65). There will be 25 of these wells protruding four

feet over the cover of the landfill. (11/22 b :3opmn tr. p. 77). There will be 88 gas wells,

whuich will protrude 5 to 6 feet above the final cover. (11/22 1:30pm tr. p. 67-68). In

essence, there will be 113 pipes protruding 4 to 6 feet above the final cover, ‘Fhe wehhs

canu be designed and installed so they are flush with the groumud, however, that is not what

has been proposed by WM II (11/22 1:30pm tr. p. 66,

68), Mr.

Lamimuert opines that the

proposed

Facility

is compatible witlu the

character

of the surroumuding area as it nuuay he

7

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

nsed for a golf course or recreational space at sonic huoinlt in the future. I however. antithuer

witness lou \\“,‘vhll provndcd testimuiony that with 25 hcachiatc re—cireirlatmon wells arid XX

gas wells protruding t’ronuu the cover over thue site, a golf course camunot be built, and

furtliermon’e,

lue

is unaware of any Facility

in

thue State of’ hllinuois withu these types of

protruding

we!

Is that has actually been tused as open space or withu a rce reat iomual

thuemute

(11/22 l:3opnu

Tv.

79-80).

• ‘h’he facility will accept eight to fourteen tiuuies (lie amoinnit of trash pr’esemutly accepted. It

is tmmidi sputed that there will he a sigmui ficamut increase nu traf’tic and that (lie increase mi

traffic ~viII be concentrated on Rotite 45/52. Mr. Lanunert does riot consider how the

increased traffic with Ihue associated noise amid pollution will affect the character of’ that

area.

(11/18 6:00 p.iui. ‘hr. 108—109).

Mr. Lannert does riot consider the imuupact of’

increased liter and odors f’romuu thue expanded operation on the character of (lie surroum’mdimig

area.

‘h’he proposed cx pamision during its hi

ik.~

amid net of operatiunu will have such a

simbstanitial acgati \‘e i nip~t omi the chiaracter of the surroumuchi rig area that Mr. I ,aninert

instead focuses oru undulating hulls when the Facility is closed.

•

Mm’. Lamimiert concedes (bunt 1—57, a muuajor transportatnomi n’outc on (lie ~vcst side of the

proposed facility, arid (lie Iroquois River. on thue cast side of’ the proposed litci I it\’. are

catalysts for growth amud chevelopnient. (11 / 1 8 6:00 pmui

,

‘l’r. I 03—h 05), Soiuue growth arid

devehopmuuent hegamu to occur’ as the existimug fimcility approached closure but prior to due

announced expamusiomi. ‘l’o the miorth of’ the proposed facihby. a luoreh/convemunonu center is

under eomishuction as well as amu aquatic cemuter.

(h/h 3/04 Vohunuc IV ‘h’r. I I

).

‘i’lie

proposed expanusioni is being placed directly’ in (lie path of growth.

•

‘l’hue proposed Facility conies within I 20 feet cut’ the east property limie, including the

footprint which is ISO feet fromn the East property hinue, and the storm water drain system

which is anotbuer 30 fleet closer to the East thianu the footprinut. Despite being in violation of

legal set back requiremu’nenuts on the East property line (f’romuu an existing potable well and

residence), amud thus, the presuniption of impact. I ~anumuertmuiaimutaitus his opinion that tluere

is no impact. One of’ the witnesses for the Applicant, Mr. Niekodenn testified that tranusf’er

sta(ions have less of’ amu impact than Iauudfihls yet transfer stations redhuire a 1 000 foot set

back f’romui the property Ii rue.

• Mr. Lanmiert’s landscaping plan does not call for any landscaping on the East side of the

proposed facility.

• ‘here is no storm water detention pond on the East side of the proposed site.

• The Kankakee Comprehensive Plan requires that the Local plan as well as the County

plan be considered when considering land use for areas within 1.5 miles of a municipal

boundary. Watson Exhibit No. I is the “County Regional Planning Departnucmut Map

dated 2002”. The map depicts a portion of the facility as falling within the 1.5 nuile

8

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

pLuming hotmmuWtny. N In’. l.nmmmmiert did met consider the (‘itv of Knmmikakee Comuiprehuemusive

Plant.’

In order to meet its hurdemu that the ftmcirty is located to mnimuinuizc the affect on flue value

of surm’oumudimug property. the petitiomuer relies exchtmsively omu the written report and testimuiony of

Ms. Patricia I3eaver—Mc(iarr. ‘I lie following are sonic, but riot all the delicienicies inn Ms. Beaver—

NI c ( iarr’s testi nuomuy:

•

I3eaver—McGarr lacks any’ credihil it)’. Ms. l3eaver—McGarr sulunuuitkd three emmrrienmlumuu

vbac anti testified that she had a degree fromuu Daley’ (‘oh hege. however. the record

umucqunivocallv establishes that I3eaven’—Mc(ian’r lied and, in fact, did muo( have a degree

fromuu Dalev College wluetu sIne muiade those repm’esenutations. all under oath. l7urthiernuore,

the testinuuonv of Ms. Powers amid Benmver—Mc.Oani’ clearly establishes that this is runt a case

of muuistake rather’, a case ivhiereinu Ms. l3eayer—McUarr knuew she did riot carnu a degree,

knew she n_I in_I mint have a degree. lied about havi mug a degree arid is attemnptimug to avoid that

lie inn tIme .tanuuary 2004 WM Ii lucarimugs with sonic creative story—tell mug. Not only n_li_h Ms.

Heaver—Me (Jarr not earn or obtain a degree. she muiade mu inuqui ry as to whether or riot shue

had a degree somuuetiiuue in the Spring 2002 tmmud at tbuat time, was clearly advised that she

did riot huave a degree.4 It became impossible ‘or Ms. Beaver-MeGarr to conucen_le iluis

issime without ac knowledgi mug that she I ied.~ h’hue curric ulumuu vitae ccrti tied arid cositai ned

in the applicLmtioni muuarked as petitioner’s Exhibit I indicated that the Associates Degree

was obtainued f’n’omui It icluard J

.

Daley (‘oh lege in 1 98 1

.

During (hue course of her testinuotuy,

Beaver—McOarr testified petitioner’s Exluihi( 6 was a trite and accurate copy of’ her

c um’nicuhumuu

vitae. Said n_hoctmmnetut prov iden_h that Ms. l3eaver—McGarr obtained amu

Associates Degree from Richarch J, Daley College in 1980. Also, during the hearing.

Mr. t.animucmt attemumpns to attack the accuracy of the nap. I lowever, mImer is a nuap preparecf at the direction of the

d’oumumy of Kankakee. Assumuuimig that tfue planning boundary on the muuap is in ftuct imuaccurate as insimiuatcd/clnuimuued

by Mr. L.amummerm, tIne proposed Facility

is ill

suctu ctose proximity to the plamumuimig boundary that the Cimy of’ Kanknmkee

(‘ommuprehetusive Plan should have at cast been comusidered,

‘lIne Pollution Control Board hearinig was conducted

iii

May 2ttt)3. When Ms. Powers testified, she indicated her

first conuversation concermuing a degree or tack thereof was about a year before that tinue which would tue the Spring

2002 (Watson Exhibit A, page 61, 88 and 92), Somuuetimuue later there were additional conversations concerning the

degree which would coincide w itim time point inn timnme mu wt nclu Ms. B euver—McGarr testified d unrig the N ovenuber

2002 hearings. It is quite c tear that bel’ore she testified iii November 2002, she was advised of tine fiuct that she did

not have a degree.

At itue initial hearing, Ms, Beaver-McGarr testified that she physically received a degree/diplonua (l’learing

transcript

1/19/02, Volume 6. pages

35-40).

During tIne Novenuher 2002 hearing, she was asked if she would be

able to produce time diploma amid indicated tlmat she could bLmt would have to dig for it because she had munoved within

the fast year (Id, at page 38). Durimug tire hearing of Jamnuary 2004, the explanation became more elaborate, and she

testified that slue gave her di1uloma to tier nuotluer

ml

I 98t), icr mother died in appm’oximuuatelv 1990, lien mother’s

house was sold right awnmy and time

boxes

were

moved and that since Novemiuher 2002

slme scarelied the boxes mud

could not find it,

(hearing

tramiscnipt, 1/12/04, Volomuue 2, pagcs 49—50, 55—56).

9

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Watson Exhibit 7 was presented to N’ls. l3eaver—MeGart’, another’ versiotu of buer

ctnrricuhumuu vitae whuiclu was oller’en_l n_Itnrinig testinuomiy in Jimmie 21)02 at a different site

which represents that Ms. h3eaver-Mc(.iar’r obtained an Associates Degree fronuu DePatmh

ljmuiversity in 1 981

.

Marianne Powen’s is the supervisor of adnii issiomus ann_h ruuarket office

for Richard .1. Dahey College and has lie Ed that tithe for aphimoxinuuatelv temu vcau’s° (Watson

Exhibit A, page 61). Ms. Powers was clear and umueqtiivocal that 60 hours were required

for an Associates Degree amid that Ms. Heaver—McGarr had only acqinirecl 57 (Watson

Exhibit A, pages 63—64). Ms. Powers testified that Ms. l3enmver—Mc(ian’r muever received a

degree fromuu Dale’ Coihege amid that she was riot enti then_I to a degree horn Daley College.

(Watson Exhibit A. pages 64-65).

•

Ahtluoughu the testinuuomuy is tmncomuirovertech that she muever earmuen_h or received a degree from

Daley Cetuter, Ms, Beaver—McGarr clainis that she was physical hy’ givenu a diphomuia.

however, to this very day, she has hcenu unable to produce it. Yet, there is rio record of

Beaver—MeCiarr even appi y’i rig to receive a n_I ph omui a f’m’onu I )ahev (‘oh hege, a required

application that is nuainutained whether or riot a degree is issuen_h (Watson Exhibit A, pages

64 amud 80),

•

During mud after the hearing in Novemuuher 2002, ntmruieroims charts were taken to

detertuuine if Ms. Bcaver—McGarr had graduated as cainuued.7

‘Ihe applicant did

everything it could to thehay. obstruct amid circimrnvent the prn_ucess. ‘I’he applicant knew the

gran_htmatiomu and degree did riot exist.

•

Beaver-McCiarr’s selection of target amid control areas is flawed, ‘l’he control area was

selected to include properties which wotmld not have been affected. The entire premuuise

hehuitud a target versus control area analysis is to identify one area whuere if there is going

to

he

anu inupact that

is

where it will be located and to find a control area where there

wounld

not

he any impact. 11’ there is amu inuipact in the comutreul area,

then

it is difficult to

compare it to the

target

area.

(1/12/04,

V 2, h’r I 24). She concedes that selection of’ a one

mile

target area and one muuile control area

is

not based upon any sciemutitic principal amid/or

study rather, it is merely her personal opinions.

(1/12/04,

V 2, fr.

125).

Also, the target

area is much larger than one square mihe around

the existing

facility on the south

side

of

the I~cility, even

though

Beaver-McGarr concluded any negative impact wotnid be

contained within one mile. Therefore, the area greater than one mile would encompass an

area which is not affected. According to Ms. l3eaver-McGarr’s own logic, whatever

negative impact is within the target area has automuiatically been dihitted by the selection of

the boundaries of the target area. Further, a signuiticant portion of the target area extends

east of the Iroquois River, despite Beaver-MeGan’s concession that waterways act as a

6

Marianne Powers

was called

as a witness as part of

the

Pollution Control Board proceedings concernirug the

application tiled in August 2002.

‘he

portion of the transcript from said hearing wherein Marianne Powers testified

was

marked

as Watson Exhibit A during the hearing concerning the Septenuuher 2003 application.

Additionally, during thue 2002/3 public hearing it

is

now clear that not only did Ms. I3eaver-McGarr knuow she did

not have a degree, but so did WM Ii’s coumusel. (See, Local Public Hearing Record, Watson’s Written Conument

Exhibit II).

10

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

burlier, (.1 / h2~0~h,\ 2. I’. 120). II’ the lm’oqunois Ri\’er hufl’cn’s any mneL’ati\’e inlinact morn

the existing lacihry arid is not affected, hv including it nfl tIne target area, it further dilutes

the rtegative impact oh’ tine existing Facility’, l’inalhy. she also concedes that an Interstate

cain buffer things ‘mx niu one sin_he to another. (1/12/04, V 2. ‘hr 120). Imiterstale 57 is located

omu thie ~vest sin_ic of flue fhcihity amid ~mportiomu of the c.onutn’ol area east of Interstate 57 is

\vithuimi one nuile of the n_Iefinien_h target zone, I however, l3eaver—MeGarr asstmnies, withuout

basis, that at exactly one muuiie on the west sin_Ic ofthie Facility, the muegative inuipact will stop

as opposed to continuum i rig to the niatrmral himh’fer. Interstate 57. Ii’ thuat portion oh’ the conutrol

area is affected ann_h there is nothing to indicate thuat it wotnid riot he sinuuilarhy affected. then

comuiparinug the control area to the target area is nineanuinigless mu the manner n_lone by

Heaver-McGarr.

•

lIme h’ohetti study stmhnuitted by WMI I in its’ application n_Iirectly eomutradicts Ms. Heaver—

MeGarr’s muuethodoln_igy. as it uses the corrmdor between Interstate 57 and the lroqn_mois

River as the target area.

•

A report included in the local recn_urd. attached to Walsn_un’s ‘written cn_iiuiment. prepared liv

I)r. Ric hard Reen_hy ot’ Peru ns vI vania State

~,

mu

ix’ ers i

ty comicI inn_hen_I that a hand Oh h hias amu

iii pact whui ch n’eac hues the hinn’thuest amid genera I ly reaches twn_u miii les,

•

b3eaver—Mc(htrrs report was evaltnatcn_I ann_I criticized by Peter I ho1ikins. another real

estate expert.

One critic ismn is flue misc of averagi rig sale prices, which is likewise

contradictcn_l by thuc Pohetti report.

