VILLAGE of DAVIS JUNCTION - epa.state.il.us · 645-8C)OO • Fax:: (Sl5) 645-8055 Mr. Geoff Andres Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water Infrastructure Financial

VILLAGE of DAVIS JUNCTION 106 N. Elm St. • P.O. Box 207 • Da\is Junction. IL 61020

Pban:::: (815) 645-8C)OO • Fax:: (Sl5) 645-8055

Mr. Geoff Andres Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water Infrastructure Financial Assistance Section P.O. Box 19276 Springfield,IL 62794-9276

Re: Response to Objections to Village ofDavis Junction FPA Amendment (WHA #1J88D08)

Dear Mr. Andres:

Please accept this letter and the following materials as Davis Junction's official response to the objections raised by Monroe Center and residents in unincorporated Ogle County to our applications for an amendment to our Facilities Planning Area and IEP A loan to expand our wastewater facilities toward the 1-39 and IL-72 interchange.

The purpose of this letter is to introduce you and other officials at IEPA to Davis Junction and explain the planning and development policies that led the Village to file its applications.

I want to first note that the Village is not completely surprised by the fact that certain parties have objected to our applications, but the Village is completely surprised by the tone of the objections which range from outright misinfonnation to complete exaggeration. This is unfortunate, because our applications are based on a desire to not only benefit Davis Junction, but also open economic development opportunities that would benefit Ogle County more broadly. Ogle County's unemployment rate was recorded in June 2011 at 11.4%, among the highest county rates in the state. Davis Junction is one of the few municipalities in Ogle County that is well positioned to provide the infrastructure improvements necessary to promote economic development to create jobs and address the County's unemployment problems.

Davis Junction has a long history of proactively addressing its planning and development goals and our applications for the amendment to our FPA boundary and a loan to expand our sanitary sewer facilities is consistent with this history. Several years ago, the Village annexed one of the largest landfill facilities in lllinois, Veolia ES's Orchard Hills Landfill. That decision and the revenues that came from that decision set the stage for Davis Junction to position itself to become one of the fastest growing communities in northern Illinois. Through strategic investments in infrastructure and planning initiatives, the Village's population increased from 500 to over 2,000 between 1995 and 2010. Among the key factors driving this extraordinary growth and development was the Village's superior public utilities, including a state of the art waste water treatment plant that became operational in 2009.

However, even before this, the Village ensured that developers would have the best available infrastructure facilities and utilities. It was apparent to Davis Junction's officials that the Village's location along IL-72 and IL-251 and a mere 4-miles from 1-39, midway between the City of Rockford to the north and the City of Rochelle to the south, would enable it to capture residents working in these cities, as well as cities further to the east in the Chicago metropolitan area. The Village used the revenues it gained from the landfill annexation to make extensive infrastructure improvement to promote gro\\'ih and development. The Village also used revenues to establish a Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2007, that sets the stage for the Village's growth and development over the next 25-years.

Included in Davis Junction's Comprehensive Plan, a copy of which is included with our materials, we established a clear goal of promoting development along IL-72 toward the 1-39 interchange. It is important to clarifY that this goal is a long term goal and is consistent with Village's economic development policy that seeks future gain from decisive actions to ensure that Davis Junction remains an economically viable municipality offering superior public services, public facilities, employment opportunities, recreational opportunities, retail options, and housing stock. The extension of the Village's utilities to the IL-72 and 1-39 interchange is a major component in its broader economic development initiative and offers important opportunities for Davis Junction and Ogle County in terms of tax revenues, employment opportunities, and will promote property values that will fuel additional private and public investments.

Davis Junction appreciates that its plans do not occur in isolation of other communities and it has previously negotiated boundary agreements with Stillman Valley and the City of Rockford. Likewise, it has attempted to negotiate a boundary agreement with Monroe Center. When the Village began exploring ways to extend its utility lines to the IL-72 and 1-39 interchange in 2010, it sought a waiver from Ogle County that would enable Davis Junction to annex territory outside its I.S-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction and establish its own jurisdiction. This effort resulted in serious opposition from residents in unincorporated Ogle Country and Monroe Center. The Village withdrew its request and decided it prudent to come to an agreement with Monroe Center.

Between April 2010 and now, Davis Junction has attempted to negotiate an agreement with Monroe Center that will enable it to extend its utility lines to the IL-72 and 1-39 interchange, establish a boundary agreement that splits the IL-72 and 1-39 interchange to enable both Villages to benefit from development there, and establish a system for Monroe Center to share in the costs of Davis Junction's utilities that would facilitate the development. As can be seen from Monroe Center's objections presented to you, our efforts at negotiating such an agreement have not succeeded. However, Davis Junction remains open to such an agreement and thinks it will be beneficial for all concerned parties. In addition, it would be a good example of two municipalities, operating in an era of decreased revenues, working together for a common goal.

Davis Junction will continue to engage Monroe Center in discussions that hopefully will lead to such an agreement, but Davis Junction respectfully requests that IEPA conduct its review of our applications to expand our Facilities Planning Area boundary and approve it as requested and approve our application for a loan from IEPA. Davis Junction is confident that its plan is fully consistent with IEPA objectives of promoting safe and operationally and economically efficient sanitary sewer systems for residents in lllinois and we believe that reviewing our application according to IEPA's standard review procedures will bear these facts out.

I am available to discuss our applications at your request.

Sincerely,

Ken Diehl, Village President

Enclosures cc: Board of Trustees

Linda Janes, Village Clerk Matt Hansen, Village Engineer David Silverman, Village Attorney Gary Bingenheimer, IEPA IFAS Blake Harris, IEPA, IFAS

A Professional Corporation 140 South Dearborn Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 www.ancelglink.com

David S. Silverman [email protected] (P) 312.604.9160 (F) 312.782.0943

CHICAGO ● VERNON HILLS ● WESTERN SUBURBS ● CRYSTAL LAKE ● BLOOMINGTON

July 28, 2011 Mr. Geoff Andres Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water Infrastructure Financial Assistance Section P.O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794-9276 Re: Response to Objections to Village of Davis Junction FPA Amendment (WHA #1188D08)

Dear Mr. Andres:

This office serves as Village Attorney for the Village of Davis Junction. I am writing in response to a litany of objections, presented to you by the Village of Monroe Center and residents in unincorporated Ogle County, to Davis Junction’s application for a Facilities Planning Area amendment. This response is being provided in conjunction with responses from Davis Junction’s engineers, Willett Hoffmann & Associates and Village President Ken Diehl, as well as letters of support from property owners in unincorporated Ogle County.

