September 30 , 2005 Meeting Minutes

	MINUTES
	DRYCLEANER ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE TRUST FUND COUNCIL of ILLINOIS HOLIDAY INN SELECT - NAPERVILLE NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS SEPTEMBER 30 , 2005
	John Polak, Chairperson, called the Drycleaner Environmental Response Trust Fund Council of Illinois meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. A quorum was present. Roll call was taken with the following members present:
	John Bredenkamp David Gibson Young B. Kim Charles Kwon Jerry Lewicki John Polak Also present were: H. Patrick Eriksen, Program Administrator's Office John McCarthy, Program Counsel C. Michael Perkins, Program Administrator's Office
	PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
	The minutes from the July 20, 2005 Council meeting were reviewed. On a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Kim, the minutes were approved by a vote of 6-0.
	OPERATIONAL ISSUES
	A.	Insurance Policy Revisions:
		Mr. Eriksen reviewed the proposed changes to the Fund's pollution liability policy with the Council. He noted a majority of the changes were made as a result of the recent Administrative Hearing Officer decision regarding the issue of the Fund's duty and obligation to defend any claim. That obligation has been omitted from the policy. A new paragraph has been included under the cancellation section of the policy which denotes that if the drycleaning facility ceases operation during the policy period, coverage shall automatically cancel 60 days after the last day of active drycleaning operations at the facility. The Fund would not need to issue a cancellation notice to affect this cancellation. Mr. Eriksen reported the changes have been reviewed by Mr. Polak's staff and Mr. McCarthy would like to request Mr. Iain Johnston, the Fund's current Administrative Hearing Officer who has substantial insurance expertise, to also review the proposed wording changes. This would entail a minimal amount of time and could be performed under his existing contract with the Council. On a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Bredenkamp, the Council approved the proposed amendments to the Fund's pollution liability insurance policy by a vote of 6-0, subject to a final review by Mr. Johnston.
	B.	Licensing and Insurance Application Revisions and Claim Form Revisions:
		Mr. Eriksen reviewed the following application revisions with the Council: 1) License application 2) License renewal application and instructions 3)  Insurance application 4)  Insurance renewal application 5)  Claim form He noted the revisions were to clarify that only active drycleaning facilities need to be licensed and only active drycleaning facilities are eligible for insurance program benefits. The claim form was modified to more clearly designate whether the claim was being filed for remedial program benefits or insurance fund benefits. After discussion by the Council, on a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Kwon, the Council approved the applications revisions by a vote of 6-0.
	C.	Administrative Rule Amendments
		Mr. Eriksen reviewed with the Council the proposed revisions to the insurance policy dictated the need to update the insurance program administrative rules. Mr. Eriksen reviewed in detail each of the rule amendments, noting that: 1)  Clarified the Council does not have the duty or obligation to defend a claim made against a named insured listed on a Council insurance policy. 2)  If a Council-insured drycleaning facility ceases drycleaning operations during the policy, coverage will automatically cancel 60 days after the last day of active drycleaning operations at the facility. No cancellation notice need be issued by the Council to affect this cancellation. 3)  Clarified in the regulations when an insurance policy may be cancelled and that the insurance coverage shall expire one year after the date of issue. 4) Revisions were made to the claim form stating that there would be included on the form an indication of whether the claim is for remedial account program benefits or insurance account program benefits. Mr. Polak asked if the rules should state that coverage shall “cease” instead of “will automatically cancel” or if it was redundant. Mr. Eriksen stated that he would review this issue with Mr. Johnston. After discussion by the Council, on a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Gibson, the Council approved the proposed amendments to the administrative rules by a vote of 6-0.
	D.	Report on Updated Compliance Inspections:
		Mr. Eriksen stated he had made both verbal and written requests of all the compliance programs to provide an update as to the status of their program inspections by September 7, 2005. This was in response to the Council's directive at the July 20, 2005 Strategic Planning meeting. To date he had received an updated letter from the National Drycleaners Institute and from the Safety & Environmental Consultants, Inc. In addition, he had received verbal representation from the STAR Program that they were on track to complete all of the necessary inspections prior to the end of the calendar year. Numerous attempts were made to contact the remaining compliance programs but he was unsuccessful in getting a response. The Council further discussed the status of the compliance program inspections. Mr. Polak recommended the Administrator send a letter to all insured drycleaners, reminding them that they must have a compliance program inspection by December 31, 2005. Mr. Kwon concurred with this recommendation and requested the letter be translated into Korean to facilitate the Korean drycleaning owners/operators.
