August 3, 2015 Dear San Juan County Planning & Zoning Commissioners, ‘The undersigned landowners in San Juan County respectfully request that the commission act in compliance with the San Juan County Zoning Ordinance (Amended Sept. 2011) Sections 6-9 and 6-10 and revoke and/or confirm the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) approved on October 4, 2012 in favor of Latigo Wind Park, LLC ("Latigo”) The basis of this request is threefold. ‘The CUP has expired Section 6-9 Substantial Action Required “Unless there is a substantial action under a conditional use permit with one (1) year of its issuance, the permit shall expire. The Planning Commission may grant one extension up to six (6) months, when itis, deemed in the public interest.” Mr. Greg Adams confirmed by email on June 15, 2015 thata six-month extension had been granted and that “if no substantial action was taken it (Latigo CUP] would have expired on April 4, 2014”. He further stated in subsequent emails that no evidence had been provided of substantial action by the developer prior to the expiration date or by the date of his email. Similar opinions from elected officials have been recorded. (The only in-timeframe work of any nature at the Latigo site was some minor road grading that is estimated to be less than .00044 of project costs or the equivalent of $66 if compared to the medium area home.) While San Juan County officials have wide latitude to make P&Z decisions that is not license for arbitrary, capricious governance. We request the CUP be confirmed as expired on April 4, 2014 and the Latigo Building Permit be revoked. Conditions of the CUP have not been met The San Juan Planning and Zoning amended the CUP on Oct. 4, 2012 requiring “as much flicker, light, sound, mitigation as possible...and mitigation to the affected landowners" and all must be met by current or a future developer PRIOR to any building permit being issued. It is very clear what must be done reading the text or listening to minutes of the Oct. 4, 2012 meeting, There must be mitigation or the building permit is invali ‘The original developer offered about two thirds the Comparable Market Analysis price per acre to landowners but then negotiated a purchase option agreement to about the Comparable Market Analysis price. sPower, rather than comply with mitigation terms, only offered 1/3 the Comparable Market Analysis price to landowners. Despite not wanting to sell or leave their properties, landowners reduced its sale price 14% to resolve mitigation with sPower. sPower missed the offer deadline. In good faith that offer was again extended to sPower. To date sPower has failed to recognize 1) the landowners’ risk / development of wateraccess, 2) proximity of the properties to BLM land, city services, and recreation, 3) availability of like acreage for sale and 4) the new San County road improvements to our properties that Commissioner Bruce Adams is on record as saying has noting to do with the wind project. Rather than mitigate, sPower moved turbines sites towards landowners. At least one 500’ tall wind tower shown in the CUP application to be was 2100’ away from landowners is now only 1,000’ from an adjacent property owner. Rather than mitigate, this greatly increases the flicker, light and sound and poses a material hazard due to ice throw and potential blade failure that is “detrimental to the health, safety or general ware of persons or working in the vicinity”. It is also “injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity” and not “harmonious with the neighboring uses in the zoning district”. The proposed project therefore no longer meets the Determination Criteria outlined in section 6-4. Furthermore, the red flashing lights at the top of turbines are a major disturbance to the night sky. The condition of providing as much light mitigation as possible would require the use of “dark sky technology” such as OCAS that uses radar to only turn on the flashing lights when an airplane is in the immediate vicinity. This technology is commercially available and has been deployed on similar sized wind farms sPower now refuses to comply with the mitigation agreement that enabled the CUP and are trying to benefit from the CUP while shirking the responsibility of the mitigation. As the conditions of the CUP have not been met, we request the CUP and Building Permit be revoked, inal developer even though requested by Greg Adams, purposely did not provide advanced notice of the CUP hearing to adjacent landowners whose property values would be completely destroyed so that the landowners would not be able to provide information that might balance their assertions, [see CUP Appeal letter dated August 3, 2012] + While a committee member requested it, there was no investigation of appropriate standards to determine if the Determination Criteria would be met by the proposed project and therefore relied completely on woefully inadequate studies by the developer without any independent analysis. + Landowners who were purposely not notified of the CUP hearing were also not allowed to make a presentation at the appeal and their written information submitted was not distributed to commission members even as information from the developer submitted at the same time was distributed, Based on the above criteria, we respectfully request your timely consideration of whether the Commission's responsibilities would best be met by revoking Latigo’s Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit.San Juan County, Utah Landowner: Name and Signature: Daniel W. Bingham Managing Director Northern Monticello Alliance, LLC (For self and 15 other landowners)August 5, 2015, To: Commissioner Phil Lyman, Chairman, 333 South Main Blanding, UT 84511-3816 plyman@sanjuancounty org, Commissioner Rebecca Benally P.O, Box 9 Monticello, Utah 84535-0009 rmbenally @sanjuancounty.org ‘Commissioner Bruce B, Adams P.O. Box 748 Monticello, UT 84535-0748 bbadams@sanjuancounty.org Mr. Shelby Seely, County Assessor P.O. Box 787 Monticello, UT 84535-0787 sseely@sanjuancounty.org Mr. Kelly Pehrson. Commission Administration P.O. Box 9 Monticello, Utah 84535-0009 kpehrson@ sanjuancounty.org From: Summit Wind Power, LLC 4733 Hiddenwoods Lane Murray. Utah 84107 (801) 712-6789 Mr. Kendall Laws, Esq., County Attomey P.O. Box 850 Monticello, UT 84535-0850 sjattorney @sanjuancounty.org. Mr. Walter Bird, Esq., County “Employee P.O. Box 9 Monticello, UT 84535-0009 walterbird @sanjuancounty.org, Mr. Greg Adams, Planning and Zoning Commission Staff P.O. Box 787 Monticello, UT 84535-0787 gregadams @sanjuancounty.org Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes 350 North State Street, Suite 230 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2320 FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST LATIGO WIND PARK PROJECT, LLC, COMMISSIONER BRUCE ADAMS, AND GREG ADAMS In June 2012, Summit Wind Power, LLC (“Summit Wind”) planned to begin digging holes for geological surveying in San Juan County (the “County”). Various County officials, including Greg Adams, the Planning Commission staff secretary, and Bruce B. Adams. Commissioner of the County Board of Commissioners, advised Summit Wind that construction in the County first required permitsgranted by the County Planning Commission and the County Commissioners, including (1) a conditional . These offi use permit (“CUP”) and (2) a building permit (“BP” Is directed Summit Wind to review the County Zoning Ordinance and the CUP Instructions and Application on the County website. They also gave Summit Wind a three page BP self-carbon copy document. Later, they also said that two or ‘more parties could not maintain a CUP or BP for the same purpose on the same parcel of land. These officials told Summit Wind that if Summit Wind were to proceed with construction activities without valid permits that the County would shut Summit Wind’s operation down. In contrast, Summit Wind has recently discovered that Sustainable Power Group (“S*Power”) bought Latigo Wind Park Project, LLC (“Latigo”) and has begun construction activities in San Juan County, Utah without valid permits. This construction without valid permits constitutes continuing violations of the San Juan County Ordinance and laws. These officials have given no explanation for why they treated Latigo more favorably than Summit Wind. ‘Apart from construction continuing without valid permits, Summit Wind is also concerned that Count officials are not requiring Latigo to fully comply with County ordinances and laws. Summit Wind believes that County officials may have interests in Latigo that conflict with their official duties. ‘These interest have also likely influenced their lack of enforcement with respect to Latigo. They have failed to disclose these interests. If true, this is also a violation of the law as it has Summit Wind respectfully requests that the County immediately require Latig required of other applicants, to undertake a proper permit approval process that complies with the County Zoning Ordinance and other federal, state, and local laws. ‘Summit Wind is also forwarding this complaint to the Utah Attorney General and the County Attorney asking that they investigate potential criminal conduct.I. LATIGO DOES NOT HAVE VALID PERMITS. According to Latigo’s own public declarations, Latigo has begun construction on its wind park project. See S*Power Fact Sheet (attached hereto as Ex. 1). Latigo does not, however, have the necessary permits to do so. A. Latigo Does Not Have a Valid Conditional Use Permit. 