Board declines loan forgiveness request from Mountain Meadows Farms after hearing on animal attacks and expenses

Brenda Ostrom, owner/operator of Mountain Meadows Farms, asked the Board of Supervisors on May 6 to forgive the remaining balance of a $50,000 micro‑enterprise loan after a series of events — including dog attacks that killed her poultry and several storms — severely reduced the farm’s income.

Ostrom told the board the farm averaged more than $36,000 a year in revenue from 2019 through 2021 but “the average has dropped to just over $3,000 amounting to a $99,000 loss over the past 3 years,” and that a dog attack destroyed the farm’s year‑round egg operation. She said the loan funds had been spent on infrastructure repairs, payroll and other expenses to retain employees and stabilize operations, and that she had exhausted other available federal and state disaster resources.

The request set off detailed staff and board discussion about program rules and county risk. Will Fassett, community design and development planner, explained the county’s micro‑enterprise loans are funded by a CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) program and that the county was reimbursed by the state when the loan was originally made. Fassett said Ostrom had submitted a written request that met the board’s draft loan‑forgiveness guidelines, supplied sheriff’s reports and evidence documenting losses, and showed a revenue decline exceeding 50 percent for the required comparison period.

But County Administrative Officer Joe Lynch told the board there is a legal and fiscal complication: even though the county was reimbursed when it made the loan, as the CDBG grantee the county remains ultimately responsible if HUD or the state subsequently determines the write‑off rejected county policy. Lynch recommended the board seek confirmation from the state CDBG administrator before forgiving loans that pre‑date the loan’s effective term or that appear to address circumstances that occurred prior to the loan period.

Board members pressed for clarity about how Ostrom spent the loan and whether it had been used to rebuild productive capacity. Ostrom said the money paid for repairs after a windstorm, culvert and greenhouse repairs, tree work and to retain staff when her year‑round poultry revenue disappeared; she said insurance had paid only about $5,000 on roughly $50,000 of damage. She also said she could not return to poultry without better local authority to address roaming dogs and because increasing insurance or firearm training for employees would be costly.

After a lengthy exchange the board took a motion to deny the forgiveness request. Supervisors Kaiser and Toso voted to deny the forgiveness; Supervisor Poe opposed. The motion to deny the loan forgiveness passed. The board directed staff to document the record and noted the county may seek advice from the CDBG administrator about whether a local write‑off could trigger a repayment obligation to the state.

The board’s decision does not change the county’s stated interest in clarifying forgiveness procedures; earlier in April the board had approved formal forgiveness guidelines that staff used to evaluate Ostrom’s request. Lynch and staff also told the board the county will formalize procedure and communicate it to future loan recipients so applicants know the standards and risks in advance.

Key clarifying details from the record include that Ostrom received a $50,000 CDBG micro‑enterprise loan in October 2023; she provided tax and business records showing the revenue decline; she reported insurance payout of about $5,000 for storm damage; and she supplied sheriff’s reports documenting dog attacks. Staff noted that the county was reimbursed by the state when the loan was issued, which affects the county’s exposure if HUD or the state later audits forgiven loans.

The board’s formal denial will be reflected in minutes and staff follow‑up. Ostrom said she will continue to pursue options to restore farm operations and explore other assistance channels.