1 1 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 2 STATE OF ILLINOIS 3 4 5 IN RE: 6 THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A 7 LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT FACILITY BY 8 MOSS FAMILY FARMS, INC., HEARTLAND 9 HOGS 2, BAYLIS, ILLINOIS 10 11 12 13 14 Public informational hearing held, pursuant 15 to Notice, on the 26th day of June, 2013, between 16 the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 9:40 p.m., at the Pike 17 County Courthouse, Upper Courtroom, 121 East 18 Washington Street, Pittsfield, Illinois. 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 1 I N D E X 2 E X H I B I T S 3 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE 4 Exhibit Number 1 Notice of Intent 13 to Construct 5 Exhibit Number 2 Department's PowerPoint 13 6 presentation 7 Exhibit Number 3 Facility's presentation 39 8 Exhibit Number 4 oral testimony sign-in 181 sheet 9 Exhibit Number 5 attendance sign-in 181 10 sheet 11 Exhibit Number 6 U.S. industrial 182 farming report 12 (The exhibits are attached to the original 13 transcript.) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: All right. 2 We'll go ahead and get started here this evening. 3 Good evening. On behalf of Bob Flider, Director of 4 the Illinois Department of Agriculture, we thank 5 you very much for the invitation to come to Pike 6 County tonight. 7 My name's Scott Frank. I'm with the 8 Illinois Department of Agriculture and I'll be 9 serving as the hearing officer for tonight's 10 proceeding. 11 Also with me on behalf of the 12 Department are Warren Goetsch, Bureau Chief of 13 Environmental Programs, and Brad Beaver, manager of 14 the bureau's livestock program. 15 This meeting is being conducted 16 pursuant to Section 12 of the Livestock Management 17 Facilities Act. The informational meeting is being 18 held at the request of the Pike County Board and is 19 to afford members of the public an opportunity to 20 ask questions and present oral and written 21 testimony regarding the proposed construction of a 22 3,722 animal unit swine finishing facility owned by 23 Moss Family Farms, Incorporated. 24 My task this evening is to ensure that 4 1 this meeting is conducted in an orderly fashion and 2 to ensure that all comments and testimony received 3 tonight are entered into the record. 4 Tonight's meeting is being transcribed 5 and a transcript of the meeting will be sent to the 6 Pike County Board, as well as used by the 7 Department in make its decision regarding the 8 proposed construction of this facility. 9 In order to ensure that we have an 10 orderly process, I will quickly explain how the 11 meeting will proceed this evening. 12 First, following my comments, Warren 13 Goetsch will provide an overview of the provisions 14 of the Livestock Management Facilities Act as it 15 relates to this particular project, specifically 16 outlining the current status of the project and how 17 the process will proceed following this meeting. 18 Following Mr. Goetsch, representatives 19 for the proposed construction project will be given 20 an opportunity to describe the project and 21 demonstrate how they believe it meets the siting 22 criteria of the Livestock Management Facilities 23 Act. 24 After their presentation, I will open 5 1 the meeting to questions. Anyone wishing to ask 2 questions of the facility representatives or the 3 Department of Agriculture will be given an 4 opportunity to do so. During the question and 5 answer session, I will ask that you state your name 6 and spell your last name for the court reporter. 7 You may then ask your question. 8 Depending upon the number of people who 9 wish to testify in the oral testimony phase of the 10 meeting, which is right after the question phase, 11 there may be a time limit placed on this 12 questioning phase of the meeting. 13 Following the question and answer 14 session, I will ask for oral testimony from the 15 public. Sign-in sheets were placed in the hallway 16 as you came in, one sheet for attendance and a 17 second sheet for testimony. People who wish to 18 provide comments during this oral testimony phase 19 are asked to sign the oral testimony sheet. 20 People providing oral comments will be 21 sworn in and will be subject to questioning from 22 the public. Each person will be given three 23 minutes to provide his or her comments. Legal 24 counsel speaking on behalf of multiple clients will 6 1 be given six minutes to provide comments and will 2 be asked to state the names of those persons on 3 whose behalf he or she is speaking. Depending upon 4 the number of individuals wishing to provide 5 comment, the aforementioned time limits may need to 6 be adjusted to ensure that the meeting ends at a 7 reasonable time. 8 Following the oral testimony phase, I 9 will ask for written testimony. Written testimony 10 will be accepted in paper form and will be entered 11 into the record for this proceeding. The meeting 12 will then conclude with closing comments from the 13 facility and the Department of Agriculture. 14 So, to summarize the procedure tonight, 15 we will have comments from the Department, comments 16 from the facility, questions directed to the 17 Department and the facility, oral testimony, 18 written testimony, and closing comments. 19 Again, we very much appreciate your 20 hospitality in inviting us here tonight to consider 21 the proposed construction of the Moss Family Farms 22 swine facility. Please remember to confine your 23 comments and questions to that subject as we 24 continue. 7 1 I will now turn the proceedings over to 2 Warren Goetsch for remarks from the Illinois 3 Department of Agriculture. Mr. Goetsch. 4 MR. GOETSCH: Good evening. My name is 5 Warren Goetsch and I currently serve as the Bureau 6 Chief of Environmental Programs at the Illinois 7 Department of Agriculture. One of our 8 responsibilities at the Department is the 9 administration of the various provisions of the 10 Livestock Management Facilities Act. On behalf of 11 the Department let me welcome you to this public 12 informational meeting. 13 Before we hear from the proposed 14 facility representatives, I'd like to say a few 15 words regarding the applicable provisions in the 16 Livestock Management Facilities Act and the current 17 status of this proposed project. 18 The Livestock Management Facilities Act 19 was originally passed and became law on May 21st of 20 1996. Since that time the Act has been amended 21 three times, first during the General Assembly's 22 1997 fall veto session, second during the General 23 Assembly's 1999 spring session, and most recently 24 during the 2007 spring session. 8 1 The Act as it is today generally can be 2 described as covering five major areas, those 3 being: facility design standards, waste management 4 planning requirements, facility operator training 5 and testing, anaerobic lagoon financial 6 responsibility demonstration, and facility setback 7 requirements. Each of these provisions impacts 8 various types of facilities in different ways 9 depending upon their size expressed in animal 10 units, and whether the proposed facility is 11 considered as a new facility, a modified facility, 12 or the expansion of an existing site. 13 The Livestock Management Facilities Act 14 provisions are quite complicated, and specific 15 facility design standards and situations certainly 16 can differ. It is, however, the Department's 17 intention to always fairly and equitably apply 18 these requirements to the livestock industry in 19 this state. 20 Now, regarding the current status of 21 this project, the Department received a formal 22 Notice of Intent to Construct Application for the 23 proposed construction of a swine facility on March 24 29th, 2013. The proposed project is to consist of 9 1 the construction of two swine wean-to-finish 2 buildings, each measuring 102 feet by 304 feet and 3 each with an eight-foot deep underbuilding 4 livestock waste-handling facility. The project is 5 proposed to be located approximately 3.8 miles 6 north of New Salem, Illinois, in northern -- north 7 central Pike County. The application was submitted 8 by Mr. Patrick Maschhoff of Maschhoff 9 Environmental, Incorporated, on behalf of Moss 10 Family Farms, Incorporated, of Baylis, Illinois. 11 The maximum design capacity of the proposed 12 facility is 3,722.4 animal units, or 9,306 head of 13 swine, each greater than 55 pounds. 14 As I mentioned earlier, the Department 15 received a Notice of Intent to Construct 16 Application on March 29, 2013, and reviewed it for 17 compliance with the applicable provisions of the 18 Livestock Management Facilities Act. 19 On May 13th, the Department determined 20 that the notice was complete. 21 On May 15th, the Department forwarded a 22 copy of the completed application to the Pike 23 County Board and then caused notice of that 24 application to be published in the appropriate 10 1 newspaper. 2 The design capacity of the proposed 3 facility requires compliance with a residential 4 setback distance of not less than 1,760 feet and a 5 populated area setback distance of not less than 6 3,520 feet. 7 On June 6th, the Department received 8 notice from the Pike County Board requesting that a 9 public informational meeting be scheduled regarding 10 this proposal. After further consultation with the 11 County Board, the Department scheduled this meeting 12 and caused notice of the meeting to be published in 13 the appropriate newspaper. 14 An additional requirement of the 15 Livestock Management Facilities Act deals with the 16 design and construction plans of a livestock 17 waste-handling facility. The Department has 18 received a formal submittal of detailed engineering 19 design plans and specifications for the proposed 20 project's underbuilding livestock waste-handling 21 facility. The Department's detailed review process 22 of those plans has been completed and the 23 Department has found them to be in compliance with 24 the statutory requirements. 11 1 We are here this evening to receive 2 testimony regarding the proposed facility -- the 3 proposed livestock management facility's compliance 4 with the eight siting criteria as defined in 5 Section 12, Paragraph (d), of the Livestock 6 Management Facilities Act. In general, information 7 regarding the following would certainly be 8 appropriate for this evening's meeting: 9 Information regarding the manure management 10 planning, potential impact of the proposed facility 11 on the surrounding area's character, whether the 12 proposed facility is located within any floodplain 13 or other sensitive areas, odor control plans of the 14 facility, possible impact of the proposed facility 15 on existing area traffic patterns, and possible 16 impact of the proposed facility on community 17 growth, tourism, recreation, or economic 18 development of the area would all be appropriate 19 for this evening's meeting. 20 Copies of the specific criteria were 21 available on the table with the sign-in sheets. If 22 anyone failed to pick one up and would like to have 23 a copy, if you'd just raise your hand, Brad will 24 get something to you. 12 1 Brad, there's at least one over here. 2 Finally, the process that will be 3 followed after this evening's meeting is as 4 follows: 5 The County Board will have up to 30 6 business days from tonight's meeting to submit to 7 the Department a nonbinding recommendation relative 8 to the proposed siting of this facility. Thus, a 9 recommendation from the Pike County Board is due at 10 the Department on or before August the 8th. 11 After the close of the county's 30 12 business day comment period, the Department will 13 have 15 calendar days, or until August 23rd, to 14 review all the information submitted to date, 15 including the Notice of Intent to Construct, 16 construction plans, transcripts of tonight's 17 meeting, the County Board's recommendation, and any 18 other additional information submitted by the 19 owners at the request of the Department. Based on 20 that review, the Department will determine whether 21 the eight siting criteria have been met. Once that 22 determination has been made, the Department will 23 notify both the County Board and the applicant of 24 the Department's decision. 13 1 Mr. Hearing Officer, at this time I'd 2 like to submit a completed -- or, a copy of the 3 Notice of Intent to Construct Application and its 4 associated correspondence file for formal entry 5 into the record as an exhibit. 6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Entered into 7 the record as Exhibit Number 1 is the completed 8 Notice of Intent to Construct, including 9 correspondence between the Department and the 10 applicant, notices of the public informational 11 meeting, and correspondence with Pike County 12 officials. 13 MR. GOETSCH: And I'm sorry, I forgot. 14 I'll also give you a copy of the PowerPoint 15 presentation that you can add as well. 16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Also entered 17 into the record as Exhibit Number 2 is a copy of 18 the Department's PowerPoint presentation. 19 MR. GOETSCH: This concludes my formal 20 remarks. Again, thank you for your attention and 21 the opportunity to be here this evening. I look 22 forward to your comments regarding the proposal. 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Thank you, 24 Mr. Goetsch. 14 1 At this time we will hear comments from 2 the facility. For those who will be presenting 3 information, please state your name and then spell 4 your last name for the court reporter. I will then 5 swear you in. 6 MR. HOLLIDAY: My name's Aaron 7 Holliday, H-o-l-l-i-d-a-y. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is there anyone 9 else who will be providing testimony? 10 MR. HENRY: Matt Henry, H-e-n-r-y. 11 MR. MASCHHOFF: Patrick Maschhoff, 12 M-a-s-c-h-h-o-f-f. 13 MR. JARON MOSS: Jaron Moss, M-o-s-s. 14 MR. JERRY MOSS: Jerry Moss, M-o-s-s. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: For those of 16 you who will be providing testimony -- 17 Go ahead, sir. 18 MR. WEST: Chris West, W-e-s-t. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Thank you. 20 For those of you who will be providing 21 testimony, please raise your right hand. 22 Do you swear or affirm that the 23 testimony you're about to give will be the truth, 24 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 15 1 MR. JERRY MOSS: I do. 2 MR. JARON MOSS: I do. 3 MR. MASCHHOFF: I do. 4 MR. HOLLIDAY: I do. 5 MR. HENRY: I do. 6 MR. WEST: I do. 7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Thank you. You 8 may proceed. 9 MR. HOLLIDAY: All righty. My name's 10 Aaron Holliday and I'm the field adviser for Moss 11 Family Farms. I've had the opportunity to work 12 with Jerry and his crew over the past two years. 13 During this time I've been able to directly witness 14 the best management practice that Jerry and his 15 crew follow each and every day. In doing so, Moss 16 Family Farms is one of the top performers in the 17 Maschhoff system. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. JERRY MOSS: Thanks, Aaron. 20 I have a brief summary of some talking 21 points here. 22 The Moss family has proposed to expand 23 their operation and continue our 17-year 24 partnership with the Maschhoff family to raise 16 1 pigs. We will own and operate the farm. The 2 Maschhoffs provide the pigs and we provide the care 3 for them. 4 Pigs come into the farm at 15 pounds 5 and are raised to a market weight of 280 pounds 6 over a six-month period. The barn facilities are 7 washed and sanitized after each production cycle, 8 and the barn will utilize automated ventilation and 9 feed and water systems. 10 The manure storage is designed to a 11 capacity that will allow us to apply manure through 12 a direct injection system in the fall and/or spring 13 seasons over the course of five days, depending on 14 field conditions. 15 Patrick. 16 MR. MASCHHOFF: As I said before, my 17 name is Patrick Maschhoff. I'm with the 18 environmental services of Maschhoff Environmental. 19 And as such, we provide consulting services to the 20 Moss Family Farms to help them with facility 21 applications. 22 Our primary responsibility of this 23 meeting is to provide evidence that Moss Family 24 Farms have met and exceeded eight siting criteria. 17 1 We'll present the story of how this farm proposal 2 was developed, so we will address the eight siting 3 criteria out of sequence. 4 We have divided the eight siting 5 criteria into four project phases, including site 6 selection, permit application, design and 7 construction, and operation and management. 8 During the site selection phase we'll 9 discuss the steps that were taken to evaluate the 10 suitability of the proposed location. 11 In the permit application phase we will 12 review the steps taken to submit the necessary 13 applications. 14 Phase 3 includes facility design and 15 construction. We will walk through how the 16 facility is constructed from the ground up to 17 demonstrate the safety and construction standards 18 that are built into these manure-storage 19 facilities. 20 The last phase of the project includes 21 the plans that we have for operation and management 22 of the facility that will ensure protection of the 23 environment and as well as minimizing odors from 24 the facility. 18 1 With that, I'll move on to the project 2 phase 1. Phase 1 of the project will address the 3 selection of the proposed facility. It 4 incorporates five of the eight siting criteria, 5 including design location and management to protect 6 the environmental, compliance with zoning and 7 setbacks, environmentally sensitivity areas and 8 construction standards, effects on local traffic, 9 and exiting economic development plans. 10 This aerial photo illustrates our 11 compliance with the required setback distances as 12 required by the Livestock Management Facilities 13 Act. 14 The proposed farm will house a maximum 15 of 3722 animal units. An animal units is a means 16 of unit of measurement. The calculation is 17 completed by multiplying the number of pigs by the 18 factor. The factor for an average weight of 19 greater than 55 pounds is .4. 20 The required setback distance from 21 residences is 1760 feet as indicated by the orange 22 circle. The populated area setback is 3520 feet as 23 indicated by the blue circle. 24 To meet the residential setback 19 1 requirement there cannot be any residences within 2 the residential setback. To meet the populated 3 area setback requirement there has to be fewer than 4 ten non-farm residences and there cannot be a 5 common place of assembly for non-farm business that 6 is frequented by at least 50 different people on 7 average at least once per week within the populated 8 area setback. 9 When the primary activity of a non-farm 10 business is a non -- is an outdoor activity, the 11 minimum distance shall be measured from the nearest 12 corner of the livestock facility to the property. 13 With DJ Outfitters/Smith marked with 14 the yellow dot in the bottom left-hand corner, the 15 primary activity is an outdoor activity. The 16 separation distance was measured from the property 17 line. Since DJ Outfitters/Smith does not have 50 18 different people frequenting it per week, it does 19 not meet the definition of a common place of 20 assembly. 21 The second aspect of compliance with 22 setback is making sure that we're complying with 23 local zoning which Pike County has adopted. The 24 area in which the farm is owned is zoned for 20 1 agriculture. The separation distance between the 2 livestock facility and the nearest property line is 3 120 feet. This distance complies with all county 4 zoning setbacks. 5 The source of this map was from the 6 Illinois Association of County Zoning Officials, 7 January 2009. 8 This is a representation of the 9 proposed truck route into and out of the site. The 10 yellow line represents the route that will be used 11 to deliver weaned pigs and feed to the facility. 12 Market hogs will leave the following -- will leave 13 the farm following the same route they took into 14 the site. Trucks will travel State Route 104 and 15 then travel south on 370th Street for approximately 16 2.5 miles to the driveway of the farm. This truck 17 has been discussed -- this truck route has been 18 discussed and approved by the county engineer, 19 Chris Johnson. 20 The previous slide was shown because 21 one of the siting criteria requires us to analyze 22 the impact of local truck -- truck traffic. The 23 information presented here is from the Illinois 24 Department of Transportation. According to IDOT, 21 1 Illinois 104 sees an average of 840 trucks per 2 week. We estimate that there will be an average of 3 8.7 trucks per week traveling to Moss Family Farms. 4 Therefore, the 8.7 trucks per week increase on 5 Illinois 104 equates to a one percent increase on 6 local truck traffic. No statistics were available 7 for the average daily truck counts on road 370th 8 Street. 9 Another siting requirement requires us 10 to evaluate the proposed location of the facility 11 with respect to sensitive environmental features of 12 the landscape. One of these investigations 13 includes evaluation of the hundred-year floodplain. 14 This map is based off the 2011 FEMA 15 National Insurance Flood Rate Map. The light blue 16 dotted arrow represents the hundred-year 17 floodplain. The map clearly illustrates the site 18 is not located within a hundred-year floodplain. 19 Another sensitive environmental feature 20 deals whether the farm is located within a Karst 21 region. Karst regions are most prone to sinkholes. 22 This map shows the proposed location is located 23 within a Karst region of Illinois. The source of 24 the information is the Illinois Department of 22 1 Natural Resources. 2 Frank & West Environmental Engineers 3 conducted a visual investigation and that 4 investigation did not reveal a natural depression 5 within 400 feet of the planned non-lagoon livestock 6 waste-handling facility and no voids were 7 discovered within the borings. 8 The third potential sensitive 9 environmental feature will be determine -- will be 10 determining if the aquifer material is present 11 within five feet of the bottom of the facility. 12 The chart illustrates the soil profile 13 described by an on-site soil boring conducted by 14 Frank & West Engineering. It was the conclusion of 15 the professional engineer who completed the soil 16 boring that there were no aquifer materials found 17 within 15 feet of the planned bottom of the 18 structure. The soil profile described for the 19 proposed farm location consists mainly of clay. 20 If you examine the county breakdown on 21 the existing economic development plan -- this is a 22 2011 study by Goldsmith and Wang with the 23 University of Illinois. They have studied the 24 economic impact of livestock in Pike County. You 23 1 can see that nearly six percent of all personal 2 income generated in the county comes from pork 3 production. 4 Also in the study was the employment 5 impact. As you can see, almost five percent of the 6 jobs in Pike County are related directly or 7 indirectly by pork production. 8 And finally, they looked at the total 9 tax impact from each sector of the livestock. They 10 expressed these numbers in thousands, so 3678 would 11 equal 3.6 million in tax impact within Pike County 12 from pork production. 13 This, along with the fact that the land 14 used in the project is zoned agricultural use, 15 would suggest to us this project is consistent with 16 the existing economic development plan. 17 Phase 2 of the project will determine 18 -- determine the permit -- of the permit 19 application phase. Once we have determined that 20 the site is suitable, the next step is to prepare 21 the permit application materials. 