1. Latigo’s Conditi nal Use Permit Irregularities. On July 5, 2012, the County approved Latigo’s application for a conditional use permit. There ation are numerous irregularities with this permit, See Latigo 7.18.12 Conditional Use Permit Applis {attached hereto as Ex. 2) First, Latigo’s application states that it was not submitted until July 18, 2012 by Latigo manger Christine Watson Mikell.! Nevertheless, Greg Adams reviewed the application for the Planning Commission, which was somehow granted on July 5, 2012—two weeks before the application was signed and submitted by Ms, Mikell on July 18, 2012. See Latigo 7.18.12 Conditional Use Permit Application. Second, in order to obtain a County CUP, Latigo was required to meet the following instructions: ‘A statement of agreement. .. if you are leasing of renting the land for which you are requesting the conditional use permit. The statement should clearly verify that the owner of the property is aware of, and in agreement with the use which you are proposing in ‘your application for conditional use permit. THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SIGNED BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC. The application will not be processed if this, statement of agreement is not provided. Conditional Use Permit Instructions (attached hereto as Ex. 3) (emphasis in original). These statements are important to protect San Juan County landowners. Latigo did not submit these statements. Consequently, the County should never have issued Latigo a CUP. And the County 3 Christine Watson Mikell was previously employed as an engineer by the State of Utah Energy Office. As discussed below. she has long had associations with Commissioner Bruce Adams, 3must require that Latigo submit an application that includes these statements of agreement for their site plan. To comply with the County Ordinance and the law, the County cannot allow construction to continue without these statements of agreement for all lands included in its project. Third, Latigo made unilateral changes to its site plan map without Commission approval. In fact, the County did not grant S*Power or Latigo the approval necessary to change almost all of its wind turbine locations pursuant to its July 2012 site plan. Compare Latigo’s First Approved Site Plan Map (attached hereto as Ex. 4) with La "s Second Unapproved Site Plan Map (attached hereto as Ex. 5). Fourth, Latigo’s CUP maps have little resemblance to Latigo’s site plan map sent to PacifiCorp” and used by PacifiCorp to undertake system stability studies. See Latigo’s Site Plan to PacifiCorp (attached hereto as Ex. 6). These studies are important so that PacifiCorp can determine the effects of the project on PacifiCorp’s entire electrical transmission system. This should be of great concern to the County because PacifiCorp's electrical transmission system runs through the County and services thousands of County residents. In fact, PacifiCorp’s last critical substation on PacifiCorp’s Utah network is Pinto Substation, just outside of the Monticello city limits. And, the County fully relies on PacifiCorp conducting accurate studies so that the County does not incur those costs and has the assurances that the County's electrical system is stable and reliable. Fifth, Latigo’s First Approved CUP maps show a 4.9 mile radial transmission line, Latigo’s map to PacifiCorp shows a 4.5 mile radial transmission line. The substation location in the two maps has also different. Compare Latigo’s Site Plan to PacifiCorp with Latigo’s First County Approved Site Plan Map and Latigo’s Second Unapproved Site Plan Map. As explained above, even small changes can cause problems to the electrical transmission system network if not correctly studied. ® PacifiCorp isthe parent company of Rocky Mountain Power. 4Sixth, it is now clear that Latigo has submitted different maps to PacifiCorp and the County. The PacifiCorp map states that Latigo requires a transmission line that will connect to the Pinto substation. See Latigo’s Site Plan to PacifiCorp. Latigo does not have the easement rights to cross these lands, It cannot use this route without those landowners’ consent. Therefore, Summit Wind believes that Latigo is relying on PacifiCorp’s transmission line easements already on some of these lands, But itis not fair to landowners that Latigo piggy-back PacifiCorp’s easement rights, without landowner consent, to avoid paying these landowners for that additional usage. In any event, Latigo must identify its routes to protect the landowners. In the end, Latigo is submitting fraudulent maps to PacifiCorp or to the County. In either event, this will affect County landowners and residents. County residents deserve to know what is really going on and to rely on the County to make sure that it has accurate documents 2. Latigo’s CUP Is Expired. Mr. Greg Adams, cousin to Commissioner Bruce Adams, signed Latigo’s CUP on behalf of the County. Mr. Greg Adams, however, cannot make unilateral changes to the CUP. A CUP extension must be granted by the County Planning Commission. Even if itis granted, Section § 6-9 expressly limits a CUP to no more than | % years with an extension without substantial action under the CUP. Indeed, the County Zoning Code states: Unless there is a substantial action under a conditional use permit with [sic] one (1) year of its issuance, the permit shall expire. The Planning Commission may grant one extension up to six (6) months, when it is deemed in the public interest. San Juan County Zoning Ordinance § 6-9 (attached hereto as EX. 7), As set forth below. Latigo’s CUP is now expired. © Latigo’s CUP was granted on July 5, 2012. See Latigo 7.1.12 Conditional Use Permit Application (attached hereto as EX. 2).Latigo, As expl * On October 4, 2012, the County Planning Commission amended Latigo’s CUP requiring a 1 kilometer setback for the project. See County Planning Commission Minutes of 10.4.12 (attached hereto as Ex. 8). Latigo never requested, nor did the Planning Commission grant, any extension of any kind, ‘© There is no record of Latigo taking any substantial actions under its CUP, as required by San Juan County Zoning Ordinance § 6-9. * Consequently, on July 5, 2013, Latigo’s CUP expired. © On July 29, 2013. Latigo belatedly requested a six month extension, erroneously citing October 4, 2012 as the date its CUP was granted. This is not correct. As explained, above, Latigo’s CUP was granted on July 5, 2012, The County Planning Commission simply supplemented Latigo’s CUP on October 4, 2012 without the request or approval for an extension, See 7.29.13 Stoel Rives Law Firm Latigo Letter to Greg Adams (attached hereto as Ex. 9). ‘© Even assuming that Latigo’s dates are correct, and they are not, the application for extension was never heard or granted by the Planning Commission, Furthermore, the Planning Commission never made findings that an extension was in the public interest as required under the Ordinance. See San Juan County Zoning Ordinance § 6-9. © Even assuming that the extension was heard and granted, the Planning Commission cannot grant an extension beyond 6 months. See San Juan County Zoning Ordinance § 6-9. © Thus, at best, Latigo’s CUP, granted on July 5, 2012, could only be extended six months to January 5, 2013. «According to S*Power. Latigo did not even begin “Site preparation” or “Groundbreaking” until July 2015. See S Power Fact Sheet (attached hereto as Ex. 1). Even with the most favorable calculation, Latigo’s CUP is years overdue. No one, including can construct in the County without valid permits. B. Latigo Does Not Have a Valid Building Permit, There are at least four failings with La s building permit, First, the San Juan County Zoning Ordinance states that a building permit application is granted “[fJollowing the issuance of a conditional use permit San Juan County Zoning Ordinance § 6-8. lained above, Latigo’s CUP expired no later than January 5, 2013. Nevertheless, the Countyapproved Latigo’s building permit on February 3, 2014. See Latigo Building Permit 2.3.14 (attached hereto as Ex. 10). ‘This was not proper and a violation of the San Juan County Zoning Ordinance. Second, Latigo’s BP was signed by County Commissioner Bruce Adams. See Latigo Building Permit 2.3.14. The County has told Summit