December 10, 2008 Meeting & Public Hearing


 City of Heyburn Council Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes

December 10, 2008

7:00 P.M.


Council Present:

Cleo Gallegos, Rocky Baker, Leann Smith, Dee Ray Bailey excused.

Employees Present:

Scott Spevak, Linda Dayley, and Steve Tuft.

Visitors Present: Joey Bryant, Jordan Loughmiller, Bill Loughmiller, Dan Sweig, Larry Adams, Rose Schmitt, Colleen Loughmiller, James Larson, Eric Larson, Bill and Norma Morrison, Stan Zielinski, George Warrell III, Dan Bristol, David Hruza, Marge Owens, Paul Aston, Dan Landers, and Roy Belnap.


Meeting Conducted by Mayor George A. Anderson.


Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor George A. Anderson.


Amend agenda to include Resolution No. 2008-6 Authorizing the Issuance of Sewer Bond Anticipation Note and authorizing the Mayor’s signature on the necessary documents.


Approve Minutes of the Council Meeting on November 12, 2008 and Special Council Meeting on November 24, 2008.

Motion by Cleo Gallegos to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting on November  12, 2008 and the Special Council Meeting on November 24, 2008, as written. Second by Leann Smith. Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye.


Approve Paying the Bills except the Bailey Oil Bill.

Motion by Leann Smith to approve paying the bills except the Bailey Oil Bill. Second by Rocky Baker. Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye.


Approve Paying the Bailey Oil Bill.

Motion by Rocky Baker to approve paying the Bailey Oil Bill. Second by Leann Smith. Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye.


Discuss/Approve Resolution No. 2008-5. A Resolution Authorizing, Approving and Ratifying the Execution of a Renewal Power Sales Agreement with Bonneville Power Administration and Related Matters.

City Clerk, Linda Dayley, referred the Mayor and Council to the agenda and the affidavit that they received in their Council Meeting packets, noting that these two items would be included in the minutes in accordance with the requirements of Section 67-2343, Idaho Code, as amended, I gave public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the December 10, 2008 regular public meeting held by the Council of the City, by:

            (a) Causing a notice of the regular meeting schedule of the Council for calendar year 2008 to be posted at the principal office of the City; said Notice of the Public Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours of the Council until convening for the meeting; and

            (b) Causing a copy of the agenda for the December 10, 2008, regular public meeting of the Council, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, to be posted at the principal office of the City at least 48 hours before the convening of the meeting.

            In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and impressed hereon the official seal of the City, this 10th day of December 2008.




                                                                                    City Clerk for City of Heyburn

                                                                                    Minidoka County, Idaho


            It was noted that written minutes of this meeting are being kept in accordance with Section 67-2344, Idaho Code, as amended. After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the following, Mayor Anderson announced that the time had come to consider the approval and authorization of the renewal Power Sales Agreement (the “Renewal PSA”) between the City and the Bonneville Power Administration (“BPA”).

            The City has purchased its requirements for electric power and energy from BPA for many years and the Renewal PSA will continue the City’s purchase of its power supply requirements from BPA.

            It is possible that the Renewal PSA could be construed to create an “indebtedness or liability” of the City that is not an “ordinary and necessary expense” within the meaning of Article VIII, Section 3 of the Idaho Constitution. A judicial confirmation proceeding initiated by the City of Idaho Falls is expected to confirm the validity of the Renewal PSA.

            BPA requires execution of the Renewal PSA by December 1, 2008. Under Section 1 of the Renewal PSA, the City’s long-term power purchase obligation will not become effective until an approving legal opinion is delivered to BPA, and this opinion will be delivered when the constitutional issue is resolved.

            The following resolution was then introduced in written form and pursuant to motion by Rocky Baker was duly made and seconded by Leann Smith, was adopted by the following vote: Rocky Baker - Aye; - Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye.

            The resolution was thereupon signed by the Mayor, was attested by the City Clerk and was ordered recorded in the official records of the City. The resolution is as follows:


Resolution No. 2008-5

A Resolution authorizing, approving and ratifying the execution of a renewal Power Sales Agreement with Bonneville Power Administration, and related matters.

