BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FOX MORAINE, LLC
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, CITY )
COUNCIL
)
)
Respondent.
)
PCB No. 07-146
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
Appeal)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 29,2008, Leo P. Dombrowski, one
ofthe attorneys for Respondent, United City ofYorkville, filed via electronic filing the
attached United
City of Yorkville'sResponse to Fox Moraine's Motion to Compel
Answers to Deposition Questions, with the Clerk
ofthe lllinois Pollution Control
Board, a copy
of which is herewith served upon you.
Respectfully submitted,
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
By:
/s/ Leo P. Dombrowski
One
of their Attorneys
Anthony
G. Hopp
Thomas
I.
Matyas
Leo P. Dombrowski
WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN
&
DIXON LLP
225 West Wacker Drive, 30th Floor
Chicago, lllinois 60606
Phone: (312) 201-2000
Fax: (312) 201-2555
hopp@wildman.com
matyas@wildman.com
dombrowski@wildman.com
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
SERVICE LIST
Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James
R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
hallorab@ipcb.state.il.us
George Mueller
Mueller Anderson, P.C.
609 Etna Road
Ottawa, Illinois 61350
george@muelleranderson.com
Charles Helsten
Hinshaw
&
Culbertson, LLP
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
chelsten@hinshawlaw.com
Michael
S. Blazer
Jeep
&
Blazer, LLC
24 N. Hillside Avenue, Suite A
Hillside, IL 60162
mblazer@enviroatty.com
Eric
C. Weiss
Kendall County State'sAttorney
Kendall County Courthouse
807 John Street
Yorkville, Illinois 60560
eweis@co.kendall.il.us
James J. Knippen, II
Walsh, Knippen, Knight
&
Pollock
2150 Manchester Road
Suite 200
Wheaton, IL 60187
jim@wkkplaw.com
heather@wkkplaw.com
James B. Harvey
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner,
Buck, Hutchison
&
Ruttle
24255 Glenwood Avenue
Joliet, IL 60435
jim@mckeownlawfirrn.com
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
FOX MORAINE, LLC
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, CITY )
COUNCIL
)
)
Respondent.
)
PCB No. 07-146
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
Appeal)
YORKVILLE'SRESPONSE TO FOX MORAINE'S
MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO DEPOSITION QUESTIONS
Fox Moraine, dissatisfied with the Yorkville City Council's determination that it failed to
meet most of the statutory criteria for siting a landfill, now wants to delve beyond the Council's
written resolution and voluminous transcripts and evidence and into the minds of the individual
Council members who voted. Essentially, Fox Moraine wants to ask Council members to
explain their beliefs about the facts and whether Fox Moraine met its burden of proof with
respect to each individual statutory criterion, as well as about the written decision the Council
issued. These questions not only seek information irrelevant to the issues before the Board, but
they also ignore the Appellate Court's and the Board's consistent refusals to subject landfill
application decision-makers, who act in a quasi-adjudicatory role when voting on a siting
application, to such irrelevant and invasive questions.
I.
BACKGROUND
Over 24 days and approximately 125 hours, Yorkville's City Council heard evidence
relating to Fox Moraine's landfill application. The Council then met to deliberate on whether to
grant or deny Fox Moraine's application on May 23, 2007. At the conclusion of their
deliberations,that day, the Council voted to have a resolution consistent with its deliberations
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
drafted for its vote the next day. (Transcript of May 23, 2007 Public Meeting at 111:16-113:2,
attached as Exhibit A.)l The next day, by a
7-1 vote, the Council adopted the resolution denying
the application.
In denying the application, the Council found that Fox Moraine had not met criteria
(i),
(ii), (iii), (v), (vi)" (viii) and (ix). That same day, Yorkville's mayor and deputy clerk signed the
final resolution memorializing the Council's decision. Fox Moraine appealed to the Board and
now grasps at straws to undermine the Council's decision, seeking to question Council members
about their thoughts about the evidence and their votes.
II.
FOX MORAINE'S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE FOX
MORAINE IS SEEKING INFORMATION IRRELEVANT
TO THESE
PROCEEDINGS.