Wind that Latigo was not required to submit signed engineering plans for its BP. This is not consistent with how the County has treated other BP applicants. Third, Latigo’s CUP is not consistent with Latigo’s BP. For example, the wind turbines are of different models and produced by different manufacturers. And, this is different still from what Latigo presented to PacifiCorp. In fact, Latigo told PacifiCorp that it was going to use a Clipper Liberty Series Turbine, which is what PacifiCorp used on its studies. In contrast, S*Power’s own fact sheet now says that it using a GE wind turbine, See S*Power Fact Sheet. Which wind turbine is it? Fourth, County residents expressed concerns over wind turbine noise. In response, Latigo then used a particularly quiet Siemens turbine for its noise study. But, as explained above, Latigo is not using the Siemens turbine. Latigo is now using a GE wind turbine, which has not been studied either by PacifiCorp or the County for this project. See S*Power Fact Sheet. Latigo’s noise study is unreliable. Fifth, the County is not fairly administering its permit requirements. On one hand, the County has required applicants to provide engineering drawings signed and stamped by a licensed Utah engineer. It appears the County failed to require this of Latigo. As explained elsewhere, the County also failed to require Latigo to provide signed statements of agreement for the landowners of its proposed project when securing its CUP. This. independently, is a violation of the County Conditional Use Permit Instructions (attached hereto as Ex. 3).IL THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SHOULD INVESTIGATE SAN JUAN COUNTY OFFICIALS. A. San Juan County Commissioner Bruce Adams Has Failed to Disclose Conflicted Interests and His Ties to Latigo and/or S*Power. San Juan County Commissioner Bruce Adams is required to, through a filed sworn statement, disclose his substantial interests in (1) any business entity subject to regulation of the county, and (2) any personal interest or investment which creates a potential or actual conflict between his personal interests and his public duties. Indeed, Utah law states: Interest in business entity regulated by county - Disclosure. Every appointed or elected officer who is an officer. director. agent, or employee or the owner of a substantial interest im any business entity which is subject to the regulation of the county in which the officer is an elected ot appointed officer shall disclose the position held and the precise nature and value of the officer's interest upon first becoming. appointed or elected, and again during January of each year thereafter during which the officer continues to be an appointed or elected officer. The disclosure shall be made in a sworn statement filed with the county legislative body. The commission shall report the substance of all such disclosure statements to the members of the governing body or may provide to the members of the governing body. copies of the disclosure statement within 30 days after the statement is received. This section does not apply to instances where the value of the interest does not exceed $2,000, and life insurance policies and annuities may not be considered in determining the value of the interest. Utah Code Ann. § 17-16a-6 (emphasis added). Investment creating conflict of interest with duties ~ Disclosure. Any personal interest of or investment by any elected or appointed official of a county which creates a potential or actual conflict between the official's personal interests and his public duties shall be disclosed in open meeting to the members of the body in the manner required by Section 17-16a-6. Utah Code Ann. § 17-16a-8 (emphasis added), (On April 2 2014, a GRAMA request produced zero disclosure forms submitted by Commissioner Bruce Adams. See GRAMA Disclosures (attached hereto as Ex. 11). It is difficult to believe that Mr, Bruce Adams or Greg Adams have no possible contfiets requiring disclosure, particularly with Latigo and/or S*Power. In fact, Summit Wind has reason to believe thatCommissioner Adams and/or his family have landowner and/or ownership interest in the Latigo Project. For example: © Commissioner Adams was previously affiliated with the renewable energy entity “Utah Green Power.” During this time he was directly affiliated with Latigo’s manager, Christine Watson Mikell who, interestingly enough, worked for the State of Utah Energy Office and erected the Monticello wind towers for the state of Utah, See 2.19.04 Wind Power Meeting {attached hereto as Ex. 12). GRAMA responses for wind data obtained during Ms. Mikell’s, tenure with the state reveal that this data is “lost” and no longer available. This is in contrast to the coincidence that Latigo’s wind project sits on one of those state meteorological tower sites. Commissioner Adams must disclose these and other relationships he has through Utah Green Power, Latigo, S*Power, and any other possible conflicting relationship. ‘* Commissioner Bruce Adams is related to the owners of Redd Enterprises and Jones Enterprises—the primary landowners in the Latigo project. ‘© Mr. Greg Adams, the County official authorizing Latigo’s invalid CUP. is Commissioner Bruce Adams's first cousin, ‘+ Mr. Greg Adams's brother Robert “Rob” Adams currently works for S* Power—the entity that recently purchased Latigo. * Commissioner Bruce Adams's home is located on Latigo Loop. See Adams's Home (attached hereto as Ex. 13). Summit Wind is interested in discovering why the Latigo Wind Park Project's name is the same name as the street were Commissioner Adams resides. 7 infact the whole point ofthe February 19,2008 Wind Power Meeting was forthe Cty of Monticello to obtain a rantto erect a meteorological tower to capture wind data. Monticello paid Wasatch Wind, Latigo's predecessor, to erect the towers and to analyze the wind data. This happened in 2006 when Ms. Mikell was the President of Wasatch Wind. This meteorological tower i evident in Latig's own unapproved site plan map. See Latigo Second Unapproved Site Pan Map {attached hereto as Ex. 5). After the data was collected, however, Ms. Mikell refused to give the data to the Monticello until years after it was collected and was, by then, useless.Recent investigations, revealing potential fraud surrounding the Latigo project. also play into these conflicts, The now Chapter 7 bankrupt Renewable Energy Development Corporation (“REDCO") (Case No. 11-38145) held a $250,000 option to purchase the Latigo project. See Champlin Docs (attached hereto as Ex. 14). REDCO insiders, including Michael Adams, Commissioner Adams's brother, was an owner and Vice-President of REDCO, Robert Adams, Commissioner Adams's first cousin, was the REDCO project development manager. Like many other REDCO insiders, Robert Adams now works for S*Power. So it is no surprise why the $250,000 option to purchase the Latigo project was never disclosed in the REDCO bankruptey—hecause it is a very valuable project. In fact, according to public statements by the REDCO insiders and S*Power management, the Latigo project is worth $136 million. See 8.4.15 S*Power Website (attached hereto as Ex. 15)*: see also San Juan County Record Article (attached hereto as Ex. 16) None of these relationships have been disclosed. And, given that Greg Adams, Bruce Adams's first cousin is tasked with processing the County's permits, it is no wonder that the Latigo construction continues despite invalid permits. Commissioner Bruce Adams's connections to this project are simply too many to not find a conflict. B. San Juan County Officials Have Failed in Their Duty. As explained above, County officials have repeatedly failed to substantially perform their duties relative to Latigo’s CUP and BP. Utah law repeatedly requires public servants to perform duties inherent to their office: Official misconduct -- Unauthorized acts or failure of duty, A public servant is guilty of a class B misdemeanor if, with an intent to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office, or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by Jaw or clearly inherent in the nature of his office 015/news-20Utah Code Ann, § 76-8-201 17-16-10.5. Failure to perform duties constitutes malfeasance in office ~ Felony charges arising from official duties -- Paid administrative leave -- Reassignment of duties. (1) The failure of an elected county ot prosecution district officer substantially to perform the officer's official duties constitutes malfeasance in office under Section 77-6-1. Utah Code Ann. § 17-16-10.5 County officials should be investigated for both failures in their duties and failures to disclose conflicts. These officials should also be required to recuse themselves from any further Latigo matters and any future matters regarding any type of wind project in the County, County attorneys should also investigate possible violations of the following: © Utah Code Ann. § 76. Utah Code Ann. § 76. 