1. AMICAS CURIAE BRIEF
      2. Submitted by Authority ofthe PCB Administrative Order of August 19,2004
      3. In matter captioned below.
      4. Respondent.
      5. NOTICE OF FILING OF AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
      6. D)Applicant was guilty ofpacking the County Board Room gallery with its
      7. P-0296 File 47311-1
      8. 6)Not threatened by letters 0102
      9. 8)Mr. LaGesse never solicited communication from Harrison. P-0104 File 4735307
      10. 1)Ms. Faber noticed the picketers outside the building. 0123
      11. 0122-23 File 4735307 picketers
      12. the Application. 0220-221 File 47353-1
      13. 47353
      14. R) County Board Francis Jackson was not influenced by public contacts, letters,
      15. 47353
      16. j~positionof Duane Bertrand.. File 47359-1 4-15-05
      17. 0)County Board Member Duane Bertrand was not influenced by public contacts,
      18. 47359- 1
      19. And Mr. Thompson. P-26 File 47359-1
      20. 47359-1 File
      21. 161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
      22. Fax 312 321 0990
      23. P.O.Box 1787
      24. BRUCE CLARK. COUNTY CLERK
      25. NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR BEARING
      26. Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
      27. Illinois Pollution Control Board
      28. RESPONSE TO JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM
      29. 1. The Watson Claim
      30. Conclusion
  1. kuNois STATE GEOLOG~cALSURVEY
      1. Groundwater Geology Section
      2. Groundwater of theArea
      3. Summary
      4. Bibliography
      5. discussion of geology.)
  2. Special Meeting of the Kankakee County Board
  3. AGENDA
  4. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  5. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTARY
  6. 6. EXECUTIVE SESSION — Discussion of said litigation pursuant to 5

RECEJVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
MAY 232005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
AMICAS CURIAE BRIEF
Submitted by Authority ofthe PCB Administrative Order of August 19,2004
In matter captioned below.
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
)
ILLINOIS, INC.
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB 04-186
v.
)
(Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF
KANKAKEE
)
COUNTY,
)
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING OF AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
Please take notice that on May
20th~
2005,
Keith L Runyon, an interested party in the
above captioned matter, submitted an Amicus Curiae brief Pursuant to Section 101.1 10©,
and in accordance with Section 101.628~.35 Iii. Adm. Code 101,110©; and by
authority of the August 19, 2004 order of the Pollution Control Board.
By Keit L Runyon
A~re~P~ty
Keith L. Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Dr. Unit D.
Bourbonnias, Ii 60914
815 937 9838
techsource12@comcast.net

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 ofthe Illinois Code of
Civil Procedure, hereby under penalty perjury under the laws of the United States of
America, certifies that on May 20th.. 2005 the Pollution Control Board was served
an original and five copies of the foregoing enclosed Amicas Curiae brief by
depositing an original and five copies thereof, enclosed in an envelope in the United
States Mail at Bourbonnais, Illinois, proper postage prepaid, and postmarked before
5:00 P.M. on May 2O1~~...2005. addressed as below., via U.S. Mail,, mailed from the
Bourbonnais, II. Post Office 60914
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, II 60601-3218
Attorney George Mueller
501 State Street
Ottawa, II 61350
815 433 4705
Fax
815
422 4913
Donald J. Moran
Perterson &
Houpt
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Ii 60601-3242
312261 2149
Fax 312 261 1149
Elizabeth Harvey, Esq.
Swanson, Martin, & Bell
One IBM Plaza, Suite 2900
330 North Wabash
Chicago, Il 60611
312 321 9100
Fax 312 321 0990
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
175
W. Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, Ii 60604
312 540
7540
Fax 312 540 0578

Mr. Bradley Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph, 1
ith
Floor
Chicago, II. 60601
312 814 8917
Fax 814 3669
Richard S. Porter
Charles F. Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 ParkAvenue, P~O.Box 1389
Rockford, Il. 61105-1389
Christopher Bohien
Barmann, Kramer, and Bohien, P.C.
300 East Court Street
Suite 502
P.O.Box 1787
Kankakee, Ii 60901
Karl Kruse
Kankakee County Board
189 E. Court Street
Kankakee, II 60901
Kankakee County States Attorney
Ed Smith Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Bremda Gorski
450 E. Court Street.
Kankakee, II 60901
By depositing a copies (copy) thereof, enclosed in an envelope in the United States Mail
at Bourbonnais, Illinois, proper postage prepaid, before the hour of noon, on May
20th,•
.2005. addressed as above.
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Dr. Unit D.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
815 937 9838
Fax 815 937
9164

I~
CLERK’SE
C E
OFFICEfiVE
~
MAY
23 2005
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
AMICAS CURIAE BRIEF
Submitted by Authority of
the PCB Administrative Order of August
19,
2004
In matter captioned below.
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
)
ILLINOIS,
)
INC.,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
PCB 04-186
v.
)
(Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
)
COUNTY,
)
Respondent.
By Keith L Runyon
An interested Party
Keith L. Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Dr. Unit D.
Bourbonnias, 1160914
815 937 9838
techsource12@comcast.net

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I)Statements of Fact
.
.P-1
II)Applicant Engagçd in Fundamentally Unfair Practices
Pg2-5
III)Applicant fails to prove Fundamentally Unfair Practices guided County’s denial..Pg5—
28
IV)Argument
~
gl-2
V)Conclusion
Randolph County v. Land and Lakes
~
~
~P-6
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Karen Hertzberger
Pg.6-7
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Jamie Romein
Pg.7-8
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Elmer Wilson
Pg.-8-9
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Robert Scholl
Pg.9-10
TESTIMONY OF FORMER BOARD MEMBER Ed Meents
Pg 10-11
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Ann Bernard
Pg. 11-12
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Leonard Martin
Pg. 12-13
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Ralph Marcotte
Pg. 13
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER James Staufenberg
Pg 13-14
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Michael LaGesse
Pg,14—15
TESTIMONY OF FORMER BOARD MEMBER Linda Faber
Pg15-16
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Stanley James
Pg16-17
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Culver Vickery.
Pg. 17-19
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Ruth Barber
Pg.19-20
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Kelly McLaren
Pg.20-21
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Francis Jackson
Pg22-23

TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER George Washington Jr
Pg.23-24
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER William Ohitoff
Pg 24-26
TESTIMONY OF BOARD MEMBER Duane Bertrand
Pg26-28
V)Conclusion
~
P28
P
Exhibits:
A)County Siting Ordinance
B)Letter From Waste ManagementAttorney Don Moran To Karl Kruse.
P
C)Concerned Citizens For A Better Environment v. City ofHavanna and Southwest
Energy Corporation. PCB 94-44.
D)Illinois Geological Survey
E)Land and Lakes v. Randolph County PCB 99-69
F) Waste Management Proposal for Settlement
p
P

In support ofthe decision of County of Kankakee and the County Board ofKankakee
and its overwhelming decision of March the l7~’.of 2004, to deny Waste Management’s
Landfill Expansion Siting Application.
I)STATEMENTS OF FACT
II)Applicant engaged in Fundamentally Unfair practices against the people
of
Kankakee County
and
the Kankakee County
Board,
in attempting to coerce an
affirmative vote
from
the Board on its 2003 Siting Application.
And
III)The manifest weight
of
evidence fails to support
Applicants allegations that
Fundamental Unfairness enteredinto the Kankakee County Board’s decision to
deny Waste Management’s Application for a proposed expansion of the Kankakee
Landfill, on March 17th,
2004.
VI) ARGUMENT
Waste Management has created a fictitious myth in attempting to establish that the 2003
landfill expansion Application vote by the Kankakee County Board, was subject to
fundamentally unfair practices. When facts fail, myths must prevail.
Fiction,: Applicant alleges Bruce Harrison, a Democrat, unemployed iron worker
persuaded a bedrockRepublican County Board to vote against the landfill expansion.
The County Was incorporated in 1853 and throughout its entire history it has been
controlled by Democrats for only two years.(1999-2000) It held a 17 to 11 majority at the
time of the 2004 vote. In truth, the majority is more like 20 to 8 because Board Members
Wilson, Washington and Waskowsky are Democrats in name only. They nearly always
vote
with the Republican majority. In the last election the Democrats ran a full slat of
candidates and failed to pick a single seat on the Board.
Fact: Most Board Members did not speak with Mr. Harrison and those who did said he
did not influence their votes and were not intimidated on threatened by Mr. Harrison. All
Board Members admitted they based their votes on the record. Mr. Moran would have
had to impeach each and every Board Member’s testimony to prove that Mr. Harrison
influenced their votes. Mr. Halloran assessed that all witnesses were credibile.
Fact: We are led to believe that Mr. Harrison-had he talked with all the board members,
was more persuasive than Waste Management’s professional hearing team.. Each and
every Board Member testified that he or she made their vote decision on the record.
Logic and facts prevail.
Fiction: Applicant alleges the first and second applications were the same, therefore,
there could be no reason for the board to voter against the 2003 Application.
Fact: The site is the same in both Applications which is why most board members voted
against the application. They were mislead during he resolution hearing into thinking
the protection of the public’s Health Safety and Welfare was to be voted on in a later
criterion. That’s the reason they did not vote no on Criterion II. The real reason the

objector’s Further, Waste Management assumes the PCB would have ruled for approval
ofthe first Application on the manifest weight ofthe evidence. The PCB reversed the
first application on notification and never reviewed the manifest weight of the evidence.
The objectors presented more convincing evidence than that presented by Waste
Management’s team. Their real estate expert’s credibility was totally impeached during
the hearing. The Board Members voted on the record and denied the Application.
Fact: Waste management alleges that conspiracy, deceit, perjury, and political
intimidation took place during the ex parte period. They are correct because it is they
who committed those acts. Waste Management violated the ex parte rule through
Moran’s letters and through agent O’conner and suspected agent Wiseman’s contact with
a Board Member. Waste Management conspired with a small group of County Board
members in secret and illegal meetings, forthree years prior to announcing the
amendment to the solid waste Management Plan to allow out of county garbage and the
planned 302 acre expansion ofthe present landfill. It was Waste Management who
intimidated Bruce Harrison and Robert Keller. Waste Management had many
opportunities to locate and subpoena Mr. Harrison during the Kankakee County fair of
2004. He was there the whole time as Was Lee Addleman of Waste Management. Waste
Management also resorted to Political Intimidation-Monopolizing the Board Room to the
exclusion of County residents and by picketing the board, the day ofthe vote. Further
they are actively involved in attempting to
Intimidate the county board into doing a back door approval of the expansion~
Fact: Waste Management, certain Members of the Kankakee County Board, State’s
Attorney Ed Smith and County’s hired Attorney are presently engaged in a conspiracy to
deceive all parties including the Pollution Control Board and to undermine the whole
sitng process and to do a back door siting of the proposed expansion. County Chairman
Karl Kruse has scheduled a Special Meeting ofthe County Board forge an agreement
with Waste Management and to withdraw form the PCB Appeal.
This deal is being offered by Waste Management’s Attorney via the County’s Special
Attorney Chuck Heisten. (Exhibit F)
(All data submitted herein are from PCB File 47311-1 06, PCB, 47353-07 and PCB
File 47359-1. The first two are hearing transcripts, the latter is the Olthoff,/Bertrand
deposition. File 47359. There are five a source documents submitted as exhibits
II)Applicant engaged in Fundamentally
Unfair practices against the people of
Kankakee County and the Kankakee County Board,
in attempting to coerce an
affirmative vote from the Board on its 2003
Siting
Application Including the above
reference Special Meeting.
A)Applicant Participated in Illegal Secret
meetings
with an informal group
of County Board Members for three years prior to announcing plans for the
Expansion ofthe landfill to the public.
1)Secret Meetings Runyon public Comment P-114 ,File 47353
5—6
Waste Management had been meeting secretly with a,
7
“Special group of board members or an
8
informal group of board members,” for
9
three years prior to the announcement of the
10
amendment of the solid waste plan. This was
11
corroborated two people, county board member
12
Mike Quigley, who said when they introduced
13
the host fee agreement that members of the
2

12
Mike Quigley, who said when they introduced
13
the host fee agreement that members of the
14
board had been meeting with Waste Management
15
for up to three years prior to this, and the
16
host fee agreement was simply the culmination
17
of those meetings
21
vice—chairman Pam Lee, corroborated what
22
Mr. Quigley had to say in her deposition when
23
she said, an informal group of county board
24
members has been meeting with Waste Management
B)Applicant committed violations ofthe ex parte rule through written
correspondence to the County an by having its agents and suspected agents
Communicate with one or more Board Members during the ex parte period.
1)Board Member Stanley James testified that he was contacted by “Conner and
Wiseman” prior to the Board’s vote. He was referring to Sue Ann O’conner, a known
agent of Waste Management. Wesley Wiseman who was one to the “informal group” of
r
Board Members that met with Waste Management in a series of secret meetings
Wiseman has been a supporter and is believed to be an agent of Waste Management In
addition, Waste Management Attorney, Don Moran sent a letter to Board Chairmen Karl
Kruse on March 11, 2004, twenty days after the public comment period had been closed.
2)Stan James testimony about O’conner contact p-l55 ,File
47353
15
A.
I had two phone calls that supported
16
it, Connor and Weisman. 2
2
A. Basically that I should consider all
3
the facts.
4
Q.
What else?
5
A. That she basically supported. She had
6
no objection to it, and that was it.
3)Stan
James
testimony regarding Wiseman contact, 0156-57
,File
47353
19
Q. You said you also got a call from
20
Weisman?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q. What did Weisman say to you?
23
A. Weisman favored the expansion, the
--
24
approving it.
3)Donald Moran, Attorney for Waste Management submitted a letter to County
Board Chairman Karl Kruse March 11,2004,
twenty
days beyond the cutoff period
for public comment. (See exhibit B)
C)Applicant stationed picketing agents in front of the
County Building the Day ofthe vote, in violation ofthe ex parte rule.
In public comment both Bruck and Runyon testified to the existence of
Waste Management’s pickets.
1)Bruck public Comment p- 0370
File
47311-1
20
I would just like to note for the
21
record that there was also picketers out
22
there in favor of the Waste Management
23
landfill and I can determine that because I
24
saw their signs picketing in favor of the
1 0370
dump and I asked them who they were and they
2
said they were Waste Management employees and
3
they said they had been told that if the
4
expansion didn’t happen, that they were going
5
to lose their jobs and so they were out there
6
picketing in favor of the dump and that has
3

7
not been mentioned to this point.
2)Runyon Public comment, about Waste Management pickets. P-0113 File 47353
10
We’ve heard a lot about signs as
11
if they’re a mean thing to have, and yet, I
12
also testified yesterday
--
or Daryl Bruck
13
did, that Waste Management had picketers
14
outside with signs. Now, just why is it that
15
that
s good for them and bad for the people
D)Applicant was guilty ofpacking the County Board Room gallery with its
employees barring citizens
from
entering the room during the March 17,
2004
siting
meeting.
1)Romer public comment regarding Waste Management Board Room Packing P.
0111, File
47353
3
Iwasnot
4
outside picketing. I came in. I came in
5
about 8:00. The room was already full, and I
6
inched my way into the room; and when I got
7
in, I found Lee Addleman was talking to Waste
8
Management employees. I know they were
9
employees because they were wearing badges,
10
and they had filled the room, and they stated
11
that they were there to keep the citizens
12
out. That was the day they voted the
13
landfill down.
2)Keith
Runyon’s testimony
in public comment. P-0112, File 47353
14
MR. RUNYON: first of all I want to second
17
what Ms. Romer had to say. I too witnessed
18
exactly what she saw, the room. The galley
19
was totally flooded with Waste Management
20
employees with very large badges, probably
21
eight inches by six inches, very predominant.
22
In addition to that, the sheriff
23
stood outside the door and would not allow
24
people in, and if anybody had any sign or
1 0113
placard that was in opposition to the
2
landfill, he certainly would not let them in.
E)Applicant is accused of
intimidating
an opponent of the
landfill
expansion
1)Mr. Keller testified thatMr. Harrison was in fear for his life P0123,124,152, 153
File 47311-1
MOran
6 0152
Q.
has
9
not provided any location as to where he may be that
10
he is fearful for his physical safety from Waste
11
Management?
12
A.
Is that my assumption, yes.
13
Q.
Is that your belief based upon what he
14
has told you?
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
And is it accurate to say, Mr. Keller,
17
that Mr. Harrison has not told you about any
18
specific acts or instances in which his life or his
19
personal safety was threatened by any person or
20
representative of Waste Management?
21
A.
He is the one that told me and showed
22
me the truck that drives by my house and now I have
23
noticed it on my own daily from Waste Management.
4

5
A.
No, mine.
6
Q.
And can you describe that truck for
7
us?
8
A.
It’s a maroon, I believe it’s a Chevy,
9
I’ve followed it numerous times and they’ve pulled
10
back into the dump.
11
Q.
You followed the truck?
12
A.
I have, yes.
13
Q.
So you have observed this vehicle
14
driving around the landfill, driving by your
15
property?
1)Mr.
Runyon Also testified
that Mr. Harrison was in fear for his life P195-196
File
47311-1
BY THE WITNESS:
5
he told me that he was going
6
to disappear because he feared for his life.
7
BY MR. MORAN:
8
Q.
This is consistent with what
9
Mr. Keller indicated this morning?
10
A.
That’s what he told me and I said why
11
are you afraid and he said I’m afraid I could be
——
12
end up in a landfill.
13
19
Q.
It was your understanding based upon
20
what he told you that he was in fear for his life
21
because of what?
22
A.
Because of his opposition to the
23
landfill.
8 0196 Q.
Do you have any reason to believe
9
that Mr. Harrison fears for his life?
10
A.
I can only go by what he told me.
11
Q.
So you accepted what he said?
-
12
A.
I beg your pardon?
13
Q.
You accepted what he said, the reason
14
he has disappeared is that he fears for his life?
15
A.
That’s what he told me.
20
Q.
Where did this take place?
21
A.
I believe it was at the fairgrounds.
1 0197 Q.
Was anyone else present for this
2
discussion?
3
A.
No.
4
Q.
How long did the discussion last?
5
A.
About three minutes.
III) Manifest weight of the evidence fails to support Applicant’s allegations that
Fundamental
Unfairness entered into the Kankakee
County
Board’s decision to
deny Waste Management’s Application for a proposed expansion of the Kankakee
Lañdfill.On March 17th• 2004.
Waste Management’s case in chief is predicated upon the false allegations,
1)That:
1)County Board Member votes were influenced by possible contacts with the public.
2) letters presumably, opposing the landfill, influenced votes ofthe Board Members.
4) pickets outside the County Building on the day of the vote influenced Board members
votes.
5

5)
County Board member Ann Bernard unfairly pre-announced
her opposition to the
landfill and did not base her opposition on testimony from the hearings. And, further that
her campaign influenced 19 Board Members to vote against the Application.
6) Bruce Harrison had communications with several board members during the ex parte
period and that he persuaded the Board Members to vote to deny. No board member
indicated that the alleged contacts by Mr. Harrison influenced his or her vote.
7)In addition, Mr. Harrison was not a party to the hearings. The parties are: Waste
Management, The County of Kankakee, Merlin Karlock, Michael Watson, Keith
Runyon, Kenneth Bleyer and the City of Kankakee.
In
a parallel case,
LAND AND LAKES
v.
RANDLOPH COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, (PCB99-69)
the Pollution Control Board ruled against Land
and Lakes. “PP 23-24 CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the members of the
Randolph County Board were subjected to numerous contacts outside the record of the
However, these contacts did not affect the ultimate decision
and
did not prejudice Land
and Lakes. Therefore pursuant to Waste Management v. PCB and E&E Hauling v. PCB
the proceedings were not tainted by the contacts and were not fundamentally unfair.
(Exhibit E)
III)The manifest weight ofthe evidence fails to support Applicant’s allegations that
fundamental unfairness entered
into the Kankakee County Board’s denial, on
March
17th,2004~ of
Waste Management’s Application for a Proposed Expansion of
the Kankakee Landfill.
Just as in the Randolph County case, there were scattered incidents of attempted
communication with the board, nonetheless the Applicant failed to prove that these
scattered attempts persuaded any Board Members to vote to deny the landfill.
The following summation of each county Board Members testimony clearly
indicates no outside actions influenced their votes and that they indeed made their
judgments from the record.
A)Countv Board Member Karen Hertzberger
was
not influenced by public contacts,
letter, pickets on the day ofthe meeting or posted signs. She voted no to both the
2003 application and the 2004 application. Nor was Ms. Hertzberger intimidated by
contact from Bruce Harrison.
1)Ms. Hertzberger Testimony docunienting her denial vote. P_0045,46 File 47311-1
06
5 0046 Q.
And in voting on the 2003 siting
6
application, you voted to deny certain of the
7
criteria, is that correct?
8
A.
That’s correct.
9
Q.
And you voted to deny certain of the
6

10
criteria that you had approved when you voted on the
11
2002 siting application, correct?
12
A.
Correct.
1)Ms Hertzberger made her decision on
the record. P-0073, 74
P- 0071
File
47311-1 06
21
Q.
Did you consider any factors or
22
information outside the record in rendering your
23
decision on January 31, 2003?
P=0071
1
BY THE WITNESS:
2
A.
No.
2)Ms.Hertzbergers vote was not influenced by Mr. Harrison’s attempt to talk with
her. P-0074 File, 47311-1
A. Never.
12
Q. Did you consider anything Mr. Harrison
13
said to be evidence?
14
A.
No.
15
by Mr. Porter
16
Q.
Did Mr. Harrison coming to your office
17
in any way intimidate you?
18
A.
Nobody intimidates me.
B)Countv Board Member Larry Gibbs vote on the
Application was not influenced
by public contacts, letters, pickets on the day ofthe meeting or posted signs.
1)Mr. Gibbs
admits receiving
letters but didn’t read them read them.
13
-
Q.
Were these letters or written
14
materials opposed to the proposed expansion?
15
A.
I never read any of them but one.
16
When I first
received them,
18
—was for the landfill,
I closed it up, sealed it
back
19
and took it to the clerk and all the rest of them.
1)Mr. Gibbs
not influenced by people who tried to speak
with him
about the landfill
outside the hearing. P-0222, 23
,
File 47311-1 06
16
BY MR. PORTER:
20
Q. And as soon as you found out he wanted
21
to talk about the application, you stopped his
22
attempted communication, is that right?
23
A. Yes.
24
Q. Now, there was some mention of a few
0222
1
people that apparently stopped you on the street and
2
mentioned the landfill. Did you tell those people
3
that you could not discuss it?
4
A.
Yes.
C)Countv Board Member Jamie Romein was not influenced by public contacts,
letter, Pickets on the
day
ofthe meeting, or posted signs.
1)Mr Romein admits to having receiving letters but was not influenced or
threatened by them. P-0254,255, File 47311-1 06
BY
MR. MORAN:
22
Q.
Mr. Romein, does that refresh your
23
recollection?
24
A.
It does, but I still didn’t feel
0237
10
0255
Q.
So would your answer be yes?
11
A.
I still don’t think this letter is
7

12
threatening, so I don’t feel threatened by it.
13
Q.
And what was your answer?
14 0255 A.
I didn’t feel threatened by the
15
letters.
2)Mr. Romein did not feel threatened by attempts of Mr. Harrison, ofthe public, to
talk with him about the landfill.
Porter CrossP.. 0254,255
File 47311-1 06
24
Q.
At any time did you feel threatened by
1
0254
the conduct of Mr. Harrison?
14
BY THE WITNESS:
15
A. Absolutely not, no.
ThCountv Board Member Elmer
Wilson was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, Pickets on the day of the meeting or posted signs.
1)Mr. Wilson voted to approve both applications. It is obvious that none of the
alleged “unfair practices” influenced his vote on the 2004 Application.
Wilson Testimony P-0259,60, File 47311-1 06
20
Q.
And you voted to approve the 2002
21
application?
22
A.
Yes.
8 0260 Q.
And you voted to approve the 2003
9
application?
10
A.
Yes.
2)Mr. Wilson rebuffed attempts on the part
of Mr. Harrison to talk
about the
landfill expansion.P-0264,65 File 47311-1 06
0264
23
Q.
And what did he continue to say?
24
A.
That he had talked to people about
0265
1
support and my reference always was are we talking
2
about the same matter and he’d say yes, and I’d say
3
you know I can’t talk about it. Thank, you for the
4
meal.
16 0269 Q.
And each time he attempted to talk to
17
you, you told him you couldn’t talk to him about the
18
landfill expansion?
19
A.
Correct.
19
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
Did you feel threatened or intimidated
0270
1
by anything he said to you?
2
A.
No.
3)Mr. Wilson
was
not threatened or influenced by any actions of the public who
apposed the expansion. Helsten cross exam P-0169,70 File 47311-1 06
10 0270
Q.
By the way, were you threatened by any
11
of the petitions that Mr. Watson handed you?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
Did you even look at them?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Did you immediately throw them into a
16
waste paper basket?
17
A.
Yes, I did.
4)Mr. Wilson
was
not threatened or influenced by any actions of the public
who apposed the expansion. Helsten cross exam P-0269,270
File
47311-1 06
2
0269
A.
No.