*****          *****          *****

Whereas, the City of Heyburn, Minidoka County, Idaho (the “City”) has previously executed a Power Sales Agreement with the United States of America, Department of Energy, acting by and through the Bonneville Power Administration (“Bonneville”), which will expire on September 30, 2011;

Whereas, Bonneville has developed a renewal Power Sales Agreement (the “Renewal PSA”) providing for the long-term sale of electric power and energy to the City, beginning October 1, 2011 and continuing through September 30, 2028;

Whereas, the City has determined that, in order to obtain a long-term supply of electric power and energy necessary for the continued operation of its local municipal electric system (the “System”), it is necessary, desirable and in the best interests of the City to enter into a Renewal PSA; and

Whereas, the City now desires to authorize, approve and ratify the execution of the Renewal PSA;

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Heyburn, Minidoka County, Idaho, as follows:

Section 1. Approval of Renewal PSA.  The Renewal PSA, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby authorized, approved and ratified, and the Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Renewal PSA on behalf of the City, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to attest such execution and to affix the corporate seal of the City to the Renewal PSA, with such changes to the Renewal PSA from the form attached hereto as Exhibit A as shall be approved by the Mayor and the City Attorney, the Mayor’s execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval.

Section 2. Other Actions with Respect to the Renewal PSA.  The Mayor, the City Clerk, the City Attorney and other officers and employees of the City and of the System shall take all actions necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all actions necessary to carry out the execution and delivery of the Renewal PSA and the performance thereof.

Section 3. Miscellaneous; Effective Date.  (a)  This resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until the expiration or termination of the Renewal PSA in accordance with its terms.

(b)            All previous acts and resolutions in conflict with this resolution or any part hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.

(c)            In case any provision in this resolution shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

(d)            This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and approval.

Adopted and Approved this 10th day of December, 2008.


City of Heyburn, Minidoka County, Idaho

Mayor, City of Heyburn
 Minidoka County, Idaho





City Clerk

City of Heyburn

Minidoka County, Idaho


Motion by Rocky Baker Resolution No 2008 - 5 A Resolution authorizing, approving and ratifying the execution of a renewal Power Sales Agreement with Bonneville Power Administration, and related matters. Second by Leann Smith. Roll Call Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye.


Public Hearing for an appeal of a Special Use Permit granted to S & S Cattle Company Inc. S & S Cattle is accepting the Special Use Permit but appealing the condition that would prohibit any expansion and is requesting that the condition be modified. In Addition the Mini-Cassia Community Christian Church is appealing the approval of the Special Use Permit.

Mayor Anderson explained that the Public Hearing was for an appeal of a Special Use Permit granted to S & S Cattle Company Inc., for the establishment of a facility to draw and package blood from newborn calves for medical purposes in an existing building located at 800 J Street, Heyburn, Idaho. S & S Cattle is accepting the Special Use Permit but appealing the condition that would prohibit any expansion and is requesting this condition be modified. In addition the Mini-Cassia Community Christian Church is appealing the approval of the Special Use Permit and requesting over turning the approval and denying the permit.


Mayor Anderson opened the Public Hearing explaining that he would be give the petitioner an opportunity to speak, then comments for those in favor of the petition, then comments for those against the petition and then the petitioner would have the opportunity for a rebuttal.


Steve Tuft:  This is a little different than any other zoning public hearings that you have been used to.  On an appeal of a zoning matter, it is a Public Hearing in the sense that the public can be present for it, but the only participants are those who have filed an appeal and so there are actually two appeals before the city council.  One is by S & S Cattle who have accepted the Special Use Permit conditionally and requested an appeal to have one provision modified.  I’ll let them address that.  I am just talking about what is in front of you.  The second appeal is filed by the Mini-Cassia Community Church and they are appealing the overall approval of the permit.  So what you need to do is to take information from the applicant, S & S Cattle Company.  Make sure you have satisfied whatever questions you may have then that’s all there really is to the appeal.  There really isn’t a public comment process.  That’s been taken care of in the Public Hearing and then there is the second appeal by the church and you need to hear what they have to say and then close the hearing and make your deliberations which by law you have to make within 60 days of the closure of the hearing.  



