BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
.
CLERK'S
O VIE D
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,
)
NOV
1 6 2006
Petitioner,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
) PCB 06-184
Pollution Control
Board
v.
)
PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,
)
Respondent.
)
(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)
RESPONSE OF PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY TO PEORIA COUNTY BOARD'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL
AND FILE SECOND AMENDED INDEX
NOW COMES
Peoria Disposal Company ("PDC"),
by its attorneys, Brian J
. Meginnes
and George Mueller, and as and for its Response to the Motion for Leave to Supplement Record
on Appeal and File Second Amended Index (the "Motion"), filed by the Peoria County Board
(the "County Board"), states as follows
:
Introduction
PDC has no objection to supplementing the Record with the "Supplemental Staff
Report," tendered by the County Board with the Motion (C139554-602)
.
The County Board also seeks to supplement the Record with "[t]he Proposed Findings of
Fact prepared by County Staff for consideration by and distributed to the County Board prior to
the April 6, 2006, committee meeting at which the Proposed Findings of Fact were reviewed and
discussed" (the "April 6 Proposed Findings") and "[t]he one (1) page sheet of findings of fact
generated by County Staff at the May 3, 2006, County Board meeting incorporating the one
change decided and made by the County Board at that meeting" (the "Findings Page")
. (Motion,
pg. 2, ¶6)
. The April 6 Proposed Findings are identified in the Second Amended Index attached
to the Motion as C139603-C139658
. However, pages C139653-58 do not appear to be proposed
findings of fact
; rather, these pages contain charts and calculations .
PDC objects to supplementing the Record with the April 6 Proposed Findings and the
unauthenticated single Findings Page for the following reasons :
l .
The April 6 Proposed Findings and the unauthenticated single Findings Page are
not properly included in the Record pursuant to Section 107 .304(a) of the Illinois Administrative
Code. The April 6 Proposed Findings were purportedly "reviewed and discussed" by the Peoria
County Pollution Control Facility Siting Committee ("Siting Committee"), not the County
Board.
The County Board admits that the unauthenticated single Findings Page was not
presented to or relied upon by the County Board
. There is no proper basis for inclusion of the
April 6 Proposed Findings or the unauthenticated single Findings Page in the Record .
2.
The April 6 Proposed Findings and the unauthenticated single Findings Page were
never placed in the Record in the County Clerk's office and, as such, the documents were never
available to PDC or the public at any time prior to PDC's filing of its Petition for Review with
the Pollution Control Board . For this additional reason, the April 6 Proposed Findings and the
Findings Page should not be filed with the Record in this appeal .
3 .
The submission of the April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page is grossly
untimely, as PDC has already conducted depositions of County Board members and County Staff
members and has essentially completed its discovery in this case
. The April 6 Proposed Findings
and the Findings Page are not authenticated or explained in the Motion
. It is likely that if leave
is granted to file the April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page, PDC will be forced to re-
depose some County Board members and County Staff members, and possibly depose additional
2
persons. It would be unjust and prejudicial to permit filing of the April 6 Proposed Findings and
the Findings Page at this late date .
Argument
1 . The April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page are not properly included in
the Record pursuant to Ill . Adm. Code 6107 .304.
The Record on appeal to the Pollution Control Board is to contain certain categories of
documents pursuant to Section 107 .304 of the Illinois Administrative Code
. Of the categories of
documents included in the Record pursuant to Section 107 .304(a), the only categories plausibly
relevant to the Motion are the following :
The record must contain all information or evidence presented to
the local siting authority or relied upon by the local siting authority
during its hearing process including :
•
**
4)
All exhibits relied upon by the local siting authority in
making its decision
;
•
**
6)
Minutes of all relevant open meetings of the siting
authority
;
•
**
8)
The written decision of the siting authority made pursuant
to Section 39.2 of the Act ; * * *.
(Ill. Adm. Code §107 .304(a); emphasis added) .
First, regarding the April 6 Proposed Findings, pursuant to Section 39 .2(a) of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act, it is the County Board
itself that is the "local siting authority," not
any committee created by the County Board . (415 ILCS §5/39 .2(a)) . The April 6 Proposed
Findings were purportedly "reviewed and discussed" by the Peoria County Pollution Control
Facility Siting Committee, not the County Board
. The April 6 Proposed Findings purportedly
considered by the committee are not properly filed in the Record .