201 (Official misconduct) -103 (Bribery or offering a bribe) Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-105 (Receiving or soliciting bribe or bribery by public servant) Utah Code Ann, § 76-8-504 (Written false statement) Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1603 (Unlawful acts) Utah Code Ann. § 17-16-10.5 (Failure to perform duties constitutes malfeasance in office) Utah Code Ann. § 17-16a-6 (Interest in business entity regulated by county — Disclosure) * Utah Code Ann. § 17-16a-8 (Investment creating conflict of interest with duties ~ Disclosure) * Utah Code Ann. § 17-16a-10 (Violation a misdemeanor ~ Removal from office) © Utah Code Ann. § 71-16a-12 (Recession) Sincerely, Kimberly Ceruti Member of Summit Wind Power. LLC ulEXHIBIT 1NAME: LATIGO WIND PARI Location: Monticello, UT Project Statstes #27 GEZ SMW turbsnes ‘= Pow! wile sold to Rocky Mount Powe! under 20:ye3" power purchase ‘agreement (PPA Economic Banofits: 1 SIOMMS1SMM in property tax 20 year ie of tho project (appronmately 60% for San Juan, County schon) + Land lease payments + Up 0 10 construc ‘tate specialized laborers} + sPowerimustment inthe community (eq. scholarshis: interactive educations ‘opponunies; civic chibs support: etc) Timeline: * Groundtveaking: July 2015, + Site pepavation: July 200 * Collector yszem, foundations installation: Summer/Fall 20155 ‘= Turbine consirucion/erection: Fall 2015 + Site restoration: Fall 2015, ‘+ Comection tothe grid (commercial epeations date: Dec 2015 ere abs ‘ABOUT sPOWER: Headquartered n Salt Lake City wth offices in Sam Francisco and New York Cy, Powers 9 lending dependent power producer GPP) tha ‘ans andlor operates move Yan 180 uty ad Commercial catibuted electrical generation systems ‘eros the Unted Stats and the United Kingdom pa sPomers actvey upg selec neat assets vitoly any sage of development, 8 wel as working to aca Renecierrs, | Oetersctmuitns cree eaed” Power lec by 2 seasoned execute tam tha has a 20 yer tae secondo wor ‘organizations. Ia fact, Vu same team founcled EnergySahtions NYSE" ES) wr SG Resources (oid to Headwaters NYSE: HW) {Powerit 2 porttoko company of Fir Tee Partner. aleadag glabé investment fund ‘nth more than 20 years of vesting hstary and appronmatly Sts ten Inder management. Ove the naxt TB months, Pome wl need oe 40 $1 ‘ound ts energy developer sPowme 2180 South 1300 East | Suite 600 | Salt Lake Cky, UT 4106 801.679.3500 | wind@spower cmEXHIBIT 2‘APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ‘SAN JUAN COUNTY-STATE OF UTAH Name of usiness or Compote Latigo Wind Park, LLC __ Name and Tite of Autores Agent Christine W. Mikell, Manager Maiing Address: 4525 S Wasatch Bhd., Suite 120 ‘Steet Adal Lorain ry Sat Lake City ‘Sate UT [20 [84124 Telephone (Business) 801-455-1045 | Resstnce Lege Oescrion of propery fr whch pert request. ‘See attached site plan and copies of wind leases and transmission easement option agreements, which include legal descriptions for associated lands. Caren Zoning of property fr wn pcre requestd._ AT (Curentuse of papery: Greenbelt, ranching, hunting, CRP, cropland Proposed use of propery Wind energy facility and current uses Doyoucwn tis povery? NO ease? [Yes "you eae. eth Ownar of te property green wih you proposed use ofthe propery unser Ihe condtonal use permit? Prowse a copy a aalement of apreement rom property ewer wh thi PA Catine W. Mikel, omer ater get be ove anes buses ‘capensn hery sees Bs cme on eporplomaion eto and core et == me Spams ee LUMA Footcare Oo ate Receives: 7-4 IC} Pubic earng Reg J 5-iL{Dat of Commision Meeting mere sppscaton reviewed. 7526/3. _Asproved or Denee_L-POaivied Date of Condisona Use Permit Expres Vist een (OS Nigla bresEXHIBIT 3INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION In acartion to the compieted appication form. you are required to submit the following ‘supplementary information: +. Site pian showing the proposed building, fences. landscaping, automobile parking and loading areas. 2 ASiatement of Agreement is required if you are leasing of renting the land for wich you are requesting the conditional use permit. The statement should clearly verify that the owner ofthe property is aware of, and in agreement with {ne use which you are proposing in your application for conditional use permit. THIS STATEMENT MUST BE SIGNED BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC. The application will not be processed if this statement of agreement isnot provided. A permit application fe of 510.00 per permit requested is required atthe time of fing of the application Checks shall be made out to San Juan County. The items on information, 1 foregoing list are required. No permit can be processed without the Applications and fees should be sent to the following address: Mr. Bruce Bunker ‘San Juan County Building Inspector P.O. Box 787 ‘Monticello, UT 84535EXHIBIT 4EXHIBIT 5EXHIBIT 6Latigo Wind Park, LLC 59.2MW Wind Farm Interconnection OverviewEXHIBIT 7SAN JUAN COUNTY UTAH ZONING ORDINANCE (Amended Sept. 2011)CHAPTER 1: General Provisions ........46++ 4 1-6 Building Permit Required peeenceccosospoceccocusooodsocd 1-12 Nuisance and Abatement... ee CHAPTER 2: Land — Administration .......66.000006 15 2-1 Planning Commission ........-2+++ ls 2-2 Appeals... 7 16 2-3 Variances ......+4+ ee) CHAPTER 3: Supplementary and Qualifying Regulations ... 9 CHAPTER 4: Nonconforming Building and Uses . . CHAPTER 5: Parking Requirements, Loading Space, and Motor Vehicle Access... CHAPTER 6: Conditional Uses CHAPTER 7: Planned Unit Development... CHAPTER 8: Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks . CHAPTER 9: Construction Subject to Geologie, Flood, or Other Natural Hazards ...... 36 CHAPTER 10: Zoning Districts. . .37 eee Se CHAPTER 11: Multiple-Use, Agricultural, Rural Residential Districts . . 11-2 Use Regulations ........4++ 8 11-3 Area Regulations ........+. 11-4 Frontage Regulations... LL-S Front Yard Regulations . 11-6 Rear Yard Regulations ......4000eeeeeeeeees a 11-7 Side Yard Regulations ........00s00eeeeseeeees seeeeerd 11-8 Height Regulations... cecoccce AdCHAPTER 12: Controlled Districts . 12-5 5) CHAPTER 13: Indian Reservation District (IR) ..CHAPTER 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS, 1-1 Short Title This Ordinance shall be known and may be so cited and pleaded as the "ZONING ORDINANCE OF SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH” 1-2 Purpose This Ordinance is designed and enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of SAN JUAN COUNTY, including, among other things, the lessening of congestion in the streets or roads, securing safety from fire and other dangers, providing access to adequate light and air, classification of land uses and distribution of land development and utilization, protection of the tax base, securing economy in governmental expenditures, fostering agricultural and other industries, and the protection of both urban and non-urban development. 13 Interpretation In interpreting and applying the provisions of this Ordinance, the requirements contained herein are declared to be the minimum requirements for the purposes set forth. 14 Conflict This Ordinance shall not nullify the more restrictive provisions of covenants, agreements, other ordinances or laws, but shall prevail notwithstanding such provisions which are less restrietive. 1-5 Definitions For the purpose of this Ordinance certain words and terms are defined as follows: (Words used in the present tense include the future; words in the singular number include the plural and the plural the singular; words not included herein but defined in the Uniform Building Code shall be construed as defined therein). (1) Accessory Building. Building not used for human occupancy which is secondary to the ‘main structure on the same piece of property such as a shed or garage. (2) Affected Entity, A county, municipality, local district, special service district created under state law, school district, interlocal cooperation entity established under state law, specified property owner, property owners association, public utility, or the Department of Transportation, (3) Agriculture. The tilling of the soil, the raising of crops, horticulture andCHAPTER 6 CONDITIONAL USES 6-1 Definition of Conditional Use ‘A conditional use is a land use that, because of its unique characteristics or potential impact on the county, surrounding neighbors, or adjacent land uses, may not be compatible in some areas or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the detrimental impacts. 6-2 Permit Required ‘A conditional use permit shall be required for all uses listed as conditional uses in the district regulations where they are, or will be located, or if the use is specified as conditional use elsewhere in this Ordinance. 