As its first basis for suggesting that questioning the Council members is proper, Fox
Moraine implies that there is a possibility that the Council's decision may not have complied
with statutory requirements, but its suggestions are both legally and factually unfounded. Fox
Moraine suggests that the Council did
not-but was required
to~eliberate
on each criterion set
forth in 415 ILCS 5/39.2(a) prior to voting. Moreover, Fox Moraine suggests that the Council
should have had the final written decision in front
of it before voting on the application. But Fox
Moraine, which is represented
)
by counsel experienced in landfill proceedings, cites no case law
in support of its suggestions, because there is none. In fact, all of the case law dealing with these
issues rejects Fox Moraine'sposition.
It
is beyond dispute that a Council need not discuss each criterion separately or conduct
any debate, much less have the final written product in-hand before it votes. The Appellate
Court and the Board have consistently
so held.
See, e.g., Peoria Disposal Co.
v.
Peoria County
1
By citing to the transcript of the City Council's deliberations, Yorkville in no way concedes that the
Council's deliberations are at all relevant to the matters before the Board. It does so only to inform the
Hearing Officer and the Board as to what took place and show why the deliberations are irrelevant.
-2-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
Bd.,
PCB No. 06-184,2007 Ill. ENV LEXIS 250, at *35 (June 21, 2007) (finding that county's
procedure
of orally voting on application and months later adopting the transcript of that vote as
its "meeting minutes" complied with requirement for written decision);
Slates
v.
fllinois
Landfills, Inc.,
PCB No. 93-106, 1993 Ill. ENV LEXIS 956, at *40 (Sept. 23, 1993) (affirming
Council's rejection
of siting application over petitioner's claims that final written decision was
not created until after vote and Council had not discussed each statutory criterion);
see also
Clutts
v.
Beasley,
185 Ill. App. 3d 543, 545 (5
th
Dist. 1989) ("We hold that so long as the
decision is in writing, and a record has been made showing the basis for the decision, neither a
detailed statement finding specific facts, nor a detailed explanation
of the relationship between
the facts, the criteria, and the conclusions is necessary, and the decision can be framed in the
language
ofthe criteria set out in the statute.").
Nor is the Council required to vote on
each individual criterion separately.
See,
e~g.,
Rockford
v.
Winnebago County Bd.,
PCB No. 88-107, 1988 Ill. ENV LEXIS 128, at *12-13
(Nov.
17, 1988) ("It is the totality of the Winnebago County decision on all six criteria that is
under review, and not the votes
of the individual county board members on individual criteria."),
affd Rockford
v.
County of Winnebago,
186 Ill. App. 3d 303 (2
nd
Dist. 1989). Instead, the
decision-making body may take a single vote that incorporates its decision on each
of the
statutory criteria. 1988 Ill. ENV LEXIS 128, at *13.
Because the Board reviews only the
Council's ultimate decision on all
of the criteria rather than votes on each individual criterion,
Fox Moraine's motion to compel should be denied.
See also Waste Mgmt.
v.
Pollution Control
Bd,
175 Ill. App. 3d 1023, 1044 (2
nd
Dist. 1988) ("there is no requirement that the [county
board] conduct any debate as long as they have had an opportunity to review the record prior to
. voting.");
E
&
E Hauling, Inc.
v.
Pollution Control Bd,
116 Ill. App. 3d 586, 577-78 (2
nd
Dist.
-3-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
1983) (decision-making body "need only indicate which of the criteria, in its view, have or have
not been met, and this will be sufficient
if the record supports these conclusions so that an
adequate review
of the County Board's decision may be made.")
III.
FOX MORAINE'S MOTION SHOULD ALSO BE DENIED BECAUSE ITS
INTENDED QUESTIONS VIOLATE THE SANCTITY OF THE
COUNCIL'S DELIBERATIONS.
Flouting the Appellate Court's and the Board's long-settled rulings against inquiring into
a governing body's deliberative process, Fox Moraine nonetheless seeks information underlying
the Council's deliberations and decision on Fox Moraine's application. The Appellate Court and
the Board have consistently held that a governing board deciding whether to grant or deny a
siting application acts in an adjudicatory capacity.
