BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOA*EC,EIV

IE

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,

)

DEC 2 8 2096

Petitioner,

)

PCB 06-184

POlluton

Control

Boa

d

v.

)

(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,

)

Respondent

.

)

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(415 ILCS §5/39.2(e))

NOW COMES

Petitioner, Peoria

Disposal Company, (hereinafter

"PDC" or

"Petitioner") by its attorneys, Brian J

. Meginnes and George Mueller, and as and for its Reply

in

support of its Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 415 ILCS §5/39

.2(e), and responding

to the Response to Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment (415 ILCS

§5/39.2(e))' (the

"Response"), and the Memorandum of Facts and Law in support thereof ("Resp

. Memo.")

filed

by the Peoria County Board (the "County Board"), states as follows

:

INTRODUCTION

In its Response, the County Board makes two key admissions

.

First, the County Board

admits that the only "action" taken by the County Board relative to the Application (as defined

in

the Motion for Summary Judgment) is the failure of the oral motion for conditional

approval, as

amended, to pass

. (Resp . Memo

. pg. 1).

Second, the County Board admits that the only

"writing" created by the County Board memorializing

the failure of the oral motion for

conditional approval, as amended, to pass is the transcript of the May 3,

2006 meeting of the

1

The Response is not properly titled

; the Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 415 ILCS

§5/39.2(e)

seeks

complete

summary judgment disposing of all issues in this case, not

pa rtial summary judgment

. If

awarded, summary judgment on the relevant Motion would result in a complete reversal

of the County

Board's purported decision and, pursuant to 415 ILCS §5/39

.2(e), "granting" of the Application

without

conditions by operation of statute and without the need for further proceedings

.

---

County Board . That transcript was not rendered "official" until June 8, 2006, considerably more

than 180 days after filing of the Application . The only conclusion to be drawn from either of

these two admissions is that there was no "final action" by the County Board within 180 days

after the date on which it received the Application, and therefore, PDC may deem the

Application approved pursuant to 415 ILCS §5/39

.2(e) .

I . The County Board Took No Action on The Application, and Therefore, The

Application Is Deemed Approved.

The County Board does not contest the fact that the only "action" taken at the May 3,

2006 meeting relative to approval or denial of the Application was failure of the motion for

conditional approval, as amended, to pass .2

Pursuant to the Rules of Order of the Peoria County

Board and the law, the failure of a motion to pass does not constitute "action" . Therefore, no

action was taken by the County Board at the May 3, 2006 meeting, and the Application is

deemed approved pursuant to 415 ILCS §5/39.2(e).

Section 39 .2(e) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, as follows regarding the deadline

for "final action" by a municipal siting authority :

* * * . If there is no final action by the county board or governing

body of the municipality within 180 days after the date on which it

received the request for site approval, the applicant may deem the

request approved.

415 ILCS §5/39 .2(e)

. The Illinois Administrative Code defines "action" as follows for purposes

of triggering the appeal deadlines in siting cases:

* * * . Pursuant to Section 39

.2(e) of the Act, action includes

failure of the governing body to act within 180 days after receiving

a request for siting approval .

35 Ill. Adm. Code §107 .204.

2

Respectfully, the County Board's characterization of the failure of the Motion for Approval as "[tJhe vote to deny

approval of the application" on the first page of its Memorandum is grossly misleading and should be disregarded by

the Pollution Control Board .

2

---

A. Pursuant to the Rules of Order of the Peoria County Board and Robert's Rules of

Order, as incorporated by the Rules of Order of the Peoria County Board, no

action was taken.

The 2005-2006 Rules of Order of the Peoria County Board, Art . III, Sec . 4, attached as

Exhibit 2 to the County Board's Memorandum, state that "[t]he rules of parliamentary practice,

as set forth in the latest published edition of Robert's `Rules of Order, Revised', govern the

proceedings of the Board to the extent the same are not inconsistent with the Rules of Order of

the Board ." It is clear under Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (10th ed

. 2000) (the

"RONR") that any action to be taken by the County Board must be brought by a motion :

Business is brought before an assembly by the motion

of a

member. * * * .

A motion is a formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the

assembly take certain action .

RONR, pg

. 26, lines 14-15, 19-20 (emphasis in original) . It is also clear under the RONR that a

majority vote in favor of a motion is required for action to be taken on the part of the County

Board

:

The basic principle of decision in a deliberative assembly is that, to

become the act of choice of the body, a proposition must be

adopted by a majority vote ;

that is, direct approval-implying

assumption of responsibility for the act-must be registered by

more than half the members present and voting on a particular

matter. . ..

RONR, pg . 4, lines 5-10 (emphasis in original)

. "A majority vote in the affirmative adopts any

motion. ..." RONR, pg

. 45, lines 31-32 . The Rules of Order of the Peoria County Board are

synchronous with the RONR : "[a]

majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a

quorum for transaction of business

; and all questions which shall arise at meetings shall be

determined by the votes of the majority of the members present at such meetings

. . . ." Rules of

3

---

Order, §7 (copy attached as Appx . B to PDC's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary

Judgment) (the "Memo.").

In the instant case, the affirmative vote of ten (10) of the eighteen (18) County Board

members present at the May 3, 2006 meeting was required to pass any motion brought before the

County Board . (See Memo. Ex . 12) . A motion was made for conditional approval of the

Application (Ex . 12, 32/1, 32/4 ; C13719), which motion was amended (Memo . Ex. 12, 37/9-

39/3; C13720-21) . The motion for conditional approval, as amended, was voted on

. (Memo. Ex.

12, 39/11-/6-36/17 ; C13720) . Six of the Board members voted in favor of the motion. (Id.)

Therefore, the motion for conditional approval, as

amended, was lost.

The failure of a motion to pass does not constitute "action"

. As above, "[a] motion is a

formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the assembly take certain action

." RONR, pg .

26, lines 19-20

. If that "proposal" is declined, the assembly takes no action . The RONR makes

it clear that in order for the County Board to take "action," there must be an affirmative vote in

favor of the motion (i.e., in favor of the "formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the

assembly take certain action", supra) :

It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement

even in cases where it would have a meaning, since members may

become confused as to the effect of voting for or against such a

motion. * * *

. In this connection, it should be noted that voting

down a motion or resolution that would express a particular

opinion is not the same as adopting a motion expressing the

opposite opinion, since-if

the motion is voted down-no opinion

has been expressed.

RONR, pg . 100, lines 18-21, 25-29 (emphasis added) .

In support of its contention that no motion to deny the Application was required, the

County Board relies almost entirely on the opinion of Chief Civil Assistant State's Attorney

William Atkins, because of his designation as

"Parliamentarian" of the County Board . (Resp.

4

---

Memo

. pgs

. 7-8, 10-12). Regarding the duties of the Parliamentarian, the RONR provides as

follows:

The parliamentarian is a consultant, commonly a professional, who

advises the president and other officers, committees, and members

on matters of parliamentary procedure. The parliamentarian's role

during a meeting is purely an advisory and consultative one.. ..

RONR, pg . 449, lines 1-8 . In fact, even as to strictly parliamentary matters, it is the opinion of

the President or Chairman that prevails, not the Parliamentarian . Clearly, Mr . Atkins' "opinions"

regarding the rules of the County Board, the RONR, the law and common sense are by no means

dispositive on any of these issues . The County Board's argument that it properly denied the

Application simply because it followed the incorrect

advice of counsel is not sufficient to cure

the County Board's failures .

No motion was passed by the County Board denying the Application. Therefore, the

Application remained "pending" before the County Board

. Had the County Board been so

inclined, the County Board could have voted again to approve the Application unconditionally or

with different special conditions, as the failure of the amended, conditional motion for approval

did not "kill" the Application

. (Given the controversy before the County Board concerning

various proposed conditions, there was a real possibility that a second conditional motion for

approval might be made by another County Board member) . Very simply, the failure of the

amended, conditional motion for approval to pass is not the same as the passage of a motion for

denial of the Application .

B . Pursuant

to the law, no action was taken.

Pursuant to 35 111 . Adm

. Code §107.204,

"Action

means the local government's official

written decision granting or denying local siting approval

." (Emphasis added) . Thus, the local

5

---

siting authority must either grant

local siting approval or deny

local siting approval in order to

take "action"

. In this case, the County Board neither approved the Application nor denied same

.

The County Board attempts to distinguish the case of

Hoesman,et alL v.City Council of

the City of Urbana, Illinois,

et al.,

PCB 84-162, 1985 WL 21156 (Illinois Pollution Control

Board, March 7, 1985), cited in PDC's Memorandum of Law, from the

case at hand on the

grounds that

"Hoesman

dealt only with the Pollution Control Board's internal

rules which

require an affirmative vote of four (4) members

. Without four (4) members voting for a motion,

the Board was unable to take any action

." (Resp . Memo. pg

. 7)

.3

In fact, the Rules of the

County Board, as quoted and discussed above, also require an affirmative vote of a

majority of

the members present to take any action

. See RONR, pg

. 45, lines 31-32

; Rules of Order, §7 .

The logic applied in

Hoesman

applies here as well :

Due to the failure of separate motions to Rain the necessary four

votes to affirm or reverse the Council's action, and the termination

of the statutory decision period, it is the Board's opinion that the

Respondent may deem the site location in question approved by

operation of law .

(See Section 40 .1(a) and (b).

Also see Cement

Mfg. Co. v

. Pollution Control Board (1980), 84 111

. App . 3d 434,

405 N.E

. 2d 512) ; Illinois Power Company v

. Illinois Pollution

Control Board (1983), 112 Ill

. App. 3d 457, 445 N .E

. 2d 820 .)

1985 WL 21156, * I (emphasis added) .

The County Board attempts to distinguish the case of

Smith,et

al. v.City of Champaign,

et al.,

PCB 92-55, 1992 WL 207560 (Illinois Pollution Control Board, August 13,

1992), on the

grounds that the procedural failure in that case was a quorum failure, which is not at issue

in this

case . (Resp

. Memo. pgs . 8-9).

The County Board does not, however, challenge the principles

for which Smith

stands.

'

The County Board's additional basis for distinguishing

Hoesman, i.e.,

that the case "dealt with .. . a

different statutory provision than

.

..

implicated in this case" is inapposite

. (Resp

. Memo. pg. 7) . As a

general rule, the statute at issue in a vote is irrelevant to the voting procedures

taken thereon, except

regarding any majority/supermajority requirement

.

6

---

In terms of case law, the County Board relies exclusively on a concurring opinion filed in

the case of Guerrettaz,et al. v .Jasper County,etal.,, PCB 87-76, 1988 WL 160128 (Illinois

Pollution Control Board, January 21, 1988), stating that "[t]he concurring opinion is well

reasoned, and is not in conflict with the opinions cited by PDC or any other decisions of the

Board, and should be followed in this case ." (Resp . Memo . pg. 10) . In fact, in the Smith case,

the Pollution Control Board expressly rejected the petitioners' citation to the concurrence in

Guerrettaz:

The Guerrettaz concurring opinion cited by petitioners is dicta,

since that case was actually decided on the grounds that the

required notice of the filing of the application was deficient . The

majority opinion never discussed the question of "final action" or

the effect of the tie vote in that case . (Guerrettaz v . Jasper County

(January 21, 1988), PCB 87-76 .)

Smith, 1992 WL 207560, *5 . Therefore, the Board in Smith placed the burden to take "final

action" within the statutory timeframe squarely on the shoulders of the local siting authority,

specifically disagreeing with Guerrettaz :

Section 39 .2(e) clearly states that if a local decisionmaker does not

take final action within 180 days, "the applicant may deem the

request approved." (IlI .Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 111 1/2, par . 1039.2(e).)

Therefore, the Board rejects petitioners' claim that the application

was denied because the application failed to command a majority

vote

. The statutory language also repudiates petitioners' argument

that an approval without an affirmative vote by a majority of

council members would be unconscionable . Section 39 .2 gives

local governments the power and the responsibility to rule upon an

application for siting approval.

Smith, 1992 WL 207560, *6 .

Pursuant to Smith, merely "because the application failed to

command a majority vote" does not mean that the Application was denied

. It is the

responsibility of the local siting authority to take actual final action on an application

; it is not

the responsibility of an applicant to "win" a motion for approval before the local siting authority

.

7

---

This is the legislative scheme expressly created by the statute, by which all parties to a pollution

control facility siting proceeding are governed.

C. The County Board's "intentions" do not relieve the County Board of its duty to

abide by its own Rules of Order and by the law .

The County Board concludes its discussion regarding the statutory "final action"

requirement with the following argument :

Although PDC apparently does not agree with the advice of the

Peoria County States Attorney's office, that does not change what

the Peoria County Board thought it was doing or what it intended

to do. Even if, with hindsight, the advice is found to be incorrect,

the intent of the County Board is clear .. . .