•

l3eaver—McGarr inclun_len_I imiappropriate transactionus. such as the Bineschuer property whuichi

she inchimded in the target area for the hhrnu sandy. which shiouhd not have heemu comusin_beren_I

as it was not a f’armui transaction it is more thuamu one iuuile from the existing Facility, wluehu

was her arbitrnur hotniudarv for the target area, Also, she excluden_i transactions h’or no

apparent reason.

‘~‘n_’e,

I ‘xhuihit I to Watson’s local hearing written eomnuemut ann_I Nopkimi’s

report.

• In defense of property vahtme impact. WMhI has touted a property vahue guaranty.

I however,

flue

property value guarantee omnly applies to single—fannily residential homes

and not to farmland amid is even being applied

by

WMhh to farmuuland on which there is a

single Family residential home. According to its own analysis, farnihand is 96

of the

property in both the target and control areas. Its price protection is omuly offered to a

fraction of the properties.

• Residents spoke at the hearings concerning impact on thueir property values. Clifford

Schroeder purchased his property in 2000 and was not aware at that time of a landfill

expansion. (12/2 1pm p. 104). Had he known that the existing Facility would be

expanded, lie wn_itnld not have purchased the honuc. The honue was omi the market for

approximately n_uric year prior to his purchase. (12/2 1 pm pp. 105— 106). Pat h3uesehuer

II

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

n_uwnis the propen’ty at 60(1 Fast 750th Soumth Roan_h amid he ptrcluasn_~hsaid properly iii h 999,

I 2/3 6pnt p, 6). When hue ptmrehuased Ins preperty, lie was aware of tIne existimug foci I itv

amun_h noted thuat the facility was a nuuihe anuch a half fronui his haute. ( h 2/3 (ipnu p. 7), ‘I’he

prn_uposed facility/expamusion will put the landfill across the street fn’omn hi is front lawn,

(12/3 6pni p. 7),

l’lad lie known of the proposen_h cxpanusioru. he never would have

purehuased the property.

(12/3 Opau pp. 7—8).

Carol Milk testi lien_i that she amun_l huer

huimsbannn_h resin_he at and owtu 6903 South 45/52, Chehanse. Illinois wluiclu is next to the

existing facility but sonue distaiuce away. (I 2/3 Gpnu p. 9). Ms. Milk testitien_I that han_I she

been aware of the proposed expansion it is unlikely that she had huer hitnsbamud would Iuavc

purchased thue property. ii 2/3 Gpmiu p. 9). Already. Mrs. Milk has cxperiencen_I an inupact

n_un the valime of her home. They are huavinug n_li Iliculties in obtaining realtors thiat wn_iuhd he

interested in listing the property ann_h a recent appraisal obtainuen_h in conjunuetioiu with a

home equity hoamu application was $100,000.00 less than an appraisal perlornuied

approxinuatehy one year earlier. (I 2/3 ôpmui p. 1 I

C.

Crite,’ion 6: The evidence fit/is’ to

s/tow

that (lie traffic

patterns to or

front (lie facility

are

so designed (IS to turn

tinize

(lie nuptict on existing

(“of/ic

flo u’s

‘l’he record fully suppn_urts tlue Counnuty Board’s n_heteriuuinuation Ott ~riterionu 6. Sonic, bitt

not all the dchicienicies mu WMII’s evidenuce follow:

• Althoughu

nuost of the waste will be conuinug in by way of transf’cr trailers whuichu are 60 to

85 foot long tractor trailers ann_h on thue inhoumin_l trip, will have approximately 80.000

pounds of garbage Cororamu fails tn_i evaluate the characteristics of Route 45/52 on wliiehu

thuese trucks will he traveling, being one lane in each direction, not having a shn_uirlder on

eithier side shouln_ler (violatimug the State of’ hhlimuois design muatun_mal for highway

construction ann_I the AAShhIO geometrical design manual), and being limued with

residences. Mr. Corcoran only evaluated the traffic From a road “capacity” perspective

and Failed to consider the other potential impacts on existing traffic flows.

• Although he testitied in both WMII hearings about school btnses. and he knew atier the

first hearing it was an issue of concern, he never bothered to calh the School District and

locate the stops for

the

buses or their routes. Mr. Coulten’, another tn’ahiic expen’t, testified

concerning the impact of traffic. One of his concerns, givenu the configuration of the

traffic patterns and flue specific traffic route presented here was the blending of the

additional truck traflie with the existence of school buses.

• Although Coreoran conceded that various modifications were required along Route

45/52

at or near the entrance of the proposed expansion in order to minimize the impact on

existing traffic flows, he only included deFicient concept drawings in the applicationu and,

although WMII claimuis to have additional drawings mu satisfaction of IDOl’, neither

12

---

ELECTRONIC FILING. RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFiCE, MAY 20, 2005

\V\lhb nor (‘oncor~tripr~Lhriecn_lthnemui As the recorn_h was inccmmtphete. this issue could riot

lie assessen_l h~ytine (.‘outut~Hoard.

•

(‘orcorami’s report was preparen_h in the tirst n_Ilnarter of 2002 amid nnothinug was dotue to

tmpn_hate it. even in ternus of ttpn_hati mug traffic coumuts ann_i taking

i

ito accounut other chiamiges

that have occurren_h over the last two ~‘ears,snneh as on Route 45/52 the comustruetionu of’ a

hotel comuvemution ceruter. prior to its suhruuitnal hi Sepnemuiher 2003.

•

‘I he

na

flic cotnuts eontai uen_h in Corcoran

‘

s report are not represenitat i ye and miot accnnrate

oiacturnb or typicah traffic on Rte. 45/52, as thiey were taken dtnrimug February amid, thuims. n_In_i

muot i rue hude tourist, fitrni i mug, Ihir grn_uumud or othuer sinuih ar tra lie which does nuot n_iceLnr in

the winter, amid n_In_i muot in_henutify whether the vehicles eotnruten_I were cars or tnncks or other

types of vehicles. (hi / 19 I :38pnuu Fr. p. 26, 43). Mr. (‘orcoran relied n_unu counts thai

staten_i traffic omi Rt. 45/52 to he between 252 to 435, ‘going nuorthu or son_nthbounud’ ann_I not

in_hemitifying the type of vehicle. (11/19 I:38pmiu ‘Fr. p 24, 26). ‘hue existinng landfill is

genuerating 200 vehicle’ trips per n_lay according to Mr. Corcorami. ann_I tIne proposen_l

expansion \vil I gcmucrate 600 vehicle trips per n_lay, muuore than three tinuies the traffic, nuot

takimig inuto consin_Ienttin_umu type n_ni’ vehiicle. curnently expcn’ienuce at arid near the site. ( I I/ho

I :38pnu hr. p. 25—26y

Cn_in’eor:tni admits that the size of flue vehicles on the m’oadwav

svslenun in an_lchitiomu to volumne, is imporlamut in doimug a traffic analysis ,ann_i an increase

tnaliie flow of trucks may he en_1uivaherut of three to f’our times tlnat rnt,nnnnher olears. (Id. at

p. 46—47). Omu the day tluat Metro n_tin_I its traffic count, no trtnisfer trailers emuteren_l n_r exin,en_h

thue site’. (Id. at p. 47). ‘I’hue n_hi fference hetweenu a 30—40 foot hong trinek anun_h a 60—65 Riot

truck would reqimire adn_Iitional anualysis hi a traffic stn_nn_iy, such as the gap strndies as “tue

larger truck obviotmshy has n_li fferent acceleration characteristics whuemu it’s pull imig inuto

traf’fic.’’ (Id. at p. 48). I however, the size of the vehicles, the an_Ichitionn of at east 320. 60—

65 f’oot transfer trailers to the tn’afiic flow ann_I Ri. 45/52 was not eonsin_Ieren_h

• (‘n_nrcoran never anahyzen_l whuetluer tbnere are any secondary peak travel times on the

roadway system ann_i, as discussed above, the traffic com,nnt n_hata n_in which

Mr.

Coren_uranu

basen_l his opimuions. is hittnlty and not representative of typical or average traffic conditions

onu RI 45/52. (11/19 I :38pmiu Tr. 44-45).

• (,‘orcoran perfornned the traffic analysis on thue assunuption that the proposed expansion

would he accepting no nuore than a maxinuunu of4,000tpd. (11/19 I :39pmuu ‘Fr. p. 49). ‘l’he

amended and restated h-lost Community Agreenuent between the applicant and the County

of Kankakee allows lhr up to 7,000 tons of out of County waste to be accepted on any

given day. (Anuended and restated Host Community Agreement contained at the end of’

volume I in the Application, P. 7-8).

•

Mr. Coulter offered testinuony that the applicant had not complied with Criterion 6. Mr.

Coulter is a registered professional engineer in thue State of Illinois, has a l3aehelor’s

Degree imu Civil Engineering and a Master’s Degree

mu

Urban Planning amid ‘l’ranusportzmtion

13

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

fronui the Unui~ersityof Iowa. (1/15/04. \-‘olumuue N. page

5).

It is his opiniic’rt thuan tlue

apphieamut has miot muuet its burn_hen tnnun_her (‘ritermomn 6. (I/h 5/04, Vnhunie N. page 8). Uric

main criticisnuu was the applicant’s failure to conusin_ler the actual exisiimu~traffic patterns.

‘Fhue traffic cotmnuts anud pattermis stn_mdied were from 2002 amid since that timuie adn_iitional

developninemits and vol unne have occurren_h

.

(I / I 5/04, \‘n_ul mime N, pages h 0—h I I. A muuaj or

criticism is the Lmpphicant’ s fhihure tn_u acconnnt for the school bus traf’f’ic e.spec iahhy i mu I ighi

of’ thue fact that 1,/S 45/52 is one lane mu each n_hirection with a muuininiial shottider ann_I a

speed tinuu it of 55 niui hes per hour.

D.

Fundanienwl buirness Claims Raised by TIM!!

i’he fohiowitug (/ounity Board members testi lien_h about thue

cx par/c

conitacts thuat WMII

claims were finnun_fam emit ally tmn Fit

•

Cn_ntnnty Boar_h Member I hertzberger had onue meeting with Brnnce h-iarrisonu. for a cn_iuple of

minutes. in ~vhuich hue loIn_I her to “vote no’’ amun_h slue never spoke withu hini ahotmt the

stnhstanuce n_if the applicationi (4/6/05 ‘hr. 51 —52. 54). Shue sLnw signs hief’or’e the vote. him

n_loestu’t recall what they said.

(hi

at 54). h’lar’risomu isn’t the first persomu tn_u conic to her

office tmmuanunuonmneen_l to discuss County hnnsinuess arid others luave n_Ionic thue samuue for

matters other than WM II’s expanisiomi.

(in_i

at 77—79). She was not intimidated by

I larrisonu.

(in_i.

at 79).

• County Board

Member Gibbs testified thuat hue had a less tlnan 45 secomun_h call with

sonuueone who in_lenutiflen_h himself as I harrison anun_h wheni Gibbs rcahizen_h the call was about

WMII’s expansion, he enuded it

(hi

at 212-213. 221). I he received letters, but didn’t reach

thenu and brought them to the County Cherk.

(hi

at 214).

• Cotnnty Board Member Romein received 20—25 letters and brought them to thue (,‘ounty

Clerk (/d at 23) anud believes that I-harrison called him at honuue mu a conversation that

hasten_h less than 2 muuimun_ntes, because Ronieinu wontlchnit speak with huimui

(In_I

at 239—240).

Romnein had two encounters with Flarrisomu

a//er

the March

17°

vote to denuy the

application, neither of which was lengthy or substantive,

(Id

at 243-245). h-fe never felt

threatened about the letters or his encounters with Harrison.

(Id

at

254-255).

• County Board Member Wilson received “maybe” six phone calls prior to the March 17nnm

vote, but doesn’t recall from whom; met h-harrison at a restaurant where he refused to

speak with Harrison about the landfill; and met h’larrison again outside the County Board

an told Harrison he could not speak about the landfill.

(Id

at 260-261, 264-265, 266).

Wilson ended his conversations with Harrison as soon as polite to do so and never felt

threatened or intimidated by Harrison or any petitions he saw.

(Id

at 269-270).

h4

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

•

(

‘citnmutv I3oarn_h Mn_’ miuher Ihub Sehiolh received n_inc phone call Ii’onnn a trtnekinmg cn_iniipanuy that

tn_as

iii ,ciipjio~’i

of WN-Ilh’s latin_hill prior tn_u the N-lan’ch I

7111

vote: n’eeeiven_h letters which hue

glanced at ann_I brought to

the

Counitv

(‘

herk: enncoinntered I larrison at one n_if

the

pull i c

Iuearinugs in which h-h:nrrisan expressed huis oppositicun due tn_u ~chutter’’ at the

site:

annn_h,

hear_h fi’omn Mark I3emuoitt (apparently’ a constituenit) twice. hut din_Ini’t speak with him

about tlue Iann_hfihl.

(In_I

274-275, 276, 278. 279. 282-283. 285-286).

h-Ic was nueifher

threatenued rnor intinnuidated liv the hetters or emncoitmuter with I larrisonu.

(In_i

at 269—297).

•

(‘om,nmltv Board Mennber Ndwini Meents receiven_I letters, n_h_h nnot openn thuenni .and bronmght

thenu to the (‘ounuty (‘lerk; went to hreaklhst with I larriscun. hut cint huiiui off’ and said thuat

he wouhdnu

-

t speak about thue ham mn_ffill

ann_I enncn_nmnu teren_h Ron Thuonipsn_un after Ni r.

‘1 ‘hn_unuipsn_un gave his pull ic conuinuienut at the lucari mugs anud againu in c hare hi, at which (mines

I honi psomu asked Meemuts ‘what he thought of the ptnhh ic com ment a un_f \-VhaI n_late the Hoar_h

was totinug. respecti\-’ely.

(hi

at 304,308,310—311,312—313, 314, 319—321).

