BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
    INC."
    Petitioner,
    v.
    COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
    COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB
    No.
    04-186
    (pollution Control Facility Siting
    Appeal)
    NOTICE OF FILING
    TO:
    All Attorneys ofRecord
    PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT
    on March 19. 2008, I electronically filed
    with
    the Illinois
    Pollution Control
    Board, Chicago. lllinois, the attached County Board of Kankakee County's
    Response in Opposition to Waste Management of Illinois' Motion to Reconsider, a copy of
    which is herewith served upon you.
    Illinois opposes Waste Management'sMotion to Reconsider.
    Dated:
    March
    19,2008
    Charles F. Helsten
    Hinshaw
    &
    Culbertson LLP
    100 Park Avenue
    P.O. Box 1389
    Rockford, IL 61105-1389
    815-490-4900
    Respectfully submitted,
    On
    behalfof County Board ofKankakee
    County, Illinois
    lsi
    Charles F. Helsten
    Charles F. Helsten
    One
    ofIts Attorneys
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 19, 2008
    BEFORE THE ll-LINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS,
    INC."
    Petitioner,
    v.
    COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
    COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB No. 04-186
    (pollution Control Facility Siting
    Appeal)
    COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY'SRESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
    WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS'MOTION TO RECONSIDER
    Respondent, County Board of Kankakee County, lllinois ("Kankakee County Board"),
    files this response in opposition to the Motion to Reconsider filed by Waste Management of
    Illinois, Inc. ("Waste Management"), stating as follows:
    1.
    Waste Management has filed a Motion to Reconsider asserting that the Board
    incorrectly utilized the '"manifestweight ofthe evidence" standard when it reviewed the decision
    by the local siting authority in this case.
    2.
    Oddly enough, Waste Management's Petition seeking review of the siting
    authority's decision specifically asserted that the siting authority's decision was "against the
    manifest weight ofthe evidence." (WMI Petition at 7).
    3.
    Moreover, Waste Management's Brief in this appeal, in fact, also argued that the
    Board should reverse the siting authority's decision because it was against the manifest weight of
    the evidence. (WMI Br. at 29).
    4.
    In
    its Reply, Waste Management once more argued that with respect to criterion
    (i) ''thereis absolutely nothing in the record to justify the County Board's finding that the need
    criterion was not met, and such a fmding, therefore, is against the manifest weight of the
    70556274v! 842014
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 19, 2008
    evidence." (WMI Reply at 14) (emphasis added). With respect to criterion (iii), Waste
    Management similarly argued "the County Board's decision that criterion (iii) was not satisfied
    is against the manifest weight
    of the evidence." (WMI Reply at 18) (emphasis added). Finally,
    with respect
    to criterion (vi), Waste Management argued, unsurprisingly, that the decision on this
    criterion "is, therefore, against the manifest weight
    of the evidence." (WMI Reply at 21)
    (emphasis added).
    5.
    Suddenly, in its Motion to Reconsider, Waste Management now asserts that the
    Board must not apply the manifest weight
    of the evidence standard, and argues that instead, "the
    proper standard to be used
    by the Board on review is ... whether, after applying eth (sic) Board's
    technical scrutiny to the record, it contains reliable and accurate evidence to support the local
    authority's decision." (WMI'sMotion to Reconsider
    at'7).
    6.
    Notwithstanding Waste Management's sudden change in position, the Board's
    Order makes clear that when it assessed each criterion at issue
    in this appeal, the Board carefully
    and thoroughly examined and considered the evidence
    in the record and found that it supported
    the local authority'sdecision
    as to each criterion.
    (See, e.g.,
    Board'sorder at 50, 51).
    7.
    For the reasons set forth above, it is unnecessary to refute the alleged implications
    of
    Town and Country Utilities
    v.
    Illinois PCB,
    225 lll2d 103, 866 N.E.2d 227 (2007) with
    respect to this case, however the County notes that the Supreme Court in
    Town and Country
    did
    not disturb the well-established standard
    of review to be applied by the Board in reviewing a
    local siting authority's decision.