(Resp . Memo. pg. 11 ; emphasis added)

. There is absolutely no precedent under the law for the

County Board's bizarre assertion that "what the Peoria County Board thought it was doing,"

even if it turns out to be incorrect, should be controlling . Similarly, the County Board's

allegation that "everybody understood that vote to be a denial," which PDC by no means agrees

with or concedes, is a nonsensical attempt to shirk the responsibilities placed on the County

Board by the regulations and the statute . There is specific regulatory, administrative, common

law and statutory guidance as to the correct and only

way to take final action on an Application .

The fact that the County Board was misinformed by its own lawyer does not abdicate the County

Board of its responsibility to perform its function correctly .

Based on all the foregoing, no final action was taken on the Application, as neither an

affirmative vote approving nor an affirmative vote denying the Application was ever taken .

Section 39

.2(e) of the Act requires that "[i]f

there is no final action by the county board or

governing body of the municipality within 180 days after the date on which it received the

request for site approval, the applicant may deem the request approved."

415 ILCS §5/39 .2(e).

Therefore, the Application in this case is deemed approved .

8

---

II. The Only "Official" Writing Submitted by the County Board Memorializing the

Purported "Decision" of the County Board was not Rendered Official until June 8,

2006, well after the 180-day Statutory Deadline

. Therefore, the Application Is

Deemed Approved.

Even if the failure of the motion to approve, as amended, to pass had been sufficient to

deny the Application, the County Board failed to create an "official written decision"

memorializing such decision until June 8, 2006 . While PDC continues to believe that the proper

filing date in this case is November 9, 2005 (as is set forth at length at Memo

. pgs. 39-41), even

if the November 14, 2005, "deemed filed" date asserted by the County Board is used, June 8,

2006, was well outside the 180-day statutory deadline for "final action" . In fact, PDC filed its

Petition for Review in this matter on June 7, 2006, the day

before the "official written decision"

(if any) was rendered . If final action occurred on May 3, 2006, as has been consistently argued

by the County Board, the last day for perfecting review by the Pollution Control Board was June

7, 2006.

The County Board's brief argument at pages 17-18 of its Response that the 180-day

statutory deadline was extended for 90 days to August 6, 2006, is not defensible . There is no

basis whatsoever in the law to support the County Board's contention that a proposal (in

argument) by an applicant that the County Board condition its approval of an application with

certain conditions is the same as an "amendment" of an application under 415 ILCS §5/39

.2(e)

.

In fact, even Section 39 .2(e) requires that the amended application be

filed with the local siting

authority, not merely discussed or suggested . Id

. PDC respectfully requests that the Pollution

Control Board simply disregard this, seemingly unresearched, argument .

Section 39 .2(e) of the Act provides that a "decision" constituting "final action" must be

written:

9

---

(e) Decisionsof

the county board or governing body of the

municipality are to be in writing,

specifying the reasons for the

decision, such reasons to be in conformance with subsection (a) of

this Section. * * *

. Such decision shall be available for public

inspection at the office of the county board or governing body of

the municipality and may be copied upon payment of the actual

cost of reproduction

.

If there is no final action by the county board

or governing body of the municipality within 180 days after the

date on which it received the request for site approval, the

applicant may deem the request approved

.

415 ILCS §5/39

.2(e) (emphasis added)

. The Illinois Administrative Code defines "action" as

follows :

A petition for review must be filed within 35 days after the local

siting authority's action to approve or disapprove siting

.

Action

means the local government's official written decision granting or

denying local siting approval .

Pursuant to Section 39.2(e) of the

Act, action includes failure of the governing body to act within 180

days after receiving a request for siting approval

.

35 Ill

. Adm . Code §107

.204 (emphasis added)

. While there could be a dispute as to what sort of

writing is required (i .e.,

a writing specifying reasons for the decision, versus a writing specifying

only the decision itself), clearly, the "final action" of a local siting authority

must be in writing

pursuant to 35 Ill . Adm

. Code §107.204:

"Action

means the local government's official written

decision granting or denying local siting approval

." (Emphasis added) .

The County Board cites and discusses the following cases for the proposition that the

local siting authority need only render an unwritten decision within 180 days of filing in order to

satisfy the requirements of 415 ILCS §5139

.2(e), and can prepare its written decision at a later

date : Guerrettaz,

et al. v .Jasper County,

et al .,

PCB 87-76, 1988 WL 160128 (Illinois Pollution

Control Board, January 21, 1988),

Clean Quality Resources, Inc

. v. Marion County Board,

PCB

91-72, 1991 WL 171684 (Illinois Pollution Control Board, August 26, 1991), and

Waste

Management of Illinois, Inc

. v . Illinois Pollution Control Bd

., 145 I11.2d

345, 585 N

.E.2d 606,

10

---

165 I11.Dec

. 875 (1991) . All of these cases were decided

before

the enactment of 35 Ill. Adm.

Code §107

.204, which became effective January 1, 2001, wherein it was made clear for the first

time that the term "action" actually "means the local government's official

written decision

granting or denying local siting approval

." 35 Ill. Adm. Code §107

.204 (emphasis added)

. If (a)

"action" requires the local siting authority to render an "official written decision", and (b) "final

action" must occur within 180 days of filing of an application, then (c) the "official written

decision" must be rendered within 180 days of filing of an application

. Any other conclusion

would stretch the bounds of logic .

Moreover, the Illinois Supreme Court case cited by the County Board is not inconsistent

with the rule that a timely written decision is required for final action

. In Waste Management of

Illinois, Inc . v

. Illinois Pollution Control Bd .,

the Pollution Control Board did render a written

order within the statutory deadlines, and then later filed a written opinion

. 145 I11 .2d 345, 585

N.E.2d

606, 165 I11 .Dec

. 875 (1991) .

The Illinois Supreme Court distinguished between the

requirement that the Board take final action (entering the written Order) and that the Board issue

its opinion

. Id

. Similarly, in interpreting the requirements of Section 39

.2(e) of the Act, read in

conjunction with Section 107

.204 of the Administrative Code, one could possibly distinguish

between the requirement for a

written decision

(namely, an expression of the final action of the

County Board) and the

specification of reasons

for that decision, which is a separate and

additional statutory requirement

.

While there is some authority for the proposition that the

specification of reasons

may not be required within 180 days of filing of an application, this

rationale does not apply to the statutory requirement of a timely

written decision

which

memorializes the final action .

11

---

Therefore, the most basic question at issue is the following : if, as the County Board

contends, the "final action" taken at the May 3, 2006 meeting was the failure of the motion for

conditional approval, as amended, to pass, what "official" writing was created by the County

Board memorializing that failure? If there is such an "official" writing, when was the writing

rendered "official"?

It is uncontested that no Resolution denying the Application was ever rendered (though

the Peoria County Code itself assumes that a resolution is created embodying the final decision

of the County Board, defining the "Record" as including, "[a] copy of the resolution containing

the final decision of the county board" (Peoria County Code, §7.5-45(a)(9)), and it is uncontested

that no ordinary minutes summarizing the proceedings on May 3, 2006 were prepared

.

However, in support of its Response, the County Board submitted the Affidavit of JoAnn

Thomas, the Peoria County Clerk at all times relevant to this matter, attesting to the fact that she

"elected" to use the transcript of the May 3, 2006 meeting of the County Board in lieu of creating

minutes for such meeting :

4.

In lieu of creating minutes of the May 3, 2006,

County Board meeting, I elected to use the court reporter

transcripts of the meeting as the minutes and official record of the

meeting since the transcripts represent the exact record of what

took place, while any minutes would simply be a summary of what

took place.

(Resp . Memo. Ex

. 1, ¶4)

. PDC had the opportunity to depose Ms

. Thomas, by agreement, on

December 19, 2006 . Ms. Thomas was sure that the transcript of the May 3, 2006 meeting was

actually "approved and adopted" by the County Board

as the minutes of the May 3, 2006

meeting, as required by the Rules of Order of the Peoria County Board

:

Q [by Mr. Mueller] Now, minutes have to be approved,

don't they?

12

---

A

Yes.

•

In fact, when you take minutes, those are circulated

among county board members prior to the next meeting and one of

the first orders of business of the next meeting is the approval of

the minutes?

A

That's the practice now, yes .

•

Occasionally, minutes get changed or amended in

the approval process, right?

A

Correct

r

a

+

• [by Mr. Mueller] But I guess my question is, did the

county board ever take formal action to approve the transcript of

the May 3rd meeting as the minutes of that meeting?

A

I believe so .

•

When did that action take place?

A

I'm not sure. I would have to go check on that, but

they were approved

.

(Deposition of JoAnn Thomas ("Thomas Dep ."), attached hereto as Exhibit 1, 15/20-16/7, 17/3-

10).

In the Memorandum, PDC stated that no vote to approve and adopt any documents or

record pertaining to the May 3, 2006 County Board meeting occurred at the subsequent meeting

of the County Board, on May 11, 2006, which statement was confirmed by Ms . Thomas :

• [by Mr. Mueller] I'm going to show you what's been

marked as Exhibit A, and we have an extra copy for you, Mr

.

Brown, and one for the court reporter, which purports to be the

minutes of the county board meeting of May 11` h, 2006.

Does that look to you like an accurate copy of the minutes

of the May I 1

th,

2006, board meeting?

A

Yes.

13

---

•

Now, there is nothing in those minutes relating to

approval of the transcript of the May 3

d meeting?

A

Yes, correct .

(Thomas Dep ., 53/5-17) . °

The minutes of the May 11, 2006 County Board meeting, identified as

Exhibit A in Ms

. Thomas's deposition, are attached with that transcript in Exhibit

1 hereto .

In actuality, the transcript of the May 3, 2006 meeting was approved and adopted at the

following meeting of the County Board, on

June 8, 2006,

the day after PDC filed its Petition for

Review in this matter and the 36th day after the May 3, 2006 meeting

:

• [by Mr. Mueller]

Let me show you then what's been

marked as Exhibit B

. Again, I will hand Mr

. Brown a copy and

ha[n]d the court reporter a copy.

Does this appear to you to be a true and accurate copy of

the board

- county board meeting minutes of June 8`h

, 2006?

A

Yes.

•

If you go down about half way down the first page,

you'll see that there's approval of May I I n'

county board meeting

minutes; May 3rd,

2006, special county board meeting transcripts

;

and April 6`h,

2006, regional pollution control site hearing

committee transcripts?

A

Yes.

•

Does this refresh your recollection

as to when the

transcripts of the May 3

d meeting were approved?

A

Yes

. They were approved June 8 d',

2006.

•

That, in fact, confirms your recollection that they

would have been approved at some point?

A

Right.

° Of course, the Rules of Order of the Peoria County Board require that the

minutes County Board

meetings be approved at the subsequent

meeting, not the second subsequent meeting after the meeting

recorded in the minutes .

14

---

Q

Were any other records from the May 3` d

meeting

approved at either the May I I

d' meeting or the June 8

d' meeting?

A

If it's not in the record, it wasn't done

. Because

everything that was done is in the record.

(Thomas Dep., 54/9-55/10)

. The minutes of the June 8, 2006 County Board meeting, identified

as Exhibit B in Ms

. Thomas's deposition, are attached with that transcript in Exhibit I hereto

.

The minutes of the June 8, 2006 County Board meeting provide, in pertinent part, as follows

:

Approval of May 11, 2006 County Board Meeting minutes, May 3,

2006 Special County Board Meeting transcripts, and April 6, 2006

Regional Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee Meeting

transcripts.

*

*

*

Williams and Pearson moved to approve the May 3, 2006 Special

County Board Meeting transcripts, and April 6, 2006 Regional

Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee Meeting transcripts

.

The motion was approved by a unanimous vote of 16 ayes

.

(Ex

. 1, Exhibit B therein, pg . 1).

While PDC does not concede that the transcript of the May 3, 2006 meeting constituted

proper minutes (see

Memo. pgs

. 33-35), even if the transcript did constitute the County Board's

"official written decision granting or denying local siting approval" under 35 Ill

. Adm. Code

§107.204,

the transcript was not approved and adopted by the County Board until June 8, 2006,

and therefore was not "official" until June 8, 2006

. As admitted by Peoria County Clerk JoAnn

Thomas, the transcript (like any other set of minutes subject to the approval and adoption of the

County Board) was subject to change or amendment by the County Board members until its

approval and adoption on June 8, 2006

. (Thomas Dep.,

15/20-16/7)

. Therefore, the transcript

was not finalized and rendered "official" until June 8, 2006

. (Notably, the County Board failed

to file the June 8, 2006 minutes with the Record in the Pollution Control Board)

.

15

---

Moreover, as set forth at length in the Affidavit of Brian Meginnes filed with the

Pollution Control Board, and in the Supplemental Affidavit of Brian Meginnes filed with the

Board contemporaneously with this Reply (a copy of which Supplemental Affidavit is attached

hereto as Exhibit 2), the transcript was not made available to the public or to PDC

. On June 7,

2006, the last day on which to perfect a review of the "action", if any, taken on May 3, 2006,

attorney Brian Meginnes actually went to the County Clerk's office and requested that the Chief

Deputy County Clerk in charge of maintaining the record assist him in locating the May 3, 2006

transcript and various documents from the May 3, 2006 County Board meeting

. (See Memo. Ex .