6-3 No Presumption of Approval ‘The listing of a conditional use in any table of permitted and conditional uses found in Chapter 11, Subsection 11-2 of this Ordinance for each category of zoning district does not constitute an assurance or presumption that such conditional use will be approved. Rather, each proposed conditional use shall be evaluated on an individual basis, in relation to its compliance with the standards and conditions set forth in this chapter and with the standards for the distriet in which it is located, in order to determine whether the conditional use is appropriate at the particular location. 6-3 Application A conditional use permit application shall be made to the Zoning Administrator as provided by this Ordinance, The Zoning Administrator shall submit the application to the Planning Commission, except that the Planning Commission may authorize the Zoning Administrator to grant, attach conditions or deny conditional use permits, subject to such limitations or qualifications as are deemed necessary. Applications for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by maps, drawings, statements, or other documents as required by the Planning Commission. 6-4 Determination ‘The Planning Commission, or upon authorization, the Zoning Administrator, shall approve a conditional use to be located within any district in which the particular conditional use is permitted by the use regulations of this Ordinance. In authorizing any conditional use the Planning ‘Commission shall impose such requirements and conditions as are necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the public welfare. The Planning Commission shall not authorize a conditional use permit unless the evidence presented is such to establish: 26aM ‘That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vieinity, or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity; and (2) That the proposed use will comply with intent, spirit, regulations and conditions specified in this Ordinance for such use and the zoning district where the use is to be located, as well as make the use harmonious with the neighboring uses in the zoning district. (3) The Planning Commission shall itemize, describe, or justify the conditions imposed on the use. 6-5 Fees The application for any conditional use permit shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee as determined by the Board of County Commissioners and as listed in the County’s Fee Schedule Ordinance. 6-6 Public Hearing ‘A public hearing on a conditional use permit application may be held if the Planning Commission shall deem a hearing to be necessary and in the public interest. 6-7 Appeals of Decision Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Commission or the Zoning Administrator regarding the issuance, denial or revocation or amendment of @ conditional use permit may appeal such decision to the Board of County Commissioners whose decision shall be final. All appeals to the Board of County Commissioners must be in writing and filed with such within thirty (30) days of the date of decision appealed from. The decision of the Board of County Commissioners may be appealed to the District Court provided such appeal is filed within thirty (30) days of the Commission decision. Such appeal shall be filed with the County Administrator's office and the court clerk. 6-8 Inspection Following the issuance of a conditional use permit by the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission, the Zoning Administrator shall approve an application for a building permit, and shall ensure that development is undertaken and completed in compliance with said conditional use and building permit. 6-9 Substantial Action Required Unless there is a substantial action under a conditional use permit with one (1) year of its issuance, the permit shall expire. The Planning Commission may grant one extension up to six (6) months, when it is deemed in the public interest. 26-10 Revocation A conditional use permit shall be revocable by the Planning Commission at any time due to failure of the permittee to observe any condition specified or failure to observe other requirements of this, Ordinance in regard to the maintenance and improvements or conduct of the use or business as approved. The County shall also have a right of action to compel offending structures or uses to be removed at the cost of the violator or owner, No conditional use permit shall be revoked until a hearing is held by the Planning Commission. The permittee shall be notified in writing of such hearing. The notification shall state the grounds for complaint or reasons for revocation, and the time and location of the hearing. At the hearing, the permittee shall be given an opportunity to be heard. The permittee may call witnesses and present evidence. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission shall determine whether the permit should be revoked, 6-11 Temporary Permit A temporary use permit may be issued for any use listed as a conditional use for that zone for no Jonger than six (6) months and may be extended for an equivalent period with a maximum of three (3) extensions. 28EXHIBIT 8MINUTES SAN JUAN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING OCTOBER 4, 2012 ATTENDANCE: Trent Schafer, Steven Redd, Carmella Galey, Joe Hurst, Marcia Hadenfeldt, and Jeff Nielson joined at 7:47. Staff Greg Adams, Many others in attendance for the hearing of purposed wind Farms, north of Monticello. The minutes of the September 6, 2012 planning and zoning meeting were discussed and approved with a motion from Trent and second from Carmella, the vote was unanimous in the affirmative. There was no public comment on general items not on the agenda. First item on the agenda is the consideration of a private RV Park in Spanish Valley for a Conditional Use Permit. This is located on Highway 191 south of Moab so it will be ina Zone that allows this use without a CUP. It was determined that this RV Park will be allowed, with the issuance of a building permit. The owner of the parcel Leroy Ellis was in attendance and answered several questions about roads, turn lanes, and lighting. He was told to contact Bruce Bunker to apply for a building permit. The next consideration is for a conditional use permit for Latigo wind park. Motion to open the hearing by Carmella with a second from Steve vote unanimous in affirmative at 7:15. Michelle Stevens gave a presentation on this project. Concerns from the publie nesting of birds, also fish and wildlife, questions and how the studies are completed, the leases of the land owners were discussed, they are complete. Are you able to shut the individual turbines down on demand? Yes. Industry standards were discussed. Are there any national standards at the present time for wind farms, Self imposed conditions are passed on with the sale of the property. Rigby Wright concerned about the Gordon Reservoir and how to negotiate around this water system. Lee Bennett concerned about the overhead power line passing through the city limits. Eric Rowley concerned about the change of view that would happen with these towers. Dan Bingham representing the 80 acres of the North Monticello Alliance. Very emotional presentation aboutwhy this project should not be approved. Tom Ellison attorney for Wasatch Wind addressed issues from an appraisers point of view, and has made an offer to these land owners to purchase their property. The standards and conditions that should be complied with and that they can be enforced, Dan Davidson questions about land owners rights and impacts on his parcel. Brenda Rowley talked about ascetics and the affects of this type of development on the city of Monticello. Mike Cole said there had been no contact with North Monticello Alliance to discuss this development. Deanna Dalton favorable to this development. Janet Ross of 4 Comers School asked for 1 Kilometer set back from their property. Doug Allen Monticello, mayor: said this was a city development project when it started many years ago, we never envisioned that it would be this close to the city limits. It is a concern for us visually. He asked that a pictorial illustration to depict how in reality this may appear. Monte Dalton favorable to this project. Motion to close the public hearing by Trent second by Steve voting unanimous in the affirmative at 9:05 PM. There was a discussion about the industry standards for wind farms and if San Juan County has a standard for wind farms. Has the ordinance been met? Have all of the requirements been met? Motion by Trent to amend original CUP to have set backs at 1 kilometer. Second by Marcia. Discussion about this motion was lengthy then Trent removed his motion, Motion by Marcia to put an addendum on the CUP issued on July 5, 2012 to include as much flicker, light, sound, mitigation as possible including all new information along with new leases and any mitigation to affected landowner, and all must be met by the developer whether now or in