3
Q.
Okay. Reverend Wilson, had you
4
previously been instructed not to talk to members of
5
the public about the proposed expansion?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
And not to engage in any communication
8
with them over the telephone either?
9
A.
Yes.
10
Q.
By the way, were you threatened by any
11
of the petitions that Mr. Watson handed you?
12
A.
No.
13
Q.
Did you even look at them?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Did you immediately throw them into a
16
waste paper basket?
17
A.
Yes, I did.
18
MR. HELSTEN: Thank you. That’s all.
E) County
Board
Member Robert Scholl was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, phone calls Pickets on the day of the meeting or signs opposing landfills.
P-0274, 75, File 47311-1 06
1)Mr. Sholl Received one phone call from a supporter of the landfill.
1)
0274
19
Q.
Mr. Scholl, prior to the vote on
20
March 17th, 2004, did you receive any phone calls
21
regarding the proposed expansion?
22
A.
Prior to the vote?
23
Q.
Yes.
24
A.
Yes.
0275
1
Q.
How many phone calls did you receive?
2
A.
I received one phone call.
3
Q.
From whom?
4
A.
It was from a trucking business that
5
was in support of the landfill.
2)Signs
did
not affect Mr. Scholl’s vote on the expansion. P- 0297 ,File 47311-1 06
15
MR. PORTER: Again, I
22
I at least get to ask if he was threatened by the
23
fact that he saw these yard signs.
24
19
A.
Physically threatened is
--
it’s an
20
inanimate object. Was I threatened by the sign
1
BY THE WITNESS:
3
A.
Not at all.
3)Mr.
Scholl was not threatened by the picketers.P-0297,98
Fi1e47311—1 06
BY MR. PORTER:
5
Q.
And finally, were you threatened or
6
intimidated by seeing picketers?
7
A.
No.
4)Did not read letters from the public, thus they had no influence
on Mr. Scholl”s
vote. P-0295 File 47311-1 06
12
Q.
And what did you do with them?
13
A.
It is my recollection I brought them
14
into the county clerk’s office.
15
Q.
The letter that you did open and read,
16
did you
--
17
A.
Excuse me. I did not read it. I
9

18
glanced at the letters.
P-0296 File 47311-1
21
BY MR. PORTER:
22
Q.
Did you feel threatened or intimidated
23
by the receipt of those letters?
24
A.
No.
5)Mr. Scholl was not threatened or intimdated by Mr. Harrison. P-0297
10
by Mr. Porter
11
Q.
If I understood your direct testimony,
12
you had one communication with Mr. Harrison in the
13
breaks during the hearings, is that right?
14
A.
That is correct.
15
Q.
Was anything that Mr. Harrison said to
16
you different than what he said to the public during
17
the hearings?
18
A.
Not to my recollection,
no.
19
Q.
Did you feel threatened or intimidated
0296
1
by anything Mr. Harrison said?
2
A.
No.
6) Mr. Scholl was not threatened or intimidated by letters. P-0297,96
3
Q.
There was reference to some letters
4
that you received and I’m sorry, refresh my
5
recollection, did you read those letters?
6
-
A.
No.
7
Q.
Did you feet threatened or intimidated
8
by receipt of those letters?
24
A.
No.
7)Mr. Scholl
was
not threatened or intimidated by the yard signs. P-0296 File 47311-
1 0297
Q.
I believe there was some mention of
2
yard signs in your direct. Did you see the yard
3
signs?
4
A.
Yes.
5
Q.
Did you feet threatened or intimidated
6
by yard signs?
1. 0298
2
BY THE WITNESS:
3
A.
Not at all.
0297
8)Mr. Scholl was not threatened or intimidated by picketers. P-0297, File 47311-1
4
BY MR. PORTER:
5
Q.
And finally, were you threatened or
6
intimidated by seeing picketers?
7
A.
No.
8
MR. MORAN: Objection.
9
HEARING OFFICER HALLORAN: Overruled.
10
MR. PORTER: Nothing further.
F) Former County Board Member Ed Meents was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, pickets on the day of the meeting or posted signs
1)Mr. Meents refused to discuss the landfill expansion with Mr. Harrison.
P-0306 File 47311-1 06
14
A.
Mr. Harrison started to address the
18
question and I told him we’re not going to talk
19
about the landfill, we can talk about the family and
20
that, but we’re not talking about the landfill.
21
Q.
Having told him that, did he continue
In

22
to talk about the proposed expansion?
23
A.
He tried, but each time he was cut off.
2)Mr.Meents
faithfully
followed the ex parte
rule.
P-0321-22 File 47311-1 06
5 0322
Q.
You had been counseled to that effect?
6
A.
Yes.
7
Q.
You followed that direction?
8
A.
Other than this one phone call,
if
you
9
consider that a violation, I would admit to that.
10
Q.
Well, did you talk to Mr. Harrison
11
about the substance of the application when he
12
called?
13
A.
No.
3)Mr. Meents turned all communications regarding
the’-landfiWinft~-the-County
Clerk. P- 0322 File 47311-1 06
18
Q.
Likewise in regard to the letters, you
19
turned those into the county clerk?
20
A.
Yes.
G)Countv Board Member Ann Bernard was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, phone calls, pickets or posted signs.
1)Her vote was based on the testimony in the record ofthe first hearing.
The site was the same in both Application
P-0363-64
File
47311-1 06
Q.
-
Okay. Likewise, when you drafted your
21
web pages, you had already been through the entire
22
first siting hearings, correct?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And you, according to Mr. Moran’s
0364
1
statement, understood that the second application
2
was similar, is that right?
3
A.
He said
it
was essentially the same
4
with some updates.
2)The 39.2 legislation does not preclude a member from the siting proceeding even
if she has a pre-disposition on how she will vote. (Exhibit C)
415 ILCS, ILCS 5/39.2(d), which
states
in pertinent part: ..“.The fact that a member of the
county boaid or governing body of the municipality has publicly expressed an opinion on an issue related
to a site review proceeding shall not preclude the member from taking partin the-proceedingand’voting-on
the issue.”
The PCB upheld this statute in Concerned Citizens fora Better Environment, Petitioners v. City of
Havanna and Southwest Energy Corporation, (See Exhibit C)
3)Ms. Berard voted no on both the 2002 application and the 2003 application.
P-0327 File 47311-1 06
17
Q.
And you voted on each of the criteria,
18
is that correct?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And you voted to deny certain of the
21
criteria, is that correct?
21
A.
Yes
4(Ms. Bernard voted against the 2002 Application P-0328 ,File 47311-1 06
10
Q.
Would
it
be accurate to say that you
11
voted against certain criteria in the first
12
application?
13
A.
Yes. I want the record to reflect
14
when I went to look for the roll call sheet it was
11

15
missing.
5)Ms. Bernard voted against 2003 application. P-0216,217 File 47311-1 06
20
Q.
And you also voted against certain
21
criteria for that 2003
application, is that correct?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
So in both instances you voted against
24
the application, is that correct?
6)Ms. Bernard objected to site over the major aquifer- which is the source of the
area’s drinking
water.
Documentation
,
in the
record, and attached as (Exhibit.D.)
from the Illinois Geological Survey
deems the two proposed sites
to be among the
least suitable for
landfills in Kankakee
County.
7)Ms. Bernard was concerned about the safety ofthe County’s water. P.. 0336 File
47331-1 06
3
A.
Well, I would say generally he made it
4
clear he’s an opponent of the landfill and the one
5
thing that’s sticks in my craw is that I based
-—
I
6
was going to base my decision on the evidence
7
presented, the testimony, and people can talk to me
8
until they’re blue in the face. You know, to me it
9
was criteria two and that aquifer.
8)The both Applications offered the same site location
over the aquifer.P0-362,
File
47331-1
22
heard Mr. Moran reference that the applications were
23
-
very similar between the first and second, is that
24
correct?
1 0363 A.
Oh-huh.
2
Q.
Is that yes?
-
3
A.
Yes. I’m sorry.
9)Waste Management alleges that Ms. Bernard’s Candidacy influenced County
board members to against
the application. This point was refuted by Board
Member Martin. In addition, she
did
not persuade the voters, losing her primary
race by a landslide margin Of
66 to 34.
Ms. Bernard is not a persuasive board member.
19
In your experience, has
20
Ms. Bernard’s statements at the county board been
21
well received by other county board members?
22
A.
I don’t know.
23
Q.
Do you consider her to be an extremely
24
persuasive board member?
1 0042
A.
Not really.
File
47353 April 07-2005. Covers the testimony of April 07.05
G’
County
Board Member
Leonard Martin was not
influenced
by public contacts,
letter, Pickets on the
day
of the meeting or signs
opposing
the landfill.
landfills. Mr. Martin voted to deny both applications, therefore, the scattered
incidents of public protest
did
not influence
his
vote.
1)Mr. Martin voted to deny both applications.p-0010-11 47353-07
24
Q.
And when you say that they were
0011
1
different, did you vote against more criteria on the
2
second application than you did the first?
3
A.
I believe I did.
2)Letters
did
not influence Mr. Martin’s vote. 0009-10
22
A.
A few, yes.
12

23
Q.
Did you open any of these letters or
24
read any of these materials?
1 0010
A.
I open all my mail irregardless of
2
what it is, but I ignored what was said in there.
3
read them, but then I knew that I was not supposed
4
to make my decision on outside influences,
so as a
5
result, I just threw, them away.
3)Mr. Martin did not
talk
to Mr. Harrison about the landfill.
P-0039 File 47353 07
11
Q.
Why didn’t you talk to Mr. Harrison
12
about the landfill?
13
A.
Because at the time we were interested
14
in electing candidates, not the waste management
15
thing.
19
time in
electing democrats for offices.
H) County Board Member Ralph Marcotte was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, phone calls, pickets on the day ofthe meeting or posted
signs
Mr. Marcotte voted to deny both
applications, Testimony P-0048 File 4735307
I)Mr. Marcotte Threw away letters. Moran Cross P-0054 File 47353-07
14
Q.
And you took those letters and just
15
threw them away, is that correct?
16
A.
Yes, I did.
2)Letters he received simply echoed what he had already heard at the hearings
P-0058
File 4735307
7
Q.
In general, the letters you received
8
stated opinions in opposition of landfill, is that
9
right?
10
A.
Correct.
11
Q.
And you heard the same type of opinion
12
in opposition at the hearings, is that correct? Fill
3)Mr.
Marcotte
was not threatened by pickets. P-0055
File 47353
07
BY MR. PORTER:
Did
you feel threatened or intimidated by the
picketers?
2
A.
No, sir.
I)Countv Board Member James Staufenberg was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, phone calls, pickets on the
day
of the meeting or posted
signs.
1)Mr. Staufenberg
did
not vote on first Application P-0060 File 4735307
11
Q.
And what was the reason why you didn’t
12
vote on January 31, 2004
—-
13
A. I was on vacation.
2)Recieved no phone calls regarding the expansion. P- 0066 File 4735307
17
Q.
Now, Mr. Stauffenberg, prior to the
18
March 17th, 2004 vote, did you receive any phone
19
calls regarding the proposed expansion?
20
A.
No, I did not.
3)Mr. Staufenberg received letters. Did not read them. P. 0066-67 File 47353
9 0067
Q.
Were the letters about the proposed expansion?
10
A.
I did not read them.
4)Mr. Staufenberg threw letters without opening them away. P-0068 File 4735307
5 0077
Q.
You just threw them away?
6
A.
Yes, I did.
7) Mr. Staufenberg
did
not
meet with
Bruce Harrison P-0069-70 File 4735307
11 0069
Pam Lee, (told him) who Bruce Harrison was, and
13

12
she told me that I shouldn’t be talking to him about
13
the landfill. So ,I canceled that appointment.
6)Mr. Staufenberg did not have conversations with anyone outside the hearings
P-0076-78,
File
4735307
24
Q.
You told Mr. Harrison you couldn’t
0077
1
discuss anything with him concerning the landfill
2
expansion, correct?
3
A.
Correct.
.1) County Board
Member Michael LaGesse was
not influenced by public contacts,
letters, phone calls, pickets on the
day
ofthe meeting or posted
signs
LaGesse Testimony P~0078 File 47343 07
1)Mr LaGesse voted no on the second
Application 0083 File
4735307
6
Q.
How did you vote on the second
7
application?
8
A.
I voted no.
2)One phone call from Bruce Harrison P- 0084
File 4735307
4
Q.
How many phone calls did you receive?
5
A.
One.
3)Mr. LaGesse refused to meet with Harrison P-0090 File 4735307
6 0091
Q.
What did you say in response to his
7
arguing with you about the appropriateness of being
8
-
able to meet hJir~?
9
A.
I just flat out stated that I was not
10
going to meet with him, and I didn’t.
4)Mr. LaGesse threw away letters he received unopened. P.. 0093 File 47353 07
19
Q.
Was that letter opposed to the
20
expansion?
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
What did you do with these letters?
23
A.
I threw them away unopened.
5)Mr. LaGesse was not threatened or intimidated by picketers P- 0102 File 4735307
Porter
24
Q
.
Were you threatened or
0102
1
intimidated by those picketers?
2
A.
No.
6)Not threatened by letters 0102
8
Q.
There was also some reference to some
9
letters that may have been received. Were you
10
threatened or intimidated by any of the content of
11
those letters?
12
A.
No.
7)Mr. LaGesse relied on No outside ofhearing information. P- 0093-94 File 47353
20
Q.
Now, you had been instructed to
21
disregard any information that you acquired outside
22
of the hearing process; correct?
23
A.
That’s correct.
24
Q.
And did you follow that instruction?
0104
8)Mr. LaGesse never solicited communication from Harrison. P-0104 File 4735307
18
Q.
Did you ever solicit a communication
14

19
from Mr. Harrison?
20
A.
No.
9)Mr. LaGesse was not threatened or intimidated by Harrison or Flagole F-0105
File 4735307
11
Q.
Were you at all intimidated or
12
threatened by Mr. Harrison attempt to speak with
13
you?
14
MR. MORAN: Objection.
15
HEARING OFFICER: Overruled.
16
BY THE WITNESS:
17
A.
Absolutely not.
1
Q.
Were you at all threatened or
2
intimidated by the contact with Mr. Flageole?
3
A.
No.
K)Former County Board Member Linda Faber was not influenced by public
contacts, letters, phone calls, pickets on the
day
ofthe meeting or signs opposing the
landfills.
1)Ms. Faber noticed the picketers outside the building. 0123
0122-23 File 4735307 picketers
19
Q.
Were there picketers inside or outside
20
the building on that day?
21
A.
Outside.
1
A.
Yes.
2
-
0.
How many picketers did you observe?
3
A.
Maybe between 10 and 12. I don’t
4
know.
2)Ms. Faber received one phone call from Mr. Bennoit-wouldn’t talk to him about
the landfill.P-0127 File 4735307
4 0127
A.
He called us.
5
Q.
And you talked to him on that
6
occasion?
7
A.
Yes, I did.
8
Q. And what did Mr. Bennoitt say?
9
A.
11
when he mentioned the landfill, I told him I
12
couldn’t talk about it and ended the conversation.
11
Q. Did you terminate that conversation as
12
soon as you thought it was polite and courteous to
13
do so?
10
A.
Correct.
3)Ms. Faber was not threatened or intimidated by Bennoit call.P-O141 File 47353 07
0.
Ms. Faber, did you feel threatened or
5
intimidated by the telephone call you received by
6
Mr. Bennoitt?
7
A.
No.
4)Ms. Faber threw letters away unopened. P- 0129 File 4735307
23
A.
I only opened the first one or two and
24
got the impression they were opposed to it, but I
1 0129
didn’t read the rest of them as per instructed.
2
Q.
And did you then take the letters and
3
throw them away?
4
A.
Yes, I did.
5)Ms.
Faber paid no attention to posted
signs.
P-0132 File 4735307
3
Q.
Now, as I understand it, you told
4
Mr. Moran you didn’t pay any attention to the signs
15

5
the picketers had; correct?
6 0133
A.
Right. Yes.
6)She was not threatened or intimidated by the signs. P-0141 File 47353
15
Q.
Now, the yard signs, did you feel
16
threatened or intimidated by those yard signs?
18
HEARING OFFICER: Overruled based on
19
my prior decision.
20
BY THE WITNESS:
21
A.
No.
7)No discussions with people outside the hearing process 0135-36 File 47353
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
And also to ignore any outside
21 c
ommunication, right?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
And did you do that?
24
A.
Yes, I did.
8)Ms. Faber was not threatened or intimidated by picketers P-0142 File 4735307
Mr. Moran’s questions, you weren’t paying any
2
attention to the picketers and the signs that they
3
had; correct?
6
BY THE WITNESS:
7
A.
No, I was not.
8
BY MR. HELSTEN:
9
Q.
So did you feel threatened or
10
,
intimidated in any way by those picketers?
11
MR. MORAN:
Objection.
12
HEARING OFFICER: Overruled.
13
BY THE WITNESS:
14
A.
No.
K)County Board
Stanley James
was not influenced by public contacts, letters, phone
calls, pickets on the day of the meeting or posted signs.
1)Mr. James Voted no on both applications P-0149 File
47353
07
a)Mr.James voted no2002 Application Vote P-0153 File 4735307
15
A.’
On all the criterias,
I don’t recall
16
exactly which ones I voted no on.
b)Mr, James voted no on 2003 Application Vote. P- 0153 File 4735307
15
Q.
How did you vote on the second
16
.
application?
17
A.
I think the record shows that I voted
18
probably on a no vote that was seven or eight
19
criterias, I believe.
2))Mr. James Got calls in support of the expansion. P-OS14 File 4735307
15
A.
I had two phone calls that supported
16
it, Corinor and Weisman. 2
2
A.
Basically that I should consider all
3
the facts.
4
Q.
What else?
5
A.
That she basically supported.
She had
6
no objection to it, and that was it.
3)Mr,. James received a call from Wes Wiseman in support P-0156-57 File 4735307
Q. 0156
You said you also got a call from
20
Weisman?
21
A.
Yes.
22
0.
What did Weisman say to you?
23
A.
Weisman favored the expansion, the
——
24
approving it.
16

4) Mr. James refused to talk with Mr. Harrison About the expansion. P- 0167-168.
File 4735307
10
A.
Yes, he approached me.
11
Q.
When did
he approach you?
-
12
A.
He came in my office and wanted to
13
talk about it.
I told him there was nothing I could
14
talk about.
24
A.
It couldn’t have exceeded five minutes
1
0168
because it was long enough to walk through the door,
5)Mr. James
received
letters
but disregarded them. P-0177 File 4735307
7
Q
you were instructed by
10
Mr. Helsten and Mr. Smith to disregard any
11
communications you received outside the hearing
12
process?
13
A.
Correct.
Yes.
14
Q.
Did you
do that considering those
15
letters?
16
A.
Yes, I did.
8)No one outside hearing process told him not to vote against the siting. P-0177 File
4735307
1
Q.
Do you have a clear recollection of
2
anybody telling you outside of the hearing process
3
to vote against the landfill?
4
A. Outside of the hearing process, no.
5
-
Q.
So when Mr. Moran was asking you about
6
individuals that told you to vote against the
7
landfill, was that during the hearing that you heard
fl
8
that?
fl
9
A.
Yes.
8
A.
Could be, yes.
9)Picketers did not threaten or intimidate Mr. James. P- 0179 File 4735307
14
A.
Correct.
15
Q.
What about
-—
there was some reference
16
to the pickets, did the pickets
--
or picketers in
17
any way threaten or intimidate you?
18
A.
No.
1O)People
didn’t tell Mr. James how to vote.
P- 0181 File 4735307
17
Q.
That’s what I thought I heard you say.
18
My question is, do you want to
clarify that? Did
19
the people who told you to vote no, tell you to vote
20
no at the public hearing?
21
A.
No, they told me what their position
22
was, but they didn’t tell me how to vote.
L) County Board Culver Vickerv was not influenced by public contacts, letters,
phone calls, pickets on the
day
ofthe meeting or signs opposing the landfills.
1)Mr. Vickery voted yes on 2002 Application, P-O187 File 4735307
20
0.
How did you vote on the first
21
application?
22
A.
I voted to approve.
23
Q.
And you considered each of the nine
24
statutory criteria?
1
0188
A.
Yes.
2)Mr. Vickery saw pickets the
day
of the vote. P-19O, File 47353 07
5
the building on that day?
6
A.
Yes, there were.
7
Q.
You saw those picketers?
17

8
A.
Yes.
9
Q.
How many did you see?
10
A.
As I drove up, it seemed the sidewalk
11
was full of them. I didn’t count.
12
0.
Were any of them carrying signs?
13
A.
Yes.
14
Q.
What did the signs say?
15
A.
No Chicago garbage, no dump, things to
3) Mr Vickery voted no on Criterion one
and yes
on the rest. P- 0191 4735307
A.
I voted no on criteria one and voted
.6
yes on the other eight criteria.
4)Mr. Harrison phoned Mr. Vickery, he did not return the call. P-O193
File
47353407
18
Q.
And is it your belief that it was
19
Bruce Harrison who tried to call you that day?
20
A.
I don’t know if belief is the word,
21
but I assume it was.
22
Q.
And what you’ve said is that you never
23
returned his call?
5) Mr. Vickery would not talk outside the hearing. P.. 0195-196
File 47353 07
By Mr. Porter
17
Why
didn’t you return the phone
18
-
call from Bruce?
19
A.
Well, I was
--
I did not want to get
20
involved in any conversation outside of the hearing
21
process.
22
Q.
Is that because you’ve been instructed
23
not to?
24
A.
That’s correct.
0196
6)Mr, Vickery was
not threatened by Harrison’s attempted call P-0197-198 47353
07
19
Q.
And the one phone call that your wife
20
took, did
that in any way intimidate or threaten
21
you?
24
1 0198
BY THE WITNESS:
2
A.
No.
7)Mr. Vickery received letters, read two then turn the rest, unopened, to the
Clerk’s Office P-0194, 195 File 4753507
0194-195
23
Q.
Did you read it?
24
A.
Perhaps two.
I would say no more than two
0194
1
two.
2
Q.
Did you read the letters that you
3
opened?
4
A.
Well, the opening line indicated that
5
we’re against the landfill.
So I kept a file of
6
those letters unopened from that point on in my desk
7
drawer, and upon conclusion of this matter, I turned
8
them over to county clerk Bruce Clark.
8)Mr. Vickery was not threatened by the letters. P-0199 File 4735307
1 0199
The letters that were sent to you,

2
even though you didn’t read them, was the fact that
3
they were sent to you threatening. or intimidating
to
4
.
you?.
5
A:.
No,
M)
County Board Ruth Barber was not influenced by
public contacts, letters, phone
calls, pickets on the day of the meeting or signs opposing the landfills, therefore,
the scattered incidents of public protest did not influence her vote.
1)Ms. Barber received
only
one phone call
via
voice mail. P- 0213 47353-1
5
A.
Home.
6
0.
Who was the message left by?
7
A.
I don’t know. My
husband cleared the
8
messages that night, just listened to it long enough
9
to know
it was about the landfill and erased it, but
10
did at the time.
2)Ms. Barber Received letters opened two. P-0214 File 47353-1
21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
How many?
23
A.
.
I’ll say 30, 40.
24
0.
Did you open any of these letters?
0215
1
A.
The first couple letters I opened.
2
Q.
And did you read them?
3)Ms. Barber trashed letters without reading them. P-0215, 216
File
47353-1
21
your reason for concluding that they were relating
22
to the proposed expansion?
23
A.
The addresses were primarily all
24
Chebanse.
I have had no reason to be in Chebanse in
1
0216
the last 40 years.
I just tossed them in the
2
recycle bin.
4)Ms. Barber had no other communications from the public. 0216-217 File 47353-1
2
Q.
Did
you have any other communications
3
with any persons about the proposed expansion prior
4
to March 17th, 2004?
22
A. No.
5)Ms.
Barber was contacted by Harrison but there was no conversation regarding
the Application. 0220-221 File 47353-1
0220
20
Q.
Did he say anything about the proposed
21
expansion?
22
A.
He started rambling on. I pushed him
23
out of my office. He just rambled and rambled, and
24
I kind of started walking towards him to his
1 0221
vehicle, and that was about it.
6)Ms. Barber had no other communication outside the hearing
process.
P-0225 File
47353-1
21
Q.
You did not speak with anyone outside
22
of the hearings about the application before March
23
17th, 2004, did you?
24
A.
Correct. No, I did not.
0226
7)Ms.
Barber received letters but did not read them and was not influenced by
them. P-0226. File 47535-1
21 0226
Q.
Well, Mr. Moran asked you or intimated
22
a question that you had received communications
19

23
about the landfill application. Since you didn’t
24
read the letters, would you agree that you did not
1 0227
receive any such communication?
2
A.
No, I didn’t receive any
3
communications.
7)Receipt of letters did not threaten Ms, Barber. P.. 0227 File 47353-1
15
Did the fact that you received any
16
of these letters in any way intimidate or threaten
17
you?
21
BY THE WITNESS:
22
A.
No.
8)Ms. Barber saw posted signs. P-0224 File 47353-1
16
Q.
Did you see any signs that were posted
17 in or around the area saying no dump, no Chicago
18 garbage?
19
A.
Yes.
0) County Board Member Kelly McLaren was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, phone
calls, pickets on the day ofthe meeting or
signs
opposing the landfills,
gainst Criterion 3, Traffic.
1)Mr. McLaren didn’t vote on 2002 Application 0231 File 47353
10
A.
No, I did not,
11
Q.
And why didn’t you vote on it?
12
A.
I was vacationing out of the country.
2)Mr. McLaren saw no
outside
picketers.
P- 0232-233 File 47353
19
Q.
Were there picketers outside or inside
20
the building on that day?
21
A.
When I arrived, no.
22
Q.
Did you see any picketers in or
23
outside the building on that day?
24
A.
I think there might have been some in
1
0233
the hail.
3)Mr. McLaren was not threatened or intimidated by picketers P-0251 File 47353
23
BY MR. HELSTEN:
24
Q.
Did any of the picketers that you saw
1 0252
up front threaten you or intimidate you?
2
A.
No.
4)Mr. McLaren voted no on Criteria six. P-0233, 234 File 47353
22
Q.
How did you vote on the second
23
application?
24
A.
The only no vote I had was, I believe,
1 0234
criteria six, which was traffic.
5)Mr. McLaren Received no
calls
prior to March 17 P-0234 File 47353
2
Q.
Prior to March 17th, 2004, did you
3
receive any phone calls regarding the proposed
4
expansion?
5
A.
No.
6) Mr. McLaren Received written materials. P 0234 File 47353
6
Q.
Prior to March 17th of 2004, did you
7
receive any letters or written materials regarding
8
the proposed expansion?
9
A.
Yes.
7)Mr. McLaren
did
not
read letters.0234 File 47353
14
,-.
Q.
Did you open any
of these letters?
15
A.
My daughter opened one.
16
Q.
And did she tell you what was in the
17
one letter?
21)

18
A.
She saw the word landfill, and that
19
was where it was cut off.
8) Mr. McLaren Turned letters into County Clerk. File
47353
4
Q.
What did you do with them?
5
A.
I brought them in downstairs on the
6
first floor.
Helsten Cross P- 0248-249 File 47353
21
and you took that and all the
22
other letters and took them to the clerk’s office?
23
A.
Correct.
24
Q.
Why did you do that?
1 0249 A.
That’s what we were told to do and
2
were advised to do.
9)Mr. Harrison talked with Mr. MeLaren about environmental issues and the
landfill P-0237
File 47353
8
A.
He spoke in general environmentally, I
9
believe.
10
Q.
Saying that the proposed expansion
11
presented certain environmental risks?
10) Mr. Harrison’s remarks did not threaten or intimidate McLaren 0248
File
47353
4
Q.
Now, Mr. McLaren, you told Mr. Moran
5
that you viewed Mr. Harrison’s comments to you as a
6
threat?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
Did it, in fact, though, threaten you
9
,
or intimidate you?
10
A.
By no means. It infuriated me.
11)Mr. McLaren Did not engage in conversation with Harrison 0249-250 File 47353
22
Q.
Did
you engage in any conversation
23
with Mr. Harrison when he first came in into your
24
business?
1 0250 A.
As far as engaging, no. I listened.
2
Q.
Did you tell him you couldn’t talk
3
about it?
4
A.
As he was leaving, yes.
12)Mr. McLaren refused petitions from Bruce Harrison by Mr. McLaren P-0250
File 47353
18
Q.
Did you throw away the petition?
19
A.
No, I never took them. I looked at
20
one of the addresses just to verify it was my
21
district.
22
Q.
And you refused to look at them then
23
and refused to take them?
24
.
A.
Correct.
13)The petitions
did
not threaten or
intimdate
Mr. McLaren 0253, File 47353
BY
MR. HELSTEN: 0253=2-253
24
Q.
Mr. McLaren, did that petition
——
the
1 0253
fact that he handed you that petition threaten
2
you or intimidate you in any way?
10
A.
No.
14)Mr. Harrison
did
not threaten or intimidate Mr. McLaren. P- 0253.54. File
47353
17
Q.
Mr. McLaren did any of Mr. Harrison’s
18
contacts with you or attempts to talk to you
19
threaten or intimidate
21

20
A.
No.
R) County Board Francis Jackson was not influenced by public contacts, letters,
phone calls, pickets on the
day
of the meeting or signs opposing the landfills. 1)Ms.
Jackson was opposed to the first application, might have inadvertently voted for it.
P-0261, 0262
File 47353
January 31st, 2003, the vote on the first
22
application, you don’t recall having been for it or
23
against it; would that be accurate?
24
A.
Truthfully, I would have been against
0262
1
it, unless I was confused on something. That’s
2
possible.
2)Ms. Jackson saw picketers but was
not threatened or intimidated
by them 0294
File 47353
1
BY MR. HELSTEN:
2
Q.
Did
the presence of the picketers
3
outside the county building threaten or intimidate
4
you in any way?
5
MR. MORAN: Objection.
6
HEARING OFFICER: Overruled.
7
BY THE WITNESS:
8
A.
No.
3)She based her decision on the hearings not phone calls or personal contacts 0276
File 47353
0276
1
but the meetings that we had at the Quality Inn I
2
think was more educational to me, and I think I got
3
more out of that. I had more concern with that than
4
I did with the phone calls. The phone call didn’t
5
even say who they were.
4)Received Phone calls but not threatened or intimidated by them. 0292-293 File
47353
24
Q.
Ms.
Jackson, these telephone calls
1
that you received, did they threaten you or
2 0293
intimidate you in any way?
7
A.
Did they like
——
8
BY MR. HELSTEN:
9
Q.
You personally.
10
A.
No, no.
11
Q.
Do people generally tell you what to
12
do?
13
A.
No.
5)Hearings were what guided her vote P-0276 File 47353
1
but the meetings that we had at the Quality Inn I
2
think
was more educational to me, and I think I got
3
more out of that. I had more concern with that than
4
I did with the phone calls. The phone call didn’t
5
even say who they were.
6) Ms. Jackson Received Lots ofletters 0278-279 File 47353
15
Q.
Prior to the vote on the second
16
application, did you receive any letters or written
17
materials?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
And you received these letters or
20
written materials at home?
.
22

21
A.
Yes.
22
Q.
And you received a lot of letters and
23
written materials, is that correct?
24
A.
Yes.
0279
7)Ms. Jackson
not threatened or intimdated by the letters.
P.0294 File
47353
BY MR. MORAN:
10
Q.
Did the letters you received threaten
11
or intimidate you in any way?
14
BY THE WITNESS:
A. No
8)Ms. Jackson only had conversations
with others at the hearings 0289 File 47353
10 0289
A.
Yes.
11
Q.
They didn’t have you off to the side
12
talking to you off the record?
13
A.
No, at no point.
14
Q.
And were they talking about such
15
things as the health of their kids?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Q.
Were they talking about such things as
18
the water quality?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
Were they talking about such things as
21
impact on property values?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
Were they talking about other
24
-
environmental concerns?
1 0290
A.
Yes.
2
Q.
And you were there as a board member
3
at the hearing listening to those comments, correct?
4
A.
Yes, I was.
5
Q.
And some of those people had their
6
kids there with them, correct?
7
A.
Yes.
8
Q.
And they were getting up and giving
9
public comments, correct?
10
A.
Right. Yes.
11
Q.
And you were just listening to those
12
public comments, correct?
13
A.
Yes.
P) County Board George Washington Jr. was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, phone calls, pickets on the day ofthe meeting or posted signs
1)Mr. Washington voted to approve both applications. He, therefore, clearly was
influenced, threatened or intimidated into voting against the application.
2)Mr. Washington voted to approve the first application, P.0301 file 47353 07
2
Q.
And how did you vote on the first
3
application?
4
A.
To approve.
3)Voted to approve the second application P.0301 File 47353 07
3
Q.
How did you vote on the second
4
application?
5
A.
The same as the first, in the
6
affirmative.
7
3)He saw picketers on March 17. 2005 P-0302
File 47353407
6
Q.
Were there picketers in or around the
7
county board building on that occasion?
23

