Resolution 2007-36 I
i
RESOLUTION NO. a007- No
DENIAL OF SITING APPLICATION FROM
FOX MORAINE, LLC FOR A PROPOSED LANDFILL
IN THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE
WHEREAS, Fox Moraine, LLC (the "Applicant"), pursuant to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/39.2 et seq.) (the "Act ") and the United City of Yorkville Pollution
Control Facility Siting Ordinance (City Code Title 8, Chapter 14) (the "Ordinance ") filed an
application on December 1, 2006 for siting approval for a proposed landfill (the "Application ") in
the United City of Yorkville to be named the Fox Moraine Landfill (the "Landfill "); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Ordinance, Mr. Larry M. Clark was appointed as Hearing
Officer; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with the Act and the Ordinance, public hearings were held
regarding the Application beginning on March 7, 2007 and continuing from time to time until
April 20, 2007 for a total of 23 days of public hearing, comment, and argument; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the Application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received into evidence and reviewed numerous exhibits,
Power Point presentations, and other relevant documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed public comments from numerous
residents, non - residents, entities and political subdivisions both supporting and opposing the
Application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed a report from counsel for the city
staff regarding the Application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and reviewed the hearing officer's report and
recommendations regarding the Application; and
I
WHEREAS, under Section 39.2 of the Act, the City Council may grant siting approval to
the Applicant only if the proposed Landfill meets all of the statutory criteria set forth in Section
39.2 of the Act; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the public record in this matter, including but not
limited to the hearing testimony, oral comment, evidence, and written comment timely submitted,
and the criteria set forth in Section 39.2 of the Act and in the Ordinance, the City Council has
found and determined that the criteria set forth in Section 39.2 of the Act have not been satisfied
by the Applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the United City of Yorkville that:
i
1. The Application of Fox Moraine, LLC for siting approval for a landfill in the
United City of Yorkville is hereby denied; and
2. The United City of Yorkville finds, for the reasons set out in the record of these
proceedings, including but not limited to the reasons stated at the Special Meetings
of the Yorkville City Council held on May 23 and May 24, 2007, that the following
criteria, as set forth in Section 39.2 of the Act, were not met (i), (ii), (iii), (v), (vi),
(viii) and (ix) (previous operating experience and past record of the Applicant, Fox
Moraine, LLC and its proposed operator, Fox Valley Landfill Services, LLC; this is
also commonly referred to as the "Tenth Criterion. "); and
3. The certified transcription of the deliberations and decision on the Application
conducted by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville at its Special
Meetings held on May 23 and May 24, 2007, at which this Resolution was
approved, be attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and repeated and incorporated herein
as part of the written decision of the United City of Yorkville on the Application;
and
4. Should this decision of the City Council be reversed and remanded with
i
instructions to approve the Application, the Host City Agreement dated September
26, 2006 between Fox Moraine LLC and the United City of Yorkville shall become
a condition and shall become a contract binding upon both the City and Fox
Moraine LLC., and such approval shall be also conditioned upon the following
being satisfied:
(A) the conditions set forth in the memorandum of Derke Price /Staff to the
Mayor and City Council, dated May 18, 2007, attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit `B ", which conditions are numbered 1.1 and 1.2; 2.1 through
2.39; 3.1 through 3.9; and 6.1 through 6.4;
(B) the conditions set forth in the Findings and Recommendations of
Hearing Officer, Larry M. Clark, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
"C ", which are conditions are directed to Criterion (vi), and which are numbered 1.
and 2., found at page 10 of the Findings and Recommendations;
(C) Construction of the Landfill may not commence until the Prairie
Parkway has been fully constructed from I -88 on the north to I -80 on the south and
is fully operational and open to traffic, provided however that, as constructed, the
Prairie Parkway contains an interchange at the intersection of Illinois Route 71 and
the Prairie Parkway,
(D) Hours of Landfill operation shall be limited to: (i) from 6:00 a.m. to
4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday; and (ii) from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. (noon) on
Saturday;
(E) No truck traveling to or from the Landfill may pass through downtown
Yorkville;
(F) No truck traveling to or from the Landfill may pass through downtown
Plainfield;
-2-
1
(G) Neither Hollenback Creek nor any tributary of Hollenback Creek shall
be rerouted or rechannelized;
(I) The Applicant shall test all private water wells within a 10 -mile radius
of the Landfill on a quarterly basis (every three months) and promptly provide the
results to the well owner and user, if different from the well owner;
(I) As part of its post - closure plan, the Applicant shall establish an escrow
account sufficient to pay for the costs to landscape and maintain the Landfill for a
25 -year period;
(J) The Applicant shall provide an irrigation plan for the Landfill;
(K) The Landfill shall accept no more than 4,000 tons of waste per
operating day (this is not an average, but shall be a daily maximum);
(L) The liner system shall be designed to include a geosynthetic clay liner
sandwiched between two 60 -mil geomembranes for the entire Landfill;
(M) The entire Landfill liners shall be tested to detect factory defects and
any damage caused during installation;
i
(I) All storage tanks, containing leachate or any other substance, shall be
aboveground tanks;
(0) All aboveground storage tanks shall meet AVVWD -100 or API -650
standards;
(P) All run -off from the wheel wash basin and stormwater falling in the
paved area shall be monitored on a daily basis;
(Q) The Landfill shall be restricted to a peak height of 50 feet above the
surrounding natural grade;
(R) The Applicant and Landfill operator shall provide all information
regarding their respective operating experience and record of actual or alleged
violations as required by the Ordinance; and
(S) All Landfill groundwater monitoring wells shall be installed and
operational prior to waste placement in any Landfill cell.
I
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Administrator be directed to transmit
certified copies of this Resolution and attached Exhibits "A ", "B" and "C" to Fox Moraine, LLC,
6110 State Route 71, Oswego, IL 60543, and to the parties on the attached Service List.
i
Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, the
24th Day of May, A.D. 2007.
I
-3-
Joseph Besco No Joseph Plocher Yes
Gary Golinski Yes Rose Spears Yes
Jason Leslie Yes Robyn Sutcliff Yes
Marty Munns Yes Wally Werderich Yes
Signed by me as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this
c� `►� Day of IAA V , A.D. 2007.
O a&t4�
MAYOR
ATTEST:_ G�-
l�CPUT y CITY CLERK
-4-
Service List
Attorney Representing
Derke J. Price United City of Yorkville
Adam B. Simon
Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P.C.
140 South Dearborn Street, 6 th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
dnri ce(a,ancel clink. com
asimon(d)ancelglink.com
George Mueller Fox Moraine, LLC
Mueller Anderson, P.C.
609 Etna Road
Ottawa, IL 61350
aeorize(a,muelleranderson.com
Charles F. Helston Fox Moraine, LLC
Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP
100 Park Avenue
PO Box 1389
Rockford, IL 61105 -1389
chelsten(iMnshawlaw. com
Eric C. Weis Kendall County
Kendall County State's Attorney
Kendall County Courthouse
807 John Street
Yorkville, IL 60560
eweis(a,co.kendall.il.us
Michael S. Blazer Kendall County
Jeep & Blazer LLC
24 N. Hillside Avenue, Suite A
Hillside, IL 60162
mblazer(a,enviro atty. com
Daniel J. Kramer Virginia Welles, Louis Thurow and
Kelly A. Kramer Greatbanc Trust Number 53430
Law Offices of Daniel J. Kramer
1107 A South Bridge Street
Yorkville, IL 60560
dkrameradankramerlaw. com,
Attornev Representing
James B. Harvey Village of Plainfield
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle
2455 Glenwood Avenue
Joliet, IL 60435 -5493
i im(acr�,mckeownlawfirm. com
Elizabeth Schroer Harvey Lisbon Development, LLC
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One IBM Plaza
330 N. Wabash, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60611
eharvevna,smbtri als. com
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz Friends of Greater Yorkville
Querrey & Harrow, Ltd.
175 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60604
i vohl enz(iN uerrev. com
I
I
l
EXHIBIT
a
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS
SPECIAL MEETING OF
THE CITY COUNCIL
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had and testimony
taken at the hearing taken on May 23, 2007, at
the hour of 7:00 p.m., before Christine M.
Vitosh, C.S.R., at the Grande Reserve Elementary
School, Yorkville, Illinois.
REPO • COURT
reporting service
1212 South Naper Boulevard Suite 119 -185 • Naperville, IL 60540 630 - 983 -0030 • Fax 630 - 299 -5153
www.depocourt.com
i
Landill Hearing May 23, 2007 1
1 1 (WHEREUPON, the
2 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS 2 proceedings were
3 3 resumed as follows:)
4 4 MAYOR BURD: Calling the meeting to
5 SPECIAL MEETING OF 5 order, would you please rise for the pledge?
6 THE CITY COUNCIL 6 (Pledge of
7 7 Allegiance)
8 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had and testimony 8 MAYOR BURD: Roll call by the clerk,
9 taken at the hearing taken on May 23, 2007, at 9 please.
10 the hour of 7:00 p.m., before Christine M. 10 MS. PICKERING: Leslie,
11 Vitosh, C.S.R., at the Grande Reserve Elementary 11 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Here.
12 School, Yorkville, Illinois. 12 MS. PICKERING: Werderich.
13 13 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Here.
14 14 MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
15 15 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Here.
16 16 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
17 17 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Here.
18 18 MS. PICKERING: Munns.
19 19 (No Response)
20 20 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
21 21 ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF: Here.
22 22 MS. PICKERING: Besco.
23 23 ALDERMAN BESCO: Here.
Z4 24 MS. PICKERING: Spears.
1 3
1 PRESENT: 1 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Here.
z 2 MS. PICKERING: Burd.
MAYOR VALERIE BURD,
j
MR. JASON LESLIE, Alderman, 3 MAYOR BURD: Here.
4
MR. WALLY WERDERICH, Alderman, 4 (Enter Alderman
5 MR. ARDEN "JOE" PLOCHER, Alderman, 5 Munns)
b
MR. GARY GOLINSKI, Alderman, 6 MAYOR BURD: We have a quorum.
i 7 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Here.
MR. MARTY MUNNS, Alderman,
a
MS. ROBYN SUTCLIFF, Alderman, 8 MAYOR BURD: Would the city attorney
9
MR. JOSEPH BESCO, Alderman, 9 please introduce this case?
10 MS. ROSE SPEARS, Alderman; 10 MR. ROTH: This is a special meeting
11 MR. PAUL JAMES, Alderman, 11 of the City Council of the United City of
1z MR. JOHN CROIS, City Administrator, 12 Yorkville, Illinois, called for the sole purpose
1j MS. LISA PICKERING, City Clerk. 13 of consideration of an application filed by Fox
14 14 Moraine, LLC, for a landfill siting approval
15 ALSO PRESENT: 15 pursuant to 415 Illinois Compiled Statutes
16 WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON 16 Chapter 39.2 of the City of Yorkville.
11 2300 Cabot Drive, Suite 455 17 Notice of tonight's meeting has
Lisle, Illinois 60532
IV (630) 955 -6594 18 been given as required by law. By way of
BY: MR. MICHAEL M. ROTH,
19 appeared on behalf of the United 19 background, on December 1st of 2006, Fox Moraine,
City of Yorkville.
zu 20 LLC, filed an application with the City for
21 21 siting approval of a solid waste landfill upon a
22 22 443 -acre parcel of property located generally at
23 23 Route 71, four miles west of the intersection of
24 24 Route 71 and 47.
2 4
Depo Court Repotting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landill Hearing May 23, 2007 5
1 The City appointed a hearing 1 The City Council is under no
2 officer to conduct public hearings on the 2 legal obligation to satisfy the siting standards
3 application in accordance with the standards and 3 for the applicant by fixing conditions of
4 procedures set out in Section 39.2, rule upon 4 approval.
5 evidentiary issues and motions, and to make 5 Before deliberation begins,
6 substantive findings and recommendations to the 6 there are two preliminary matters that need to be
7 City Council as to the application. 7 attended to. The hearing officer did not rule on
8 Public hearings were then held 8 two pending motions, but left them for the City
9 on 23 days from March 7th, 2007, through 9 Council to decide, so the first order of business
10 April 20th of 2007, at which testimony and other 10 is to do that.
11 evidence was given. 11 The first pending motion is
12 The hearing officer then closed 12 whether to dismiss the matter based on an
13 the public hearings on April 20th of 2007 and, 13 assertion that the property is the subject --
14 pursuant to statute, a period for receipt of 14 that the property that is the subject of the
15 additional written comment was open from 15 local siting was not properly annexed
16 April 21st, 2007 through May 21st of 2007. 16 to the United City of Yorkville and that,
17 The applicant, the public, and 17 therefore, these proceedings are not under the
18 representatives of any public agencies and 18 jurisdiction of the City.
19 organizations made comment and introduced 19 Consistent with the
20 evidence. Many written comments, including a 20 recommendation of the hearing officer, we
21 report, recommendation from the City Staff and 21 recommend that the Council deny the motion. The
22 its attorney, were received, and all of this, 22 question of the propriety of the annexation is
23 including a filing dated May 21st from the 23 not subject to an indirect legal challenge to
24 applicant, has been included in the public record 24 these proceedings, annexation is presumed by law
5 7
1 in this matter. 1 to be valid and we, therefore, recommend that
2 The hearing officer has 2 this motion be denied.
3 submitted his findings and recommendations and 3 The second motion is that Mayor
4 those have been forwarded to the City Council. 4 Burd and Alderman Spears be disqualified from
5 These findings.and recommendations are advisory 5 participation in the local siting process. Fox
6 to the City Council. 6 Moraine has alleged that those two officials have
7 We are now in a stage of this 7 engaged in conduct that show bias. This request
8 proceeding where the City Council shall consider 8 is contrary to Section 39.2, and no evidence was
9 and deliberate over the application. No further 9 introduced as to this contention by the
10 evidence or input from the applicant or the 10 applicant. For these reasons, we recommend that
11 public is to be taken. 11 this motion also be summarily denied.
12 The City Council's general 12 So, first, I recommend that a
13 rules and procedure as set forth in the City's 13 motion be made to deny Kendall County's motion to
14 Code regarding Council debate governs tonight's 14 dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
15 proceedings. 15 ALDERMAN SPEARS: So moved.
16 The issue tonight is whether or 16 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Second.
17 not the applicant has met his burden of proving 17 MAYOR BURD: Could I have roll call,
18 that the proposed landfill meets the statutory 18 please?
19 siting criteria under the Illinois Environmental 19 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Any discussion on
20 Protection Act. 20 that?
21 The City Council has three 21 MAYOR BURD: Any discussion? Any
22 options: It may approve the application, it may 22 questions, any discussion?
23 deny the application, or it may approve the 23 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Just one question,
24 application on certain conditions. 24 why the hearing officer who attended every
6 8
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 9
1 meeting isn't here to present this? 1 three of you could be saying sited, not sited,
2 MR. ROTH: It's the hearing 2 but basically, again, I've got to decide
3 officer's decision. I don't know. 3 basically what I took in on all those hearings,
4 ALDERMAN MUNNS: I mean, we hired 4 my notes, and not your notes, and not Derke
5 him and we paid him 40, $50,000, and he didn't 5 Price's notes, why did we pay Derke Price and
6 show up and submits, you know, 50 pages at 4:30 6 Larry Clark $50,000 apiece to throw in comments
7 on the day of the hearing, you know, it's kind of 7 at the last moment that aren't going to be
8 hard to read through everything he's put in 8 considered?
9 there. 9 (Applause)
10 (Applause) 10 ALDERMAN MUNNS: I don't know if you
11 MR. ROTH: I think it's the hearing 11 can answer that, I'm just throwing it out there.
12 officer's decision not to come. I can tell you 12 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: I've got to
13 that the purpose of the hearing is to -- is for 13 agree with Alderman Munns. Since Friday there's
14 deliberation by the City Council, it is not for 14 been a thousand pages of information filed. I
15 interaction with the audience or others, but as 15 don't know how we are expected to process that
16 to the hearing officer's non - attendance, I can't 16 and deliberate in any manner today.
17 speak to that. 17 MAYOR BURD: We have a motion on the
18 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Not interaction 18 floor that has to do with whether or not the
19 between us and Mr. Clark, but, again, if he gives 19 annexation -- that we are going to approve or
20 us 50 pages of his recommendations, but not -- 20 dismiss the matter of the annexation.
21 but doesn't sit here and deliberate with us -- 21 Does anybody want to speak to
22 because I thought that's what we were supposed to 22 that issue? Do you have any -- concerns about
23 do and I thought we were supposed to deliberate 23 voting on that issue?
24 the criterion. 24 (No Response)
9 11
1 MR. ROTH: Well, you are. You are. 1 MAYOR BURD: Then we will proceed
2 He's not to deliberate. He was to make findings 2 with a roll call on that issue.
3 and recommendations -- 3 MR. ROTH: Just to restate the
4 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Right. 4 motion, I had recommended that a motion be made
5 MR. ROTH: -- which he's done. 5 to deny Kendall County's motion to dismiss for
6 ALDERMAN MUNNS: But we are supposed 6 lack of jurisdiction. I believe a motion was
7 to take his criterion that he put in into 7 made and seconded.
8 account. 8 MS. PICKERING: Munns.
9 MR. ROTH: Yes, you are. 9 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Aye.
10 ALDERMAN MUNNS: So if I got here at 10 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
11 6:55, how am I supposed to really read through 11 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Aye.
12 his stuff. So basically you're saying that Derke 12 MS. PICKERING: Spears,
13 Price's and your stuff and Clark's and this book 13 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Aye.
14 here is not going to be considered in my thought 14 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
15 process because I just got them. Is that what 15 ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF: Aye.
16 you're saying? I want to know what the process 16 MS. PICKERING: Besco.
17 is, whether it's right or wrong. 17 ALDERMAN BESCO: Point of
18 MR. ROTH: I am saying it's 18 clarification. Are we voting in favor to dismiss
19 problematic, the fact we didn't get the hearing 19 it or aye in favor --
20 officer's findings and recommendations until 20 MR. ROTH: Aye in favor of denying
21 today is certainly a problem. It's been very 21 the motion to dismiss these proceedings.
22 difficult for us to assimilate the information as 22 ALDERMAN BESCO: Aye. Thank you.
23 it is for you. 23 MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
24 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Because all of 24 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Aye.
10 12
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983.0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 13
1 MS. PICKERING: Golinski. 1 been provided to us at this point.
2 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Aye. 2 MR. ROTH: Well --
3 MS. PICKERING: Werderich, 3 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: And I guess the
4 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Aye. 4 timing of it, too, is the other thing. What's
5 MR. ROTH: Next I recommend that a 5 concerning to me is the fact that we were given
6 motion be made to deny Fox Moraine, LLC's motion 6 these voluminous amounts right before the period
7 to disqualify Mayor Burd and Alderman Spears from 7 of time that we were supposed to make the
8 participating in these proceedings. 8 deliberations and decisions.
9 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: So moved. 9 MR. ROTH: I can only tell you
10 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Second. 10 that --
11 MAYOR BURD: We have -- Any 11 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Is that --
12 discussion on this? Any questions? 12 MR. ROTH: -- this binder -- this
13 (No Response) 13 binder of information --
14 ALDERMAN SPEARS: I want to vote 14 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: And that's
15 against any rules or any landfill -- their rules, 15 double- sided, right?
16 am I allowed to vote on this to remove myself? 16 MR. ROTH: It's double- sided.
17 Okay. Thank you. 17 -- appeared tonight to have
18 MAYOR BURD: Any other questions? 18 been filed -- received by the City on the 22nd,
19 (No Response) 19 it was post- marked on the 21st, and according to
20 MAYOR BURD: Roll call vote, please. 20 your ordinance, that is sufficient within the
21 MS. PICKERING: Plocher. 21 31 -day -- the 30 -day period, excuse me, for
22 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Aye. 22 post- hearing comment, so it is before you and it
23 MS. PICKERING: Spears. 23 is in the record.
24 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Aye. 24 MAYOR BURD: If anybody would like
13 15
1 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff. 1 to move to adjourn until tomorrow --
2 ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF: Aye. 2 ALDERMAN BESCO: Yes.
3 MS. PICKERING: Besco. 3 MAYOR BURD: -- so that you can read
4 ALDERMAN BESCO: Aye. 4 this through and you feel that you need more time
5 MS. PICKERING: Leslie. 5 for consideration --
6 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Aye. 6 ALDERMAN LESLIE: I am concerned
7 MS. PICKERING: Golinski. 7 about the time.
8 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Aye. 8 MAYOR BURD: We have to vote by the
9 MS. PICKERING: Werderich. 9 29th of May. That means that would move us back
10 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Aye. 10 another day, so you need to consider that. We
11 MS. PICKERING: Munns. 11 can't do all of this in one night. We need to
12 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Aye. 12 have discussions --
13 MAYOR BURD: Now we move into the 13 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: I --
14 debate section. 14 MAYOR BURD: Excuse me, please. We
15 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Actually, 15 need to have discussions and then we will have to
16 actually, if I could make a point here before we 16 give our attorneys time to prepare a resolution
17 move in, one of the things that we did receive 17 based on the consensus of the City Council and
18 today in regards to things that we're supposed to 18 they will come back the next day with that
19 take into consideration was post - public hearing 19 resolution and then we will vote, so we need at
20 written comments by the applicant, Fox Moraine. 20 least one night of debate, and then the next
21 I would like to ask the 21 night we will have the resolution that we will
22 attorney, one, whether this is something that can 22 vote on and you can debate that resolution at
23 be done and can be taken into consideration 23 that time. So that's the outline of what we're
24 especially in the voluminous amounts that has 24 going to do.
14 16
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 17
1 We would spend time, each 1 see what you intend, but there is -- there is
2 alderman would get an opportunity to discuss, if 2 different ways of doing this.
3 you want tonight, you can just discuss your own 3 If it's clear, if we get clear
4 opinions on your 140 hours of testimony that you 4 direction I think from the debate, we would come
5 heard, the public comment that you read during 5 back with a single resolution; however, we can
6 the last 30 days that's been on the website and 6 certainly come back with a resolution that
7 then tomorrow we can add to the discussion of 7 anticipates approval, in other words, all of the
8 anything you can get out of the documents that 8 siting criteria is satisfied; that answers
9 were submitted on the 22nd, if you want to do 9 approval with conditions; or that anticipates
10 that, but I leave it up to you. It's -- it's now 10 denial. We can -- We can do all three, and it
11 in the City Council's hands, it's no longer a 11 would not be an enormous burden to do that.
12 public hearing. We are under the City Council 12 ALDERMAN MUNNS: You mean all three
13 rules, so it's at your pleasure. You are the 13 ordinances we are to vote on?
14 aldermen, what do you want to do? 14 MR. ROTH: The only -- the only
15 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Your Honor, I 15 issue that's difficult I think is we have to
16 would like to suggest that we do continue and 16 listen to what you're going to say, hear what --
17 have our discussion this evening and if we do 17 siting standards.
18 have -- there is no way I am going to be able to 18 If you were to find, for
19 read that document from time to time I get home 19 example, that certain sitings were not satisfied,
20 until five o'clock in the morning when I have to 20 then -- if we find -- if we hear that the Council
21 wake up for work. There is absolutely no way I 21 finds that the siting standards would be
22 can do that. Evelyn Wood cannot accomplish that. 22 satisfied if certain conditions were adopted,
23 I'm sorry. 23 then our resolution would say that. We have to
24 You know, and I just feel that 24 hear what you have to say in order to do that,
17 19
1 this Council sat through all these hearings, I've 1 obviously.
2 got just notebooks full of notes that I have 2 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Okay. And then my
3 taken. I feel that I am not biased, I did take 3 other -- my last question would be let's just say
4 thorough notes, and, again, I think that I was 4 an example on Criterion 1, I'm not saying what
5 asked to be removed at the beginning just because 5 Criterion 1 is, all my notes I took in 140 hours
6 they know my track record and taking notes and 6 or 110 hours or whatever I made of those hours,
7 researching, and I feel I am totally prepared to 7 let's say my decision was to go one way, but then
8 rule on this. 8 I read your comments, Derke Price's and Larry
9 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Any other 9 Clark's comments, and it changes my criteria, so
10 comments? 10 tonight it might be no, and then if I read your
11 ALDERMAN MUNNS: I have a question. 11 expert opinion, then it convinces me that they
12 When we get an ordinance from the city attorney, 12 met it, then what happens?
13 is it going to be one consensus recommendation? 13 MR. ROTH: Well, my understanding is
14 I mean, what are -- a couple of people say well, 14 you're going to come back tomorrow and deliberate
15 I would approve it with these 39 conditions and 15 further, we'll hear that, because you'll have
16 half say this, half say no. 16 until tomorrow -- unfortunately only one day --
17 I mean, are we just going to 17 but you'll have until tomorrow to still develop
18 come up to one consensus? And what if we don't 18 that opinion.
19 have a consensus, are you just going to make an 19 ALDERMAN MUNNS: And then --
20 ordinance to vote on yes or no? 20 actually this is my last last question -- what if
21 MR. ROTH: Our intention was to 21 we don't finish deliberating in the two days?
22 listen to your comments and develop a resolution 22 MR, ROTH: The only legal
23 that embodied your decision based upon what the 23 requirement is that a decision be made by the
24 deliberations would be, so we have to listen to 24 29th.
1e 20
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landill Hearing May 23, 2007 21
1 ALDERMAN MUNNS: All right. Thank 1 longer debate. Under our normal procedures, each
2 you. 2 alderman is given five minutes for first time and
3 ALDERMAN BESCO: Could I ask a 3 then two minutes. I would like to suggest that
4 question, please? Valerie, you said we are out 4 we give each alderman ten minutes to discuss. If
5 of public hearing and now we are under Council 5 we do that, then everybody altogether will have
6 rules? 6 an hour and a half of debate, and I would think
7 MAYOR BURR: Yes. 7 that would be enough for tonight.
8 ALDERMAN BESCO: Does that change 8 Can I entertain a motion that
9 anything? 9 we suspend the rules to allow ten - minute debates?
10 MAYOR BURD: Yes, it does change 10 ALDERMAN BESCO: Your Honor, I would
11 anything. The hearing officer is no longer in 11 like to make a motion to postpone just to give us
12 charge. That's why he's not needed tonight, it's 12 ample time to read what has been presented to us.
13 back under the Mayor, and the Mayor is the one 13 I think our time would be spent
14 who is back and running the meeting. 14 better if we were actually studying what was
15 ALDERMAN BESCO: Okay. All right. 15 given us than -- I don't know how the rest of the
16 I just wanted a clarification. 16 Council feels, but we can poll.
17 MAYOR BURD: The Mayor does not vote 17 MAYOR BURD: Do I hear a second?
18 on this, it's regular City Council rules unless 18 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Second.
19 there is a tie or more aldermen vote in favor 19 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Motion made and
20 and -- 20 seconded. No debate on that issue, so roll call
21 ALDERMAN BESCO: Yeah, I didn't 21 vote, please.
22 know -- I didn't know, it just seemed like the 22 MS. PICKERING: Spears.
23 hearing officer was kind-of a -- 23 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Nay,
24 MAYOR BURD: Well, but he no 24 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
21 23
1 longer -- when he concluded the meeting, that was 1 ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF: Nay.
2 the end of his role, he was done, his obligations 2 MS. PICKERING: Besco.
3 were done except for providing us with a report. 3 ALDERMAN BESCO: Aye.
4 ALDERMAN BESCO: I also agree with 4 MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
5 Alderman Munns, the amount of paper we got 5 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Aye.
6 just -- I picked mine up at 6 -- it was like 6 :20 6 MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
7 or something, and to go through all of this, I 7 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Nay.
8 mean, I can sit-up until 3 :00 or 4 :00 in the 8 MS. PICKERING: Werderich.
9 morning and it's going to be a challenge, and I 9 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Aye.
10 did take some speed reading in high school, Rose, 10 MS. PICKERING: Munns.
11 so it's still going to be a challenge. Thank 11 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Aye.
12 you. That's all I have. 12 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
13 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Can I just ask 13 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Nay.
14 one last question of the City attorney? Can you 14 MS. PICKERING: Mayor?
15 clarify how much weight the City Council should 15 MAYOR BURD: Nay.
16 put in the written evidence that's provided by 16 So we will proceed tonight and
17 the applicant at this point since it's not 17 we will begin --
18 subject to cross examination? 18 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Madame, does that
19 MR. ROTH: No, I can't. I can't 19 fall under -- your motion was actually to
20 tell you how much weight to give it. I'm sorry. 20 suspend?
21 MAYOR BURD: All right. And since I 21 MAYOR BURD: No, it was to postpone.
22 haven't heard a motion to postpone, we will go 22 We voted on to postpone.
23 further with deliberations. I would -- I would 23 ALDERMAN LESLIE: I'm sorry, wrong
24 like to ask this, we suspend the rules to allow 24 motion.
22 24
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 25
1 MAYOR BURD: Was that motion 1 MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
2 seconded to suspend the rules? Did I have a -- 2 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Aye.
3 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Second. 3 MS. PICKERING: Werderich.
4 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Can we have a 4 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Nay.
5 roll call vote on that one? 5 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Nay.
6 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Could we have 6 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
7 discussion? 7 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Nay.
8 MAYOR BURD: Discussion, sure. 8 MS. PICKERING: Spears,
9 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Does it have to be 9 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Nay.
10 limited to ten minutes per person? 10 MAYOR BURD: Can I entertain another
11 MAYOR BURD: How long do you want to 11 motion then?
12 be here? 12 ALDERMAN SPEARS: I would like to
13 ALDERMAN SPEARS: I'll be here as 13 make a motion that we limit our -- each alderman
14 long as it takes. After sitting here as many 14 to speak 20 minutes.
15 hours as I have, I would like to maybe take 15 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Second.
16 longer than ten minutes if possible. 16 MAYOR BURD: Any discussion?
17 ALDERMAN MUNNS: This is our -- this 17 (No response)
18 is not a City Council, so -- 18 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Roll call vote,
19 MAYOR BURD: Yes, it is. Yes, it 19 please.
20 is. Does anybody want to go beyond ten minutes 20 MS. PICKERING: Besco.
21 each? 21 ALDERMAN BESCO: Nay,
22 ALDERMAN MUNNS: I agree with 22 MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
23 Alderman Spears, that if we sat here for 140 23 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Aye.
24 hours, to limit us to ten minutes now, I mean, 24 MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
25 27
1 that -- I would -- I don't know if I'm going to 1 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Aye.
2 be more than ten. If someone does, more power to 2 MS. PICKERING: Werderich.
3 them. 3 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Aye.
4 MAYOR BURD: Well, pick a number. 4 MS. PICKERING: Munns.
5 We have to -- we have rules that we have to 5 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Aye.
6 follow, and follow. 6 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
7 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Suspend the 7 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Aye.
8 rules. 8 MS. PICKERING: Spears.
9 MAYOR BURD: No, that wouldn't be 9 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Aye.
10 good. 10 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
11 ALDERMAN SPEARS: I would recommend 11 ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF: Aye.
12 20 minutes, and if we go under, God bless us all. 12 MAYOR BURD: All right. Then you
13 MAYOR BURD: Okay. So we will take 13 each have 20 minutes and then a two - minute
14 a vote on the original -- 14 rebuttal, so we will start with Alderman
15 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Are we voting for 15 Werderich.
16 the ten minutes or the 20 minutes is this? 16 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Actually if I
17 MAYOR BURD: No, motion on the floor 17 could pass and make a comment at a later time, I
18 is for the ten minute. 18 would appreciate that.
19 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff. 19 MAYOR BURD: I don't believe our
20 ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF: Nay. 20 rules allow you to do that. You can't pass and
21 MS. PICKERING: Besco. 21 get the time back according to our rules.
22 ALDERMAN BESCO: Aye. 22 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: I'd like to
23 MS. PICKERING: Leslie. 23 make a motion then at this point that we waive
24 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Nay. 24 the rules in order of comment given by the City
26 28
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 29
1 Council. 1 for residential and commercial properties in the
2 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Second. 2 surrounding areas.
3 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Question? 3 It will have an immediate and
4 MAYOR BURD: There is no order, 4 significantly negative effect on property values
5 but -- All right. There is no rule of order. 5 in the entire area. There is no way any design
6 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Then I don't 6 or operational plan can minimize this fact.
7 have to go first. 7 The applicant's property value
8 MAYOR BURD: Alderman Sutcliff would 8 protection plan is flawed. It only protects
9 like to go first. All right. 9 properties within a thousand foot radius of the
10 ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF: I'm going to 10 proposed landfill. Property values throughout
11 read this because I am such a veteran alderman. 11 the city will be affected adversely. It only
12 I, Robyn Sutcliff, Alderman for 12 covers residential properties, not agricultural
13 the Third Ward of the United City of Yorkville, I 13 or commercial, and only covers property owners as
14 want to thank all of you who have come here 14 of the date of application was filed. It also
15 tonight and want to thank all who have worked 15 requires that a property be on the market for one
16 tirelessly on this entire process. 16 year continuously in order to receive
17 I have opinions on several of 17 compensation, among other limiting criteria.
18 the areas of the nine criteria. I have chosen 18 In regards to this Criterion 6,
19 two to speak on tonight. Criterion 3, which 19 are the traffic patterns to or from the proposed
20 reads, is the facility so located as to minimize 20 facility designed to minimize the impact on the
21 incompatibility with the character of the 21 existing flows? Traffic flows, the truck traffic
22 surrounding area and to minimize the effect and 22 is estimated to be no less than an additional 400
23 the value of the surrounding property? 23 to 500 trips per day. The applicant's traffic
24 This criterion requires the 24 study didn't address this site accessibility.
29 31
1 applicant to minimize incompatibility of the 1 The closest interstate interchanges are located
2 facility with the surrounding area and that they 2 18 to 20.2 miles from the landfill. Due to this
3 have done or will do what is reasonably feasible 3 fact, 90 to 99 percent of this traffic will come
4 to minimize incompatibility. 4 from two routes, east on Illinois Route 126 to
5 If the applicant bases their 5 Illinois 71 to the landfill and back, and north
6 criterion for incompatibility on data of 6 on I -47 to Illinois -- Illinois 47 to Illinois 71
7 insufficient scope, such as not adjusting the 7 to the landfill and back. 30 percent of the
8 complete area surrounding the site or relying on 8 landfill traffic will pass through downtown
9 small sampling of home sales for data, this is a 9 Yorkville.
10 valid reason for rejecting their application. It 10 Downtown Yorkville was not even
11 is also appropriate to consider testimony 11 included in the applicant's traffic study.
12 relating to difficulty in doing business or 12 Downtown Yorkville has a lot of pedestrian
13 selling property in the area of the proposed 13 traffic, stop and go traffic, significant
14 landfill. The zoning is also pertinent, but I 14 downtown street parking and traffic into and out
15 will not be discussing it tonight. The 15 of local streets.
16 applicant's property protection plan is flawed. 16 All this truck traffic from the
17 The proposed landfill is 17 landfill on Route 47 could be lessened -- could
18 incompatible with the development of the 18 lessen the ability of the United City of
19 surrounding area. Yorkville is a rapidly growing 19 Yorkville to promote local development and
20 community, one of the fastest growing in the 20 promote a pedestrian friendly area. People moved
21 nation, and in accordance with the City of 21 here to get away from traffic and congestion.
22 Yorkville's Comprehensive Plan update, the 22 400 truck trips a day would leave us in shear
23 southern edition, siting this landfill will 23 gridlock. 70 percent of the landfill traffic
24 present an insurmountable obstacle to development 24 will travel through downtown Plainfield. Like
30 32
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 33
1 downtown Yorkville, the applicant's study didn't 1 stormwater management aspects of the proposed
2 include downtown Plainfield. Its downtown has 2 landfill property. His review included the
3 all the same features of Yorkville and will be 3 rainfall data, the run -off that would result from
4 similarly adversely affected. Intersections in 4 that, the control of the run -off from the
5 Plainfield are near or at capacity. At least one 5 facility through detention basins, and the effect
6 intersection is already at a service level of an 6 on the surrounding properties. He stated that
7 F. With the increase in truck traffic, a job 7 facility did not meet Criterion 2. He provided
8 commute from Kendall County to Will County could 6 drawings and exhibits indicating that a
9 result in a 350 percent increase in time. 9 drainageway divide is through the property that
10 The Prairie Parkway that is 10 separates the water that drains to the north
11 mentioned throughout the proceedings is only 11 drainageway into Hollenbeck Creek and its
12 partially funded and may never be built. The 12 tributary to the east.