the future by the present developer or a future or different developer, and prior to any building permit being issued. Second by Trent. Vote Yea, Marcia, Steve, Jeff, Trent. No Carmella, and Joe. Consideration of conditional use permit for Blue Mountain Wind Farm. Motion to open public hearing at 9:51 by Jeff second by Trent, vote unanimous in affirmative. Discussion on an existing CUP for Blue Mountain Wind Farm. A presentation was made by Mike Cutbirth., He gave a summary of his organization and how he obtained leases from REDCO in a bankruptcy sale.There was some public comment about the closeness of two wind farms and the legalities of them being within a certain distance to each other. Marcia suggested that it is not the purpose of Planning and Zoning Commission to determine the legality of how these farms operate in proximity to each other but if the applicant had met the ordinance. The recorder ceased to record before the motion for this CUP was made. The recorder ran out of recording space. A motion was made by Jeff with a second by Carmella to issue the CUP for Blue Mountain Wind Farm. These conditions shall be met. The developer must meet all current Federal, State, and Local standards and ordinances. All FAA, Fish and Wildlife statutes, light, and sound standards and follow all industry standards however indicated. With the understanding that in one year the developer must reappear before the Planning and Zoning Commission to renew this permit. The vote was Yea Marcia, Steve, Joe, Carmella, Jeff, with Trent abstaining. The Building Permits were discussed. The next meeting will be held on November 1, 2012. Adjoumed 11:EXHIBIT 9ADRIENNE J BELL AIBELLastel som VIA E-MAIL AND FIRS! Mr. Greg Adams Subdivision Administrator San Juan County P.O, Box 787 Monticello, Utah 84 Re: .0 Wind Park - Request to Extend Conditional Use Permit Dear Greg: On behalf of Latigo Wind Park, LLC (“Latigo Wind”), Tam writing to request a six-month extension of the Conditional Use Permit for L.atigo Wind’s proposed wind energy generating facility (“Latigo Wind Park”), which the San Juan County Planning Commission approved on October 4, 2012, Latigo Wind has made substantial progress on the Latigo Wind Park and, importantly, has ‘entered into a power purchase agreement with PacifiCorp (the “Power Purchase Agreement”). In accordance with the Power Purchase Agreement, PacifiCorp has agreed to purchase the wind energy generated by the proposed Latizo Wind Park, subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission of Utah (the “PSC"). Because the PSC intends to hold a public hearing on the Power Purchase Agreement, Latigo Wind is seeking a six-month extension of the Conditional Use Permit. ‘Therefore, pursuant to Section 6-9 of the San Juan County Zoning Ordinance, Latigo Wind requests an extension of the Conditional Use Permit for the Latigo Wind Park until April 4, 2014, The requested extension furthers the public interest by providing additional time for the PSC to hold a public hearing in connection with its review of the Power Purchase Agreement.SN Mr. Greg Adams Please Jet me know if you have any questions or need additional information in connection with this request. Thank you for your time and consideration Very truly yours, / Adrienne J. Bell Adrienne J. Bell ce: Ms, Christine Mikell (e-mail only) Walter Bird, Esq. (¢-mail only)EXHIBIT 10Permit No: _$ico20314001 Son Juan Couney Uean- oF SJC BUILDING PERMIT Parcel i _335238 SECTIONS 15, 21-27 _ Date Feb. 3, 2014 Property Owned By! Latigo Wind Park, LLC Location: 1 Mile North of Monticello, Utah West of Highway 191 Contractor: ARCADIS US, ine, Cory Zam 410 N, 44° St, Suite 1000 Piaonix, Ax 85003, Mailing Address; 4525 $ Wasatch Blvd, 120 Salt Lake City, Utah Having applied for a parmit, and having agreed to comply with all ordinances of San Juan County relating to buildings and / or property Is hereby granted permission to: Demolish Od) erect Add-Aitac CF) Repair ‘On the above described premises a building to be used as a: 17 pwaliing [] mobite tome {| Manufactured Home [) Garage [x] other Wind Turbines Sqare Feet/Floor: N/A Metal Construction with N/A. i Roel. ‘90 Meters Stories High Foundation, and = _N/A Basement with “Conerets Barmit must be attached to building during construction. cwhen completed 50 Million —— Remarks: This permit is for 27 wind turbines. Their are no buildings included in this permit. Fre ss aopcaton co whom ths parm ues nares and warned tha the constr 6 He pera hares mus conform ta atovanasce San han Comyn a ae eens he Bung soe: tha a work nt 8 done in atarcance wth the ateman st Forth heal, an nat nochange n> Zener am general mensions anc oY csr utonseserbed above aod shown In lan an nctetons Nes aval ae mode witon: Berman el do Bulg upto This permit is void if work 1s not commenced within 180 days, or if work is suspended for 180 days. Amount collected $2Weal Tubkrs - 00 5&0 Par oar Moncoto, UT 5 ‘Near GR 196 ond US 191 . Lago Win Park LC top 4625 $ Wueich Blvs 120 pureyGenenion puploe Imai 227." Sato ly, UT ane 4 ARCADIG US, ine. Corey Zom “ ~ 7 “S10N, 4a Svat, Sune 1000 = anor Poet, AZ 38028 rh ‘Towne 33 S, Bangs 23 © Sections 18. 21-27 issusnastl Transmission he 785 Ra4e Sectors 19, 20, 8, 90. 8289) See Ste Pia qhozet 5EXHIBIT 11GRAMA - COST SHEET San Juan County, Utah — 2014 - : 5 Gli bores 7 kumacary Cetur Ther Are No oly Vee Sr ce aw File Fer AO jf mary ey be joe’) a — oa Description: __uswan Discrosune Foams Research Time: Charges based on the lowest paid staff employee with knowledge and ability to fill the GRAMA service request, The current hourly wage range is $ 9.72 to $47.81. A prepayment of the estimated charges will be required prior to the completion of the service request. Date of service: 4-29-04 Request filled by: Nessim 4 Tense Hours as s_vj[c ~(First % hour - no charge) ) ~Hours——@S_— S Hours @ $ Copy Charges: Pages @ $.50 per page s CD / Data Dise @$15.00 ca $s Other Charges _ TOTAL CHARGES s YC Signed this 27 _dayof Avec 20/4 Norman L.. Johnson 4 2g /GRAMA - Cost Sheet (6/27/12)/mo + San Juan County Mat - Econom Interest Ocoee San Juan County Usb org Economic Interest Disclosure Lyman, Phil Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:43 AM To: Kelly Pehrson , Norman Johnson Noman, Here is my economic interest disclosure for 2014. | believe it supposed to be filed annually. Will you put it in my file - or whatever itis to document that | have complied? Thanks, Phil Conflict of Interest Disclosure 2014.pdf 94K roe mat googie com malicau/07ls2heS0c2TA7TAt By eyoptSsearcnancoxdtne 427771 468562sane ‘San Juan County Mall- Confit of terest Dscosie Johnson, Norman San Juan County Uah org Conflict of Interest Disclosure 1 message Phil Lyman Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:23 AM To: Norman Johnson Hi Norman, Will you put this on fle for 2012, Thank yout! Conflict of interest Disclosure 2012.docx ax tesa googe-conumad/?u=28k=5062747 TarEconomic interest Disclosure San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman January 10, 2012 ‘As a county officer or employee, and in accordance with Utah Law, | make the following disclosures of outside, private economic interests: ‘Summit Point Uranium, 1950 Franklin Street, Vancouver, BC VSL 1R2,Canada Board Member of San Juan Counseling, Blanding, Utah Owner of Uranium Claims Member of the Zions Bank Advisory Board SPEAR member ‘Through my CPA Firm, Phil Lyman CPA PC, 333 South Main Street, Suite #2, Blanding, UT 84511: ‘Owner, Phil Lyman Financial Advisory Service, and Shay Ridge Capital, LLC Mexican Hat Special Service District, Mexican Hat, Utah San Juan Water Conservancy District, Blanding, Utah Blue Mountain Hospital, Blanding, Utah Receiver for Gofer Kampark Receiver Account, Blanding, Utah —Jointly with First National Bank of Layton Utah Navajo Health Systems, Inc, Montezuma Creek, Utah Gentle Ironhawk Shelter, Blanding Utah ‘Maryboy Management, Inc. ~ Advisor/prospective management contract Utah Dine Corporation, - Advisor Numerous other business and individual clients related to issues including, property and income tax, official financial statements, business advisory, etc. Also serve as the registered agent for a number of local corporations doing business in San Juan County. Any verbal disclosures will be made if and when occasion requires,Economic interest Disclosure San Juan County Commissioner Phil Lyman January 7, 2013, As a county officer or employee, and in accordance with Utah Law, | make the following disclosures of outside, private economic interests: + Summit Point Uranium, 1950 Franklin Street, Vancouver, BC VSL 1R2,Canada ‘© Board Member of San Juan Counseling, Blanding, Utah © Owner of Uranium Claims Member of the Zions Bank Advisory Board + SPEAR member Through my CPA Firm, Phil Lyman CPA PC, 333 South Main Street, Suite #2, Blanding, UT 84511: © Owner, Phil Lyman Financial Advisory Service, and Shay Ridge