22 This process includes several of the 23 eight siting criteria -- eight siting criteria 24 requirements, including registration, location 24 1 information, compliance with setbacks, facility 2 design plans. 3 On March 28th, 2013, Notice of Intent 4 to Construct was submitted. 5 April 15th, Non-Lagoon Livestock 6 Facility Application was submitted. 7 May 12th, construction drawings were 8 filed by Frank & West Engineers. 9 May 13th, received IDOA approval of the 10 Notice of Intent to Construct. 11 May 17th, completed the landowner 12 notifications and submitted certified mail receipts 13 to the Department of Ag. 14 June 6th, the Site Investigation Report 15 was filed by Frank & West Environmental Engineers 16 to the Department of Ag. 17 June 14th, the Pike County Building 18 Permit was submitted. 19 On June 24th, received IDOA approval of 20 the Non-Lagoon Livestock Facility Application and 21 Construction Plans. 22 On June 25th, the Waste Management 23 Plans were submitted for the proposed site and the 24 existing site. 25 1 Phase 3 of our presentation will cover 2 design and construction. 3 MR. HENRY: Thank you, Patrick. 4 As you said, phase 3 of our 5 presentation will cover design and construction. 6 This phase involves several elements of the eight 7 siting criteria, including design location and 8 management, and number 4, environmentally sensitive 9 areas and construction standards, and also 5, plans 10 to prevent spills, runoff, and leaching. 11 Let's start with an overview of the 12 process as used to meet the construction standards 13 required in the Livestock Management Facilities 14 Act. In the Act it references concrete 15 specifications have to meet Midwest Plan Service's 16 Concrete Manure Storage Handbook's requirements, 17 also known as MWPS-36. These are rigorous 18 construction specifications to ensure the safety 19 and integrity of a manure storage structure. 20 Midwest Plan Service is a 21 university-based publishing cooperative of the 22 twelve North Central Region land-grant universities 23 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This is 24 the construction standard that the Livestock 26 1 Management Facilities Act, the legislation that 2 oversees this construction, has chosen to use. 3 Those specs that I will go over with 4 you this evening are water stop at all concrete 5 joints, perimeter tile sampling to monitor manure 6 storage structure integrity, and the fact that the 7 storage structure is fully enclosed and therefore 8 excluding rainfall and helping to minimize odors. 9 Per the regulations all concrete used 10 in the construction of a manure-storage structure 11 must be at least 4,000 psi. Using this strength of 12 concrete helps to ensure the proper compressive 13 strength of the cured mix. The strength of the 14 concrete mix used has to be certified in writing 15 from the manufacturer. These steps are required to 16 ensure the utmost integrity of the manure-storage 17 structure. 18 IDOA, Illinois Department of Ag, 19 conducts an inspection prior to construction 20 beginning, during construction, and also a final 21 inspection. Department of Ag also requires photo 22 documentation of these construction standards as 23 well as written documentation. Moss Family Farms 24 or their builder will have to collect this 27 1 documentation during the construction and submit it 2 to the Illinois Department of Ag before they will 3 be given approval that the structure can go into 4 use. 5 This facility is not only required to 6 use the proper concrete mix, but it is also to have 7 the proper footings and extensive grade 60 rebar 8 reinforce -- steel reinforcement. 9 As you can see on the picture on the 10 left, the site has been leveled and ready for 11 construction of a floor. The square of concrete in 12 the photo -- squares of concrete in the photo 13 represent the footings that will be under each 14 column that will carry each column in the storage 15 structure. These columns carry the vertical load 16 of the flooring as well as the livestock. 17 In the picture to the right you can see 18 some of the steel reinforcement that is in these 19 columns after the floor has been constructed. 20 As we begin talking about the floor, 21 you can see in this photo that there's reinforced 22 steel mats that are secured together covering the 23 entire floor. These steel mats are made up of six 24 gauge wire and six inch squares. This design 28 1 feature adds additional stability to the 2 manure-storage structure. 3 Another point I'll make here with you 4 now is that the requirements of the Livestock 5 Management Facilities Act that govern this farm 6 require a six-month minimum storage capacity. 7 Moss Family Farms will exceed this requirement with 8 this project. 9 Another design requirement I mentioned 10 earlier was water stops in all concrete joints. 11 We've included a photo to show you what water stop 12 is. Water stop is a six-inch vinyl material that 13 is set half into the floor when the floor is 14 poured. The other half, the top half of that, goes 15 into the bottom of the walls when they are poured. 16 This creates a waterproof seal at the base of the 17 walls; therefore, sealing the structure and 18 eliminating any leaks or leaching. 19 You can see in this picture here 20 further the extensive steel -- grade 60 steel 21 reinforcement I spoke of earlier. The walls of the 22 storage structure have vertical and horizontal 23 steel reinforcement which are all secured together. 24 This steel along with the dirt that is backfilled 29 1 up against the side of the structure further adds 2 stability to the structure walls. 3 The completed manure-storage structure 4 is also inspected by Illinois Department of Ag 5 prior to animals entering the farm. This adds a 6 visual inspection to the other items also required, 7 such as the written certification of concrete 8 strength and the photo documentation that all these 9 specs have been met. 10 To finish off the top of our 11 manure-storage structure, the beams and slats used 12 in these facilities are designed and engineered for 13 the load, the equipment, and the animals. Beams 14 are set across the pillars we talked about earlier, 15 then four by ten gang slats will be set on top of 16 those beams. 17 Once the slats and beams are all in 18 place, they are grouted. Grouting these joints 19 between slats and beams gives us a continuous solid 20 flooring, further adding to the strength of the 21 structure. This is also a requirement of the 22 Livestock Management Facilities Act and is 23 inspected by IDOA prior to the building being put 24 into service. 30 1 The last design and construction 2 feature I'll go over with you this evening is the 3 perimeter tile monitoring system this facility will 4 utilize. Per the LMFA the structure is required to 5 have a perimeter tile. In the picture on the left 6 you will see what is referred to as Formadrain. 7 What this name references is the fact that these 8 concrete forms are left in place after the floor is 9 poured and the back side of the forms are slotted. 10 Once that's done and the -- excuse me. Once that's 11 done, the slotted outside can form a continuous 12 watertight tile around the perimeter of the 13 structure. 14 The two pictures on the right show the 15 monitoring well that is set in place on top of this 16 tile, therefore giving Moss Family Farms access to 17 the water collected in the tile if there is any. 18 An initial water sample is required to be taken 19 prior to Illinois Department of Agriculture's final 20 approval of the construction. The Livestock 21 Management Facilities Act also requires Mosses to 22 take a water sample from this monitoring well if 23 there is any water in it on a quarterly basis, have 24 it analyzed, and submit those results to Illinois 31 1 Department of Agriculture. 2 With some of these design and 3 construction features I've gone over with you this 4 evening, hopefully it gives you a better sense of 5 the careful standards that the Livestock Management 6 Facilities Act provides for in the construction of 7 a manure-storage facility. These specs were 8 developed to ensure that the structure has the best 9 engineered structural integrity and at the same 10 time give Moss's neighbors some peace of mind that 11 not only are we thinking about the construction of 12 the facility today but also we are thinking about 13 the long-term monitoring that all these measures 14 continue to work effectively in the future. 15 With that, I will turn it back over to 16 Patrick for phase 4. 17 MR. MASCHHOFF: Thank you, Matt. 18 The final phase of our presentation 19 addresses operational plans and management 20 strategies that will be used to address the 21 remaining siting criteria. We'll discuss the waste 22 management plan, environmental protection, 23 operational plans to reduce spills, runoff and 24 leaching, and plans to control odor. 32 1 One of the main points we want to make 2 tonight is that we take an integrated management 3 approach. We view this farm as a comprehensive 4 system and we want to make sure we are managing 5 every facet of that operation in a way that 6 protects the environment. 7 This starts with feeding of the animal 8 which has significant impacts on the potential 9 odors that may be produced. We will talk about the 10 items we utilize to facilitate digestion and 11 treatment of manure. Existing and new tree buffers 12 will be discussed as a practice used to improve air 13 quality. Future management as well as barn 14 cleaning and sanitation procedures that are used to 15 clean the facility are also part of the integrated 16 management system. 17 It has been scientifically proven that 18 trees act as a natural filter to capture dust 19 particulates that come out of a barn and prevent 20 those materials from moving off-site. 21 We have all heard the expression what 22 goes in must come out and it certainly applies to 23 what we feed animals. One of the most powerful 24 strategies for reducing odor at the source of -- at 33 1 the source is aggressive management of dietary 2 ingredients. Maschhoff nutritionalists are 3 equipped with modern technology to implement these 4 management tools. Using these tools these 5 professionals can formulate diets designed to meet 6 nutritional needs of the animal while also 7 minimizing environmental impacts. 8 The end result is a significant 9 reduction in odor and emissions through a variety 10 of mechanisms. We can effectively lower total 11 nitrogen coming out of the animal, which in turn 12 lowers ammonia emissions. We can also control the 13 amount of excreted phosphorus. Historically, high 14 feed levels have been problematic with swine 15 production, but with the use of phytase enzymes in 16 the feed the amount of feed leaving the animal has 17 drastically reduced. With the feeding program we 18 also reduced the amount of volatile fatty acids 19 produced. Volatile fatty acids are the main 20 chemical constituents of odor. The net effect of 21 all these combined strategies is reduced odor and 22 emissions. 23 One tool includes two microbial 24 additives that are available commercially. 34 1 MicroSource S is a blend of six naturally selected 2 beneficial microbes added directly to the feed to 3 reduce odor and ammonia. The microbes help the 4 animal better digest the feed but also then pass 5 through the animal into the manure pit and continue 6 to work to decompose solubles and reduce odor and 7 ammonia. This type of product is known as a 8 probiotic. The same type of thing you would get in 9 an Activia yogurt and is meant to enhance 10 digestion. 11 The other product that we utilize is 12 called Accelerator Plus and it is a blend of 13 enzymes added directly to the manure storage to aid 14 the microbes in the structure to decompose the 15 manure. It gives them tools to speed up the 16 process. The perfect analogy of Accelerator Plus 17 is Rid-X. If you have ever used Rid-X in your 18 septic system, the Accelerator product is the same 19 type of product. 20 This view is an actual view of the Moss 21 Family Farms existing location from the east of 22 highway 104. The new farm is located in the area 23 where an existing tree buffer will filter air on 24 the west, east, and south sides of the farm. 35 1 On top of those existing tree buffers, 2 Moss will also plant a new tree buffer on the 3 north, south, and west sides of the farm. The tree 4 buffer will be a double row design that will 5 include Eastern Red Cedars, shrubs, and Austrees. 6 We do want to point out that the barns 7 are cleaned thoroughly and pressure-washed and 8 sanitized between every single production cycle. 9 We want to ensure proper sanitation for the next 10 group of pigs that come in, but cleaning also is 11 important for odor control, because the potential 12 causes of odor, as in dust, manure, and feed 13 residues, are removed from the interior surfaces of 14 the barn. 15 Swine manure is unlike any product that 16 can be purchased commercially. It is an organic 17 product and provides a complete nutritional package 18 for plants. Not only do you get nitrogen, 19 phosphorus, and potassium, which is the primary 20 elements of the plant growth, you get secondary 21 micronutrients that are needed by the plants as 22 well. 23 And the manure also provide organic 24 matter. Organic matter not only builds soil 36 1 structure but also improve the tilth and ability to 2 maintain and manage water in the soil. 3 Manure also stimulates soil biology 4 which is -- which in turn enhances nutrient cycling 5 making more nutrients available for plants to 6 utilize for growth. 7 Just as commercial fertilizer is 8 managed for crop production, manure must also be 9 evaluated for the value as a nutrient source. This 10 slide illustrates how the nutrient management plan 11 has been built for Moss Family Farms. We look at 12 the nutrient management as a balancing act where we 13 try to balance crop need, nutrient availability, 14 and comply with state and federal regulations. 15 As we look at crop need, we consider 16 such items as soil testing, crop rotation, 17 realistic yield goals. We then use land-grant 18 university fertility recommendations to determine 19 how many nutrients the crop actually needs. 20 On the other side of the equation is 21 nutrient availability, where things such as animal 22 sampling, potential lagoon nitrogen credits and 23 manure application methods must be taken into 24 account. All these tasks are completed under the 37 1 guidance and recommendations published by USDA, 2 NRCS, University of Illinois, and other credible 3 sources. The nutrient management plan will then 4 balance all the pieces in accordance with the 5 Livestock Management Facilities Act. 6 This slide represents a high-level 7 strategic nutrient plan for the farm. We have to 8 determine crop need and how many nutrients are 9 available. From that then we can calculate the 10 land requirements for the farm. 11 We set our realistic yield goals off a 12 five-year average from crop insurance data and then 13 develop the nitrogen, phorphorus, and potassium 14 recommendations according to the University of 15 Illinois Agronomy Handbook. The nutrient 16 availability numbers are based on book values in 17 accordance to the regulations of the Livestock 18 Management Facilities Act. We then calculate the 19 amount of manure that will be produced per year at 20 the farm. 21 With both pieces of this information, 22 the application rate is calculated to be 4925 23 gallons per acre. This farm will require 690 acres 24 on a continuous farm basis. The available acreage 38 1 for the farm is 810. This includes -- this takes 2 out all of the environmentally sensitive areas that 3 have to be -- that have to be complied with the 4 Livestock Management Facilities Act. 5 Another tool we can use to minimize 6 odors is by using proper application methods. This 7 is a picture of a direct injection system with 8 knives of -- that knives manure directly into the 9 soil. This technology has been scientifically 10 shown to reduce 70 percent of all application- 11 related odors. The plow uses a flow meter to 12 ensure accurate rates, and the shanks on this 13 particular plow are conservation shanks, which 14 greatly reduces the disturbance of the soil and 15 thus reduces soil erosion. 16 Another part of the application is to 17 adhere to all environmentally sensitive areas, all 18 blue-line streams and wells have 200-foot setbacks, 19 setbacks where no application can be performed. 20 The Certified Livestock Manager program 21 ensures that all farm personnel are properly 22 trained in manure application and regulations. 23 The waste management plan must be 24 developed, submitted, and approved by Illinois 39 1 Department of Agriculture before commencing 2 operations. The Moss Family Farms are required to 3 maintain that plan and keep application records. 4 The plan must be regularly updated and available 5 for inspection by regulatory personnel. The farm 6 operator will complete training and pass a written 7 exam every three years to be properly certified to 8 apply manure. Today Moss Family Farms has multiple 9 people that have current Certified Livestock 10 Manager certificates. 11 In summary, we feel through these four 12 project phases we have addressed each of these 13 eight siting criteria and conclude the project 14 meets and exceeds all eight criteria. 15 I'd like to thank you for your time and 16 your attention. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Thank you very 18 much. Entered into the record as Exhibit Number 3 19 is a copy of the facility's presentation. 20 We will now open the meeting for any 21 questions that you may have for the facility or the 22 Department. If you have a question that you would 23 like to ask, please raise your hand, and when 24 called upon, please state your name and spell your 40 1 last name, please indicate to whom you are 2 directing your question. 3 I will remind you that this portion of 4 the meeting will be limited to questions only. 5 After this question and answer session, there will 6 be a session dedicated to public testimony where 7 you can provide your oral comments. So please 8 limit this session to questions only. 9 We do not have a portable microphone, 10 so we would ask that when you stand that you speak 11 loudly so we can all hear you. 12 Are there any questions? 13 Sir. 14 MR. ROTH: My name is Fred Roth and -- 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you spell 16 that, please? 17 MR. ROTH: R-o-t-h. 18 My question is directed at Mr. Goetsch. 19 You indicated in your presentation that 20 the Department of Agriculture has received, 21 reviewed, and approved plans submitted by the 22 facility operator. Correct? 23 MR. GOETSCH: Yes, that's true. 24 MR. ROTH: Okay. In the eight siting 41 1 criteria, under 5 and 6 in particular, it is 2 whether or not the owner has submitted plans for 3 either the operation or for the odor control. 4 Are those plans available for the 5 public tonight to review? 6 MR. GOETSCH: The plans that I was 7 referring to were the construction plans and 8 specifications, not any -- not specific plans for 9 odor control or the other thing that you 10 referenced, but the actual building plans, you 11 know, the design of the walls, the floors, the 12 thickness of the concrete, the reinforcing rod, the 13 steel. 14 MR. ROTH: Okay. Are those plans 15 available for the public's review tonight? 16 MR. GOETSCH: I don't believe that we 17 have a set of -- or, a copy of them with us. No, 18 we do not. But they certainly are available 19 through a Freedom of Information Act request at any 20 time. 21 MR. ROTH: Well, it says that the eight 22 siting criteria number 4 is whether the facility -- 23 it goes on to say whether construction standards 24 set forth in the Notice of Intent to Construct are 42 1 consistent with the goal of protecting the safety 2 of the area. 3 How can we comment on whether they meet 4 that criteria if we don't know what their 5 construction plans amount to? 6 MR. GOETSCH: Well, I believe that they 7 have tried to give you an overview of those 8 construction plans and specifications in their 9 presentation. 10 MR. ROTH: Have you reviewed the plans 11 yourself? 12 MR. GOETSCH: I have glanced at them, 13 if you will. I have not made a detailed review. I 14 depend on our staff. We have a registered 15 professional engineer on staff that has reviewed 16 those documents and made the recommendation that 17 they met the requirements and that's why we have 18 issued that approval. 19 MR. ROTH: Okay. Where are those 20 construction standards set forth in the Notice of 21 Intent to Construct that was sent out to the 22 public? I have the Notice of Intent to Construct. 23 I could not find in the Notice of Intent to 24 Construct any construction standards that were 43 1 listed in the Notice of Intent to Construct. 2 MR. GOETSCH: The construction 3 standards are spelled out in the Livestock 4 Management Facilities Act. 5 MR. ROTH: That's not what the siting 6 criteria calls for. It says whether they meet -- 7 or, whether construction standards set forth in the 8 Notice of Intent to Construct are consistent with 9 the goal of protecting the safety of the area. 10 Where in this Notice of Intent does it 11 set forth the construction standards? 12 MR. GOETSCH: The construction 13 standards are set forth in the Livestock Management 14 Facilities Act. 15 MR. ROTH: So is the answer they are 16 not in the Notice of Intent to Construct that was 17 submitted by the operator? Is that correct? 18 MR. GOETSCH: The construction 19 standards are set forth in the Livestock Management 20 Facilities Act. 21 MR. ROTH: You've not responded to my 22 question. They are not in -- 23 MR. GOETSCH: I've answered your 24 question, Mr. Roth. 44 1 MR. ROTH: -- the Notice of Intent; 2 correct? 3 MR. GOETSCH: I've answered your 4 question, Mr. Roth. 5 MR. ROTH: So the record's clear, 6 Mr. Goetsch refuses to admit that -- 7 MR. GOETSCH: No. Mr. -- 8 MR. ROTH: -- there are no construction 9 standards set forth in the Notice of Intent -- 10 MR. GOETSCH: Mr. Roth -- 11 MR. ROTH: -- that was submitted by the 12 operator. 13 MR. GOETSCH: Mr. Roth, as I've said 14 three times now and I'll say it a fourth time, the 15 Livestock Management Facilities Act specifically 16 indicates what the construction plans and 17 specifications are to be followed for any facility. 18 Those are further developed in the regulations and 19 those are certainly available to anyone online. 20 The Department can provide copies. It's -- it's 21 not a secret. 22 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth, I 23 think you've answered -- or, asked about four or 24 five questions here. Are there others who have a 45 1 question? 2 Yes, Mr. Anderson. 3 MR. ANDERSON: Nic Anderson, 4 A-n-d-e-r-s-o-n. 5 Warren, can you help us understand the 6 process tonight? There seems to be some 7 misinformation or misunderstanding on what 8 information goes out to the public, and for those 9 that don't -- haven't been through this before and 10 don't understand it. 11 After tonight's testimony and what the 12 Moss Family Farms submitted and what you submitted, 13 all that information goes to the County Board to 14 make a nonbinding decision. Is that correct? 15 MR. GOETSCH: Yes, that's correct. As 16 I think the hearing officer indicated, a transcript 17 is being created of tonight's meeting. All that 18 information is provided to the County Board. The 19 County Board then has the opportunity to make a 20 recommendation to the Department. If they have 21 questions of the Department, we're more than happy 22 to provide any information that we have that they 23 would like to have. 24 MR. ANDERSON: So if the building plans 46 1 are there, they can request those building plans to 2 look at? 3 MR. GOETSCH: Oh, certainly. 