3
Second, as for the single Findings Page, the County Board admits that the Findings Page
was not presented to or relied upon by the County Board, instead asserting that it "documents the
one change made to the Proposed Findings of Fact at the May 3, 2006, County Board
meeting . . .
." (Motion, pg . 3, ¶9) . The County Board has not contended that the page is somehow
"minutes" of the County Board meeting, or the County Board's "written decision
." (Any
contention that the single Findings Page is part of a "written decision" would be ludicrous ; if this
were the case, how could the County Board justify "inadvertently" failing to file the Findings
Page with the Pollution Control Board?) Therefore, there is no proper basis for inclusion of the
Findings Page in the Record
.
For the foregoing reasons, the County Board should, respectfully, not be permitted to
supplement the Record in this appeal with either the April 6 Proposed Findings or the Findings
Page.
I Assuming, arguendo,
that Karen Raithel authored the Findings Page, the Findings Page would not, in
any case, satisfy the statutory minutes requirement under 55 ILLS §5/3-2013
. The Illinois Attorney
General has summarized the requirements of the Clerk's statutory duties as follows
:
The county clerk is charged by statute with the duty to keep the record of the proceedings
of the county board, and, because that duty is one imposed by statute, the county board
cannot alter it . The record kept by the clerk is the only competent proof of the official
acts of the board. People v . Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St
. Louis Ry . Co. (1915),
271 I11 .226, 228-29.
+~r
Although it might be suggested that the duty to "keep an accurate record of the
proceedings" of the board could be satisfied by the preservation of records created by
others, a mere custodian generally cannot assure the accuracy of such records
. Section 3-
2013 of the Counties Code clearly contemplates that
the clerk is not charged merely with
the preservation of the records of proceedings, but is responsible for creating them
.
(Illinois Attorney General Opinion, No . 2000-004
; emphasis added) .
4
2 . The April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page were not public records in
this case .
The April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page were never placed in the Record in
the County Clerk's office and, as such, the documents were never available to PDC or the public
at any time prior to PDC's filing of its Petition for Review with the Pollution Control Board . In
the Motion, the County Board does not, in fact, argue that the April 6 Proposed Findings and the
Findings Page were filed properly with the County Clerk's office
. (Notably, the April 6
Proposed Findings and the Findings Page are not file-stamped by the County Clerk)
. If the
County Board does later argue that the April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page were
included in the Record maintained by the County Board or the County Clerk, PDC will be forced
to reopen discovery on this issue, which would be grossly prejudicial, as discussed below
.
Possible placement of the April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page in some other
file, such as a County Board folder kept in a the County Clerk's office, does not satisfy the
requirement that the County maintain a Record of materials related to the Application, and that
such Record be made available to the public
. The County Board's own siting ordinance is
specific about the responsibility of the County Clerk to maintain a Record and about what goes
in that Record . Section 7
.5-43(a) of the Peoria County Code provides that a copy of the Siting
Application "shall be made available for public inspection in the offices of the County Clerk
."
Additionally, Section 7.5-43(b)
provides that "the County Clerk shall receive written comments
from any person concerning the appropriateness of the proposed site," and Section 7
.5-43(c)
provides that "copies of the written comments shall be made available for public inspection in
the offices of the County Clerk ." Section 7.5-44(f)
of the Peoria County Code requires that "the
transcript of the public hearings to date shall be typed and copy filed with the County Clerk
.
Lastly, Section 7.5-45
identifies the items that together comprise the "record" of the siting case
5
and requires that "the County Clerk shall be responsible for keeping the record
." (Copies of the
relevant sections of the Peoria County Code are attached herewith as Appendix A for the
convenience of the Board and the Hearing Officer)
.
Secret, internal documents used by the
County Board, but never shared with or made available to any participant or any member of the
public, may represent evidence of the improper decision-making process that occurred in this
case, but such documents do not represent evidence of any decision made by the County Board
.
