EXHIBIT A

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

FOX MORAfNE, LLC

Respondent.

Petitioner,

UNITED CITY

COUNCIL

)

OF YORKVILLE, CITY )

)

PCB No. 07-146

(Pollution Control Facility Siting

Appeal)

NOTICE OF FILING

To:

See Attached Service List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 7, 2008, Leo P. Dombrowski, one of

the attorneys for Respondent, United City of Yorkville, filed via electronic filing the

attached

United City of Yorkville's Reply in Support of Its Motion in Limine

# 2,

with the Clerk of the lllinois Pollution Control Board, a copy of which is herewith served

upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

UNITED

CITY OF YORKVILLE

By:

lsI

Leo P. Dombrowski

One of their Attorneys

Anthony

G. Hopp

Thomas

Matyas

Leo

P. Dombrowski

WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN

DIXON LLP

225 West Wacker Drive, 30th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60606

Phone: (3 I2)

20 I-2000

Fax: (312) 201-2555

110pp

wildllWl1.COIn

lllal) as

tllall.l:Ol11

t1omhro\.\ sk.i (( wildlll..m.\,'ulll

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

FOX MORAINE. LLC

)

Petitioner,

)

UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, CITY )

COUNCIL

)

Respondent.

)

PCB No. 07-146

YORKVILLE'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION

IN LIMINE

NO.2

This Board has repeatedly and unequivocally held that, when a local siting authority

hears testimony, considers evidence and renders a decision on an application for local siting

approval,

it sits as an adjudicatory body, not a legislative one.

Like judges, local siting

authorities are entitled to protect their deliberative processes from discovery on appeal. Without

even addressing this

Board's many decisions on this issue, Fox Moraine

Lee

("Fox Moraine")

asks this Board to reverse itself. This Board should decline Fox Moraine's request.

THE

DELIBERATIVE

PROCESS

PRIVILEGE

PROTECTS

THE

YORKVILLE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' MENTAL PROCESSES.

The Appellate Court and the Board have held consistently and without exception that

City Council members sit in an adjudicatory capacity when ruling on

a local citing application.

Southwest Energy Corp. v. Pollution Control Bd..

275 Ill. App. 3d 84, 90-91 (4

Dist. 1995);

Land and Lakes

Co. v.

Pollution Collfro! Bd..

245 III. App. 3d 63 I, 638 (3'd Dis!. 1993);

Waste

Mgmt. oJI//., Inc.

Ktmkakee City Bd..

PCB No. 04-186, 2008111. ENV. LEXIS 14, at *67-*68

(Jan. 24, 2008).

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

Just as the mental processes of judge cannot be subjected to cross.examination during

discovery

or trial, so the integrity of the administrative process must be equaJly respected.

DiMaggio v. Solid Waste Agency o[Northern Cook County.

PCB 89-138, 1989 Ill. ENV. LEXIS

86 at

.13 (Oct. 27, 1989) (citations omitted);

see also Rochelle WasJe Disposal

City 0/

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

inquiry into the decision making process can be made.")

Fox Moraine ignores the precedent this Board has firmly established and repeatedly

affirmed over the past decade and relies instead on

People ex ReI. Birkett v. City a/Chicago.

184

III. 2d 521 (1998).

Birkeu

examined whether a legislative privilege existed, not a judicial one.

As such.

it has no application here. [nstead.

Thomas

Page,

361 III. App. 3d 484 (2

Dist.

2005)

is on point and supplies the relevant law. In

Thomas,

the Second District affirmed that a

judicial deliberative process privilege does exist

in Illinois.

The existence

of a deliberative process privilege in the local siting context is well-settled

and

is not controversial. Just as disappointed litigants cannot cross-examine judges on appeal,

disappointed applicants cannot cross-examine members

of the local siting authority before this

Board.

II.

NO EXCEPTIONS TO THE DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGE EXIST

IN THIS CASE.

Under the law as established by lhe Appellate Court and lhe Board. the Yorkville City

Council members are presumed to have acted impartially. This presumption cannot

be overcome

absent a strong showing

of bias, prejudgment or impartiality.

Waste Mgmt..

PCB No. 04.186,

2008 Ill. ENV LEXIS 14, at -57. ("'The presumption of impartiality of the actions of a public

191571'1\2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

official will be overcome only where it is shown by clear and convincing evidence that the

of1icial has an unalterably closed mind in certain matters.");

West Suburban Recycling

Energy

Center,

L P"

PCB Nos, 95.119, 95.125, 1996 111. ENV LEXIS 718, at '14 ("In fact, before an

inquiry into an administrator's mental processes can begin, if contemporaneous fonnal findings

exist, there must be a strong showing

of bad faith or improper behavior."):

Village of LaGrange

v, McCook Cogeneralion Slalion, LLC, No,

PCB 96.41,1995111. ENV LEXIS 1118, at '30.31

(Dec.

7. 1995) ("The Board has previously noted ... that

before an inquiry can be made

into the

decisionmaker's mental processes when a contemporaneous formal finding exists, there must

a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior."') Thus, without first showing strong

evidence

of bias or prejudice, Fox Moraine may not ask whether the Council members reviewed

the record, understood the Council's quasi-judicial role

in the proceedings, what evidence they

reviewed, or why they voted

in a particular way.

City ofRockford v. County of Winnebago, 186

111. App, 3d 303, 313 (2"' Disc 1989),

In this case, the Yorkville City Council members deliberated in public on two nights,

before they voted.

They gave the reasons for their decisions, as is required under the

Environmental Protection Act. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(e). Further, the Council Members' statements

demonstrate unequivocally that their decisions were based on the evidence introduced

at the

hearing, rather than on any pre-existing bias or prejudice.

(See, e.g.,

Tr. of May 24, 2007

Hearing: 7:1.18, attached as Exh,

A; Spears Dep, 31:10.16, 93:19.20, attached as Exh. B.)

Fox Moraine asserts that issues surrounding the April 2007 election created bias, but the

precise nature

of Fox Moraine's argument is difficult to understand. Fox Moraine appears to

claim that the April 2007 elections were hotly contested and the then-pending landfill siting

proceeding was an issue

of intense importance

the voters, which atmosphere somehow

1915789v2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

intimidated the Council Members. causing them to prejudge the application or otherwise become

biased against

Fox: Moraine.

But it was

Fox: Moraine, not the City Council, who created the controversy. Fox Moraine

chose to file its landfill siting application four months before municipal elections. As

is their

right under the Constitution and laws

of the United States, the voters of Yorkville raised their

voices both

in support of and against the landfill. They wrote letters to the editor and put up

signs.

If there was a "hostile atmosphere" lhat aroused feelings against Fox Moraine and the

landfill, it could have been avoided

if Fox Moraine had filed its application ahead of lhe election

campaign, as one

of Fox Moraine's principals stated it could have done. Or Fox: Moraine could

have waited until after the election to file its applicalion. (Hamman Dep. 8:20-10: 15, attached as

Exhibit C.)

The City Council members did not create and did not exacerbate the public outcry. They

were each given a card with a pre-printed statement explaining that they could not discuss the

subject

of the landfill with voters. (Exh. B, Spears Dep. 21:1-4, 50:2-11.) They also testified

under oath that they did not run on an anti-landfill ticket.

(Ex:h. B, Spears Dep. 31:7-13; Burd

Dep. 9:4-22, attached as Exhibit

Plocher Dep. 29:3-23, attached as Exhibit E.) The only

statements attributed to any

of the City Council members regarding the landfill are those

appearing in the

Aurora Beacon News

on April IS, 2007. The statements themselves are

innocuous and hypothetical. Moreover, they are expressly protected

by the Illinois Pollution

Control Act and the United States Constitution. 415 ILCS 5/39.2(d); U.S. Cons!. Amend.

see

also

5 U.S.c. § 7223.

The fact that the landfill application may have been

an issue in the election is Fox

Moraine's fault, not the City Council's. The City Council members were the victims

of the

19I57'9v2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

election controversy, not its progenitors. The few constitutionally-protected statements made by

City Council members do not raise

to the level of a "strong showing of prejudgment or bias."