17

; Ex. 2 hereto) . The Chief Deputy County Clerk and Mr

. Meginnes could not locate the May

3, 2006 transcript

anywhere in the County Clerk's office

. Mr. Meginnes's Affidavits are

supported by the recollection of Karen Raithel, who testified in her deposition that she recalled

being phoned by the Chief Deputy County Clerk regarding Mr

. Meginnes's inquiries, and that

she helped the Chief Deputy County Clerk find a copy of the transcript after Mr

. Meginnes left

the County Clerk's office . (Memo

. Ex. 13, 51-53, especially 53/10-14)

. The Chief Deputy

County Clerk was unable to contest Mr

. Meginnes's recollection at her deposition

. (Memo. Ex.

16, 56/11-18, 58/9-24)

.

In its Response, the County repeatedly claims that the transcript of the May 3, 2006

meeting was available to the public at the County Clerk's office

. (See Resp. Memo. pgs . 2, 4, 5,

6, 19)

. In particular, the County Board claims that "[t]he transcript of the May 3, 2006, meeting

was included in the County Board records in the County Clerk's office, and those documents

were available for inspection by the public."

(Resp . Memo. pg. 5)

. This allegation is,

respectfully, blatantly untrue .

The only authority offered in support of the County Board's

assertions is the Affidavit of JoAnn Thomas

. In fact, in her Affidavit, Ms

. Thomas does not

16

---

claim that she placed the May 3, 2006 transcript in the files maintained by the County Clerk's

office, or that the transcript was in those files at any point. Ms

. Thomas's generic statement that

the "files relating to the May 3, 2006, County Board meeting have been kept and maintained in

the County Board files in the Peoria County Clerk's Office" since May 3, 2006 (Resp

. Memo .

Ex. 1, ¶14), is unavailing, as the transcript in fact

was not made available to PDC at its express

request. Moreover, Ms

. Thomas testified at her deposition that (1) she did not personally place

her documents pertaining to the May 3, 2006 meeting in the County Clerk's files, and (2) she did

not actually recall giving such documents to anyone else to file in the County Clerk's office

.

(Ex . 1, 43/6-44/18) .

Compelling further evidence that the County Board is being untruthful on this most

crucial issue comes from the fact that the May 3, 2006 transcript submitted by the County Board

as part of the Record filed herein is not file-stamped

. (C13711-28) . JoAnn Thomas testified at

her deposition that it was the uniform policy and practice of the County Clerk's office to file-

stamp all documents placed in the file, with the sole exception being those documents received

during County Board meetings :

Q [by Mr. Mueller] * * *

. You said that it's the practice

of the county clerk's office to file stamp every document that is

filed?

A

Yes.

Q

A

Sometimes. Sometimes it's the first and last page

of a, you know, of a many page document

. It's sort of- that's kind

of a judgment call depending on the document .

Q

Is that also the practice for documents that are kept

in the county board files?

A

Yes.

Is that every page of every document?

17

---

Q

They are also file stamped?

A Yes . Unless they are - yeah

. They are file stamped

unless they are presented at the meeting

. Documents that are

presented at the meeting are put in with the record, and it's a

possibility that they may not get file stamped, but they are a part of

that meeting and that's when they came in

. It's reflected in the

record that they were submitted at that time

. So there is a time,

you know, a statement about when they were submitted .

Q

So the only exception to file stamping county board

documents would be for documents that are submitted at the open

meeting while it's in process?

A

Yes.

(Ex . 1 hereto,

23/10-24/13 ; emphasis added)

. This practice is consistent with the County Clerk's

duty pursuant to Section 7.5-45

of the Peoria County Code to maintain a complete record of

pollution control facility siting proceedings

. The absence of a file-stamp on the May

3, 2006

transcript (and on the one page of additional findings of fact recently sought to be filed in the

Record by the County Board) speaks for itself

.

The County's fallback argument regarding the transcript is that it was posted on the

County website

. As more fully discussed in PDC's Memorandum filed in support of the instant

motion, the posting of an unsigned, unapproved, unauthenticated transcript on a website more

than 180 days after the Application was filed does not even come close to satisfying the

legislative mandate for a timely official written decision

.

Alternatively, the County Board has claimed that the Recommended Findings of Fact

filed on April

27, 2006,

plus the amendment of those Recommended Findings of Fact as recited

into the record and memorialized in writing in the transcript, together constitute a "written

decision" by the County Board

. (Resp. Memo

. pg. 15) .

Plainly, however, findings of fact are of

no import or effect in and of themselves-findings of fact merely support an action taken by the

18

---

County Board

. The findings of fact do not themselves memorialize the motion for conditional

approval, or the failure of that motion

. Because the County Board took no action, as above, the

findings of fact are moot

.

Moreover, as discussed above, the transcript containing the oral

amendment of the findings of fact was approved outside the statutory decision period

.

Therefore, the complete findings of fact were not "official" until June 8, 2006, the day after PDC

filed its Petition for Review in this case .

Conclusion

It is an indisputable fact in this case that the County Board failed to take any final action

whatsoever on the Application, much less creating a written decision (either specifying reasons

for same or not) within the statutory decision deadline

. The County, in its Response, has not

contested the allegations of PDC that on June 7, 2006, the last day to perfect the appeal in this

case, it was made impossible for a member of the public to learn the outcome of the May 3, 2006

meeting by examining the official record maintained by the County Clerk's office

.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 415 ILCS

§5/39.2(e)

filed by PDC should be granted

.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Peoria Disposal Company, prays that this Board issue

summary judgment in favor of Petitioner, Peoria Disposal Company, and award Petitioner,

Peoria Disposal Company, such other and further relief as is deemed appropriate under the

circumstances .

Respectfully submitted,

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY

19

By:

One of i

meyse-K~

---

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

906-1608 .2

20

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

---

Exhibit 1

---

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION

CONTROL BOARD

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

-vs-

NO . PCB 06-184

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,

Respondent .

The deposition of JoANN THOMAS, a material

witness herein, called for examination pursuant to

notice and the Supreme Court Rules as they pertain to

Giftos,

the taking

CSR,

of

PER,

discovery

and Notary

depositions

Public

before

in and

Anna

for theM

.

County of Peoria, and State of Illinois, on Tuesday,

December 19th, 2006, at 416 Main Street, Suite 1400,

Peoria, Illinois, commencing at the hour of 9 :01 a.m

.

APPEARANCES :

GEORGE MUELLER, ESQUIRE

528 Columbus Street, Suite 204

Ottawa, Illinois 61350

and

JANAKI NAIR, ESQUIRE

BRIAN J . MEGINNES, ESQUIRE

Elias, Meginnes, Riffle & Seghetti, P .C .

416 Main Street, Suite 1400

Peoria, Illinois 61602

on behalf of the Petitioner

;

DAVID A . BROWN, ESQUIRE

Black, Black & Brown

101 South Main Street

Morton, Illinois 61550

on behalf of the Respondent

;

Page 1

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

ALSO PRESENT :

Royal Coulter, PDC ;

Chris Coulter, PDC .

I N D E X

WITNESS

JoANN THOMAS

Examination by Mr . Mueller

.

. . pg

.

3

EXHIBITS

IDENTIFIED

Thomas Exhibit

No .

. . pg . 53

Thomas Exhibit No . B pg . 54

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v .

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

Page 3

1

JoANN THOMAS,

2 a material witness herein, being duly sworn, was

3

examined and testified as follows :

4

EXAMINATION

5 BY MR . MUELLER :

6

Q Would you state your full name, please?

7

A JoAnn Thomas .

8

Q Let the record show this is the discovery

deposition of JoAnn Thomas taken pursuant to

notice, in accordance with the rules of the

Pollution Control Board and by agreement of the

parties .

13

Is it okay if I call you JoAnn?

14

A Yes .

15 Q JoAnn, have you ever had your deposition

16 taken before in any case for any reason?

17

A

Yes .

18

Q So you're generally familiar with the

19 ground rules about only one of us talking at a time

20 and the like?

21

A Yes .

22

23

24

9

10

11

12

Q You understand that you are under oath?

A Yes .

Q In preparation for today's deposi

who

Page 4

1 did you meet with?

2

A I met with Dave Brown and Lyn Schmidt, but

3 it was for, like, 10 minutes before I came over

4 here .

S

Q Did you review any documents in preparation

6 for today's deposition?

7

A No .

8

Q Did you review any deposition transcripts

9 of other witnesses who we have deposed?

10 A No .

11 Q Did you meet with Megan Fulara in

12 preparation for today's deposition?

13

A No .

14 Q Did you meet with Karen Raithel in

15 preparation for today's deposition?

16

A No.

17

Q Has Megan Fulara ever talked to you about

8 her deposition other than the fact that it was

19 going to happen?

20 A No .

21 Q Never talked to you about the substance of

22 questions or answers?

23 A No .

24

Q Has Karen Raithel ever talked to you about

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 5

1

the substance of questions or answers about her

2 deposition?

3

A No .

4

Q Have you ever reviewed the transcript of

5 either Megan or Karen's depositions?

6

A No .

7

Q Recently, JoAnn, there was filed among

8 other documents an affidavit of JoAnn Thomas

--

9

A Correct .

10

Q --which is about three pages .

11

Who prepared that document?

12

A I believe the State's Attorney or Dave

13 Brown

.

14

Q Can you describe for me the process of ho

15 that document was prepared?

16

A The document was presented tome for --to

17 review and to make sure that that was what I had

18 remembered occurring as well as I could and to make

19 sure it was accurate, and I agreed that it was and

20 I signed it .

21

Q You didn't recommend any changes or

22 modifications?

23

A I don't believe so .

24 Q Who presented the

document

Page 6

1

A Nothing of any substance or anything .

2

Q

Who presented the document to you for

3 review?

4

A I don't remember . I really don't remember.

5

Q

Let's go back to some basic stuff.

6

What's your current address?

7

A 1303 North Glenwood Avenue .

8

Q That's in Peoria?

9

A Yes, 61606 .

10 Q How long have you lived there?

11

A For one year, almost a year .

12

Q What's your highest--well, give us your

13 educational background .

14

A I have a bachelor's degree and hours

15 towards a master's in social work .

16 Q

Where's your bachelor's degree from?

17

A The University of Illinois .

18

Q

What is your employment history since

19 college?

20

A Well, I started out as a social worker in

21 Madison, Wisconsin . Then I started a family and

22 did not work outside the home . I had two -- l

2 3 worked for two years in '73 and '74 for the State

2 4

of Illinois as an employment

counselor

and then

Pages 3 to 6

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY V . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

Page 7

1 later for two and a half years as an intermittent

2

adjudicator for the Unemployment Insurance Office

.

3

Then starting in '84, I believe, I started

4

working part-time as an adult basic education

5

instructor at Illinois Central College, and then I

6

later managed ajob search lab and taught

7 motivational courses with the dislocated worker

program .

This was all pretty much part-time until

about '89 . Then I spent a year as the weekend

college coordinator full-time at Illinois Central

College . Then I --

in '90, in July of'90, Mary

Harkrader asked me to come and manage her office,

and so I became the chief deputy county clerk at

15 that time .

16

In '98 when she retired, I ran for office

17 and became the Peoria County clerk .

8

Q Were you just recently reelected?

19

A No

. I just retired two weeks ago .

Q Okay

. You are no longer the county clerk?

21

A

No

. I am not the county clerk .

22

Q

You did not even stand for reelection is

23 what you're saying?

24

A No, no . Time to retire.

8

9

10

1

1

1

2

3

4

20

Page 8

1

Q

So you served as chief county

-- or as the

2

elected county clerk for eight years?

3

A Yes .

4

Q

Your husband is Jim Thomas?

5

A Yes .

6

Q

That's Jim Thomas the county board member?

7

A Yes .

B

Q

Did he get into politics before you did or

9 did you get into it before he did?

10

A

We've been politically active since we were

11 students .

12

Q

What are the general duties of a county

13 clerk?

14

A

They are many and diverse, and they're all

1 5 covered in the statute

. Everything the office does

16 is mandated by state or federal statute except for

17 passport acceptance

. That's the one thing our

18 office did that was not required by statute .

19

Do you want me to list them all?

20

Q

Yes, please.

21 A

We're responsible for overseeing elections

.

22 the election authority fbr the county and actually

23 running elections in all precincts outside the City

2

4 of Peoria

because there is a City of Peoria

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 9

1

election commission, but the commission--the

2

county clerk is responsible for all petitions and

3

for putting all the results together and certifying

4 to the State Board of Elections

.

5

We work closely with a number of state

6 agencies

. We work with the State Board of

7

Elections, the Department of Revenue, the Secretary

8 of State's Office, the Department of Health, and I

9 guess that's it

.

10

Q

The county clerk maintains vital records,

11 right?

12

A Right

. The elections is a big part of the

13 job

. The other part is tax responsibility

. We do

14 all the preparation of the tax bills and work with

15 all of the local entities with their levies and all

16 their financial papers.