Bill Loughmiller:  I am Bill Loughmiller representing S &S Cattle Company, a partner in that business and while it has been said that I am here representing on the appeal on the one condition that we are going to allowing only 200 calves to be processed in one day or per day.  Ladies and gentlemen, I need a little guidance on how much information or background you might desire in this.  I can talk plenty long, but I really need to know what you would like to know and how familiar you are with it.


Tuft:  I think you better assume they don’t know an awful lot about it. 


Loughmiller:  S &S Cattle Company is a partnership between myself and a man named Loren Sanderson.  We work with a company called Beeftech out of Aberdeen South Dakota.  When we had the zoning hearing, we had Dr. Ross Tye and Paul Metcalf also here in the area.  They are the people who have developed the process that we will be using in this business that we would like to locate here in Heyburn.  The business works in the pharmaceutical industry.  The company, Beeftech is _ which has several products which are on the market or in testing or going to market and all of them are products used in either the production or medicinals or vaccines or they are products that are used both in animal or human treatment of diseases or they’ve also used our products blood products that are used for humans.  The business that we want to do here is they want to harvest the blood from calves that are less than 24 hours old.  These are Holstein bull calves and currently most of these calves are being euthanized at birth and disposed of with no economic value.  The blood that we harvest from these calves is made into primarily three products.  They take the blood.  They separate the red blood cells, they process the serum.  The serum is used either in the production of vaccines or in the use in combination with some other drugs especially used in the treatment of cancer or it is used as a growth medium in research.  This company has developed a new process that makes this blood equal to or very similar to fetal blood which is collected from slaughter houses from animals that have been slaughtered or pregnant.  There is a very limited supply of it.  It is in great demand.  They have a backlog of orders for about 3 years - the production that could be make currently in this business that is planned that we would like to locate here.  We are utilizing the building that formerly used as a plant for making finger steaks or tamales or something of that sort there.  It’s the only facility in Heyburn that is USDA approved that is available.   Laboratory is the important part for what we need to do.  The business would employ somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 people.  Figure the monthly payroll to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000.  The pay rate given is starting salary, your starting pay of $12-$14 per hour plus benefits with room to advance in that.  The people working there will be.  There will only be one person brought in from outside the area and that will be the Plant Manager who knows the process and that would be the imported labor.  The rest of the people would be hired locally.  Their preference for employees are employees who have a 2-year associate degree or experience in the lab or the Department of Labor has talked about having a training session to train people to qualify for the job.  The building will be modified so that all of the calves are inside.  In addition, the drawings we have the building will be insulated pretty much sound proof.  The animals err all of the trailers coming in with the animals which would be somewhere in the neighborhood of four trailers per day will be unloaded undercover by the backsides of the building and the removal of the animals will also be under cover on the backside of the building on a truck.  Some of the questions that came up in the zoning hearing was what we have for employee parking, what would we have for lighting, fencing, and those types of things.  We have to have a bio-security fence under that keeps animals and unauthorized people out.  We would like to pave the driveway.  That is not possible this time of year.  The parking areas would naturally be lighted and we would uphold whatever regulations there are on lighting and not interfere with the neighbors and those things.  We’ve discussed with the your sewage treatment facility people the load on the sewer.  There is no blood going into the sewer.  The blood is the valuable part and so drawn with a needle and it’s all kept in a bottle.  Each bottle is tested separately then it goes through the process.  We calculated the waste on the animals and we figure it would be less than about two ounces.  The maximum if we were to have from the animals per animal.  The problem we have with the restriction on 200 is that we stop growth before we ever start or any further more efficient utilization of the facility by running extra hours and I think that was mostly a misunderstanding when we had the hearing before.  I remember my side of it.  I was asked how many animals we would process.  The number of 200 per day at the beginning came up and that was taken as what we really wanted.  200 is what we would expect to begin with and I would I don’t know how much expansion but it can’t be too awful much because the building is pretty small where we process it.  We would like to have the opportunity to expand.  Just to give you an idea if we expanded to a second shift, it would require about another 25 employees, which in this day and age I think is a good thing. Long term we have an offer to go to another location on a build to suit. We can have a new building; an all-new facility and the time table would not be much different. We prefer to stay here in Heyburn, we have other business interests here. The other thing on a long-term basis, they have several other products that are proprietary to there company. With the large dairy industry here we have opportunity to have first chance at those. They would all require new construction and I’m sure that at the same time that took place that this laboratory, we would probably take most of the functions from here to a new facility. That is one of the reasons we don’t want to go where we would have to sign a ten-year contract on a build to suit because we would like to make the next building a larger building. Build to fit the products we are making currently plus any new products.