III.

THE CITY CO NCIL DLD NOT WAIVE ITS DELIBERATIVE PROCESS

PRIVILEGE.

Without citing any authority, Fox Moraine claims that, by citing the grounds for their

votes on

the record, the City Council members waived their deliberative process privilege. This

argument

is without merit for several reasons.

First, the Environmcntal Protection Act reqUires local siting authorities

to state the

reasons for their decisions. For Fox Moraine to suggest that following the law amounts to a

waiver

of privilege is inane.

Further. the reasons the City Council gave are proof

of the absence of prejudgment or

bias, and the deliberative process privilege can only be invaded

by a strong showing of bias.

Here again, the dots do not

connect

Finally, it is not unusual for a judge to give reasons supporting a particular decision.

Courts issue written opinions every day. Judges announce the reasons for thcir decisions

from

the bench. No onc has ever seriously suggested that, by explaining his or her reasoning, ajudge

waives the deliberative process privilege. Thc same is true for a City Council sitting in an

adjudicatory capacity.

IV.

THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DID NOT IGNORE THE RECORD.

In an apparent attempt to mislead the Hearing Officer and the Board, Fox Moraine claims

that the City Council did not review the record before voting. The City Council members. even

those were elected on April

17. 2007, repeatedly reminded Fox Moraine that they sat through

approximately 140 hours

of testimony and reviewed a mountain of exhibits. (Exh. Fat 20:5-7,

25:22-26:2,98:23-99:1, 101:11-20; Exh. A al 30:24-31:2.)

As the City Couneil members

1915719v2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

participated in creating the record, they did not have to re-review it in order to render an

impartial decision, nor were they required

to. ("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.'"):

Winnebago County Bd..

PCB 0.88-107.1988 III. ENY LEXIS

128, at .10-11

('.It

is therefore not permissible for this Board to inquire into how the

administrative decision maker dealt with the record

in deriving his or her final determination-so

long as lhere was a fair and adequate opportunity for Rockford to present testimony and evidence

into that record.");

E Hau/ing,

116 III. App. 3d at S77 ("'[N]othing 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,").

CONCLUSIO

The Board should grant Yorkville's Motion

in Limine

0,2. The Appellate Court and

the Board have repeatedly held that a local siting authority sits

in an adjudicatory capacity. As

such, its members' mental processes are protected

by the judicial deliberative process privilege.

Fox Moraine has failed to make a strong showing that City Council members were biased against

the siting application

or that they prejudged its Olltcome.

Moreover, Council Members'

statements

of reasons for their decisions were in accordance with the Environmental Protection

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

Act. Those statements made clear that their decisions ".ere based on an extensive record of

testimony and exhibits. TI1US, Council Members' mentaJ processes are fully privileged.

Respectfully submitted,

THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE

By:

lsi

Leo P. Dombrowski

One

of its Attorneys

Dated: OClober 7, 2008

Thomas

Matyas

Anthony G. Hopp

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

matv3s@wildm3n.com

dambrawski

wi Idman. co

1915189>2

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

EXHIBIT A

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

ORIGINAL

JNI?ED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS

S?ECIA~

MEETING

THE

CITY COUNCIL

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS taken

the

meeting of the Ci:y Councjl [or the Uniteu City of

Yorkville, taken ou May 24, 2007, at Lhe hour cf

7:00 p.m., before LyneLLe J. Np,,\l, C S.R .. ilL the

Beecher Center, Yorkville. [11ino1s.

n::porllllg

.scn·IC~

'212 Miulh t\aper UOulcvard . SlIite 119.185 •

~alJe"ine.

Il 60540 • 630-9ti3.{)(fJO .

ra~

63().299.51:<i3

wI'I'w.Ilt>1W.f)url rom

C18592

UCYFM005152

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

•

reviewed all the subm:itted evidence, and J have

to preface my vote with the fact that J have

hours away fzorn our families and the things that

we enjoy doing to deal with this issue.

For me this has never been a city

verous county issue. We are all members of the

somebody else who is not using their 20?

MAYOR BURD:

No.

MR. GOLINSKI:

I only have about six or

seven minutes, 80 if she allows it, I will give

you the reat of mine.

MAYOR BURD:

No .

MR. GOLINSKI:

Since I didn't geL the

opportunity last night with all the newly

presented information, I want to take this

opporLunity to say a couple of words

rega~ding

thoughts regarding this application.

First off, since I have the

opportunity,

would like to thank all of the

residents of our community tor their involvement

1 have

We have spent many

It has been very time-consuming

Just for the record,

would like

in t.his process.

and difficult on all of us.

reviewed the application in its eIltirety.

same community.

07: 09PM

•

O"I,D91'f4

07,lCPH

07,lOPM

DepoCourt Reporting Service {630l 983-0030

C18597

UCYFM005157

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

sal Ltlrough every minute of sworn testimony.

have

kp.p~

an open mind throughout these

proceedings and there is no doubt in my mind that

I have dealt with this

proce~s

in fundamental

fairness

all parties involved.

The only reason l'ln saying thjs is

because no matter the outcome of our vote, I know

the decision will be appealed.

Whatever governing

body reviews these proceedings, whether it be the

Pollution Control Board, the Appellate Court, or

even the 1111noio Supreme Court,

want them to

know that my decis10ns were based solely on the

evidence presented in the application and sworn

testimony presented in these hearings. My

decisions have been made solely on the facts.

have never showed a predetermined bias for or

against the applicant.

The rationale behlnd my

vote has been well thought out and well

researched.

As hard as this

pro~ess

has been to

keep my opinion to myself, r have nevp.r done

any tiling through my words or actions to jeopardize

my voce.

Whether or not this means anything in

th1S hearing process is yet to be seen.

With all

DepoCourt Report1ng Service (630) 983-0030

C18598

UCYFM005158

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

them will end I will be a senior citizen.

n:ullitoring wells installed before opening the

operation, cU[lsidering at 2S years before allot

MR. PLOCHER:

I also have two additional

I would like

Who would lLke to

ThaL's it.

The first one being

Okay.

r have one additional and I

Yes.

As far as Criterion 2. I

MR. MUNNS:

MAYOR BURD:

Okay.

MAYOR BURD:

teet, ann t.he second one being

Lh~t

the owner and

will read the things now so we don't have to do it

the operator of the landfill be completely and

that I would like to see on there.

that the height of the landfill be reduced to 50

Lo see a $10 million a year flat fee instead of

ti.pping fees, and also I would 1 ike to oee

0.11

8peak next?

Alderman Munns?

notice a couple of places in the resolution, the

two additional conditione.

aCCllrately idenli[jed pursuant to

Criterl~

later.

That would be all of them.

07:),PM

!)7,J'.lPM

07:40PM

22 proposed resolutions. about not doing this until

, .

the Prairie parkway and Eldemain Road bridges

going over -- over Eldemain Road over the river.

DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030

C18619

UCYFM005179

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

,.,

07 • ... OPM

•

T would like to put a condition that, you know,

before truck traffic goes down Bldemain and

RouLe 34 betwp.p.n Cannonball and Eldema.iu, that

if there is any other better ways to go, because

with the Menards truck traffic there is just way

too

~uch

truck traffic going through that

intersection already.

I have a quick little statement.

Again, this isn't new information about the

situatiOll due to its multi-faceted character.

the

ei~in9 pro~ees

must therefore incluue

political conflicrs centered on who should make

the most contentious

p~rt

of the solid wasLe

The

procedure of

widely accepted that in every

'rhis is about the whole process.

Landfill

~iting

permitting and appropriateness arc

Many communities have faced extreme

problem in our country today.

that'g whaL they are asking us to do.

such as geology, engineering, planners, elcetera.