Southwest Energy Corp.
v.
Pollution Control
Rd.,
275 Ill. App. 3d 84, 90-91 (4
th
Dist. 1995)("a local siting proceeding more closely resembles
an adjudicatory proceeding than a legislative one");
Land and Lakes Co.
v.
Pollution Control
Rd.,
245 Ill. App. 3d 631,638 (3
rd
Dist. 1993);
Waste Mgmt.
v.
Kankakee Cty. Rd.,
PCB No. 04-
186, 2008
Ill.
ENV LEXIS 14, at *67-68 (Jan. 24, 2008) (lilt is a well-established principle that
the
local siting authority's role in the siting approval process is both quasi-legislative and quasi-
adjudicative.
").
Because of the governing board's adjudicatory function, the Court and the Board have
consistently refused to allow questioning into the thought processes
of either the decisionmaking
body as a whole or individual decisionmakers.
See, e.g., Waste Mgmt.,
2008 Ill. ENV LEXIS 14,
at ** 67-68 (liThe Board has consistently held that decisionmakers are entitled to protection of
their internal thought processes in their adjudicative roles.");
Rochelle Waste Disposal
v.
City of
Rochelle,
PCB 03-218, 2004 Ill. Env. LEXIS 231 at
**
42-43 (April 15, 2004) ("the integrity of
the decision making process requires that the mental processes of decision-makers be
safeguarded, and that a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior is required before any
-4-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
inquiry into the decision making process can be made.");
West Suburban Recycling and Energy
Ctr.,
v.
illinois EPA,
PCB Nos. 95-119, 95-125, 1996 Ill. ENV LEXIS 718, at *13 (Oct. 17,
1996) (liThe Board, and courts in general, have consistently held that the mind of the
decisionmaker may only be invaded under very special circumstances.");
Village ofLaGrange
v.
McCook Cogeneration Station, L.L.
c.,
No. PCB 96-41, 1995 Ill. ENV LEXIS 1118, at *30-31
(Dec. 7. 1995) (liThe Board has previously noted the wealth of case law establishing that before
an inquiry can be made into the decisionmaker's mental processes when a contemporaneous
formal finding exists, there must be a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.");
DiMaggio,
PCB No. 89-138, 1990 Ill. ENV LEXIS 251, at *8 ("In their adjudicatory role, the
decisionmakers are entitled to protection of their internal thought processes.");
Winnebago
County Bd.,
PCB No. 88-107, 1988 Ill. ENV LEXIS 128, at *10-11 ("It is therefore not
permissible for this Board to inquire into how the administrative decisionmaker dealt with the
record in deriving his or her final determination-so long as there was a fair and adequate
opportunity for Rockford to present testimony and evidence into that record.");
E
&
E Hauling,
116 Ill. App. 3d at 577 ("nothing in the statute would require a detailed examination of each bit
of evidence or a thorough going exposition of the County Board's mental processes.").
DiMaggio,
PCB No. 89-138, 1989 Ill. ENV LEXIS 86, at *13 (Like judges, the decision-makers'
mental processes should be protected to uphold the sanctity of the landfill siting process. "Such
an examination of a judge would be destructive of judicial responsibility. . .. Just as a judge
cannot be subjected to such a scrutiny, so the integrity of the administrative process must be
equally respected.")
Nor is Fox Moraine allowed to ask any Council Member about what parts of the record
he or she read or how the Member used the record. The Appellate Court and the Board have
-5-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
consistently held that fundamental fairness requires only that the record be available to the
decisionmaking body, and the landfill applicant is not entitled to know what the decisionmakers
considered or even if they reviewed the record.
See, e.g., City of Rockford
v.
County of
Winnebago,
186 Ill. App. 3d 303, 313 (2
nd
Dist. 1989). ("the only statutory requirement
concerning the decision of the county board is that its decision be in writing and specify the
reason for the decision. . .. Whether the board members availed themselves of the opportunity
to review the record is not an issue relevant to this case, as there is no such requirement that they
do so.");
Waste Mgmt.
v.