There is concern about traffic both with the new school going in over there and some of the neighbors but I see that the road is now open.  Scott said they were going to open the road went past the ethanol plant so that we can access the main highway without going past any of the neighbors which should take care of any of those concerns, but like I say other than the employees we figure that we’ll be able to handle it in four trailer hooks four trailer loads of calves per day and then one load leaving.  I think that’s most of the answers err questions that were asked before that might help you in understand what we are doing.  As far as noise, odors, dust, everything is kept inside and we have to meet USDA specifications on everything we are doing so I know we can’t create much problem that way.  If you have any other questions, I’d be happy to try and answer them. 


Rocky Baker:  You were talking about fencing, Bill, chain link.  Is that kind of what you were thinking or .


Loughmiller:  Well, chain link meets the requirements.  If we need to have a fence on I would assume the south side, you know across there that was whatever you call it - one you can’t see through, privacy fence, we don’t have a problem doing that.  We want to be good neighbors and the last thing any pharmaceutical company wants is publicity.


Baker:  They’ve got some plastic inserts you put down through them. 


Loughmiller:  It is our intensions to fence the whole parcel that is there.  I believe there is about 2 acres with a chain-link fence all the way around it so the whole area will be fenced and kept cleaned up.


Scott Spevak:  As far as traffic, we have enough routes now that I don’t think it by the school.    off the highway.  traffic by the school.


Cleo Gallegos:  I think the school has fixed it so that most of the traffic will go behind the school and to the side of it.  There won’t be that much in front of it anyway. 


Loughmiller:  I might mention that the trucks will actually be picked up for the most part will be picked up with a gooseneck trailer so there’s not a lot in what’s going by the school or that street now.  There will be one truck a day that will be a larger truck that will leave every evening and goes to Twin Falls to the _________ company. 


Gallegos:  lots of traffic where they are at right now. 


Spevak:  Truck route right here.


Leann Smith:  So, every day the refuse is hauled away?


Loughmiller:  Yes we have to have that truck in Twin Falls by 6 o’clock in the evening and so we take a loaded trailer over and bring an empty trailer back, so there are no animals on the place for 24 hours.


Smith:  No overnight then?


Loughmiller:  No.  That would be a disaster to keep them overnight.  They lose their value when they turn 24 hours old. 


Paul Aston explained to the mayor and council the uniqueness of this operation with regard to what is permitted.  He stated the area is an Industrial Light area.   The operation was not specifically addressed in the Schedule of Uses so therefore it required a Special Use Permit.  He explained that he felt it was not the intension of the Planning and Zoning Commission to limit the number of calves per day, but rather it was explained to them that 200 calves per day per shift.  S & S Cattle Co. is appealing this one condition of the ten conditions presented in the Special Use Permit that was approved. 


Loughmiller:  I would planning and zoning part of it we met with Paul a couple of times and talked about what zone it would fall under and I want you to know that there is no slaughtering of any animals.  The only thing we do is put a needle in the calf so I was hoping we could get by as a clinic and we just felt this was the best way to go so there wasn’t problems later on.  The other thing I might mention is that we are required by USDA to have a veterinarian on retainer that does periodic inspections so we will have that similar to what a veterinary clinic would be like and then one thing I did not mention, we will be probably be spending close to $100,000 in addition in refurbishing the building to be able to do this not counting the equipment that will be brought in, so I think.


Mayor Anderson:  I just have one question, when, say everything went your way, when would this operation start? 


Loughmiller:  If I was a really good optimist, I would say we would be going by the middle of February.  Realistically, probably not until the middle of March.  We think we can be in production without any problem in March. 


Anderson:  The reason I ask that is that probably the decision won’t be made tonight and we can deliberate and probably the next meeting we can come up with a decision.  Is that going to throw you out of kilter.


Loughmiller:  It is my understanding that Paul can enlighten us a little on that.  We could get a building permit on the current permit.