13 partial construction from Route 71 to Route 34 13 His testimony further explained
14 proposed for the year 2010 will not 14 that in northeastern Illinois, it has been
15 satisfactorily alleviate traffic concerns. 15 determined that 0.15 CFS per acre is what creeks
16 Intersections in Yorkville are 16 contain without running over their banks. Fox
17 at or near capacity as well. Hundreds of 17 Moraine designed the release 0.35 per acre, much
18 additional trucks would have a devastating impact 18 more than the regulatory 0.15 CFS.
19 on our roads that cannot be minimized. 19 The storage facility does not
20 I appreciate this time to relay 20 meet the 17 inches in a 24 -hour period probable
21 my opinions to you on these important matters. 21 maximum precipitation in the north drainage
22 (Applause) 22 basin.
23 MAYOR BURD: Alderwoman Spears. 23 In cross - examining, he
24 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Thank you. We 24 responded, "It is possible that there could be
33 35
1 were told that burden of proof of meeting the 1 some redirection of water to the west basin,
2 criterion is on the applicant, Fox Moraine. I 2 however, that would be running water across a
3 would like to address all these. All the items 3 drainage divide, which is prohibited in many
4 that I have come to the conclusion based on 4 jurisdictions. It is prohibited in Kendall
5 testimony by witnesses of both Fox Moraine, the 5 County."
6 City, and the -- everybody, who is a witness 6 Modifications he did recommend,
7 here. 7 increase size of basin, reduce the footprint of
8 Addressing Criterion 1, the 8 the facility, interconnect with other basins,
9 facility is necessary to accommodate the waste 9 raise the control structure on the eastern edge
10 needs of the area it is intended to serve. My 10 of the basin to increase the bounce.
11 findings, applicant failed to meet Criterion 1, 11 As stated by Fox Moraine
12 due to EPA records indicating there is adequate 12 attorney, Mr. Mueller, in his closing statement,
13 landfill availability for at least nine to 15 13 ground water is what determines public health,
14 years. 14 safety and welfare.
15 Criterion 2, the facility is so 15 Design errors were also
16 designed, located and proposed to be operated 16 detected. Evidence presented by Stan Lud --
17 that public health, safety and welfare will be 17 excuse me, Ludwikowski, a civil engineer, pointed
18 protected. My findings, applicant, Fox Moraine, 18 out numerous flaws in Shaw Engineering's design.
19 did not meet Criterion 2. 19 He discussed ground water flow, no monitoring
20 This is based on the design 20 wells on the south side, no downgradient
21 does not meet the United City of Yorkville's 21 monitoring wells for the various stages of the
22 Stormwater Management Ordinance. Witness, 22 landfill, no complete monitoring until the
23 Mr. William Schmanski, former City engineer for 23 landfill is almost ready to close.
24 the United City of Yorkville, reviewed the 24 IEPA design requirements state
34 36
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 37
1 that there must be downgradient monitoring wells 1 finished landfill only. Adequate wells, which
2 on the south, and an IEPA engineer said that it 2 may need to be abandoned when the waste cells
3 is preferred that all cell developments start 3 reach them, should be located at intermediate
4 downgradient and move up. 4 points immediately downgradient of waste cells.
5 Devin Moose of Shaw Engineering 5 Any impacted ground water that reaches these sand
6 agreed that additional wells would be a good idea 6 or sandy zones needs to be identified as quickly
7 and change the cell design to conform to 7 as possible to minimize uncontrolled and unknown
8 Mr. Ludwikowski's suggestion. 8 migration. This also reduces potential --
9 With Shaw confirming their 9 potential, excuse me, remediation measures, but
10 design errors, I question how safe is this entire 10 maximizes public safety.
11 landfill design? 11 The report also suggests a
12 As stated by Fox Moraine's 12 general eastward flow throughout the site. This
13 attorney, Mr. Mueller, in his closing statement, 13 direction changes throughout the site. Beneath
14 ground water is what determines public health, 14 the proposed waste area there is a mostly
15 safety and welfare. 15 southerly flow direction. Because of this and
16 Ground water engineering design 16 the interest of monitoring impacted ground water
17 errors, additional ones, a witness, Dennis 17 at the earliest location, Mr. Palumbo would
18 Palumbo, a retired hydrogeologist, formerly 18 recommend installing a series of monitoring wells
19 employed by environmental engineering firms, his 19 along the 50 -year -- or five -year and ten -year
20 function -- he also functioned as a consultant 20 southern boundary of the waste cells.
21 for industries, municipalities, military and 21 He also recommended that all
22 other governmental agencies. He has significant 22 monitoring wells will be installed with a larger
23 field work and management experience at 23 boring. The larger size would help placement of
24 landfills, storage, treatment facilities, dealing 24 the seal in completing the well and in the
37 39
1 with all types of solid, liquid and hazardous 1 development and sampling methods used for wells
2 waste. He conducted a review of the 2 in zones of low productivity. Additional series
3 hydrogeological investigation. 3 of wells adds minimal cost to the overall site
4 His concerns, the site is 4 operation and maintenance, but it also provides
5 underlain by thick, silty clay, K values of 5 an added assurance that any ground water impact
6 10E -07 cm /sec, that occasionally contains 6 will be contained within the site.
7 relatively thin layers of sand and sandy zones. 7 The wells would also assist the
8 Most of the sands provide limited water to wells, 8 landfill owner /operator in minimizing potential
9 but some of the deeper sands are thick enough to 9 remediation costs, and in assuring us the safety
10 provide an adequate ground water supply to 10 of the surrounding public suppliers.
11 downgradient domestic wells. The underlying 11 As stated by Fox Moraine's
12 bedrock is an important aquifer to municipal 12 attorney, Mr. Mueller, in his closing statement,
13 supplies in the region. 13 ground water is what determines public health,
14 The low permeability silty clay 14 safety and welfare.
15 will provide a very good barrier to the downward 15 Unsafe design, health hazard.
16 migration of potential leachate. It is, however, 16 Evidence was submitted by chemical engineer, Jim
17 the thin zones of permeable sands and sandy zones 17 Chan, unsafe due to there will not be any
18 that are most important for potential 18 monitoring of hydrogen sulfide gas or any other
19 contaminating migration. Since they are much 19 toxic compounds that are well -known to reside in
20 more permeable than the surrounding silt clay, 20 typical landfills. The design fails to recognize
21 the sands are the preferrable zones for shallow 21 the presence of known toxic compounds and
22 ground water movement. 22 provides inadequate monitoring. Design does not
23 Conclusion, monitoring wells 23 state how long the leachate will be stored in the
24 proposed for the site are adequate for the 24 tank. Design does not address odor control or
38 40
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 41
1 gas monitoring in the storage tank. 1 ground water is what determines public health,
2 Fox Moraine may file a permit 2 safety, and welfare.
3 for leachate recirculation. This converts the 3 Water quality, manholes. Used
4 existing proposed design, which is considered a 4 water from the wheel wash basin and any
5 dry tomb design, into a bioreactor. That would 5 stormwater falling from the paved areas are not
6 be a cost savings for the operator. Instead of 6 contained, collected or treated as leachate.
7 transporting the leachate off -site for disposal, 7 Again, as stated by Fox Moraine
8 it would just be recirculated back onto the 8 attorney, Mr. Mueller, in his closing statement,
9 landfill. Increased hydraulic loading on the 9 ground water is what determines public health,
10 landfill leading to seepage and potential ground 10 safety and welfare.
11 water pollution. This could be compared to 11 Due to the operator being
12 pumping one's septic tank water back into one's 12 unknown, we are unable to verify history of safe
13 toilet. 13 operations or violations, and I take a lot of
14 Unsafe design and health 14 pride in identifying people, checking history.
15 hazard. The liner system. The design includes 15 As a matter of fact, the
16 two layers of HDPE in critical areas only. 16 hearing officer, the first one proposed, was
17 Design does not include a double compost liner 17 removed because he did have some -- it was
18 system with two layers of HDPE and a leak 18 illegal, he did have some ties with Fox Moraine
19 detection system in it; therefore, unsafe due to 19 individuals.
20 located in close proximity to residents with 20 Also, with being -- operator
21 private wells. 21 being unknown, this City is unable to verify the
22 A double liner system plus 22 owner's financial assurance. Will the operator
23 monitoring is required in many states, which is 23 be financially capable of paying ground water and
24 necessary where leachate recirculation may be 24 property value protection programs post - closure
41 43
1 practiced. 1 and pre- closure costs? This is unknown.
2 As stated by Fox Moraine's 2 Ground protection water plan
3 attorney, Mr. Mueller, in his closing statement, 3 Appendix C only applies to the existing wells
4 ground water is what determines public health, 4 within a two -mile radius. Ground protection
5 safety and welfare. 5 water plan should also apply to every well that
6 The liner installation. Fox 6 is drilled during the life of the entire
7 Moraine will test liner installation at the weld 7 landfill, including the post - closure care period.
8 seams between the adjacent liner sheets. The 8 Special wastes allowed in
9 liner sheets themselves could have factory 9 landfills. Often the difference between special
10 defects or could be damaged during installation. 10 waste and hazardous waste is a very small
11 100 percent testing of the entire liner surface 11 percentage of concentration. For example, waste
12 to check for any leaks before it is buried should 12 materials with five PPM of lead dust is deemed
13 be required. Appendix K has data on buried 13 hazardous, but a reading of only 4.9 is
14 tanks. AWWA D -103, bolted steel tanks made out 14 considered special waste. Special waste should
15 of HDPE, this type of tank is used in the water 15 be excluded from the landfill.
16 service. It is inappropriate for use in leachate 16 Stormwater flows downgradient.
17 storage. Bolted tanks are prone to leakage as 17 The stormwater would flow towards Hollenbeck
18 they age. Buried tanks -- buried tanks should 18 Creek and other waterways. Rerouting the
19 not be permitted. If they are permitted, it 19 tributary that feeds into Hollenbeck Creek would
20 should be mandatory to use welded steel tanks, 20 not only disturb the tributary, it would disturb
21 built to the AWWA D -100 or the API -650 standard. 21 Hollenbeck Creek and ultimately the Fox River.
22 Area leachate tanks have been proven unsafe. 22 The creek and the tributaries flow through
23 As stated by Fox Moraine 23 people's properties into the Fox River and also
24 attorney, Mr. Mueller, in his closing statement, 24 nearby Yogi Bear Campground where our children
42 44
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 45
1 play in the water. 1 his professional opinion the proposed landfill
2 Will they -- will the expected 2 did not meet Criterion 3 It is not located so as
3 overflow harm the fish, the wildlife, the 3 to minimize incompatibility with the character of
4 children, the nearby property owners? 4 the surrounding area.
5 The proposed site proximity is 5 In discussing our Comprehensive
6 too close to residential areas. In addition to 6 Land Use Plan Update February 22nd, 2005, he was
7 current residents, 4,000 home sites have been 7 impressed with the quality of the plan. He
8 annexed and will be developed within a two -mile 8 commended Yorkville for hosting numerous
9 radius of the site. Residents will experience 9 workshops to work with citizens and land owners.
10 unhealthy air pollutants. Odors generated 10 In his review of the plan, he
11 consist of methane and hydrogen sulfide. Odors 11 noted that zoning with the proposed landfill is
12 will lower their property values. Leachate may 12 not in compliance with the plan. The plan
13 invade the water table or contaminate private 13 indicates the surrounding area of the proposed
14 wells. Vinyl chloride, found in several 14 landfill is termed estate neighborhood, a low
15 landfills, has no known safe level for humans, 15 density residential neighborhood. Surrounding
16 and it also has been known to cause liver damage. 16 land is characterized as low density residential
17 And I'm also going to be 17 development. Not agricultural.
18 submitting this as -- so I don't continue to read 18 With the amount of residential
19 the entire document here, I will use up my 20 19 development located less than a mile and a half
20 minutes on one criteria, I would like to now go 20 from the proposed site, it is not compatible with
21 on to Criterion 3. 21 the character of the surrounding area. There is
22 The facility is located so as 22 a campground site, a state park, and a beautiful
23 to minimize incompatibility with the character of 23 river located within a few miles of this proposed
24 the surrounding area and to minimize the effect 24 landfill site. A landfill at this location would
45 47
1 on the value of surrounding property. 1 deter development from Yorkville, and a loss in
2 My findings, applicant failed 2 revenue would be the end result.
3 to meet Criterion 3 due to Fox Moraine's expert 3 The large garbage trucks
4 witness, Frank Harrison's, testimony and also due 4 traveling through the already congested downtown
5 to FOGY Yogi's expert witness, Mr. Joseph Abel's 5 area as well as the residential areas located
6 testimony. 6 along the utilized roads will have a very
7 Mr. Harrison presented a chart 7 negative impact. Property guarantee value only
9 entitled recent land sales. When questioned, he 8 extends to one mile.
9 indicated he began his report June, 2006, and he 9 Odors and gases emitted from
10 completed it in December, 2006. He further 10 the landfill would also have a very negative
11 stated that properties are selling around the 11 impact on the nearby residential areas. The
12 proposed landfill area. All properties that were 12 United City of Yorkville is located downwind from
13 indicated sold on his chart sold nine months 13 the site. Several schools are also located
14 before the siting application was submitted. 14 downwind from the site. A soon- to -be- completed
15 Another chart was inaccurate. The Comp Plan 15 assisted living facility is located only several
16 north of Route 71 did not show residential. This 16 miles downwind from the proposed landfill site.
17 is Plano's Comp Plan. Yorkville cannot show use 17 The heavy truck traffic, the
18 on another municipality's property. He did not 18 noise from the trucks, as well as the odors of
19 perform a regression analysis. No sales or rate 19 the landfill, will have a tremendous negative
20 of appreciation pre - permit to compare with 20 impact on the residents, the downtown area, the
21 post - permit for property values. His charts 21 schools, and the senior citizens of Yorkville.
22 indicated that properties east of a landfill 22 Criterion 5. The plan of
23 developed slower. 23 operations for the facility is designed to
24 Mr. Abel then disclosed that in 24 minimize the danger of the surrounding area from
46 48
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
49
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 _
i fire, spills or other operational accidents. 1 Chapa LaVia, State Senator Chris Lauzen, and IDOT
2 My findings, applicant failed 2 regional representatives.
3 to meet Criterion 5. Without checking incoming 3 Although these high profile
4 waste often, a chance of hazardous materials 4 governmental individuals have recognized and
5 being dumped is tremendous. Without a double 5 addressed the traffic problems in Yorkville, they
6 liner HDPE design, leaks will occur and seep to 6 are unable to obtain the necessary state funds to
7 the nearby shallow private wells. Only testing 7 widen this two -lane Route 97 that provides
8 seams of liners and not the liner sheets 8 nothing but congested traffic flow through
9 themselves for possible installation factory 9 downtown Yorkville. Unfortunately the funds are
10 still not identified in IDOT's seven -year road
10 defects may prevent leaks and seepages into
11 nearby creeks and property owner's wells. This 11 plan.
12 emergency would not minimize the danger to the 12 With our tremendous concern for
13 surrounding areas. 13 safety of individuals traveling on Route 47,
14 If a fire would develop, the 14 State Representative Patricia Reid - Linder
15 fire emergency equipment would have to travel a 15 arranged a joint IDOT Open Strategy Session on
16 very, very congested two -lane road to reach this 16 October 9th, 2004. Representatives of the United
17 site. The amount of time to arrive to the site 17 City of Yorkville, IDOT, State Representative
18 certainly would have a negative impact on the 18 Linder and Illinois Senator Lauzen were also in
19 emergency situation. If an individual was 19 attendance.
20 injured, the time frame could also result in a 20 MAYOR BURD: Alderman Spears, one
21 death - threatening scenario. 21 thing, this is not information that was in the
22 The possible hazardous smoke 22 public record and you cannot provide that
23 would travel downwind to the downtown area of 23 tonight.
24 Yorkville, as well as nearby residential 24 You can only comment on what
99 51
1 neighborhoods, schools, state parks and senior 1 was in the public record; is that correct?
2 housing facilities. This emergency would not 2 ALDERMAN SPEARS: This was in the
3 minimize the danger of surrounding area. 3 public record.
q The designed bolted steel tank 4 MAYOR BURD: It was? Okay. Sorry.
5 is also inappropriate for leachate storage. 5 ALDERMAN SPEARS: It was submitted.
6 These tanks are designed for water service. If a 6 MAYOR BURD: I'm sorry. I missed
7 leak occurs, local wells would be the recipient 7 it. Please go ahead.
8 of toxic leachate. 8 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Stop the clock
9 Criterion 6. The traffic 9 now. Wait a minute.
10 patterns to and from the facility are so designed 10 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Start from the
11 to minimize the impact on existing traffic flows. 11 beginning.
12 My findings, applicant failed 12 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Pardon me?
13 to meet Criterion 6. The congested traffic flow 13 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Start over.
14 throughout the City of Yorkville is -- as well as 14 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Due to Yorkville
15 the surrounding areas has been a tremendous 15 being one of the fastest growing cities in the
16 public safety issue for many years. 16 State of Illinois, the two -lane roads surrounding
17 This public safety traffic 17 the City are continuously congested with traffic
18 issue will undoubtedly become more intense and 18 and with no relief in sight.
19 definitely life threatening with the addition of 19 Also I'd like to go -- and this
20 400 to 500 per -day truck trips generated by this 20 was also submitted in one of the documents, State
21 proposed landfill. The severity of the traffic 21 Representative Linda Chapa LaVia submitted a
22 flow has been recognized and addressed by 22 letter to governor -- another one -- Governor's
23 Illinois State Representative Patricia 23 name, whatever, Blagojevich, requesting
24 Reid - Linder, Illinois State Representative Linda 24 allocation of funds to widen and improve Route 97
50 52
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 53
1 through Yorkville. 1 The proposed 400 to 500 daily
2 She indicated that tremendous 2 truck trips is totally unacceptable due to the
3 traffic congestion conditions result in extremely 3 level of service rating of F, being the lowest.
4 unsafe conditions that in high -peak traffic times 4 Again, there is no lower level than F.
5 do not allow emergency vehicles to pass 5 Even though the expert witness
6 slow- moving or stopped traffic in order to 6 indicated that there would just be a minimal
7 respond quickly to a life threatening call. 7 amount of traffic traveling on 47, it's still
8 She also informed the Governor 8 alarming. Can a horrific situation become more
9 that due to Route 47 and downtown Yorkville being 9 horrific? A rating of F is F.
10 only a two -lane road with a bridge over the Fox 10 Our entire community and anyone
11 River, the school bus schedule had to be 11 traveling on our two -lane over - crowded roads
12 staggered in order to alleviate some of the 12 would be in harm's way if this landfill site is
13 congestion. 13 approved.
14 Also, there was information 14 When cross - examined by Attorney
15 regarding a petition that had 1,372 signatures, 15 Kramer, Mr. Werthmann admitted that he did not
16 and they were all obtained within two weekends, 16 perform a count as displayed in his Power Point
17 just in four hours each day. They were submitted 17 presentation exhibit entitled Existing Land
18 to Tim Martin, Secretary of IDOT. They were also 18 Application Facility Traffic. He further
19 handed to several other engineers and district 19 admitted the operator supplied the statistics
20 engineers of IDOT, Representative Patricia 20 that were presented. That's all the I have.
21 Reid - Linder, Representative Linda Chapa LaVia, 21 (Applause)
22 State Senator Chris Lauzen, and United States 22 MAYOR BURD: Thank you. Who would
23 Senator Richard Durbin, and also it was noted on 23 like to speak next?
24 the petition that Don Hamman's attorney, John 24 MR. PLOCHER: I'll go.
53 55
1 Philipchuck, as well as his wife, Kathy, 1 MAYOR BURD: Alderman Plocher.
2 recognized this tremendous traffic safety hazard 2 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Sure. Joe
3 and signed the petition as well. 3 Plocher, Alderman, Ward 2. Mine will be short.
4 There were also several 4 I would just like to say it takes me 20 plus --
5 resolutions that were passed regarding -- and the 5 it makes me 20 plus minutes to travel from the
6 City Council of Yorkville unanimously voted and 6 beginning of my house on West Main Street on
7 passed a resolution on November 2nd, 2004, and 7 Fridays as of right now. I don't see how 500
8 this was concerning -- requesting IDOT to widen 8 plus trucks is minimizing anything. I also did
9 and improve Route 47. 9 mention and notice that they failed to even
10 The resolution was also passed 10 mention that the smaller trucks, how they would
ii by Plano's City Council and it was also voted by 11 also affect. They were never even taken into
12 the Kendall County Board unanimously to provide 12 consideration as far as I could see.
13 full support in our efforts to widen and upgrade 13 Next I'd like to touch on as a
14 Route 47. 14 licensed apprentice plumber, I hold a license
15 During the hearing process we 15 from the Health Department of the State of
16 have been told Michael Werthmann, the traffic 16 Illinois, which allows them to fine me on cross
17 engineer and expert witness representing Fox 17 contamination on potable water. Potable water is
18 Moraine, presented a Power Point presentation 18 known also as drinking water.
19 indicating the level of service for Route 47 was 19 The applicant said that the
20 rated F. 20 landfill leaked, and this to me is a direct cross
21 I questioned continuously if 21 contamination of potable water in my eyes and is
22 there was a rating lower than F, and apparently 22 against the law, so, therefore, I could not vote.
23 this is the lowest rating that any road could 23 And, secondly, I could also
24 obtain. 24 never personally jeopardize my friends and family
54 56
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 57
1 and the residents of this community on any health 1 MAYOR BURD: Alderman Munns.
2 issue as someone has done to my family. As you 2 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Hi. Marty Munns,
3 all -- as you all probably know, I live with my 3 Alderman, Ward Three. Hello. Marty Munns,
4 brother, Jimmy Plocher. We call him Kiki 4 Alderman, Ward Three.
5 (phonetic). He is 21 years of age, with cerebral 5 To start with, just glancing at
6 palsy, and there is no way that I could sleep at 6 the memos we got today from Mr. Roth and
7 night knowing that I voted yes and can do this to 7 Mr. Price and Mr. Clark, there is highly
8 someone else. 8 conflicting opinions on a couple criterion, two
9 I also encourage that the rest 9 attorneys say yes, approved with conditions, and
10 of the City Council do the same. Thank you. 10 one say no, and back and forth, so it's really a
11 (Applause) 11 lot of additional information we'll have to read
12 MAYOR BURD: Who would like to speak 12 tonight to put in our decision for next week, but
13 next? Alderman Leslie. 13 briefly I'll go through the criteria the best I
14 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Alderman Jason 14 can from meetings I attended.
15 Leslie, Ward 1, City of Yorkville, Illinois. In 15 Criterion 1, the facility is
16 view of the nine /ten criterion, I chose three 16 necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the
17 that I feel the application is insufficient. 17 area it is intended to serve. During the
18 State them briefly. 18 testimony and popular science, there was a figure
19 First being Criterion number 3, 19 of 245 million tons of municipal waste generated
20 so as to minimize the effect on the value of the 20 every year in this country and probably double in
21 surrounding property. I think that's absolutely 21 the next 20 years, so to me, there is a need for
22 not the case given the current annexation 22 this waste to go somewhere.
23 proceedings upon this application, number one, 23 Again, a couple of the
24 and just the overall land ownership adjacent in 24 attorneys said yes, with conditions, some said
57 59
1 the surrounding area, so I have chose Criterion 1 no. The only way that I would approve this
2 number 3. 2 condition would be if it would accommodate the
3 The next criterion I chose is 3 waste needs of the area intended to serve, the
4 Criterion number 6. The traffic patterns to and 4 way it is written.
5 from the facility are so designed to minimize the 5 Number 2, as far as the safety
6 impact on existing traffic flows. 6 and welfare, there was 39 conditions that the
7 I think the traffic patterns 7 City Staff included, and according to Mr. Clark,
8 chosen are to maximize the profitability of the 8 you really have to consider that criterion
9 operation, and also an affect would be -- if 9 carefully if there was 39 conditions that one
10 anyone's been out to my ward, and I live at the 10 criteria had to meet.
11 intersection of 71 and 126, I can't get out of my 11 There was talk of Army Corps of
12 subdivision in the morning, about an hour out of 12 Engineers not issuing a Clean Water Act and I
13 the day, so the criterion specifically states 13 would have to be assured that wild animals would
14 that it's so designed to minimize impact. I 14 not be picking up waste and taking it around to
15 don't think they met that. 15 other areas of the town.
16 And then finally would be 16 This one I am still undecided
17 Criterion number 8, as to where the facility is 17 on. There is 39 conditions the Staff put down,
18 located, given the current Kendall County Solid 18 I'd have to look through those 39 conditions
19 Waste Management Plan, it doesn't appear to me 19 again to see if I think Criterion 2 was met.
20 that we are currently consistent or would be 20 Number 3, the facility is
21 consistent with the current stated plan. So 21 located to minimize incompatibility. Again,
22 those are my points. Thank you. 22 testimony on both sides, again, two to three
23 MAYOR BURD: Okay. 23 lawyers says yes, one says no. Again, at this
24 (Applause) 24 point I'm not sure they met that. Maybe with
58 60
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 61
1 strict conditions in putting the two -mile radius 1 What I'd like to do very briefly maybe, maybe not
2 rather than one -mile possibly. 2 very briefly, but I'd like to go through some of
3 Criteria 4, everybody really -- 3 the criteria and kind of bullet points and things
4 I don't know what that means, out of floodplain. 4 that need to be brought to the attention, and
5 I guess they met that one. 5 basically it's the foundation for my rejection of
6 Criterion 5, designed to 6 the application.
7 minimize danger, Mr. Clark said the same 39 7 Okay. Concerning the first
8 criteria, conditions, as 2 would be in with 8 criteria, which is the proposed facility
9 number 5, so that's the same as number 2 in my -- 9 necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the
10 my mind. 10 area it's intended to serve, the applicant, not
11 One of the main things here is 11 the Illinois -- or the IEPA or the local siting
12 the traffic. We all know that Yorkville is kind 12 authority, chooses the service area. The
13 of landlocked at certain times or traffic locked, 13 applicant retains the right to change its service
14 you can't get from one side of the town to other 14 area after siting approval.
15 in 20 minutes, which is kind of a long time to go 15 According to the applicant,
16 a couple miles. 16 there are ten permitted landfills within the
17 But to put it in perspective, 17 service area. The applicant states that the ten
18 Menards I believe generates two to 3,000 trucks 18 permitted landfills within the service area have
19 on a two -lane road on Route 34, so I'm not saying 19 a remaining capacity of 29,503,000 tons as of
20 that Menards trucks are like landfill trucks, but 20 2006. The ten landfills within the service area
21 as far as traffic to traffic, that's four times 21 handled approximately 2,376,000 tons -- 76,000
22 as many trucks as the landfill would generate, so 22 tons of waste in 2005, while the service area
23 in and of itself, the number of trucks I don't 23 generated approximately 11,427,000 tons of waste
24 think would preclude it from meeting the criteria 24 that same year.
61 63
1 as much as the routing of where the trucks would 1 This means that approximately
2 go from where the waste is picked up to the 2 80 percent of the waste in the service area is
3 landfill. So I'm still undecided on that one. 3 already exported to landfills outside of the
4 Criteria 7, there's going to be 4 service area. Given that the landfill area
5 no hazardous waste, so I guess that's a moot 5 already exports 80 percent of its waste, it is
6 point. They have met that, they're not going to 6 appropriate to determine whether capacity exists
7 do hazardous waste. 7 to accommodate the needs of the service area.
8 And number 8, County Board has 8 The applicant's analysis of the
9 adopted a solid waste management plan. The 9 regional waste capacity indicated that there were
10 county hasn't really proven they have 10 42 existing landfills within the region. These
11 jurisdiction over us, I guess that's still going 11 included landfills in Illinois, Indiana,
12 to be decided in a court, if they want a 12 Wisconsin, and Michigan, all of which already
13 landfill, if we want one or not. I guess that's 13 accept waste from the proposed service area.
14 up to them. 14 These 42 landfills have an estimated aggregate
15 And number 9, in a regulated 15 capacity of 243,923,000 tons as of 2006.
16 recharge area, I'm not sure what that means. 16 Even assuming a growth
17 So at this point some of the 17 scenario, as the applicant does, the applicant
18 criterion possibly could be met and some I'm not 18 states that existing regional landfills can
19 really sure on without reading in depth the 150 19 accommodate the waste needs of the region for
20 pages I received tonight, so hopefully by 20 another eight or nine years.
21 tomorrow night, we'll have more information. 21 The hearing officer found that
22 MAYOR BURD: Who would like to speak 22 disposal capacity available to the service area
23 next, Alderman Werderich? 23 will not be exhausted for nine or ten years.
24 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: I'll go next. 24 Three Illinois landfills have recently received
62 64
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearin g Y Ma 23, 2007 65
1 siting approval for additional capacity. These 1 second -- the second criteria, I think that it
2 additions will increase landfill capacity to the 2 should be rejected based upon the second criteria
3 service area by 6,640,000 tons. 3 as well, and my reasoning is as follows:
4 The Streator landfill number 4 According to the application, no ground water
5 three received siting approval in 2002 and is 5 wells will be installed on the south border of
6 awaiting a permit from the IEPA for 2,548,800 6 the proposed landfill until 24 years after the
7 tons of disposal capacity, and the applicant 7 waste is first accepted.
8 estimates that this additional capacity will add 8 According to the Illinois EPA,
9 1.1 years to the overall disposal capacity 9 the proposed landfill should be operated so that
10 available to the service area, extending the 10 cell construction starts at the downgradient
11 total disposal capacity to over ten years. 11 point and then proceeds upgradient. Cell
12 According IEPA's landfill 12 construction, therefore, starts at the south end
13 capacity report, the landfill capacity for region 13 and proceed north, and downgradient ground water
14 one, comprising all of the northern Illinois -- 14 monitoring wells should be installed when the
15 all of northern Illinois, exclusive of the 15 landfill construction begins.
16 seven - county proposed service area, as of 2005 16 In response to
17 was 14 years. 17 Mr. Ludwikowski's testimony, Devin Moose, the
18 IEPA estimates statewide 18 applicant's landfill designer, agreed that
19 landfill capacity to be at least 19 years. 19 certain concerns were valid. Moose agreed that
20 Statewide disposal capacity has increased in 20 landfill cell development should be changed so
21 recent years rather than decrease. 21 that the easternmost cells are developed first,
22 According to the applicant's 22 but he would start cell construction at the north
23 expert, Mr. Kowalski, the Fox Moraine facility 23 end and not the south. Monitoring wells would be
24 will have 'capacity of approximately 23,500,000 24 installed at least 500 feet south of any cell
65 67
1 tons of disposal capacity and will have a 1 that developed.
2 projected life of 23 to 24 years. 2 The applicant proposes to
3 The applicant estimates, 3 reroute the unnamed tributary Hollenbeck Creek as
4 however, that were proposed by the Fox Moraine 4 part of its landfill design. In response to the
5 facility to accept all of the service areas of 5 applicant's application to the Army Corps of
6 waste, if it were, it would be full in one to two 6 Engineers for a Clean Water Act permit to reroute
7 years. 7 or rechannel the tributary, the Army Corps
8 There is, therefore, a gap in 8 stated, it appears that practical alternatives
9 the applicant's calculations or in its 9 may exist for the development of this facility
10 assumptions. If the proposed facility were only 10 that would have less adverse impact on the
11 to add one to two years of the existing total 11 ecosystem, such as reconfiguration of the
12 nine -year capacity of the service area, yet it is 12 landfill to avoid or minimize stream and wetland
13 expected to operate for 23 to 24 years, the 13 impacts or the acquisition or additional upland
14 applicant must have identified or projected an 14 area to enlarge the upland component of the site,
15 additional 12 to 14 years of capacity within or 15 thereby avoiding impacts to aquatic areas.
16 available to the service area. 16 Generally we are prohibited by law from
17 The applicant's expert admitted 17 permitting a discharge of dredged or fill
18 that the proposed facility, if sited and 18 material if there is a practical alternative to
19 permitted, will constitute only a small fraction 19 the proposed discharge, which would have a less
20 of the total yearly disposal of the capacity in 20 adverse effect, so long as the alternatives --
21 the service area. Over the past ten years, five 21 the alternative does not have other significant
22 applications for siting or expansion have been 22 adverse environmental consequences.
23 approved within the service area. 23 The Illinois Department of
24 Moving along to 2, the 24 Natural Resources has also expressed concerns
66 68
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 69
1 regarding the potential for impact on water 1 Only the Environmental
2 quality, leaks and flooding. The applicant has 2 Protection Act and the City's local siting
3 since withdrawn its Army Corps of Engineers' 3 ordinance as interpreted by the courts,
4 permit application. 4 therefore, provide the criteria for the City
5 The applicant purportedly has 5 Council's decision regarding the siting
6 done a study to address the concerns of the Army 6 application for the proposed Fox Moraine
7 Corps, but did not include the study with its 7 landfill.
8 landfill application to the City. 8 As the application -- as the
9 The stormwater discharge for 9 applicant's land use expert testified, however,
10 the proposed landfill for the north drainageway 10 local zoning and planning do control the use of
11 exceeds the maximum release level of 0.15 CFS per 11 parcels adjacent to the surrounding --
12 acre of the City of the -- or the United City of 12 surrounding the proposed Fox Moraine landfill.
13 Yorkville specification for improvements. 13 Under this criterion, the City
14 Although the proposed landfill 14 Council must evaluate, among other things,
15 was purportedly designed to withstand a 100 -year 15 whether the proposed facility is so located as to
16 24 -hour storm event, the northern section of the 16 minimize incompatibility with the character of
17 landfill does not meet that standard, and I 17 the surrounding area.
18 apologize, I am sounding very verbose here, but 1 18 Zoning and land use are,
19 wanted to make sure I got all of these valid 19 therefore, relevant to the City Council's
20 points. 20 evaluation of incompatibility with the
21 I'd like to move along to the 21 surrounding areas even if they are not
22 third criteria, which is the facility is so 22 determinative of the decision regarding whether
23 located as to minimize incompatibility with the 23 or not to grant siting approval for the proposed
24 character of the surrounding area, and to 24 site decision.
6 9 71
1 minimize the effect on the value of the 1 The United City of Yorkville's
2 surrounding property. In my opinion, the 2 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the southern area
3 application has not met this criteria. 3 designates the area immediately surrounding the
4 While zoning does not control 4 proposed Fox Moraine landfill as commercial
5 the decision on the siting application, the 5 and /or office, research, industrial.
6 applicant concedes that it is appropriate to 6 Approximately one mile to the
7 consider zoning under this criteria. The 7 east of the proposed landfill begins an estate
8 applicant's land use expert stated that he takes 6 neighborhood. The estate neighborhood extends
9 zoning into consideration because zoning are the 9 for several miles to the east and comprises a
10 rights that exist on the properties adjacent to 10 part of several recently annexed subdivisions.
11 this proposed siting application, and I would 11 The applicant's land use expert
12 like to -- and I need to know the potential uses 12 testified that current land use in the area
13 there. 13 surrounding the proposed Fox Moraine landfill is
14 It is important for the City of 14 agricultural, but that area is obviously going
15 Yorkville to be very clear as to the relevance of 15 through a transition at this time; that
16 zoning in the City's Comprehensive Plan and the 16 transition is from residential to a mixed use,
17 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Update to this 17 including both commercial and residential.
18 process. 18 On cross examination, the
19 The Illinois Environmental 19 applicant's land use expert admitted that he did
20 Protection Act states that local zoning and /or 20 not know how many homes were in the area he
21 other land use requirements shall not be 21 studied for the purposes of his incompatibility
22 applicable to such siting decisions. That's 22 analyses.
23 included in Illinois Compiled Statute 415 23 The applicant's land use expert
24 5392G -- 39.2G. 24 testified that both Yorkville and Kendall County
70 72
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 73
1 are experiencing explosive growth. The 1 real estate in the area are concrete proof that
2 applicant's land use expert testified that the 2 the owners intend to develop the property.