•

Co

u mu tv Board Mcmii lie r An mu 13 ermia rn_I e tuen_u tm mutered IIa rri sn_imu onice n_v-h cmi hue atte uipted to

comutact her hut

she

man_Ic it clear to huimiu thuat sine was hasirng her n_hecisioni onn the recn_urd.

(in_i

at 335).

•

CoLmnutv Hoard \-Iemuuber Martini receiven_I phucumie calls hothu fUr amun_I against the WN111

expansionu and received less thuanu 20 letters whnichu hue threw out. (4/7ft5 ‘hr. 12—14).

•

(‘n_i

unity I3ciarn_I Memnher Maren_ut te received no hihuonue calls ann_h rean_I about 55 letters all of’

which were filen_I with thue Cotnmuty Clerk.

(In_I

at 53—55).

•

(‘oinnt Botmrch Menuher Stauffënherg received nun_u phuone calls and received 7—8 letters

whuiehu lie threw away without reaching based oiu the rettnrnu address,

(hi

at 66—67), h-Ic

talkech thuroughi a n_vi nudow in Iris ear tn_u I Tarn sn_un i mu a parki mug hot amun_l agreed to meet, hut

then whenu hue realized Iuy speaking wi tlu anuotluer Board Menu her thuat I larrisoiu wanted to

discuss the latin_I till lie c~mnuceIedthe appointment.

(Id

at 69).

• Coumuty

Board Memnher La(icsse received one phonic call from l-Iarrisonu asking to meet.

ann_h in itia fly agreed, bitt thuen called I harrisomi amid canceled the call.

(Id

at 84, 90). lie

also encotnntered I harrison whereimu 1-barrisonu tried to hand him a petitiomu, bitt LaGesse

handed it, hack.

(Id

at 92). I-Ic received 10—20 letters, unopened except for onue fronu the

wife of a second cousin, and threw thenu out.

(Id

at

95,

98-99). He han_I a one-sided

conversation in which apparenutly a constituent, Flageole, inf’ornuech

him

of Flageole’s

opposition

to

the expansion. (/n_/at

98-99).

FIe was not intimidated by the contacts,

(Id

at

102).

• County Board Member Faber received one call from a constituent, Bennoit, and 15-20

letters whuichu she threw’ out unopenen_l except fUr thue first 1—2 which she openued before

disposing.

(In_i

at 127—129).

IS

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

•

Cn_nunnty Bcuarn_h Memnber .Iannues received 4 hihnoue calls against amid 2 in litvor of’ WNhll’s

expansionu. none of which conitai nen_I dcliii Is ann_I was’approachicd n_vi thuo

Lit S it

hsta nt nyc

chiscussionu b~I harrison anun_h Januues.

(In_I

at 154—h 59).

•

Coimnuty h3oard Menuiher V ickcry n_hichnu ‘t receive any phucunuc calls, hat his received a

miicssage f’n’oni his ~viI’e that a pen’somu muanuucd ‘‘b3nince’ call en_I whoni he assunuuen_l to be thie

County Clerk, Bnmce Clank.

(In_I

191—h 92). Only comutact with I larnisiun was h-larnisn_inn

sayimug ‘‘hello’’ in the Coinmuly I3oarn_h room omu a n_hate that Vnckerv cannot recall.

(hi

at 193),

I Ic received about 25 letters, which he n_hid nuot Open except fUr the first I or 2 and then

turnied all of tlucnu over to the Clerk after the Niarchu 1

711

n_one.

(hI

194) ‘flue letters amid

phuomue message n_lid nuot inutinuu in_hate h’ninuu,

(Id

I 97—1 99).

•

Coonut

Board Memnuhen Barber was tn_ulch shue rcceiven_I a voice nuai I uuessage eomiccrnung

the lanudfilh by huer hiimshann_I, hint dcuesnu’t knuow ~peei Really thue comitenuts or whether it was

pro or con towards WMI I. (/n_i at 212-214). She also received letters which she recycled

unopenued except fUr the first coimple

.

amid had a I harnisonu encounter which she i gnuoren_I anun_h

cnuden_l quickly, anuch mucine of this intimuuidatech lien.

(In_I

at 2 h 4—2 I 6. 21 8—221

,

227).

•

County Board Memuuher McLaren received 15-25 letters whuich n_n_’en’e not opcmucd (except

for one openied by a fitiuuily nuemhcr amid the specific contents oF which were not n_Iiseln_used

to Mcharcmu) anucl brought tn_u the Cherk’s Of lice; had a 15 nuuinuute encounter with I larnison

d tnriiug whuichu tinuc McI amre n was b1nrtenudinug anun_I nun_it pznying fiml I attentiomu and which

enden_h whuenu Mcharcmu told 1-larrisonu to heave; amid han_h amuother encounter withi h-harrison

when I harrison attenupted to hanid petitions to MeLaren.

(hi

at 234—235, 236-238. 240).

None of this intimidated MeLaren.

(In_i

248).

•

Counuty Board Menuher Jackson received letters and phonic calls omu both of WMll’s

applicatioius for a haruchli II expansion that went to hearing, hut camunot distinguish between

them imu ternus of qinantity, providing a total estintuate n_uf 50.

(Id

at 266—267) Jackson

received 4-5 letters from constituents saying

that

they would he watching the landfill

vote,

but that did not phase her, as she pointed out lucr constittments watch how she votes

all the

tinuc,

anyway.

(In_I

at 270).

‘I’he

letters she received she n_lid nuot read in

detail.

(ln_I

at 279).

• County I3oard Member Washington didn’t answer any phone calls or hold any

conversations with anyone about the landfill anud the letters lie received went unopened

and returned to the County Clerk.

(Id

at 303). I Ic huad contact with Harrisonu who walked

out of the County Building with him one day, the date of which he is uncertain, and

talked about trucks; however, once Washington figured out what I’Iarrison was saying he

ended

the

conversation.

(Id

306-307). Washington did not feel threatened by I-harrison.

(In_i

at

308).

16

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

•

(‘outitn_ 13n_uat’d Member )Ithn_f’f’ received 211-30 letters that Ire opeaen_l. saw n’elated no the

exjuamnsin_tn. put inn a stack. amid hnnimght to tine County Clerk. (4/14 Olthnof’f h)epo ‘hr 7-SL

I harrison conic tn_u Olthnoti’s chimrchu to m’equesl to hue able to speak omu thue latin_hill

expansionu. huut OIthuol’f. imu his capacity as a church nuodcrator spoke with I Iarnisonn and

denied luis speakinug request.

(In_I

at 9—14). Ohthiofi was nueithier thureatenued by- the letters

ncur lu is nu eeti mug ~vithu I-I arrisonu.

(It

at 30—3 I

).

• Cournty Board Menuher

Bertrand received phone calls, as did otluer Board nuenuhers. on

both of \VN’Ill’s applicatin_uius that n_n_emit thnrn_uimgbu public luearimug, Iuut the calls. againu like tIne

cuther Board Mciiihers. luad no i mufi uenuce on ui muu

,

(4/h 4 Bertrand Depo hr. 4. 6). Bertramin_l

also received a pluonuc call l’ronuu a cotistit inemut tn:mnuicd Flageole who wamuted to knuow how

Bertrand wiutnhd vote, which Bertrand woimhd nun_it reveal, and thuen wluo told Bertrancf lien_h

nan agaimist Ininun amud beat himn in the iuext chectionu.

(In_I

at 6—7). I3ertranud din_h not take

Flageolc’ s statennucnuts seriously, as Flagcolc din_I muot even live mu huis district (tluus. could

mlii runu against huinu).

(In_i

at 6—7).

Bei’tranucl also nuuet n_vithu I Iarrisonu when I ltnrnisonu mulct

with 1/n_h Meenuts and had an cmuciuuiutcr withn ‘I iuonupson m in which ‘h’hionnpson cx pressed

opposmon to the lamudlill.

(In_I

at 15—16. 18—2(t). Bertrand vn_uted tn_u approve the lann_hfilh

expanusunn.

(In_I

at 6)

Ill.

STANJ)ARI) OF REVIEW

-

l’herc are twn_u slann_Iarchs of review tn_u he conisiclered mu thus appeal.

Ilue first, is the

standard applied to actaal fundamemital fbirnucss issimes raised onu appeal, nanuelv, tIc’

nou’o. Land

&

lakes C U. v. li//inc/s I’oiiutio,n ( ‘antic! lIon_un_I,

3 19 llI.App.3d 4 I

,

48, 743 N.l/.2d 88, 1 93—1 94

(31d

l)ist. 2000). ‘Thus standard is tmuhy muot applicable tiu this matter, as WMII has failed to raise a

legitinuuate flmndanuemital fairness issue, as further diseussen_h helcuw.

The secomudh stanudard of review to he conusidered by thue llhinuois Pollution Contrcuh Bn_uard is

whether the Kankakee Ccuimnty Board’s decision denyinug \VMTI’s proposed transfer station was

against the manifest weight of the evidence.

1’vlcLen_uu ( ‘ounly Disposal, Inc.

v.

County vi

McC’/ean, 207 Ill.App.3d 477, 480-481, 566 N.E.2d 26, 28-29 (4mmm Dist. 1991). Under a manifest

weight of the evidence review, the decision of the Kankakee County Board should be affirmed,

unulcss the finudinugs and ccunuchinsin_utus of the Kamukakce Coinnty Board are founud to he contrary to

thue muuani l’est weight of’

the evin_henucc.

(‘en/tn_t/

li/inc/s Pu/u/h Service ( ‘a.

v.

Depariinent o/

17

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE,

kt’utinna’.

158 III, App. 3d 763, 767, 511 N,L2n_I 222, I hO Ill. Dee. 387

cheeisionu is comutrarv tn_u tiuc muuanui lest weight cuf tue eviclenuce cumuhy whuenu, after

mu tine light nnuost fitvorabhc tn_u the Kankakee Coumuty Bcuard, the Illinois P

determn i ties that nuo rational trier of fact cotmhdl have agreech with the Kimlu

n_fec i sionu.

.4

nner;n_’an

Federal/on of

S/n_itt’, (‘olin/n’

&

‘m/flinin_’ipn_i/ Itnnpioyees

Labor

Re/a/ions

Board,

I 97 III. App. 3d 521, 525, 554 N.F,2ch 476, 143

1990).

MAY 20, 2005

~4iFi 1)1st.

1987). A

viewing the evidence

cull ut in_in Conutroh I3oard

k tmkee ( ‘ounuty b’3cuarn_h ‘s

r’. li//ito/s &Iiii’n_;/Jonn_t/

Ill. Dcc. 541 (4mm~ Dist,

I

(a)).

mu brinuging thus appeal, WMII. as the Pctitionuer, has the Iuurdenu of hurool. (415 hI~CS

IV,

ARGLJMEN1’

WM II’s ccumutcmuticuns with rcshucct

sn_mppiurtech by the record amid nu

ust

fail.

properly based

on

the evidemuce with muo

sluotmhcl lie aI’firn’uech.

A.

The

County Board’s Decisio,i on Criterion I

SIlt) 111(1 be Upheld and

Is

Suppork’d

by the

Evidence

When_her there is sufficient capacity in a given service area to dis;uose of waste generated

in that area is the general methodology used by Ms. Smith to determine whether there is a

“need.” However, while proof’ of need is not required to he an immediate necessity, a 27-year

future estimate on need with actttah claimed need not occurring for ten years after any decision

hy the County Board is not only speculative, but fails to prove a “need” exists consistent and as

required by Criterion I. ‘l’he total availahle capacity, considering only the 29 landfills chosen by

Ms. Smith as of January 1, 2003, was 134,474,183 tons. lJsinug thue “waste receipt factors”,

in

18

to iii anui fCst weight amid lunclanu enutal f’airmuess are not

‘Flue Coinmuty Bn_uard’s demuiah of WM II’s apphicatioiu was

immnn_hue muLl oetice cur finnndanucnta

I

innufitirmuess to WN4I I and

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

ton_’tteiido. than Ms. Smith chose no aphulv to each landfill otnnsin_Ic tIme service area ,as ofianuan’v I,

2003. the capacitY ‘‘available’’ (as n_heterniuinech by Ms. Snuuithn) to thue service area is 68,476.956

tomis

.

Yet. Snuithu did nuot inncI cnn_Ic all n_lie available capacity mu or outside amid avai lalu he to n_he

service area mu her capacity calcn_mlatiomu. If imnst

some

cuf this capacity is inicln_mdecl. it brings n_lie

total available eabuacity to 170.370.923 tons. (See Critcricunu

I

n_hiscrmssionu in Watsn_unu’s written

ecimniemut). If this additional an_-ailaluhe capacity is eomusideren_l imu conjunction withu the redtmcnionu of

waste gemuertntion taken l’ronnu just Iwo examunphes of Snuitlu’s underestimuuating recvelimug (City cuf

(‘hi cago amid lcamukakcc Co amity), the cale ulatiomus hal I shuort of shuowimug a need for a 30,000,000

tomn latin_lOll as proiuosen_I hu~ W?’-lhI amid, mu fact, there isaca~uacityoverage.

t_onsiclerinmct unln_ mime cxamnu1ules presented above, amid not recalculatinng waste gemieratiomi

for eachi Ccuunutv in the service area. the Ccnunity l3oard could luave found Smuuithu’s conuclusion of

need ncut stmpportech a prepcunn_lennce n_uf’the evidence. ‘h’Iuis is shown h) the record mu a ncmtuihcr of

ways.

I urthuer, en_’cmu if’ adn_li tional ava i lahb e capacity’ lionu n_utluer sites as cuutl i tied in tluc charts

conutaimien_I mu Watscunu’s written eonitnnenut, excluding_the c1hy_pL~nnhnj~cc_k-jn_usiiiJJ,there is

sufficient capacmty l’cnr n_hue service area unnlih scunuelimnne alter 2039. annn_I that tIne “sluom’tf’al!’’

experietucen_l after 2039 is less thuani half tlue tonnage being sought by (hue Apjuhicamut. ‘l’lucrclbre,

the AppI icanut has fini led to

p’~n_’~’

that the 30,000,000—toni exhualusin_uni it proposes is necessary no

acconunuuochmnte thue waste rueecls n_uf the prcupcuscd service area and the Cottnuty’s Board’s clecisicumi is

fully simpportcd by the evidence.

