1  

August 24, 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

Mr. Kendall Laws, Esq., County Attorney 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

From: Summit Wind Power, LLC 4733 Hiddenwoods Lane Murray, Utah 84107 (801) 712-6789

ERRATA

On or about August 5, 2015, Summit Wind Power, LLC (“Summit Wind”) filed a formal

complaint with San Juan County (the “County”) and state officials. Summit Wind has since identified a

few typos that it now seeks to correct. Most importantly, Summit Wind contended that Latigo’s

Conditional Use Permit expired no later than January 5, 2013. This should state January 5, 2014. This

typo does not affect Summit Wind’s arguments or change the fact that Latigo’s Conditional Use Permit

2  

is long-expired. A few other editorial changes were made to increase readability that do not change the

content of the document. Summit Wind submits this document as an errata and replacement to Summit

Wind’s previously filed formal complaint. As stated herein, Summit Wind also includes the San Juan

County Planning Commission Minutes from July 5, 2012 (attached hereto as Ex. 17). All other exhibit

numbers and orderings remain the same.

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

use permit (“CUP”) and (2) a building permit (“BP”). These officials 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.

3  

Apart from construction continuing without valid permits, Summit Wind is also concerned that

County 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 interests 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.

Summit Wind respectfully requests that the County immediately require Latigo, as it has

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 Conditional Use Permit Irregularities. On July 5, 2012, the County approved Latigo’s application for a conditional use permit. See

County Planning Commission Minutes of 7.5.13 2 (attached hereto as Ex. 17). There are numerous

irregularities with this permit. See Latigo 7.18.12 Conditional Use Permit Application (attached hereto

as Ex. 2).

First, Latigo’s application states that it was not submitted until July 18, 2012 by Latigo manager

Christine Watson Mikell.1 Nevertheless, Greg Adams reviewed the application for the Planning

                                                            1    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. 

4  

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 or 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 of agreement are important to protect San Juan County landowners. Latigo did

not submit these statements of agreement. Consequently, the County should never have issued Latigo a

CUP. And the County 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 Latigo’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 PacifiCorp2

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

                                                            2 PacifiCorp is the parent company of Rocky Mountain Power. 

5  

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 is 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.

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 it is 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

6  

must be granted by the County Planning Commission. Even if it is granted, Section § 6-9 expressly

limits a CUP to no more than 1 ½ 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). 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, Latigo’s CUP, granted on July 5, 2012, expired on July 5, 2013. At best, if Latigo properly sought an extension, and it did not, such an extension could not

have exceeded six months—or January 5, 2014.

7  

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 1 ½ years overdue. No one, including

Latigo, can construct in the County without valid permits.

B. Latigo Does Not Have a Valid Building Permit.

There are at least four failings with Latigo’s building permit.

First, the San Juan County Zoning Ordinance states that a building permit application is granted

“[f]ollowing the issuance of a conditional use permit . . . .” San Juan County Zoning Ordinance § 6-8.

As explained above, Latigo’s CUP expired no later than January 5, 2014. 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 is 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.

8  

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).

II. 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 in any business entity which is subject to the regulation of the county in which the officer is an elected or 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

9  

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 29, 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 conflicts 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.3 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.

                                                            3    In fact, the whole point of the February 19, 2004 Wind Power Meeting was for the City of Monticello to obtain a grant to 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 is evident in Latigo’s own unapproved site plan map.  See Latigo Second Unapproved Site Plan 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. 

10  

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.

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 bankruptcy—because 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)4; 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.

                                                            4    http://www.spower.com/news_2015/news‐2015‐07‐01.php 

11  

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 law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

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 or 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:

12  

Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-201 (Official misconduct) Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-103 (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