At the outset, I think it is very important to set the record straight on some facts that appear to have been either lost or selectively filtered to suit the purposes of the objectors:

• In his May 25, 2011 letter to you, Monroe Center Mayor Gronlund states:

“The granting of a facilities planning area extension to the Village of Davis Junction on the door step or our present corporate limits will be detrimental to the Village of Monroe Center. The FPA is a powerful tool for a municipality to leverage control over an area. This will leave Monroe Center vulnerable and sustainably restrict our opportunity for organic growth from our present boundaries.”

On its face, this specific objection suggests that Davis Junction is seeking the expansion of its FPA to specifically exclude Monroe Center from obtaining any benefits and in the process losing important development opportunities. As the attached communications in Attachment 1 demonstrate, Davis Junction has repeatedly tried to engage in discussions and negotiations with Monroe Center to allow for the extension of Davis Junction’s utility lines to the IL-72 and I-39 interchange (“Interchange”), thereby opening the Interchange to development opportunities that would benefit both Villages based on a boundary agreement or some other intergovernmental agreement. In addition to the communications

ANCEL, GLINK , DIAMOND , BUSH, DICIANNI & KRAFTHEFER, P.C. Mr. Geoff Andres July 28, 2011 Page 2


in Attachment 1, Davis Junction Mayor Ken Diehl has had several telephone and in person conversations with Monroe Center Mayor Steve Gronlund to seek a mutually beneficial agreement. For reason not entirely understood by Davis Junction, these discussions with Monroe Center have broken down. However, Davis Junction remains open to discussions leading to a mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center that would result in Davis Junction extending its utility lines to the interchange, establishing a jurisdictional boundary line, and creating some mechanism for Monroe Center to share in the costs of these utility extensions.

• In his May 25, 2011 letter to you, Monroe Center Mayor Gronlund states:

“The placement of a sewer system so close to the Village of Monroe Center may affect our ability to get a permit to update; pushing us to hook up to a system owned and operated by the Village of Davis Junction.”

Mayor Gronlund claims too much with this statement. First, this statement suggests that Monroe Center will lose sovereignty over its own affairs merely because Davis Junction has sanitary sewer lines that extend to the Interchange. Second, this statement suggests that Davis Junction wants to extend its utilities without a mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center, which, as noted above, is simply not true. Third, this statement assumes that Davis Junction wants to assume the responsibility of processing sewerage from Monroe Center beyond whatever area lies outside an established boundary centered on the Interchange. Davis Junction is only interested in providing sanitary sewer and water utility service to the Interchange to promote important economic development opportunities and, as noted above, is more than willing to explore mutually beneficial ways to share in that economic development with Monroe Center. Further, Davis Junction has no desire to impose its own utilities on residents of Monroe Center and it is at best questionable where the legal authority would exist for it to do so. In so far as residents of Monroe Center would be served by Davis Junction utilities, it would be Davis Junction’s policy to have that arrangement occur under the terms of an appropriate intergovernmental agreement.

• In their May 26, 2011 joint letter to you, Monroe Center Attorney Douglas Henry and Consulting Engineer Timothy Bronn state:

“It will become clear that the primnary purpose of these actions [Davis Junction’s application for an FPA amendment and IEPA loan] is not to provide sewer service to the subject area, but to control the I-39 interchange for the



purpose of collecting sales and property taxes from the current retail area and any future development of the interchange”

This is a stunning statement, not only because it is based on conjecture alone, but also because it is completely contrary to Davis Junction’s official and public position of wanting to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center. Mr. Henry’s position is particularly noteworthy because, on the same date as his joint letter to you, I delivered the attached letter in Attachment 2 to him via email which reiterates Davis Junction’s desire to seek a mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center and I see no record that he attempted to back off of what can only be describe as a fantastic overstatement of Davis Junction’s intentions.

Monroe Center has asserted five bases as legal objections to Davis Junction’s application for its FPA amendment and IEPA loan. These five arguments are discussed below:

1. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and Orderly Growth, Planning and Development.

Monroe Center claims that by granting Davis Junction’s FPA amendment, this will encroach on Monroe Center’s extra-territorial jurisdiction and upset the orderly growth, planning, and development of Monroe Center. Monroe Center also explains that it has three pre-annexation agreements with landowners whose properties would fall within Davis Junction’s amended FPA.

Aside from the fact that two of the properties Monroe Center has entered into pre-annexation agreements with are well west of Monroe Center, on the other side of I-39 from Monroe Center, and within one mile of Davis Junction’s own extraterritorial jurisdiction, Monroe Center’s argument ignores certain realities that warrant consideration and definitely undermine their stated position on the importance of orderly growth, planning, and development. Most importantly, Davis Junction has a Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2007, that clearly delineates its desire to annex to the east toward I-39. A link to Davis Junction’s Comprehensive Plan is attached in Attachment 3. Davis Junction is aware that Monroe Center’s own Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2010, also shows a desire to annex to the west toward I-39. However, Davis Junction, unlike Monroe Center, has existing facilities and revenue capabilities that enable it to implement the planning and development goals set forth in its Comprehensive Plan. There is no clearer basis to claim orderly growth, planning, and development than that which is undertaken pursuant to a Comprehensive Plan, together with the capacity to undertake the comprehensive plan’s goals and objectives.



Monroe Center points to the three pre-annexation agreements with property owners whose property is not yet contiguous to Monroe Center. One of the properties is located on the east side of I-39 closest to Monroe Center. The other two parcels are west of I-39 and approximately two-miles from Monroe Center. Monroe Center’s argument that Davis Junction’s applications will upset what should otherwise be the orderly growth, planning, and development of area between the Villages is undermined by the fact that Monroe Center’s own actions in entering into pre-annexation agreements with owners of non-contiguous territory are precisely the sort of actions that leads to so called “leap-frog” development patterns which do in fact disrupt orderly growth, planning, and development.

