TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2012
COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL WASTE AND WATER POLLUTION
Mr. David St. Pierre, Executive Director
Title
Authority for the Board of Commissioners to review the request by Marigold, Inc., 8815 South Dobson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, for review by the Board of Commissioners of the 2010 User Charge Liability Determination made by the Director of Monitoring and Research - Appeal No. 11D-030.
Body
Dear Sir:
Marigold, Inc. (Marigold) submitted its 2010 User Charge Annual Certified Statement, due on February 22, 2011, on January 28, 2011, and reported a Net User Charge (NUC) of $37,149.53. The District revised Marigold's 2010 NUC from the reported $37,149.53 to $42,204.57 and advised Marigold of this revision in its letter dated May 9, 2011.
In accordance with Section 9a(1)(a) of the District's User Charge Ordinance (Ordinance), Marigold appealed the revision of the 2010 NUC as determined by the Director of Monitoring and Research (Director), by letter dated August 1, 2011. A meeting was held on September 22, 2011, with Mr. Arthur Sherman, from Eagle Environmental Co. on behalf of Marigold, and the Monitoring and Research Department, wherein Mr. Sherman presented Marigold's appeal of the 2010 NUC. The Director, by letter dated October 28, 2011 (attached), which was received by Marigold on November 3, 2011, advised that the NUC in the amount of $42,204.57, as recomputed by the District, would stand. A chronology of events related to administration of this User Charge account is attached.
Mr. Kenneth Anspach, of Anspach Law Office, wrote to the Board of Commissioners (Board) President Terrence J. O'Brien by letter dated October 10, 2012, a copy of which was received by the Director on October 12, 2012, advising that Marigold did not concur with the determination of the Director and, in accordance with Section 9 of the Ordinance, petitioned the Board for a hearing regarding the Director's determination of the 2010 NUC. As of the date of this letter, Marigold has paid the 2010 NUC in full and has notified the District within 365 days (349 days) of receipt of the Director's Appeal Determination Letter. Therefore, the request for a hearing is in conformance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Ordinance relating to "User Appeal Procedure." Pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 of the Ordinance, the Board shall review the petition for appeal and if it elects to entertain the request for appeal, determine whether the Board will conduct the hearing itself or delegate same to another person.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Executive Director request the Board to determine if it will entertain the instant request for appeal by Marigold and if it elects to do so, then with respect to the hearing therefore:
1. Set a date certain upon which the Board would hear the appeal, while sitting en banc; or
2. Designate a person to conduct such a hearing on behalf of the Board in accordance with Section 9 of the Ordinance.
Requested, Thomas C. Granato, Director of Monitoring and Research TCG:MJ:PLK:EPI:JS:op
Recommended, Ronald M. Hill, General Counsel
Respectfully Submitted, Frank Avila, Vice-Chairman Committee on Industrial Waste and Water Pollution
Disposition of this agenda item will be documented in the official Regular Board Meeting Minutes of the Board of Commissioners for December 6, 2012
Attachments