B.

i’l:e

County Board’s Decthion

on

Criterion 3 Should be Upheld and Is

Supported by the Evidence

19

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

\VMII’s eonnenutioni is that no one tesniliech inn op~un_usiIicunto (‘rilerioni 3. Inns. \VMII

“wins.’’ I-however, tluat argunuuent fails tn_u rccognnize that testimuuonuy adverse tn_u WMII

‘5

positicunu

was obtaimucn_l during cross—exanuimuationu (as was witlu Criterionn I testirnnonuy), and eviclemuce was

suhmuu n_ted both throtnghu writtemn anun_h oral conuu niicnu

fhiat comutradictedl W\-II l’s

n_vi tnesses

statenuetuts

.

A partial stmnuu muuary (ii hon_lu these types of contrary cvi denuce is conutainiech mu thue

stateniuenut

n_if

ilncts.

Moreover, tune of WM Ii’s witmuesses. within_un_nt whuo’s testiniomuy

WM

II is

nuuissing half of’ Criteria 3, perjtnred herself’ by- represenuten_l she had a college dhegrec whuenu slue

dIKI

nuot. ‘fhis pequry, mnln_une, is scmf’fmcienut tn_u finn_h than the (on_tnt

Board’s decisionu is mnot agaimust thuc

nuamiifiest wean_hut n_uf the evidenuce. Inu knet. it is

ago/nv!

the nuamuif’esi weighit than anyone can find

l3eavcr—MeCnrr credihhe ann_h the use n_ut’ perjured testiiuiomuv is funin_lanuuenutahhy tmnilinir amid it n_’amimun_ut

be relied n_urn by a trier of’ fact.

En’n_:haner

n’.

Grosc, e/ at,

202 lhI.2d 208, 779 N.N.2d 1115, 1130

(S Ct. 2002) and

People o/

1/ic

S/a/c

of li/moi.s u’. .~-Ioo,’e,

199 I Ih.App.3d 747.557 N.L2d 537 (I

I)ist. 1990) ‘I’hierefore, the hlhimuis Pollutiomu Conitrol Hoard shun_uuldh alfiriuu the Cn_uttnuty Boardi’s

dICe is in_u mu.

C

The County Board’s Decision on Criterion 6 Should he Upheld and

Lc

Supported b the En’ide,,ce

WMII ‘s sole argumnienut Rur nuanifest weight as respects Criterion 6 is thuat Coulter’s

testninuony concermuing school bus operations, future traffic, and an alleged IDOT suhnuittal that

was never submitted by WMII as part of the record is insufficient to defeat WMII’s prima facia

ease. I however, WMII’s contentions make a short list of what is a lonug series of deficiencies in

its Criterion 6 evidence. For example, WMII failed to take into evaluate the characteristics of

Rotmte 45/52, one of the main rcuutes of travel for the transfer trailers and, although WMII

adnuitted the access to the proposed expanusionu Iuacl problems and alleged it prcuvided

20

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

clocnnmnncnntannciml nhnat showed nh_se prcmlulcinis could he corrected, it nmevcr stnhunniitten_h n_hunt

n_hocutuuenutatin_un as part n_uI the recn_un’n_I hel’ore nhe (‘ottnuty Board,

Ilue ut’oblenns n_vithu thuis type of

Ihihtnre shun_un_tin_i

in_it

he a stnrprise tn_u WNIll. as, simiuiiarlv. it was demuied siting n_un (‘ritericumu (n (anunn_umug

cutlter (‘riteria) before cuther local govermunuuemuts based n_un its iinilum’e to huron_in_he the roadway

ehuaracteristics n_if its nuimulu rotite n_uI travel ann_h inilure

tdu

~urovichcdcucLmnuuenutatiomi critical tn_u the hucah

gcivernlniemut ‘s denei’ni mnationi

,.See,

e g.

,

Un_is/c :tIanagetiie;it of Ill/no/v. Inc.

n’ C

‘oiuimn’ J3on_~.n_/of

Kane,

03—104 (.Jumue

9, 2003),

‘I hus, the Ihlimucuis buollutionu Comntm’ol 13n_uan’n_i shn_uuln_l af’lirnuu thue

Kankakee (‘ounity Board’s decisicun.

0.

The

Record Does

Not Support

Jt’MII’.s’ Active

Jinagineition

and there is No

En’iden

cc o/ (‘onspiroci’,

Peijur;’

(except that

of

tLSJJI ‘s a ien ‘expert “,),

i,:tinndation or cx porte c’onununhation to Support

lt’*JI!

‘s Claims

of

Un

fairti es’s

WN-hhh hiLts amu active inunaginationu. creatimig conspiracies, mnnakinug claims n_ut’ perjury, and

chaimuuing initinuiidatin_nni thuat mien_-er cucctmrred.

Winhi thuis active inuuagimuatin_un. it ahscu has a liberal

inten’pretationu of’ n_n_hat the rccn_un’d states. Fcur exanuple, WMI I ccuntenuts. as part of’ its f’unudhamuuemutai

unu hu rmuess clmni mu, thuat Robert Keller. Br_ice I Tarn scnu anud mM ic lunch Watsn_um’n formuuecl a ‘‘comis~uii’acy’’

agaimust it. h however, mncuwhiere mu the recorn_l is thnere evin_henncc tlnat thuese tluree persons worked

together

itt

oppcusitin_un of the I anuchfil I amid, nu oreovcr, en_’etu if (lucy knew eachu cuther and cn_unl’erred,

there is’ -ahsol~ttelynothuing crinuu inn_tI about their aetionis. WM IL has muot evemu ahiegen_l a crime,

‘h’hutms, given that evemu thue nudist basic defituiticumu of comuspiracy invcuhves joint actions to eomuunuit anu

tnnhan_vfttl act, this is nothing more thuan vicious hyperbole.

See, IJlack ‘s Law Diet/ann_ny,

(uU Ed.

(1991).

Additionally, WMII’s damn tluat the three nuen “continttalhy’’ communicated about the

cuppositin_unu to the Ianuchii II is ontrighut lhise. AIthn_uugh Keller staten_f tluat “now’’ lie speaks winh

21

---

ELECTRONIC FlUNG, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

\Vttsn_mnu three no In_un_tv tinnics a week (ann_h he is a miciohiLior

tn_u

a ~uropc’ty Wansonn o\vmus) 4

(in_)~

I

102), (lucre is no evidenice mi the record tn_u inn_bicate n_vhelbuer ‘‘then’’ the n\vcu menu connumu,umuicated

thuat fi’eciucnil Iy amudi how

ii

un_lu n_uI’ that evenu invcuhv’en_l the landh fill, I “urtiuer, Keller testified that Inc

dhid

not

have regular cotu\’ersatiomus with h harrisduni. mrreshuectin_’e n_if nhue ccuntenut:

Q:

Anuch yon_n’ve hadf tiuat sici

tlun_use cn_unversatin_nns cur cn_utnunuin_mmuicationts with Mr.

harrisn_un oiu tlue average n_uithrce tn_u fcuur time sici a week!

A:

Nn_uw. no.

Q:

Begimuniinug mu Januuary of’ 2004 going tlurouglu the emid of 2004’?

A:

No,

(4/6/05 Tv. II 8—Il 9)

h’inn’ther. mun_uwhucn’e in this ‘‘ccunsjuiraey’’ is theme evidence n_ut Watsomu’s cn_uiuimnuunieatin_unu with

Ian’risn_unu ccunueernuinig WNlhh’s jurn_upn_used exluansmonu.

In fin_cl. lucre is alisoiutehv no suppn_urfng

testinuiomuy tn_u thue varin_uus key ailegn_utiomus mu WMII’s iiuuagimnative thien_uries alleging ccumus;uirad’v amnn_l

hi arrisn_un hieavy—luanun_hen_tmuess, such

as, I harri sn_un nuaki nit anuti— hn_nnun_lfi II sigmis, the

three mnuemu

encon_nramgi tug othuens to semuci thunmik you nuotes

a/let’

the Counnty Board’s n_cute

(is

(lull

n_I c’r,nme

/

),

amid

Flarrisn_unFinually,amid Kelleras

reviewedn_vn_mrkinig inl’ortheUmuitedStatenuenutDisposn_dof’

of

I”acts

Bradley.

sectionhnnc.ahn_uve,8

nunamuy n_ui the comutacts n_il

whuichu WM II cotuibuhailis were muot evcnu

cx pcir/e

(i.e.,

the letters tn_n the Board tvlcnuhcrs whiiehn

were also submitted to the Clerk prior to the vote, and were, thus, in the record anud to n_vhich

WMII could have. hut apparently chose muot to, respond). and those that were techunicahly

cx pane

contacts were citizens

alletnpling

to speak withu their representatives, were non—substantive ahn_uut

mu fact, the

only

testimony in the record conuing chose to n’cfcrencing tinese itemuis

is

hearsay and speculation

For

example, llertzberger testified that he “heard rumors’’ Elnat Harrison worked for United Disposal of Bradky, Inc., hut

that lie has tno proof

of

that relationship (4/6/05 Yr. 56); Runyon testified that he had no proof as

to

whether Harrison,

nan_I anything

to

du with amnti—lanndflll sigmus

(In_I

n_nt 177—178 and that ne doesn’t know if I larrisont periormums wn_nrk

for

Uniten_I Dispn_usaf

n_ut’ lrnn_lIey, Inc.

(In_I

at I 84); Anti Bernard stated that she nluinks tlnrrisn_u,u nnnay have tueen jun_itning n_m1u

signus, Iuut lund nun_uthimig n_un which to base tlunt

(Id

at 347); nniud Martin said Inc “nssmtnuuc’d’’ I larrison was working in_ut

Wausotu in Watsotu’s elect in_un cn_ntiupn_nign for Cn_uunity Board (4/7/04 l’r, 26—27)

22

---

the expansion proposal, and were essentially igmioreil by the County Board Members.

These type

of ~

~“PoIIutlomu Control Hoatrd amid

courts.

ci

cued.

V.

CONCLUSION

Thus, WMII’s t’undaniemutal unlhmrness chtimius should be

WHEREFOR F,

MICI

lAD.

WA’I’SON

respecthlmlly prays

that the Illinois Pollution

Control Board denies WMIT’s appeal and affirms the County Board’s vote to deny the WMI I

andhill expansion application tiled on or about September 26, 2003.

Dated: May 20. 2005

Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz

Querrey & harrow, Ltd.

Phone: (312) 540-7000

Facsimile: (312) 5404)578

Respectfully Submitted,

MICHAEL WATSON

By:

Illinois

23

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

,~KI-’(~ir

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RE~

al~~$’5OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Of

Criteriomu 3

of

Waste Managenuent

Application

br

of the

Kankakee

Landfill

of !hhiriois, Ituc.

Expaiusionu

At ‘Flue Request Of

Mr. David J. Flynn

Attorney at Law

Querrey & Harrow, Ltd.

175 West Jackson Boulevard

—

Suite I 60()

Chicago, Illinois 60604

As Of

January 2004

---

~Eft~91JMB’4IC

FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICEy’MA~4’~&2005

J

A,LU)YtnSai

SC’

11 icc’

hs:~,’j

17n_c,’u’.v,a:Ln_.

/1.

(~(im)i~

,5i 7

JI)~ 5~96

qn_,m1.n_’,m

735

fc1~

l’muhruary 10, 2t104

NI r, Da end I. Fly tin

Aoum’micy at Law

~)mn_ccrey & I lam’row, tn_I,

175 West Jackson Honlevn_nrJ

—

Sn_iime

I 60m)

Chicago. Ohinuoms 60604

REm

kniew

of Criterion 3

\Vaste

\lanagcmniemnt of’ Illinois, hue.

ICannIoukec t.amnrllilh Expatnsion

Dr rim’ Nir. l~l’,’nn•

As

\n_O,i

rerjn_mcsted, I have revin_rsved Waste Mn_inirmgcnictum oI’hlmmuois. Inc.’s Croci i,umi 3

Icirm

t

mnentnt men atud hun cc preluared a report

iii

~vluic1uI have docunuemuted

ivy

fion_Ihug s. Tfuc

cLulmiruamuv juroJuo5e,s to increase c:npactty at its existing lsmin_Ifnll facmlity south of n_hue city of

k,tmmkakee. ih)nmmois.

U

is timereforn m’es1omusible to satist’v tIne Sihlowmmnr~crmtcrmon,

lilmnioms 415 ILUS 5/39,2(a)(iii), kruuwmu n_ms (‘rmmeriomi 3, states. “I he fimcmdty is heaved Sm) OSlo

mLmmmnmmve mticonnpatihmhtv with (hue character of the sun’cundmrng alea n_in_md tmm muuimiionz.e’thc, efket on

tiic vain_n_c

n_it’

the sn_mrroutidmiug area.

fln_n_~

uttr1uose of flue a~stgtinuentis to n_letenuuinc whether the above relercmuced Criterion has been

muuet ammn_1. n_f not, svhuere it is lack mn_lu, tt is not to appraise or dci cnn tue en Ftc oft ic propei’rv on_u

n_~’bichtime ~‘uhiecmln_tndl’mhl cxpansmua wommid he present, ifapluro\’ed buy Kamukn_nkec (‘oazum\.

My report is attached herein. mu tiuy opinion, thue application filed

by

Waste Mana2ernct’.t of

I lions, h tic, is flawed atud (‘n_ohs to peel Criterion 3 or the reasons n_i

i

cussed mu the report.