All evidence Erom this field must be compiled and

eva]uaLed in order to make a proper decision and

the decision.

qualified scientists coming from different

fi~lds

landfill siting process composes a very complex

07,41I'M

criterion.

07,4.1PH

07,41PM

, ,

DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030

C18620

UCYFM005180

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

most part. average citizens witll expertise in

deciR1on-making process the extracted re9ults

~re

characterized by the stakeholders' objectivity.

The real qUp.Ation is who should be

about my main business or the sports

officiate

and

will give you definitive op1nions. "ery

rnnfidenl and correct opinions. and argue them

with anybody.

believe right

right and

wro~q

is wrong. but in this case I'm JusL making the

best. decision wiLh what I have to work with, which

is a layman's kllowledge of some very technical

l\sk me

We are

for the

The most common

After reading thousands of pages

to counLies and municipalities.

other areas than geology and traffic.

type of siting process is to riecide, announce, and

defend a model which hasn't been accepted easily

by interested partiec and locnl citi7.ens

h~ve

dpmanded to be included in the process to have 1lI

more comprehensive strategy. And, after all, we

aLe all citizens of Yorkville and have the same

vested irlterest to site it or not.

The etltire process is really

unf~ir

subject matter.

stakeholders in Kendall County.

01,411-,"

07,42PM

07 42PM

C7'42PM

DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983-0030

C18621

UCYFM005 J8\

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

of dry, boring material and listerling to hundreds

of hours of testimony, we must make a decision

that will

p.ffp.~r.

many people today and in Lhe

lEPA or other entities can trump us and allow

these many hours of agonizing over this

j~sue

be a moot point.

It seemed ludicrous too that the

person with the moat experience 10 landfill

llearings. over 30 sitings as testified, isn't here

ct[[orded the same privilege but written oLatcments

do not hold the same emotion as speaking, and I

would have liked Lo hear it coming from the

people, not just reading a piece of paper where

you can't read in an emotion.

have varying opinions

frulll

several high-priced attorneys who are being paid

by the petitioner, and I don't think that makes

sensp., which the whole process really didn't make

sense so 1 guess that shouldn't surprise me.

And my final thought is that after

this is donp., hopefUlly we can all act civilly

!:owdrd one another, because 1 have no hard

co give hio opinion orally. We shoul d have been

[uluce.

If we don't do the process correctly,

01,42PPl

07,4:1PM

)]

07:43PM

07; 4.JPI'I

DepoCourt Reporting Service (G30) 983-0030

C18622

UCYFM005 J 82

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

EXHIBITB

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00001

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

FOX MORAINE, LLC,

)

Petitioner,

)

vs.

) No. PCB 07.146

UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,

)

6 CITY COUNCIL,

)

Respondent.)

DISCOVERY DEPOSITION OF

ROSE ANN SPEARS

June

4, 2008

5:30 P.M.

Called as a witness by the Petitioner

13 herein. pursuant to the provisions of the Code of

14 Civil Procedure of the State of Illinois and the

15 Rules of the Supreme Court thereof pertaining 10 the

16 laking of depositions for the purpose of discovery,

17 before CIIR1STfNA M. CULOlTA, C.S.R., License

#084~003299,

qualified and commissioned for the

19 Slate of Illinois, taken at 800 Game Farm Road.

20 Yorkville, Illinois.

Spears, Rose ADD - 06-4-08

Page 1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00020

I other documents that would be responsive to the

2 rider?

A That's correcl.

Q Do you know whether there was action taken

5 by

the City Council to retain the Wildman finn

6 before April 27, 20077

A I really can't recall.

Q All right. The, the invoice from the

9 Wildman firm indicates that on April

281h there was

some

work performed to determine what may be

II considered improper contacts.

What is your understanding of

3 improper conlacts?

MR. HOPP: 1 am going to object to the extent

15 that that would impinge on attorney/client

16 privilege; but to the extent that you can answer

17 that question without revealing any attorney/client

18 privilege, go ahead and answer the question.

THE WITNESS: Can you repeat YOUT question?

20 BY MR. MUELLER:

Q What is your understanding of the lenn of

22 improper contacts in a landfill siting context?

A Improper contacts?

Yes.

Spears, Rose Ann - 06-4-08

Page

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00021

A Mr. Price gave us a little card and

2 indicated that we could not speak about the landfill

basically anybody imaginable, including family

4 members.

Q Did you ever give any direction to the

6 Wildman firm or any cfits members with regard 10

7 the type of legal work they should be pursuing as

8 evidenced

in Ihis invoice?

A No. I did

110t

give any direction.

Q All right. Did

you

attend any meetings

1\ ever at the Wildman firm?

A No.

Jdidnol.

Q And were you the person that chose them

14 specifically to be the City's legal representative?

A J would just like

clarify that any

16 decision made based on the City Council is a

17 majority of eight elected officials. So did I

18 personally select them? I could nol personally

19 select anything, any firm. I cannol personally make

20 any ruling on anything. It's collectively. It's

21 the majority of the Council.

Q All right. And, Rose, our problem is that

23 we

have searched the minutes of the City Council and

24 cannot find any motions

ever retaining the Wildman

Spears, Rose Ann - 06-4-08

Page

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00031

A Oh, no. They did not.

Did anyone from FOGY, or anyone else for

3 that matter,

ever indicate to you Ihat their support

or non-support in your

reelection campaign was

contingent upon your

landfill position?

A No.

Q Would it be fair to say thai you ran for

8 reelection on an anti-landfill platform?

A Oh, certainly not.

Did

you in your campaign ever express an

opinion as to

whether or not Yorkville should have a

12 landfill?

A No.ldidnol.

Q Were you endorsed

the FOGY group to

your

knowledge?

A Not to my knowledge.

Q Did

you

have a web site during your

18 reelection campaign?

A No.ldidnol.

Q Did

you

have any MySpace presence or any

21 other kind of

A No. I did not.

Q -- Internet presence?

A No.

Spears, Rose Ann - 06-4-08

Page

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00050

A No. I do not.

Q Did you receive any personal

3 communications, meaning face-ta-face. from anyone

4 urging you to vote no or expressing opposition?

A I believe we all did; and that's why we

6 had that preprinted card that

we could, that

7 Mr. Price gave to each one

of us indicating -- I

8 mean, people did, even at the hearings

came up to us

9 and would start discussing

it and we would just give

10 them the card or repeat what was on the card, that

II we were not allowed to disclose it, or discuss it.

Q What was the total number of e-mails that

you

believe you received from the landfill

opponents?

A I couldn't even begin to guess. I'm

16 sorry.

Would it be more than 100?

That would be assuming and guessing. 1--

Would

it be

morc than ten?

Again, that's an assumption at this time.

21 I really don't know.

So you don't know whether it was one or a

23 thousand?

A That's correct.

Spears, Rose Ann - 06-4-08

Page 50

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00093

Did ),ou know any names?

A There is a George Gilson that I believe

3 was very strong because he had most orthe

4 infonnation and he would speak the loudest and carry

5 the biggest sign.

Q And did you sec Mr. Gilson speak wilh any

7 City Council member outside of the hearing?

A No. I did not.

Are you aware that Mr. Gilson spoke to

10 City Council members outside of the hearing?

A NO.lamnol.

Which City Council members ran on an

13 anti-landfill plalfoml?

I don't believe any of them did.

Upon \\ hat do you base that?

Pardon me?

Upon what do you base that belief?

On the infonnalion that Mr. Price gave us

19 that we were supposed to be non-bias; and I believe

20 most,

or all, were non-bias.

Q Were you -- well, strike that.

Was there any discussions that you

v.ere privy to about filibuslering during the

24 hearings in order to effccluate Ihe change in the

Spears, Rose

ADD -

06-4-08

Page

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

EXHIBITC

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

NFOlllC 1'lIE

IU.ll'018 POLU.nlOll

CQHTIIO~

IIOAAll

R.opo~t

.... by,

Jun>tar C&IOpbali. caM. RI'R

I.>o.n ••

~o.'