3 trend of development in Yorkville is towards 3 Development in the area is not speculative at
4 residential development rather than agricultural. 4 this point. It's -- it's occurring.
5 The applicant's appraisal 5 The applicant's appraisal
6 expert admitted that Yorkville and Kane County 6 expert predicted slow growth in the area
7 are one of the most rapidly and growing -- 7 immediately surrounding the proposed landfill
8 rapidly expanding areas in the United States. 8 because water, sewer and other utilities were not
9 Yorkville is expanding in all directions, 9 available in that area.
10 including towards the proposed Fox Moraine 10 He was not aware, however, that
11 facility. 11 the City had centered -- had entered into five
12 As Yorkville grows, areas that 12 annexation agreements with property owners within
13 were formerly rural and agricultural become 13 two miles of the landfill border requiring the
14 commercial and residential. The applicant's 14 land owners to finance 19 million dollars in SSA
15 appraisal expert researched recent property 15 bonds for extension of municipal water, water
16 transfers in Fox and Kendall Townships. He found 16 towers, sanitary sewer, collector roads, and
17 that recent sales in Fox Township range between 17 siting improvements to the area.
18 $9,500 and $30,000 per acre. Recent sales in 18 In considering incompatibility,
19 Kendall Township ranged between $19,900 and 19 the applicant's land use expert considered five
20 $58,400 per acre. 20 subdivisions recently annexed -- I'm sorry, in
21 The applicant's appraisal 21 considering the incompatibility, the applicant's
22 expert testified if land is to be used for a cash 22 land use expert considered the five subdivisions
23 grain operation, it cannot be operated profitably 23 recently annexed to the City between the proposed
24 if you have a sale price of $4,000 per acre. A 24 landfill and the former City border to be
73 75
1 sale price above $4,000 per acre indicates that 1 agricultural rather than residential uses.
2 the purchaser is anticipating that he or she will 2 The applicant's appraisal
3 develop the property or will sell to a developer. 3 expert testified that housing values in areas
4 The applicant's appraisal 4 surrounding the landfill are not impacted by the
5 expert testified that in doing an impact analysis 5 presence of the landfill. As examples he used
6 it is important to look at the highest and best 6 Countryside landfill near Grayslake and the
7 use of surrounding properties. In fact, the 7 Settler's Hill landfill near Geneva. He claimed
8 applicant's appraisal expert did not conduct an 8 that neither the pace development for property
9 appraisal and did not evaluate the highest and 9 values near the Countryside landfill and the
10 best use of the property adjacent to surrounding 10 Settler's Hill landfill had been impacted by the
11 or constituting the proposed Fox Moraine 11 presence of the landfills.
12 facility, while the area surrounding the proposed 12 Based on his testimony,
13 Fox Moraine landfill is currently used for 13 however, it appears that it took decades for the
14 agricultural purposes; therefore, it is likely 14 property around the Countryside landfill and the
15 not a profitable use and, therefore, not the 15 Settler's Hill landfill to develop.
16 highest and best use of the property. 16 The development near the
17 Based upon the applicant's 17 Settler's Hill landfill appears to be comprised
18 experts -- expert's testimony, it is no longer 18 of townhomes and other high density residential
19 accurate to characterize the property adjacent to 19 uses. The nearest residential development to the
20 in the vicinity of the proposed Fox Moraine 20 Countryside is Prairie Crossings, a unique
21 landfill as rural or agricultural. It is 21 development that incorporates sustainable
22 currently in transition to commercial or 22 development concepts. The portion of the Prairie
23 residential. 23 Crossings development that constitutes farmland
24 The price per acre paid for the 24 is used as a buffer between the residents and the
74 76
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983.0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 77
1 Countryside landfill. 1 traffic would pass through downtown Yorkville;
2 Given the explosive rate of 2 approximately 70 percent would pass through
3 development in Yorkville and the fact that 3 downtown Plano.
4 parcels adjacent to the landfill have been 4 The proposed landfill would
5 purchased for the purpose of development, it is 5 generate 400 to 500 heavy truck trips per day.
6 likely that but for the landfill, large lots, 6 The landfill trucks have special needs in terms
7 single - family estate homes would be developed up 7 of their operating characteristics. They take
8 to and adjacent to the proposed landfill site. 8 longer braking distance and require a larger
9 The applicant's -- the 9 turning distance.
10 applicant's appraisal expert was not aware of any 10 The applicant's traffic study
11 landfill impact studies that measured the effects 11 did not consider the impact of the landfill
12 of landfills on the real estate prices by 12 traffic on downtown Yorkville. Downtown
13 comparing pre- siting sales to post- siting sales. 13 Yorkville has a lot of pedestrian traffic and
14 Further, to hammer that point 14 crossings, significant stop- and -go traffic
15 home, the applicant's appraisal expert admitted 15 associated with turning into local streets and
16 that he would not purchase a home next to a 16 downtown activity significant to on- street
17 landfill. 17 parking.
18 I'd like to move on to Criteria 18 The impact of landfill traffic
19 number 6, which are the traffic patterns to or 19 could adversely affect the development of
20 from the proposed facility designed -- facility 20 downtown Yorkville as a result of all of the
21 designed to minimize the impact on existing 21 truck traffic and the increased stop- and -go
22 traffic flows. 22 traffic.
23 Unlike traffic from other 23 Additional truck traffic from
24 developments, the traffic from the proposed 24 the landfill on Illinois 47 could diminish the
77 79
1 landfill will not travel over several different 1 ability of the City of Yorkville to promote
2 roads, thereby disbursing within a short distance 2 residential development and a pedestrian friendly
3 from its original -- thereby disbursing within 3 area.
4 short distances from its origin; rather, all or 4 The applicant's traffic study
5 almost all 99 percent of the landfill's truck 5 did not consider the impact of the traffic --
6 traffic will travel over only two routes, one 6 landfill traffic on downtown Plainfield as well.
7 from the east on Illinois 126 to Illinois 71 to 7 Like downtown Yorkville, downtown Plainfield has
8 the landfill and back, and, two, from the north 8 a lot of pedestrian traffic and crossings,
9 on Illinois 47 to 71 to the landfill and back. 9 significant stop- and -go traffic associated with
10 Whether -- there is a question 10 turning into local streets and downtown activity
11 whether the proposed landfill is well located 11 as well as significant on- street parking. It was
12 with respect to the proximity and accessibility 12 inappropriate for the applicant not to conduct a
13 to the regional interstate system. The closest 13 traffic study in Plainfield.
14 interchanges -- interstate interchanges are 14 Intersections in Plainfield are
15 located 18 to 20.2 miles from the landfill. The 15 at or over capacity, and at least one
16 applicant's traffic report did not address site 16 intersection is already at service level F. The
17 accessibility; i.e., the accessibility to the 17 proposed traffic pattern would have a significant
18 regional state interstate system, and whether the 16 impact on Plainfield. The proposed traffic plan
19 landfill would be better sited closer to a state 19 would result in a higher level of truck traffic
20 highway. 20 through Plainfield than the already existing
21 The distances from the proposed 21 burdensome level.
22 landfill to the interstate system force the 22 It would result in a 350
23 landfill traffic to use Illinois 47 and Illinois 23 percent increase from Kendall County to Will
24 126. Approximately 30 percent of the landfill 24 County. Sufficient funds are available only for
78 80
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 81 I
1 partial construction of the proposed road between 1 thing after that.
2 the proposed Prairie Parkway between Illinois 34 2 Criterion number 8 is the
3 and Illinois 71, in the 2010 to 2011 time frame, 3 proposed facility consistent with the Kendall
4 is when it's supposed to come about. This will 4 County Solid Waste Management Plan?
5 not satisfactorily alleviate traffic concerns 5 The Kendall County Board has
6 associated with the proposed landfill. 6 updated the County plan in 2002 and 2005. In
7 The traffic from the proposed 7 May, 2006, Kendall County Resolution 06 -11,
8 landfill would significantly worsen traffic 8 further updating the January, 2005, County Plan,
9 impacts. The bottom line is the traffic for the 9 Resolution 06 -11 states in relevant part,
to proposed landfill would significantly worsen 10 whereas, the Board has determined that a landfill
11 traffic impacts on the already congested Illinois 11 is a facility that by its nature impacts the
12 Route 47, 71, and 126. Existing landfill -- 12 County as a whole rather than merely the
13 existing traffic, plus landfill - generated 13 immediate vicinity in which it is located and, as
14 traffic, plus traffic from other developments 14 such, requires a county -wide approach and Board
15 will most likely cause a service level at the 15 input and oversight as to its location and
16 intersection of Illinois 47 and Illinois 126 and 16 operation; now, therefore, be it resolved that
17 at the intersection of Illinois 47 and 71 to be 17 on -- that the January, 2005 updated County plan
18 level F. 18 is hereby amended to provide that landfills may
19 The applicant's landfill expert 19 only be located in unincorporated areas of the
20 testified traffic delays at these two 20 County.
21 intersections as 99 plus seconds. Upon 21 John Church, president of the
22 questioning, he conceded that the delays were 22 County Board testified at the hearings.
23 actually 300 to 400 seconds. 23 Mr. Church testified that the County plan was
24 Having heavy truck traffic from 24 amended in May, 2006 to include this resolution.
81 83
1 the proposed landfill at such an intersection is 1 The County -- the amended County plan was
2 not appropriate. The impact of the truck trips 2 submitted to the IEPA in May, 2006. The IEPA
3 is disproportionate to their actual number based 3 acknowledged receipt of the amended plan.
4 on their operating characteristics. 4 Mr. Church testified that the proposed Fox
5 The applicant's traffic report 5 Moraine landfill was not consistent with the
6 is flawed. It omits important information 6 County plan, as it was in effect on the day the
7 regarding existing and proposed transfer station 7 application was filed, December 1st, 2006.
8 locations. The report also neglects to address 8 It is undisputed that the
9 how garbage from nearby communities will reach 9 proposed Fox Moraine landfill is located entirely
10 the landfill, i.e., via transfer station or 10 within the corporate City limits of the United
11 trucks traveling directly to the landfill. 11 City of Yorkville. Therefore, siting the
12 Because the report lacks this 12 proposed Fox Moraine landfill within the United
13 information, the Village of Oswego cannot 13 City of Yorkville would be inconsistent with the
14 determine if the landfill truck traffic would 14 current County plan.
15 impact the village. 15 The City Council need not
16 The proposed landfill also 16 assert a position with respect to whether the
17 would require vacating Sleepy Hollow Road between 17 resolution 06 -11 is legal or is valid -- legal or
18 Walker Road and Route 71. This road closure 18 constitutional exercise of the County's authority
19 would result in increased travel for an emergency 19 or any other statute or legal authority. That's
20 vehicle. This issue is not addressed in the 20 for the courts to decide.
21 application. 21 The City Council need not
22 Finally, I'd like to address 22 assert a position with respect to whether
23 criterion -- or actually not finally. I'd like 23 Resolution 06 -11 is ambiguous. That's for the
24 to address Criterion number 8 and then one last 24 court to decide.
82 84
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
I
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 85
1 The City Council should 1 resolution of those complaints. Since it's been
2 consider, and if it finds that Resolution 06 -11 2 annexed to the City, it's also my understanding
3 prohibits a landfill from being sited within the 3 that there have been several complaints made to
4 corporate limits of a municipality in Kendall 4 the City. The applicant also did not provide a
5 County, then the City Council may find that the 5 statement regarding the environmental compliance
6 proposed Fox Moraine landfill does not satisfy 05 6 record of Kodiak and Groot.
7 Illinois Compiled -- or 415 Illinois Compiled 7 Finally let's look at the
8 Statutes 4/39.2A, Subpart 8. 8 operator. The operator is Fox Moraine -- or Fox
9 And, finally, I would like to 9 Valley Landfill Services, LLC. Fox Valley is an
10 address some -- some case law, which is I suppose 10 affiliate of Peoria Disposal Companies,
11 considered Criterion 9, or it's included under 11 Incorporated, PDC, a 20 percent member of Fox
12 the Illinois statute as well, which is what 12 Valley Landfill.
13 evidence has been presented to the applicant or 13 In violation of the siting
14 any predecessor corporation's previous operating 14 ordinance, the applicant did not disclose who
15 experience and past record of convictions in the 15 owns the remaining 80 percent of the operator and
16 field of solid waste management in Lowell 16 the environmental compliance record of that
17 Transfer, Incorporated versus County Board of 17 particular owner.
18 McHenry. The Illinois Pollution Control Board 18 Ron Edwards of Fox Valley
19 upheld the siting, proper to consider an 19 Landfill Services, LLC, and PDC testified for the
20 applicant's lack of experience. 20 applicant regarding -- regarding this. He
21 I would like to address the 21 admitted that he did not include several alleged
22 applicant and the operator concerning this. The 22 violations in his hearing presentation of the
23 applicant is Fox Moraine, LLC. The members of 23 Peoria Development -- of PDC's compliance
24 Fox Moraine, LLC are the Hamman Family, LLC, 24 history. Additionally, the applicant did not
85 87
1 which owns 51 percent, and Kodiak Environmental 1 provide this information in its application.
2 Services, LLC, which owns 49 percent. 2 I apologize on drawing on, but
3 The managers of Fox Moraine, 3 I wanted to make sure that there was all of this
4 LLC, are Donald, Joseph, David, and James Hamman. 4 information included in the record, and I
5 Groot Industries is the managing member of 5 appreciate the time.
6 Kodiak. 6 I wanted to address comments
7 In violation of the siting 7 made by Attorney Price and the hearing officer
8 ordinance, no statement was provided describing 8 concerning the comments that they made in the
9 the operating experience of the four Hammans or 9 landfill. I had the opportunity to briefly look
10 the Hamann Family, LLC, nor was a statement 10 those over, and the first thing that I would like
11 provided regarding the environmental compliance 11 to comment on that is that Attorney Price -- and
12 record of the four Hammans or the Hamman Family, 12 it is later followed by the hearing officer --
13 LLC. 13 basically says that the landfill application
14 At a minimum, we know that 14 should be accepted because it will meet the
15 Donald Hamman entered into a settlement agreement 15 requirements with his conditions -- the
16 with Kendall County in 1995 resolving odor 16 conditions that he's included in the -- his
17 complaints at his composting operation. The 17 decision -- or in his opinion applied.
18 County has filed a complaint seeking a -- the 18 What should be taken into
19 County had filed a complaint seeking an 19 consideration is the fact that the application
20 injunction. 20 must be judged on its face, not based upon the
21 According to hearing testimony 21 conditions which are suggested to be included by
22 and exhibits, there have been several citizen 22 either Derke Price or the hearing officer.
23 complaints regarding Hamman's composting 23 Accordingly, when reading
24 operation since 1995. We do not know the 24 through that, please take that into
86 88
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
I
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 89
1 consideration. 1 don't know if we convene tomorrow and we have
2 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Is that it? In 2 time to talk before we vote. I mean, I'll
3 fairness, are we timing it? 3 discuss how I'm going to vote and why I'm going
4 MAYOR BURD: I think your 20 minutes 4 to vote, but I'm not prepared to do it right now.
5 are up. 5 MAYOR BURD: From what I understand,
6 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Okay. In 6 Alderman Golinski, you were supposed to vote on
7 conclusion, I would -- I would like to say that I 7 the nine criteria based on the information that
8 think that the application should be denied based 8 was presented during the hearing.
9 upon Criterion 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and then also 9 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Yeah, I
10 based upon case law. 10 understand that, but like I said, there is a lot
11 MAYOR BURD: Thank you. 11 of information that was presented today and I
12 (Applause) 12 think it's only right to analyze it.
13 MAYOR BURD: We have two Aldermen 13 I understand what Alderman
14 left to speak. 14 Werderich said, too, that you want to base your
15 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: I will go very 15 vote on the face value of the application and the
16 briefly. 16 sworn testimony, but, I mean, we went through
17 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Alderman 17 this whole process with all these experts, I
18 Golinski. 18 mean, it would be nice to analyze their input
19 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Very briefly. I 19 also. That's all.
20 didn't prepare a speech tonight because for the 20 MAYOR BURD: I don't believe that we
21 last 30 days I've been waiting to analyze the 21 were getting any more input from any experts than
22 input from our special counsel and experts, and 22 we already have, and you're not supposed to be
23 when I read the agenda, it's a deliberation. I 23 asking questions now to get more input from the
24 thought it would be more of a discussion of 24 experts. You are supposed to base it on the
89 91
1 Criterions 1 through 9, so I didn't prepare a 1 record as presented up until the 21st. Go ahead.
2 speech and, quite honestly, I didn't really want 2 ALDERMAN BESCO: Yes, Your Honor.
3 to make a decision on any criteria until I got 3 First of all, receiving the amount of volume that
4 their input, and I just received this today, but 4 we did in the last few days, first I want to
5 it looks to me already we have five no votes on 5 thank Wally for going through the attorney -- the
6 several criteria already, so I do have a couple 6 City Attorney Michael Roth's presentation, now I
7 questions, and that's kind of why I wished that 7 don't have to read his stuff.
8 Derke Price was here or Larry Clark or someone 8 Second of all, still, the
9 else, because there is still questions in my mind 9 volume that we've received, it's almost
10 that haven't been answered. 10 impossible to go through, and that's why I
11 What are the consequences to 11 suggested that we do go ahead and take it over
12 the City with a straight no vote? The way I read 12 until tomorrow and give us a chance to go through
13 the host agreement, it's basically null and void. 13 it.
14 And then from that, what are 14 There are some things that I do
15 the odds of the Pollution Control Board 15 have questions on, some of Derke's conclusions,
16 overturning our vote and we get this thing sited 16 and I would like to ask -- you know, it would be
17 here without our host agreement? No one has 17 nice if I could ask him why he chose some of the
18 talked about any of these consequences. And the 18 things that he did.
19 last thing that I want to see is something like 19 I honestly believe that the
20 the Pontiac landfill here where there is no local 20 same thing goes for Larry Clark's testimony or --
21 control over it. 21 not testimony, his conclusions. I think that we
22 So, I mean, these are questions 22 need, you know, some point of clarification so we
23 that are still out there, and I don't know if 23 can make a decision, and I look forward to -- I
24 anyone here is prepared to address them, but I 24 don't know if -- I suppose we can't contact him
90 92
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 93
1 to find out. 1 could make a request for further information, the
2 MR. ROTH: No. 2 deliberation period is still open, and if you
3 ALDERMAN BESCO: So there is no 3 request additional information, I suppose special
4 chance of him coming in to answer questions or -- 4 counsel or someone else might be willing to
5 MR. ROTH: The hearing officer? 5 comply.
6 ALDERMAN BESCO: Either -- either 6 ALDERMAN BESCO: Do we feed this
7 one. Because I have questions on both of their 7 through you, our questions, through you?
8 testimony. 8 MR. SIMON: Mr. Roth, can I comment?
9 MR. ROTH: I can tell you that the 9 MR. ROTH: Please.
10 hearing officer had indicated to me that he 10 MR. SIMON: The host -- the siting
11 considered his -- his assignment fulfilled upon 11 ordinance under which this process is being
12 preparation of his findings and recommendations 12 governed indicates that all of the evidence and
13 and submittal to them -- of them to the City 13 comment is closed. The hearing ended -- was
14 Council. 14 closed. The period for providing evidence and
15 He advised that he has done 15 the public comment period ended on the 21st.
16 some 30 hearing -- hearings before, and that that 16 Any substantive clarification
17 is his process, and it is the common -- commonly 17 provided by staff, special counsel or any
18 used process, and I can say that that is true. 18 participant would be considered further evidence
19 I have not been to a proceeding 19 or comment, and by reason of the statute and the
20 such as this in which the hearing officer has 20 siting ordinance, we are not allowed to entertain
21 appeared when the county board or the city 21 any questions or clarifications in that regard.
22 council deliberated. I suppose -- Well, as we 22 (Applause)
23 said, the evidentiary period is closed. 23 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Deliberations --
24 ALDERMAN BESCO: It's not actually 24 when we deliberate according to what we all
93 95
1 evidence that I am looking for, I am looking for 1 just -- what we just heard now, can we deliberate
2 explanations to his determinations, especially 2 that, what everybody just testified on, so Rose
3 Derke's. I think Derke's was -- we don't get 3 or Jason said something, I want to ask discuss,
4 that? 4 can we discuss that? Is that deliberations or is
5 MR. SIMON: I am qualified to say 5 that something that should wait --
6 you can't have it. 6 MAYOR BURD: Do you have anything
7 ALDERMAN MUNNS: I'm sure if we held 7 else to say besides what you said? Do you have
8 their checks 'til tonight they would have showed 8 any comments on the nine criteria or --
9 up. 9 ALDERMAN BESCO: Who, me?
10 MR. ROTH: You're Derke's 10 MAYOR BURD: Yes. You did -- I
it representative? 11 don't know if you finished.
12 MR, SIMON: I'm one of Derke's 12 ALDERMAN BESCO: I actually -- to be
13 partners, right. 13 honest with you, I'd like to review all this
14 MR. ROTH: Well, again, I think 14 before I --
15 that -- I have advised that this is the time for 15 MAYOR BURD: So you would like to
16 deliberation and consideration and interaction 16 wait until tomorrow to comment?
17 amongst the City Council, it is not a time for 17 ALDERMAN BESCO: Yes, I would.
18 questions and answers as between the City Council 18 MAYOR BURD: Then we move to the
19 and members of the public or others. 19 rebuttal section. You have some time to comment
20 You have the report from the 20 on what was said before.
21 City -- the City's special counsel, you have your 21 ALDERMAN MUNNS: I'm not sure it's
22 report from me, and you have the hearing 22 rebuttal, but deliberation means to discuss,
23 officer's findings and recommendations. 23 right, so like Alderman Golinski said, so let's
24 At that point I suppose you 24 say on the traffic criteria number 6, so can't we
94 96
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 97
1 deliberate on what we all kind of -- because 1 (Applause)
2 it's -- you know, it's within the same ballpark I 2 MAYOR BURD: -- of information.
3 think, we're here and that there is a lot of 3 Excuse me, please. Please don't --
4 traffic in Yorkville and there is a lot of, you 4 ALDERMAN MUNNS: It's like a circus.
5 know, traffic going through downtown, what does 5 This is not deliberations.
6 that all that mean. Could we discuss it? That's 6 MAYOR BURD: Please, let's not clap.
7 what deliberation is, correct? 7 But you need to have, after all of this time,
8 MAYOR BURD: Yes. 8 some idea of hopefully an opinion, and supplement
9 ALDERMAN MUNNS: So do we go each 9 it with the input from -- that you received
10 criteria by one or whoever wants to pick one, 10 today, but I would hope that you are not at the
11 that -- 11 point where you're totally unresolved about the
12 MAYOR BURD: You have a certain time 12 issues and you are waiting to be directed by our
13 limit to discuss whatever you want. 13 experts.
14 ALDERMAN MUNNS: But that's not 14 ALDERMAN MUNNS: I'm not saying I am
15 deliberations, right? That's what I thought 15 waiting to be directed by anybody, but I'm saying
16 deliberations is, we discuss it like at a 16 we got a thousand pages of testimony we're
17 Committee of the Whole. 17 supposed to take into our consideration. We need
18 MAYOR BURD: No, this is -- 18 to read that first.
19 ALDERMAN MUNNS: That's not 19 MAYOR BURD: Absolutely. Well, this
20 deliberations? 20 is supplemental information that --
21 MAYOR BURD: This is like at a 21 ALDERMAN MUNNS: As all the other
22 regular City Council meeting and you can pick 22 information from residents and everything else
23 anything anybody says and have an opportunity to 23 that was submitted in paper, we have to read all
24 give your opinion of it if it's different from 24 of that.
9 7 99
1 what they said, or if you want to add something 1 MAYOR BURD: But you also realize
2 to it or further the discussion, but -- 2 that we have to come to a decision by May 29th.
3 ALDERMAN MUNNS: So then we're not 3 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Right. That's six
4 deliberating, we're just -- 4 days from now.
5 MAYOR BURD: Well, you're 5 MAYOR BURD: And --
6 deliberating, you are coming up with a decision. 6 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Do I have to decide
7 You -- several of you haven't made a decision 7 tonight? I mean, there is six days.
8 yet, several of the other aldermen appear to have 8 MAYOR BURD: No, we don't have to
9 already made a determination based on their own 9 decide tonight.
10 research and information they have gotten, so if 10 ALDERMAN MUNNS: You want to do this
11 you're still deliberating, then you have the 11 legally and you want to do --
12 opportunity to continue discussing it. 12 MAYOR BURD: I know personally, I
13 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Well, I mean, I 13 don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly
14 want to read these 50 pages we got today because 14 don't want to hold this off until May 28th and we
15 there might be something in there that would, you 15 have lightning strike a couple of you or
16 know, sway you one way or the other because 16 something and we don't get a vote. I really
17 supposedly those are the experts, right, you have 17 don't want to hold this off until the last
18 people who have done this before. Like Larry 18 minute, so --
19 Clark, 30 hearings, he's got 40 pages to read 19 ALDERMAN MUNNS: But we are voting
20 through of what he said. 20 on the 29th, right, you said?
21 MAYOR BURD: Well, the only thing I 21 MAYOR BURD: No. We are voting
22 could say to you is is that you need to have a 22 tomorrow night. The way it's set up, we are
23 little confidence in your own opinions. You sat 23 discussing tomorrow night and we will have a
24 through 140 hours -- 24 resolution come in tomorrow and you will have an
98 100
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 101
1 opportunity to discuss the resolution that will 1 judgment and thumb through this and come up with
2 be laid on the table and go forward with that, 2 a solution, but we definitely aren't going to let
3 just like in a normal City Council meeting where 3 them control the process, so --
4 you have resolutions to discuss and if you don't 4 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Then why did we pay
5 like one of the criteria that's discussed that's 5 them if we didn't need -- We shouldn't have paid
6 there, then you can discuss it, but that's the 6 them. Why was Mr. Price here?
7 way we are moving forward, so then we get this 7 MAYOR BURD: Well, you know, I
8 done in a timely manner. There is no chance that 8 wasn't in the majority, so you all have to
9 something could happen -- 9 discuss that, but --
10 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Then -- 10 ALDERMAN SPEARS: I'd like to state
11 MAYOR BURD: -- one way or the 11 that the City didn't pay them, the applicant paid
12 other, but by this time after going through all 12 them, and I would also really, really --
13 of this hearing, 140 days of hearings and 30 days 13 MAYOR BURD: Please don't --
14 of collecting information, you've had an 14 ALDERMAN SPEARS: I would be
15 opportunity to listen to all of this, and I 15 interested in joining this landfill circuit that
16 think -- I think that we really don't have too 16 travels from community to community because they
17 many surprises in what we have been presented by 17 are such a tight -knit group apparently, and they
18 our expert counsel. I don't know if you are 18 are moving on.
19 surprised by it, but I'm not, so I think we 19 MAYOR BURD: Alderman Spears, we
20 should be able to move forward. 20 don't want to get into that, that's not under
21 ALDERMAN MUNNS: We said Tuesday we 21 discussion tonight, please. Okay?
22 are meeting, Wednesday. Nobody said we were 22 ALDERMAN MUNNS: I'd like to talk
23 going to vote Thursday. Like Alderman Golinski 23 about the traffic criteria, and a couple times I
24 said -- 24 read it here that from our experts -- and I don't
101 103
1 MAYOR BURD: Absolutely. 1 know if it was from Attorneys Roth, Price or
2 ALDERMAN MUNNS: -- if we don't do 2 Clark, but one of them, two of them actually,
3 this properly and we lose it on appeal, there's 3 said -- maybe all three did -- that when the
4 still going to be a landfill there, and we went 4 Eldamain bridge gets done someday that they were
5 through all this for nothing. 5 recommending routing the traffic over the
6 MAYOR BURD: That's true. 6 Eldamain bridge, and to me that would be, you
7 ALDERMAN MUNNS: So if we're going 7 know, kind of you are putting all this traffic on
8 to vote no, we want to do it the right way. 8 a nice quiet country road, so is that better or
9 MAYOR BURD: Absolutely. But like 9 worse than going down Route 47?
10 you said, we're going to have something drafted, 10 I don't know if anybody else
11 you can read it over. I don't see any problem, I 11 read that in there, but I know at least two of
12 don't know if the attorney wants to discuss this, 12 the three mentioned that. Any comments or no?
13 but -- 13 ALDERMAN SPEARS: I would like to
14 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Well, if we could 14 comment on the traffic situation. First of all,
15 read this whole binder by tomorrow at eight 15 that could be a good proposal, but would it be in
16 o'clock, that's the question. 16 our lifetime that that road would ever go
17 MAYOR BURD: Like I said, I don't 17 through?
18 know how fast you read, but they didn't have to 18 How long have we been waiting
19 wait until the 21st to send this to us either, so 19 for Route 47 to be widened or just improved, any
20 think about -- 20 of the state roads?
21 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Neither did 21 And also at one time the
22 Mr. Clark or Mr. Roth or Mr. Price. 22 Council considered sending -- or having Beecher
23 MAYOR BURD: No, they didn't have to 23 Road go through across some residential areas and
24 do that. So perhaps we can just use our own 24 that was also proposed; that never materialized.
102 104
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 105 !
1 We also had a problem with -- 1 findings because you are right, we're not
2 and I believe that you bring it up constantly, 2 supposed to anticipate something that might
- 3 the traffic on Route 34 in your area in your 3 happen.
4 ward, it's very congested at this time, and you 4 MAYOR BURD: Right. Any other
5 did request a traffic light being put there, and 5 comments?
6 I just would like to say before we allow any more 6 (No Response)
7 traffic to travel down Route 47, 400 or 500 7 MAYOR BURD: No?
8 additional trucks, with all the information I 8 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Do you have
9 have received, the red flag is these routes are 9 comments?
10 rated F. There is nothing lower than F. Unless 10 MAYOR BURD: Should I comment?
11 it's located in Plainfield, because I won't even 11 MR. ROTH: Sure.
12 go to that town. I mean, they've got to be F 12 MAYOR BURD: Okay. I have a few
13 minus or whatever actually, if there is such a 13 comments. I have to say that I think the
14 rating. 14 aldermen have done a great job in voicing their
15 And I think based alone on 15 concerns and I share several of them. Alderman
16 traffic and the public safety, I mean, I would 16 Spears summed it up very well.
17 hate to be behind all these trucks on the bridge 17 I was concerned, I wrote down
18 on Route 47 and have a heart attack and have the 18 when Mr. Ludwikowski came in and testified about
19 emergency vehicles on the other side. I mean, 19 the cell construction and the upgradient, instead
20 there is no way unless they go in through the dam 20 of the downgradient, and that no wells would be
21 and we have some kind of water craft that can go 21 in place until the 23rd or 24th year to monitor
22 down in the river and come up and save me, and I 22 the water.
23 do not want to put anybody's life at risk with 23 Considering that it had already
24 the traffic, and I think that that would be an 24 gone through our team of experts for the City and
105 107
1 additional burden. 1 the applicant's experts, I was very concerned
2 And also I believe that our 2 that this should suddenly appear, and it made me
3 hearing officer was in his findings indicating 3 wonder about the credibility of the applicant's
4 that there would only be an additional I think it 4 experts.
5 was -- and, I'm sorry, I can't read that quickly, 5 I, for Criterion number 3, do
6 30 percent, again, 30 percent of 400 or 500 6 not agree that the area is predominantly
7 trucks daily on an F road is ridiculous. It 7 agricultural. We all know about the 19 -day
8 should -not even be considered. It's a public 8 annexation process that added five new
9 hazard. 9 subdivisions, and they are going to be extending
10 MAYOR BURD: That's what I would 10 water and sewer out to that area. This is
11 like to point out. We were instructed several 11 something that's already in the process, it's not
12 times during the hearings that we were not to 12 a projected.
13 consider future possibilities of road 13 The applicant's own expert,
14 construction when we were considering this 14 Mr. Lannert, testified the area is going through
15 because who knows what's going to happen, that 15 a transition time, and within testimony I think
16 that was not -- they mentioned the Prairie 16 that shows that it's not agricultural as they
17 Parkway coming through, too, and we were told 17 proposed, and our 2005 southwest Comprehensive
18 even though they mentioned it, that's not a 18 Plan update does show that I think and also a
19 positive, that's not for sure going to happen, so 19 projected office use around -- if the Prairie
20 all of these things are if's, if this happens, if 20 Parkway does come in there, the comments over and
21 this happens. We can't rely on that to make this 21 over about the value of the surrounding
22 judgment, we have to go with what is there now. 22 properties, how that cannot be minimized because
23 ALDERMAN MUNNS: That's why I am 23 of the -- this being one of the highest points in
24 surprised our expert even put it in their 24 the county, I don't see how you can minimize in
106 108
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 20 109
1 that area a 109 -foot edifice suddenly showing up 1 controlling interest in what's going on.
2 in the vicinity. 2 We don't know what their
3 It's going to be viewed from 3 financial capabilities are, if they could even
4 anywhere, and this is supposed to be the gateway 4 meet the criteria that they are offering to the
5 to our community. It was said over and over 5 property owners to solve problems. We don't know
6 again that this is the gateway, and if the 6 what could happen. And so that one bothers me.
7 Prairie Parkway does come through, this will be 7 There is no way that we can even analyze that
8 adjacent to the Prairie Parkway, and I don't -- I 8 company because it has no record.
9 don't see that as something that I think we 9 So those are just my thoughts
10 anticipated for our gateway. 10 on it, and I'd like to thank the Aldermen who did
11 And, of course, like everybody 11 the research, and like usual, Alderman Spears,
12 else said, the traffic patterns, we all know what 12 you did a great job, so thank you very much.
13 the traffic in Yorkville is like, we -- we all 13 Is there anybody else who would
14 know this, this is not something that had to even 14 like to add more thoughts tonight?
15 be testified to, but it was over and over, and we 15 (No Response)
16 know how long we have been waiting for Route 47 16 MAYOR BURD: Well, I would like to
17 to be widened and we know right now, like 17 move -- I'd like to ask one of the Aldermen to
18 Alderman Spears has shared with us, that this is 18 move to direct our attorney to prepare a
19 a very bad situation, and it seemed like the 19 resolution consistent with tonight's
20 applicant's comments were that -- his expert's 20 deliberations for consideration and decision at
21 comments were that it's that bad, so what, I 21 tomorrow night's meeting.
22 mean, there you go, it's bad and so what 22 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: So moved.
23 difference does it make to add a few more trucks 23 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Second.
24 to a bad situation. 24 MAYOR BURD: Any discussion?
109 111
1 I was very interested in the 1 (No response)
2 creative discussion about the Criterion 8 and the 2 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: May I have
3 consistency with Kendall County's plan, how 3 another 20 minutes? Just joking.
4 they -- the applicant's experts discussed the 4 MAYOR BURD: Tomorrow night, yes.
5 meaning of the word locate, but I think it's 5 (No Response)
6 fairly clear even before John Church testified 6 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Roll call vote.
7 that we all know what locate means. They mean to 7 MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
8 site it. 8 ALDERMAN LESLIE: Aye.
9 And I -- without getting into 9 MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
10 that discussion about whether we agree with the 10 ALDERMAN GOLINSKI: Aye.
11 County's plan, I think all we have to do is 11 MS. PICKERING: Werderich.
12 determine whether it's consistent with the plan 12 ALDERMAN WERDERICH: Aye.
13 and leave it to the courts to decide if the 13 MS. PICKERING: Munns.
14 County has the right to make that consideration, 14 ALDERMAN MUNNS: Aye.
15 and I think it's very clear that as the County's 15 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
16 plan now as written, it does not meet that plan, 16 ALDERMAN PLOCHER: Aye.
17 and I was -- I am very, very concerned about Fox 17 MS. PICKERING: Spears.
18 Valley Landfill Services, LLC, and how little we 18 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Aye.
19 know about it. 19 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
20 With Peoria Disposal Company 20 ALDERMAN SUTCLIFF: Aye.
21 only having a 20 percent interest, no matter even 21 MS. PICKERING: Besco.
22 if they had a pristine service record, they would 22 ALDERMAN BESCO: Aye.