Moreover, the transcript of the Siting Committee hearing on April 6, 2006, reflects that
Siting Committee members at that meeting were in possession of color-coded documents not
distributed to the public purporting to be proposed Findings of Fact in alternate forms, which the
Siting Committee considered in its discussions and debates
.
However, with regard to siting
criteria ii, iii and v, a careful reading of the transcript reveals that the Siting Committee took no
binding action to recommend any specific findings to the County Board
.
The County Board also seeks to supplement the Record with some tables and calculations
(C139653-58)
. These documents clearly are not properly included with the April 6 Proposed
Findings.
PDC has not seen these documents included with the April 6 Proposed Findings
before, does not know what they purportedly represent or where they came from or when, if
ever, they were considered by the County Board or any of its committees
. PDC knows only that
these documents were not part of the Record available to it and the general public in the County
Clerk's Office at any time prior to PDC filing its Petition for Review with the Pollution Control
Board
. The foundation for supplementation of the Record with these documents is totally absent
.
The County does not offer any explanation of these mysterious new documents in its motion
.
The April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page were never public documents
; they
saw the light of day for the first time during this appeal before the Pollution Control Board
. At
6
no time prior to filing its appeal did PDC or the public have access to the April 6 Proposed
Findings or the Findings Page .
3 . The
submission of the April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page is grossly
untimely and prejudicial to PDC .
The submission of the April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page is grossly
untimely, as PDC has already conducted depositions of twelve (12) County Board members and
three (3) County Staff members, and has essentially completed its discovery in this case
.
PDC deposed the following County Staff members during the months of August and
September :
1 .
Megan Fulara, Deputy County Clerk, August 18, 2006
2 .
Russell Haupert, County Information Technology Director, September 13,
2006
3 .
Karen Raithel, County Recycling and Resource Conservation Manager,
September 28, 2006
PDC also deposed the following twelve (12) County Board members during the month of
September:
1 .
Michael Phelan, September 12, 2006
2.
James Thomas, September 12, 2006
3.
Lynn Scott Pearson, September 13, 2006
4.
Carol Trumpe, September 13, 2006
5.
Brian Elsasser, September 14, 2006
6.
G. Allen Mayer, September 14, 2006
7.
Philip Salzer, September 14, 2006
8.
Eldon Polhemus, September 15, 2006
9.
Junion Watkins, September 15, 2006
10 .
David Williams, September 15, 2006
11 .
Thomas O'Neill, September 27, 2006
12 .
Jeffrey Joyce, September 27, 2006
During the telephonic status hearing on September 18, 2006, PDC and the County Board
informed the Hearing Officer that the depositions of County Board members and County Staff
members would be completed in September, and that "[t]he parties hope to complete discovery
7
by the end of October."
(Order, September 18, 2006)
. PDC served its First Set of Requests to
Admit on the County Board on September 21, 2006, and its Second Set of Requests to Admit on
October 12, 2006
. At the telephonic status hearing on October 31, 2006, the parties stated that
they had completed discovery (other than filing of the County Board's responses to PDC's First
and Second Sets of Requests to Admit), and agreed to a summary judgment deadline of
November 29, 2006 . (See
Order, October 31, 2006) .
More than a month after the last of the County Board depositions, the County Board now
seeks leave to supplement the Record
:
3.
During the course of discovery in this matter,
Respondent has learned that certain documents that should have
been included in the Record on Appeal were not contained in
either the first or supplemental filings
.
10 .
Respondent believes it is fair, appropriate and
necessary to a complete and thorough review of the issues on
appeal to include the above referenced items into the Record on
Appeal
.
11 .
The failure to include said documents in the initial
filings was due to inadvertence, and was not intended to cause
delay or prejudice to any party .
13 .
There will be no prejudice to either party or the
public caused by allowing the County to supplement the Record on
Appeal in this matter
.
(Motion, pgs . 1, 3)
. Clearly, the Motion is untimely, and PDC would be prejudiced if the County
Board were granted leave to supplement the Record with the April 6 Proposed Findings and the
Findings Page .
The April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page tendered by the County Board are
not authenticated as to when, where or by whom such documents were produced or as to how, if
at all, such documents were circulated among the County Board members
. The phrase used by
8
the County Board in its Motion, that these documents were "prepared by County staff," is an
attempt to avoid disclosing true authorship
.