Capital, LLC ‘© Mexican Hat Special Service District, Mexican Hat, Utah # San Juan Water Conservancy District, Blanding, Utah # Blue Mountain Hospital, Blanding, Utah ‘© Utah Navajo Health Systems, inc, Montezuma Creek, Utah ‘© Gentle ironhawk Shelter, Blanding Utah © Maryboy Management, inc. & Maryboy Management Group, LLC- Advisor/prospective management contract '* Utah Dine Corporation, - Advisor ‘+ Numerous other business and individual clients related to issues including, property and income tax, official financial statements, business advisory, etc ‘= Also serve as the registered agent for a number of local corporations doing business in San Juan County. Any verbal disclosures will be made if and when occasion requires. own property, commercial, residential, and greenbelt agricultural property. While this is not a conflict in actuality, it apparently upsets the powers that be at the State and County level. | also have ecclesiastical associations that some powers view as a conflict. | also have extensive family connections to the Lymans, Hursts, Blacks, Redds, Shumways, Washburn, Finlinsons, Steeles, also viewed as conflicts by some illintentioned and misinformed people in the State and County government. The above is true statement te the best of my knowledge. Additional disclosures will be made if and when a conflict arises Phil tyman ~61/94/2013,Economic Interest Disclosure San Juan County Commissioner Phil lyman January 10, 2014 ‘Asa county officer or employee, and in accordance with Utah Law, | make the following disclosures of outside, private economic interests: ‘Summit Point Uranium, 1950 Franklin Street, Vancouver, BC VSL 182,Canada '* Board Member of San Juan Counseling, Blanding, Utah ‘© Owner of Uranium Claims ‘+ Member of the Zions Bank Advisory Board ‘+ SPEAR member Through my CPA Firm, Phil Lyman CPA PC, 333 South Main Street, Suite #2, Blanding, UT 84511: ‘© Owner, Phil Lyman Financial Advisory Service, and Shay Ridge Capital, LC ‘= Mexican Hat Special Service District, Mexican Hat, Utah + San Juan Water Conservancy District, Slanding, Utah * Blue Mountain Hospital, Blanding, Utah Receiver for Gofer Kampark Receiver Account, Blandi of Layton # Utah Navajo Health Systems, Inc, Montezuma Creek, Utah ‘© Gentle ronhawk Shelter, Blanding Utah ‘+ Maryboy Management, nc.~ Advisor/prospective management contract dividual clients related to issues including, property and income ‘2%, official financial statements, business advisory, ete ‘+ Also serve as the registered agent for a number of local corporations doing business in San Juan County. Any verbal disclosures will be made if and when occasion requires, Utah ~ Jointly with First National Bank ‘* Numerous other business ani BeteEXHIBIT 12San Juan County - Wind Power Meeting February 19, 2004, 7:00 pm County Courthouse, Monticello, Utah Agenda * Introduction and Wind Basics - Christine Watson, Wind Program Manager, State of Utah Energy Office + Rural Economic Development Benefits of Wind Power ~ Bruce Adams, Chairman San Juan Public Land Council and Chairman Monticello City Economic Development Committee and Sarah Wright, Director, Utah Clean Energy Alliance * Policy Update (inciudes information on Farm Bill Grant Money), Sarah Wright This is an open forum, please feel free to ask questions! For more information on wind power visit: Utah Energy Office wind site: www.wind utah DOE Wind Powering America http /Awww.eere eneray.qov/windpoweringamerica/ ‘American Wind Energy Association www awea.org USDA Farm Bil info. ite ww urd. usda gov/bs/ambiVresoure htm Today's workshop was made possible by grant money from the Utah Energy Office and U.S Department of Energy Wind Powering America Program in partnership with the Utah Clean Energy Alliance and the San Juan County Public Land Counc. Contact information Christine Watson Saran Wright Bruce Adams State of Utah Energy Office Utah Ciean Energy Alliance PO Box 748 1594 West North Temple 917 2" Ave, Monticello, UT 84535 PO Box 146480 Salt Lake City, UT 84103 (435) 587-2820 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6480 (801) 673-7156 (601) 538-4792 ‘sarah@utahcleanenergy.org christinewatson@utah.cov www ulahcleaneneray org | www utahareenpower org, www.utah,wind, gov 4 Rate rani cucan ENERGY ALUANCE The Utah Clean Energy Alliance 1 committed 10 a sustainable energy future ‘through the use of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. Through advocacy, education, and uniting diverse constituencies, we promote energy use that is balanced more efficiem, economically sound, and ‘environmentally beneficial.EXHIBIT 13EXHIBIT 14Case 3:12-cv-00489-AC Document 13-1 Filed 03/19/12 Page 12 of 26 Page ID#: 164 Prepared by Ben Kes for Champlin Windpower -Confidentiat report on this project in September 2011 Interconnection miles southeast of the Carbide Substation at Pole #1819. On 9/13/21, Pacificorp ‘There is no record in the data room of a completed feasibility study. The data room does contain an executed SIS agreement with Pacificorp dated 10/13/11, ‘Without explanation, a system impact study for Q0384 is also included in the data room. Q0384 is a 60 MW interconnection request to the 138kv Pinto substation very close to Blue Mountain. The Sis document is titled Wasatch Wind SIS and a review of the project schedule indicates that if this. interconnection is used, Redco could exercise a $250,000 option with Wasatch, Environmental Assessment ‘A report from Evans and Associates completed on 12/8/11 did not identify any microwave path, public safety radio, land mobile, broadcast, cellular, radar, or NTIA issues. It does not appear that any field environmental assessment work was completed for the Blue Mountain project. On 11/18/11, West Inc. submitted a proposal to REDCO to complete environmental surveys for a 13,000 acre Blue Mountain project, in line with energy industry best management. practices including: 1) Avian, Bat and Species Assessment; 2) Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABP); 3) Sensitive Habitat Assessment; 4) NEPA Screening and Report; and 5) Wetlands Assessment, Four additional tasks are currently being recommended for the BMWPP: 6} raptor nest search; 7) avian use surveys; 8) acoustical bat surveys; and 9) Comprehensive draft and final report describing the results of the raptor nest search, avian use surveys, and acoustical bat surveys. West proposed to complete this scope from December 2011 thru December 2012 for a total of $180,000 (heavily qualified based on certain assumptions that may not prove correct). Thelr proposal did not provide a risk assessment, Permitting It is my understanding that wind projects in Utah are permitted by the local authorities.in March 2010, the San Juan County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to grant Redco a permit to construct up to 400 MW of wind and solar on the Blue Mountain site. No local opposition was documented and the permit does not expire. EXHIBIT, gEXHIBIT 15sPower - Sustainable Power Group Page 1 of 3 Who We Are 2018 21a 2013 2012 2011 2010 hhttp://www.spower.com/news The Team Careers Inthe News Contact Us @ Back to News Articles Wind Park Moving Ahead MONTICELLO, July 1, 2015 sPower is moving ahead with plans to install a 27-turbine wind park north of Monticello. sPower officials state that construction is set to begin this month (July). with at least partial completion of the estimated $136 million project by the end of 2045. 201 S/news-2015-07-01 php 8/4/2015sPower - Sustainable Power Group Page 2 of ‘The massive turbines in the wind park will be located primarily 07 three ridges immediately north and west of Monticello. The project was initially developed by Wasatch Wind and was recently purchased by sPower. Power officials estimate that the project will pay between $10 and $15 millon in property taxes over the 20-year life of the project. Power will be sold to Rocky Mountain Power under a 20-year power purchase agreement, Power is scheduling a job fair later in the month as they anticipate hiring up to 100 workers for the construction phase of the project Company officials state that they hape to hire up to 80 percent of the workers from the local area, While sPower is maving ahead with the project, which has been in the planning phase for nearly a decade, a group of local landowners is trying to stow down the project. The Northern Monti of land in the middle of the wind farm property, ello Alliance (NMA) is a landowner associaton made up primarily of the 17 owners of an 80-acre parcel ‘The landowners seek to slow the project or have sPower buy their properties. tn 2012, they filed an appeal of a Conditional Use Permit granted to the project by San Juan County in 2012 sPower officials state that prior wind park developers have worked with the landowners, but they were unable to agree on a fair price. The landowners counter that they have not been appropriately notified of the project