Aston:  That’s correct.  They have accepted the Special Use Permit at this time.  They are just appealing a portion of it so their permit is still valid.  Unless directed otherwise, I would go ahead and issue a construction permit. 


Tuft:  May I make a comment.  That would be true if we didn’t have a second appeal. 


Aston:   That is correct.


Loughmiller:  Well, I guess in answer to that question, we had to make a decision as quickly as possible as to whether to utilize this site or go ahead and take the site in Burley.  So as we’d love to start construction a couple weeks from now. 


Loughmiller:  You asked what the time schedule was.  We really do need a decision on this tonight.  We’ve pushed too much good weather out of the way going through all the hearing processes and that our builder says that he can still do it if we hurry.  It will involve a little more cost.  We will have to pour concrete inside the building after the building is built and we can get that done.  Like I say, we have another couple of offers and we’ve got to make that decision.  If you can make that decision tonight so that we can present our plans for building permit tomorrow or the next day then we’ll go ahead and locate here in Heyburn and we’d really prefer to be here in Heyburn.  I’d just like you to know that.  Thank you. 


Spevak:  Bill, do you ever think in the future there would be a time when you move to a bigger facility and leave this one idle another one or.


Loughmiller:  We’ve talked about that and I think we have investigated those separating two sides and doing the two processes at two different sites.  I would say that we’re not too far, maybe a year or two we would outgrow that facility.  We’ve talked about it.  We would not come back for an expansion plan for live animals on that facility.  If we did anything, it would be to expand that facility as a larger laboratory in bring everything in to it.  We have another land as you know at other sites that we can do in close proximity that wouldn’t cause any problem for anyone and that would be our intension it would be to do the blood drawing at another location and then expand this laboratory here to handle increased production.


Spevak:  What I’m concerned about is that after a year you abandon this and go across the river.


Loughmiller:  They have no intention of abandoning the laboratory.  This is a unique building in that it has the larger freezer section.  All of this product has to be frozen within less than 12 hours of the time it is drawn or even less than that so we have to have the freezer.  We have to have the laboratory and so we’re building with the intension that that area we are going to use for the calves in the future where the centrifuges will be put in and then the other processing would take place there and we would have to.  We do not intend on going beyond this capacity on this site and we do not intend on abandoning this site or changing the use of it. 

Appeal by the Mini-Cassia Community Church: 


Jim Kilson:  My name is Jim Kilson and I am the pastor of the Mini-Cassia Community Christian Church and I just wanted to say to begin with that M4C isn’t opposed to

Mr. Loughmiller and his bringing a facility of this nature to the area.  As anybody would be, we support economic growth of this type.  Our objection simply is the location of it and the primary reason we object to the location of it is that where the facility sits is less than 100 yards from our children’s outside play area and with the type of materials that they are going to be processing, bio-med and things of that nature we’re just concerned about the proximity of the facility to the church and with the kids playing outside and that fact that it is so close to a school zone and the questions were answered at the last meeting dealing with odors, noise and things like that nature and thing on that is the thing with the noise.  It is a fully insulated building anyone that has worked in agriculture production livestock is concerned the first thing that calves want went they come out is food and if you have a large number of them in a building even if it is well insulated there is bound to be some noise involved and that’s the secondary concern.  The first concern is that we don’t feel it would be safe to have it that close to where our children would be playing.  Any questions?




Kilson:  The safety factor is just the type of material that is being processed there.  I know it is all supposed to be indoors and the calves are never to be outside, but you know something happens and its just not a risk that we really want to see taken. 


Smith:  Do you have a daycare facility there at your church that the children are out every day?


Kilson:  We do not currently at this time have a day care program.  We do have our programs that run periodically through the week but with the new school coming in, plans are already in motion at the church for a program that will run in the afternoons after school from  roughly 3 to 5 o’clock utilizing a lot of our outdoor space during the time that weather permits.


Gallegos:  You don’t think the security fence is


Kilson:  Well, the security fence is definitely a good thing and it may be.  What I’m dealing at is in worse case scenarios, if you will, of just with the number of kids that we have around that it is just something we have at the top of our agenda and our minds because our first and foremost concern is the safety of our kids.


Anderson:  How many kids are we talking about? 