4 MR. ANDERSON: And the public can get 5 that information by Freedom of Information? 6 MR. GOETSCH: That is correct. 7 MR. ANDERSON: Anytime? 8 MR. GOETSCH: That's correct. 9 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you for clarifying 10 that. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there other 12 questions? 13 Sir, in the back. 14 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Gavin Risley, 15 R-i-s-l-e-y. 16 COURT REPORTER: What was the first 17 name? I'm sorry. 18 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Gavin. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you come 20 forward a little bit, please? Can you state your 21 name again, please, and spell it? 22 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Gavin Risley, 23 R-i-s-l-e-y. 24 My question I guess would be for 47 1 Mr. Maschhoff or for Mr. Jerry Moss. 2 In your presentation you indicated that 3 there was 810 acres available for application from 4 this facility. I was just curious, did that 5 include acreage that's already being supplemented 6 by the other facility that's nearby? 7 MR. MASCHHOFF: There is ground that 8 was used for the existing facility, but that 9 acreage has been taken out of that waste management 10 plan of the existing facility and now been moved to 11 the proposed farm. 12 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Do you still have 13 enough acreage for the existing facility? 14 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes, we do. 15 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Do you have maps of 16 that, by chance? 17 MR. MASCHHOFF: Not with me. 18 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Okay. Thank you. 19 MR. JARON MOSS: But that plan has all 20 been submitted I believe. 21 MR. MASCHHOFF: To the Department of 22 Ag. 23 MR. JARON MOSS: All of which is 24 regulated by -- 48 1 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: And to the County 2 Board? 3 MR. JARON MOSS: What's that? 4 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: And to the Pike 5 County Board? 6 MR. MASCHHOFF: The waste management 7 plan, sir? Is that your question? 8 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: The application 9 acreage. 10 MR. MASCHHOFF: The waste management 11 plan does not go to the County Board. It goes to 12 the Department of Ag to be reviewed and approved. 13 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: So if we wanted to 14 review that, how would we have access to that? 15 MR. MASCHHOFF: One way I would say is 16 FOIA with Department of Ag. 17 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: And that's available 18 for public review? 19 MR. GOETSCH: I believe that, yeah, 20 anything that we have that is subject to FOIA, we 21 will follow the Freedom of Information Act. 22 Right now that particular document is 23 under review, so I'd have to talk to our attorney 24 to find out if I can, you know, give it out 49 1 tomorrow or whether we have to wait until our 2 review is done. But certainly that, just like any 3 other document that we have, is subject to the 4 Freedom of Information Act and is made available 5 that way. Yes. 6 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: And I assume your 7 contact information will be made available in 8 meeting minutes or how would someone get in contact 9 with you personally? 10 MR. GOETSCH: Yeah. Or I have a 11 business card. We have business cards that we can 12 hand out. It's, you know, the State of Illinois 13 Department of Agriculture, PO Box 19281, 14 Springfield, Illinois. 15 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Well, I don't want 16 the general one. I want yours personally. 17 MR. GOETSCH: That's just what it is. 18 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Well, I can get your 19 card then. 20 MR. GOETSCH: Sure. 21 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Thank you. 22 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: There was a 23 lady in the back. Ma'am, yes. 24 MS. HYNEK: Joan Hynek, H-y-n-e-k. 50 1 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't 2 hear you. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you speak 4 up a little bit, please? 5 MS. HYNEK: H-y-n-e-k. And my question 6 is for Mr. Goetsch. 7 How does the Department define -- 8 COURT REPORTER: Define what? 9 MS. HYNEK: -- define a safe and clean 10 environment? 11 MR. GOETSCH: Could you give me a 12 little more? 13 MS. HYNEK: Well, your first sentence 14 in here says the Livestock Management Act protects 15 my rights as a citizen for a safe and clean 16 environment. And I'm just wondering what the -- 17 what that definition is to the Department. 18 MR. GOETSCH: I guess my only answer 19 would be, looking through the Livestock Management 20 Facilities Act and how it defines the types of 21 facilities that can be built, the setback distances 22 that are required, the eight siting criteria, if 23 you will, and compliance with those I believe is 24 what the General Assembly intended the Department 51 1 to follow to make that determination. 2 MS. HYNEK: Okay. A follow-up 3 question. How many CAFOs are currently in 4 operation in Pike County? 5 MR. GOETSCH: I have no idea. 6 MS. HYNEK: So as the Department that 7 registers these you don't keep tabs? I mean 8 they're supposed to be inspected; right? 9 MR. GOETSCH: Well, the Livestock 10 Management Facilities Act was passed in 1996. 11 There was no regulation that required the 12 registration of or the -- a census of livestock 13 facilities prior to that. 14 So, yeah, I could come up with a number 15 of projects in Pike County since '96. I mean I 16 don't have it with me right now but I could 17 certainly get it for you, because, yes, we have 18 records since the Act was done. 19 But if you ask me how many livestock 20 facilities are in Pike County today, I don't know 21 that anyone would have that number. I think the 22 USDA Ag Statistical Service could probably give you 23 some estimates based on surveys that they do. But 24 there is no final registry that keeps track of 52 1 every livestock facility in the state. 2 MS. HYNEK: Okay. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 4 questions? 5 Sir. 6 MR. DAVID RISLEY: David Risley, 7 R-i-s-l-e-y. 8 Jerry or Jaron, whichever one of you 9 want to take them, I've got six or seven questions 10 here on waste management. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Sir, could you 12 speak up a little bit, please? 13 MR. DAVID RISLEY: I've got six or 14 seven questions here on waste management. Some of 15 these you may have hit them during your 16 presentation, but I didn't get it down. 17 How often will you have to empty the 18 pits? 19 MR. JERRY MOSS: Dave, at eight foot 20 deep, should be once a year. As long as there's 21 not excessive foaming issues with DDGs, which we 22 have not had. Actually, they were originally 23 designed as 17, 16-month storage. 24 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Okay. And you said 53 1 you needed 690 acres to -- 2 MR. JERRY MOSS: That's what the 3 nutrient management plan calculates. That's 4 required by the state -- required by the state to 5 use that much nutrient value, correct. And that's 6 on a continuous farm basis. 7 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Okay. Where are the 8 acres located at where you want to apply the 9 manure? 10 MR. JERRY MOSS: Probably -- I'm not 11 sure exactly what's in the plan, but from Gray Farm 12 back to McLaughlin. We know also that in Adams 13 County the Main Farm, the Shook Lanier Farm, the 14 Hannant Farm -- 15 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Could you 16 say those names again? 17 MR. JERRY MOSS: One more time. Sorry. 18 From Gray Farm to McLaughlin Farm to -- and the 19 answer to Gavin's question -- to Main Farm, also in 20 the manure management plan, the Shook Lanier Farm, 21 the Hannant Farm, also in the management plan is 22 some neighbor's ground that's near the Main Farm. 23 As you know, we added the Newton Farm in Adams 24 County and Young Farm in Adams County. We probably 54 1 have -- with the use of tankers or whatever that 2 we've done before, probably have access to 4,000 3 acres total, not all of which is in the management 4 plan. 5 But to clarify Patrick's point, the two 6 management plans have to be resubmitted together 7 for the existing facility and for any new facility. 8 So there can't be any overlap. 9 MR. DAVID RISLEY: How are you going to 10 get the manure from the building site to the farm 11 ground, especially the Gray Farm? 12 MR. JARON MOSS: I would say without 13 trying to be too direct, there's different ways to 14 go about that, whether it's via tanker or via the 15 direct hose line injection. And so from where the 16 facility is at, obviously there's a little trekking 17 distance over to the Gray Farm. So I guess, not to 18 be abrasive but the ball might be in the 19 neighborhoods' in between there court as to whether 20 they would prefer us to tanker it down the road or 21 the hose could be laid for a direct injection 22 system through the side ditch on the township's 23 property or laid across existing farmers' property. 24 MR. DAVID RISLEY: So you haven't 55 1 obtained an easement yet to lay a hose across the 2 property to get there? 3 MR. JARON MOSS: No, we do not. 4 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Do you have ground 5 now that you cannot apply manure to because it has 6 reached maximum fertility levels? 7 MR. JERRY MOSS: Do we have any ground 8 that we've reached maximum fertility levels? 9 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Yes. 10 MR. JERRY MOSS: No. And the soil test 11 I'll be glad to make available to anybody. Not 12 even close. For example, the P1 around the hog 13 barn existing site we don't have up to 30 yet, 14 so -- 15 MR. DAVID RISLEY: How often do you 16 apply manure to that ground? 17 MR. JERRY MOSS: It's been in an every 18 other year. It's close to every third year now 19 with the extended application acres that we use. 20 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Okay. Thanks. 21 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 22 questions? 23 Ma'am. 24 MS. AKIN: My name's Linda Akin, 56 1 A-k-i-n. 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Can you speak 3 up a little bit, please? 4 MS. AKIN: Linda Akin. 5 My question is, how do you know that 6 there's enough water for 9,300 hogs? 7 MR. JARON MOSS: The current proposed 8 facility, the current game plan is to have to 9 utilize and build as a backup source to possibly 10 wells a pond structure to be able to catch 11 rainwater and utilize natural rainwater sources, as 12 we are using that as our backup source. 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can you guys 14 repeat the questions so that -- 15 MR. JARON MOSS: Sorry. The question 16 was whether -- if we were sure there was enough 17 water for the proposed facility for the proposed 18 number of animals. And, yeah, the current game 19 plan is to build a pond back close to the proposed 20 facility to use as our primary water source. 21 Sadly, there's no county water around as a 22 secondary backup source. But there is an existing 23 well close by on the farm that we might try to use 24 as a primary backup source if we don't have any 57 1 droughts like last year. 2 MS. AKIN: I have another question. 3 Are you required to test -- after you 4 spread manure or inject it, are you required to 5 test for antibiotic residue? 6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: The question 7 was: After you spread manure, are you required to 8 test for antibiotic residue? Is that your 9 question? 10 MS. AKIN: Yeah. 11 MR. MASCHHOFF: No, ma'am. Today we 12 are not required to do that. 13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 14 MR. ROTH: Yes. This is to 15 Mr. Goetsch. 16 Siting criteria number 6 says whether 17 odor control plans are reasonable and incorporate 18 reasonable or innovative odor reduction 19 technologies given the current state of such 20 technologies. 21 Is it the Department of Agriculture's 22 position that biofilters such as those that have 23 been manufactured for years by the company called 24 SKOV, S-K-O-V, have been around, is that a current 58 1 state of such technologies? 2 MR. GOETSCH: Biofilters could be a 3 possible -- could be a possible technology that 4 could be incorporated into a series of practices to 5 make an odor control plan, yes. 6 MR. ROTH: Of the biofilters that are 7 available off the shelf in the market today, is 8 there any other kind of filter that takes out 9 ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and the VOCs, and the 10 dust particles that come from hog facilities? Is 11 there any other filter other than biofilters that 12 takes all of those out and reduces them to levels 13 that are almost not measurable? 14 MR. GOETSCH: I don't know that I can 15 answer your question. 16 MR. ROTH: How do you determine what is 17 the current state of such technologies for odor 18 reduction? 19 MR. GOETSCH: We look at what is 20 proposed at a hearing like this or as part of the 21 response to questions that we may ask, and if it 22 looks to us -- looks to the Department as if they 23 are trying to incorporate as many management 24 practices as would be reasonable, then we believe 59 1 that that is a reasonable plan. 2 MR. ROTH: Is there a listing the 3 Department puts out of those current state of such 4 odor technologies that are acceptable for use in 5 these facilities? 6 MR. GOETSCH: No, we do not have a 7 formal listing. 8 MR. ROTH: So when you say you don't 9 have a formal listing, you have no listing; 10 correct? 11 MR. GOETSCH: I guess if you're wanting 12 to look at a situation -- or, if you're wanting to 13 look at what we've approved in the past, I'd 14 recommend looking at the files of projects that 15 we've reviewed in the past and you'll see listings 16 of odor control plans that have been proposed. 17 MR. ROTH: Has anyone proposed 18 biofilters that clean the air before it leaves the 19 facility, based on your experience over the last 20 ten years in the Department? 21 MR. GOETSCH: I don't believe -- I 22 don't recall that the particular brand or product 23 that you mentioned has ever been proposed, no. 24 MR. ROTH: Okay. Has anyone ever 60 1 proposed biofilters that have a biological medium 2 that cleans the air, that the particles of hydrogen 3 sulfide, ammonia, and dust particles and the VOCs 4 that cause a substantial part of the odor are all 5 cleaned out before the air leaves the facility? 6 MR. GOETSCH: I think there have been 7 some projects where what I would call crude 8 biofilters were proposed such that they -- using 9 forages as the medium or chopped -- yeah, forages 10 as the medium and causing like pit fans to blow 11 through those to try and reduce odors. Yeah, there 12 have been some cases of that. 13 MR. ROTH: Are there any pit fans 14 designed for this facility? 15 MR. GOETSCH: I believe that there are, 16 yes. I'd have to go back and look. 17 MR. ROTH: Do they have biofilters on 18 them in this facility? 19 MR. GOETSCH: Not that I'm aware of, 20 no. 21 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there other 22 questions? 23 Ma'am. 24 MS. HYNEK: Hynek, H-y-n-e-k. And my 61 1 question is for Mr. Maschhoff. 2 Do you have put antibiotics in your 3 feed, and if so, how many? Antibiotics in your 4 feed? 5 MR. MASCHHOFF: Ma'am, I'm sorry, but I 6 can't answer that. I do not know. I'm sure we do, 7 but I cannot say for sure. 8 MS. HYNEK: Okay. And in your slide 9 you said the manure was organic. I guess I'm 10 wondering how that can be when you put all these 11 chemicals in the, you know, crap to cut down the 12 odor and everything and the antibiotics. That's 13 not really organic. 14 MR. MASCHHOFF: Well, the antibiotics 15 that we use are naturalized, which they would be 16 organic as well. So I guess I don't understand the 17 question to the fact I don't know how more organic 18 you can get with manure other than manure. 19 MS. HYNEK: It would be manure without 20 chemicals in it. 21 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes, ma'am. But we're 22 not using chemicals. 23 MS. HYNEK: I think antibiotics would 24 be considered to be chemicals. 62 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 2 questions? 3 Clear in the back. Ma'am. 4 MS. RECA RISLEY: I look around and I 5 see several people -- I look -- I'm sorry. Reca 6 Risley, R-i-s-l-e-y. 7 I look around the room and I see 8 several of my neighbors and we're -- we're going to 9 be sandwiched more or less between the two 10 facilities, the one on 104 and the one south. And 11 I wanted to know -- and I don't even know what 12 Department to even ask. Are property values in 13 general, being around so many hog confinement 14 facilities, do they normally go down? You know, I 15 understand, you know, when we have two or four, but 16 you start getting six or more, especially being 17 sandwiched in between facilities. Does anybody 18 know? I'm sorry, I don't know who to direct the 19 question to other than, you know, a lot of property 20 is around there and a lot -- my home and other 21 homes. And I just -- I'm concerned that the 22 property values will keep decreasing because of the 23 facilities. Am I in -- incorrect thinking or not? 24 And which Department would I ask that in the state? 63 1 I do not know, sir. Does anybody have a clue? 2 MR. GOETSCH: The only thing I guess 3 that I would offer is that there have been some -- 4 there have been studies done that have found both. 5 I think there have been studies that have found 6 that expansions in livestock facilities in an area 7 has led to decreases in property values. I think 8 there have also been some studies done that have 9 suggested that expansion of livestock facilities in 10 certain areas have actually caused property values 11 to increase. So I don't know that there is an 12 answer. 13 I think every situation is unique. I 14 think it also depends, too, on what all the -- what 15 the land value -- or, what the land uses are in the 16 area, what the potential are -- the potential might 17 be for new land -- or, new or different land uses 18 or whether it is truly a livestock region. I would 19 think that that would have an impact. 20 So I don't have an answer and I don't 21 know that anyone really does at this point. 22 MS. RECA RISLEY: In the State of 23 Illinois there's no one that's studied that at all 24 that you're aware of that would have any statistics 64 1 to that effect? 2 MR. GOETSCH: No, I really don't. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 4 questions? 5 Mr. Risley. 6 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Yes. I believe it's 7 Matt in the white shirt. Is that correct? 8 MR. HENRY: Yes, sir. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you speak 10 up a little bit, please? 11 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Yes. This is for 12 Matt in the white shirt about the construction. 13 You did a detailed presentation on the 14 below-the-ground construction. I guess I'd be 15 curious, you know, as to the design above the 16 ground what -- as far as direction of vents, you 17 know, where the air vents would be blowing and, you 18 know, or such as the system Mr. Roth talked about 19 about cleaning -- cleaning the air up. 20 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: The question 21 dealt with the construction above ground and vents 22 and things such as that. Correct? 23 MR. DAVID RISLEY: And the 24 bio-structure that he talked about cleaning the air 65 1 up before it came out of the building. Because I 2 don't -- I mean everybody agrees that odor is a 3 concern when it comes to hog pens. 4 MR. JARON MOSS: To say that the 5 current proposed site -- to jump in if that's all 6 right -- has the fans directing to the northeast 7 where there's also pit fans all the way around the 8 building. The current odor plan as discussed with 9 the guys in the NRCS office was a rather thick tree 10 barrier around the outside. So regardless of the 11 -- I guess regardless of the direction the fans are 12 ventilating, there would be a thick enough tree 13 structure all the way around it that smell would 14 ideally have to go up. 15 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Okay. 16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 17 questions? 18 Sir. 19 MR. MOHRMAN: First name Michael, last 20 name Mohrman, M-o-h-r-m-a-n. 21 The question involves getting back to 22 what Mr. Gavin Risley had previously inquired upon. 23 You listed in your presentation an application 24 acreage of 810 acres. And we've already beat that 66 1 horse to death relative to getting access to what 2 those acreages consist of. But correct me if I'm 3 wrong. Was there not an indication that within 4 those acreages there was set-aside footages that 5 you had to abide by regarding application certain 6 distances away from environmentally sensitive 7 areas? And if so, are those also available with 8 the schematics drawings or aerials or diagrams that 9 we can go through the Freedom of Information Act to 10 find? 11 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes, all that 12 information is in the waste management plan. 13 MR. MOHRMAN: Okay. 14 MR. MASCHHOFF: The 810 acres is 15 excluding the acreage for setbacks on blue-line 16 streams and wells. 17 MR. MOHRMAN: Okay. 18 MR. JARON MOSS: Which blue-line 19 streams any plat map -- for public information, any 20 stream that is blue-lined on a plat map or an 21 aerial is what is defined by blue-line streams. 22 MR. MOHRMAN: Also, what is that 23 setback distance? Do you happen to know that 24 offhand? 67 1 MR. MASCHHOFF: 200 feet. 2 MR. MOHRMAN: 200 feet. Does that also 3 apply to personal dwellings as an environmentally 4 sensitive area? 5 MR. MASCHHOFF: All manure must be 6 injected into the ground or incorporated the same 7 day that manure is applied. So we -- Moss Family 8 Farms could apply up to property lines. 9 MR. MOHRMAN: Up to the property line? 10 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes, sir. 11 MR. MOHRMAN: To the properly line. 12 And it matters not whether or not that property 13 line has a dwelling that's inhabited? 14 MR. MASCHHOFF: No, it does not. 15 MR. MOHRMAN: Okay. 16 MR. MASCHHOFF: But the manure will be 17 injected below the surface. 18 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 19 questions? 20 Mr. Roth. 21 MR. ROTH: In the criteria it says 22 whether the facility is located within a 100-year 23 floodplain or an otherwise environmentally 24 sensitive area defined as an area of Karst. 68 1 Now, I know Mr. Goetsch is very 2 familiar with the Al Bos Dairy in Jo Daviess 3 County. The whole issue there that went to court 4 was over Karst area. And it was determined that 5 there were many tests that needed to be performed 6 to figure out if in fact it was Karst and a 7 sensitive area. What I heard tonight is that all 8 that they did was a visual review of the area 9 within 400 feet. 10 Has the Department done anything in 11 this instance where it's in a Karst area, 12 admittedly so based on their map, to determine what 13 the existence of the Karst area really is in this 14 instance in Pike County? 15 MR. GOETSCH: First of all, Mr. Roth, 16 you mentioned the Jo Daviess County project -- or, 17 Jo Daviess County situation, and the Department's 18 actions in that case were upheld upon appeal. In 19 other words, our determination that that was not a 20 Karst situation was upheld. So let's -- let's make 21 sure that that's clear to begin with. 22 MR. ROTH: Can I comment on that? 23 Because that's not quite correct. 24 MR. GOETSCH: No. That is correct. 