Evanston denies harassment allegations in waste firm’s lawsuit

• Reprints

Updated: March 17, 2012 8:07AM

City of Evanston officials are firing back at Veolia Solid Waste Midwest’s lawsuit alleging harassment — saying the city has a duty to protect its residents from the effects of the waste site, and that steps taken, including a tax against the company for operation of its transfer station, fell squarely within the city’s home rule authority.

City attorneys, at one point in their sharply worded response filed in Cook County Circuit Court Feb. 3, said the Wisconsin-based company’s attempt “to characterize the city as a villain” that has concocted “a grand and elaborate scheme” against Veolia “couldn’t be farther from the truth.”

Rather, “The city is rationally exercising its legislative and regulatory authority to address issues that face its community,” attorneys said in a 49-page response. According to the city’s response, stepped-up enforcement of the company was due in part to Veolia’s “reckless endangerment of the city’s public health and welfare.”

City seeks jury trial

The city is demanding a jury trial on Veolia’s lawsuit.

Veolia filed the lawsuit against the city last December in Cook County Circuit Court, charging harassment by the city and maintaining officials illegally put in place a transfer station fee and assessed other costs in response to political pressure calling for the waste station to leave the city.

Veolia claims that since the city enacted a $2-per-ton fee in December 2010, the company has suffered losses of more than $750,000 through October 2011; some of loss is a result of customers bringing less solid waste to the station because of increased costs attributed to the fee.

The company is asking the court to direct the city to drop the transfer station tax, award the company the lost funds as well as pay damages.

Residents have pressed city officials for action on the case, maintaining that noise, odor, rodent infestation and other issues stem from Veolia’s operation of a waste transfer station at 1711 Church St. The company took over operation of the station in July 2000.

At the station, garbage-collection companies, including Veolia, bring waste collected from businesses and entities operating in Evanston and other cities and villages.

Firm: City attack

Veolia maintains the city has waged “a double-barreled” attack against it, seeking to force Veolia to pull its station from the area.

Attorneys for the city — Corporation Counsel Grant Farrar and assistant city attorneys Katherine Agonis, Kenneth Cox, Michelle Masoncup and James Woywood — suggested such claims were made out of desperation and amount to an attempt to diffuse the issue.

“The facts are that a multinational French conglomerate failed in its attempt to bully Evanston and its residents, and now, having assumed a business risk, seeks judicial relief in order to continue its flouting of city home rule authority and to ameliorate said risk,” according to the city’s response to Veolia’s lawsuit.

The company said the transfer station fee the city enacted was based arbitrarily on the supposed financial condition of Veolia’s parent company.

City attorneys called Veolia’s claim “inflammatory” and “nothing but an elaborate and improper attempt by Veolia to avoid paying a fee.”

City’s prerogative

“Quite simply,” attorneys said, “Evanston enacted the transfer station fee pursuant to its legislative prerogative to counterbalance the significant costs and burden imposed by Veolia’s operations.”

Veolia’s attempt to claim unequal treatment — contrasting the city’s action against Veolia with its failure to enforce ongoing violations at the city run compost station in James Park in southwest Evanston — also doesn’t hold weight, attorneys said.

“In fact, the James Park facility was owned by the city of Evanston and was inspected on a more-regular basis,” city attorneys claimed in the city’s response.

The city’s attorneys also took issue with Veolia’s claim of a “pristine operation” and “untarnished history” in operating the transfer station, suggesting those claims would be subject to a challenge in court.

Attorneys give little heed to Veolia’s argument that enforcement was stepped up and fees imposed in response to development in the area and a subsequent push for the city to close the station.

Home rule authority

To Veolia’s assertion that the city “threatened Veolia” and put the company under “tremendous regulatory scrutiny,” the attorneys went beyond a flat denial.

“Veolia insisted it operated above the law and that it was not subject to home rule authority,” they said, “while it polluted the air, encouraged rodent infestation, littered city streets with garbage and otherwise perpetrated noxious nuisances.”

If anything, Veolia did the threatening, attorneys alleged in their response, describing how one Veolia official went so far as to pound a table and walk out after levying threats,” in one meeting with city officials in December 2010.

The company’s claim that it is being “singled out” should be discounted, they argued.

“By operating its transfer station, Veolia brings thousands of tons of solid waste through the city, much of which originates from outside the city,” they argued. “Should another similar entity come to be, the city would enforce ordinances as it has against Veolia.”

The city denies trying to “force” Veolia from operating a transfer station in Evanston.

The city took steps, the city’s lawyers said, for numerous legislative purposes, including “environment protection, nuisance abatement, recovery of enforcement costs” and the protection of public health.