RespectfUlly sn_n_hrnitte~h

Peter F, Hopkins. Al, ARA

Hopkins Appraisal Sen/ce

Ilopkuis4voia’saISc’nlcn_’

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Technical

Review

Thuis is a techmnicah review, de lined n_ms

won_k juerl’ormnned by

n_tn appraiser for I

he hut

‘~O5C

of n_Ievcholuimug n_imn

opinion

as to wlnethuer thue a rualysn_’s. opi tn lotus zmmnd comuclusions n_u tluc work tmmudcn review arc n_mjupl’opri n_n_Ic

and

rea.somuable, amnd developing the rcasomns ‘or any disn_mgreetnetu.

C/ni/non ~

Practice, 2003 Edition

Clients and Intended

Users:

David J.

Flynn

Jennifer J. Sackett Poluhenz

Attorneys at

Law

Querrey &

Uarrow, Ltd.

175

West Jackson Boulevard

—

Snite lôOt)

Chicago, IL 60604

312-540-7662

Intended

users include tIne elietmt’s n_tssmgtms.

Review Appraiser

Peter E. Hopkins, MAI, ARA

I’lopkins Appraisal Service

1515 Indian Trail

Riverwoods, IL

600

h 5

847-405-0696

Intended Use

The review is intended for use involving Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.’s (Waste Management)

September 2003 application to the County Board of Kankakee County, Illinois, requesting approval of

site location for the expansion of hue Kn_tnkakce Landfthl.

Hopkins

Appraisal Service

2

Kankakee un_nd!ill

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Purpose ot Assigmimnemit

Review Criterion_u 3 of hhme Waste M;tnagciitemit n_n_pphen_mtiomu ‘or n_tmu exluamnsn_otu ol time Kn_mmnkn_mkee Laindl’ihl.

illinois 415 WCS 5/39.2(aXiii), ktuown as Criteriomu 3, stales, “‘flue facility is locn_mtcd so n_ns to muünnitiuize

incompatibility

with the chuaractcr of the sun’otntudi

ng area

n_mud to n_in un_tn_i mize t In_c effect on

ne u’aI n_ic of t Tue

surroundimug area.”

Waste Matiagenuetut, wishuimug to expand its exislin_ug garbage facilities, submitted tlurcc

Reports whuich are mel tided in line Criterion 3 juortiotu of its appl icat lotu

,

mud arc as l’oI loves

‘‘Lan_nd Use and Ph an_umui ing Amualysis for thuc Proposcti Ex pamusi on of thue K n_uukakcc I n_n_mud ‘ill,~’iut’epn_mrcd

for Waste Managcmuncmut of lhlituois, Imuc. by tluc Lain_neil Group, In_ic., CLicrneva, hlliiuois, signed buy J.

Christopher Lanoert on September 23, 2003,

2.

‘‘Real Estate I miupact St tidy for Kamukn_tkee Landfill Lxpamusiomn

,

Kn_nukakce C’otmtuhy, Ill in_lois,’’

prepared for Waste M am agctunent of ill ituois, In_nc. Iuy 1 mutegrn_i Really Resources

—~

(lu ien_n_go, sigmued

by

Patricia L. Beaver

—

McGarr atud Jcrctuuy R. \\“alhing as llhimuois state cet’tihlcd appt’n_tiscrs tn_mu

Septentmher 25. 2003.

3. ‘‘A Real Estate Study of the Proposed Kankn_mkec Regional Laiudfihi, Kanukakcc, Illinois,’’ pt’cparcd

for Kankakee Regional Landfill, LLC by Pohetti and Associates, hue. atud sigtucd by Peter J,

Polerti, Jr. n_is aru Illinois state certified appran_ser in March 2003. ‘h’his report \van_s cointained as an

appendix to (hue application_u buy the applicant. It was tuot attn_mchued by Mr. Ben_n_ver—McGarr or Itutegra

and not relied upon by huer. It was prepared in conjutuction wi tlu siting I’or a diffem’ctut facility and

its relevance to thn s application is questioiuabie.

The purpose of the assigmimemul does not incltide developmcnut of aiu appraisal for thuc lM’oP~i’tYwbniehu is thuc

subject of the proposed lamun_Ifil I cx pn_nn_siotu, as such an appraisal is not relevant to I

he (‘ri Icriomu 3 ann_mhysi s.

Subject

of the Review Assignment

Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. proposes to expand its existing landfill located soutin of the City of

Kankakee in unincorporated Otto Township, Kankakee County.

Prior to the expansion the site reportedly consists of 179 acres, depositing approximately 500 Ions per day

of garbage.

It has been in use since the 1970s and was slated for closure within a few years. After the

expansion,

the site will be approximately 664 acres, accepting approximately 4,000 to 7,000 tons per day,

with a projected life expectancy of 27 years.

In

accordance with Criterion 3, the Integra report attempts to illustrate a hack of affect on the property

values surrounding the proposed expansion_u. Its premise is to average sale prices of surrounding

properties within a del_ned “target area” and compare them to averaged sale prices of properties within a

defined “control

area.

/Jg,pkins Appraisal Service

3

lCankakee Landfill

---

Date 01

ELECTRONIC

iliC KCS’tCw

FILING. RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Jan_un ar~2( )(U

Review Process

In_u preparimng tIns review, the revmewiiug appraiser

•

inch with Qtmerrcy &

Harrow

attorney amnd Qtierrey & I’harrow client, a bcrueficial n_mdj n_n_cent

property

owiuer Mieluael Waton;

•

studied tine thuree aforenuemut win_ed reports, n_is well as n_mddition_un_mI muualerial

•

studied previous testi muion_uy, from the 2002 hearing, comueerning Crmteriomu 3;

•

studied test imuuoiuy frotun_ 2004 lucari mug comurermu hug Cri teriomu 3:

•

toured the exterior existing \Vn_mste Man_n_agemuuemut In_uudl’iII fn_ueility an_n_ti cmutered tluc yard;

• toured area surrounding tIne existitug facility:

•

consulted Kankakec (‘oumuty records yen lyimug suhiuuitted data;

•

toured tlue Settler’s I hill amen_n imu Geneva.

When the Integra Report is referenced Iuereiiu, it includes nuy review ol tine lesti muuotuy of Ms. Beaver

McGarr in support or suppleiuuenl to the written report comutained iii Waste Mn_mnagenuent ‘sn_mpphicatioiu.

In completing this review, opiniomus ate developed regn_irdiug tlue followimug:

•

The eonupleteness of the material tinder review.

• The apparent adequacy amud relevance uf the dat a mud propriety of any n_md,justiuuen_uts to the data.

•

Appropriateness of the appraisal nuetluods and techniques used.

• Whether the analyses, opinions and cojuclusions are appropriate atud reasonable.

• The inadequacy of tluc proposed property value protection plan.

ANALYSIS AND OPINIONS OF THE REVIEWER

Completeness of the material under review

The Integra report, “Real Estate Impact Study for Kankakee Landfill Expansiomu, Kankakee County,

illinois,” is a consulting assignment. Its focus is the potential impact that the Waste Management landfill

expansion will have on the value of surm’ounding properties.

The study states that the appraisers studied 472 agricultural sales over a period of 13 years, and 225 single

family home sales over the five years. Additionally, it cites a separate study concerning Settler’s Hill

Recycling and Disposal Facility in the City of Geneva, located in Kane County, Illinois.

Hopkins Appraisal Service

4

Kakukeeuyi?Izll

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Appropnateness of tine n_i

pjn_ni

isn_tI rmn_ethods amu(I tee in_mn iqmies used

The Integra report utilizes imn_n_mppropri n_tie muuethods mud tecin_ iqtme~. Thue mn_uethodotogy present ccl n_mm ~mgc5

of the Integra Criterion 3 report is flawed because it relies omi n_mveragmn_n_g sale prices imu target and comutrol

areas. Averaging prices of properties with varied luigluest and best uses can_un_lot lead to rehialule

conclusions.

Appraisal practice requn_res specific conupn_inisoiu of sales prices to deter,muiiue chifferemuces imu valtme

attributable to defined factors. 1—or example, to len_n_rn tiue effect tn_f location_u, otue iun_ust compare two cur

more properties which are sinuilar imi every way except I oc’n_n_n_ humu

.

Tiuemn. amuy dmffereiuce imu vn_d tie can iue

reliably attributed to the difference imu location_u.

The example used in begtnning appraisal classes considers two hats exactly alike, except one of tlueiun_ is

decorated with a feather. If tlue buat witmn_ the featiuer sells for a hn_igluer price, the differemnce can be directly

attributable to the fen_n_thcr.

In_i this mun_anner, it is meaningful to coiuupare properties whiclu are shun_i Iar mmu every way except for a single

factor to estimate thue value con_utribtil ion_u (or dedtmet ion) atteiluttlable to tIn_n_mt factor. As tlue repi n_rn concludes

that proximity to a landh II does n_not affect sale prices, oiue would expect somuue direct sales cotuuparisomn_ to

prove that concept. But nowhere imu tIn_c report do we see any proof of that concept, except these

meaningless averages. In otluer words, where is tluere an exan_n_uple of a siiugle property adjacent to a

landfill that sold for the sanne price n_ms a simiuilar property weh I retuuoved froiuu a landfill? Not one specific

example exists within the report.

As stated on page 723 of the Eleventh Edition of the Appraisal of Real Estate, published by tlue Apprn_misn_tl

Institute, ‘‘When the mean is used to describe a poptmlation, ml en_nu be distorted by extreme variants.

. .

l’hue

average, or mean, price., might not accurately represent tlue population of houses tluat have beeiu sold at

prices outside the indicated rain_ge.”

The Integra report simnply does not luave the sluccr volunue of sales figures necessary to develop

meaningful statistics concerning the an_can values of properties within its target or control areas. By usiiug

averages under these circumstances, the report is misleading and draws faulty conclusions.

Neighborhood Description

The neighborhood surrounding the Waste Management proposed landfill expansion (“subject

neighborhood”) lies south of the city of Kankakee, north of the Iroquois County line, east of US Interstate

57 and west

of the Iroquois River. It is in unincorporated Otto Township in Kankakee County.

It is readily accessible, with two connecting arterial luighways accessible to US Interstate 57 within five

miles. US Route

45/52

runs through the neighborhood in a nortlu/southu direction, accessing US ln_n_terstate

57 just south of Kankakee. Five muiiles south, Cheban_use Road, a/k/a 8000 South Road, borders Iroquois

County and also accesses

1-57.

US Route

45/52

and Chebanse Road itutersect on the Iroquois County line.

Hopkins Appraisal Service

5

KankakeeUun_4JJLj

---

ELECTRONIC F LING R~CEIVE~I9L~RK’SQFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

The Iroquois Kmvem’ runs

intl n_en_my mmuhnmgn

due ruemg u uor mo

amid loins mlue Kn_mnkakec Rmver sommmlm:msm

Kankakee.

Tine.

sn_mlujeem n_ci~dmbcn_mmn_ood lies to n_In_c \Ve~tot rime teem,

it is

n_i

dillem’eimt cn_ei~imNom’limnn_d east oI

the river, with (hl’!~mein_t un_mn_ku orees, cIitThm’emn_t mumthc

H1e1n_~.

amid different values !rommn_ he stib~een_n_mn_en_i

west of the river. ‘fin_c east sn_dc of tine river is n_uon_ general lv aeeessiiule fromuu tine west side. wimmn_ time

exception of one bridge. ben_mn_ed ~vellto n_hue south. abuon_mi on_n_c qn_mn_mrter mn_uile fromuu Iroquois (‘ocmntv.

The north portion of this mn_emgmn_borin_ood is tine outskirts of Kn_n_mn_kn_mkee. It eomutn_timn_s tue (ireak’r Kamukakee

Valley Airport. 1n_udtisn_rial devemn_pmn_memn_n_ exists closer to 1—57 alorug US Route 45/52. Ftmrtin_er son_mn_in,

residential property lies n_thong hot bu sides

tn_f tlue road,

i mud udiin_g several n_n_uohi Ic homuue parks. Lx memusive

stretches of agricult urn_il land dot_n_i nate tin_c seemuery limit iuer sotm tin. Rural residences on_u snun_n_l I tracts are

placed sporn_n_dien_n_ily in thuis n_in_en_i, ‘I ‘lie iroq aol

5

River lu n_ms n_mt tin_meted somn_ue residerut in_n_I de veiopmu men_u

I

pamlicuin_uly close to Kamukakec, as well n_ms buon_m mudi mmg in

n_ti lois C ‘Ottmul y

imu thue soutiuerru reaches (n_F mine

neighborhood.

The real residential growth in_u n_hue regiomu lies to tiue north of Kn_mrukakce, closer to Chicago. However, two

recent tremuds md ican_e n_in_c

n_n_ic a is heeoiuui mug transin_iomuai itn_ mnn_n_t tmre. Mtmmuicipn_ml sewer amud wan_er wn_ms reeen_ut

I y

extended un_to the subject mn_eighhorin_ood. Previous develcn_pruue.n_n_t required private wells n_n_mud sept ie sysn_emmn_s.

Additionally, larger agrietmltural parcels are being di vi tied tint o sin_n_n_n_I her residemul in_n_I parcels.

Also witbuin_n_ tiuis neighu hon_hood, easily accessible frommi U S Rotm Ic 45/52, is thue suriujeet ~Vasme

Mn_un_age muuemut

landfill. It reportedly is 179 acres, n_n_eceptin_ug 500 tons of gn_mrbn_n_ge per dn_n_y, amid was sin_n_ted ii mr closure

approximately witluin_n_ two ears. However, tmpon expamusion_n_

it \Vi

II be 664 n_n_eres, acceptmn_ug 4,000 mo 7,000

tons of garbage per day, mud will operate for somn_ue 27 yen_n_rs.

In eonclusiomn_, tin_c sun_h ce t neigiuhoriuood is diverse tramusi tmomual lan_nd, w itiu varied uses i rue! uid i mug iimd tistrial

agricultural and residentin_tI. The mutroduction of potulie sewer and water mn_tilities pi’omuuises to open tiuc•n_n_ren_i

to further developrnen_ut. ‘Iwo poiiuls of access to US Interstate 57 mn_ike

it very n_n_eeessibie,

“Flue Iroquois

River offers recreational n_mrud rcsidemutin_n_l developmuuen_n_t potemutin_tI.

