DATE: September 12, 2018

TO: Eric Lewis, President, Jefferson County Development Authority (JCDA)

FROM: Julia Yuhasz, Member-at-large, JCDA Board of Directors

RE: Request to Postpone the Third and Final Vote on Water Bond 2018-A on Sept 18, 2018

CC: All JCDA Board Members and Staff; Jefferson County Commission and Staff

I write to request that the Jefferson County Development Authority (JCDA) table the Water Bond vote currently
scheduled for Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3pm. I do not feel that I, or us as a Board, have sufficiently
addressed the implications of this vote, of either the failure to approve the Bond or the full impact if we do. I
have tried diligently to review the entire history of this project based on the information originally provided,
along with much of the newly disclosed information about Rockwool, its operations, and the consequence of
this project on our beloved County. I and others are still in search of answers to the contemplations before us.

My questions and concerns which remain are as follows:

1. Bond and Process questions:

a. I am unclear that the appropriate processes were followed in connection with issuance of
Water Bond 2018-A. First, a fundamental concern remains unanswered about the
appropriateness of our role in the issuance of the Bond in the first place; for example, what are
the sources of funding? I and others do not understand who is verifying and guaranteeing the
Bond. Is it normal for a development authority to be operating in this role, as a signatory to the
bond issuance? Secondly, why are we seeking a 7 million dollar bond for a project which has
been estimated to be roughly half the cost? Such inquiries have not been fully explained to the
entirety of the Board.
b. I believe that JCDA may not have followed appropriate processes to be at the third and final
reading, as the 2018-A bond ordinance was not provided to Board Members for review prior
to the first reading on June 19, 2018. Why did we not receive this? The first date the 40-page
bond ordinance was provided for Board Member review was Saturday, August 4th at 2pm, less
than 48 hours prior to the second reading. A revised ordinance was sent by Nic Diehl at 10pm on
August 5th, following revision by JCDA attorney(s), barely 12 hours from our August 6th vote.
c. Uncertainty remains about an issue raised on June 19, 2018, per meeting notes: “lenders
raised concern that the 5G process had not been followed on the water project.” The publicly
available minutes show we handed the project over to the City of Ranson for engineering and
construction (11/9/17), which was improperly handled and, as a result, given back to JCDA. Our
subcommittee of three people then took over the interview and selection process for a
contractor, ultimately choosing Thrasher Engineering for this substantial project. The only other
projects with which we have been so deeply involved seem to be significantly fewer; the only
exception may be TeMa, which was also awarded to Thrasher Engineering. Yet, the JCDA board
received substantially more information regarding the TeMa project, namely the site and
construction plans. I am unable to determine how or when any such similar documentation was
provided to the Board to review for the Rockwool project. What was inadequate about the 5G
process? Is JCDA certain it was appropriately followed in the concurrent TeMa project?