Finally, it is unclear what the purposes of two of the three pre-annexation agreements were. The property subject to the pre-annexation agreement with the owners of the property closest to Monroe Center, and east of I-39, is a commercial development. The other two properties, and the controlling pre-annexation agreements for them, are less specific and merely acknowledge the current uses of the properties with no specific terms for their future development, which raises questions about what the purposes were for these pre-annexation agreements in the first place. It is also unclear how Monroe Center, whose current fiscal year budget only allocates $1,500 for economic development activities and $275,000 for capital expenditures (out of a total Village budget of $456,700), would ever position itself within the 20-year lives of the two agreements to provide the utility services necessary to promote future development of these non-contiguous parcels lying well west of Monroe Center on the opposite side of I-39, and within one-mile of Davis Junction’s 1.5-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction.

2. Abuse of FPA Process.

We are unclear why Monroe Center titles this particular objection “Abuse of FPA Process”. Davis Junction has assiduously followed the requirements set forth by Illinois law and administrative regulations to file its applications and go through the required process. This particular objection is really more directed toward the following claims:

• There is absolutely no public support for Davis Junction’s proposed project and its application to extend its utility lines down IL-72 toward I-39;

• Davis Junction’s proposed utility extensions will only serve a limited number of

property owners immediately adjacent IL-72; and



• Davis Junction’s project is a “back door” attempt to gain control of the Interchange.

With our response, we have included in Attachment 4 letters of support from two prominent property owners at the Interchange who clearly support Davis Junction’s project and application to expand its FPA boundary. It very well may be the case that these same individuals were not present at the public hearing, but the fact that these same people put in writing their support for Davis Junction’s project and application undermines Monroe Center’s claim that no one supports it. The utility extensions are planned to run along IL-72 as the most direct route to the Interchange. From a cost and efficiency perspective, this straightforward route makes the most economic sense and the most sense from a perspective of system efficiency and operation, thereby ensuring for future system cost controls. Certainly, property owners along IL-72 will enjoy the most immediate benefit of these facilities if they elect to tap on, but that does not preclude future utility extensions that would tap into the IL-72 facilities to serve properties not positioned along IL-72 to the north or south. Finally, the claim by Monroe Center that this is a backdoor attempt by Davis Junction to gain control over the Interchange is simply not supported by the facts. As noted above, Davis Junction has repeatedly attempted to negotiate a mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center that would allow for both Village’s to benefit from the development of the Interchange. In addition, the very public process that has accompanied Davis Junction’s applications with IEPA makes it very obvious that there is no “back door” attempt by Davis Junction to gain control of the Interchange. 3. Location of Lift Station at 5787 Kilbuck Road. Davis Junction’s engineers, Willett, Hoffmann & Associates, have addressed this issue, explaining that the location was an approximate location for planning purposes and has been relocated on later versions of the engineering plans for the project. 4. Probable Litigation. This can best be described as a very unfortunate statement. By making a clear threat to litigate if it doesn’t get its way, Monroe Center has taken an absolutist position that by its own implications rejects any efforts at compromise. We must emphasize that Davis Junction remains committed to negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center, notwithstanding its apparently uncompromising position.



At this time, we have no further comment on this threat, but will be mindful of it as we proceed through the process with IEPA toward what Davis Junction hopes will be approval of its well conceived FPA amendment and utility extension project. 5. Probable Future Litigation. Monroe Center claims that by allowing Davis Junction to extend its utility lines along IL-72, it will create a future situation where a property owner whose property fronts IL-72 will be forced, against his or her own wishes, to connect to Davis Junction’s sanitary sewer facilities. According, to Monroe Center, this would happen where a property owner’s septic system fails and the Ogle County Health Department refuses to allow them to repair it and instead requires them to connect to Davis Junction’s sanitary sewer system. From this point, according to Monroe Center, the homeowner would be forced to annex to Davis Junction and grant easements for Davis Junction’s utilities. The entire scenario presented by Monroe Center is speculative. It may be true that the Ogle County Health Department would refuse to allow a property owner to replace a failed septic system, but that does not necessarily mean that same property owner would be left without an opportunity to seek some type of waiver of a subsequent requirement to connect to Davis Junction’s sanitary sewer system. Further, we are unaware of any authority Davis Junction could exercise outside very limited circumstances to forcibly annex property and thereby compel them to connect to Davis Junction’s sanitary sewer system as well as grant easements. Regardless, Monroe Center may be assuming too much to begin with, because if a property owner’s septic system fails at some undetermined point in the future, that same property owner, faced with the scenario presented by Monroe Center, may find he or she has no choice but to litigate any requirement to connect to Davis Junction’s sanitary sewer system or, on the other hand, may make an equally rational decision that it would be beneficial to connect to Davis Junction’s sanitary sewer system. The point is that it is entirely speculative as to how a property owner would act at a given point in time and it stretches all credibility for Monroe Center to presume a certain result now. 6. Adverse Affect on Sanitary Sewer System in Monroe Center. Monroe Center fears that IEPA’s approval of Davis Junction’s applications will necessarily prevent it from expanding its sanitary sewer facilities, in effect locking Monroe Center in and leaving it with no option but to connect to Davis Junction’s