8
A. Yes, there were.
4)Mr.
Washington saw three posted
signs
0302-303 File 4735307
18
Q.
Prior to that date, had you seen any
19
signs posted
on properties throughout the area which
20
indicated or which stated no dump, no Chicago
21
garbage?
22
A.
Three.
23
Q.
And where did you see these signs?
24
A.
One was on Kennedy Drive, and the
0303
5)Mr. Washington didn’t
get phone calls on the expansion P-0303
File 4735307
3
Q.
Prior to March 17th of 2004, did you
4
receive any phone calls regarding the second
5
application?
6
A.
Like I said, if I did,
I didn’t answer
7
them.
I didn’t get any phone calls where I held any
8
conversations with anybody.
6)He received letters but turned them over to the County Clerk. P- 0304 File 47353
07
17
receive any letters or written materials regarding
18
the proposed expansion or relating to the second
19
application?
20
A. Again, the letters that I received
21
were not opened, and I turned them into the clerk.
22
7)Only
conversation outside the record was with Board Member Marcotte giving an
explanation P-0305 File 4735307
-
7
Q.
Prior to March 17th of 2004, did you
8
have any communications with any persons regarding
9
the second application?
10
A.
I think I talked with Red Marcotte,
11
and one other board member, just talked in general
12
about it explaining
——
8)Had only a passing contact with Mr. Harrison P-0306-307
File
4735307
20
Q.
Did
he try to tell you his reasons for
21
opposing the proposed expansion?
22
A.
It’s hard to say what he was trying to
23
tell me because he talked
around in circles, and I
24
couldn’t quite understand it, but
I just rejected
0307
1
what
he was saying because I wasn’t going to get
2
into a conversation with him about it.
3
Q.
And how long did this communication
4
with Mr. Harrison last?
5
A.
A couple minutes.
9)Mr. Washington was neither threatened not intimidated by Mr. Harrison. P.0308
File
4735307
19 BY MR. PORTER:
20
Q.
Mr. Harrison’s statements to you did
21
not intimidate or threaten you, correct?
22
A.
Of course not.
23
0)
County
Board William Olthoff was not influenced by public contacts, letters,
phone calls, pickets on the
day
of the
meeting
or posted
signs
Ohltoff Deposition
File 47359 1
24

1)Mr. Olthoff Didn’t vote on first application, voted no on 1,3 and 6 ofthe second
application P-S File 47359-1
p-5
11
Q.
Moran: What was your reason why
12
didn’t vote?
13
A:
Witness: I was out of town.
p-7 7
Q:
Did you vote on the second Application?
11
A:
How did you vote on the second Application
13
A:
I voted nay on three of the criterion
14
Q:
Were those criterion 1,3,
and 6?
15
A:
I believe so.
2)Mr. Olthoff Received no phone calls regarding the expansion. P-8 File 47359-1
16
Q:
Prior to your vote on March 17, 2004 did
17
receive any phone calls from any
persons regarding
18
the proposed expansion?
19
A:
No
20
Q:
Prior to your vote on March 17, 2004 did
21
you receive any letters or written materials
regarding
22
proposed expansion?
23
A:
Yes.
3)Mr. Olthoff
didn’t
read letters-turned them into the County ClerkP-8, 9
File 47359-1
9
A:
I opened them and when I saw they were
10
..
about the
expansion, I put them in a stack and turned them
11
All in to the County Clerk
4)Mr. Olthoff had a discussion with Bruce Harrison P.9 File 47359-1
20
A:
He came to our church.
1 P—10
Q:
How did he come to have commuication with
2
You through the Church?
3
A:
He made a request of our Associate Pastor
4
to speak to our congregation about the landfill.
14
Q: How did you learn of this request that Mr.
15
Mr. Harrison made.?
16
A: Mr. Guilford called me
17
A:
I said tell him no.
5)Mr. Olthoff Denied Mr. Harrison’s request to speak to the congregation. P-19 File
47359—1
15
Q:
How did you
conclude the meeting with him?
16
A:
I just said
he couldn’t speak to the
17
Congregation
3
P—19 Q: Do remember seeing those signs Around town?
7.
A:
Yes
6)Mr. Olthoff saw picketers outside county building on March 17tI~.P. 21, File 47359-1
7.
Q: Were there picketers outside the
8
building that day?
9.
A:
Yes
7)Mr. Olthoff met with Mr Harrison on a Church related issue. P-29, 30 File 47359-1
24 Q: And was your purpose in meeting with Mr.
1
Harrison to inform him he could not speak to the church
2
About the landfill application or the landfill in genera
4
A:
Yes
8)Mr. Olthoff wst not threatened or
intimidated
by Mr. Harrison. P.290,30 File 47359-i
12
Q:
Did you feel threatened or intimidated by
‘1413
A:Mr.
Harrison’sNo.
Statements.7
-
25

15
Q:
You had been instructed to disregard any
statements that were
made outside of the hearing process
17
is that correct?
18
A:
Yes.
19
Q:
Did you follow instructions?
9)Mr. Olthoff was not threatened or intimidated by letters he received. P.30,31 File
47359-1
24
Q:
Did you feel threatened or intimidated by t
1
the receipt of those letters?
3
A: No.
10)Mr. Olthoff was not threatened or intimidated by
the picketers. P.31 File 47359-1
8 Seeing those picketers?
10
A:
No.
11)Mr. Olthoff was not threatened or intimidated by the posted signs. P-31 File 47359.1
11
Q:
It was also mentioned
12
that the signs
were posted around Kankakee. Did you feel
13
Threatened or intimidated by those signs.
14
The Witness
A:
No.
12)Mr. Olthoff was not threatened by the letter, picketers and
signs
P.31 File
47359.-1P-3l
16
Mr. Porter Q: In regard
to the letters,
Picketers, again did you follow the
instruction
18 to disregard statements or materials that were submitted
19
outside the hearing process?
20
The Witness:
A: Yes.
j~positionof Duane Bertrand.. File 47359-1 4-15-05
0)County Board Member Duane Bertrand was not influenced by public contacts,
letters, phone calls, pickets on the
day
ofthe meeting or posted signs vote.
1)Mr Bertrand was not threatened or intimidated by posted signs. File 47359-1 4-15-05
8
Q: There was some mention of signs
9
Were you threatened or intimidated by any signs?
13 A:
No.
17
Isn’t ot true that at that breakfast you told
18
Mr. Harrison several times you were not going to
17
Talk to him about landfills.
20
A:
Yes.
2)Mr. Bertrand disregarded any statements made by anyone outside the hearing.P-25 File
47359- 1
P-25
17 Mr. Porter
Q: And when they would
start
18 talking to you would you disregard their statements if
19 they were made outside the hearing?
20 THE WITNESS: A: Yes.
3)Mr. Bernard
did
not feel threatened or intimidated by Ron Thompson.
P.26
P25
24 Did you feel intimidated or threatened by
P26
3.
A:
No.
4
Q: Again did you follow the
5
nstruction to disregard statements made
6
outside the hearing process?
10
A:
Yes.
3)Mr.
Bertrand
did
not change
his
vote after statements made to him
by
Mr. Harrison
And Mr. Thompson. P-26 File 47359-1
P26
18 Q: After Mr. Harrison made statements to
18 o you and Mr. Thompson made his statements to you did
you
19 change your vote?
26

21
A:
No.
22
Q:
So you voted the same way you did the
23
first time, correct?
fl
24
A:
Yes.
Li
4)Mr. Bertrand voted to approve both applications. It
is
obvious he was not influenced or
:imidate by actions of the public or Mr. Harrison. P.6 File 47359.1
P—5 Moran’s direct
47359—1
16 Q: And you voted to approve the first application?
17
A:
Yes.
P-6
1
Q:
And you voted to approve the second
2
Application?
3
A:
Yes
PMr. Bertrand received about
six
phone calls prior to the March 17tl~.2004 vote. P- 6
47359-113
Q:
You received
about a half a dozen phone
14
calls?
15
A:
Yes.
b)Mr..Bertrand received a call from dog Flageole but was not threatened by it. P- 7
U
File 47359-1
3
A:
So he said
,
“I’m going to run against you
15
and beat you the next time you are up for election.”
5
But I told him
,
I said, Well, you will
6
Have to move because I
am not in your district.
7
Q:
Did you view his statements as being a
8
threat to you?
8
A: Not really.
9
Porter Cross of Mr. Bertrand. No Threats. P-22-23 File 47359-1
~4
Q
and when you spoke to Mr. Flageole there was some statement that maybe he was
2 theatening to run against you?
3
Q:
Did you feel threatened by that statement?
Li
10 A:
No, I didn’t feel threatened.
7) Mr. Bertrand met with Mr. Harrison and listened but
did
not respond. P-17 File 47359-1
14 Q: That you would listen but you wouldn’t
15 Make any comment
18 A: That’s correct.
p~.
Bertrand was not threatened or intimidated by the presence of pickets. P.23 File 47359-1
L
13
Porter,
Q: Were you threatened or intimidated by
the
14
presence of picketers?
15
A:
No
~ertrand was not threatened or intimidated by the letters he received. P-23, 24 File 47359-
1P-24
:d to the
letters there was some mention of letters stating Dump the Dump or
~tmpyou.
Were
you threatened or intimidated by that
1
statement in the letter?
2
The Witness A: No.
0)Mr.Bertrand was not threatened or intimidated by
signs in
Kankakee
County,P-24
,
File 47359.1
11 Were you threatened or intimidated by any signs?
13
A:
No.
20
Isn’t ot true that at that breakfast you told Mr.
Harrison several times you were not going to talk him about
landfills.
22 A:
Yes.
27

011)Mr.
Bertrand disregarded any statements made by anyone outside the hearing. P- 25
47359-1 File
17 P-25
Mr. Porter
Q:
And when they would start
20 talking to you would you disregard their statements if
Li
19 they were made outside the hearing?
17
THE WITNESS: A: Yes.
12)Mr. Bernard
did
not feel threatened or
intimidated
by Ron Thompson. P.25 File 47359.1
.P25
24
Did you feel intimidated or threatened by
3.
A:
No.
4
Q:
Again did
you follow the
7
instruction to disregard statements made outside
9outside the hearing process?
10
A:
Yes.
~13)Mr. Bertrand
did
not change his vote after statements made to
him
by
Mr. Mr. Thompson
and Mr. Harrison. P-26 File 47359-1
P26 18
Q:
After
Mr. Harrison made statements to
P
19
to you and Mr. Thompson made his statements
20
to you did you change your vote?
21
A:
No.
22 Q: So you voted the same way you did the
23
first time, correct?
24 A:
Yes.
V Conclusion
The Applicant is guilty of committing serious violations of the ex
parte
rule and
engaging in other fundamentally unfair practices while continuing to
bring political
pressure on the County Board to make a settlement and to withdraw their from the Waste
Management Appeal before this board. Waste Management is attempting to turn the
siting process on it’s head.
The manifest weight of the evidence clearly indicates that Waste Management has no
basis for
appealing the County’s Denial to this Body. Not one Board Member was
influenced by contacts, from the public signs, pickets, or phone calls letters. They all
based their votes on the record.
For these reasons we pray that this Board will uphold, intact the County of
Kankakee’s
Decision to deny Waste Management’s Application for
expansion.
Respectfully Submitted
keith L Runyon
/
1165 Plum Creek Drive, Unit D.
Bourbonnais, II
.
60914
8159379838
techsource12@comcast.net
2X

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of
Civil Procedure, hereby under penalty perjury under the laws of the United States of
America, certifies that on
May 20. 2005
the Pollution Control Board was served an
orginal and five copies of the foregoing enclosed Brief ,by depositing copies thereof,
enclosed in an envelope in the United States Mail at Bourbonnais, Illinois, proper
postage prepaid, and postmarked before the hour of 5:00 P.M., on May 20t~..2005.
addressed as below., via U.S. Mail, postmarked before 5:00 P,M. on said date and
mailed from the Bourbonnais, Ii. Post Office 60914
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Il 60601-3218
Attorney George Mueller
501 State Street
Ottawa, Ii 61350
815
433 4705
Fax
815
422 4913
Donald J. Moran
Perterson & Houpt
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Ii 60601-3242
312 261 2149
Fax 312 261 1149
Elizabeth Harvey, Esq.
Swanson, Martin, & Bell
One IBM Plaza, Suite 2900
330 North Wabash
Chicago, 1160611
312 321 9100
Fax 312 321 0990
JenniferJ. Sackett Pohlenz
175 W. Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, II 60604
3125407540
Fax 312 540 0578
Mr. Brad Halloran

Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph, 1
1th
Floor
Chicago, Ii. 60601
312 814 8917
Fax 814 3669
Richard S. Porter
Charles F. Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 ParkAvenue, P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Il. 61 105-1389
Christopher Bohlen
Barmann, Kramer, and Bohien, P.C.
300 East Court Street
Suite 502
P.O.Box 1787
Kankakee, Il 60901
Karl Kruse
Kankakee County Board
189 E. Court Street
Kankakee, Il 60901
Kankakee County States Attorney
Ed Smith Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Bremda Gorski
450 E. Court Street.
Kankakee, Ii 60901
By depositing a copies (copy) thereof, enclosed in an envelope in the United States Mail
at Bourbonnais, Illinois, proper postage prepaid, before the hour of 5:00 P.M., on May 2
20~’..2005. addressed as above.
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Dr. Unit D.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
815 937 9838
Fax 815 937 9164

@4,16/2004
09:2?
KflNKflKE~
COU~4T?
CLORK
3
913123210990
,
NQ.’?60
102
KANKAKEE COUNTY BOARD
Ot~M~
~ ~ C 18
Decision Re~ardlnLthaAoolicatlon ofWastaManaqement of llhnois, Inc.
For Local Sitin~Acomval ofan Expansion oftpsExlstlnnkakee_Landfihl
S
Whereas, on September 26 2003, Waste Management of Uilnois, Inc. (W~U~’
p
filed an application for local siting approval for an expansion of its existing Kanlcal~ee.
Landfill; and
,
Whereas public hearings have been held on the application, before Hearing
r
Officer John McCarthy, and public comments filed or pastmarked byFebruary 20, 2004
have been received; and
I.. .~ .
pursuantWhereasto the Kankakeethe
lankakee
County
CountySiting RegionalOrdinancePlanningfor
PollutionCommissionControl Facilities(KCRPC)(Sitinghas~
Ordinance), considered the application and the siting record, and has made findings
and recommendations to the Kankakee County Board (~oard)(see attached Exhibit A);
and.
also•
considerWhereas,twothecommentsKCRPC filedvoted,afterpursuantFebruaryto
state20,
2004,
law andbut theno
comments
Siting Ordinancefried
after
to
March2, 2004; and
‘Whereasbut
not limited to,thetheBoardtestimony,has
consideredexhibits,
andthecommentrecord
ofgiven
the sitingat
theproceeding,public hearings,including,the
application, and the public comments; and
Whereas, the Board has also received and considered the recommendations of
the KCRPC; and
Whereas, pursuant to state statute (415 8_CS 5/39~2)and the Siting Ordinance,
the Board Is to determine compliance ornoncompliance with the statutory criteria of
Section 39.2 of the Environmental Protection Act;
IT (8 HEREBY DETERMINED:
.
.
,
Jurlsdfcjion
The Board finds that all Jurisdictional requirements have been satisfied. Thus,
the Board hasjurisdiction to consider WMI1’s application.
fundamental Fairness
The Board finds That the proceedings have been conducted in a ‘fi.~ndamentaIly
fair manner.
. -.
-
I
LBIIJ

~4J1G/20@4
09 2?
K~NKAKEECOUNTY CLERK
-~
913123210990
NO. 760
!@3
~j~utorvCriteria
Section :30.2(a) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act requires that an
applicant for local siting approval demonstrate compliance with nine critena.
1.,
Whether the facilily Is necessa~toaccomrnodata the waste needs of the area it
is intended to se~ve. The KCRPC recommended that criterion one be found to
be satisfied, subject to a special condition. A motion that the Board adopt the
KCRPC’S
recommendation failed on a vote of 12 In favor and 16 opposed.
S
Having no additional motions, the Board
finds
that
criterion one is not
satisfied.
2.
~~therthefadll~yisso de~gnsddoc$ed,and praposed to be coerated that the
public health. safety, and welfare will he protecte~,The KCRPC found
criterion
r
two is satisfied, subject to special conditions, A motion that the Board adopt the
KCRPC recommendation passed on a vote of22 in
favor
and 6 opposed. The
Board finds thatthe proposed facility is so deslgned~located, and proposed to be
operated that the public health, safety, and welfare will be protected. However,
that finding is based upon the imposition ofthe following special conditions:
a.
There shall be no vertical expansion ofthe existing facility.
b.
The lateral expansIon must be considered a separate unit from the
existing landfill, as defined In 35 Ift,Adm.Code 510.103, and separate
• groundwater monitoring networks shall be maintained for the expansion
and for the existing landfIll.
I
c.
A field verification must be performed to locate all private wells and
community wells, currently used as a source , of potable water, located
within 1.000 feet ofall boundaries ofthe property.
S
d.
lJowngradient monitoring well • spacing in ,the uppermost aquifer
(regardless of gradient) must be provided, where adjacent potable water
supply wells are boated in the Dolomite.
e.
Any and all sand deposits that are one foot thick,, twenty feet wide, and/or
yield water for a period of more than 24 hours must be monitored as
potential contaminant migration pathways.
f.
Leachate shall not be recirculated for a period of at least five years after
the receipt of the operating permit. Following this period, the landfill
operator may petition the County Board to recirculate leachate. The
County staff shall review the operational record ofthe site and consult with
an independent technical expert to determine If (he operator has
• •, -
S
- ~demonstratedthat leachate recirculation Is a safe and~ppropriate~method
to handl&’The leachate at this facUlty. Reasonable expanses of the
2

- . 04/16/2004
09~2?
KPNK~KEECOUNTY CLERK
-, 913123210990
NO.760
~04
P
technical expert shall be reimbursed by the landfill operator. Leachate
may not be recirculated without the express approval ofthe County Board.
g.
Soil bioremediation and solidification of waste is prohibited at the
n
facility, unless expressly approved In writing by the County Board.
S
h.
Composting ofwaste is prohibited at the facility, unless expressly
S
approved Inwtitlng by the County 8oard,
b
i.
An annual topographic survey ofexisting waste grades and elevations, of
final permitted waste grades and elevations, and final permitted contours
P
shall be conducted by the operator. Results ofeach annual survey must
be submitted to the County Planning Director within thirty days thereafter
to ensure ongoing compliance with permit conditions at the facility.
j.
The construction quality assurance (CQA) officer shalt be physically
present on the landfill site a minimum ofonce per week during each stage
of critical liner construction including: 1) preparation of sub-grade; 2) low
permeability soil liner construction; 3) geomembrana installation; 4)
geotextile placement; 5) granular drainage layer constructIon; 6) leachate
system and associated piping InstallatIon; 7) final cover construction; and
8) gas. system Installation. Documents signed and dated by the CQA
officer must be maintained evidencing his or her physical presence, and
must be made available to the County upon request. Technicians utilized.
shall have at least five years experience and shall be approved by the
County Planning Director.
k.
The aàtive face must not exceed an area approved by the County
Planning Director. Ifthe operator believesthe approved area Is not
adequate for operations, the operator may petition the County Board for
allowance ofa larger active face area.
I.
• An independent professional engineer (approved by the County Planning
Director) shalt be on-site to observe placement of the sand drainage layer
and the initial lift of waste placed in any new cell, The engineer shall
report directly to the County Planning Director, and shall have the
S
authority to stop placement of sand or waste during this initial operation if
he or she observes any conditIon that ~uld or could damage the bottom
liner.
m.
Tnicks, trailers, or any other vehicle holding waste shall not be parked or
stored overnight at the facility, or staged on Route 45152, or on the right-
of-way outside of the landfill facility.
S - S
• ~~access.
J7enclng aroundAn
eight-foottP~e
~ntir~bcility~~ooden Is
or
requlred~to
other ~)ew-obs~uctIng,prevent
unauthodZ~~~~:
County-
3

• ~4.’16/2004
Ø9~2?
KANKAKEE COUNTY CLERK -~ 913123210990
ND. 760
l?05
F
acceptablehelp
block the
fence
view
shall
of the
be
site.constructedAs cellsonarethedeveloped,
east sidetheof thefencepropertyshall
beto
extended to encompass, at a minimum, the waste footprint, with the fence
eventually encompassing the entire facility.
I
~
o.
Video recordings of all trafficentering the site shall be-retained for a period
ofat least six months, The County shall have the right to review the
r
S
• recordings withintwo days of requesting to review a tape.
p.
The minimum number of random load inspections shall be three per week
as specified in state regulations. For any amount of tonnage received
above an average of 500 tons per day, the number of Inspections shalt be
increased on the following basis:
For each 500 ton per day average increase, the number of
random weekly inspections shall be Increased by two. For
example, if up to 1000 tons per day average is accepted the
previous week, the week shall have five inspections (three
inspections for the fIrst 500 tons~and two for the next 500).
Ifthe weekly rate is 2000 tons per day, the Inspection rate is
S
three plus two plus two plus two,, to equal nine random
S
inspections.
S
After five years of operation, the landfill operator may
request a review and reconsideration of this random
inspection ‘requirement by the County Board. An authorized
County official shall have the right to inspect and to be
present atany random load Inspection.
q. . The landfill operator shall pick up litter on a daily basis along Route 45/52
between the landfill and the 1.57 Interchange, as well as at least one-
quarter mile south ofthe landfill along Route 45/62. if allowed by adjacent
property owners, the landfill operator shall remove any litter attributable to
the. landfill on those adjacent properties on a weekly basis. Perimeter
picking on site shall be performed dailyto remove litter from trees, fencing,
and ben’ns.
r.
The landfill operator shall install a radiation detector at the scale house.
The landfill operator shall record any alarm, and notify the County of each
occurrence, the level of radiation detected, and the manner of response.
s.
The maximum height of the landfill, and the lateral extant of the landfill,
shall not exceed the height and lateral extent shown on the plans provided
i~theapplication.
S
.5
~•i
.~
S
S
-
A ~roundwaterImpact Assessment (3 IA) mus?’~esubmitted to the
4

• 04/16/2004
09:27
K~NKAKEECOUNTY CLERK 4 913123210990
NO.760
~0E
County and its consultants prior to the submittal of a development permit
application to. IEPA. The landfill owner/operator shall reimburse the
County for reasonable and necessary costs incurred in review ofthe- GIA.
u.
Copies of the development permit application arid all subsequent permit
applications and required submittals to (EPA shall
b~
submitted to the
County Planning Director at the same time the applications are submitted
to IEPA, at no costto the County. All permits Issued for the facilityshall
be copied and submitted to the County Planning Director withIn 30 days
after any such permit Is received by the landfill owner/operator.
S
v4
The landfill operator shall build the berms on the west side of the property
at least 1,000 feet In advance of any cell construction, measured from the
southernmost coordinate of the cell.
For example, if the cell’s
southernmost coordinate is $ 3500, then the berm shall extencc to $ 4500
or further south. The only exception to this condition is during5 the
S
construction of Phase I. •
w.
The gas line that is to be relocated shall be fully sealed from any potential
migration from the landfill. Only fine-grained material shall be used as
S
S
backfill In the french.
The construction shall be certified by an
independent professional engineer, such engineer to be approved by the
S
County Planning Director.
x.
Proof of each equipment operator’s training shall be provided to the
County Planning Director prior to that operator’s work at the site.
y.
The landfill operator shall notify the County Planning Director seven days
prior to collecting any required sampling or resampling. The landfill.
S
operator shall provide the County with split samples for chemical analysis.
S
The County shall select the laboratory to which its sample(s) are sent for
chemical analysis. The landfill operator shall reimburse the County for the
reasonable and necessary costs of such testing and analyses, provided,
however, that such reimbursement shall not exceed $10,000 per calendar
year, adjust annually for the Chicago/Gary Metropolitan Area Consumer
S
Price index.
S
S
2.
• The landfill operator shall not request the use of sewage sludge as a
component offinal cover In Its IEPA permit applicationwithout first
S
obtaining County Board approval of such use.
22.
An automatic monitoring system shall be Installed to monitor the level of
S
leachetefrom each leachate sump area. The system shall record the
S
head in the sump such that at no time will the leachate level be~Jq~wedt~
~
S
rise above the leve~atcorres~ondsto one foot oflfea~or,-the;fr4 The
landfill operator shäl1~afntalnthe records from the automatic monitoring
5

04/t6/2004
09~27
KcjNK~K5ECOUNTY CLERK -~ 9i~123210990
NO.760
I~B7
system, and make those records accessible to the County.
bb.
The leachate containment area surrounding the leachate holding tanks
shall be sized appropriately to handle a potential spill volume equal to all
tanks present, unless the operator can demonstrate to IEPA that such a
requirement promotes operational safety hazards.
S
S
cc.
The landfill operator shalt provide, as part of its development permit
S
application to IEPA, a demonstration(water balance) that the watershed
north of7500 $ Road will not be negatively Impacted by the facility. A
copy ofthis demonstration shall be submitted to the County Planning
Director.
S
dd.
The County Planning Director shall be notified at least fourteen days in
S
I
S
ofadvance
landfill
ofdevelopment.constructionof
The
theoperatorstormwater
shall
controlprovideplannedthe
CountyforeachPlanningphase
S
Director with a copy of all correspondence to or from JEPA related to
stormwater detention and runoffcontrol operations.
S
ee.
The landfill operator shall Implement the complaint procedure outlined in
the application, Including a hot line phone number, to address complaints.
ft.
The landfill operator shall locate any farm drainage tiles on the-property,
and cooperate and coordinate with the County and appropriate drainage
dIstricts concerning possible andlor necessary removal or relocation of
S
5
those tiles. Any removed tiles shall be sealed from any potential migration
from the landfill, Only flnegrainad material shallbe used ac backfill in the
S
trench, The construction shall be certified by an independent professional
engineer, such engineer approved by the County Planning Director.
S
~
A textured geomembrane shall be used when constructing the interior
S
sideslope drainage layer, unless otherwise permitted by IEPA.
S
hh.
A textured geomembrane shall be used on the final coverlayer, unless
S
otherwise permitted by IEPA.
IL
Final cover over a filled area is to be placed not later than 60 days after
S
placement of the final lift of solid waste, unless otherwise permitted by
IE
At no time shall the area exceed 10 acres, unless otherwise
permitted by EPA.
1.
Leachate storage tanks shall be coated with a corrosive-resistant material
S
• •
prior to use, unless otherwise permitted by IEPA.
S
S
The
leachate’contalnmant area Is to~iRspectedforleaks or spills on a
‘~‘
daily basis with all resu~sredorded ~
log. ~
log shall be made
6