Pollution Control Ed.,
175
Ill.
App. 3d 1023, 1044 (2
nd
Dist. 1988)
(where applicant contended that the county board did not have adequate time or opportunity to
consider the record before its vote, Appellate Court held "fundamental fairness in this context
does not require the full county board to debate the hearing committee'srecommendation so long
as the record is made available for review by the entire county board. . .. [and] there is no
requirement that the [county board] conduct any debate as long as they have had an opportunity
to review the record prior to voting.");
Rockford
v.
Winnebago County Ed.,
PCB No. 88-107,
1988
Ill.
ENV LEXIS 128, at *10-11 (Nov. 17, 1988) (forbidding applicant from questioning
board members about how much preparation they did for deliberation, because it is "not
permissible for this Board to inquire into how the administrative decisionmaker dealt with the
record in deriving his or her final determination-so long as there was a fair and adequate
opportunity for Rockford to present testimony and evidence into that record."),
affd County of
Winnebago,
186
Ill.
App. 3d 303 (2
nd
Dist. 1989);
Slates
v.
Ill. Landfills, Inc.,
PCB No. 93-106,
1998 Ill. ENV LEXIS 956, at *40 (Sept. 23, 1993) ("[T]here is no requirement that the local
deeisionmaker conduct any debate as long as they have had an opportunity to review the record
prior to voting.").
-6-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
Without mentioning this Board's extensive precedent, Fox Moraine relies on an Illinois
Supreme Court case regarding whether a deliberative process privilege exists covering intra-
agency communications.
People ex rei. Birkett
v.
City ofChi.,
184 Ill. 2d 521 (1998).
Birkett
does not at all address the adjudicatory roles of a county board or municipality deciding a landfill
application. Fox Moraine apparently seizes on
Birkett
because the Supreme Court used the term
"deliberative process privilege," albeit in an entirely different, unrelated, and irrelevant context.
Fox Moraine merely cites the case, but does not even attempt to explain how
Birkett
applies here.
It
is also noteworthy that even though the
Birkett
decision was issued 10 years ago, it has not
been cited by the Board or the Appellate Court at all in any landfill or sec. 39.2 case.
In
Birkett,
the court refused to recognize a deliberative privilege that would cover the.
City
of Chicago's claim of privilege for "all 'deliberative' communications regarding any
proposed expansion or alteration to the [O'Hare] airport layout plan, no matter how trivial or
routine."
Id.
at 532-33. Fox Moraine's request, however, far differs in kind from that in
Birkett.
The discovery request in
Birkett
asked for documents and communications relating to
applications for airport modifications and plans or discussions regarding future airport plans.
Id.
at 523-24. Here, the Fox Moraine has pointedly asked not for documents or communications but
to examine individual Council members
about their thought processes and beliefs relating to
the Council's vote. Unlike the
Birkett
discovery requests, Fox Moraine seeks to invade the
Council members' heads to find out what facts they thought were established and whether the
written decision is exactly what they expected.
This distinction is critical. The Appellate Court has held,
Birkett
notwithstanding, that
judicial officers are entitled to a deliberative process privilege.
Thomas
v.
Page,
361 Ill. App. 3d
484,
491 (2
nd
Dist. 2005) (Fox Moraine does not cite
Thomas
even though the
Thomas
court's
-7-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
holding is crucial to this discussion). In
Thomas,
the court distinguished judicial functions from
executive functions and noted that "[i]t
is well-settled that a judge may not be asked to testify as
to his or her mental impressions or processes in reaching a judicial decision."
Id.
at 488. The
Appellate Court also rejected the argument that recognizing or creating a privilege should be left
to the legislature.
Id
at 491.
Like judges, the Council Members were performing an adjudicative function when they
voted on Fox Moraine's application, and questions into their cognitive decisionmaking should be
forbidden for the same reasons that forbid evidence
of a judge'smental processes. Fox Moraine's
proposed questions are akin to asking one member
of a three-judge Panel whether he or she
agrees with the entirety
of the written opinion one of the three judges has authored, or even
asking one member
of the Board what facts he or she felt were established about the proceedings
below and whether the Board's written decision properly memorializes the Board's deliberations.