and simply seek to protect their investments and the health, safety and general welfare of the area and community The property was intially purchased in 1999 from the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLAY) for approximately $1,000 an acre, There are now 17 owners in the €0-acre parcel Individual portions range from five to ten acres. The landowners are primarily out-of-town residents, inclucing two former employees of Wasatch Wind A prior appeal of the Conditional Use Agreement was withdrawn in 2013 when Wasatch Wind offered a purchase option to the landowners, The option expired in February, 2015, See original story on the San Juan Record here. hutp:/Avww-spower.com/news 2015/news-2015-07-01 php 8/4/2015sPower - Sustainable Power Group Page 3 of 3 % Careers ContactUs |Site Map © 2015 Sustainable Power Group. AllRights Reserve http://www.spower.com/news 2015/news-2015-07-01 php 8/4/2015,EXHIBIT 16San Juan Record - Classifieds, Events, Businesses in Monticello, San Juan County, Utah - Wind park... Page 1 of 4 Home | MyContent Columns Series Archives About Us Classifieds Business Directory Submit Photos ads News Roundup SportsiOutdoors Life in San Juan Obtuaries Web Extras Online Features Wind park moving ahead Tuesday August 4, 2015 Jul 01, 2018 | 2067 views | 2 #2) 16 s sPower is moving ahead with plans to install a 27- turbine wind park north of Monticello. sPower officials state that construction is set to begin this month (July), with at least partial completion of the estimated $136 milion project by the end of 2015. The massive turbines in the wind park will be located primarily on three ridges immediately north and west of Monticello. The project was initially developed by Wasatch Wind and was recently purchased by sPower, sPower officials estimate that the project will pay between $10 and $15 million in property taxes over the 20-year life of the project. Power will be sold to ‘Amap proved by sPower shows the location Rocky Mountain Power under a 20-year power ofwind turbines at the proposes wind park purchase agreement north and west of Menticela City limits. The 80.2070 ‘sand’ inthe project can be soon at ‘ie conor ofthe mest Gowtesrar —_- SPOWer Is Scheduling a job fair later in the month as they anticipate hiring up to 100 workers for the construction phase of the project. Company officials state that they hope to hire up to 50 percent of the workers from the local area While sPower is moving ahead with the project, which has been in the planning phase for nearly ‘a decade, a group of local landowners is trying to slow down the project. The Northern Monticello Alliance (NMA) is a landowner association made up primarily of the 17 ‘owners of an 80-acre parcel of land in the middle of the wind farm property ‘The landowners seek to slow the project or have sPower buy their properties. In 2012, they filed ‘an appeal of a Conditional Use Permit granted to the project by San Juan County in 2012. sPower officials state that prior wind park developers have worked with the landowners, but they were unable to agree on a fair price. http://www-sjmews.com/view/full_story/2673047S/article-Wind-park-moving-ahead? 14/2015San Juan Record - Classifieds, Events, Businesses in Monticello, San Juan County, Utah - Wind park... Page 2 of 4 The landowners counter that they have not been appropriately notified of the project and simply seek to protect their investments and the health, safety and general welfare of the area and community. The property was initially purchased in 1999 from the School and institutional Trust Lands ‘Administration (SITLA) for approximately $1,000 an acre. There are now 17 owners in the 80- acte parcel. Individual portions range from five to ten acres, The landowners are primarily out-of- town residents, including two former employees of Wasatch Wind ‘A prior appeal of the Conditional Use Agreement was withdrawn in 2013 when Wasatch Wind offered a purchase option to the landowners. The option expired in February, 2015. Share This Article | similar stories Proposed Latigo Wind Park expects July groundbreaking | 20 days ago ‘Some disturbing facts behind those ‘renewable’ wind turbines | 6 ays ay Sarah English | 7 days ago Watch for hummingbirds...in war and peace | 13 days 220 Pioneer Day celebration | 13 cays Comments (2) Post a Comment deltabravo | Juiy 03 2015 This article fails to mention many things, including ‘The Latigo wind complex was not deemed viable until many years after the purchase of the 60 acres by the current landowners. No land owners worked for Wasatch Wind, LLC unt after the 80 acres were under contract - years before new technology permitted consideration of the low wind yields near Monticello. Wasatch Wind, LLC, with its employee records, muitiple witness ‘accounts and former Wasatch Wind, LLC management verifies these facts. Wasatch Wind International, not to be confused with Wasatch Wind. LLC, was comprised of one person company that became interested in selling this Latigo wind project but failed to conduct disciplined due diligence ‘Several of the 60 acre owners / taxpaying citizens live in San Juan County and / or were teised in San Juan County. Fourteen of the 17 owners have long-time close family ties inthe area Land owners did not build residences on the 80 acres due to the contract Wasatch Wing International sought ‘The ‘millons" of San Juan County tax revenue now being claimed by sPower should be http://www.sjmews.conv view/full_story/26730475/article-Wind-park-moving-ahead? 9/4/2015San Juan Record - Classifieds, Events, Businesses in Monticello, San Juan County, Utah - Wind park... Page 3 of 4 verified, (Similar claims of "milions’ were made until that talk turned out to be about {$250,000 total, over 20 years. In fact, in 2012 the wind complex’s attorney admitted property values in Monticello would drop by 13% due to the presence of the towers. ‘What are the gains and losses with this wind project? Will property taxes fall when property values fall?) ‘The 50 to 100 sPower jobs will only last 3 - 4 months. Only 1-2 jobs may remain past the project completion, The “donut hole” land owners prefer not to sell their properties and hopes sPower finds its wind energy further out from Monticello and / or away from other tax payers’ To date, sPower has not offered the minimum per acre price for the 80 acres - despite 1) a price that was agreed to by all interested parties more than two years ago or 2) since receiving a June, 2015 Comparable Market Analysis (CMA) of SOLD properties~as. conducted by a neutral, reputable, established Monticello area real company There will not ever be a tax base of residential properties and / or low profile, clean business development in the northern corridor of the City as long as this wind complex operates there ‘Who will pay for the removal of the turbines when technologies change and render the federally tax supported turbines obsolete? ‘The dangerous ice throw, over-spin blade explosions and decibel encompass much the land owners’ properties, especially with sPower new wind complex plans If sPowers has a wilingness to deploy "dark skies" technology, as once promoted by ‘Wasatch Wind Internationsi, to minimize light pollution? How 360 views of 27 499 ft tall engineered turbines may be “elegant” to some people but the turbines are not more elegant than Nature's engineering of the views of the Blue ‘Mountain or the La Platas. ete When corporate interests ask for so much, they should give back accordingly. The 80 ‘cre land owners’ property values and intended use will be totally destroyed. Asking the right questions now and being faithful tothe CUP process could stop what is otherwise corporate bullying and may help prevent other San Juan County and Monticello area residents from losing as much or as the 80 acre land owners. Reply Inttp://www-sjrnews.com/view/full_story/26730475/article-Wind-park-moving-ahead? 8/4/2015San Juan Record - Clas . Events, Businesses in Monticello, S san Juan County. Utah - Wind park... Page 4 of 4 outback | Jus 08. 2018 | am another lang owner inthe area atthe top of his map that looks ike lam @ willing participate, With what looks to be windmills on three sides of my property, | have not been contacted trom $ power but also fee! my property would basically be condemed for any ype of usage withthe potenal of 400 foot windmils so close to my property The San Juan Record welcomes comments on our stories. Please be civil, respectul, focused and humane. Postings are not edited and are the responsiblity of the author. You agree nat to post ‘comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at the discretion of simews com help contact us sofware copyright © 2018 Sole Solution con an Juan Record this software isin a public beta est phase read our privacy policy San Ja Record isi Monticelo, UT http:/svww.sjmews.com/view/full_story/26730475/article-Wind-park-moving-ahead? 8/4/2015