69 1 That's what -- 2 MR. ROTH: That is not -- 3 MR. GOETSCH: That is what the court -- 4 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Let's get back 5 to the situation at hand here. 6 MR. ROTH: Right here what's been done 7 to -- 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 9 MR. ROTH: -- determine if -- 10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 11 Mr. Roth, just a second please. 12 MR. ROTH: Yes, sir. 13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Let's get back 14 to the situation here. 15 MR. ROTH: I -- 16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: This facility 17 that we are talking about tonight. 18 MR. ROTH: Correct. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay? Ask a 20 question. 21 MR. ROTH: What has the Department done 22 to evaluate the Karst area that this project is 23 located within? 24 MR. GOETSCH: We have followed the 70 1 requirements of the Livestock Management Facilities 2 Act in that in this particular case, as was 3 explained previously, it was determined -- or, it 4 is in a Karst region. If it's in a Karst region, 5 there are certain actions that are required by the 6 applicant, and those have been done. There are 7 certain actions required by the Department, 8 including a site visit to determine whether there 9 are any physical features that can be seen that 10 would be consistent with a Karst -- a Karst area, 11 not a Karst region, and we have not found any 12 evidence, just as the applicants have said they 13 have not found any evidence of a Karst area. 14 MR. ROTH: So that I'm correct, all 15 that's been done is a visual inspection by the 16 Department and by the consultant for the operator; 17 correct? 18 MR. GOETSCH: Let me be clear. 19 Everything that has been required by the Livestock 20 Management Facilities Act has been done. 21 MR. ROTH: And it doesn't require 22 anything other than a visual inspection of a known 23 Karst region; correct? 24 MR. GOETSCH: You can read the statute 71 1 as well as I. 2 MR. ROTH: I'm just asking. These 3 people would like to know. I would like to know. 4 That all you did is walked out there and looked. 5 MR. GOETSCH: No. 6 MR. ROTH: And then you thought it was 7 fine and the Karst map -- 8 MR. GOETSCH: There are -- 9 MR. ROTH: -- means nothing to you. 10 MR. GOETSCH: No. The Karst region 11 means a lot to me. Just like the definition of a 12 hundred-year floodplain, just like the concern that 13 is expressed in the Livestock Management Facilities 14 Act for aquifer material within a certain depth. 15 All of those things are defined as sensitive areas 16 and have to be explored, and the statute and the 17 rules specifically say how those explorations are 18 supposed to be done. And those things have been 19 done and the determination has been made that this 20 is not a Karst area. It is located within a Karst 21 region, but there are -- there are -- the 22 definition of Karst area is not met. 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Maiers. 24 MR. MAIERS: Ted Maiers, M-a-i-e-r-s. 72 1 Mr. Goetsch, can you clarify if there 2 was determined to be a Karst region that the Act 3 requires a permanent rigid structure be built, 4 which in this case the proposed concrete pit 5 constructed with Midwest Plan Services would meet 6 that requirement? 7 MR. GOETSCH: You're exactly correct. 8 The remedy for -- if a facility is proposed to be 9 located within a Karst area, the remedy is that the 10 livestock -- or, that the waste management facility 11 -- the waste-handling facility, excuse me, be 12 constructed of a rigid material. Reinforced 13 concrete is a rigid material; therefore, the design 14 standard that's being proposed by the facility 15 meets that requirement. 16 MR. MAIERS: Thank you. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Risley. 18 MR. GAVIN RISLEY: Gavin Risley, 19 R-i-s-l-e-y. 20 Sir, could you define Karst topography 21 for those in the audience that may not be aware of 22 what that is? 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: The question 24 dealt with the definition of Karst topography. 73 1 MR. GOETSCH: Well, it's somewhat 2 convoluted in that we have -- a Karstified 3 carbonate bedrock is defined in the statute as 4 carbonate bedrock -- a carbonate bedrock unit, 5 limestone or dolomite, that has a pronounced 6 conduit or secondary porosity due to the 7 dissolution of rock along joints, fractures, or 8 bedding plains. 9 In other words, that's -- in other 10 words, it's a -- caves, if you will. The rock 11 structure has been removed because of water running 12 through that area. There are voids in that area 13 and that's why the statute -- excuse me, the 14 regulation requires that a structure if it is built 15 in that area must be made out of rigid material. 16 Another portion of the statute talks 17 about Karst area. Karst area means an area where 18 the land surface contains sinkholes, large springs, 19 disrupted land drainage, and underground drainage 20 systems associated with Karstified carbonate 21 bedrock, the -- and caves, or a land surface 22 without these features but containing a Karstified 23 carbonate bedrock unit generally overlain by less 24 than 60 feet of unconsolidated material. 74 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Risley. 2 MR. DAVID RISLEY: This question is for 3 Mr. Maschhoff. 4 Attachment C and D -- no -- yeah, C and 5 D on my Intent to Construct form, Jaron talked 6 about the blue line showing the streams. On D 7 you'll notice south and southeast of the building 8 site there is a water stream there. 9 MR. MASCHHOFF: What attachments? C? 10 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Attachment D. 11 MR. MASCHHOFF: D. Yes, sir. There's 12 one there. 13 MR. DAVID RISLEY: And if you'll look 14 on attachment C it doesn't show that stream. It 15 shows the others to the north. But my real 16 question is: Can you tell me how far the buildings 17 are away from that stream? 18 MR. MASCHHOFF: I can't tell you the 19 exact -- 20 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you use 21 the microphone, please? 22 MR. MASCHHOFF: Sorry. I cannot tell 23 you the exact foot. 24 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Is there a setback 75 1 from the stream? 2 MR. MASCHHOFF: No, it is not required. 3 MR. DAVID RISLEY: There is none in the 4 state anywhere or -- 5 MR. MASCHHOFF: For manure application 6 there is a setback. For a livestock facility there 7 is not. 8 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Okay. Thank you. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 10 MR. ROTH: This question is to whoever 11 was talking about the concrete construction. I 12 believe it was Matt. 13 MR. HENRY: Yes, sir. 14 MR. ROTH: Okay. You indicated that 15 the concrete that is being poured is being 16 certified to a certain psi or strength; correct? 17 MR. HENRY: Correct. 18 MR. ROTH: Are there any independent 19 testing done at the time of the pour that is 20 separately reported to the Department of 21 Agriculture to confirm that the concrete strength 22 is as certified by the manufacturer? 23 MR. HENRY: I'd have to ask Warren what 24 that certification or that documentation that the 76 1 concrete supplier gives him what that entails. I 2 know it has to be supplied -- collected and 3 supplied. I do not know in what form they report 4 it. 5 MR. GOETSCH: Just to answer your 6 question, no, there's not an independent -- 7 MR. ROTH: There's no independent 8 testing, just the certification from the supplier? 9 MR. GOETSCH: From the supplier, that's 10 correct. 11 MR. ROTH: Okay. 12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Ma'am. 13 MS. AKIN: Linda Akin. 14 How long is this reinforced concrete 15 supposed to last? 16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: The question 17 was: How long is this reinforced concrete supposed 18 to last? 19 MS. AKIN: Yes. 20 MR. HENRY: I'll ask for our 21 professional engineer's -- I'll ask for our 22 professional engineer that worked on the project 23 and is sworn in to help us with that, Chris West. 24 MR. WEST: Yes, ma'am. You can expect 77 1 easily several decades of use. That is it will 2 outlast any of the aboveground portions of the 3 building. So it's not uncommon to get 30, 40, 50, 4 60 years out of a structure similar to this. 5 MS. AKIN: Then what happens? 6 MR. WEST: Pardon? 7 MS. AKIN: Then what happens? 8 MR. WEST: Well, if the building is 9 still in use, then it will be continued to be used. 10 MS. AKIN: No. I mean if the concrete 11 lasts several decades but it has a life expectancy, 12 what happens after its life expectancy? 13 MR. WEST: It would be removed if that 14 is the case. If the building is no longer used, 15 then it would be removed. 16 MS. AKIN: Well, I'm not talking about 17 if the building isn't in use. 18 MR. WEST: The concrete portion is 19 going to outlast the building portion. So as long 20 as they keep up -- as long as the building is kept 21 up and is being used, then the concrete portion 22 will be available for use as well. 23 MS. AKIN: So I guess I'm getting more 24 confused. So I mean you probably haven't had these 78 1 facilities around long enough to really see a 2 failure in pits yet. 3 MR. WEST: No, not in facilities that 4 are designed and built like this, no. 5 MS. AKIN: And is this -- 6 MR. WEST: Hog confinements, 7 waste-storage structures made out of reinforced 8 concrete have been around for a long time. 9 MS. AKIN: How long? 10 MR. WEST: I don't -- the first one was 11 probably -- you know, I guess I can't answer that 12 for certain, but I'm going to guess in the '60s at 13 least. Probably predates that. I can't remember. 14 I don't recall when the first one was built. 15 MS. AKIN: And are those still in use? 16 MR. WEST: I'm sorry? 17 MS. AKIN: Are those still in use? 18 MR. WEST: I couldn't answer that. I 19 don't know. 20 MS. AKIN: Okay. 21 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Anderson. 22 MR. ANDERSON: Nic Anderson, 23 A-n-d-e-r-s-o-n. 24 Warren, can you explain Ag's -- 79 1 Department of Agriculture's process in inspection, 2 not only identifying the site in the notice, but 3 what's your role at Department of Ag to make sure 4 that both the plans and the cement contractor and 5 everybody that's involved that is inspecting 6 (inaudible)? Can you kind of explain the process? 7 MR. GOETSCH: Yeah. I believe someone 8 mentioned this earlier, but, you know, we're 9 required to do a minimum of three inspections, one 10 prior to the start of construction if the facility 11 is approved, and then a minimum of once during 12 construction, and then once -- at least once after 13 construction but before a facility is placed into 14 service. 15 What we normally do with that first 16 inspection is we look at the setback distances. We 17 look at -- wanting to ensure that we know where a 18 facility is being proposed and where the corners of 19 the buildings are, what the distances are going to 20 be from that proposed site to neighboring 21 structures to again help us determine whether or 22 not setback distances are met by the proposal. 23 Then during construction -- if a 24 facility is approved and allowed to start 80 1 construction, we may go out many times, depending 2 upon the sophistication of the project. You know, 3 if it's a four or five or six building project, a 4 large sow farm, for example, we might be out there 5 half a dozen times during construction. The 6 purpose of those visits is to ensure that what was 7 approved when we approved the construction plans 8 and specs is actually going on. In other words, 9 they are putting in a six-inch or an eight-inch or 10 a twelve-inch wall, they are using the appropriate 11 reinforcing steel, they are spacing it correctly, 12 they are using the water stops where they're 13 supposed to be. Just confirming that the things 14 that were proposed in the approved construction 15 plans are actually being done. 16 And then once construction is 17 completed, the manure portion of the facility, the 18 below-grade portion in this particular case, then 19 we would go out again to make sure that everything 20 has been completed appropriately. I think they 21 also mentioned talking about the beams and the 22 pillars and making sure that the beam pockets are 23 appropriately grouted, that all the gang slats are 24 appropriately grouted. We confirm that all that 81 1 has been done appropriately. And if that is the 2 case, then we wait until construction has been 3 totally completed on the aboveground portion and 4 then we issue the final approval allowing them to 5 place the facility into service. 6 So, yeah, we're out there many, many 7 times during the whole process if a facility is 8 approved and moves through that construction 9 process. 10 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Yes, Ms. Hynek. 12 MS. HYNEK: How many facilities have 13 been denied over your tenure? 14 MR. GOETSCH: That question always 15 comes up, and the -- the short answer, which never 16 receives a whole lot of applause, is none. I don't 17 know that we've ever denied a facility. 18 Now, if you look at it a different way, 19 about 70 -- and I don't have the number here in 20 front of me, about 70 percent, 75 percent maybe, of 21 the facilities that are proposed end up actually 22 being eventually approved and built. That means 23 the other approximately quarter or 25 percent for 24 whatever reason they are not pursued any further. 82 1 Either we ask a question that they can't answer, 2 they couldn't meet a setback distance, they 3 couldn't get a setback distance waiver, they 4 couldn't meet one of the siting criteria, whatever. 5 So I guess it depends on your perspective. 6 But the way the Act is written, it 7 doesn't give us the ability really to say denied. 8 What we do is we tell them why we can't approve. 9 And then if they can adjust their proposal such 10 that they can meet the requirement then, then 11 eventually they would be approved. If they can't 12 meet that requirement, then usually they end up 13 just dropping the project and that's why the 14 quarter of the projects that we see never get 15 built. 16 MS. HYNEK: A follow-up question. Do 17 you have the names of those surveys or the studies 18 that you said actually say that the land value 19 increases? Because I've never seen one of those. 20 MR. GOETSCH: I believe that I could -- 21 I'd have to go back through a couple of hearings 22 that we've had in the last, you know, what, in the 23 last year. But, yeah, they've been cited and 24 they've been submitted to us as part of the -- part 83 1 of the evidence in those hearings. Yeah, we could 2 probably find some. 3 MS. HYNEK: Okay. I would be 4 interested in that. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 6 questions? 7 Ma'am. 8 MS. AKIN: This is for Mr. Maschhoff. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you speak 10 up, please? 11 MS. AKIN: This is for Mr. Maschhoff. 12 How fast do the drivers go on township 13 roads? 14 MR. MASCHHOFF: How fast do they drive? 15 MS. AKIN: Yeah, on township roads. 16 MR. MASCHHOFF: The speed limit. 17 MS. AKIN: Which is? 18 MR. MASCHHOFF: 55. 19 MS. AKIN: Weather conditions, traffic 20 conditions? 21 MR. MASCHHOFF: Depending on -- yeah, 22 everything is on a case-by-case scenario. So 23 depending on what the road conditions would be, 24 also what time of the year it is, freezing, thawing 84 1 times of the year as well. 2 MS. AKIN: Are your drivers instructed 3 how to avoid collisions with other people on 4 township roads, which are a lot smaller than paved 5 roads? 6 MR. MASCHHOFF: Well, we do a lot of 7 contracting on our trucking business. So, yes, I'm 8 sure that they go through their safety protocols. 9 MR. JARON MOSS: But if I can add to 10 that, all those drivers obviously have a CDL 11 license. They drive like you and I do. I don't 12 drive 65 in the blazing snow or in weather 13 conditions. Those drivers have families. They 14 have people to go home to at night and it's in 15 their best interest that they make it home safely, 16 just like you and I. So I would say, yes, they 17 absolutely drive differently for weather 18 conditions. They absolutely drive as safe as they 19 see fit. 20 MS. AKIN: I meant I live on a township 21 road and I see the grain trucks going by at about 22 50 miles an hour and they're so big they can't get 23 over to let somebody through. There is no room. I 24 mean even big pickup trucks nowadays, if you meet 85 1 them on a hill, you're toast. So I think they 2 should be instructed to -- whether they're 3 contractors or not, they should be instructed to 4 move over. 5 MR. MASCHHOFF: I don't disagree with 6 you, ma'am. I don't disagree with you. They 7 should drive safely. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Risley. 9 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Yes. Another 10 question for Mr. Maschhoff. 11 Attachment E on the Intent to 12 Construct, with the 1760 foot residential setback, 13 the buildings had to be very specifically located 14 to be far enough away from the two residences and 15 far enough away from the property line. What 16 system did you use for measurement? Did you have a 17 surveyor come out or just measure off of the maps 18 or -- 19 MR. MASCHHOFF: I used an ArcGIS 20 program that we utilize at the office and measured 21 -- plotted the barns on an aerial photo and 22 actually went out and visually saw where all the 23 houses were and marked them on the map and then 24 measured from the nearest corner of the facility to 86 1 the nearest corner of a house. 2 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Okay. And that -- 3 the results you got from your program when you did 4 that that goes in with the construction paperwork 5 to the state; right? 6 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes. That would be 7 attachment E. 8 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Okay. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Yes, sir, about 10 the fourth row back. 11 MR. BISHOP: My name is Chris Bishop 12 B-i-s-h-o-p. I'm actually the owner of Buck 13 Chasers. I operate an outfitting -- 14 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you speak 15 up a little bit, please? 16 MR. BISHOP: I'm the owner of Buck 17 Chasers Outfitting. I operate directly across the 18 road from where this facility is being planned on 19 being put. 20 Just clarify for me, in there you said 21 it's got to be a residence, if it's a recreation 22 area of 50 or more people in a week, is that what 23 you said, in a week's time before -- I saw it up 24 there. I just want to make sure I'm clear on that. 87 1 MR. MASCHHOFF: That is an average of 2 50 different people per week of seasonal operation. 3 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Has that been 4 investigated? There's two different outfitters 5 that fall within that distance. Have those 6 outfitters been contacted? I'm the owner and 7 nobody has contacted me at all about this. 8 MR. MASCHHOFF: I don't know where -- 9 what property are you describing? 10 MR. BISHOP: (inaudible) Farm. 11 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Could you 12 repeat the name of the farm? 13 MR. BISHOP: McLaughlin Farm. 14 M-c-L-a-u-g-h-l-i-n I believe is how you spell it. 15 MR. MASCHHOFF: Are you the owner of 16 that property? 17 MR. BISHOP: No, I lease it. I'm the 18 owner of Buck Chasers Outfitters. I lease that and 19 I have people from all over the world that come and 20 (inaudible) this property. The reason I'm asking 21 is they really complain about a hog farm on another 22 facility that I already operate on and I don't even 23 like to put my hunters in that area. I just want 24 to make sure I know the rules and regulations on 88 1 recreational purposes. 2 MR. MASCHHOFF: Do you have 50 3 different people -- 4 MR. BISHOP: Not me by myself. So 5 that's what I'm saying, between me and the other 6 outfitter, I don't know how many they run, either. 7 MR. MASCHHOFF: Well, it's two 8 different entities. 9 MR. BISHOP: So if they ran 25 and I 10 ran 25, that makes 50, that doesn't matter? 11 MR. MASCHHOFF: Are you talking about 12 the same property? 13 MR. BISHOP: Yeah, the property -- they 14 join into me right there beside me. 15 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yeah. But does he also 16 operate on this Travis McLeod property that you're 17 describing? 18 MR. BISHOP: Yes, that's where they 19 operate out of. I operate on McLaughlin. It joins 20 into McLeod. Two different outfitters but we still 21 both operate in that area. 22 MR. MASCHHOFF: That would be two 23 different ownerships, though, of the property. 24 MR. BISHOP: Right. That's what I'm 89 1 asking. Does it -- so it's got to be -- it ain't a 2 combined number even though it's all recreational? 3 It's just each person specific? 4 MR. MASCHHOFF: To my knowledge, no, it 5 would not, but I would like to ask Department of Ag 6 for more clarification on that type of a situation. 7 MR. BISHOP: Okay. Thank you. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Sir. 9 MR. ALLEN: My name is Dan Allen, 10 A-l-l-e-n, and my question is for Jerry. 11 Of the 1700-plus feet circumference in 12 the residential setback area, does Moss Family 13 Farms own the area encompassed by that setback? 14 MR. JERRY MOSS: On the new facility, 15 no. On the existing facility we're close. 16 MR. ALLEN: I'm only concerned with the 17 new facility. 18 MR. JERRY MOSS: In the new facility, 19 no, we do not own all that. 20 MR. ALLEN: So the setback area, the 21 residential setback includes the neighbors' 22 property. Can you tell me which neighbors you're 23 including in your setback area? 24 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes. It would be John 90 1 McLaughlin's residence. That would be the closest 2 residence to the facility. 3 MR. ALLEN: That is included in the 4 setback distance? 5 MR. MASCHHOFF: No, it's not included. 6 That would be the nearest one. 7 MR. ALLEN: I'm asking when you look at 8 that circle of the setback area -- 9 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yep. 10 MR. ALLEN: -- Jerry indicated the Moss 11 Family Farms does not own the area encompassed in 12 that circle. So I'm asking who are the landowners 13 within that setback area that their land is being 14 used as setback for this project? 15 MR. MASCHHOFF: So Donald R. Risley 16 owns property. 17 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 18 MR. MASCHHOFF: John McLaughlin owns 19 property. 20 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 21 MR. MASCHHOFF: And Stuart and Michelle 22 Hobson. 23 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 24 MR. MASCHHOFF: In the residential 91 1 setback. 2 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 3 MR. MASCHHOFF: And David and Barbara 4 Risley. 5 MR. ALLEN: And David and Barbara 6 Risley. 7 So I guess what I'm wondering here is 8 if we assume that that is a reasonable setback area 9 -- that's a whole different argument. But if we 10 assume that the Livestock Management Facilities Act 11 has determined that that's appropriate, what we're 12 saying here is that any of these landowners that at 13 some later date determine that they would like to 14 build a residence on their own property that they 15 have bought that they are paying taxes on will be 16 within the setback area used by the Moss Family 17 Farms. Is that correct? 18 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes, it would be within 19 the residential setback. 20 MR. ALLEN: Thank you very much. 21 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 22 MR. ROTH: During the presentation I 23 think there was mention of a Dr. Goldsmith who did 24 some kind of economic impact study. 