sanitary sewer system. Monroe Center also claims that this result would leave it with no negotiating leverage on rates and fees. This argument, like most of Monroe Center’s arguments, assumes that Davis Junction does not seek a mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center where this concern and many of Monroe Center’s other concerns can be addressed. As we have stated numerous times, Davis Junction seeks such an agreement with Monroe Center and cannot understand why Monroe Center has chosen to take the strident position it has. Given the current economic climate affecting Illinois and Ogle County in particular, this is an opportune time for municipalities to work together to achieve common goals. Both Davis Junction and Monroe Center want to see the Interchange developed. Both Davis Junction and Monroe Center have property owners in and around that interchange who want to be part of one or the other Village. However, only Davis Junction has the capacity to provide the services that will promote the lucrative commercial development likely to be established at the Interchange. Davis Junction has, like Monroe Center, understood the economic potential of the Interchange and three years before Monroe Center, established its goal of annexing toward I-39 in its own Comprehensive Plan. Davis Junction also has understood that Monroe Center has a valid interest and has sought a mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center that would enable Davis Junction to extend its utility lines to I-39, establish a boundary agreement with Monroe Center that would enable each Village to realize the benefits of the future development at the Interchange, and establish a system where Monroe Center would share, at some reasonable level, in the costs of these utility extensions. We appreciate this opportunity to address the issues raised by Monroe Center and also those shared by some of the property owners in unincorporated Ogle County and request that IEPA follow its ordinary analysis in determining the merits of Davis Junction’s applications. We are confident that if IEPA follows its normal review procedures, it will agree that Davis Junction’s applications are well conceived and warrant prompt approval. Finally, as appropriate, we will supplement our response with information, as it may become available, that we believe will be helpful to IEPA’s review.



We are available to discuss this letter at your request Sincerely,

David S. Silverman Enclosures

cc: Ken Diehl, Village President Linda Janes, Village Clerk Rick Wurm, Trustee Matt Hansen, Village Engineer Gary Bingenheimer, IEPA IFAS

Blake Harris, IEPA, IFAS



ATTACHMENT 1

Various e-mail communications evidencing Davis Junction’s efforts to negotiate mutually beneficial agreement with Monroe Center



ATTACHMENT 2

Letter from Davis Junction Village Attorney David Silverman to Monroe Center Village Attorney Doug Henry, dated May 26, 2011



ATTACHMENT 3 Davis Junction Comprehensive Plan

Available at:

http://bit.ly/djcompplan

(To view, copy and paste link in web browser)



ATTACHMENT 4 Letters in Support of Davis Junction’s Application from

Charles Payne and Roy Safanda

and

Wayne Ehmen

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David

From: Silverman, David

Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 9i53 AM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Subject: RE: Davis Junction/Monroe Center I'd say last night went as well as it possibly could.

From: Doug Henry tmailto:dhenry@bslbv. comj Sent" . Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:43 PM

To: Silverman, David

Subject: Davis Junction/Monroe Center

David,

Mayor Gronlund is agreeable to discussing mutual financial benefits of the Route 72/1-39 interchange. Before I mentioned your suggestion, the mayor indicated he'd prefer to initially sit down with Mayor Diehl one on one and discuss the matter conceptually. He had some interesting ideas. I' ll see you this evening.

Thanks,

Doug

Page 1 of 2

Silverman, David


Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:06 AM

To: 'dhenry@bslbv. corn'

Subject: Re: Davis Junction/Monroe Center

Hopefully we can avoid all that.

From: Doug Henry


Sent: Sat Apr 2 l 11:00:51 2010 Subject: RE: Davis junction/Monroe Center

David,

If you thought they were angry Thursday evening you can imagine what it will be like if this comes before the Commission again.

From" . Silverman, David [mailto:DSilverman@ancelglink. corn] Sent" . Friday, April 23, 2010 9:53 AM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Subject: RE: Davis junction/Monroe Center

I'd say last night went as well as it possibly could.

David S. Silverman Partner Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush,

DiCianni & Krafthefer, P. C. 140 South Dearborn Street, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (P) (312)604-9160 (F) (312)782-0943 www. ance l link. corn

From" . Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent. "Thursday, April 22, 2010 4: l3 PM

To. "Silverman, David

Subject: Davis junction/Monroe Center

David,

Mayor Gronlund is agreeable to discussing mutual financial benefits of the Route 72/1-39 interchange. Before I mentioned your suggestion, the mayor indicated he'd prefer to initially sit down with Mayor Diehl one on one and discuss the matter conceptually. He had some interesting ideas. I' ll see you this evening.

Thanks,

Doug

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David


Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:57 PM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Cc: Ken Diehl (djpresident@davisjunction. corn)

Subject: Monroe Center/Davis Junction

Doug:

I spoke with Mayor Diehl and he informed me that he met with Monroe Center's Mayor who will be sending you a letter outlining a number of items he would like you and l to start looking into. I will await word from you after you receive that letter.

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David

Sent

All, Attached is an update with the meeting I had with the MC mayor.

From: Ken Diehl [djpresident@davisjunction. corn]

Monday, May 03, 2010 2:37 PM

utilities@davisjunction. corn; finance@davisjunction. corn; djclerk@davisjunction. corn; djpresident@davisjunction. corn; Silverman, David; JGrimes2@swensonspreader. corn; mhansen@willetthofmann. corn; talbot61020@yahoo. corn; bpi01@mchsi. corn; streets@davisjunction. corn; ALLDUN5@MCHSI. COM '

Subject: Meeting with MC mayor

Attachments: MC. doc

I&en Dield Village President 106 N Elm Street Davis Junction IL 61020 815-645-8000 Village Hall 815-985-7073 - Cell Phone

I met with the Monroe Center mayor last Thursday to stait discussion about the utilities going to I-39, We did not get into the dollars and cents of who is paying what. We tried to look at this from a different

angle. Below is what was discussed.

Instead of looldng into a boundary agreement where the lines between the 2 towns are cut and dry, we looked at forining an Economic development district. This district would have its own set of zoning and

could be governed by a joint ZBA of the 2 towns. I thought this was a good idea and could work. David and the MC attorney are going to discuss to see if it is even possible. Tliis maybe a benefit to DJ if it takes time to get utilities out there and MC beats us to the piuich.

Steve would like to work out a long term percentage to each town for the income with steps where MC's portion would increase. This obviously requires a lot more discussion about their paiticipation monetarily. I do have some thoughts that if they do not have any up front money for the project that maybe they could reimburse DJ for 2 or 3 payments a year for the loan. I think that they would not be able to make any more than that per year. At least this way they are taking some of the risk and it is not all on DJ. I have not talked to Steve about this yet so I would not like that to be public yet.

The action items we have come up with are as follows;

1) Put together a letter to the resident of both towns that will inform them of the economic district /

zone. I believe if we higliiight the benefits that it would ease the minds of some of the residents. 2) Have each mayor visit the others meeting for any questions / information.