23 not be able to guarantee the kind of service they 23 MAYOR BURD: All right. Then we
24 would be providing because they do not have 24 will meet at the Beecher Center tomorrow night at
110 112
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983-0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 113
1 seven o'clock to continue deliberations, and I 1 In testimony whe I have
2 would entertain a motion to adjourn. 2 he u to set my hand this day of
3 ALDERMAN LESLIE: So moved. 3 I ,� , A.D., 200.
4 ALDERMAN SPEARS: Second. 4
5 MAYOR BURD: Any discussion? 5
6 (No Response) 6 Christine M. Vitosh, CSR
7 MAYOR BURD: All in favor. , 7 CSR No. 089 - 002883
8 (A Chorus of Ayes) 7
9 MAYOR BURD: Anyone against? Nay? 9
10 (No Response) lu
11 MAYOR BURD: We are adjourned. 11
12 (WHEREUPON, the 12
13 proceedings were 1s
14 continued to 7:00 14
15 p.m. on the 25th day 15
16 of May, 2007) 16
17 - -- 000 - -- 1i
18 16
19 ly
20 2u
21 21
22 22
23 2.9
24 z9
113 115
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
SS.
2 COUNTY OF LASALLE )
3
4 I, Christine M. Vitosh, 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 am I in
15 any way interested in the outcome thereof.
16 I further certify that my
17 certificate annexed hereto applies to the
18 original transcript and copies thereof, signed
19 and certified under my hand only. I assume no
20 responsibility for the accuracy of any reproduced
21 copies not made under my control or direction.
22
23
24
114
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
i
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 116
$19,900 73:19, 73:19 63:21, 63:21 60:20, 61:19, 89:9, 51 86:1
$30,000 73:18, 73:18 2,548,800 65:6, 65:6, 108:5 5392G 70:24
$4,000 73:24, 73:24, 65:6 3,000 61:18, 61:18 6 22:6, 31:18, 50:9,
74:1, 74:1 20 26:12, 26:16, 30 17:6, 32:7, 78:24, 50:13, 58:4, 77:19,
$50,00 9:5, 9:5 27:14, 28:13, 45:19, 89:21, 93:16, 98:19, 89:9, 96:24
$50,000 11:6, 11:6 56:4, 56:5, 59:21, 101:13, 106:6, 106:6 6,640,000 65:3, 65:3,
$58,400 73:20, 73:20 61:15, 87:11, 89:4, 30 -day 15:21 65:3
$9,500 73:18, 73:18 110:21, 112:3 300 81:23 60532 2:33
--- oOo - -- 113:17 20.2 32:2, 78:15 3002300 2:32 630 2:34
0.15 35:15, 35:18, 200 4:19, 5:9, 5:10, 31 -day 15:21 6:20 22:6, 22:6
69:11 47:6, 54:7, 63:22 34 33:13, 81:2, 105:3 6:55 10:11, 10:11
0.35 35:17 2002 65:5, 83:6 350 33:9, 80:22 7 4:23, 62:4, 81:3,
05 85:6 2004 51:16 39 18:15, 60:6, 60:9, 81:12
06 -1 83:7 2005 65:16, 83:6, 60:17, 60:18, 61:7 70 32:23, 79:2
06 -11 83:9, 84:17, 108:17 39. 5:4, 8:8, 70:24 714:24, 32:5, 32:6,
84:23, 85:2 2006 63:20, 64:15, 39.2 4:16 33:13, 46:16, 58:11,
084 - 002883 115:7 84:7 3:00 22:8, 22:8 78:7, 78:9, 81:17,
1 20:4, 20:5, 34:8, 2007 5:13, 5:16, 5:16 4 9:5, 51:13, 55:7, 82:18
34:11, 57:15, 59:15, 2007. 115:3 61:3, 81:12, 105:7 76,000 63:21, 63:21
89:9, 90:1 2010 33:14, 81:3 4,000 45:7, 45:7 7:00 1:10, 1:10,
1,372 53:15, 53:15 2011 81:3 4.9 44:13 113:14, 113:14
1.1 65:9 20th 5:10, 5:13 4139.2A 85:8 7th 5:9
100 42:11 21 57:5 40 98:19 8 58:17, 62 :8, 82:24,
100 -year 69:15 21st 5:16, 5:16, 5:23, 400 31:22, 32:22, 83:2, 85:8, 89:9,
109 -foot 109:1 15:19, 92:1, 95:15, 50:20, 55:1, 79:5, 110:2
10E -07 38:6 102:19 81:23, 105:7, 106:6 80 64:2, 64:5, 87:15
11,427,000 63:23, 22nd 15:18, 17:9, 415 4:15, 70:23, 85:7 9 62:15, 85:11, 89:9,
63:23, 63:23 47:6 42 64:10, 64:14 90:1
110 20:6 23 5:9, 66:2, 66:13 443 -acre 4:22 90 32:3
12 58:11, 66:15 23,500,000 65:24, 455 2:32 955 -6594 2:34
126 32:4, 78:7, 65:24, 65:24 47 4:24, 32:6, 32:17, 99 32:3, 78:5, 81:21
78:24, 81:12, 81:16 23rd 107:21 51:7, 52:24, 53:9,
14 65:17, 66:15 24 66:2, 66:13, 67:6 54:9, 54:14, 54:19,
140 17:4, 20:5, 24 -hour 35:20, 69:16 78:9, 78:23, 79:24, <A>
25:23, 98:24, 101:13 243,923,000 64:15, 81:16, 81:17, 104:9, abandoned 39:2
15 34:13 64:15, 64:15 104:19, 105:18, Abel 46:5, 46:24
150 62:19 245 59:19 109:16 ability 32:18, 80:1
17 35:20 24th 107:21 49 86:2 able 17:18, 101:20,
18 32:2, 78:15 25th 113:15 4:00 22:8, 22:8 110:23
19 65:19, 75:14 28th 100:14 4:30 9:6, 9:6 above 74:1
19 -day 108:7 29,503,000 63:19, 4th 51:16 above - entitled 114:8
1995 86:16, 86:24 63:19, 63:19 5 48:22, 49:3, 61:6, Absolutely 17:21,
1 st 4:19, 84:7 29th 16:9, 20:24, 61:9 57:21, 99:19, 102:1,
2 34:15, 34:19, 35:7, 100:2, 100:20 50 9:6, 9:20, 98:14 102:9
56:3, 60:5, 60:19, 2G 70:24 50 -year 39:19 accept 64:13, 66:5
61:8, 61:9, 66:24, 2nd 54:7 500 31:23, 50:20, accepted 67:7,
89:9 3 29:19, 45:21, 46:3, 55:1, 56:7, 67:24, 88:14
2,376,000 63:21, 47:2, 57:19, 58:2, 79:5, 105:7, 106:6 accessibility 31:24,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 117
78:12, 78:17, 78:17 90:24 air 45:10 animals 60:13
accidents 49:1 addressed 50:22, alarming 55:8 annexation 7:22,
accommodate 34:9, 51:5, 82:20 Aldermen 17:14, 7:24, 11:19, 11:20,
59:16, 60:2, 63:9, Addressing 34:8 21:19, 89:13, 98:8, 57:22, 75:12, 108:8
64:7, 64:19 adds 40:3 107:14, 111:10, annexed 7:15, 45:8,
accomplish 17:22 Adequate 34:12, 111:17 72:10, 75:20, 75:23,
accordance 5:3, 38:10, 38:24, 39:1 Alderwoman 33:23 87:2, 114:18
30:21 adjacent 42:8, alleged 8:6, 87:21 answer 11:11, 93:4
According 15:19, 57:24, 70:10, 71:11, Allegiance 3:7 answered 90:10
28:21, 60:7, 63:15, 74:10, 74:19, 77:4, ALLEN 2:31 answers 19:8, 94:18
65:12, 65:22, 67:4, 77:8, 109:8 alleviate 33:15, anticipate 107:2
67:8, 86:21, 95:24 adjourn 16:1, 113:2 53:12, 81:5 anticipated 109:10
Accordingly 88:23 adjourned 113:11 allocation 52:24 anticipates 19:7,
account 10:8 adjusting 30:7 allow 22:24, 23:9, 19:9
accuracy 114:21 Administrator 2:23 28:20, 53:5, 105:6 anticipating 74:2
accurate 74:19 admitted 55:15, allowed 13:16, 44:8, anybody 11:21,
acknowledged 84:3 55:19, 66:17, 72:19, 95:20 15:24, 25:20, 97:23,
acquisition 68:13 73:6, 77:15, 87:21 allows 56:16 99:15, 104:10,
acre 35:15, 35:17, adopted 19:22, 62:9 almost 36:23, 78:5, 105:23, 111:13
69:12, 73:18, 73:20, adverse 68:10, 92:9 API -650 42:21
73:24, 74:1, 74:24 68:20, 68:22 alone 105:15 apiece 11:6
across 36:2, 104:23 adversely 31:11, already 33:6, 48:4, apologize 69:18,
Act 6:20, 60:12, 33:4, 79:19 64:3, 64:5, 64:12, 88:2
68:6, 70:20, 71:2 advised 93:15, 94:15 80:16, 80:20, 81:11, apparently 54:22,
activity 79:16, 80:10 advisory 6:5 90:5, 90:6, 91:22, 103:17
actual 82:3 affect 56:11, 58:9, 98:9, 107:23, 108:11 appeal 102:3
Actually 14:15, 79:19 alternative 68:18, appear 58:19, 98:8,
14:16, 20:20, 23:14, affected 31:11, 33:4 68:21 108:2
24:19, 28:16, 81:23, affiliate 87:10 alternatives 68:8, appeared 2:36,
82:23, 93:24, 96:12, aforesaid 114:11 68:20 15:17, 93:21
104:2, 105:13 age 42:18, 57:5 Although 51:3, appears 68:8, 76:13,
add 17:7, 65:8, agencies 5:18, 69:14 76:17
66:11, 98:1, 109:23, 37:22 altogether 23:5 Appendix 42:13,
111:14 agenda 89:23 ambiguous 84:23 44:3
added 40:5, 108:8 aggregate 64:14 amended 83:18, Applause 9:10, 11:9,
addition 45:6, 50:19 agree 11:13, 22:4, 83:24, 84:1, 84:3 33:22, 55:21, 57:11,
Additional 5:15, 25:22, 108:6, 110:10 among 31:17, 71:14 58:24, 89:12, 95:22,
31:22, 33:18, 37:6, agreed 37:6, 67:18, amongst 94:17 99:1
37:17, 40:2, 59:11, 67:19 amount 22:5, 47:18, applicable 70:22
65:1, 65:8, 66:15, agreement 86:15, 49:17, 55:7, 92:3 Application 4:13,
68:13, 79:23, 95:3, 90:13, 90:17 amounts 14:24, 15:6 4:20, 5:3, 5:7, 6:9,
105:8, 106:1, 106:4 agreements 75:12 ample 23:12 6:22, 6:23, 6:24,
Additionally 87:24 agricultural 31:12, analyses 72:22 7:15, 30:10, 31:14,
additions 65:2 47:17, 72:14, 73:4, analysis 46:19, 64:8, 46:14, 55:18, 57:17,
address 31:24, 34:3, 73:13, 74:14, 74:21, 74:5 57:23, 63:6, 67:4,
40:24, 69:6, 78:16, 76:1, 108:7, 108:16 analyze 89:21, 68:5, 69:4, 69:8,
82:8, 82:22, 82:24, ahead 52:7, 92:1, 91:12, 91:18, 111:7 70:3, 70:5, 70:11,
85:10, 85:21, 88:6, 92:11 and /or 70:20, 72:5 71:6, 71:8, 82:21,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 118
84:7, 88:1, 88:13, assert 84:16, 84:22 14:12, 24:3, 24:5, beginning 18:5,
88:19, 89:8, 91:15 assertion 7:13 24:9, 24:11, 26:22, 52:11, 56:6
applications 66:22 assignment 93:11 27:2, 27:23, 28:1, begins 7:5, 67:15,
applied 88:17 assimilate 10:22 28:3, 28:5, 28:7, 72:7
applies 44:3 114:18 assist 40:7 28:9, 28:11, 112:8, behalf 2:36
apply 44:5 assisted 48:15 112:10, 112 :12, behind 105:17
appointed 5:1 associated 79:15, 112:14, 112:16, believe 12:6, 28:19,
appraisal 73:5, 80:9, 81:6 112:18, 112:20, 61:18, 91:20, 92:19,
73:15, 73:21, 74:4, assume 114:20 112:22 105:2, 106:2
74:8, 74:9, 75:5, assuming 64:16 Ayes 113:8 Beneath 39:13
76:2, 77:10, 77:15 assumptions 66:10 BESCO 2:17, 3:22,
appreciate 28:18, assurance 40:5, 3:23, 12:16, 12:17,
33:20, 88:5 43:22 < B > 12:22, 14:3, 14:4,
appreciation 46:20 assured 60:13 back 16:9, 16:18, 16:2, 21:3, 21:8,
apprentice 56:14 assuring 40:9 19:5, 19:6, 20:14, 21:15, 21:21, 22:4,
approach 83:14 attack 105:18 21:13, 21:14, 28:21, 23:10, 24:2, 24:3,
appropriate 30:11, attendance 51:19 32:5, 32:7, 41:8, 26:21, 26:22, 27:20,
64:6, 70:6, 82:2 attended 7:7, 8:24, 41:12, 59:10, 78:8, 27:21, 92:2, 93:3,
approval 4:14, 4:21, 59:14 78:9 93:6, 93:24, 95:6,
7:4, 19:7, 19:9, attention 63:4 background 4:19 96:9, 96:12, 96:17,
63:14, 65:1, 65:5, Attorney 4:8, 5:22, bad 109:19, 109:21, 112:21, 112:22
71:23 14:22, 18:12, 22:14, 109:22, 109:24 besides 96:7
approve 6:22, 6:23, 36:12, 37:13, 40:12, ballpark 97:2 best 59:13, 74:6,
11:19, 18:15, 60:1 42:3, 42:24, 43:8, banks 35:16 74:10, 74:16
approved 55:13, 53:24, 55:14, 88:7, barrier 38:15 better 23:14, 78:19,
59:9, 66:23 88:11, 92:5, 92:6, base 91:14, 91:24 104:8
Approximately 102:12, 111:18 Based 7:12, 16:17, beyond 25:20
63:21, 63:23, 64:1, Attorneys 16:16, 18:23, 34:4, 34:20, bias 8:7
65:24, 72:6, 78:24, 59:9, 59:24, 104:1 67:2, 74:17, 76:12, biased 18:3
79:2 audience 9:15 82:3, 88:20, 89:8, binder 15:12, 15:13,
April 5:10, 5:13, 5:16 authority 63:12, 89:10, 91:7, 98:9, 102:15
aquatic 68:15 84:18, 84:19 105:15 bioreactor 41:5
aquifer 38:12 availability 34:13 bases 30:5 Blagojevich 52:23
ARDEN 2:9 available 64:22, basically 10:12, bless 26:12
areas 29:18, 31:2, 65:10, 66:16, 75:9, 11:2, 11:3, 63:5, Board 54:12, 62:8,
41:16, 43:5, 45:6, 80:24 88:13, 90:13 83:5, 83:10, 83:14,
48:5, 48:11, 49:13, avoid 68:12 basin 35:22, 36:1, 83:22, 85:17, 85:18,
50:15, 60:15, 66:5, avoiding 68:15 36:7, 36:10, 43:4 90:15, 93:21
68:15, 71:21, 73:8, awaiting 65:6 basins 35:5, 36:8 Bolted 42:14, 42:17,
73:12, 76:3, 83:19, aware 75:10, 77:10 Bear 44:24 50:4
104:23 away 32:21 beautiful 47:22 bonds 75:15
Army 60:11, 68:5, AWWA 42:14, 42:21 become 50:18, 55:8, book 10:13
68:7, 69:3, 69:6 Aye 12:9, 12:11, 73:13 border 67:5, 75:13,
around 46:11, 60:14, 12:13, 12:15, 12:19, bedrock 38:12 75:24
76:14, 108:19 12:20, 12:22, 12:24, Beecher 104:22, boring 39:23
arranged 51:15 13:2, 13:4, 13:22, 112:24 bothers 111:6
arrive 49:17 13:24, 14:2, 14:4, began 46:9 bottom 81:9
aspects 35:1 14:6, 14:8, 14:10, begin 24:17 bounce 36:10
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 119
boundary 39:20 cash 73:22 49:3 closure 82:18
braking 79:8 cause 45:16, 81:15, checks 94:8 cm /sec 38:6
bridge 53:10, 104:4, 114:8 chemical 40:16 Code 6:14
104:6, 105:17 Cell 37:3, 37:7, children 44:24, 45:4 collected 43:6
briefly 57:18, 59:13, 67:10, 67:11, 67:20, chloride 45:14 collecting 101:14
63:1, 63:2, 88:9, 67:22, 67:24, 107:19 chooses 63:12 collector 75:16
89:16, 89:19 cells 39:2, 39:4, Chorus 113:8 coming 93:4, 98:6,
bring 105:2 39:20, 67:21 chose 57:16, 58:1, 106:17
brother 57:4 Center 112:24 58:3, 92:17 commended 47:8
brought 63:4 centered 75:11 chosen 29:18, 58:8 comment 5:15, 5:19,
buffer 76:24 cerebral 57:5 Chris 51:1, 53:22 15:22, 17:5, 28:17,
built 33:12, 42:21 certain 6:24, 19:19, Christine 1:10, 28:24, 51:24, 88:11,
bullet 63:3 19:22, 61:13, 67:19, 114:5, 115:6 95:8, 95:13, 95:15,
burden 6:17, 19:11, 97:12 Church 83:21, 95:19, 96:16, 96:19,
34:1, 106:1 certainly 10:21, 83:23, 84:4, 110:6 104:14, 107:10
burdensome 80:21 19:6, 49:18, 100:13 circuit 103:15 comments 5:20,
Buried 42:12, 42:13, certificate 114:18 circus 99:4 11:6, 14:20, 18:10,
42:18, 42:18 Certified 114:5, cities 52:15 18:22, 20:8, 20:9,
bus 53:11 114:20 citizen 86:22 88:6, 88:8, 96:8,
business 7:9, 30:12 certify 114:6, 114:12, citizens 47:9, 48:21 104:12, 107:5, 107:9,
114:17 civil 36:17 107:13, 108:20,
CFS 35:15, 35:18, claimed 76:7 109:20, 109:21
< C > 69:11 clap 99:6 commercial 31:1,
C.S.R. 1:11 challenge 7:23, clarification 12:18, 31:13, 72:4, 72:17,
Cabot 2:32 22:9, 22:11 21:16, 92:22, 95:16 73:14, 74:22
calculations 66:9 Chan 40:17 clarifications 95:21 Committee 97:17
call 3:8, 8:17, 12:2, chance 49:4, 92:12, clarify 22:15 common 93:17
13:20, 23:20, 25:5, 93:4, 101:8 Clark 9:19, 10:13, commonly 93:17
27:18, 53:7, 57:4, change 21:8, 21:10, 11:6, 20:9, 59:7, communities 82:9
112:6 37:7, 63:13 60:7, 61:7, 90:8, community 30:20,
called 4:12 changed 67:20 92:20, 98:19, 102:22, 55:10, 57:1, 103:16,
Calling 3:4 changes 20:9, 39:13 104:2 103:16, 109:5
Campground 44:24, Chapa 51:1, 52:21, clay 38:5, 38:14, commute 33:8
47:22 53:21 38:20 Comp 46:15, 46:17
capabilities 111:3 Chapter 4:16 Clean 60:12, 68:6 Companies 87:10
capable 43:23 character 29:21, clear 19:3, 19:3, Company 110:20,
capacity 33:5, 33:17, 45:23, 47:3, 47:21, 70:15, 110:6, 110:15 111:8
63:19, 64:6, 64:9, 69:24, 71:16 Clerk 2:25, 3:8 compare 46:20
64:15, 64:22, 65:1, characteristics clock 52:8 compared 41:11
65:2, 65:7, 65:8, 79:7, 82:4 close 36:23, 41:20, comparing 77:13
65:9, 65:11, 65:13, characterize 74:19 45:6 compatible 47:20
65:13, 65:19, 65:20, characterized 47:16 closed 5:12, 93:23, compensation 31:17
65:24, 66:1, 66:12, charge 21:12 95:13, 95:14 Compiled 4:15,
66:15, 66:20, 80:15 chart 46:7, 46:13, closer 78:19 70:23, 85:7, 85:7
care 44:7 46:15 closest 32:1, 78:13 complaint 86:18,
carefully 60:9 charts 46:21 closing 36:12, 86:19
case 4:9, 57:22, check 42:12 37:13, 40:12, 42:3, complaints 86:17,
85:10, 89:10 checking 43:14, 42:24, 43:8 86:23, 87:1, 87:3
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 120
complete 30:8, 88:21 consultant 37:20 58:18, 62:8, 62:10,
36:22, 114:10 conduct 5:2, 8:7, contact 92:24 72:24, 73:6, 80:23,
completed 46:10 74:8, 80:12 contain 35:16 80:24, 83:4, 83:5,
completing 39:24 conducted 38:2 contained 40:6, 43:6 83:6, 83:7, 83:8,
compliance 47:12, confidence 98:23 contains 38:6 83:12, 83:17, 83:20,
86:11, 87:5, 87:16, confirming 37:9 contaminate 45:13 83:22, 83:23, 84:1,
87:23 conflicting 59:8 contaminating 84:1, 84:6, 84:14,
comply 95:5 conform 37:7 38:19 84:18, 85:5, 85:17,
component 68:14 congested 48:4, contamination 86:16, 86:18, 86:19,
compost 41:17 49:16, 50:13, 51:8, 56:17, 56:21 93:21, 108:24,110:3,
composting 86:17, 52:17, 81:11, 105:4 contention 8:9 110:11, 110:14,
86:23 congestion 32:21, continue 17:16, 110:15, 114:3
compounds 40:19, 53:3, 53:13 45:18, 98:12, 113:1 county -wide 83:14
40:21 consensus 16:17, continued 113:14 County. 36:5
Comprehensive 18:13, 18:18, 18:19 continuously 31:16, couple 18:14, 59:8,
30:22, 47:5, 70:16, consequences 52:17, 54:21 59:23, 61:16, 90:6,
70:17, 72:2, 108:17 68:22, 90:11, 90:18 contrary 8:8 100:15, 103:23
comprised 76:17 consider 6:8, 16:10, Control 35:4, 36:9, course 109:11
comprises 72:9 30:11, 60:8, 70:7, 40:24, 70:4, 71:10, court 62:12, 84:24
comprising 65:14 79:11, 80:5, 85:2, 85:18, 90:15, 90:21, courts 71:3, 84:20,
conceded 81:22 85:19, 106:13 103:3, 114:22 110:13
concedes 70:6 consideration 4:13, controlling 111:1 covers 31:12, 31:13
concentration 44:11 14:19, 14:23, 16:5, convene 91:1 craft 105:21
concepts 76:22 56:12, 70:9, 88:19, converts 41:3 creative 110:2
concern 51:12 89:1, 94:16, 99:17, convictions 85:15 credibility 108:3
concerned 16:6, 110:14, 111:20 convinces 20:11 Creek 35:11, 44:18,
107:17, 108:1, considered 10:14, copies 114:19, 44:19, 44:21, 44:22,
110:17 11:8, 41:4, 44:14, 114:22 68:3
Concerning 15:5, 75:19, 75:22, 85:11, corporate 84:10, creeks 35:15, 49:11
54:8, 63:7, 85:22, 93:11, 95:18, 104:22, 85:4 Criteria 6:19, 19:8,
88:8 106:8 corporation 85:14 20:9, 29:18, 31:17,
concerns 11:22, Considering 75:18, Corps 60:11, 68:5, 45:20, 59:13, 60:10,
33:15, 38:4, 67:19, 75:21, 106:14, 68:7, 69:3, 69:7 61:3, 61:8, 61:24,
68:24, 69:6, 81:5, 107:23 correct 52:1, 97:7, 62:4, 63:3, 63:8,
107:15 consist 45:11 114:10 67:1, 67:2, 69:22,
concluded 22:1 consistency 110:3 cost 40:3, 41:6 70:3, 70:7, 71:4,
Conclusion 34:4, Consistent 7:19, costs 40:9, 44:1 77:18, 90:3, 90:6,
38:23, 89:7 58:20, 58:21, 83:3, counsel 89:22, 91:7, 96:8, 96:24,
conclusions 92:15, 84:5, 110:12, 111:19 94:21, 95:4, 95:17, 97:10, 101:5, 103:23,
92:21 constantly 105:2 101:18, 114:13, 111:4
concrete 75:1 constitute 66:19 114:13 Criterions 90:1
condition 60:2 constitutes 76:23 count 55:16 critical 41:16
conditions 6:24, 7:3, constituting 74:11 country 59:20, 104:8 CROIS 2:23
18:15, 19:9, 19:22, constitutional 84:18 Countryside 76:6, cross 22:18, 56:16,
53:3, 53:4, 59:9, construction 33:13, 76:9, 76:14, 76:20, 56:20, 72:18
59:24, 60:6, 60:9, 67:10, 67:12, 67:15, 77:1 cross - examined
60:17, 60:18, 61:1, 67:22, 81:1, 106:14, COUNTY 8:13,12:5, 55:14
61:8, 88:15, 88:16, 107:19 33:8, 33:8, 54:12, cross - examining
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 121
35:23 decision 9:3, 9:12, 36:15, 36:18, 36:24, 109:23
Crossings 76:20, 18:23, 20:7, 20:23, 37:7, 37:10, 37:11, different 19:2, 78:1,
76:23, 79:14, 80:8 59:12, 70:5, 71:5, 37:16, 40:15, 40:20, 97:24
CSR 115:6, 115:7 71:22, 71 :24, 88:17, 40:22, 40:24, 41:4, difficult 10:22, 19:15
current 45:7, 57:22, 90:3, 92:23, 98:6, 41:5, 41:14, 41:15, difficulty 30:12
58:18, 58:21, 72:12, 98:7, 100:2, 111:20 41:17, 49:6, 68:4 diminish 79:24
84:14 decisions 15:8, designates 72:3 direct 56:20, 111:18
currently 58:20, 70:22 designed 31:20, directed 99:12,
74:13, 74:22 decrease 65:21 34:16, 35:17, 48:23, 99:15
deemed 44:12 50:4, 50:6, 50:10, direction 19:4,
deeper 38:9 58:5, 58:14, 61:6, 39:13, 39:15, 114:22
< D > defects 42:10, 49:10 69:15, 77:20, 77:21 directions 73:9
D -100 42:21 definitely 50 :19, designer 67:18 directly 82:11
D -103 42:14 103:2 detected 36:16 disbursing 78:2,
daily 55:1, 106:7 delays 81:20, 81:22 detection 41:19 78:3
dam 105:20 deliberate 6:9, 9:21, detention 35:5 discharge 68:17,
damage 45:16 9:23, 10:2, 11:16, deter 48:1 68:19, 69:9
damaged 42:10 20:14, 95:24, 96:1, determination 98:9 disclose 87:14
danger 48:24, 49:12, 97:1 determinations 94:2 disclosed 46:24
50:3, 61:7 deliberated 93:22 determinative 71:22 discuss 17:2, 17:3,
data 30:6, 30:9, deliberating 20:21, determine 64:6, 23:4, 91:3, 96:3,
35:3, 42:13 98:4, 98:6, 98:11 82:14, 110:12 96:4, 96:22, 97:6,
date 31:14 deliberation 7:5, determined 35:15, 97:13, 97:16, 101:1,
dated 5:23 9:14, 89:23, 94:16, 83:10 101:4, 101:6, 102:12,
David 86:4 95:2, 96:22, 97:7 determines 36:13, 103:9
day 9:7, 16:10, Deliberations 15:8, 37:14, 40:13, 42:4, discussed 36:19,
16:18, 20:16, 31:23, 18:24, 22:23, 95:23, 43:1, 43:9 101:5, 110:4
32:22, 53:17, 58:13, 96:4, 97:15, 97:16, devastating 33:18 discussing 30:15,
79:5, 84:6, 113:15, 97:20, 99:5, 111:20, develop 18 :22, 47:5, 98:12, 100:23
115:2 113:1 20:17, 49:14, 74:3, Discussion 8:19,
days 5:9, 17:6, denial 19:10 75:2, 76:15 8:21, 8:22, 13:12,
20:21, 89:21, 92:4, denied 8:2, 8:11, developed 45:8, 17:7, 17:17, 25:7,
100:4, 100:7, 101:13, 89:8 46:23, 67:21, 68:1, 25:8, 27:16, 89:24,
101:13 Dennis 37:17 77:7 98:2, 103:21, 110:2,
dealing 37:24 density 47:15, developer 74:3 110:10, 111:24, 113:5
death - threatening 47:16, 76:18 Development 30:18, discussions 16:12,
49:21 deny 6:23, 7:21, 30:24, 32:19, 40:1, 16:15
debate 6:14, 14:14, 8:13, 12:5, 13:6 47:17, 47:19, 48:1, dismiss 7:12, 8:14,
16:20, 16:22, 19:4, denying 12:20 67:20, 68:9, 73:3, 11:20, 12:5, 12:18,
23:1, 23:6, 23:20 Department 56:15, 73:4, 75:3, 76:8, 12:21
debates 23:9 68:23 76:16, 76:19, 76:21, displayed 55:16
decades 76:13 depth 62:19 76:22, 76:23, 77:3, Disposal 41:7,
December 4:19, Derke 10:12, 11:4, 77:5, 79:19, 80:2, 64:22, 65:7, 65:9,
84:7 11:5, 20:8, 88:22, 87:23 65:11, 65:20, 66:1,
decide 7:9, 11:2, 90:8, 92:15, 94:3, developments 37:3, 66:20, 87:10, 110:20
84:20, 84:24, 100:6, 94:3, 94:10, 94:12 77:24, 81:14 disproportionate
100:9, 110:13 describing 86:8 Devin 37:5, 67:17 82:3
decided 62:12 Design 31:5, 34:20, difference 44:9, disqualified 8 :4
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 122
disqualify 13:7 drainage 35:21, 36:3 emergency 49:12, evaluation 71:20
distance 78:2, 79:8, drainageway 35:9, 49:15, 49:19, 50:2, Evelyn 17:22
79:9 35:11, 69:10 53:5, 82:19, 105:19 evening 17:17
distances 78:4, drains 35:10 emitted 48:9 event 69:16
78:21 drawing 88:2 employed 37:19 everybody 23:5,
district 53:19 drawings 35:8 encourage 57:9 34:6, 61:3, 96:2,
disturb 44:20, 44:20 dredged 68:17 end 22:2, 48:2, 109:11
divide 35:9, 36:3 drilled 44:6 67:12, 67:23 everything 9:8,
DIXON 2:31 drinking 56:18 ended 95:13, 95:15 99:22
document 17:19, Drive 2:32 engaged 8:7 Evidence 5:11, 5:20,
45:19 dry 41:5 engineer 34:23, 6:10, 8:8, 22:16,
documents 17:8, Due 32:2, 34:12, 36:17, 37:2, 40:16, 36:16, 40:16, 85:13,
52:20 40:17, 41:19, 43:11, 54:17 94:1, 95:12, 95:14,
doing 19:2, 30:12, 46:3, 46:4, 52:14, Engineering 36:18, 95:18
74:5 53:9, 55:2 37:5, 37:16, 37:19 evidentiary 5:5,
dollars 75:14 dumped 49:5 Engineers 53:19, 93:23
domestic 38:11 Durbin 53:23 53:20, 60:12, 68:6, examination 22:18,
Don 53:24 During 17:5, 42:10, 69:3 72:18
Donald 86:4, 86:15 44:6, 54:15, 59:17, enlarge 68:14 example 19:19,
done 10:5, 14:23, 91:8, 106:12 enormous 19:11 20:4, 44:11
22:2, 22:3, 30:3, dust 44:12 enough 23:7, 38:9 examples 76:5
57:2, 69:6, 93:15, Enter 4:4 exceeds 69:11
98:18, 101:8, 104:4, entered 75:11, 86:15 except 22:3
107:14 < E > entertain 23:8, excluded 44:15
double 41:17, 41:22, earliest 39:17 27:10, 95:20, 113:2 exclusive 65:15
49:5, 59:20 east 32:4, 35:12, entire 29:16, 31:5, Excuse 15:21,
double -sided 15:15, 46:22, 72:7, 72:9, 37:10, 42:11, 44:6, 16:14, 36:17, 39:9,
15:16 78:7 45:19, 55:10 99:3
down 60:17, 104:9, eastern 36:9 entirely 84:9 exercise 84:18
105:7, 105:22, easternmost 67:21 entitled 46:8, 55:17 exhausted 64:23
107:17 eastward 39:12 Environmental 6:19, exhibit 55:17
downgradient ecosystem 68:11 37:19, 68:22, 70:19, exhibits 35:8, 86:22
36:20, 37:1,_ 37:4, edge 36:9 71:1, 86:1, 86:11, exist 68:9, 70:10
38:11, 39:4, 44:16, edifice 109:1 87:5, 87:16 Existing 31:21, 41:4,
67:10, 67:13, 107:20 edition 30:23 EPA 34:12, 67:8 44:3, 50:11, 55:17,
Downtown 32:8, Edwards 87:18 equipment 49:15 58:6, 64:10, 64:18,
32:10, 32:12, 32:14, effect 29:22, 31:4, errors 36:15, 37:10, 66:11, 77:21, 80:20,
32:24, 33:1, 33:2, 35:5, 45:24, 57:20, 37:17 81:12, 81:13, 82:7
33:2, 48:4, 48:20, 68:20, 70:1, 84:6 especially 14:24, exists 64:6
49:23, 51:9, 53:9, effects 77:11 94:2 expanding 73:8,
79:1, 79:3, 79:12, efforts 54:13 estate 47:14, 72:7, 73:9
79:12, 79:16, 79:20, eight 64:20, 102:15 72:8, 75:1, 77:7, expansion 66:22
80:6, 80:7, 80:7, Either 88:22, 93:6, 77:12 expected 11:15,
80:10, 97:5 93:6, 102:19 estimated 31:22, 45:2, 66:13
downward 38:15 Eldamain 104:4, 64:14 experience 37:23,
downwind 48:12, 104:6 estimates 65:8, 45:9, 85:15, 85:20,
48:14, 48:16, 49:23 Elementary 1:11 65:18, 66:3 86:9
drafted 102:10 embodied 18:23 evaluate 71:14, 74:9 experiencing 73:1
i
I
De o Court Reporting Service 630
p P g ( ) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 123
expert 20:11, 46:3, 31:6, 32:3, 43:15, 34:11, 34:18, 46:2, forth 6:13, 59:10
46:5, 54:17, 55:5, 74:7, 77:3, 88:19 49:2, 50:12, 93:12, forward 92:23,
65:23, 66:17, 70:8, factory 42:9, 49:9 94:23, 106:3, 107:1 101:2, 101:7, 101:20
71:9, 72:11, 72:19, failed 34:11, 46:2, finds 19:21, 85:2 forwarded 6:4
72:23, 73:2, 73:6, 49:2, 50:12, 56:9 fine 56:16 found 45:14, 64:21,
73:15, 73:22, 74:5, fails 40:20 finish 20:21 73:16
74:8, 74:18, 75:6, fairly 110:6 finished 39:1, 96:11 foundation 63:5
75:19, 75:22, 76:3, fairness 89:3 fire 49:1, 49:14, four 4:23, 53:17,
77:10, 77:15, 81:19, fall 24:19 49:15 61:21, 86:9, 86:12
101:18, 106:24, failing 43:5 firms 37:19 fraction 66:19
108:13, 109:20 Family 56:24, 57:2, firs 8:12, 67:21 frame 49:20, 81:3
experts 74:18, 85:24, 86:10, 86:12 First 7:9, 7:11, 23:2, Frank 46:4
89:22, 91:17, 91:21, far 56:12, 60:5, 29:9, 43:16, 57:19, Friday 11:13
91:24, 98:17, 99:13, 61:21 63:7, 67:7, 88:10, Fridays 56:7
103:24, 107:24, farmland 76:23 92:3, 92:4, 99:18, friendly 32:20, 80:2
108:1, 108:4, 110:4 fast 102:18 104:14 friends 56:24
explained 35:13 fastest 30:20, 52:15 first. 29:7 fulfilled 93:11
explanations 94:2 favor 12:18, 12:19, fish 45:3 full 18:2, 54:13, 66:6
explosive 73:1, 77:2 12:20, 21:19, 113:7 five 17:20, 23:2, function 37:20
exported 64:3 feasible 30:3 44:12, 66:21, 75:11, functioned 37:20
exports 64:5 features 33:3 75:19, 75:22, 90:5, funded 33:12
expressed 68:24 February 47:6 108:8 funds 51:6, 51:9,
extending 65:10, feed 95:6 five -year 39:19 52:24, 80:24
108:9 feeds 44:19 fixing 7:3 future 106:13
extends 48:8, 72:8 feel 16:4, 17:24, flag 105:9
extension 75:15 18:3, 18:7, 57:17 flawed 30:16, 31:8,
extremely 53:3 feels 23:16 82:6 < G >
eyes 56:21 feet 67:24 flaws 36:18 gap 66:8
few 47:23, 92:4, flooding 69:2 garbage 48:3, 82:9
107:12, 109:23 floodplain 61:4 GARY 2:11
< F > field 37:23, 85:16 floor 11:18, 26:17 gas 40:18, 41:1
F. 33:7, 54:20, 55:4, figure 59:18 flow 36:19, 39:12, gases 48:9
55:9, 80:16, 81:18, - file 41:2 39:15, 44:17, 44:22, gateway 109:4,
105:10, 105:10 filed 4:13, 4:20, 50:13, 50:22, 51:8 109:6, 109:10
face 88:20, 91:15 11:14, 15:18, 31:14, flows 31:21, 31:21, general 6:12, 39:12
facilities 37:24, 50:2 84:7, 86:18, 86:19 44:16, 50:11, 58:6, Generally 4:22,