92 1 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes, sir. 2 MR. ROTH: Do you know -- could you 3 give me the specifics? Is it Dr. Peter Goldsmith 4 from the University of Illinois? And what study it 5 was? 6 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes. It's Goldsmith 7 and Wang 2011, the Economic Impact of Illinois's 8 Livestock Industry. 9 MR. ROTH: Okay. Thank you. 10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Any further 11 questions? 12 Yes, clear in the back. 13 MR. MOHRMAN: Mike Mohrman, 14 M-o-h-r-m-a-n. 15 COURT REPORTER: I didn't hear. Sorry. 16 MR. MOHRMAN: M-o-h-r-m-a-n, first name 17 Mike. 18 In that first presentation there was 19 reference to an economic impact of approximately 20 $3.67 million being contributed to Pike County 21 coffers, shall we say, as a result of 22 pork-producing operations. Am I correct? 23 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes, 3.6 million. 24 MR. MOHRMAN: Do you happen to know of 93 1 that is there an estimate as to how much this 2 proposed facility would add to that or does it 3 include that? 4 MR. MASCHHOFF: On tax? 5 MR. MOHRMAN: Yes. 6 MR. MASCHHOFF: No, I do not have those 7 exact numbers. 8 MR. MOHRMAN: Okay. 9 MR. JARON MOSS: Are you looking for 10 approximate property taxes on the new facility or 11 just like a general economic -- 12 MR. MOHRMAN: What I'm hoping to find 13 out is if there is a number that we can use to 14 determine the economic impact within the county 15 when it comes to tax revenue for this facility, and 16 hopefully it offsets the potential for devaluation 17 of land and properties that may result in the loss 18 of tax revenue. 19 MR. JARON MOSS: Well, as a -- I guess 20 as a baseline reference point -- as everybody 21 obviously knows, we have a different facility. 22 In comparing the number of animal units as a 23 comparison, the approximate total tax revenue sent 24 in with your little cards would be approximately 94 1 $14,900. Roughly of that, a rough breakdown, the 2 Griggsville school system would get about $8247, 3 Fairmount Township 1348, Pike County 2170. I 4 didn't figure up the smaller ones, the fire. 5 MR. MOHRMAN: That gives me a 6 representative number. Roughly 14 to 16,000? 7 MR. JARON MOSS: Right. And those 8 again are estimated values based upon on a 9 comparison of the existing facility. 10 MR. MOHRMAN: Very good. Thank you. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Well, we've 12 been going almost two hours here and I think it 13 looks like we've exhausted all the questions. 14 MR. ROTH: Just one quick question. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: If you make it 16 quick. 17 MR. ROTH: Yes. The Notice of Intent 18 to Construct that I have was signed by Jerry Moss. 19 It was not signed by Patrick Maschhoff. And you 20 keep referring to one submitted by Mr. Maschhoff. 21 Is there a separate one from this? 22 MR. MASCHHOFF: I believe what he's 23 referring to is the cover letter that went with the 24 Notice of Intent when it was submitted to the 95 1 Department of Ag. 2 MR. ROTH: Okay. So I have the correct 3 one that's signed by Mr. Moss? 4 MR. MASCHHOFF: Yes, sir. 5 MR. ROTH: Thank you. 6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: All right. 7 We're going to take about a ten-minute break here. 8 I've got about nine minutes before 8:00, so we'll 9 reconvene here just a couple minutes after 8:00. 10 (A recess was taken from 7:51 p.m. 11 until 8:06 p.m.) 12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I have in front 13 of me the oral testimony sign-in sheets that were 14 in the back of the room -- or, actually, out in the 15 hall when you came in. I will go down the list and 16 call the names of those who wish to provide oral 17 testimony. 18 When called upon, please step up here 19 up front to the microphone, state your name and 20 spell your name. I will then swear you in. 21 Remember, you will have three minutes 22 to speak. 23 The first name on the list is Dan is it 24 Cole? 96 1 MR. COLE: Cole. 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: How is it 3 spelled? 4 MR. COLE: Cole, C-o-l-e. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: C-o-l-e. Dan 6 Cole. Step right over there, please. 7 After Mr. Cole will be Steve -- is it a 8 D or an R? 9 MR. DUNHAM: Dunham. 10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: From 11 Griggsville. 12 MR. DUNHAM: Dunham, D-u-n-h-a-m. 13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. You'll 14 be up next just as a warning. 15 Please state your name and spell your 16 name. 17 MR. COLE: Dan Cole, C-o-l-e. 18 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Please raise 19 your right hand. 20 Do you swear or affirm the testimony 21 you're about to give will be the truth, the whole 22 truth, and nothing but the truth? 23 MR. COLE: Yes, I do. 24 I'm a farmer from western Illinois over 97 1 by Plainville. I've lived in Adams County all my 2 life, grew up in a little town called Hull. I've 3 been in the grain and livestock business -- this is 4 my third generation. I'm a director for Illinois 5 Corn Growers. And I'm here to urge the County 6 Board to consider every opportunity to expand 7 livestock in Illinois. 8 Livestock's the biggest consumer of 9 corn and soybean meal. Without the livestock 10 industry, we're forced to export and to find extra 11 markets that we don't have at the present time. 12 It's very important to the corn industry and to the 13 grain industry that the livestock industry be very 14 close by. Over half the corn last year in Illinois 15 that was raised in Illinois was fed to livestock. 16 So again, I urge the County Board to 17 consider this to make sure that this project, if 18 it's environmentally -- it meets all the 19 requirements is allowed to continue. 20 Thank you. 21 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 22 questions for this witness? 23 MS. RECA RISLEY: I have one. 24 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Yes, ma'am. 98 1 MS. RECA RISLEY: Sir, how close are 2 you to -- 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you state 4 your name, please? 5 MS. RECA RISLEY: Sorry. Reca Risley, 6 R-i-s-l-e-y. 7 How close do you live to the nearest 8 livestock facility? Your home, how close is it? 9 MR. COLE: Bakers Family Farm is about 10 two miles north of Plainville which is north of my 11 house, but I live probably 300 yards from the 12 lagoon. So, ma'am, when it stinks, it stinks. 13 MS. RECA RISLEY: Correct. You are 14 right. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there other 16 questions? 17 Mr. Roth. 18 MR. ROTH: Has your organization ever 19 sponsored a research project to work on the problem 20 of odor from these types of facilities? 21 MR. COLE: I believe that the Illinois 22 Corn Marketing Board gives money every year to the 23 University of Illinois to research odor control in 24 livestock facilities. Yes, sir, I do. 99 1 MR. ROTH: Can you name any studies 2 that resulted from those research grants from your 3 organization? 4 MR. COLE: They would be available 5 through the University of Illinois's website. 6 MR. ROTH: Do you know Dr. Peter 7 Goldsmith? 8 MR. COLE: No, I do not. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Any other 10 questions? 11 Thank you. 12 Steve, you're up, followed by Dan 13 Allen. 14 MR. DUNHAM: Steve Dunham, D-u-n-h-a-m. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you raise 16 your right hand, please? 17 Do you swear or affirm the testimony 18 you're about to give will be the truth, the whole 19 truth, and nothing but the truth? 20 MR. DUNHAM: I do. 21 I'm one of the owners of LSSD Trucking, 22 3D Trucking, and Pike County Concrete. It's a 23 family business. I have two brothers, I have my 24 son, and I have my nephew involved in the business. 100 1 We started in 1985. In 2003 we were introduced to 2 the Maschhoff organization and asked to help haul 3 feed at that time. It probably affected ten people 4 in my organization. 5 We employ 76 people in this county. 65 6 of them are basically, you know, supported by the 7 Maschhoff organization. Well, let's just say the 8 hog industry, I guess. My annual payroll is $4.2 9 million. That's my employees there. I pay half a 10 million dollars in fuel tax a year. My family 11 alone and business pays $35,000 in taxes a year, 12 county taxes. I attribute our success basically to 13 the hog industry, which has been the Maschhoff 14 Farm. 15 I've been up through the ups and downs. 16 I was a farm boy myself. Struggled through the 17 '80s, didn't have the opportunity that people do 18 right now to make money in the hog industry. But I 19 went on. I said I'd never haul another hog in my 20 life. We used to raise 5,000 head of hogs. I have 21 15 hog trucks running every day for Maschhoff Pork. 22 All my drivers are certified DOT 23 tested, drug tested. We have drug testings -- 24 random drug testings four times a year. All my 101 1 drivers are basically family men, Pike County men. 2 I've had people move into my community to work for 3 us. We actually have a waiting list of people to 4 work for us because they make good money. The 5 Maschhoff organization has made it that we make 6 money what we do and I appreciate that. 7 And as far as Jerry Moss, the man has 8 done nothing but help me. In bad weather he's 9 always had his driveway clean. And if he builds 10 down there, I'm sure the road will be clean. If 11 not, LSSD has a snow removal truck itself, which we 12 do. 13 In 3.5 or 3.25 miles from 104 down 14 there I suspect the trucks will average 40 mile an 15 hour. 16 We don't try to -- we work with every 17 road commissioner. Right now there's 21 hog 18 buildings owned by Maschhoff Pork, and we try to 19 work with everybody. 20 And the question was answered -- or, 21 asked about the -- I have four buildings, one of 22 them is a Maschhoff building, within one to two 23 miles of my house. So I experience it every day 24 and I can't complain about it because actually it 102 1 don't affect my house. 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Sir, you need 3 to wrap it up, please. 4 MR. DUNHAM: I guess the last question 5 I'll answer I heard there from a man is that I own 6 Pike County Concrete. We have actually built the 7 last six to seven buildings in the last three 8 years. 9 It's unfortunate the state of Illinois 10 don't have rock that qualifies. We haul our rock 11 from Huntington, Missouri. It's all certified by 12 the State of Illinois and it's tested. We go 13 through state regulations every -- every year 14 tested. Our scales are tested. The sand comes 15 from Missouri. It's all certified. Unfortunately, 16 the State of Illinois won't allow Illinois rock be 17 used because it don't qualify. 18 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Sir, you need 19 to wrap it up, please. 20 MR. DUNHAM: I appreciate the Maschhoff 21 organization and hopefully the County Board will 22 look at the advantages of having hog confinements 23 in Pike County. 24 Thank you. 103 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 2 questions for this witness? 3 I see none. 4 Thank you. 5 Dan Allen followed by Bob Oitker. 6 MR. ALLEN: My name is Dan Allen, 7 A-l-l-e-n. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you swear or 9 affirm the testimony you're about to give will be 10 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 11 truth? 12 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I do. 13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Proceed. 14 MR. ALLEN: First off, I'd like to say 15 that I've got a lot of friends in this room that 16 make a buck and make a living in the hog industry 17 in this county, and I additionally have a lot of 18 friends in this room that are affected by existing 19 hog buildings and that will be affected by this 20 proposed hog building. My main point here tonight 21 is not personal at all. 22 I feel that if the stated setback from 23 the State of Illinois is agreed to, which it's 24 stated at this point, that anybody building a 104 1 building should own their own setback, whatever 2 that number is. We can debate the number later. 3 But for somebody to build a building and use part 4 of my farm as setback on that building is 5 absolutely ridiculous. It limits my ability to 6 have the use of my own ground and my farm. 7 I built a house a few years ago and I 8 almost didn't build, sold the farm and moved 9 because of the proposed building. I have a 10 building that's less than a half a mile west of me, 11 and I can tell you when it stinks, it stinks, and I 12 am at the whim of the good Lord not blowing the 13 wind my direction. Having the wedding parties for 14 my daughters at my house was unthinkable because I 15 don't know where the wind's coming from. 16 So anytime that this issue has come up 17 or any issue pertaining to these kinds of hearings 18 to the County Board, the County Board in the past 19 has been able to say we're at the mercy of the 20 State of Illinois. Well, I would like to say to 21 the County Board and through them to the Zoning 22 Board of Appeals my interest tonight is for the 23 citizens of Pike County, and I think that when the 24 Zoning Board of Appeals is so much interested in 105 1 whether I pour a patio on the back of my house or 2 not or put a roof on somewhere, I think that they 3 should get in the game a little bit and take a 4 stand on what's fair and how these setbacks should 5 be applied. You can't just sit there and do 6 nothing and say we're at the mercy of the State of 7 Illinois. There's two different governing bodies 8 here and I would suggest to you that the interests 9 of the Board of Pike County could very much differ 10 from the interests of the State of Illinois. 11 So I yield the rest of my time to 12 Mr. Fred Roth. 13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 14 questions for this witness? 15 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. 16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Any questions? 17 Next up is Bob Oitker. 18 MR. OITKER: I'd like to yield my time. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: All right. 20 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. 21 HEARING OFFICER: Alan Janssen, 22 followed by -- is it Linda Akin? 23 COURT REPORTER: Mr. Frank, what was 24 the gentleman's name that yielded his time? 106 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Bob -- 2 MR. OITKER: Oitker, O-i-t-k-e-r. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you state 4 your name and spell your name, please? 5 MR. JANSSEN: Alan Janssen, 6 J-a-n-s-s-e-n. 7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you swear or 8 affirm the testimony you're about to give will be 9 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 10 truth? 11 MR. JANSSEN: I do. 12 I'm a certified land appraiser and 13 doing farm appraisals for about 30 years. I'm a 14 landowner, and my family and I also live less than 15 a half mile north of a hog finishing building. 16 I think it was brought up concern about 17 land values in close proximity to hog buildings. 18 As far as agricultural land, in my years of doing 19 appraisals, and I've done several on farms that are 20 adjacent to feeding facilities, also land that has 21 manure easements on them, and through all of the 22 sales I've analyzed and looked at I do not see any 23 negative effect from ag land being in close 24 proximity to hog confinements. 107 1 In fact, there's some instances land 2 comes for sale, particularly at auction, that might 3 be near a hog facility or cattle facility, either 4 one. A lot of times those parcels of land will 5 bring a premium because there's extra incentive for 6 those people to expand their land base and have 7 additional land for manure application. 8 As far as rural residential values, I 9 think the gentleman quoted an Illinois study on the 10 effects of confined livestock buildings in close 11 proximity to rural residential properties. A 12 friend of mine in Iowa did the same type of study, 13 and the finding of that study was that the lower 14 dollar value -- the lower value homes that were 15 close to hog facilities actually showed an increase 16 in value because there was an increase in demand 17 for affordable housing, particularly for the 18 employees of the hog buildings that wanted to be 19 close to their job site. The medium value range 20 homes they could not detect any effect on value 21 from those. On the executive type homes, you know, 22 the big McMansions with the swimming pool, tennis 23 courts and that, in some cases they did see a 24 slight decrease in value of those. Primarily it 108 1 was a longer marketing time. 2 And I think -- in my county several 3 years ago there was a lot of hog buildings came in, 4 there was a lot of concern about land values, about 5 house values, about quality of life. And I think 6 any drop in land values you might see, particularly 7 drop in residential -- rural residential housing, 8 is more an anticipatory loss of value. That when a 9 building first comes in, everyone's really 10 concerned property value is going to drop. But 11 usually after a year or so, that once we find out 12 what is actually going on, those values pick right 13 up and generally stay with the overall residential 14 properties of that area. 15 So I have no -- no ties to the people 16 here. I am strictly speaking and giving my 17 observations of my experience in land valuation, 18 also living in close proximity to a hog building. 19 Yeah, there's -- there's days we get some smell, 20 but it's not offensive. There's buildings next to 21 me that have been there since 2001. The only time 22 we really notice much odor is in the summer 23 probably about 9:00 at night when the air's real 24 heavy, the smell will go down to the low areas 109 1 instead of dissipating up in the air. And I think 2 in those twelve years there's maybe been a half 3 dozen times where we'll be out on the patio that we 4 say, well, let's just go in. There's only been one 5 time where the buildings were being pumped and 6 there was a tremendous odor. That was -- came from 7 a southeast wind in late fall, which is unusual. 8 During the night the winds switched around and you 9 could never tell there was an odor. 10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Janssen, 11 you need to wrap it up, please. 12 MR. JANSSEN: Okay. I think the key to 13 this is being good neighbors. Both -- the producer 14 needs to communicate with his neighbors, let them 15 know what's going on, when we're planning on 16 pumping when there might be some additional odor. 17 But I think the neighbors also need to communicate 18 to that producer saying, yes, we've got an outdoor 19 event going on here, you know, we want to make sure 20 that there's no reason for additional odor at that. 21 And I think people can get along. I get along 22 fine. 23 In our whole county there's a lot of, a 24 lot of hog production there, and we still have new 110 1 housing going up and we have not seen a decrease in 2 value. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 4 questions for this witness? 5 MS. AKIN: Where do you live? 6 MR. JANSSEN: Excuse me? 7 MS. AKIN: Where do you live? 8 MR. JANSSEN: I live in southeast Iowa, 9 Bloomfield, Davis County. 10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 11 questions? 12 Yes, Mr. Mohrman. 13 MR. MOHRMAN: What is your interest in 14 being here if you're from southeast Iowa? 15 MR. JANSSEN: I was contacted to come 16 just to speak on land values. 17 MR. MOHRMAN: Okay. By who? 18 MR. JANSSEN: By Matt Henry was the one 19 who contacted me. 20 MR. MOHRMAN: Thank you. 21 MR. JANSSEN: Yes, ma'am. 22 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. I'm 23 sorry. 24 MS. HOBSON: I was just wondering when 111 1 you do your appraisals how do you -- 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Ma'am, could 3 you state your name, please? 4 MS. HOBSON: I'm sorry. Elaine Hobson, 5 H-o-b-s-o-n. 6 When you do your appraisals, how do you 7 measure in quality of life? Does that factor into 8 the value of the property? 9 MR. JANSSEN: In an appraisal process 10 that's the drive for the market. If you see houses 11 that are in -- and farms in close proximity to a 12 building and they sell for as much as the one that 13 is many mails away from such a facility, if there's 14 no difference in selling price, then the hog 15 facility did not have an impact -- a negative 16 impact on the value. 17 MS. HOBSON: So you're assuming those 18 people have the same quality of life? 19 MR. JANSSEN: I can speak for myself 20 that we're close to hog buildings and I do not feel 21 that our quality of life has been diminished. 22 We enjoy our spot in the country. 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 24 MR. ROTH: Sir, from what I've read, 112 1 Iowa has more nuisance lawsuits filed against hog 2 factories because of the odor than any other state. 3 Have you ever been hired as an expert 4 witness either by the hog producer or by the 5 neighbors to evaluate the impact on the values of 6 the property located near a hog factory? 7 MR. JANSSEN: No, I have not. 8 MR. ROTH: Okay. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 10 questions? 11 Yes, Mr. Anderson. 12 MR. ANDERSON: Nic Anderson. 13 The facility that you moved next to, 14 are you aware of any nuisance lawsuits against it? 15 MR. JANSSEN: No, I'm not aware of any 16 in the immediate area. There's two additional 17 sites within a mile south of me and I'm not aware 18 of any nuisance complaints. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 20 questions? 21 Thank you very much. 22 Next we have Ms. Akin, Linda, followed 23 by Steve Barry. 24 Would you state and spell your name, 113 1 please? 2 MS. AKIN: Linda Akin, A-k-i-n. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you swear or 4 affirm the testimony you're about to give will be 5 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 6 truth? 7 MS. AKIN: Yes. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: You may 9 proceed. 10 MS. AKIN: Well, first, I've been asked 11 to enter this into the -- 12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Is that 13 written testimony? 14 MS. AKIN: Yes. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I'll take that 16 during the written testimony phase. 17 MS. AKIN: Oh, okay. 18 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: And step up to 19 the microphone if you could, please. 20 MS. AKIN: Well, I don't have my notes. 21 But it sounds like some improvements have been made 22 in technology in the last eleven years. I just 23 wish I could believe everything that's been said 24 about the quality of the materials. 114 1 I guess I have to come back to my -- my 2 most immediate concern, which is the traffic on the 3 township roads. That's what makes me feel most 4 immediately threatened. 5 When they tell me that the speed limit 6 is 55 miles an hour on an eleven foot wide road, 7 nobody with any sense drives 55 miles an hour on a 8 township gravel road if the weather is perfect. I 9 mean there are a lot of deer out in our 10 neighborhood. 11 Once in a while there's another car but 12 mostly big trucks. Pickup trucks are a lot bigger 13 than they used to be. So I feel like I'm in danger 14 with them. But certainly a tanker truck coming 15 over a hill that I can't see beyond the top of 16 makes me really, really afraid. And I don't feel 17 that there's really any -- any concern for people's 18 safety on this issue. 19 So I -- I -- I understand their desire 20 to make a living. I don't think that they have any 21 bad intent with their trucking business, but I 22 think the danger is really real. Not everybody out 23 there drives a pickup truck the size of the average 24 pickup truck now. A lot of us just drive little 115 1 old cars. And I'm afraid. 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 3 questions for this witness? 