~4M.6/2004
S
@9~27
S
KANKAKEE COUNTY CLERK
3
913123210990
~ 760 108
available to the County for review. Any
stormwater
suspected of being
contaminated In the leachate
containment
area shall be handled as
leachate, unless a sample is collected and tested for the annual teachate
parameter hst, and
It is
demonstrated that all organic compounds are
below detection limits, and all Inorganic compounds are detected at
S
concentrations below NPDES discharge limits.
II.
Ail stormwater detention basins and stormwater drainage ways/ditches
shall be inspected weekly during the operating life of the facility,. A wrItten
log shall be kept of the inspections and made available to the County for
review. The InspectIons shall be conducted on a quarterly basis for five
years after certified closure of the facility. After five years of closure, the
frequency of these inspections may be decreased to annually with 1EPA
approvai. At the time of inspection, all debris shalt be removed from the
inlet/outlet structures. Ifthe sediment buildup in a basin or ditch is within
six inches below the Invert of the outlet structure, the basis shall be
dredged and all sediments removed.
All stormwater drainage
S
ways/ditches on property adjacent to the f~cilityshall be inspected on the.
same schedule (weekly during the operating life, quarterly during The first
five years of certified closure, then as approved by JEPA), if located on
publicly-owed land.
If
located
on privately owned land, the same
inspections shall be performed if allowed by the property owner.
mm. An independent professional engineer (approved by the County Planning
Director) must re-certify any final cover disturbed as a result of Installation
of the gas management system, unless otherwise permitted by IEPA.
nn.
~ue to the number of adjacent private potable water wells and the
W’iKi1OWI1 impact of the landfill on groundwater flow within
the
bedrock
aquifer~the maximum spacing between bedrock monitoring wells around
S
the entire landfill footprint shall be 250 feet, unless otherwise approved by
IEPA. No later than five years after the start of landfill operation at the
expansion, the operator shall install two additional deep dolomite aquifer
monitoring wells at locations and depths specified by the County, unless
otherwise permitted by IEPA.
S
00.
Leachate generation data will be recorded weekly per phase. The volume
of leachate pumped/shipped per week shall be recorded in a written log
S
for each phase of the landfill. A monthly written summary comparing the
actual leachate generation data to the theoretical volume expected must
be submitted to the County Planning Director.
pp.
To provide additional hydrogeologic data on the southwest side of the
facility, twc~dditbnaIpiezometers must be installed. The~lrstpiezometer
sh~llbe ini~edmidway between Gil
9A
and GWA. :1~~cond~
S
~azométer~a1Ibe installed midway between G137A an~140A,The
S
7
5

O4,i6/2g~4
es:2?
KANKAKEE COUNTY CLERK
4
91312321O~9~
NO.?6@
~9
F:
S
S
shall be developed, then single well aquifertested.
S
A minimum ofone round ofst~t1cwater levels shall be collected from alt
the bedrock monitoring wells and piezometers, and the potantiometric
surface contour mapofthe bedrock aquifer shall be updated. The boting
logs, as-built diagrams, single well aquifertest data, and testreduction for
5 5
5
SS
the two additional piezometers shall be included in the development
S
p
applicatIon to IEPA, The two additional piezometera shall be
proposed
by the operator for the groundwater monitoring network in the
development permit application to IEPA.
qq.
Burning of any type (including vegetative prescribed burning) is prohibited
at the facility, unless expressly approved by the County BoarcT.
When collecting groundwater samples, a wail must be purged a minimum
of 3 well volumes, and two consecutive field measuremsrtts with a
+1-
0.3
S
S.U.
unless
for
otherwise
pH and withinpermitted5 forby specificJEPA.
All
conductMtyfield
measurementSmust
be conductedmust
be1
performed in the field at the time of sampftng, and not at the laboratory,
unless otherwise permitted by IEPA.
S
sa.
The temperature of the constructed soil liner that has not yet been
covered by waste shall be monitored continuously arid documented in
sub-freezing lemperatureé. Liner soils exposed to freezing temperatures
must be retested for permeability by lab (tube) or in-situ testing. Any soil
riot meeting the I x 10 E -07 cm/sec requirements shall be
reconstructed/recompacted and then retested by permitted methods.
tt.
Citizen refuse boxes shall be emptied daily if refuse is deposited in them.
S
uu.
Results of any initial test performed to determine the level of noise from
the gas flare or generator systems shall be submitted to the County
Planning Director, If the gas flare or generator systems are malerially
S
changed after initial noise level testIng, those systems shall be promptly
S
retested.
S
w.
The.
citizen-use recycling opportunities at the facility shall include, at a
S
mInimum, mixed paper, glass. (green, brown, and clear), at least tWO
plastic types (numbers I and 2 plastics), ferrous metals, aluminum, and
cardboard, The operator shall submit, to the County Planning Director.
quarterly reports on the tonnage/weight of aU material received.
ww. The hours of operation at the facility are limited to one-half hour before
and two hours after waste acceptance hours. Thus, operations are limited
to5~Oa m to 800 pm , Mon~thrcughSaturday
~
~.
- An operable valve shall be ins ted and continually rnatntained at each -
B

• 04,1$/2e84
ø9~2?
XFiNK~IKEECOUNTY
CLERK
-* 9t3i232~299~
NO.760
~t0
sedimentation outlet basin. Proper operation of any and ~IIsuch valves
shall be verified by no lees than quarterly inspection, with
the results of all
inspections documented
arid provided to the County upon request.
yy.
Because the model Indicates the thickness of In-situ clay is critical for the
diffusion of contaminants, the operator shall verify that clay soil with at
least threefeet of continuous thickness is located betweenthe bottom of
the constructed clay liner and the top of the uppermost aquifer (dolomite
bedrock and basal sand unit). Ifthe clay soil is found not to be three feet
thick, the underlying three feet of material shalt be over-excavated and
reccimpacted so that a minimum of six feet of low permeability material is
in place Immediately below the HOPE liner; and that this material has a
maximum hydraulic conductMty of I x 10’ cm/sec..
zz.
All conditions must be stated in the development permit application
submItted to IEPA. The operator shall provide specific notation to the
County Planning Director, withthe location ofeach condition in the
development permit application by section, page, and Condition numbers.
asa. The operator shall reimburse the County for reasonable expenses for
services ofprofessionals reviewing and analyzing the groundwater
corrective action atid assessment monitoring activities.
bbb. The operator shall install and maintain a double composite liner.
3.
Whether the facility is located so as to mi~mIzeincompatibility with the character
of the
~
to minimize the effect_oQ5 the value of the
surrounding oronerty. The KCRPC recommended that criterion three be found
S to be satisfied, subject to special condItIons, A motion That the Board adopt the
KCRPC’s recon,mendation failed on a vote of 10 In favor and 18 opposed.
Having no additional motions, the Board finds that criterionthree is not satisfied.
4.
Whetherthe facility is lgcated outside tJ~ebounda~of the 100
year
flocdpIain~or
S
the
site is floodoroofed. The
KCRPC
re~ommendadthat criterion four be found
to be satisfied. A motion that the Board adopt the KCRPCS recommendation
passed on a voice vote, The
Board
finds that the proposed facility is laosted
S
outside the
boundary
of the 100 year floodplain.
S
5
5.
Whetherthe plan of operations for the facility
is
d_esigned to
minimize
the danger
to the surrounding area from fire4 spiJls~orother operational
accidents.
The
KCRPC recommended that criterion five be found to be satisfied.
A
motion that
S
the Board adopt the KCRPC’S recommendallon passed on a vote of 21) in favor
S
and 8 oppa~d,with 2 absent The Board find~-1hatthe~i~tiof operations fo~the
facility is ~~igr~edto mln~mizethe danger to the e~~ndlngarea from fire,
spiIi~,or
otM
operationafaccidents. However, that fir~dIngis based upon the
9

04,16/2304
09:2?
KFINKAKEE
COUNTY
CLER
-*
9131.2321
990
5
NO.760
imposition of the following special conditions~
a.
The
landfill
operator shall install a radiation detector at the scale house.
The landfill operator shall record any alarm, and notify the County of each
occurrence, the level ofradiation detected, and the
manner
of response.
S
b.
The facility’s Emergenoy Action Plan (EAP) shall
include contingencies for
management of incidental hazardous (including radioactive) waste-
Inadvertently received at the facility. The. EAP shall specify, at a minimum,
S
qualified contractor criteria, overpacking, and Immediate off-site removal
of the incidental hazardous waste.
6.
Whether the traffic øattems to, or from the facility are deslan~tominimize the
impact on existing~rafflcflows. The KCRPC recommended that criterion six
be
found to be satisfied.
A motion that the Board adopt the KCRPC’s
recommendation
failed on a
vote
of 12 in favor and 18 opposed. Having no
addttionalmotions, the Board
finds
that criterion six is
not satisfIed.
5
7.
lIthe facility
‘will
be
treatinq1
storing or disposing of hazardous waste, an
emeraencv response
plan exj~tsfor the iacilitv which,, includes notification.
~ontainrnent
and eva~uatlonprocedures to be used in case of an
accidental
S
release. The KCRPC recommended that criterion seven be found inapplicable.
A motion that the Board
adopt
the KCRPC recommendation passed on a voice
vote. The Board finds that the facility will not be treating, storing1 or disposing of
hazardous waste Therefore, the Board finds that this criterion’is not’ applicable.
8.
If the facility i&Io be
Iocat~
In a coun~y~erethe county, board has adopted a
SOlid waste man~ç~ementplan
consistent with the Dlanninit recluirements of the
Local Solid Waste Di~p~salAct or the Solid WastePiaj~lnganthRec~ii~gAct~
the facility Is consistent withth~to(~The KCRPC recommended that criterion
eight be found to be satisfied. A motion that the Board adopt the KCRPC
recommendation passed on a vote of 25 in favor and 3 opposed. The Board
finds that the
facility
is consistent
with
the Kankakee County Solid Waste
Management Plan, However, that finding is based upon the imposition of the
following special conditions:
S
S
a.
The landfill operator must comply with all obligations and responsibilities
of the Host Agreement between the County and Waste Management of
S
‘ Illinois, Inc.
S
b. ‘ ‘The landfill operator must employ independent appraisers acceptable to
S
the County as part ofthe Property Value Guarantee Program
S~
L
a. - The Property V?IUOL G~anteeProgram must be amended~toproy~tJiat
S
-
the Program
tinue~f~Fthirty years
after the Included
Property Owners
S
10

09:27
K~4’1K~KEECOUHT’I~CLERK ~ 913123213990
NO.760
12
04/16/2004
are notified that waste is no longer being disposed ofat the facility,
9.
if,ihe facilIty
will
be,locat~dIn,~!eauiateci rec~araaarea,~nvaopllca~Je
reciuirements~pec~fjedby the flIlinoi~Pollutlon Contrail Board foi such area~
have been met. The KCRPC recommended that criterion nine be found
inapplicable. A motion that the Board adopt the KCRPC recommendation
passed on a vote of 27 In favor and I opposed. The Board finds that the facility
will not be located In a regulated recharge area. Therefore, the
Board finds
that
this
criterion
is not applicable.
S
Conclusion
The Board •fj~qsthat alt conditions
recommended in
this resolution are
reasonable and necessary to accompllth The purposes of Section 39.2’ of the
Environmental Protection Act. (415 ILCS 5/39.2.)
local sitingBecauseapprovalthe
Boardfor
the
hasproposedfoundexpansionthat criteriais
denied.one,
three, and six are not ~atisfied1
This Decision made and entered on March 17, 2004.
ATTEST:
BRUCE CLARK. COUNTY CLERK
- ‘~~—‘.:
‘-
~
•~L
5-
—‘S.
II

PROOF OF
SERVICE
Victoria L. Kennedy, a non-attorney, on oath states that she served the foregoing Waste
Management ofIllinois,
Inc.’s
Petition for Hearing to Contest Site Location Denial
by
enclosing same in an envelope addressed to the following parties as stated below, and by
depositing same in the U.S. mail at 161 N. Clark St., Chicago, Illinois 60601, on or before
5:00
p.m. on this 21st day of April, 2004:
Mr.
Charles F.
Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105-1389
Mr. George Mueller
George Mueller, P.C.
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL 61350
Mr. Kenneth A. Bleyer
Attorney atLaw
923 W. Gordon Ter., #3
Chicago, IL 60613-2013
Ms. Elizabeth Harvey
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One IBM
Plaza
-
Suite 3300
330 North
Wabash
Chicago, IL 60611
Mr. Edward Smith
Kankakee County State’s Attorney
450
East Court
Street
Kankakee,IL 60901
Mr.
Christopher
Bohien
Barmaun, Kramer,
and Bohien, P.C.
200 EastCourt Street,
Suite
502
Kankakee, IL 60901
Mr.
Keith Runyon
1165
Plum Creek
Dr.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Ms. Jennifer
J.
Sackett Pohlenz
Mr.
David
Flynn
Querrey & Harrow
175
West Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604-2827
Victoria L. Kennedy
‘)
388313
-2-

RECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
APR 22
2004
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLiNOIS,
iNC.,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Petitioner,
)
No. PCB 04-
)
vs.
5
)
(Pollution Control Facility
S
)
Siting Appeal)
)
COUNTY BOARD
OF
KANKAKEE COUNTY,
)
ILLINOIS,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING PETITION FOR BEARING
TO CONTEST SITE LOCATION
DENTAL
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE that on April 21, 2004, we filed
with the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, the attached Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.’s PETITION FOR HEARING
TO CONTEST SITE LOCATION
DENIAL.
W TE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.
Donald J. Moran
PEDERSEN & HOUPT
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 641-6888
Attorney Registration No.
1953923
Attorneys
388313

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code of
Civil Procedure,
hereby under penalty perjury under the laws of the United States of
America, certifies that on May 2. 2005 the
Pollution Control Board was served an
orginial and four copies a copy of the foregoing Brief via letter:
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Ii 60601-3218
Attorney George Mueller
501 State Street
Ottawa, Ii 61350
815 433 4705
Fax 815 422 4913
Donald J. Moran
Perterson & Houpt
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Ii 60601-3242
312261 2149
Fax 312 261 1149
Elizabeth Harvey, Esq.
Swanson, Martin, & Bell
One IBM Plaza, Suite 2900
330 North Wabash
Chicago, Ii 60611
312 321 9100
Fax 312 321 0990
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
175
W. Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, Il 60604
3125407540
Fax 312 540
0578
Mr. Brad Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph, 1
1t~~
Floor
Chicago, Il. 60601

312 814 8917
Fax 814 3669
Richard S. Porter
Charles F. Helsten
Hinshaw &
Culbertson
100 Park Avenue, P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Ii. 61 105-1389
Barmann, Kramer, and Bohien, P.C.
300 East Court Street
Suite 502
P.O.Box
1787
Kankakee, Ii 60901
c
Karl Kruse
Kankakee County Board
189 B. Court Street
Kankakee, II 60901
Kankakee County States Attorney
Ed Smith Kankakee County State’s Attorney
Bremda Gorski
450 E. Court Street.
Kankakee, Ii 60901
By depositing a copies (copy) thereof, enclosed in an envelope in the United States Mail
at Bourbonnais, Illinois, proper postage prepaid, before the hour of 5:00 P.M., on May
2”~’.2005.2003 addressed as above. Local parties will be personally served.
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Dr. Unit D.
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
815 937 9838
Fax 815 937
9164

PEDERSEN~HOUPT
March
11, 2004
I’
Donald J. Moran
Attorney at Law.
312.261.2149
Fax 312.261.1149
dmoran@pedersenhoupt.com
Mr. Karl Kruse
do Mr. Bruce Clark
Kankakee County Clerk
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street
Kankakee, Illinois 60901
Dear Mr. Kruse:
On the last day of the public comment period, February 20, 2004, Michael Watson maii~dhis Summary
of Proceedings, Proposed Findings and Written Comment (“Watson Comment”) to the Kankakee County
Clerk. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (“W1\411”) did not receive the Watson Comment until February
25,
2004, and thus had no opportunity to respond during the public hearings or the written comment
period.
The Watson Comment raised for the first time ajuri~dictionalchallenge relating to the pre-filing notice
required for the property at 6933 South Route
45-52,
Chebanse, Illinois. Page 44 of the Watson
Comment alleges that Mrs. LaFerne A. Foster, along with her husband, Leonard, was entitled to notice,
but was not served. According to the Watson Comment, because Mrs. Foster was not served, WMII
failed to complete notice, and the County Board is without jurisdiction to decide the Site Location
Application for the Expansion of the Kankakee Landfill.
The claim is without merit. However, as the public comment period ended February 20, 2004, WIvll1 had
no opportunity to respond to this claim. To avoid the implication that any silence may be viewed as
agreement to or acquiescence in the claim, WJvHI respectfully requests permission to file the attached
Response to Jurisdictional Claim.
Thank you for your consideration.
ery truly yours,
Donald J. My~an
DJM:vlk
Enclosure
cc:
Mr. Charles F. Helsten
Mr. George Mueller
Ms. Elizabeth Harvey
Mr. Kenneth A. Bleyer
Mr. ChristopherBohien
Mr. Keith Runyon
Ms. Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
Mr. Byron Sandberg
Suite 3100 I 161 North Clark Street I Chicago, IL 60601-3242 I pedersenhoupt.com I 312 641 6888 I Fax 312 641 6895
A
Pro~ession~ICorpor~tio~

I
~~i~1’I
!.
I
BEFORETHEKANKAKEECOUNTYBO~D
.,~ tS~4
KANKAKEE COUNTY, ILLINOIS
~
S
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
5
)
Site Location Application of
)
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.,
For Expansion ofthe
)
S
Kankakee Landfill
)
)
RESPONSE TO JURISDICTIONAL CLAIM
Waste Management ofIllinois, Inc. (“WMII”), through undersigned counsel, submits the
following response to the jurisdictional challenge raised on page 44 of “Michael Watson’s
Summary of the Siting Procedings
(sic),
Proposed Findings and Written Comment” postmarked
February 20, 2004 (“Watson Comment”).
S
1.
The Watson Claim
The Watson Comment alleges that based on information contained in a property record
card maintained in the Kankakee County Assess9r’s office, Leonard G. Foster and LaFerne A.
Foster are both shown as owners ofthe property located at 6933 South Route
45-52,
Chebanse,
Illinois, and hence both must be served pre-filing notice pursuant to Section 39.2(b) of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”). According to Objector Watson, as WMII only
attempted to serve Mr. Foster, pre-fihing notice was incomplete and the Kankakee County Board
lacks jurisdiction to decide the Application. Watson Comment, p. 44~
The property record card contained in the Watson Comment is eight years old and not
kept current. The County Assessor no longer prepares property record cards for the properties it

assesses, and instead maintains the necessary information in its computer database. The second
page ofExhibit N to the Watson Comment, which is more current than the property record card
to which it is attached, confirms that the County Assessor’s records indicate Leonard G. Foster as
the sole owner of the subject property.
2.
The Watson Claim is Baseless
The Watson Claim is not supported by law or fact. It ignores the plain meaning of the
Act and long-established Pollution Control Board and judicial decisions.
Section 39.2(b) ofthe Act requires that pre-filing notice be served on owners ofproperty
within 250 feet ofthe subject site, “said owners being such persons or entities which appear from
the authentic tax records of the County in which the facility is to be located...” 415 ILCS
5/39.2(b)
(2003). Thus, Section 39.2(b) requires a siting applicant to use the “authentic tax
records” to determine the owners to whom notice must be sent. Bishop v. Illinois Pollution
Control Board, _Ill.App.3d_, 601 N.E.2d 310, 311(5th Dist. 1992).
Case law has established that “authentic tax records” may include the records of the
county treasurer, the county assessor or the county clerk. Bishop, 601 N.E.2d at 311, 315.
“Authentic tax records” are not the records maintained or available at each and every one of
those offices. Bishop, 601 N.E.2d at 315; C.O.A.L. v. Greater Egypt Regional Environmental
Complex, No. PCB 97-29, slip op. at 6 (December
5,
1996). A siting applicant may rely upon
the records maintained by any one ofthese offices, and is not required to review all records held
in these offices. Bishop, 601 N.E.2d at 315; C.O.A.L., slip op at 6; DiMaggio v. Solid Waste
Agency ofNorthern Cook County, No. PCB 89-138; slip op. at 8-9 (January 11, 1990).
The “authentic tax records” for the County of Kankakee are those maintained by the
Kankakee County Treasurer. County ofKankakee v. City of Kankakee, Nos. PCB 03-31, 03-33
385210,2
2

and 03-35 (cons.), slip op. at 16 (January 9, 2003). A siting applicant satisfies its Section 39.2(b)
notice obligation by serving notice on those owners appearing in the records of the County
Treasurer. County of Kankakee, slip op. at 16-17. An applicant may rely exclusively on the
records maintained by the county treasurer’s office, even though the county assessor. or county
clerk may have more accurate or current information. Bishop, 601 N.E.2d at 315; County of
Kankakee, slip op. at 16-17; C.O.A.L., slip op. at 6. The reason is that the county treasurer’s
books are authentic tax records as defined by Section 39.2(b), and the applicant is authorized to
use and rely upon such records to identify the property owners entitled to notice. Bishop,
601 N.E.2d at 315; C.O.A.L., slip op. at 6.
WMII used the records maintained by the Kankakee County Treasurer to identify those
property owners entitled to Section 3 9.2(b) notice. The records of the County Treasurer identify
Mr. Leonard 5G. Foster as the, sole owner of the property located at 6933 South Route
45-52,
Chebanse, Illinois, and the only person to whom the real estate tax bill is sent. See attached
Group Exhibit 1, Kankakee County Real Estate Tax Bill, Parcel Number 13-25-05-300-005 and
related documents, Kankakee County Treasurer. Wivill satisfied its Section 39.2(b) notice
obligation for this property when it personally served Mr. Foster with pre-fihing notice on August
10, 2003. Site Location Application for Expansion of Kankakee Landfill, filed September 26,
2003, Additional Information, Tab A, Exhibit E.
Moreover, the records of the Kankakee County Assessor are not inconsistent with the
records ofthe Kankakee County Treasurer. They both indicate that Leonard G. Foster is the sole
owner of the subject property. See attached Group Exhibit 2, Parcel Information Report, Parcel
Number 13-25-05-300-005 and related documents, Kankakee County Assessor. While the eight
year old property record card lists LaFerne Foster as an owner, the current owner information
385210.2
3

identifies Leonard Foster’ as the sole owner. See Exhibit N to Watson Comment, page two;
Group Exhibit 2.
Conclusion
Objector Watson has raised a last minute challenge to jurisdiction, based upon an:entry
contained in a property record card held in ‘the Kankakee County Assessor’s office. The
information suggested in that card, that Mrs. LaFerne A. Foster is an owner of the property at
6933 South Route
45-52,
Chebanse, Illinois, is not supported or indicated in any of the other
records maintained by the Assessor regarding this property. Those records clearly indicate that
Mr. Foster is the sOle owner.
S
Moreover, the records of the Kankakee County Treasurer, which are the authentic tax
records ofKankakee County, unequivocally indicate that Leonard G. Foster is the sole owner of
the subject property. Accordingly, WMII has satisfied the statutory notice requirements for this
property by personally serving Mr. Foster with pre-fihing notice.
Respectfully submitted,
Management ofIllinois, Inc.
Donald 3. Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 North Clark
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-6888
By:
385210.2
4

Exhibit C
CONCERNED
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER
ENVIRONMENT, PETITIONERS
v.CITY OF HAVANA AND
SOUTHWEST
ENERGY CORPORATION,
RESPONDENTPCB
94-44May 19, 1994
The petitioners next assert
that
the councilmen and the mayor showed a
predisposition to the
incinerator by their
actions in regard to the referendum and
the annexation. (Pet.Br. at 6-7.) Specifically, petitioners point to a letter from the
Mayor on city stationary which was mailed to the citizens of Havana urging
support of the incinerator in the referendum. (Pet.Br. at 6; Pet.Exh. 6.) The
petitioners assert that the letters were sent in envelopes belonging to Southwest.
(Id.) The petitioners also allege that some of the councilmen placed yard signs in
support of the incinerator in their yards prior to the referendum. (Pet.Br. at 6; Tr.
at 144.) The petitioners also presented testimony indicating that Councilman
Schmidt confronted an opponent to the landfill during the annexation hearing and
became verbally and physically abusive. (Pet.Br. at 7; Tr. at 208-21 0.) Testimony
was also presented that the mayor had become verbally abusive to some of the
opponents of the incinerator. (Id.)
The petitioners argue that the mayor’s actions at the council meeting where the
siting vote was taken also showed bias. (Pet.Br. at 8.) Petitioners assert that the
proponents were allowed to make excessive noiseand show approval or
disapproval of council action. However, opponents were “yelled at” by the mayor
for quietly talking among themselves. (Pet.Br. at 8-9; Tr. at 247-249.)
Southwest points out that local officials are presumed to be objective and the
presumption is not overcome by the mere fact that an official has taken a public
position or expressed a strong view on a siting proposal. (Res.Br. at 15 citing E &
E Hauling v. PCB, 481 N.E.2d 664, 668 (1111985); Waste Management of Illinois
v. PCB, 530 N.E.2d 682, 695-696 (2nd Disti 988); Citizens for a Better
Environment v. PCB, 504 N.E.2d 166, 171 (1st Dist.1987). Southwest further
cites to Section 39.2(d) of the Act which specifically allows participation in the
decision by a member of the county board even if that member has expressed an
opinion publicly. (Res.Br. at 15.)
Southwest argues that, given this legal framework, the allegations made by
CCBE are not sufficient to overturn Havana’s siting decision. (Res.Br. at 16.)
According to Southwest, the mayor did not vote on the siting issue (Res.Br. at 16;
C000078-0081) and the expressions of support by two council members eight
months prior to voting on the projects “do not demonstrate the kind of bias or
predisposition necessary to nullify a siting determination”. (Res.Br. at 16-17; Tr.
at 144-145.)
Southwest has properly cited some of the extensive case law regarding alleged
predisposition of the decisionmaker. (Res.Br. at 15.) Although the record
indicates that members of the council made statements indicating a bias such

statements are not sufficient to disqualify a decisionmaker. All of the councilmen
testified that their decision was based on the record developed at hearing and on
the application. Therefore, the Board finds that the councilmen were properly
allowed to participate in the siting process and any predisposition did not result in
a fundamentally unfair proceeding.
1994 WL 235432, *6
See also 415 ILCS 5/39.2(d), which states in petinant part:
The fact that a member of the county board or governing body of the municipality has publicly expressed an
opinion on an issue related to a site review proceeding shall not preclude the member from taking part in the
proceeding and voting on the issue
Lastly review a portion of E & E Hauling from the Illinois Supreme Court:
In contending that the board was disqualified from acting as decision- maker of
the permit application, the village first claims that the board had an interest in the
permit application. This interest was the $30,000 per month, on the average, that
the board and its members in their capacity as commissioners of the district
received. These payments, of course, were not a direct pecuniary benefit to the
commissioners, but rather a benefit to the community that they serve. A classic
example of an impermissible indirect interest appeared in
Ward v. Village of
Monroeville
(1972), 409 U.S. 57, 93 S.Ct. 80, 34 L.Ed.2d 267. There the
defendant was tried and convicted of two traffic oftenses by the mayor of the
village. The mayor had a broad control over the village *42 government and its
finances, and traffic fines generated a “substantial portion” of the village’s annual
revenue. The Supreme Court held that though the interest was not a personal
one, the important impact that fines had on village finances that the mayor
supervised created sufficient temptation not to accord the defendant due process
of law. The situation here is clearly distinguishable. The revenue from the landfill
of $30,000 per month must be considered in perspective. The annual budget of
the district was $163.5 million in 1982. The mayor’s reliance in
Ward
on traffic
fines was obviously a different matter.
4J More fundamentally, the board should not be disqualified as a decision-maker
simply because revenues were to be received by the county. County boards and
other governmental agencies routinely make decisions that affect their revenues.
They are public service bodies that must be **668 ***825 deemed to have made
decisions for the welfare of their governmental units and their cOnstituents. Their
members are subject to public disapproval; elected members can be turned out
of office and appointed members replaced. Public officials should be considered
to act without bias.
Cf Memphis Light,
Gas & Water Division v. Craft
(1978), 436
U.S. 1, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 56 L.Ed.2d 30;
Goss v. Lopez
(1975),
419
U.S. 565, 95
S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725.
It does not seem unusual that a landfill would be proposed for location on publicly owned
property. The Act was amended to place decisions regarding the sites for landfills with
local authorities and to avoid having a regional authority (the Agency) in a position to

impose its approval ofa landfill site on an objecting local authority. Here, a local
authority approved the landfill, but the village, a local authority itself is alleging that the
county board should be disqualified because it owns the landfill property. We do not
consider that the legislature intended *43 this unremarkablefactual situation to make
“fundamentalfairness of the procedures” impossible.
5 The village next claims that the hearing was unfair because both the county and the
district had earlier approved the landfill by ordinance. The village thus is claiming a type
ofbias that has been called “prejudgment of adjudicative facts.” (See K. Davis, 3
Administrative Law Treatise sec. 19:4 (2ded. 1980).) But the ordinances were simply a
preliminary to the submission of the question of a permit to the Agency. Subsequently, the
Act was amended and the board was charged with the responsibility ofdeciding whether
to approve the landfill’s expansion. The board was required tofind that the six standards
for approval under the amended act were satisfied. It cannot be said that the board
prejudged the adjudicative facts, i.e., the
six criteria. This
conclusion is supported by
the
line of decisions
that
there is no inherent bias created when an administrative
body is charged with both investigatory and adjudicatory
functions.
See, e.g.,
Withrow v. Larkin
(1975), 421 U.S.
35, 47-50, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 1464-65, 43 L.Ed.2d
712, 723-25;
Scott v. Department of Commerce & Community Affairs (1981), 84 lIl.2d
42, 54-56, 48
Ill.Dec.
560, 416 N.E.2d 1082.
We consider that the appellate court properly held that the board was correct infinding
that the statutory standards had been satisfied, and that portion of the appellate court’s
judgment is affirmed.
The appellate court’s conclusion that the PCB erred in deciding that the board was
disqualified from conducting a hearing was correct, but its reasoning was erroneous. The
court deemedthat the board was an improper tribunal, but since there was no other
forum available, the rule ofnecessity required the board to act as the forum. As we have
stated here, the board was not to be judged biased and-disqualjfiedfromS acting. Because
the appellate court’s conclusion to reverse the decision of the *44 PCB was correct, we
affirm that portion of the judgment also.
Judgment affirmed.
citation for the foregoing is
E & E
Hauling, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd. 107 llI.2d 33, *41, 481
N.E.2d 664,
**667...668 89 IIl.Dec. 821, **824
-
825 (lii., 1985)