3) A possible collective meeting with the boards of both towns

4) Have an open meeting to inform the public.

Steve would like to look at the development zone and the utility easements and separate issues. If we can calm some of the residents down, he believes he can be of assistance in getting what we need to get to I- 39.

Although this is very basic ground work, it does show our willingness to try and work something out between the 2 towns. We obviously have to get into the risk and reward for both towns (money). Other than loolung into an economic development district / zone, I have not agreed to anything. I will not put the village in a position where we take all the risk and share in the rewards 50/50. Ultimately, we may end up right where we are today and have to go back in front of the county. However, this process does show our willingness and will be better perceived by the county and residents.

Any questions or concerns please direct them to me and not the entire board so we don't violate the open meeting act.

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David

From: Mike Reibel [mreibel@oglecounty. org]

Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 8:53 AM


Subject: RE: Meeting

Importance: High

Mr. Silverman,

How are Davis Junction's talks going with Monroe Center? Do you anticipate proceeding at the Regional

Planning Commission meeting on May 20? If not, I would like to know as soon as possible, as the

request for jurisdiction issue is the only agenda item, and we could cancel the meeting if the RPC is not

going to consider the issue. In addition, I have a personal conflict that evening (my son's 8 grade

promotion ceremony that I would like to attend). If the request for jurisdiction issue is going to proceed, I would like to discuss an alternate meeting date with the RPC chairman.

Michael Reibel

Ogle County Planning & Zoning Department 911 W. Pines Rd.

Oregon, I L 61061 Phone: 815. 732. 1190 mreibelloglecounty. org

Page 1 of 2

Silverman, David

From

Sent:

Subject

David,

Mike Reibel [mreibel@oglecounty. org]

Tuesday, May 11, 2010 8:24 AM

Silverman, David

RE: Postponement of Appearance Before Regional Plan Commission

Thank you. I will consider this an indefinite postponement until I am informed by the Village of Davis

Junction to place the matter back on the agenda of the Regional Planning Commission for consideration.

Please keep me informed regarding the discussions between Davis Junction and Monroe Center.

Michael Reibel

Ogle County Planning S. Zoning Department 911 W, Pines Rd.

Oregon, IL 61061 Phone: 815. 732. 1190 mreibelNoglecounty. org

From: Silverman, David [mailto:DSilverman@ancelglink. corn] Sent. "Monday, May 10, 2010 10:23 PM

To: mreibel@oglecounty. org Cc: djpresident@davisjunction. corn Subject. "Postponement of Appearance Before Regional Plan Commission

Mike:

Please accept this e-mail as the Village of Davis Junction's formal notice that it will not appear at the next Regional Plan Commission meeting on May 20, 2010. The Village is in early discussions with the Village of Monroe Center on establishing a jurisdictional boundary line agreement or some other cooperative agreement for the development of the IL-72 and l-39 intersection.

However, the Village would like to reserve the right to seek a meeting with the Regional Plan Commission at a future date if our efforts at coming to an agreement with Monroe Center falter.

Please contact me if you have any questions.


DiCianni & Krafthefer, P. C. 140 South Dearborn Street, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (P) (312)604-9160 (F) (312)782-0943 www. ancel link. corn

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David


Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:52 AM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Cc: s. gronlund@mchsi. corn; Ken Diehl (djpresident@davisjunction. corn)

Subject: RE: Davis Junction/Monroe Center

Doug:

I will call you after 3 30 today. I have informed Mike Reibel at Ogle County that we will not be seeking a meeting with the Regional Plan Commission this month because we are in early talking stages with

Monroe Center on an agreement for the development of the IL-72 and 1-39 intersection.

From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 0:55 PM


Cc: s. gronlund@mchsi. corn Subject. "Davis junction/Monroe Center

Dave—

Mayor Gronlund has requested I contact you to initiate efforts to put the items he and Mayor Diehl discussed into action. I'd prefer to speak to by phone but my availability over the next three days is hit and miss. I will be out of the office until about 3:30 p. m. tomorrow. I will be in the office but in a meeting from 9:00 am to 10:30 am and out of the office from noon to 2:30 pm on Thursday. I will be out of the office from 9:00 am to 10:30 am on Friday. Hopefully, your schedule will permit you to call me sometime over the next three days so we can discuss how to proceed. I look forward to speaking with you.

Thanks,

Doug

Page 1 of 2

Silverman„David


Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:53 PM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Subject: FW: Meeting with Monroe Center

Is this acceptable?

From: djpresident@davisjunction. corn [mailto:djpresident@davisjunction. corn] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:52 PM

To: Silverman, David Subject" . Re: Meeting with Monroe Center

There is one place in Stilhnan called royal blue. Small diner not sure how private it will be but that is fine with me.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Blacld3eriy

From: "Silverman, David" &DSilverman@ancelglink. corn& Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 15:07:46 -0500 To: 'djpresidentldavisjunction. corn'&djpresident@davisjunction. corn& Cc: 'Doug Heniy'&dhemy@bslbv. corn& Subject: RE: Meeting with Monroe Center

I suggested to Doug that we meet on neutral ground. Is there a place in Stillman Valley that would work?

From. "djpresident@davisjunction. corn [mailto:djpresident@davisjunction. corn] Sent. " Monday, May 17, 2010 1:47 PM

To: Silverman, David Subject: Re: Meeting with Monroe Center

yes that would work well

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Blacld3eriy

From: "Silverman, David" &DSilverman@ancelglink. corn& Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 13:34:14 -0500 To: 'djpresidentldavisj unction. corn'&djpresident@davisj unction. corn& Subject: RE: Meeting with Monroe Center

Do you want to try to meet around 5 30 on the 25th?