Kilson:  Right now, with our youth group, you are probably talking between 15 and 20 as it stands now, but our after school program, we really don’t know the extent of that.  It will probably begin around 50 and probably grow depending on the need that is there to 100 or more. 


Tuft:  Mr. Kilson, if I could ask you a question, sort of a procedural question.  Do you feel that there is something lacking or wrong in the permit as issued or is it whether or not you believe S & S Cattle Co. can comply with the permit?


Kilson:  It is a little bit of both actually.  I think it’s more the compliance issue I’ve seen situations in the past including the town I grew up with in Missouri where companies came in and the things were stated that would be done in a certain way with the odor, with the noise and those were not lived up to and no action was taken on it and basically you had to deal with and so that’s kind of the concern.  I don’t want to have to question the integrity of anybody or


Tuft:  I’m not implying that nor does your answer imply.  I’m trying to understand procedure of where you are. 


Smith:  My question, I guess would be if at some point if they were not complying with the then what is our position.


Tuft:  Why don’t we do this.  If there is anything else Pastor Kilson wants to say


Kilson:  That’s my statement unless there are questions. 


Tuft:  Why don’t we invite Paul to come up again from Planning and Zoning.  I think that would be an appropriate question to ask.


Anderson:  Do we have anybody else here who would like to speak? 


Eric Larson:  My name is Eric Larson and I am a member of the M4C Church and as I sit here tonight understanding that they might add a second shift so I am assuming if they add a second shift down the road, now we are going to have 200 more calves.  Would that be a correct assumption? 


Tuft:  It is not a debate.  You are to give information.


Larson:  That’s what I’m getting at.  If we have 200 more calves, we are going to have more pickup loads bringing them in.  We are going to have.  I don’t know how we are going to get them out to have them in Twin for Dollards to have them by 6 o’clock in the evening if they add a second shift.    So now, we are going to have the bodies in that facility or in the back of the truck all night and then they’ll be hauled out the next morning.  I’m just assuming that because I don’t know how you are going to do that if you have one truck leaving at 5 o’clock with 200 head of calves and you add another shift, you are going to have 200 more calves that are going to be in that facility all night before they are hauled off.  That’s my statement.


Anderson:  Is there anybody else first?


Aston:  I’m not sure I can add any more than I already have.  I acknowledge that the church is in very close proximity of basically the Planning and Zoning Commission was very thorough in the conditions they passed to the permit.  You always can situation of what happens if they do not comply with the permit.  Well, if they did not comply with it the permit could be revoked.  You would obviously go through some enforcement proceedings to try to bring into compliance before you would evoke that would be the final option is just to revoke the permit the conditions of the permit. 


Loughmiller:  Well I appreciate the concerns.  I will try and answer some of these concerns to help you understand it.  I think one of things first need to look at is the process.  The calf is born.  It is a requirement that the calf be healthy before it is shipped into our purchase program.  The second thing is the calf is not allowed to have any colostrums and so they are fed an electrolyte so there is not 200 head of hungry calves down there.  There should not ever be more than 30 or 40 in the building because they’ll be processed as they come in and regular shift.  The colostrums has the antigens in it that fight the diseases that the calf is going to be subjected to once it is outside the placenta so there will be no pathogens in the process we are working with.  The blood will never see the air.  It is in a container all of the time.  We do not make any vaccines in this facility.  This is only a product that is used by other pharmaceutical companies in manufacturing so it is antigens, pathogens free when it leaves here and it should be that way all the way through the process so I just I want you to know that there will not be any, we are not going to have anything like that here or any kind of small pox or any of those things.  There is nothing manufactured here other than the nearly sterile product that goes to other manufacturers.  Everything will be shipped in sealed containers, frozen, so there’s very little chance of even any loss from breakage or any of that sort so I think that any biological hazard to the children will be less than they will be exposed to when they go home to their own home or farm or city water or whatever.  The second thing on noise.  I spoke these are calves that are less than 24 hours old and they haven’t developed the ability to bawl quite as good as older calves, so the noise should not be a problem that will interfere with anything going on next door.  The other thing that will be a little bit different than many of your plants one of the owners will be a manager, Paul Metcalf that spoke toward the zoning board will be moving here and so if you need to talk to the owner, he’ll be one of them.  He’s there.  I’ll be an owner in the procurement side of it.  My phone is listed and I can give you a card and I would expect if it is not operating as we have agreed to in the permit that I would expect a phone call from you so that we can help fix those things and so from that stand point, I think that will answer a couple of questions and if you are concerned about a privacy fence, we have no problem.  I would be happy to work with the church in putting up a privacy fence sufficient blend it in and did not detract from their facility.  I think I can make that at least as good if not better than some of the neighbors that are there so I mean we will try and do it comply on that so that view from the south is mostly a privacy fence with a building in the background. 