~LLIINOIISSTATE GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY
DtEPARThA~NTOF
NATU ~AL
RESOURCES
Natural Resources Building
615 East
Peabody Drive
Champaign, IL 61820-6964
217/333-4747
FAX 217/244-7004
~EXJI
January 8, 2004
Mr. Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Drive, Unit D
Bourbannais, Illinois 60914
Dear Mr. Runyon:
Per our phone conversation this afternoon, I am sending you a copy ofa letter that I sent to Mr.
Richard Murrayregarding two potential landfill sites in Kankakee County. The original letter was
dated June 4, 2002 and
contained the original, hand-colored figures.
1am sending you a copyof the
letter. I recolored the figures to match the originals.
I understand that additional site information has been developed for the proposed landfill sites, but
the
content of
my
letter is still valid. From a geologic perspective, better landfill sites are available
in southwestern Kankakee
County.
~
_____________________________________
Please call me
(217-244-2765)
or email me (mehnert(2IUsgs.uiuc.edu) if you have any questions
regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
dward Melmert,
Ph D
Sr. Geohydrologist & Section Head
Groundwater Geology Section
Enclosure
Printed on Recycled Paper

Back to top


kuNois STATE GEOLOG~cALSURVEY
Natural
Resources Building
615 East Peabody Drive
Champaign, IL 61820-6964
217/333-4747
FAX
21 7/244-7004
June
4, 2002
Richard Murray
OUTRAGE
P.O.
Box
222
Bradley, illinois 60915
Dear Mr. Murray:
This letter
is inresponseto yourphone
call
ofMay
30th~
We
discussedthe
siting ofaiandfill in Section 25,
T3ON, Ri 4W
and
the expansion ofa landfill in Section
5,
T29N, RI3W inKankakee
County.
Bothsites
arenear
Otto,
IL. Aswe
dliscussed
onthe telephone,,
geology
is an
importantconsideration
in landfillsiting,
but it
maynotbe
the sole basisthat local
decisionmakers useto
site
landfills,
NI providesome
information
about
the geologyofthe twosites and describethe suitability
for
sitinglandfills-atthese-locations.
Ihave
also included a brief bibliography that describes the geology
and
groundwater of
the
area.
Theillinois
EnvironmentalProtection
Agencyregulateslandfills inillinois. The
Bureau
ofLandhandles
landfills. You maywish to contact themto determinethe permit
statusand additional informationforthe
two landfill
sites. Here is somecontact
informationforIEPA’s Bureau ofLand-- Bureau
Chie~Bill Child
(217) 785-9407,Division ofLand Pollution
ControlManaget~=MichaelNechvatai
(217) 785-9407,Field
Operations=’ Paul Purseglove (217)
785-8604, Permits Joyce Munie (217 524-3300 Solid Waste
Management=
David
Walters
(217)
785-8604.
Please.callme(21 7-244-2765)oremail
me
(~çj~nert(äiis~s.uiue.edu)ifyouhave anyquestions regarding
this letter.
rd Mehnert,
Ph.D.
Senior Geohydrologist
& Section Head
Groundwater Geology Section
Enclosures
Print~’,ln~,
~
~
ILLINUtS
C~p~RThV’ff OF
NATURAL
RE~UUK~S

Geologic Suitability for Potential Landfill Sites in Kankakee County
Prepared by J~dward
Mehnert, flinois
State Geological Survey
June
3,
2002
This report describesthegeologicsuitability forsiting
oa
landfill
in
Section
25,
T3ON, Ri 4Wandthe
expansion of a
landfill
in Section
5,
TZ9N, RI3W in Kankakee County.
Background Information
Section
5, T29N, RJ3W,
Kankakee
County
USG&7.5
minute topographic map=~Kankakee, highs
in
western(highest elev= 700
ft)
andeastern
(highestelev=
665
it) sides ofsection,
low in centerof
section, land generallyslopes east toward
the
Iroquois River.
Drift
thickness (thickness
of
geologicmateriali above~thebedro’-lcseefigure
1)=
25
to50
feet, generally
decreasestoward
the
east.
StackUnit M~(geologic materialsto adepthof50 ft, seefigure 2 &
key)=area
is
mappedprimarily as
(g)15
with some aEeas oil and
IS. In
I
areas, 50 feet of
silty and
clayey
diamictons
ofthe
Wedron
Formation would be expected to be found. in IS areas,20 feetof
silty
and clayeydiamictonsofthe
WedronFormationOver20 feetofSilurianand
Dc
nianroc-ka(mainly4oloinitc~wouidbeexpected
to be found. in (g)ISareas,20 feet oftheDolton MemberoftheEqualityFonnation(sanddepositedin
beachesand bars) this sand may notbe present in all locations overlies 20 feet of
silty and
claycy
diamictons oftheWedron Formation over 20 feet ofSilurian and Devoman rocks (mainly dolomite).
pte~tia~$baiio..w
~aui jç
f~j~uçipa~Wjste~(intetpretativemapto
assess area geology
for
sitingmunicipal landfills, seefigure 3, key& table) =mainlyBiwithsome areas
mappedasCi
arniE.
Asshowninthe
table
for
figure
3,
areas mappedasD, E, F orG(coloredgreen
on figure 3) areexpectedto have fewgeologic limitations forland burialofmumcipalwastes, Otherareas
wouldbe expectedtohaveahigherpotential
forgroundwatercontamination (81
and
Cl
areas) ortrench
design problems and surface contamination (81 areas).
Section 25, T3ON, R14W, Kankakee Courny
1~SGS
7.5
minute topographic map~’West
Kankakee,
gen
fly flat
lying(elev=
620to
625 ft)
withuatural
and
man-made drainage, Interstate 57
nins through
the
eastern part
ofthe section.
Drift
thickness(thickness
of
geologic
materials above thebedrock, see figure 1
)=‘ 25
to
50
feet, generally
decreases toward
the
cast.
Stack
Unit
Map(geologic
materials
toa
depth
of5O ft.
see figure 2 & key)=area
is
mappedasgi. In gI
areas,20 feet
oftheDoltonMemberof
the Equality Ponnation-(sand deposited
in
beaches and bars)
overlies 20 feet of
silty and
clayey diamictons ofthe Wedron Formation.
?tentiaifor Cpnt~unination
of
ShallowAauifers/Land
B alofMwric pal Wastes (inteq~retativemapto
assess areageology
for sitingmunicipàl landfills, see
figure
3, key &table) 81. As
shownin
the
table

for figure
3, areas
mappedasD, E, F
or G
are expected tohave fewgeologic limitations forland burial
of
municipal wastes. Otherareaswould
be expected to have
ahigherpotential for-groundwatercoiitaminatinn
(BI
and
Cl
areas)
or
trench design problems and surface contamination (81 areas).
Groundwater of theArea
The
groundwater resources
of
eastern
Kankakee
Countyandnorthern JroquoisCounty
were described
byCravens
et al (1990) The
Silunan
dolomite, which is
highlyfractured
m
its upper 50 to 100
feet, is
the
primary aquifer in Kankakee
County The
Silunan dolomite isthe uppermost bedrock unit m
most
ofKankakeeCounty Inaddition, significant
groundwater supplies
areobtained
from deeper
bedrock
aquifers throughout KankakeeCountyand
from
shallowsandand~aveldepositsimthesoutheastparttf
Kankakee County. Inaddition, thereport
by
Cravens et al. (1990) contains a considerable amount
of
geochemical data
for wells completed.in the
Silurian dolomite.
Summary
From a
geologic
perspective,
better
landfill
sites
re available in thesouthwesternportionofKankakee
Countythanthose proposedm
Section 25, T3ON, R14W
and
SectionS, T29N,
Ri3W In both
sections
Sand
25,
surficialsands maybepresent Contaminants
fromthe
landfill couldbe transported tc~nearby
surface
water
and
groundwater
through
these sands In Section
5,
the
shallow depth
ofthe
Silunan
dolomite (areas
mappedas(g)I5and
15 in
figure 2)is alsoaconcern forgroundwater contamination nithat
aquifer Please be aware that
the
enclosedmaps were developedfrom regional ip~onandrepr~~sent
the
geology
on
aregionalbasis
Toassess the
suitability
of
anysite,
site
mvestigations are necessaryto
confirm
the
regional
geologic
interpretation and evaluate
the
suitability
for
sitinga landfill
or other facility.
Bibliography
Berg,R C ,andJP Kempton,
1988
Stack-tJmtMappmgofGeologicMatenalsmilhnoistoaDepth-of
15
Meters,
Illinois StateGeological
SurveyCircular
542,23 p (statewide
map showing 3Dgeologyto a
depth of 50 feet)
Berg,
R.C., J.P. Kempton,
andK. Cartwright,
1984.
Potential
for ContanuinatiOn ofShallow
Aquifers
in
illinois,
illinois State Geological Survey Circular
532,
30p. (statewide map
showing
potential
for
contamination
from
waste disposal)
Cravens, S.
J.,
S.D.Wilson,andRC. Bafty
1990.
RegionalAssessmentofthe Grôund-WaterResources
in EasternKankakee and NorthernIroquoisCounties, illinois State Water SurveyReportofInvestigation
111, 86 p (describes geology and
groundwater
in
an area
just east of2
sections)
Frankie,
W.T., 1998.
Guide
to theGeologyof
KankakeeRiverState Park Area, Kankakee County,
Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey
FieldTrip Guidebook 19988,62 p (Geologic reportdescribing
the geologyofKankakeeRiverState Park
inparticular
and KankakeeCounty
in
general
Good basic
discussion of geology.)
Piskm,K ,andk
E Bergstrom, 1975 GlacialDnftmlllinois TlucknessandCharacter,ilhinoisState
Geological SurveyCircular
490,
35p. (statewide map showing thethickness ofthe geologic materials
above the bedrock or
“drift”)

Visocky,A.P., M.G. Sherrill, and K. Cartwright, 1985. Geology, Hydrology, and
Water Quality ofthe
Cambrian and Ordovician
Systems in
Northern Illinois, illinois State Geological Surveyand illinoisState
Water:Survey Cooperative GroundwaterReport 10,136p. (describes bedrockgeology andgroundwater
ofnorthern IL).
Note: ISGS
publicationsare
available at many local
libraries
or from the
ISGS
at 217/244-2414. ISWS
publications~
are
also available at many local libraries or by phoning 217/333-8888.

A
~
\I i
‘~r~i~’ ‘~
.
a
11
-
—t,1
5o~,-J
r
N
1~
2.
7
I ~ r~of~5~
~W~4
Jr25
50
\~V~”Ac~
51/U
8!
9
0
f~25 25
A
/
~1
21
~4/25J
~L~xrc~
c~
f
.4
41
~TI~7
I (CII~~’
‘~O~
~
llN~~
r\tT
~)
o~
2
~J)
~
;~-
\
/00
-
~
(-/004
~
~
I~
sç~o(7
J 7/~ /
I
~/756~j (
V
)-~~
R
ft~
1
z
I

CD
.7.
I—~
t1=
~ii
~r~c;i~Ta:
L~
~4i~
U,
C
C’
0
0
U)
0
a)
C)
Cl)
0
U,
0
S
cs
c.
c\J
H
:~
I
f—n

AlphanumerIc
Code
GeologIc
Map
of
IllInola
EquIva!enr
I
I
Penns~4vanlanrock,,cnalnlyshaIes
2
2
PennsylvanIan
tock~.
mainly
sandstones
3
3
Misslsslpplanrocks,malnlyshales
4
5
~
4
5
6
Mississipplort
rocks,
mainly
Ilmeslones,
some
sandsiones
Sllurlonand
some
Devonianroctrs,
mslnlydolomite
OrdovlclanrodCs,
mairtly
shale
(Maquokela
Group)
7
7
Ordovlclan
and
Cambrian
rocks.
mainlydolomNe,
somesandalone
NOTE:
ecldlaca
numerSls
replaseni
materials
greater
than
6
meters
(19.7
II)
below
numesats
In
regular
typelace
represent
materIals
withIn
6
meters
(19.711)01
suttace.’The
thi
below
15
meters
Is
undetermined
(or
the
lowest
unil
abewn,
•~4~ftm~
H.8.,
1967,
GeologIc
Map
ol
Illinois;
Illinois
Slate
Geological
Survey
map.
~c~I
1:500,000.
can
be
distinguished:
silty
or
ciayey
and
loamy
or
sandy.
Within
(hr
nebagD
Formation,
all
diamictons
are
sandy;
within
the
Wolf
Cree
mation,
the
diamictons
have
not
been
differentiated.
(See
labte
letter
codes
for
these
formations.)
There
are
unnamed
but
wides
buried
or
exhumed
deposits
of
sand
and
gravel
that
are
within
6
n
(19.7
ft)
of
the
surface
nnd
stratigraphically
between
diamlctcjns
formations.
These
materials
are
designated
by
the
leUer
“k”
in
the
tA
Formation,
‘nt
in
the
Winnebago
Formation;
“r”
within
the
Glasfor
matfon.
The
latter
u2~
Is
used
to
designate
any
sand
and
gravel
ri
botwoon
6
and
15
motors
(19,7
and
49.3
II)
of
tim
sutfaco
iogatdl
the
formation
in
which
It
occurs.
Because
the
Pliocene.Pielstocene
Mounds
Gravel
and
related
de
(V)
and
Cretaceous
sediments
(W)
have
hydrogeologic
and
enginr
properties
that
are
similar
to
those
ot
drift
materials,
they
a~e
not
gr
with
the
bedrock
materials.
Both
are
present
in
restricted
portions
slate.
The
letter
MX”
is
used
to
designate
areas
of
disturbed
material,
as
strip
mine
land,
or
manmade
land.
Geotogic
data
in
surroundint
areas
indicate
(he
materials
that
make
up
(his
disturbed
land.
iJthil~ed
materials
(bedrock
units)
are
designated
by
numbers
1
Iii
7
(table
2).
Boldface
numerala
Identify
bedrock
units
occurrhig
between
6
ar
15
meters
(19.7
~nd
49.3
11)
of
the
sur1~ce.
Time-
AlphanumerIc
Stratlgrephy
Code
Ouclemary
Depoella
Mep’
A
a
CahoirleAltuvlum
B
b
Rlchlandt.ooss
C
c
PeorIaloesaendRoxanaSill
Holocerre/
U
d
Ptrrkland
Sand
tale
E
o
Graystake
Peat
Wraconsinan
I’
I
EqualltyFm,CarmlMbr
G
g
EquelilyFm,OollonMbr
‘I
y
Peytoncoltuvium
H
h
HanryPm
I
I
WedronPm,
slllyandctoyaydlamlclons
J
I
WodrenFm,loamyendaarrdydlarnlclona
Wlsconslnarr
K
Sand
andgravotwphtn
Wedron
Fm:
ir
wlthlnem(l9,llQoisurtrrce
t
between
6-15
in
(19.7..49.311)otsurlaca
I.
I
Winnebago
Fm,
maInly
sandy
dinmtctons
M
SeridandgtavetwlthlnWlnnubagoPrn:
m
wlthln6m(19.7ft)
ot
surface
a
between
B—IS
m
(19.
7—49.3
fl~
of
surface
N
n
Tenertlle
Slit
lllinolen
0
o
Pearl
Fm
(Includes
IiegecstownMbt)
P
p
Olnofort)F,n,
silly
ourictityny
dlui,tltlurto
0
q
Glaslord
~
foamy
andsandydlamlclons
Sand
and
gravel
within
GlasfordFm:
r
wilhln6m(19.71t)olsurfrrce
a
betweerr6—I5
nif
tS.7-.’49.31t)otsurlace
Pre.liiinoian
1.1
u
WoltCreakFrn(matntydtaunictons)
Pliocerre
V
v
Møund,Grnuolnndvelfltndunhls
Crelaceous
W
w
Cretaceous
sediments,
sills,
sends,
etc.
Miscellaneous
IC
Surface
mlneslmenmnde
land
NOTE:
SoldIace.
uppercase
letters
represent
materials
greater
than
6
innlcis
(19.7
II)
lhiclr~
lowercase
tellers
rr,pre,nnl
lhosn
materials
1na~
than
S
molars
lhintr,
Mnst
ttlnnnnt~lon~
are
genetically
glacial
tills
or
denivod
from
glacial
tills,
~Lineback,
J.
A.,
1979,
Oualernaryoeposils
of
litnols:
IllinoIs
State
Geological
Surveymap,
scale
1:500,000.
12
I
C
~
L1
E~I
-~
E1II~i
1~~J
~
==
~-,

H
a
4

tJi~
3
Al
Permeable
bedrock
at or with in 20 feet of land surface, variable overlying materials
A2
~ j~TTT.
~ Thick, permeable sand and gravel within 20 ft of land surface.
20
‘‘“
-
~. Permeable
bedrock
generally with in 20 ft of land surface;
where
deeper,
sand
and
A3
/
gravel
may
be present
50
/ /
/
20
1
- •
Cemented sandstone within 20 ft of land
surface;
variable, relatively impermeable
A4
• : -
overlying materials.
50
20
‘~.f~’
Permeable
bedrock
generally within 20 ft of land surface; overlying materials
AS
variable but
mostly
till.
50
‘‘~
.
-
AX
20
~
Altuvlum, a mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay along
streams,
variable in com-
50 ~
position and thickness.
20
~
Sand and
gravel less than
20 ft thick over relatively impermeable till or
bedrock.
50
~
20
-1~’.•-’1~~.
Sand and gravel, within 20 ft of surface, overlain and underlain by relatively
132
..‘.‘~“
impermeable tilt, other fine-grained material, and/or
bedrock.
50 “‘~~‘
x
(~-~
_-:_~
Map
slopescomplexand
valleys.
of permeable bedrock on ridges, underlain primarily by shale on
20
~
‘7,~-~
Permeable bedrock
within 20 to 50 ft of
surface, overtain by
till or other fine.
Cl
-‘
“~ grained
material.
50
C2
20
~‘
Sand and gravel within 20 to 50 ft of
surface,
overlain and underlain by relatively
impermeable till, other fine.grained material, and/or
bedrock.
i~-•—_-.S-- ‘1
C3
20-I
- ~-‘
Permeable bedrock, mostly within 20 to 50 ft of
surface. overlain
by till or other
50
1
~
fine-grained materials; bedrock
surface
below 50 ft in
places.
20 ~“
‘~ Cemented
sandstone, within 20 to 50 ft of
surface, overlairi by relatively imper-
C4
~
—‘
~ meabie tilt or other fine-grained materials.
50
C5
20
~-‘‘‘
“J
.~9~2~’4
fPredominantlyft d
till with discontinuous
sand
and
gravel
locally
present
within 50
50
‘ ‘
-
o
20 :~‘i
Uniform, relatively impermeable sandy till at least 50 ft thick; no
evidence
of
interbedded sand
and
gravel.
50
E
20
‘c—’,
~
Uniform, relatively impermeable
silty
or-clayey till at least 50 ftthick;noevidence
-
of
interbedded sand
and
gravel.
I—C’
~
F
20j’
:
:::
Relatively impermeable bedrock within 20 ft of surface, mostly overlain by till
— —
or other fine-grained materials.
5Oi~-’”~~~i
2O-~’-’~.‘
,‘ .~“
Relatively impermeable bedrock within 20 to 50 ft of surface. overlain by till or
G
— _- — ~.
other fine-grained materials.
-
50
— —
Figure 9
Ratings,
vertical
sequences, and descriptions of geologic materials for Plate 1: Land Burial
of
Municipal Wastes. The ratings are based
on the capacities of materials to accept, transmit, restrict, or remove contaminants from waste effluents.
POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION OF SHALLOW AQUIFERS IN ILLINOIS
(ic)

~r~b1~
Primarily bedrock
Primarily glacial
drift
Materials
generally
having few
limitations
Limitation
Limitation
.
frrench construction
Groundwater
problems
contamination
and/or
potential
surf~ace,
contaminatIon
,
Trench design
Groundwater
problems
contamination
and
potential
surface
-
contamination
Al
(Al)*
A2
A3
A4
(A4)
A5
AX
(81)
BI
82
(82)
BX
Cl
C2
C3
CS
(CS)
D
(F)
G
Figure
11
Summary:
geologic
limitations for land burial of municipal wastes. (Map units in
parentheses indicate
secondary
or local limitations.)
Primarily bedrock
-
Primarily drift
Materials
generally
having few
limitations
Limitation
Limitation
Surface
Groundwater
contamination
contamination
(acceptance)
po
~
en
~
Ia
or
problems
Groundwater
u
ace
contamination contamination
.
(acceptance)
p0
ntia
problems
Al
(Al)*
A2
A3
(A3)AX
81
(Bi)
B2
(82)
B3
(B3)
B4
(84)
(Cl)
ci
C2
(C2)
(Dl)
Dl
(D3)
~D3)(D2)
D3D2
Figure 12 Summary: geologic limitations for surface and near-surface waste disposal. (~Map
units in
parentheses
indicate
secondary
or local limitations.)
flflttk,’r,
&. r ,.~n~
a,..s.s .,..,., ~,
a
~.. .,— .—,. a
.
,‘..

Public Commentary:
The attached case document reveals the fundamental unfairness of the January 12~•O4~:
~.
n~
p ~
2:
fl
3
application submission
by Waste
Management. The County~sattorneys Harvey and
Heisten, along with Kankakee
County States Attorney Ed Smith were complici~in,
mismiorming and deceiving the County
Board
regarding commumcations from’t1~eir
constituents.
K~.
The above mentioned Attorneys s told the County Board that they could not talk to their
constituents regarding the pending landfill application. In so doing they violated the
publics 1st. Amendment rights and prejudiced the County Board by excluding the public
from expressing their views to their elected representatives. Only Waste Management
was allowed to give information via the Siting Hearings.
It is ironic that the attached case proves that Harvey distorted the entire process. Ms
Harvey in behalf of Land And Lakes, the applicant in Randolph County. That citizen
communications violated the
exparte
rule,. Ms. Harvey lost that decision to Richard
Porter of Hinshaw and Culbertson, Mr. Heisten’s firm.
That decision was later upheld at the
5th
District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon.
Illinois
This is just another in a long line offundamentally unfair practices engaged in by the
Applicant and the County. Just one more instance in which the citizens rights were
abrogated in the whole ugly process.
Keith L Runyon
Objector
1165 Plum Creek Dr. Unit D
Bourbonnais, Ii 60914
2/20/04

ILLINOISPOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 21, 2000
LAND AND LAKES COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB99-69
(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)
RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,)
Respondent.
ELIZABETHS. HARVEY, MCKENNA, STORER, ROWE, WHITE & FARRUG, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
PETITIONER;
STEPHEN HEDINGER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
JAMES W. KELLEY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER; and
RICHARD S.
PORTER,
HINSHAW
& CULBERTSON, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
On November 23, 1998, Land and Lakes Company (Land and Lakes) filed an appeal pursuant to Section
40.1 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/40.1(1998)) of an October 19, 1998 decIsion by the
Randolph County Board ofCommissioners (Randolph County) denying siting of a pollution controlfacility.
Randolph County denied the siting based on Land and Lakes’ failing to meet two of the nine criteria listed in Section
39.2 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/39.2 (1998)). In this appeal Land and Lakes asserts that the proceedings before
Randolph County were fundamentally unfair and that the decision by Randolph County was against the manifest
weight of the evidence.
Hearings were held before Chief Hearing Officer John Knittle on May 9 and 10, 2000. The hearings were
held in Chester, Randolph County, Illinois. Land and Lakesified its brief on June 16, 2000, and a reply brief on July
28, 2000, Randolph County filed its brief on July 17, 2000. In addition to the briefs filed by the parties, an
ainicus
curiae
briefwas ified on July 14, 2000, by Kenneth Bleyer and Dora Spinney.
The Board affirms the Randolph County Board ofCommissioners’ denial of siting for a pollution control
facility. Basedon the record and as explained below, the Board finds that the proceedings were not fundamentally
unfair and the decision to deny siting based on two statutory criteria was not against the manifest weight ofthe
evidence.
PRELIMINARY MATfERS
As a preliminary matter the Board will address Land and Lakes’ motion to strike filed on July 28, 2000.
Randolph County filed a response to that motion along with alternative motions on August 10, 2000. On August 18,
I
The transcript ofthe hearingswill be cited as “Tr. at”;the petitioner’s brief wifi be cited as “Pet. Br. at”; the reply
briefwill be cited as “Reply”; respondent’s brief will be cited as “Resp. Br. at”. The Randolph County record will be
cited by referring to the county record table of contents number and, where appropriate, a page number “TOC # at

2
2000, Land and Lakes filed an objection. The Board denies the motion to strike and allows Randolph County’s brief
to exceed 50 pages.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
Section 39.2(a) of the Act provides:
The county board ofthe county or the governing body ofthe municipally.., shall approve or
disapprove the request for local siting approval for each pollution control facility whichIs subject
• to such review. An applicant for local siting approval shall submit sufficient details describing the
proposed facility to demonstrate compliance, and local siting approval shall be granted only Ifthe
proposed facility meets the following criteria
ii.
the facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health,
safety and welfare will be protected;
viii.
If the facility Is to be located in a county where the county board has adopted a solid
waste management plan consistent with the planning requirementsof the Local Solid
Waste Disposal Act or the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act, the facility Is
consistent with that plan;
415 ILCS 5/39.2(a) (1998).
Section 40.1(a) ofthe Act provides in pertinent part:
If the county board or the governing body of the municipality.
. ,
refuses to grant approval under
Section 39.2 of this Act, the applicant may, within 35 days, petition for a heating before the Board
to contest the decision of the county board or the governing body of the municipality.
* * *
The
county board or governing body of the municipality shall appear as respondent in such hearing,
and such hearing shall be based exclusivelyon the record before thecounty board or the governing
body ofthe municipality.
* *
*
In making its orders and determinations under this Section, the
Board shall include in Its consideration the written decision and reasons for the decision of the
county board or the governing body ofthe municipality, the transcribed record of the hearing held
pursuant to subsection (d) of Section 39.2, and the fundamental fairness of the procedures used by
the county board or the governing body of the municipality In reaching Its decision. 415 ILCS
40.1(a) (1998).
FACTS
The pertinent facts ofthis case are described in the following section. First, the procedural history is
presented. Next, there follows a summary of testimony at the Board’s May 9 and 10, 2000 hearings. Lastly, there is
a discussion of the facts relevant to the denial of siting based on Section 39.2(U) and (viii) ofthe Act.
On April 28, 1998, Land and Lakes filed a siting application seeking approval to site a pollution control
facility in Randolph County, pursuant to Section 39.2 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/39.2 (1998)). TOC 3. Under Randolph
County’s ordinance, the Randolph County Planning Commission (Planning Commission) coordinated receipt of
evidence. Four members ofthe Planning Commission (Marvin Campbell, Mike Riebeling, Dorothy Rinne, and Tom
Smith) conducted a public hearing on thesiting application. Resp. Exh, 1. Those public hearings were held on July

3
28
and
July 29, 1998,
and
writtencomments were accepted for a period of 30 days
after
the public hearing. TOC 2,
9, 10,
and
11. The Planning Commission
was
charged with preparing a report and recommendationto be submitted
to the Randolph
County
Board. Resp. Exh. 1.
On September 21, 1998, after the close of the public comment period, the Planning Commission filed
its
report titled “Proposed Findings, Conditions & Recommendations ofthe Randolph County Commission’ (Report).
TOC 8. The Report concluded
with
a recommendation that siting be denied.
Id.
The Planning Commission
recommended denial because the Planning Commission found
that
the facility would not be located consistentwith
the Solid Waste Management Plan of Randolph County contrary to Section 39.2 (vlii) ofthe Act (415 ILCS
5/39.2(vlii) (1998)).
Id.
On October 19, 1998, the Randolph County Board voted on the application and denied
siting on the grounds that criterion
11(415
ILCS 5/39.2(a)(il) (1998))
and
criterion
viii
(415 ILCS 5/39.2(a)(vili)
(1998)) were not met.
The Randolph County Board consists of three members. At the
time
of the vote on Land
and Lakes’
siting
application, those members were: Clem Esker, Terry Moore, and Ronald Stork. Tr. at 68, 134, 147. Stork was
Chairman
of the Board. Tr. at 68. All three members of the Board received contacts concerning the siting
application
that
were outside the record of the proceedings. Members of the Planning Commission also received
commentsthat were outside the record. A
summary
of each person’s testimony at the Board’s hearing
will
follow.
Ron Stork
Stork testified that he received a
number
of phone
calls
regarding the siting application-at both his home
and his
business. The
calls
occurred after the application
was
ified In
April
1998 but before the
County
Board~s
decision in October 1998. Tr. at 73-74; 91-92; 96-98. Stork did not remember the exact number of calls he received.
He testified at hearing to receiving five or
six
phone calls. Tr. at 73. However, in deposition, he testified that he
received
two
or three dozen calls. Tr. at 97-98. Stork Installed a “trap and trace” on his phone lines at home and at
work. Stork
did
so
because
he
was
concerned about
his
family. Tr. at 97-100. Many callers did not identify
themselves, but wantedto discuss the substance ofthe landifil siting application. Tr. at 73. Stork stated that he did
not
speak
to the
callers
regardingthe substance ofthe application. Tr. at 91. Stork specifically remembers a phone
conversation with Kenneth Marldey, during which Markley madesubstantive statements about the proposed
landfill.
Tr. at 94-97. Markley Is, and
was
at the time, the vice president of a group
known
as FORCE. Tr. at 39, 40.
Stork testified that he received some written comments regarding the
landfill
which opposed the landfill.
Tr. at 70, 72, 92. He took the commentshe received to the county clerk’s office to be placed in the-record. Tr. at 70,
92.
Stork testified that he was approached in person about the siting process. Alan Corbin told Stork that
people were opposed to the landfill, and stated that he did not think it would be good for Stork’s business if the
landfill
were sited. Tr. at 103-104. Stork
also
received a phone call from Dave
and
Peggy Guebert. The Gueberts
opposed the landfill. Tr. at 105. Stork stated that he did not discuss the
merits
of the application
with
these people.
Tr. at 125.
Storkwas invited to attend
two
meetings regarding the landfill siting. Stork was asked to speak at a
meeting of the Randolph County Farm Bureau while the
landfill
application
was
pending. Tr. at 69. Stork accepted
that invitation,
and
appeared at the Farm
Bureau
meeting to answer questions aboutiheapplication. Tr. at 70-71.
Additionally, Stork
was
asked to attend a meeting of FORCE, which he did not attend. Tr. at 71.
Stork
received one phone call in which the caller stated that she had overheard conversations that Stork’s
construction equipment could be vandalized. Tr. at 78. Shortly
after that
phone call, Stork discovered four fiat
tires
on
his
construction equipment in one day, which was
unusual.
Tr. at 101-102.
Stork also received a package in the
mail,
while the siting application was pending. Tr. at 75. The package
was in a manila envelope,
and
it appeared to be
full
of garbage.
“Stuff was
leaking from the package.” Tr. at 75-76.