But the mun_iturn_n_i neigiuhorln_ood houmudn_n_ries n_Ire the I ri q tmoi s River to tIn_c en_mst

,

US Imun_ersn_n_n_Ie 57 to the west

and north, an_nd Iroquois County to the sotmtlu. Tine neiglubuorluood does not exterud cast of tiue hm’oqttois

River, nor west of US Interstate 57, as suggested by n_he hiutegra report.

Target and Control Areas

The existing site is 179 acres, located at the southeast corner of IL Route

45/52

and 6000 Soutlu Road.

The proposed expansion, at 664 acres, toughly measures three quarten_’s of a n_tn_ile east/west by nearly one

and one half miles nortin_/south. It is bounded on the west by IL Route

45/52

and on the north by 6000

South Road. An exception along the west border contain_n_s several residential dwellings. The east border

fronts private holdings varying from vacant agricultural land to residential dwellings. The south border is

about 500 feet north of 6500 South Road and fronts private holdings with several residential dwellings.

The Target Area prescribed by the study lies within on_n_c mile of the proposed expansion. The study’s

Control Area lies beyond one n_nile, hut within two miles. The report slates that sales further than one nuiie

from the site are too far to he affected adversely by the landfill.

Hopkins

Appraisal

Service

6

Kw,kakeebmrmclfill

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Time Tn_n_n_get Area eorusisls of nine scm_in_ire jiffies

(if

In_n_n_nd

in Otto lo~vmusluipsun_n_tin olin_c city &uI’ Kn_n_rukakee. it

is

square amid min_easun_es three

mun_iles

by tin_tee

miles. Severn_mb dilberein_n_ utarket forces

dm’ive men_n_It’ vain_n_es

withimu these bounds. US Route 45/52 delivers appm’oximn_n_ately

3.950

vehicles per day past tiue iuresemut

landfill, according to the Illimuois Depart uncut

of Tramisportatiomi

About ‘20 pereeiut of mlii s ‘l’arget Aren_n_ lies

east of the Iroquois River, amud is gemuern_n_hly mn_un_n_ecessihle to tue subject neighborhood. ‘i’he son_itlu border of

tin_c Target Area nuarks thue nor_lu border of mn_eigtn_boring lroqun_ois County. 1mm recent yen_mi’s, limited

residential development has occurred sporadically n_inrougluout

.

Reside un_in_il

dwe lh rig,s gemueral

ly n_cmn_d to lie

former farnuluouses or newer structures on relatively in_irge hots.

The Control Area is n_n_ one~nuiIe~widestrip

of In_n_mud stmmn_’outmndimng tin_c

Target Aren_i omu three sides. it consists

of 11 square n_uuiles shaped like

n_n sqn_n_n_ire iuom’sesin_oe

surrounding the Tn_n_rgem Amen_i. It does imol extend irulcn_

Iroquois County. Severai different nn_in_n_i’ket forces dr_ye realty values within tbuese hounds. Its ruorthierru

reaches

are

located omue mile fronu hue tJS Route 45/52 amud

US hin_terstn_ile

57 junction_n, emueotiraging

industrial and conuinuercial devehopn_in_emun_. US Rotnte 45/52 delivers 5800 vehicles per day thurougln_ Hums

area, according to n_he hihiiuois Dcpartn_uuemut ofTramusportat iomn_. its muort In

hotm mudary fronts

I iue

(3ren_imer

Kankakee Valley Airport. Residential stn_budivisiomus

are ben_n_ted ininuedmn_n_tely to in_s north, mn_ti within_u its

southeast corner, along the

Iroquois

River. Ln_trge agrietiltural tracts are eomuumn_uomu

t

iuron_ighon_mh

,

html reeemub

trends in_ave seen many larger hun_n_reelS divided in_ito sin_in_tiler parcels

~vi

thu line lu ighest n_imid best tise of rum’n_tI

residential constructiomu. Imu reeeiut yen_it’s, limun_ited residemul in_n_I developmn_uemn_

t

hun_is

oeen_t

rred

spturad

jun_n_I l’s’

throughout. About 35 percent

of

tbn_e

Control

Area lies east of the Iroqtn_ois R ~‘er.

Residential dwei

lin_igs

tend to be snialier luonn_es omu rein_n_tively snn_all lots located in subdi visiomus n_mci jn_meenut to the Iroquois River or

to the west of US Interstate 57.

In conclusion, thue Target Area ituelumdes a mn_nn_eh larger aren_n_ tin_an is cun_rrent iy affected by tlue exist inig

landfill. It includes sn_n_ies wiuieh n_ire n_un_ore thn_n_n one mile from the exist itug lain_dull. Yet, tiue Irutegrn_i report

even acknowledges this flaw itself. It states tin_at sales

more

thamu omue iuui Ic fromuu thue Iamudfil I are too far to

be affected. Accordingly, sn_mles n_ire in_ueluded in thue Tn_trget Area tiun_n_t sliotild muot realize n_n_mu in_uipact from tue

landfill. By definition, they are not n_mppropriatc considerations for the

Target

Area of the sIn_idy.

Additionally, most of the sales in the Target Area studied were negotiated prior to the announcemuiemut of

the expansion. These deals were strn_ick when commnon, public knowledge meld that the lamn_dfn_ll was

500it

to be closed. Several Target Area sates are located nearly two nuiles away froiuu the exisn_iiug site.

So in other words, the report averages

two

groups of sn_mies whuielu n_ire en_melu heyomud the lamuclfill impact and

announces no difference between thenu. it is comparing simnilar groups! 01 course there is no difference!

Further, the Target and Control areas each contain rather diverse realty patterns and are divided by natumnn_l

neighborhood boundaries. They are artificial boundaries, linked together by proxinuity but not by use or

underlying values. Residential construction type varies between the two n_n_reas, as well as lot size.

Additionaihy, it is very easily argued that each area, due to proximity, is simuuilarly affected or not affected

by the existence of the subject landfill. Accordingly, all of the sales considered in the averaging process

sold under similar influence of the landfill.

Finally, the Poletti amud Associn_ites report, a report prepared for a clifferen_ut hn_imudfilh proposed in_u Kn_n_nkn_mkee

County (not the subject expansion), included in the Waste Managen_uuemut Criterion 3 uses for its target area

a broader area from US Interstate 57 to the Iroquois River, from Iroquois County to Otto Road, one iuuiie

north of the subject landfill. This is more realistic in its approaehn_, but its use of averaging also throws its

results into question. Additionally, the Poietti study states that

the

agricultural properties trann_sferred imu

Hopkins Appraisal

Service

7

~ç.~akec!nnclil/

---

.ELECTRONICEILING. RECEIVED, p~RIK’SOFFICE MAY29. 2905

the neugmrrcn_rnnocn_ are moo ftw mo pertormn_u n_n_mu n_n_mn_n_n_mysis.

n_m tue mn_tegrn_i slut v nindkes agrmetm tn_n_rn_i sn_ties a

significant portion of

its n_mn_rn_lysis.

The Integra Report utilizes inn_appropriate appraisal methods and techin_iques

Averaging

Imagine omue of yon_ir

feem fron_’enu

mu a block ot ice. Now i uuagimn_e your otin_er loot i muuin_uersecl si rn_n_tm

t n_m mn_coin_sly

in a pot of boihimn_g water. Omu the aver_n_ge, woun_ld yotm n_n_glee you an’e comun_fortabie?

The use of aver~n_gingis n_mn u rn_sit itahl e n_ijuprai sn_mi tecln_muique. Particuin_n_rb)’ where I itmn_iled data ate n_n_vn_mi abhe. to

n_n_verage sale prices of real esi n_ite cn_n_mn_mn_ot result in nn_en_tmuingfuh conucltnsiomn_s. ‘‘lucre n_ire too mmun_un_y stn_hthe (ann_cl

not—so—subtle) differences hetweemu properties for a relmn_n_ble esln_n_uun_ite of vn_iltie to be hn_n_sed onn_ average sate

prices. Averagimug si n_uply cain_not he relied tn_pomn_ br n_n_eeurate val nat ion of men_il estate. To rely on averages

is misleading and presemu

t

s immihual n_n_need eomucbusn_oin_s. No ieputn_ihbe n_ipprn_ii sal school mu Hue con mum ry wi

teach n_n_veraging n__s a valtmn_mt un_mu tool.

Even_n_ tlue Poletti report, \v!michu Waste NI n_uin_igemnuent suihi rn_u

it

ted i mn_ imsn_n_ppl icat ion evemi n_hougin_ it

cli es not

specifically concern its proposed cx pamn_siomi, con_ietn_rs, statimug, onu page 28, thuat luonuies sold imn_

tin_c

Target

Area vary significantiy, eon_n_cln_md i ng n_in_n_mt. ‘‘...eompari rug amu overn_mhl average sn_n_Ic price wit 1mm time target n_n_ren_n_

to an average sn_tie price wm thuin control wott Id mu ot lue n ien_n_n i in_ g iu I.’’

The Integra report imn_n_properiy drn_n_ws in_s comiel in_sinus tot

n_n_il

y trot_u n_n_verage sale prices of si nn_gle lain_n_i ly

residences and vacant In_n_nd.

Page 6 of the Integra report disehn_umuis its owmu conci tmsiomn_ by pomnn_iin_g out tiue two highest residc.n_utin_n_l sales

in the study as “above average,” ben_n_ted within_mu tin_c ‘I’arget Area. But these data are tin_en in_ucluded iin_ thue

final analysis! Then wluemn_ tin_is skewed ren_n_somuing results in Tn_n_rget Aren_n_ averages exceechng Comitroh Area

averages, the difference is attributed to lot sizes, Wluemn_ tlue resultimug average sale price of honues within

the Target Area is In_igin_er tin_n_n_mn_the Comutrol Area, the aiuprn_iiser on_n_ page 8 erroneously n_idjusts the average

sale price for differences iii lot sizes n_n_mud concludes n_n_hi averages are sinuilar thuroumghout the county.

The Integra report does nuot deal witln_ specific properties, hut only averages. At no point does the reader

learn whether specific sales were at market levels, or below, or above. Rather than_i deal with averages, n_i

proper analysis would deal with specific properties. The entire procedure is based on only 13 sales from

the Target Area and 12 sales fronu the Control Am’ea. These sun_all numbers are statisticaily irrelevant. At

no point does the Integra report discuss individual variations of location, style, size, construction, age or

condition of the residences

—

the readerjust gets these averages and their n_neaningless conclusions

presented as fact. No market evidemuce is presented for a conclusion to he drawn that specific propem’ties

sold for specific, n_neasurabhe dollar ann_oun_uts above or below the n_iuarket for similar properties selling

without the landfill influence,

A more believable approacln_ would have been to separately appraise each of the sales within the target

area. There are only 13 of then_n, but individual analysis and matein_ed pairings could have indicated

whether their sales prices suffered from external obsolescern_ce eaumsed by proxinuity to tIne bandfill.

&pkins Appraisal ~ç~r?~

8

Kwmkakee Landfill

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, 1I3ECE VER., CLERK’S OFFI~E2MP~Y.?02Q05

Further, mn

n_ne Setuer s mmtlm n_n_iun_tn_ysn_s, mu egrn_i n_i so re us u1uomu n_mverages tn_u smun_n~ rn_ear V IL m,’mmltcn_im pr_n_per_v

vabues close to tin_c landfill n_tnd further n_lwa~’ .‘\cn_iimn_. his h_en_ivy umse ol’ n_ivcrn_mging m’emn_ders mhue comuehmmsiomn_

rn_ueaningiess. Agaimu, tIn_c reader is Felt with rio specific dn_mta omu specific b~~p~’rti~scomueln_mdimug their sn_ties

were at nuarket, or above or below.

Assuming thn_fl Settbcr’ s Hill in Katie County In_n_is a muunn_muin_il i muupn_tet does riot in n_inuy wn_ty men_n_lu tine

proposed expansion wil i riot h_n_ye sigmuihicant imupact omu the value of sin_iron_i ud hug property n_n Kn_n_rn_kn_ikee

County.

Take, for examuiple, the Wyss to Buesein_er sale of 10.105 acres or 54,750 per acme iii October 1 99t),

Integra reports this sale n_it I 0 acres for $4,800 per acme on pn_n_ge 22. It sold threetly n_mcross tue rn_un_id fronu

the proposed site, about omue amud on_ic hun_n_I fin_n_i hes son_it in_ of tin_c exist mmig site. it sold ~irmorto tin_c

announcement concermuing the expansion of the existing lain_cHill, hack wluemu n_in_c existing harmdl’ib i was

slated for closure. SC) by definition, it is out of the affected one min_ile radius, n_n_mid it was negotiated tniuder

different market conditions, back when tin_c landfill was about to lue closed. Yet tiuis sale is used as a

‘‘Target’’ sale, contrihut i tug to an aver_n_ge i nd len_n_ti tug no di fferenuce fn_omuu tin_c ‘‘Coiut roi Aren_n_

.‘

Further, Mr.

Buescher has stated publicly br tin_c record that in_c regrets in_is huumrcuun_ise, amid wotn_hd riot h ave inn_n_dc ii ln_n_n_d

he been aware of the landfill expansiomi plans.

The

Integra Report did not review tin_c mn_n_aterials necessary to make a detei’min_iniatton witin_ I’esi)ect to

Criterion 3

The

Integra farmland anaiysis avern_iges sale properties with different highest and best use. It fails to

properly consider the nature of I’arnn_land sales

in

mn_n_king its con_uiparisomn_s. Comn_uparisoiu of siuiahler

farmland parcels and larger parcels is nol fair, because In_irger parcels normuuahiy ten_nd to sell for less per acm-c

than smaller parcels. Additionally, somne of the sabes are rcsidemutiai, some arc agricultural, anch sonic are

industrial. It is not coin_pan ig like properties. It is like comparing ahiples n_n_mud oraruges.