Smith: I have a question.  How high is the fence going to be?


Loughmiller:  I’ll telling you changing the height of the fence is not cost compared to building the chain-link fence so if the neighbors and I can get together, I’d be happy to comply.  I don’t want to go 20’ high but we can put a fence high enough though.  We don’t want anyone climbing in the fence and so we are happy to comply on that part and I don’t want to put one that high all the way around the property but I would say we would have at least a 6’ fence.  I think that I remember.  Calves on the second shift.  I’ll tell you what.  We haven’t planned a second shift.  We just didn’t want to be locked into where if we had 200 and a few extra ordered we needed to add a shift or go a little bit longer in a day.  Trying to get the exact number of calves there every day is you process what you get each day.  We didn’t want to be locked in tight to that.  If we have to go to a second shift, we are going to have to address delivering twice a day to Darling.  If we run a night shift, we are going to need to run the truck in the morning for the night shift and the day shift so and just in a practical view, you won’t develop odors in a 24 hours, but any longer than that you could have problems, but we’ll be having to run at least two trips at that point I am sure. 


Tuft:  Mr. Loughmiller, if the council were to decide add a condition to the permit to add a fence and also a condition of pickup what would you recommend? 


Loughmiller:  Well, I’d recommend that you’d put a condition in on the fence and that one if it needs to be a privacy fence for the area.  The parcel I believe is in two lots.  Front lot and a back lot.  The front lot will extend down to where the fence where the contractor would be.  It goes between the existing building between building or the building we are looking at and the church and the property line next to the highway next to our building is only about 100’ from the existing building or less so fence is going to be almost to our building.  There is going to be about 25-30’ between the building and the fence line and that fence will go back to the contractors building supply person whatever it is that has the business behind the church and I would think that we would want a privacy fence along that fence that runs east and west from even with the contractor’s fence to even with the front of the building where we put in the other fence.  Whatever gate we have across the front and it would be my suggestion if 6 is not high enough.  You know sometimes, the fence is uglier than no fence, so 6 8 whatever it needs to be so it blends in and doesn’t detract the church’s view and the neighborhood.  I think it request a 6’ fence and we have no problem with it. 


Tuft:  If there was to be a second pickup from the night shift, what do you recommend the procedure on that.


Loughmiller:  Well, there’s two things we are going to have to look at.  One is that if we did a second procedure I mean just a matter of trailers.  If we wanted to make one for the day, we might have to look at something that is enclosed or something of that source.  I hate to micro-manage this but we’d like to we still want to be the good neighbor so we’d like the opportunity to see what works best.  I hate to spell it out and say we have to make two trips and yet we’re fuel goes back to where it has been, it might be advantageous that we use the refrigerated unit because we are not running out there and throwing a calf over the top.  It will be a conveyor and it will be quiet and all that.  I guess I don’t want to get restricted too far. 


***  Can’t hear**


Loughmiller:  The other thing is, I don’t know if you have had a chance to look at the drawing, but we are going to extend the full route as long as the building with refrigeration and a jog all of it will back underneath that roof so there’s a wall that extends out east side that will cover any of the trailer there will b e a roof over the top sunshine on it.  You’re not going to have liquid of any kind draining out of it.  It’s a lot different than what you would expect a slaughterhouse or a building like that.   The calf is drained of any liquid so they are pretty dry when we are done with them.  Any other questions? 


Anderson:  Seeing none, thank you very much.  Pastor, did you have anything you’d like to say?


Tuft:  One final question.  Does the church have any exhibits or any documents they want to leave with the city council?


Kilson:  No.