	E.	Cancellation of Claim Warrant:
		Mr. Eriksen reviewed the background information with the Council, noting that the Trust Fund Act provides only eligible drycleaner owner/operators to qualify for remedial benefits and be entitled for reimbursement for remedial action costs they incur in investigating and cleaning up their drycleaning facility. To facilitate the reimbursement process, the Council has allowed the following payment options: 1) Warrant made jointly payable to the eligible claimant and the environmental consultant; or 2) Warrant made payable to the environmental consultant only if the appropriate deductible has been met and with written authorization from the eligible claimant. Recently, the Fund was contacted by an environmental consultant who had in their possession a warrant issued by the State of Illinois on behalf of the Fund for reimbursement of cleanup work performed by the environmental consultant on behalf of the eligible claimant. The warrant was jointly payable to the eligible consultant and the environmental consultant. The consultant contacted the claimant and asked him to endorse the warrant in order that they may be paid for the services that they rendered at the drycleaning facility. The drycleaner refused to endorse the warrant. The Administrator's staff contacted the drycleaner to inquire as to his reasoning for not signing the warrant. He stated he had been evicted from the facility by his landlord and he was upset with the environmental consultant and the Fund because of the eviction. He informed the Administrator's staff that he would not endorse the warrant. Does the Council wish to authorize the Administrator to have this warrant cancelled and a new warrant issued and made payable directly to the environmental consultant? It is the Administrator's recommendation that the Council request cancellation of the outstanding warrant and authorize the issuance of a new warrant made payable directly to the consultant upon the consultant providing written certification that they have not been paid by the drycleaner for these services or paid by any other party, i.e., the real estate owner. After discussion by the Council, on a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Gibson, the Council voted 6-0 to authorize the cancellation of the outstanding warrant and the issuance of a new warrant made payable directly to the consultant upon the consultant providing written certification that they had not been paid by the drycleaners for these services or by any other party.
	APPROVAL OF PROGRAM BILLINGS
	Mr. Eriksen noted that the following bills were before the Council for their review and action:
	1. Williams & Company Consulting, Inc $ 60,988.00 Standard flat fee billing for August 2005, licensing, underwriting and claims processing.
	2. John J. McCarthy $ 2,899.58 Professional legal services to the Council for the period of July 11, 2005 through September 16, 2005.
	On a motion by Mr. Bredenkamp and a second by Mr. Lewicki, the Council approved the bills by a vote of 6-0. Mr. Eriksen noted that Williams & Company's July bill had been sent to all of the Council members. Each Council member verbally approved the bill prior to the September 30, 2005 Council meeting.
	REVIEW OF ACTIVITY REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
	Mr. Eriksen reviewed with the Council the August 31, 2005 monthly activity report, noting the total current number of licensed drycleaners is 1,338. The Administrator's office is beginning drive-by inspections of facilities that were licensed in 2004 but failed to renew their license for 2005. These inspections will determine if the facility is still an active operating drycleaning facility that should be licensed. He reported there are 827 drycleaning facilities participating in the Fund's pollution liability program; the Fund has 478 open remedial claims with outstanding budgets of approximately $4.7 million. The August 31, 2005 financial statements reflect a fund balance of $4,912,554. The gross solvent tax receipts for the second quarter of 2005 were approximately $286,000, which is comparable to the most recent financial projections prepared by the Administrator's office.
	CLAIM PAYMENTS IN EXCESS OF $75,000
	Mr. Eriksen noted that there were two (2) claim payments in excess of $75,000 for the Council's review:
	1.	United Cleaners - Site #0001973
		Mr. Perkins reviewed with the Council background information on this facility noting that this is the site that had the pilot project initiated in September 2002 using thermally enhanced soil vapor extraction system. The system was partially successful; however, it still had an extensive level of PCE contamination that still must be remediated. The Administrator has received five (5) bids for the preparation of the remedial action plan (RAP) and is requesting Council authority of $8,500 for the preparation of the RAP. On a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Bredenkamp, by a vote of 6-0, the Council approved $8,500 for the preparation of the remedial action plan.
	2.	Plum Grove Cleaners - Site # 0001461
		Mr. Perkins reviewed background information on this claim with the Council noting this is the facility and the adjacent restaurant had their private water wells contaminated by drycleaning solvent. The remedial action plan that was proposed is the installation of municipal water line to the claimant and the adjacent property owner. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) has issued draft NFR letters for the drycleaning facility and the neighboring restaurant. Other remaining activities to be performed are to: a)  obtain a city construction permit b)  install the municipal water supply line to the two(2) facilities c)  connect the restaurant to the municipal water supply system d)  plug the existing water wells Mr. Perkins stated the Administrator is requesting total budget authority of $126,595 for the municipal water line installation, the required groundwater advance and IEPA correspondence. This includes a 20% contingency cost factor. After discussion by the Council, on a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Kwon, the budget request was approved by a vote of 6-0.
	OTHER ISSUES AS PRESENTED
	Mr. Eriksen noted that he was proposing that the next Council meeting be tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, November 16, 2005. The Council members indicated that they do not see a problem at this time with that date. Mr. Eriksen stated that the Attorney General's Office continues to move ahead with several enforcement action lawsuits against unlicensed drycleaners.
	PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
	Mr. Polak asked if there were any public comments. There were none.
	ETHICS TRAINING FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS
	Mr. Eriksen conducted the required annual ethics training session with the Council. There being no further business, on a motion by Mr. Lewicki and a second by Mr. Bredenkamp, the Council meeting adjourned at 11:05 a.m.
	Back to Top