17

Then once the tax bills are sent out and

18 the money is collected and there's --

the treasurer

19 holds a tax sale at the end of the year, any

20 delinquent tax accounts come back into the county

21 clerk's office, and the county clerk manages that

22 whole delinquent tax program until the property is

2 3 either redeemed or is transferred by deed

.

24

We do vital records as well,

birth, death,

Page 10

1

marriage from 1825 to present .

2

We issue marriage licenses . We--why do I

3 say that? The county clerk issues marriage

4 licenses, liquor licenses, raffle licenses,

5 business licenses . The county clerk's office is

6

sort of-- I think of it as the filing cabinet for

7

the county except for court records which, of

8 course, are in the Circuit Clerk's Office and land

9

records which are in the Recorder of Deed's Office .

10

All other miscellaneous public records are

11 in the county clerk's office

. So there's a pretty

12 significant record management task involved

.

13

Q

Let's talk about that for a while . You

14 describe the county clerk's office as the filing

15 cabinet for the county .

16

A Right .

17

Q

What kinds of documents are physically

18 delivered to your office for filing?

19

A

All kinds of documents, public documents,

2 0 reports . We have a huge file ofjust public

21 documents that-- anything that wants to--any

22 public document that people bring in, we file .

23

We also file all contracts and agreements

24 that the county makes and the county

board records

Pages 7 to 10

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY

v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

Page 1

of course .

Q How is filing physically evidenced when

3

someone brings documents to your office?

4

A It's file stamped and put in an appropriate

5

file .

6 Q So every document that is delivered to the

7

county clerk's office is file stamped as received?

8

A That's correct .

9

Q Are there any exceptions to that practice?

10 A

No .

11

Q

When you were the county clerk during this

2 past year, how many total employees did the office

13 have?

14

A Full-time employees--

15

Q

Just approximately .

16

A

12 .

17

Q

Did you have a chief deputy?

18

A Yes .

19 Q Who was that?

20 A Megan Fulara .

21 Q

How long had she been your chief deputy?

22

A Since February of 2005 .

23

Q Who's the new county clerk by the way?

24

_-A

Steve Sonnemaker .

Page 12

Q Has Megan been kept on as chief deputy?

2

A Yes .

3

Q

When you were county clerk during the past

two years, did you delegate most of your

5

responsibilities to your staff or were you a

6

hands-on person who went to the office every day

7

and did actual work other than policy making?

8

A Yes . No, I was hands on .

9

Q

You understand what I'm talking about?

10 A

Yes .

11

Q There's some elected officials that you

12 don't see them very often and their first deputy

13 actually does all the work.

14

A Yes . That's not the case with me .

15 Q

You were a hands-on county clerk?

16 A Yes .

17

Q Who didn't let the first deputy run the

18 office, right?

19

A I don't know if that's true . I have two

20 management staff. There's two management people,

21 an election administrator and a chief deputy, and I

22 did delegate to them . They were

--

you know, they

23 had the authority to make decisions or to run the

2

office with my oversight .

1

2

Page 13

1

Q

Now, when did you become aware --or let me

2

back up.

3

What is the county clerk's responsibility

4

vis-a-vis the activities of the county board?

5

A The county clerk clerks the county hoard

6 meetings and is responsible for creating the record

7

and maintaining that record permanently .

8

Q

Did you act as the secretary of the county

9

board?

10 A Yes .

11 Q

That means you were present at all county

12 board meetings?

13 A Yes

.

14 Q

Was it your job to keep minutes of county

15 board meetings?

16 A Yes.

17 Q

Do you believe that's a statutory duty or

18 is that one that just evolved in Peoria County?

19 A No . That's a statutory duty .

20 Q So the county clerk is the defacto

21 secretary of the county board?

22

A Correct .

23

Q Is it your understanding that the taking of

24 minutes of county board meetings is optional or

Page 14

mandatory?

A It's mandatory .

•

What do you base that understanding on?

A

On the statute .

•

If I can skip ahead for a second, in your

affidavit you stated that you on May 3rd elected

not to take minutes at the county board meeting?

A Correct .

•

So that would have been in violation of

your statutory duty to take minutes?

A Well, let me back up . It is--the minutes

must be taken by the county clerk . It's the county

clerk's responsibility ; however, there was a court

reporter at the meeting who was taking a complete

transcript of the meeting . So I was basically

using that transcript as the minutes .

I believe I also did take -- no . I didn't

take any minutes because the transcript I felt was

getting every single word .

•

Are you aware of any statutory authority

for substituting a transcript for actual minutes of

a meeting?

A I don't think there's any problem with

that . The statutory authority mainly it's up to - -

Pages 11 to 14

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY V . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

i

Page 15

1

it says up to the county clerk to take the minutes

2 or to have someone take the minutes to decide on

3 how the meeting will he recorded

. So it's more of

4 a decision of deciding how the meeting will

be

5 recorded .

6

I made the decision that a word-by-word

7 transcript by a court reporter was a perfect

way to

8

take minutes . If I could afford it, I might do it

9 always .

10

Q At how many county board meetings over the

11 past eight years have you failed to take minutes

12 other than the May 3rd meeting?

13

A I don't remember . There have been some . I

14 had my chief deputy sit in for me . I believe there

15 have been other instances where there was a court

16 reporter, and I can't remember the exact times or

17 reasons, but that's kind of always been

my

18 practice

. If there's a court reporter taking

19 minutes, I do not have to take the minutes

.

20

Q Now, minutes have to be approved, don't

21 they?

22

A

Yes .

23

Q

In fact, when you take minutes, those are

24 circulated among county board members prior to the

Page 16

next meeting and one of the first orders of

business of the next meeting is the approval of the

minutes?

A That's the practice now, yes

.

•

Occasionally, minutes get changed or

amended in the approval process, right?

A Correct,

•

Was the transcript that was taken of the

May 3rd, 2006, meeting ever approved by the

county board as the minutes of that meeting?

A The minutes were approved, yes . The

minutes are my decision, and that was my decision .

So the county board approved my decision .

•

When did the county board approve your

decision?

A I believe at that time -- at some time in

the past year, they changed their procedures so

they now approve minutes after the fact

. They used

to approve minutes at the time of the meeting .

They would just approve the county clerk's decision

about the minutes . That's what has been done

historically for a very long time .

The county board decided to change that

during this year . So it's just-- it's the county

Page 17

1

clerk's responsibility to decide what's in the

2 minutes and to record the action that is taken .

3

Q

But I guess my question is, did the county

4

board ever take formal action to approve the

5 transcript of the May 3rd meeting as the minutes

6 of that meeting?

7

A I believe so .

8

Q When did that action take place?

9

A I'm just not sure. I would have to go

10 check on that, but they were approved

.

11 Q

"They" meaning the transcript?

12

A

The motion says the minutes are approved .

13 I'm the one that decides the minutes . The

14 transcript were minutes, and they approved my

15 decision .

16

Q The next county board meeting after

17 May 3rd was on May 11th .

18

Do you remember whether on May 11th there

19 were minutes of a May 3rd meeting presented and

20 approved by the county board?

21

A I don't remember.

22 Q

Do you remember whether on May 11th there

23 was a transcript of the May 3rd meeting that was

24 approved by the county board as the minutes of the

Page 18 i

May 3rd meeting?

A I don't remember,

•

Do you remember whether by May 11th the

transcript of the May 3rd meeting was even in

your possession?

A I really don't remember. I would have to

go look .

•

Where would you look to refresh your

recollection?

A In the records in the county clerk's

office .

•

Now, where are the records of the county

board maintained in the clerk's office?

A They're maintained in files in the office

.

We have a very large -- that kind of a file

(indicating), with all documents pertaining to each

county board meeting chronologically .

When our files get full, they are put into

the archives, but they're kept forever .

•

Is there a county board file cabinet that's

located somewhere in the county clerk's office?

A Yes .

•

Where is it physically located in the

county clerk's office?

Pages 15 to

18

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY V . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

---

6

8

19

20

21

22

23

24

Page 19

1

A It's located in -- it's in the, in a back

2 room basically

. It's connected to the regular

3

room, but there's a bank of file cabinets there .

4

Q

Is it in someone's office?

5

A It's in the main office .

•

It's not in Megan Fulara's office?

7

A No .

•

It's not in your office?

9 A No .

•

I'm asking these questions as if you still

were the county clerk .

A Yes .

•

So to be clear, we're talking about things

as they existed while you were in office?

A Correct .

• Are you aware of the rules of order for the

Peoria County Board that were published for the

2005-2006 year?

A Yes .

•

•

Are those rules maintained in the county

board files of the clerk's office?

A

I don't understand what you mean .

•

Q

Well, is a copy of these rules on file in

your office?

Page 20 r

A Oh, yes .

2

Q

You've actually reviewed these rules in the

3 past?

4

A Yes .

5

Q

If I were to tell you that section --or

6

Article IV, Section I specifies the order of

7

business at county board meetings and that the

8

fifth item on that order of business is the

9

approval of the preceding meeting and minutes,

10 would that refresh your recollection as to whether

11 or not meeting minutes need to be approved by the

12 county board?

13

A Yes . They're approved

-- they did need to

14 be approved by the county board .

15 Q

Can you direct me to any document or record

16 indicating that minutes of the May 3rd, 2006,

17 county board meeting were ever approved?

18

A I would --I would look at the

--

what did

,ou say? It was May I I?

Q May 11th was the next county board

meeting

.

A Right. I would look there. Because of the

short timeframe, p erhaps. i t was the next

--

that

2

was a special meeting, I believe, right, the

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 21

1

May 3rd meeting?

2

Q

I don't know, ma'am .

3

A Yes, but they were approved .

4

Q But you cannot as you sit here direct me to

5 any -- any specific document as evidence of

6

approval?

7

MR. BROWN : That's been asked and

8 answered

. I think we need to move on . I don't see

9

how any of this has anything to do with fundamental

10 fairness which is the purpose of-- my

11 understanding the purpose of this deposition is to

12 provide a transcript for the hearing that's coming

13 up in January which is dealing exclusively with

14 fundamental fairness issues .

15

MR

. MUELLER

: I think that hearing can

16 deal with more than that . Mr . Brown . It can

17 probably deal with everything but manifest weight

18 ofthe evidence .

19 BY MR

. MUELLER :

20 Q

JoAnn, when did you first become aware that

2 1 the county clerk was going to have some

22 responsibilities with regard to the PDC landfill

23 application?

2 4

A I'm not sure. but I know that's

-- we have

Page 22

1

a record management responsibility for all such

2

applications, and we've had one in the past while 1

3

have been there . So I was familiar with the

4 process

.

5

Q

This was not your first landfill or

6

pollution control facility application?

7

A No .

8

Q

What was your general understanding at the

9 beginning of the process for what your

10 recordkeeping or record management responsibiliti

11 were going to be?

12

A

I know it was a very serious responsibility

13 to keep all records pertaining to this issue, and

14 so there was one place where all documents were

15 placed, whether they came in over the counter,

16 through the mail, and we even did it electronically

17 because now we have the capability of doing that .

18 Q

Where was the one place where everything

19 was kept relating to this application?

20

A

It was in a specific basket in Megan

21 Eulara's office .

22

Q Well, obviously, the total record would

3 have been bigger than what fits in a basket?

24

A Yes. Then it was put in a box in -- that's

Pages 19 to 22

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

7

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 231

1

where all documents came to, and then Megan Fulara

2 had the responsibility to keep those files and she

3

kept them in her office .

4

Q So the landfill record, to your

5

understanding, was to be kept in Megan's office?

6

A Yes . Just wanted to make certain it was

7 altogether .

8

Q Now, when documents related -or let me

9

back up a second .

10

You said that it's the practice of the

11 county clerk's office to file stamp every document

12 that is filed?

13 A Yes .

1

Q Is that every page of every document?

15

A Sometimes . Sometimes it's the first and

16 last page of a, you know, of a many page document .

17 It's sort of-- that's kind of a judgment call

18 depending upon the document .

19

Q

Is that also the practice for documents

20 that are kept in the county board files?

21

A Yes .

22 Q

They are also file stamped?

23

A Yes . Unless they are--yeah . They are

24 file stamped unless they are presented at the

Page 24

1 meeting . Documents that are presented at the

2 meeting are put in with the record, and it's a

3 possibility that they may not get file stamped, but

4 they are part of that meeting and that's when they

5 carne in . It's reflected in the record that they

6 were submitted at that time . So there is a time,

you know, a statement about when they were

8

submitted.

9

Q So the only exception to file stamping

10 county board documents would be for documents that

11 are submitted at the open meeting while it's in

12 process?

13

A Yes

.

1

Q Going back then to the record related to

15 the landfill application, was the maintenance of

16 that record a responsibility that you delegated to

17 Megan Fulara?

18

A Yes, it was .

19 Q

Did you continue to maintain any personal

20 supervision over how she maintained that record?

21

A

No .

22

Q Had she been instructed by you previously

23 in the procedures of the clerk's office with regard

24 to file stamping documents that were received?

Pages 23 to 26

PEORIA

DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

Page 25

1

A Yes .