Facility 29:20, 30:2, filing 5:23 77:22 68:16
31:20, 34:9, 34:15, fill 68:17 FOGY 46:5 generate 61:22, 79:5
35:5, 35:7, 35:19, Finally 58:16, 82:22, follow 26:6, 26:6 generated 45:10,
36:8, 45:22, 48:15, 82:23, 85:9, 87:7 followed 88:12 50:20, 59:19, 63:23
48:23, 50:10, 55:18, finance 75:14 follows 3:3, 67:3 generates 61:18
58:5, 58:17, 59:15, financial 43:22, foot 31:9 Geneva 76:7
60:20, 63:8, 65:23, 111:3 footprint 36:7 gets 104:4
66:5, 66:10, 66:18, financially 43:23 force 78:22 getting 91:21, 110:9
68:9, 69:22, 71:15, find 19:18, 19:20, foregoing 114:9 give 16:16, 22:20,
73:11, 74:12, 77:20, 85:5, 93:1 former 34:23, 75:24 23:4, 23:11, 92:12,
77:20, 83:3, 83:11 findings 5:6, 6:3, formerly 37:18, 97:24
fact 10:19, 15:5, 6:5, 10:2, 10:20, 73:13 Given 4:18, 5:11,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
i
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 124
15:5, 23:2, 23:15, 88:22, 91:8, 93:5, 95:10
28:24, 57:22, 58:18, < H > 93:10, 93:16, 93:20, hosting 47:8
64:4, 77:2 half 18:16, 18:16, 94:22, 95:13, 101:13, hour 1:10, 23:6,
gives 9:19 23:6, 47:19 106:3, 114:8 58:12
glancing 59:5 Hamann 86:10 hearings 5:2, 5:8, hours 17:4, 20:5,
God 26:12 Hamman 53:24, 5:13, 11:3, 18:1, 20:6, 20:6, 25:15,
GOLINSKI 2:11, 85:24, 86:4, 86:12, 83:22,93:16, 98:19, 25:24, 53:17, 98:24
3:14, 3:15, 11:12, 86:15, 86:23 101:13,106:12 house 56:6
13:1, 13:2, 13:9, Hammans 86:9, heart 105:18 housing 50:2, 76:3
14:7, 14:8, 24:6, 86:12 heavy 48:17, 79:5, humans 45:15
24:7, 26:7, 27:1, hammer 77:14 81:24 Hundreds 33:17
27:2, 27:24, 28:1, hand 114:20,115:2 held 5:8, 94:7 hydraulic 41:9
52:10, 89:15, 89:18, handed 53:19 Hello 59:3 hydrogen 40:18,
89:19, 91:6, 91:9, handled 63:21 help 39:23 45:11
96:23, 101:23, 112:9, hands 17:11 hereby 83:18, 114:6 hydrogeological
112:10 happen 101:9, hereto 114:18 38:3
gotten 98:10 106:15, 106:19, hereunto 115:2 hydrogeologist
governed 95:12 107:3, 111:6 high 22:10, 51:3, 37:18
governmental happens 20:12, 76:18
37:22, 51:4 106:20, 106:21 high -peak 53:4
Governor 52:22, hard 9:8 higher 80:19 < I >
52:22, 53:8 harm 45:3, 55:12 highest 74:6, 74:9, 1 -47 32:6
governs 6:14 Harrison 46:4, 46:7 74:16, 108:23 idea 37:6, 99:8
grain 73:23 HARROLD 2:31 highly 59:7 identified 39:6,
Grande 1:11 hate 105:17 highway 78:20 51:10,66:14
grant 71:23 hazard 40:15, 41:15, Hill 76:7, 76:10, identifying 43:14
Grayslake 76:6 54:2, 106:9 76:15, 76:17 MOT 51:1, 51:10,
great 107:14, 111:12 hazardous 38:1, hired 9:4 51:15, 51:17, 53:18,
gridlock 32:23 44:10, 44:13, 49:4, history 43:12, 43:14, 53:20, 54:8
Groot 86:5, 87:6 49:22, 62:5, 62:7 87:24 IEPA 36:24, 37:2,
Ground 36:13, HDPE 41:16, 41:18, hold 56:14, 100:14, 63:11, 65:6, 65:12,
36:19, 37:14, 37:16, 42:15, 49:6 100:17 65:18, 84:2, 84:2
38:10, 38:22, 39:5, Health 34:17, 36:13, Hollenbeck 35:11, illegal 43:18
39:16, 40:5, 40:13, 37:14, 40:13, 40:15, 44:17, 44:19, 44:21, immediate 31:3,
41:10, 42:4, 43:1, 41:14, 42:4, 43:1, 68:3 83:13
43:9, 43:23, 44:2, 43:9, 56:15, 57:1 Hollow 82:17 immediately 39:4,
44:4, 67:4, 67:13 hear 19:16, 19:20, home 17:19, 30:9, 72:3, 75:7
group 103:17 19:24, 20:15, 23:17 45:7, 77:15, 77:16 impact 31:20, 33:18,
growing 30:19, heard 17:5, 22:22, homes 72:20, 77:7 40:5, 48:7,48:11,
30:20, 52:15, 73:7 96:1 honest 96:13 48:20, 49:18, 50:11,
grows 73:12 hearing 1:9, 5:1, honestly 90:2, 92:19 58:6, 58:14,68:10,
growth 64:16, 73:1, 5:12, 6:2, 7:7, 7:20, Honor 17:15, 23:10, 69:1, 74:5, 77:11,
75:6 8:24, 9:2, 9:7, 9:11, 92:2 77:21, 79:11, 79:18,
guarantee 48:7, 9:13, 9:16,10:19, hope 99:10 80:5, 80:18, 82:2,
110:23 14:19, 17:12,21:5, hopefully 62:20, 82 :15
guess 15:3, 61:5, 21:11, 21:23, 43:16, 99:8 impacted 39:5,
62:5, 62:11, 62:13 54:15, 64:21, 86:21, horrific 55:8, 55:9 39:16, 76:4, 76:10
87:22, 88:7, 88:12, host 90:13, 90:17, impacts 68:13,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 125
68:15, 81:9, 81:11, indicating 34:12, intermediate 39:3
83:11 35:8, 54:19, 106:3 interpreted 71:3 < K >
important 33:21, indirect 7:23 intersection 4:23, Kane 73:6
38:12, 38:18, 70:14, individual 49:19 33:6, 58:11, 80:16, Kathy 54:1
74:6, 82:6 individuals 43:19, 81:16, 81:17, 82:1 Kendall 8:13, 12:5,
impossible 92:10 51:4, 51:13 Intersections 33:4, 33:8, 36:4, 54:12,
impressed 47:7 industrial 72:5 33:16, 80:14, 81:21 58:18, 72:24, 73:16,
improve 52:24, 54:9 Industries 37:21, interstate 32:1, 73:19, 80:23, 83:3,
improved 104:19 86:5 78:13, 78:14, 78:18, 83:5, 83:7, 85:4,
improvements information 10:22, 78:22 86:16, 110:3
69:13, 75:17 11:14, 15:13, 51:21, introduce 4:9 Kiki 57:4
inaccurate 46:15 53:14, 59:11, 62:21, introduced 5:19, 8:9 kind 9:7, 21:23,
inadequate 40:22 82:6, 82:13, 88:1, invade 45:13 61:12, 61:15, 63:3,
inappropriate 42:16, 88:4, 91:7, 91:11, investigation 38:3 90:7, 97:1, 104:7,
50:5, 80:12 95:1, 95:3, 98:10, issue 6:16, 11:22, 105:21, 110:23
inches 35:20 99:2, 99:20, 99:22, 11:23, 12:2, 19:15, knowing 57:7
include 33:2, 41:17, 101:14, 105:8 23:20, 50:16, 50:18, known 40:21, 45:15,
69:7, 83:24, 87:21 informed 53:8 57:2, 82:20 45:16, 56:18
included 5:24, injunction 86:20 issues 5:5, 99:12 knows 106:15
32:11, 35:2, 60:7, injured 49:20 issuing 60:12 Kodiak 86:1, 86:6,
64:11, 70:23, 85:11, input 6:10, 83:15, items 34:3 87:6
88:4, 88:16, 88:21 89:22, 90:4, 91:18, itself 61:23 Kowalski 65:23
includes 41:15 91:21, 91:23, 99:9 Kramer 55:15
including 5:20, 5:23, installation 42:6,
44:7, 72:17, 73:10 42:7, 42:10, 49:9 < J >
incoming 49:3 installed 39:22, James 2:21, 86:4 < L >
incompatibility 67:5, 67:14, 67:24 Jason 2:5, 57:14, lack 8:14, 12:6,
29:21, 30:1, 30:4, installing 39:18 96:3 85:20
30:6, 45:23, 47:3, Instead 41:6, 107:19 jeopardize 56:24 lacks 82:12
60:21, 69:23, 71:16, instructed 106:11 Jim 40:16 laid 101:2
71:20, 72:21, 75:18, insufficient 30:7, Jimmy 57:4 Land 46:8, 47:6,
75:21 57:17 job 33:7, 107:14, 47:9, 47:16, 55:17,
incompatible 30:18 insurmountable 111:12 57:24, 70:8, 70:17,
inconsistent 84:13 30:24 Joe 2:9, 56:2 70:21, 71:9, 71:18,
Incorporated 85:17, intend 19:1, 75:2 John 2:23, 53:24, 72:2, 72:11, 72:12,
87:11 intended 34:10, 83:21, 110:6 72:19, 72:23, 73:2,
incorporates 76:21 59:17, 60:3, 63:10 joining 103:15 73:22, 75:14, 75:19,
increase 33:7, 33:9, intense 50:18 joint 51:15 75:22
36:7, 36:10, 65:2, intention 18:21 joking 112:3 landfill- generated
80:23 interaction 9:15, Joseph 2:17, 46:5, 81:13
Increased 41:9, 9:18, 94:16 86:4 landfills 37:24,
65:20, 79:21, 82:19 interchanges 32:1, judged 88:20 40:20, 44:9, 45:15,
Indiana 64:11 78:14, 78:14 judgment 103:1, 63:16, 63:18, 63:20,
indicated 46:9, interconnect 36:8 106:22 64:3, 64:10, 64:11,
46:13, 46:22, 53:2, interest 39:16, jurisdiction 7:18, 64:14, 64:18, 64:24,
55:6, 64:9, 93:10 110:21, 111:1 8:14, 12:6, 62:11 76:11, 77:12, 83:18
indicates 47:13, interested 103:15, jurisdictions 36:4 landlocked 61:13
74:1, 95:12 110:1, 114:16 Lannert 108:14
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 126
large 48:3, 77:6 26:24, 27:22, 27:23, 110:18 < M >
larger 39:22, 39:23, 57:13, 57:14, 57:15, loading 41:9 M. 1:10, 2:35, 114:5,
79 :8 112:7, 112:8, 113:3 local 7:15, 8:5, 115:6
Larry 11:6, 20:8, less 31:22, 47:19, 32:15, 32:19, 50:7, Madame 24:18
90:8, 92:20, 98:18 68:10, 68:19 63:11, 70:20, 71:2, Main 56:6, 61:11
LASALLE 114:3 lessen 32:18 71:10, 79:15, 80:10, maintenance 40:4
last 11:7, 17:6, 20:3, lessened 32:17 90:20 majority 103:8
20:20, 20:20, 22:14, letter 52:22 locate 110:5, 110:7 Management 34:22,
82:24, 89:21, 90:19, level 33:6, 45:15, located 4:22, 29:20, 35:1, 37:23, 58:19,
92:4, 100:17 54:19, 55:3, 55:4, 32:1, 34:16, 39:3, 62:9, 83:4, 85:16
later 28:17, 88:12 69:11, 80:16, 80:19, 41:20, 45:22, 47:2, managers 86:3
Lauzen 51:1, 51:18, 80:21, 81:15, 81:18 47:19, 47:23, 48:5, managing 86:5
53:22 license 56:14 48:12, 48:13, 48:15, mandatory 42:20
Lavia 51:1, 52:21, licensed 56:14 58:18, 60:21, 69:23, manholes 43:3
53:21 life 44:6, 50:19, 53:7, 71:15, 78:11, 78:15, manner 11:16, 101:8
law 4:18, 7:24, 66:2, 105:23 83:13, 83:19, 84:9, March 5:9
56:22, 68:16, 85:10, lifetime 104:16 105:11 market 31:15
89:10 light 105:5 location 39:17, Martin 53:18
lawyers 60:23 lightning 100:15 47:24, 83:15 Marty 2:13, 59:2,
layers 38:7, 41:16, likely 74:14, 77:6, locations 82:8 59:3
41:18 81:15 locked 61:13 material 68:18
Leachate 38:16, limit 25:24, 27:13, long 25:11, 25:14, materialized 104:24
40:23, 41:3, 41:7, 97:13 40:23, 61:15, 68:20, materials 44:12,
41:24, 42:16, 42:22, limited 25:10, 38:8 104:18, 109:16 49:4
43:6, 45:12, 50:5, limiting 31:17 longer 17:11, 21:11, matter 6:1, 7:12,
50:8 limits 84:10, 85:4 22:1, 23:1, 25:16, 11:20, 43:15, 110:21
lead 44:12 Linda 50:24, 52:21, 74:18, 79:8 matters 7:6, 33:21
leading 41:10 53:21 look 60:18, 74:6, maximize 58:8
leak 41:18, 50:7 Linder 51:18 87:7, 88:9, 92:23 maximizes 39:10
leakage 42:17 line 81:9 looking 94:1, 94:1 maximum 35:21,
leaked 56:20 liner 41:15, 41:17, looks 90:5 69:11
leaks 42:12, 49:6, 41:22, 42:6, 42:7, lose 102:3 Mchenry 85:18
49:10, 69:2 42:8, 42:9, 42:11, loss 48:1 mean 9:4, 18:14,
least 16:20, 33:5, 49:6, 49:8 lot 32:12, 43:13, 18:17, 19:12, 22:8,
34:13, 65:19, 67:24, liners 49:8 59:11, 79:13; 80:8, 25:24, 90:22, 91:2,
80:15, 104:11 liquid 38:1 91:10, 97:3, 97:4 91:16, 91:18, 97:6,
leave 17:10, 32:22, LISA 2:25 lots 77:6 98:13, 100:7, 105:12,
110:13 Lisle 2:33 low 38:14, 40:2, 105:16, 105:19,
left 7:8, 89:14 listen 18:22, 18:24, 47:14, 47:16 109:22, 110:7
legal 7:2, 7:23, 19:16, 101:15 Lowell 85:16 meaning 110:5
20:22, 84:17, 84:17, little 98:23, 110:18 lower 45:12, 54:22, means 16:9, 61:4,
84:19 live 57:3, 58:10 55:4, 105:10 62:16, 64:1, 96:22,
legally 100:11 liver 45:16 lowest 54:23, 55:3 110:7
LESLIE 2:5, 3:10, living 48:15 Lud 36:16 measured 77:11
3:11, 8:16, 12:23, LLC 4:14, 4:20,13:6, Ludwikowski 36:17, measures 39:9
12:24, 14:5, 14:6, 85:23, 85:24, 85:24, 37:8, 67:17, 107:18 meet 34:11, 34:19,
16:6, 24:4, 24 :5, 86:2, 86:4, 86:10, 34:21, 35:7, 35:20,
24:18, 24:23, 26:23, 86:13, 87:9, 87:19, 46:3, 47:2, 49:3,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 127
50:13, 60:10, 69:17, 58:14, 60:21, 61:7, Motion 7:11, 7:21, necessary 34:9,
88:14, 110:16, 111:4, 68:12, 69:23, 70:1, 8:2, 8:3, 8:11, 8:13, 41:24, 51:6, 59 :16,
112:24 71:16, 77:21, 108:24 8:13, 11:17, 12:4, 63:9
MEETING 1:5, 3:4, minimized 33:19, 12:4, 12:5, 12:6, need 7:6, 16:4,
4:10, 4:17, 9:1, 108:22 12:21, 13:6, 13:6, 16:10, 16:11, 16:15,
21:14, 22:1, 34:1, minimizing 40:8, 22:22, 23:8, 23:11, 16:19, 39:2, 59:21,
61:24, 97:22, 101:3, 56:8 23:19, 24:19, 24:24, 63:4, 70:12, 84:15,
101:22,111:21 minimum 86:14 25:1, 26:17,27:11, 84:21, 92:22, 98:22,
meetings 59:14 minus 105:13 27:13, 28:23, 113:2 99:7, 99:17,103:5
meets 6:18 minute 26:18, 52:9, motions 5:5, 7:8 needed 21:12
member 86:5, 87:11 100:18 move 14:13, 14:17, needs 34:10, 39:6,
members 85:23, minutes 23:2, 23:3, 16:1, 16:9, 37:4, 59:16, 60:3, 63:9,
94:19 23:4, 25:10, 25:16, 69:21, 77:18, 96:18, 64:7, 64:19, 79:6
memos 59:6 25:20, 25:24, 26:12, 101:20, 111:17, negative 31:4, 48:7,
Menards 61:18, 26:16, 26:16, 27:14, 111:18 48:10, 48:19, 49:18
61:20 28:13, 45:20, 56:5, moved 8:15,13:9, neglects 82:8
mention 56:9, 56:10 61:15, 89:4, 112:3 32:20, 111:22, 113:3 neighborhood
mentioned 33:11, missed 52:6 movement 38:22 47:14, 47:15, 72:8,
104:12,106:16, mixed 72:16 Moving 66 :24, 72:8
106:18 Modifications 36:6 101:7,103:18 neighborhoods 50:1
merely 83:12 moment 11:7 Mueller 36:12, Neither 76:8,
met 6:17, 20:12, monitor 107:21 37:13, 40:12, 42:3, 102:21, 114:12
58:15, 60:19, 60:24, Monitoring 36:19, 42:24, 43:8 new 108:8
61:5, 62:6, 62:18, 36:21, 36:22, 37:1, municipal 38:12, Next 13:5, 16:18,
70:3 38:23, ,39:16, 39:18, 59:19, 75:15 16:20, 55:23, 56:13,
methane 45:11 39:22, 40:18, 40:22, municipalities 37:21 57:13, 58:3, 59:12,
methods 40:1 41:1, 41:23, 67:14, municipality 46:18, 59:21, 62:23, 62:24,
Michael 2:35, 54:16, 67:23 85:4 77:16
92:6 months 46:13 myself 13:16 nice 91:18, 92:17,
Michigan 64:12 Moose 37:5, 67:17, 104:8
migration 38:16, 67:19 night 16:11, 16:20,
38:19, 39:8 moot 62:5 < N > 16:21, 57:7, 62:21,
mile 47:19, 48:8, Moraine 4:14, 4:19, name 52:23 100:22, 100:23,
72:6 8:6, 13:6, 14:20, nation 30:21 111:21, 112:4,112:24
miles 4:23, 32:2, 34:2, 34:5, 34:18, Natural 68:24 nine 29:18, 34:13,
47:23, 48:16, 61:16, 35:17, 36:11, 37:12, nature 83:11 46:13, 64:20, 64:23,
72:9, 75:13, 78:15 40:11, 41:2, 42:2, Nay 23:23, 24:1, 91:7, 96:8
military 37:21 42:7, 42:23, 43:7, 24:7, 24:13, 24:15, nine -year 66:12
million 59:19, 75:14 43:18, 46:3, 54:18, 26:20, 26:24, 27:4, nine /ten 57:16
mind 61:10, 90:9 65:23, 66:4, 71:6, 27:5, 27:7, 27:9, No. 18:16, 60:1,
Mine 22:6, 56:3 71:12, 72:4, 72:13, 27:21, 113:9 60:23, 93:2, 100:21,
minimal 40:3, 55:6 73:10, 74:11, 74:13, near 33:5, 33:17, 115:7
minimize 29:20, 74:20, 84:5, 84:9, 76:6, 76:7, 76:9, Nobody 101:22
29:22, 30:1, 30:4, 84:12, 85:6, 85:23, 76:16 noise 48:18
31:6, 31:20, 39:7, 85:24, 86:3, 87:8 nearby 44:24, 45:4, non - attendance
45:23, 45:24, 47:3, morning 17:20, 22:9, 48:11, 49:7, 49:11, 9:16
48:24, 49:12, 50:3, 58:12 49:24, 82:9 nor 86:10, 114:13,
50:11, 57:20, 58:5, mostly 39:14 nearest 76:19 114:14, 114:15
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 128
normal 23:1, 101:3 offering 111:4 101:1, 101:15 Palumbo 37:18,
north 32:5, 35:10, office 72:5, 108:19 options 6:22 39:17
35:21, 46:16, 67:13, officer 5:2, 5:12, 6:2, order 3:5, 7:9, 19:24, paper 22:5, 99:23
67:22, 69:10, 78:8 7:7, 7:20, 8:24, 9:3, 28:24, 29:4, 29:5, parcel 4:22
northeastern 35:14 9:12, 9:16, 10:20, 31:16, 53:6, 53:12 parcels 71:11, 77:4
northern 65:14, 21:11, 21:23, 43:16, Ordinance 15:20, Pardon 52:12
65:15, 69:16 64:21, 88:7, 88:12, 18:12, 18:20, 34:22, park 47:22
notebooks 18:2 88:22, 93:5, 93:10, 71:3, 86:8, 87:14, parking 32:14,
noted 47:11, 53:23 93:20, 94:23, 106:3 95:11, 95:20 79:17, 80:11
notes 11:4, 11:4, officials 8:6 ordinances 19:13 parks 50:1
11:5, 18:2, 18:4, Often 44:9, 49:4 organizations 5:19 Parkway 33:10,
18:6, 20:5, 114:11 Okay 13:17, 18:9, origin 78:4 81:2, 106:17, 108:20,
nothing 51:8, 102:5, 20:2, 21:15, 23:19, original 26:14, 78:3, 109:7, 109:8
105:10 25:4, 26:13, 27 :18, 114:19 part 68:4, 72:10,
Notice 4:17, 56:9 52:4, 58:23, 63:7, Oswego 82:13 83:9
November 54:7 89:6, 89:17, 103:21, others 9:15, 94:19 partial 33:13, 81:1
null 90:13 107:12, 112:6 outcome 114:16 partially 33:12
Number 26:4, 57:19, omits 82:6 outline 16:23 participant 95:18
57:23, 58:2, 58:4, on- street 79:16, outside 64:3 participating 13:8
58:17, 60:5, 60:20, 80:11 over - crowded 55:11 participation 8:5
61:9, 61:9, 61:23, one -mile 61:2 overall 40:3, 57:24, particular 87:17
62:8, 62:15, 65:4, ones 37:17 65:9 parties 114:14,
77:19, 82:3, 82:24, Open 5:15, 51:15, overflow 45:3 114:15
83:2, 96:24, 108:5 95:2 oversight 83:15 partners 94:13
numerous 36:18, operate 66:13 overturning 90:16 pass 28:17, 28:20,
47:8 operated 34:16, own 17:3, 98:9, 32:8, 53:5, 79:1, 79:2
67:9, 73:23 98:23, 102:24, passed 54:5, 54:7,
operating 79:7, 82:4, 108:13 54:10
< O > 85:14, 86:9 owner 43:22, 49:11, past 66:21, 85:15
o'clock 17:20, operation 40:4, 58:9, 87:17 Patricia 50:23,
102:16, 113:1 73:23, 83:16, 86:17, owner /operator 40:8 51:14, 53:20
obligation 7:2 86:24 owners 31:13, 45:4, pattern 80:17
obligations 22:2 operational 31:6, 47:9, 75 :2, 75:12, patterns 31:19,
obstacle 30:24 49:1 75:14, 111:5 50:10, 58:4, 58:7,
obtain 51:6, 54:24 operations 43:13, ownership 57:24 77:19, 109:12
obtained 53:16 48:23 owns 86:1, 86:2, PAUL 2:21
obviously 20:1, operator 41:6, 43:11, 87:15 paved 43:5
72:14 43:20, 43:22, 55:19, pay 11:5, 103:4,
occasionally 38:6 85:22, 87:8, 87:8, 103:11
occur 49:6 87 :15 < P > paying 43:23
occurring 75:4 opinion 20:11, p.m. 1:10, 113:15 PDC 87:11, 87:19,
occurs 50:7 20:18, 47:1, 70:2, pace 76:8 87:23
October 51:16 88:17, 97:24, 99:8 pages 9:6, 9:20, pedestrian 32:12,
odds 90:15 opinions 17:4, 11:14, 62:20, 98:14, 32:20, 79:13, 80:2,
odor 40:24, 86:16 29:17, 33:21, 59:8, 98:19, 99:16 80:8
Odors 45:10, 45:11, 98:23 paid 9:5, 74:24, pending 7:8, 7:11
48:9, 48:18 opportunity 17:2, 103:5, 103:11 People 18:14, 32:20,
off -site 41:7 88:9, 97:23, 98:12, palsy 57:6 43:14, 44:23, 98:18
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
I
i
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 129
Peoria 87:10, 87:23, 80:7, 80:13, 80:14, 63:3, 69:20, 108:23 preferrable 38:21
110:20 80:18, 80:20, 105:11 poll 23:16 preferred 37:3
per 25:10, 31:23, Plan 30:16, 30:22, pollutants 45:10 preliminary 7:6
35:15, 35:17, 69:11, 31:6, 31:8, 44:2, Pollution 41:11, preparation 93:12
73:18, 73:20, 73:24, 44:5, 46:15, 46:17, 85:18, 90:15 prepare 16:16,
74:1, 74:24, 79:5 47:6, 47:7, 47:10, Pontiac 90:20 89:20, 90:1, 111:18
per -day 50:20 47:12, 47:12, 48:22, popular 59:18 prepared 18:7,
percent 32:3, 32:7, 51:11, 58:19, 58:21, portion 76:22 90:24, 91:4
32:23, 33:9, 42:11, 62:9, 70:16, 70:17, position 84:16, presence 40:21,
64:2, 64:5, 78:5, 72:2, 80:18, 83:4, 84:22 76:5, 76:11
78:24, 79:2, 80:23, 83:6, 83:8, 83:17, positive 106:19 PRESENT 2:1, 2:29,
86:1, 86:2, 87:11, 83:23, 84:1, 84:3, possibilities 106:13 9:1, 30:24
87:15, 106:6, 106:6, 84:6, 84:14, 108:18, possible 25:16, presentation 54:18,
110:21 110:3, 110:11, 35:24, 39:7, 49:9, 55:17, 87:22, 92:6
percentage 44:11 110:12, 110:16, 49:22 presented 23:12,
perform 46:19, 110:16 possibly 61:2, 62:18 36:16, 46:7, 54:18,
55:16 planning 71:10 post - closure 43:24, 55:20, 85:13, 91:8,
perhaps 102:24 Plano 46:17, 54:11, 44:7 91:11, 92:1, 101:17
period 5:14, 15:6, 79:3 post- hearing 15:22 president 83:21
15:21, 35:20, 44:7, play 45:1 post- marked 15:19 presumed 7:24
93:23, 95:2, 95:14, Please 3:5, 3:9, 4:9, post - permit 46:21 prevent 49:10
95:15 8:18, 13:20, 16:14, post - public 14:19 previous 85:14
permeability 38:14 21:4, 23:21, 27:19, post- siting 77:13 Price 10:13, 11:5,
permeable 38:17, 52:7, 88:24, 95:9, postpone 22:22, 11:5, 20:8, 59:7,
38:20 99:3, 99:3, 99:6, 23:11, 24:21, 24:22 73:24, 74:1, 74:24,
permit 41:2, 65:6, 103:13, 103:21 Potable 56:17, 88:7, 88:11, 88:22,
68:6, 69:4 pleasure 17:13 56:17, 56:21 90:8, 102:22, 103:6,
permitted 42:19, Pledge 3:5, 3:6 potential 38:16, 104:1
42:19, 63:16, 63:18, PLOCHER 2:9, 3:16, 38:18, 39:8, 39:9, prices 77:12
66:19 3:17, 12:10, 12:11, 40:8, 41:10, 69:1, pride 43:14
permitting 68:17 13:21, 13:22, 24:12, 70:12 pristine 110:22
person 25:10 24:13, 26:15, 27:6, Power 26:2, 54:18, private 41:21, 45:13,
personally 56:24, 27:7, 28:6, 28:7, 55:16 49:7
100:12 55:24, 56:1, 56:2, PPM 44:12 probable 35:20
perspective 61:17 56:3, 57:4, 112:15, practical 68:8, 68:18 probably 57:3, 59:20
pertinent 30:14 112:16 practiced 42:1 problem 10:21,
petition 53:15, plumber 56:14 Prairie 33:10, 76:20, 102:11, 105:1
53:24, 54:3 plus 41:22, 56:4, 76:22, 81:2, 106:16, problematic 10:19
Philipchuck 54:1 56:5, 56:8, 81:13, 108:19, 109:7, 109:8 problems 51:5,
phonetic 57:5 81:14, 81:21 pre - closure 44:1 111:5
pick 26:4, 97:10, Point 12:17, 14:16, pre - permit 46:20 procedure 6:13
97:22 15:1, 22:17, 28:23, pre- siting 77:13 procedures 5:4,
picked 22:6, 62:2 54:18, 55:16, 60:24, precipitation 35:21 23:1
picking 60:14 62:6, 62:17, 67:11, preclude 61:24 proceed 12:1, 24:16,
place 107:21, 114:11 75:4, 77:14, 92:22, predecessor 85:14 67:13
placement 39:23 94:24, 99:11, 106:11 predicted 75:6 proceeding 6:8,
Plainfield 32:24, pointed 36:17 predominantly 93:19
33:2, 33:5, 80:6, points 39:4, 58:22, 108:6 Proceedings 1:8,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 130
3:2, 6:15, 7:17, 7:24, propriety 7:22 89:23, 90:12, 92:7,
12:21, 13:8, 33:11, protected 34:18 98:14, 98:19, 99:18,
57:23, 113:13, 114:7, Protection 6:20, < Q > 99:23, 102:11,
114:9 30:16, 31:8, 43:24, qualified 94:5 102:15, 102:18,
proceeds 67:11 44:2, 44:4, 70:20, quality 43:3, 47:7, 103:24, 104:11,
process 8:5, 10:15, 71:2 69:2 106:5
10:16, 11:15, 29:16, protects 31:8 Question 7:22, 8:23, reading 22:10,
54:15, 70:18, 91:17, proven 42:22, 62:10 18:11, 20:3, 20:20, 44:13, 62:19, 88:23
93:17, 93:18, 95:11, provide 38:8, 38:10, 21:4, 22:14, 29:3, reads 29:20
103:3, 108:8, 108:11 38:15, 51:22, 54:12, 37:10, 78:10, 102:16 ready 36:23
productivity 40:2 71:4, 83:18, 87:4, questioned 46:8, real 75:1, 77:12
professional 47:1 88:1 54:21 realize 100:1
profile 51:3 provided 15:1, questioning 81:22 really 10:11, 59:10,
profitability 58:8 22:16, 35:7, 86:8, questions 8:22, 60:8, 61:3, 62:10,
profitable 74:15 86:11, 95:17 13:12, 13:18, 90:7, 62:19, 90:2, 100:16,
profitably 73:23 provides 40:4, 90:9, 90:22, 91:23, 101:16, 103:12,
programs 43:24 40:22, 51:7 92:15, 93:4, 93:7, 103:12
prohibited 36:3, providing 22:3, 94:18, 95:7, 95:21 reason 30:10, 95:19
36:4, 68:16 95:14, 110:24 quickly 39:6, 53:7, reasonably 30:3
prohibits 85:3 proving 6:17 106:5 reasoning 67:3
projected 66:2, proximity 41:20, quiet 104:8 reasons 8:10
66:14, 108:12, 45:5, 78:12 quite 90:2 rebuttal 28:14,
108:19 Public 5:2, 5:8, 5:13, quorum 4:6 96:19, 96:22
promote 32:19, 5:17, 5:18, 5:24, receipt 5:14, 84:3
32:20, 80:1 6:11, 17:5, 17:12, receive 14:17, 31:16
prone 42:17 21:5, 34:17, 36:13, < R > received 5:22,
proof 34:1, 75:1 37:14, 39:10, 40:10, radius 31 :9, 44:4, 15:18, 62:20, 64:24,
proper 85:19 40:13, 42:4, 43:1, 45:9, 61:1 65:5, 90:4, 92:9,
properly 7:15, 102:3 43:9, 50:16, 50:17, rainfall 35:3 99:9, 105:9
properties 31:1, 51:22, 52:1, 52:3, raise 36:9 receiving 92:3
31:9, 31:12, 35:6, 94:19, 95:15, 105:16, range 73:17 Recent 46:8, 65:21,
44:23, 46:11, 46:12, 106:8 ranged 73:19 73:15, 73:17, 73:18
46:22, 70:10, 74:7, pumping 41:12 rapidly 30:19, 73:7, recently 64:24,
108:22 purchase 77:16 73:8 72:10, 75:20, 75:23
Property 4:22, 7:13, purchased 77:5 rate 46:19, 77:2 rechannel 68:7
7:14, 29:23, 30:13, purchaser 74:2 rated 54:20, 105:10 recharge 62:16
30:16, 31:4, 31:7, purportedly 69:5, rather 61:2, 65:21, recipient 50:7
31:10, 31:13, 31:15, 69:15 73:4, 76:1, 78:4, recirculated 41:8
35:2, 35:9, 43:24, purpose 4:12, 9:13, 83:12 recirculation 41:3,
45:4, 45:12, 46:1, 77:5 rating 54:22, 54:23, 41:24
46:18, 46:21, 48:7, purposes 72:21, 55:3, 55:9, 105:14 recognize 40:20
49:11, 57:21, 70:2, 74:14 reach 39:3, 49:16, recognized 50:22,
73:15, 74:3, 74:10, pursuant 4:15, 5:14 82:9 51:4, 54:2
74:16, 74:19, 75:2, put 9:8, 10:7, 22:16, reaches 39:5 recommend 7:21,
75:12, 76:8, 76:14, 59:12, 60:17, 61:17, read 9:8, 10:11, 8:1, 8:10, 8:12, 13:5,
111:5 105:5, 105:23, 16:3, 17:5, 17:19, 26:11, 36:6, 39:18
proposal 104:15 106:24 20:8, 20:10, 23:12, recommendation
proposes 68:2 putting 61:1, 104:7 29:11, 45:18, 59:11, 5:21, 7:20, 18:13
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
I
Landfill Wearing May 23, 2007 131
recommendations relief 52:18 48:5, 48:11, 49:24, rights 70:10
5:6, 6:3, 6:5, 9:20, rely 106:21 72:16, 72:17, 73:4, rise 3:5
10:3, 10:20, 93:12, relying 30:8 73:14, 74:23, 76:1, risk 105:23
94:23 remaining 63:19, 76:18, 76:19, 80:2, River 44:21, 44:23,
recommended 12:4, 87:15 104:23 47:23, 53:11, 105:22
39:21 remediation 39:9, Residents 41:20, Road 49:16, 51:10,
recommending 40:9 45:7, 45:9, 48:20, 53:10, 54:23, 61:19,
104:5 remove 13:16 57:1, 76:24, 99:22 81:1, 82:17, 82:18,
reconfiguration removed 18:5, 43:17 Resolution 16:16, 82:18, 104:8, 104:16,
68:11 Report 1:8, 5:21, 16:19, 16:21, 16:22, 104:23, 106:7,
record 5:24, 15:23, 22:3, 39:11, 46:9, 18:22, 19:5, 19:6, 106:13
18:6, 51:22, 52:1, 65:13, 78:16, 82:5, 19:23, 54:7, 54:10, roads 33:19, 48:6,
52:3, 85:15, 86:12, 82:8, 82:12, 94:20, 83:7, 83:9, 83:24, 52:16, 55:11, 75:16,
87:6, 87:16, 88:4, 94:22, 114:9 84:17, 84:23, 85:2, 78:2, 104:20
92:1, 110:22, 111:8 reported 114:7 87:1, 100:24, 101:1, Robyn 2:15, 29:12
records 34:12 Reporter 114:6 111:19 role 22:2
red 105:9 Representative resolutions 54:5, Roll 3:8, 8:17, 12:2,
redirection 36:1 50:23, 50:24, 51:14, 101:4 13:20, 23:20, 25:5,
reduce 36:7 51:17, 52:21, 53:20, resolved 83:16 27:18, 112:6
reduces 39:8 53:21, 94:11 resolving 86:16 Ron 87:18
regard 95:21 Representatives Resources 68:24 Rose 2:19, 22:10,
regarding 6:14, 5:18, 51:2, 51:16 respect 78:12, 96:2
53:15, 54:5, 69:1, representing 54:17 84:16, 84:22 ROTH 2:35, 4:10,
71:5, 71:22, 82:7, reproduced 114:21 respond 53:7 9:2, 9:11, 10:1, 10:5,
86:11, 86:23, 87:5, request 8:7, 95:1, responded 35:24 10:9, 10:18, 12:3,
87:20, 87:20 95:3, 105:5 Response 3:19, 12:20, 13:5, 15:2,
regards 14:18, 31:18 requesting 52:23, 11:24, 13:13, 13:19, 15:9, 15:12, 15:16,
region 38:13, 64:10, 54:8 27:17, 67:16, 68:4, 18:21, 19:14, 20:13,
64:19, 65:13 require 79:8, 82:17 107:6, 111:15, 112:1, 20:22, 22:19, 59:6,
regional 51:2, 64:9, required 4:18, 112:5, 113:6, 113:10 92:6, 93:2, 93:5,
64:18, 78:13, 78:18 41:23, 42:13 responsibility 93:9, 94:10, 94:14,
regression 46:19 requirement 20:23 114:21 95:8, 95:9, 102:22,
regular 21 :18, 97:22 requirements 36:24, rest 23:15, 57:9, 104:1, 107:11
regulated 62:15 70:21, 88:15 100:13 Route 4:23, 4:24,
regulatory 35:18 requires 29:24, restate 12:3 32:4, 32:17, 33:13,
Reid - linder 50:24, 31:15, 83:14 result 33:9, 35:3, 33:13, 46:16, 51:7,
51:14, 53:21 requiring 75:13 48:2, 49:20, 53:3, 51:13, 52:24, 53:9,
rejected 67:2 reroute 68:3, 68:6 79:20, 80:19, 80:22, 54:9, 54:14, 54:19,
rejecting 30:10 Rerouting 44:18 82:19 61:19, 81:12, 82:18,
rejection 63:5 research 72:5, resumed 3:3 104:9, 104:19, 105:3,
related 114:13, 98:10, 111:11 retains 63:13 105:7, 105:18,
114:14 researched 73:15 retired 37:18 109:16
relating 30:12 researching 18:7 revenue 48:2 routes 32:4, 78:6,
relatively 38:7 Reserve 1:11 review 35:2, 38:2, 105:9
relay 33:20 reside 40:19 47:10, 96:13 routing 62:1, 104:5
release 35:17, 69:11 residential 31:1, reviewed 34:24 rule 5:4, 7:7, 18:8,
