It was one of the most controversial issues the Richland County Board had faced in a long time. The question was whether or not to grant a conditional use permit to a veterinarian named Bob Randolph, who wanted to start a hog farm for his son to operate. Several weeks earlier, the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended denying Randolph a permit, but had also recommended approving a permit for a similar feedlot proposed by Randolph's business partner, Jim Mosely.

Now the permit applications were up for review by the County Board. It was likely that the Board would approve Mosely's permit, since his land was in a relatively isolated area and since the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval. But no one knew how the board would vote on Randolph's permit. Even though Randolph's building plans were similar to Mosely's, the close proximity of Randolph's land to the nearby small town of Hailey (pop. 150) made it a much more divisive issue.

Bob Randolph and his partner Jim Mosely were veterinarians who owned a large animal veterinary practice in Greenville, Minnesota, a regional center in a neighboring county. Several years back, Randolph and Mosely had developed some biological technology products, which they sold to a pharmaceutical company. They used the money from this sale to buy land in the next-door Richland County to start hog operations. Randolph and Mosely, who had grown up on farms, thought that hog farming would give them hands-on experience that could make them more knowledgeable and able to provide better veterinary services. In addition, it seemed like a good financial investment. For Randolph, building a hog operation was also a way to help his son, who was interested in getting into the farming business.

Many community members were upset about the feedlot permit applications. Their main expressed concern was odor. The residents of Hailey (Exhibit A: Map of Richland County) were particularly concerned about the odor that would come from the Randolph feedlot. The one other large hog operation in the area, owned by Chad Weller just northwest of Hailey, had had many odor complaints from Hailey residents from the time it was built. Randolph's proposed feedlot was going to be even closer to town-only three-quarters of a mile away. Hog confinement facilities were relatively new to the area, and Hailey residents were worried about what these feedlot proposals would mean for their future. Would feedlots start popping up all over near town? Would the zoning law work to protect town residents? Would feedlot odors around Hailey eventually get so strong that residents would no longer be able to hang out their laundry or let their kids play outside?

Some Hailey residents were also worried about the effect Randolph's feedlot would have on Clear Lake (Exhibit A: Map of Richland County). The feedlot was outside of the 1,000 feet from lakes requirement as stipulated by the feedlot ordinance, so the feedlot would probably not pollute the lake. Nevertheless, the location of the proposed feedlot close to the lake made some people nervous.

Local farmers were more concerned about Randolph and Mosely getting involved in the hog industry. Some farmers were angry that two professionals, who seemed wealthy and who lived and worked in another county, were coming into their community to set up large hog operations. As veterinarians, Randolph and Mosely had provided services to many local livestock producers. Now that they were going to be feedlot owners, they would be competing against local livestock producers. As one farmer said: "They're competing with us with money they made from us!"

A few community members did not object to the feedlot proposals because the new business could help stimulate the local economy. As one local official said: "We don't have an industry in Richland County, except the lake (vacation homes on a large lake further north). This person [Randolph] is going to come here, he's going to pay taxes, he's going to supply hogs to the packing plant in Greenville. This is a good thing." The people who supported the new feedlots thought the concern about lake pollution from Randolph's feedlot was ironic because Hailey had long been known as a town that did not do its fair share of environmental clean-up. One County Board member said: "The people in Hailey have kennels in town, they burn in town, their sewer system runs into the lake, and they refuse to recycle. If they really cared about their lake they would apply for a small city grant and clean up the sewage that's running into their lake!"

Some people also thought that the resistance long-time residents had to newcomers from other counties was unwarranted. A lot of people living in Richland County traveled to neighboring counties every day to work, so why couldn't Randolph and Mosely come to Richland County to set up hog operations? Others pointed out that it didn't matter who was applying for a conditional use permit-as long as the person was following the ordinance, they were entitled to a permit by county law. Overall though, the people who supported Randolph seemed far fewer in number and much less vocal than those who opposed him.

The Randolph and Mosely feedlot applications were the first applications to fall under the new Richland County feedlot zoning ordinance that had been adopted in March 1994 (Exhibit C: Richland County Ordinance). According to the new ordinance, a public Planning and Zoning Commission hearing was required on site for each feedlot proposal that was over 300 animal units in size. The hearings for both the Randolph and Mosely feedlots were scheduled for April 4th at the feedlot sites.