It is quite possible that the April 6 Proposed
Findings and/or the Findings Page were authored by Karen Raithel, County Recycling and
Resource Conservation Manager (deposed September 28, 2006), though Megan Fulara, Deputy
County Clerk in charge of maintaining the Record in the County Clerk's office (deposed August
18, 2006) would presumably be the person to ask questions regarding authorship
. Furthermore,
it is PDC's belief that at least one of the documents included with the April 6 Proposed Findings
and the Findings Page may have been authored by a County Board member, namely, G
. Allen
Mayer (deposed September 14, 2006) .
The April 6 Proposed Findings and the charts and calculations included therewith include
hand-written notations (comments, additions and deletions), without identification as to when or
by whom those notations were made
. If the April 6 Proposed Findings were filed in the Record
on appeal, the County Board would be required to explain the source and meaning of every
hand-written notation in the April 6 Proposed Findings, again mandating a re-opening of
discovery .
The Findings Page purportedly "documents the one change made to the
Proposed
Findings of Fact at the May 3, 2006, County Board meeting
. . . ." (Motion, pg . 3, ¶9
; emphasis
added)
. It is not at all clear what the "Proposed Findings of Fact" are, as the transcript of the
County Board meeting on May 3, 2006, suggests that the County Board may have considered a
different document called "Recommended
Findings of Fact" at that meeting . Moreover, "The
record kept by the clerk is the only competent proof of the official acts of the board
. People v.
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St . Louis Ry
. Co. (1915), 271 Ill
. 226, 228-29 ." (Illinois
9
Attorney General Opinion, No . 2000-004
; emphasis added) . The Findings Page cannot be used
as a stand-in for minutes that were never prepared .
Finally, as above, insofar as the County Board argues that the April 6 Proposed Findings
and the Findings Page were included in the Record maintained by the County Board or Clerk,
PDC would be forced to depose and re-depose members of the County Staff to determine when,
if ever, the documents were properly filed . Clearly, the County Board is precluded from
supplementing the Record with the April 6 Proposed Findings and the Findings Page at this late
date.
Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Leave to Supplement Record on Appeal and
File Second Amended Index should be denied with regard to all documents tendered other than
the Supplemental Staff Report (C139554-602)
.
WHEREFORE, Peoria Disposal Company prays that the Motion for Leave to
Supplement Record on Appeal and File Second Amended Index, filed by the Peoria County
Board be denied with regard to all documents tendered other than the Supplemental Staff Report
(C139554-602) .
Respectfully submitted,
PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY
George Mueller
GEORGE MUELLER, P.C
.
Attorney at Law
628 Columbus Street, Suite #204
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
(815) 431-1500-Telephone
(815) 431-1501 -
Facsimile
906-1479
10
By:
Brian J. Meginnes
ELIAS, MEGINNES, RIFFLE & SEGHETTI, P. C,
Attorneys at Law
416 Main Street, Suite #1400
Peoria, IL 61602-1153
(309) 637-6000 -Telephone
(309) 637-8514- Facsimile
§ 7.5-41
PEORIA COUNTY CODE
it is determined that the application complies with the requirements of this resolution
. Within
a reasonable period of time after delivery of an application to him, the county clerk shall advise
the applicant
:
(1)
Either that the application is complete and that it has been accepted for filing,
designating the date of filing
; or
(2)
That the application is not complete, specifying wherein it is deficient .
(b) Upon determining the application is complete, the county clerk shall date stamp the
same and immediately deliver one copy of the request to the chairman of the county board
; one
copy to the county planning and zoning administrator
; two (2) copies to the county solid waste
management director
; two (2) copies to the director of the Peoria City/County Health
Department; two (2) copies to the state's attorney
; and, two (2) copies to the county engineer
.
The county clerk, in addition, shall mail one copy of the request to the clerk of each
municipality whose geographic political borders are within one and one-half (M) miles or less
of the proposed facility.
(c) At any time prior to completion by the applicant of the presentation of the applicant's
factual evidence and an opportunity for cross-questioning by the county board and any hearing
participants, the applicant may file not more than one amended application
. In the event that
an amended application is filed, the time limitation for final action set forth in
section 7.5-47(b)
shall be extended for an additional period of ninety (90) days
.