relevance 70:15 31:12, 45:6, 46:16, Richard 53:23 29:5
relevant 71:19, 83:9 47:15, 47:16, 47:18, ridiculous 106:7 rules 6:13, 13:15,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 132
13:15, 17:13, 21:6, School 1:12, 22:10, 66:12, 66:16, 66:21, signed 54:3, 114:19
21:18, 22:24, 23:9, 53:11 66:23, 80:16, 81:15, significant 32:13,
25:2, 26:5, 26:8, schools 48:13, 110:22, 110:23 37:22, 68:21, 79:14,
28:20, 28:21, 28:24 48:21, 50:1 Services 86:2, 87:9, 79:16, 80:9, 80:11,
run -off 35:3, 35:4 science 59:18 87:19, 110:18 80:17
running 21:14, scope 30:7 Session 51:15 significantly 31:4,
35:16, 36:2 seal 39:24 set 5:4, 6:13, 100:22, 81:8, 81:10
rural 73:13, 74:21 seams 42:8, 49:8 115:2 silt 38:20
Second 8:3, 23:17, settlement 86:15 silty 38:5, 38:14
25:3, 67:1, 67:1, Settler 76:7, 76:10, similarly 33:4
< S > 67:2, 92:8, 111:23 76:15, 76:17 SIMON 94:5, 94:12,
safe 37:10, 43:12, second. 8:16, 13:10, seven 113:1 95:8, 95:10
45:15 23:18, 27:15, 29:2, seven - county 65:16 single 19:5
safety 34:17, 36:14, 113:4 seven -year 5 1: 10 single - family 77:7
37:15, 39:10, 40:9, seconded 12:7, Several 29:17, sit 9:21, 22:8
40:14, 42:5, 43:2, 23:20, 25:2 45:14, 48:13, 48:15, site 30:8, 31:24,
43:10, 50:16, 50:17, secondly 56:23 53:19, 54:4, 72:9, 38:4, 38:24, 39:12,
51:13, 54:2, 60:5, seconds 81:21, 72:10, 78:1, 86:22, 39:13, 40:3, 40:6,
105:16 81:23 87:3, 87:21, 90:6, 45:5, 45:9, 47:20,
sale 73:24, 74:1 Secretary 53:18 98:7, 98:8, 106:11, 47:22, 47:24, 48:13,
sales 30:9, 46:8, Section 5:4, 8:8, 107:15 48:14, 48:16, 49:17,
46:19, 73:17, 73:18, 14:14, 69:16, 96:19 severity 50:21 49:17, 55:12, 68:14,
77:13, 77:13 seeking 86:18, sewer 75:8, 75:16, 71:24, 77:8, 78:16,
sampling 30:9, 40:1 86:19 108:10 110:8
sand 38:7, 39:5 seemed 21:22, shall 6:8, 70:21 sited 11:1, 11:1,
sands 38:8, 38:9, 109:19 shallow 38:21, 49:7 66:18, 78:19, 85:3,
38:17, 38:21 seep 49:6 share 107:15 90:16
sandy 38:7, 38:17, seepage 41:10 shared 109:18 sites 45:7
39:6 seepages 49:10 Shaw 36:18, 37:5, siting 4:14, 4:21,
sanitary 75:16 sell 74:3 37:9 6:19, 7:2, 7:15, 8:5,
sat 18:1, 25:23, selling 30:13, 46:11 shear 32:22 19:8, 19:17, 19:21,
98:23 Senator 51:1, 51:18, sheets 42:8, 42:9, 30:23, 46:14, 63:11,
satisfactorily 33:15, 53:22, 53:23 49:8 63:14, 65:1, 65:5,
81:5 send '102:19 short 56:3, 78:2, 66:22, 70:5, 70:11,
satisfied 19:8, sending 104:22 78:4 70:22, 71:2, 71:5,
19:19, 19:22 senior 48:21, 50:1 Shorthand 114:6, 71:23, 75:17, 84:11,
satisfy 7:2, 85:6 separates 35:10 114:7, 114:10 85:19, 86:7, 87:13,
save 105:22 septic 41:12 shouldn't 103:5 95:10, 95:20
savings 41:6 series 39:18, 40:2 show 8:7, 9:6, 46:16, sitings 19:19
saying 10:12, 10:16, serve 34:10, 59:17, 46:17, 108:18 sitting 25:14
10:18, 11:1, 20:4, 60:3, 63:10 showed 94:8 situation 49:19,
61:19, 99:14, 99:15 service 33:6, 42:16, showing 109:1 55:8, 104:14, 109:19,
says 60:23, 60:23, 50:6, 54:19, 55:3, shows 108:16 109:24
88:13, 97:23 63:12, 63:13, 63:17, side 36:20, 61:14, six 100:3, 100:7
scenario 49:21, 63:18, 63:20, 63:22, 105:19 size 36:7, 39:23
64:17 64:2, 64:4, 64:7, sides 60:22 sleep 57:6 -
schedule 53:11 64:13, 64:22, 65:3, sight 52:18 Sleepy 82:17
Schmanski 34:23 65:10, 65:16, 66:5, signatures 53:15 slow 75:6
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 133
slow- moving 53:6 staggered 53:12 Stormwater 34:22, summarily 8:11
slower 46:23 Stan 36:16 35:1, 43:5, 44:16, summed 107:16
small 30:9, 44:10, standard 42:21, 44:17, 69:9 supplement 99:8
66:19 69:17 straight 90:12 supplemental 99:20
smaller 56:10 standards 5:3, 7:2, Strategy 51:15 supplied 55:19
smoke 49:22 19:17, 19:21 stream 68:12 suppliers 40:10
sold 46:13, 46:13 Start 28:14, 37:3, Streator 65:4 supplies 38:13
sole 4:12 52:10, 52:13, 59:5, Street 32:14, 56:6 supply 38:10
Solid 4:21, 38:1, 67:22 streets 32:15, 79:15, support 54:13
58:18, 62:9, 83:4, starts 67:10, 67:12 80:10 suppose 85:10,
85:16 STATE 36:24, 40:23, strict 61:1 92:24, 93:22, 94:24,
solution 103:2 47:22, 50:1, 50:23, strike 100:15 95:3
solve 111:5 50:24, 51:1, 51:6, structure 36:9 supposed 9:22,
someday 104:4 51:14, 51:17, 52:16, studied 72:21 9:23, 10:6, 10:11,
someone 26:2, 57:2, 52:20, 53:22, 56:15, studies 77:11 14:18, 15:7, 81:4,
57:8, 90:8, 95:4 57:18, 78:18, 78:19, study 31:24, 32:11, 91:6, 91:22, 91:24,
somewhere 59:22 103:10, 104:20, 33:1, 69:6, 69:7, 99:17, 107:2, 109:4
soon- to -be- complet 114:1 79:10, 80:4, 80:13 supposedly 98:17
ed 48:14 stated 35:6, 36:11, studying 23:14 surface 42:11
Sorry 17:23, 22:20, 37:12, 40:11, 42:2, stuff 10:12, 10:13, surprised 101:19,
24:23, 52:4, 52:6, 42:23, 43:7, 46:11, 92:7 106:24
75:20, 106:5 58:21, 68:8, 70:8 subdivision 58:12 surprises 101:17
sounding 69:18 statement 36:12, subdivisions 72:10, Surrounding 29:22,
south 36:20, 37:2, 37:13, 40:12, 42:3, 75:20, 75:22, 108:9 29:23, 30:2, 30:8,
67:5, 67:12, 67:23, 42:24, 43:8, 86:8, subject 7:13, 7:14, 30:19, 31:2, 35:6,
67:24 86:10, 87:5 7:23, 22:18 38:20, 40:10, 45:24,
southerly 39:15 States 41:23, 53:22, submits 9:6 46:1, 47:4, 47:13,
southern 30:23, 58:13, 63:17, 64:18, submittal 93:13 47:15, 47:21, 48:24,
39:20, 72:2 70:20, 73:8, 83:9 submitted 6:3,17:9, 49:13, 50:3, 50:15,
southwest 108:17 Statewide 65:18, 40:16, 46:14, 52:5, 52:16, 57:21, 58:1,
Special 1:5, 4:10, 65:20 52:20, 52:21, 53:17, 69:24, 70:2, 71:11,
44:8, 44:9, 44:14, station 82:7, 82:10 84:2, 99:23 71:12, 71:17, 71:21,
44:14, 79:6, 89:22, statistics 55:19 submitting 45:18 72:3, 72:13, 74:7,
94:21, 95:3, 95:17 Statute 5:14, 70:23, Subpart 85:8 74:10, 74:12, 75:7,
specifically 58:13 84:19, 85:12, 95:19 substantive 5:6, 76:4, 108:21
specification 69:13 Statutes 4:15, 85:8 95:16 Suspend 22:24,
speculative 75:3 statutory 6:18 suddenly 108:2, 23:9, 24:20, 25:2,
speech 89:20, 90:2 steel 42:14, 42:20, 109:1 26:7
speed 22:10 50:4 Sufficient 15:20, sustainable 76:21
spend 17:1 Stop 32:13, 52:8 80:24 SUTCLIFF 2:15,
spent 23:13 stop- and -go 79:14, suggest 17:16, 23:3 3:20, 3:21, 12:14,
spills 49:1 79:21, 80:9 suggested 88:21, 12:15, 14:1, 14:2,
SS 114:2 stopped 53:6 92:11 23:24, 24:1, 26:19,
SSA 75:14 storage 35:19, suggestion 37:8 26:20, 28:10, 28:11,
Staff 5:21, 60:7, 37:24, 41:1, 42:17, suggests 39:11 29:8, 29:10, 29:12,
60:17, 95:17 50:5 suit 114:14, 114:15 112:19, 112:20
stage 6:7 stored 40:23 Suite 2:32 sway 98:16
stages 36:21 storm 69:16 sulfide 40:18, 45:11 sworn 91:16
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 134
system 41:15, 41:18, thin 38:7, 38:17 100:7, 100:9, 103:21, 44:19, 44:20, 68:3,
41:19, 41:22, 78:13, Third 29:13, 69:22 111:14, 111:19 68:7
78:18, 78:22 thorough 18:4 tons 59:19, 63:19, trips 31:23, 32:22,
though 55:5, 106:18 63:21, 63:22, 63:23, 50:20, 55:2, 79:5,
thoughts 111:9, 64:15, 65:3, 65:7, 82:2
< T > 111:14 66:1 truck 31:21, 32:16,
table 45:13, 101:2 thousand 11:14, took 11:3, 20:5, 32:22, 33:7, 48:17,
talked 90:18 31:9, 99:16 76:13 50:20, 55:2, 78:5,
tank 40:24, 41:1, thre 19:10 total 65:11, 66:11, 79:5, 79:21, 79:23,
41:12, 42:15, 50:4 threatening 50:19, 66:20 80:19, 81:24, 82:2,
tanks 42:14, 42:14, 53:7 totally 18:7, 55:2, 82:14
42:17, 42:18, 42:18, Three 6:21, 11:1, 99:11 trucks 33:18, 48:3,
42:20, 42:22, 50:6 19:12, 57:16, 59:3, touch 56:13 48:18, 56:8, 56:10,
team 107:24 59:4, 60:22, 64:24, towards 44:17, 73:3, 61:18, 61:20, 61:20,
ten 23:4, 25:10, 65:5, 104:3, 104:12 73:10 61:22, 61:23, 62:1,
25:16, 25:20, 25:24, throughout 31:10, towers 75:16 79:6, 82:11, 105:8,
26:2, 26:16, 26:18, 33:11, 39:12, 39:13, town 60:15, 61:14, 105:17, 106:7,
63:16, 63:17, 63:20, 50:14 105:12 109:23
64:23, 65:11, 66:21 throw 11:6 townhomes 76:18 true 93:18, 102:6,
ten - minute 23:9 throwing 11:11 Township 73:17, 114:9
ten -year 39:19 thumb 103:1 73:19 Tuesday 101:21
termed 47:14 Thursday 101:23 Townships 73:16 turning 79:9, 79:15,
terms 79:6 tie 21:19 toxic 40:19, 40:21, 80:10
test 42:7 ties 43:18 50:8 tw 78:8
testified 71:9, 72:12, tight -knit 103:17 track 18:6 two 7:6, 7:8, 8:6,
72:24, 73:2, 73:22, til 94:8 transcript 114:10, 20:21, 23:3, 29:19,
74:5, 76:3, 81:20, Tim 53:18 114:19 32:4, 41:16, 41:18,
83:22, 83:23, 84:4, timely 101:8 Transfer 82:7, 82:10, 53:16, 59:8, 60:22,
87:19, 96:2, 107:18, timing 15:4, 89:3 85:17 61:18, 66:6, 66:11,
108:14, 109:15, tirelessly 29:16 transfers 73:16 75:13, 78:6, 81:20,
110:6 today 10:21, 11:16, transition 72:15, 89:13, 104:2, 104:11
testimony 1:8, 5:10, 14:18, 59:6, 90:4, 72:16, 74:22, 108:15 two -lane 49:16,
17:4, 30:11, 34:5, 91:11, 98:14, 99:10 transporting 41:7 51:7, 52:16, 53:10,
35:13, 46:4, 46:6, toilet 41:13 travel 32:24, 49:15, 55:11, 61:19
59:18, 60:22, 67:17, tomb 41:5 49:23, 56:5, 78:1, two -mile 44:4,45:8,
74:18, 76:12, 86:21, Tomorrow 16:1, 78:6, 82:19, 105:7 61:1
91:16, 92:20, 92:21, 17:7, 20:14, 20:16, traveling 48:4, two- minute 28:13
93:8, 99:16, 108:15, 20:17, 62:21, 91:1, 51:13, 55:7, 55:11, type 42:15
115:1 92:12, 96:16, 100:22, 82:11 types 38:1
testing 42:11, 49:7 100:23, 100:24, travels 103:16 typical 40:20
themselves 42:9, 102:15, 111:21, treated 43:6
49:9 112:4, 112:24 treatment 37:24
thereby 68:15, 78:2, tonight 4:17, 6:14, tremendous 48:19, < U >
78:3 6:16, 15:17, 17:3, 49:5, 50:15, 51:12, ultimately 44:21
thereof 114:16, 20:10, 21:12, 23:7, 53:2, 54:2 unable 43:12, 43:21,
114:19 24:16, 29:15, 29:19, trend 73:3 51:6
they've 105:12 30:15, 51:23, 59:12, tributaries 44:22 unacceptable 55:2
thick 38:5, 38:9 62:20, 89:20, 94:8, tributary 35:12, unanimously 54:6,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 135
54:12 upheld 85:19 vote 13:14, 13:16, ways 19:2
uncontrolled 39:7 upland 68:13, 68:14 13:20, 16:8, 16:19, website 17:6
undecided 60:16, uses 70:12, 76:1, 16:22, 18:20, 19:13, Wednesday 101:22
62:3 76:19 21:17, 21:19, 23:21, week 59:12
underlain 38:5 usual 111:11 25:5, 26:14, 27:18, weekends 53:16
underlying 38:11 utilities 75:8 56:22, 90:12, 90:16, weight 22:15, 22:20
understand 91:5, utilized 48:6 91:2, 91:3, 91:4, weld 42:7
91:10, 91:13 91:6, 91:15, 100:16, welded 42:20
understanding 101:23, 102:8, 112:6 welfare 34:17,
20:13, 87:2 < V > voted 24:22, 54:6, 36:14, 37:15, 40:14,
undisputed 84:8 vacating 82:17 54:11, 57:7 42:5, 43:2, 43:10,
undoubtedly 50:18 Valerie 2:3, 21:4 votes 90:5 60:6
Unfortunately 20:16, valid 8:1, 30:10, voting 11:23, 12:18, well -known 40:19
51:9 67:19, 69:19, 84:17 26:15, 100:19, wells 36:20, 36:21,
unhealthy 45:10 Valley 87:9, 87:9, 100:21 37:1, 37:6, 38:8,
unincorporated 87:12, 87:18, 110:18 38:11, 38:23, 39:1,
83:19 value 29:23, 31:7, 39:18, 39:22, 40:1,
unique 76:20 43:24, 46:1, 48:7, < W > 40:3, 40:7, 41:21,
United 1:2, 2:36, 57:20, 70:1, 91:15, Wait 52:9, 96:5, 44:3, 45:14, 49:7,
4:11, 7:16, 29:13, 108:21 96:16, 102:19 49:11, 50:7, 67:5,
32:18, 34:21, 34:24, values 31:4, 31:10, waiting 89:21, 67:14, 67:23, 107:20
48:12, 51:16, 53:22, 38:5, 45:12, 46:21, 99:12, 99:15, 104:18, WERDERICH 2:7,
69:12, 72:1, 73:8, 76:3, 76:9 109:16 3:12, 3:13, 13:3,
84:10, 84:12 various 36:21 waive 28:23 13:4, 13:10, 14:9,
unknown 39:7, vehicle 82:20 wake 17:21 14:10, 14:15, 15:3,
43:12, 43:21, 44:1 vehicles 53:5, Walker 82:18 15:11, 15:14, 16:13,
Unless 21:18, 105:19 Wally 2:7, 92:5 22:13, 24:8, 24:9,
105:10, 105:20 verbose 69:18 wanted 21:16, 27:3, 27:4, 28:2,
Unlike 77:23 verify 43:12, 43:21 69:19, 88:3, 88:6 28:3, 28:15, 28:16,
unnamed 68:3 versus 85:17 wants 97:10, 102:12 28:22, 29:6, 62:23,
unresolved 99:11 veteran 29:11 Ward 29:13, 56 :3, 62:24, 89:6, 91:14,
Unsafe 40:15, 40:17, via 82:10 57:15, 58:10, 59:3, 111:22,112:2,
41:14, 41:19, 42:22, vicinity 74:20, 83:13, 59:4,105:4 112:11, 112:12
53:4 109:2 wash 43:4 Werthmann 54:16,
until 10:20, 16:1, view 57:16 Waste 4:21, 34:9, 55:15
17:20, 20:16, 20:17, viewed 109:3 38:2, 39:2, 39:4, West 4:23, 36:1,
22:8, 36:22, 67:6, Village 82:13, 82:15 39:14, 39:20, 44:10, 56 :6
90:3, 92:1, 92:12, Vinyl 45:14 44:10, 44:11, 44:14, wetland 68:12
96:16,100:14, violation 86:7, 87:13 44:14, 49:4, 58:19, whatever 20:6,
100:17,102:19, violations 43:13, 59:16, 59:19, 59:22, 52:23, 97:13, 105:13
107:21 87:22 60:3, 60:14, 62:2, wheel 43:4
Update 30:22, 47:6, Vitosh 1:11, 114:5, 62:5, 62:7, 62:9, whereas 83:10
70:17,108:18 115:6 63:9, 63:22, 63:23, whereof 115:1
updated 83:6, 83:17 voicing 107:14 64:2, 64:5, 64:9, WHEREUPON 3:1,
updating 83:8 void 90:13 64:13, 64:19, 66:6, 113:12
upgrade 54:13 volume 92:3, 92:9 67:7, 83:4, 85:16 Whether 6:16, 7:12,
upgradient 67:11, voluminous 14:24, wastes 44:8 10:17, 11:18, 14:22,
107:19 15:6 waterways 44:18 64:6, 71:15,71:22,
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
Landfill Hearing May 23, 2007 136
78:10, 78:11, 78:18, wrote 107:17
84:16, 84:22, 110:10,
110:12
whoever 97:10 < Y >
Whole 83:12, 91:17, year 31:16, 33:14,
97:17, 102:15 59:20, 63:24, 107:21
widen 51:7, 52:24, yearly 66:20
54:8, 54:13 years 34:14, 50:16,
widened 104:19, 57:5, 59:21, 64:20,
109:17 64:23, 65:9, 65:11,
wife 54:1 65:17, 65:19, 65:21,
wild 60:13 66:2, 66:7, 66:11,
wildlife 45:3 66:13, 66:15, 66:21,
WILDMAN 2:31 67:6
William 34:23 Yogi 44:24, 46:5
willing 95:4
Wisconsin 64:12
wished 90:7 < Z >
withdrawn 69:3 zones 38:7, 38:17,
within 15:20, 31:9, 38:17, 38:21, 39:6,
40:6, 44:4, 45:8, 40:2
47:23, 53:16, 63:16, Zoning 30:14, 47:11,
63:18,63:20, 64:10, 70:4, 70:7, 70:9,
66:15, 66:23, 75:12, 70:9, 70:16, 70:20,
78:2, 78:3, 84:10, 71:10, 71:18
84:12, 85:3, 97:2,
108:15
Without 35:16, 49:3, < Dates >
49:5,62:19, 90:17, december, 2006
110:9 46:10, 46:10
withstand 69:15 january, 2005 83:8,
Witness 34:6, 34:22, 83 :8, 83:17, 83:17
37:17, 46:4, 46:5, june, 2006 46:9,
54:17, 55:5 46:9
witnesses 34:5 may 23, 2007 1:9,
wonder 108:3 1:9,1:9
Wood 17:22 may, 2006 83:7,
word 110:5 83:7, 83:24, 83:24,
words 19:7 84:2, 84:2
work 17:21, 37:23, may, 2007) 113:16,
47:9 113:16
worked 29:15
workshops 47:9
worse 104:9
worsen 81:8, 81:10
written 5:15, 5:20,
14:20, 22:16, 60:4,
110:16
Depo Court Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
EXHIBIT
P
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS
I
i
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
j CITY COUNCIL
I
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS taken at the
meeting of the City Council for the United City of
Yorkville, taken on May 24, 2007, at the hour of
7:00 p.m., before Lynette J. Neal, C.S.R., at the
Beecher Center, Yorkville, Illinois.
DEPO COURT
reporting service
1212 South Naper Boulevard • Suite 119 -185 • Naperville, IL 60540 • 630 -933 -0030 • Fax 630- 299 -5153
www.depocourt.com
2
1 PRESENT:
2 MAYOR VALERIE BURD, Chairman,
3 MR. JOSEPH BESCO, Alderman,
4 MS. ROSE ANN SPEARS, Alderman,
5 MR. MARTY MUNNS, Alderman,
6 MR. JASON LESLIE, Alderman,
7 MR. GARY GOLINSKI, Alderman,
8 MR. JOSEPH PLOCHER, Alderman,
9 MS ROBYN SUTCLIFF, Alderman,
10 and
11 MR. MICHAEL M. ROTH, City Attorney.
12 - - -
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I
24
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
3
1 MAYOR BURD: I call the meeting to order.
2 Will you join me in saying the Pledge of
3 Allegiance.
4 (Pledge.)
07:06PM 5 MAYOR BURD: Can we have roll call.
6 MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
I
7 MR. LESLIE: Here.
8 MS. PICKERING: Wederich.
9 MR. WEDERICH: (No response.)
07:06PM 10 MS. PICKERING: Golinski .
11 MR. GOLINSKI: Here.
12 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
13 MR. PLOCHER: Here.
14 MS. PICKERING: Munns.
07:06PM 15 MR. MUNNS : Here.
16 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
17 MS. SUTCLIFF: Here.
18 MS. PICKERING: Besco.
19 MR. BESCO: Here.
07:06PM 20 MS. PICKERING: Spears.
21 MS. SPEARS: Here.
22 MS. PICKERING: Burd.
23 MAYOR BURD: Here.
24 We have a quorum. We are meeting
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
4
1 here tonight to continue with our deliberations on
2 whether or not we should site the proposed
3 landfill for Fox Moraine, LLC. I would like to
4 caution the aldermen again that during their
07:07PM 5 deliberations they do not bring forward any new
6 information not already presented during the
7 public hearing or during public comment. We have
8 to be very careful not to introduce new
9 information.
07:07PM 10 We are to make our decision here
11 tonight based on the nine criteria, not on if we
12 are being sued or what we believe the Illinois
13 Pollution Control Board will rule on any probable
14 appeals.
07:08PM 15 I would like to charge the aldermen
16 to use their best judgment on the nine criteria,
17 and when the vote finally comes, to vote fairly.
18 And with that I would like to entertain a motion
19 to -- to amend the rules as we did at last night's
07:08PM 20 meeting for 20 minutes discussion for aldermen.
21 MR. GOLINSKI: So moved.
22 MR. MUNNS: Second.
23 MAYOR BURD: Can we have roll call,
24 please.
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
5
1 MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
2 MR. GOLINSKI: Aye.
3 MS. PICKERING: Werderich.
4 MR. WERDERICH: (No response.)
07:08PM 5 MS. PICKERING: Munns .
6 MR. MUNNS: Aye.
7 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
8 MR. PLOCHER: Aye.
9 MS. PICKERING: Spears.
07:08PM 10 MS. SPEARS: Nay.
11 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
12 MS. SUTCLIFF: Aye.
13 MS. PICKERING: Besco.
14 MR. BESCO: Aye.
07:08PM 15 MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
16 MR. LESLIE: Aye.
17 MAYOR BURD: Okay. That doesn't mean
18 you have to talk 20 minutes, but if you do, you
19 have that chance since several of the aldermen did
07:09PM 20 not avail themselves of that opportunity last
21 night. So who would like to go first tonight?
22 Alderman Golinski?
23 MS. SPEARS: Your Honor, may I ask a
24 question? Could I borrow like Jason's minutes or
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
6
1 somebody else who is not using their 20?
2 MAYOR BURD: No.
3 MR. GOLINSKI: I only have about six or
4 seven minutes, so if she allows it, I will give
07:09PM 5 you the rest of mine.
6 MAYOR BURD: No.
7 MR. GOLINSKI: Since I didn't get the
8 opportunity last night with all the newly
9 presented information, I want to take this
07:09PM 10 opportunity to say a couple of words regarding my
11 thoughts regarding this application.
12 First off, since I have the
13 opportunity, I would like to thank all of the
14 residents of our community for their involvement
07:1OPM 15 in this process. It has been very time - consuming
16 and difficult on all of us. We have spent many
17 hours away from our families and the things that
18 we enjoy doing to deal with this issue.
19 For me this has never been a city
07:lOPM 20 versus county issue. We are all members of the
21 same community. Just for the record, I would like
22 to preface my vote with the fact that I have
23 reviewed the application in its entirety. I have
24 reviewed all the submitted evidence, and I have
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
7
1 sat through every minute of sworn testimony. I
2 have kept an open mind throughout these
3 proceedings and there is no doubt in my mind that
4 I have dealt with this process in fundamental
07:1OPM 5 fairness to all parties involved.
6 The only reason I'm saying this is
7 because no matter the outcome of our vote, I know
8 the decision will be appealed. Whatever governing
9 body reviews these proceedings, whether it be the
07:10PM 10 Pollution Control Board, the Appellate Court, or
11 even the Illinois Supreme Court, I want them to
12 know that my decisions were based solely on the
13 evidence presented in the application and sworn
14 testimony presented in these hearings. My
07:11PM 15 decisions have been made solely on the facts. I
16 have never showed a predetermined bias for or
17 against the applicant. The rationale behind my
18 vote has been well thought out and well
19 researched.
07:11PM 20 As hard as this process has been to
21 keep my opinion to myself, I have never done
22 anything through my words or actions to jeopardize
23 my vote. Whether or not this means anything in
24 this hearing process is yet to be seen. With all
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
8
1 that being said here are my thoughts on the
2 criteria.
3 On Criteria 1, looking at the waste
4 needs of Yorkville or Kendall County it is obvious
07:11PM 5 that this facility is not necessary. Even looking
6 at landfill capacity statewide there is no need
7 for this facility. The record clearly shows that
8 statewide disposal capacity has increased in
9 recent years rather than decreased, but, for
07:11PM 10 whatever reason, the applicant has the right to
11 select their proposed service area and that is the
12 area that we as a City Council are charged with
13 reviewing. So that's exactly what I did.
14 My analysis was limited to the
07:12PM 15 proposed service area and I relied heavily on
16 Mr. Kowalski's report and sworn testimony. I
17 found the numbers in Mr. Kowalski's report to be
18 skewed. I feel the findings in his report try to
19 portray an urgent need for this facility when the
07:12PM 20 facts suggest otherwise. I'm not going to sit
21 here and regurgitate the numbers of landfills and
22 the remaining capacity for the proposed service
23 area. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence
24 in the transcripts to support my conclusions that
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
I
9
- 1 there is sufficient landfill capacity for the
2 waste needs of the proposed service area.
3 Further evidence of this, even
4 though I didn't consider it during my decision
07:12PM 5 process, is the City's new garbage contract. Our
6 garbage is being hauled and disposed of in the
i
7 Orchard Hills landfill, which, according to our
8 new waste disposal contract, has over 20 years of
9 capacity.
07:13PM 10 MAYOR BURD: Isn't that new information
11 that was in the --
12 MR. GOLINSKI: I don't know if it is new
13 information, but it didn't weigh in my decision
14 process.
07:13PM 15 MAYOR BURD: No. We can't be discussing
16 something that was not in the --
17 MR. GOLINSKI: That's fine. Do you want
18 me to -- well, I guess I can't take it back. But,
19 anyway, there is no doubt based on the evidence
07:13PM 20 that there is sufficient landfill capacity for the
21 proposed service area. So in my opinion the
22 applicant has failed to prove by preponderance of
23 the evidence that the proposed facility is
24 necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
10
1 area it is intended to serve.
2 In regards to Criterion 2, I found
3 both Mr. Moose and Mr. Drummerhausen to be
I
4 credible witnesses and I have confidence in their
I
i
07:13PM 5 testimony, that from a geological,
6 hydro - geological, and landfill design standpoint
7 this is as good as it gets. But based on the
8 design oversight with regards to the down - gradient
I
I
9 wells and the stormwater management plan along
07:14PM 10 with the sheer number of conditions recommended by
11 our staff and special consultants, as good as it
12 gets obviously it is not good enough. How many
13 other design flaws or geological deficiencies are
14 there that have not been uncovered during this
07:14PM 15 process? Even with all the conditions recommended
16 in the staff report, there is no way that I can
17 say with any certainty that the proposed facility
18 is so designed and located as to protect the
19 public health, safety, and welfare.
07:14PM 20 I can sit here for an hour and talk
21 about all the submitted public comment and
22 supporting documentation that shows that landfills
23 are hazardous to the health of the surrounding
24 community and environment but I won't. I honored
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
11
1 Mr. Mueller's request and based my decision solely
2 on the evidence.
3 The bottom line is there has been
i
I
4 no evidence presented, either in the application
07:14PM 5 or in sworn testimony, that can guarantee that
I
6 leachate will not leak out of this proposed
i
7 facility and contaminate the private wells of the
8 surrounding residences and Hollenbeck Creek.
9 Mr. Edwards' testimony and the
07:15PM 10 previous operating experience and past record of
11 Peoria Disposal provided little comfort that this
12 facility will be managed in a way that would
13 protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
14 And that's even if Peoria Disposal
07:15PM 15 is the operator. I know that the application says
16 PDC is 20 percent owner of Fox Valley Landfill
17 Services, who is listed as the operator, but the
18 applicant disclosed nothing about the other 80
I
19 percent ownership or the environmental compliance
I
07:15PM 20 record of Fox Valley Landfill Services as required
21 by the siting ordinance.
22 In my opinion, applicant has failed
23 to prove by preponderance of the evidence that the
i
24 facility is so designed and located and proposed
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
12
1 to be operated that the public health, safety, and
2 welfare will be protected.
3 In regard to Criterion 3, as far as
4 the presented evidence on this criterion, I
07:16PM 5 actually feel sorry for the applicant. If it were
6 me, I would ask for a refund from Mr. Lannert and
7 Mr. Harrison. I found their reports and sworn
8 testimony to be so disingenuous and lacking in
9 credibility, that it is not even funny. As our
07:16PM 10 special counsel has pointed out many times, the
11 statute takes as a given that a pollution control
12 facility is incompatible with the character of the
13 surrounding area and that it will have a negative
14 impact on the value of the surrounding property.