    Rather,
    Town and Country
    held that under the lllinois
    Environmental Protection Act and Illinois Administrative Review law, a reviewing
    court
    will
    review the decision
    of the
    Board,
    rather than the decision ofthe local siting authority, and will do
    so utilizing the familiar "manifest weight
    of the evidence" standard.
    Id.
    Thus, the dicta from
    2
    70556274vl 842014
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 19, 2008
    Town and Country
    which is cited by Waste Management, at
    ~
    6 of its Motion, has no application
    with respect to the standard
    of review to be applied by the Board
    in
    its review of a local siting
    authority. Moreover, the decision-making process
    of the Board in this appeal comports with the
    descriptive dicta from
    Town and Country,
    inasmuch as the Board applied "its technical
    expertise" and reviewed the evidence in the record to determine whether it supported the siting
    authority's decision.
    8.
    For the reasons set forth above, Respondent County Board of Kankakee County,
    Illinois opposes Waste Management'sMotion to Reconsider.
    Dated:
    March 19,2008
    Respectfully submitted,
    On behalf
    of COWlty Board of Kankakee
    County, lllinois
    lsi
    Charles F. Helsten
    Charles
    F. Helsten
    One
    of Its Attorneys
    Charles
    F. Heisten
    Hinshaw
    &
    Culbertson LLP
    100 Park Avenue
    P.O. Box 1389
    Rockford, IL 61105-1389
    815-490-4900
    This document utilized 100ro recycled paper products.
    70556274vl 842014
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 19, 2008
    AFFIDA'vIT OF SERVICE
    The undersigned, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-109 of the Illinois Code ofCivil
    Procedure, hereby under penalty
    of perjury under the laws of the United States of America,
    certifies that
    on March 19,2008, a copy ofthe foregoing was served upon:
    (Via Electronic Filing)
    (Via E-Mail)
    Mr.
    John T. Therriault
    Jamie Boyd
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    Brenda Gorski
    100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
    Kankakee County State'sAttorney
    Chicago, IL 60601
    450 East Court Street
    Kankakee, IL 60901
    (Via E-Mail)
    (Via U.S. Mail)
    George Mueller
    Christopher Bohlen
    George Mueller, P.C.
    Bannann, Kramer & Bohlen, P.C.
    609 Etna Road
    300 East Court Street, Suite 502
    Ottawa,
    lL 61350
    P.O.
    Box 1787
    Kankakee, IL 60901
    (Via EMMail)
    (Via EMMail)
    Kenneth A. Bleyer
    Keith Runyon
    3105 N. Ashland Ave. #334
    1165 Plum Creek Drive
    Chicago, IL 60657-3013
    Bourbonnais, IL 60914
    (Via E-Mail)
    (Via U.S. Mail)
    Elizabeth Harvey
    Jennifer Sackett Pohlenz
    Swanson, Martin & Bell
    David Flynn
    One
    IBM Plaza - Suite 3300
    Querry & Harrow
    330 N. Wabash
    175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1600
    Chicago, IL 60611
    Chicago, IL 60604-2827
    (Via E-Mail)
    (Via E-Mail)
    Brad Halloran
    Don Moran
    Hearing Officer
    Pedersen
    &
    Houpt
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    161 N. Clark Street
    100 West Randolph,
    11th Floor
    Suite 3100
    Chicago,IL 60601
    Chicago,IL 60601-3224
    (Via E-Mail)
    (Via U.S. Mail)
    Karl Kruse
    Bruce Clark
    Kankakee County Board
    Kankakee County Board
    189
    E. Court Street
    189 E. Court Street
    ~ee,IL
    60901
    Kankakee, IL 60901
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 19, 2008
    Via E-Mail or By depositing a copy thereof, enclosed in an envelope
    in
    the United States Mail at
    Rockford..
    Illinois, proper postage prepaid, before the hour of 5:00 P.M., addressed as above.
    Is/
    Joan Lane
    HINSHAW
    &
    CULBERTSON
    100 Park Avenue
    P.O. Box 1389
    Rockford, lllinois 61101-1389
    (815) 490-4900
    Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, March 19, 2008

    Back to top