After all, Fox Moraine here seeks to ask about the mental processes
of the Council members-
what they thought, believed, and expected during and after their vote on Fox Moraine's
application-and it has. no case or Board decision that would support compelling a Council
Member to answer such
questions?
IV.
CONCLUSION
Fox Moraine asks the Board to compel individual Council members to answer questions
about which facts they felt were established in the lengthy hearing process and whether the final
2
Questioning regarding a Council Member's deliberative mental processes should be barred for
an additional reason: Section 40.1(a) prohibits the Board from considering "new or additional
evidence
in
support of or in opposition to any finding, order, determination or decision of the
appropriate county board or governing body
of the municipality." 415 ILCS 5/40.1(a). Because
it is
so prohibited by the Act, the Board may not, for example, "reweigh the evidence or make
new credibility determinations."
McLean County Disposal
v.
County ofMcLean,
207 Ill. App.
3d 477,480
(4
th
Dist. 1991).
-8-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
written decision was what they expected. Not only are the answers to these questions irrelevant
to the Board's role in this appeal, but the questions themselves seek information about the mental
processes
of the individual members of the adjudicative Council, a type of inquiry the Appellate
Court and the Board have repeatedly rejected, consistent with Illinois law. Accordingly, the
Council requests that the Hearing Officer deny Fox Moraine's Motion to Compel Answers to
Deposition Questions.
Respectfully submitted,
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, CITY
COUNCIL
By:
...:..;/s~/.....:L~e:::.::o~P~.~D~o~m~b~r~ow=sk~i
One of Its Attorneys
Dated: September 29, 2008
Anthony
G. Hopp
Thomas
I.
Matyas
Leo P. Dombrowski
WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP
225 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone:
(312) 201-2000
Facsimile:
(312) 201-2555
hopp@wildman.com
matyas@wildman.com
dombrowski@wildman.com
-9-
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
EXHIBIT A
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
m~ITED
CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS
SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL
~andfill
Hearing
May 23,
2007
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had and testimony
9 taken at the hearing taken on May 23, 2001, at
10
the hour of 1:00 p,m" before Christine M.
11 Vitosh, e.S.R" at the Grande Reserve Elementary
12 School, Yorkville, Illinois.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
;tg
1
1
(WHEREUPON, the
2
proceedings were
3
resumed as follows:)
MAYOR BORD:
Calling the meeting to
5
order, would you please rise for the pledge?
6
(Pledge of
7
Allegiance)
8
MAYOR BURD:
Roll call by the clerk,
9
please.
10
MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
11
ALDERMAN LESLIE:
Here.
12
MS. PICKERING:
Werderich.
13
ALDERMAN WERDERICH:
Here.
14
MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
15
ALDERMAN GOLINSKI:
Here.
16
MS, PICKERING:
Plocher.
17
ALDERMAN PLOCHER:
Here.
18
MS. FICKERING: Munns.
19
(No Response)
20
MS. PICKERING: sutcliff.
21
ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF:
Here.
22
MS. PICKERING:
Besco.
23
ALDERMAN BESCO: Here.
24
MS. PICKERING: Spears.
1
3
LU
ALSO PRESENT:
21
22
23
24
WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN
&
DIXON
1f
2300 cabot Drive, Suite, 455
Lisle, Illinois 60532
111
{630) 955-6594
BY:
MR. MICHAEL M. ROTll.,
19
appeared on behalf of the United
City of Yorkville.
1
ALDERMAN SPEARS:
Here.
2
MS.
PICKERING: Burd.
3
MAYOR
BURD:
Here.
4
(Enter Alderman
5
Munns)
6
MAYOR BURD:
We have
a
quorum.
7
ALDERMAN MUNNS:
Here.
8
MAYOR SURD: Would the city attorney
9 please introduce this case?