084-00]282

'no. d1o""".oy d<>po.H>on or DOll

t.ohn

t~.

_.-.ntHl.... cau ••• booro ....

.;zlll<lnM

CAHPDZLL •• noUoy pubho or 1IoIndolil County,

I1hnou. on

t~.

30tl> day or

l-vt_~,

2008 .t

2,]0

p .•.•• t

100

.....

ra ...

""'.<1. York,nII••

IIhnou.

",,~.uut

to lOou"...

P 42

EXAMINATION

IN 0 EX

WITNESS

DON HAMMAN

By Mr Dombrowski

By Mr Blazer

EXHIBITS

NUMBER

MARKED FOR 10

Yorkville Deposition Exhibit

No.1-2

P 5

(Retained by Mr. Dombrowski.)

~o.

PCB

146

UIHn:O

...

CIT\' OF YORI<VII.LI.. <;Ifi

COUNCIL.

FOX lC>RAI lIE.

u.c:,

f'ootltlon.<.

•

"""

""""

APPEARANCES;

MUELLER ANDERSON, P.C.• by

MR GEORGE MUELLER

609 Etna Road

•

Ottawa. lIIinois 61350

(815)431.1500

Representing

the

Petilloner:

WILDMAN HARROLD ALLEN & DIXON. LLP. by

MR LEO P. DOMBROWSKI

225 West Wacker Drive

Chicago. Illinois 60606

(312)201-2562

Representing the Respondent;

JEEP & BLAZER. by

MR. MICHAEL S. BLAZER

24 North Hillside Avenue

Hillside.Suite

Illinois 60162

Representing the Kendall County

ALSO PRESENT:

Mr. Chartes J.

Murphy. Fox Valley

Consulting services. loc.

(Witness duly sworn)

MR DOMBROWSKI Mr Hamman, my name is Leo

Dombrowski (represent the City of Yorkville 10

thiS landfill appeal I'm gOlO9 to

asklOg

you

some questions

today

You vnderstarn:lthat we have

OO\Jrt

reporter here

record everything that you

and I say?

THE WITNESS I

MR DOMBROWSKI, And that If you'd let me

finiSh my

question before

\'0"

start your answer.

and I won'l step on

yoor answer. 50 lhat we get a

clear record

All nght?

THE WITNESS Okay

DON

HAMMAN,

called as a Witness herein. haVIng been first duly

swom. was

e~amlned

and testified as follows

EXAMINATION

BY MR DOMBROWSKI

Are

you

on any drugs or medications or

anythmg thaI you thInk

mlgh~

interfere With your

ability to answer

queslions today?

A N'

Let me show you

what

we have mar10led as

YOfiIvilie DepoSItion EJochlblt No 6

1 (Pages 1 to 4)

McCORKLE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (312) 263-0052

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

And one other thing, if there's a quesllon

My family. yes

that you don't understand, please ask me to

So you mean not JUS! you. but other people

rephrase it, othelWlse, I'll assume you have

as well?

understood the question. Fair enough?

My wife and my sons

Um.hum.

Are

you

the managmg member of the lLC?

And you'll also have to answer out loud.

Mr. Hamman?

And what are your roles and duties 85 the

Yes.

managing member of the LLC?

You'll have to answer out loud 50-

My role was to procure a managemenlleam.

Repeat the question.

ThaI's the eKlen! of it

II you don't understand a question I pose

Is it fair to say thaI you're the main guy

to you, please let me know, I'll rephrase ii,

at Fox Moraine. LlC?

otherwise, I'll assume thai you've understood the

One

the main guys

question. Fair enough?

Who are lhe other main guys?

Yes.

Lee Brandsma and John Gamty. They're

Have you seen this exhibit before?

49.percenlowners.

No.

And you own 51 percent?

This is the notice of your deposition

Correct My family

today. You say you have not seen this before.

You with your family you say own

one gave this to you?

51 percenl?

Not

my recollection.

Urn-hum.

Did you bring any documents with you

That's a yes?

today?

No, I did not.

How did you decide to submllthe

Is it fair for me to assume that you have

application to Ihe City of Yorkville to site the

no additional documents to produce in this case

proposed landfill?

other Ihan what Fox Moraine has already given us?

MR MUELLER. I'm gOing to objecllo the form

That

correct.

of the question Pretty vague

And are you represented by counsel today?

What do you mean by how did you decide?

Yes.

BY MR. DOMBROWSKI

And that is Mr. Mueller here?

All right. Fair enough.

That's correct.

At some point, you deCided to submit an

What did you do to prepare for today's

application

the City of Yorkville for the

deposition?

landfill; correct?

Drovehere.

Other than that?

And when did you make that decision?

That's it.

Sometime after

deCided to go forward

Did you speak with Mr. Mueller al all

With the -- a landfill

about today's deposition?

And when was that, approximately?

I did not.

Maybe September, October I don't recall

Did you look at any documents?

the exact date

No, Idid not.

Of2006?

Where do you live, sir?

A Yes.

13351 B Faxon Road, Plano, Illinois 60545.

Now, when you filed the application on

And what's your relalionship to Fox

December 1, 2006, did you know thallhe City of

Moraine. LLC?

Yorkville would

holding ejections in ApriI2007?

I'm one of the owners.

Yes.

Are you the main owner of the LLC?

Why did you decide to file the applicalion

2 (Pages 5 to 8)

McCORKLE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (312) 263-0052

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

in December wIh elections four

months

Of so In

the

I have never read lhem

offi",1

I have complele faith In my management

have

no idea

wry

I have a rnanagtng

team

•

partner

group ltllIt

chose

forward I

doll'

•

a Are

you aware, Mr Hamman. that part of

rricromanage

my proteCts

tillS landfill appeal- strike that

But you v.ere

uncIer

c1eadline

In thIS landfill appeal you're aware that

December

anyItwlg.

I lJflcIeRtand,

1st

'06, correa?

Chat

made

you

file

Fox

blasedMoraine

agalO$III_

claimingYou

uOOef5landthat

the City

that?

Council was

A, What

Arr1legaldo

youdeadline?

mean a deadline?

•

RepeatDOMBROWSKI

tnt!

questionReadagatnthat

back, please

NOItomy~

(Rel::ord read as requested)

you could have filed the application

THE WITNESS Yes, I do

befOfe December 2006; COITed?

BY MR DOMBROWSKI

I'm not aware 01 the environmental lava.

And who on the City CounCil are you

I'm saying. apart from any envIronmental

claimmg was biased against Fox Morame?

lava, you could have filed the application with the

Valerie Burd. Rose Spears

City before December 01 - belore December of 2006.

Anyone else?

oe<red1

A. I'm not slKe

You're not clalmlngthal Mr Werdench was

1>0

INhat 'M>UkI have prevented you from filing

•

biased?

it any earlier, if anything?

MR MUELLER Are you asktng fOf hiS personal

""""""W

knowledge or personal claIms? Because, It\ that

as you

sit

here, nothing Chat you know

case they're Irrelevant

•

of ItIal

w:ud

have prevenlecl Fox Morame LLC from

•

MR DOMBROWSKI I'm askmg hun as a

riJing its landfiJI

applicatJon ear1ier

!han

representatIve of

folt MoraIne

DecembeI' of

2006.

COfled?

MR MUELLER He's alreacly

Ie$lJfled thai

as a

A. Repeat

the

queslion

representatrve of

Fox Morl108

doesn'

•

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Read

thai badt

you

YlOUkl,

•

miaomanage and delegates

those

calls to hiS

please.

managemelllieam You're welcome to 15k hlffi abool

(Record read as requested.)

his personal knowledllf! or beliefs

THE

MR. MUELLER

WITNESS

I don't

you know

know

MR.

THE

DOMBROWSKI

WITNESS Could

Sure

I ask a Question?

BY MR. DOMBROWSKI:

MR. MUELLER: Sure

Nothing that you know of: correct?