2 Q She was familiar with those procedures?

3 A Yes . And our reference is always the

4 State's Attorney's Office . So it was -- everything

5 we did was with the advice of the State's

6 Attorney's Office .

7 Q

Did anyone else besides Megan have direct

8

responsibility for receiving and maintaining

9

documents that were part of the landfill

10

application record?

11

A Well, anyone could receive a document over

12

the counter . Then as I said, it was placed in the

13

landfill, the landfill record .

14 Q

My question was, were people out front by

15

the counter instructed that anything that came in

16 went to Megan?

17 A Yes .

18 Q

Did the State's Attorney, you said your

19 ultimate resource on this, ever instruct you to

20 deviate from your normal procedures regarding ho

21

you evidenced the receipt of documents?

22 A I don't remember that, no .

23 Q No meaning they didn't instruct you or no

24

meaning you don't remember what they told you?

Page 26

1 A

No

. I would say no .

2 Q

What is your understanding of what the

3 landfill application record was to consist of?

4 A We had a list of-- that was presented,

5 given to us by the State's Attorney . I was not

6 very involved in that . As 1 said, I delegated that

7 to Megan Fulara .

8 Q Was it your understanding that transcripts

9 of hearings would be part of that record?

10 A I have no idea what was part of that

11

record

.

12 Q Do you have any idea what was supposed to

13

be part of that record?

14

A

I just thought anything that was presented

15 in our office that related to the landfill was part

16

of the record

.

17 Q Would it be fair to say that beyond that

18 you don't have knowledge of specific kinds of

19 documents as to whether they would be part of the

20

record or not?

21

A

That's correct . Anything relating to the

22 landfill, anything I received through the mail or

23 in the office that related to the landfill I

24

automatically put in that file

. Everyone had

---

li

Page 27

1 specific instructions to do that

.

2

Q When individuals from the public would ask

3

to see the record of the landfill application and

4

proceedings, what would they be shown?

5

A

Megan Fulara handled that. I was never

6

involved with that .

Q

No one ever asked you to see any portion of

8 the landfill record?

9

A If they did, I referred them to Megan

. I

10 was very busy at that time with other duties, with

11 elections and tax extension . I was not involved in

12 this

. I know it was a very important issue to keep

13 this record and -- but I felt Megan was able to

14 handle it .

15 Q

Who determined what documents went into the

16 landfill application proceedings record and what

17 documents didn't?

18

A The State's Attorney's Office

. When in

19 doubt, everything went into the landfill record

.

20

Q It's your understanding that the same file

21 stamping procedure was used for the landfill record

22 as for general documents received in the county

clerk's office?

2

A Yes .

Page 28

1

Q

Did you have any responsibilities or duties

2

relating to the county's website?

3 A No .

4

Q

Who maintained the county's website?

5

A Russell Hauppert, the director of the IT

6

department, information technology .

7

Q

Did you have any ability to upload

8

documents directly to that website?

9

A No . Anything that I received through

10 E-mail or electronically I put into a specific PDC

11 application file which was sent to Russell, and he

12 uploaded everything to the website,

13

Q

Did you exercise any editorial control ove

14 what went onto the website and what didn't?

15 A No .

16 Q

Your understanding is that 100 percent of

17 what you got electronically was forwarded to

18 Russell?

19 A Yes .

2 0 Q

Did you ever meet with Russell to discuss

21 policy about what went on the website and what

22 didn't?

23

A We did meet just to setup the procedure,

2

and he

understood that anything put in that

7

23

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 29

1 electronic file went into the website

. He didn't

2 make any decisions about that.

3

Q Did you ever participate in the preparation

4 of any proposed findings of fact by the staff?

5 A No .

6

Q Did you ever interact with any county board

7 members regarding the development of proposed

8 findings of fact?

9

A No

.

10 Q Would that he true, also, of your husband

11 Mr. Thomas?

12 A Yes .

13 Q Would that be true for Allen Mayer as well?

14

A Yes,

15 Q Were you present at the April 6th meeting

16 of the county -- of the committee of the whole --

17 A Yes .

18 Q -- of the county board?

19 A Yes

.

20 Q Did you take minutes at that meeting?

21

A No

. There was a court reporter at that

22 meeting .

23 Q Do you know whether the minutes or the

24 transcript of that meeting was ever

approved by the

Page 30

1 county board?

2

A I'm guessing it was

. I'm assuming it was

3 because that was their procedure

.

4

Q You can't direct me to a specific document,

5 though, where that would happen, can you?

6

A I would look at the next county board

7 meeting after that meeting .

8

Q Did you have any role in developing written

9 proposed findings after the April 6th meeting?

10 A No .

11 Q Karen Raithel has previously testified that

12 she put together some written proposed findings

13 sometime after the April 6th meeting and before

14 May 3rd .

15

Did you assist her in any of that?

16 A No

.

17

Q Did she ever deliver any of those proposed

8 findings to you personally?

9 A No .

20 Q Did Allen Mayer ever give you any proposed

21 findings with regard to the criterion on or about

22 April 6th?

23 A No .

24

Q Did

you ever see any proposed findings

Pages 27

to 30

PEORIA

DISPOSAL COMPANY V . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

Page 31

1 prepared by Mr

. Mayer?

2

A Yes

. They were presented at the meeting .

3

Q

Who were they presented to?

4

A

They were presented by the county

5 administration

. and I know that Allen Mayer was the

6 author of some of them

. That was discussed in the

7

meeting .

8

Q Do you remember the pink, purple and yellow

9

sheets?

10 A

Yes.

11 Q

Did you prepare any of them?

12 A

No .

13 Q

Do you

know whether they were ever filed

4 with the landfill application?

15

A

I don't know . I assume so .

16 Q

But you don't know as a fact that they were

17 made part of the record or not?

18

A No, I do not

. I know that they were part

19 of that particular board meeting which I consider

20 part of the record

. So they were certainly kept in

21 the record of the board meeting or the hearing,

22 whatever you call it.

23

Q

That raises a question then

. You indicated

2 4 that the county board records are kept in a file

~yu-- Page 32

1

cabinet somewhere in the back, in the back room of

2

the clerk's office?

3

A Yes .

4

Q

You indicated that the landfill application

5

record was kept in Megan Fulara's office?

6

A While it was being compiled and then

7

later --

and when it got so very large was moved

8

back to the same location as the county board

9

records .

10 Q

When did that happen?

11

A I can't remember exactly, but we had set up

12 a table right by the county board records . It's a

13 table we use because people -- all the records in

14 our office except for vital records are public

15 records . So we often have people coming in to view

16 records .

17

So we had a special place where all the

18 landfill information was so that the public or

19 attorneys could come in and look at the record

. It

20 was in the same room as the county board

. It was

2 1 right by the county board records .

22 Q

But the county board records were in a

23 separate file cabinet?

24

A Yes .

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 33

1

Q

Now, you indicated that if documents were

2

received at a county board meeting they would be

3

included with the records of that county board

4

meeting in the county board file?

5

A

Absolutely .

6

Q

You also indicated that everything that

7

came in relating to the landfill was kept in the

8

landfill file?

9

A Yes .

10 Q

So where would the pink and yellow and

11

purple sheets that were received by the county

12 board at the April 6th meeting relating to the

13 landfill be kept? The county board file or the

14

landfill file?

15

A Well, I know they would be in the county

16 board file . If they were in the landfill file, I'm

17

not aware whether they were or not, but the copy

18 was in the county board file .

19 Q

I believe you said you thought everything

20 that related to the landfill should be kept in the

21 landfill file?

22

A Except for --

the county board records is

23 kind of-- we have to keep everything that's

24

relating to a county board record, It is all kept

Page.3.

1

together, but they are also in our office and

they

2

are also public files .

3

So we really can't go digging around and

4

take certain things out of the county board record .

5

You could make copies I suppose if you wanted to,

6 but I did not direct Megan to do that

. I did not

7

feel that was necessary because the record was in

8

our office,

9

Q

If I'm a member of the public and I would

10 have come into the office on, say, April 10th and

1 asked to see those colored sheets that I heard a

12 county board member talking about on April 6th a

13 their meeting, I presume I would have been shown

14 the landfill file?

15

A

No . Probably also the county board record .

16 Our county board records are very --

are often

17 viewed by the public

. We keep them in our office

18 for, like, 20 years before they go into archives

19 because they're something people enjoy looking at

20 for whatever reason .

21 Q

Was there ever a sign posted saying that

22 not all landfill related materials would be in the

23 landfill file and some of those might be found in

24 the county board file?

Pages 31 to 34

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY

BOARD

PCB06-184

---

Page 35

1

A A sign posted . not that I'm aware of.

2

Q

Then how would members of the public

3 looking for landfill related materials know that

4 they should also be asking to look at county board

5

meeting files?

6

A Because they did not just -- we didn't turn

7 them loose . There was always someone there kind of

8

supervising what they were doing, what they were

9 looking at and asking them questions and helping

10 them find things they might be looking for .

11 Q

Was that someone more often than not Megan

12 Fulara?

13

A Yes, if she was available .

14 Q

You're confident that she knew where

15 everything was?

16 A Yes

.

17 Q Probably more than anyone else?

18

A Probably .

19 Q

Did you have any role in the preparation of

20 the record filed with the Pollution Control Board

21 by the county?

22 A No.

23

Q

Did you participate physically in that

24 process at all?

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 37

will make it e asier .

B Y MR . MUELLER :

• You've got the affidavit in front of you,

is that correct?

A Yes .

• First of all, is that a true and correct

copy of the affidavit which was attached to the

county's response to a motion for summary judgment

filed by PDC?

A Yes .

•

If I can direct you first to paragraph 6 of

the affidavit, you indicate that no other findings

of fact or other documents purporting to be

findings of fact were before any members of the

county board on May 3rd?

A Yes .

•

How do you know that?

A Because everything that happened at that

meeting was in my tile .

•

But when you say in your file --

A Or in the file, the meeting file .

•

But you don't physically know what county

board members may have had in front of them?

A I get a copy of everything they get .

Page 38

1

Q You're assuming that they give you

2

everything that they have, right?

3

A Yes . I pretty much make sure I get a copy

4

of what they get .

5

Q Did you look at the desktop of every county

6 board member to verify that he or she had nothing

7 else in front of them --

8

A No . But the chairman's sitting right next

9 to me . So if the chairman had it, I had it . The

10 administrator is here (indicating) . If he had it,

11 I had it.

12

If it was given to every county board

13 member, I know I had one . If one or two persons

14 had something special, it's possible, of course .

15 Q You don't remember whether the transcript

16 identified what was in front of the county board

17 members, do you?

18

A No . I assume it did

. Iassume

-- if it

19 was mentioned aloud, it would be in the transcript

20 because every spoken word was there . Every spoken

21 word is in the transcript, every piece of paper was

22 in the record

. So--

23

Q If I can direct you to paragraph S of your

24 affidavit, whose idea as it to set up the computer

Page 36

1

A No . They used the floor of my office to do

2

it and a table in my office because it's large .

3

Q

Who were the individuals that actually did

4

the physical compilation of the record?

5

A It was Megan Fulara, Lyn Schmidt the

6 Assistant State's Attorney .

7

Q Anyone else?

B

A I believe Karen Raithel was sort of

9

involved with that . I just remember seeing her

10 coming down to the office . I know that I was not

11 and -- I was very busy involved in something else

12 at that time . I can't remember when it was that

13 they were doing it, but I was not involved in that

14 at all .

15

Q

You didn't make any decisions then as to

16 what was included and what wasn't, correct?

17

A

No, I did not .

18

Q

I want to talk to you a little bit about

19 your affidavit .

20

Mr . Brown, do you have an extra copy of her

21 affidavit?

22

MR . BROWN : I didn't bring any with

23 me.

24

MR . MUELLER : We can give her one It

Pages 35 to 38

PEORIA DISPOSAL, COMPANY V . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

Page 40

1 Q

What was the purpose of your review?

2 A

Well, I --I think I remember making notes,

3

but I was --

I was leaving the official wording up

4

to her . So I reviewed it to make sure that that's

5

what -- was the same way that I remembered it or

6 that I perceived it.

7 Q

It says in paragraph 13 that you reviewed

8

the single printed page and confirmed that it was

9

consistent with the motion made by Board Member

10 Mayer?

11

A Yes,

12 Q

How did you confirm that? What steps did

13 you take?

14

A Well, I was there . I heard it . 1 read it

.

15 1 confirmed that that's what I heard, too, I mean,

16 maybe I'm not understanding your question .

17 Q

I mean, did you have any handwritten notes

18 of your own or did you just confirm it based upon

19 your recollection of what you had heard?

20

A I believe I did

. I mean, I can't swear to

21 it, but I do believe I did have some handwritten

22 notes, I was keeping track of what was going on .

2 3

Q

Now, then you say that you included that

24

single page

ith the county board file for the

Page 39

at the meeting?

A With Karen Raithel? I believe that would

be the county administrator Patrick Urich .

•

As to paragraph 9, did you take any

handwritten notes of the one change in the

recommended findings of fact?

A I believe 1 did .