10
MR. ROTH: This is a special meeting
11 of the City Council of the United City of
12 Yorkville, Illinois, called for the sole purpose
13 of consideration of an application filed by Fox
14 Moraine, LLC, for
a
landfill siting approval
15 pursuant to 415 Illinois Compiled Statutes
16 Chapter 39.2 of the City of Yorkville.
17
Notice of tonight's meeting has
18 been given as required by law. By way of
19 background, On December 1st of 2006, Fox Moraine,
20
LLC, filed an application with the City for
21 siting approval of a solid waste landfill upon
a
22 443-acre parcel of property located generally at
23 Route 11, four miles west of the intersection of
24 Route 11 and 47.
MAYOR VALERIE BURD,
MR. JASON LESLIE, Alderman,
MR. WALLY iiERDERICH, Alderman,
MR. ARDEN "JOE" PLOCf/ER, Alderman,
MR. 'GARY
GOLINSKI, Alderman,
MR. MARTY MUNNS,
Alderman,
MS. ROBYN SUTCLIFF, Alderman,
MR. JOSEPH BEBCO, Aldeanan,
MS. ROSE SPFJlRS, Alderman;
MR. l?AUL JAMES, Alderman,
MR. JOHN CROIS, City Administrator,
MS. LISA PICKERING, City Clerk.
l
J
g
j
b
1 PRESENT:
If
9
10
11
U
1i
14
Jj
2
4.
Depo CourlReporling Service (630) 983--0030
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
_and"" Hearing May
23,
2007
1
that area a l09-foot edifice suddenly showing up
2
in the vicinity.
3
It's going to be viewed from
4 anywhere, and this is supposed to be the gateway
5 to our cOIllllIlnity. It was said over and over
6 again that this is the gateway, and if the-
7 Prairie Parkway does come through, this win be
8 adjacent to the Prairie Parkway,_ and I don't .:.- I
9 don
I
t see that as something that I think we -
10
-anticipated for our gateway.
11 -
And
t
of course, like everybody
12 else said, the traffic patterns; we all know what
13 the traffic in Yorkville is like, we -- we all
14 know this, this is not something that had to even
15 be testified to, but it was over and over/ and we
16 know how long we have been waiting for Route 47 .
17 to be widened and we know right now, like
18 Alderman Spears has shared with us, that this is
19
a
very bad situation/ and it seemed like the
20
applicant's comments were that -- his expert's
21 comments were that it's that bad, so what, I
22 mean,there you go, it
I
S bad and So what
23 difference does it make to add a few more trucks
24_ to a bad situation.
10!)
1
I was very
~nterested
in the
2 creative discussion about the- Criterion 8 and the
3 consistency with Kendall County's plan, how-
4 they -- the-applicant's experts discussed the
5 meaning of the word locate, but I think it's _
6 fairly clear even before John Church testified
that
we all know what locate means. They mean to
8 site it.
9
-l\n<i I -- without
g~tting
into
JO
that discussion about whether_ we agree -with the
11 County's plan, I think all we have to do is
12 determine whether it1 S consistent
with
the plan
13 and leave it to the courts to decide if the
14 County bas the right to make- that consideration,
15 and I think it's very clear: that as the Countyls.
16
plan now as_written; it does not meet -that plan;
17 and I was -- -1 am very, very concerned about Fox
18
Valley Landfill Services,
L~C/
and how little we
19 know about it.
20
Wi th Peoria Disposal Conpany
21 only having a 20 percent interest, no matter even
22
if
they had a pristine service record, they would
23 not be able to guarantee the -kind of service they
24
~ould
be providing because they do not have
110
1 controlling interest in what
I
s going on.
-2
We don't know
~Iha
t their
-3 financial capabilities are, if they could even
4 meet the criteria that they are offering to the
5 property owners to solve problems. We don't know
6 what could-happen. And so that one bothers me.
7 lhere is no way that we can even analyze that
8 company because it has no record.
9
So those are just
my
thoughts
10
on it, and I'd like to thank the Aldermen who did
11 the research, and like usual, Alderman Spears,
12 you did a great job, so thank you very much.
13-
Is there anybody else who would
14
like to add more thoughts tonight?