THE WITNESS

When

you selld Wally Wer(jench,

A. Not that I know

are you talking about

the

newty board or

the old

Anything that v.ould have prevented Fox

board?

Morante, LlC from

r~lI'IQ

the applicaoon

laler

than

BY MR. DOMBROWSKI

_20061

rm talkIng about the eoght.1dem1en who

Nothlng ltIal I know

voted on

the

applica\lon in May 2007

DId

you assist" prepamg

Fox Moraine's

A. wen.

III thaI

case.

Mr Wally

Weroencn.

interrogatory

iIl15VIerS?

was biased as wei

No.1 did not

AI flI:Iht. let me

shoW

you what we've

Did you

assislln

prepanng Fox Moratne'S

marked as

DeposIbon

ExhbI No

wt.dl is Fox

1>0

responses to

the docU'nent

requests?

Mora!ne's

second

ameoded petitIOn

'Of

rlNleW,

and

No.

did not.

attached

!hat IS

the

Oty's resolution denying

a. Were

they ever sho\WIto you?

the

landfill application

wNch

has a ksl ollhe

A. No

aldermen

who

voted

you see

thai

thefe?

•

YOl/Ve never readlhem?

A. Yes

3 (Pages 9 to 12)

McCORKLE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (312) 263-0052

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

All right. So you've mentioned three of

the ninepeople?

Well, in looking at this. it refreshes my

memory. Robyn SUlcliff. Wally Werdench. Joe

Plocher, as I recall there was a news article two

or three

da~

prior to their - the election, and

both of them based the landfill as pan of their

election platform, they were against it I believe

il was in Ihe Aurora Beacon News, if 1recall

correctly.

And you saw Ihat article when it appeared

the Sunday before the electiOns?

We gel the Beacon News delivered daily.

yes.

Okay. So you would have read that article

Ihatday?

Oh, most definilety.

Did you lell anyone on your management

team or landfilileam what you Ihoughl of the

article?

t would have probably called. but I don't

recall

I did or not. Every time there was a

news article In either the Aurora Beacon News, I

would call Charles Murphy or Jim Burnham and lell

A Burd is nolan here.

Well, she signed il?

A Well, but you pointed to Ihis. She's not

there

If I misspoke or if I didn't mention It, r

mlsspoke I meant to say the eight aldermen plus

the mayor.

A, Okay, I! would

the mayor as well.

a All

right. When did you first think thai

Werderlch was biased against Fox Moraine?

A In seeing him around lawn,

at functions,

he had

the no-landfill buttons on him

a And when did you see him wearing

no-landfill buttons?

A At the meetings that I attended, the

hearings I attended some

of the hearings at Ihe

high school He had the buttons on.

Now, were these Ihe annexation hearings

you're talking about?

A No. No.landfill.

Q. So these were the landfill hearings thai

look place in March and April of

200n

A Yes.

Somelhing else that indicated to you

them about these articles. I don't recall if I did

on thet particular one, because they don't

gellhe

subscription, the daily one, like I do.

Q. You recall

calling either Mr. Murphy or

Burnham about this April 15th article?

A I would

have alerted them to it.

Q. And what would you have lold them?

A. Take a look atth!s, whallheir platform

Is.

It was antI-landfill.

Q, And you say that you also called Ihem

regarding other articles that- In which you

thought indicated some bias by the City against Fox

Moraine?

A, Yes.

Q. Can you recall

how many other articles

there would have been?

A, There would

have been leiters to the city

editor, et cetera, you know,

by the various people,

urn-hum.

Anyone else on that list who you claim was

biased againsl the City?

A. Just those four

Q, Okay, Well, you mentioned five,

Burd,

Spears, Werderlch, Sutcliff, and Plocher?

Mr. Werderich was biased against Fox Moraine?

A, Thai's It.

when you saw him wearing these buttons

in March and Apnl of 2007, I assume you shared

that

WIth your landfill Ieam?

A No Everybody could see It I dldnl

share It with anybody

Well, did you point

out

to Mr Murphy or

Mr Bumham or anyone else Ihat Mr Werderich was

wearing these buttons?

A. Idldnol.

&It you say you. yourself, certainly were

of the belief in March and April of 2001 that

Mr. Werderich was biased against the landfill,

correct?

A. Repeat

the

question.

MR. DOMBROWSKI: Read that back, If you would,

please.

(Record read as requested)

THE WITNESS: Yes,

BY MR. DOMBROWSKI:

How aboU1 Robyn Sutcliff, why do you say

she was biased against the landfill?

A. She was wearing

the

buttons as well.

4 (Pages 13 to 16)

McCORKLE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (312) 263-0052

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

EXHIBITD

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00001

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

5 FOX MORAINE, LLC,

)

Petitioner.

)

vs.

)

PCB

No. 07-146

UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,

)

8 CITY COUNCIL,

)

Responden!.

)

Discovery deposition of VALERIE BURD, called as

12 a witness herein, pursuant to the applicable

13 provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure of the

14 State of Illinois and the rules of the Supreme

15 Court thereof, before Belinda A. Harr, CSR No.

16 84.00321 S. taken on June 18,2008, at 1:30 p.m. at

17 800

Game Farm Road, Yorkville, Illinois.

Burd, Valerie - 06-18-06

Page 1

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00009

I any landfill should be sited by the City of

2 Yorkville?

A. No, I did not.

All right. Is il fairto

5 characterize one ofyour campaign platforms in the

campaign for mayor as having been an anti.landfill

7 platfonn?

A. No.

it is not fair.

Q. You do

nOl

believe that you ran as

lOan anti.landfill candidate?

A. I did

not run as an

anti-landfill

12 candidate.

Q. Was the City's position with respect

14 to a landfill in your opinion an issue in your

15 campaign against Art Prochaska?

The City had no position.

Q. Well. your position versus Mayor

18 Prochaska's position. Do you believe thai the

19 siting ora landrilJ was an issue in that

20 campaign?

A. No. We -- I did not discuss it as

22 an issue.

Did )OU form a campaign committee

Burd, Valerie - 06-18-06

Page 9

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

EXHIBITE

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00001

BEFORE TilE ILL! 015

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

5 FOX MORAINE, LLC,

)

Petitioner,

)

VS.

) PCB No. 07-146

UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE,

)

8 CITY COUNCIL,

)

Respondent.

)

11 Discovery deposition of ARDEN JOSEPH PLOCHER,

12 called as a witness herein, pursuant to the

13 applicable provisions ofthe Code of Civil

14 Procedure of the Slate of Illinois and the rules

15 oflhe Supreme Court thereof. before Belinda A.

I-Iarr.

CSR No. 84-003215. taken on June 18,2008,

J 7 at 4:00 p.m. at 800 Game Fann Road, Yorkville,

18 Illinois.

Plocher, Arden. 06.18.08

Page I

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

00029

1 a slate for election

Ihc City Council?

Yes.

Q. Who were Ihe members orlhe slale?

general. me, Robin. Rose. Val,

and Wally.

Q. Rose \\35 a member afthal slate?

A. I believe so. yes.

Q. Did the group of you coordinate your

9 campaign activities in any way?

A. Like when we would meet together --

I 1

Q. Yes.

A. -- people together?

Q. Yes.

We tried to.

Did the slate have a position on the

16 landfill siting?

A. Not that I'm aware of.

did nOI have an anti-landfill

19 pl<ltfonn?

A. No.

MR. IIOPP: I'm sorry, was that, no, it did

22 not?

TilE WITNESS: No, it did not.

Plocher, Arden - 06-18-08

Page

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

EXHIBITF

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

UNITED CITY OF YORKV!t,f,E:, ILLTNOTS

SPECIAL MEE:TJNG Of

THE CITY COUNCIL

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had ar.d testimony

laken at the hearing taken on

H~y

23, 2007, at

the hour

7:0U p.M., before

Ch~istlne ~.