From: djpresident@davisjunction. corn [mailto:djpresident@davisjunction. corn] Sent" . Monday, May 17, 2010 12:48 PM

To. " Silverman, David Subject" . Re: Meeting with Monroe Center

Page 2 of 2

I am out of town the 19th t1nw 21st but in town the following week.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless Blacld3eny

From: "Silverman, David" &D SilvetTnanl ancelglink. corn& Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:33:58 -0500 To: djpresident@davisjunction. corn&djpresidentldavisjunction. corn& Cc: 'Doug Herny'&dhemy@bslbv. corn& Subject: Meeting with Monroe Center

Ken:

Let me know your availability to meet with Doug Henry and Mayor Gronlund in the early evening on either May 19 or sometime before our meeting on May 25.

David S. Silverman Partner Ancel, Glink, Diamond„Bush„

DiCianni 8 Krafthefer, P. C. 140 South Dearborn Street, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (P) (312)604-9160 (F) (312)782-0943 www. ancel link. corn

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute privileged information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni 8t. Krafthefer, P. C. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please do not read it and notify us immediately by return e-mail at DSilverman@ancelglink. corn. We may ask you to destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David


Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:19 PM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Subject: RE: Davis Junction? Monroe Center Meeting on May 25th

This is tine, Doug. We will meet you at SV Village Hall.

From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 20l0 l0:54 AM


Subject: Davis junction?Monroe Center Meeting on May 25th

Dave,

I have discussed your suggestion to convene the subject meeting at the Royal Blue in Stillman with Mayor Gronlund. While he would prefer the more casual setting of the restaurant, he is very concerned that the discussions may be overheard and misrepresented by members of the public. While I believe both sides will ultimately endeavor to provide the public with total transparency, I agree with the mayor that these initial discussions will be more productive if we can openly discuss issues, and hopefully reach a concensus without the fear that the public will get third hand incorrect information taken out of context. I

believe you would agree, based on the regional planning meeting from last month, this is a highly charged issue and many members of the public seem ready to believe the worst and run wild with it. Therefore, we propose the meeting take place next door at the SV Village Hall. I have a key for the board room and the Village knows we may be using the hall. Please advise if this is acceptable to Mayor Diehl.

Thanks,

Doug

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David


Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:38 PM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Cc: Ken Diehl (djpresident@davisjunction. corn); Linda Janes

Subject: Joint Development Options

Doug: I

I have looked over the various statutes and do not think that the Village's can use Sec. 11-12-13. I think we are back at looking at a boundary line agreement and do not believe that the pre-annexation petitions both Village's have should be an impediment to a north-south line. It seems that both Village's can obtain contiguity if we draw the line carefully. We can also build into the boundary line agreement development controls.

Let me know your thoughts.

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David


Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:35 AM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Cc: Ken Diehl (djpresident@davisjunction. corn); Linda Janes

Subject: Boundary Agreement

Doug:

Have you had an opportunity to consider my last communication regarding the likelihood that the best and perhaps only way the Villages can work things out is through a boundary agreement?

Page 1 of 2

Silverman, David


Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:31 AM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Cc: Ken Diehl (E-mail)

Subject: RE: Joint Development Options

Doug:

I have no idea why I didn't get this email last Friday.

Are you available to talk today or tomorrow?

From. "Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:45 AM


Subject: FW: Joint Development Options

David,

My e-mail of 6/4/10.

Doug

From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2010 9:14 AM

To: 'Silverman, David'


David,

I haven't had the opportunity to review Sec. 11-12-13 so I' ll acquiesce to your opinion at this point. The mayor has advised me that a north-south boundary agreement is a non-starter. Since the two municipalities either have existing agreements or pending petitions with almost all of the property owners surrounding the interchange, I'm looking into the authority to revenue share through an IGA. It seems to me future zoning can be handled through the annexation agreements and revenue sharing can be handled through the IGA.

I haven't discussed this idea with Mayor Gronlund so I'm not sure what his opinion of what I'm about to suggest is, but may be we can narrow the real issues by identifying those necessary items each party must have to reach a meeting of the minds? I'm not asking you to disclose anything prior to running it past both mayors, but I am interested in your thoughts on the suggestion.

Thanks,

Doug

From: Silverman, David [mailto:DSilverman@ancelglink. corn] Sent" . Friday, May 28, 2010 1:38 PM

To. "'Doug Henry'

Cc: djpresident@davisjunction. corn; Linda Janes Subject: Joint Development Options

Doug:

Page 2 of 2



David S. Silverman Partner Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush„


The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute privileged information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni 5 Krafthefer, P. C. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please do not read it and notify us immediately by return e-mail at DSilverman@ancelglink. corn. We may ask you to destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.

Page 1 of 2

Silverman, David


Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:01 PM

To: 'Doug Henry'


Tomorrow is fine. Mid-morning or mid-afternoon. I do know Roxanne. We spoke together at a few conferences on unified development ordinances.

From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent: Thursday, june 10, 2010 11:59 AM


Subject: RE: joint Development Options

David,

Tomorrow is better for me. Roxanne Sosnowski is doing research on this issue for me. We had a meeting this morning and she's looking into some ideas I had. I believe you have worked with Roxanne before when she was with another firm. I hope to have some follow-up from her when we talk tomorrow.

Thanks,

Doug

From: Silverman, David [mailto:DSilverman@ancelglink. corn] Sent: Thursday, june 10, 2010 11:31 AM

To" . 'Doug Henry'

Cc: Ken Diehl (E-mail) Subject: RE: joint Development Options

Doug:

I have no idea why I didn't get this email last Friday.

Are you available to talk today or tomorrow?

From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent: Wednesday, june 09, 2010 11:45 AM


Subject: FW: joint Development Options

David,

My e-mail of 6/4/10.

Doug

From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent" . Friday, june 04, 2010 9:14 AM

To: 'Silverman, David'

Subject" . RE: joint Development Options

David,

Page 2 of 2

I haven't had the opportunity to review Sec. 11-12-13 so I' ll acquiesce to your opinion at this point. The mayor has advised me that a north-south boundary agreement is a non-starter. Since the two municipalities either have

existing agreements or pending petitions with almost all of the property owners surrounding the interchange, I'm

looking into the authority to revenue share through an IGA. It seems to me future zoning can be handled through

the annexation agreements and revenue sharing can be handled through the IGA,

I haven't discussed this idea with Mayor Gronlund so I'm not sure what his opinion of what I'm about to suggest is, but may be we can narrow the real issues by identifying those necessary items each party must have to reach a meeting of the minds? I'm not asking you to disclose anything prior to running it past both mayors, but I am interested in your thoughts on the suggestion.