07:16PM 15 These gentlemen testified there was
16 no incompatibility and that there would be no
17 negative effect on the surrounding property
18 values. Mr. Lannert actually testified that a
19 landfill could enhance this environment. He also
07:16PM 20 testified that the landfill could be comparable to
21 a charming residential development. And how can I
22 remotely rely on Mr. Harrison's report when all he
23 did was rely on other reports without doing the
24 underlying analysis? Everybody knows that
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
13
1 Mr. Harrison testified to the fact that Kendall
2 County is one of the most rapidly growing counties
3 in the United States and certainly in Illinois.
4 To characterize a property adjacent to and in the
07:17PM 5 vicinity of the proposed site as rural or
6 agricultural is no longer accurate. While the
7 application attempts to make the point that the
8 landscape and buffer plan will minimize
9 incompatibility and that the property protection
07:17PM 10 plan will minimize the effect on the value of the
11 surrounding property, both fall miserably short of
12 meeting the conditions of this criterion.
13 It is my opinion that even taking
14 into consideration the conditions set out in the
07:17PM 15 staff report, the applicant fails to prove that
16 the facility is so located as to minimize
17 incompatibility with the character of the
18 surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the
19 value of the surrounding property.
07:17PM 20 Criterion 5. On this criterion I
21 will mostly refer to the comments I made on
22 Criterion 2, but I did want to read a couple of
23 sentences of the Ex -Mayor Prochaska's public
24 comment concerning Criterion 2. I found that his
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
14
1 comments are also relevant to this criterion. He
2 stated: I believe this condition is not met
3 because there is a major flaw in the design of the
4 truck parking area. The lot is neither contained
07:18PM 5 nor covered. There is no barrier against any
6 liquid leaking from those trucks and running into
7 the detention system, then further into the
8 Hollenbeck Creek, and ultimately into the Fox
9 River. This obviously proposed potential risks to
07 - :18PM 10 the potential health and safety of the land owners
11 along the route to the Fox River as well as the
12 environmental health of the waterways themselves.
13 I concur with this assessment and I
14 am of the opinion that this criterion has not been
07: 18PM 15 met.
16 On Criterion 6, so much has been
17 said already on this criterion that I will keep my
18 comments brief. Mr. Kramer was absolutely correct
19 in his closing argument when he said Criterion 6
07:19PM 20 is a show - stopper. I agree whole - heartedly with
21 all the comments made yesterday by my colleagues
22 up here. I could add even more if I felt it was
23 needed, but it isn't. The evidence regarding this
24 criterion is crystal clear to anyone with half a
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
15
1 brain. I understand that the statute assumes
2 impact on existing traffic flows, but I feel the
3 study provided by Mr. Werthmann was extremely
4 insufficient. The applicant has done nothing to
07:19PM 5 minimize the impact of the existing traffic flows
6 on our already over - burdened roadway system. To
I
7 route 70 percent of the truck traffic to the
8 proposed site through downtown Plainfield and the
9 other 30 percent through downtown Yorkville is
07:19PM 10 simply ludicrous.
11 The recommended conditions
12 contained in the staff report do nothing to
13 minimize this impact, so, in my opinion, the
14 applicant has failed to prove by the preponderance
07:19PM 15 of the evidence that the traffic patterns to and
16 from the facility are so designed to minimize the
17 impact on existing traffic flows.
18 On Criterion 8, Mr. Blazer went on
19 and on in his closing argument about his love for
07:20PM 20 the English language, but the fact is, as pointed
21 out in Mr. Clark's findings and recommendations,
22 that had he added the language "located and sited"
23 to the county board's resolution, there would be
24 no controversy. The term "siting approval" has
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
16
1 been even used in this very Criterion.
2 Although I agree with Mr. Clark's
3 statement, I disagree with Mr. Clark's
4 recommendation regarding this criterion. I
07:20PM 5 remember sitting listening to Mr. Willis's
6 testimony regarding the definition of the term
i
7 "located" and I sat here thinking to myself this
8 sounds like an argument that one of my kids would
9 come to me with.
07:20PM 10 So based upon the plain language of
11 Kendall County Resolution No. 06 -11, I believe the
12 application is inconsistent with the County Plan.
13 In conclusion, I find that the applicant has not
14 met the burden of proof on Criterion 1, 2, 3, 5,
07: 21PM 15 6, and 8. Thank you.
16 (Applause.)
17 MAYOR BURD: Who would like to speak
18 next?
19 MR. MUNNS: I have comments but it is
07:21PM 20 not testimony. I did it last night after we
21 discussed the motions. That's where I would like
22 to say it.
23 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Does anybody else
24 have any comment to make? Aldermen Besco?
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
17
1 MR. MUNNS: This is about the criterion
2 now only.
3 MR. BESCO: This is about the criterion?
4 MAYOR BURD: Sure, he can make a
07:21PM 5 statement.
6 MR. BESCO: Okay. Can I ask the
7 audience a question? Would that be appropriate?
8 No, I can't. Okay, never mind.
9 First of all, I would like to thank
07:21PM 10 everybody who has participated in this process or
11 sat through it. It has been stressing on
12 everyone. Next, I'm going to be critical, very
13 critical, and that would be with the process
14 that's been set forth by the Pollution Control
07:22PM 15 Board and the Illinois Environmental Protection
16 Agency.
17 We as the City Council, or the
18 County Board for that matter, we have no reason to
19 be the judging body. The way they have put the
07:22PM 20 burden upon the local bodies of government is
21 unfair. It is unfair to the petitioner and unfair
22 to the residents. There have been many twists and
23 turns in this process and I don't think the state
24 legislature has any idea the burden that they have
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
18
1 put on us.
2 (Applause.)
3 MAYOR BURD: Please, everybody, hold
4 your applause.
07:22PM 5 MR. BESCO: There have been many
6 questions unanswered and some things on
7 Mr. Price's final document that I asked for some
8 clarification on and apparently that's not in the
9 rules and I think that's just wrong. We have paid
07:23PM 10 a lawyer to give us the information, and when it
11 comes down to the final answers, you know, we
12 can't get clarification.
13 Some of us have endured personal
14 threats and constant taunting and this has reduced
07:23PM 15 grown men to children, in my opinion. To the
16 opponents, I admire your passion but I despise
17 your tactics.
18 I have reviewed the final
19 documents, which kept me up all night last night,
07:23PM 20 and I have come to a conclusion and that
21 conclusion is strongly based on Hearing Officer
22 Larry Clark. He has presided over 30 or more
23 sitings of pollution control facilities. I'm not
I
24 an expert in this field. I never claimed to be.
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
19
1 But I know Larry's a man of character. He has
2 dealt with a lot of these. The experiences he has
i
3 had is firsthand knowledge. I have to respect his
4 opinion. I know a lot of people aren't going to
07:23PM 5 agree with that. I also know there is a record of
6 many seated officials here that have made
7 statements or been involved with the opposition
8 and that -- I think that's going to make them look
9 bad when the Pollution Control Board gets to the
07:24PM 10 review this and I think some have shown bias.
11 I wanted my opinion on the record,
12 and that is that we should never have been given
13 the -- we should never have been the responsible
14 party to judge this. The county shouldn't have
07:24PM 15 been the responsible party to judge this. The
16 Pollution Control Board should have that
17 authority, so vote as you may. It will be up in
18 their hands anyway. Thank you.
19 MAYOR BURD: Do we have any other
07:24PM 20 comments? Aldermen Spears, did you have more that
21 you wanted to say tonight?
22 MS. SPEARS: Yes, but I'm still
23 preparing it. Nobody else is speaking? You have
24 20 minutes. Okay, thank you. And I would like to
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
20
1 also thank everybody who has been in attendance
2 and who has presented facts and statistics.
3 AUDIENCE MEMBER: We can't hear you.
4 MS. SPEARS: Again, I just -- just
07:25PM 5 wanted to thank everybody for sitting through this
6 with us. It has been a very long process. It has
7 been very difficult on all of us, and I would like
8 to agree with also Alderman Besco. There were --
9 it did get pretty dirty. It got dirty among the
07:25PM 10 aldermen as well. Some of us were accused of
11 being biased. I know on the onset of this I was
12 also asked to work with Donny. I asked why, not
13 knowing who Donny was, because I'm obviously not
14 that close. And I was also told that he is a very
07:26PM 15 good person and I think that we should work with
16 him, which I find to be also biased going the
17 other direction.
18 I would like to know at this time
19 if we could include additional conditions in our
07:26PM 20 resolution? Could we include additional
21 conditions?
22 MR. ROTH: State the conditions you feel
23 are appropriate.
24 MS. SPEARS: Okay. I would like to have
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
21
1 a condition regarding the -- changing the hours of
2 operation. Is this okay?
3 MR. ROTH: Sure.
4 MS. SPEARS: And I would like to limit
07:26PM 5 the hours of operation from 6:00 a.m. to
6 4:30 p.m., and on Saturdays -- that would be
7 weekdays. Saturdays would be 6:00 a.m. until
8 noon.
9 MR. ROTH: Okay. I just want to be
07:27PM 10 clear, for the benefit of the audience probably
11 more than anyone else, that the statute calls for
12 denial, approval with conditions, or approval.
13 And so I think it's in that context that you are
14 speaking?
07:27PM 15 MS. SPEARS: Yes. Yes, it is.
16 MR. MUNNS: Wasn't there also denial
17 with approvals -- with conditions?
18 MR. ROTH: We had prepared two different
19 resolutions in anticipation of the City Council's
07:27PM 20 decision tonight, and we had included in a denial
21 resolution that we prepared as a matter of form a
22 condition -- a series of conditions that if --
23 there it is.
24 MR. MUNNS: No. 4.
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
22
1 MR. ROTH: I'm sorry. I had the second
2 one. Right. We had stated a condition or a term
3 of one of the denial resolutions that in the event
4 that the Pollution Control Board or a court were
07:28PM 5 to reverse and send this matter back to the City
6 Council, that conditions would be imposed. If it
i
7 were required by a higher authority to send this
8 matter back to the City Council for approval, that
9 it be approved only with certain conditions.
07:28PM 10 And I _ want to be clear that that is
11 not speaking to the City Council's decision in the
12 event it does deny this and were to adopt the
13 resolution denying the proposal, that that denial
14 is what would stand and that would be with the
07:28PM 15 City Council. It is only in the event that if it
16 were returned by the Pollution Control Board or a
17 court that that condition would take place.
18 MS. SPEARS: That's correct.
19 MR. ROTH: Thank you.
07:28PM 20 MS. SPEARS: That is the one that I am
21 addressing at this time. I would also like to
22 have property value protection extended to a
23 10 -mile radius. Well protection extended to a
24 10 -mile radius. I would like the removal of
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
23
1 Sleepy Hollow Road from the annexation agreement,
2 whether that be by an addendum or whether it just
3 be in an agreement with this.
4 I would like no garbage truck
07:29PM 5 traffic traveling through downtown Yorkville. No
6 truck traffic traveling through downtown
7 Plainfield. I would like the applicant to pay
8 city and county road impact fees based on the
9 number of haulers. I would like no further
07:29PM 10 attempt to move Hollenbeck Creek or any
11 tributaries.
12 Also in the case of not removing
13 Sleepy Hollow Road from the annexation agreement,
14 if it is not removed and this does return to us, I
07:29PM 15 would like the landfill to be redesigned and the
16 City would have the sole right of approval of the
17 new design.
18 I would like to have quarterly
19 testing of private off -site wells within a 10 -mile
07:30PM 20 radius.
21 Bear with me while I find my other
22 request. Please stop the clock, I'm not speaking.
23 MR. BESCO: Rose, can I address one of
24 your points in- between before I forget it?
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
24
1 MS. SPEARS: No, hold your thought. I
2 apologize. It is in my conditions folder. Okay.
3 I would like to be included as a
4 condition, guarantee of payment. It further seems
07:31PM 5 very clear that the county agreement is
6 unconditional and guaranteed in payment where the
7 City is contingent, and from a point of business
8 it would be much better for the city to have the
9 ability if it is traveling down this path to have
07:31PM 10 a guaranteed revenue source.
11 Binding arbitration. This is one
12 that I think these hearings alone will support my
13 condition recommendation. I would recommend that
14 the parties not agree that binding arbitration is
07:31PM 15 the sole remedy in the event of a claim violation
16 by the City or its citizens. I would recommend
17 that the City shall have the sole right and
18 election to choose binding arbitration as to the
19 method of enforcement. And -- or the alternate,
07:32PM 20 that the City may have injunction relief through
21 the courts of competent jurisdiction.
22 In other words, what I'm trying to
23 say is if there are any problems that are
24 presented, I would like them to be ruled on by
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
25
1 Kendall County, the county that we live in. I
2 think that it is very apparent from these hearings
3 that we have a very close, tight -knit circle of
4 people that represent either side in various
07:32PM 5 landfill applications. And my fear is if there is
6 some kind of arbitration, it may be one of the
i
7 attorneys that have been here on either side, and
8 I'm not comfortable with that. I would like to
9 have our court system handle any type of
07:33PM 10 arbitration, any complaint, and I hope our Council
11 is in agreement with that as well.
12 As far as arbitration, I would like
13 to remove every reference between city and
14 arbitrator. Devaluation of property, third party.
07:33PM 15 If another is named as a third party, then insert
16 name -- and this is all in the host agreement --
17 or pursue the revenues in our court. Third party
18 would be held harmless for any claim for any
19 reason.
07:33PM 20 Okay. Also for a post- closure plan
21 I would like to see at least a 25 -year escrow
22 account to maintain the landscaping and whatever
23 would be required after closure. I would like to
24 also have included an irrigation plan. And I
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
26
1 would like to have the tonnage limited to 4,000
2 tons per day. And this is pretty close to what
3 Mr. Woodman indicated as his traffic witness.
4 And, oh, yes, also we would like to
07:34PM 5 limit the service area and we would like to limit
6 it to Kendall County.
7 I apologize again. I'm typically a
8 little more organized but reading that whole
9 binder last night until 4 o'clock this morning was
07:35PM 10 rather difficult.
11 Also I would like to see the design
12 include two layers of HDPE in the entire, the
13 entire, liner system, not only in what is deemed
14 critical areas. I also would like to make sure
07:36PM 15 that the liner -- that the liners are tested not
16 only at the weld seams but I would like to see
17 them tested, the entire liners, in case there are
18 factory defects or damage during the installation.
19 Also, regarding the tanks, the
07:36PM 20 storage tanks that are going to be buried, first
21 of all I would prefer they are not buried and,
22 second, I would like to include as a condition
23 that we use -- the proper tanks would be included
24 in this design, and they would be the welded steel
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
27
1 tanks built A -W -W -A D dash 100 or the A -P -I 650
2 standard.
3 Also I would like to have some
4 protection, that I mentioned last night, as far as
07:37PM 5 the run -off from the wheel -wash basin and
6 stormwater that would falling in the paved
7 area. I would like to see that monitored and on
8 a -- on a daily basis.
9 And also I would like to include as
07 :37PM 10 a condition that during the entire life of the
11 landfill, including post- closure care period, that
12 groundwater protection plan -- let's see, oh, that
13 we protect all of the wells within, again, a
14 10 -mile radius, all the wells that are currently
07:38PM 15 in, the private wells, and the wells that will be
16 installed during the operation of the plant.
17 I believe I have like five minutes
18 left, correct? And I believe that I did address
19 every issue at this time. Thank you.
07:38PM 20 MAYOR BURD : Thank you, Rose.
21 (Applause.)
22 MAYOR BURD: Thank you, Alderman Spears.
23 Who would like to speak next?
24 MR. WEDERICH: I would like to propose
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
28
1 two additional conditions. The first one being
2 that the height of the landfill be reduced to 50
3 feet, and the second one being that the owner and
4 the operator of the landfill be completely and
07:39PM 5 accurately identified pursuant to Criteria 9.
I
6 That would be all of them. That's it.
7 MAYOR BURD: Okay.
8 MR. PLOCHER: I also have two additional
9 that I would like to see on there. I would like
07:39PM 10 to see a $10 million a year flat fee instead of
11 tipping fees, and also I would like to see all
12 monitoring wells installed before opening the
13 operation, considering at 25 years before all of
14 them will end I will be a senior citizen.
07:40PM 15 MAYOR BURD : Okay. Who would like to
16 speak next? Alderman Munns?
17 MR. MUNNS: I have one additional and I
18 will read the things now so we don't have to do it
19 later.
07:40PM 20 Yes. As far as Criterion 2, I
21 notice a couple of places in the resolution, the
22 proposed resolutions, about not doing this until
23 the Prairie Parkway and Eldemain Road bridges
24 going over -- over Eldemain Road over the river.
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
29
1 I would like to put a condition that, you know,
2 before truck traffic goes down Eldemain and
3 Route 34 between Cannonball and Eldemain, that --
4 if there is any other better ways to go, because
07:40PM 5 with the Menards truck traffic there is just way
6 too much truck traffic going through that
7 intersection already.
8 I have a quick little statement.
9 Again, this isn't new information about the
07:41PM 10 criterion. This is about the whole process. The
11 landfill siting process composes a very complex
12 situation due to its multi - faceted character.
13 Landfill siting permitting and appropriateness are
14 the most contentious part of the solid waste
07:41PM 15 problem in our country today. The procedure of
16 the siting process must therefore include
17 qualified scientists coming from different fields
18 such as geology, engineering, planners, etcetera.
19 All evidence from this field must be compiled and
07:41PM 20 evaluated in order to make a proper decision and
21 that's what they are asking us to do.
22 Many communities have faced extreme
23 political conflicts centered on who should make
24 the decision. It is widely accepted that in every
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
30
1 decision - making process the extracted results are
2 characterized by the stakeholders' objectivity.
3 The real question is who should be
4 stakeholders in Kendall County. The most common
07:41PM 5 type of siting process is to decide, announce, and
6 defend a model which hasn't been accepted easily
7 by interested parties and local citizens have
8 demanded to be included in the process to have a
9 more comprehensive strategy. And, after all, we
07:42PM 10 are all citizens of Yorkville and have the same
11 vested interest to site it or not.
12 The entire process is really unfair
13 to counties and municipalities. We are, for the
14 most part, average citizens with expertise in
07:42PM 15 other areas than geology and traffic. Ask me
i
i
16 about my main business or the sports I officiate
17 and I will give you definitive opinions, very
18 confident and correct opinions, and argue them
19 with anybody.
07:42PM 20 I believe right is right and wrong
21 is wrong, but in this case I'm just making the
22 best decision with what I have to work with, which
23 is a layman's knowledge of some very technical
24 subject matter. After reading thousands of pages
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
31
1 of dry, boring material and listening to hundreds
2 of hours of testimony, we must make a decision
3 that will effect many people today and in the
4 future. If we don't do the process correctly,
07:42PM 5 IEPA or other entities can trump us and allow
6 these many hours of agonizing over this issue to
I
7 be a moot point.
8 It seemed ludicrous too that the
9 person with the most experience in landfill
07:42PM 10 hearings, over 30 sitings as testified, isn't here
11 to give his opinion orally. We should have been
12 afforded the same privilege but written statements
13 do not hold the same emotion as speaking, and I
14 would have liked to hear it coming from the
07:43PM 15 people, not just reading a piece of paper where
16 you can't read in an emotion.
17 We have varying opinions from
18 several high - priced attorneys who are being paid
19 by the petitioner, and I don't think that makes
07:43PM 20 sense, which the whole process really didn't make
21 sense so I guess that shouldn't surprise me.
22 And my final thought is that after
23 this is done, hopefully we can all act civilly
24 toward one another, because I have no hard
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
32
1 feelings toward anyone here tonight or after.
2 Thank you.
3 (Applause.)
4 MAYOR BURD: Do we have any other
07:43PM 5 comments?
6 MR. ROTH: If there is-no further
7 deliberation, then I think it is appropriate that
8 a motion be made for or against or with
9 conditions. And based upon that in a second,
07:44PM 10 there can be further deliberation on that or you
11 give us the direction as to how you would like to
12 revise the resolutions that we have put before
13 you.
14 Again, I want to emphasize that we
07:44PM 15 prepared resolutions for your consideration based
16 upon what we heard last night. Obviously more has
17 been stated tonight and those resolutions, if you
18 direct, will need to be revised. And what I would
19 recommend is that you vote on one measure or
07:44PM 20 another, give us direction, we will prepare the
21 resolution, and then the mayor can sign it
22 tomorrow.
23 MAYOR BURD: I would like to entertain a
24 motion --
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
33
1 MR. PLOCHER: I would like to make a
2 motion to approve the denial resolution with
3 restrictions, including all new restrictions.
4 MAYOR BURD: Do I have a second?
07:44PM 5 MR. WEDERI CH : Second.
6 MAYOR - BURD: We have a second? Alderman
7 Wederich, okay. Could we have discussion, please.
8 MR. MUNNS: Is this the middle ordinance
9 you wrote, the denial with conditions?
07 :45PM 10 MR. ROTH: Yes.
11 MR. MUNNS: There is three. This is the
12 middle one of the three?
13 MR. ROTH: Yes. Mayor, if I may make a
14 comment, and I think it is for the benefit of the
07:45PM 15 city in the process. While we will certainly
16 respect whatever direction you give us, I think
17 you need to be careful about setting conditions
18 that would not be permissible by law. And I can
19 tell you that the purpose of establishing
07 :45PM 20 conditions is to -- is to allow for reasonable,
21 necessary, and appropriate conditions in order to
22 meet the siting criteria. It is the siting
23 criteria. So there are certain things that I
24 think are out of the jurisdiction of the city to
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
34
1 determine. Now, that doesn't mean that if you
2 include them in the resolution that you are
3 proposing, that that resolution is going to fail.
4 But I want to caution you against having this
07:45PM 5 matter quickly sent back based upon certain
6 conditions, and there was a couple of them there
7 that I want to be clear about.
8 One, it is the petitioner's or the
9 applicant's right to determine what the service
07:46PM 10 area is and it is not for the city to make that
11 determination for them, even by way of a
12 condition. So to make a -- set a condition, for
13 example, that the City limits -- that the service
14 area be limited to Kendall County, if that's not
07:46PM 15 what the petitioner has so directed, I don't think
16 that's appropriate.
17 Second, the courts have evaluated
18 the standard of what is reasonable and appropriate
19 conditions, and they have -- they have considered
07:46PM 20 other governing bodies in position of conditions
21 that established extraordinarily high financial
22 requirements that were not rationally related to
23 specific siting criteria, so I would caution you
24 against a condition, for example, that sets a
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
35
1 $10 million flat fee.
2 Next, as to the condition that's
3 recommended that a court of jurisdiction would
4 only be included with the court of Kendall County,
7 07:47PM 5 I would caution you against that. That kind of a
6 term would be decided by the law and couldn't be
I
7 decided by the City.
8 And, finally, certain of these
9 criteria or conditions that you have -- that
07:47PM 10 members have spoken about are clearly related to
11 the host agreement and the host agreement speaks
12 for itself on that. So obviously there were a
13 number of operational, siting, design conditions
14 that were articulated tonight, and so I understand
07:47PM 15 the resolution to include those that I have not
16 specifically mentioned.
17 MS. SPEARS: May I ask a question
18 regarding Kendall County?
19 MR. ROTH: Yes.
07:48PM 20 MS. SPEARS: Could we say rather than
21 going to an arbitration board, that we could just
22 go to a -- it goes to court?
23 MR. ROTH: I think that what I am
24 understanding you to say is that you are speaking
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
36
1 to terms of the host agreement rather than to the
2 terms of the enforcement of your resolution of
3 ordinances.
4 So, again, the court of
07:48PM 5 jurisdiction is going to be the county court, but
6 there are exceptions under the law where it is
7 sometimes the right of one party or another to
8 take a case outside of this county, and that is
9 not going to be for us to say. That would be for
07:48PM 10 a judge to say. And, again, what I understand you
11 to be speaking to is the host agreement anyway,
12 and I don't think that this is the appropriate
13 place to establish terms for a host agreement.
14 MS. SPEARS: Okay, thank you.
07:49PM 15 MR. MUNNS : Madam Mayor, I have one
16 question too on the process for Mr. Roth. If this
17 is appealed and it goes to the state, does it ever
18 come back to us to re- discuss or vote?
19 MR. ROTH: Well, it is within the
07:49PM 20 Pollution Control Board's authority to remand a
21 case, so it could reverse and then the case could
22 go directly to the Appellate Court or it could be
23 remanded or it could be remanded by order of the
24 Appellate Court. So it is possible, not highly
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
37
1 common but it is possible, that the matter could
2 come back to the City. And that's the reason that
j 3 we are recommending that if it did, there be a
I
4 clear message as to strong conditions that be
I
07:49PM 5 required.
6 MR. MUNNS: So you recommend keeping
I
7 some of this information we have instead of
8 throwing it all away.
9 MR. ROTH: Yes, I do.
07:49PM 10 MR. MUNNS : Thank you.
11 MAYOR BURD: I would like to ask the
12 aldermen to amend the conditions or -- to this
13 resolution to allow the attorney to make sure that
14 they are in compliance with what conditions should
07:50PM 15 be so that we don't add anything that's not
16 allowable that does not pertain to the host
17 agreement, the annexation agreement, that is not
18 supposed to be in this resolution. So if that
19 would be possible, I would like to amend it.
07:50PM 20 Could -- would one of you make a motion to amend?
21 MR. ROTH: If I may suggest -- I think
22 there is a motion on the -- well, there is not a
23 motion on the table yet.
24 MAYOR BURD: Yes, there is.
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
38
1 MR. ROTH: There is. Excuse me, there
2 is a motion on the table, that's right.
3 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Do I have a motion
4 to amend? Aldermen Plocher. Do I have a second?
07:51PM 5 MR. WEDERI CH : Second.
6 MAYOR BURD: Okay. Could we have a roll
7 call on the amendment?
8 MS. PICKERING: Werderich.
9 MR. WEDERICH: Aye.
07:51PM 10 MS. PICKERING: Munns .
11 MR. MUNNS: Aye.
12 MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
13 MR. PLOCHER: Aye.
14 MS. PICKERING: Spears.
07:S1PM 15 MS. SPEARS: Aye.
16 MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
1 7 MS. SUTCLIFF: Aye.
1 8 MS. PICKERING: Besco.
19 MR. BESCO: I'm sorry? What are we --
07:51PM 20 all of the conditions that were placed? Is that
21 what we are --
22 MAYOR BURD: The amendment is to allow
23 our attorney to remove any illegal conditions, any
r
24 of them that pertain to the host agreement, the
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
39
1 annexation agreement, anything that we cannot
2 legally ask for.
3 MR. BESCO: Right. Aye.
4 MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
07: S1PM 5 MR. LESLIE: Aye.
6 MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
7 MR. GOLINSKI: Aye.
8 MAYOR BURD: All right. Now we are back
9 to discussion on the resolution itself. Does
07:52PM 10 anybody want to speak to the resolution on the
11 floor? The resolution is on the floor with the
12 appropriate conditions, so we will move ahead then
13 with the roll call vote.
14 MS. SPEARS: Excuse me, can you clarify
07:52PM 15 that one more time for us?
16 MAYOR BURD: Okay. What we are voting
17 on is denial -- where is it -- denial of siting
18 application from Fox Moraine, LLC for proposed
19 landfill in the United City of Yorkville with
07 53p 20 conditions. And it has been amended with all the
21 conditions that were stated here tonight except
22 those that are illegal and should not be included.
23 MS. SPEARS: And that's only if it is
i .
24 returned, correct?
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
m
1
MAYOR BURD: Right. That's the one you
2
are voting on. Is everybody okay with that?
3
We're all set? We all know what we're - -- with
4
restrictions, denial resolution with restrictions.
07:53PM 5
Anybody have any other questions? It is to
6
include all of the added conditions that were
7
proposed tonight except for those that are illegal
8
and should not be included, okay?
9
MS. PICKERING: Munns.
07: 53PM 10
MR. MUNNS : Aye.
11
MS. PICKERING: Plocher.
12
MR. PLOCHER: Aye.
13
MS. PICKERING: Spears.
14
MS. SPEARS: Aye.
07:53PM 15
MS. PICKERING: Sutcliff.
16
MS. SUTCLIFF: Aye.
17
MS. PICKERING: Besco.
18
MR. BESCO: Nay.
19
MS. PICKERING: Leslie.
07:54PM 20
MR. LESLIE: Aye.
21
MS. PICKERING: Golinski.
22
MR. GOLINSKI: Aye.
23
MS. PICKERING: Werderich.
24
MR. WEDERICH: Aye.
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
41
1
MAYOR BURD:
Okay, motion carries. We
2
have no other business
before us tonight. I would
3
entertain a motion to
adjourn.
4
MR. LESLIE:
So moved.
07:54PM 5
MS. SPEARS:
Second.
6
MAYOR BURD:
All in favor?
7
(Chorus of ayes.)
8
MAYOR BURD:
Any opposed?
osed?
9
(No response.)
07: 54PM 10
MAYOR BURD:
We are adjourned. Thank
11
you very much.
12
( 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
42
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS.
2 COUNTY OF DU PAGE )
3 I, Lynette J. Neal, a Certified
4 Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that I
5 reported in shorthand the proceedings had at the
6 hearing of the City Council for the United City of
7 Yorkville and that the foregoing Report of
8 Proceedings, Pages 3 through 41, inclusive, is a
9 true, correct, and complete transcript of my
10 shorthand notes so taken at the time and place
11 aforesaid.
12 I further certify that I am neither
13 counsel for nor related to counsel for any of the
14 parties to this suit, nor am I in any way related
15 to any of the parties to this suit, nor am I in
16 any way interested in the outcome thereof.
17 I further certify that my
18 certificate annexed hereto applies to the original
19 transcript and copies thereof, signed and
20 certified under my hand only. I assume no
21 responsibility for the accuracy of any reproduced
22 copies not made under my control or direction.
23
24
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
In testimony whereof, I have
hereunto set my hand this 24th day of May, A.D.,
2007.
Lynette J. Neal
CSR No. 084 - 004363
DepoCourt Reporting Service (630) 983 -0030
L b EXHIBIT
LAW OFFICES
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
140 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET
DUPAGE COUNTY OFFICE LAKE COUNTY OFFICE
511 WEST WESLEY STREET THE MARQUETTE BUILDING 415 W. WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 202
WHEATON, ILLINOIS 60187 SIXTH FLOOR WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS 60085
( (847)244 -8682
630)682 -4047
(312) 782 -0943 FAX CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603 (847) 244 -8671 FAX
KANE COUNTY OFFICE
29 NORTH RIVER STREET
BATAVIA, ILLINOIS 60510
(630) 761 -1676
(630) 406 -6363 FAX
(312) 782 -7606
(312) 782 -0943 FAX
W W W.ANCELOLINK.COM
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
United City of Yorkville
Yorkville, Illinois
From: Derke J. Price /Staff
Subject: Fox Moraine Landfill Application
Date: May 18, 2007
Dear Mayor and Alderpersons:
MCHENRY COUNTY OFFICE
4 EAST TERRA COTTA AVENUE
CRYSTAL LAKE, ILLINOIS 60014
(815) 477 -8980
(847) 244 -8671 FAX
DERKE J. PRICE
CHICAGO OFFICE / E XT. 152
DPRICEQANCELGLINK.COM
This Memorandum will set forth Staff s (and special consultants') review of the testimony and record
on the statutory criteria and, where appropriate, set forth conditions of approval. This Memorandum
will conclude my work and those of the specially retained expert consultants hired in this matter and we
thank you for the opportunity to be of assistance.
The siting authority may, pursuant to 415 ILCS 5/39.2(e), impose such conditions of approval as may
be reasonable and necessary to accomplish the purpose of Section 39.2 and as are not inconsistent with
regulations promulgated by the Pollution Control Board. Accordingly, we believe the following
conditions are reasonable and necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Act and with them, we can
recommend approval. We cannot recommend approval of the application without conditions as we
believe these are necessary for the application to meet the requirements of the Act.
General Condition of Approval:
All representations made by the Applicant in its application; in its design
documents; and during the testimony offered in its case in chief and through its
public comment submittals; as well as the terms of the Host Agreement; and all as
modified by any other condition set adopted by the United City of Yorkville, should
all be made a condition of approval.
LAW OFFICES
ANGEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 2
Criterion 1: the facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is
intended to serve;
The testimony of Phil Kowalski was credible concerning the need for disposal capacity in the intended
area of service for the projected service life of the facility. While the record is also replete with
information about alternative technologies to landfill disposal, those alternative technologies (e.g.,
plasma arc incineration) are not yet viable to be considered a credible alternative for disposal of the
existing and projected waste streams for the projected service life (we refer to the evidence concerning
the experience of the City of Morris). Likewise, the record contains information about downstate
disposal facilities that are already permitted pollution control facilities. The rebuttal evidence
concerning costs and attendant burdens of transporting the waste to those sites is, we conclude,
sufficient to establish the need for this facility for this intended service area.
We believe the following conditions are necessary and appropriate for the proposed facility to meet this
Criterion:
1.1. Most favored nations pricing for United City of Yorkville waste delivered under the
Disposal Guarantee (paragraph 8) of the Host City Agreement providing that the City
pay a disposal cost equal to or less than any other customer of Applicant landfill.
Applicant shall provide an annual certification of compliance for this condition.
(Transcript of 3/14/07, p. 68)
1.2. Waste may only be accepted from transfer stations located in the service area and from
direct haul waste collection vehicles that have collected waste from the service area.
(Transcript of 3/16/07, p.80)
Criterion 2: the facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public
health, safety and welfare will be protected;
The testimony of Dan Drommerhausen and Devin Moose was credible and established that the natural
clays present and the design of the facility (with the conditions set forth below) will meet the
requirement to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Other than the sequencing of the
monitoring wells, there was little evidence in the record concerning the geology or issues with the
design. Less persuasive was the testimony provided by Ron Edwards of Peoria Disposal Company
concerning the plan of operations and the obligations of the various parties for the operations. Mr.
Edwards' testimony highlighted the paradox that the more experienced the operator is, the more of a
history of regulation and enforcement there will be to judge that operator upon. We recognize this is
a judgment call for you as you consider a living, evolving, breathing relationship with this operator. The
record establishes aunique opportunity for the City to exert further control over the operations and, with
the conditions set forth below (including a full -time, on -site, properly experienced and trained City
employee watch - dog —the cost of whom is reimbursed to the City by Applicant over and above any other
obligations, fees or payments), we can conclude that the public health, safety and welfare will be
protected.
LAW OFFICES
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 3
Liner
2.1. The liner test pad specified in the Construction Quality Assurance Program shall be
constructed at the most permeable point within the acceptable range as shown on the Soil
Compaction Test Graph included in Appendix O of the Application. The field hydraulic
conductivity of the test pad shall be confinned using ASTM D 5093 (Standard Test
Method for Field Measurement of Infiltration Rate Using a Double -Ring Infiltrometer
with a Sealed -Inner Ring) or ASTM D 6391 (Standard Test Method for Field
Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity Limits of Porous Materials Using Two Stages
of Infiltration from a Borehole). (Transcript of 3/21/07, p. 120)
2.2. A Leak Location Survey shall be conducted after the leachate collection system is
installed, but prior to placement of waste, and that all defects identified in the survey be
repaired. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures in ASTM D
7007 (Standard Practices for Electrical Methods for Locating Leaks in Geomembranes
Covered with Water or Earth Materials). (Transcript of 3/21/07, p. 122)
2.3. A stress analysis study shall be performed that demonstrates the geosynthetic materials
located in the area between Cell 2 and Cells 3 -4 are adequate to withstand the forces
imposed due to downdrag or any other force anticipated at this slope change. The study
shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to filing a permit application
with the IEPA. (Transcript of 3/21/07, p. 126)
Cover (Transcript of 3/21/07, pp. 137 -41)
2.4. The cover drainage layer and overlying cover soils shall be constructed in accordance
with a specification to ensure that the drainage layer and overlying soils meet filter
criteria accepted in practice. Methods to develop such specification are described in
Koerner, R. (2006), Designing with Geosynthetics, Prentice -Hall, Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
2.5. The geomembranes in the cover and liner shall be welded together in the region of
overlap outside the limits of waste.