Vitosh. C.S.R"

at the Grande Reserve Elementary

School, Yorkville, III inois,

reporlll1g SCn'I(C

1212 Souill

~.lper BnlJll~atd

• SUite 119-185 • "-IIJe....lUO, II (.0540 • 630-983-U030 ' fall 630-299-5153

WWW

I1e

IIl..liW\II'I.c."llm

C18535

UCYFM005096

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

Landfill Hearing

May

23, 2007

We IIOOLd

spend

tillc, each

"/ aldeIJliln would qet all qI!XIrtuDity to disc"..lSs,

you

wa:lt toniqht,

)'OU

can jt.ell diSCUS5 )'O:.LC 0Wll

opiniO!lS on your 140 hours oJ testimny blt )'O'J

, hedrd, the public

((lWJl!:llt

that you re<td dJring

, the Iut 30

dip

tNt's bun on the vebsili! and

1 t.'len

t(8)[[OIIf

we can

ad::!

t.\jf

dl5Qluion of

, anything )'00 can gel out of the doctnenls U!at

, were siblll tted on the 2200, U

YJU

want to do

JO lllat, wt tltAVI! it up to you. [1'5.- it's noll

J1 in the City CO'.IIdl's hands, it's no longer a

12 public hcadll9' we arc :.LOOec

tile

City Colocil

/1 r:Jles, so it's at your pleasure. You Irt the

u aldemen, Wt do

}'lXI

val'll to

do?

SP&o'JlS: 1000e iloIlO!, I

" wou.ld tile to S1:)ge5t that

WI!

do contilllll! .r.d

11 have our d.i.&cu.sIIion this tvminq aDd if

we cD

I' !lave -- >hen

110 ....ay I

a:I

going to be wll! to

read

1M:

docultral Crml liE to U. J qet IDE

1J1Ilil bve o'clock in the -acnl1l9

r have to

2J Yate up for 110ft. There

absohtely no way I

ean do that.

Evelyn

Wood Cilnool al:COlllpllsh that.

2JI'JIIsorry.

You know, and I JUSl leel that

I this COuncil sat lJ'.rough all tl:ese hearings, I've

2 90t jUllt IlOU!book.:s full

II)lu

thaL 1 Iw.n

J tatta. I

fed

that I • IlCt biased, I did tab

• th:lrtUj!IlOW, a-', igaln, I thbt that I was

3 nked to

reso"led at

the

beqiMinq

jU!t

btca~

, ttoey know I:'J track

r~d

all:! taklnq notes all:!

1 researchilllJ, arxl I feel I

alii

totally prepared to

, rule on this.

Ko\YOR 1llJRl): Okay.

Any other

c~nts?

A1,D&RMA!I f'IINNS: I have a

question.

/2 When we

qet

ordilllonce

fzen

the city attorney,

JJ 1S it going to be one (XlIUensus

t~tion')

H I rean, llhat are - a muple of people say well,

15 1 would approve it with these 39 conditions am

16 hall sily w..s, !N.ll say 00.

J _an, ue

'iC!

Just 901ng to

cae up to one

COllM'llSUS? ....1d

vn.at

U Ill!

don't

have a COllseMU:S, are 'J'OII

j~t

9Oi09 to IIIlIke an

1tI

ordinilm:e

to vote on

ye!l or

no')

H!l., 1lOTIt: o.rr

iotentiOfl Io'M to

lbten to

)'OIIt

co-rents and develop a rMOlution

that r.IIilodied your decision

based

UlXln wIlat the

deliberations lo'Ould be, so we ha\le to listen to

see what

)'CU

intend, but there is .. there is

d1!ferent 'oiI)'S of

001lll]

this.

J[ ll's eleu,

we get clear

direction

think 'fOIl the debate, we 'o'Otlld ccw

bact with a sinqle resolution; Iowever,

Ill!

Ciln

, certainly cc.

bact

lIith • resolution trot

1 antlClpatts appro..l, in other words, aU of the

, siting crileria is satisfied; that an:JWUS

, approval lIith conditions: or that anticipates

denial. iIe can •• We can do 411 three, and it

II vould IIOt be In enol1lOUs burden to

d:l

thllL

AI.llRWt M.'llIlS: fOIl Illl!an all three

ordinances we are to tote on?

til.

Jm'Jl: !t.e only _. lhe only

IS Issue tlut's difficl1t I think ioS we hi'll:: to

U listen to what you're going to yy. hear

v!lat -

siting

s14rdards.

J'Ou \len! to find, for

e~Ie,

that CUllin

s!linr~s

wet! 110: ytlsfitd,

20 tbe.'1 -

if Iff!

und -

if lie

he"r that the Council

11 ClJ'llb lhat lh@ slting sundards lfOuld be

12 satisfied

certlin condiliClrul \litre

~dopted,

13 then our resolution would say tlla:. Ife h.1ve to

1f lIear wholt

}'OIl

hilve Lo

50JY

in oede.! to do lllat,

J obvious!y.

.r.Jmvwt 1«IIliS: Oka)..

AId then

-t

J other - IIY lut qlJeStion woulc be let 'I jUlt say

• U exalple on criterion I, 1'.00t saying what

CIiterl.on 1 is, .1.1 .,. notn I toot

ltO hours

, or 110 hours or whitner I ntde of lhose hours,

J let's say

IIy

decision lias to go one IllY,

but

then

, I read PJr

~nts,

Derke Price's and Larry

, Clark's

COIIEnts, and it chanqcs

rrt

criteria, so

10 toniqht it aiqht be 00, and then if I read your

II expert opinion, chen It convinces

that

they

11 at it, tllen whu happens?

14\. PDfH: Well,..,. undersUnding Is

you're goiRJ to cca bact toIDrrow 4Rd deliberate

lS fllltber, ve'll

heit

that,

~l;.Se

ytU'lI

haY'll

l' W1Ul tlDnOll _.

lXtCortunalely Oily

OO!

day -

11 but )'OII'U have until tOo1Orrov to still

~e1op

J' that opinion.

A1.Dt1tWl KIIiKS: A.1d

then ..

actually this is

ltY

last lasl

~lion

-- IIMt

lie

don't fini5h deliberltlr:q In the tva days?

MR. ROTH: The

onl}

le9.J:l

13 requirelrent Is that. decIsion

1l00e by the

24 29th.

Depo Court Reporting SetVice (63U)

983-00JU

C18540

UCYFM005101

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

LandNl Hearing

M>y 23, 2007

•

AL£:t:OON MJNNS: 119ft/! with

23 Aldeman Spears, that if

sat here for 140

hours, to U_it us to ten Ilinutcs 001I, I CII(!<Jn,

""TOR lJIW); Itas thdt IIlUOO

s«:oaded

to SUspend the IlIles? Old I have

i --

AUV.M.I.lI!llMIS: second.

KAroR

JlCRl):

O~y.

CAn

'o'e

!lave a

S roll call vote 011 that

Dlle?

ALlOIWl snMS: Could

lie

hill/!:

7 discussion?

MS. PICfDUl(;: Bescc.

BESCO:

!fay.

KS. PICfiERIIIG: Leslie.

ALDE'PIWI USLIE: Aye.

1'5. PICJ(!\R1H(j: Golinski.

(lIS PIcmullG: Golillsti.

ALtIlPWJt

OOl.llC5IJ:

Aye.

!fi

PIC11.!UllG: Ik!rdl!!ich.

AI.IEIIWt mmuOl: May.

ALlEtIAN MIINS: Nay.

!6 PIrn:RI1lG: Plocher.

PLOCHER:

!lay.

MS. PICmUItG: Spears •

ALIEItWl SPCARS: Nay.

,"",fOR BORD: Can I entert.lin another

II lOtion then?

ALMIINJt SPEARS: [would We to

[J uu, a lOtion that we lillil our - each aldec.ln

to speak 20 r..inutes.

N.l."mWt

KIIftiS:

5eccOO.

It'roR

IUl.D:

Any

di5CllSSion~

(110 respcwel

1"A'tOI\ IllJR!>:

ObIy. 11011 call 'IOte,

pIN~.