For example, please refer to Page 22, Table 3, amid the $26,500 sale

for

19 acres at $1,395 per acre. This

sale is actually located in tue South Kankakee Industrial Park one half mile south of US Interstate 57,

to

the west of US Route 45/52. TIne legal description refers to a site roughly 600 feet east/west by 1,050 feet

north/south located at the west cul-de-sac end of the dead end mad to this industrial subdivision. This is

located one half mile outside the hounds of the carefubly defiiued “Control Area.” Incidentally, the site is

approximately 14.7 acres instead of thel9 acres incorrectly

rehuorted

by Integra. it is documented n_n_s

follows:

Seller:

Issen_t, et. al,

Buyer:

Urban

Date:

February 1999

Document:

Warranty Deed #99-02338

Size:

14.7 acres

Price:

$26,500

$/Acre:

$1,800

Legal Desc.: Pan_i of the NWI/4-SWI/4, Section 19, T29N, RI3W, OttoTowin_ship

Location:

2.5 miles fronu existing landfill.

jlQpkins Avoraisal Service

9

Kankukee Landfill

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Addition_n_ally, despite liuen_’e heimug a

luck ol n_chcdhn_matc data win_lu whuieln_ to avern_i~c~alc prices, at least two

sales which sIn_on_mId he inicIn_idud

in

n_IlL’

lnte~uraI:im’nuln_min_d n_IVcr:mges \Yen_’u neglected. (‘otmrtln_n_nmsc tract

searches yielded these

two:

Seller:

(‘rn_n_whey

Buyer:

Richard

Date:

May

1995

Document:

Wan’anty Deed #95-07092

Size:

66.42 acres

Price:

$1 $7,000

S/Acre:

$2815

Legal Desc.:

Part of n_N I/2-SWI/4, Section 9, T29N, RI 3W, Otto Town_n_ship

Location:

¼n_untIe

Iron

n

proposed

Iatudfn_l expamusion; 1 .4 nuiles froiui cx is_i mug

lam’mdl’i

lb.

Seller:

FOA ‘rust #2683

Buyer:

Moemtmk

Dale:

February

1994

Documemn_t:

‘l’rustee Deeds #94-02842 & #944)2843

Size:

202.26 acres

Price:

$505,650

$/Acrc:

$2,500

Legal Desc.:

Pan_’m of Section 12.

T2YN, RI3W, Otto ‘l’own_isiuip

Location_u:

1.5 mn_miles l’momn_n_ proposed landfill expansiomu; 1.7 n_miles fronn_ existinug iamudfih.

in conclusiomu, tin_c ann_xhysis is meaningless wIn_en properties of different highest and best use are eomuupared.

Averaging the

sale

prices renders time an’ahysms nueamuingless, particuln_mrly whuen sale data is minimal, as it is

with the subject study. And it is especially muuen_mmuitn_gless when sonic sales are excluded. inclusion_u or

exclusion of even

one

sn_tie can drn_n_sticn_n_ily alter tin_c rcstml n_s. Thuos, thue amualysis is liawech an_nd tmnrehahle.

Hopkins Appraisal

Service

10

Kankakee Landfill

---

The

~

mn_’m’ect

RECEIVED,

tin_ese mimmstmkcs

CLERK’S

n_mad hmresemut

OFFICE.

time tlatn_m n_mi

MAY

its

p1011cm

20, 2005

ormum

Table 2 & 3

Integrn_n_ Report

Page 22

Remuuovah

amid

Iixelusioiu (ml

‘l’rn_n_musacti oims

Con_utrol An_en_i

55.80 n_iveragc

acres; pi’icc imer

acre $2,189

74.89 avern_mge

acres per

sale;

price per acme

$2,363

The

column on_i the left directly m’ellects Tables 2

an_md 3 of time i7n_irmuu lmpn_n_ct Study omu page 22 of time in_utugra

report. The Integrn_m analysis imudieales time avern_ige sale

iii

tlue target area is 33.75 acres at n_in average price

per acre of $2,365 per acre.

t

shows the sales imu the control area averagimug 55.80 acres

n_n_I a

price oF

$2, 1 89 per acre. Thus ii lustrates clan_a directly fm’omum time lmn_tcgra report.

The column on thue right makes tlui’ee cin_anges winch n_n_re warranted to the Imitegra I’armmn_ln_tmmcl ammal sis, n_ms

follows:

•

It includes the two farnn_lamn_d transactions apparently inadvertemitiy neglected luy hmn_tegra. These

include the Crawley to Riehn_ard sale of 66.42 acres

at $2,815 per

acre

in May 1995, n_mmn_d n_lie FOA

Trust #2683 to Mociuk sale of 202.26 acres at $2,500 per acre in February 1994.

• It corrects the $26,500 Issert to Urban sale of 14.7 acres

at

$1,800 per acne

in Fehn’tn_am’y 1999. ‘‘lie

Integra report erroneotisly reported tin_at sale to con_utain 19 acres at $1,395 per acre.

• It removes the Wyss to Bucsciucr sale cuf 10.105 acres at $4,750 per acre (m’epom’tecl by Integna at

$4,800 on page 22). First, thin_s sale was for only JO acres n_n_nd Kn_mnkn_ikee

Cotmnty define.s a farmum as

20 acres or more, so this does not qualify as a fin_rn_n transactiomn. Second, it is located more than_n

one mile front the existing facility and should not he included in the target area. Tiuind, time record

is abundantly

clear that the purpose

of the purchase was for construction of a business amid

residence

—

not agriculture.

As the column on the right iillustrates, the average size of the transaction in the target area was actually

37.14 acres at an average p11cc per acre of $2,013. It shows that in the comntrol area, the avem’age

transaction was 74.89 acres for a price of $2,363 per acre. This corrected analysis illustrates that tin_c

target area has suffered an approxin_nately 15

decrease in value as corn_n_pared to the contm’ol area.

However, it is important to note that the entire farm study for the existing facility between both tin_c target

and

control areas involves tlue study of only 14 transactions over a period of 13 years. Statistically,

averages of so few transactions over a so long a period of time are absolutely meaningless. Tiue Poletti

study acknowledges this point and does not even attempt to study the impact of the existing facility on tin_c

value of surrounding agricultural properties.

Target Amen

33.75 average

aei’es; price per

acre $2,365

37.14 average

acres; price per

acme $2,013

Hopkins Appraisal Service

11

Kankakej~x,milill

---

Settler

ELECTRONIC.

s nil

i

in (,eneva

IS

FILING

1101 1¼n_n_nkaKce

RECEIVED,

C mmii

fl

CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

imutegn_’a’s in_n_elusion ol

tin_c Sen_der’s liii! ,stn_mdv in_i its repom’! m.s n_n_mi irn_n_mppi’opi’in_ite cn_ummn_pn_mrisoli.

‘lIme

mepoi’m

relies hcn_ivi

ly tmpomu lime Settler’s lii II analysis win_kim co;n_mpn_n_m’es average resiciein_tin_ml sale lmre’es l’m’omn_m Jour

neighborhoods and concludes n_no chifferemuce

iii vain_n_c hetweemi ammy of timemmi.

The problemiu is time tn_irget

area’s proxi mum i ty to tin_c I amid ii II. It lies well to the miortim of I hue hammd

Jill,

separated

by Chicago and Northwestern Rn_mi

road trn_mcks As it states omu page 12.

‘‘TIn_c euisti,’n_g /wuLfJj/can/n’ vcc,i

from a few

ho,ne.v

iLjLme

VQU/iç,’n )W?IQH oft/it’ Thr~’ct

Area~espeeialIy

/rom u/i/icr

(loot’s,

‘‘

Mn_mmmy of time

dwel lungs miu

the aren_t are 1ow~lyimmgsplmt level hmommmes amid rn_n_mmciues

.

A few are of tradi

t nunal two story

construction, bin othuer

words, to n_muost of time resi rhenees n_n tin_c tam’get mmeigbibonlmoods. tin_c I arud fill is

in_uvisible. Subjectively, it is the

sn_tan_c

n_is muot eveim heimig there. To imo surprise, average pn_’ices of homumes jim

a similar neighborhood where tiue landfill is simn_n_iin_irly in_n_visible n_mre pm’esemmtetl n_n_s simn_mil~mr to time target

neighborhnood.

Again, we are eli

whim no proof from_i direct sales comparison_n

or rrn_atcbuccl pairs an_n_alysis win_ether or ncmt

properties under tin_c direct imiflueiuee of tlue landfill bun_ive

sold at simn_uibn_n_r, or at reduced prices clue to time

proximity. Again there n_s not orue specific examuiple given. Agaimu, we have to rely omn_ averages whicim

in_n_cl ude propei’ties withimm tin_c target n_n_rca that n_ire

win_i rely tn_mn_affected buy thue In_n_mid ‘i Ii.

A better example

iii tin_is study would have hmecim a cotumparison between_u

tin_c imudust ri n_mI pi’opert ics

immediately across the street hi’omn_m n_hue lan_idfi II, on the sotmlh side of Fahyn_tim Pn_n_rkwn_iy in Ham n_m ~•‘i

n_i, to si

mimi ln_n_r

industrial properties i’tirthuer rein_moved Iron_n time In_imn_d!’i II. ‘I ‘Jmcse

n_rut in_st ri al properties n_mm h’n_n_ced svi t h imhowi ng

trash, increased truck tramffic, and other side e fl’ects oh neigln_horimmg n_n_ I

andfi hI. Whn_mI is tin_en_n_fleet imen_’c. if

any? After rcadimng tin_c repom’t, we still don’t know,

The report also uses the example of the Fox Run of (len_n_eva subdivision located west of

the

Settler’s l-hll

landfill. This subdivision ol’fers high—end residences 0mm large bots located generally upwimmd from

tin_c

landfill, separated from tin_c lancifili by n_n_ wooded greemm space. It n_n_dvertises a location_u within wn_tlki ng

distance to the METRA comnuuter tm_un to Chicago.

However, consider the following differences hetweein_ (iemuevn_n_ arn_d sotmtbmern Khmikakee County:

• Settler’s Hub landfill is reportedly scheduled to he closed within a few years. A buyer can

consider that by the tunic the property is resold, mn_much of time external obsolescence presented

by the landfill will he immoot;

•

Prevailing winds come frommi the west. The subdivision is generally upwind of the landfill,

which is separated by woods and is barely visible much of the year;

• The GenevalSt. Charles/Batavia area

is relatively mature and developed. Sub-dividable land

within walking distance to the METRA train is extren_nely rare; and

•

The housing econ_ion_n_iy in_as been extremely robust in recent years and is able to support

ventures that would he considered too risky under less brisk economic circunustances. Penn_n_n_ps

this is one reason timis property has not been developed until recently.

llQthhn_s Appraisal Service

1

2

---

ELECTRONIC

EILIN.G RECEIVED, CLERKS OFFJCE,J,V1AY 20, 200~

in concn_uston, beimeva n_n_much

Nain_kaked n_tie two sepn_n_rn_ite n_n_mit! uissn_nmiln_ir mmn_n_n_rkels.

I (icy are not ‘caddy

eomumpared

and to do so en_n_mi he c’omustnmctl to be in_n_islen_mdn_mn_c, ‘fin_c mmL’ighn_imon_’hmood n_mn_in_ilysis is fIn_n_wed my time

inclusion_n of propem’ties unn_n_ifected by n_lie

lammdfill iii tn_n_rget n_n_rca n_ivern_n_gcs. Finn_n_il, dtme to tIn_c in_muk oh

suitable specific—property, n_n_matched

palm’s

or direct sales

commiparn_son analysis. time ren_mcber is still left with

tIne questiomm unanswered of wimetbier proximity 1cm a landfill will acn_nn_n_lly cammse a

redtmction

iii

oven_’n_thl

Agreement to Guarantee Properly Value

Waste Management offers a

few select proper! y owmiem’s w I timi mu tic targem am’ea

n_i liimn_itcd guarn_imu tee. Icr

property values, This guarantee is btmrtimcr descriiued

in

hxhrbit A-2.

1)

it is Ii mumited to residential lum’orert ies withiin_ 1,500 Ibet (0.25 mmmi he) oh’ time proposed lan_ndl’i II

expansion, but tine Imn_tcgra study i

mnpl ies thn_it lmrolmerties up In one mum

he con_mid he affected by tIme I andt’i Ii.

Further, time offer is linmited to resicletmtial hiropert~’owners. Accordi nglv, it cioes not apply to significant

an_nounts of property consistm n_mg of agricu lttn_ral

,

trammsit iou_n_I n_n_mud

indtmstriab I amid

.

It applies on_il y to a sinaII

percentage of the affected propemly surroumudimug time ln_miudti II expansion.

2)

it reqin_ires the imon_mucowner to cumicin_mct

aim

extemmsive mmmn_n_rketing period of 270 clays (muimme mmuonths)

before proceedin_ig witln n_megotiations with Waste Management. ‘fiuis seeimn_s excessive, since people mn_n_ny he

forced to move prior to

the

end cuf this lengthy n_mmarkeling timmie.

3)

Not only does it require

n_n_mn_

expensive, lengthmy, n_marrative apprn_misal at time honieowmner’s expel_se, It

also requires perversion of normal appraisal tcchniqtn_e. it elinmimmates ruin_in_my of tIme inn_urinal eon_msideration_ms iii

defining highest and best use. Specifically, in_cam (c.) on_u ~uage2: “TIme use an_id Zoning Classification of

the Property on the effective date

of the Agrccnment shall he time sole factors used by the appraiser in

detern_nining tin_c highest am_cl best use

of tine propem’ty.’’

Altering the highest and best use consideration effectively iinn_its time value of the property in Waste

Management’s favor. According to the Dictionary Real Estate Appraisal, Tiuird Edition, issued by the

Appraisal Institute, the four criteria timat tlme highest and best n_n_se nmust n_fleet are as follows:

I. Legal pemniissibihty;

2. Physical possibility:

3. Financial feasibility;

4. Maximum profitability.

Under proper appraisal technique, each of these tests is applied to the property first, as

vacant,

and

second, as

improved.

