Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Farmland Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carbon County farmland owner says state payment was lost in transit; board pledges follow-up
Summary
At a Carbon County Farmland Preservation Board meeting, a landowner said a scheduled state installment for a preservation agreement did not arrive and that the state later told staff the payment was lost in the mail. Board members asked staff to pursue the missing payment and clarify how interest will be handled.
A farmland owner told the Carbon County Farmland Preservation Board that a scheduled state payment under his farmland-preservation agreement did not arrive on time and that the state now says the check is lost in transit.
The landowner, identified in the meeting as Mr. Bohn, told the board during public comment that he elected a multi-payment arrangement and has been waiting for a March 1 installment. He said the state’s controller office showed a first check had been cut after settlement and that a later payment request was recorded but the second check could not be located. “To my knowledge, they tell me it's lost. They think it's in Mifflinburg,” Mr. Bohn said.
Why it matters: the preservation agreement in this case accrues simple interest at 2 percent, according to the commenter. If a payment is late or lost, the difference can amount to “about $40 a day,” Mr. Bohn said, a sum he described as material. Board members and staff discussed whether the county or the state bears responsibility for timely mailing and whether any lost-payment interest can be recovered.
Board and staff responses David, a staff member who manages the county’s financial steps for preservation transactions, told the meeting he had been in contact with the state and that the state created another payment on May 7 and told him it was being sent by courier. “They cut a check on the May 7,” David said; he added that if and when he receives the state check he will either hand-deliver it to the landowner or have the landowner pick it up.
David also said the county had started its own payment process because of the state delay. He described the county’s approach as keeping the agreement’s interest calculations tied to the contract dates rather than to the physical receipt of a check: “I do already know. From what I understand, the way the agreement of sales have always been written, is your paid interest is based on not when you have the check in hand, but what's on the agreement of sale.”
Board members pressed staff for more active follow-up. Kenny, a board member, criticized staff’s response to the delayed March 1 payment and urged more aggressive contact with the state controller. “You should have called them on the March 1. Why didn't you follow up?” Kenny said during the meeting.
Next steps and staff direction The board directed staff to continue contacting the state controller’s office to confirm delivery and to keep the landowner included on communications. David agreed to share tracking information and to include the landowner in future emails. Board members also requested more frequent status updates on the other farmland-preservation files the county is processing.
Context from other agenda items Board members also discussed several active farmland-preservation applications and administrative items during the same meeting: two farms previously approved by the state were advancing, surveys had started on another parcel with a 90-day completion window, and staff planned to solicit appraisals for the St. Giles and Justin Comfort farms. The board approved its meeting schedule for the coming year and handled routine business including approval of prior meeting minutes and adjournment.
Votes at a glance - Approval of prior meeting minutes: motion made and seconded; accepted by the board (no roll-call tally provided in the transcript). - Meeting dates for the coming year: motion to accept and seconded; accepted (no roll-call tally provided). - Motion to adjourn: motion and second; accepted.
What remains unresolved Staff told the board the state had cut a replacement check and said it was sent by courier; the board requested proof of shipment and asked staff to continue pressing the controller’s office about whether interest can be paid or added to the replacement check. The transcript records discussion of interest being calculated under the agreement’s stated dates, and board members asked staff to share the state’s explanations and any tracking numbers once available.
The board did not adopt a new policy on how to handle lost state checks at this meeting; members asked staff to report back with documentation from the state and to keep affected landowners informed.