4
Stork did not open the package, but turned it over to the Sparta Police Department. Tr. at 76. Stork believes that his
receipt of this package of garbage was related to the landfill siting proceeding. Tr. at 77.
Additionally, Stork was the target of pranks, which he believes were related to the landfill siting process.
Tr. at 82, 128, But Stork also indicated that “sometimes as an elected official there is little games that are played and
you tend to forget them.” Tr. at 82. Once Stork’s wife was called at work by a local florist, asking where the florist
should deliver the large number of flowers or plants supposedly ordered by her. However, Stork’s wife had not
ordered flowers. Tr. at 8 1-82. On another occasion, someone called the restaurant where the Sparta Chamber of
Commerce holds its meetings. It was Stork’s last meeting as president of the Chamber of Commerce, and the caller
told the restaurant manager that Stork’s wife was going to pick up the tab for the entire lunch. In fact, Stork’s wife
had not made the phone call, and had not intended to pay for lunch for the entire Chamber of Commerce. Tr. at 79,
81. On a third occasion, Stork’s office received a phone callfrom a local furniture store, asking when Stork’s wife
would pick up the two chairs she had allegedly ordered for Stork’s birthday. She had not ordered any chairs. Tr. at
79-80.
Stork first testified that the events did not affect his decision “In the end.” Tr. at 105-106. Stork also
testifiedin his earlier deposition that the phone calls, personal contacts, threats, and pranks cumulatively had an
effect on his ability to make a decision on the landfillsiting application. Tr. at 109. Stork indicated that pressure and
“extenuating factors” makes decisionmaking more difficult, and does affect one’s ability to make a decision. Tr. at
110. However, Stork also stated that his decision was based solely on the record. Tr. at 120-121. Stork stated that
“if all the criteria had been met that would have been a difficult decision to make based on the overwhelming
opposition to the landfill.” Tr. at 128.
Terry Moore
Moore estimated that he received one call in favor ofthe landfill, and about four calls against the landfill at
his home. Tr. at 134-136. He allowed one of the callers, who was opposed to the landifil siting, to express her
opinion at more length than the other callers, since the caller was a friend of Moore’s wife. Tr. at 134-135. However,
he stated her comments were no different than those placed on the record. Tr. at 140-141.
Moore was invited to attend a meeting of FORCE, as Stork had been. The invitation was extended by mail
and he did not attend the meeting. Tr. at 138. Moore also received three or four letters about the landfill, which he
threw away. Tr. at 136. AddItionally, Moore received some campaign literature In the mail opposing the landfill
siting application. Tr. at 137, Moore testified that he based his decision solely on the record and he did not “pay
attention” to comments outside the hearing process. Tr. at 142. Moore Indicated that when he received phone calls
he would tell the callers that he would not discuss the landfill siting and would then end the conversation. Tr. at
135, 140.
Clem Esker
Esker was approached by one man who came to see Esker at his office regarding the proposed landifil. Tr.
at 150. Esker testified that he informed the individual that he could not talk about the landifil siting. Tr. at 150.
Esker stated that he did not have a substantive discussion with the individual. Tr. at 150. AddItionally, Esker
received a phone callat home regarding thesiting application. Tr. at 150-151. Esker also testified that he did not
take the phone call. Tr. at 151.
Marvin Campbell
Campbell testifiedthat he received phone calls regarding the siting application at both home and-work. He
estimated that he received about 30 messages on his home answering machIne. Tr. at 190. Campbell did not recall If
the messagesindicated opposition to the landfill application. Tr. at 189-190. Campbell received three to five calls at
work. Tr. at 189-190. He Indicated to the callers that he could not discuss the siting and they should testify at the
hearing. Tr. at 190. Some of the callers were unhappy when he Indicated that he would not discuss the siting
application but he received no threats. Tr. at 190-191.

5
Campbell was also approached approximately eight to ten times in person regarding the landfill siting. On
one occasion, a woman active in the opposition approached Campbell at McDonald’s restaurant. Campbell found it
obvious that the woman opposed the landfill. Tr. at 193. On another occasion, Campbell was approached at the
airport, where Campbell works. Those people were against the siting of the landfill. Tr. at 193, Campbell testified
that the atmosphere was intimidating to some people, but not to him. Tr. at 195. Campbell also testified that none of
the calls or contacts affected his decision In any way. Tr. at 194.
Michael Riebeling
Riebeling also received phone calls regarding the landfill at home and at work. Riebeling received between
six and eight phone calls at home, and six to eight phone calls at work. Tr. at 157. Of those callers who expressed
an opinion, all opposed the landfill siting. Tr. at 158. Rlebeling did not discuss the merits of the application with the
callers. Tr. at 167-168. In fact, Riebeling stated that he would get the callers off the phone as quickly as possible and
he would indicate that he could not discuss the application. Tr. at 167.
Additionally, Riebeling received oneitem in the mail. Inside the envelope (which did not have a return
address) was a three-inch piece of paper with what appeared to be an official State of Illinois seal. Handwritten on
that paper were the words “Oppose Landfill.” The restof the items in the envelope were copies of letters to the
editor, or newspaper articles, all ofwhich opposed the siting-ofthe proposed landfill. Tr. at 158-160; Pet, Ex. 4.
Riebeling told the other members of the Planning Commission about the letter, and may have shown them the letter,
Ti. at 162, 165. Rlebeling did not give the letter to the Randolph County Clerk for inclusion In the public record of
the siting proceeding. Tr. at 162. Rlebeling testified that the note did not affect his decision. Tr. at 167.
Dorothy Rhine
Rlnne received contacts outside the record ofthe siting proceeding in that she received phone calls at home.
Rinne was unsure of the number ofcalls she received, but Indicated that It was less than ten calls. The callers
opposed the landfill. Tr. at 175. Rlnne Indicated that she declined to talk about the landfill siting process with the
callers. Tr. at 175.
Rlnne also received fewer than ten letters in the mail regarding the landfifi siting proceeding. Tr. at 175-
176. She skimmed the letters, and after determining that the letters related to the landfill siting proceeding, she did
not read the letters further. Tr. at 176-, 181. Rinne threw the letters away, and did not give the letters to the county
clerkto placein the record. Tr. at 176. Rhine did not give anyweight to the phone conversations and did not
consider the calls as evidence. Ti. at 177. In addition, Rinne indicated that the mailings did not influence her
decision on the landfillsiting. Tr. at 179-180.
-
Thomas Smith
Smith also received phone calls and a letter regarding the landffflsiting proceeding. He received at least
two phone calls at home and he informed the callers that any information the callers wanted to present had to be in
writing and filed with the county clerk. Ti. at 205, Smith specifically remembers two callers who opposed the
landfill. Tr. at 207. Additionally, Smith received a letter at his home, opposing the landfill siting. Tr. at 207-208. A
copy of the letterthat he received was also filed with the county clerk. Ti. at 208. Smith did not consider the two
calls to be evidence in the siting hearing. Tr. at 222. Smithbased his decision on the information provided at the
public hearings and in the written comments. Ti. at 222.
-
Ex
Parte
Contacts at County Board Meethug
Representatives ofthe opposition group FORCE were given the opportunity to speak on the substance of the
siting application at a regular meeting ofthe county board. Mr. Alan Weber, the president- of FORCE, was allowed
to address the county board at Its regularly scheduled Boardmeeting on August 24, 1998. Ti. at 85-91, 229, 240.
Weber stated that the public, and FORCE, were opposed to the proposed landfill. Tr. at 88-89. Additionally,

6
Kenneth Markley, the vicepresident of FORCE, was also allowed to speak at that August 24, 1998 county board
meeting. Tr. at 36, 40, 89-91. Kenneth Markley also opposed the proposed landfill, and specifically discussed traffic
and road issues. Ti. at 90. There were no Land and Lakes representatives present at the August 24, 1998 meeting.
Ti. at 86.
Stork testified that as chairman of the county board, It was his policy “to allow anyone that wanted to show
up at a County Boardmeeting to have an opportunity to speak ofany issue that they choose to speak about.” Tr. at
124. Moore also testified that since he began to serve on the county board in 1988 (Tr. at 134)
it
had been the
“tradition” to let anyone speak at a county board meeting. Tr. at 144. County Board meetings were set on a
quarterly basis, publicized by the County Clerk, and public meetings were open to anyone who wished to attend. Ti.
at 124-125.
Section 39.2 (11) and (viii) ofthe Act
On October 19, 1998, Randolph County Board denied siting for a facility to be owned and operated by
Land and Lakes. TOC 4 at 1-4. The Randolph County Board denied the request for siting because
it
found Land
and Lakes failed to demonstrate that the facility would meet Section 39.2(11) (criterion 11) and (vili) (criterion viii).
TOC 4 at 2 and 4. The Randolph County Board’s reasons for denial relate to the provisions ofthe Randolph County
Solid Waste Management Plan (Randolph County Plan).
-
The Randolph County plan provides, in part:
Environmental protection, especially in the context ofprotecting regional groundwater resources,
is a primary consideration of localsiting criteria. Recommended local criteria were developed to
clarify what constituted acceptable potential sites for a landfill. The criteria are grouped into
exclusionary and inclusionary criteria, Exclusionary criteria are used to screen individual parcels
or areas. Parcels or areas which contained any of the exclusionary characteristics would not be
considered In the site Identification process.
-
Areas or parcels which remain after the exclusionary
criteria, would be screened against the inclusionary criteria to identify parc-els-f~r-considerationfor
on-site investigations. Table 61 lists the exclusionary and inclusionary local siting criteria, Pet.
Exh. 2, at 205; Resp. Br. at 15.
Among the ‘Exclusionary criteria” listed in table 61 is “exclude all areas wlthin 11/2 miles of municipal corporate
limits.” Pet. Exh. 2, at 207.
The Randolph County Plan was approved by the illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) as
being consistent with the illinois Environmental Protection Act. TOC 3, Vol 3, at 1. On February 27. 1995, after
reviewing the Randolph County Plan, the transcript of the testimony given durIng the public hearing on the
Randolph County Plan, and the responses and substantive questions received during the public review period on the
Randolph County Plan, the Randolph County Board adoptedthe Randolph County Plan as its own (see Resolution
attached to Randolph County Plan, Pet. Exh. 2).
On April 28, 1998, Land and Lakes ified its application for siting approval for a new disposal and recycling
facility, which was to be located less than a mile from Sparta, illinois. The hearing on the application was held on
July 28 and 29, 1998. TOC 2 at 1-352,
Criterion II
Land and Lakes presented evidence and testimony that the proposed facility Is so designed, located, and
proposed to be operated as to protect health, safety, and welfare. TOC 3, Vols. 3-10. Dr. Neil Williams, an expertin
landfill design and construction, testified extensivelyon behalfof Land and Lakes on the design and operation of the
proposed landfill. TOC 2 at 97-136. Dr. Wiffiams concluded that the proposed facility satisfies criterion it. TOC 2 at
136. AddItionally, James Cowhey Jr. and Eileen Sheliga testified on the proposed design and operation of the facility.
TOC 2 at 40-51; 311-350.
-

7
Randolph County retained Rhutasel and Associates, consulting engineers, to review and evaluate Land and
Lake’s application. TOC 2 at 52. Rhutasel and Associates issued a written report of its findings (“the Rhutasel
Report”) (Pet. Ex. 1), and Mr. Larry J. Rhutasel testified at hearing. TOC 2 at 51-74. Rhutasel testifiedthat his firm
“pointed out,..a particular table
it
was Table 61 ~-which is a list of exclusionary landfill site identification
criteria.” TOC 2 at 61. Rhutasel further testffied that included in those criteria was the one and a half-mile
exclusion. TOC 2 at 61-62. Finally Rhutasel testified to concerns about traffic. TOC 2 at 60-6 1. Specifically, the
concerns were not about patterns, but the weightloads and width of roads.
Id.
The Rhutasel Report concluded that
Land and Lakes had adequately addressed the protection of’ health, safety, and welfare. Pet. Ex. 1 at 5-6. Rhutasel
testified that issues identified in the report were minor, and did not riseto anyfinding that criterion II was not met,
TOC 2 at 63-65.
Extensive testimony was provided on this issue at the public hearingsbyconcernedcithens. See
e.g.,
TOC 2
at 91. Also numerous comments were filed discussing the issue of road safety. TOC 9.
The Planning Commission met on September 21, 1998, to make its recommendations on the application.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously that Land and Lakes’ application satisfiescriterion II. TOC 2,
planning commission hearing, at 8-12.
Criterion viii
Randoiph County Is one offour counties whichjointly adopted a solid waste management plan prepared
on their behalfby the Southwestern illinois Planning Commission (SIMAPC). (Pet. Ex. 2.) As part ofits application,
Land and Lakes submitted a letter from Darryl L. Thompson, Manager of General Planning for SIMAPC. Thompson
stated that SIMAPC had reviewed Land and Lake’s application for consistency with the solid waste management
plan for Randolph County. Thompson concluded that “the location ofa new landfIll in Randolph County, that is
acceptable to local governments is consistent with their Solid Waste Management Plan.
. ..“
TOC 3 at Vol. 2, Crit. 8.
Land and Lakes’ application also analyzed the solid wastemanagement-plan, and notedthat the- Randolph County
Plan identifies the need for source reduction and final waste disposal capacity, with a corresponding support of the
development of landfills to meet final disposal needs. TOC 3 at Vol. 2, Grit. 8 at 1.
ISSUES
Land and Lakes raised three issues in its petition for review. The first Issue is whether the combination of
cx
pai’te
contacts and an atmosphere offear and Intimidation resulted in a fundamentally unfair proceeding. The
second and third Issuesboth deal with whether Randolph County’s decision on the criteria (ii and viii) is against the
manifest weight ofthe evidence. The Board will first address the fundamental fairness ofthe proceedings and then
dIscuss the criteria.
FUNDAMENTAL FAERNESS
In this section the Board will address the issue of whether the proceedings were fundamentally unfair. The
Board will begin by summarizing the arguments of Land and Lakes, and follow with a discussion of Randolph
County’s arguments. Then, the Boardwill discuss Land and Lakes’ response to Randolph County’s arguments. The
Boardwill then address the positions ofthe
arnicus curiae.
Finally, in this section the Boardwill analyze the
arguments and render Its decision on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding.
Land and Lakes’ Arguments
-
Generally, Land and Lakes maintains that an
cxparte
contact” Is one that takes place without notice and
outside the record between a person in a decisionmaking role and parties before that person. Pet. Br. at 16. Land
and Lakes cites to Residents Against a Polluted Environment v. County of LaSalle (RAPE v~LaSaile County)
(September 19, 1996), PCB 96-243 to support its definition of
exparte
contact. Land and Lakes also maintains that
contact between a local decision maker and constituents outside the presence of the applicant In which a position In

8
opposition to the siting is taken is an improper
exparte
contact. Pet. Br. at 16. Land and Lakes relies on Waste
Management ofillinois, Inc. V. Pollution Control Board, (Waste Management v. PCB) 175 Ill. App. 3d 1023, 530
N.E.2d 682,697 (2d DIst. 1988) to support
Its
argument that such contacts are improper. Further, Land and Lakes
argues that there must be a showing that the complaining party suffered prejudice -fromThe-
ex-parte
contacts-before
the local decision can be reversed. Pet. Br. at 16, citing Waste Management v. IPCB, 530 N,E,2d at 698 and RAPE v.
LaSalle County. Land and Lakes points to the five-part inquiry enunciated in B & E Hauling, Inc. v. Pollution
Control Board, (E & E Hauling v. PCB) 116 III. App. 3d 586, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571 (Zd Dist. 1983) as the standard for
determining for whether a county board’s decision Is tainted.
E & E Hauling v. PCB quotes PATCO v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 685 F.2d 547 (D. C. CIr. 1982)
and states, in part that
in
deciding if a proceeding Is tainted:
a number of considerations may be relevant: the gravity of the
cx parte
communications; whether
the contacts may have influenced the agency’s ultimate decision; whether the party maldng the
improper contacts benefited from the agency’s ultimate decision; whether the contents ofthe
communication were unknown to opposing parties, who therefore had no opportunity to respond;
and whether vacation of the agency’s decision and remand for new proceeding would serve a
useful purpose. E & E Hauling v. PCB, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571.
The Board will address the specifics of this inquiry in more detail below.
Land and Lakes specifically argues:
1.
The repeated contacts between the Randolph County Boardand Planning Commission members
and opponents of the siting were improper
cxpartc
contacts;
2.
The discussion of the substance of Land and Lakes’ application by representatives of the objectors
group was an improper
exparte
contact;
3.
Land and Lakes was prejudiced by the extensive
cx partc
contacts in this case;
4.
The cumulative effect of the
exparte
contactand the threats and intimidation madeIt impossible
for Land and Lakes to receivea fair hearing; and
5.
The Randolph County Board should be reversed not remanded.
Each ofthese arguments Is discussed in turn.
-
Land and Lakes asserts that the repeated contacts between the Randolph County Board and Planning Commission
members and opponents of the siting were improper
cx
partecontacts
Land and Lakes notes that at deposition all three members ofthe Randolph County Board and all four
members of the Planning Commission testified that they received
cx pal-te
contacts. Pet. Br. at 19-20. Land and
Lakes points to the fact that the contacts included phone calls, as few as one received by Esker and as many as three
dozen received by Stork. Pet. Br. at 20. Also, several ofthe local officials were contacted in person and some
receIved
items in the mail.
Id
The “vast majority” ofthe comments were in opposition, argues Land and Lakes.
Id
Land and Lakes asserts that this “pattern of contacts” between opponents to siting and the Randolph County Board
and Planning Commission members took place outside the presence of Land and Lakes. Pet. Br. at 20. Land and
Lakes argues that applying the definitions articulated In Waste Management Inc. v. PCB and RAPE v. LaSalle
County, the contacts were improper
cx parte
contacts.
Id.
Land and Lakes asserts that the discussion of the substance of Land and Lakes’ application by representatives of the
objectors’ group was an improper
cx parte
contact
-

9
Land and Lakes argues that the courts and the Board have previously-held that-allowing substantive
presentations regarding a landfill siting at a county board meeting, without prior notice to Land and Lakes, is an
improper
cxparte
contact. Pet. Br. at 21. In support of its position Land and Lakes cites to E & E Hauling v. PCB
and City of Rockford v. Winnebago County Board (November 19, 1987), (Rockford v. Winnebago) PCB 87-92, affd
186 Ill. App. 3d 303, 542 N.E.2d 423 (2d Dist. 1989). In E & E Hauling v. PCB, the applicant had several contacts
with the county board at finance committee meetings held after the close ofthe public hearings. Pet. Br. at 21. The
court stated that the lack ofnotice to the public that the landfill would be discussed sufficed to characterize those
meetings as
cxparte.
E & E Hauling v. PCB, 451 N.E.2d at 671. In Rockford v. Winnebago County, the Board found
that improper
cx parte
contacts occurred when members of the public were allowed to address the county board just
prior to the county board’s vote on a siting application. Pet. Br. at 21-22.
Land and Lakesasserts that the facts in this case regarding FORCE’s presentation to the County Board on
August 24, 1998, are almost identical to those in the above two cases. Pet, Br. at 22. Land and Lakes maintains that
FORCE was given an opportunity to substantively address the Randolph County Board
in
opposition to the siting,
without notice to the public or Land and Lakes.
Id.
Land and Lakes argues it was prejudiced by the extensive
cx partc
contacts in this case
Land and Lakes argues that It was prejudiced by the extensive
cxparte
contacts between opponents of the
landfill siting and the Randolph County Board and the Planning Commission. Pet. Br. at 23. Land and Lakes
further argues that the prejudice was exacerbated because ofthe threats and intimidation directed at Stork.
Id.
To
support its assertion, Land and Lakes points to Stork’s testimony that the pressure and “extenuating factors” made
decisionmaldng more difficult, and Stork’s admission that “If all the criteria had been met that would have been a
difficult decision....” çrr. at 110, 128. Pet. Br. at 25. Land and Lakes also points to Stork’s deposition testimony
wherein he stated that “all ofthe events cumulatively did have an affect” on his ability to make a decision. Pet. Br.
-
at 25, citing Tr. at 109.
-
Land and Lakes asserts that, applying the factors enunciated in E & B Hauling v. PCB, the ax
parte
contacts
Irrevocably tainted Randolph County Board’s decision denyingsiting approval. Pet. Br. at 24. The first Inquiry
is
the
gravity of the
expartc
contacts. B & B Hauling v. PCB, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571. Land and Lakes argues that there was a
pattern of
cxparte
contacts, from phone calls to personal approaches and mailings. Further, FORCE and two
individuals were given an opportunity to address the Randolph County Board on the substance of the application at
the August 24, 1998 Randolph County Board meeting after the close of the hearings without notice to either the
public or Land and Lakes. Pet. Br. at 24. Finally, Land and Lakes contends that Stork, the chairman ofthe
Randolph County Board, was subjected to threats and Intimidation.
Id.
Thus, Land and Lakes argues there was a
pattern of
exparte
contacts, which tainted the proceeding.
Id.
Thesecond inquiry is whether the
exparte
contacts Influenced or may have influenced the ultimate decision.
E & E Hauling v. PCB, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571. Land and Lakes argues that Stork admitted, in his deposition testimony,
that the cumulative effect ofthe
cx parte
contacts had an Impact on--his~deeision;Pet. Br. at 25, citing Tr. at 109.
The third inquiry is whether the party making the contacts benefited from the ultimate decision. E&E
Hauling v. PCB, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571, Land and Lakes argues that It is undisputed that a vast majority of the
contacts came from opponents to the siting, and the ultimate decision was to deny siting. Clearly, the persons
making the contacts benefited from the Randolph County Board’s decision. Pet. Br. at 25.
The fourth inquiry Is whether the content of the improper communications-was unknown-to-opposing
parties, who therefore had no opportunity to respond. B & B Hauling v. PCB, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571. Land and Lakes
argues that it did not know ofthe contacts until after the decision and therefore could not respond to the content of
the contacts. Pet. Br. at 26. Land and Lakes’ inability to respond was exacerbated by the “undefined nature of
FORCE, an opposition group.” Pet. Br. at 26. FORCE never formally appeared as a group in the hearings on the
siting. Pet. Br. at 26. Therefore, Land and Lakes argues it is difficult to respond to Improper contacts by an
“undefined and shadowy opposition group.”
Id.