Page 1 of 3

B020500
2. JCDA Communication and related Rockwool questions: In reviewing how we got to this point, I believe
insufficient communication was provided about the projects and processes that JCDA Board or Staff is
involved in or routinely participates in. I did not know, for example, or the full scope of “Project
Shuttle’s” impact until the public attention and data reporting received in the past two months. I was
never given the impression that Rockwool was heavy industry, could have such significant health
impacts on compromised populations, or would be building smokestacks. Had such information been
provided about Rockwool, Members would have had over a year to conduct their own research and
discuss with others. I believe that many JCDA members would have participated in a more robust
discussion of this project or whether it was the “right fit” for Jefferson County. I feel extremely
uncomfortable voting for something that many in public leadership do not entirely understand even
now or fervently oppose as a decision which creates financial obligations for Jefferson County for the
next 40 years, has untold public health implications, and great potential to drastically change the
character of our community.
a. Roxul PILOT Agreement: The Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOT) agreement was not provided to
Board Members for review prior to vote at the August 22, 2017 meeting. By my recollection,
Members were shown information via overhead projector/TV, namely to include discussion
regarding the 10-year Payment Schedule. The PILOT is another complicated, 14-page document
that Members could not have sufficiently considered for approval during the course of a
meeting, yet it was approved. Why did the JCDA approve the PILOT agreement when we are not
a signatory to it? Why is the JCDA not a signatory to it? What was the purpose of having Board
approval? Is it normal for the JCDA to be a leaseholder for such a significant amount of real and
personal property? Has JCDA ever done so in the past? What are JCDA’s obligations should
Rockwool be sued for violating terms or agreements, violation of air quality or other
environmental permits or due to an accident? How is the JCDA adequately protected from
liability in the case of these unforeseen, but all too real, potentialities? It is worth noting that all
members of the PILOT agreement approved it two months or more before public notice of air
emissions (Spirit of Jefferson, 11/22/17). It seems unlikely that any signatory had sufficient
information to assess the true impact of the project.
b. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs): Again, Board Members never received for review
prior to approval a number of the MOUs of which we are now a part, such as with Roxul (JCDA
minutes, 10/17/17) and the City of Ranson (JCDA minutes, 11/9/17). We also were not provided
a copy of the PSC filing which was submitted on our behalf by the City of Ranson attorney
(JCDA minutes, 12/19/17). These documents were received neither before nor after any of
these aforementioned meeting dates, yet we approved and voted on these actions. Why did not
Members receive these documents? Is it typical order of business to exclude Board Members of
this information? Was it that sensitive? In retrospect, I should have asked more questions at the
time, but instead relied upon the assurances and experience of the Executive Director, President
and others that this was all normal order of business. However, I am now convinced that the
breadth of insufficient documentation provided to Board Members could not have possibly
resulted in appropriate consideration, scrutiny, and action related to the Rockwool project.
3. Lack of Transparency: By my review of JCDA minutes from January 17, 2017 to present time, Rockwool
representatives have never attended any JCDA board meetings. Why not? Why did they not attend or
present information to Board members, such as other companies (TeMa) in order for JCDA Board
Members to have a better understanding of the Project or as a simple act of goodwill and relationship

Page 2 of 3

B020501
 building? As strong advocates of the project and in consideration of the significant investment, why did
the President or Executive Director not require such? This effort might have identified concerns earlier
on from both Board Members and the public. I would have had many more questions if I had seen even
a simple picture of this planned facility with smokestacks or been provided any amount of company
marketing materials.
4. Legal Obligations: Board Members discussed legal obligations in the August 28, 2018 Executive
Session, during which time we were advised by the JCDA Chairman that Members could face personal
litigation from Rockwool or others due to breach of contract if the upcoming Water Bond did not pass
by majority vote. Discussion ensued in which several other members supported this legal interpretation
of personal risk associated with not passing the Water Bond. I do not believe that to be true and am
ardently opposed to the manner in which we were informed of such obligations. The advice provided
sounded like a threat to myself and other Board Members, our livelihoods and families regardless of
what we may believe to be in the best interest of the County and her residents. We are appointed by
the County Commission to represent the public based on personal beliefs and the interests expressed by
our fellow community members. It seems unlikely that I or others could be personally liable for voting
our conscience and, therefore, believe this recommendation was made in error. I am equally disturbed
that, given this advice, the remaining “yes” voters of our Board may feel obligated to continue to vote in
accordance with what they were told they must do, regardless of any convictions, change of opinion or
request of the municipality they may represent. Subsequently, what is the purpose of conducting a vote
if the JCDA is, as it was stated in that conversation, already contractually obligated to pass the Water
Bond?

Despite these concerns, I do have faith that the actions of JCDA Staff and Board Members have been performed
to the best of each person’s ability and with the belief that all have acted in the greatest interests of Jefferson
County. Indeed, much good, true work has been done by JCDA Staff and Board Members over the years and its
Members have been great contributors to our community in myriad ways. I acknowledge that many of us acted
initially in the confidence that Rockwool, their product and processes are good for growth locally and the world
at large. I also want to be clear that the concerns listed herein are not a reflection of opposition to infrastructure
growth or the development of the property in question, had the process been followed correctly and
forthrightly or been designed in line with the Comprehensive Plan 2035. All good intentions noted, I do believe
that the JCDA missed the mark on this one.

I respectfully request that the JCDA postpone the water bond vote of September 18, 2018 until such time as to
sufficiently address the previously listed concerns and any other outstanding concerns which have been
expressed by its Members or the public. In recognition that the JCDA acts at the pleasure of the Jefferson County
Commission, as well as the gravity of the decision so closely at hand, I have provided a copy of these concerns to
all County Commissioners.

Respectfully submitted,

Julia Yuhasz

Page 3 of 3

B020502