Thanks,

Doug

From: Silverman, David [mailto:DSilverman@ancelglink. corn] Sent. "Friday, lvlay 28, 2010 1l38 Plvl

To: 'Doug Henry'

Cc: djpresident@davisjunction. corn; Linda janes Subject: joint Development Options

Doug:



David S. Silverman Partner Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush„


The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute privileged information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Ancel, Glink,

Diamond, Bush, DiCianni 5 Krafthefer, P. C. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please do not read it and notify us immediately by return e-mail at DSilverman@ancelglink. corn. We may ask you to destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.

Silverman, David

From: Sent: To:

Silverman, David Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:49 PM 'dhenry@bslbv.

corn'

Doug:

Are you aud Roxauue available to talk tomorrow?

Silverman, David

From: Sent: To: CC: Subject:

Silverman, David Friday, June 18, 2010 4:14 PM 'dhenry@bslbv. corn' 'rsosnowski@bslbv. corn' Re:

Yes, and that is my fault. Let's plan to talk Monday PM. I will call you around 3.

Original Message From: Doug Henry cdhenry@bslbv. corn& To: Silverman, David Cc: 'Roxanne Sosnowski' &rsosnowski@bslbv. corn& Sent: Fri Jun 18 16:05:29 2010 Subject: FW:

David,

Since we were obviously unable to get together this week, are you available Monday afternoon (6/21) or Wednesday after 11:00 a. m. (6/23)?

Thanks,

Doug

-----Original Message----- From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. comj Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:27 PM

To: 'Silverman, David' Subject: RE:

David,

Roxanne's availability the rest of this week is minimal. The two of us can call you between 11:30 a. m. and 12:30 p. m. tomorrow. After that she's not available until next Monday (the two of us are available all day on Monday). The only other day the two of us can call you next week is Wednesday after 11:00 a. m.

Please confirm the time and date you wish us to call you.

Thanks,

Doug

-----Original Message----- From: Silverman, David [mailto:DSilverman@ancelglink. corn] Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 6:49 PM

To: dhenry@bslbv. corn Subject:

Doug:

Are you and Roxanne available to talk tomorrow?


DiCianni 6 Krafthefer, P. C. 140 South Dearborn Street, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603

(P) (312) 604 — 9160 (F) (312) 782 — 0943 http: //www. ancelglink. corn/

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute privileged information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P. C. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please do not read it and notify us immediately by return e-mail at DSilverman@ancelglink. corn. We may ask you to destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.

Silverman, David

From: Sent: TO: Subject:

Silverman, David Friday, June 18, 2010 4:36 PM 'dhenry@bslbv. corn' Re:

2 PM work?

Original Message From: Doug Henry &dhenry@bslbv. corn& To: Silverman, David Sent: Fri Jun 18 16:35:06 2010 Subject: RE:

David,

I'm sorry, but Roxanne is leaving at 2:30 pm on Monday. Can we make it earlier in the day? If not, do you want to go ahead at 3:00 pm with just the two of us?

Roxanne is currently working part time since she has 3 small children. Her hours are Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 7:30 am to 2:30 pm.

Doug

-----Original Message----- From: Silverman, David [mailto:DSilverman@ancelglink. corn] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:14 PM

To: 'dhenry@bslbv. corn' Cc: 'rsosnowski@bslbv. corn' Subject: Re:


Original Message From: Doug Henry &dhenry@bslbv. corn& To: Silverman, David Cc: 'Roxanne Sosnowski' crsosnowski(5bslbv. corn& Sent: Fri Jun 18 16:05:29 2010 Subject: FW:

David,


Thanks,

Doug

-----Original Message----- From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:27 PM


David,



Thanks,

Doug


To: dhenry@bslbv. corn Subject:

Doug ".



DiCianni r Krafthefer, P. C. 140 South Dearborn Street, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (P) (312) 604-9160 (F) (312) 782-0943 http: //www. ancelglink. corn/

The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute privileged. information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni & Krafthefer, P. C. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please do not read it and notify us immediately by return e-mail at DSilverman@ancelglink. corn. We may ask you to destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.

Silverman, David

From: Sent: To: Subject:

Silverman, David Friday, June 18, 2010 4:38 PM 'dhenry@bslbv. corn' Re:

I have court in the morning in DuPage and suspect we' ll be last on the docket because it' s contested, so I'd say earlier, but I can't guarantee I' ll be back. I suppose I can just do the call from the car. Let me know.

Original Message From: Doug Henry &dhenryINbslbv. corn& To: Silverman, David Sent: Fri Jun 18 16:35:06 2010 Subject: RE:

David,

I'm sorry, but Roxanne is leaving at 2:30 pm on. Monday. Can we make it earlier in the day? If not, do you want to go ahead at 3:00 pm with just the two of us?

Roxanne is currently working part time since she has 3 small children. Her hours are Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday from 7:30 am to 2:30 pm.

Doug

-----Original Message----- From: Silverman, David [mailto:DSilverman@ancelglink. corn] Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 4:14 PM

To: 'dhenry@bslbv. corn' Cc: 'rsosnowski@bslbv. corn' Subject: Re:


Original Message From: Doug Henry &dhenry@bslbv. corn& To: Silverman, David Cc: 'Roxanne Sosnowski' crsosnowski@bslbv. corn& Sent: Fri Jun 18 16:05:29 2010 Subject: FW:

David,


Thanks,

Dou. g

-----Original Message----- From: Doug Henry [mailto:dhenry@bslbv. corn] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:27 PM


David,



Thanks,

Doug


To: dhenry@bslbv. corn Subj ect: Doug:



DiCianni & Krafthefer, P. C. 140 South Dearborn Street, 6th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 (P) (312)604 — 9160 (F) (312)782 — 0943 http: //www. ancelglink. corn/

The information contained in this communication. is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute privileged information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Ancel, Glink, Diamond, Bush, DiCianni 6 Krafthefer, P. C. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please do not read it and notify us immediately by return e-mail at DSilverman@ancelglink. corn. We may ask you. to destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments.