•

Do you have a copy of those notes?

A No . They would be in the record

.

•

What record would that be?

A At the May 3rd record, wherever those

--

I mean, anything that I did would he in that

record . I never deviated from that .

•

I guess I'm confused when you say that

record --

A

In the May 3rd board meeting record .

•

Now, you indicate in your affidavit that

Karen Raithel on paragraph I I or paragraph 12 that

she typed up a change in the proposed findings of

fact?

A Okay .

•

And that in paragraph 13 you indicate that

you reviewed it?

Page 41

May 3rd meeting?

A Yes .

•

Walk me through that, if you would, JoAnn,

in terms of what physically happened to that single

page after it was given to you .

A It would be --

it was given to me . It was

part of all the other documents I had for that

meeting, and it was all kept together

. It wasn't

in a separate place . It was with all of the board

meeting records .

•

Did you give that single page to anyone

else?

A

I don't know why I would have done that

.

If there were two copies of it, maybe and someone

wanted a copy of it . but I --

I guess I don't

understand your question .

•

Okay

. You're telling me now that there

were two copies --

A No

. I'm saying if there were two copies .

I don't know that there were

. I know that I had it

and I put it with the record . I don't know that

there were any other copies of it, but there may

have been

. I don't remember .

A Right

.

24

Q

You physically put it with some other

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 42

1 papers --

2

A With everything--with the

3 May 3rd record, with all of the --

she handed it

4

to me. I'm up there with the county board

. I've

5 got all the

-- because I take everything with me to

6

the meeting and I had it altogether, and I took it

7

all back to the office as a county board record

.

8

Q

When did you take it back to the office?

9

A

I believe I went back that very evening.

10 It was at the ITOO Hall . and I believe I went back

11 to the office and put it in the-- in my office,

12 locked it in that night .

13 Q

When you say you locked it in your office,

14 do you mean your personal office within the clerk's

15 office?

16

A Yes

. Because that's what I always do with

17 the county board record until I can give it to

18 someone to put together after the minutes are

19 finished .

20

Q Okay . Now, in this case, there weren't any

21 minutes to finish?

22 A No. We were waiting for the court

23 reporter's transcript, right

.

24 Q

When did the single page document referred

Pages 39 to 42

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY V .

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

Page 43

1

to in your affidavit physically get out of your

2

office, meaning your personal office?

3

A I'm not sure . Within a couple of days .

4

Q Who did you give it to?

5

A Megan Fulara.

6 Q You remember as we sit here actually giving

7 it to Megan Fulara or are you just assuming that's

8

the practice?

9

A That's what I would do . That's the

10 policy -- the process with the county board record

11

is I would give it to her . She would complete the

12 minutes . I would review the minutes, and then it

13 goes to another employee who organizes a file and

14 puts it in the permanent, you know,just to prepare

15 it for the permanent file .

16

Q

I understand that's the process .

17 A Okay .

18

Q

But, apparently, and I don't mean to

19 misquote you, you don't have a specific

20 recollection that that process was followed with

21

respect to the May 3rd documents, do you?

22

A

I don't have any recollection that it was

23 not followed

.

24

Q

Do you have any recollection either way?

Page 441

1 A I assume it was followed because we do

1

2 that -- we always follow that process

. It never .

2

3 never varies . These are very important records

, 3

4

that you have to keep forever

. So I take my

4

5

management responsibilities pretty seriously or

S

6

record management responsibilities .

6

7

Q

But it's fair to say you do not have a

7

8 specific recollection of giving the May 3rd

8

9

documents to Megan Fulara?

9

10 A I'd say they're in my office until I hand 10

12

11 them

Qoff

You

to a

don't

trusted

remember

personspecifically

.

handing1112

13 these off, is that true?

13

14 A Well, they are no longer in my office

. So

14

15 I must have handed them of

.

15

16 Q

But you don't remember actually handing

16

17 them off?

.

17

18 A

No . I don't remember that .

18

19 Q

Thank you . Now, based upon your procedure, 19

20 though, how would the handoff process be different 20

21 if there weren't minutes being prepared and there

21

22 was just a transcript?

22

23 A

Because when the minutes are prepared, what

23

24 you do is listen to the tape of the

meeting along

24

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 45

1

with the handwritten notes--and Megan Fulara has

2

been doing this now for about eight months, I used

3 to do it myself--and creating the minutes

.

4

In this case, we did not need to do that

5

because we had a transcript of the meeting . So we

6

waited --

we would wait for the transcript ; and .

7

you know, we didn't have to do the job we usually

8

have to do with minutes because of the transcript .

9

Q Do you know whether anyone ever approved

10 the single page of findings typed up by Karen

11 Raithel on May 3rd?

12

A Yes . I believe the county board voted to

13 approve those .

14

Q

The county board voted to approve Karen

15 Raithel's single page of findings?

16

A Yes. Because they were amending the -- the

17 findings of fact were approved at that meeting

.

18

Q

Maybe I'm not being clear .

19 A

Okay .

20 Q

My understanding is that there was a motion

21 made at the meeting by Mr . Mayer, and then Karen

22 Raithel typed up a single page of findings based

2 3 upon that motion which she believed corresponded to

24 the motion?

Page 46

A That was an amendment.

•

Right. And that she gave it to you, and

you agreed with her that she accurately put it

together?

A

Yes .

•

My question is, did anyone on --did the

county board or any county board member ever

approve that page after it was prepared?

A Well, they voted to accept the amendment

presented by Allen . and Allen approved that page as

what he had said .

•

Okay

. Now, you've just added another

twist . You're saying that Allen Mayer also

approved what he typed?

A He had just said this, and then she wrote

it . It was the same thing

. What he said she

wrote, So, I mean --

•

Do you remember whether--

A Maybe it was my perception of what the

amendment was, but the county board voted to accep

his amendment and the pagejust put in writing what

he had said .

•

But do you remember whether any county

board member ever approved the page as

being an

Pages 43 to 46

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 49

Peoria County code specifies that the record of a

pollution control facility siting proceeding would

include a complete transcript of the public

hearings?

A No .

•

Are you aware that that same section

specifies that the record would include a copy of

the resolution containing the final decision of the

county board?

A No . I'm not familiar with any of that

.

•

In this case, was there such a resolution

containing the final decision of the Peoria County

board?

A

Yes, there was .

•

Can you direct us to that resolution?

A I would look in the county board record

when it was --

when that resolution was passed .

• Do you remember the resolution that was

passed which contained the final decision of the

county board?

A I remember that there was one .

•

A resolution passed?

A Yes .

Q

What did that resolution say .

A I don't remember .

•

Did you ever see a copy of that resolution?

A Yes .

•

Where did you see it?

A At the county board meeting when it was

approved .

•

Do you remember what the resolution said?

A No .

•

Did that resolution then go back to your

office with you?

A I'm certain it did .

•

You would have locked it in your personal

office?

A You know, I'm not remembering this

specifically, but this is the procedure . So I'm

saying yes .

•

If you don't remember it specifically,

don't guess based on procedure

.

A I don't remember.

•

We're talking about a resolution passed at

the May 3rd meeting?

A I don't remember .

•

So you don't remember whether a resolution

containing the final decision of the county board

Pages 47 to 50

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

Page 47

1

accurate representation of what had been said and

1

2

voted on?

2

3

A No, I don't remember .

3

4

Q Do you know whether Karen Raithel had Allen

4

5 Mayer review that single page?

5

6 A No, I do not .

6

7 Q

Do you know whether that single page was

7

8

ever given to Peoria Disposal Company?

8

9 A I don't know

. It is part of the record .

9

10 So the company could have a copy if they wanted .

10

11

MR . MUELLER : We're going to take a

11

12 short break .

12

13

(Recess from 10 :10 to 10 :20)

13

14

MR . MUELLER : Back on the record .

14

15 BY MR . MUELLER :

15

16

Q JoAnn, do you have any recollection about

16

17

Brian Meginnes coming to the county clerk's office

17

18 on June 7th, 2006, to look for various documents

18

19

relating to the landfill application?

19

20

A I remember Brian Meginnes coining to our

20

21 office . I do not remember the date .

21

22

Q Did you ever show him any landfill related

22

23

documents when he came to the office?

23

24

A

I

mdon't

remember .

24

1

Page 48

Q Did you ever have any conversation with

1

2

Megan Fulara about Brian Meginnes coming in to look 2

3 for documents and records?

3

4

A I don't believe so .

4

5 Q Did you ever have any conversation with

5

6 Karen Raithel about Brian Meginnes coming to the

6

7

office to look for records or documents?

7

8

A No .

8

9

Q Are you familiar with the Peoria County

9

10 code?

10

11 A Yes .

11

12 Q

Did you review the portions of the county

12

13

code pollution control facility siting ordinance

13

14

relating to the clerk's responsibilities regarding

14

15 the record?

15

16 A No .

16

17 Q

Well, you said you were aware that the

17

18

county clerk shall be responsible for keeping the

18

19

record of a pollution control facility siting

19

2 0

proceeding?

20

21

A The State's Attorney advises us on our

21

22 responsibilities . So I didn't look at the code

22

23 myself is what I'm saying .

23

24 Q

Are you aware that Section 7 .5-45 of the

24

---

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page

53

specific recollection that she did it?

A

I don't have a specific recollection . I

know that I delegated the job to Megan Fulcra,

period .

Q I'm going to show you what's been marked a

Exhibit A, and we have an extra copy for you,

Mr

. Brown, and one for the court reporter, which

purports to be the minutes of the county board

meeting of May I1th, 2006

.

Does that look to you like an accurate copy

of the minutes of the May 11th, 2006, board

meeting?

A Yes .

Q Now, there is nothing in those minutes

relating to approval of the transcript of the

May 3rd meeting?

A

Yes . correct.

Q

I think you had indicated that an eight-day

difference between the dates of the meetings might

be too short of a period of time to get the

transcript done and to the board?

A Right, correct

.

Q

So it's your belief that the reason the

May 3rd transcript isn't approved in the

Page 54

May 11th meeting because it wasn't available yet?

A Yes. It was not on the agenda. The

administration sets the agenda .

Q Is it fair to say that approval of the last

minutes or the last meeting's minutes or transcript

is on the agenda if the transcript or minutes are

available?

A I don't do that

. So I don't know .

Q

Let me show you then what's been marked as

Exhibit B . Again, I will hand Mr. Brown a copy and

hand the court reporter a copy

.

Does this appear to you to be a true and

accurate copy of the board

-- county board meeting

minutes of June Sth, 2006?

A Yes .

Q

If you go down about halfway down the first

page, you'll see that there's approval of

May I Ith county board meeting minutes

; May 3rd,

2006, special county board meeting transcripts

; and

May 6th, 2006, regional pollution control site

hearing committee meeting transcripts?

A Yes

.

Q

Does this refresh your recollection as to

hen the transcripts of the May 3rd meeting were

Pages 51 to 54

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

Page 51

1 was passed at the May 3rd meeting or not, is that 1

2

fair?

2

3 A Well, I believe it was

. I mean, I do

3

4 remember that it was

-- something was passed, that

4

5

the resolution was passed or the findings of fact

5

6 were passed .

6

7 Q Well, all right. That's not a resolution .

7

8

A Different than the resolution . I guess I

8

9

don't remember exactly when that resolution was

9

10 passed .

10

11 Q

Do you even remember if a resolution was

11

12

passed?

12

13

A I guess I don't remember .

13

14

Q

Okay. Fair enough .

14

15

A I would have to look at the record

.

15

16 Q

When the PDC application was delivered to

16

17

the clerk's office, were you present? Now we're

17

18

going back to November 9th of 2005 .

18

19

A I can't remember if I was there when it

19

20

was -- when it was filed or not .

2 0

21

Q Did you issue a receipt for the filing fee?

21

22

A I'm sure our office -- my office issued a

22

23

receipt .

2 3

24

Q Did you personally issue it?

-' _- Page 52

24

A I don't remember .

1

2 Q

Did you personally instruct anyone to issue

2

3

the receipt?

3

A Yes

. The receipt had to be issued by

4

5 someone. So it would have been Megan Fulara or me

.

S

6 Q

You don't remember, though, whether it was

6

7

you or her?

7

8

A No.

8

9 Q

Were you involved in any way in reviewing

9

10

the application after it was received to determine

10

11

whether it was complete?

11

12 A

No . The State's Attorney did that .

12

13 Q

In fact, when the application was

13

14

physically delivered and received by your office,

14

15

it was file stamped, correct?

15

16 A Yes

.

16

17

Q

You're telling me that the State's Attorney

17

18

did the completeness review on the application?

18

19 A Yes

. They helped Megan Fulara .

19

20 Q

Did anyone else participate in completing

20

21

this review?

21

22

A I don't remember . I don't believe

. Maybe

22

23

Karen Raithel .

23

2 4 Q

Are you just speculating or do you have a

2

---

Page 551

1 approved?

2

A Yes . They were approved June 8th, 2006 .

3

Q That, in fact, confirms your recollection

4

that they would have been approved at some point?

5

A Right .