""'COR llURD: DUOJuioo, sure.

A1Jl€1lIWl SPEARS:

Does

""ve to

J(l IiJlited to

lllnutes pee

pet~?

H.J.YOR 6URD:

MO\I long do >'OU want to

ALlER!'Wf SnJ.RS: I'U bE here IS

long is it td:es. After sitting here as :&:lny

J) hoots as

Iuve,

I _lj

Uke to uybe U<I!

l' lClIlqer than len alllltes it possible.

~JlWJI

1IIKtf):

ntis is our - this

is not. I City Co\:ncll,

:lO -

MA'fOR BUIO: Yes, it 1s. Yn, it

is. Does anybcXl/loIo1nt to

go beyoDd ten lIinutes

21 each?

,l.Ll-.:1fWl OOLntSlI: Aye.

MS. PICIElIDKi: 1erderidl.

~ Il!lRWUQi~

Aye.

f6.

ncmu.:;:

)bans.

AL!1llKAN KlKNS: Aye.

ItS.

PI~:

Plocber.

ALDmWf PLOCHER: Aye.

!'!j, PICr.ER.IMG: SpellS.

ALDEPWJI SPEARS: Aye.

MS. prCI\EIUHG: SUtclHf.

ALllElIJolAN SUTCLH'F: Aye.

!'!AIOR BUM:

All right. Then yO'J

eadl have 20 &inutes .nd l1len a two-.inute

!dJutL1l, so we lIill start

with

Alder.iln

lfe:rderich.

mot.ll.ICII: ktlially

17 coa1d pas3 aoo Nte a

CXXlD!llt

at a later tie, I

J' IIOIJ.1d awrte:.Llu thoIt.

M'tOI\ &!PD: I don't bel1l!Ve OU1

~le.s

.1Iov you to do Unto leu can't pass ".:1

qtt

Un! rille bact clCCOrdill9 to OO! rules.

fI],[J;1f1t\H

WEIUlf'.PJCII: I'd like to

23 Il'Io!ke a Illltion

then at this point lhat

\fl!

waive

24 the

=ule.~

in oIdet of CO'Xlent gi ven by the Ci ty

1OI\'Of1 BUIUl:

Iio,

that 'IIOuldn't be

MS. PIOl:iUIiG: SJtcliff.

&lTCLIFF: May.

MS. PIClU.JU!iG: IIesco.

ALlt"PW.N BESro:

Aye.

MS, PICJlEJlING: Leslie,

ALOl!RHAN LESLIE:

Hay.

ALllERM!IN SPt:ARS:

I would recCft'll!oo

20 Ibitlutes, am

lie

under, God bless us alL

~YO\I.

BlJRI):

Okay.

So we lull uke

• vote on the origin.1 --

ALl£~)Jl

PL(KJ-D\: Are:

\It

voting for

u.e

ten IUnutu or tile 20 linute:s IS this?

~roR

8IJRD:

110,

~tio:l

t'fl

the noor

is tor the ten

ailUltt.

I th4t •• I "OUld - I don't know

I'.going to

1 be tore thin ten.

SOIleCIl! does, «lre power to

J tta.

KIr.'tOI\ iICRD:

1f!!1l, pick

IlUIIber.

) Ve have to -

1ft

have Nles that

llave to

, fo11011,

~nd

follow.

AllEJW.lI GtlLIHSlII:

S'JSPefld

the

a rules.

ID good.

Depo

Court

Reporting

SOlVie.

(630)

98~0030

C18542

UCYFM005103

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

LandfiR

I-.ng

Mly 23, 2007

I delibetatt on whal we aU um Qf -- beause

1 it's - )'OC kocv, it's vitMn the sa. ballpart I

J think.

~'re

here al'd that thr:re

a lot of

traffic io Yorkville .nd thert

u •

lot of

YOO

.) kDow, traftic going through doImtOllr., 10Itlat does

, thilt

all that IIttn. Could we discuss it? Tl14t

1 what delibention is, correct?

MAYOR BlIRO:

'tes.

ALJf'J&N HUJlNS:

So do we qo each

criteria by one

whoever wants to plck one,

llLat-~

/iAYOR BOllO: You hdn a certain

tile

J] liJIit to di!lCU:'!s vlLattver )'OJ "ant.

ALXIlWJl

!tl1HS: 8Jt th.t's DOt

13 deliheratims, rigllt? 11'.<It'5 llhat 1 tllcught

ddiberalluns 13, we diWol" it lite at a

17 Ca:ai ttee

the Ih:ll e.

19lY011 IlURO: No, this is

A1ll£IKV M.!lfI;S:

Ttwt's not

10 deliberatulIIs?

",,'(OR BORD: 'nilS il like at a

12 teq.llU City COUncil reetinq and you can pick

13 anythifll] anybody

s~ys

alld have M Oll'JOftullity to

qive ycur opinion of

1l if

it's

lbf[ertn~

frOll

vhat ther said, or

you

~nt

td:I

SOItthinq

1 to it or further the disl:US.Sion,

but --

ALCI£ll»WI

l'lIIIiS:

So theft we'Ie not

dl!libl'ratinq, we'Ie jut -

K\roR IlIRD: Well, \'OUt te

, deliberating,

yo~

ere co:unq '" with" decision.

7 lou -- several of you Ildven't aadl!" decision

, yet, several of the other alderJlen

appear

to ha..,e

, already wde a detee-ination ha.wd on their

Olom

jl1

research .loci informt:'on ttey

haye

qatlen,

so if

you're 5tHl deliberating, lhen you h.lve the

o~rt~ity

to ronlinue diSCU!sil19 it.

Al.t!P:1M

KII!NS:

\feU, I 1IWl, I

lIi1l1t to read these

pages

Ill!

qat today because

U thece

m~t

be 30Etllinq in there

thI:

W'Jld, JOU

'6" know,

sway you one way

or the other because

11 sllJlP03edly those ue

th!

U!Jl!ru, right,

have

people

nllVe

done this tefore. Li'te Larry

JJ Clark, 30 hearings, he's get 4C

paqes

to read

'" through of wtwt he

~id.

M't'OR!llJIU): Well, the only ttling I

21 could say to

}'OIl

tNt you need to have a

23 little confidence in your

0'","

cpinioos. You sat

2f ttu:ough 140

Ilours -

IApplau.se1

1lA'fCf. BUPD: - of infoCNUon.

ExaJse~,

pluse. Please don't --

tml!S:

It's li\e" cltCUS.

nus is not delibuatiollS.

IW'OI\

BUIiD:

PIN~e,

let's not clap.

1 Ilut

you

need to have, after

all

of this tine,

SOlIe

Idea

hopefully an opinion, and

~upplelll!nt

J it with the input fcoca - that you received

today, but I would

hope

that you are not at the

11 point IIhere vou're totally uro:esclvoo olbout the

12 issues and you are waiting to be directed

our

!lpl!:rts.

A1.Ll£JtP.N I(OOIS: 1'.

nat saying

z) waiting to be directed by an)bldy,

but I'.

saying

tpt a tt:ou.san::I pagu of teslizillY w're

to take 'nto our CO:'ISideratlo!l.

need

I' to read that first.

K\fOR IlUPD: AbsoIJtl!ly. Well, this

is lilWlenenUI inforution that -

AL:tPW.N

l'1ltl~:

all the other

11 lnlotmdtion lrem re9ident.9 and everytMng e1ge

13 that lias liul:nHted in paper, lie have to read all

that.

Wr.YC* BllRD:

aJt yoll

also realite

2 that we Ivve to

Cl*!

to a decisiai by

Kay

29th.

AlD!It4M

1tIIIKS:

hglll.

1h.It's six

days £loa now.

)

Wr.l'OR!IllRD:

An!-

ALalftWi 1tMiS: [Q

have to decide

toni9ht?

I ..

an, there Is sil da,.,.

~YOIl

BUIlD:

No,

III"

don't

Ilaye :0

J decide tonight.