4 Mr. Anderson. 5 MR. ANDERSON: Can you kind of describe 6 where you live from the proposed facility so we 7 kind of understand? Do you live on that township 8 road or where do you live? 9 MS. AKIN: I live on 355th Avenue, 10 about a mile and a quarter I guess from the 11 facility. 12 MR. ANDERSON: Straight west or 13 straight north? 14 MS. AKIN: Straight west. 15 MR. ANDERSON: So you're on the west 16 side. Okay. Does that proposed traffic line that 17 they showed come by your house? 18 MS. AKIN: No, it wouldn't go by my 19 house. 20 MR. ANDERSON: But that's the road you 21 use to -- 22 MS. AKIN: If I need -- if I go to 23 town, that would be the shortest way to go. 24 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. That helps. 116 1 Thank you. 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 3 questions? 4 I see none. Thank you. 5 Next is Steve Barry, followed by Adam 6 Winkelman. 7 MR. BARRY: Steve Barry, B-a-r-r-y. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you swear or 9 affirm the testimony you're about to give will be 10 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 11 truth? 12 MR. BARRY: Yes. 13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Proceed. 14 MR. BARRY: I'm a livestock producer 15 from Adams County. I've been raising livestock 16 since 1979. 17 I've -- in the last four years I've 18 been associated with the Maschhoffs. In the 19 previous years I have had five different people 20 that I've raised hogs for. If and when this site 21 is approved, Mr. Moss will have no better team to 22 back him than the Maschhoffs. They have an array 23 of people that visit you on a monthly basis. If 24 you need anything, they're one phone call away. 117 1 I've never experienced a company like this and done 2 business with anybody like this in my years of 3 raising livestock. 4 Thank you. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 6 questions for this witness? 7 Yes, sir. 8 MR. DUNHAM: Have you ever seen -- 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Can you state 10 your name, please? 11 MR. DUNHAM: Steve Dunham. 12 Have you ever seen an LSSD or 3D truck 13 speed in your location, sir? 14 MR. BARRY: No, I have not. 15 MR. DUNHAM: I appreciate it. We 16 deliver to you every week. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Any other 18 questions? 19 Thank you very much. 20 Next we have Adam Winkelman, followed 21 by Fred Roth. 22 MR. WINKELMAN: Adam Winkelman, 23 W-i-n-k-e-l-m-a-n. 24 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you swear or 118 1 affirm the testimony you're about to give will be 2 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 3 truth? 4 MR. WINKELMAN: I do. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Proceed. 6 MR. WINKELMAN: I'm a fourth generation 7 livestock farmer. In approximately 2009 I built my 8 first hog barns. In proximity to my barns a mile 9 to the northeast is the community that I grew up 10 in, a mile to the east is the grade school and high 11 school that I attended, and just between the high 12 school and me is a subdivision. I can't think of 13 another site -- I'm in the transportation business 14 also -- that we go to that there are as many nice 15 homes in close proximity as my own. 16 In nearly four years of production I've 17 had not one complaint from any neighbor. I 18 actually have neighbors come to me wanting in on my 19 nutrient management plan, but I can't allow them 20 because I don't have the -- I have too many acres 21 the way it is. Sounds like Mr. Moss does also. 22 I can't speak for anyone but myself and 23 my own neighbors in my own community, but I can 24 tell you it's been a very positive thing from the 119 1 revenue, tax dollars. 2 That's all I have to say. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 4 questions for this witness? 5 Yes, sir. 6 MR. BOREN: Michael Boren, B-o-r-e-n. 7 Where are you from? 8 MR. WINKELMAN: I'm from Morgan County 9 by Concord. 10 MR. BOREN: Concord. Okay. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Mohrman. 12 MR. MOHRMAN: Yes. 13 Congratulations on having no -- 14 COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you. 15 Sorry. 16 MR. MOHRMAN: I was just congratulating 17 him on the fact that he was able to acknowledge 18 that he didn't have any complaints and he's located 19 in a residential area. 20 In achieving that, do you employ any 21 air filtration devices or anything that would 22 differ from what's been proposed here? 23 MR. WINKELMAN: No, I do not. From 24 what I've seen, Jerry would actually go further 120 1 than I did. I have a natural windbreak on two 2 sides. I have not planted any other windbreak. 3 I've actually -- I had conversations with NRCS 4 about it, have not went any further with it. We've 5 had no complaints. It seems to me the project 6 proposed would actually go further out of their way 7 to help protect air quality than what I have done 8 myself. 9 MR. MOHRMAN: Very good. Thank you. 10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 11 questions? 12 Yes, ma'am. 13 MS. REEDER: Marilyn Reeder, 14 R-e-e-d-e-r. 15 Do you own all your land that you 16 incorporate your waste on? 17 MR. WINKELMAN: No, I do not. 18 MS. REEDER: Do you have your 19 landowners' permission to do that ahead of time 20 when you lease the ground? 21 MR. WINKELMAN: Yes. I think without 22 that I would not have been able to complete my 23 nutrient management plan and would not been able to 24 construct to begin with. 121 1 MS. REEDER: And how far did you say 2 you live from your facility? 3 MR. WINKELMAN: My parents live within 4 800 feet of it. I'm there all day. You could say 5 I live there, but I am probably three miles to the 6 north. 7 MS. REEDER: Okay. And do you go 8 outside and enjoy your deck, patio, whatever, 9 anytime you want? 10 MR. WINKELMAN: Oh, yeah. 11 MS. REEDER: Even when you incorporate 12 your waste? 13 MR. WINKELMAN: Absolutely. 14 MS. REEDER: Because I live cattywampus 15 of two different facilities and I can't agree with 16 you. I mean I don't know what kind of management 17 they have, but even when they're not incorporating, 18 every now and then we do get a good whiff and you 19 do not want to be outside. 20 MR. WINKELMAN: I can tell you this: I 21 actually transport manure via tanker within a half 22 mile of my -- well, actually probably within an 23 eighth mile of my home that another neighbor that 24 would live another thousand feet past me, I custom 122 1 apply to him. So to say I do not live close to the 2 facility would be correct, but to say that my 3 application would not affect me would be incorrect 4 as I do apply within an eighth mile of my own home. 5 MS. REEDER: I have one other question. 6 What kind of roads do you have around 7 this facility? Are they blacktop? 8 MR. WINKELMAN: We have a blacktop road 9 and the last half mile turns to gravel. 10 MS. REEDER: How does that gravel road 11 hold up? 12 MR. WINKELMAN: Like any gravel road. 13 I don't know how you'd answer that. I've drove 14 down a heck of a lot worse. I haven't drove down 15 very many better. 16 MS. REEDER: Have you ever had any 17 problems when it's spring and we've had a real wet 18 spring getting in and out of that gravel road? 19 MR. WINKELMAN: No. If we've got a wet 20 spring, which we obviously have and have since I 21 constructed with the exception of last year, no, 22 we've not had any problems. 23 I would like to also add that within a 24 thousand feet of my confinements I've had a 123 1 neighbor come in and build his own house and 2 encroached on the setback. Which I think speaks 3 volumes for modern pork production when I actually 4 have people building inside the setback after I've 5 constructed. 6 MS. REEDER: Thank you. 7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 8 MR. ROTH: I may have missed it, but 9 how many pigs do you have in your facility? 10 MR. WINKELMAN: I feed a little under 11 10,000 hogs a year. 12 MR. ROTH: And do you own the hogs? 13 MR. WINKELMAN: No. 14 MR. ROTH: Who does? 15 MR. WINKELMAN: Maschhoff. 16 MR. ROTH: And do you buy the feed or 17 is it supplied by Maschhoff? 18 MR. WINKELMAN: It's contract 19 finishing. No. 20 MR. ROTH: Is it all by Maschhoff feed? 21 MR. WINKELMAN: They supply the feed, 22 yes. 23 MR. ROTH: They do the vet service? 24 MR. WINKELMAN: I do animal handling, 124 1 animal care myself. 2 MR. ROTH: But the vets come from them? 3 MR. WINKELMAN: The vet will come out 4 if I need assistance. 5 MR. ROTH: But the vet is selected by 6 Maschhoff; correct? 7 MR. WINKELMAN: Correct. 8 MR. ROTH: Okay. And they arrange the 9 trucking; correct? 10 MR. wINKELMAN: Correct. 11 MR. ROTH: Okay. Now, you alone are in 12 charge of manure; correct? 13 MR. WINKELMAN: Correct. 14 MR. ROTH: They're not in charge of 15 manure; correct? 16 MR. WINKELMAN: Correct. 17 MR. ROTH: And you're in charge of dead 18 hogs? 19 MR. WINKELMAN: Yes. 20 MR. ROTH: Live hogs are theirs and 21 dead hogs are yours? 22 MR. WINKELMAN: I'm in charge of 23 everything. 24 MR. ROTH: You're in charge -- 125 1 MR. WINKELMAN: I take care of the live 2 hogs and compost the dead hogs. 3 MR. ROTH: Now, did they provide the 4 financing to you for the building of these 5 facilities? 6 MR. WINKELMAN: Absolutely not. 7 MR. ROTH: It's all your own? 8 MR. WINKELMAN: Correct. 9 MR. ROTH: How long is your contract 10 with them? 11 MR. WINKELMAN: I don't think that's 12 any of your business. 13 And I would like to also add that as a 14 young beginning farmer, I would like to say I own 15 my own barns, but I've got a loan on them. I pay 16 interest here to the bank in town. I think that 17 goes to just the trickle-down effect that we have 18 on the community. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 20 questions? 21 Thank you very much. 22 Mr. Roth, followed by Barb Risley. 23 Are you representing yourself or 24 clients? 126 1 MR. ROTH: I'm representing clients. 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. 3 MR. ROTH: David and Barbara Risley. 4 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Are 5 those the only clients? 6 MR. ROTH: There's other people that 7 have asked me to speak if they have time available. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Could 9 you state and spell your name, please? 10 MR. ROTH: It's R-o-t-h. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Would you raise 12 your right hand, please? 13 Do you swear or affirm the testimony 14 you're about to give will be the truth, the whole 15 truth, and nothing but the truth? 16 MR. ROTH: I do. 17 I think as the regulations require, I'm 18 supposed to state up-front if I'm in favor or 19 against, and my answer is I'm against, as are my 20 clients. 21 Pike County has seen six new expansions 22 by Maschhoff Farms according to the Illinois 23 Department of Ag's website in the last 16 to 18 24 months. You have doubled in size with Maschhoff 127 1 without even having a public hearing. The same 2 thing can happen at this facility. It can double 3 in two years. 4 Now, I'm going to talk as fast as I 5 can. 6 My grandfathers on both sides were hog 7 farmers and farmers. My father was a farmer his 8 entire life. He's still alive. He's a retired 9 farmer. My brother is a farmer and has been his 10 entire life. I grew up on a farm. I'm not here 11 representing non-farmers. I'm representing people, 12 citizens, neighbors in the rural community. 13 We've heard about is there an economic 14 impact? Yes, there is. Who do they cite? Dr. 15 Goldsmith, Dr. Peter Goldsmith. Dr. Peter 16 Goldsmith was named in another lawsuit that I'm 17 involved in as an expert for the hog facility. He 18 writes articles and he teaches two classes a year 19 that are only in the springtime at University of 20 Illinois. The rest of the time he tries to figure 21 out ways to help the hog industry through writing 22 articles about the economic impact. 23 But under oath it's a little different 24 for him. Dr. Goldsmith was asked by me in a 128 1 deposition on May 14th, 2003, about the economic 2 impact to the surrounding neighbors and their 3 values of their homes. And he said: 4 "I didn't do an estimate on whether it 5 went up or down. I did a simulation using the data 6 from North Carolina as if those parameters were in 7 Lee County." 8 Lee County is near Dixon, Illinois. 9 And I asked: "What are your findings?" 10 He says: "Depending on where the house 11 is located, housing values will go down depending 12 on the distance from the facility." 13 I asked: "Did you decide with any 14 specificity what that distance was? 15 "A. Yes. We were very specific in the 16 North Carolina study. 17 "Q. Okay. For what distance in the 18 North Carolina study as applied to Lee County, here 19 in Illinois, did you decide that the housing value 20 was impacted downward? 21 "A. From .5 miles to 1.75 miles." 22 This is the expert from the U of I 23 cited here tonight by the Maschhoffs as someone 24 they relied upon to tell us that it's not going to 129 1 hurt our economic -- or, the values of our homes if 2 we're located nearby testifying under oath about a 3 month ago that it will go down if you're between .5 4 and 1.75. 5 My clients did a little survey. They 6 went and looked at three miles from the facility 7 and found 26 homes, many of them within 1.75 miles. 8 A previous speaker said, well, if you're -- I think 9 the appraiser said if you're within like a half a 10 mile it actually could be up. He's right. 11 Dr. Goldsmith agrees with him. He says 12 in a half a mile, well, it's positive because 13 someone who worked at the facility would like to 14 live that close and many times the facilities buy 15 anyone out who lives within a half a mile, usually 16 at a premium. 17 That's why if you're real close, within 18 a half a mile, you can sell out at a premium. But 19 if you're within a half mile to 1.75, according to 20 a very detailed, costly study related to Illinois 21 by Dr. Goldsmith, cited by the Maschhoffs tonight, 22 it's going to go down. 23 So the points I've made so far: You 24 have a lot of hog facilities increasing and you're 130 1 going to be impacted if you're close by, as are my 2 clients that I represent here tonight. 3 Additionally, Maschhoffs are good 4 people. I'm not here to pick on them individually. 5 They're the seventh largest producer of hogs in the 6 U.S. And if you count their affiliations as I know 7 and can't disclose to you because it's under a 8 protective order by the court, they and some of 9 their friends are number two. Number one is 10 Smithfield and it was bought out or is soon to be 11 bought out by the Chinese. 12 The opportunity is that Maschhoff could 13 be more. They could have designed this using real 14 state-of-the-art technology and none of us would 15 probably be here. We would be amazed. They could 16 put facilities in any part of the State of 17 Illinois. In fact, they can probably put 18 facilities in any state they wanted. It's not a 19 question of whether they have the wherewithal or 20 the personnel to do it. It's whether they have the 21 will to do it. 22 The problem is they don't take the 23 leadership position they have to make this facility 24 what it can really be and that's a model for the 131 1 industry. And that's my challenge to them. Why 2 don't they do that? Earlier I said the SKOV 3 system. 4 Let me mention, overseas they have hog 5 factories. They also have very tight air 6 regulations that are tested and monitored. They 7 keep track of things. And you don't have nuisance 8 suits. You don't have people fighting hog 9 factories like you do in the U.S. in Japan, in 10 Germany, in Belgium, in Netherlands, in Denmark. 11 Danish hams which are a premium on the market. 12 In those countries they actually 13 prohibit the nine most commonly used antibiotics 14 from being fed to animals. In those countries they 15 have actual air monitoring and testing so that the 16 neighbors never really do smell the stuff. 17 I challenge Maschhoff to use their 18 position in the marketplace as a leader to do 19 something like that in the U.S. 20 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 21 questions for this witness? 22 Mr. Anderson. 23 MR. ANDERSON: Nic Anderson, 24 A-n-d-e-r-s-o-n. 132 1 Just a couple questions, Mr. Roth. You 2 talk about your family farming. Do you farm? 3 MR. ROTH: I myself do not farm, 4 haven't since I left to go to college, except for 5 summertimes, back in 1975. 6 MR. ANDERSON: Do you live near this 7 facility? 8 MR. ROTH: I do not live near this 9 facility. 10 MR. ANDERSON: Where do you live? 11 MR. ROTH: I live in Lisle, Illinois, 12 which is near Naperville, Illinois, where my office 13 is. Yes. 14 MR. ANDERSON: You referred to the 15 Goldsmith study on the North Carolina farms. Were 16 those lagoons or were those deep pits? Did you do 17 a comparison between facility types for that study? 18 MR. ROTH: No. What I'm relying upon 19 is Dr. Goldsmith, who's been around quite a while, 20 has been an expert witness. Dr. Goldsmith said for 21 purposes of the Lee County case, which I have 105 22 neighbors that I represent against the hog 23 facility, as an expert for them, he said based upon 24 his Carolina experience, and it was actually two 133 1 studies, based on that experience applied to Lee 2 County, which he thought was a fair comparison, 3 there would be a downward impact on the houses for 4 those people living between .5 miles and 1.75 5 miles. 6 MR. ANDERSON: So you don't know if it 7 was lagoon or non-lagoon? 8 MR. ROTH: He didn't -- he didn't tell 9 me. 10 MR. ANDERSON: Do you know that? You 11 don't know that? 12 MR. ROTH: He didn't bring the study 13 with him to the deposition, so you're correct, I 14 don't know the Carolina study. 15 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. 16 The other question, do you have any 17 data on property values in Pike County to compare 18 the property values? 19 MR. ROTH: No, I do not. 20 MR. ANDERSON: Is there a reason why 21 you don't? 22 MR. ROTH: Yes, there is. 23 MR. ANDERSON: What is it? 24 MR. ROTH: It costs lots of money. 134 1 MR. ANDERSON: Does that data exist 2 that you could do that? 3 MR. ROTH: The data does not exist. It 4 costs lots of money to do that kind of study. 5 According to Dr. Goldsmith, he didn't perform a 6 detailed study in Lee County either because he said 7 it would probably be $75,000 to conduct that type 8 of study. 9 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. 10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Any other 11 questions? 12 I see none. Thank you. 13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There is one 14 over there. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Sorry. Yes. 16 MR. BROOKE: We have seen a lot of -- 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Can you state 18 your name, please? 19 MR. BROOKE: Ian Brook, B-r-o-o-k-e. 20 We have seen a lot of those overseas 21 hog factories, as you called, on TV lately. Is 22 that how you want us to raise hogs over here? 23 MR. ROTH: No. I would like for you to 24 use a ventilation system and a cleaning of the air 135 1 system that is state-of-the-art technology that 2 will clean out the pollutants and the odor before 3 it's released into the community. The number one 4 concern with these as far as I'm aware from the 5 clients I've represented is the odor and what's in 6 the air which could be a dangerous topic. 7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Yes. 8 MR. WALBAUM: Wesley Walbaum, 9 W-a-l-b-a-u-m. 10 Can you define how those systems work 11 and is there any scientific data to show how they 12 reduce that effect of odor emissions? 13 MR. ROTH: Yes. If you look on the 14 Internet -- I'm going to use what Warren Goetsch 15 uses as I'm hearing. It's all on the Internet or 16 it's all in my office and anyone can look at it 17 anytime they want. 18 It's S-K-O-V. It's a company that 19 manufactures ventilation systems. 20 If you want to know what it costs, you 21 can talk to the Maschhoffs. They installed one in 22 the Bible Pork facility in Illinois in Louisville. 23 The problem was they installed everything about the 24 ventilation system, which is start of the art, 136 1 except the air-cleaning module. The air-cleaning 2 mechanism, the biofilter that cleans the air before 3 it goes outside, they refused to install as a part 4 of the system. But they bought the ventilation 5 system for one of their largest sow facilities 6 because they believed at the time, and I think they 7 still do based on their study, that it was one of 8 the best ventilation systems for sows. That 9 facility has 16,000 hogs and they wanted it to be 10 one of their leader sow operations. They know all 11 about SKOV. They bought SKOV. 12 MR. WALBAUM: Is there any scientific 13 data that -- 14 MR. ROTH: Yes. If you talk to the 15 SKOV representative, which I have, they will 16 explain to you that there are specific government 17 requirements in other countries which the U.S. 18 doesn't have. We have no such standards. Okay? 19 As a consequence, there are specific requirements 20 that must be met and that system is certified in 21 the countries that I just mentioned earlier 22 tonight. It's a scientific fact. And you can talk 23 to the SKOV representative and they'll be happy to 24 tell you. They're also frustrated because they 137 1 can't sell it to anyone in the U.S. because the hog 2 industry refuses to recognize them. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there other 4 questions? 5 I see none. Thank you. 6 Next is Barb Risley, followed by -- is 7 it Gail Emerson? 8 MS. BARBARA RISLEY: My name is Barbara 9 Risley, R-i-s-l-e-y, and I would like to -- I'm 10 sorry. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you swear -- 12 MS. BARBARA RISLEY: I'm going to yield 13 my time to Mr. Roth. Do I still need to swear in? 14 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are you going 15 to speak? 16 MS. BARBARA RISLEY: No. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. You may 18 sit down. 19 MS. BARBARA RISLEY. Thank you. 20 MR. ROTH: And Mr. Roth had his six 21 minutes. That was -- was his ground rules. 22 MS. BARBARA RISLEY: Okay. 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I think the 24 name is Emerson from Perry. 138 1 MS. EMERSON: I yield my time to 2 Mr. Roth. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. 4 Ms. Emerson passes. 5 Chris Bishop. 6 MR. ROTH: Sir, I think she said she 7 yielded the time to me. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Yes. You had 9 your six minutes. 10 MR. ROTH: No, that was for my clients, 11 Mr. and Mrs. Risley. 12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I asked you if 13 you had any other clients that you were 14 representing. 15 MR. ROTH: And I said they would 16 indicate so when they were asked. And she has. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Well, then you 18 totally misunderstood the question. 19 MR. ROTH: Who misunderstood which 20 question? 21 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: You 22 misunderstood my question. 23 MR. ROTH: Have you changed your 24 procedure since Jo Daviess County where I was 139 1 allowed to talk for other people that night? Is 2 this a rule change that no one knows about? 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: In my opening 4 comments I mentioned -- 5 MR. ROTH: Well, I understood then I 6 should have six minutes for this wonderful person. 7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: -- I mentioned 8 that legal counsel speaking on behalf of multiple 9 clients will be given six minutes to provide 10 comments and will be asked to state the names of 11 those person on whose behalf he or she is speaking. 12 MR. ROTH: Well, I stand corrected 13 then. The Department has figured out another way 14 to shut me up. Thank you. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Next up is 16 Chris Bishop. 17 MR. BISHOP: I have yielded to Mr. Roth 18 as well. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Bishop 20 passes. 21 MR. ROTH: Sir, he yielded to me. 22 There's nothing that you stated at the beginning 23 that said a person cannot yield to someone else 24 their time. 140 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: No. But I will 2 reread what I just read. 3 MR. ROTH: I heard what you said. But 4 I don't represent that individual. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I asked you 6 when you were up here who you were representing. 7 MR. ROTH: I told you who I represent. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: And then I 9 asked you if there was anyone else. 10 MR. ROTH: I don't represent this 11 individual. 12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: So you've told 13 me -- 14 MR. ROTH: They've offered their time 15 to me. 16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: You told me 17 there were -- 18 MR. ROTH: It's a rule of procedure 19 that -- 20 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: -- there were 21 two people you were representing. 22 MR. ROTH: -- if someone offers to 23 yield their time slot -- 24 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I asked if 141 1 there was anyone else and you said no. 2 MR. ROTH: That's utterly ridiculous, 3 sir. 4 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Well, I'm 5 sorry. Those are the ground rules that I mentioned 6 at the beginning, sir. 7 MR. ROTH: You never said anything 8 about people not being able to yield their time to 9 another person to talk. You never addressed that. 10 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Sir, he's 11 representing myself, David Risley, and my wife, 12 Barbara Risley. That's it. That's the only people 13 he knew that were yielding their time to him 14 tonight. These other people -- 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: No. I -- as I 16 said, I asked who are you representing. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He 18 misunderstood, for crying out loud. 19 MR. DAVID RISLEY: He did not know that 20 he was getting time yielded to him when you asked 21 that question. 22 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: And we have not 23 changed our procedure. 24 MR. ROTH: Yes, you have, sir, 142 1 because -- 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Not since -- 3 MR. ROTH: -- the night that we were in 4 Jo Daviess County -- 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Not since I've 6 been doing this. I was not in Jo Daviess County. 7 MR. ROTH: Well, ask Mr. Goetsch. He 8 was. He's right there. You can consult with him. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: This is the way 10 we're doing it tonight. 11 MR. ROTH: You made up the rules 12 tonight? Thank you, sir. 13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I made up the 14 rules -- I didn't make up the rules. I -- 15 MR. ROTH: Yes, you did. 16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I read the 17 rules -- 18 MR. ROTH: You made them up, too. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: -- at the 20 beginning. 21 MR. ROTH: Because they don't exist 22 anywhere in the regulations. Anywhere. 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I read the 24 rules at the beginning. 143 1 MR. ROTH: And none of the people 2 before me even followed the rules and indicated for 3 or against before they started speaking which is in 4 the Act. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Here's what 6 I'll do. 7 MR. ROTH: Okay. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: How many other 9 people are you representing? 10 MR. ROTH: I'll let them raise their 11 hands. It looks like nine. 12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Nine. I will 13 give you an additional six minutes. That's -- 14 MR. ROTH: For all nine? 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: For all nine. 16 That's what I gave you for your first ones. 17 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I didn't realize 18 this was a negotiation. 19 MR. ROTH: I'll start with the six. 20 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sir, he's not 21 representing me. I've never met him before. He 22 can have my three minutes. 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Well, he'll 24 have six minutes. 144 1 MR. ROTH: As we all know, six minutes 2 of attorney's time is about three days. So I'll 3 talk until you carry me off, sir. Because I think 4 I have three minutes for at least nine, possibly 5 ten people. That's the way it's been run before. 6 I didn't see any notice to the contrary. I don't 7 know where you made up these new rules. 8 The point is this: There's nothing 9 that's come up tonight in their presentation that I 10 haven't heard for the last ten years. There is 11 nothing new that they're doing despite the fact 12 that there's new technology. There's nothing 13 Maschhoffs can't afford to do and put into this 14 facility. 15 It does affect people who live nearby. 16 It does economically impact your county. You can 17 look at the general thing of do hogs make money and 18 can you make money and can the trucker make money 19 with the hogs. Sure you can. But the Maschhoffs 20 have an opportunity to do something better here. 21 They look to be a significant force economically in 22 the community and they should. 23 The point is this whole process was to 24 take away from you, the citizens in the area, any 145 1 right to this. The Board over here is going to 2 make a recommendation. Guess what? Here's a 3 question for -- for the Department of Ag. Every 4 Board -- every County Board in the state that has 5 recommended against a facility has been overruled 6 by the Department of Ag. Not a single time when a 7 County Board has said no has the Department of Ag 8 followed their recommendation. That's never 9 happened. It's already done, people. This is a 10 charade. 11 State Representative Duane Noland told 12 one of my clients some years ago that they had to 13 get this into place on a statewide basis to take it 14 away from local control. The very first case on 15 this Act was a Knox County case that went to the 16 Supreme Court because Knox County said we need to 17 control our neighborhood, we need to be able to 18 have zoning rights. You heard someone talk about a 19 patio or a new roof or something. The citizens 20 said we want to have that. But the legislators, 21 who were with heavy contributions from the 22 industry, knew they could never survive a local 23 neighborhood meeting like this and a recommendation 24 of a County Board that cared about the county. It 146 1 had to be the state that was going to register this 2 organization, that was going to cite this 3 organization. Because you and I all know the way 4 they stink. I don't have to tell any of you. You 5 live here. 6 I got in this because my dad didn't 7 want a mega-dairy a mile from his house, the house 8 he's lived in 86 out of 87 years of his life. 9 That's why I got into this. I take a discount on 10 my hourly rate to do these types of things because 11 I care about the state and I care about the 12 neighbors. 13 The industry is the one that bothers 14 me, how the legislature could take away individual 15 rights and control and give it to the Department of 16 Ag that has a dual responsibility they can never 17 fulfill, never. Their dual responsibility is on 18 one hand promote agriculture, which is fine. But 19 now they're supposed to regulate agriculture and 20 they're lousy at it. 21 There's a petition pending in Illinois 22 against Illinois EPA because it doesn't enforce the 23 law. There are studies out there that will show 24 you that once this facility gets into its place, 147 1 the Department of Ag doesn't even accept the 2 complaints. 3 Someone said I've never gotten a 4 complaint. There's no one to complain to. 5 All the facilities join a consent 6 agreement that says no EPA law can be enforced 7 against them, all reporting requirements don't 8 apply to them. That started in 2003 as a secret 9 agreement between the industry and EPA and U.S. 10 EPA. We don't know anything about these 11 facilities. 12 Someone asked the question of 13 Mr. Maschhoff, do you feed antibiotics to the 14 animals? 80 percent of all antibiotic sales in 15 this country go to animals for growth. This is a 16 growth facility, to take them from 18 pounds to 282 17 pounds I think. It's going to have antibiotics. 18 Does he know the answer to the question? No. 19 Guess who else doesn't know? The 20 Government Accounting Office. They sued this month 21 or last month the FDA to get the information about 22 how much drugs is being fed to animals because FDA 23 won't give it to GAO. That's how secret it is. 24 I wasn't surprised he doesn't know. He 148 1 probably doesn't know. And none of his operators 2 know, either. They don't even know what's in the 3 feed that's going to these animals. And they won't 4 tell us, none of us. 5 There's article after article about the 6 problems. The essence of it is the best you can do 7 is what you've done tonight, show up, ask 8 questions, express your concern, hope that the 9 County Board is acting in your best interest and 10 not just worried about the livestock producers who 11 are doing quite well, doing quite well. And they 12 could do better and we deserve that they could do 13 better. 14 I don't want to put them out of 15 business. I don't want the truck driver to lay off 16 anybody. I want them to succeed. But they can do 17 better in this industry. And Maschhoff is a leader 18 in this industry. 19 There are no studies at the U of I or 20 any other land-grant colleges that really address 21 the issues of the neighbors, because all their 22 funding comes from the industry, and the industry 23 designs what articles they're going to write, what 24 research projects they're going to do. 149 1 I just deposed Dr. Huber. He's from 2 Purdue University. He headed up the National Air 3 Emissions Study, the study that was started in 2005 4 was released sometime last year and has been 5 severely criticized because it was so inept. Spent 6 seven years to try to figure out what would be 7 decent air emission standards. 8 Iowa was represented here tonight. 9 Iowa does have more nuisance lawsuits against hog 10 factories than any other state based upon the last 11 readings of that that I read. But what's even more 12 incredible is people in Iowa actually pushed for 13 standards for the air emissions and the livestock 14 lobby got to the legislature and they passed a law 15 thou shall not make any air standards for livestock 16 facilities. 17 We're being overrun by a system that's 18 out of control. And we can all talk about 19 antibiotics problems. We can talk about the bio 20 problems. We can talk about the stink. We can 21 talk about water contamination. We can talk about 22 Karst areas. 23 I need to address that. The citizens 24 in Jo Daviess that fought that case relied upon the 150 1 guy who wrote the map for the U.S. Geological 2 Society about where the Karst areas are. He was -- 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 4 MR. ROTH: I will done in about two 5 minutes. 6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth, you 7 need to wrap up, please. 8 MR. ROTH: Okay. He was asked to come 9 up and be an expert in that case and he agreed. 10 This is what happened to him: State of Illinois 11 told him we don't have enough money in our budget 12 to stay overnight. You have to go up to Jo Daviess 13 from Springfield and back in the same day. You're 14 not allowed to do any extra testing because we 15 can't afford it. The citizens put together their 16 money and said we'll pay to have this guy do it. 17 They said, oh, no, we can't accept your money. 18 They got to the trial and the expert 19 for Al Bos, the dairyman from California, brought 20 in his witness who said you should have done this, 21 this, this, this to determine if you had a Karst 22 area and you didn't do that. And he said no, I 23 couldn't do it because my employer refused to let 24 me spend the time there to do it and we didn't have 151 1 the money to do it. And the judge in the case 2 said, well, you should have done those things, and 3 since you didn't, I don't think there's a Karst 4 area. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth, 6 please wrap up. 7 MR. ROTH: Mr. Goetsch and I have been 8 at several of these, as you can tell. Mr. Goetsch 9 and I have been in litigation together. I've even 10 taken his deposition. And he will confirm, if he 11 wants to tonight, that once this facility is built 12 the Department of Ag can't do anything to protect 13 you. If there's a problem with this, it will go to 14 EPA and EPA will tell you we can't do anything 15 because they signed for $250 a consent agreement 16 that says no EPA rule or regulation applies to them 17 no matter what. That's how well protected they 18 are. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth, 20 please. 21 MR. ROTH: I have a question. 22 MR. MOHRMAN: I would like to ask a 23 question. 24 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Hang on a 152 1 second, please. Got a question over here. 2 MR. BOREN: Michael Boren. 3 Do you gentlemen agree with what he's 4 saying that the EPA has no control over any animal 5 facilities? 6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Actually, the 7 questions are for the witness here, Mr. Roth. 8 MR. ROTH: I'd be happy to address 9 that. Let me address it this way: Dr. Huber who 10 performed the study for the National Air Emissions 11 Study from Purdue University, I asked him that 12 question under oath, and he agreed that because 13 they paid the $250 and submitted themselves to the 14 study, as did 14,000 other facilities, that the EPA 15 had no enforceable rights against any facility for 16 any violation of any EPA rule or regulation, state 17 or federal. That's number one. 18 Then he went on to say that that also 19 applies to the companion acts regarding community 20 right to know and reporting of releases of gases, 21 hazardous or otherwise, from the facility and 22 agreed with me that those didn't apply to these 23 facilities, either. 24 As a consequence, all of the reporting 153 1 that's done by many other industries and all of the 2 rules and regulations that apply to ammonia 3 anywhere else, hydrogen sulfide anywhere else do 4 not apply, cannot be enforced by U.S. EPA. That 5 has been in place since at least 2005. It 6 continues to this day. And I'm sure if we ask the 7 Maschhoffs they will tell you that all of their 8 facilities have joined that study. 9 When they conducted the study, they 10 only looked at 24 facilities in the country. When 11 they did part of the air test for 90 days, they 12 actually tested for a few minutes on seven days out 13 of 90, and if the odor or the emissions weren't 14 there on those seven days, they didn't see it, they 15 didn't find it. It's in an article in the Stanford 16 Animal Science Law Journal that came out earlier 17 this year that criticizes the study. 18 I pointed that out to Dr. Huber, who 19 headed the study. Who, by the way, told me how he 20 was brought in with the livestock lobbyists in 21 Washington, D.C. to meet with the U.S. EPA in 2003 22 to set up the consent agreement so there could be 23 no enforcement of the EPA laws against any 24 livestock facility that joined up for $250. 154 1 That's as complete as I can give you 2 within the time frame. 3 MR. GOETSCH: To answer your question, 4 I don't believe that Mr. Roth is correct when he 5 says that EPA -- IEPA cannot do anything to 6 regulate these facilities. I believe that that is 7 a false statement. 8 MR. ROTH: Do you know any in the last 9 five years since they put the study together and 10 people consented to join the study for a couple 11 hundred dollars against a facility by EPA for 12 violation of an EPA rule or regulation? I do not. 13 MR. GOETSCH: An EPA rule or regulation 14 associated with air or associated with any 15 environmental impact? 16 MR. ROTH: Any. 17 MR. GOETSCH: I believe that there have 18 been activities by EPA to regulate the livestock 19 industry in Illinois in the last several years and 20 will continue in the next many years. 21 MR. ROTH: I need to add to that 22 there's a petition pending with Region 5 U.S. EPA 23 that's been pending for two and a half years to 24 revoke Illinois's authority as Illinois EPA to 155 1 enforce the federal law because they've never 2 enforced it. I don't know what he knows about that 3 I don't. I would like it to be posted on the 4 Department of Ag website if there is because no one 5 I know has ever heard of that. 6 MR. BOREN: Yes, a follow-through then 7 and I'd like to get this from someone. You said -- 8 I understood you to say that if the County Board 9 votes against it, it has never been stopped because 10 the County Board voted against it? 11 MR. ROTH: That's my understanding of 12 the record. I've worked with citizens to help stop 13 12 to 13 different facilities around the state in 14 the last ten years and I've seen many facilities 15 where the County Board has voted against it. 16 The dairy I mentioned that my father 17 asked me to look into back in the year 1999, the 18 mega-dairy in Christian County, Taylorville is the 19 county seat, and the County Board there voted 20 against the facility. The dairyman from California 21 said if the county votes against me, we will not 22 build. He called the newspaper the next day and 23 said I don't care whether they voted against me or 24 not, we're coming to town, and they got their 156 1 permit. 2 MR. BOREN: Do you gentlemen want to 3 respond to that? I realize I'm supposed to be 4 asking him, but I'm curious about this. Is this a 5 fact? 6 MR. ROTH: If Mr. Goetsch can name a 7 County Board that voted against a facility that 8 they didn't approve and it didn't come by way of a 9 withdrawal -- 10 MR. GOETSCH: Well, see, that's the 11 whole problem here. As I tried to explain earlier, 12 we don't deny a project. What we do is explain to 13 the producer why we can't approve the project. So 14 in the case -- let's say in this particular case, 15 let's say the County Board votes to recommend not 16 to approve. Then we would review the application. 17 We would look to see what the reasons were why the 18 County Board said that we shouldn't approve it. 19 And then we would explain to the applicant here are 20 the reasons why we can't approve this project. The 21 County Board cited -- I don't know, pick a concern 22 about traffic impacts. The County Board expressed 23 concern about water supply or whatever. We would 24 explain these are the reasons why we're turning it 157 1 down. The applicant -- or, excuse me, the reasons 2 why we cannot approve. 3 The applicant can then modify his or 4 her application to address those issues, and if 5 they are able to address those issues such that we 6 could then approve it based on the fact that they 7 have now met the eight siting criteria, then it 8 would be approved. 9 I can think of an example in I think it 10 was Clay -- Clay County not too long ago. The 11 County Board approved it -- or, voted to approve, 12 but they also said we are concerned about these two 13 items. I think one of them was water supply. And 14 we went back -- and the potential impact on 15 neighboring water supplies. So we actually went 16 back to the applicant because we believed that more 17 information needed to be done and we required them 18 to have a hydrogeologic study done to document 19 whether or not they would have a negative impact on 20 the surrounding wells. 21 So I mean this goes both ways. We've 22 had cases where the County Board said we recommend 23 you approve it and we haven't approved it 24 immediately. We've actually gone back to the 158 1 applicant and asked for more information, more work 2 to be done. 3 MR. BOREN: Well, I believe in Pike 4 County about ten years ago the County Board had 5 voted against one and it was not built. Now, I'm 6 not sure of the details. Possibly people can 7 explain what happened there. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: We're kind of 9 getting off the format here. 10 Mr. Mohrman, do you have a question? 11 MR. MOHRMAN: Yes, I do. 12 Obviously, there's some gray areas 13 regarding who is responsible for governing not only 14 the operation of the excrement that is developed at 15 the facility but downstream from there. I believe 16 it was indicated that you're saying EPA and IEPA do 17 not have any jurisdiction, let's call it, or 18 authority to. And yet I hear that no -- outside of 19 the bounds of the facility but where this excrement 20 may be used they may have -- EPA may have some 21 ability to enforce. 22 My question is: In your experience 23 have you ever known of anybody that was concerned 24 that there is an established 200-foot boundary of 159 1 application in proximity to environmentally 2 sensitive areas, yet the application can occur 3 within 75 feet of my head -- where I lay my head at 4 night to go to sleep? Am I not environmentally 5 sensitive? Do you have any experience to speak to 6 anything about that? 7 MR. ROTH: There is a distance between 8 where your house is and where they can apply the 9 manure. 10 MR. MOHRMAN: I was told it was the 11 property boundary. That was by Mr. Maschhoff. The 12 boundary of the property is where they are able to 13 apply. 14 MR. ROTH: Yeah. There is -- as I 15 understand it, it depends on how it's being 16 applied, whether it's being injected or spread over 17 the top, and then there's a number of feet from 18 your residence that they are supposed to avoid 19 spraying or injecting within that number of feet. 20 When you say environmentally sensitive, 21 such as a stream, waterway, that type of thing, I 22 think there's also just a number of feet that they 23 are -- they're to be from that -- whatever that is. 24 The waterway, for example, there's a number of 160 1 feet. But the -- 2 MR. MOHRMAN: I was told for the 3 environmentally sensitive areas was 200 feet. 4 MR. ROTH: I don't know if it's 200 5 feet or not. 6 MR. MOHRMAN: I don't, either. 7 MR. ROTH: Yeah, I do not know. 8 MR. MOHRMAN: I'm just having to go 9 by -- 10 MR. ROTH: Right. 11 MR. MOHRMAN: -- what the previous 12 testimony was. 13 MR. ROTH: It really doesn't matter 14 what the number is, frankly, because the operator 15 will do whatever he wants and the Department of Ag 16 will take no action. Okay? They don't take any 17 action. Okay? 18 This idea -- you have to understand the 19 real answer that you got. After we're done here 20 and heard what we heard, after you've done what 21 you've done for recommending or not recommending, 22 the operator can meet face-to-face in a room at the 23 Department of Ag in Springfield and talk about what 24 they're going to do to address whatever concerns 161 1 have been expressed, and they will work it out if 2 they want to. And they work it out and none of us 3 will ever know what was worked out, how they 4 satisfied your concern, because we're not never 5 told. 6 I asked at the beginning of tonight for 7 the construction plans. I've been denied on FOIA 8 requests construction plans repeatedly by these 9 organizations. The only time I've seen these 10 construction plans is when we've sued them. 11 He kept saying earlier, well, it's all 12 subject to FOIA. It's the subject of the attorneys 13 and FOIA. And the operators all say these are 14 proprietary plans, we can't share them. And the 15 Department says they're proprietary, Fred, we can't 16 give you any. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- Mr. 18 West, do you have a question? 