6

Q Were any other records from the

7

May 3rd meeting approved at either the

8 May 11th meeting or the June 8th meeting?

9

A If it's not in the record, it wasn't done .

10 Because everything that was done is in the record .

11

MR . MUELLER : JoAnn, thank you . We

12 have no further questions .

13

14

(Further deponent saith not ;

15

signature waived by agreement of counsel .)

16

17

18

19

20

2

22

23

24

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page

55

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

I

STATE OF ILLINOIS

SS

COUNTY OF PEORIA

I, Aana M . Giftos, CSR, RPR, and Notary

Public in and for the County of Peoria, State of

Illinois, do hereby certify that heretofore, to-wit,

on Tuesday, December 19th, 2006 personally appeared

before me at 416 Main Street, Suite 1400, Peoria,

Illinois :

JoANN THOMAS, a material witness herein

.

I further certify that the said witness was

by me first duly sworn to testify to the truth, the

whole truth and nothing but the truth in the cause

witness

aforesaidwas

; that

reported

the testimony

stenographically

then given

by me

by

in

saidthe

typewriting

presence of

and

said

the

witness

foregoing

and afterwards

is a true and

reduced

correctto

transcript of the testimony so given by said witness

as aforesaid .

I further certify that the signature of the

witness was waived

.

I further certify that I am riot counsel for

nor in any way related to any of the parties to this

suit, nor am I in any way interested in the outcome

thereof .

In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my

hand and affixed my notarial seal on this day,

December 19th, 2006 .

0

Notary

I Ck Lpub

c

Aana M . Giftos, Certified Shorthand Reporter

(State of Illinois License #084-003571)

My commission expires 07/24/07

OFFICIAL SEAL

AANA M GIFTOS

NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF ILLINOIS

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES

:07/24/07

JoANN THOMAS

12-19-2006

Page 56

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY v . PEORIA COUNTY BOARD

PCB06-184

---

A Regular Meeting of the County Board, County of Peoria, Illinois was held on

Thursday,

May 11, 2006, at six o'clock p .m . the Courthouse, Room 403.

The meeting was called to order by David T . Williams, Sr., Chairman.

CALL TO ORDER

MOMENT OF SILENCE

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL BY THE COUNTY CLERK

Megan Fulara, Chief Deputy County Clerk, called attendance and the following

members of the Board were present : Baietto, Elsasser, Hidden, Joyce, Kennedy,

Mayer, O'Neill, Pearson, Phelan, Polhemus, Prather, Riggenbach, Salzer, Thomas,

Trumpe, Watkins, Widmer, and Williams, 18 present .

APPROVAL OF April 13, 2006, COUNTY BOARD MINUTES

Prather and Kennedy moved for the approval of the April 13, 2006 County Board

Minutes. The motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes .

PRESENTATIONS & PROCLAMATIONS:

• A proclamation from your Chairman recognizing Illinois Central College

Women's Basketball Team for winning the 2006 National Junior College

Athletic Association (NJCAA) Tournament .

Thomas presented the proclamation noting that head coach Steve Garber was

also named Coach of the Year .

•

A proclamation from your Chairman recognizing Chillicothe Illinois Valley

Central High School Boy's Basketball Team for winning Second Place in the

2006 Illinois High School Association (IHSA) Class A Boy's Basketball

Championship .

Prather presented the proclamation . Baietto thanked Coach Thornton

.

•

A proclamation from your Chairman recognizing Richwoods High School Boy's

Basketball Team for winning Second Place in the 2006 Illinois High School

Association (IHSA) Class AA Boy's Basketball Championship .

Baietto presented the proclamation

. Coach Ellis introduced his players and

thanked the Board .

---

• A proclamation from your Chairman recognizing the Bradley University Men's

Basketball Team for a successful 2006 season

.

O'Neill presented the proclamation . The assistant Coach accepted it and

thanked the Board.

•

A proclamation from your Chairman recognizing June 1, 2006, as the kick off

date for the NACo Prescription Drug Card

.

Phelan presented the proclamation and thanked Shauna Musselman, Risk

Manager

. Musselman accepted the award and thanked the Board for the

opportunity to work in this capacity

.

•

A proclamation from your Chairman congratulating the participants of the

Peoria County Civic Leadership program for completing the course .

Phelan presented the proclamation and thanked Communications Director,

Jennifer Zinkel for her leadership with the group. Zinkel thanked the Board

as well as the participants in the program .

•

A proclamation from your Chairman proclaiming the month of May, 2006 as

"Older Americans Month".

Hidden presented the award to Kate Van Beek, Human Resource Director who

accepted on behalf of the residents and staff at Bel-Wood Nursing home .

•

A presentation of the Illinois Sheriffs Association Scholarship Award .

Sheriff McCoy presented the award to Thomas Couri of Peoria Notre Dame

High School. Couri thanked the Board, the Sheriff, and his parents for the

scholarship .

CONSENT AGENDA

C1 . A communication from the Illinois Department of Transportation dated April

5, 2006, regarding Motor Fuel Tax allotment and transactions for the County

for the month of March 2006 .

C2. A revenue and expenditure report was received from the County Auditor and

County Treasurer for the month ending April 30, 2006, and filed .

C3. Appointments

Kennedy and Prather moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda . Hidden asked

that item C3, Limestone Fire Protection District be pulled from the agenda . Joyce

asked that the Dunlap Community Fire Protection District be voted on separately .

The Consent Agenda was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 18 ayes

.

2

---

The Dunlap Community Fire Protection District Appointment was approved by a roll

call vote of 17 ayes and 1 abstention, with Joyce abstaining

. Joyce noted the woman

being appointed was his sister-in-law .

CITIZENS' REMARKS

(To address the County

Board, fill out a card and submit it to the Chairman before the

Board Meeting.)

Joyce Blumenshine, 2419 E . Reservoir, Peoria, thanked the Board on behalf of

the Heart of Illinois Sierra Club and distributed flowers to the Board .

Tom Edwards, 902 W. Moss Ave ., Peoria thanked the Board on behalf of the

health and well being of the community

. Edwards gave a brief history of

Peoria Disposal Company's applications for expansion

.

Widmer requested a copy of Edward's testimony

.

ZONING ORDINANCES & RESOLUTION

1

. Case #025-06-U (Kimberly Kang)

The petitioner is requesting a Special Use to allow a campground in the

"A-2" Agricultural District

. The property is located in Chillicothe

Township.

The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval with restrictions . The

Land Use Committee concurs .

Trumps and Elsasser moved for the approval of the resolution with

restrictions . The resolution passed by a roll call vote of 17 ayes and 1

abstention with Prather abstaining .

2

. Case #029-06-U (Ronald Weber)

The petitioner is requesting a Special Use to divide a 38-acre parcel into two

parcels of approximately 16 and 22 acres . The property is located in Kickapoo

Township.

The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval with restrictions . The

Land Use Committee concurs .

Trumpe and Pearson moved for the approval of the Special Use with

restrictions . There was discussion about the restrictions concerning the use of

City water. Assistant State's Attorney Lyn Schmidt noted that no additional

restrictions could be put on this special use . The Special Use passed by a roll

call vote of 15 ayes and 3 nays with Kennedy, Joyce and Thomas voting nay .

3. Case #W01-06 (Thomas Ballard)

A resolution from your Land Use Committee recommending denial of a

waiver of compliance from Section 20-61 of the Subdivision Ordinance,

which requires all new subdivisions to have a public water supply . The

3

---

petitioner proposes to divide two parcels of approximately 1

.9 acres each

from a 41

.2-acre tract. The property is located in Hallock Township

.

Trumpe and Pearson moved for the adoption of recommendation of denial

by resolution

. The resolution passed by a roll call vote of 18 ayes

.

Joyce noted that he learned from the siting hearings of a number of

contaminated wells in the County

. He asked that the Health Department

report to the Land Use Committee on the number of tainted wells noting if

they are tainted by septic or farm chemicals .

4. Case #W03-06 (Timothy Durdel)

A resolution from your Land Use Committee recommending approval of a

waiver of compliance from Section 20-4-2 .C.2.b(1)

of the Subdivision

Ordinance, which requires a minimum frontage of 30 feet on a public road

for parcels being created of less than 10 acres . The petitioner proposes to

divide a 10-acre parcel into two parcels of approximately 5 acres each . The

property is

located in Limestone Township .

Trumps and Hidden moved for the approval of the resolution . The resolution

passed by a roll call vote of 18 ayes

.

5

. A resolution from your Management Services Committee recommending

approval of salaries of Elected Officials to be elected in 2006

.

Phelan and Elsasser moved for the approval of the resolution . Phelan noted it

is a 4% increase with a $5000 one time stipend for the Treasurer and a $5000

annuanl stipend for the Sheriff

. Baietto noted that the County salaries should

reflect comparable counties

. Phelan noted that Peoria County would like to be

considered an employer of choice

. He also noted that if this raise is not

approved in some departments subordinates will earn more than the Elected

Official

. The resolution passed by a roll call vote of 17 ayes and 1 nay, with

Mayer voting nay .

6

. A resolution from your Judicial Committee recommending approval of an

appropriation of $10,677.31 to the appropriate expense and revenue line items

in the Sheriffs Office budget for overtime expenses related to ILEAS (Illinois

Law Enforcement Alarm System) training

.

Kennedy and Joyce moved for the approval of the resolution

. The resolution

passed by a roll call vote of 18 ayes .

7

. A resolution from your Health & Environmental Issues Committee

recommending approval of an additional appropriation of $100,000 .00 to the

Recycling & Resource Conservation budget to pay the engineering expenses,

outside legal counsel, and other costs associated with review of the hazardous

waste landfill facility application submitted by Peoria Disposal Company

.

Hidden and Widmer moved for the approval of the resolution . The resolution

passed by a roll call vote of 18 ayes .

4

---

8 .

A resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval of

RPCCA's Application for a Rolling Stock Assistance Grant

.

O'Neill and Baietto moved for the approval of the resolution . The resolution

passed by a roll call vote of 18 ayes

.

9

. A resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval to

lower the speed limit to 35 mph on Jones Hollow Road (TR 230) from Norwood

Boulevard northerly to Conley Road in Limestone Township

.

O'Neill and Watkins moved for the approval of the resolutuion

. The resolution

passed by a roll call vote of 18 ayes

.

10

. A resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval to

place a stop sign at the intersection of Alder and Starr Streets in Limestone

Township.

O'Neill and Elsasser moved for the approval of the resolution . The resolution

was approved by a roll call vote of 18 ayes

.

11

. A resolution from your Transportation Committee recommending approval of

an Engineering Services Agreement for engineering design to replace the

Lancaster Road (D55) Bridge and $4,600,000

.00 be appropriated from the

County's share of MFT funds to cover costs

.

O'Neill and Baietto moved for the approval of the resolution

. The resolution

was approved by a roll call vote of 18 ayes .

12

. A resolution from your Tax/EDC Committee recommending approval of the

appointment of Election Judges for 2006 and ensuring years

.

{List of judges on file in County Administration Office}

Prather and Pearson moved for the approval of the resolution . The resolution

was approved by a roll call vote of 18 ayes .

ANNOUNCEMENTS

O'Neill noted the Transportation Meeting on Wednesday will be canceled .

Salzer encouraged everyone to attend the Spring Celebrations at lunch and thanked

Gerry Brookhart.

Phelan noted that Monday is the first minority business meeting at 4

:00 p .m .

Joyce wished his wife a happy 26th wedding anniversary

.

Riggenbach noted that the Community Builders Fundraiser will be at the Civic

Center at 6 :00 p.m. on June 2nd

. The fundraiser benefits District 150 . He also noted

that his wife is featured in a new Peoria magazine, Numero publishing .

5

---

Elsasser noted a new bank opened at the Shoppes at Grand Prairie

.

Prather invited everyone to attend a fundraiser in Chillicothe, June lst-3rd .

Hidden wished all mothers a Happy Mother's Day

.

ADJOURNMENT

Kennedy and Pearson moved to adjourn . The meeting was adjourned at 7 :14 p.m. by

a unanimous voice vote of 18 ayes

.

6

---

** REVISED 07/13/2006 **

A Regular Meeting of the County Board, County of Peoria, Illinois was held on

Thursday, June 8, 2006, at six o'clock p .m. the Courthouse, Room 403

.

CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by David T . Williams, Sr ., Chairman .

MOMENT OF SILENCE

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL BY THE COUNTY CLERK

JoAnn Thomas, County Clerk, called attendance and the following members of

the Board were present

: Baietto, Elsasser, Hidden, Kennedy, Mayer, O'Neill,

Pearson, Phelan, Polhemus, Prather, Riggenbach, Salzer, Thomas, Watkins,

Widmer, and Williams, 16 present . Joyce and Trumpe were absent

.

•

Approval of May 11, 2006 County Board Meeting minutes, May 3, 2006

Special County Board Meeting transcripts, and April 6, 2006 Regional

Pollution Control Site Hearing Committee Meeting transcripts .

Prather and Pearson moved for the approval of the May 11, 2006 County

Board minutes. The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote of

16 ayes .