(Res
. of 2-14-84, § 11; Amend. of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 7-8-97
; Amend . of 8-12-97)
Sec . 7.5-42 . Filing fee
.
(a) There shall be paid to the county clerk for delivery to the county treasurer for deposit
in a special fund at the time of the filing of an application for site approval a fee of fifty
thousand dollars ($50,000 .00) .
(b) The fee paid hereunder with any application shall be used only to defray the costs
incurred by the county in connection with the application for site approval to which the fee is
applicable
. The county board may use the fee to pay any costs incurred by the county in
reviewing the application, employing qualified professional persons to evaluate the informa-
tion contained in the application, to pay the costs involved in any hearing, including the fees
of court reporters and expert witnesses employed by the county to clarify or refute any
information contained in the application, to pay any costs incurred in the appeal of any
decision of the county board as to the application and to pay any other costs or expense in any
way connected with the application .
(c) The county clerk shall accept no application for filing unless said fee has been paid
.
(Res . of 2-14-84, § 12 ; Amend . of 3-9-93)
Sec. 7.5-43
. Public comment .
(a) A copy of the request shall be made available for public inspection in the offices of the
county clerk and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of the request or any
part thereof upon payment of actual cost of reproduction to the county clerk
. All copying
requests shall be fulfilled by the county clerk within a reasonable time from the time of the
request .
Supp . No. 24
434
Supp . No . 24
435
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
§ 7.5-44
(b) The county clerk shall receive written comment from any person concerning the
appropriateness of the proposed site . Upon receipt of any such written comment the county
clerk shall date stamp same and file the written comment with the postmarked envelope in
which the comment is received .
(c) Copies of the written comments shall be made available for public inspection in the
offices of the county clerk, and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of any
written comment upon payment of actual cost of reproduction .
(d) Any written comment received by the county clerk or postmarked not later than thirty
(30) days after the date of the last public hearing shall be made part of the record as
hereinafter described and the county board shall consider any such timely written comments
in making its final determination . In the event that the 30th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday
or any holiday when the Peoria County Courthouse is closed, the next day on which mail is
received by the Peoria County Clerk shall be considered the 30th day for purposes of this
paragraph
.
(Res
. of 2-14-84, § 13
; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 10-11-94)
Sec
. 7.5-44 . Staff review.
(a) Upon receipt of a copy of a request for site location approval, the solid waste
management director shall be responsible for coordinating the review of the request with the
following:
(1) City of Peoria/County of Peoria Health Department.
(2) Peoria County Engineer.
(3) Peoria County Administrator
.
(4) Peoria County State's Attorney.
(5) Peoria County Planning and Zoning Administrator .
(6) Other such persons as may be designated by the site hearing committee chairman .
(b) The solid waste management director is authorized to call interdepartmental meetings
and set deadlines for the submittal of reports and recommendations .
(c) A representative of the aforenamed departments/officials shall attend the public
hearings and may ask such questions as are needed to assist it in reaching their recommen-
dations
.
(d) The aforenamed departments/officials are authorized to prepare and submit reports and
recommendations in connection with the application
. Interim reports prepared by the staff,
summarizing and analyzing the proposed site application, the written comments, reports,
studies and exhibits concerning the appropriateness of the proposed site shall be filed with the
county clerk no later than ten (10) days in advance of the public hearing
. Copies of
§ 7.5-44
PEORIA COUNTY CODE
departmental reports shall be available for public inspection in the office of the county clerk
and members of the public shall be allowed to obtain a copy of said documents upon payment
of the actual cost of reproduction .
(e) Upon completion of the testimony by the applicant, members of the general public, or
intervening parties, and the aforenamed officials and departments, shall have a reasonable
time to file their final reports and recommendations with the county clerk
. Copies
of the final
reports shall be available for public inspection in the office of the county clerk for three (3)
working days prior to reconvening the hearing and members of the public shall be allowed to
obtain a copy of said documents upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction
.
(f) The transcript of the public hearings to date shall be typed and a copy filed with the
county clerk .