10
-
The fifth inquiry is whether vacating the decision and remanding for a new proceeding would serve a
useful purpose. E & B Hauling v. PCB, 451 N.E.2d 555, 571. Land and Lakes argues that
it
was clearly prejudiced
by the extensive and threatening
expartc
contacts in this case. Pet. Br. at 26. Land and Lakes asserts that the
Randolph County Board’s decision was irrevocably tainted by “these illegal and prohibited contacts.”
Id.
However,
Land and Lakes argues that this case should not be remanded but reversed because no fair decision could be made
on remand. Pet. Br. at 26-27.
Land and Lakes asserts that the cumulative effect ofthe
cx parte
contact and the threats and intimidation made
it
impossible for Land and Lakes to receive afair hearing
Land and Lakes argues that while the
cxparte
contacts alone are sufficientto find the proceeding
fundamentally unfair, the cumulative effect of the contacts along with the threats and Intimidating tactics directed at
Stork, made it impossible for Land and Lakes to receive a fair hearing on-the application. Pet. Br. at 27. Land and
Lakes maintains that the opponents ofthe siting “engaged in a pervasive pattern of improper contacts” and threats
against Stork.
Id.
Land and Lakes asserts that the Randolph County Board decision should be reversed not remanded
Land and Lakes concedes that the usual remedy for a fundamentally unfair proceeding is to remand the
proceeding to the local decision maker. Pet Br. at 28. However, Land and Lakes argues that in this case such a
remedy would not cure the prejudice suffered by the applicant.
Id.
Land and Lakes opines that remand would
punish the applicant while producing the same result of
cx parte
contacts and attempts at intimidation and fear.
Id.
Therefore, Land and Lakes asserts that the Board should reverse the Randolph County Board’s decision and grant
siting approval by operation of law. Pet. Br. at 28-29.
-
-
Randolph County’s Arguments
Randolph County sets forth numerous arguments in support of Its contention that the Randolph County
Board’s decision should be affirmed. First, Randolph County maintains that Land and Lakes was given ample
opportunity to present its case and the decision by the Randolph County Board was based on the record. Second,
Randolph County asserts that Land and Lakes has not shown that theprocess was irrevocably tainted using the ~
E Hauling v. PCB test. Third, Randolph County asserts that the communications were not
exparte
communications.
Fourth, Randolph County argues that a majority of the county board had few to no contacts so the process was not
tainted. Fifth, Randolph County argues that any communications with the Planning Commission are irrelevant as
the Planning Commission was not the decisionmaker. SIxth, Randolph County maintains that the appropriate
redress has been had and neither reversal nor remand are appropriate.
Randolph County maintains that Land and Lakes was given ample opportunity to presents its case and the decision
of the Randolph County Board was based on the record of the preceding
Randolph County points out that the application filed by Land and Lakes was 10 to 12 volumes of material
and the hearings held on that application included 670 pages of testimony. Resp. Br. at 21. After the hearings were
held, the Planning Commission made its recommendation to the county board.
Id.
Land and Lakes was allowed to
present testimony at the hearing. Resp. Br. at 22. Randolph County asserts that the testimony of the county board
members was that their decision was “not influenced or affected by any unsolicited communications.” Resp. Br. at
24. Therefore, Randolph County asserts that the Planning Commission members and the Randolph County Board
made their decisions solely on the record and not on the public opposition.
Id
Randolph County argues that in Rockford v. Winnebago the court enunciated a test to be used to determine
if prejudice occurred to the applicant. Resp. Br. at 20-2 1. Randolph County points to the following quote from that
case:
However, the existence of strong public opposition does not invalidate the county board’s
decision where the applicant was given an ample opportunity to present its case and where the

11
-
applicant has not demonstrated that the countyll board’s denial was based upon the public
opposition rather than the record. Rockford v. Winnebago, 186 Ill. App. 3d, 542 N. B. 2d 423, 431.
Randolph County maintains that It is clear that Land and Lakes was given ample opportunity to present its case and
the decision by the Randolph County Board was based on the record not public opposition. Resp. Br. at 24.
Therefore, based on the Rockford v. Winnebago case, Randolph County asserts that the Randolph County Board’s
decision should be affirmed. Resp. Br. at 24.
Randolph County maintains that the proceedings before the Randolph County Boardwere not Irrevocably tainted
and Land and Lakeswas not prejudiced
-
Randolph County argues that using the factors enunciated In E & E Hauling v. PCB, the record Indicates
that Land and Lakes has failed to prove that the proceedings before the-Randolph County Board were irrevocably
tainted. Resp. Br. at 24. As indicated above, the first inquiry from E & B Hauling v. PCB is gravity of the
communications. Randolph County relies on Gallatin National Company v. Fulton County (Gallatinv. Fulton) (June
15, 1992), PCB 9 1-256 to support its position. In that case the Board held that the contacts were about non-
substantive matters, there was no discussion ofthe merits ofthe case, and the participants were not influenced in
any way in making their recommendation. GallatinNational Company v. Fulton County (June iS, 1992), PCB 91-
256. Randolph County asserts that because the testimony indicates that the contacts in this case were also non-
substantive, the contacts were not “grave” under E&E Hauling v. PCB. Rasp. Br. at 26-27.
Randolph County argues that the second inquiry from E&E Hauling v. PCB, whether the communications
influenced the ultimate decision, has also not beensubstantiated by Land and Lakes. Resp. Br. at 27. Randolph
County contends that the testimony ofthe county board members ndIcatesthat~aThthree~niibersmadeTheir
decision based on the record and that the contacts did not influence :their decision.
Id
Specifically, Randolph
County cites to Moore’s testimony that no call, mailing, or contact he received impacted his decision. Rasp. Br. at. 27.
citing Tr. at 141-142. Randolph County also cites Esker’s testimony that his decision was based solely upon the
record. Resp. Br. at 27, citing Tr. at 152. Finally, Randolph County points to Stork’s testimony that the phone calls,
mailings, package and pranks did not impact his ability to make and~ective-decisionin the end. Resp. Br. at 28,
citing Tr. at 105-106.
Randolph County argues that because the contacts were not by a “party” to the proceeding, the third
-
inquiry of E&E Hauling v. PCB (whether the party making the contacts benefited from the ultimate decision) is not
met Resp. Br. at 29. Randolph County reasonsthat because the general public made the contacts, no party to the
hearing benefited by the contacts.
-
The fourth Inquiry, whether the content ofthe communication was unknown and thus there was no
opportunity for response, also must fail according to Randolph County. Resp. Br. at 30. Randolph County states
that Land and Lakes was given an opportunity to address
cxpal-tc
communications at a county board meetingon
October 19, 1998.
Id.
Further, Land and Lakes was given the opportunity to speak because-Landand-Lakes-filedan
objection to statements made at county board meetings about the-landflll-wherrLand and Lakes was not present.
Id
Therefore, Randolph County maintains Land and Lakes was given an opportunity to respond. Resp. Br. at 31.
The last inquiry enunciated
in
E&E Hauling v. PCB is whether remand will serve a useful purpose.
Randolph County points out that Land and Lakes is not seeking a remand, but rather a declaration that siting is
granted and vacating the Randolph County Board decision. Randolph County maintains that first, Land and Lakes
has not demonstrated, based on the factors of E&E Hauling v. PCB, that the Randolph County Board decision should
be vacated. Second, Randolph County asserts that Land and Lakesfailed to identify “the heretofore unknown body
of law, which.
. ,
would operate to totally avoid the requirements of Section 39.2 of the Act merely on the basis of
public opposition to a landfill.” Resp. Br. at 3 1-32.
Randolph County argues that the cases cited by Land and Lakes to support Land and Lakes’ request that
the Board overturn the Randolph County Board’s decision are not applicable to this case. Resp. Br. at 32-33.
Randolph County asserts that In this case the decisionmakers did not act in an affirmative manner, but rathermerely

12
answered their phones. Resp. Br. at 33. Also In the cases cited by Land and Lakes, the Board overturned siting
approvals, not siting denials. Thus, the Board maintained the
status quo,
whereas in this case the Boardwould be
allowing the construction of a landfill site, which arguably violates Section 39,2 of the Act.
Id.
Randolph County maintains that the communications with the public were not
cx parte
communications
Randolph County asserts that the communications which took place between the public and the Randolph
County Board were not
cx
partecontacts because an
cx partc
contact “is one which take place without notice and
outside the record between onein the decisIon-making role and ‘a party before It’.” Rasp. Br. at 37, citing Town of
Ottawav. Pollution Control Board, 129 Ill. App. 3d 121, 126, 472 N.E.2d 150, 154 (3d DIst. 1984) COttawa v. PCB).
Randolph County argues that because the communications were not from a party to the decision maker, the
comments were not
expal-te.
Randolph County concedes that Waste Management v. PCB does not completely agree with Ottawa v.
~
Rasp. Br. at 38. Randolph County does, however, maintain that the Waste Management v. PCB court’s
rationale that communications from the public may be
cxparte
contact is not-a well-reasoned analysis. Rasp. Br. at
38. Randolph County asserts that if the Waste Management v. PCB court’s rationale were correct, anytime a judge
received a comment from the public on a pending case the proceeding would be-tainted.
Id.
In fact, Randolph
County points out, the Supreme Court Rules distinguish between
cx pai-tc
communications (a communication of the
judge with oneparty) as opposed to “other communications made to thejudge outside the presence of the parties
concerning a pending matter.” Resp. Br. at 38, citing illinois Supreme Court Rule 63A(4)(1999).
Randolph County argues that it would be a “ridiculous burden” upon siting proceedings if a county board
member were required to be disqualified because of “unsolicited contacts” from members of the public. Rasp. Br. at
38. Randolph County maintains that such a ruling would provoke members ofthe public to make contacts to taint a
process, so that to protect against this, governing authorities would need to be made up of anonymous members.
Rasp. Br. at 38-39. Therefore, Randolph County asserts the only contacts which should be held to affect the
fundamental fairness in a siting hearing are substantive contacts of the decision maker with a party outside the
presence of anotherparty which result in actual prejudice. Resp. Br. at 39.
Randolph County maintains that a majority of the Randolph County Boardhad few to no contacts outside the
hearing
Randolph County argues that the testimony of Esker and Moore indicates that these Individuals had “next
to no contact” with anyone regarding siting outside the hearing process. Resp. Br. at 36. Randolph County also
asserts that Stork testified that the calls did not influence his decision.
Id
However, even IfStork’s vote had been
tainted, the vote against the landfill was unanimous.
Id.
Thus, Randolph County observes, Land and Lakes would
not have been granted siting approval. Rasp. Br. at 37. Randolph County cites to three Board cases to support this
argument. Those cases are Waste Management ofIllinois v. LakeCounty Board (April 6, 1989), PCB 88-190,
National Company v. Fulton County Board (June 15, 1992), PCB 91-256, and St. Charles v. Kane County Board
(March 21, 1084), PCB 83-228, 83-229, and 83-230 (consl). In those cases the Board found that evenif a county
board member were tainted that did not mean the entire decisionmaking process was tainted. Resp. Br. at 36-37.
Randolph County maintains that the contacts with members ofthe Planning Commission by the public were
irrelevant
Randolph County argues that there were few contacts by the public with the Planning Commission and
that these contacts were irrelevant. Rasp. Br. at 39. Whilethe Planning Commission drafted a report with
recommendations to the Randolph County Board, the Planning Commission did not have the decision making
authority. Rasp. Br. at 39. Randolph County cites Gallatin National Company v. Fulton County (June
15,
1992),
PCB 91-256 in which the Board affirmed the county board decision in part because the alleged improper
communications involved a committee which merely advised the county board.

13
Further, Randolph County asserts that there is no evidence that the Planning Commission members
discussed any “nonparty” communication they received outside the hearing process with the Randolph County
Board. Rasp. Br. at 40. Also, Randolph County maintains there is no evidence that any such communication-was
used by the Planning Commission in its deliberations on its recommendation to the Randolph County BoarcL
Id.
Also, Randolph County maintains that unlike the RAPE v. LaSalle County case the evidence in this case is clear that
any communication with the Planning Commission did not affect the recommendation to the Randolph County
Board. Reap. Br. at 40. Therefore, the contacts were irrelevant,
Id.
Randolph County maintains that the appropriate redress has already occurred
Randolph County argues that there is no reason to remand this matter to the~Rando1ph:CountyBoard as
the communications have been placed on the record through the discovery processbeforethe-Board. Resp. Br. at 40.
Randolph County asserts that the applicant “does not have a right to remove the decision making authority” from
the Randolph County Board; rather the applicant only has the “right to have those contacts disclosed”
in
order to
determine If there was prejudice to the decision. Rasp. Br. at 40. Randolph County maintains that there is no
evidence of prejudice and the Randolph County Board’s decision should be affirmed.
Id.
Land and Lakes’ Reply
In its reply. Land and Lakes responded to several ofthe points made in the Randolph Countyinief.
However, the Boardwill only discuss two ofthose responses as only those two responses present arguments not
already discussed, First, Land and Lakes maintains that Randolph County’s reliance on Gallatin v. Fulton is
misplaced. Reply at 8. Land and Lakes asserts that In Gallatin v. Fulton the Board found no fundamental unfairness
when the applicant’s attorney discussed non-substantive matters with the hearing officer and members of the
hearing committee.
Id
Land and Lakes asserts that the committee members In Gallatinv. Fulton could not
remember if orwhen the
exparte
contacts occurred.
Id.
It was under these circumstances that the Board found no
prejudice resulted.
Id.
Land and Lakes argues that the facts in this proceeding are more analogous to those In Concerned Citizens
of Williamson Countyv. Bill Kibler Development (~~WC
v. Kibler) (January 19, 1995), PCB 94-262. Reply at 9. Tn
CCWC v. Kibler, the applicant attended a meeting ofthe county board and discussed technical matters. Reply at 9.
Although members of the public were present, they were unable to participate in the meeting.
Id.
Land and Lakes
argues that the prejudice to Land and Lakes is even more severe thanto the objectors in CCWC v. Kibler because all
the contacts took place outside the presence of Land and Lakes.
Id.
Secondly, Land and Lakes also disputes the argument made by Randolph County that a majority of the
Randolph County Board had little to no contacts outside the hearing. Land and Lakes argues that the cases cited by
Randolph County to support Its position are cases which involve many more county board members than
Randolph
County. Land and Lakes states that Randolph County “cites no authority for its proposition that disqualifying one-
third of the decislonmakers (one ofjust three members) on the grounds of expartc contacts is allowable.” Reply at
13. Land and Lakes maintains that the Boardhas previously decided not to apply such a simplistic mathematical
formula and in support of its position citas to Rockfordv. Winnebago where the Board remanded a case to the
county board after disqualifying four of the 26 members. Reply at 14.
Ainicus Curiae
The
amicus
brief filed in this case urges the Boardnot to “adopt the decision” in Waste Management v. PCB.
Amicus
at 5. The brief asks that the Board not find contacts by the non-parties in this case to be
exparte
contacts
with the Randolph County Board. If the Board does find that the contacts are
cxparte,
then the brief argues that the
contacts do not meet the test
in B & E
Hauling v. PCB.
Amicus
9-14.
Discussion

14
The first step in our discussion is to determine whether the contacts that occurred In this proceeding were
cx
paitc
contacts. If the answer is yes, then the Board must decide if Land and Lakes was prejudiced by those contacts.
If the contacts are not
cx parte
then the Board need not examine the issue ofprejudice. After careful consideration of
the facts in this case, the Board finds that the contacts were
cxparte
contacts for the following reasons.
Both parties rely on Waste Management v. PCB to argue their positions. The Board is convinced that Waste
Management v. PCB supports a finding that the contacts were
cxpartc
contacts. The court affirmed the Board’s
decision in that case where the Board referred to telephone calls to the board members as
exparte
contacts. See
Waste Management of Illinois v. Lake County Board (December 17, 1987), PCB 87-75, slIp op at 22-23. Thus, the
Board’s decision was consistent with the holding of the court.
Further, in Waste Management v. PCB the court stated:
A court will not reverse an agency’s decision because of
expal-tc
contacts with members of that
agency absent a showing that prejudice to the complaining party resulted from these contacts. ~
E Haulingv. PCB 451 N.E.3d 555, 571. Here the record does not Indicate that Waste Management
suffered anyprejudice as a result of contacts between citizens of Lake County and LCB Lake
County Boardi members. The various telephone calls, letters, and personal contacts were merely
expressionsof public sentiment to county board members on the Issue of Waste Management’s
landfill application. Moreover, existence of strong public opposition does not render a hearing
fundamentally unfair where, as here, the hearing committee provides a full and complete
opportunity for the applicant to offer evidence and supports its application. Waste Management
ofIllinois v, Pollution Control Board 160 Ill. App. 3d 434, 513 N.E,2d 592, 112 Ill. Dec. 178 (1987).
Further,
cx paste
communIcations from the public to their elected representatives are perhaps
inevitable given a county board member’s perceived legislativeposition, albeitln these
circumstances, they act in an adjudicative role as well. Thus, although personal
expai-te
communications to county board members in their adjudicative role are Improper, there must be a
showing that the complaining party suffered prejudice from these contacts, Waste Management v.
PCB 530 N,E.2d 682, 697-698, citIng E & E Hauling v. PCB 451 N.E.3d 555, 571.
The court in Waste Management v. PCB (citing E & E Haulingv. PCB) clearly found contacts between
nonpartlas with board members could be
cxparte
communications. This position was reiterated by the court in
Fairview Area Citizens Taskforce v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (FACT v. PCB), 198 Ill. App. 3d 541, 555 N.E.2d
1178 (3rd Dist. 1990) and by the Board in at leasttwo cases, Citizens Opposed to Additional Landfills and Harvey
Pittv. Greater Egypt Regional EnvIronmental Complex (COAL v. GERB) (December 5, 1996), PCB 97-29 and
Residents Against a Polluted Environment V. County of LaSalle and Landcomp Corporation (September 19, 1996),
PCB 96-243. Thus, it is well established that contact by nonparties, outside the public hea’ing, with a board member
concerning a pollution control facility siting proceeding is an
exparte
contact.
Having determined that the contacts were
cx
parte contacts, the Board must now decide Ifthe contacts
prejudiced Land and Lakes. First, the Board agrees with Randolph County that the contacts with members of the
Planning Commission were irrelevant. All four members of the Planning Commission testified that the limited
contacts did not affect their decision and the recommendation they made to the Randolph County Board. The
Planning Commission members testifiedthat their recommendationswere based solely on the record before them.
The Planning Commission was only in the position of making recommendations to-tha Randolph County Board:
It
was not in a position to make the ultimate decision. And although the Board has found In some prior cases that
contacts with an individual or group making recommendationsto the decision making body can be improper
contacts which prejudice the proceeding (see RAPE v. LaSalle), the Boardfinds that the contacts in the instant case
do not riseto that level and are more analogous to those in Gallatin v. Fulton.
Next, the Board will examine the factors from E & B Hauling v. PCB to determine if the cxparte contacts
tainted the Randolph County decisionmakers’ processso that the proceeding was fundamentally unfair. The Board
wifi first look to the contacts with Randolph County Boardmembers Esker and Moore. Again, the testimony
indicates that there were very few contacts and that the contacts did not affect their decision. Also, the Randolph

15
County Board members did not discuss the
cxparte
contacts they received with the other board members. Thus, the
contacts were minor and “are perhaps inevitable given a county board member’s perceived Iegislattvaposuflon.’
Waste Management v. PCB 530 N.E.2d 682, 697-698, citing
B
& E Hauling v. PCB 451 N.E.3d 555, 571. The contacts
did not affect the agency’s ultimate decision and as the Identity of-the-contacts is not clear and some of the contacts
supported
the landfill, the Board cannot find that there was a benefit in the ultimate decision. See E & E Haulingv.
PCB. Therefore, because Baker and Moore based their decisions on the hearing record, the contacts with Eskerand
Moore did not prejudice Land and Lakes. See Waste Management v.PCB.
The Board now looks to the testimony of Randolph County Board Chairman Stork. While the Boardis
initially dismayed at the number and type of
cxpartc
contacts directed-atStork, the Board must also take into
account the context that aschairman of the Board, citizens would inevitably direct more comments to Stork as the
perceived leader of an elected body of representation. Stork’s testimony is ambiguous as to the effect the contacts
had on his ability to make a decision. However Stork states that his vote to deny siting was based on the-evidence
before the Randolph County Board. Therefore, the Boardfinds that although the contacts with Stork were improper
cx parte
contacts, the existence ofthe contacts did not prejudice Land and Lakes. See Waste Management v. PCB.
Finally with regard to
cxparte
contacts, the Board examines the contacts at the county board meeting.
Again the Board finds that the contact did not prejudice Land and Lakes. The Board
notes
that this circumstance
is
unlike CCWC v. Kibler. In CCWC v. Kibler, the county board asked specificsubstantive questions of the applicant
while refusing to allow opponents to speak and relied on those answers to- make the decision. In this case, the
county board had a long tradition ofallowing anyone to speak at county board meetings. The county board
members all indicate that they gave no weight to the statements made. Thus, the Randolph County Board members
did
not rely on the Information presented at the county board meeting to-makea
decision
and Land and Lakeswas
not prejudiced. Citizen statements at the regularly scheduled county board meetings “were merely expressions of
public sentiment to county board members” and did not “render hearing fundamentally unfair.”
Management v. PCB 530 N.E.2d 682. 697-698, citing E & B Haulingv. PCB 451 N.E.3d 555, 571.
The Board also notes that the ‘~existenceofstrong public opposition does not render a hearing
fundamentally unfair where, as here, the hearing committee provides a full and complete opportunity for the-
applicant to offer evidence and supports its application.” Waste Management ofIllinois v. Pollution Control Board
160 Ill. App. 3d 434, 513 N.E.2d 592, 112 111. Dec. 178 (1987), Land and Lakes was given a full and complete
opportunity to offer and support its application. Public hearings were held before the Planning Commission where
witnesses for Land and Lakes testified in support of the multi-volume application. Opposition to the application was
also heard at that hearing. After the close of the public hearing, a thirty-day comment period was held. Thus, Land
and Lakes was aware ofthe opposition and had the opportunity to respond.
In summary, the Board finds that the proceedings before the Randolph County Board were not
fundamentally unfair. The Boarddoes find that the contacts were
expartc
contacts; however under the Inquiry
enunciated In E & E Hauling v. PCB and reiterated in Waste Management v. PCB, the applicant was not prejudiced.
CRITERIA ll and viii
Having determined that the proceedings were not fundamentally unfair, the Board next must
examine if the Randolph County Board’s decision to deny siting based on Section 39.2(11) and (viii) of the
Act was against the manifest weight of the evidence. As Indicated above, criterion ii is that the facility is so
designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected.
Criterion
yIn
is that the facility is to be located consistent with the planning-requirements-ofthe solid waste
management plan.
The Board’s standard for reviewing a local decision has long been established. The courts have stated that
the Board must determine If the local decision was against the manifest weight ofthe evidence. McLean County
Disposal, Inc. v. County of McLean,
207
Ill. App. 3d
352,
566 N.E.2d 26, 29 (4th Dist. (1991): E & B Haulingv. PCB
452 N.E.2d at 572. A decision Is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite result is clearly evident,
plain, or indisputable form a review of the evidence. File v. D &L Landfill, Inc. 219 Ill. App. 3d 897, 579 N.E.2d

16
1228, 1231 (5th DIst. 1991): Turlek v. Pollution Control Board, 274 Ill. App. 3d 244, 653 N.E.2d 1288, 1292 (1st Dist.
(1995)). Simply because the Board could reach a different conclusion is not sufficient to warrant
reversal of a local
decision. City of Geneva v. Waste Management (July 21, 1994), PCB 94-58.
In this section the Board will begin by summarizing the arguments of Land and Lakes. Then a discussion of
Randolph County’s arguments follows. The Board will then discuss Land and Lakes’ response to Randolph County’s
arguments. Finally, in this section the Boardwill analyze the arguments and render its decision on whether the
Randolph County Board’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Land and Lakes’ Arguments
Land and Lakes argues that the findings by the Randolph County Board that the application did not
demonstrate that the Randolph County Plan was designed to protect the health, safety and welfare (criterion ii) and
that the facility was consistent with thesolid waste management plan (criterion viii) is against the manifest weight of
the evidence. Land and Lakessets forth three arguments with regard to criterion ii. First, Land and Lakes maintains
that the Randolph County Board improperly found that the criterion was not met because ofan alleged
Inconsistency in the solid waste management plan. Pet. Br. at 30. Second, Randolph County Board’s use of traffic
concerns as a basis for denial of criterion Li is inconsistent with the decision on criterion vi,’ which deals explicitly
with traffic patterns. Pet. Br. at 33. Third, Land and Lakes argues that the use oftraffic concerns in Randolph
County Board’s denial of criterion ii is an illegal “conditional denial”. Pet. Br. at 36.
On the denial of criterion viii, Land and Lakes also puts forth three arguments. The first is that the
“exclusionary” factors relied upon by the Randolph County Board are not a part of the solid waste management
plan. Pet. Br. at 39. Secondly, the “exclusionary” factors are merely recommendations. Pet. Br. at 41, Finally, Land
and Lakes argues that the setback clause violates the Act; exceeds the authority-of-Randolph-County under the Solid
Waste Planning Act; and is bad policy.
Land and Lakes maintains that the Randolph County Board improperly found that criterion II was not met because
of an alleged Inconsistency In the solid waste management plan
Land and Lakes points out ~hat the Randolph County Board Indicated that the provision in the solid waste
management plan prohibiting landfills within one and a half-miles of a municipality was intended to protect the
health, safety and welfare of Randolph County residents. And based on that, as well as other reasons discussed
below, Randolph County Board determined that criterion if was not met.
Land and Lakes argues that the Randolph County Board erroneously used its Interpretation ofthe facility’s
consistency with the solid waste management plan to deny compliance with criterion Ii. Pet. Br. at 30. Land and
Lakes reasons that criterion viii is the proper criterion under which to consider consistency with the solid waste
management plan.
Id.
Land and Lakes states: “to allow a decisionmaker to deny an application under more than
one criteria, for the same reason, would render the separate criteria meaningless.” Pet. Br. at 31. If aproposed
facffity Is not consistent with the solid waste management plan the proper criterion for denial is criterion viii.
Id.
Land and Lakes also asserts that no person presented any testimony or comment on the purpose of the one
and a half-mile setback. Pet. Br. at 32. Land and Lakes, however, presented evidence that the facility complies with
all federal and state location standards. TOC 3 at Vol. 3, Part IV. Therewas no challenge to Land and Lakes’
evidence on the location standards and no comment was made. Pet. Br. at 32.
Land and Lakes also argues that Randolph County Board’s expert, Rhutasel, testifiedto the existence of the
setback but only as
it
relates to criterion viii. Pet. Br. at 32. Land and Lakes argues that there is no evidence that the
one and a half-mile setback Is related to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Id.
‘Section 39.2(vl) ofthe Act (criteria vi) provides that “thetraffic patterns to and from the facility are so designed as
to minimize the impact on existing traffic flows.”

17
Land and Lakes maintains that the Randolph County Board’s use of trafficconcerns as a basis for denial of criterion
ii is inconsistent with the decision on criterion vi which deals explicitly with traffic patterns
Land and Lakes indicated that a second reason for denying siting based on criterion ii, was Randolph
County Board’s concerns about traffic patterns. Land and Lakes argues that the decision on criterion ii directly
conflicts with Randolph County Board’s decision that the application met the requirements of criterion vi. Pet. Br. at
34. Land and Lakes argues criterion vi is the proper place to direct concerns about traffic patterns.
Id.
Land and
Lakes also argues that the denial based on criterion ills “particularly objectionable” because it is based on issue over
which Randolph County has control, not Land and Lakes. Pet. Br. at 35.
Land and Lakes maintains that the use of traffic concerns in RandoI~hCounty Board’s denial of criterion ii is an
illegal “conditional denial”
Land and Lakes argues that the Randolph County Board’s decision is internally inconsistent and
in
effect is
a “conditional denial”. Pet. Br. at 36. Land and Lakes argues that the Randolph County Board found that criterion
ii was not met and then states:
any effort to cure this lack of compliance, would at a minimum, require the Applicant to comply
with anyand all recommendations made by the Randolph count Highway Department concerning
permanent road upgrades, permanent road improvements.
. ..
In addition, the Applicant, would at
a minimum, need to implement and comply with all ongoing road maintenance equipment which
would be prescribed by the Randolph County Highway Department. Pet. Br. at 36, citing Exh. C
at 4.
Land and Lakes argues that the above language constitutes a “conditional denial” ofthe type which the
Board found to. be inappropriate in Land and Lakes Company v. Vifiage of Romeovilie (December 6, 1991), PCB 91-
7. In that case the Board stated:
Sections 39.2(a) and (e) of the Act, however, do not contemplate the imposition of conditions upon
a denial. Rather, any applicant who seeks site approval of a proposed regional pollution control
facility has the right to expect the county board or municipal governing body to issue definitive
approval (which allows for the addition ofconditions that are reasonably related to the criteria) or
denial of its siting application. To hold other wise would be unfair to the applicant. Land and
Lakes Company v. Village of Romeoville (December 6, 1991), PCB 91-7
Land and Lakes maintains that the “exclusionary” factors relied upon by the Randolph County Board, In finding
that criterion vlli was not met, is not a part ofthe solid waste management plan
In determining that the application had not demonstrated compliance with criterion viii, the Randolph
County Board adopted the finding ofthe Planning Commission. Pet. Br. at 39. The Planning Commission found
that the solid waste management plan “excludes sites within 1.5 miles of municipal limits” and that the facility’s
proposed siting within one mile of Sparta meant that the application did not meetcriterionviit TOC 8 at 6.
Land and Lakes contends that the solid waste management plan does not exclude facilities located within
one and a half-miles of a municipality. Pet. Br. at 40. SpecIfically, Land and Lakes argues that only a part of the
document entitled “Solid Waste Management Plan for Bond, Clinton, Randolph, and Washington Counties in
Illinois” is an actual “solid waste management plan”.
Id.
The part of the documents Land and Lakes considers the
“solid waste management plan” is chapter 12. Land and Lakes asserts that the rest. of the document’s chapters
“provide extensivebackground on solid waste management issues, including landfills, but are not part ofthe ‘county
solid waste management plan’.”
Id.
The provision in the Randolph County Plan where the setback is located is not in chapter 12, according to
Land and Lakes. And, Land and Lakes asserts nowhere in chapter 12 is there a mention of location criteria.
Therefore, Land and Lakes concludes
It
is clear that the setbacks are not a part of the Plan. Pet. Br. at 40.