Over 50 farmers showed up at the first hearing, held at Mosely's site off Highway 20, south of Gardner (Exhibit A: Map of Richland County). People asked Mosely questions about his methods for manure spreading, his competition with local small hog farmers, and the amount of taxes the community would get from his operation. According to the new ordinance, the ten farmers living closest to the site had to be notified about the hearing in order for a decision to be made. Not all the neighbors had been notified, so there was only a discussion, and a decision about whether to recommend granting the permit was postponed to a second hearing on April 20th in Summit (Exhibit B: Murray County News Article).

Later in the day a hearing was held at Randolph's site. People asked questions about where grain and feed would be purchased, how manure would be handled, the impact of odors on Hailey, and his competition with local hog farmers. A decision on this permit was also postponed until April 20th, because the City of Hailey had not been notified and because the nearest residence, owned by Harvey Christiansen, was within one-half mile of the proposed feedlot (Exhibit A: Map of Richland County), which was not allowed by the feedlot ordinance.

On the evening of April 20th the Planning and Zoning Commission held follow-up hearings for both feedlot applications in the Summit Courts Building. The first hearing, regarding Mosely's site, was attended by almost 70 people. The audience was made up mainly of farmers. Mosely presented the plans for his hog operation, saying he would have two finishing barns holding 1,000 hogs each. He gave the dimensions of the buildings and described how the buildings would be situated on the land. He said that odors would be well controlled because the manure would be kept in deep pits covered by buildings, and not left in an earthen basin as at the Weller site. Once a year the manure would be knifed into the 570 acres he had available for spreading. After a lot of comments and discussion from the audience, the Planning and Zoning Commission members later voted 8 to 1 to recommend approving the conditional use permit for Mosely.

The hearing for Randolph's feedlot was held after Mosely's. The meeting room was packed with over 85 people, many of them residents of Hailey. Randolph explained to the group that he had changed his construction plans by moving the buildings back 500 feet so that they were no longer within one-half mile of the Christiansen's residence. He also explained that his operation would be similar to Mosely's, with two finishing barns for 1,000 hogs each. He would also keep his manure in pits, empty the pits every year, and knife the manure into the soil. Randolph explained that these manure holding and spreading techniques would result in much less odor than at the Weller site. A lot of people were skeptical, even angry. Someone shouted: "What do you care about odor?-you live in Greenville!" Randolph responded by saying that his son would live on the land and operate the facilities. He said he wouldn't want his son to live and work in a place with bad odors any more than he would want to live near bad odors himself. The comments got more and more heated, and they started getting personal. One fellow in the crowd was heard saying: "It's not what he's doing that's the problem, it's who he is!"

After listening to Randolph's testimony and comments from community members, the Planning and Zoning Commission members voted 9 to 0 to recommend denying a permit for Randolph. The Commission cited the first Finding of Fact of the new conditional use permit as their reason for their recommendation to deny the permit (Exhibit C: Richland County Ordinance).

Randolph felt he had gone out of his way to listen and respond to community members' concerns about his proposed feedlot. He had explained again and again how he was complying with the ordinance, how he would control odors, and why he shouldn't be considered an outsider since his son would be living and working on the farm. None of his explanations seemed to satisfy people. As the opposition continued over the weeks, Randolph grew weary. He was tired of the angry comments and the personal jabs at him and his son. After the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denying his permit, he thought of giving up the fight. But his son reminded him how much he wanted to farm, so Randolph decided to stick it out until the County Board vote.

The feedlot permit applications came up for review by the County Board two weeks later. Most of the board members had attended the Planning and Zoning Commission hearings, so they were already familiar with the issues and the community's concerns. Each of them had also received many phone calls from constituents voicing their opinions. In addition, several days earlier, Randolph had invited the County Board members to his site to show them his plans for his hog operation and to show them that he was complying with the rules and regulations of the new feedlot ordinance.

The County Board meeting was attended by residents of Hailey and Gardner, and local farmers. As in the previous meetings, the main concerns were odor problems, the close location of Randolph's site to Hailey, and the veterinarians' competition with local hog producers. After several hours of audience comments and discussion, the County Board voted to approve Mosely's permit. This was expected, since the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval of the permit.

The County Board now had to vote on Randolph's permit. To approve the permit would be going against the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, and against many constituents' opinions. On the other hand, Randolph had shown that he was complying with the feedlot ordinance. Furthermore, his operation would benefit the community by increasing the tax base. The County Board had to weigh the importance of upholding the law (the ordinance) versus respecting the opinions of a majority of their constituents and potential voters. It seemed that the board was caught between a rock and a hard place.