(Res . of 2-14-84, § 14; Amend. of
3-9-93 ; Amend . of 7-8-97)
Sec. 7.5-45. Record.
(a) The county clerk shall be responsible for keeping the record
.
(b) The record shall consist of the following
:
(1)
The requeaCfor site location approval as described in sections 7
.5-32 through 7.5-40
.
(2)
Proof of notice as described in section 7 .5-46(b)(3), hereof
.
(3)
Proof of notice given by applicant pursuant to section 39
.2(b) of said Act (415 ILCSw
5/39.2(b)).
(4)
Written comments filed by the public and received by the county clerk or postmarked
within thirty (30) days after the date of the last public hearing .
(5)
All reports and recommendations as described in section 7 .5-44(d) .
(6) All reports, studies, exhibits or documents admitted into evidence at the public
hearing.
(7) A complete transcript of the public hearing(s)
.
(8)
The findings of fact and recommendations of the regional pollution control hearing
committee .
(9) A copy of the resolution containing the final decision, of the county board
.
(c) The county clerk shall be responsible for certifying all copies of the record
.
(Res
. of 2-14-84, § 15 ; Amend . of 3-9-93 ; Amend . of 10-11-94)
Sec. 7.5-46
. Peoria County Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee
;
public hearing.
(a) Committee.
(1) Generally.
The Peoria County Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee shall be
comprised of one county board member from each district
. The Peoria County Pollution
Supp
. No . 24
436
OFFICIAL SEAL
JESSICA M RUCKEY
NOTARY
MY COMMISSIONPUBLIC
STATE
EXPIRES
OFILLMIOI$
; $61347
George Mueller
GEORGE MUELLER, P. C.
Attorney at Law
628 Columbus Street, Suite #204
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
(815) 431-1500 - Telephone
(815) 431-1501
- Facsimile
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon oath, states that copies of the Response to
the Motion for Leave to Supplement Record on Appeal and File Second Amended Index of
Petitioner, Peoria Disposal Company, were served upon the following persons on the 15th day of
November, 2006, before 5 :00 p .m., sent and addressed as follows:
Mr. William Atkins
Assistant State's Attorney
Peoria County
324 Main Street, Room #111
Peoria, IL 61602
(via Hand Delivery)
Mr. David A. Brown
Black, Black & Brown
Attorneys at Law
101 South Main Street
P . O. Box 381
Morton, IL 61550
(309) 266-9680 - Telephone
(309) 266-8301 - Facsimile
dbrown@blackblackbrown .com
(via Facsimile and U.S. Mail)
Ms. Carol Webb, Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P. 0. Box 19274
Springfield, IL 62794-9274
(217) 524-8509 - Telephone
webbc@ipcb .state.il.us
(via Federal Express)
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in the Co
aforesaid, this 15th day of November, 2006 .
All 4
11/1
/.
Brian J. Meginnes
ELIAS, MEGINNES, RIFFLE & SEGHETTI, P .C.
Attorneys at Law
416 Main Street, Suite #1400
Peoria, IL 61602-1153
(309) 637-6000 -Telephone
(309) 637-8514 - Facsimile
AFFIDAVIT OF FILING
The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon oath, states that
ten (10) copies of the
Response to the Motion for Leave to Supplement Record on Appeal and File Second Amended
Index of Petitioner, Peoria Disposal Company, were filed with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board by sending same via Federal Express,
on the 15th day of November, 2006, sent before
.
5
:00 p.m .
OFFICIAL SEAL
JESSICA M ROCKEY
NOTARY PUBLIC •
STATE OF ILLINOIS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
: 06 .13-01
George Mueller
GEORGE MUELLER, P.C.
Attorney at Law
628 Columbus Street, Suite #204
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
(815) 431-1500-Telephone
(815) 431-1501 - Facsimile
Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in the Peoria County, Illinois, this
15th day of November, 2006
.
_ _, 1.1 . .
Aell
.
AAL~
otary Public
Brian J
. Meginnes
ELIAS, MEGINNES, RIFFLE & SEGHETTI, P.C
.
Attorneys at Law
416 Main Street, Suite #1400
Peoria, IL 61602-1153
(309) 637-6000 -Telephone
(309) 637-8514-Facsimile