PRESENTATIONS & PROCLAMATIONS :

• A proclamation from your Chairman recognizing the Limestone Walters

•

School 8th Grade Girls' Volleyball Team for winning the 2006 "BA" State

Girls Volleyball Tournament .

O'Neill presented the proclamation to the team. Coach Huber thanked the

Board .

Williams and Pearson moved to approve the May 3, 2006 Special County

Board Meeting transcripts, and April 6, 2006 Regional Pollution Control

Site Hearing Committee Meeting transcripts . The motion was approved by

a unanimous voice vote of 16 ayes .

A proclamation from your Chairman recognizing the 2006 "Bel-Wood

Legends in our Own Time."

; 33

Hidden presented the proclamation .

t,,,„,'._ `iq

ni

~ .

_

.~

• A proclamation from your Chairman recognizing State Farm Insurance

Company, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 34,

the National Electrical Contractors Association and the Tri-County

Construction Labor-Management Council for their donations toward the

---

start-up cost of administering and enforcing the County's Building and

Property Maintenance Code .

Phelan presented the proclamation . Marry Clinch, IBEW local 34, thanked

the Board and Matt Wahl, director of Planning and Zoning

.

•

A presentation of the Annual Correctional Officer of the Year Award

.

Sheriff Mike McCoy presented the award to Officer David Landi Vittori and

Officer Randy Weber . Superintendent Smith read the award .

•

A presentation of the Annual Deputy of the Year Award .

Chief Deputy Sheriff, Joe Needham presented the award to Deputy Mark

Confort.

•

A presentation by Mike Hughes, Community Outreach Liaison for Attorney

General Lisa Madigan, informing of the types of information available in

the Attorney General's Office .

Hughes introduced himself and the services that the Attorney General's

Office offers . Widmer asked that Hughes look into the current landfill

expansion in Peoria County .

•

An update on the Workforce Network.

Bruce Marsten updated the Board on the Workforce Network and

distributed literature, a copy of which is included in these minutes .

Widmer asked if the Network will be working with Manual High School .

Marsten outlined a plan for the students

. Riggenbach stressed the

importance of this program .

CONSENT AGENDA

Cl . A communication from the Illinois Department of Transportation dated

May 9, 2006, regarding Motor Fuel Tax allotment and transactions for the

County for the month of April 2006 .

C2. A revenue and expenditure report was received from the County Auditor

and County Treasurer for the month ending May 31, 2006, and filed .

C3

.

Appointments

Kennedy and Prather moved for the approval of the Consent Agenda

. The

Consent Agenda was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of 16 ayes

.

CITIZENS' REMARKS

(To address the County Board, fill out a card and submit it to the Chairman before

the Board Meeting.)

2

---

Tom Edwards, 902 W . Moss Ave ., Peoria addressed the Board concerning some

correspondence to be sent to U .S. Senators Barrack Obama and Dick Durbin

.

Baietto questioned Edwards on some of his literature . Edwards promised to

respond to him .

ZONING ORDINANCES & RESOLUTION

1 . Case #032-06-U (Randall Rush)

The petitioner is requesting a Special Use to divide a 32 .03-acre parcel

into two parcels of approximately 25 acres and 7 acres

. The parcel is

located in Chillicothe Township .

The Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval with restrictions

.

The

Land Use Committee concurs .

Elsasser and Hidden moved for the approval of the resolution . The

resolution was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

2 . A resolution from your Land Use Committee recommending approval of

the appointment of Kathi Lowder and Anuja Lala as Deputy Plat Officers

.

Elsasser and Hidden moved for the approval of the resolution . The

resolution was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

3. A resolution from your Executive Committee recommending approval of an

appropriation of $250,000.00 from Fund Balance to be used to train and

certify lead abatement contractors in the community .

Polhemus and O'Neill moved for the approval of the resolution . The

resolution was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

4 . A resolution from your Management Services Committee recommending

approval of the appropriation of funds in the amount of $50,461 .54 to the

appropriate line items in the Sheriffs budget for a new SLATE Auto Theft

Task Force position.

Phelan and Kennedy moved for the approval . Phelan noted this resolution

is in response to the new positions previously approved by the Board . The

resolution was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

5

. A resolution from your Management Services Committee recommending

approval of a new Planner 11 position for the Planning & Zoning

Department .

Phelan and Thomas moved for the aproval

. The resolution was approved

by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

6. A resolution from your Management Services Committee recommending

approval of the acquisition of Northern Telecom Release 4 .5 and Voicemail

3

---

Upgrades, including installation services, from AT&T (SBC) for Peoria

County Courthouse PBX System .

Phelan and Hidden moved for the approval of the resolution

. The motion

was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

7. A resolution from your Health and Environmental Issues Committee

recommending approval of various bids for Food Products and Supplies for

Bel-Wood Nursing Home .

Daniel Whitson of 433 E . High Point Rd

. and Peter Pasquel of 459 E. High

Point Rd. addressed the Board on behalf of George Pasquel Company

.

Pasquel noted that the current bid for food service is costing the County

money. Whitson spoke about concerns in the bidding process

. Thomas

asked for a copy of the figures presented

.

Hidden and Widmer moved to defer the resolution

. Phelan questioned the

EEO compliance for the bids . Assistant State's Attorney Bill Atkins

cautioned the Board on deferring the resolution . Watkins also questioned

the EEO compliance . Elsasser asked how much time they would have to

review the bid

. County Auditor Steven Sonnemaker stated it was a six

month bid . O'Neil asked that the Board review this in six

months while

accepting these current bids. Hidden disagreed with O'Neill and stated

that this problem was supposed to be addressed

six months ago . Baietto

agreed that he thought this had been resolved six months ago

.

Sonnemaker explained the history of the market basket bid

. Whitson

stated that none of Pasquel's customers have a market basket bid

. The

motion was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes

. Urich stated that the

department manager makes the final decision to order supplies for Bel-

Wood .

8

. A joint resolution from your Facilities and Health and Environmental

Issues Committees recommending approval of an agreement with STS

Consultants, Ltd

., Peoria, IL, for design of Water Booster Pump at Bel-

Wood Nursing Home subject to General Conditions satisfactory to the

State's Attorney's Office

.

Polhemus and Hidden moved for the approval of the resolution

. Urich

stated that the EEO certification will be updated

. The motion was

approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

Mayer left the meeting

9 . A resolution from your Facilities Committee recommending approval of an

agreement with PSA Dewberry, Peoria, IL, for design work for Phase II of

the Courts Remodel Project subject to PSA and the County Administrator

agreeing on a work schedule for the project .

Polhemus and O'Neill moved for the approval of the resolution

. The

motion was approved by a roll call vote of 15 ayes .

4

---

Mayer returned to the meeting .

10.A resolution from your Facilities Committee recommending that the

Committee be authorized to award or reject bids for the World War I & II

Memorial and the Plaza Ramp construction projects .

Polhemus and Watkins moved for the approval of the resolution . The

motion was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes.

11 . A resolution from your Judicial Committee recommending approval of the

lowest responsible bid of Bradford Systems, E . Peoria, IL, in the amount of

$19,118.80 for file folders and traffic jackets for the offices of the Circuit

Clerk and State's Attorney .

Kennedy and Hidden moved for the approval of the resolution . The motion

was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes

.

12 .A resolution from your Judicial Committee recommending approval of the

2006 Public Safety Crime Prevention Grant Awards .

Kennedy and Phelan moved for the approval of the resolution

. Pearson

stated this was a good move to help District 150 . Kennedy asked that the

remaining money be budgeted for next year . The motion was approved by

a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

13.A

resolution from your Finance/Legislative Study Committee

recommending approval of a contract with Clifton Gunderson LLP, Peoria,

IL, in the amount of $13,864 .00 for professional financial management

training .

Riggenbach and Thomas moved for the approval of the resolution .

Riggenbach noted that this training is a result of the management letter

from the County's external auditors . Mayer noted some concern in

awarding this contract to the same company that performs the County's

audit . Mayer also suggested mandatory auditor rotation as policy.

Riggenbach noted this training was approved by the State's Attorney's

Office. Atkins noted that the State's Attorney's office is not endorsing this

training, but rather has approved it . Williams noted that the County

Board crafts these policies and the State's Attorney's Office advises

. The

motion was defeated by a roll call vote of 8 ayes and 8 nays with Prather,

Pearson, Kennedy, Watkins, Elsasser, Phelan, Mayer, and Williams voting

nay.

Phelan requested items 14 and 15 be discussed after Executive Session .

16 A review of the County Board Executive Session minutes .

Kennedy and Pearson moved that the Executive Session minutes not be

released per the State's Attorneys recommendation . The motion was

approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

5

---

17 Executive Session

-

Labor Relations

Phelan and Elsasser moved to go into Executive Session

. The motion was

approved by a unanimous voice vote of 16 ayes .

14.A resolution from your Management Services Committee recommending

approval of the contract with the Highway Maintenance Unit (Laborers,

Operating Engineers, and Teamsters) .

Phelan and O'Neill moved for the approval of the resolution . The

resolution was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

15 .A resolution from your Management Services Committee authorizing the

County Administrator to withdraw the pending Worker's Compensation

(Case #010015-003752-WC-01) lien in return for a $26,550

.00 payment in

an attempt to settle the case

.

Phelan and Hidden moved for the approval of the resolution

. The

resolution was approved by a roll call vote of 16 ayes .

MISCELLANEOUS

O'Neill noted the Highway transportation trip will be in the fall .

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Watkins would like to get a proclamation for the Chillicothe baseball team

.

ADJOURNMENT

Watkins and O'Neil moved to adjourn . The meeting was adjourned by a

unanimous voice vote of 16 ayes.

6

---

Exhibit 2

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEORIA DISPOSAL COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

)

v .

)

PEORIA COUNTY BOARD,

)

)

Respondent.

)

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

ss.

COUNTY OF PEORIA

)

Brian J. Meginnes, having been first been duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and states as

follows:

1 .

My name is Brian J . Meginnes . I am one of the attorneys representing the Peoria

Disposal Company ("PDC") in their Application for Site Location Approval filed with the Peoria

County Clerk on November 9, 2006 (the "Application") .

2.

On June 9, 2006, I executed an affidavit describing my search for the May 3, 2006

transcript and various documents from the May 3, 2006 Peoria County Board meeting, on June 7,

2006, at the Peoria County Clerk's office .

3 .

I was assisted in that search by Megan Fulara, the Chief Deputy County Clerk .

4.

On June 7, 2006, Ms . Fulara and I searched not only the documents filed

pertaining to the five (5) boxes of written material in Ms . Fulara's office, which she identified as

"the Record," but also the County Clerk's meeting files, where the Clerk habitually filed her

minutes and notes from County Board meetings .

PCB 06-184

(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)

SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF BRIAN J

. MEGINNES

---

5 . Ms

. Fulara and I could not locate the transcript from the meeting of the Peoria

County Board on May 3, 2006 in either the Record (in Ms

. Fulara's office) or the County Clerk's

meeting files.

6.

I do not recall seeing the single page of findings recently submitted by the County

Board for inclusion in the Record before the Pollution Control Board (defined as the "Findings

Page" in PDC's Response to the County Board's Motion for Leave to Supplement Record on

Appeal and File Second Amended Index) during our search of the Record (in Ms . Fulara's

office) and the County Clerk's meeting files .

7

.

I am an adult and if called upon to testify in this matter, I could competently

testify to the facts stated herein.

FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT .

Subscribed and sworn to before me

this 27th day of December, 2006 .

.:Ak

. _._

Notary Public

1,11 &

906-1627

2

OFFICIAL SEAL

JESSICA M ROCKEY

NOTARY

MY COA~AISSON

PUBLIC

.

EXPIRESSTATE

OF

064307ILUNOIS

---

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon oath, states that copies of the Reply in

Support of Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 415 ILCS §5/39

.2(e) of Petitioner, Peoria

Disposal Company, will be served upon the following persons by enclosing same in separate

envelopes, addressed as follows, and depositing said envelopes in a U.S . Postal Service mail box

at Peoria, Illinois, on the 27th day of December, 2006, before 5 :00 p.m.,

with all fees thereon

fully prepaid and addressed as follows :

Mr. William Atkins

Assistant State's Attorney

Peoria County

324 Main Street, Room #111

Peoria, IL 61602

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

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

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in the County and State as

aforesaid, this 27th day of December, 2006 .

OFFICIAL SEAL

JESSICAU ROCKEY

NOTARY

MYcoIIwssjo

FUKC-STATE

EXFInE$:oatgorOFLuN=

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

Notary Public

,AO/

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

Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to 415 ILCS §5/39

.2(e) of

Petitioner, Peoria Disposal Company, will be filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board via

Federal Express, overnight delivery, sent on the 27th day of December, 2006, before 5

:00 p .m.

OFFICIAL SEAL

NorAaj

ESS

ON

s

EXPIRES

OF

: 08LUNOIS

.

13-0r

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in the Peoria County, Illinois, this

27th day of December, 2006

.