15
{No Responsel
16
MAYOR BURD: Well, I would -like to
17
IOOve -- I'd like to ask one of the Aldermen to
18 move to direct our attorney to prepare a
19 resolution consistent with tonight's
20
deliberations for consideration and decision at
21 tomorrow night's meeting.
22
ALDERMAN WERDERICH:
So moved.
23
ALDERMAN
SPEARS: Second.
- 24
MAYOR BURD: Any discussion?
111
1
{No
responsel
2
ALDERMAN WERDERICH:
May
I
have
3 another 20 minutes?- Just joking.
4
MAYOR BURD: Tomorrow night, yes.
-5
(No Response)
6
MAYOR BURD: Okay. Roll call vote.
MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
B
ALDERMAN LESLIE:
Aye.
9
MS. PIcKERING: Golinski.
10
ALDERMAN GOLWSKI: Aye.
11
MS,-
PICKERING: Werderich.
12
ALDERMAN WERDERIC!i:
Aye.
13
MS. PICKERING: Munns.
14
ALDERMAN MUNNS:
Aye.
15
.
MS.
".
PICKERING:
.
Plocher.
.
-16
ALDERMAN
PLocHER:
Aye.
17-
MS. PICKERING: Spears.
18
ALDERMAN
SPEARS:
Aye.
19
MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
20
ALDERMAN
SUTCLIFF: Aye.
21
MS. PICKERING: Besco.
22
ALDERMAN
BESCO: Aye.
23
MAYOR BURD:All right. Then we
24 will meet at the Beecher center tomorrow night at
112
10S
DejJo Court Reporling
Service
(630) 983--0030
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
_andrill Hearing May
23,
2007
113
1 seven o'clock to continue deliberations
j
and I
. 2 would entertain a motion. to adjourn.
Christine M. Vitosh
t
CSR
CSR No. OB4-002883
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
)5
16
17
18
.]9
20
21
22
23
24
ALDERMAN LESLIE:
So moved.
ALDERMAN
SPEARS: Second.
MAYOR BURD: Any discussion?
(No
Response)
MAYOR BURD: All in favor.
{A
Chorus of
Ayes}
MAYOR BURD: Anyone against? Nay?
(No
Response)
MAYOR BURD: We are adjourned.
(WHEREUPON/ the
proceedings were
continued to 7:00
p.m. on the 25th day -
of May, 2007)
-"-000---
113
1
2
J
i-I---I-~~f:.---L.-
1'-
_
~
;
~~~).'tftt;f;-(
6
7
11
!i
1U
11
U
jj
14
J)
Jb
11
J/I
H
lU
II
II
lJ
24
115
J
STATE OF lLLINOIS
I
ISs.
t
COUNTY OE' LASALLE. I
3
4
I, Christine M. Vit6sh,
a
Certified.
5 Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that I
6 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
7 hearing of the above-entitled cause and that the
8 foregoing Report .of Proceedings, is a true,
9 correct, and complete transcript of my shorthand
10
notes so taken at the time and place aforesaid.
11
I-further certify that I am neither
12 counsel for nor related to counsel for any
of
the -
13 parties to this suit, nor am I in any way related
14 to any of the parties to this suit, nor amI.in
15 any way interested in the outcome thereof.
16
. I ftlrther certify that
my .
17 certificate annexed hereto applies to the
18 original transcript and copies thereof, signed
19 lind certified under
my
hand only. I assume no
20-responsibilityfor the accuracy of any reproduced
21 copies not made under my control or direction.
22
23
24
114
•
Depo Court Repoiting Service (630) 98J..0030
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Susan Hardt, a non-attorney, certify that I caused a copy ofthe foregoing
Notice
of Filing and United City of Yorkville's Response to Fox Moraine's Motion to
Compel Answers to Deposition Questions
to be served upon the Hearing Officer and all
Counsel
of Record listed on the attached Service list by sending it via Electronic Mail on
September
29,2008.
/s/ Susan Hardt
[x]
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to ILL. REV. STAT.
CHAP. 110 - SEC 1-109, I certify that the statements set forth
herein are true and correct.
Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, September 29, 2008