ALOI:l:mo\tl !'I\!llNS: Yl.>II

want to

00 this

leqally and )'Ou ltant to do --

MAYOR auRD:

tllOfl

personally, I

don't knov abut ttl' rest o[ you,

but

I cert"inly

oon't

llaflt

to mld

ttl~,

off lDItil Hay 18th and

III"

hue lightning s!.Cite a cwple of you or

" SORthillg and we don't qet a vote

I really

U don'l ""':It to hold tllls off UIItJ.1 the lut

" aillJ.ll', so --

AUtPl"J./t NJX!(5:

&It

voting

en the 29th, riqht, you said?

MAJOR Ul1l: Ilo. We are

votitlfl

11 ttQlrTOW night. The way it', set up, we are

13 discussing tOCKlrrow night and

\tE!

will have a

resolution COIle in tomrrow and you will

h~ve

Depo

Court

Reporting

Setvice (630) 983-0030

C18560

UCYFM005121

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

LandfiR

Heari~

Mly 23,

2007

opportunity to discus.s the re$,lution that rill

be laId 0., the table and go fOMrd

with

tlIat,

l jllSt lite in , /IOrNl City Co.ulcil

~ting

vbere

you holve fHOluUOllS to discuss and

if )'OlI

don't

lite one of the criteria that's discussed that's

, there, then you en dlsalu it, but tNt's the

7 way'll! an rovlnQ fUCVled, so then

III! 9ft

this

, done in

it tj.1y

unner. There is no c!lant;(! that

smethJlX] could lIappen -

ALOERHAN MJIINS: '!'hen--

M,l,YOR IlUJlD: -

one

the

12 other, bJt by this

t.UIe

aUer 9Oill9 th(lugh 411

JJ of this hearing, 140 days of hNrinqs ud 30 days

of collectIng

inIot'D:I~on.

you'vc !lad

'II

15 opportunity to listen to 0111 of thb, UJd I

think -- I Wr:t that W: [Mil, ooll't h.:Ive loo

17 uny surprises in what

w !law

bttll

prt~ented

I' oar

I!lpert

o:ar.sel,

(!b'l't

knOll

il you

" sllrpri:sed by it, but I'lioot, so I lhink

lie

should

able to

llIO'.'e (onr<lrd.

.ll

ALrellWl

MJIDiS:

we sald Tuesday we

22 are

~eting,

Wednesday. lIobody sud Ife \IItrt

23 g(}ing to vote Thursday. Like AlderlMn Golinski

~id--

M'tOR Ill1RD: Absolutdy.

AILlEftWI NJIIKS: -

we Q:lll'l do

J this propedr MId

\lit

Ion it

OIl

'PPMI, there's

4 still going to

a hn:Hill there, a..1d

went

s t:hrou9-i.ll this

foe

nothing.

""fOil,

8lI~:

That', true.

Ml!OIS: $t)

i£

n're going

, to Yote 00, we lunt to do it the

f1~t

way.

""YOlIIlURO: Ab301Jtdy. aut lite

you said, we're 901ng to have somethinq dufted,

YO'J can read It over. 1 don't see any problem, I

12 don't blOII

the attorney wants to dilOJ$S

thi~,

IJ wt -

ALlEPKVI MJIfH5: "ell,

we CO'J1d

IS read this Wioll! birder by tt'G)[[lJV at rirjlt

o'cloct, that's t.hr

~ticn.

fM.'f(lR!l1!lD:

Lite

I said, I don't

brJw

how rast)OJ reild, but they di<il't hne to

" "'ait

until the 21st to send this to us either, 30

l(J

thint about ••

ALCtP1Wll«lN!lS: Neither did

Hr. Clart or Hr. Roth or Hr. Price.

MArO!~

ll!IRO:

No, tiley didn't have to

21 do that.

perh~p:'I

we can just uso our 0111\

l judqilent and th:.ao through thi, .:md CXJCe

lip

with

1 a solution, but ve d!!initely .rm't going to let

the-

control the ?rocus, so-

ALCrJl,IrI'.All M1.tIS:

Theu w!ly

did

W pay

) theII if

didn't need -

iii!

:shouldn't

have

paid

'thell. 1lI11 "" Hr. Price here?

MroI! 1IURIl:

IIell,

~IJ

tl'lO\ll, I

, wasn't in the .ajority, SO

811 have to

J discuss that, but

AIDEPw.N SPi:A/lS: I'd 11 te to sta te

that the City didn't pay

the-.

the awlicanl paid

them,

and I IIOUld also really, really -

K'lYOfl. BURD:

Hease don'l -

,IJ..I,EFJW' SPEARS:

I lIIIlUld

U interuted

joining thi, landfill circuit that

" tUIIl'U

fraa ClXDIlIity to ca:aJnity

bKallSt

they

are such a ti<jht.Wt

q[~

awarellUy, arxl tbey

ICe mvi.nq on.

,.~

BilfD: A!.deQln Spears,

don't want to get into that, iliat', not UI'lCkr

::tisCllssion tonlqht, please. Dby?

,IJ,l)[PlW/

rt1III'lS: I'd like to tlllt

~bout

the traffic cri:eria, .nd a couple L.!JIles I

11 read

t'lele that [rOlll our experts

and I oon't

J blow

it wn

[fOIII

Atlorneys P.eth, Prioo

2 Clark, blt one or

Un, tlilO

of t'Jel actually,

J sUd .-

lQybe

III lhcee did - that when the

!ldaLtin bridge gets done

Sl:Eday

that t1ley lI@re

) rea..trdlTICJ rOlJunq the traHic

the

, t:1ct..ain bridge, and to

Ill!

that

"IOIl1d

be, you

tlXllf, kiJd

of you are puttillj all thh ledUc on

• a nice quiet coonLty road, so

that better or

, lo'Orse than

lJli~

down Routc 471

I don't know if anybody else

!J read that in there, but 1

Imow

at h'ast tv{) or

tile

three Efltioned that. My COhIeIlts or no?

ALO!flIIAH

SP&ARS:

I wuld

Lite to

comeot on the traffic situatioo.

Pi~st

of all,

IS tbat could be a

IJOOd

proposal, b.Jt \IOlI1d it be

" OtIr lifetile that that

road

would ewr 90

t1Irolql?

How 1009 baR we been wltlnq

" [or NolIte 47 to

wIdened or just iJproved, any

01 the state roads'

.a.nd aho at ene tiE

the

COlM'Icil considered sending - or !laving seedler

23 Road go through dCroSS

SOllIe

!I!SldentIal areas and

If thdt was dIso proposed; that never lIliIteridized.

101

[}epo

COUrt

Reporting Service (630) 983-0030

C18561

UCYFM005122

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Patti Racky, a non-attorney. certify that I caused a copy of the foregoing Notice

of Filing and United City ofYork\'iIIe'sReply in Support of Its Motion in Limine #

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 October 7. 2008.

lsi

Patti Racki

(x)

Under penalties as provided

law pursuant to ILL. REV. STAT.

CHAP. 110 - SEC 1.109, I cenify Ihallhc statements set forth

herein are true and correct.

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008

SERVICE LIST

Bradley P. Halloran

Hearing Officer

l11inois 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

gcorge@muelleranderson.com

Charles I-Ielsten

Hinshaw

Culbertson. LLP

100 Park A venue

P.O. Box 1389

Rockford, 1llinois 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's Attorney

Kendall County Courthouse

807 John Street

Yorkville.1llinois 60560

eweis@co.kendaJI.il.us

James

1. Knippen, II

Walsh, Knippen, Knight

Pollock

2150 Manchester Road

Suite 200

Wheaton,

IL 60187

jim@wkkplaw.com

heill her

l-.. kpl,l\\ XOIll

James

Harvey

McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner,

Buck, Hutchison

Ruttle

24255 Glenwood Avenue

Joliet,IL 60435

jim@mckeownJawfiml.com

Electronic Filing - Received, Clerk's Office, October 7, 2008