_________:  Ask the city council, do you know how many kids will be walking down


Tuft:  It’s not really appropriate for the council to answer questions.  They are here to look at the information as it is presented.  I’m not trying to be argumentative with you.  It is just the procedure bringing to them.


After hearing no further comments Mayor Anderson closed the Public Hearing.


Motion by Cleo Gallegos to remove No. 5 appeal totally. Second by Rocky Baker. Roll Call Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye.


Discuss/Approve Destruction of Records.

City Clerk Linda Dayley requested from the City Council to destroy semi-permanent and temporary records after receiving a letter from Rod House, the acting Idaho State Archivist, stating that these records have no historical significance and the state has no desire in obtaining these records.

This item will be back on the next agenda in Resolution form.


Discuss/Approve Interim Loan with Zion’s Bank for the $1,000,000 for the Wastewater Project.

In the Mayor and Council packets was a letter from Alan Westenskow for the interim financing as follows:



December 10, 2008


RE: $955,000 USDA Interim Financing Request


I have included the updated interest rates you have requested for the City’s USDA interim financing needs based on a par amount of $955,000 and maturing on July 16, 2011, the same day as the City’s previously issued Series 2008 A Bond Anticipation Note that is associated with the City’s sewer project


Option 1 – Fixed Rate                                         

Maximum Par Amount:                        $955,000

Term:                                       Due July 16, 2011

Security:                                   Security of a pledge of the income and revenues derived by the project and funds derived from the sale of revenue bonds in anticipation of which the Notes are issued as provided in Idaho Code 50-1036 for Bond Anticipation Notes

Interest Rate:                            5.20% fixed rate (semi-annual interest payments)

Fees:                                        $2,000

Comments:            The Fixed Rate option requires the District to draw down all proceeds at the time of closing.  Interest will begin accruing on the full amount of the proceeds as soon as they are drawn down.  Proceeds may be reinvested as allowed by state and City law and policy until they are needed for construction.  The City will also be required to have a paying agent handle the semi-annual payments for the financing.  These rates assume either that Zions Bank acts as the paying agent for the financing or that the City makes its payments through an ACH through an account at Zions Bank.


General Bid Conditions: 

This bid is subject to a legal, valid and binding tax-exempt opinion from the City’s bond counsel, Moore Smith Buxton and Turcke.  Zions Bank will require the monitoring of fund dispersal and construction progress be monitored and approved to the satisfaction of the USDA and Zions Bank.  The terms of this bid are subject to final credit approval from Zions Bank and from USDA for long-term financing and are good for 15 days and closing on the financing must take place within 45 days after the bid is accepted.


After discussion the council moved to the next item on the agenda.


Approve Resolution No. 2008 - 6  Authorizing the Issuance of the Sewer Bond Anticipation Note and authorizing the Mayor’s signature of the necessary documents.


Motion by Leann Smith to approve Resolution No. 2008 - 6 authorizing the issuance of the Sewer Bond Anticipation Note and authorize the Mayor’s signature on the necessary documents. Second by Cleo Gallegos. Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Discuss/Approve Improvements for Mountain View Terrace - Dan Landers.

Dan Landers owner of several lots in the Mountain View Terrace addressed the Mayor and Council about some concerns he had about development of the infrastructure. After discussion Attorney Steve Tuft suggested that City Superintendent set up a meeting to research the city’s records on the Mountain View Terrace Subdivision.


Mayor Time:

Roy Belnap updated the Mayor and Council on the Bold Ridge Project.


Executive Session for Litigation and Personnel as Authorized by Idaho Code Section 67-2345.

Motion by Rocky Baker for an Executive Session for Litigation and Personnel as authorized by Idaho Code Section 67-2345. Second Leann Smith. Roll Call Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye.


 Council Meeting adjourned to Executive Session at 8:35 P.M.


Executive Session Minutes.

Council Present:

Cleo Gallegos, Rocky Baker and Leann Smith.

Employees Present:

Steve Tuft, Scott Spevak, and Linda Dayley.


The executive session commenced at 8:40 P.M. and ended at 9:15 P.M. The executive session consisted of a discussion of confidential matters of commerce. No decisions were made.




George A. Anderson, Mayor




Linda L. Dayley, City Clerk/Treasurer