18
-
Land and Lakes maintains that the “exclusionary” factors relied upon by the Randolph County Board, in finding
that criterion viii was not met, are merely recommendations
Land and Lakes argues that, even if the setback Is a part of the Plan, the text of the Randolph County Plan
refers to the location factors as “recommended local criteria”. Pet. Br. at 41. Further, Land and Lakes argues that
Darryl Thompson Manager of General Planning for SIMAPC, the entity that drafted the document, opined that the
locationof a new landfIll in Randolph County that Is acceptableto local government is consistent with their Solid
Waste Management Plan. Pet. Br. at 41. Therefore, Land and Lakes asserts that Thompson “was of the opinion that
the proposed landfill is consistent with the solid waste management plan.”
Id.
Land and Lakes asserts that there is no evidence in the record that contradicts Thompson’s opinion. Pet. Br.
at 43. Further, the report prepared for Randolph County by Rhutasel and Associates, consulting engineers (Rhutasel
Report), only stated that the setback warranted further consideration.
Id.
The IThutasel Report went on to conclude
that “there was no reason to disagree with the conclusions” of Land and Lakes and Thompson, according to Land
and Lakes.
Id.
Thus, Land and Lakes maintains the decision by the Randolph County Boardthat criterion viii Is not
met was against the manifest weight ofthe evidence.
Id.
Land and Lakes maintains that the setback clause violates the Act; exceeds the authority of Randolph County under
the Solid Waste Planning Act; and
is
bad policy
Land and Lakes points out that Section 39.2 of the Act establishes a unified, statewide, siting process. Pet.
Br. at 43-44. The Boardhas adopted regulations for landfills which include location standards-and setbacks. Pet. Br.
at 44. The Board did not include a setback for municipalities.
Id.
Land and Lakes argues that allowing counties to
begin adding additional siting location criteria, outside those in Section 39.2 of the Act would violate the unified
statewide plan envisioned by the legislature.
Id.
Land and Lakes further argues that the setback is an attempt to
incorporate “zoning powers”
in
the Plan. Pet. Br. at 44-45. Thus, Land and Lakes reasons since zoning Is
specifically exempt from consideration in Section 39,2 siting proceedings, the inclusion of the setback violates the Act.
Land and Lakes also argues that a county board has the authority to adopt a solid waste management plan
under the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act. 415 ILCS 15/1
eL seq.
(1998). However, that authority does not
allow a county board to “add locationcriteria” to the criteria already adopted by the legislature, argues Land and
Lakes. Pet. Br. at 45.
Finally, Land and Lakes suggests that the setback is bad policy because
it
would not allow a municipality to
own and operate a facility within the municipality boundaries. Pet, Br. at 46.
Randolph County Arguments
Randolph County argues that the decision by the Randolph County Board is supported by the record.
Specifically, on criterion ii, Randolph County sets forth four arguments: first, that the one and a half-mile exclusion
is related to criterion ii; second that the condition ofthe surrounding roads is related to criterion ii; third, Randolph
County may use the same facts to find a failure to meet two separate criteria; and, fourth, that the Randolph County
Board did not issue a conditIonal denial. On criterion viii, Randolph County enunciates five arguments. Randolph
County argues that the plain language ofthe Randolph County Plan and the testimony of Randolph County’s
experts supports the decision on criterion viii. Next, Randolph County argues that a determination on the
consistency ofthe Randolph County Plan does not require expert testimony. Third, Randolph County argues that
it
is beyond the Board’s authority to determine the propriety ofthe solid waste management plan. Fourth, Randolph
County asserts the one and a half-mile exclusion does not violate the Act. And fifth, Randolph County maintains the
one and a half-mile exclusion Is a part of the Act. The Boardwill summarize each of those arguments.
Randolph County asserts that the one and a half-mile exclusion is related to the public’s health, safety, and welfare
Randolph County asserts that It was free to consider the proximity of the landfill--In Its assessmentof
whether the landfill was located to promote health, safety, and welfare. Reap. Br. at 52. Randolph County

19
maintains that it is “consistent with conventional logic and reason” that the closer a landfill
is
to population the more
likely it will affect health, safety, and welfare.
Id.
Randolph County believes that the solid waste management plan
reflects this logic because the exclusionary factors are listed because-ofenvirornuental-protection particularly of
groundwater Is a primary concern.
Id.
Further, because the application included one ofthe exclusionary factors
identified by the Plan, it is evidence of the potential negative impact to the health, safety, and welfare.
Id.
Randolph County asserts that the condition of the surrounding roads is related to the public’s health, safety, and
welfare
Randolph County maintains that the Randolph County Board found that criterion ii was not met because of
the “excessive wear and tear” on the roads, not because of trafficpatterns. Reap. Br. at 53. Rhutasel made these
distinctions in the testimony.
Id.
Randolph County asserts that It was not against the manifest weight of the
evidence to follow this distinction and find that criterion
ii
was not met. Resp. Br. at 54.
Randolph County asserts that the Randolph County Boardmay use the same facts to find failure to meet two
separate criteria
Randolph County first asserts that Land and Lakes does not point tci any authority for its argument that the
Randolph County Board cannot use thesame facts to find that two criteriaare not met. Reap. Br. at 54. Next,
Randolph County argues that the criteria of Section 39.2 overlap and criterion Ills so broad that
it
is likely that any
failure to meet one ofthe Section 39.2 criteria would also be a failure to meet criterion Ii.
Id.
Randolph County also
argues that this Is not a case offirst impression. Randolph County cites to Industrial Fuels and Resources/Illinois v.
Harvey (September 27, 1990), PCB 90-53,
in
support of this proposition. Randolph Countymaintains that Harvey
used the same reasons to deny siting on two separate criteria in that Instance. Reap. Br. at 55.
Randolph County asserts that the Randolph County Board did not issue a conditional denial
Randolph County contends that the denial of siting under criterion ii was not a “conditional denial”
because siting was “flatly” denied under criterion ii. Reap. Br. at 55. Randolph County asserts that thereis no
indication that the Randolph County Board would reverse its decision if the applicant met the “recommendations”
made by the Randolph County Board. Reap. Br. at 56, Therefore, the denial was not conditional.
Randolph County also asserts that the Randolph County Boardnoted in its decision that “notwithstanding
Land and Lakes’ failure to demonstrate compliance” with criterion ii, the Randolph County Board “feels compelled
to make certain additional Findings” concerning criterion II.
Id.
Among those additional findings was that the
routes preferred by Land and Lakes were not Class I roads and thus would put high weight and stress demands on
the roads. Resp. Br. at 55-56.
Randolph County asserts that the plain language of the Randolph County Plan and the testimony of the experts
supported Randolph County Board’s decision on criterion viii
Randolph County argues that the plain language ofthe solid waste management plan supports the decision
that Land and Lakes’ application was inconsistent with the Plan. Reap. Br. at 43. Randolph County asserts that,
regardless of whether the language in the Randolph County Plan is a recommendation or a required exclusion, it is
within the authority ofthe siting authority to follow the Randolph County Plan and exclude siting. Reap. Br. at 43.
Randolph County maintains that all solid waste management plans are “to some extent” recommendations since it is
within the county’s purview to determine consistency. Second, Randolph County argues that the Randolph County
Plan states that “parcels or areas ofwhich contained any of the exclusionary characteristicswould not be considered
in the site identification process.” Resp. Br. at 43, cIting Exh. 6 at 207. The exclusionary characteristics include the
one and a half-mile restriction and the Randolph County Plan could not be any clearer that such proposals should be
excluded, argues Randolph County.
Id.
Randolph County further states that the testimony of Rhutasel was that the one and a half-mile restriction
was an exclusionary provision. Reap. Br. at 44. Randolph County maintains it was not necessary for Rhutasel to

1-
20
give Randolph County Board the ultimate legal conclusion that the application was inconsistent with Plan, the
Randolph County Board alone is the onewho must make that determination. Resp. Br. at 44. The Planning
Commission also made that determination.
Id.
Randolph County also points out that Land and Lakes relies on a letter from Thompson. who did not testify
at hearing. Resp. Br. at 45. The Planning Commission found the letter to be “equivocal” and the letter does not even
mention the one and a half-mile exclusion. Reap. Br. at 45. Therefore, Randolph County asserts it was appropriate
for the Planning Commission and the Randolph County Board to hesitate to rely on Thompson’s conclusions.
Id.
Randolph County asserts that a determination of the consistencywith the Randolph County Plan does not require
expert testimony
Randolph County argues that it does not take an expert to determine what Is intended by the plain
language of a solid waste management plan, or to tell the Randolph County Board that one mile is less than oneand
a half-miles. Reap. Br. at 46. Randolph County states that generally expert opinions need only be usedwhen the
subject matter is beyond the “ken or understanding of the average person.” Resp. Br. at 46, cIting Hernandes v.
Power Construction 73 Ill. 2d 90, 382 fll.App. 3d 1201,1205 (1978). Thus even without the testimony of Rhutasel,
the Randolph County Board could determine that the application was inconsistent with the Plan. Resp. Br. at 46.
To further substantiate the argument that additional expert testimony was not required, Randolph County
asserts that both Stork and Moore served on the executive committee of SIMPkC, which authored the Plan. Reap.
Br. at 47. Therefore, Randolph County argues, It was not against the manifest weight of the evidence to find the
application Inconsistent with the Plan. Reap. Br. at 47.
Randolph County asserts that it is beyond the Board’s authority under Section 40.1(a) to determine the propriety of
Randolph County’s solid waste management Plan
Randolph County argues that the Board’s Section 40.1 ofthe Act allows the Board to review a local decision
made under Section 39.2 of the Act. Thus, Randolph County asserts the Board may review only the substance of a
Section 39.2 heating and there is no authorization to review the Randolph County Plan itself. Resp. Br. at 48.
Randolph County asserts that the one and a half-mile exclusion does not violate the Act
Randolph County first asserts that the exclusion does not violate the Act because the Randolph County Plan
was reviewed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to Section 4(b) of the Solid Waste Planning
and Recycling Act (415 ILCS 15/4(b)) to Insure consistencywith the Act. Reap. Br. at 48. Randolph County argues
that
it
is “ludicrous” for Land and Lakes to argue the Randolph County Plan violates the Act when “the agency
responsive for enforcing the Acthas already configured the Plan’s consistency with the Act.” Reap. Br. at 48.
Randolph County asserts that the one and a half-mile exclusion is a part of the solid waste management plan
Randolph County asserts that the plain language ofthe Randolph County Plan makes clear that the entire
document is the solid waste management plan. Reap. Br. at 50.
Land and Lakes’ Reply
Land and Lakes, In Its reply, makes some new arguments in response to Randolph County and reasserts Its
position on others. The Board will summarize briefly the new arguments, and where necessary, the reassertion.
Land and Lakes argues that Randolph County has “filled” its response “with misstatements of fact and
unsupported declarations.” Reply at 19. Land and Lakes asserts that Randolph County has mischaracterize-d-the
conclusions of Rhutasel.
Id.
Land and Lakes argues that lThutasel simply identified the existence of the setback and
found no “reason to disagree” with the conclusion of Land and Lakes.
Id.
Further, Land and Lakes argues that
there is no evidence that Stork and Moore were members of SIMPAC when the solid waste management plan was

21
-
adopted.
Id.
Land and Lakes maintains that Randolph County relies on the letterhead from Thompson’s letter for
support that Stork and Moore served on the SIMPAC at the time the Randolph County Plan was authored.
Id.
Land and Lakes points out the Randolph County Plan was authored in 1996 and the Thompson letter was written in
1998. Reply at 19; citing TOC 3 at Vol. 2.
Land and Lakes also contends that Randolph County makes several “bald statements of what It asserts to
be the law” without supporting citations to the law. Reply at 20. Specifically Land and Lakes points to Randolph
County’s assertion that a local government is free to legislate environmental standards more stringent than those of
the Act. Reply at 20. Land and Lakes argues that this assertion misses the distinction between “environmental
standards” and the siting process.
Id.
Land and Lakes sites to Section 39.2(g) of the Actas support for its argument.
Land and Lakes also responds to Randolph County by reasserting that the setback or “exclusionary” factor
is not part ofthe plan. Reply at 17. Land and Lakes argues that the plain language of the document indicates that
the Randolph County Plan is in chapter 12. Land and Lakes also reassertsthat it is improper to use the same facts to
deny siting for two separate criteria. Reply at 22. Land and Lakes goes on to point out that the case cited by
Randolph County to support its position on this issue was a case wherein the Boardwas reversed, Industrial Fuels v.
PCB, 227111. App. 3d 533, 592 N.E.2d 148, 159 (1st DIst. 1992).
Finally, Land and Lakes argues that the Boarddoes have the authority to review Randolph-County’s
decision on consistencywith the Plan. Reply at 18. Land and Lakes argues that the Board is reviewing the
interpretation of the Randolph County Plan used by Randolph County, not the Randolph County Plan itself.
Id.
Discussion
As stated above, the Board reviews the decision of the Randolph County Boardto determine if the decision
is against the manifest weight ofthe evidence. The Boardis not in a position to reweigh the evidence, but must
determine Ifthe decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Fairview Area Citizens Taskforcev. PCB,
198 lll.App. 3d 541, 555 N.E.2d 1178 (3rd DIst. 1990). Therefore, the Board must decide Ifthe evidence in the record
supports the decision by Randolph County Board that Land and Lakes failed to meet criteria II and viii. Based on a
review of the record and for the followingreasons, the Board finds that the record supports the Randolph County
Board’s findings on both criteria ii and viii.
One general argument which Land and Lakes makes concerning the Randolph County Board’s decision on
the two criteria Is that Randolph County’s expert, Rhutasel, found that Land and Lakes had satisfied the two
criteria. The Board is not persuaded that the recommendations of Randolph County’s expert are binding on the
decisionmaker. See McLean County Disposal Company, Inc. v. County ofMcLean (November 15, 1989), PCB 89-
108, aff’d. McLean County Disposal, Inc. v. County of McLean, 207 Ill. App. 3d 352, 566 N.E.2d 26, 29 (4th Dist.
(1991)). The Board will now continue Its discussion by focusing first on criterion II and then on criterion viii.
Criterion ii
-
The Boardfinds that the decision to deny siting based on criterion ills not inconsistent with the Randolph
County Board’s decision on criterion vi. Randolph County’s findings on criterion ii indicate that there were concerns
raised during the course ofthe siting hearing on the matter of roads. Reap. Exh. 4 at 3. More specifically, the
findings indicated that most of the roads suggested by Land and Lakes as preferred transportroutes are not classified
as Class I Iffinois Department of Transportation “80,000 pound” roads. However, a significant number of vehicles
transporting waste to the facility would be over 80,000 pounds in weight.
Id.
The Randolph County Boardfound that if the roads are not upgraded or restricted the roads would be
subject to excessive wear and deterioration.
Id.
This could cause Increasingly narrow pathways of travel. Resp.
Exh. 4 at 4. This finding was based in part on the testimony of Rhutasel at the county hearing. He stated that:
“ojur concerns are not related to the trafficpatterns, but related to the-capability-of the-existing roads to handle the
-
- I guess the weight ofthe loads that would be placed on them, and the actual width ofthe roadways and the impact

22
that the trucks carrying the refuse to the landfill would have on them,” TOC 2 at 60-61. Thus, Randolph County’s
expert expressed concerns about the roads, which were not related to traffic patterns.
In addition, testimony was provided by Craig Holan’ at the public hearing on the issue of road safety.
Holan testified that he disagreed with the conclusions made by Land and L-akes’ experts on theissue of traffic. TOC
2 at 9 1-92. Holan specifically noted the narrow widths ofthe roadways and steep embankments. TOC 2 at 96. He
also indicated that there were “sight distance problems” with some of the Intersections. TOC at 97.
In contrast, the testimony of Land and Lakes’ expert Norman Roden indicates that the report prepared and
submitted as a part of the application did not look at the structural conditions of the roads. TOC 2 at 191. Roden
stated that:
We made an inspection of the site and the area and then prepared some traffic surveys which
included trafficvolume counts, surveys oftime and distance, relative times of distances via
alternative routes from various points to the potential landifil site and then performed a capacity
analyses for a couple of key intersections within that area TOC 2 at 191.
Randolph County also received a number of comments which indicated a concern with the condition of the
roads. Some of the comments presented include that there would be a “break down ofroads”, that there would be
“danger from truck traffic”, and the presence of the landfill would not “allow for safe travel.” TOC 9 at C2, C3,
C21, C24, C26, C27, C35, C54, C55, and C56.
The transcript from the county board meetingwhere the Randolph County Board made its decision clearly
indicates that each of the members shared the concerns oftheir expert about roads. All three members indicated that
they were concerned about the ability ofthe roads to handle the trucks weighing over 80,000 pounds. Reap. Exh. 3
at 16-17. In fact. Chairman Stork states: “I think simply the hills
- -
if you’ve traveled the road, there’s hills and
narrow (sic), and the amount oftruck traffic on there would not be conducive to the residences there.” Reap. Exh. 3
at 17. In contrast on criterion vi, the members expressed concerns on the maintenance ofthe roads but the members
felt that the actual traffic plan was sufficient. Resp. Exh. 3 at 24-26. Chairman Stork stated: “I think that most of it
Is Immaterial how they get to the Holloway Road, but I do feel like they have minimized it.” Reap. Exh. 3 at 25.
Thus, the Randolph County Board did not adopt inconsistent findings on the criteria ii and vI, but rather
distinguished between the two.
The Board disagrees with Land and Lakes’ contention that this is a conditional denial. The language quoted
by Land and Lakes is only a part of the entire finding on criterion 11. Randolph County found that the record did not
support a finding that criterion II had been met; then Randolph County went on to make additional findings. Resp.
Exh. 4 at 3. These additional findings involved the concerns about traffic on the county roads and the language
quoted by Land and Lakes. The Board’s reading of that language is that the Randolph County Boardwas only
explaining what lengths would be necessary to demonstratecompliance with criterion ii, not a conditional denial.
The Boardhas reviewed its decision in Land and Lakes Company v. Vllla~eof Romeovifie (December 6, 1991), PCB
91-7 and the Boardis not convinced that the two cases are factually similar. Therefore, the Board finds that this Is
not a conditional denial.
The Board does agree with Land and Lakes that the Randolph County Board improperly found that
criterion Ii was not met because of thelack of a one and a half~miIe=setback.The only indication that this Issue was
raised before Randolph Countythat the Board can find in the record is in letters from persons opposing the landfill.
e.g.,
TOC 9 at C15, C27. Further, Randolph County has not pointed to any evidence In the record. Therefore, the
Board agrees that denial ofsiting approval under criterion ii based-on-the one and a half-mile setback was
inappropriate. However, as the Board agrees with the use of the trafficconcerns as a denial reason, the Board
upholds Randolph County’s decision on criterion II.
~ Holan has about eight years of post-graduate school work doing traffic impact studies and transportation planning.
TOC 2 at 90.

23
Criterion viii
The Board is not persuaded by Land and Lakes argument that the one and a half-mile setback or
“exclusionary” factor is not a part of the Plan. If the Board were to agree that only “Chapter 12” was the Plan, then
the solid waste management plan would not include a dIscussion on “Solid Waste Needs Review” (chapter 2) or a
discussion on “Recycling” (chapter 4). Further, the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Act (415 ILCS 15/i et
seq.),
which required the adoption of solid waste management plans, sets forth the minimum requirements for a plan.
Those requirements include a review of solid waste needs and a recycling program. See 415 ILCS 15/4 and 15/6
(1998). Thus, the Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Actsupports an interpretation that the Randolph County
Plan adopted by Randolph County is the entirety ofthe document.
Next, Land and Lakes argues that the one and a half-mile setback is not an exclusionary factor. Again, the
Board must disagree. The plain language of the Randolph County Plan indicates that: “exclusionary criteria are
used to screen individual parcels or areas. Parcelsor areas which contained any ofthe exclusionary characteristics
would not be considered In the site identification process. Areas or parcels which remain after the exclusionary
criteria, would be screened against the inciusionary criteria to identify parcelsforconsideration:fcrron.sIte
investigations.” The language Is dear that exclusionary criteria are designed to eliminate sites. The exclusionary
criteria Include the oneand a half-mile setback. Therefore, the Randolph County Plan clearly excludes facilities
within one and a half-miles of a municipality. The application submitted by Land and Lakes placed the pollution
control facility within one mile of Sparta. Therefore, the record indicates that the application was not consistent
with the plan and criterion viii has not been met,
Land and Lakes also argues that the setback clause violates the Act, Is beyond Randolph County’s
authority, and is bad policy. Randolph County argues in response that the Board does not have the authority to
review the provisions of the solid waste management plan. The Solid Waste Planning and Recycling Actrequires
that solid waste management plans be prepared and submitted to th&Agency for review. 415 ILCS 15/4 (1998).
The Agency is charged with reviewing the plan “to ensure consistencywith the requirements of this Act.” 415 ILCS
15/4 (1998). However, there is no mention that a review for consistency with the Environmental Protection Act has
been performed, either by the Agency or the Board.
Section 40.1 of the Act grants the Board the authority to review a local decision on siting of a pollution
control facility. Specifically, Section 40.1 ofthe Act states, in part:
no new or additional evidence in support of or in opposition to any finding, order, determination
or decision ofthe county board.
. .
shall be heard by the Board. In making its orders and
determinations under this Section, the Board shall include in Its consideration the written decision
and reasons for the decision of the county board..
. ,
the transcribed record ofthe hearing held
pursuant to subsection (d) of Section 39.2, and the fundamental fairness of the procedures used..
Section 40. 1 of the Act.
Thus, the Board may only review the county board’s decision underSection3aa oftheAct. And under Section 39.2
(viii) ofthe Act, the issue Is whether the application Is consIstent with the solid waste management plan. Therefore,
the Board may only look to the record and determine ifthe finding that the application is inconsistent with the
Randolph County Plan was against the manifest weight ofthe evidence.
As discussed above, the language of the Randolph County Plan Is clear that the oneand a half-mile setback
Is exclusionary. As thelanguage ofthe Randolph County Plan is clear, the Randolph County Board’s decision that
the application for a facifity within onemile ofSparta was inconsistent with the Plan, is not against the manifest
weight of the evidence. The Board therefore, upholds the decision by Randolph County on criterion viii.
CONCLUSION
The Boardfinds that the members of the Randolph County Board were subject to numerous contacts
outside the record ofthe proceeding. These contacts were ex
palte
contacts. However, these contacts did not affect

24
the ultimate decision and did not prejudice Land and Lakes. Therefore pursuant to Waste Management v. PCB and
E & E Hauling v. PCB the proceedings were not tainted by the contacts and were not fundamentally unfair.
The Board also finds that the Randolph County Board’s decision to deny siting based on failure to satisfy
Section 39.2 (ii) and (viii) ifthe Act is not against the manliest weight of the evidence. The record contains evidence
that there are concerns for public safety due to road configuration aswell as wear and tear on county roads. The
record also indicates that the solid waste management plan contains an exclusionary clause against siting a facffity
within one and a half-miles of a municipality. Land and Lakes’ application would site its pollution control facthty
within oneand a half-miles of the municipality of Sparta. Therefore, the decision is not against the manifest weight
of the evidence.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusionsoflaw In this matter
ORDER
For the reasons presented In the Board’ opinion, the Board affirms the October 19, 1998 decision by the
Randolph County Board of Commissioners denying siting of a pollution control facility for Land and Lakes
Company.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board MembersE.Z. Kezellsand S.T. Lawton, Jr. dissented.
Chairman C.A. Manning concurred.
Section 41 ofthe Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41 (1998)) provides for the appeal of final
Boardorders to the illinois Appellate Court withIn 35 days of service of this order. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335
establishes such filing requirements. See 145 ifi. 2d R. 335; seealso 35 ifi. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for
Reconsideration,
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that the above opinionand
order was adopted on the 21st day of September 2000 by a vote of 5-2.
Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
illinois Pollution Control Board

U
2
3
Criterion viti
CONCLUSION
The Board linds that the members of the Randolph County Board were subJeci to numerous contacts oulstde the record
of the proceeding. These contacts were
ex partecontacts.
However, these contacts did not affect

MAY 04 2005
W~~E u~~MeMT
WASTE MANAGEMENT
May 2, 2006
VIA FACSIMiLE (815I49O~49O1
Road
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Lombard,~630)572-iiulOO
IL
6014B
(630) 916-6160
Fax
Mr.
Charles F. Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
‘tOO Park Ave.
Roclcford, IL 61101
Re:
Waste Manaoement.of illinois v. Kankakee.Countv Board. PCB 04-186
Dear Mr. Helsten:
The purpose of this letter is to make a settlement proposal to Kankakee County
regarding the pending litigation before the illinois Pollution Control Board (“PCB”).
Waste Management believes that a settlement pursuant to the terms set forth below
provides both parties with a myriad of benefits, while both parties avoid a worst case
scenario. The proposed settlement is simple and straighiforward arid can be
consummated within a very short period of time, assuming both parties are
amenable.
1.
Settlement of Pendina Pollution ControLBoard Case
(No. 04-186).
Kankakee
County and
Waste
Management are the only parties to the pending
PCB
case.
Like any other contested legal matter, the parties to this case may settle their dispute
pursuant to an appropriate Stipulation filed with the PCB. Here, Waste Management
and the County would enter
into a
Stipulation in which the County agrees not to
contest Waste Management’s appeal and acknowledges that the underlying record
contains evidence supporting Waste Management’s contention that siting approval
should have been granted. The Order issued by the PCB as a result of this
Stipulation would be the same as the Order the PCB would issue if it found in Waste
Management’s favor in the pending appeal.
2.
Amendment of Host Community Agreement.
Simultaneously with Waste
Management and ‘the County entering into a Stipulation to settle the pending
PCB case, Waste Management and the County would enter into a further
Amendment to the Host Community Agreement, conditioned on Waste Management
achieving final and non-appealable siting pursuant to the settlement described
above. The Amendment would provide for the following, as well as any other
conforming changes identified by either of us.
a. Siting Conditions. Waste Management would agree to all of the
conditions set forth in the March 9, 2004 Kankakee County Regional
Planning Commission report entitled uRecommendations Relating to the
Application of WMII for Local Siting Approval of an Expansion of the
Existing Kankakee Landfill.’~ Among other things, this will insure that
the expansion will be developed with a double composite liner system.

2
b. Reduction in Out~of-CguntyWaste.
The annual
cumulative amount
of out-of-county waste Waste Management would be
able
to accept in
the expansion area would be
reduced by one-third (a reduction of
328,967
tons per year).
c. Host Fee
Payments. The one-time expansionfee would be reduced
by one-third (to $1,166,725) and the minimum guaranteed host fees
would be similarly reduced by one-third. However, the per ton host fee
paid to the County would not decrease.
d. Environmental Enhancement Fund. In addition to the existing par
ton host fee, Waste Management will pay an additional ten
cents
per
ton in order to fund a new Environmental Enhancement Fund to be
managed by the County and used, in the County’s discretion, to fund
environmental projects, including clean up projects, throughout the
County.
a. ~pport of New Technologies. In order to support the development
of new technologies for the management
of solid waste, Waste
Management will make available to the County, or its designee, a five-
acre parcel of property adjacent to the Kankakee Landfill or at another
location acceptable to the County. This site can be used, at the
County’s discretion, as a location on which new waste management
technologies can be tested and refined.
3. Benefits of Settlement. Obviously, both the County and Waste Management
would avoid the uncertainties of continued litigation with respect to siting. If Waste
Management prevails in the pending case, the result would be an expanded landfill
that could accept more than IM tons ofwaste per year. If it does not, the Kankakee
Landfill will likely close permanently. The settlement would result in the County
assuring disposal capacity for its residents and businesses for an extended period
and would significantly reduce perceived traffic and other impacts identified by landfill
opponents. Assuming the expanded Kankakee Landfill accepts 650,000 tons of
waste annually, the County would receive payments exceeding $2,500,000 per year.
4. Time is of the Essence. If there appears to be a desire on the part of the County
to consider a settlement of this dispute. pursuant to the terms set forth above,
we should move forward quickly to finalize the required documentation so that the full
County Board can consider the documented..settlement at its May 10 meeting.
In order to expedite the County’s consideration of this proposal, I have provided a
copy of this letter to Ed Smith, the County State’s Attorney. I trust that either you or
Mr. Smith will provide a copy to the County Board Chairperson, Karl Kruse, for
distribution to Board members.
~o
0~

Kankakee County
Special Board
Meeting
May 25, 2005

Back to top


Special Meeting of the Kankakee County Board

Back to top


AGENDA
Wednesday,
May 25, 2005 at 10:00 am.
Kankakee County Administration Building
189 East Court Street, Kankakee, Illinois
Fourth Floor Board Room
1. INVOCATION:
George Washington, Jr.

Back to top


2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL:
Bruce Clark

Back to top


4. PUBLIC COMMENTARY
5. OPEN SESSION-
To present the issues and entertain positions relating
to litigation pending before
the
Illinois Pollution Control Board.
Waste
Management of Illinois, Inc. v. County Board of Kankakee County,
Illinois,
PBC Case No.:
04-186

Back to top


6. EXECUTIVE SESSION — Discussion of said litigation pursuant to 5
ILCS
12012(c)(11)
7. OPEN SESSION:
Debate, deliberation and to take action on said
litigation
8. New Business
9.
Old Business
10. Adjournment
P~~nAI

I look
forward to hearing from
you.
Very
truly yours,
~
r.
ViceDennisPresidentM.
Wilt
and General Counsel — Midwest Group
DMWILK
cc:
Lee Addleman
Dale Hoekstra
L
Don Moran
Chris
Ed Smith
Rubak
c:\mydenis~2OOS*r~\heI~tenQ5Q2
n.
I
U.
U
U

Back to top