Home | Meetings | Contact List | Committees | Documents | Mapping | Photo Gallery | Search | Links

Saline County Study Committee
Monday, June 19, 2000
Saline County Extension Office, Marshall
Minutes (unapproved)

Saline County Study Members Present: Mark Belwood, Kathy Borgman, Wayne McReynolds, LeAnn Haling, Vince Buck,
Richard Clemens, Becky Plattner
Saline County Study Members Absent: Ruthie Cramer, Marc Harris, Roy Hunter
Saline County Commissioners Present: Mike Dillon
Saline County Commissioners Absent: John Stouffer, Richard Pemberton
Saline County Extension Staff Present: Cynthia Crawford, Darin Starr, Rachel Miles
University Partners Present:  Anna Cox, Jim Meyer, Jerry Organ
University Partners Absent: John Lory, Tom Johnson, Chris Barnett, Kathy Miller, Mubarak Hamed, Chris Fulcher, Dr. Ron Powers
Marshall Democrat News:  Bob Stewart

 Chairman Mark Belwood called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.  Cynthia introduced Rachel Miles, the new 4-H and Youth Specialist working at Extension.  Roy Hunter sent regrets for his absence.  Carol Brown has placed numerous ads and written letters to the editor expressing her opinion that the study group is usurping the power of the people.   Mark invited Carol Brown to the meeting, but she declined to attend. Mark noted he had received a letter from Bill Livengood expressing his opinion that the study did not gather as much information as needed.  Mark planned to bring the letter to let everyone read, but left it at home on the scanner.  Mark will send copies via e-mail.  Mark said he plans to respond to Bill’s letter and thank him for his input, and that he will send a copy of his response to steering committee members.

Minutes of the May meeting were approved as distributed.  Cynthia reported the budget is adequate to fund all LIFE classes and conclude the study this summer and fall.

 Mark invited Jerry Organ to give an update on legislative and legal matters of interest to the Study.  Information provided at the meeting will be summarized by Jerry and placed on the web later this summer.  Jerry reported no action was taken by the legislature this session that related to CAFO’s and land use. 

 Although the Western District Court of Appeals upheld the Linn County health ordinance in its entirety (as had the lower court), Organ felt that the two courts had erred in giving blanket approval.  Because agriculture is exempt from zoning regulation, Jerry said that the setback distance portions of the ordinance related to gases should not have been allowed to stand.  He said that in his opinion the proper way for a health ordinance to regulate gaseous emissions would be by chemical concentration levels at the property boundary lines—not by odor and not by setbacks.  However, Jerry said that he felt that the use of setbacks to protect water supplies in a health ordinance would be defensible.  Organ also noted that a health ordinance can regulate—but not prohibit—an activity.

Asked if county commissioners can pass a health ordinance without a county health department, Organ replied they could.  However, once passed there has to be a way to implement and enforce the ordinance.  LeAnn Haling asked if there was a way to have a mediation board to promote a “good neighbor policy,” with some “teeth” if people did not comply.  Organ replied such was possible, but not without some system set in place by the county government.  It might be possible to set up a simple process whereby all current uses of land are accepted, and only when a change in land use is desired, would one appear before a mediation board.  If a voluntary solution is not found, one can always file a nuisance suit.  This form of operation would require citizens trained as mediators, but not a big budget.  However, it does not deal with the health issue. 

Richard Clemens asked if the state legislature might classify large hog operations as industrial and not agricultural.  The CAFO regulations imposed in 1996 by HB 1207 have a sunset clause that expires this coming legislative session.  Organ had no predictions as to what might happen.  The presence of corporate farming is highly political and it is hard to know where the critical mass of opinion will end up.  Organ did speculate that the Missouri Farm Bureau would play a major role in the decision.  The move of property from agriculture to industrial standards would bring additional revenue to the county in higher property values.

In discussion of what happened in north Missouri with Premium Standard Farms, Bob Stewart commented that his desk was full of studies, but whom do you listen to?  Organ suggested one look for studies that talk about what happened, not what was or is projected.  Better yet, do one’s own study talking to a variety of people about the jobs provided and impact on the community.  Many times the jobs provided are for a new work force coming into the area with new cultural demands, such as an Hispanic population moving in and with it new demands on school systems and service providers.

After a break, Mark asked Jerry Organ to comment on how Missouri’s Right to Farm law is affected by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling which overturned Iowa’s Right to Farm law.  Jerry said that Missouri’s law remains intact.  He said that Iowa’s law was struck down because it allowed for the creation of agricultural areas exempt from nuisance suits.  The Missouri law does not prohibit nuisance suits.

 There was some discussion on the use of land covenants or conservation easements whereby a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization is formed and development rights are either purchased by or donated to this organization.

 Cynthia reported on a good last June session with the LIFE classes.  There will be a meeting July 10 at 3:30 at the Extension office to plan for a gathering of all LIFE participants.  One outcome of the LIFE classes is a gathering of people interested in children and families in Saline County.  A meeting will be held in Arrow Rock on June 22 with 70 participants registered.

Anna Cox reported on the Preference Ranking Survey Results from LIFE classes and town hall meetings.  The report will appear in full on the web.  While the results are not a random sample of Saline County, they do tell us what values are important to a significant group of self-selected people.   Results of surveys showed the following values:

 Private Property Rights  19.8%
Neighborhood Property Values  18.6%
Local Ownership  14.6%
Environment Considerations  19.8%
Cultural & Historical Resources  13.3%
Economic Consicerations  13.9%

Next meetings are Monday, June 26, 7:00 p.m. at the Extension Office, and July 10, 7:00 p.m. at the Extension Office.  LeAnn Haling had suggested at our last meeting that we take a straw vote to make sure the committee favored action of some kind and not just letting things go on as in the past.  Mark asked for a show of hands by those who favored no action.  No one raised their hand. Mark asked that at our meeting next week each member of the Study Committee be allowed up to five minutes to make a statement of what they are thinking at this time as we begin group deliberation.  At this time, members of the extension and university are invited to attend as observers and will continue to provide information, but will not be part of the recommendation making process.

 Jim Meyer asked if we would like to take some aerial photos and do some updating on location of structures.  It was felt this could be accomplished by giving sections to people familiar with various areas of the county.

Meeting adjourned 10:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Borgman, recorder

This web site is hosted  by CARES- University of Missouri - Columbia
This web site is maintained jointly by the Saline County Study Steering Committee and CARES
For problems or questions regarding this web contact the Saline County Steering Committee or  Chris Fulcher (CARES).
Last updated: October 13, 2000