2.6. Prior to construction of final cover over any part of the landfill, the landfill owner shall
submit the final cover design to United City of Yorkville for review and approval. This
submission shall include all engineering documentation used to determine the long -term
viability of the final cover in the context of foreseeable future land uses.
Leachate Collection System
2.7. The leachate drainage layer, inclusive of all leachate pipe bedding and sump locations,
shall consist of a minimum of 12" of poorly graded gravel with a nominal particle size
of 1" or greater. In the alternative, the material may consist of a poorly graded crushed
aggregate with a nominal particle size of 1" or greater provided the material is resistant
LAW OFFICES
ANGEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 4
to the leachate expected. If crushed aggregate is selected, the geomembrane shall be
protected by a protective non -woven geotextile having a mass per unit area of at least 12
oz /yd2 and a 3" coarse sand bedding layer. (Transcript of 3/21/07, pp. 127 -131)
Physical Stability (Transcript of 3/21/07, pp. 131 -137)
2.8 The applicant shall conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine the minimum friction
angle of the Lemont Formation needed to meet the stability requirements. This analysis
should be submitted to the United City of Yorkville for review and approval. The
drained (long -term) analyses shall be conducted using an effective cohesion of 0.
2.9 To ensure that the stability analyses are conservative, all long -term analyses in the
application using a non -zero cohesion shall be re- analyzed assuming zero cohesion.
Results of these analyses shall be submitted to the United City of Yorkville for review
and approval.
2.10 The applicant shall conduct an analysis to determine the minimum interface friction
angles required to meet the stability criteria using site specific materials. All long -term
(drained) analyses shall be conducted with zero adhesion.
2.11 The applicant shall develop a typical filling plan and conduct internal stability analyses
for critical sections during filling. The stability analyses shall consider all realistic
modes of failure, including slippage at geosynthetic - geosynthetic and soil - geosynthetic
interfaces. The typical filling plan and analyses shall be submitted to the United City of
Yorkville for review and approval. This condition shall also require that a cell - specific
filling plan and stability analysis be submitted to the United City of Yorkville for review
and approval prior to constructing each new cell. (This shall also be a part of the global
annual review including monitoring issues, including stormwater and all operations.)
(Transcript of 3/21/07, p. 136)
Stormwater/Wetlands
2.12 The applicant shall design and construct outfalls from the stormwater detention basins
that avoid discharge to a single point; rather, creating a linear discharge area equal to a
minimum of 5 feet of discharge length per cubic foot per second of maximum 100 -year
outflow. (Transcript of 3/21/07, p. 144)
2.13 The applicant shall design the stormwater detention basin capacities to comply with the
United City of Yorkville Standard Specifications for Improvements (Resolution 2004-
39) maximum release limit of 0.15 cfs per acre. (Transcript of 3/30/07, p. 162)
Site
2.15 The perimeter road surrounding the waste boundary shall be paved with a bituminous
asphalt pavement to facilitate cleaning and mud shedding.
LAW OFFICES
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 5
General Operations
2.16 The United City of Yorkville shall have the authority to locate a City employee with a
bachelor degree in environmental science, civil engineering or related filed with at least
5 years of related experience who has received the SWANA Certificated Landfill
Manager training and may possess an Illinois Landfill Operator Certification at the
landfill. Applicant shall provide and bare the cost of providing the City employee with
a lockable office with desk, phone and internet capabilities and reimburse the City for
reasonable cost of employing, training and recruiting such employee. (Transcript of
3/16/07 p. 75)
2.17 At least once per year, the applicant shall conduct a review session where experts hired
by the United City of Yorkville are allowed to review all aspects of the facility's design,
operation, monitoring and construction. The applicant shall implement all reasonable
recommendations proffered by the City's experts as a result of this review. Where the
applicant disagrees with the recommendations, the applicant may request binding
arbitration of disputed recommendations. All costs associated with assembling the
experts and any arbitration costs shall be borne by the applicant.
2.18 As part of the annual review process defined in Condition 2.17, the applicant and the
United City of Yorkville's experts shall develop procedures for a "Limited Condition of
Operation ". The procedures shall identify specific performance standards related to the
operation of the landfill and its systems. The standards shall specify a time frame for
remedial action to comply with the applicable performance standard as well as waste
acceptance restrictions if the timeframes and standards are not met. (Transcript of
3/22/07, p. 140)
2.19 All vehicles delivering waste shall have the origin of the waste recorded and those
records shall be maintained and be made available to the City at its request and
summarized in the manner acceptable to the City. (Transcript of 3/16/07, p. 80)
2.20. All vehicles delivering waste shall be video recorded including the license plate of the
vehicle and those records shall be maintained and shall be made available to the City.
(Transcript of 3/16/07, pp. 81 - 82)
2.21 The United City of Yorkville or it designee shall be allowed to monitor the waste
manifest and weighing system and utilize these records to ensure compliance with the
various federal, state, and local regulations and laws and commitments made by
Applicant including but not limited to road weight limitations, hours of operation, and
waste source origin. (Transcript of 3/16/07, p. 88)
2.22. Security shall be provided by Applicant during all non - operating hours when temporary
transfer trailer parking occurs. Records of all transfer trailer trucks entering the
LAW OFFICES
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 6
temporary parking shall be maintained. These records shall include each transfer
trailer's licenses plate and trailer number if available, time of entrance, source of waste,
and type of waste delivered. These records shall be maintained by Applicant and made
available to the City or another regulatory agency. These transfer trailers shall be
unloaded in the order of their entrance to the temporary parking facility. No tractor
trailer shall be allowed to idling for more than 10 minutes in the temporary parking area.
(Transcript of 3/16/07, pp. 86 - 87)
2.23 Applicant in emergency situations may operate beyond the normal operating hours and
must notify the United City of Yorkville within 1 hour. Once notified by Applicant, the
City will determine if extended operating hours are needed and may tenninate the
extended operations with a two hour notice to the Applicant. (3/16/07, p. 90)
2.24 Applicant shall implement and be certified ISO 19011 by the end of third full year of
operation. (Transcript of 3/16/07, p. 84)
2.25 All records required (either by federal, state, or city approvals, permits or regulations or
Applicant commitments) to be maintained by the Applicant shall be in a form approved
by the United City of Yorkville and at a minimum a word - searchable electronic form
shall be maintained and all hand written reports shall be scanned into a electronic form.
2.26 Applicant shall maintain a 24- complaint reporting system which shall included but not
limited to; a 24 hours manned telephone number which will receive complaints and
forward these to the landfill manager within 24 hours. In addition, the reporting system
shall include a web site with an email address to report complaints concerning the
landfill operations. All complaints shall be logged and noted the nature of the complaint
and the resolution of the complaint. (Transcript of 3/16/07, p. 98)
2.27 Applicant shall not accept waste containing asbestos. If this waste is received Applicant
shall handle this unauthorized waste in accordance with the Handling of Unauthorized
Waste section on page 2.6 -16 of the Application for Siting to the United City of
Yorkville dated, December 1, 2006 by Applicant. (Transcript of 3/16/07, p. 144)
2.28 Applicant landfill shall accept no more than 4,000 tons of waste per operating day
calculated on an annual daily average with 286 operating days. (Transcript of 3/21/07,
p. 120 line 9)
2.29 If Sleepy Hallow Road is not vacated and the Applicant landfill is redesigned to revised
either the final elevations, volume of airspace for waste, or the liner systems as presented
in the Application for Siting to the united City of Yorkville dated, December 1, 2006 by
Applicant, then the United City of Yorkville shall approve the revised landfill design in
accordance with Section 39.2 (e -5) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act before
the Applicant applies for a IEPA Development Permit under Section 39 (a) of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act. (Transcript of 3/21/07, p. 117)
LAW OFFICES
ANGEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 7
2.30 Mobile light sources shall achieve United City of Yorkville performance standards.
2.31 Lechate recirculation will be implemented by Applicant if requested by the City and
plans for the operation must be approved by the City. (3/21/07, p. 80)
2.32 Applicant will work with the City to develop a agreeable post closure plan. (Transcript
of 3/21/07, p. 113)
2.33 Applicant shall submit to yearly performance and construction progress evaluation and
audit of the facility. (Transcript of 3/21/07, p.142)
2.34 No waste shall be accepted at the Applicant landfill via rail. (Transcript of 3/21/07, p.
154)
2.35 Applicant will not conduct any trailer or truck washing at the landfill site and will install
a triple -trap separator in the drains from the overnight parking area. (Transcript of
3/21/07, p. 194)
2.36 Applicant will reimburse the United City of Yorkville if during the operations of the
landfill additional traffic studies are warranted. (Transcript of 3/22/07, p. 80)
2.37 Applicant to reimburse City for reasonable expenses of second professional registered
engineer, chosen by City, to evaluate relinquishing post closure responsibilities under
35 IL Admire 813.403; and if evaluations differ, then Applicant will submit to binding
arbitration as defined in the Host City Agreement
2.38 City council should review and must approve IEPA significant modification permit
application before filing provided that approval can not be unreasonably withheld or
delayed. (Transcript at 3/22/07, p. 140)
2.39 The United City of Yorkville must approve any new operator and must approve any
change of controlling interest of greater than 49% in the operator or in any of its parent
companies. (Transcript of 3/16/07, p. 64)
Criterion 3: the facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character of the
surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the surrounding
property;
The statute takes, as a given, that a pollution control facility is incompatible with the character of the
surrounding area and that it will have a negative impact on the value of the surrounding property. The
inquiry is whether the location is such as to minimize those deleterious effects. Accordingly, the first
part of Mr. Harrison's report and his corresponding testimony, as well as that of Mr. Lannert that there
was no incompatibility and that there would be no negative effect on surrounding property values (or
LAW OFFICES
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 8
indeed enhance them) is not credible. Likewise, the subtle (but nonetheless substantive) shift in analysis
by Mr. Abel -- to determine whether locating the pollution control facility here will be compatible with
the character of the surrounding area — is irrelevant as the statute already tells us that such will not be
the case (Mr. Abel only proves what the statute already tells us that the facility is not compatible with
the surrounding area). Furthermore, Mr. Harrison's reliance upon other reports without doing the
underlying analysis requires that we "discount" (as Mr. Harrison did where Mr. McCann did not perform
the underlying analysis) any conclusions he draws from those reports.
The application does, however, make the point (through the testimony of both Mr. Lannert and Mr.
Harrison) that the landscape plan and design results in the applicant buffering itself by its own property
and thereby taken steps to minimize incompatibility. The testimony concerning the negative aspects
of the present composting operation was not contested by the applicant and, to provide the promised
buffer, that operation should be discontinued. The property protection plan is also an important
component of the application's effort to meet this criterion. The "buffering and protection" approach
of the applicant could be sufficient provided the surrounding property remains a buffer and payments
are made timely under the program. Accordingly, we are recommending the following as conditions
of approval under this Criterion:
3.1 The property surrounding the facility shall be devoted to agricultural use and shall no
longer be used as a compost facility or for composting operations.
3.2 The east side of the facility shall receive the same landscape buffering as the north side
of the property and shall meet United City of Yorkville standards for such (and be
subject to approval by the United City of Yorkville prior to obtaining an IEPA permit).
3.3 Gas wells that are visible from public walking paths or from Route 71 shall be placed in
underground vaults.
3.4 The United City of Yorkville will receive within 30 days of a compensation paid under
the Property Value Protection Plan a report from Applicant which includes; property
address, date of property sale, type of property, amount paid, copies of all appraisals of
the subject property, and a copy of the closing certificate of the property. (Transcript
of 3/9/07, p. 183)
3.5 Landscaping and storm water structures for the stockpile area shall be reviewed on an
annual basis.
3.6 At the time of the development of the last cell, Owner shall deposit $100,000.00 with the
City to cover the cost of final design and shall make sufficient additional cubic yards of
additional protective layer available and will place that layer at the City's direction,
together with topsoil, planting and mulching to match the agreed upon final use.
3.7 Applicant shall comply with all City ordinances in the design and construction of the
office building.
LAW OFFICES
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 9
3.8 Detention ponds shall be located so as to maximize filtering and infiltration opportunities.
3.9 Applicant shall maintain a post - closure funding mechanism for no less than 60 years (or
that length specified by federal or state law, if longer) provided that Applicant shall have
the right to request a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of obtaining a
ruling to decrease the security requirement..
Criterion 4: (A) for a facility other than a sanitary landfill or waste disposal site, the
facility is located outside the boundary of the 100 year flood plain or the site
is flood proofed; (B) for a facility that is a sanitary landfill or waste disposal
site, the facility is located outside the boundary of the 100 year floodplain,
or if the facility is a facility described in subsection (b)(3) of Section 22.19a,
the site is flood proofed.
It was not controverted that the facility meets this criterion.
Criterion 5: the plan of operations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to
the surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents
The testimony of Mr. Moose on matters related to this criterion was credible. As modified by the
various conditions set forth above in Criterion 2 and below for Criterion 6 (concerning road way
improvements and routing), the plan of operations proposed for the facility would be designed to
minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire, spills or other operational accidents.
Criterion 6: the traffic patterns to or from the facility are so designed as to minimize the
impact on existing traffic flows;
As with Criterion 3, the statute assumes an impact on existing traffic flows. The study and
testimony of Mr. Werthman concerning the intended traffic pattern and the use of state roads is
credible. The countervailing evidence presented by the County's traffic expert utilizes assumptions
(distances to intersections) that are not recognized as valid for this or any other development.
Likewise, the assertion that state highways designed for 80,000 lb vehicles will be harmed by the
actual presence of 80,000 lb vehicles is, in addition to be illogical and unsupported by engineering
or scientific data, irrelevant (if such an argument were valid, there could be no landfill anywhere —a
position clearly contrary to the statute). With the conditions in Criterion 2 concerning the origin of
the truck traffic, there can be greater confidence in the anticipated pattern. However, there are still
additional conditions necessary to further minimize the impact of traffic on existing flows:
6.1 Applicant shall deposit $100,000.00 with the United City of Yorkville and replenish
the deposit as necessary for the acquisition, design and construction of new Sleepy
Hollow Road from Route 71 north to Walker Road as a frontage road to the proposed
Prairie Parkway and constructed to 80 foot wide collector standards.
LAW OFFICES
ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 10
6.2 All perimeter haul roads to be asphalted and cleaned to prevent track out.
6.3 At such time as a bridge of adequate capacity opens on Eldemain Road, Applicant
shall instruct and direct traffic to utilize said bridge rather than Route 47.
6.4 The United City of Yorkville shall have the right to use the scale at the facility to
determine whether vehicles are overweight.
Criterion 7: if the facility will be treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste, an
emergency response plan exists for the facility which includes notification,
containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an accidental
release;
It is not controverted that the facility will not be accepting hazardous waste and, therefore, that
this Criterion is not applicable.
Criterion 8: if the facility is to be located in a county where the county board has
adopted a solid waste management plan consistent with the planning
requirements of the Local Solid Waste Disposal Act or the Solid Waste
Planning and Recycling Act, the facility must be consistent with that plan;
As presented in these proceedings, this Criterion has become a mixed question of fact and law. Mr.
Willis testimony sets forth a prima facie interpretation of the plan and an argument for consistency
with the Plan as written in its amended form. The County's witnesses and the cross by FOGY
offered a counter - argument concerning the same language. Because the language and other facts are
not in dispute, this is a straight forward judgment call for you and there are no conditions that are
appropriate here. We do note that the record offers no support for the County's closing argument at
the hearing: While the County may not agree with the petitioner's argument, the County did not
come forward with facts or evidence to support the allegations made in its attorney's closing
argument concerning Mr. Willis.
Similarly, the record contains evidence and testimony to indicate that the County may not have
adopted the revisions to its Solid Waste Management Plan in accordance with statutory
requirements. Whether true or not, it is our view of the case law that such an argument is inapposite
here. We believe it is for the Courts of Appeal to determine whether the prerequisite acts underlying
the plan and its amendments were valid. We therefore recommend that the corporate authorities of
the United City of Yorkville make a determination as to whether the facility is consistent with
Kendall's Plan and not whether Kendall's Plan is consistent with various other statutory
requirements.
LAW OFFICES
ANGEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DiCIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C.
Page 11
Criterion 9: if the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any
applicable requirements specified by the Board for such areas have been
met.
It is not controverted that this facility will not be located within a regulated recharge area and,
therefore, this Criterion is not applicable.
Criterion 10: the history of the Operator
The record and the conditions appropriate to the history of Peoria Disposal Company were set forth
above in the discussion on Criterion 2.
In conclusion, we recommend that the United City of Yorkville take each Criterion in order,
consider and adopt the proposed conditions for each, and then vote as to whether, with the
conditions, the Criterion has been satisfied.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Derke J. Price
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS
REM
THE APPLICATION OF )
FOX MORAINE, LLC )
FOR LOCAL SITING APPROVAL FOR )
A NEW LANDFILL IN THE )
UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, IL. )
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
HEARING OFFICER LARRY M. CLARK
EXHIBIT
b
1. On December 1, 2006 Fox Moraine, LLC (hereinafter referred to as "Fox
Moraine ") filed its Application for Local Siting Approval with the United City of Yorkville
(hereinafter referred to as the "City ")
2. The subject property that constitutes the proposed Fox Moraine landfill is
currently located in the City.
Fox Moraine is the owner of the property and Fox Valley Landfill Services, LLC
is the proposed operator of the landfill.
4. No testimony was presented regarding the statutory pre - filing notices filed by Fox
Moraine and it appears that all notices were properly filed.
5. The Application appears to contain all information required by Section 39.2 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act and most, if not all, of the information required by the
City's Pollution Control Facility Siting Ordinance.
6. Fox Moraine paid the required application fee to the City.
7. That a number of public hearings were held on the Application beginning on
March 7, 2007 and continuing from time to time until April 20, 2007 for a total of 23days of
public hearing and public comment.
8. That a Motion to Disqualify Aldermen Valerie Burd and Rose Spears was filed by
the Applicant Fox Moraine. That said Motion was entered and continued for ruling with the
City's decision. Responses and Replys to said Motion were filed.
9. That a Motion to Dismiss Pollution Control Facility Siting was filed by Kendall
County. That said Motion was entered and continued for ruling with the City's decision.
Responses and Replys to said Motion were filed.
10. Your Hearing Officer will discuss findings and recommendations Criterion by
Criterion as follow:
I. Criterion Number 1: The Facilitv Is Necessary To Accommodate The Waste Needs
Of The Area It Is Intended To Serve.
Fox Moraine presented testimony regarding this criterion through Philip Kowalski who is
a Planner for Shaw Engineering. He testified that the proposed service area included Kendall
County and the seven neighboring counties located in northeastern Illinois, including Dekalb
County, Kane County, DuPage County, Cook County, Will County, Grundy County, and LaSalle
County. According to the interpretation of the PCB and the Courts, the Applicant has the right to
select their proposed service area.
Mr. Kowalski analyzed the solid waste generated within the seven county service area
and then looked at the remaining landfill capacity in both the service area as well as capacity
located outside the service area that could provide capacity to generators inside the service area.
His analysis covered the approximate 23 -24 year life of the proposed landfill.
Mr. Kowalski testified that if all of the solid waste generated within the service area was
deposited into landfills located within the service area, that the available disposal capacity would
be exhausted in approximately 2 % years. If one considered landfills located outside of the
service area, but conceivably available for disposal of the service areas waste, the available
2
capacity would be exhausted in 2016 or 2017.
Because there are currently no proven alternative methods of treating waste so as to avoid
landfilling, as suggested by a number of the public, the Needs analysis appropriately did not
factor into it consideration any of these alternative methods. Indeed they appear to be speculative
at this point in time. Even if they were developed, they would take a number of years to permit,
build and construct. Obviously even if such "alternative" methods were initiated currently, they
would not have a significant impact on the need for additional landfill capacity within the service
area for some time.
The issue of whether other landfills such as Spoon Ridge located some 187 miles away
could provide sufficient disposal capacity for the Service Area is almost as equally speculative as
alternative technologies. The very large commitment to upgrading the necessary infrastructure
to allow hauling by rail has not come to fruition despite the fact that Spoon Ridge has had this
available capacity for a number of years. Furthermore, even if all of Spoon Ridge's capacity
were dedicated to the Service Area, it would still only provide approximately two additional
years of capacity.
The interpretation of this Criterion infers some sense of urgency in order to show need.
Certainly the time frame required to bring new landfills from conception to acceptance of waste
is close to Mr. Kowalski's testimony of 8 -9 years. Thus it seem clear that there is some sense of
urgency to consider that this Criterion has been met by the Applicant. Even if this landfill is
approved, permitted and begins to accept waste, it still will not be enough to satisfy the needs of
this Service Area over the life of this proposed landfill. It is my recommendation that Fox
Moraine has met their burden of proving Need as it relates to Criterion 1.
I have also reviewed the proposed conditions set forth in the Staff's review and find them
to be consistent with the Application, testimony of the Parties and protective of the City's
citizens and would therefore concur with their inclusion in any approval.
3
H. Criterion Number 2: The Facilitv Is So Desiened. Located And Proposed To Be
Operated That The Public Health. Safetv And Welfare Will Be Protected.
Three witnesses testified on behalf of Fox Moraine with respect to Criterion Number 2
and Criterion Number 5. I will discuss both criterion under this heading. The first to present
testimony was Daniel Drommerhausen. His testimony centered around the geological and
hydrogeological setting that the proposed landfill was to be placed within. He testified that there
is an average of almost 80 feet of low permeability clay between the proposed base of the landfill
and the uppermost aquifer in the Lemont formation. This clay exceeds all IEPA requirements for
liner soils in regard to acceptable permeability.
Mr. Drommerhausen also testified that we have not had an earthquake in the area in the
last 286 million years that caused any displacement in response to a number of questions
regarding the Sandwich Fault that runs through Kendall County. He also testified that this site is
the best site from a geological/hydrogeological site that he has ever worked on.
Ron L. Edwards testified on behalf of Fox Moraine in regard to the so- called Criterion 10
that relates to the owner and/or operators previous operating history. He also touched upon the
operations of the proposed facility, but added little to that criterion. The prior operating history
of the Applicant Fox Moraine is non - existent as it relates to the operation of a landfill. Similarly
the proposed operator Fox Valley Landfill Services, LLC has no operating history. The operating
history of these LLCs many corporate relatives was delved into in depth. Although clearly none
of the related companies had exemplary histories, few violations have occurred in the last ten
years. Staff has suggested a number of specific conditions that should provide close oversight by
the City to address most day to day operational concerns.
Devin Moose also testified extensively about the many aspects of the design of the
landfill: composite liner, leachate collection system, gas collection system, gas monitoring
system, groundwater monitoring system, construction phasing plan, the construction quality
El
assurance plan, stormwater management plan, and aspects of operations. His testimony for the
most part was largely uncontroverted in light of the vast breadth of topics. Based upon the
concern of a citizen, he did agree to slightly change the fill sequence so that it would operate
from east to west as opposed to west to east. This would allow for the installation of
downgradient wells sooner so as to assure the City, IEPA, the public and themselves that no
breaches of the liner system has occurred.
Moose also designed an innovative liner to be installed in the leachate collection sump
areas that are comprised of the recompacted clay, two HDPE liners with a bentonite based GLC
between them. This, according to his testimony, would add additional layers of protection where
the leachate first collects in the bottom of the landfill.
He also testified that the northern retention ponds were of sufficient size to contain a 100
year 24 hour storm event. The total release rate from the entire landfill would meet the City's
stormwater ordinance, but apparently would not meet it on each leg of the tributaries to
Hollenbeck Creek. Mr. William Schmanski testified that the release rate from the north pond is
too fast and that in a large storm event, there is a possibility of the detention ponds to overflow
when the site is evaluated under the Yorkville stormwater ordinance. He also testified that there
were several ways to address this issue, including making the ponds larger or deeper, or possibly
diverting some of the stormwater to the west detention ponds.
Staff for the City has included some 39 conditions of approval in regard to Criterion 2
and Criterion 5. The sheer number of conditions causes one to carefully consider them to
determine if Fox Moraine's Application is deficient to the point that it should be denied, or
whether the conditions are merely added to assure that the landfill design, construction and
operation would not change from what was proposed. My analysis of these conditions is that
many of them are very technical in nature and either were not included in the Application or were
unclear. Some of these conditions also come from the particular engineering perspective of the
City's Staff engineer. I do not find that any of them are particularly significant individually, but
rather are added so that there will be no question at a later date of what the design, construction
and operations shall be. All of them came from testimony during the course of the public
hearing.
I find that the conditions proposed by City Staff will further the oversight and review by
the City in the design, construction and operation of the landfill, if approved. Said conditions
will go far in adding additional protection to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the
City and nearby areas. I therefore fund that with the adoption of the conditions as proposed by
City Staff, that Fox Moraine has met its burden in regard to this Criterion 2.
III. Criterion Number 3: The Facilitv Is Located So As To Minimize Incompatibility
With The Character Of The Surrounding Area And To Minimize The Effect On
The Value of The Surrounding Property.
Minimize Incompatibility with Character of Surrounding Area
Christopher Lannert testified regarding his investigation of the Character of the
Surrounding Area. He initially looked at a one mile study area (one mile around the perimeter of
the proposed site), but later changed that to a two mile study area in light of the large land
holdings of one of the principals (Don Hamman) of Fox Moraine. Mr. Hamman owns in excess
of 2,000 acres within the two mile study area. That constitutes about 15% of the total land in the
two mile study area and a much greater percentage of land within one mile of the proposed site.
Almost 85% of the land within the two mile study area is presently used for agricultural
purposes. Most of the residential uses located within the study area are greater than one mile
from the proposed site. Additionally many of the residential uses will be partially or fully
screened from the proposed site. The primary exception is the property located to the east and
northeast from the proposed site. The character of the area surrounding the site is predominantly
agricultural in nature. Although that may change in the future, no one can predict with any
certainty as to when that will happen. It may start to happen in the next few years or it may not
A
happen for many years. Whenever the character begins to change, it will happen gradually.
Because the landfill will only operate for a fixed time, any effect it has on the character will be
mitigated in the future as well.
The proposed design of the landfill is also "in character" with the surrounding
countryside in that it would have several "hills ". This is similar to the rolling countryside that
surrounds the proposed site.
The property owned by Mr. Hamman to the north and east of the proposed site will serve
as a substantial buffer to the proposed site. Any effect that the proposed landfill would have on
the character of the surrounding property would first be felt by Mr. Hamman. To the east the
existing Com Ed high tension lines and the designated Prairie Parkway right of way offers an
additional buffer.
Minimize The Effect On The Value of The Surroundiniz Prouertv
Mr. Harrison testified as to his review of a number of other real estate studies in Illinois
that were preformed by others. He concluded that the other studies were meritorious and showed
no impact on the value of the surrounding property. He acknowledged that he did not provide all
the data from those studies in his report or in any of his addendums so that someone could verify
the accuracies of those reports. He was also asked about other studies that did show impacts on
the value of surrounding properties, but differentiated them by testifying that most of those
studies were done on pre -Sub Title D regulation landfills or where from other areas of the
Country.
Whether any impact is a result of actual and demonstrable conditions arising from the
operation of a landfill or whether any impact arises from the perception, an impact may exist.
The issue is obviously whether or not any impact would be minimized. Clearly many of the
factors indicated above: undulating top, distance from residential uses, etc. also help to minimize
any actual or perceived impact. Finally the Property Protection Plan will also serve to minimize
7
any effect on the value of the surrounding area.
Doug Adams testified on behalf of FOGY and determined that in rural areas (such as the
Clinton Landfill) there would be no impact upon the value of surrounding property, but there
would be an impact in an urban setting such as the Hillside Landfill. His credibility was suspect
in a number of different aspects. As such, I could give little weight to his testimony. Also
testifying on behalf of FOGY were Edward Sleezer, R. Bud Wormley and Ted Schneller. Their
opinions somewhat contradicted each other in some aspects and the testimony was largely self -
serving. As such they provided little, if any, input to the process.
It is my belief that Fox Moraine has met the requirements of Criterion 3 subject to the
addition of the Staff's proposed conditions. I have reviewed the proposed conditions set forth in
the Staff's review and find them to be consistent with the Application, testimony of the Parties
and protective of the City's citizens and would therefore concur with their inclusion in my
recommendation.
IV. Criterion Number 4: The Facility Is Located Outside The Boundary Of The 100
Year Floodplain.
Fox Moraine has met the requirements of this Criterion.
V. Criterion Number 5: The Plan Of Operations For The Facilitv Is Desiened To
Minimize The Dancer To The Surrounding_ Area From Fire, Spills, Or Other
Onerational Impacts.
I believe that this criterion should be approved subject to the conditions as discussed in
Criterion 2.
VI. Criterion Number 6: The Traffic Patterns To Or From The Facility Are So
Desiened As To Minimize The Impact On Existine Traffic Flows.
Fox Moraine presented testimony regarding this criterion through Michael Werthman of
the Traffic Engineering firm of Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, Aboona located in Rosemont, IL. He
testified that Fox Moraine has attempted to minimize impact upon the existing traffic flows in a
number of different ways. The improvements to Route 71 at the entrance of the proposed site are
most immediately apparent. The installation of a left turn lane for southwest bound Route 71
traffic will allow landfill bound traffic to slow and turn left across the traffic without stopping
other southwest bound traffic. It should also allow safer left turning of large heavily laden
vehicles. The installation of a right turn lane will allow northeast bound vehicles to decelerate
outside the flow of traffic. Likewise the actual entrance turning radii have been proposed to
minimize the entry /exit disturbances of the landfill traffic.
Internally the construction of long all- weather roads will allow vehicles leaving the
landfill face to accelerate to facilitate the removal of mud from the truck tires. This will reduce
the amount of mud that could be tracked onto Route 71 causing further traffic impacts. The
addition of a truck wheel wash will also facilitate the reduction of mud tracking onto the
roadway. Similarly the long internal roadway system and the entrance area will serve to stop any
inbound traffic from backing up onto Route 71.
Mr. Werthman testified extensively on direct and upon cross examination as to how much
traffic would be generated by the facility and the impact upon the surrounding roadways,
including the delays it would cause. Although one may debate his conclusions, it is clear that
there will be an impact. There will always be some sort of impact when you add additional
traffic. Whether the traffic comes from a landfill, residential subdivision, strip mall, or industry,
there will be impact. The criterion relates to the "minimization" of this impact.
Besides the construction of the entranceway to the proposed landfill, Fox Moraine has
attempted to minimize impact in other ways. They are allowing semi - trailers to be brought into
the facility during non - landfill operating hours for storage until the landfill opens the next
morning. These trailers will be brought in after the evening rush hour when traffic is lighter on
the area roadways. This will also minimize impact to the surrounding roadway system,
particularly during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods when other traffic on the roadways is heaviest.
Mr. Werthman also testified as to the amount of traffic that would be generated by other
types of development. I found this testimony to be of little value other than to place the traffic
issue in perspective. Clearly the amount of traffic generated by a landfill looks to be much lower
than most other land uses.
With the majority of the proposed transfer trailer traffic coming from the north and east,
and with a split of that traffic constituted of 30% coming down Route 47 to Route 71 and the
remaining 70% coming from the east on Route 126, it is not unreasonable to conclude that this
may well be an appropriate split of traffic when one considers the fact that southbound Route 47
traffic is currently limited to a 2 lane bridge over the Fox River. Although the remaining traffic
is also coming from the east on two lane Route 126, the natural barrier of the Fox River is one
that has potential severe impacts on the roadway system if a problem were to develop.
It is my conclusion that Fox Moraine has indeed done what they could to minimize traffic
under the current roadway system. It is also my belief, however, that as future roadway
improvements are constructed, that further minimization on traffic impacts may be possible. To
that extent it would be my recommendation that approval of this Criterion be conditioned by the
conditions proposed by Staff as well as the following:
That as the Eldamain Road extension over the Fox River is completed, the Prairie
Parkway project is constructed, and the by -pass around the centroid area of
Plainfield is constructed, that Fox Moraine shall direct transfer trailers to take
alternate routes that do not go through downtown Yorkville or Plainfield.
10
2. That if Sleepy Hollow Road is vacated, an alternate route shall be constructed
parallel to the proposed Prairie Parkway project on the east side of the anticipated
right -of -way.
VII. If The Facilitv Will Be Treatine. Storine Or DisnosinLy Of Hazardous Waste, An
Emer2encv Response Plan Exists For The Facility Which Includes Notification,
Containment And Evacuation Procedures To Be Used In Case Of An Accidental
Release.
The Facility is not proposed to treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste and Fox
Moraine has therefore met this criterion.
VIII. Criterion 8: If The Facilitv Is To Be Located In A Countv Where The Countv Board
Has Adopted A Solid Waste Management Plan Consistent With The Planning
Reauirements of the Local Solid Waste Disposal Act Or The Solid Waste Plannin!
And Recvcline Act, The Facilitv Is Consistent With That Plan.
Fox Moraine presented testimony through Walter Willis that Fox Moraine has met this
criterion because (a) at the time Fox Moraine "discovered" this site, the property was located
within unincorporated Kendall County. That only subsequent to that time did the City annex the
property into the corporate limits; and (b) that Kendall County's Solid Waste Plan considered
this possibility when they amended their Solid Waste Plan, because they left language in the Plan
that required an applicant to enter into host agreements with a municipal siting authority.
Otherwise, they argue, there would be no reason to leave the language in the Plan about host
agreements with anyone other than Kendall County. Fox Moraine also questioned as to whether
the Plan amendment(s) adopted by the County Board in 2006 met the statutory criteria for
amendment.
Kendall County has presented testimony though County Board Chairman John Church
that they did in fact amend their Solid Waste Plan to provide that a proposed facility must submit
any application for a landfill with the County. It is uncontroverted that the language at issue
revolves around the County Board's Resolution No. 06 -11 that states in pertinent part as follows:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the January, 2005 updated Plan is hereby
amended to provide that landfills may only be located in unincorporated areas of the
County."
Thus it appears that the threshold question is whether "located" means "located and sited"
or whether it means "found ". Certainly had the Kendall County Board passed their May 4, 2006
Resolution and added the language "located and sited ", there would be no controversy. In
general the courts interpret ambiguity in a contract as against the drafter. If the City Council
finds that "located" is ambiguous, it would be within reason to adopt Fox Moraine's
interpretation.
It appears that this is an issue headed for the Pollution Control Board and the Appellate
Court in the long run. I would recommend that the City make a finding that Fox Moraine has
met its burden in regard to this criterion.
IX. Criterion 9: If The Facilitv Will Be Located Within A Regulated Recharge Area,
Anv Applicable Requirements Specified By The Board For Such Areas Have Been
Met.
The proposed site is not located within a regulated recharge area and Fox Moraine has
therefore met this requirement.
Motions:
Kendall County has filed a Motion To Dismiss regarding whether or not the City has
12
jurisdiction to hear this Application for Local Siting Hearing. They allege that the annexation
procedure was done improperly so that the City does not properly have jurisdiction. Fox
Moraine filed its Response alleging that since the property was the subject of an annexation
agreement, that the City did in fact have proper jurisdiction.. Again this matter is one that is
likely to be decided ultimately by the judicial system. Accordingly it is my recommendation that
you deny the Motion To Dismiss.
Finally Fox Moraine filed a Motion To Disqualify Valerie Burd and Rose Ann Spears
from participation in the siting hearing. They allege that Ms. Burd and Ms. Spears have engaged
in conduct between September 26, 2006 and the beginning of the public hearing that suggests a
disqualifying basis on their part. The Motion refers to several different incidents that show said
bias. I cannot make a recommendation on this Motion in that no evidence has been adduced
regarding the allegations. It is one that Ms. Burd and Ms. Spears must consider and respond to
by either withdrawing from voting or by denying the allegations.
RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED TO THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE
UNITED CITY OF
( ' '%k -
Hearing Officer
Larry M. Clark
Law Offices of Larry M. Clark
700 North Lake Street, Suite 200
Mundelein, IL 60060
847 - 949 -9396
13