19 MR. WEST: Yes, I do. You mentioned a 20 study that was done by Dr. Huber. 21 MR. ROTH: Yes. The National Air 22 Emissions Study. He was the director of that. 23 MR. WEST: That's the name of the 24 study. I'm familiar with it. 162 1 MR. ROTH: Yes. 2 MR. WEST: That's an air emissions 3 study. 4 MR. ROTH: Correct. 5 MR. WEST: You said the study exempts 6 livestock facilities from all environmental 7 regulations. 8 MR. ROTH: No, no, no. 9 MR. WEST: That's what you said. 10 MR. ROTH: The study doesn't exempt 11 anyone. 12 MR. WEST: You said -- 13 MR. ROTH: The consent agreement, 14 though -- 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: One at a time. 16 MR. WEST: Go head. 17 MR. ROTH: The consent agreement, which 18 is something the facility joins, okay, that's where 19 the exemption is. Okay? That's where it -- it's 20 not called an exemption. It's called immunity from 21 prosecution basically. 22 You can -- the study is being done as 23 the National Air Emissions Study -- which, by the 24 way, doesn't have anything to do with odor, in case 163 1 you thought it was to figure out the problems with 2 odor. Dr. Huber clarified for me it has nothing to 3 do with odor. This is about air emissions. Okay? 4 If you sign the consent agreement, 5 nothing to deal with regulations from the U.S. EPA 6 is going to be applied to you in regard to the air 7 emissions work. 8 MR. WEST: Okay. Well, I'm glad you 9 clarified that because -- 10 MR. ROTH: I'm not sure that's even the 11 end of it. 12 MR. WEST: Before, you said it was all 13 regulations. And you also mentioned -- 14 MR. ROTH: Do you have a -- 15 MR. WEST: -- that there are no 16 facilities that are being sued. 17 MR. ROTH: What's that? 18 MR. WEST: You also mentioned that 19 there are no facilities in Illinois that are being 20 sued or have been enforced upon. 21 MR. ROTH: For what? 22 MR. WEST: For any environmental 23 regulations. Which is also false. 24 MR. ROTH: I said to my knowledge I'm 164 1 not aware of any cases in Illinois where facilities 2 are being sued over environmental violations by the 3 U.S. or Illinois EPA. 4 MR. WEST: You're not looking very 5 hard. 6 MR. ROTH: That's what I said. 7 MR. WEST: Then you're not looking very 8 hard. And if you're a lawyer -- 9 MR. ROTH: I'm not looking very hard. 10 Is Maschhoff being sued somewhere that I don't know 11 about? 12 MR. WEST: There are livestock 13 facilities across the state that have had 14 enforcement brought against them. 15 MR. ROTH: When? 16 MR. WEST: Small dairies -- for the 17 last several years. Small dairies have been 18 enforced upon by the Illinois EPA, by the U.S. EPA. 19 Medium-sized -- 20 MR. ROTH: For what violations? 21 MR. WEST: Runoff. 22 MR. ROTH: For water? 23 MR. WEST: Water, air. They've all 24 been -- 165 1 MR. ROTH: They've been -- let me make 2 sure I'm clear on this. Illinois livestock 3 facilities have been sued by the Illinois EPA for 4 environmental violations for air violations. 5 Correct? 6 MR. WEST: Let me back that up. Not 7 air that I'm aware of. Definitely water. 8 MR. ROTH: Not air. 9 MR. WEST: Definitely runoff from their 10 facility. Yes, sir. 11 MR. ROTH: Okay. And you have that 12 information that you can provide to this -- this 13 report? 14 MR. WEST: It's public information. It 15 is -- it's the state EPA and the federal EPA. 16 Those have already been decided. 17 MR. ROTH: Well, let me give you one 18 source just to answer your question. 19 MR. WEST: I have -- 20 MR. ROTH: I need to answer your 21 question on my source. In the Bible Pork case 22 where I represented the neighbors -- I think it was 23 16 neighbors suing Bible Pork. Bible Pork is 24 another Maschhoff facility. Maschhoff 166 1 representatives took the stand and your 2 environmental guy sat on the stand and admitted 3 under oath that there are no standards for air 4 emissions from livestock facilities. And I can get 5 you that part of the transcript if you want to see 6 it because it came from the under-oath testimony of 7 a Maschhoff employee. I think his first name was 8 Tim. That's one of my sources for my comment. 9 MR. WEST: I have a follow-up question 10 for you then. 11 MR. ROTH: Yes. 12 MR. WEST: You mentioned this exemption 13 that all these facilities get. 14 MR. ROTH: Right. 15 MR. WEST: The exemption was only for 16 any past violations for something that there is no 17 standard for. The whole purpose of the study was 18 to develop a standard. 19 MR. ROTH: And it's now been seven 20 years and there's no standards developed. 21 MR. WEST: Well, that would not have 22 anything to do with the facilities. That would be 23 the U.S. EPA that is controlling that study. 24 MR. ROTH: I have to -- do you want me 167 1 to respond? I'd be happy to respond. U.S. EPA is 2 not much different than the Illinois EPA. Region 5 3 is Illinois's part of the U.S. EPA. A person who 4 worked in the Peoria office a few years back found 5 out about a facility designed just like this one in 6 basic terms, pit underneath, a feeder operation, 7 and he wrote a letter explaining why that would be 8 a nuisance to the neighbors. I presented that 9 letter to Warren Goetsch at a hearing just like 10 this a few years back, coming from the U.S. EPA -- 11 I'm sorry, Illinois EPA person who was familiar 12 with his experience of the nuisance factors of a 13 facility. I presented that. 14 The operator was so mad that he got 15 ahold of someone at the Department of Ag, I think 16 it was Director Joe Hampton, who demanded an 17 apology from Renee Cipriano of the Illinois EPA for 18 letting an Illinois EPA person get involved with 19 the siting of a facility that is controlled by 20 solely the Illinois Department of Ag. And Renee 21 Cipriano, the Illinois EPA director, sent an 22 apology letter -- I have copies of this -- and the 23 apology letter said that all of the concerns of our 24 employee have been addressed. 168 1 I went to the County Board hearing, 2 which was the next step, and I was allowed to ask a 3 few questions of the representatives of the hog 4 facility in Roanoke, Illinois, and I said have you 5 made any changes as a result of this letter from 6 the Illinois EPA person who was concerned about the 7 nuisance factor, and they under oath in front of 8 the Board said we have made no changes. 9 The fact is EPA doesn't operate outside 10 of what USDA and Illinois Department of Ag tell 11 them what to do. That needs to be understood. 12 There are parts of our government that are nothing 13 more than a patronage pot paid for out of federal 14 funds to not enforce the federal law in the State 15 of Illinois, and that's one place where that 16 happens is Illinois EPA. I'm sorry to tell you. 17 And the people there that try to do a good job have 18 been stopped politically when they try to bring an 19 action. 20 So I'll be happy to look at whatever 21 cases this young gentleman mentioned that are 22 pending because I'd like to see that. 23 This region of the state is more or 24 less under the control of the Attorney General 169 1 whenever EPA brings an action, and the attorney in 2 the Attorney General's office for some time has 3 been a Ms. McBride. Ms. McBride accompanied me to 4 a hog factory in the northern part of this state, 5 and she and her assistant went underneath a cover 6 in the back seat because the smell was so bad a 7 half a mile from the facility, and they did not 8 want to get out and meet the operator in an 9 arranged meeting. That's how the Attorney 10 General's office had to deal with that. 11 So if there's some action by our 12 current Attorney General with regard to EPA 13 violations of livestock producers in Illinois, I 14 welcome that, but I'd sure like to see it first. 15 Thank you. 16 Any other questions? 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Thank you very 18 much. 19 Next we have Kayt Risley. 20 MS. KAYT RISLEY: He said what I was 21 going to say. 22 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: All right. 23 Michael Risley. 24 MR. MICHAEL RISLEY: Yeah, me too. 170 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Pardon? 2 MS. KAYT RISLEY: Pass. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Michael Risley 4 passes. 5 Steven Risley? 6 MR. STEVEN RISLEY: Pass. 7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Brenda DeSpain? 8 MS. DeSPAIN: I yield it to Fred Roth. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Pardon? 10 MS. DeSPAIN: I yield it to Fred Roth. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Bill F-e-r 12 maybe? 13 MS. FENCIK: I think it's Beth Fencik 14 and I yield to Mr. Roth. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Fencik? 16 MS. FENCIK: Uh-huh. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Is that 18 F-e-n-c-i-k? 19 MS. FENCIK: Yes. 20 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 21 MR. ROTH: I believe they yield to me. 22 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 23 MR. ROTH: Yes, sir. 24 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: We've been 171 1 through this and -- 2 MR. ROTH: Well, you're going to give 3 the -- you gave the operator unlimited time. 4 You're giving them unlimited time at the end. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth, do 6 you know how long you were up here the last time? 7 MR. ROTH: No, I do not. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: It was a lot 9 longer than your six minutes. It was I'd say a 10 half-hour. 11 MR. ROTH: We should all introduce 12 ourselves. Mr. Nic -- 13 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 14 MR. ROTH: -- Anderson over there -- 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 16 MR. ROTH: -- is from the Illinois 17 Development -- 18 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 19 MR. ROTH: Livestock Group, which is 20 funded by the Farm Bureau -- 21 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 22 MR. ROTH: -- and your tax dollars. 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 24 Next up we have -- 172 1 MR. ROTH: -- to come to these meetings 2 and make -- 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Next up we have 4 Adam Fencik. 5 MR. ROTH: -- presentations on behalf 6 of the livestock group. I don't know if he still 7 has that position. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 9 MR. ROTH: But he used to. 10 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth -- 11 MR. ROTH: Yes. 12 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: We're going 13 down the list. You had a half-hour last time. 14 MR. ROTH: I had a half-hour? 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Adam Fencik. 16 MR. ADAM FENCIK: Yield to Mr. Roth. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Fencik 18 passes. 19 Robert Springer. Would you state and 20 spell your name, please? 21 MR. SPRINGER: Robert Springer, 22 S-p-r-i-n-g-e-r. 23 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Please step up 24 to the microphone. Raise your right hand, please. 173 1 Do you swear or affirm the testimony 2 you're about to give will be the truth, the whole 3 truth, and nothing but the truth? 4 MR. SPRINGER: Sure do. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: You may 6 proceed. 7 MR. SPRINGER: I represent RS Farms, 8 which is my son, my son-in-law, my grandson, and 9 myself, and we have a little trucking business. We 10 work with the Maschhoffs. I've been with the 11 Maschhoffs for many years. I remember when they 12 were on the farm and a house was their office. 13 I've been there a long time. I've seen them grow. 14 I've seen them do things right. 15 The gentleman talking about the 16 antibiotics don't know what he's talking about. 17 Every feed ticket has the antibiotic drug that's in 18 it. You put it in the man's mailbox. He knows to 19 withdraw. We have to flush the trailers -- if we 20 haul an antibiotic, we have to flush the trailers 21 before we can put another feed in it. Like I said, 22 that is all farms. 23 But they've been nothing but good to us 24 and we appreciate what they've done. 174 1 Thank you. 2 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 3 questions for this witness? 4 Yes, ma'am. 5 MS. AKIN: I couldn't hear what he said 6 when he was talking about antibiotics. 7 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Would you like 8 to summarize what you said? And step up to the 9 microphone, please. 10 MR. SPRINGER: Like I said, on 11 antibiotics he's all wrong. We put a ticket in 12 every mailbox with the load and the man at the 13 building he knows what the drug is he's getting. 14 We all have withdrawals. We have to flush our 15 trailers at the feed mill if we're hauling an 16 antibiotic and then we go to -- you wouldn't 17 understand, but to a phase 8 feed, which is on the 18 bigger hogs, we have to flush our trailers so they 19 get no part of it. Yeah. 20 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Mr. Roth. 21 MR. ROTH: So, sir, are you saying that 22 Maschhoff doesn't use any antibiotics? 23 MR. SPRINGER: No, that isn't what I 24 said. Nothing that -- on the baby pigs, yes. On 175 1 the young pigs, yes. Not on the finish hogs. 2 None. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Ma'am. 4 MS. AKIN: You mean at the end before 5 you put them in the truck? 6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: I can't hear 7 you. 8 MS. AKIN: Are you referring to at the 9 end when you put them in your truck? Is that what 10 you're -- 11 MR. SPRINGER: No. At the buildings. 12 Every producer has a mailbox and we put his feed 13 ticket in the mailbox and at the mill we sign a 14 sheet what load we hauled last. And we have to 15 flush that trailer if it's below a phase 7. The 16 baby pigs does get antibiotics. The big ones do 17 not. They may get a growth promoting later on 18 but -- 19 MS. AKIN: So I just need a little 20 clarification because this is new to me, the 21 phases. I mean how -- so how many of the phases -- 22 MR. SPRINGER: That's the -- they go to 23 phase 11. That's the stages of feed the pigs are 24 on. And it goes -- we start at phase 4, but 176 1 there's people they start them on smaller phases, 2 but that's what we start hogs. But like I said, 3 the antibiotics is very particular. 4 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there other 5 questions? 6 I see none. 7 MR. SPRINGER: Thank you. 8 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Thank you. 9 Next up is Daniel Thresser? 10 MR. TROESSER: Troesser. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Troesser. 12 MR. TROESSER: Daniel Troesser, 13 T-r-o-e-s-s-e-r. 14 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you swear or 15 affirm the testimony you're about to give will be 16 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 17 truth? 18 MR. TROESSER: Yes. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Please step up 20 to the microphone. 21 MR. TROESSER: This is kind of 22 intimidating, isn't it? 23 I'm a hog producer from Missouri. I 24 just signed with Maschhoff. Can't tell you whether 177 1 it's good, bad, ugly. 2 The one thing I did notice, the 3 facility designs and the things that these guys 4 have to do, like the buffer strips and the 5 biologicals that put in the pit to treat, way more 6 than what we have to do. It's a great deal. I 7 think most of the smell comes from the particles. 8 I'm sure Mr. Roth knows this. I don't -- I don't 9 claim to be an expert on any of it, but those 10 buffer strips will help that. 11 Yeah, it's a hog farm. It's going to 12 have some odor. But if it didn't stink, everybody 13 would have one. But these guys are doing 14 everything that they can do, it sounds like, to try 15 to help. 16 I don't really have much. I just 17 wanted to come out in support of the hog farmers 18 and that's about all I got. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 20 questions for this witness? 21 I see none. 22 MR. COBB: How did you find out about 23 this hearing from Missouri? 24 MR. TROESSER: I -- 178 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Could you state 2 your name, please? Sir, could you state your name? 3 MR. COBB: Yeah, Justin Cobb, C-o-b-b. 4 MR. TROESSER: Like I said, I just 5 signed with Maschhoffs and they said, you know, if 6 I didn't mind if I could come down because I used 7 to be a Cargill producer. They thought maybe it 8 would help to have, you know, a perspective from a 9 different state maybe, a different, you know, 10 producer, so ... 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Other 12 questions? 13 Thank you. 14 Next up we have David Risley. 15 MR. DAVID RISLEY: David -- 16 MR. ANDERSON: Pardon me for the 17 interruption. Didn't Mr. Risley yield his time 18 earlier or did he not raise his hand? 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: He's just -- I 20 don't believe he's on -- 21 MR. ANDERSON: A bunch of people raised 22 their hand. I'm just looking for whether he 23 yielded his time. 24 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: He's okay. He 179 1 can speak for himself. 2 MR. DAVID RISLEY: David Risley, 3 R-i-s-l-e-y. 4 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Do you swear or 5 affirm the testimony you're about to give will be 6 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 7 truth? 8 MR. DAVID RISLEY: Yes. 9 I'd like to thank the Illinois 10 Department of Agriculture for hosting this meeting 11 tonight. It has definitely been very informative 12 and given people an opportunity to ask questions 13 and voice their opinion on things. 14 I would also like to thank the County 15 Board for their interest in the matter, especially 16 Andy Borrowman for his promptness in getting this 17 meeting organized after the petition was given to 18 the County Clerk. 19 And I would like to thank all the 20 people who attended tonight, regardless of which 21 side of the fence you stand on. 22 Jerry and Jaron, why does it appear 23 that you have no regard for your neighbors, 24 subjecting them to odor of your hog buildings, thus 180 1 depriving them the pleasure of outdoor activities 2 in their own backyards such as the wedding 3 reception that Barb and I attended for Jason in 4 your backyard. I wonder how pleasant and enjoyable 5 that evening would have been if there would have 6 been some hog buildings 1800 feet upwind from your 7 house. Think of the day-to-day activities going on 8 at your house, mowing the yard, kids playing in the 9 yard, or maybe having windows open and letting a 10 fresh breeze go through the house. 11 I'm personally asking on behalf of my 12 entire family and several of the neighbors that you 13 have some consideration for other people and 14 reconsider your intent to construct these two 15 finishing buildings. 16 Thank you. 17 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Are there 18 questions For this witness? Any questions for this 19 witness? 20 Next up we have Ian Brooke. 21 MR. BROOKE: I concede my time. 22 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Okay. Jeffrey 23 Mahoney? 24 MR. MAHONEY: I also concede my time. 181 1 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Jean Hynek. 2 MS. AKIN: She had to leave. 3 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: She left. 4 Okay. David Gay. 5 MR. GAY: I pass. 6 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Tim Maiers. 7 MR. MAIERS: I yield my time. Mr. Roth 8 has taken up our time tonight. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Nic Anderson. 10 MR. ANDERSON: I yield my time. 11 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Julie 12 Maschhoff. 13 MS. MASCHHOFF: I yield my time in the 14 interest of a three-hour drive home. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: That concludes 16 the people who have -- the names of the people who 17 have signed up on the oral testimony sheet. 18 Entered into the record as Exhibit 19 Number 4 is the oral testimony sign-in sheet. 20 And entered into the record as Exhibit 21 Number 5 is the attendance sign-in sheet. 22 Is there any written testimony to be 23 offered by anyone at this time? If so, please 24 bring it forward. 182 1 Entered into the record as Exhibit 2 Number 6 is a report entitled U.S. industrial 3 farming endangers health, environment: Practices 4 promote disease, contamination, submitted by 5 Ms. Akin. 6 Is there any other written testimony to 7 be entered into the record? 8 Are there any closing comments from the 9 facility? 10 MR. JERRY MOSS: The facility would 11 just -- the Moss family would just like to thank 12 everybody for their time and their comments and 13 their input and take due notice. 14 Thank you. 15 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Thank you. 16 Any closing comments from the 17 Department? 18 MR. GOETSCH: I guess I would just like 19 to say, because I know that the hour is late, that 20 on behalf of the Department I'd like to thank you 21 for coming this evening. I'm sorry that maybe part 22 of the meeting wasn't as informative or as helpful 23 perhaps as I would have liked, but I hope that you 24 found it -- found it helpful. And let me assure 183 1 you that the Department appreciates the time and 2 the effort that you've put forward in being here 3 and providing your testimony, and that I'm sure 4 that the Pike County Board, as well as the 5 Department, will consider your comments as we move 6 forward through this review process. 7 Thank you very much. 8 MR. BOREN: A question. 9 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Question, yes. 10 MR. BOREN: This is the first hearing 11 of this sort I've ever attended. I didn't sign the 12 sign-in sheet. Does that matter? I mean is it 13 important? I didn't see it. I came in that door 14 and didn't see it. Is it vital that we sign the 15 sign-in sheet? 16 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Would you like 17 to provide oral testimony? 18 MR. BOREN: No. The attendance sheet. 19 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: You're talking 20 about the attendance sheet. Yeah, you can come up 21 afterwards and sign if you'd like. 22 MR. BOREN: I'm asking is that 23 important. If it is, I will. 24 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: We'd like to 184 1 have a record of everyone who was here. 2 MR. BOREN: Well, there's two doors and 3 I came in that door. So I assume there's others 4 that probably didn't sign in. 5 HEARING OFFICER FRANK: Yes. For 6 anyone who would like to sign the attendance 7 sign-in sheet, please come up afterwards and you 8 can sign it. 9 As I mentioned earlier, a copy of the 10 transcript will be provided to the County Board. 11 For others desiring a copy, the transcript will be 12 available by contacting the court reporter. 13 Thank you for your attendance tonight. 14 This public informational meeting is hereby closed. 15 (The meeting concluded at 9:40 p.m.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 185 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) ss 3 COUNTY OF SANGAMON ) 4 I, DOROTHY J. HART, a Registered 5 Professional Reporter and Certified Shorthand 6 Reporter within and for the State of Illinois, do 7 hereby certify that the witnesses whose testimony 8 appears in the foregoing hearing were duly sworn by 9 the hearing officer; that the testimony of said 10 witnesses was taken by me to the best of my ability 11 and thereafter reduced to typewriting under my 12 direction; that I am neither counsel for, related 13 to, nor employed by any of the parties to the 14 action in which this testimony was taken, and 15 further that I am not a relative or employee of any 16 attorney or counsel employed by the parties 17 thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested in 18 the outcome of the action. 19 20 21 Registered Professional Reporter 22 Certified Shorthand Reporter Illinois CSR No. 084-001390 23 24