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David


Sent: Monday, June 28, 2010 5:41 PM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Doug:

Any word from Mayor Gronlund concerning his resistance to a boundary agreement?

Page 1 of 1

Silverman, David


Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 11:07 AM

To: 'Doug Henry'

Subject: May 24, 2011 Monroe Center Special Board Meeting

Attachments: Itr to henry re may 24 monroe center meeting

Doug:

Please see the attached.

A Professional Corporation 140 South Dearborn Strcct, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60603 www. ancelglink. corn

David S, Silverman dsilverntan@ancclglink. corn

(P) 312. 604. 9160 (F) 312. 782. 0943

May 26, 2011

VIA EMAIL — dhe bslbv. com Mr. Douglas R. Hemp Barrick, Switzer, Long, Balsley and Van Evera, LLP 6833 Stalter Drive Rocld'ord, IL 61108 United States of Ainerica

Re: May Z4" Monroe Center Special Board Meeting

Dear Doug:

As you know, Rick Wurm from Davis Junction attended the above-noted meeting and wanted to video record the proceedings. As I understand it, he was ordered by the Mayor, after consultation with you, to turii off his video though he was permitted to audio record the meeting.

What is most strilong about this was that Mayor Gronlund was in attendance at Davis Junction's IEPA required public heing for expansion of the Village's Facilities Planning Area. At that public hearing, people in attendance were video recording and I would be very surprised if Mayor Gronlund didn't notice. As I am sure you are aware, Section 2. 05 of the Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/2. 05, specifically allows the public to video record open meetings such as that held by Monroe Center on May 24, 2011. I trust that in the futLIre, if Rick. Wurm or any other attendee, wishes to video record such a meeting, they will be allowed to do so.

This bHngs me to my next point. Rick Wurin attended the meeting because Davis Junction is aware that Monroe Center strenuously opposes Davis Junction's efforts to properly expand its Facilities Planning Area. The ongoing question is why? Davis Junction is the only connnunity in the area reasonably, economically, efficiently, and effectively able to provide cHtical utility services. We are perplexed why this seems lost on Monroe Center and why Monroe Center, together with other parties, are doing all they can to thwart what should be viewed as an opportunity to facilitate important economic development in Ogle County, a county with over a 12% unemployment rate. In fact, some of the efforts are based on gratuitous use of misinforITIation.

Davis Junction attempted to negotiate in good faith with Monroe Center and remains open to reinitiating those conversations, but Monroe Center's efforts at thwarting what should be properly viewed as a more regional economic development opportunity are threatening to sour further attempts in that direction. This is regrettable. Monroe Center's negotiation position, presumably derived 5. om its weaker economic position, is that Davis Junction should assuine all of the risk of the expansion of its utility

CHICAGO ~ VERNON HILLS ~ NAPERVILLE ~ CRYSTAL LAKE ~ BLOOMINGTON

ANCEL, GLINK, DIAMOND, BUSH, DICIANNI & I~THEFER, P. C.

Mr. Douglas R. Henry

May 26, 2011 Page 2

facilities and allow Monroe Center to reap a large portion of the benefit. That is untenable and not a good faith position.

The Village would appreciate it if you could tip to bring Mornoe Center toward a more rational negotiation position. Such a position, among other things, would aclaiowledge that Monroe Center must shoulder some of the burdens associated with expanding Davis Junction utility facilities toward the IL-72 and I-39 intersection and that the best way to divide that intersection — a point Davis Junction is still prepared to explore — is generally east-west, with some territorial swaps on either side of I-39 to account for property owners who want to be in one Village or the other.

These negotiations should lead to not only an intergovennnental agreement, but also a boundary agreement. Davis Junction has negotiated boundary agreements with Stilhrian Valley and Rocld'ord and believes establishing one with Monroe Center would

go a long way toward allowing each Village to naturally grow and develop over tiine. It could even lead to the two Villages entering into other intergoveriunental agreements to share services. That would be a far better result than the current balkanization that seems to be talking root and one within the spirit of effoiis at the state level to economize goveriunent services in an era of lowered revenues and state fiscal distress.

Please feel fic to contact me to discuss these issues further.

Sincerely,

David S. Silverinan

CHICAGO ~ VERNON HILLS ~ NAPERVILLE ~ CRYSTAL LAKE ~ BLOOMINGTON

July 26, 2011

Illinois Environmental Protection. Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue E Springfield, Illinois 62794

To whom it may Concern:

We are the owners of thirty three acres at the southwest corner of Route 72 and

Route 39 in Ogle County. We would like to atmex our property to Davis Junction.

Davis Junction, with their new water and sanitary facilities, are capable and willing to

extend water and sewer services to our property. However, the Village will need permits

&om your agency in order to proceed with construction. We are writing to ask that you

issue the needed permits to Davis Junction so they can do this.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

( )~ /~=- Charles Payne Roy Safanda

August 1, 2011

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue K Springfield, II 62794

To Whom It May Concern

I am the owner of 1S6 acres at the East and Southeast Intersection of Route 72 and 39 cloverleaf in Ogle County. I would like to annex my property to Davis Junction, Illinois.

Davis Junction, Illinois, has new water and sanitary facilities, and they are capable and willing to extend water and sewer services to my property. However, they will need permits from your agency in order to proceed with the construction.

I am requesting that your agency issue the needed permits to the Village of Davis Junction.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Q ayne C. Khmen

Attn: See attached

I , l"

l-

3 'Q

\

' 4 1pA" "t' "

Pp f

i' 4'

c

I yi, ';Pi

Qil

q4

t

I

I '

~

f

. " f'r

~ . "

«(&r

'll - tmtyw

" ~ v& caw l, ~+ rrwm~wrAyup~rs~elH &

g " ILL

i I

I f

j g'-". ~' Vi.

Documents

VILLAGE of DAVIS JUNCTION - epa.state.il.us · 645-8C)OO • Fax:: (Sl5) 645-8055 Mr. Geoff Andres Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Water Infrastructure Financial