Accordingly, in total, there are normally eight tests to estimate a property’s highest

and best use.

The first test is legal permissibility. Normally, this includes time property’s current zoning,

or any possible

or probable consideration of re-zoning of the property.

But Waste Managemument’s rules leave out the

possibility of rezoning, which alters typicn_n_b consideration of highest and best use

in

normal appraisal

technique.

Hopkins AppraLtal Service

1 3

Kankakee Landfill

---

ELECTRONIC FILING RIECEIVED, CL~R~SOFICE~MAY 20,2005

The secono test is pumysmc’n_ih possmiurmi!~’. v\ n_ms!e

Mn_uiagenn_cmmt s ru es c’zmml cur consldcramln_Hm of tin_c Lmi’opert

on/_v a.c currenti v inipi’oi.’ed

——

mn_n_ut zn_s jmotemn_tially imn_iprovctl. In_u n_n_tin_er words, zn_s tine n_n_ren_m develops n_m,md n_uses

clun_tnge. tIme value of tin_c sumrotmn_n_dimmg properties en_in_u omml

be vn_mined t’or their resideimn_izii mn_moses,

eliminating coimsideratiotu of tin_eimn_ for reclevelopnment to coin_mi imere in_il, i un_clustrial

.

or other in_igin_em’—ciuct

purposes.

The final two tests, Ii nan_mci n_mi I’easiimi lit yan_md mmnn_mxi in_atm_i prof ut ability, coin_me imutcu play wbiemm Iuroiuert ics

undergo transition I’roumm

one use to time next, Clmaimges iii n_use occur when the site vaIn_me as vacn_unt begin_n_s to

exceed the total val n_te n_ms i

nmpm’ovecl, p1 n_us cien_mmohin_ion costs, Tin_c stub ject area is traimsit icuun_al

,

in_ n_un_mn_ed

relatively close to Kan_ikakee witin_

ready

access to 1—57,

au_I

it is exhihitimig signs of cimamuge n_it

time imreseumt

tinne.

Accordingly, the perverted

apprn_misai techumiques called for by Waste Main_ageutment will

tenci to linmit tIme

asking prices of time properties dn_iri mug n_

Imei r iumam’kct imug periods aimd will not support tin_c n_ictuai luigimest n_n_n_mci

best uses of those

properties.

4)

It requires time property owumers to wait umutii 270

cias

after fin_mn_il approval zimmcl time i ssn_un_ruucc of n_n_Il

permits to operate tine lzn_umcfiil cx pan_nsiomm. WImi Ic Waste Maumagen_nmemmt says it waumls to avoid “pain_ic

selling’’ it ignores time. imeeds ol own_mers who mmeed to unova prior mo n_tue fiumzil ajuprovais. Simon_il_i ilmis

approval process exieuud for any significaimn_ IemigtIm of thin_c, n_Iris pou’tioum of tIn_c zigreuumemmi con_mid prove to he

an unnecessamy hai’dslmip for

property cuwners,

In conclusion, the property

value guarantee offered by Waste Mn_unagement oilers too hew propen_’ty ownem’s

a complicated, costly n_il te rimat I

ye tlmat n_u n_mfairi y favors

Waste M anageimmenul

fi muanejal I y.

Conclusion

In conclusioum, time Criterioum 3 an_malysis suhmun_mitted

by Waste Management imu its applicatioum for a Iaimdfiii

expansion, is flawed at its nn_cust basic level, inaccurate, and, therefore, fails, even with testin_n_uony, tn_u

meet

Criterion 3. It is internally inconsistent,

it is inconsistent with various

statements in time Poletti study,

also presented by Waste Management in Criterion 3, and, in fact, directly conflicts statenmcnts nn_ade in

that report.

The study utilizes an imnn_ippropriate nmethodology, namely averaging, for the subject study, giveum the low

number of sales and diversity of propem’ties included in those sales. It includes and considers iumaccurate

data. The technique of averaging sales in a target area and conmparing them to average sale pi’ices in a

control area is basically flawed. ‘l’he properties within the respective areas have different highest and best

uses. The

average includes industrial, residential and agricultural properties, all with different factors of

value. The result is a skewed, misleading number. This technique is unreliable. A more reliable

technique would have been to con_npare like properties under the obvious influence of time landfill to

similar

properties without that influence

Additionally, the existing Landfill is 179 acres receiving 500 toums of garbage per day, and is due to be

closed soon. It is simply not similar to the proposed expanded landfill, at 644 acres receiving 4,000 tons

to 7,000 tons per day, for time next 27 years.

These situations arc not sinmilar. Drawiimg conuparisons

between theun reflect flawed logic.

Hopkins Appraisal Service

14

Kankakec Landfill

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

kmu’timer, liutegra failed

it)

ctutmsmdeu’ dn_itn_n_ imcccssn_n_rv tn_mr coummpleting n_mum adcqn_in_mtc (..‘uitcrin_uI 3 sttudv. Not omn_lv

(lid lintegra utilize in_macen_irate (in_n_la imm

ims stn_mdy. sun_eli n_ms he iumcorrec’t auicn_mge ium n_il lc’n_msn_ n_n_un_c of time farimmiamud

sales, hut

it

also failed to in_uclude iecesszn_ry (In_it a.

Accord imn_giy, tin_c tim_u

1mg

of’ tin_c st tun_iy is

ii awedi. Rur

example, most of tine sales dosed prior tn_u public kumuwledge being available concerning tIme landfill

expansion_i. Tine analysis does not fairly rejuresent tire cimanging immarket comnditions reflected iuy time

expansion. Since so few sales were n_utilized in time luutegra report, analyzing wimether they sn_mid for uumarken_

value, or more, or less, would be sigmmificaumtly nmcure muueamningfimI

.

But that analysis is lackiumg. Also,

Integra’s

farmland sales comimparisoum is lackimug, un_cut on_uly ium time Iwo sales which Integra failed to iuuclutic

iii

its study, but also by lntegi’a’s failure

to couusider lime immature of farummin_mimd salcs’auiil the rein_n_tioimslnip

between sale price amid faumim aci’cn_ige.

The Integra Report is additioimaI ly fIn_iwed amid tmumrel in_mhle, n_ms the target an_mci comm t ml zn_ren_n_s f’orumm ing time iun_is is:

of the repcurt

are not appropriately defitied, ‘Flue tn_n_r’get aren_n_ is very si umilar to time coimtrol area. Maimy sn_mlcs

in the lintegra repou’t zn_ic Icueatccl heyoumd time defin_meci on_me—mum i Ic i mullucin_ce

of’ Lime exist i mug izn_umd fill, but

nonetheless are represented as Icucateci witiuium the target area because they ai’e witln_imi on_n_c tunIc of

tin_c

proposed expansion. Ifthey are

located lueyouud time iuulltuemmce of time cx isti ng I n_nu I ti Ii. amid zn_re negotiated

while public knowledge tiumdem’staincls time existing lan_mdl’mi I is dime to close

soon, they simply cn_umimut reflect

market opinion toward the landfill

expansion.

Hopkins Appraisal Service

15

Kankakee Landfill

---

ELECTRONIC FILING, RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Curt

i fi c a

tin_u n_i

I certify that, n_cu the best n_ufnuy cuorviedge an_id t’cin_ed

•

Tin_c facts an_md data reported by the reviewer an_id n_ned mn_u the review process are fume and correct.

•

The analyses,

opinions

and

con_me Lcn_sn_runs :n flmn_s review are my person_n_al. inn_uarn_ ial amid tin_uhuased

pn_’ofessuo nal analyses, opium us, amid cn_.u mc In smns, atud cue

I

n_iuitcd on

by by

any as suniptme us aimd

hnumtirig condition_is stated in n_in_n_1 n_c\ clv

•

I have no present or prospective mlcreut in_i

tn_ic

prcmpemly that is the subLet oftimis report and mica

mersouual ir.terest win_lu resin_cut

to

n_lie

tiCis

in_lcIn_IveCi.

•

My engagement in_u this assign_i mc n_it uva s not contingent in_lion_u dcve Lug ing or reporting Iurcdctcrtmutn_l cd

results.

•

My eonnpen_usation Is in_cut eoatn_ngen_mt on_i an_i action or even_it resulting from n_In_c ain_aly.ses, apI_in_on_ms. n_ar

conclusions in tfmis review n_lu fro iii

In_S USC.

•

I have made n_u persona I insn_ue en_ti

in_i

it

F

Ime 511111 oct un_cu pen_tv n_if n_hc work under rcvn_ew.

•

No on_me Imr0~’idedsignificant appran_sul, appran_sal review, or appran_s:d eonsn_n_ln_mrn_g assistance to n_In_c

person_i s igni_me tin_is cciii Rn_eat n_on_i.

•

As of n_he date of this repn_un_i, I, Pen_ui F. Itcuptins, MA!, ARA. finn_c cemniluted the. rcquin_ein_n_en_n_n_s of the

conin_rn_un_n_n_g education ofn_ime An_muern_’rn_ui Society olFarn Mon_n_n_n_gers an_mn_I Rural Appian_sets an_id the

Appraisal nstitutc.

___

Pen_er

.

Hopkins., MA

.

A

Illinois Certified Geuueral Run_n_I Estate Appr~is~1No. 53-000172

\~fisconsinCertified General Appraiser No. 132

hopkins Appraisal &‘ntce

16

KankakJan_c~fifl

---

ELECTRONIC FILIN

~7çf~JERK’S OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

~ Ajipraisal

______

Se

vv ice

Peter

E.

Hopkins, MAt, ARA

Professional Qualifications

Appraisal Institute

MAT Menmher #11684

Corut iOU

in_mg

educ

at iou en rremi

American Society of Farm Managgys

i~w:i*Atupraisei’s

Accredited Rural Appraiser (ARA) #798

Contiumu i mug eclucat ion etm rreumt

Intern_uational Right of

Way Asscuciatioum

Member #201

State Certifications

llliuuois State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser #153-000472

Wisconsin Certified General Appraiser #132

Coluti flu in_mg educat i on

en_u rreuu

Professional Experience

i1~ikiim~_Aptr~n_isaiService

Since 1993, providing valuation services throughout Illiumois and Wisconsin on a wide

variety of real estate bud udiuug ccunimiuerc

iai

,

i imclustrial

,

single f’aimmi ly rcsidemmti

al

,

euuminctmt

dorruaitu vaeammt Iand,

and

n_n_grilunsi ness. Includes court imon_mse test i nuoum.

Education

University of Wisconsin

-

River Falls

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture, Journalisnm Major

Appraisal Institute

All classes requisite an MA! designation. Various senninars, including Appraisal Review

and Highest and Best Use.

American Society of Farm Man_iagers an_nd Rural Appraisers

All classes requisite an ARA designation. Various seminars, including federal Yellow

Book, Conservation Easenments, ammd Enuinent Donuain.

International Right of Way Association

Appraisal Training for Eminent Domaitu, Wisconsin DOT

Partial Takings 401

Farm

Credit Services

Federal Land Bank, Appraisal I and Il

Housing Inspection_i for Appraisei’s

Wisconsin School of Real Estate

Real estate law

Hopkins Appraisal Service

17

Kankakee Landiill

---

ELECTRONIC FILIN1

OFFICE, MAY 20, 2005

Service

Peter E. Hopkins, MA!, ARA

Clients Served

AmCore Bank, Sterling, IL

Associated Bank, Chicago,

IL

Bank of Sugar Grove. Sugar Grove. IL

Bank One, Cfuicago, IL

Chicago Water Reclamation District, Chicago, IL

Citizens First National Bank, Primucetomi, IL

Crawford, Murphy & TilIy Civil Fngiiucers, Springfield, IL

Deutsclm, Levy & Engel. Chartered, Cluicago. IL

Douglas County Highway Departimmeun_t, Superior, WI

Equitable Agribusiness, lime., Des

Moines, Iowa

Farm

Credit Services, Wiscounsium aimd Illimucuis

Farm Mortgage amid Appraisal Co.. lmmc

.

.

Cammueroim, WI

Farnuers

I lame Admin_uistratioum, II Ii uoi s.

Wi seonsi

ii

and Colorado

Farmers National Bank, Geun_esco, II

First Midwest Baumklllhiuiois, Morris, IL

First of An_muerica Bank. Cluamnpaign, II.

Firstar Bank Rice Lake, NA., Cn_iuiherlaumd, WI

Greater North Bank, Antiocln,

IL

Illinois Depart nment of

Transportation, Sclmau imuburg,

IL

International Paper Conupany, Montvale, NJ

Jeuck Real Estate, LLC, Prospect Heights.

IL

Kane Coun_mty Bank & Trust Conn_paimy, Elbn_mi’iu, IL

Lake County Forest Preserve District, Deerl’ield, IL

Lakeland Community Bank, Round Lake Heigluts, IL

Land Acquisition Bureau, State of Illinois Attorney Geineral

Land Acquisitions, Inc., Arlington Heights, IL

LaSalle Bank. Chicago, IL

Louis Dreyfus Corporation, Loekport, IL

M & I Bank, Neillsville, WI

Mid-Continent Coal and Coke Coummpaimy, Hon_newood, IL

National City Bank, Lihertyville, IL

Norwest Business Credit, Inc., Milwaukee, WI

Old Second National Bank of

Aurora,

IL

Omega Financial Services, Chicago, IL

Sandwich State Bank, Sandwich,

IL

Seiben Hybrids, Genesco, IL

Strategic Capital Bammk, Clmanmpaigtm, IL

Titus Properties, Libcrtyville, IL

US Department of Housing and Iirbatn_ Devclopnucnt, Chicago, IL

Village of Grayslake, IL

YMCA Camp Duncan, Ingleside,

IL

Hopkins Appraisal Service

IS